A challenge for the RRS [Trollville]
Offline I've raised this question on the forums before, and I'd like to ask it again. Why debate God and religion in the midst of human suffering? In my opinion , service to all of humankind is our most important responsibility. I think this responsibility goes beyond giving some money to an organization. We must all work to end poverty, hunger and disease. Why sit around debating when you could be helping those in need? I challenge the RRS to work as an Atheist humanitarian organization; using all their resources to fight suffering.
{MOD EDIT: Christos pulls same stunt here;
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7847
}
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
- Login to post comments
I don't remember ever referencing Jesus as a reason for giving to the poor. I actually don't think I ever said that I'm a Christian on this thread.
And actually Rook, you're wrong about your assertion that Jesus never lifted a finger for the poor. How about Matthew 14:13-21? The story goes that Jesus multiplied bread and fish to feed five thousand people. Now, I highly doubt that a man could miraculously multiply food, but nevertheless that is an example of Jesus helping fight hunger.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
You really consider that an example? Providing one meal was an all-powerful beings best attempt at "fighting hunger"?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Rook said that Jesus did nothing to remove poverty. I think providing food for 5000 people clearly refutes that claim. I never said that Jesus was all powerful, and I'm not using him as a reason whatsoever to fight poverty.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
So you're using a story that you don't necessarily agree with as support for your point?
Buying someone a Happy Meal is not the same as fighting hunger. Providing people the means to feed themselves for longer than a couple of hours - that's fighting hunger and poverty
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish he'll eat for a lifetime.
Jesus gave them fish. That does not fight hunger nor poverty. That's my point. Your views are short-sighted and don't resolve the problem they just put it off for a day.
I thought the point of the loaves and fishes story was that if you come to break bread with Jesus there will always be enough?! It's not like he rounded up 5,000 starving people for his makeshift soup kitchen of the hour. Sure they didn't have anything to eat, but that's just because they were busy listening to his prosletizing for the three days before hand. Way to help the poor...
"How about Matthew 14:13-21? The story goes that Jesus multiplied bread and fish to feed five thousand people. Now, I highly doubt that a man could miraculously multiply food, but nevertheless that is an example of Jesus helping fight hunger."
You are assuming this actually happened rather than being symbolism or fiction.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
The people Jesus fed in the story were neither poor nor starving, they were just a crowd of people who followed Jesus out to some remote place.
Christos, your failure to grasp the strong points of the story mimic your desire to cover up that ignorance with fictionalized plot points. The multiplication of the loaves was a literary reinvention of Elijah's multiplication of the oil, the bread, and additional multiplication miracles found in Kings. The event with Jesus saying "ye have the poor with you always" was preceeded by the narrator having the disciples question why such an expensive amount of oil was used to anoint Jesus. So much, they explained, could be used to feed the poor. This failure of the disciples, per the narrative, shows their lack of understanding at how important Jesus was to them - and what he was about to do. This certainly wasn't an actual event, just as the multiplication of the loaves. This is the narrator's way of expressed that Jesus is the messiah - he becomes "anointed" - just as all those who sit in Moses seat do (High priests are to be anointed among taking up their posts).
The reason I brought up the passage where Jesus says "ye have the poor with you always" was an attempt to get you to recognize that the God you believe in as a historical person didn't even feel the need to help the poor. In the event of Jesus multiplying the loaves - IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE DIACIPLES HAD NAGGED HIM ABOUT IT. In other words, it was not because Jesus recognized the starving multitudes following him, but rather as a way to keep his annoying disciples off his back. The additional plot of this narrative is to show the disciples (the 12 disciples represented the 12 tribes of Israel) need and constant begging for a sign or miracle, exposing their lack of faith. As a story the point works well, and people can mimetically see the parallel between Jesus and Elijah, and the woman who had faith, who was rewarded, contrasted sharply to Jesus' disciples who did not have faith, but who Jesus felt obligated to show them a sign anyway.
Your attempts to somehow historicize these events is troublesome. You represent the majority of Christian apologists who do not understand literary borrowing and narrative construction based on scripture reinterpretation - something we see dominating the writing of Jews who lived during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. It shows a lack of honest research and a certain credulity towards misinformation and fiction. Your attempts to harmonize what Jesus says to his disciples, who see more of a need to feed the poor (imminently) over saving the poor for eternity (Jesus' future death and resurrection), does not falsify my point. Jesus still did not lift a finger to help the poor by selling the oil in the narrative, and as some members rightly pointed out he did not feed "the poor" but rather the crowd that had been following him for the past several days.
You perhaps can make the claim that Jesus then helps the poor who believe and have faith, and thus they will seal their wealth in the afterlife. But then you would be a hypocrit for demanding we aide the poor and starving now, in this life, instead of exposing your Jesus for the legendary and folklorish creation that he is, and showing his life to be little more than fictional narrative. I prefer to do both - expose your God to be a fictional creation, and help by giving money to the poor, offering them wisdom and knowledge to become more usefull to themselves and society, and teach them to stop waiting around for an afterlife while wasting this life away - the only one they will ever get - in the delusional hope of a better "tomorrow".
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)