Religion is a good thing.

philologos

minusorange wrote: »

The same go for Hitler's Mein Kampf. It's perfectly reasonable. How could a book have any moral significance one way or the other? Its laughable. Only when people take a book literally and try and apply its practices and principles does it become a prob......ahhhh! ....????

The Biblical text isn't comparative to Mein Kampf in any way whatsoever. I must ask, how well acquainted are you with the Bible?

minusorange wrote: »

Get off the fence, read the core texts and let's call a spade a spade.

Having read the Bible, I still disagree with you.

minusorange wrote: »

Religion is dependent on its core texts. The problem lies in the core texts. When are we going to see these books for what they really are?

Does it really?

As for your mention to male circumcision although I don't follow a religion that encourages male circumcision unlike Judaism and Islam, there are differing sources that do regard male circumcision as being medically beneficial.

As for FGM, no passage in the Qur'an or the Bible advocates this practice as far as I know.

minusorange

Let's take this book as the starting point of one of the great nightmare's of mankind. A document full of murder and intolerance, hatred and bigotry, disgusting views on the role and nature of women and a revulsion of homosexuals. A cruel and absurd catalogue of grotesque puerile nonsense and a disgraceful reminder of the blackness mankind worships.

The other is an autobiography of the living embodiment of much of the above in which our hero dishes out his doomed politics alongside his traditional hatred and good old fashioned racism. Amongst the tortured prose you can begin to sense his terrorist superiority all whilst taking delight in the Old Testament themes of genocide and absolute abhorrence of innocent human beings. That's before we even get to his brooding hatred of Jews, and you'd have to be a good liar or a bad comedian to even suggest that this contempt isn't based on the culture of Christian intolerance toward our Jewish friend. And shame on you if you even try.

That's similar enough for me thanks. I'll gladly throw these two masterpieces of ignorance into the same slop bucket. No problem. How lucky I am to have been born in an age where we can so easily throw away these useless pieces of sh*t.


As for your second point. You disagree with me? So what? I've asked you to get off the fence. You have and still made the wrong call. Out of my hands.

Your third point serves to remind me of the potential benefits of male circumcision. I agree with you. I too have read articles that claim it may have a positive affect in the battle against sexually transmitted diseases. But what point are you possibly trying to make. That for a couple of thousand years ignorant men have been mutilating their children because in the early 21st century it will find some sort of justification?

Your fourth point is based on nothing. Where have I said FGM is based on scripture?

Joe1919

minusorange wrote: »

Your third point serves to remind me of the potential benefits of male circumcision. I agree with you. I too have read articles that claim it may have a positive affect in the battle against sexually transmitted diseases. But what point are you possibly trying to make. That for a couple of thousand years ignorant men have been mutilating their children because in the early 21st century it will find some sort of justification?

If you have time, this book (p.46)has interesting discussion about painful initations.(such as circumsisions?).http://books.google.ie/books?id=h6zT8Feca-8C&pg=PT1&dq=f.m.cornford+religion&lr=#v=onepage&q=f.m.cornford%20religion&f=false
Our socialisation is to some extent 'beat' into use using pain and fear.
Rituals such as circumsision may be more about inflicting pain and fear in order to repress the individual than anything else. Anthropoligists may argue that such rituals were necessary.

koHd

minusorange wrote: »

Let's take this book as the starting point of one of the great nightmare's of mankind. A document full of murder and intolerance, hatred and bigotry, disgusting views on the role and nature of women and a revulsion of homosexuals. A cruel and absurd catalogue of grotesque puerile nonsense and a disgraceful reminder of the blackness mankind worships.

The other is an autobiography of the living embodiment of much of the above in which our hero dishes out his doomed politics alongside his traditional hatred and good old fashioned racism. Amongst the tortured prose you can begin to sense his terrorist superiority all whilst taking delight in the Old Testament themes of genocide and absolute abhorrence of innocent human beings. That's before we even get to his brooding hatred of Jews, and you'd have to be a good liar or a bad comedian to even suggest that this contempt isn't based on the culture of Christian intolerance toward our Jewish friend. And shame on you if you even try.

That's similar enough for me thanks. I'll gladly throw these two masterpieces of ignorance into the same slop bucket. No problem. How lucky I am to have been born in an age where we can so easily throw away these useless pieces of sh*t.


As for your second point. You disagree with me? So what? I've asked you to get off the fence. You have and still made the wrong call. Out of my hands.

Your third point serves to remind me of the potential benefits of male circumcision. I agree with you. I too have read articles that claim it may have a positive affect in the battle against sexually transmitted diseases. But what point are you possibly trying to make. That for a couple of thousand years ignorant men have been mutilating their children because in the early 21st century it will find some sort of justification?

Your fourth point is based on nothing. Where have I said FGM is based on scripture?

Haha the first half of that post is quality.

