I think this monologue on religion by Marcus Brigstocke is rather funny and sums up some of my thoughts quite well.
We can agree that people should not be conscripted.
If you wanted to look and think about it yourself I would recommend this:
http://www.enfieldevangelicalfreechurch.org.uk/ce-course.htm
It is not that I know anything of the church but I have done the Christianity Explored course and found it excellent. I looked on-line for somewhere near Waltham Abbey which was holding it and came up with this location.
I think this monologue on religion by Marcus Brigstocke is rather funny and sums up some of my thoughts quite well.
OK, I'll jump in again, albeit not on my usual side of the debate.
For just one example of immoral killing in the name of God, cast your mind back to the story of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho. This story is usually used to tell children that if we obey God we will be victorious, no matter how strange the instructions may seem (marching around the city and blowing trumpets is an unusual assault tactic). The dark side: genocide. According to the biblical text, every man, woman, child and even animal inside Jericho was killed. This feat was repeated many times in other cities. Why is it that so many people who would condemn genocide or "ethnic cleansing" in the present day excuse or even condone it in its biblical context? That's the part they usually gloss over when teaching the story to kids.
Then of course there's the slaughter of every first-born son in Egypt, even though the vast majority of them were innocent and not directly responsible for Israel's slavery. A good many of them would have been children. They were killed because of the hard-heartedness of one man. Is this just and moral?
Or the Noah's Ark story: the entire population of the world killed, apart from one family (which proved itself to be no better than anyone else later on). A just and moral decision?
As a Christian myself, I justify my faith despite these examples, not because of them. I don't take the Bible literally as history - yes, slaughter and genocide may well have happened at Jericho and other places in the Bronze Age, but I don't believe it was ordered or condoned by God. Rather, people back then did what people have always done, and sought to justify their actions by putting the best possible spin on it, which in those days was "They were wicked, and God told me to." (The equivalent these days might be "He was an evil dictator with chemical weapons, and George Bush told me to.") Then someone wrote the "official" account down in what became the Bible, and hey presto - instant justification for war crimes (though such behaviour was the norm in conflicts in those days, so it wouldn't have been regarded as a war crime if viewed through contemporary eyes).
As far as I can tell, your whole argument rests on two presumptions:
1. God exists.
2. The bible is the definitive word of God.
Neither of those presumptions carry any weight with me. Therefore, the text means absolutely nothing. You'd have to prove the first one before the second one made any sense. Curiously, you tried to prove the second one first.
What I find even more curious is that I told you it wouldn't answer the questions before you wrote it. but you went ahead and wrote it anyway (and it doesn't answer the questions I raised). Very strange. And a quite beautiful example of the worst features of religion.
You already answered your question (but don't appear to realise it):The culture of the middle ages was distinctly misogynistic. The Church - and the Bible - in this age reflected the general culture. That demonstrates fairly clearly that the Church and the Bible are influenced by the culture in which they occur. You also see the puritanism of the Victorians (which still dominates the more conservative US churches) although most churches adopt more liberal positions and practices, mirroring the cultures in which they exist.
Someone who doesn't presume the truth of the bible looks at this and sees the pattern very easily. The question is, once you take away the cultural impact, it's not clear what's left. Without making any presumptions about the existence of God, the most likely conclusion is, 'nothing'.
