Jesus was a great moral teacher???

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jesus was a great moral teacher???

Dawkins heaps a lot a praise on Jesus:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/richard-dawkins-jesus-would-have-been-an-atheist-if-he-had-known-what-we-know-today/

I mostly disagree with the credit he gives Jesus...

If there actually was a Jewish Rabbi that gave many of the sermons recorded in the NT, it was likely he borrowed much of his material from others, like the Essenes, without giving them credit. Taking credit himself and his 'Father'.

The motivations that he says people should have for being moral always boil down to heaven and hell. There is no emphasis on building a better world because this world will soon pass away.

His moral standard of 'love your enemies", "turn the other cheek" and "give to everyone who asks" are impractical in the real world and therefore of no value except for philosophical discussion(aka mental masturbation).

His followers greatly exaggerated stories about his life and therefore had no real desire for truth.

He encouraged people to become like a child in there quest for answers. To believe just because someone tells you or it's a nice fantasy.

He teaches that having faith is more important than the actual impact of one's actions.

However, what I do give Jesus credit for is exposing the phonies and hypocrisy of most religious practitioners...

He condemns prayer and charity done for public show and tells people this should be done privately. This shows how phony Christians are that promote prayer in schools and public displays of religion.

He angrily throws out the money changers from the temple. Condemns people that use religion to make money or gain power.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I agree.'Nuff said.Dawkins

I agree.

'Nuff said.

Dawkins is also more charitable to the cultural value of the Bible than I am inclined to be.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Dawkins told the hateful

Dawkins told the hateful Bill O'Reilly right to his face that's it's a Judeo-Christian MYTH!

Dawkins said a strong case can me made that Jesus NEVER existed but he thinks Jesus probably existed. There's NO WAY he belives the Jesus that walked on water and turned water into wine existed or he'd be a Christnut!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:I

BobSpence wrote:

I agree.

'Nuff said.

Dawkins is also more charitable to the cultural value of the Bible than I am inclined to be.

+1

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
When you read

When you read some of the quotes of Jesus from the Bible, (there are quite a few excerpts featured in The God Who Wasn't There) you get a pretty clear picture that Jesus was anything BUT a nice guy.

I do not personally see very much value in anything that Jesus taught.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
I'm going to have to be the

I'm going to have to be the dissenting view here. Jefferson wrote an entire bible stripping it of the magic. He too liked the stories of Jesus but did not see him as a spin off of a god.

Now, having said that. Can some nice sounding motifs be found in the Jesus character. Certainly. Giving to the poor. Forgiving. Stuff like that. Yea.

But there ARE other verses "Think not that I bring peace. I bring not peace but a sword". And "If your family doesn't follow me abandon them".

On top of that the idea that a third party has the right to forgive a a direct person who hurt me. The beef is between me and that person, not the third party. To take my right away from me to decide wether or not to forgive, is incidious. I have no say in how I interact with others, that right is taken from me.

AND the fake suicide is simply another attention stunt under the split personality of this God/man/ghost, whose only goal is to get people to become his fan. It is not a "selfless act" because the Jesus character doesn't die. It is a mere pin prick. If it were a truely selfless act, the one doing it wouldn't care about being remembered and wouldn't need to come back, they would do it because it was right, not because they get attention.

The soldiers of D-Day were selfless, the vast majority of names we will never learn and they will never come back.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Jesus also

EXC wrote:

 

He encouraged people to become like a child in there quest for answers. To believe just because someone tells you or it's a nice fantasy.

He teaches that having faith is more important than the actual impact of one's actions.

However, what I do give Jesus credit for is exposing the phonies and hypocrisy of most religious practitioners...

He condemns prayer and charity done for public show and tells people this should be done privately. This shows how phony Christians are that promote prayer in schools and public displays of religion.

He angrily throws out the money changers from the temple. Condemns people that use religion to make money or gain power.

 

 

speaks condescendingly to Thomas, the only empiricist in the bible...having blind faith is better than searching for evidence of nail holes in my hands, he stupidly opines. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
There is just not

There is just not alot of good things that can be attributed to the words of fictional Jesus.

There is a powerful meme in western society to mindlessly say "OH, JESUS PREACHED LOVE,". and for even people to concede that Jesus had to be some "great" figure.

I MUST DISAGREE.

Read the parts of the bible where jesus demands that people leave their families, declares that all of the atrocities of the old testament are not to be changed one dot or tittle, kills a fig tree for all eternity because it did not give him fruit, drowns harmless animals by casting demons out of people and into them, etc. etc.

I get really TIRED of all this "Jesus had a good message stuff" from the "spiritual but not religious" crowds of people that are almost but not quite out from under the god delusion.

I am a fan of Dawkins, but that was unneccessary.

I am more like Same Harris, in the Moral Landscape, where he expresses frustration at the scientific community that wishes to placate religion by trying to absurdly claim that it is somehow neccessary or helps create a better world.

Nope, irrational claims are irrational claims and they do not deserve credence or respect.

I like Dawkins and have a great deal of respect for the man. But he was off the mark on stating that Jesus had any good in his messages.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
well, considering his

well, considering his historical context, i think jesus had about as good a message as we can expect from that time period.  let's not unfairly reflect our modern conceptions of morality back on the gospel accounts.

 

harleysportster wrote:

Read the parts of the bible where jesus demands that people leave their families,

yes, this is very much cultic, but you have to decide which jesus sayings you think are authentic.  jesus's attitude to the family is not consistent across all the gospel accounts.

having said that, in my and many scholars' opinions, this saying is most likely authentic.

harleysportster wrote:

declares that all of the atrocities of the old testament are not to be changed one dot or tittle,

well, to be fair, he said "law."  that doesn't explicitly include the narrative portions of the torah (we can't be sure how much of the nevi'im or kethuvim jesus was acquainted with or considered authoritative).  of course, it doesn't explicitly exclude them either. 

also, you have to look at the context.  he said not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away until it is fulfilled, and the apocalyptic jesus of matthew speaking here expected it to be fulfilled damn soon.  even the talmud states that the messianic age will be an age without torah.

harleysportster wrote:

kills a fig tree for all eternity because it did not give him fruit, drowns harmless animals by casting demons out of people and into them, etc. etc.

once again, in all fairness it wasn't just because the tree didn't give fruit.  it was a dramatic parable, a common teaching tool in judaism at that time (and almost to this day as a matter of fact; we can see similar episodes in the talmud, in hasidic folklore, etc.).  both episodes come from matthew and mark (and in the latter case luke as well), so we're still working in a jewish context, and for jews the whole question of if the episodes had literally occurred would have been immaterial.

even if we are to take both episodes literally, to fault anyone from the first century for not valuing plant or animal life as much as only a tiny minority of people in the 21st century do is grossly unfair.

also, purely as a sidenote, as someone who has worked with pigs several times, i can say the majority of them are far from "harmless."  they can be aggressive, dangerous animals.  i had a great uncle who lost his thumb to a hog as a child.  but that's neither here nor there.

anyway, show me any line of thought from the ancient or classical era that's consistently humane and/or rational, and you'll have definitely taught me something.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:well,

iwbiek wrote:

well, considering his historical context, i think jesus had about as good a message as we can expect from that time period.  let's not unfairly reflect our modern conceptions of morality back on the gospel accounts.

