Aggressive atheism

[Aquaman]

Originally Posted by Death Penalty

Of course. Thou shalt not kill should be taken very literally.

God created the earth in seven days should not.

Well, that part they do.

I can't think of an example right off the top of my head. But you know, things that would not cripple the religious belief but if you take it literally it is pretty much insane?

It's a fine line to be sure.

[Nagadick]

Originally Posted by Death Penalty

I never understood why atheists and hyper-religious sorts are so adamant that science and religion are mutually exclusive things. Most Christians I know don't take the Bible literally, and most churches will tell you you shouldn't.

Not all atheists do. But i have a very VERY strict view on religious people of today. I'll try and explain though lawl.

Basically, I think 99% of Christians today are more like deists than actual followers of Christianity. The simple fact that the bible is supposed to be the perfect word of God yet not taking it literally is an utter contradiction. The simple fact is, a lot of the religious feel stupid following a book which talks about the Ark, Creationism, Genesis and the other fairy tales included so they made the excuse of saying it doesn't have to be taking literally.

I know it's really frowned upon, even sometime by atheists, but imo, you either follow a religion to the letter, or not at all. If you're a Christian, you don't wear clothes of different material (it's in the bible), you stone your children if they don't listen to you. You must make your daughter marry her rapist or stone her if she's already married. You should kill someone for swearing at their father or mother. Kill gays, kill people who have committed adultery, kill the priests daughter if she has sex, burn a girl if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night, the condolence of slavery. It's all in there.

Most churches tell you you shouldn't take the bible literally? Did they also tell you that it says to pray by yourself and that praying in public is wrong. For example, a church?

Hypocritical, all of it.

Originally Posted by Pixel

IMO, it really depends on what section. Some of the stuff is dated yes, but other parts can be directly applied today and still be provocative and meaningful; while still taking it literally.

It disturbs me how people need to read a book to be good people.

Originally Posted by Death Penalty

Of course. Thou shalt not kill should be taken very literally.

God created the earth in seven days should not.

Yes it should. It's what it says, believe it or you're not following the religion...It's like following an instruction manual and disregarding every other page.

Originally Posted by Pixel

Well, that part they do.

I can't think of an example right off the top of my head. But you know, things that would not cripple the religious belief but if you take it literally it is pretty much insane?

It's a fine line to be sure.

If you can believe in an almighty creator without evidence then you must be a little bit insane in the first place imo. If I were to believe there was an invisible omnipotent God, then believing he created a world in 7 days is hardly a big stretch now is it....Think about it....

[Hynad]

Christians, by definition, follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ's teachings are in the New Testament. The Old Testament is basically useless if you're a Christians. And it's the old Testament that all of which you stated is taken from.

I do agree with you though, that one needn't read a book to know how to be a good person.

[Eighty88Eight]

One can read a book to be a better person, however. An area I have to disagree with you Nagase is that Christian theology is essentially correct, and it assumes the ignoble savagery of man, his imperfect nature in other words; Original Sin, as it's called. So I don't know if it can be described as a contradiction for a man of faith(or even deep faith) to live an imperfect Christian life. Externalizing evil through strict personal impositions while acknowledging ones imperfection(not as an excuse for your failings, but as a deterrent of your inclinations) seems to me what a Christian and/or democratic citizen would strive for.

[Nagadick]

Originally Posted by Hynad

Christians, by definition, follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ's teachings are in the New Testament. The Old Testament is basically useless if you're a Christians. And it's the old Testament that all of which you stated is taken from.

I do agree with you though, that one needn't read a book to know how to be a good person.

The new testament is even more of a farce the the Old. How can "the perfect word of God" which I've heard it being called so many times, be edited? How can certain bits of this perfect book be left out, and some bits added in. The very idea of it is hypocritical yet alone following it. I mean ffs, variatons of the religion are only different because they couldn't decide what book should and shouldn't be put into the Old Testament so they split away from each other.
I think if most people knew the bible was written by the minds of men, we'd see a huge drop in followers, I really do.

One can read a book to be a better person, however. An area I have to disagree with you Nagase is that Christian theology is essentially correct, and it assumes the ignoble savagery of man, his imperfect nature in other words; Original Sin, as it's called. So I don't know if it can be described as a contradiction for a man of faith(or even deep faith) to live an imperfect Christian life. Externalizing evil through strict personal impositions while acknowledging ones imperfection(not as an excuse for your failings, but as a deterrent of your inclinations) seems to me what a Christian and/or democratic citizen would strive for.

I never said it was a contradiction for a religious man to sin here or there. That's just being human. But they should follow each of the teachings and rules everyday instead of picking the ones they do and don't like. That is the bit I find hypocritical, not the fact that a religious person may sin now and then.

So, in short, imo, a religious person can sin. That is what it is be to human.
What a religious person shouldn't do, is pick what they do and don't follow from the book.

[Eighty88Eight]

I'm in agreement then

I've seen the hypocrisy you refer to up close and personal in the drug abusing, greedy, swindling, devout Catholic nutcase that was my last girlfriend.

[Nagadick]

Originally Posted by Eighty88Eight

I'm in agreement then

We....we agree....? I don't like this one bit. Somethings wrong 88 . It's a trick.

[Aquaman]

Originally Posted by Nagase

I never said it was a contradiction for a religious man to sin here or there. That's just being human. But they should follow each of the teachings and rules everyday instead of picking the ones they do and don't like. That is the bit I find hypocritical, not the fact that a religious person may sin now and then.

So, in short, imo, a religious person can sin. That is what it is be to human.
What a religious person shouldn't do, is pick what they do and don't follow from the book.

This. I now have much more respect for you Luc.

This is odd.

[Nagadick]

Oh mai

[Death Penalty]

Originally Posted by Nagase

The new testament is even more of a farce the the Old. How can "the perfect word of God" which I've heard it being called so many times, be edited? How can certain bits of this perfect book be left out, and some bits added in. The very idea of it is hypocritical yet alone following it. I mean ffs, variatons of the religion are only different because they couldn't decide what book should and shouldn't be put into the Old Testament so they split away from each other.
I think if most people knew the bible was written by the minds of men, we'd see a huge drop in followers, I really do.

I'm not so sure. All Christians I know are aware that the bible was written by men, not god. Also, I find it strange that you find it strange that they would edit their scripture, which is something I find to be a step in the right direction. Theism, like science, should and must change with the times and the discoveries that they bring. It seems like a natural step to make religion more compatible with a more modern world, and I'd like to see more of it.

After all, at one point, the scientific community of the time was more or less certain that the sun revolved around the earth.

[Nagadick]

Originally Posted by Death Penalty

I'm not so sure. All Christians I know are aware that the bible was written by men, not god. Also, I find it strange that you find it strange that they would edit their scripture, which is something I find to be a step in the right direction. Theism, like science, should and must change with the times and the discoveries that they bring. It seems like a natural step to make religion more compatible with a more modern world, and I'd like to see more of it.

After all, at one point, the scientific community of the time was more or less certain that the sun revolved around the earth.

While I agree that science did think of some heavy class bullshit back in the olden days, I gotta say it's the whole purpose of science to update it's theories. Science doesn't strive to make everyone believe it. They find a question, find evidence to support a theory and change it continuously until a fact is created.

A religious book like the bible however I don't think should be updated. The reason being is it's supposed to be the perfect word of God. Well if the words were so perfect, why or how could we possibly change them? To me, the only real bible is the original, first written Hebrew bible. Include the Dead Sea Scrolls in that one if you want. to me any rewrite or "modernisation" of a holy book is nothing but a dangerous and hypocritical task set out by men with too much power and blind followers. Islam has a shit load of bad parts but at least they stick to their one religion instead of changing it to suit them like Christianity and the other branches of it have done.

As for my view on Christianity taking a nose dive if people found out it was written by men, you gotta notice I said minds when I said it. As in, they didn't hear any holy voice telling them what to write. Just my take anyway. I think people put far too much faith into that book, especially considering it is just the word of men. And men of very few morals at that.

