That's a good point. I personally don't know why anyone would want someone to drop their faith, but obviously there are plenty of people out there who want that.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
That's a good point. I personally don't know why anyone would want someone to drop their faith, but obviously there are plenty of people out there who want that.
I'm glad we cleared this up. My brain isn't suited to dealing with confusion on Sundays...Well I didn't bring the word con into it I believe, but this has just been about the use of that specific word to you it seems, whereas to me I was looking at it in a different way. All good mate, it happens
It makes a huge amount of difference if you regard (or rather disregard) the collection of books as 'stories' rather than viewing it as let's stay historical narrative. 'Stories' is almost a nonsensical categorisation. A third of the NT containing letters to private persons and/or churches offers an incredible amount of valuable insight into the first century development of Judaism/Christianity, issues of ownership, identity, ethnicity, citizenship, economy, trade, contrasts between Roman and Jewish cultures, customs, practices, etc. The texts are important for studies in archaeology, ancient history, literature, etc. From that point view regarding the Bible as a 'book with stories' it is not only a gross over-simplification but a complete misrepresentation of something that this collection of ancient texts just simply isn't.
Fair enough, why didn't you just say that?
But no, I don't disregard the bible I find it very interesting. I suppose I've read it as a bunch of stories because that's how I see it, I of course understand the relevance to history and the insight it shows (which is why I find it so interesting). I'd never compare it to stuff like Peppa bloody Pig though! That comment made me chuckle matey
Fair enough, why didn't you just say that?
But no, I don't disregard the bible I find it very interesting. I suppose I've read it as a bunch of stories because that's how I see it, I of course understand the relevance to history and the insight it shows (which is why I find it so interesting). I'd never compare it to stuff like Peppa bloody Pig though! That comment made me chuckle matey
I was playing Peppa Pig since this morning to my little one while I was writing the comment, so it just came naturally. I played the Jonah and the whale story yesterday which she thought was boring. I think she more interested in the incredibly competitive sibling dynamics of Peppa and George at the moment
Obviously, none of you ignoramiuses ignornaramisus twits have read the apocryphal gospel Peppa and the Whale.
So you pick and choose which parts of the bible you adhere to too. No different from those who use it to legitimse their inherent unease/hatred of homosexuality. Either it's the word of god or it's not. The Catholic Church has done this for centuries. As soon as something is socially unacceptable and would seriously comprise their position they say that oh that part of the bible is wrong. We don't really believe that. It's happened with the oppression of women, it's happened with slavery and it's now happening with homosexuality.
Perhaps nothing will change in your life. You're right, it might make no difference. But that isn't an argument for the existence of a god. To turn it round, what changes in my life if I suddenly come to the conclusion that I've been wrong and their is a god. What changes in my life? Do I become a better father? Do I start making more money? How does my life change practically once I become religious?
My point is it's an irrelevant question.
Because religion is one of the leading causes of oppression worldwide. Religion is the passionate perpetuation of ignorance; ignorance holds us back academically and passion causes us to fight for our own specific thread of ignorance. It's my opinion that in order for the human race to enter the next stage of development we must first unburden ourselves from the costly shackles of ancient superstition and make believe. The world is gradually waking up to reality and we're going to be a whole lot better for it once the remaining oversleepers come around and stretch off the delusions of our our primitive ancestors.
I don't think Pope Francis has given in to societal pressure, personally. I'm surprised at how outspoken he's been. I was expecting it to be a lot longer before a Pope would speak like he has. I imagine many Catholics, particularly in more conservative countries, will have been greatly disappointed by his words.
As for picking and choosing. I think it's silly to think obscure passages that don't sit well with other parts are relevant. For me, the most relevant bit of the bible is Matthew 22:36-40
I would have thought that things relating to the Israelite society 3000 thousands years ago are not really binding for us today. For example, the Torah contains a number of very specific regulations regarding ritual purity, food laws, sacrifices, etc which were all important for the religious life of that community, incl. the role of priests, the meaning and usage of holy objects, observance of certain festivals, etc. That's how ancient societies functioned at that time. What you get from it today is you're extracting the principles while the practical details cannot have any meaning for the people today. There is no sanctuary, for example, there is no temple, no priests, the entire system has ceased to exist.
My questions were directed to Ciderman's point that 'one day I will lose the ignorance of delusion'. So my question was, then what happens? My question relates directly to one of the statements he made earlier.
Why doesn't God wade in with an updated set of ridiculous rules and impracticalities for us to follow then which are relevant to the modern world? It shouldn't be difficult for the all powerful God to keep such holy instructions up to date; humans manage to keep FIFA up to date and we're not the ones blessed with infinite magic.
I'll tell you why. Because he obviously doesn't exist.
But it's the word of God, right? So you are picking and choosing which parts to follow.
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
This is god's word right? Or at least his messengers that DOTA was talking about?
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
This is god's word right? Or at least his messengers that DOTA was talking about?
God hated gays back then but he's come around to the idea now. He's yet to update The Bible to confirm this, but it kinda must be true or else God's a cnut, right? But then, if he hated gays back in the day, we know he's certainly capable of being a cnut, so what evidence is there to show that he's changed? Perhaps the reason God hasn't updated The Bible is because he hasn't changed at all and is still an absolute fecking cnut. If I see the bastard about anywhere I'll spit is his cnut face and take a baseball bat to him; nobody could say then that the cnut didn't deserve it.
Most Christians I've known adhere to the passage I posted above and the many others that share its message of love. They aren't too bothered about random bits about gays, meat, etc. People only tend to bring those up when they wish to justify something they feel for other reasons.
People need scripture to love and treat other human beings well? No they don't.
But how do you justify ignoring the word of your god? It's his word or the word of his messengers. Is god wrong in hating gays? How is it that his message of love is right and to be followed but his message of homophobia is wrong and to be ignored.
I think "Love your neighbor as yourself" is extremely radical, personally. It's at odds with evolutionary advantage.
Because his message of love is far more prominent and in order to love your neighbour you need to ignore the bit about sodomy being an abomination punishable by death.
What's the evidence that Christians are more loving than others? The most secular countries in the world are the most generous with foreign aid, for example.
Many of our morals are at odds with evolution.
I have none, nor do I claim it to be the case.
They certainly are. That's the point of them, I guess. To reduce the selfishness that's programmed in to us.
So how do you explain God's irrational hatred of homosexuals? Is your God a cnut?
If he's truly omnipotent then why is his holy text so confused and contradictory?
He's a nonbeliever who thinks other people need religion.
As I've said before, I don't claim to understand God. Nor do I think Christians need to.
I've never said people need it. I said I think for most people it's a positive influence on them.
Even worse, it's picking and choosing from a selection of articles that are already massively incomplete as the contents of the NT were selected from a much larger collection of materials which were edited/filtered/selected from by a panel of men some 300 years after the vents depicted as the life of Jesus.
Not at all radical, it's just the golden rule basically which isn't even slightly unique to Christian thinking. Plus there's a very strong argument for it being beneficial in evolutionary terms.
It's massively radical and practically impossible. One can only do there best to strive towards it, whilst retaining the selfishness required to keep themselves alive and well.
I really don't think there is. Certainly loving some people has benefits but loving all of them as yourself can only decrease your chances of passing on your genes in the vast majority of environments humans have found themselves in.
Forming social groups of mutual trust is probably one of the most important factors in recent human evolution, far more important than "selfishness".
Do you know in which context Leviticus was written and how does the above text relate to the themes of purification, defilement and sanctification? What is the importance of the cult (temple cult in particular) in ancient Israel? What does Leviticus say about how can people approach God- what are the categories and qualifications required? What is the importance of the cosmological dimension, holy days and the spatial (the progression through the individual compartments)? What is the meaning of the many distinctions made between life and death, clean and unclean, order and chaos, holy and profane (literally common)? How does all this fit into the worship practices of other ancient civilisations?
That's hugely different to loving everyone as yourself, though.
No I don't. All I know is the Bible is supposedly the word of god. Religious people like to keep things simple. Good wants us to love each other so that's what we should do and all that. Well that's a pretty simple sentence that I posted from Leviticus. God, or his messengers you should be put to death if you're a man who has sex with another man.
That one word generates a whole list of issues. No one knows, they believe but they don't know. And the book of Leviticus was written/changed over a period of several hundred years, by different contributors with different points of view and different contexts.
Not at all. 'Social groups of mutual trust' leaves plenty room for the necessary prioritising of yourself, your offspring, your partner and anyone else crucial to the survival of your genes. Loving everyone as yourself does not.
It even goes a step further, John 15:13, Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
It's all just empathy, all stuff people on every corner of the globe have been saying for millennia (and doing for even longer) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule. The word "love" is incidental, it all means the same thing, "treat others as you'd treat yourself".
Not sure Im following, how can 'treat others as you'd want to be treated' be the same thing as 'love everyone as you love yourself'?!