Atheism is "cool"

Húrin

velocirafter wrote: »

While I fundamentally disagree with a lot of those argument, which is probably what you were talking about in the first place and which I suspect is the impenetrable difference between atheistic and religious thought processes, they only thing those arguments allow for is a creator that set up the universe and let it take off, there is nothing to suggest that this creator plays an active role in our day to day lives or that we are in a sort of waiting room for an afterlife.

I agree. They do not argue for the existence of the Christian God, only God in general, for whom there is supposedly no evidence. However, the God discussion brings up a lot of questions that I think Christianity answers.

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Please define for me this 'moral conscience which varies little' and provide some evidence of it ?

Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, love is good, treating badly or betraying those who treat you well is wrong; these are a few moral laws that nearly every culture has taught. This is evidence of a moral conscience which is similar among nearly every human.

The existence of this conscience enables us to have moral arguments; they presuppose that we both subscribe to the same morality.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

It could be argued that society is becoming more tolerant of "difference" in society while, take Christianity for example, is refusing to make any concessions in order to make their beliefs more in line with the modern society.

What examples are you thinking of? Is our society that tolerant of immigrants (see the citizenship referendum)? Is Christianity refusing to stop being racist? What are you talking about exactly? Christianity doesn't teach tolerance, because it teaches love.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I worship Zeus for that very reason. What if he's real and you, in not believing in him, risk spending eternity in damnation?

And beside the point, worshipping God for that reason is a little... Pathetic. Don't you think? I tiny bit cowardly?

I agree, though if you worship Zeus I'll have to confiscate your atheist crown.

sukikettle wrote: »

I think organised religion is poisonous for the youth. If they are searching for God, wouldn't they be better off engaging in a father/child meaningful relationship with Him, telling Him exactly what they find so difficult and where they feel challenged and then allowing Him the opportunity to respond. How many people have never done that instead hating God for everything humanity stands for and against thinking it was Him all the time.

I agree. Irish people have such difficulty understanding the difference between conformist prescriptive religion and genuine spiritual religion.

However, your belief that those who do not accept Jesus will burn forever in eternal torment is wrong because it is not based in the Bible.

Romans 6:23 wrote:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

Matthew 7:13 wrote:

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

For a more thorough discussion see here.

sukikettle wrote: »

What if God exists and so too the promise of heaven and the very gruesome eternal hell.We can all die at any moment. Are you willing to enter into something catastrophic beyond human comprehension to hold onto your views and disbelief due to 'lack of eveidence'

God can see through false belief.

SirDarren wrote: »

Of course, I won't act idiotic and say that this is happening to EVERY person - there are of course some that just follow the crowd. But these are in the minority.

In comparison to religions' followers of which the majority are following a crowd.

No, I think that most atheists of our generation are just following the crowd, without realising it. Not many people are intellectualising it. Most ex-Christians do not even know what Christianity actually teaches; that is why they drift away.

velocirafter wrote: »

i think all the theists could do with watching this video [HTML]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-f2dUkm7Mo[/HTML]

Its by the christian guy someone mentioned earlier but it might give you a bit of advice on how to debate religion. Us atheists don't really respond well to scripture, preaching, fire and brimstone and all that. I'm not trying to sound condescending but i think it would make for a healthier debate.

I agree, Veritas is right there. However he does not for the most part make arguments for Christianity. He mainly makes arguments for theism.

velocirafter wrote:

Its funny how after about 3 pages all these threads dissolve into a debate over the standard theist vs atheist arguments.

It would be refreshing if most atheists were capable of staying on topic. Face it, you're going to have to debate on a forum like this with people who believe God exists. There's no point in interjecting the claim that "there's no evidence for this God you speak of" when you know it will derail the topic.

Jakkass wrote: »

Right... but explain this. Why are more conservative religions becoming more popular amongst youth? This is particularly the case amongst Muslims and Evangelical Christians, actually I'd say it's true for any real conservative leaning faith.

Most Evangelical churches in the Republic don't seem all that conservative to me, when compared with the Catholic church. However our congregations seem to be more engaged.

Húrin

docdolittle wrote: »

Well I just live and let live, I have my own moral standards which would prob run along the same lines as christianity... well except for the sex stuff :P to hell with waiting till your married

The Christian teaching on the sex stuff is derived from the stuff that you see as "good Christian teaching".

So I never seen much point to devoting your self to a higher being who prob couldn't care less if you go to church as long as you live a good life

You don't live a good life. I don't live a good life. We all do bad things. None of us can match God's moral standard. So can we please get off this self-righteous pedestal of "living a good life" because God is probably laughing at you.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Maybe so. But I still regard it to be on par with other such beliefs. Christianity may have a lot behind it, but God doesn't.

Kind of like how climate change deniers say that no matter what the corrupt egghead scientists say, they really doubt that humans are changing the climate. They want to disbelieve.

Wicknight wrote: »

And we owe God nothing, particularly not worship, because you may notice none of us signed contracts.

If God had given me the option of existing with him requiring worship from me (under the threat of punishment of eternal torture), or not existing, I would rather not exist ("live free or die", all that jazz)

But he didn't give me that option. He instead decided to create me and then gave me the option of worshipping him or an eternity of torture and suffering.

I honestly do not believe that there is such a thing as everlasting punishment. It's repugnant, illogical and it's not clearly in the Bible. Thus I believe that you will get what you appear to wish for; nonexistence after death.

However, I would disagree that you owe God nothing. Life is a good thing. He is its author. In life we get to experience love, nature, friendship, communication, education, sex and lots of other good things. This is sometimes called common grace in Christian discourse. I think you will agree that to be alive is better than not to be.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

Kind of like how climate change deniers say that no matter what the corrupt egghead scientists say, they really doubt that humans are changing the climate. They want to disbelieve.

No, not at all actually. I regard a theistic God in the same way that I regard any other character of fiction. The idea of a deistic God I regard more highly, but not much. Perhaps around the same level that I regard ghosts and UFO's and whatnot (which isn't very highly).

Húrin wrote: »

I honestly do not believe that there is such a thing as everlasting punishment. It's repugnant, illogical and it's not clearly in the Bible. Thus I believe that you will get what you appear to wish for; nonexistence after death.

Death without knowledge of death doesn't seem so bad though, does it? Not to me anyway. To paraphrase Mark Twain, I was dead for millions of years before I was born, and it didn't inconvenience me one bit.

MackDeToaster

Húrin wrote: »

I honestly do not believe that there is such a thing as everlasting punishment. It's repugnant, illogical and it's not clearly in the Bible. Thus I believe that you will get what you appear to wish for; nonexistence after death.

On the same note, I don't believe that there's such a thing as everlasting life as it too is repugnant and illogical. A hundred years might be ok, but I suspect I'd be feeling a little tired after 500. After ten thousand I'd definitely be looking around and banging my head looking for something new to do. After a million it'd be 'ffs!!'. After 4 billion, well I can't even imagine the sort of torture that would be, and that's still an infinitely long way short of everlasting.
So, I'll settle for the 70-80 years that I'll hopefully get. Anything else is nonsensical.

c0rk3r

MatthewVII wrote: »

with his time is to create .

If you've existed since infinity and will continue to exist until infinity then time has no meaning to you. From a nanosecond to 1billion years it doesnt matter. It would be a strange existance to just be.

Atheism is alot of things and cool isnt one of them. Who is man to say that "God could not have used evolution to create me"? Ill stick with Darwin on this one, the sensible Agnostic.

MatthewVII

c0rk3r wrote: »

If you've existed since infinity and will continue to exist until infinity then time has no meaning to you. From a nanosecond to 1billion years it doesnt matter. It would be a strange existance to just be.

And yet god was content with this for infinty before the universe was created? Clearly there must have been a time when god just "was"

c0rk3r wrote:

Atheism is alot of things and cool isnt one of them

To be honest, I think that young people view religion as incredibly uncool. It's not that atheism is cool, it's just relatively cooler than the alternative.

c0rk3r wrote:

Who is man to say that "God could not have used evolution to create me"? Ill stick with Darwin on this one, the sensible Agnostic.

Because he told us in genesis? Unless god is prone to lying.

c0rk3r

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

No, not at all actually. I regard a theistic God in the same way that I regard any other character of fiction. The idea of a deistic God I regard more highly, but not much. Perhaps around the same level that I regard ghosts and UFO's and whatnot (which isn't very highly).

Ever met anybody who could say their life had been decisively changed at every level by Lord Elrond or Captain Kirk?

Death without knowledge of death doesn't seem so bad though, does it? Not to me anyway. To paraphrase Mark Twain, I was dead for millions of years before I was born, and it didn't inconvenience me one bit.

No, I wouldn't think it dreadful, except in comparison to how good things could be.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Because he told us in genesis? Unless god is prone to lying.

Literal Genesis interpretations are the preserve of idiots, whether theistic or atheistic. We didn't need Darwin to tell us that!

I think what he is trying to refute is the idea that evolution disproves a creator God.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

Literal Genesis interpretations are the preserve of idiots, whether theistic or atheistic. We didn't need Darwin to tell us that!

Not all Christians would agree with you there. The whole foundation of a religion is based on that text, so it should not be taken lightly

Anyhow, let's not make this yet another evolution thread.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

Ever met anybody who could say their life had been decisively changed at every level by Lord Elrond or Captain Kirk?

There are probably lots of people who go to Startrek conventions who I'm sure could say that about Captain Kirk, anyway!

I just don't think that cuts it as a proof in any way at all. Millions of people believe in superstitious nonsense like not walking under ladders, tarot cards, or having a lucky penny; and I'm sure some people claim that a lucky penny has often saved them in certain circumstances. Believing that the penny has saved them under certain circumstances a number of times might have altered their lives at some level, but it doesn't make it anymore true. A theistic God is just so embedded in history and in our minds that he is considered more authentic than other superstitions; but I personally don't believe Him to be.

No, I wouldn't think it dreadful, except in comparison to how good things could be.

I don't know. It might sound odd, but in some ways I'd much prefer none existance to an eternity in Heaven. Death isn't something that I'm afraid of at all.

c0rk3r

Húrin wrote: »

Literal Genesis interpretations are the preserve of idiots, whether theistic or atheistic.

Yup.

Húrin wrote: »

I think what he is trying to refute is the idea that evolution disproves a creator God.

Spot on.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

I honestly do not believe that there is such a thing as everlasting punishment. It's repugnant, illogical and it's not clearly in the Bible.

Well Jesus appears to disagree with you

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matt. 25:46

(one of many passages describing eternal punishment for sinners, Satan, his angels etc)

I certainly agree with the repugnant and illogical bit, but it certainly appears to be found in the Bible.

To me that is a pretty good reason to reject the Bible as nonsense. How you reconcile these passages with your continuing acceptance of the Bible is up to you. I've seen people claiming that the eternal refers to as long as necessary to destroy but even that sounds like a pretty horrible fate. Tortured for forever or tortured for what feels like forever, is there actually a difference?

Húrin wrote: »

However, I would disagree that you owe God nothing. Life is a good thing.

And if I didn't have the threat of eternal torture hanging over me for not worshipping a god I find immoral, it would be even better. :rolleyes:

The phrase "Live as a slave or die as a free man" springs to mind. I would rather not exist than exist as a slave to an egotistical and cruel god.

Húrin wrote: »

I think you will agree that to be alive is better than not to be.

No actually I wouldn't.

Not if your God exists and will send me to an eternity of suffering for not accepting homosexuality is an abomination or that genocide is acceptable.

I take comfort from the knowledge that it is highly unlikely your god does exist. But if he does he is cruel and wicked and I would rather he hadn't created me.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

Not all Christians would agree with you there.

Why am I expected to stand by all Christians on issues like this? Do I expect you to agree with Stalin? Some Christians are idiots.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

There are probably lots of people who go to Startrek conventions who I'm sure could say that about Captain Kirk, anyway!

I doubt many of them would claim to have undergone spiritual rebirth because of these characters.

I just don't think that cuts it as a proof in any way at all.

