Wired article on the New Atheism

[Shawn Hopkins]

Very interesting article in a recent Wired. I was most struck by this quote from atheist Richard Dawkins.

"The number of nonreligious people in the U.S. is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million," he says. "That's more than all the Jews in the world put together. I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. I think that's the case with atheists. They are more numerous than anybody realizes."

Do you think that's the case? That there are a lot of "closeted" atheists out there who don't believe in God, but are afraid to tell people about it or just want to fit in and go with the flow? I know I have a hard time telling people, even people I'm close to like my girlfriend, that I don't really believe in God. Are you a closet atheist?

The full article can be found here:

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/1,71985-0.html

[Zubby]

I'm pretty much out and proud about my atheism. Like my homosexuality, however, I don't announce it or make a big deal about it.
If you say something offensive, I'll call you on it. But I don't feel the need to advertise.

[Juu-kuchi]

I think it may be the case, I've begun to think a little bit differently since entering into university, and even I have my own fears of being derided upon for holding such distinctive thoughts. There maybe a fair number of these kinds of people. It seems to me that sometimes we're taught to love and respect all people, but if we're in a religion, it needs to be reminded that the way you've been raised up is the only way. If one decides to consider themselves in a different light, they may face alienation from their families, when they haven't changed who they are, they just now believe something else. *shrug*

Am I closet atheist? ...To be honest, I'm not really sure.

[James Bester]

I definitely believe that article. I know plenty of friends who have been right out forced to go to church by their parents without any explanation whatsoever. One of the several reasons that many kids are messed up these days. I remember one of my friends once telling me "I wish I was an atheist." There's no point to going to church and being part of a religion if you want nothing to do with it and don't believe any part of it.

Me? No, I'm not a closet atheist. I basically was back in Elementary and Junior High School. I would go to church basically because my mom told me to, got absolutely nothing out of the services, and saw no point to being there. Finally, I talked to one of my friends at the beginning of high school about my religion and found something in it. Now I actually know what I believe in and have had many spiritual experiences because of it. However, those service before those experiences were all a freaking waste of time.

My point is, if someone doesn't want to go to church, they don't have to. People should believe what they want and not be forced to join a religion they have no interest in. Parents these days just don't understand that.

[purplehairedwonder]

Considering that I attend a university with a large Mormon population, I don't broadcast my atheism, but if people ask I will tell them. My good friends know and they respect my beliefs and have learned not to talk deeply about religion around me because I don't believe it. I have discussions with my best friend about it sometimes; the part in the article about there being a rock band in the church reminded me of the church she attends because they had a band who plays Christian music at their ceremonies, or whatever you want to call them. We hold a respect for each other's belief and that's all I can ask. My friends have even defended me when another friend tried to convert me (I ended up losing her as a friend, but my friendships with the others strengthened because they defended my beliefs even though they didn't share them).

I think I'd like to read some of those books the article mentioned, as well.

[Humble]

Hmmm... I'm not sure if I should be considered an atheist or a very *bad* Catholic.

I was raised in a Catholic family. Both my older sister and I became distant from the faith after my Confirmation due to years of directly observing the hypocrisy prevelant in the church and those who attended. My sister adopted a somewhat condescending atheist point of view while I just turned away from the church's idea of what the nature of God is based on my principles.(I'll withhold that rant for a better time. :p)

I've openly stated my lack of faith when asked without any problem. Though, I must admit it feels weird to talk about the subject with the Franciscan Brothers at my predominantely Catholic university. My mother is the only person I would prefer to avoid telling before all my reasons are mapped out in my head.(Italian mothers are crazy!!)

I think its pretty much a fact that there are alot of closet atheists. People just haven't been looking for them.

Just recently I came to the conclusion that I don't need to decide whether a narcissistic deity is real or not. I'll live my life above aspiring for unending bliss or the fear of neverending pain.

The journey is what matters to me, not the destination. :cool:

-Humble

[peacebyanymeans]

I'm an atheist.

Yep... :shrug:

[Artimus Gigan]

They say that 1 billion people in total worldwide have no religious affiliation

that's 1/6 of the entire human race

that means the other 5 billion are of various religions, but the 1 billion would still outnumber any of the major religious IIRC

[Gatomon41]

They say that 1 billion people in total worldwide have no religious affiliation

that's 1/6 of the entire human race

that means the other 5 billion are of various religions, but the 1 billion would still outnumber any of the major religious IIRC

I highly doubt that. Unlike the spoiled, college athesism that is just an excuse to ignore what is wrong and right and to party, based on a shallow philosophy based on one or two casual readings of the latest fad, while living each day trying to endlessly fill it with pleasure, entertainment, etc. to futiley find statisfaction, the rest of the world probably has a faith or religious understanding. There is perhaps with a small percentage of nonbelivers living in Europe, or communist nations by a small elite still hold onto a foolish ideology.

[Artimus Gigan]

I highly doubt that. Unlike the spoiled, college athesism that is just an excuse to ignore what is wrong and right and to party, based on a shallow philosophy based on one or two casual readings of the latest fad, while living each day trying to endlessly fill it with pleasure, entertainment, etc. to futiley find statisfaction, the rest of the world probably has a faith or religious understanding. There is perhaps with a small percentage of nonbelivers living in Europe, or communist nations by a small elite still hold onto a foolish ideology.
I'm pretty sure using that logic not all Christians are fully Christian, not all Muslims are fully Muslim, now all Jews are fully Jewish, etc. etc. etc.

hence they would be deducted from the actual numbers as well

[Gatomon41]

I'm pretty sure using that logic not all Christians are fully Christian, not all Muslims are fully Muslim, now all Jews are fully Jewish, etc. etc. etc.
All your examples show they must believe in God, otherwise they wouldn't be any of the above religion, regardless of their practices! They may question if God exists once in their lives, but people question anything in their lives at least once. Often they check check it out and confirm it.


hence they would be deducted from the actual numbers as well

I doubt the Communist country numbers though. When the State is the de facto idol, they tend to make everyone confrom or die.

Edit: On that note, this "New" idea is not really new. It's just the same old idea that science can replace God. Note the word replace. It's never about disproving God, it's only about setting up an idol to worship. In this case, current knowledge of science. But their argument, as it did in the past, never did depend on science. Rather, just a shallow predjuice interpretation of science, an abuse of the truth to achieve a lie.

[Artimus Gigan]

All your examples show they must believe in God, otherwise they wouldn't be any of the above religion, regardless of their practices! They may question if God exists once in their lives, but people question anything in their lives at least once. Often they check check it out and confirm it.

I'm saying they're just using it as a ruse, just like the people who cklaim to be agnostic/atheist

[Gatomon41]

I'm saying they're just using it as a ruse, just like the people who cklaim to be agnostic/atheist

One being will know for sure who is geunine and who is not.

[Artimus Gigan]

One being will know for sure who is geunine and who is not.
That really doesn't have any input for the living though

while religion itself can't be true or false, the people who use religion as a manipulative tool to further themselves in wealth,power and their agenda do cause real problems.

[Gatomon41]

That really doesn't have any input for the living though
Then let the people's actions speak for themselves.


while religion itself can't be true or false, the people who use religion as a manipulative tool do cause real problems

Anyone can use anything as a tool to cause real problems, from a simple rock to governments.

And for that matter, that isn't the issue. Wither a person manipulates something does not make it evil.

[Artimus Gigan]

Then let the people's actions speak for themselves.



Anyone can use anything as a tool to cause real problems, from a simple rock to governments.

And for that matter, that isn't the issue. Wither a person manipulates something does not make it evil.
You're missing the point, you said there are people who are being agnostic or atheist as an excuse or is covienant outlet for pleasure, being a member/leader of a religious group can be used pretty much in the same way.

I'm just using the cults/extremeist leaders as an example.

[Gatomon41]

You're missing the point, you said there are people who are being agnostic or atheist as an excuse or is covienant outlet for pleasure, being a member/leader of a religious group can be used pretty much in the same way.

Wrong. Pleasure and happiness are two totally different things.

Pleasure is of the physical, animals and humans alike can feel it, and it can be increased to the point in which it ceases to be pleasure, and instead becomes pain. You can become sick of pleasure. Candy you make you have pleasure, but too much it becomes sickening and unhealthy.

Happiness is of the mental, emotional, and spiritual, and never stops being joy. Happiness is happiness. One can pray, meditate, do virtures, and never be tired of it. Happiness can only come from God.

People can try to subsistue pleasure for Joy, but in the end they fail. You can't get water where there's never been water.



I'm just using the cults/extremeist leaders as an example.
So they take a good idea and twisted it to their own twisted goals. People did and will do the same things to governments, departments, etc. etc.

[Zubby]

I highly doubt that. Unlike the spoiled, college athesism that is just an excuse to ignore what is wrong and right and to party, based on a shallow philosophy based on one or two casual readings of the latest fad, while living each day trying to endlessly fill it with pleasure, entertainment, etc. to futiley find statisfaction, the rest of the world probably has a faith or religious understanding. There is perhaps with a small percentage of nonbelivers living in Europe, or communist nations by a small elite still hold onto a foolish ideology.

First off, what is 'college athesism'? Secondly, why do you assume that being an athiest is equal to being hedonistic and morally bankrupt? I take offense at that. It's a gross overgeneralization without any bearing in fact, and couldn't be further from the truth.

One of the wonderful, empowering aspects of athiesm is that we get to choose our own moral code.
Where does that code come from? It comes from the realization that our actions effect others, and therefore the correct action is one that does the least possible harm. That is very similar to the teachings of many religions. Most of them do not advocate harming others. But, what is important here is that my moral code is based on my ability to reason, not on a vague and/or abstract notion of punishment or retrubution in an afterlife. Harming others is unconscionable not because I fear Hell. It is unconscionable because I do not want to be responsible for others' suffering.

Most of the athiests I have known (at least the ones who truly do not believe in a higher power) are highly moral people for exactly the reason I just wrote about. In daily life, it means thinking things through and using reason before taking action. It takes a great deal of responsibilty to do so consistently, but it builds good moral charecter.

Personally ( I can't speak for other athiests), my morals come pretty close to the Wicccan Rede: Do what you will but harm none (I'm paraphrasing here). The 'harming none' part can be a lot more difficult that you might think, but therein lies what gives athiests such strong morals.

Being an athiest has nothing whatsoever to do with 'a shallow philosophy based on one or two casual readings of the latest fad' as you stated. If someone spends a period of time examining their beliefs and trying out a few philosophies, fine. That is not unique to atheism. Plenty of Christians (and people of other faiths) have done the same, and I don't see you faulting them for it.

Maybe you can't imagine someone findinig true happiness without God. I can't imagine finding true happiness WITH God. I've been around long enough to tell the difference between fleeting momens of joy and true happiness, and my happiness has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in something I know does not exist.

[Kagetsu]

This is an extremely complex issue. No, I don't believe there this huge horde of closet atheists. Most people will still believe something even if they don't follow the practice and sometimes question their own faith. I believe religious ritual is something basic to humans and in the lack of "God" we tend to find other practices to fill that belief.

The saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is also no longer true. Though some higher power is longed for in moments of stress. Our technology has made people feel very safe. We seldom rely on each other, except under court order, for our daily lives let alone look to God.

You will find an increased number of atheist in college level people, but it's because of the high number of "liberal" (party afiliates not required) teachers. People tend to follow the beliefs of others affecting their lives. There is a higher moral compass to a belief in God, but it doesn't relate to small "sins" like partying. There are far darker things that are dismissed when there is no God. True, on the other hand the same darkness can flourish in the name of zelots.

"Choosing" a moral code is not as simple as you'd think, with or with out God. People don't like the disappoval of others. But, if enough people tell you something is right, you can believe it wheather it is or isn't. The Military is taught how to defy "illegal orders" so massacres don't happen, but if "everyone else is doing it", many people will follow the crowd.

Religion is there to create a social bond and provide checks and balences on the "mob mentality". Granted, there are flaws in all human systems.

[Gatomon41]

First off, what is 'college athesism'?
Termed used by tehn-Bishop Fulton J. Sheen to describe a type of materalistic attuide based on a shaollow understanding of philoposhy that is developed by people to only justify their immoral beahvoir. Some college students would do this to avoid responsibiltiy.


Secondly, why do you assume that being an athiest is equal to being hedonistic and morally bankrupt?
Not always, but may be the case. People can have morals, but eventually they will end up in a dead end.
There are people who simply look for pleasure. Pleasure can come in any form, often from ignorant bliss or not wanting to take responbility in the world.



I take offense at that. It's a gross overgeneralization without any bearing in fact, and couldn't be further from the truth.

You must realize it's not so much a generalization, but rather from my experiences in life.


One of the wonderful, empowering aspects of athiesm is that we get to choose our own moral code.
You mean replace it with something that justifies one irresponsbility. It's not empowerment, just pride, essientally egotism.


Where does that code come from? It comes from the realization that our actions effect others, and therefore the correct action is one that does the least possible harm.
It then leads to another question: Why make the choice to make the choice that leads to the least possible harm? What's the point of making the correct action? Making sure the least people harm has rarely been a good motivation, as we can see in history. There must be a reason for it.


That is very similar to the teachings of many religions. Most of them do not advocate harming others. But, what is important here is that my moral code is based on my ability to reason, not on a vague and/or abstract notion of punishment or retrubution in an afterlife.
Morality inculdes reasoning, but it also includes another factor which you ignore. Your'e taking one part of the caculation, and ignoring the rest.


Harming others is unconscionable not because I fear Hell. It is unconscionable because I do not want to be responsible for others' suffering
Most of the athiests I have known (at least the ones who truly do not believe in a higher power) are highly moral people for exactly the reason I just wrote about. In daily life, it means thinking things through and using reason before taking action. It takes a great deal of responsibilty to do so consistently, but it builds good moral charecter.

Personally ( I can't speak for other athiests), my morals come pretty close to the Wicccan Rede: Do what you will but harm none (I'm paraphrasing here). The 'harming none' part can be a lot more difficult that you might think, but therein lies what gives athiests such strong morals.

It all sounds good, but in reality it's utterly shallow. In the end you do not have a reason for it. You don't want to hurt anybody, the questuion is WHY? You lack the answers to why do you care about others? What makes people so important?

Not all people are going to believe that morality is based on not hurting anyone. Not everyone is going to believe the same worth of people. Not everyone is going to have a utlitarian diffention of what is right and wrong. In the end, all you really have is a rules of conducts proped up by a barstool. True morality needs a justification and true reasoning.



Being an athiest has nothing whatsoever to do with 'a shallow philosophy based on one or two casual readings of the latest fad' as you stated. If someone spends a period of time examining their beliefs and trying out a few philosophies, fine. That is not unique to atheism. Plenty of Christians (and people of other faiths) have done the same, and I don't see you faulting them for it.
Christians at least understand the importance of conviction. They at least don't change their ideas based on skiming Darwin or Neitchze. I must also point out that I am refering to 1 type of nonthestic.

There are actually 2 types of non-thstic people:

1. The ones I have already mentioned, who use a weak understanding of ideas to only justify irresponbility. They have no convictions.

2. Militant Athesism. These are people who try to replace religion with a subsistute.

They try to create a cult of ego, a cult of man, a cult of science, etc. Essientally, this is the type that tries to detify men. They might not view it as idoltry, some might see it as "empowering", "freedom", "rational", and other words to make their idea seem like a better subsistute. In reality, it's just another from of pride and egocentricism.

It is also a form of hate aginst God. Atheists might claim nonblief, but in somewhat odd way, they hate Him. They want to destroy Him for whatever reason. Instead of love and happiness, they fill themselves with hatred and angst. It comes in various degrees.


Maybe you can't imagine someone findinig true happiness without God.

Only God can deliever Happiness, even to those who deny Him. Anything else will dissapoint.

Tell me, have you really found a happiness? I am not talking about pleasure which you feel good at first, but become bored or sick of it after a while. Think about it. Have you ever felt joy?


I can't imagine finding true happiness WITH God. I've been around long enough to tell the difference between fleeting momens of joy and true happiness, and my happiness has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in something I know does not exist.
Then why do you speak of Him as if he does exist? Maybe the problem is that you're actually angry with God.

[Juu-kuchi]

Not always, but may be the case. People can have morals, but eventually they will end up in a dead end. Does this mean any and every person though in the world?


You must realize it's not so much a generalization, but rather from my experiences in life. Experiences in life can lead to people forming generalizations.


Christians at least understand the importance of conviction. They at least don't change their ideas based on skiming Darwin or Neitchze. Are you insinuating that atheists are nothing more than people who just skim through books? For that matter what's the importance of conviction (especially for Christians), if they actually read and went through Darwin's "Origin of Species" or Nietsche's "Thus Spake Zarasthusthra"? What kind of conviction are you talking about then? What happens if they do change their convictions based upon those books? Do you fault them for wavering conviction, or would it be better off telling them not to worry about them and focus upon God since He'll just make everything right, since there's no point in pondering such infantile texts compared to Him?

They try to create a cult of ego, a cult of man, a cult of science, etc. Essientally, this is the type that tries to detify men. They might not view it as idoltry, some might see it as "empowering", "freedom", "rational", and other words to make their idea seem like a better subsistute. In reality, it's just another from of pride and egocentricism. I don't necessarily think that it's deification, but I don't see anything wrong with this self-actualization of man. Man in his short life I believe has almost infinite potential that make things that were perceived as impossible possible, that we CAN. We CAN progress and better ourselves. What's wrong with this kind of empowerment?

It is also a form of hate aginst God. Atheists might claim nonblief, but in somewhat odd way, they hate Him. They want to destroy Him for whatever reason. Instead of love and happiness, they fill themselves with hatred and angst. It comes in various degrees. Some atheists would consider why they would hate what they do not believe.

Then why do you speak of Him as if he does exist? Maybe the problem is that you're actually angry with God.Dude, I think he was talking about God in the hyperbole.

[Artimus Gigan]

Ya'know indifference can be a reason people choose to be atheists

they just simply don't care about having a religious affiliation and can focus on more or less the current and living.

more or less that doesn't mean they're shallow individuals, and can pretty much be as family focused and decent human beings as anyone else.

I mean essentialy the big things that many religions focus on is going to a place after you die. However since there is no true defintiion on who's place is the real afterlife, it could be thought of as something to care about only when you die.

In other words they're not thinking about the whole "You gotta be good or else!" stimga, they're being decent human beings just for the sake of those around them.

[peacebyanymeans]

You mean replace it with something that justifies one irresponsbility. It's not empowerment, just pride, essientally egotism.

So, following my own morals is egotistic?



It all sounds good, but in reality it's utterly shallow. In the end you do not have a reason for it. You don't want to hurt anybody, the questuion is WHY? You lack the answers to why do you care about others? What makes people so important?
I try not to do things to others that I wouldn't like on myself.
There may not even be a reason why. Why are we here? I don't believe there is an answer to that.


Not all people are going to believe that morality is based on not hurting anyone. Not everyone is going to believe the same worth of people. Not everyone is going to have a utlitarian diffention of what is right and wrong. In the end, all you really have is a rules of conducts proped up by a barstool. True morality needs a justification and true reasoning.
Of course, but I'd doubt them being part of a relgion with change that either. A christan person will still commit murder even though God said it's wrong.


Christians at least understand the importance of conviction. What? And atheists don't? Just because we don't believe in God doesn't make us any less sure of what we do or don't believe is right.


There are actually 2 types of non-thstic people:

1. The ones I have already mentioned, who use a weak understanding of ideas to only justify irresponbility. They have no convictions.

2. Militant Athesism. These are people who try to replace religion with a subsistute.
One could use religion to justify irresponbility. Didn't the church used to kill people for not believing their religion? Oh, but it's okay because God said so, right?


They try to create a cult of ego, a cult of man, a cult of science, etc. Essientally, this is the type that tries to detify men. They might not view it as idoltry, some might see it as "empowering", "freedom", "rational", and other words to make their idea seem like a better subsistute. In reality, it's just another from of pride and egocentricism.

I just don't believe in God. I don't think of myself as part of a group of atheist. I just think, I don't believe in God, therfore I'm an atheist. You can call me part of the group, it's not like It'll really effect my desisions or anything.


It is also a form of hate aginst God. Atheists might claim nonblief, but in somewhat odd way, they hate Him. They want to destroy Him for whatever reason. Instead of love and happiness, they fill themselves with hatred and angst. It comes in various degrees.
Kinda hard to hate something you don't believe in, eh? Unless you mean the idea of God, which yes there are people who want that. I'm not one of them. You see us though we're all like that. Those guys are to athiest as Right-wing Christan nutjobs are to christians. I don't like the people who try to take away the belief of God from someone. If that belief gives them hope, a meaning in life and happiness then I'm all for it. I don't believe in that. I don't need the reward of Heaven to be happy. I just live my life the best I can.


Only God can deliever Happiness, even to those who deny Him. Anything else will dissapoint.
That's an opinion.


Tell me, have you really found a happiness? I am not talking about pleasure which you feel good at first, but become bored or sick of it after a while. Think about it. Have you ever felt joy?
I love being with my friends and family. They make me happy. They are my life. And then you think about that, if you hurt or kill someone, they too are part of a family. If I don't want things done to myself or my family, then why should I have the right to do that to someone elses? The fact is, I DO have that right. You have the right to do anything you want, no matter what anyone or thing says. But there are consequences, weither it be the law, god or your own consious.



Then why do you speak of Him as if he does exist? Maybe the problem is that you're actually angry with God.
I speak of the idea of God, not a god himself. And why would I have a problem with my "supposed" creator.

I dunno, I believe that if there is a god, he wouldn't be the type of person (or whatever) to punish someone for not being part of his religion.

And that phrase "There are no athiest in foxholes" It wouldn't apply to me.
Even if I was about to die and there is a god, I don't think that God would apreciate that I'm suddenly being a christain just to get a ticket into heaven. That'd make me some kind of prick. ;)

In the end it's all faith (or lack of).

If you believe God exist. Fantstic, what ever floats your boat.
If you don't. Also, good. Live by a different standard. Just be note there ARE consequences, even if there isn't an afterlife.

:\

[Humble]

It all sounds good, but in reality it's utterly shallow. In the end you do not have a reason for it. You don't want to hurt anybody, the questuion is WHY? You lack the answers to why do you care about others? What makes people so important?Humans are able to empathize with others. We all know what it's like to hurt and feel weak. That's enough of a reason to avoid hurting each other. :p

On a side note, if God did make us so we could worship him, why should we?

"I'm not a robot without emotions"
-Humble

[sarita]

This is a very interesting topic.

Well, for starters, I have no problem with people that don't believe in God...as long as they don't have a problem with me believing in God. There is nothing worse than those atheists out there (and there are some who think this way, sadly) who believe those of us who are spiritual and/or religious are somehow intellectually inferior. Simply because we believe in that which cannot be seen nor will probably ever be seen or measured by any sort of scientific device. I mean, I really don't know if God exists, but I want to believe. Yes, it's a matter of faith, and some people just can't do that. And that's fine by me. Frankly, I don't give a damn what you believe or don't believe. :yawn: But don't insult my intelligence or try to put me on the spot and make me justify every single bad thing that has ever happened to human beings and say "where was God then?" I don't know either! So quit asking me. You can tell I'm conflicted, right? :lol:

Basically, as long as you give me respect, I'll give you respect in return. That's all I ask. And that's from other religious folks as well, and not just atheists. Because I tell you the most intolerants folks I've met have been religious. Go figure.

I know this is a fairly liberal viewpoint; a lot of Christians are much more in-your-face, of course. But then I'm not a typical Christian (sometimes, given my more "radical" views, I really wonder if I can even be considered a Christian anymore).

One last thing: I do have a question for the atheist/agnostics out there. I am a healthcare worker. I love what I do, because even though it's backbreakingly hard work and my feet kill me at the end of every shift and I sometimes wonder why in the hell I signed up for this, I get to meet so many interesting people every day. And a lot of the times, my patients are religious/spiritual and many have even asked me to sit and pray with them. Something which I, as a Christian, have no problem with. Especially because it gives the patient a sense of peace (which these very sick people badly need). But if you were atheist/agnostic, how would you feel if this stranger asked you about your religion and even asked if you would pray with them? Would you be offended? How would you respond? Or would you go ahead and pray with them, even though you didn't believe, if you knew it would make them happy? I'm just curious.

...Keep in mind that a lot of the time it's the older folks who are so nosy about this. You know how old people are. They've lived so long already, and they just speak their minds about things like this. :p They're essentially harmless, but I'm just wondering how offended some people might be.

[peacebyanymeans]

One last thing: I do have a question for the atheist/agnostics out there. I am a healthcare worker. I love what I do, because even though it's backbreakingly hard work and my feet kill me at the end of every shift and I sometimes wonder why in the hell I signed up for this, I get to meet so many interesting people every day. And a lot of the times, my patients are religious/spiritual and many have even asked me to sit and pray with them. Something which I, as a Christian, have no problem with. Especially because it gives the patient a sense of peace (which these very sick people badly need). But if you were atheist/agnostic, how would you feel if this stranger asked you about your religion and even asked if you would pray with them? Would you be offended? How would you respond? Or would you go ahead and pray with them, even though you didn't believe, if you knew it would make them happy? I'm just curious.

I wouldn't be offended. I would pray with them.

[Humble]

But if you were atheist/agnostic, how would you feel if this stranger asked you about your religion and even asked if you would pray with them? Would you be offended? How would you respond? Or would you go ahead and pray with them, even though you didn't believe, if you knew it would make them happy? I'm just curious.You're really asking whether or not atheists/agnostics think it's okay to lie for another's sake. It's really a question of personal character. Religious affiliation plays no part in answering the question. :p

I try to avoid deciding how I'm going to react to certain circumstances before they arise. I trust myself to make the best choice without preconceived notions of what I should do.

Anyway, it's probable that I would try to make them happy. ;)

-Humble

[purplehairedwonder]

But if you were atheist/agnostic, how would you feel if this stranger asked you about your religion and even asked if you would pray with them? Would you be offended? How would you respond? Or would you go ahead and pray with them, even though you didn't believe, if you knew it would make them happy? I'm just curious.
I'm sure I would pray with them if it would give them a sense of peace.

Actually, one of my best friends (one of the smartest people I know, actually) is pretty religious and she has asked me on occassion when I'm feeling especially down if she could pray for me. I told her to go ahead; it doesn't offend me. I'm touched that she would do that - it's a symbol of compassion, after all. I have friends who pray before meals, so I always wait to eat until they are done praying out of respect for their beliefs. They respect mine, so I damn well intend to respect theirs. It goes along the lines of the "atheist moral code" so to speak: we are believers in the Golden Rule. As Humble said, humans empathize and that in itself is enough reason to not want to cause hurt for others.

[Kaoru]

All your examples show they must believe in God, otherwise they wouldn't be any of the above religion, regardless of their practices! They may question if God exists once in their lives, but people question anything in their lives at least once. Often they check check it out and confirm it. Atheism isn't a religion. If that wasn't your point I don't understand what was.




I doubt the Communist country numbers though. When the State is the de facto idol, they tend to make everyone confrom or die. There is hardly any communism nowadays and most people in the world are identified religious because they are forced by the governments or general society.


Edit: On that note, this "New" idea is not really new. It's just the same old idea that science can replace God. Note the word replace. It's never about disproving God, it's only about setting up an idol to worship. In this case, current knowledge of science. But their argument, as it did in the past, never did depend on science. Rather, just a shallow predjuice interpretation of science, an abuse of the truth to achieve a lie. Atheism is not about worshiping science as god you're nuts. We don't worship anything (generally).

I find your understanding of my lack of belief in supernatural fallacious and intolerant. With most of the world population holding the view you accept it is no wonder there are so many 'closet atheists'.

[Ben]

My point is, if someone doesn't want to go to church, they don't have to. People should believe what they want and not be forced to join a religion they have no interest in. Parents these days just don't understand that.

Absolutely. But I think you're wrong about "parents these days." I think our parents' generation is much more understanding about these things than any American parents ever were in the past. Do you honestly think there was more religious freedom for children in the 50s than there is now?


My good friends know and they respect my beliefs and have learned not to talk deeply about religion around me because I don't believe it.

So they go out of their way to avoid talking about their beliefs around you just because yours are different? That doesn't sound like a healthy friendship to me.


First off, what is 'college athesism'? Secondly, why do you assume that being an athiest is equal to being hedonistic and morally bankrupt? I take offense at that. It's a gross overgeneralization without any bearing in fact, and couldn't be further from the truth.

Oh, come on. It's obvious he wasn't talking about all atheists. He's just talking about the group of people who just stop going to church in college as part of four years of partying. I also had a faith crisis in college, but (I imagine like you) it was an important part of my spiritual development and not part and parcel with drinking a lot. Try not to look for insult where there isn't any.

EDIT: Never mind. Reading Gatomon's "two categories of atheists" leads me to believe he really isn't interested in understanding atheist thinking after all.


One of the wonderful, empowering aspects of athiesm is that we get to choose our own moral code.

I don't see how that makes atheism special. Plenty of people who believe in God disagree about moral issues. Heck, many very advanced thinkers within individual religions have completely different moral perspectives. I certainly live by my own moral code, but I'm not an atheist.

Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you're a puppet of an earthly hierarchy.


Where does that code come from? It comes from the realization that our actions effect others, and therefore the correct action is one that does the least possible harm.

If atheism means coming up with your own moral code, how can you speak for all atheists like that?


That is very similar to the teachings of many religions. Most of them do not advocate harming others. But, what is important here is that my moral code is based on my ability to reason, not on a vague and/or abstract notion of punishment or retrubution in an afterlife. Harming others is unconscionable not because I fear Hell. It is unconscionable because I do not want to be responsible for others' suffering.

Most adult, thinking religious people base their moral codes on the same thing. I know very few adults who honestly fear Hell.

But more importantly, hell isn't a universal concept in world religion. Many Buddhists don't believe in hell. In fact most modern Buddhist masters base human morality on just what you've been talking about -- an aversion to suffering -- plus the acknowledgment of human mortality. Some Christian thinkers also see Hell as less a physical place of punishment and more a state of separation from God. C.S. Lewis saw hell as a self-inflicted illness that derives from a love of the self and a fear of giving up the ego in favor of the community of saints.

Pope John Paul II wrote, "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: 'To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell"'...

"The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom..."

And he was the head of the most hierarchical church on Earth.

[EDIT: By the way, I also remind you that even Satre found an intellectual use for the concept of hell. (http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/hell/sart.html)]


Personally ( I can't speak for other athiests), my morals come pretty close to the Wicccan Rede: Do what you will but harm none (I'm paraphrasing here). The 'harming none' part can be a lot more difficult that you might think, but therein lies what gives athiests such strong morals.

I'm having a lot of trouble with your building up atheists as morally superior. There are plenty of atheists who are moral, thinking people. There are certainly lots of atheist thinkers that I respect and love (Satre, Douglas Adams, Voltaire). But there are also atheists I've met who disbelieve in God simply because of bad personal experiences combined with narcissism, egotism and ignorance. They call themselves atheists simply so that they can assume a morally superior position in debates at parties and make fun of people who still "delude themselves into believing in God."


Maybe you can't imagine someone findinig true happiness without God. I can't imagine finding true happiness WITH God. I've been around long enough to tell the difference between fleeting momens of joy and true happiness, and my happiness has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in something I know does not exist.

This is the most interesting part of atheism to me -- that people argue it is not a religion, that it is exceptionally different from other spiritual traditions, that it relies on rationality -- yet, it is based on an article of faith just as impossible to prove as all other religions. To say "I know God does not exist" is a statement of faith. It is impossible to prove God does not exist, just as it is impossible to prove God does exist.

Ultimately I decided to live with the idea of God rather than reject it simply because, since God permeates almost every human thought in history, God must have some meaning to humanity. I would rather work on finding that meaning than reject it out of hand. But as I said, at the same time I think it's perfectly possible to begin a noble, morally respectable journey from a rejection of the gods of the past. I only wish atheists would more often show the kind of respect to religious people that they demand we show them.


Well, for starters, I have no problem with people that don't believe in God...as long as they don't have a problem with me believing in God. There is nothing worse than those atheists out there (and there are some who think this way, sadly) who believe those of us who are spiritual and/or religious are somehow intellectually inferior. Simply because we believe in that which cannot be seen nor will probably ever be seen or measured by any sort of scientific device.

As I mentioned, atheism also cannot be "proven." So they're not as different as you think.

But yes, I also have a problem with anyone who starts a conversation assuming I am mentally inferior to them.


That's all I ask. And that's from other religious folks as well, and not just atheists. Because I tell you the most intolerants folks I've met have been religious. Go figure.

Well, most of the people you've ever met have probably been religious, so that doesn't really say much. The massacres of Mao and Stalin and their regimes have shown that atheists are just as capable of horrible, obscenely immoral acts as their religious counterparts. They also show that atheists can be socially manipulated in the same way religious zealots can be. In the 20th century atheism joined all the major world religions in that it has had countless morally indefensible acts committed in its name.


You don't want to hurt anybody, the questuion is WHY?

Gatomon has shown he has no interest in an open debate, but this is an interesting question for those that claim their atheism is based on rational reasoning. There is no way to scientifically prove a normative statement. You cannot [i]prove[i] the statement, "Hurting other people is morally bad." You can make philosophical arguments to support it, but ultimately that is a value statement that you have to agree upon before you start having a conversation. Atheism cannot be scientific. If atheists claim to be scientific, or to be able to "prove" their moral code is right, they are doing just as much damage to science as those who call intelligent design a scientific theory.

[SirLemming]

That's a pretty danged good post right there, and it gives me hope that this topic won't have to be locked.

Being a Messiah College student, I obviously take objection to the brand of atheism that labels all Christians as idiots and barbarians. This could possibly be accurately described as "modernist atheism", which stresses that humans have great potential for good but are being held back by religion and other traditional ways of thinking.

I say it's pretty dangerous (not to mention arrogant) to put that much trust in humans. We're not evil without God -- most of us try to do the right thing -- but there's always a struggle. We all have to resist the urge not to kill people, cheat on our spouses, etc. To put it more generally, we really are all prone to be selfish. As far as I can tell, there's no way to avoid that impulse no matter what you believe. And a lot of people see religious belief as the best way to keep that in check.

Of course, it's also for all those metaphysical reasons that I'm sure you're all well aware of. As great as science is, at some point we have to admit that no human can possibly know how the universe began. All of the evidence is ultimately inconclusive or disputable -- you can always chalk it up to God, or chalk it up to The Matrix, or something. Perhaps it's in our best interests to believe it, if it turns out to be the best way of thinking, but we're really all in the same boat here. We all have to put our trust in something. We're all influenced by a system of beliefs that's older than we'll ever be.

Technically, even history textbooks are unreliable. As they say, history is written by the winners. (Maybe not an exact quote; who cares.) It'd be irresponsible and paranoid to just ignore everything that comes from before we were born, or to distrust any information we haven't acquired on our own (because we can only learn so much on our own), but we all need to be humble enough to realize that, ultimately, it's a choice.
You can believe these guys, or you can believe those guys, or you can believe these other guys. And you can have a very good and logical reason for your choice. Your choice may even be more logical, reasonable, or moral than someone else's choice. But it's still a choice.

[purplehairedwonder]

So they go out of their way to avoid talking about their beliefs around you just because yours are different? That doesn't sound like a healthy friendship to me. You misunderstand. My other friends are pretty religious, so they go to Bible studies and all those sorts of things several times a week and talk about them together, but when I'm with them, they don't because I'm not into that sort of thing. I mentioned earlier that we've had discussions every now and then about our beliefs, but we don't go out of our way to bring them up. And I appreciate that because there are so many other things we share common ground on; that's why we're friends, after all.

I'm having a lot of trouble with your building up atheists as morally superior. I can't speak for whoever posted, but I don't consider atheists to be any more or less moral than anyone else. We are defined by our actions. I think the point being made is that atheists don't depend on the teachings of the Bible to decide what is write and wrong. Quite often the two intersect, but the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is different.

that people argue it is not a religion, that it is exceptionally different from other spiritual traditions, that it relies on rationality -- yet, it is based on an article of faith just as impossible to prove as all other religions.
re‧li‧gion
–noun
1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
a‧the‧ism
–noun
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Atheism is a set of beliefs about "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Atheism does involve a moral code, as people have to decide what is right and wrong. But atheism does not believe in "superhuman agencies" nor does it involve devotional and ritual observances.

I only wish atheists would more often show the kind of respect to religious people that they demand we show them.
It's just an unending cycle of intolerance on both sides. Not all atheists disrespect religious people and vice versa.

Atheism cannot be scientific. If atheists claim to be scientific, or to be able to "prove" their moral code is right, they are doing just as much damage to science as those who call intelligent design a scientific theory. I'm not sure if I follow what you're saying here, but many atheists are evolutionists and that is the scientific part of the belief. I don't believe in God because too many natural phenomena can be explained scientifically, so until God stands in front of me and tells me I was wrong and can prove it, I'm not going to believe in it. I'm going to believe in the scientific evidence that has been presented.

Something else that keeps me from being able to buy into religion is the fact that there are so many different denominations and religions that all believe they are right. Who is to say which is correct? Since there are so many arguments over even that, religion just doesn't appeal to me.

You have to remember, atheists are a very small minority of the population and we live in a predominantly Christian society in America. Just because there is a freedom of religion doesn't give us the freedom from religion, as much as we may want it. It can get frustrating living in a society so inundated with Christianity for those of us who don't believe and we often feel like we are being talked down to. Some people can become less tolerant out of this kind of frustration.

[SirLemming]

You have to remember, atheists are a very small minority of the population and we live in a predominantly Christian society in America. Just because there is a freedom of religion doesn't give us the freedom from religion, as much as we may want it. It can get frustrating living in a society so inundated with Christianity for those of us who don't believe and we often feel like we are being talked down to. Some people can become less tolerant out of this kind of frustration. I think it really depends on where you live. Because here in New York, things sure don't seem very Christian to me... You also have to consider that, as with any cultural movement this big, a large percentage of the people are not that devoted. It's more of a tradition to them. They could be atheist if they really cared, but they just don't think it matters much. They live however they see fit regardless, and they go to church mostly on Christmas and Easter because it seems nice. And they think it seems like there's probably a god, so that's their official stance on the subject, even though they don't really care all that much about whether or not they're right. It doesn't affect them.

[purplehairedwonder]

I think it really depends on where you live. Because here in New York, things sure don't seem very Christian to me...
Even so, our founding fathers were Christian and many of our traditions stem from Christian thinking. Christmas is a federal holiday. "Under God" remains in the pledge. "In God we trust" is on our money. Religion is huge in politics... but that is a completely different story. My point being, our country was dounded on the basis of Christianity and we often take it for granted. So for some atheists (not speaking for all, or even myself here) can be frustrated by this.

[sarita]

I also hope this topic won't be closed. My hope is that we can all keep it civil somehow and the mods won't close it.


I wouldn't be offended. I would pray with them.


You're really asking whether or not atheists/agnostics think it's okay to lie for another's sake. It's really a question of personal character. Religious affiliation plays no part in answering the question.
I try to avoid deciding how I'm going to react to certain circumstances before they arise. I trust myself to make the best choice without preconceived notions of what I should do.
Anyway, it's probable that I would try to make them happy.


I'm sure I would pray with them if it would give them a sense of peace.

Thanks for the responses.


The massacres of Mao and Stalin and their regimes have shown that atheists are just as capable of horrible, obscenely immoral acts as their religious counterparts. They also show that atheists can be socially manipulated in the same way religious zealots can be. In the 20th century atheism joined all the major world religions in that it has had countless morally indefensible acts committed in its name.

I had completely forgotten about that...Well, I guess it shows that no matter what we believe or don't believe in, human beings still do horrible s--t to each other. We're really messed up. It's sad.

...So, another interesting thing at work happened today. As I'm getting ready to leave, I stop at the nurse's station to drop off my pager to the unit secretary. I thanked her for helping me out today when things got so crazy. She says "you're welcome", but then she said something I thought was really weird. She turns to me and whispers "Are you a Christian?" :confused: I thought this was a strange question to ask all of a sudden, but I told her I was. She has this knowing look on her face, smiling and everything, and tells me she could tell a good Christian when she saw one. It seemed like a compliment, but still...It was kind of a weird exchange. On the drive home I was actually thinking about this thread and what you guys would say, because how did she know I was a Christian? I don't wear any sort of religious paraphernalia, btw. It just seemed to me like because I was nice and had good people skills and played well with others or whatever it was that I did, that she assumed I followed a religion. Sort of brought back that whole thing about atheists and the moral vacuum some believe takes place in the absence of God. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it? I'm not bothered by it at all, but I do wonder if I smell differently or something. Do I give off pheromones only other Christians can smell?

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I am spiritually open but I'm suspicious of religious affiliations. I don't believe in a 'God' but I am also open to the possibility of one. I would never 'worship' a deity but I believe in spiritual bonds. So no, I'm not a 'true' atheist but I don't see myself joining any religion any time soon either. I have my own personal spiritual beliefs and I think that is good enough for me.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I wouldn't be offended. I would pray with them.

So would I. Maybe I wouldn't pray to 'God', but I would pray with positive feelings towards the patient. I think ultimately it's the sincere positive energy you emit when you pray that measures the legitimacy of the prayer.

[Peter Paltridge]

...So, another interesting thing at work happened today. As I'm getting ready to leave, I stop at the nurse's station to drop off my pager to the unit secretary. I thanked her for helping me out today when things got so crazy. She says "you're welcome", but then she said something I thought was really weird. She turns to me and whispers "Are you a Christian?" :confused: I thought this was a strange question to ask all of a sudden, but I told her I was. She has this knowing look on her face, smiling and everything, and tells me she could tell a good Christian when she saw one. It seemed like a compliment, but still...It was kind of a weird exchange. On the drive home I was actually thinking about this thread and what you guys would say, because how did she know I was a Christian? I don't wear any sort of religious paraphernalia, btw. It just seemed to me like because I was nice and had good people skills and played well with others or whatever it was that I did, that she assumed I followed a religion. Sort of brought back that whole thing about atheists and the moral vacuum some believe takes place in the absence of God. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it? I'm not bothered by it at all, but I do wonder if I smell differently or something. Do I give off pheromones only other Christians can smell?
Well, my mother says that if you follow Christ properly, people will be able to see Christ in you. The song "Shine" by Newsboys elaborates further.

[Classic Speedy]

I'm not denying there are atheists out there, but I'd also imagine there are plenty of secularists. They don't deny that there is a higher being, but in the course of their daily lives, it's not particularly relevant to them, either. They may even be part of a religion but they just go through the motions.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Reading this thread made me wonder if there are people on this board who are NOT Atheists OR Christians. Every year, there always seems to be a thread pitting the two against one another, but it would be interesting to see if anyone is affiliated with another religion. I'd love to hear thoughts from Buddhists, for example.

[Ben]

You misunderstand. My other friends are pretty religious, so they go to Bible studies and all those sorts of things several times a week and talk about them together, but when I'm with them, they don't because I'm not into that sort of thing. I mentioned earlier that we've had discussions every now and then about our beliefs, but we don't go out of our way to bring them up. And I appreciate that because there are so many other things we share common ground on; that's why we're friends, after all.

You're right, that was presumptuous of me. I'm sorry.


I can't speak for whoever posted, but I don't consider atheists to be any more or less moral than anyone else. We are defined by our actions. I think the point being made is that atheists don't depend on the teachings of the Bible to decide what is write and wrong. Quite often the two intersect, but the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is different.

Whether you base your moral code on a sacred text is a different issue from whether you believe in God. Many religions base morality on a shifting concept of sometimes collective, sometimes individual revelation. Many religions (including Catholicism) put the value not on whether you obey every word of the Bible but on what the intentions inside your heart were. If you're following some verse of the Bible, but there are sinful intentions in your heart, that's a sin.

The Biblical literalist Christians that you refer to are a minority. Most believe there is room for individual interpretation -- in fact, that the only thing that gives the Bible power is individual interpretation. In fact I would propose that doing something solely because you think the Bible said you should is not Christian. I realize many will disagree with that. But Jesus rejected the laws of the Old Testament during his lifetime. That's why he refused to create a comprehensive moral code. His only commandments were to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself. That's all, folks.


Atheism is a set of beliefs about "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Atheism does involve a moral code, as people have to decide what is right and wrong. But atheism does not believe in "superhuman agencies" nor does it involve devotional and ritual observances.

Well, let's go back to that definition.


re‧li‧gion
–noun
1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The core of that definition is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." All the other parts are optional, offset by the words especially, usually and often. So the superhuman agency is optional, the rituals are optional and the moral code is optional. Thus by the standard of this definition (and your own admission) atheism is a religion.

But honestly I don't mind if atheists prefer not to call their beliefs a religion. What bothers me is when they start saying their faith is "more scientific" than mine, which is a contradiction in terms.


It's just an unending cycle of intolerance on both sides. Not all atheists disrespect religious people and vice versa.

I realize that of course. But I have had many encounters (with both atheists and religious people) that made me cringe.


I'm not sure if I follow what you're saying here, but many atheists are evolutionists and that is the scientific part of the belief. I don't believe in God because too many natural phenomena can be explained scientifically, so until God stands in front of me and tells me I was wrong and can prove it, I'm not going to believe in it. I'm going to believe in the scientific evidence that has been presented.

But no evidence has been presented. That's my problem. Where is the scientific evidence that God does not exist? There isn't any. Agnostics, who neither believe nor disbelieve in God, might claim to extending scientific skepticism to their spiritual beliefs. But atheists are simply replacing one belief for which there is no scientific basis (that God exists) with another (that God does not exist). Just as you say you will not believe in God until someone proves to you God does exist, I could say I will believe in God until someone proves God doesn't exist. And we'd both be waiting for a long, long time.


Something else that keeps me from being able to buy into religion is the fact that there are so many different denominations and religions that all believe they are right. Who is to say which is correct? Since there are so many arguments over even that, religion just doesn't appeal to me.

Well, atheists also believe they're right over other religious people. So again, atheism is not exceptional. You could also apply this to pretty much any contentious issue. Communists, socialists, democrats, republicans, theocrats, all believe they have the right form of government. But "everyone else thinks they're right" is not a valid argument for anarchism.


It can get frustrating living in a society so inundated with Christianity for those of us who don't believe and we often feel like we are being talked down to. Some people can become less tolerant out of this kind of frustration.

You're absolutely right and I regret that. It's repressive to atheists (not to mention un-Christian) and spiritually and intellectually stifling for Christians, whose own Bible tells us to subject our beliefs to constant scrutiny. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Thessalonians%205:21)


...So, another interesting thing at work happened today. As I'm getting ready to leave, I stop at the nurse's station to drop off my pager to the unit secretary. I thanked her for helping me out today when things got so crazy. She says "you're welcome", but then she said something I thought was really weird. She turns to me and whispers "Are you a Christian?" :confused: I thought this was a strange question to ask all of a sudden, but I told her I was. She has this knowing look on her face, smiling and everything, and tells me she could tell a good Christian when she saw one. It seemed like a compliment, but still...It was kind of a weird exchange.

That would also bother me in the same way it bothered you. Her intentions were good, but the unfortunate implication is that she would have thought less of you had your answer been, "No."


Do I give off pheromones only other Christians can smell?

Ha! Maybe she has a Christdar under her desk. Like gaydar for Christians.

[Gatomon41]

On a side note, if God did make us so we could worship him, why should we?


Because, Luke, He is your father, and is always with you. He also died for you, is will to forgive you no matter what, and provided for you even though you have probably never said a word of thanks. And that's jusst some of the reasons.

[Gatomon41]

Experiences in life can lead to people forming generalizations

Or proving hypothsises.


Are you insinuating that atheists are nothing more than people who just skim through books?
No, I'm saying that some (not all) non-theistisc people based their believes on rather poorly interpretated ideas, just to justify their irresponsbile lifestyle.


For that matter what's the importance of conviction (especially for Christians), if they actually read and went through Darwin's "Origin of Species" or Nietsche's "Thus Spake Zarasthusthra"?
A lack of conviction leads to people who switch sides at the slightest suggestion. A convictionless person follows one theory, reads a books and becomes another theory, listens to a speaker and becomes another theory, over and over agian, switching tio the next fad.


