Atheism

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This may take the thread in completely the wrong direction, but would you advocate for a general conspiracy from the church to put the bible stories together in such a way as to help create their own power? Was the church big enough and organized enough in that time to pull something like this off? It would seem like such a massive undertaking with little chance of success.

This is a bit off the topic, but what you describe is very close to what exactly happened. There's a lot of biblical history out there to go through, but essentially what we see as the Bible is a document put together over hundreds of years, and the content was chosen and revised in order to support the power and positions of the church. The original versions were much different than what is passed down as THE bible now.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I think some may have missed my point yesterday. I wasn't questioning whether or not we have a flawed world. I do agree with many of you on that point. But the question following from that point was an honest one. How does the atheist explain why things are so flawed and messed up? To use Mac's numbers, if 5 out of 6 billion people are not living well, why does this messed up situation continue? His point about coming up with better ways to deal with the bad may be valid, but why is the bad there itself? Why is there disease, murder, famine, etc.?

I appreciate the discussion.

For myself, I don't. I don't try to explain the world, its creation or its demise. I let time and development of knowledge do that. I have no need and more over no interest in having some all encompassing 'thing' explain away the universe for me.

If it really did explain it all, what point would there be to even living? Why bother to wake up every day if you know/believe you know all the answers?

[Autumn]

And I think theism is the one that has to explain things. Atheism doesn't define any nature of the universe, and so has no real need to explain that. But if you posit that a higher power created the universe, there needs to be some reason and purpose behind everything. Atheism denies that's the case, and so perhaps there is absolutely no reason or purpose for things at all. Atheism doesn't make a case either way, and so is not tied to any particular explanation of things.

I also want to point out that atheism by definition denies theism, or the belief in a God or Gods. It does not necessarily rule out other forms of spirtualism or religion, though people tend to assume it does.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Isn't this true of any political mechanism though (I mean political in the sense of power most broadly from parent-child up through formal institutional expressions of power)? I think of the situation in China where the religious are being persecuted (and not just the Christian religious either). In China, these people are told that they must believe what the party says regardless of the strength of contradictory evidence or contrary argument. The people must continue to believe what the party tells them to believe "or else" they get sent to labor camps.

It would seem that this would even apply in democracy. The "or else" may not be as severe in democracy and people have more freedom to think through potentially contradictory arguments, but those who don't support democracy are ostracized as fascists, pinko commies, fundamentalist isolationist zealots, etc. Left-leaning professors who critique some of the problems with democracy know this all too well.

I don't see this as a problem with what might be termed faith-based power, but more fundamental to power itself. Any exercise of power will always have an "or else" attached to it or it would not seem to be power.

So if the motivation to believe in religious doctrine comes from either a desire to hold power or a fear from power, then I don't see the motivation as that much different than other forms of power more generally.

I'm not sure how we got into the power discussion. But I think the comparisons to democracy for instance are interesting, but miss the mark a bit. The reason is that atheists believe that the very basis for this power/control mechanism is a fabrication. It can be infuriating to us to have policy decisions, wars, etc. be based on a fiction.

Because religion has proven so very effective at controlling its followers throughout the course of history makes it worrisome to those who don't believe. Especially when "faith" tends to trump logical discourse in many cases (at least in the opinion of most non-believers).

[Cork]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I hope you keep reading along at least, you've offered up some decent questions relating to my stance and I appreciate you helping me clarify things.

I am still here in "lurker mode" and will definately continue reading the posts in the thread. Since I am not much of a biblical scholar, I will not have much to offer up from a biblical perspective, so I will just enjoy reading the various opinions and keep my personal views to myself.

-Cork

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I've said this in the other thread - from our human perspective, it's hard to fathom why a 3 year old dies from Leukemia. It just doesn't make sense - but it doesn't mean that there isn't a reason - we may just not be able to fathom it. Along with that is the fact that our souls are eternal, and therefore the 3 miserable years on earth really don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God, and they have decided that we are not important enough to know why God does this to a small child, then again why is this deserving of worship or praise? It's not good enough for me. So, if that is the best that anyone can come up with, I will not play along and if there is a God that I have to answer to at the end of my days, I will, presumably, be punished because I don't approve of the killing of children. I don't mind having ethics and morals that are of a higher standard than this "God", and if this "God" wishes to send me into eternal torment/torture because of it, I will take what is coming to me knowing that I held a higher standard and respect for life than it did.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I'm not sure how we got into the power discussion. But I think the comparisons to democracy for instance are interesting, but miss the mark a bit. The reason is that atheists believe that the very basis for this power/control mechanism is a fabrication. It can be infuriating to us to have policy decisions, wars, etc. be based on a fiction.

