Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths

[Tinny]

I'm sorry, I should have differentiated between our earliest recorded manuscripts and when the gospels were first written. I was giving dates as to when secular scholars place the writing of the first gospels, many others place them earlier. Yes, the Dead Sea scrolls were OT, but that wasn't the point. I was giving an example as to how religious texts wouldn't change that much, especially within a generation. Our earliest manuscript does date to about 150 AD, although there are other controversial manuscripts which date even further back.

[Achilles]

I'm sorry, I should have differentiated between our earlier recorded manuscripts and when the gospels were first written. I was giving dates as to when secular scholars place the writing of the first gospels, many others place them earlier.

Ok. It seems as though we're on the same page then: our first gospel is G.Mark and is presumed to have been written around 70 AD, although no firm year of authorship has been assigned. Sound about right?

 

Yes, the Dead Sea scrolls were OT, but that wasn't the point. I was giving an example as to why religious texts wouldn't change that much, especially within a generation.

On the contrary, I think that OT vs NT is key to the argument for the reasons that I provided in the rebuttal above.

 

Just to recap: Judaism = established textual tradition. Early christianity = no established textual tradition.

 

This is very relevant to the topic, which was "how it is nearly impossible to lay claim to any one 'correct' interpretation of the bible, specifically jesus' alleged message in the NT".

 

I hope this helps to clarify my argument. Thanks for reading.

[Tinny]

That sounds about right on the first point . I see where you are coming from, I just figured that even though there were no strict guidelines among the early church like there was in Judaism, the church authorities in Judea, Antioch and elsewhere would form some sort of informal consensus and guideline for the tradition decided by the higher ups in the hierarchy of the Church of the time.

[Achilles]

A tradition was established over time, however the canonical NT took hundreds of years to finalize.

 

From my perspective, it seems rather odd to boast one 'correct' interpretation over another when you consider:

 

1) We have no original texts.

2) We have multiple variants of each canonical text.

3) The oldest texts that we have are written in dead languages (classical hebrew, kione greek, latin, etc).

4) Scribal abbreviations make translation difficult.

5) Schisms within textual criticism have influenced which translations were used during different periods (i.e. Lectio difficilior potior vs Lectio brevior praeferenda, and so on).

6) We have missing texts (i.e. Q)

7) In many cases, we have no attributable authors.

8) We have stories passing from oral tradition to written tradition.

9) We have political and cultural influences in the versioning.

10) We have contradictions in the text.

11) We have evidence of multiple textual changes (both intentional and unintentional).

...etc, etc.

 

So when I think about all that, I have to stop and wonder, "why bother?".

 

"How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world." - Sam Harris

[The Source]

You make some interesting points Achilles. As a Christian by practice and family tradition, I have to say my experience are on a 'personal level'. When it comes to using my 'personal experiences' to prove god's existance, I will no doubt loose the war in trying to convince people. I guess its all about the personal level. People are drawn to the Bible, for it talks about moralistic values. If you do something wrong to fellow man, expect a lesson in humility. Unfortunately the Bible is tainted by several translations and public relations chages. Mankind and history have done their damage to the original translation. If there was a more credible way to make an argument, I'm sure it would change the way we all approach Christianity.

 

'Personal Connections With God" vrs. "Historical and Literary Facts" is a harsh debate to be involved with. Its all about a personal perspective, which the individual makes with religion. I don't agree with forcing religion down anyone's throught. I guess the question is: "What do you want to believe in?"

[Prime]

Her interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, since Christ never says 'you're going to hell if you're gay'. His salvation is not in danger from what he does, his salvation, assuming you accept the Christian faith, is determined by his belief that Christ died for his sins.

Fair enough. But I took it that the overall point was that the mother thought that either being gay or participating in homosexual acts was wrong. She certainly has many reasons to believe this, as is evidenced by the responses on the link above, as well as recent comments by the Pope about it being evil. But I'm sure you will agree that it would be hard for many Christians to agree with you that there is nothing wrong with being gay, when the majority of what they are told by the "religious authorities" indicates that it is evil and wrong. Plus, as others have pointed out, there are many scriptures that can easily be interpreted as condemning it.

 

Where in the world did you get the idea that I'm anti-gay?

I didn't mean to imply that. I was confused by your comment.

 

Actually, I think he was confused about both his sexuality (since he apparently said he thinks he might be gay if I read that right) and how to express himself.

