# Faith **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2013, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996 "2013-05-22T07:30:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/141 "2013-05-24T17:38:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think it’s like being a devout non-skydiver. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/142 "2013-05-24T17:41:02Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Czarcasm](#): > > No-it’s that the “baseless opinion” of the minority seems to upset you and others more than the “baseless opinion” of the majority. Okay I can understand that impression. I’d say the SDMB may not be an example of vocal believers being the majority over vocal non believers right? But let’s talk about the national public stage. > [@](#): > > We still live in a world where public officials can openly denigrate atheists without serious consequence, but the very few atheist public officials that have outed themselves are expected to keep a civil tongue lest people get upset. There’s a difference between people simply expressing thier personal beliefs, and actually attacking or denigrating others while doing it. I made no call to respond to those in the same way. If someone is attacking or harming others , like those who oppose SSM for religious reasons, that needs to be dealt with in a more direct manner. In your example, if a public offical denigrates athiests with that whole “no moral compass” nonsense then it should be called a hatefull ignorant insult with no basis in fact, because that’s what it is. A direct, calculated and accurate counter punch is more effective than simply saying “That guys a fucking idiot” or mocking an entire group he’s trying to pander to. Just like our guidelines here, attack the words and the idea, not the person or persons. > [@](#): > > It’s as if someone dared to bring a shiv to a shotgun fight, and everyone’s upset with the guy holding the shiv. Not IMO. It’s a war of ideas which are dispersed through communication. If you want to sway and convince then you try and make your communication as effective as possible. I understand the frustration and disdain, and even the anger and resentment that is directed toward certain religious beliefs. I feel it myself and occasionally resort to sarcasm in response. Some people are just not worth talking to. But some are willing to engage and perhaps further their understanding. I find I get further by refraining from mocking them for simply having thier beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/143 "2013-05-24T19:09:40Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Fair, but within the analogy, I don’t think it’s possible to actually see such a video. And, really, within the context of the painting, does it even really matter if that is the case? I agree that it probably is time to stop. I do think that these are interesting questions, but when we spend all our time arguing about whether God exists or not, what he may or may not of wanted us to do, in the end all we have is the patterns implicit in the painting. So, really, a religious person can say that God gave us a nature desire to do good, and a non-religious person might say that it evolved because it helps create social order that furthers the species, we spend this time arguing about where this desire comes from when we really could just be agreeing that, theist and atheist alike, we want to do good and make life better for everyone. If it were all about doing good, I agree there would be no issue. But look at the religious people who are convinced that God both tells them to feed the hungry and exclude gays from the Boy Scouts. We’ve got secular ethical reasons why this is a bad thing, but god is not governed by them. > [@](#): > > Yes and no. We can study ethics to a certain extent within science, but it doesn’t really help us decide what is best, it only helps us draw from a premise to a conclusion. That is, scientifically speaking, there is nothing inherently good or bad about life, it simply is. Yet, overwhelmingly people have the value that preservation of life is a good thing. Thus, if we can show that doing one thing will preserve more life than another thing then, we could argue that the former is better than the latter given that value. > > To me, the question is, how do we ultimately decide on these base values? Are there perhaps even more basic values than those? Can we agree on what they are and then extrapolate them into our lives? Really, all mythology is are parables, they’re fables, they’re part of the collective human consciousness as a way of helping us to learn and remember a lot of these lessons. Sure, it’d be great if we could just say “Do X, don’t do Y…” but we also want to understand why, and that’s the context that these stories give us. > > And yes, it is comforting to know that disasters aren’t the result of some divine punishment. But to me, it’s even more comforting to know that, like with mythology, parables, and history, we can also take these events as opportunities to learn and grow. Ethics are independent of science. And the point is that there is no “best” - it depends on circumstances, culture, etc. There may be better. However religiously based ethics does assume there is a best, what God wants - of course that also changes with how people interpret the Bible. All ethics, even religiously based ethics, are atheistic, because god is not involved in the decision about what of god’s supposed word to accept. You decide on a position, and then justify it by using selected Bible passages, ignoring the rest. Both liberal and conservative religionists do this. Philosophy talks about the whys of a position. Religion does not have to - the position is dictated. If God directly causes atrocities, who are we to object? As for disasters, why do you need religion to learn from them? However, religion can keep you from learning - someone in another thread quoted a tornado survivor saying that God spared her and that means he wants her to keep living in Tornado Alley. There may be reasons for or against doing this, but her religious one is not a good one. That is the kind of irrationality we’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/144 "2013-05-24T19:19:42Z")
To go back to the original thesis of this thread, I’d like to pose another question. What do theists make of the fact that so many other people have believed in a god? Even today, the world seems to be split amongst 3 or 4 groups that are all convinced they are following the one and true god. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and to some extent Hinduism. All of their followers believe with an equal amount of conviction as the others. Furthermore, throughout history, nearly every culture has had their own gods. Zeus, Vishna, Thor, Amen-Ra, etc… The list goes on and on. Personally, I find it glaringly obvious that they are all fairy tales. Can someone explain what compels people to believe when faced with evidence that people have a propensity to do this type of thing, while at the same time having absolutely zero evidence for their belief in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/145 "2013-05-24T20:12:53Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > What do theists make of the fact that so many other people have believed in a god? Even today, the world seems to be split amongst 3 or 4 groups that are all convinced they are following the one and true god. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and to some extent Hinduism. All of their followers believe with an equal amount of conviction as the others. At least some of those theists believe that all those other theists believe in the same God they do, although they may believe some different things about God. ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/146 "2013-05-24T22:15:37Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > My point is that if your a true believer, you don’t get to make your own decisions. You must follow the bibles teachings. Your bible commands you to do some pretty heinous acts, and Jesus even says he has not come to do away with them, and yet you refrain to follow through. Perhaps your view is that the only “true believers” are fundamentalists. Otherwise, your argument is a classic No True Scotsman. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/147 "2013-05-24T22:33:42Z")
Well, I don’t see how it can be any other way. You still have failed to address the significance of this part of the bible. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matt 5:17 (Jesus) That tells me that all those ridiculous rules your bible has given you are still to be followed. Instead, you choose to follow the ones you like and disregard the others. And that’s good enough to be a Christian in your book? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/148 "2013-05-24T23:12:47Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m curious. As a devout atheist, do you practice any little rituals for luck. You know, like knock on wood, or avoid walking under ladders, wish on candles before blowing them out? > > If so, does that put your non belief status into question? Heh. A bunch of us got together one Hallowe’en, and deliberately broke every bad-luck superstition we could think of. We broke mirrors, spilled salt, spilled milk, walked under ladders, chased a black cat around the back yard, and bragged about how good our lives were in the presence of the gods! And, yeah, since then, my life has been kinda so-so. Why, five entire years later, I lost my job… Cause and effect? Whoooooo can say? In everyday practice, no. I don’t observe superstitious rituals. ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/149 "2013-05-24T23:28:16Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > Well, I don’t see how it can be any other way. You still have failed to address the significance of this part of the bible. > > “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matt 5:17 (Jesus) > > That tells me that all those ridiculous rules your bible has given you are still to be followed. Instead, you choose to follow the ones you like and disregard the others. And that’s good enough to be a Christian in your book? Sure I did, but I will do it again. \*Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Rom. 13:8-10) For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14; NASB)\* What do you think “fulfill” means in these passages? the majority view is that it is used in the rabbinical way (i.e. “fulfilling the law” or “fulfilling the Torah”) to mean interpret. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/150 "2013-05-25T00:17:03Z")
> [@huck](#): > > Sure I did, but I will do it again. > > \*Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Rom. 13:8-10) > > For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14; NASB)\* > > What do you think “fulfill” means in these passages? the majority view is that it is used in the rabbinical way (i.e. “fulfilling the law” or “fulfilling the Torah”) to mean interpret. Yep, although I no longer call myself a Christian because my beliefs are too different from the Christian basics, I still revere and value the teachings of Christ and some of the things the NT says about how we should treat each other. In my opinion it’s about love and truth and learning what those are and living accordingly. Learning how to be moretruthful in our dealings with others and what love asks of us is a lifetime goal. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/151 "2013-05-25T11:56:10Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > Well, I don’t see how it can be any other way. You still have failed to address the significance of this part of the bible. > > “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matt 5:17 (Jesus) > > That tells me that all those ridiculous rules your bible has given you are still to be followed. Instead, you choose to follow the ones you like and disregard the others. And that’s good enough to be a Christian in your book? This is badgering the witness. We’ve seen our share of fundamentalist arguments on the board. We’ve seen people make extra-ordinary, ill considered, even flat out bizarre claims bordering on delusional when it comes to religious ideas/ideals. But I’ve also seen some thoughtful and well considered arguments from those who believe in god. None of them seem fully consistent and rational to some of us because they simply lack evidence to support the idea of a higher power. In that respect, we are justified in questioning by what rational they’ve reached their decisions. But in fairness to those who admit that their belief system is based not on some literal creationist “evidence” but on a personal need for some greater meaning to it all, I think it would behoove the more strident atheists among us to simply accept the fact that some theists actually do apply critical thought to their belief system. Thus, they do practice selectively by showing willingness to recognize the contradictions in the tenetes of their holy books that simply do not work in modern society, and in doing so discard them. And yes, some are better at recognizing that than others. So while it’s fair to continue to question and debate the rational for faith in god, I find it disingenuous to insist that those who practice religion must therefore be fundamentalists lest they be labeled “bad” christians/jews/etc by (ironically) atheists. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/152 "2013-05-25T12:28:00Z")
> [@huck](#): > > What do you think “fulfill” means in these passages? the majority view is that it is used in the rabbinical way (i.e. “fulfilling the law” or “fulfilling the Torah”) to mean interpret. Oh, I did not know that. That makes a bit more sense now. Thanks! However, why use the word “fulfill”? Why not use “interpret”? ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/153 "2013-05-25T12:30:30Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > This is badgering the witness. Ok, I’ll admit I am getting a bit carried away. Ill try to tone it down a notch or two. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/154 "2013-05-25T15:17:44Z")
> [@huck](#): > > What do you think “fulfill” means in these passages? the majority view is that it is used in the rabbinical way (i.e. “fulfilling the law” or “fulfilling the Torah”) to mean interpret. First I hear of this. It usaully just means ‘lived according to’ but is also used as to say that he made the law superfluous. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/155 "2013-05-25T15:20:36Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > First I hear of this. It usaully just means ‘lived according to’ but is also used as to say that he made the law superfluous. Which is just another way the Bible allows you to believe what you already believe. ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/156 "2013-05-25T16:24:15Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > First I hear of this. It usaully just means ‘lived according to’ but is also used as to say that he made the law superfluous. Alas, I am no Hebrew scholar. But the word translated as “fulfill” is “kayem” I believe and it has various meanings–but idiomatically it is a term used among rabbis to mean “correctly interpret”–in contrast to the word for destroy or abolish, meaning incorrectly interpret. So Christ was saying, don’t think I am here to tear down the law by preaching a misunderstanding of it, I’m here to tell you how to correctly understand the law. And the correct understanding is that if you love your neighbor as yourself and act accordingly, you are fulfilling the law. This fits with other passages in the gospel where Christ put the importance of serving people above meticulous adherence to Talmudic law, such as what one ate versus what came out of one’s mouth, or healing on the Sabbath. When I said the majority, I meant scholars who interpret the new testament according to Jewish language and tradition of the time. I suspect the most common view of what this means among Christians is “fulfill” in the sense of finishing or bringing to fruition…else we would have many more Christians than we do keeping Kosher… ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/157 "2013-05-25T17:30:21Z")
> [@huck](#): > > Alas, I am no Hebrew scholar. But the word translated as “fulfill” is “kayem” I believe and it has various meanings–but idiomatically it is a term used among rabbis to mean “correctly interpret”–in contrast to the word for destroy or abolish, meaning incorrectly interpret. So Christ was saying, don’t think I am here to tear down the law by preaching a misunderstanding of it, I’m here to tell you how to correctly understand the law. And the correct understanding is that if you love your neighbor as yourself and act accordingly, you are fulfilling the law. > > This fits with other passages in the gospel where Christ put the importance of serving people above meticulous adherence to Talmudic law, such as what one ate versus what came out of one’s mouth, or healing on the Sabbath. > > When I said the majority, I meant scholars who interpret the new testament according to Jewish language and tradition of the time. I suspect the most common view of what this means among Christians is “fulfill” in the sense of finishing or bringing to fruition…else we would have many more Christians than we do keeping Kosher… I appreciate the explanation. But why the ambiguity? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/158 "2013-05-25T17:31:51Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > I appreciate the explanation. But why the ambiguity? Different language, different time, different religion… ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/159 "2013-05-25T17:48:51Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > I appreciate the explanation. But why the ambiguity? Again, I have no Hebrew or expertise. But strangely enough I once talked about this passage with a rabbi; she told me that these phrases are still more or less current in rabbinical argument. As I understood it it goes something like this: 1st Rabbi: You are so wrong! You are destroying/abolishing the Torah! 2nd Rabbi: No, it is you who are wrong! I am fulfilling the Torah! So apparently it’s not ambiguous when you understand the convention. It’s an idiom that would have been quite clear and familiar to the listeners of the time and to me this understanding is clearly the most consistent with the message of the new testament. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996/160 "2013-05-25T17:59:53Z")
So that means they are justified in dismissing most if not all of the Old Testament, as well as anything else that contradicts the one main law - love thy neighbor as yourself? I think you went over this before but if you could cover this more in depth, what is the point of the Old Testament and all of the other wacky stories? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith/658996.md?page=9)