The Thou Shalts

[NoIDidn't]

It is as if you suggest that stonings weren't that bad, or because I haven't been stoned I cannot comment on their morality. I leave it to you to consider the inanity of that statement.

 

When you are only reading for something to argue with, this is what you come up with.

 

You are using the past brutality to presently disaparage the religion. If you are claiming that I can't make it gentle to fit the current moral climate, than you are being hypocritical.

 

My point was simply that. You haven't been to any stonings recently so why the constant harping on something you've only read about and have never personally witnessed?

[Moai]

When you are only reading for something to argue with' date=' this is what you come up with.[/quote']

 

I don't read the Bible as something to argue with. If the claim is made that it is the literal word of god, then I use the text to show that it cannot be. In and of itself, the Bible is value-neutral.

 

You are using the past brutality to presently disaparage the religion.

 

I certainly am. I can use current brutality to disparage the religion as well. If your position were valid, it would be correct to say that I cannot condemn National Socialism because of the abuses that occurred in the 1930s and 40s. I cannot condemn Mao's Great Leap Forward simply because I wasn't there, and there is some good in Mao's Little Red Book.

 

The Bible says, in Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." I find very little wiggle room in that statement, or any reason to think that the passage is supposed to be taken as metaphorical. Certainly, believers up until around 1890 (as far as I am aware, the last witch burning in the Western Hemisphere was in Mexico City in 1870 or -80) took that passage very literally--hence "The Witches Hammer" I referenced earlier.

 

Given the amount of violent death meted out because of passages such as Exodus 22:18, I am left to wonder why god, if he intended such things to be a metaphor or allegory could not have said so plainly, or written the passages better. "Animal Farm" by George Orwell is nothing but metaphor, which is obvious to the reader from the get-go. Why is George Orwell a better writer than Almighty God?

 

If you are claiming that I can't make it gentle to fit the current moral climate, than you are being hypocritical.

 

How am I remotely being hypocritical? I am flummoxed.

 

My point was simply that. You haven't been to any stonings recently so why the constant harping on something you've only read about and have never personally witnessed?

 

I don't have to personally witness something to know that it is bad. I have never been to Africa to watch children starve, yet I know it is horrible and suffering beyond anything I will ever experience. Are you claiming that stonings aren't that bad, but in any event I can't say because I have never seen one?????

 

I am not "harping" on stonings. For one thing, there are more humane ways to execute someone. But that is secondary to the point, which is this: Stoning someone to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath is EVIL. Do you honestly contend that the punishment fits the crime, in that case? If so, why do you not support stoning all of the workers at Walmart on a Saturday or Sunday?

 

Numbers 15:32-56: "They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses." No metaphor or allegory here. The Lord COMMANDED that the Hebrews stone the man to death. How is that REMOTELY rational? The man was cold, and wanted the heat of a fire AND HE WAS EXECUTED FOR IT. Maybe he just wanted the pleasure of a nice campfire. Too bad, the LORD decreed that he must die, and so the Hebrews, being devout followers, did as the Lord commanded.

 

This is the same "Lord" that is all-powerful, that holds the planets in their orbits, that manages quantum reality as well as keeps track of every sparrow that flies--and he thinks that gathering wood on the wrong day is punishable by death. Feel free to find the good, rational, logical, loving character in that scenario.

 

It is true that I never been to a stoning. That is because human beings in civilized countries have come the the (correct) conclusion that stoning people is wrong, regardless of the offense---let alone for gathering firewood on the weekend.

 

If god is all-loving and all-knowing, how is it that at one time he permitted stoning for non-offenses but doesn't now? Why did he change his mind? Beyond that, can god even change his mind, as he is omniscient, which obviates mind-changing.

 

The second Divine Inspiration is asserted, all such passages can then be called into question. If not, then it is just a record of a people who used to stone "criminals" for even minor offenses.

 

I have never been raped, but I can assume it would not be fun to be stoned because I was raped. Let's read Deuteronomy 22:23-24, shall we: "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city."

