Motivated by the 'Thank God' essay posted earlier in the week, but a culmination of so much more ...
I believe. Belief is an act of my conscious mind but there is no part of this mind that can believe blindly. I cannot believe in something because I am told it is true, because it just is, because men writing hundreds, even thousands of years ago say it is so. I believe that we live in a world devoid of the gods preached to us by the men of god. I believe that this world was not created by a supreme being, that we were not designed at the hands of a supernatural god, that there is a difference between the miraculous and miracles - one of which we see often and the other, never. The men of god like to label people like me – they call me an atheist. I embrace this label not because it defines me, but because it distances me. I am lucky. History tells us people like me have not fared well at the hands of god's just men. Why is it that men of god are deemed to walk the path of righteousness and I am an infidel, cynic, disbeliever, dissenter, doubter, heathen, heretic, idolater, idolist, materialist, misanthrope, misbeliever, nihilist, pagan, pessimist, profaner, scoffer, skeptic, unbeliever – all words this language synonymously associates with this label of atheist. Why do you persist in telling me you are right my friend and that I am wrong? I believe because my intellectual mind has reasoned; from what I see, from my ability to think and analyse information. I have faith, faith in my ability to know my own self and not be manipulated because of ancient texts constructed by men. Do I need these texts to know right from wrong, do I even need to be told what is right from wrong? Am I threatened by the devices of heaven and hell, of course not – I have no desire for immortality. Do I feel threatened that for so long the worship of god has been the way - of course not, I see the sincerity with which gods have been worshipped and I see what comes of it. You will die one day, just as I. I believe this mind is my own. It is defined as is my physical form by hundreds and thousands of years, fighting on this earth for existence, my wants and desires are defined by instincts and governed by my evolved intellect. I truly believe my friend. I would rather not have to explain your religions, or your gods, but what I believe is shaped by your need for gods, you say so, I am an atheist remember. I will not tell you that you are wrong, but I will tell you how I came to this belief and from there your mind is your own. My society is born of a religion named Christianity, although there now seem so many names that define what this religion has evolved into. As a child this religions stories were read to me, I grew in a culture that is an evolution of Christian ways distilled by intellectual minds and the passage of time. My first conscious images were of Christian gods and my first songs were in their worship. My first words read and spoken honoured these gods. Images and doctrine of this belief wormed its way into my psyche and I grew up beneath this god's banner. But as this mind emerged and defined its will, Christian doctrine seemed to ill fit my existence. The rules of my life were defined by dogma but they felt unnatural - am I not defined by my intellectual mind? Somehow I believed it must have been me that was wrong. I carried guilt – this is the way it has always been, these are the rules, conform. But this is a restless mind, what right does this dogma preached by men have over this mind, just because my for-fathers say this is so, when their spoken dogma seems to change based on the will and wants of whichever mouth it falls from. What is this Christianity that permeates this civilisation, has determined I follow blindly, has made me feel different for knowing my mind. I believe, in myself foremost and so began the journey to understanding this religion, and I started with its books - these testaments to a faith, the Old and the New. In the Old I found a great collection of stories accumulated over time, of beasts and great deeds and woe, tales of human endeavour at the hands of a malevolent and fickle god, that were laced with the miraculous and of miracles. These were great stories crafted by men and passed down through time by man, at first through word of mouth and then by the invention of alphabet, and the written word. This written word that has evolved through migration and time through interpretation and translation, has become what it is today through the understanding of these stories by men living in a world much changed, that speak in a different tongue and live in cultures and a time far removed from those they were written in. In the New book of testament I found confusion and contradiction, a different god – benevolent and just, for those that would seek salvation. Study showed the messages of these Gospels to be the only recorded history of this man they call Jesus. Each one tells a conflicting story born from a desire for this Jesus to be a messiah – Christ - the anointed one. And this is where Christian problems begin. The Jews that created the scripture of the Old Testament reject Christian for-fathers claims that this Jesus was the messiah. The messiah in the Old Testament is prophesied as a great warrior that will free Jews from oppressive rule, not one word is mentioned of a messiah that would die hanging from a cross, a convicted criminal. It is there for all to see, all you have to do is read - they know you won't. Out of a desire to fulfil Jesus as the prophesied messiah Christian for-fathers wove into their Gospels contradictions and fictions to align him with great figures of the Old; Jesus born in Bethlehem fulfilling the line through King David, with Moses through the slaughter of infant children, the flight to Egypt and the return, John's Gospel even changing the day and time of the crucifixion to make the death of Jesus the passover slaughter of a lamb. We could go on and on – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, nobody even knows who really wrote these Gospels. These names are just labels above stories told by men at the want of men. Of course a follower of this faith would be able to quote all sorts of parables and prophecies in ratifying their belief – but that is their folly. They seem happy to just read what they are told, a chapter here, a verse there: Psalms and Isaiah - just listen to a weekly sermon and your obligation is fulfilled, salvation is a promise. We do not need science to deconstruct religion my friend the truth is its own words. You simply have to read all the words and not just those that say what you want to hear. But what of miracles - extraordinary events in the physical world, surpassing all known human or natural powers, ascribed to a supernatural cause. Or what about the miraculous - events defined as wondrous that seem as a miracle but within the confines of human endeavour. A man walking on water is truly a miracle, a child dragged from the rubble of an earthquake is truly miraculous but nothing that cannot be explained within the boundaries of human endeavour - not supernatural. The most profound of miracles has to be the resurrection of Jesus, which by definition would have to be an act undertaken by a supernatural being. The resurrection is the foundation upon which Christianity is built, it demonstrates that god must exist because he brought Jesus back from the dead, it proves that there can be salvation after death for the righteous. The conundrum of course is who resurrected Jesus? We know it wasn't the malevolent god of the Old Testament - would the fickle Yahweh resurrect this man falsely claimed as the messiah. So who's god would have resurrected this Jewish man named Jesus? The only people that have ever believed Jesus was resurrected are the people that created the resurrection story. The reality as with all the miracle stories in both Testaments, is that they are simply tales written by men to prove what they believe and in order to do that the acts need to be fantastical - supernatural. I believe. In a world inhabited by mankind little can be taken at face value. It is difficult enough knowing a truth reported from yesterdays news, to blindly trust the word of men written hundreds of years ago. The knowledge of man has grown but the acts, wants and desires of men remain the same. The Christian faith is simply a construct of men disenfranchised with Judaism, which was in itself created by a race needing a faith of their own. Who could blame them, they lived in a world where a god seemed the only rational explanation, each race set about creating gods that reflected the needs of their own societies. Maybe there can be some good to this though, maybe there is some collective benefit to mankind in man's religious creed. Are we not taught these religions define right and wrong, of a better good. But then we look at the history of men and their religion and we simply see mankind's desire for power, manipulation, war, control, torture, bloodshed, genocide, money, murder, distortion, extortion, brainwashing – social control. You may say these are just the acts of men, that men would do these things regardless or religion, and that is true – that is the point. This is a world devoid of gods, just one populated with the human mind. I believe. If you look at the people of religion in this snapshot of human time and you ask yourself is this god's want? Is this what I am told god teaches us, is this a manifestation of these doctrines for a greater good. You will tell me there really is something beautiful about your religion, that you see it everyday in the acts of your fellow worshippers, but I would tell you, good is in all mankind just as we see the bad. My friend, as I flick through history and live in this world I see all that man has done to mankind in the name of his gods; I say to you, if your gods stepped from the very clouds tomorrow and proved all I believe to be wrong - I would still say to you, you are welcome to your gods. I believe. You would say to me that there must be something else - there is nothing else. We are born, we live and we die. It is the way of nature. Do your best, smile, live your life, be yourself, do not judge people because you do not understand, or because they are different. Do not force your belief on child nor adult, give those around you something to smile about, long after your time has passed. This is what I believe. |