It isn't proof at all. There is no such thing as proof or disproof of God. However the way the idea of God has changed the lives of so many people and the history of humanity, makes it look rather silly to put him alongside characters from fiction. Your argument that God has credibility because he is old does not work either. There are plenty of fictional characters who were invented before the beginning of the Abrahamic religions, indeed even before transcendental Gods were at all conceived of.

I don't know. It might sound odd, but in some ways I'd much prefer none existance to an eternity in Heaven. Death isn't something that I'm afraid of at all.

I suppose I must just like other people more than you do.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well Jesus appears to disagree with you

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matt. 25:46

(one of many passages describing eternal punishment for sinners, Satan, his angels etc)

I certainly agree with the repugnant and illogical bit, but it certainly appears to be found in the Bible.

This is exactly the kind of reductive silliness that leads to mad beliefs. It is ridiculous to take just one verse and say "there: that proves my point". The Bible must be interpreted holistically. There are numerous verses about the fate of people after their physical death, and most of them describe not everlasting punishment but irreversible destruction. That is what I think Jesus means here. The text only teaches explicitly the finality of the judgment itself, not its nature.

Satan on the other hand, I believe to be real. He doesn't need a little fiefdom of fire and brimstone when he rules this world.

To me that is a pretty good reason to reject the Bible as nonsense. How you reconcile these passages with your continuing acceptance of the Bible is up to you. I've seen people claiming that the eternal refers to as long as necessary to destroy but even that sounds like a pretty horrible fate. Tortured for forever or tortured for what feels like forever, is there actually a difference?

And if I didn't have the threat of eternal torture hanging over me for not worshipping a god I find immoral, it would be even better. :rolleyes:

The phrase "Live as a slave or die as a free man" springs to mind. I would rather not exist than exist as a slave to an egotistical and cruel god.

Hysterics.

No actually I wouldn't.

I know you do because otherwise you would have killed yourself at the first sign of pain and trouble.

Not if your God exists and will send me to an eternity of suffering for not accepting homosexuality is an abomination or that genocide is acceptable.

I take comfort from the knowledge that it is highly unlikely your god does exist. But if he does he is cruel and wicked and I would rather he hadn't created me.

More hysterics.

MackDeToaster

Húrin wrote: »

I doubt many of them would claim to have undergone spiritual rebirth because of these characters.

I think the point is that people themselves change their outlook. Whatever religion they choose is just a guideline they follow and is by no means proof that a particular god exists or that there is somehow an external force actively acting upon them.

Plenty of people become buddists and change their life around, same with islam, look at John Travolta and Scientology. Which god is real then? Are we going to do a poll to find the percentage of those who feel their life did change for each, and whichever faith comes up with the highest is thus validated? It's not a popularity contest, who's to say some single guy worshipping a tree isn't the fella that got it right ?

Not to mention that 'improvement' is purely objective. Someone might have been a heavy drinker and now they're dry, but they've moved from being a happy go-lucky fun easygoing person to an annoying self-righteous prick, or a suicide bomber. Trying to imply this as evidence of god is worthless.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

However the way the idea of God has changed the lives of so many people and the history of humanity, makes it look rather silly to put him alongside characters from fiction.

Which god? Your God, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus - they have all changed the lives of people throughout history - because people believed in them.

You could also say the same for fictional characters like Holden Caulfield or Atticus Finch. People love characters they can associate with or that inspire them.

philologos

Just a hunch Dades, but considering the words Bible, and some of the attributes concerning who God is, and the concept of eternal damnation, I think we can safely say the Abrahamic God, or in more precise terms the Judeo-Christian God.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

It is ridiculous to take just one verse and say "there: that proves my point". The Bible must be interpreted holistically. There are numerous verses about the fate of people after their physical death, and most of them describe not everlasting punishment but irreversible destruction. That is what I think Jesus means here. The text only teaches explicitly the finality of the judgment itself, not its nature.

The point of the matter is that the bible is either the word of god or it isn't. If you believe it to be the word of god, then you have to accept ALL of it, down to the detestable homosexuals, the adam and eve stories etc. If you don't, that means you are picking and choosing what part of god's message you want to believe, and reading your own meaning into it. This is no different from just making up your own rules as the end result is pretty much the same.

philologos

MatthewVII: Sorry that's nonsense. If we accepted the parables of Jesus, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah etc to be literal we would learn nothing from them.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Just a hunch Dades, but considering the words Bible...

