Religion Catch All

[mnben87]

@pat

You have to understand that the prescriptions of Exodus 21 was probably a quantum leap better than where they were before it.

Sure. It still is far from what we would deem acceptable now.

@pat

The scriptures didn’t adjust to the times, it continually advanced civilization, pushing it to be better all the time.

So God adjusted his message over time, because what is really moral wouldn’t be acceptable in this past? This is an odd take. God had to ease us into his morals. It seems like a God should just mandate what he wants from the start. Why would an all powerful being need to ease us into things. Just say what you want us to do, prove you exist, and almost all will follow.

To me it makes a lot more sense that the Bible is completely written by man, and the teachings evolved as society did.

[pat]

@mnben87

So God adjusted his message over time, because what is really moral wouldn’t be acceptable in this past? This is an odd take. God had to ease us into his morals. It seems like a God should just mandate what he wants from the start.

He moved civilization along, certainly.

@mnben87

It seems like a God should just mandate what he wants from the start. Why would an all powerful being need to ease us into things. Just say what you want us to do, prove you exist, and almost all will follow.

Sure God could just whammy anything he wants into existence, so I have no idea why he did things the way he did them. But to whammy His will into existence, strips us of freewill.
You’re going to have to ask Him why he does things the way he does them, I don’t know, I am not God.

@mnben87

To me it makes a lot more sense that the Bible is completely written by man, and the teachings evolved as society did.

Does it? Have you read the whole thing?

[mnben87]

@pat

He moved civilization along, certainly.

Possibly.

@pat

But to whammy His will into existence, strips us of freewill.

Do you believe in a Devine plan? Does that not strip you of free will?

@pat

Does it? Have you read the whole thing?

I haven’t ever read cover to cover in one go. I am guessing there are small sections I have missed in some of the more obscure books. I’ll be honest in some of those books like 1st Kings I looked ahead and skipped the “and he begat, him, and him begat…” I have read almost all of it. For sure read the whole NT, and most of the OT (I have probably read Proverbs 10 times).

[dt79]

@pat

Is it deism? Based on my experience Buddhism on its face, is an atheistic religion in that they don’t believe in a single, all encapsulated deity. But, it seems to me that the energies and spirits they invoke, summed up would all be characteristics of who we in the west call God. I do not know, if at higher levels of Buddhism they start to roll all these forces and powers up in to one ultimate Thing or not, but I suspect they might. I am willing to be educated on the matter, I just haven’t paid that much attention to it. Most of my experience are hippy-type, self described, pseudo-Buddhists who walk around blabbering ‘Namaste’ and read one book and claim to meditate.

It’s hard to explain because there are so many myths and versions but in generally everything has a god in Buddhism in Asia. You can look up Taoism to get a better understanding if you’re interested.

A simple example I used above:

They wouldn’t have built a gigantic golden statue of Buddha if it wasn’t for worship and Buddhists wouldn’t be massacring Muslims in Myanmar if it was a secular religion.

[zecarlo]

@pat

It wasn’t adjusting to the times, it was creating better human relations over time.

Through genocide.

@pat

Christianity and the NT is a continuation of the OT attempt to value human life more and more.

What an idiot. That is not true at all. Religion is mainly about man’s relationship with God.

@pat

It’s the arc that starts in Genesis and continued through Revelation and beyond.

Unless you are Jewish, you know, the people who actually wrote what’s in the OT.

@pat

If you do not understand that,

You don’t, but don’t let that stop you.

[zecarlo]

@mnben87

To me it makes a lot more sense that the Bible is completely written by man

Because, as a matter of fact, it was.

@pat

He moved civilization along, certainly.

Those Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, Greeks and Romans sure were pushed by God to create civilization. Even the founders of the good ole USA looked to the pagan ancients for guidance.

@pat

Have you read the whole thing?

As if pat has.

[dt79]

@pat

Oh they most certainly do. But many of them claim it’s not objective, it’s subjective. But just because they believe it’s subjective, it doesn’t stop them from behaving as if it were objective. And if you hit them (or anybody) close to home, with obviously immoral behavior, they like anybody else will fight for justice.

@pat

Oh they most certainly do. But many of them claim it’s not objective, it’s subjective. But just because they believe it’s subjective, it doesn’t stop them from behaving as if it were objective. And if you hit them (or anybody) close to home, with obviously immoral behavior, they like anybody else will fight for justice.

I think that’s a claim by post modernist philosophers or something that JP keeps bringing up. I don’t know much about post modernism as a philosophy. I don’t even know if it’s a philosophy. All I did was a brief stint in post modernist art in school and it was pretty different from all this. Pulp Fiction is a post modernist piece of cinema. So are all of Tarantino’s other films.

What the average atheist is saying is that the difference in morality between different cultures and certain religions spanning from different parts of the world is what makes it subjective. We also have lots of similarities, though. And morality can evolve based on new discoveries. Religion itself has evolved. We aren’t burning heretics anymore.

A society would have a more or less objective morality within itself if only for the goal of functioning normally as a society, with certain exceptions of course.

[zecarlo]

@dt79

We aren’t burning heretics anymore.

Some of us just behead them.

[dt79]

Actually, didn’t they burn an Israeli pilot? Or was that fake? I couldn’t watch it. Only saw screencaps.

I get that you’re just being sarcastic but to others please note that I’m not talking about the extremists.

[Sloth]

@dt79

I don’t necessarily disagree. But, like I said, if you are Christian, you have to believe that, unlike Christianity, all other religions were formed by “aetheists” who formed this set of moral laws, which led to deism, which required faith, which ultimately evolved to be a net gain for society(unless you live in one of the countries where politicians abuse religion to control the masses).

Likewise, present day aetheists would be the same, and they already have a set of moral values ingrained in them from our present day society. One would simply need faith that society requires a form of order and that others will reciprocate their good actions trying to maintain this order

Not sure I understand? I don’t consider non-Christian religious people atheists unless they specifically don’t have a deity in mind. Or something.
There are no actual evil and good actions outside of obedience to God in my reckoning.

One would need faith that they are morally obligated to value social order as the ultimate good in a universe where they also understand humanity to be nothing more than a series of chemical reactions that have no option but to proceed in one direction due to some stimuli. Leaving only the illusion of having freely reasoned in a universe that will eventually stop sustaining our entire species.

Long day, so forgive me if I’m not speaking directly to something.

Edit: not sure how much we’re agreeing or disagreeing. I’m extra slow, even for me, today.

[zecarlo]

I think a large number of Muslims are some degree of extremist.

[dt79]

How would you define “extremist”? My definition is the radicals who blow shit up.

[dt79]

@Sloth

Not sure I understand? I don’t consider non-Christian religious people atheists unless they specifically don’t have a deity in mind. Or something.

I’m saying that if you believe in God, then you recognize that He chose certain people to spread His Word to others, right?

If you don’t believe in other gods, then there was no divine message given to them. So it was atheists who came up the idea of THEIR god(s).

Do you agree with this?

[zecarlo]

How about those who support it?

How many Muslims are speaking out about what happened in France?

How many who do speak out say, “I don’t support killing people but, if you insult Islam you bring it upon yourself.”

[dt79]

I don’t consider them extremists as long as they don’t participate(funding, aiding and abetting operations, actively calling for violence vs just ranting etc) in the activities of the ones I consider extremists.

I’m not saying they’re right, I’m just saying that’s not part of my definition.

[zecarlo]

There is extremist belief or thinking and the extremist actions which that thinking inspires.

Given the relative lack of Christian terrorism, I would argue that it’s because there is a relative lack of extremist thinking among Christians.

[Sloth]

@dt79

@Sloth

Not sure I understand? I don’t consider non-Christian religious people atheists unless they specifically don’t have a deity in mind. Or something.

I’m saying that if you believe in God, then you recognize that He chose certain people to spread His Word to others, right?

If you don’t believe in other gods, then there was no divine message given to them. So it was atheists who came up the idea of THEIR god(s).

Do you agree with this?

Feel free to disagree but my disbelief in THEIR God doesn’t lead me to consider another theist an atheist. Not how I’ve used it historically, at least.

I don’t know that it matters to me, as even atheists in the strict sense can be religious. There’s still belief in an after life. Belief in the independent reality of good and evil. Unalienable rights. Moral obligation to the weak. Etc. some belief in transcendental things that usually give independent purpose or meaning where otherwise none exists in a completely materialistic universe.

[dt79]

First of all, we had JI radicals in S.E. Asia and the Muslim countries here condemmed them and took them out. Indonesia has a population of 200+ million of mostly Muslims.

Jemaah Islamiyah

And I’ll use this part as an example:

@zecarlo

How many who do speak out say, “I don’t support killing people but, if you insult Islam you bring it upon yourself.”

This is what I would have said during the Mohammad cartoon controversy way back which happened after 911 and JI radicals fucking shit up in S.E.Asia. It has to be viewed in context.

It’s like saying it’s foreseeable that if you go fuck with a rattlesnake, you’ll probably get bitten.

[zecarlo]

@dt79

It’s like it’s foreseeable that if you go fuck with a rattlesnake,

But we are talking about humans, not snakes. The snake is being a snake; the human has a choice.

My point is, there is still a large number of people whose religious inspired thinking is no different than the Middle Ages.

[dt79]

@Sloth

Feel free to disagree but my disbelief in THEIR God doesn’t lead me to consider another theist an atheist. Not how I’ve used it historically, at least.

I’m saying the ORIGIN of their religion had to come from an atheist if you don’t believe their god is real. Right? Like L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.

So atheists will eventually find some way to make society functional even if it means creating another god or just having faith in a social contract.