The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I think Glenn Beck being born, raised and then being reconfirmed as a Mormon after drunkenly straying from that sect's path makes him a Mormon, not this single belief.

I thought Beck was raised Catholic, then converted to LDS in the early 90s after spending most of the 80s drunk and high.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I thought Beck was raised Catholic, then converted to LDS in the early 90s after spending most of the 80s drunk and high.

Perhaps you're right. I don't really pay much attention to him, just knew that he's a Mormon and wouldn't expect anybody to convert to it after having been raised to appreciate the All Benevolent Alcohol.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

That is a thoughtful post, Hovey, and unofan will probably have a good response. But the 14th and 5th Amendments prohibit discrimination through state action. What constitutes "state action" is not always as simple as it sounds, but there are tests. Statutes, federal and state, which are empowered by the 14th and 5th, bar discrimination by non-state actors. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1983 is an example.

Yeah, I understand there are state and federal statutes which prohibit businesses, employers, landlords, etc..., from discriminating on the grounds of a person's religious beliefs. As I stated, this is where I think we went off track as a country. People have conflicting belief systems, so whose should prevail?

I am totally in favor of anti-discrimination laws based upon age, sex, race, where you were born and sexual orientation. These are situations we are born into (notwithstanding Rachel Dolezal and some specious claims people "choose" to be homosexual).

But when you start protecting people's belief systems (such as religion), and furthermore, require the rest of us to act so as not to somehow infringe upon them, you find yourself in the mess we are in now.

 

[joecct]

I thought Beck was raised Catholic, then converted to LDS in the early 90s after spending most of the 80s drunk and high.

We still count him as one of our own. Fairh wise. Politics is different.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Speaking of Catholicism, it turns out that being photographed with a hammer and sickle crucifix is pretty bad for your approval ratings.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

The sixth word in the second paragraph refutes your argument. Although it occurs to me in retrospect that I am assuming a loose definition of "fundy" as those who take scripture as literal fact, rather than as parable. If that seems inexact to you, feel free to substitute the term "literalist" for "fundy." As for the Field Guide to Literalists Varities, yes, I am sure there are a virtual infinitude of arguments about which side of the bread to butter and how much and how far from it women have to stand for it to be holy, but the argument here is reductive to the criterion: "is your scripture wholly literal?" That is a binary result, and I'm drawing the Line of Derision at that point. Others would no doubt draw the Line of Authenticity, and argue that those on the other side of the line are "cafeteria believers."

The inherent danger of scriptural literalism to a free society is obvious: what happens when the Magic Book conflicts with either/or demonstrable fact and other people's rights. That is happening right now with US, the former with evolution, the latter with gay rights. If it's hard to see the beam in one's own eye, think of the conflict between Islamic literalism and a free society.

I can't help you with the fantasy world you live in. Sorry. I'm tired of trying.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

What is the morality, purpose, motivation, or differentator of the US Constitution, then? It's a framework for governance that is not based on Chistianity, or any religion. And yet, you appear to ascribe value to the Constitution, so you clearly agree that non-religious (i.e. atheistic) points of view can be valuable. Our founding fathers said, "You know what, we don't need God to be involved in our government. Let's set kick Him out of the room and get this done." That is a group of people acting like atheists, no matter what their actual personal beliefs may have been, and they created a hugely valuable, and I would certainly argue "moral," result. Atheistic actions - and associated atheistic movements - have given the US its strong tradition of religious tolerance that is virtually unique in the world.

The US Constitution has a constructive, positive and proactive purpose. Its goal is to set up a framework for the operations of the US public sector. It needs no other purpose. Its creation eliminates anarchy - a purely negative phenomena in today's society. There is nothing about the US Constitution that is Atheistic in nature. I have searched wiki to find some inkling of atheistic behavior or hatred towards the Christian movement by authors Ames and Mason. There is none. There were no arguments used for the religious clauses that was about how God should be rooted out of society. Their arguments/motivations were strictly for preserving the people's rights. So, can you find any cause/effect reference to show a direct Atheistic impact on the Bill of Rights? Something along the lines of 'Medieval hospitals were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns' - wiki

In fact, Jesus never forced individuals to believe in Chrisitanity...God allows for free will. Also Jesus never forced favoritism. And likewise, the Golden Rule dictates that we treat others with respect. The Bible started influencing culture on respect for others centuries earlier with the printing of the Bible. Respect for everyone else (love your enemy) is a top two message in all of Christianity. In the end, the Constitution lines up perfectly with Christianity.

