Derleth No I’m not insulted, it will take much more then that.
I am surprised that no one mentioned the gift of the Holy Ghost, which helps us when we are in moral crises. For the non-Christian you can say this is your own sense of what is right and wrong, but is more then that to a Christian.
As for me being a threat, well the message of Jesus is to love and help in a non-violent way, so I don’t think you have to worry about me.
This is utterly untrue. Many primitive cultures held that it was okay to steal outside of the tribe/clan/village/etc… For instance, the among many tribes of the plains Indians, stealing horses from rival tribes was a way of life.
If I meet anyone who says that the prohibition of theft is particularly Christian, I’ll let them know.
Has it not? Generally folks today agree that premarital sex is bad thing and that society would benefit if it were minimized. An article in this month’s Scientific American reacts positively to declining rates of teen sex activity, and that’s hardly a religious publication.
You wish to divide all moral rules into those “that make sense” and those “randomly created by religion”, and then assert that no rule in the “make sense” category actually results from religion; rather the “make sense” rules are almost universal. But the idea that a certain basic set of rules is universal doesn’t hold. Not all civilizations believe that murder is wrong. Not all believe that rape is wrong. Not all believe that theft is wrong, or deceit is wrong, or self-deceit is wrong. For sure those ideas are widespread, but any number of societies have existed for a long time without them.
Sigh.
How many people have been burned at the stake by Christians in your lifetime? What about in your parents’ lifetime? In your grandparents’ lifetime? Your great-grandparents? Great-great-grandparents? Great-great-great-grandparents? Great-great-great-great-grandparents? Billions of people are Christians now, and billions were a century ago, and two centuries ago, and they were not given a choice of “worship or die”? It’s telling that atheists would rather dredge up ancient history than discuss religious experience today.
Moreover there never was a time when the majority of Christians believed only due to fear. The idea is absurd. Before modern technology, humans had no ability to enforce their will on a large mass of people. If intimidation occured, there must have been a large number of intimidators who did the intimidating compared to a small number of intimidated. No one denies that some minorities have been persecuted during the history of Christian civilization, but it was a relatively rare occurence and certainly did not account for a majority of the Christians through history.
Christianity has survived and propagated itself better than any other religion. This can’t be explained by Christian use of brute force. Countless other groups have employed types of brutality far exceeding anything Christians used. For instance, in the seventh century, Christian civilization was attacked by Vikings from the north, Mongols from the east, and Muslims from the south. All three groups had Christianity outnumbered, all three groups were more than willing to use violence to get their way. If Christianity persevered (and it did), it must have been because Christianity had some strength that its enemies lacked.
No. You might have noticed that we are not robots or puppets. We have brains. We have independent thought. That was the design. So what’s your gripe? Really an irrelevant point, that was.
If you were to read the book you’re critiquing, you would have found it.
No, it’s because he wasn’t a deity. He was a mere mortal. No virgins. No archangels. No stars in the east. No miracles.
Nope.
That question makes no sense.
So no issue. Good. We agree.
Do what he told you. Love God. Love everybody else. All the other religions boil down to that, too. It’s no big mystery.
These are trappings. Moot. Doesn’t matter.
There are plenty of current injustices done to the people in the name of God. Jim *I took 907 Christians With Me * Jones, Warren *I Deserve Many Young Wives * Jeffs, James *I Am As God Made Me * Porter , Jack *The Catholic Church is a Whore * Chick, and Fred *God Hates Fags * Phelps come to mind.
Have you read the Old Testament? Plagues, floods, murdered male children, locusts, fire and brimstone, animal sacrifice, divinely legislated stonings and rapes, fiery serpents, and hornets aren’t party favors.
Um. Three thousand years ago. Before modern science. Before modern medicine. Before any white guy got in a ship and decided to see where it would go. In short, that was then, this is now. More mootness.
I see that you’re fond of dismissing things as “moot” but contributing nothing of insight. As such, I’ll just ignore you and answer my own question.
Deists embrace a contradiction - a God who is powerful enough to create stars and planets and all the things in heaven and earth but also conveniently dumb enough not to realize what would happen if humans (also of his design) were presented with rules of behaviour that are contradictory. He should be celebrating our ability to think independently, if he’s anything resembling a parent.
And if he’s not celebrating and he’s just a mean old abusive creep, the likes of which get written up in Pit threads every other day, screw him.
Further, the Bible was written at a time when 1,000 years probably seemed like a really really long time. Now we see it as the merest geological blip. If the Bible is to be given anything more than symbolic value, it can’t quite so casually contradict the evidence suggested by all the stuff around us that God apparently created.
You mean the white guys who forced the Native Americans to live in barren states and attempted to force the natives to renounce their religion? How about Cortez? Or the white guys who kidnapped Africans and enslaved them? Or the white guys who annexed and exploited Hawaii for strategic military purposes and purposefully tried to wipe out an ancient religion? How about the white missionaries who are currently eradicating the culture of indigenous peoples, replacing their religious beliefs with Christianity and dressing them in Vinnie Barbarino t-shirts to cover up their sinful nudity?
Or perhaps the countries who adopted Christianity happened also to be those which were economically/militarily dominant, so had the greatest opportunity to spread this particular Word. And don’t call me Shirley.
Could you say which branches these might be? That sounds odd, and interesting.
I think you’ve misconstrued what I was trying to say. I wasn’t trying to suggest that Christians look skywards and ponder eternal bliss every time they have to make a moral decision. People tend to act fairly automatically in day-to-day life; we simply don’t have time for soul-searching (or the atheist equivalent…) every time we are faced with a decision. So we act according to the precedents we have set in our lives, and at the roots of this is our upbringing, which is largely affected by societal moral norms, which are turn largely based on our society’s religion. What I was wishing for essentially is a secular society based on a moral guidebook without the need for the supernatural trappings. And that ‘the crowd’ would be unlikely to be wooed by this, without the fantasy of eternal life as a reward.
Patronising. Though of course for those with faith things can be ‘obvious’ so much easier maybe. The obvious existence of God. The obvious infallibility of religious teachings. Without the promise of an afterlife, one can barely ignore the existence of this one. To me, the capacity for love is evident in most humans, and it annoys me to see this, and every other good thing on the earth, eaten up and shat out as tribal warfare, bigotry and superstition, in the name of God.
What does ‘based on Biblical principals’ mean? The US constitution is closer to the Code of Hammurabi than the 10 commandments.
Er, no, its a huge leap to say that these societies were ‘based on Biblical princiles’ when they were founded, and that these principles are what drives society today. Modern society would be very different if it didn’t deviate from the bible.
What? How do you ‘christians dont preach anything that disagrees with society’ from ‘people cherry pick what they want from the bible’? If people are taking something from the bible to hold up as ‘morality from the bible’, then christianity has to be preaching something that agrees with societal norms for this work.
WTF does this mean? How are there significantly fewer christians today then there were in the past? I think it might arguable that there are more christians then there were in the past.
So secular people are driving the morality of society? How so? A society’s morality is determined by the entire society, not a tiny little section.
But their definition of evil changed along with society. Society doesn’t think of adultery as evil in most cases, and tends to look at religious views on the subject as ‘outdated’. Catholics used to hold contraception as absolutely evil, but lately it’s been relaxing its position on this. Society changed first, and is dragging religion along with it. Society is relaxing its views on things like homosexuality, while religion still digs in its heels and points to its ancient books.
Of course. Paul should have said: “Slaves? Sucks to be you! You can’t be Christians, so be off with you.” :rolleyes: backatcha.
Concentrating on the pie in the sky would be extremely wise advice, if there be truly pie in the sky and an eternity of happiness in which to look back on some uncomfortable years spent in slavery. Dwelling on the present misery and hardening their hearts to Christ’s message (on such grounds as, say, “Well if He really loved us, we wouldn’t be slaves”) would be foolish and counterproductive for the slaves.
Of course, you may argue not only that there is no pie in the sky, but that Paul knew this perfectly well. I ain’t gonna stop you if that’s what makes you happy.
Incidentally Paul also said “If you do get the chance to be freed, by all means take it”.
But don’t let this quote trouble you either. Paul wanted slaves to remain slaves and masters to continue to enslave people, for sure. :rolleyes:
And in the very Bible you are so fond of, murder and rapine of enemies is no problem. Not just killing soldiers, but killing all but the nubile women. This happened after the 10 Commandments was handed down, so you can’t say they didn’t know.
You might tell all those people who claim our laws are based on the Bible. You think that if the Bible hadn’t existed, there would be no law against murder? How did the cultures without it ever make out?
Link? Premarital sex or underage sex? As for what you claim society says, I’m kind of missing the mass outrage at stars and people in general living together without being married. When I was a kid a meme was lying about your name when checking into a hotel with someone not your wife. What’s the last time that’s been an issue? Virgins at marriage are the exception, not the rule today. Not that I’m positive they ever were the rule.
If you think society acts as if premarital sex is bad, you’re living in a bubble.
Show me some where these things are not wrong inside the tribe. Created by religion means a rule that either did not exist or was a very minority rule. Think about drinking. Drinking to excess is bad in lots of societies, not drinking at all is a religious thing - and obviously religions disagree.
My great grandfather and grandfather came to the US thanks to the devoutly Christian Cossacks attacking them for the sin of being Jewish. Look up pogrom some time. That’s about 120 years ago. So don’t give me any of your “we good Christians never hurt anyone” shit.
Doesn’t take much when the state chops the head off of anyone visbly supporting the outlawed religion. Do you think the masses of Catholics in England were going to risk going to mass openly? Even if the person at the time of the mass conversion resisted, their children or grandchildren will be adherents of the new religion. A statement of Catholic faith, signed (or marked) by Shakespeare’s father has been found in their house. If Shakespeare had Catholic tendencies, they were suppressed out of concern for his safety. His daughters were fully Protestant. You think forced religious education has no effect?
Vikings and Mongols were not concerned at all about religion. The Muslims, who adopted the same tactics of forced conversions, did pretty well. Do you think that Albania is Muslim today from individual choice?
Do you really think Christianity spread from priests sitting down with each peasant and convincing them? Nope, more like “domini, domini, domini, you’re all Catholics now, and if you don’t go to Church we’ll kill you and take your land.”
Of course, not all religions do this. Many are happy with live and let live. Christianity and Islam are the two main ones that were deeply offended by the existence of anyone around disputing their view of god.
I think this stuff came from me. The people who followed Jesus didn’t know about the star in the east, or the angels. If they had heard about the virgin birth they would have gone “huh?” since they probably could read Hebrew well enough to know that a virgin was not mentioned in Isaiah.
Gee, I wish someone had told the Cossacks that. Or the Spanish Inquisition. So, accepting Jesus is not important if you have love in your heart? Works for me, but then Christianity doesn’t mean all that much.
I guess one must be a brilliant and inspired moral philosopher to tell slaves to take freedom if offered. :rolleyes: Don’t you think a message of “let my people go” might have been handy. I’m sure there were a few Christians who were slave owners - certainly there would be more in the future. But I guess the message of keep your slaves, but don’t be a total asshole (besides that which comes from having slaves in the first place) and that slaves should not be too unhappy with being slaves was truly revolutionary.
And I guess it sure sucks to have your argument that Paul was all about encouraging the oppression of slaves bump up against an inconvenient fact.
Let’s recap our debate on theft:
Voyager (in post 40) said that all cultures have always prohibited theft.
I (in post 42) said that many cultures have permitted and even encouraged theft. I provided examples.
Voyager (in post 51) now points to Bible passages about murder and rape and implies that this proves his claim that all cultures have always prohibited theft.
I guess this is an example of that famous atheist logic which is just so darn logical that us Christians can’t understand it.
Also your claim that in the Bible, “murder and rapine of enemies is no problem” is incorrect. In fact, in the Bible, murder and rapine of enemies is a huge probelm. I would know, since I’ve read the Bible and you haven’t.
Voyager asserted that a majority of Christians only believe in Chirst because they’ve been physically forced to do so. I countered by saying that there are several billion Christians alive today who contradict that statement. Beaucarnea, you apparently believe that you have debunked the assertion that most Christians today believe freely rather than at gunpoint. So, are you asserting that the five not-so-fine fellows (some of whom are not alive) account for the majority of the two billion-odd Christians alive today? Are you asserting that all five of these people are actually using physical force to turn people into Christians? Or did you post this is response to my argument despite the fact that it has no relationship at all to my argument?
If it’s the first, you’re nuts. If it’s the second, you’re nuts. If it’s the third, it’s a de facto admission that my argument was sound.
Actually, I was agreeing that the prohibition on theft was local - just as in the Bible.
As for murder
They destroyed the little ones. Nice guys.
I’m sure they never touched a hair on the head of the women they took for themselves.
I certainly don’t dispute that you read the Bible - but paying attention to what you read is something else again.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Of course no one has to force someone who has grown up in a Christian environment and been indoctrinated in the religion to follow it. I was saying that people were forced to convert originally - and after that, societal and parental pressure did the rest. Do you deny that Europe became Christian when the princes converted, and that the people had no choice? Do you deny that those not obeying were killed?
I never claimed that either Paul or the OT encouraged slave owners to be particularly mean to their slaves. I think, however, that not forbidding the ownership of other people is bad enough. Perhaps you disagree.
I was providing a handful of examples of Christian intimidation and coercion. Your insults do not in any way diminish my point.
I have no way of calculating how many of the 2 billion Christians alive today believe because of intimidation and coercion. But I can provide small examples to illustrate a point. How many children allowed priests to molest them because of their belief that the pedophile was divinely empowered? How many homosexuals have attempted or committed suicide because of rejection from conservative Christians? How many Christians force their teenagers to attend services even after the child has made a decision to think freely and independently? We had to pass laws that prevented religious discrimination in the workplace. We wouldn’t have had to pass such a law if there wasn’t a need for protection against religious intimidation.
Might does not make right.
Direct insults are not permitted in this Forum (and placing them in clauses dependent on conditional phrases does not remove the insult).
Do not do this again.
[/Moderating ]