What kind of conviction are you talking about then? What happens if they do change their convictions based upon those books?
You don't switch your beliefs just by reading. Your beliefs are formed by thinking as well. How does this work? What wrong with it?? What is the author's intent? Who was the author? Etc. Etc.


Do you fault them for wavering conviction, or would it be better off telling them not to worry about them and focus upon God since He'll just make everything right, since there's no point in pondering such infantile texts compared to Him?
No, I fault them for having no conviction in the first place, and tell them to use the mind God gave them. He gave them a mind to use. If a person is going to explore and develop beliefs, have conviction to stay with their beliefs instead of jumping to the next fad. Think before you leap.


I don't necessarily think that it's deification, but I don't see anything wrong with this self-actualization of man.
Except it's not the self-actualization (yet another buzz word) of man. It's just man beging prideful and egotistic. It becomes rather a cult of ego, a worship of a mind who has delusions of infinity. In reality, each person is limited and imperfect. We all need help.


Man in his short life I believe has almost infinite potential that make things that were perceived as impossible possible, that we CAN. We CAN progress and better ourselves. What's wrong with this kind of empowerment?
The problem is, have we really better ourselves? Look arround you, we still suffer from the same old problems of war, hate, death, conflict, disease, insanity, stagnation, collapse, pride, etc. etc. Man may have developed preety technologies for himself. But in reality, if humanity was left to themselves, we would only destry ourselfs once agian.

It takes people of spirit to truly improve humanity, but only God can truly empower us.



Some atheists would consider why they would hate what they do not believe.
Then why do so many non-thesitic people I've talk to speak of God's name out of disgust, as if he were real? If they truly did not believe, then they would have no problem, treating it in a category of faries and unicorns.

Instead, there is a hate. They know in their hearts that He is real, but they will try to deny him out of pride. Look aat the quotes in this thread, and you will know what I'm talking about.

[Kaoru]

Well, let's go back to that definition.



The core of that definition is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." All the other parts are optional, offset by the words especially, usually and often. So the superhuman agency is optional, the rituals are optional and the moral code is optional. Thus by the standard of this definition (and your own admission) atheism is a religion.
Ben, firstly atheism is hardly correct to define as a 'set of beliefs', as it simply means the lack of belief in supernatural.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Most Christians have that misconstrued view of atheism.

The other thing, atheism is not faith, rather lack of one. Atheists only put trust in physicalo, observable factors, which is not faith.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
But honestly I don't mind if atheists prefer not to call their beliefs a religion. What bothers me is when they start saying their faith is "more scientific" than mine, which is a contradiction in terms.By simply using science to understand physical world over all other unscientific ways of interpretation, atheism is the only uhhhhhhhhh... (you're killing me with your rough words) belief that truly endorses science without bias. By "which is a contradiction in terms", do you constitute that Christianity is more scientific then secularism? That just sounds wrong. You just demonstrated how Christians put their beliefs ahead of scientific fact.
Then why do so many non-thesitic people I've talk to speak of God's name out of disgust, as if he were real? If they truly did not believe, then they would have no problem, treating it in a category of faries and unicorns. That's exactly how I categorize all gods, with fairies and unicorns and pixies. I don't know any atheist who hates god, the concept itself is an oxymoron. You have a lot of passion agains non-believers in your faith, so your view of atheism can't be open-minded and unbiased. Why don't you visit www.atheists.com (http://www.atheists.com) where there are many people who would answer all your questions about atheism (lack of belief in supernatural), although what's not to get?? It's not like it's some complicated belief with talking snakes and giant floods, it's a lack of belief. How people can be so unwilling to understand a basic concept which makes more sense then what they believe... is mind-boggling at best and suicidal at worst.


No, I'm saying that some (not all) non-theistisc people based their believes on rather poorly interpretated ideas, just to justify their irresponsbile lifestyle. There are no ideas in atheism as a whole, get it to your head and get over it.

[Ben]

Ben, firstly atheism is hardly correct to define as a 'set of beliefs', as it simply means the lack of belief in supernatural. Most Christians have that misconstrued view of atheism.

The term atheism comes from a + theos, meaning without god. The original belief system, what is now referred to as "strong atheism," is the explicit rejection of the existence of god(s). It's not a "misconstrued view" held by "Christians," it's the classic formulation of atheism as opposed to agnosticism or nontheism.

It is true that many atheists see atheism as a simple lack of belief in gods (weak atheism) -- which is a fine distinction, but an important one. Our definitions were different, but neither was wrong. And mine was not "misconstrued."


The other thing, atheism is not faith, rather lack of one. Atheists only put trust in physicalo, observable factors, which is not faith.

Please explain to me the physical, observable factors that lead you to live your life the way you do. I think it's impossible to live day-to-day without taking certain (most, even) things on faith. Have you really had the time to subject every single assumption in your life to rigorous scientific inquiry?


By simply using science to understand physical world over all other unscientific ways of interpretation, atheism is the only uhhhhhhhhh... (you're killing me with your rough words) belief that truly endorses science without bias.

Yes, "weak atheism" is also a belief system, as you say. (I got you there. :)) An abstention is still a choice. A lack of belief in gods is part of a way of organizing the world, but that viewpoint must still involve a certain amount of faith and belief.

Yet science without bias is a myth. Everyone has their own subjectivity that they use to formulate hypotheses and choose methodologies. Scientists can reduce bias by having their conclusions confirmed by other scientists. But they can't eliminate it entirely.


By "which is a contradiction in terms", do you constitute that Christianity is more scientific then secularism? That just sounds wrong.

No. I am saying that no article of faith can be any more or less scientific than any other article of faith. Science cannot pass judgment on metaphysical questions. There are no measurable, empirical, observable elements that have to with spiritual questions. The error that science has some connection with truth has led both to "scientific atheism" and the creationism and intelligent design fiascos. Science is useful, but it isn't philosophically true. Metaphysical truth has to be found on an individual's spiritual journey.

Though of course if you have a scientific study handy that explains the human spirit in a couple hundred pages I'd love to see it.


You just demonstrated how Christians put their beliefs ahead of scientific fact.

Please explain this statement. Spirituality and science are two different things. Catholic Father George Lemaitre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre), the inventor of Big Bang theory, Gregor Mendel, the founder of genetics and a Catholic monk, Teilhard de Chardin, Descartes, many Christian scientists (that with a lowercase "s") understood that. I just explained that science is useful. Science can help (and has helped, Darwin in particular) me answer spiritual questions. But science alone cannot solve all the mysteries and contradictions of human consciousness, morality and mortality. If it tried, whatever conclusions it came up with would be unscientific.


It's not like it's some complicated belief with talking snakes and giant floods, it's a lack of belief. How people can be so unwilling to understand a basic concept which makes more sense then what they believe... is mind-boggling at best and suicidal at worst.

You're making me angry. If your beliefs are "unbiased" you should be able to defend them without making such belittling comments about my own spiritual journey. If you are so closed-minded, why should I open my mind to your ideas? (The same, by the way, could go for Gatomon, who seems to think that changing one's mind and allowing oneself to be affected by others' thoughts is a fatal fault.)

[Harley]

[...] although what's not to get?? It's not like it's some complicated belief with talking snakes and giant floods, it's a lack of belief. How people can be so unwilling to understand a basic concept which makes more sense then what they believe... is mind-boggling at best and suicidal at worst.

As a both a Catholic and the daughter of a scientist, I find that offensive. Almost as offensive as Gatomon's posts of the other extreme. Don't belittle others' beliefs. No one's interested in converting you. This should be an open-minded idea exchange. Remove the emotion and find a better way to present your ideas.

Those with religious beliefs understand the basic concept of a lack of a god, they just don't agree with the idea. To say that they don't understand it implies that they are not intelligent. I think you'll find that most of them are.

[The Guitar Slayer]

As the play Inherit the Wind says, "the Bible is a good book. A good book, but not the only book." My Catholic schoolin' says that the Bible is a theology book, not a history book, science book, math book, or anything else. It is right in all matters theological and moral relating to Christianity, but not infallible in terms of any other subject area. It's like the Pope -- he gets God's message loud and clear, but he can still make a spelling error or the odd statistic wrong.

My sister's an agnostic. She thinks there's a god out there, but as in Deism, he kicked the whole thing off and went to Bermuda for an extended vacation. He's not here anymore and frankly doesn't care. She's had a rough last couple of years, so I don't doubt that one could interpret what's happened as God forgetting to pick the baby up from the sitter, so to speak.

I'm Catholic. However, I'm a skeptical Catholic. God may have put me on this earth, but I'm sure as hell going to keep asking why. Blind faith is for the birds -- as St. James said, "Faith without works is dead." Just because someone says it's good doesn't mean it is. And yes, I go to church weekly. I am anti-literalist in terms of Bible interpretation. The Creation in seven 24-hour days doesn't fly with me. It's an allegory created to educate an illiterate people in exile and to record an oral history and culture. And yah, Catholic school taught me that. (Salesians and Jesuits represent!) So I guess you could call me a Catholic academic apologist. That all said and done, literalists still just have as much right as me to take the Bible word for word.

It also never hurts to keep a sense of humour. God is the Divine Comedian and the Great Scientist -- he likes to tinker with things with interesting results. As it stands, Christianity is pretty wacky and would be considered so by alien anthropologists -- we "love" each other (while still wishing some people go to hell) and meet weekly to eat an undead guy's body and blood -- we're zombie cannibals! Weee!


There are no ideas in atheism as a whole, get it to your head and get over it.
So what are you thumping your pulpit about to us about if there aren't any ideas to defend?

Yeah, I couldn't resist. However, while it is true that atheists simply don't believe in God, I find that most of the staunch ones tend to have created their own moral code. What most reject in organized religion is the amount of hypocrisy that comes with it. To be hypocritical is the worst thing they can do -- they're just like the people they refuse to follow. Ergo, they secure for themselves a personal moral code . I know some that are far more ethical and moral than their Christian counterparts, while others use it to sleep in on Sunday. Same goes for Catholics, Jews, Anglicans, Buddhists, etc etc etc. All types to make a world.


Oh, and your floods and snakes thing -- Samples of the various layers of earth have proven that there was a cataclysmic world flood. Since we humans weren't too bright back then, we made it into the Flood narrative. Ever hear of the tale of Gilgamesh? Yah, that's it too, and the timing synches up. So there was a huge flood 5,000+ years ago.

Also -- snakes used to have legs. Evolution says that as well as skeletons and a few extra bits and bobs in certain snakes species (kinda like our appendix). The Bible mentions that the snake would now have to crawl on his belly, indicating that it didn't used to. So yeah, that's two for two for us crazy Christians. As to the talking thing, I'd classify it as allegory/Aesop's fable-like method of introducing a moral to the story while Gato here would likely say "God makes all things possible. Plus this was before the Fall, so that changed things."

[Shawn Hopkins]

One last thing: I do have a question for the atheist/agnostics out there. I am a healthcare worker. I love what I do, because even though it's backbreakingly hard work and my feet kill me at the end of every shift and I sometimes wonder why in the hell I signed up for this, I get to meet so many interesting people every day. And a lot of the times, my patients are religious/spiritual and many have even asked me to sit and pray with them. Something which I, as a Christian, have no problem with. Especially because it gives the patient a sense of peace (which these very sick people badly need). But if you were atheist/agnostic, how would you feel if this stranger asked you about your religion and even asked if you would pray with them? Would you be offended? How would you respond? Or would you go ahead and pray with them, even though you didn't believe, if you knew it would make them happy? I'm just curious.


I would pray with them. I go to church, too, if someone asks me. Participating in religous rituals that are important to other people won't hurt you, and it won't hurt them if you don't fully believe in it. The only thing like this I really avoid doing is saying the "under god" part of the pledge of allegiance. That wasn't the original intent of the authors, it was added in the 1950s, actually. I just skip it and pick back up at indivisible.

[Humble]

Because, Luke, He is your father, and is always with you. He also died for you, is will to forgive you no matter what, and provided for you even though you have probably never said a word of thanks. And that's jusst some of the reasons.These reasons aren't able to change the nature of the idea of God I proposed in my question.

The idea of God I presented is comparable to a parent who only has children to satisfy their own desire to be loved. They have children so they can feel needed and loved and that's it. Taking care of someone because you want something in return is not the same as taking care of someone because you care about their well being.

God is suposed to be the greatest being imaginable. Well, I can't imagine the greatest being requiring ego boosters from its' creations. It's also why I can't bring myself to have faith in an idea of a God that requires worship.

Also, living my life and loving it seems like a good enough thanks to whoever is responsible for my existence. :p

-Humble

[The Guitar Slayer]

As an addendum, Gatomon, your answer is for "why a Christian should worship God." That's not Humble's question. If I'm Jewish and I think Jesus was a prophet, I'm not going to believe he died for me. He died for his faith, but that just makes him another martyr. Or I could be of another faith and think all this Judeo-Christian mumbo jumbo is a crock. Either way, you're not preaching to the choir -- stop trying to herd us in that way.

Humble -- we weren't made to be sheep and worship blindly. If so, we'd have wooly coats and taste great with mint. Evolution/God gave us free will to do whatever we wanted, including deciding what paths to follow. We're not dictated by our ids and biological imperatives -- some say that's a soul, others say it's evolution.

Why are we here, then, if not to worship and baaa? That's one of the great mysteries of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Nobody knows why God decided "Let's make humans." Or the rest of the world for that matter. We know why we have souls -- God made us in His own spiritual image. Why we're hanging out here is a big ol' question mark. Some may believe we're here for God's amusement (and I'm sure He gets a lot out of us!) but I think we're here for a reason. What that reason is, no one knows. You're asking what the meaning of life is, essentially.


Doug Adams is prolly right though. 42.

[seeker]

Hi all, I'm new here but couldn't resist responding to some misinformation.

Oh, and your floods and snakes thing -- Samples of the various layers of earth have proven that there was a cataclysmic world flood. Since we humans weren't too bright back then, we made it into the Flood narrative. Ever hear of the tale of Gilgamesh? Yah, that's it too, and the timing synches up. So there was a huge flood 5,000+ years ago. Just a few problems with this bit. Yes they have found evidence of floods all over the world but there is no evidence of a global flood, only local ones. In fact the Flood referred to in the Epic of Gilgamesh (which is the story that appears in the bible only with names and Gods changed) was only a flooding of the small valley Sumeria was in at the time.

Almost no serious scientist believes in a global flood for a series of reasons. For a better discussion of this subject (since a thorough discussion would take to long) go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html.


Also -- snakes used to have legs. Evolution says that as well as skeletons and a few extra bits and bobs in certain snakes species (kinda like our appendix). The Bible mentions that the snake would now have to crawl on his belly, indicating that it didn't used to. So yeah, that's two for two for us crazy Christians. As to the talking thing, I'd classify it as allegory/Aesop's fable-like method of introducing a moral to the story while Gato here would likely say "God makes all things possible. Plus this was before the Fall, so that changed things."Snakes did indeed have legs as did Whales, seals, mammals etc. In fact there are a lot of animals with vestigial bits of stuff on them including humans (we have vestigial tails).

Actually the talking bit (and the snake) relates back to the Epic of Gilgamesh where the story came from. The Adam in the bible appears as Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh and is described as communing with the animals (ie talking with them). If you remember the Adam and Eve version Adam is created and the animals are created for his companionship read Gen 2:20(Eve is apparently only created after Adam fails to bond with the goats etc. in the region). Clearly the author intends the understanding to be that Adam talked to animals.

The snake is interesting actually, the serpent was associated with the worship of the Sumerian goddess Astarte, a fertility goddess. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu is seduced and civilized by a woman which causes him to become mortal. Clearly this is paralleled in the bible by the notion of Eve seducing Adam (under the spell of Astarte if you will) with her sexuality (symbolized by the fruit of the tree) into a knowledge of good and evil.

The bible is an interesting collection of myths.

[Ben]

I'd just like to talk about the article this thread is based on for a moment, if I may. :p

I agree with the writer that the New Atheists have three flaws:

1. They're mean.
2. They're politically incompetent.
3. What they offer can't replace the function served by religion.

The writer emphasizes 1 and 2 in the conclusion but I really think 3 is the key for me. I'd rather keep the chance to consider the deeper questions of the spirit as part of a church community with historical and traditional links to the past than sit at home (or in a concrete office building with other atheists once a month) and think, "Well, at least I'm right." I'm willing to roll my eyes at the more ridiculous parts of Catholicism because the ritual and the community are what have meaning for me. Of course, reading Dawkins and Dennett and Gould and so many others has also had a profound effect on my life. But I can't sit down every week with 35 Dawkinses and meditate on the meaning of life.

It's also interesting that the writer sees Dennett as the most appealing of the three New Atheist thinkers. Dennett's writings certainly appeal to my romantic side much more than Dawkins's do, even when his methodologies started to get a little far out.


The bible is an interesting collection of myths.

Well, partly. It's also a remarkable book of history, theology, literature and philosophy, of lectures, letters, diaries and poetry. And it really is the most important single book anyone should read to understand Western culture.

[seeker]

The term atheism comes from a + theos, meaning without god. The original belief system, what is now referred to as "strong atheism," is the explicit rejection of the existence of god(s). It's not a "misconstrued view" held by "Christians," it's the classic formulation of atheism as opposed to agnosticism or nontheism.

It is true that many atheists see atheism as a simple lack of belief in gods (weak atheism) -- which is a fine distinction, but an important one. Our definitions were different, but neither was wrong. And mine was not "misconstrued."Some interesting characterizations. I would suggest that your notions of 'strong' and 'weak' atheism are beased on misunderstandings. It would be like me labeling you as a 'strong' ASantaClausist because you deny the existance of Santa Clause. My point is that to an athiest God is as much a fiction as Santa Clause.




Please explain to me the physical, observable factors that lead you to live your life the way you do. I think it's impossible to live day-to-day without taking certain (most, even) things on faith. Have you really had the time to subject every single assumption in your life to rigorous scientific inquiry?The big difference between us is not that we have faith in certain things but what we have faith in. I would look at the world and say that my experience and knowledge suggest that some things are likely and other things aren't just as you do. Unlike you though I would put little to no faith in something that has never been demonstrated to exist or have any effect.

Actually though I would take it even a step further. In some cases religions can be shown through their effects to have no sound basis. We can see for example that praying to Zeus, Isis, Odin, Mithra etc has no effect and worshippers gain nothing from it. I can say the same for all religions as a matter of fact. More than that I can show you how all of the Western Religions (including Christianity) derive form Egyptian and Sumerian religions that you would have no problem rejecting.




Yes, "weak atheism" is also a belief system, as you say. (I got you there. :)) An abstention is still a choice. A lack of belief in gods is part of a way of organizing the world, but that viewpoint must still involve a certain amount of faith and belief.Fine if you will admit to 'weak' ASantaClausism and AToothFairyism. Once again rejection of the absurd is not a belief system.


Yet science without bias is a myth. Everyone has their own subjectivity that they use to formulate hypotheses and choose methodologies. Scientists can reduce bias by having their conclusions confirmed by other scientists. But they can't eliminate it entirely.I agree with you that some scientists have biases but peer review and constant self correction at least make the attempt to minimize that bias. On the other hand many 'Christian' scientists don't participate in that sort of review which results in very poor science.

In general though you are really only making this claim because so much science disproves the historicity and veracity of the bible.




No. I am saying that no article of faith can be any more or less scientific than any other article of faith. Science cannot pass judgment on metaphysical questions. There are no measurable, empirical, observable elements that have to with spiritual questions. The error that science has some connection with truth has led both to "scientific atheism" and the creationism and intelligent design fiascos. Science is useful, but it isn't philosophically true. Metaphysical truth has to be found on an individual's spiritual journey.

Though of course if you have a scientific study handy that explains the human spirit in a couple hundred pages I'd love to see it.First off you are using the term faith a little loosely here. Faith that my watch will fall if I drop it IS scientifically provable. Faith in prayer can be shown to be misplaced statistically.

Spiritual matters are not provable but there are also no real reasons to think that much of what is thought of as 'spirituality' even exists.




Please explain this statement. Spirituality and science are two different things. Catholic Father George Lemaitre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre), the inventor of Big Bang theory, Gregor Mendel, the founder of genetics and a Catholic monk, Teilhard de Chardin, Descartes, many Christian scientists (that with a lowercase "s") understood that. I just explained that science is useful. Science can help (and has helped, Darwin in particular) me answer spiritual questions. But science alone cannot solve all the mysteries and contradictions of human consciousness, morality and mortality. If it tried, whatever conclusions it came up with would be unscientific.Again you are mistaken. Science in fact has made huge inroads in the study of Conciousness. Morality is a more philosophical matter but can be well understood logically. If by mortality you mean to imply some understanding of an afterlife then I would suggest you first show one even exists.




You're making me angry. If your beliefs are "unbiased" you should be able to defend them without making such belittling comments about my own spiritual journey. If you are so closed-minded, why should I open my mind to your ideas? (The same, by the way, could go for Gatomon, who seems to think that changing one's mind and allowing oneself to be affected by others' thoughts is a fatal fault.)Istead of getting angry don't you think your energy would be better used looking at the evidence? Having your beliefs questioned should be a welcome experience if your reason for bewlief is sound.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Almost no serious scientist believes in a global flood for a series of reasons. For a better discussion of this subject (since a thorough discussion would take to long) go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html.
The thing here is that the author of the article is tackling the flood story as all fact -- there probably wasn't a dude named Noah -- it's another allegory. Yes, there was a big water event, maybe not a giant-ass ark, but it's a good tool to use to illustrate the power of a godhead. However, there are other stories from the same era but totally different locations (China, Africa) where there is a giant flood, and there's soil to back it up. Either way, someone left the water on and there was a problem -- world wide flood, bad monsoon season, something.

...What is that thing on top of that mountain in Turkey anyway? Seriously.



The bible is an interesting collection of myths.
I'm aware of most the mythology you speak of (yay for the Final Fantasy series [and a few courses]). However, the difference between the Bible, Koran, and other holy stories is that their religions are still alive and well today. Until Christianity is dead like the Greek, Nordic, and Roman pantheons, it's not myth or fairy tales -- it's a religion that's yet to be proven as a complete and utter load of silliness. So while you technically will be right in a few hundred, maybe a thousand years, the Bible isn't mythology yet. :)


As to the rest of your post in response to Ben, saying that ideas in religion are "absurd" is an insult to its participants. God also =/= Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy; if it was, vocal atheists could just smile and nod and let the children believe it until they figure out themselves. Instead, we have some people having rather strong reactions to silly ol' Santa and Jesus here. If it was that trivial to you, then why are wasting time with us children?

As to the point Ben was making about Catholic scientists, it was in response to a claim that any religious person allows their faith to get in the way of scientific advancement -- apparently those guys didn't!

[seeker]

Just a quicj note before I start. I don't want you to think I am attacking you in any of my posts but I am responding because I think a lot of your posts exhibit quite a bit of misinformation that could be better understood. I hope you can accept it in that spirit.


I'd just like to talk about the article this thread is based on for a moment, if I may. :p

I agree with the writer that the New Atheists have three flaws:

1. They're mean.
2. They're politically incompetent.
3. What they offer can't replace the function served by religion.

The writer emphasizes 1 and 2 in the conclusion but I really think 3 is the key for me. I'd rather keep the chance to consider the deeper questions of the spirit as part of a church community with historical and traditional links to the past than sit at home (or in a concrete office building with other atheists once a month) and think, "Well, at least I'm right." I'm willing to roll my eyes at the more ridiculous parts of Catholicism because the ritual and the community are what have meaning for me. Of course, reading Dawkins and Dennett and Gould and so many others has also had a profound effect on my life. But I can't sit down every week with 35 Dawkinses and meditate on the meaning of life.

It's also interesting that the writer sees Dennett as the most appealing of the three New Atheist thinkers. Dennett's writings certainly appeal to my romantic side much more than Dawkins's do, even when his methodologies started to get a little far out.I respect your opinion about the article though I think you and the author are somewhat biased by your beliefs. While it seems mean to characterize religions (especially your own) in some of the ways they do those religions have caused a great deal of harm to humanity. All three of these writers have taken there stances because they feel we can no longer afford the luxury of holding onto belief systems that are divisive and mutually exclusive.




Well, partly. It's also a remarkable book of history, theology, literature and philosophy, of lectures, letters, diaries and poetry. And it really is the most important single book anyone should read to understand Western culture.First of all (and I study this quite a bit) there is very little in the bible that is historically accurate. One of the big problems in Biblical Archaeology is that the bible doesn't fit anywhere execpt for a brief period from 500BCE to about 100BCE. Even the New Testament is fraught with geographical and historical inaccuracy.

As to theology the Bible is a wondeful melange of trhe theologies of the Persians Greeks and Romans but we have other better and purer sources.

Literature, let's just say that there are better examples.

Philosophy, actually the bible's support of slavery, mysogyny, infanticide, rape, etc. suggest to me that there are better sources.

Frankly the bible serves as an interesting lok at the thinking of people as they are just refining civilization but little else.

[seeker]

The thing here is that the author of the article is tackling the flood story as all fact -- there probably wasn't a dude named Noah -- it's another allegory. Yes, there was a big water event, maybe not a giant-ass ark, but it's a good tool to use to illustrate the power of a godhead. However, there are other stories from the same era but totally different locations (China, Africa) where there is a giant flood, and there's soil to back it up. Either way, someone left the water on and there was a problem -- world wide flood, bad monsoon season, something.

...What is that thing on top of that mountain in Turkey anyway? Seriously.I agree it is purely an allegory to the notion that God is powerful and must be obeyed, an eerie message when you consider it. As to the other flood stories it is true other cultures have flood stories because other cultures lived near water (we do that) and experienced floods water does that) but they are unrelated. Here is a good discussion of that http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

The hoax about the finding on the mountain top in Turkey is discussed here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html.




I'm aware of most the mythology you speak of (yay for the Final Fantasy series [and a few courses]). However, the difference between the Bible, Koran, and other holy stories is that their religions are still alive and well today. Until Christianity is dead like the Greek, Nordic, and Roman pantheons, it's not myth or fairy tales -- it's a religion that's yet to be proven as a complete and utter load of silliness. So while you technically will be right in a few hundred, maybe a thousand years, the Bible isn't mythology yet. :)One man's mythology is another man's religion:lol:

[Humble]

Humble -- we weren't made to be sheep and worship blindly. If so, we'd have wooly coats and taste great with mint. Evolution/God gave us free will to do whatever we wanted, including deciding what paths to follow. We're not dictated by our ids and biological imperatives -- some say that's a soul, others say it's evolution.I was already aware of this, but felt the urge to post how I dispelled some of the weaker ideas of God thrown my way. Every once in while I talk about this stuff just for fun with the Franciscan Brothers and the philosophers on campus. I have problems. :p


Why are we here, then, if not to worship and baaa? That's one of the great mysteries of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Nobody knows why God decided "Let's make humans." Or the rest of the world for that matter. We know why we have souls -- God made us in His own spiritual image. Why we're hanging out here is a big ol' question mark. Some may believe we're here for God's amusement (and I'm sure He gets a lot out of us!) but I think we're here for a reason. What that reason is, no one knows. You're asking what the meaning of life is, essentially.If we did find out some deeper meaning wouldn't that mean all the lives that don't work towards it are meaning less? :p

I prefer the idea that someone gives their own life meaning.



Doug Adams is prolly right though. 42.
You can never go wrong with Douglas. :cool:

-Humble

[Ben]

Some interesting characterizations. I would suggest that your notions of 'strong' and 'weak' atheism are beased on misunderstandings. It would be like me labeling you as a 'strong' ASantaClausist because you deny the existance of Santa Clause. My point is that to an athiest God is as much a fiction as Santa Clause.

If Santa Claus does exist he's doing a real ****** job.


The big difference between us is not that we have faith in certain things but what we have faith in.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say.


I would look at the world and say that my experience and knowledge suggest that some things are likely and other things aren't just as you do. Unlike you though I would put little to no faith in something that has never been demonstrated to exist or have any effect.

You don't understand me.


Actually though I would take it even a step further. In some cases religions can be shown through their effects to have no sound basis. We can see for example that praying to Zeus, Isis, Odin, Mithra etc has no effect and worshippers gain nothing from it. I can say the same for all religions as a matter of fact. More than that I can show you how all of the Western Religions (including Christianity) derive form Egyptian and Sumerian religions that you would have no problem rejecting.

You don't have to, thanks professor. I've been there on my own. This is another problem I have with these talks -- everyone assumes I am terminally uninformed about my own religion, which is pretty ridiculous. If anything you should expect me to know more about Christianity than you. Though I would point out that it was Egyptian and Sumerian religions colliding with the radical narrative of Jewish monotheism that made the big splash, not just Egypt on its own.


Fine if you will admit to 'weak' ASantaClausism and AToothFairyism. Once again rejection of the absurd is not a belief system.


Absurd: The condition or state in which humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe wherein people's lives have no purpose or meaning.

I think atheism falls more on the absurd side than my beliefs do. :P

But to take the word as you meant to use it, yes, rejecting "absurd things" is a belief system. You would have to come up with some way to figure out what is absurd (let's say "ridiculous" for clarity's sake) and what isn't. You'd have to apply those standards across the board. I agree that Santa Claus is ridiculous because no toys appear magically under my tree at Christmas, but I don't agree that God is ridiculous because the limitless universe is impossible for me to understand completely and because almost the entire human race has agreed that there is a God, and that the idea is a useful one.

By the way, quantum physics seemed ridiculous to Einstein and he rejected it outright. It cost him his scientific career.


I agree with you that some scientists have biases but peer review and constant self correction at least make the attempt to minimize that bias. On the other hand many 'Christian' scientists don't participate in that sort of review which results in very poor science.

If you're talking about intelligent design proponents, they aren't scientists. Real Christian scientists are just as conscientious as scientists of other religions, and I bet they invented/discovered most of the crap you're using right now to make this post so comfortably.


In general though you are really only making this claim because so much science disproves the historicity and veracity of the bible.

Yeah right. Thanks for that peek into my head, because obviously you know my intentions better than I do. Did you read that part where I talked about how I'm not a Biblical literalist? Go back and read that part. Eesh.


First off you are using the term faith a little loosely here. Faith that my watch will fall if I drop it IS scientifically provable. Faith in prayer can be shown to be misplaced statistically.

I don't believe that asking God to give me a raise is going to help, so you can stop beating that horse right now. For me, prayer is an opportunity to commune with God and examine my life, desires and the lives of others. Though "God, please help me get through this 18-hour day" may work its way in there time and again.


Spiritual matters are not provable but there are also no real reasons to think that much of what is thought of as 'spirituality' even exists.

What do you think of as "spirituality?"


Again you are mistaken. Science in fact has made huge inroads in the study of Conciousness. Morality is a more philosophical matter but can be well understood logically. If by mortality you mean to imply some understanding of an afterlife then I would suggest you first show one even exists.

No, I'm not mistaken. I've read my Dennett and Dawkins and Blackmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore) and I wrote a very long paper in college analyzing a few of the Ten Commandments from a memetic point of view. The science of consciousness changed the way I view the world. But as I said above, it can't replace my need for spirituality. In fact I don't think I would have been equipped to process those books without my foundation as a Christian.


Istead of getting angry don't you think your energy would be better used looking at the evidence? Having your beliefs questioned should be a welcome experience if your reason for bewlief is sound.

I just don't like being called mind-bogglingly stupid. But maybe you do. Whatever floats your boat.

[The Guitar Slayer]

I was already aware of this, but felt the urge to post how I dispelled some of the weaker ideas of God thrown my way. Every once in while I talk about this stuff just for fun with the Franciscan Brothers and the philosophers on campus. I have problems. :p

Franciscans -- nice people but very stubborn. They were one of the more resistant orders to Vatican II -- they still liked their masses in Latin and a few other things. My hometown used to have Franciscans running the Church, and when they were finally taken out, the new diocesan priest had to go around to all the church members that had left over the Franciscans and make peace. They'd done some damage to the community by being a very unbending force.


If we did find out some deeper meaning wouldn't that mean all the lives that don't work towards it are meaning less? :p

I prefer the idea that someone gives their own life meaning.

I don't think it's so simple as there being one meaning for everyone or being a different meaning for every one....if we're making a big fuss over this, I'd hope there would be a more complex answer. Or maybe it's a simple one that is universal. So it's either way over our heads or sitting right in front of us saying "You dumbasses."

[Ben]

Just a quicj note before I start. I don't want you to think I am attacking you in any of my posts but I am responding because I think a lot of your posts exhibit quite a bit of misinformation that could be better understood. I hope you can accept it in that spirit.

No offense taken. I can get a little rough around the edges in these debates, so I should also say here that I don't mean to offend or anger you either. Though I may at some points give in to my constant temptation to be snarky. I apologize for that.


I respect your opinion about the article though I think you and the author are somewhat biased by your beliefs. While it seems mean to characterize religions (especially your own) in some of the ways they do those religions have caused a great deal of harm to humanity. All three of these writers have taken there stances because they feel we can no longer afford the luxury of holding onto belief systems that are divisive and mutually exclusive.

My problem with the argument that religion causes human suffering because it is "divisive and mutually exclusive" is that atheism is the same way. This article was a perfect example of that. These thinkers are unwilling to look for common ground even with those closest to them in thinking simply because even liberal Christians still believe in God. It doesn't get much more radically divisive and mutually exclusive than that, and frankly I don't see more division as a solution.

As I noted earlier in the thread, atheist ideologies presided over some of the most horrible, costly and drawn-out atrocities of the 20th century. Atheism has blood on its hands, just as much as Christianity does. Ask the priests in China who waste away and die in prison to this day.

As to the Bible stuff, let me say that just as I don't think all of the Bible is mythology, so also I don't think all of it is history. I was giving examples of the diversity of purpose of the parts of the Bible. They weren't meant as aggressive statements about its entirety, so I think you've overreacted a bit (and once again assumed I know less about my religion than you).


As to theology the Bible is a wondeful melange of trhe theologies of the Persians Greeks and Romans but we have other better and purer sources.

Name to me a single theological work that has had a larger influence on Western culture. You sure don't see people walking around with Lucretius under their arms.


Literature, let's just say that there are better examples.

Whoa there! If you're going to dismiss the beautiful poetry of Psalms, Wisdom, the Beatitudes, Proverbs and the parables of Jesus and the incredible prose narratives of the Old Testament and all of the other spellbinding passages of the Bible in a single sentence like that you're going to have to back that up. Have you read the Bible?


Philosophy, actually the bible's support of slavery, mysogyny, infanticide, rape, etc. suggest to me that there are better sources.

Yeah, thanks for the laundry list. I'll also point out that the parts of the Bible those things appear in are ethical prescriptions, not philosophical tracts. (And the rape/infanticide thing is part of a history, not a philosophy.) Read the epistles.


Frankly the bible serves as an interesting lok at the thinking of people as they are just refining civilization but little else.

No, it's also the most influential work of Western thought and literature. That you can't see that is a big problem that seems to me to reflect just how determined to isolate themselves from cultural reality some atheists are -- even if your intentions are good, you're shooting yourself in the foot by so carelessly dismissing such an important book.

[sarita]

Whoa there! If you're going to dismiss the beautiful poetry of Psalms, Wisdom, the Beatitudes, Proverbs and the parables of Jesus and the incredible prose narratives of the Old Testament and all of the other spellbinding passages of the Bible in a single sentence like that you're going to have to back that up. Have you read the Bible?

Oh my goodness yes. For all the hellish imagery, there are also some of the most beautiful things I have ever read, and I have read many books in my life so far.

You forgot Song of Solomon, Ben. One of my most favorite passages. I know it's a parable, but still, pretty steamy stuff.


No, it's also the most influential work of Western thought and literature. That you can't see that is a big problem that seems to me to reflect just how determined to isolate themselves from cultural reality some atheists are -- even if your intentions are good, you're shooting yourself in the foot by so carelessly dismissing such an important book.

Is it not true that the Bible is the most widely printed and read of all books in the world? Save for Harry Potter...ha ha.

And if that doesn't make it the most influential work, I don't know what does.

[seeker]

If Santa Claus does exist he's doing a real ****** job.I've written to the management about it but they just don't listen




That's exactly what I've been trying to say.You aren't asking for royalties are you?




You don't understand me.Okay, I'll agree to counseling but I'm not letting your mother move in.

Seriously, I do understand you and was answering your question. The basis of was I put my faith in is what I feel is likely.




You don't have to, thanks professor. I've been there on my own. This is another problem I have with these talks -- everyone assumes I am terminally uninformed about my own religion, which is pretty ridiculous. If anything you should expect me to know more about Christianity than you. Though I would point out that it was Egyptian and Sumerian religions colliding with the radical narrative of Jewish monotheism that made the big splash, not just Egypt on its own.Jewish monotheism was actually more likely an outgrowth of Egyptian monotheism that coincided with the dominance of the region buy Egypt during the reign of Amenhetep. Amenhetep is interesting because he promoted the worship of a God called Aten, as the god of absolute truth and justice, to become the national god of Egypt and divine ruler of all the countries of the Sudan and Western Asia that formed his dominions.

There are all sorts of examples of monotheism in that region. Most likely the Hebrews in Jeruselam worshipped the Canaanite pantheon that included El, Ba'al, Yaweh and Hada but tended to worship their war God, Yaweh, who was symbolized by a mountain because they lived in the mountains and were constantly at war with the various other groups around them. In fact the word for God in Genesis is Elohim which literally translates from Hebrew to "the Gods of El"






I think atheism falls more on the absurd side than my beliefs do. :PNo problem, you pray, I'll paint and we'll see who has better income at the end of the month:D


But to take the word as you meant to use it, yes, rejecting "absurd things" is a belief system. You would have to come up with some way to figure out what is absurd (let's say "ridiculous" for clarity's sake) and what isn't. You'd have to apply those standards across the board. I agree that Santa Claus is ridiculous because no toys appear magically under my tree at Christmas, but I don't agree that God is ridiculous because the limitless universe is impossible for me to understand completely and because almost the entire human race has agreed that there is a God, and that the idea is a useful one.First of all because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. It wasn't that long ago that a lot of people believed that the world was flat and the sun revolved around it.

As to your suggestion that God exists because so much exists that you can't understand what makes you think that assuming something you don't understand makes the other stuff you don't understand more palletable? (How's that for convoluted) I make no assumption about what I don't know at all.

Same with the notion of God, there's just no reason to assume one when everything is explainable without one


By the way, quantum physics seemed ridiculous to Einstein and he rejected it outright. It cost him his scientific career.It didn't cost him his career. He also didn't reject it outright. Put most briefly, Einstein held that the QM formalism is incomplete and that it is the job of theoretical physics to supply the missing parts.




If you're talking about intelligent design proponents, they aren't scientists. Real Christian scientists are just as conscientious as scientists of other religions, and I bet they invented/discovered most of the crap you're using right now to make this post so comfortably.Only because that religion was forced onto people in the West during the middle ages. Between the Inquisition and crusades anyone who wasn't saying they were Christian for around 1500 years was likely to be tortured and burned. No wonder most scientists were christian




Yeah right. Thanks for that peek into my head, because obviously you know my intentions better than I do. Did you read that part where I talked about how I'm not a Biblical literalist? Go back and read that part. Eesh.I also read the part where you claimed the bible contained history;)




I don't believe that asking God to give me a raise is going to help, so you can stop beating that horse right now. For me, prayer is an opportunity to commune with God and examine my life, desires and the lives of others. Though "God, please help me get through this 18-hour day" may work its way in there time and again.No problem, you see my point though




What do you think of as "spirituality?"How about we go with the dictionary definition: concern with things of the spirit

In trhis case of course we are referring to the notion of some incorporeal part of us which exists independant of the physical world.




No, I'm not mistaken. I've read my Dennett and Dawkins and Blackmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore) and I wrote a very long paper in college analyzing a few of the Ten Commandments from a memetic point of view. The science of consciousness changed the way I view the world. But as I said above, it can't replace my need for spirituality. In fact I don't think I would have been equipped to process those books without my foundation as a Christian.I am sure it was a very good paper however I am also sure that given the metaphysics of your beliefs that your definitions of explanations for these matters are different than mine. My suggestion is that people don't need that spiritual foundation so much as they have been trained to think they do.




I just don't like being called mind-bogglingly stupid. But maybe you do. Whatever floats your boat.I never called you mind bogglingly stupid.

[Ben]

I don't have the energy to reply to your post tonight (it's nearing 5 am here) but I just wanted to address this:


I never called you mind bogglingly stupid.

Earlier, someone else did, and my earlier reply that you quoted was in response to that. That was what made me angry, not having my beliefs questioned.

[seeker]

No offense taken. I can get a little rough around the edges in these debates, so I should also say here that I don't mean to offend or anger you either. Though I may at some points give in to my constant temptation to be snarky. I apologize for that.That's good. I enjoy discussions like this personally but they can rile people up.




My problem with the argument that religion causes human suffering because it is "divisive and mutually exclusive" is that atheism is the same way. This article was a perfect example of that. These thinkers are unwilling to look for common ground even with those closest to them in thinking simply because even liberal Christians still believe in God. It doesn't get much more radically divisive and mutually exclusive than that, and frankly I don't see more division as a solution.I think you are conflating atheism with the personal politics of those three individuals. Atheism itself espouses nothing.

That said though even the attitudes of those three are in reaction to the excesses of religion these days. I don't mind telling you that watching the current Isamic madness coupled with Christian eschatology is frightening.

Sam Harris in his book End of Faith makes a very good case for this being a time when faith is just too divisive to allow us to deal with these problems. One of the things that he points out is that even liberal Christianity must, by definition, look at non-christians as separate and lessor from people who believe as they do


As I noted earlier in the thread, atheist ideologies presided over some of the most horrible, costly and drawn-out atrocities of the 20th century. Atheism has blood on its hands, just as much as Christianity does. Ask the priests in China who waste away and die in prison to this day.Again though you are conflating atheism with someting else, in this case the Chinese governments intolerance of any rival to it's authority. The difference is that Hitler's anti semetism had a firm basis in religious doctrine (read Martin Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies" for a thorough discussion of this). Even the Inquisition was based on Christian doctrine (ie St. Augustine's notion of 'forcible conversion').


As to the Bible stuff, let me say that just as I don't think all of the Bible is mythology, so also I don't think all of it is history. I was giving examples of the diversity of purpose of the parts of the Bible. They weren't meant as aggressive statements about its entirety, so I think you've overreacted a bit (and once again assumed I know less about my religion than you).Not a problem yet my statement was only that it really doesn't serve even those, shall we say less aggressive, purposes.




Name to me a single theological work that has had a larger influence on Western culture. You sure don't see people walking around with Lucretius under their arms.Not a truly fair question when you think on it. What other book inspired it's followers to actually try to destroy all record of it's rivals? I could argue that while it certainly had a large impact on western society it did so largely because it was forced on that society over a period of a thousand years (well, closer to 1500).




Whoa there! If you're going to dismiss the beautiful poetry of Psalms, Wisdom, the Beatitudes, Proverbs and the parables of Jesus and the incredible prose narratives of the Old Testament and all of the other spellbinding passages of the Bible in a single sentence like that you're going to have to back that up. Have you read the Bible?Yes and I've also read Joyce, Rimbaud, and other great writers. Frankly I find it disjointed and self contradictory.




Yeah, thanks for the laundry list. I'll also point out that the parts of the Bible those things appear in are ethical prescriptions, not philosophical tracts. (And the rape/infanticide thing is part of a history, not a philosophy.) Read the epistles.Actually the rape and infanticide are commands from God. Slavery is discussed as law in Leviticus.

Even Jesus talks about dividing families and 'bringing the sword'. As to the epistles shall we speak of Paul and his exhortations to celebacy and Christ who died and returned in echo of the believers of mystery religions of the time? It really very interesting stuff.




No, it's also the most influential work of Western thought and literature. That you can't see that is a big problem that seems to me to reflect just how determined to isolate themselves from cultural reality some atheists are -- even if your intentions are good, you're shooting yourself in the foot by so carelessly dismissing such an important book.Okay, this should be easy for you to proive. What scientific advance did it contribute to? In what way has the condition of the world been improved (careful on this one)?

[Humble]

I don't think it's so simple as there being one meaning for everyone or being a different meaning for every one....if we're making a big fuss over this, I'd hope there would be a more complex answer. Or maybe it's a simple one that is universal. So it's either way over our heads or sitting right in front of us saying "You dumbasses."Between the two choices I'd love to see everyone's reaction to the latter. I can already here the philosophers smacking their forehead's. :D

The existentialist in me tends to make a fuss when I think about this problem. So much of life is so absurd that it borders on tragic and most of the time people are just assigning meaning to an event or piece of literature to affirm their own idea's.

Maybe I should lay off Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness for a bit.

-Humble

[SirLemming]

Actually the rape and infanticide are commands from God. Slavery is discussed as law in Leviticus. I know what you're referring to with the infanticide, but rape? I don't know about that. I think it's hard to say for sure that's what they were doing. There's something about "taking their women as your wives" and I think that could mean a couple of things, rape being the worst. Remember that this culture had some very different ideas about marriage and stuff, so... I don't know.
As for slavery, I'm confident the Israelites' institution of slavery -- at least as it was originally intended by God -- was not as barbaric as ours. Or the Egyptians'. Exodus has a lot to say about the evils of cruel slavery, doesn't it?


Even Jesus talks about dividing families and 'bringing the sword'. As to the epistles shall we speak of Paul and his exhortations to celebacy and Christ who died and returned in echo of the believers of mystery religions of the time? It really very interesting stuff. Well come on, that thing Jesus said is just a metaphor. A rhetorical device.
I'm not sure where you're going with the celibacy thing, but that was just a recommendation from Paul that even he didn't seem 100% sure of.



I don't think it's so simple as there being one meaning for everyone or being a different meaning for every one....if we're making a big fuss over this, I'd hope there would be a more complex answer. Or maybe it's a simple one that is universal. So it's either way over our heads or sitting right in front of us saying "You dumbasses." If I may indulge myself in some college-speak here, I think this is the key difference between total relativism/pluralism and the recent "postmodernist" trends. Everything is valid, but that doesn't mean everything is right. The basic idea here is that nobody believes one thing or another because he or she is smarter or stupider; it all comes from how you were raised and the culture that surrounds you, and the choices you made because of all that. We're not total doormats or completely products of our environment, I think, but it's not like I just discovered God on my own, or an atheist just knows all about science and stuff because he's really smart. It all comes from somewhere. So allowing this to be an equal playing field can be really beneficial to understanding each other, making peace, and maybe even finding the real answer. (The existence of a "real answer" may contradict postmodernism, and if so, then so be it. I view postmodernism as a good form of debate, not a good belief system.)

[The Guitar Slayer]

I think you are conflating atheism with the personal politics of those three individuals. Atheism itself espouses nothing.
Then once again, what are you arguing with us about? If it espouses nothing other than a lack of belief in God, why are you making such big posts? :p


That said though even the attitudes of those three are in reaction to the excesses of religion these days. I don't mind telling you that watching the current Isamic madness coupled with Christian eschatology is frightening.
Islamic madness? Christian eschatology? Current? Dude, where have you been since the Crusades? Hell, since the time these religions popped up about 2000 and 1400 years ago, respectively. This stuff has been going on for a long time, first off. Second, the world is just as scary as it was way back when -- you're just finally aware of it. Thirdly, you're talking about extremists, while being very vocal and annoying, are in the distinct minority.


Sam Harris in his book End of Faith makes a very good case for this being a time when faith is just too divisive to allow us to deal with these problems. One of the things that he points out is that even liberal Christianity must, by definition, look at non-christians as separate and lessor from people who believe as they do
Like what you're doing here with atheism? I understand.


Not a problem yet my statement was only that it really doesn't serve even those, shall we say less aggressive, purposes.I find passive aggressiveness even more annoying that just being a straight out asshat.


