Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity


classicchinadoll

Recommended Posts

I didn't read the whole post, but I'd just like to say one thing. I don't think "attacking" any form of Christianity will do any good. Christians will only see this as "persecution". It's good to ask people questions to get them thinking, but often being angry and bitter about religion will only reinforce the believers' belief that atheists are sad, twisted, evil people.

 

Word up.

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 391
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Greatest I am

    61

  • Neon Genesis

    50

  • Ouroboros

    40

  • Shyone

    36

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Guest Valkyrie0010

thank you valkerie but i think oc isn't paying attention. he just wants to argue. i think the hypothesis that religion is an evolutionary advantage would also be a possibility though we can't see what benefits it has, the fact that we evolved and have this propensity would make that a possibility. but doesn't make dawkins hypothesis any less scientific. they are just alternative hypotheses. and once again he accuses dawkins of stating it as fact when nobody else has claimed that.

your welcome.

 

And ditto.

I completely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valkyrie0010

thank you valkerie but i think oc isn't paying attention. he just wants to argue. i think the hypothesis that religion is an evolutionary advantage would also be a possibility though we can't see what benefits it has, the fact that we evolved and have this propensity would make that a possibility. but doesn't make dawkins hypothesis any less scientific. they are just alternative hypotheses. and once again he accuses dawkins of stating it as fact when nobody else has claimed that.

It is perhaps ironic that one could argue that religion produces advantages for survival and therefore we should all be religious. Our "atheist approach" would be considered aberrant and potentially destructive evolutionarily and therefore harmful to the species.

 

If our ancestors survived by religion, then why should those who think religion is important want to discard that evidence that religion is beneficial?

 

Regardless, it has no bearing on the truth of religion except that the gradual development argues against a naive people without any religion being given revealed religion. But OC already knows that there has been religious "development" (I use that word instead of evolution because he hates that word). He knows about the Egyptians, Babylonians and Sumerians. He knows about Neanderthal and pre-human homo ritualistic burials. He knows that small primative societies have ancestor worship and animism.

 

But despite the "yes, yes, yes, yes, yes" knowledge of the steps in the development of religion, he would cry, "NO!" regarding the conclusion that religion has developed.

 

As to whether there is some evolutionary advantage of religion? I doubt it has any advantage over and above social cohesion which could have been (and has been) accomplished without superstitious beliefs.

this might be the genetic fallacy, but if religion is a developed add on, it takes away credibility of the claims.

 

On the atheist point, I will rehash a point I made earlier, but I will say it differently with a dictum my anthropology professor stated

 

"Religion is the explanation of the unexplainable in a culturally relative way."

 

We just have better explanations now than we used to have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this might be the genetic fallacy, but if religion is a developed add on, it takes away credibility of the claims.

 

On the atheist point, I will rehash a point I made earlier, but I will say it differently with a dictum my anthropology professor stated

 

"Religion is the explanation of the unexplainable in a culturally relative way."

 

we just have better explanations then we do know

Yep, that makes sense.

 

Or, slightly reworded, "We just have better explanations now than we used to have."

 

Occam's razor is dull it appears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valkyrie0010

this might be the genetic fallacy, but if religion is a developed add on, it takes away credibility of the claims.

 

On the atheist point, I will rehash a point I made earlier, but I will say it differently with a dictum my anthropology professor stated

 

"Religion is the explanation of the unexplainable in a culturally relative way."

 

we just have better explanations then we do know

Yep, that makes sense.

 

Or, slightly reworded, "We just have better explanations now than we used to have."

 

Occam's razor is dull it appears.

thank you :ugh:

I probably shouldn't comment on forums on no sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think oc isn't paying attention. he just wants to argue.

 

More specifically, he just wants to spread his talking points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think oc isn't paying attention. he just wants to argue.

 

More specifically, he just wants to spread his talking points.

 

Yep.

 

Isn't it curious that OC will appeal to empirical evidence (when it suits him) but when he is asked to provide empirical/objective evidence for his outlandish claim of a person being resurrected -- good as new -- after being dead and buried for three days and that this action actually removes sin and saves -- he's mute.

 

Hmmmmmm? Go figure!

