Non Believers: I'm What's Called a Pessimist

[mankytoes]

1 minute ago, Rorshach said:

This is a good critisism of those claiming the Bible is inspired in every aspect, and that every part of it should be read, followed and understood literaly.

That is a very recent phenomenon. Also, it does not really relate to the part that was spesifically mentioned here. If you really want to discuss Numbers and Leviticus, Jews would be your target audience.

That's my point, it's pick-and-choose Christianity, it always has been. Just go to a regular church service, especially a Catholic one, and see how many of the traditions involved come directly from The Book, not to mention the spirit of Jesus, as a humble figure.

But they're in the Bible. The only refutations I've seen of this argument essentially claim God changed his mind, which is clearly inconsistant with the central premise of universal, eternal morality. If God can change his mind about killing gays and wearing polyester in that time period, he could have changed his mind about worshipping other Gods and stealing since.

The Bible was written by men. You can say those men were inspired by God, but all men are fallable. Thus, the Bible must be fallable. You can't be certain of the truth of a single word of it.

My favourite development in religion, especially Christianity, is the movement away from formal structures and towards a more personal spirituality. Religious authority gives people great, unchecked power. Just look at the wealth in major religious groups, they didn't acquire that through humble charity. My Christian upbringing makes me believe that if Jesus did come back, he would scorn the bishops in their great palaces for their greed.

[Rorshach]

1 hour ago, Stubby said:

I agree.

My personal opinion is that the book is so obscure that it is open to any interpretation.  Even theologians have trouble agreeing on what specific bits mean.  I can illustrate this by reference to the religious campaign to oppose marriage equality in Australia.

We have just come off a nationwide survey (run by the Australian Bureau of Statistics) which asked a (yes/no) question about marriage equality.  There were Christian organisations that campaigned very loudly on the 'no' side.  There were notable christian organisations that campaigned on the 'yes' side.  There was clear disagreement.

But this wasn't just fringe Christian groups that were making the argument for 'no'.  It was mainstream denominations, like the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, which donated $1M to the 'no' campaign.  The Australian Christian Lobby (a powerful conservative group that opposes just about every social change on the basis of their beliefs, was the headquarters of the "Australian Marriage Alliance" which included many more mainstream Christian organisations.  Examples of groups in that coalition include the Australian Baptists, the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Australia, the Life Ministry Centre, and dozens of other others.

All of these groups argued that homosexuality was wrong, based on biblical interpretations.  They all argued that 'we' (in the collective national sense) cannot permit such sin.  Essentially, all of these religions agreed that homosexual humans are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexual humans.  Theologians were quoted.  Such as Loader (2017), Windsor (2017), and Davies (Archbishop of Sydney) (2013).

Davies, in particular, wrote:

"While Australians wrestle with the implications of redefining marriage to include a union of two persons of the same sex, it would be a much more enlightened debate if proponents of this novel redefinition did not misuse the Bible in mounting their arguments. It would be more honest to declare their disagreement with biblical teaching, rather than pretend by shallow, ill-informed exegesis that they are following the Bible's primary theme of love. Here again, Jesus's words are instructive: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15)." (my emphasis)

This is an Anglican archbishop declaring that supporting marriage equality, by reference to text, goes against Christ.  He is literally saying "fuck you" to homosexual humans. And he is saying it based on a central tenet, viz; "If you love me, keep my commandments".

This is a better example. I think that defining it as «fuck everyone else» is a stretch, but it is a topic that has divided opininon in churches worldwide for the last 10-15 years. 

One point to note is in your bolded - «the Bible’s primary theme of love». Even conservatives agree on that point. The discussion isn’t about that, or whether the Bible tells people to «fuck everyone», but what is included in «love» here. I happen to think that the arguments against this bishop are stronger, and not based on «shallow, ill-informed exegesis», but we agree on the point of «keep my commandments». 

To go into the whole homosexuality debate here .. I don’t know if I want to. I don’t agree with the conservative position, even if I understand it. I do not think either position goes against «try to live your life like Jesus did», because a central understanding is that everyone will fail in their attempt. It’s part of being human.

[Rorshach]

2 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

That's my point, it's pick-and-choose Christianity, it always has been. Just go to a regular church service, especially a Catholic one, and see how many of the traditions involved come directly from The Book, not to mention the spirit of Jesus, as a humble figure.

But they're in the Bible. The only refutations I've seen of this argument essentially claim God changed his mind, which is clearly inconsistant with the central premise of universal, eternal morality. If God can change his mind about killing gays and wearing polyester in that time period, he could have changed his mind about worshipping other Gods and stealing since.

The Bible was written by men. You can say those men were inspired by God, but all men are fallable. Thus, the Bible must be fallable. You can't be certain of the truth of a single word of it.

My favourite development in religion, especially Christianity, is the movement away from formal structures and towards a more personal spirituality. Religious authority gives people great, unchecked power. Just look at the wealth in major religious groups, they didn't acquire that through humble charity. My Christian upbringing makes me believe that if Jesus did come back, he would scorn the bishops in their great palaces for their greed.

Well, Leviticus and Numbers are part of the pact God made with Israel. The whole point of Jesus is to change that pact, from being based on the Law (which those books are) to Redemption, and from being laws for Jews (which those books are) to being universal. 

Basically, at no time have the laws regulating the Judaism of old been a part of the Christian church. 

Also, as I mentioned briefly in a response to Seli, Catholics put much faith in tradition - it’s as important as the Bible in some respects. So that isn’t a great example, really, when discussing the text.

[mankytoes]

8 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

Well, Leviticus and Numbers are part of the pact God made with Israel. The whole point of Jesus is to change that pact, from being based on the Law (which those books are) to Redemption, and from being laws for Jews (which those books are) to being universal. 

Basically, at no time have the laws regulating the Judaism of old been a part of the Christian church. 

Also, as I mentioned briefly in a response to Seli, Catholics put much faith in tradition - it’s as important as the Bible in some respects. So that isn’t a great example, really, when discussing the text.

So back then it was morally correct to kill homosexuals, but now it isn't? Why would he put in the thing about wearing two fabrics in a temporary pact? It doesn't make any sense.

[Seli]

4 hours ago, Rorshach said:

OK. I have a little time - I’ll try to recap the original discussion with Dr. Pepper. If I misrepresent her points, I’ll expect she tells me.

In the Christian thread, Lany asked a question about whether Christians «should live their lives like Jesus did» - and if this was a core tenent of Christianity. Which was answered in the affirmative - with Ormond adding the important qualification «try». 

Dr. Pepper challenged this, sort of, by making a point that the Telephone game could explain the differences - that some Christians worked with helping the poor, and others went for «fuck everyone else». 

I challenged that in that I know of no Christian text that can be used to defend a «fuck everyone else», not current nor previous. And that the problem isn’t the texts and interpretations as such, but how some can disregard such a central tenent. 

From this she has spiralled out into different directions, all the while failing to adress this point. I have no idea why.

Cheers.

5 hours ago, Rorshach said:

While you are again moving far outside the original discussion - which you didn’t understand - the answer to this in ingrained in every Christian belief ever.

Basically, and this is not me trying to be mean, if you do not know why Leviticus and Numbers are disregarded, you do not know doctrine. At all. 

Check up with anyone knowledgeable and return. But - seriously - this is taught in school to 12-13-year-olds, and we expect them to know it. Adults not knowing ... haven’t paid attention.

You do realize you are contradicting yourself here? If you need to reach to doctrine to know what parts of the bible to read your faith isn't based on that work but on the stories you tell about it. Which leads to others coming to different selections of the text they do and do not take seriously. So you are providing a source how the same source text can be used to come to deeply different behaviours.

[Rorshach]

1 hour ago, Seli said:

Cheers.

You do realize you are contradicting yourself here? If you need to reach to doctrine to know what parts of the bible to read your faith isn't based on that work but on the stories you tell about it. Which leads to others coming to different selections of the text they do and do not take seriously. So you are providing a source how the same source text can be used to come to deeply different behaviours.

Actually, in this context - no. 

The part about a new pact is part of the New Testament text. That’s the reason every Christian denomination looks away from Leviticus and Numbers spesifically. It is amongst the teachings of Jesus.

So, not doctrine telling what text to read, but the text itself. 

[TrueMetis]

6 hours ago, Rorshach said:

While you are again moving far outside the original discussion - which you didn’t understand - the answer to this in ingrained in every Christian belief ever.

Basically, and this is not me trying to be mean, if you do not know why Leviticus and Numbers are disregarded, you do not know doctrine. At all. 

Check up with anyone knowledgeable and return. But - seriously - this is taught in school to 12-13-year-olds, and we expect them to know it. Adults not knowing ... haven’t paid attention.

They aren't, not by all Christians. If you don't know this than you don't know Christianity at all. I cannot count the times Leviticus 18:22 has been quoted to me as a point against homosexuality.

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

Actually, in this context - no. 

The part about a new pact is part of the New Testament text. That’s the reason every Christian denomination looks away from Leviticus and Numbers spesifically. It is amongst the teachings of Jesus.

So, not doctrine telling what text to read, but the text itself. 

Sorry but I can't help but ask: why are Leviticus and Numbers still in the "standard" book then? Why not set them aside, like for a collector's edition or something, with other texts that have been set aside?

