Originally posted by Capitalizt
I think I can summarize it into a form that fits well with internet chat..
again, not quite getting the actual theology here (for example, the whole original sin thing, which has largely been rejected, but even still, would be considered a creation of man... also, Jesus' life and sacrafice is more accurately a sacrafice to man not to God). The thing is, while these sort of shots are funny (and they are, sometimes) and appear clever to those that don't really understand the theology they really don't have any impact, as they mock what the writer/creater/user thinks people believe; rather than any actual belief. It's good stuff for the entertainment of people who already agree with the position being expressed though.
Capitalizt
I know the theology moral..I'm a huge religion geek and I've studied it for years. Sure the wording of that pic is humorous, but it is not far off from the actual doctrine. Unfortunately you are unable to see the absurdity of the core doctrines because you still have the "bandage of reference" over your eyes. I suggest you follow Robert Ingersoll's advice, then take a fresh look at your favorite book..
All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention -- of barbarian invention -- is to read it. Read it as you would any other book; think of it as you would of any other; get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the coiled form of superstition -- then read the Holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance and of such atrocity.
P.S. His take on the "original sin" is golden..
quote:
The first account we have of the devil is found in that purely scientific book called Genesis, and is as follows: "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made, and he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. * * And the Lord God said Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life: and eat, and live forever. Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So he drove out the man, and he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life."
According to this account the promise of the devil was fulfilled to the very letter, Adam and Eve did not die, and they did become as gods, knowing good and evil.
The account shows, however, that the gods dreaded education and knowledge then just as they do now. The church still faithfully guards the dangerous tree of knowledge, and has exerted in all ages her utmost power to keep mankind from eating the fruit thereof. The priests have never ceased repeating the old falsehood and the old threat: "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." From every pulpit comes the same cry, born of the same fear: "Lest they eat and become as gods, knowing good and evil." For this reason, religion hates science, faith detests reason, theology is the sworn enemy of philosophy, and the church with its flaming sword still guards the hated tree, and like its supposed founder, curses to the lowest depths the brave thinkers who eat and become as gods.
If the account given in Genesis is really true, ought we not, after all, to thank this serpent? He was the first schoolmaster, the first advocate of learning, the first enemy of ignorance, the first to whisper in human ears the sacred word, LIBERTY...the creator of ambition, the author of modesty, of inquiry, of doubt, of investigation, of progress and of civilization.
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith! Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge!
Ayn Rand also had a devastating critique of the idea..
quote:
The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.
Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Sixth seal, doesn't it bother you that everyone but you is going to hell. Most notably, other monotheists, who believe in God, but just not Christianity. That's pretty ed up for a supposedly loving god. The fact that truly religious, God-fearing, God-seeking people, are still condemned to hell because they didn't believe a certain way. That's pretty ed up dude. If I'm a Muslim, you're the one whose going to hell.
Just for fun.... If your Muslim then he isn't necessarally the one going to hell, as the Qu'ran specifies those that believe and work righteousness end up on the right side of the tracks in the afterlife. Of course "believe and work righteousness" is pretty ambiguous so it could be (and is) interpreted in many ways; point is, not all Muslims believe every non-muslim is condemned to hell. This is the case with Christians as well; however, most of the "end-of-days" types do.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
I know the theology moral..I'm a huge religion geek and I've studied it for years. Sure the wording of that pic is humorous, but it is not far off from the actual doctrine. Unfortunately you are unable to see the absurdity of the core doctrines because you still have the "bandage of reference" over your eyes. I suggest you follow Robert Ingersoll's advice, then take a fresh look at your favorite book..
With regard to the picture; yeah, it's not far off if one only has a surface understanding of only a few aspects of the faith. The point remains; these sort of jabs aren't actually at a person's belief but at what someone thinks a person believes.
With regard to taking a re-read of the the bible... that's kind of how I got to my present beliefs, as I started exploring religions in an effort to satisfy my previous position that they are all bull. I still don't think any one of them is right or perfect.
