When atheists go too far

ScumLord

philologos wrote: »

Human centric is also a poor claim. The Bible is God's word to humankind, so of course it is going to be addressed to humankind and in terms that humans can understand.

So the bible could be a dumbed down word of god to suit that particular time?

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

So the bible could be a dumbed down word of god to suit that particular time?

It's really applicable to all time. I find that out the more and more I read it. It seems to speak into my life in the 21st century just as much as it spoke into peoples lives in centuries prior.

I think that it is written in human terms because they are the only terms we can understand.

It's the simultaneous blessing and curse of human language. We can't express things in fullness in human language, but yet more often than not it is understandable to others.

Kate10 wrote: »

Having said that I don't see why an atheist should tip toe around crazy beliefs because they fall under a particular religious label.

Neither do I. I think you should say what you like, but I'm perfectly entitled to disagree with you and apply the same skepticism that you boast of to your position.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

It's really applicable to all time. I find that out the more and more I read it. It seems to speak into my life in the 21st century just as much as it spoke into peoples lives in centuries prior.

What about the horrible parts of the Old Testament? Most people simply say they're "outdated" (Because God's will is on a time-line apparently), whats your reasoning?

[And you know the parts I'm talking about, I've quoted a few already]

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

Plenty (most I'd say) of contraceptive devices don't produce this effect in the embryo. I'm sure you know this but you're being disingenuous.

You believe one of the most commonly used contraceptives in this country to be a potential instrument of murder, which you believe should be illegal and its use criminalised, yet you feel it appropriate to make a non-qualified statment like 'I have no issue with the use of contraceptives'......

Given your vehement stance against one of the most widely used contraceptives, isnt it disingenuous for you to make such a broad non-qualified statement?

philologos

Seachmall wrote: »

What about the horrible parts of the Old Testament? Most people simply say they're "outdated" (Because God's will is on a time-line apparently), whats your reasoning?

[And you know the parts I'm talking about, I've quoted a few already]

I know the parts which can be removed from their context. I believe that the moral laws that are contained in the Old Testament still apply but their punishment differs now that we have been forgiven through Christ. Ceremonial, cultural and dietary laws were fulfilled through Christ in that the Gospel was both for Jews and for Gentiles.

The Bible is quite clear about this though. In the prophets Jeremiah speaks of this, and in the New Testament most of the writers speak of this. It's important to note that fulfilled doesn't mean abolished. It just means that Christ has satisfied the conditions of the Law of Moses on our behalf so that we can live for Him and start again.

Admittedly, I still draw a lot of my inspiration from the Old Testament and I still read it on a regular basis. It is the shadow of what was to come according to the New Testament. As such it is important to know of the shadow in order to adequately understand what Christ did.

Bloody Nipples

philologos wrote: »

It's really applicable to all time. I find that out the more and more I read it. It seems to speak into my life in the 21st century just as much as it spoke into peoples lives in centuries prior.

While you may feel it's still applicable to your own life, would the fact that the massive rise in á la carte Catholicism and inversely the decline in the influence of the Church indicate that that opinion is in the minority?

philologos

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

While you may feel it's still applicable to your own life, would the fact that the massive rise in á la carte Catholicism and inversely the decline in the influence of the Church indicate that that opinion is in the minority?

I'm not a Roman Catholic. There are more Christian churches in Ireland than the RCC.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

I know the parts which can be removed from their context.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 wrote:

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

The context is quite clear here. If you disobey your parents you should be killed.

You may interpret this differently or have a reason for why it doesn't apply but that just shows how open to interpretation the Bible is. You read it one way, another Christian will read it another and a skeptic will read it yet another way.

For the Word of God there's a lot of cherry-picking involved when deciding which rules apply and which don't, which are literal and which aren't, which are dated and which aren't.

I agree with the Westboro Baptist Church; it's all or nothing with the Bible. You can't simply bend it to what you want it to be.

Of course you don't believe you are cherry-picking, you've rationalized the bad stuff away. I know that sounds a bit presumptuous but I've read it too and I never came across a reason why it shouldn't be taken as it was written.

philologos

Seachmall: The implications of the moral laws are not the same because of Christ. If we have been forgiven, how can I expect to exact punishment for someone else's sin? Indeed, exactly why Jesus said "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone".

Christianity in a nutshell interprets all previous Scripture in light of Jesus and what He achieved for us on the cross. This is why it differs from Judaism and to Islam which is more based on Judaism than Christianity.

The New Testament is quite clear as to what the implications of Christianity are on the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Hebrew Scriptures are themselves clear that when the Messiah came a New Covenant (or agreement) would be introduced even from the Torah.

I believe the principles of right and wrong are the same, I believe the punishment differs. I should still honour my mother and father certainly.

One has to read things in the context of the whole Bible rather than isolating things from the correct context.

Ado75

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: The implications of the moral laws are not the same because of Christ. If we have been forgiven, how can I expect to exact punishment for someone else's sin? Indeed, exactly why Jesus said "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone".

Christianity in a nutshell interprets all previous Scripture in light of Jesus and what He achieved for us on the cross. This is why it differs from Judaism and to Islam which is more based on Judaism than Christianity.

The New Testament is quite clear as to what the implications of Christianity are on the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Hebrew Scriptures are themselves clear that when the Messiah came a New Covenant (or agreement) would be introduced even from the Torah.

I believe the principles of right and wrong are the same, I believe the punishment differs. I should still honour my mother and father certainly.

One has to read things in the context of the whole Bible rather than isolating things from the correct context.

There is still no evidence for gods existence in any statement you have made. Boiled down, pure and simple, GOD = Mans inability to understand. The decline of organised religions in the western world is mirrored by an increase in evidence based knowledge.

Many have turned to "alternative" spirituality for lifes' meaning, some have sought solace in more fundamentalist beliefs in their hurry to find meaning in a world order in flux. You have found your path. I prefer to wonder at glory of the universe and be at peace with the fact that we little of how this space around us functions. That we strive to answer those questions is important. That we try to fill those gaps in knowledge with "GOD" is troubling to me. It is remarkable that the questioning ethos that Christianity imbued in us may ultimately be it's undoing but that must be regarded in the context of human evolution.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

One has to read things in the context ......

Yes... context...Did you not feel the need to contextualise your views on contraception when you said, quite plainly, that 'I have no issue with the use of contraceptives'...?

Given you believe that one of the most widely used contraceptives in Ireland is a potential act of murder, should be illegal, and the user of it imprisoned, dont you think that is a clear attempt to mislead the reader as to your views on contraceptives?

Or do you actually believe some contraceptives to be a potential act of murder? Do you know what you believe?

philologos

Ado75 - Read the post that I posted to you last. I've linked back to something I wrote on boards.ie a few years ago with reasons why I believe. They will be revised when I get time but that is the best I can do for now.

Seachmall was asking me a question about the contents of the Bible. I answered him with reference to it.

strobe

So, is Philo de-Christianised yet?

No? Crap. Someone PM me when he cracks. I'll be right over here on the edge of my seat.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: The implications of the moral laws are not the same because of Christ. If we have been forgiven, how can I expect to exact punishment for someone else's sin? Indeed, exactly why Jesus said "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone".

Jesus thinks we should dismantle our justice systems
I think this often happens - the dad is a ruthless tyrant and the son turns into a woolly liberal.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

So, is Philo de-Christianised yet?

No? Crap. Someone PM me when he cracks. I'll be right over here on the edge of my seat.

If the d-power-twins can't do it nobody can :pac:

dvpower

strobe wrote: »

So, is Philo de-Christianised yet?

No? Crap. Someone PM me when he cracks. I'll be right over here on the edge of my seat.

You'll be in a frozen over hell a long time before that happens.

Hellm0

Personally I think every person with religious beliefs should be stripped of their right to vote, hold public office or work as an educator. If you choose to belief in nonsense you shouldn't be allowed the same rights as a sane individual.

In addition to that I fully support any and all who ridicule, mock and question the religious.

philologos

Hellm0 wrote: »

Personally I think every person with religious beliefs should be stripped of their right to vote, hold public office or work as an educator. If you choose to belief in nonsense you shouldn't be allowed the same rights as a sane individual.

Luckily Ireland isn't a state-atheist regime alá Mao's China or Hoxha's Albania :pac:

RebelSniper

I'm Openly able to say that im an Athiest living in this Catholic state, I leave you Christians to your own devices unless yous act smart and try shun Athiesm. Our faiths are our choices remember, we aren't all bad people.
Hawkings an Athiest, lees an Athiest, Einstien was an Athiest. Can anyone complain to these mens contributions to the world.