Trance

For humans collectively in the past, naivity resulted in superstition and fear. Well-told stories of all-seeing, powerful Gods were an effective way of keeping order and maintaining power over people. It allowed for social hierarchys to develop whereby those at the top withheld control over those below. As time has passed however, people have began to understand more about themselves and the world and logic has slowly annuled belief in higher beings. The progression is still happening today.

”af_thefragile&#8221 wrote:

Religion teaches people to take control of their desires, greed and need. Religion tells people to spread love and help the needy.

What exactly do your religious leaders do themselves for the needy? When your pope visits a war-torn country, waves his magic hand over someone who’s lost their home and then showers them in holy water, to you is that sufficient? For a person holding the highest authority over the Vatican bank — a bank speculated over to be the richest in the world, holding billions worth of shares in various other banks and markets throughout the world and a further billions worth in gold — a wave of that magic hand, a splash of holy water and a little prayer is the absolute apotheosis of ridicule.

Blue_Wolf wrote:

I see Religion as something good for younger people only and I'm really only talking about ehhh 4-10 years of age..

If children as young as 3 and 4 were not exposed to a particular religion at all, would it survive at all today? If instead, at the age of 20 and without having ever been previously exposed to a religious system of beliefs, you were introduced to a man who passionately sprayed stories about gods, miraculous fish feeding Jews, parting seas and ressurections, I wonder how much you’d believe?

philologos

minusorange wrote: »

Let's take this book as the starting point of one of the great nightmare's of mankind. A document full of murder and intolerance, hatred and bigotry, disgusting views on the role and nature of women and a revulsion of homosexuals. A cruel and absurd catalogue of grotesque puerile nonsense and a disgraceful reminder of the blackness mankind worships.

1. Murder - Is divine punishment murder? The deaths that were carried out by God in the Old Testament were as punishment to sin. I.E God is the authority of the universe, and He set rules for His people the Israelites to follow under the Old Covenant, pretty much as legislators of the State set down rules. The definition of murder is:
unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being

If God's judgement is according to His commandments, that isn't "unlawful" in any meaningful sense of the world. I would also hold the understanding that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away as is appropriate. (Job 1:21)

"So", I said, "you don't think that God was being unreasonable by ordering the destruction of the Amalekites?". "You have to remember that these people were given plenty of opportunity to change their ways and avoid all this," he said. "In fact if you take all the Caananites along with the Amalekites, they were given four hundred years to repent. That's a very long time. Finally after waiting centuries to give them an opportunity to abandon their path towards self-destruction, God's nature demanded that he deal with their willful evil. He certainly didn't at precipitously.

Above quote from Lee Strobels - Case for Faith, chapter 4 "God isn't worthy of worship if He kills innocent children". This book does a fairly good job of refuting your preconceived notions if you are willing to find out more.

This really fits in with the model of slow to anger. Waiting 400 years and giving them every opportunity to change first. Interesting.

2. Intolerance - It depends on what you mean by tolerance. God is intolerant towards things that are likely to estrange you from him, and to lead you into bad relations with your neighbour.

Carrying on though:

Exodus 22:21-24 wrote:

You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. You shall not abuse any widow or orphan. If you do abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely head their cry; my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans.

Exodus 23:9 wrote:

You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt

Exodus 22:25 wrote:

If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. If you take your neighbours cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes down; for it may be your neighbours only clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep. And if your neighbour cries out to me. I will listen, for I am compassionate.

Leviticus 19:9-10 wrote:

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 19:17-18 wrote:

You shall not hate in your heart any one of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbour or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not take venegance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself.

Deuteronomy 15:11 wrote:

Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, 'Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbour in your land'.

Deuteronomy 24:14 wrote:

You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy labourers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in one of your town. You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the LORD against you, and you would incur guilt.

It's doing a lot better than many of us in Western societies are doing already by this one quote.

Infact, most of the Jewish law contains social commandments like these. The death penalty where used was punishable for the transgression of sin for the Jewish people. After the coming of Jesus Christ, the death penalty is no longer applicable for sin as He died on our behalf.

I think the intolerance one is really falling short here.

3. Hatred and bigotry, I'd need you to show me any cases. If you are referring to legitimate punishment as in point 1, I would refer to that as justice, not bigotry in very much the same way I don't consider when someone is convicted to be bigotry, but justice.

4. Disgusting views on the nature of women:

Galatians 3:28 wrote:

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slaver of free, there is no longer male or female for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Many women from Eve right down to Mary Magdalene are involved in the Biblical narrative, and there are many passages praising womens involvement such as the praise to a good wife found in Proverbs 31:

Proverbs 31:10-12 wrote:

A capable wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels. The heart of her husabnd trusts in here, and he will have no lack of gain. She does him good, and not harm all the days of her life.

I'd ask you to bring a case forward if you are going to claim this is the case.

5. Revulsion of homosexuals:

Nowhere in the Bible does God express a revulsion of homosexuals as people. Infact we are told by Jesus:

Matthew 18:10 wrote:

"Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven."

