Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Lila wrote: "Ok,this discussion is a lot more intriguing and entrancing, I suppose, than I gave it credit. I wanted to stay away so so much (it's just not good for my mental well-being, no kidding) mainly becau..."Hi Lila, thanks for the interesting post....
The problem for me, and a lot of other atheists I suspect, is that when someone religious say things like they get their morality from the bible, the question becomes "which bits of the bible?". If you can choose which bits to follow and which bits to ignore, then what is to stop someone else choosing to ignore the bits you follow, and following the bits you ignore? Someone who justifies slavery, but is every bit as christian as you?
Yes, there are some good moral messages in the bible, but they didn't originate with the bible, or with religion.
Lila wrote: "I see Bible as a piece of mostly oral history written down by others, masterpiece of literature nonetheless (I believe even Dawkins was considering supporting the British program of providing schools with Bibles based purely on its literary merits?)..."I'd be interested if there are any links for this? I'd be surprised too, but happy to be....Personally I wouldn't say the bible is literature, based purely on the writing, nothing to do with the message or the intent, but, as we can see from the varying ratings we have all given the book this thread belongs to, that is entirely a matter of opinion :)
Cerebus wrote: "Lila wrote: "Ok,this discussion is a lot more intriguing and entrancing, I suppose, than I gave it credit. I wanted to stay away so so much (it's just not good for my mental well-being, no kidding)..."
You're right, there isn't anything that can't stop a religious person to follow the bad parts. I'm honestly shocked every day at the lengths of evil people are willing to go in the name if God and in the name of religion. I don't know why people who believe in God, as I do, have so much hatred in them towards others, not because those others have done anything to them, but simply because they're different, they're not them, I guess. A lot if it, not all, stems from the fear, I suppose. But I still don't get how a father will conduct an 'honor killing' of his daughter for nothing really (nit that there could ever be any reason for wanting to hurt your own child) it how a mother and a father can't hate and disown their child for being homosexual for example. I'm a mother and both if these, among many smaller things, are unimaginable to me. .
You're right, there isn't anything that can't stop a religious person to follow the bad parts. I'm honestly shocked every day at the lengths of evil people are willing to go in the name if God and in the name of religion. I don't know why people who believe in God, as I do, have so much hatred in them towards others, not because those others have done anything to them, but simply because they're different, they're not them, I guess. A lot if it, not all, stems from the fear, I suppose. But I still don't get how a father will conduct an 'honor killing' of his daughter for nothing really (nit that there could ever be any reason for wanting to hurt your own child) it how a mother and a father can't hate and disown their child for being homosexual for example. I'm a mother and both if these, among many smaller things, are unimaginable to me. .
Gary wrote: "The distinction is that I am not saying that religion is bad, what I am saying is that it has aspects of good and bad, but importantly many bad aspects are unique to religion but none of its good aspects are.
I accept that where you are charity may come from mainly religious institutions but that does not mean religion is good any more than the majority of people in jail being religious is an indication religion is bad.
What it doesn't show however is any indication that there are substantially more "good" people in more religious areas, which is what you would expect if religion promoted "goodness". "
I actually agree with this, Gary. I just wanted to point out that local churches and church members do support their communities in positive ways.
Regarding ... "I am not debating that people have felt positive effects of religion, just whether those effects are exclusive to religion or worth the cost of religion."
Well ... I think it depends on the individual. With regard to my family member who feels AA worked for her due to the religious angle, it might have been exclusive to religion. I think there are steps or something that deal with a higher power. For her, those particular steps clicked ... made sense ... whereas other things didn't. But, like I said, I have another family member for whom this didn't seem to make THE difference. For that person, it was the community and the sponsor that worked. So, I truly think it depends on the people involved.
Whether it's worth the price ....
That would be quite the debate.
Why am I flashing on the Star Trek movie about saving Spock ... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or do they?
In order to determine if religion is worth the price, we'd have to find a way to weigh and measure the positive and negative impact religion has had on individuals and on society at large. We'd never be able to do such a thing. So, we'd be left with what .... Who would make that decision? On what would that person or those persons base the decision? And, we'd be left with certain people making a decision for all ... "playing god" .... That makes me shudder a bit.
Yeah .... It's a risk, as I've said before, to stand for individual choice. One might not agree with the choices made. People have been known to make some horrid choices, immoral choices. Personally, I'm horrified by the choices that might be made in Egypt, for example. Innocents will have their individual rights abolished. It's a huge risk.
And, it's very, very easy for me to talk about how fine it is to champion choice and the rights of individuals. I'm a woman who gets to work ... because I choose to ... where I choose to ... I get to teach children, even girls, and I get to do this without the threat of being murdered or having my students poisoned due to my choices and their wanting to learn. I ate three meals today, have access to clean water, medical care, and have a roof over my head. And, while very bad things can happen here, for the most part, I live my life and walk around and about without fear. As I sit here, in safety, it occurs to me that it's very easy for me to talk. If I lived in another place, if I was under constant threat, if I was horribly hurt or abused, would I still stand by my belief in choice and individual rights?
I'd like to think that I would ....
I'm not saying I think you wouldn't, by the way, Gary. I'm just going off on a tangent, I guess. Something you said in your response got me thinking along these lines.
The needs of the many ... the needs of the few.
Several years ago, when we first started having school shootings over here, my principals (at a former school) staged a drill. They didn't tell anyone in the school that it was a drill. They went from class to class ... whispering to the teachers that there was a man in the school with a gun ... evacuate ... silent evacuation. (Oh, yes, they caught all kinds of hell for this after the fact.)
Well, there I was ... got my kids up ... signaled for silence ... started walking them down the hall ... when ....
I remembered one of my students had gone to the bathroom and wasn't back. I stopped ... started to rush back for him ... saw my students looking at me ... stood there ...
I looked at my students and the exit door, thinking I could point and they'd go down on their own ... looking toward the bathroom ....
It about killed me, a part of me at least, that choice. Everything in me, every fiber in me ... in my gut, at least, told me to send the kids out and go for that boy. How could I leave him? How? My brain told me I had to stay with the group. Was I really going to forsake 23 students for one?
I stayed with the group ... of very confused students. As soon as I got them out, I went to the first adult without kids ... asking her to stay with my class while I went back in. She went instead. And, in the end, it was just a drill.
But, truly, with everything in me, I think I'm hard-wired to go for the one ... the individual. Can I see the benefit of making the hard choice in order to save the many? Yes, obviously. However, it does not come naturally to me. It does not.
So, in order to make the determination, regarding whether or not religion is worth the cost, we'd need to look at more things than religion. We'd need to figure out which we believed ... that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or ....
Pretty weighty stuff.
Where's Sean Bean when I need him?
I accept that where you are charity may come from mainly religious institutions but that does not mean religion is good any more than the majority of people in jail being religious is an indication religion is bad.
What it doesn't show however is any indication that there are substantially more "good" people in more religious areas, which is what you would expect if religion promoted "goodness". "
I actually agree with this, Gary. I just wanted to point out that local churches and church members do support their communities in positive ways.
Regarding ... "I am not debating that people have felt positive effects of religion, just whether those effects are exclusive to religion or worth the cost of religion."
Well ... I think it depends on the individual. With regard to my family member who feels AA worked for her due to the religious angle, it might have been exclusive to religion. I think there are steps or something that deal with a higher power. For her, those particular steps clicked ... made sense ... whereas other things didn't. But, like I said, I have another family member for whom this didn't seem to make THE difference. For that person, it was the community and the sponsor that worked. So, I truly think it depends on the people involved.
Whether it's worth the price ....
That would be quite the debate.
Why am I flashing on the Star Trek movie about saving Spock ... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or do they?
In order to determine if religion is worth the price, we'd have to find a way to weigh and measure the positive and negative impact religion has had on individuals and on society at large. We'd never be able to do such a thing. So, we'd be left with what .... Who would make that decision? On what would that person or those persons base the decision? And, we'd be left with certain people making a decision for all ... "playing god" .... That makes me shudder a bit.
Yeah .... It's a risk, as I've said before, to stand for individual choice. One might not agree with the choices made. People have been known to make some horrid choices, immoral choices. Personally, I'm horrified by the choices that might be made in Egypt, for example. Innocents will have their individual rights abolished. It's a huge risk.
And, it's very, very easy for me to talk about how fine it is to champion choice and the rights of individuals. I'm a woman who gets to work ... because I choose to ... where I choose to ... I get to teach children, even girls, and I get to do this without the threat of being murdered or having my students poisoned due to my choices and their wanting to learn. I ate three meals today, have access to clean water, medical care, and have a roof over my head. And, while very bad things can happen here, for the most part, I live my life and walk around and about without fear. As I sit here, in safety, it occurs to me that it's very easy for me to talk. If I lived in another place, if I was under constant threat, if I was horribly hurt or abused, would I still stand by my belief in choice and individual rights?
I'd like to think that I would ....
I'm not saying I think you wouldn't, by the way, Gary. I'm just going off on a tangent, I guess. Something you said in your response got me thinking along these lines.
The needs of the many ... the needs of the few.
Several years ago, when we first started having school shootings over here, my principals (at a former school) staged a drill. They didn't tell anyone in the school that it was a drill. They went from class to class ... whispering to the teachers that there was a man in the school with a gun ... evacuate ... silent evacuation. (Oh, yes, they caught all kinds of hell for this after the fact.)
Well, there I was ... got my kids up ... signaled for silence ... started walking them down the hall ... when ....
I remembered one of my students had gone to the bathroom and wasn't back. I stopped ... started to rush back for him ... saw my students looking at me ... stood there ...
I looked at my students and the exit door, thinking I could point and they'd go down on their own ... looking toward the bathroom ....
It about killed me, a part of me at least, that choice. Everything in me, every fiber in me ... in my gut, at least, told me to send the kids out and go for that boy. How could I leave him? How? My brain told me I had to stay with the group. Was I really going to forsake 23 students for one?
I stayed with the group ... of very confused students. As soon as I got them out, I went to the first adult without kids ... asking her to stay with my class while I went back in. She went instead. And, in the end, it was just a drill.
But, truly, with everything in me, I think I'm hard-wired to go for the one ... the individual. Can I see the benefit of making the hard choice in order to save the many? Yes, obviously. However, it does not come naturally to me. It does not.
So, in order to make the determination, regarding whether or not religion is worth the cost, we'd need to look at more things than religion. We'd need to figure out which we believed ... that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or ....
Pretty weighty stuff.
Where's Sean Bean when I need him?
Travis wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Is that not arrogance to assume that every one of the same religion has to follow it 100% the same way. If a person disagrees with some aspects of their religion that doe..."
Ok, that's actually funny :)
Ok, that's actually funny :)
Travis wrote: "Which is cool, unless you declare yourself a christian ( or any group with a holy handbook) or use the bible ( or book of your choice) to defend your arguments. It's either the word of god or it's not. "
Cerebus and Travis ...
I see what you're both saying, but ....
When it comes down to it, I think there's a difference, perhaps, in what Cerebus and Maria are saying and what Travis said ... see the above quote.
I actually agree with Travis. If one believes his/her holy book is the direct word of God and uses it in argument, s/he should not pick some words and ignore other words. Agreed. I'm with you on that.
We have a whole other thing going on though. We have this idea that if you're a ... Christian, let's say ... you have to believe a, b, and c. You have to believe this. You have to believe that. We could be talking about someone who does not believe the text to be the direct word of God, who isn't using the text to justify positions, etc... Yet, some would say ... that person has to believe a, b and c ... or else .... Or else they're not what they believe they are ... not what they claim to be, etc....
As I said, for me, I'm more interested in finding my own truths than in telling others what they need to believe.
And, Cerebus, I do remember that you've said on many occasions that you don't want to tell people what they should believe. You want people to gain a better understanding of atheists and to question. I know that. I don't; however, know where Maria stands.
Cerebus and Travis ...
I see what you're both saying, but ....
When it comes down to it, I think there's a difference, perhaps, in what Cerebus and Maria are saying and what Travis said ... see the above quote.
I actually agree with Travis. If one believes his/her holy book is the direct word of God and uses it in argument, s/he should not pick some words and ignore other words. Agreed. I'm with you on that.
We have a whole other thing going on though. We have this idea that if you're a ... Christian, let's say ... you have to believe a, b, and c. You have to believe this. You have to believe that. We could be talking about someone who does not believe the text to be the direct word of God, who isn't using the text to justify positions, etc... Yet, some would say ... that person has to believe a, b and c ... or else .... Or else they're not what they believe they are ... not what they claim to be, etc....
As I said, for me, I'm more interested in finding my own truths than in telling others what they need to believe.
And, Cerebus, I do remember that you've said on many occasions that you don't want to tell people what they should believe. You want people to gain a better understanding of atheists and to question. I know that. I don't; however, know where Maria stands.
Cerebus wrote: "Lila wrote: "I see Bible as a piece of mostly oral history written down by others, masterpiece of literature nonetheless (I believe even Dawkins was considering supporting the British program of pr..."
