Gripes with your own...

dvpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I see nothing harsh in the dubliner article and in fact I agree with him.

So, being fondled by a priest is lower down on the scale of child abuse than being indoctrinated with (a fire and brimstone) hell? If that's what you think, then I guess its a subjective thing.

The vast majority of the people in Ireland, certainly ouside the younger generation, were indoctrinated with the fire and brimstone hell. I have to wonder how many would consider this as child abuse at all? How many would swap this experience for 'a little bit of fondling'?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Telling a child that their friends whose parents don't believe in the same imaginary friend as the childs own parents are going to burn for all eternity is what I find objectionable

I couldn't agree more.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose you think it's objectionable because you think hell is real. Do you think you'd be as supportive of telling children about it and having them believe you if you thought it was all a fairy tale?

I don't think hell is real. I do think hell is all a fairy tale.
I both object to indoctinating children with the idea of a fire and brimstone hell and I object to the language used comparing this indoctrination with child abuse because I think it is gratuitous.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There has to be something, though. It's a lengthy book, of disputed origin and accuracy. In addition, you have to question the moral consistency, in parts.

There is actually quite a large uniformity between the Old Testament and the New Testament and where passages have been fulfilled Jesus makes it clear.

For example:
In Matthew 6 when Jesus refers to not praying with many words, he is infact repeating previous Jewish thinking on the subject as discussed by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 5:2.

There are numerous other examples of this. Paul reiterates a lot of teaching from the Torah and from Proverbs.

Most attacks on the Bible don't actually involve much consideration on the part of the one attacking it.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Surely you have some issue with it's contents? Even a passage?

I don't think so no if one seeks to understand it correctly instead of distorting it to say something other than what it says.

Flamed Diving

I won't get drawn into how subjective interpretation is, no matter what you are judging. I just find it interesting that not one of you can think of a single criticism of that book.

Not one.

Dave!

I think it's more the case that you'll distort the bad parts to comply with your own morality through whatever Sophistry and self-deception is necessary

Some chap in Bill Maher's doc Religulous says "what the Bible MEANT to say..."

Kind of relevant

Sam Vimes

dvpower wrote: »

So, being fondled by a priest is lower down on the scale of child abuse than being indoctrinated with (a fire and brimstone) hell? If that's what you think, then I guess its a subjective thing.

They're both pretty bad things. Perhaps he was using hyperbole to make a point, no?

As you've read the book I'm sure you'll remember his example of the girl who actually said that she was far more affected by the thought of her protestant friend who had died burning in hell than by the fondling she received? And how Dawkins was subject to a bit of fondling himself?

dvpower wrote: »

The vast majority of the people in Ireland, certainly ouside the younger generation, were indoctrinated with the fire and brimstone hell. I have to wonder how many would consider this as child abuse at all? How many would swap this experience for 'a little bit of fondling'?

That depends on how many actually believed it and were affected by it, only to realise later that it was not real. Someone who always believes it will never consider it child abuse, they will see it as saving their soul. I'm sure you'll find an awful lot of people who were raised in households were such fear was used as a means of control who now resent their parents. People who never had it forced down their throats and never really believed it will of course not see it as abuse.

Sam Vimes

Dave! wrote: »

Some chap in Bill Maher's doc Religulous says "what the Bible MEANT to say..."

Kind of relevant

That's one of the things I find most annoying. Anything that fits with society's current sense of morality is to be taken literally but anything that doesn't fit with our morality but fit in perfectly back then like the guy who sent his daughter out to be raped in lieu of an angel because of his objection to sodomy has a long winded explanation of how it's symbolic or a metaphor or some other BS.

Or if you find a problem in a passage, another passage is quoted that contradicts the first one, as if the fact that it contradicts each other all over the place is a good thing

philologos

I'd argue that many of the morals we seem to hold are incredibly unpopular in society in reality. However popularity isn't what comes first for me.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue that many of the morals we seem to hold are incredibly unpopular in society in reality. However popularity isn't what comes first for me.

Many of them are indeed unpopular in certain sections of society but your group believe them nonetheless. They are very popular among the people whose opinions you respect and with the people who taught you your moral code.

Society isn't one large hive mind with one unanimous opinion, there are pockets that all have different opinions. The one thing that can be said of all of these opinions is that they are not solely based on the bible. They are in all cases independent of the bible, otherwise you would not see anything wrong with sending your daughter out to be raped

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Many of them are indeed unpopular in certain sections of society but your group believe them nonetheless. They are very popular among the people whose opinions you respect and with the people who taught you your moral code.

I've explained this before. Much of what I learned was through personal reading of the Bible. I didn't have much knowledge at all until I did this.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Society isn't one large hive mind with one unanimous opinion, there are pockets that all have different opinions. The one thing that can be said of all of these opinions is that they are not solely based on the bible. They are in all cases independent of the bible, otherwise you would not see anything wrong with sending your daughter out to be raped

I'm quite aware of this. How are they in all cases independent of the Bible when I have done actions in the past that I now currently do not do because of my beliefs? I agree with you in that we have a sense of right and wrong without Christianity or the Bible, I do not agree that my morals would be the same without the Bible or Christianity though.

As for that incident of sending out the daughter to be raped, there is no consent from God, or no support from God indicated in the text. Interesting your leave out that. The Bible teaches us about the sins of others (e.g King David and adultery, Lot and incest etc) so as to discourage us from doing them.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained this before. Much of what I learned was through personal reading of the Bible. I didn't have much knowledge at all until I did this.

I'm quite aware of this. How are they in all cases independent of the Bible when I have done actions in the past that I now currently do not do because of my beliefs? I agree with you in that we have a sense of right and wrong without Christianity or the Bible, I do not agree that my morals would be the same without the Bible or Christianity though.

Here I would bring in the phrase "Good people will tend to do good things and bad people will tend to do bad things but in order for good people to do bad things, you need religion".

I never said that your morals would be the same without the bible, I'm sure they wouldn't be. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong that is defined by their peers and to a large extent by genetics. You have overridden your natural sense of morality because of what it says in the bible but even you would not follow everything the bible says to the letter because you still have this natural sense which is independent of the bible.

I'm basically making the point that morality does not come from the bible, it comes from your peers, which may or may not have been partially influenced by the bible

Jakkass wrote: »

As for that incident of sending out the daughter to be raped, there is no consent from God, or no support from God indicated in the text. Interesting your leave out that. The Bible teaches us about the sins of others (e.g King David and adultery, Lot and incest etc) so as to discourage us from doing them.

I didn't see an active condemnation of the act either and there were angels there who didn't do much to stop it iirc. Was the point of this story not to show the evils of Sodomy and that it was better to allow your daughter to be raped than allow it to happen?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

As for that incident of sending out the daughter to be raped, there is no consent from God, or no support from God indicated in the text. Interesting your leave out that. The Bible teaches us about the sins of others (e.g King David and adultery, Lot and incest etc) so as to discourage us from doing them.

Ok, but simply change the tale to the pages of Deuteronomy and Leviticus and you have every paragraph starting with 'God said...' followed by some contemptible rule or command.

What say you of this? Or is this some guy named God and not the actual deity?

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I won't get drawn into how subjective interpretation is, no matter what you are judging. I just find it interesting that not one of you can think of a single criticism of that book.

Not one.

I personally have always found it interesting to read what Jews say about how the Old Testament events are supposed to be fulfilled with the New Testament events.

By the sounds of it a number of these are based on what Jews would consider faulty interpretation of Old Testament stories, as if a bunch of modern day Christians who didn't really understand the New Testament started expanding on it using dodgy interpretations of certain stories (Jesus brings a sword, for example).

I wonder how many Christians came to Christianity after years of study of the Old Testament alone, before they came to the New Testament? A minority I would imagine.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

As for that incident of sending out the daughter to be raped, there is no consent from God, or no support from God indicated in the text. Interesting your leave out that. The Bible teaches us about the sins of others (e.g King David and adultery, Lot and incest etc) so as to discourage us from doing them.

But if God had said go do that you wouldn't care, since by virtue of God saying it you rationalise that it must have been a good thing. So that objection becomes rather null and void. There is plenty of rape and killing in the Old Testament that God did consent to that you justify as being ok because God consented to it.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

I personally have always found it interesting to read what Jews say about how the Old Testament events are supposed to be fulfilled with the New Testament events.

By the sounds of it a number of these are based on what Jews would consider faulty interpretation of Old Testament stories, as if a bunch of modern day Christians who didn't really understand the New Testament started expanding on it using dodgy interpretations of certain stories (Jesus brings a sword, for example).

I wonder how many Christians came to Christianity after years of study of the Old Testament alone, before they came to the New Testament? A minority I would imagine.

Here's Lewis black's take on that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

philologos

This thread wasn't intended for discussion of the Torah. If Dades or robindch feel it appropriate it would probably be good to split the thread and move the remainer that deviates from the intention of the thread to the Christianity forum?

Flamed Diving

The matter of the total absence of 'gripes' with the bible is entirely relevant to this discussion, I'm sure you will agree.

philologos

Flamed Diving: it would be better to deal with our actual gripes here. My suggestion remains.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Flamed Diving: it would be better to deal with our actual gripes here. My suggestion remains.

Well, let's leave my question there. Just in case there is a Christian out there who is willing to consider it.

It is entirely relevant to the discussion, and thus should not be removed.

lostexpectation

dear catholic forum

please list the things wrong with Catholicism and Catholics.

conciliatory yours

le

philologos

lostexpectation wrote: »

dear catholic forum

It doesn't exist, there is no such thing as a Catholic forum.

lostexpectation wrote: »

please list the things wrong with Catholicism and Catholics.

How about you list your gripes with atheism first?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

How about you list your gripes with atheism first?

1) There aren't enough god/s to deny.

Sam Vimes

It's hard to give gripes with atheism because it's not an ethos or a way of life the way a religion is, the only thing we all have in common is we don't believe in somebody else's ethos

I suppose if I was pushed I'd say some of them can show arrogance but I don't actually think that's indicative of atheism. People argue over everything but people are so sensitive about their religion that they see anyone who points out the flaws in it as arrogant. You don't see someone branding all Fine Gael supporters as arrogant just because they point out Fianna Fail's faults

philologos

I'm not asking you to criticise atheism specifically if you want to that's fine, but I mean what gripes do you have with the way it is presented or how people act in its name.

I'm really surprised that not as many feel that the "new atheists" such as Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens misrepresent atheism. I've heard this one from quite a few before (off boards that is). It seems that people are far more supportive of them on here.

Handsome Bob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's hard to give gripes with atheism because it's not an ethos or a way of life the way a religion is, the only thing we all have in common is we don't believe in somebody else's ethos

I suppose if I was pushed I'd say some of them can show arrogance but I don't actually think that's indicative of atheism. People argue over everything but people are so sensitive about their religion that they see anyone who points out the flaws in it as arrogant. You don't see someone branding all Fine Gael supporters as arrogant just because they point out Fianna Fail's faults

You're missing the point I think. For religious people, their belief is something that is directly interwined with the life they live. If you ridicule someone because of their religious beliefs, you are ridiculing every aspect of that religion. Including the idea of the afterlife. For those of us who are religious, their belief in heaven is central to giving them strength to live their life. When people suffer from bereavement, religion can give them comfort in the idea that they'll see their loved ones again, and be eternally reunited. It gives them strength to keep going in life. Now, if an "arrogant" atheist ridicules someone's religion, they are basically ridiculing the idea that gives religious people most comfort; that they'll see their dead loved ones again. You are basically calling them an idiot of extremely low intelligence for daring to believe in the idea of heaven. Thus, it will hit a raw nerve and for anyone to remain blissfully ignorant as to why it hits a nerve they are kidding themselves.

Politics in comparison is just a day job, you're ridiculing the faults of someone's ideology in running the country. It's hardly something that's going to cut you to the bone because politicians at the end of the day know it's just business and nothing personal when they take shots at each other.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not asking you to criticise atheism specifically if you want to that's fine, but I mean what gripes do you have with the way it is presented or how people act in its name.

I'm really surprised that not as many feel that the "new atheists" such as Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens misrepresent atheism. I've heard this one from quite a few before (off boards that is). It seems that people are far more supportive of them on here.

I suppose one could criticize the above and others of misrepresenting Atheism by being too aggressive or being pro-active at all, seeing as Atheism is meant to be a disbelief in god/s and nothing more. However, one could equally argue that atheists are not represented in a society which is dominated by people who believe that they will burn in hell and people who try to enforce laws which coincide with their bronze-age personal beliefs, many of which are abhorrent to most atheists.

So therefore it is probably just as well that atheists are now rising up as a social group, if for nothing else, as an opposing force to this wave of paranoid ignorance.

Sam Vimes

LZ5by5 wrote: »

You're missing the point I think. For religious people, their belief is something that is directly interwined with the life they live. If you ridicule someone because of their religious beliefs, you are ridiculing every aspect of that religion. Including the idea of the afterlife. For those of us who are religious, their belief in heaven is central to giving them strength to live their life. When people suffer from bereavement, religion can give them comfort in the idea that they'll see their loved ones again, and be eternally reunited. It gives them strength to keep going in life. Now, if an "arrogant" atheist ridicules someone's religion, they are basically ridiculing the idea that gives religious people most comfort; that they'll see their dead loved ones again. You are basically calling them an idiot of extremely low intelligence for daring to believe in the idea of heaven. Thus, it will hit a raw nerve and for anyone to remain blissfully ignorant as to why it hits a nerve they are kidding themselves.

Politics in comparison is just a day job, you're ridiculing the faults of someone's ideology in running the country. It's hardly something that's going to cut you to the bone because politicians at the end of the day know it's just business and nothing personal when they take shots at each other.

I'm not missing the point, that was exactly my point :P

People ridicule everything but you don't hear about "arrogant Fine Gael supporters", "arrogant nationalists", or even "arrogant christians" because they often talk about the beliefs of other religions the way we talk about theirs. You only hear about "arrogant atheists" because the thing we're ridiculing is especially important to people. But that difference exists only in other people's heads. I behave the same way for everything I find ridiculous and you don't hear people calling me arrogant for telling someone that they were in fact not abducted by aliens

Also, another reason why I think that atheists are branded arrogant is because things like political beliefs can be very easily defended. You can write out a big list of very good reasons for why you would vote for Fianna Fail but religion is pretty much based on a 2000 year old unverifiable book and wishful thinking so it's much easier to brand the people who point this out as arrogant than to actually try to disagree with them

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not asking you to criticise atheism specifically if you want to that's fine, but I mean what gripes do you have with the way it is presented or how people act in its name.

I'm really surprised that not as many feel that the "new atheists" such as Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens misrepresent atheism. I've heard this one from quite a few before (off boards that is). It seems that people are far more supportive of them on here.

Well those guys don't really present atheism. They present a very convincing case against religion. Hitchens is a bit off putting, Harris and Dawkins are fine but Dennett is probably the one I would pick as the most diplomatic in his case against religion. Again I would see these guys as critics of religion (not all of them anti-theist) whereas Dinesh D'Souza* would be a promoter of religion specifically Catholicism.

*For the record he is one annoying man.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm really surprised that not as many feel that the "new atheists" such as Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens misrepresent atheism. I've heard this one from quite a few before (off boards that is). It seems that people are far more supportive of them on here.

I've heard an awful lot of bad stuff about Dawkins etc from a variety of sources such as they're just like religious fundamentalists and if I based my opinion of them on such reports I'd say they didn't represent me too. Instead I listened to what they had to say and found that it made a lot of sense. Dawkins for example explains exactly the difference between himself and a fundamentalist in his book because it's an accusation that's often thrown at him.

I do have some issue with Hitchens though because of a debate I saw with himself, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. He said that he doesn't want religion gone basically because he'd have no one to argue with and that's not really the point

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not asking you to criticise atheism specifically if you want to that's fine, but I mean what gripes do you have with the way it is presented or how people act in its name.

People have replied insofar as they can - given that atheism is just a lack of belief.

Is there a particular gripe you are waiting to hear, or where is all this going?

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...You can write out a big list of very good reasons for why you would vote for Fianna Fail...

Really? A "big" list? Of "good" reasons?
Surely those two words are mutually exclusive in this context?!