Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless.

That is complete bs.

Oh please, do me a favour and stop just saying useless gak like that. If you think it is bs, explain why it is so. Don't just say things in a discussion without an argument.

The whole argument that children need to die in order for a childs life to be worth anything isn't worthy of being argued against as it is so obviously ludicrous that there's no point. We are biologically hardcoded to care for our young. How many of them die or not does nothing to change that.

Unless you are suggesting that we in developed countries care less about our children than people in countries like Afghanistan or the DRC because we have a lower infant mortality rate?

A god who kills children so that other children will be "worth more" deserves to be destroyed.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And morality has come a long way (just look at the laws of Mozes). However, the Bible did form an important basis to the modern Western culture and morality. Many of the things we now take for granted can be traced back to the Bible. Many lessons from the Bible, especially the more important New Testament, are also still completely relevant and have been repeated by many philosophers since. The Bible is not the only source of morality, but that does not take away it can still teach many valueable and beautiful lessons. Sure, you could learn those lessons elsewhere, but does that really diminish the value of the Bible? I have read quite a lot of philosophers on ethics and religious texts. But nothing ever quite 'struck' me like the Bible did, even though I come from a family that is either atheist or non-practising chrisitian.

There is no question that the bible has struck a chord with a great many people. Jesus' method of teaching through parables is genius, they are really quite an effective rhetorical device. I agree with pretty much everything you have said here. The only concern I have is many people will not see the bible as just a useful book of lessons. That is not what it is claiming to be. In the past it was taken much more literally by everyone, because it paints itself as a literal account, and people had no way of knowing. I think that is very dangerous. It certainly caused a lot of unnecessary suffering in the past, and I think it still has the potential to do a lot of harm in the future if people continue to believe it is divine, rather than human and fallible.

I think a problem many Churches and individual christians struggle with is the decision which parts of the Bible are relevant, and which are outdated, and how those outdated passages can be interpreted in modern times so that we can still learn from them. And of course the problem with interpretation is that different people see different things. I think this is something everyone needs to decide for himself. In the end my opinion is that the only thing that really matters is the Great Commandment (Love God above all and your neighbour as yourself), which, funnily enough can be found not just in christianity but in every religion (with 'God' obviously replaced by the deity(s) of that religion).

I can agree with that 100%, I suppose my own "deity" would be the marvel that is the universe. I feel exactly the same way. If only that was all the bible said, and didn't mention stuff about putting sinners to death, we could be more confident that people weren't going to "take away" something that might end up just causing more harm than good.

And as for your last point. No, there is no way of knowing this "power" is God. Maybe all the other gods exist too. Maybe it is just one single god with many names and aspects. Maybe it is a single god who made himself known to all people, but different peoples interpreted the same thing radically through their different cultures, thus creating different religions. I don't really care either way. I believe what I do and that feels right for me. If other people have something else that feels right for them, that is great. I hate it when people try to force their way on others.

I don't like people trying to force their way on others either. That was not what I was trying to do. I believe that it is virtuous to be tolerant, but you can't be tolerant of intolerance, you can't be moderate in pursuit of truth.

People of religion do often try to impose their values on others. They try to stop evolution being taught in schools, they spread misinformation about birth-control, they object to equal rights for (lately) homosexuals, they stand in the way of important cloning and stem-cell research. And that's before we even talk about what goes on in Islamic countries.

That is not to say a technology like cloning doesn't warrant ethical discussion, but discussion aught to be reasoned and based in reality. People who believe they are doing the will of God are incredibly difficult to reason with, because they don't believe their god can be wrong about anything. Unfortunately, it's not easy to tell a real god from one that was made up by men, yet the made up god certainly can be wrong about a great many things. If your god does happen to be made up, but you think he's real, then you're set to make a terrible mistake. And that is what I find worrying about religion, as someone who believes all religions are of the "made-up" kind.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I agree with you here. The Bible is not a science book, was never intended as such and should not be used as such.

If only that were written in the front like a disclaimer, what trouble could have been avoided.

We are all atheists - I just believe in 1 less god than you do.
~Christopher Hitchens

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless.

That is complete bs.

Oh please, do me a favour and stop just saying useless gak like that. If you think it is bs, explain why it is so. Don't just say things in a discussion without an argument.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, if the Bible is the word of God then it shouldn't matter when it was written, it should be correct. Unless of course God didn't have a clue how the Universe he supposedly created worked whilst we humans who just live in it do.

The Bible isn't the word of God. The Bible was not written by God.
The Bible is the word of God as interpreted by thousands of different writers over a thousand years. Of course it is going to have inaccuracies, even if the original version was flawless.

The bible is not the word of God.

However, isn't the Qur'an supposed to be the world of God? Given to Muhammad over the course of his life?

The Bible was a collection of works by men who heard the word of God and by men who talked to themselves. Every man has to decide for himself what parts he feels are true and just. But if you go by what the two big ones say, Jesus and Moses, you probably can't go wrong by loving and honoring other people and life in general. The Bible is inaccurate because man superimposed his own ideas over the word of God. Doing so made the book just a bunch of stories. How you use those stories is up to you.

Frankly, I know I'm not a perfect Christian. I hate those who hurt and destroy others. The man who murdered two people who tried to help him when he had a busted car? I think he should be destroyed. The teachers who made the boy in this thread discussion a pariah are horrible people and I think they should lose their jobs. Etc, etc. I SHOULD be saying "forgive them, they know not what they do". But that's just not in me. I hate the wicked and honor the righteous.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless.

That is complete bs.

Oh please, do me a favour and stop just saying useless gak like that. If you think it is bs, explain why it is so. Don't just say things in a discussion without an argument.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, if the Bible is the word of God then it shouldn't matter when it was written, it should be correct. Unless of course God didn't have a clue how the Universe he supposedly created worked whilst we humans who just live in it do.

The Bible isn't the word of God. The Bible was not written by God.
The Bible is the word of God as interpreted by thousands of different writers over a thousand years. Of course it is going to have inaccuracies, even if the original version was flawless.

The bible is not the word of God.

However, isn't the Qur'an supposed to be the world of God? Given to Muhammad over the course of his life?

don't forget Mormons, John Smith (or w/e his name was) was given golden tablets by an angel iirc.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

don't forget Mormons, John Smith (or w/e his name was) was given golden tablets by an angel iirc.

Bit more detailed than that:

Spoiler:

And for the record, I pulled that from the page of someone who is a former Mormon.


Ohh and then there's this... really not sure which one is correct, or what to believe anymore:

Spoiler:

Heh, the difference between that and Scientology is a few hundred years.

 Smacks wrote:

People of religion do often try to impose their values on others. They try to stop evolution being taught in schools, they spread misinformation about birth-control, they object to equal rights for (lately) homosexuals, they stand in the way of important cloning and stem-cell research. And that's before we even talk about what goes on in Islamic countries

Smacks, first off, I want to say you are bringing up excellent points and I am enjoying this discussion. I wanted to give you a little clarification on common teachings of Christians, and I will pick on Roman Catholics again (they are the largest sect of Christianity and the ones that I know what they teach.)

-Catholics do not deny evolution any longer.
-They do not spread misinformation about birth control, they preach abstinence outside of marriage, and to be open to children while within marriage. The Pope has said if you have STD's, it is immoral NOT to use a barrier.
-While the Catholic Church does not marry homosexuals, it is really their choice who they marry in their organization, no? They do not wield lawmaking power. In addition, you will not see a homosexual denied entrance to any Catholic Church or access to the sacraments.
-Stem cell research is not a problem for Catholics. It is embryonic stem cell research they have a problem with, as they consider an embryo's potential to become a human to be important, and not to be treated lightly. There are other sources of stem cells - namely - the umbilical cord of every newborn, that are considered perfectly ethical to perform research with.

 If your god does happen to be made up, but you think he's real, then you're set to make a terrible mistake. And that is what I find worrying about religion, as someone who believes all religions are of the "made-up" kind.

This is fair, but it should also be noted Christians come in many shapes and sizes, as different as Obama and Bush. The vast majority are very reasonable people who understand that not everyone is Christian, and are productive members within diverse societies. While their moral compass guides their thinking on some issues, most are able to step back and remain unbiased on issues that affect everyone. After all, religion is only one aspect (albiet an important one) of life. These people are still fellow countrymen/family members/workers of all types - and most of them use their brains. Don't let some televised gak hole represent all of us, I beg you.

Most of us are just normal people trying to be the best we can, just like everybody else.

Thanks for being so open to discussion - you da man

 Smacks wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's your point?

Are you arguing that modern Christians should hold slaves, condemn homosexuals, have concubines and marry their dead brothers' wives?

That doesn't sound like the kind of thing I would argue. To recap:

1. Zgort asserted that people are too quick to tear down the bible, and that this was somehow bad (or at least misses the point).
2. Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl replied: Are you implying that there is no need to tear down a book that is taken by many as the ultimate moral reference?
3. The old testament being the ultimate moral reference is untenable.
4. There was discussion in which I felt Zgort (very wisely) tried to disconnect the old testament from the new.
5. My point is that this is not possible. Even if you allow yourself to ignore Leviticus. You are still worshipping the same god that demanded babies heads be dashed against rocks. So the bible is certainly worth tearing down as a moral reference point.

Regarding your post, many Christians currently do condemn homosexuals. Not so long ago they also kept slaves (and cited the bible as justification). That stuff isn't even exclusive to the Old Testament, it found its way into the NT as well. I think this is just a case in point of what a poor moral reference it really is.

If I understand correctly, you argue that Christians should ignore the Bible as a religious moral reference work.

 zgort wrote:

Smacks, first off, I want to say you are bringing up excellent points and I am enjoying this discussion. I wanted to give you a little clarification on common teachings of Christians, and I will pick on Roman Catholics again (they are the largest sect of Christianity and the ones that I know what they teach.)

-Catholics do not deny evolution any longer.
-They do not spread misinformation about birth control, they preach abstinence outside of marriage, and to be open to children while within marriage. The Pope has said if you have STD's, it is immoral NOT to use a barrier.
-While the Catholic Church does not marry homosexuals, it is really their choice who they marry in their organization, no? They do not wield lawmaking power. In addition, you will not see a homosexual denied entrance to any Catholic Church or access to the sacraments.
-Stem cell research is not a problem for Catholics. It is embryonic stem cell research they have a problem with, as they consider an embryo's potential to become a human to be important, and not to be treated lightly. There are other sources of stem cells - namely - the umbilical cord of every newborn, that are considered perfectly ethical to perform research with.

That may be true, however somewhere between "many" and "most" other groups (Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Assembly of God, etc) are nowhere near as coherent in their arguments.

In the Southern parts of the US, you may see a lot of Baptist churches especially railing against evolution. Perhaps the South isn't a good example, because they are known as the "Bible Belt" for a reason. They lead the entire US in "pro religious" schooling (as in, teaching against evolution, teaching abstinence only, etc) and yet, if you look at articles out there, they are also leading the nation in pornographic internet searches. States like Alabama also lead the nation in STD rates, as well as teenage pregnancy rates, many from other parts of the country put this down to a lack of proper sex ed programs.

While Stem cells may not be a problem for Catholics, they definitely are for the vocal aspect of the American church, particularly among protestant religions, and usually coinciding with the whole, anti-evolution thing.

But like I said, the various denominations in the US are not in any way coherent, because you may have a church in two different locations call themselves the same thing (ie. Baptist) but their preacher's having very different views. Some of the organizations that govern the various denominations may have said something about these topics, but it doesn't seem as though they are very well "enforced" by anyone, or rather, there is far more room for disagreement than you may typically see from Roman Catholicism.

I can't speak for protestant groups, I am not familiar with what they teach. I am pretty sure that for stem cells in particular - the issues universally stem (heh) from the harvest of embryos using public funding, not research on stem cells itself.

I suppose my point was it is inaccurate to saddle all Christians with these views - Catholics represent a billion people worldwide, and I am sure there are other groups that teach similar things.

@Smacks Slavery is in the Bible because at that point in history it was culturally acceptable. The authors probably could not imagine a world without slavery. Just like it was used as a justification for slavery, it was also used to abolish it (Read: Abraham Lincoln). At that time, it was legal in America. It doesn't make America bad - it is more important that it was changed, and to look at what they are doing now.

To deny there are not problems that stem (heh, heh) from religion is naive - but practicing religion does not automatically make you a backwards idiot who would prevent human progress.

 Smacks wrote:

 zgort wrote:
You will see, if you read the source, the context is that Jesus is actually rebuking following law to the letter. He is calling the Pharisees hypocrites, not actually criticizing them for not killing children.

I know the passage, it is also in Mark (incidentally, Mark is my favourite). I read it differently. Jesus' disciples are breaking gods law, by not washing their hands before eating (probably one of the few laws worth keeping). When the pharisees ask him why, he goes off on a big rant about them being hypocrites, but then cites an example where the law clearly contradicts itself (where someone can only honour their father and mother by taking from god). In this case the pharisees would not condemn the man (necessity is a good defence even now). Yet Jesus somehow infers that they are playing this wrong.

But let it not be said that Smacks is uncompromising in discussions. I will accept your point that the New Testament is much less violent and horrible than the Old Testament. And there is a case to be made that Christians don't need to follow the laws in Leviticus. Although given how many contradictory statements are made in the bible, there is a case for just about anything.

However, I think the New Testament still needs to be read in the context of the Old Testament. Jesus quotes from it a lot, and is essentially claiming to be Yahweh, who did all those terrible things. And he doesn't seem to change his mind about stealing, and homosexuality, so I'm really not sure how much Christians can legitimately distance themselves from OT morality.

Actually Jesus' disciple in fact did wash their hands, however you may be aware that the religious leaders who were calling them out as "not washing their hands" in fact had taken that command and highly ritualized it with showy displays of washing past their elbows and singing psalms as they did so instead of merely washing up a bit before they ate, which was all the Mosaic Law had said to do in the first place.

Jesus never once claimed to be Yahweh, He constantly made reference as "being sent by", "to do the will of", "The Father", "the One who sent me", and many other statements of him being separate from God, both in his earthly form and in his pre-human existance. If Jesus were God then who was he praying to? He couldn't have been praying to himself, nor would it make sense if he were claiming to be God and then clearly praying to another.

 zgort wrote:
The vast majority are very reasonable people who understand that not everyone is Christian, and are productive members within diverse societies. While their moral compass guides their thinking on some issues, most are able to step back and remain unbiased on issues that affect everyone. After all, religion is only one aspect (albiet an important one) of life. These people are still fellow countrymen/family members/workers of all types - and most of them use their brains. Don't let some televised gak hole represent all of us, I beg you.

I realise that the vast majority of religious people are good people with moderate views. I wouldn't want to tar everyone with the same brush as extremists. Please don't think that I feel that way.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I understand correctly, you argue that Christians should ignore the Bible as a religious moral reference work.

To be fair, most Christians already do that to a greater or lesser extent. People focus on the parts that make sense to them, and ignore the parts that don't. I don't think that's bad, It's probably the best way to reconcile the scripture with what feels right, and modern culture etc...

But sure as moral references go, I think people could do better.

Threads about religion without being insulting - dare to dream!


But since we live in this reality - we're all done now.