Lets be real, it's "Happy Holidays", most of us couldn't care less about Jesus Christ

[lakers_forever]

So if the holy book is left to complete interpretation, then why even follow it at all? Would you still be a Christian if you were born as a random kid in Somalia or would you clearly be Islamic right now?

The Bible is not a book, it's a library. There are different kind of books within the Bible. There are poetic books, historical books, moral code books, allegorical books. You can't read poetry literally. Both radical atheists and fundamentalist christians read the whole Bible the same way, literally, without any sophistication.



Yes, I would be islamic (btw, i have great respect for islam).
But your question is irrelevant, cause it's the typical genetic fallacy. You can not assume a belief is right or wrong just because of its origin. If I was born in some canibalist tribe, I would think there was nothing morally wrong in eating human being's flesh... Does that discredit my belief that eating human flesh wrong? Of course not. I know there are some good argued reasons not to be a christian, but that is no one of them.

[lakers_forever]

About the interpretation, watch this (if you want and have the time, of course).
He speaks more elonquently about what I tried to explain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htxOjJHB5-8

[lakers_forever]

What? The point is it's odd to live your life that way knowing you only believe because of circumstances beyond your control. You were essentially born into this belief. Nothing about it makes it more right than any other, like you said. So why believe at all? Why dedicate your life and time to it?

To this day, I catch my self saying certain prayers because I grew up that way. It's ingrained in me, regardless of how secular I think I am. I was taught Jews were evil and anyone outside my faith would go to hell.

Why? Because I believe it to be true. Simply as that. So what? Why believe anything at all? Most of our beliefs (moral, politic, whatever) are product of where we were born as well...


Well, I'm catholic. I don't go to mass that frequently, but I still believe (yes, I have studied the subject a lot - God's existence and Jesus as a historic person - and have not lost my faith at all).
Well, I was not. I was taught to respect muslims, jews and so on.

[dr.hee]

The Bible is not a book, it's a library. There are different kind of books within the Bible. There are poetic books, historical books, moral code books, allegorical books. You can't read poetry literally. Both radical atheists and fundamentalist christians read the whole Bible the same way, literally, without any sophistication.

I know we'll agree to disagree on that one, but anyway...since you're talking about "sophistication"...what I honestly don't understand about more educated christian believers is their willingness to apply "sophistication" and critical thought to stuff like poetical and allegorical interpretations of biblical literature, while basically excluding all the supernatural events ( which in my opinion should be the main aim of inquiry instead) from that.

Reading theological writings, I often get the impression that these guys spend literally thousands of pages ( have you ever read Ratzinger's books on Jesus?) losing themselves in deep philosophical thoughts, but in the end everything is derived from the assumption that a few anonymous writings from ancient palestine are proof enought that a magical spirit impregnated a woman, resulting in a guy that walked on water, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven ( at least according to half of the gospels).
So as a non believer, I'm basically not that interested in anything regarding the bible other than the question whether this source allows for the conclusion that 2000 years ago the son of an objectively existing god lived in ancient Israel for something like 30 years. Especially since the bible as we know today was created well after Jesus lived, and the same sophisticated methods of interpretation could be applied to literally anything these dudes could've potentially decided to include in their collection of texts.

The problem I have with "sophisticated" theology in short is that they don't provide much information for me to really understand where they get their conclusions from. Even with a highly regarded authority like Ratzinger, I sometimes find literally dozens of unexplained assumptions the reader probably should agree on without further inquiry in just a few sentences. There's so much you simply need to assume to be true in order to get something out of theology, it's too much for me. Especially since everything ever written about the topic would become instantly irrelevant if another religious doctrine (or maybe none at all) would be in fact the real deal.
Another issue I have with "sophisticated" interpretations of the bible is the huge difference between conclusions people are drawing from the book in a historical context. The things scholars tell people today to be "god's will" and the "way of Jesus", is completely different than the stuff Christians believed a thousand years ago. And I just don't get how people can consider this collection of writings including actual thoughts of an existing deity, when it allows so much room for personal misinterpretations depending on the context you're living in.

In short...why would the all powerfull Yahweh choose a way to reveal himself that allows so many f*ck ups (even unintended...so no free will defense here) by unknowing humans?


Anyway, since you're Catholic...merry christmas

[Dresta]

The Bible is not a book, it's a library. There are different kind of books within the Bible. There are poetic books, historical books, moral code books, allegorical books. You can't read poetry literally. Both radical atheists and fundamentalist christians read the whole Bible the same way, literally, without any sophistication.



Yes, I would be islamic (btw, i have great respect for islam).
But your question is irrelevant, cause it's the typical genetic fallacy. You can not assume a belief is right or wrong just because of its origin. If I was born in some canibalist tribe, I would think there was nothing morally wrong in eating human being's flesh... Does that discredit my belief that eating human flesh wrong? Of course not. I know there are some good argued reasons not to be a christian, but that is no one of them.

Errr, well done. Firstly, don't use terms like 'radical atheists' because they are as hollow as a jug, very rarely used by atheists, and instead exist as a pejorative term for religious people to use when condemning atheists, or when attempting to make them look as illogical and fanatical as they are themselves. You are right in a way about the bible, but you seem to forget that Christians themselves are incapable of agreeing as to what should and should not be taken literally. The Incarnation, the trinity and the resurrection, are all completely illogical propositions; yet the vast majority of Christians take them literally, and the different sects of Christians have been shedding each others blood since the 2nd century trying to resolve their differing interpretations of these phenomenon. Why is believing in Adam & Eve 'fundamentalist' while believing in the divinity of Christ, or the existence of the trinity is not? It's just religion a la carte for some people.

And lol @ you quoting Augustine as if his opinion is worth listening to: the man was a fanatic who embraced the dogma of original sin, and was thus happy with all un-baptised human beings being condemned to eternal hellfire, because we are all evil and deserving of suffering by default (this was what he believed and preached).

Bertrand Russell on Augustine:

[Dresta]

Why? Because I believe it to be true. Simply as that. So what? Why believe anything at all? Most of our beliefs (moral, politic, whatever) are product of where we were born as well...


Well, I'm catholic. I don't go to mass that frequently, but I still believe (yes, I have studied the subject a lot - God's existence and Jesus as a historic person - and have not lost my faith at all).
Well, I was not. I was taught to respect muslims, jews and so on.

No, intelligent people have reasons for believing what they do. Only dogmatists accept things as true without reason and then get all offended when someone questions or makes fun of them. It is also thoughtless to blindly respect the beliefs of others when they defy logic, or are invented without evidence.

'To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it

[lakers_forever]

Errr, well done. Firstly, don't use terms like 'radical atheists' because they are as hollow as a jug, very rarely used by atheists, and instead exist as a pejorative term for religious people to use when condemning atheists, or when attempting to make them look as illogical and fanatical as they are themselves. You are right in a way about the bible, but you seem to forget that Christians themselves are incapable of agreeing as to what should and should not be taken literally. The Incarnation, the trinity and the resurrection, are all completely illogical propositions; yet the vast majority of Christians take them literally, and the different sects of Christians have been shedding each others blood since the 2nd century trying to resolve their differing interpretations of these phenomenon. Why is believing in Adam & Eve 'fundamentalist' while believing in the divinity of Christ, or the existence of the trinity is not? It's just religion a la carte for some people.

And lol @ you quoting Augustine as if his opinion is worth listening to: the man was a fanatic who embraced the dogma of original sin, and was thus happy with all un-baptised human beings being condemned to eternal hellfire, because we are all evil and deserving of suffering by default (this was what he believed and preached).

Bertrand Russell on Augustine: ‘The conviction of sin, however, so dominated him that he really believed new-born children to be limbs of Satan. A great deal of what is most ferocious in the medieval Church is traceable to his gloomy sense of universal guilt.’

His principles directly led to the physical and emotional suffering of millions (or perhaps billions, even). He was a huge asshole.

Maybe the catholic church didn't openly condemn Darwin, but look at the list of brilliant works they did condemn and prohibit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...m_Prohibitorum

Radical atheists are people like Dawkins, you know, someone who urges atheists to ridicule and mock religious people and their beliefs.

The video I posted explain this "a la carte" thing. It's not just cherry picking, it's tradition and writing based one hundreds years of study. It might not mean anything to you, but it means for us catholics. And pretty much all christians believe in the core of Christianity, what C.S Lewis called "Mere Christianity".

About Augustine, nothing but an ad hominen attack. It's stupid and anacronic to dismiss a great philosopher who influenced western philosophy just because he has what you judge some "stupid" beliefs or wrote some "stupid" things. Even if he did, it does not erase the good point he made and it does illustrate that christians were not always literalists.

And it is specially hypocritical coming for a guy with Karl Marx as his avatar. Should I dismiss everything Marxs said because he was a racist* (like lots of thinkers from his era) and because he inspired mass murderes like Mao and Stalin? Is Marx's opinion not worth listening because of that? No, his opinion is worth lisneting to, he was a great thinker who inspired a lot of people, just like Augostine. I'm sure even open minded non-marxists agree with some things Marx wrote (like some precise critiques of capitalism) just as open minded non christians might agree with some things Augustine wrote.

Not maybe, The Church did not. Yes, sadly the Church banned those books. Not excuse there. Just like there are no excuses for marxist regimes for banning books contrary to their ideology.




* Marxs: The Jewish (n word) Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend’, even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. In this he bases himself on the view that he ought to live the life of a Jewish baron, or Jew created a baron (no doubt by the countess). Just imagine! This fellow, knowing about the American affair, etc., and hence about the state of crisis I’m in, had the insolence to ask me whether I would be willing to hand over one of my daughters to la Hatzfeldt as a ‘companion’, and whether he himself should secure Gerstenberg’s (!) patronage for me! The fellow has wasted my time and, what is more, the dolt opined that, since I was not engaged upon any ‘business’ just now, but merely upon a ‘theoretical work’, I might just as well kill time with him! In order to keep up certain dehors vis-

[lakers_forever]

[QUOTE=Dresta]No, intelligent people have reasons for believing what they do. Only dogmatists accept things as true without reason and then get all offended when someone questions or makes fun of them. It is also thoughtless to blindly respect the beliefs of others when they defy logic, or are invented without evidence.

'To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it

[lakers_forever]

Anyway, since you're Catholic...merry christmas

That's a good post, dr. hee. I understand your problems with christianity, believe me. I've read some of Ratzinger's works. I think he is a brillant man.

Well, what can I say? I'm convinced by it. I have read a lot about it in both sides (atheism and theism) and about religion per se, and my beliefs have not changed.

I know there are different interpretations among Christians. But I repeat that the core is the same. We (christians) all pretty much believe in what C.S Lewis calls "Mere Christianity".

But that does not means I don't have my moments of doubts. Like Raztinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict VXI) himself said (I think you have read this book), we all have the "perhaps it's true" moment.

“No one can lay God and his Kingdom on the table before another man; even the believer cannot do it for himself. But however strongly unbelief may feel justified thereby, it cannot forget the eerie feeling induced by the words “Yet perhaps it is true.” That perhaps” is the unavoidable temptation it cannot elude, the temptation in which it, too, in the very act of rejection, has to experience the unrejectability of belief. In other words, both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief, if they do not hide from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief; for the one, faith is present against doubt; for the other, through doubt and in the form of doubt. It is the basic pattern of man’s destiny only to be allowed to find the finality of his existence in this unceasing rivalry between doubt and belief, temptation and certainty. Perhaps in precisely this way doubt, which saves both sides from being shut up in their own worlds, could become the avenue of communication. It prevents both from enjoying complete self-satisfaction; it opens up the believer to the doubter and the doubter to the believer; for one, it is his share in the fate of the unbeliever; for the other, the form in which belief remains nevertheless a challenge to him.” Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, 46-47.



PS: Merry Christmas, Xmas, Happy Holidays. Anyway you want to call it, my friend.

[Dresta]

Radical atheists are people like Dawkins, you know, someone who urges atheists to ridicule and mock religious people and their beliefs.

The video I posted explain this "a la carte" thing. It's not just cherry picking, it's tradition and writing based one hundreds years of study. It might not mean anything to you, but it means for us catholics. And pretty much all christians believe in the core of Christianity, what C.S Lewis called "Mere Christianity".

About Augustine, nothing but an ad hominen attack. It's stupid and anacronic to dismiss a great philosopher who influenced western philosophy just because he has what you judge some "stupid" beliefs or wrote some "stupid" things. Even if he did, it does not erase the good point he made and it does illustrate that christians were not always literalists.

And it is specially hypocritical coming for a guy with Karl Marx as his avatar. Should I dismiss everything Marxs said because he was a racist* (like lots of thinkers from his era) and because he inspired mass murderes like Mao and Stalin? Is Marx's opinion not worth listening because of that? No, his opinion is worth lisneting to, he was a great thinker who inspired a lot of people, just like Augostine. I'm sure even open minded non-marxists agree with some things Marx wrote (like some precise critiques of capitalism) just as open minded non christians might agree with some things Augustine wrote.

Not maybe, The Church did not. Yes, sadly the Church banned those books. Not excuse there. Just like there are no excuses for marxist regimes for banning books contrary to their ideology.

If you are going to discuss something with me, then please don't lie and distort what i have said. There was nothing ad hominem in what i said about Augustine (go look it up because you either don't know what the term means or you are a lying piece of shit). Those beliefs i briefly mentioned are central tenets of Augustine's moral code and theological system; if you choose to ignore them, then you might as well ignore him altogether. It's not like everyone believed that kind of barbaric nonsense at the time, only Christians did, and this was largely due to the work of people like Augustine. He not only held these abhorrent beliefs, he also propagated them.

The man was not a great philosopher, and simply prospered because he was the best the Church had to offer, and non-church led philosophy dwindled during that period of turmoil and persecution. His philosophy did not survive because of its merit; it survived because it was proliferated and protected by the church. There were many thinkers far ahead of him 500+ years before. His work has value only historically in showing how far philosophy sunk after the birth of Christianity and the decline of the Greeks.

What does having Karl Marx in my avatar have to do with hypocrisy? Marx is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and you know nothing of what i think of him. I also see no evidence there that Marx is a racist: using the 'n-word' in the 19th century does not make someone a racist (it doesn't even do that now), and even if he were racist, that has nothing to do with his work (and really is 'anachronic').

Bring up C.S Lewis all you like, but he openly purported the divinity of jesus. In my view that is just as absurd as believing that Adam and Eve dwelt in the Garden of Eden alongside dinosaurs (and is still picking and choosing). I have no respect for someone who holds such a position, and will not hesitate in telling them so, regardless of any feelings that may be hurt. And honestly, if you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, then you are hardly a Christian at all.

And who said I have no reasons to believe? There are several philosofical arguments for the existence of God. And I do believe there are good reasons to believe christianity is true.

For many christians, atheism defy logic. Where do we go from there? Everyone disrespecting everyone? Again, RADICAL atheists and religious fundamentalists are preety similar here. Both just can't tolerate other beliefs different than their own.

Except atheism is NOT a positive assertion. The term atheism means exactly 'without God' - it designates an absence of belief alone, and nothing more. It is not a creed of any kind, and so no person is going to find it disrespectful if you make fun of it (at least very few are). It is only the religious that take these things so personally, probably because they are already insecure about their ridiculous and childish beliefs.

There are reasonable philosophical arguments for the existence of God, or a first mover or creator etc. But there are not any remotely valid philosophical arguments for a God who sends a piece of himself to earth as a son, to be born in some illiterate part of the desert, and to save mankind by expiring on a cross. NONE AT ALL.

[Derka]

Jesus' message was alright (be excellent to each other), but all the supernatural stuff I couldn't care less about. Walking on water, raising the dead and then coming back to life himself...k, whatever

That being said, its still Merry Christmas that comes from my lips.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Let's be real. We say Happy Holidays to piss off Christian conservatives, FOX News, and Sarah Palin.

[Dresta]

Jesus' message was alright (be excellent to each other), but all the supernatural stuff I couldn't care less about. Walking on water, raising the dead and then coming back to life himself...k, whatever

That being said, its still Merry Christmas that comes from my lips.

This predated Jesus. And a lot of his message was impracticable and immoral:

- Love your enemies (no, i hate my enemies, otherwise they wouldn't be enemies)
- Turn the other cheek (ok if you want to die)
- Take no thought for the morrow (ok to starve)
- Revelling in poverty as if suffering performs a most valuable function.
- Endorsement of slavery
- That those who don't follow him will go to hell.

An evil doctrine imo.

[Swaggin916]

^^^ Honestly everything would be ok if it wasn't for that last part. That going to hell thing was probably the key to get people to stick with it at one point (as well as social pressures), but it's total undoing in this day and age.

[KobesFinger]

Let's be real, Christmas is August 23rd