Yes, I've found it. It was actually through the link Hazel gave to an article by David Mitchell *nod*:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/201...
Yes, I've found it. It was actually through the link Hazel gave to an article by David Mitchell *nod*:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/201...
Shannon wrote: "I just wanted to point out that local churches and church members do support their communities in positive ways. ..."Absolutely, there is no doubt of that at all...
Shannon wrote: "Why am I flashing on the Star Trek movie about saving Spock ... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or do they?..."Nope, they don't, 'cos if they did we could justify subjugating a minority with slavery to benefit the majority.
Edit: It's the deontological position:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontolo...
Shannon wrote: "Who would make that decision? On what would that person or those persons base the decision? And, we'd be left with certain people making a decision for all ... "playing god" .... That makes me shudder a bit...."I, for one, would not ever suggest that the abandonment of religion should be a choice that is enforced on people....my hope is that over time the number of people feeling a need for religion continues to dwindle, and eventually dies out. If it were ever to happen, it would take a long time....
Lila wrote: "Yes, I've found it. It was actually through the link Hazel gave to an article by David Mitchell *nod*:"Well there ya go! Thanks Lila, I wouldn't have thought Dawkins would go for the literature side of the bible, but I'm more than happy to be shown otherwise.
@cs, see, this is how you answer questions and supply evidence. And it frequently works....
Shannon wrote: "As I said, for me, I'm more interested in finding my own truths than in telling others what they need to believe...."That is something I would stand wholeheartedly behind, even if the point you come to is not one I agree with. My comments on the inerrancy of the bible are aimed more at those who would claim things like our morality is based on the bible (but only some bits), or who quote the bible in an attempt to convert, but when other parts are quoted back to them say "oh but we don't believe *that* bit anymore".....
Hazel wrote: "which is why I don't think the god as portrayed in the bible is a loving god. For example, a loving god would have taken loving steps instead of instantly resorting to genocide by flood. And many many other examples."Why not try parenting the Biblical way, Hazel? Give your son one chance and one only. When he disobeys you turf him out onto the street. He's only what, like, three? But hey, why carry on killing him with kindness?
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Not strictly true, there are mixed options on this...."Some examples of these mixed opinions please."
I chose to read this as written, he meant options, them being male/female, male/male and female/female... oh, and male/male/female, female/female, male, etc etc ;P
Cerebus wrote: "Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "atheists here seem to sit down with their degree in philosophy"..."."
OoO, thought I'd add my credentials to the mix. BSc Hons in Animal Science (Wildlife Biology)
Cerebus wrote: "Maria wrote: "Plenty of scientists claimed to believe in God, and some even said that the more they studied the universe in all it's glory, the more their belief in a higher power/Creator grew. ......"studies found that belief in God was held by 7 percent of National Academy of Science members (USA) and only 3.3 percent of UK Royal Society fellows.
Lila wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Lila wrote: "I see Bible as a piece of mostly oral history written down by others, masterpiece of literature nonetheless (I believe even Dawkins was considering supporting the Briti..."that link shows that his main reason for wanting people to read the bible is the same as he's always stated:
"I have heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that without the Bible as a moral compass people would show no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem. The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself," he says.
In fact, its pages are riddled with the advocacy of murder, slavery and theft. Hence his support for Gove's plan: opening the Bible is the surest way to put young minds off its contents.
Tim wrote: "Hazel wrote: "which is why I don't think the god as portrayed in the bible is a loving god. For example, a loving god would have taken loving steps instead of instantly resorting to genocide by flo..."daughter:) And I think 3 is just too young for turfing out... I'd have to find someone to buy her for parts instead, or sell her to an arab sheik, she's got blonde hair, she'll go for a small fortune...
Lila wrote: "Ok,this discussion is a lot more intriguing and entrancing, I suppose, than I gave it credit."Glad you approve. :-) Most people on here don't want to argue, they want to discuss or debate. If you have a point then they will either accept it or question it. The trick is not to be offended that people do not necessarily believe what you say at face value. :-)
I hope you do not take offence to the following, it is all intended in the interests of open discussion.
Lila wrote: "(I think, as I read through the posts, that a lot of confusion comes from that things that were written by some were not understood the way authors of the posts meant them to be understood)."
If you will forgive the reference, amen to that!
Lila wrote: "First thing is, as opposed to Maria, I think, saying that if you're a Christian, it either all or nothing,
The difference is whether you then ever justify your beliefs, opinions and attitudes via the Bible, or Christianity. As soon as you claim something is right because it is what god wants according to scripture or some other religious authority, yet ignore that authority on other things then you are just using god as authority to justify your own opinions and prejudices.
This is rampant in modern Christendom. Look at the US and the alleged "War on Marriage". Many Christians are loudly proclaiming that according to Leviticus homosexuality is a sin, however how many also agree that if a man believes his wife is not a virgin on their wedding night, then the Father needs to prove it or his daughter should be put to death?
How many of them wave their signs and claim that it "is gods will not theirs" while sporting neat haircuts and wearing mixed fabric shirts?
How many ignore Luke 16:19-25, Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23-25, Luke 6:24, James 5:1 in the pursuit of the "American Dream" of wealth and prosperity?
The real problem with many religions is the moderates, not the extremists. The moderates give the ground for extremists to grow, and when extremists act the moderates are the ones that end up tacitly defending their reasoning.
Lila wrote: "I see Bible as a piece of mostly oral history written down by others"
That is true, though the accuracy and authenticity of many parts are dubious, so I would say oral history and legends.
Lila wrote: "I believe even Dawkins was considering supporting the British program of providing schools with Bibles based purely on its literary merits?
Actually his reasoning was more specifically for the same reason Mark Twain (and indeed I) support reading the Bible. Less people would hold the Bible up as a moral guide if they actually read what was in it, and a lot atheists lost their faith by reading it.
There was a good reason that for many years it was heresy to translate the Bible out of Latin to a local tongue. A good reason why even now Christians tend to have "Bible Study Groups" where they focus on particular ideas and messages while avoiding the more disquieting text.
Lila wrote: "I don't see myself as a hypocrite by being a Christian and not believing or agreeing with every single word in there."
Why are you a Christian then if you are only taking inspiration from the words? I find great inspiration in the tales of Greek legend, but I do not call myself a Hellenist. I find inspiration and ideas within Celtic Paganism, but I do not call myself a pagan. I find inspiration and truths in the "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars", but I am neither a Valarist or a Jedi.
Lila wrote: "I am Roman-Catholic."
May I ask, does this mean that by stating this identity you fully accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Lila wrote: "I was raised in the catholic faith thanks to my farmer grandparents and I have to tell you that the way they lived convinced me the most that there is God."
This is a constant source of sadness for me, they sound like they were truly wonderful people, and yet God gets credit for their goodness. In fact they probably didn't even give themselves the credit they are due.
Lila wrote: "I do need to be reminded of it, because no matter how moral and ethical I can imagine myself to be, deep down I'm really not, when comes right down to it,"
Now you are not giving yourself credit. You have already stated that you choose what parts to believe, and regret the interpretations others of your religion have had.
We can all be capable of evil, but if we are only good because of the fact that someone orders us to be good, then how is that morality?
Ethics is when you have the option to do bad and you choose to do good because you know it to be right. You already know that your moral intuition is working because you do not follow every part of scripture blindly. Give your willpower and self-control the credit it deserves.
To do good because you are afraid of god's punishment is just cowardice, to do good because you want god's reward is just greed. To do good simply because you know it to be right, expecting neither reward or forgiveness, is the essence of morality.
Lila wrote: "My God is a loving God, Whose greatest commandment is to love one another."
That is a nice sentiment, and loving each other and caring for people is great until people start having exceptions (which I do take it you think is wrong to do)
Two things to consider though. First, if you love someone how can you give them a command? Second, why does god then require worship? Requiring adoration is definitely not love.
Cerebus wrote: "I'd be interested if there are any links for this? I'd be surprised too."Here :-)
'As Dawkins reveals in today's Observer, support for the Bible plan is justified on the grounds of literary merit and he lists a range of biblical phrases which any cultivated English speaker will instantly recognise. These include "salt of the Earth", "through a glass darkly", and "no peace for the wicked". Dawkins states: "A native speaker of English who has not read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."
Rapprochement would seem to be in the air – until Dawkins's thesis is studied more closely. While Gove believes the Bible is a guide to morality, Dawkins is sure it is not. "I have heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that without the Bible as a moral compass people would show no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem. The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself," he says.' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/201...
Gary wrote: How did I ridicule him, exactly? "
By using sarcasm. It’s in the dictionary, but I won’t be rude enough to link you to one.
And blowing my own trumpet
Go back and read the comment you left me after I replied to you about your friendly preacher. You were still blowing your own trumpet.
I have read it. There was no before the Big Bang because time was created at the big bang therefore there was no "time" to be a "before" in
Yes but you have either not read my post correctly or you have not understood what Hawking conclusion was when using a philosophical approach to the problem of ‘what was before the big bang’. I think it’s a bit of both.
cs ... Just to help you avoid more accusations of avoiding questions here is a summary for you
Now you are sounding like Hazel, we are not students and this is not your lecture. You know what you said about Hawking, I think that you don’t like being confronted. It’s back there to read if you want to.
Please explain why "Sin" is not "Bad" when Sin earns you "eternal damnation in hell". Is this just a catchy name?
If you do not believe in heaven, hell or sin, any explanation, even if it was solid gold with cherries and sprinkles on top; you would not believe it. This is a typical atheist question, just to get a response so that you can then farm a bog standard reply from the internet and paste it, yet went confronted you will say I don’t discuss subjects unless there is proof.
Does this mean that you believe that it is ok to break any commandment as long as you do not feel you have done nothing wrong
Are not incapable of asking a question without implying something and using a negative, for effect?
Even though you don’t really want an answer because it is a rhetorical question, I will explain for anyone who wants to read it.
Using your example of a gay Catholic man. If that man through his religion knows it is wrong (not to be gay) but to perform a gay sexual act, then he will assumed he has sinned. But if he feels with-in himself that what he is doing is not wrong, then he has not sinned. In other words, his own conscience will guide him.
Make of that what you will. I expect the usual motley crew will follow this with flippant remarks. But maybe those who really do understand philosophy may look a little deeper first. And don’t for get I am Catholic, I know what I am talking about on this matter, most of you who are not Catholic and only think you know.
Lila wrote: "But I still don't get how a father will conduct an 'honor killing' of his daughter for nothing really (nit that there could ever be any reason for wanting to hurt your own child) it how a mother and a father can't hate and disown their child for being homosexual for example. I'm a mother and both if these, among many smaller things, are unimaginable to me. The problem isn't that a lot of these people are evil, the problem is that a lot of them truly believe what they are told.
Parents reject their children because they are gay in the firm belief that they have chose this path and the end result will be eternal punishment, partly because by their anger they are hoping to correct the child and partly because they fear Gods judgement on themselves if they do not speak out against what they have been told is evil. Female genital mutilation has been practised on the grounds that it makes girls incapable of enjoying sex, and since sex and childbirth was the punishment for Eve's 'sin' then enjoying sinning would be wrong and risk the girl punishment after death.
This is one of the truly tragic things about religion, in particular Abrahamic religions, people treat each other with intolerance and cruelty because they genuinely believe they are helping people toward a better afterlife. If they all put as much effort into making this world tolerable, what sort of place would this be?
Gary wrote: "Female genital mutilation has been practised on the grounds that it makes girls incapable of enjoying sex, and since sex and childbirth was the punishment for Eve's 'sin' then enjoying sinning would be wrong and risk the girl punishment after death."
I always thought it had to do with the idea of the female sexual insaitability and curbing it by making sex unpleasant thus ensuring a faithful wife and children of your blood line.
Gary wrote: "Female genital mutilation has been practised on the grounds that it makes girls incapable of enjoying sex, and since sex and childbirth was the punishment for Eve's 'sin' then enjoying sinning would be wrong and risk the girl punishment after death."
You have a point with some of this, Gary, but you're also missing other points.
Societies that practice genital mutilation also view women as chattel, as their women. These are societies that want to ensure that their property remains their property.
A woman who is incapable of enjoying sex isn't likely to stray. Is she?
It's not just about punishing women for Eve's sin. I'm not even sure that's the guiding factor, though it's a convenient excuse. I'm pretty sure the main reason it's done is it works for men in those societies.
Look at foot binding. Different but similar. No religious angle, to my knowledge. Yes, it set the wealthy apart from those who needed to work. And, yes, it supposedly was super sexy. Shudder. But, it also made it easy for the men to control the women, their women. Correct? If they couldn't walk away .... Not an Abrahamic society. Not sexual mutilation, true. But, it was a means of control, and I believe genital mutilation is also, in large part, a means of control.
You have a point with some of this, Gary, but you're also missing other points.
Societies that practice genital mutilation also view women as chattel, as their women. These are societies that want to ensure that their property remains their property.
A woman who is incapable of enjoying sex isn't likely to stray. Is she?
It's not just about punishing women for Eve's sin. I'm not even sure that's the guiding factor, though it's a convenient excuse. I'm pretty sure the main reason it's done is it works for men in those societies.
Look at foot binding. Different but similar. No religious angle, to my knowledge. Yes, it set the wealthy apart from those who needed to work. And, yes, it supposedly was super sexy. Shudder. But, it also made it easy for the men to control the women, their women. Correct? If they couldn't walk away .... Not an Abrahamic society. Not sexual mutilation, true. But, it was a means of control, and I believe genital mutilation is also, in large part, a means of control.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Which is cool, unless you declare yourself a christian ( or any group with a holy handbook) or use the bible ( or book of your choice) to defend your arguments. It's either the word..."and I'm cool with you finding your own truth, shannon, and I'm sure that truth will involve Sean Bean, it's the people that claim their truth comes from the bible, but only the 'good' bits that are getting called out.
As a guy, I'm painfully aware that if you are given an instruction manual and then cherry pick, it won't end well.
Shannon wrote: "I actually agree with this, Gary. I just wanted to point out that local churches and church members do support their communities in positive ways. "Aye, I agree it happens.
Shannon wrote: "Well ... I think it depends on the individual. With regard to my family member who feels AA worked for her due to the religious angle, it might have been exclusive to religion."
That it worked isn't in dispute, that non-religious methods would have all failed I think is rather a conclusion to jump to.
I do not doubt that religion can work with high effectiveness and efficacy in certain circumstances, but if I may use a metaphor inspired by your (quite gripping) account later in your post.
I have no doubt that guns can be used for good purposes, that they can with startling efficiency protect the innocent from the evil, selfish or deranged. That said, I would not freely distribute guns on the street to whomever wanted them, because that power used irresponsibly can cause a lot more harm than it benefits. Similarly I would hope to work toward a society were guns would eventually be unnecessary.
Shannon wrote: "Why am I flashing on the Star Trek movie about saving Spock ... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or do they?"
Though it makes a nice tagline, it is not really a sound ethical philosophy as it is a massive simplification.
E.g. Is it right to steal all the wealth of a single person to then benefit thousands more? Now taxing those that can afford it more to help the needy sounds like a good idea, but if we take $1,000,000 off a millionaire and use it to give ten million people ten cents, is that a good moral choice?
That stark philosophy makes no distinction between relative need..
Shannon wrote: "Who would make that decision? On what would that person or those persons base the decision? And, we'd be left with certain people making a decision for all ... "playing god" .... That makes me shudder a bit."
You see, for atheists that has already happened. There are many conflicting religions, each one with its own authoritarian claims, yet the adherents want us to obey their precepts simply through the authority of their belief. Imagine how much atheists shudder at this prospect. Imagine how you would feel under the despotic rule of a christian version of the Taliban, then multiply that by the factor of beliefs atheists do not share with you.
What would we have instead? Education, Rule of Law, democracy and moral intelligence.
For example; try applying some logic and moral intelligence to the ten commandments. (I will use the Exodus version from the KJ Bible for this example, I realise there is many sets)
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Why? Assuming that god is all powerful, what does he fear from rivals, particularly ones who do not exist. If god loves us, then why does he say he is jealous? Jealousy is not love, it is fear and insecurity.
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
This commandment as written specifically bans all works of visual art. The irony here is that one of the often claimed legacies of christianity is specifically banned by commandment. (Any likeness!)
Technically this would make those people in the US who want to break the first amendment by putting crucifixes and commandments into law courts commandment breakers too.
Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
What does your moral intuition tell you about sentencing children for crimes, before that child is even born? Even the Roman Empire allowed the grandchildren of slaves to attain full citizenship.
Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;
If God is so powerful, what does he care about his name being abused? Moreover, when a priest claims that "god thinks this" or "god thinks that" does that not apply?
Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Half way through and this is the first part that contains a seed of morality. Obviously the commandment is unworkable without a completely autonomous society, unless everyone fasts and does not do anything. Modern society could not survive this commandment and it is routinely ignored by people waiting for dinner to be cooked for them or by them.
Although! This commandment does have the seeds of fair labour laws, saying that 1 in 7 days people should be allowed a break and those people in authority over them should not forget this. Though personally I think I would prefer modern labour laws over having a single day off when no trains run, no food is cooked, no police are present and no power is generated.
Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother.
This makes simple sense. Treat your parents right. Why? Easy, not because "God says so" but because it makes simple moral sense. One day it is likely that you will be the parent and would hope to receive the same respect that you gave your parents.
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Easy again. Ironically this commandment makes it impossible to deliver appropriate punishments for the crimes listed in Leviticus and elsewhere. However, do we really need god to tell us not to kill people?
Well. kind of. If you believe that when people die without sin it sends them eventually to paradise then why not just kill people before they can sin? Surely the most altruistic thing you can do is to commit a sin and risk hell in order to guarantee other people paradise?
However, if you want to be part of a society where you are not afraid to be killed out of hand then it follows that killing should not be tolerated.
Killing, for someone who believes that death is the ending of a persons awareness and existence, is a far more heinous crime that those that believe that this life is a mere inconvenience to get through on the way to something better.
Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Again, why? Because god says so, or because you would want your partner to be as loyal to you as you are to that partner?
Again it is just a logical law, one that is frequently ignored by the very people who would display said commandments. (Newt, I am looking at you!)
Exodus 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Again, obvious. If I expect to keep my stuff, in turn don't go stealing others stuff.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Again, obvious. Don't lie about people, because you wouldn't like it if people lied about you.
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,
Again obvious. Again routinely ignored by those who chase the "American Dream" (or as it is known in the UK "Keeping up with the Jones's")
All of the good parts of the commandments can be summarised in Jesus's (alleged) words from Luke 6:31 "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
However, that again is morally obvious. If you expect to be treated well then treat other people well, because if everyone did that, everyone would be treated well!
Shannon wrote: "I'm not saying I think you wouldn't, by the way, Gary. I'm just going off on a tangent, I guess. Something you said in your response got me thinking along these lines."
Aye, tangenting is fine :-D
Shannon wrote: "Several years ago, when we first started having school shootings over here, my principals (at a former school) staged a drill. ...(Oh, yes, they caught all kinds of hell for this after the fact.)"
Interesting tale, and I applaud your courage (moral and physical).
Here is something to consider. If that drill upset 10,000 people who work in schools and 100,000 parents, but the skills learned saved a single child's life. Would it have been moral to do this?