BTW, I highly recommend Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt: A History. Some believers, at least, from what has been said here, are operating from false axioms about what atheism is and how it operates. Much as how Bob has pointed out there are a huge variety of fundamentalisms, there are also a huge variety of atheisms, but as with the former so the latter does have some critical characteristics that make it a member of the general class. The criticisms being leveled against atheism in this thread address exactly none of these, and go off on tangents that have nothing to do with what the whole doubt project has been about for the last 5000+ years.

It's also a really well written book.

I believe your book is good. Yet I have dozens of Christian books that say that Atheism is bad news...you must read them. So let's get to specifics.

We've seen heaps of criticism and negativity from Atheists. What constructive, positive influence does Atheism provide today? Does it provide a positive moral compass for individuals? Do Atheist groups create significant societal value add?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

The US Constitution has a constructive, positive and proactive purpose. Its goal is to set up a framework for the operations of the US public sector. It needs no other purpose. Its creation eliminates anarchy - a purely negative phenomena in today's society. There is nothing about the US Constitution that is Atheistic in nature. I have searched wiki to find some inkling of atheistic behavior or hatred towards the Christian movement by authors Ames and Mason. There is none. There were no arguments used for the religious clauses that was about how God should be rooted out of society. Their arguments/motivations were strictly for preserving the people's rights. So, can you find any cause/effect reference to show a direct Atheistic impact on the Bill of Rights? Something along the lines of 'Medieval hospitals were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns' - wiki

You're mistaking a-theism (lack of belief) with anti-theism (antipathy toward belief). One does not have to hate Christianity or any other religion to be an atheist. Perhaps if we switched to using the term non-religious in this thread we could avoid that confusion. The fact that the Constitution is non-religious in nature in my view makes it atheistic, in the same way that an engineering specification for a fuel pump is atheistic. So, if we take that as the working definition of atheism, then I think you do agree that there is plenty of value and purpose for non-religious documents (and the movements, whether political, scientific, etc that create them).

In fact, Jesus never forced individuals to believe in Chrisitanity...God allows for free will. Also Jesus never forced favoritism. And likewise, the Golden Rule dictates that we treat others with respect. The Bible started influencing culture on respect for others centuries earlier with the printing of the Bible. Respect for everyone else (love your enemy) is a top two message in all of Christianity. In the end, the Constitution lines up perfectly with Christianity.

It ALSO lines up perfectly with Judiasm, Islam, and, yes, atheism. Per usual, anything that you consider to be good you preform mental contortions so that you can define it to be Christian. The Constitution is not a Christian document, period.

We've seen heaps of criticism and negativity from Atheists. What constructive, positive influence does Atheism provide today? Does it provide a positive moral compass for individuals? Do Atheist groups create significant societal value add?

Atheists are by and large content to live and let live, and work through existing organizations (ACLU, etc) rather than feeling a need to organize into a specific group or bloc. So long as existing laws (including the Constitution) are properly enforced, then atheists already have everything we desire, since we have no need to proselytize. When atheists participate in court cases to prevent religious-based laws from creating discrimination, I strongly believe that is a significant value to society, to ensure that the separation of church and state that is fundamental to our political philosophy is maintained.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

BTW I prayed for the group of you the other night.

You're mistaking a-theism (lack of belief) with anti-theism (antipathy toward belief). One does not have to hate Christianity or any other religion to be an atheist. Perhaps if we switched to using the term non-religious in this thread we could avoid that confusion. The fact that the Constitution is non-religious in nature in my view makes it atheistic, in the same way that an engineering specification for a fuel pump is atheistic. So, if we take that as the working definition of atheism, then I think you do agree that there is plenty of value and purpose for non-religious documents (and the movements, whether political, scientific, etc that create them).

The behavior on the site/thread from self proclaimed Atheists has been that of consistent 'antipathy' towards Christianity. This until it was called out a week or so ago. Now if you want to tell me that typical self proclaimed atheists do not behave as those on this site...

It ALSO lines up perfectly with Judiasm, Islam, and, yes, atheism. Per usual, anything that you consider to be good you preform mental contortions so that you can define it to be Christian. The Constitution is not a Christian document, period.

I never claimed it was a Christian document (I said it aligned with Christianity). Your previous post was that the Constitution was an Atheist driven document to 'kick God out'...and you just refuted your point by saying the above.

Atheists are by and large content to live and let live, and work through existing organizations (ACLU, etc) rather than feeling a need to organize into a specific group or bloc. So long as existing laws (including the Constitution) are properly enforced, then atheists already have everything we desire, since we have no need to proselytize. When atheists participate in court cases to prevent religious-based laws from creating discrimination, I strongly believe that is a significant value to society, to ensure that the separation of church and state that is fundamental to our political philosophy is maintained.

No problem. I have seen a significant amount of negativity from the group. I was just reflecting that ultimately I haven't seen much in the proactive plus column beyond being an opposition party.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

BTW I prayed for the group of you the other night.



The behavior on the site/thread from self proclaimed Atheists has been that of consistent 'antipathy' towards Christianity. This until it was called out a week or so ago. Now if you want to tell me that typical self proclaimed atheists do not behave as those on this site...

Speaking for myself, as a lone wolf atheist, I don't have anything against Christianity as a whole, as to the intent behind it, but when Christians try to whitewash its history and contort all good things in this world being the provence of their religion while all bad things belong to those other guys, that's what irritates me. That's what I see you constantly doing anytime religion comes up, be it a subject introduced by you or something to which you're replying. Christianity has skeletons in its closet and Christians have to accept those faults/flaws/whatevers.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I can't help you with the fantasy world you live in. Sorry. I'm tired of trying.

Right back atcha.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Speaking for myself, as a lone wolf atheist, I don't have anything against Christianity as a whole, as to the intent behind it, but when Christians try to whitewash its history and contort all good things in this world being the provence of their religion while all bad things belong to those other guys, that's what irritates me. That's what I see you constantly doing anytime religion comes up, be it a subject introduced by you or something to which you're replying. Christianity has skeletons in its closet and Christians have to accept those faults/flaws/whatevers.

Yeah. I haven't seen much negative from you. I have and freely admit that Christians have done poorly (although I do believe that there is very little to nothing in Jesus' positions to merit such behavior). My position is that overall the Jesus message has done wonders for where we are today in terms of the treatment of others. And I bring up the positives that have resulted because a) others don't...far more posters have posted negativity in this thread...and b) people don't know this stuff.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I suspect the atheists on this site are as little impressed with the logical abilities of the believers as the believers are with the theological abilities of the atheists. Twas ever thus. Vaya con Dios, one and all.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

BTW I prayed for the group of you the other night.

So that explains the nothing I felt.

The behavior on the site/thread from self proclaimed Atheists has been that of consistent 'antipathy' towards Christianity. This until it was called out a week or so ago. Now if you want to tell me that typical self proclaimed atheists do not behave as those on this site...

We definitely disparage Christians who we believe are taking actions to force their religion on others, or advocating such actions. As I've stated on here before, if Christians just wanted to live in homes that were free of gay marriage, homosexuality, abortion, etc and hang the Ten Commandments on their own walls, I would have absolutely nothing to say on the topic. But there are large groups of Christians who want to go far beyond that - and want to use the power of the state to enforce their religious ideals. That's bogus, and I call it like I see it.

I never claimed it was a Christian document (I said it aligned with Christianity). Your previous post was that the Constitution was an Atheist driven document to 'kick God out'...and you just refuted your point by saying the above.

No, I said that the founders kicked God out of the room while they were drafting the document - not that the document was designed to kick God entirely out of the US. The government has no more business in attempting to actively kick God out of the US than it would have in establishing Christianity as the official US state religion. There is exactly one mention of religion in the Constitution, and that is to explicitly state that there shall be no religious test as a qualification for office. Even the oath of office for the President goes out of its way to avoid swearing to a god or religious document.