 

OC -- you're hypocritical asshole; wallowing in delusion, who can NOT substantiate an iota of your outlandish christian claims. You have zero credibility and your words aren't even worth the time you took banging them out on the keyboard.

 

Troll Alert!

 

--S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this might be the genetic fallacy, but if religion is a developed add on, it takes away credibility of the claims.

 

On the atheist point, I will rehash a point I made earlier, but I will say it differently with a dictum my anthropology professor stated

 

"Religion is the explanation of the unexplainable in a culturally relative way."

 

we just have better explanations then we do know

Yep, that makes sense.

 

Or, slightly reworded, "We just have better explanations now than we used to have."

 

Occam's razor is dull it appears.

thank you :ugh:

I probably shouldn't comment on forums on no sleep.

Nonsense! I did it the other night and only offended one person.

 

Besides, I understood you perfectly.

 

And my comment about Occam's razor was referring to the failure to cut religion from society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman by your definition moderate christians would not be christians at all but a person who believed in god and viewed the bible as people trying to express their understanding of god. the very fact that they believe Jesus was the son of god and choose to believe the parts of his story that speak to them, in other words the very fact they are christians means they choose to believe truth based on their feelings.

 

I disagree that fundamentalism is as recent a phenonema as you suggest, I will say that the current brand of protestant fundamentalism is, prior to that there was a brand of roman catholic fundamentalism and even prior to Jesus there was a brand of jewish fundamentalism (the pharisees)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman by your definition moderate christians would not be christians at all but a person who believed in god and viewed the bible as people trying to express their understanding of god.

I think we may struggling with definitions of terms. I think of moderate Christians in terms of your, "We believe in God, and of course we're Christians. We go to church, pray, and thing that God will take us to heaven when we die", people, i.e., the majority of Christians prior to the more recent Boil-on-the-Face-of-America phenomena called Conservative Evangelicalism, symbolized by such deep minds as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George W. Bush, et al.

 

Now I will also make a distinction between Mom and Grandma Christian, and the more liberal 'thinkers' such as John Shelby Spong, and others. I still utterly fail to see how your "good people" moderate, "we're good-people Christians", cause fundamentalism. I don't see it. Sorry Sam Harris. Don't see the support for that.

 

the very fact that they believe Jesus was the son of god and choose to believe the parts of his story that speak to them, in other words the very fact they are christians means they choose to believe truth based on their feelings.

Well... yes. You think believe in God, faith, is a matter of scientific research? Of course belief in God is based on something other than logic and reason. By definition, God transcends the mere physical world, true?

 

I disagree that fundamentalism is as recent a phenonema as you suggest, I will say that the current brand of protestant fundamentalism is, prior to that there was a brand of roman catholic fundamentalism and even prior to Jesus there was a brand of jewish fundamentalism (the pharisees)

One of many articles to help explain: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Fundamentalism.html

 

And actually no, Pharisee's were not "fundamentalists", per se. They would be considered conservative. But yes, sociologically speaking there would always be the extreme on the Bell Curve (statistical normal distribution). Fundamentalism per se, as a rise in social movement, is really much more a recent phenomena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fundamentalism per se, as a rise in social movement, is really much more a recent phenomena.

 

 

You are correct in this. Fundamentalism could not exist without the modernist way of looking at the world. It is a reaction against modernism and actually uses elements of the modernist mindset in formulating it's main ideas.

 

When we talk about extremism, hostility, and counter-culturalism, we are talking about aspects that any given social movement will develop as rival groups polarize in reaction to one another. It's not a strictly "Fundamentalist" phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well... yes. You think believe in God, faith, is a matter of scientific research? Of course belief in God is based on something other than logic and reason. By definition, God transcends the mere physical world, true?

 

I agree antlerman, I never argued that belief in christianity is logical at all though if you are going to believe Jesus then you can't ignore him vouching for the ot as from god. as far as believing in Paul's letters i can see a logical reason for dismissing them. They were never foretold and the fact that christians understand that though they have the holy spirit they are confused on many topics would indicate that Paul was just as likely to be confused as any of todays christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

There is no empirical evidence for this claim.

I think there is. I would have to do a search in the library to prove you wrong, but I do remember some articles regarding evidence that belief is very much brain-oriented and there are solid reasoning behind why it is so.