[Death Penalty]

Mm, I'll agree to disagree about changing religion.

[Hynad]

You got it all wrong about the Bible. The Bible isn't supposed to be the perfect words of God, but an interpretation of those words. No one is fool enough to think God wrote the Bible him(it?)self. Men wrote the bible while being inspired by God. Since they're nothing but interpretations of "God's words", they can be corrected and perfected.

In any case, the core of the Christian religions' teachings has been the same for 2000 years.

[Death Penalty]

Originally Posted by Hynad

You got it all wrong about the Bible. The Bible isn't supposed to be the perfect words of God, but an interpretation of those words. No one is fool enough to think God wrote the Bible him(it?)self. Men wrote the bible while being inspired by God. As such, through time, the interpretation of "God's words" can be corrected and perfected.

Weeeeell. Yeah, some are. But not most, thankfully.

[Nagadick]

Originally Posted by Hynad

You got it all wrong about the Bible. The Bible isn't supposed to be the perfect words of God, but an interpretation of those words. No one is fool enough to think God wrote the Bible him(it?)self. Men wrote the bible while being inspired by God. As such, through time, the interpretation of "God's words" can be corrected and perfected.

Doesn't that sound like the perfect way to exploit a religion? Correcting and editing an interpretation?

Every vicar I've heard when I went to my holy as fuck first school always said it was God's words in their purest form blah blah. Even when my dickwad godchildren or whatever they are to me, got christened (Yes I know it was wrong of me being an atheist but I felt guilty saying no),the vicar there was going on about it being the word of God. Either way, both are way to exploitable to be written and rewritten by men. Especially when things can be added in and left out like a remake of a movie. The original text is the religion and that should not be changed. How holy can a book really be when it gets sequels, remakes and the equivalent of a directors cut?

[Death Penalty]

Originally Posted by Nagase

Doesn't that sound like the perfect way to exploit a religion? Correcting and editing an interpretation?

Every vicar I've heard when I went to my holy as fuck first school always said it was God's words in their purest form blah blah. Even when my dickwad godchildren or whatever they are to me, got christened (Yes I know it was wrong of me being an atheist but I felt guilty saying no),the vicar there was going on about it being the word of God. Either way, both are way to exploitable to be written and rewritten by men. Especially when things can be added in and left out like a remake of a movie. The original text is the religion and that should not be changed. How holy can a book really be when it gets sequels, remakes and the equivalent of a directors cut?

But it was written by men, and not directly dictated by god. Like I said, most Christians seem to understand this quite well. And it was written by man at a time when man had a much narrower understanding of the universe around him. As it was said, the Bible is an interpretation of what God wants for us, not his direct unimpeachable word. Therefore, it seems only natural to me that as times change and knowledge changes, so too should spiritual beliefs. Religion is going to be exploitative no matter what its nature when put in the wrong hands. I can only see incorporating modern beliefs to be a good thing.

[Hynad]

With the advent of technology and the discoveries made every few years, the people "editing" the bible get the chance to correct some passages to stay as close as possible to the original meaning (consider that not everything was written in Hebrew, some passages are Greek, others in Aramaic.). There is also some editing done when it comes to which book should be or not included as canonical. But that is up to the different religious branches to decide. The New Testament isn't part of the Torah (or the original Bible). And it's mostly Christians who edit the book these days. Most likely because, obviously, the moral teachings of the "old days" surely clash with Jesus Christ's.

So basically, what you're saying is that Christians shouldn't believe in Jesus Christ because he wasn't in the original Holy Book... ¬_¬

[SirBaron]

When I woke up today, I found out someone surgically removed my funnybone.

IT WAS YOU! YOU BASTARDS! WHY WOULD YOU DO SUCH A THING? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?

[StudioMagi]

By god, he's going to eat us!!!

[E-Motion]

I had tolerance for this guy when he said he had intolerance for racism, sexism etc.... but when he said he had an intolerance for homophobia. My tolerance for his homosexual arse flew right out the window.