Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

John Gray's "The Atheist Delusion" - Irish Times 20th March

124

Comments

  • #92
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Jakkass wrote:
    iUseVi: If you feel you wish you want to personally attack me as "unthinking" go ahead. However I have spent a lot of time thinking about whether adopting Christianity was the correct decision for me. (formerly agnostic by the by). But as I say, if you want to have preconcieved notions of me, go ahead, I'm merely explaining the Bible as I see it.

    Please be assured. I was certainly not referring to you in my hypothetical ramblings.
    I was merely expressing the situation as I see it.


  • #93
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    John Gray is an atheist.

    he's a professional contrarian first and foremost.


  • #94
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, I did not say that the rules for slaves are the rules for treating the lowest class of workers in a society, I said that slaves as in the groupings of slaves in early Jewish society, were similar to the lower classes we would have today in our society. I don't find that so absurd.

    Well most of civilised society would. Slaves are peoples property, lower-class people are not peoples property. That is a fundamental difference, and means that your premise is wrong.


  • #95
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Really, in my opinion it seems that you seem to interpret the Bible as the most atrocious thing that has ever come to man.
    Well I don't interpret it in that negative a light, I do feel that much of the rules are unecessary and seem rather opressive. Perhaps this is a preconceived negative attitude towards it, but on the other hand, you clearly have a preconceived positive attitude towards it. Now, you claim the bible is a moral guide. Can a book that is so ambiguous really be a great moral guide?
    daithifleming wrote: »
    Well most of civilised society would. Slaves are peoples property, lower-class people are not peoples property. That is a fundamental difference, and means that your premise is wrong.
    QFT.


  • #96
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Well I don't interpret it in that negative a light, I do feel that much of the rules are unecessary and seem rather opressive. Perhaps this is a preconceived negative attitude towards it, but on the other hand, you clearly have a preconceived positive attitude towards it. Now, you claim the bible is a moral guide. Can a book that is so ambiguous really be a great moral guide?


    QFT.

    It's not that ambiguous at all. The only difference between my view of the Torah, and your view of the Torah is that you think that every rule is there for the worst possible reason, whereas I'm willing to allow room that there is logical reasons to why such as rule would exist, and for a rule to be written there must be a logical reason behind it.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Jakkass wrote:
    It's not that ambiguous at all. The only difference between my view of the Torah, and your view of the Torah is that you think that every rule is there for the worst possible reason, whereas I'm willing to allow room that there is logical reasons to why such as rule would exist, and for a rule to be written there must be a logical reason behind it.

    If it were not ambiguous we would not be having this discussion on it.
    Imho the issue is not whether the rules are logical. (you assume they are)

    More important is that of morality. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where you must kill 1 innocent person to save 100. Some would say it is logical to do so. It most certainly is not moral to do so, imo at least.


  • #98
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    John Gray is an atheist.
    :eek:
    Columnist in being inconsistent and hypocritical just to get attention and arouse controversy shocker!!!


  • #99
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    iUseVi wrote: »
    More important is that of morality. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where you must kill 1 innocent person to save 100. Some would say it is logical to do so. It most certainly is not moral to do so, imo at least.

    How is that even comparable to the topic we are discussing?


  • #100
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Jakkass wrote: »
    How is that even comparable to the topic we are discussing?

    What is that? A dodge manoeuvre?

    You claimed that the rules in the torah were there for logical reasons. Assuming that the bible is the word of God that may or may not be so. My point was the that fact that something is logical has nothing to do with its morality.


  • #101
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's not a dodge at all. How is killing anything to do with what we were speaking of?

    There are various reasons why the rule of why the disabled cannot approach the altar is there. Immediately JC2K3 would see it as a means of exclusion. But surely, there would be alot of difficulty in a disabled person having to reach the altar in the Tent of the Lords Presence in the first place. It is for that persons benefit that they do not approach the altar. Which is entirely moral if you ask me, and respectful to the persons condition.

    The reason that I referred to that there was logical reasons is that in these cases the logical reasoning that one takes behind it influences whether or not they would see it as moral or immoral.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Jakkass wrote:
    It's not a dodge at all. How is killing anything to do with what we were speaking of?

    Well it was a theoretical example. I was assuming you would consider murder as immoral!:p:D


  • #103
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's not a dodge at all. How is killing anything to do with what we were speaking of?

    There are various reasons why the rule of why the disabled cannot approach the altar is there. Immediately JC2K3 would see it as a means of exclusion. But surely, there would be alot of difficulty in a disabled person having to reach the altar in the Tent of the Lords Presence in the first place. It is for that persons benefit that they do not approach the altar. Which is entirely moral if you ask me, and respectful to the persons condition.

    The reason that I referred to that there was logical reasons is that in these cases the logical reasoning that one takes behind it influences whether or not they would see it as logical or illogical.

    I would agree with the disabled comment, much the same way that Allah says the disabled don't have to travel to Mecca. But there is no logic or moral consistency in condoning slavery one moment, and prohibiting it the next.


  • #104
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    To clear this up I've consulted the Bible commentary:
    New Jerome Bible Commentary wrote:
    Integrity of the whole man was demanded of cultic functionaries. Physical imperfection was then, an impediment ti the exercise of the priestly office in a descendent of Aaron (vv 16-23). Inasmuch as the animals offered to Yahweh were to be flawless (1:3, 20; 22:22-25), the same was required of priests. The impediments in vv 18-20 contains a number of rare terms only the general meaning of which can be determined. Since a priest was not unclean because of such a defect, he was permitted of the various sacrificial repasts, but as long as his impediment remained, he could approach neither the sanctuary veil nor the altar of the holocausts.

    Just if any of you wanted to be 100% sure of it I thought I'd add that in. Interestingly it is only for the Levite priests, but still on the account of suffering and on the account that it would hinder the sacrifice it makes sense. Not that sacrificing was continued in Christianity. I'm sure in Christian seminaries etc, they have to make sure that the priest was capable of doing their job, and to make sure that they were capable of giving the Eucharist (the modern form of the sacrificing), so yes it does make sense.
    daithifleming wrote:
    I would agree with the disabled comment, much the same way that Allah says the disabled don't have to travel to Mecca. But there is no logic or moral consistency in condoning slavery one moment, and prohibiting it the next.

    The conclusion I would come with, not saying that others don't have different conclusions, is that there was no need for slavery as Christ came. Christ came to bring the word to the Gentiles, and ultimately break down the traditional barriers that had existed between them. In the Jewish society the slaves mainly came from foreigners, if Christ was seriously going to break down this barrier and make them one, surely the slaves could not be used.


  • #105
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    I'm gonna leave this thread now, cos there's a moron in it and it's upsetting me.


  • #106
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    However Torah makes the provision of selling a daughter into slavery in desperate situations.
    Would I be right in thinking that you don't have a daughter, and therefore, may not be in a position to say whether it's every appropriate to consider selling a daughter?


  • #107
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Infact most of Torah still stands..

    Are you saying some of it doesn't stand ?


  • #108
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Christ reformed parts of Torah, so no not all of it still does.
    DaveMcG wrote:
    I'm gonna leave this thread now, cos there's a moron in it and it's upsetting me.

    Sorry I can't take the same world view as you do. (Assuming that is the reason why you are referring to me as a moron)


  • #109
    Myksyk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,550 ✭✭✭Myksyk


    I think we should print out Jackass' amazing input here and keep it as a timely example of the grossly contorted mental and moral gymnastics people must engage in to square their committment to the inerrancy of the bible with reality.

    We could give it to our daughters just before we sell them.


  • #110
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Myksyk wrote: »
    I think we should print out Jackass' amazing input here and keep it as a timely example of the grossly contorted mental and moral gymnastics people must engage in to square their committment to the inerrancy of the bible with reality.

    We could give it to our daughters just before we sell them.

    Conversely, I think we should print out what the other posts have posted here and keep it as a timely example of the automatic view that the Bible is the very epitome of what is evil among many atheists (I put "many" there as blanket statements and stereotyping aren't my thing) without any other consideration of it's contents.


  • #111
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    robindch wrote: »
    Would I be right in thinking that you don't have a daughter, and therefore, may not be in a position to say whether it's every appropriate to consider selling a daughter?

    Do you really need to have a daughter to know that wrong?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Conversely, I think we should print out what the other posts have posted here and keep it as a timely example of the automatic view that the Bible is the very epitome of what is evil among many atheists (I put "many" there as blanket statements and stereotyping aren't my thing) without any other consideration of it's contents.

    You know, 'our' problem is not whats in the bible, per se, but the fact that people like you are willing to interpret the thing literally.

    That is the scary part.


  • #113
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    I can take lessons from anything I like! Have you read 'To Kill a Mockingbird' by Harper Lee? It's one of my favourite books ever! If you take on board what Atticus says, you'll go far in life. At the same time you'll have to sift through all the racist crap that's in it.

    Hm, if I may go back to a previous point. Ironically that people attempt to say that other books are superior to the Bible even when they are built upon Biblical principles. I agree "To Kill a Mockingbird" is an excellent book, but surely if you look to the start of the Song of Solomon you would have got the same view of how we should be racially tolerant.
    Song of Solomon 1:5-6 wrote:
    I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.
    daithifleming wrote:
    You know, 'our' problem is not whats in the bible, per se, but the fact that people like you are willing to interpret the thing literally.

    That is the scary part.

    I disagree with what you say of me. There are areas of scripture such as the start of Ezekiel when God has chosen him as a prophet, and the book of Revelations among others which are meant to be taken as allegory. How about getting to know my stance on the Bible first? However it's hard to take the Torah which is intended as Law as allegory isn't it?


  • #114
    bus77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,313 ✭✭✭bus77


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Imagine a hypothetical scenario where you must kill 1 innocent person to save 100. Some would say it is logical to do so.

    I believe Mr. Spock said that.


  • #115
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    daithifleming wrote: »
    Do you really need to have a daughter to know that is wrong?
    It certainly seems to help!


  • #116
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    robindch wrote: »
    It certainly seems to help!

    I don't think it would make difference to these fundamentalist types. God is more important than sons and daughters.


  • #117
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    robindch wrote: »
    It certainly seems to help!

    I've a daughter and there're times I'd certainly consider selling her :D


  • #118
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    daithifleming wrote: »
    God is more important than sons and daughters.
    Quite -- there are people like this in my extended family. It's not nice to see.

    .


  • #119
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Lets keep the 'veiled' insults out of this, people.
    You know who you are.


  • #120
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's not that ambiguous at all. The only difference between my view of the Torah, and your view of the Torah is that you think that every rule is there for the worst possible reason, whereas I'm willing to allow room that there is logical reasons to why such as rule would exist, and for a rule to be written there must be a logical reason behind it.
    If it means different things to people with different views, them I'm sorry, but it IS ambiguous.

    And anyway, where does this morality that makes you logically interpret the bible in such a benevolent way come from? If you're able to come to these logical conclusions as to why certain rules are in place, then surely you already possess an inherent moral logic, so why the need for a guide?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    bus77 wrote:
    I believe Mr. Spock said that.

    Indeed!

    It is logical to sell your daughter! :rolleyes::eek:


Advertisement