So it was clear Jesus was not a god and you would have called for the men in white coats? I am sure I would have too with claims like that. Why restate that you believe such people exist? I think its clear you believe in Jesus
Decent? What is so difficult about defining the word? Decency is simply about being proper, suitable, resonable, respectful, good etc...I see your point about time and place - woman being out in public on their own is "indecent" in some cultures today, so it certainly varies. But when looking back into the past and reading about Jesus and his teachings, I think by our own UK standards of decency, i think we can call him decent overall and take the state of his godliness on faith if we want to.Originally Posted by DS
Well, no. I was asking you not FF Bruce. If you can't answer, fair enough.Originally Posted by DS
They may have gone to unpleasent deaths but in those times, so did lots of people, it doesn't point to the truth of their words or beliefs at all. "it would seem strange" is a nonsense statement. I thought Tom Clancys novel that had the suicide attack on the Capitol building in the US was totally unrealistic and it almost spoilt the novel for me - then a few years later some people actually did that. twice. It doesn't matter how unlikely something is, it doesn't mean it didn't happen or isn't true - so perhaps they did "make it all up" but still really beieved it, is that less likely or more likely?Originally Posted by DS
Killing is when something ends something elses life on purpose. There's a commandment for that, "thou shalt not kill", I think we can take it to mean other people rather than any life at all. God ignores this commandment when it suits... Poor Job and his murdered family (and letting Satan kill them is hardly an excuse). Still it taught Job the absolute insanity of accepting this evilness, "hey its alright, god can do what he likes", so its not all bad. By any moral standard, the most obvious being "to not force your will unwanted onto others", God, as written in the bible, is often a nasty piece of work. My own standards of morality, nurtured thourgh the years, tell me so.Originally Posted by DS
Changing the subject slightly aren't we ? equating gods choices with human conflict like that only serves to weaken your argument about the perfectness of god - wars are petty squabbles between humans, public executions are state sponsored murder. Is god then just a soldier or an executioner with a bigger gun or axe who reports to no one except himself? what is your point here?
We do have a common "worldwide/cross religion" yardstick, and by any standards of decency in any civilization. Maybe Jesus did appear decent in the new testamant, but it is your argument, through your quote of CS Lewis, that he could not be simply "decent". It is a myth that particular religions are responsible for morality - people already had compassion and nurturing instincts and the ability to cooperate with and look out for others outwith their own group - empathy donchaknow. This is the starting point for some of the morality in many religions, not the other way round.
That doesn't even make grammatical sense. You're not even trying now. I think theres a bit of irony in answering my question with the suggestion that "I read what I want to read" despite the fact that I ASKED if I read it wrong, expecting at least a feeble attempt at a logical explanation rather than a huffy restatement of your first point.Originally Posted by DS
You agree we act on instinct? oh good, your statement that we don't act on instinct gave me the impression that you thought we didn't. But Civilisation is supposed to improve on instinct? Since when? Who told you that civilisation was the trigger that would switch off our instincts and turn people into emotionless logical thinkers? Have you been watching Star Trek re-runs?Originally Posted by DS
I'd also like to (probably mis)quote Ghandi at this point. When asked what he thought of British Civilisation, he replied "I think it would be a good idea". You're fooling yourself if you think this is the be all and end all of civilisation.
Well that really was my question - you stated a commandment as fact but now you question "if it is genuinely a revelation from a divine source" and moreover admit that it may be a simple attempt by humans to "buttress their authority" with an appeal to god - which suggests that the commandments are entirely written by humans in the first place, albeit in the hope that they will be taken on by god when the humans "come some day to the nursery". This begs the question though - what DID come from god? any of the bible at all? or are humans simply reaching for something that may not even be there?Originally Posted by DS
Its a bit harsh to suggest everyone on the forum debating with you are all awful. Surely we are having an honest exchange of ideas - if you think all the ideas are "useless", fair enough thats your opinion. As for emotions - i've not seen any evidence of "pent up emotions" so far. Do you have examples?
No, that conclusion does not follow. Why would it? Why would anyone think it would? Why even bring it up?
Why not? Are Christians stupid? Do Christians not consider the world around them and the teachings of Jesus and the bible with their intellect? Did you reeaaally mean to say that ?
I am an individual master of my fate, but the journeys end is death. If you have faith that there is something after that then great, so do others. I find that it does not matter, as evidence shows that we cannot interact with this life so it is truly death in every meaningful sense. It would be nice to think that your dead loved ones are in the "after life" waiting for you, but what would we do all day? And wouldn't you get sick of your in-laws and that annoying uncle that always seemed to look you up and down in an odd way - he may meet the godly criteria for entry into heaven, especially if he is a bishop.
Which brings me to something else actually. Please can you state in simple terms, how to get your name on the list at the pearly gates. Entry to heaven. How is that ensured then?
It certainly shows that people are people, from generation unto generation the same. Just like politicians really. As you imply it can be very disheartening but is not the question how we are going to react in our current time and current circumstances? Can we do better? Will we try? If God exists then surely we must. If God does not exist it is a great and tragic fraud.
