Ed Christianity Foments Villainy

[Leumas]

Leumas, you still seem to be arguing from the perspective that it's supposed to be some kind of legal or at least moral guide, and that it fails if it doesn't do that. In fact it wasn't. Paul outright proposes to throw away the rules wholesale.

You have to understand that these were apocalypse believers. They believed that not only the apocalypse is right around the corner, but it (or at least the messianic age) had ALREADY begun. Ehrman has some great talks about apocalypticists back then. (And it occurs to me that I sure promote him a lot, when I disagree with his main conclusion about HJ)

It's like, dunno, if you were in Hiroshima on Monday 30 July 1945 and KNOW that in exactly one week, the bomb falls. You don't have the time to give a flip about whether Tanaka is beating up his wife, and Daisuke is sleeping with his son's widow, and Yui prostitutes herself, and Subaru actually murdered a man in the riots after the great interwar earthquake, and whatnot. Giving them rules is kinda pointless compared to getting them the f-bomb out of the city. Just follow that guy out of the city, don't worry about anything else.

THAT is the kind of subculture and attitude in which Paul happens. (That and IMHO his claiming textbook schizophrenia syndromes is probably also not helping there.)

So OF COURSE he doesn't give a flip about following the rules, he only cares about getting the message to as many people as possible. The same things that for you are a failure, for him they're not even important.

Yes ... we know that... but the believing rubes do not and think that it is a morals book as painfully evinced by them ubiquitously and incessantly telling us that without their deadbeat sky daddy and his book of immorals (the bits they like) atheists are eating babies.

 

[Leumas]

Who exactly do you think you are "exposing" it to?

Apologists and casuists lurking around and any other christians too.

 

[Leumas]

...
I am not defending the fakery--I am trying to point out the mistake of aggressive, overstated, highly subjective conclusions about others' belief systems.

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” ―Thomas Jefferson​

I don't disagree with much if not most of your basic conclusions about christianity or religion in general.

Good... QED!!!

I take issue with your specific interpretations of scripture and maybe if I win the lottery I could have fun with a long pointless drawn out discussion of them,

If you had read the OP you would see that it is neither YOUR nor my interpretations that matter as far as the OP is concerned... it is the interpretation of the villains and brigands and Kings and filthy priests and their filthier confessors and seminary school graduates... and the Popes.

And as evinced by history they have interpreted it exactly as the OP indicates.

but simply put your conclusions are only gonna ring true with fellow atheists (and evidently not all of them either) so other than an exercise for the echo-chamber they serve no useful purpose. IMHO, atheists and critical thinkers need to reach out to others with an olive branch, not a club. Note that does not contradict the need to 'fight fire with fire' as I mentioned earlier--the evil people who use religion as a guise to do harm and self-aggrandise cannot be tolerated by society.

Piffle... as evinced by this...

...
Utter piffle... and is proven hogwash by the writings of just ONE out of numerous people who rive your statement to smithereens.

We certainly didn't need this thread to inform us of that simple fact.

Evidently by the clearly false statements above you did need it as is also evinced by your indefatigable acrimonious struggle against it.

But thanks for telling us all that this forum is pointless and no one need to post anything it.

In the mean time here is more proof of your statements being abjectly wrong.

Conclusion
This study aimed to consolidate current psychological knowledge about deconversion through theory building. The resulting theoretical model of deconversion depicts this phenomenon as a process, a gradual change, in which the degree of belief wanes over time and is marked by significant events. This process reveals an interaction of three interrelated factors: reason and enquiry, criticism and discontent, and personal development. Deconversion therefore appears to be driven by an intellectual impetus, by moral appraisals of beliefs and institutionalized religion, and by overcoming internal conflicts. Furthermore, this process does not occur in isolation but rather within the context of family, friends and community, and also the wider context of society as a whole. These findings are consistent with previous insights from the literature on deconversion.

 

[Leumas]

I am not defending the fakery...

can you answer this please

Let me give you a parable so that you might see but not perceive.... just like Jesus

Four people walking down road.... they come across a carrion...

"A": Says let's share it
"B": says are you crazy it is fetid and rife with filth I want nothing to do with it
"C": says ok and takes 1/3rd and starts cutting away the putrid parts trimming away the obviously filthy stuff and cooks it and eats it.
"A": takes his 1/3rd and proceeds to eat it raw ignoring the filth and muck.
"D": takes his 1/3rd and picks the filth and gunk and starts eating that and then grabs a passerby and SELLS him the relatively cleaner 1/3rd of the carrion​

Can you collate the persons in order of who is least disgusting to most disgusting???
Do you affirm that there was filth and muck in the carrion but prefer to remind us that there was good meat still there???​

 

[Myriad]

Wow... what amazing clueless casuistry...

Yay, you've demonstrated that they executed some people for various crimes. (Like every other society of the time, and most before and since as well).

Now you can answer the question I actually asked: did they execute everyone who broke a commandment or advised another individual to break a commandment under specific circumstances?

 

[Myriad]

Ah, the "I have no answer for your argument" dog. Well done!

 

[Leumas]

I think he is, because he claimed the passage would justify executing Jesus for advocating (arguable) violations of Old Testament commandments. Did the Jews try to execute everyone who violated a commandment, or who urged another individual to violate a commandment in specific circumstances? Obviously not, or there wouldn't have been any Jews (as no teenagers would have ever survived the Fifth Commandment). The death penalty prescribed in the quoted verses applies to prophets who advocated different gods, not people who said things like "how 'bout let's not be total dicks to men who don't have total dicks." That's the important qualifier that the abridgment concealed.

Wow... what amazing clueless casuistry....

• John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
• John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
• Acts 7:57-58 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
• 9 And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.

Yay, you've demonstrated that they executed some people for various crimes. (Like every other society of the time, and most before and since as well).

Now you can answer the question I actually asked: did they execute everyone who broke a commandment or advised another individual to break a commandment under specific circumstances?

 

[Leumas]

Ah, the "I have no answer for your argument" dog. Well done!

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them;...” ―Thomas Jefferson​

 

[Myriad]

And I'm telling you that a lot of the things he says or does in the books would realistically get him killed. By the time of John, we've moved away from Mark's hush-hush Jesus, to someone who may as well be wearing an "I'm the messiah, bitch!" t-shirt because that's all he's talking about. Hell, he actually does an armed attack on the temple in John, and not even at the end of it all, but before his ministry.

"Messiah" didn't mean a different god. It meant a divinely anointed king (the word literally meant "anointed one") like David (and of David's lineage) who would deliver the Jews from foreign rule and restore a past glorious age. A MJGA hat would be more suitable.

And yes, such a claim would realistically get him killed, and, oh look, he got killed. I guess the story is realistic in that sense after all.

But it has nothing to do with Leumas's strange claim that under the laws of Judea at the time, Jesus should have been executed as a false prophet based on Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and/or various Mosaic laws.

 

[Leumas]

Jesus.
Such a villain!
He should have been crucified!

According to the Old Tall tales, that is exactly what it says should have been done to him... especially when you take things like what he said in Matthew 19:12 and compare it to Deuteronomy 23:1-2... or what he said in Matthew 8:22 and compare it to the 5th commandment (Exodus 20:12).

• Deuteronomy 13:1-5 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass... Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for YHWH your God proveth you, to know whether ye love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul... keep his commandments... and that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death....

And did Jesus tell them to follow or worship other gods? (You know, like it says in the part of your quote that somehow accidentally got turned into ellipsis.) What verse was that in?

Yes... himself... as the second god in the trinity of gods.

• John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
• 1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one.
• John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
• John 8:58-59 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Also see these verses ... did Jesus break all of those??

• Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you.
• Deuteronomy 4:40 Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which YHWH thy God giveth thee, for ever.

I think he is, because he claimed the passage would justify executing Jesus for advocating (arguable) violations of Old Testament commandments. Did the Jews try to execute everyone who violated a commandment, or who urged another individual to violate a commandment in specific circumstances? Obviously not, or there wouldn't have been any Jews (as no teenagers would have ever survived the Fifth Commandment). The death penalty prescribed in the quoted verses applies to prophets who advocated different gods, not people who said things like "how 'bout let's not be total dicks to men who don't have total dicks." That's the important qualifier that the abridgment concealed.

Wow... what amazing clueless casuistry....

• John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
• John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
• Acts 7:57-58 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
• 9 And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.

Yay, you've demonstrated that they executed some people for various crimes. (Like every other society of the time, and most before and since as well).

Now you can answer the question I actually asked: did they execute everyone who broke a commandment or advised another individual to break a commandment under specific circumstances?

"Messiah" didn't mean a different god. It meant a divinely anointed king (the word literally meant "anointed one") like David (and of David's lineage) who would deliver the Jews from foreign rule and restore a past glorious age. A MJGA hat would be more suitable.

And yes, such a claim would realistically get him killed, and, oh look, he got killed. I guess the story is realistic in that sense after all.

But it has nothing to do with Leumas's strange claim that under the laws of Judea at the time, Jesus should have been executed as a false prophet based on Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and/or various Mosaic laws.