[mankytoes]

33 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

They aren't, not by all Christians. If you don't know this than you don't know Christianity at all. I cannot count the times Leviticus 18:22 has been quoted to me as a point against homosexuality.

In before No True Scotsman.

And when looking at Rorshach's argument, remember Matthew 5:17- "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

[TrueMetis]

5 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

In before No True Scotsman.

And when looking at Rorshach's argument, remember Matthew 5:17- "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Ah but according to some Christians that's exactly the line that says Leviticus doesn't apply anymore. Because interpretation is so powerful you can conclude a line means literally the opposite of what was side. They have been "fulfilled" so now there is a new pact and the Levitical laws don't apply. Except when they do, usually the anti-gay ones because I guess modern Christians really like their mixed fabrics.

[Rorshach]

50 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

They aren't, not by all Christians. If you don't know this than you don't know Christianity at all. I cannot count the times Leviticus 18:22 has been quoted to me as a point against homosexuality.

I’ve seen that, and I don’t understand why they would use that particular point of Scripture. In the discussions I’ve seen, Leviticus hasn’t merited a mention - Paul has. 

 

52 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sorry but I can't help but ask: why are Leviticus and Numbers still in the "standard" book then? Why not set them aside, like for a collector's edition or something, with other texts that have been set aside?

Probably because those five books are traditionally viewed as a unit (Genesis-Deutoronomy). The apocryphs in the OT is included in the Catholic Bible, but not the Lutheran, for instance, so in theory the canon isn’t locked. Luther was no stranger to remove the letter to the Hebrews, for instance. 

In practise, chaning the canon now would be more or less unthinkable, I guess. 

[Rorshach]

14 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Ah but according to some Christians that's exactly the line that says Leviticus doesn't apply anymore. Because interpretation is so powerful you can conclude a line means literally the opposite of what was side. They have been "fulfilled" so now there is a new pact and the Levitical laws don't apply. Except when they do, usually the anti-gay ones because I guess modern Christians really like their mixed fabrics.

I think you can drop «some». 

[TrueMetis]

10 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

I’ve seen that, and I don’t understand why they would use that particular point of Scripture. In the discussions I’ve seen, Leviticus hasn’t merited a mention - Paul has.

So you knew you were wrong when you said Leviticus was disregarded by Christians yet you claimed it anyway.

9 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

I think you can drop «some». 

I won't claim to know what every Christian of every denomination thinks. Odd that you now seem fine with claiming what all Christians think when in the other Christian topic you complained bitterly when you perceived someone else doing the same.

[Rorshach]

4 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So you knew you were wrong when you said Leviticus was disregarded by Christians yet you claimed it anyway.

I won't claim to know what every Christian of every denomination thinks. Odd that you now seem fine with claiming what all Christians think when in the other Christian topic you complained bitterly when you perceived someone else doing the same.

If I’m not allowed to be general in the comments when speaking about 1,4 billion people without having to specify every exception ever (one verse for some of these)... 

Well, suffice to say I really won’t bother. You may be critical about a lot, and you may even be right about a lot, but I think a bit of perspective is advisable. 

Unless you know about more verses used from the law given to Moses?

As for the second part - you’re free to show me wrong on that count. Go ahead. 

[Rorshach]

11 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So you knew you were wrong when you said Leviticus was disregarded by Christians yet you claimed it anyway.

Also, when not responding in haste: I believe I’ve made the point that I think people should justify their beliefs according to the foundation they make for it. 

Since none of these probably remove their spouse from the room when she’s menstruating, do not cleanse themselves ritually after having made themselves «unclean» in several ways etcetc, I cannot see how they actually can hold that particular verse in awe. It is contrary to everything they normally do.

[Dr. Pepper]

9 hours ago, Rorshach said:

I’m not going to pursue this discussion. You have been told repeatedly that you do not get my point - and instead of asking for clarification, making sure you know what I mean and so on, you go on and on about what amounts to meaningless generaities about something not related to my point at all. 

All the while basking in your superiority. 

If we are to continue - if there is any value to be found - I’ll have you recapture my argument in a form that is recognizable. Otherwise, we end up here - you pontificating over a point that you haven’t grasped at all. 

No dear, it's you who doesn't get the point.  Many others have, you seem to be the single one hopelessly confused.  And it was a very basic point using a very basic game as illustration.  This idea that you can deny that differences in interpretation of a a text exists is simply absurd and embarrassing.  

Lol, about the superiority.  You're the one who decided to tell me that you had a master's degree as though it was supposed to mean something to me, especially on a forum where an overwhelming number of us are well educated with advanced degrees or working on advanced degrees.  You aren't impressive.  

7 hours ago, Rorshach said:

That doesn’t relate to my point, though, does it? People do all sorts of things in the name of whatever they fancy. It doesn’t follow that it is a useful, correct, logical, sane or whateverthefuck application of said name. 

