If I were God, I'd squash this man like a bug.

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
Well, I couldn't find my Bible. It must be packed away with my copies of Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries. So I consulted the two most universally accepted authorities on Christianity; The Pope and Billy Graham, spiritual advisors to kings and presidents.
The Pope doesn't have a FAQ page on his website. I guess he is too busy travelling to nations of starving millions and telling them that birth control is a mortal sin.
So here is a quote from Billy Graham:

"Hell was prepared originally for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). However, God will not force anyone to go to heaven. If a person willfully refuses to repent of sin and turn to God, with faith in Jesus' sacrifice for the sins of the world, God has no alternative. Justice demands that those who disregard and reject God's loving offer of pardon will pay the penalty for their own sins forever in hell."

So there you have it. Christianity teaches that unless you accept Jesus, you burn in Hell forever.
If you would like proof that the world is round, humans breathe oxygen or the Mets suck, ask somebody else. I hate homework.

To be fair, Billy Graham says that. Pauil said otherwise.

 

[The Mutt]

To be fair, Billy Graham says that. Pauil said otherwise.

Oh, fer cryin out loud. You can cherrypick the Bible to prove anything in the freakin world, from flying saucers to talking pigs. It doesn't matter what a 2000 year old book of fairy tales says. What matters is what Christians have practiced since then; intolerance, bigotry, homophobia, oppression of women and boring sex.

 

[cloudy]

To be completely fair, folks, lumping all Christians together with the likes of Falwell and Baker is rather like lumping all non-Christians in with Alistair Crowley.

Both are just as wrong.

 

[The Mutt]

To be fair, Billy Graham says that. Pauil said otherwise.

Paul also said this, in his letter to Philemon 1:20--
Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee: refresh my bowels in the Lord. And forgeteth not the Astro-Glide.

Okay, I made up that last bit.

 

[doormouse]

Paul also said this, in his letter to Philemon 1:20--
Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee: refresh my bowels in the Lord. And forgeteth not the Astro-Glide.

Okay, I made up that last bit.

LOL!!

 

[Guest]

Paul also said this, in his letter to Philemon 1:20--
Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee: refresh my bowels in the Lord. And forgeteth not the Astro-Glide.

Okay, I made up that last bit.

OK, I just spilled my drink! (and hubby wants to know why I'm laughing)

Too funny!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

To be fair, you can't use the Bible to prove anything, and that it can be used to show how Christianity is not as narrow as you originally described doesn't mean its a melting pot of generalities.

Paul wrote a lot about "favorable judgement" and "salvation", and a lot about what it took to get those. An important thing to note is that he said that "the Law" was good, but one could know not "the Law" and "the Law" be represented in his heart. Notably, this has been a greatly useful series of passages in churches to spread the notion that Christianity is not designed to be close-minded... but inclusive.

One may know nothing of Christ and yet participate in Christ-like nature in his heart. One may not believe, but may be pure and close to God without knowing it. These are all interesting questions that Romans brings up.

 

[The Mutt]

generalities.

Paul wrote a lot about "favorable judgement" and "salvation", and a lot about what it took to get those. An important thing to note is that he said that "the Law" was good, but one could know not "the Law" and "the Law" be represented in his heart. Notably, this has been a greatly useful series of passages in churches to spread the notion that Christianity is not designed to be close-minded... but inclusive.

A religion that calls ten percent of the world abominations can in no way be called inclusive.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
A religion that calls ten percent of the world abominations can in no way be called inclusive.

I haven't ever read anything about ten percent in the Bible. I'm sure you have justification for this, as well, right?

(and, yes, by definition, a religion that called ten percent of the world abominations still could be called inclusive, because it is not logically impossible to do so... it generates no contradictions in logic)

 

[amicus]

Although it was denied, I still suspect (not know) that Joe W is a budding preacher in search of a flock...

Mutt...well said...many times over...but he is a 'believer' and rejects reason and logic and reality...let him wallow in his faith.

Reason is not faith. I suppose that is the olny recourse left to those who claim absolutely that there are no absolutes.

Soneone even had the termerity to drag out that old bone, "Since you can not prove there is no god...."