I brose 4chan daily and see all this "If god dont exist explain childbirth" and then hear people making stupid excuses and saying "Christians 1 Athiests 0" Now tell me, why do you Christians think us Athiests say things about yous, because you say them first. Please people, who really gives a damn about each others religion, we are only human.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Luckily Ireland isn't a state-atheist regime alá Mao's China or Hoxha's Albania :pac:

Ah now philologos. You don't need me to tell you that Mao's China or Hoxha's Albania were better than today's Ireland. Everybody knows that the atheistic regimes of the past were infinitely better than the Ireland of today, in all respects.

robinrobin

My thoughts on religion was that it was made to answer questions that were unanswerable, eg. how was the world made, so folk tales like the story of Adam and Eve were come up with. They are no different to old wife tales, entertaining stories made to answer children's questions. Religion was used to fill the gap in our knowledge, so as our knowledge increases, religion decreases. Religion is thus unnecessary in the modern world where we can use proof and rational thinking to get answers.

The rise of education and thinking has meant a fall in religion. We can see this throughout history. In Ancient Greek times, when there were scientists and thinkers, there were atheists. In the French enlightenment of the eighteenth century, there was a sudden rise in atheism. This was because of thinking for oneself. It is clear that religion is more dominant is less educated areas of the world, and greater among less educated people.

Russell's teapot states that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not on the people disproving the claim, eg. I can say that there are unicorns, but it is up to me to prove this true, not to others to prove this untrue. This applies to religion; people can say there is a god, but it is up to them to scientifically validate it not to up to others to prove it wrong.

We can also see that religion is also generally nurture, not nature. This can be seen as religion is generally decided by your parents and where you live. People are not born religious, it is generally taught to them when they are young.They are too young to rebel, or do not how to rationally think at that age. They therefore accept it as truth, like you need to eat, or gravity.

The biggest problem I have with religion is people blindly accepting truths from religious texts. Not all people who are religious do this. I hate when I hear people say 'it is wrong to be gay',etc. and their only objection is because of their religious text. This shows they have no rational argument against being gay, but are merely following what their religion says.

Also, many religious people attempt to prove the truth of the Bible purely by quoting the Bible. It is an endless circle. They say "the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible" and "it says so in the Bible, so it's true". Neither of these are rational arguments.

I personally believe people are responsible for their actions. I think that in situations like the clerical child abuse, there should be no simple forgiveness for the priests involved. They should not apologise to god, they should apologise to the children and their families, and then have to devote the rest of their lives to working selflessly for the benefit of people in need, not just be forgiven because they apologised to the pope, and allowed to continue their work. Nobody has the right to accept an apology that should not be directed towards them.

smash

philologos wrote: »

Testament still apply but their punishment differs now that we have been forgiven through Christ.

philologos wrote: »

The implications of the moral laws are not the same because of Christ. If we have been forgiven

How can you possibly replace the fact that people are more educated and will not undertake in barbaric acts with "we have been forgiven through Christ"?

coffee_cake

Hellm0 wrote: »

Personally I think every person with religious beliefs should be stripped of their right to vote, hold public office or work as an educator. If you choose to belief in nonsense you shouldn't be allowed the same rights as a sane individual.

In addition to that I fully support any and all who ridicule, mock and question the religious.

I think anyone who likes eating mushrooms should be stripped of their right to vote, blah blah blah
:rolleyes:
What a stupid post

Ray Palmer

philologos wrote: »

Not really. My criterion for not regarding contraception as being sinful is that it isn't mentioned in the Bible. That's my criterion for determining what is the teaching of man made institutions or what is based on the Bible which I would hold as God's inspired word.

I don't see how one could say that there is no way to know wrongdoing. It is something that seems to be quite intrinsic to our consciences hence the healthy and normal place of guilt when we do what is wrong in order to rebuke us and to bring us to a knowledge of what is good.

I haven't given up responsibility for deciding myself. I've decided that I want to follow Christ. That's a free decision.

So it is better to give your wife up to be raped if a man is being threatened with rape? Precisely in the bible. God may decide to torture you because the devil challenges him. Even if you claim morals of these stories modern thinking instantly shows this to be like a fairy tale no different from those all around the world.

Conscience is just a creation of social norms from where you were brought up.

