|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 13, 2011 09:18 AM |
|
|
I'm, apologizing for everything I may have written more than once in the following post.
Quote:
Second the people who do not believe in a religion, can not seem to separate the religion from the people IN the religion. When somebody does something horrible, and claims it is in the name of religion..often it is not. It is their own twisted interpretation, or they follow somebody who has such twisted interpretations. Through fear, ignorance, or something else (or combination).
People should believe what they will, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. When a PERSON (who uses religion for an excuse, as they would anything else they could use) harms somebody..the whole should not be blamed. That would be like blaming Elodin for something JJ did. Or blaming Corribus for this long rambling post. 
Elodin has a right to believe whatever he wants, even if I disagree with his interpretation. ... It is not a matter of ignorance, but what we believe. He can not prove his version is the only/true version because there is no evidence that his god is the one true god. HE believes it is, and that is all that really matters imo. I do not, as I interpret the bible differently (and of course he thinks I interpret it wrongly which is his right).
They interpret the religious texts different, but that is not the fault of the religion but of the people. Because man (woman) is flawed, but men (women) are also individuals.
There is a very fatal error in this line of thought, and that starts with the fact, that we are not speaking about a cooking recipe, but about RELIGION. Religion isn't just some kind of tale like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings which may be fun to read or not. Religion is more. It explains the world and it DEMANDS things from people. People who "believe" have to do things and leave others. It tells people what is wrong and what is right, what to do and what not, how to behave, about gender roles, in short:
It has been the most important normative force within society.
That has extremely important consequences:
Quote:
They interpret the religious texts different, but that is not the fault of the religion but of the people. Because man (woman) is flawed, but men (women) are also individuals.
That is a very serious error in judgement. See, the nature of a religion is, that people have faith in it. However, what happens, if a Religion isn't CLEAR? If it CAN be interpreted? Worse, if it's not free of contradictions? IF IT'S NOT PREFECT?
Because religions CLAIM to be exactly that. THE TRUTH!
Truth means exactly that: perfectly and absolutely true.
As long as a religion does not fulfill that, the error is in the religion, not in the humans.
Because, and that's the second point, if you DO believe in said perfect truth - and we know one who does - there is just no room for doubt or different interpretations; there must not even be different (correct) interpretations (that is, all other interpretations must necessarily be faulty), because if there WERE, it wasn't perfect anymore, and if it wasn't perfect anymore, then you couldn't have ultimate faith in it - there might be doubt, and doubt is the deadly enemy of faith.
Let's recapitulate:
1) RELIGIONS claim to be THE TRUTH. If they wouldn't, they were just another story from old, like a fairy tale.
2) Religions MAKE DEMANDS from people. People have to do this and that, to live so and so, NOT to do this and that, behave in certain ways, follow certain procedures, observe rules and regulations.
3) Religions give a certain perspective beyond the grave, an explanation what will happen with everyone when they die.
4) Religions are based on FAITH.
=>
5) The flaw is, that each and every Religion claims to be true in an absolute way, but ISN'T - if it was there would be no contradiction and no room for error.
Based on that claim religion demand FAITHFUL (as in, blind trust), that is, ABSOLUTE followship.
The problem comes, when religion cannot fulfill the claim to be perfect and absolutely true, because they are not free of contradictions and unclear passages.
And that is your fundamental error here, Mytical. You (and lots of people, actually) WOULD LIKE religion to be philosophy. Some kind of ... CONCEPT, explaining everything in a believable, logical, rational, OPTIMISTIC way, giving everyone reason to think about basic social and individual ideas... but that is not something many people will have FAITH in. They may consider a couple of ideas, but everyone is free to reject them, so it doesn't really have any impact. It's like discussing, how long school should last.
This is not the way society formed itself, though.
Because religion is a different beast - WAY more powerful. You hav to understand, that the past was different. The scientific method wasn't known. Prove wasn't a concept. KNOWLEDGE wasn't based on scientific finds, verified and put to practical use and test. In that sense KNOWLEDGE had a completely different meaning than today. Today, the saying is, believing is not knowing, but EARLIER believing meant exactly that.
A true believer KNOWS that what he believes is true. That's actually the true, old meaning of the word believe. Faith, REAL faith, has no room for doubt. Naturally, that means, a true believer is permanently confronted with people who simply don't see the truth. God is in every raindrop, in every eye, EVERYWHERE, for those who have eyes to see - but they close their eyes.
See the problem? People will do so many things that are bad. They pull society into a direction away from the truth - can you let that happen? After all, you KNOW they are wrong...
I think you get the gist.
So I repeat - the error is the concept of religion. Since it demands absolute faith and followship it will work desaster-free only if ITSELF is in fact absolutely TRUE. It can only be true without any contradictions or ambiguous text lines (and since it is supposed to come from higher beings, the fact that humans are imperfect shouldn't matter).
See that?
I might add: The only religion that CAN work desaster-free is the TRUE one, the one that is perfectly and absolutely TRUE, and I would also add, that the one-and-only WOULD work BECAUSE of that.
On the other hand, for a true believer to actually be one, they must assume that it IS perfect in any way, which means, for them there ARE no contradictions or ambiguities.
That is the misconception of moderate people like you and Baklava: for you, Religion isn't Religion, but PHILOSOPHY, maybe with an added twist or two. You pick the ideas you like and build a philosophy from it, but in doing that you are actually leaving the Religion Sector. You transfer SOME or PART of the normative concepts and ideas of that religion into something different, that actually is no religion anymore, but a personal concept. It is certainly not correct to claim THAT PERSONAL CONCEPT was actually the true thing behind that, and everything else was human-made flaws.
And lastly:
Quote:
Communism, though, for the 86th time, is a political and economical system, unlike Christianity which is a personal philosophy and religion which doesn't depend on the current sociopolitical climate to be practiced, nor was it ever meant to be the governing body of a nation. That's a major, major difference.
There is a lot to be said here, because this isn't the whole truth. Communism is no "system", it's an ideology, and it's an ideology that is based on a philosophy. Communism is the "(im)practical" state of transition to the utopia concept based on that ideology; where that concept has been put into practise, there is no difference whatsoever between where the idea of Christianity has been put into practise.
In other words: the time and countries when THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY (THE CHURCH) actually RULED compares quite well with the time and countries where COMMUNISM (THE PEOPLE'S PARTY) ruled.
Now sure, there IS a difference: while communism is based on a philosophy, it's also an active ideology with the aim to change the world via the political level on the economical level and THROUGH THAT on the individual and social level.
On first look Christianity is missing that. But only on first look. On second look, if you take a look at the philosophical aspect, it's the same, only the other way round: here the idea is to change the world starting on the individual and social level, which would lead to changes on the political and economical level by force, since people were different (better).
BOTH used "agitators" to spread their truths. For both it all went wrong when they actually got to power. And while coming to power is certainly a specific goal for the communists, it shouldn't have been one for the Christians, because while communists dictate change, Christians change themselves, so no instrument of power was needed.
Note, that this is pretty damning for both. IN THEORY, communism should have led to a better world, going through the motions of revolution, party rule, abolishment of private propertym, dictatorship of the Proletary => paradise. It failed. Vietnam may be considered not a complete failure. Cuba was economically aided by the former USSR and may not be a complete failure either, still, as a whole, it smells like failure, it sounds like failure and it looks like failure, so it probably IS a failure.
HOWEVER, in theory Christianity would have led to a better world as well, "agitating" ever more people to believe, resulting in ever more good people, resulting in much juster, milder and better rulers and political and economical structures - without any necessity for the Church to rule, or, if they ruled, they would have had to rule at least in keeping with their basic "philosophy". So here as well we should have had a "process to paradise", but what we got was FAILURE. Here as well we might actually name a couple of examples that may not be considered a complete failure. For example Baklava cited a few you might accept. But LOOKING BACK, seeing that, just as the communists made the first few legs of the journey successfully, let's call it the Christian movement seems to have made quite some progress in the first couple of centuries, the actual result can only be considered a failure as well.
The irony is, that the actual utopias are not so much different from each other. The basic Christian idea, to love each other, would, enacted, ultimately lead to a society in which private property - material goods and gain - would have no value in any real sense. People would work for the pleasure of doing so, in lively communion and friendship with their neighbours, SHARING all material things, praising the Lord and His Glory and thankful for that everything turned out so well, while it would be the same thing in the ultimate classless society, everyone sharing everything, praising THEMSLVES because they MADE everything turn out so well. (Just as a note: These utopias are of course BOTH rather debatable, and the fact THAT they are, constituate a flaw already, and quite a significant one, so we don't need to discuss the utopias here).
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 11:33 AM |
|
|
Some people (say - Nietzsche or Joseph Campbell) would say that the communism is a modern version of the Christianity and in a sense they would be right. And the communism, just like th Christianity, could have multiple interpretations. The ideas of Marx and Engels were adequate for XIX century and referred to the political and economical landscape of Western Europe (and to some extent - USA). The revolution was never supposed to be initiated by a backwater, semi-medieval society like that of the Russian Empire and that's what Lenin had to work with. Add that the latter was much more of a realist than an idealist and you get the USSR and all the "twists" associated with the localization and the "practicalization" of the original ideas. The problem is that, just like with the Christianity, some of the ideas were transformed into dogmas and completely lost touch with the reality while at the same time creating a system of contradistinction with "correct" and "incorrect" interpretations of the what ultimately became a sacred text (i.e. the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin) which it was never meant to be. But even if all this ended with terribly flawed results, it was still somewhat natural because the first wannabe communist state had to survive in an extremely hostile internal and external environment so implementing some ideas in their original reading just turned to be impossible.
Anyway, the point is that there is indeed no way to keep one idea "pure" and "uncorrupted" if it is supposed to be implemented in practice - and ironically, this is one of the main points in Marx' philosophy. The Christianity is no different no matter how much the believers in Christ claim the opposite. St. Augustin tried to reason that the true Church itself can never be corrupted by the actions of its agents and subjects because it is not something of this world unlike the latter, i.e. it is flawless in itself. Such a church however is non-existent just like a perfect human is non-existent. The real church and the real humans (including Christians) are and will always be flawed and the ideal will always remain unreachable. And the circle is closed.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 02:22 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 14:31, 13 Dec 2011.
|
@JJ
The eventual goal of communism is to govern the world politically and economically, while Christianity essentially should not be interested in that. You can't practice communism in a capitalist system, because they're pretty much mutually exclusive. Living by Christian principles isn't mutually exclusive with any concrete system and there is no such thing as a "Christian system of government", aside from, someone might wrongly say, "theocracy" which would today be a form of clerical fascism. It's usually just one political system or the other, saying it's there with the blessing of the Church and God. Not to mention quite important differences in the theory of how to get to the utopia - and though their utopias might seem similar to you, they're not that much alike (Christ's philosophy is far from equal to the full package of communist ideals, and you realize that full well - no matter how much someone may take the communist demagogic approach of calling any form of sharing and helping each other the sign that people tend toward communism) - especially in the methods of getting there (now you'll argue that Christians often used force to get to power and that it's about misuse of power everywhere. Then I'll say that, while the founders of communism considered violent takeover a necessity, the founders of Christianity were against that). In fact, Christianity hardly even mentions utopias, at least on this world - you could consider Heaven as a metaphor for an earthly paradise to which Christ's teachings would eventually lead, but that's material for another long and fruitless discussion, since the economic system of Heaven is hardly defined anywhere.
All in all, Christian political power and influence of the Church, as embodied in, for example, the Catholic Church until a while ago, is not based on the teachings of Christ, but on the contrary, things that Christ told us to be careful about because of all the wolves in sheep's clothing and whatnot. The Catholic Church managed to become what Christ was trying to replace in the old Judaism, and probably worse. I understand how it started and why it started, but it was based on the erroneous assumption that a body that governs kings would not be interested in power itself. Which is pretty wrong, as history teaches us, and as I believe Christ understood and that's why it wasn't his idea. Whereas communist theory itself is strongly intertwined with the idea of violence and coercion.
Thing is that there can be no limit to these discussions because one side may, theoretically, compare things erroneously and draw flawed conclusions forever (often knowing they're wrong but causing the other side to have to answer), and it takes far less effort for it to do that than for the other side to explain in detail why it believes otherwise. It's a war of attrition, and these tactics are like those diseased blankets that the US army gave to the Indians during the 19th century genocide.
@MVass
I'm not overlooking that they're basically the one and same God. Christ was a Jew and it'd be awkward as well as incredibly impractical if he tried to tell people he was sent by Odin, or that he was the son of another God all along. He simply implied heavily, if not that openly, that people got a few things wrong about their religion, and that God doesn't really want them to stone people, in fact it'd be grand if they were a tad nicer to each other. I am fully entitled, even as a Christian, to not believe literally in things like the Noah's Ark story or that women were crafted out of Adam's rib, but to see them as metaphors and myths tied to the folklore of the Jewish people and their life philosophy. Not to mention that no Christian really gathers the neighbourhood to stone their kid when it refuses to do the dishes, or comes out as gay. So the Old Testament is pretty much regarded by everyone as a historical document, which serves its purpose as the basis for Christ's appearance, which said a lot in interesting allegories (because the Jewish literary style back then preferred them over comparison), and which provides an interesting insight into the mentality of a people about a thousand years BC. Before you ask, yes, I believe the Bible was written, interpreted and edited by humans.
It's simply that a lot of atheists, whenever arguing against Christians, are overlooking the undeniable changes that Christ brought with his teachings, and clinging to the Old Testament's cultural differences from today's society like a cow glued to an airplane.
What bits from Paul and Timothy are you specifically talking about? Been a while since I read the thing. Before you answer, I consider Jesus' word to be the main pillar of Christianity - over anything else. Apostles were often right, and possibly sometimes wrong - as shown by Judas, Peter and the others in a lot of places, they were as human as anyone else. They were trying to understand what Christ was saying - sometimes they were more practical and couldn't fully understand him, sometimes they spoke or acted according to their time and age, sometimes according to their instincts and emotions. Even Christ had his moment of doubt on the cross. I don't think any of them wanted us to follow them blindly. I think they all wanted us to understand and feel for ourselves, especially Jesus.
Whether you personally agree with Jesus' teachings or not is hardly a measure of whether they are that good, considering you are a hardcore materialist and you base your ethics on Pareto's notion of efficiency, which even its author did not consider an ethical thing (I don't mean this as an insult, and I trust you won't take it as one). Your understanding of terms from well-being to love, therefore, differs radically from that of Jesus - as it lacks an entire dimension, the immaterial one in this case. That's why you have trouble figuring out why anyone would be Christian, I think.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 03:21 PM |
|
|
|
Actually the historical connection between the Old and the New Testaments are still being discussed but it's more or less certain that their historical interpretation has almost nothing to do with their religious one. And of course the majority of the Christians either don't know or don't care about this (or in certain cases some automatic script triggers and they start quoting the Bible to prove that A means A because it's not written as B).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 04:24 PM |
|
|
Bak, I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make.
If it's the point I'm thinking, I would just quote me:
Quote:
Now sure, there IS a difference: while communism is based on a philosophy, it's also an active ideology with the aim to change the world via the political level on the economical level and THROUGH THAT on the individual and social level.
On first look Christianity is missing that. But only on first look. On second look, if you take a look at the philosophical aspect, it's the same, only the other way round: here the idea is to change the world starting on the individual and social level, which would lead to changes on the political and economical level by force, since people were different (better).
Both communism and Christian religion aim to "govern" the world, albeit in a completely different way which I described above: communism claims that change is only possible when changing the economic foundations, which means, communism want to better the world by doing that, ending in a classless society where everyone is his neighbor's comrade and shares everything.
Conversely, the Christian belief bets on conversion of single individuals: if enough individuals can be converted, THEY will actually change the world to the better, without any definition or idea how that would look in detail, except that ever more people would comradely love each other.
If the Christian idea would have worked, the Church - as an administrative focal point - would have to had no power at all; instead people would have been converted to the fair belief.
That, however, never worked - it shattered when it met the higher powers, which converted the Christians, not the other way round (which by the way, is one ofthe reasons Communism looked like it did, rejecting that basic idea as useless).
So the Christian belief as a means to make the world a better place is as much of a failure as communism as the same means.
The difference is, some people may still believe in Christ the saviour and all that, but that is religion, not philosophy, and religion is based on personal faith - but I don't want to go through that one again.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 04:28 PM |
|
|
@Bak
Quote:
Before you answer, I consider Jesus' word to be the main pillar of Christianity - over anything else.
And what is Jesus' word, exactly? The four gospels? Well, they are written by Apostles, admitted by you to be "human" - i.e., prone to error - and in any case not always consistent. So what do you really believe?
Seems a bit like cherry picking to me. In the end, if you're going to choose what parts of the Bible you like and what parts you don't like - that is, use your brain to formulate a moral idealogy - then why do you need religion in the first place?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 04:48 PM |
|
|
Little trivia that has been pointed out in this thread before...
The Old Testament: The old Jewish texts that are there so that people can see the history of their religion (if they are christian). They do contradict the New testament because that's what Jesus did preach. To be more exact, he preached a new order that replaced the old.
Therefore making a comparison between the teachings of the New and Old testaments and yelling "Aha! Contradictions" just makes me facepalm. The contradictions are supposed to be there, since it is supposed to be a fix to the parts of the system that were broken.
The New Testament: The preachings of Jesus Christ and the revelations of prophets/ struggles of his disciples. They teach a new religious order that does not interfere or entangle with government and deal specifically in the vast majority of cases with the choices and spiritual lives that people make. This does contradict the old testament a bit since it is supposed to be a "Fix" for the Jewish faith and certain teachings were not working. The people who wrote it have 4 different perspectives on life and so they wrote about different things (Luke about the people, John about the miracles, etc), but they all wrote towards one goal. The preachings of the son of god.
Ahmen to you brothers! *Takes of preachers robes*
As an aside:
The topic of communism as little to no correlation with religion due to it being a matter of society, not faith. Therefore, an imperfect and excessively weak argument is the best you will get from that comparison, and I'm going to have to ask that we please get back on topic.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 04:55 PM |
|
|
Yeah, it was like "Ok guys, see these things written there in the Old Testament? Now don't take them very seriously, now I'll explain to you how it actually works." Facepalm indeed. In history there is no sequence and once in a while certain things fall from the sky to make the life of the people less boring. 
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 05:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, it was like "Ok guys, see these things written there in the Old Testament? Now don't take them very seriously, now I'll explain to you how it actually works." Facepalm indeed.
It was more of a, "Guys, you were doing a good job before, but now you're doing it wrong so I'ma make it easier for you to do it right" than a "Disregard everything you were taught before" kind of thing...
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 05:08 PM |
|
|
@Corribus
Quote:
I don't know about that, but fundamentalist Christians did go a long way in establishing breakfast cereal as an acceptable part of the Western diet.
<L> I talked with a 7th-day Adventist for about 3 years. They are very focused on all of the dietary laws of the Bible. As much as I disagreed with their lawful approach to living, they do have some core stances that are wise to follow regarding health. Science has indeed confirmed some of their "practices" and they are older than the science that confirmed them. e.g. Pork. Btw, My correspondent was on a crusade against cows-milk and advocated drinking soy-milk instead. Not much after sharing his belief; I read that 2 of the top 3 foods that provide the best cancer-fighting enzymes were legumes.
@Bak
A very good post.
Quote:
The Eastern Orthodox Church, for example, is often overlooked in these discussions, because people don't really know much about it. Most of these discussions are led by Western people who had little to no contact with it, which is a pity - although, considering it didn't get itself involved in the crusades, witch-burning, torture and murder of scientists etc, it's kind of... uneventful.
I doubt that the ignorance in the West is has widespread as it once was. I believe that over the last century; a favorable awareness of the EOC has been steadily growing in the west. My opinion is not based on any evidence beyond a surprising number of my own contacts with several converts to the Church that came from very diverse Christian backgrounds. Many had left the RCC.
I am curious about one thing here. I thought that it was the Eastern See that called on the sitting Pope in the west to send a "small army of Knights" to assist him in reclaiming his lost lands? (circa 1086)
@Mytical
Quote:
Second the people who do not believe in a religion, can not seem to separate the religion from the people IN the religion.
Good post Mytical I just want to highlight this for one reason; this is true for all things Man/Woman. This is not meant for you because I'm sure you've seen it too.
Honestly I've grown tired of debate because no matter what the topic; there always seems to be those with good intentions (I hope) that have bad preparations for whatever topic they engage. I think this is growing in our 24/7/365 world because so much information ( a mixed-bag of reliability) is on the web and too many people do what too many do with the Bible (pro or con); cutting out snippets to build their case.
I lived the old saying "knows enough to be dangerous" and in my case, proved it to be very accurate.
@JJ
Quote:
It has been the most important normative force within society.
Surely you realize that the truth of your own statement here means that it has also shaped you to some extent? Since present-day People-kind in general are a collection of all thought/argument that has preceded them in History.
e.g. Athens + Simon de Montfort + English parliament + American Republic + many other unseen/unknown democratic conflicts/ideas and then along comes you or I and our versions of the mixture, with or without our own contribution or involvement.
Quote:
But LOOKING BACK, seeing that, just as the communists made the first few legs of the journey successfully, let's call it the Christian movement seems to have made quite some progress in the first couple of centuries, the actual result can only be considered a failure as well.
Hmmm. This is quite a high seat of authority. Since you appear to believe that you are in this superior position of judgment, <imo> there's not anything that anyone can say that will not sound like an attack. <imo> Keeping things very general; The only time we have final failure is when we quit.
@Zenofex
Quote:
Such a church however is non-existent just like a perfect human is non-existent. The real church and the real humans (including Christians) are and will always be flawed and the ideal will always remain unreachable. And the circle is closed.
<imo> Not only is the circle as you call it...still open (where was the curtain-call for people?: <iow> "the point of no return"?) High goals/standards to aim for, should never be dismissed. Wouldn't that absolutely kill "what-if?" Just because we are not perfect and cannot be, are you thinking we should not bother to try? You may not be interested but Paul stated in setting goals his effort to work towards perfection (in love etc.)He was honest with all others when he admitted that he was not there and always striving.
When I was engaged in various sports, I always set the bar higher to make the practice and effort a serious goal. Most of the time I may have not met whatever my lofty-measure was but I almost always ended, whatever the intent, with a finer tuned ability. <imo> My youthful efforts and gains at swishing 3-point shots..would one day work the very same with my actions towards other folks.
@mvassilev
{quote]The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are one and the same. And Jesus is God. So you can't overlook the Old Testament God when looking at Christianity.
<imo>To respond to this would take quite the post.
From my side of the cross: What happens to a person as they mature in Christianity, is that the purposes and nature of the two Testaments become very clear. This cannot be seen with little or no allotted time in study and prayer; whether the person claims to be a Christian or not. But the cold truth is that even after all study etc. the spirit of the student will still need to reside in faith and be able to believe in things outside of his/her-self and allow the existence of "mysteries"(Paul's take). <imo> God, (nor anything else...outside) can ever sit on the throne of a soul to give purpose and direction; if that soul will not get off of it.
Folks that believe that its all about them are inside the Church and outside the Church and in all social organizations of any kind on this planet.
Quote:
2. How about Paul and Timothy? There are some objectionable things in there. If you tell us to reject them, then on what basis do you pick and chose what to accept and what to reject?
One word "Context". What we have from Paul are personal circulars sent to the Churches he founded, that were given to address specific circumstances. The things he said to the woman of Corinth was absolutely about setting those women on a different path, to "Set-them apart" from the women of the street(Corinth was the then famous mecca of sex). e.g. Paul was very big on eliminating observable conflicts from the gitgo. In one city he made his tents and would take no money of support for his ministry. He did not want money to be up-front in the discussion to follow with the men of that city. He felt it his obligation to remove stumbling blocks that would interfere with sharing God's word and it was a principle that he taught as well in his position of being a leader of the church. If you would bother to read 1st Cor. CH 13 you would get a better picture of him.
Quote:
3. Jesus’ teachings aren't that good anyway. For example, he equates divorce and adultery.
So, if a woman betrayed you and broke your heart then I said; "get over it" ...you'd be AOK with with my imposed demand and expectation?
If I did this to my wife I would have to be a heartless tyrant to demand she do anything. <imo> By my decision to abandon my Vow, I've reduced myself to the status of friend..."maybe"...and only then, if she would yet permit it. I've no doubt at all that Christ would want Love to rule then too, but Love cannot be a law. It would become nothing more than obedience.
Quote:
He taught not to be concerned with one's well-being. He taught not to judge others. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Hmmm, folks don't want the concept of a God to judge people but are fine with people judging people?
You err in your assessment of Christ and well-being. All that he taught was about the well-being of a person's spirit, no matter what the physical realm may throw their way. Attack, slavery, illness, fear etc.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 05:32 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 17:34, 13 Dec 2011.
|
Quote:
It was more of a, "Guys, you were doing a good job before, but now you're doing it wrong so I'ma make it easier for you to do it right" than a "Disregard everything you were taught before" kind of thing...
While this is partially true it still doesn't mean that the Old Testament is disconnected from the New one in terms of "validity" for the Christian religion, like something obsolete. At least not from a historical perspective.
Quote:
Just because we are not perfect and cannot be, are you thinking we should not bother to try?
Precisely, but not because of the reason which you probably imagine. There is no commonly agreed upon definition for "perfection", especially when moral values are concerned. So you may be striving for something which will be condemnable in another society. And you are not supposed to enforce your own ideal for perfection to the other people in your own society if that society is free enough to allow the individuals to choose for themselves what they should believe in, respectively what they should find "right" and "wrong" (if anything at all). And that's what organized religion usually does. On the other hand, excusing the practical disasters caused by one idea with the explanation that the idea itself is pure and untouched by the actions of the people who misunderstand it or are just imperfect in general leads nowhere. It's like saying that no matter that every single person worshiping the Deity of Non-Raping is a rapist, they have always been rapists and will always remain rapists, they are still following a religion that makes sense.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 05:48 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 18:02, 13 Dec 2011.
|
@Corry
The four gospels that managed to survive everything that happened to the Bible throughout history are, unfortunately, pretty much the main and only source of info on Jesus that we have. However, no matter the differences, they agree on quite enough for us to be able to reconstruct Jesus' vision and understand him as a person and thinker - the core of it, at least. Apostles could have made mistakes in recounting exact events, they may have forgotten about a few things, screwed up the time table, but what they all had in common is that they remembered the essence of Christ, as well as the hardships that happened around it. They did their best to spread the word as they remembered it, and most of them went through hell on Earth cause of it. We may or may not take what it says there as absolutely historically accurate; to me, it doesn't really matter. It's certainly more plausible than a lot of accounts we base our perceived knowledge of history on, but that's beside the point.
Someone may insist that there's no evidence Christ even ever existed. Which is where the faith bit comes in. In the sense that I don't give a crap if he existed or not, I believe that guy in the Bible was awesome and we have a lot to learn from him. In that sense, he most definitely did exist, no matter his actual... well, existence record. I promise I won't use the word "exist" again in this post.
Because that is the point, and the answer to the question you posed - to learn from others. From those that walked some paths that we now walk. Sorry for the cheap choice of words, I'm in a hurry, I'll bro up the text when I find the time. I'm surprised to see you, as a scientist, formulating a question about why we need religion like that. In science, philosophy, social theory, any aspect of life, we use and work on what people already used and worked on and left for us. We use a basis that we agree with, without the need to burn it down and figure it all out again. We use other people's experience and sources, the shoulders of giants, as Newton said, for a reason. Sometimes, it turns out that people before us were wrong about a thing or two. We still work on that. They were right about a lot; sometimes their time just didn't allow them to move or see further, sometimes they made a mistake which we noticed.
In the end, that's what Jesus did with the Old Testament. He worked with what he had, implemented his ideas, tried to explain people why he believed that was the right way. He and his disciples were important scholars of ethics no matter if you're a theist or not, and it's senseless to disregard their teachings simply because you don't like the Catholic Church or don't believe in a higher power.
Atheists often like to see religion as something followed blindly and atheism as something reached by reason. Theists see it the other way around. Fact of the matter is that, way before any of us was born, both religion and atheism turned out to be a man's personal choice and what remains now is pretty much ancient butthurt from both sides.
@JJ
Gnomes put it beautifully (thumbs up for pretty much everything he said just now, but especially this bit) when he asked us to drop the communist/political comparison subject, especially since we both said what we had to say on the matter. I mean, it's ok, I'm right, you're wrong, no need to beat a dead horse here. We can continue in another thread if you like.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 06:28 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:32, 13 Dec 2011.
|
Quote:
The point is to learn from others. From those that walked some paths that we now walk. I'm surprised to see you, as a scientist, formulating a question about why we need religion like that. In science, philosophy, social theory, any aspect of life, we use and work on what people already used and worked on and left for us. We use a basis that we agree with, without the need to burn it down and figure it all out again. We use other people's experience and sources, the shoulders of giants, as Newton said, for a reason. Sometimes, it turns out that people before us were wrong about a thing or two. We still work on that. They were right about a lot; sometimes their time just didn't allow them to move or see further, sometimes they made a mistake which we noticed.
You're surprised? I'm surprised. I'm surprised that you of all people would resort to a strawman argument to prove... well, what, exactly?
Yes, we learn from other humans because there's value in experience - there are any number of books, much better written than the Bible, in fact, and without all the mythological filler, that can offer enlightenment through human experience or thought. But none of them are treated as a religious dogma or venerated as much as the Bible is by the rank and file followers of Christianity. You don't see pastors and priests reading, in their services, exerpts of Aristotle, or Plato, or Spinoza, or Kant, or any of the other great numbers of philosophers who have penned their thoughts about morals and ethics over the last two thousand years, thoughts that might offer wisdom through human experience to worshipping congregations. Christian religious services read passages almost exclusively from one source, the Bible, and that's because religion, as you well know, is not about formulating moralistic philosophy through human experience or thought. It's about learning a moralistic code through divine instruction.
Christians don't read the Bible and live by its lessons primarily because it's an account of human experience - but because it is an instruction manual published by an infallable moral authority. Christians don't listen to Jesus because he was a human with a lot of good, practical experience or wisdom. They listen to him because they believe he is an immortal, omniscient deity.
That's quite a difference. I for one do not need a religion - a divine authority - to tell me how to behave. There are some good moral guidelies in the Bible, but there's also a lot of antequated nonsense and inconsistent, irrelevant, and laughably unscientific mythology in there as well. There are far better sources of moral and ethical philosophy out there for people who really want to exercise their brain and THINK about what it means to be moral, and as a thinker, and as a scientist, I find way more practical and theoretical value in the writings of moral philosophers (many of whom were, by the way, religious) than in any strictly theological holy book.
As an N.B., I'll say that people don't usually learn MORALS by experience, anyway, except at the most early stages of human development (children learning not to do something because they get yelled at). In this sense, it's not like science at all and therefore my vocation as scientist has really nothing to do with it - which goes a long way toward illustrating why your "surprise" is completely inauthentic or, at the least, completely misguided.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 06:59 PM |
|
|
Exactly.
And if I may add something, no, Gnomes did NOT put it beautifully, because we are NOT talking about a philosophy, but about a RELIGION.
I have the slight feeling that some people here don't quite understand the implications of that, and it comes as no surprise that THIS part of my lengthy post hasn't found any resonance.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 07:37 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 19:48, 13 Dec 2011.
|
@Corry
Alright, man, alright, I get it. You don't need no one to tell you what to do. You're strong and independent, unlike us slave-mentality Christian tools. Geez.
I think you should see someone about those strawpeople, though. They sound creepy as hell.
I'm not sure where exactly anyone expressed or mentioned disregard for other moral philosophers, or where it says that Christians disregard them. A lot of Christians, myself included, are interested in other ethical works, and respect some of them as much as the Bible, because even we cavemen agree there is a lot one can learn from them, too. While a large number of atheists doesn't give any more of a crap about that than a large number of Christians. Actually, while we're at the Church, because you guys definitely don't feel like differentiating between individuals and organized religion, even most priests I talked to were quite well versed in philosophy, history etc. They preach the Bible in the Church because that's what the Church is about, that's the text due to which it was founded, and that's the word of the guy they venerate more than anyone - they also preach the words of non-apostle saints etc. The Church as an institution, at least the Orthodox one, doesn't have any problem with philosophical thought by people outside the Church's payroll, especially not with those philosophers who further explored ethics based, among other things, on Christian teachings (and I think the Catholic church isn't far from that either these days). In fact, a lot of theologians, monks and priests encourage a man's (or woman's, before stones start flying) need for self-perfection, at least in my personal experience. Maybe I was lucky with the people I met. But the fact that there are such people undermines a lot of generalizations that folks make in these discussions. The point is that there are churches, and there are schools, and it's clear which teaches what.
The Church preaches the Bible and the word of the saints as a core set of values and teachings, which people, if they accept it, may (and it's desirable to) further upgrade with knowledge gained through other sources.
Ethics is not quite as simple as you're putting it. If it was, philosophy would definitely be far less interesting and, well, narrower. And yes, I believe that experience often provides a different view of things, though the base values of course usually remain similar. Considering how much my own thoughts shifted over time, and I'm only 20, I can't fathom how they'll change further - though I can pinpoint one or two ethical bits that'll probably remain right where they are.
@JJ
We're talking about both. And also about politics and economics, for some reason. In fact, there is hardly a religion without an accompanying philosophy, so it's very hard to talk about one without the other. We can cut communism out, though. However, if you'll forgive my ad hominem, if someone can't understand the implications of one thing being a political and economical system and the other a religion, I doubt he can too successfully point out the implications of something being a religion and not solely a philosophy. Especially considering how intertwined the two are.
I honestly think you guys seem a bit too, well, angsty about all this for your age. Is it the change of weather or something? I mean, I'm at least young and cocky, but am definitely planning to stop giving a crap by the time I get a kid or two.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 08:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A lot of Christians, myself included, are interested in other ethical works, and respect some of them as much as the Bible, because even we cavemen agree there is a lot one can learn from them, too.
Never meant to imply otherwise.
Quote:
They preach the Bible in the Church because that's what the Church is about
Right - exactly.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 08:30 PM |
|
|
I've often wondered about something - what difference does it make for a Christian/Muslim/Jew whether you believe in the deity or not if you behave in accordance with all of its rules and guidelines? I mean - if you claim that the aim is to be a better person, a better human being, and you actually do everything which is humanly possible to achieve that and you're generally what every Christian wants to be BUT you refuse to recognize the authority of the supreme being - then what kind of human are you according to the people who do believe in that being? And does the violation of the First Commandment (its edited version, the original is strictly Jewish) automatically subscribes you to Hell if everything else is... perfect?
I'm curious how many points of view are there about this.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2011 08:53 PM |
|
|
Bak, communism - MARXISM - is no SYSTEM, it's part of a THEORY.
A theory based on a philosophy that tries to explain the world (without any gods, I might add). The theory is basically the consequence and it describes the road to a just and happy world, where people can find satiscation in work, with "communism" being the first stage after a successful revolution.
For this thread, the interesting thing is the fact that it is supposed to be a passing state on the way to classless society - which is NOT "communism", but basically transcending it.
Communism has never been a purpose in itself. In theory.
With a religion, though, the philosophic aspect is secondary to irrelevant - if the philosophic aspect WAS the relevant thing, it would be a philosophy and no religion, and, as Corribus said, there were no churches and no one would preach.
However, that aspect is what you can compare with the theory of the way to a classless society, in short Communism/Marxism or what it stands for. It is supposed to change the world/the people (and the philosophic aspect of Christian belief has had massive implications for economy).
This is maybe the point to remark, that if you have to resort to an ad hominem, your footing on the religious grounds seems rather shaky.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 12:17 AM |
|
|
Bak:
If God didn't want stoning, then why did he command it and make it a part of his law? If he said "Stone them!", he wanted people to be stoned. It's silly to suggest that he meant "Don't stone them." And if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, how can you believe in any part of it that has traces of the supernatural? It's intellectually dishonest to say that Jesus was a teacher of morals and leave out the rest. According to Christianity, Jesus is fundamentally the Son of God. He taught morals, preformed miracles, and, most importantly, died for our sins. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Do you think that was metaphorical?
Quote:
What bits from Paul and Timothy are you specifically talking about?
Let's see just how objectionable the New Testament is.
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The Bible teaches against homosexuality.
"The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." - 1 Corinthians 7:4. The Bible endorses marital rape.
"A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord." - 1 Corinthians 7:39.
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15.
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered." 1 Timothy 6:1.
Also, I'm curious. What do you think my ethics are? You say I'm a materialist, but when you say that, you seem to mean different things at different times.
Markkur:
Quote:
the spirit of the student will still need to reside in faith
So what you're basically saying is "I'm not going to explain it, you just need to believe it."
Quote:
The things he said to the woman of Corinth was absolutely about setting those women on a different path, to "Set-them apart" from the women of the street
So he told them to submit to their husbands. Even if they were doing something wrong, he still told them to do something else that was wrong.
Quote:
So, if a woman betrayed you and broke your heart then I said; "get over it" ...you'd be AOK with with my imposed demand and expectation?
Huh? I don't understand what this has to do with what I said.
Quote:
All that he taught was about the well-being of a person's spirit, no matter what the physical realm may throw their way.
And that's the root of the problem. He taught people to value something for which there is no evidence in a way that harms their actual well-being.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 01:46 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 02:01, 14 Dec 2011.
|
@JJ
I don't think Marxism is trying to explain the world. Not by what I consider explaining the world, certainly. I wonder what you mean by that. What it does is it's trying to tell people that personal property and material inequality are unethical, based on the quite impractical principle of "from everyone according to ability, to everyone according to need", where it's hardly defined who decides whose need. It's trying to tell people to manage their own working place, even if they're not qualified to and if it makes the place less productive. It's trying to teach people to find satisfaction solely in work itself, and not in the benefits of working harder or more professionally, because they'll get the same anyhow. The same amount that someone else decided they should get, because it was never about an individual deciding what he needs or what the limits of his abilities are. It's awkward as hell, and it's still a political and economical theory.
Finally, you're mentioning the revolution. Of course you are, it's the key thing about communism. The great revolution. Everything's to happen after a revolution, an inherently violent and coercive medium, which would (and did) force people into a completely different way of life, declaring everything they and their families achieved null and void. My family survived one. In the end, it was forced to buy its own house back (not one out of 100. It was the only house they had. They were left about 20% of their own house to live in - which they rented to some people and lived in a crappy flat elsewhere which they rented for less cash, so they could save money and eventually get it back) from loyal officer families whom the state shoved in (one of whom got an entire half of the house). Not to mention the other branch of the family - where my great-grandfather was an engineer recruited into the king's army to fight the Germans, got captured and spent the war as a German prisoner - who, upon hearing that the commies were shooting ex-king's men who returned to their motherland from war captivity, decided to run off to the United Kingdom. My grandfather, his son, spent quite a while in a commie prison, because the government used him to blackmail his father to return to the country and face the trial. This is the reality of the communist revolution. And strangely enough, practically, after said revolutions, countries almost invariably turned into shyte - mine was actually one of the best communist countries to live in. This is not a misinterpretation, this is what a revolution is, and what communist theoreticians deemed a fair price to pay.
All in all, I'm not sure I understand the correlation to Christianity. I'm not saying there's no philosophy in Marxism; I'm just calling it primitive, short-sighted and irresponsible, except for a few carefully selected excerpts that were used to help found moderate, democratic socialist principles.
Christianity really didn't have any implications on the economy that I'm aware of. Aside from frowning upon loansharking (whereas only the Catholic Church went so far to actually forbid people to do it).
I'm not sure I have anything else to discuss on this subject with a guy to whom philosophy and religion are mutually exclusive. Again, I don't even mean this offensively. We just disagree so thoroughly on basic definitions on things that any further talk would pretty much be a torture to us both. I know. I debated religion on HC while you were still... raising children.
Finally, I don't have to resort to ad hominem, of course. Far from it. I just like it, that's all. If I had to resort to it, I wouldn't say "hey, I'm gonna do an ad hominem now", I'd just say it, hope you won't notice and then deny I meant it like that. This was just purely out of What The Heck.
@MVass
My previous posts cover pretty much everything you quoted. It's also important to note that the New Testament does not, in any bit, endorse worldly punishments such as stonings and similar, which were characteristic for the Old one. That's a step forward in itself, no matter the apparent primitiveness (which reflected the mainstream ethical views of the time) of the attitude of some people in it - Christ himself, of course, never said any of those things. I generally like the apostles, but as I said previously, they did lose it here and there, as well as their disciples, like Timothy. Which is only natural, considering the age and surroundings they lived in.
I don't think the bit you quoted was about marital rape, though. But never mind.
As for what your ethics are, you made it abundantly clear over time. I'm not sure how I'd explain it in a sentence or two. That time when you said "Pareto efficiency is my ethics" is a good starting point. On the opposite extreme of the JJ's newly discovered love for communism, you believe everything is about material gain, and that people do everything because of it. You consider altruism slavery and Christians as self-destructive. As is the case with JJ, we disagree over core things in life. And as with JJ, I'm not sure this is the place to discuss that further.
***
Anyhow, sorry if anything I'm saying sounds too offensive or something. Yeah, even you, JJ.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