Philosophy 101...'proving a negative..."

There is no evidence indicating the existence of that 8 inch purple people eater hovering just off your proboscis that I firmly believe is about to save your soul.

No evidence, no existence.

Thas a fact, Jack.

In a novel I am working on, about the first inhabitants of North America, about 12,000 years ago...they are transitioning from nomadic to settled. When tribal members display kindness and generosity, compassion and concern, beyond the family ties, I find I begin to need a 'name' for it.

As human life is finite, it seems logical to me, that our ancestors would have sought an 'institution' with statues and temples even, perhaps, to carry on the traditions of compassionate behaviour to the next generation. Something that would take on a 'greater' and more lasting stature than just the individual life span of a man or woman.

So, Mutt...surely the saucy scenario you created occured, many times over...I see a more human motive in establishing a structure that permitted those things learned by one generation to be passed along.

The rest of the story you can already see...how a 'good thing' the passing on of beneficial acts might be and was corrupted by the 'shamans' mogul's and priests of following generations.

The Bullet' also wrote of speciation...the evolutionary changes taking place before our very eyes....I wonder if the ability to reason might be more or less inherited and does not come as standard equipment for an unknown percentage of mankind.

Just a thought....


Amicus....

 

[sweetnpetite]

Paul wrote a lot about "favorable judgement" and "salvation", and a lot about what it took to get those. An important thing to note is that he said that "the Law" was good, but one could know not "the Law" and "the Law" be represented in his heart. Notably, this has been a greatly useful series of passages in churches to spread the notion that Christianity is not designed to be close-minded... but inclusive.

Paul also *did* write all of the stuff about woman not talking or teaching (his own personal bias, imo), about the man being the head of the woman, and all of that that is used to oppress women, past and present. You certainly can't say that is not from the Bible.

 

[minsue]

Min, the Pointless Thread could turn out to be one of AH's Greatest Hits! Is it okay to use it for other unwinnable arguments? Or only the existence of God and the social/historic value of religion?

It's available for all manner of pointless and unwinnable arguments, weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. All at very reasonable prices, I might add.

I love your AV, by the way. Nice ditch. I have vivid memories of the Grand Canyon from age 7: the souvenir shop where I got my Apache Tear necklace; crying because I didn't get to ride the donkeys. Kids are miserable little creatures to travel with, aren't they? I still wonder why our parents didn't lock my sister and me in the house with some food and travel by themselves.

My only memories of the Grand Canyon as a kid are of my mother standing about 30 ft back from the edge with both arms wrapped firmly around my middle begging my father to please stop standing with his toes hanging over the ledge while leaning forward to get a better view.

 

[The Mutt]

I haven't ever read anything about ten percent in the Bible. I'm sure you have justification for this, as well, right?

(and, yes, by definition, a religion that called ten percent of the world abominations still could be called inclusive, because it is not logically impossible to do so... it generates no contradictions in logic)

*Heaves a huge sigh*
The bible says that homosexuals are abominations and should be put to death. Paul too, so wipe the smirk off your face, (romans 1:27-32).
Scientists (you know, the guys that actually require evidence and proof before they believe things) estimate that 10% of the population is homosexual.

As for the idea that it is logical that a group that excludes people can be called inclusive, well, I guess you COULD call them that. You could also call a sewer rat a hummingbird, but it still wouldn't fly.

 

[minsue]

quote:Originally posted by minsue
How can anyone substantiate anything Jesus did or didn't say?



By including the addendum of what source is being used. Generally the synoptic gospels are the only real source worth mentioning, by convention.

I didn't say he was real, I just said that if we're to talk about what Jesus did and didn't say, convention is to use the synoptic gospels. Atheists, Theists, Philosophers, Theologians... this is the reference we call on when talking about what Jesus did and didn't say.

I didn't say it was perfect, just that its what's used.

If the source is the bible, transcribed and translated (and translated and translated and translated etc ) by men, I stand by my original question: How can you substantiate anything Jesus did or didn't say? Even leaving aside whether or not one believes in god or that Jesus is part of the holy trinity of Christianity (or is the trinity just Catholicism? Not that it matters, just curious), my original point was simply that it is not possible to make a logical, factual argument based on gospel much less to substantiate anything that way.