Shannon wrote: "Where's Sean Bean when I need him?
*Checks time* Lets face it. Probably dead again!
Shannon wrote: "As I said, for me, I'm more interested in finding my own truths than in telling others what they need to believe."I think you will find that atheists in general (but not necessarily all) are strongly against telling others what to believe. In fact some think "belief" is an anathema to wisdom as only the arrogant or foolish believe that they are absolutely right and can therefore learn nothing new.
Cerebus wrote: "I, for one, would not ever suggest that the abandonment of religion should be a choice that is enforced on people."Agreed, enforcing the discarding of religion without people understanding the reasons and benefits would be enforcing the belief that religion is bad. Ironically this belief would then itself qualify as a religion. (Belief = Religion)
That is why I discuss here, not to enforce my beliefs but to discuss the reasoning behind beliefs, as once a belief becomes an opinion it can be discarded if necessary or used if needed.
@Gary, I think at this stage I'm happy to defer to you on most replies, I particularly like the 10 commandments one :) I'm sure cs will see this as part of an atheist conspiracy, but since he is studiously ignoring me, he won't be able to comment on it....or I could just ask him directly, another guaranteed way to ensure no further comment from him....
cs wrote: "By using sarcasm. It’s in the dictionary, but I won’t be rude enough to link you to one."Failure to respond to the question by instead simply making another accusation.
When was I sarcastic to Professor Hawking?
I am not currently in touch with the professor so I would find it hard to be sarcastic to him. I also did not mean to ridicule him as I have enormous respect for the man.
cs wrote: "Go back and read the comment you left me after I replied to you about your friendly preacher. You were still blowing your own trumpet."
Which was a reply to your smug comment that the preacher would agree with you more than me. Which again evaded the response which proved you wrong.
cs wrote: "Yes but you have either not read my post correctly or you have not understood what Hawking conclusion was when using a philosophical approach to the problem of ‘what was before the big bang’. I think it’s a bit of both."
You have failed to respond again with a direct quote where Hawking says there was "always" something.
"Always" implies infinite time stretching back into history which is not in his hypothesis.
You also were using Hawking to imply the existence of a god when Hawkings position was diametrically opposite to your claim.
So you are more intelligent than myself or Professor Hawking now? So who is "blowing there own trumpet" exactly?
Here you arrogantly assume that you understood Hawking better than me. What is your qualification in Cosmology (the matter in discussion)?
cs wrote: "You know what you said about Hawking, I think that you don’t like being confronted. It’s back there to read if you want to."
I am still waiting to hear what you thought was ridicule. Answer and stop being evasive or admit that you continually dodge awkward responses because you don't like being confronted.
cs wrote: "If you do not believe in heaven, hell or sin, any explanation, even if it was solid gold with cherries and sprinkles on top; you would not believe it. This is a typical atheist question, just to get a response so that you can then farm a bog standard reply from the internet and paste it, yet went confronted you will say I don’t discuss subjects unless there is proof."
Question evaded again. Can you not explain why "sin" is not "bad" when it is defined as a crime or transgression.
cs wrote: "Are not incapable of asking a question without implying something and using a negative, for effect?"
No I was asking for a clarification. You stated that if you did not feel you had done something wrong, then you had not sinned. That seems to disqualify every possibility of moral guidance from religion as you can do what you like as long as you do not feel guilty.
cs wrote: "Even though you don’t really want an answer because it is a rhetorical question, I will explain for anyone who wants to read it."
Yes I do, that's why I asked it twice.
cs wrote: "In other words, his own conscience will guide him."
So in your opinion ones own conscience supersedes religion? I agree entirely, which is why I do not see religion as a useful moral guide.
This is not a flip comment, I agree that ones conscience is superior than religious edict, I simply hold that once you realise this then there are better ways to educate peoples conscience. For example please see the post I made about Moral Intelligence as applied to the Ten Commandments of Exodus.
cs wrote: "And don’t for get I am Catholic, I know what I am talking about on this matter, most of you who are not Catholic and only think you know. "
I used to be one. So I know. I also have studied the Bible, the Apocrypha, the Liturgies of Catholicism. Trying to claim your superior knowledge is going to take more than pure arrogance.
What is your qualification in Theology?
Shanna wrote: "I always thought it had to do with the idea of the female sexual insaitability and curbing it by making sex unpleasant thus ensuring a faithful wife and children of your blood line."Aye that makes sense, but that is a reason. Saving the girl from sinning is the "justification"
Gary wrote: "Answer and stop being evasive or admit that you continually dodge awkward responses because you don't like being confronted..."Good luck with that....I think you're on the fast track to being ignored too....
Shannon wrote: "Societies that practice genital mutilation also view women as chattel, as their women. These are societies that want to ensure that their property remains their property. "I agree. That attitude is also codified into the Bible and is still referenced by modern Christians.
Just a quick sampling (but by no means all)
Genesis 3:16 - "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
1 Corinthians 11:3 - "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
1 Corinthians 14:34-36 - "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Ephesians 5:22-24 - "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
1 Timothy 2:11-15 - "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing."
A lot of that is the New Testament too, but in fact the old testament goes as far as to price women.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
This also has no reference to whether it matters if the girl is willing, so a rapists punishment can be being forced to marry their victim. That is horrific.
Shannon wrote: "A woman who is incapable of enjoying sex isn't likely to stray. Is she?"
Aye, I know why it is done, but it is the justification of it in religion that is abhorrent. Without it the crime of mutilation would be obvious, but it is fine if a pious man is just saving the girls soul, it's for "her own good" after all.
Shannon wrote: "Not sexual mutilation, true. But, it was a means of control, and I believe genital mutilation is also, in large part, a means of control. "
Agreed. My only point is not "why" it happens, but how people justify it to others and more importantly to themselves.
Sometimes I think people, particularly religious people, forget how powerful belief can be. Then they measure other people and other cultures by their own belief and judge people as 'evil'. Personally I am sure that many homophobic Christians are not bigots, but believe strongly that god says it is wrong. I am sure that a lot of people who practice FGM do it because it is expected in their culture and because they believe in the religious justification. I am sure a lot of African christians who murder people for witchcraft (as has happened in the UK too) are genuinely convinced that witches have supernatural powers and fear them.
This is the problem with belief, it allows the perpetuation of atrocities by people who are probably no more evil than any of us.