Because religion has proven so very effective at controlling its followers throughout the course of history makes it worrisome to those who don't believe. Especially when "faith" tends to trump logical discourse in many cases (at least in the opinion of most non-believers).

This is how I feel also. It is very unfortunate that Karl Marx's ideas were so misunderstood and abused by the Soviet Union that the impression people get of him and his very powerful belief in religion being the opium of the people is always discarded.

I have no problems with adults doing whatever they like. It is only when small children are involved and the government gets involved in cases like Terry Schiavo that I get bent out of shape.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by RendeR

What need does God have of our acceptance? What need does God have of our devotion? What NEED does God have of our interest at all? If he is truly God, he doesn't NEED anything and we're just being self indulgent dandies for presuming he does. Human fallibility at its finest.

He wants to have a relationship with His creation.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God, and they have decided that we are not important enough to know why God does this to a small child, then again why is this deserving of worship or praise? It's not good enough for me. So, if that is the best that anyone can come up with, I will not play along and if there is a God that I have to answer to at the end of my days, I will, presumably, be punished because I don't approve of the killing of children. I don't mind having ethics and morals that are of a higher standard than this "God", and if this "God" wishes to send me into eternal torment/torture because of it, I will take what is coming to me knowing that I held a higher standard and respect for life than it did.

Again, everything dies - their body, that is. That's what natural selection is all about. Heck, that's Darwin at it's finest. What do you prescribe as the alternative, and from who's perspective is that better?

If you're looking at your life on earth as the be-all end-all, I can see your frustration. However, the whole point about Jesus coming down earth was to save your eternal SOUL.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Again, everything dies - their body, that is. That's what natural selection is all about. Heck, that's Darwin at it's finest. What do you prescribe as the alternative, and from who's perspective is that better?

I don't mind accepting life as it is and as it happens. Do I have a problem praising some supposed deity for creating a world that brings suffering to millions (if not more than that) on a daily basis? Yeah. You can praise this supposed "loving creator" if you approve of this, but first I am skeptical that such an entity even exists, and secondly I am not going to pretend I approve in the slightest.

If you're looking at your life on earth as the be-all end-all, I can see your frustration. However, the whole point about Jesus coming down earth was to save your eternal SOUL.

The whole Jesus and soul thing is up for debate, since only the Christians believe this particular piece of mythology, right?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

He wants to have a relationship with His creation.

You should say that you believe this, because I have not seen any clear evidence of this.

[gi]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I wouldn't got that far.

But there is so much in the Bible that's open to interpretation and so many conflicting stories, that the church could (and did) focus on some stories/passages or interpret some stories/passages in an effort to control people or at least drive its own agenda in some instances.

Also, you can't rule out the role and impact of how the Bible was translated. Changing a few words here and there can give passages or sentences entirely different meanings.

It has been shown that these translation 'errors' truly lead to impact. In the original Hebrew, Mary was never a virgin mother. The word should translate to young women, but some liberties taken by authors, translated it to virgin women, because virgins had a unique mystique at the time.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

He wants to have a relationship with His creation.

Even at the expense of damning billions to eternal suffering.

It seems like a very, very sloppy means to an end for an all-powerful being. Unless he's pure evil.

[Tekneek]

I just heard a story on PRI's The World show from earlier this week. It was about a music band from Congo and they touched on what happened there after Belgium decided to make it a colony and the missionaries rolled in. The missionaries apparently told the natives that their music and dancing was "Satanic" and confiscated all the instruments. They were told that all the instruments were destroyed, but over time they have found that many of them really went to museums throughout Europe.

Things like this certainly increase my confidence that there is no "God", or if there is one I am highly skeptical that it is the kind of "God" I want to have anything to do with.

[DaddyTorgo]

*cough* Hitler. *cough*

no god. discussion over.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

*cough* Hitler. *cough*

no god. discussion over.

Edited due to clarification and DT's total NON-failure.

[DaddyTorgo]

I didn't say Hitler was christian or anything H_B. My point was that suffering of that level (particularly against the Jews no less) IMHO is pretty damning evidence of the lack of a supreme being. Particularly considering that that's only one example of the countless genocides throughout history.




Or at the very least - if you want the agnostic POV, as others have alluded to - the supreme being is a jerk and i personally have a better moral compass than him, in which case i see no need to venerate him and celebrate him.


c'mon - you know someone had to godwin-ize the argument. i'm only surprised that it took 4 pages.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

He wants to have a relationship with His creation.

So he requires obediance, devotion and prayer to have a relationship? he can't just use a phone like anyone else?

its just too self indulgent, again something that a supreme being shouldn't be.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I didn't say Hitler was christian or anything H_B. My point was that suffering of that level (particularly against the Jews no less) IMHO is pretty damning evidence of the lack of a supreme being. Particularly considering that that's only one example of the countless genocides throughout history.




Or at the very least - if you want the agnostic POV, as others have alluded to - the supreme being is a jerk and i personally have a better moral compass than him, in which case i see no need to venerate him and celebrate him.


c'mon - you know someone had to godwin-ize the argument. i'm only surprised that it took 4 pages.

My bad, DT. I took the quote out of context. I get you now.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by RendeR

So he requires obediance, devotion and prayer to have a relationship? he can't just use a phone like anyone else?

its just too self indulgent, again something that a supreme being shouldn't be.

Really? according to whom?

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

You should say that you believe this, because I have not seen any clear evidence of this.

Ok, according to my beliefs, he sent Jesus down to earth to die for our sins so that the eternal breakage between Him and man could be fixed again.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

My bad, DT. I took the quote out of context. I get you now.

no worries H_B. I didn't really clarify what I meant in my desire to godwin-ize the discussion. I took a little umbrage at your implication that I'd failed though -- I've studied more than enough WWII (and Nazi Germany) history in my life.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Ok how about this for an explanation.

God wanted Adam to be happy but knew if he gave him Eve straight away he wouldn't appreciate her and there would be disharmony.

By allowing him time on his own when Eve arrived he appreciated her more and thus the delay in her creation was an anticipated act by God.

(not saying this is the 'right' answer - but its a possible arguement which meets the criteria for God placed in the bible)

Without knowing Gods ultimate aim and gameplan its impossible to critique his actions and acknowledge them as fallible/infallible or Good or Evil ...

How could there be disharmony unless that's what god wanted? So either way, had Eve been there from the start or not, he made a mistake and painted himself into a corner. I'm basing all of this on the bible actually being factual, not on how you interpret it.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Really? according to whom?

According to ME, and since *I* am the only person to whom I have to validate MY beliefs thats all that matters.

Self indulgent? yes, acceptable from a human being? pretty much, acceptable in a God? never.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by gi

It has been shown that these translation 'errors' truly lead to impact. In the original Hebrew, Mary was never a virgin mother. The word should translate to young women, but some liberties taken by authors, translated it to virgin women, because virgins had a unique mystique at the time.

Does anybody have any good references for translation errors of changing of the original text? There seems to be lots of sites on the web talking about "the real original text should be translated like this", but I have no idea which ones have a clue and which are pushing their own agenda.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Does anybody have any good references for translation errors of changing of the original text? There seems to be lots of sites on the web talking about "the real original text should be translated like this", but I have no idea which ones have a clue and which are pushing their own agenda.

I believe there is, just can't remember it off hand.

I'll try and find the site for you.

Codex Sinaiticus is what I'm looking for...

[DaddyTorgo]

oh man - all this talk about intents and original texts of the bible brings me back to this class i had freshman year at BC where we essentially looked at the bible as a historical document with an ex-priest, and he went through and said "okay now this piece of this section that talks about X was actually a response to this historical event that was occuring at the time, or had just occured." Or a way to communicate the lessons learned by a historical event (a conflict for example).

it was pretty fascinating stuff - really solidified to me that the bible isn't necessarily the infallible word of god or anything, but is really just a collection of stories that were included and remained included in later versions for specific reasons, and that everything in there has its own "spin" applied by a historical human being for a very specific purpose.

don't think i have that notebook anymore though - that was 10 years ago. maybe i'll check tonight in my closet...

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I just heard a story on PRI's The World show from earlier this week. It was about a music band from Congo and they touched on what happened there after Belgium decided to make it a colony and the missionaries rolled in. The missionaries apparently told the natives that their music and dancing was "Satanic" and confiscated all the instruments. They were told that all the instruments were destroyed, but over time they have found that many of them really went to museums throughout Europe.

Things like this certainly increase my confidence that there is no "God", or if there is one I am highly skeptical that it is the kind of "God" I want to have anything to do with.

This sounds like a potentially convincing argument from an emotional point of view, but one I can't buy. I can say that I haven't experienced what these Congolese have experienced, but I have been deeply harmed by religious people who did not live up to their ideals. They claimed certain things, but screwed my family over and screwed me over as well in doing the opposite of what they claimed.

But over time, I came to realize that their behavior had little connection to whether or not their beliefs were true. I had to realize that whether or not the belief system was true or valid didn't have anything to do with how these people had behaved. It's a lot like laws in this instance. Just because some people steal, kill and defraud does not invalidate the goodness of a law, so too the fact that these allegedly religious people treated me so poorly did not automatically invalidate the truth of what they claimed to believe. Did it harm the credibility of their beliefs? Absolutely. But did it invalidate them as false? Even though every ounce of my being wanted to look at my experience and call these beliefs false, I logically can't write them off.

So I cannot outright reject the missionaries' belief system because of the lies told to the Congolese. Can I reject it on other grounds? Perhaps, but looking at how people act isn't one of them. The same could be said of an atheist's position as well. I can't outright reject an atheist's claims because that atheist beats his wife or orders genocide. It would harm the atheist's credibility, but does not inherently mean his beliefs are false.

[JediKooter]

BrianD, try this site: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ I didn't pick up any hidden agenda or anything like that, but, I wasn't looking for it either. It seems pretty straight forward.

They say it is over 1600 years old.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

The same could be said of an atheist's position as well. I can't outright reject an atheist's claims because that atheist beats his wife or orders genocide. It would harm the atheist's credibility, but does not inherently mean his beliefs are false.

Completely different situation. An atheist never proclaims that some higher supernatural being created and maintains a presence with human beings. So, they in effect, should be judged merely as humans doing what humans do and aren't trying to sell you some other bill of goods in the process. However, if you're trying to tell me that you are the messengers for some supernatural being that created everything, you've got a much higher standard to bear.

I expect more from a supernatural being that created the universe than I do the average human, and I'm not going to apologize for that. Many seem to say that you should expect LESS from this "God" than you would from your own parents, siblings, or even your neighbor. I'm having a hard time buying that concept.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God, and they have decided that we are not important enough to know why God does this to a small child, then again why is this deserving of worship or praise? It's not good enough for me. So, if that is the best that anyone can come up with, I will not play along and if there is a God that I have to answer to at the end of my days, I will, presumably, be punished because I don't approve of the killing of children. I don't mind having ethics and morals that are of a higher standard than this "God", and if this "God" wishes to send me into eternal torment/torture because of it, I will take what is coming to me knowing that I held a higher standard and respect for life than it did.

Everyone is welcome to their own viewpoint obviously - but you're looking at things from a very human perspective.

Or to put it another way when was the last time you cried because you stepped on an ant? ...

If you believe in an omnipotent God then putting aside all other arguments an individual human is a very small and insignificant part of existance; yet according to the bible God has planned out each and everyone one of our lives.

That plan might have involved dying at an early age and heading onto heaven faster than others might do for whatever reason but to judge a God as having 'low standards' because of it is like saying you have lower standards than that squashed ant because you didn't consider him.

God is looking at a much bigger picture than humanity ever can and as such we aren't in a position where we can judge him really.

Its a bit like the arguements for and against stem cell research at the moment, on one hand the research is abhorrant in a lot of ways - on the other it could potentially save countless millions of lives. Will it ultimately be a 'Good' or 'Evil' thing to undertake*, its not something I personally think I'm informed enough to accurately judge to be honest.

*Also if it is undertaken and through it methods discovered which will save millions of lives is it then evil to use those methods knowing how they were discovered - or Good because of the end product?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I just heard a story on PRI's The World show from earlier this week. It was about a music band from Congo and they touched on what happened there after Belgium decided to make it a colony and the missionaries rolled in. The missionaries apparently told the natives that their music and dancing was "Satanic" and confiscated all the instruments. They were told that all the instruments were destroyed, but over time they have found that many of them really went to museums throughout Europe.

Things like this certainly increase my confidence that there is no "God", or if there is one I am highly skeptical that it is the kind of "God" I want to have anything to do with.

I've had similar experiences in my life* - however bear in mind that these are 'humans' not God who are doing the wrongs (not that I'm a member of the church groups involved).

*When I was at university there was a huge abandoned building in Brighton which was owned by the Catholic church, it was in awful disrepair and had been disused for a long time.
A group of homeless people moved into it and repaired, wired in Electricity and suchlike - then actually turned it into a proper homeless shelter offering refuge a warm bed and food to people in need.
What did the Catholic church do? - did they thank the people involved for helping their community, nah when they realised it'd been done up they evicted the people and sold the property.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Everyone is welcome to their own viewpoint obviously - but you're looking at things from a very human perspective.

Or to put it another way when was the last time you cried because you stepped on an ant? ...

If you believe in an omnipotent God then putting aside all other arguments an individual human is a very small and insignificant part of existance; yet according to the bible God has planned out each and everyone one of our lives.

God is looking at a much bigger picture than humanity ever can and as such we aren't in a position where we can judge him really.

Then why does God apparently worry so much about minutiae of our daily lives? Why did He create such strict rules that guide what people can eat, when people should pray, who people should love, who you can covet, who can't covet, and all the rest of the stuff that's found in the Bible?

Also, why did God back in Biblical times take such a keen interest in people's lives, but all of a sudden the picture has become so much bigger and broader that he couldn't possibly care about the life of one person or lives of billions no more than we can care about the life of a single ant?

[Autumn]

I can see that if there is such a thing as a God, then clearly we're not equipped to understand such a being or question it or judge it. But we still have to grapple with this issue. Because a decision has to be made by each of us: is there a higher power. If so, what does it want me to do? Given that we are faced with contrasting answers (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, many, many more and many more sects) we have to grapple with the answer.

If the answer is we are incapable of comprehending God's plans and wishes, then we might as well not bother, right? If God might be some being that thinks about us as ants, then maybe we don't want a relationship. If God cares deeply about us and needs us to believe in Christ, then what if we're born in China? It seems a perplexing riddle.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Then why does God apparently worry so much about minutiae of our daily lives? Why did He create such strict rules that guide what people can eat, when people should pray, who people should love, who you can covet, who can't covet, and all the rest of the stuff that's found in the Bible?

Please bear in mind that I'm not a christian and while I believe in many aspects of that faith - my take on God isn't particularly bothered about such things.

Also, why did God back in Biblical times take such a keen interest in people's lives, but all of a sudden the picture has become so much bigger and broader that he couldn't possibly care about the life of one person or lives of billions no more than we can care about the life of a single ant?

Thats one of my big problems with Christianity to be honest, why it changed from being a personal and visible religion where prayers were answered openly by God and instead changed into one where nothing could be proven and everything relied upon faith.

For an example Jesus appeared to his followers after his death, so we know thats acceptable to God.

The bible indicates 'ask and you will be given' and various other ways of saying God answers all prayers - but if you pray to meet Jesus in the flesh as his followers did in the old days, well it hasn't worked for me yet

(similarly if God is all powerful then why do no Christians pray for amputee's to grow back their limbs? - they're happy to pray for healing of other issues yet I've never seen any chuch I've been at pray for "little johnny' to grow his leg back ..)

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Then why does God apparently worry so much about minutiae of our daily lives? Why did He create such strict rules that guide what people can eat, when people should pray, who people should love, who you can covet, who can't covet, and all the rest of the stuff that's found in the Bible?

Also, why did God back in Biblical times take such a keen interest in people's lives, but all of a sudden the picture has become so much bigger and broader that he couldn't possibly care about the life of one person or lives of billions no more than we can care about the life of a single ant?

Yes, this is the big question to me. I can see an argument for a higher power, though I have not felt or seen the presence of one. But to go from a higher power who we can't understand, to believing in a particular religion's description and history of a high power, along with its wishes and rules, seems like a jump that can't make sense.

If God simply wants me to believe that it exists, okay. If God expects me to follow a complicated system of rules in order to save my eternal soul, or have it reincarnate properly, or whatever it is God wants, I'll need some more details than we've got.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Or to put it another way when was the last time you cried because you stepped on an ant?

I do the best I can to not kill any living creature that is not creating a hazardous situation for me or my family. So, generally speaking, if I see the ant I will try to avoid causing it harm. Then again, I am merely human, and not some supernatural being that created an entire universe and demand love and acceptance in order to bring humans into an "afterlife." So, while I demand more of any "Gods" that might be out there, I don't make the same demands of human beings.

That plan might have involved dying at an early age and heading onto heaven faster than others might do for whatever reason but to judge a God as having 'low standards' because of it is like saying you have lower standards than that squashed ant because you didn't consider him.

Except I am human, not God. Get it? Just because I have high standards for Gods does not mean I put humans on the same level. I demand more of the creator of the universe because I expect that they can handle it. If they can't, then I guess it doesn't really matter, does it?

God is looking at a much bigger picture than humanity ever can and as such we aren't in a position where we can judge him really.

If this God is judging me, I can most certainly judge God. If God doesn't like that, God can get over it or improve performance.

Its a bit like the arguements for and against stem cell research at the moment, on one hand the research is abhorrant in a lot of ways - on the other it could potentially save countless millions of lives. Will it ultimately be a 'Good' or 'Evil' thing to undertake*, its not something I personally think I'm informed enough to accurately judge to be honest.

Correct. I doubt you are informed or educated enough to really know. You've made some brilliant games, but we're talking about heavy duty science here. I guarantee you that there are plenty of religious people, who likely know less about it than you do, that feel like they are entitled to speak about whether it should be done or not. On one side it takes a lot of education and understanding to work with science, and on the other side you merely just have to believe that some unknown higher power doesn't approve and has left it up to you to stop it (instead of interacting on their own behalf, which apparently they are just too tired/busy/bored to do anymore).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Autumn

If the answer is we are incapable of comprehending God's plans and wishes, then we might as well not bother, right? If God might be some being that thinks about us as ants, then maybe we don't want a relationship. If God cares deeply about us and needs us to believe in Christ, then what if we're born in China? It seems a perplexing riddle.

Indeed. No matter which way it goes, I don't see why I should care. Apparently God likes to do its own thing, kill who it wants when it wants to, explain nothing to anybody, yet make plenty of demands in return. No thanks. Wow, you killed your son. Why not just kill all of us? Open up a can of Old Testament Whoop Ass and bring your wrath down.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Completely different situation. An atheist never proclaims that some higher supernatural being created and maintains a presence with human beings. So, they in effect, should be judged merely as humans doing what humans do and aren't trying to sell you some other bill of goods in the process. However, if you're trying to tell me that you are the messengers for some supernatural being that created everything, you've got a much higher standard to bear.

I don't know if I'm not communicating very well or if you're missing the point. It really isn't a completely different situation IMO. If one rejects the missionaries' beliefs because they lied to the Congolese, then so too should one reject Pol Pot's atheistic beliefs because he supervised the killing of thousands of Cambodians. What follows from a belief does not inherently speak to the truth/falsity of that belief.

That being said, you imply a very interesting thing here. You suggest that the religious person has a higher standard to bear than the atheist. The atheist does what humans do and the religious have this higher standard to bear. In using the word "higher", you have implied that the religious standard is superior to the doing what humans do ethic. Meeting a higher standard is theoretically better than the lower standard of doing what humans do. So no matter what we think about this religious standard, there is an acknowledgment that it is higher. How do we know the religious standard is higher? What is the basis for this claim?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

How do we know the religious standard is higher? What is the basis for this claim?

God, supreme deity, creator of life. If this is supposed to be true, what part of that DOES NOT imply a higher form of life form than us? Some people appear to expect me to accept less from this "creator" than I would from my neighbor. I shouldn't expect humans, who are singing the praises of this supposed higher being, to behave any better than those who say there is no such thing? Why?

I don't have a problem saying I set a different standard for deities and their followers than most people seem to. I seem to set a different standard for those I put into elected office as well, so I am used to requiring more than the average person does.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

God, supreme deity, creator of life. If this is supposed to be true, what part of that DOES NOT imply a higher form of life form than us? Some people appear to expect me to accept less from this "creator" than I would from my neighbor. I shouldn't expect humans, who are singing the praises of this supposed higher being, to behave any better than those who say there is no such thing? Why?

I'm not sure I'm following. Can you elaborate a bit?

Edit: Your added part of the post makes things clearer.

[Marc Vaughan]

That being said, you imply a very interesting thing here. You suggest that the religious person has a higher standard to bear than the atheist. The atheist does what humans do and the religious have this higher standard to bear. In using the word "higher", you have implied that the religious standard is superior to the doing what humans do ethic. Meeting a higher standard is theoretically better than the lower standard of doing what humans do. So no matter what we think about this religious standard, there is an acknowledgment that it is higher. How do we know the religious standard is higher? What is the basis for this claim?

I think the basis for the religious standard being higher is simply that most religious people claim that the religion they subscribe to improves their lives and makes them behave as better people - thus people expect this of them.

I've heard many christians indicated "I used to do XXX, but God saved me" ... yet studies I've seen of Christian leaders (who you'd expect to be the best of the best) show they're just as likely to divorce as non-christians* ... why is this if they are closer to God than non-religious people?

*I've also heard of one book (Chuck Colson, “Being The Body”) which indicates Protestant clergy have a higher divorce rate than the national average - but I have no idea of whether this figure is accurate or not.

[gi]

I'll try to find some of the scholars references for translation, bias may vary

If I remember correctly, Hitler was Catholic.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I don't have a problem saying I set a different standard for deities and their followers than most people seem to. I seem to set a different standard for those I put into elected office as well, so I am used to requiring more than the average person does.

What is the baseline standard? In this framework, the deities, religious people and elected officials are held to a higher standard than the baseline standard. Are there any who are held to a lower standard than the baseline standard? Just trying to think how this gets applied in daily life.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gi

I'll try to find some of the scholars references for translation, bias may vary

If I remember correctly, Hitler was Catholic.

doesn't matter what he was - my point was more about the suffering that he inflicted (and he's simply the most notable of many), how any supreme being could allow that is what really gets me -- particularly in that case to the Jews, who were after all the "chosen people"

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by gi

I'll try to find some of the scholars references for translation, bias may vary

If I remember correctly, Hitler was Catholic.

Yes, he was raised Catholic and I think at one time had asperations of becoming a priest. He also mentioned god several times in Mein Kampf. What does it mean? I don't know. He was still a vile person regardless.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Ok according to original catholic doctrine not only is the Pope Gods main man on earth but he was also infallible (Papal infallibility) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

That infallibility is limited, though. The only infalliable things that the pope does are very specifically noted and defined - around theological matters. The term is 'ex cathedra', to essentially state that the pope is speaking a truth from his seat. It happens exceedingly rarely. There's nothing in the office of the papacy that says the pope is immune to mistakes, either intentional or otherwise. Nor is there anything that says he knows all - or any - of God's plan.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

As such you'd expect that he would have faith that what God wants to happen would happen and that any bullets aimed at him would miss or be meant to hit him for some reason ... rather than hide behind a shield.

And perhaps that "miss for some reason" is because they hit bullet-proof glass.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Why is it that faith alone was enough in the bible - yet today if a christian was thrown in with a lion they'd argue that fighting the lion makes sense because god gave him the sword and it'd be stupid not to use it.

Depends on the Christian. I'd argue that the stories of matyrs who fought back and lost weren't memorable enough to be told and retold.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Depends on the Christian. I'd argue that the stories of matyrs who fought back and lost weren't memorable enough to be told and retold.

I'd argue that being 're-told' doesn't come into it, according to Christianity the bible is written/inspired by God which tends to indicate that the behaviour held up as 'Christian' within it is the behaviour God wants/rewards in people? ... otherwise the bible would contain a lot more gladiator Christians than it does

(ignoring the biblical principle that God wrote the bible I'd argue that it isn't their story telling appeal which had them included (as stories of hero's fighting are generally more appealing than hero's not fighting) - but rather the fact that they encourage people to conform and not rebel against authority regardless of what is done to them)

[JediKooter]

A question for somebody who is the know: Has the catholic church ever said that the bible is to be interpreted a certain way or to be taken literally?

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Yes I'm aware according to the bible that is the case - however Jesus cried out at the end asking why he'd been forsaken, implying that he wasn't aware of that... thus according to your suggestions he should have been looking to drop the cross and leg it at the first opportunity when coming up the hill, i.e. looking for the 'out' he was expecting God to provide? (which doesn't make such a humble sacrifice story really ).

Jesus was human, and therefore had weaknesses. I believe He knew what was coming. He didn't want to go through it - who would? But He did. Doubt is a human emotion, as is fear.

From Mark 14:36 - "Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." To me, this shows Jesus' essential humanity, and the sacrifice... what is taught is that Jesus could have escaped/removed himself from this situation if He wanted to. Matthew 26:52-55 (the arrest of Jesus in the garden): "Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?'"

By the by, I'm doing an awful lot of Bible quoting. Not typically the way I go about things, but in a discussion that is making points based off Bible stories, the root of the story is important.