Why dont we all believe????

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Bill, there's a big chasm between using the Bible as a guide to one's personal life and behavior, and using it as a stick to berate "non believers" and to justify claims made in public that non believers are not "good" people.

Have you ever told a lie, Kallend (I have)
What does that make you?
What does that say about the goodness of your heart?

The Bible says "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire."

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Bill, there's a big chasm between using the Bible as a guide to one's personal life and behavior, and using it as a stick to berate "non believers" and to justify claims made in public that non believers are not "good" people.

Have you ever told a lie, Kallend (I have)
What does that make you?
What does that say about the goodness of your heart?

The Bible says "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire."

Attempting to brand people as "not good" because they do not subscribe to the same fantasy mythology as you do has caused so much tragedy throughout history that I'm surprised you keep doing it. It's a short step from "not good" to "evil", and from there to actually torturing and burning people for having the wrong mythology, as your kind have done over the centuries.

If you want to use the Bible as a guide to your personal morality and ethics, that's fine with me, but stop branding others who do not share your fantasies as evil.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>I share that belief. But then what exactly makes the bible of any
> more consequency than say Moby Dick or Pride and Prejudice or
>Henry V? They too were written by fallible humans.

Right. But not many people have lifted themselves out of lives of addiction or violence by reading Moby Dick, and Shakespeare did not attempt to outline how one should live one's life.

>Mody Dick is not intended to be 100% true, that's why they call it
>fiction. What's the difference?

Newton's Principia contains many errors as well. Do you consider that to be in the same category as Moby Dick?

>Right but they are the laws you have to live by whether you like it or
> not, even if those laws are contradictory and ambiguous. But aren't
> actual real life legal rules that really do apply to everyone a better
> place to start than any arbitrary and optional religion?

No. You should not, for example, hate gays just because your state has laws that discriminate against them. It's moral (but perhaps illegal) to run across a busy street to help someone; it's legal (but perhaps not moral) to kick out a renter in a property of yours using every trick in the book to get a higher paying tenant in. Most people understand the difference between legality and morality.

>Most people would argue that the KJV and the NIV bibles may say
> slightly different words but the meaning is the same. When was the
> last time any of it was scrapped completely or a new gospel was
> added to clarify a point?

Well, the Council of Nicea (325 AD) made a bunch of major changes. Changes since then have been more minor.

>Why would you?

Why would I what? Believe in God? Believe in a given religion? Go to church? Think the bible is infallible? Have morals based on religion?

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Put down the Neolithic belief and step back from the Kool-Aid.

Yeah, Paj - Stop believing in something that has had, at least, a personally positive impact on you and your family (regardless of the larger church structure's hypocrisy).

Join the RNC or DFL instead or even become a shrill activist for some specific political agenda.

I'm not railing against religion in general, just against literal interpretation of the fables of antiquity. Religion as a guide, using whatever stories they find useful is great for whoever likes that kind of thing. Using those stories in a dogmatic manner to deny physical reality is totally absurd.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Religion is a very rigid structure, change does not come easily to it.

Right, but few people believe every bit of their religion. Most people start there and use the parts of it that work for them.

>On the other hand, religion is at once understandable and entirely
> explained as soon as one realises it is man made fiction.

Well, the US constitution is in a way the same sort of fiction. There's no objective reality in those papers. But there are some very important concepts contained therein that make it a very important document to us.

Now, it's not perfect. Heck, the original constitution said you had to give back escaped slaves, and that part has never been removed. But we had a mechanism to change it later (amendments) and so we changed it when we decided that was a bad idea.

Religions do the same thing, although it's a lot harder. Generally they change how they interpret something later, then claim that this time they got it right. (Until the next time they change it, of course.) This has more to do with some people's foolish tendency to consider themselves infallible than any inherent failing in religion.

The amendments to the US constitution did not invalidate it, and later changes by religions do not invalidate those religions - even if the result is a new sect or an entirely new religion.

That's a very good analogy. It does understate organized religions resistance to change, which would be very difficult to overstate. That is the root of my passion on this topic. I have zero tolerance for dogma.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Wake up. It's 2006. It's OK to acknowledge that people from 2000 years ago did the best they could with the information at hand. However, their stories are woefully inadequate, and downright silly, given what we now know about the world.

Please try to explain the hatred that all of the Arab nations have toward the small nation of Israel, who would prefer to just live quietly and peacfully where they are at, without going back to the " fairytale" of Abraham and the birth of his bastard son Ishmael, and his legitimate son Isaac.
Also, try to explain why, in very recent history, a number of nations would also desire to destroy a complete race of people, who really seem to be a very humble group of people, overall.

