Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:03 am Post subject: Reading the Scriptures
I noticed that quite a number of us here are well versed with the Bible. I yearn to have such a knowledge at my fingertips; I skimmed through the Old Testament in my youth while cherry-picking the books that made up the New Testament.
I have never regarded the Bible as the ultimate authority in truth. Indeed, I feel that is dangerous to interprete it literally. The Bible is riddled with contradictions, and may I have the temerity to add, addled with nonsense in some parts.
The Bible is not inerrant. To me, it serves as an example on how we should lead our lives. It serves by direct instruction such as the Ten Commandments or the famous Sermon on the Mount. That is what the Scriptures excel at doing: giving us an absolute moral standad by which we should all strive to achieve. We should not be studying geology or history through the prejudiced and chaotic filters of the Bible.
Let's take what the more sophisticated theologians call 'flood geology' and what the rest of the world refer to as Noah's Ark. A Gallup poll revealed that close to 50% of Americans take this story seriously. The fact that so many rational right-thinking people are able to swallow the story hook, line and sinker tells me that education has comprehensively failed them. Squeezing two animals of each species into an ark is simply untenable. Wouldn't Noah and his family have caught an early primitive form of bird flu whilst living in close proximity with their livestock?
The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, on the other hand, never ceases to amuse me. As you would all probably know, Abraham's nephew, Lot, was the latter-day equivaent of Noah whom God had taken a liking to for being one of the few honest and righteous men in increasingly corrupted and depraved world. So two male angels were sent to the abode of Lot in order to warn him of the impending dangers. Lot hospitably welcomed the angels into his house where he probably served them cups of tea, like a good host he was, whereupon a male crowd of the city of Sodom gathered outside and demanded that Lot should hand over the angels so that they could (what else?) sodomise them. (Genesis 19: 5 - Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them).
Of course, the sensitive translators who made possible the King James Authorised Bible had quite a sense of humour with their euphemistic definition of 'know'.
Lot gallantly refused, naturally. God must have been on to something when He rightly singled him out as the only good man left in Sodom. But his halo is tarnishd, in my view, by the terms of his refusal: 'I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof' (Genesis 19: 7 -8)
When I first read this years ago, I was appalled. I still am, today. This brings to mind the famous Arabic hospitality, an excuse which was invoked in 2001 when Osama bin Laden was hiding in some tent in Afghanistan. The Talban's refusal to hand him over despite being cognisant of the consequences was held up as an example of hospitality a la Lot.
This is not the end of the story. We would all have known that happily for Lot's daughters, the crowd did not so much as lay a finger on them. The angels grew annoyed and dispersed the crowd away. Lot and his family decamped that very night with the explicit warnings by the angels to not look back at the almighty firework displays of fire and brimstone that would rain upon Sodom.
Of course, somebody had to defy the script which was written for her. Lot's unfortunate wife could not resist a peek and committed the transgression - a very minor one, in my opinion - of turning her back and was promptly turned into a pillar of salt.
The story does not end here. Lot's two daughters make an appearance towards the end. Bereft of their mother and of male company, they decided to make their father drunk and copulate with him. Lot was beyod the realm of reason when his oldest daughter arrived at his bedchambers, but he was apparenty sober enough to impregnate her. The next night, the youngest daughter pulled the same stunt and Lot, being a recidivist, impregnated her as well. Now, if this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals and good values, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with the capricious and cruel God of the Old Testament as well as His judicial brimstone.
The point I am trying to make is that those who take the Scriptures at face value do so at their own peril. When I was younger, I vastly preferred the Old Testament to the New because of its entertainment value whereas the New Testament has more in the way of educational value.
It is obvious from previous interactions with me that I am not an atheist who goes around like a raving madman, shrilly denouncing the evils of Christianity or of organised religions in general. To me, the Bible is an important cultural or literary reference even if the atheists vehemently disagree. Many examples have been cited and there is overwhelming agreement by teachers of English literature that biblical literarcy is essential to full appreciation of the subject. It is like Wagner: one cannot fully appreciate his masterpieces without a sound knowledge of the various Norse gods.
Think of the various list of cliches, proverbs, idioms, similes and phrases that spontaneosly spring to mind. We are indebted to the Bible and indeed, we'd be culturally impoverished for it without its contributions to the richness and vitality of our language:
1. Be fruitful and multiply
2. Am I my brother's keeper?
3. As old as Methuselah
4. To sell his birthright (as Ishmael did to Isaac)
5. Stranger in a strange land
6. land flowing with milk and honey
7. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
8. the apple of his eye
9. speaking Shibboleth
10. a Philistine
11. How are the mighty fallen
12. Wisdom of Solomon
13. The patience of Job
14. Spare the rod and spoil the child
15. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid (my favourite)
16. Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die
17. to see things eye to eye
18. can the leopard change its spots?
19. Man shall not live by bread alone
20. Get thee behind me, Satan!
21. to go the extra mile
22. a law unto himself
23. to fight the good fight
24. The Good Samaritan
25. Grapes of Wrath
The list is endles. It goes on and on. For this reason, and for it alone, religious education should be a part of every schoolboy's curriculum. Every loyal reader of PG Wodehouse would realise, to his delight, that the great master of comedic farce is an expert in weaving in biblical allusions into his plot. By examining the Bertie Wooster and Jeeves canon alone, the reader would never fail to smile whenever the woolly-headed Bertie bragged about winning a prize in Scripture Knowledge back at Eton, plausibly his sole scholastic achievement in his entire life. Listen to Bertie Wooster's evocation of what it is like to wake up with a bad hangover: "I had been dreaming that some blighter was driving spikes through my head - not just ordinary spikes as used by Yael the wife of Heber, but red-hot ones'.
The enjoyment of this ingenuiously funny allusion would be muted if you had failed to realise that Yael killed Sisera by means of a tent peg. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Let's take what the more sophisticated theologians call 'flood geology' and what the rest of the world refer to as Noah's Ark. A Gallup poll revealed that close to 50% of Americans take this story seriously. The fact that so many rational right-thinking people are able to swallow the story hook, line and sinker tells me that education has comprehensively failed them. Squeezing two animals of each species into an ark is simply untenable. Wouldn't Noah and his family have caught an early primitive form of bird flu whilst living in close proximity with their livestock?
Haha — I know, it's ridiculous. Interpreted literally, it also suggests that all animals today are descended from those few animals which went in the ark somewhere in the Middle East about 5,000 years ago, which is totally unrealistic. Moreover, the story is self-contradictory: at one point, it says that two of every animal were saved, whilst at another, it says that seven of every animal were saved, suggesting that two slightly different myths were assimilated together.
Interpreting stories like this literally comes from a mentality which thinks in terms of true=literal. This sort of mentality is prevalent (at least in the West) today, and has led many people to either interpret these stories as literal historical events (especially in the United States, apparently) or simply dismiss them off-hand as fundamentally meaningless.
I think it also comes from a misunderstanding of the concept of 'religious faith'. So often, 'faith' seems to be presented as a kind of virtue, whereby the more 'faith' you have, the better person you are because of it. The more irrational and improbable the beliefs, the stronger the 'faith'; and if you manage to hold on to your beliefs even when contradictory evidence is continuously presented to you, then you must be a very very holy person indeed.
I've often seen people on the internet claim that if any stories of the Bible are not literally true, then the writers of those stories must have been 'liars'. I don't understand how anyone could reach that conclusion, but it seems to be a fairly common view amongst at least some Evangelical Christians.
I like the Noah's Ark story though. Noah found favour with God by standing out from the crowd. He claimed that there would be a great flood, but everybody else just laughed at him. In the story, he built a huge boat, which must have led to him receiving extreme amounts of mockery and ridicule. But in the end, Noah and his family survived, whilst all the others were killed. I think the story advises us to listen to the 'lunatic' occasionally, because they might just be right.
I've often seen people on the internet claim that if any stories of the Bible are not literally true, then the writers of those stories must have been 'liars'. I don't understand how anyone could reach that conclusion, but it seems to be a fairly common view amongst at least some Evangelical Christians.
I agree. Just because some stories aren't *literally* true doesn't necessarily mean the authors are liars. Most of these stories are parables and should be read and interpreted accordingly.
Benjamin wrote:
I think it also comes from a misunderstanding of the concept of 'religious faith'. So often, 'faith' seems to be presented as a kind of virtue, whereby the more 'faith' you have, the better person you are because of it.
That's a very very common preconception. However, some people know that it's some sort of a misconception, thus vehemently claim that it isn't true, but still, they subconsciously adhere to it. A statement, which I've recently heard from a friend of mine, sums it up succintly and perfectly: "It doesn't depend on faith that someone is a good or a bad person, but generally, religious people are more virtous, benevolent, hard-working and conscientious." It seems to be a bit of an argumentational fallacy. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
I would never call a storyteller a liar. And storyteller is what the authors were. I assume there have been various variants of the same story around when the Bible was set in stone. One should never forget that sometimes there were literally thousands of years between the time the events took place and the day they were written down.
I would get further and say it is not religious people that are more whatever but people that have a vision, an intension or purpose in life.
For me, who does not believe in God or any other overnatural power, the Bible is a testament of history and of the peoples minds and mentality over the centuries of that time. It is but one viewpoint though but one well documented.
And it contains the experience of more than a mans life.
One of the rare moments we see eye to eye on a subject. I appreciate this rare convergence in our point of view.
I think there are moments in life when every educated person of faith is plagued with doubts as to the validity of the existence of God. Supporters of religion sometimes argue that there are scientific links between belief in God as well as his mental and physical well-being. This may be so, but it does not detract from the fact that God could still be as real as fairies at the bottom of the garden. We must hence be able to distinguish between what is true and what we want to be true.
I am reminded of a question posed to the famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell. When asked what if he was wrong and there was God after all, Russell supposedly replied: "Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence at all".
I do not want to go into the details on why I happen to be on the side of the believers. For one, religion allows me to express my love for tradition as well as my hatred of injustice. What saddens me is how atheists are often cut off from the traditions and cultural practices of their forefathers. Let me not belabour the point: I feel that even an atheist worldview provides no justification for cutting the Bible, as well as other sacred books, out of our education. We can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literal traditions of say, Roman Catholicism or Buddhism and participate in religious rituals such as marriage and funerals without buying into the superstitious beliefs that historically accompany these traditions. In short, we can, as Golda Meir famously said, believe in people while people believe in God.
PS: I am very impressed with the likes of Porthos, Benjamim and ddog for their familiarity with the Bible. The only kind of Bible I am most acquainted with is a sort of illustrated children's Bible with plenty of cute pictures of a bearded Noah and adorable pigs, horses and other animals all packed cheek to jowl in a tiny ark with a rainbow in the background. There were no references of incestuous behaviour between Lot and his daughters. I suppose it was a very sanitised Bible. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: Re: Reading the Scriptures
Loic wrote:
Squeezing two animals of each species into an ark is simply untenable. Wouldn't Noah and his family have caught an early primitive form of bird flu whilst living in close proximity with their livestock?
Not to mention, that the bodies of the only men in the ark must have served as a shelter for all strictly human pathogens, which do not have animal reservoirs, like Salmonella typhi or smallpox.
But seriously, if you type
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
you will find a lot of interesting about Great Floods in various myths.
I have no doubts about the existence of such a flood. It is very possible. It probably happened. It probably caused widespread misery and devastation. It most definitely left an indelible imprint in the memories of the affected population and the story of the disaster was passed down from generation to generation.
Actually, who wrote the Book of Genesis? The writers probably heard a distorted version of it and duly immortalised their version of the story in print. The story of Noah's Ark, after all, is part of the Abrahamic tradition that is also common to Judaeism and Islam. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
What saddens me is how atheists are often cut off from the traditions and cultural practices of their forefathers. Let me not belabour the point: I feel that even an atheist worldview provides no justification for cutting the Bible, as well as other sacred books, out of our education.
I understand your concerns, but not all atheists deny the importance of the Bible and other sacred books. Not being a religious person myself, I completely agree with you when you say that we shouldn't cut off from the cultural heritage of our forefathers and that the Bible shouldn't be cut out from our education. I'm sad, too, that many atheists simply play down the importance of these things. But at the same time, I'm sick and tired of those who are self-righteous about their own faith, who take the liberty of making blanket statements about atheists and keep saying that all the people who don't belive in God or have another religion have no values whatsoever. I feel the same way about atheists, too, who look down on religious people.
Loic wrote:
We can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literal traditions of say, Roman Catholicism or Buddhism and participate in religious rituals such as marriage and funerals without buying into the superstitious beliefs that historically accompany these traditions.
I agree that we have to respect and keep our cultural and literal traditions alive, however, I don't think that an atheists couple is advised to get married in the framework of a traditional Roman Catholic wedding ceremony or that a religious funeral should be organised for an atheist person who didn't find his way to God even in the last minutes of his agony. That's just wouldn't be an honest thing to do. If you don't belive in God, you cannot *honestly* make an oath to God. It's not just sheer formality - it's the question of faith or the lack of it. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Last edited by Liz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
PS: I am very impressed with the likes of Porthos, Benjamim and ddog for their familiarity with the Bible.
Haha, it's only because I did A-Level Religious Studies! And have only just finished it, so I still remember a lot of it. Actually, the Religious Studies course taught at my school for A-Level is unusual these days in that it was mainly focussed on the Bible — which in some ways was rather surprising, considering that most people in the Religious Studies class were actually Muslims.
The Pentateuch, which includes Genesis, is usually attributed to four sources by modern scholars:
J — the Yahwist — probably written in 9th century BCE in the Southern Kingdom (Judah); God is called 'Yahweh' and is anthropomorphic
E — the Elohist — probably written in 8th century BCE in Northern Kingdom (Israel); God is called 'Elohim' and uses angels
D — the Deuteronomist — probably written in 7th century BCE; includes the whole of Deuteronomy
P — the Priestly source — probably written around the time of the exile into Babylonia in 6th century BCE; focuses on laws
This explains why the various stories are often somewhat self-contradictory (e.g. the creation, the flood etc.), because they are probably derived from different sources.
I also learnt it at school about the Pentateuch and that makes the versatility (and the ocassional discrepancies and logical twists) of the script a lot easier to understand. Actually, the funny thing is that it's called the Pentateuch and is attributed to four different sources. I know that penta- refers to the number of books it consists of, still, I find it interesting that those five books are from only four different sources.
The most well-known and probably the most widely accepted hypothesis with regards to the origins of the Pentateuch is without a doubt this one, having been proposed by Julius Wellhausen. Are there other newer hypotheses/theories about the origin of the script? _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
I sympathise with you when you complained about those sanctimonious and self-righteous radicals who jump to all sorts of conclusions about atheists in general. I am quite sad that some of the nastiest comments I have heard which are directed against atheists, are almost invariably motivated by religion. Such unchristian abuse makes a mockery of the teachings of Jesus. What happened to the gallant code of Christian chivalry?
In my opinion, there is no need for these bunch of monkeys to go foaming at the mouth whenever they encounter an atheist, who is after all, still a fellow human being. God doesn't need such ferocious defence. One might have supposed Him to be amply capable of taking care of Himself.
I suppose this unfortunate misunderstanding of atheism stems from a misconception that atheists are inherently immoral. Is atheism all about nihilistic negativity? I don't know; I am not qualified enough to speak about it. I suppose atheists would think it insulting if they are accused of being immoral. But this begs the question: whence do atheists get their moral values and their cultural Zeigeist? Would we ever see an atheist follow the example of Abbe Pierre or Mother Teresa and dedicate his life to helping the oppressed, the unfortunate, the weak, the disenfranchised and the needy?
Not to be presumptious, but I think the answer is very likely not. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Wow. Did you also follow in Bertie Wooster's example and win a prize for Scripture Knowledge at school?
I have never formally studied the Bible. It is commonly said that the Catholics do not put much stock in the Bible and this is unfortunately a very common perception of the Roman Catholics' attitude towards the Bible in general. After all, truth is not solely derived from the Scriptures, but also from traditions.
PS: Thanks for enlightening me on the provenance of the Book of Genesis. That explains its melodramatic flair - the writers were probably trying too hard to put the fear of God in the nascent tribes of Israel. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Wouldn't Noah and his family have caught an early primitive form of bird flu whilst living in close proximity with their livestock?
Again, in the abscence of an omnipotent divine being's intervention, this could very well have happened. But you can't apply the same scientific laws to a religious book, whose central character is an almighty God, creator of the universe. If the bible is to make any sense at all, one must first believe in God, and recognize that he is all-powerful, and capable of performing supernatural feats and imparting the power of miracles to key figures like Moses and Jesus.
Matthew 19:26 - "With God all things are possible."
I believe there is a God simply because all of nature around me is too awe-inspiring and wonderous and complex for it to have come about by mere chance. The odds of the present universe around us coming about by chance are so astronomically unlikely, that in any other theatre of science, it would be deemed unrealistic, and an unworthy hypothesis. The human brain in all its facets is so stunningly complex that there is no way it could not be a product of intelligent design.
Much of the bible is not literal, but symbolic. The bible uses a lot of aritistic depiction which symbolize literal things, a lot of foreshadowing, symbolism, and numerical symbolism. The bible is largely a book of prophecy. Books like the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation are almost entirely prophetic, and symbolic. It's just a matter of unlocking the messages within the symbolism, by means of holy spirit and intense investigation of the scriptures. We are instructed to search for the deep things of God "like buried treasure". The deeper matters of the bible would not be revealed to just anyone. They would only be revealed to sincere-hearted ones. That being said, much of the bible is literal, and if the miraculous works mentioned in the bible were being performed only by the power of men, then yes, they would be impossible, and mere fantasy. But not if an all-powerful God was behind them. If one believes that God created the infinite universe, then why can't one believe that he was capable of parting the Red Sea, or healing the sick?
I don't understand, and I think I never will, how so many claim to be Christians, but disregard the very foundation, origin, and source of Christianity, namely the Bible. I can't remember the scripture off the top of my head, but it says something to the affect that "You should keep examining the scriptures, and see that is in harmony with the teachings/doctrines/traditions of men
The point of that scripture is that the bible was meant as a standard by which to compare to the teachings or doctrines of the churches. If the teachings or practices were not in harmony with the words of the bible, then they were false teachings, or "traditions of men" as Jesus called it.
Many of these false teachings, not found in the bible have become the central tenets of the majority of Christian denominations today, such as the Trinity, Hellfire, the immortality of the soul, and the adoption of pagan holidays as major Christian festivals.
Also, many modern denominations paint this rosy picture of "once saved, always saved" teaching, whereby all you have to do is believe in Jesus "and take him into your heart" and be saved, regardless of your actions. You can be a murderer, rapist, drug-addict, child molester, thief, and a habitual liar, and still be saved, so long as you believe in Jesus. This is an example of the "ear-tickling" doctrines Jesus and the apostles spoke of. Many people also believe that there are many paths toward God, and all that really counts is believing in him. Is that true as well?
Well notice this passage from Matthew chapter 7:
Go in through the narrow gate, because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.
The above clearly indicates that attaining everlasting salvation is not as easy as some make it seem, for if all they had to do was believe in Jesus, nearly everyone would be saved.
It continues....
Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them...........
21 - Not everyone saying to me, "Lord, Lord", will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my father in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?" And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you. Get away from me you workers of lawlessness.
Many people prefer to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe, according to what suits them, or what they find convinient. If the bible clearly condemns a practice they're guilty of, then they choose to disregard it. But notice what is said in 1st Corinthians:
What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.
Clearly, those things are not acceptable to God.
So, what is actually needed for ones to "inherit God's kingdom"?
John 17:3 - This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
You said that everything in the world is too awe-inspiring to have come by mere chance. Do you then subscribe to the notion of intelligent design?
For me, I think intelligent design is just Creationism marketed as something sophisticated and vaguely scientific in order to gain an air of respectability and hence wider acceptance by the public. Evolution does not come by mere chance; it is an ongoing process that has taken place since the dawn of time. In fact, I would prefer the term 'natural selection' as it more accurately describes the theories underpinning our existence.
For example, you might believe the wings of a dragonfly to be too beautiful to have come about by pure chance; I simply believe that it is the end product of a long sequence of non random but purely natural causes.
I am not qualified to expound on evolutionary biology as I am not immersed in the natural sciences. Suffice to say, I believe that natural selection and God can co-exist in perfect harmony: God laid the groundwork by creating the Universe aeons ago. He did not go on to meticulously plan the structure of every living organism in the next six days. In this respect, my belief system mirrors that of a deist who sincerely subscribes to the idea that God merely started the engine without necessarily driving the car from point A to B. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
I suppose this unfortunate misunderstanding of atheism stems from a misconception that atheists are inherently immoral.
Definitely. And it *is* a misconception. No-one is *inherently* moral or immoral, you become either of the two or both, but it's not that clear-cut. Being moral or immoral is not a question of faith or the lack of it. (Note that "faith" here refers to religious faith. Atheists aren't necessarily faithless.) Faith and your trust in God optimally make you a better person but the lack of it doesn't automatically make you immoral. Being able to be moral and virtuous without knowing that God is watching you is far greater an achivement than acting the same way for fear of getting punished.
Loic wrote:
Is atheism all about nihilistic negativity? I don't know; I am not qualified enough to speak about it.
If you interpret atheism as the state of not believing in God, then my answer is a definite no. What has it got to do with "nihilism" and "negativity"? I completely fail to see the correlation between nihilism and atheism, nevertheless, there are atheists who are nihilists at the same time.
As far as negativity is concerned, I think the only negativity in connection with atheism is the denial of the existence of God. However, "denial" is too strong a word to use in this context - in my opinion, not believing something isn't tantamount to denying it. "Denial" carries some negative connotations, implying that the person in question ex cathedra declares that God doesn't exists and expresses scorn towards other people who believe in God.
Back to the original question: what makes you think that atheists are inherently negative?
Loic wrote:
I suppose atheists would think it insulting if they are accused of being immoral. But this begs the question: whence do atheists get their moral values and their cultural Zeigeist?
From the same sources you do...without being aware of Divine Providence.
Loic wrote:
Would we ever see an atheist follow the example of Abbe Pierre or Mother Teresa and dedicate his life to helping the oppressed, the unfortunate, the weak, the disenfranchised and the needy?
I'm positive we would and we did. Believe me. They haven't become / might not become that well-known as the ones you mentioned, though.
Loic wrote:
Not to be presumptious, but I think the answer is very likely not.
Now who is being negative? _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
I suppose this unfortunate misunderstanding of atheism stems from a misconception that atheists are inherently immoral.
Definitely. And it *is* a misconception. No-one is *inherently* moral or immoral, you become either of the two or both, but it's not that clear-cut. Being moral or immoral is not a question of faith or the lack of it. (Note that "faith" here refers to religious faith. Atheists aren't necessarily faithless.) Faith and your trust in God optimally make you a better person but the lack of it doesn't automatically make you immoral. Being able to be moral and virtuous without knowing that God is watching you is far greater an achivement than acting the same way for fear of getting punished.
Loic wrote:
Is atheism all about nihilistic negativity? I don't know; I am not qualified enough to speak about it.
If you interpret atheism as the state of not believing in God, then my answer is a definite no. What has it got to do with "nihilism" and "negativity"? I completely fail to see the correlation between nihilism and atheism, nevertheless, there are atheists who are nihilists at the same time.
As far as negativity is concerned, I think the only negativity in connection with atheism is the denial of the existence of God. However, "denial" is too strong a word to use in this context - in my opinion, not believing something isn't tantamount to denying it. "Denial" carries some negative connotations, implying that the person in question ex cathedra declares that God doesn't exists and expresses scorn towards other people who believe in God.
Back to the original question: what makes you think that atheists are inherently negative?
Loic wrote:
I suppose atheists would think it insulting if they are accused of being immoral. But this begs the question: whence do atheists get their moral values and their cultural Zeigeist?
From the same place you do...without being aware of Divine Providence.
Loic wrote:
Would we ever see an atheist follow the example of Abbe Pierre or Mother Teresa and dedicate his life to helping the oppressed, the unfortunate, the weak, the disenfranchised and the needy?
I'm positive we would and we did. Believe me. They haven't become / might not become that well-known as the ones you mentioned, though.
Loic wrote:
Not to be presumptious, but I think the answer is very likely not.
Now who is being negative?
Atheists are capable of much good. They are afterall, like the rest of us, still created in God's image, and albeit imperfectly, we mirror God's attributes. Unlike animals, we have a conscience and built-in system of morals, something that I believe science can't answer.
Loic, to answer your question, yes I do belive in intelligent design. Just as every house has its maker, so do we, the most marvelous creature of all, have a maker. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Back to the original question: what makes you think that atheists are inherently negative?
It is in my understanding that atheists believe that life ends with a full stop the moment they draw their lasp gasp of breath. To me, that is nihilistically negative.
I would be very depressed if I were to wake up one morning and realise that there is no afterlife. What is the point of living if we all die and totally pass out from living memory in the end? What is the point of it all?
Quote:
From the same sources you do...without being aware of Divine Providence.
So it is still religion which serves as the fount of your moral values.
Quote:
Now who is being negative?
Opps. I wouldn't call it being negative; I was just baiting you for an answer, Liz.
Porthos:
While I can't say I agree with your point of view, I am happy to agree to disagree. After all, such beliefs are built on faith alone and faith can be an unmovable pillar for many people. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
It is in my understanding that atheists believe that life ends with a full stop the moment they draw their lasp gasp of breath. To me, that is nihilistic negative.
Well, it's not that clear-cut again. I wouldn't say life ends with the very moment of death. You get into the cycle of nature and revive, however, not necessarily the way religious people imagine. Even if it seems so, I'm not talking about reincarnation - that's an entirely different kettle of fish.
Loic wrote:
So it is still religion which serves as the fount of your moral values.
No. It's humanity. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Reading the Scriptures
Loic wrote:
I have never regarded the Bible as the ultimate authority in truth. Indeed, I feel that is dangerous to interprete it literally. The Bible is riddled with contradictions, and may I have the temerity to add, addled with nonsense in some parts.
The Bible is not inerrant. To me, it serves as an example on how we should lead our lives. It serves by direct instruction such as the Ten Commandments or the famous Sermon on the Mount. That is what the Scriptures excel at doing: giving us an absolute moral standad by which we should all strive to achieve. We should not be studying geology or history through the prejudiced and chaotic filters of the Bible.
I'm curious about something Loic. If you select from the Bible that which you believe to provide truth and guidance and that which you denounce as nonsense, then what you seem to be doing is selecting passages which already ring true to you, thus reinforcing moral conclusions to which you'd already arrived. How else would you make those distinctions? How then does the Bible provide moral guidance? And if what I'm saying is true, how then would it not be possible for atheists to come to moral conclusions without the aid of a so called moral compass such as religion? Religious moral authority simply provides an outside justification to authenticate one's own personal decisions? If true then it seems to me that you're wondering how atheists are able to do something which you've already done. Atheists are simply rejecting what you're claiming to be your standard, and utilizing what it would seem is your true moral standard; your internal moral compass.
All times are GMT + 2 Hours Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next
Page 1 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
And have only just finished it, so I still remember a lot of it. Actually, the Religious Studies course taught at my school for A-Level is unusual these days in that it was mainly focussed on the Bible — which in some ways was rather surprising, considering that most people in the Religious Studies class were actually Muslims.