This one actually IS for the Christians.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Despanan

What argument do you think we're making?

That Christians are idiots because the Bible is full of contradictions.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Solumina

That Christians are idiots because the Bible is full of contradictions.

Actually, we're arguing that the bible is clearly not the Word of God, due to said contradictions.

I don't think Christians are idiots per se, I think they just believe it because they were indoctrinated as children and haven't actually read the bible.

[Solumina]

Fair enough, I doubt anyone here is going to refute that and say the bible was *poof* created by God since there are very few people who actually think it is, there are a lot of groups that think it was written through divine inspirations, which means that yes it is divine but since it was written by human hands it is still fallible.

[Saya]

Not to mention most other religions are perfectly fine knowing there's different accounts, so why can't Humane or any other moderate Christian? The message usually stays the same, and some contradictions are a matter of context and interpretation. Fuck, I'd be here for ages picking through contradictions if this was about Buddhist sutras. Or any other religion with a written text.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Fair enough, I doubt anyone here is going to refute that and say the bible was *poof* created by God since there are very few people who actually think it is, there are a lot of groups that think it was written through divine inspirations, which means that yes it is divine but since it was written by human hands it is still fallible.

I think you're underestimating the sheer number of Christians who believe the bible to be the Word of God. There's a massive debate in the United States about Gay marriage because of a few lines in Leviticus. One of George Bush's (theorized) reasons for invading the middle east was to bring about the Armageddon spoken of in Revelation. A politician who isn't a Christian is all but unelectable. Yet all the while the entire thing is based around an amalgamation of stories from a bunch of savage dessert-dwelling barbarians.

Besides "Divinely inspired but fallible" is a cop-out. Precisely what sort of all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god allows his own instruction manual to become so chock full of errors? I mean this stuff is kind of important, if you get it wrong, you wind up in a lake of fire for all eternity, and if you can't trust God's own blueprint then what can you trust?

[Saya]

But whats wrong with thinking its created by humans by what they know of the divine? I mean from Biblical accounts Jesus was very much against fanaticism, and particularly the ostracizing of "sinners", and was very much trying to stop people from taking it to that level. But people being people and waiting thirty years after the fact to write fuck all down, and later twisting it around to service their needs, that changed. Its no wonder Paul wrote all those judgemental and bloody gorey bits and threw out the gnostics, and Constantine kept the spirit of that, they were Romans who didn't get the whole love thy neighbour bit and didn't know what it was to be oppressed and shunned. And I don't mean to say that its all the Romans's fault, but more that part of the problem is that it was very much tainted by narrow political views. Judas was inspired by Jesus and he still fucked up, why can't Paul?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Not to mention most other religions are perfectly fine knowing there's different accounts, so why can't Humane or any other moderate Christian? The message usually stays the same, and some contradictions are a matter of context and interpretation. Fuck, I'd be here for ages picking through contradictions if this was about Buddhist sutras. Or any other religion with a written text.

But the message does not stay the same. Moderate Christians are all well and good, until they elect a fanatic because he's "a good Christian" or vote against gay marriage because "They don't hate gays but the bible does".

Even here in Gnet, we've got folks like Tam Li Hua, who use it as an excuse to embrace bigotry.

The Bible, and Christianity as a whole is extremely concerned with salvation through faith, ie: rewards in exchange for blind submission to authority.

George Bush stated that Jesus was his "favorite political philosopher" and then invaded Iraq with no exit plan, at least partly because he felt that God wanted him to free the Iraqis, and God would see to it that we enjoyed victory.

Whether you like it or not, that book dictates and shapes public policy, and it's message of submission permeates Western society further than we can imagine. This is further enabled by billions of "Moderate Christians" who haven't even read it, and instead "have faith" because their parents told them they needed to or they'd go to hell.

Honestly, it's 2010, and reasonable people need to stop tiptoeing around the insanity inherent within the christian religion. The bible should be recognized for what it is: the helter-skelter scribblings of a bunch of pissed-off desert nomads; about as relevant to today's world as Greek and Norse mythology. Instead, it's a tool that dicates political and social policy for the entire united states and beyond, partly because people won't speak up against it out of politeness and respect for "moderate Christians".

Fuck that.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

But whats wrong with thinking its created by humans by what they know of the divine? I mean from Biblical accounts Jesus was very much against fanaticism, and particularly the ostracizing of "sinners", and was very much trying to stop people from taking it to that level. But people being people and waiting thirty years after the fact to write fuck all down, and later twisting it around to service their needs, that changed. Its no wonder Paul wrote all those judgemental and bloody gorey bits and threw out the gnostics, and Constantine kept the spirit of that, they were Romans who didn't get the whole love thy neighbour bit and didn't know what it was to be oppressed and shunned. And I don't mean to say that its all the Romans's fault, but more that part of the problem is that it was very much tainted by narrow political views. Judas was inspired by Jesus and he still fucked up, why can't Paul?

Because it doesn't make sense that an all-powerful, perfect deity would allow that to occur.

Honestly, I have no problem with Jesus (except when he did weird stuff like magically whither a fig tree because he wanted a snack but it didn't have any figs for him). I have a problem with people believing that he was divine, because all the evidence says he was not, and people base public policy on his divinity and not his philosophy.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

But the message does not stay the same. Moderate Christians are all well and good, until they elect a fanatic because he's "a good Christian" or vote against gay marriage because "They don't hate gays but the bible does".

No argument about that, but I'm talking about the message of Jesus specifically, which can go here and there at times but largely if people took the time to fucking read the thing (and I do greatly suspect that most Christians don't) you would be able to see that he was a pretty peaceful loving guy. And in context, what he did was pretty ballsy in a Gandhi sort of way, more on that in a second.

Even here in Gnet, we've got folks like Tam Li Hua, who use it as an excuse to embrace bigotry.

The Bible, and Christianity as a whole is extremely concerned with salvation through faith, ie: rewards in exchange for blind submission to authority.

That is true, but concerning ourselves with Christ only, you could see why it was very appealing at the time. Jerusalem was occupied by the Romans, people were taxed and oppressed and starving, and religious frenzy was at a great height, but the fanaticism barred a lot of people participating in religious life and therefore excluded them from being respected members of society. If you got sick, was your own fault, you're unclean. You collect taxes for the Romans or associate with gentiles, you're unclean. Fuck, touch a menstruating woman and you're unclean. If you read the thing after Jesus heals people, I'm particularly thinking of the leper, he tells them to go to the temple. And then the Pharisees started thinking they should off him, especially after he pointed out the hypocrisy of having a marketplace in the temple. At the time it was a huge FUCK YOU to the people excluding the sick and sinners, and denied the religious authority they claimed. Jesus forgave people and he wasn't an educated Scribe or anything, he just rode in on a donkey and told people that anything they do can be forgiven, God loves EVERYONE, even the sinners and Gentiles. It was a brave and remarkable thing, and of course it was going to be appealing to the oppressed people. Very early Christians were mostly pacifists and from most accounts hip and groovy like Jesus.

George Bush stated that Jesus was his "favorite political philosopher" and then invaded Iraq with no exit plan, at least partly because he felt that God wanted him to free the Iraqis, and God would see to it that we enjoyed victory.

Its only a small thing on the long long long list of things done by Christians in the name of Christ, that would make baby Jesus cry, I think.

Whether you like it or not, that book dictates and shapes public policy, and it's message of submission permeates Western society further than we can imagine. This is further enabled by billions of "Moderate Christians" who haven't even read it, and instead "have faith" because their parents told them they needed to or they'd go to hell.

See, maybe this is a regional thing, I know its crazy in the States right now and I'm in communist Canada but really, most moderates I know don't think I'd go to hell. I know a few, there are churches around who are still fire and brimstone, don't get me wrong, but the ones that have the most sway are the ones that are very accepting, by Christian standards. My mom's minister left years ago because she was pissed that her bishop wouldn't let her perform gay marriages (and I think since they had to move or he left because it was too hard to find a minister who agreed with him.) When I became Buddhist most people were very accepting of that, I even got to be a counselor at a BIBLE STUDY camp of all things, and they were pretty cool with it.

Honestly, it's 2010, and reasonable people need to stop tiptoeing around the insanity inherent within the christian religion. The bible should be recognized for what it is: the helter-skelter scribblings of a bunch of pissed-off desert nomads; about as relevant to today's world as Greek and Norse mythology. Instead, it's a tool that dicates political and social policy for the entire united states and beyond, partly because people won't speak up against it out of politeness and respect for "moderate Christians".

Fuck that.

Its not that I don't think Christianity as an institution shouldn't be held responsible for the havoc it has caused. I have been a critic here of such things many many many times. And it wasn't a short while ago that I was also arguing that its stupid to have faith for all the wrong reasons (as an emotional crutch, because your parents told you.) I can't agree that its not totally relevant, even as a Buddhist I find the story of Jesus (sans resurrection) to be pretty inspiring, and the dude had good parables to boot. I think its a great example of why religion and politics need to stay the fuck away from each other, and there's a shitload of things I vehemently disagree with, I just don't get whats the problem with saying you only follow Jesus. Humane from what I remember him talking about in politics is generally pretty Liberal and supports things like gay marriage. His personal faith is harmless.

People will probably always have religion. Many people are more and more secular, and thats good, but there will never be a day where no one has any religion at all. Its not eradicating every bit of Jesus we can find that is going to solve the problem, its the problem of religious people needing to learn (like many have I assure you) that faith is a very personal thing that is just that, very personal, and you should probably keep it to yourself. I like the saying that religion is like a penis. Its fine that you have one, but don't wave it around in public or shove it down our throats.

[Corpsey]

Dude, that was an epic post. I would love to quote that several times over but the whole thing deserves credit.

[Despanan]

Saya:

What does any of that have to do with what I'm talking about? Seriously, it's like you're cross posting from another discussion or something.

Originally Posted by Saya

See, maybe this is a regional thing, I know its crazy in the States right now and I'm in communist Canada but really, most moderates I know don't think I'd go to hell. I know a few, there are churches around who are still fire and brimstone, don't get me wrong, but the ones that have the most sway are the ones that are very accepting, by Christian standards. My mom's minister left years ago because she was pissed that her bishop wouldn't let her perform gay marriages (and I think since they had to move or he left because it was too hard to find a minister who agreed with him.) When I became Buddhist most people were very accepting of that, I even got to be a counselor at a BIBLE STUDY camp of all things, and they were pretty cool with it.

It's great that you're surrounded by so many liberals, but we just had a rather conservative born-again Christian with access to nuclear weapons start a war in the middle east. Oh and also:

Originally Posted by John 14:6

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

That's something Jesus said, and it was in one of the Gospels that wasn't written by Paul. So clearly, Jesus may be all well and groovy, but at the end of the day, he thinks you're going to hell. As should anyone who "Just follows Jesus".

Do I think HP thinks you're going to Hell? Nope, but that's because Humane Pain follows a Jesus he made up himself. He ignores the parts of the Bible he finds distasteful, and focuses on the things he likes.

Which is all well and good, if it were just Humane Pain, but Christianity is a whole lot bigger than that.

If I were running for office and said the things I have said in this thread, it would be a political train-wreck. "Moderate Christians" the world over would be offended and outraged that I dared to impune their holy book and their religion, and radical Christians would be calling for my head.

By and large Parents don't teach their children that Jesus was a cool guy with some groovy peace-loving ideas, they teach their children to believe that he was the son of God. His authority does not come from the value of his teachings, it comes from the circumstances of his birth and death. Therefore, if his teachings hadn't been peace-loving, but instead "stone the non-believers" they would be equally as valid, and thus it's much easier to ignore the inconvenient "turn the other cheek" in favor of being "a warrior for God".