I don't see the relevance of the question to the quote.

That being said, there is an explanation for the current hatred you mention. Google for Balfour Declaration, or history of Palestine and read the bits from about 1900 and later. It has very little to do with religion, and a lot to do with a turn of the century, post imperialism land grab.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm not railing against religion in general, just against literal interpretation of the fables of antiquity. Religion as a guide, using whatever stories they find useful is great for whoever likes that kind of thing. Using those stories in a dogmatic manner to deny physical reality is totally absurd.

which is my view also, as you know

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If you want to use the Bible as a guide to your personal morality and ethics, that's fine with me,

I don't actually believe that one bit based on your posts regarding religion.

Edit: and I'm of the position that religion is a thing much abused by power hungry types all over the world and that we've also are in the process of 'slowly' outgrowing the need for it as a race. But confrontative anti-religious scorn does not help that evolution along one whit.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[hairyjuan 0]

every logical reason in this world or the next , not to 'believe' can be found here:




www.jordanmaxwell.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

If you want to use the Bible as a guide to your personal morality and ethics, that's fine with me,

I don't actually believe that one bit based on your posts regarding religion.

.

How would I possibly know if he kept it to himself. Whatever he needs to achieve his own personal morality is his business and his alone. The objective outcome is what is important, not his thought processes leading to that outcome.

Only when he starts shoving it down others' throats and making judgments about the goodness (or otherwise) of others based on his own mythology, and claiming his mythology is fact, does it become intrusive and obnoxious.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Only when he starts shoving it down others' throats and making judgments about the goodness (or otherwise) of others based on his own mythology, and claiming his mythology is fact, does it become intrusive and obnoxious.

much like PC thuggery, radical liberalism and radical conservatism - isn't it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Only when he starts shoving it down others' throats and making judgments about the goodness (or otherwise) of others based on his own mythology, and claiming his mythology is fact, does it become intrusive and obnoxious.

much like PC thuggery, radical liberalism and radical conservatism - isn't it?

Worse, far worse. None of those folks think it appropriate that I should burn in Hell for an eternity because I don't believe their myths.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Only when he starts shoving it down others' throats and making judgments about the goodness (or otherwise) of others based on his own mythology, and claiming his mythology is fact, does it become intrusive and obnoxious.

You didn’t answer my question.

Quote

Have you ever told a lie, Kallend (I have)
What does that make you?
What does that say about the goodness of your heart?

The Bible says "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire."

I’m not judging you. I’ve broken all 10 more times than I can remember.

Have you ever stolen or taken something that didn’t belong to you?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Only when he starts shoving it down others' throats and making judgments about the goodness (or otherwise) of others based on his own mythology, and claiming his mythology is fact, does it become intrusive and obnoxious.

You didn’t answer my question.

Quote

Have you ever told a lie, Kallend (I have)
What does that make you?
What does that say about the goodness of your heart?

The Bible says "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire."

I’m not judging you. I’ve broken all 10 more times than I can remember.

Have you ever stolen or taken something that didn’t belong to you?

Cast out the beam in your own eye before worrying about the mote in mine. I am NOT subject to your mythology.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Right. But not many people have lifted themselves out of lives of addiction or violence by reading Moby Dick, and Shakespeare did not attempt to outline how one should live one's life.

OK, religion has a placebo effect but then so do sugar pills. But what special insight does the Bible bring to the table when it comes to morals?

Quote

Newton's Principia contains many errors as well. Do you consider that to be in the same category as Moby Dick?

No. What's your point?

Quote

No. You should not, for example, hate gays just because your state has laws that discriminate against them. It's moral (but perhaps illegal) to run across a busy street to help someone; it's legal (but perhaps not moral) to kick out a renter in a property of yours using every trick in the book to get a higher paying tenant in. Most people understand the difference between legality and morality.

You don't have to employ similar filters to the bible?

Morality is best developed through intelligence and thought. Without that, the Bible is worse than useless. With it, the bible is not necessary.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Cast out the beam in your own eye before worrying about the mote in mine. I am NOT subject to your mythology.

Why would anyone who holds such contempt for a "myth" turn around , and quote from it as if it is their life's guide?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Worse, far worse. None of those folks think it appropriate that I should burn in Hell for an eternity because I don't believe their myths.

Why is burning in a mythical place for eternity worse than their desire that if you disagree with them you actually get unfairly lambasted in public, they try to take your job away and they take all your money and livelihood.