Um, the 'question' was really a means to making a point.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

MatthewVII: Sorry that's nonsense. If we accepted the parables of Jesus, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah etc to be literal we would learn nothing from them.

I agree with you Jakkas! When reading the bible you're not meant to take this idea of God literally, it's a metaphor surely for the universe. Only an idiot would take the bible to be saying that Jesus was literally the son of God (that would be nonsense), you're meant to understand that the writers mean that we're all God's children, Jesus is a literary device to teach us things.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

MatthewVII: Sorry that's nonsense. If we accepted the parables of Jesus, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah etc to be literal we would learn nothing from them.

The point is that parables are parables. For example, jesus would tell his disciples an abstract story about some poor woman who lost some coins and thanked god for finding them. They have no reason to exist as a literal story and are often pointed out as being allegory for a deeper meaning

Other points are not parables and yet christians refuse to accept their literal meaning because they make no sense. They are cold, hard instructions on how to live ones life into which no meaning is meant to be read.

To put it another way, if you decide that all of the bible can be interpreted as parable in whatever way you want, once again there is no point to the bible as you can find whatever laws you want by twisting it's interpretation.

philologos

pH wrote: »

I agree with you Jakkas! When reading the bible you're not meant to take this idea of God literally, it's a metaphor surely for the universe. Only an idiot would take the bible to be saying that Jesus was literally the son of God (that would be nonsense), you're meant to understand that the writers mean that we're all God's children, Jesus is a literary device to teach us things.

That's the view of "Christian humanists", I wouldn't adopt it myself as it's an utter liberalism of everything in the Bible. We can't take lawgiving passages in any other way apart from literal, such as not committing adultery, not angering, not lusting, and so on those are clear moral teachings. The Bible is several books, it's not just one book by one writer to be read in one way.

Again I don't think the same can be said for miracles, although some miracles are representative of revealing a higher truth. For example Jesus sending the unclean spirits from the Gerasene demoniacs into a herd of swine. Swine being an unclean meat for the Jewish people to eat.

I personally think that there is a balance between taking parables as parables, and reading lawgiving and miracles to be as they are. If we are to see God as a supernatural being that is, which you have said isn't right.

Thanks for the post though, interesting stuff.

MatthewVII wrote:

To put it another way, if you decide that all of the bible can be interpreted as parable in whatever way you want, once again there is no point to the bible as you can find whatever laws you want by twisting it's interpretation.

See above. As for laws, Paul and Jesus explain adequately the laws of Christianity in the Gospels and in the Apostolic writings, and they also explain how we are to look and read at the previous Old Testament scriptures.

There's plenty of point to the Bible, I don't think anyone who has actually read it from cover to cover can not see that there is an overlying point to it.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

There's plenty of point to the Bible, I don't think anyone who has actually read it from cover to cover can not see that there is an overlying point to it.

I have read it from cover to cover in the days when I had more time on my hands. And I think that it's far too open to subjective interpretation, contradictions and extremely questionable ethics to be a basis for anyone to set as their foundation

Just my 2c, apologies for the off-topic rant.

Atheism is totally cool.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

We can't take lawgiving passages in any other way apart from literal, such as not committing adultery, not angering, not lusting, and so on those are clear moral teachings. The Bible is several books, it's not just one book by one writer to be read in one way.

But as you well know you already pick and choose the "lawgiving passages", which are mainly old testament. Yes I know you guys have tried really hard over the years to somehow rescue the bits of the OT that still seem reasonable to modern ears, but you've got to admit it takes some mental gymnastics to achieve.

Again I don't think the same can be said for miracles, although some miracles are representative of revealing a higher truth. For example Jesus sending the unclean spirits from the Gerasene demoniacs into a herd of swine. Swine being an unclean meat for the Jewish people to eat.

And the resurrection? that's a metaphor for the concept that Jesus' ideas live on after his death isn't it?

I personally think that there is a balance between taking parables as parables, and reading lawgiving and miracles to be as they are. If we are to see God as a supernatural being that is, which you have said isn't right.