Not a truly fair question when you think on it. What other book inspired it's followers to actually try to destroy all record of it's rivals? I could argue that while it certainly had a large impact on western society it did so largely because it was forced on that society over a period of a thousand years (well, closer to 1500).
I call bull on that statement. While there have been periods where books have been destroyed in the name of God, it has sometimes resulted in the "controversial" literature to become insanely popular as a result. This probably has saved a fair number of books. Also, you have to remember that linguistics/translation wasn't a popular thing until the Renaissance. Only monks did it, and it was by hand -- very long and slow processes. Once the Greek and Roman classics were rediscovered in conjunction with the printing press, there was an increase in literacy among the Third Estate. Until that point, if a person can't even read their own language, why bother to destroy books in another language that MIGHT contain something contrary? Additionally, people didn't have copies of their own Bible until after the invention of the printing press in the late 1400s. All books were handwritten by monks, and you can bet that only churches and the rich got copies. The masses were in Latin anyway, so they spent most of their time looking at the stained glass windows, which were like the first Christian comic books. Sorry, but "those primitive Bible carriers burned beautiful books" thing doesn't wash -- there weren't enough books around to burn anyway, let alone for 1500 years. The only time that becomes feasible is during the late 1500s and early 1600s when the Puritans were burning down the Globe and screaming for censorship.


Yes and I've also read Joyce, Rimbaud, and other great writers. Frankly I find it disjointed and self contradictory.
Trying to read the Bible as one big book is like trying to every single Reader's Digest without having your brain spark out. You're dealing with 60 some-odd books that were meant to be read separately, minus the I and II's -- they were books written by different people, letters addressed to different people. Of course it's going to be disjointed.


Actually the rape and infanticide are commands from God. Slavery is discussed as law in Leviticus.
Erm. Atheist literalist much? Take a look at the times and context this is all in. We have this tiny tribe of people who are among the first monotheist faiths surrounded by polytheistic people who have a thing for human sacrifice. Kill them before they kill you, and make sure their faith does not survive -- destroy their idols. When there's about ten times more people than you, and it's fight for survival, yeah, you need to kill a fair amount including babies to get on an even battlefield and carve out some land for yourself. Survival of the fittest -- Darwin, much?

And may I have chapter and verse on the rape thing? If I'm thinking of what you're thinking, you're misreading the lesson to be taught by the concubine.



Okay, this should be easy for you to proive. What scientific advance did it contribute to? In what way has the condition of the world been improved (careful on this one)?
Are you a Vulcan more tightly wound than Spock or something? Why does it have to be about science? Is science EVERYTHING to you? Is it your trump card? And why does it have to be religion OR science?

If you were to pay attention to me (hi, loudmouth on the right wearing the funny socks), you would have caught the opener of my first post.



As the play Inherit the Wind says, "the Bible is a good book. A good book, but not the only book." My Catholic schoolin' says that the Bible is a theology book, not a history book, science book, math book, or anything else. It is right in all matters theological and moral relating to Christianity, but not infallible in terms of any other subject area.
The Bible isn't supposed to be about science. It's theology, morality, and ethics for a Christian people. And it's pretty well written in most spots too. St. Luke the Doctor gets the "best research award", St. James the "shoots from the hip" award, and Psalms gets the "Catchiest Tunes in History" award.

As to world improvement, many do-gooders in the world attribute their faith or lack thereof as a motivator. When people give into the donation box at church every Sunday, some of that money does go to help, whether it be locally or globally. It varies from place to place and charity to charity, but it does go back. I know Catholic Charities gives 90%+ back out -- 10% for admin costs and the like.

And if you're really itching for a specific example, Pope John Paul II and the fall of the Soviets. It's debatable how much he contributed, but he definitely got Poland up on its feet in protest several times, and the Russians apparently found him enough of a threat to hire out a gun against him. I know the guy said he worked alone, but too many dots connect for me to buy that. Oh, and despite some shady dealings by the higher ups, there were a lot of Catholics who died saving the Jews, Gypsies, gays, and disabled people from the Nazis. It was their Christian duty, regardless of who they were helping. Look up Corrie Ten Boom (sole survivor of her immediate family), Father Emilian Kowcz, and other martyrs from World War II. There are people who wouldn't be here today if someone had not acted out of "Christian charity" and saved their grandparents. I'm one of them. And pardon my ego, but I like this world and think it's a better place with me and other people in it.

[Ed Liu]

Every year, there always seems to be a thread pitting the two against one another, but it would be interesting to see if anyone is affiliated with another religion. I'd love to hear thoughts from Buddhists, for example.
Present and accounted for, although I freely admit that I'm a pretty rotten Buddhist ;). However, I'm not really sure what I can add to an argument between athiests and Christians other than a bit of confusion. One of the reasons why I settled in on Buddhism after my struggles with faith in college was that the Buddha didn't want anybody to follow his teachings on blind faith and didn't claim an exclusive lock on Truth. He set forth a set of axioms and built his belief system around them. If you can accept the axioms, the conclusions follow naturally. The axioms and the belief system that's built around them seemed to make the most sense to me logically and spiritually. It also meant that if you had a problem with the axioms, then the solution is simple -- don't be a Buddhist. In the Mahayana way of thinking, you'll come around to it eventually just like everybody else.

This also means that I tend to view most intra-religious arguments as people of different faiths (or lack thereof) arguing over whose axioms are right, and using their own axioms to "prove" that the others' axioms must be wrong -- entirely missing the fact that both sides are starting from fundamentally different places. This strikes me as about as productive an argument as two people arguing whether 1+1 is 10 or 2, when one side is using a binary numbering system and one is using decimal.

Buddhism is not Christianity with the names changed. If you want to be technical about it, there is no reliance on the divine anywhere in Buddhist thought. In fact, the whole point of the exercise is that the Buddha was human, not divine, and what he achieved is in reach of anybody clear-eyed enough to see it and mentally focused enough to follow. If you're not able to do that now, well, better luck next time.

I dislike proselytizers who seek to convert me to their way of spiritual thinking without any indication that they care what I have to say or think. This applies to those of faith and this new crop of athiests equally.

-- Ed

[seeker]

I know what you're referring to with the infanticide, but rape? I don't know about that. I think it's hard to say for sure that's what they were doing. There's something about "taking their women as your wives" and I think that could mean a couple of things, rape being the worst. Remember that this culture had some very different ideas about marriage and stuff, so... I don't know.I think this is prett clear

21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.Notice the woman has no choice in the matter.


As for slavery, I'm confident the Israelites' institution of slavery -- at least as it was originally intended by God -- was not as barbaric as ours. Or the Egyptians'. Exodus has a lot to say about the evils of cruel slavery, doesn't it?Funny you say that, where do you suppose the Hebrews got their notion of slavery from? (Hint: The Egyptians) In either case are you saying that the bibles suggestion that you must beat your slave when he (or she) doesn't please you but just don't beat them to death is okay?


Well come on, that thing Jesus said is just a metaphor. A rhetorical device.Are you sure that was the metaphor or was the "Love your enemy" part the metaphor? Maybe it was all a metaphor. My point is that it's not clear what was metaphor or even if all of it was. That's why the number of Christian denominations is in the thousands.


I'm not sure where you're going with the celibacy thing, but that was just a recommendation from Paul that even he didn't seem 100% sure of.Only that he was using pagan rhetoric that suggests Christianity has ties to other mystery religions of the time.


valid[/I], but that doesn't mean everything is right. The basic idea here is that nobody believes one thing or another because he or she is smarter or stupider; it all comes from how you were raised and the culture that surrounds you, and the choices you made because of all that. We're not total doormats or completely products of our environment, I think, but it's not like I just discovered God on my own, or an atheist just knows all about science and stuff because he's really smart. It all comes from somewhere. So allowing this to be an equal playing field can be really beneficial to understanding each other, making peace, and maybe even finding the real answer. (The existence of a "real answer" may contradict postmodernism, and if so, then so be it. I view postmodernism as a good form of debate, not a good belief system.)I must say that is very nicely stated.

I think it is fair to say we are in a post-post modernistic environment in which we are seeing that some of the beliefs that people have held onto are actually quite dangerous. Muslim fundamentalists are shouting kill while Christian fundamentalists prepare themselves to be God's Warriors (This is literally true by the way here in the US) and if we are to find common ground then there must be some admission that some ideas are not good to hold onto.

[The Guitar Slayer]

I think this is prett clear
Notice the woman has no choice in the matter.

Not many women before the twentieth century chose who they married freely. It's not considered rape then or now, but it's still wrong -- just ask most royals. Additionally, you're using a rather old version of the Bible -- King James. Get caught up with the new and groovy NIV or Catholic Bible. From the latter, this is the same section of text in context with the rest of the chapter.


When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, 11 if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, 12 5 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy21.htm#foot5) you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails 13 and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.This is regulating the marriage of Israelites to the captives, not rape. It's still carnal knowledge, but it's not a slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am like you're saying. He now has to treat her as a wife -- she gets all honors that come with being a wife. I'm surprised you didn't bring the Levites and the concubine story into the picture.


In either case are you saying that the bibles suggestion that you must beat your slave when he (or she) doesn't please you but just don't beat them to death is okay?

Take a look at the context this is all in (specifically the one I painted in my above post). Tiny tribe, lots of land. You need forced labour to start up your civilization. Your god has said, "Hey, use the dudes you just conquered rather than kill 'em all." Well, durr. What are you gonna use them for? Steak?

I'm also not finding your reference to beating slaves to the point of death -- chapter and verse, please.


Are you sure that was the metaphor or was the "Love your enemy" part the metaphor? Maybe it was all a metaphor. My point is that it's not clear what was metaphor or even if all of it was. That's why the number of Christian denominations is in the thousands.

(snerk)

Ok, you're quoting the Sermon on the Mount. Let's put this all into context, shall we? Jesus is standing on a mount, and he's talking to alot of people, k? And he says, "You have heard that the ancients were told..." and he rattles off all this jazz. He says what the Old Testament told people to do, and then he's like "Instead of listening to those old dead cats, I say this (cuz I'm liekthis with God. HI DAD!)...."

This is all in Matthew 5:21-48, for those following along. At any rate, he is discussing his philosophy and how it is different from the Torah's philosophy. They are different religions, yah know. So to cut to the final chase here:


43"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Basically, Jesus is saying that he expects better of his followers -- it's easy to love your friends, but it takes a real character to hope for the best even for those who hate your guts. Previously, he said that if a person wants to go to heaven, they have to behave better than the Pharisees and scribes, who were pretty big hypocrites. I think there's very little room for metaphor.



On the flip side, the sword thing -- I found in Numbers and Jeremiah that this phrase is used when Israel is about to be overrun and captured. If Jesus said it, you'll have to provide it chapter and verse. Otherwise, you got your J's confused.



Only that he was using pagan rhetoric that suggests Christianity has ties to other mystery religions of the time.

Uhm. Paul was a convert. He was a former pagan of the Roman pantheon. What else would he compare Christianity to? Aztec religion?

[seeker]

Then once again, what are you arguing with us about? If it espouses nothing other than a lack of belief in God, why are you making such big posts? :pWhy not? We could have a discussion about any number of topics, this one just happens to be one of mutual interest.;)



Islamic madness? Christian eschatology? Current? Dude, where have you been since the Crusades? Hell, since the time these religions popped up about 2000 and 1400 years ago, respectively. This stuff has been going on for a long time, first off. Second, the world is just as scary as it was way back when -- you're just finally aware of it. Thirdly, you're talking about extremists, while being very vocal and annoying, are in the distinct minority. I think you missed my point. It certainly has been going on for a long time but it doesn't have to keep going on. It goes on because these religions are mutually exclusive and doctrinally cannot abide each other,

I do agree with you that extremists drive a lot of this discussion but extremists are in charge of Iran, Iraq and the US. Extremism is always going to be there as long as people hold tp these outmoded beliefs



Like what you're doing here with atheism? I understand. Do you or are you just being contrary.


I find passive aggressiveness even more annoying that just being a straight out asshat.Thanks for displaying both behaviors so I know what to avoid.



I call bull on that statement. While there have been periods where books have been destroyed in the name of God, it has sometimes resulted in the "controversial" literature to become insanely popular as a result. This probably has saved a fair number of books. Also, you have to remember that linguistics/translation wasn't a popular thing until the Renaissance. Only monks did it, and it was by hand -- very long and slow processes. Once the Greek and Roman classics were rediscovered in conjunction with the printing press, there was an increase in literacy among the Third Estate. Until that point, if a person can't even read their own language, why bother to destroy books in another language that MIGHT contain something contrary? Additionally, people didn't have copies of their own Bible until after the invention of the printing press in the late 1400s. All books were handwritten by monks, and you can bet that only churches and the rich got copies. The masses were in Latin anyway, so they spent most of their time looking at the stained glass windows, which were like the first Christian comic books. Sorry, but "those primitive Bible carriers burned beautiful books" thing doesn't wash -- there weren't enough books around to burn anyway, let alone for 1500 years. The only time that becomes feasible is during the late 1500s and early 1600s when the Puritans were burning down the Globe and screaming for censorship. You apparently haven't read your history. I'll mention just one incident (though there are many).

The Royal Library of Alexandria in Alexandria, Egypt, was once the largest library in the world. It is generally thought to have been founded at the beginning of the 3rd century BC, during the reign of Ptolemy II of Egypt, after his father had built what would become the first part of the library complex, the temple of the Muses—the Musaion (from which is derived the modern English word museum).

Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica, written around 440:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Cquote1.png/20px-Cquote1.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cquote1.png)
At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum. Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples.

This incident alone destroyed 6 centuries worth of irreplaceable history all in the name of religion.



Trying to read the Bible as one big book is like trying to every single Reader's Digest without having your brain spark out. You're dealing with 60 some-odd books that were meant to be read separately, minus the I and II's -- they were books written by different people, letters addressed to different people. Of course it's going to be disjointed. Not only that but even within each book there are different authors. Biblical Scholars count up to five authors of the book of Genesis alone.

Yet if you are going to promote a book as literature it's not a bad idea to at least have coherance and cohesiveness as attributes.



Erm. Atheist literalist much? Take a look at the times and context this is all in. We have this tiny tribe of people who are among the first monotheist faiths surrounded by polytheistic people who have a thing for human sacrifice. Kill them before they kill you, and make sure their faith does not survive -- destroy their idols. When there's about ten times more people than you, and it's fight for survival, yeah, you need to kill a fair amount including babies to get on an even battlefield and carve out some land for yourself. Survival of the fittest -- Darwin, much?That's cool but why dash the babies heads against rocks? In fact how does killing everyone (except the virgins of course) advance morality?


And may I have chapter and verse on the rape thing? If I'm thinking of what you're thinking, you're misreading the lesson to be taught by the concubine. Dueteronomy 20:11-14


21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.



Are you a Vulcan more tightly wound than Spock or something? Why does it have to be about science? Is science EVERYTHING to you? Is it your trump card? And why does it have to be religion OR science? unfortunately science doesn't support religion. More to the point religion holds us back from scientific advance


If you were to pay attention to me (hi, loudmouth on the right wearing the funny socks), you would have caught the opener of my first post. Sorry man, it was those crazy socks



The Bible isn't supposed to be about science. It's theology, morality, and ethics for a Christian people. And it's pretty well written in most spots too. St. Luke the Doctor gets the "best research award", St. James the "shoots from the hip" award, and Psalms gets the "Catchiest Tunes in History" award.Brittany Spears won a Grammy too


As to world improvement, many do-gooders in the world attribute their faith or lack thereof as a motivator. When people give into the donation box at church every Sunday, some of that money does go to help, whether it be locally or globally. It varies from place to place and charity to charity, but it does go back. I know Catholic Charities gives 90%+ back out -- 10% for admin costs and the like. Like I said above, not all Christians are extremists but Christian doctrine guarantees a certain percentage of Christians will be extremists.


And if you're really itching for a specific example, Pope John Paul II and the fall of the Soviets. It's debatable how much he contributed, but he definitely got Poland up on its feet in protest several times, and the Russians apparently found him enough of a threat to hire out a gun against him. I know the guy said he worked alone, but too many dots connect for me to buy that. Oh, and despite some shady dealings by the higher ups, there were a lot of Catholics who died saving the Jews, Gypsies, gays, and disabled people from the Nazis. It was their Christian duty, regardless of who they were helping. Look up Corrie Ten Boom (sole survivor of her immediate family), Father Emilian Kowcz, and other martyrs from World War II. There are people who wouldn't be here today if someone had not acted out of "Christian charity" and saved their grandparents. I'm one of them. And pardon my ego, but I like this world and think it's a better place with me and other people in it.Actually the relationship between Christianity and Hitler is really interesting stuff. Germany had been the center of the Holy Roman Empire (Different from the Roman Empire trhe Holy Roman Empire was started by the barbarians who were converted by Christians after the fall of Rome). Later Martin Luther created Lutheranism. By the time Hitler came along it was very for Catholics, Lutherans and Protestants to conduct pograms against the Jews (basically just round up and kill a bunch of them) In fact it was common practice to force the jews to wear some form of identification as a Jew (Usually a star) and only let them live in certain areas of a city (this is where the term 'ghetto' came from). What Hitler did was just a more efficient version.

As to Pope John II and the Soviets I'll take your word on it though I think the fall of the USSR had more to do with economics.

[Roman Legion]

I was gonna stay out of this, but someone had to bring up Venetian history...


In fact it was common practice to force the jews to wear some form of identification as a Jew (Usually a star) and only let them live in certain areas of a city (this is where the term 'ghetto' came from). What Hitler did was just a more efficient version.Yeah, let's just conveniently skip over the actual Venetian origins of the Ghetto, along with all the benefits to be had for Jews living there, compared to... well, living anywhere else as a Jew during that time. Venetian Jews may not have had equal social standing, but they were a critical part of the Venetian world, not a group to be round up and killed off.

Whenever you question an older culture's practices, you should always try to compare things to the other cultures at the time. What might look bad in a modern light might not have been such a bad deal way back when, given the other options.

--Romey

[seeker]

Not many women before the twentieth century chose who they married freely. It's not considered rape then or now, but it's still wrong -- just ask most royals. Additionally, you're using a rather old version of the Bible -- King James. Get caught up with the new and groovy NIV or Catholic Bible. From the latter, this is the same section of text in context with the rest of the chapter.

This is regulating the marriage of Israelites to the captives, not rape. It's still carnal knowledge, but it's not a slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am like you're saying. He now has to treat her as a wife -- she gets all honors that come with being a wife. I'm surprised you didn't bring the Levites and the concubine story into the picture.:lol: Sorry but if you are advocating grabbing a girl whose relatives you just killed, shaving her head, and having sex with her whether she wants to or not as 'normal marriage I can only suggest that you get out more often...the again maybe it would be best if you stay home.




Take a look at the context this is all in (specifically the one I painted in my above post). Tiny tribe, lots of land. You need forced labour to start up your civilization. Your god has said, "Hey, use the dudes you just conquered rather than kill 'em all." Well, durr. What are you gonna use them for? Steak? Actually most of the time they killed all the males. BTW Exodus 21:7 has instructions for selling your daughter as a slave and it was common pratice for debtors to serve their debts out as slaves. Exodus 21:2 explains the buying of Hebrew slaves.


I'm also not finding your reference to beating slaves to the point of death -- chapter and verse, please.
Exodus 21:20



(snerk)

Ok, you're quoting the Sermon on the Mount. Let's put this all into context, shall we? Jesus is standing on a mount, and he's talking to alot of people, k? And he says, "You have heard that the ancients were told..." and he rattles off all this jazz. He says what the Old Testament told people to do, and then he's like "Instead of listening to those old dead cats, I say this (cuz I'm liekthis with God. HI DAD!)...."

This is all in Matthew 5:21-48, for those following along. At any rate, he is discussing his philosophy and how it is different from the Torah's philosophy. They are different religions, yah know. So to cut to the final chase here:


Basically, Jesus is saying that he expects better of his followers -- it's easy to love your friends, but it takes a real character to hope for the best even for those who hate your guts. Previously, he said that if a person wants to go to heaven, they have to behave better than the Pharisees and scribes, who were pretty big hypocrites. I think there's very little room for metaphor. I could make up all kinds of stuff about the story and call it allegory. I could as easily say that the true part was Jesus saying "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. " Matt 10:21, after all that is one of the few predictions in the bible to actually have come true.

My point here is that you can take bits and peices of the bible and accept or dismiss any of them by taking what you want as truth and what you don't as allegory. That's the problem with the type of parsing you are doing.




On the flip side, the sword thing -- I found in Numbers and Jeremiah that this phrase is used when Israel is about to be overrun and captured. If Jesus said it, you'll have to provide it chapter and verse. Otherwise, you got your J's confused. Ask and you shall recieve:

Matt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.





Uhm. Paul was a convert. He was a former pagan of the Roman pantheon. What else would he compare Christianity to? Aztec religion?Paul is also the creator of much of what is considered Christian Doctrine

[seeker]

I was gonna stay out of this, but someone had to bring up Venetian history...

Yeah, let's just conveniently skip over the actual Venetian origins of the Ghetto, along with all the benefits to be had for Jews living there, compared to... well, living anywhere else as a Jew during that time. Venetian Jews may not have had equal social standing, but they were a critical part of the Venetian world, not a group to be round up and killed off.Actually the first recorded written use of the word occurred in 1611 in Coryat’s Crudities, in which he describes "the place where the whole fraternity of the lews (sic) dwelleth together, which is called the Ghetto." After this initial use, the word appears infrequently in written form until the late 19th century, when the social landscape of city becomes the subject of many authors and scholars.

I think the Oxford dictionary accredits it to Venice but certainly by the time of Coryat's writing that is it's definition. In fact even Oxford says that it is of uncertain origin.

PS I did a little research. The word historically referred specifically to the Venetian Ghetto in Venice, Italy, where Jews were required to live; it derives from the Venetian gheto (slag from Latin GLĬTTU[M] cfr. Italian ghetto (slag)), and referred to the area of the Cannaregiosestiere, the site selected for the Ghetto Nuovo where a foundry cooled the slag (campo gheto). It was later applied to neighborhoods in other cities where Jews were required to live. The corresponding German term was Judengasse; in Moroccan Arabic ghettos were called mellah.


Whenever you question an older culture's practices, you should always try to compare things to the other cultures at the time. What might look bad in a modern light might not have been such a bad deal way back when, given the other options.

--RomeyOf course sometimes you find that what was commonly accepted was completely wrong as well. I do welcome you to tell me how forcing these conditions on the Jews was a good thing. As far as I can tell Their is ample reason to suspect Christian hatred of the Jews. perhaps you have another reason in mind.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Thanks for displaying both behaviors so I know what to avoid.
I was going the round about way, hoping you'd take the hint since you're a nit-picky sort. So as not to be a hypocrite, I'll say it here. You're being annoyingly passive aggressive. I'm a shoot-from-the-hip asshat Tada.


You apparently haven't read your history. I'll mention just one incident (though there are many).
Ahem. History major. Third year. Don't get cute. I was thinking books in the modern form rather than the handwritten/tablet form -- I was thinking Puritans more than Ptolemy.


Not only that but even within each book there are different authors. Biblical Scholars count up to five authors of the book of Genesis alone.
Priestly, Elohist, Jahwist, and Deuteronical, if my memory serves right. And then we have "Moses" who compiled them -- whether it was the man directly, people working under him or otherwise is unknown. At any rate, Genesis is the collection of creation stories of the world, the world post flood (however big that is), and the Hebrew people.

You're being a bit slow on the rape thing too -- that's the treatment of female captives, and they did get perks for marrying into the religion. The source you're providing is King James, which dates back to the 1600s. The source I'm giving is a retranslation of the same books fromt his century -- new and improved and far more accurate. The terms clearly state husband and wife. Come on, you said "rape is ok" is in the Bible somewhere, so show your cards. Or shall I make your job easy and call up the concubine story?


Yet if you are going to promote a book as literature it's not a bad idea to at least have coherance and cohesiveness as attributes.
Dude, 60+ books. Go read Psalms. JUST PSALMS. Or Luke. JUST LUKE. One book. Just one book, not the whole thing.


That's cool but why dash the babies heads against rocks? In fact how does killing everyone (except the virgins of course) advance morality?
It's not about morality there. It's tactics.

1) Those orphans are going to have mad angst issues when they grow up. They will pick up the sword for the fallen. Ergo, get rid of them.

2) Virgins aren't romantically linked with any man -- the new husbands won't have to deal with any situations arising from the state of ex-husband and how they became that way. They were squickier about stealing wives than killing people.

3) Virgins are also a plus because they won't have any VD or oddball diseases from their tribe -- what may be a minor thing for the tribe may become a massive thing for the Israelites. Disease control.


unfortunately science doesn't support religion. More to the point religion holds us back from scientific advance
Religion doesn't always support science either. We still belive in that. And Ben's already proven that religion does not necessarily hold us back from scientific advances (Mendel, et al).


Brittany Spears won a Grammy too
What weighs more, Pulitzers or Grammys? Apples and oranges.


Like I said above, not all Christians are extremists but Christian doctrine guarantees a certain percentage of Christians will be extremists.
Just like the lack of guidelines in atheism will breed extremists there too. Same thing goes for any faith system or lack thereof. Also, there are just some plain whackjobs out there in the world. Craziness knows no bounds sexually, ethically, religiously, geographically, etc. etc. etc.


Actually the relationship between Christianity and Hitler is really interesting stuff. Germany had been the center of the Holy Roman Empire (Different from the Roman Empire trhe Holy Roman Empire was started by the barbarians who were converted by Christians after the fall of Rome). Later Martin Luther created Lutheranism. By the time Hitler came along it was very for Catholics, Lutherans and Protestants to conduct pograms against the Jews (basically just round up and kill a bunch of them) In fact it was common practice to force the jews to wear some form of identification as a Jew (Usually a star) and only let them live in certain areas of a city (this is where the term 'ghetto' came from). What Hitler did was just a more efficient version.
Read your history about blood libel, the Golem, and pogroms. And also what Romey said.


As to Pope John II and the Soviets I'll take your word on it though I think the fall of the USSR had more to do with economics.
If you don't have one of your principal breadbasket nations cranking out the bread it used to because some dude in a funny hat in Rome told them not to, yeah, economic problems do arise.


Of course sometimes you find that what was commonly accepted was completely wrong as well. I do welcome you to tell me how forcing these conditions on the Jews was a good thing. As far as I can tell Their is ample reason to suspect Christian hatred of the Jews. perhaps you have another reason in mind.
Hmm, so I'm a baby killer, and Romey's a Jew-hater. Keep spinnin'.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Present and accounted for, although I freely admit that I'm a pretty rotten Buddhist ;). However, I'm not really sure what I can add to an argument between athiests and Christians other than a bit of confusion.

-- Ed
Actually, my general thrust was that I'd like to see more threads discussing other religions...:)


I dislike proselytizers who seek to convert me to their way of spiritual thinking without any indication that they care what I have to say or think. This applies to those of faith and this new crop of athiests equally.

Agreed. My personal problem with Dawkins and his like isn't that I necessarily disagree with their arguments, but how their single-minded convictions render them incredibly arrogant and intolerant of any kind of discourse. If it's one thing I can't stand, it's an arrogant proselytizer.

[Roman Legion]

Actually the first recorded written use of the word occurred in 1611 in Coryat’s Crudities, in which he describes "the place where the whole fraternity of the lews (sic) dwelleth together, which is called the Ghetto." After this initial use, the word appears infrequently in written form until the late 19th century, when the social landscape of city becomes the subject of many authors and scholars.The Venetian word for foundry is getto, and the Jews resided there long before 1611. Works for me.


Of course sometimes you find that what was commonly accepted was completely wrong as well.In whose opinion? Or can you factually prove that modern ideas about morality are better?


I do welcome you to tell me how forcing these conditions on the Jews was a good thing.When did good become an absolute? You and your oppressive morality...

Relegating Jews to the ghetto might not have been ideal by our standards, but jeez. Venice was a cramped city, a center of international trade, in the midst of a strict Catholic region, not far from Pope himself, and often at direct odds with the Vatican (the entire city was even excommunicated at least twice). The Jews weren't the only group to be sectioned off (the entire island has divisions). They had guaranteed religious freedom. They may have lived behind locked gates at night, but they hired their own guards. They were free to leave Venice altogether, but given the anti-Jewish atmosphere of the day, why would they want to? Why would they even want to have potentially dangerous outsiders living among them? They were downright fortified. They even had one of the world's greatest naval powers as protection.

...which isn't to say they didn't have to put up with a lot, but ideal situations don't happen overnight. There's a cold hard reality out there which likes to laugh in the face of our so-called 'ideals'. We should always strive for the better, but you can't pass judgment on others without understanding the context in which they lived.

--Romey

[seeker]

I was going the round about way, hoping you'd take the hint since you're a nit-picky sort. So as not to be a hypocrite, I'll say it here. You're being annoyingly passive aggressive. I'm a shoot-from-the-hip asshat Tada. Maybe but if I go for asshat we'll just cancel eachother out




Ahem. History major. Third year. Don't get cute. I was thinking books in the modern form rather than the handwritten/tablet form -- I was thinking Puritans more than Ptolemy. Hmmmm, getting cute is very tempting here.




Priestly, Elohist, Jahwist, and Deuteronical, if my memory serves right. And then we have "Moses" who compiled them -- whether it was the man directly, people working under him or otherwise is unknown. At any rate, Genesis is the collection of creation stories of the world, the world post flood (however big that is), and the Hebrew people.Since you know a little of history then you'll know what I mean when I tell you I'm a biblical minimalist and I would attribute the Pentateuch to the Persians with later redactions by hellenists


You're being a bit slow on the rape thing too -- that's the treatment of female captives, and they did get perks for marrying into the religion. Come on, you said it's there, so show your cards. Or shall I make your job easy and call up the concubine story?I'm not being slow at all, I'm just not assuming anything in the reading of it. It very clearly details what the man does and gives the woman no choice. If you want to argue that some women went along with that I'd probably agree but the fact is that if a woman doesn't want to have her captor 'go in unto her' she has no option but to be killed or left homeless and abandoned to die. That my friend is rape.




Dude, 60+ books. Go read Psalms. JUST PSALMS. Or Luke. JUST LUKE. One book. Just one book, not the whole thing.I have many times. The difference between us is that I read it critically.




It's not about morality there. It's tactics.

1) Those orphans are going to have mad angst issues when they grow up. They will pick up the sword for the fallen. Ergo, get rid of them.

2) Virgins aren't romantically linked with any man -- the new husbands won't have to deal with any situations arising from the state of ex-husband and how they became that way. They were squickier about stealing wives than killing people.

3) Virgins are also a plus because they won't have any VD from their tribe -- what may be a minor thing for the tribe may become a massive thing for the Israelites. Disease control.1). Babies raised by loving families don't have to have angst issues and would actually be an asset.

2). Virgins aren't going to have angst issues? (Sorry, I was getting cute again)

3). True

Seriously though how can you claim any of this as a moral act? Remember this is supposed to be a book detailing God's morality amongst other things.


Religion doesn't always support science either. We still belive in that. And Ben's already proven that religion does not necessarily hold us back from scientific advances (Mendel, et al).Actually Ben failed to prove that (nice try though). Surely you know about Copernicus for example




What weighs more, Pulitzers or Grammys? Apples and oranges.[quote]In the end nothing weighs anything. Maybe that's why mass is conducted with such gravity.



[quote=The Guitar Slayer]Just like the lack of guidelines in atheism will breed extremists there too. Same thing goes for any faith system or lack thereof. Also, there are just some plain whackjobs out there in the world. Craziness knows no bounds sexually, ethically, religiously, geographically, etc. etc. etc.
:lol: Nice try but the problem you have once again is that atheism has nothing to be extreme about. Maybe you could have extreme rationalists but we already have them, they are called scientists.

Yes there are whackos, I think it's helpful not to validate their crazier ideas.



Read your history about blood libel, the Golem, and pogroms. And also what Romey said. Romey was wrong as I showed above:lol:

As to blood libel are you sure you want to bring up how Christians used to accuse the Jews of human sacrifice etc.? It does illustrate my point though that Hitler was just in line with Christians of his time. Thanks




If you don't have one of your principal breadbasket nations cranking out the bread it used to because some dude in a funny hat in Rome told them not to, yeah, economic problems do arise.The USSR was never a breadbasket nation, only 10% of that country was suitable for agriculture the rest was too cold, too poorly drained, too dry, or too mountainous. In fact they hasd a history of economic underperformance. Their economic problems had more to do with having to many unskilled laborers and not enough skilled laborers.

The big soviet industry was mining

[seeker]

The Venetian word for foundry is getto, and the Jews resided there long before 1611. Works for me.sweet


In whose opinion? Or can you factually prove that modern ideas about morality are better?Far be it from me to impose any facist morality on you that segregation and bigotry are wrong :D


When did good become an absolute? You and your oppressive morality...You have a point. Tell you what. I'll take god since I'm oppressive that way and you can have the bad.

Of course that's always the problem isn't it? You always have to be concerned about which of those gets done to you.


Relegating Jews to the ghetto might not have been ideal by our standards, but jeez. Venice was a cramped city, a center of international trade, in the midst of a strict Catholic region, not far from Pope himself, and often at direct odds with the Vatican (the entire city was even excommunicated at least twice). The Jews weren't the only group to be sectioned off (the entire island has divisions). They had guaranteed religious freedom. They may have lived behind locked gates at night, but they hired their own guards. They were free to leave Venice altogether, but given the anti-Jewish atmosphere of the day, why would they want to? Why would they even want to have potentially dangerous outsiders living among them? They were downright fortified. They even had one of the world's greatest naval powers as protection.

...which isn't to say they didn't have to put up with a lot, but ideal situations don't happen overnight. There's a cold hard reality out there which likes to laugh in the face of our so-called 'ideals'. We should always strive for the better, but you can't pass judgment on others without understanding the context in which they lived.

--RomeyWow, you manage to completely dismiss the anti-semitism that made the Ghetto necessary in the first place. It only requires that we allow one group of people to hate another one. Of course if you were a Jew living then... well... let's just be glad you weren't

[Roman Legion]

Wow, you manage to completely dismiss the anti-semitism that made the Ghetto necessary in the first place. It only requires that we allow one group of people to hate another one. Of course if you were a Jew living then... well... let's just be glad you weren'tI was just questioning a bit of your history. You're the one who jumped the gun and brought down a bunch of arguments on me that I hadn't targeted, while trumpeted that you'd shown I was wrong.

...and how can I dismiss virulent anti-semitism by acknowledging it?
You're running in circles trying to be right at every turn. Relax.

Romey
--Something's wrong when I'm the one making the morally relativist arguments. =P

[The Guitar Slayer]

Since you know a little of history then you'll know what I mean when I tell you I'm a biblical minimalist and I would attribute the Pentateuch to the Persians with later redactions by hellenists

Hrm, too bumpy for the Persians, though. Multiple writers sits better with me.


I'm not being slow at all, I'm just not assuming anything in the reading of it. It very clearly details what the man does and gives the woman no choice. If you want to argue that some women went along with that I'd probably agree but the fact is that if a woman doesn't want to have her captor 'go in unto her' she has no option but to be killed or left homeless and abandoned to die. That my friend is rape.

Once again, you've ignored the newer, more accurate translation of what is in the Bible that I've provided. King James is from the 1600s and NASB is from the late 1900s -- there is a difference between the carnal knowledge with no societal benefit KJV describes and the wife status granted in the newer translation. The latter translation also implies that this wasn't for a roll in the hay -- the guy was going to stay married for her for life. How different is that from any of the early royal marriages? If a woman was unmarried and in a strange land, she would likely work in the fields -- the story of Ruth.


I have many times. The difference between us is that I read it critically.

As do I. We must have different tastes.



1). Babies raised by loving families don't have to have angst issues and would actually be an asset.

Not when you look very different from the rest of your family and are confronted rather cruelly with the truth when you're mocked by others.


2). Virgins aren't going to have angst issues? (Sorry, I was getting cute again)

The virgins are going to be getting wife benefits, not to mention the offspring they'll produce. They will have an elevated status in society. Even in the verses states, she actually get treated better than a normal wife -- he can't dump and run.


Seriously though how can you claim any of this as a moral act? Remember this is supposed to be a book detailing God's morality amongst other things.

God doesn't really have a morality like humans have morality. Morality is living up to your beliefs in God. At the time, Israel was carving out land for itself among hostile nations. Therefore, it synched up with this quest that God was a bit of a conqueror and warmonger.


Actually Ben failed to prove that (nice try though). Surely you know about Copernicus for example

Um, no, he didn't fail. You sorta just plugged your ears and went LALALAALAALAA!


As to blood libel are you sure you want to bring up how Christians used to accuse the Jews of human sacrifice etc.? It does illustrate my point though that Hitler was just in line with Christians of his time. Thanks

And yet he doesn't bother to mention any of the other things I told him to look up. Tsk tsk.


The USSR was never a breadbasket nation, only 10% of that country was suitable for agriculture the rest was too cold, too poorly drained, too dry, or too mountainous. In fact they hasd a history of economic underperformance. Their economic problems had more to do with having to many unskilled laborers and not enough skilled laborers.

The big soviet industry was mining

You're telling this to a granddaughter of Ukrainian farmers. Ha. Let's get this straight -- most of USSR was not populated as densely as the area stretching from the German borders to the heart of Russia's major cities. Everything to the east of that is very sparsely populated.

The USSR was not a breadbasket nation, no -- the money was in mining -- but being behind the Iron Curtain meant you had to be very self-sufficient. Poland and Ukraine were under Soviet control, the latter moreseo than the former. They were west enough and south enough to be warm enough to grow food. They were the two nations that fed the entire Soviet Union -- the breadbaskets. Ukraine also was good for cattle -- in addition to a grain farm, my great-grandparents raised cows. So you have these two countries feeding the whole of the expanse that is the USSR, including the yokels all the way out near Mongolia. So if one them starts paying attention to the funny hat wearing Polish guy in Rome and starts refusing and resisting, that's 50% of your ability to feed your own mouths gone. That's bad no matter how you spin int.

[seeker]

I was just questioning a bit of your history. You're the one who jumped the gun and brought down a bunch of arguments on me that I hadn't targeted, while trumpeted that you'd shown I was wrong.

...and how can I dismiss virulent anti-semitism by acknowledging it?
You're running in circles trying to be right at every turn. Relax.

Romey
--Something's wrong when I'm the one making the morally relativist arguments. =PI know, I usually find I'm the one making them. I think you made me panic;)

[The Guitar Slayer]

:lol: Sorry but if you are advocating grabbing a girl whose relatives you just killed, shaving her head, and having sex with her whether she wants to or not as 'normal marriage I can only suggest that you get out more often...the again maybe it would be best if you stay home.

First off, I am a woman who does have a nice existence. Second off, the hair shaving thing as well as the nail cutting is a mourning ritual indigenous to the region -- the mourning period in many cultures has the person leave the community temporarily and mourn nonstop -- no bathing, no person hygiene. At that point, she's probably very ticky or licey and has really long nails. Once again, disease control, and as a woman, I'd be the first to give myself a GI Jane haircut if I was infested.



Actually most of the time they killed all the males. BTW Exodus 21:7 has instructions for selling your daughter as a slave and it was common pratice for debtors to serve their debts out as slaves. Exodus 21:2 explains the buying of Hebrew slaves.

Ever hear of indentured servants? Lot of people came to America that way. This entire section starts off with saying that after a man has served six years, he can go free. As to the girl selling, she is a servant. If the guy wants to kick it to her, he has to do one of three things for her or else she's free to walk like the man. He either has to marry her, marry his son to her, or if he takes up with a new woman keep her in the status she is accustomed. Once again, not dissimilar from medieval practices, and she is getting an elevation in society -- she is a wife, not a servant.



My point here is that you can take bits and peices of the bible and accept or dismiss any of them by taking what you want as truth and what you don't as allegory. That's the problem with the type of parsing you are doing.

The point of an allegory is to relay a parallel moral to the story. It doesn't bash your head with it. Allegory has the same meaning as direct command, and you can get either from the readings in however fashion you take it.

And now onto Matthew: Once again you're taking things out of context. Don't you know that trick is not going to work with me by now?

The scene: Jesus is getting ready to send out the disciples to go preach all over the region. This falls under the section concerning discipleship. He tells them that yeah, there are going to be some nasty people that threaten you along the way....



28"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
29" Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
30"But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31"So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
32"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
33"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
36and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
37"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
38"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
39"He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

As to the sword thing, Jesus is saying that he's not going to be hunky dory if people just ignore him or say "Yes sir" and then go off and be immoral little punks. It's going to demand a lot of the believers -- they will be disowned by their families. They're starting a revolution, a new faith -- and it's not going to be welcome.

To note, in the next section of verses, Jesus goes on to explain the benefits of the following. So it isn't a bunch of suffering with nothing to look forward to.


Paul is also the creator of much of what is considered Christian Doctrine

Uhm. St. Peter was the head of the Church. First Pope -- kinda counts because his stint as pope set up the traditional end of the Catholic church which then eventually evolves into the . Also St. James the Greater was running the office when Peter was doing things until he was executed by Herod. Paul was the guy that was the batty arch conservative convert that drove the other two up the wall at times. They fought regularly. If you look at Church history, while Paul won a few cases for Gentiles (no required circumcision being one), Peter and James won many (the Holy Books including the Torah, among others).

St. Luke (a Gentile) is VERY influential because he wrote the most complete gospel (he interviewed everyone, including Mary, Jesus' mother) and the Acts, which has Jesus popping back in saying "Hi, guys, how's the store?" He made the imagine of Jesus embracing all people more so than Mark and Matthew, Jews, and John the visionary.

[Gatomon41]

These reasons aren't able to change the nature of the idea of God I proposed in my question.
As I said, God is the Father, the Savior, Happiness and Perfection.


The idea of God I presented is comparable to a parent who only has children to satisfy their own desire to be loved. They have children so they can feel needed and loved and that's it.
One mistake. Parents do not have parents to be loved. True parents have children because they are the creation of love. God created humanity to share in His happiness and Love, not because He wanted love from men. God can still feel love without humanity. Men can't love without God.


Taking care of someone because you want something in return is not the same as taking care of someone because you care about their well being.
You don't get it do you? God dosn't need us as a source of Joy. He is Happiness and Perfection. We need Him to love us.



God is suposed to be the greatest being imaginable. Well, I can't imagine the greatest being requiring ego boosters from its' creations.
I think you have it arround. It is you who has the ego problem. You put yourself on a pedistal beliving you're right. In reality, if you meet truth, you would drop to the ground. You think you understand God, but you're ignorant.

Worship or not, God will love you no matter what. Unlike you, God dosn't care about Ego, otherwise you wouldn't exist now. God serves humanity, He is a servant, and still is a servant to us.


It's also why I can't bring myself to have faith in an idea of a God that requires worship.
God dosn't require worship from people. But I do it because I like to be grateful for everything He has done for me.


Also, living my life and loving it seems like a good enough thanks to whoever is responsible for my existence. :p


Are you? Tell me, have you ever felt happiness? And I''m talking about pleasure. That is of the body, and people can become sick of it.

You know the worse death is that of the soul. Some people are walking around today are corpses, for their soul is dead. They have no joy, no life, and no where to go. They may have existance, but its a pointless and sad one.

[The Guitar Slayer]

While seeker and I are exchanging mortar volleys, skeet shooting is still fun.


As I said, God is the Father, the Savior, Happiness and Perfection.
As you say......and that matters to me how?

Men can't love without God.
You've not encountered a frat house yet, have you?

You don't get it do you? God dosn't need us as a source of Joy. He is Happiness and Perfection. We need Him to love us.
Of course he doesn't get it. You're spouting Christian bookmarks at him. How is he happiness and perfection? Why do I need him to love me? I'm smart, opinionated and as cute as hell. I have enough self esteem without needing to feel loved by some dude in a Lazy-Boi in the clouds.

I think you have it arround. It is you who has the ego problem. You put yourself on a pedistal beliving you're right. In reality, if you meet truth, you would drop to the ground. You think you understand God, but you're ignorant.
And aren't you saying that you're right? Putting yoruself and your beliefs up on a pedestal? Thinking that your way of truth fits for anyone? You say you understand God? Ever occurred to you that you're wrong?

(falls down laughing from Pot-Kettle syndrome)


Unlike you, God dosn't care about Ego, otherwise you wouldn't exist now.
(runs around with a ZAP ME sign)

Are you? Tell me, have you ever felt happiness? And I''m talking about pleasure. That is of the body, and people can become sick of it.
"I rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; the sinners have much more fuuuuuun, cuz only the good die young!"


It is quite unbiased and open minded. It's just that I have a love for something called Truth. If anyone tells a lie or an error, then it is my duty to bring the light of knowledge to correct the mistake.

And it's my duty to say to you in truth (reality truth with a lower case t) that your Truth is not universal. Facts are universal. Your dealing in "Truth" with a capital T is reserved for Christians apparently. If anyone else from any other faith tries to correct you, they are lying or flat out wrong.


If truth was to appear right in front of them, they would die.

Then why aren't you dead yet if you've seen the Truth?

[Gatomon41]

That's exactly how I categorize all gods, with fairies and unicorns and pixies. I don't know any atheist who hates god, the concept itself is an oxymoron.
Then why do you get so relied up if someone mentions God? Or why do you take the time of attack anyone that believes in Him? If God was the same as opixies anhd ghosts, you wouldn't care. And yet, from your posts, there is a sense of bigotry. No one who don't believe in something that dosn't exist would never get in such a fuss.


You have a lot of passion agains non-believers in your faith, so your view of atheism can't be open-minded and unbiased.
It is quite unbiased and open minded. It's just that I have a love for something called Truth. If anyone tells a lie or an error, then it is my duty to bring the light of knowledge to correct the mistake.


Why don't you visit www.atheists.com (http://www.atheists.com/) where there are many people who would answer all your questions about atheism (lack of belief in supernatural), although what's not to get??
Because they're not really opened minded nor unbias. If truth was to appear right in front of them, they would die. Their only interest is getting away from the truth, running away.


It's not like it's some complicated belief with talking snakes and giant floods, it's a lack of belief.
A shallow assumption, and an all too litterary interpretation of the Bible. perhaps you have something in common with Christian Fundatmentalists after all.


How people can be so unwilling to understand a basic concept which makes more sense then what they believe... is mind-boggling at best and suicidal at worst.
Ironic coming from you. It is not a basic idea, but rather an idea that lacks a philsophical and intellectual base. It lacks common sense, and ingnores the world arround you. Look deeper and not just on the surface of the material world. See beyond the concrete.

[seeker]

Hrm, too bumpy for the Persians, though. Multiple writers sits better with me.Since you aren't a biblical inerrantist it probably isn't important unless we get into Biblical Archaeology




Once again, you've ignored the newer, more accurate translation of what is in the Bible that I've provided. King James is from the 1600s and NASB is from the late 1900s -- there is a difference between the carnal knowledge with no societal benefit KJV describes and the wife status granted in the newer translation. The latter translation also implies that this wasn't for a roll in the hay -- the guy was going to stay married for her for life. How different is that from any of the early royal marriages? If a woman was unmarried and in a strange land, she would likely work in the fields -- the story of Ruth.You are right and I do apoliogize. To be honest I didn't realize you had posted the translation and skipped it thinking it was a quote of mine.

There are several versions of the Bible, I looked at these six (along with the KJV of course):

American Standard Version (ASV)
New American Bible (NAB)
New International Version (NIV)
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
New World Translation
The Revised Standard Version (RSV)

Four of them said go in to her, one said have relations with her, not one of them said anything about offering her a choice. Basically you have softened the verbage not changed the act.






As do I. We must have different tastes. I think that's a result of different views of the meaning of the document. I view it as a propaganda tool whereas you see it as a more sacred object..


Not when you look very different from the rest of your family and are confronted rather cruelly with the truth when you're mocked by others.You know my family?:sweat:

Why wouldn't that become an object lesson for racial tolerance?



The virgins are going to be getting wife benefits, not to mention the offspring they'll produce. They will have an elevated status in society. Even in the verses states, she actually get treated better than a normal wife -- he can't dump and run. Yeah you'd have to just accuse her of adultry and have her stoned.



God doesn't really have a morality like humans have morality. Morality is living up to your beliefs in God. At the time, Israel was carving out land for itself among hostile nations. Therefore, it synched up with this quest that God was a bit of a conqueror and warmonger. Ah yes, the old saw that god doesn't live by our standards. Of course this also means you can make no guarantees that God keeps his promises either.




Um, no, he didn't fail. You sorta just plugged your ears and went LALALAALAALAA!I sing far better than that.

Seriously though Ben made the assertion and I pointed out that for about 1500 years scientists were forced to be Christian. He never refuted that.

Want more though? As a historian who would you say was the more advanced culture during the middle ages? Did you know that doctors weren't permitted to do vivesection until the renaissance because of the church?




And yet he doesn't bother to mention any of the other things I told him to look up. Tsk tsk.The only other thing you mentioned was the golem which was a Jewish folk legend. Unfortunately none of that justifies the anti-semitism that was the original topic here.




You're telling this to a granddaughter of Ukrainian farmers. Ha. Let's get this straight -- most of USSR was not populated as densely as the area stretching from the German borders to the heart of Russia's major cities. Everything to the east of that is very sparsely populated.

The USSR was not a breadbasket nation, no -- the money was in mining -- but being behind the Iron Curtain meant you had to be very self-sufficient. Poland and Ukraine were under Soviet control, the latter moreseo than the former. They were west enough and south enough to be warm enough to grow food. They were the two nations that fed the entire Soviet Union -- the breadbaskets. Ukraine also was good for cattle -- in addition to a grain farm, my great-grandparents raised cows. So you have these two countries feeding the whole of the expanse that is the USSR, including the yokels all the way out near Mongolia. So if one them starts paying attention to the funny hat wearing Polish guy in Rome and starts refusing and resisting, that's 50% of your ability to feed your own mouths gone. That's bad no matter how you spin int.Nice arguement but you are forgetting what Soviet control meant. Early on the Soviets established collective farms which, by the late tewenties or early thirties, caused an open revolt. This was rapidly followed by a drought in 1933 (I think, ask your grandmother about the holodomor). In any case farming in the Ukraine never recovered. The Soviets didn't need a guy in a funny hat, they were perfectly capablew of pissing off their own citizens.

[seeker]

While seeker and I are exchanging mortar volleys, skeet shooting is still fun.

Some things just can't be passed up.

[SirLemming]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone:

A lot of these issues, particularly the issues surrounding the Old Testament and all of the confusing things said in it, have been debated furiously for hundreds of years by people who know more about them than we ever will. So just try to remember that, in all likelihood, nobody in this thread will discover the answer. Talk back and forth about it and debate it too, but don't push too hard for a resolution. It's more stress than you need, I'm sure.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Four of them said go in to her, one said have relations with her, not one of them said anything about offering her a choice. Basically you have softened the verbage not changed the act.
She doesn't get a choice, no, but the fact that he has to commit to her as a wife indicates that he must habour some feeling of love for her. If this guy can choose a slave or a woman of equal standing and chooses the slave when he would get the better deal if he married the equal standing woman, he must have some sort of genuine affection. If he does love her, he will try to win her or at least have an armed truce in place before bedding her.


Why wouldn't that become an object lesson for racial tolerance?
We're dealing in a divide and conquer period -- the Israelites were trying to get as much land as possible in the shortest period of time, grow a population, and have the least amount of interference inside and outside. It's a lot easier to kill the kid than to preach why he's special one day and kill more of his people the next.


Yeah you'd have to just accuse her of adultry and have her stoned.
Fingerpointing both today and yesterday don't go unsubstantiated.



Ah yes, the old saw that god doesn't live by our standards. Of course this also means you can make no guarantees that God keeps his promises either.
Christians live the way they do because God says so. God can't have the same morality as we do because he doesn't have a God that says, "Hey, do this." He's the boss with no superiors. Also, God doesn't have a physical form. He doesn't have a sex drive. He has no need for money. We're only similar to him, theoretically, in the sense of the soul and free will. God can't commit "sins" so how can he live by what our "standard" is?

As to God keeping promises, we'll see what happens at the end of the world. Til then, it's just another point to squabble over.


Seriously though Ben made the assertion and I pointed out that for about 1500 years scientists were forced to be Christian. He never refuted that.

Want more though? As a historian who would you say was the more advanced culture during the middle ages? Did you know that doctors weren't permitted to do vivesection until the renaissance because of the church?
I am aware of the sanctity of the body gig -- studied the Renaissance again this past summer to get ahead in some course work. Also, this links up with the printing press -- now anatomy books could be published for med students. Lot less note taking and memorization. As to forced Christiandom, it wasn't really policed so much as appearances maintained. Look at the War of Three Henries in France. That was pretty zany, and in the end, what was celebrated in private didn't affect the public as long as appearances were maintained. It's more of a social norm than a religious enforcement.

At any rate, Mendel and Lemaitre both were scientists in the late 1800s -- Darwin had been published by the time they died and there wasn't any Spanish Inquisititions running around. In fact, atheism and Enlightenment had some good steam going. I disagree with your statement about Ben's scientists being 'forced' to be Christian, at least those two.


The only other thing you mentioned was the golem which was a Jewish folk legend. Unfortunately none of that justifies the anti-semitism that was the original topic here.
There wasn't any anti-Semitism until you introduced it and tried to spin it into people here having no problem with the mistreatment of Jews. And you did not look up the factual Rabbi Loeb and his works to breach the gap between his community and the rest of Prague.




Nice arguement but you are forgetting what Soviet control meant. Early on the Soviets established collective farms which, by the late tewenties or early thirties, caused an open revolt. This was rapidly followed by a drought in 1933 (I think, ask your grandmother about the holodomor). In any case farming in the Ukraine never recovered. The Soviets didn't need a guy in a funny hat, they were perfectly capablew of pissing off their own citizens.
Stalin had his series of Five Year Plans, however, in order to stretch the grain. This involved the termination of his own people, including and especially Ukrainians. Farming the Ukraine did partially recover, particularly in the West. To my knowledge, the farm associated to my family ran at least until the mid 1940s when my family was exterminated. My grandfather was in a labour camp in Germany at the time because he'd been caught by them, and he won't talk about it, so we don't know whether the entire town was wiped off the map or if my family was specifically targeted; my great-uncle Vlodomyr was the leader of the Resistance in the town and had to live in caves while another one of my great-uncles was a Brandenberger. Either way, Stalin's Iron Fist came down many times to many different families and towns.

The Stalin mystique kept people terrified for many years after he died. My grandmother did not go back to visit family until he was in the ground for nearly 25 years -- she wanted to make sure he was dead. That sort of terror that keeps citizens of other countries away is unimaginably compounded when you're still living under the man's government.
Too frightened to open one's mouth. When Pope John Paul II came around and started decrying the Soviet Union as someone from the inside (not Reagan, not McCarthy), it was big news -- someone who was a religious figure world wide. Someone with followers in every country, was finally talking trash about the Motherland, and he had the world listening. As I said before, it's debatable how much credit can be ascribed to him, but he definitely got the Polish people riled up, and they did finally "exorcise" Stalin's ghost before any other former Soviet nation did.

[Roman Legion]

Yeah you'd have to just accuse her of adultry and have her stoned.We all love harsh cynicism, but I don't think it's helping you much.


Seriously though Ben made the assertion and I pointed out that for about 1500 years scientists were forced to be Christian. He never refuted that.You could always do us a favor and prove that scientists were forced to be Christian for the last 1500 years.


Did you know that doctors weren't permitted to do vivesection until the renaissance because of the church?...and nowadays, we don't need religion to question the ethics of vivisection. Woot. Of course, they didn't have surgical anesthesia back then, but it's not like that complicates the ethical questions involved... uhh, sorry, I missed your point somewhere.


A lot of these issues, particularly the issues surrounding the Old Testament and all of the confusing things said in it, have been debated furiously for hundreds of years by people who know more about them than we ever will.Indeed, there are textbook responses to pretty much everything mentioned in this thread, on both sides. It's almost disappointing, innit?

--Romey

[The Guitar Slayer]

42?

[seeker]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone:

A lot of these issues, particularly the issues surrounding the Old Testament and all of the confusing things said in it, have been debated furiously for hundreds of years by people who know more about them than we ever will. So just try to remember that, in all likelihood, nobody in this thread will discover the answer. Talk back and forth about it and debate it too, but don't push too hard for a resolution. It's more stress than you need, I'm sure.Trust me, I have had many of these sort of debates and rarely does anyone actually change their minds. At best debates can make you think about the subject and get other perspectives.

[Roman Legion]

42?Who needs religion or atheism when there's Google Calculator (http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=the+answer+to+life%2C+the+universe%2C+and+everything&btnG=Search)?


At best debates can make you think about the subject and get other perspectives.At best being the key phrase, there.


--Romey

[Humble]

-More talk of who God is and isn'tOkay. I already know this. Throughout my posts I don't think I've made any blasphemous remarks towards the God you presented. I've been blasting one of the false ideas of the true nature of God that have been thrown my way.


I think you have it arround. It is you who has the ego problem. You put yourself on a pedistal beliving you're right. In reality, if you meet truth, you would drop to the ground. You think you understand God, but you're ignorant.Is it opposite day? I thought modesty was a part of being humble. You know, free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretentiousness. I know I know diddley squat. :p


God dosn't require worship from people. But I do it because I like to be grateful for everything He has done for me.More power to yah. I can't find anything wrong with you worshiping the God you've presented to us.


Are you? Tell me, have you ever felt happiness? And I''m talking about pleasure. That is of the body, and people can become sick of it.I'm a lot of things, including happy. Oh, and slightly disturbed. ;)


You know the worse death is that of the soul. Some people are walking around today are corpses, for their soul is dead. They have no joy, no life, and no where to go. They may have existance, but its a pointless and sad one.I thought hurting others killed the soul. Or was it working a deadend job? I'm not sure. Either way it's probably all in my head. :p

You can probably tell by now my post shouldn't be taken too seriously.

-Humble

[seeker]

She doesn't get a choice, no, but the fact that he has to commit to her as a wife indicates that he must habour some feeling of love for her. If this guy can choose a slave or a woman of equal standing and chooses the slave when he would get the better deal if he married the equal standing woman, he must have some sort of genuine affection. If he does love her, he will try to win her or at least have an armed truce in place before bedding her. Have you ever fallen in love in a month? I never have.

Let's be realistic here, a guy sees a pretty virgin and drags her off (after she has watched everyone she knows be slaughtered) then shaves her head and after thirty days he's in love? Am I missing something here?



We're dealing in a divide and conquer period -- the Israelites were trying to get as much land as possible in the shortest period of time, grow a population, and have the least amount of interference inside and outside. It's a lot easier to kill the kid than to preach why he's special one day and kill more of his people the next.Thanks for bringing up population. Lest we forget, the Jews are wandering the region in twelve tribes that count among them 603,550 men over twenty who could go to war Num I 1:46 so realistically we are talking about more people than lived in Egypt during that time. Where did they get food?

Putting that aside we have another bit of strangeness going on. Presumably they are a large enough and well organixed enough force to dominate the region. They must have been because even after the conquest begins none of the nations they destroy has the thought of getting together to wipe them out. Given that they could have afforded magnaminity don't you think?



Fingerpointing both today and yesterday don't go unsubstantiated.Hehe, funny thing about that. According to Mumbers 5 (about 18 on) a man in those times could accuse a woman of adultry and she would be taken toi the temple and forced to drink 'bitter water' (apparently water and the dust from the floor of the tabernacle, it was also used to cause women to have 'the curse'). If she didn't get 'the curse' then she was ruled to have not cheated but if she got the curse...

All he has to do is guess when she starts her period.



Christians live the way they do because God says so. God can't have the same morality as we do because he doesn't have a God that says, "Hey, do this." He's the boss with no superiors. Also, God doesn't have a physical form. He doesn't have a sex drive. He has no need for money. We're only similar to him, theoretically, in the sense of the soul and free will. God can't commit "sins" so how can he live by what our "standard" is?Precisely my point. What standards could we expect such a being to respect? (this is all hypothetical of course) What guarantees that any word would be kept when so far none have been?


As to God keeping promises, we'll see what happens at the end of the world. Til then, it's just another point to squabble over. We don't have to wait that long, the bible already has a bunch of broken promises in it ranging from the Jewish promised land to Jesus claims that he would return before the end of his foillowers lifetimes.



I am aware of the sanctity of the body gig -- studied the Renaissance again this past summer to get ahead in some course work. Also, this links up with the printing press -- now anatomy books could be published for med students. Lot less note taking and memorization. As to forced Christiandom, it wasn't really policed so much as appearances maintained. Look at the War of Three Henries in France. That was pretty zany, and in the end, what was celebrated in private didn't affect the public as long as appearances were maintained. It's more of a social norm than a religious enforcement. Are you talking about the tenth century version? If so they warred with the Holy Roman Empire which was run by Otto I and actually had the backing of the church.

If you mean the one in the 1500's you realize that the Henries lost right? Except for Henry of Navarre who converted so that he wouldn't be attacked. I could easily point to the Cathars, well, I couldn't because they were completely wiped out.


At any rate, Mendel and Lemaitre both were scientists in the late 1800s -- Darwin had been published by the time they died and there wasn't any Spanish Inquisititions running around. In fact, atheism and Enlightenment had some good steam going. I disagree with your statement about Ben's scientists being 'forced' to be Christian, at least those two.My ancestors were Jews in Spain who fled the inquisition in the late 1750's and moved to New Mexico.
The Inquisition was definitively abolished July 15, 1834, by a Royal Decree signed by regent Maria Cristina de Borbon, during the minority of Isabel II and with the approval of the President of the Cabinet Francisco Martínez de la Rosa. (It is possible that something similar to the Inquisition acted during the first Carlist War, in the zones dominated by the carlists, since one of the government measures praised by Conde de Molina Carlos Maria Isidro de Borbon was the re-implementation of the Inquisition).

Darwin, Mendel and Lemaire were all raised in an atmosphere that threatened non-believers and rewarded believers.


There wasn't any anti-Semitism until you introduced it and tried to spin it into people here having no problem with the mistreatment of Jews. And you did not look up the factual Rabbi Loeb and his works to breach the gap between his community and the rest of Prague. I must have missed that reference. As to Anti-semitism are you really claiming that I introduced it?:lol:

Pick up a book by Martin Luther called "On The Jews And Their Lies" Then tell me I made it up.





Stalin had his series of Five Year Plans, however, in order to stretch the grain. This involved the termination of his own people, including and especially Ukrainians. Farming the Ukraine did partially recover, particularly in the West. To my knowledge, the farm associated to my family ran at least until the mid 1940s when my family was exterminated. My grandfather was in a labour camp in Germany at the time because he'd been caught by them, and he won't talk about it, so we don't know whether the entire town was wiped off the map or if my family was specifically targeted; my great-uncle Vlodomyr was the leader of the Resistance in the town and had to live in caves while another one of my great-uncles was a Brandenberger. Either way, Stalin's Iron Fist came down many times to many different families and towns.

The Stalin mystique kept people terrified for many years after he died. My grandmother did not go back to visit family until he was in the ground for nearly 25 years -- she wanted to make sure he was dead. That sort of terror that keeps citizens of other countries away is unimaginably compounded when you're still living under the man's government.
Too frightened to open one's mouth. When Pope John Paul II came around and started decrying the Soviet Union as someone from the inside (not Reagan, not McCarthy), it was big news -- someone who was a religious figure world wide. Someone with followers in every country, was finally talking trash about the Motherland, and he had the world listening. As I said before, it's debatable how much credit can be ascribed to him, but he definitely got the Polish people riled up, and they did finally "exorcise" Stalin's ghost before any other former Soviet nation did.Your great grandfather must have been an amazing man. Unfortunately Stalin is pretty hard to erase and all of the former soviet states are still recovering.

[seeker]

We all love harsh cynicism, but I don't think it's helping you much.I wasn't joking, look up mumbers 5:18 on. It describes the process a man can take to accuse his wife of adultry and have her stoned.


You could always do us a favor and prove that scientists were forced to be Christian for the last 1500 years.No problem. BTW While you are waiting look up the forcible conversion of the Serbs sometime, not a happy time for serbians

Shall we start with the famous Code of Theodosius, about 384, it
was at priestly instigation enacted:

"We desire that all the people under our clemency should
live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said
to have given the Romans. ... We desire that heretics and
schismatists be subjected to various fines. ... We decree also
that we shall cease making sacrifices to the gods. And if
anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with
the avenging sword." (Cod. Theod. xvi, 1, 2; v, 1; x, 4.)

The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out heretics in
their dioceses and hand them over to the secular power. Other Synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent III sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick, II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake.





...and nowadays, we don't need religion to question the ethics of vivisection. Woot. Of course, they didn't have surgical anesthesia back then, but it's not like that complicates the ethical questions involved... uhh, sorry, I missed your point somewhere.My fault, I was referrring to examining dead bodies and didn't bother to look up the right word.



Indeed, there are textbook responses to pretty much everything mentioned in this thread, on both sides. It's almost disappointing, innit?Not really, the discussion is more about exchanging ideas than anything else anyay. Open those moldy textbooks.

--Romey[/quote]

[Gatomon41]

Okay. I already know this. Throughout my posts I don't think I've made any blasphemous remarks towards the God you presented. I've been blasting one of the false ideas of the true nature of God that have been thrown my way.

What was erronus was that you liken God to a parent who have children to gain happiness. God is happiness, He creates to give happiness.


I'm a lot of things, including happy. Oh, and slightly disturbed. ;)
Is iit happiness? Montag was asked the same thing by Carrie.


I thought hurting others killed the soul.
The wages of all sin is death, wither hurting others or breaking the First.


Or was it working a deadend job? I'm not sure. Either way it's probably all in my head. :p
(Rimshot)

[Gatomon41]

As you say......and that matters to me how?
He's your Dad, no more than that, Creator, who was willing to suffer and die for you. If you don't care about that, then I don't know what can you care about.


You've not encountered a frat house yet, have you?
As I said before, Pleasure and Joy are two different things.


Of course he doesn't get it. You're spouting Christian bookmarks at him. How is he happiness and perfection? He created the universe, and is omnipotent. He knows all, sees all. But I assume you want a concerte answer. How does Mass create gravity? Or why does M-Theory affect the universe? Can you answer these things yourself? No one knows why mass creates gravity, or how M-Theory does the stuff it does. It just is.


Why do I need him to love me?
Love, different from likeing (which is emotion), is a virtue. It is ethauaism, a relationship. Love from God makes a person to able to truly love everyone, enemy or friend alike. Jesus commandment to us was "To love one another, as I have loved you." Also, only hrough God's love people can find true joy.

If you can not understand or want God's love, eventually, you will not know what loves is.


I'm smart, opinionated and as cute as hell. I have enough self esteem without needing to feel loved by some dude in a Lazy-Boi in the clouds.
Ironic. I see God as everywhere, with me, you, everyone in the Universe and Haven.

You might have your pride, but you don't have true love. All you have are poor subsistues of vanity, pride, and egocentricism. They do not last.


And aren't you saying that you're right? Putting yoruself and your beliefs up on a pedestal?
I only state the truth, nothing more nothing less. If the truth is wahat is right, then yes, I speak of what is right. But I'm more concerned with the people on this board than vainglory.


Thinking that your way of truth fits for anyone? You say you understand God? Ever occurred to you that you're wrong?
Doubt has entered my mind before. So I went and searched the world. A

nd I found in nature the signs of God. Through believers the Love of God. By Marx and Nietchzche and Nazism and Communism that I discovered that the devil was quite real. Through knowledge and philopshy of Augustine, Chesterton, Sheen, Miller, Lewis, Tolkein, Angelica, Corapi, and many others, the Wisdom of God. Through famillly and friends, the sacredness of human souls. Through the Saints the works of God by Faith. I feel more alive than I have ever been. And I found God through me.



(runs around with a ZAP ME sign)
Do not tempt God. The Devil could not tempt God, nor can you.

I think Chesterton proved a more direct point, that "if there was no God, there would be no athesists."



"I rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; the sinners have much more fuuuuuun, cuz only the good die young!"

Odd how you ceased using logical points and have gone to nonsenical points.


And it's my duty to say to you in truth (reality truth with a lower case t) that your Truth is not universal. Facts are universal. Your dealing in "Truth" with a capital T is reserved for Christians apparently. If anyone else from any other faith tries to correct you, they are lying or flat out wrong.
Truth and Facts are the same. They are universal, a yes or no. Some works can have both truth and errors. Truth is much simlar to a Bit, the basic unit of information. It's a Yes or No question. The problem is, not everyone will choose the right answer. God is the universal truth.




Then why aren't you dead yet if you've seen the Truth?

Because I was not refering to myself, since I want to see God.

I was refering to those who believe that they are open-minded and free, reality they are closed-minded and running away. Those who run away from truth because they are affraid of responbility to God.

[Roman Legion]

I wasn't joking, look up mumbers 5:18 on. It describes the process a man can take to accuse his wife of adultry and have her stoned.See, you're still coming from this angle where you assume everyone else is ignorant. Stop that. I'm familiar with those verses. I also know there's a larger context that they fit into. It all seems pretty ugly from your comfy modern perspective, especially if you assume your atheist stance in advance. I don't need to justify those laws for you. Why are all these strict, impossible to follow laws there to begin with? Can you answer that without the cynical shtick?


Shall we start with the famous Code of Theodosius, about 384, it
was at priestly instigation enacted...Now hooold on a minute. We should all know very well that there were attempts to enforce Christianity at various points throughout history. Somehow, all these nasty non-Christians still seemed to pop up and even be tolerated from time to time. You'll need to try harder than that.


My fault, I was referrring to examining dead bodies and didn't bother to look up the right word.Your fault is forgiven... this time. Incidentally, people got away with examining dead bodies anyway. But you already knew that.


Not really, the discussion is more about exchanging ideas than anything else anyay. Open those moldy textbooks.If you've already read all those ideas, what's left to be exchanged by spitting them at each other?

--Romey

[purplehairedwonder]

He created the universe, and is omnipotent. He knows all, sees all. But I assume you want a concerte answer. How does Mass create gravity? Or why does M-Theory affect the universe? Can you answer these things yourself? No one knows why mass creates gravity, or how M-Theory does the stuff it does. It just is.
I'm no astro-physicist, but just because there is something we don't know how to explain yet doesn't mean there isn't a scientific explanation for it. We are continually discovering new things in science. It's like how we are continuously discovering new planets; they've always been there, but only now are we finding them. It's the same with theories that explain some complicated things (and I lost my train of the thought near the end of that :sweat: )

If you can not understand or want God's love, eventually, you will not know what loves is.
I disagree. I love my family and friends very much - and yes, it's a true, honest love. It's the strongest feeling I've ever encoutered. It doesn't come from God or some other higher being. Love comes from the people around you. I'd appreciate not being told that those feelings I harbor for those closest to me are mere trifles.

You might have your pride, but you don't have true love. All you have are poor subsistues of vanity, pride, and egocentricism. They do not last.
Please get off your pedestal.

I only state the truth, nothing more nothing less. If the truth is wahat is right, then yes, I speak of what is right. But I'm more concerned with the people on this board than vainglory.
What I see here is more egocentric than anything. Once more, I feel as if I am being talked down to as an inferior being because I don't believe the same things as you. I could say the same thing to you - There is no God. That is the Truth. You are wrong - but I don't believe in belittling the beliefs of others even if I don't share them... so don't take that seriously.

I think Chesterton proved a more direct point, that "if there was no God, there would be no athesists."
I'd say, if there were no believers in God, there would be no atheists.

Truth and Facts are the same. They are universal, a yes or no. Some works can have both truth and errors. Truth is much simlar to a Bit, the basic unit of information. It's a Yes or No question. The problem is, not everyone will choose the right answer. God is the universal truth.
Again, please get off your pedestal and stop preaching. If there is no God, there must be some other universal truth.

I was refering to those who believe that they are open-minded and free, reality they are closed-minded and running away. Those who run away from truth because they are affraid of responbility to God.
You could argue that religious people are running away from responsibilty for themselves. I'm not say it's true, but you should try applying your own logic to yourself. Look at the other side and examine their viewpoints. You don't seem to be willing to challenge what you believe and merely put down those who believe differently than yourself.

[Ben]

Have you ever fallen in love in a month? I never have.

Let's be realistic here, a guy sees a pretty virgin and drags her off (after she has watched everyone she knows be slaughtered) then shaves her head and after thirty days he's in love? Am I missing something here?

I have to admit GS, you had me until you brought up love. Either the slave woman was really hot or the guy was really desperate -- and either way it ain't love.

But seeker, you're obnoxiously avoiding GS's point, which is that this does not mean Christianity endorses rape. Many Christian churches (including Catholicism) are not Bible-based. (Catholicism is a sacramental church; the Bible's just for storytime before you get to the important part.) That the Israelites were ruthless warmongers sometimes just goes to show they needed Jesus a whole heck of a lot.


Thanks for bringing up population. Lest we forget, the Jews are wandering the region in twelve tribes that count among them 603,550 men over twenty who could go to war Num I 1:46 so realistically we are talking about more people than lived in Egypt during that time. Where did they get food?

So you're taking those numbers at face value but you refuse to acknowledge that Jesus really meant it when he said "love your enemies?" What happened to all that *****ing about historical inaccuracies and the Bible being worthless as a resource and everything else? Y'know, the world ain't 6,000 years old either.

Obviously if I'm writing the official sacred chronicle of my tribe's conquest of a region of the world I might puff up the numbers a bit.


Putting that aside we have another bit of strangeness going on. Presumably they are a large enough and well organixed enough force to dominate the region. They must have been because even after the conquest begins none of the nations they destroy has the thought of getting together to wipe them out. Given that they could have afforded magnaminity don't you think?

So? Arguing about what some smelly guys in the desert should have done thousands of years ago is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the New Atheism.


Hehe, funny thing about that. According to Mumbers 5 (about 18 on) a man in those times could accuse a woman of adultry and she would be taken toi the temple and forced to drink 'bitter water' (apparently water and the dust from the floor of the tabernacle, it was also used to cause women to have 'the curse'). If she didn't get 'the curse' then she was ruled to have not cheated but if she got the curse...

All he has to do is guess when she starts her period.

Another funny thing -- after they took power the USSR killed 1,400 Orthodox priests because of the nation's official atheism. They bulldozed priceless historic cathedrals and eliminated literally 50,000 churches. Even Khruschev threw priests who got too uppity in jail. And that was the religion they tolerated. Everyone else just got shot in the street. The Catholic Church was destroyed. And Stalin made a special hobby of killing Jews. So yeah, sure, it's impossible for atheism to be extreme. Hilarious.


My ancestors were Jews in Spain who fled the inquisition in the late 1750's and moved to New Mexico.

My ancestors were unwelcome in England in the 1650s for some reason and came to the U.S. Some other of my ancestors fled something-or-other (we're not sure what) in Czechoslovakia (all we know is my great-great granddad was impressed into the Russian cossacks). But I don't see what that has to do with New Atheism.


The Inquisition was definitively abolished July 15, 1834, by a Royal Decree signed by regent Maria Cristina de Borbon, during the minority of Isabel II and with the approval of the President of the Cabinet Francisco Martínez de la Rosa. (It is possible that something similar to the Inquisition acted during the first Carlist War, in the zones dominated by the carlists, since one of the government measures praised by Conde de Molina Carlos Maria Isidro de Borbon was the re-implementation of the Inquisition).

Yay, you can quote Wikipedia.


Darwin, Mendel and Lemaire were all raised in an atmosphere that threatened non-believers and rewarded believers.

Now you're just being obnoxious. The reason I brought up Mendel and Lemaitre was because Mendel chose to be a monk and Lemaitre chose to be a priest. Maybe there was pressure to be Christian in the 19th century where they lived. But there was no universal social pressure to join the religious orders. They chose to live their lives in the Church and yet they still developed very innovative, new scientific ideas. That should be proof enough that "religion does not necessarily hold us back from scientific advances." In fact if religion did always hold us back from scientific advances and, as you said, there was universal social pressure to be religious, then science would simply not exist. Even Francis Bacon after all held the pursuit of truth as equal to the pursuit of the service of God.


I must have missed that reference. As to Anti-semitism are you really claiming that I introduced it?:lol:

You did, in this discussion.


You apparently haven't read your history. I'll mention just one incident (though there are many).

You also read history selectively. I see no reason to believe that atheism is any less capable of motivating hateful division and brutal crimes than theist religions. I have very few actual philosophical quarrels with you, which is why you have to bring up all this ancient Biblical garbage just to have something to argue about. My problem is that I don't see any compassion in atheists. They make no attempt to understand their opponents (or "love their enemies" as Jesus might say) or to attempt to convince their opponents through empathy (or to become weak for the weak, as Paul might say).

Atheists tell me that the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with them. But they offer no way to make that happen, and the ones who do (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) were evil. Some Christians also say the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with them. And they've tried to make that happen through war and violence too.

I see no important difference.

I might call myself an atheist someday, but only after atheists learn the meaning of humility.

[Ben]

There are all sorts of examples of monotheism in that region. Most likely the Hebrews in Jeruselam worshipped the Canaanite pantheon that included El, Ba'al, Yaweh and Hada but tended to worship their war God, Yaweh, who was symbolized by a mountain because they lived in the mountains and were constantly at war with the various other groups around them. In fact the word for God in Genesis is Elohim which literally translates from Hebrew to "the Gods of El"

I realize that I was referring more to the Jews bouncing around the region incorporating elements of pagan gods into their monotheistic God like a kind of theological katamari. An interesting look at this (though not a history book) is God: A Biography by Jack Miles.


No problem, you pray, I'll paint and we'll see who has better income at the end of the month:D

I would win that one. Churches are big money-makers these days.


As to your suggestion that God exists because so much exists that you can't understand what makes you think that assuming something you don't understand makes the other stuff you don't understand more palletable? (How's that for convoluted) I make no assumption about what I don't know at all.

I am a pantheist. That should help you make sense of it. Or not, at this point I couldn't care less.


It didn't cost him his career. He also didn't reject it outright. Put most briefly, Einstein held that the QM formalism is incomplete and that it is the job of theoretical physics to supply the missing parts.

We can argue about this but again it would be pointless. Einstein thought the universe operated by immutable laws and at different points in his life he let on that he saw some of quantum theory as violating that. I'm not going to be dragged into yet another tangent with you.


I also read the part where you claimed the bible contained history;)

So you're saying it doesn't contain history?


I am sure it was a very good paper however I am also sure that given the metaphysics of your beliefs that your definitions of explanations for these matters are different than mine.

Way to assume I'm an idiot again.

[Ben]

I think you are conflating atheism with the personal politics of those three individuals. Atheism itself espouses nothing.

Thank God, so to speak. I was getting all worked up about something I thought was a philosophy and it turns out it doesn't actually exist! Hey guys, we can all go home now! :p


That said though even the attitudes of those three are in reaction to the excesses of religion these days. I don't mind telling you that watching the current Isamic madness coupled with Christian eschatology is frightening.

And I don't mind telling you that the atheist world out of Orwell's 1984 that Stalin and Mao gave us samples of scares the **** out of me.


Sam Harris in his book End of Faith makes a very good case for this being a time when faith is just too divisive to allow us to deal with these problems. One of the things that he points out is that even liberal Christianity must, by definition, look at non-christians as separate and lessor from people who believe as they do

And you're going to tell me atheists don't?


Again though you are conflating atheism with someting else, in this case the Chinese governments intolerance of any rival to it's authority. The difference is that Hitler's anti semetism had a firm basis in religious doctrine (read Martin Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies" for a thorough discussion of this). Even the Inquisition was based on Christian doctrine (ie St. Augustine's notion of 'forcible conversion').

Hitler's anti-Semitism was based just as much on his manipulative need for a scapegoat as it was on religion. Christian extremism is as much a component of National Socialism as atheism was of Communism.


Not a truly fair question when you think on it. What other book inspired it's followers to actually try to destroy all record of it's rivals?

The Communist Manifesto? Mao's little red book?


Yes and I've also read Joyce, Rimbaud, and other great writers. Frankly I find it disjointed and self contradictory.

Well, that's your call. There's no accounting for taste.


Actually the rape and infanticide are commands from God. Slavery is discussed as law in Leviticus.

Exactly. They can't properly be called philosophical examinations.


As to the epistles shall we speak of Paul and his exhortations to celebacy and Christ who died and returned in echo of the believers of mystery religions of the time? It really very interesting stuff.

Rriiiiight.... I don't see your point. How does this make the epistles not philosophy?


Okay, this should be easy for you to proive. What scientific advance did it contribute to? In what way has the condition of the world been improved (careful on this one)?

I never said it contributed to science. I said it was influential. Read a bit more carefully.

But if you can't see any value to art unless it contributes to science, then we truly are at an impasse. I wouldn't die for Christianity, but I think I would rather die than live in a world without art.


So allowing this to be an equal playing field can be really beneficial to understanding each other, making peace, and maybe even finding the real answer.

Yet it is precisely this understanding that atheists seem to resist.


As to world improvement, many do-gooders in the world attribute their faith or lack thereof as a motivator. When people give into the donation box at church every Sunday, some of that money does go to help, whether it be locally or globally. It varies from place to place and charity to charity, but it does go back. I know Catholic Charities gives 90%+ back out -- 10% for admin costs and the like.

The biggest private health care provider in the United States isn't Atheists United. It's the Catholic Church.


I dislike proselytizers who seek to convert me to their way of spiritual thinking without any indication that they care what I have to say or think. This applies to those of faith and this new crop of athiests equally.

Quoted for complete agreement.


I do agree with you that extremists drive a lot of this discussion but extremists are in charge of Iran, Iraq and the US. Extremism is always going to be there as long as people hold tp these outmoded beliefs

No, I would change that to, "Extremism is always going to be there." Period.


This incident alone destroyed 6 centuries worth of irreplaceable history all in the name of religion.

Reminds me of the Cultural Revolution in China.


If there was no God, there would be no athesists.

Actually purple, you gotta admit this makes a lot of sense. If no one ever mentioned God in history there would be no reason for atheism to exist. You might also reverse Douglas Adams's proof of the non-existence of God based on the Babelfish to show that God does exist because atheists are around to doubt it. But now I'm just being snotty. :)

[The Guitar Slayer]

Have you ever fallen in love in a month? I never have.
I have.

As to the rest of what's been said, Ben brings up my counter arguments to your statements. Also, you haven't looked at the facts regarding the mourning process in those times -- lice, GI Jane haircuts, nails, etc.


Thanks for bringing up population. Lest we forget, the Jews are wandering the region in twelve tribes that count among them 603,550 men over twenty who could go to war Num I 1:46 so realistically we are talking about more people than lived in Egypt during that time. Where did they get food?
Uhm, I thought you said that the Bible wasn't a veritable source of history? So why are you picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are accurate when you accuse us of doing the same thing and attempt to berate us for it?


All he has to do is guess when she starts her period.
The period is not the "curse." Rather, this method was used to prove that a woman had been sleeping with another guy while her husband was absent. Most people theorize this is actually an abortion process. If he suspects she's been sleeping around, the only evidence would be a child that could not be his due to timing -- if he'd been away and she'd suddenly popped up pregnant. Since there was no such thing as EPT, they would give her this mixture that, if she was pregnant, would abort the fetus and sterilize her all in one go. However, if she wasn't pregnant, it wouldn't do anything to her. What the hell it actually was, I have no idea. Either way, "curse" is not used to describe a woman's period.


What guarantees that any word would be kept when so far none have been?
What promises has God broken?


We don't have to wait that long, the bible already has a bunch of broken promises in it ranging from the Jewish promised land to Jesus claims that he would return before the end of his foillowers lifetimes.
Jewish promised land -- I think there's a little sliver of land in the Mid-East that we've been squabbling about for a few thousand years that would beg to differ. While not always quiet and on even keel, it's technically theirs thanks to the Brits forking it over at the end of the Second World War.

Jesus returning -- Jesus returned a number of times during the 40 days after his death until his ascension into Heaven. None of the Apostles had been killed yet, so they all lived to see it. Afterwards, he said they would see him again, but he did not specify when. One could conclude that he meant they would meet again when they reached heaven.


If you mean the one in the 1500's you realize that the Henries lost right? Except for Henry of Navarre who converted so that he wouldn't be attacked. I could easily point to the Cathars, well, I couldn't because they were completely wiped out.
....Two out of three Henries lost because they were killed by the other Henries -- they were at war against each other. Of course a few had to lose! Henry of Navarre converted in public only. Until he died, he was a practicing Protestant in private -- his parents were big Protestant proponents. Catholicism was the religion of choice that granted stability thanks to its heavy connections with French tradition.


The Inquisition was definitively abolished July 15, 1834, by a Royal Decree signed by regent Maria Cristina de Borbon, during the minority of Isabel II and with the approval of the President of the Cabinet Francisco Martínez de la Rosa. (It is possible that something similar to the Inquisition acted during the first Carlist War, in the zones dominated by the carlists, since one of the government measures praised by Conde de Molina Carlos Maria Isidro de Borbon was the re-implementation of the Inquisition).
Darwin, Mendel and Lemaire were all raised in an atmosphere that threatened non-believers and rewarded believers.

Mendel was 12 and in predominantly Protestant Germany when that occurred. He was hardly 'forced' to do what he did; his hobby was gardening throughout his entire life, and he had a degree before becoming a priest (I dont' have the exact years available atm). Lemaitre was born in 1894 in Belgium. He became a Doctor of Sciences BEFORE being a priest -- he was Dr. Lemaitre in 1920, Father Lemaitre in 1923. They didn't live in the "barbaric" times. They lived in an era post Enlightenment, post Darwin, and not in uber Catholic countries such as France or Spain. Your argument doesn't wash.

As to Darwin himself, yes, he was nervous about the backlash regarding his work -- now this is in the year 1857 or so. However, when it was released, the scientific community liked it. The Anglican church had already started poking around the validity of miracles and started the idea of just dumping the idea wholesale. There were critics, yes -- but no one tarred and feathered the guy. And by the way, Darwin was raised to be a Nonconformist -- meaning that his family for generations (!) thought the whole faith thing was a crock. He himself was an agnostic. He didn't suffer for it.


Your great grandfather must have been an amazing man. Unfortunately Stalin is pretty hard to erase and all of the former soviet states are still recovering.
The fact that Stalin is really dead helps, though. There was that fear of him coming back from the dead -- he really had that sway over people. He was the boogey man. Now that the guy is definitely dead, it's a matter of telling Russia to keep itself to itself and not allowing globalization to become the new tyranny. There is more of a fear of the former government now than the man.

[James]

Responding to the original question rather than the evolving discussion, I would say I'm sort of a closet atheist so far as I don't like any spiritual philosophy to dominate who I am. It's not something I speak about proudly - or at all. I find the whole issue rather frustrating and by it's nature, awkward. I would love to have faith, but I don't. I would love to believe in something greater, and in moments of weakness, I can feel an inkling for such belief; a feeling that "hey, maybe there is something.." but I know it's not objective, merely the human desire for something more. I know that life has offered me no evidence of anything beyond human want for there to be something to fill the whole left by that question: "Is this all I will amount to? Is there anything more?"

So, I don't - as Donnie Darko put it - consider the question anymore. It's just not worth the time of day as there is no definable answer by definition: you either believe, or you don't. You can't justify it beyond faith and as soon as you do, you're sliding down the slippery slope to sillyville. There is no proof. Period. Either that doesn't matter and your belief carries you on - the whole crux of religion - or you can't. I can't and the question of natural human desire looking for proof becomes a frustrating one as there isn't any.

You can be an atheist and still consider the arguments. That doesn't mean you are agnostic. It's not that you are conceeding to the possibility of god, no more than you can listen to the reasoning of a murderer, but it doesn't make you inclined to murder. I think there are many "agnostics" who are "atheists" but because they listen or occasionally respond to that inate human drive to want something to follow death, label themselves agnostics, when they know deep down that their honest belief is there is nothing but human fear that drives such wants. It's not faith and it's not rational perspective.

It's funny as there has been more grumbles for representation from the secular movements in the UK of late with the question of faith and diversity thereof being a question. In a country which still has strong ties to a Christian church, there is a frustration among atheists that despite their numbers, despite the falloff of devout Christians, they are not represented in any moral capacity.

Personally, as I said, I throw the whole issue aside. I don't label myself as anything. I live the best to what I've objectively rationalised as the best code of conduct and I hope that maybe there is something beyond death, though I've seen no rationale for it, just feel the hope that there is more. So maybe you could argue I'm a secular humanist, but overall, I'm just a person who feels the questions of religion or no religion stink of humanity and nothing more; either people trying to justify their existence through a faith or in many athesist's case, people trying to justify their strength in faith of themselves by proudly standing for, well, nothing.

I'm not proud I have no faith in anything beyond this earth. I'm not embarassed either of the fact. I do, however, find the debate silly and worthless, so in that sense, I am indeed a closet atheist. I've made these relgious debate on these forums before and they neither improve my mood or convince me of anything different. The same seems to be for other people. So I don't go into that argument anymore. As Graham Chapman would say "it's silly". You can't prove or disprove what people believe. So why bother?

So I find the whole thing best left to the individuals personal, private spiritual ethos and best to get a bag of crisps. Unless God wants to chip in with a point I think I'll remain firmly in the closet. In a better world, I think all our faiths would be best in the closet, kept as a private channel between ourselves and our maker.

[seeker]

See, you're still coming from this angle where you assume everyone else is ignorant. Stop that. I'm familiar with those verses. I also know there's a larger context that they fit into. It all seems pretty ugly from your comfy modern perspective, especially if you assume your atheist stance in advance. I don't need to justify those laws for you. Why are all these strict, impossible to follow laws there to begin with? Can you answer that without the cynical shtick?If you don't already know these things then why ask?;)


Now hooold on a minute. We should all know very well that there were attempts to enforce Christianity at various points throughout history. Somehow, all these nasty non-Christians still seemed to pop up and even be tolerated from time to time. You'll need to try harder than that.I don't think so. Living in an environment where any difference in belief could result in you being dragged off tortured and burned is plenty bad enough. Especially if you are a public figure.

Rationalize all you like but in that sort of atmosphere not being a Christian was dangerous.


Your fault is forgiven... this time. Incidentally, people got away with examining dead bodies anyway. But you already knew that.Yes but once again it could not be mainstream practice. If it hadn't been for Islam during the middle ages their would have been no medical advance at all.


If you've already read all those ideas, what's left to be exchanged by spitting them at each other?

--RomeyYou only get out of it what you put in. I actually research the questions and answers to my posts. Just from talking to TGS I've learned about the siix Henries (two sets of three) and other tidbits of history I didn't know before. I agree if all you are doing is going by rote you are wasting your time ;-)

[seeker]

I have to admit GS, you had me until you brought up love. Either the slave woman was really hot or the guy was really desperate -- and either way it ain't love.

But seeker, you're obnoxiously avoiding GS's point, which is that this does not mean Christianity endorses rape. Many Christian churches (including Catholicism) are not Bible-based. (Catholicism is a sacramental church; the Bible's just for storytime before you get to the important part.) That the Israelites were ruthless warmongers sometimes just goes to show they needed Jesus a whole heck of a lot.Let's be clear Ben, I would never accuse you or anyone else of personally advocating rape but I am pointing out that part of what is held up as an example to us of morality actually shows some pretty bad behavior.




So you're taking those numbers at face value but you refuse to acknowledge that Jesus really meant it when he said "love your enemies?" What happened to all that *****ing about historical inaccuracies and the Bible being worthless as a resource and everything else? Y'know, the world ain't 6,000 years old either.Good Ben, you are thinking a little but consider this. If they are exaggerating in some parts of the book what makes you think the whole thing isn't exagerated?


Obviously if I'm writing the official sacred chronicle of my tribe's conquest of a region of the world I might puff up the numbers a bit.Why would you need to if you have a sound doctrine?




So? Arguing about what some smelly guys in the desert should have done thousands of years ago is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the New Atheism.Not really, we are discussing why people are atheists. I contend the bible is unbelievable at it's face




Another funny thing -- after they took power the USSR killed 1,400 Orthodox priests because of the nation's official atheism. They bulldozed priceless historic cathedrals and eliminated literally 50,000 churches. Even Khruschev threw priests who got too uppity in jail. And that was the religion they tolerated. Everyone else just got shot in the street. The Catholic Church was destroyed. And Stalin made a special hobby of killing Jews. So yeah, sure, it's impossible for atheism to be extreme. Hilarious.Wasn't due to Athiesm. The fact is that during the Church was considered a rival to the government. You forget that for the better part of two thousand years governments in Europe were answerable to the church and the church had been responsible at times for taking out governments unfavorable to it. This was not an atheist action burt a political one




My ancestors were unwelcome in England in the 1650s for some reason and came to the U.S. Some other of my ancestors fled something-or-other (we're not sure what) in Czechoslovakia (all we know is my great-great granddad was impressed into the Russian cossacks). But I don't see what that has to do with New Atheism.It's all about Christian repression.




Yay, you can quote Wikipedia.Jealous?




Now you're just being obnoxious. The reason I brought up Mendel and Lemaitre was because Mendel chose to be a monk and Lemaitre chose to be a priest. Maybe there was pressure to be Christian in the 19th century where they lived. But there was no universal social pressure to join the religious orders. They chose to live their lives in the Church and yet they still developed very innovative, new scientific ideas. That should be proof enough that "religion does not necessarily hold us back from scientific advances." In fact if religion did always hold us back from scientific advances and, as you said, there was universal social pressure to be religious, then science would simply not exist. Even Francis Bacon after all held the pursuit of truth as equal to the pursuit of the service of God.Actually you are discounting the enormous social pressure that existed at the time. These people were indictrinated at an early age and lived in environments that were very threatening to non-believers as well as being presented with very few paths to obtaining the resources to do the reasearch they wanted to do.

Does it really bother you that much to acknowledge what Christians did in history to spread their religion?




You did, in this discussion.After you tried to excuse it from the Christian past. Once again you are trying to obscure an inherant property of Christianity, Why is that?




You also read history selectively. I see no reason to believe that atheism is any less capable of motivating hateful division and brutal crimes than theist religions. I have very few actual philosophical quarrels with you, which is why you have to bring up all this ancient Biblical garbage just to have something to argue about. My problem is that I don't see any compassion in atheists. They make no attempt to understand their opponents (or "love their enemies" as Jesus might say) or to attempt to convince their opponents through empathy (or to become weak for the weak, as Paul might say).Well let me provide you with one then. The fact is that Christianity teaches you that believers have special knowledge others don't have. Further that knowledge supposedly guarantees you heaven while it's lack condemns the rest to hell. The root of all the problems with Christians comes from theses two facts. Christians simply cannot accept that any other belief system can be comparable.

Even your continued attempts to portray atheists as immoral is an outgrowth of your doctrine that falselt teaches that non-believers can't be moral. You have plenty of reasons from the bible to hate.

Atheists at least have to make up their own;-)


Atheists tell me that the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with them. But they offer no way to make that happen, and the ones who do (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) were evil. Some Christians also say the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with them. And they've tried to make that happen through war and violence too.

I see no important difference.

I might call myself an atheist someday, but only after atheists learn the meaning of humility.That's a very statement coming from an adherant to a religion that believes it's followers are favored by all others by God.

As to Stalin, Lenin and Mao, I addressed the fallacy of your statement above.

[seeker]

I realize that I was referring more to the Jews bouncing around the region incorporating elements of pagan gods into their monotheistic God like a kind of theological katamari. An interesting look at this (though not a history book) is God: A Biography by Jack Miles.An interesting looking book, I'll add it to my reading list. This is why I love these types of debates, I'd never have found out about it otherwise.

I've been tracking the relationships between The Hebrew God and other Gods in the region, this will be a different perspective. Thanks.




I would win that one. Churches are big money-makers these days.Doesn't help you individually though.




I am a pantheist. That should help you make sense of it. Or not, at this point I couldn't care less.Really? More along Gnostic lines then?




We can argue about this but again it would be pointless. Einstein thought the universe operated by immutable laws and at different points in his life he let on that he saw some of quantum theory as violating that. I'm not going to be dragged into yet another tangent with you.I agree, he considered quantum theory as incomplete.




So you're saying it doesn't contain history?Very little that fits the archaeological record. So far the only part of history that the bible fits that isn't contrary to the historical record is the period after they are freed from Babylon captivity to the New Testament, about 400 years. the rest is riddled with temporal and geographic anomalies.

I think you (or someone, I've lost track) said something to the effect that the bible isn't meant as a history book anyway and that is probably a fair assesment.




Way to assume I'm an idiot again.Honestly didn't mean to but we doi have different perspectives.

[seeker]

Thank God, so to speak. I was getting all worked up about something I thought was a philosophy and it turns out it doesn't actually exist! Hey guys, we can all go home now! :pI'm curious why you think atheism is a philosophy. Care to elaborate?



And I don't mind telling you that the atheist world out of Orwell's 1984 that Stalin and Mao gave us samples of scares the **** out of me.You mean the communist worlds. Once again you are conflating atheism with political systems.




And you're going to tell me atheists don't?We don't have a doctrine that says we are favored in the universe as you do.




Hitler's anti-Semitism was based just as much on his manipulative need for a scapegoat as it was on religion. Christian extremism is as much a component of National Socialism as atheism was of Communism.Absolutely wrong here. National Socialisn, Fascism and other types of authoritarianism all take their doctrine from Christianity and other religions. the whole notion of abslute leadership and subservience to the stat is distinctly Christian. Once again you are trying to ascribe political attributes to something that is merely non-belief.




The Communist Manifesto? Mao's little red book?Not in the way Christians did over a thousand years




Well, that's your call. There's no accounting for taste.



Exactly. They can't properly be called philosophical examinations.Gee, two things we agree on.




Rriiiiight.... I don't see your point. How does this make the epistles not philosophy?Repeating doctrine is not the same as philosophy.




I never said it contributed to science. I said it was influential. Read a bit more carefully.

But if you can't see any value to art unless it contributes to science, then we truly are at an impasse. I wouldn't die for Christianity, but I think I would rather die than live in a world without art.I'm an artist myself. I paint abstracts in oils. the problem I see with the bible is it's repression and even censorship as well as it advocacy of some of mans basest acts,




Yet it is precisely this understanding that atheists seem to resist.Look at history. Athiests weren't conducting the inquisitions or witch burnings




The biggest private health care provider in the United States isn't Atheists United. It's the Catholic Church.Just ask the people in Tahiti.




Quoted for complete agreement.I agree. When Christians and Muslims stop threatening the world it will be a better place.




No, I would change that to, "Extremism is always going to be there." Period.It will be less though when we aren't providing it with doctrine that justifies any act.




Reminds me of the Cultural Revolution in China.True but that's just one of many incidents. Christian repression covered over 1500 years




Actually purple, you gotta admit this makes a lot of sense. If no one ever mentioned God in history there would be no reason for atheism to exist. You might also reverse Douglas Adams's proof of the non-existence of God based on the Babelfish to show that God does exist because atheists are around to doubt it. But now I'm just being snotty. :)Given that situation I would even consider accepting the proof.

[Peter Paltridge]

You also read history selectively. I see no reason to believe that atheism is any less capable of motivating hateful division and brutal crimes than theist religions. I have very few actual philosophical quarrels with you, which is why you have to bring up all this ancient Biblical garbage just to have something to argue about. My problem is that I don't see any compassion in atheists. They make no attempt to understand their opponents (or "love their enemies" as Jesus might say) or to attempt to convince their opponents through empathy (or to become weak for the weak, as Paul might say).

Atheists tell me that the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with them. But they offer no way to make that happen, and the ones who do (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) were evil. Some Christians also say the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with them. And they've tried to make that happen through war and violence too.

I see no important difference.

I might call myself an atheist someday, but only after atheists learn the meaning of humility.
One of the best comments in this thread. When are we going to stop blaming each other for the world's crime and hate, and just admit that PEOPLE are evil??

[SirLemming]

You want to know one reason I'm not an atheist?

Back in the days before we had TV listings absolutely all over the place, I would often be talking or thinking about a certain Simpsons episode at some point during the day. And then it would air that night. This has happened at least 10 times.

Some things just can't be explained.

[seeker]

I have.

As to the rest of what's been said, Ben brings up my counter arguments to your statements. Also, you haven't looked at the facts regarding the mourning process in those times -- lice, GI Jane haircuts, nails, etc.Cool then you can find my responses to Ben in my previous posts.



Uhm, I thought you said that the Bible wasn't a veritable source of history? So why are you picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are accurate when you accuse us of doing the same thing and attempt to berate us for it? Because it illustrates the reason it is considered so unreliable by biblical scholars.

As far as berating you, hardly.



The period is not the "curse." Rather, this method was used to prove that a woman had been sleeping with another guy while her husband was absent. Most people theorize this is actually an abortion process. If he suspects she's been sleeping around, the only evidence would be a child that could not be his due to timing -- if he'd been away and she'd suddenly popped up pregnant. Since there was no such thing as EPT, they would give her this mixture that, if she was pregnant, would abort the fetus and sterilize her all in one go. However, if she wasn't pregnant, it wouldn't do anything to her. What the hell it actually was, I have no idea. Either way, "curse" is not used to describe a woman's period.Hmmm, I see a couple of problems with that explanation. First of all you are suggesting that a man could only accuse his wife of adultry when it becomes obvious she is pregnant. Secondly you seem to be suggesting that the god who kills people for the 'sin of Onan' would sanctify an abortion.

Of course the really big problem is that the wife could have been faithful to her husband and pregnant with his child.



What promises has God broken?


Jewish promised land -- I think there's a little sliver of land in the Mid-East that we've been squabbling about for a few thousand years that would beg to differ. While not always quiet and on even keel, it's technically theirs thanks to the Brits forking it over at the end of the Second World War.

Jesus returning -- Jesus returned a number of times during the 40 days after his death until his ascension into Heaven. None of the Apostles had been killed yet, so they all lived to see it. Afterwards, he said they would see him again, but he did not specify when. One could conclude that he meant they would meet again when they reached heaven. Actually the Jews were only in charge of it during the brief period between the thier release from Babylonian captivity to The early fourth century BCE when the Greeks took control of it and the again from the 1940's to now. As to the Jews and promises to them would you call that brief period a heritage?

As to Jesus returning in the lifetimes of his followers are you saying that Matt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom fits any of those criteria? None of the supposed returns of Jesus were him in his 'kingdom' since it doesn't exist till after armageddon and all of his disciples are dead.

Matt 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. is even clearer that all his prophecies would come true before his followers died (actually Mark 13:30 is the exact same quote and is clearer on all the stuff that is supposed to occer before any of his followers taste death)

Do I need to go on?



....Two out of three Henries lost because they were killed by the other Henries -- they were at war against each other. Of course a few had to lose! Henry of Navarre converted in public only. Until he died, he was a practicing Protestant in private -- his parents were big Protestant proponents. Catholicism was the religion of choice that granted stability thanks to its heavy connections with French tradition. A very cool reference and one I didn't know about. It illustrates my point though that a King was put under such pressure that he publically had to proclaim faith in a religion he didn't believe in.




Mendel was 12 and in predominantly Protestant Germany when that occurred. He was hardly 'forced' to do what he did; his hobby was gardening throughout his entire life, and he had a degree before becoming a priest (I dont' have the exact years available atm). Lemaitre was born in 1894 in Belgium. He became a Doctor of Sciences BEFORE being a priest -- he was Dr. Lemaitre in 1920, Father Lemaitre in 1923. They didn't live in the "barbaric" times. They lived in an era post Enlightenment, post Darwin, and not in uber Catholic countries such as France or Spain. Your argument doesn't wash. Only if you complerely disregard the momentum of 1500 years of a history of christianity being forced on the people of the region and the early indoctrinnation practices of Christianity.


As to Darwin himself, yes, he was nervous about the backlash regarding his work -- now this is in the year 1857 or so. However, when it was released, the scientific community liked it. The Anglican church had already started poking around the validity of miracles and started the idea of just dumping the idea wholesale. There were critics, yes -- but no one tarred and feathered the guy. And by the way, Darwin was raised to be a Nonconformist -- meaning that his family for generations (!) thought the whole faith thing was a crock. He himself was an agnostic. He didn't suffer for it. I agree Darwin was fortunate enough to have come along at the end of a long period of repression but as even you point out he was sensitive to it.



The fact that Stalin is really dead helps, though. There was that fear of him coming back from the dead -- he really had that sway over people. He was the boogey man. Now that the guy is definitely dead, it's a matter of telling Russia to keep itself to itself and not allowing globalization to become the new tyranny. There is more of a fear of the former government now than the man.It looks like the former government won't be a worry, Russia is starting to do well though that does nothing for the Ukraine directly I think that it's unlikely Russia would want to share what wealth they are getting around.

[seeker]

For what it is worth I just wanted to let all of you know that I really appreciated our discussions. As SirLemming pointed out so aptly no minds will be changed and that wasn't my goal anyway. I really only wanted a good discussion.

Ben, TGS (I feel we are on a first initial basis) , you are both first rate and I hope that i neve gave either of you any other impression. Anytime you want to continue the debate e-mail me (my e-mail is in my profile) and if you don't I understand. I do a lot of these debats on another site (athiests.com) and you are welcome to come there anytime.

Since this is a cartoon site though I think I should return you to your original programming.

Good luck all

[The Guitar Slayer]

Hehe. Always good to have a rousing battle. And I'm not letting you sneak away that easily!



Hmmm, I see a couple of problems with that explanation. First of all you are suggesting that a man could only accuse his wife of adultry when it becomes obvious she is pregnant. Secondly you seem to be suggesting that the god who kills people for the 'sin of Onan' would sanctify an abortion.

I'm not saying that the guy would just pull this out of a hat whenever he got his wife pregnant. As I said before, it's a matter of timing. They would only do this in cases where she's six weeks pregnant and he's been away for ten weeks -- something along those lines. Also, it seems to be a very public and drawn out occasion -- I don't think a lot of people would have gone through it multiple times. The period curse you've spoken of would be even more risky and would have possibly wiped out any population growth moreso than the scenario I put forward. We may just have to chalk it up to the male writers' dancing around female biology.


Actually the Jews were only in charge of it during the brief period between the thier release from Babylonian captivity to The early fourth century BCE when the Greeks took control of it and the again from the 1940's to now. As to the Jews and promises to them would you call that brief period a heritage?

A lot of Jews do -- part of their argument for having what land they do have in the Mid-East is the religious belief that this is what God meant. The country Israel is the Promised Land, and looking at the news on any given day, it's clear that its people are very protective of it. Also, these promises didn't exactly have an expiration date or a due date -- it may have taken that long.

Alrighty, here's Matthew 16:28, NASB:


"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

As to "not tast[ing] death," it may be that Jesus was saying that some of his followers would be in limbo or purgatory until he came back for them at the end of the world. Going straight to heaven is for those who died without a sin on their soul, cardinal or venial (we're heading into Catholic territory now). If someone dies with minor sins on their soul, then they go to Purgatory to repent until they finally have a clean soul and then get kicked upstairs. It's only once you get to heaven that your soul rests or that your death is "final." This also falls under a heading in the Bible stating "Discipleship is Costly." There may be people who stay in Purgatory longer than necessary for some reason in God's intent for them -- as conductors or something. Either way, until your or I get there, it's up for grabs as to the exact nature of bureaucracy.



34"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
35so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Considering the history of life on this planet is heading toward the 5 to 6 billion year mark (planet itself is about 14 billion, if memory serves), a generation lasting 2000+ years is plausible. You've got to remember that time to the Divine is totally different for us. If God created all this jazz, he's an old, old dude. I immediately think of the story man talking to Zeus who asks him how much a hundred years is to him (a minute), how much a hundred gold is to him (a penny), etc., in order to build up his ego. Then he asks Zeus for "a few pennies" to which the god replies "in a minute." Relativity.


Also, you have to remember that the Gospels were not written right away in 30 AD. Many came along right after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in the 70s. To the Jewish people, this was the end times. They may have thought that Jesus was referring to an immediate end to civilization as they knew it, and put that into the subtext of this. Look at the verses that come right after it, entitled Lament over Jerusalem.



Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38"Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
39"For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'"

Also note that Luke the Gentile doesn't consider it the end times in his variation of this story in Luke 13 (verses pertaining to this are around 34 and 35). To him, history's just a'rolling on and we'll see Jesus again in the end times, which are further off. Luke's not Jewish and he's really not that troubled by the destruction of the Temple. Meanwhile, Matthew and Mark flipped out over it in their Gospels. John didn't write his books until later in life when he was receiving visions of the Apocalypse on Patnos -- he didn't have that impulsive reaction the other two writers did despite being Jewish.




Only if you complerely disregard the momentum of 1500 years of a history of christianity being forced on the people of the region and the early indoctrinnation practices of Christianity.

I don't deny that the Western world is heavily Christianized, but there wasn't that need to be a churchgoer or members as there was in the 1700s and before. By the 1800s and stretching until today, atheism was allowed to grow. I'm sure any of these men could have been atheists without backlash if they had so chosen that way, but instead they felt there was a God (of some sort) and either went the way of agnosticism or Catholicism.


It looks like the former government won't be a worry, Russia is starting to do well though that does nothing for the Ukraine directly I think that it's unlikely Russia would want to share what wealth they are getting around.

Russia may have pulled some funny stuff during the Orange Revolution -- have you seen Yushenko's face before and after his dioxin poisoning? He's still healing. Also, Russia cut off fuel to Ukraine last winter -- while they gave their official nice reasons, a lot think Putin has his own agenda when it comes to former Soviet states. I mean, he was the former head of the Secret Police. It's like having Muller of the Gestapo ruling Germany today. It feels inheritantly shady to anyone with ties back there. Also, there has been some other recent international election trouble with a trail of breadcrumbs leading back to Putin's office.

[purplehairedwonder]

Actually purple, you gotta admit this makes a lot of sense. If no one ever mentioned God in history there would be no reason for atheism to exist. I still stick with my original point. If no one ever mentioned God in history, then that means there would be no believers in God to mention him, so there would not have to be atheists to doubt the belief. And that sentence just made me dizzy ;)

[Roman Legion]

If you don't already know these things then why ask?To try to clarify your stance, perhaps?


I don't think so. Living in an environment where any difference in belief could result in you being dragged off tortured...Someone else expanded on that before I did, and you skipped it. You're painting a bleaker picture than reality.


Good Ben, you are thinking a little but...Like to look down on people much?


If they are exaggerating in some parts of the book what makes you think the whole thing isn't exagerated?"I misinterpret, therefor, it's wrong." A philosophy that's easy to apply blindly to a host of things. Works wonders.


Wasn't due to Athiesm . . . This was not an atheist action burt a political oneYou're as good at brushing things off as anyone else. Even if you assume that atheism wasn't responsible, you still have to take it as proof that the absence of religion doesn't relieve any of humanity's ills. If people do terrible things without religion, you can't honestly claim that the existence of religion is the problem. Of course, you also wouldn't bother to consider that many of the horrors committed in the name of religion had their fair share of non-religious motives. You wouldn't let someone else brush off responsibility so easily, would you?


Does it really bother you that much to acknowledge what did in history to spread their religion?Strike that, reverse it.


Once again you are trying to obscure an inherant property of Christianity, Why is that?Now hoooold on, once again. Piecing these answers together, are you implying that anti-Semitism is an inherent property of Christianity? Am I following this right? May I have permission to find that offensive and ask where you proved that?


The fact is that Christianity teaches you that believers have special knowledge others don't have. Further that knowledge supposedly guarantees you heaven while it's lack condemns the rest to hell. The root of all the problems with Christians comes from theses two facts. Christians simply cannot accept that any other belief system can be comparable.Religious people in the past have done bad things. We get that. Historical anecdotes, however, do not constitute the sort of proof you seem to think you have about the nature of religion. Where are you pulling this stuff from?

--Romey

[sarita]

Men can't love without God.You've not encountered a frat house yet, have you?

Okay, that? Really cracked me up. :lol:


When are we going to stop blaming each other for the world's crime and hate, and just admit that PEOPLE are evil??

Because it's easier to point the finger at something else than at ourselves.

Though I completely agree with you...

[seeker]

Hehe. Always good to have a rousing battle. And I'm not letting you sneak away that easily! {/quote]I knew you liked me ;-)

Listen, I'm more than happy to continue our discussion but I'm not interested in derailing people here or creating ill will. Trust me here, I've been preached at enough to know I don't enjoy it either. If that is how we can continue that's cool but this site belongs to you guys, it should be your decision and not of situation that you or others feel forced to accept.




I'm not saying that the guy would just pull this out of a hat whenever he got his wife pregnant. As I said before, it's a matter of timing. They would only do this in cases where she's six weeks pregnant and he's been away for ten weeks -- something along those lines. Also, it seems to be a very public and drawn out occasion -- I don't think a lot of people would have gone through it multiple times. The period curse you've spoken of would be even more risky and would have possibly wiped out any population growth moreso than the scenario I put forward. We may just have to chalk it up to the male writers' dancing around female biology. I think the flaw with that is twofold. First you had a situation at that time when women were considered to be property. One of the things I always thought was truly atrocious about their laws was the notion that a guy could marry a girl (essentially buy her from her father) and then return her if she wasn't a virgin. The womans father would then be required to produce the bloody sheets to proive her virginity. No bloody sheets? they stone her (Dueteronomy 20:14 on)

In a lot of other ways women were considered property. I'm not saying that Hebrew society was loveless but uman nature says people will abuse things




A lot of Jews do -- part of their argument for having what land they do have in the Mid-East is the religious belief that this is what God meant. The country Israel is the Promised Land, and looking at the news on any given day, it's clear that its people are very protective of it. Also, these promises didn't exactly have an expiration date or a due date -- it may have taken that long. I know they believe that but the reality is that the English have a longer claim to their land that the Jews do to Israel. Especially in light of the fact that much of the OT is arguably false. It's a bit like me claiming God said you oqwe me ten dollars. you could never disprove that and eventually I might even persuade you to give me the ten dollars but that would not make it true.


Alrighty, here's Matthew 16:28, NASB:



As to "not tast[ing] death," it may be that Jesus was saying that some of his followers would be in limbo or purgatory until he came back for them at the end of the world. Going straight to heaven is for those who died without a sin on their soul, cardinal or venial (we're heading into Catholic territory now). If someone dies with minor sins on their soul, then they go to Purgatory to repent until they finally have a clean soul and then get kicked upstairs. It's only once you get to heaven that your soul rests or that your death is "final." This also falls under a heading in the Bible stating "Discipleship is Costly." There may be people who stay in Purgatory longer than necessary for some reason in God's intent for them -- as conductors or something. Either way, until your or I get there, it's up for grabs as to the exact nature of bureaucracy.You don't get to purgatory without death though. Rewmember we aren't talking about stages of death. he used the words 'taste of death'




Considering the history of life on this planet is heading toward the 5 to 6 billion year mark (planet itself is about 14 billion, if memory serves), a generation lasting 2000+ years is plausible. You've got to remember that time to the Divine is totally different for us. If God created all this jazz, he's an old, old dude. I immediately think of the story man talking to Zeus who asks him how much a hundred years is to him (a minute), how much a hundred gold is to him (a penny), etc., in order to build up his ego. Then he asks Zeus for "a few pennies" to which the god replies "in a minute." Relativity. I've heard that joke. Didn't know it was Zues though, was he at the Apollo at the time?

Seriously what generation of man do you know that lived 2000 years?



Also, you have to remember that the Gospels were not written right away in 30 AD. Many came along right after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in the 70s. To the Jewish people, this was the end times. They may have thought that Jesus was referring to an immediate end to civilization as they knew it, and put that into the subtext of this. Look at the verses that come right after it, entitled Lament over Jerusalem. So you are saying they may have gotten it wrong? We agree but that begs the question of what else they got wrong.

As I understand it Mark is the first, written around 70CE (I now it's second in the canon but we are talking authorship here. Matthew and Luke follow at around 90-100CE and John berween 120-140CE.





Also note that Luke the Gentile doesn't consider it the end times in his variation of this story in Luke 13 (verses pertaining to this are around 34 and 35). To him, history's just a'rolling on and we'll see Jesus again in the end times, which are further off. Luke's not Jewish and he's really not that troubled by the destruction of the Temple. Meanwhile, Matthew and Mark flipped out over it in their Gospels. John didn't write his books until later in life when he was receiving visions of the Apocalypse on Patnos -- he didn't have that impulsive reaction the other two writers did despite being Jewish. He can't see it as the end times because if he does he has to admit that all of it should have happened befor he wrote his gospel. Part of the reason Luke wrote his document was to cover this discrepancy.





[quote=The Guitar Slayer]I don't deny that the Western world is heavily Christianized, but there wasn't that need to be a churchgoer or members as there was in the 1700s and before. By the 1800s and stretching until today, atheism was allowed to grow. I'm sure any of these men could have been atheists without backlash if they had so chosen that way, but instead they felt there was a God (of some sort) and either went the way of agnosticism or Catholicism. By the mid 1800's it was possible to be openly atheist but they were treated with much disdain as were the Jews and other non-believers.




Russia may have pulled some funny stuff during the Orange Revolution -- have you seen Yushenko's face before and after his dioxin poisoning? He's still healing. Also, Russia cut off fuel to Ukraine last winter -- while they gave their official nice reasons, a lot think Putin has his own agenda when it comes to former Soviet states. I mean, he was the former head of the Secret Police. It's like having Muller of the Gestapo ruling Germany today. It feels inheritantly shady to anyone with ties back there. Also, there has been some other recent international election trouble with a trail of breadcrumbs leading back to Putin's office.I think (and this is pure speculation on my part) that Putin is setting up some of the other former soviet states as vassal states. I can't imagine what living there must be like. I have friends that communicate with people in Siberia and the Ukraine and the way they describe these lives of theirs s just harrowing what with having to deal for half of everything you need with the Russian mob and the other half with the government.

[seeker]

To try to clarify your stance, perhaps?I see, so you can categorize it or so you can understand it? I'm not being faceteous here but you have consistantly seemed to dislike the process of this discussion so I am curious.


Someone else expanded on that before I did, and you skipped it. You're painting a bleaker picture than reality.Just as I expanded on the reasons why people would have felt that way. I know you thin I'm harsh about this but there are centuries of examples of genocide against people ranging from pagans in Rome to Tahitians all because they didn't have the beliefs that some misguided people thought they should have. The scary part is that I could go to the bible and using it build a logical case for each and every atrocity/


Like to look down on people much?No, you?


"I misinterpret, therefor, it's wrong." A philosophy that's easy to apply blindly to a host of things. Works wonders.Funny when you are saying, "I reinterpret, therefore I'm right"


You're as good at brushing things off as anyone else. Even if you assume that atheism wasn't responsible, you still have to take it as proof that the absence of religion doesn't relieve any of humanity's ills. If people do terrible things without religion, you can't honestly claim that the existence of religion is the problem. Of course, you also wouldn't bother to consider that many of the horrors committed in the name of religion had their fair share of non-religious motives. You wouldn't let someone else brush off responsibility so easily, would you?

Strike that, reverse it.Let's examine that shall we? I can definately point to Christian doctrines like forcible conversion, intolerance of other religions, prohibitions against homosexuality etc and thart follow logically from the bible.

What i am saying is that if an atheist does something wrong is is the individual and only that individual (plus whatever partners he has of course) that rationalizes it to himself. There is no doctrine that says this or that is okay to do. With Christianity you have a whole bible full of justifications for incredible horrors to rationalize a potential bad behavior. In fact a certain amount of bad behavior is almost necessary when you consider that a Christian is duty bound to prostekytize.


Now hoooold on, once again. Piecing these answers together, are you implying that anti-Semitism is an inherent property of Christianity? Am I following this right? May I have permission to find that offensive and ask where you proved that?Find it as offensive as you like. Do you deny that the bible portrays the Jews as rejecting Jesus (acts 3:14-15)? Are you claiming that it doesn't portray them as having killed Christ? Look at Acts 12:1-3 and see what it says about why Herod kills James and imprisons Peter. Better yet read what Paul says to the Jews in Acts 18:6.

Not convinced yet? read Romans I 1:18-20 it goes on and on.


Religious people in the past have done bad things. We get that. Historical anecdotes, however, do not constitute the sort of proof you seem to think you have about the nature of religion. Where are you pulling this stuff from?

--RomeyThat's okay. Even I am not foolish enough to think that what little I could present here in this format would change yours or most peoples minds. I've studied this stuff for a lot of years and I can tell you there is so much to wade through and masses of misinformation to ponder.

One little thing got my interest early on. It was a quoite from a guy named Eusebius, an early amd influential Christian thinker and writer. He said
"I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" (Chp. 31, Book
12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).Now why would someone need to lie if they had a divinely inspired message?

I will grant you that in and of itself that may be little but the more I looked at the early days of the Church the more I saw that just doesn't ring true.

[Harley]

Like to look down on people much?

No, you?


Good Ben, you are thinking a little [...]
The statement immediately above this indicates otherwise.

You are speaking with individuals who have accumulated some number professional accomplishments, whether it be in the arts, journalism, medicine, research (scientific, statistical, etc.). They are quite intelligent; they simply disagree with you on the point of religion and should be spoken to as no less than your equals.

The assumption is that you had not intended to come off as condescending and that you were unaware of the tone it set forth. Now you are and for the sake of civil debate you should endeavor to... and succeed in ensuring similar statements not make their way into your posts within this discussion.

[Roman Legion]

I see, so you can categorize it or so you can understand it? I'm not being faceteous here but you have consistantly seemed to dislike the process of this discussion so I am curious.Am I to understand that as "categorize" in the negative, dismissive sense? I fear you've done too good a job of that sort of "categorization", yourself. If you're really interested in learning and exchanging ideas, maybe you should step back for a bit and reconsider your approach to this matter.

You've got so many side-arguments happening that some 'positive' categorizing needs to be done for the purpose of completely grasping your case. I'm afraid, however, that I really am this close to dismissively categorizing your arguments and moving on. My frustration isn't with your position; it's with your approach to everyone else's position.


Funny when you are saying, "I reinterpret, therefore I'm right"If that's your interpretation, I doubt I'll be able to shake it by now. I haven't been pushing any particular position in this thread, so I don't think your take on my view has anything to stand on. I just popped in on behalf of religion in general... well, not really. I came to spout random Venetian history, but that didn't last long.

EDIT: Updated as Promised!


Just as I expanded on the reasons why people would have felt that way. I know you thin I'm harsh about this but there are centuries of examples of genocide against people ranging from pagans in Rome to Tahitians all because they didn't have the beliefs that some misguided people thought they should have.Would they have all shared peacefully coexisting beliefs without religion? Probably not, but you keep trotting out these issues anyway. Kill or be killed was they way things were. Resources were limited. Dominate or be dominated, by necessity. Even where there was abundance, there was still greed. Some religions just happened to follow from necessity. From a certain perspective, it's almost surprising that any religion preached even a hint of tolerance...


The scary part is that I could go to the bible and using it build a logical case for each and every atrocity.Not all logical arguments are true. Put your own spin on a few lines from your source material, build your logical arguments off slanted assumptions, arrive at questionable conclusions. You don't even need an organized religion to do that.


What i am saying is that if an atheist does something wrong is is the individual and only that individual (plus whatever partners he has of course) that rationalizes it to himself. There is no doctrine that says this or that is okay to do....and that's... better? Of course, that's only your rationalization. Anyone else as an individual could rationalize otherwise, like you've said. What makes rationalizations other than yours wrong, aside from whatever you've rationalized yourself about those rationalizations? How is that any different from saying it's not as bad when an atheist kills someone?

What do you do when a big bunch of atheists get together, all rationalize the same thing, and decide that their rationalizations should be imposed on everyone else? Or does that not happen?


With Christianity you have a whole bible full of justifications for incredible horrors to rationalize a potential bad behavior. In fact a certain amount of bad behavior is almost necessary when you consider that a Christian is duty bound to prostekytize.You don't need a Bible to rationalize "bad" behavior. We've been over this.

Not all Christians have even agreed about the duty to prosetelyze. Not all who desired to convert have agreed that "convert or die" is the right interpretation. They didn't just up and decide on tolerance without reasoning based on the same Bible you believe binds them to commit attrocities.


Find it as offensive as you like. Do you deny that the bible portrays the Jews as rejecting Jesus (acts 3:14-15)? Are you claiming that it doesn't portray them as having killed Christ? Look at Acts 12:1-3 and see what it says about why Herod kills James and imprisons Peter. Better yet read what Paul says to the Jews in Acts 18:6.What were Christ's Jewish followers thinking, exactly?

If I'm remembering correctly, despite all those verses, anti-Jewish sentiment (especially of the convert or die variety) didn't really kick for a few hundred years after Christ. Possibly because those verses don't say "go out and kill Jews". Heck, the earliest Christians didn't even seperate themselves outright from Judaism. Why would they?


Not convinced yet? read Romans I 1:18-20 it goes on and on.Sure you have the right verse, on that one?


One little thing got my interest early on. It was a quoite from a guy named Eusebius, an early amd influential Christian thinker and writer. He said, "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion." Now why would someone need to lie if they had a divinely inspired message?People have always had their personal opinions and agendas. The opportunity to impose your own spin on the divine is always tempting for those in the position to do so. Certainly, we have nearly 2000 years of various churches trying to do just that. By the 4th century, a number of camps had already formed, of which Eusebius would have belonged to just one. So I'm sure he had his own take on things.

...that's one point of view. Another point of view is that your quote is taken waaay out of context or mistranslated. That's probably worth looking into.

--Romey

[The Guitar Slayer]

Find it as offensive as you like. Do you deny that the bible portrays the Jews as rejecting Jesus (acts 3:14-15)? Are you claiming that it doesn't portray them as having killed Christ? Look at Acts 12:1-3 and see what it says about why Herod kills James and imprisons Peter. Better yet read what Paul says to the Jews in Acts 18:6.

Not convinced yet? read Romans I 1:18-20 it goes on and on.
You are barking up the wrong tree, and to even suggest that every Christian is inherently anti-Semitic is offensive and disgusting. First off, only the extremely archconservative literalists belive that the Jews killed Jesus and we should in turn kill Jews. That's the way Hitler went with his manipulation of the faith, and it's not too dissimilar from what Islamic extremists do to their holy texts in order to recruit suicide bombers. You don't seem to understand that not every person with an ounce of faith in them is crazy.

Second off, the people who had Jesus killed were the people he was questioning; the Pharisees, Saducees, and other high ups in the Jewish faith at the time were alarmed that there was yet another Messianic lunatic running around. Jesus was not the first or the last person to claim he was the Christ. He was taking money out of their coffers and people out of the Temple to follow Him, in their eyes. He was a threat to the status quo. Their idea of a Christ was a teacher, someone like them who thought like them. It's always been a political tactic to assassinate your opponents.

The Romans found him to be a threat because he upset the Jewish leaders, who were cooperating with the Romans at the time -- there was some benefit to being good to Caesar's men. Pay your taxes, you keep your religion. By getting Jesus in trouble with them, the Pharisees could sit fat and let imperial law take care of the probelm rather than having their hands directly dirty. It backfired on them quite badly in the end.

Jesus' supporters were the poor. They had no voice; it was drowned out by Jesus' wealthy opponents who stacked the crowd in question with either disguised members of the higher-ups or bought off starving people to cry out. Their idea of a Messiah was someone who would feed them, give them their daily bread. They weren't looking for another blowhard academic or someone who cried out for the fall of the Roman Empire as the zealots in the desert did -- someone who had concern for them and their problems was the greatest saviour they could ever hope for in those troubled times.

And now let's look at the woefully out of context verses you're citing.



14"But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,
15but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.
16"And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all.
17"And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also.
18"But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.
19"Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;


Ok, guess who's talking?

Peter.

Who's Peter?


Hot-headed Jewish fisherman.


Why is he making speeches?

Because he and John just healed a cripple much like Jesus did, and the crowds ran out to see it. He's talking because he doesn't want them to think he's the Messiah -- he's just working for him. Peter had a hell of a temper, and it's evident throughout his life. He diced off a guy's ear when the officials came to arrest Jesus. This is Chapter 3 of Acts -- he's an ickle bit annoyed still that these people, while ignorant and a bit weak in the purse, allowed his best friend to be axed. It's not because they're Jews; he's one too!

Acts 12 -- it pleases the Jews -- it pleases the Pharisees and Sadducees and all the other higher ups that are being displaced by this renegade new view. If you've done a study on Luke's usage of the word Jew and the word people, you'll find that he uses Jew more often to refer to the powerful in society and religious officials -- they wear their faith on their sleeve for good and bad (Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea versus Pharisees, Sadducees, etc). "People" is used to describe the poor and common Jews. At this point the Church hasn't expanded outside of Israel; it hasn't been spread to other countries yet....so if all Jews are painted as being pleased by this in the Acts, then who the hell has been following Jesus and now the Apostles around? Druids?

Acts 18:6 -- " 6But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

Ok, Paul just got cursed out in a public arena. I'd be pissed off too. He sees that this area of Jewish people is not going to listen to him so he's going to preach to people like him and that can relate to him better-- Gentiles aka PAGANS. I don't see any anti-Semitism in here. Are you using out-dated books again?

Romans 1:18-20 --
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
I see nothing. I don't know what you're flapping your arms about in regard to Anti-Semitism here.


Oh, by the way, read Romans 11. It's entitled "Israel Is Not Cast Away."


God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3"Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE."
4But what is the divine response to him? " I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL."
While not a literal 7,000 this time around (since he's quoting Elijah's quote), if anything, Paul is saying that the Jews are still beloved by God.

Are you reading the actual Bible, or are you just Googling random verses to support your points? You're not reading very deeply into it and are taking a rather literalist view rather than a contextual one.

[seeker]

The statement immediately above this indicates otherwise.

You are speaking with individuals who have accumulated some number professional accomplishments, whether it be in the arts, journalism, medicine, research (scientific, statistical, etc.). They are quite intelligent; they simply disagree with you on the point of religion and should be spoken to as no less than your equals.

The assumption is that you had not intended to come off as condescending and that you were unaware of the tone it set forth. Now you are and for the sake of civil debate you should endeavor to... and succeed in ensuring similar statements not make their way into your posts within this discussion.That goes both ways. I will give as good as I get.

[seeker]

Am I to understand that as "categorize" in the negative, dismissive sense? I fear you've done too good a job of that sort of "categorization", yourself. If you're really interested in learning and exchanging ideas, maybe you should step back for a bit and reconsider your approach to this matter.I'm oen to intelligent discussion, you were the one wjo began our part of the discussion with a dismissive tone. Are you just upset that I responded in kind?


You've got so many side-arguments happening that some 'positive' categorizing needs to be done for the purpose of completely grasping your case. I'm afraid, however, that I really am this close to dismissively categorizing your arguments and moving on. My frustration isn't with your position; it's with your approach to everyone else's position.If it's too frustrating for you to discuss these matters I don't have a problem with that. You chose to flame at me and I invited you into a rational discussion.


If that's your interpretation, I doubt I'll be able to shake it by now. I haven't been pushing any particular position in this thread, so I don't think your take on my view has anything to stand on. I just popped in on behalf of religion in general... well, not really. I came to spout random Venetian history, but that didn't last long.

(Working on the rest of my reply, if you'll give me a bit.)

EDIT: Eh, I'll finish in the morning.

--RomeyNo problem. take your time, decide what you wanr ro do and go from there

[seeker]

You are barking up the wrong tree, and to even suggest that every Christian is inherently anti-Semitic is offensive and disgusting. First off, only the extremely archconservative literalists belive that the Jews killed Jesus and we should in turn kill Jews. That's the way Hitler went with his manipulation of the faith, and it's not too dissimilar from what Islamic extremists do to their holy texts in order to recruit suicide bombers. You don't seem to understand that not every person with an ounce of faith in them is crazy.I'm only pointing out that Christian doctrine is anti-semetic. I agree most Christians don't really follow every line of doctrine.

My point all along is that the doctrine in the bible is harmful and this is a clear example.


Second off, the people who had Jesus killed were the people he was questioning; the Pharisees, Saducees, and other high ups in the Jewish faith at the time were alarmed that there was yet another Messianic lunatic running around. Jesus was not the first or the last person to claim he was the Christ. He was taking money out of their coffers and people out of the Temple to follow Him, in their eyes. He was a threat to the status quo. Their idea of a Christ was a teacher, someone like them who thought like them. It's always been a political tactic to assassinate your opponents.

The Romans found him to be a threat because he upset the Jewish leaders, who were cooperating with the Romans at the time -- there was some benefit to being good to Caesar's men. Pay your taxes, you keep your religion. By getting Jesus in trouble with them, the Pharisees could sit fat and let imperial law take care of the probelm rather than having their hands directly dirty. It backfired on them quite badly in the end.

Jesus' supporters were the poor. They had no voice; it was drowned out by Jesus' wealthy opponents who stacked the crowd in question with either disguised members of the higher-ups or bought off starving people to cry out. Their idea of a Messiah was someone who would feed them, give them their daily bread. They weren't looking for another blowhard academic or someone who cried out for the fall of the Roman Empire as the zealots in the desert did -- someone who had concern for them and their problems was the greatest saviour they could ever hope for in those troubled times.

And now let's look at the woefully out of context verses you're citing.




Ok, guess who's talking?

Peter.

Who's Peter?


Hot-headed Jewish fisherman.


Why is he making speeches?

Because he and John just healed a cripple much like Jesus did, and the crowds ran out to see it. He's talking because he doesn't want them to think he's the Messiah -- he's just working for him. Peter had a hell of a temper, and it's evident throughout his life. He diced off a guy's ear when the officials came to arrest Jesus. This is Chapter 3 of Acts -- he's an ickle bit annoyed still that these people, while ignorant and a bit weak in the purse, allowed his best friend to be axed. It's not because they're Jews; he's one too!

Acts 12 -- it pleases the Jews -- it pleases the Pharisees and Sadducees and all the other higher ups that are being displaced by this renegade new view. If you've done a study on Luke's usage of the word Jew and the word people, you'll find that he uses Jew more often to refer to the powerful in society and religious officials -- they wear their faith on their sleeve for good and bad (Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea versus Pharisees, Sadducees, etc). "People" is used to describe the poor and common Jews. At this point the Church hasn't expanded outside of Israel; it hasn't been spread to other countries yet....so if all Jews are painted as being pleased by this in the Acts, then who the hell has been following Jesus and now the Apostles around? Druids?

Acts 18:6 -- " 6But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

Ok, Paul just got cursed out in a public arena. I'd be pissed off too. He sees that this area of Jewish people is not going to listen to him so he's going to preach to people like him and that can relate to him better-- Gentiles aka PAGANS. I don't see any anti-Semitism in here. Are you using out-dated books again?

Romans 1:18-20 --
I see nothing. I don't know what you're flapping your arms about in regard to Anti-Semitism here.


Oh, by the way, read Romans 11. It's entitled "Israel Is Not Cast Away."

While not a literal 7,000 this time around (since he's quoting Elijah's quote), if anything, Paul is saying that the Jews are still beloved by God.

Are you reading the actual Bible, or are you just Googling random verses to support your points? You're not reading very deeply into it and are taking a rather literalist view rather than a contextual one.:lol: You are making my case for me though. In every case you cannot help but admit that those anti semetic statements are a part of the Bible. Throughout history Christian Leaders from Augustine to Martin Luther have used those statements and those portrayals of the Jews to justify a myriad of persecutions. That's just fact.

Did I say anyone here was anti-semetic? No. I said that Christian doctrine was inherently anti semetic. See the difference?

[Rook]

7 pages later folks...

1 of the most debatable major topics of all time - religion


how has this thread lasted so long without being closed i wonder, go fig.







sigh...

[The Guitar Slayer]

I said that Christian doctrine was inherently anti semetic. See the difference?
No. You are talking to people who are Christians and telling them that their faith is supposed to breed within them a hatred of Jews. If we're good Christians, we're supposed to hate Jews. Sieg Hiel. It's really easy for you to use that :lol: icon when you can't refute what I say in regard to Biblical context. I don't see how I've proven any of your looney points regarding anti-Semitism. In fact, I've shown how poorly read you are of the Bible and its context. These statements are not anti-Semetic; rather, you are twisting them out of their place in Scripture so that you can demonize a whole religion.

I've provided/proven:
a) a context of the society that was ongoing in Jesus' time (Romans on top, Jesus' followers ultimately on the bottom);

b) why Peter was scolding the people (he's still grieving);

c) that Paul actually said that the Jews are still beloved by God and that the passage you quoted is after people cursed him out, and like Peter, he's pissed; and

d) you're not actually reading any of the verses you're citing. You're probably get them off a website and saying, "Now, see, you all are Jew haters because of this." Tell me where in that Romans verse there's an ounce of hatred directed toward anyone.

And by the way, Paul was ethnically half-Jewish. Tribe of Benjamin. He actually says that in the opening of Chapter 11. He was religiously a pagan because he was raised in Roman society by that half of his heritage. So you see, all of these "Jew haters" that founded the Church were Jewish.

You're not going to win this argument. An :lol: does not give you any more umph, so there's no bonus points for using it as much as you have here.

[Kaoru]

No. You are talking to people who are Christians and telling them that their faith is supposed to breed within them a hatred of Jews. If we're good Christians, we're supposed to hate Jews. Sieg Hiel. Now that you've brought it up it's a known fact that Hitler held strong anti-seministic views. He was a devout Christian, and he killed 15 million Jews (as many as alive today). He wanted to exterminate them because of the conception that 'they killed Jesus'. Plus he didn't like that they weren't blonde.

Why would otherwise popular celebrity Mel Gibson say things that are anti-seministic? He's a devout Christian. Maybe he takes it (the doctorine) more seriously and literally than you do. Sure he was under influence, but the clue is in the bottle (drunk people say what they mean). I would know.

Similar case with Islam, while Muslims I know personally don't share such extreme views as some clerics and the now former Australian seik, the religion does preach that rape of uncovered women is acceptable and that it's women's fault being raped if they're not accompanied by a man. Some people follow the Koran and Bible more than others and they seem to be the ones causing all the trouble and 'making a bad name' for Christians and Muslims who don't live the scriptures by the word.

[Harley]

That goes both ways. I will give as good as I get.

That's not a suggestion. If you were spoken down to at any point during this discussion, you're free to report the post or PM me privately with the contents of the post in question.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Now that you've brought it up it's a known fact that Hitler held strong anti-seministic views. He was a devout Christian, and he killed 15 million Jews (as many as alive today). He wanted to exterminate them because of the conception that 'they killed Jesus'. Plus he didn't like that they weren't blonde.

Hitler is hardly the human norm or the Christian norm. Additionally, the toll of rule pushed him to the edge, and some scholars believe he teetered off. Ever see a picture of him? Not blonde either. So if he was really devout and right in this Christian doctrine, why didn't he kill himself before the Russians were banging on the door? Hitler also believed that he and his men were the reincarnations of the Knights of the Round table. I'm a big fan of King Arthur and Co. too, but I don't think I'm Queen Guenevere. All said and done, "devout" is not a synonym for "literalist" or "extremist."


Why would otherwise popular celebrity Mel Gibson say things that are anti-seministic? He's a devout Christian. Maybe he takes it (the doctorine) more seriously and literally than you do. Sure he was under influence, but the clue is in the bottle (drunk people say what they mean). I would know.

No. Christian doctrine is not anti-Semitic by nature, despite what people are trying to twist this into. Jesus was the guy who preached love and tolerance to all people -- including to and for his own people, the Jews. Being an extremist is not the same as being a "good Christian." Taking the word at word value and living by the letter of the law is not encouraged by Christ. Rather, he was an advocate of the Spirit of the Law. Even then, what examples have been provided in this thread have been pulled far, far out of context.

Additionally, Gibson was raised by a father who denies the Holocaust -- archconservative. He still attends mass in Latin. Gibson should have been better than to fall back on things he'd been ingrained with from a young age -- but he's not a representative of every Catholic on the planet. That would actually be the Pope.

As a valedictorian of a Catholic high school I take my doctrine extremely seriously, and I challenge you to find a section in the Catholic Catechism that says that anti-Semitism is all right. I have mine open in front of me. Try me. I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Bring it.


Some people follow the Koran and Bible more than others and they seem to be the ones causing all the trouble and 'making a bad name' for Christians and Muslims who don't live the scriptures by the word.

"By the word" -- literalist. Literalists take the scriptures at face value and don't think to try to put it into the context of the times and society that they were written in. That argument may fly with literalists and archconservative sects, but they aren't "better" for it. In most cases, the leader of the faith discourages extremist factions within the faith. John Paull II decried anti-Semitism with all his heart, and there have been whole sections of the Catholic church that have been excommunicated over it. This is not part of doctrine, and to think that all Christians should hate Jews is on the same level as saying all Jews kill Christian babies for their blood, or that all Muslims are crazy and want to kill all infidels. It's just as ignorant and offensive.




I keep mentioning literalism versus contextualism without explaining them. Best example is the Pork Scenario It's my favorite one regarding literalist vs contextualist. This is me providing context again.

Literalist: Jews aren't allowed to eat pork because of God's word. However, Christians are because God said it was cool to Peter.

Contextualist: Back when the laws were given out to the people, there was inadequate refridgeration techniques in order to ensure that the pig meat would keep long enough to be safe and not kill everyone in the community thanks to food poisoning. Ergo, it was a protective manuever to not allow pigs to be eaten -- besides, cows and chickens kept better and were used for other labor and other food sources. It's more practical as a nomadic people to have milk, eggs, and pull force than pigs that just lie around. However, by the time the Acts came around and Peter was told it was ok, preservation techniques had advanced far enough so that there was less risk of killing off the entire community with some bad bacon.

[seeker]

No. You are talking to people who are Christians and telling them that their faith is supposed to breed within them a hatred of Jews. If we're good Christians, we're supposed to hate Jews. Sieg Hiel. It's really easy for you to use that :lol: icon when you can't refute what I say in regard to Biblical context. I don't see how I've proven any of your looney points regarding anti-Semitism. In fact, I've shown how poorly read you are of the Bible and its context. These statements are not anti-Semetic; rather, you are twisting them out of their place in Scripture so that you can demonize a whole religion.I didn't need to refute what you said. Your defense was all to the effect of "oh he was just mad that time." yet you still have to acknowledge that it was said. Sure we can wave this or that off from the bible bt interpreting it away or rationalizing it out of your own mind doesn't change the fact that it's there.

The whole point is that anything can be rationalized from such doctrine and that passages like that, that you as an ethical person dismiss, aren't dismissed by people who want to justify their hatreds.


I've provided/proven:
a) a context of the society that was ongoing in Jesus' time (Romans on top, Jesus' followers ultimately on the bottom);

b) why Peter was scolding the people (he's still grieving);

c) that Paul actually said that the Jews are still beloved by God and that the passage you quoted is after people cursed him out, and like Peter, he's pissed; and

d) you're not actually reading any of the verses you're citing. You're probably get them off a website and saying, "Now, see, you all are Jew haters because of this." Tell me where in that Romans verse there's an ounce of hatred directed toward anyone.

And by the way, Paul was ethnically half-Jewish. Tribe of Benjamin. He actually says that in the opening of Chapter 11. He was religiously a pagan because he was raised in Roman society by that half of his heritage. So you see, all of these "Jew haters" that founded the Church were Jewish.

You're not going to win this argument. An :lol: does not give you any more umph, so there's no bonus points for using it as much as you have here.I've already won the arguement, you just didn't understand the arguement. What you are doing is just the equivelant of excusing Hitler for the holocaust because of his upbringing. Paul, Peter et al are considered to be founders of the Church and their antisemetic rants however you justify them are still anti semetic rants.

[seeker]

That's not a suggestion. If you were spoken down to at any point during this discussion, you're free to report the post or PM me privately with the contents of the post in question.I do apologize. You are right that I should have handled the matter more privately. I would suggest though that there has been a lot of give and take from both sides in this discussion.

[SirLemming]

I didn't need to refute what you said. Your defense was all to the effect of "oh he was just mad that time." yet you still have to acknowledge that it was said. So did you just, like, glance at her post or what? You're just being lazy now. She discussed why she thinks the verses aren't anti-Semitic, and instead of bothering to actually respond you just pretend that whatever she said was stupid and not worth mentioning.

And you've done extremely little to prove that the verses are anti-Semitic. Your argument for that basically amounts to, "He was talking to Jews at the time, and what he was saying was pretty condemnatory, so therefore he's telling us to hate Jews." If I tell a black person he's doing something wrong does that mean I'm saying to hate all blacks? If not, I think there's a lot more explaining to do. A LOT, before you claim that a book that overwhelmingly portrays the Hebrew people in a good light (while certainly acknowledging their mistakes) is anti-Semitic.

[The Guitar Slayer]

I didn't need to refute what you said. Your defense was all to the effect of "oh he was just mad that time."
That, and he was talking to people. Their faith doesn't come into this. Not "dirty Jews" or "horrible Jews." Just people. You keep forgetting that Peter is Jewish too.


I've already won the arguement, you just didn't understand the arguement.
No one can win this argument. It's theological. I understand the argument perfectly well. I'm not stupid or ignorant as you would like to imply all people that are "blinded" by faith are. I find your argument flawed and that quite frankly you're clutching at straws. Make an outlandish statement such as "all Christians are Jew-haters" and try to make someone flounder in their haste to go "no no no!" While I have denied your claims, I'm hardly flustered.


What you are doing is just the equivelant of excusing Hitler for the holocaust because of his upbringing. No, I mentioned Mel Gibson's upbringing. I haven't spoken of Hitler's background at all. I haven't excused Hitler at all. What he did was an attrocity, no question asked. Even before he lost his marbles, he was taking an extremist reading of Scriptures. However it does need to be said that the man was possibly mentally ill and not the most rational person to be proclaimed as a representative of Christianity or even to lead a country. He was a manipulater and charismatic -- dangerous combination no matter the faith involved. The man was a hatemongering nut and his actions inexcuseable.


Paul, Peter et al are considered to be founders of the Church and their antisemetic rants however you justify them are still anti semetic rants.
The Jewish fishermen and Jewish carpenters hate Jews. That's brilliant. I would put a few "lol" smilies in here, but you're worn out their quota in this thread.

[seeker]

So did you just, like, glance at his post or what? You're just being lazy now. He discussed why he thinks the verses aren't anti-Semitic, and instead of bothering to actually respond you just pretend that whatever he said was stupid and not worth mentioning.

And you've done extremely little to prove that the verses are anti-Semitic. Your argument for that basically amounts to, "He was talking to Jews at the time, and what he was saying was pretty condemnatory, so therefore he's telling us to hate Jews." If I tell a black person he's doing something wrong does that mean I'm saying to hate all blacks? If not, I think there's a lot more explaining to do. A LOT, before you claim that a book that overwhelmingly portrays the Hebrew people in a good light (while certainly acknowledging their mistakes) is anti-Semitic.Not at all. As I pointed out before. I have the entire weight of history on my side. I can point to a wealth of Christian thinkers that have come to the same conclusion I did and used those very passages to devise pograms against the Jews. In fact here is a very brief picture of early Cjhristian views




315: Constantine published the Edict of Milan. [...] Jews lost many rights with this edict. They were no longer permitted to live in Jerusalem, or to proselytize.
325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."
337: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.
339: Converting to Judaism became a criminal offence.
343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: "It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety."
367 - 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.
379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the state rel
it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves."
489 - 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna. igion of the Roman Empire at this time.
380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as "an act pleasing to God."
415: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.
415: St. Augustine wrote "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus."
418: St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of a synagogue: "If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves."
489 - 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna. Where do you suppose they got the impetus to commit these acts?

[seeker]

That, and he was talking to people. Their faith doesn't come into this. Not "dirty Jews" or "horrible Jews." Just people. You keep forgetting that Peter is Jewish too. Yes he was talking to people. People he believed God had turned away from and who he believed deserved eternal punishment.



No one can win this argument. It's theological. I understand the argument perfectly well. I'm not stupid or ignorant as you would like to imply all people that are "blinded" by faith are. I find your argument flawed and that quite frankly you're clutching at straws. Make an outlandish statement such as "all Christians are Jew-haters" and try to make someone flounder in their haste to go "no no no!" While I have denied your claims, I'm hardly flustered. You are very flustered. You even are trying to have me making a statement I neve made. The original exchange was:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Definitely Not Romey
Now hoooold on, once again. Piecing these answers together, are you implying that anti-Semitism is an inherent property of Christianity? Am I following this right? May I have permission to find that offensive and ask where you proved that?

Quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
ind it as offensive as you like. Do you deny that the bible portrays the Jews as rejecting Jesus (acts 3:14-15)? Are you claiming that it doesn't portray them as having killed Christ? Look at Acts 12:1-3 and see what it says about why Herod kills James and imprisons Peter. Better yet read what Paul says to the Jews in Acts 18:6.

Not convinced yet? read Romans I 1:18-20 it goes on and on.




Show me where in there I have said all Christians are anti semites then open your hands and let go of the straw in them.


No, I mentioned Mel Gibson's upbringing. I haven't spoken of Hitler's background at all. I haven't excused Hitler at all. What he did was an attrocity, no question asked. Even before he lost his marbles, he was taking an extremist reading of Scriptures. However it does need to be said that the man was possibly mentally ill and not the most rational person to be proclaimed as a representative of Christianity or even to lead a country. He was a manipulater and charismatic -- dangerous combination no matter the faith involved. The man was a hatemongering nut and his actions inexcuseable.I agree with this entire statement. The point here is that an extremist nut like Hitler is bad enough without giving him doctrinal justification to point to that justifies his position. If that doctrine hadn't been there then the following Hitler had of people who had been exposed to those ideas through their religion would not have existed.



The Jewish fishermen and Jewish carpenters hate Jews. That's brilliant. I would put a few "lol" smilies in here, but you're worn out their quota in this thread.Of course you are assuming the epistles were authored by the people to whom they are attributed. Few biblical scholars would agree with that view.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Not at all. As I pointed out before. I have the entire weight of history on my side.
Nobody has the entire wealth of history on their side. That's something that delusional people such as Hitler proclaimed and tried to put into effect by carving the swastika into art at any opportunity.

I googled the first entry in your list. The author who compiled that list is named "Vexen Crabtree." He is an atheist and Satanist that belives in the bane of monotheism and the promotion of Satanism. He is hardly an unbiased source to get this timeline from. You can find his website on http://www.vexen.co.uk/

He is hardly a Christian thinker as you suggest in your opening paragraph. If you care to continue to play this gambit, I'll yank out my old text books and give myself a quick refresher course before I tackle your points.

As to the post above, you said that "Peter, Paul, et al..." -- we are speaking of the people, not their epistles. I thought we had established that when you quoted Acts.

And may I remind you my response to that original exchange:


You are barking up the wrong tree, and to even suggest that every Christian is inherently anti-Semitic is offensive and disgusting. First off, only the extremely archconservative literalists belive that the Jews killed Jesus and we should in turn kill Jews. That's the way Hitler went with his manipulation of the faith, and it's not too dissimilar from what Islamic extremists do to their holy texts in order to recruit suicide bombers. You don't seem to understand that not every person with an ounce of faith in them is crazy.

I'm only pointing out that Christian doctrine is anti-semetic. I agree most Christians don't really follow every line of doctrine.

My point all along is that the doctrine in the bible is harmful and this is a clear example.

You are talking to people who are Christians and telling them that their faith is supposed to breed within them a hatred of Jews. If we're good Christians, we're supposed to hate Jews.
Then I refuted your verses that proclaimed the "anti-Semitism" with context and direct citation and you ignored it. I assumed you ignored it because you didn't have a comeback.

[SirLemming]

Not at all. As I pointed out before. I have the entire weight of history on my side. I can point to a wealth of Christian thinkers that have come to the same conclusion I did and used those very passages to devise pograms against the Jews. In fact here is a very brief picture of early Cjhristian views

Where do you suppose they got the impetus to commit these acts?
From their own idiotic prejudices. This does nothing whatsoever to prove that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic and that those verses you cited are inherently anti-Semitic (I'm still waiting for your great response to Guitar Slayer's in-depth interpretations of those, by the way). It's just the same old "Christians have done horrible things" argument. Yawn.

[seeker]

Nobody has the entire wealth of history on their side. That's something that delusional people such as Hitler proclaimed and tried to put into effect by carving the swastika into art at any opportunity. One does when History shows clearly that events have occurred over and over again through time.


I googled the first entry in your list. The author who compiled that list is named "Vexen Crabtree." He is an atheist and Satanist that belives in the bane of monotheism and the promotion of Satanism. He is hardly an unbiased source to get this timeline from. You can find his website on http://www.vexen.co.uk/I hope you don't think that was my only source. I chose it only because it's fact portion is laid out concisely. Here is a more scholarly study if you like from Sandra S. Williams, Student/Judaic Studies Program, University of Central Florida http://www.billwilliams.org/ANTI/anti-semitism.html

an excerpt fromher paper:




Before closing it is important to point out that Christian anti-Semitism is not simply a shameful blemish on the early Church, but is an underlying element of its theology that has endured through the centuries and into modern times. It is tragic that in later times even the well known Church reformer, Martin Luther, was finally seduced by all the anti-Jewish propaganda of his time. Although in his earlier ministry Luther sympathetically acknowledged the shameful way the Church had treated the Jews and urged kind treatment of them, in later life he was to write the complete opposite. Here in part is what Luther wrote in C.E. 1543. Note that Adolf Hitler seemed to use it as a general guide for implementing the earlier phase of his "final solution" against the Jews:

"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we cannot tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. . . . .We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. . . . . Let me give you my honest advice:
First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our LORD and of Christendom.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.
Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. [We might well ask "What home?", since they were all presumably burned in point two!]
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them, and put aside for safe keeping. Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hand of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow

Note she extensively referenced her paper. I could have gotten the same information from any number of sources. Here is a Guide to teachers in Pennsylvania from remember.org http://remember.org/History.root.classical.html

Here is a Christian source http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/cantisem.html
Rather than attack the messenger let's deal with the facts.




He is hardly a Christian thinker as you suggest in your opening paragraph. If you care to continue to play this gambit, I'll yank out my old text books and give myself a quick refresher course before I tackle your points.Maybe you misunderstood my post. My reference to Christian thinkers was to the fellows who actually passed the laws and came up with the doctrine not the guy who owns the website. I doubt he was around in 384CE. :lol: (sorry but you have to admit it was funny)


As to the post above, you said that "Peter, Paul, et al..." -- we are speaking of the people, not their epistles. I thought we had established that when you quoted Acts. I should have been more specific. The epistles are attributed to Peter, Paul etc but scholarly analysis of them has concluded that most of acts was written by the same author who wrote Luke which most agree puts it's authorship somewhere between 80-150CE. It could be that author had access to letters from the various people as claimed however there are significant problems with that view as presented by Colin J. Hemer, "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History", Eisenbrauns, 1990


And may I remind you my response to that original exchange:



Then I refuted your verses that proclaimed the "anti-Semitism" with context and direct citation and you ignored it. I assumed you ignored it because you didn't have a comeback.Bad assumption but I will admit that my response was vague so allow me to clarify. Yes, like so many parts of the bible, problematic statements can be parsed into some semblance of moderation but therin lis the problem this entire discussion is about.

The average person looks at the parts and finds a way to incorporate them into a functional worldview but not everyone does. An extremist takes these same verses without the parsing you have done and uses the authority of the bible as it is represented to gain followers among Christians who maybe are to lazy to really think it all through. The result is you get a Christian Identity movement or a White Supremacy movement or any of a number of hate groups.

As I suggested in our brief discussion of Hitler, extremism is bad enough. Giving an extremist a doctrinal basis that allows him to claim authority from God to carry out some ridiculous program is just absurd. History over and over again shows that religious doctrine plays into extremism.

[seeker]

From their own idiotic prejudices. This does nothing whatsoever to prove that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic and that those verses you cited are inherently anti-Semitic (I'm still waiting for your great response to Guitar Slayer's in-depth interpretations of those, by the way). It's just the same old "Christians have done horrible things" argument. Yawn.Okay, how about a more scholarly view http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/cantisem.html. Perhaps it will do a better job of tying this information together for you than I did.

I think that dismissing the things that have been done in the past only avoids looking at the underlying reasons for them.

[Kaoru]

From their own idiotic prejudices. This does nothing whatsoever to prove that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic and that those verses you cited are inherently anti-Semitic (I'm still waiting for your great response to Guitar Slayer's in-depth interpretations of those, by the way). Why would people so passionately hate groups of people for no real given reason? The excuse whenever Christians as a group do something bad they blame it on an individual, like Fred Phelps, for wanting gays dead like it says in the Bible.
God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. 19:4-5 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#4), 24-25 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#24) I'm not implying that you all hate gays but that you're not all 'good' Christians.
It's just the same old "Christians have done horrible things" argument. Yawn We are trying to find reasons behind that. If you're bored by the topic you can go play wordgames in Fun forum.

[The Guitar Slayer]

I've read Ms. William's paper. I have a few notes on it:


She says that Pharisees have been unfairly demonized. That may be true in the whole scheme of things -- they aren't as bad as the Saducees, and there have been good examples (Nicodemus, for one), but during the time of Christ, a lot of them were in Rome's back pocket. $$ talks. Yes, he was taught by them, but then he also disapproved of them as he grew older. They were the ones charging X amount to sacrifice in the temple. It's like a poll tax when you're going to vote -- it intentionally keeps out those in society that can't pay, generally the poor, that admission/the ability to speak would help the most. Christ lived in a time of corruption.
She speaks of predestination theory, but Christ in multiple accounts prays "may this cup be passed from me" and "may your will be done." Jesus is not the type to make superfluous requests that would never be granted. Apparently his fate wasn't set in stone; if it was, he would not have bothered. Jesus, while being God, was also human. He didn't want to leave his mom, his friends, his family behind. He suffered as a human suffered. However, he understood that it was out of his hands at that point.
She states that Paul, by stating that the Law ends with Christ, basically was saying that the Jewish people were no longer God's chosen. Apparently, she didn't read Romans 11 either.

This captures my attention
Before expounding further on the anti-Semitism of the Fathers, it is only fair to mention that from the days of Paul onward, there was considerable anti-Christian hostility from among the orthodox Jews because of the claims of Christianity. Because the rapidly growing Church was becoming a real threat to Judaism, fear and hatred of Christianity would not be surprising. It is quite possible that the Jews may have aided and even instigated the early Roman persecution of the Christians in the first few centuries. It's dog-eat-dog. Both Judaism and Christianity felt that the other had to stop or else their religion would be in danger of being wiped out. Anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism went hand in hand in these days. This is the original form of gang warfare. Both parties are wrong in this case. Now, look at this from a completely secular angle -- this war is based in how many butts you get into pews or onto cushions. Judaism requires circumcision and dramatic dietary changes -- no pork, more fasting, no mixed dairy. Christianity, thanks to Paul's insistence that Gentiles didn't have to become Jews in order to become Christians, doesn't require any of that. So which club is easier to join? Obviously, the one that doesn't slice off your foreskin. Christianity wins the numbers game and becomes the norm, while Jews are the new extremists. It's a complete flip of what everything was before the spread of Christianity thanks to the Romans dragging Paul and Peter all over Creation to attend their various trials.
Anti-Semitism in early writers by theologians is present. Nobody can deny that. But let's not forget this is after the big "gang war" where Christians used to be at the bottom of the dog pile. It's not OK, but we didn't live in those times. It's like condemning people who steal bread when we ourselves have never starved.
Ms. Williams' paper only extends to the first 500 years of Christianity. I do agree with her to an extent about Paul and how he affected Christianity; often, converts are the most dogmatic believers and many Protestants take their cues from him. However, she does not touch upon Paul's own history, including him being half-Jewish and how many times he told Christians to back off the Jews in the community that rejected them. She also does not go into James and Peter's idea of Judaism to Christianity, which balanced out Paul's Paganism to Christianity. These three men went down different paths to the same person -- of course they aren't going to agree.
I do not like how Ms. Williams lumped all of the Church Fathers into one pile and considered all their ideas bad just because some such as Justin had some other rather distasteful biases, to say the least. There are 65 Church Fathers, and she zeroed in the most anti-Semitic of the bunch. It's like taking a look at African Americans and painting a picture of them using the most extreme members of the Black Panthers. It's not fair. Additionally, it should be noted that Martin Luther was a manic depressive. He wrote the 95 theses during a manic period and some of his more hate-filled works such as the one cited during his depressed period. As someone who has seen the chaos wrought by the disease, I would say he was two different people. In the Wagner article you linked, here's what he had to say about Luther:
Now, let us lookat the Lutheran branch of the Protestant Church. Martin Luther is the father of Lutheranism. During the first period of his ministry, 1512-1523, Luther often condemned the persecution of the Jews and recommended a more tolerant policy toward them, based on the spirit of true brotherhood. In 1523, he wrote a pamphlet, That Christ was born a Jew, in which he argued that the Jews, who were from the same stock as the founder of Christianity, had been right in refusing to accept the "papal paganism" presented to them as Christianty. He added, "If I had been a Jew and had seen such fools and blockheads teach the Christian faith, I should have rather turned into a pig than become a Christian." . This early period in his ministry is the manic period --he is happy. He publishes what Ms. Williams cites later when he is depressed and in despair.

Ms. Williams also seems to have ignored efforts at a unification by both sides. Rabbi Loeb, Pope John Paul, Vatican II, every martyr that died saving Jews in the Holocaust -- she glosses right over them. She points out the screaming instances of hatred, but she does not touch upon instances of quiet harmony. People getting along and being happy together does not get as much coverage as people spraying blood all over the place.
Overall, I find the article very well written, but it's clear what she's shooting for in the title. A more unbiased paper would be "is there anti-semitism in Christian doctrine?" -- a question rather than a flat-out statement.I'll tackle Mr. Wagner's article in another post -- two reports are a bit much to read around midnight here.

[The Guitar Slayer]

(referring the Sodom and Gomorrah tale)I'm not implying that you all hate gays but that you're not all 'good' Christians.
1. Christians weren't invented yet in Genesis.

2. God destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah, not maurading anti-gay activists.
2a. The exact instance that sets off God's strike against the cities is that he sent angels down to speak to Lot and a bunch of guys came banging on the door, saying, "Hey, we want to rape your guests." It doesn't matter what form the angels took, male or female -- these guys wanted to do not nice things to them. It doesn't even matter that they were angels either -- these people wanted to willfully harm others.
2b. Lot tried to get God not to blow the city to smithereens by making him promise that he wouldn't do it if there even just 10 good people in the city. There weren't. Lot had negotiated the Almighty down from 100 people, and there still weren't enough good people among these jerks that could deliver them.

[Gatomon41]

Why would people so passionately hate groups of people for no real given reason?

When does hate ever need a reason? Wrath, or the other vices, are never motivated by reason, but rather the tendency for human foolishness. Ever read history? It's filled with societies and groups that hate other people for no real given reason.


The excuse whenever Christians as a group do something bad they blame it on an individual, like Fred Phelps, for wanting gays dead like it says in the Bible.
I have never read anything like that in the Bible. Also, Phelps is a fanatic, hate spewing flase prophet leading other fanatics. He's a heretic and does not represent the Church. He only represents his cult.

The individual, is in the end, responsible for all his actions. It is not a group's fault if there happens to be a few bad people. There's been bad people in the Military or Government system, do we then claim everyone is corrupt?

[Kaoru]

The individual, is in the end, responsible for all his actions. It is not a group's fault if there happens to be a few bad people. There's been bad people in the Military or Government system, do we then claim everyone is corrupt? Well if the individual is responsible for their actions solely then what's there to thank god for?

[Ben]

Why would people so passionately hate groups of people for no real given reason?

No real reason? Come on. There have been political and social reasons as well as religious for every Jewish-Christian conflict in history. Yet I won't deny that people used the Bible as justification. That's bad. But nutcases in the USSR and China also used atheism to justify killing and imprisoning priests, even if there were a few underlying political reasons there too.

Extremist Christians blow their doctrine out of context and use it as justification for horrible things. But extremist atheists misinterpret atheism as providing justification to violently destroy tradition, history and the people who defend them. Both are equally wrong about the real essence of Christianity and atheism.

Seeker, I'm unimpressed, particularly by your responses to my arguments that a) religious belief does not necessarily impede scientific discovery and b) that atheism can wrongly be used to justify violence just as religions can be. You have not refuted these statements, but you refuse to even entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. That kind of self-assured stubbornness, that refusal to open the mind to other possibilities, is one of the reasons I am not an atheist. As you said, atheism is a negative doctrine. It denies. It excludes possibilities. I don't prefer to base my life on a closed mind.

Frankly Dawkins and Dennett should know better. They should know that if they want to compete with religion they need to build a meme system (I refuse to use the ridiculous made-up word "memeplex") that can compete with modern religions, which have been honed by millions of brains over their long history. If they want to build an atheism that will displace theisms, they need to attach the atheism meme to the same appealing things theisms have. In particular, they need to attach atheism to altruism. Every single world religion has used this trick. It's how they get their foot in the door. "Our god says to do good things for other people. Here, have some food or clothes or health care or a house." Even Hezbollah has figured this one out. Where are the atheist movements to help the poor? That's not even getting into the needs to feel connected to an exciting community, history and tradition that religions fulfill. The sad little monthly meeting in this article doesn't come close. If Dawkins and Dennett really expect their little meme to wiggle its way into the majority of brains, they're going to have to stop sitting around contentedly assured of the superiority of their logic and start using the memetic tricks they and their colleagues have documented. Seriously, it's like they invented the rifle in a nation under siege but all they can think to do with it is shoot cans.

[Gatomon41]

Well if the individual is responsible for their actions solely then what's there to thank God for?

A person has Free Will, he can decide whatever actions to do, whatever time and place. A person can make a decision without being forced to. According to bleif, God gave humanity free will axs a part of our nature. It is a person's decision, and which they can make for themselves. God and people can give you advice or hints on decisions, but in the end it is up to the person the final choice. However, that person is them responsbile for whatever actions that results from that choice.

Free Will however, has nothing to do with why people thank God.

Christians thank God because they bleive He created them and given humanity alot of help. It's gratitude.

[seeker]

I've read Ms. William's paper. I have a few notes on it:

She says that Pharisees have been unfairly demonized. That may be true in the whole scheme of things -- they aren't as bad as the Saducees, and there have been good examples (Nicodemus, for one), but during the time of Christ, a lot of them were in Rome's back pocket. $$ talks. Yes, he was taught by them, but then he also disapproved of them as he grew older. They were the ones charging X amount to sacrifice in the temple. It's like a poll tax when you're going to vote -- it intentionally keeps out those in society that can't pay, generally the poor, that admission/the ability to speak would help the most. Christ lived in a time of corruption.
As a student of history I'm sure you know that there is a rather large problem with the biblical (and your) expanation of events. The Bible has it backwards, it was the Sadducees who were appointed to the positions of High Priest and put in control of the Synod by the Roman not the Pharasees. We know this from Josephus as well as from Jewish Sources. The Sadducees were known for their rejection of Hellenism and concepts like the soul. They only regarded the Torah (Pentateuch) as sacred and didn't consider the rest of the OT as valid. They were the conservatives of their day and consisted of much of the royalty of the time.

The Pharisees were the rabbis who adopted Hellenistic concepts like the soul, rejection of material wealth etc. In fact the Pharisees were much closer to Christian doctrine than the Sadducees. they also had little power. It was this gross mistake in the scriptures that leads me to believe that the Gospelsa could nor have been written by anyone who had really kjnown about Jerusalem. Here is a good breakdown for you http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sadducees_pharisees_essenes.html



She speaks of predestination theory, but Christ in multiple accounts prays "may this cup be passed from me" and "may your will be done." Jesus is not the type to make superfluous requests that would never be granted. Apparently his fate wasn't set in stone; if it was, he would not have bothered. Jesus, while being God, was also human. He didn't want to leave his mom, his friends, his family behind. He suffered as a human suffered. However, he understood that it was out of his hands at that point.You can't even justify that belief from the Bible. Jesus is shown to know his fate all along as he talks about returning from the dead. Also it's not really logical to believe in an omniscient God and not believe in predestination since without predestination God could not be omnipotent. Omnipotence impl,ies God must know everything including what will happen.


She states that Paul, by stating that the Law ends with Christ, basically was saying that the Jewish people were no longer God's chosen. Apparently, she didn't read Romans 11 either.More likely she read as I do, without parsing. Only by an extreme twisting of meanings can you say that Acts, Romans and Thesselonians don't contain a lot of contempt for the Jews.


This captures my attention It's dog-eat-dog. Both Judaism and Christianity felt that the other had to stop or else their religion would be in danger of being wiped out. Anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism went hand in hand in these days. This is the original form of gang warfare. Both parties are wrong in this case. Now, look at this from a completely secular angle -- this war is based in how many butts you get into pews or onto cushions. Judaism requires circumcision and dramatic dietary changes -- no pork, more fasting, no mixed dairy. Christianity, thanks to Paul's insistence that Gentiles didn't have to become Jews in order to become Christians, doesn't require any of that. So which club is easier to join? Obviously, the one that doesn't slice off your foreskin. Christianity wins the numbers game and becomes the norm, while Jews are the new extremists. It's a complete flip of what everything was before the spread of Christianity thanks to the Romans dragging Paul and Peter all over Creation to attend their various trials.
I agree completely with this. Had it ended there you would be right but it doesn't. Instead it escalates into a killing program that lasts from the earliest days of Christianity to this day and includes events like the holocaust.

Let me ask you though. If it were just a competitive situation why all the killing over cenyuries? And why does it keep happening.?


Anti-Semitism in early writers by theologians is present. Nobody can deny that. But let's not forget this is after the big "gang war" where Christians used to be at the bottom of the dog pile. It's not OK, but we didn't live in those times. It's like condemning people who steal bread when we ourselves have never starved.
It's more than just that. The Jews are thouroughly routed by the end of the Roman Empire and still the killing and persecutions continued. Here http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.html is a partial list. This is far more than just a competition.


Ms. Williams' paper only extends to the first 500 years of Christianity. I do agree with her to an extent about Paul and how he affected Christianity; often, converts are the most dogmatic believers and many Protestants take their cues from him. However, she does not touch upon Paul's own history, including him being half-Jewish and how many times he told Christians to back off the Jews in the community that rejected them. She also does not go into James and Peter's idea of Judaism to Christianity, which balanced out Paul's Paganism to Christianity. These three men went down different paths to the same person -- of course they aren't going to agree.I submit to you that there was no real need to go into them. Again we are talking of the doctrine that was there in the bible that started all this mess. Where you parse he anti-semitism out of Acts others parse any pro semetic statements out. In fact it makes more sense that way considering the lengths gone to in making the Jews responsible.


I do not like how Ms. Williams lumped all of the Church Fathers into one pile and considered all their ideas bad just because some such as Justin had some other rather distasteful biases, to say the least. There are 65 Church Fathers, and she zeroed in the most anti-Semitic of the bunch. It's like taking a look at African Americans and painting a picture of them using the most extreme members of the Black Panthers. It's not fair. Additionally, it should be noted that Martin Luther was a manic depressive. He wrote the 95 theses during a manic period and some of his more hate-filled works such as the one cited during his depressed period. As someone who has seen the chaos wrought by the disease, I would say he was two different people. In the Wagner article you linked, here's what he had to say about Luther: . This early period in his ministry is the manic period --he is happy. He publishes what Ms. Williams cites later when he is depressed and in despair. I'm The problem is that the doctrine they came up with, sick or not, followed logically from the scripture and was convincing enough to Christians to become mainstream Christian thought for close to two millenia. Even now I could point you to Christian identity websites that use the very same logic to justify the very same hatreds and their followers are rabid.

Want a real eye opener as to just how bad it can get read a book called The Turner Diaries.


Ms. Williams also seems to have ignored efforts at a unification by both sides. Rabbi Loeb, Pope John Paul, Vatican II, every martyr that died saving Jews in the Holocaust -- she glosses right over them. She points out the screaming instances of hatred, but she does not touch upon instances of quiet harmony. People getting along and being happy together does not get as much coverage as people spraying blood all over the place.
Mainly because the doctrine is still in the bible. The basis for that anti-semitism is still there.


Overall, I find the article very well written, but it's clear what she's shooting for in the title. A more unbiased paper would be "is there anti-semitism in Christian doctrine?" -- a question rather than a flat-out statement.I'll tackle Mr. Wagner's article in another post -- two reports are a bit much to read around midnight here.Cool, it's a lot to absorb.

[seeker]

1. Christians weren't invented yet in Genesis. I think it's more likely Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 that he was referring to.


2. God destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah, not maurading anti-gay activists.
2a. The exact instance that sets off God's strike against the cities is that he sent angels down to speak to Lot and a bunch of guys came banging on the door, saying, "Hey, we want to rape your guests." It doesn't matter what form the angels took, male or female -- these guys wanted to do not nice things to them. It doesn't even matter that they were angels either -- these people wanted to willfully harm others.
2b. Lot tried to get God not to blow the city to smithereens by making him promise that he wouldn't do it if there even just 10 good people in the city. There weren't. Lot had negotiated the Almighty down from 100 people, and there still weren't enough good people among these jerks that could deliver them.Just wondering, were there no infants in Sodom at all?

[seeker]

No real reason? Come on. There have been political and social reasons as well as religious for every Jewish-Christian conflict in history. Yet I won't deny that people used the Bible as justification. That's bad. But nutcases in the USSR and China also used atheism to justify killing and imprisoning priests, even if there were a few underlying political reasons there too.

Extremist Christians blow their doctrine out of context and use it as justification for horrible things. But extremist atheists misinterpret atheism as providing justification to violently destroy tradition, history and the people who defend them. Both are equally wrong about the real essence of Christianity and atheism.

Seeker, I'm unimpressed, particularly by your responses to my arguments that a) religious belief does not necessarily impede scientific discovery and b) that atheism can wrongly be used to justify violence just as religions can be. You have not refuted these statements, but you refuse to even entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. That kind of self-assured stubbornness, that refusal to open the mind to other possibilities, is one of the reasons I am not an atheist. As you said, atheism is a negative doctrine. It denies. It excludes possibilities. I don't prefer to base my life on a closed mind.

Frankly Dawkins and Dennett should know better. They should know that if they want to compete with religion they need to build a meme system (I refuse to use the ridiculous made-up word "memeplex") that can compete with modern religions, which have been honed by millions of brains over their long history. If they want to build an atheism that will displace theisms, they need to attach the atheism meme to the same appealing things theisms have. In particular, they need to attach atheism to altruism. Every single world religion has used this trick. It's how they get their foot in the door. "Our god says to do good things for other people. Here, have some food or clothes or health care or a house." Even Hezbollah has figured this one out. Where are the atheist movements to help the poor? That's not even getting into the needs to feel connected to an exciting community, history and tradition that religions fulfill. The sad little monthly meeting in this article doesn't come close. If Dawkins and Dennett really expect their little meme to wiggle its way into the majority of brains, they're going to have to stop sitting around contentedly assured of the superiority of their logic and start using the memetic tricks they and their colleagues have documented. Seriously, it's like they invented the rifle in a nation under siege but all they can think to do with it is shoot cans.Hmmm. That's an interesting arguement. You seem to be saying that they should be manipulative. Am I misunderstanding that?

As to atheism being a negative doctrine it isn't that either. It is simply non-belief in the supernatural. I think, if you are looking for a replacement for religion in that sense you might want to look at something more like secular humanism.

[Artimus Gigan]

wait a sec here's an interesting thought

It's been brought up a few times in some religious based discussions but the idea is essentialy God is technecally "gone" in a sense. As in allowing humanity to govern itself because if God allowed himself to further exist he would be limiting humanities potential in their actions, God would be a limiter in that sense. In essence for humans to reach their full potential as they were intended to, God would have to essentialy erase himself from exitance.

it's just an idea, not that I myself put any value into it.

[Humble]

As to atheism being a negative doctrine it isn't that either. It is simply non-belief in the supernatural.How is that not negative? You're denying the possibility of the supernatural! :p

-Humble

[Ben]

Hmmm. That's an interesting arguement. You seem to be saying that they should be manipulative. Am I misunderstanding that?

Nope, you've got it crystal clear for once. If they want to convince the public to give up religion they need to replace it with something equally appealing.


As to atheism being a negative doctrine it isn't that either. It is simply non-belief in the supernatural.

Non-belief = non + belief. Non = negative.

EDIT:
Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

See now, that's a doctrine I can get behind. The only thing I would say is that churches are valuable centers for community and tradition, and need to be replaced, not eliminated. After all, thus far it's churches themselves that are doing a lot of the hospital building.

Yet I never hear this kind of positive talk from individual atheists on the Internet (or in real life for that matter). They only seem to want to argue about obscure Biblical issues or debate the history of the Church. This kind of positive action is exactly what I mean when I say that the atheist meme system needs to incorporate pro-social (not anti-social) behavior.

[Kaoru]

See now, that's a doctrine I can get behind. The only thing I would say is that churches are valuable centers for community and tradition, and need to be replaced, not eliminated. After all, thus far it's churches themselves that are doing a lot of the hospital building. They are full of tradition but the kind of tradition that does whatever it can to prevent further medical advancements because they want people to need god so they would get all that money they pile up so much of with no taxes so they can build hospitals. What's more hospitals should be subsidized. You still believe atheist belief is a doctorine it seems you are incapable of comprehending a lack of one. All atheists are different, there are good and bad ones just like with Christians, the difference is that we don't follow a doctorine of any sort.
Non-belief = non + belief. Non = negative. Do you also believe 1+1=5?

[Ben]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I post about the lack of productive, forward-thinking atheists and the atheist ignores me, instead quibbling about semantics. Typical.

They are full of tradition but the kind of tradition that does whatever it can to prevent further medical advancements because they want people to need god so they would get all that money they pile up so much of with no taxes so they can build hospitals.
I don't say this very often, but HOW DARE YOU? The Catholic Church built the first modern hospital system in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic#Social_justice.2C_care-giving.2C_and_the_hospital_system). Catholic hospitals save hundreds of lives every single day using modern medicine. When was the last time you used chemotherapy to kill someone's cancer? Or performed an angioplasty? Or a CAT scan? I didn't think so. Your dismissal of thousands of parochial-affiliated doctors who know way more modern medicine than you do is stunning, callous, offensive and vile. I just hope if God forbid you ever require emergency treatment to save your life you end up in one of the thousands of modern religious hospitals so you can see just how wrong you are. Or perhaps you would refuse treatment because some of them might (ick!) pray for you while saving your life?!

What's more hospitals should be subsidized.
Duh. How about you start trying to get hospitals funded instead of accusing people who are ALREADY saving lives of deception and conspiracy? Unbelievable.

You still believe atheist belief is a doctorine it seems you are incapable of comprehending a lack of one. All atheists are different, there are good and bad ones just like with Christians, the difference is that we don't follow a doctorine of any sort.

Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows.

Doctrine (http://www.bartleby.com/61/62/D0316200.html): A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief...
A set of beliefs is a doctrine.

Do you also believe 1+1=5?
No, 1+1=2. I skipped first grade, what's your excuse?

If your goal was to goad me into seething rage, congrats. You obviously are no longer interested in actual debate.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Maybe you misunderstood my post. My reference to Christian thinkers was to the fellows who actually passed the laws and came up with the doctrine not the guy who owns the website. I doubt he was around in 384CE. :lol: (sorry but you have to admit it was funny)
This is what you introduced Vexen's list with -- directly cut and pasted from the post.


Not at all. As I pointed out before. I have the entire weight of history on my side. I can point to a wealth of Christian thinkers that have come to the same conclusion I did and used those very passages to devise pograms against the Jews. In fact here is a very brief picture of early Cjhristian views
Immediately thereafter came the list. You were implying by putting the list and mentioning early Christian thinkers that one came from the other. I misunderstood nothing -- you did a poor job of properly introducing and citing the source of your information.


I should have been more specific. The epistles are attributed to Peter, Paul etc but scholarly analysis of them has concluded that most of acts was written by the same author who wrote Luke which most agree puts it's authorship somewhere between 80-150CE. It could be that author had access to letters from the various people as claimed however there are significant problems with that view as presented by Colin J. Hemer, "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History", Eisenbrauns, 1990
Now I'm quite sure you misunderstand me! You said:

Paul, Peter et al are considered to be founders of the Church and their antisemetic rants however you justify them are still anti semetic rants.
The rants you were referring to were found in Acts and were not anti-Semitic while in context, especially considered that the founders of the Church were Jewish (Church Fathers are entirely different entities altogether). So I said:


The Jewish fishermen and Jewish carpenters hate Jews. That's brilliant. I would put a few "lol" smilies in here, but you're worn out their quota in this thread. Which was oddly answered with --

Of course you are assuming the epistles were authored by the people to whom they are attributed. Few biblical scholars would agree with that view. -- odd because we were speaking Luke's Acts and Peter and Paul's speeches in there rather than the Epistles. Some of the more non-personal Epistles do have questionable origin -- the lack of mention of certain keyfollowers in a few of Paul's indicates maybe that he didn't write them. Peter's epistles are so called because they came from the area Peter was in at the time and also espoused his and James' doctrines rather than Paul's. Luke did not have any of these letters at the time. Why? He was traveling with Paul, and you don't read your buddy's mail!



The average person looks at the parts and finds a way to incorporate them into a functional worldview but not everyone does. An extremist takes these same verses without the parsing you have done and uses the authority of the bible as it is represented to gain followers among Christians who maybe are to lazy to really think it all through. The result is you get a Christian Identity movement or a White Supremacy movement or any of a number of hate groups.

So are you saying that extremists and people that are just plain lazy tend to misinterpret the Bible for either their own use and lack thereof instead of saying that the whole of Christianity is anti-Semitic by nature?


As I suggested in our brief discussion of Hitler, extremism is bad enough. Giving an extremist a doctrinal basis that allows him to claim authority from God to carry out some ridiculous program is just absurd. History over and over again shows that religious doctrine plays into extremism.

Use of anti-religious extremism is too good either. That doctrine is called extreme because it's out on the edges. Middle path is always better than one side or the other. I have found it common that those that promote no religion tend to make themselves a de facto godhead and an absolute authority. England fought many times over who was in charge -- God and his church or the King. If there is no fight over the King's power, that's one step closer to an extreme view.

[The Guitar Slayer]

[/list]As a student of history I'm sure you know that there is a rather large problem with the biblical (and your) expanation of events. The Bible has it backwards, it was the Sadducees who were appointed to the positions of High Priest and put in control of the Synod by the Roman not the Pharasees.
The Saducees were the highest of the higher ups in Jewish society. They were also the literalists and the most conservative people in the community. They didn't like Jesus at all, period. Pharisees were a mixed bag of anti-Jesus, greedy, silent, and pro-Jesus.


they also had little power. It was this gross mistake in the scriptures that leads me to believe that the Gospelsa could nor have been written by anyone who had really kjnown about Jerusalem. Here is a good breakdown for you The Pharisees, I would say, may not have great power in the entire hierarchy, but they definitely had a major hold on the common people. The best comparison I can think of is a local pastor or priest or even a small community of monks. Luke saw the bigger picture and thusly recorded Jesus' dealings with Rome and its government. The writers of Matthew and Mark were Jewish -- they did not see the entire hierarchy of things -- they saw them on the local level. In a religious community, anyone with a title is "bigger" than you....it's hard to explain. Once again, context. John also has a completely different view because he was more concerned with transcendental qualities and he was having nightly visions at that point when he wrote the book.


You can't even justify that belief from the Bible. Jesus is shown to know his fate all along as he talks about returning from the dead. Also it's not really logical to believe in an omniscient God and not believe in predestination since without predestination God could not be omnipotent. Omnipotence impl,ies God must know everything including what will happen.
In Star Trek, Spock believes in the IDIC philosophy -- Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. I believe much the same, because predestination does not synch up with the idea of free will. How can we be free and yet still have to end up at the same place? There is a belief out there that states that God knows every single action of every single person in every single possible scenario. He knows how it all will turn out in any event, but humans still have that wiggle room for free will - he will allow anything that we chose, but he knows what's going to happen in any event. Basically, God knows all the alternative universes and variations in space and time, just cuz he's that cool and omnipotent and stuff.

There's also the idea of a free-range sort of fate; it's going to happen eventually, but the circumstances change. The best example I can think of is the Terminator films. John Connor is meant to die at the hands of a Terminator. He could die in utero when his mother is killed. He could die at age ten. He could die at age 20 something. He could die at age 40 something. In any event, he will die in that way, but the time, place, and other circumstances are up in the air. Either way, Jesus has a bit of wiggle room. Hence why he asks to let this pass over him.


More likely she read as I do, without parsing. Only by an extreme twisting of meanings can you say that Acts, Romans and Thesselonians don't contain a lot of contempt for the Jews.
Acts doesn't have contempt for Jews since it's about the Jewish Peter and James and all the other disciples other than Paul that were Jewish -- even Paul was ethnically Jewish. Romans, I've already pointed out Romans chapter 11 to you -- you keep refusing to read that. Thessalonians -- which one? There are two letters to them, and I'm not in the mood to read both.


The problem is that the doctrine they came up with, sick or not, followed logically from the scripture and was convincing enough to Christians to become mainstream Christian thought for close to two millenia. Even now I could point you to Christian identity websites that use the very same logic to justify the very same hatreds and their followers are rabid.

And I could point you to a few pro-atheist, anti-Christian websites that encourage violence against Catholics and Jews and anyone with a sense of religion about them. They are considered inherently weaker and dumber and so should be Darwin'ed off the face of the earth. Extremism exists even when religion does not.

As to the Doctrine argument, you haven't once cited a Doctrinal document in this argument -- I'm not even looking at the Vexen thing because, well, the guy has an itty bitty bit bias toward Satan, who has a history of bumping heads with God. I've pointed you toward the Catholic Catechism as to the authority of the Catholic Doctrine, but you haven't delved into that at all -- it's free online, though on a Catholic website -- you know how biased they can be.

Christian founders and Church Fathers are two different things. FYI.

Much like those who cling to anti-Semitism, you're reading the Bible with the sole purpose of finding those examples or just getting them off another atheist website and putting a spin on them. You aren't looking at context or even who's writing them! You're denying that Peter and the Apostles are Jewish and that Paul is ethnically Jewish. You keep skipping over that fact because it's not convenient for you!

[Harley]

Do you also believe 1+1=5?

That's enough. This is the second time you've insulted the intelligence of others in this thread. One more time and you should expect an official warning to follow it.

[The Guitar Slayer]

They are full of tradition but the kind of tradition that does whatever it can to prevent further medical advancements

Dr. Schweitzer would disagree with you.

Hmm, Catholic Hospitals we can do without -- St. Luke's for all those silly sick cancer kids, St. Joseph's, St. Anthony's --

Also, with your logic, we should dismiss Jewish hospitals as well. Mount Sinai, Long Island Jewish (free bowl of borscht for every birth (and that's actually not a joke)!)....yeah, let's trash it all.


because they want people to need god so they would get all that money they pile up so much of with no taxes so they can build hospitals.

And with these horrible hospitals, they do what? Kill puppies? Or treat more sick people?

As to 1+1=5 -- it could, theoretically if it's in the right base. I'm not a mathematician, so you'll have to have someone else give you the exact process. So it's possible. :p

[seeker]

How is that not negative? You're denying the possibility of the supernatural! :p

-HumbleNot quite. I simply don't believe in it in the same way I don't believe in Santa Claus. Now are you going to tell me your non-belief in Santa Claus is a negative?

[seeker]

Nope, you've got it crystal clear for once. If they want to convince the public to give up religion they need to replace it with something equally appealing.I guess we have different notions of the term appealing. For me something that manipulates a person into staying involved with it is insidious.




Non-belief = non + belief. Non = negative.It's a little like saying "I don't believe in Santa Claus" The reason it's not a negative is because it isn't something that you have to think about.


EDIT:

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

See now, that's a doctrine I can get behind. The only thing I would say is that churches are valuable centers for community and tradition, and need to be replaced, not eliminated. After all, thus far it's churches themselves that are doing a lot of the hospital building.

Yet I never hear this kind of positive talk from individual atheists on the Internet (or in real life for that matter). They only seem to want to argue about obscure Biblical issues or debate the history of the Church. This kind of positive action is exactly what I mean when I say that the atheist meme system needs to incorporate pro-social (not anti-social) behavior.More along thelines of secular humanism but secular humanism has good goals.

There are lots of different typws of atheists out there. Some are humanists some are rationalists and many of them just continue with the morality they grew up with. There isn't an atheist doctrine per se. The one given in the constitution was only used so that atheists could be legally defined.

[seeker]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I post about the lack of productive, forward-thinking atheists and the atheist ignores me, instead quibbling about semantics. Typical.

I don't say this very often, but HOW DARE YOU? The Catholic Church built the first modern hospital system in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic#Social_justice.2C_care-giving.2C_and_the_hospital_system). Catholic hospitals save hundreds of lives every single day using modern medicine. When was the last time you used chemotherapy to kill someone's cancer? Or performed an angioplasty? Or a CAT scan? I didn't think so. Your dismissal of thousands of parochial-affiliated doctors who know way more modern medicine than you do is stunning, callous, offensive and vile. I just hope if God forbid you ever require emergency treatment to save your life you end up in one of the thousands of modern religious hospitals so you can see just how wrong you are. Or perhaps you would refuse treatment because some of them might (ick!) pray for you while saving your life?!A little misleading http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/biology/abpi/history/history5.html. Hospitals of that time relied on prayer, excorcism and bandages more than science. In fact most of the medical advances in science came from the Muslims who had fewer doctrinal barriers 8n this regard. Here is a more thorough article on the sunject http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medicine_in_the_middle_ages.htm


Duh. How about you start trying to get hospitals funded instead of accusing people who are ALREADY saving lives of deception and conspiracy? Unbelievable.Because the cost of Christianity outweighs it's benefits




A set of beliefs is a doctrine.

No, 1+1=2. I skipped first grade, what's your excuse?

If your goal was to goad me into seething rage, congrats. You obviously are no longer interested in actual debate.No reason for anger. He challenged a few of your statements but not in any abusive way.

[Ben]

No reason for anger. He challenged a few of your statements but not in any abusive way.

That's a laugh.

[seeker]

This is what you introduced Vexen's list with -- directly cut and pasted from the post.


Immediately thereafter came the list. You were implying by putting the list and mentioning early Christian thinkers that one came from the other. I misunderstood nothing -- you did a poor job of properly introducing and citing the source of your information. I'll accept that since it really says nothing about the actual information itself it amounts to little more than ad hominem though.



Now I'm quite sure you misunderstand me! You said:

The rants you were referring to were found in Acts and were not anti-Semitic while in context, especially considered that the founders of the Church were Jewish (Church Fathers are entirely different entities altogether). So I said:
Which was oddly answered with --I disagree, they were very clearly anti semetic. You might find this Ironic http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/09-17-05/discussion.cgi.39.html, unfortunatly the state department report itr references doesn't state exactly what was in the sermons mentioned however. Instead here is a more Scholarly view of he question http://www.narnia3.com/articles/ETS2005.pdf#search='Book%20of%20Acts%20antiSemetic'


-- odd because we were speaking Luke's Acts and Peter and Paul's speeches in there rather than the Epistles. Some of the more non-personal Epistles do have questionable origin -- the lack of mention of certain keyfollowers in a few of Paul's indicates maybe that he didn't write them. Peter's epistles are so called because they came from the area Peter was in at the time and also espoused his and James' doctrines rather than Paul's. Luke did not have any of these letters at the time. Why? He was traveling with Paul, and you don't read your buddy's mail!Not a problem, I'd agree with that




So are you saying that extremists and people that are just plain lazy tend to misinterpret the Bible for either their own use and lack thereof instead of saying that the whole of Christianity is anti-Semitic by nature? What I am saying is that Christianity is inherantly anti-semetic but that most Christians ignore or parse away the anti-semetc bits. The way the bible is written almost requires a lot of interpretation anyway so parsing meaning into or out of different parts of the bible is required anyway. Most Christians neever even really see all of the bible and just get the bits read to them on Sundays by their pastors.




Use of anti-religious extremism is too good either. That doctrine is called extreme because it's out on the edges. Middle path is always better than one side or the other. I have found it common that those that promote no religion tend to make themselves a de facto godhead and an absolute authority. England fought many times over who was in charge -- God and his church or the King. If there is no fight over the King's power, that's one step closer to an extreme view.I aqgree basically that moderation is best all the way round. My point is only that Christianity legitimizes extremism. The extreme fundamentalist is regarded as 'devout' (unless he is actively blowing stuff up of course). Extremism in anything is dangerous but we don't legitimize extremismin other areas the way we do in religion.

[seeker]

The Saducees were the highest of the higher ups in Jewish society. They were also the literalists and the most conservative people in the community. They didn't like Jesus at all, period. Pharisees were a mixed bag of anti-Jesus, greedy, silent, and pro-Jesus.

The Pharisees, I would say, may not have great power in the entire hierarchy, but they definitely had a major hold on the common people. The best comparison I can think of is a local pastor or priest or even a small community of monks. Luke saw the bigger picture and thusly recorded Jesus' dealings with Rome and its government. The writers of Matthew and Mark were Jewish -- they did not see the entire hierarchy of things -- they saw them on the local level. In a religious community, anyone with a title is "bigger" than you....it's hard to explain. Once again, context. John also has a completely different view because he was more concerned with transcendental qualities and he was having nightly visions at that point when he wrote the book.You are greatly mistaken on both these points. The Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=252&letter=P) shows:
The Pharisees are furthermore described by Josephus as extremely virtuous and sober, and as despising luxuries; and Ab. R. N. v. affirms that they led a life of privation. The ethics of the Pharisees is based upon the principle "Be holy, as the Lord your God is holy" (Lev. xix. 2, Hebr.); that is, strive to imitate God (Sifra and Tan., Ḳedoshim, 1; Mek., Shirah, 3; Sifre, Deut. 49; comp. Matt. v. 48: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"). So "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is declared by them to be the principal law (Shab. 30a; Ab. R. N., text B, xxvi. [ed. Schechter, p. 53]; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, 4) and, in order to demonstrate its universality, to be based on the verse declaring man to be made in the image of God (Gen. v. 1). "As He makes the sun shine alike upon the good and the evil," so does He extend His fatherly love to all (Shir ha-Shirim Zuṭa, i.; Sifre, Num. 134, Deut. 31, 40). Heathenism is hated on account of the moral depravity to which it leads (Sifre, Num. 157), but the idolater who becomes an observer of the Law ranks with the high priest (Sifra, Aḥare Mot, 13). It is a slanderous misrepresentation of the Pharisees to state that they "divorced morality and religion," when everywhere virtue, probity, and benevolence are declared by them to be the essence of the Law (Mak. 23b-24a; Tosef., Peah, iv. 19; et al.; see Ethics (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=499&letter=E)).Clearly the Phariseees would have been sympathetic to Jesus if anything and could not have been greedy by doctrine




In Star Trek, Spock believes in the IDIC philosophy -- Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. I believe much the same, because predestination does not synch up with the idea of free will. How can we be free and yet still have to end up at the same place? There is a belief out there that states that God knows every single action of every single person in every single possible scenario. He knows how it all will turn out in any event, but humans still have that wiggle room for free will - he will allow anything that we chose, but he knows what's going to happen in any event. Basically, God knows all the alternative universes and variations in space and time, just cuz he's that cool and omnipotent and stuff.

There's also the idea of a free-range sort of fate; it's going to happen eventually, but the circumstances change. The best example I can think of is the Terminator films. John Connor is meant to die at the hands of a Terminator. He could die in utero when his mother is killed. He could die at age ten. He could die at age 20 something. He could die at age 40 something. In any event, he will die in that way, but the time, place, and other circumstances are up in the air. Either way, Jesus has a bit of wiggle room. Hence why he asks to let this pass over him. I agree with you that predestination and free will are mutually exclusive. If God can predict all actions that renders the notion of freewill moot.

Jesus life would be pointless without the crucifixion



Acts doesn't have contempt for Jews since it's about the Jewish Peter and James and all the other disciples other than Paul that were Jewish -- even Paul was ethnically Jewish. Romans, I've already pointed out Romans chapter 11 to you -- you keep refusing to read that. Thessalonians -- which one? There are two letters to them, and I'm not in the mood to read both.I'm actually surprised you point to Thesselonians because it has this gem: 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: I don't think it gets much more clear than that or ae you going to say he was just mad again. Romans 1:18 builds the case that the Jews already know the truth and then goes on a completely vile rant about how God made Jews unclean, foolish etc. Pretty disgusting stuff really. I was being kind sticking to Acts



And I could point you to a few pro-atheist, anti-Christian websites that encourage violence against Catholics and Jews and anyone with a sense of religion about them. They are considered inherently weaker and dumber and so should be Darwin'ed off the face of the earth. Extremism exists even when religion does not. I agree but that extremism is not legitimized by any sort of doctrine in the way religious extremism is.


As to the Doctrine argument, you haven't once cited a Doctrinal document in this argument -- I'm not even looking at the Vexen thing because, well, the guy has an itty bitty bit bias toward Satan, who has a history of bumping heads with God. I've pointed you toward the Catholic Catechism as to the authority of the Catholic Doctrine, but you haven't delved into that at all -- it's free online, though on a Catholic website -- you know how biased they can be. On the contrary, I've pointed out to you Martin Luther's Doctrine, Theodisius' doctrine, and several other doctrinees that were contained in the sources I presented. You chose to attack the sources rather than the actual doctrines. Nor have you even made a real effort to explain how those Christian leaders came up with such anti-semetic readings from the passages you tried to parse away.

I've at least addressed your arguements and not your sources.


Christian founders and Church Fathers are two different things. FYI.Not really. Guys like Martin Luther, Eusebius, Thoedisius, Augustine et al had as much or more to do with creating Christianity as anyone (including Christ ironically enough).


Much like those who cling to anti-Semitism, you're reading the Bible with the sole purpose of finding those examples or just getting them off another atheist website and putting a spin on them. You aren't looking at context or even who's writing them! You're denying that Peter and the Apostles are Jewish and that Paul is ethnically Jewish. You keep skipping over that fact because it's not convenient for you!I've never denied that the bible claims that though the glaring misportrayals they make of Judaism betray that claim. I'm taking their words at face value.

[Harley]

I aqgree basically that moderation is best all the way round. My point is only that Christianity legitimizes extremism. The extreme fundamentalist is regarded as 'devout' (unless he is actively blowing stuff up of course). Extremism in anything is dangerous but we don't legitimize extremismin other areas the way we do in religion.


I'm sure there are (or at least will be, given time) as many different types of atheists as there are Christians and a proportionate number in both belief systems who would warp the good intent behind each towards their own extremist agenda. It's not something inherent to Christianity. It's something inherent to humans. You don't need religion to justify an atrocity. It's just a convenient scapegoat. All it takes is one mofo with a sizeable ego, a slight to moderate lack of sanity and a lot of charisma.

And Seeker, whyiscrowdpurpl was rather rude. At the point the essence of one's statement becomes, "Why are you too stupid to understand?", the concepts of debate and idea exchange have vacated the premesis. I can abide by the prickliness caused by confusion in terms that have different meanings to each way of thinking, but I'll not abide by insulting another's intelligence.

[Humble]

Not quite. I simply don't believe in it in the same way I don't believe in Santa Claus. Now are you going to tell me your non-belief in Santa Claus is a negative?The thing is I'm following the textbook definition of negative. Anything expressing or containing negation or denial can be described as negative.

Unless I suddenly became omnipresent and could check for myself, I'm not going to deny the possibility of Santa Claus existing. Few things in life can be said with certainty.

-Humble

[purplehairedwonder]

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.
I agree with that completely.

The only thing I would say is that churches are valuable centers for community and tradition, and need to be replaced, not eliminated. After all, thus far it's churches themselves that are doing a lot of the hospital building.
I agree with that as well. Though I would argue that it is a humanitarian view that makes us want to build a hospital, no matter what organization is backing us.

Yet I never hear this kind of positive talk from individual atheists on the Internet (or in real life for that matter). They only seem to want to argue about obscure Biblical issues or debate the history of the Church.
The only problem is that all too often when someone declares themself an atheist, people would rather debate them on Biblical issues rather than social issues.

[seeker]

I'm sure there are (or at least will be, given time) as many different types of atheists as there are Christians and a proportionate number in both belief systems who would warp the good intent behind each towards their own extremist agenda. It's not something inherent to Christianity. It's something inherent to humans. You don't need religion to justify an atrocity. It's just a convenient scapegoat. All it takes is one mofo with a sizeable ego, a slight to moderate lack of sanity and a lot of charisma.To an extent I agree but then you take that crazy extremist and (let's say for the sake of arguement he's anti-semetic) you give him a few quotes from the divine inspired religious book that say "Jews are evil" and suddenly you have the potential for followers. A crazy guy yelling at people on a corner is not a big deal but a crazy guy with followers is. That's all I'm saying here.

That's why the history is so important because this same mechan8sm keeps showing up over and over again.


And Seeker, whyiscrowdpurpl was rather rude. At the point the essence of one's statement becomes, "Why are you too stupid to understand?", the concepts of debate and idea exchange have vacated the premesis. I can abide by the prickliness caused by confusion in terms that have different meanings to each way of thinking, but I'll not abide by insulting another's intelligence.I'm assuming you meant the 1+1=5 comment.

I took it as alluding to seeing different meanings in the same things. For example in reading quotes from the bible I read them with no feeling that they are true so I'm not as willing to see meaning in them as someone else might be. In a sense one of the reasons discussions like this get so heated that we are almost talking different languages.

I see Ben as a smart guy but he has a completely different view than me. For him, not to put words in his mouth of course, but he may see me as misinterpreting him or the bible and I would see him the same way.

Anyway i'm not speaking for anyone but me here, I just saw it differently. Looking at it though I can see how it could be taken as insulting so I apologize to Ben for that mistake.

[seeker]

The thing is I'm following the textbook definition of negative. Anything expressing or containing negation or denial can be described as negative.

Unless I suddenly became omnipresent and could check for myself, I'm not going to deny the possibility of Santa Claus existing. Few things in life can be said with certainty.

-HumbleOkay. As long as it is consistant for you that everything you do not believe in is a negative belief I'll go with that. For me the term negative belief is an oxymoron. I don't believe rocks can talk but I also don't spend time thinking about how they don't talk so it isn't an active process.

[seeker]

I agree with that completely.


The only problem is that all too often when someone declares themself an atheist, people would rather debate them on Biblical issues rather than social issues.In fact it generally only comes up then.

[Harley]

To an extent I agree but then you take that crazy extremist and (let's say for the sake of arguement he's anti-semetic) you give him a few quotes from the divine inspired religious book that say "Jews are evil" and suddenly you have the potential for followers. A crazy guy yelling at people on a corner is not a big deal but a crazy guy with followers is. That's all I'm saying here.

That's why the history is so important because this same mechan8sm keeps showing up over and over again.

A crazy guy yelling at people on a corner is clearly not smart or charismatic enough to manipulate others into following him.

Same basic concept. Let's switch the variables a little. Something just as deplorable. Skin color based racism. Crazy extremist person hates black people. Crazy extremist person is crazy, but not stupid. He finds a small group of poor, uneducated, frustrated white people. He studies them and assesses their strengths and weaknesses. (I ask the forgiveness of anyone who might be offended by the following example in advance.) He tells them: "They're inferior to you. Why don't you have access to the things they have? Ask yourselves, why do they get special treatment from the government? They steal your jobs. They steal your women. Their children expose your children to trash and bring them down to their level. They're evil and we have fight for our birthright as whites. We need to band together to save our country and race."

It's psychological. Crazy extremist guy doesn't yell at or down to them. He yells *with* them. They think he's fighting for them and right by their side in the trenches. He's elevating them. He screws their mind with skewed messages until he has them. All it takes is for someone who's smart, charismatic and screwed up enough to take advantage of a group with the right conditions.

Crazy extremist guy's the loaded gun, not religion. At it's worst, religion is a tool. Sans religion, he'll just find another tool to use.

[J'onn J'onzz]

God exists, otherwise there's a plothole in Evangelion, and that can't happen, can it? ;)

Actually, I'm an atheist. Purplehairedwonder made some good points about the Christianity in America being the dominating religion. Considering how many atheists you are, shouldn't they remove "one nation, under god" from the pledge? They could at least not attempt to brainwash children to Christianity by making them recite the pledge every day. Also, children these days DO seemed forced to follow their parent's religion and go to church or whatever the parent does.

I wonder if the person who wrote the bible would be laughing at how widespread his creation has become. I wonder if he even believed the things he wrote when he wrote the bible or if he just meant for it to be some sort of work of fiction.

[SirLemming]

Considering how many atheists you are, shouldn't they remove "one nation, under god" from the pledge? They could at least not attempt to brainwash children to Christianity by making them recite the pledge every day. Also, children these days DO seemed forced to follow their parent's religion and go to church or whatever the parent does.
I understand that point of view, but "brainwashing" is a bit extreme. And of course kids are raised to follow their parents' traditions; Christian parents won't raise their children Jewish. Some parents do "force" it, but it's bound to happen at least a little.


I wonder if the person who wrote the bible would be laughing at how widespread his creation has become. I wonder if he even believed the things he wrote when he wrote the bible or if he just meant for it to be some sort of work of fiction.
Uh... no. For one thing, the Bible was written by a whole bunch of people. You can choose not to believe that, but then you can't believe pretty much anything. And really, the idea that the Bible is a collection of sincere writings from a bunch of people who believed in God really is the most likely explanation. There's no reason to think that the Bible's writers didn't have good intentions, because from a scientific standpoint that's not even the slightest proof that what they're saying is right. You'd be better off abandoning the conspiracy theory, because there are much more logical ways to argue against the Bible.

[Kaoru]

I wonder if the person who wrote the bible would be laughing at how widespread his creation has become. I wonder if he even believed the things he wrote when he wrote the bible or if he just meant for it to be some sort of work of fiction. An educated guess would be that the Bible was originally a single piece of paper, hardly like anything in its contents at present time, and other various biased people added their hearsays and idealisms to it over time. For instance, when you look at the present 'commandments' and the oldest found ones you see massive difference in intent and content. Some variations http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/tencommandments.html also look into Exodus 34:10-26 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Exodus+34:10-26) .

[Ben]

A little misleading http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/biology/abpi/history/history5.html. Hospitals of that time relied on prayer, excorcism and bandages more than science. In fact most of the medical advances in science came from the Muslims who had fewer doctrinal barriers 8n this regard. Here is a more thorough article on the sunject http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medicine_in_the_middle_ages.htm

Muslims also believe in God.


Because the cost of Christianity outweighs it's benefits

This is the key. I'm with atheists through most philosophical points, and even Biblical critiques (which I think are ultimately irrelevant to my personal spirituality). Like I said, I might even be willing to join them someday. But this is the key assertion that all atheists I've talked to make that I can't agree with. It's unprovable, like so many generalizations about history, so they're taking it on (heh) faith and expect me to agree. But I'm unconvinced. A Christian is, fundamentally, someone who wants to be like Jesus. Underneath all the Old Testament crap (and it is crap) and all the disciples who got it wrong, it's just one big cult of personality around Jesus. And I think there are a lot worse things to base a religion on than "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek." If instead the Western world had worshiped some prophet who had said, "Kill your enemies and all their children and sow salt in their fields," we'd be a lot worse off.

And no matter how much you keep ignoring me, I still can't get past that the experiments in atheist utopia that have been attempted all ended up failures drenched in blood. I'm not saying a moral atheist society is impossible. But given these examples I am unwilling to unconditionally believe that an atheist society would always be better.

[Kaoru]

A Christian is, fundamentally, someone who wants to be like Jesus. My understanding of a general Christian is someone who wants Jesus to like him.
Underneath all the Old Testament crap (and it is crap) and all the disciples who got it wrong, it's just one big cult of personality around Jesus. It is a big personality cult, like Che Guerera (sp?). I hope moderators won't see this as unacceptable because it basically says Judaism is bad bull, I think we should be able to get to the bottom of things eventually and there's no way with censoring. Old Testament was pretty awful but there are bad things in the NT as well. Here are some of the sick ideologies Jesus preached http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm .

[Kaoru]

One other thing Ben, I know you were in Japan before and now you're in S Korea. Is that what you reffer your 'spiritual journey' to? Far East is commonly regarded as a highly cultural place, that makes sense. But Christianity didn't catch up until a few hundred years ago there when Europeans came. It's interesting how I never hear of a Western born Christian going to the Middle East for their 'spiritual journey' or Italy (there for other reasons), after all aren't those more relevant places to Christian history? The culture in the Far East has been existing for thousands of years and very little of it has to do with the recent rise of Christianity there.

Anyway east Asia looks nice and there's good animation coming from there :p maybe I'll drop to check it out sometime for a journey of my own when I have spent money on things I planned.

[The Guitar Slayer]

My understanding of a general Christian is someone who wants Jesus to like him. It is a big personality cult, like Che Guerera (sp?). I hope moderators won't see this as unacceptable because it basically says Judaism is bad bull, I think we should be able to get to the bottom of things eventually and there's no way with censoring. Old Testament was pretty awful but there are bad things in the NT as well. Here are some of the sick ideologies Jesus preached http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm .
(snerk) Like a source with a domain name of "Evil Bible" is going to be an academic, unbiased, well-thought out website. Oh, and the essay you're linking? Comes originally from a place called "The Church of Theists Suck." Has a nice ring to it.

I skimmed the silly notions (Jesus advocated child abuse, and that he's going to lead us to hell), and it's obvious someone played Bible Roulette -- opened up the New Testament to any passage and just played with it. It's like saying the verse "And Judas hung himself" is advocating suicide or that "And Jesus wept" means Christ was emo.

I love this one though. And this is a direct quote:


Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12
Roflcopter. Sorry. Had to be said at least once in this thread.

Frankly, anti-Semitism and anti-Christianism are both problems. So is anti-Islamicism. I've seen a lot of it come out in this thread in the name of atheism, and I'm very disappointed in that. Out of all the argument to choose from, why go down that path that tries to turn theist religions against each other? Saying Christians hate Jews and Muslims hate us all -- can't you pounce on us with something more philosophical rather than prejudicial arguments?

Is that all you got?

[The Guitar Slayer]

You are greatly mistaken on both these points. The Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=252&letter=P) shows: Clearly the Phariseees would have been sympathetic to Jesus if anything and could not have been greedy by doctrine
"Could not have been greedy by doctrine" -- but as you've said, not everyone follows Doctrine. The people I'm speaking of were imperfect and not totally on the up-and-up. Corruption can go anywhere and any place, and religion, while it should be a less likely event, is still susceptible.



I'm actually surprised you point to Thesselonians because it has this gem: 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: I asked you to cite which letter. It is I Thessalonians 2:14-15 Now I have to go dig it up -- and at any rate, here's the full verse in CONTEXT.


14For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.
Paul is specific when he says who he's talking about -- "the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus." That is, Pharisees and Sadducees. The ones who set him up for the trial. He isn't talking about the whole nation (he'd be a bit self-hating, yes?). Also, this is linking up back to the incident where Paul got cursed out in the street. Context, man! Context!

I don't think it gets much more clear than that or ae you going to say he was just mad again. Romans 1:18 builds the case that the Jews already know the truth and then goes on a completely vile rant about how God made Jews unclean, foolish etc. Pretty disgusting stuff really. I was being kind sticking to Acts
Um, I didn't see the word Jew in there at all.


18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Godless -- the Jews have a God -- the same God Jesus worshipped. Doesn't apply to them at all. Wicked? Hmm, all the Jews Paul worked with must be exceptions. Animal worship -- you have to say that pigs owned by Jews are probably the smuggest animals next to Indian cows!

Ok, seriously. This is a letter to the Romans. People in Rome. What's Rome famous for other than really good food and pretty art (pre Vatican, of course)? Paul is talking to new converts in Rome -- pagan capital of the world! Lyceum, Dionysia, you name it, we orgy it! The Christians and the lions thing? Happened there. Paul is basically saying "Don't worry, God's gonna get 'em for that." They worshipped animals and graven images associated to the Pantheon -- horses and owls for Athena, bulls for Zeus, etc. They overran Greece and studied their philosophies and other works. Their wisdom was conquered.

He isn't talking about the Jews! He's talking about the pagans in Rome. Context! And please try to use verses that use "Jew" in some proximity, at least.



Nor have you even made a real effort to explain how those Christian leaders came up with such anti-semetic readings from the passages you tried to parse away.
I'm not parsing anything away. You're adding things into places where anti-Semiticism doesn't exist -- case in point, when Paul's talking about pagans in Rome and the word "Jew" isn't mentioned once. While that has been a history of anti-Semiticism thanks to culture and misinterpretation, the religion of Christianity and the original books did not and does not advocate this. It is not inherent -- it has occurred due to human error over the course of time and has only recently been rectified. Even then, the majority of Christianity has never been anti-Jewish. Remember that Jesus' main teachings were the Love Laws - love God and love your neighbour. Love your enemies, even.


Not really. Guys like Martin Luther, Eusebius, Thoedisius, Augustine et al had as much or more to do with creating Christianity as anyone (including Christ ironically enough).
I disagree with you there. Christ kicked the whole thing off, props to him. However, early Christianity was ganged up on by Romans and the Jewish authorities. It was frightening. If it hadn't been for men such as Peter, James, and Paul, Christianity would not have survived. These men are key to the faith more so than anything that came after them. It's like trying to say, who's more important? Hawking or Einstein? Copernicus or Galileo? How can you quantify it? I believe that if a group of people save something from extinction, they should get a few extra brownie points. While these Church Fathers developed Christianity and Catholic doctrine further, their names don't tend to stick as well as the Apostles for a reason; if there was a baby in the NICU, forty years later, would the mother remember every single doctor she ever took him to, or would she remember the doctor that saved his life? Also as I've said before, there were 65 Church Fathers -- and it's not fair to pick on the extremists without looking at all the good the others have done.


I'm taking their words at face value.
And that's the problem.

[Ben]

Since he "takes words at face value," I expect seeker thinks Sartre believed in Hell because he wrote about it in "No Exit."

My understanding of a general Christian is someone who wants Jesus to like him.
Jesus liked pretty much everyone, so that's totally wrong. If you don't even know what "Christian" means then you need to stop arguing so self-assuredly and go back to the beginning.

It is a big personality cult, like Che Guerera (sp?).
Except Che Guevara massacred people, and Jesus explicitly kept his disciples from turning violent, even when he was threatened with execution. A bit like comparing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s followers to Nazis. Way to go there pal.

I hope moderators won't see this as unacceptable because it basically says Judaism is bad bull, I think we should be able to get to the bottom of things eventually and there's no way with censoring.
Yes, I would never expect you to censor yourself, but then some people just don't know when to shut up.

And seriously, I cannot believe you would link us to a site called "The Church of Theists Suck" and expect to still be taken seriously. But just because talking with you has been such a ****ing laugh riot, I'll address your articulate buddy's list o' verses.

Matthew 10:34 -- Read this thread. GS has already addressed this commonly misunderstood verse. It is an exhortation to brave the deprivations of discipleship. It certainly does not mean "Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other."

Matt 10:21, or "Brother will betray brother to death, and the father his child; children will turn against their parents and send them to their death," is another part of the same chapter.

But if you read the whole chapter (which you obviously haven't) you would see those are not in context. The chapter basically says this:

1. Jesus called these 12 guys together and gave them special authority as his apostles.
2. Jesus told them to go out to Israel and help people, but not to ask for money in return. 10:8: "You received without cost; give without charge."
3. He also tells them not to pack money, shoes, a walking stick or even an overcoat, but to ask for charity from the locals. If the locals refuse them, reject them in return.
4. Be careful because people will persecute you and beat you and arrest you. But trust in God to give you the strength to endure.
5. Even your families will betray you and persecute you. Persevere.
6. Don't be afraid of your enemies. Proclaim your message loud and clear, because they can kill your body but not you soul. Only God can destroy the soul.
7. God knows when a every sparrow dies, and you guys are way more important than them.
8. Whoever accepts me will be accepted in heaven, whoever rejects me I will testify against in heaven.
9. I have come to bring enemies into the light, even within families. My disciples must reject even the pride of and attachment to their families -- they must "take up [a] cross and walk in my footsteps."
10. That humility, the loss of a previous life, will lead to the reward of God.
11. Whoever treats a prophet as a prophet, and a good man as a good man, and whoever gives even a small kindness to one of my disciples, they will be rewarded.

The verses Mr. Theists Suck cites come at #5 and #9. In the first one Jesus is not saying he wants families to hate each other. He's saying that Romans and Jews alike will persecute Christians even if the Christian is their own brother or father. He's preparing his disciples for the cruelty of non-Christians! He's telling them to persevere in the face of oppression!

The second verse is part of an exhortation to leave behind attachments and to pursue God no matter the personal consequences. (I always thought this part was eerily similar to Buddhist doctrine.)

The equivalent verses in Luke (12:49 to the end) are even more clear. In fact, that chapter in Luke (12:57-58) ends with an urging not to let it come to final division -- "Why can you not judge for yourselves what is the right course? When you are going with your opponent to court, make an effort to settle with him while you are still on the way; otherwise he may drag you before the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable put you in jail."

Matthew 5:17-18 doesn't appear in Luke (whereas the rest of the Sermon does). But even still, it does not say that "Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets." It says that they will not disappear until they have served their purpose. That means something completely different.

Matthew 11:20 -- Evilbible.com quotes a verse where a bunch of the ruling elite were *******s to Jesus, and Jesus offers comfort to the working class, and twists it into Jesus endorsing murder. Niiice.

I'm not even going into Revelations because the real Jesus isn't in Revelations. Nuts to that.

Matthew 15:4-7 -- Jesus used the Pharisees' professed obsession with the law against them to expose their hypocrisy. Nowhere in this passage did he say, "Kill children!" In fact, the previously quoted verses from Matthew 10 signal this interpretation can't possibly be correct, because there Jesus tells children to disregard their attachments to the families.


Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

LOL.

Mark 4:25 -- This verse is about the teaching of Jesus. It means the more you put in to the teachings of Jesus, the more you're going to get out of them. It's not talking about material possessions, and there are tons of other places (camel through the needle, the last shall be first) where he talks about not being a big fan of the rich.


Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

Yes, it is clearly Jesus's fault that a bunch of possessed pigs jumped into the ocean. Seriously, what is this supposed to be proving?


Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly. You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season. Mark 11:13

Jesus is not retarded.


Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.

Man, this dick just keeps coming back to that same passage in Matthew and Luke. This is part of a parable. It says, "The servant who knew his master's wishes yet made no attempt to carry them out will be flogged severely." It's a statement of fact, because that's what would've happened back then. He's not saying, "Flog your slaves."

By the way, nice trick on linking but not quoting a site that says "These verses will show not only is Jesus’ “loving” nature a joke but so are the Christians who worship him." Seeker, I hope this is obvious enough evidence for you that this person has no respect for his opponents.

I've tried to have a productive discussion about how to better the world and I've been disappointed.

I was never trying to convince anyone in this thread to believe in God. I only wanted to talk about the relationship between atheism and the rest of the spiritual world. But you, my opponents, have either completely misunderstood me or willfully refused to talk about the topics I chose. I wonder why that is.

[peacebyanymeans]

Can we just accept the fact that some people believe in God and some don't, and you have the right to choose which ever? All you guys are trying to do anymore is persuade the other side why you're right, and guess what? No one one's budging and your all giving me an awful headache with all that text.

[Gatomon41]

More along thelines of secular humanism but secular humanism has good goals.


Secularists don't have good goals, just well intentions, and we all know were well intentions eventually lead to.

[Ben]

Can we just accept the fact that some people believe in God and some don't, and you have the right to choose which ever?

Some other "sucky theists" and I have tried to focus the discussion on this specific New Atheism movement and its strategies, but we've constantly been interrupted.

But you're wrong about one thing -- no one was ever trying to convince the other side one way or the other. We (I fall victim to this too often as well) just enjoy circular, pointless, poisonous debate.


Secularists don't have good goals, just well intentions, and we all know were well intentions eventually lead to.

Truly good intentions lead to good outcomes, usually. I really don't see why you're still in this thread.

[Juu-kuchi]

Secularists don't have good goals, just well intentions, and we all know were well intentions eventually lead to. Um. Doesn't really matter what affiliation you're in, everybody has good intentions, and every good intention may lead to either a good or bad outcome.

[Harley]

Ben. Language.

[Gatomon41]

Um. Doesn't really matter what affiliation you're in, everybody has good intentions, and every good intention may lead to either a good or bad outcome.

There is a difference in being good and having helpful (or well) intentions. Not all help is good. In fact, it may just be a pain for the next few generations.

[seeker]

A crazy guy yelling at people on a corner is clearly not smart or charismatic enough to manipulate others into following him.

Same basic concept. Let's switch the variables a little. Something just as deplorable. Skin color based racism. Crazy extremist person hates black people. Crazy extremist person is crazy, but not stupid. He finds a small group of poor, uneducated, frustrated white people. He studies them and assesses their strengths and weaknesses. (I ask the forgiveness of anyone who might be offended by the following example in advance.) He tells them: "They're inferior to you. Why don't you have access to the things they have? Ask yourselves, why do they get special treatment from the government? They steal your jobs. They steal your women. Their children expose your children to trash and bring them down to their level. They're evil and we have fight for our birthright as whites. We need to band together to save our country and race."

It's psychological. Crazy extremist guy doesn't yell at or down to them. He yells *with* them. They think he's fighting for them and right by their side in the trenches. He's elevating them. He screws their mind with skewed messages until he has them. All it takes is for someone who's smart, charismatic and screwed up enough to take advantage of a group with the right conditions.

Crazy extremist guy's the loaded gun, not religion. At it's worst, religion is a tool. Sans religion, he'll just find another tool to use.Nice example buut know let's take that same crazy guy and when he's studying this group he finds that 80% of them regard a specific book as holy. He digs around in in and finds a few quotes that support his arguement. Now you have a movement.

Crazy extremist guy can do a few things on his own but religion is a gun. History has proven that.

[seeker]

God exists, otherwise there's a plothole in Evangelion, and that can't happen, can it? ;)

I never thought of that. You win

[seeker]

Muslims also believe in God.That's true though it's ironic that you could get into a fight in some places for saying it.




This is the key. I'm with atheists through most philosophical points, and even Biblical critiques (which I think are ultimately irrelevant to my personal spirituality). Like I said, I might even be willing to join them someday. But this is the key assertion that all atheists I've talked to make that I can't agree with. It's unprovable, like so many generalizations about history, so they're taking it on (heh) faith and expect me to agree. But I'm unconvinced. A Christian is, fundamentally, someone who wants to be like Jesus. Underneath all the Old Testament crap (and it is crap) and all the disciples who got it wrong, it's just one big cult of personality around Jesus. And I think there are a lot worse things to base a religion on than "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek." If instead the Western world had worshiped some prophet who had said, "Kill your enemies and all their children and sow salt in their fields," we'd be a lot worse off.

And no matter how much you keep ignoring me, I still can't get past that the experiments in atheist utopia that have been attempted all ended up failures drenched in blood. I'm not saying a moral atheist society is impossible. But given these examples I am unwilling to unconditionally believe that an atheist society would always be better.Well first of all I don't expect to necessarilly convert anyone. I think most people in general are well meaning. The only point I ever wanted to make is that the basis of Christianity is a lot different than "Love your enemies", in other words that surrounding that statement are4 a lot of conflicting messages, some of them not very nice.

The problem with most utopias in general is that they assume people will give up power and authority. Unfortunately that view is naive I think.

[Harley]

Nice example buut know let's take that same crazy guy and when he's studying this group he finds that 80% of them regard a specific book as holy. He digs around in in and finds a few quotes that support his arguement. Now you have a movement.

Crazy extremist guy can do a few things on his own but religion is a gun. History has proven that.


The formula still doesn't work without crazy, charistmatic, manipulative, extremist guy. Once again, even when you take religion away, he'll find some other means to an end. If you really think a lot of the world's problems would be resolved with the absence of religion, you're giving our self-destructive species a lot more credit than it deserves. Crazy extremist guy's words don't gain magic powers just because he's quoting from the bible.

About a year ago, I was waiting for a bus on Fordham Road. There was a black muslim extremist across the way at Fordham Plaza. He fit your crazy guy on the corner description from earlier. He had his two bouncer looking guys around him. He turned on his mic. He then went on to speak (yell, really) for the next 15 minutes on the lesser worth of women. "Women don't respect their men. They should be serving them. Allah says... [etc.]" Bring me my shoes. Make me some pie. (I adlibbed the last two.) He spent some time quoting passages from the Qur'an that supported his beliefs. He yelled some more. What reaction was he met with? Snickering. Laughter. The book he was quoting from didn't give him magic create-a-movement powers. It's the person behind the words. Not the book they're quoted from.

Religion is not a gun. A gun doesn't have intent. A person does.

[seeker]

"Could not have been greedy by doctrine" -- but as you've said, not everyone follows Doctrine. The people I'm speaking of were imperfect and not totally on the up-and-up. Corruption can go anywhere and any place, and religion, while it should be a less likely event, is still susceptible.I agree people in general are imperfect however we also have to deal with the state of things as they actually were. The Pharisee were a group whose primary purpose was to educate young Jews in the Torah. That was their primary function in that society. British historian Paul Johnson writes:

In their battle against Greek education, pious Jews began, from the end of the second century BC, to develop a national system of education. To the old scribal schools were gradually added a network of local schools where, in theory at least, all Jewish boys were taught the Torah. This development was of great importance in the spread and consolidation of the synagogue, in the birth of Pharisaism as a movement rooted in popular education, and eventually in the rise of the rabbinate. (p. 106, A History Of The Jews)
Outside of the statements in the Bible do you have one source that portrays the Pharisees as having any political power to be corrupted? I have yet to see one and the Bible isn't reliable due to it's extreme anti-jewish point of view. I just see your statements as having no basis


I asked you to cite which letter. It is I Thessalonians 2:14-15 Now I have to go dig it up -- and at any rate, here's the full verse in CONTEXT.


Paul is specific when he says who he's talking about -- "the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus." That is, Pharisees and Sadducees. The ones who set him up for the trial. He isn't talking about the whole nation (he'd be a bit self-hating, yes?). Also, this is linking up back to the incident where Paul got cursed out in the street. Context, man! Context!

Um, I didn't see the word Jew in there at all.In which quote. Let's face it, it's obvious who he is talking about throughout and it's clear from statements like, "are contrary to all men" that he is clearly condemning them. As to trying to brush off just the Pharisees or Sadducees sure, you could reead it that way but it's reAlly just more parsing on youir part. The fact is you could read it either way.



Godless -- the Jews have a God -- the same God Jesus worshipped. Doesn't apply to them at all. Wicked? Hmm, all the Jews Paul worked with must be exceptions. Animal worship -- you have to say that pigs owned by Jews are probably the smuggest animals next to Indian cows!

Ok, seriously. This is a letter to the Romans. People in Rome. What's Rome famous for other than really good food and pretty art (pre Vatican, of course)? Paul is talking to new converts in Rome -- pagan capital of the world! Lyceum, Dionysia, you name it, we orgy it! The Christians and the lions thing? Happened there. Paul is basically saying "Don't worry, God's gonna get 'em for that." They worshipped animals and graven images associated to the Pantheon -- horses and owls for Athena, bulls for Zeus, etc. They overran Greece and studied their philosophies and other works. Their wisdom was conquered.

He isn't talking about the Jews! He's talking about the pagans in Rome. Context! And please try to use verses that use "Jew" in some proximity, at least.You mean you missed 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Or you don't see that as a clear reference to the Jews. I'm sorry but it's not vague at all.




"I'm not parsing anything away. You're adding things into places where anti-Semiticism doesn't exist -- case in point, when Paul's talking about pagans in Rome and the word "Jew" isn't mentioned once. While that has been a history of anti-Semiticism thanks to culture and misinterpretation, the religion of Christianity and the original books did not and does not advocate this. It is not inherent -- it has occurred due to human error over the course of time and has only recently been rectified. Even then, the majority of Christianity has never been anti-Jewish. Remember that Jesus' main teachings were the Love Laws - love God and love your neighbour. Love your enemies, even.Untrue, the statements I've presented are clear but It's your choice to seer them as you wish. Unfortunately it is that acceptance of these kinds of abusive doctrines that make it possible for extremism to occur. In the end though the real test is history and once again history over and over again shows that those passages are consistantly read as anti semetic despite denials to the contrary.




I disagree with you there. Christ kicked the whole thing off, props to him. However, early Christianity was ganged up on by Romans and the Jewish authorities. It was frightening. If it hadn't been for men such as Peter, James, and Paul, Christianity would not have survived. These men are key to the faith more so than anything that came after them. It's like trying to say, who's more important? Hawking or Einstein? Copernicus or Galileo? How can you quantify it? I believe that if a group of people save something from extinction, they should get a few extra brownie points. While these Church Fathers developed Christianity and Catholic doctrine further, their names don't tend to stick as well as the Apostles for a reason; if there was a baby in the NICU, forty years later, would the mother remember every single doctor she ever took him to, or would she remember the doctor that saved his life? Also as I've said before, there were 65 Church Fathers -- and it's not fair to pick on the extremists without looking at all the good the others have done. One of the big differences between us in a discussion like this is the premises we are willing to assume. Your assumption of Christ as a real being allows all the other assumptions you are making. I don't make that assumption and given that the rest of you state,ment has no validity for me.

I bring this up because, From my studies I've found that early Christianity more resembled gnosticism, then broke up into a variaty of beliefs before being consolidated (more or less) at the first council of Nicea. The fact is that a lot of beliefs were changed then and over the years as various christian thinkers added doctrine. Even the bible references how Paul basically replaced the beliefs of Jesus disciples with his own in many cases.


And that's the problem.[/quote]

[seeker]

Since he "takes words at face value," I expect seeker thinks Sartre believed in Hell because he wrote about it in "No Exit." Good one Ben. You could have just as easily said "maybe seeker thinks 1+1=5";)


Jesus liked pretty much everyone, so that's totally wrong. If you don't even know what "Christian" means then you need to stop arguing so self-assuredly and go back to the beginning.Jesus did display a lot of dislike for the traders out side of the temple and rich people in general


Except Che Guevara massacred people, and Jesus explicitly kept his disciples from turning violent, even when he was threatened with execution. A bit like comparing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s followers to Nazis. Way to go there pal.Is that why Jesus advised his disciples to carry swords? I was alsways confused about that one.


Yes, I would never expect you to censor yourself, but then some people just don't know when to shut up

And seriously, I cannot believe you would link us to a site called "The Church of Theists Suck" and expect to still be taken seriously. But just because talking with you has been such a ****ing laugh riot, I'll address your articulate buddy's list o' verses.

Matthew 10:34 -- Read this thread. GS has already addressed this commonly misunderstood verse. It is an exhortation to brave the deprivations of discipleship. It certainly does not mean "Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other."

Matt 10:21, or "Brother will betray brother to death, and the father his child; children will turn against their parents and send them to their death," is another part of the same chapter.

But if you read the whole chapter (which you obviously haven't) you would see those are not in context. The chapter basically says this:

1. Jesus called these 12 guys together and gave them special authority as his apostles.
2. Jesus told them to go out to Israel and help people, but not to ask for money in return. 10:8: "You received without cost; give without charge."
3. He also tells them not to pack money, shoes, a walking stick or even an overcoat, but to ask for charity from the locals. If the locals refuse them, reject them in return.
4. Be careful because people will persecute you and beat you and arrest you. But trust in God to give you the strength to endure.
5. Even your families will betray you and persecute you. Persevere.
6. Don't be afraid of your enemies. Proclaim your message loud and clear, because they can kill your body but not you soul. Only God can destroy the soul.
7. God knows when a every sparrow dies, and you guys are way more important than them.
8. Whoever accepts me will be accepted in heaven, whoever rejects me I will testify against in heaven.
9. I have come to bring enemies into the light, even within families. My disciples must reject even the pride of and attachment to their families -- they must "take up [a] cross and walk in my footsteps."
10. That humility, the loss of a previous life, will lead to the reward of God.
11. Whoever treats a prophet as a prophet, and a good man as a good man, and whoever gives even a small kindness to one of my disciples, they will be rewarded.

The verses Mr. Theists Suck cites come at #5 and #9. In the first one Jesus is not saying he wants families to hate each other. He's saying that Romans and Jews alike will persecute Christians even if the Christian is their own brother or father. He's preparing his disciples for the cruelty of non-Christians! He's telling them to persevere in the face of oppression!

The second verse is part of an exhortation to leave behind attachments and to pursue God no matter the personal consequences. (I always thought this part was eerily similar to Buddhist doctrine.)Unfortunately this parsing doesn't change the fact that non-believers are referred to as enemies and betrayers. How is referring to people who disagree with you as enemies a message of tolerance? Doesn't that just create division?


The equivalent verses in Luke (12:49 to the end) are even more clear. In fact, that chapter in Luke (12:57-58) ends with an urging not to let it come to final division -- "Why can you not judge for yourselves what is the right course? When you are going with your opponent to court, make an effort to settle with him while you are still on the way; otherwise he may drag you before the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable put you in jail."Sound legal advice in general.


Matthew 5:17-18 doesn't appear in Luke (whereas the rest of the Sermon does). But even still, it does not say that "Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets." It says that they will not disappear until they have served their purpose. That means something completely different.He goes on to say that the law will not change one jot or tittle till all be fullfilled. I'm curious how you read this one Ben? To me it seems that he is saying that Jewish Law should be obeyed till the second coming. What i your take on that?


Matthew 11:20 -- Evilbible.com quotes a verse where a bunch of the ruling elite were *******s to Jesus, and Jesus offers comfort to the working class, and twists it into Jesus endorsing murder. Niiice.You have to admit though that yelling eptaphs at people you don't like isn't very diplomatic.


I'm not even going into Revelations because the real Jesus isn't in Revelations. Nuts to that.Kind of makes you wonder why Revelations is in the Bible doesn't it?


Matthew 15:4-7 -- Jesus used the Pharisees' professed obsession with the law against them to expose their hypocrisy. Nowhere in this passage did he say, "Kill children!" In fact, the previously quoted verses from Matthew 10 signal this interpretation can't possibly be correct, because there Jesus tells children to disregard their attachments to the families.Now this is intriguing to me. It seems as though Jesus is actually berating the Pharisees for not stoning the kids thus rendering the Law toothless. If the law is indeed changed as you have suggested then why is he berating them?

Also how is this consistent with Matt 5:17-18 where not one jot or tittle of the law will change?




LOL.

Mark 4:25 -- This verse is about the teaching of Jesus. It means the more you put in to the teachings of Jesus, the more you're going to get out of them. It's not talking about material possessions, and there are tons of other places (camel through the needle, the last shall be first) where he talks about not being a big fan of the rich.I agree. Basically the idea is that Jesus should come before family.




Yes, it is clearly Jesus's fault that a bunch of possessed pigs jumped into the ocean. Seriously, what is this supposed to be proving?It proves Jesus was an anti-porcine. Further proof is that he made Porky pig stutter.




Jesus is not retarded.I hear he did well on the SAT's.

I think you'd agree that the whole fig tree thing is just a parable though an odd one all things considered.




Man, this dick just keeps coming back to that same passage in Matthew and Luke. This is part of a parable. It says, "The servant who knew his master's wishes yet made no attempt to carry them out will be flogged severely." It's a statement of fact, because that's what would've happened back then. He's not saying, "Flog your slaves."That's true. In fact Jesus condemns the whole practice in...


By the way, nice trick on linking but not quoting a site that says "These verses will show not only is Jesus’ “loving” nature a joke but so are the Christians who worship him." Seeker, I hope this is obvious enough evidence for you that this person has no respect for his opponents.

I've tried to have a productive discussion about how to better the world and I've been disappointed.

I was never trying to convince anyone in this thread to believe in God. I only wanted to talk about the relationship between atheism and the rest of the spiritual world. But you, my opponents, have either completely misunderstood me or willfully refused to talk about the topics I chose. I wonder why that is.Well it's not my place to defend anyone else on this site. I do think that there has been an exchange between you two but I'll let the moderators make their judgements about that without my input.

As to atheism and the spiritual world discussions of that are problematic since atheism really is a non-belief in the spiritual. We could talk of morality of secul;ar humanist tenets but if you are looking for spirituality I think you'd find atheism a little unsatisfying.

[seeker]

Can we just accept the fact that some people believe in God and some don't, and you have the right to choose which ever? All you guys are trying to do anymore is persuade the other side why you're right, and guess what? No one one's budging and your all giving me an awful headache with all that text.Cool with me. I never expect any budging in a discussion like this anyway. It's really more for the fun of it than anything else.

[seeker]

But you're wrong about one thing -- no one was ever trying to convince the other side one way or the other. We (I fall victim to this too often as well) just enjoy circular, pointless, poisonous debate.



Ben, if I get noothing else out of this discussion this quote is worth it all. Priceless

[seeker]

The formula still doesn't work without crazy, charistmatic, manipulative, extremist guy. Once again, even when you take religion away, he'll find some other means to an end. If you really think a lot of the world's problems would be resolved with the absence of religion, you're giving our self-destructive species a lot more credit than it deserves. Crazy extremist guy's words don't gain magic powers just because he's quoting from the bible.

About a year ago, I was waiting for a bus on Fordham Road. There was a black muslim extremist across the way at Fordham Plaza. He fit your crazy guy on the corner description from earlier. He had his two bouncer looking guys around him. He turned on his mic. He then went on to speak (yell, really) for the next 15 minutes on the lesser worth of women. "Women don't respect their men. They should be serving them. Allah says... [etc.]" Bring me my shoes. Make me some pie. (I adlibbed the last two.) He spent some time quoting passages from the Quran that supported his beliefs. He yelled some more. What reaction was he met with? Snickering. Laughter. The book he was quoting from didn't give him magic create-a-movement powers. It's the person behind the words. Not the book they're quoted from.

Religion is not a gun. A gun doesn't have intent. A person does.I mean that in the sense that a person spouting religion, especially the dominent religion in the area can have a great deal more manipulative power than without it.

Hitler used it in getting the support of the German people. In fact historically the bible has been used to justify everything from the killing of pagans top slavery. It's a great tool because it promotes unthinking acceptance.

Your example featured a Muslim preaching in a predominantly Christian area, what if he had been a Christian?

[The Guitar Slayer]

Outside of the statements in the Bible do you have one source that portrays the Pharisees as having any political power to be corrupted?
Theoretically, modern priests have no political power to be corrupted. Yet, they can still have a very strong effect on people, as you've so thoroughly argued in the crazy person scenario with Harley. Someone may not be able to order you, but he can certainly throw a wrench into your other plans.


I have yet to see one and the Bible isn't reliable due to it's extreme anti-jewish point of view. I just see your statements as having no basis
You and your cited atheistic aren't reliable due to your anti-Christian point of view. I just see your statements as having no basis.

See? Goes both ways.


You mean you missed 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (sigh) The pagan leaders over the Jews at the time, including Pilate, came into contact with God via Jesus and his court case, but rather than defend him, they thought to preserve their relationship with the influencial Jewish authorities and so ordered him to be flogged and ultimately executed. He's talking to Roman Christians about the Romans they are living under. These people aren't Jewish at all.


Untrue, the statements I've presented are clear but It's your choice to seer them as you wish.
Same to you! You keep skipping over lines where I'm saying "The author of this piece is Jewish. Why would he be anti-Semitic?" And you keep seeing the word "Jew" in letters to Italy. You have a history of spouting a one-off Bible verse and proclaiming it anti-Semitic. I provide the rest of the section and explain it in context, and then you, sometimes in the same breath, say "well, I call it as I see it" and THEN say how most Christians are stupid enough not to read past the literal word, thus why we're all inherently Jew-haters.

......Reality check, please.


In the end though the real test is history and once again history over and over again shows that those passages are consistantly read as anti semetic despite denials to the contrary.
Until this discussion, I never heard an anti-Semitic spin on the Sermon on the Mount. I never heard about Jesus advocating child abandonment and wife-beating. I've never heard Peter the Jewish fisherman slamming his own friends and neighbours for being Jews. I've been around for 20 years in two different sects of Catholicism -- Ukrainian by baptism, Roman by practice. The former is far more arconservative than the latter. In the former USSR there was strong anti-Semitic sentiment and fear breeding. Yet my grandfather has never spoken ill of these people, despite being socially raised in an environment hostile to Jews and later living in a Jewish neighbourhood where he and his family were treated as inferiors and outsiders.

His religion taught him better than that.


Your assumption of Christ as a real being allows all the other assumptions you are making. I don't make that assumption and given that the rest of you state,ment has no validity for me.

Jesus of Nazareth existed historically. There is no doubt of that. There are records of what he said and what he did outside of the Bible, including the infamous court case documentation. There is no doubt of that. What is up for grabs is if he was the Messiah and if what he did was real or magic tricks. We have been debating, for the most part, what this man said and how it is interpretted by his followers. Just because a man speaks doesn't make him a Messiah.

I am now reading over my posts in this thread. I have offered answers to theological questions from Humble as a Catholic, and I kind of threw up a disclaimer for that on my first post on the thread ("a Catholic academic apologist"). I discussed geology with you. No God there. I said that the importance people place on God is not equivalent to what is placed on the tooth fairy or Santa. There was no "Yes, Virginia, there is a Messiah! Break out the porkchops!" I debated history with you as well as the construction of the Bible as a physical book. I also brought up tactics on the conquering of people and their view of a God that would help them do so. I've discussed the Catholic view of God and his nature, while not saying "THERE IS GOD YOU HEATHEN." I discussed Soviet history. You presented the idea that if Jesus was the Messiah, he broke promises in his return -- I pointed out what was going on in the region at the time, including the fall of the Temple. ....

And all the time through, I tossed in, "Either way, until your or I get there, it's up for grabs as to the exact nature..." I never used my faith as a crowbar in this discussion. To deny credit to anything I've said because of my faith would be the same as me saying "I don't believe your argument has any credit to it because you're a Jew" or "I don't believe your argument ahs any credit to it because you're an atheist." You are discriminating against me and my ideas because I'm Catholic -- something you seem to hold as inferior. You deny me validity just as my religion supposedly does to Jews, in your view. And you consider yourself somehow better?

Theoretical Pot, meet Theoretical Kettle. Theoretically.

[Harley]

I mean that in the sense that a person spouting religion, especially the dominent religion in the area can have a great deal more manipulative power than without it.

Hitler used it in getting the support of the German people. In fact historically the bible has been used to justify everything from the killing of pagans top slavery. It's a great tool because it promotes unthinking acceptance.

Your example featured a Muslim preaching in a predominantly Christian area, what if he had been a Christian?

Hardly. You're quoting from Christian texts and it hasn't given you any greater leverage in this discussion.

Politics and race are just as divisive and incendiary (and has followers that are as fervent) as religion. If you have a group that feels oppressed, then you have a group that's open to suggestion. Religion is a variable in this equation. If you remove/replace a variable from a formula and the equation still works, then it is not vital to the end result.

Once again, religion is just a convenient scapegoat in your scenario. Any idea (religious or not) that grows to the size of Christianity will have the same potential for misuse. You're giving the bible magic powers that it does not have and absolving some rather horrible people of their hideous crimes by (in your original argument) saying Christianity is the *cause* of these historical atrocities.

Chewbacca is a wookie, yet he lives on Endor. That does not make sense.

[Ben]

Good one Ben. You could have just as easily said "maybe seeker thinks 1+1=5";)

Except then I would just be a jerk. I'd much rather be a literate jerk. Seriously though, I apologize. I only meant to point out that you have been surprisingly (and radically) literalist at times in this thread.


Jesus did display a lot of dislike for the traders out side of the temple and rich people in general

Indeed. Still, I don't think if you asked most Christians what it meant to be Christian they would say, "So Jesus will like me."


Is that why Jesus advised his disciples to carry swords? I was alsways confused about that one.

There's a difference between carrying swords to protect yourself from bandits and starting an anti-colonial war. And when Jesus is being arrested and Simon the Zealot (John 18:10) cuts off a servant's ear as the opening volley in that war, Jesus tells him to "Put up your sword. All who take the sword die by the sword" (Matt 26:52). Just as Gandhi would use violence if you were trying to rob him but didn't endorse violent revolution.


Unfortunately this parsing doesn't change the fact that non-believers are referred to as enemies and betrayers. How is referring to people who disagree with you as enemies a message of tolerance? Doesn't that just create division?

My point was that Jesus was predicting the hardships they would go through. The enemies of Christ were enemies no matter what he did, and they weren't philosophical enemies, they were the kind that nail you to trees (sometimes upside down) and leave you to suffocate or bleed to death.


Sound legal advice in general.

Indeed. Jesus - prophet, thinker, lawyer.


He goes on to say that the law will not change one jot or tittle till all be fullfilled. I'm curious how you read this one Ben? To me it seems that he is saying that Jewish Law should be obeyed till the second coming. What i your take on that?

It's rhetoric. That statement is just the start of what is actually a huge rethinking of Jewish law at Matt 5:21-48. He turns the law inward, and says that instead of putting other people to death for anything, you need to make right with your own self. The keys here at Matt 5:38-42 (the old guys said "eye for an eye," but I say turn the other cheek) and 5:43-48 (they said hate your enemy, but any old tax collector can do that-- I say love your enemy). So what he's saying is yes, the law is very important -- SO important that all of you should follow it to the letter before you even think of stoning anyone else.


You have to admit though that yelling eptaphs at people you don't like isn't very diplomatic.

Not nice, but not endorsing murder either.


Kind of makes you wonder why Revelations is in the Bible doesn't it?

Like I said, I'm going to make no excuses for that stuff.


Now this is intriguing to me. It seems as though Jesus is actually berating the Pharisees for not stoning the kids thus rendering the Law toothless. If the law is indeed changed as you have suggested then why is he berating them?

He's berating them for their hypocrisy. They had elaborated the law into a massive code that they claimed to cherish. Yet they were corrupt, and allowed exceptions whenever it was convenient for them. He was pointing out that hypocrisy, not saying they should kill children.


Also how is this consistent with Matt 5:17-18 where not one jot or tittle of the law will change?

See above. Jesus would rather have the Pharisees take care of their own hypocrisy before killing anyone for not loving their parents.


I agree. Basically the idea is that Jesus should come before family.

Yep.


It proves Jesus was an anti-porcine. Further proof is that he made Porky pig stutter.

But that's adorable and lovable. Perhaps it was actually Satan who is behind the deceptively endearing speech impediments of Mel Blanc.


I think you'd agree that the whole fig tree thing is just a parable though an odd one all things considered.

Yeah, that was a weird one.


That's true. In fact Jesus condemns the whole practice in...

Am I supposed to complete that statement?


As to atheism and the spiritual world discussions of that are problematic since atheism really is a non-belief in the spiritual. We could talk of morality of secul;ar humanist tenets but if you are looking for spirituality I think you'd find atheism a little unsatisfying.

I find lots of literature by atheists very satisfying. It's the meetings with regular atheists I seem to have problems with. :(

[Psilon]

I don't normally involve myself in threads like these anymore, but I'll just put in my two cents.

On The New Atheists:

I think the fundamental point they are trying to make is that irrationality should not be tolerated. Open irrationality in political systems, economic systems, race etc are not tolerated in the mainstream - and thus irrationality even benign irrationality should not be tolerated. This leads them to the conclusion that we should not tolerate religion whether it is in a harmless form or not. I think the argument is sound.

Politically, is this a bad move? Will the new atheists radicalize more ppl or them taking the bad cop position make the "it answers the how not the why" crowd seem like a more appealing opportunity for the religious (thus providing positive net movement towards the eventual goal).

[Kaoru]

I don't normally involve myself in threads like these anymore, but I'll just put in my two cents.

On The New Atheists:

I think the fundamental point they are trying to make is that irrationality should not be tolerated. Open irrationality in political systems, economic systems, race etc are not tolerated in the mainstream - and thus irrationality even benign irrationality should not be tolerated. This leads them to the conclusion that we should not tolerate religion whether it is in a harmless form or not. I think the argument is sound. Nonsense, irrationality is mainstream in mainstream politics as well as media (although I don't know what you mean by irrationality in race and economics). Atheism is not about intolerance of personal beliefs, only when such beliefs run governments and are used as excuses for anti-beneficial laws and persecution etc.

[Gatomon41]

Nonsense, irrationality is mainstream in mainstream politics as well as media (although I don't know what you mean by irrationality in race and economics). Atheism is not about intolerance of personal beliefs, only when such beliefs run governments and are used as excuses for anti-beneficial laws and persecution etc.

Atheism is not a belief in democratic governments. Look at the West, in which the Ten Commandments play a role in law , and even religion is mentioned.

Adminstrations work on a temporal not a spritual level. It has no authortity to dictate religous belief onto others and it's purpose is to govern. However, it is free to recongize and honor anything and free to work with religous groups.

[zmanjz]

The thing is that Religions DO a good job of condencing basic philosophy to a nice bite size portion.

The problem is that Athiests must accept two basic Rules... Commandments, if you will.


#1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
#2. Some people will NOT follow #1, so be prepared for them.

Fortunately, the US system is robust enough to include both regiliously based philosophy in it's system AND the secular rule of "Fairness or else".

[Ben]

Nonsense, irrationality is mainstream in mainstream politics as well as media (although I don't know what you mean by irrationality in race and economics).

Irrationality is not "mainstream." There are perfectly rational explanations for many of the most extreme political positions, including those that seem motivated by religion. I think perhaps irrational isn't the word you're looking for.


Atheism is not about intolerance of personal beliefs, only when such beliefs run governments and are used as excuses for anti-beneficial laws and persecution etc.

When Dawkins talks about persuading individual people of atheism and about interceding in parental education of children, he's not talking about laws or persecution (unless you mean anti-theist persecution). He's talking about personal beliefs.

[Psilon]

Ok, let me replace "irrationality" with unsound/uncritical thinking. Sure there are plenty of instances of uncritical thinking taking place, however, one cannot be as brazen about uncritical thinking in any public sphere as religion. Ultimately all politicians, economists, pundits in western societies have to make the claim that their argument is sound. This isn't so with religion - it get's a free pass everywhere - invoke the name of a book and you get off scott free. The largest human social problems rose from lack of critical thinking. Thus critical thinking must be applied everywhere including religion.

[seeker]

Theoretically, modern priests have no political power to be corrupted. Yet, they can still have a very strong effect on people, as you've so thoroughly argued in the crazy person scenario with Harley. Someone may not be able to order you, but he can certainly throw a wrench into your other plans. Granted though I still see no outside sources as evidence for your assertion. You are essentially asserting that a community of priest got a Roman Governer who was not sympatheic to them to execute someone for them. That's pretty extreme, I'd just like to see some basis for it.



You and your cited atheistic aren't reliable due to your anti-Christian point of view. I just see your statements as having no basis.
See? Goes both ways. The difference is that I've offered citations from secular and eevn Christian sources to back my point while you have offered none. Very different. ;-)


(sigh) The pagan leaders over the Jews at the time, including Pilate, came into contact with God via Jesus and his court case, but rather than defend him, they thought to preserve their relationship with the influencial Jewish authorities and so ordered him to be flogged and ultimately executed. He's talking to Roman Christians about the Romans they are living under. These people aren't Jewish at all. More parsing. Considering the sheer number of quotes you have had to parse away I think the point is made.



Same to you! You keep skipping over lines where I'm saying "The author of this piece is Jewish. Why would he be anti-Semitic?" And you keep seeing the word "Jew" in letters to Italy. You have a history of spouting a one-off Bible verse and proclaiming it anti-Semitic. I provide the rest of the section and explain it in context, and then you, sometimes in the same breath, say "well, I call it as I see it" and THEN say how most Christians are stupid enough not to read past the literal word, thus why we're all inherently Jew-haters.

......Reality check, please.Unfortunately bigotry isn't restricted to people of other races. All races have a share of people who are biased against their own ethnic groups, especially when there are political or religious differences. No matter how you try to spin 'context' calling people the enemy or saying they are contrary to every man is an example of bigotry.

For example (and this is purely an example) If I were sit her and say that because you refuse to se my point you hate atheists that would be a completely unfair statement on my part because regardless of the context I have still attributed something to you that is not true.



Until this discussion, I never heard an anti-Semitic spin on the Sermon on the Mount. I never heard about Jesus advocating child abandonment and wife-beating. I've never heard Peter the Jewish fisherman slamming his own friends and neighbours for being Jews. I've been around for 20 years in two different sects of Catholicism -- Ukrainian by baptism, Roman by practice. The former is far more arconservative than the latter. In the former USSR there was strong anti-Semitic sentiment and fear breeding. Yet my grandfather has never spoken ill of these people, despite being socially raised in an environment hostile to Jews and later living in a Jewish neighbourhood where he and his family were treated as inferiors and outsiders.

His religion taught him better than that. Give him the credit not his religion. He had choices and, to his credit, he made more life affirming choices but as you yourself admit he was raised in an environment hostile to Jews and one in which Christianity was dominant.



Jesus of Nazareth existed historically. There is no doubt of that. There are records of what he said and what he did outside of the Bible, including the infamous court case documentation. There is no doubt of that. What is up for grabs is if he was the Messiah and if what he did was real or magic tricks. We have been debating, for the most part, what this man said and how it is interpretted by his followers. Just because a man speaks doesn't make him a Messiah. Actually there is no independant source that confirms any detail of his life. There are no court documentations and the oldest independant document that claims to record anything about him dates from the third century. That's one of the big reasons that so many scholars are beginning to doubt his existance. Even the recent Jesus seminar was forced to conclude that a historical Jesus as portrayed in the bible was unlikely.

Scholars are divided these days on the matter but few believe that a Jesus existed as described in the bible.


I am now reading over my posts in this thread. I have offered answers to theological questions from Humble as a Catholic, and I kind of threw up a disclaimer for that on my first post on the thread ("a Catholic academic apologist"). I discussed geology with you. No God there. I said that the importance people place on God is not equivalent to what is placed on the tooth fairy or Santa. There was no "Yes, Virginia, there is a Messiah! Break out the porkchops!" I debated history with you as well as the construction of the Bible as a physical book. I also brought up tactics on the conquering of people and their view of a God that would help them do so. I've discussed the Catholic view of God and his nature, while not saying "THERE IS GOD YOU HEATHEN." I discussed Soviet history. You presented the idea that if Jesus was the Messiah, he broke promises in his return -- I pointed out what was going on in the region at the time, including the fall of the Temple. ....

And all the time through, I tossed in, "Either way, until your or I get there, it's up for grabs as to the exact nature..." I never used my faith as a crowbar in this discussion. To deny credit to anything I've said because of my faith would be the same as me saying "I don't believe your argument has any credit to it because you're a Jew" or "I don't believe your argument ahs any credit to it because you're an atheist." You are discriminating against me and my ideas because I'm Catholic -- something you seem to hold as inferior. You deny me validity just as my religion supposedly does to Jews, in your view. And you consider yourself somehow better?

Theoretical Pot, meet Theoretical Kettle. Theoretically.I can see how you feel that way. Listen, this is merely a discussion of what evidence is out there and what scholars have discovered on the subject. Not an attempt to invalidate you personally. If it has gotten to that point for you then I would suggest we find another topic.

The problem is there has been an explosion of information in these fields as more secular sholarship has begun looking at the subject. Biblical sholarship is no longer Christian dominated, even seminary schools these days have significant proportions of atheist professors. It's a big sea change.

[seeker]

Hardly. You're quoting from Christian texts and it hasn't given you any greater leverage in this discussion.Not a fair comparison, I'm not supporting Christian doctrine.


Politics and race are just as divisive and incendiary (and has followers that are as fervent) as religion. If you have a group that feels oppressed, then you have a group that's open to suggestion. Religion is a variable in this equation. If you remove/replace a variable from a formula and the equation still works, then it is not vital to the end result. The difference is that dew people will actually follow politics or even give it lip service. The same can be said for race. Religion has a large following of people who have been taught to beliefe without question.


Once again, religion is just a convenient scapegoat in your scenario. Any idea (religious or not) that grows to the size of Christianity will have the same potential for misuse. You're giving the bible magic powers that it does not have and absolving some rather horrible people of their hideous crimes by (in your original argument) saying Christianity is the *cause* of these historical atrocities.

Chewbacca is a wookie, yet he lives on Endor. That does not make sense.I wish it were that simple Harley. The Bible and Christianity are actually a very subtle tool for controlling people. Benn earlier referred to it as a meme and I agree with him, he called it precisely.

[seeker]

Except then I would just be a jerk. I'd much rather be a literate jerk. Seriously though, I apologize. I only meant to point out that you have been surprisingly (and radically) literalist at times in this thread.No apology necessary. I know you meant it as a commentary on how differently we look at certain subjects. I was only pointing out that taking offense to it only obscures the actual statement being made.




Indeed. Still, I don't think if you asked most Christians what it meant to be Christian they would say, "So Jesus will like me."A good example though of our differences in these readings. I look at that incident and the eye of the needle analogy as a statement that the wealthy are not favorites of Jesus while you seem to be saying he is giving instructions on being humble.

The bible is the only book I know of where if you ask ten of it's adherants what certain passages mean you'll get ten different responses. Personal interpretation is encouraged.




There's a difference between carrying swords to protect yourself from bandits and starting an anti-colonial war. And when Jesus is being arrested and Simon the Zealot (John 18:10) cuts off a servant's ear as the opening volley in that war, Jesus tells him to "Put up your sword. All who take the sword die by the sword" (Matt 26:52). Just as Gandhi would use violence if you were trying to rob him but didn't endorse violent revolution.Robbing Ghandi would be pointless. At least I don't think he had pockets.

Carrying swords wasn't common in those times just as now it would be unusual to see an ordinary citizen walking areound with a gun. The quote in Mark probably had as much to do with the fact that Jesus was smart enough to realize that a violent response would get all of them killed.




My point was that Jesus was predicting the hardships they would go through. The enemies of Christ were enemies no matter what he did, and they weren't philosophical enemies, they were the kind that nail you to trees (sometimes upside down) and leave you to suffocate or bleed to death.That's not necessarily true of all of his enemies. A shrewd politician would say that that type of rhetoric becomes self fulfilling. Nothing better than referring to someone as your enemy to make them consider you one.




Indeed. Jesus - prophet, thinker, lawyer.Yeah but his track record as a trial attorney was terrible.



It's rhetoric. That statement is just the start of what is actually a huge rethinking of Jewish law at Matt 5:21-48. He turns the law inward, and says that instead of putting other people to death for anything, you need to make right with your own self. The keys here at Matt 5:38-42 (the old guys said "eye for an eye," but I say turn the other cheek) and 5:43-48 (they said hate your enemy, but any old tax collector can do that-- I say love your enemy). So what he's saying is yes, the law is very important -- SO important that all of you should follow it to the letter before you even think of stoning anyone else.Certainly a logical way to read it but it could easily be read as groups like the Amish and Mennonites do, That the law must be followed as it was and that when dealing with outsiders or the government that turning the other cheek is prudent.




Not nice, but not endorsing murder either. It's hard to defend really, especially coming from someone who is 'perfect'. My problem with it is that it seems that antagonizing people who disagree with you




Like I said, I'm going to make no excuses for that stuff.I can't think of any either



He's berating them for their hypocrisy. They had elaborated the law into a massive code that they claimed to cherish. Yet they were corrupt, and allowed exceptions whenever it was convenient for them. He was pointing out that hypocrisy, not saying they should kill children.Not directly however if they had not modified the law as they had stoning children who were disobedient would have been a requirement.




See above. Jesus would rather have the Pharisees take care of their own hypocrisy before killing anyone for not loving their parents.Not a problem except that part of the hypocrisy he is deriding was the changing of the law that called for stoning disobedient children.




But that's adorable and lovable. Perhaps it was actually Satan who is behind the deceptively endearing speech impediments of Mel Blanc.Mel Blanc was a master of voices, maybe he WAS Satan.




Am I supposed to complete that statement?good luck, I've never found one.




I find lots of literature by atheists very satisfying. It's the meetings with regular atheists I seem to have problems with. :(I know what you mean. None of us can add.

[The Guitar Slayer]

The difference is that I've offered citations from secular and eevn Christian sources to back my point while you have offered none. Very different. ;-)
If you call "Satanist" secular, sure, go for it.


More parsing. Considering the sheer number of quotes you have had to parse away I think the point is made.
Mmm, more dismissal of context and plugging in the word Jew conviently. I think the point is made.


Give him the credit not his religion.
He credits his religion. Thanks.


I can see how you feel that way. Listen, this is merely a discussion of what evidence is out there and what scholars have discovered on the subject. Not an attempt to invalidate you personally. If it has gotten to that point for you then I would suggest we find another topic.
The problem is, you attack people and their intellectual capacity as well as their worth as humans based upon their religious/philosophical preference. You're also making serious allegegations against a whole religious community based upon your own prejudices against that community; you'd like to make Christians into anti-Semitic mindless robots -- makes you look better by comparison.

Your favorite word is parse. Let's look again at this quote. I'll dismantle it for you. Oh, and I'll dissect the whole section it came from.


Romans 1:15-23

15So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
Paul is happy to work with us. Yay!



16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
OH WHAT'S THIS!? The word Jew! But wait, he isn't trashing on them. Paul says he's not embarrassed or shamed to be delivering the gospel around because God's out to save everyone -- Jews first and then Greeks. Looking at it from a contextual angle, the Jewish were already a monotheist people, and the first Christians were Jews -- they'd get where Peter and James were coming from. So Jews actually get first dibs on this Christian gig. Cool. Greeks were pagans, polytheistic -- you could sub in the word Gentiles and come up with the same basic meaning, but Paul was set to talk to them folk too.



17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
Paul's quoting Habbakuk here. At any rate, Paul's saying that anyone who's a righteous dude will see God's way, regardless of faith.


Unbelief and Its Consequences


18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
So God's going to kick the collective ass of people who don't behave well and without conscience. He's also going to go after the people who hide the truth in the name of "unrighteousness."


19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
These peopel are willfully ignorant; they've been informed about God by the news, the travels of the Apostles, etc. Even the Jews being assimilated by the Roman Empire should have given them a bright idea of some sort. In any event, these people have ignored the call of the Judeo-Christian God (cuz Jews are cool too -- he just said so).




20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Paul here states that God has done great things throughout the world, and that these people just sort of shrug it off or ignore it. He's reiterating the idea of willful ignorance.




21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Even though they saw God's demonstrations for them, they didn't give him props or gratitude for it. They turned away from God and thought about things not relating to Him -- could be evil, could just be overly secular. Specifically, this could be referring to what happened to Jesus -- he was paraded around before the Roman authorities and treated worse than a common criminal. Despite their consciences poking them to step in and stop this man's death, they didn't -- foolish hearts darkened.




22Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Even though they have all this philosophy and math and stuff, Paul thinks them to be fools because they didn't "see the light" as he did. Remember that Paul is a convert -- the most zealous believers are converts, I've found, so he's like "WTF is WRONG with you people?!"




23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

So instead of worshipping "the true God," these guys wandered off to worship animals -- as I said before, the Greco-Roman pantheon was symbolized by creatures such as owls and horses and bulls....


So where did I parse this time? Huh? Leave anything out?

[seeker]

If you call "Satanist" secular, sure, go for it. You know full well that wasn't the only source I posted but I guess it's easier to mischaracterize a debate than actually argue it.



Mmm, more dismissal of context and plugging in the word Jew conviently. I think the point is made.Does that mean you are conceding? All you have done is dismiss the unneccesary disparaging of Jews but you have not shown anything other than that.



He credits his religion. Thanks.True but we know it wasn't that.



The problem is, you attack people and their intellectual capacity as well as their worth as humans based upon their religious/philosophical preference. You're also making serious allegegations against a whole religious community based upon your own prejudices against that community; you'd like to make Christians into anti-Semitic mindless robots -- makes you look better by comparison. [/quote[That's only a characterization you are trying to pass off in luieu of a valid arguement.

[quote=The Guitar Slayer]Your favorite word is parse. Let's look again at this quote. I'll dismantle it for you. Oh, and I'll dissect the whole section it came from. Doesn't matter how many times you look at it. It says what it says



Paul is happy to work with us. Yay!As long as you agree with him, otherwise he wants you to be punished eternally




OH WHAT'S THIS!? The word Jew! But wait, he isn't trashing on them. Paul says he's not embarrassed or shamed to be delivering the gospel around because God's out to save everyone -- Jews first and then Greeks. Looking at it from a contextual angle, the Jewish were already a monotheist people, and the first Christians were Jews -- they'd get where Peter and James were coming from. So Jews actually get first dibs on this Christian gig. Cool. Greeks were pagans, polytheistic -- you could sub in the word Gentiles and come up with the same basic meaning, but Paul was set to talk to them folk too.Except you are ignoring what he says later about the people who hear the his preaching and ignore it. A convenient lapse of memory?




Paul's quoting Habbakuk here. At any rate, Paul's saying that anyone who's a righteous dude will see God's way, regardless of faith.


So God's going to kick the collective ass of people who don't behave well and without conscience. He's also going to go after the people who hide the truth in the name of "unrighteousness."


These peopel are willfully ignorant; they've been informed about God by the news, the travels of the Apostles, etc. Even the Jews being assimilated by the Roman Empire should have given them a bright idea of some sort. In any event, these people have ignored the call of the Judeo-Christian God (cuz Jews are cool too -- he just said so). This is where you just can't admit what is written can you? What he says is that people who hear his preaching and don't go along with him are unrighteous and have no excuses. He's justifying the notion that eternal damnation for them is okay.





Paul here states that God has done great things throughout the world, and that these people just sort of shrug it off or ignore it. He's reiterating the idea of willful ignorance. He's doing more than that, he's claiming that anyone who disagrees with him is lying. That his way of thinking is obvious and everyone whoo doesn't see it that way is lying. Kind of comical when you really think about it but for the fact that people took him seriously.




Even though they saw God's demonstrations for them, they didn't give him props or gratitude for it. They turned away from God and thought about things not relating to Him -- could be evil, could just be overly secular. Specifically, this could be referring to what happened to Jesus -- he was paraded around before the Roman authorities and treated worse than a common criminal. Despite their consciences poking them to step in and stop this man's death, they didn't -- foolish hearts darkened. Could be although there are so many things it 'could be'. The context though suggests that the Jews in general knew the 'truth' and turned from him. Pretty dark and authgoritarian as a whole.





Even though they have all this philosophy and math and stuff, Paul thinks them to be fools because they didn't "see the light" as he did. Remember that Paul is a convert -- the most zealous believers are converts, I've found, so he's like "WTF is WRONG with you people?!"LOL, I agree with you here. It's almost comical but again the problem is that people actually take this stuff seriously. It would be great satire otherwise.






So instead of worshipping "the true God," these guys wandered off to worship animals -- as I said before, the Greco-Roman pantheon was symbolized by creatures such as owls and horses and bulls....


So where did I parse this time? Huh? Leave anything out?Yup, I spelled it out for you throughout.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Does that mean you are conceding? All you have done is dismiss the unneccesary disparaging of Jews but you have not shown anything other than that.
I think I've adequately shown you're witch-hunting Christians. I'm not conceding anything at all either.


True but we know it wasn't that.
Pffft. Take it up with my grandfather. The man survived Stalin's starvation policy, Hitler's work camps, the US's attitude toward Soviet immigrants, and raising my father (he should be up for sainthood for that one...). If he says that it was his faith that got him through it, I'm not going to question it -- if anything, his life is an argument for it. I'm rather insulted that you would attack this.


That's only a characterization you are trying to pass off in luieu of a valid arguement.
I've offered valid arguments, but you just ignore them, dismissing them as "you see what you want to see." As for the characterization, well, it doesn't make it any less true about you.


Doesn't matter how many times you look at it. It says what it says And I can return that volley right back to you, m'dear. Now that's not a very sound defense. Context is more sound.


As long as you agree with him, otherwise he wants you to be punished eternally
Literal atheists are as hard enough for me to stomach as literal Christians. One ridicules the Bible at face value while the other one worships it on face value, no question. Drives me nuts. Paul is talking about a specific people who did specific things. He is also making a backhanded reference to the trial of Jesus of Nazareth and how the EARLIEST FOUNDING Christians view the way it went down -- it wasn't the Jews as a collective nation that killed him. The Apostles were lower middle class to low class Jewish labourers; they didn't hate each other or encourage attacks on their Jewish families. The anti-Semitic notion that "Jews killed Jesus and should be punished" doesn't come up in the Church until the 200 to 300s with some of the extremer early Church Fathers, such as Justin. Even then, it doesn't make the Christian or Catholic faith inherently anti-Semitic. Extreme ideas do not make a whole religion rotten, as has been illustrated by the good works of Islamic charities.


Except you are ignoring what he says later about the people who hear the his preaching and ignore it. A convenient lapse of memory?
He's talking about Romans here. You know, in "the letter to the Romans." I point you again to 1:16 and 1:23. He says that the Jews were still beloved, and then he speaks damingly of people who have made false idols of animals -- a clear reference to the Greco-Roman pantheon. Jews good, pagans bad. You can't just cut and paste one verse in the middle of all of that and proclaim it to be representative of an entire religion.

Paul is also half Jewish ethnically, and after he converted from pagan to Christian, he probably had some deep discussions with the other Apostles, who were raised in that faith. He denied half of his heritage for his whole life, and then it leads him to this Christian religion in which he finds more happiness than ever before (he says this in many letters, even ones written from jail). He doesn't exactly have the biggest motivation in the world to damn Jews (including himself, Peter, and James).



This is where you just can't admit what is written can you? What he says is that people who hear his preaching and don't go along with him are unrighteous and have no excuses. He's justifying the notion that eternal damnation for them is okay.
He's still speaking of the pagans, which he was one of before conversion -- the zealousness argument stands here. "WTF, mate?" He's also talking about "unrighteous" and "ungodly" people -- these people are doing wrong things. It's not so much a different belief system as being corrupt in various forms, be it money, sex, power, whatever. While Paul is a bit more fire-and-brimstone than his counterparts at the time, he's still meant to be trying to preach to the good people rather than write them off immediately. He says that in the first verse of the section (1:15). He's going to try.

You're also leaving out all references to the "culpable ignorance" I've indicated; Paul states if people are ignoring all the signs and everything that's happened, it's on their heads. To Paul, the very overeager beaver, these people don't have the sense to come in out of the rain, so if they catch pneumonia, it's not his problem. It's not so much "my way or the highway" as much as "you reap what you sow (dummy)." And I'm not denying Paul is a hot-head either.

Things aren't as black and white as you would like to paint them, however. Paul isn't lovey dovey, and he isn't complete hellfire. There are also other views other than Paul's to be found in the modern faith. He's very big into "believe, believe, believe" -- believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and you'll be saved. Meanwhile, St. James the Lesser in his letter was more "faith without works is dead" -- your 'believe believe believe' better get off its butt and do something. Paul is read moreso by Protestant faiths, while Catholic and Anglicans go more by James.

[seeker]

I think I've adequately shown you're witch-hunting Christians. I'm not conceding anything at all either.Considering I've backed up my statements with a variety of sources that you have only been able to deal with through mischaracterization your answer is tantamoiunt to concerssion.



Pffft. Take it up with my grandfather. The man survived Stalin's starvation policy, Hitler's work camps, the US's attitude toward Soviet immigrants, and raising my father (he should be up for sainthood for that one...). If he says that it was his faith that got him through it, I'm not going to question it -- if anything, his life is an argument for it. I'm rather insulted that you would attack this. You are the one that brought it up and you are the one who takes away from your grandfather's accomplishments by crediting them to a 'higher power'.



I've offered valid arguments, but you just ignore them, dismissing them as "you see what you want to see." As for the characterization, well, it doesn't make it any less true about you.

And I can return that volley right back to you, m'dear. Now that's not a very sound defense. Context is more sound. The problem is you are making up the context as you go while ignoring the fact that calling people, 'enemies', 'against all mankind' and condemning them to hell is abusive regardless of context.



Literal atheists are as hard enough for me to stomach as literal Christians.Then you shouldn't eat them.
One ridicules the Bible at face value while the other one worships it on face value, no question. Drives me nuts. Paul is talking about a specific people who did specific things. He is also making a backhanded reference to the trial of Jesus of Nazareth and how the EARLIEST FOUNDING Christians view the way it went down -- it wasn't the Jews as a collective nation that killed him. The Apostles were lower middle class to low class Jewish labourers; they didn't hate each other or encourage attacks on their Jewish families. The anti-Semitic notion that "Jews killed Jesus and should be punished" doesn't come up in the Church until the 200 to 300s with some of the extremer early Church Fathers, such as Justin. Even then, it doesn't make the Christian or Catholic faith inherently anti-Semitic. Extreme ideas do not make a whole religion rotten, as has been illustrated by the good works of Islamic charities. The trouble is that he is still using rhetoric that brands all Jews and that has, historicall been read as anti semetic.



He's talking about Romans here. You know, in "the letter to the Romans." I point you again to 1:16 and 1:23. He says that the Jews were still beloved, and then he speaks damingly of people who have made false idols of animals -- a clear reference to the Greco-Roman pantheon. Jews good, pagans bad. You can't just cut and paste one verse in the middle of all of that and proclaim it to be representative of an entire religion.

Paul is also half Jewish ethnically, and after he converted from pagan to Christian, he probably had some deep discussions with the other Apostles, who were raised in that faith. He denied half of his heritage for his whole life, and then it leads him to this Christian religion in which he finds more happiness than ever before (he says this in many letters, even ones written from jail). He doesn't exactly have the biggest motivation in the world to damn Jews (including himself, Peter, and James). Actually Paul rejects all things jewish and much of his discussion with the supposed disciples is regarding his notion that Jewish law is no longer important (Which BTW is contrary to Jesus sayings according to the gospel). Clearly Paul is a figure who turned his back on his own people and was trying to convince others to do so. There is a very good book on this subjecy called Mythmaker by Hyam Macoby. It will also clear up some of the Pharisee questions you have.




He's still speaking of the pagans, which he was one of before conversion -- the zealousness argument stands here. "WTF, mate?" He's also talking about "unrighteous" and "ungodly" people -- these people are doing wrong things. It's not so much a different belief system as being corrupt in various forms, be it money, sex, power, whatever. While Paul is a bit more fire-and-brimstone than his counterparts at the time, he's still meant to be trying to preach to the good people rather than write them off immediately. He says that in the first verse of the section (1:15). He's going to try. I love the way you say he isn't trying to write people off while actually writing people off. The whole point of Paul's preaching is that certain people will be written off


You're also leaving out all references to the "culpable ignorance" I've indicated; Paul states if people are ignoring all the signs and everything that's happened, it's on their heads. To Paul, the very overeager beaver, these people don't have the sense to come in out of the rain, so if they catch pneumonia, it's not his problem. It's not so much "my way or the highway" as much as "you reap what you sow (dummy)." And I'm not denying Paul is a hot-head either. I only left them off because they are laughable. Paul is clamoring for his followers to turn their backs on people who disagree with him and throws fits wherein he swears at people who disagree with him. At least you do admit that Paul is a hothead though


Things aren't as black and white as you would like to paint them, however. Paul isn't lovey dovey, and he isn't complete hellfire. There are also other views other than Paul's to be found in the modern faith. He's very big into "believe, believe, believe" -- believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and you'll be saved. Meanwhile, St. James the Lesser in his letter was more "faith without works is dead" -- your 'believe believe believe' better get off its butt and do something. Paul is read moreso by Protestant faiths, while Catholic and Anglicans go more by James.I agree, that's what makes the bible so pervasive is people can choose what they think suits them best and just ignore the bits that contradict that. Problem is there is no way to know which is right.

[Gatomon41]

seeker, have you even read the Bible in context? Or consider that there are other perspectives?

[SirLemming]

I agree, that's what makes the bible so pervasive is people can choose what they think suits them best and just ignore the bits that contradict that. Problem is there is no way to know which is right.
That's not a problem. Some would even go so far as to say that's the whole point. The only problem comes from not realizing that.

[The Guitar Slayer]

You are the one that brought it up and you are the one who takes away from your grandfather's accomplishments by crediting them to a 'higher power'.

I take nothing away from the man. He is the one who says this, daily. He is a devout Ukrainian Catholic who believes that God interceded in his life. It is not my place to say, "No, God didn't."

At any rate, back to proving I'm not a Jew hater.

Romans 9:1-5


Solicitude for Israel

1I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Sounds like he loves his brothers alot. Jews no less.

Romans 10:11-13





11For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."


Verse 12 has a nice ring to it.



Romans 11:16-24

Now this is Paul's spin on a parable. The Jews were the original promised people. From them sprang Jesus and the Apostles -- the original dough, and the original tree. The Gentiles are the newer, wilder branches. This is abbreviated from the whole chapter, but you can read it online, and I encourage you to do so. Read on.


If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. 17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19)You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?


Verses 18 and 20 are significant. "Don't be arrogant toward the Jews; they came first" and "Even though they rejected the Messiah, you should be afraid at how easily God will turn to other people who accept his word." Originally, Peter and the Apostles preached to the Jews, and when they were rejected by some, they moved on to Gentiles. However, there is always a chance for them to be reinstated to the Christian idea of heaven. While this is promoting a sort of "Judaism 2.0 -- New and Improved Christian Version!" it's also saying, "Don't mess with them."


The next section in Romans also deals with this, but without the fancy tapdancing by Paul.

Romans 11:25-29



25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Verse 25 -- a partial hardening -- there were some Jews that were violently opposed to Christians, but there were others that were cool with them. Some became Christians, while others were on friendly terms; they saw Jesus as a prophet, though not the Messiah. If you look at Acts and references to letters, Peter and James were content to stay in the Temple and make Christianity a sort of "complete" Judaism. However, they were tossed out by Jews who wanted nothing to do with this wacky cult.

Verse 28 -- Christians may see Jews as competition for their religion and villains for killing Christ (probably what you see in this, seeker), but God still sees them as beloved and He can't take it back. Looking through God's eyes and seeing others as He sees us is constantly remarked upon in the New Testament and encouraged by its writers. They are "God's Choice." This whole section of Romans is basically, "Don't hate Jews."




I have been propogating a falsehood quite by accident, and I apologize deeply for this. Paul is a Roman citizen with Jewish heritage -- that's correct. But actually, he was never a pagan -- his father was not Roman but rather a Jew who had earned favor and was granted citizenship in Rome. Ergo Paul was raised completely and fully Jewish. He was not a pagan but rather a devout, conservative Jew. Really sorry about this, got my wires crossed.

[seeker]

seeker, have you even read the Bible in context? Or consider that there are other perspectives?One of the problems is that their are so many views on context. There are literally thousands of denominations all with their different contexts and some of them quite harmful.

[seeker]

That's not a problem. Some would even go so far as to say that's the whole point. The only problem comes from not realizing that.I'd say the real problem is exactly that when so much of the bible supports bad behavior.

[seeker]

I take nothing away from the man. He is the one who says this, daily. He is a devout Ukrainian Catholic who believes that God interceded in his life. It is not my place to say, "No, God didn't." Up to you then.


At any rate, back to proving I'm not a Jew hater. Once again I never said you were but that Christyian doctrine is.


Romans 9:1-5

Sounds like he loves his brothers alot. Jews no less.Yeah too bad they are accursed and damned to hell. Almost brings a tear to the eye.


Romans 10:11-13





Verse 12 has a nice ring to it. More 'agree with me or burn forever' preaching. Again it still says Jews are cut off from God (remember Jews don't believe in Christ as a savior)




Romans 11:16-24

Now this is Paul's spin on a parable. The Jews were the original promised people. From them sprang Jesus and the Apostles -- the original dough, and the original tree. The Gentiles are the newer, wilder branches. This is abbreviated from the whole chapter, but you can read it online, and I encourage you to do so. Read on.



Verses 18 and 20 are significant. "Don't be arrogant toward the Jews; they came first" and "Even though they rejected the Messiah, you should be afraid at how easily God will turn to other people who accept his word." Originally, Peter and the Apostles preached to the Jews, and when they were rejected by some, they moved on to Gentiles. However, there is always a chance for them to be reinstated to the Christian idea of heaven. While this is promoting a sort of "Judaism 2.0 -- New and Improved Christian Version!" it's also saying, "Don't mess with them." Actually it's saying that they should be treated nice if they convert. It doesn't say anything about what happens if they choose not too. Clearly Paul is just playing politics yet.



The next section in Romans also deals with this, but without the fancy tapdancing by Paul.

Romans 11:25-29



Verse 25 -- a partial hardening -- there were some Jews that were violently opposed to Christians, but there were others that were cool with them. Some became Christians, while others were on friendly terms; they saw Jesus as a prophet, though not the Messiah. If you look at Acts and references to letters, Peter and James were content to stay in the Temple and make Christianity a sort of "complete" Judaism. However, they were tossed out by Jews who wanted nothing to do with this wacky cult.

Verse 28 -- Christians may see Jews as competition for their religion and villains for killing Christ (probably what you see in this, seeker), but God still sees them as beloved and He can't take it back. Looking through God's eyes and seeing others as He sees us is constantly remarked upon in the New Testament and encouraged by its writers. They are "God's Choice." This whole section of Romans is basically, "Don't hate Jews."




I have been propogating a falsehood quite by accident, and I apologize deeply for this. Paul is a Roman citizen with Jewish heritage -- that's correct. But actually, he was never a pagan -- his father was not Roman but rather a Jew who had earned favor and was granted citizenship in Rome. Ergo Paul was raised completely and fully Jewish. He was not a pagan but rather a devout, conservative Jew. Really sorry about this, got my wires crossed.Acutally this quote reveals his pagan roots (you really should read the Macoby book I recommended earlier). He even refers to his religion as a 'mystery'.

In either case all he says in these Romans verses you cited is that if Jews convert then they are accepted but if they don't then they still get condemned to hell etc. Nothing new here

[The Guitar Slayer]

In either case all he says in these Romans verses you cited is that if Jews convert then they are accepted but if they don't then they still get condemned to hell etc. Nothing new here
You missed out on:


For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Sorry to be parsing, but you don't seem to be reading all the important words.




And so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Not just the Jesus believers. All Israel. Additionally, the caps text is quoted from prophesy -- Paul is applying it to Jesus, but with any luck it's still going to work even if Christians turn out to be wrong. The Jews are going to heaven, yay!

As to the rest of your trite comments, I won't even bother with them. You're a broken record.

I'm a half-decent Christian and a good Catholic, and there is no free membership to the Anti-Hebrew club that comes with my baptismal certificate. I find your comments about the "inherent nature" of my faith offensive and false, contrary to everything I've ever been taught, everything my parents were taught, and everything their parents were taught. I'm not saying there are no prejudice people in the Christian faith; rather, that they are the exception to the rule. You are taking extremists' views (including and especially Justin, the one of the furthest out of the bunch) and using them to write off an entire faith. It's like saying Osama bin Laden is a great representation of good, common Muslims everywhere. You take all the bad moments in Church history and shove it at us, while sweeping away all the good stuff, hoping nobody sees the lump under the carpet.

I haven't touched your other Church documents simply because the Bible is what is transcendent to all Christianity after all of these years -- it is the one thing that is inherited by every generation of Christianity and in every faith division; Edicts and Councils and Vaticans are Catholic, and there are a lot of Protestants out there that would chafe at being plopped in with us. Rules are stricken out, reforms are effected, and policies changed, but the original book that started this whole affair stands. And why bother with laws that haven't been enacted in five hundred years? Your garden variety Catholic/Christian isn't going to know Worms from Trent or what happened -- they will know John 3:16 or Genesis 1:1, though. It's the only valid thing we can argue, as Christian traditions are changing constantly -- Catholicism has married men being trained for priestly ordination right now, something that hasn't been seen since the Middle Ages in Roman Catholicism. It was unimaginable 10, 15 years ago. The Episcopalians just elected a female leader and previously elected a gay bishop. The rules are changing, but the source book for it is constant. The Bible and its interpretation are more inherent to the worldwide faith of Christianity than any Catholic documents -- especially because every other sect split from Catholicism due to disagreements at the time and doesn't follow its lead (minus Anglo-Catholics, which is a whole 'nother interesting kettle of fish).

The Bible was written by Jews and originally for Jews until the New Testament came along and said, "Oh, you Gentiles can come too." From thereon out, it's the origin for every Judeo-Christian-based faith.

I'm done with this. Let it be said I didn't let you get away with libel.



(claps dust from sandals)

[SilverKnight]

I'm not going to attempt to sift through the train wreck that has been this 'discussion', but I will say this: Faith is, by all rights and purposes, the belief in something without having any actual proof or irrefutable logic to justify it. In that light, everyone has faith in something; be it God, Fate, or just themselves. The details, by and large, are irrelevant to the most important focus of all faiths in all creeds: How you act in life.

If you treat me with respect, I don't care if you worship the Great Purple Unicorn. Likewise, I'll treat you with respect because I have faith in the concept of Karma. 'What goes around, comes around.'

Or would that be the concept of Christianity? 'Do unto others as others would do unto you.'

Or maybe that's just the Golden Rule you learn in Kindergarten? 'Treat others the way you want to be treated.'

Wow, those look familiar. Gee, I wonder.

Like I said. Details aren't as important as the big picture. The way you act is the way you act; no amount of hastily covering that act in the guise of a movement--religious or otherwise--is going to change how that act affected yourself and others. It is possible to have faith without tossing religion into the equation, you know. (It's one of those 'a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square' things. I'm sure you understand.) Personally? I have faith. Lots of it. I have faith in myself, faith in my family, faith in my friends, faith that maybe tomorrow won't be as crappy as it is today. And when it all boils down to it, I'm pretty sure a large portion of humanity has faith in those very same things, too. Religion sold seperately.

That's my two cents. Such as they are.

[Kaoru]

@ Silver Knight - are you Buddhist? That's still a religion from which your faith comes from. I don't need to believe that if I'm bad then more bad things will happen to me than odds are, necessarily. I'm just moderately nice because I don't want to piss people off (and set that standart). "What goes around comes around" is more of a faith as I see it then "Faith in family".

[seeker]

You missed out on:


Sorry to be parsing, but you don't seem to be reading all the important words. I read themn but i also read the words he used in condemning his kinsmen ands showing his intolerance





Not just the Jesus believers. All Israel. Additionally, the caps text is quoted from prophesy -- Paul is applying it to Jesus, but with any luck it's still going to work even if Christians turn out to be wrong. The Jews are going to heaven, yay!

As to the rest of your trite comments, I won't even bother with them. You're a broken record.

I'm a half-decent Christian and a good Catholic, and there is no free membership to the Anti-Hebrew club that comes with my baptismal certificate. I find your comments about the "inherent nature" of my faith offensive and false, contrary to everything I've ever been taught, everything my parents were taught, and everything their parents were taught. I'm not saying there are no prejudice people in the Christian faith; rather, that they are the exception to the rule. You are taking extremists' views (including and especially Justin, the one of the furthest out of the bunch) and using them to write off an entire faith. It's like saying Osama bin Laden is a great representation of good, common Muslims everywhere. You take all the bad moments in Church history and shove it at us, while sweeping away all the good stuff, hoping nobody sees the lump under the carpet.

I haven't touched your other Church documents simply because the Bible is what is transcendent to all Christianity after all of these years -- it is the one thing that is inherited by every generation of Christianity and in every faith division; Edicts and Councils and Vaticans are Catholic, and there are a lot of Protestants out there that would chafe at being plopped in with us. Rules are stricken out, reforms are effected, and policies changed, but the original book that started this whole affair stands. And why bother with laws that haven't been enacted in five hundred years? Your garden variety Catholic/Christian isn't going to know Worms from Trent or what happened -- they will know John 3:16 or Genesis 1:1, though. It's the only valid thing we can argue, as Christian traditions are changing constantly -- Catholicism has married men being trained for priestly ordination right now, something that hasn't been seen since the Middle Ages in Roman Catholicism. It was unimaginable 10, 15 years ago. The Episcopalians just elected a female leader and previously elected a gay bishop. The rules are changing, but the source book for it is constant. The Bible and its interpretation are more inherent to the worldwide faith of Christianity than any Catholic documents -- especially because every other sect split from Catholicism due to disagreements at the time and doesn't follow its lead (minus Anglo-Catholics, which is a whole 'nother interesting kettle of fish).

The Bible was written by Jews and originally for Jews until the New Testament came along and said, "Oh, you Gentiles can come too." From thereon out, it's the origin for every Judeo-Christian-based faith.

I'm done with this. Let it be said I didn't let you get away with libel.



(claps dust from sandals)If I were iun your position on this I'd bail out too. You found the Bible indefensible because the doctrine is clearly anti-semetic. In either case though it was fun.

[Harley]

You've spent the majority of your time attacking one religion, ignoring most others and not offering much insight into your own belief system. By focusing solely on the negative of that one religion and taking a wholly literalist/extremist approach to it (without being open to other interpretations of the text) you've not opened any minds and simply alienated others in this discussion.

This was a poor debate in several aspects and I was thoroughly embarrassed by the behavior of several participants in this thread. There was a distinctly non-academic approach, with insults strewn throughout the discussion. This experiment in allowing religious discussion back on this forum has failed and will continue to remain a banned topic.

Discussion closed.