|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:03 pm
marshjazz Well I'm glad that no one has run in here saying "You religion haters, your all going to rot in hell!" This subforum certainly is keeping those people away. I think everyone in here has made some good points. But mostly those against religion, moreso than those for religion. Although it is to far to say that the christian god is "unforgiving" because supposedly if you sincerly ask for forgivness, no matter what your crime, your fine and going to heaven. You could be a serial killer for all he cares. In my opinion there are just somethings that cannot be forgiven. And I still find it funny how god is good yet he discriminates. Hasn't most of the world agreed that discrimination is bad? See? Now He's insane.
He lets psychopathic christian murderers in heaven but throws atheist healthcare providers in hell.
Wtf.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:18 pm
The god of the old testement orders the murder of homosexuals, anyone who tries to divert you from your faith, those who work on sundays and pretty much anyone who disagrees with him.
Due to the nature of such barbaric "morality" in holy texts, people cherrypick from these fairytales; views on morals that fit in with the general ethical concensus of modern society and ignore everything else blaming it on mistranslation.
This general moral concensus is continually evolving, thank god in a generally liberal direction, at least in this country anyway, in such a way that ancient holy books cannot, they will never progress, they are always set in stone. T
As Dawkins argues, the generally happy-kind-loving new testement is not without moral flaw either, thanks to the sado-masochistic torture and execution of christ for future sins which may or may not be commited. If god is so great that he can do anything he likes whenever he likes, surely if he wanted to just forgive people's sins he would just forgive them rather than become incarnate and being mutilated and viciously murdered in order to do so. Who is he trying to impress?
In a way, this supposed divine meaning to his execution, added centuries after his death is the only real thing that set Jesus aside from any other Jewish preacher at that time, and had he not been crucified there would most likely not be a religion based around him today.
However, the morality of an apparent god and his many supposed incarnate forms and his numerous schizophrenic prophets (moses ordered a genocide, something along the lines of "kill the men and the elderly women, but the girls who have not yet known a man by lying with him, spare for yourselves" and Abraham, who would willingly sacrifice his own son because he was hearing voices in his head), are somewhat inconsequential, since there is no shred of evidence to justify such blind belief in any deity let alone the ridiculous painting of a narcissistic benevelent bully that the three dominant monotheistic religions of today paint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:43 pm
Cornetto1 The god of the old testement orders the murder of homosexuals, anyone who tries to divert you from your faith, those who work on sundays and pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. Due to the nature of such barbaric "morality" in holy texts, people cherrypick from these fairytales; views on morals that fit in with the general ethical concensus of modern society and ignore everything else blaming it on mistranslation. This general moral concensus is continually evolving, thank god in a generally liberal direction, at least in this country anyway, in such a way that ancient holy books cannot, they will never progress, they are always set in stone. T As Dawkins argues, the generally happy-kind-loving new testement is not without moral flaw either, thanks to the sado-masochistic torture and execution of christ for future sins which may or may not be commited. If god is so great that he can do anything he likes whenever he likes, surely if he wanted to just forgive people's sins he would just forgive them rather than become incarnate and being mutilated and viciously murdered in order to do so. Who is he trying to impress? In a way, this supposed divine meaning to his execution, added centuries after his death is the only real thing that set Jesus aside from any other Jewish preacher at that time, and had he not been crucified there would most likely not be a religion based around him today. However, the morality of an apparent god and his many supposed incarnate forms and his numerous schizophrenic prophets (moses ordered a genocide, something along the lines of "kill the men and the elderly women, but the girls who have not yet known a man by lying with him, spare for yourselves" and Abraham, who would willingly sacrifice his own son because he was hearing voices in his head), are somewhat inconsequential, since there is no shred of evidence to justify such blind belief in any deity let alone the ridiculous painting of a narcissistic benevelent bully that the three dominant monotheistic religions of today paint. Would you mind giving me a link to website or something that has this information?
You said that the divinity of Jesus wasn't added until many years later.. I'd like to read more about that, if you would be so kind,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:42 pm
marshjazz Okay so I'm not gonna just out and out point out flaws in religion since there're so many here already, and it doesn't seem like this is full of religious people anyway.
Why do people follow a particular religion? Some, it was forced upon, some grew up with it and no nothing else, others turned to it because it gives them hope for the future or a feeling of safety in a dangerous world.
Do they accomplish their goals? Goals like what? sweatdrop
Is it appriopiate for them to try and make decisions such as Harry Potter is the devil and should be banned? I don't think that it's right here in America because we have freedom of religion and all that, but in a way it's okay because they have their right to say what they want. It just shouldn't be banned because of it. Now in other countries where the laws might be different, I still feel that it's not right to ban something because of a group of people believing not what EVERYONE believes, but there's nothing you can really do about that.
Do they have a good or bad effect on society? It depends. Sometimes it can actually have a good effect on society because the people are more hopeful and kind and spiritual because they are with likeminded people. But that's only if the whole society belives or tolerates nonbelievers. But since there really isn't that, it's very damaging because there will always be a sense of superiority in one group vs the others because they'll believe that they're right and everyone else is wrong. Vice versa for the people who don't believe what the other one does.
Should children be forced to follow their parents religion? I don't think children should, because I was and am still being forced to follow Christianity (but actually became a self-proclaimed atheist at the age of 14) and it's very hard, because if I were to tell my grandmother that I don't believe in a god, the whole family would be in turmoil and I'd be more unhappy because she would try harder to shove it down my throat.
Should people be perscuted for enforcing their religion on other people? To some extent, but then they'd be bitching and moaning about how their rights to their religion were violated.
How believable are they? It depends on if you get afraid easily or not. I think the three main monotheistc religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) use scare tactics to make people believe. I know that everytime I'm in church, they talk about the goodness of "God" and Jesus for a few minutes, but then go on to talk about how the allmighty could've let them died and God's wrath and hell for most of service. For me, Buddhism is very believeable (minus the reincarnation) because it sounds like it leads to a peaceful stressless life.
Why did people start religions? I don't know. I think people needed to believe in something. Like they just couldn't believe that there isn't something out there watching and protecting them. Also to explain the unexplainable. If you know anything about Greek and Roman mythology, that's pretty much what all the gods were for. Like they couldn't explain the winds, so they made up four gods to control each direction.
Why do people give their "system of beliefs" a title? A tital like how?
Do they make a person feel more secure? I suppose so. I know a lot of Christians feel safer in whatever they do by calling on Jesus. I personally have no problem with that, cuz religion can in fact by healthy, I just don't want it forced upon me.
Do they promote free thinking or do they just surpress people? I know a lot of Christians and Jews that think for themselves, ,they just also always have god and Jesus in the back of their minds.
Is the system they use to evaluate scripture working or should it be changed? I don't know much about evaluating scripture. sweatdrop
And most importantly: Does society need them? I dont think so, but maybe so, just so people have something to hope for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:36 pm
Thanks for your input but I was using those as more like discussion points, I wasn't asking you to answer them each seperately. I just wanted your analysis of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:32 am
AmErIcAnSyKo Cornetto1 The god of the old testement orders the murder of homosexuals, anyone who tries to divert you from your faith, those who work on sundays and pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. Due to the nature of such barbaric "morality" in holy texts, people cherrypick from these fairytales; views on morals that fit in with the general ethical concensus of modern society and ignore everything else blaming it on mistranslation. This general moral concensus is continually evolving, thank god in a generally liberal direction, at least in this country anyway, in such a way that ancient holy books cannot, they will never progress, they are always set in stone. T As Dawkins argues, the generally happy-kind-loving new testement is not without moral flaw either, thanks to the sado-masochistic torture and execution of christ for future sins which may or may not be commited. If god is so great that he can do anything he likes whenever he likes, surely if he wanted to just forgive people's sins he would just forgive them rather than become incarnate and being mutilated and viciously murdered in order to do so. Who is he trying to impress? In a way, this supposed divine meaning to his execution, added centuries after his death is the only real thing that set Jesus aside from any other Jewish preacher at that time, and had he not been crucified there would most likely not be a religion based around him today. However, the morality of an apparent god and his many supposed incarnate forms and his numerous schizophrenic prophets (moses ordered a genocide, something along the lines of "kill the men and the elderly women, but the girls who have not yet known a man by lying with him, spare for yourselves" and Abraham, who would willingly sacrifice his own son because he was hearing voices in his head), are somewhat inconsequential, since there is no shred of evidence to justify such blind belief in any deity let alone the ridiculous painting of a narcissistic benevelent bully that the three dominant monotheistic religions of today paint. Would you mind giving me a link to website or something that has this information?
You said that the divinity of Jesus wasn't added until many years later.. I'd like to read more about that, if you would be so kind, Leviticus 20:13. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Moses said in) Numbers 31:17-18. "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Deuteronomy 13:6–11 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of solemn rest to Yahweh: whoever does any work in it shall be put to death. The divine reason and the drawn out lengthy detail of Jesus's death was added by Saint Paul, who didn't know Jesus in life, and got all of his information and faith from Jesus in ghost form. Hyam Maccoby argues that prior to Paul's writings, the other apostles presented Jesus as nothing more than a "wandering rabbi" and that Paul and Paul alone elevates him to the status of Son of God and Messiah, claims which even Jesus did not make himself. The original apostles apparently frowned upon Paul's teachings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:20 am
Cornetto1 The divine reason and the drawn out lengthy detail of Jesus's death was added by Saint Paul, who didn't know Jesus in life, and got all of his information and faith from Jesus in ghost form. Hyam Maccoby argues that prior to Paul's writings, the other apostles presented Jesus as nothing more than a "wandering rabbi" and that Paul and Paul alone elevates him to the status of Son of God and Messiah, claims which even Jesus did not make himself. The original apostles apparently frowned upon Paul's teachings. The apostles basically just changed there mind because somebody desided they would have more power if Jesus was the messiah. He got information from a ghost and wrote a book on it? confused Don't they usually put you in an insane assylum for that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:23 am
marshjazz Cornetto1 The divine reason and the drawn out lengthy detail of Jesus's death was added by Saint Paul, who didn't know Jesus in life, and got all of his information and faith from Jesus in ghost form. Hyam Maccoby argues that prior to Paul's writings, the other apostles presented Jesus as nothing more than a "wandering rabbi" and that Paul and Paul alone elevates him to the status of Son of God and Messiah, claims which even Jesus did not make himself. The original apostles apparently frowned upon Paul's teachings. The apostles makes me laugh. They basically just changed there mind because somebody desided they would have more power if Jesus was the messiah. He got information from a ghost and wrote a book on it? confused Don't they usually put you in an insane assylum for that? Actually quite a few of them were quite hostile to Paul's bastardisation of the story of the historical, non-mythological Jesus' life 3nodding Yeah, nowadays they would. But this was two thousand years ago. Reminds me of the story of whatshisface who talked to a burning bush rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:32 am
Cornetto1 Leviticus 20:13. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Moses said in) Numbers 31:17-18. "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Deuteronomy 13:6–11 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of solemn rest to Yahweh: whoever does any work in it shall be put to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:20 am
I find it interesting that you Cornetto1 are citing a book which has already been publicly shown to have contradictions because of the heavy editing of the Church. You're right there was cherry picking involved and those cherries were some of the most gruesome stories in order to justify the continued expansion of the Roman empire and to kill opposition groups in Central Europe. Please Cornetto1 don't condemn three religions based on the scriptures of an extremely edited heavily censored and selective Holy Book. Islam and Judaism both disprove the divinity of Jesus time and again however do agree he was a prophet of God. You're damning more than half the world's people based on quotes that you are not only taking out of context but also have been misinterpreted and been already taken out of context by the Roman Catholic Church. If you're going to damn the religions of Islam and Judaism then please read the Qu'ran and the Torah (despite what people say that the Old Testament and the Torah are the same there are some interesting differences). I'm no religious person, far from Christian, Muslim, or Jewish but I am a defender of religions of all kinds and here I am to fight for Christianity which has received a bad reputation by people like Dawkins over something that has been acknowledged to be changed by humans.
Hmmm, You say in Numbers Moses orders the death of every male child and kill the women that have laid with another man, but keep those who haven't alive and for yourselves. You take this out of context, you act as though these people have not themselves done wrong. The Midianites attacked the Israelites, as is the nature of war a counter attack must be made for the survival and well being of the attacked people. This is the human nature that you yourself have advocated in the past two debates over religions we've had. Next, as you may or may not know with your lack of religious understanding, the Israelites were far from a prosperous people. After their Exodus from Egypt they were a wandering people, nomadic in every sense of the word and therefore could not grow in population as a civilization like Egypt could. So they needed women, the Midianites who were conquered unfortunately made perfect targets for continuing the family lines of the Israelites. As for killing the male children, think for a second what act many of these children will commit when they grow up. They will more than likely lead a revolt if they are accepted into the tribes in vengeance for their fathers and their dead, it is human nature to fight for ones pride, and being as how they were nomadic they did not have prisons and to send them into exile was out of the question lest they reach another city and warn them of the coming Israelites. Death is the only logical solution in their mind. As for not taking the women already touched, if you knew anything on religion it is forbidden to touch another before marriage, thus those who are virgins would be kept over those non virgins based on belief. You have to remember they are nomadic, their food and resources limited and cannot stretch them to holding prisoners and traditionally unwanted women.
You're saying in Leviticus that if a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman then both of them shall be put to death. Well what do you expect from the Abrahamic religions? You expect them to honestly promote an act that will bear no fruit for the future? They didn't waste their time, they were surviving and survival meant procreation of the tribes not homosexual acts.
Deuteronomy is an interesting case of politics. Now then I believe in the principles of atheism having only follow instincts and survival as you said, is necessary. Let us go into the poster children for atheism shall we and see how similar they are to these Israelites. Joseph Stalin, dictator of the Soviet Union eliminated millions upon millions of those that dissented from his beliefs. It was how he kept his power structure in check. Do you expect the Israelites to be any different? Do you expect them to have their population depleted by other people's messages? Do you honestly expect them to defy human nature? Also as explained in the argument of the Numbers quote they did not have the land to make prisons and keep prisoners, nor could they very well exile people. Death was the only logical solution for a people without a land.
Exodus I won't even go into, the day of the Sabbath has been misconstrued, misinterpreted, and misused for execution by the Church numerous times. It is a holy day, yes and therefore must be committed to worshiping Yahweh, in Islam and other misconstrued yet somewhat tangible texts of Christianity such a day is not permitted as an attack may happen on that day, they only have to go to church or the mosque on that day. At the time of Exodus these people didn't have a land with which to build a temple so during all their workings they just devoted one day to rest and worship God.
Dear God!! You say that everything in religion is written in stone and unchanging and yet St. Paul seems to be changing things written in stone. Contradicting, to what you said. However I do agree with you, the remaining apostles who had yet to be killed frowned upon it and spoke against him however the Church liked the idea and used it to enslave the masses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:18 pm
Why are you defending Christianity when you agree that what could possibly be the biggest difference between Christians and Jews, and the largest, most significant core belief, is a lie? Saying he's not the son of God, is saying he's not the messiah, correct?
Or are you just defendind the principles and teachings of religion, and not its spiritually charged, "faith" side?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:42 pm
AmErIcAnSyKo Why are you defending Christianity when you agree that what could possibly be the biggest difference between Christians and Jews, and the largest, most significant core belief, is a lie? Saying he's not the son of God, is saying he's not the messiah, correct?
Or are you just defendind the principles and teachings of religion, and not its spiritually charged, "faith" side?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:52 pm
Yes, indeed I have cherry picked for suitably gruesome verses, but these verses are there, that is not deniable, and they can be cherry picked and taken out of context by anyone who wishes and with these verses they can indoctrinate, brainwash and manipulate others and themselves to perform and reproduce such acts with the apparent blessing of an almighty deity.
If it is widely accepted that this holy book has been heavily editted and has been changed and rewritten to justify homicide, and the expansion of an empire, then why do people still take it all to be the word of god and hold so dearly to their hearts, the justification of the deaths of countless innocents?
I need no part in damning the religions of Islam and Judaism, nor the damning of any other religion, they have damned themselves, to the rational, free thinking individual this should be blatantly obvious, sadly through the indoctrination of children from an early age, individuality of thought in this area is heavily discouraged.
I do not understand your logic, why is it wise or so important to defend something which is not needed in today's society, that causes ignorance, arrogance, homophobia, distrust, racism, ethnic cleansing, murder, suicide bombings and war?
The positive side of religion is nothing more than shallow crutch to support the bereieved, the elderly and the terminally ill. People follow and carry on religion merely out of tradition, because they have been told they will burn in hell for all eternity if they do not, an incredibly damaging image to children who have no concept of symbology, which will most probably stay with them for the rest of their lives, and for the comfort it provides. But comfort does not mean truth. Morals derived from religion as I've said earlier are cherrypicked and contradictory, and if any religious person doesn't go around killing and raping people JUST because they'll go to hell for it, then they are seriously ethically retarded. Morals do not originate and are not dominantly perpetuated by religion.
And lastly, yes I do say that everything in religion is written in stone, when was the last time you heard of someone updating one of the holy books? Paully changed the writings while they were still works in progress and manipulated the mould in which the molten was setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:51 pm
I never said you cherry picked Cornetto1 I said that the Church has done so for its own furthering purposes. Also as I have said to you about a dozen times now in past debates people do not read their books, they depend solely on a preacher, priest, imam, rabbi, pastor, etc. to give them their salvation. One must question God in order to discover him, and those that do will find him it is said. Hence why heaven is such an exclusive club. Also there is no denying that people indoctrinate their beliefs on others and manipulate them however you cannot blame religion on this, you can only blame people. Joseph Stalin was no religious zealot he was devoutly atheist and yet look at the terrible things he has done in his life, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Nikita Khrushchev and many others who have renounced God have committed acts of mass murder far more than any religious cult next to of course the Church and the post-Muhammad Caliphate. To say that religion is the reason why there are the ills of the world is just speaking out of anger because the Abrahamic religions do not accept your sexual preference. Atheism has done no more for the good of humanity than religious zealots and the tens of millions dead in the gulags of the former Soviet Union, the prisons in Cuba, the villages in China, and the jungles of the former French Indochina can tell you that quite plainly. Also if you know anything of Islam, Judaism and the true Christianity than you would know damn well that they are not supposed to impose their religions on others. Rather they are only supposed to be testimonials to their faith and are to allow tolerance in their lands of all religious faiths even atheism, Islam is largely recognized for this over the past centuries, but yet again humans misconstrue this and twist it around and against their own writings they manipulate others. Religion has done nothing but be an organizer to what were once nomadic peoples into flourishing civilizations, people have changed religions, what with St. Paul, the Sharia, the Hadiths, the establishment of Israel as a state, it is not religion that preaches destruction, in fact Islam especially says that you must follow your own way and your own prophet be it Buddha, Brahma, Jesus, Abraham, Moses, or Muhammad peace be on them all, and you shall be judged according to the laws of that prophet's religion. If you had bothered to read anything on all the Abrahamic religions you despise so much you would have seen that plainly. Yet you follow the example of man's actions rather than what religion say. Well as I am also a historical enthusiast I have no more seen any good come from atheism than with religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:18 pm
To say that the religion is the root of all the ills in the world would be ignorant, nothing is the sole root of anything its not possible, but I do believe that through religion, much of these ills are exacerbated.
My quarrel with Abrahamic religion is not due to them not accepting my sexual preference, rather with their blatant disregard to common sense. I do not distinguish between religions, it is just that the Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the most conspicuous in world politics. My problem with religion lies with their very basis, the concept of god itself is completely unfounded.
Yes, religion may have made nomadic tribes great but we cannot cling onto these ancient values, they have gone beyond building civilisation and are now destroying it. Surely it is time to move on, to further scientific truth and to stop the human error in such blind faith.
Whether the books themselves preach destruction or whether people who twist the books preach destruction is irrelevent, the books one way or another cause destruction.
They aren't needed anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