Carrying on. The passages in the Biblical text regard homosexual acts as sinful. Nowhere do they express hatred of homosexuals:

Leviticus 18:22 wrote:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

Romans 1:26-27 wrote:

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men, and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 wrote:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

I think I'll leave this part of the quote here, I'll leave you to justify the rest later.

minusorange wrote: »

The other is an autobiography of the living embodiment of much of the above in which our hero dishes out his doomed politics alongside his traditional hatred and good old fashioned racism. Amongst the tortured prose you can begin to sense his terrorist superiority all whilst taking delight in the Old Testament themes of genocide and absolute abhorrence of innocent human beings. That's before we even get to his brooding hatred of Jews, and you'd have to be a good liar or a bad comedian to even suggest that this contempt isn't based on the culture of Christian intolerance toward our Jewish friend. And shame on you if you even try.

I will let the Muslims defend the Qur'an. You should actually go to the Islam forum and argue it yourself.

Although I'm starting to feel that you think you know absolutely everything about the Christian faith and the Islamic faith when you clearly don't. You seem to think that you are "better" than us for the mere fact that we believe and you don't. Curious stuff.

minusorange wrote: »

That's similar enough for me thanks. I'll gladly throw these two masterpieces of ignorance into the same slop bucket. No problem. How lucky I am to have been born in an age where we can so easily throw away these useless pieces of sh*t.

It's clear to me that you haven't read either. Or if you have you've done a lot of twisting. This is what I can tell from your assessment of the Bible. All of your objections have been explained, if you would only seek out the answers on them.

minusorange wrote: »

As for your second point. You disagree with me? So what? I've asked you to get off the fence. You have and still made the wrong call. Out of my hands.

Wrong call? I'm off the fence because I think that your posts make very little sense and ironically show you to be the one who is ignorant of what Christians actually believe, and probably about what Muslims believe. I can only speak for the former as a practicing Christian.

minusorange wrote: »

Your third point serves to remind me of the potential benefits of male circumcision. I agree with you. I too have read articles that claim it may have a positive affect in the battle against sexually transmitted diseases. But what point are you possibly trying to make. That for a couple of thousand years ignorant men have been mutilating their children because in the early 21st century it will find some sort of justification?

Irrelevant. Male circumcision if shown to be medically valuable isn't a harmful practice like you describe.

minusorange wrote: »

Your fourth point is based on nothing. Where have I said FGM is based on scripture?

I'd argue that your original point was based on nothing.

If you think I'm being a bit dramatic I can assure you I'm not. These are very real religious practices and discussing any particular religion without referring to its specific religious practices is a fruitless exercise.

You then went on to say that the problems lie within the core texts. Either they do or they don't. Make up your mind. As far as I know it isn't an official codified teaching of Islam to carry out FGM. Rather it is cultural rather than religious. This thread is about whether religion is a good thing, not about whether culture is a good thing.

minusorange

Women

Corinthians

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

“The head of the woman is the man.”

11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.
"If a woman refuses to cover her head in church, then her her head must be shaved"

11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

"Men are made in the image of God; women in the image of men. Women were created from and for men"

John

2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.

2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

(2:13-14) "John writes to the men (fathers) only. Women (mothers?) are not important enough to address."

Peter

3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.

3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

(3:2-6) Wives are to use "chaste conversation, coupled with fear." They are not to braid their hair, wear gold, or put on any "apparel." They are to do these things in imitation of the "holy" women of the Old testament who were "in subjection to their own husbands: even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord."

3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered

“The wife, as unto the weaker vessel” In relation to her husband, the wife is “the weaker vessel.”

Samuel

1:2 And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

“He [Samuel’‘s father] had two wives. Once again, by its silence, the Bible endorses polygamy.

1:5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb.

“The Lord had shut up her [Hannah’‘s] womb.” Why? The Bible doesn’‘t say. Maybe God had nothing better to do.


18:6 And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick.

18:7 And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.

(18:6-7) “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.”
David and Saul have a contest to see who can kill the most people for God, and the women act as cheerleaders saying, “Saul has killed his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”

21:4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

21:5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.

(21:4-5) The priest tells David that he and his men can eat the “hallowed” bread if “they have kept themselves at least from women.” David assures the priest that they have and that “the vessels of the young men are holy.” So it’‘d be OK for them to eat the holy bread.

25:41 And she arose, and bowed herself on her face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.

25:42 And Abigail hasted, and arose and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that went after her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife.

25:43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.

25:44 But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Phalti the son of Laish, which was of Gallim.

(25:41-44) David takes his second wife (Abigail) after God killed her husband (Nabal). He also, at the same time, took another wife (#3), Abinam. In the meantime, Saul gave Michal (his daughter and David’‘s first wife) to another man.

30:5 And David’s two wives were taken captives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite.

David just keeps getting more wives. God doesn’‘t seem to mind a bit.


Timothy

2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

“Women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.” Women are to dress modestly, "with shamefacedness"—"not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."

2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

(2:13-15)“For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
Men are superior to women since Adam was made before, and sinned after, Eve. But even though women are inferior to men, they shouldn’‘t be discouraged because they shall “be saved in childbearing.”

5:5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

5:6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

(5:5-6) “A widow indeed” Real widows are "desolate" and pray "night and day." But those widows that experience pleasure are "dead while [they] live."

5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;

5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.

5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

(5:9-16) When to help a widow You should help a widow only if she 1) is over 60 years old, 2) had only one husband, 3) has raised children, 4) has lodged strangers, 5) has "washed the saints feet," 6) has relieved the afflicted, and 7) has "diligently followed very good work."

2 Chronicles

1:21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)

(11:21) Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines. Once again, if silence implies consent, then God must approve of such arrangements.

8:11 And Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David unto the house that he had built for her: for he said, My wife shall not dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places are holy, whereunto the ark of the LORD hath come.

“My wife shall not dwell in the house of David ... because the places are holy.” Solomon’‘s Egyptian wife can’‘t be around holy places. Is that because she is a woman or because she is an Egyptian, or both?

2 Kings

15:16 Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; [style=cruelty]and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

King Menahem rips up all the pregnant women in Tizzah “because they opened not to him.” Does God approve of such acts? It’‘s impossible to tell from this passage; the mass murder is simply reported without editorial comment.

2 Samuel

12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

12:12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

(12:11-12) God is angry at David for having Uriah killed. As a punishment, he will have David’‘s wives raped by his neighbor while everyone else watches. It turns out that the "neighbor" that God sends to do his dirty work is David’‘s own son, Absalom.


That's from the first of seven pages over at The Scripture Project

The Scripture Project Home http://www.reasonproject.org/scripture_project/

The Scripture Project - Women http://www.reasonproject.org/scripture_project/Annotations:women/

minusorange

I intend to get through all the points you raised one by one. But because I also have a life to live it will take me time to get through them. So bare with me. Anyway judging by your profile you seem to spend a lot of time on this forum pumping out bullsh*t, so I'm sure you wont mind waiting.

I got a little hot under the collar last night and didn't do my argument any justice. My somewhat muddled Mein Kampf metaphor only compounded the problem.

I was being sacrcastic. But if you want to drag me into the realms of serious argument I'll give it to you.

In the mean time visit The Scripture Project and busy yourself in the cross referenced ignorance on offer.

philologos

Likewise, I'll be dealing with your quotations in time. I would prefer it if you could leave terms like "bulls**t" aside, they have no place in intelligent discussion.

Before I answer them though, I need to know, did you copy and paste these quotes from a website or did you read the Bible for yourself? If you did the former, I have no interest in entering into a discussion with you. I can copy and paste from Christian websites if I want to refute all of the claims you have copied from atheist websites. I have no interest in such a discussion.

I have no doubt that I could go through that list and go through every single verse that is described there and explain it's context properly, but if I am throwing pearls to swine, I have no interest in doing so.

minusorange

Jakkass wrote: »

1. Murder - Is divine punishment murder? The deaths that were carried out by God in the Old Testament were as punishment to sin. I.E God is the authority of the universe, and He set rules for His people the Israelites to follow under the Old Covenant, pretty much as legislators of the State set down rules. The definition of murder is:
unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being

If God's judgement is according to His commandments, that isn't "unlawful" in any meaningful sense of the world. I would also hold the understanding that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away as is appropriate. (Job 1:21)

These two paragraphs prove to me that you will never be beaten in an argument on religion. You accused me of ignorance in your previous post. You were right.

I was pissed off last night and was deliberately offensive and arrogant because I wanted to hurt your feelings and feel good about it. I presume I didn't hurt your feelings. But it felt good anyway.

If I am displaying a certain level of ignorance it's because I'm not applying myself properly. I haven't yet gathered all the facts I need to position and structure my argument

But you literally cannot get any better. Quoting that garbage is as good as it gets for you. I'm more than happy to exchange a few more punches with you but know this. In your own mind You will win this argument. Christianity is the art of defecating your way through public discourse and I simply (and thankfully) haven't got the tools to follow you.

philologos

minusorange wrote: »

These two paragraphs prove to me that you will never be beaten in an argument on religion. You accused me of ignorance in your previous post. You were right.

My faith is important to me. I know what I believe and I've thought about it a lot. I made a reasoned decision to become a Christian a few years ago. I feel it is important to defend it and to let people know the truth about it instead of bad-mouthing it.

minusorange wrote: »

I was pissed off last night and was deliberately offensive and arrogant because I wanted to hurt your feelings and feel good about it. I presume I didn't hurt your feelings. But it felt good anyway.

It's perfectly normal to be annoyed that I believe what I believe. It isn't just you, a lot of people are annoyed that people believe in Christ in this world.

As for it hurting my feelings, no it didn't. My faith is a part of who I am and I can stand on my own two feet.

minusorange wrote: »

If I am displaying a certain level of ignorance it's because I'm not applying myself properly. I haven't yet gathered all the facts I need to position and structure my argument

Let's be honest here. Your ignorance arises from the fact you are criticising what you do not understand.

I didn't understand either, until I read the Bible for myself.

I have yet to understand what is so wrong about accepting that you do not know everything about the world, and that there could be more out there to look for. That's basically what I had to do if I decided I was going to trust God to basically say "God, look, I don't know everything, I'm willing to give this a go. If you are out there and if you are true, reveal yourself to me.".

minusorange wrote: »

But you literally cannot get any better. Quoting that garbage is as good as it gets for you. I'm more than happy to exchange a few more punches with you but know this. In your own mind You will win this argument. Christianity is the art of defecating your way through public discourse and I simply (and thankfully) haven't got the tools to follow you.

How does one determine that this is garbage if one hasn't read it for themselves?

That's my problem with a lot of people who claim to be atheists on boards.ie.

Look, that may well be your decision. However to criticise a way of life that you do not know seems a bit haughty to me.

minusorange

I have read both the Qur'an and the Old Testament with the use of study guide. I have read the New Testament start to finish without a guide.

The quotes are copied from The Scripture Project, but only because it's the fastest way of finding the material I'm looking for.

I don't see why that would be a problem anyway. If the discussion is based on scripture and I am quoting scripture what is the problem?

I don't quote blindly and I don't quote without having an opinion on what I'm quoting. This is simply a means of finding quickly the material that justifies my position.

You said that you could go through every single quote and explain it in the context it is used. Of course you could. That's why this is an ultimately futile exchange. You will pick verses of the bible that prove the points you want proven and disregard the rest as being of a different era or relative to the custom norms of the time.

You win by your own selective reasoning.

If Jesus rode down from heaven tomorrow morning on his white horse I would be a fervent believer for the rest of my life.

If evidence was produced tomorrow morning that proved the central claims of Christianity were not true you would still believe as fervently as you do now.

This is a non-argument.

minusorange

Jakkass wrote: »

I can copy and paste from Christian websites if I want to refute all of the claims you have copied from atheist websites.

No. I have quoted from The Bible.

If you want to quote from The Bible to refute what I have quoted you will only serve to underline the contradictory nature of the supposed word of God.

philologos

It's a lazy debating tactic if you are not willing to put the same effort into discussing as your opponent.

I've already effectively shown you that your summation of the Christian scripture does not adequately reflect it's true nature. You are insistent that the Judeo-Christian ethic produces negative behaviour when we have a lot to demonstrate that this is not the case. What more do you want?

It's disingenuous to suggest that the Christian scriptures do not encourage a positive moral outlook on life when it is demonstrably visible in the world, and in the Scriptures that it does.

Bear in mind, the argument isn't whether or not Christianity is true that's another kettle of fish, the argument is about whether or not religion is a good thing. I would argue most certainly yes, it is more a good thing than it is bad thing and Judeo-Christianity has affected life positively ever since it arrived in Europe.

thebouldwhacker

Religion is good as Santa is good.

It serves as a control mechanism and a simple story platform to explain the world to those who for what ever reason can not access the truth.

If someone whats to have their life dictated by power hungry people who claim to know what any one particular god wants then so be it and best of luck but for me I don't believe in Santa any more but I'm still a good boy:D

Religion is bad when its abused but then again if its an agent of concealed control how can that ever REALLY be good??

philologos

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

It serves as a control mechanism and a simple story platform to explain the world to those who for what ever reason can not access the truth.

Is the Biblical text simple? There wouldn't be much need for theological study if it was.

As for control mechanism, why did the Romans keep Christianity illegal for 300 years if it was useful as a "control mechanism"?

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

If someone whats to have their life dictated by power hungry people who claim to know what any one particular god wants then so be it and best of luck but for me I don't believe in Santa any more but I'm still a good boy:D

Do Christians have their lives dictated by power hungry people? That's very debatable. I'd argue not, I use the Bible as a source of morality which guides my actions. It is irrespective what other people tell me concerning it.

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Religion is bad when its abused but then again if its an agent of concealed control how can that ever REALLY be good??

If it is an agent of concealed control. If it is a source of moral betterment in peoples lives, of course it is ultimately beneficial to society.

philologos

minusorange wrote: »

If Jesus rode down from heaven tomorrow morning on his white horse I would be a fervent believer for the rest of my life.

If evidence was produced tomorrow morning that proved the central claims of Christianity were not true you would still believe as fervently as you do now.

This is a non-argument.

This doesn't make sense. Either religion is good or it isn't.

Irrespective of whether Jesus rode down from heaven on a white horse, either the morality discussed in the Biblical text is beneficial or it isn't. Just because Jesus rode down from heaven on a white horse doesn't make the Bible a better basis of morality.

As for if evidence was produced tomorrow that proved the central claims of Christianity to be untrue, I would probably become a secular humanist but I would use the morality of the Bible to structure my life still. I don't think there will be any evidence to disprove God in any shape or form however. You can quote me on that if I am ever wrong.

minusorange

Jakkass wrote: »

the argument is about whether or not religion is a good thing.

This thread ceased to be about that question a long time ago. From my second post I was talking about scripture.

I think the material highlighted on the The Scripture Project is disgusting. You may find the idea of the website to be offensive or malicious but it does nothing but highlight unedited verses from the Bible. Drawing attention to contradictions in the text, rooting out and discussing areas of intolerance, violence, cruelty , etc.

You brushed aside my comments on Homosexuality earlier. There are 37 separate verses concerning homosexuality highlighted. All of them negative. You were right to point out that I should not have used the words revulsion and hatred. But the word that you say is used, 'Sinful', is just not reconcilable with many if not most of those 37 verses. They are far more heavy handed. Referring to human beings as abominations and listing Homosexuals along with murderers and thieves as those that cant enter heaven.
I'll grant you that the original Hebrew word for abomination may have had slightly different connotations. But I think there is a healthy distinction between that and the word sinful. When I was a practising Christian sin was something to come away from. Something to be guilty about and eventually relieved from in confession, trying never to return to it.

But abomination means to utterly dislike, to abhor, abhor means to utterly detest, to regard with extreme repugnance, to loathe. Can someone go from extreme repugnance to brotherly love in mere moments because the subject of their attentions popped into a confession box? This sounds so trivial but these are the type of questions to which answers rarely emerge. These are also etymological matters but as a practising Christian and defender of Christian scripture it falls on you to defend what to me is indefensible. Saying you don't want to discuss this because I have taken these passages from a website and not a hardback is not good enough frankly.

Also you dismissed what I said about the nature of women in the Bible. But the verses that I quoted quite simply blow you out of the water. Now I realise that you could come back at me with quotes the exact opposite in nature, and perhaps just as many of them, negating my entire post, but you would have only proved how contradictory the Bible is. But you're not happy with the core text of your religion being riddled with contradictory information. No, you're not, so you'll have to come along and tell me how my quoted verses are taken out of context whereas your favourite verses are the word of God. This is not an argument, a debate or even a discussion. It ceases to be productive in any way because you will not even acknowledge the discrepancies that are staring you straight in the face. You will always succeed in this argument because of your selective lapses of reasoning. If you even admitted that the Bible is deeply flawed and inconsistent then we would be making progress.

The idea of having these book's billed as the foundation of our moral outlook is offensive to every bone in my body, and I think that any reasonable person should be ashamed of themselves for helping foster this culture of disillusionment. Believe me when I say this, I respect your right to be a Christian, despite my childish name calling. But I don't respect any of the specific claims you make about the nature of this universe, what it contains and how it operates. I may be an atheist but these questions are existentially important to me and I resent the unwarranted privilege you and all other people of faith seem to enjoy in answering them, badly.

minusorange

Jakkass wrote: »

This doesn't make sense. Either religion is good or it isn't.

Irrespective of whether Jesus rode down from heaven on a white horse, either the morality discussed in the Biblical text is beneficial or it isn't. Just because Jesus rode down from heaven on a white horse doesn't make the Bible a better basis of morality.

As for if evidence was produced tomorrow that proved the central claims of Christianity to be untrue, I would probably become a secular humanist but I would use the morality of the Bible to structure my life still. I don't think there will be any evidence to disprove God in any shape or form however. You can quote me on that if I am ever wrong.

I appreciate that I have a tendency to digress but try and keep up. I'm not going to breast feed you everything I post.

Those three sentences are concerned with the futility of arguing with a person of faith over a person of evidence.

Most Christians I've spoke to would answer that question by saying their faith would not be challenged at all. I suppose you deserve a pat on the back for your answer.

philologos

minusorange wrote: »

I think the material highlighted on the The Scripture Project is disgusting. You may find the idea of the website to be offensive or malicious but it does nothing but highlight unedited verses from the Bible. Drawing attention to contradictions in the text, rooting out and discussing areas of intolerance, violence, cruelty , etc.

I'll be looking at all of the verses you have cited. Some I can already refute, some will require my own thought and reflection on them.

minusorange wrote: »

You brushed aside my comments on Homosexuality earlier. There are 37 separate verses concerning homosexuality highlighted. All of them negative. You were right to point out that I should not have used the words revulsion and hatred. But the word that you say is used, 'Sinful', is just not reconcilable with many if not most of those 37 verses. They are far more heavy handed. Referring to human beings as abominations and listing Homosexuals along with murderers and thieves as those that cant enter heaven.
I'll grant you that the original Hebrew word for abomination may have had slightly different connotations. But I think there is a healthy distinction between that and the word sinful. When I was a practising Christian sin was something to come away from. Something to be guilty about and eventually relieved from in confession, trying never to return to it.

Referring to an act as abominable is not the same as referring to people as abominable. Bear in mind the Bible tells us to hold fast to what is good and hate what is evil. Likewise other Scripture says not to regard evil as good, or good as evil.

Sinful means falling short of God's standard. If something falls short of God's standard it is sinful. We as human beings fall short of God's standard in numerous ways, and many other things are regarded as abominable in the Biblical text. There is no special case for homosexual acts.

minusorange wrote: »

But abomination means to utterly dislike, to abhor, abhor means to utterly detest, to regard with extreme repugnance, to loathe. Can someone go from extreme repugnance to brotherly love in mere moments because the subject of their attentions popped into a confession box? This sounds so trivial but these are the type of questions to which answers rarely emerge. These are also etymological matters but as a practising Christian and defender of Christian scripture it falls on you to defend what to me is indefensible. Saying you don't want to discuss this because I have taken these passages from a website and not a hardback is not good enough frankly.

You again confuse regarding an act as an abomination with regarding people as abominable. I personally don't regard anyone as abominable.

As for the confession box, I'm not a Roman Catholic so I've never been to confession with a priest or the like.

I don't hate people. Hatred of other people is also falling short of God's standard. It is a sin like any other.

minusorange wrote: »

Also you dismissed what I said about the nature of women in the Bible. But the verses that I quoted quite simply blow you out of the water. Now I realise that you could come back at me with quotes the exact opposite in nature, and perhaps just as many of them, negating my entire post, but you would have only proved how contradictory the Bible is. But you're not happy with the core text of your religion being riddled with contradictory information. No, you're not, so you'll have to come along and tell me how my quoted verses are taken out of context whereas your favourite verses are the word of God. This is not an argument, a debate or even a discussion. It ceases to be productive in any way because you will not even acknowledge the discrepancies that are staring you straight in the face. You will always succeed in this argument because of your selective lapses of reasoning. If you even admitted that the Bible is deeply flawed and inconsistent then we would be making progress.

I don't think the Bible is flawed or inconsistent. As for progress, progress towards what?

I will be looking to every single passage you have noted. "Lapses of reasoning" isn't applicable. I will be dealing with every single passage you have noted, if you will have patience and time to let me do so.

I won't be replying with other verses to the contrary. I will be explaining the verses you have provided using Biblical commentaries where neccessary. Some of which you have already misinterpreted, I have no doubt that many of the others have been taken out of context.

minusorange wrote: »

The idea of having these book's lauded as the foundation of our moral outlook is offensive to every bone in my body, and I think that any reasonable person should be ashamed of themselves for helping foster this culture of disillusionment. Believe me when I say this, I respect your right to be a Christian, despite my childish name calling. But I don't respect any of the specific claims you make on the nature of this universe and everything it contains. I may be an atheist but these questions are existentially important to me and I resent the unwarranted privilege you and all other people of faith seem to enjoy in answering them, badly.

I couldn't care whether or not you "respect my claims" or not. I really couldn't. I'm going to continue being a Christian because it makes sense. The secular ideology does not.

minusorange

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll be looking at all of the verses you have cited. Some I can already refute, some will require my own thought and reflection on them.



Referring to an act as abominable is not the same as referring to people as abominable. Bear in mind the Bible tells us to hold fast to what is good and hate what is evil. Likewise other Scripture says not to regard evil as good, or good as evil.

Sinful means falling short of God's standard. If something falls short of God's standard it is sinful. We as human beings fall short of God's standard in numerous ways, and many other things are regarded as abominable in the Biblical text. There is no special case for homosexual acts.



You again confuse regarding an act as an abomination with regarding people as abominable. I personally don't regard anyone as abominable.

As for the confession box, I'm not a Roman Catholic so I've never been to confession with a priest or the like.

I don't hate people. Hatred of other people is also falling short of God's standard. It is a sin like any other.



I don't think the Bible is flawed or inconsistent. As for progress, progress towards what?

I will be looking to every single passage you have noted. "Lapses of reasoning" isn't applicable. I will be dealing with every single passage you have noted, if you will have patience and time to let me do so.

I won't be replying with other verses to the contrary. I will be explaining the verses you have provided using Biblical commentaries where neccessary. Some of which you have already misinterpreted, I have no doubt that many of the others have been taken out of context.



I couldn't care whether or not you "respect my claims" or not. I really couldn't. I'm going to continue being a Christian because it makes sense. The secular ideology does not.

You Win. You always win. Your a waste of time

minusorange

Actually I have one more question if you wouldn't mind answering.

Do you think the bible contradicts itself in any place? Yes or No?

patrickthomas

minusorange wrote: »

I too have read articles that claim it may have a positive affect in the battle against sexually transmitted diseases. But what point are you possibly trying to make. That for a couple of thousand years ignorant men have been mutilating their children because in the early 21st century it will find some sort of justification?

I have had reason to research these articles and they are no longer being taken seriously by the medical community as there are too many variables as regards diet, geographical location, sexual habits and more besides.

Even if there was tremendous evidence to the contrary, it is not possible to entertain the idea of circumcision as an alternative to education in hygiene. It is barbaric quite simply.

I have read the full thread and apart from a load of dogmatic nonsense there is no evidence of any good that religion has done whatsoever here.

minusorange

patrickthomas wrote: »

I have had reason to research these articles and they are no longer being taken seriously by the medical community as there are too many variables as regards diet, geographical location, sexual habits and more besides.

Even if there was tremendous evidence to the contrary, it is not possible to entertain the idea of circumcision as an alternative to education in hygiene. It is barbaric quite simply.

I have read the full thread and apart from a load of dogmatic nonsense there is no evidence of any good that religion has done whatsoever here.

That's good to know. Words of wisdom at the end of long day. Thank you.

philologos

minusorange wrote: »

Actually I have one more question if you wouldn't mind answering.

Do you think the bible contradicts itself in any place? Yes or No?

Yes, I think it does.

There are differences between the Old Covenant, or the agreement that the Israelites were under, and the New Covenant or the agreement with God that people are under after the coming of Jesus Christ.

Animal sacrifice is no longer necessary for atonement in Christianity, penalties such as stoning to death are no longer applicable in Christianity as Christ paid our penalty on the cross, it is no longer what passes through the mouth that defiles but what comes out of the mouth that defiles. There are numerous theological differences that mark Christianity as being distinct from Judaism but at the same time being firmly based on Judaism.

These differences are explained thoroughly. Jesus fulfilled elements of the law, and determined what was to retained when He came.

Same God, different relationships.

minusorange

Contradictions within the new testament?

thebouldwhacker

Sorry Jackass, I believe this is the Philosophy forum, I am talking about religion not specific faiths such as what you mentioned christianity or the bible (however yes, the bible is simple its nothing more than complicated children's story ie adam and eve vs molecular biology and quantum mechanics????)

philologos

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Sorry Jackass, I believe this is the Philosophy forum, I am talking about religion not specific faiths such as what you mentioned christianity or the bible (however yes, the bible is simple its nothing more than complicated children's story ie adam and eve vs molecular biology and quantum mechanics????)

I couldn't care what forum this is, if one makes claim that religions are "simple". One should be able to dismiss that claim.

I'm actually quite amazed that one could regard the Biblical text in it's entirety as a "simple" text.

As for Adam and Eve vs Biology and Quantum Mechanics. I'd find that an absolutely ridiculous comparison as the Bible is not intended to be a science book. Religious beliefs in general tend to explain the why more than the how.

If Genesis 1 - 3 were the only chapters in the Bible, I might agree with you. However, it isn't. If we took Genesis alone there are 47 more chapters.

wrote:

Contradictions within the new testament?

I have no interest in getting into a copy and paste debate with you. If you have any verses that you feel are contradictory check if they are listed here first.

thebouldwhacker

You dont care what forum this is?

I realise you are used to peddling your beliefs over in the religion forum and fair enough thats what its for, philosophy is a different beast. You continually refer to christianity but that is one of thousands of religions man has made up since society evolved. If your going to argue that religion is good lets have your argument, if you have said your piece so be it but if your here to preach your fairy stories about your two thousand year super hero I for one have no interest and will be happy to leave.

The thread is about religion in general and is it good or bad, my thoughts on what the bible is, and what christianity is are well documented in the religion forum so do not need to be rehashed here. Religion is simple,they are rule and control systems that evolved, they adopted rituals, notions of sacred and profane and if this 'conversation' was held three thousand years ago and we were in South America you would be tattling on about some sun god that needed appeasement for something we did...... religion is, it exists because we made it up, the story changes time to time and place to place but since the dawn of man its been the same carp. Some great and powerful 'god' made everything and man comes along and messes up and though we are really good behind it all this god will punish us from time to time. Oh yeah there's probably some version of heaven and hell thrown in too. Its not special, the notion of religion is as old as we are its just some people buy into it and others realise what 'it' is...

patrickthomas

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

You dont care what forum this is?

I realise you are used to peddling your beliefs over in the religion forum and fair enough thats what its for, philosophy is a different beast. You continually refer to christianity but that is one of thousands of religions man has made up since society evolved. If your going to argue that religion is good lets have your argument, if you have said your piece so be it but if your here to preach your fairy stories about your two thousand year super hero I for one have no interest and will be happy to leave.

The thread is about religion in general and is it good or bad, my thoughts on what the bible is, and what christianity is are well documented in the religion forum so do not need to be rehashed here. Religion is simple,they are rule and control systems that evolved, they adopted rituals, notions of sacred and profane and if this 'conversation' was held three thousand years ago and we were in South America you would be tattling on about some sun god that needed appeasement for something we did...... religion is, it exists because we made it up, the story changes time to time and place to place but since the dawn of man its been the same carp. Some great and powerful 'god' made everything and man comes along and messes up and though we are really good behind it all this god will punish us from time to time. Oh yeah there's probably some version of heaven and hell thrown in too. Its not special, the notion of religion is as old as we are its just some people buy into it and others realise what 'it' is...

I would think that religion belongs in the Paranormal forum.