|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 26, 2006, 12:21 PM
Post #27 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: In reply to: ... or are these "out of context"? I don't know. And unless you know a lot more about islam than you've let on, I guess you probably don't either. Looks pretty damning though, I'll give you that.
That was a rhetorical question. I think these passages are pretty context-independent, myself.
No, I haven't read all that much about Islam, but what I have read of the Koran to date reads much like an extended version of the rationalisation used by petty criminals everywhere: that their victims deserve everything they get.
But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
Oct 26, 2006, 4:23 PM
Post #28 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
In reply to: In reply to: Three things that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Actually they're what Jesus taught, and mohammed and bodhidarma too, so yes they are part of religion.
They're part of human piety and common sense, thy change according to latitude and social conditions.
They are used by religions as if god invented them and then taught them to us humans, while in reality we humans invented them and then invented the concept of god to reinforce the concept.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Oct 26, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #29 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: [They are used by religions as if god invented them and then taught them to us humans, while in reality we humans invented them and then invented the concept of god to reinforce the concept.
How do you know that? You're presenting this as a manifest fact, not as a belief.
Also, note how people in tghis discussion are using an old testiment conception of God, the grand Kubla kind of dood who created everything by fiat. Didn't Darwin pretty much nix that idea. What we're really looking at here is a debunking of the literal understanding of the Old Testiment version of God--and you'll get no argument here. The reason some Christians cling to this has little if anything to do with God or anything of the sort, rather it's all tied up with literal, all or nothing thinking, meaning if one "fact" in teh Bible is false (even those things presented metaphorically), then the whole works are bogus. What's bogus is the all or nothign thinking.
There are other models, you know . . .
JL
|
|
|
|
|
bill
Oct 26, 2006, 5:06 PM
Post #30 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 1061
|
In reply to: No, I haven't read all that much about Islam, but what I have read of the Koran to date reads much like an extended version of the rationalisation used by petty criminals everywhere: that their victims deserve everything they get. But that's just me.
Recent events in your country would seem to reinforce this
In reply to: SYDNEY, Australia - A senior Muslim cleric compared women who go without a head scarf to "uncovered meat" left out for scavengers, drawing widespread condemnation and calls Thursday for his resignation. Hilali was quoted in The Australian newspaper Thursday as saying in the sermon: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's?"
Link
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 26, 2006, 6:36 PM
Post #31 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: [They are used by religions as if god invented them and then taught them to us humans, while in reality we humans invented them and then invented the concept of god to reinforce the concept. How do you know that? You're presenting this as a manifest fact, not as a belief. Also, note how people in tghis discussion are using an old testiment conception of God, the grand Kubla kind of dood who created everything by fiat. Didn't Darwin pretty much nix that idea. What we're really looking at here is a debunking of the literal understanding of the Old Testiment version of God--and you'll get no argument here. The reason some Christians cling to this has little if anything to do with God or anything of the sort, rather it's all tied up with literal, all or nothing thinking, meaning if one "fact" in teh Bible is false (even those things presented metaphorically), then the whole works are bogus. What's bogus is the all or nothign thinking. There are other models, you know . . . JL
Yeah, but the other models aren't responsible for suicide bombings, mass murder, laws restricting groung-breaking medical research, etc.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
Oct 26, 2006, 6:50 PM
Post #32 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
In reply to: In reply to: [They are used by religions as if god invented them and then taught them to us humans, while in reality we humans invented them and then invented the concept of god to reinforce the concept. How do you know that? You're presenting this as a manifest fact, not as a belief. Also, note how people in tghis discussion are using an old testiment conception of God, the grand Kubla kind of dood who created everything by fiat. Didn't Darwin pretty much nix that idea. What we're really looking at here is a debunking of the literal understanding of the Old Testiment version of God--and you'll get no argument here. The reason some Christians cling to this has little if anything to do with God or anything of the sort, rather it's all tied up with literal, all or nothing thinking, meaning if one "fact" in teh Bible is false (even those things presented metaphorically), then the whole works are bogus. What's bogus is the all or nothign thinking. There are other models, you know . . . JL
simply because we act that way by instinct. A mother does not need god to tell her how to care for her baby, a father knows what friendship and loyalty is.
I believe those are feelings embedded in us trough history and example, not by a god. Gods are allegoric figures invented to "better teach" those concepts. I just argue that I don't need that additional concept. I get it even without a hell/paradise system. I present it as a manifest because it seems obvious to me. You don't need someone to teach you that the pan is hot...you'll discover it by yourself right? Same thing here, men doscovered that friendship, honesty and trust are important and crucial in developing a cummunity...as iron, arrows and fire are important in battle.
Common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 27, 2006, 8:36 AM
Post #33 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
You're right, almost everybody has an innate sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately it's not always very detailed or reliable. Which is why we need laws.
In a similar way, we all have an innate sense of care and compassion for our fellow human beings. But again, it's not always very detailed or accurate. Which is why we need philosophy and religion.
Why should it matter whether we care for each other because we learn to from religion or from philosophy or from experience? What matters is that we care.
Some religious people get it right, some get it wrong, just as some non-religious people get it right and some get it wrong.
So why argue about it?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 27, 2006, 8:55 AM
Post #34 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
In reply to: You're right, almost everybody has an innate sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately it's not always very detailed or reliable. Which is why we need laws.
I agree with you 100%.
Unfortunately, 'evil' is more powerful than 'good'. This is because the 'good' recognize and respect certain boundaries, whether moral, ethical, or personal. The 'evil' are not bound by such constraints, thus they are at an advantage, just as an unrestrained psychopath is far more powerful, since he is not bound by concience or guilt. If one choses to "follow the rules", but another is "allowed to cheat" the cheater will most often win.
Laws are meant to level the playing field and protect those who live by moral and ethical standards.
Note--The terms 'Good' and 'Evil' are in no way meant in a religious way. I use them more to denote those with and without a concience.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 27, 2006, 10:40 AM
Post #35 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: You're right, almost everybody has an innate sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately it's not always very detailed or reliable. Which is why we need laws. In a similar way, we all have an innate sense of care and compassion for our fellow human beings. But again, it's not always very detailed or accurate. Which is why we need philosophy and religion.
Problem is, many religions are fucking awful at teaching care and compassion.
In reply to: Why should it matter whether we care for each other because we learn to from religion or from philosophy or from experience? What matters is that we care. Some religious people get it right, some get it wrong, just as some non-religious people get it right and some get it wrong. So why argue about it?
Some religions get it right, some get it very, very wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Oct 27, 2006, 11:30 AM
Post #37 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: You're right, almost everybody has an innate sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately it's not always very detailed or reliable. Which is why we need laws. In a similar way, we all have an innate sense of care and compassion for our fellow human beings. But again, it's not always very detailed or accurate. Which is why we need philosophy and religion. Why should it matter whether we care for each other because we learn to from religion or from philosophy or from experience? What matters is that we care. Some religious people get it right, some get it wrong, just as some non-religious people get it right and some get it wrong. So why argue about it?
because, just as we are instinctually driven to be caring and compassionate to those in our immediate familial/social/cultural milieu, so are we instinctually driven to compete for status and dominance.
the latter is the primal source of all human conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Oct 27, 2006, 3:20 PM
Post #38 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
The bottom line: Know Jesus, know peace. No Jesus, no peace.
Everything else is merely deception.
Have a blessed day.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Oct 27, 2006, 3:34 PM
Post #39 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
This is an endless debate. My personal outlook is that "god," whether he, she, it, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, has always represented the unknowable and unquantifiable. So, by definition, it is impossible to prove god's existence with reason or logic. It ultimately comes down to faith.
And faith– especially that faith which purports to have a monopoly on what some meddling, large white guy up in the sky with a beard wants– has always made people do some stupid shit.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Oct 27, 2006, 3:35 PM
Post #40 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: The bottom line: Know Jesus, know peace. No Jesus, no peace. Everything else is merely deception. Have a blessed day.
Does GWB know Jesus???
Laughable!
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Oct 27, 2006, 3:38 PM
Post #41 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: In reply to: The bottom line: Know Jesus, know peace. No Jesus, no peace. Everything else is merely deception. Have a blessed day. Does GWB know Jesus??? Laughable!
Edited to say: the 'peace' I refer to is inner peace...a peace that transcends human understanding; a peace felt even in the midst of great turmoil.
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
Oct 27, 2006, 4:14 PM
Post #42 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
In reply to: You're right, almost everybody has an innate sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately it's not always very detailed or reliable. Which is why we need laws. In a similar way, we all have an innate sense of care and compassion for our fellow human beings. But again, it's not always very detailed or accurate. Which is why we need philosophy and religion. Why should it matter whether we care for each other because we learn to from religion or from philosophy or from experience? What matters is that we care. Some religious people get it right, some get it wrong, just as some non-religious people get it right and some get it wrong. So why argue about it?
