- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Afraid of the Dark?
Afraid of the Dark?Follow
I've just come here again to say that the Bible is (for the most part) not believed to be the "Word of God". It's holy enough to use full script, that's about it. Only small passages of it are supposed to be God speaking, and I don't think those contain particularly questionable/outrageous material. I might be wrong here, I haven't looked at the original in five or so years.
MoebiusLord wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
He's already made up his mind and refuses to see anything but what he wants to see. I'm kind of an expert on this, so trust me.
Disambiguation required. Expert on being obtuse or on arguing with LeWoVoc?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Kalivha wrote:
I've just come here again to say that the Bible is (for the most part) not believed to be the "Word of God". It's holy enough to use full script, that's about it. Only small passages of it are supposed to be God speaking, and I don't think those contain particularly questionable/outrageous material. I might be wrong here, I haven't looked at the original in five or so years.
You are.
Elinda wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
The bad IS inherent to religion, Elinda.
Let me say this one more time. Religion never murdered an innocent. Religion never raped a woman. Religion never starved a child or waged war on a nation. People do these things.
Quote:
You really are stupid, aren't you?
Edited, May 24th 2011 3:50pm by Elinda
I know religion has never murdered anyone. However, the God outlined in the Bible is immoral. How hard is that distinction? How difficult can it possibly be? What I am saying is that the God, as outlined by the Bible, is immoral. The God, as outlined in the Bible, HAS murdered, DOES resemble a totalitarian dictator, and WILL send anyone against him to hell.
Can you possibly stomach the ultra-simplified explanation, or do I need to buy you a dictionary? Every single time I try to remind you that I agree with you on the bolded point, you just remind me that you believe the bolded point is true. When you've taken the time to comprehend the point, get back to me.
LeWoVoc wrote:
I know religion has never murdered anyone. However, the God outlined in the Bible is immoral. How hard is that distinction? How difficult can it possibly be? What I am saying is that the God, as outlined by the Bible, is immoral. The God, as outlined in the Bible, HAS murdered, DOES resemble a totalitarian dictator, and WILL send anyone against him to hell.
Morality requires consequence. Without it there is no impetus to adhere. Accusing God of murder because you don't like the consequence for failure to adhere doesn't make it so.
Even if you use capital letters.
MoebiusLord wrote:
Kalivha wrote:
I've just come here again to say that the Bible is (for the most part) not believed to be the "Word of God". It's holy enough to use full script, that's about it. Only small passages of it are supposed to be God speaking, and I don't think those contain particularly questionable/outrageous material. I might be wrong here, I haven't looked at the original in five or so years.
You are.
What I mean is that the worst parts aren't those that are directly sold as "the word of God". I know those parts are still not making all that much sense, but the thing is that the silliest bits are definitely up to interpretation, even if you refuse to take any message directly delivered by YHWH anything but literally. Which makes most of it different from certain other Holy Books.
MoebiusLord wrote:
So you think it's more likely, having surveyed the landscape of humanity, that a child will grow up with involved parents more interested in passing on valuable lessons than making life easy on their children than it is that a child will grow up with disinterested parents only looking to make it through as unaffected as possible from the parenting experience?
Sorry, I just don't buy it. I think that good parenting is the exception.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. I think that good parenting is the exception.
While I don't think that good parenting is as unheard of as cynical Moe would have us believe, there are also many, many other places where these ideas are handed down. As I said before, religion is just one of these.
MoebiusLord wrote:
Even if you use capital letters.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Belkira wrote:
While I don't think that good parenting is as unheard of as cynical Moe would have us believe, there are also many, many other places where these ideas are handed down. As I said before, religion is just one of these.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Kalivha wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Kalivha wrote:
I've just come here again to say that the Bible is (for the most part) not believed to be the "Word of God". It's holy enough to use full script, that's about it. Only small passages of it are supposed to be God speaking, and I don't think those contain particularly questionable/outrageous material. I might be wrong here, I haven't looked at the original in five or so years.