That's certainly what I would call a non-religious, i.e. atheistic, document.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I suspect the atheists on this site are as little impressed with the logical abilities of the believers as the believers are with the logical abilities of the atheists. Twas ever thus. Vaya con Dios, one and all.

FYP. Believers don't think they've thrown out logic as you folks think believers have. We think you apply your logic in ways that are flawed.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

FYP. Believers don't think they've thrown out logic as you folks think believers have. We think you apply our logic in ways that are flawed.

Rather, you should know that we find your very premise on how the world was created and its social-governing body flawed and then perform logical contortions in order to make the world fit your flawed premise.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

So this is now the etymology and definitions thread??


There is a common confusion that atheist = amoral which is definitely not the case. Believers might wonder how a person who says s/he doesn't "believe" in God might have any motivation to act in a moral and ethical manner; however, there are strong philosophical arguments to be made that morals and ethics do not require a belief in God for an underpinning.

and not all atheists do not believe in "god" many merely believe that "god" has no interest in the day-to-day details of each individual person's life. If "god" is a loving parent, She raises us to a certain point and then we are out of the house and on our own, just like our children after awhile are independent actors solely responsible for their own choices. in this model, praying to "god" is like asking Mom to step into our life again and fix things, she'll just say, "um, no, dear, you have all the tools and skills you need to handle it yourself."


Frankly, I don't care at all what other people "believe;" the only thing that matters to me is how they behave. If you are polite and treat others with kindness and generosity and patience (as warranted), don't lie, don't steal, and don't hit people (self-defense exception), that's enough, no matter what your motivation.


To loosely paraphrase a key section from The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, "I noticed that people in our city were doing really cool stuff, and I wanted to be a part of it. the only way to be a part of it was to be viewed as trustworthy and reliable. So I decided always to act in a trustworthy and reliable manner." No "god" there, just a motivation to be part of the "in" crowd. that worked out pretty well for him, no?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

We definitely disparage Christians who we believe are taking actions to force their religion on others, or advocating such actions.

Sure...never addressing just 'Christians' in a disparaging way. Whatever you say.

No, I said that the founders kicked God out of the room while they were drafting the document - not that the document was designed to kick God entirely out of the US. The government has no more business in attempting to actively kick God out of the US than it would have in establishing Christianity as the official US state religion. There is exactly one mention of religion in the Constitution, and that is to explicitly state that there shall be no religious test as a qualification for office. Even the oath of office for the President goes out of its way to avoid swearing to a god or religious document.

That's certainly what I would call a non-religious, i.e. atheistic, document.

The Constitution aligns with Christianity as it does with Atheism...but it is neither a Atheistic nor Christian document. It does not support Atheism...it is independent of the positions of Christianity, Judaism or Atheism. Anything else is Atheists rewriting history Texas style. Further evidence, the Constitution and the resulting US government is not Atheistic but rather secular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

There is a common confusion that atheist = amoral which is definitely not the case.

Not sure if your referring to me. But I never said anything of the kind.

My question has been what positive, independent value does Atheism offer to the individual or society? Does Atheism offer a replacement for the value system Christianity provides? The answer appears to be not really, whereas the value system is a major component of Christianity. Atheists could well be very moral...but that doesn't mean a broader Atheistic movement adds any value in that area.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Rather, you should know that we find your very premise on how the world was created and its social-governing body flawed and then perform logical contortions in order to make the world fit your flawed premise.

Do we really need to keep saying we see things differently? I find your premises flawed. You find mine flawed. Seems like the dead horse has been more than beaten to death, though I guess some folks have nothing better to do.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Do we really need to keep saying we see things differently? I find your premises flawed. You find mine flawed. Seems like the dead horse has been more than beaten to death, though I guess some folks have nothing better to do.

When you say that you apply "your logic" to a situation, it's a misnomer. Logic is logic, it's the starting points and view of how the world works which makes all the difference. FlagDUDE is logical in how he conducts himself, but his conspiritorial nature completely skews everything he sees and leads him down roads that make bad movie scripts look more realistic. The same exact thing is happening here between the atheists and the Christians and Jews and Muslims and Shintoists and so-on-and-so-on.