Therefore, when God promises that Christians will go to heaven and atheists will go to hell, there is no reason to believe that he will not break his promise and send Christians to hell and atheists to heaven.
It is probably an accurate statement that we can only think we understand the motivation of God. I find it hard enough to understand the motivation and workings of the people around me. The Moslems have a view that no words can accurately describe God because any word is an insufficient description of what it attempts to describe. We can have a view of what we think decent is; the question is of what use do you want to make of it? I suggested a man who claimed to be God was, as CS Lewis said, a lunatic, liar …. or perhaps God. Do decent men by your definition claim to be God?
What does breaking a promise mean? Monotheism is based on the concept of a ‘just’ God. Where does the concept of ‘just’ arise from. If you can detect some concept of justice and injustice is that not ‘man made in the image of God’? In that case how will you be a better judge than God? Surely the concept of justice separates right from might? If God exists and created the Universe we certainly do not have the power to do anything similar and would we have the collective wisdom to equal His thoughts. We seem to make a pretty bad mess of the one planet we have. On what basis do you want to make judgements? When Jesus came he was crucified. The Bible records the parable he told of the man who rented out his vineyard. He sent his messengers but the tenants refused them, beating some and killing others. Finally the son was sent for surely the son would be respected. He was not. It is, of course, a well known story. The messengers were the prophets and the son is Jesus. It seems a fair rendering of history and the way people have behaved.
As you say we have restricted the debate to essentially a Christian world view but then I have only limited expertise on other religions. I looked at all the major world religions when I was at university in order to resolve my own queries but that hardly gave me any deep knowledge of them.
Can I just say first how much I enjoyed reading through this thread and especially the good humour shown, (as is so often the case on this forum - congrats to DTS for originating it).
Not sure whether I can join in with anything useful at this late stage but I would like to say I could identify with most of daveb9000's comments concerning religion early on in the thread.
One small point of his I would pick up on though was when he said this: "Pretty much all of which (religions) can be summed up as: "treat others with the repect you wish to be treated with yourself"
That reminded me of this bible quotation: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." [Matthew 7:12] - not sure whether that was what he meant to say or if he intended to insert the word "respect".
Anyway, whatever is the case it is hard to find much wrong with that kind of statements isn't it, whether you are a believer or not (I'm not sure what I am these days BTW).
Dismissing all religion has become very fashionable hasn't it, and their arguments which they choose to put forward seem to be a bit uninspiring somehow, right or wrong, whilst some religious thought or experience does inspire I feel (Professor Ronald Dworkins being the leading figure in all this criticism and condemnation isn't he - a lawyer with controverial ideas on human rights etc. I'm told, but why should we believe he knows so much better that everyone who is or has ever been religious?).
However, even as an uncertain or equivocal Christian myself I would just throw in this, as a response to all the criticisms of religion - another bible quote, taken from St Luke's gospel (20:25): "And he (Jesus) said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."
Don't you think there is a message of defiance in that sentence - telling our rulers that they do not have power over all aspects of us human beings and our lives (such as our spiritual lives, is I believe the interpretation given). In the days when rulers often declared themselves to be Gods this must have been pretty revolutionary but I hope it still has some resonance today, when people/politicians try to tell you what to think or manipulate public opinion in some way.
I want to throw in one last comment, hopefully you'll find this slightly humourous and that is, having mentioned St Luke's gospel above, I have a fairly nightmare recollection of a man reciting the whole of that section of the bible to the study group I attended. This man had been an actor apparently and when he became out of work for some reason he decided to "put to good use" his exceptional memory or ability to learn and recite lines with his religious belief. So in complete silence we endured this experience, for about an hour and a half, wishing the whole time something would happen to knock him off his stride (a fire alarm, or indeed fire breaking out would have seemed a blessing at the time!).
Did God really wish him to do this to us? We will never know, though maybe you could say he gave us all a good lesson - even the organisors who had to sit through it too must surely have pencilled into their future programme "Don't invite him back again!"
Apologies - should read "Richard Dawkins" not "Ronald Dworkins" above, and his interests are in "ethology" and "evolutionary biology" not the law or human rights as stated above - sure someone would have noticed my mistake so I hope this quick correction does the job of avoiding too much confusion and saves my face a little!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks