The jesus story isn't original
Replies
-
If you are a normal person (no psychological diseases) you will follow these "morals" naturally. Why? Because religion did not create morals. Religion took how we all feel naturally (thanks to some phenomenal chemicals working in our brains) and decided to write it down on a piece of paper.
I think most biologists and neuroscientists would agree that humans are essentially selfish, and that our natural instincts are to ensure our own survival at all costs. I think I remember that you have kids? Presumably you have had to teach them, as all small children have to be taught, to think of others, rather than only themselves, and to behave considerately and unselfishly, which rather argues that these behaviours are learned rather than inherent. Instead of 'moral' behaviour being instinctive, I would suggest that societal pressure exists to make sure we conform to a certain moral code and standards of considerate behaviour. Religion codified these behaviours, and in doing so, continues to exert an almost-insurmountable influence on Western values and mores.
Even Peter Singer has gotten to the point where he agrees that Darwinian logic implies a rather awful ingrained code of conduct in humans, and has come to advocate an intentional, methodical form of altruism as a means of overcoming that flaw. Altruism just seems to have no real purpose (at least, when applied past our own immediate familial pool) in survival. How it is, though, that we can overcome our genetic influences (when free will appears illusory) to practice such a thing, I don't know. I don't think he knows, either.
Sorry, not sure I understand what you are saying in the first part of your post (I missed out on my coffee this morning, so forgive me!) - are you agreeing that the ingrained 'natural' code of conduct for a human is selfish and egocentric or disputing that? I don't think anyone knows exactly how we overcome genetic/primeval impulses - we wouldn't be on this site if we had perfected that! - but learned behaviour and the imposition of logical thought over instinct presumably has something to do with it.
I wonder if that's why men typically find it easier to lose weight - their instinctive response is often 'fight' rather than 'flight', which suggests a more powerful over-ride of logic over emotion. Could apply to other things as well. (Just for clarity's sake, in case anyone takes offence at my musings, I am not suggesting that this makes men any more 'strong' or valuable than women - Equal but different is my mantra!)
I think one of the reasons men lose weight more easily than women is that generally men tend to have more lean muscle on their frame. Every pound of muscle burns 50 calories a day. So if I am the same height as a woman, I do the same exercising and the same diet, but I have 10 lbs more in muscle, I will lose more quickly because I am already burning an addtional 500 calories.0 -
If you are a normal person (no psychological diseases) you will follow these "morals" naturally. Why? Because religion did not create morals. Religion took how we all feel naturally (thanks to some phenomenal chemicals working in our brains) and decided to write it down on a piece of paper.
I think most biologists and neuroscientists would agree that humans are essentially selfish, and that our natural instincts are to ensure our own survival at all costs. I think I remember that you have kids? Presumably you have had to teach them, as all small children have to be taught, to think of others, rather than only themselves, and to behave considerately and unselfishly, which rather argues that these behaviours are learned rather than inherent. Instead of 'moral' behaviour being instinctive, I would suggest that societal pressure exists to make sure we conform to a certain moral code and standards of considerate behaviour. Religion codified these behaviours, and in doing so, continues to exert an almost-insurmountable influence on Western values and mores.
Even Peter Singer has gotten to the point where he agrees that Darwinian logic implies a rather awful ingrained code of conduct in humans, and has come to advocate an intentional, methodical form of altruism as a means of overcoming that flaw. Altruism just seems to have no real purpose (at least, when applied past our own immediate familial pool) in survival. How it is, though, that we can overcome our genetic influences (when free will appears illusory) to practice such a thing, I don't know. I don't think he knows, either.
Sorry, not sure I understand what you are saying in the first part of your post (I missed out on my coffee this morning, so forgive me!) - are you agreeing that the ingrained 'natural' code of conduct for a human is selfish and egocentric or disputing that? I don't think anyone knows exactly how we overcome genetic/primeval impulses - we wouldn't be on this site if we had perfected that! - but learned behaviour and the imposition of logical thought over instinct presumably has something to do with it.
I wonder if that's why men typically find it easier to lose weight - their instinctive response is often 'fight' rather than 'flight', which suggests a more powerful over-ride of logic over emotion. Could apply to other things as well. (Just for clarity's sake, in case anyone takes offence at my musings, I am not suggesting that this makes men any more 'strong' or valuable than women - Equal but different is my mantra!)
I think one of the reasons men lose weight more easily than women is that generally men tend to have more lean muscle on their frame. Every pound of muscle burns 50 calories a day. So if I am the same height as a woman, I do the same exercising and the same diet, but I have 10 lbs more in muscle, I will lose more quickly because I am already burning an addtional 500 calories.
Absolutely, physiologically. I'm just having a general muse about the psychological/instinct-override element of weight-loss, which I suspect we all agree plays a big part in our success or failure.0 -
And technically, atheist simply means "Not a theist." So agnostics can be atheist as well. Most atheists are also agnostic in that we agree that there is no way to know for sure.
True. When broken down to the root word (a meaning not), then that is exactly what atheist means. The semantics are a bit more muddy than that, and so while that is technically true, I feel the distinction between atheist and agnost is important. My best friend, for instance, is 100% atheist. She believes there is absolutely no possibility that there is a god.
I do agree that most people who call themselves atheists acknowledge that they can never know for sure, but I like psycholinguistics and feel that agnostic is a more appropriate word. Word meanings do change quite a bit as a society ages, afterall.0 -
I think most biologists and neuroscientists would agree that humans are essentially selfish, and that our natural instincts are to ensure our own survival at all costs. I think I remember that you have kids? Presumably you have had to teach them, as all small children have to be taught, to think of others, rather than only themselves, and to behave considerately and unselfishly, which rather argues that these behaviours are learned rather than inherent. Instead of 'moral' behaviour being instinctive, I would suggest that societal pressure exists to make sure we conform to a certain moral code and standards of considerate behaviour. Religion codified these behaviours, and in doing so, continues to exert an almost-insurmountable influence on Western values and mores.
Even Peter Singer has gotten to the point where he agrees that Darwinian logic implies a rather awful ingrained code of conduct in humans, and has come to advocate an intentional, methodical form of altruism as a means of overcoming that flaw. Altruism just seems to have no real purpose (at least, when applied past our own immediate familial pool) in survival. How it is, though, that we can overcome our genetic influences (when free will appears illusory) to practice such a thing, I don't know. I don't think he knows, either.
I do think altruism, kindness, selflessness, etc. IS inherent. Maybe not technically, not at the moment of birth. But you can't grow up without these things.
We're social creatures who rely on one another to survive. We need to be cared for for a very long time when we're young. Without empathy we don't survive as a species. Period.
We have to think about what gets labeled as "selfish" behavior. We naturally do what will benefit us most, or our family/tribe/nation etc. But being social creatures what more often benefits us is to live in harmony with one another, even to help others to our own detriment if there is some greater reward. That's where our goodness comes from. We see that it has an advantage. To put it quite simply, doing good benefits humans.
Through empathy we can realize that truly "bad" behaviors deserve punishment, because we wouldn't want those same things to happen to us. If we see people stealing and killing we want them to be stopped. We've always felt this way. Murder and theft didn't enjoy a free ride before the Ten Commandments. They never have.
And if it's through divinity that we get these morals I have to ask where the animal kingdom gets theirs from? Yes animals can exhibit perfectly moral behavior. Chimps can even risk their lives for one another. There's no benefit in that for them. They are being selfless and noble. They have no god, no bible, no codified practices.
Morality. No God required.0 -
I think most biologists and neuroscientists would agree that humans are essentially selfish, and that our natural instincts are to ensure our own survival at all costs. I think I remember that you have kids? Presumably you have had to teach them, as all small children have to be taught, to think of others, rather than only themselves, and to behave considerately and unselfishly, which rather argues that these behaviours are learned rather than inherent. Instead of 'moral' behaviour being instinctive, I would suggest that societal pressure exists to make sure we conform to a certain moral code and standards of considerate behaviour. Religion codified these behaviours, and in doing so, continues to exert an almost-insurmountable influence on Western values and mores.
Even Peter Singer has gotten to the point where he agrees that Darwinian logic implies a rather awful ingrained code of conduct in humans, and has come to advocate an intentional, methodical form of altruism as a means of overcoming that flaw. Altruism just seems to have no real purpose (at least, when applied past our own immediate familial pool) in survival. How it is, though, that we can overcome our genetic influences (when free will appears illusory) to practice such a thing, I don't know. I don't think he knows, either.
I do think altruism, kindness, selflessness, etc. IS inherent. Maybe not technically, not at the moment of birth. But you can't grow up without these things.
We're social creatures who rely on one another to survive. We need to be cared for for a very long time when we're young. Without empathy we don't survive as a species. Period.
We have to think about what gets labeled as "selfish" behavior. We naturally do what will benefit us most, or our family/tribe/nation etc. But being social creatures what more often benefits us is to live in harmony with one another, even to help others to our own detriment if there is some greater reward. That's where our goodness comes from. We see that it has an advantage. To put it quite simply, doing good benefits humans.
Through empathy we can realize that truly "bad" behaviors deserve punishment, because we wouldn't want those same things to happen to us. If we see people stealing and killing we want them to be stopped. We've always felt this way. Murder and theft didn't enjoy a free ride before the Ten Commandments. They never have.
And if it's through divinity that we get these morals I have to ask where the animal kingdom gets theirs from? Yes animals can exhibit perfectly moral behavior. Chimps can even risk their lives for one another. There's no benefit in that for them. They are being selfless and noble. They have no god, no bible, no codified practices.
Morality. No God required.
^This.
All behaviors and traits are a combination of genetic and learned. Some traits are more heavily influenced by one or the other, but ultimately they both play a role. As we say in psychology, "genetics set the stage, and experiences determine where you fall on the continuum." This is time-tested and no one trait has been shown yet to be all genetic or all learned.
Altrusim is particularly interesting because you can trace the degree of altruism by the degree of relatedness. In all species tested, the individual was far more likely to act altruistically if they were directly related to the individual in need. And the closer the bloodline, the stronger the action/willingness to act. I'm more likely to jump in, without hesitation, to save my niece, than I am to save a stranger's child. This is because ultimately, I'm protecting my bloodline. They've also shown that once a creature is beyong child bearing years, they are more likely to act in a way which might sacrifice themselves. That's the only part I disagree with you on- chimps who act altruistically do have a benefit. It's not direct to them, but procreation and protecting our bloodline is a strong drive, and that's the benefit.
We rely on others to survive, but we rely on our bloodline the most (historically). In order to live peacefully, we have to abide by certain rules. Those rules do vary by culture, which to me suggests no one universal god. Why would god only divulge some of his rules and not others? The society sets the rules, and we do our best to obey. To keep the peace, we punish the offenders. Religion is just one of the mechinisms of assuring punishment and encouraging assimilation to the rules.0 -
It makes me really question the sickness of your own mind if the only reason you are behaving is some invisible ghost dude.
Losing ground in a debate again, I see. It's best to debate without personal attacks and insults. Again, the quickest way to show yourself in over your head in a debate is to resort to these tactics. Because you cannot seem to debate with me on certain issues without doing so, it's best we probably not debate again. I've tried, but you keep going back to this.0 -
I do think altruism, kindness, selflessness, etc. IS inherent. Maybe not technically, not at the moment of birth. But you can't grow up without these things.
We're social creatures who rely on one another to survive. We need to be cared for for a very long time when we're young. Without empathy we don't survive as a species. Period.
We have to think about what gets labeled as "selfish" behavior. We naturally do what will benefit us most, or our family/tribe/nation etc. But being social creatures what more often benefits us is to live in harmony with one another, even to help others to our own detriment if there is some greater reward. That's where our goodness comes from. We see that it has an advantage. To put it quite simply, doing good benefits humans.
Through empathy we can realize that truly "bad" behaviors deserve punishment, because we wouldn't want those same things to happen to us. If we see people stealing and killing we want them to be stopped. We've always felt this way. Murder and theft didn't enjoy a free ride before the Ten Commandments. They never have.
And if it's through divinity that we get these morals I have to ask where the animal kingdom gets theirs from? Yes animals can exhibit perfectly moral behavior. Chimps can even risk their lives for one another. There's no benefit in that for them. They are being selfless and noble. They have no god, no bible, no codified practices.
Morality. No God required.
Brett~
Consider the following:
a. You shouldn't kill that person because someone else might want to kill you.
b. You shouldn't kill that person because if we practice such things our species will be weakened and perhaps not survive.
c. You shouldn't kill that person because their life is an infinitely valuable gift from God that you have no right to take.
d. You shouldn't kill that person because it is simply wrong to destroy innocent human life.
Notice the difference between a-b and c-d. In the first two, the immorality of murder is based on perceived consequences of the action. The action, in itself, is not morally "bad" but the consequences are undesirable (for whatever reason). In c-d the action is wrong because of intrinsic value in human life. What I am arguing is that atheism may certainly make claims like a-b but can't for c-d. In the atheist world, there is no objective grounds for human value (or for any other value) except subjective considerations that may or may not be interesting to others. Both the Christian and the atheist may agree that murder should be prohibited but we do so for different reasons. The Christian says it is wrong to murder because human life has an intrinsic dignity/value that is derived from its relation to God (we are made in "God's image and likeness" for the ultimate purpose of unending happiness in union with God). The atheist proposes a different concern ("I don't want to be treated like that so I'd better not do it to others") or some claim about the behaviors necessary for survival. Neither of these justifications for controlling behavior is what is meant by "morality" in the classical sense. Morality has to do with what humans "ought" to do in order to conform their actions to an objective moral order/law. Your version of "morality" sounds much like a cost/benefit analysis based on evolutionary impulses (or however you want to describe it). Such a cost-benefit analysis or "emotivist" concerns do not yield "morality" as I have described it here. Furthermore, such an analysis is only meaningful for those who care about the same goals that you care about. What is to keep one atheist from saying that human life has no value. He might say consciousness and rationality are an evolutionary defect that is only harming the world. This person says it is "good" to work against human prospering. What is "wrong" or "morally evil" about his position? I don't think an atheist can give a good reply to that. You may criticize his reasoning what what makes the "value" you place on human life truly "good"? What makes your opinion about what "goal" we should strive for better than his "goal" of destroying humans to protect the rest of the world? Besides the fact that you don't like it, what makes it "wrong" for some groups of humans to want to destroy others? Why was Hitler "wrong"? What is wrong with eugenics? Why shouldn't humans kill the weak and promote the survival of genetically stronger members of the species? I don't know how an atheist can answer such questions except to appeal to emotions. Emotion won't work for morality, though. It is one thing to say, "I don't like people killing each other," quite another to say, "It is morally wrong to kill others."
Concerning chimps and other animals, they act primarily instinctually and we all know that. Some animals devour their young. We certainly aren't going to call that an expression of animal "morality," are we? We don't put animals on trial for their anti-social behavior simply because we know they do not have the powers of freedom and rationality. I think attributing "nobility" to chimps is likely the mistake of transferring to animal behavior human attributes or qualities. Many animals instinctively fight for the protection of their communities but we distinguish this from the development of moral virtues in humans who are able to choose freely to act morally while the animals act as they do by instinctual impulses.
Thoughts?0 -
It makes me really question the sickness of your own mind if the only reason you are behaving is some invisible ghost dude.
Losing ground in a debate again, I see. It's best to debate without personal attacks and insults. Again, the quickest way to show yourself in over your head in a debate is to resort to these tactics. Because you cannot seem to debate with me on certain issues without doing so, it's best we probably not debate again. I've tried, but you keep going back to this.
Yeah, I'm losing ground so badly you are quitting......again. But I'm not worried, I think this is the 3rd time you've quit these debates because of my "insults" (which is almost exactly as insulting as the stuff you spew, just more honest and strait forward). I think it's more likely that once again, you lost once again. Anyone can look at these debates between us, from our very first one and see that I have tried to answer every question thrown at me as accurately as possible. You cannot say the same.0 -
What I am arguing is that atheism may certainly make claims like a-b but can't for c-d. In the atheist world, there is no objective grounds for human value (or for any other value) except subjective considerations that may or may not be interesting to others. Both the Christian and the atheist may agree that murder should be prohibited but we do so for different reasons.
I, for one, do not believe in the existence of a categorical imperative. You're wrong, however, when you say that there are not atheists who do. There are atheists that base their ethics / morals on kantian ethics, social contract theory, virtue ethics, ethical egoism etc etc etc
Some of those philosophies do indeed support the concept of a categorical imperative that is divorced from any theological standard.
Personally, I tend to lean towards descriptive moral relativism in the abstract and social contract theory for practical concerns.0 -
Brett~
Consider the following:
a. You shouldn't kill that person because someone else might want to kill you.
b. You shouldn't kill that person because if we practice such things our species will be weakened and perhaps not survive.
c. You shouldn't kill that person because their life is an infinitely valuable gift from God that you have no right to take.
d. You shouldn't kill that person because it is simply wrong to destroy innocent human life.
Notice the difference between a-b and c-d. In the first two, the immorality of murder is based on perceived consequences of the action. The action, in itself, is not morally "bad" but the consequences are undesirable (for whatever reason). In c-d the action is wrong because of intrinsic value in human life. What I am arguing is that atheism may certainly make claims like a-b but can't for c-d. In the atheist world, there is no objective grounds for human value (or for any other value) except subjective considerations that may or may not be interesting to others. Both the Christian and the atheist may agree that murder should be prohibited but we do so for different reasons. The Christian says it is wrong to murder because human life has an intrinsic dignity/value that is derived from its relation to God (we are made in "God's image and likeness" for the ultimate purpose of unending happiness in union with God). The atheist proposes a different concern ("I don't want to be treated like that so I'd better not do it to others") or some claim about the behaviors necessary for survival. Neither of these justifications for controlling behavior is what is meant by "morality" in the classical sense. Morality has to do with what humans "ought" to do in order to conform their actions to an objective moral order/law. Your version of "morality" sounds much like a cost/benefit analysis based on evolutionary impulses (or however you want to describe it). Such a cost-benefit analysis or "emotivist" concerns do not yield "morality" as I have described it here. Furthermore, such an analysis is only meaningful for those who care about the same goals that you care about. What is to keep one atheist from saying that human life has no value. He might say consciousness and rationality are an evolutionary defect that is only harming the world. This person says it is "good" to work against human prospering. What is "wrong" or "morally evil" about his position? I don't think an atheist can give a good reply to that. You may criticize his reasoning what what makes the "value" you place on human life truly "good"? What makes your opinion about what "goal" we should strive for better than his "goal" of destroying humans to protect the rest of the world? Besides the fact that you don't like it, what makes it "wrong" for some groups of humans to want to destroy others? Why was Hitler "wrong"? What is wrong with eugenics? Why shouldn't humans kill the weak and promote the survival of genetically stronger members of the species? I don't know how an atheist can answer such questions except to appeal to emotions. Emotion won't work for morality, though. It is one thing to say, "I don't like people killing each other," quite another to say, "It is morally wrong to kill others."
Concerning chimps and other animals, they act primarily instinctually and we all know that. Some animals devour their young. We certainly aren't going to call that an expression of animal "morality," are we? We don't put animals on trial for their anti-social behavior simply because we know they do not have the powers of freedom and rationality. I think attributing "nobility" to chimps is likely the mistake of transferring to animal behavior human attributes or qualities. Many animals instinctively fight for the protection of their communities but we distinguish this from the development of moral virtues in humans who are able to choose freely to act morally while the animals act as they do by instinctual impulses.
Thoughts?
Patti I'll give it a go. But I'm going to keep it brief as I find that to be more effective for myself and others reading.
This is a quote from Thomas Aquinas. The Catholic church made him a saint. He is still considered today to be one of the great theologans of history.
"With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death."
So a leading figure in the Catholic church advocates murder for the crime of believing differently. He's consulted with God and this is what he's come up with. These are the morals he's laying down for others to follow. And they did. In spades.
There's nothing objective about religious morality. It doesn't come from God. It comes from MEN who claim to speak for God. I dismiss their claims with a handwave. It's a funny thing how their interpretations of what God wants always seems to coincide with what they want. And they change on a whim. Entire dimensions of reality can be 100% real one day and vanish the next if the Pope decides it (purgatory). It's every bit as subjective as the morality of any atheist. To say it's not you'd have to prove that it is unchanging. It changes all the time.
There are a WHOLE LOT of people on this planet who want to tell me how to live my life based on what their god says. I prefer to live my life based on what I myself discover. As of yet I haven't found any justification for murdering other people based on what they think. "Saint" Aquinas did. So I reject religious morality.
Remember the part where I said I'd keep it short?0 -
There's nothing objective about religious morality.
^^^ This. The end.0 -
This is a quote from Thomas Aquinas. The Catholic church made him a saint. He is still considered today to be one of the great theologans of history.So a leading figure in the Catholic church advocates murder for the crime of believing differently. He's consulted with God and this is what he's come up with.
My husband teaches a course on Thomas Aquinas. I'll have to get his interpretation of this quote.0 -
My husband teaches a course on Thomas Aquinas. I'll have to get his interpretation of this quote.
Patti just read it. His words are right there. What else could he possible be saying? "justly be put to death", I don't need anyone's interpretation of that. St. Thomas Aquinas laid the "moral foundation" that allowed the murder of heretics. Has his "sainthood" been revoked? Has the church condemned his teachings? Clearly not. He's still seen as a shining light of Catholicism.
You know I don't mean to offend but I haaate biblical interpretations. It's how people squirm out of the obvious and blatant wickedness of the bible. "Oh when God said "hurl stones at them until they are dead" he really just meant "pray for them"".
If God can create life and provide us with a book we should follow I would hope he could make it easy enough for everyone to understand without every two bit huckster who can come along and tell you what the God "really meant".0 -
Patti just read it. His words are right there. What else could he possible be saying? "justly be put to death", I don't need anyone's interpretation of that. St. Thomas Aquinas laid the "moral foundation" that allowed the murder of heretics. Has his "sainthood" been revoked? Has the church condemned his teachings? Clearly not. He's still seen as a shining light of Catholicism.
You know I don't mean to offend but I haaate biblical interpretations. It's how people squirm out of the obvious and blatant wickedness of the bible. "Oh when God said "hurl stones at them until they are dead" he really just meant "pray for them"".
If God can create life and provide us with a book we should follow I would hope he could make it easy enough for everyone to understand without every two bit huckster who can come along and tell you what the God "really meant".
Ah, but you know the bible is full of hyperbole. I'm suspecting this is similar, but I'll ask the expert on Thomas Aquinas. I realize you may not buy into what his answer is, but I'm curious too. I have to admit, before I understood scripture and interpretations, some words used in the bible are scary!0 -
If God can create life and provide us with a book we should follow I would hope he could make it easy enough for everyone to understand without every two bit huckster who can come along and tell you what the God "really meant".
oh no...Lot wasn't offering up his daughters to be gang raped...he was just being hospitable0 -
Ah, but you know the bible is full of hyperbole. I'm suspecting this is similar, but I'll ask the expert on Thomas Aquinas. I realize you may not buy into what his answer is, but I'm curious too. I have to admit, before I understood scripture and interpretations, some words used in the bible are scary!
You realize that "interpretation" and "objectivity" are completely at odds with each other, right? Even the hard sciences will list "results" and "impressions" separately for this reason.
It is impossible to consume information and apply it to your life in any way that is completely objective. For this reason, there is nothing more objective about reading the Bible and living your life according to Christian principles than about reading...say...Epictetus and going through life as an atheist stoic0 -
If God can create life and provide us with a book we should follow I would hope he could make it easy enough for everyone to understand without every two bit huckster who can come along and tell you what the God "really meant".
Wait....did you call my theologian husband a "two bit huckster"???
0 -
My husband teaches a course on Thomas Aquinas. I'll have to get his interpretation of this quote.
Patti just read it. His words are right there. What else could he possible be saying? "justly be put to death", I don't need anyone's interpretation of that. St. Thomas Aquinas laid the "moral foundation" that allowed the murder of heretics. Has his "sainthood" been revoked? Has the church condemned his teachings? Clearly not. He's still seen as a shining light of Catholicism.
You know I don't mean to offend but I haaate biblical interpretations. It's how people squirm out of the obvious and blatant wickedness of the bible. "Oh when God said "hurl stones at them until they are dead" he really just meant "pray for them"".
If God can create life and provide us with a book we should follow I would hope he could make it easy enough for everyone to understand without every two bit huckster who can come along and tell you what the God "really meant".
I think it would be interesting, though, to see how he justifies this quote. I think that the explanations people attribute to holding tight to their belief systems says something valuable and interesting about their mindset. I agree though, that it is hard to see any other interpretation.
As for the book we should follow, my mom has an interesting way of describing why she believes it. To me, it says more about her than the reality of the religion itself. She's a chemist, so as a scientist I imagine she must struggle to believe what she does. She rationalizes it by saying that the old testament examines our brokenness with god while the new testament shows us the way. I think that the different interpretations show two things: 1) a glimpse into who these people really are, and 2) the fact that there probably isn't a god, because if there was, he'd give us all the same way to understand so we wouldn't fight and kill over it.
Also, Catholics can't speak for all Christians (thankfully!)- I was raised by Lutheran parents, and we did not believe in the Catholic saints or hold onto much of the silliness of other Christians. We were taught that evolution was real, for instance. That homosexuality was not a choice. That being said, they sure had their own fair share of silliness (sit down- stand up- sit down- stand up, lol). I do think that had I been raised in most other churces, I would have probably been told I would burn for leaving the church. Instead my pastor praised my decision and said that an unexamined faith is no real faith at all. I'm sure he thought I would come back, but his mindset shows that not all Christians are so dangerous. He would have (probably) decried Thomas Aquinas' statement there.0 -
Ah, but you know the bible is full of hyperbole. I'm suspecting this is similar, but I'll ask the expert on Thomas Aquinas. I realize you may not buy into what his answer is, but I'm curious too. I have to admit, before I understood scripture and interpretations, some words used in the bible are scary!
Well Patti I can say I'd be interested to hear his take on it. But my eyes are the only source I really need. He advocated murder and the church listened. If now someone wants to interpret it as "they should be put to death SPIRITUALLY!" that's fine for them. But it's simply not true. He said "kill the heretic" and the church went about killing non-believers. All justified by their moral foundation.
It's either right or wrong. I think it's wrong. I suspect most people agree with me. So how is it that an atheist can have such a morally superior understanding of the world than a "saint"? If your church leaders are capable of getting things THIS wrong why follow them?
To me this is a prime example of the saying, "There will always be good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. To make a good person do a bad thing you need religion."0 -
If God can create life and provide us with a book we should follow I would hope he could make it easy enough for everyone to understand without every two bit huckster who can come along and tell you what the God "really meant".
Wait....did you call my theologian husband a "two bit huckster"???
Never Patti. Perish the thought.
I'm sure he's worth at least 3 bits.
JOKES JOKES I KID I KID!0 -
The Epic of Gilgamesh has many parts that parallel the Bible including the Great Flood, the story of Adam and Eve, etc but was written thousands of years before Christ was reportedly born. Interesting.
The Old Testament was also written before Christ was born
Questions to those who say that Jesus never existed.....then why did we for so long call "BCE", "BC" or "Common Era" "anodomini" (the year of our LORD) Really? We divided history based off of a myth?
We use the Gregorian calendar. Gregorian= Pope Gregory and it wasn't really fully accepted until the 1800's. (among even Christians)
Plus not just the months (many of them) but the days of the week are named after a variety of Gods and Goddesses. Are we to supposed to think that those Gods really existed because someone decided to name a day after them? Do we know that Thor existed because every week we have Thursday?
BTW Most historians think they have Jesus birth year wrong.
http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-history.html0 -
Well Patti I can say I'd be interested to hear his take on it. But my eyes are the only source I really need. He advocated murder and the church listened. If now someone wants to interpret it as "they should be put to death SPIRITUALLY!" that's fine for them. But it's simply not true. He said "kill the heretic" and the church went about killing non-believers. All justified by their moral foundation.
It's either right or wrong. I think it's wrong. I suspect most people agree with me. So how is it that an atheist can have such a morally superior understanding of the world than a "saint"? If your church leaders are capable of getting things THIS wrong why follow them?
To me this is a prime example of the saying, "There will always be good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. To make a good person do a bad thing you need religion."
I can't really do justice to the words Mark used, but here's basically what he told me:
Let's just take the Aquinas quote at face-value, ignoring the finer details, the historical and social setting, etc. Aquinas is saying that heretics who lead people away from the Church are committing an evil every bit as great as other actions that civil authorities deem are worthy of death. Surely you can agree that if it is true that heretics are helping to take people to hell, they are doing something worse than murder. I know you don't believe any of that but I'm just asking you to consider what Aquinas is arguing. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily:
1. Leading people away from heaven and contributing to their going to hell is as bad as or worse than murder.
2. Our civil authorities deem murderers deserving of capital punishment.
3. Therefore, heretics are worthy of capital punishment.
If the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. That is what Aquinas is doing. Of course, there may be other considerations that would alter the conclusion even if one believes the first two premises. For instance, let's say our civil authorities don't agree on what will lead people to hell (or don't believe at all). Obviously the civil authorities are not going to agree with the first or second premise. If someone distinguishes between religious faith and physical actions and limits the role of government to one or the other, that will affect the conclusion. In any case, what Aquinas is doing is an exercise in moral reasoning.0 -
I can't really do justice to the words Mark used, but here's basically what he told me:
Let's just take the Aquinas quote at face-value, ignoring the finer details, the historical and social setting, etc. Aquinas is saying that heretics who lead people away from the Church are committing an evil every bit as great as other actions that civil authorities deem are worthy of death. Surely you can agree that if it is true that heretics are helping to take people to hell, they are doing something worse than murder. I know you don't believe any of that but I'm just asking you to consider what Aquinas is arguing. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily:
1. Leading people away from heaven and contributing to their going to hell is as bad as or worse than murder.
2. Our civil authorities deem murderers deserving of capital punishment.
3. Therefore, heretics are worthy of capital punishment.
If the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. That is what Aquinas is doing. Of course, there may be other considerations that would alter the conclusion even if one believes the first two premises. For instance, let's say our civil authorities don't agree on what will lead people to hell (or don't believe at all). Obviously the civil authorities are not going to agree with the first or second premise. If someone distinguishes between religious faith and physical actions and limits the role of government to one or the other, that will affect the conclusion. In any case, what Aquinas is doing is an exercise in moral reasoning.
But why is St. Thomas appealing to a civil law (capital punishment) that flies in the face of Christian principles. Shouldn't God's law supercede any civilian law? In my opinion, it would seem that St. Thomas should CONDEMN capital punishment in general, rather than offer up cases of people who are also worthy of capital punishment...
Of course, I don't understand how any Christian supports capital punishment in the first place...but so many of them do, so what do I know0 -
I can't really do justice to the words Mark used, but here's basically what he told me:
Let's just take the Aquinas quote at face-value, ignoring the finer details, the historical and social setting, etc. Aquinas is saying that heretics who lead people away from the Church are committing an evil every bit as great as other actions that civil authorities deem are worthy of death. Surely you can agree that if it is true that heretics are helping to take people to hell, they are doing something worse than murder. I know you don't believe any of that but I'm just asking you to consider what Aquinas is arguing. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily:
1. Leading people away from heaven and contributing to their going to hell is as bad as or worse than murder.
2. Our civil authorities deem murderers deserving of capital punishment.
3. Therefore, heretics are worthy of capital punishment.
If the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. That is what Aquinas is doing. Of course, there may be other considerations that would alter the conclusion even if one believes the first two premises. For instance, let's say our civil authorities don't agree on what will lead people to hell (or don't believe at all). Obviously the civil authorities are not going to agree with the first or second premise. If someone distinguishes between religious faith and physical actions and limits the role of government to one or the other, that will affect the conclusion. In any case, what Aquinas is doing is an exercise in moral reasoning.
I understand Patti. Yes using Aquinas's logic that he has complete knowledge of what God wants and what happens to everyone after they die he's making sense. But you have to use HIS logic for that to work. Anyone who believes differently... well they're the ones who get murdered.
Now if we throw in the CRAZY idea that hey, maybe Thomas Aquinas is just a man with no direct line as to what the creator of the universe wants and feels.. well then he's a monster. Advocating the murder of those who disagree with him.
His logic only works in the mind of a complete megalomaniac. It allows no room for the beliefs of other's who feel differently. Today we label it as unbelievably cruel, and righfully so.
Now how can the church claim any sort of "objective morality" when one day it's not only ok, but God's will to murder non-believers and another day it is no longer acceptable and will get you punished by God?
These are not the teachings nor the teachers to build a moral framework around.0 -
Of course, I don't understand how any Christian supports capital punishment in the first place...but so many of them do, so what do I know
I don't understand that, either. I am pro-life and that means conception to natural death. Caveat being self-defense and I think that's where some people try to twist and justify capital punishment.0 -
At least I'm consistent as an Atheist. I believe in the the death penalty and abortion. I even believe in euthanasia if someone is terminally ill. In fact I'm going to start a thread on it!
Of course, I don't understand how any Christian supports capital punishment in the first place...but so many of them do, so what do I know
I don't understand that, either. I am pro-life and that means conception to natural death. Caveat being self-defense and I think that's where some people try to twist and justify capital punishment.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
At least I'm consistent as an Atheist. I believe in the the death penalty and abortion. I even believe in euthanasia if someone is terminally ill. In fact I'm going to start a thread on it!
I worked in a korean orphanage, so I guess I also support euthanasia0 -
I worked in a korean orphanage, so I guess I also support euthanasia
Give her a big hand ladies and gentlemen! She'll be here all week!0 -
I worked in a korean orphanage, so I guess I also support euthanasia
Give her a big hand ladies and gentlemen! She'll be here all week!
I didn't say what *kind* of work I did there...
0 -
Okay I've been sitting on this and no christian will bring it up so I guess I'll have to.
So Isiah 7:14 is usually the verse where christians will claim that jesus was born of a virgin.
Translation and words have significance. If they don't then we can make up any definition for a word that we want. For instance if I say truck, though it's a vehicle for transportation, it's different from a car. Just like when you say jacket or shirt. Though they cover the body, they are 2 different items. So in Hebrew here is the verse:
hinneh ha‘almah harah veyoledet ben; veqara’t shemo ‘immanu ’el
If you look at the definition for "almah" in Hebrew it's translated as "young woman or maiden"
When the bible was translated into Greek, the Greek word "partenos" was used which in Greek means "virgin".
Now apologetics will say that a "young woman or maiden" back in that day was of marriageble age and probably a virgin, but really if the scripture was really talking about a "virgin" there is a Hebrew word to distinctly define it. The word is "bethulah". So like I mentioned earlier, words are important especially if we're talking about one of the most important descriptions of a person who is to be jesus mother according to prophecy.
If the significance of the Mary was that of a "virgin" then why was "bethulah" not used instead of "almah" so that NO ONE would be confused? As you can see, translations can have problems. In fact the catholic church has recently just started changing responses in mass because the translations from Latin weren't being used correctly.
If the translation was wrong, then this jesus wasn't born of a virgin after all. And that IMO would dismiss his "divinity" making his "story" just a copy cat of other man-gods of Greek mythology. If I were a betting man and DNA profiling was available back then, I would bet that Joseph is the father of jesus.
Carry on now.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0
This discussion has been closed.