How is listening to a priest talk about his thoughts on a translation of a translation of two groups of documents created through culling two larger groups of documents over a period of several centuries not open to interpretation?
You're not telling me any new information here. I already know everything you have said. All of that doesn't matter. Only one thing matters.
Pick any version or interpretation of any bible you want. Either it is the word of god, or it is not. If the words in that book are a holy and divine word from a higher being than humans, such as god, then humans can not think to change those words. Any influence on those words that is human in origin removes all divinity from those words. If the words, or meanings of those words, are changed or modified in any way by humans, then those words lose all power. They become no more important or magical than any other words written by humans, such as a newspaper, comic book, or novel.
If it is the divine word of god, for real, no human can change it, modify it, or interpret it. By definition any divine word of any god must have one and only one correct interpretation and meaning that can not be changed or re-interpreted without a further act of god. To come up with your own interpretation of the word of god means you, a human, are deciding what god wants instead of listening to god tell you what god wants. To listen to a priest's interpretation means you are deciding to believe god wants what a priest thinks god wants, but not what god actually says god wants.
If you take the so-called divine word and decide for yourself what it really means, you are basically just an atheist. You are deciding your own morality based on your own real life experience. The only difference is that you use the narrative of an ancient fictional book as a metaphor for your morality as opposed to using the real world. If you follow the word exactly to the letter, you're a crazy fundamentalist, but at least you aren't hypocritical.
Pick any version or interpretation of any bible you want. Either it is the word of god, or it is not. If the words in that book are a holy and divine word from a higher being than humans, such as god, then humans can not think to change those words. Any influence on those words that is human in origin removes all divinity from those words. If the words, or meanings of those words, are changed or modified in any way by humans, then those words lose all power.
If it is a translation of the word of god, might some parts be correct and some incorrect translations? The Greek and Hebrew today are not the same as the Greek and Hebrew of several centuries ago. What if you read the books in their original languages (assuming this was reliably known), words of god let's say, but the meaning of those words has changed in modern usage? Should you try to interpret the original intent? All the people who naturally spoke those languages are dead. Should you use examples of those words in works not claiming to be the words of god for examples of how those words were used back then?
If it is the divine word of god, for real, no human can change it, modify it, or interpret it. By definition any divine word of any god must have one and only one correct interpretation and meaning that can not be changed or re-interpreted without a further act of god. To come up with your own interpretation of the word of god means you, a human, are deciding what god wants instead of listening to god tell you what god wants.
If there is only one correct interpretation, but many possible interpretations, how might a person determine which is genuine without using their faculties of reason? One might pray in hopes of guidance, but what if your friend also prays, and is lead in what appears to be a different direction? How might this discrepancy be worked through without resorting to the use of one's personal faculties to interpret?
To listen to a priest's interpretation means you are deciding to believe god wants what a priest thinks god wants, but not what god actually says god wants.
Martin Luther agrees.
If you take the so-called divine word and decide for yourself what it really means, you are basically just an atheist. You are deciding your own morality based on your own real life experience. The only difference is that you use the narrative of an ancient fictional book as a metaphor for your morality as opposed to using the real world. If you follow the word exactly to the letter, you're a crazy fundamentalist, but at least you aren't hypocritical.
If non-fundamentalist Christians and Jews are essentially atheists, why do atheists act as they do towards them?
If it is a translation of the word of god, might some parts be correct and some incorrect translations?
Alright, let's say some parts are the word of god, and some parts aren't. How do you know which ones are the right ones? You just decide that observing the Sabbath isn't necessary, but going to church on Easter is important. How do you know you didn't get it wrong? If you don't know that you got it right, how can you do anything without constantly worrying if you got it wrong? You dare to take a risk and merely guess for yourself what the all powerful god wants? That's a sure-fire way to get yourself fucked the fuck up by a big invisible guy in the sky.
If non-fundamentalist Christians and Jews are essentially atheists, why do atheists act as they do towards them?
They don't know they are atheists, and we're trying to help them realize it.
If it is a translation of the word of god, might some parts be correct and some incorrect translations?
Alright, let's say some parts are the word of god, and some parts aren't. How do you know which ones are the right ones? You just decide that observing the Sabbath isn't necessary, but going to church on Easter is important. How do you know you didn't get it wrong? If you don't know that you got it right, how can you do anything without constantly worrying if you got it wrong? You dare to take a risk and merely guess for yourself what the all powerful god wants? That's a sure-fire way to get yourself fucked the fuck up by a big invisible guy in the sky.