I think extreme political activists are MUCH worse than self righteously religious types. And their drive and fanaticism is very similar but their intent and vindictiveness is much worse.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>OK, religion has a placebo effect but then so do sugar pills.
>But what special insight does the Bible bring to the table when it
>comes to morals?

If you find none, then don't use it.

>>Newton's Principia contains many errors as well. Do you consider
>>that to be in the same category as Moby Dick?

>No. What's your point?

"Contains errors" does not equal "fiction" or "useless."

>Morality is best developed through intelligence and thought.

Morality is developed pretty early on, before children have much intelligence or rationality. It is taught primarily by parents. The bible provides one good basis for a morality that works for a lot of people.

[penniless 0]

Quote

>OK, religion has a placebo effect but then so do sugar pills.
>But what special insight does the Bible bring to the table when it
>comes to morals?

If you find none, then don't use it.

>>Newton's Principia contains many errors as well. Do you consider
>>that to be in the same category as Moby Dick?

>No. What's your point?

"Contains errors" does not equal "fiction" or "useless."

>Morality is best developed through intelligence and thought.

Morality is developed pretty early on, before children have much intelligence or rationality. It is taught primarily by parents. The bible provides one good basis for a morality that works for a lot of people.

Principia doesn't claim infallibility, nor does it condemn those who don't believe in the inverse square law to eternal damnation.

[billvon 2,991]

>Principia doesn't claim infallibility, nor does it condemn those who
>don't believe in the inverse square law to eternal damnation.

The bible doesn't claim it explains all motion in the universe. (BTW, it's not the bible that says everyone who doesn't believe in religion X is going to hell, nor does it say the pope is infallible. People decided those things in various religions later.)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Morality is developed pretty early on, before children have much intelligence or rationality. It is taught primarily by parents. The bible provides one good basis for a morality that works for a lot of people.

Being someone who did not learn morality through the bible, I am curious to know how this works. Do parents teach their children that parts of the bible are true and other parts are not? That the children should pay attention to the "thou shalt not kill" part of it, but they should ignore the "treat women as property" part of it (etc., etc.)? Seems pretty confusing for a child...

Sorry, I just don't buy the "bible as a moral guide" thing. If a person is capable of picking out the "good" morals from the bible and ignoring the "bad," then it would seem that their morals are already based on something other than the bible.

[Jaden 0]

Everyone finds & forms their morals on their own terms. It can be based on science, the bible, church interaction, having great parents or a personal quest for knowledge & understanding. The point is…You have them.

It will be difficult to argue someone the other way. IMO.

[billvon 2,991]

>Do parents teach their children that parts of the bible are true
>and other parts are not?

"Teaching the parts of the bible that are true" makes about as much sense as "teaching the parts of nuclear physics that are moral."

> Seems pretty confusing for a child...

As with everything else, the whole topic is generally simplified when presented to a child.

>If a person is capable of picking out the "good" morals from the
> bible and ignoring the "bad," then it would seem that their morals
> are already based on something other than the bible.

Examples abound of people "seeing the light" and turning their lives around using the bible as a guide - so it does happen.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>Do parents teach their children that parts of the bible are true
>and other parts are not?

"Teaching the parts of the bible that are true" makes about as much sense as "teaching the parts of nuclear physics that are moral."

Ok, "true" was a bad choice of words. I am assuming that the bible is usually presented to children as the word of God. (At least that's how it was presented in bible study when I was a kid.) So do parents teach children that they should pay attention to some of what God had to say and ignore the rest?

Quote

Examples abound of people "seeing the light" and turning their lives around using the bible as a guide - so it does happen.

Right. But now we're back to the placebo effect that JackC mentioned. And in that case, I can see how the bible might be a good thing (assuming you believe in God; otherwise the effect won't work).

But for children developing morals, I think the bible has about as much effect as any other book or any other experience in their lives. In which case it's not really a "moral guide" any more than anything else is.

[billvon 2,991]

>So do parents teach children that they should pay attention to
>some of what God had to say and ignore the rest?

More like "this is the stuff that's important - love your neigbhor, look at your own failings before others, etc etc. Who begat who and details on how to invade a city-state - not so important."

>But now we're back to the placebo effect that JackC mentioned.

Perhaps. If the bible were full of nonsense words, the placebo effect would certainly hold. But to claim the bible is really a placebo you'd have to claim that people don't apply any of the lessons within, and instead just 'believe in a book' or something - and I don't think you can make that claim.

>In which case it's not really a "moral guide" any more than anything else is.

It's _a_ moral guide, certainly. Other people use the Koran, or the Vedas. Heck, some people use Sesame Street. Whatever works.