Atheists - the most hated minority

[_Stormy Waters]

I'm waiting for EA to address your bigotry. Not holding my breath.

Quoting the Bible is bigotry?

[_Panopticon]

Oh, is that in the same book as this? "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Sorry but I don't think that anyone should be getting their morals from such a book.

Showing that you have little patience nor industry to give the Bible a fair reading hardly helps your case - whatever it is.

Stormy Waters,

I couldn't agree more.

I probably read the Bible a dozen times when I was a believer. I think I gave it a fair reading.

With regard to the Bible, I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Paine:

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

These problems aren't confined to the Old Testament. What ultimately did it for me was when I read the New Testament without the rose colored glasses of Mormonism. I was appalled by what Christ allegedly said in the New Testament as opposed to how he has been reinvented by Mormonism and liberal Christianity.

Here are just a few of Christ's teachings from Matthew. Are these the words of a loving, compassionate God?

Matt. 3:10 "every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire"

Matt. 3:12 "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire"

Matt. 8:12 "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matt. 10:14-15 "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Matt. 10:33-37 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Matt. 10:23 "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

Matt. 13:49-50 "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Matt. 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"

Matt. 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment"

In my opinion, the New Testament is a monotonous tale of sin, guilt, hell, blind obedience, and credulity.

As the honorary LDS apostle, C.S. Lewis, observed: "A recovery of the old sense of sin is essential to Christianity. Christ takes it for granted that men are bad. Until we really feel this assumption ... we are not part of the audience to whom His words are addressed.”

The New Testament is founded on guilt. It must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be "saved from." It has nothing to offer the happy man. Just as it must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, it must also destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation. I remember doing this on my mission, and I am not proud of it.

The New Testament is very effective in inculcating guilt in connection with pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure, when accompanied by guilt, becomes a means of perpetuating chronic guilt, and this serves to reinforce one’s dependence on God. It is not accidental that the Bible regards pride as a major sin. A man with self-esteem is an unlikely candidate for the master-slave relationship that Christ offers him.

I never noticed all of Christ's references to "hell fire" until I read the New Testament with new eyes. Hell is a constant reminder of the essence of Christ's morality: God is to be obeyed because he is bigger and stronger than we are and incomparably more vicious. I think it is unconscionable that the New Testament teaches infinite punishment for finite crimes committed by people who have never directly seen or heard from the lawgiver.

When Jesus says believe, he means obey. And when Jesus praises men of great faith, he is praising men who will obey unquestioningly any command they believe to come from God. See, e.g., Abraham.

To be moral, according to Jesus, man must shackle his reason. Less criticism leads to more faith. Indeed, "unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3). Children, after all, will believe almost anything.

The whole moral foundation of Christ's teachings is obey and be rewarded, disobey and burn in hell. And we praise him today as a great "moral" teacher?

In the end, in assessing the ethical significance of Jesus, it is illuminating to contrast him with the ancient Greek and Eastern philosophers who preceded him by hundreds of years. The differences are so striking that it is difficult to place Jesus on the same level as such intellectual giants as Plato, Aristotle, the Buddha, and Laozi. Whether one agrees with these philosophers or not, they at least argue for their claims. Jesus, on the other hand, issues proclamations backed by the threat of force from his dad.

If this is morality, I want none of it.

[_Stormy Waters]

Stormy Waters,

I couldn't agree more.

I probably read the Bible a dozen times when I was a believer. I think I gave it a fair reading.

With regard to the Bible, I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Paine:

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

These problems aren't confined to the Old Testament. What ultimately did it for me was when I read the New Testament without the rose colored glasses of Mormonism. I was appalled by what Christ allegedly said in the New Testament as opposed to how he has been reinvented by Mormonism and liberal Christianity.

Here are just a few of Christ's teachings from Matthew. Are these the words of a loving, compassionate God?

Matt. 3:10 "every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire"

Matt. 3:12 "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire"

Matt. 8:12 "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matt. 10:14-15 "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Matt. 10:33-37 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Matt. 10:23 "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

Matt. 13:49-50 "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Matt. 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"

Matt. 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment"

In my opinion, the New Testament is a monotonous tale of sin, guilt, hell, blind obedience, and credulity.

As the honorary LDS apostle, C.S. Lewis, observed: "A recovery of the old sense of sin is essential to Christianity. Christ takes it for granted that men are bad. Until we really feel this assumption ... we are not part of the audience to whom His words are addressed.”

The New Testament is founded on guilt. It must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be "saved from." It has nothing to offer the happy man. Just as it must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, it must also destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation. I remember doing this on my mission, and I am not proud of it.

The New Testament is very effective in inculcating guilt in connection with pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure, when accompanied by guilt, becomes a means of perpetuating chronic guilt, and this serves to reinforce one’s dependence on God. It is not accidental that the Bible regards pride as a major sin. A man with self-esteem is an unlikely candidate for the master-slave relationship that Christ offers him.

I never noticed all of Christ's references to "hell fire" until I read the New Testament with new eyes. Hell is a constant reminder of the essence of Christ's morality: God is to be obeyed because he is bigger and stronger than we are and incomparably more vicious. I think it is unconscionable that the New Testament teaches infinite punishment for finite crimes committed by people who have never directly seen or heard from the lawgiver.

When Jesus says believe, he means obey. And when Jesus praises men of great faith, he is praising men who will obey unquestioningly any command they believe to come from God. See, e.g., Abraham.

To be moral, according to Jesus, man must shackle his reason. Less criticism leads to more faith. Indeed, "unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3). Children, after all, will believe almost anything.

The whole moral foundation of Christ's teachings is obey and be rewarded, disobey and burn in hell. And we praise him today as a great "moral" teacher?

In the end, in assessing the ethical significance of Jesus, it is illuminating to contrast him with the ancient Greek and Eastern philosophers who preceded him by hundreds of years. The differences are so striking that it is difficult to place Jesus on the same level as such intellectual giants as Plato, Aristotle, the Buddha, and Laozi. Whether one agrees with these philosophers or not, they at least argue for their claims. Jesus, on the other hand, issues proclamations backed by the threat of force from his dad.

If this is morality, I want none of it.

+1

[_mikwut]

Hello Stormy Waters,

In my opinion, the New Testament is a monotonous tale of sin, guilt, hell, blind obedience, and credulity.

I suppose one could say this about many books (outside of monotonous being a trivially subjective adjective). For example, Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment would fit your description quite well. What makes either positive or negative is our concrete and real human experience that corresponds or fails to correspond to the text. Huckleberry Finn is another tale of sin, guilt, hell, blind obedience, and credulity. But, do we experience, resonate and have an inner intuition connecting to Huck? Or the N.T.? Is it part of our human condition that we are broken and experience the experience of sin? I do, and many others do as well. It isn't mere fancy even if isn't ultimately veridical. Do we experience guilt in a real concrete way, alone and to our sincere selves outside the pressure of others? I do at times. Do we seek hope from some it? I think most of us resonate with that.

I don't recognize in your passages "blind obedience" that's simply interpretative on your part, it certainly isn't what believers have articulated for centuries, nor mere credulity either.

You also don't do us the favor of offering us what your moral or ethical principles are in order to assess your opinion. What is guilt if it isn't the experience most of us share? If you have constructed or adhere to an ethical construction wholly outside the Christian one (which relied on scripture for its very foundations) I invite you to simply state it for balancing and criticism as well.

As the honorary LDS apostle, C.S. Lewis, observed: "A recovery of the old sense of sin is essential to Christianity. Christ takes it for granted that men are bad. Until we really feel this assumption ... we are not part of the audience to whom His words are addressed.”

The passage from the Problem of Pain by Lewis is easily taken out of context today. He shortly after that phrase stated, "Now at the moment when a man feels real guilt - moments too rare in our lives - all these blasphemies vanish away." Lewis believed in rare moments where we see who we are or have a real "sense of sin" and what it really means. That's why he excluded you from the audience. We don't have to agree with everything Lewis says but we should do him the favor of not providing a bland perspective on much richer tapestry he constructed. Today, I agree with you, guilt is overwrought in our society and often in religion - but that tells me your taking those contextual glasses to the scripture and to Lewis, not reading without that blurred context of today's current pop psychology. Lewis was avoiding the superficial views of guilt that your utilizing for many pages prior to the passage you quote.

The New Testament is founded on guilt.

I think believers would be more inclined to agree it is at issue but the foundation is an answer towards guilt and other issues - I find it hard to understand the text at all as merely built on guilt.

It must convince men that they need salvation

Yes. This is simply begging the question of if it is true or not, for it could only be a vice if it were false - but that is the core of the question discussed here.

It has nothing to offer the happy man.

Without definitions of your terms it is mere rhetoric. What is "the happy man".

The New Testament is very effective in inculcating guilt in connection with pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure, when accompanied by guilt, becomes a means of perpetuating chronic guilt, and this serves to reinforce one’s dependence on God.

This pleasure guilt cycle is understandable from a former Mormon perspective, I share it as a former Mormon, but we shouldn't project it onto a the N.T. and all of Christianity except when appropriate. It is hardly the only or most congenial interpretative framework of the N.T.

It is not accidental that the Bible regards pride as a major sin. A man with self-esteem is an unlikely candidate for the master-slave relationship that Christ offers him.

Of course most believers and non-believers I think, believe pride to be self-esteem in excess and an obstinate unwillingness to look at failure to have to be right, self esteem is a stable ratio of these things. Pride is an excessive regard for one's self-esteem. Self esteem is a personality trait psychologists utilize - pride is an attitude and as such has been almost universally (in that context) understood as a vice even outside of the N.T. So they are quite different as opposed to how you meld them synonymous.

I never noticed all of Christ's references to "hell fire" until I read the New Testament with new eyes.

I hope those "new eyes" included a healthy research into the meaning of those terms outside of today's jaded ideas of those terms, or a fair reading of the verses.

Hell is a constant reminder of the essence of Christ's morality: God is to be obeyed because he is bigger and stronger than we are and incomparably more vicious. I think it is unconscionable that the New Testament teaches infinite punishment for finite crimes committed by people who have never directly seen or heard from the lawgiver.

Well I agree with this sentiment, I just don't find that in the scripture devoid of pop ideas of Christianity and some misdirected believers.

When Jesus says believe, he means obey. And when Jesus praises men of great faith, he is praising men who will obey unquestioningly any command they believe to come from God. See, e.g., Abraham.

That Mormonism is still affecting your perspective - there are other lens' to see through you know?

To be moral, according to Jesus, man must shackle his reason. Less criticism leads to more faith. Indeed, "unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3). Children, after all, will believe almost anything.

That's not what it means, or the connotation nary any believer takes from it. You can't just rob the depth that the metaphors and meanings are aiming at and have been richly understood for centuries. The sentiment of becoming like a child is broad in its meaning but one aspect for example of its richness is for example illustrated by G.K. Chesterton when he says, "This is proved by the fact that when we are very young children we do not need fairy tales: we only need tales. Mere life is interesting enough. A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door. Boys like romantic tales; but babies like realistic tales--because they find them romantic. In fact, a baby is about the only person, I should think, to whom a modern realistic novel could be read without boring him. This proves that even nursery tales only echo an almost pre-natal leap of interest and amazement. These tales say that apples were golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green. They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water. I have said that this is wholly reasonable and even agnostic. And, indeed, on this point I am all for the higher agnosticism; its better name is Ignorance. We have all read in scientific books, and, indeed, in all romances, the story of the man who has forgotten his name. This man walks about the streets and can see and appreciate everything; only he cannot remember who he is. Well, every man is that man in the story. Every man has forgotten who he is. " That to many people is a concrete aspect of our lived experience, it is real. And that is much more foundational to the N.T. than your claims.

The whole moral foundation of Christ's teachings is obey and be rewarded, disobey and burn in hell. And we praise him today as a great "moral" teacher?

Well, I do believe the praise is for other interpretative frameworks and foundations - I find nothing primary about your caricature.

In the end, in assessing the ethical significance of Jesus, it is illuminating to contrast him with the ancient Greek and Eastern philosophers who preceded him by hundreds of years. The differences are so striking that it is difficult to place Jesus on the same level as such intellectual giants as Plato, Aristotle, the Buddha, and Laozi. Whether one agrees with these philosophers or not, they at least argue for their claims. Jesus, on the other hand, issues proclamations backed by the threat of force from his dad.

If this is morality, I want none of it.

Yah, me neither.

my regards, mikwut