time to pry his rifle

[JayB]

 

Richard Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion", makes a very strong argument that, while Stalin for example was likely an atheist, atheism itself was not the motivation for the atrocities committed, nor for his lack of morals.

 

Simultaneously, he makes an even stronger argument that even devout Christians do not actually obtain their morals from the Bible: since the old testament explicitly calls for such things as killing someone who works on sundays, death for adultery, on and on- things that modern Christians have come to reject- clearly if humans can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to adhere to, there must be some other basis for morality acting in advance.

 

If you are describing his argument correctly, Richard Dawkins clearly does not understand a key aspect of Christianity: Christians are not bound by the old testament law. Christians really only have one law: love thy neighbour. If Dawkins doesn't understand this, it brings the whole bookinto question.

 

Private religion?

 

I have to say that while I'm not terribly impressed by Moses, I'm not a huge fan Leegnar, the warrior priest who channeled the divine wisdom of Rixtnosophlib, the vengeful goat-man-python god at the heart of the Quixtanthor people who fluorished briefly in a remote corner of what is now French Guiana 1500 years ago, before being wiped out by a catastrophic mudslide. I hope I haven't offended anyone.

[sexual_chocolate]

Would you like to enlighten us on the Kabbalah, rabbi?

 

ah my little one, the knowledge imparted by the sacred texts is beyond your ken, whilst you middlingly engage in acts of ego upon the boards.

[StevenSeagal]

 

Richard Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion", makes a very strong argument that, while Stalin for example was likely an atheist, atheism itself was not the motivation for the atrocities committed, nor for his lack of morals.

 

Simultaneously, he makes an even stronger argument that even devout Christians do not actually obtain their morals from the Bible: since the old testament explicitly calls for such things as killing someone who works on sundays, death for adultery, on and on- things that modern Christians have come to reject- clearly if humans can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to adhere to, there must be some other basis for morality acting in advance.

 

If you are describing his argument correctly, Richard Dawkins clearly does not understand a key aspect of Christianity: Christians are not bound by the old testament law. Christians really only have one law: love thy neighbour. If Dawkins doesn't understand this, it brings the whole bookinto question.

 

Dawkins anticipates that very question and goes on to decipher the New Testament in similar manner, again making the point that today's interpretation of even the New Testament is selective, and rarely literal. The question is if, as most religious people advocate, morality is supposedly absent without religion, on what basis do we choose the bits of morality that suit us out of the Bible (or the Koran, as well)?

 

As for "Love thy neighbor": he also makes a point that the historical context of this command was specifically for the jewish people: to love one another- "love another jew". i.e.Tribalism. He claims the command, at the time it was written, did not apply to also love non believers, although in modern times that has come to be the accepted interpretation of it.

[JayB]

The essential point is that the forces that have moderated religious fanaticism have generally had their origin and their strongest reservoirs of support outside of religion itself.

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

The essential point is that the forces that have moderated religious fanaticism have generally had their origin and their strongest reservoirs of support outside of religion itself.

 

 

what are the primary "forces" you speak of?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The essential point is that the forces that have moderated religious fanaticism have generally had their origin and their strongest reservoirs of support outside of religion itself.

 

 

That is untrue.

[RuMR]

The essential point is that the forces that have moderated religious fanaticism have generally had their origin and their strongest reservoirs of support outside of religion itself.

 

 

what are the primary "forces" you speak of?

 

how's about good ol "common sense" reigning in fanaticism???

[ivan]

Christians really only have one law: love thy neighbour. If Dawkins doesn't understand this, it brings the whole bookinto question.

i'd say quite the opposite: if anyone believes christians love thy neighbors, they're fucking idiots. even the "idiots guide to history" has ample evidence of christians raping, pillaging and destroying every goddamn thing around them. the general rule for christians is: be nasty little bastards like men always have, but cloak it in a lot of happy horseshit. oh, and be offended when the heathens have the temerity to notice your hypocrism.

 

that said, i'm willing to concede there have been rare instances of christians actually turning the other cheek and being something other than aggressive assmunches. and i'm not saying aethists are any better at being "good" people - they're just more honest about being assholes.

[sexual_chocolate]

yeah but you look back at let's say the crusades (which went on for a long time, repeatedly), and the notion of common sense perhaps SUPPORTED the crusades.

 

i think jayb has something specific in mind, like governmental institutions informed by the enlightenment, or the advent of rational democracy, or, perhaps....

 

CAPITALISM!

[sexual_chocolate]

that said, i'm willing to concede there have been rare instances of christians actually turning the other cheek and being something other than aggressive assmunches.

 

jeez man, you crack me up!

 

the peaceful rarely grab the headlines....

 

check out an enlightened christian: thomas merton. there are many, but he springs to mind.

[Off_White]

Merkin? Your invocation of a pubic wig is insulting and uncalled for sir!

[ivan]

 

jeez man, you crack me up!

 

the peaceful rarely grab the headlines....

 

check out an enlightened christian: thomas merton. there are many, but he springs to mind.

i realize this, but like your mama probably said, you're judged by the company you keep. christians have tolerated and even embraced enough assholes in their time to have ruined their potential good name forever. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude the central message of christ is "be nice to everybody" - that we should all be pacifists, a laudable and noble idea, and one that damn near 99% of christians hypocritically reject as "unrealistic" and yet still have the balls to claim they're "christian"

 

i have no problems w/ the amish or the quakers - but then that's b/c they're actually pretty true christians, eh?

[Dechristo]

and this thread is now the excuse for me to impart the obscure bit of trivia i have crawling around in my head - today's the 63 anniversary of the liberation of the buchenwald concentration camp.

 

Actually, it's tomorrow. April 11, 1945 at 3:15 PM (where the clock tower is still set to that time.)

 

 

Is it a coincidence that 38-years-ago today Paul announced the Beatles were breaking up?

[JayB]

yeah but you look back at let's say the crusades (which went on for a long time, repeatedly), and the notion of common sense perhaps SUPPORTED the crusades.

 

i think jayb has something specific in mind, like governmental institutions informed by the enlightenment, or the advent of rational democracy, or, perhaps....

 

CAPITALISM!

 

Yea - pretty much runs the gamut of the factors that coalesced into modernity. Renaissance, Enlightenment, constitutional government, separation of powers, scientific method and all of the fruits thereof, art, literature, philosophy, etc, etc, etc. The extent to which economic processes which established powerful interests that were independent of the church and the crown shouldn't be underestimated either.

 

Ingersoll hinted at the idea that most of what moderated the stridency of religious certitude originated from sources outside the established religion back in the nineteenth century. I can't recall a passage where he states this explicitly, but there's a passage that gets close that I can recall. From, "The Devil,":

 

"Many of the clergy are now ashamed to say that they believe in devils. The belief has become ignorant and vulgar. They are ashamed of the lake of fire and brimstone. It is too savage.

 

At the same time they do not wish to give up the inspiration of the Bible. They give new meanings to the inspired words. Now they say that devils were only personifications of evil.

 

If the devils were only personifications of evil what were the angels? Was the angel who told Joseph who the father of Christ was, a personification? Was the Holy Ghost only the personification of a father? Was the angel who told Joseph that Herod was dead a personification of news?

 

Were the angels who rolled away the stone and sat clothed in shining garments in the empty sepulcher of Christ a couple of personifications? Were all the angels described in the Old Testament imaginary shadows -- bodiless personifications? If the angels of the Bible are real angels, the devils are real devils.

 

Let us be honest with ourselves and each other and give to the Bible its natural, obvious meaning. Let us admit that the writers believed what they wrote. If we believe that they were mistaken, let us have the honesty and courage to say so. Certainly we have no right to change or avoid their meaning, or to dishonestly correct their mistakes. Timid preachers sully their own souls when they change what the writers of the Bible believed to be facts to allegories, parables, poems and myths.

 

It is impossible for any man who believes in the inspiration of the Bible to explain away the Devil.

 

If the Bible is true the Devil exists. There is no escape from this.

 

If the Devil does not exist the Bible is not true. There is no escape from this."

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/devil.html

 

Worth reading all of it, and following the link to the many other essays.

 

Worth noting that he was a prominent figure in the Republican party at the time...

[JayB]

that said, i'm willing to concede there have been rare instances of christians actually turning the other cheek and being something other than aggressive assmunches.

 

jeez man, you crack me up!

 

the peaceful rarely grab the headlines....

 

check out an enlightened christian: thomas merton. there are many, but he springs to mind.

 

Shelby Spong...

 

"Martin Luther ignited the Reformation of the 16th century by nailing to the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517 the 95 Theses that he wished to debate. I will publish this challenge to Christianity in The Voice. I will post my theses on the Internet and send copies with invitations to debate them to the recognized Christian leaders of the world. My theses are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically. The issues to which I now call the Christians of the world to debate are these:

 

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

 

So I set these theses today before the Christian world and I stand ready to debate each of them as we prepare to enter the third millennium."

 

http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html

[Dechristo]

To me, there isn't such a big difference, Tvash. This whole thread has had its amusing side, to be sure, but it is full of posturing and jabs and at some level I don't really think your provocation is all that different from the insane complaint about how could someone stoop so low as to insult Charlton Heston in this time of mourning, or a purposefully offensive remark about Judaism is akin to lauding the holocaust.

 

Except that no such offensive remark about Judaism was ever uttered. Small detail. I made fun of Leavenworth, and Charleton Heston. I assumed that was really obvious, but I guess not.

 

As for making fun of dead celebrities, fuck em. None of us knew them personally, they were willing public figures, and they're as fair game dead as alive. I'm not mourning the motherfucker, that's for sure.

 

Now, really. Is it any surprise TTK would vie for top status on this board at giving offense by taking the greatest liberties in incivility?

 

He has honked loudly and repeatedly of his representation of the American unCivil Liberties Union.

[Dechristo]

yeah but you look back at let's say the crusades (which went on for a long time, repeatedly), and the notion of common sense perhaps SUPPORTED the crusades.

 

i think jayb has something specific in mind, like governmental institutions informed by the enlightenment, or the advent of rational democracy, or, perhaps....

 

CAPITALISM!

 

Yea - pretty much runs the gamut of the factors that coalesced into modernity. Renaissance, Enlightenment, constitutional government, separation of powers, scientific method and all of the fruits thereof, art, literature, philosophy, etc, etc, etc. The extent to which economic processes which established powerful interests that were independent of the church and the crown shouldn't be underestimated either.

 

Ingersoll hinted at the idea that most of what moderated the stridency of religious certitude originated from sources outside the established religion back in the nineteenth century. I can't recall a passage where he states this explicitly, but there's a passage that gets close that I can recall. From, "The Devil,":

 

"Many of the clergy are now ashamed to say that they believe in devils. The belief has become ignorant and vulgar. They are ashamed of the lake of fire and brimstone. It is too savage.

 

At the same time they do not wish to give up the inspiration of the Bible. They give new meanings to the inspired words. Now they say that devils were only personifications of evil.

 

If the devils were only personifications of evil what were the angels? Was the angel who told Joseph who the father of Christ was, a personification? Was the Holy Ghost only the personification of a father? Was the angel who told Joseph that Herod was dead a personification of news?

 

Were the angels who rolled away the stone and sat clothed in shining garments in the empty sepulcher of Christ a couple of personifications? Were all the angels described in the Old Testament imaginary shadows -- bodiless personifications? If the angels of the Bible are real angels, the devils are real devils.

 

Let us be honest with ourselves and each other and give to the Bible its natural, obvious meaning. Let us admit that the writers believed what they wrote. If we believe that they were mistaken, let us have the honesty and courage to say so. Certainly we have no right to change or avoid their meaning, or to dishonestly correct their mistakes. Timid preachers sully their own souls when they change what the writers of the Bible believed to be facts to allegories, parables, poems and myths.

 

It is impossible for any man who believes in the inspiration of the Bible to explain away the Devil.

 

If the Bible is true the Devil exists. There is no escape from this.

 

If the Devil does not exist the Bible is not true. There is no escape from this."

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/devil.html

 

Worth reading all of it, and following the link to the many other essays.

 

Worth noting that he was a prominent figure in the Republican party at the time...

 

The guy's an unfortunate ignoramus on the topic.

[sexual_chocolate]

? dechristo.

 

 

 

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

 

because a virgin birth is impossible?

 

there are numerous cases of asexual reproduction amongst birds and sharks, from what i've read. terribly fascinating for me. hardly understood. last one i read about was a hammerhead shark i believe at a zoo somewhere in the states.

[sexual_chocolate]

ok actually understood, upon further examination.

[tvashtarkatena]

To me, there isn't such a big difference, Tvash. This whole thread has had its amusing side, to be sure, but it is full of posturing and jabs and at some level I don't really think your provocation is all that different from the insane complaint about how could someone stoop so low as to insult Charlton Heston in this time of mourning, or a purposefully offensive remark about Judaism is akin to lauding the holocaust.

 

Except that no such offensive remark about Judaism was ever uttered. Small detail. I made fun of Leavenworth, and Charleton Heston. I assumed that was really obvious, but I guess not.

 

As for making fun of dead celebrities, fuck em. None of us knew them personally, they were willing public figures, and they're as fair game dead as alive. I'm not mourning the motherfucker, that's for sure.

 

Now, really. Is it any surprise TTK would vie for top status on this board at giving offense by taking the greatest liberties in incivility?

 

He has honked loudly and repeatedly of his representation of the American unCivil Liberties Union.

 

Need a keynote speaker at your next bar mitzvah?

[ivan]

 

 

 

Need a keynote speaker at your next bar mitzvah?

how about a mohel at your next bris?

[tvashtarkatena]

Mohel Hell, or

 

Mohel No Tell?

[Dechristo]

? dechristo.

 

 

Timid preachers sully their own souls when they change what the writers of the Bible believed to be facts to allegories, parables, poems and myths.

 

The experience of those, such as I, that "are free indeed" is due precisely to "allegories, parables, poems and myths", not bullshit worldly legalism that Paul addressed in Romans and subsequently described as "milk" for babes of worldly understanding; what he described as "meat" is chastised here by Ingersoll.

 

No doubt, Ingersoll is one that finds comfort in chanting trance-like, "Jesus...Jesus...Jesus..." unendingly, while seeming oblivious to the fact that Jesus is recorded as having taught almost exclusively in allegory and parable and is recorded as stating his mission was (through his allegorical teachings) "to set the captives free".

[tvashtarkatena]

? dechristo.

 

 

Timid preachers sully their own souls when they change what the writers of the Bible believed to be facts to allegories, parables, poems and myths.

 

The experience of those, such as I, that "are free indeed" is due precisely to "allegories, parables, poems and myths", not bullshit worldly legalism that Paul addressed in Romans and subsequently described as "milk" for babes of worldly understanding; what he described as "meat" is chastised here by Ingersoll.

 

No doubt, Ingersoll is one that finds comfort in chanting trance-like, "Jesus...Jesus...Jesus..." unendingly, while seeming oblivious to the fact that Jesus is recorded as having taught almost exclusively in allegory and parable and is recorded as stating his mission was (through his allegorical teachings) "to set the captives free".

 

You are free in the way that dogshit is also free.

[Dechristo]

Explaining further to you may be as casting a pearl necklace upon a swine.