[Sinisdar Toste]

Didn't quite know which thread this would fit in, so i just started a new one.
one persons argument against the establishment of religion and the bible
first two columns are very interesting, third is just the same old thing about jesus being a hodge podge of old pagan deities.
thought y'all who like to debate these topics might be interested

Attached File(s)

•  1257216366731.jpg (1.12MB)
  Number of downloads: 2

[Gem Windcaster]

What's the source for it, it doesn't say (or I'm blind).

Anyway, it's basically written by someone that doesn't agree with the bible and/or interprets it differently than for example me. What is there to debate? I don't see it. Maybe you have a follow up question? Because it seems to me the question in the title isn't asking what it seems to be asking, but something else entirely.

[Sinisdar Toste]

well its the question from the paper, basically just found it on a google search, so its not like its a respected theologists opinion. i still feel that the writer makes their argument well though.

i guess a question i would ask is how do you react to the writers assertion that the bible supports a corrupt morality? how would you refute their logic?

[Silencer]

In a rather funny coincidence, the writer makes a few points that I was discussing via MSN the other day.

Of course, the question is perhaps not relevant to me, as I don't believe in God. XD
That being said, it does make me wonder why people still believe.

The article's main points can be summarised more than they have been, of course. However, another thing that interests me is what about the Egyptians? The Chinese? The Greeks? The Romans? The Persians? Prior to the spread of monotheism, all these civilisations had multiple deities, and in fact some of them, such as the Romans, simply added other race's gods to their own line up when they encountered them. The Greeks allowed foreigners to observe their religious festivals and beliefs freely.
That all had an issue with the monotheistic nature of Judaism and later Christianity, however they still allowed those religions as cults. So what happened to the people before monotheism became the 'next big thing'? Did they just get an express ticket to hell? Were they expected to 'just know'? Pretty mean if you ask me.

Sticking with the ancient religions theme, has anyone noticed that while pantheons died out for the most part, the reason people stopped believing in them is because the gods stopped doing things? You have all these legends, such as the Iliad, Odyssey, and later the Aeneid, and all these sacrifices and prayers, and yet no longer do the gods manifest on the earth. No more sons of gods, no more Achilles, Aeneas, and so forth. Sure, you've got the Emperors of Rome, but they were spewing propaganda and the people came to see that.
And now, we have Christianity. Two thousand years ago, Christ performed miracles. Moses parted the Red Sea. Etc. And now? Nothing of the sort. It's the same damned cycle over again, of these things having happened in the past but conveniently no longer occurring.

Mind you, this is the God who committed half of his own Deadly Sins - wrath, envy, pride, sloth...the last one's iffy, but the point stands alone from that.

And the most basic reason I can find for not believing in God? I wouldn't want to worship a divinity like him even if he did exist. The influence of religion on the youthful mind is something I've brought up before on these boards, and I agree with it completely. That's not to say that people who are brought up by atheists won't be an atheist, but it's still the difference between: "here, have some propaganda and listen to it", and "believe what you want". But what about people who choose not to believe? Do you just go to hell? This is up to debate, and your own personal interpretation of the Bible.

Which brings me to another point - Gem says that:

Quote

Anyway, it's basically written by someone that doesn't agree with the bible and/or interprets it differently than for example me.

This is a problem with religion in and of itself, if you ask me. You can INTERPRET it until the cows come home. And on. It's up to you, completely, and utterly. You can interpret passages in completely different ways to suit what you want. I mean...that's cutting it fine, ain't it?
The idea is that the Bible is the Word of God, and if that's the case, it means one thing, one way. You think you're right? Well, so does the person next to you. So does the person who reads it to mean that it's OK to blow up innocents. And that...that isn't right.
Which of course brings us to the last point.
The Bible was not written by God. It was written by men. Men with an agenda? Certainly. True faith? Control? Fun? Even if the former, it is still their belief that you are listening to. Which doesn't make it true. Even if they have the best of motivations, it's a work based on their belief. You can't argue that, I feel.
And what does this mean? It means that all religion is following that agenda. It worked back then, mainly because "God" and "Hell" are scarier than "the King" and "the prison". Why do you think King's during the Dark Ages claimed to be the representative of God on earth?

Anyway. That ended up longer than I'd intended. Really probably don't have time for a religious debate/discussion at the moment, due to exams, but hey, we'll see...

[Kanubis]

Here's my feeling (and damn this is early to be thinking this stuff...)

I can only believe in a truly benevolent God. No other type of God is worth worshipping. To be truly benevolent, a God would haveour best interests in mind, and thus would wish us to focus on thebetterment of our lives and the world we live in.

Any god who did not see it this way, and demand personal worship, wouldhave a terrible ego. This reduces them to a being thatsuffers from one of the weaknesses of human nature, and far removed from the benevolent being I would need him to be. If I was God, I'd let people in to heaven without worshippingme. And I find the notion that god would be less benevolent than me abit absurd.

Essentially then, a worthy God would basically want us to be Humanists. Therefore, as someone who has spent many years analysing my personal perception of faith, I can only perceive a God that would essentially want us to live as athiests. Besides which a life spent in worship for the end goal of personal reward (entry to heaven) is a life spent in selfish persuit.

The bible did have a couple of great bits - that "Love Thy Neighbour" stuff. I see as much evidence of it, possibly more, in Humanist persuits as I do in Christendom in general.

Uh.. way too damn early. I'm sure I could have done a better job in the evening...

[T'renn]

The point is the convergence between two things

1. Believing in god, and that he is, in a way, benign
2. Believing the holy texts to the word.

I do believe in god, if only for the sake of the complexity of anything and everything in existence. There has to be a mover (or shover) behind it.
To quote Einstein:
Having the universe as a result of coincidence, would be like blowing up a printingpress and having the typeletters form up a complete and faultless german dictionary

Hence I believe there has to be a god, and christianity has a lot of value's that I admire, such as compassion. Then again, since it was man who made religion, it cannot be but flawed, by the nature of being humanmade, even if divinely inspired.

Believing the bible to the word is, I think, not a wise thing to do. Because of being told only orally, the writing down afterward, the deleting of various chapters at the Council of Nicea and all the translations afterward, the original text and meaning can be... wel mauled.

[Silencer]

Which is another good point brought up by the picture. If the world is so complex that it needs a creator, who created the Creator? Which is not answered by religion, so hence, why bother with trying to explain the complexity when you can't explain the simple answer?

[Gem Windcaster]

Sinisdar Toste, on 03 November 2009 - 05:25 AM, said:

i guess a question i would ask is how do you react to the writers assertion that the bible supports a corrupt morality? how would you refute their logic?

I hard to take it seriously, honestly, because the authors view of the bible and what Christian faith is about is based on a series of misconceptions. It might fit some Christians, I don't claim monopoly on faith, but I am not impressed with the way the quotes are taken out of their context and used as proof of whatever the author is trying to prove (I'm not exactly sure what). For example the issue of sin. I define sin very differently, and as with other concepts in the article, to me they are not as simplistic as the author makes them out to be.

To answer your question - this is not about logic, it's about twisting the content of the bible to build a world view that clashes with for instance mine. People are allowed to do that, I am quite used to it actually. But I don't see a reason for me to 'refute the logic', whatever that means. To me it's like refuting the logic of an article that states that oranges are blue.

If you'd be honestly curious about what I personally believe and how I see those issues, I'd be happy to tell you, but I don't think you are, sadly. I think this is another bash religion threads. Well go ahead, I'm not going to bother you.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 03 November 2009 - 02:22 PM

[Kanubis]

Gem Windcaster, on 03 November 2009 - 02:19 PM, said:

Sinisdar Toste, on 03 November 2009 - 05:25 AM, said:

i guess a question i would ask is how do you react to the writers assertion that the bible supports a corrupt morality? how would you refute their logic?

I hard to take it seriously, honestly, because the authors view of the bible and what Christian faith is about is based on a series of misconceptions. It might fit some Christians, I don't claim monopoly on faith, but I am not impressed with the way the quotes are taken out of their context and used as proof of whatever the author is trying to prove (I'm not exactly sure what). For example the issue of sin. I define sin very differently, and as with other concepts in the article, to me they are not as simplistic as the author makes them out to be.

I saw a great one the other day. It was a picture of a homophobe with a tattoo quoting a passage from the bible that condemns homosexuality.

Apparently, the next passage in the same chapter of the bible condemns tattooing in equally certain terms.

[Gem Windcaster]

Kanubis, on 03 November 2009 - 02:20 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 03 November 2009 - 02:19 PM, said:

Sinisdar Toste, on 03 November 2009 - 05:25 AM, said:

i guess a question i would ask is how do you react to the writers assertion that the bible supports a corrupt morality? how would you refute their logic?

I hard to take it seriously, honestly, because the authors view of the bible and what Christian faith is about is based on a series of misconceptions. It might fit some Christians, I don't claim monopoly on faith, but I am not impressed with the way the quotes are taken out of their context and used as proof of whatever the author is trying to prove (I'm not exactly sure what). For example the issue of sin. I define sin very differently, and as with other concepts in the article, to me they are not as simplistic as the author makes them out to be.

I saw a great one the other day. It was a picture of a homophobe with a tattoo quoting a passage from the bible that condemns homosexuality.

Apparently, the next passage in the same chapter of the bible condemns tattooing in equally certain terms.

Man don't get me started on those people. Apparently they forgot to read the rest of the bible - it's like those anti-abortion fanatics, they say it's a sin to take a life, but they have no problem judging, harassing, and even murdering their fellow man.
You would think that loving your neighbor as yourself would actually mean something, but some people conveniently forget it - or the turn the other cheek one. I wonder how the US politics had turned out if they had followed that policy in the White house.

Okay, going now.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 03 November 2009 - 02:43 PM

[DurhangAddict]

Gem Windcaster, on 03 November 2009 - 02:19 PM, said:

it's about twisting the content of the bible to build a world view that clashes with for instance mine. People are allowed to do that, I am quite used to it actually. But I don't see a reason for me to 'refute the logic', whatever that means. To me it's like refuting the logic of an article that states that oranges are blue.

Who's twisting what? The article gives all the references to where these repugnant passages are found in this "holy" book. It seems to me that the people who say "it doesn't really mean that" are the ones twisting things, or "picking and choosing" which passages to follow and which to discard.

And the bible isn't alone in this. There are equally disturbing passages in both the Torah and Qu'ran that have no place in a modern, civilised society (which I guess is why the more moderate followers of those faiths "pick and choose" or interpret them in less offensive ways).

[Gem Windcaster]

DurhangAddict, on 03 November 2009 - 02:50 PM, said:

Who's twisting what? The article gives all the references to where these repugnant passages are found in this "holy" book. It seems to me that the people who say "it doesn't really mean that" are the ones twisting things, or "picking and choosing" which passages to follow and which to discard.

Alright let me give an example of how I see it. I am not saying there aren't some passages in the old testament that aren't very nice, but as Christian I see the bible as a whole, and even though the old testament can teach me things about God, as Christian I no longer live under the 'eye for an eye' policy, because the new testament completes, as Jesus say, the commandments, and therefore new rules apply. As far as our behavior, what Jesus says goes - he's the example we're supposed to follow, not the old testament eye for an eye policy - simplified. The problem with taking a passage and rip it out of its context is that you skip what God is actually trying to say and do. And most those passages are not repugnant to me, because I have a different perspective. If you know that God is trying to save the stubborn people that he loves, you have a different perspective.

So for the last time, go ahead and think they're repugnant, but if you truly want to know what I believe, you better ask me, and not rely on humanist propaganda - they're kinda of the wrong people to tell you what I believe, trust me.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 03 November 2009 - 03:47 PM

[DurhangAddict]

Gem Windcaster, on 03 November 2009 - 03:43 PM, said:

I am not saying there aren't some passages in the old testament that aren't very nice, but as Christian I see the bible as a whole, and even though the old testament can teach me things about God, as Christian I no longer live under the 'eye for an eye' policy, because the new testament completes, as Jesus say, the commandments, and therefore new rules apply. As far as our behavior, what Jesus says goes - he's the example we're supposed to follow, not the old testament eye for an eye policy - simplified.

That's open to interpretation (Matt. 5:17-9). The last point I'll make (because you are free to believe what you like and I'm not really interested) is that offensive/repugnant passages certainly aren't limited to the Old Testament.

[Gem Windcaster]

DurhangAddict, on 03 November 2009 - 04:03 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 03 November 2009 - 03:43 PM, said:

I am not saying there aren't some passages in the old testament that aren't very nice, but as Christian I see the bible as a whole, and even though the old testament can teach me things about God, as Christian I no longer live under the 'eye for an eye' policy, because the new testament completes, as Jesus say, the commandments, and therefore new rules apply. As far as our behavior, what Jesus says goes - he's the example we're supposed to follow, not the old testament eye for an eye policy - simplified.

That's open to interpretation (Matt. 5:17-9). The last point I'll make (because you are free to believe what you like and I'm not really interested) is that offensive/repugnant passages certainly aren't limited to the Old Testament.

There's a vast difference between the old and new testament - but I can see how some could be horrified by some passages - I am not though - besides the bible is not meant to be mushy and give everyone a warm fuzzy feeling of being okay when people are not okay. And even though it was inspired by God, and it speaks the truth, it still has to use the language of the people that wrote it. If you want to understand it you have to, on some level, try to understand what the people that wrote it, and the people it's about, went through. But you don't even think it's the truth, so you have no agenda to understand anything. And Matt 5:17-19 is exactly what I was talking about. In this context 'fulfil' means to complete. You can google it and relevant passages if you really were interested in understanding. But I forget, that you are not really interested in what I believe or any other Christian actually believe. No, it's much easier to just come in here and bash.

Well crap I said I wouldn't bother you guys. Sorry. Must...pry...myself...from...thread.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 03 November 2009 - 06:05 PM

[DurhangAddict]

I was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition, so I do know what some other Christians believe.

Gem Windcaster, on 03 November 2009 - 04:51 PM, said:

besides the bible is not meant to be mushy and give everyone a warm fuzzy feeling of being okay when people are not okay.

Right, because he's not a loving god. To quote some Dayglos - "more like the selfish god of greed, death and destruction."

With the exception of psychopaths and sociopaths (i.e. those lacking a conscience), in general I think people ARE okay. But if you want to keep living under the yoke of fear and guilt, be my guest.

Gem Windcaster, on 03 November 2009 - 04:51 PM, said:

And even though it was inspired by God, and it speaks the truth, it still has to use the language of the people that wrote it. If you want to understand it you have to, on some level, try to understand what the people that wrote it, and the people it's about, went through.

So they all spoke english back then? Or are you reading it in the original Hebrew, Aramaic (OT) and Greek (NT)? I certainly hope you're not reading the King James Version. What about the Gnostic Gospels? Not inspired by god? Not truthy enough?

Gem Windcaster, on 03 November 2009 - 04:51 PM, said:

But you don't even think it's the truth, so you have no agenda to understand anything. And Matt 5:17-19 is exactly what I was talking about. In this context 'fulfil' means to complete. You can google it and relevant passages if you really were interested in understanding.

As I said, I was raised in a Christian tradition. But once I reached an age where I could reason for myself it was discarded as no longer relevant.

And I did google that passage, and like I said, that passage is open to interpretation.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

I don't know about heaven, but the earth is still here. And has everything been "accomplished"? Most Christians are still waiting for him to come back. Why come back if he's accomplished everything?

Anyway, you know what they say about arguing on the internet, so I'll stop now. Enjoy your faith if it gives you comfort, but I will certainly speak out against anyone (Christian or otherwise) who would use their beliefs to oppress others (and I'm not saying you do this personally - I don't know you).

[Tapper]

If you ask an open question like this in the title of your topic, and then post an article like that, you're not interested in an open and honest answer to that question. Changing it to: 'religious fellow forumites, I found something to hit you around the ears with, please react!' would be more honest.

The article's basically a trolling attempt in a white-purple layout. I like white and purple, am not religious myself (anymore), but I do understand Gem's answer and am going to squarely side with her for one post, which hopefully is the only one I will ever make in the reli-forum.

Back to the text. The questioning completely ignores the mores of the time the texts were written in, the societies it was/ is popular in. It all made sense in the time the religion was founded, and had/has a massive appeal, not to mention the way religion has worked as a lawgiver, the reasons how the texts came together, how they serviced society and functioned in creating a tight-knit group, a morale, etc. Analyse any religion, its creation myths, its intervention, the imposition of structure, the laws, and what you see is an attempt at order and stratification. State and religion have been a political marriage for a long, long time, in both the West and the East.

It is all bypassed to have a quick bash. I'd have to say that that article is, how to put it, just aiming to find fault in (Christian) religion by whatever means. It is lumping bible, morality and whatnot together in lightweight questions and semi-deep bullshit, seeking to release modern day morality on a two thousand year old book (roughly), which has dominated western society for the past fifteen out of sixteen centuries.

I always dreamed about the day when, as a sort of reversed Jehovah's Witness, atheists go around the neighbourhood and ask people: 'may I tell you why you shouldn't believe in God? '.
I hope that if they do, one day, they'll bring better arguments than this little bit.

[HoosierDaddy]

I'd agree that is what the article is doing, Tapper. Stamping modern day mores on a document written in civilization two thousand years and more past, a civilization that is as unrecognizable to our modern lives as theirs were to hunters and gatherers.

There is a relation between the two, however, if that book is still being taught as if its contents still FIT modern day mores, and that's where I think the author was going with it.

Therefore, it isn't bashing the book in that instance, it's bashing people who would use it to excuse their own prejudices.

[Tapper]

HoosierDaddy, on 03 November 2009 - 07:39 PM, said:

I'd agree that is what the article is doing, Tapper. Stamping modern day mores on a document written in civilization two thousand years and more past, a civilization that is as unrecognizable to our modern lives as theirs were to hunters and gatherers.

There is a relation between the two, however, if that book is still being taught as if its contents still FIT modern day mores, and that's where I think the author was going with it.

Therefore, it isn't bashing the book in that instance, it's bashing people who would use it to excuse their own prejudices.

Heh, you make me post twice here

I agree with you, partly. You see, the thing is, businessmen and military men alike both read Sun Tzu, despite him writing BC about chariots, spearmen and ambushcades that are more or less rendered obsolete in modern times thanks to sattelite communications. Spiritualists read the Tao te Ching and Confucian theory and find wisdom in it. What is wrong with looking at a text two thousand year old text glorifying a concept of a God and his prophet and finding merit in it?

I doubt Gem wants to stone adulterers, but as a believer in God, she's being thrown on that heap with no distinction. That heap contains both hardliners and interpretionalists (for want of a better word) who are looking for a deeper message in what people see as the compassion of the trinity.
In fact, they are basically defined as self-delussionists 'twisting reality' (rather than accepting reality as a reality including a god) by Durhangaddict.

I find this.... rather strange. The monotheist christian church is one of the pillars of western society. It has been law and code for ages, and defines who we are and how we think in so many ways that even a hardcore European / Northern American atheist is still, in his moral core, very much a Christian.
You can say the atheist moved on and cut God out as middleman, instead ascribing the virtues and laws and concepts of egality we cherish fully to himself and his own moral code rather than to Gods code of behavior. If you recognize and accept that, who are we to condemn those who still believe what we atheists left behind us?

To the people who believe in the Bible as it is written as Gods word, and who do want to kill everyone the bible tell us to kill, well, we've got the good old civil law code protecting us from them. There can't actually be a whole lot of them who practice what they preach, seeing how the majority of the sinners (that is all of us, I guess, in some way ) are still alive rather than stabbed to death by a random christian on the pavement.

[DurhangAddict]

Tapper, on 03 November 2009 - 07:56 PM, said:

I agree with you, partly. You see, the thing is, businessmen and military men alike both read Sun Tzu, despite him writing BC about chariots, spearmen and ambushcades that are more or less rendered obsolete in modern times thanks to sattelite communications. Spiritualists read the Tao te Ching and Confucian theory and find wisdom in it. What is wrong with looking at a text two thousand year old text glorifying a concept of a God and his prophet and finding merit in it?

I doubt Gem wants to stone adulterers, but as a believer in God, she's being thrown on that heap with no distinction. That heap contains both hardliners and interpretionalists (for want of a better word) who are looking for a deeper message in what people see as the compassion of the trinity.
In fact, they are basically defined as self-delussionists 'twisting reality' (rather than accepting reality as a reality including a god) by Durhangaddict.

I never claimed there is no wisdom to be found in the bible (or the torah, or the qu'ran). The difference in learning strategy from The Art Of War or finding wisdom in Confucian theory versus biblical teachings is nobody is claiming those books were divinely inspired and infallible truth.

[Tapper]

DurhangAddict, on 03 November 2009 - 08:20 PM, said:

Tapper, on 03 November 2009 - 07:56 PM, said:

I agree with you, partly. You see, the thing is, businessmen and military men alike both read Sun Tzu, despite him writing BC about chariots, spearmen and ambushcades that are more or less rendered obsolete in modern times thanks to sattelite communications. Spiritualists read the Tao te Ching and Confucian theory and find wisdom in it. What is wrong with looking at a text two thousand year old text glorifying a concept of a God and his prophet and finding merit in it?

I doubt Gem wants to stone adulterers, but as a believer in God, she's being thrown on that heap with no distinction. That heap contains both hardliners and interpretionalists (for want of a better word) who are looking for a deeper message in what people see as the compassion of the trinity.
In fact, they are basically defined as self-delussionists 'twisting reality' (rather than accepting reality as a reality including a god) by Durhangaddict.

I never claimed there is no wisdom to be found in the bible (or the torah, or the qu'ran). The difference in learning strategy from The Art Of War or finding wisdom in Confucian theory versus biblical teachings is nobody is claiming those books were divinely inspired and infallible truth.

That's rather weak, now isn't it? I could claim to read the bible and claim to find wisdom in it without being a believer, thus doubting its divine inspiration and infallible truth. Moreover, Confucianism is very much an ethical code one must aspire to, much like religious laws are, and there is an actual temple for Confucius, and he's recognized as a prophet in a branch of Islamic culture, according to wikipedia. So someone did claim he was divine/ divinely inspired .

Quote

As I said, I was raised in a Christian tradition. But once I reached an age where I could reason for myself it was discarded as no longer relevant.

Your words. If there's wisdom in it, why discard it?

This post has been edited by Tapper: 03 November 2009 - 08:39 PM