It is dangerously naive to think that these teachings are divine, or even divinely-inspired, just as it is dangerously naive to assume that Humane Pain's attitude is the one most prevalent among believers in Jesus Christ (because trust me, it isn't).

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Saya:

What does any of that have to do with what I'm talking about? Seriously, it's like you're cross posting from another discussion or something.

Because HP was talking about the Jesus I'm talking about, not George Bush, not people who disagree with gay marriage, you're using the fanatic to argue against a true moderate. If we disagree with "all Muslims are fanatics because of 911", why can't we disagree with "all Christians are inherently assholes because of George Bush"? It has nothing to do with HP's personal faith.

It's great that you're surrounded by so many liberals, but we just had a rather conservative born-again Christian with access to nuclear weapons start a war in the middle east. Oh and also:

Yeah but its not HP's fault. We all agree that religion is being used for shitty things, and it isn't just Christianity. Again, you're the one going way off on a tangent. This has nothing to do with why HP follows only the Biblical Jesus.

That's something Jesus said, and it was in one of the Gospels that wasn't written by Paul. So clearly, Jesus may be all well and groovy, but at the end of the day, he thinks you're going to hell. As should anyone who "Just follows Jesus".

He doesn't quite say that if you don't follow him you go to hell. He said it after Thomas wanted to know that after he died and went to heaven, how will they know how to follow him? Here Jesus says that he is God, God is in us all and Jesus will lead the way. Do as he does and you'll be fine, and if you really loved him you'd do as he does. Early Christians even still thought of themselves as Jews, if to be explicitly Christian and a member of this denomination or that, and we accept that Jesus was saying it was him or hell, then quite a few early saints would have to be stripped of their sainthood.

Do I think HP thinks you're going to Hell? Nope, but that's because Humane Pain follows a Jesus he made up himself. He ignores the parts of the Bible he finds distasteful, and focuses on the things he likes.

Which is all well and good, if it were just Humane Pain, but Christianity is a whole lot bigger than that.

But faith is again, extremely personal. HP doesn't need to answer for George Bush or other fanatics. My Buddhism is far different from the person meditating next to me, and I'm sure thats true for other serious practitioner of other faiths. Yes on paper Christianity seems unified to some degree but there's a lot about religions you can never know or experience by just reading about what some fuckheads who believe in it are doing.

If I were running for office and said the things I have said in this thread, it would be a political train-wreck. "Moderate Christians" the world over would be offended and outraged that I dared to impune their holy book and their religion, and radical Christians would be calling for my head.

How does that make them moderate? Should I start saying "Hippie commie Christians"? There are many parts of the world where nobody would give two shits and quite a few would agree. Jack Layton of the NDP here in Canada said something along the lines of Pastor Terry Jones needs to actually read the Bible's message of love and understanding before he condemns other religions, no one has called for his head that I am aware of. I don't think anyone at all batted an eye. I wouldn't imagine anyone would be demanding Layton should renounce his own Christian faith because of Pastor Jones though.

By and large Parents don't teach their children that Jesus was a cool guy with some groovy peace-loving ideas, they teach their children to believe that he was the son of God. His authority does not come from the value of his teachings, it comes from the circumstances of his birth and death. Therefore, if his teachings hadn't been peace-loving, but instead "stone the non-believers" they would be equally as valid, and thus it's much easier to ignore the inconvenient "turn the other cheek" in favor of being "a warrior for God".

I would disagree, at the time it wasn't the circumstances of his birth or death that made him any special, it really was the message that anyone can be saved. I agree that gets lost on a lot of Christians today, so whats so wrong about HP focusing on turning the other cheek?

In his day it really was his message that awed so many people.
It is dangerously naive to think that these teachings are divine, or even divinely-inspired, just as it is dangerously naive to assume that Humane Pain's attitude is the one most prevalent among believers in Jesus Christ (because trust me, it isn't).

In your country, maybe, but in plenty of other places its not and I still don't understand why we must jump on HP and say the whole fucking thing doesn't work because your country is currently overrun by fanatics. Christianity can totally behave itself and Christians can be civilized intelligent people, I swear, it happens, I can't tell you why America is so far behind in social issues, I'm out of answers there, it may be extreme Christianity alone, or the political motivations behind it, I can't tell you why that flies down there and it doesn't up here. But its not inherent to crazy liberal commie Christianity, or moderate Christianity as we would call it here, I hear that Obama guy is actually a Christian and he seems pretty mellow about it.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Because HP was talking about the Jesus I'm talking about, not George Bush, not people who disagree with gay marriage, you're using the fanatic to argue against a true moderate. If we disagree with "all Muslims are fanatics because of 911", why can't we disagree with "all Christians are inherently assholes because of George Bush"? It has nothing to do with HP's personal faith.

Oh I get it now. You're arguing against a statement that I didn't make. I'm not saying "all Christians are assholes/fanatics", nor am I really taking issue with HP's personal religious choice. I questioned him because he made a statement that was illogical. He stated that "Too many cooks spoil the broth" and "he followed Jesus and just Jesus". When the Gospels he's basing that belief on weren't written by Jesus and had multiple Authors. I think that's silly, but not dangerous.

Honestly, if more people believed as HP does then I wouldn't have so much of a problem with Christianity. My problem is that the scripture itself does not jive with HP's beliefs. Parts of it due, but huge chunks do not, and guess what? It's all cannon.

I have a similar problem with Islam, and even certain aspects of Buddhism (I just haven't gone after them because Islam is getting enough western hate lately, and my gripes with Buddhism are minor and the religion as a whole is not nearly politically relevant enough to cause a serious problem.

Buddhists and Arabs aren't going to try to make sure my kids learn that the earth was created in six days, or make sure that my friends can never marry, or kick honest, competent, volenteers out of my military during war time. Ya dig?

Basically I'm not talking about Christianity as a philosophy, I'm talking about it's political ramifications.

He doesn't quite say that if you don't follow him you go to hell. He said it after Thomas wanted to know that after he died and went to heaven, how will they know how to follow him? Here Jesus says that he is God, God is in us all and Jesus will lead the way. Do as he does and you'll be fine, and if you really loved him you'd do as he does. Early Christians even s
till thought of themselves as Jews, if to be explicitly Christian and a member of this denomination or that, and we accept that Jesus was saying it was him or hell, then quite a few early saints would have to be stripped of their sainthood.

I'm not a biblical scholar, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that interpretation, however even if you are correct, that is not the normative view of Christian salvation, and as I am talking about this in a political sense it's the normative interpretation that I have a problem with.

How does that make them moderate? Should I start saying "Hippie commie Christians"? There are many parts of the world where nobody would give two shits and quite a few would agree. Jack Layton of the NDP here in Canada said something along the lines of Pastor Terry Jones needs to actually read the Bible's message of love and understanding before he condemns other religions, no one has called for his head that I am aware of. I don't think anyone at all batted an eye. I wouldn't imagine anyone would be demanding Layton should renounce his own Christian faith because of Pastor Jones though.

Layton didn't say that the bibles message of Hate and violence is just as strong as it's message of peace and love. I am saying that.

In your country, maybe, but in plenty of other places its not and I still don't understand why we must jump on HP and say the whole fucking thing doesn't work because your country is currently overrun by fanatics. Christianity can totally behave itself and Christians can be civilized intelligent people, I swear, it happens, I can't tell you why America is so far behind in social issues, I'm out of answers there, it may be extreme Christianity alone, or the political motivations behind it, I can't tell you why that flies down there and it doesn't up here. But its not inherent to crazy liberal commie Christianity, or moderate Christianity as we would call it here, I hear that Obama guy is actually a Christian and he seems pretty mellow about it.

Hate to say it Saya, but neither your country, nor any others you could name are nearly as politically relevant at this time as the United States of America. Obama is great as a leader, but guess what? The fanatics have further stirred up their fanatic Christian base, and are fighting tooth and nail to kick him out in favor of Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, or some other person who does believe in the literal truth of the bible. We have nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad is seeking Nuclear weapons. This fanaticism could kill us all, and these holy books, encourage it. They have some nice messages too, but the price of keeping them around could be nuclear annihilation, or World War 3.

Quite frankly a huge part of the problem is that not enough people, out of politness and respect for "moderates", have neglected to stand up and say: "Yes these books say some nice things, but they also have some terrible things, and some silly things, and we need to stop basing our lives on them."

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Saya

People will probably always have religion. Many people are more and more secular, and thats good, but there will never be a day where no one has any religion at all.

Really? You don't hear about many adherents to Hellenism anymore, or people who worship the Norse pantheon. I think if society keeps progressing, then the modern religions will go the way that those have. There will always be people who are inclined towards superstition, but religion as such will be irrelevant.

I would love it if the rest of the world were like Japan, which has religion but on the whole lacks religiosity.

[Despanan]

I'm sure there's some asshole out there still pouring out libations for Posiedon.

I'm also sure that this particular asshole's belief in his Earth-Shaker/Widow-Maker Ocean God has absolutely zero effect on his country's policy descisions.

This is how Christianity needs to be.

Religion is a very personal thing.

[Sinjob]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

I was just thinking about the bible this morning...and how sad I am that so many of my family members cling to it so dearly with they're lives. I remember a time when I thought it was God's word, but I also remember my moments of feeling so iffy...like how the fuck could that have possibly happened?

Well said, Jin. So well said. You've brought so much to the table in this intriguing discussion. In fact you are indeed the most enlightened out of all us clowns, christian or atheist or just confused as you are.

(Serious side note):
So I've been reading through this thread and while reading somehow managed to sing/play a song with EVERYTHING above as lyrics. Fuckin' ROCKSTAR STATUS.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Oh I get it now. You're arguing against a statement that I didn't make. I'm not saying "all Christians are assholes/fanatics", nor am I really taking issue with HP's personal religious choice. I questioned him because he made a statement that was illogical. He stated that "Too many cooks spoil the broth" and "he followed Jesus and just Jesus". When the Gospels he's basing that belief on weren't written by Jesus and had multiple Authors. I think that's silly, but not dangerous.

How is that illogical? Buddhist follow Buddha but there's many contradictory accounts of what he said. He said some things I resent. Many Buddhists have spoiled the broth and there are many many many Buddhists who would argue with anyone who thinks that Buddha got some things wrong. Go on eSangha and deny reincarnation, you'll get banned. Buddha did say that you shouldn't believe what he said just because he said it, but the Dalai Lama preaches to take his word for it, and some sutras will refer to themselves as THE ONLY TRUTH. Soka Gakkai denounces all other denominations. But most of us can agree on the gist of what he said and thats the essence of his teachings.

Honestly, if more people believed as HP does then I wouldn't have so much of a problem with Christianity. My problem is that the scripture itself does not jive with HP's beliefs. Parts of it due, but huge chunks do not, and guess what? It's all cannon.

Depends on who you talk to. Christians who recognize that the Bible has been severely edited, written by many authors, have to really study the text and try to glean truth from it. Not far at all from what other people of many other faiths do.

I have a similar problem with Islam, and even certain aspects of Buddhism (I just haven't gone after them because Islam is getting enough western hate lately, and my gripes with Buddhism are minor and the religion as a whole is not nearly politically relevant enough to cause a serious problem.

Buddhists and Arabs aren't going to try to make sure my kids learn that the earth was created in six days, or make sure that my friends can never marry, or kick honest, competent, volenteers out of my military during war time. Ya dig?

Thats a personal gripe. I don't need to point out whats being done in Islam's name in other countries, Buddhism as an institution has been misogynistic since its birth, Confucianism even more so and reduced the status of women to that of property and animals, Buddhists and Taoists fought each other for many many years in China for political prestige, Hinduism reduced people to their caste, the Roman pagans buried Vestal Virgins alive if they dared to have sex, there are few major religions and philosophies that haven't caused others suffering, even in Buddhism which you would think would be against the whole thing, and should be, just like if you follow Jesus they should really be against what the Church does in some places now. I think parts of the Bible are despicable but I can find anything like that in a lot of faiths, with different ramifications for different people.

Basically I'm not talking about Christianity as a philosophy, I'm talking about it's political ramifications.

But if faith is personal, why should HP or any other real moderates have to answer for that?

I'm not a biblical scholar, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that interpretation, however even if you are correct, that is not the normative view of Christian salvation, and as I am talking about this in a political sense it's the normative interpretation that I have a problem with.



Layton didn't say that the bibles message of Hate and violence is just as strong as it's message of peace and love. I am saying that.




Hate to say it Saya, but neither your country, nor any others you could name are nearly as politically relevant at this time as the United States of America. Obama is great as a leader, but guess what? The fanatics have further stirred up their fanatic Christian base, and are fighting tooth and nail to kick him out in favor of Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, or some other person who does believe in the literal truth of the bible. We have nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad is seeking Nuclear weapons. This fanaticism could kill us all, and these holy books, encourage it. They have some nice messages too, but the price of keeping them around could be nuclear annihilation, or World War 3.

Hate to say it dude, but its not religion that its entirely to blame for that. A big big problem is America's nationalism. And I hate to rain on America's parade but I don't think you're going to be the world's superpower for much longer. China is becoming more and more relevant and if and when they call you guys on your debt, you're kinda fucked.

And dude, Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. Israel has nukes. There's countries more religiously frenzied who have nukes and while alarming, nothing's happened yet.

I'm not saying its a concern, I've said many times Palin scares the shit out of me, and fanaticism should be battled. But thats the thing, fanaticism is the enemy, not religion as a whole.

Quite frankly a huge part of the problem is that not enough people, out of politness and respect for "moderates", have neglected to stand up and say: "Yes these books say some nice things, but they also have some terrible things, and some silly things, and we need to stop basing our lives on them."

I hear that a lot from Americans, although I can't recall someone in power actually saying it. Many Christians would agree not to shove it down anyone's throats and make people live their lives based on their personal beliefs. I'm not really sure how to define the problem exactly. Atheism is as popular as it ever was, but religious frenzy is at a height. Why is it? Maybe the religious fanatics down feel like they are in an anomie state. They're losing power and are desperate to rule over people's lives completely again. I think it has just as much to do with being power hungry as it does with religion. I don't mean to sound anti-American by any means but its such a strange country, its immensely multicultural and has brought about a lot of change in the world but as soon as things change for the majority, be it for religious or nationalistic purpose, the religious right frenzies and plays on people's fears. Its always been a tug of war between those who want rights and true freedom and those who want to keep everything in a 1950s state. I think religion does play a huge factor but its not by any means the only one, there are many ideologies that you're fighting. Nationalism, functionalism and xenophobia are just as present there and not everything can be traced back to religion, such as the aversion to helping your fellow man and having a two tier healthcare system. They try to use religion I think to justify that but there's a weak leg to stand on if there ever was, normally they just say its against the american way and socialist are evil, in true Cold War mentality fashion. Dr. Jesus didn't hand out any bills.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by viscus

Really? You don't hear about many adherents to Hellenism anymore, or people who worship the Norse pantheon. I think if society keeps progressing, then the modern religions will go the way that those have. There will always be people who are inclined towards superstition, but religion as such will be irrelevant.

I would love it if the rest of the world were like Japan, which has religion but on the whole lacks religiosity.

Neopaganism, dude! And Christianity borrowed A LOT from pagans, Christmas and Easter being obvious but if I'm not mistaken the idea of hell is Greek in origin. Even with defunct religions you can see where they have greatly influenced other religions that exist to this day. And while the religion changes, religion itself will never go away.

And Japan had its huge problems with religion too, State Shinto was a factor in whipping up nationalism, as according to its teachings the Emperor was a god incarnate, and I think was banned after World War 2. Its a wonderful thing yes, but the reasons behind it aren't exactly wonderful.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Saya

Nationalism, functionalism and xenophobia are just as present there and not everything can be traced back to religion, such as the aversion to helping your fellow man and having a two tier healthcare system. They try to use religion I think to justify that but there's a weak leg to stand on if there ever was, normally they just say its against the american way and socialist are evil, in true Cold War mentality fashion. Dr. Jesus didn't hand out any bills.

Nationalism, functionalism, and xenophobia may be entirely divorced from religion, but almost MORE times than not, it's the religion that augments these anti-social behaviors so that it looks less ugly. All of a sudden, you're not a demented asshole for shits and giggles, you have an excuse, a holy one. A pardon from the one most high.

Why not just plain old take the bible in its entirety, put the goods of it in a vacuum, use that, and discard all the rest? You know why? Because even moderates would FEEL to some degree, that editing the bible to that state would be too presumptuous at changing THE WORD OF GOD.

I don't think that fanaticism can be easily battled with a perfectly opposing force. If you're going to be a moderate Christian or moderate anything, then really, you of all people have a DUTY to curbing the blood thirsty barbarians from retarding our society back to caveman behavior. Essentially, if a militant Atheist actually preached killing the religious, I would speak up against it to the point that it turned them into nothing more than a silly joke. It is almost an obligation for the decent moderates to keep their views from being used as a god damned weapon. You want to be a good, moderate theist? So be it. Take your religion back from the clutches of evil fucks.

Maybe this has already been done in places of the world, but it hasn't been done in America. Christianity, in the state that it is in within this country IS potentially dangerous. It permeates our social policies, it is constantly trying to be put into our courts, our money, our laws and sadly enough, it succeeds. It motivates policies that aren't reasonable, but divine. Honestly, without religion backing it up, what does the religious right have to stand on?

I'm not saying that religion is the entirety of the evils that are done in this country, but I'm willing to bet that a shit load of it is because it is in our policies or it augments non-religious bullshit such as "It's totally AMERICAN to be Christian".

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

How is that illogical? Buddhist follow Buddha but there's many contradictory accounts of what he said. He said some things I resent. Many Buddhists have spoiled the broth and there are many many many Buddhists who would argue with anyone who thinks that Buddha got some things wrong. Go on eSangha and deny reincarnation, you'll get banned.

First, are you trying to get me to go trawl some Buddhists? That's a possibility. Maybe I'll break out my lighter fluid and a biography of Mao for the lulz.

Second: You seriously don't see what's illogical about saying "too many cooks spoil the broth, I just follow the words of this one guy" and then base everything you know on that one guy on a bunch of contradictory accounts of his life by multiple third-party authors?

Really Say? Really?

Christians who recognize that the Bible has been severely edited, written by many authors, have to really study the text and try to glean truth from it. Not far at all from what other people of many other faiths do.

Yeah, and there's a columnist on examiner who uses her three degrees to interpolate the Twilight saga. What's your point?

Thats a personal gripe. I don't need to point out whats being done in Islam's name in other countries, Buddhism as an institution has been misogynistic since its birth, Confucianism even more so and reduced the status of women to that of property and animals, Buddhists and Taoists fought each other for many many years in China for political prestige, Hinduism reduced people to their caste, the Roman pagans buried Vestal Virgins alive if they dared to have sex, there are few major religions and philosophies that haven't caused others suffering, even in Buddhism which you would think would be against the whole thing, and should be, just like if you follow Jesus they should really be against what the Church does in some places now. I think parts of the Bible are despicable but I can find anything like that in a lot of faiths, with different ramifications for different people.

I'm not currently arguing against any of those beliefs, because none of them are very likely to start oppressing me anytime soon. The second Confucious comes over here and bans sporks, trust me, he shall feel the full brunt of my wrath.

But if faith is personal, why should HP or any other real moderates have to answer for that?

Because whether they want to or not, the billions of moderate, lay-Christians give social credence to the millions of radical Christians, and besides, everyone needs to be made to answer for their beliefs.

Hate to say it dude, but its not religion that its entirely to blame for that. A big big problem is America's nationalism. And I hate to rain on America's parade but I don't think you're going to be the world's superpower for much longer. China is becoming more and more relevant and if and when they call you guys on your debt, you're kinda fucked.

We're losing power and influence, but we're still going to be on top/up there for another 50-150 years. Plenty of time to reduce the planet to glass.

Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. Israel has nukes. There's countries more religiously frenzied who have nukes and while alarming, nothing's happened yet.

I'm tempted to say: "well then everything's just peachy keen and we should all stop complaining." but that wouldn't be entirely fair. See below.

I'm not saying its a concern, I've said many times Palin scares the shit out of me, and fanaticism should be battled. But thats the thing, fanaticism is the enemy, not religion as a whole.

But religion encourages fanaticism. It's right there in the text, for everyone to see:

Originally Posted by The Bible

I am the Lord, Thy God, thou Shalt have no other Gods before me.

The LORD is a warrior; Yahweh is his name!

Go now and make disciples of all nations

"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'

The book is FULL of that shit.

It's GREAT that some people have the sense to realize that stuff like that is bullshit, and cherry pick the scripture, but even the cherry-pickers are basing their lives on a book that tells them to stone the gays.

WHY?

You can have ALL of Jesus's teachings WITHOUT Jesus, and they will be better for it. They be better teachings because instead of being based on Divine Command they are based on honest reason, compassion, and social consensus. They will be good teachings because they are the socially responsible, human thing to do...not because his his dad is going to come along and kick your ass if you don't follow them.

You can have all that hippy-dippy-turn-the-other-cheek-brotherhood-kumbiah bullshit and you can throw out the barbaric, ludicrous stories because you don't need the divine mandate to back them up.


So why keep around these books, who's words and chapters encourage and bolster fanaticism, nationalism, and xenophobia? Why continue to attach belief to a contradictory jumble of texts written by pissed-off desert nomads? Why keep around books that demand their readers abandon their reason and blindly submit their lives to a grand authority figure?

It makes no sense.

I'm sure Zeus had some terrific teachings too, but we* don't make burnt offerings to him anymore. We read his holy words as literature and laugh at silly stories. We need to do that with Christ and Muhammed, Yahweh and Allah. Until we, as a society do that, the fanatics will be bolstered by the moderates quiet acceptance of their fucktardedly stupid belief structure. They will continue to try to oppress us and anyone else (including the "moderates) who doesn't embrace their values. They can't be reasoned with, they won't stop, and we can't kill them legally. Therefore we need to stand up, as a society, and make their values irrelevant. We need to do this with our words, with our votes, and with the way we live our lives. Reasonable people need to go on the attack - So stop blunting our collective voices with your wishy-washy devil's advocate defense, it's doing everyone a disservice.

*"We" in this sense, does not include fat, basement dwelling retards performing 50 year old candle ceremonies in order to feel sexy. As per my post about the asshole pouring libations to the Sea-God, they aren't a threat to anything but a bag of combos.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Neopaganism, dude! And Christianity borrowed A LOT from pagans, Christmas and Easter being obvious but if I'm not mistaken the idea of hell is Greek in origin. Even with defunct religions you can see where they have greatly influenced other religions that exist to this day. And while the religion changes, religion itself will never go away.

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'm sure there's some asshole out there still pouring out libations for Posiedon.

I'm also sure that this particular asshole's belief in his Earth-Shaker/Widow-Maker Ocean God has absolutely zero effect on his country's policy decisions.

tencharacters.

[Alan]

What's bothering me here is that the point of the thread initially is why believe in such a contradictory account. Why take advice from it. Why assign it higher value than other texts.

Now you guys are arguing about the real world outcome of Christianity.

That's all well, but are you implying then that if there was only one person who believed in the bible as literal truth and had little to no political power, affecting society only minimally, you would be OK with the inherent contradictions?

You guys spent a page and a half talking about a red herring, because the conversation didn't actually evolve; you just switched the subject and I still want to see the original one resolved.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

First, are you trying to get me to go trawl some Buddhists? That's a possibility. Maybe I'll break out my lighter fluid and a biography of Mao for the lulz.

Second: You seriously don't see what's illogical about saying "too many cooks spoil the broth, I just follow the words of this one guy" and then base everything you know on that one guy on a bunch of contradictory accounts of his life by multiple third-party authors?

Really Say? Really?

Because the contradictions that were pointed out specifically about what Jesus said was either not in context, and makes way more sense therein, or are completely up to interpretation, requiring study and debate or don't really matter in the long run. Does the fact that the disciples went to Jerusalem or Galilee to see him after his resurrection completely invalidate the principle of turning the other cheek? Small details get muddled up the longer you wait to write things down. Does it matter if Buddha saw the morning star or not?

Yeah, and there's a columnist on examiner who uses her three degrees to interpolate the Twilight saga. What's your point?

That there are many Christians, some known as theologists, who really try to glean what they can from the text, like everyone else with a religion that has a sacred text.

Because whether they want to or not, the billions of moderate, lay-Christians give social credence to the millions of radical Christians, and besides, everyone needs to be made to answer for their beliefs.

How? There's a million years between a staunch Catholic and a Universal Unitarian, I don't see how the UU's are answerable for the Pope being a dickhead. Same with Muslims, I'm not going to harass my Sufi neighbour because some mass murdering fuckhead in the middle east wants to kill Westerners.

We're losing power and influence, but we're still going to be on top/up there for another 50-150 years. Plenty of time to reduce the planet to glass.

I'm guessing ten or twenty before the rest of the world moves on and China gets comfy in the superpower seat, but its all speculation. Could happen tomorrow, could happen never. I'm quite frankly expecting to live to see it happen.

But religion encourages fanaticism. It's right there in the text, for everyone to see:

The book is FULL of that shit.

It's GREAT that some people have the sense to realize that stuff like that is bullshit, and cherry pick the scripture, but even the cherry-pickers are basing their lives on a book that tells them to stone the gays.

According to very old religious laws, the same that Jesus tend to break. If you follow the lines that Jesus was right, "he who without sin cast the first stone." He broke that line of thinking. It makes perfect sense for cherry-pickers to just view it as a barbaric ancient law for a people who existed thousands of years ago.

That's the thing,

WHY?

You can have ALL of Jesus's teachings WITHOUT Jesus, and they will be better for it. They be better teachings because instead of being based on Divine Command they are based on honest reason, compassion, and social consensus. They will be good teachings because they are the socially responsible, human thing to do...not because his his dad is going to come along and kick your ass if you don't follow them.

You can have all that hippy-dippy-turn-the-other-cheek-brotherhood-kumbiah bullshit and you can throw out the barbaric, ludicrous stories because you don't need the divine mandate to back them up.

I'd argue that many people need philosophies as a guidance. If it comes from Jesus, Confucius or Plato, what do I care, as long as they are being good? How can I say its wrong, if it inspires them to be better people? I think I'd still be a good person if I wasn't a Buddhist, but I would not be the person I am now, and I'm not sure if I'd be as good as a person or nearly as open minded as I am. Its not a crutch, but the lives, wisdom and teachings of other Buddhists certainly inspire me, as do other people in other religions. But its a hard thing to explain because its so extremely personal, I can't describe what religious experience feels like. And I suspect that other practitioner would argue the same thing. You can study all you want about other religions, but a practitioner of that religion is going to have a far more intimate knowledge of what they follow than you ever can. You can point out inconsistencies in a text, but when faith isn't reliant on a book, is beyond words, you can't break that kind of faith. And if they're not bothering anyone, there's absolutely no point in trying to.

So why keep around these books, who's words and chapters encourage and bolster fanaticism, nationalism, and xenophobia? Why continue to attach belief to a contradictory jumble of texts written by pissed-off desert nomads? Why keep around books that demand their readers abandon their reason and blindly submit their lives to a grand authority figure?[/i][/b]

It makes no sense.

I'm sure Zeus had some terrific teachings too, but we* don't make burnt offerings to him anymore. We read his holy words as literature and laugh at silly stories. We need to do that with Christ and Muhammed, Yahweh and Allah. Until we, as a society do that, the fanatics will be bolstered by the moderates quiet acceptance of their fucktardedly stupid belief structure. They will continue to try to oppress us and anyone else (including the "moderates) who doesn't embrace their values. They can't be reasoned with, they won't stop, and we can't kill them legally. Therefore we need to stand up, as a society, and make their values irrelevant. We need to do this with our words, with our votes, and with the way we live our lives. Reasonable people need to go on the attack - So stop blunting our collective voices with your wishy-washy devil's advocate defense, it's doing everyone a disservice.

*"We" in this sense, does not include fat, basement dwelling retards performing 50 year old candle ceremonies in order to feel sexy. As per my post about the asshole pouring libations to the Sea-God, they aren't a threat to anything but a bag of combos.

Mostly this can apply to what I wrote above, the value of religion is too personal for you to vote the church away or shame practitioners. And its not necessary. Every single industrial country has religion, what makes America so fanatical? Is it really religion alone? Why can the rest of us live in relative peace with each other, and you can't? "America is the most important country" isn't an answer to this, although the belief that its the leader of the free world does help fuel the American fanatic's zealotry. Again, I'm all for calling out the fanatics, its saying that absolutely everyone must abandon their faith because Jesus could have appeared in Jerusalem or Galilee is absolutely and utterly futile and pointless, not to mention burning a lot of bridges. HP and others like him are on your side, why distance yourself?

Originally Posted by Alan

What's bothering me here is that the point of the thread initially is why believe in such a contradictory account. Why take advice from it. Why assign it higher value than other texts.

Now you guys are arguing about the real world outcome of Christianity.

That's all well, but are you implying then that if there was only one person who believed in the bible as literal truth and had little to no political power, affecting society only minimally, you would be OK with the inherent contradictions?

You guys spent a page and a half talking about a red herring, because the conversation didn't actually evolve; you just switched the subject and I still want to see the original one resolved.

Because the answer to "why take advice from it." is cherry-picking, and then it got on to whether that is or isn't valid. And then it went on to why Christianity is ebil and needs to be eliminated, apparently.

The contradictions themselves? No, other than maybe have a friendly debate with a practitioner I wouldn't really give two flying fucks. That and there's a mountain of them that need to be picked through, I know there's a lot of genuine ones but quite a few have pretty valid answers for, or are taken out of context, or up for interpretation. Not really willing to get my Bible study hedge clippers out for Gnet in any case, you'd have to pay me for that kid of work.

[gothicusmaximus]

HP and others like him are on your side, why distance yourself

This. Despanan, you're hacking at the branches. Religion isn't the root of human stupidity. Human stupidity is the root of religion.
History has shown that people, when seeking justification for a dangerous or bigoted idea, can and will twist any canon, creed, or concept to suit their ends. Consider Social Darwinism. Consider the implementation of anti-capitalist theory or Aristotle's Politics in defense of slavery. The distinction you draw between extremist and fundamentalist Christianity is merely one manifestation of gulf between two different orders of human fatuousness.
At high ebb, human stupidity is "Greece and Rome, whose cultures were the most magnificent ever to bloom on this earth, were slave societies", "Caucasians mated with Neanderthal, while blacks did not, thus accounting for the genetic superiority of the former race", and "The Bible is absolutely, literally true".
At moderate ebb, human stupidity is "Shakespeare, Goethe, and Cicero all hailed from western countries", "I see these IQ tests and blacks score lower, there's simply no other way to explain it" and "Christianity provides moral fiber, and I would prefer that the president be Christian."
At low ebb, human stupidity is "The Founders were brilliant men, we should always consider their wisdom", "An unregulated free market reflects survival of the fittest, the law of nature", and "this Jesus guy had some good ideas, I think his insight was divine".
All they all stupid? Indubitably. Are they all equatable? Certainly not. Moderate stupidity condemns superlative stupidity, albeit not so harshly as does minimal stupidity or actual mental agility. George Bush didn't come close enough to steal the 2000 election primarily due to the support of Moderate Christians, he has myriad forms of excessive stupidity to thank. Your target shouldn't be everyone who finds something he or she likes in the Bible-- it should be everyone who, for whatever reason, is so dangerously stupid. 'Just following' Jesus really isn't too different from 'just following' Socrates-- they're both apparently gentle, wise men whose words are communicated to us solely through the writings of others. The only fallacy is the assumption that Jesus is divine, which is a totally different conversation. Of course, I won't discourage any atheist from explaining why religion is illogical, but given the political dimension of this discussion, I think Saya's point is an important one. People have posted some incorrect things about the demographics of atheism-- we are one of America's fastest growing minorities, and our visibility is rapidly increasing. Given that, I think levying the responsibility for George Bush on Humane Pain, who probably didn't vote for him, simply because they both believe in Jesus, is strategically unsound, and reconciles rather poorly with our self-image as men who honor reason above all.

[HumanePain]

Wow. I was disturbed that work obligations delayed my returning to Gnet thinking this thread would be pushed back below The Beer Thread or some such from my delayed post, and find myself once again amazed and impressed by the intellect demonstrated here!

Now I am glad I was delayed, I would have dumbed down the conversation.
Gnet so totally rules.

I will not try to respond to each of the bullet points made in the back and forth, especially since my debating skills are nowhere near the caliber of you folks. But I will explain my reasoning behind following Jesus, because believe it or not, I reasoned my way to Him. I had abandoned blind faith in Christianity when my sister died, and learned then the harsh (but true) reality of life and death. I wiped the "spiritual slate" clean and started exploring life all over again, breaking free of Catholic dogma.

As I watched life and observed patterns of behavior, especially behavior in dealing with personal crisis and challenge, I watched what worked (faith, courage, family support, support of friends) and what didn't (alcohol, drugs, workaholism).

I also observed "karma" or whatever you wish to call it: that what went around came around. The best way to avoid the negative and reap the maximum positive benefit was to love one's neighbors, to serve society. And to forgive minor infractions against myself. The forgiveness and love of fellow man echoed Jesus' philosophy (or commands).

So in the end I came full circle back to Christianity, but this time with verified, empirical results, not blind loyalty. I follow Jesus because it works for me socially and psychologically better than trying to navigate on my own.

Now had I been gifted with the intellect of those I see demonstrated with skill here in the thread, I might have made it on my own, I freely admit it.
But there is a wide distribution of intellect and even common sense in humanity and so for those of us less gifted there are certainly worse people we could choose to follow besides Jesus (and some do! L. Ron Hubbard anyone?)

When faith provides strength and peace during hard times in people's lives, it is a blessing, but when people fall back on it to fill the sense of belonging to something important (Crusades, elections) or to vent frustration and anger it is a curse.

I do not try to live as an example to other Christians, (no one would follow me I am sure!) but I do wish others would see Christianity as I do: a guide to living and not an end all-be all.

So back to the original thread: I hope my diatribe above helps set the context for why I accept the imperfections of my faith. I am not looking for perfection. I am looking for a way to navigate life with a well proven formula that has demonstrated success for others. The payoff is many times worth the imperfections and contradictions. Yes, there are times when it fails to answer important questions ("Why do the innocent die?") but other times it provides great comfort and solace, and great encouragement and joy.

Plus there is the Christmas presents!