You are.
What I mean is that the worst parts aren't those that are directly sold as "the word of God". I know those parts are still not making all that much sense, but the thing is that the silliest bits are definitely up to interpretation, even if you refuse to take any message directly delivered by YHWH anything but literally. Which makes most of it different from certain other Holy Books.
Are you saying that the good bits are from God and the bad bits aren't...? Because if that's what you mean, that's even worse than what you said earlier about religion being the biggest influence of ethics on the human race.
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
I know religion has never murdered anyone. However, the God outlined in the Bible is immoral. How hard is that distinction? How difficult can it possibly be? What I am saying is that the God, as outlined by the Bible, is immoral. The God, as outlined in the Bible, HAS murdered, DOES resemble a totalitarian dictator, and WILL send anyone against him to hell.
Morality requires consequence. Without it there is no impetus to adhere. Accusing God of murder because you don't like the consequence for failure to adhere doesn't make it so.
Even if you use capital letters.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
While I don't think that good parenting is as unheard of as cynical Moe would have us believe, there are also many, many other places where these ideas are handed down. As I said before, religion is just one of these.
I just don't buy that. There were ethics long before there was religion. If anything, I would say that the laws and ethics of the time were brought into religion when man formed it.
Belkira wrote:
There were ethics long before there was religion. If anything, I would say that the laws and ethics of the time were brought into religion when man formed it.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Kalivha wrote:
What I mean is that the worst parts aren't those that are directly sold as "the word of God".
Blame the salesman then.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
There were ethics long before there was religion. If anything, I would say that the laws and ethics of the time were brought into religion when man formed it.
Yeah, I don't agree with that.
-REDACTED-
Scholar
1,150 posts
Allegory wrote:
Princess ShadorVIII wrote:
So, my belief in deities causes me to have a flawed understanding of the universe and my understanding of the universe is flawed precisely BECAUSE I believe in deities. That about sum up your argument?
No, and we're done. You are failing to follow along. I realize that sounds a lot like childish condescension, but I do mean it honestly and objectively.
I am genuinely sorry that you don't wish to continue. I would like to understand your view, but you've more or less stated (as I understand) that in order to understand your view, I must accept your premise that belief in deities is wrong, which is a premise that I cannot possibly accept. It is a premise I myself tried on in the not too distant past, and I found it did not fit me.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Wait, wait wait...
Shador is religious again?
And possibly a viking?
Shador is religious again?
And possibly a viking?
Spiritual =/= religious.
In my Dawkinsonian phase, I was told to try and find "middle ground". I found that I could not do that within the dogma of the Abrahamic faiths, so I looked elsewhere.
"Gods" and "Goddesses" are somewhat misleading terms, but are convenient labels made familiar through long usage. My exact current understanding of the metaphysical world could, of course, be elucidated, but I have chosen not to do so, as it is superfluous to this discussion.
ITT - It is LeVoWoc and Allegory who are taking the dogmatic positions that religion is "evil" and "false", respectively. I am merely asserting that such broad-based attacks are unnecessary and counterproductive.
LeWoVoc wrote:
I don't, however, support the view that morality requires consequence. At the very least, I can say that it is not necessarily true that such a view is correct. Let me ask you this, Moe, when was morality brought into the picture? Was it at the--literal or metaphorical--Garden of Eden? The revelation of the commandments? Were they inherent to creation?
I wouldn't begin to speculate. What I do know is that in the Garden (literal or metaphorical, as you say), Man was commanded not to eat the "apple". When they did, there was consequence. So in the Christian tradition, at the very least, there has been consequence associate with morality since "the beginning". Is that its inception? Did Man not become accountable to anything until generations later? Who can say.
Belkira wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
There were ethics long before there was religion. If anything, I would say that the laws and ethics of the time were brought into religion when man formed it.
