I have said yes to give a lecture about Religion: The Bible

[Whacker]

I have a Spiritual interest in the bible, but I also appreciate it for its historical value. I appreciate the Koran and various Religious texts and am fascinated by them. There was a time when my interest was to help destroy man's foolish adherence to these things, but then I grew up and became more in-tune with God and our ancestors.

Absent my moral universality, I default to moral nihilism. It is more important to defer to my curiosity than to adhere to the man-made illusion of morality, absent God. I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life. I think that they are just confused and complicated animals. You delude yourself to believe that there is right and wrong without some concept of deity as we poorly understand it. Just go out there and do what you will absent any "moral" boundaries, only the boundaries created by your mind to prevent negative consequence that you aren't open to dealing with at some point. Or fake humanist ethics to fit in and aggrandize yourself in their culture, as people have done within Religion for years.

I believe that this scenario is Hell on earth.

Strike said it best. Your faith and belief comes from a dark place in your soul, and you are a very angry, uncompromising person. I hope someday you can conquer your demons.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What's angry about his post and what's bad about being uncompromising about morality?

[Whacker]

What's angry about his post and what's bad about being uncompromising about morality?

Really?

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life. I think that they are just confused and complicated animals. You delude yourself to believe that there is right and wrong without some concept of deity as we poorly understand it. Just go out there and do what you will absent any "moral" boundaries, only the boundaries created by your mind to prevent negative consequence that you aren't open to dealing with at some point. Or fake humanist ethics to fit in and aggrandize yourself in their culture, as people have done within Religion for years.

I believe that this scenario is Hell on earth.

On the contrary, morality born out of religion is immature and ultimately empty. If you are acting to please a god, you are only acting.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What's angry about his post and what's bad about being uncompromising about morality?

I didn't think that this specific post was an angry or uncompromising one, either. I was urging at least the same respect given to other texts of massive historical importance. I was then, in a nutshell, attempting to explain my basic understanding of deity and universality.

[Papewaio]

Historical importance? So a rewrite with a dozen editions and editors of Lord of the Rings, throw in a couple of thousand years and it is now a historical document?

Moral systems are emergent. People innately feel bad about inequality. They feel bad about their circumstances if they see someone else getting far more for far less effort.

God is as provable as the tooth fairy, unicorns and monsters under the bed. Just because you have never found them doesn't mean that you've disproved them. However how do we treat adults who believe in unicorns?

Sure geeks dress up in robes and go to sci fi conventions. That does not mean their hobby should get tax deductions nor should they be allowed to not assist the government in resolving crimes because their favourite fantasy says its okay.

Atheists do not have to justify not believing in unicorns or other myths. They don't have to justify not believing in Zeus, Hay-Zeus or Jesus Christ. Atheists also are not by default all the same or lacking in morals. They just don't believe in make believe.

Moral choices are done by individuals of all creeds. The bible does not have a monopoly on morality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@ Siggy - One of the more interesting things I read some time ago was that the earliest versions of "organized" christianity as preached by Saint Paul of Tarsus were supposedly wildly different than what Hayzeus actually taught, AND what the surviving disciples interpreted and believed to be correct. In short, the disciples wanted christianity to be essentially a slightly different flavor of judaism with most all jewish requirements, rituals, observations, and ecclesiastical laws intact. I don't remember all the specifics, but one of the bigger sticking points was circumcision being a requirement. Most adult men tended to shy away from this, so Paul removed it from his "official" version of doctrine in order to make it more attractive. I'll try to find out where I read that. It might have been the big catholic encyclopedia online.

Acts - plus Galatians.

See - this is exactly what I am always saying, bad education begets distrust and scepticism. This sort of thing should be taught prior to confirmation, in fact we have already touched on the controvosy in this thread when we discussed Saint Augustine's letter to Jerome.

I feel I should also point out that the man was never "Heyzeus" or anything like it, that is apparently a corruption of the modern pronunciation in Spanish resulting from the corruption of proper Latin pronunciation. If you were to de-Latinise his and spell it phonetically you would have Yeshua, which is a varient of Joshua - the Prophet for whom he was named.

That might be worth a look actually, Sigurd - names get corrupted through translation and the name of Christ is an interesting one.

Could we keep the theological bun fight out of this topic in defference to Sigurd until he has given his lecture?

[Whacker]

Acts - plus Galatians.

See - this is exactly what I am always saying, bad education begets distrust and scepticism. This sort of thing should be taught prior to confirmation, in fact we have already touched on the controvosy in this thread when we discussed Saint Augustine's letter to Jerome.

