Forget the church, follow the man
- Thread starter Grumpy
- Start date
You have no evidence to base this opinion on, so once again you are spewing absolute nonsense.
Ah, so I was right, and this was just one more assertion that you can't support. You've probably never even read Lewis.
One of the many problems with the above paragraph is the fact that we cannot learn morality from a source whose rationale differs from our own. There is no value to the lesson if we do not learn why we should behave a certain way, or abstain from a certain behavior.
Another is this idea that examples of morality in antiquity count as "evidence," and that this evidence somehow matters. The implication is that without it, we would have no morals, which is of course an absurd statement that no one in their right mind would believe. Of it's many flaws, one such is that it assumes our morality is derived from religion, which we have demonstrated from this very thread it is not.
This feeble idea that disregarding Jesus' teachings (which as you've even admitted do not jibe with our own moral values) is somehow wrong because it means "disregarding evidence" is just softheaded nonsense.
I have very clearly explained my position. Your ad hominem efforts are in vain. It is interesting that you've been reduced to this now that your arguments have failed, but I suppose after viewing your other threads, it isn't surprising. Often when your points have been defeated, you resort to mudslinging in hopes of distracting from that fact.
I guess if you had even a basic understanding of morality, you would understand that such lessons have no value when they do not teach the "Why" as well as the "What." To disregard scripture as a source of morality for this reason (among others) is what most people do if they have even a cursory understanding of it and of history. They know that there are better sources.
If you want to follow the Jefferson Bible, have at it. But do not presume to tell us that this in any way represents the "real" Jesus, because it most certainly does not.
And yet when presented with sound, logical reasons to "throw the pearls back into the pigsty" you shrink away and cling mindlessly to your Christ. You have no interest in hearing why your ridiculous assertions about Jesus are wrong; you've long since made up your mind. Your rigidity on this matter could be called religious.
Oh, right, because you simply pretend that Jesus did not say any of those bad things, that those bad things were added to it, even though you have no evidence to support this absurd claim.
JDawg
IOW You don't understand it so you just spew about it. I need not justify what I think is moral to you by your standards. I accept what I accept according to my judgement. That my judgement parallels that of Jefferson is a pretty good indication I am on the right side of the question.
Being absolutely wrong seems to be a habit, work on that. And I've wasted as much time as I am going to on the idiocy of Lewis, having wasted all of the time spent reading his drivel.
Pure male bovine excrement. Even Sun Tzu says to know your enemy better than he knows himself. Even Lenin and Marx have things to teach the thoughtful man. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" has the same basic message as "Treat others as you would be treated"(the Golden Rule), which has the same message as "As ye have done to the least of these...". One is Socialist, one is secular, one is Jesus, yet they all have the same lesson to teach.
And how do you learn the reasons why if you reject all evidence of moral thought out of hand? You can't learn anything by dismissing all the evidence without reasoned consideration.
But that is absolutely true. You didn't invent morality on your own. The moral views of earlier generations does inform the moral views we have today, hopefully with our own improvements.
Our morality is, to one extent or another, informed by the moral views that preceeded them, religious or not. You have demonstrated only your irrational hatred of religion, a stance no better than a religion besotted fundy in that regard.
No moral teachings are perfect, they all contain both good ideas and bad. Applying our intellect allows us to differentiate between them. Jesus had much good to say and many of our modern morals agree with what he has said, some don't. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the sick are all moral values straight from Jesus's words(as well as elsewhere). These are some things of value that Jesus taught. And dismissing the value of these teachings is softheaded non-sense.
All you have clearly shown is your thoughtless dismissal of the value of Jesus's teachings, not recognizing the pearls you trample underfoot because of your hatred of mud.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle,pot. You have shown nothing but your bigotry regarding Jesus's philosophy. You are no more rational than any theist who's brain is poisoned by religion. You've made a religion of your hatred of religion.
Jefferson thought it did, and you wouldn't make a pimple on his butt when it comes to rational thought. I agree with the rational position Jefferson had, though I arrived at much the same position before I even heard of the Jefferson Bible.
You've presented no reason to throw pearls of wisdom back before the swine. Sounds idiotic to throw something of value away because of hatred of the mud. And it is not I who clings mindlessly to irrational positions, I find your mindless bigotry the opposite of reason.
As I have said several times now, it does not matter if he actually said them, not everything any moral teacher says is true. You must use your intellect to filter everything you read. This is really, really simple, why can you not understand what I have actually said and quit lying about it? Oh, right, you have no response to what I actually said and must construct a strawman to argue against. Are you a reverse Poe?
Poe's Law states:
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.
Your fundamentalism is atheism, but Poe's law still describes your position well.
But they are not wrong, just ask Jefferson. He's a much more thoughtful and rational man than you are.(yes, I know he's long dead, but his opinions on the matter are in his writtings).
Why, because I don't subscribe to your atheistic fundamentalism? Nobody is forcing you to post on this thread.
Grumpy
IOW You don't understand it so you just spew about it. I need not justify what I think is moral to you by your standards. I accept what I accept according to my judgement. That my judgement parallels that of Jefferson is a pretty good indication I am on the right side of the question.
Being absolutely wrong seems to be a habit, work on that. And I've wasted as much time as I am going to on the idiocy of Lewis, having wasted all of the time spent reading his drivel.
Pure male bovine excrement. Even Sun Tzu says to know your enemy better than he knows himself. Even Lenin and Marx have things to teach the thoughtful man. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" has the same basic message as "Treat others as you would be treated"(the Golden Rule), which has the same message as "As ye have done to the least of these...". One is Socialist, one is secular, one is Jesus, yet they all have the same lesson to teach.
And how do you learn the reasons why if you reject all evidence of moral thought out of hand? You can't learn anything by dismissing all the evidence without reasoned consideration.
But that is absolutely true. You didn't invent morality on your own. The moral views of earlier generations does inform the moral views we have today, hopefully with our own improvements.
Our morality is, to one extent or another, informed by the moral views that preceeded them, religious or not. You have demonstrated only your irrational hatred of religion, a stance no better than a religion besotted fundy in that regard.
No moral teachings are perfect, they all contain both good ideas and bad. Applying our intellect allows us to differentiate between them. Jesus had much good to say and many of our modern morals agree with what he has said, some don't. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the sick are all moral values straight from Jesus's words(as well as elsewhere). These are some things of value that Jesus taught. And dismissing the value of these teachings is softheaded non-sense.
All you have clearly shown is your thoughtless dismissal of the value of Jesus's teachings, not recognizing the pearls you trample underfoot because of your hatred of mud.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle,pot. You have shown nothing but your bigotry regarding Jesus's philosophy. You are no more rational than any theist who's brain is poisoned by religion. You've made a religion of your hatred of religion.
Jefferson thought it did, and you wouldn't make a pimple on his butt when it comes to rational thought. I agree with the rational position Jefferson had, though I arrived at much the same position before I even heard of the Jefferson Bible.
You've presented no reason to throw pearls of wisdom back before the swine. Sounds idiotic to throw something of value away because of hatred of the mud. And it is not I who clings mindlessly to irrational positions, I find your mindless bigotry the opposite of reason.
As I have said several times now, it does not matter if he actually said them, not everything any moral teacher says is true. You must use your intellect to filter everything you read. This is really, really simple, why can you not understand what I have actually said and quit lying about it? Oh, right, you have no response to what I actually said and must construct a strawman to argue against. Are you a reverse Poe?
Poe's Law states:
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.
Your fundamentalism is atheism, but Poe's law still describes your position well.
But they are not wrong, just ask Jefferson. He's a much more thoughtful and rational man than you are.(yes, I know he's long dead, but his opinions on the matter are in his writtings).
Why, because I don't subscribe to your atheistic fundamentalism? Nobody is forcing you to post on this thread.
Grumpy
gmilam
Exactly! I do not buy everything that Jesus is said to have said in the Gospels as being either what he said or as being wise EVEN IF HE DID SAY IT. But the core of his philosophy is as you describe it. And cherry picking is exactly what you should do for any moral teacher, as not everything they say can be considered wise either. I go the extra step in that I do not believe any god exists at all, despite what Jesus himself believed. And yet, even with all of that, there is still wisdom to be found in his words, wisdom that when combined with wisdom from other moral teachers can be used to build a moral system of your own.
"Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion."
"Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good."
~ The Buddha
Grumpy
Exactly! I do not buy everything that Jesus is said to have said in the Gospels as being either what he said or as being wise EVEN IF HE DID SAY IT. But the core of his philosophy is as you describe it. And cherry picking is exactly what you should do for any moral teacher, as not everything they say can be considered wise either. I go the extra step in that I do not believe any god exists at all, despite what Jesus himself believed. And yet, even with all of that, there is still wisdom to be found in his words, wisdom that when combined with wisdom from other moral teachers can be used to build a moral system of your own.
"Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion."
"Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good."
~ The Buddha
Grumpy
Of course you do. This is a discussion about morals, and you made a factual claim about CS Lewis' opinion of Jesus' lack of morality. Either you defend it or you retract it.
I will accept this subterfuge as your retraction.
Non-sequitur. Despite your efforts to deify him, he was fallible. And the crux of the matter is that he simply edited the scripture to his own personal preference. There was nothing scientific about his efforts, so invoking his intellect doesn't help you here.
Weren't you crying a moment ago about personal attacks?
Supposedly, though your inability to support your assertion that his view is wrong implies otherwise.
For one, these things are not all the same. Taken completely out of context, they are similar, but they all actually speak to larger messages which may or may not be so moral. The Christian version, for example, is part of a larger message of submission, capitulation, and is not at all a moral message. Neither is the Socialist example, when considering that it speaks to a larger, utopian ideal, and the dangers such idealism have wrought.
Without proper context, these words are devoid of value, and in some cases quite dangerous because of the larger messages they promote. So again we come to the question of why you would bother with such devices when you do not need to? It's like eating Fugu fish; sure, they're tasty, but is it really worth the risk of poisoning yourself?
What the shit is that even supposed to mean? I have said from the outset that society could not have existed without morality, and that moral codes must have existed from the dawn of civilization. This would constitute what you so clunkily deem "moral thought," no?
And I have not dismissed anything out of hand. That is simply a mischaracterization of my position. I have repeatedly explained the reasons to you. It is quite telling that your argument rests on such blatant straw men.
Nonsense. Morality is innate, and is reliant upon education. I mean, you say yourself that the moral lessons you've quoted here are not exclusive to their philosophies; where do you think they came from? Thin air? These basic lessons are prerequisites for civilization to exist, and are as old as civilization itself.
This simply is not true. Indeed, it is demonstrably false. If our moral values were influenced by the views that preceded them, by what means would we correct them? Obviously these values must come from elsewhere.
What you seemingly fail to grasp is that it was society which influenced him, not the other way around. These ideas have been around as long as civilization itself, and today exist entirely independent of the rest of the nonsense he taught. Referring back to Jesus for these lessons is to reference an antiquated and obsolete philosophy.
Again, I'm sure you'll again call back to your fallacious "there is no such thing as too much evidence" argument, but that is of no consequence as it has already been debunked.
This is worthless ad hom, intended to distract from the fact that you've lost this debate.
Bigotry now? Another word you clearly don't understand. Certainly you're aware of the free online dictionaries, no? Perhaps you should start using them. It would prevent such embarrassments in the future.
Yet you can't demonstrate even one rational thought he put into his bible.
Nonsensical statement, as usual from Grumpy.
Of course they are wrong. And I have explained why. All you have done is say "Jefferson didn't agree with you." Well, since my opinion is rooted in logic, and his was rooted in a desire to edit Christianity to look a certain way, I would say my opinion is more valid.
Here you'll again say that Jefferson is effectively infallible, which is yet another example of your deification of the man. Where a Christian has "Because Jesus said so," you have "Because Jefferson said so," and neither answer is valid.
Atheistic fundamentalism? That old chestnut again? Another one of those ideas that has been debunked again and again, apparently unbeknownst to you.
If you read the teachings of Jesus objectively, without religious nor anti-religious bias, all of it forms a fairly complete picture. He taught that all men could relate to the perspective of a god whereby we could see and treat our fellow man as a good father does his children. You can see how he corrected his followers whenever they put him on a pedestal and how he, very humanly, eventually succumbed to his own myth.
A very consistent life story to illustrate what every man is potentially capable of achieving.
A very consistent life story to illustrate what every man is potentially capable of achieving.
That is not an accurate portrait of Jesus, though. In order to reduce him to this, one must remove all of the instances in which he affirmed his status, as well as all the justification for his professed values. Without divinity, Jesus is nothing.
Don't read too well, huh?
Syne said:
Hint, his myth was his status, which he affirmed in a more and more unqualified fashion throughout his ministry.
I read well enough. Perhaps the issue is how poorly you write.
Speaking of unqualified fashion...
How about you expand on this, chief? Or is your vagueness meant to hide your ignorance of the issue?
It's called a dictionary, use it.
It is clear that throughout his ministry Jesus slowly began to accept the special status his followers constantly hung on him. When ask, he initially replied with "does not your law say, 'ye are gods'" and "you are all children of the most high". Only later did he start to respond with "believe in me". It is debatable whether he actually started to believe his own myth or whether he realized that those were the only terms in which his followers were capable of accepting what he taught.
Without divinity, he's just a very naughty boy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA&feature=fvwrel
I answered. Your belief in the Word of God or otherwise is irrelevant to the discourse. What’s the point of even stating you disbelieve the Bible? Is that a legitimate response to my answer? No.
Most people on this board do not believe the Bible. So you where always going to reject what I say, ok. So why ask the Question????
I do not blindly believe anything. I believe God and trust in His word not by blind faith but by agreeing with it and Faith combined.
I never sold my daughter.
Then you create your own smorgasbord religion based on what??? You own fallible human judgement. Why does anyone need any book if they reject all guidance that does not suit their measure? You declare yourself your own god. But you’re fallible and therefore your doomed as a god. You are set up for failure. Guaranteed.
It’s called the Holy Spirit, giving one understanding of what the Bible Message is saying. That’s how it works. To be influenced by the Holy Spirit one must believe in God. But to have the Holy Spirit one must Believe Jesus.
If one ignores the Bible one will not be following Jesus. Because the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus and God are One.
You where not talking of buying anything. My reply was that one must first be a Christian As in Believer to strive to be a better Christian as in doing good and resisting evil. And that God is the only one who is good. We can do better Person but we shall never be a good Person.
One has to believe Jesus and trust in His atonement for their sins to have an Eternal benefit from following Jesus. Jesus is not interested in fence sitting luke warm followers who pick and choose what to believe and what not reject of His Word. Many have been spewed out of His faith because they would not accept His teachings.
I am not in the catholic church. Actually I am not a member of any Denomination. I agree with you about the catholic church. But as for “fundy church” I know of no such denomination, your terminology is too rough for a definite comment from me.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
JDawg
So your reading comprehension is basically zero. That explains a lot about the nonsense you post.
C. S. Lewis is a shill for belief, I reject what he thinks, as would any real atheist. If you accept what C.S. Lewis says you are a theist. Which also explains a lot of what you post. I stand by what I have said about him. He is not worth wasting time on any more than Pat Robertson is(other than to point and laugh, that is).
"he simply edited the scripture to his own personal preference."
Yes, that is exactly the point of this whole thread. EVERYONE should edit the moral thoughts to their own personal preferences according to their own view of morality. And we are talking morals, not science, but our intellect does tell us that the supernatural claims are non-sense, so <chop>. And our intellect does show us the difference between moral thought and statements meant to promote the church's power and control, so <chop>. And again your reading comprehension is shown to be zero, I have deified no one and have pointed out repeatedly the falability of every moral teacher. Another strawman, farmers must love having you around, what with the barnyard fertilizer you spread around and the steady supply of preconstructed scarecrows.
I don't cry about it, I give back in equal measure.(Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot)
All the messages are about treating others as you want to be treated. And ALL moral teachings are about ideals. And ALL moral teachers have good things to say, as well as flaws in their ideology. This thread is largely about the flaws of the religion(whatever form, even atheistic fundamentalism)and following the good things and discarding the bad, using your own moral compass to guide you in discerning the difference.
If you reject all because they are flawed you will know nothing, all are flawed. If you only reject Jesus's words because the religion built around him is evil, you are just bigoted, not thoughtful.
You would not want to live in most societies that existed prior to Jesus, for a taste of what I mean just look at the Old Testament. In such societies morals consisted largely of "I am the boss, you do as I say."(thus the Ten Commandments, not the ten moral principles). In the OT case it was god who was boss(or rather those who said they spoke for god). Jesus started one line of moral thought that led away from that. He didn't get it all right(he was a product of his civilization)and the church usurped his message to impose it's own will and power, but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus taught a change in the paradigm from authoritarianism to interpersonal, mutual respect and care. Buddha did much the same on a different line of moral thought. Lenin tried to do the same thing only to have totalitarianism usurp his words. Much of the evil the church was responsible for can be seen as the suppression of Jesus's words and precepts, asserting the church's authority instead. The Roman persecution of all Christians was because they threatened it's power over the people's minds. When the church and Rome combined their powers they asserted that power over human civilizations for centuries, making sure that the laity could not even read what Jesus said lest they see the falsity of the church doctrine and dogma(they used a secret language, Latin, that the uneducated masses could not read).
Yes, you have, in nearly every post. You have excuses for doing so but they are crap.
Education from what? You seem to reject everything as having any values to learn. And for most of human history morals consisted of obeying those in position of power over you, from the husband in the cases of the wife and children, to the chief or shaman in the case of the tribe, from the warlord in the case of countries. Might makes right was the whole of moral precepts. A pecking order of beatings little different from wolves, passed down the generations, taught by example. Morality is taught, it is learned, it is not innate.
Moral teachers are revered because they advanced our moral thought with new ideas(not perfection, just advances). We don't revere people who simply followed the moral thought that already exists. Our morals are a result of our intellect, the morals that are innate are those no different from a pack of wolves.
The whole of science says you are wrong, again. You don't debunk anything, you just spew witless rage against things you dissagree with. You should try reasoning with evidence it works pretty well in science and with moral thought.
Premature ejaculation is more than just a sexual problem, it seems.
big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
Yep, bigotry describes your attitude EXACTLY. Who's embarrassed now?
"29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is
my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from
Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped
him of his raiment, and beat him, and departed, leaving him
half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way:
and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and
looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was:
and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil
and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to
an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow, he took out two denarii, and gave them
to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever
thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay
thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto
him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus
unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."
Rational moral thought straight from the Jefferson Bible. There is much dross in that source, but there are also pearls of wisdom.
My statement makes perfect sense, for it is true that no moral teacher is perfect, much of what every moral teacher says is wrong and you must use your own judgement to seperate the true from the false. You cannot rationally disagree with this statement. Once again your emotions rule your intellect.
You seem to be a minority of one in your opinion of your own logic.
Again, you must create a strawman, I have never claimed that Jefferson was infallible, no one is infallible. He's just more thoughtful than you are. I would have edited much more out of what Jesus was said to have said. My "Bible" would fit on a single page and contain no references to god at all. But it is really hard to argue that the lessons taught by the parable of the Good Samaritan is not logical morality, isn't it?
Kind of hard to know something when such debunkings have not been posted in this thread. You behave as an atheistic fundamentalist, your bigotry vis a vis Jesus is plain to see and none of it is rational. We can only know you by what you post, and that is what your posts show us.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Wisdom.
Grumpy
So your reading comprehension is basically zero. That explains a lot about the nonsense you post.
C. S. Lewis is a shill for belief, I reject what he thinks, as would any real atheist. If you accept what C.S. Lewis says you are a theist. Which also explains a lot of what you post. I stand by what I have said about him. He is not worth wasting time on any more than Pat Robertson is(other than to point and laugh, that is).
"he simply edited the scripture to his own personal preference."
Yes, that is exactly the point of this whole thread. EVERYONE should edit the moral thoughts to their own personal preferences according to their own view of morality. And we are talking morals, not science, but our intellect does tell us that the supernatural claims are non-sense, so <chop>. And our intellect does show us the difference between moral thought and statements meant to promote the church's power and control, so <chop>. And again your reading comprehension is shown to be zero, I have deified no one and have pointed out repeatedly the falability of every moral teacher. Another strawman, farmers must love having you around, what with the barnyard fertilizer you spread around and the steady supply of preconstructed scarecrows.
I don't cry about it, I give back in equal measure.(Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot)
All the messages are about treating others as you want to be treated. And ALL moral teachings are about ideals. And ALL moral teachers have good things to say, as well as flaws in their ideology. This thread is largely about the flaws of the religion(whatever form, even atheistic fundamentalism)and following the good things and discarding the bad, using your own moral compass to guide you in discerning the difference.
If you reject all because they are flawed you will know nothing, all are flawed. If you only reject Jesus's words because the religion built around him is evil, you are just bigoted, not thoughtful.
You would not want to live in most societies that existed prior to Jesus, for a taste of what I mean just look at the Old Testament. In such societies morals consisted largely of "I am the boss, you do as I say."(thus the Ten Commandments, not the ten moral principles). In the OT case it was god who was boss(or rather those who said they spoke for god). Jesus started one line of moral thought that led away from that. He didn't get it all right(he was a product of his civilization)and the church usurped his message to impose it's own will and power, but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus taught a change in the paradigm from authoritarianism to interpersonal, mutual respect and care. Buddha did much the same on a different line of moral thought. Lenin tried to do the same thing only to have totalitarianism usurp his words. Much of the evil the church was responsible for can be seen as the suppression of Jesus's words and precepts, asserting the church's authority instead. The Roman persecution of all Christians was because they threatened it's power over the people's minds. When the church and Rome combined their powers they asserted that power over human civilizations for centuries, making sure that the laity could not even read what Jesus said lest they see the falsity of the church doctrine and dogma(they used a secret language, Latin, that the uneducated masses could not read).
Yes, you have, in nearly every post. You have excuses for doing so but they are crap.
Education from what? You seem to reject everything as having any values to learn. And for most of human history morals consisted of obeying those in position of power over you, from the husband in the cases of the wife and children, to the chief or shaman in the case of the tribe, from the warlord in the case of countries. Might makes right was the whole of moral precepts. A pecking order of beatings little different from wolves, passed down the generations, taught by example. Morality is taught, it is learned, it is not innate.
Moral teachers are revered because they advanced our moral thought with new ideas(not perfection, just advances). We don't revere people who simply followed the moral thought that already exists. Our morals are a result of our intellect, the morals that are innate are those no different from a pack of wolves.
The whole of science says you are wrong, again. You don't debunk anything, you just spew witless rage against things you dissagree with. You should try reasoning with evidence it works pretty well in science and with moral thought.
Premature ejaculation is more than just a sexual problem, it seems.
big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
Yep, bigotry describes your attitude EXACTLY. Who's embarrassed now?
"29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is
my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from
Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped
him of his raiment, and beat him, and departed, leaving him
half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way:
and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and
looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was:
and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil
and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to
an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow, he took out two denarii, and gave them
to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever
thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay
thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto
him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus
unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."
Rational moral thought straight from the Jefferson Bible. There is much dross in that source, but there are also pearls of wisdom.
My statement makes perfect sense, for it is true that no moral teacher is perfect, much of what every moral teacher says is wrong and you must use your own judgement to seperate the true from the false. You cannot rationally disagree with this statement. Once again your emotions rule your intellect.
You seem to be a minority of one in your opinion of your own logic.
Again, you must create a strawman, I have never claimed that Jefferson was infallible, no one is infallible. He's just more thoughtful than you are. I would have edited much more out of what Jesus was said to have said. My "Bible" would fit on a single page and contain no references to god at all. But it is really hard to argue that the lessons taught by the parable of the Good Samaritan is not logical morality, isn't it?
Kind of hard to know something when such debunkings have not been posted in this thread. You behave as an atheistic fundamentalist, your bigotry vis a vis Jesus is plain to see and none of it is rational. We can only know you by what you post, and that is what your posts show us.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Wisdom.
Grumpy
Adstar
It is not a religion. I read many different sources of moral thought and use my intellect to seperate the gems of reason from the dross of religion.
Yes, aided(informed)by the gems of reason found in many sources. It is the best anyone has, fallible as it may be. Our reason is all that distinguishes us from animals.
Why would anyone believe everything in any book written by fallible men? I don't reject all guidance, just that guidance that leads to irrational conclusions.
There are probably no gods, I certainly don't qualify.
As are we all.
I call that religious, superstitious non-sense.
Also, more religious non-sense.
Your opinion is noted. I do not agree.
There is probably no Eternal anything. But one can get some benefit from Jesus's words without any belief in gods.
Jesus is not interested in anything, he's been dead over 2000 years. And I could care less who the religion thinks is worthy.
Fundamentalist churches preach a strict literal interpretation of scripture, similar to the one you seem to espouse. I don't buy it at all.
Grumpy
It is not a religion. I read many different sources of moral thought and use my intellect to seperate the gems of reason from the dross of religion.
Yes, aided(informed)by the gems of reason found in many sources. It is the best anyone has, fallible as it may be. Our reason is all that distinguishes us from animals.
Why would anyone believe everything in any book written by fallible men? I don't reject all guidance, just that guidance that leads to irrational conclusions.
There are probably no gods, I certainly don't qualify.
As are we all.
I call that religious, superstitious non-sense.
Also, more religious non-sense.
Your opinion is noted. I do not agree.
There is probably no Eternal anything. But one can get some benefit from Jesus's words without any belief in gods.
Jesus is not interested in anything, he's been dead over 2000 years. And I could care less who the religion thinks is worthy.
Fundamentalist churches preach a strict literal interpretation of scripture, similar to the one you seem to espouse. I don't buy it at all.
Grumpy
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Many theologically-liberal Christians believe that while the Bible might be inspired by God in some sense, it was written by human beings, recording their reactions in terms of their concepts and understandings at the time and in the context of their historical situation.
These kind of Bible scholars perceive growth and change in the kind of religious concepts that the Bible contains, beginning with a picture of a crude and rather barbaric Semitic tribal god in the oldest parts, and ending on a much higher moral note. Some of them might interpret that development as evidence of God's own hand, kind of pushing the people's thinking in a desired direction, you might say.
Christians (and Jews even more so) pretty much have to perform some careful picking-and-choosing, unless they want to murder their own daughters for having pre-marital sex or kill anyone who leaves their faith. (Those things are part of the law that God was said to have revealed.) Part of what's causing traditionalist Islam's violent collision with the modern globalizing world is that many Muslims still take the early ideas very seriously and still try to practice them.
No, I don't think so.
I don't know exactly how secular they are, but there are parallels to many of Jesus' more general moral and 'spiritual' teachings in other traditions. The 'golden rule', for example, is just an expression of the principle of reciprocity, of fairness, which is found in all cultures. Both Confucius and the Buddha produced very similar formulations centuries before Jesus.
You can probably find many people out there who identify as 'Christians' but whose actual metaphysical beliefs aren't really unlike the views of many self-styled atheists. (Episcopal churches are filled with people like that.) They believe that the Bible is their own culture's religious myth, but they don't take every word of it literally as factual truth. Their ultimate idea of God might be something like 'a Higher Power', and some of them might not even think of it in a personal way.
The biggest difference between these kind of people and atheists is that they still adhere to their 'Christian' identification for social and cultural reasons. And perhaps most importantly, they don't share atheists' trademark anger and emotional hostility towards Christianity. They're still emotionally fond of Christianity, even if they no longer believe all of it in any literal way.
This is the kind of increasingly nominal Christianity that the Christian fundamentalists arose in reaction against, emphasizing the literal truth of the Bible in its entirety and the need to affirm a definitive set of fundamental theological doctrines without which, in their estimation, one can't truly be a Christian.
I find it kind of ironic that the louder sort of atheist often seems to define "true Christianity", its beliefs and its practices, in ways that are pretty much indistinguishable from how the Christian fundamentalists define them.
In a traditional discourse, the person in your position would have long ago conceded that their points were defeated. I'm left with no recourse (aside from endlessly repeating myself) but to walk away.
I don't have to claim victory. It is apparent to anyone reading the exchange that you could not support any of your points--and in the case of the Lewis criticism embarrassingly refusing to support your assertion because of an obvious ignorance of the subject matter--and that mine were sound and logical.
If you want to continue, actually support your points, and concede the ones you've lost. I'm not going to continually point out to you where you're wrong on the same points.