Discussion in 'The War Room' started by luckyshot, May 18, 2019.
When Jack got his beanstalk beans...
(Ideal) Secularism. By contrast, there isn't a single country in the world with an official state sponsored religion* that isn't horribly oppressive of the civil liberties granted by secular constitutional democracies and republics. Countries with a state backed religion also invariably open the door to religious persecution.
* Ironically, Norway is technically one of them and that's the greatest country on the planet in the sense of social and economic equality. It also has about the most comprehensive level of LGB rights - and I'm Norwegian!
Seems pretty straightforward to me:
Numbers 21:2-3 King James Version (KJV)
2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.
3 And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.
Utter destruction. I'm not sure how to spin that. Dany, Season 8. That's just one verse; there are others like it.
"Jesus" says a ton of things that are both self-contradictory and contradictory to both the literal meaning and tone of other parts of the Bible.
You can come up with ad hoc explanations of why this isn't so, but those are only going to convince people who want to be convinced.
Without begging the question, it is obvious on the face of it that the Bible contains numerous contradictions.
I'm sure there were nice and mean Canaanaites, just like there were probably good and bad Hebrews. Judging a group of people as a group of people shouldn't be a feature of modern ethics-- and it certainly isn't a feature of New Testament ethics.
The Canaanites surely had different religion and mores than the Hebrews, but no one else that we know of in the ancient world saw them as "exceedingly wicked"-- just the Hebrews (the group of people who wanted their land).
So, once again, without begging the question, it is hard to imagine that every Canaanite man, woman, and child deserved "utter destruction."
I'm not upset at God's judgment, I'm upset that people think they sit in the position of judgment over their neighbors' lives and ethics-- and that they think they have a right to force the beliefs of their religion into a secular law code without any convincing rational basis.
Immanuel Kant, a Christian and a pillar of Enlightenment, said there were two ways to go wrong in the relationship of faith and reason: the first is to use faith where reason is applicable. Ethics is one of these areas. The second was to assume that reason would ever replace faith in metaphysical matters.
Faith is personal. Reason is common to everyone. Faith has no place in our law codes, which are, by definition, binding to all.
Denmark and the UK also have official state religions but to be fair in all three cases while the state may have an official religion the society is rather secular.
Yes there are places that sound contradictory if you don't know how to apply hermeneutics. For example, when he refers to himself as the shepherd and us the sheep, do you really think he's talking about literal sheep? Of course not. The same applies to whatever apparent contradiction you're referring to. It's simply you taking things out of context. I encourage you to read up on these apparent contradictions because you will find your initial understanding to be incorrect.
Everyone has faith and it exists and is being taught everywhere (e.g. every university and your law codes). Faith comes from the latin word "fides" which means trust. You need to add to that IN WHAT? What do you have faith/trust in?
There's an attempt to redefine the word to somehow mean belief where there is no evidence at all, but I won't accept your definition. Also, faith and reason go hand in hand - you make it sound like they are opposed, which is nonsense. For example, no one reads the bible without using their reason. If you want to invest in a company, you will want them to provide reasons and evidence so that you can trust them so that your faith in them will not be misplaced.
With regards to the rest of your post, it's very clear that you've already made up your mind so I will not bother responding anymore. Finally, keep in mind that everyone is forcing their beliefs on others all the time, even you
See, this is an example of the need to rationalize a conviction making a (probably well-intentioned) believer into a worse actor-- in this case by being intellectually dishonest.
You are going to tell me with a straight face that the commands to "utterly destroy" enemies, to kill "every man, woman, and child" and to "dash the children against rocks" in the context of a Bronze Age war are to be understood primarily as freaking metaphors?
You've got to be kidding me.
Faith is not belief without reason, it is belief without sufficient reason. That's not a pejorative statement, either; it's a plain definition of terms.
Everyone who has faith has reasons to have faith-- some have good reasons, some have bad reasons-- but no one has sufficient reasons for faith to cease requiring faith and enter the realm of knowledge. That's why it's faith.
No one has "faith" that the sky is blue or that all triangles have three sides.
Some parts of the bible are literal, some parts and metaphorical, there's symbolism, poetic writing, etc. You don't just pick one and interpret everything in the same manner, otherwise you run into problems like finding something that appears to contradict another part. The sheep part is obviously not literal and I've already explained that the wiping out was judgement from God. However, it's not like you make it sound, for example, I'm sure no one (including you) would have problems if God had destroyed all of ISIS including their children whom they indoctrinate. Do you believe these children are going to grow up and not cause problems?
That's merely your interpretation of it. Everyone who believes in the bible has sufficient reason to do so. If you're not willing to accept the evidence, then that's up to you, but Christianity doesn't have the notion of forcing people to believe. Recall Jesus saying his servants would be fighting for him if his kingdom was of this world (John 18:36), as one of the things it points out is that you can't impose truth through violence. So you're free to believe what you want, but please don't force your beliefs on others
LMAO. How do u ppl manage to link everything to Trump. He was just on Twitter (lol) saying that the abortion bans are too extreme.
This concedes that appeal to legitimate authority is in the domain of knowledge rather than faith, which cedes all of the solid ground to the glory of secularism. We here at Atheist Industries greatly appreciate that, but doing so also complicates faith, as when unmoored from knowledge it loses its ability to be "true faith," and from there, things get really arbitrary.
And Aristotle is a part of the Iron Age. So what?
The wages of sin are death. If the judge decides it is time to go on with the sentence it is time to do so. God was, on those occasions, adamant, that the peoples getting judged were judged on their merits, and that they had had plenty of time to mend their ways, which they did not. I do not find that the least bit unfair.
Yep - it would require God to go wrong.
Torturing and murdering their children to appease their gods, for starters. I'm not particularly keen on finding out about more.
Worship death and eventually that death will come for you in one form or another.
Not that you care, but the archaeological and literary evidence is clear that child sacrifice was a rare but widespread phenomenon in the ancient world-- including among the Hebrews.
The story of Abraham and Isaac is reliant on the normal presence of human sacrifice in the Hebrew culture. At best, it is a way of distancing YHWH from a practice that was once associated with him.
Even later in the bible and Hebrew history, one of the heroic Judges, Jephthah, sacrifices his own virgin daughter to YHWH:
The fact of the matter is that all cultures that we know of-- including native Europeans-- probably practiced human sacrifice at some time in their past.
It is quite likely that the Hebrews were still practicing human sacrifice themselves at the time that they fought the Canaanites, and the Biblical accounts, which were written after the fact (and after human sacrifice had fallen our of practice) used the Canaanites' similar sacrificial practices as a polemical justification for the Hebrews' actions.
In fact, even in the Biblical accounts, the Hebrews' slaughtering of Canaanite prisoners (women and children) is framed as a sacrifice to YHWH thanking him for his aid in the war. So they obviously weren't past human sacrifice all together.
Like I said, I don't expect you to actually care or even think about any of this. I put it out there on the off chance that someone reading the thread might.
A nutty religious person trying to force their bullshit on everyone else?
Nice try. Religious faith is indeed belief in mystical nonsense that has no scientific or logical basis whatsoever. And none of this "everyone tries to force their opinions" like we're all doing the same thing.
The religious right has a history of trying to suppress the rights of gays, minorities, women, trying to force their religion into public spaces. Trying to ban abortion and contraceptives. And just generally trying to force people that DO NOT BELIEVE in your religion to live by their rules. All the while claiming religious persecution when we tell you no, you cannot force religious ideology on a secular populace.
Don't act innocent.
Your bible was written by a human for humans and is violent as shit... deal with it! LOL!
There's too many goddam nut jobs on the right and left influencing actual policy for my liking.
I am on board with the general sentiment in your post. I have noticed the scholarly world going to absurd extremes also though, in the use of textual criticism to test the historicity of biblical accounts.
One professor who teaches on this subject was NEVER willing to concede any supernatural (I don't like that word) or miracle accounts in the Old or New Testament and she cited all kinds of hypothetical source documents that there is no evidence for as her reasoning.
As I interacted with her it became clear that she would be unable to concede any miracles or interactions with God as being valid because she was an atheist. I am certain that she was projecting that bias onto her studies and perspective. There will be many scholars who will do the same unfortunately.
Even the scholarly priest who taught me and who I will always be grateful for, turned out to be more or less atheistic in his thinking and highly doubtful of any actual miracles that took place in the past or that take place in the present.
At some point this kind of thinking begins to be as fundamentalist and biased as fundamentalism is in that it will keep us from discovering the actual truth, and goes beyond what we actually know, and has bias and pre-existing narratives built into it processes.
Yeah, I hear you. It's tricky when trying to think critically about the ancient world. It certainly can get absurd, such as when people try to "explain away" Jesus' reported miracle of walking on water by speculating about algae blooms and nonsense like that. It gets comical.
The simple fact is that ancient people "experienced" miracles. Take Jesus' healings, for instance; trying to explain them away misses the much larger point that these accounts-- stories of exorcisms and raising people from the dead-- are common in the ancient world. Dozens and dozens of similar accounts exist both contemporary to, prior to, and after Jesus' own ministry. They were simply a part of "reality" in the ancient world, just as witchcraft was a part of "reality" during the Renaissance. We can snicker at them from the distance of history if we want, but that is a very provincial attitude. And, of course, it will be for future generations-- provided we leave them an inhabitable Earth-- to laugh at the stupid limitations of our current "reality."
The best we can do when trying to assess the ancient world is to look at cultural norms and contexts.
That is well said.
My experience on a spiritual path has led me to witness what I am certain is an unusual amount of supernatural experiences. I have met and known some really incredible people who have done amazing things. I know how that sounds but it is true, I am not stupid or gullible, and many of the miracles I have witnesses have had independent medical corroboration to go along with them.
I feel the present climate around atheism and intellectualism and skepticism is depriving many minds of access to the most important dimension of human experience which is our point of contact with God.
I see this as a part of our growing pains as a species. Obviously we had/have to outgrow superstition and magical thinking and fundamentalism but in throwing that out, many people have lost what was/is real in our spirituality. Many have thrown out the baby with the bathwater so to speak.
This is a terrible loss but also one that I am sure will be regained, and hopefully on a higher and more accurate level.
So this is the kind of mentally deficient dipshit that is lobbying for these laws?
Separate names with a comma.