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
With regard to taking a re-read of the the bible... that's kind of how I got to my present beliefs, as I started exploring religions in an effort to satisfy my previous position that they are all bull. I still don't think any one of them is right or perfect.
I'm interested in the reasons you give the bible any credibility in the first place. Do you know how the new testament stories actually came together? I suggest you check out a few Bart Ehrman books if you're genuinely interested in this stuff.. http://www.amazon.com/Bart-D.-Ehrma...88707822&sr=8-1
LiquidX
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Sixth seal, doesn't it bother you that everyone but you is going to hell. Most notably, other monotheists, who believe in God, but just not Christianity. That's pretty ed up for a supposedly loving god. The fact that truly religious, God-fearing, God-seeking people, are still condemned to hell because they didn't believe a certain way. That's pretty ed up dude. If I'm a Muslim, you're the one whose going to hell.
I'm pretty strong on my religion. My belief on that matter is that it would be ludicrous to know that everyone else but baptized christians would go to "hell". In my eyes GOD is more loving than that, and it won't work that way. Then again that's my belief, I'm not imposing that on anybody. Tolerance is "key" in all things, on all sides of the issue. From Atheists to strong believers. I don't judge nor condemn anybody, nor do I expect Atheist's to come and try to prove their point in bashful way. At the end It's my free will to do what the heck I want right? .. my 02 cents.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
I'm interested in the reasons you give the bible any credibility in the first place. Do you know how the new testament stories actually came together? I suggest you check out a few Bart Ehrman books if you're genuinely interested in this stuff.. http://www.amazon.com/Bart-D.-Ehrma...88707822&sr=8-1
The titles look interesting and provocative. Unfortunately, with the toddler and educational upgrades my time for leisure reading is limited... is there one in particular you'd recommend I start with?
And yes, I am aware of the context of many of the new testament books, also the pre-christian beliefs that coloured much of what is found therein, and the socio-political environments most of them were shaped by (I suppose that also fits into context... excuse my redundancy); however, I'm sure there are things I'm not aware of and would be interested in exploring.
Capitalizt
Go with Jesus Interrupted or Misquoting Jesus first Moral. Some of his other books go into more detail..but those are probably the best introductions. One of them is $6 cheaper than Amazon at the link below. Go ahead and get both. ;)
Originally posted by Ian
Ignore Lira, he's part of the controversial brostianity movement. too much wobble turns a brain to mush.
I didn't even join the discussion, Ian :p
I cannot find any gospel dubstep, but this should be enough:
Jesus is here!!!
Moral Hazard
Capitalizt, just as an FYI, his view on the serpent if very much in line with Himlers... that's not a value judgment, just an interesting observation. BTW, I don't disagree with that view; however, the idea that faith hates reason is flawed, as if there is a god it is surely an entity of reason and governs itself accordingly (as is the position of the RC church).
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
Go with Jesus Interrupted or Misquoting Jesus first Moral. Some of his other books go into more detail..but those are probably the best introductions. One of them is $6 cheaper than Amazon at the link below. Go ahead and get both. ;)
just sent an email to Mrs. Hazard adding both to my Christmas wish list (irony?). Thanks.
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
the idea that faith hates reason is flawed, as if there is a god it is surely an entity of reason and governs itself accordingly (as is the position of the RC church).
God may like reason, but the history of his followers has been the opposite. Many of the most influential church fathers (both catholic and reformed) absolutely detested reason..especially Luther. The irrational behavior during the inquisitions..witch hunts, persecution of heliocentric astronomers, and continued opposition to the teaching of evolution even today should be all the evidence you need of that. Are there exceptions? Certainly. Are some Christians willing to embrace reason and drop the idea that their bible is a perfect description of the history of the universe? Sure..but there's no denying that the book historically has forced people to shut down their reason when it conflicts with their dogmas. I'm glad you aren't one of those folks.
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
just sent an email to Mrs. Hazard adding both to my Christmas wish list (irony?). Thanks.
Irony? Not at all. Christmas was originally a heathen holiday. :)
