JDawg
This is uncalled for based on anything I have said.
Grumpy
I hope you didn't think that I was talking about your opinion when I wrote that.
What do atheists think that "to know God" means?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
I hope you didn't think that I was talking about your opinion when I wrote that.
I dismiss no evidence and think your dismissal of the wisdom of Jesus's philosophy is throwing the baby out with the bathwater of superstition and mysticism. It is nearly the same thing as many other wise men(who were also not divine)have said. Don't let your justified opposition to superstitious blather blind you to the kernal of truth that the edifice of religion has often been built around. It is truth that you should "do unto others" whether Jesus said it or your kindergarden teacher teaching you the "Golden Rule". And "as ye have done to the least of these" and it's corillary "As ye have not done for the least of these" could well be taken straight from Humanism. Morals are morals no matter who says them, and no matter what is said about them(nor how false those things said about them are). My regard for the philosophy Jesus taught is well informed, I know much of what he is said to have said is invention and I don't buy the supernatural things that are included, they are non-sensical religious showmanship. But as a philosophy it has worth.
Grumpy
I dismiss no evidence and think your dismissal of the wisdom of Jesus's philosophy is throwing the baby out with the bathwater of superstition and mysticism. It is nearly the same thing as many other wise men(who were also not divine)have said. Don't let your justified opposition to superstitious blather blind you to the kernal of truth that the edifice of religion has often been built around. It is truth that you should "do unto others" whether Jesus said it or your kindergarden teacher teaching you the "Golden Rule". And "as ye have done to the least of these" and it's corillary "As ye have not done for the least of these" could well be taken straight from Humanism. Morals are morals no matter who says them, and no matter what is said about them(nor how false those things said about them are). My regard for the philosophy Jesus taught is well informed, I know much of what he is said to have said is invention and I don't buy the supernatural things that are included, they are non-sensical religious showmanship. But as a philosophy it has worth.
Grumpy
The part I have placed bold emphasis on is the most salient point of this post, and is exactly why the wisdom found within some of Jesus' teachings are not worth the awful teachings that are inexorably connected to his religion.
If you can get the same wisdom elsewhere (which also demonstrates that this wisdom was not Jesus's, but rather the amalgamation of previous philosophers, and indeed can be found in other sources independent of Christianity) then why would you bother with his teachings, which come with the kind of baggage Christianity does?
You act as if the good parts are independent of the bad, but that's not the case, and that's why as a philosophy Christianity is worthless, and indeed dangerous.
You can find plenty of disturbing things about Jesus' non-supernatural teachings (attributed to him).
What's so great about distancing yourself from your family and giving away all your possessions?
What's so great about loving your enemies?
What's so great about turning the other cheek?
What's admirable about not planning for tomorrow like the lilies of the field?
What's so great about distancing yourself from your family and giving away all your possessions?
What's so great about loving your enemies?
What's so great about turning the other cheek?
What's admirable about not planning for tomorrow like the lilies of the field?
Exactly. And I don't think Grumpy is trying to say those teachings aren't immoral. Rather, I think he's trying to say that you can take the good without the bad, which I think is untrue. And if, as Grumpy says, you can get these same ideals from other sources, what good is this philosophy which also teaches things we consider immoral?
JDawg
Which is why I don't proselytize for the Christian religion, nor do I acept the dogma they espouse. I'm not a Communist either but I agree with the sentiment "From each according to their abilities, to each according to there need" when it comes to a moral society. That doesn't mean those who have must give everything, nor that those who have not get everything, but it wouldn't hurt our country to have the rich pay higher taxes to help support the country that allowed them the opportunity to become wealthy in the first place and bailed them out which they tanked the system(again). There is good common sense scattered all through the mass of human thoughts, usually burried in huge piles of...crap, deciding what you consider truths and seperating that from the dross should be the goal of every thoughtful human. Taking someone else's word for what is good and bad is religion, saying there can be no value in what thinkers(especially thinkers extraordinary enough it was deemed appropriate to form a religion around)have had to say because of the rickity structure of a religion built around them is short sighted and similar to what theists who ignore everything science says would do. Not everything Jesus is said to have said is profound, not all of it is true, but he is said to have said much that is profound and these nuggets are well worth contemplating. The Greek philosophers also had some profound things to say, plus a lot that was rubbish. Even Mohammed got a few things right. Heck, the man who has said the most profound things is Isaac Asimov(IMHO), he even invented morals for robots!
Grumpy
Which is why I don't proselytize for the Christian religion, nor do I acept the dogma they espouse. I'm not a Communist either but I agree with the sentiment "From each according to their abilities, to each according to there need" when it comes to a moral society. That doesn't mean those who have must give everything, nor that those who have not get everything, but it wouldn't hurt our country to have the rich pay higher taxes to help support the country that allowed them the opportunity to become wealthy in the first place and bailed them out which they tanked the system(again). There is good common sense scattered all through the mass of human thoughts, usually burried in huge piles of...crap, deciding what you consider truths and seperating that from the dross should be the goal of every thoughtful human. Taking someone else's word for what is good and bad is religion, saying there can be no value in what thinkers(especially thinkers extraordinary enough it was deemed appropriate to form a religion around)have had to say because of the rickity structure of a religion built around them is short sighted and similar to what theists who ignore everything science says would do. Not everything Jesus is said to have said is profound, not all of it is true, but he is said to have said much that is profound and these nuggets are well worth contemplating. The Greek philosophers also had some profound things to say, plus a lot that was rubbish. Even Mohammed got a few things right. Heck, the man who has said the most profound things is Isaac Asimov(IMHO), he even invented morals for robots!
Grumpy
spidergoat
This was a command to his disciples, I think it is morally neutral.
It would make war less likely. Along with turning the other cheek it's very Ghandi-like. He freed a nation of 700 million using those tactics. Not an easy thing to do.
Not something I would recommend.
Grumpy
This was a command to his disciples, I think it is morally neutral.
It would make war less likely. Along with turning the other cheek it's very Ghandi-like. He freed a nation of 700 million using those tactics. Not an easy thing to do.
Not something I would recommend.
Grumpy
JDawg
The good parts are independent from the religious non-sense that goes with complete acceptance of that religion. Just like wheat can be seperated from the chaff, the good can be appreciated without accepting the non-sense. If you are looking for a philosophy free from chaff, sorry, I don't think one exists. Some have more, some less, but your going to have to use your brain to seperate the good from the not so good. It isn't so much the Christian philosophy(parts of which I accept as having value)that is the problem I have with Christianity, it's the Christian religion as it is practiced by the people in it that is the problem.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Mahatma Gandhi
My $0.02
Grumpy
The good parts are independent from the religious non-sense that goes with complete acceptance of that religion. Just like wheat can be seperated from the chaff, the good can be appreciated without accepting the non-sense. If you are looking for a philosophy free from chaff, sorry, I don't think one exists. Some have more, some less, but your going to have to use your brain to seperate the good from the not so good. It isn't so much the Christian philosophy(parts of which I accept as having value)that is the problem I have with Christianity, it's the Christian religion as it is practiced by the people in it that is the problem.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Mahatma Gandhi
My $0.02
Grumpy
Yet no lucid individual would argue that Communism is worth preserving for those ideas, nor would they say what you just said about Christianity--"As a philosophy, it has worth."--because they would understand that the negatives both outweigh the positives and are inexorable from the ideology. In other words, you can't only look at the good parts and call it "Christian philosophy."
Straw man. I have no idea what you mean by "the rickety structure of religion," but I certainly do not say there is no value in certain ideas found within. I simply point out that the good ideas are not exclusively religious, therefore we do not need to attribute them to or source them from religion. For example, we would not say that we learned the value of respecting our elders from the Bible, even though such a lesson can be found within. So why would we credit anything to religion when the very same lessons can be and have been found elsewhere?
You wouldn't credit Communism for teaching the value of sharing, would you?
Neither Jesus nor Mohammed introduced anything to the world that we did not already know, and did not already practice. The world informed the doctrines, not the other way around.
So again we're left in the position where we do not need the philosophies you mistakenly attribute these ideas to. And if we do not need them, what purpose do they serve?
But these ideas do not come from religion, so there is no need to separate the wheat from the chaff. You can throw the whole thing out and lose nothing but justification for genocide, infanticide, rape, murder, racism, homophobia, and countless other immoral acts.
It isn't so much the Christian philosophy(parts of which I accept as having value)that is the problem I have with Christianity, it's the Christian religion as it is practiced by the people in it that is the problem.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Mahatma Gandhi
My $0.02
Grumpy
This is a nonsensical statement. The good ideas found within Christianity obviously would not be considered problematic, but this does not therefore mean that the practitioners are the problem. These practitioners find justification for their atrocities in the same book. Just because you don't think the bad ideas have value doesn't mean those bad ideas don't exist.
You seem to have a lot in common with Gandhi, in that neither of you seem to know what it is Jesus actually taught. If you knew anything beyond the "Love thy neighbor" stuff, you'd see a far more sinister character.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
They serve the purpose of lightning rods for conscientious behavior. Since the dawn of history, people have have rallied around leaders (in war and in peace). Humans have a need to know that those around them have similar sensibilities (I won't poach your cows if you don't poach mine).
It is not about the ideas being original, it is about the right message at the right place and time by the right person.
I would argue that what religion teaches does not constitute conscientious behavior. I also disagree that it is required for humans to be moral. Morality is innate. Do you mean to say that humans survived for thousands of years without the knowledge that murder and theft is wrong?
JDawg
Please point out where Jesus promoted any of those things. I do remember specifically saying that I found value in Jesus's philosophy, not in all the idiotic crap to be found in the Old Testament. And I did say I discriminate even within what Jesus was said to have said. If you are so rabidly anti-Christian that you can't tell the difference between the two... It's not about who gets the credit, much of what Jesus said did come from outside sources. The same can be said of Einstein, but we remember him for his coherent integration of what many others said into a cogent whole. Much of our current moral thinking came from Jesus as well as many other sources(including Lenin, Marx, Gandhi and Nietzsche), no matter how badly men have misused their words and ideas, the ideas themselves deserve consideration seperately from their history of misuse. Or should we throw out Evolution just because Darwin's work has been misused by unscrupulous men in the past with Social Darwinism?
Both Gandhi and I have/had a much better understanding of Jesus than anyone who thinks his words and philosophy doesn't have any value or any need to study at all. My education in the Christian texts occupied large portions of my early life(not by choice but by expectation)and I can argue Christian doctrine better than most theists. It is not ignorance of Jesus's words, but intimate knowledge of them that informs my opinion and I think the sinister character you see is non-existent. But so is the son of god character theists see. The truth of the matter is somewhere between those irrational extremes, a view of a falible but moral man who had many profound things to say about how to treat our fellow man.
Grumpy
Please point out where Jesus promoted any of those things. I do remember specifically saying that I found value in Jesus's philosophy, not in all the idiotic crap to be found in the Old Testament. And I did say I discriminate even within what Jesus was said to have said. If you are so rabidly anti-Christian that you can't tell the difference between the two... It's not about who gets the credit, much of what Jesus said did come from outside sources. The same can be said of Einstein, but we remember him for his coherent integration of what many others said into a cogent whole. Much of our current moral thinking came from Jesus as well as many other sources(including Lenin, Marx, Gandhi and Nietzsche), no matter how badly men have misused their words and ideas, the ideas themselves deserve consideration seperately from their history of misuse. Or should we throw out Evolution just because Darwin's work has been misused by unscrupulous men in the past with Social Darwinism?
Both Gandhi and I have/had a much better understanding of Jesus than anyone who thinks his words and philosophy doesn't have any value or any need to study at all. My education in the Christian texts occupied large portions of my early life(not by choice but by expectation)and I can argue Christian doctrine better than most theists. It is not ignorance of Jesus's words, but intimate knowledge of them that informs my opinion and I think the sinister character you see is non-existent. But so is the son of god character theists see. The truth of the matter is somewhere between those irrational extremes, a view of a falible but moral man who had many profound things to say about how to treat our fellow man.
Grumpy
Well, for one, Jesus promoted all of it when he said that he did not come to destroy the laws of old but to fulfill them. It's a popular misconception that Jesus somehow distanced himself from the events of the OT, but this is simply not the case. His philosophy is in addition to his father's, not in lieu of. He embraced all of it, and did some pretty horrendous shit on his own. Here are some examples from the NT:
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[a] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[c]
27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.
23 Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.
8 But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.
43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell,[a] to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[a] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[c]
27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.
23 Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.
8 But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.
43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell,[a] to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
But there is nothing about Jesus' teachings that is revolutionary or profound. Einstein introduced new ideas or improved upon old ones; Jesus did none of that.
Nonsense. The rationale provided for the moral lessons in the Bible amounts to "Because God said so," or "Because not doing so will get you killed." This is simply a heavy-handed attempt to make people behave a certain way, not an explanation for why certain virtues are good while others are not. It's certainly not where we get our morality.
Gandhi? The man who urged the British people to surrender to Germany during WWII, and said of Hitler, "[He] is not a bad man..." ?
Your view of history is very much like your view of Christianity: Superficial.
In what way have Jesus' words been misused?
False dichotomy. Immoral acts done in the name of a faith are not the misappropriations of said faith. Justification for such acts can be found in the scripture. The theory of evolution, however, makes no such claims as Social Darwinism.
I can only go by what you write, and what you write demonstrates a near-total lack of knowledge of scripture. The very charge to "Please point out where Jesus promoted any of those things" speaks to such an ignorance. If you really had an "intimate" knowledge of them, you wouldn't be trying to erect a false wall between the New Testament and the Old, and you wouldn't draw any such line between Jesus' philosophy and the events of the OT.
You also wouldn't say you can't see the sinister character of Jesus if you knew that he ordered children stoned to death for talking back to their father, or struck dead for teasing a bald man. You wouldn't say that if you knew that he called for his enemies to be slaughtered before him.
Clearly you don't know any of this, which is you believe what so many seem to, which is that Jesus is this gentle, peaceful dude who wouldn't hurt a fly, when the truth is much different.
You ad-hom is well noted.
Terms like "real", "existence" and "God" are only the most hotly disputed and debated terms in human hisotry.
What ad hom? I simply asked you a question.
Then why do you demand that atheists have a complete theory that definitively settles all such debates?
Aren't you demanding the impossible, by your own admission?
Oh please.
It is not I who is demanding that.
It's that the atheists tend to propose to have such a complete theory. I just want them to spell it out.