Belief in God

[MadArchitect]

Niall makes a good point -- the tendency towards extremism seems to preceed religious affiliation in most people. It's more likely an emotional disposition or a social disorder, one that latches on to ideology. That isn't to say that there aren't cases where involvement in a particular ideology hasn't pushed people by degrees to extremism, but we're all familiar with the case of the martyr who's just looking for a cause.misterpessimistic: I would say we need to find a way to get all violence to go.I'm not sure that's enough. I think part of the bewilderment that many Americans feel about their reception in the rest of the world stems from an unwillingness or an incapacity to see that it's possible to damage another person without any overt violence. And I would say that a great deal of the violence that we see now is a response to damage that we've achieved through other ends -- that the reactionaries have the impression that direct violence has the virtue at least of being honest.Anyway...I just would like to see religion go, even if there was no war!Even if that means cutting certain people off from their happiness? Even if they obey your dictum: "So long as the theists respect my own pursuit and do not try to force their belief on me"?I went through 12 years of catholic education...again, this is why I consider it bunk as well.Eh. I went through 12 years of secular education, but I wouldn't judge the state of the world based on what I learned in high school.But if combating genocide, then I would not consider that violence per se. Violence is starting a war when other means could have been employed.*coughsputter* What? Violence is any action that causes or could cause harm. Someone can have a violent fall. Aggression is starting a war when other means could have been employed, but violence is implicit in any war.Then why is he buying swords?He's not, and it's really pointless to debate a paraphrase of a verse so far out of context. The passage takes place during the Last Supper only appears in Luke, is uncorraborated in the other Gospels, and is laced with irony. Here's the full passage: "He said to them, 'When I sent you out without a purse or bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?' They said, 'No, not a thing.' He said to them, 'But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, "And he was counted among the lawless"; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.' They said, 'Lord, look, here are two swords.' He replied, 'It is enough.'" (XXII.35-38)The first thing to be noted is that the disciples automatically produce two swords, and Jesus says that's enough. Some scholars have interpreted that last sentence to mean that Jesus was bringing the conversation to a halt, as the disciples had not understood his metaphorical significance. Regardless, it should be obvious to the reader that if two swords are enough for the thirteen of them, then Jesus is obviously not making a general principle out of the use of swords. In fact, I would say that the entire passage is meant in the specific, that it is applicable only to the disciples themselves, and that, if it is a genuine tradition concerning the Logia of Jesus, that its significance is more or less limited to the narrative of Jesus' betrayal.If the report of John XIII.29 is to be believed, Judas carried the communal purse for the group, in which case the mention of the purse in the above quoted passage from Luke would indicate Judas specifically, probably in reference to his betrayal, but without making the reference obvious to the other disciples. Hence all this business about "the one who" and so on. The reference to "a bag" is more oblique, but it may refer to the compensation Judas was to receive for Jesus' betrayal, or it may have been some sort of reference to the sackcloth of mourning.As for the swords, their meaning becomes clear a few verses later on. Jesus and the disciples have retired to the Mount of Olives to pray, when they are approached by soldiers and the betrayer Judas. "When those who were around him [ie. the disciples] saw what was coming, they asked, 'Lord, should we strike with the sword?' Then one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. but Jesus said, 'No more of this!' And he touched the ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple police, and the elders who had come for him, 'Have you come out with swords and clubs as if I were a bandit?'" (XXII.49-52)It seems clear from this passage that the swords are show-pieces, a message that says, "I knew that you'd come to arrest me, and we have the arms to resist, but it's not my intention to do so." The disciples clearly have either not understood that purpose, or their loyalty to the person of Jesus has gotten the best of their obedience, but Jesus is unequivocal about not using the swords. Incidentally, this passage has analogues in the other gospels, and it's entirely possible that Luke XXII.35-38 were interpolated in order to explain their possession of weapons. In Matthew he adds, "'Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword shall perish by the sword.'" (XXVI.52) At any rate, it seems clear to me that it's not intended to be taken as a general principle, and the only way to construe it as such is to remove it from its natural context of posit (as no secular humanist or rational Christian should) that everything in scripture is broadly applicable as a model for ethical conduct.My point was that Jesus while he didn't want his apostles to force the faith on people, he wasn't opposed to the use of force in self defence or the defence of what is right.I'm not sure that's the case -- at any rate, the above-cited verse doesn't support that claim, and I can't think of any other that would. As far as I can tell, Jesus adhered pretty closely to "turn the other cheek" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".When the soldiers came to John the Baptist, he did not tell them to give up their jobs. Sometimes, war can be a good thing.I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't count the soldiers who arrested John the Baptist as potential converts, and suggesting a change of career likely would have done little but distract from the more immediate concern of what was happening to John. I do seem to recall a verse in the New Testament about soldiers keeping their jobs, but I think it's from the Pauline books, and not the Gospels.

[Niall001]

You see, you might say that with the upmost good faith, but I think you'll end up here almost as much as always. If you aren't, you're a better person than I am.I planned on abandoning this sort of thing a few months before my final exams. They're in two weeks. Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard MathesonThere are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

[Mr. P]

I know...I know...I am addicted. Plus I feel obligation since Chris asked me to be a moderator.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Mr. P]

Quote:Mr.P. I went through 12 years of catholic education...again, this is why I consider it bunk as well.Just thinking about this...I did not turn away from the fiction of religion in 12 years...it was actually 18. !2 years was just my school years, so it may be a bad choice of words to express the timeframe of my waking up.I remember from very early on the silly ways in which people in my family reacted to death and how the word "god' was interjected in every sentence: "god bless him", "thank god", "oh sweet Jesus"...not to mention that for every problem that arose, my family would ask stautes for help...I thought they were very strange.But I became an alter boy nonetheless..where I saw more that I thought was hypocrisy. So I will rephrase my case and say that I learned that religion and the idea of god was poo-poo through 18 years of observation...and continuing education to this very day.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Loricat]

I've read the passionate posts in the last couple of pages -- good job, folks....but where do you find the time?!? I just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in here, while you guys seem to be taking a breather. I am essentially agnostic, which, for me, means that if there is or if there ain't a supreme power, I sure as hell don't know about it. I'm also not that curious, as there are enough things in the world to fascinate me, just on a human or scientific level. Over the years, I have discovered that I drawn to what I term "thinking Christian" men as friends. These are the men who have been, or are, involved in their religion, and have either pulled themselves out, or thought it through and decided to remain. I say 'men', because they are a whole category of friend for me: I always had my female friends, my gay male friends, and my thinking Christian male friends -- because those, for me, are the people who have a connection to their emotional lives, and are therefore human beings living at their full potential. I have since discovered women who don't connect with their emotional sides, and I do not associate with them unless I have to, and I (of course) have met 'thinking Christian' women as well.The people in this discussion definitely fit into my category of 'thinking Christians', although I'm sure Mr. P would object to the label. I need to change the label (that I've been using since I was 19) to something more inclusive, and less offensive to those who have thought their way out: "Thinkers." OR, I could delete this label that has been so useful to me over the years, as I do really find that I no longer need it...as there are really only people I'm drawn to and people I'm not! Another point I want to make is that I have little patience with anyone in my private life who is overzealous about anything, whether it is their god, or lack of one, their low-carb diet, their weight, their dog, their problems, themselves...Everything in moderation.Thanks for listening...back to your regularly scheduled debate! Lori "All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

[Mr. P]

Lori:If there needs to be a label, why not: Freethinkers! That is what all of us here strive to be!When it comes to it...we are ALL agnostic...but I moved more toward atheism through the years.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Jeremy1952]

Quote:Mr. P: I am a sheep, but I am at least happy.Well, cross-referencing this to the "Doin' the Humanist Rag" thread, from a secular humanist point of view, if theism makes that person genuinely happy, shouldn't you sanction it? Maybe even encourage it if doing so promotes their happiness?The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. - George Bernard Shaw If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984

[Mr. P]

Jeremy!!! When have you been!?Welcome back!Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Jeremy1952]

Quote:You know, one of the funniest things I encounter with a certain breed of atheist is that they argue without religion, there would be less wars while at the same time, they argue that you do not need a god to act morally.Take away God, and you simply give everything else a promotion.There IS no god to take away. This is the knowledge that we atheists bring to the table. What we wish to take away is not "god", which doesn't exist anyway, but god-assertions... humans manipulate other humans by asserting that they know what god wants. A desire to be moral is innate in human beings; when certain people speak in the name of their imaginary god, it is a technique to overcome our natural goodness and impose their ideas. It is not true that "you do not need a god to act morally"; rather, it is more difficult to act morally WITH a god than without one. If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984

[Jeremy1952]

Quote:I say 'men', because they are a whole category of friend for me: I always had my female friends, my gay male friends, and my thinking Christian male friends --My first boyfriend was (is) a sincere, practicing Roman Catholic. See, I'm not totally intolerant! If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984