Religious Moderates = Dangerous Idiots

[supercanuk]

And I'm doing it because I see much of the worlds population acting childishly and I see them as a complete threat to my safety and the safety of society as a whole. We're far too advanced technologically to be carrying on with this unfounded, primitive nonsense.

 

Well said, i concur.

I don

[Moonlight_Graham]

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

 

"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. " (Leviticus 21:9)

Ahahahaaaaaa!! Yes, talk about complete hyprocisy in those 2 statements. If a man lies with another male they shall be put to death? Whatever happened to "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? Was this written b4 or after Moses & the Ten Commandments? Is gay sex so bad that it completely over-rules one of the 10 Commandments.

 

I believe in God & in Jesus, but i'm always aware of who actually wrote the bible. GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE. Regular people did. And a lot of it we're not even sure who it got in there. Apprently the Church believes Moses wrote Genesis because "God told him these stories" or something to that effect.

 

I personally don't believe in much of the Old Testament, especially Genesis. As far as i'm concerned Adam & Eve, and Noah's Ark etc. are just fables & fairy tales & that doesn't make me any less Christian it just means i'm using my noodle.

 

P.S. To everyone: HAHA most of the people in here are now "Mooninites". wahahaha

[supercanuk]

Side-note, a book that looks hella interesting which i have not read yet is called "Misquoting Jesus" it has a lot to do with the scribes who over the years changed the bible MULTIPLE times not just to fit the dogma of the day but in sheer language incompatibility. Certain words dont have their exact double in other languages, aramaic does not easily translate into Greek, German, Latin, English, etc.

[HoboFactory]

But you see, both Medieval Catholicism and Stalinism, when put next to each other serve to illustrate that the problem isn't what you believe, it's how far you will go to try to spread it. It doesn't matter if you do it because of God, or for "the people" or for freedom, or for security; when you can delude enough people and fire up their convictions, it doesn't take the virtue of obeying God to justify it, after all, fighting for freedom is also an act of virtue. The idea of "freedom" for example, is just as inconsistent and subject to countless interpretations as a religious text.

[Matt]

Okay, I think that it is a bit ridiculous to act like Faith and Science can't go hand in hand, where in the bible does it say evolution did not happen? It could have and it could have been because of an all knowing God. What's to say that the old testament are just stories that were collected to give an example of how things could be without a God, and not actually stuff that is meant to be taken seriously? I think at the end of the day the real problems in this world is all this hate that everyone has for everything they don't like, and that goes for everyone. I mean if you don't like something transcend it, don't just complain about it. Otherwise, you're no better than the rest.

[supercanuk]

But you see, both Medieval Catholicism and Stalinism, when put next to each other serve to illustrate that the problem isn't what you believe, it's how far you will go to try to spread it.  It doesn't matter if you do it because of God, or for "the people" or for freedom, or for security; when you can delude enough people and fire up their convictions, it doesn't take the virtue of obeying God to justify it, after all, fighting for freedom is also an act of virtue.  The idea of "freedom" for example, is just as inconsistent and subject to countless interpretations as a religious text.

I certainly agree that it is a problem of how far one will go for their own ideals. But when put next to each other they aren't really comparable. Medieval Catholicism has decimated the indigenous religions of North America, South America, Europe, parts of the Middle East, parts of Africa, Australia, Indonesia, it goes on and on. Missionaries continue to go to other countries with the intent to subvert the local religion and attempt to sway the local residents to Christianity, of course without use of violence NOW, but no less subversive. Certainly Stalinism was horrific and millions died and probably millions more brutally repressed. I am also not denying that other religions have attempted this, but not even comparably on the scale of Christianity.

 

Certainly fighting for various causes are subjective and obviously interpreted in different ways in countless locales, but this isn't exactly what we're talking about is it? Of course ideals in general can stifle local social movements, brutal tyrannies come and go based on insane philosophies and we all suffer there consequences. What I am getting at is that Christianity has two faces, the one that says love they neighbor and is the "modern" and "moderate" face that claims to be fundamentalist light. The other face that works hand and hand with the politics of death and destruction. Just taking the Bushites as an example, there are several churches that out and out support Bush and his wars and social policy. I literally can

Edited January 23, 2007 by supercanuk

[HoboFactory]

I never said that there could be no secular morality if religion were absent, nor did I claim that religion is the sole or even primary source of morality for a society, that debate is quite beside the point.

 

I think though, with your latest post you blur the line between the actions of governments and their religion... just as the line between government and religion was blurry in those days. When talking about the European explorers of centuries ago, yes obviously they took control over many parts of the world, and they killed countless of the native peoples in the process, but religion really came on the heels of the original goal, which was mainly to claim territory for a given nation, obtain resources, and to gain advantage over other European nations. Public school history books here fill students with the idea that the Pilgrims and Puritans typified European settlers, that these people came to this part of the world to practice their religion freely and not face persecution in England, and that this is how America grew into what it is today. In reality, these two groups formed neither the first nor the most substantial settlements in "the new world." The vast majority of colonies in America and all over the world as established by England were for financial gain. While the religious types used the situation to try and spread their influence because the opportunity appeared, the most significant motive by far was to gain land, resources, and strategic advantage over its rival powers. The same generally applied to nations like Spain. They didn't pay for dangerous voyages across uncharted seas (mind you, while putting those who were essentially pirates up to the task) so they could find more people to make Catholics out of, it was again, because they thought they'd get gold, or establish trade routes, or obtain territory, thus not falling behind other colonizing powers. Religion simply followed and to some extent served as the justification... while indeed religious leaders to put various native people in the position where they had to convert or die, but the most significant portion of the genocide, whether the result of Columbus' mission, British colonization, gold-seeking conquistadores, or even the United States with its westward expansion towards the Pacific coast (to which, incidentally some attribute around 24 million natives killed) the true motive. Though some attempts were made at lip-service to God in the process, the reality I think was that they just wanted the natives' land and resources, and they best way anyone knew of at the time was to wipe them out. That certainly doesn't make it right, but it's how it was.

[heyrabbit]

But you see "fundamentalists" don't accept the inconsistencies, they just accept different parts in the same way that moderates do... they're the ones who accept the backwards violent hateful beliefs, and the "moderates" stress the opposite beliefs.

 

To say that they accept different parts of the bible implies that they don't accept other parts, and hence overlooking inconsistencies. As I said before, the old and new testaments don't just contradict each other, they contradict themselves. Chapters condradict themselves and I'm sure there are even verses that contradict themselves. Again, who said that the hateful violent acts in the bible were backwards? That's your subjective, biased opinion. Both the old and new testaments claim perfection. If they're perfect then there should be nothing to emphasize but the entire word, not the words that aren't "backwards" by your self-serving standards. And if the bible isn't perfect then we've discovered one pretty huge lie. By the way, Jesus is the most evil character in all of fiction. He was a homocidal, genocidal, megalomaniacal, perverted rapist.

 

The Fundamentalists don't somehow attempt to follow both because being loving, accepting, non-judgmental, and patient to all and at the same time hate, judge, and behave violently to all those who don't see things the exact same way they do. Universal tolerance and love for all people is totally incompatible with hatred and violence. It's only logical that people chose one or the other. As a result, moderates aren't somehow worse

 

Jesus loved everyone -- except for anyone and everyone who didn't believe in him, fags, women, anyone who worked on the Sabbath. So if you're saying that it's unchristian to be a loving, accepting, violent, intolerant, judgemental asshole - all at the same time - then you're wrong; That's precisely what jesus supposedly was. Fundies may be radical in their bigoted views but for the most part they are generally kind people in most aspects. Infact, they're more tolerant than jesus supposedly was. So if you think leaning towards unequivocal tolerance makes you a better christian, you're wrong. jesus wasn't tolerant. And aren't christians supposed attempt to live their life as jesus did?

This was Jesus' solution for people who didn't agree with him.

 

supercanuk alluded to the First Commandment.

 

1st commandment: "thou shalt have no other gods before me"

 

Deut 17:2

 

"If there is any man or woman among you, in any of the towns which the Lord your God gives you, who does evil in the eyes of the Lord your God, sinning against his agreement...

 

17:5 ... Then you are to take the man or woman who has done the evil to the public place of your town, and they are to be stoned with stones till they are dead.

 

Deut 17 says that if a town doesn't believe in god we should pile all their stuff in the middle of the street, burn it, then kill all the inhabitants.

 

In regards to the Israelis and the Palestinians, it probably IS more complicated than just fighting for the "Holy Land." Race, politics, class, and just a desire for land (holy or otherwise) probably play just as much of it not more of the role than them disagreeing over which prophet was really the same God's favorite. When looking at Israel in terms of ehtnicity and culture around 3/4 of the population is identified as Jewish, but in religious terms, nearly half of these Jews identify themselves as being secular or even anti-religious, with over 1/3 claiming to take part in some Jewish traditions, but not actively following the precepts of the Jewish faith... leaving less than 1/4 of the Jewish ethnicity as genuinely practicing Judaism and following its teachings. So it would seem that there would be a lot more than simply religion that makes Israel feel so strongly, given that most Israelis aren't actually very devoted Jews. Maybe Shiri could cast some light on the matter given that she's probably got a bit more perpective than either of us.

 

Well if you trust wikipedia and the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics - I'm guessing your source is the same as mine - around 95% are Israelis were religious in 2004. Around 75% of the population were Jewish by religion, not ethnicity. Anyone who claims to be secular aswell as religious is a pretentious hyprocrite, i.e. all relious people. Forget the fact that secular-jew is an oxymoron -- none of these statistics negate my argument in any way. So if you're trying to downplay the religious influence in politics, and the disgustingly obvious influence it has on the border conflict, you've really got to ignore the truth to achieve this.Ironically, this is required of religion in order to ensure its survival.

 

The thing is, people can express a religious-like zeal about anything, and it doesn't matter how secular they are, and it will cause them to go to all sorts of extremes. Going back to the example of communism, it is a secular ideal, but as you said, it generally gets to the point where it's not a religion but analogous to it in many ways... but just about any ideal is subject to that problem. People can regard "freedom" as equally sacrosanct, or their nation, or their race, so in reality the only way the world ever becomes better or safer is if people have no conviction about anything in any way at any time, which is of course impossible. "Freedom" for example means different things to different people... the USA claims it's fighting for freedom in Iraq, and the Iraqi insurgents also seem to play that card. It's not really any different.

 

First you don't think the world will get any safer, now you're saying that it's impossible for the world to become safer? How about having conviction in critical thought, reasonable courses of action that won't harm us based on bronze age superstition, and you know, thinking? "You might aswell have conviction in faith because it's pointless to have conviction in anything else". THAT's the message that the church conveys. Conviction in anything other than god is futile. That's simply not true. It's that sort of defeatist, masochistic, maladaptive attitude that's retarding the progress of civilization.

 

Do I think Bush has some sort of delusion about his actions serving God in some way, well it's cerrtainly possible, but I think political, economic aims easily played are more significant role with the Iraq mess. Given that according to polls, most Americans are to some extent or another religious people, it's equally likely that his lip-service to a higher power is just to appeal to what is a giant amount of potential political supporters. Do you think, if the USA was something like 95% atheist, he'd ever bring up God in a speech or anything like that? Of course not, it would be political suicide. It goes back to religion being a mere excuse for wrong-doing most of that time, rather than being an actual cause.

 

He's delusional, not just cause of his belief in his divine mission, but because his overall belief itself. He is religious; that's not a debate. You're arguing that Bush only pretends to be religious in order to manipulate the electorate? That's a new conspiracy to add to the rest. I dont even think you believe that Bush is that smart. The only debate is whether or not his delusion affects his ability to be a responsible, effective leader. If 95% of the U.S. was atheistic, Bush wouldn't have been elected in the first place. That's the whole point.

 

 

It also seems to me that atheism tends to breed extremism more than moderate religion. Nothing motivates a people more than knowing that they've an active opposition. When the USA and the USSR became enemies, and America suddenly had a powerful godless enemy to fear, and immediately religion suddenly took a higher prioriy with the government and the public, they threw in "under God" into the pledge of allegiance and recited it in schools daily, all on account of the USSR. It's just common sense, if you attack, then they defend. When you attack religion, you get the applause of those who agree with you, but you also galvanize the religious types and make them redouble their efforts. It works just like patriotism... think of the USA before WW2 and after. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, many people lost faith in America, it was the era in which more people were leaving the nation than entering it, many thousands actually emigrated to the USSR, crude shanty-towns where the homeless/jobless congregated were known by the president's name (Hoovervilles). While Franklin Roosevelt did what he could to improve the situation when he came to power, people only truly regained a hard-core patriotism after they'd ended up going to war in 1941 and it actually lasted essentially to the end up of the war, through the 50's despite Korea, and all the way until the government screwed up real bad in Vietnam. In much the same way, religion having an opponent only increases their conviction and devotion to the cause.

 

Now you're just debating this for no other reason than it's the antithesis of my argument. Disbelief in god breeds extremism? That doesn't make any sense. You can't blame a negative for a positive; you can't blame a negative or non-action of one person for a positive action from another. That's like saying that because the Poland submitted to Germany that it was their fault they were invaded. That's like blaming,I don't know, vegetarianism for heart disease. Atheism is 2nd predication as I've said before, it's true about what we're not, not about what we are. It's a non-description. Despite popular belief, atheism is not a religion - yes, many people actually believe this- and it's not a cause or a movement. It's interesting that you mention this because people who respond violently to reason usually turn out to be insane or mentally deranged. Provocation is a defense in court but it requires the belief that the defendant is actually temporarily insane at the time of the offense.

 

Even if you think that something like communism is responsible for an uprise in religious conviction, you should blame the actions of communists, it has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with communism. Religious faith must exist before it can react to anything. If you actually believe that atheism causes extremism, what you're actually implying is that belief in god reduces extremism and I don't think you actually believe that. The only enemy of religion is thought.

[supercanuk]

I never said that there could be no secular morality if religion were absent, nor did I claim that religion is the sole or even primary source of morality for a society, that debate is quite beside the point.

 

I think though, with your latest post you blur the line between the actions of governments and their religion... just as the line between government and religion was blurry in those days. When talking about the European explorers of centuries ago, yes obviously they took control over many parts of the world, and they killed countless of the native peoples in the process, but religion really came on the heels of the original goal, which was mainly to claim territory for a given nation, obtain resources, and to gain advantage over other European nations. Public school history books here fill students with the idea that the Pilgrims and Puritans typified European settlers, that these people came to this part of the world to practice their religion freely and not face persecution in England, and that this is how America grew into what it is today. In reality, these two groups formed neither the first nor the most substantial settlements in "the new world." The vast majority of colonies in America and all over the world as established by England were for financial gain. While the religious types used the situation to try and spread their influence because the opportunity appeared, the most significant motive by far was to gain land, resources, and strategic advantage over its rival powers. The same generally applied to nations like Spain. They didn't pay for dangerous voyages across uncharted seas (mind you, while putting those who were essentially pirates up to the task) so they could find more people to make Catholics out of, it was again, because they thought they'd get gold, or establish trade routes, or obtain territory, thus not falling behind other colonizing powers. Religion simply followed and to some extent served as the justification... while indeed religious leaders to put various native people in the position where they had to convert or die, but the most significant portion of the genocide, whether the result of Columbus' mission, British colonization, gold-seeking conquistadores, or even the United States with its westward expansion towards the Pacific coast (to which, incidentally some attribute around 24 million natives killed) the true motive. Though some attempts were made at lip-service to God in the process, the reality I think was that they just wanted the natives' land and resources, and they best way anyone knew of at the time was to wipe them out. That certainly doesn't make it right, but it's how it was.

I never claimed that you said there could be no secular morality, i was actually referring to the last post on page 2 with someone who made mention of actually doing something and transcending your criticisms of various topics.

 

Anyway, certainly the central goal of colonial expansionism was of course brutal trade relations (i.e. slavery), obtain raw materials and accomplish geo-strategic advantages. This does not then disregard the actions of the church. Just because what imperialists did was slightly worse then what the church did does not devoid it of responsibility. Having religious colonialism coming in as a secondary accomplishment makes it no less then what it was, which is the destruction of the culture of millions of people.

 

I am well versed in the colonial histories of many of the superpowers of the day, i am reminded of Columbus

[Moonlight_Graham]

Side-note, a book that looks hella interesting which i have not read yet is called "Misquoting Jesus" it has a lot to do with the scribes who over the years changed the bible MULTIPLE times not just to fit the dogma of the day but in sheer language incompatibility. Certain words dont have their exact double in other languages, aramaic does not easily translate into Greek, German, Latin, English, etc.

i saw that book on amazon.ca, considered getting it for someone as an xmas gift. Looks very interesting. My sister has recently gotten big into Christianity again, and she has a recent copy of the Bible & apparently scriptures are constantly updated, re-translated, re-worded etc. Like a bible she had 10 years ago is much different in many little ways than a current Bible.

 

Its also interesting the power these people have who translate these scriptures, and then of course the power of churches who decipher their meaning for all to live by.

 

On another note, just thinking about the people who originally wrote pieces of the bible. I'm sure if they are quoting Moses or Jesus & describing what they did they will interepret these words/actions in a meaning that makes sense to them in the time/society that they lived. Not always the fault of the author, just how people can mis-interpret things.

[heyrabbit]

quoting supercanuk:

I don

Edited January 23, 2007 by heyrabbit

[HoboFactory]

Anyone who claims to be secular aswell as religious is a pretentious hyprocrite, i.e. all relious people. Forget the fact that secular-jew is an oxymoron -- none of these statistics negate my argument in any way. So if you're trying to downplay the religious influence in politics, and the disgustingly obvious influence it has on the border conflict, you've really got to ignore the truth to achieve this.Ironically, this is required of religion in order to ensure its survival.

 

You'd have to do an equal if not greater denial of the obvious if you think religion and only religion is responsible for the conflict. Race, politics, class have no role whatsoever? Let's be reasonable here.

 

First you don't think the world will get any safer, now you're saying that it's impossible for the world to become safer?

 

You're saying that as if it's a contradiction.

 

how about having conviction in critical thought, reasonable courses of action that won't harm us based on bronze age superstition, and you know, thinking?

 

It's black and white thinking to claim that something must either be completely rational and logical or it must be some kind of voodoo. As I keep pointing out, with something as intangible and subject to interpretation as "freedom", you can have extreme and violent actions being taken on its behalf, yet "freedom" isn't something that can be dismissed as "bronze-age superstition." True, people can have a conviction about it in a way that parallels religious thought... to have a world where everyone is purely logical and rational about absoutely everything at all times, is totally impossible, contrary to human nature, it's essentially the same reason anarchy will never fly.

 

If 95% of the U.S. was atheistic, Bush wouldn't have been elected in the first place. That's the whole point.

 

That's what I'm saying though. He doesn't believe any of that crap he fed to the public in his campaigns, the guy is liar, and he would most likely have done anything to win... for instance his portrayal of John McCain as un-American when McCain was the one who put in time at a POW camp while Bush AWOL (at some crackhouse) ("while" not meaning literally at the same time) in order to get the Republican nomination for presidential candidate.

 

Disbelief in god breeds extremism? That doesn't make any sense. You can't blame a negative for a positive; you can't blame a negative or non-action of one person for a positive action from another. That's like saying that because the Poland submitted to Germany that it was their fault they were invaded. That's like blaming,I don't know, vegetarianism for heart disease. Atheism is 2nd predication as I've said before, it's true about what we're not, not about what we are. It's a non-description. Despite popular belief, atheism is not a religion - yes, many people actually believe this- and it's not a cause or a movement. It's interesting that you mention this because people who respond violently to reason usually turn out to be insane or mentally deranged. Provocation is a defense in court but it requires the belief that the defendant is actually temporarily insane at the time of the offense.

 

Even if you think that something like communism is responsible for an uprise in religious conviction, you should blame the actions of communists, it has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with communism. Religious faith must exist before it can react to anything. If you actually believe that atheism causes extremism, what you're actually implying is that belief in god reduces extremism and I don't think you actually believe that. The only enemy of religion is thought.

 

Not quite what I meant, perhaps I should've been more clear. It's not atheism in itself that breeds religious extremism, it's (as was implied in my post to begin with) when the atheism attacks religious belief. It's over-simplification to sum up what I meant as "disbelief in God causes belief in God"... To clarify, it is a given that there are those who believe in God and those who do not, but it's not the simple fact that there are those who don't believe that causes religious types to redouble their efforts and only strengthens their conviction, but rather, when those who don't believe in God attack the belief. It's when they have an active opponent that it can breed extremism. It's a very simple notion, to illustrate: suppose you're sitting on a bus, or in class or wherever, next to some dude who you think is a real douchebag, maybe he's not so fond if you either, but if you go ahead and call him a douchebag, you better believe he's gonna be a lot more polarized against you than before. Just simple attack/defend... you know fight or flight, and they probably won't choose flight. Not saying you're necessarily wrong in attacking religion, but it's defintely accomplishing nothing.

[heyrabbit]

You'd have to do an equal if not greater denial of the obvious if you think religion and only religion is responsible for the conflict. Race, politics, class have no role whatsoever?

Edited January 24, 2007 by heyrabbit

[HoboFactory]

Heh, is this like day 4 now...or? But it's cool, actually good food for thought and what not.

 

Politics and class will seemingly always exist to a certain extent - separation in class is arguable due large in part to the religious influence in politics

 

How so? There's not a direct connection between class an religion that I'm aware of. There are really poor Christians, just as there are wealthy ones, there are really poor Muslims, just as there are wealthy ones, and so on. In a capitalist society it absolutely essential that there be a bottom rung of the ladder as far as class goes. Not everyone can be millionaire living in a giant mansion and driving a 9th generation Mercedes S600. Even in the various attemps at "classless" society, these class differences emerged, maybe there was a smaller gap between rich and poor, but it was definitely there.

 

I didnt think you could have any less faith in humanity but you proved me wrong

 

Well, I hope I'm wrong and that humanity pulls off a better world, but I definitely don't see it ever happening.

 

I don't see it as being overly ambitious to hope that most people will be semi-reasonable most of the time.

 

I thought that when you were only semi-reasonable and only most of the time then it makes you moderate and that is bad?

 

As far as it being black or white, that's true for many instances but not in the case of religion. god supporters will be the first to tell you that it is black and white; heaven or hell; good or evil; salvation or damnation.

 

But it makes no sense to condemn religion's fallacious reasoning useing that same fallacious reasoning.

 

It doesn't make sense to have a god that is "kinda real" or a soul that is "kinda at stake, sometimes maybe". god can't be omniscient "sometimes". That's precisely why moderate christianity doesn't make any sense. When a reasonable question is brought to the attention of a believer, instead of acknowledging it as something which negates and lessens the possibilty of god, they come up with ridiculous rationalizations like, " god works in mysterious ways".

 

But I think the mindset is the same that applies to changing and evolving ideas about anything. To illustrate, lets use the science of light. In ancient Greece, there existed a belief that light, being what enabled people to see, was actually composed particles that "shot" from people's eyes like beams, that closing one's eyes, blocked that light from illuminating what they were looking at which is why they couldn't see with their eyes closed. It made sense to them in that anything within your field of view was illuminated, one would suspect that unilluminated spots existed all the time, but of course one could never see them because if you try, then you'd have to look, thus illuminating it. These days, for many reasons, we know better. To religious people, God is as real as light is, but I think what happens in the case of the moderates is that they develop a different concept of God's nature based on "knowing better" in the same way the concept of light changed based on what people came to know over time. Maybe they're "not all the way there yet" but it's quite an understandable thing.

 

If I told the guy on the bus to go fuck himself and he shot me, he's resonsible for his reckless, dumbass actions.

 

True enough, but it wouldn't be that rapid an escalation, suppose he doesn't go so far as to shoot you, maybe he just takes a punch (still technically his doing, but not nearly as an unjustifiable an action given the scenario), well then you'd likely punch him back, and suddenly you've a fight. Maybe it gets broken up, but if the guy is enough of a nut, maybe stews in his rage long enough, it becomes possible for him to plan a more violent course of action. It would still be his fault, but by insulting him, and stooping to his level, you can see something of cause/effect relationship.

Edited January 24, 2007 by HoboFactory

[Moonlight_Graham]

quoting heyrabbit:

 

Jesus loved everyone -- except for anyone and everyone who didn't believe in him, fags, women, anyone who worked on the Sabbath.

 

Say wha? Didn't Jesus love everyone? Mary Magdalene, a prostitute supposedly, was sinner & a woman & one of Jesus' closest disciples. He loved those who didn't believed in him. He loved those who put him on the cross, & forgave them.

 

This is what's fascinating. People justify the imperfections of the bible by saying that it was by man. Forget the notion that god supposedly created the bible through man -- if the bible is everyone's main source or "evidence" beckoning their their belief then why did god want people to believe that His word is flawless? Why would god have it so that the bible and christian philosophy is absolutely riddled with contradictions and absurdities?

 

fantastic question to which i have no answer.

 

I don't think it's coincidental that the criterion by which you identify fables in the bible only recogizes the ones that are most obviously ridiculous -- the ones people are skeptical of anyway. There is an unidefined line by which, if crossed, a story becomes a fable. What makes Noah's ark any more of a fable than the conception of jesus? Define how you differentiate the story of Adam and Eve from the rest of the mythological stories in the bible? I'm sure you'll say that it's a matter of context, but really, there is absolutely nothing outstanding in the bible that would suggest or lead someone to believe that some fables are true while others are not. The deciding factor is your reasoning. So why not go the extra step and discredit the rest?

 

Parts of the bible are true, and some aren't. Some are true because it is also a book of human history. Many witnesses wrote to have seen Jesus Christ, so even if you don't believe he was the son of God, even history scholars would find it incredibly likely that a man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist. And some of the Bible can't be true because much of it contradicts itself.

 

There is a line somewhere inside everyone who believes in the Bible that they draw to what & how much is real, and how much is false. In the end this and everything you are talking about comes down to faith and personal belief.

 

Many believe that God does these sorts of confusing things to test your faith in him. That he shouldn't have to constantly prove that he exists. The only proof i guess is what happens to your life when you do put your faith in him & believe. Personally, there have been some little miracles in my prayers to God in the most desperate times in my life that have convinced me, after years of harsh skepticism, that God is real. Some would put these things off as mere coicidences, & that is a valid argument. But again, its a matter of faith.

 

To the original topic of this thread. Are moderates more or less dangerous than fundies/extremists? They can both be dangerous. But IMO fundies are moreso, because they take God's word (or whomever they believe in) as harsh fact in the literal manner that they have interpreted these words. ie: 40 days & 40 nights REALLY DOES mean 40 days & 40 nights. Fundies have hard times decifering symbolism, context etc. Of course, many things in the bible are up for interpretation, but fundies have their mind set & won't consider other meanings or debate. At least moderates can keep an open mind. Its been my experience that people who are close-minded are much more dangerous than those who are open-minded. And in many ways, open-mindedness is one of the core messages all religions teach. Compassion, empathy, judge not...

Edited January 24, 2007 by Moonlight_Graham

[heyrabbit]

Heh, is this like day 4 now...or? But it's cool, actually good food for thought and what not.

Edited January 25, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Moonlight_Graham]

hey rabbit:

 

Well he raped the virgin mary. That's not very loving.

 

i think it missed that part. Where can i find this?

 

I'm actually very impressed with your arguments. very smart & put together. They are legit questions, & i can understand why you are an agnostic.

 

However:

 

Open-mindedness is a bad thing in the case of christianity -- Open to what? Freethinking is literally a sin in the bible. There is no other word but the world of god. Also, if you're open to being inconsistent in interpreting the bible, that lessens the validity of your faith. Fundies are consistent; consistently wrong, you would say, but consistent nonetheless. If you're open to suggestions that parts of the bible are wrong, that literally makes you an agnostic. That's why I say that moderates are really closet-agnostics and Fundies are truer Christians. To be a true christian you have to becompletely close-minded. Anyone who's truly open minded can't help but be an agnostic or an atheist.

 

Fundies are truer Christians than I? What makes someone a Christian? Someone who believes in Jesus Christ. At least thats my interpretation. The fact that i question what is in the bible lessens the validity of my faith? You don't even know what my faith is.

 

The term "agnostic" is a very tricky term. It can have many slightly different definitions. But i'll go by the definition that an agnostic is someone who isn't convinced God exists (or not) because there isn't enough evidence either way.

 

I believe that there is a higher power, a force much greater whan ourselves who works on a completely different level. I believe in the big-bang (so far), i believe in evolution, but i believe this higher power made all of this possible. I call this high power "God". Thats my faith.

 

I also believe in Jesus. I also believe that other religions across the globe work through this same God (or power), and in the end most of us believe in the same thing.

 

And rather than an athiest, who doesn't believe in a higher power, or an agnostic who isn't convinced, i am 100% convinced there is a God. I can see it every time i walk through a field on a sunny summer day, or look into a baby's eyes. The bible is just a book & people can argue about it or just believe it all blah blah argue all day. IMO there are positive things people can take from all religions. If it helps you in your life & doesn't harm other people, then thumbs up.

 

I really don't care what label that makes me, i just don't want a label on my beliefs because they are unique & my own. And if you have more respect for a fundamentalist/extremist than a person of my beliefs then i don't really give a fuck.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Moonlight_Graham

[heyrabbit]

i think it missed that part. Where can i find this?

 

I think the events surrounding the conception are in Luke somewhere. Mary was 13 when god asked her through an angel if she would conceive jesus -- literally a school child at the time. Many will argue that that was the norm at the time, which is true, although so was homophobia and a belief that the sun revolved around the earth.

 

Nowadays if you inseminate a thirteen year-old, or even a sixteen year-old, and your only excuse is that "she consented", you're considered a pedophile and sent to jail.

 

It's understandable that the people of the time would be ignorant about emotional development but god had no excuse.

 

Fundies are truer Christians than I? What makes someone a Christian? Someone who believes in Jesus Christ. At least thats my interpretation. The fact that i question what is in the bible lessens the validity of my faith? You don't even know what my faith is.

 

The term "agnostic" is a very tricky term. It can have many slightly different definitions. But i'll go by the definition that an agnostic is someone who isn't convinced God exists (or not) because there isn't enough evidence either way.

 

I believe that there is a higher power, a force much greater whan ourselves who works on a completely different level. I believe in the big-bang (so far), i believe in evolution, but i believe this higher power made all of this possible. I call this high power "God". Thats my faith.

 

I also believe in Jesus. I also believe that other religions across the globe work through this same God (or power), and in the end most of us believe in the same thing.

 

And rather than an athiest, who doesn't believe in a higher power, or an agnostic who isn't convinced, i am 100% convinced there is a God. I can see it every time i walk through a field on a sunny summer day, or look into a baby's eyes. The bible is just a book & people can argue about it or just believe it all blah blah argue all day. IMO there are positive things people can take from all religions. If it helps you in your life & doesn't harm other people, then thumbs up.

 

I really don't care what label that makes me, i just don't want a label on my beliefs because they are unique & my own. And if you have more respect for a fundamentalist/extremist than a person of my beliefs then i don't really give a fuck.

 

Every time you discredit portions of the bible as being untrue you inevitably invalidate other parts of the bible and you lessen its validity as a whole. Logic is literally non-contradictory identification which includes identification of contradictions. So I don't know if you admit that the bible is illogical or not? Certain parts of the bible don't make sense without other parts so it's impossible to cherry-pick the bible without acknowledging contradictions and while remaining consistent in your belief. It doesn't make sense to say that you unequivocally believe in christ, although the main source of information on him is completely illogical.

 

I'm an agnostic in the sense that I can't definitively disprove something that's inherently non-disprovable. You'll find that many or possibly even most christians, when asked deeply, some of their main justifications for their belief is just the fact that it can't be disproved. "Who's to know?" etc.

 

The big bang and evolution directly contradict christian philosophy.

 

When someone believes in something they unconsciously and continuously search for validation for that belief. Christians will see a beautiful sunset, or a baby, or a "miracle" and they will view this as conformation that their belief is true. But the point is that muslims view these same things as conformation that their beliefs are true. So, these things are no more of an indication of jesus' existence than they are for allah, or Shiva or whoever else. Not many people realize that their beliefs sometimes have everything to do with wherever they happened to have been born. And the point I've tried to make is that religion does harm people.

 

Also, you shouldn't have to "take things" from any religion. That's what I mean about cherry-picking. The main positive thing that people take from religion is the golden rule but that exists independently of religion. Why not skip the bible and go straight for the golden rule? You don't need to accept the bible as being true in order to get something out of reading it.

 

It's easier to not be labeled because, when your beliefs aren't clearly defined, normally you're not expected to adduce reasons for them. If someone says they believe in christ, that's a very specific belief which would demand specific reasons. Some say that they simply believe in some kind of higher power and that it's their personal faith. that's too easy isn't it? It's a cop-out.

 

I evaluate people on an individual basis but my point is that someone shouldn't be given more respect for altering and compromising their already irrational faith to attempt to make it reasonable and more accepted by society. That to me is less honest. I think it's very indicative of the nature of religious faith.

Edited January 29, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Moonlight_Graham]

I think the events surrounding the conception are in Luke somewhere. Mary was 13 when god asked her through an angel if she would conceive jesus -- literally a school child at the time. Many will argue that that was the norm at the time, which is true, although so was homophobia and a belief that the sun revolved around the earth.

 

Nowadays if you inseminate a thirteen year-old, or even a sixteen year-old, and your only excuse is that "she consented", you're considered a pedophile and sent to jail.

 

It's understandable that the people of the time would be ignorant about emotional development but god had no excuse.

 

Whomever made the decision (God? nature? evolution?) that at the age of 13 females were biologically ready to conceive a child, it must have been done for a good reason.

 

In Mary's day it was considered normal for a 13 year old female to be married & bear children. I'm sure in many cultures today it is still considered normal. In Mary's day young people had more responsibities, they were pushed harder, they learned to be more independent at an earlier age than current North American kids. For whatever reason, society in Mary's time decided that at 13 years old females were ready to move away from the nest, get married, start a family etc.

 

If Jesus came in 2007, my guess is God wouldn't pick a 13 y/o North American girl to carry Jesus. He'd probably pick a mature 19 y/o girl or something. My point is that just because our modern Western society has deemed sex with a 13 y/o girl is rape, that doesn't make it the universal definition of rape across all cultures & time points of human history.

 

Every time you discredit portions of the bible as being untrue you inevitably invalidate other parts of the bible and you lessen its validity as a whole. Logic is literally non-contradictory identification which includes identification of contradictions. So I don't know if you admit that the bible is illogical or not? Certain parts of the bible don't make sense without other parts so it's impossible to cherry-pick the bible without acknowledging contradictions and while remaining consistent in your belief. It doesn't make sense to say that you unequivocally believe in christ, although the main source of information on him is completely illogical.

 

I'm an agnostic in the sense that I can't definitively disprove something that's inherently non-disprovable. You'll find that many or possibly even most christians, when asked deeply, some of their main justifications for their belief is just the fact that it can't be disproved. "Who's to know?" etc.

 

The big bang and evolution directly contradict christian philosophy.

 

Yeah i guess i think the Bible isn't very logical. Angels, demons, supernatual occurances + (the condtradictions) aren't very logical. Not much tangible proof that a lot of this stuff ever happened, except for the written accounts described in the bible.

 

Maybe i'm not a "true" Christian. I do believe that Jesus existed, but i often have doubts about some of the things in the New Testament. Do i concede that there's a chance Jesus wasn't the son God? Yes. Is there a chance there's no heaven or hell or a "soul"? Yes. These are questions i wrestle with myself all the time. But the big bang & evolution are also theories, and do i concede that there's chance they don't exist? Of course. But they are the best evidence we have right now, so we put some faith in them until proven otherwise.

 

My "spiritual/religious" beliefs are quite inconsistent because they are constantly evolving. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

When someone believes in something they unconsciously and continuously search for validation for that belief. Christians will see a beautiful sunset, or a baby, or a "miracle" and they will view this as conformation that their belief is true. But the point is that muslims view these same things as conformation that their beliefs are true. So, these things are no more of an indication of jesus' existence than they are for allah, or Shiva or whoever else. Not many people realize that their beliefs sometimes have everything to do with wherever they happened to have been born.

 

I already mentioned i thought that "other religions across the globe work through this same God (or power), and in the end most of us believe in the same thing." Along with the "Golden Rule", another major thing that most religions have in common is that they believe in a power greater than themselves. In the end, we are all trying to confirm the same basic belief.

 

I don't see how you say "you either believe in the bible, or you don't". The bible isn't crystal-clear, black&white as you make it out. There are so many factions of christianity because people disagree on how to interpret the bible. Does "40 days & 40 nights" literally mean that length of time, or does it just mean "a long time"? Who is more Christian or truest to the bible: Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists?

 

Also, you shouldn't have to "take things" from any religion. That's what I mean about cherry-picking. The main positive thing that people take from religion is the golden rule but that exists independently of religion. Why not skip the bible and go straight for the golden rule? You don't need to accept the bible as being true in order to get something out of reading it.

 

What is wrong about cherry-picking from the Bible, or from other religions? The Golden Rule doesn't solve every problem. If it did the Bible would be 3 pages long, Jesus & Mohammed wouldn't have much to say, & ethics courses would take 30 minutes to complete. I take things from the Bible & other religions that work for me. Buddhism teaches to live in moment, & that meditation can help keep our mind at peace. Jesus teaches to free ourselves from material possessions.

 

It's easier to not be labeled because, when your beliefs aren't clearly defined, normally you're not expected to adduce reasons for them. If someone says they believe in christ, that's a very specific belief which would demand specific reasons. Some say that they simply believe in some kind of higher power and that it's their personal faith. that's too easy isn't it? It's a cop-out.

 

No. If my beliefs aren't cleary defined or fall under some sort of religious sect or anti-religious philosophy, then how can i label it? My beliefs are unique to myself. If you want to put a label on my beliefs, then call me a "moral mutt".

 

Its not very nice to call someone's beliefs a "cop-out". In fact, you seem not to have much respect for anyone's religion. I may not like the Pope, but when i enter my friends' house & see picture of the Pope hanging on the wall i don't draw a moustache on it or throw it out the window. I could call being an agnostic a "cop-out". See, you don't have to commit to believing in any specific, so what is there to defend? You or an athiest can sit here all day & blast people for their beliefs, call them idiots, pussies, cop-outs, cherry-pickers, & not have to feel guilty about it because you are simply trying to free them from their obviously primitive & illogical thinking. But i don't really feel that. My dad's an athiest, i have friends who are agnostics. To each their own.

 

Both religious moderates & fundamentalists can be dangerous, as can those who berate others who simply don't believe the same "truth" that they do.

[supercanuk]

OKay there are a lot of things i ought to address but all i want to do is add this link, its a video all who participated in this debate/talk should watch.

It's Penn & Teller on the Bible

Link

[heyrabbit]

In Mary's day it was considered normal for a 13 year old female to be married & bear children.

Edited February 1, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Moonlight_Graham]

i'll make this more brief because we could literally go on forever debating this.

 

a) There are repeated, unlikely coincidences of jesus demonstrating ignorance and, in many ways, behaving just like the people of his time.

 

Can u give me some examples, i'm just curious what these are? You (honestly) seem to know more about the bible than I can't think of any examples off hand.

 

My personal belief is that the bible is a flawed book written by humans, not God. And if they are recording the word of God, i think they screwed up the translation in many parts. There are just too many parts in the bible, especially the Old Testament, where it just seems like someone regular person/people from that time wrote some rules & stuck it in the bible. The parts about rules on owning slaves etc. is pretty ridiculas.

 

I'm suprised you are an atheist. I don't understand how you can have such a self-described adamant belief that any type of God doesn't exists, since there is no concrete evidence of that either. Scientifically, we really don't know what happens after we die. I would think the most rational, logical, scientific by-the-facts believe would be that there isn't enough evidence either way to prove god(s) does/doesn't exist or that there is a soul or not etc. so therefore the matter is inconclusive until further evidence is revealed. aka an agnostic point of view.

 

I guess we'll only see who's right when we're both dead. Unless we both get reincarnated the moment after we die ;)

[marx marvelous]

I don't mean it as an insult to your intelligence or anything of the sort, but the original post is so narrow minded it makes my head spin. Don't accuse a group of people of being automatons while at the same time implying that they should kowtow to the most fundamental interpretation of whatever religious text they subscribe to. The Christian Bible is only one example, but it's proof enough that human influence plays an integral role in how the religion has developed and branched out into so many different sects. If anyone sees this and is curious about how the Bible has been mistranslated and biased for personal gain, check out "Misquoting Jesus" by Ehrman.

 

Summary: There are more personal beliefs than just the most widely supported ones. Ignorant people will always be ignorant, regardless of faith.

[heyrabbit]

Can u give me some examples, i'm just curious what these are?

Edited February 4, 2007 by heyrabbit