|
Is religion beneficial? (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Teezdalien |
| It really doesn't matter what ur stance on the bible is. Regardless this book has led many men to success and prosperous lives, which imo means that there have been many benefits from religion for mankind.;) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
why the would i force myself to read something that i found completely underwhelming (not to mention difficult to read) just so someone might take me more seriously when i say "leviticus is bull" when it should already be obvious to them? |
I'll just ignore all the filler and get down to brass tax (which the above statement cuts to the heart of)... If you don't read the source material then you cannot understand it, which means you're not qualified to pass judgment on it and incapable of intelligently discussing it. Your statement "leviticus is bull" for instance... please explain that; what part is bull? Are you stating it has absolutely no value? Can you explain the context of the book? Do you have any appreciation for the practical value of this book? Clearly you cannot answer these questions in any meaningful way, as having never read the book your opinion is really based on what other's have told you... maybe you should think for yourself; it's highly probable that your opinion wouldn't change but at least you could understand your own position. All that said, we've been through this same thing before and I know I'm wasting my time with you as you're not willing to put in the effort on a position you're already firm on. If you ever decide you wish to understand the subject of this discussion rather then just reacting to the limited knowledge you've stumbled upon then maybe we can speak intelligently on it. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Religion is great for your sex life |
That's true, actually. Sometimes I wish I was religious (and promiscuous) during my teens because I would certainly have joined one of those "Church Youth Clubs"... it's incredible, they seem to bonk even more than they pray! I know a girl who would often have threesomes with the guys from her church, and an old professor of mine told me how he once had anal sex in the altar so he could feel "sinful" and have God forgive him :thepirate
Damn, you, nerdy and lonely atheism :( :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I'll just ignore all the filler and get down to brass tax (which the above statement cuts to the heart of)... If you don't read the source material then you cannot understand it, which means you're not qualified to pass judgment on it and incapable of intelligently discussing it. Your statement "leviticus is bull" for instance... please explain that; what part is bull? Are you stating it has absolutely no value? Can you explain the context of the book? Do you have any appreciation for the practical value of this book? Clearly you cannot answer these questions in any meaningful way, as having never read the book your opinion is really based on what other's have told you... maybe you should think for yourself; it's highly probable that your opinion wouldn't change but at least you could understand your own position. All that said, we've been through this same thing before and I know I'm wasting my time with you as you're not willing to put in the effort on a position you're already firm on. If you ever decide you wish to understand the subject of this discussion rather then just reacting to the limited knowledge you've stumbled upon then maybe we can speak intelligently on it. |
that's the most disappointing response ive ever read from you. i know you have new responsibilities which is fair enough... but seriously.
of course ive read it. i wouldn't make that statement if i hadn't read it. ive even re-written the first chapter of genesis just for a laugh in case youre wondering. my knowledge of the bible is patchy because that's how i read it (and a long time ago i might add). i have never ever pretended to be a biblical scholar and i still challenge you that a knowledge of the bible is essential to dismiss the idea of a (desert) god.
not being able to recite chapter and verse and admitting i haven't read the bible in its entirety is rather meaningless. how about you address some of the more substantive issues i have? its not like you to cherry-pick posts and construct an argument like "well, ive read more than you so there's no point in discussing it".
but, since you asked, let's start with Leviticus 20:13 (thanks google!)
absolute bull, and anyone that think god cares what i do with my (consensual) is a moron.
-----
knowledge of the bible is not remotely necessary to discount the existence of god. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that's the most disappointing response ive ever read from you. i know you have new responsibilities which is fair enough... but seriously.
of course ive read it. i wouldn't make that statement if i hadn't read it. ive even re-written the first chapter of genesis just for a laugh in case youre wondering. my knowledge of the bible is patchy because that's how i read it (and a long time ago i might add). i have never ever pretended to be a biblical scholar and i still challenge you that a knowledge of the bible is essential to dismiss the idea of a (desert) god.
not being able to recite chapter and verse and admitting i haven't read the bible in its entirety is rather meaningless. how about you address some of the more substantive issues i have? its not like you to cherry-pick posts and construct an argument like "well, ive read more than you so there's no point in discussing it".
but, since you asked, let's start with Leviticus 20:13 (thanks google!)
absolute bull, and anyone that think god cares what i do with my (consensual) is a moron.
-----
knowledge of the bible is not remotely necessary to discount the existence of god. |
With regard to Lev 20:13 in particular, I agree with you... there is little to no reasonable basis for this passage. In truth, I think much of Leviticus is outdated. This is not a commentary on god, however. Leviticus is one book that is a prime example of rules/laws of man being ascribed to god based on earlier theology. For example; 20:13 states that homosexual intercourse is a sin and the sinners should be put to death. This was written by Moses (or claimed to have been) in response to the story of Soddem in which God destroys the city after some of the townsmen attempt to rape an angle. The Hebrews of Moses' time believed that Soddem was destroyed due to homosexual activity; however, what they paid little attention to was the fact that angels are non-sexual beings thus it is reasonable that the city was destroyed for the attempted rape rather then the homosexual bent of said attempted rape. Most of Leviticus is this way... rules written in response to earlier stories thus it says more about what the Hebrews of the time thought about God rather then God itself (presuming the existance of god, which is necessary for this discussion). Even if one discounts the parts of Leviticus that are inconsistant with the overall theology of the Bible it does have value in that it was an early form of written law and contained rules that safeguarded the Hebrews of the time... the whole pork thing is one of those.
Most of the inconsistancies of the Bible (which you love to point to) are easily explained as being misinterpretations by the writers or rewriters. One must bear in mind that this is a collection of books written by 30ish authors over a period of over 1000 years, which is intended to serve multiple purposes. Some of the books are theological, some historical, and others are codified law. One could pull inconsistancies from any believe system (be it theological or philisophical) which has evolved over time, this does not invalidate the belief system though... you have to look at the big picture with these things, look for what is consistant and consider that to be what is valid.
Finally, I didn't state that one must possess a knowledge of the Bible to conclude there is no god. My position is that one must possess a knowlege of the bible in order to evaluate it's worth, similarly; one must possess a knowlege of religion, anthropology, and history in order to evaluate the worth of religion. It seems to me that very few of the people involved in this discussion the requisit knowlege to engage in meaningful discussion of this question. I took exceptional umbridge with your post because you are so forceful in espousing your beliefs (or lack there of) while similtaniously stating that there is no worth in understanding that which you are railling against. Such a position is absolute and far below your capabilities. If you insist on holding this position then there is no point in having further discussion with you as such a position confirms that you have no interest in furthering your understanding; rather, you are only looking for an opportunity to spar using that which you already know/believe. This is a lot like building a cardboard canoe in your living room... it may be fun to hop in and pretend to paddle but it doesn't get anyone anywhere. |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
With regard to Lev 20:13 in particular, I agree with you... there is little to no reasonable basis for this passage. In truth, I think much of Leviticus is outdated. This is not a commentary on god, however. Leviticus is one book that is a prime example of rules/laws of man being ascribed to god based on earlier theology. For example; 20:13 states that homosexual intercourse is a sin and the sinners should be put to death. This was written by Moses (or claimed to have been) in response to the story of Soddem in which God destroys the city after some of the townsmen attempt to rape an angel...Most of Leviticus is this way... rules written in response to earlier stories thus it says more about what the Hebrews of the time thought about God rather then God itself (presuming the existance of god, which is necessary for this discussion). |
Interesting, so do you believe that god actually said what is written in Lev 20, or do you believe that the hebrews attributed these rules for living to their god?
The chapter starts with god telling Moses to read these penalties for disobedience to the Israelites...is it unfair to assume that that is what the chapter means, rather than the Hebrews making up the rules themselves?
| quote: | | The Hebrews of Moses' time believed that Soddem was destroyed due to homosexual activity; however, what they paid little attention to was the fact that angels are non-sexual beings thus it is reasonable that the city was destroyed for the attempted rape rather then the homosexual bent of said attempted rape. |
In actual fact, if you read Genesis 18 from verse 16 onwards, you will see that god had already heard 'accusations' about the sin of Sodom and Gommorah...so your theory about the city being destroyed because of an attempted rape of an angel is unnecessary, because god was already going to destroy the cities.
Interestingly, verse 21 states that the lord said he would 'go down to find out whether or not the accusations which I have heard are true'...kind of a strange thing a supreme deity to say! Shouldn't he already know?
What is even more ridiculous is that Abraham manages to talk him round to sparing Sodom (and Gomorrah) if he found 10 innocent people in the whole city!
Honestly, does this even remotely sound like the creator of the universe to you? Receiving a lesson in justice and fairness from a human being? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
Interesting, so do you believe that god actually said what is written in Lev 20, or do you believe that the hebrews attributed these rules for living to their god?
The chapter starts with god telling Moses to read these penalties for disobedience to the Israelites...is it unfair to assume that that is what the chapter means, rather than the Hebrews making up the rules themselves? |
My view on Leviticus is exactly what I stated earlier and you reiterated in your question... it is Moses (or someone acting under Moses' name... Aaron perhaps) crafting rules based on their interpretation of earlier Biblical events and other rules based on practical necessity/expediancy. While I am a man of faith I also understand that it is probable that much of the Bible (Old Testiment in particular) was writen in an attempt to legitimize the rule of man rather then to relate the revelation of God. The fact that many of the books of the OT were writen by kings/rulers/polititions certainly lends credance to that. Moses, for example, while being a prophet (presuming that much is accurate) was also charged with leading the Isrealites. Being a leader involves much more then does being a prophet alone. Moses had the additional duties of ensuring the cohesion of the tribe, maintaining order, and safeguarding his people from the many dangers they faced (like undercooked pork and infected foresikns). It is most probable that in order to simplify his life Moses would have ascribed rules that he was making in order lead his people to God, as believers will question God far less then they would the guy God chats with from time to time. Leviticus is a prime example of a book that was written by man as law ascribed to God for greater authority.
Is it unfair to assume that Lev. is actually the word of god... no, one may believe as one wishes; however, since much of what is in Lev. only appears in Lev. or is a derivative of earlier stories I believe that it's more likely to be the work of a man rather then the work of God. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
What is even more ridiculous is that Abraham manages to talk him round to sparing Sodom (and Gomorrah) if he found 10 innocent people in the whole city!
Honestly, does this even remotely sound like the creator of the universe to you? Receiving a lesson in justice and fairness from a human being? |
I'm not certain that I believe God sending angels to experience Sodom first hand is unreasonable. I would interpret this more as a test then an investigation.
I think you misunderstand the the story of Abrahams pleas. The story isn't about God being schooled in justice by a human; rather, it is revealing God's forgiveness... Abraham asks him if he will destroy all or spare the righteous. God's answer is that he will spare all if there are 10 righteous people in the city. This reveals God's justice... he is willing to let the "wicked" survive in order to spare the righteous... which is more then Abraham asks of him. Why 10? beats the hell out of me. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Religion is great for your sex life
 |
:haha:
On another note...
I grew up around strict (basically "fundamentalist") Christians and for years tried to act in step with their moral teachings, including teachings about sexuality. This meant that sex outside of marriage, masturbation, and lustful thoughts were all considered to be sinful, so I tried to avoid all of them.
Of course plenty of people will talk about how "oppressive" such a morality is, and how it leads to shame and ignorance about sex when really we should all be open and scientific about it. But now that I look back on it I think that those "oppressive" moral teachings imbued sexual pleasure and sexual thoughts with a kind of dark, mysterious aura that they wouldn't have had if I had grown up in a more permissive culture. It certainly made sexual feelings more conflicting and perhaps even more interesting in a way. Maybe sexual repression isn't all bad?
:disbelief |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Maybe sexual repression isn't all bad? |
I don't think so. Apparently, the more repression there is, the more people tend to feel the urge to "be free", and they hardly ever understand why it is that those rules exist in the first place. |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
My view on Leviticus is exactly what I stated earlier and you reiterated in your question... it is Moses (or someone acting under Moses' name... Aaron perhaps) crafting rules based on their interpretation of earlier Biblical events and other rules based on practical necessity/expediancy. While I am a man of faith I also understand that it is probable that much of the Bible (Old Testiment in particular) was writen in an attempt to legitimize the rule of man rather then to relate the revelation of God. The fact that many of the books of the OT were writen by kings/rulers/polititions certainly lends credance to that. Moses, for example, while being a prophet (presuming that much is accurate) was also charged with leading the Isrealites. Being a leader involves much more then does being a prophet alone. Moses had the additional duties of ensuring the cohesion of the tribe, maintaining order, and safeguarding his people from the many dangers they faced (like undercooked pork and infected foresikns). It is most probable that in order to simplify his life Moses would have ascribed rules that he was making in order lead his people to God, as believers will question God far less then they would the guy God chats with from time to time. Leviticus is a prime example of a book that was written by man as law ascribed to God for greater authority.
Is it unfair to assume that Lev. is actually the word of god... no, one may believe as one wishes; however, since much of what is in Lev. only appears in Lev. or is a derivative of earlier stories I believe that it's more likely to be the work of a man rather then the work of God. |
I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like mental gymnastics to let your god off the hook in regards to some of the hateful nonsense spouted in Leviticus...however if the god of the bible does not exist then your explanation makes perfect sense!
By the way, removing the foreskin if it is infected is fair enough, but if it isn't then what's the point? I wonder how many young hebrew men died as the result of having their foreskin removed by a dirty and infected knife/rock, or whatever they used.
I've never heard a position like yours before, bascially what you are saying is that Moses created rules and punishments and attributed them to being the will of god, rather than god stating said rules and punishments. I'd be interested to know if there are any biblical scholars / theologians who hold the same view as you. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like mental gymnastics to let your god off the hook in regards to some of the hateful nonsense spouted in Leviticus...however if the god of the bible does not exist then your explanation makes perfect sense!
By the way, removing the foreskin if it is infected is fair enough, but if it isn't then what's the point? I wonder how many young hebrew men died as the result of having their foreskin removed by a dirty and infected knife/rock, or whatever they used.
I've never heard a position like yours before, bascially what you are saying is that Moses created rules and punishments and attributed them to being the will of god, rather than god stating said rules and punishments. I'd be interested to know if there are any biblical scholars / theologians who hold the same view as you. |
I don't think that my position is mental gymnastics at all. Much of what is in Leviticus is simply inconsistant with the overriding themes of the Bible. If the Abrihamic God exists then it seems unlikely that this book is the direct word of God as it is inconsistant with both earlier and later books and contains a multitude of rules/laws that are only discussed therein. To be honest, I cannot cite any biblical scholars that share my view on Lev in particular; however, this is likely due to a gap in knowlege on my part as opposed to my position being unique. I can confirm that many Biblical scholars share my understanding of the books of the bible being of three primary purposes; revelation, history, and law.
I'd imagine that the whole brisk thing was to prevent infection of the foreskin... either that or to deminish sexual pleasure as is the case with female circumcision. |
|
|
|
|