 

[xjx388]

Leumas, I think your arguments are much too broadly applied and thus, a bit too simplistic.

Here, you are arguing with people who agree with your conclusions, but not your broad-brush condemnation of the entire Christian philosophy and by extension, every adherent.

And, by and large, you will find that modern Christian adherents, the everyday kind, aren’t actually looking for how their philosophy can be used to harm others and are instead picking and choosing to follow only the good parts. Are there people who are picking the parts that let them do evil? Of course. But that does not suffice as a means to condemn it all.

“Don’t criticize what you can’t understand.” -Bob Dylan

For starters, you could start by understanding that there is no such thing as absolute “good” and “”evil.” Those are human inventions and there is no agreed upon final definition. Next, you could take some time to understand the various Christian definitions of those terms. You will find that you are operating from different frameworks of those concepts. You are judging Christians based on your external framework and that framework and those judgements are, therefore, utterly meaningless to them.

“Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything.” -Richard Dawkins

I think this quote says a lot. Religion can be a basis for evil-doing, but so can a lot of things, including atheistic philosophy. I quibble with Dawkins on one thing: humans are the root of all concepts of good and evil because we invented them. The natural world cares not a whit for such trivialities.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas, I think your arguments are much too broadly applied and thus, a bit too simplistic.

Your faulty reasoning is why you perceive it that way!!

Here, you are arguing with people who agree with your conclusions,

When you said something reasonable I acknowledged it by saying QED... no argument there... so again you are stating a falsity!!!

but not your broad-brush condemnation of the entire Christian philosophy and by extension, every adherent.

Your assertion is abject piffle.

but not your broad-brush condemnation of the entire Christian philosophy

.... in 2022 we can see that this "philosophy" is an abject turpitude because it says that a slave mongering ethnic cleansing voodoo prescribing human sacrifice demanding racist bigoted bronze age tribal deity had been letting fester for millennia a grudge he had against a callow couple he made out of mud because they were beguiled into eating from the forbidden fruit of a magic tree by a walking talking snake.

And all he could do to alleviate his festering grudge is divide himself into three parts and send 1/3rd to go inveigle a married little girl into letting him shove the other 1/3rd inside her to sit there twiddling his thumbs for 9 months... then slither out to yet again do nothing for 30 more years ... not even lift a finger to stave off the extirpation of little children he precipitated with his avarice for gold and inept incompetence and bungling of a GPStar... and instead ran off to hide in Egypt.

And that is just the beginning of the grotesque "philosophy"

To cut a long risible melodramatic farce short... he pretended to die after having had a weekend of BDSM with some domineering guys in leather uniforms and then hopped on a cloud and flew up up and awaaaaayyyyy to outer space... to sit on a sequined throne next to....well.... himself.

And after all that ... he failed ... and now has to come back and take a mulligan to fix yet another of his countless bunglings.

What rational person in 2022 thinks this is a philosophy let alone not an insanity.

And, by and large, you will find that modern Christian adherents, the everyday kind, aren’t actually looking for how their philosophy can be used to harm others and are instead picking and choosing to follow only the good parts. Are there people who are picking the parts that let them do evil? Of course. But that does not suffice as a means to condemn it all.

Yet again you keep proving that you have not read the OP... but by now we know that you have because you said so... so this irrelevant red herring is clearly an intentional one.

“Don’t criticize what you can’t understand.” -Bob Dylan
<snip abjectly irrelevant to the OP prattle>

Yup... you need to heed that advice.



ETA: and you are still evading answering my questions here



.

 

[xjx388]

Your faulty reasoning is why you perceive it that way!!




When you said something reasonable I acknowledged it by saying QED... no argument there... so again you are stating a falsity!!!




Your assertion is abject piffle.



.... in 2022 we can see that this "philosophy" is an abject turpitude because it says that a slave mongering ethnic cleansing voodoo prescribing human sacrifice demanding racist bigoted bronze age tribal deity had been letting fester for millennia a grudge he had against a callow couple he made out of mud because they were beguiled into eating from the forbidden fruit of a magic tree by a walking talking snake.

And all he could do to alleviate his festering grudge is divide himself into three parts and send 1/3rd to go inveigle a married little girl into letting him shove the other 1/3rd inside her to sit there twiddling his thumbs for 9 months... then slither out to yet again do nothing for 30 more years ... not even lift a finger to stave off the extirpation of little children he precipitated with his avarice for gold and inept incompetence and bungling of a GPStar... and instead ran off to hide in Egypt.