I know you can never see this, but all you're doing is deciding what you want (or need) to be true and then using this literal/metaphor device as a red pen through the bible.

See above. As for laws, Paul and Jesus explain adequately the laws of Christianity in the Gospels and in the Apostolic writings, and they also explain how we are to look and read at the previous Old Testament scriptures.

Ahh Paul (and Jesus? he's that important isn't he?)

So was Jesus (who was God) such an abject failure that a human had to come along a little later and correct all his teachings? And how? In some letters? Some guy who never met Jesus writes a few letters and they're now God's Laws? Fine, maybe there was a guy called Paul who had a thing about women and homosexuals, and wasn't averse to a few rants, he wouldn't have been the first and won't be the last. How you Christians (or should that be Paulians?) have convinced yourselves that everything he ever put on paper were God's innermost thoughts on how humans should behave is well beyond me.

[edit] This is very off the "atheism is cool" topic, and I don't want to get bannerised by Dades so maybe take all this to another thread or let's just drop it.

Dades

pH wrote: »

[edit] This is very off the "atheism is cool" topic, and I don't want to get bannerised by Dades so maybe take all this to another thread or let's just drop it.

Ah, sure we're 14 pages in! I'm not sure how much more we can squeeze of the "cool" idea. :pac:

In theory it's a subject for the Christianity board, but in practice - knock yourselves out!

PDN

MatthewVII wrote: »

The point is that parables are parables. For example, jesus would tell his disciples an abstract story about some poor woman who lost some coins and thanked god for finding them. They have no reason to exist as a literal story and are often pointed out as being allegory for a deeper meaning

Other points are not parables and yet christians refuse to accept their literal meaning because they make no sense. They are cold, hard instructions on how to live ones life into which no meaning is meant to be read.

To put it another way, if you decide that all of the bible can be interpreted as parable in whatever way you want, once again there is no point to the bible as you can find whatever laws you want by twisting it's interpretation.

You are trying to make a point on the one hand and then missing it on the other.

The parables are obviously not meant to be taken literally, so nobody with an ounce of sense takes them as literal historical accounts. The resurrection accounts are obviously meant to be taken as literal historical accounts. So, you may choose to dismiss them as fabrications and lies, but nobody with an ounce of sense treats them as parables.

This is because we can all see that different kinds of literature are intended to be read in particular ways. The kinds of literature represented in the Parables or in the resurrection stories are familiar enough to us for us to easily recognise them for what they are.

The Adam & Eve stuff that you refer to in an earlier post is harder for most people to interpret because it is a form of literature that is much older and not familiar to the average reader. That is why biblical scholars study ancient texts etc. to try to come to an unbiased judgement as to how it would have been understood by its earliest readers. A considerable number of scholars believe that Genesis Chapters 1-3 form a kind of extended parable. We know such forms of literature existed in the Ancient Near East and have at least one example of it in Ezekiel Chapter 16.

As for what you see as the 'nasty stuff' in Leviticus etc. These were rules given to regulate the life of the Hebrews when they first entered into the Promised Land. Christians do not see that as binding because the New Testament specifically states that it no longer applies to us today.

I have no problem with atheists thinking the Bible is a load of rubbish, or that Christians are stupid for believing it. You are as entitled to your opinion just as much as I am.

However, it is plain wrong to try to tell Christians that they should interpret al of the Bible literally or none of it all. As with any text, or indeed any oral communication, people should try to distinguish between the recounting of history, the giving of instructions, and poetry or other figures of speech.

Finally, it is wearisome to see the same woefully ignorant charge raising its head repeatedly - that Christians decide what they want to believe and then reinterpret the Bible to suit their beliefs. Exegesis and hermeneutics are recognised academic disciplines, and most biblical scholars and theologians seek to establish an objective understanding of biblical teaching and then to form beliefs on that basis.

You may not agree with us, and I certainly don't agree with much of what you believe, but we should be able to disagree without misrepresenting one another.

Ruskie4Rent

PDN wrote: »

Finally, it is wearisome to see the same woefully ignorant charge raising its head repeatedly - that Christians decide what they want to believe and then reinterpret the Bible to suit their beliefs. Exegesis and hermeneutics are recognised academic disciplines, and most biblical scholars and theologians seek to establish an objective understanding of biblical teaching and then to form beliefs on that basis.