 

[shereads]

It's available for all manner of pointless and unwinnable arguments, weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. All at very reasonable prices, I might add.





My only memories of the Grand Canyon as a kid are of my mother standing about 30 ft back from the edge with both arms wrapped firmly around my middle begging my father to please stop standing with his toes hanging over the ledge while leaning forward to get a better view.

Your dad must be related to my brother-in-law. He used to entertain the baby by playing "airplane" near the ceiling fan. One of the ways da man keeps da sistahs down is to make us so crazy with fear, there's no argument when they say we're too emotional.

 

[shereads]

If the source is the bible, transcribed and translated (and translated and translated and translated etc ) by men, I stand by my original question: How can you substantiate anything Jesus did or didn't say? Even leaving aside whether or not one believes in god or that Jesus is part of the holy trinity of Christianity (or is the trinity just Catholicism? Not that it matters, just curious), my original point was simply that it is not possible to make a logical, factual argument based on gospel much less to substantiate anything that way.

Excellent example:

As the much-missed Champion Calm Debater of all time, Gary Chambers, told us in the salad days of religious threads, the aramaic word for "virgin" is the same as the word for "young girl." Which raises the possibility that the Virgin Birth is the result of a clerical error.

I've always thought that was an extraneous bit anyway; what difference does it make if the son of God occupies a body that's human on both sides of the family. Distractions like that tend to confuse what is essentially a story of redemption and sacrifice; one that effectively counters some of the meanness of the Old Testament.

Edited to add: One of the most remarkable things about the Jesus story is how humble it is, compared to the larger-than-life superheros of Greek and Roman mythology and the Old Testament. Apart from the mystical elements like consuming the body and blood of Christ, and the necessity of the death on the cross, it's an incredibly moving story of courage and forgiveness. It's the aspect of the Christian religion that a non-religous - but intensely spiritual - friend was referring to when he said, "There are things you accept as the truth because they should be true." It's not Jesus' divinity that's so memorable, but his humanity.

 

[minsue]

*le sigh*

I miss Gary. He had a marvelous manner about him, didn't he?

 

[cantdog]

Minsue, sweetie, I love you more and more.

You can make logical arguments from scripture, just not factual ones. Logic in a vacuum unattached to reality is still logic. That's just logic.

Synoptic or not, nobody in the religion biz who is using it in politics is going to listen to the Book when it gets in the way.

I work in a church. I'm a secretary in a church and an atheist. I see church people who aren't using their faith for political ends supporting food cupboards and shelters, homes for battered women and orphans, poor people and sick people, homeless friendless people. And each other. The church community is usually a more reliable neighbor than your neighbor and a better family than your family. Usually.

I support the shelters and the food cupboards myself, and I went on mission trips to the Dominican Republic where I helped out in the medical team and worked in the construction team helping to build a hospital, a bakery, several school rooms in places with need for such things. The church down there in the RD runs the hospital and does good works with it, sponsors school children, students in universities whose families could never have afforded it, and just on and on endlessly. I do all that and I'm an atheist and not a member of any of their churches.

They're Saved and I'm Not Saved. (Salvation comes through faith, not works.) But for me, salvation is as meaningless as transcendance. These are terms without factual referents.

But the church is running the hospital and I'm not. My faith, atheism, does not attract contributing members who want to run hospitals for poor people, whereas their faith seems to be doing that.

Political Christians like Falwell, Wildmon, Graham, and the dickweed who saw the 600 foot tall Jesus who told him to raise more cash, whatsisname, these people are dangerous nuts whose followers are beating up muslims and queers, bombing abortion clinics, shooting people for God, and all kinds of scary shit. But like Mutt says, none of the believers denounce them. They'll have to be known by the company they keep.

They are called Fundamentalists, these nuts, implying clearly that the fundamental characteristics of Christianity are the things these nuts are saying. Women are inferior, says the fundamentalist Christian. The other Christian just blinks like a toad in the sunshine. I don't see that as a slur on Christians if the Christians don't.

If someone said that and called himself a fundamentalist atheist I'd tell him he was talking hogwash and giving real atheists a bad name. But no, they sit and blink and let them drag Christ through the mud.

So I guess Mutt has a good point.

 

[shereads]

*le sigh*

I miss Gary. He had a marvelous manner about him, didn't he?

What happened to him? He disappeared to start a new job, and then a few months ago, he popped in with a single post to an ongoing thread , and no reference to the fact that he'd been gone for such a long time. I thought he was back and wrote a welcome post and he never posted again.

I miss him too. He had a calming infuence in these debates that seemed to keep us all on best behavior.

 

[Pure]

sher, actually it's a hebrew word, in Is 7:14 (almah) that Christians translate as 'virgin', whereas the word simply means 'maiden' (Behold a virgin shall conceive..)

so if there's no OT ref for 'virgin birth', it's the NT writers that have to force things a bit; once that dogma was dreamed up (and embodied in the Greek NT, in the word 'parthenos'), the texts had to be made to fit. So that tampering with the OT prophecies--a popular pastime--to prove they foretold Jesus, was scarcely a 'clerical error.' critics use the term 'forgery' or 'mistranslation.'

sher, actually I don't find the OT any 'meaner' than the NT, though it's a popular stereotype.

 

[minsue]

Don't get me wrong, Cant. A great number of congregations of any religion perform the services and deeds needed to keep any community going and do a wonderful job of prodding people into the acts of charity and volunteerism that they should be doing on their own, but don't. I have no issue with that in any way.

I didn't use to be nearly so "anti-religious" as I suppose I am today. As the country has become more and more polarized, the things that I have seen and heard directed towards various religions and even more so towards the godless such as myself have quite honestly frightened me. The rage, hatred, and vitriol that is aimed at athiests scares the fuck out of me. I keep my mouth shut at work while my coworkers rant. I've been married for 5 years and my in-laws know nothing of my religious beliefs other than the fact that I was raised Catholic. (If they find me out, I'm ratting out my husband too. I ain't goin down alone, dammit! )

I don't believe that anyone should be made to fear for their safety due to their spiritual beliefs whatever they may be. Since 9/11, when religion and patriotism became even more linked than they already were, I have become more and more afraid. The murder of a Sikh mistaken for a Muslim (as if that would have made it better ) as he stood outside his business in the city I lived in that September had quite a bit to do with my fear. Seeing the president give a religiously charged speech while standing behind a pulpit sure as hell didn't help. Neither did the various other speeches, articles, and talking heads ranting against returning the Pledge of Allegiance to its original verbiage.

I freely admit that I cannot argue rationally about religion. I could once, but it's beyond my capabilities now. It's all instinct and self-preservation anymore.

It just doesn't seem to stop me from arguing.

 

[The Mutt]

Cantdog, I feel your pain. I work at a non-profit organization and virtually everyone else who works there is a serious bible thumping born again christian, Since we rely on donations from churches, if it became known that I am an infidel, I would be fired. So, I am very much in-the-closet. If they knew I wrote "porn" and engaged in bisexual group sex, they would probably stone me to death.
There is a Star Trek fan club in my town. They spend a lot of time doing good works for the community. Yet they don't feel the need to believe that Vulcans are real in order to do these good deeds. (Well, most of them, anyway.)
Since I can't remember whether I wrote this on this thread or the other, I will say it again:
Good people do good things.
Bad people do bad things.
When good people do bad things, you can bet religion is involved.

 

[shereads]

sher, actually it's a hebrew word, in Is 7:14 (almah) that Christians translate as 'virgin', whereas the word simply means 'maiden' (Behold a virgin shall conceive..)

so if there's no OT ref for 'virgin birth', it's the NT writers that have to force things a bit; once that dogma was dreamed up (and embodied in the Greek NT, in the word 'parthenos'), the texts had to be made to fit. So that tampering with the OT prophecies--a popular pastime--to prove they foretold Jesus, was scarcely a 'clerical error.' critics use the term 'forgery' or 'mistranslation.'

sher, actually I don't find the OT any 'meaner' than the NT, though it's a popular stereotype.

Most stereotypes are based on elements of truth. They have to be to survive.

There are parts of the NT that I can set aside without a qualm, because I don't believe in a literal interpretation. Each author would have colored the story with his own perspective, if not his agenda. The translators, too.

Stripped to its essentials, it's a gentler and more noble story by far than the OT, which is a series of formulaic hero myths with one continuing character - a superpower who calls himself jealous and reveals other traits that chidren are taught to avoid.

In the OT, God is always testing to see who's on the team and who's with the terrorists. Anybody who fails to stay under the radar - Job, Noah, Abraham, Moses - is pulled onto the stage for a demonstration of God's wrath when crossed and mercy when placated. And if your leader is a bad guy, you're toast: the first-born of Egypt; Pharoah's army drowned in the Red Sea. We're told that God loves us, but his love is evident in the gradual withdrawel of tests and punishments.

(Hey Pure: It just occurs to me that Old Testmament God is a Dom - but without the fun part!)

New Testament God seems older/wiser/more mellow; as if he's tired of all those stunts he used to pull on his children to make them love him. Instead of a series of tests and challenges and whale-devourings, New Testment God provides a demonstration of faith in which he will suffer the most. He's less worried about competition from worshipped idols that about injustice. He invites us to "render under Caesar what is Caesar's" - you could assume any number of reasons for the author to have included that, like avoiding more crucifictions - but it's also remarkable in that it doesn't require the faithful to prove themseslves by risking an overthrow of a powerful ruler. Love and mercy in the NT have evolved into something that isn't entirely alien to us. It's a grown-up love, the kind you feel in your heart, even when there are elements of great unfairness.

You know the story that used to give me the creeps as a Sunday School kid? When God challenges Abraham to kill his son as proof of his love. What kind of pathological love is that? Despite knowing the outcome, and that I was supposed to feel relieved at the end of the Abraham story, I used to marvel at the lack of concern for Abraham's son. (How many years of therapy did it take for the kid to stop wetting the bed after that? Jeez.) But this time around, God is painted as someone who's willing to take what he dishes out. He sacrifices his own son, who has the option of refusing; if you believe the trinity, God is suffering on the cross too.

But what I admire about the New Testmanet has less to do with how it portrays divinity than with thes two main messages, neither of which depends on a belief in an unseen God: the Beatitudes, and the power of self-sacrificing love. If there were no resurrection at the end of the story, Christianity would lack the carrot on the end of the stick, the promise of a reward in the afterlife in return for obedience in this one. But the ressurection isn't what makes Christ's choice remarkable. It's the entirely human Temptation that's makes the story unforgettable. He has chance to escape crucifiction but chooses to allow it, because he perceives it as a duty to those he loves.

How we get from the Temptation of Christ and the ultimate act of selflessness, to his use by every shyster with a toll-free number for donations, and half of the world's war mongering leaders, is a sad mystery. Is it the failure of the story? Or is it that it touches people on such a visceral level that's it's hard to let go even when the story is misused?

 

[cantdog]

Not so much pain involved in my own case, Mutt. The boss knows I'm an atheist, I told her so (yep, the Rev. is a woman) the first day she came to work here. We respect each other, and I counsel her a little more often, I think, than she counsels me. I am lucky to be so well placed, to be able to help on the mission trips without needing to "pass" as a religionist.

Minsue, it is horror on horror to see the religionists ride the pendulum the other way. The religiosity of our society here has always been excessive for my taste but the credence these nutballs receive these days is very frightening. Groups of ecstatic praying sheep howling to Jesus to pass the Sacred Marriage Amendment!

Buchanan! Falwell! It makes your skin crawl. But there are 'way too many everyday jibroneys all over the place echoing the crazy sentiments of these sanctified hate mongers. Tolerance is probably too good for 'em.

cantdog

 

[sweetnpetite]

You know the story that used to give me the creeps as a Sunday School kid? When God challenges Abraham to kill his son as proof of his love. What kind of pathological love is that? Despite knowing the outcome, and that I was supposed to feel relieved at the end of the Abraham story, I used to marvel at the lack of concern for Abraham's son. (

I know, can you *believe* that teach that to children?!!