This is a sticky problem that has plagued religion for a long time. Christianity worked around this issue by introducing the concept of divine grace (charis). As I understand it, Judaism doesn't have divine grace, but a set of concepts which collectively cover most of the same ground. The one that seems to come up most often is the concept of chesed? Can't say I understand it. Gets a bit, er, Jewish.
If non-fundamentalist Christians and Jews are essentially atheists, why do atheists act as they do towards them?
They don't know they are atheists, and we're trying to help them realize it.
If it is a translation of the word of god, might some parts be correct and some incorrect translations?
Alright, let's say some parts are the word of god, and some parts aren't. How do you know which ones are the right ones? You just decide that observing the Sabbath isn't necessary, but going to church on Easter is important. How do you know you didn't get it wrong? If you don't know that you got it right, how can you do anything without constantly worrying if you got it wrong? You dare to take a risk and merely guess for yourself what the all powerful god wants? That's a sure-fire way to get yourself fucked the fuck up by a big invisible guy in the sky.
So...do you not bother even trying? When you have a book that says "Love thy neighbor as thyself," how bad is it to follow that? If someone reads Heinlein and decides that his philosophy on the military or religion or whatever is right for them, then is it wrong that a work of fiction led them to that? If a parable in the Bible does the same thing, is that bad? Faith is not a rational thing. There is no set of proofs.
I gotta tell you guys, even if I were less firm in my religious convictions, atheism is a massive turn off in large part due to the people involved. The superior attitude, snarkiness and self-righteousness is annoying. If I'm happy, why is that a bad thing?
So...do you not bother even trying? When you have a book that says "Love thy neighbor as thyself," how bad is it to follow that? If someone reads Heinlein and decides that his philosophy on the military or religion or whatever is right for them, then is it wrong that a work of fiction led them to that? If a parable in the Bible does the same thing, is that bad? Faith is not a rational thing. There is no set of proofs.
I gotta tell you guys, even if I were less firm in my religious convictions, atheism is a massive turn off in large part due to the people involved. The superior attitude, snarkiness and self-righteousness is annoying. If I'm happy, why is that a bad thing?
If it all just comes down to a book with some good ideas about how to live your life, then why make a religion out of it? Every major religion and philosophy has the same basic ideas about how to be good to each other. Everyone who ISN'T religious knows those things too. And everyone who IS religious just ignores the part of their scriptures that they don't like anyway. So who cares? Why not just do what you know is the right thing, and leave religion out of it?
If it is a translation of the word of god, might some parts be correct and some incorrect translations?
Alright, let's say some parts are the word of god, and some parts aren't. How do you know which ones are the right ones? You just decide that observing the Sabbath isn't necessary, but going to church on Easter is important. How do you know you didn't get it wrong? If you don't know that you got it right, how can you do anything without constantly worrying if you got it wrong? You dare to take a risk and merely guess for yourself what the all powerful god wants? That's a sure-fire way to get yourself fucked the fuck up by a big invisible guy in the sky.
So...do you not bother even trying? When you have a book that says "Love thy neighbor as thyself," how bad is it to follow that? If someone reads Heinlein and decides that his philosophy on the military or religion or whatever is right for them, then is it wrong that a work of fiction led them to that? If a parable in the Bible does the same thing, is that bad? Faith is not a rational thing. There is no set of proofs.
I gotta tell you guys, even if I were less firm in my religious convictions, atheism is a massive turn off in large part due to the people involved. The superior attitude, snarkiness and self-righteousness is annoying. If I'm happy, why is that a bad thing?
That's all good and well. That really isn't the point, though. Your happiness is fine, but many parts of the religion infringe on the happiness of other people. Gay people, for example, can't get married. Give me a good reason why that is the way it is.
Florida recently passed legislation allowing for the teaching of alternatives to evolutionary theory in a science classroom; I'm all for teaching valid scientific alternatives to evolution (good luck finding one), but this is obviously a nod in the direction of teaching creationism/ID in a science classroom setting.
I have a beef with religion not on the personal level - if believing in some crazy crap gets you through your day, I'm cool with that - but rather on a larger, institutional level. Most religions engender an attitude of blind obedience and unwavering faith, things that are dangerous when combined when incomplete or outright incorrect information.
A personal set of beliefs is fantastic, and in fact, I would encourage people to do it. Interpreting the Bible (or ANY religious text for that matter) is NECESSARY, because that's the only way we can get any use out of it. Treat it like you do any other philosophy; consider its finer points, take the stuff that makes sense to heart, and discard the unnecessary bits. Use the beliefs to guide your spiritual growth, not as some be-all and end-all of how to live your life.
The word used in Exodus 20:13 is "ratsah". Ratsah refers to certain sorts of killing, not all killing in general.
Technically the passage in Deuteronomy commands that you stone your close friends and loved ones to death only if they "cuwth cether". This is a very particular type of evangelizing. Cuwth means something like prod, as in to prod someone into doing something. Cether means something like undercover. So what it's saying is to stone your child to death if they're pressuring you in secret to convert to the worship of unfamiliar (non Judeo-Christian?) gods. It elaborates further on in the chapter that this is in order to make an example of them, so other Israelites who might have been planning on taking a similar tactic decide otherwise. Not necessarily much better, but it's important to not make generalizations.
(Not mentioned in the Old Testament, but in the Talmud it also notes that before Jews go ahead with a stoning, the potential stonee must have known ahead of time that what they were doing was prohibited, and the prohibited act must be witnessed by two people. Jewish sting operation, maybe? )
It does say, however, that if "ben bliya'al" (not exactly sure what those are) go to one of the cities given by God to the Hebrews (nor what those are ^^; Jerusalem?) and they appear to have successfully converted the inhabitants of that city, that you (if you are a Jew) should "nakah" the inhabitants (smite, maybe kill?) and the entire city should be razed, if it is absolutely certain that this is what has happened.
Tough times.
In Mark, the bit about being immune to poison is from a saying attributed to Jesus, on the signs that someone is pisteusasin (means something like "a Believer") "They shall lift up serpents; and if they imbibe any poisonous thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." However, "serpent" (ofeiV) is used in other places in the bible sort of like how "pig" is used nowadays. If you say that men are pigs, you are saying something about their character, not necessarily that they would make good bacon. Also "hurt" (blaptw) can also mean hinder. In other sayings attributed to Jesus, it can be noted that Jesus sometimes used metaphors and similes. An alternate reading might be that lifting up poisonous people (in a figurative sense) will not poison a Believer, and that instead the poisonous people will be cured, and that this is a sign that the person noted is a Believer.
If I understand correctly, the killing Sabbath-breakers commandment mentioned in Exodus applies only to the "children of Israel", which I think means just the Jews. So if you are a Jew and your Sabbath-breaking neighbor isn't, no need to kill him.
Same goes for the sacrificing of two turtledoves after menstruation. Applies to Jews only, it seems.
So...do you not bother even trying? When you have a book that says "Love thy neighbor as thyself," how bad is it to follow that?
There's nothing wrong with loving your neighbor. There is something wrong with loving your neighbor because a book and a magic sky man told you to. Are you saying that just because a book says a few nice things that we should make that book the source of all morality? Even crazy old Dianetics has a few things in there to agree with. That doesn't mean I should live my life according to it.
Live your life according to a morality you decide for yourself based upon the real world. If a work of fiction happens to agree with your morality, that doesn't mean much.
I gotta tell you guys, even if I were less firm in my religious convictions, atheism is a massive turn off in large part due to the people involved. The superior attitude, snarkiness and self-righteousness is annoying. If I'm happy, why is that a bad thing?
So being nice and friendly is more important than the truth? Let me give you this scenario. You get sick, and you need a doctor. There are two doctors available. One doctor is the nicest friendliest doctor in the universe. We're talking Mr. Rogers levels of niceness. However, the "doctor" isn't a doctor, they're a "faith healer". If you go to them, you will probably die.
The other doctor is an asshole. He's mean and nasty. He has long waits in his office. He's rude to the patients. He gives out medicine that either tastes really bad, or he gives shots that hurt. However, this doctor's medicine actually works. It's real medicine. It will save your life.
Saying you don't like atheism because it appears arrogant is like saying you would rather go to the first doctor. The reason atheism appears arrogant is because it is true. Truth, reason, and logic always appear tyrannical to those who oppose it.
What a crap argument. There are many, many philosophies and religions, just as there are many, many doctors and treatments. No, I wouldn't go to the asshole doctor. He doesn't get my business because he's an asshole. The faith healer is the other extreme and he doesn't get my business either because he's a whack job. My wife and I moved and were shopping for a new primary care practitioner. We met several doctors and chose the one who fit our needs. Life is not always binary. It isn't always off or on. There are varying degrees of choice and varying degrees of crazy.
What a crap argument. There are many, many philosophies and religions, just as there are many, many doctors and treatments.
With doctors, as you point out, you go to a real doctor. We can evaluate how effective doctors are in treating patients. Some doctors are better than others. Many doctors are verifiably fake (homeopathic "doctors," chiropractors, etc). You may choose a doctor based on certain preferences, but it's a given that you go to a doctor whose treatments work and are based in science.
With religions, however, all of their "doctors" are equally viable, equally valid, and equally likely to be correct. There is the exact same amount of evidence of Jesus' divinity as there is of Zeus's or Scott's. There is no logical reason to choose one belief system over another, as they're all equally likely.
What a crap argument. There are many, many philosophies and religions, just as there are many, many doctors and treatments. No, I wouldn't go to the asshole doctor. He doesn't get my business because he's an asshole. The faith healer is the other extreme and he doesn't get my business either because he's a whack job. My wife and I moved and were shopping for a new primary care practitioner. We met several doctors and chose the one who fit our needs. Life is not always binary. It isn't always off or on. There are varying degrees of choice and varying degrees of crazy.
Of course it is a false dichotomy in the real world. That's why I proposed a hypothetical situation where there are only two choices.
The point I'm making is that truth is more important than niceness. If (don't ignore that if) your only choices are between unpleasant truth and nice lies, you have to go with the unpleasant truth. Truth is more important than niceness. No matter how nice religious people are, and no matter how arrogant atheist people are, the atheist is true. Logic, reality, and reason are all on the side of the atheist. Saying you don't like atheism because it is mean is like saying you will go to the bullshit doctor because the real doctor is mean.
By the way, the reason atheists come of as arrogant and mean is because the real world sucks. People have many hopes. Most of those hopes are false hopes. Religion will tell you that the things you hope are actually true. Atheist will tell you reality, that your hopes are false. Anyone telling you that the things you hope for are not true, and never will be true, will seem like a mean and arrogant person. Who likes having their hopes crushed? The thing is that atheism is not to blame for this, reality is to blame. The atheists aren't being mean when they tell you there is no such thing as magic. They are just telling it like it is. If it upsets you that your hopes are not reality, blame the world for sucking, and blame yourself for getting your hopes up too high.
Comments
Pick any version or interpretation of any bible you want. Either it is the word of god, or it is not. If the words in that book are a holy and divine word from a higher being than humans, such as god, then humans can not think to change those words. Any influence on those words that is human in origin removes all divinity from those words. If the words, or meanings of those words, are changed or modified in any way by humans, then those words lose all power. They become no more important or magical than any other words written by humans, such as a newspaper, comic book, or novel.
If it is the divine word of god, for real, no human can change it, modify it, or interpret it. By definition any divine word of any god must have one and only one correct interpretation and meaning that can not be changed or re-interpreted without a further act of god. To come up with your own interpretation of the word of god means you, a human, are deciding what god wants instead of listening to god tell you what god wants. To listen to a priest's interpretation means you are deciding to believe god wants what a priest thinks god wants, but not what god actually says god wants.
If you take the so-called divine word and decide for yourself what it really means, you are basically just an atheist. You are deciding your own morality based on your own real life experience. The only difference is that you use the narrative of an ancient fictional book as a metaphor for your morality as opposed to using the real world. If you follow the word exactly to the letter, you're a crazy fundamentalist, but at least you aren't hypocritical.
I gotta tell you guys, even if I were less firm in my religious convictions, atheism is a massive turn off in large part due to the people involved. The superior attitude, snarkiness and self-righteousness is annoying. If I'm happy, why is that a bad thing?
Florida recently passed legislation allowing for the teaching of alternatives to evolutionary theory in a science classroom; I'm all for teaching valid scientific alternatives to evolution (good luck finding one), but this is obviously a nod in the direction of teaching creationism/ID in a science classroom setting.
I have a beef with religion not on the personal level - if believing in some crazy crap gets you through your day, I'm cool with that - but rather on a larger, institutional level. Most religions engender an attitude of blind obedience and unwavering faith, things that are dangerous when combined when incomplete or outright incorrect information.
A personal set of beliefs is fantastic, and in fact, I would encourage people to do it. Interpreting the Bible (or ANY religious text for that matter) is NECESSARY, because that's the only way we can get any use out of it. Treat it like you do any other philosophy; consider its finer points, take the stuff that makes sense to heart, and discard the unnecessary bits. Use the beliefs to guide your spiritual growth, not as some be-all and end-all of how to live your life.
A few comments:
The word used in Exodus 20:13 is "ratsah". Ratsah refers to certain sorts of killing, not all killing in general.
Technically the passage in Deuteronomy commands that you stone your close friends and loved ones to death only if they "cuwth cether". This is a very particular type of evangelizing. Cuwth means something like prod, as in to prod someone into doing something. Cether means something like undercover. So what it's saying is to stone your child to death if they're pressuring you in secret to convert to the worship of unfamiliar (non Judeo-Christian?) gods.
(Not mentioned in the Old Testament, but in the Talmud it also notes that before Jews go ahead with a stoning, the potential stonee must have known ahead of time that what they were doing was prohibited, and the prohibited act must be witnessed by two people. Jewish sting operation, maybe?
It does say, however, that if "ben bliya'al" (not exactly sure what those are) go to one of the cities given by God to the Hebrews (nor what those are ^^; Jerusalem?) and they appear to have successfully converted the inhabitants of that city, that you (if you are a Jew) should "nakah" the inhabitants (smite, maybe kill?) and the entire city should be razed, if it is absolutely certain that this is what has happened.
Tough times.
In Mark, the bit about being immune to poison is from a saying attributed to Jesus, on the signs that someone is pisteusasin (means something like "a Believer") "They shall lift up serpents; and if they imbibe any poisonous thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." However, "serpent" (ofeiV) is used in other places in the bible sort of like how "pig" is used nowadays. If you say that men are pigs, you are saying something about their character, not necessarily that they would make good bacon.
If I understand correctly, the killing Sabbath-breakers commandment mentioned in Exodus applies only to the "children of Israel", which I think means just the Jews. So if you are a Jew and your Sabbath-breaking neighbor isn't, no need to kill him.
Same goes for the sacrificing of two turtledoves after menstruation. Applies to Jews only, it seems.
Live your life according to a morality you decide for yourself based upon the real world. If a work of fiction happens to agree with your morality, that doesn't mean much. So being nice and friendly is more important than the truth? Let me give you this scenario. You get sick, and you need a doctor. There are two doctors available. One doctor is the nicest friendliest doctor in the universe. We're talking Mr. Rogers levels of niceness. However, the "doctor" isn't a doctor, they're a "faith healer". If you go to them, you will probably die.
The other doctor is an asshole. He's mean and nasty. He has long waits in his office. He's rude to the patients. He gives out medicine that either tastes really bad, or he gives shots that hurt. However, this doctor's medicine actually works. It's real medicine. It will save your life.
Saying you don't like atheism because it appears arrogant is like saying you would rather go to the first doctor. The reason atheism appears arrogant is because it is true. Truth, reason, and logic always appear tyrannical to those who oppose it.
With religions, however, all of their "doctors" are equally viable, equally valid, and equally likely to be correct. There is the exact same amount of evidence of Jesus' divinity as there is of Zeus's or Scott's. There is no logical reason to choose one belief system over another, as they're all equally likely.
The point I'm making is that truth is more important than niceness. If (don't ignore that if) your only choices are between unpleasant truth and nice lies, you have to go with the unpleasant truth. Truth is more important than niceness. No matter how nice religious people are, and no matter how arrogant atheist people are, the atheist is true. Logic, reality, and reason are all on the side of the atheist. Saying you don't like atheism because it is mean is like saying you will go to the bullshit doctor because the real doctor is mean.
By the way, the reason atheists come of as arrogant and mean is because the real world sucks. People have many hopes. Most of those hopes are false hopes. Religion will tell you that the things you hope are actually true. Atheist will tell you reality, that your hopes are false. Anyone telling you that the things you hope for are not true, and never will be true, will seem like a mean and arrogant person. Who likes having their hopes crushed? The thing is that atheism is not to blame for this, reality is to blame. The atheists aren't being mean when they tell you there is no such thing as magic. They are just telling it like it is. If it upsets you that your hopes are not reality, blame the world for sucking, and blame yourself for getting your hopes up too high.