Cerebus wrote: "@Gary, I think at this stage I'm happy to defer to you on most replies, I particularly like the 10 commandments one :) I'm sure cs will see this as part of an atheist conspiracy, but since he is st..."Thanks but I am sure everyone has plenty of viewpoints to add :-)
The Ten Commandments experiment is something I am interested in. It is my strong opinion that as a culture we have left Moral Intelligence and Ethical Education undeveloped and in the hands of religion for too long. Now we are suffering from the fact that our technical prowess is now in the hands of people who still base many ethics on bronze age principles.
Therefore I think that ethics needs to be developed as a discipline and taught to the young, not as a set of rules, but with honest reasons and explanation. After all if we truly have got the benefit of the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" then we should use it. :-)
As for cs, perhaps he will be as knowledgeable a Catholic he claims to be and remember 1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
Travis wrote: "As a guy, I'm painfully aware that if you are given an instruction manual and then cherry pick, it won't end well. ":-D
I haven't been in a grade school forever it seems like and I don't have children of my own so my question is, do they not teach morals and ethics in grade school? It seems like they would, you know common knowledge and all. If they do, then why would we ever need religion to teach people about these things and if they don't, why on earth not?
Drew wrote: "I haven't been in a grade school forever it seems like and I don't have children of my own so my question is, do they not teach morals and ethics in grade school?"Well I can't speak to that, does anyone know? I do work in a school myself and have a daughter, but as far as I can discern the only discussion of ethics is in "personal and social education" and in "Religious Education" which is usually taught by a theist commonly with strong religious convictions about the morality of their chosen religion.
Cerebus wrote: "Edit: It's the deontological position:-"Thanks for that, that caused me to do a bit of reading and thus I found a quite concise treatise on my opinion of ethics.
Pragmatic ethics is a theory of normative philosophical ethics. Ethical pragmatists, believe that some (but not all) societies have progressed morally in much the way they have attained progress in science. Scientists can pause inquiry into the truth of a hypothesis and accept the hypothesis, in the sense that they act as though the hypothesis were true; nonetheless, they think that future generations or scientists on other planets can advance science, and thus future generations can refine or replace (at least some of) their accepted hypotheses. Similarly, ethical pragmatists think that norms, principles, and moral criteria are likely to be improved as a result of inquiry.
Gary wrote: "Always" implies infinite time stretching back into history which is not in his hypothesis..."infinite time forever, now you are understanding, which is in his hypothesis.
This is not a flip comment then you give a flip comment.
You seem itching to tell everyone about your many qualifications.............. so ok go ahead, we are all listening and then tell us what your current occupation is. You seem to good to be true.
cs wrote: "infinite time forever, now you are understanding, which is in his hypothesis."Er. No.
According to Hawking's "Brief History of Time" and other works, Time and space began at or after T=0 which was about 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago. Sometimes this is referred to as the "Big Bang" but that is somewhat inaccurate as the term is usually applied to the particle explosion that occurred after the Inflationary Epoch.
There is no "before" T=0 because space and time (as demonstrated by Einstein) are linked and only existed after T=0
The actual point of creation "T=0" is also a point of contention because this is a singularity, but until quantum theory is fully merged with relativity we actually are generally referring to one Planc time after T=0 (Planc time being the smallest unit of time measurable).
The Universe was once thought to expand endlessly but recent observations are showing that space is not just expanding but accelerating. This means that eventually all points of space will be accelerating apart at a speed greater than c, which means that space and time as we know it will cease to exist.
So a finite start to time and a finite end. This is the direct opposite of your claim that hawking referred to infinite time (which is a Newtonian idea). The physics you are talking about was proven wrong with the confirmation of the discovery of the CMR in 1964.
Now I will ask again, please provide reference to where you believe that Hawking postulated infinite time. It is not in any of his books I have read.
cs wrote: "This is not a flip comment then you give a flip comment."
In your opinion. Sometimes though an answer can be simple, as it was in this case.
Instead of again trying to dismiss the point without addressing it by smugly using insulting language, try responding to it.
cs wrote: "You seem itching to tell everyone about your many qualifications.............. so ok go ahead, we are all listening and then tell us what your current occupation is. You seem to good to be true. "
Well you are the one who has claimed that as a Roman Catholic you know more about your religion than most, yet you quote no Scripture, refer to none of the Liturgies and cannot even answer a simple question like "is Sin bad"? You also try to use Cosmology by blatantly misquoting Professor Hawking and trying to draw the opposite conclusion to the one he has written a book refuting.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/85...
I will when you have answered some of my points without evasion.
So far half a point out of 13.
1. Hawking's reference to infinite time.
2. where I ridiculed or was somehow sarcastic to Professor Hawking (despite the comment being posted to you not the Professor).
3. Real account of the atheist spontaneously acquiring a belief in god without outside influence.
4. Why intolerance in atheists would maybe be "even more hateful because there is no religion to blame".
5. Independently verified contemporary reference from a non-dogmatic source for the reference "We all know that Jesus existed."
6. Response to Catechism of the Catholic Church on hell being equivalent to "the boggey man"
7. Please explain why "Sin" is not "Bad"
8. Answered with "Conscience being a guide" instead of religion.
9. Resource for the updated version of the 2012 Christian religion.
10. Evidence for claim - "homosexuality does not occur in nature".
11. How you can have a discussion about "why" you believe things without ever explaining "why".
12. Is the total religious meaning to life to follow our natural function and to procreate?
13. Do you think people should be allowed to be bigoted and remain unchallenged on their bigotry?
Islam , hamdullelah shows us that there's no conflict btwn Religion and science, but amuway if i had to choose btwn these two, i would rather to live in a world without science, spiritual moments are what makes the human happy, and emotions what make the human valuable, , ,
Amani, I'm guessing you haven't read much of this thread before answering the question, as what you have said has been addressed several times over, just the last few pages will have posts that address what you've said. Or if you prefer, we can say it all again...
Hazel wrote: "Amani, I'm guessing you haven't read much of this thread before answering the question, as what you have said has been addressed several times over, just the last few pages will have posts that add..."i think that no harm of saying my opnion over and over again even if it is repeated, at least it shows that there are alot of people i agree with them and they have the same view point sweets :)
Actually I was talking about posts that dispute what you say, that point out the innate hypocrisy in posting that you'd want to get rid of science while using a computer to say it, that address the fact that by removing science we lose medical science, and thus reduce life expectancy massively, while also having people dying from eminently curable diseases, that if we consider that science includes all technology, then we'd not even have the ability to make fire, and it essentially puts us back into the trees. Posts that present evidence that all the things that religion achieves can be achieved by purely secular means, that community comes first, then religion develops, not the other way round, that happiness and love are not the sole domains of the religious, and that evidence shows that lack of religion doesn't involve a lack of community or morality.Essentially, again, that there is nothing that religion does that cannot be achieved by purely secular means. But science provides us with clean drinking water, with medical care and with the very communication method that you used to state you'd want to get rid of science.
Shannon said:"And, Cerebus, I do remember that you've said on many occasions that you don't want to tell people what they should believe. You want people to gain a better understanding of atheists and to question. I know that. I don't; however, know where Maria stands."
Hi Shannon - I'm assuming you mean where I stand on telling people what to believe - if that's not it, please let me know.
I don't think anyone should tell anyone else what to believe. Ever. I think everyone should do all the research they can, question everything, then come to their own conclusions. This discussion is a great way to hear lots of differing opinions and to get clarification if need be as well.
And Shannon, it's hard to tell with just the written word here, but it seems that you are still a little miffed at me for saying I like to stir people up. I'm not going to continue to defend myself, but I will say that by "stir up" I meant prompt people to express themselves. Not make them mad, not antagonize or criticise. If everyone is honest, they will also admit that when they make a comment, it is meant to elicit a response, good or bad, from others in the discussion.
We don't just put our opinion down here, we want to see what others think of it. It's fun to see what reaction people have to my comments, and see what they will say back to me. If we didn't want to get reactions from people, then why would we be here in the first place?
If that makes me a "troll", so be it - but I don't think it does. If so, then we're all trolls.
troll One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
Hazel said:"troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument"
I don't think I'm doing that. If anyone does, please let me know and I'll leave the group. It was not my intent.
Hazel wrote: "Actually I was talking about posts that dispute what you say, that point out the innate hypocrisy in posting that you'd want to get rid of science while using a computer to say it, that address the..."darling, what is the use of science and medicine if man is going to die anyway!
science is necessary and essential in our life, but religion is more important, , , , science won't make human stronger than god, and he will be weak forever seeking strength from his religion and creator.
Gary wrote: "Drew wrote: "I haven't been in a grade school forever it seems like and I don't have children of my own so my question is, do they not teach morals and ethics in grade school?"
Well I can't speak ..."
I'm getting to write a longer answer tI your questions you asked me, Gary, but this one is easy. My oldest daughter is going into eight grade this year and not once so far has she had even one period dedicated to ethics. I love my child, I swear ;), but she and her friends wouldn't even know what a simple definition if that word is. I sometimes don't wonder why so many kids are homeschooled.
Well I can't speak ..."
I'm getting to write a longer answer tI your questions you asked me, Gary, but this one is easy. My oldest daughter is going into eight grade this year and not once so far has she had even one period dedicated to ethics. I love my child, I swear ;), but she and her friends wouldn't even know what a simple definition if that word is. I sometimes don't wonder why so many kids are homeschooled.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Anyway, I only have a few things to say this time and I hope I'll be articulate enough that what I'll write will be read as what I actually meant (I think, as I read through the posts, that a lot of confusion comes from that things that were written by some were not understood the way authors of the posts meant them to be understood).
First thing is, as opposed to Maria, I think, saying that if you're a Christian, it either all or nothing, you go by the Bible and you have to live by everything that's written in it, I believe that it's no necessarily so. Personally (I think 'personally' is the key word here), I see Bible as a piece of mostly oral history written down by others, masterpiece of literature nonetheless (I believe even Dawkins was considering supporting the British program of providing schools with Bibles based purely on its literary merits?)and I don't consider myself a hypocrite for not living by every single word that's written in it, especially Old Testament. First of all, Bible is an old, old document and from a standpoint of a translator, I have no doubt whatsoever that there was tons of meaning lost in translation. I know that the person/people telling the stories firsthand are right now not only rolling in their graves, but clawing their way out of them to smack us on the heads for getting it so wrong. We do have hermeneutics for a reason: because Bible cannot be taken literally, it can only be interpreted and unfortunately, many religions do interpret it for evil.
I most often, almost exclusively really, choose the guidance of New Testament. I, for example, don't believe the world was created in six days. I can easily see someone, somewhere, probably inadvertently, putting something they couldn't wrap their minds about (or they didn't know if others would), in simpler terms, easily understood. Which still doesn't mean that those terms were exactly 'six days', they were just a step closer.
Anyway, what I wanted to say above is, if it's really an interpretation, it cannot be taken literally and if it cannot be taken literally, I don't see myself as a hypocrite by being a Christian and not believing or agreeing with every single word in there.
I am Roman-Catholic. I'm from Poland, one side of my family (maternal grandparents) were humble farmers who didn't even go to high school, let alone anything above that; the other side of my family were 'agnostic intellectuals' (not to take anything away from intellectuals, since I think I consider myself one nowadays as well). I was raised in the catholic faith thanks to my farmer grandparents and I have to tell you that the way they lived convinced me the most that there is God. They had so little to be happy about and much hardship to contend with, especially my grandmother, and yet they really were very optimistic about each day. And they raised me, as a Catholic, to be open-minded, non-judgmental and forgiving, not because they told me to but because that's how they lived.
I know that Catholics do have a lot to atone for. I've known that ever since I was allowed to read anything other than Komsomolskaya Pravda (not by my parents, by the State). But honestly, not until I came to the States ten years ago, did I realize how vilified it was. I'm not so much disgusted right now (as was at one point in my life) with things that the catholic Church had done in the name of God as really heartbroken, because I still see a lot of good in this religion but it all got stomped on by evil and cruel acts of representatives of it; heartbroken because I believe that Jesus Christ is heartbroken also by what's been done in the name of and by the catholic Church. This is not what He wanted when He sent the apostles out into the world to teach His Word. But I am not going to atone forever for what I have not done. And no, by being catholic, I do not condone the Crusades, torture, the Inquisition, burnings at the stake. Pope John Paul the Second didn't condone any of it either.
This brings me to my final point. I have found that the gospels are the best sources to teach me how to be good and unlike others, I do need to be reminded of it, because no matter how moral and ethical I can imagine myself to be, deep down I'm really not, when comes right down to it, I'm capable of doing morally wrong things on a daily basis (not murdering anyone and definitely not ever hurting an innocent), especially to myself. So I do need authority, I do need higher power to give me guidance on how to live to be better. And this is what my religion does for me and New Testament as well. My God is a forgiving God. Jesus said if someone sins once - forgive him, if he/she sins ten times - forgive them, if she/he sins a thousand times - forgive them. I'm not trying to be the forgiving one, I find solace in the fact that I just may be the forgiven one.
My God is a loving God, Whose greatest commandment is to love one another.
All right, enough of my ranting.