I feel I should also point out that the man was never "Heyzeus" or anything like it, that is apparently a corruption of the modern pronunciation in Spanish resulting from the corruption of proper Latin pronunciation. If you were to de-Latinise his and spell it phonetically you would have Yeshua, which is a varient of Joshua - the Prophet for whom he was named.

That might be worth a look actually, Sigurd - names get corrupted through translation and the name of Christ is an interesting one.

Could we keep the theological bun fight out of this topic in defference to Sigurd until he has given his lecture?

You missed the boat entirely on that one. I was being sarcastic and facetious about "Heyzeus".

As to your version of "facts", the bible is not a factual document. I've read quite a bit of it several times as it is interesting, but neither of those sections. All of my readings on religion and christianity come from other sources, both ecclesiastical and secular. In no way, shape, or form do I believe or accept the bible as a factual recounting of history. I hope Siggy is taking everything you say with a huge grain of salt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You missed the boat entirely on that one. I was being sarcastic and facetious about "Heyzeus".

As to your version of "facts", the bible is not a factual document. I've read quite a bit of it several times as it is interesting, but neither of those sections. All of my readings on religion and christianity come from other sources, both ecclesiastical and secular. In no way, shape, or form do I believe or accept the bible as a factual recounting of history. I hope Siggy is taking everything you say with a huge grain of salt.

Why do you always have to be so hostile?

What is it about my faith that so offends you?

And also, where did I say anything about "facts?"

Also, if you have not read Acts or Galatians, how can you just dismiss my reading of them, or Rhy's? Why is your second handing reading of a gloss you can't even remember superior to my reading of the actual text?

[Whacker]

Why do you always have to be so hostile?

What is it about my faith that so offends you?

Who called who the bigot first? I find your religious-fueled judgmental attitudes and opinions toward your fellow human beings deplorable. My morality says that all human beings are equal and should be treated with dignity and respect, irrespective of race, creed, culture, gender, physical or mental characteristics and abilities, sexual orientation, or any other "classification", and that those who judge or discriminate against others in any way shape or form whatsoever are immoral beings.

And also, where did I say anything about "facts?"

Also, if you have not read Acts or Galatians, how can you just dismiss my reading of them, or Rhy's? Why is your second handing reading of a gloss you can't even remember superior to my reading of the actual text?

I'm dismissing them and the bible as a "factual" document, which it is not, it is a theological compilation which purports to provide in some cases a factual recounting of history. You were presenting information to Siggy with those sections as a basis for being a "factual" re-telling of the original conflict between the first christian factions. Anything at all in the bible is suspect and subject to verification through other sources.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who called who the bigot first? I find your religious-fueled judgmental attitudes and opinions toward your fellow human beings deplorable. My morality says that all human beings are equal and should be treated with dignity and respect, irrespective of race, creed, culture, gender, physical or mental characteristics and abilities, sexual orientation, or any other "classification", and that those who judge or discriminate against others in any way shape or form whatsoever are immoral beings.

It was you, a few years ago, as I recall. Your general loathing for religion is noted and is not condusive to constructive or enlightened debate.

I'm dismissing them and the bible as a "factual" document, which it is not, it is a theological compilation which purports to provide in some cases a factual recounting of history. You were presenting information to Siggy with those sections as a basis for being a "factual" re-telling of the original conflict between the first christian factions. Anything at all in the bible is suspect and subject to verification through other sources.

Your criticism could equally be applied to any written document - all writing and all speaking is done with an agenda. The only difference with the Bible is that you do not like the agenda.

I have not at any point said that any part of the Bible is "fact", nor do I recall making such claims generally in at least the last several years - if I have done previous to that I can only apolagise for youthful excess and lack of forbearence. All I did was point out that the controvosy you presented as extra-Biblical in fact originated in Acts 10-11 and in Paul's letter to the Galatians, and is - therefore - Biblical.

What I was discussing with Sigurd was a letter written by Saint Augustine of Hippor to Jerome about the controvosy in Galatians. The existence of that letter is recorded in multiple sources and it is extant today, associated with both Jerome and Augustine.

If you want to argue with me further I suggest the other thread, or elsewhere. As I have already said, this is really not a place for a theological bun fight.

I have not been discussing theology here, or the historical validity of the various Biblical texts, apart from noting that the attribution of the Old Testement to "Old scrolls" as Rhy charactarised them is unsubstantiated.

[ajaxfetish]

Historical importance? So a rewrite with a dozen editions and editors of Lord of the Rings, throw in a couple of thousand years and it is now a historical document?