It may be wearisome and ignorant, but coming from a completely ignorant standpoint I think it is a valid charge that some christians choose to interperet the bible to suit their beliefs. It seems that there wouldn't be so many christian denominations if they didn't.

PDN wrote: »

As for what you see as the 'nasty stuff' in Leviticus etc. These were rules given to regulate the life of the Hebrews when they first entered into the Promised Land. Christians do not see that as binding because the New Testament specifically states that it no longer applies to us today.

But then why is it in there in the first place if it is no longer valid to christian morality or practices?.................once again completely ignorant standpont, genuine questions.

pH

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

But then why is it in there in the first place if it is no longer valid to christian morality or practices?.................once again completely ignorant standpont, genuine questions.

It's called having your cake and eating it. The OT gives Christianity more 'history', also there's that nonsense about Jesus fulfilling 'prophecies', so it has to stay, except that God changed his mind about much of the stuff (not eating shellfish) but hasn't about others (teh Gays!).

It's not just the 'nasty stuff' either, it's also the bizarre lists of exactly how God likes his burnt offerings:

Leviticus wrote:

1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,

1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.

1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

1:6 And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.

1:7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:

1:8 And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

1:10 And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.

1:11 And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

1:12 And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

1:13 But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

1:14 And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.

1:15 And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar:

1:16 And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes:

1:17 And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

And that's just the first bit, it goes on quite a bit from there, God likes his sacrifices "just so", don't y'know.

Now PDN can claim that his God actually gave his people petty instructions on how to please him by cutting up and burning various animals, but then changed his mind later, PDN is entitled to continue to beat a drum for his small minded dithering God, but (to use PDN's own phrase), the whole thing is wearisome and ignorant.

PDN

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

It may be wearisome and ignorant, but coming from a completely ignorant standpoint I think it is a valid charge that some christians choose to interperet the bible to suit their beliefs. It seems that there wouldn't be so many christian denominations if they didn't.

Without a shadow of a doubt there are some who interpret the Bible in that way. That is why it is so important to stress the need for an objective, academic, study of the Bible that is based on recognised methodology that is derived from history, literary criticism etc. My point is not that no Christian ever interprets the Bible to suit themselves. My point is that fact hardly justifies throwing up one's hands, giving up, and saying every interpretation is equally valid.

However, there would always be different denominations even if everyone followed proper methods of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. This is because some passages of Scripture can be interpreted in different but genuine ways (as opposed to forced or contrived interpretations). Also, many denominational differences are to do with style or structure rather than any doctrinal points.

But then why is it in there in the first place if it is no longer valid to christian morality or practices?

Leviticus is still there as a historical record of how God dealt with the Israelites at a crucial point in their history.

Also, many of the ceremonial aspects of Leviticus are referred to in the New Testament as being types or shadows that prophesied to greater truths that would be fulfilled in Jesus. For example, the Sabbath was an opportunity for people to rest after a hard week's work. In the New Testament, however, the Sabbath is no longer to be observed each Saturday. Instead it is revealed that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Sabbath since those who were struggling to work their way to salvation can rest in the assurance that Jesus has done it all for them.

PDN

pH wrote: »

It's called having your cake and eating it.

No - it's called exegesis and hermeneutics. But thank you for providing such a good illustration of the kind of ignorant nonsense to which I was referring.

Now PDN can claim that his God actually gave his people petty instructions on how to please him by cutting up and burning various animals, but then changed his mind later, PDN is entitled to continue to beat a drum for his small minded dithering God, but (to use PDN's own phrase), the whole thing is wearisome and ignorant.

I can claim it because that is what the New Testament teaches. The sacrificial system, as is clearly explained in the Book of Hebrews, foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Now, however, such sacrifices are rather pointless.

Of course, you are free to disagree with the New Testament's teaching in your usual disagreeable fashion. I wouldn't expect anything else from you. But you are wrong to accuse Christians of trying to have our cake and eat it just because we took the time to do good exegesis and hermeneutics.