Written by Witzl (1585 comments posted) 22nd February 2007 | Johnie, if you can get hold of it, try and find Farrell Till's Deconversion story -- you will love it! He is an ex-Church of Christ preacher and I ran across his story not long ago when I was trying to write about the Church of Christ and failing terribly. He is a member of a group called 'Ex-Christians' and boy, you are singing the same song. I can't fault this as a piece of writing. You've got a few punctuation niggles -- 'who's instead of 'whose' at one point, and I believe 'forefathers' is the correct word -- but those are minor points. You make a strong case, and you are obviously a thinker. Others might be able to take you on here or find holes to pick in your logic, but I cannot. But I do wish my mother was still alive -- she'd be up for it. | Written by Snodlander (501 comments posted) 22nd February 2007 | An empassioned, if not entirely logical or faithful (if I can use that word) argument. I'm not sure if you were after a debate or rebuttal, but here goes: Athiests have suffered at the hands of religion in times past. True. But then religious people have also suffered. Wretchedness is not the exclusive domain of the athiest, nor oppressor the exclusive domain of the religious. Do you need to be told right from wrong? I would say yes, certainly initially. There is no natural, absolute sense of right and wrong. In some isolated cultures murder, theft and lying are not seen as wrong, particularly if it is against the neighbouring tribe. Right and wrong can be cultural and of the moment. The Gospels the only recorded history of Jesus? Not so. Josephus, Pliny and the Rabbinical writings of the time all make reference to Jesus. The warrior Jesus versus the sacrificial Jesus. The NT itself aknowledges that the Jews at the time were expecting the warrior, but there is ample reference to the sacrificial Messiah, particularly in Isaiah. Who resurected Jesus? 'We know it wasn't the malevolent god of the Old Testament'. We do? How? Would this be the same God that resurected the dead in the OT as well as the NT? 'The only people that have ever believed Jesus was resurrected are the people that created the resurrection story.' I would suggest that countless thousands since the Gospels were written have believed that too. You constantly state you believe. I'm not sure I understand in what. We live, we die. I'm not sure that that is what is meant by belief. That is mere acceptance of fact. It is not a belief that grass is green. It is. Do not force your belief on others? How can I? Belief cannot be forced, it has to be... erm... believed. 'Forcing' religion on a child is not the same thing as teaching your beliefs. I taught my kids not to get into cars with strangers. As an adult I would hope that they would keep true to this, but that is their adult choice (said the father of an atheist and a budhist). I can only hope to ground them in what I believe to be right. I genuinely have an interest in others' beliefs, and am eager to share. I neither force my beliefs on anyone, nor feel compelled to bow to their beliefs. The stereotypically zealot that browbeats dissenters is, again, not an exclusive religious province. Nor even a typical one, in my experience. | To believe or not to believe. . . Written by Witzl (1585 comments posted) 22nd February 2007 | Okay -- we don't need my mother when we've got Snodlander! This is really interesting, though I suspect that Johnie and I have had more experience with those stereotypical dissenter- browbeating zealots. Jesus, if there is anything that can put you off Christianity, that can. Perhaps that is part of what has shaped our own logic? I believe in God because I believe in God. I can't figure it out myself, and I've quit trying to look for logic to support it. I most certainly do not buy everything in the Bible, which is a hodge-podge collection of contradictions if I ever saw one. At best, for me the Bible is invested with much effort, much goodwill. But some of the stuff I have seen in both the Old and New Testament -- I mean, for pity's sake: selling your daughters off as slaves, a woman's uncleanness after childbirth, the no-no of mixing two different cloths, the effectiveness of beating your children regularly -- really! 'God' for me is 'Good' -- the thing in us that pushes us to think of others, to be kinder, gentler, to strive for a higher awareness. True, much of our so-called kindness may be a clever ploy to gain more for ourselves -- more quid pro quos, kudos in the eyes of others, etc., but there is plenty of true kindness in the world too. Whenever I see that, dopey as it sounds, that is God. And I'm all for it. | Witzl... Written by Snodlander (501 comments posted) 22nd February 2007 | | You never phone, you never write, I might be dead for all you know. It's not for me, never mind the 26 hours of labour I spent delivering you, it's for your father. He likes to know how you're doing. Are you still with what's his name, why you should have chosen him when you could have had Mrs Zimmerman's son is beyond me, and him a doctor now too. | Written by johniebg (538 comments posted) 22nd February 2007 | I tried to trim it down honest. Was thinking about making this a follow on post in non-fiction, let me know what you think - Snodders in the main, shout if you disagree. This is about what I believe and why I believe it, so I would much rather a debate, and I hope with a wry smirk on our faces. “Athiests have suffered at the hands of religion in times past. True. But then religious people have also suffered. Wretchedness is not the exclusive domain of the athiest, nor oppressor the exclusive domain of the religious.“ Exactly my point. Men suffer at the hands of men, repeatedly, whether god's followers are applying the suffering or doing the suffering. It is just another example of how godless mankind really is. “Do you need to be told right from wrong?” I agree, my wording here is confusing, my intention was to state that I do not need to read what is right or wrong from the books of gods men or hear them from gods men themselves. The core values of right and wrong are recorded across mankind's societies irrespective of religion. Equivalents of the ten commandments are found in just about every recorded culture. Just because right and wrong is detailed in the religious books not not make them the word of god. “The Gospels are the only recorded history of Jesus? Not so. Josephus, Pliny and the Rabbinical writings of the time all make reference to Jesus.” There are several works that reference Jesus, but none detail a history of Jesus, only the Gospels do this. Those that do reference Jesus are just that, references. For obvious reasons I am only considering works that were recorded within 100 years of Jesus' death. We have: Non-Christian Sources For a man who's name would shape the thoughts of so many men over the following two thousands years, of who healed so many, was followed by so many crowds, who was alleged as the Son of God, you would think the interest of those around him would have been stirred. You would think people would have much to say. The truth is that hardly anything was ever written about Jesus in his time. We have hundreds of written sources that are not Christian or Jewish from that time. These documents were written by historians, philosophers, religious thinkers, public officials and private individuals and not one ever mentions Jesus in his time or the 100 years after. Jewish Sources The Rabbinic writings – the Talmud was compiled long after the death of Jesus, it is considered at least two centuries. The references to Jesus exist in the commentaries to the core Mishnah which were produced even later and great scepticism is placed upon the validity of these commentaries by theologians and historians. These writing are mostly served to prove the existence of Jesus which is not in doubt. Josephus is the the most renowned Jewish historian producing two works within our time frame (roughly 130AD). The Antiquities of the Jews – a history of Jewish people from Adam and Eve details rafts of important Jews, especially those in and around his time. One reference to Jesus occurs in a story about the high priest Ananus, whom allegedly executed James the brother of Jesus: 'whom they call the messiah'. From this we glean that Jesus had a brother, which we already know from the New Testament (Mark 6:3 Gal 1:19) and that he was considered by some to be the messiah. It is often stated in the work of Josephus that he remained a non-christian Jew, which makes the next reference a little puzzling as Josephus professes a belief that Jesus was the messiah, that in his time he completed great acts and was accused by Jewish leaders and ordered to be crucified by Pilate. But that is all we get, which is considerably less than we get on other great figures such as John the Baptist. The oddity of this statement – A non Christian Jew professing believe in Jesus the Messiah is resolved when we discover how and by whom Josephus' writings survived over the centuries. They were not preserved by Jews because he talked a whole Jewish garrison into committing suicide and then defected to Rome. Rather we discover Christians copied the works of Josephus over time. The other work produced by Josephus detailing the Jewish war against the Romans in 60AD does not mention Jesus once. Christian Sources (not New Testament Gospels) The Gospel of Thomas appears interesting, falls just outside our 100 year time frame and contains lots of sayings that we find woven into the NT gospels. It is heavily influenced though by a different path of Christianity at the time known as 'Gnostics' which eventually disappeared. The Gospel of Peter gives us a different angle on the trial of Jesus but it is heavily biased against Jews and does not inspire historical confidence, even in theologians. The Apostle Paul allegedly wrote a large portion of the New Testament outside the Gospels, and you should consider what he wrote was written before the Gospels were written (during the twenty years following the death of Jesus). He did not know Jesus personally and only mentions the following on the life of Jesus, even less is mentioned on the teachings of Jesus; Jesus was born a Jew to a women and had brothers, one of whom was called James. Jesus ministered Jews and had disciples, he instituted the lords supper and he was probably betrayed and then crucified. That is all we get from Paul. Not ground breaking stuff. The New Testament Gospels The NT gospels were written from around thirty years after the death of Jesus. They are all written anonymously by people that were not eye witnesses to the life of Jesus, they are recounting stories that were passed on through word of mouth, across cultures for three decades at least. Jesus was Jewish and did not speak the language in which the gospels were written: Greek. This does not make the gospels unreliable but is worth considering. The gospels are the only history of Jesus, they are relatively short and not too difficult to read, check them yourselves. What does make the Gospels unreliable is that they contradict the message detailed in each other because those that wrote the Gospels had different theological ideals to convey. They are very interesting though. “The NT itself acknowledges that the Jews at the time were expecting the warrior, but there is ample reference to the sacrificial Messiah, particularly in Isaiah.” Before the death of Jesus it is acknowledged that a suffering messiah was not what the Jews were expecting. Although the Hebrew bible does not mention the messiah as one who will suffer there are passages in the Psalms (for example) that speak of a righteous man that will suffer at the hands of god's enemies and be vindicated by god. Christians latched onto all such 'laments' but none whatsoever are talking about the messiah, just a suffering Jew - suffering was an extremely popular topic amongst Jews, especially in the time of Roman rule. The most important passages quoted by Christians are those found in Isaiah, namely Isa 52:13 – 53:12. This text sounds very familiar because Christians have extensively used this in their subsequent writings – a bit like me now (2007) predicting West Ham would lose the FA Cup last year (2006 - I hope it was last year). I doubt anyone will be taking any bets on my moment of wisdom. This passage in Isaiah pre-dates the New Testament by roughly 300 years. General consensus is that the passage is referring to the suffering of the Israelites, no mention do we have of messiah once more. It is of course upto the individual to chose what they believe. I do not believe that there is any reference in the Old Testament that validates Jesus as the Messiah and therefore worthy of resurrection by Yahweh - given of course that you believe Yahweh existed in the first place, that is. “Who resurrected Jesus? 'We know it wasn't the malevolent god of the Old Testament'. We do? How? Would this be the same God that resurrected the dead in the OT as well as the NT?“ I personally don't believe in miracles so do not think anyone has ever been resurrected, I explain above why I do not think Yahweh would be inclined to resurrect Jesus, if it was possible - he just wasn't Yahweh's messiah. “'The only people that have ever believed Jesus was resurrected are the people that created the resurrection story.' I would suggest that countless thousands since the Gospels were written have believed that too.“ I believed the resurrection story for a while as well, because I was brainwashed from birth to believe it was true, I even used to get fed chocolate eggs and a day off school once a year to celebrate that particular event. But I have opened my eyes. Just because someone outside of our time says it is so, does not make it so. In depth comment on this above. | Written by Phil (6635 comments posted) 22nd February 2007 | I'll not review your comments Johnie, just the piece. Very well written, flowed well, crit wise, as Witzl says, a few minor punctuation issues. You know I share a similar view to you. I thought this was interesting as you have come to a similar outlook to me through intellectual means - I got there more emotionally. (I'm not suggesting there was no emotion involved for you - you mention guilt - just that you clearly took the trouble to research and consider known facts and theories.) 'I believe.' - An answer to a previous review. An intellect that professes a disbelief in god, or anything supernatural can still believe. Lots to admire in this Johnie. Even though it's a hot topic, this was packed with a lot of 'dry' academic stuff, yet it still read vey well. Personal and probably irrelevant comment: you can all believe what you like for me. I'm past caring. Phil. | Written by Witzl (1585 comments posted) 22nd February 2007 | I am amazed by how much thought and time you have put into this, Johnie. I'll bet you can get rid of a Jehovah's Witness at the door faster than my own mother could; she used to lie in wait for them when she saw them in the neighborhood. She didn't even need to get her Bible out as she knew all the key passages by heart anyway, but she would have one handy just in case one of them wanted to see the quote with their own eyes. In time, the Jehovah's Witnesses got to know us; they knew they couldn't win an argument with her, so they gave our house a miss. My mother loved this sort of discussion and it was pathetic how disappointed she would get when they passed us by. Thank you for this interesting posting. | Hi Johnie Written by jean.day (2257 comments posted) 22nd February 2007 | It certainly was a well thought out and detailed list of what you believe and what you don't and why. What puzzles me is why you are so determined to argue your corner. An awful lot of people don't believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, etc. and just leave it at that. You have gone to enormous length to try to disprove religion - and i can only think that it is for your own benefit. I don't think you are trying to convert us to your way of thinking other than for us to appreciate your train of thought. I am happy in my belief which is probably naive in many ways. If I am wrong, and you are right - I won't lose anything because there will be nothing to lose. If I am right, and you are wrong, I really don't believe you will lose anything either, because you have tried so hard to think things through - that has to count. | Written by johniebg (538 comments posted) 22nd February 2007 | Many thanks for the reviews here. I will not bore you with the details of my religeous scars but suffice to say I could not comprehend how something that sounded like it could be so good, could only manifest such pious narrow minded, usually malicious people (my experience). So I decided to make it my mission, as I tend to do with all my passions, to know as much about religion as I possibly could and to know what right Christianity had on my mind - none as it turned out for all the reasons listed here. I do love history, find the figure of Jesus charasmatic and my love of literature extends to the great writings of both the Old and New Testament. I carry a 'man bag' wherever I go, it always contains my copy of Great Gatsby, my current book of choice and my leather bound New International Version (Hodder & Stoughton) holy Bible, which usually leaves people stunned considering my believes. But I like to carry it because the stories found in the Old Testament date back to before mankind could even write, these stories are passed down through 3000 years, maybe more, from minds existed through that time. How cool is that. I love the New Testament for its dedication and its frailties, which are there for anyone to read. And I love the devotion of the Apostle Paul, especially Romans. He really knew so little of Jesus and his teachings but his faith was utter. I also carry the Bible around of course so I can whip out the book and start quoting back to any hapless CHristian the verses they have just realled off to me. So probably me and Witzl's mum would have had a whale of a time. | Written by Witzl (1585 comments posted) 22nd February 2007 | You really would have! People would come over to our house and see the Bible at the door. I would blush and mutter that it was for my mother's hobby -- baiting Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. It embarrassed me to death, but she was also a thinker and she hated to see people brainwashed into believing nonsense. She would talk to anyone and everyone about religion, and we were always amused to see her chatting up the Sikh whose garden allotment was next to hers, or buttonholing a Buddhist about his faith, or trying to get a Pakistani to tell her more about Islam. What a character. I enjoy reading the Bible, too. When I had to sit in church for hours, I would pore over the racier bits and people would remark upon what a devout child I was. Surely they must have known what I was reading, or did they never look at the Bible themselves? Now that you have mentioned Romans, I will start reading it more. I really do find what you have written quite remarkable -- all the research you have put into it, and the thought. | The gospel of Johnie Written by Fledermaus (3237 comments posted) 23rd February 2007 | It certainly explains why YOU choose not to belive in god(s), but isn't there a huge contradiction in being an atheist on the one hand and believing in free choice on the other? I think it's impossible to be an atheist without rejecting dualism. So either you must be a materialist or an ideologist. If you are an ideologist, we can just as well stop this debate, for then we're all just projections of your mind. If you are a materialist, this universe is naught but one big chemical reaction. If so, your reason, your intellectual mind, is naught but a bunch of molecules which react as they should react under these circumstances. Then there is no choice, not even consciousness, just the illusion of choice and consciousness... | Written by johniebg (538 comments posted) 23rd February 2007 | Very thought provoking Mr Fledermaus ... I am an atheist because that is a label society gives people that choose not to believe in gods. I cannot help that - I just don't believe in the gods that mankind has so far conjured. Dualism, idealism and materialism are all once more labels, mostly devised in the period in and around the time Darwin came up with his natural selection theories. They are all attempts by men to explain their existence in this world either in association with god or without god, and when I say god, it typically at that time was the Christian one. But they are still essentially labels beneath which thoughts are collected and men aligned. I am a product of nature, my intellect, which separates mankind from the rest of this earth's species, I understand, is the frontal cortex, which gives me the ability to reason and therefore aids in my intellectual capabilities. Although I do not fully understand at this time, the information we currently have would indicate that my form from shape down to a cellular level is the result of natural selection through evolution and that we evolved from chimpanzee's over hundreds of thousands years. With all the information mankind has currently available this seems like the best explanation for mankind, however we know little more about evolution and natural selection in explaining how it works than Darwin did - which is very interesting. If I was to align myself with any label for defining me, rather than my religious beliefs I would say that would be existentialism but that would have to be a whole new essay titled 'What am I' ... ummmnn
| Existentialism Written by Fledermaus (3237 comments posted) 23rd February 2007 | Now that'd be nice... An essay on existentialism. But indeed that's a completely different discussion. Although just another label, it explains a lot. Not a self-proclaimed atheist, but regarded an atheist by society, and therefore an atheist, now that's an existentialist view I guess Although there is of course a difference between choosing not to believe in God or to believe in no God. But you're right, that'll take a whole new essay  | Written by Snodlander (501 comments posted) 23rd February 2007 | Sorry, a sore point with me. We did not evolve from Chimpanzees, nor any of the other great apes. We evolved in paralled with chimps from a common ancestor. Or, as the Chimp in the zoo remarked on reading Darwin, "It appears I am my keeper's brother." | Written by johniebg (538 comments posted) 23rd February 2007 | Yes the chimpanzee debate seems a hot one. Even those that study evolution, fossils and genetics for a living do not seem able to agree. Did you know that allegedly the average male chimp has five times more upper body strength than an average human male, but the human male more body hair than the chimp ... so I read somewhere. Good stuff
| Interpretation? Written by Holmes245 (1 comments posted) 2nd March 2007 | Quote:
At best, for me the Bible is invested with much effort, much goodwill. But some of the stuff I have seen in both the Old and New Testament -- I mean, for pity's sake: selling your daughters off as slaves, a woman's uncleanness after childbirth, the no-no of mixing two different cloths, the effectiveness of beating your children regularly -- really! Witzl, do you think it might be your interpretation of those texts that could be wrong. I ask that because there have been many alleged contradictions I've seen that "exists" due to careless exegesis. Who are you referring to who sold their daughters off as slaves? The cloth reference I'm not sure of either. The effectiveness of "beating" your children? Could you give us references? I'm not meaning that to sound sarcastic, but you just lost me there. Holmes245 | Written by Witzl (1585 comments posted) 3rd March 2007 | The effectiveness -- indeed, the necessity -- of beating your children is well documented in Proverbs; there are at least five references. There is also something in Proverbs about the importance of beating fools. I used to know chapter and verse, but I'm afraid these details are now gone from my hard drive. Of course my interpretation of those texts could be wrong. I'm not a Biblical scholar, I know no Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, and all my Bible reading is decades past. But I have listened to the interpretations of Biblical scholars, and if I can't trust them, who can I trust? If you aren't sure about the mixed cloth references or the legality of selling one's daughters as slaves, go back and read your Old Testament. Specifically, Leviticus. It's all there -- and plenty more.
| Written by johniebg (538 comments posted) 3rd March 2007 | The fact of the matter is the Bible - The Old and New were written roughly 1900 and 2500 years ago. Life was a whole lot different, specifically culture and morality. The Old depicts Jews trying to come to terms with their lot and the benevolant world they lifed in and the early orthodox followers of Christianity shaped their New Testament as one of hope and salvation through faith. Two different cultures wrote two different interpretations of god... There are countless practises within these cultures that do not fit in with our modern concept of culture and morality - a lot of these were just about plain survival in a world where women had five children just to maintain population levels. It is pointless to argue over instances or interpretation because the teachings just do not apply to this 'intellectually aware' culture we now find ourselves in. It is the people that try this and twist the words or meanings to justify their belief or make it relevant to modern times that screw themselves and their followers up. These ancient texts were written by men that lived in long lost cultures where the rules of acceptability were just plain different. The reason these texts have no context for the modern world is because they were written by men for their time and are not the word of an all knowing god. No more difficult or simpler than that. I love these texts for their historical value and as an insight to the theological mindset of the times but to live a life by 2000 year old doctrine - that would be madness. | Written by johniebg (538 comments posted) 3rd March 2007 | | bugger - I meant Jews lived in a malevolent world, I always get those two mixed up. |
Only registered users can rate and write comments. Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |