|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:33 am
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?"
— Nietzsche, The Gay Science.
What is meant by this statement is not that god is physically dead but that the moral codes that revovle around his existance and no longer applicable to modern society. And that was almost 200 years ago.Why should we listen to a book that contains rules and regulations for a culture long defunct. The book is for a culture that existed 2000 years ago, not one for today's culture.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:37 am
It depends on the reading of that book. Many of the underlying moral messages still hold, and many are horrific to me.
One must simply keep in mind that we're not Jewish mystics from 4000 years ago. We're the product of thousands of years of thought and reason and learning. Our standards have risen, as has our will to learn more.
I view the book as the summation of the conflicting views of that culture at varying points in time, and from different people. That easily explains what some would call the inconsistancies. Leviticus, for example, is more of a training manual for Jewish priests, and was probably written by the same type of poeple we call fundamentalists today. Then there's the parts which tell stories of conquer, most likely written at the behest of the victor, with a view to sustaining the victor's name in history, and justifying their acts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:59 pm
redem It depends on the reading of that book. Many of the underlying moral messages still hold, and many are horrific to me. One must simply keep in mind that we're not Jewish mystics from 4000 years ago. We're the product of thousands of years of thought and reason and learning. Our standards have risen, as has our will to learn more. I view the book as the summation of the conflicting views of that culture at varying points in time, and from different people. That easily explains what some would call the inconsistancies. Leviticus, for example, is more of a training manual for Jewish priests, and was probably written by the same type of poeple we call fundamentalists today. Then there's the parts which tell stories of conquer, most likely written at the behest of the victor, with a view to sustaining the victor's name in history, and justifying their acts. Interesting. I've never heard anyone view it as such or perphaps not in such words. It makes quite a bit of sense. Wow the first person to comment is the owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:46 pm
That's the reason why people need to stop treating it like it's applicable to our time. The worst arguments to come from creationists and fundamentalists are ones that pick and choose scriptures that seem to fit the need of their argumet. See my sig for a nice example razz If you have a bible handy, you will realize that the scripture he quotes is not about humans (at least in several versions that I have personally looked at).
I think we are perfectly capable of being a moral society without religion. I see the bible stories in the same light as fables and fairy tales that are told to children even today. They outline a general conflict and a resolution to that conflict. I took a class that was about analyzing fairy tales psychologically. I couldn't help but draw connections between the stories we read and some of the parables and even some old testament stories. In that light let me ask wtf is Song of Solomon doing in there? It just looks like a nice collection of oral stories/epics/history that have evolved into a religion to me. How weird is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:44 pm
Soser That's the reason why people need to stop treating it like it's applicable to our time. The worst arguments to come from creationists and fundamentalists are ones that pick and choose scriptures that seem to fit the need of their argumet. See my sig for a nice example razz If you have a bible handy, you will realize that the scripture he quotes is not about humans (at least in several versions that I have personally looked at). I think we are perfectly capable of being a moral society without religion. I see the bible stories in the same light as fables and fairy tales that are told to children even today. They outline a general conflict and a resolution to that conflict. I took a class that was about analyzing fairy tales psychologically. I couldn't help but draw connections between the stories we read and some of the parables and even some old testament stories. In that light let me ask wtf is Song of Solomon doing in there? It just looks like a nice collection of oral stories/epics/history that have evolved into a religion to me. How weird is that? Actually the basic message of the book is that in order to further evolve we must eliminte our dpendance of some etherial being whose existance is always in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:54 pm
Luciferian56 Soser That's the reason why people need to stop treating it like it's applicable to our time. The worst arguments to come from creationists and fundamentalists are ones that pick and choose scriptures that seem to fit the need of their argumet. See my sig for a nice example razz If you have a bible handy, you will realize that the scripture he quotes is not about humans (at least in several versions that I have personally looked at). I think we are perfectly capable of being a moral society without religion. I see the bible stories in the same light as fables and fairy tales that are told to children even today. They outline a general conflict and a resolution to that conflict. I took a class that was about analyzing fairy tales psychologically. I couldn't help but draw connections between the stories we read and some of the parables and even some old testament stories. In that light let me ask wtf is Song of Solomon doing in there? It just looks like a nice collection of oral stories/epics/history that have evolved into a religion to me. How weird is that? Actually the basic message of the book is that in order to further evolve we must eliminte our dpendance of some etherial being whose existance is always in question. lol, it's always up for interpretation, isn't it? I agree with the said statement, although not with the whole 'evolve' thing, just on a biological standpoint I can't use the word like that -.-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