Yeah, I don't agree with that.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Belkira wrote:
Kalivha wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Kalivha wrote:
I've just come here again to say that the Bible is (for the most part) not believed to be the "Word of God". It's holy enough to use full script, that's about it. Only small passages of it are supposed to be God speaking, and I don't think those contain particularly questionable/outrageous material. I might be wrong here, I haven't looked at the original in five or so years.
You are.
What I mean is that the worst parts aren't those that are directly sold as "the word of God". I know those parts are still not making all that much sense, but the thing is that the silliest bits are definitely up to interpretation, even if you refuse to take any message directly delivered by YHWH anything but literally. Which makes most of it different from certain other Holy Books.
Are you saying that the good bits are from God and the bad bits aren't...? Because if that's what you mean, that's even worse than what you said earlier about religion being the biggest influence of ethics on the human race.
No!
The worst bits aren't, most of the stuff that is "from God" isn't great either (not that there's really all that much of that). The best bits are unlikely to be "from God", I'm just saying that it's not like the really really insane parts aren't up for interpretation, for better or for worse.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
That's all right, you're allowed to be wrong.
:P
Kalivha wrote:
The worst bits aren't, most of the stuff that is "from God" isn't great either (not that there's really all that much of that). The best bits are unlikely to be "from God", I'm just saying that it's not like the really really insane parts aren't up for interpretation, for better or for worse.
This makes no f'ucking sense at all.
It's much easier to question stuff in the Holy Book of your choice if it's not supposed to be directly passed on from some almighty deity. This is the case with most of the Bible. It isn't the case with some other Holy Books. Therefore, the Bible allows for more questioning and interpreting.
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
I don't, however, support the view that morality requires consequence. At the very least, I can say that it is not necessarily true that such a view is correct. Let me ask you this, Moe, when was morality brought into the picture? Was it at the--literal or metaphorical--Garden of Eden? The revelation of the commandments? Were they inherent to creation?
I wouldn't begin to speculate. What I do know is that in the Garden (literal or metaphorical, as you say), Man was commanded not to eat the "apple". When they did, there was consequence. So in the Christian tradition, at the very least, there has been consequence associate with morality since "the beginning". Is that its inception? Did Man not become accountable to anything until generations later? Who can say.
Edit: Also,
Quote:
TT - It is LeVoWoc and Allegory who are taking the dogmatic positions that religion is "evil" and "false", respectively. I am merely asserting that such broad-based attacks are unnecessary and counterproductive.
Edited, May 24th 2011 8:39am by LeWoVoc
Kalivha wrote:
No!
The worst bits aren't, most of the stuff that is "from God" isn't great either (not that there's really all that much of that). The best bits are unlikely to be "from God", I'm just saying that it's not like the really really insane parts aren't up for interpretation, for better or for worse.
The worst bits aren't, most of the stuff that is "from God" isn't great either (not that there's really all that much of that). The best bits are unlikely to be "from God", I'm just saying that it's not like the really really insane parts aren't up for interpretation, for better or for worse.
I'm completely confused, then. Is any of it from god, in your opinion? I always sort of thought it was an all or nothing type deal. And if someone thought it's not from god at all, then I'm not sure why they would pay any attention to it.
Though I'd still disagree, I hope at the very least those that would argue religion is not responsible for any malevolence would apply their belief consistency. That is, religion is no more responsible for any tragedy than it is for any charity. That is, those who have use religion as a tool to convince others to donate have as equally twisted it to their own ends as those who has used it as a tool to rally troops.
Sure there was, but it was religion that spread it and ingrained it into everything else.
Yeah, I don't agree with that.
Odd, I would.
Belkira wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
There were ethics long before there was religion. If anything, I would say that the laws and ethics of the time were brought into religion when man formed it.
Yeah, I don't agree with that.
Odd, I would.
Recent Visitors: 248
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (248)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Afraid of the Dark?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC