www.ditl.org

Okay; I've thought about it some more, and I'm going to try to respond to some of what you've said.

First of all, I have to say you're absolutely right about one thing; that we shouldn't just obey God because he created us, or because he's more powerful than us, or can damn us. None of that would be any reason for doing anything that he said; after all, the Devil is more powerful than us, and so is almost every angel. We love God, because He first loved us.

We love and obey Him not because he could cast us into hell, but because to do so is the only way we can thank Him for what He has done for us. He has given us life, given us the world, with all its sublime and miraculous beauty; he has given us all the pleasures of food and drink and sexuality, and He has given us His son to die for us. He has given us the sunlight, and the moonlight; He has given us sleep, and comfort, and the warmth of fire, and what is more He has given us Freedom, even to the point of rejecting Himself. Ours is not a religion of cowering subservience to some cruel omnipotent Tyrant; ours is a constant shower of thanks to a wise and benevolent king who has given us the world as his gift to us, and who, more than anything at all, wants us to be happy. We would be quite justified in rejecting Him if he were only powerful; but He is also Good. And that is why we worship Him, and obey Him. So no, there is no reason why you should have to obey Him; you should want to.
As for God's love being invalidated because by threatening us with damnation he is in effect forcing us to do what we want, well to me that has always sounded a little absurd; its as if a drowning man, on being asked by a rescuer on the bank to take his hand, had instead shook his head and said: "Well, this is hardly fair. You know, you're not really giving me a choice in here, what with the threat of drowning and all...I don't see any reason why I should do what you say." Because we are threatened with something worse is not a reason to reject help; its another reason to take it.

Hopefully this at the very least helps to you understand my viewpoint on the matter; whether it convinces you, or even makes any sense to you, I don't know.

Really Captain, I have no issue with that. If a person voluntarily chooses to obey god's rules (commandments, suggestions, guidelines, whatever you want to call them) then that's absolutely fine with me. When somebody gives you something it's perfectly normal to be grateful for it and to want to do something in return

What I have issue with is when there is an expectation of something in return for a gift. Assuming there is a god I never asked him to create me, and I feel absolutely no sense of debt towards him for doing so.

Your drowning analogy doesn't work, though. The reality of the religious view is that in your analogy, god created the river and set it up so that we would be drowning, so yes, it IS his responsibility. God created hell. God created sin. God put the tree in the garden and arranged it so that eating the apple would cause original sin. If god is all powerful he could have avoided any part of that, but he deliberately chose not to. He is absolutely responsible for the consequences.

Forgiveness of sins is another issue where I part ways with religion. I regard most "sin" as invented nonsense - if I want to work on Sunday or covet my neighbour's ass that's no business of anybody else. But there are genuine sins, such as hurting other people unnecessarily. In such cases, I make my decisions and I accept the consequences of them. The idea that somebody else - even a god - can take away my responsibility for my own actions is absolutely anathema to me. Jesus gets nailed to a cross and therefore it's okay that I stole some money once? Hell no!

GrahamKennedy wrote:But there are genuine sins, such as hurting other people unnecessarily. In such cases, I make my decisions and I accept the consequences of them. The idea that somebody else - even a god - can take away my responsibility for my own actions is absolutely anathema to me. Jesus gets nailed to a cross and therefore it's okay that I stole some money once? Hell no!

Absolutely correct -

I wrote:you can't receive any sort of divine absolution for the sins you commit against your fellow man - only the person you have wronged can forgive you for that.

i haven't had time to read every post, but did we all in the end, find the passage that teaos mentioned regarding maltreating slaves aslong as their teeth and hair remains intact?

I don't think anyone looked it up.

I'll get it tomorrow if you want it. Its in the book "A letter to christian america" Basically telling them how they are destroying their country and how the Bible is BS.

The bible is not BS. It is considered to be one of the greatest Cross Fiction (meaning both fiction and non-fiction) works of all times. True enough that a lot of it is as false as one could get but it does contain many stories which are based on real history. The bible has been used for names, dates and places plus other details that are often lost in other cultures. Many of the stories are written in blotted manners but still carry enough truth in them if one looks past the bull on top of it. So much of it was written long before the bible but priests and monks added them in and tried to change things so that it would look like God had ordained something to happen. Much of Greek history comes from poems and plays written as jokes or dramas or tragedies. Though I've never heard anyone complain about those, so then why not read the Bible or Koran. These two books are pushed so far from the main stream just because they make up the bulk of faith driven population. Think of every part of each book as theater and you could understand much more then the bias that forms between the two sides of either religious or atheist.

The bible is not BS. It is considered to be one of the greatest Cross Fiction (meaning both fiction and non-fiction) works of all times.

So? The Lord of The Rings is considred one of the greatest works of all times. This doesn't mean the events in it are any more realistic.

True enough that a lot of it is as false as one could get but it does contain many stories which are based on real history.

The Iliad was also based on a real event. So was the film Titanic. This doesn't stop the events depicted in them from being pretty much made up.

Also, there's a reason for the Bible containing historical events: when it was written, the writers knew they could use the events that really happened, and atribute most of them to God. To primitive peoples, this would give the Bible aparent credibility.
For example; the whole Jerico story was probably based around the capture of a real city. Years later, they attributed their victory to God.

The bible has been used for names, dates and places plus other details that are often lost in other cultures.

See above.

Much of Greek history comes from poems and plays written as jokes or dramas or tragedies.

Somewhat true. My earlier point about the Iliad is an example of this.

Though I've never heard anyone complain about those,

You'd hear complaints if anyone tried to use them as a reliable historical source.

so then why not read the Bible or Koran.

There's a major difference.
Homer probably looked at the siege of Troy, and thought 'how can I make a kick-ass story out of this?'
The biblical writers prbably looked at the siege of Jerico, and thought 'how can I make it so God made us win?'

Also, have you ever read the Bible, yourself?

Think of every part of each book as theater and you could understand much more then the bias that forms between the two sides of either religious or atheist.

No, it really doesn't help at all. The events depicted in it do not become any less ridiculous.

First off, how do you draw a line between Lord of the Rings and the Battle of Antioch?

The Iliad was meant to challenge the thoughts of men vs. the gods. Read Oedipus, very similar under note. Titanic was real only in name and that it sunk, end truth. The rest was bull. (Rochey I expected better from you then this one)

You aren't supposed to use them as the only source. You should never use just one source. That would be as stupid as the GCS warp core safety systems.

Many battles, including Troy are written in more then just one place. The monks wanted a "kick-ass" story for what they were doing, just they wanted it all to come down to god in the end. Both had BS in them, just different kinds.

As to reading the bible. Yes I have, several versions in fact and I am also trying to find a original copy of the koran and sebet texts.

I am a student of history and find it better to study everything and every point of view rather then crying and wimping to make up sad little arguments for one side or the other.

"Also, there's a reason for the Bible c ... to God. "

They knew about it so they made a story about god and put in on top. You commented against your self here, not sure why. Yes again I have read the bible, anyone who studies military history has or at least large parts of it.

when you said sebat, did you mean sunnat, ahadiths etc?

First off, how do you draw a line between Lord of the Rings and the Battle of Antioch?

What do you mean by 'draw a line between'?

The Iliad was meant to challenge the thoughts of men vs. the gods. Read Oedipus, very similar under note.

I know that. My point was that it was based in a real event, then made more 'impresive' for the average Joe.

Titanic was real only in name and that it sunk, end truth. The rest was bull. (Rochey I expected better from you then this one)

Er, that was my point. Aside from the ship and the sinking, the whole thing was completely made up.

You aren't supposed to use them as the only source. You should never use just one source. That would be as stupid as the GCS warp core safety systems.

Of course it is stupid to use just one source. That's basic common sense.

The monks wanted a "kick-ass" story for what they were doing, just they wanted it all to come down to god in the end. Both had BS in them, just different kinds.

Yeah, that's my point: they're both full of BS, with only the occasional things (such as locations and sometimes people involved) having any basis in reality.

Yes I have, several versions in fact and I am also trying to find a original copy of the koran and sebet texts.

Just curious.

I am a student of history and find it better to study everything and every point of view rather then crying and wimping to make up sad little arguments for one side or the other.

Fine, and that is also what I do. I teach history, I know to look at as many points of view possible. That's how we conclude that the Bible is full of fabrications.

They knew about it so they made a story about god and put in on top. You commented against your self here, not sure why.

Er, no. That was my point. I don't think you really understand what I'm debating here... and I'm not sure if I have it figured out what side of the debate you're on.
What point were you making earlier? That some parts of the Bible are grounded in history? Of course they are, the same way Titanic and the Iliad are grounded in history. But all of these have major fabrications within the story themselves. That's my point.

Captain Peabody wrote:Jim: Actually, I take just the opposite view on religious discussion. I have always hated the taboo that says that you can't discuss religion because its a matter of 'personal conscience.' So, in other words, the mistakes of a fictional Starfleet captain are worth discussing, but a man's opinion on the ultimate nature of reality and the universe are not.
But I would agree that too often such debates turn into excuses to show how much the arguers hate each other... But that's not always the case.

I put it down to our mutual love of Star Trek.

... Star Wars...

... Star Wars...

Well, that too.

Oh, and Rochey; for pete's sake, man, give it a rest. We realize you don't like God, Jesus, the Bible, death, life, green Skittles, blue milk, chicken soup, Jawa Juice, the word 'deutch,' freestyle, and Simon and Garfunkel, but for Pete's sake, I do! So deal with it!

Okay, that was only half-serious...but you get the point.

Okay, that was only half-serious...but you get the point.

Not really, no. I have no particular hatred for religion, I'm merely pointing out to Deepcrush that you can in no way call the Bible factual.

If you don't want to get involved, then don't.

No, you can't - I have tried to explain earlier that the Bible should be taken as allegory, and as truth - but not fact. And the comparison between the Iliad and the Bible should rather be one of dressing earlier myth in order to play to a particular audience. Homer's audience was Hellenic aristocracy, many of whom claimed lineage from the nobility and royalty of the Mycenaean age - the very people who Homer dressed in the light of heroism, patirotism, religious zeal, a/o aristeia.

Similarly, the Bible drew on earlier episodes in order to teach its own particular morals. To me, at least, this fact doesn't affect its relevance in the least. Of course, as I mentioned, I myself have no use for fundamentalism.