religion. what is the point?

[JonMc]

Ooohh KM, you little tinker.

I think Cary Grant would have been more appropriate if you wanted to specify my present avatar. But no...yet again you shoot and miss.

 

[dangermows]

That's an incomplete description of the process though. Nothing is ever accepted as being true unless results and evidence of the tests are peer reviewed, and repeatable. It's never just one individual spouting what he likes and what his interpretations are that gets believed across the board. Of course, you can have different opinions of what a set of data actually means, but then it wouldn't be accepted as true at that point anyway.

So they tell you

 

[JonMc]

Personally, I think the whole story was made up by Gentiles. I don't think Peter (whoever he really was) denied Jesus three times. I think the story is a construct and your conclusion about martyrdom correct. Paul mentions few of the disciples...Peter, John and James (the brother of Jesus) who is not later directly named among the twelve but appears out of nowhere. Paul also refers to a Cephas which also means rock but no-one else. Paul never refers to Peter's betrayal of Jesus nor that of Judas Iscariot. Considering his hostile, volatile attitude to the Jerusalem mission, it is remarkable that he never uses those allegations against them. Judas Iscariot = Judas the Sicarii = Judas the Zealot. He is said to the son of Simon Iscariot = Simon the Sicarii = Simon the Zealot who is also named as a disciple of Jesus and was probably his brother Simon. Simon the Zealot led the mission after the death of another brother of Jesus, James. Simon Peter, Simon Cephas, Simon Iscariot, Simon the Zealot and Simon the brother of Jesus were probably all the same person which would makes Judas Iscariot the nephew of Jesus. No wonder Paul never used those alleged betrayals in his vitriolic attack on the Jerusalem mission. They never happened.

How on earth the Gentiles turned the extensive murder of so many in Palestine by the Romans for sedition into a philosophy of martyrdom is astonishing and an indication of the Roman politicisation of what Josephus calls the Fourth Movement, which he also describes as a new movement.

Good reading as always but my story was just highlighting one of the many discrepancies between what I was told by the church and I saw with my own eyes.

 

[dangermows]

There's no 'faith' involved in science, it is a methodology, and one that works over and over again. I take it you're happy to have 'faith' in the computer you're typing on, or the car you drive, or every time you switch on a light. It is an argument from ignorance that I stated earlier - 'I don't know something, therefore everything is equal in validity'. It is a fallacy.

I dont actually care, whether God exists or not has absolutely zero impact on my life.

 

[Kubicki's right boot]

The motivation for doing a good deed is that we share this planet with 7 billion other humans, and the best way to avoid destroying everything is to attempt to peacefully coexist and help each other; we are socially evolved animals.

So morality is based within the supposed existence of a type of 'social contract' for you? In other words, if 51% of a population agree with something, then it follows it is morally right? Would that be a fair summary of the derivation of your 'moral code'?

Are you suggesting that the only reason religious people do good things, is the fear of perceived divine punishment? Following divine pronouncements is the complete removal of one's morality, it requires no moral decisions, just a dog following its owner's orders

No. I am suggesting that religion has provided a moral code which has enabled relative peace and order to grow and ultimately prevail in certain, though by no means all, parts of the world.

 

[Randy Ostrich]

So morality is based within the supposed existence of a type of 'social contract' for you? In other words, if 51% of a population agree with something, then it follows it is morally right? Would that be a fair summary of the derivation of your 'moral code'.

Morality is a. personal and b. not always absolute

The point of religion in the middle ages was probably to discourage people from thinking for themselves to enable to power to concentrated in the hands of the Church

 

[ollie c]

I dont actually care, whether God exists or not has absolutely zero impact on my life.

This is me too. It won't be good enough for those who want you to fall into one camp or another, though.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

This is me too. It won't be good enough for those who want you to fall into one camp or another, though.

It also applies to me.

 

[Lonz]

So they tell you

Bravo.

I dont actually care, whether God exists or not has absolutely zero impact on my life.

You'd be surprised.

 

[Reiver]

It gives hope and somewhere to turn when you have no where else. Religion is a fantastic thing when it's not being used as a reason for murder.

Mankind will always find a reason for murder, religion is just a handy excuse because people's in bordering countries often have different beliefs.

The Second World War was perpetrated by people who wanted power, nothing to do with religion.
Hitler killed millions of Jews simply because he didn't like them, just like Slavs, Romany's, etc.

Great Britain toured the planet, slaughtering people irrespective of religion, for money & power.

 

[Ilios]

So morality is based within the supposed existence of a type of 'social contract' for you? In other words, if 51% of a population agree with something, then it follows it is morally right? Would that be a fair summary of the derivation of your 'moral code'?


No. I am suggesting that religion has provided a moral code which has enabled relative peace and order to grow and ultimately prevail in certain, though by no means all, parts of the world.

Which religion has provided that? The Wahabbist form of Islam that are terrorising the World? The Catholic Church that has systematically advocated aids in Africa, the inquisition, the illegal protection of paedophiles? Catholics and Protestants are both strands of Christianity - they've been killing each other for centuries. Sunni and Shia are both Muslims, they constantly kill each other. The Bible and the Qu'ran, Sunnah and Hadith are full of divine commands to kill, rape, beat, enslave and abuse everybody but God's chosen tribe. Sure, you can provide cute passages from scripture that preach good, 'morally acceptable' things; for every good thing, I'll provide you a passage not only stating a bad thing, but stating the absolute direct contradiction of your good thing.

Another thing, how do you 'know' which bits are 'good' and 'moral' in the Bible and which bits are not? Secular, societal morality, that's how. Nobody receives morality from scripture, that's nonsensical. If you did, you wouldn't have any morality, as you'd simply be following commands - that's not morality, that is total avoidance of responsibility for one's own behaviour. I know that you don't get your morals from the Bible, as you pick and choose which bits to follow and not - you'd need to have morality in order to decide which bits were morally agreeable with you, and which bits weren't; unless as some Americans do, you just follow the whole lot, 'Bible is God's word, to the letter' and all that silliness.

Most atheists probably have fairly similar moral codes to most progressive Christians, and we both get that morality from exactly the same sources; conversation with each other, consideration for society, moral philosophy etc; we are social animals, we don't need telling that killing each other is bad idea. Morality cannot be endowed upon you, the second that happens you are no longer a moral agent.

 

[Kubicki's right boot]

Morality is a. personal and b. not always absolute

Morality is both personal and public. If morality was purely personal we'd teach in schools, "make your own mind up about whether to steal that persons property" but of course, we don't.

 

[Randy Ostrich]

Morality is both personal and public. If morality was purely personal we'd teach in schools, "make your own mind up about whether to steal that persons property" but of course, we don't.

The law of the land of course is separate.

You can just as easily believe "it's wrong to steal" until you are homeless and stealing food, or nicking a pen from a bank because you don't have one on you and it writes nicely, or pinching 50p from your mrs because you need change for parking.

 

[Kubicki's right boot]

Which religion has provided that? The Wahabbist form of Islam that are terrorising the World? The Catholic Church that has systematically advocated aids in Africa, the inquisition, the illegal protection of paedophiles? Catholics and Protestants are both strands of Christianity - they've been killing each other for centuries. Sunni and Shia are both Muslims, they constantly kill each other. The Bible and the Qu'ran, Sunnah and Hadith are full of divine commands to kill, rape, beat, enslave and abuse everybody but God's chosen tribe. Sure, you can provide cute passages from scripture that preach good, 'morally acceptable' things; for every good thing, I'll provide you a passage not only stating a bad thing, but stating the absolute direct contradiction of your good thing.

Another thing, how do you 'know' which bits are 'good' and 'moral' in the Bible and which bits are not? Secular, societal morality, that's how. Nobody receives morality from scripture, that's nonsensical. If you did, you wouldn't have any morality, as you'd simply be following commands - that's not morality, that is total avoidance of responsibility for one's own behaviour. I know that you don't get your morals from the Bible, as you pick and choose which bits to follow and not - you'd need to have morality in order to decide which bits were morally agreeable with you, and which bits weren't; unless as some Americans do, you just follow the whole lot, 'God's word, to the letter' and that silliness.

Most atheists probably have fairly similar moral codes to most progressive Christians, and we both get that morality from exactly the same sources; conversation with each other, consideration for society, moral philosophy. Morality cannot be endowed upon you, the second that happens you are no longer a moral agent.

Are you suggesting Christian tradition hasn't enabled our society and others that share that tradition to be relatively peaceful, stable, prosperous and educated?

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

Morality is a. personal and b. not always absolute

The point of religion in the middle ages was probably to discourage people from thinking for themselves to enable to power to concentrated in the hands of the Church

Which means that morality is a construct of the mind. In which case theism had fertile ground for its rules and regulations. What if morality is not just a construct of the mind although it will be expressed as one. Perhaps, as human beings we have an inherent ethical nature, our inherent humanity. The Greeks called it the source of Virtue. This argument is not limited to materialist v theistic perspectives.

 

[Ilios]

Are you suggesting Christian tradition hasn't enabled our society and others that share that tradition to be relatively peaceful, stable, prosperous and educated?

More people have died in the activities and pronouncements of Christianity, than any other organisation in the history of the World. Do you think that is compatible with what you're saying?

 

[Randy Ostrich]

Which means that morality is a construct of the mind. In which case theism had fertile ground for its rules and regulations. What if morality is not just a construct of the mind although it will be expressed as one. Perhaps, as human beings we have an inherent ethical nature, our inherent humanity. The Greeks called it the source of Virtue. This argument is not limited to materialist v theistic perspectives.

Indeed and I think we all do. Environment and upbringing may skew it slightly but I'd wager that most people are well aware of doing something that is 'morally wrong' when they do it. Morality cannot be an absolute though and is not an end in itself. You could think that killing is wrong but euthanasia is ok. You might think that abortion is wrong but a child born suffering is equally wrong. Morality is a tool and a guide.

I'd like to think that our humanity does supersede all of our teaching, experiences and conditions of worth. It boils down to the kind of person you want to be.

 

[AlpineExile]

I married a dragon and she has got a nice fairy which seems to be controlled by a dildo....

A belief in some sort of creator doesnt take much more creative thinking than the scientific theory for the universe being born really. (Nowt that exploded to make everything)

Doesnt bother me anyway, cos I dont live my life according to religion (cos that would involve morals ) and I dont attend church. Yet I still believe in God.

I'll ask again:

please define/explain this god [God] you claim to believe in please.

Thanks in advance, blah blah blee.

Aye I know that, but God spoke to me a few years back. That was the deal clincher.

So I guess this means that your god is different to Lewberry's god ...

God is a spirit, he doesn't have a face meaning those scriptures are not literal and once again atheists will interpret the bible any way they can to look clever

 

[dangermows]

I'll ask again:

please define/explain this god [God] you claim to believe in please.

Thanks in advance, blah blah blee.


So I guess this means that your god is different to Lewberry's god ...

You need a gob, thats just daft humans.

 

[AlpineExile]

Loads.

The earliest thing I remember striking me from my childhood was the Easter story and about how Mr Jesus told Mr Peter that he would deny him three times before the sun rose the next morning...but Hey! Jesus said, that's ok. You need to go on - this is my path and you need to stay alive to spread my word and to do good. From that beginning, cut to a church supposedly built on that concept but instead creates a cult that literally worships martyrdom.

I mean, how does that work?

Judas is the real hero if you think about it, cos without him JC's 'sacrifice' wouldn't have happened.

JC just spent a bad weekend down with the Devil before ganning up to sit with his dad, whilst Judas is still down there being poked up his bum with a burning pitchfork for all eternity.

You need a gob, thats just daft humans.

Eh?