Al-a-cartism

Tim Robbins

Splendour wrote:

If you want to read something 'logical' in the bible, try Romans.
Romans 1-12 has answers to questions philosophers and great thinkers have pondered since time began.The 'what's it all about' dilemma is answered there

Can you pick one, referenece it exactly and elaborate please?

Dades

5uspect wrote:

And here is how it moved Carl Sagan.

Great clip.
He also wrote a very good book or the same name.

5uspect

The Atheist wrote:

Great clip.
He also wrote a very good book or the same name.

I've been meaning to get it, I've a pile of books to read and a thesis to get finished...

robindch

5uspect wrote:

This is a photo of earth taken by Voyager 1 as it passed out of the solar system. The planet occupies less than a single pixel.

Aye, an incredible image and Sagan's commentary on it is moving and thoughtful. I wonder if any religious people feel the same way, or do they do an "isn't god great" on it?

PDN

5uspect wrote:

It goes on and on about adultery and pleasing God. When it talks about evil it suggests that people not be vengeful as "Vengeance is mine"

"20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head."

I find this attitude to be full of smugness. Thou shalt be artificially nice to those you consider wicked but you secretly know that they're damned by your God.

Most Christians (including Augustine & Jerome) have understood this to be teaching us not to seek judgement and revenge at all - simply to leave such matters in the hands of God. This is in line with worshipping a Saviour who said of his executors, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". Similarly, the last words of Stephen, as he was stoned to death, were "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." (Acts 7:60).

I remember as a new Christian, reading the Bible for the first time, reading the verse about heaping coals of fire on your enemies' heads. I automatically assumed (like most people) that it meant that by doing good to your enemy it could prick their conscience and change an enemy into a friend. Then again, I was reading the Bible with an eager desire to understand it better, not looking for a passage that I could interpret in the way that would cast Christianity in the wost possible light.

Equally, I watched the Sagan video with a desire to understand what he was actually saying. So, instead of tripping up on his rather inconsistent and contradictory rhetoric, I was moved by it and agreed that yes, we do need to look after this beautiful planet since it's the only one we have.

Maybe I'm just too open-minded?

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Most Christians (including Augustine & Jerome) have understood this to be teaching us not to seek judgement and revenge at all - simply to leave such matters in the hands of God. This is in line with worshipping a Saviour who said of his executors, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". Similarly, the last words of Stephen, as he was stoned to death, were "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." (Acts 7:60).

I remember as a new Christian, reading the Bible for the first time, reading the verse about heaping coals of fire on your enemies' heads. I automatically assumed (like most people) that it meant that by doing good to your enemy it could prick their conscience and change an enemy into a friend. Then again, I was reading the Bible with an eager desire to understand it better, not looking for a passage that I could interpret in the way that would cast Christianity in the wost possible light.

Sure, there is a prejudice there on my behalf. But there is still the whole unknowable knowledge that is somehow inferred from such passages. The, what I call smugness, idea that what ever is in the bible is generally divinely inspired.

Forgive them because they do not know (or believe) what I know, and I must be right.
Then this brings back the whole free will thing again as we're hold that Jesus etc had to suffer for our sins yet the executioners and torturers had free will apparently.

I really don't get it. It seems that every religion (not just Christianity) has all the answers that suit them regardless of the contradictions. Free will or prophesy, which ever one suits.

PDN wrote:

Equally, I watched the Sagan video with a desire to understand what he was actually saying. So, instead of tripping up on his rather inconsistent and contradictory rhetoric, I was moved by it and agreed that yes, we do need to look after this beautiful planet since it's the only one we have.

Maybe I'm just too open-minded?

Inconsistent and contradictory? How so?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

So, instead of tripping up on his rather inconsistent and contradictory rhetoric,

Perhaps you could point out the contradictions to substantiate your point?
Otherwise it is you using the rhetoric.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

I hate to burst your li'l bubble here Wicknight, but Scientology has got nothing to do with Buddhism at all. Ron L. Hubbard is quoted as saying, 'The best way to make a million dollars is to start a new religion'- and so he did! He took bits from various religions and came up with Scientology.
Am afraid poor ole Ronnie is dead and gone and the only 'enlightenment' has been that of the Scientologist's bank balances.

I hate to burst your bubble there Splendour, but that is my point.:p

Your religion is as fake as Scientology. The difference is of course that because you are in the religion looking out you have not yet realized this. You are exactly like a Scientologists, you use the same justifications as to why your religion is real, you accept the same things at face value, you believe what you want to believe. You can apply critical analysis to other religions, like Scientology, but not to your own, because you want your religion to be true. The Scientologists want the same thing, the Muslims want the same thing, the Hindus want the same thing. They all want to believe that their religion will actually deliver on what it promises to. Because of this critical analysis goes out the window and you accept what you want to be true.

Of course to us, to atheists, its all the same. All religion works in the same way, they are all equally nonsensical. Arguing with a Scientologist as to why Hubbard isn't actually really Buddah (which I've had the misfortune to attempt) is exactly the same as arguing with you as to why Jesus didn't rise from the dead. You would be surprised at how similar the arguments are. You all believe these things because you want them to be true, despite all evidence or logic to the contrary. You can throw what ever logic or evidence in front of you guys and you won't accept it.

The funny thing, from my perspective, is that you all seem to realise when a different religion is doing this, yet completely fail to see it when you yourselves are doing it. But I guess again that comes with the territory. You all want what you believe in to be true.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

I hate to burst your bubble there Splendour, but that is my point.:p

Your religion is as fake as Scientology. The difference is of course that because you are in the religion looking out you have not yet realized this. You are exactly like a Scientologists, you use the same justifications as to why your religion is real, you accept the same things at face value, you believe what you want to believe. You can apply critical analysis to other religions, like Scientology, but not to your own, because you want your religion to be true. The Scientologists want the same thing, the Muslims want the same thing, the Hindus want the same thing. They all want to believe that their religion will actually deliver on what it promises to. Because of this critical analysis goes out the window and you accept what you want to be true.

Wicknight you write like Sam Harris. Have you ever read his books?

5uspect

Wicknight wrote:

The funny thing, from my perspective, is that you all seem to realise when a different religion is doing this, yet completely fail to see it when you yourselves are doing it. But I guess again that comes with the territory. You all want what you believe in to be true.

Reminds me of this:

Schuhart wrote:

I tend to picture it like a car with no petrol. There’s two average, reasonable theists in the front seat occasionally making quiet ‘vroom vroom’ noises. One agrees that the car probably isn’t moving, but reckons you have to believe in something. The other, shyly, says he actually thinks the car does move a little, but not in a way that anyone else can tell.

In the back seat you have a fundamentalist theist making loud and enthusiastic ‘vroom vroom’ noises. He confidently asserts that the car is moving at a brisk 80 kph, but equally maintains that he will reject any physical evidence to the contrary.

An atheist sits beside him. He irritates the fundamentalist by pointing out that ‘vroom’ was first chanted by Babylonian temple prostitutes prior to coitus. He tells the soft theists stories about the massacre of the ‘ne-yarr’ heretics, but they don’t seem too interested. Finally, he steps out of the car to demonstrate it’s not moving. They all lock the door behind him, and go on as before.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Wicknight you write like Sam Harris. Have you ever read his books?

Haven't yet, though I would be interested in his writing. I've watch his lectures on YouTube, they were interesting but I didn't think they were as well thought out as Dawkins.

Splendour

Tim Robbins wrote:

Can you pick one, referenece it exactly and elaborate please?

For these purposes Tim it's a bit difficult to pick any one verse out of Romans, but am not ignoring your question. Also, am pushed for time at the mo! Don't know how you guys can spare so much time to post so much!
Will try get back to you...