 

See, if you're raped you had better yell as loud as you can and you had better hope that someone hears you, because not only do you have to deal with the horror of rape, you get killed afterward by the townspeople.

 

Pretty cool, huh? How is it that we would never kill a rape victim for not crying out loud enough (how could that even be proven?), but god AT ANY POINT thought that was a rational act. This is the same god you worship, by the way. That is totally your right, but I wouldn't hang out with someone who suggested such a thing.

[dunstable]

You are using the past brutality to presently disaparage the religion. If you are claiming that I can't make it gentle to fit the current moral climate, than you are being hypocritical.

I don't agree that Moai is being hypocritical. I greatly admire his posts because they strike me as sincere, informed, and well reasoned. Having said that, I wanted to respond to your idea of a gentler interpretation of the bible and/or Christianity to make it fit the current moral climate. I'm very sympathetic to anyone who wants to do that. I've known lots of good, well-intentioned people who didn't believe in miracles but were still nominally Christian and managed to find something worthwhile in the Christian message. I'm curious though about the mechanics of the approach. Do you filter the bible to exclude the stuff that was meant literally at the time but which doesn't fit current morality? And then do you apply a metaphorical or allegorical interpretation to what is left? Or do you think everything in the bible is capable of metaphorical or allegorical interpretation including the passages quoted by Moai, whic certainly sound to me as if they were meant to be taken literally? I'm not challenging you, just curious for more information on your approach.

[FleshNBones]

You might have a point in this. But it doesn't change my view that some things were taken literally that should have been metaphorical.

 

I definitely give you that the people were primitive in the time of the writings of most of the world's oldest religions. And most religions were brutal at the time.

 

But I think its equally nonsensical to bring up all the brutality of yesteryear to the forefront as a way to refute a religion. I will admit to looking at it in a more gentler way, but you have to admit to trying to make it out to be the most brutal thing you've ever seen when you have not been to a public stoning before even though many people practice this "brutal" religion.

Is the world less brutal now than it was then? We still have the death penalty, and now we have abortion.

 

The world at that time was lawless. There was no police officer or judge to turn to. At the time, making those regulations part of the bible would have been perfectly reasonable.

 

Understand that to acknowledge some truth to the bible would also mean giving it some legitimacy. I don't think that is on the agenda today or anytime soon.

[clv0116]

... he thinks that gathering wood on the wrong day is punishable by death. Feel free to find the good, rational, logical, loving character in that scenario.

 

The Israelites had all said they would abide by the regulations imposed; in return they obtained a promise, essentially a legal agreement. People who broke the provision of the contract were considered guilty of going back on the word given to their god.

[Moai]

Is the world less brutal now than it was then?

 

The world perhaps not, in civilized countries decidedly yes.

 

We still have the death penalty, and now we have abortion.

 

The US still has the death penalty. Most Western countries don't. I am aware that your religious position leads you to believe that abortion equals brutality, but such is not the case, as the law demonstrates. Not only that, abortion has existed throughout time, it is just now the procedure can be performed at little risk to the woman. Big improvement.

 

The world at that time was lawless.

 

Demonstrably not so. Man has never been "lawless". Before civilization, tribal man must have had a standard of behavior or we wouldn't be here. And "civilization" has been around for 10,000 years. Again, I am sure your local library contains more than a few texts describing this.

 

There was no police officer or judge to turn to. At the time, making those regulations part of the bible would have been perfectly reasonable.

 

Once civilization began, there were police and judges, usually appointed by the king. or such duties were performed by clergy.

 

The laws within the Old Testament could certainly be seen as reasonable, unless you assert that god came up with them. Then they are monstrous, as god should be AT LEAST as moral as I, and he clearly is not.

 

Understand that to acknowledge some truth to the bible would also mean giving it some legitimacy. I don't think that is on the agenda today or anytime soon.

 

That's not true. There really is a place called Jericho, there really is an Egypt, and there is a people known as Jews/Hebrews. There is a place called Palestine, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem. That being so, it does not follow that therefore snakes talked at one point, that people rise from the dead, that the Sun can stop in the sky, or any other supernatural event ever occurred.

 

If that is so, then it is reasonable for me to conclude that A Tale of Two Cities is literally true because there are such places as London and Paris. Actually, there is more support for the latter, because at least "A Tale" is internally consistent.

[Moai]

The Israelites had all said they would abide by the regulations imposed; in return they obtained a promise, essentially a legal agreement. People who broke the provision of the contract were considered guilty of going back on the word given to their god.

 

Your point being what, exactly?

[clv0116]

Your point being what, exactly?

 

Moses: God told me if you agree to follow these laws he'll do nice things for us, but ... there are some pretty strict things in here.

Israelites: Ya OK, sounds reasonable.

Moses: You can't pick up wood on the weekends ....or we have to kill you.

Israelites: Fine, fine.

 

 

[israelite goes out and picks up wood, others kill him for it; no one acts surprised for 2K years.]

[dunstable]

The OP had made the proposition that "religions do contain some very important commands that are beneficial". I notice that no one has been able to list any beneficial commands other than those that found in every human social code and therefore it is hard to give credit to religion for them. On the other hand, a number of examples have been given of non-beneficial commands. It appears to me that the OP's proposition has been demonstrated as false.

[FleshNBones]

The OP had made the proposition that "religions do contain some very important commands that are beneficial". I notice that no one has been able to list any beneficial commands other than those that found in every human social code and therefore it is hard to give credit to religion for them. On the other hand, a number of examples have been given of non-beneficial commands. It appears to me that the OP's proposition has been demonstrated as false.

Beneficial to whom?

 

I don't think being in the service of God would ever appear beneficial to an Athiest. We could take a count of the number of cuts treated, or lives rescued from harm. We are assuming that faith isn't considered a sickness of some sort.

 

The OP must have had the code of conduct in mind. A code of conduct has no monetary value, weight, or measureable quantity in general so it must be beyond you comprehension.

 

What do people do when they have no goal or future to work toward? They seem to breed themselves out.

[Eve]

Thank you, CLV, for a script worthy of Monty Python!

 

The OP had made the proposition that "religions do contain some very important commands that are beneficial". I notice that no one has been able to list any beneficial commands other than those that found in every human social code and therefore it is hard to give credit to religion for them. On the other hand, a number of examples have been given of non-beneficial commands. It appears to me that the OP's proposition has been demonstrated as false.

 

Or is this a question of semantics here?

 

Essentially, an atheist can lay claim to any 'social code' BUT as yet, I have not seen an atheist come up with a code that has different values, that are significantly identifiable as separate from the original values themselves. Therefore I would argue that there is no such thing as an atheist, one can only be a believer or an agnostic.

 

Or, put more bluntly, get your own laws and commandments if you don’t like religious ones. I for one would like to scrutinize them.

 

But, this not possible because the atheist uses time lines to discuss religion. With the view that God is beyond time being rejected and He also rejected as the originator of the said Laws... navel gazing and a whole lot of blaspheming ensues.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[dunstable]

Essentially, an atheist can lay claim to any 'social code' BUT as yet, I have not seen an atheist come up with a code that has different values, that are significantly identifiable as separate from the original values themselves.

I think you may be saying that religion is responsible for social codes. That's patently not true since non-human animals have social codes but they do not have religion, so social codes must have come before religion.

[dunstable]

I would argue that there is no such thing as an atheist, one can only be a believer or an agnostic.

I suppose you argue there's no such thing as an atheist because the atheist cannot be sure that the scientific evidence for God won't show up one day, so the atheist must have a tiny doubt, and that makes him an agnostic. But can't you use a similar argument to say there's no such as a believer? That's because the believer must also carry a tiny doubt as to whether their convictions are right, and that arguably makes them agnostic too!

 

But in the ordinary sense of the words, believers are reasonably confident there is a god and atheists are reasonably confident there isn't. Neither can be absolutely sure.

[dunstable]

Or, put more bluntly, get your own laws and commandments if you don’t like religious ones. I for one would like to scrutinize them.

 

Not even Christians like all the laws and commandments in the Bible. Moai has given examples of laws that are no longer followed because they don't make sense any more.

 

You say "get your own laws and commandments". Secular countries like the USA have thousands of laws that have nothing to do with the bible or any other religious book, so I guess we've already done that.

[Moai]

Or, put more bluntly, get your own laws and commandments if you don’t like religious ones. I for one would like to scrutinize them.

 

We have "gotten our own laws." The Constitution of the United States is an excellent list of codified laws having nothing to do with religion. It is true that a myth exists that the US is founded on Judeo/Christian values, but such is not the case. One only need read the First Amendment to see that such values are rejected outright. There is nothing in the Bible about the right to peaceably assemble, banning warrant-less searches, or banning slavery.

 

Not only that, when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, their laws did not change and become what we enjoy today. How can this be, if the Bible is the source of all "our" laws? Why would most of Western history feature brutality and religious oppression?

 

I can sum up the basic moral precept with which most atheists would agree thusly: "Do as thou wilt as long as you harm no other."

 

Scrutinize away.

 

But, this not possible because the atheist uses time lines to discuss religion.

 

We can use history to scrutinize religion and religious behavior as the morality of same changes over time. This shows that religion follows culture, not the other way around.

 

With the view that God is beyond time being rejected and He also rejected as the originator of the said Laws... navel gazing and a whole lot of blaspheming ensues.

 

The above statement puts you in a difficult position. The Laws that can be definitely ascribed to god--with the premise that the Bible is god's only book--are brutal and in virtually every case immoral by today's standards. If one looks at the text in the context of who wrote it, this is perfectly understandable. If the Bible is Divinely Inspired, then each an every one can be called into question regarding current morality.

 

Not only that, but god cannot be "beyond" time. Such a statement is meaningless. In order for god to effect anything in our reality, he or she MUST be part of our reality and spacetime. I recommend reading about the Lorentz Transformation at it shows how this is so.

 

Blasphemy is a victimless crime. Moreover, by asserting that the Bible is the one and only Word of God, you are blaspheming every other god that exists or has existed--something that, it seems, believers do without a second thought.

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

Not only that, but god cannot be "beyond" time. Such a statement is meaningless. In order for god to effect anything in our reality, he or she MUST be part of our reality and spacetime. I recommend reading about the Lorentz Transformation at it shows how this is so.

 

Not so. If God is omnipotent wouldn't he be able to step in and out of our spacetime? Otherwise he would be ruled the rules of our reality. Which removes the presupposed omnipotence.

[Moai]

Not so. If God is omnipotent wouldn't he be able to step in and out of our spacetime? Otherwise he would be ruled the rules of our reality. Which removes the presupposed omnipotence.

 

It is so, and it is yet another reason why any conception of god is impossible. In order for god to influence spacetime, he or she must be part of spacetime. Your idea of "going in and out" is not possible, as spacetime is linear and there is only one. There could be many dimensions, but they are all occurring within spacetime;

 

Moreover, if prophecy is correct, our spacetime is pre-planned, which not only obviates free will, it also obviates god's omniotence, as he cannot change what has been foretold.

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

Sorry, not buying it. You are removing the possibility of omnipotence to make your argument. If God created everything, he also created spacetime as we know it. Which means he controls it , not controlled by it.

[dunstable]

Sorry' date=' not buying it. You are removing the possibility of omnipotence to make your argument. If God created everything, he also created spacetime as we know it. Which means he controls it , not controlled by it.[/quote']

What is the evidence for an omnipotent god? I don't want to waste my time discussing hypothetical questions! Tell me why you think there is an omnipotent god.

[disil]

Dunstable has been ba_nned for saying that go{d is im_aginar$y. What is going on with this site? The funny characters are an attempt to get this message through the autofilters.

[Eve]

We have "gotten our own laws." The Constitution of the United States is an excellent list of codified laws having nothing to do with religion.

 

I can sum up the basic moral precept with which most atheists would agree thusly: "Do as thou wilt as long as you harm no other."

 

Scrutinize away.

 

Not only that, but god cannot be "beyond" time. Such a statement is meaningless. In order for god to effect anything in our reality, he or she MUST be part of our reality and spacetime. I recommend reading about the Lorentz Transformation at it shows how this is so.

 

Blasphemy is a victimless crime. Moreover, by asserting that the Bible is the one and only Word of God, you are blaspheming every other god that exists or has existed--something that, it seems, believers do without a second thought.

 

This is SO much easier now that I realise that you lot are probably just a bunch of Lawyers! Kind of like the Pharasees really.

 

Firstly, an atheist cannot lay claim to formulating any Laws! The basic concepts of Laws are formulated by men and women, but the concepts come from select precepts which originate within religion. So, even the the 'thou shalt' which you have proposed is simply a matter of attempt to place an indiosyncratic slant to many of the commandments! One cannot simply say that they are moral because even a paedophile will tell you that he loves children and in fact is not hurting them. So, no, the thou shalt you came up with is not an original precept. Try again, or wait, was that it? I cannot accept the action of 'theft' as an original precept, unless one looks at the words of satan.

 

The root of the issue is simply that an atheist has no precept or concept of God and as such can only evaluate any values ascribed by God as though He is Human. Hence, jumping in and out of any chosen social code still denies an orign of that code and as such is the equivalent to admitting that one has no under garments, taking anothers under garments, disgarding them because they do not fit.. when really they had no under garments of their own in the first instance! The impossibility of the arguement lays in the atheist not being able actualise his unbelief without corrupting the original precept.

 

So, no, blasphemy is not a victimless crime because the atheist has no distinct value system of their own.

 

I will have a look at the suggested reading though.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[Eve]

I suppose you argue there's no such thing as an atheist because the atheist cannot be sure that the scientific evidence for God won't show up one day, so the atheist must have a tiny doubt, and that makes him an agnostic. But can't you use a similar argument to say there's no such as a believer? That's because the believer must also carry a tiny doubt as to whether their convictions are right, and that arguably makes them agnostic too!

 

 

But in the ordinary sense of the words, believers are reasonably confident there is a god and atheists are reasonably confident there isn't. Neither can be absolutely sure.

 

Some definitions..

 

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

 

Dictionary.com Unabridged

 

Nope, an atheist denies the existence of God. Thats pretty clear cut. I would say that a believer offers their life as the 'evidence' but really as it is being offered to God in acknowedgement of flaws and 'gaps' within their knowledge. Hence I cant see that they can be wholly agnostic because of their faith. I see those who do not have a clearly defined faith as being within the use of the term you coined for one who is agnostic proper, but I wouldnt consider them useless. I can respect those who admit they have no faith. I dont respect those who blabber on about things which they have no interest in.

 

At the end of the day, we will all find out one way or another!

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

What is the evidence for an omnipotent god? I don't want to waste my time discussing hypothetical questions! Tell me why you think there is an omnipotent god.

 

Well then I guess you've been wasting your time. Any discussion of God, omnipotent or not, is hypothetical.

[AgentD]

Say it isn't so!!!!!

 

I loved his posts!!!

 

He was great on every thread -- and not just his insightful posts on the religious threads.

 

He was banned for saying god is imaginary?!!!

 

So one persons beliefs is not at all equal to another here??

 

That is alarming. And if it was banning for atheistic belief or statement -- that "line" being drawn for censorship -- then where exactly does it end?

 

What of Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists, Wiccans, Jains, etc.

 

Are they to be censored too?!!!

 

This is very disheartening and it doesn't speak of an "open forum" at all. :(

"Open Forum" does in no way mean that we will allow people to berate members poking fun at their beliefs.

 

IF certain members can display expressing their opinions in a non-aggressive manner, there wouldn't be a need to ban said members.

 

Since your post, (and the earlier post) are clearly off topic, there will be more infractions.

 

PLEASE adhere to our guidelines.

 

Thanks!

 

P.S. I'm locking this thread as well.