And that is just the beginning of the grotesque "philosophy"

To cut a long risible melodramatic farce short... he pretended to die after having had a weekend of BDSM with some domineering guys in leather uniforms and then hopped on a cloud and flew up up and awaaaaayyyyy to outer space... to sit on a sequined throne next to....well.... himself.

And after all that ... he failed ... and now has to come back and take a mulligan to fix yet another of his countless bunglings.

What rational person in 2022 thinks this is a philosophy let alone not an insanity.




Yet again you keep proving that you have not read the OP... but by now we know that you have because you said so... so this irrelevant red herring is clearly an intentional one.




Yup... you need to heed that advice.



ETA: and you are still evading answering my questions here



.

Right-o…you aren’t listening. You acknowledge the parts you agree with and gloss over the rest in order to hand wave it away.

And I’m not evading your questions, I’m ignoring them for the abject piffle they are.

 

[Leumas]

Right-o…you aren’t listening. You acknowledge the parts you agree with and gloss over the rest in order to hand wave it away.

And I’m not evading your questions, I’m ignoring them for the abject piffle they are.

Exactly what all theists I have ever asked these questions to also said... I bet you will never dare answer them.

 

[xjx388]

Let me give you a parable so that you might see but not perceive.... just like Jesus

Four people walking down road.... they come across a carrion...

"A": Says let's share it
"B": says are you crazy it is fetid and rife with filth I want nothing to do with it
"C": says ok and takes 1/3rd and starts cutting away the putrid parts trimming away the obviously filthy stuff and cooks it and eats it.
"A": takes his 1/3rd and proceeds to eat it raw ignoring the filth and muck.
"D": takes his 1/3rd and picks the filth and gunk and starts eating that and then grabs a passerby and SELLS him the relatively cleaner 1/3rd of the carrion​

Can you collate the persons in order of who is least disgusting to most disgusting???
Do you affirm that there was filth and muck in the carrion but prefer to remind us that there was good meat still there???​

B
ACD

Eating that is just nasty. I’d rather starve.

 

[Leumas]

B
ACD

Eating that is just nasty. I’d rather starve.

See that was not so hard was it.... can you now explain what the parable is a metaphor for?


Hint: read your post to which the parable was given as an answer.



.

 

[xjx388]

See that was not so hard was it.... can you now explain what the parable is a metaphor for?


Hint: read your post to which the parable was given as an answer.



.

Why are you approaching this as some kind of Socratic teaching thing? Obviously, you are making a metaphor between the carcass and religion. Which is why I said I would rather leave the carcass for the disgusting thing it is.

You don’t need to teach me anything and the attitude is condescending. This would go a lot better if you drop the Wise Man attitude and actually engaged in debate.

 

[acbytesla]

Leumas, I think your arguments are much too broadly applied and thus, a bit too simplistic.

Here, you are arguing with people who agree with your conclusions, but not your broad-brush condemnation of the entire Christian philosophy and by extension, every adherent.

And, by and large, you will find that modern Christian adherents, the everyday kind, aren’t actually looking for how their philosophy can be used to harm others and are instead picking and choosing to follow only the good parts. Are there people who are picking the parts that let them do evil? Of course. But that does not suffice as a means to condemn it all.

“Don’t criticize what you can’t understand.” -Bob Dylan

For starters, you could start by understanding that there is no such thing as absolute “good” and “”evil.” Those are human inventions and there is no agreed upon final definition. Next, you could take some time to understand the various Christian definitions of those terms. You will find that you are operating from different frameworks of those concepts. You are judging Christians based on your external framework and that framework and those judgements are, therefore, utterly meaningless to them.

“Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything.” -Richard Dawkins

I think this quote says a lot. Religion can be a basis for evil-doing, but so can a lot of things, including atheistic philosophy. I quibble with Dawkins on one thing: humans are the root of all concepts of good and evil because we invented them. The natural world cares not a whit for such trivialities.

I consider myself not only a atheist, but an antithiest. I am fervently against pretty much all religions. Especially the one I use to be somewhat a member of. I value skepticism and logic above anything else.

That said I agree with XJX on this Leumas.

 

[Leumas]

I consider myself not only an atheist, but an antithiest. I am fervently against pretty much all religions. Especially the one I use to be somewhat a member of. I value skepticism and logic above anything else.

That said I agree with XJX on this Leumas.

OK... why don't you answer the questions in this post then???

 

[Leumas]

I value skepticism and logic above anything else.

I am convinced that you indeed do....


However... can you please tell me...


Do you think that it is ok for person to believe that a mass murderer can be in heaven while the people he massacred can be in hell?