Absolutely. I never said we don't need laws, every organized society needs them, or that we don't need philosophy or spirituality, my point is that we don't need to have religion as a "default" teaching "just because" getting to the point where you ignore the facts and "just believe it" WHy? You have a splendid working brain, why choose not to use it?
I feel that in this country the religion is too often "advertised" and attached to other topics, like politics for example, patriotism, and even war.
I think it's very hypocrite and that's why I criticize it.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Oct 27, 2006, 4:31 PM
Post #43 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In reply to: Frankly, it's interesting to see science catching up with God...take the latest Nobel prize awarded for physics. Its evidence makes the strongest argument yet for this universe being coming spontaneously into existence from nothing. Gee, I wonder how that could happen??? Yep, that's right, in the beginning God...
I would find your post comical if it weren't for the fact that you actually beleive the bible has some sort of meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Oct 27, 2006, 4:39 PM
Post #44 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Edited to say: the 'peace' I refer to is inner peace...a peace that transcends human understanding; a peace felt even in the midst of great turmoil.
You can't refer to anything...by your own admission it is beyond human understanding.
Again...Laughable!!
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Oct 30, 2006, 2:40 PM
Post #45 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
[chuckles]
|
|
|
|
|
sevrdhed
Oct 30, 2006, 9:55 PM
Post #46 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2004
Posts: 923
|
In reply to: The bottom line: Know Jesus, know peace. No Jesus, no peace. Everything else is merely deception. Have a blessed day.
Nothing like getting your religious views from a bumper sticker, 'eh?
Also, as a caring and compassionate christian, I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that despite the fact that I don't personally accept jesus as my lord and saviour, I'm at complete peace with myself, my life, and others around me!
But, I'm sure you think you must know me better than I know myself, and don't believe me, right?
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 30, 2006, 10:59 PM
Post #47 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Coming back to the book for a minute (great read, by the way) I found this bit interesting, in a :shock: sort of way.
He cites a study where a group of Israeli Jewish school children between the ages of 8 and 14 were shown a passage about the battle of Jericho. For those not in the know, this was where an army led by Joshua were "promised" the city by the LORD, and ordered
In reply to: ... the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction... but all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.
Sure enough, they
In reply to: ... utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword...
The children were asked, simply, whether they thought Joshua and his followers acted rightly or not. A staggering sixty-six percent gave total approval. Twenty-six percent gave total disapproval, and 8 percent were undecided.
The reasoning of essentially all the "approval" group was religious:
In reply to: In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim.
Even many of the "total disapproval" group did so for religious reasons:
In reply to: I think it is bad, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse.
There was also a control group, where "Joshua" was replaced by "General Lin" and "Israel" by "a Chinese kingdom 3000 years ago". In this case the response was much closer to what I hope most of us would consider "normal": just 7% approval and 75% disapproval.
Makes you think, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Oct 31, 2006, 9:47 PM
Post #48 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
^^^
No takers?
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Nov 1, 2006, 5:52 PM
Post #49 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: In reply to: The bottom line: Know Jesus, know peace. No Jesus, no peace. Everything else is merely deception. Have a blessed day. Nothing like getting your religious views from a bumper sticker, 'eh? Also, as a caring and compassionate christian, I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that despite the fact that I don't personally accept jesus as my lord and saviour, I'm at complete peace with myself, my life, and others around me! But, I'm sure you think you must know me better than I know myself, and don't believe me, right? |
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Nov 1, 2006, 10:25 PM
Post #50 of 87
(2137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: The bottom line: Know Jesus, know peace. No Jesus, no peace. Everything else is merely deception. Have a blessed day. Nothing like getting your religious views from a bumper sticker, 'eh? Also, as a caring and compassionate christian, I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that despite the fact that I don't personally accept jesus as my lord and saviour, I'm at complete peace with myself, my life, and others around me! But, I'm sure you think you must know me better than I know myself, and don't believe me, right? The Truth is the Truth wherever you might encounter it....as far as your own peace, sure, whatever you say.
Interestingly, I'm told that studies of terminal patients in hospitals have consistently found that the atheists are generally much more at peace than their religious brethren. Interesting, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