From this line: "Bobby said he'd been hiding it for awhile because he was afraid I would reject him." I assumed that he wasn't confused about being gay (since knew for a while), only how to break the horrible news to his mother.

[Thor the Bassis]

Fair enough. But I took it that the overall point was that the mother thought that either being gay or participating in homosexual acts was wrong. She certainly has many reasons to believe this, as is evidenced by the responses on the link above, as well as recent comments by the Pope about it being evil.

 

From my point of view this is the problem with religion - that it tries to impose values into a person's personal life and belief. This would be ok if anywhere in the bible it said "Being Gay is wrong" but it doesn't. In fact the bible is such a loosely worded book that from one quote people can take many different interpretations. This is the same with all religions - in islam the Koran says that women should "dress modestly". To some this means long sleeves and long skirts, to others that all their skin must be covered. This means many different beliefs can exist under one religion as we see in the fact that the Pope believes being gay and wearing condoms is evil. This isn't stated anywhere in the Bible - simply how the Pope interprets the teachings made 2000 years ago (when there were no condoms so no-one could possibly set in stone the official view of the church).

 

And then theres the fact that people cant see outside of their religion and let other people lead their own lives as in the original post in the thread which is a sad story. The fact is I know more tolerant drug users than the woman in the story as they never pressure others into using drugs. When we bear in mind that the christian does what she does because of her morals this then puts a wierd slant on things and leads us to the question,

 

"Who has the better morals - the drug user or the extreme christian?"

[Totenkopf]

From my point of view this is the problem with religion - that it tries to impose values into a person's personal life and belief. This would be ok if anywhere in the bible it said "Being Gay is wrong" but it doesn't. In fact the bible is such a loosely worded book that from one quote people can take many different interpretations. This is the same with all religions - in islam the Koran says that women should "dress modestly". To some this means long sleeves and long skirts, to others that all their skin must be covered. This means many different beliefs can exist under one religion as we see in the fact that the Pope believes being gay and wearing condoms is evil. This isn't stated anywhere in the Bible - simply how the Pope interprets the teachings made 2000 years ago (when there were no condoms so no-one could possibly set in stone the official view of the church).

 

And then theres the fact that people cant see outside of their religion and let other people lead their own lives as in the original post in the thread which is a sad story. The fact is I know more tolerant drug users than the woman in the story as they never pressure others into using drugs. When we bear in mind that the christian does what she does because of her morals this then puts a wierd slant on things and leads us to the question,

 

"Who has the better morals - the drug user or the extreme christian?"

 

Actually, there are a few problems with your post. The Pope doesn't say that being of homosexual orientation makes someone evil (we are more than the sum of our sexual experiences). The sexual practices are condemned, but heteros are only "good" that way w/in the confines marriage. As to the drug user, I've known equally tolerant drug users and others who tried to pressure me to use the substance. Also, your examples only deal with an isolated instance, thus leading to a false choice as to who is more moral. Is the state immoral for coercing you to obey the law, the key word here being coercing? Just remember, not all religious people seek to turn you into a drone (afterall, if God/god doesn't force you to abandon your free will in "obeying Him", it's not their place to do so either). If I'm reading you right, however, I'd agree with your underlying sentiment and no more wish to see people of any faith imposing their restrictions on my daily life. We have enough of that with the government as it is.

[Thor the Bassis]

Also, your examples only deal with an isolated instance, thus leading to a false choice as to who is more moral...

...Just remember, not all religious people seek to turn you into a drone (afterall, if God/god doesn't force you to abandon your free will in "obeying Him", it's not their place to do so either).

 

Ahh but one isolated instance in the first post of this thread lead to the death of her son. I know that not all religious people seek to turn you to a drone - I am friends with many religious people - but an if an isolated instance is all that is needed to cause a death then, as said in the first post, the moderate religious leaders should be made to express their views carefully and a whole religion should, in part, be blamed for any loss of life caused because of a belief in their religion - the leaders should clarify to the extremists what their stance is on such matters and how they should be resolved.

 

Also we shouldn't forget the fact that the views of a few "isolated instances" of extremism caused suicide bombings that caused hundreds of deaths (9-11, 7-7). In my view religion has spent too long defending the fact that its only extremists that carry out these bombings. If many other organisation carried such attacks out then the leaders of the organisation would be held resposible aswell as the perpetrators whereas religious groups seem to have the power to move the blame away from themselves by saying "It's not us, its the extremists". If they wished to look better to the rest of the public they would help stop such beliefs being nurtured.

 

If I'm reading you right, however, I'd agree with your underlying sentiment and no more wish to see people of any faith imposing their restrictions on my daily life. We have enough of that with the government as it is.

 

Personally I dont mind people telling me how to live my life (we all need a laugh) but its when they take action on these things and it affects peoples lives it kinda p***es me off. We proberably have different governments (guessing ur USA coz most people are here) but mines totally corrupt and crazy so not much change.

[Nancy Allen``]

I know that not all religious people seek to turn you to a drone - I am friends with many religious people - but an if an isolated instance is all that is needed to cause a death then, as said in the first post, the moderate religious leaders should be made to express their views carefully and a whole religion should, in part, be blamed for any loss of life caused because of a belief in their religion - the leaders should clarify to the extremists what their stance is on such matters and how they should be resolved.

 

The same should also apply outside of religion. I know people think that fluffy pink bunny rabbits will bound through ever expanding green fields if people stopped believing, but people have to know the diffirence between being critical of religion and being antitheist; hostile to those who believe in or practice it.

[Totenkopf]

Ahh but one isolated instance in the first post of this thread lead to the death of her son. I know that not all religious people seek to turn you to a drone - I am friends with many religious people - but an if an isolated instance is all that is needed to cause a death then, as said in the first post, the moderate religious leaders should be made to express their views carefully and a whole religion should, in part, be blamed for any loss of life caused because of a belief in their religion - the leaders should clarify to the extremists what their stance is on such matters and how they should be resolved.

 

Also we shouldn't forget the fact that the views of a few "isolated instances" of extremism caused suicide bombings that caused hundreds of deaths (9-11, 7-7). In my view religion has spent too long defending the fact that its only extremists that carry out these bombings. If many other organisation carried such attacks out then the leaders of the organisation would be held resposible aswell as the perpetrators whereas religious groups seem to have the power to move the blame away from themselves by saying "It's not us, its the extremists". If they wished to look better to the rest of the public they would help stop such beliefs being nurtured.

 

 

Not really sure how you hold them accountable. Do you punish the Pope for the sins of a Baptist? How do you propose to hold someone accountable for the actions of an individual (lest of course you can prove conspiracy)? Three of the world's major faiths are splintered. So, who do you punish or hold accountable if a methodist bombs an abortion clinic? Besides, all groups and governments have a certain amount of culpable deniability when it comes to the individual actions of their members. I'm not so sure about your claim about organizations being held accountable. There have been many reported cases of looting, rape and cannabalism tied to UN forces, but no one ever really seems to be held too accountable for that. Unaware of any Secretary General that's been deposed for such misconduct (let alone been held legally responsible). Outside of condemnation, Hamas and company have killed many people, but no one's really been held accountable (in a meaningful way) there either.

 

But it also raises a question, what actions are you expecting from these religions? PSAs against violence? Most people, as you've noticed, are not extremists. So, what else does a faith need to do? How exactly, from your perspective, are they nurturing these people in the first place? Don't recall any priests telling me to go out and stone adulturers or blow up clinics when I was in school.

 

Personally I dont mind people telling me how to live my life (we all need a laugh) but its when they take action on these things and it affects peoples lives it kinda p***es me off. We proberably have different governments (guessing ur USA coz most people are here) but mines totally corrupt and crazy so not much change.

 

Yeah, it's the imposing part (talk is cheap afterall) that rankles most. Can't speak for you, but 80 lashes in public seems extreme for getting drunk and committing adultry (Iran). What country are you from?

[Nancy Allen``]

But it also raises a question, what actions are you expecting from these religions? PSAs against violence? Most people, as you've noticed, are not extremists. So, what else does a faith need to do? How exactly, from your perspective, are they nurturing these people in the first place? Don't recall any priests telling me to go out and stone adulturers or blow up clinics when I was in school.

 

Unfortunetly there is the belief that this is how people who follow religion should act, that they are not being true to their faith unless they are killing.

[Thor the Bassis]

Not really sure how you hold them accountable. Do you punish the Pope for the sins of a Baptist? How do you propose to hold someone accountable for the actions of an individual (lest of course you can prove conspiracy)?

 

I'm from England. Recently our tv channel 4 was accused by the police of editing a video to put its content out of context. It was footage of an islamic religious meeting in a mosque and the leader was saying how in an ideal muslim society homosexuals would be thrown off cliffs. As you can see this is clearly promoting extremism but also leaving insurance that he never said they should in Britain as he said "in an ideal muslim society".

 

You would think this is extremism but he isn't saying "go out and kill homosexuals" so apparently he is still a moderate. He may well only mean for the image to deter his congregation but it isn't clear. This means one person may think that he is saying "don't be a homosexual" whereas another person may think it means "go out and kill homosexuals".

 

If this was filmed and then one of the congregation went out and killed a homosexual then he would definitely be to blame.

 

The fact is if someone kills in the name of a religion the religion is thought of in a bad light - the religious leaders should make a statement to condemn the action not say "its not us it's the extremists".

[Totenkopf]

Well, good luck getting that in Islam these days, as I think the "moderates" in many cases are either somewhat sympathetic to the goal of the extremists or are scared to death of them. Fear does seem to paralyze people. In fairness, over here at least, there are muslims who will go on tv and in print to condemn these actions. But mostly it seems like a ghetto/omerta type of thing where you're not supposed to "snitch" on those in your group that commit crimes. I would agree that in your example (probably a Wahhabist mosque, I think most foreign ones tend to be these days) that the imam is likely guilty of conspiracy or at least inciting inflamed passions in others who would likely take the "suggestion" as direction. So, what type of accountability are you proposing?

[Thor the Bassis]

Banned from preaching? Deported? Taken out of a position of religious power so they can't affect people. Especially when you've got as much evidence as a recording of him making his claims it seems an open and shut case of defending public safety.

[Nancy Allen``]

Subject them to the religious punishments they preach about (stoning, burning at the staje, ect) then let them face their God's judgement when they're deader than Elvis.

 

I dunno if this says more about me or other people but I think the accountability for someone's actions begins and ends with whoever commits them. By that I mean punishing religion as a whole for one nut job, we're not going to achieve anything by doing that. Muslims preaching that woman who are uncovered (don't wear abayas like they're forced to in the Middle East) deserve to be raped for example, I don't blame Islam, I blame the **** that makes those comments.

[Thor the Bassis]

/\

[ ]

____

____>

____>

____>

____>

 

*thumbs up*

[Achilles]

*pictures Nancy sticking her fingers in her ears and singing 'lalalalala' when ever someone points out that religion is responsible for its various doctrines*

[Nancy Allen``]

Now how helpful are comments like that really? What do they add to the discussion? Absolutely nothing.

[Achilles]

Now how helpful are comments like that really?

I'm guessing they're just about as helpful as your apologist denials of accountability. You can't refute that the religion is complicit for the acts carried out in god's name, but you still want us to blindly accept your cherry-picked flavor of christianity anyways. Right.

[Nancy Allen``]

Well maybe you would be so kind as to explain the benefits of preaching hatred and intolerance of religion then. What good would antitheist persecution of religion bring?

[Achilles]

Well maybe you would be so kind as to explain the benefits of preaching hatred and intolerance of religion then. What good would antitheist persecution of religion bring?

Well, I suppose I could once again point out that this tired strawman is a product of your imagination, but I know that no amount of reason will prevail against your foregone conclusions. Similarly I could once again attempt to understand the rationale for your argument by asking for an example of an atheist doctrine that calls for these imagined persecutions, but I know that you'll parade out one completely irrelevant argument.

 

Since your arguments have no support and supportable arguments have no effect on you, I imagine that we're at something of an impasse. Suggestions?

[Nancy Allen``]

The fact you cannot do anything bur make ass hatted comments like this makes me believe that your antitheism and militant atheism runs much deeper than simply questioning the ethics and morality of religion. I would usually feel pity at such obsessive anger and hatred, but in this case I feel nothing because in my experiance the people who make them have nothing. No evidence to the benefits of promoting hatred of religion in this example. Nor can they make themselves out to be better, as Stalin and Mao are just as bad when they murdered theists, if not worse, than those who followed the letter of the law in their day or went to war against Islam so they wouldn't take over Europe. Not even the ability to thump their little tail and yap as loudly as they can about the evils of religion. No, all we get is a pretty weak attempt at flame bait.

[Achilles]

No evidence to the benefits of promoting hatred of religion in this example.

This is the product of your imagination. Any arguments that support it would have to come from you.

 

Nor can they make themselves out to be better, as Stalin and Mao

Ha! I called that and you delivered. Thank you for making my point.

 

No suggestions then?

[Nancy Allen``]

Can you prove to me that it is not some form of atheist crusade against religion you are promoting? If it is not then why do you insist in spewing forth your hateful bile against it?