 

But why should I bother... you're not interested in the truth anyway. You're only interesting in your own delusional fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of your words had anything to do with Dawkins' claim that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of some other evolutionary advantageous trait. The whole idea behind a byproduct is that trait X has no direct advantage it just results from trait Y which does have advantage. This is all just empty talk on Dawkins' part.

 

Specific areas and functions of the brain have been implicated in the mystical, religious experience. Neurologists Andrew Newberg and Eugene d'Aquili have been particularly active in researching the brain activities associated with religion. They point out, for example, that when humans enter an altered state of consciousness, the orientation association area of the brain (which in the left lobe is associated with the sensation of having a limited body, and in the right lobe with the sense of space that a person occupies) contribute to out-of-body experiences.

 

Religion is not pathological, but brain pathologies can help scientists to understand its neurological basis. Stimulation of the right temporal lobe by electrodes (or pathological stimulation by epilepsy) produces experiences closely paralleling the near-death experience of passing through a tunnel toward the light. Similar effects are also produced by the drug ketamine. The patterns of brain activity during religious ecstasy are similar, according to Newberg and d'Aquili, to those of other forms of ecstasy, for example sexual ecstasy. Stimulation of the amygdala can create a sensation of awe, which is also part of the complex of religious feelings.

and

Religion would probably have been a local aberration in early human populations had it not provided some evolutionary advantage. In modern tribal societies, shamans who have (and can confirm) exceptional religious experiences have considerable social power, which can translate into greater resources and reproductive opportunities; no doubt this was also the case during the prehistory of Homo sapiens. David Lewis-Williams points out that this would be the same in the Lascaux cave as in modern charismatic Christianity: In a church as in a cave, those individuals who receive "showers of blessing" are revered by the others. This would be the within-population fitness advantage that is necessary for natural selection. Once the trait was established or at least common within a tribe, this tribe would have advantages over tribes that did not possess it—for example, social cohesion and identity that allowed them to prevail in conflicts. Individuals within the tribe would benefit from membership in a tribe in which religion was established by biology and/or culture.

 

Although all Homo sapiens groups have religion, there was a striking development of religion when Homo sapiens encountered Homo neanderthalensis in Europe, and later when the most recent Ice Age forced Northern European tribes southward where they encountered tribes that already lived in Southern Europe. Religion then functioned in tribal identity. There were geographical differences in types and styles of artwork—for example, cave painting vs. pendants vs. sculptures. Different caves specialize on different animals, reflecting differences in established traditions.

Rice, Stanley A. "evolution of religion." Encyclopedia of Evolution. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2006. Science Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE40&SID=5&iPin= EEVO0178&SingleRecord=True (accessed March 24, 2010).

 

And just to help you along to accept Evolution, even as a Christian:

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published a new book arguing that acceptance of the theory of evolution does not require giving up a belief in God.

 

The 70-page book, "Science, Evolution and Creationism," was published Thursday. It states, in part, that "attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist," The New York Times reported.

 

The academy, the United States' pre-eminent scientific organization, previously published books on the subject in 1984 and 1999. Those books reported on evidence supporting evolution and argued against introducing creationism or other religious explanations for the origins of life in public school science classes, the newspaper said.

 

Barbara A. Schaal, a vice president of the academy who worked on the book, told the Times it was designed to be read by the lay public and tries to explain the differences between science and religion.

 

"We wanted to produce a report that would be valuable and accessible to school board members and teachers and clergy," said Schaal, who is also an evolutionary biologist at Washington University.

 

The panel was led by Francisco Ayala, a biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former member of the Roman Catholic Church's Dominican order of priests.

"Book: Evolution, religion are compatible." Copyright 2008 by United Press International. Science Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE40&SID=5&iPin= UPI-20080104-215508-4366&SingleRecord=True (accessed March 24, 2010).

 

And

The foregoing does not mean that there can be no such thing as revealed religion from a higher deity, in which many scientists believe. Rather, evolution explains the neurological basis that made human spirituality possible.

 

Religion will be with the human species as long as it exists. Not just a religious sense of reverence, but specific and even fundamentalist religious doctrines, seem to be here to stay. With a rush of Enlightenment optimism, Thomas Jefferson said, "There is no young man alive today who will not die a Unitarian." But it is the most fundamentalist forms of religion that are now spreading the most rapidly in the world. Today, as during the Paleolithic, people want the assurance that they have a degree of magical control over their health, wealth, and fate, and over other people; and they want to be told what to believe, rather than to face the dangers of the unknown.

Rice, Stanley A. "evolution of religion." Encyclopedia of Evolution. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2006. Science Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE40&SID=5&iPin= EEVO0178&SingleRecord=True (accessed March 24, 2010).

 

But, you believe whatever you want...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it is not. There is no empirical evidence suggesting anything of the sort else he would present it.

Biological experiments confirm the "belief" part of the brain. So it has been empirically tested.

 

He has not because there is none. The idea is just empty talk to woo his fans and sell books.

That's just an empty accusation since you refuse to do any research behind his statements. What do you know if he's doing unfounded claims or not? You haven't even bothered to check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I stated, just because N scholars agree to believe the same thing does not mean it has any substance.

Ah. Well, what about if N scholars agree to that Jesus rose from the dead? Then suddenly Habermas is all over it...

 

Science is not a democratic process. Science works based on evidence. Not only is there no evidence for these ideas, but the claims are untestable, unfalsifiable and unreproducible. When it comes time for an atheist to ridicule ID they clamor for such characteristics of the claims. When an atheist mega-star such as Dawkins makes a claim all such requirements are put aside and the idea is bought hook, line and sinker.

Besides experiments showing that religious experience can be triggered by stimuli?

 

Or that archeology (including Biblical archeology) shows an evolution of religion and belief?

 

Do you believe like Moses? Why not? Do you have some form of evolved and higher understanding of God compared to Moses? How can that be? Did the knowledge evolve over time?

 

Anthropologists, archeologists, and historians can point to an evolution of ideas and belief. And it starts way back at the hunting and gathering society.

 

 

A byproduct Y requires 1) an X (with selective advantage) that has a demonstrable causative link from X to Y, and 2) Y be of no selective advantage. That is the idea behind a byproduct. The evangelical atheists can demonstrate neither. Where is the science demonstrating either of these two. It is no where to be found.

Ah. You're just stuck on if it's a biproduct or a evolutionary advantageous product? Well, that I'll give you. I suspect religion was advantageous rather than a side-effect. It created a political control over the group in the early days, and even somewhat today. A president who believes in Jesus has a better chance to win an election...

 

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then provide a citation that demonstrates this beyond simple unsubstantiated speculation.

When supercilious people utilize pretentious and lofty language, I tend to believe they have nothing further of value to contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...It is a matter of answering questions. ...

Science and technology will never provide all the answers.

It doesn't promise that.

 

But religion does promise an answer to all questions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well... yes. You think believe in God, faith, is a matter of scientific research? Of course belief in God is based on something other than logic and reason. By definition, God transcends the mere physical world, true?

 

I agree antlerman, I never argued that belief in christianity is logical at all though if you are going to believe Jesus then you can't ignore him vouching for the ot as from god.

It's funny, that very reference, Jesus talking about Adam and Eve as real people from the OT, is something I specifically brought up last night in speaking to the group I was presenting to, talking about symbolism. I responded to the perception that 'Jesus believed the stories were factual', by stating that the question of factual was not any question, or factor, in the minds of anyone who was using these stories/myths for the point of the message.

 

It was about the message, not about 'facts of history'. That's a modern mindset, and utterly irrelevant to the point of the 'story'. The backdrop, is incidental, really. It's a vehicle for the message, the 'truism', the axiom, the saying, etc.... It's actually quite, no, totally an erroneous assumption that our criteria for "validity" was even a thought in any way shape or form in the minds of first Century man.

 

as far as believing in Paul's letters i can see a logical reason for dismissing them. They were never foretold and the fact that christians understand that though they have the holy spirit they are confused on many topics would indicate that Paul was just as likely to be confused as any of todays christians.

In a sense, there is truth to this. Paul was in fact creating myth to fill the bill. But it's my view that that is in fact what the use of language and myth is all about.

 

Paul was helping fill the gaps, create a new paradigm for the changes in his world; create a new foundation for a new social vision. Mythology is just that. Symbolic language, a message couched in transcendent symbols, to speak to real world situations, to create a message of change, of a new order. If you understand the social situations of that world, and understand, in even a small part that social change was underfoot, and taking into account that there were in fact NOT 20th and 21st Century, Post-Enlightenment, modern cultural-context perceiving people; that there were in fact people of their culture and not ours, then it adds an entirely different dimension to understanding, and judging them.

 

Was Paul confused? Oh, sure, in his context. Was it the same context of ours; as the "modern Christian". Not so much. The modern Christian I would say has it worse, in many regards. They are trying to make today, fit yesterday! And when they have little, to no clue what that yesterday even was.

 

In short... it's not so simple to cast stones. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well... yes. You think believe in God, faith, is a matter of scientific research? Of course belief in God is based on something other than logic and reason. By definition, God transcends the mere physical world, true?

 

I agree antlerman, I never argued that belief in christianity is logical at all though if you are going to believe Jesus then you can't ignore him vouching for the ot as from god.

It's funny, that very reference, Jesus talking about Adam and Eve as real people from the OT, is something I specifically brought up last night in speaking to the group I was presenting to, talking about symbolism. I responded to the perception that 'Jesus believed the stories were factual', by stating that the question of factual was not any question, or factor, in the minds of anyone who was using these stories/myths for the point of the message.

 

It was about the message, not about 'facts of history'. That's a modern mindset, and utterly irrelevant to the point of the 'story'. The backdrop, is incidental, really. It's a vehicle for the message, the 'truism', the axiom, the saying, etc.... It's actually quite, no, totally an erroneous assumption that our criteria for "validity" was even a thought in any way shape or form in the minds of first Century man.

 

as far as believing in Paul's letters i can see a logical reason for dismissing them. They were never foretold and the fact that christians understand that though they have the holy spirit they are confused on many topics would indicate that Paul was just as likely to be confused as any of todays christians.

In a sense, there is truth to this. Paul was in fact creating myth to fill the bill. But it's my view that that is in fact what the use of language and myth is all about.

 

Paul was helping fill the gaps, create a new paradigm for the changes in his world; create a new foundation for a new social vision. Mythology is just that. Symbolic language, a message couched in transcendent symbols, to speak to real world situations, to create a message of change, of a new order. If you understand the social situations of that world, and understand, in even a small part that social change was underfoot, and taking into account that there were in fact NOT 20th and 21st Century, Post-Enlightenment, modern cultural-context perceiving people; that there were in fact people of their culture and not ours, then it adds an entirely different dimension to understanding, and judging them.

 

Was Paul confused? Oh, sure, in his context. Was it the same context of ours; as the "modern Christian". Not so much. The modern Christian I would say has it worse, in many regards. They are trying to make today, fit yesterday! And when they have little, to no clue what that yesterday even was.

 

In short... it's not so simple to cast stones. ;)

 

actually the passage i was referring to was when Jesus vouched for the law and the prophets, I think this is a good point to make as those who maintain belief in Jesus and his words have to either address the ot as being morally directed by god or question the credibility of the Jesus story. I have already posted something on this topic explaining how our moral code has evolved to become far more human rights focused then say the ot times when slaves were permitted beating of slaves was permitted and women had practically no rights and were held as property.

 

I understand your comment about Paul and agree, basically he created god in his own image, which means he wasn't holding onto archaic values that the israelites had defined a couple of thousand years prior to his existence, therefore his understanding had evolved with current times and education and was far less primitive then ancient jewish law. fundamentalists who are adhereing to Pauls teaching on the other hand are adhereing to understandings derived from the education and society of 2,000 years ago when Paul was around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fundamentalism per se, as a rise in social movement, is really much more a recent phenomena.

 

 

You are correct in this. Fundamentalism could not exist without the modernist way of looking at the world. It is a reaction against modernism and actually uses elements of the modernist mindset in formulating it's main ideas.

 

When we talk about extremism, hostility, and counter-culturalism, we are talking about aspects that any given social movement will develop as rival groups polarize in reaction to one another. It's not a strictly "Fundamentalist" phenomenon.

Maybe I'm not really understanding what "Fundamentalism" is. I assumed it was the idea that there is some inflexibility in religion fixed forever by the words on paper in the New (and Old) Testament.

 

When Martin Luther and other protestants were breaking away, they were claiming that the Bible had been misinterpreted or misunderstood, and that to get closer to God one must adhere to the literal words written on the paper. The "fundamentals" of Christianity. As opposed to the window dressing of Papal Bulls and add-on catholic doctrines that are "not biblical."

 

While modern day "fundamentalists" have a certain agenda and may define themselves in other ways, the idea of getting back to the "basics" (i.e. fundamentals) is as old as religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well... yes. You think believe in God, faith, is a matter of scientific research? Of course belief in God is based on something other than logic and reason. By definition, God transcends the mere physical world, true?

 

I agree antlerman, I never argued that belief in christianity is logical at all though if you are going to believe Jesus then you can't ignore him vouching for the ot as from god.

It's funny, that very reference, Jesus talking about Adam and Eve as real people from the OT, is something I specifically brought up last night in speaking to the group I was presenting to, talking about symbolism. I responded to the perception that 'Jesus believed the stories were factual', by stating that the question of factual was not any question, or factor, in the minds of anyone who was using these stories/myths for the point of the message.

 

It was about the message, not about 'facts of history'. That's a modern mindset, and utterly irrelevant to the point of the 'story'. The backdrop, is incidental, really. It's a vehicle for the message, the 'truism', the axiom, the saying, etc.... It's actually quite, no, totally an erroneous assumption that our criteria for "validity" was even a thought in any way shape or form in the minds of first Century man.

 

as far as believing in Paul's letters i can see a logical reason for dismissing them. They were never foretold and the fact that christians understand that though they have the holy spirit they are confused on many topics would indicate that Paul was just as likely to be confused as any of todays christians.

In a sense, there is truth to this. Paul was in fact creating myth to fill the bill. But it's my view that that is in fact what the use of language and myth is all about.

 

Paul was helping fill the gaps, create a new paradigm for the changes in his world; create a new foundation for a new social vision. Mythology is just that. Symbolic language, a message couched in transcendent symbols, to speak to real world situations, to create a message of change, of a new order. If you understand the social situations of that world, and understand, in even a small part that social change was underfoot, and taking into account that there were in fact NOT 20th and 21st Century, Post-Enlightenment, modern cultural-context perceiving people; that there were in fact people of their culture and not ours, then it adds an entirely different dimension to understanding, and judging them.

 

Was Paul confused? Oh, sure, in his context. Was it the same context of ours; as the "modern Christian". Not so much. The modern Christian I would say has it worse, in many regards. They are trying to make today, fit yesterday! And when they have little, to no clue what that yesterday even was.

 

In short... it's not so simple to cast stones. ;)

 

actually the passage i was referring to was when Jesus vouched for the law and the prophets, I think this is a good point to make as those who maintain belief in Jesus and his words have to either address the ot as being morally directed by god or question the credibility of the Jesus story. I have already posted something on this topic explaining how our moral code has evolved to become far more human rights focused then say the ot times when slaves were permitted beating of slaves was permitted and women had practically no rights and were held as property.

 

I understand your comment about Paul and agree, basically he created god in his own image, which means he wasn't holding onto archaic values that the israelites had defined a couple of thousand years prior to his existence, therefore his understanding had evolved with current times and education and was far less primitive then ancient jewish law. fundamentalists who are adhereing to Pauls teaching on the other hand are adhereing to understandings derived from the education and society of 2,000 years ago when Paul was around.

 

this is actually a point i made clear all along, and doesn't change the fact that Paul was a cherry picker and the biggest problem with fundamentalists is not cherry picking but adhering to ancient teachings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

Laurie sorry i worded myself wrong when i said i hope you can reconcile your beliefs what i meant is i hope you can come to a sense of inner peace. I believe being an atheist allows me to hold logical and emotional integrity. I don't believe christianity can establish this.

 

It takes an Aussie to understand!

 

A person's belief is, of course, their own business, when it it's all boiled down, but to me as an atheist, a thinker and someone who sees things from a logical point of view, a belief in an invisible, invented being(by sub-intelligent men 2000 years ago)shows an emptiness that will never be reconciled with "life" itself. If someone needs to gather with other like-minded people and chant and pray to pie in the sky then they are missing out on so many "real" experiences and will never, ever develop their "self" to full potential.

 

If someone is continually worrying about heaven, hell, demons, the devil, salvation, before they set a single step forward, before they explore the possibilities that life has to offer, then that is a sad situation.

 

I am pleased that Australia has such a low percentage of Christians(40% and falling fast) and only 9% of the population goes to church and that Christianity will die very quickly. Not in my lifetime, perhaps, I'm getting on a bit, but our education system is World class and wherever people become well-educated then intelligence prevails and the beliefs of the ancients become just fairy tales and true freedom begins.

 

I have watched in my area, the closure of so many churches and the dwindling of congregations to the extent that the Catholic church(the only church now!) in my town opens up once a month for a congregation of 6 to 8 people, and they are all well over 50.

 

Young, well-educated, intelligent thinkers are getting it right. Christianity is doomed, thank doG!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now I will also make a distinction between Mom and Grandma Christian, and the more liberal 'thinkers' such as John Shelby Spong, and others. I still utterly fail to see how your "good people" moderate, "we're good-people Christians", cause fundamentalism. I don't see it. Sorry Sam Harris. Don't see the support for that.

 

 

 

I am going to quote myself here "I am sick of moderate christians blaming fundamentalists for their prejudices yet promoting the archaic source (the bible) that leads logical ppl to fundamentalism"

 

I am blaming the bible and the promotion of the bible. In the beginning of creating the bible was the scriptures, the scriptures were created by primitive israelites creating god in their own image, promotion of these scriptures led to fundamentalist thinking and stoning people who worked on the sabbath.

 

I am not going to mention Jesus as I don't know if he existed, then came Paul, Paul created god in his own image and along with a bunch of gospels made up the new testament.

 

the two were put together by the catholic church. promotion of this book led the catholic church to fundamentalist thinking. they were faced with opposing views in the ot and nt. so they interpreted the bible in all its contradictions to form a doctrine. It was the bible that caused them to kill witches, heretics and i even believe they killed scientists who opposed their understanding of the bible. (to me this sounds very fundamentalist)

 

My argument is with promoting the bible as I said at the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Was Paul confused? Oh, sure, in his context. Was it the same context of ours; as the "modern Christian". Not so much. The modern Christian I would say has it worse, in many regards. They are trying to make today, fit yesterday! And when they have little, to no clue what that yesterday even was.

 

In short... it's not so simple to cast stones. ;)

 

 

 

Trying to go back to the ancient world, the way that people thought within 1st century culture and before that, is simply impossible. Sometimes with careful historical study one can experience impressions of it; maybe experience the odd conceptual rush of how "reality" was shaped in that era, but no modern person could truly understand it.

 

You're right about the mythical nature of it all, Antler. Many of these things had context in different ways that the modern Bible student or fundamentalist would or could ever see; again like the Greek myths there developed a lore that didn't necessarily have to be literal or logically congruent. Even the Garden of Eden story, if taken as a metaphorical satire, can have tremendous philosophical depth. Unfortunately, those levels of understanding are meaningless or ignored by modernists who think that they can figure out the meaning of their faith through a series of redundant episodes that don't really say anything profound, at least beyond the amusing "miraculous" or superficial aspects of the event.

 

That may satisfy the aspiration for the mystical,or that all great acts must have some kind of epic nature to them, but not for the full symbolic and philosophical nature of the event. For the ancients, the Garden of Eden story is about transformation, the transformative effect, human nature, and the complex notions about Fate. This would be apparent to the ancient mind, and derived from the writings of ancient thinkers, apparent to even a modernist. But not apparent to the desperate intellectual isolation of the modern Bible fundamentalist, trapped in a world of only modern thinking, which can only outline superficial and mundane references. Sad in a way, there are many parts of the Bible that are fascinating as historical symbolism and concept, but this is largely ignored by the obsessed modernists, so desperately seeking the symbols and ideas that only their modern minds can relate to, and in a way continuously trying to "re-invent" their religion and even understand their own internal philosophy.

 

What's the old saying ? "You kinda had to be there..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.