sometimes i can't hold it in.

Camacho, your idea is brilliant. Only one thing may need adjustment on the afterlife. Is the book aimed at just atheists or everyone? If everyone, then instead of asserting with certainty that there is no afterlife, perhaps you should change it around to that we have no absolute guarantee there's an after life or that it should literally be expected to be any one of the many metaphors like Heaven, Reincarnation, or Buddhist Transcendence that have passed down in these religious attempts aimed at struggling towards the mystery of existence and how to live a moral life. Then you don't exclude either theists or atheists in the process of making your point.

The book will move away from the idea of an afterlife. The whole concept is that humans have only one chance at doing things right, one chance to set a good example, one chance to help propel and improve man's circumstance... one. No do overs, no second chances, no forgiveness except redemption through ones own actions while still on earth. It's about accountability.

That's good, but it will of course immediately exclude most theists right from the start. As for atheists and agnostics it seems like a bloody good basis for a moral guide. It's just that those who fear death (the majority) and cling to hope of a continuation of their consciousness after death immediately reject any notion that there isn't one.

I came to terms with the uncertainty of death years ago so I'm good with the point you're making here. My struggle to do the right thing in life has nothing to do with hope of a second chance, or rewards (eternal life), or any of it. It's just the simple act of trying to live life to the best of my abilities. I have no sense of having to do it, I just want to do it with no strings attached. It has to do with going with my gut instinct.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."

Mt. 10:34-37

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

Lk. 14:26

"I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!... Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son, and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

Lk. 12:49-53

As for Jesus demanding that people should hate their family, and that he comes not to bring peace but the sword and division among families, I reject that as immoral! It doesn't matter to me what the writers had the character of Jesus saying in other verses, the immorality of the movement shows itself in the verses I've quoted. My gut instinct tells me that following a cult leader example like this is just plain wrong. And it's verses like these in the NT that were used to justify the Christian atrocities like the witch hunts and the inquisition. All they had to do was turn to the dark side of scripture and they had a means to try and justify all sorts of immoral acts against humanity. That's why what you're talking about is key. There should be no dark side of a so-called moral teaching in the first place! Then people can not come along later and use it for perverse reasons. Look at Islam too. Had there been no dark side to their moral codes we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, theoretically of course.

johnson1010 wrote:Religion is always about humanity.

Oh we like to talk about how great god is, but in the end, who's god's favorite little creation? You are, arent you! Oh your special! Yes you are! Yes! Yes you are! Who's got opposable thumbs, huh? Who does?! You do! Just look at you with your own little world to live in, and animals to eat, and we even made women for you to do whatever you want with!

God created all the universe for us to live in? He controls everything everywhere, but he gave us free will because he loves us so much and lets us, alone in all creation, do whatever we want even if it hurts us because he loves us so much? We are the center of all creation in religion. Its an absurd, self-centered appeal to our own ego.

God is nothing more than our imginary friend which we cooked up to make us feel like the most popular princess in all the world. This enormously powerful uncle who has the whole universe to run but really can't wait to hear what we did today. All the people we met, all the good things we did, and to chastise us for the bad things we did. Because despite being the summation of everything anywhere and at anytime, he still cares enough to tell us to be nice to one another.

Awww... arent we special.

Bullshit.

Carl Sagan: A Universe Not Made For Us

If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

This quote houses the idea that God comes above all things; nothing is more important than your devotion to God. The story of the rich man is the same. There is the famous quote “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”. I came to realize that it is not because the man is rich but because nothing comes before God, including money, family, property, etc. That is a common theme in many religions whether you agree with it or not.

I would be interested to know what the actual language is for that quote. I know that hate is a strong word but I would think that it would mean something more along the lines of distancing yourself. Love is a very strong concept in Christianity and a requirement. I think that in this quote the concern is more sort of a Buddhist concept of attachment to people. In Buddhism, there is the concept that you give up attachment to all things and that would include people in your life. In fact, in the legend of the Buddha, he left his wife and child for his religious quest. In Christianity, rather than not having an attachment to anything, your sole attachment should be God alone.

And it's verses like these in the NT that were used to justify the Christian atrocities like the witch hunts and the inquisition. All they had to do was turn to the dark side of scripture and they had a means to try and justify all sorts of immoral acts against humanity. That's why what you're talking about is key. There should be no dark side of a so-called moral teaching in the first place! Then people can not come along later and use it for perverse reasons. Look at Islam too. Had there been no dark side to their moral codes we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, theoretically of course.

I think it is definitely true that religion is used to justify atrocities. The amazing thing about religion, however, is that it is also used to justify compassionate acts. I think that immoral acts say more about us than religions. Mary Daly, the feminist theologian, argued that the problem with our Western culture is that we have a strict separation between good and evil. She said we all have a dark side but when we do not acknowledge the darkness in ourselves then we “transfer” that darkness onto other people. They become the bad guys and we can justify all kinds of evil.

Carl Sagan: A Universe Not Made For Us

Awesome video.

That was an amazing video Tat.

When I read Johnsons post I knew that the video would be appropriate.

Oh, and I was raised on the usual apologetic attempts at trying interpret these harsh verses. Of course people say that it has to do with God coming before everything else, but it's expressed in an immoral way! The final conclusion you've given is but my starting point in the matter and I should have vocalized that better in my last post to lessen any confusion.

Why not just say: "Love your family but do not become too attached to them because all things pass away. Love God above everything else that you love because the eternal God is the one thing that shall not pass away. If you wish to be my disciple, love God above all things."

The reason it wasn't stated any different is because it has to do with what the story line is talking about. The last year of the age of Aries was the end of the last Great Year. Jesus life story has been formatted to fit the last year of the age of Aries up to the crucifixion scene. It's the end of a world age:
http://www.usbible.com/astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm
It's based on turmoil and division from that perspective. The end of an age is an ill-omened time traditionally. There's a new religious symbolism mounting on the horizon geared for the new age (Pisces) ahead which is about happen in the context of the story. He comes to bring down fury on the old ways of orthodox Judaism (separating the wheat from the tares). It isn't about peace from that angle at all. There is no indication that world will peaceful at that time, peace is actually projected for later (the millennium). And what is being suggested here is that those who wish to take on the new ways of the new age will be at odds with those who wish to cling to the ways of the old. And it's a time of great division in that respect - the 'crossing' over from age and Great Year to another all at the same time. It's saying that households in Israel will be divided over the changing of the ages because some will want to move on while others will reject moving on. And those who want to move on and take up the new religious symbolism (Aries / Moses to Pisces / Jesus) will have to do so against the will of their own families, even reject their own families over this religious transition.

Does that make the verses any less immoral? I'd say no.

They could have just as easily suggested that a new symbolism is in order and you can agree to disagree with those who refuse it. You don't need to hate them for their refusal! Take the high road. I've left fundamentalism for freethinking and I do not hate my fundamentalist relatives, nor should I. And shame on anyone who would have the audacity to suggest or demand that I should. That's cult behavior and Christianity began as a new age based cult at the beginning of the common era, the beginning of the new age of Pisces. That's why it seems so cultish! It was, and still is, though many fail to realize it. And once again we're coming up on a time to move on...

"I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!... Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son, and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."
Lk. 12:49-53

Reading about the Communist Revolution in China, I see in these words the same fanatical devotion to a cause that was demanded of the Chinese people by the Communist Party. Traditional allegiances were to be sundered in favor of the one true cause.

exactly what i said, Carl.
But with a lot less "I am fed up with this shit."
haha

We need about a thousand more Carl Sagans.