-
Website
http://atheists-and-christians.com/ -
Original page
http://atheists-and-christians.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-think-we-should-stop-teaching.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Have you seen this article (making the blog rounds today)?
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
The problem is one of *lack* of education. When you study the history of scripture since 1000BCE onwards, you appreciate all the theological thoughts people have had. When you ignore that history and take an over-simplistic message ("this is all you need to believe") to the masses, you end up with mass-ignorance and violence.
"Actually there is very little violence associated with Bible-believers. The crusades, inquisition, and violence against supposed witches are for one anti-Bible believing and secondly the combined deaths, while full of injustice, are far less than even 9/11. The real bloodshed was those following the Marxist, Communist, and Social Darwinism philosophies rooted in humanism."
There may be "little violence" associated with "Bible-believers" in this day and age because we are a more educated/more civilized society, compared to the dark ages---for instance, back when "Bible-believers" actually believed that mental illness was caused by "evil spirits", and when they believed that it was perfectly acceptable to keep and beat "slaves", both of which, to my understanding, are biblicallly supported.
Continues...The crusades, inquisition, and violence against supposed witches are for one anti-Bible believing and secondly the combined deaths
' Not sure what "anti-Bible believing" means, unless the intent was that such things are not supported by "scripture", which is false. Have you read Deuteronomy lately? The language therein is pretty clear on how nonbelievers are to be treated. ' Not pretty at all.
The question is, is there a right/good to strive for?
Yes, a big part of it is the avoidance of unnecessary harm. I contend that it is this standard - not a "Divine" standard - that keeps today's "Bible-believers" from actually doing the vile things that "Bible-believers" in the not-too-distant past, did.
Regarding "anti-Bible believing" that was a poor way to say it, I mean that the crusades, inquisition, and harming witches are not acceptable behavior for a Christian according to the Bible. These are actions that are not supported by Jesus as evidenced by the Bible.
So the real right/good is "avoiding unnecessary harm." Who says? Please support that statement as to how you have any grounds to say we "ought not harm people unnecessarily" and who decides whats unnecessary?
see: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html for more.
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. (Exodus 21:20)
"And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." (Exodus 21:5-6)
(And what do you suppose a "servant" refers to?)
"As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may aquire male and female slaves." (Leviticus 25:44, NRSV)
"The Book of Kings instructs that the children of a deceased debtor may be forced into slavery to pay off outstanding debts; similarly it is evident from the Book of Isaiah that, in the Kingdom of Judah, (living) debtors could be forced to sell their children into slavery in order to pay the creditors"
(ref: Wikipedia)
Karla: Also slavery in the days of the Bible was not like slavery in this country. If two peoples went to war, the ones that lost the war would work for the the ones who won.
To give benefit of doubt---even if captives obtained through warfare became "servants", I have to wonder what alternatives they were given. What?..die? Starve to death? Please, let's be realistic.
BTW, beating other human beings "with many stripes", today, would be a crime against humanity in the West. How did this come to be, if the foundation for the "Moral" standard is(was) supposedly Absolute?... as in, unchanging.
Karla: Regarding "anti-Bible believing" that was a poor way to say it, I mean that the crusades, inquisition, and harming witches are not acceptable behavior for a Christian according to the Bible.
It's not "acceptable behavior" now-a-days. Then, it was acceptable. The crusades were religiously motivated; burning witches was religiously motivated:
10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,"[bold added]
11 "or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.
12 "For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you." (Deut. 18: 10-11-12)
Even if today's "Christians" find a particular type of person "detestable" in the eyes of their "LORD", they know that burning these people, or harming them in some other way, is not acceptable. Thus, the same question applies---how do they know it? The "scripture" has not changed with time; Christian's interpretation has changed. With the advancement of science and the over all progress of humankind in general, today's "Christians" are forced to interpret "scripture" differently. This includes looking for ways to rationalize it, just as you have done.
Karla: So the real right/good is "avoiding unnecessary harm." Who says?
Our society; we, the people, say. Mind you, cultural relativity plays a role in ethics, too. And BTW, I am not arguing for an Objective, Absolute, Universal "morality". There isn't one. Sometimes it is perfectly acceptable to "lie" and to "kill".(I'll provide examples of each, if need be)
Karla: Please support that statement as to how you have any grounds to say we "ought not harm people unnecessarily" and who decides whats unnecessary?
It is our nature to seek happiness, Karla. Avoiding unnecessary harm ensures your, and my, survival. Further, evolution has equipped us with nervous systems biased in favor of social, rather than antisocial behaviors.
Supposing you disagree with that, we do not get "morality" from a "Divine" source, nonetheless. If biblegod's "Word" were intrinsically "good"(as Christians believe), then "God" could wake up and decide that killing all "black people" was the "moral" thing to do. Of course, we know that this would be "wrong", not "right", and we know it because something exists that is above the authority of "God".
God is the foundation of all goodness. He is perfectly good. There isn't an external standard outside of him by which we can call logically call something not good. A perfect being doesn't change to be less than what He is, that is plain logic. So perfection doesn't change, so this idea that atheists keep proposing that God could suddenly do evil is nonsensical. Such a God is not being proposed as such a being would not be God. If such a being existed, that was not eternally self existing and perfect then that being would be created and if created and we are back to talking about a perfect eternal self-existing God who is good.
Good doesn't mean that justice is not carried out when necessary, but it does mean His justice is good and perfect as well as His mercy. And that all He does is right. I don't think any honest person would say that evil should not be restrained, yet when God does something to restrain it we call it inhumane and when He doesn't we say He's not all powerful or all good.
Karla: Most of what you said I will need to look into before responding.
Bingo. And therein lies part of the problem..i.e.. you needing to "look into" answers (that fit your theology) "before" you can respond. This only underscores one of my major contentions in all of this.
Let's back up. You said: "The Scriptures do not support beating slaves."
If we agree that "the scriptures" are defined as the textual passages that make-up "the Holy Bible", then yes, if taken at their face-value..i.e...if we accept them for what they actually say, then these passages I provided clearly condone, not only the keeping of slaves, but the beating of them, too, if "slave" is synonymous with "servant".
If you contend that we cannot take the provided passages for what they actually say, then you would need to provide some *objective* confirmation that whatever you contend the passages "actually mean", is true, and that the source is "objective". My intuition - based on previous experiences with Christians - is that you will limit your research to apologetic websites, and/or, literature. If I am right, then to do so is hardly "objective". For instance, take the web link that you provided previously. In other words, you will utilize the approach that is typical of those who harbor religious convictions, that is, they have their conclusion, a priori, and then search for(and accept) only those "facts" that confirm it. This, as opposed to searching all of the available information, and then formulating a "conclusion". You take an ideological approach---you start out with, "the Bible is the inerrant word of God", then look for "facts" that confirm it.
Karla: But for the last part here about it being our nature to seek happiness, does not provide a framework for moral oughtness.
You have carelessly, or intentionally, misrepresented my words(I hope it's the former).
When I say it is our nature to seek happiness, I am not suggesting it is a "framework" for "morality". In fact, I conceded that there is no objective "framework" for "morality". You're mixing two separate issues, needlessly.
Karla: You are saying that morality is then based on our feelings and what makes us feel good. Our survival is then good because we want to survive and nothing more. However, that does not provide why "the other" ought to also survive if my happiness is impeded by their existence.
Again, all human beings, by nature, seek to avoid unnecessary harm. To do so, yes, ensures our survival. I am not saying that our mere survival makes us "moral" beings; I am not saying that mere survival makes everyone "happy". You are conflating the issue by raising what we "ought" do/not do. Okay, we "ought not" harm others unnecessarily *if* we don't want others harming us. That was an attempt to put it into terms that you can understand. However, it's really not as complicated as what you are making it.
Karla: God is the foundation of all goodness. He is perfectly good.
Aside from your belief that those statements are true---do you have any type of objective evidence that confirms them? In other words, the existence of "God" is a separate discussion. I am having this discussion with you under the *pretense* that your particular "God" exists, so therefore, you would need something more than asserting your conclusions about "God" are true because god is "God". Please investigate two things: 1) the fallacy of bare assertion, and 2) circular argument.
You continue...
There isn't an external standard outside of him by which we can call logically call something not good.
Oh? So, whatever is deemed as "not good", is only "not good" because "God" says so? Seriously? So, you wouldn't know that stabbing someone in the neck... say, someone who cuts in line in front of you at McDonalds, is "not good", if it wasn't for "God" telling you it's "not good"? You could affirm that, and keep a straight face?
Continues....
A perfect being doesn't change to be less than what He is, that is plain logic. So perfection doesn't change, so this idea that atheists keep proposing that God could suddenly do evil is nonsensical. Such a God is not being proposed as such a being would not be God. [emphasis added]
Firstly, you misconstrue my argument. My argument has not one thing to do with whether biblegod would "do evil", or not(nevermind that he created it). No, it is a hypothetical situation that I propose, to illustrate a point:
*IF*, for sake of argument, biblegod decided that killing entire ethnic groups was "moral"...say, just all African-Americans, then I contend that today's "Christians" would not see that as the "moral" thing to do; they would not follow such a ridiculous command.
Case in point---such an act is wrong, or "immoral", for reasons irrespective of what "God" thinks. You cannot argue that biblegod would never command such a thing, because he commanded killing in many instances, presumably, just a few thousand yrs ago.
Secondly, if we concede that a "perfect being" is defined as one who, "doesn't change to be less than what He is", then we can conclude that such a being doesn't make mistakes, because making mistakes is clearly being "less than what He is", which is presumably "perfect". Yet, we see the following, with multiple translations to avoid "translation" or "context" issues:
"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." ~ New International Version (©1984)
"The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." ~ New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"The LORD was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and he was heartbroken." ~ GOD'S WORD® Translation
"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." ~ King James Bible
If biblegod can regret making humans, then perhaps it regretted making slavery acceptable, too?
Karla: Good doesn't mean that justice is not carried out when necessary, but it does mean His justice is good and perfect as well as His mercy.
Really? So, is it "good" and "Just" to hold the entire human race responsible("guilty") for something that, a) they had no say in, whatsoever, and b) they have no control over? After all, if we are inherently "evil" by nature, then we have no control over that nature. I don't know about you, but I know that I, personally, didn't make any decisions that led to my being "inherently evil". It was determined for me, by someone elses actions, no less. 'Care to put this into terms that would really want to make an objective person believe this is "Justice", or "good"?
Karla: I don't think any honest person would say that evil should not be restrained, yet when God does something to restrain it we call it inhumane and when He doesn't we say He's not all powerful or all good.
I don't think that any (intellectually) "honest person" can believe that both "evil", and a "God" who is "omnipotent", "omniscient", and "omnibenevolent", can exist simultaniously, which is why I'm having this conversation with you. I don't believe it, and you certainly haven't convinced me with what you offer thus far. This is not to say that you cannot convince me; I just haven't seen any convincing arguments, yet.
I am an atheist and I have grown very disheartened by our self-defeatist culture. I was corresponding with one of the biggest atheist bloggers – the guy who guys by the name of ‘Sabio Lantz’ (he acknowledges that this is not his real name) over at http://triangulations.wordpress.com
I told him that he should read this new book called the Real Messiah by Stephan Huller which I had been turned on to by Robert Price. I wanted to reach out to every atheist blogger to tell them that we can finally disprove the entire rationale of Christianity at one fell swoop.
He send me back a nasty email and then proceeds to slam the book in a manner which is worse than anything ever said about the Real Messiah by religious nutbars:
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Messiah-Throne-Origi...
His negative review of this book is a depressing demonstration of the selfishness and self-defeatism that often pervades individuals on our side of the debate:
“My site and many others were spammed for the sale of this book. That alone is enough to stop me purchasing it until I hear amazing reviews from those I trust.”
The point is that I actually sent him links to positive reviews for
the book in Publishers Weekly:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA66402...
And a list of New Testament scholars who support the book:
http://plainview.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/jesus...
The aforementioned site was from a CHRISTIAN BLOG for God’s sake!!!
Look at the objectivity even with these people when compared to us.
Now I am not against someone having their own opinion about a book. ‘Sabio’ or whatever his fake name is can say whatever he wants about the Real Messiah IF HE READ THE BOOK. Yet it seems entirely self-defeatist to me for we atheists to deliberately sabotage a work whose specific intention is to destroy the Christian paradigm.
Unlike our enemies in the Religious Right we are rarely united, politically naïve and basically content to sit around engaging in intellectual masturbation while our rights are systematically stripped away from us.
My intention was not to spam anyone. I was simply trying to find a way for our side to go on the offense for once. We are always on the defensive while they (the religious folks) take shots at us.
I thought the Real Messiah was special because it is centered around a physical object which the author found in the Basilica di San Marco in Venice. It is universally understood to have been taken there by Italian sailors stole from the most ancient Church of St. Mark in Alexandria in the ninth century. Huller demonstrates that the throne goes back much further than that - i.e. all the way to the beginning of Christianity in Egypt.
In any event this throne is the real deal. It has an inscription written out in Hebrew letters and symbols which prove that Jesus was not the messiah of Christianity. Here are pictures of the throne:
http://www.therealmessiahbook.blogspot.com
We have to defeat the myth of Jesus Christ with another myth – a ‘rational myth’ to coin the language of Robert Price.
I am not asking you to ‘join my cause.’ I just want to defeat the oppressive ideas of Christianity with freedom and rational discourse. Is that really too much to ask?
Disqus flagged this as spam, but it may have done so due to all the links. I will check out the info. Thank you for sharing.
i read that very impersonal and poorly written advertisement for some militant-atheist book.... this part gramatically puzzles me...
"Unlike our enemies in the Religious Right we are rarely united, politically naïve and basically content to sit around engaging in intellectual masturbation while our rights are systematically stripped away from us. "
when we use unlike it means we compare ourselves to... or contrast ourselves from... therefore we unlike (them- who are presumably opposite ) we are....."rarely united, politically naïve and basically content to sit around engaging in intellectual masturbation while our rights are systematically stripped away from us."
Now i am pretty sure that is not what he meant for tell us.
About one of Karla's responces, she mentioned deut 15:12.. to support how slavery is like, temporary ....
i havent looked this verse up, and it may be moot to do so, but to my knowledge if not a few verses from the one quoted or else in Leviticus, if Said slave has married another slave in the master's household, he will either have to give up his spouce, or serve for life, having his ear borne thru on an anvil as a sign of being owned.
and Since i AM responding to a kinda moot post... i guess i have another motive.
Which is to offer a greeting in this all to offtian invisible world, my visit here has been enjoyable. Perhaps i am drawn by your statement above ( and slightly to the right) that you are still very spiritaul...so much of the mythology and cultural/Human archtypes we express these days can be coined in biblical terms... in the very same mannor that shakesphere phrased his poetry in greek mythology.
Ought we bash and destroy his manor of expression because it is moot, or has once been offencive... i mean i am sure some zeallous greeks have made brainwashing cults in the name of zeus too.... no god can bear the iniquity of man's own ego.
well, thank you for the indulgence of reading.. i really didnt have much to say, just a hello.
izm