If you give up individual decisions to any doctrine or religious text you are choosing not to make the decision yourself. It is true it is a free decision to make that choice but you are giving up individual thought on morals and surrendering free choice. People have read the same text as you and have come up that they should force their religion on others, go forth and multiple as should not use contraception.

It is quite obvious that people who follow the bible are not following the teaching in the bible as they are contradictory in themselves. If people then interpret the bible as they like they can't all be following it correctly. Anybody who claims they are not connected to the Catholic church they are also kidding themselves as that is really how the current bible exists. It's a game of Chinese whispers and you are sending 3 and 4 pence for the dance.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: The implications of the moral laws are not the same because of Christ. If we have been forgiven, how can I expect to exact punishment for someone else's sin? Indeed, exactly why Jesus said "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone".

Christianity in a nutshell interprets all previous Scripture in light of Jesus and what He achieved for us on the cross. This is why it differs from Judaism and to Islam which is more based on Judaism than Christianity.

The New Testament is quite clear as to what the implications of Christianity are on the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Hebrew Scriptures are themselves clear that when the Messiah came a New Covenant (or agreement) would be introduced even from the Torah.

I believe the principles of right and wrong are the same, I believe the punishment differs. I should still honour my mother and father certainly.

One has to read things in the context of the whole Bible rather than isolating things from the correct context.

Can you identify places in the Bible where it states the punishments of the Old Testament are to be disregarded?

Specific statements, nothing that is implied and thus open to interpretation. I see the teachings of Jesus to be blatant contradictions to the punishments of the Old Testament, that's my interpretation. You see a context that explains these, I'm wondering if that's a context you applied to explain away these perceived contradictions or one that is defined in the Bible (I don't recall this but it's a few years since I read it).

If there isn't a statement that explains the change of punishments you have to admit there is a certain amount of subjective analysis. You could be wrong, as could I, but there's no objectively correct way to explain the differences and we maybe projecting our own wants onto it masked as "context".

And the question still remains; why did an All-Loving and All-Good God ever think those were suitable punishments?

philologos

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So it is better to give your wife up to be raped if a man is being threatened with rape? Precisely in the bible. God may decide to torture you because the devil challenges him. Even if you claim morals of these stories modern thinking instantly shows this to be like a fairy tale no different from those all around the world.

No actually, the Bible doesn't claim that this is moral. The Biblical text often refers directly to peoples mistakes to serve as an example to others as what not to do.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Conscience is just a creation of social norms from where you were brought up.

It seems to be an inherent characteristic of human beings. More than mere conditioning is involved.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If you give up individual decisions to any doctrine or religious text you are choosing not to make the decision yourself. It is true it is a free decision to make that choice but you are giving up individual thought on morals and surrendering free choice. People have read the same text as you and have come up that they should force their religion on others, go forth and multiple as should not use contraception.

I don't actually. I decided for myself to become a Christian. That was my full independent decision.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is quite obvious that people who follow the bible are not following the teaching in the bible as they are contradictory in themselves. If people then interpret the bible as they like they can't all be following it correctly. Anybody who claims they are not connected to the Catholic church they are also kidding themselves as that is really how the current bible exists. It's a game of Chinese whispers and you are sending 3 and 4 pence for the dance.

I've simply said that for all intents and purposes that I'm not a Roman Catholic. By the by, the Bible existed prior to Nicea however it wasn't compiled in a single volume.

As for Chinese whispers, contemporary Biblical scholarship / textual analysis disagrees for the most part.

Ray Palmer

Seachmall wrote: »

Can you identify places in the Bible where it states the punishments of the Old Testament are to be disregarded?

I think many people take the he who is without sin cast the first stone as that but I agree with yo we should be gauging out eyes and chopping hands if we were following the bible.;)

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

No actually, the Bible doesn't claim that this is moral. The Biblical text often refers directly to peoples mistakes to serve as an example to others as what not to do.

Well considering yer man who offered his daughters up was the only one who got saved because he was the only one worthy enough...

Seachmall

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I think many people take the he who is without sin cast the first stone as that but I agree with yo we should be gauging out eyes and chopping hands if we were following the bible.;)

That's a contradiction as far as I see it, it says nothing about the context (unless you super-impose the context onto it).

smash

philologos wrote: »

The Biblical text often refers directly to peoples mistakes to serve as an example to others as what not to do.

As in, don't disobey your father or you'll get stoned to death?

Or are you going to say that's not the case any more because christ died and everything stopped being like that but still, we should listen to the message.