I even stated in the original that this wasn’t a defense of the American right (the biggest proponent of this that I’m aware of). But given that a religion is built on some sort of foundation, I think they should be able to defend their actions with reference to the foundation.

Sure, and people generally do make references to this text (again, discussing the bible in case you've forgotten again).  Whether or not you think they are right in how they interpret the text and behave accordingly means nothing.  It doesn't change the fact that a person or group has used this or that verse to justify a behavior.  Again, people see things differently, place importance on different words and verses, their language and culture influences how they understand things.  

Basically you're argument is "this book says this so adherent should follow it like that....and fuck everyone else."

 

[Rorshach]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No dear, it's you who doesn't get the point.  Many others have, you seem to be the single one hopelessly confused.  And it was a very basic point using a very basic game as illustration.  This idea that you can deny that differences in interpretation of a a text exists is simply absurd and embarrassing.  

Lol, about the superiority.  You're the one who decided to tell me that you had a master's degree as though it was supposed to mean something to me, especially on a forum where an overwhelming number of us are well educated with advanced degrees or working on advanced degrees.  You aren't impressive.  

Sure, and people generally do make references to this text (again, discussing the bible in case you've forgotten again).  Whether or not you think they are right in how they interpret the text and behave accordingly means nothing.  It doesn't change the fact that a person or group has used this or that verse to justify a behavior.  Again, people see things differently, place importance on different words and verses, their language and culture influences how they understand things.  

Basically you're argument is "this book says this so adherent should follow it like that....and fuck everyone else."

 

Again, you manage to respond without acutally having understood what I asked about and protested. 

How you manage to do so, and still rattle on as if you do, I have no idea. But it has become rather clear that you neither care nor listen. 

I know I said I would stop responding to you. I will. This is merely to inform you that I’m blocking you. I can really do without arguing with someone bent on not understaning what I say, and responding condesendingly when clueless. 

ETA: that is, if blocking users still is possible. Otherwise, I’ll simply not bother reading your screeds.

[Martell Spy]

3 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Also, when not responding in haste: I believe I’ve made the point that I think people should justify their beliefs according to the foundation they make for it. 

Since none of these probably remove their spouse from the room when she’s menstruating, do not cleanse themselves ritually after having made themselves «unclean» in several ways etcetc, I cannot see how they actually can hold that particular verse in awe. It is contrary to everything they normally do.

The answer may be that they simply want to live a certain way and they feel that verse backs up that way of living. Sometimes they don't bother using the verse. They just justify anti gay behaviors based on generally on their Christian faith.

You have to understand dealing with these sort of Christian Conservatives can be extremely galling to atheists, in particular if the atheist is a liberal and/or has personally suffered consequences from these beliefs. It's not just theoretical. These sorts of people are very loud, numerous, and often have a large impact in American politics. (And apparently Austrailian politics) And they often present themselves not just as Christians, but the BEST Christians, the most committed, etc.

Not to derail this discussion into politics, but I thought it might help to explain some of the disdain toward Christians in particular. I know some Methodists that are pretty chill and I know it's not universal.

[TrueMetis]

3 hours ago, Rorshach said:

If I’m not allowed to be general in the comments when speaking about 1,4 billion people without having to specify every exception ever (one verse for some of these)... 

Well, suffice to say I really won’t bother. You may be critical about a lot, and you may even be right about a lot, but I think a bit of perspective is advisable. 

Hey dude, all I'm doing is holding you up to the same standard you use on others. If you don't like that, well all I can say if from my experience that's very Christian of you.

Quote

Unless you know about more verses used from the law given to Moses?

Well there's the ten commandments. But no on seems to think those expired with the old pact.

Quote

As for the second part - you’re free to show me wrong on that count. Go ahead. 

I'm assuming by the second part your referring to you not being okay with generalizations. You complained about Tywin et al making "sweeping assertions towards doctrine" but when you do it? Nah that's fine.

3 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Also, when not responding in haste: I believe I’ve made the point that I think people should justify their beliefs according to the foundation they make for it. 

Since none of these probably remove their spouse from the room when she’s menstruating, do not cleanse themselves ritually after having made themselves «unclean» in several ways etcetc, I cannot see how they actually can hold that particular verse in awe. It is contrary to everything they normally do.

Who gives a shit? Yeah they're hypocritical as fuck ignoring some parts of the bible and embracing others. But that's every Christian denomination ever.

[Which Tyler]

May I just ask...

Why did this Christian discussion get kicked off the Christian thread?

Why is this Christian discussion considered more relevant to the atheism thread?

Should we all descend on the Christian thread and start discussing the differences between Agnosticism and Atheism? Would that be cool?