Absolutely. Especially since in the analogy, the original Tolkien version has been lost to time. What is it about this document that affected so many people that dozens of editions and dozens of editors have been involved in maintaining it. How has it affected human judgment through the ages in the lands where it held sway. How is it intertwined with the rest of their literary tradition. What does the language of the various editions have to tell us about the language spoken by the peoples who revered it. What aspects of the cultural mindset in which it was produced are preserved in its text. Etc.

Ajax

[spankythehippo]

Historical importance? So a rewrite with a dozen editions and editors of Lord of the Rings, throw in a couple of thousand years and it is now a historical document?

Moral systems are emergent. People innately feel bad about inequality. They feel bad about their circumstances if they see someone else getting far more for far less effort.

God is as provable as the tooth fairy, unicorns and monsters under the bed. Just because you have never found them doesn't mean that you've disproved them. However how do we treat adults who believe in unicorns?

Sure geeks dress up in robes and go to sci fi conventions. That does not mean their hobby should get tax deductions nor should they be allowed to not assist the government in resolving crimes because their favourite fantasy says its okay.

Atheists do not have to justify not believing in unicorns or other myths. They don't have to justify not believing in Zeus, Hay-Zeus or Jesus Christ. Atheists also are not by default all the same or lacking in morals. They just don't believe in make believe.

Moral choices are done by individuals of all creeds. The bible does not have a monopoly on morality.

The tooth fairy, unicorns and monsters are, correct me if I'm wrong, generally accepted as being figments of one's imagination. If they are as provable as the existence of god, why isn't god considered an imaginary thing? To me, god is an imaginary being. But others don't think the same, even though they don't believe in the tooth fairy etc.

There is another thing I don't understand. First, I'll tell a very short story. Occasionally, when I'm going through the Devonshire St tunnel at Central station, there is an old lady handing out pamphlets about Jesus. I politely refuse, although I could show her a plethora of satanic symbols located on my person (I am not a satanist. I'm an agnostic atheist). But why does she do it? Why does she hand out pamphlets? You don't get points for every person you convert. And even if there is a "reward" for converting others, does that take precedence over generosity? Because, frankly, she isn't doing anything good. I've heard many things about some religions from people who call themselves religious. I've heard that helping people to get into heaven (i.e. converting them) will guarantee the converter a place in heaven. But I've also heard that god loves everyone. If he/she/it truly loved everyone, why would he/she/it send a bad person to hell? And why would the Devil hurt a bad person? Is the Devil subservient to god? Isn't the Devil god's enemy? Why would the Devil help god by punishing the evil?

As a child, I used to have this picture in my head that all the gods that humans have worshipped are leaders of a exclusive club. And they are all scrambling for new recruits.


I have another question? What does Christmas/Easter mean nowadays? I will recount another story. In December last year, I saw a mother scold her child for wanting something. The kid wanted something for Christmas (I can't remember what it was) and begged his mother for it. The mother said no, so the the kid pulled out the Jesus card. "It's Christmas. I should get what I want."

Is that what Christmas is about? Getting presents? Or should it be the celebration of their prophet and saviour's birthday? Nah, it seems like it's all about the presents.


Ugh. I'm on an another incoherent rant about nothing. Better play some Diablo.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm sure some of us would be happy to field your questions, as best we can, but I think you should start a new thread.

[spankythehippo]

I'm sure some of us would be happy to field your questions, as best we can, but I think you should start a new thread.

Really? Another "Spanky spouts out half-arsed ideas that get obliterated in the wind" thread?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Really? Another "Spanky spouts out half-arsed ideas that get obliterated in the wind" thread?

Better than "Sigurd's thread gets further derailed".

I, for one, am interested in how the lecture went.

Any rotten fruit? Angry muttering?

[Sigurd]

Better than "Sigurd's thread gets further derailed".

I, for one, am interested in how the lecture went.

Any rotten fruit? Angry muttering?

They swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

I don't have time to expand on this as I am just about to leave work. And it is our independence day tomorrow, which involves a lot of stuff to prepare later tonight. I might get back to y'all after.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

I don't have time to expand on this as I am just about to leave work. And it is our independence day tomorrow, which involves a lot of stuff to prepare later tonight. I might get back to y'all after.

Ah. good.

[Kralizec]

I have a Spiritual interest in the bible, but I also appreciate it for its historical value. I appreciate the Koran and various Religious texts and am fascinated by them. There was a time when my interest was to help destroy man's foolish adherence to these things, but then I grew up and became more in-tune with God and our ancestors.

Absent my moral universality, I default to moral nihilism. It is more important to defer to my curiosity than to adhere to the man-made illusion of morality, absent God. I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life. I think that they are just confused and complicated animals. You delude yourself to believe that there is right and wrong without some concept of deity as we poorly understand it. Just go out there and do what you will absent any "moral" boundaries, only the boundaries created by your mind to prevent negative consequence that you aren't open to dealing with at some point. Or fake humanist ethics to fit in and aggrandize yourself in their culture, as people have done within Religion for years.

I believe that this scenario is Hell on earth.

AFAIK catholic docrine on natural law holds that man has the ability to discern good and evil through reason; something that is innate in mankind and not contingent on faith. So apart from the fact that you're kind of being a dick here, you're also not following your own religion.

[Strike For The South]

AFAIK catholic docrine on natural law holds that man has the ability to discern good and evil through reason; something that is innate in mankind and not contingent on faith. So apart from the fact that you're kind of being a dick here, you're also not following your own religion.

It does.

He can also not be absent of his Gods morality when it suits him

[Vladimir]

Absolutely. Especially since in the analogy, the original Tolkien version has been lost to time. What is it about this document that affected so many people that dozens of editions and dozens of editors have been involved in maintaining it. How has it affected human judgment through the ages in the lands where it held sway. How is it intertwined with the rest of their literary tradition. What does the language of the various editions have to tell us about the language spoken by the peoples who revered it. What aspects of the cultural mindset in which it was produced are preserved in its text. Etc.

Ajax

Late reply but I also agree. Tolkien's experiences in WW I greatly affected the story and elements of it can be seen in the books. The language he created was based on an existing language. There's also Ajax's points.

Everything contains elements of truth and can be studied as an historical document.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Late reply but I also agree. Tolkien's experiences in WW I greatly affected the story and elements of it can be seen in the books. The language he created was based on an existing language. There's also Ajax's points.

Everything contains elements of truth and can be studied as an historical document.

I believe Pape's point was satiritcal - that in 2,000 years nobody will realise LotR was a work of fiction.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

AFAIK catholic docrine on natural law holds that man has the ability to discern good and evil through reason; something that is innate in mankind and not contingent on faith. So apart from the fact that you're kind of being a dick here, you're also not following your own religion.

I don't understand this argument, are you criticizing him for not being compulsively doctrinaire?

[Kralizec]

I don't understand this argument

Clearly.

Don't put words into my mouth.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sorry. I just didn't get your point. I feel like I don't get most of the anti-religion arguments here even though I'm atheist born and bred.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry. I just didn't get your point. I feel like I don't get most of the anti-religion arguments here even though I'm atheist born and bred.

It's not an anti religion argument - it's an anti-Tuff's interpretationa argument.

I.e. he claims to be a Roman Catholic but he doesn't believe the things Roman Catholics, or many other Christians, believe about people.

Tuff would say, "you can't be moral without God" and he means that if you don't believe in God you're not moral and no different to any other animal.

I say, "you can't have morality without God" but what I mean is that if there were not God then there would be no morality, but I do believe in a God which is where all morality flows from.

Even yous, Sasaki.

[Papewaio]

I believe Pape's point was satiritcal - that in 2,000 years nobody will realise LotR was a work of fiction.

Plenty of 'Jedi' followers running around. So just extrapolating how we love to embrace ideas of fact and fiction.

The Bible is a win-win for humans.
A). It is real and we have a loving God
B). It is a work of fiction showing our greatest aspirations in selecting these stories. Quite a compliment at some levels.

I admire humans, we are deeply flaweutilityut we strive for better lives for ourselves, families and societies.

[Kralizec]

Sorry. I just didn't get your point. I feel like I don't get most of the anti-religion arguments here even though I'm atheist born and bred.

He thinks that only religious people can truly have a moral consciousness; that for atheists there is actually no compelling reason to act morally at all but that they delude themselves with "fake humanist ethics". Not a nice thing to say about other people, obviously. And the Catholic Church, which he attends, disagrees with him on this point as well. I thought it was worth pointing that out, especially because the person in question routinely refers to his own religion in other debates.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If someone says they're a democrat but then they don't agree with the party line...I approve.

Tuff said something about needing to believe in some kind of "transcendent purpose in life" to be a moral person, which I pretty much agree with. The people I've met who believe in some kind of biological purpose to life have had vastly different ideas about morality from me.

I guess I don't get the antagonism.

[ajaxfetish]

If someone says they're a democrat but then they don't agree with the party line...I approve.

I think that depends entirely on the way in which they disagree with the party line. If they're a democrat, except they think women should not be allowed to vote and should be forcibly circumcised ... I disapprove.

Ajax