I would like to know your views. Is it moral and/or ethical overall, or not? Are there parts that are moral or not? I have mine (Christianity is immoral), but will wait for others to chime in before I lay my reasons out.
It depends how literally a Christian interprets the passages of the bible that they think are moral. Christianity can be neither moral nor immoral as it is not a person with a choice. Only a person can be moral or immoral and their behaviour will be the result of their genes, upbringing and experiences.
So the question should be "Does Christian doctrine/dogma influence its followers to behave in what the majority of reasonable people would consider a moral or immoral way?" And of course the instant problem is what datum would one use to define moral or immoral behaviour? If the majority of people are Christian their view of moral behaviour will be biased by their Christianity.
I'd say it is danger of being immoral because it sees god as more important than people.
Great cathedrals are nice but what else could the money have been spent on?
Improved sanitation and water supply would have been more practical.
It's hard to place a value on the benefit given by a great work of architecture, but I don't think the peoples needs were given much consideration when they were built, it was for god. This seems immoral to me.
I find the arguments against contraception very weak. Under the influence of god the faithful are doing much harm, but suffering in this world doesn't matter that much because it's only an entrée to eternity.
Well, the entire religion is based on a book of impossible lies, they spread intolerance and hate, they are charitable, as long as you are the right color, love the right gender, and think the way they do..... They are a more publicly acceptable version of the ku klux klan in my honest opinion.
Answer: immoral.
for me, a religion that has a rule that says a woman should marry her rapist and never divorce him (among MANY other things) is anything BUT moral
From my perspective, I find its manifestations are often immoral. From their point of view it defines morality.
I find Christians (not going to generalise) can be immoral. They don't see themselves as responsible for their actions as they would without a bible/church/theology to lean on.
They are among the most ignorant yet the quickest to judge (and sometimes condemn, at least morally) others.
They accept teachings without questioning, some of those teaching causing harm to others.
And to top it all off, they're insufferably holier-than-thou. Wonderful.
The times and moral zeitgeist changes quicker than their moral system, leaving them to squabble over primitive questions.
Some of you have hit on a few points I make. Feel free to pick apart the (long) post below.
Is it moral to believe your sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person? Is it ethical to believe this? I submit the doctrine of vicarious human sacrifice and subsequent redemption (the rock on which Christianity is based) is utterly immoral.
I might if I wished say, "Look here. You're in debt and I just won a billion dollar lottery and I'll pay your debts for you. Maybe you may pay me back someday, but for now I can get you out of trouble." I could say if I really loved someone sentenced to prison if I could find a way to serve your sentence, I would. Why, I might take your place on the electric chair.
Sounds really good doesn't it? But I can't take away your responsibilities and I can't say you didn't commit the crime that put you in the electric chair in the first place. And I can't make you become clean. Ancient Middle East society called this 'scapegoating'. They would pile the sins of the family or tribe on the goat and drive it out into the desert leaving it to starve and die - a positively immoral doctrine that abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and morality must depend.
A further implication: I'm told I MUST have a share in this human sacrifice that allegedly took place long before I was born. I had no say in it happening and I wasn't consulted about it. I'm told I'm implicated; I myself drove in the nails due to the original filthy sin I was conceived in. Had this happened today, I would be bound in my best attempt to stop the public torture and execution of an innocent eccentric rabbi.
Here is what we find most sinister about monotheism and Christian practices; the fact that it is insipiently and explicitly totalitarian. We are born under an invisible celestial dictatorship which we could not have any hand in choosing and have no say whatsoever. We are told it watches us all the time, even while we sleep, have sex, go to the bathroom. We are told it can convict and condemn us of what we think; if we think the wrong thoughts. If we commit a right action, its sole purpose is to evade punishment and if we commit a wrong action, we will suffer not only punishment in life, but also in death and for eternity. And believers say this is moral and where we get absolute morality from.
In the Old Testament, gruesome as it is, recommending as it is of genocide, racism, tribalism, slavery, genital mutilation, the displacement and destruction of others (amongst a plentitude of other immoral and unethical acts); the gods were do not punish the dead. There is no talk of torture after you die in the OT. This disgusting doctrine surfaces only when gentle and meek Jesus surfaces with a message of those that do not accept his message must depart in death to everlasting torture and calls it moral. Once again I submit, not only is it not ethical or moral, not only does it come with a false promise of vicarious atonement and redemption through virgin birthing and resurrection, it is the origin of the totalitarian principle which has been such a heavy burden and unseen shame upon humanity for so long...too long.
How many of you would say you would believe something because it may cheer you up? How many of you would tell your children something was true, even if it isn't, because it might stop their tears? How many of you indulge in wishful thinking? Do we not hear it repeatedly said that many of the biblical stories may not be true or were figurative or allegorical or metaphorical and the history of it may be dubious BUT, it provides consolation? Can anyone who believes this not feel the tiniest amount of embarrassment in that their thinking is wishfully – flawed?
But yes, wouldn't be great to transfer all your sins and responsibilities to someone else who would gladly take them and have those sins absolved? But it's not true nor morally and ethically sound. Christianity undermines humanity's basic integrity; it dissolves our obligation to live for, search for and witness for the truth. What makes Christianity even more sinister, to be able to choose a right or wrong action or thought is that one does not have that moral ability innately but rather comes from a celestial dictatorship which one must love and simultaneously - fear.
I've never tried this as I'm not a man of the cloth, but what is it like, I want to know, to lie to children for a living; to tell children that there is an authority that they must compulsory love and be terrified of at the same time? What is it like to tell children that they do not have an innate sense of learning right and wrong or fairness and decency without the Great Sky Daddy? This is morally disgusting
We are lead to think the ancients thought that adultery, murder, theft and perjury were par for the day. We are told specifically that the ancient Israelites thought that adultery, murder, theft and perjury were fine and dandy until they came to the foot of Mt. Sinai where they are then told 40 days later it's not kosher after all. Well, don't you think we must have more self respect for ourselves and for others than that? Of course nothing of the sort took place but it's an insult to all humanity and our integrity because if we believe that adultery, murder, theft and perjury were all right before the 10 Commandments, we never would have made it to Egypt, wandering for forty years afterward and then to the foot of Mt.Sinai or anywhere else.
According to the Christian faith, depending if one believes mankind has been around for 100,000 years or so God stands around (after he kills everything on the earth) for 98,000 years until it's time to once again intervene. And the best way of intervening is an illegal Jewish human sacrifice in an ancient Middle East backwater; a place where the news would take 1,970 years to cover the globe and still hasn't covered completely. And according to Christian doctrine, that would be our redemption and as a Christian, one must believe it. But it is not decent to believe it. To believe in and worship this God is to venerate the designer of the Universe who was entirely lazy, inept, unbelievably callous, cruel, capricious and indifferent.
The final insult Christianity and mainstream religion bestows upon us is that it appeals to our self-centeredness, our solipsism. Look at it like this: You're a chunk of mud, a wretched born in sin creature by God's design and lucky to be alive by God's grace, God fashioned you for his convenience, you are filth - born in sin and should be disgusted by your own sexuality but, take heart, the Universe is designed for you in mind.
I can't believe there is a thinking person who reads this that does not realize that humanity would begin to grow higher if it emancipated itself from this sinister and childishness behavior.
That was a great read Gawen.
I'd also like to point out that of the three most significant women in the book, one was a virgin (a symbol of purity???), one was a whore (a symbol of Jesus' ability to love all), the other was the reason for humanities' original sin, all other women are punished for her act of taking the fruit of knowledge by having painful births and to be support for men's worship of god.
How come people don't go around talking about the virgin Jesus?
Yeah, my biggest beef with christianity is; people are raised to truly believe in a 2,000 year old myth.
It breeds hatred and intolerance against gender and sexuality: two things one IS BORN with.
It breeds hatred that one gender is better than other. It also says that prayer does more for someone than physical action.
And I agree with whoever said money should be going to helping people, not any church, where idiots sit and worship invisible sky daddy.
Also, I think REAL morals come from good parenting and personal experience.
Ps- the bible stomps on individuality and wants everyone to be creepy, smiling clones.
Answer: immoral
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fattachments.emergencyoffice.com.au%2Fproducts%2Fimages_small%2F7027.png&hash=dd575f7747b84b7a6097781fc0a6e05658f985b5)
Christianity is amoral (despite its claims to the contrary). Christians are moral and immoral.
I don't subscribe to morality. There is no such thing.
I would however suggest that Christianity inspires it's followers to be more likely to behave detrimental to society in some ways. e.g. Sexist, biast against homosexuals, agressive towards Atheists and non Christians.
Christianity is a tool. Most people using that tool are of questionable morality, not unlike people in general.
Thus, the morality of Christianity depends on the morality of an individual follower or a group in question which in turn is highly situational and egocentric.
Quote from: Will on September 20, 2011, 12:27:16 AM
Christianity is amoral (despite its claims to the contrary).
I must disagree. I made a fair case in my post above that shows otherwise. I think you need to show us how my case is wrong. Tell us how Christianity, in its basic doctrine/dogma/tenets (what have you) is amoral. Show us how compulsory love is amoral. Show us how a celestial, invisible, totalitarian dictatorship in which you have no say is amoral. Show us how vicarious atonement is amoral.
I have also shown, in other threads on this board, how the Christ teachings are also immoral.
QuoteChristians are moral and immoral.
This thread does not consider individual Christian morality or ethics. How the individual Christian compartmentalizes his/her belief in the morality of Christendom or balancing societies morals and ethics with Christianity's moral and ethics is beyond the scope of the topic.
rather unsurprisingly it's an immoral thumbs down from this chimp too. The New Testament teaches that Jesus is immanently going to return to Earth, destroy the planet in a huge conflagration, whisk believers away to heaven and let the rest of us burn alive. Well Mr Jesus, it's now 1900 years later, and I have to ask where the **** are you?
As far as I'm concerned any religion that teaches that their saviour will destroy the planet is wholly immoral, I'd add to that any religion that claims that theirs is the only true fantasy and all other gods are made-up devils, and that all non-believers will burn in hellfire is also immoral, as well as being highly dangerous.
QuoteWell Mr Jesus, it's now 1900 years later, and I have to ask where the **** are you?
That's right jesus, BRING IT!!! We're waiting...... That's what I thought.
Quote from: Xjeepguy on September 20, 2011, 01:43:20 PM
QuoteWell Mr Jesus, it's now 1900 years later, and I have to ask where the **** are you?
That's right jesus, BRING IT!!! We're waiting...... That's what I thought.
'I tell you this:
the present generation will live to see it all. Heaven and earth will pass away; my words will never pass away.'
Yeah right Jesus. Turns out that pussy was all talk, just one of many religious nuts to claim the world was about to end!
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 20, 2011, 03:47:21 PM
Turns out that pussy was all talk, just one of many religious nuts to claim the world was about to end!
It was an attention getting claim. Noone gave a toss about him at the time, despite his claim to miracles, I bet he never grew back someone's limb. He may not have even existed.
Benny Hinn is far more famous during his lifetime and we have his "miracles" documented on video. Now we just need to make a martyr of him and then he will become a legend like Jesus, only bigger and better.
BTW: I was just kidding, don't kill the guy, leave him alone, avoid him even.
Quote from: Stevil on September 20, 2011, 07:45:44 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 20, 2011, 03:47:21 PM
Turns out that pussy was all talk, just one of many religious nuts to claim the world was about to end!
It was an attention getting claim. Noone gave a toss about him at the time, despite his claim to miracles, I bet he never grew back someone's limb. He may not have even existed.
yeah, I don't think he ever existed either. I like to think of Jesus as the Jewish Socrates, made up by Hellenised Jews who'd read a bit too much Plato and Greek mythology, and fancied creating a Jewish version of the Greek suffering hero.
Quote from: Gawen on September 20, 2011, 12:46:04 PM
I must disagree. I made a fair case in my post above that shows otherwise. I think you need to show us how my case is wrong. Tell us how Christianity, in its basic doctrine/dogma/tenets (what have you) is amoral. Show us how compulsory love is amoral. Show us how a celestial, invisible, totalitarian dictatorship in which you have no say is amoral. Show us how vicarious atonement is amoral.
They're words in a book. It's not until they're applied to human beings that they can be judged by their consequences. Suggesting the Bible is immoral is like saying The Lord of the Rings is Immoral. They're words on a page, without intent or action.
Quote from: Will on September 21, 2011, 09:42:25 PM
They're words in a book. It's not until they're applied to human beings that they can be judged by their consequences. Suggesting the Bible is immoral is like saying The Lord of the Rings is Immoral. They're words on a page, without intent or action.
But....
This is like saying that the author of a book or the people referring to these books to teach others, have no accountability when the students act upon the teachings based on the book.
I think sometimes we'd like to think that people are smart enough to see through some things, but I don't know. In that sense, immoral words in a book can be a problem, but it feels odd to say that a book or theology is immoral. The way I see it, morality is closely linked to human actions, not a belief system. The thing is, people follow their ideologies. By proxy you could say that a theology is immoral if the people who are following it are.
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 01:42:49 AMBut....
This is like saying that the author of a book or the people referring to these books to teach others, have no accountability when the students act upon the teachings based on the book.
The authors of the Bible can and most certainly were immoral. That's the point I'm trying to get across. It's the people involved that are moral or immoral. Words on a page are simply a means of communication and record. A word cannot hurt without someone actually using them, and then it's the person using them that's responsible, not the words.
Quote from: Will on September 22, 2011, 06:43:41 AM
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 01:42:49 AMBut....
This is like saying that the author of a book or the people referring to these books to teach others, have no accountability when the students act upon the teachings based on the book.
The authors of the Bible can and most certainly were immoral. That's the point I'm trying to get across. It's the people involved that are moral or immoral. Words on a page are simply a means of communication and record. A word cannot hurt without someone actually using them, and then it's the person using them that's responsible, not the words.
The people using them, the people authoring/publishing/distributing them, the people teaching them...
Especially when the teacher claims to be divinely guided and infallible and that if not followed the student will be tortured for eternity.
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 06:47:54 AM
Quote from: Will on September 22, 2011, 06:43:41 AM
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 01:42:49 AMBut....
This is like saying that the author of a book or the people referring to these books to teach others, have no accountability when the students act upon the teachings based on the book.
The authors of the Bible can and most certainly were immoral. That's the point I'm trying to get across. It's the people involved that are moral or immoral. Words on a page are simply a means of communication and record. A word cannot hurt without someone actually using them, and then it's the person using them that's responsible, not the words.
The people using them, the people authoring/publishing/distributing them, the people teaching them...
Especially when the teacher claims to be divinely guided and infallible and that if not followed the student will be tortured for eternity.
I must say I'm with Will on this one. Words on a page have no impact until read. How dangerous, or otherwise, is a closed book on a shelf? Now the intent of the author may have been good or bad, but how the reader reacts to what is written is the responsibility of the reader and how they react will be influenced by their genes and upbringing. The words on the page are simply a transmission medium of ideas that may, or may not, be considered moral or immoral by the writer or reader dependent on their respective reasons for writing and reading.
Consider a photograph of the body of a murder victim. The image is morally neutral. Was the photographer moral or immoral for taking the picture? That depends on the motivation of the photographer, were they a police phorensic photographer or a voyeur who want's to post the image on the internet to troll the victim's family? Neither motivation affects the content of the image, which is morally neutral.
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 09:12:22 AM
Consider a photograph of the body of a murder victim. The image is morally neutral. Was the photographer moral or immoral for taking the picture? That depends on the motivation of the photographer, were they a police phorensic photographer or a voyeur who want's to post the image on the internet to troll the victim's family? Neither motivation affects the content of the image, which is morally neutral.
What if a photographer takes photos of scantily clad naked sexually posed children. Should the photographer be held accountable for anything?
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 09:37:24 AM
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 09:12:22 AM
Consider a photograph of the body of a murder victim. The image is morally neutral. Was the photographer moral or immoral for taking the picture? That depends on the motivation of the photographer, were they a police phorensic photographer or a voyeur who want's to post the image on the internet to troll the victim's family? Neither motivation affects the content of the image, which is morally neutral.
What if a photographer takes photos of scantily clad naked sexually posed children. Should the photographer be held accountable for anything?
Note: The photographer is responsible for the images they produce, the image is not responsible for being taken, it can't be, it's an inanimate object.
I think Christianity is immoral. Who in their right mind would want this world to be destroyed? Who are waiting for the destruction of the earth and its 'unChristianized' inhabitants? Who sees a silver lining in every atmospheric and geophysical catastrophe? Who rejoices when these tumultuous 'signs' are transpiring? The malevolence is overwhelmingly in favor of Christianity.
Christianity is not a book.
The foundation of the belief system date with the beliefs of the ancients Jews, even before they were Jews through oral tradition. Doctrine is not an inanimate object. Christianity was not a book until well after the supposed central character was dead. People believed this stuff way before the book was written. Christianity is immoral as a belief system/worldview - even in its myriad consistencies of proto-Christianity. To say Christianity is amoral because it is written in a book is faulty thinking when you do not consider the immoral pre-published doctrines/dogma/tenets of Judaism and proto-Christian beliefs as the rocks in which Christianity was built upon.
The Bible is simply the immoral doctrine in written form instead of the immoral oral tradition (which came first) of those that believed it.
I think we can all agree that Christianity is a nasty little religion that has caused untold suffering in the world. It helped bring about the Dark Ages, and has opposed a lot of the positive steps and scientific and cultural advances Western civilisation has made in the past 2000 years. Nothing like a good bit of Christianity bashing :D
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 09:12:22 AM
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 06:47:54 AM
Quote from: Will on September 22, 2011, 06:43:41 AM
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 01:42:49 AMBut....
This is like saying that the author of a book or the people referring to these books to teach others, have no accountability when the students act upon the teachings based on the book.
The authors of the Bible can and most certainly were immoral. That's the point I'm trying to get across. It's the people involved that are moral or immoral. Words on a page are simply a means of communication and record. A word cannot hurt without someone actually using them, and then it's the person using them that's responsible, not the words.
The people using them, the people authoring/publishing/distributing them, the people teaching them...
Especially when the teacher claims to be divinely guided and infallible and that if not followed the student will be tortured for eternity.
I must say I'm with Will on this one. Words on a page have no impact until read. How dangerous, or otherwise, is a closed book on a shelf? Now the intent of the author may have been good or bad, but how the reader reacts to what is written is the responsibility of the reader and how they react will be influenced by their genes and upbringing. The words on the page are simply a transmission medium of ideas that may, or may not, be considered moral or immoral by the writer or reader dependent on their respective reasons for writing and reading.
Consider a photograph of the body of a murder victim. The image is morally neutral. Was the photographer moral or immoral for taking the picture? That depends on the motivation of the photographer, were they a police phorensic photographer or a voyeur who want's to post the image on the internet to troll the victim's family? Neither motivation affects the content of the image, which is morally neutral.
But what about literature inciting hate? I'm not saying that the bible explicitly does this (though there could be an argument for it), but there are certainly some cases where a medium demands an
action. If I write a thesis about white supremacy and instruct my readers to kill everyone "impure", there certainly is intent in the book itself.
We ban trolls here all of the time for what they write, we aren't necessarily passing judgement on the
people themselves, but there is a standard that we find acceptable, and moral, for
content. I agree that context is totally relevant, but how often is there a piece of media without any context whatsoever? It rarely happens. How often do you find a picture of a murder victim lying on the side of the road? You don't, you find it somewhere; either in a police file or on a serial killers trophy wall (I'm being hyperbolic here, but you get my point)
Part of the problem with the bible is that people take it out of context. Religious folk think it's "beyond" context because it's the word of God, or whatever, but it does have a context just like nearly everything else and should be judged accordingly.
Quote from: Gawen on September 22, 2011, 12:31:39 PM
Christianity is not a book.
The foundation of the belief system date with the beliefs of the ancients Jews, even before they were Jews through oral tradition. Doctrine is not an inanimate object. Christianity was not a book until well after the supposed central character was dead. People believed this stuff way before the book was written. Christianity is immoral as a belief system/worldview - even in its myriad consistencies of proto-Christianity. To say Christianity is amoral because it is written in a book is faulty thinking when you do not consider the immoral pre-published doctrines/dogma/tenets of Judaism and proto-Christian beliefs as the rocks in which Christianity was built upon.
The Bible is simply the immoral doctrine in written form instead of the immoral oral tradition (which came first) of those that believed it.
Yes, that's the point really. So while technically accurate about the written word as being amoral the written word is only a 'place holder' for the intent of the author.
to a
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 22, 2011, 02:34:48 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 09:12:22 AM
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 06:47:54 AM
Quote from: Will on September 22, 2011, 06:43:41 AM
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 01:42:49 AMBut....
This is like saying that the author of a book or the people referring to these books to teach others, have no accountability when the students act upon the teachings based on the book.
The authors of the Bible can and most certainly were immoral. That's the point I'm trying to get across. It's the people involved that are moral or immoral. Words on a page are simply a means of communication and record. A word cannot hurt without someone actually using them, and then it's the person using them that's responsible, not the words.
The people using them, the people authoring/publishing/distributing them, the people teaching them...
Especially when the teacher claims to be divinely guided and infallible and that if not followed the student will be tortured for eternity.
I must say I'm with Will on this one. Words on a page have no impact until read. How dangerous, or otherwise, is a closed book on a shelf? Now the intent of the author may have been good or bad, but how the reader reacts to what is written is the responsibility of the reader and how they react will be influenced by their genes and upbringing. The words on the page are simply a transmission medium of ideas that may, or may not, be considered moral or immoral by the writer or reader dependent on their respective reasons for writing and reading.
Consider a photograph of the body of a murder victim. The image is morally neutral. Was the photographer moral or immoral for taking the picture? That depends on the motivation of the photographer, were they a police phorensic photographer or a voyeur who want's to post the image on the internet to troll the victim's family? Neither motivation affects the content of the image, which is morally neutral.
But what about literature inciting hate? I'm not saying that the bible explicitly does this (though there could be an argument for it), but there are certainly some cases where a medium demands an action. If I write a thesis about white supremacy and instruct my readers to kill everyone "impure", there certainly is intent in the book itself.
We ban trolls here all of the time for what they write, we aren't necessarily passing judgement on the people themselves, but there is a standard that we find acceptable, and moral, for content. I agree that context is totally relevant, but how often is there a piece of media without any context whatsoever? It rarely happens. How often do you find a picture of a murder victim lying on the side of the road? You don't, you find it somewhere; either in a police file or on a serial killers trophy wall (I'm being hyperbolic here, but you get my point)
Part of the problem with the bible is that people take it out of context. Religious folk think it's "beyond" context because it's the word of God, or whatever, but it does have a context just like nearly everything else and should be judged accordingly.
I take your point. The only addition point I would make is that just because somebody writes a thesis on white supremacy there is no obligation on the reader to agree with it.
Going with Juliet here. Words have power, spewn.g hatred of gays and saying unmarried couples live in "sin" mean something. How many times has words made peole violent or hurt others?
So yea, the bible is harmless if it is unread or better; looked at as fiction. But it is not. Therefore, it is dangerous because so many people take it VERY LITERALLY.
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
I take your point. The only addition point I would make is that just because somebody writes a thesis on white supremacy there is no obligation on the reader to agree with it.
Oh yeah, I agree there. And I do think it's possible to swing too far in ascribing moral "responsibility" to an author, for sure.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 22, 2011, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
I take your point. The only addition point I would make is that just because somebody writes a thesis on white supremacy there is no obligation on the reader to agree with it.
Oh yeah, I agree there. And I do think it's possible to swing too far in ascribing moral "responsibility" to an author, for sure.
And that's just what they do! They accept what books and churches tell them because they're holy books and holy churches, or so they believe. Makes things incredibly easy when you have another person or entity that decides for you.
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
I take your point. The only addition point I would make is that just because somebody writes a thesis on white supremacy there is no obligation on the reader to agree with it.
But if you are taught that you will go to hell for eternal torture if you don't live by the words of the book. This is emotional blackmail. The author should have been shot.
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 08:00:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
I take your point. The only addition point I would make is that just because somebody writes a thesis on white supremacy there is no obligation on the reader to agree with it.
But if you are taught that you will go to hell for eternal torture if you don't live by the words of the book. This is emotional blackmail. The author should have been shot.
Yes, but the authors died millenia ago. Ever since then it's been meme infection.
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 08:16:47 PM
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 08:00:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
I take your point. The only addition point I would make is that just because somebody writes a thesis on white supremacy there is no obligation on the reader to agree with it.
But if you are taught that you will go to hell for eternal torture if you don't live by the words of the book. This is emotional blackmail. The author should have been shot.
Yes, but the authors died millenia ago. Ever since then it's been meme infection.
Some people believe god is the author, and that god is alive today
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 11:27:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 08:16:47 PM
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 08:00:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
I take your point. The only addition point I would make is that just because somebody writes a thesis on white supremacy there is no obligation on the reader to agree with it.
But if you are taught that you will go to hell for eternal torture if you don't live by the words of the book. This is emotional blackmail. The author should have been shot.
Yes, but the authors died millenia ago. Ever since then it's been meme infection.
Some people believe god is the author, and that god is alive today
Too bad we can't kill something that doesn't exist.
Quote from: Gawen on September 22, 2011, 12:31:39 PM
Christianity is not a book.
Sure it is. Everything that Christianity is today comes from the Bible. The church of the first century bares basically no resemblance to the church of today or even the church of a few centuries after the supposed death of Christ. The entire organization, the teachings, philosophy, and dogma,
everything Christian today comes from the Bible. It's cherry-picked, of course, but regardless it's all rooted in scripture. Without that scripture, there's no Christianity.
Quote from: Gawen on September 22, 2011, 12:31:39 PMThe Bible is simply the immoral doctrine in written form instead of the immoral oral tradition (which came first) of those that believed it.
Had it continued to be oral tradition, Christianity would be lucky to be a minor historical footnote. It's too adaptive as oral tradition, too divergent. In the beginning that's fine, but over time what what means is the original religion ceases to be and what you end up with, eventually, is nothing.
I see your points, Will. And I agree with them, well, most of them. And I would agree that Judaism is not the same as it was when the Torah was written around 250BCE. But it's not the point I am making or trying to make and I seem to be at a loss at this time as to how to make it clear, which is what I thought I did in my big post. What you seem to be saying is the Torah is not immoral because it was written down; only an amoral book and the person who reads it and agrees with it becomes immoral.
Well, a 300 page bound volume with no words in it is amoral. Another book like the same with only one word written in it ("kill", for example) is amoral. Now the book has a phrase:
Deuteronomy 22:20-21: But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.
Yup, the book itself is amoral. Books do not have morals. Books don't think. It's the concepts thought about by the people who wrote it down and those that believe who act upon it is what is immoral or not. Christianity is not JUST a book. It is the concepts, doctrines, what have you that were written down. Christianity as a concept, whether written or oral is immoral. The book has nothing to do with it as long as people believe the concepts.
What if there were no Bible, but just a collection of various letters and testimonies that if read all together would provide the same concepts as the Bible? What if there were no written words on the subject and it was all oral? Well, the concept remains and is still immoral.
Of course, we now have to consider if a concept (written, oral or thought) is immoral. Is it immoral for a person to think he wants to kill or hurt his boss for perceived injustices done to him by his boss? Is it immoral to think out loud to someone that when your baby was born deformed to have just taken it out into the forest and leave it there? Is it immoral to read that a Son of God tells his people to have no thought of the morrow, that all will be provided AND to give away all your possessions to the poor, while at the same time loving and fearing the ManGod that tells you so?
Or, is it immoral to disbelieve all the stuff in the Bible?
I have to be somewhere in 20 mins. I'll be back later.
One last thing. The title of the thread is Is Christianity moral or immoral? It is not, Is the Bible moral or immoral? Christianity is not just the Bible. Please take that into consideration.
I reckon, all I needed to say is that Christianity, leaving the Bible out of it, as a belief system is immoral.
You're judging the behaviours contained in the book to be immoral, and people have immoral or moral behaviours, not words. If you took a passage which did not talk about some behaviour from the bible or any other scripture, would you even ask the question if it was immoral, amoral or moral?
The bible itself is amoral, but some passages describe immoral behaviours.
Quote from: Gawen on September 23, 2011, 02:07:32 PM
I see your points, Will. And I agree with them, well, most of them. And I would agree that Judaism is not the same as it was when the Torah was written around 250BCE. But it's not the point I am making or trying to make and I seem to be at a loss at this time as to how to make it clear, which is what I thought I did in my big post. What you seem to be saying is the Torah is not immoral because it was written down; only an amoral book and the person who reads it and agrees with it becomes immoral.
Actually, I'll do you one better: oral traditions, generally, are amoral as well. If I'm retelling you the story of Gilgamesh or Jesus or even Star Wars, I'm simply carrying on a narrative. While there may be edicts and dogma in that narrative, and in the case of oral religious teachings they're undoubtedly in there, most of the time it's simply the oral version of the Bible, simply the sharing of information.
Immorality, in my mind, is about interpersonal conduct. An immoral act is about direct, detrimental consequences to a word or deed. It requires both a source and a destination upon which to cause effect.
Let's say we're sitting around the camp fire 1900 years ago in what is now Israel or Palestine and I'm regaling you with the story of the Israelite attack on Jabesh-gilead from the 21st chapter of Judges. As you may know, this is a particularly fucked up story in which the 12,000 Israelite soldiers were ordered to slaughter every man and child, and every woman who was not a virgin. Furthermore, they were ordered to rape every virgin. Because there weren't enough virgins to go around, they were told to go rape the women of Shiloh who were having a celebration of some kind. This is a terrible story, is it not? It states in no uncertain terms that there are circumstances in which "God" says it's okay to murder and rape. It's disgusting. However, is my storytelling causing direct detrimental consequences? Is the telling itself immoral? Or is it how this is interpreted and then carried out?
Quote from: Gawen on September 23, 2011, 02:07:32 PMOne last thing. The title of the thread is Is Christianity moral or immoral? It is not, Is the Bible moral or immoral? Christianity is not just the Bible. Please take that into consideration.
I think that's really my point. Christianity is the belief system rooted directly in Biblical scriptures. In and of itself, it is either an abstract, the belief system, or tangible in the form of the Bible. Neither of these things, imho, can be immoral or moral. It's not until they're in the hands of human being who can act on and communicate with one another than immorality and morality can enter the picture. Perhaps we have differing concepts on what constitutes morality?
Quote from: Gawen on September 18, 2011, 02:40:09 PM
I would like to know your views. Is it moral and/or ethical overall, or not? Are there parts that are moral or not? I have mine (Christianity is immoral), but will wait for others to chime in before I lay my reasons out.
For me, its not a moral question. I do not see judgment as God acting in time. Judgment occurs when we make a choice to engage the universe with consciousness. We act and the universe reacts. If we create a debt, the universe requires the payment. If we smoke, suffering follows. If we created a surplus, the universe gives us the rewards. If you suffer an education, you get a degree. The degree can be used to suffer work for a paycheck. It keeps going and going. So, Christianity is mathematics. No algebra needed.
Consider this example: In mathematics, if you owe three people $10, then you are negative $30 (3 X -10 = $-30). If the lenders then say, "We forgive you for this debt because we love you," then you are free from that debt by another negative. You have just had three subtractions of -10, making you three positives of $10 (-3 X -$10). Your debt is -30 + 30 = Zero. Jesus died a horrible death to pay our debt, walking us back to a positive value.
What is Christianity? Jesus paid debt by dying on a cross. This was a horrible negative. We are sinners and this is a negative to the world. We see this every day in the news. We take more than we give to the universe. When we multiply Jesus negative and our negative, the debt is transferred to him and ours is forgiven. He walks our debt back to zero by the negative of the cross. Multiply two negatives and debt is gone.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:47:25 AM
Quote from: Gawen on September 18, 2011, 02:40:09 PM
I would like to know your views. Is it moral and/or ethical overall, or not? Are there parts that are moral or not? I have mine (Christianity is immoral), but will wait for others to chime in before I lay my reasons out.
For me, its not a moral question. I do not see judgment as God acting in time. Judgment occurs when we make a choice to engage the universe with consciousness. We act and the universe reacts. If we create a debt, the universe requires the payment. If we smoke, suffering follows. If we created a surplus, the universe gives us the rewards. If you suffer an education, you get a degree. The degree can be used to suffer work for a paycheck. It keeps going and going. So, Christianity is mathematics. No algebra needed.
Consider this example: In mathematics, if you owe three people $10, then you are negative $30 (3 X -10 = $-30). If the lenders then say, "We forgive you for this debt because we love you," then you are free from that debt by another negative. You have just had three subtractions of -10, making you three positives of $10 (-3 X -$10). Your debt is -30 + 30 = Zero. Jesus died a horrible death to pay our debt, walking us back to a positive value.
What is Christianity? Jesus paid debt by dying on a cross. This was a horrible negative. We are sinners and this is a negative to the world. We see this every day in the news. We take more than we give to the universe. When we multiply Jesus negative and our negative, the debt is transferred to him and ours is forgiven. He walks our debt back to zero by the negative of the cross. Multiply two negatives and debt is gone.
Except the debt isn't gone, the world still sucks and life isn't fair. The idea that the universe always "balances itself" (either through God, Math, or physics) is a pretty big assumption, especially when it comes to people. There are plenty of good people who will have horrible lives and horrible people who will have good lives. Or did all of the people starving to death in Africa do something to deserve their lot in life?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 26, 2011, 03:25:26 AM
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:47:25 AM
Quote from: Gawen on September 18, 2011, 02:40:09 PM
I would like to know your views. Is it moral and/or ethical overall, or not? Are there parts that are moral or not? I have mine (Christianity is immoral), but will wait for others to chime in before I lay my reasons out.
Except the debt isn't gone, the world still sucks and life isn't fair. The idea that the universe always "balances itself" (either through God, Math, or physics) is a pretty big assumption, especially when it comes to people. There are plenty of good people who will have horrible lives and horrible people who will have good lives. Or did all of the people starving to death in Africa do something to deserve their lot in life?
True. The debt is transferred to Him. He has stated what will be done with this debt. It is then given back to those who have taken from life and remain in a lost state. The Bible states that they have received their reward in this life. In other words, if the grace is not received, then the debt is given back to those who owned it legally. This seems harsh, yet we are offered a free gift. When the Bible says, "you must be born again.", this is not an option. You will be born again. The question is where. Grace is always here waiting for you again when you return. It will become a hell from the looks of how man is treating the garden. Weed will be all that is left here. I'll take the new earth personally. Have you looked out at the sky lately? They are out there waiting for our day of freedom.
Quote
True. The debt is transferred to Him. He has stated what will be done with this debt. It is then given back to those who have taken from life and remain in a lost state. The Bible states that they have received their reward in this life. In other words, if the grace is not received, then the debt is given back to those who owned it legally. This seems harsh, yet we are offered a free gift. When the Bible says, "you must be born again.", this is not an option. You will be born again. The question is where. Grace is always here waiting for you again when you return. It will become a hell from the looks of how man is treating the garden. Weed will be all that is left here. I'll take the new earth personally. Have you looked out at the sky lately? They are out there waiting for our day of freedom.
Oh, so it's some kind of special "Jesus math." Well, that wasn't really what you were saying originally.
Beyond that, it might help you here if you write less cryptically. I'm sure the flowery-biblical prose is enjoyable to you, but it doesn't help you get your point across effectively. It just makes you look as though you are just trying to bamboozle everyone with your words.
Also, I'm sure you've read the rules, but I'll just remind you that there is a "no preaching rule". It doesn't bother me, per se, because I've been there and done that when I was a Christian, but all of the "you will be born again" and "earth will become hell" talk will likely get you into trouble. Instead of viewing us as objects of saving, view us as already lost and move past that part. :P It'll probably be less frustrating for you.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 26, 2011, 03:52:26 AM
Quote
True. The debt is transferred to Him. He has stated what will be done with this debt. It is then given back to those who have taken from life and remain in a lost state. The Bible states that they have received their reward in this life. In other words, if the grace is not received, then the debt is given back to those who owned it legally. This seems harsh, yet we are offered a free gift. When the Bible says, "you must be born again.", this is not an option. You will be born again. The question is where. Grace is always here waiting for you again when you return. It will become a hell from the looks of how man is treating the garden. Weed will be all that is left here. I'll take the new earth personally. Have you looked out at the sky lately? They are out there waiting for our day of freedom.
Oh, so it's some kind of special "Jesus math." Well, that wasn't really what you were saying originally.
Beyond that, it might help you here if you write less cryptically. I'm sure the flowery-biblical prose is enjoyable to you, but it doesn't help you get your point across effectively. It just makes you look as though you are just trying to bamboozle everyone with your words.
Also, I'm sure you've read the rules, but I'll just remind you that there is a "no preaching rule". It doesn't bother me, per se, because I've been there and done that when I was a Christian, but all of the "you will be born again" and "earth will become hell" talk will likely get you into trouble. Instead of viewing us as objects of saving, view us as already lost and move past that part. :P It'll probably be less frustrating for you.
Agreed. There's all that fine print and conditions for the transferral of debt that I just think is ridiculous. Believe that Jesus is the son of god and that belief in that is necessary for one's salvation and all that.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 04:25:24 AM
Agreed. There's all that fine print and conditions for the transferral of debt that I just think is ridiculous. Believe that Jesus is the son of god and that belief in that is necessary for one's salvation and all that.
Yes I agree with this.
All this talk of + and - , it's so ancient.
Every transactions has a debit and credit, get this negative = bad stuff out of your head, it'll only confuse, it's just so, so so.... single entry!
Lets have a look at the Jeebus general journal (that's all they had back then) for nail up day.
I fear I've undervalued the human debt, I try to limit myself to 800 pixels width.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6ixZj.jpg&hash=78ce9d0d02b3e3cca9adf0266fae0cb9b2693040)
I seriously just spit coffee on my laptop..... :D
XD I just woke up, puddin. *chokes on juice*
Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 26, 2011, 03:30:43 PM
XD I just woke up, puddin. *chokes on juice*
Ah, spilt drinks and choking on juice, the sweetest of compliments.
It's a shame our clocks don't match, I need sleep.
Oh and it's probably better to stay away from the "Evolution the myth" forum.
I've had to bite off my two index fingers to stay out of trouble, bye.
Meep, thanks for the heads up, puddin'. :)
Quote from: Stevil on September 20, 2011, 01:45:02 AM
I don't subscribe to morality. There is no such thing.
I would however suggest that Christianity inspires it's followers to be more likely to behave detrimental to society in some ways. e.g. Sexist, biast against homosexuals, agressive towards Atheists and non Christians.
That's rediculous. If it looks, tastes and smells like a banana, it's a banana.
You've just defined your own morality by telling us what you believe is wrong. What else are morals if not that?
Not to dis or diminish the entirety of your post, but the following...
Quote from: WillPerhaps we have differing concepts on what constitutes morality?
No...I do not think this is the problem. As this is discussed, the finer points begin to become revealed. Actually, I think we agree with each other more than either of us think we do; we just came at it from different POV's.
I don't know....I mean....Ed nailed it. Christianity has nothing to do with morality, but mathematics.
Evidence of God = 0
Evidence of a man that was God,
Evidence that God has a Ghost,
Evidence of a man named Jesus that was magic filled,
born of a virgin,
killed,
resurrected,
went to heaven,
took away sin,
Heaven,
Hell,
Sin,
God is the universe,
God has lactating nipples,
all comes to a grand total of...
ummm...I'm not really good at math but my best guess...
*gettin' out calculator*
ahhhh.....my best guess would be...*pushin' buttons*
Zero?
I hope your day job is not in banking....
That was really good Puddin'. I'm copying that.
Quote from: Gawen on September 18, 2011, 02:40:09 PM
I would like to know your views. Is it moral and/or ethical overall, or not? Are there parts that are moral or not? I have mine (Christianity is immoral), but will wait for others to chime in before I lay my reasons out.
The response to your survey will not be of too much of a surprise (Despite the very informative post Tank provided which most effectively phrases the proposition your implying). In my experience, atheists have been overwhelmingly antagonistic/selectively critical towards mainstream religion (i.e. Christianity). It won't be surprising to see many here interpret the moral precepts of Christianity in a less than favorable light.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 05, 2011, 11:56:38 PM
It won't be surprising to see many here interpret the moral precepts of Christianity in a less than favorable light.
Perhaps. But the same would more than likely apply to Judaism, Islam or any other out-dated, hypocritical moral code people may for some reason want to follow as well.
One of my biggest problems with Jesus, is doubting Thomas:
John 22:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
Jesus didn't bless, Thomas for wanting to see evidence, he blessed those that merely believe without seeing evidence. The moral is that blind followers are preferable to Jesus over skeptics. I think that is one of the worst morals that one can teach a person.
Just so you all know, I'm no where near done with this. I've been researching quite a bit off and on over the years and have 30 new pages in word I need to trim down before I start back up here...*chucklin* I plan to discuss the differences between the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, 5-7) to the 10C's and directly...attack....the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) in an attempt to show the immoral and unethical "advice" given by Jesus. All Biblical references given through KJV. I'll be using the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, gThomas, gLuke, gMatt, gMark, Gospel of Peter...and whatever else that fits.
^^^ Tease :)
Quote from: Gawen on October 06, 2011, 05:59:42 PM
Just so you all know, I'm no where near done with this. I've been researching quite a bit off and on over the years and have 30 new pages in word I need to trim down before I start back up here...*chucklin* I plan to discuss the differences between the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, 5-7) to the 10C's and directly...attack....the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) in an attempt to show the immoral and unethical "advice" given by Jesus. All Biblical references given through KJV. I'll be using the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, gThomas, gLuke, gMatt, gMark, Gospel of Peter...and whatever else that fits.
I'm amazed at your persistence, determination and the effort you put into this.
What is your purpose of all this effort, to prove to yourself that God and Jesus couldn't possibly be true? To prove to the whole world and hence rid earth of the disease of belief?
What drives you man?
Quote from: Stevil on October 06, 2011, 07:10:27 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 06, 2011, 05:59:42 PM
Just so you all know, I'm no where near done with this. I've been researching quite a bit off and on over the years and have 30 new pages in word I need to trim down before I start back up here...*chucklin* I plan to discuss the differences between the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, 5-7) to the 10C's and directly...attack....the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) in an attempt to show the immoral and unethical "advice" given by Jesus. All Biblical references given through KJV. I'll be using the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, gThomas, gLuke, gMatt, gMark, Gospel of Peter...and whatever else that fits.
I'm amazed at your persistence, determination and the effort you put into this.
What is your purpose of all this effort, to prove to yourself that God and Jesus couldn't possibly be true? To prove to the whole world and hence rid earth of the disease of belief?
What drives you man?
Duracell.
a Duracell powered ventriloquist's dummy is more than a match for any false god or prophet!
Man....that's a really good question...what drive's me? Lots of little things, I suppose. I'll try to list them...randomly.
I live in Texas.
That should suffice...*laffin*
No, really, I do live in Tx.
I was brought up in Presbyterian Christianity, all the while never believing it in the first place. But as I got older, I started asking questions of myself, chiefly, why do I not believe while everyone around me does? That started it.
So why all the effort? I had to know why I don't believe. And the more I dug, the deeper it got.
Duracell examples:
Politics,
Discussion board lurkers (those people [Whatever their beliefs] who, IMO, are on the boards seeking something; answers, points of view without posting, etc.),
Users/posters - to start a discussion, thought experiments, hash stuff out with those who will (because I don't have anyone to talk this stuff over where I live),
To show my knowledge, to be shown wrong or right,
*Stevil - to show those that believe the atrocities, absurdities, contradictions, questionable Biblical guidelines and precepts, fatal Biblical flaws, etc...and those that do not believe but do not know about it in the depth that I (and others) do.
I can logically prove the Christian God cannot logically exist; I, along with many others on this board and other boards have done so countless times. What I cannot prove is that a man named Jesus was the son of man/god actually existed and all what the Bible and Christians claims about him. What I CAN show is the folly of that belief I marked in red above. Hitchen's is right, IMO - religion, especially the Christian religion, is a poison of all humankind. I don't claim to have an antidote....
...but I'm frackin working on it...*chucklin*
If there is anything I've ever said to a person or a person that has read what I wrote and it made them stop long enough to think critically (regardless of the outcome), then I'm happy. Many of us have planted the 'doubt' seed here and elsewhere. All I'm trying to do is spread around the fertilizer.
*edited to add*...And another thing. There are many atheists out there that just simply do not believe and never take the time to wonder why. Good on them. So, mayhaps some may think it's an obsession with me...mayhaps pedantic. Likewise, there are a great many more Christians out there that believe without understanding, never read the Bible and are oh so willing to be spoonfed salvation. A couple may read this thread and label me an anti-Christ...a demon lodged inside me...and believe me, I've been called worse.
But I think I do this more for my own understanding and for those that have taken off their God-goggles long enough to question.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 06, 2011, 07:29:32 PM
a Duracell powered ventriloquist's dummy is more than a match for any false god or prophet!
That made me laugh....thanks.
Quote from: Gawen on October 06, 2011, 09:45:48 PM
But I think I do this more for my own understanding ...
Doesn't there come a point where you come to the conclusion that no matter how hard you look, there isn't any evidence one way or the other?
That proving to others is somewhat pointless because their stance is not based on proof and you have no evidence to base your stance either.
When does it get to the point that you say to yourself, I'm a strong 6 on Dawkin's scale, unless some new information comes to humanity, I am confident in my 6-ness and happy to move on?
Quote from: Stevil on October 07, 2011, 04:45:34 AM
Quote from: Gawen on October 06, 2011, 09:45:48 PM
But I think I do this more for my own understanding ...
Doesn't there come a point where you come to the conclusion that no matter how hard you look, there isn't any evidence one way or the other?
No....the thirst for knowledge and the willingness to share what knowledge I have drives me in this along with my acceptance to be shown wrong in my thinking and values and my acceptance to change those thoughts and values by those more knowledgeable than me.
QuoteThat proving to others is somewhat pointless because their stance is not based on proof and you have no evidence to base your stance either.
Well...not quite. To put it simply, their evidence is based on faith which is based on a book that was based, for the most part on oral tradition. My evidence, such as it is, is not to so much disprove their evidence, but to make them think critically. What is more believable? Miracles don't happen or the laws of nature were different or subverted in the first century?
QuoteWhen does it get to the point that you say to yourself, I'm a strong 6 on Dawkin's scale, unless some new information comes to humanity, I am confident in my 6-ness and happy to move on?
That can only be decided by the person going through it. The same sort of question can be asked of Pentecostal Preachers. Where is the point that you say to yourself, I'm a strong 10 on God's scale, that no new information will come to humanity, I am confident in my 10-ness, and really happy to get off the stage?
It's like a hobby to me...a brain exercising hobby and I like to debate. When I'm not flying my RC planes, riding my motorcycle or shooting, I do this. However, planes, motorcycle riding and shooting are expensive these days. Researching Christianity is not. Alas, there is indeed a point and it comes more frequently in the form of burnout. IIRC, I spent nearly four months away from the boards and 'Jesus' earlier this year. It does take a toll when I've been saying the same stuff to thousands of people, of all beliefs systems (or none) over the last 10 years.
But then....*chucklin*...I'll read something, or think of something...and it begins anew. My only hope, my only desire in this "hobby" is that I think that somewhere, some person will read my crap and say "Yeah, that makes sense"...or..."He's got a point there, I think I'll research it further".
Who knows, maybe one day I'll write a book....*laffin*
You have great potential to write a great book.
Much more substance and thought than the simple God delusion.
I would say for you it could be a very emotionally and intellectually rewarding activity. Put this passion to good use.
It would help if you try to target it at a specific audience and specific goal. e.g. is it an introduction to critical thinking of religions such as the god delusion is and hence it will have popular appeal but will be in competition to books already published, or is it to focus on expanding the critical thinking of a theist. I feel your knowledge is your key strength. If the theist is your audience then you need to treat them and their current position with respect and dignity, As soon as you alienate them or have them on the back foot you will meet their automatic resistance. The greatest challenge in a lot of peoples lives is change.
It would also help if you built up your profile first. Everyone can write a book, why should someone pick up a book written by you?
But I would say, don't just think about writing a book. Make a decision, set a goal and timeframe and then you will make all the things that need to happen to achieve this.
Anyway, just my 2 cents, you are older, and wiser than me.
Quote from: Gawen on October 07, 2011, 04:37:48 PM
It's like a hobby to me...a brain exercising hobby and I like to debate. When I'm not flying my RC planes, riding my motorcycle or shooting, I do this. However, planes, motorcycle riding and shooting are expensive these days. Researching Christianity is not. Alas, there is indeed a point and it comes more frequently in the form of burnout. IIRC, I spent nearly four months away from the boards and 'Jesus' earlier this year. It does take a toll when I've been saying the same stuff to thousands of people, of all beliefs systems (or none) over the last 10 years.
But then....*chucklin*...I'll read something, or think of something...and it begins anew. My only hope, my only desire in this "hobby" is that I think that somewhere, some person will read my crap and say "Yeah, that makes sense"...or..."He's got a point there, I think I'll research it further".
Who knows, maybe one day I'll write a book....*laffin*
I'm with Stevil, you should definitely give it a go collecting your thoughts together into a book. It can't hurt. Plus you can publish for free these days through amazon or lulu. That and/or put some of your ideas into a webpage too, it's good to get as many people as possible to question their faith.
reading and researching early Christianity / ancient religion is definitely a cheapish hobby these days with the wonders of the internet but it can still be a mighty time consuming and addictive thing!
Quote from: Stevil on October 07, 2011, 07:54:43 PM
You have great potential to write a great book.
Much more substance and thought than the simple God delusion.
I would say for you it could be a very emotionally and intellectually rewarding activity. Put this passion to good use.
It would help if you try to target it at a specific audience and specific goal. e.g. is it an introduction to critical thinking of religions such as the god delusion is and hence it will have popular appeal but will be in competition to books already published, or is it to focus on expanding the critical thinking of a theist. I feel your knowledge is your key strength. If the theist is your audience then you need to treat them and their current position with respect and dignity, As soon as you alienate them or have them on the back foot you will meet their automatic resistance. The greatest challenge in a lot of peoples lives is change.
It would also help if you built up your profile first. Everyone can write a book, why should someone pick up a book written by you?
But I would say, don't just think about writing a book. Make a decision, set a goal and timeframe and then you will make all the things that need to happen to achieve this.
Anyway, just my 2 cents, you are older, and wiser than me.
My head doth puff!
You are not the only one that has suggested that I write a book. Writing is not my forte. It takes an immense amount of time to get all my thoughts together enough to jot them down. My biggest problem is keeping everything flowing and not jumping all around. And if I'm so old and wise as you say....
*grinnin*
...why is 'spellcheck' and a Thesaurus by best friend?
Thank you for the glowing accolade and the shove to write a book. I only need figure a way to lay it out. The
God Delusion is a great book. It laid down his thoughts in a way that most people could understand and should have prompted those that did not understand to seek further knowledge. But if Dawkins had expanded in depth as I do, the book would have been tens of volumes and undoubtedly become as boring as watching grass grow.
Perhaps a series of...ummmm.....handbooks? 30 pages or less? Hell....I don't know...
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 07, 2011, 08:21:34 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 07, 2011, 04:37:48 PM
It's like a hobby to me...a brain exercising hobby and I like to debate. When I'm not flying my RC planes, riding my motorcycle or shooting, I do this. However, planes, motorcycle riding and shooting are expensive these days. Researching Christianity is not. Alas, there is indeed a point and it comes more frequently in the form of burnout. IIRC, I spent nearly four months away from the boards and 'Jesus' earlier this year. It does take a toll when I've been saying the same stuff to thousands of people, of all beliefs systems (or none) over the last 10 years.
But then....*chucklin*...I'll read something, or think of something...and it begins anew. My only hope, my only desire in this "hobby" is that I think that somewhere, some person will read my crap and say "Yeah, that makes sense"...or..."He's got a point there, I think I'll research it further".
Who knows, maybe one day I'll write a book....*laffin*
I'm with Stevil, you should definitely give it a go collecting your thoughts together into a book. It can't hurt. Plus you can publish for free these days through amazon or lulu. That and/or put some of your ideas into a webpage too, it's good to get as many people as possible to question their faith.
reading and researching early Christianity / ancient religion is definitely a cheapish hobby these days with the wonders of the internet but it can still be a mighty time consuming and addictive thing!
I have thought of a website...not a blog site.
You say, TFL, "time consuming and addictive", but I'm telling you it is a daunting task to counter the Bible and its all too common apologetics. It's like a hundred mile string, all long it are knots of various types and sizes and then it's all haphazardly rolled up and shoved down a hill and I'm left to unravel it...*laffin*
No wonder my fingers hurt!