 

Key word being, from that time period. Totally irrelevant today. Same can be said for quite a number of "ancient writers" as you pointed out.

How many of the people who mindlessly parrot that Jesus was a "great man" or that Jesus was "filled with love" have truly read and studied everything Jesus preached, in your opinion ?

Granted, I tossed out a few mindless examples that immediately popped into my mind, but I am sure that I could dig around in the Bible, (If I can find the one copy that I use to argue with theists from time to time) and clarify my points with some of the statements of jesus.

Just like alot of people seem to think that Mother Teresa was some great person, when in fact, she was a nut and a fraud.

You can argue the point that Jesus was a product of his times, and I would agree, so why would we, wish to follow any pre-historic superstitious teachings and label them as great or loving ?

I see no one today (at least in mainstream culture) carrying on about the codes of hammurabi as some great moral teaching or trying to make excuses for it's barbarism as "simply a product of it's times". So what makes Jesus get anymore of a lenient pass than all of the rest of the bunk.

A bunch of ignorant goat-herders, no matter what the intent or products of our times, do not deserve any exalted feelings of worship in the modern world.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:      once

iwbiek wrote:

 

 

 

once again, in all fairness it wasn't just because the tree didn't give fruit.  it was a dramatic parable, a common teaching tool in judaism at that time (and almost to this day as a matter of fact; we can see similar episodes in the talmud, in hasidic folklore, etc.).  both episodes come from matthew and mark (and in the latter case luke as well), so we're still working in a jewish context, and for jews the whole question of if the episodes had literally occurred would have been immaterial.

 

Odd how people are always telling the bible readers what it really means.

Granted, I am not grossly outraged over the death of a fig tree, but to curse one for all eternity, figuratively or not, is the behavior of a three year old.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
iwbiek wrote:well,

iwbiek wrote:

well, considering his historical context, i think jesus had about as good a message as we can expect from that time period.  let's not unfairly reflect our modern conceptions of morality back on the gospel accounts.

 

harleysportster wrote:

Read the parts of the bible where jesus demands that people leave their families,

yes, this is very much cultic, but you have to decide which jesus sayings you think are authentic.  jesus's attitude to the family is not consistent across all the gospel accounts.

having said that, in my and many scholars' opinions, this saying is most likely authentic.

harleysportster wrote:

declares that all of the atrocities of the old testament are not to be changed one dot or tittle,

well, to be fair, he said "law."  that doesn't explicitly include the narrative portions of the torah (we can't be sure how much of the nevi'im or kethuvim jesus was acquainted with or considered authoritative).  of course, it doesn't explicitly exclude them either. 

also, you have to look at the context.  he said not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away until it is fulfilled, and the apocalyptic jesus of matthew speaking here expected it to be fulfilled damn soon.  even the talmud states that the messianic age will be an age without torah.

harleysportster wrote:

kills a fig tree for all eternity because it did not give him fruit, drowns harmless animals by casting demons out of people and into them, etc. etc.

once again, in all fairness it wasn't just because the tree didn't give fruit.  it was a dramatic parable, a common teaching tool in judaism at that time (and almost to this day as a matter of fact; we can see similar episodes in the talmud, in hasidic folklore, etc.).  both episodes come from matthew and mark (and in the latter case luke as well), so we're still working in a jewish context, and for jews the whole question of if the episodes had literally occurred would have been immaterial.

even if we are to take both episodes literally, to fault anyone from the first century for not valuing plant or animal life as much as only a tiny minority of people in the 21st century do is grossly unfair.

also, purely as a sidenote, as someone who has worked with pigs several times, i can say the majority of them are far from "harmless."  they can be aggressive, dangerous animals.  i had a great uncle who lost his thumb to a hog as a child.  but that's neither here nor there.

anyway, show me any line of thought from the ancient or classical era that's consistently humane and/or rational, and you'll have definitely taught me something.

It doesn't matter if we are talking about law. I am sure you have to obey traffic laws in Iran's cities or in China.

The laws were still handed down by a dictator who allowed or gave permission for his gang, "Chosen people" to decimate outsiders and take their property and their women as prizes. The fact he has "speed limits" and built the highways, doesnt make him moral, or the people who used the cars to run over pedestrians moral.

Jesus is God, they are the same being. So this is a dodge. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Jesus is God,

Brian37 wrote:

Jesus is God, they are the same being.

you can't infer that from the biblical text without serious cherry-picking and mental gymnastics.  jesus's divinity was reasoned deductively from the bible, not inductively, not in small part because the council of nicea could see that it was a favorite idea of the emperor constantine.

it was my understanding, based on the op, that we were talking about whether or not the best approximation of the historical jesus we can get from the gospel narratives was a "good moral teacher" who had things of value to say.  i assumed we were NOT talking about the christ of christianity, since what inspired the op was a remark by dawkins, not any sort of christian dogma.

there is absolutely no compelling evidence that whatever religious teacher(s) who inspired the jesus myth ever claimed to be god.  pretty much only christians bastardize the messianic prophecies of the hebrew bible to claim that the messiah will be anything more than a human being--a great human being on a mission from god, perhaps, but still a human being.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Jesus is God, they are the same being.

you can't infer that from the biblical text without serious cherry-picking and mental gymnastics.  jesus's divinity was reasoned deductively from the bible, not inductively, not in small part because the council of nicea could see that it was a favorite idea of the emperor constantine.

it was my understanding, based on the op, that we were talking about whether or not the best approximation of the historical jesus we can get from the gospel narratives was a "good moral teacher" who had things of value to say.  i assumed we were NOT talking about the christ of christianity, since what inspired the op was a remark by dawkins, not any sort of christian dogma.

there is absolutely no compelling evidence that whatever religious teacher(s) who inspired the jesus myth ever claimed to be god.  pretty much only christians bastardize the messianic prophecies of the hebrew bible to claim that the messiah will be anything more than a human being--a great human being on a mission from god, perhaps, but still a human being.

So, we both agree it is all cherry picking. It still doesn't mean you can separate the laws from the law maker. The god character in the OT is a prick, Jesus is a product of this law maker, that you cannot change no matter how you want to interpret the laws or the law maker.

The plot of the bible as an over all motif is the sign of an abusive spouse, a stalker.

1.Part one, "I'f you try to leave me I'll beat the shit out of you."

2.Part two: "Please don't leave me, I didn't want to hit you. Look, I'll shoot myself to prove I love you."

3. Part three "You tried to leave me again, now I'll beat the shit out of you forever."

If a guy named Sam puts a red shirt on, you can argue either way weather red is a good color to wear, but it doesn't change Sam would be a dick if he went around punching strangers.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Jesus is God, they are the same being.

you can't infer that from the biblical text without serious cherry-picking and mental gymnastics.  jesus's divinity was reasoned deductively from the bible, not inductively, not in small part because the council of nicea could see that it was a favorite idea of the emperor constantine.

it was my understanding, based on the op, that we were talking about whether or not the best approximation of the historical jesus we can get from the gospel narratives was a "good moral teacher" who had things of value to say.  i assumed we were NOT talking about the christ of christianity, since what inspired the op was a remark by dawkins, not any sort of christian dogma.

there is absolutely no compelling evidence that whatever religious teacher(s) who inspired the jesus myth ever claimed to be god.  pretty much only christians bastardize the messianic prophecies of the hebrew bible to claim that the messiah will be anything more than a human being--a great human being on a mission from god, perhaps, but still a human being.

So, we both agree it is all cherry picking. It still doesn't mean you can separate the laws from the law maker. The god character in the OT is a prick, Jesus is a product of this law maker, that you cannot change no matter how you want to interpret the laws or the law maker.

The plot of the bible as an over all motif is the sign of an abusive spouse, a stalker.

1.Part one, "I'f you try to leave me I'll beat the shit out of you."

2.Part two: "Please don't leave me, I didn't want to hit you. Look, I'll shoot myself to prove I love you."

3. Part three "You tried to leave me again, now I'll beat the shit out of you forever."

If a guy named Sam puts a red shirt on, you can argue either way weather red is a good color to wear, but it doesn't change Sam would be a dick if he went around punching strangers.

 

the bible has no plot.  it's a collection of texts of a wide array of genres, some of them (the kethuvim, for example) thrown together damn near at random, with wildly diverging messages.  one, esther, doesn't mention god at all.  the "plot" is the pastiche that the christers threw over it centuries later.

if we ever want to establish if "jesus," as opposed to "christianity," had anything "good" to say, we have to approach the texts in their historical and cultural contexts, not their canonical or dogmatic contexts.  in other words, we gotta look at them without the baggage of subsequent centuries.  that's obviously how dawkins reached his conclusion.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:the bible has no

Quote:
the bible has no plot

Yes it does. "Worship me"

It doesn't have good a good plot or good plot developement. But the plot of the bible is to get you to worship the head character God.

It has a lousy plot because its based on faith. It has absolutely no plot developement and horrible character developement. And the entire story is about one guy trying to gain attention for himself or bullying you into paying attention to him.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
You have to separate "early

You have to separate "early Jesus" from "late Jesus".

"Early Jesus" was more House of Hillel, liberal Pharisaic Judaism, with a lot less of the stupidity that some earlier posters have alluded to.

You also have to remember that he lived (assuming he existed ...) in occupied Judea, where the Romans had a nasty habit of murdering entire cities of Jews just because we weren't all that fond of worshiping pagan gods or Roman dictators.

And finally, while some things may sound impractical or like mental masturbation, they can be effective tools for conflict reduction and resolution and "peace" is a major theme within Judaism.  The word "peace" is actually in the name of the City of David (no, not the House of Bread city, the other one.  With the Temple in it ...)

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:You

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You have to separate "early Jesus" from "late Jesus".

uh-huh.  and just how do we do that?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


RuneSpider (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:FurryCatHerder

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You have to separate "early Jesus" from "late Jesus".

uh-huh.  and just how do we do that?

Easy. Look for his blue period.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:FurryCatHerder

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You have to separate "early Jesus" from "late Jesus".

uh-huh.  and just how do we do that?

Look at when the things that were attributed to Jesus were written?  Mark came first, John came last.  Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark, but added some material.  John is mostly made up out of thin air.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:iwbiek

FurryCatHerder wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You have to separate "early Jesus" from "late Jesus".

uh-huh.  and just how do we do that?

Look at when the things that were attributed to Jesus were written?  Mark came first, John came last.  Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark, but added some material.  John is mostly made up out of thin air.

ok, well, hillelite pharisees didn't typically preach the immanent eschaton, nor did they speak with charismatic authority (you have heard it was said...but i say to you...).  jesus was far more likely influenced by the essenes than by the pharisees, though he was sympathetic to them.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:FurryCatHerder

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Look at when the things that were attributed to Jesus were written?  Mark came first, John came last.  Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark, but added some material.  John is mostly made up out of thin air.

ok, well, hillelite pharisees didn't typically preach the immanent eschaton, nor did they speak with charismatic authority (you have heard it was said...but i say to you...).  jesus was far more likely influenced by the essenes than by the pharisees, though he was sympathetic to them.

Considering that none of the gospels were written while the Temple was still standing, or while there was a King of Israel, that pretty much makes sense.

What's been attributed to Jesus goes from "wrong" to "pretty far out there" the further you from Mark through Matthew and Luke to John.  By the time Paul was excommunicated from the Church of Jerusalem, Paul was outright teaching heresy.  Throw in the fact that by the time the Gospels were put the paper the Temple had been destroyed,and probably all of Judea in ruin (post 135 CE), and now you've got a need for some "Messiah" to come and straighten things out.


 

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:iwbiek

FurryCatHerder wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Look at when the things that were attributed to Jesus were written?  Mark came first, John came last.  Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark, but added some material.  John is mostly made up out of thin air.

ok, well, hillelite pharisees didn't typically preach the immanent eschaton, nor did they speak with charismatic authority (you have heard it was said...but i say to you...).  jesus was far more likely influenced by the essenes than by the pharisees, though he was sympathetic to them.

Considering that none of the gospels were written while the Temple was still standing, or while there was a King of Israel, that pretty much makes sense.

What's been attributed to Jesus goes from "wrong" to "pretty far out there" the further you from Mark through Matthew and Luke to John.  By the time Paul was excommunicated from the Church of Jerusalem, Paul was outright teaching heresy.  Throw in the fact that by the time the Gospels were put the paper the Temple had been destroyed,and probably all of Judea in ruin (post 135 CE), and now you've got a need for some "Messiah" to come and straighten things out.


 

 

ok, so if jesus's original "liberal pharisaic" message was corrupted in favor of the gospels' apocalypticism/messianism, then from what sources do we recover it?  because it's barely evident in the gospels.  and just how do you figure paul was "excommunicated" from the jerusalem church?  that there were disagreements is evident from the texts we possess, but nowhere is he outright called a heretic.

and don't forget the essenes were both apocalyptic and messianic, well before the destruction of the temple.  we know that from qumran.  jesus was heavily influenced by essene ideas.  we know that from the gospels and nag hammadi.

sounds to me like you're spouting that modern jewish anti-christian apologetic bullcrap about how "jesus was really a good, god-fearing pharisaic (i.e., proto-rabbinic) jew until you guys stole him from us."  ironic, considering how rabbinic judaism spent centuries maligning jesus all through the talmud and elsewhere, and even today denying jesus is the messiah is a non-negotiable for the majority of judaism.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
That Jesus wasn't the

That Jesus wasn't the "messiah" is self-evident to anyone who has a clue either what a "messiah" is, or what the whole "messianic prophecy" bit is all about.

On all of the key requirements, not only did Jesus fail, but in most cases he failed =spectacularly=.  It was so evident that he failed that the entire "second coming" theology was fabricated out of whole clothe -- he failed, but wait, he has to be the "messiah", let's make up this "second coming" thing.  And in the finest of traditions, it was supposed to be a near-term "second coming".  Which didn't happen, further violating all of the legal requirements for a "prophecy".  This is what is so cool about Judaism -- it has rules!

The previous paragraph is what led me to reject Christianity back when I was a Christian.

On the point that Jews supposedly spent centuries maligning Jesus, nope, sorry, I've read the relevant sections of all the relevant texts (whenever someone can provide me with a pointer in the original language ...) and there's no mention at all, in any of those texts, of a person who fits the normative Christian description of one Jesus of Nazareth.  There =are= descriptions of people with heretical behaviors and small band of followers, and there are expressions which have led anti-Semites to conclude we're talking about "Jesus", but those aren't a name, they are an abbreviated phrase meaning "may his name be erased".  There are even Jews who'll put it after Shitler's name (for example, "Hitler (y"s) murdered my grandparents in the old country&quotEye-wink to this very day.  So, no, the Talmud doesn't mention Jesus =anywhere=.

The evidence for the existence of Jesus is so very thin, that the only reason I accept "Jesus of Nazareth" even existed at all is because it's allows me to debate what Jesus did or didn't do.  You want my honest opinion?  Ya'akov Ha'Tzedek (James) was likely the person used to create the entire myth of Jesus's existence.  At least there is historical evidence for his existence and murder.  Jesus?  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.

That Paul was excommunicated is an absolute fact.  It has better independent support (historically) than the existence of Jesus, and is second in external support only to the existence of James and Peter.  Which pretty much leaves you with three independently supported figures within the Christian canon -- James, Peter and Paul.  There's no evidence for Jesus or his other disciples, and no independent evidence for a trial (the trial violated so many Jewish laws as to be completely impossible), execution, resurrection, miracles following same, and so forth.  There's no historical earthquake, ripping of the Temple veil, mass resurrection of dead people in Jerusalem, and so forth.  NONE.

Judaism is "rigged" in ways that make Christianity theologically impossible.  Too much of what is key to Christianity and the claimed messages of the Gospels that even if they =were= "true", they'd be rejected.  They'd have to be rejected -- Judaism is a rule-based religion in which "miracles" have no role.  We're taught that in the Exodus story -- the Court Magicians matched Moses up until things got a bit nasty.  So, healing sick people?  Not impressed.  You want to impress me?  Kill all the Roman soldiers, establish universal peace, etc.  Didn't happen, now did it?

So.  How to extract some original message by a guy who historically didn't exist?  You can't.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:On the

FurryCatHerder wrote:

On the point that Jews supposedly spent centuries maligning Jesus, nope, sorry, I've read the relevant sections of all the relevant texts

depends on what manuscript you're looking at, sure.  there are passages in sanhedrin 43a-b and b. gittin 57a that refer to jesus in several manuscripts.  as for post-talmudic smears, the most famous are those made by maimonides in his mishneh torah and epistle to yemen.  the latter has my favorite apellation for jesus, "may his bones be ground to dust," and claims his father was a gentile for some reason, and that his death was indeed instigated by the "sages" and was richly deserved.

i'm not an anti-semite because i frankly don't give a shit if there was a historical jesus, and if there was i could care less if the jewish authorities were responsible for his death.  i only pointed out that jews have historically had a negative view of jesus--more-so than any other false messiahs--because you yourself seemed interested in this weird dichotomy between "early" and "later" jesus, and holding that early jesus was an ok guy, a "liberal pharisee," and his teachings not so harmful after all.  i contend that "early" jesus (by which you seem to mean the jesus of the synoptics) was for the most part an apocalyptic nut, a la harold camping.  except not even he got the money.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

That Paul was excommunicated is an absolute fact.

so you should have no problem citing hundreds of sources, eyewitness and all, if it's an absolute fact.  other than later church writings (eusebius, et al.) and deuterocanonical books (e.g., paul and thecla), i see no evidence for paul or his life outside the NT, and his "excommunication" ain't in the NT.

oh wait, lemme guess, that dead sea scroll fragment that POSSIBLY talks about AN excommunication on A pentecost that mentions NO names and MIGHT be about paul if we want it to be.  please.  those talmud manuscripts with what might be jesus's name erased are more compelling evidence for jesus than the dead sea scrolls are for paul's excommunication.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

So.  How to extract some original message by a guy who historically didn't exist?  You can't.

beautiful.  so said message does not exist, "liberal pharisaic" or otherwise.  so why did you break on the discussion and start peddling your bullshit?

btw, there is nothing special or intellectually more sophisticated about judaism than any other bullshit religion.  any reasonably intelligent person can grasp it with a few months of study, if they're so inclined.  get over yourselves.  grasping philo and maimonides is child's play compared to being conversant in all the philosophical niceties of shankara or nagarjuna, and about as applicable to real life.  

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:depends on what

iwbiek wrote:

depends on what manuscript you're looking at, sure.  there are passages in sanhedrin 43a-b and b. gittin 57a that refer to jesus in several manuscripts.  as for post-talmudic smears, the most famous are those made by maimonides in his mishneh torah and epistle to yemen.  the latter has my favorite apellation for jesus, "may his bones be ground to dust," and claims his father was a gentile for some reason, and that his death was indeed instigated by the "sages" and was richly deserved.

Specific LINES in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE would be nice.  We'll be discussing the difference between burning and stoning a person and Roman crucifixion when you do produce the texts.

Quote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

That Paul was excommunicated is an absolute fact.

so you should have no problem citing hundreds of sources, eyewitness and all, if it's an absolute fact.  other than later church writings (eusebius, et al.) and deuterocanonical books (e.g., paul and thecla), i see no evidence for paul or his life outside the NT, and his "excommunication" ain't in the NT.

No need to -- it's in Acts, as well as the Qumran texts, and my recollection is that it's in the Talmud.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Specific LINES in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE would be nice.  We'll be discussing the difference between burning and stoning a person and Roman crucifixion when you do produce the texts.

a. i gave you the tractates and folio pages in which the passages can be found.  i'm sure the talmud is online if you really wanna check up on it.  then again, i'm sure as an expert in all things jewish you have both the babylonian and palestinian talmuds on your shelf.  "jesus the nazarene" is mentioned in one or the other of those passages i cited in the following manuscripts: herzog 1, vatican 130, firenze ii.1.8-9, and karlsruhe 2.  i will not spoon-feed you any more than that, nor can i without doing research you are not worth.

b. i am not competent in aramaic, nor, i wager, are you.

c. i told you in what works you can find maimonides' statements on jesus.  if you must scrutinize them, google works wonders.

d. i am not competent in maimonides' mishnaic hebrew, nor, i wager, are you.

e. who the fuck said anything about burning, stoning, or crucifixion?  sanhedrin 43 a-b says he was "hanged."  but i didn't mention that either, nor was it the point of me citing that passage.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No need to -- it's in Acts, as well as the Qumran texts, and my recollection is that it's in the Talmud.

wow, for the person who JUST wrote

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Specific LINES in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE would be nice.

 

that is incredibly ironic.  but luckily i'm familiar enough with two of those sources to know you're spouting more bullshit.

first of all, no it isn't in acts, but i'd like to know which verses led you to that erroneous conclusion.  english will suffice

second of all, i already addressed the qumran text you're referring to (which i'm sure you only read about second-hand), namely, 40266, which is about the excommunication of an unidentified man by an unidentified portion of the community.  there are no names--not paul, not james, nobody.

finally, i've never read of any mention of paul in the talmud, but if you'll furnish me with the coordinates i'll gladly track it down and have a look at it myself.

NEVER MIND THE FACT that even IF this handful of ancient texts actually explicitly mentioned the excommunication of paul (they don't), a handful of ancient texts does not make ANYTHING an "absolute fact."

unless if by "absolute fact" you mean "qualified assumption."

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:FurryCatHerder

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Specific LINES in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE would be nice.  We'll be discussing the difference between burning and stoning a person and Roman crucifixion when you do produce the texts.

a. i gave you the tractates and folio pages in which the passages can be found.  i'm sure the talmud is online if you really wanna check up on it.  then again, i'm sure as an expert in all things jewish you have both the babylonian and palestinian talmuds on your shelf.  "jesus the nazarene" is mentioned in one or the other of those passages i cited in the following manuscripts: herzog 1, vatican 130, firenze ii.1.8-9, and karlsruhe 2.  i will not spoon-feed you any more than that, nor can i without doing research you are not worth.

Yes, the Talmud is on-line.  So I read Sanhedrin 43.  Both pages.

He's not in there.

HTH.

As for excommunication, didn't you read the bit where Paul is told to leave town and not teach anything to Jews?  "Excommunication" refers to being thrown out of a community.  Which Acts very much states happened.

Now, if you can't accept as authoritative the works of the group making the statements about itself, on matters that relate to itself, you've got a problem with what "authoritative" means, too.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Yes,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Yes, the Talmud is on-line.  So I read Sanhedrin 43.  Both pages.

He's not in there.

in the aramaic too, i suppose.  anyway, as i said (and in detail--when presented with details i notice you frequently ignore them, and have a dreadful dirth of your own), it depends on the manuscript.

wikipedia has a handy table of the "jesus the nazarene" references they got from peter schaefer's jesus in the talmud about a quarter of the way down this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

FurryCatHerder wrote:

As for excommunication, didn't you read the bit where Paul is told to leave town and not teach anything to Jews? 

ok, i hate resorting to caps, but i'm going to because i'm beginning to think you're skimming my posts: WHY WILL YOU NOT FURNISH ME CHAPTER AND VERSE????  IT'S A RELATIVELY SIMPLE THING TO DO, AND IT WOULD BE RECIPROCATING THE COURTESY I'VE SHOWN YOU!!!!

that being said, tell me exactly from which community you're claiming paul was "excommunicated"?  because initially you said he was excommunicated from the jerusalem church because he taught heresy.  that is NOWHERE in acts, which is why scholars who hold the view of paul as an early christian heretic fall back on that ridiculously vague qumran fragment--which you no longer mention, thus i assume you concede that it's useless as any kind of "proof."  in fact, most scholars who support the idea of paul as a heretic usually say that the episode of the jerusalem council in acts was historical revisionism in paul's favor.

now, however, you say paul was kicked out of "town" and told not to teach "jews."  yes, paul was kicked out of many communities in the acts narrative for his teachings, but the jerusalem church wasn't one of them.   

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Now, if you can't accept as authoritative the works of the group making the statements about itself, on matters that relate to itself, you've got a problem with what "authoritative" means, too.

wow, really?  really, really, really?  we should just blindly accept whatever statements a group makes about ITSELF?  that this is the BEST evidence for determining historical "fact"?  can you honestly not see how preposterous that is?  see, this is where scholarly training comes in handy: anything anyone writes about HIMSELF is automatically held up to scrutiny, ESPECIALLY when it comes to conflicts within a group.  that's precisely why paul's writings about his disagreements with jerusalem (he mentions peter rather than james) are taken skeptically by the majority of biblical scholars.  HOWEVER, no contrary viewpoint of the episode has survived to the present day, especially not one where paul is excommunicated from the church.  we can (and do) HYPOTHESIZE it might have happened, but we have no compelling evidence to state it as "fact."  NONE.  not in qumran, and certainly not in acts. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:You

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You have to separate "early Jesus" from "late Jesus".

"Early Jesus" was more House of Hillel, liberal Pharisaic Judaism, with a lot less of the stupidity that some earlier posters have alluded to.

You also have to remember that he lived (assuming he existed ...) in occupied Judea, where the Romans had a nasty habit of murdering entire cities of Jews just because we weren't all that fond of worshiping pagan gods or Roman dictators.

And finally, while some things may sound impractical or like mental masturbation, they can be effective tools for conflict reduction and resolution and "peace" is a major theme within Judaism.  The word "peace" is actually in the name of the City of David (no, not the House of Bread city, the other one.  With the Temple in it ...)

THIS is why I cant stand getting into history of literature. First off, no label in human evolutionary history invented being oppressed. Nor does once being oppressed give one excuse to set up taboos later once they are no longer oppressed.

Human groups have always shifted power. Once the oppressed become the oppressor. Human behavior is ripe with forgetting the past. The pain one group inflicts on another all of our species in it's history can be capable of.

SECONDLY, it doesn't matter if I agree with your history, the fact remains that no claim of invisible friend in the sky has been proven. Much less the fantastic claims of any holy book. Thoughts require a material process. There is no such thing as a non material super brain with magical super powers.

If there were no claims of invisible friends there would have been no Roman polytheists to oppress the Jews. If there were no claims of "chosen people" Hitler wouldn't have been able to convince Germans to let him slaughter Jews. If there were no claims of Allah or Yahweh, there would be no Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If there were no claims of Jesus there wouldn't have been witch hunts. There wouldn't have been the Catholic/Protestant conflict in Ireland.

But, being Jewish DOES NOT entitle you to victim status as if only Jews know what it is like to be a victim. We are all humans and all of us as a species, regardless of label, are both capable of feeling pain and causing pain.

The writings of any holy book, do not entitle a person or a group to lay claim on morality, good or bad.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:But, being

Brian37 wrote:

But, being Jewish DOES NOT entitle you to victim status as if only Jews know what it is like to be a victim. We are all humans and all of us as a species, regardless of label, are both capable of feeling pain and causing pain.

The writings of any holy book, do not entitle a person or a group to lay claim on morality, good or bad.

hear, hear.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

But, being Jewish DOES NOT entitle you to victim status as if only Jews know what it is like to be a victim. We are all humans and all of us as a species, regardless of label, are both capable of feeling pain and causing pain.

The writings of any holy book, do not entitle a person or a group to lay claim on morality, good or bad.

hear, hear.

So what is the official, universally agreed upon -- at least as a "creed" -- morality of Atheism?

If I want to judge Atheism as a "force for good" or "worthwhile ideology" or "beneficial mind-set", where do I find the canonical, authoritative, definitive, etc. statement of Atheist ethics and morality?

Because if there are no "moral absolutes", whether you like them, or you dislike them, there is no way to say "This set of values benefits humanity" or "This set of values harms humanity".  All you've got is hoping once your (astigafur'allah) "universal atheism" takes hold, people =will= find excuses to oppress each other.

And based on the actions of certain posters here (some of whom I wish would become Southern Baptists ...), this "universal atheist society" is NOT going to be a nice one.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:  And

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

 

And based on the actions of certain posters here this "universal atheist society" is NOT going to be a nice one.

  Well if a universal atheist society sends shivers down your spine then perhaps you could advocate for employing the tactics of your ancient ancestors ?  Whenever they encountered societies whose purposes were crosswise they simply took up arms and eradicated them. 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

And based on the actions of certain posters here this "universal atheist society" is NOT going to be a nice one.

  Well if a universal atheist society sends shivers down your spine then perhaps you could advocate for employing the tactics of your ancient ancestors ?  Whenever they encountered societies whose purposes were crosswise they simply took up arms and eradicated them. 

Yeah, but those people really deserved it.  They just weren't nice people.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:So what

FurryCatHerder wrote:

So what is the official, universally agreed upon -- at least as a "creed" -- morality of Atheism?

Morality or one's code of behavior doesn't come from invisble sky daddies that don't exist. A code of behavior in the modern world shouldn't come from anchient Middle Eastern goat herders who's moral code often permitted genocide, infanticide, child abuse, rape, war crimes, murder of homosexuals, etc...

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:FurryCatHerder

EXC wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

So what is the official, universally agreed upon -- at least as a "creed" -- morality of Atheism?

Morality or one's code of behavior doesn't come from invisble sky daddies that don't exist. A code of behavior in the modern world shouldn't come from anchient Middle Eastern goat herders who's moral code often permitted genocide, infanticide, child abuse, rape, war crimes, murder of homosexuals, etc...

Ignoring for a moment that you're wrong, where's yours?

Where is the official, universally agreed upon Atheist Morality Code?

If (your distortion of) ours is so bad, surely you've got a better one that is the definitive Atheist Morality Code.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:So what

FurryCatHerder wrote:

So what is the official, universally agreed upon -- at least as a "creed" -- morality of Atheism?

If I want to judge Atheism as a "force for good" or "worthwhile ideology" or "beneficial mind-set", where do I find the canonical, authoritative, definitive, etc. statement of Atheist ethics and morality?

Because if there are no "moral absolutes", whether you like them, or you dislike them, there is no way to say "This set of values benefits humanity" or "This set of values harms humanity".  All you've got is hoping once your (astigafur'allah) "universal atheism" takes hold, people =will= find excuses to oppress each other.

And based on the actions of certain posters here (some of whom I wish would become Southern Baptists ...), this "universal atheist society" is NOT going to be a nice one.

you really are willfully not listening, aren't you?

THERE IS NO "CREED OF ATHEISM."  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ATHEIST ETHICS OR MORALITY.  ATHEISM IS A DEFAULT.  IT IS A LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD.  IT HAS NO CONTENT.  PEEEEEERIOOOOD.  SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU ALREADY.

beyond this, we all have different ideologies here.  there are leftists, rightists, anarchists, communists, objectivists, hippies, positivists, pacifists, hippies, squares, etc., etc.  you might have noticed we fight like cats and dogs much of the time.  one thing we do NOT fight about, however, is our LACK OF BELIEF in god.  that is why we gather.  no more, no less.

if you want a picture of how EACH INDIVIDUAL here thinks a world without religion should look, you'll have to ask EACH INDIVIDUAL.  some have a clearly formulated program, others do not--but, yet again, there is one thing in common among all of them: NOT ONE OF THEM EQUATES HIS OR HER PROGRAM WITH "ATHEISM."

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:you really are

iwbiek wrote:

you really are willfully not listening, aren't you?

THERE IS NO "CREED OF ATHEISM."  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ATHEIST ETHICS OR MORALITY.  ATHEISM IS A DEFAULT.  IT IS A LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD.  IT HAS NO CONTENT.  PEEEEEERIOOOOD.  SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU ALREADY.

No, I'm paying very careful attention.  I've simply been waiting for someone to expound that as clearly as you have.

So.  I'll ask again.

Where is yours?

Oh, right -- you don't have one.

I could write a multi-paragraph response on why this is, in my opinion, a major flaw in "Atheism as  force for good (or evil)", but the sun is up and I need to work on some PCBs I got back in the mail last week, so you get the short answer, and perhaps some insight into my thinking --

This is not the basis for my belief in G-d (that's far more complex), but one of the things that I see as a "proof" of G-d's existence, is that people seem to have some sense of "right" or "wrong".  Most religions have creeds, against which their potential for good or evil can be judged based on how well they work for society as a whole, rather than the adherents as a subset of all society.  To the extent that some Creed benefits society as a whole, that Creed could be -- in my view -- considered "good", etc.

But with Atheism, there is no Creed or universally recognized value-set.  Atheists can be however benevolent or malevolent as they see fit.

Off to play with electricity!  Pray that I don't zap myself!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:But

FurryCatHerder wrote:

But with Atheism, there is no Creed or universally recognized value-set.  Atheists can be however benevolent or malevolent as they see fit.

PRECISELY!  PRECISELY!  BOOM, YOU GOT IT!

now quit while you're ahead!

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:But

FurryCatHerder wrote:

But with Atheism, there is no Creed or universally recognized value-set.  Atheists can be however benevolent or malevolent as they see fit.

PRECISELY!  PRECISELY!  BOOM, YOU GOT IT!

now quit while you're ahead!

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote: Yeah,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

Yeah, but those people really deserved it.  They just weren't nice people.

  So if your G-d gave you a similar directive regarding atheists who "really deserved it" you'd be on board with it ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Yeah, but those people really deserved it.  They just weren't nice people.

  So if your G-d gave you a similar directive regarding atheists who "really deserved it" you'd be on board with it ?

Yup.  You'd go up against the wall with all the other people "who really deserve it."

What, there are no circumstances under which you'd kill someone?  None at all?  Never?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:FurryCatHerder

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

But with Atheism, there is no Creed or universally recognized value-set.  Atheists can be however benevolent or malevolent as they see fit.

PRECISELY!  PRECISELY!  BOOM, YOU GOT IT!

now quit while you're ahead!

And you see this as a good thing?  You see the lack of any non-negotiable "Universal Declaration Of Human Rights", however so constructed or delivered, as  "good thing"?

One of my later "political realizations", not "religious", but purely in the domain of "politics", was the realization that "Silence" in the face of "Evil" is itself "Evil".  Desmonde Tutu (who is a Christian bishop, I might note) said that support of the status quo is support for evil.  Some other person, who I forget because I need to solder up two more PCBs, said that all that is required for evil to remain is for "good men to remain silent".

What Atheism advocates is amorality, which is, based on this sort of "political realization", nothing more than the lazy man's (or woman's) way to advocate for "Evil" without accepting responsibility.  You get off Scot-free on your "Evil", whether active or passive, because, hey, you're an Atheist!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Yup. 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Yup.  You'd go up against the wall with all the other people "who really deserve it."

What, there are no circumstances under which you'd kill someone?  None at all?  Never?

 

 I would kill to defend my life or my property.  It would be purely reactive and purely defensive on my part.  It would be a scenario that would stand judicial scrutiny and would be justified based upon existing legal precepts.  It would certainly not be classified as murder by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I would never kill non-combatants or allow myself to be drawn into acts that could be classified as crimes against humanity, such as infanticide ( Psalm 137:9 ), killing of pregnant women ( Hosea 13:16 ) or any such psychopathic behaviour that civilized society routinely condemns.

 

Thank you for being honest enough to admit that you advocate genocide.  That puts you in the company of some very detestable groups.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Yup.  You'd go up against the wall with all the other people "who really deserve it."

What, there are no circumstances under which you'd kill someone?  None at all?  Never?

 I would kill to defend my life or my property.  It would be purely reactive and purely defensive on my part.  It would be a scenario that would stand judicial scrutiny and would be justified based upon existing legal precepts.  It would certainly not be classified as murder by any stretch of the imagination.

So, you'd only kill to defend yourself, not your nation?  And you'd only kill people who were actively engaged in trying to kill you, not the people who were waiting to have a chance to kill you, your neighbors, or others who lived where you lived?

Quote:
I would never kill non-combatants or allow myself to be drawn into acts that could be classified as crimes against humanity, such as infanticide ( Psalm 137:9 ), killing of pregnant women ( Hosea 13:16 ) or any such psychopathic behaviour that civilized society routinely condemns.

Well, you =are= pretty illiterate, I have to give that to you.

Psalms 137:9 refers to G-d exacting revenge against the Babylonians for entering our country, murdering many thousands of Jewish men, women and children, and hauling us off into slavery.  You'll note from history that we aren't the ones who destroyed the Babylonian Empire -- Cyrus and his soldiers handled that chore.

In Hosea 13:16, the people being killed were Jews (Samaria is part of Israel ...) for violating G-d's commandments.  One of those rather sticky problems with being a Jew ...

Quote:
Thank you for being honest enough to admit that you advocate genocide.  That puts you in the company of some very detestable groups.

And thank-you for demonstrating that you're illiterate.  Now, would you kindly join Vastet in becoming a Southern Baptist?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Psalms

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Psalms 137:9 refers to G-d exacting revenge against the Babylonians for entering our country, murdering many thousands of Jewish men, women and children, and hauling us off into slavery. 

and why exactly did he not punish the hebrews for doing the same thing to the canaanites?  and man, the way david handled the moabites was eerily reminiscent of a nazi selection platform.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:FurryCatHerder

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Psalms 137:9 refers to G-d exacting revenge against the Babylonians for entering our country, murdering many thousands of Jewish men, women and children, and hauling us off into slavery. 

and why exactly did he not punish the hebrews for doing the same thing to the canaanites?  and man, the way david handled the moabites was eerily reminiscent of a nazi selection platform.

I thought you had a degree in Jew-ology?

It's hard to comprehend just how evil people can be, but at one time in the planets history, the world was extremely violent and there were cultures which taught their children not just self-defense, but preying on other people.

And you, like your other buddy, have just demonstrated that you're morally and intellectually bankrupt.  Please, trotting Hitler and the NAZIs out is about as ignorant as it gets.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

Psalms 137:9 refers to G-d exacting revenge against the Babylonians for entering our country, murdering many thousands of Jewish men, women and children, and hauling us off into slavery.  You'll note from history that we aren't the ones who destroyed the Babylonian Empire -- Cyrus and his soldiers handled that chore.

Were infants killed ?  You know dashed against the rocks and all that stuff your G-d revels in ?  Hauled off into slavery ?   Hebrews never owned slaves ?  You remember the verses about how they are handed down generation to generation because they are your "money"

 

Furrycatherder wrote:
In Hosea 13:16, the people being killed were Jews (Samaria is part of Israel ...) for violating G-d's commandments.  One of those rather sticky problems with being a Jew ...

I know who the Samarians were.  You think this is the first time I've dealt with a theist who's trying to rationalize his God's genocidal behaviour in Hosea 13:16 ?  Did you read the part where your God condemned the pregnant women to his abortive justice ?   Lovely, just lovely.

Quote:
Thank you for being honest enough to admit that you advocate genocide.  That puts you in the company of some very detestable groups.

 

Furrycatherder wrote:
  And thank-you for demonstrating that you're illiterate. 

 Illiterate ?  I simply read the words in your Bible.  I didn't twist them or try to mischaracterize them in any way.  What is it about genocidal slaughter that requires some special insight ?  Do I need to be a Tutsi to recognize that they were the ethnic victims of biblical style warfare from the Hutus ?   Would I need to be a Muslim to be able to discern that the Serbs were victimising them with the same evil intentions that your morally warped ancestors did ?  Do I need to be a Cambodian to understand what Pol Pot did ?

It's easy to recognize genocide.  No special insights or degrees required.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:And

FurryCatHerder wrote:

And you, like your other buddy, have just demonstrated that you're morally and intellectually bankrupt.  Please, trotting Hitler and the NAZIs out is about as ignorant as it gets.

  I'm morally bankrupt. Are you fucking kidding ?    You are the one who advocates genocide.  Not me.

 

As far as unsavory comparisons goes, I would say those analogies are spot on.  Mass murder looks the same no matter who does the killing. 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Please,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Please, trotting Hitler and the NAZIs out is about as ignorant as it gets.

yeah, because lining human beings up and killing every third one totally does not sound like anything the nazis would do at all...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Psalms 137:9 refers to G-d exacting revenge against the Babylonians for entering our country, murdering many thousands of Jewish men, women and children, and hauling us off into slavery.  You'll note from history that we aren't the ones who destroyed the Babylonian Empire -- Cyrus and his soldiers handled that chore.

Were infants killed ?  You know dashed against the rocks and all that stuff your G-d revels in ?  Hauled off into slavery ?   Hebrews never owned slaves ?  You remember the verses about how they are handed down generation to generation because they are your "money"

Apparently you need to re-read that book you think is a bible.  Jewish slaves were released on the Sabbatical year, non-Jewish slaves were primarily prisoners of war.  In other instances, slavery was a punishment for a crime, or a way for someone to work off debt.

Again, there was no Social Security or Welfare or Student Loan program in place.  Slavery wasn't uncommon and a better strategy for comparing slavery in ancient times is comparing one society's practices against those of another.  Because I assure you -- your ancestors owned slaves, regardless of the skin color or geographical origins of your ancestors.

Quote:
Furrycatherder wrote:
In Hosea 13:16, the people being killed were Jews (Samaria is part of Israel ...) for violating G-d's commandments.  One of those rather sticky problems with being a Jew ...

I know who the Samarians were.  You think this is the first time I've dealt with a theist who's trying to rationalize his God's genocidal behaviour in Hosea 13:16 ?  Did you read the part where your God condemned the pregnant women to his abortive justice ?   Lovely, just lovely.

Yes, I've read the parts.  Still want to be one of the "Chosen" people?

You seem to have a problem with the fact that the human race was not always anywhere near as =civilized= as we are today.  This is always the problem when someone in the modern era is judging actions from thousands of years ago, and Hosea is more than 2,000 years ago.  If you look at many of the more brutal and barbaric peoples, they didn't survive the test of time all that well.

If you look at the empires we've out-lived, I dare say our approach has been far more successful than that of the people around us 3,500 to 2,000 years ago.  Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek, Roman -- all those empires are gone.  We're still here.  Gotta be doing something right.

Quote:
Quote:
Thank you for being honest enough to admit that you advocate genocide.  That puts you in the company of some very detestable groups.

 

Furrycatherder wrote:
  And thank-you for demonstrating that you're illiterate. 

 Illiterate ?  I simply read the words in your Bible.  I didn't twist them or try to mischaracterize them in any way.  What is it about genocidal slaughter that requires some special insight ?  Do I need to be a Tutsi to recognize that they were the ethnic victims of biblical style warfare from the Hutus ?   Would I need to be a Muslim to be able to discern that the Serbs were victimising them with the same evil intentions that your morally warped ancestors did ?  Do I need to be a Cambodian to understand what Pol Pot did ?

It's easy to recognize genocide.  No special insights or degrees required.

Pol Pot is =modern=.  Pol Pot did what he did without being attacked, without being threatened by his own people, without having any excuse of any sort of self-defensive nature.  He was not trying to rid the country of any form of perversion, corruption, or immorality that was threatening the very survival of the nation, etc., ad nauseum.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."