God is Love

Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
God is Love

So this thought occurred to me while I was posting in another thread.  I had asked a theist if he only loved his family because God made him love them, and that kind of set off a spark in my brain.  So my question to theists is this:

 

If God is Love, then without him would we all be indifferent to those who currently mean the most to us?  Or worse, would we be actively harming them?

 

Think about it.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Easy. I've been waiting to

 Easy. I've been waiting to hand out history lessons instead of evolutionary lessons. Lets start with everyone's favorite: The Crusades. BTW I don't consider  Popes holy in any way. Also muslims were permitted to worship in their holy sites during the occupation of Jerusalem

 

Ever here of the Investiture Contest? Its one of two events critical in setting up the 1st Crusade. Pope Gregory VII was embattled with the Holy Roman Emperor at the time over territory In Italy and secular authority. Gregory VII used interdict to destabilize the Holy Roman Empire whose emperor was eventually forced (in an very  embarassing manner) to concede Papal power in secular manners. The Pope now was the unofficial political head of all of Europe for a while after this. Then, all the way in Asia Minor, the Byzantine Empire lost the Battle of Mazinkurt (may not be spelled right if ya check) in 1074 and Turkish warrior nomads were at the gates of Constantinople and invasion was feared. This instigated the Byzantine emperor, Alexius I, to appeal to Rome (Urban II now Pope) for aid in fending off the Turks while warning if Constantinople falls then all of Europe faced the threat of invasion. This letter from Alexius to Urban should be easy to locate cause its a very famous historical document. So in 1096 Urban II called for a crusade to aid the Byzantine Empire (which incidently temporarily fell to fellow Christians during the 4th crusade) and to prevent Europe from being invaded. Alexius also overstated the threat from the Abbassid Dynasty. After a bunch of peasants led by a few nobles got slaughtered because they didn't wait for the organized armies the crusades started in earnest out of altruistic concerns. The Pope was smart and used religion to motivate nobles but that was not the reason to go to war. From here Christian forces captured Edessa, Antioch, and eventually Jerusalem On Oct. 2 1099. End 1st crusade. If want more details I can provide. 

2nd Crusade (what a mess): After Edessa fell to the muslim warrior Zenghi in 1144 Pope Eugenius called for the 2nd crusade to reclaim the territory (a very important town on major trade routes). In a blunder the crusading forces, which included the king of France, decided to attack Damascus to prevent Zenghi's son, Nur Al-Din, from forming a united Syria and establishing a formidable Empire that would destabilize world political power. The crusading forces got decimated. End 2nd crusade.

This all politics and economics in its purest form.

3rd crusade: Salah Al-Din (Saladin), Nur's son, was quite busy in Eygpt establishing a power base where the Fatamid Dynasty (a muslim dynasty who welcomed the crusaders attack on the rival Abbasid Dynasty in the first two big conflicts) was  located. From Eygpt Saladin slowly grew his sphere of influence around Jerusalem and soon was extremely powerful and well coordinated (always a problem with muslim dynasties at the time due to power struggles). He sacked Jerusalem in 1187 and start Pope Innocent III starts the 3rd Crusade. Richard the Lionhearted of England engaged in various skirmishes with Saladin's forces and Jerusalem went back and forth in a  stalemate and the conflict ended in a peace treaty with Saladin retaining Jerusalem. If religion were the main influence they would not have worked out an agreement on territorial settlement. It was altruistic for both of them to end the affair after no progress was made by either side (Richard kept Acre and Tyre for the crusaders)

4th Crusade: This one involves Christians fighting Christians so it is altruistic in its purest form. Innocent III had a plan for this one. He agreed to pay the Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandelo, a hefty sum for about 33, 000 crusaders to get travel across the Med. Sea. When the forces arrived no where near that amount showed up so the Venetians (very powerful at the time and engaged with extensive Middle East trade) convinced the forces to help them sack Zandar to pay the debt. After this was accomplished the Venetians and the Crusaders (some severely upset at Byzantine's lies throughout the crusades) went on to sack Constantinople and set up temporarily a crusader kingdom in place of the Byzantine Empire. The economic and Venetian power at play here is purely altruistic.

There's a few more crusades but ya should see the point. Keep in mind the the death toll in all the crusades combined would only be a fraction of what China and the SU did. Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II actually was the last guy to take Jerusalem and he did it while under excommunication. Also the Med Sea was crucial in economic prosperity at the time (trade) so an impetus for control was a driving motivator. I won't deny religion didn't play a part but they did not slaughter by the millions to get control of agriculture or politics. Once a crusader or muslim army took control of a city and the chaos died down ransom would be paid to release captives. Even a crusader king, Baldwin, was released for ransom. Money trumped religion at all times.

War on Terror: well, to say religion is the main instigator would be too simplified. The US got attacked so its gotta achieve security. That's easy altruism. For muslim extremists these guys and their relatives before them have been living in an area that has been under control for most of the time after WWI by foreign powers. When WWII ended and the British Empire dissolved the govenors and the armies left but the oil companies and banks stayed. Soon US, Russian, and French companies followed suit and made deals with Mid East rulers who reaped financial gain but failed to improve conditions for the masses. This built resentment toward their foreign and domestic govts. There's a huge mass of people living in the Mid East that witness big business and International politics take almost everything of value from their lands. They feel an altruistic need to retaliate because they its their only option. It makes sense for them to brace religion in such an instance as a rallying cry against forces that are using the Mid East as a chess board. This area is a powderkeg in a similar sense to what Serbia was before WWI. Maybe not soon but in the distant future WWIII will break out over the resources in this area. Most political scientists will agree that China will be the instigator. I'm sure you'll blame religion. 

Witch Hunts: most, if not all, were Christians themselves. I'm more versed in the European reaction to witchcraft but if its anything similar to it sex is the driving factor. You ain't gonna find many male witch trials (although there are some) Only in modern times have women enjoyed being freed from patriarchy. Women were always marginalized and subject to male rule in societies from dawn of existence. Only since WW1 has this changed. Before the witchcraft phenomenon manifested all kinds of societies did horrible things to women. Infanticide of female newborns in Rome or  foot binding in China are examples. From what I know about the Colonial ones are they happened late and were not as bad as in Europe. In Europe women were mostly accused of witchcraft from neighbors out of disputes or sometimes , although rarely, they actually did practice some kind of craft. Those are theorized as practices that lingered in popular culture among the peasants. Christianity did provide an avenue for men to exploit marginalized women because of the Adam and Eve story. This combined with the Scholastic  mindset based on Aristotle's writings that stated women were nothing more than incomplete men and merely incubators for life (it was assumed men provided all the lifeforce). Sorry I can't go more into the America aspect of this societal phenomenon. i don't know if ya could consider witches a population cause all the women accused didn't live together. This is more of a sociological phenomenon that wouldn't be based on one thing alone or even serve any altruistic function. Sexism was the main culprit of the attrocities but religion was a tool that was abused. 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Easy. I've

scuppers wrote:

Easy. I've been waiting to hand out history lessons instead of evolutionary lessons. Lets start with everyone's favorite: The Crusades.

i have no problem with your big-picture analysis.  but such analyses don't show us the reasons why individuals killed other individuals.  politics did play the major role up top, but the majority of the actual soldiers who fought and died did it for religious reasons.

but i wasn't even thinking of the crusades.  i was thinking more along the lines of the spanish inquisition, the atrocitites committed by the taliban and the iranian islamic republic, the ghettos of central and eastern europe, the pale of settlement, the pogroms, the catholic fascism of tiso in the first slovak republic, the burning of heretics by zwingli, etc., etc.  regardless of how you view the dialectics behind the big picture or the motives of the leaders, the fact of the matter is that had there not been religion, most of these movements would have had little or no support.

 

scuppers wrote:

BTW I don't consider  Popes holy in any way.

irrelevant.  the grunts who killed and died for them did.  popes don't fight wars.  they might start them.  they might even strap on a sword occasionally.  but they don't spill the blood.  a pope might start a war for money.  the soldier who actually kills a person will do it for the sake of his immortal soul. 

 

scuppers wrote:

Also muslims were permitted to worship in their holy sites during the occupation of Jerusalem

and...?

i don't know where you get the idea that i was taking the side of the poor, persecuted muslims.  the idea that anyone of any faith will kill for an imaginary friend is just sick.  the muslims are no less fucked up than the christians.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:scuppers

iwbiek wrote:

scuppers wrote:

Easy. I've been waiting to hand out history lessons instead of evolutionary lessons. Lets start with everyone's favorite: The Crusades.

i have no problem with your big-picture analysis.  but such analyses don't show us the reasons why individuals killed other individuals.  politics did play the major role up top, but the majority of the actual soldiers who fought and died did it for religious reasons.

but i wasn't even thinking of the crusades.  i was thinking more along the lines of the spanish inquisition, the atrocitites committed by the taliban and the iranian islamic republic, the ghettos of central and eastern europe, the pale of settlement, the pogroms, the catholic fascism of tiso in the first slovak republic, the burning of heretics by zwingli, etc., etc.  regardless of how you view the dialectics behind the big picture or the motives of the leaders, the fact of the matter is that had there not been religion, most of these movements would have had little or no support.

 

scuppers wrote:

BTW I don't consider  Popes holy in any way.

irrelevant.  the grunts who killed and died for them did.  popes don't fight wars.  they might start them.  they might even strap on a sword occasionally.  but they don't spill the blood.  a pope might start a war for money.  the soldier who actually kills a person will do it for the sake of his immortal soul. 

 

scuppers wrote:

Also muslims were permitted to worship in their holy sites during the occupation of Jerusalem

and...?

i don't know where you get the idea that i was taking the side of the poor, persecuted muslims.  the idea that anyone of any faith will kill for an imaginary friend is just sick.  the muslims are no less fucked up than the christians.

It all comes down to: power and money. religion does restrain. I think ya missed my other post. Ain't talkin about individuals. Relating to altruism of populations or states. Doesn't matter anyway. You'd be a fool to insinuate religion causes death. Its people man. I already mentioned the Soviet Union and Communist China as atheist nations that killed more of their own people than any nation in world history. This demographic evidence shows that without religion anything will be done for the "good" of its interest. Keep this in mind as the world grapples with overpopulation and global warming. As religion wanes (you guys are gonna win at some point for a while) nothing will stop inhumane solutions to problems of humanity. Social Darwinism was just a start. Sociobiology is ready to pick up its torch. Altruism will justify it.

To answer your And?......its just to highlight how you overstate the extremes of the religious at this time  


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:So this

Gallowsbait wrote:

So this thought occurred to me while I was posting in another thread.  I had asked a theist if he only loved his family because God made him love them, and that kind of set off a spark in my brain.  So my question to theists is this:

 

If God is Love, then without him would we all be indifferent to those who currently mean the most to us?  Or worse, would we be actively harming them?

 

Think about it.

"Whatever 'God' you believe in..... have mercy on your soul."

 

...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:...After a

scuppers wrote:

...After a bunch of peasants led by a few nobles got slaughtered because they didn't wait for the organized armies the crusades started in earnest out of altruistic concerns... 

..If religion were the main influence they would not have worked out an agreement on territorial settlement. It was altruistic for both of them to end the affair after no progress was made by either side (Richard kept Acre and Tyre for the crusaders)...

...This one involves Christians fighting Christians so it is altruistic in its purest form... ...After this was accomplished the Venetians and the Crusaders (some severely upset at Byzantine's lies throughout the crusades) went on to sack Constantinople and set up temporarily a crusader kingdom in place of the Byzantine Empire. The economic and Venetian power at play here is purely altruistic...

...The US got attacked so its gotta achieve security. That's easy altruism... ...They feel an altruistic need to retaliate because they its their only option...

Altruism, a.

Devotion to the welfare of others, regard for others, as a principle of action; opposed to egoism or selfishness.

(Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, though I have all revisions. Altruism is not a constantly evolving word anyway, there is only one definition listed, unlike "make" for example which contains something like 86.)

Notice that "for others" is used instead of "for your allies" or similar. Please refrain from calling killing, in any fashion and for any reason, altruistic. You only make yourself appear ignorant when your morals, guided by religion, are less progressive than those of random atheists on the internet.

Finally, every claim you have made about reasoning by politics and economics can be at the very least equally applied to any "atheistic regime" such as Communist Russia or China under Mao Zedong. You have advanced the argument of your opponent more than that of your own.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:I already

scuppers wrote:

I already mentioned the Soviet Union and Communist China as atheist nations that killed more of their own people than any nation in world history.

Peer reviewed citation, please.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Coutisois, Stephane. The

 Coutisois, Stephane. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes Terror Repression. United States: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Never heard of the Red Terror or the Great leap Forward?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Ask them

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Ask them if God told them to kill their families if they would.

 

They'll answer "no". I's as if interputation of religion is based on personality. And it's as if religion can't override that.....

I think you mean interpretation...

Anyways 'religion', as you call it (I call these things cults), is basically free interpretation run wild...

In one case you have Aum Shinrikyo, a doomsday cult, running around, gassing subways, dissolving witnesses in vats FULL of sulphuric acid, after they burn the wintesses' bodies in industrial-grade microwave ovens,  and purchasing blood and semen from their now-imprisoned master: Shoko Asahara. Wasn't hard for Japan's police to track him down, either.They just had to follow the trail of honeydew melon-bits (the ones he didn't stuff his fat-ass with.)

"I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how AWESOME I am"

Scientology.................  SCIEN-FUCKIN-TOLOGY. Where to start, where to start.... L Ron Hubbard becoming a bitter cynical fool because his wife was commited to a mental facility, idiots running around thinking they can diagnose anyone as if they actually had a PHd in psychology, a woman eaten alive by roaches in 1996, Tom Cruise going on the airwaves and telling people they don't have a (neuro)chemical imbalance (I can pretty much guarantee you all from first-hand experience this is BULLSHIT), Battlefield 3000, Travolta refusing to get his kid treated for Autism, etc...

"There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance"

Roman Catholic Church- most of you should have the nitty gritty on this cult already...

Oh, and just in case anyone wants to tap me on the head with a silver hammer when I'm dead.... DON'T.

Heaven's gate- something about koolaid comes to mind...

Hi, kids... who wants to die first?

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Coutisois,

scuppers wrote:

 Coutisois, Stephane. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes Terror Repression. United States: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Never heard of the Red Terror or the Great leap Forward?

Ever heard of Crusades 1-9? Witch hunts? Salem witch trials? Lycanthropy? Punishing heretics? The church being in bed with European nobility?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Coutisois,

scuppers wrote:

 Coutisois, Stephane. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes Terror Repression. United States: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Never heard of the Red Terror or the Great leap Forward?

I don't know how Courtois arrived at the number he did. What I do know, and I think this is evident that I know of him already because you butchered his last name making it unsearchable, is that he has the highest death toll estimates of published historians.

You haven't answered my other points either, only strengthened them. By even bringing up the Chinese Great Leap Forward, you've practically admitted that famine counts. There is nothing in atheism, as it has no inherent beliefs, only the lack of belief, that says famine is more than a political and economical blunder. Atheists, as a whole, do not support famine, and if any do, it is unrelated to their lack of religion.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that you broke your own rule. I paid special attention to not mention individuals at your request. You, however, have singled out instances where one individual ruled; Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin. This is exactly what happened when the RRS agreed to debate banana Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on Nightline. Ray said he wouldn't use the Bible and did anyway. If this were a formal debate, you'd be disqualified. Luckily it isn't, because a formal debate would look better on your CV than mine.


RankBaajin (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:So this

Gallowsbait wrote:

So this thought occurred to me while I was posting in another thread.  I had asked a theist if he only loved his family because God made him love them, and that kind of set off a spark in my brain.  So my question to theists is this:

 

If God is Love, then without him would we all be indifferent to those who currently mean the most to us?  Or worse, would we be actively harming them?

 

Think about it.

 

love doesnt exist either, it was invented by 14th century French poets.

I think first you would have to define "love", I think a Christians love of God is different from a fathers love  or mothers, or hollywoods idea of it, or a teenage fatuation or the love someone feels when he walks into McDonalds with a Kalishnekov because his wife left him.....

I dont love anybody or anything, I like things lots and have feelings towards people which are complex and immpossible to define and still I am perfectly happy. Sorry oxymoron there...reasonably happy , and no I dont feel the need to harm anyone .


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:scuppers

Kapkao wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 Coutisois, Stephane. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes Terror Repression. United States: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Never heard of the Red Terror or the Great leap Forward?

Ever heard of Crusades 1-9? Witch hunts? Salem witch trials? Lycanthropy? Punishing heretics? The church being in bed with European nobility?

see previous page, bottom. Correction: this pg. top


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:scuppers

JonathanBC wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 Coutisois, Stephane. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes Terror Repression. United States: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Never heard of the Red Terror or the Great leap Forward?

I don't know how Courtois arrived at the number he did. What I do know, and I think this is evident that I know of him already because you butchered his last name making it unsearchable, is that he has the highest death toll estimates of published historians.

You haven't answered my other points either, only strengthened them. By even bringing up the Chinese Great Leap Forward, you've practically admitted that famine counts. There is nothing in atheism, as it has no inherent beliefs, only the lack of belief, that says famine is more than a political and economical blunder. Atheists, as a whole, do not support famine, and if any do, it is unrelated to their lack of religion.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that you broke your own rule. I paid special attention to not mention individuals at your request. You, however, have singled out instances where one individual ruled; Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin. This is exactly what happened when the RRS agreed to debate banana Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on Nightline. Ray said he wouldn't use the Bible and did anyway. If this were a formal debate, you'd be disqualified. Luckily it isn't, because a formal debate would look better on your CV than mine.

the back pedaling by you changes nothing. Government mismanagement made the famine worse and if ya actually read the book it does not include all the famine deaths. By forcing half-assed industrialization Mao, the leader of a PARTY that espoused atheist belief, he sought profit at the cost of many. He recruited elitist students through propaganda to do his bidding and suppress any freedom whatsoever. Read the book. BTW,I'm not lookin to win anything. And where did I use the Bible? Just pointing out historical misconceptions. Excusing the actions of these states is reprehensible. I would never excuse any such action, Christian or otherwise. I'm just sayin people are violent, greedy, and full of themselves with ideas of superiority in all things and we need a check. 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:scuppers

JonathanBC wrote:

scuppers wrote:

...After a bunch of peasants led by a few nobles got slaughtered because they didn't wait for the organized armies the crusades started in earnest out of altruistic concerns... 

..If religion were the main influence they would not have worked out an agreement on territorial settlement. It was altruistic for both of them to end the affair after no progress was made by either side (Richard kept Acre and Tyre for the crusaders)...

...This one involves Christians fighting Christians so it is altruistic in its purest form... ...After this was accomplished the Venetians and the Crusaders (some severely upset at Byzantine's lies throughout the crusades) went on to sack Constantinople and set up temporarily a crusader kingdom in place of the Byzantine Empire. The economic and Venetian power at play here is purely altruistic...

...The US got attacked so its gotta achieve security. That's easy altruism... ...They feel an altruistic need to retaliate because they its their only option...

[

Altruism, a.

Devotion to the welfare of others, regard for others, as a principle of action; opposed to egoism or selfishness.

(Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, though I have all revisions. Altruism is not a constantly evolving word anyway, there is only one definition listed, unlike "make" for example which contains something like 86.)

Notice that "for others" is used instead of "for your allies" or similar. Please refrain from calling killing, in any fashion and for any reason, altruistic. You only make yourself appear ignorant when your morals, guided by religion, are less progressive than those of random atheists on the internet.

Finally, every claim you have made about reasoning by politics and economics can be at the very least equally applied to any "atheistic regime" such as Communist Russia or China under Mao Zedong. You have advanced the argument of your opponent more than that of your own.

Usin a dictionary for research. tsk, tsk. Read up on any altruism in any anthropology book and you will come across the observations of chimp pops. killing others for their gain. This is how science explains war and violence biologically. Look it up (not in a dictionary). Learn what a selfish genotype is. Here: Cela-Conde, and Fransisco J. Ayala. Human Evolution: Trails From the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, pg.23-24.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Jonathan, if ya gonna

 Jonathan, if ya gonna debate and ask me for academic sources please provide the same courtesy.

Also, if ya read the definition "principle of action" for the welfare of others = (for the SU and China) the death of millions for the "welfare" of others. You know, the ends justify the means.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
The standard atheist

The standard atheist response to your accusations is to point out that the regimes of Mao and Stalin did not do what they did in the name of atheism, they did it in the name of themselves.  Their cult of personality was a religion all by itself.  They attacked religion because it was competition.  A skeptic would not have swallowed their filth any more than they would swallow stories about virgin births and hellfire.

The main complaint of most atheists about religion in general is it teaches blind obedience to a higher authority...whether that is God, the Pope, Stalin or the People's Party.

Some teachings of some religion do restrain behavior...but so did the ideas of Marx or the Little Red Book.  The Great Leap Forward is a fantastic example...uneducated peasants did what they were told and it ended in misery.  Islamic terrorists often just do what they are told, and it often ends in misery.

We just want people to use their own brains instead of giving up all self-reliance to a pile of superstition that has no place in the modern world.  If a Christian teaching benefits humanity, great, teach it.  But you don't need all the blatant lies and nonsense from iron age nomads, it only encourages negative aspects of human nature.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The standard

mellestad wrote:

The standard atheist response to your accusations is to point out that the regimes of Mao and Stalin did not do what they did in the name of atheism, they did it in the name of themselves.  Their cult of personality was a religion all by itself.  They attacked religion because it was competition.  A skeptic would not have swallowed their filth any more than they would swallow stories about virgin births and hellfire.

The main complaint of most atheists about religion in general is it teaches blind obedience to a higher authority...whether that is God, the Pope, Stalin or the People's Party.

Some teachings of some religion do restrain behavior...but so did the ideas of Marx or the Little Red Book.  The Great Leap Forward is a fantastic example...uneducated peasants did what they were told and it ended in misery.  Islamic terrorists often just do what they are told, and it often ends in misery.

We just want people to use their own brains instead of giving up all self-reliance to a pile of superstition that has no place in the modern world.  If a Christian teaching benefits humanity, great, teach it.  But you don't need all the blatant lies and nonsense from iron age nomads, it only encourages negative aspects of human nature.

Well without religion all we have is ourselves (humanity). We create de-facto Gods (AKA: those personalities). You can see such a following develop around Dawkins and his third rate philosophy. 

If obedience is removed then defiance is as well. No opportunity is available to rally against injustice that can be rationally justified as "good." This obedience to a higher authority has rebuked evil many times. Even in religion. Christianity has been used to rebuke the actions of depraved Christians. Its self correcting. The same can be observed in almost all religions. For example, "Jihad"(my struggle) is used by some to justify violence but others will use it to rebuke them and explain it as a struggle against immorality.

I'm not telling you to give up your belief. Use your brain I implore you. Just don't think religion serves no purpose in the modern world. Communist China is still the most repressive nation in the world. Ask a Tibetan monk what he thinks about Chinese ideology. 

BTW, if those peasants refused they were killed. This seems like you suggested they had a choice. Let me offer you some advice. Read. About religion, history, anthropology, or any other topic of human behavior. You'll find that the most esteemed sociologists, biologists, and anthropologists recognize religion as the origin of morality. History gives credit to the Jews as the first to come up with the concept. Feel free to ignore the academic consensus and espouse the minority opinion if ya wish but I got countless books/scholars/scientists on my side. Show some respect no matter how, where, or when any religious beliefs manifested. You benefit from them everyday.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Communist

scuppers wrote:

Communist China is still the most repressive nation in the world. Ask a Tibetan monk what he thinks about Chinese ideology. 

what the fuck?  there are many nations more oppressive than china.  north korea tops the list.  i'm a marxist and a bit sour on the whole "state-worship" argument and even i would call kim jong-il's regime theocratic.  as for other more oppressive nations, i would have to go with iran, sudan, zimbabwe, lebanon, burma, and hell, maybe even israel.

as for the tibetan monks, i'm not a fan.  they ran a brutal theocratic regime for years and while i don't agree with chinese policy in tibet, the last thing i want to see is the lamas returning to power.  the idea of the peaceful, persecuted tibetan monk is utter bullshit pedalled by gullible hollywood celebrities.  i say that as a person who is actually very sympathetic to buddhism, or at least the buddhist scriptures.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:scuppers

iwbiek wrote:

scuppers wrote:

Communist China is still the most repressive nation in the world. Ask a Tibetan monk what he thinks about Chinese ideology. 

what the fuck?  there are many nations more oppressive than china.  north korea tops the list.  i'm a marxist and a bit sour on the whole "state-worship" argument and even i would call kim jong-il's regime theocratic.  as for other more oppressive nations, i would have to go with iran, sudan, zimbabwe, lebanon, burma, and hell, maybe even israel.

as for the tibetan monks, i'm not a fan.  they ran a brutal theocratic regime for years and while i don't agree with chinese policy in tibet, the last thing i want to see is the lamas returning to power.  the idea of the peaceful, persecuted tibetan monk is utter bullshit pedalled by gullible hollywood celebrities.  i say that as a person who is actually very sympathetic to buddhism, or at least the buddhist scriptures.

Whatever you have to say to excuse your mindset. In terms of numbers of the repressed no one comes close to China. Take the advise I told the other guy. Humanity will never achieve a Utopia. Its been proven over 12,000 yrs. Hold on to your wishful ideology as you wish but don't scapegoat to justify it. That is how repression often starts.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
  scuppers wrote:your

 

 

scuppers wrote:

your mindset.

 

what "mindset"?  that some nations are more oppressive than china?  'cause that's the only "mindset" you can get from my post.

 

scuppers wrote:

In terms of numbers of the repressed no one comes close to China.

 

can you furnish those numbers?  and if you're just dealing with raw numbers of people, then of course china has more repressed, since china has more people than any other nation period.  using raw numbers, i'm sure that in terms of people who own a shirt no one comes close to china either.

 

scuppers wrote:
 

Take the advise I told the other guy. Humanity will never achieve a Utopia. Its been proven over 12,000 yrs. Hold on to your wishful ideology as you wish but don't scapegoat to justify it. That is how repression often starts.

 

what?  seriously, what?  when the fuck did i...what the fuck...

seriously?

when did i say shit about a utopia????  when did i ever outline my personal ideology for you?  is this because i said i'm a marxist?  do you have any idea what i mean by that?  any fucking clue at all?  do you not take into any account the context in which i said that?

and just what the shit is this about a "scapegoat"?  who did i scapegoat?  every nation is responsible for its own policies.  just because i pointed out that there are other nations with more repressive policies than china doesn't mean i'm laying china's fuck-ups on any shoulders other than china's.  so how exactly am i "scapegoating"?

jesus, i hate fuckin' tards...

 

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:  scuppers

iwbiek wrote:

 

 

scuppers wrote:

your mindset.

 

what "mindset"?  that some nations are more oppressive than china?  'cause that's the only "mindset" you can get from my post.

 

scuppers wrote:

In terms of numbers of the repressed no one comes close to China.

 

can you furnish those numbers?  and if you're just dealing with raw numbers of people, then of course china has more repressed, since china has more people than any other nation period.  using raw numbers, i'm sure that in terms of people who own a shirt no one comes close to china either.

 

scuppers wrote:
 

Take the advise I told the other guy. Humanity will never achieve a Utopia. Its been proven over 12,000 yrs. Hold on to your wishful ideology as you wish but don't scapegoat to justify it. That is how repression often starts.

 

what?  seriously, what?  when the fuck did i...what the fuck...

seriously?

when did i say shit about a utopia????  when did i ever outline my personal ideology for you?  is this because i said i'm a marxist?  do you have any idea what i mean by that?  any fucking clue at all?  do you not take into any account the context in which i said that?

and just what the shit is this about a "scapegoat"?  who did i scapegoat?  every nation is responsible for its own policies.  just because i pointed out that there are other nations with more repressive policies than china doesn't mean i'm laying china's fuck-ups on any shoulders other than china's.  so how exactly am i "scapegoating"?

jesus, i hate fuckin' tards...

 

 

By all means clarify your marxist ideology. I know its sounds good but in practice it has proven otherwise. How does your version differ?

It seems as though the masses (yes it is the #'s) of those suffering is merely a statistic to you.

You scapegoated Hollywood as the reason why people think Tibetans are repressed which suggested China's policies are not as bad as they are. 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:mellestad

scuppers wrote:

mellestad wrote:

The standard atheist response to your accusations is to point out that the regimes of Mao and Stalin did not do what they did in the name of atheism, they did it in the name of themselves.  Their cult of personality was a religion all by itself.  They attacked religion because it was competition.  A skeptic would not have swallowed their filth any more than they would swallow stories about virgin births and hellfire.

The main complaint of most atheists about religion in general is it teaches blind obedience to a higher authority...whether that is God, the Pope, Stalin or the People's Party.

Some teachings of some religion do restrain behavior...but so did the ideas of Marx or the Little Red Book.  The Great Leap Forward is a fantastic example...uneducated peasants did what they were told and it ended in misery.  Islamic terrorists often just do what they are told, and it often ends in misery.

We just want people to use their own brains instead of giving up all self-reliance to a pile of superstition that has no place in the modern world.  If a Christian teaching benefits humanity, great, teach it.  But you don't need all the blatant lies and nonsense from iron age nomads, it only encourages negative aspects of human nature.

Well without religion all we have is ourselves (humanity). We create de-facto Gods (AKA: those personalities). You can see such a following develop around Dawkins and his third rate philosophy. 

If obedience is removed then defiance is as well. No opportunity is available to rally against injustice that can be rationally justified as "good." This obedience to a higher authority has rebuked evil many times. Even in religion. Christianity has been used to rebuke the actions of depraved Christians. Its self correcting. The same can be observed in almost all religions. For example, "Jihad"(my struggle) is used by some to justify violence but others will use it to rebuke them and explain it as a struggle against immorality.

I'm not telling you to give up your belief. Use your brain I implore you. Just don't think religion serves no purpose in the modern world. Communist China is still the most repressive nation in the world. Ask a Tibetan monk what he thinks about Chinese ideology. 

BTW, if those peasants refused they were killed. This seems like you suggested they had a choice. Let me offer you some advice. Read. About religion, history, anthropology, or any other topic of human behavior. You'll find that the most esteemed sociologists, biologists, and anthropologists recognize religion as the origin of morality. History gives credit to the Jews as the first to come up with the concept. Feel free to ignore the academic consensus and espouse the minority opinion if ya wish but I got countless books/scholars/scientists on my side. Show some respect no matter how, where, or when any religious beliefs manifested. You benefit from them everyday.

You seem to be arguing that the philosophy that religions teach can be a good thing, and as I said earlier, it can.  Atheists can have philosophy and ethics, without supernaturalism...so can anyone else.  The useful morality in Christianity can be separated from the silly parts about magic.  If you are claiming that the supernatural parts of a religion are necessary for humans to rally for a good cause, or stand up for themselves, or behave in a moral fashion I don't have much to say to you, because that is an absurd notion.

I am not sure what your point is in the last paragraph...are you suggesting that humans never have any choice about obeying authority figures, whether secular or religious?  Are you suggesting that the peasant class existing in a vacuum with only Mao?  There were power struggles, and not everyone wanted the Great Leap Forward.  If fewer people had bought into Mao's personality cult rationality could have prevailed...many of the Chairman's contemporaries knew the Great Leap was a bad idea.

And please elaborate on, "religion created morality".  If a species does not have 'morality' in reference to its own kind it would never perpetuate.  Before the Jews, everyone did not murder everyone they saw just because they felt like it.  And traditional Jewish morality is not a morality I would want to live by anyway.  By the standards of the time they might have been progressive, but by modern standards they were horribly barbaric.  Societies adapt, and so does social morality.  Even over the last 100 years our morality has drastically shifted, often with religion being dragged kicking and screaming.

Apes also display morality and empathy, but I am not aware of them worshiping the Jewish deity.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:the back pedaling by

Quote:

the back pedaling by you changes nothing.

There is a difference between back pedaling and continuing on points I've made previously, which you've ignored. I will not allow you to convolute this topic to the point that you can brush anything aside that you don't have an answer for. If that means "back pedaling" so be it, say what you will about me.

Quote:

Government mismanagement made the famine worse and if ya actually read the book it does not include all the famine deaths.

I haven't read the book. You're right. Before you continue with your "aha!" I'm unable to physically hold a book. Why is irrelevant, you can view my post in the introduction forum if you're interested. My point is that the book is unavailable on Kindle and hasn't been recorded as an audiobook. So no, I haven't read it.

Quote:

And where did I use the Bible?

I didn't say that you used the Bible, I said that you broke your own rule. I used Ray Comfort as an example. What I said about you was that you asked that I not give individuals as examples, a bizarre request given that your latest argument is entirely about individuals, which I agreed to. I'll get back to this, I'm attempting to move in chronological order.

Quote:

Usin a dictionary for research. tsk, tsk. Read up on any altruism in any anthropology book and you will come across the observations of chimp pops. killing others for their gain.

A dictionary is ideal for research on this platform. It is a reflection of the accepted usage of language by the general population, meaning us. In biology, scientists use theory as in "theory of evolution" but it doesn't fit the general population's definition of theory. When discussing evolution in conversation, I stop using the term "theory." Do the same. You are not among anthropologists. This forum is not a research paper.

Quote:

 Jonathan, if ya gonna debate and ask me for academic sources please provide the same courtesy.

Of course. Please point to anything you'd like me to source. I assume you have something in mind, but I don't know what it was that you wanted a citation for.

Quote:

Well without religion all we have is ourselves (humanity). We create de-facto Gods (AKA: those personalities). You can see such a following develop around Dawkins and his third rate philosophy.

We don't create de facto Gods. Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens, Stenger, and any other atheist says the exact opposite. Atheism promotes free thinking.If any cult formed around Richard Dawkins, he'd be the first to end it. But that can't realistically happen, because again, the atheist demographic have rejected religion because we are rational free thinkers who understand the world around us.

Quote:

Just don't think religion serves no purpose in the modern world

I think it does serve a purpose, but one that is harmful, and one that we would be better off without. Nuclear bombs serve a purpose.

Quote:

China is still the most repressive nation in the world.

China is the most repressive nation in the world only in number of repressed. They're also the most populous, and geographically the second largest after, guess who? Russia! What you're doing is morally reprehensible. You can't use population in deciding "most repressive" because it almost has to be the nation with the largest population. Also, you've made no attempt to define "repressive." Do you want to use political arrests, executions, raids on free speech propagators, court cases involving free speech, corruption, greed, difference in upper and lower classes, or something else, or a combination?

Have a look at North Korea or Myanmar, let's talk about repression per square mile or per x residents.

Quote:

You'll find that the most esteemed sociologists, biologists, and anthropologists recognize religion as the origin of morality.

I'd ask for a source, but it doesn't matter. Your argument is non sequitur.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:China is

JonathanBC wrote:

China is the most repressive nation in the world only in number of repressed. They're also the most populous, and geographically the second largest after, guess who? Russia! What you're doing is morally reprehensible. You can't use population in deciding "most repressive" because it almost has to be the nation with the largest population. Also, you've made no attempt to define "repressive." Do you want to use political arrests, executions, raids on free speech propagators, court cases involving free speech, corruption, greed, difference in upper and lower classes, or something else, or a combination?

Have a look at North Korea or Myanmar, let's talk about repression per square mile or per x residents.

Or Iran, if you want a theocracy.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:JonathanBC

mellestad wrote:

JonathanBC wrote:

China is the most repressive nation in the world only in number of repressed. They're also the most populous, and geographically the second largest after, guess who? Russia! What you're doing is morally reprehensible. You can't use population in deciding "most repressive" because it almost has to be the nation with the largest population. Also, you've made no attempt to define "repressive." Do you want to use political arrests, executions, raids on free speech propagators, court cases involving free speech, corruption, greed, difference in upper and lower classes, or something else, or a combination?

Have a look at North Korea or Myanmar, let's talk about repression per square mile or per x residents.

Or Iran, if you want a theocracy.

I'll pass, thanks Eye-wink


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The main

mellestad wrote:

The main complaint of most atheists about religion in general is it teaches blind obedience to a higher authority...whether that is God, the Pope, Stalin or the People's Party.

Sorry to have missed all the earlier dialogue.... been rather distracted by work recently Eye-wink

 

Hi Mellestad,

While I would agree with you in regards to most of the examples you cite, the Bible does not teach or condone 'blind obedience'.

Note Jesus' comments on "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Mt 7:21)

Its not just doing things in his name, but doing what his Father teaches to do.

Within scriptures, believers are instructed to 'test everything' (1Thes 5:21), and be part of a body of believers. In part this body's role is to correct, rebuke and encourage (2Ti4:2) its members so that they do not stray from the Word. We are certainly to trust God, but that trust is not 'blind' either.

If I trust my human father to be there... to help and love me... in times of need, it is not because I am 'blind'. It is because I have known him through both good times and bad, and have seen what he does and how he does it. A believer's trust in God the Father should be the same. Based upon knowing Him, and knowing that He is worthy of trust.

(Please note the word 'should'. There are always those whose faith is based more upon hope or other things, but even hope is not a blind act.)

Some may argue that faith itself is 'blind', but this  in itself is rather blind. No person gives their life over to a belief system 'blindly', but rather because they themselves have been sufficiently convinced. This convincing may not be entirely upon empirical evidence, but few things in life are entirely empirical.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:iwbiek

scuppers wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

scuppers wrote:

Communist China is still the most repressive nation in the world. Ask a Tibetan monk what he thinks about Chinese ideology. 

what the fuck?  there are many nations more oppressive than china.  north korea tops the list.  i'm a marxist and a bit sour on the whole "state-worship" argument and even i would call kim jong-il's regime theocratic.  as for other more oppressive nations, i would have to go with iran, sudan, zimbabwe, lebanon, burma, and hell, maybe even israel.

as for the tibetan monks, i'm not a fan.  they ran a brutal theocratic regime for years and while i don't agree with chinese policy in tibet, the last thing i want to see is the lamas returning to power.  the idea of the peaceful, persecuted tibetan monk is utter bullshit pedalled by gullible hollywood celebrities.  i say that as a person who is actually very sympathetic to buddhism, or at least the buddhist scriptures.

Whatever you have to say to excuse your mindset. In terms of numbers of the repressed no one comes close to China. Take the advise I told the other guy. Humanity will never achieve a Utopia. Its been proven over 12,000 yrs. Hold on to your wishful ideology as you wish but don't scapegoat to justify it. That is how repression often starts.

 

Hi Scuppers,

 

If you're going to defend Christianity, then please do so... but you may want to check how your personal political stance may be at odds with scripture.

May I also point out that China today has possibly the largest number of Protestant Christians... roughly 70 million even by conservative Chinese government estimates. God works all things for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to His purpose, and all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

Perhaps America could use a bit more persecution... to refine us and purify us.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:While I would

Dragoon wrote:

While I would agree with you in regards to most of the examples you cite, the Bible does not teach or condone 'blind obedience'.

...

Its not just doing things in his name, but doing what his Father teaches to do.

...

Some may argue that faith itself is 'blind', but this  in itself is rather blind. No person gives their life over to a belief system 'blindly', but rather because they themselves have been sufficiently convinced. This convincing may not be entirely upon empirical evidence, but few things in life are entirely empirical.

Ephesians 5:6 "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience"

Numbers 15:39 "Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes"

James 4:4 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

1 Corinthians 1:19 "For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Sounds to me like God wants a monopoly on the whole wisdom and knowledge thing. And don't follow your heart! That's a bad idea, you know.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
  scuppers wrote:By all

 

 

scuppers wrote:

By all means clarify your marxist ideology.

no.  i never offered to and it has nothing to do with the discussion we're having.  just do a search on this site.  there are plenty of older threads in which i outline both marxist theory in general, the history of marxist theory, and my particular take on it.

scuppers wrote:


You scapegoated Hollywood as the reason why people think Tibetans are repressed which suggested China's policies are not as bad as they are. 

no, i blamed hollywood as the reason why we as americans have a distorted view of the ancien regime in tibet, seeing it as a peaceful, idyllic time.  i said nothing about chinese policies other than that i don't agree with their handling of tibet.  however, i definitely don't agree with the lamas' handling of tibet either.

 

 

 

besides, rather than arguing about my personal views, i'd much rather get back on topic and get those numbers of repressed you mentioned, both in china and every other country you'd care to compare it to.

by the way, how about we just talk about china in general, you and i?  i have at least four biographies of mao under my belt, from the hugely critical (jung chang and jon halliday) to the slightly sympathetic (lee feigon), not to mention a lot of ancillary material.  i can in particular show you how mao was more influenced by the policies of the qin emperors and their legalist philosophers than anything marx, lenin, or stalin ever wrote.  while i have no academic education in it, 20th century china (at least until the death of mao) has become a passion for me in the last 3 years or so.  i see you've already mixed up the great leap forward with the cultural revolution, since you say that during the great leap mao put elitist students in charge.  the great leap was entirely under the control of village party cadres.

also, if you'd like to talk about stalinist russia, that would be fine too, since soviet interests run parallel to my chinese interests.  1917-1953 and the subsequent years of destalinization are my specialty.

we can talk about cuba too.

or the warsaw pact, particularly czechoslovakia (i currently reside in slovakia).

basically, as far as i've been able to tell after about 2 years on this site, i'm the closest thing here to an expert on the history of world communism, so if you really want to try to throw your weight around in that area, i'll be happy to oblige.

 

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:Dragoon

JonathanBC wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

While I would agree with you in regards to most of the examples you cite, the Bible does not teach or condone 'blind obedience'.

...

Its not just doing things in his name, but doing what his Father teaches to do.

...

Some may argue that faith itself is 'blind', but this  in itself is rather blind. No person gives their life over to a belief system 'blindly', but rather because they themselves have been sufficiently convinced. This convincing may not be entirely upon empirical evidence, but few things in life are entirely empirical.

Ephesians 5:6 "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience"

Numbers 15:39 "Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes"

James 4:4 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

1 Corinthians 1:19 "For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Sounds to me like God wants a monopoly on the whole wisdom and knowledge thing. And don't follow your heart! That's a bad idea, you know.

Depends on whether God is who he says he is. If he IS our creator, and he knows what is good/right, then it is only our arrogance and pride which would would seek to contradict him. We certainly are not perfect. Our hearts chase after temporary pleasures even when we know that they are wrong.

It isn't whether he 'wants' a monopoly... but rather, is He the only one who truly knows what wisdom and truth are.

 

Nice collection of appropriate scripture though.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: basically, as

iwbiek wrote:

 

basically, as far as i've been able to tell after about 2 years on this site, i'm the closest thing here to an expert on the history of world communism, so if you really want to try to throw your weight around in that area, i'll be happy to oblige.

 

 

Ahhhhh.... I'd like to contest you for that title, or at least compare notes lol.

I have a small academic background in Soviet studies and Poli Sci, but I've also had 7 years lived in China. My personal area of interest used to be more anarchism and theoretical fascism, but we do change with age.

 

Your definitions of 'persecution' may differ from each other's though, in a Kantian sort of way.

 

 


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Aw shit.  This conversation

Aw shit.  This conversation has decayed into a political discussion.  I'm unsubscribing from the thread.

 

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Ahhhhh.... I'd

Dragoon wrote:

Ahhhhh.... I'd like to contest you for that title, or at least compare notes lol.

I have a small academic background in Soviet studies and Poli Sci, but I've also had 7 years lived in China. My personal area of interest used to be more anarchism and theoretical fascism, but we do change with age.

i was unaware of this and i'm actually glad of it.  that's why i was careful to qualify with "as far as i've been able to tell." 

as far as soviet studies go, given your academic background i'll probably defer to your opinion in most matters, unless your facts or analyses seem obviously wrong to me. 

your knowledge of contemporary china, especially at the grassroots level, will obviously surpass mine.  in the area of the history of the chinese communist party and maoist theory, i will at the very least respect your opinion.  i have more than a passing familiarity with the writings of mao and actually consider him a brilliant theorist in his own right, apart from the trappings of marxism (like many, i hold mao's marxist "orthodoxy" suspect, but it hardly matters to me). 

as for marxist theory in and of itself, you may very well have as much knowledge as me, though i've read all the major writings of marx and engels and many of the minor ones.  i also have a fairly strong grasp of leninism, though it mostly comes through biographies and soviet histories, as well as filtered through the lens of trotsky and mao.  i have yet to delve deeply into his works for myself, though robert c. tucker's lenin anthology waits on my shelf.

i'm a huge collector and reader of anything trotsky ever wrote, and if you can pigeonhole my marxism at all it definitely comes closest to trotskyism.  i don't know if you're familiar with his works or not.

my knowledge of anarchism and theoretical fascism is only as wide as where these theories appear in marxist polemics.

 

Dragoon wrote:
 

 

Your definitions of 'persecution' may differ from each other's though, in a Kantian sort of way.

granted.  it's precisely because of the subjectivity of the term that i disliked the absolutist stance that china is "the most repressive country on earth."  that's also why i argue that statistical figures are poor evidence to use, especially if such statistics are only raw numbers,  i suspect that when scuppers mentions "numbers," he's talking about raw numbers, which is why i've repeatedly asked him for them.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i was unaware

iwbiek wrote:

i was unaware of this and i'm actually glad of it.  that's why i was careful to qualify with "as far as i've been able to tell." 

as far as soviet studies go, given your academic background i'll probably defer to your opinion in most matters, unless your facts or analyses seem obviously wrong to me. 

your knowledge of contemporary china, especially at the grassroots level, will obviously surpass mine.  in the area of the history of the chinese communist party and maoist theory, i will at the very least respect your opinion.  i have more than a passing familiarity with the writings of mao and actually consider him a brilliant theorist in his own right, apart from the trappings of marxism (like many, i hold mao's marxist "orthodoxy" suspect, but it hardly matters to me). 

as for marxist theory in and of itself, you may very well have as much knowledge as me, though i've read all the major writings of marx and engels and many of the minor ones.  i also have a fairly strong grasp of leninism, though it mostly comes through biographies and soviet histories, as well as filtered through the lens of trotsky and mao.  i have yet to delve deeply into his works for myself, though robert c. tucker's lenin anthology waits on my shelf.

i'm a huge collector and reader of anything trotsky ever wrote, and if you can pigeonhole my marxism at all it definitely comes closest to trotskyism.  i don't know if you're familiar with his works or not.

my knowledge of anarchism and theoretical fascism is only as wide as where these theories appear in marxist polemics.

Actually, I doubt that I know very much of worth at the moment. The problem with 'grass roots' China, is that you realize you're looking at a 2" x 2" area of grass... then you look up and you see the field stretching to infinity. What is 'socialism with Chinese characteristics'?

Good old Ice Pick Trotsky was a favourite of mine as well... do yuo think his likeability was a reason for his demise.

iwbiek wrote:
 

Dragoon wrote:
 

 

Your definitions of 'persecution' may differ from each other's though, in a Kantian sort of way.

granted.  it's precisely because of the subjectivity of the term that i disliked the absolutist stance that china is "the most repressive country on earth."  that's also why i argue that statistical figures are poor evidence to use, especially if such statistics are only raw numbers,  i suspect that when scuppers mentions "numbers," he's talking about raw numbers, which is why i've repeatedly asked him for them.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. With its huge population, merely saying China has 'more' is probably true of most things in an absolute raw numbers sense.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:JonathanBC

Dragoon wrote:

JonathanBC wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

While I would agree with you in regards to most of the examples you cite, the Bible does not teach or condone 'blind obedience'.

...

Its not just doing things in his name, but doing what his Father teaches to do.

...

Some may argue that faith itself is 'blind', but this  in itself is rather blind. No person gives their life over to a belief system 'blindly', but rather because they themselves have been sufficiently convinced. This convincing may not be entirely upon empirical evidence, but few things in life are entirely empirical.

Ephesians 5:6 "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience"

Numbers 15:39 "Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes"

James 4:4 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

1 Corinthians 1:19 "For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Sounds to me like God wants a monopoly on the whole wisdom and knowledge thing. And don't follow your heart! That's a bad idea, you know.

Depends on whether God is who he says he is. If he IS our creator, and he knows what is good/right, then it is only our arrogance and pride which would would seek to contradict him. We certainly are not perfect. Our hearts chase after temporary pleasures even when we know that they are wrong.

It isn't whether he 'wants' a monopoly... but rather, is He the only one who truly knows what wisdom and truth are.

 

Nice collection of appropriate scripture though.

So, the mob boss argument is your fallback?  I made you and I can unmake you, so do what I say?  I can decide what is right and wrong with my own brain, thanks.  If a voice tells me to sacrifice my kid to x deity, the voice can go to hell.  Job and Abraham are perfect examples of why the Bible teaches blind obedience and why I think that teaching is a horrible idea.

 

I hate political thread derails.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 iwiek, you seem to be

 iwiek, you seem to be harping on me past the point i was trying to make which was the 2 states that killed the most of their own people in world history was the SU and China, two states with atheist ideology. I listed the source and recommend you read it as its right up your ally in terms of your interest (its not limited to China, SU) I'll give ya the notion that the limitations on freedom in China are purely statistical and a state like N. Korea could easily be argued is worse based on the conditions but this just helps my case as N.Korea is also atheist. Let me illustrate. Iran's theocracy, for example, is very repressive (maybe more so than China minus demographics) but the people are forming a protest movement and a revolution may occur. The people in China and N. Korea are doing no such thing. I think that their religion shields them a bit from complete and total indoctrination from govt. propaganda. In N. Korea no such hope exists. In China, as dragoon pointed out, a large number of people are Christians but they constitute a small percentage. Here I see a sliver of hope but in the absence of any sort of religious revival, Christian or otherwise, the people only have their leaders and their policies and nothing to point to and say, "you are wrong, I will not stand for this, you can kill me, but others will stand up and fight against injustice." The only other option for change would be foreign invasion. As for debating you about Mao I'm sure you are much more versed in the subject. I don't know exactly what you want to debate but, as you can tell from my mixing of some of the history in China, my knowledge is general in this subject. The only book I have outside of ancillary material is the one I listed and I read that like 6-7 yrs ago. My specialty is Euro history from the Crusades to the Reformation, although I'm well versed on other subjects (Mesoamerican cultures, Mexico, Anthropology, Modern Britain, mythologies of the world, WWI and events leading up to it, just to name a few). For the Jews and morality I said historians give them credit and I'll supply a somewhat lengthy passage for you out of World Civilizations: The Global Experience Vol.1 by Peter N. Stearns et. al. (New York: Pearson Longman, 2008), 42. ........

"The development of monotheism had a wide significance. In Jewish hands the concept of God became less humanlike and more abstract, a basic change not only in religion but in overall look. God had a power and a planning quality far different from the attributes of the traditional gods of the Middle East and Egypt. The gods, particularly in Mesopotamia, were whimsical and capricious; the Jewish God was orderly and just, and people could know what to expect if they adhered to God's rules. The link to ethical conduct and moral behavior was also central. Religion for the Jews was a system of life, not merely a set of rituals and ceremonies."

Before this people didn't just murder others randomly or all the time, of course, but violence was the norm. You can find laws being made, such as the Hammurabi Code, but these were based on maintaining order not ethical conduct. Death, invasion, and hardship was the norm so even the slightest incident of disorder was dealt with swiftly and violently. The Jews developed some restraint with their religion which is probably why they never they formed an empire. All other ancient civs. used religious rituals to try and gain favor from supernatural deities to conquer and dominate other populations with no remorse whatsoever.

Dragoon, I can't defend Christianity well as I am a newbee. I was born again only months ago. I can clear up misconceptions many here espouse about some historical incidences. I don't think persecution should be desired, however, for any group of people. My political opinions are not displayed in my posts. I'm just using history to counter accusations that religion is the source of violence in history. Its people and religion limits is my interpretation and I believe that is what we are debating.

Jonathan, I think you're confusing my convo with iwiek with our other one. We kinda moved off the particulars due to questions he proposed. Fell free to add or propose other arguments. 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:"The

scuppers wrote:

"The development of monotheism had a wide significance. In Jewish hands the concept of God became less humanlike and more abstract, a basic change not only in religion but in overall look. God had a power and a planning quality far different from the attributes of the traditional gods of the Middle East and Egypt. The gods, particularly in Mesopotamia, were whimsical and capricious; the Jewish God was orderly and just, and people could know what to expect if they adhered to God's rules. The link to ethical conduct and moral behavior was also central. Religion for the Jews was a system of life, not merely a set of rituals and ceremonies."

Before this people didn't just murder others randomly or all the time, of course, but violence was the norm. You can find laws being made, such as the Hammurabi Code, but these were based on maintaining order not ethical conduct. Death, invasion, and hardship was the norm so even the slightest incident of disorder was dealt with swiftly and violently. The Jews developed some restraint with their religion which is probably why they never they formed an empire. All other ancient civs. used religious rituals to try and gain favor from supernatural deities to conquer and dominate other populations with no remorse whatsoever.

I've read that textbook.  I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the Jewish God was the first God to be orderly.  And at times He was capricious and petty and vengful, so that doesn't even fly very well to me.

Are you claiming the Jewish laws were not there to maintain order?

I'm not a student of ancient religions, but I have a large dose of skepticism for the idea that Jews were the first people to link law and religion.  And the Jews reacted with plenty of swift violence of their own, in any case.

Again, I am not saying the Jews were no progressive, but saying they created a massive shift in religious and ethical thought seems lame.  The Muslims were also very progressive in many ways, but so what, does that make them any more correct?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:scuppers

mellestad wrote:

scuppers wrote:

"The development of monotheism had a wide significance. In Jewish hands the concept of God became less humanlike and more abstract, a basic change not only in religion but in overall look. God had a power and a planning quality far different from the attributes of the traditional gods of the Middle East and Egypt. The gods, particularly in Mesopotamia, were whimsical and capricious; the Jewish God was orderly and just, and people could know what to expect if they adhered to God's rules. The link to ethical conduct and moral behavior was also central. Religion for the Jews was a system of life, not merely a set of rituals and ceremonies."

Before this people didn't just murder others randomly or all the time, of course, but violence was the norm. You can find laws being made, such as the Hammurabi Code, but these were based on maintaining order not ethical conduct. Death, invasion, and hardship was the norm so even the slightest incident of disorder was dealt with swiftly and violently. The Jews developed some restraint with their religion which is probably why they never they formed an empire. All other ancient civs. used religious rituals to try and gain favor from supernatural deities to conquer and dominate other populations with no remorse whatsoever.

I've read that textbook.  I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the Jewish God was the first God to be orderly.  And at times He was capricious and petty and vengful, so that doesn't even fly very well to me.

Are you claiming the Jewish laws were not there to maintain order?

I'm not a student of ancient religions, but I have a large dose of skepticism for the idea that Jews were the first people to link law and religion.  And the Jews reacted with plenty of swift violence of their own, in any case.

Again, I am not saying the Jews were no progressive, but saying they created a massive shift in religious and ethical thought seems lame.  The Muslims were also very progressive in many ways, but so what, does that make them any more correct?

Of course order was maintained but by applying consequences in the afterlife for the actions or behavior of a person a shift took place for the Hebrews. For example, a Sumerian living in Uruk had only 3 concerns in his life. Eating, breeding, and fighting. Life was short and they needed to keep the population growing for agriculture and defense or invasion. This was the same all over the world from the ancient Inca and Maya in the West to the ancient India in the East. This way of life caused these civs. to develop various pantheons that embodied the elements of life and nature that threatened their lives daily. They felt they had to appease these deities to avoid catastrophe. The Hebrew God didn't embody these concerns. His concern was with people. With this the first ideas (although crude at this point) of human rights were established for the first time. It shifted concern for an individual's own life (which entailed doing whatever was required to enhance survival) from a selfish perspective to one that embodied brotherhood and care for others. This moral development did not spread easily or quickly. Most historians credit Jesus' teachings (whether they think him divine or not) as the reason such concern became worldwide. This happened because two major incidents of plague (probably smallpox and the measles) that struck the Roman Empire in the second and third centuries decimated world populations. The Emperors became really concerned about the spread of Christianity after this (before they generally viewed it as a superstition that would eventually be weeded out) because as the Greek philosophers, stoics, and pagan temple priests headed for the hills to save themselves the Christians aided the sick and dying, at great risk to their lives, and people began to convert in great numbers all over the empire from Egypt to Athens, from Athens to Gaul, and wherever else the story of Jesus reached. Afterwards, the emperors tried to mimic the fellowship of the Christians to prevent losing pagan worshippers. The emperor Julian launched a campaign to institute pagan charities that followed the Christian example. In a letter by him to the pagan high priest of Galatia he complained that the pagans needed to equal the virtues of the Christians, for recent Christian growth was caused by their "moral character, even if pretended," and by "benevolence toward strangers and care for the graves of the dead." In another letter to a priest, Julian wrote, "I think that when the poor happened to be neglected and overlooked by the (pagan)priests, the impious Galileans observed this and devoted themselves to benevolence." And he also wrote, "The impious Galilieans support not only their poor, but ours as well, everyone can see that our people lack aid from us." -Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity. San Fransisco: Harper Collins, 1997, pg. 83-84. 

Through the instrument of the widespread Roman Empire and copying by pagans, morality throughout the human race significantly increased. Even Julian, someone who loathed Christianity way more than some on here, recognized the moral function of its tenets as commendable. Already at this point in history Christianity did more good than any other ideology/religion before it and other cultures took notice.

Btw, my studies of ancient mythologies/religion along with the oral stories/beliefs still retained by non-industrialized peoples (like the Berawan of Borneo, among others) is what brought me to God. Too many coincidences of similarity to be separate manifestations. At first I was trying to explain these coincidences as a result of a global disaster. I was doing research for a book that was going to hypothesize creation stories, snake symbology, and deluge legends were a result of a world wide catastrophe, possibly a meteor striking the North Pole. I was wrong.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
The Jews fought and

The Jews fought and conquered.  The Jews employed death for trivial offenses.  The Jews sacrificed to their God for favor in war and peace.  The Jews were slavers.

You bring up incremental changes to the religion in a violent, primitive era and try to pass it off as an utter revolution in human thought, but I don't see it.

Your entire point was that Christianity is special because the Jews were revolutionary.  Was Bhuddism influenced by Jews?  I don't see how this post is a defense of your original point, nor does it address the point I have been making while posting in this thread. 

You justify buying in to the supernatural claims of religion because you happen to like the morality espoused, and are presenting an argument that the morality taught is something no-one ever thought of.  It isn't.  The basic non-religious morality practiced by the Jews pops up in almost every civilization in the world.  Have a sample:

 

'I have not slain men.' (Ancient Egyptian. From the Confession of the Righteous Soul, 'Book of the Dead', v. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics [= ERE], vol. v, p. 478)

'Do not murder.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:13)

'Terrify not men or God will terrify thee.' (Ancient Egyptian. Precepts of Ptahhetep. H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. i3}n)

'In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw... murderers.' (Old Norse. Volosp 38, 39)

'I have not brought misery upon my fellows. I have not made the beginning of every day laborious in the sight of him who worked for me.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

'Who meditates oppression, his dwelling is overturned.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'Slander not.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:16)

'Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded.' (Hindu. Janet, p. 7)

'Has he ... driven an honest man from his family? broken up a well cemented clan?' (Babylonian. List of Sins from incantation tablets. ERE v. 446)

'I have not caused hunger. I have not caused weeping.' (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 478)

'Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects of Confucius, trans. A. Waley, xv. 23; cf. xii. 2)

'Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart.' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:17)

'He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon goodness will dislike no one.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, iv. 4)

'Nature urges that a man should wish human society to exist and should wish to enter it.' (Roman. Cicero, De Officiis, i. iv)

'By the fundamental Law of Nature Man [is] to be preserved as much as possible.' (Locke, Treatises of Civil Govt. ii. 3)

'When the people have multiplied, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Enrich them. Jan Ch'iu said, When one has enriched them, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Instruct them.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, xiii. 9)

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
And to reply to myself:

And to reply to myself: Naturally we think that some of the changes western religions made were special...we live in a western society that is very caught up in our moralistic ancestry, of which the Jewish faith plays a role.  But don't kid yourself into thinking our morality is unique or special because of that...the same ideas pop up elsewhere (Hint: Some types of morality are necessary for a society to progress to the next stage of societal growth).  And we also have some terrible immoral baggage for the same reasons.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The Jews

mellestad wrote:

The Jews fought and conquered.  The Jews employed death for trivial offenses.  The Jews sacrificed to their God for favor in war and peace.  The Jews were slavers.

You bring up incremental changes to the religion in a violent, primitive era and try to pass it off as an utter revolution in human thought, but I don't see it.

Your entire point was that Christianity is special because the Jews were revolutionary.  Was Bhuddism influenced by Jews?  I don't see how this post is a defense of your original point, nor does it address the point I have been making while posting in this thread. 

You justify buying in to the supernatural claims of religion because you happen to like the morality espoused, and are presenting an argument that the morality taught is something no-one ever thought of.  It isn't.  The basic non-religious morality practiced by the Jews pops up in almost every civilization in the world.  Have a sample:

 

 

 

 

'I have not slain men.' (Ancient Egyptian. From the Confession of the Righteous Soul, 'Book of the Dead', v. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics [= ERE], vol. v, p. 478)

'Do not murder.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:13)

'Terrify not men or God will terrify thee.' (Ancient Egyptian. Precepts of Ptahhetep. H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. i3}n)

'In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw... murderers.' (Old Norse. Volosp 38, 39)

'I have not brought misery upon my fellows. I have not made the beginning of every day laborious in the sight of him who worked for me.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

'Who meditates oppression, his dwelling is overturned.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'Slander not.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:16)

'Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded.' (Hindu. Janet, p. 7)

'Has he ... driven an honest man from his family? broken up a well cemented clan?' (Babylonian. List of Sins from incantation tablets. ERE v. 446)

'I have not caused hunger. I have not caused weeping.' (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 478)

'Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects of Confucius, trans. A. Waley, xv. 23; cf. xii. 2)

'Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart.' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:17)

'He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon goodness will dislike no one.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, iv. 4)

'Nature urges that a man should wish human society to exist and should wish to enter it.' (Roman. Cicero, De Officiis, i. iv)

'By the fundamental Law of Nature Man [is] to be preserved as much as possible.' (Locke, Treatises of Civil Govt. ii. 3)

'When the people have multiplied, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Enrich them. Jan Ch'iu said, When one has enriched them, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Instruct them.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, xiii. 9)

 

 

 

 

My whole point from the start was religion limits immorality. I used some examples. You just provided more. I did make a case that the Judeo-Christian was more critical in the moral progress of man but i never said morality was limited to adherents of  Judaism or Christianity. Just that the Hebrews provided a template for community that can't be found elsewhere earlier. And i didn't come up the Hebrew God originating morality, other historians did. I merely am using their accredited work to make a point. Thanks for the additional examples


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Dragoon

mellestad wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

JonathanBC wrote:

Ephesians 5:6 "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience"

Numbers 15:39 "Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes"

James 4:4 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

1 Corinthians 1:19 "For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Sounds to me like God wants a monopoly on the whole wisdom and knowledge thing. And don't follow your heart! That's a bad idea, you know.

Depends on whether God is who he says he is. If he IS our creator, and he knows what is good/right, then it is only our arrogance and pride which would would seek to contradict him. We certainly are not perfect. Our hearts chase after temporary pleasures even when we know that they are wrong.

It isn't whether he 'wants' a monopoly... but rather, is He the only one who truly knows what wisdom and truth are.

 

Nice collection of appropriate scripture though.

So, the mob boss argument is your fallback?  I made you and I can unmake you, so do what I say?  I can decide what is right and wrong with my own brain, thanks.  If a voice tells me to sacrifice my kid to x deity, the voice can go to hell.  Job and Abraham are perfect examples of why the Bible teaches blind obedience and why I think that teaching is a horrible idea.

 

I hate political thread derails.

No, I'd say you have it backwards. Its not the mob boss... its the natural father. We ran away from our home, but He is letting us know that He never left us or forsake us, even as we travelled far away from him. He is not forcing us home, but reminding us of His great love, and also warning us of the danger if we continue on our current path.

If God is really 'God', then he has always had the ability to force compliance if he wanted to. Instead he has left us with the privilege of choosing... the very 'what is right and wrong' choice you speak of.

Note that both Job and Abraham ALREADY belonged to God. He was not forcing them to blind obedience to follow him. They already were following him. What God gave them was a gift.

To Abraham, he gave an opportunity to show how much he truly loved his Father in heaven. Abraham so trusted God, that even though what God asked of him was abominable.... he trusted God. This is not blind faith. This is faith in someone you know and love, to do what is right and good, even if you don't understand their reason.

Similarly to Job. Despite God's testing of him, Job refused to curse God and continued to trust him. In the end, God gave him back everything he had lost and more.

You may say, "but his children were killed!" Absolutely. But part of the promise of God is that 'God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son' (1 John 5:11). Job's children are not gone. They are waiting for him in the last days, when they will be able to welcome and abide with both Job and their Father in heaven.  


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:  My whole

scuppers wrote:

 

 

My whole point from the start was religion limits immorality. I used some examples. You just provided more. I did make a case that the Judeo-Christian was more critical in the moral progress of man but i never said morality was limited to adherents of  Judaism or Christianity. Just that the Hebrews provided a template for community that can't be found elsewhere earlier. And i didn't come up the Hebrew God originating morality, other historians did. I merely am using their accredited work to make a point. Thanks for the additional examples

 

Many of my examples are not religious.  That is my point, the philosophy a particular religion happens to be pushing at any given moment does not lend credence to the religion itself.  And in your example, I don't think the Jews were anything special about the ethics they taught anyhow.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:scuppers

mellestad wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 

 

My whole point from the start was religion limits immorality. I used some examples. You just provided more. I did make a case that the Judeo-Christian was more critical in the moral progress of man but i never said morality was limited to adherents of  Judaism or Christianity. Just that the Hebrews provided a template for community that can't be found elsewhere earlier. And i didn't come up the Hebrew God originating morality, other historians did. I merely am using their accredited work to make a point. Thanks for the additional examples

 

Many of my examples are not religious.  That is my point, the philosophy a particular religion happens to be pushing at any given moment does not lend credence to the religion itself.  And in your example, I don't think the Jews were anything special about the ethics they taught anyhow.

your entitled to your opinion but for now the academia world sees the Hebrews and their creation of ethical monotheism as the source, or at the least the first recorded instance, of a moral lifestyle that limited, not eliminated, inhumane behavior toward others.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:No, I'd say

Dragoon wrote:

No, I'd say you have it backwards. Its not the mob boss... its the natural father. We ran away from our home, but He is letting us know that He never left us or forsake us, even as we travelled far away from him. He is not forcing us home, but reminding us of His great love, and also warning us of the danger if we continue on our current path.

The danger of a system that he designed to be dangerous because he wanted to play a game.

Dragoon wrote:

If God is really 'God', then he has always had the ability to force compliance if he wanted to. Instead he has left us with the privilege of choosing... the very 'what is right and wrong' choice you speak of.

God does force compliance.  A choice is not a choice if someone is holding a gun to your head, full stop.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9IvCpiHxA

Dragoon wrote:

Note that both Job and Abraham ALREADY belonged to God. He was not forcing them to blind obedience to follow him. They already were following him. What God gave them was a gift.

To Abraham, he gave an opportunity to show how much he truly loved his Father in heaven. Abraham so trusted God, that even though what God asked of him was abominable.... he trusted God. This is not blind faith. This is faith in someone you know and love, to do what is right and good, even if you don't understand their reason.

Similarly to Job. Despite God's testing of him, Job refused to curse God and continued to trust him. In the end, God gave him back everything he had lost and more.

You may say, "but his children were killed!" Absolutely. But part of the promise of God is that 'God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son' (1 John 5:11). Job's children are not gone. They are waiting for him in the last days, when they will be able to welcome and abide with both Job and their Father in heaven.

Wow.  Again, we are God's little playthings and he can screw with us whenever he wants and we have to say, "please sir, may I have some more?"  And if my daughter is murdered by a Islamic extremist that must mean God loves me...after all, God told him to murder my family and God is made of love.  If I had to pick a God to hang out with, the dude you are describing is the last thing I would ever want.  Tough love by murdering your family.  Swell.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
*sigh* And now I am all

*sigh* And now I am all riled up.  Every time I convince myself that religion isn't as bad as all that someone comes out and spouts a well-meaning philosophy that is incredibly destructive, and thinks it is the best thing ever.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Dragoon, I

scuppers wrote:

 

Dragoon, I can't defend Christianity well as I am a newbee. I was born again only months ago. I can clear up misconceptions many here espouse about some historical incidences. I don't think persecution should be desired, however, for any group of people. My political opinions are not displayed in my posts. I'm just using history to counter accusations that religion is the source of violence in history. Its people and religion limits is my interpretation and I believe that is what we are debating.

Hi Scuppers,

 

There is no need to defend 'Christianity'. If God is God, then He can defend himself through His Word. When we speak or act, it should only be in reliance on Him and His power and guidance... not our own. Through our weakness His power is made complete.

What every believer can do is to 'clear up misconceptions'. As followers of Jesus Christ, my love of God should be evidenced in both my love for my fellow man and my love for truth, because God is both of these things (if His claims about himself are true). I should clarify that 'love for my fellow man' is not love based on what mankind desires love to be, but rather what God tells and demonstrates. Our own love shifts like shadows and we hurt the ones we love more than we hurt anyone else... yet we think we are thus able to judge love.

Persecution may not be 'desired', but scripture tells us that "every one who is determined to live a godly life as a follower of Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Ti 3:12) and to "endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you like sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?" (He12:7) The Chinese church has been blessed by their hardship. Do not pray that their hardship go away, but like Jesus prayed for his disciples, pray that they "will not fall into temptation" (Lk 22:40)

 

Peace and grace to you Brother. May our Lord guide and keep you Eye-wink


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:*sigh* And

mellestad wrote:

*sigh* And now I am all riled up.  Every time I convince myself that religion isn't as bad as all that someone comes out and spouts a well-meaning philosophy that is incredibly destructive, and thinks it is the best thing ever.

Think what you like about religion... that is your choice.

But in considering the God of Abraham, it is important to not look at well-meaning philosophies and polite generalities. If He is 'real', then we should look at the fullness of what He is. There are things that challenge us and things that bring us joy... we cannot ignore either one if we are to make accurate assessments of 'God'.

 

In the end, you may decide to reject Him. I merely ask that you accept or reject based upon what is true.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: God does

mellestad wrote:

 

God does force compliance.  A choice is not a choice if someone is holding a gun to your head, full stop.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9IvCpiHxA

 

I would guess (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you have no problem with the concept of Karma. You have no problem acknowledging that your actions will have consequences... whether good or bad.

Why does the idea that there are consequences from God trouble you then? We are all responsible for our actions. God simply tells us the consequences.

 

If I choose to smoke 5 packs a day, should I blame the surgeon general for my lung cancer?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:mellestad

Dragoon wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

God does force compliance.  A choice is not a choice if someone is holding a gun to your head, full stop.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9IvCpiHxA

 

I would guess (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you have no problem with the concept of Karma. You have no problem acknowledging that your actions will have consequences... whether good or bad.

Why does the idea that there are consequences from God trouble you then? We are all responsible for our actions. God simply tells us the consequences.

 

If I choose to smoke 5 packs a day, should I blame the surgeon general for my lung cancer?

 

Karma is a supernatural idea, and I do have a problem with it.  Reality is that 'bad', selfish actions are often rewarded and 'good' unselfish actions are often punished.  It often goes the other way as well, but tying it to the idea of Karma is naive.  Nature is what it is, ideas like Karma assign purpose and motive where none exist.

The idea that God creates humans from nothing with many desires and instincts built in, then forbids them to follow their own nature, with threat of eternal suffering doesn't make any sense.  It never made any sense.  If God were real he would either be a mean, whimsical and evil bastard or an idiot.  Your analogy is flawed.  A true analogy would be a parent who lovingly addicts their kids to heroin, then puts them in a room full of drugs and tells them if they ever touch it they'll be tortured.  Forever.  Only it is more arbitrary than that, because God never tells you face to face, and many 'sins' are not even harmful.

Fortunately, if you remove the idea of God from the equations everything *actually makes sense*, like happiness, suffering, our humanity, our religions, our morality, beauty and love, good and evil...the philosophical problems of theism simply evaporate.  The only unanswerable question that remains is 'where did it all come from', and theism doesn't give an answer any more than Stephen Hawking guessing from his wheelchair.  Every other question in the universe suddenly becomes answerable, even if currently mysterious.  The concept of God raises so many questions and answers nothing beyond a desire for immortality and purpose, and even those answers only work if you are willing to operate in willful ignorance.  Theists have to create entire fields of study just to defend the blatant contradictions and irrational precepts embodied in the core dogma...it is incredible.  Thousands of years of cover your ass for a lie who's only benefit has been to inspire order based on fear.

I appreciate that many theists find contentment in religion, but I think you find true wonder by taking the rose colored glasses off and seeing reality for what it is.  Beautiful, terrible, warm, cold, nurturing, uncaring, mercurial and unchanging.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.