What is good about religion?

scotth said:
No.

According to Jesus, all the laws of the old testament still stand. He was quite specific about that in a number of locations.

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Click to expand...


The interpretation here is dubious at best, because there are contradicting passages.
 
Upchurch said:
No, because orthodoxy has been extremely successful in convincing people that is what religion is and anything else is not religion.
Click to expand...

No my point is, since orthodoxy has so badly stained the term, why hold on to it?

I happen to think the swastika is a pretty cool symbol -- but I wouldn't go ahead and use it for my club, simply arguing with everyone who criticized me and saying "well the nazis were bad, yeah, but really that doesn't mean swastikas in general are bad."

No, I simply say f--- it, and get another symbol. It just seems like a battle that doesn't need to be fought.
 
rocketdodger said:
*laughs* Is that you Kleinman?

JetLeg, the whole point is that if humans typically thought for themselves, instead of following idiots and their "taught" moralities, then Hitler would have been the only one (or only one of a few) who thought that way.
Click to expand...

1) You have to follow the right taught morality.
2) It has to be taught by god and not by someone else.
 
JetLeg said:
1) You have to follow the right taught morality.
2) It has to be taught by god and not by someone else.
Click to expand...

Seriously, next time you spot God leading a class on any topic at all, let me know. I want to sign up.
 
scotth said:
Jesus also tells everyone to give away everything, reject their own family, etc. (Do I need to quote chapter and verse again? I can do it all day long)
Click to expand...

That would be complete lunacy, if taken literally, so one needs an interpretation here.
 
JetLeg said:
That would be complete lunacy, if taken literally, so one needs an interpretation here.
Click to expand...

I agree with the lunacy bit, but you'll have to show me where anything I quoted should be taken as anything but literally.

I understand the parables were not literal, but these were not those.
 
scotth said:
I agree with the lunacy bit, but you'll have to show me where anything I quoted should be taken as anything but literally.

I understand the parables were not literal, but these were not those.
Click to expand...

It's simple.

You have a spiritual text. And in it there are things about loving your brother, and being good. So, you can assume that the writer is not a lunatic.

Then you see that he says "Sell all of your belongings". So, you can safely assume that he did not mean that literally, since then it would be lunacy.
 
Or...

You have a spiritual text. And in it there are things about selling all of your belongings. So, you can assume the writer is a lunatic.

Then you see he says "Love your brother". So you can safely assume he did not mean that literally, since he's a lunatic.
 
JetLeg said:
1) You have to follow the right taught morality.
2) It has to be taught by god and not by someone else.
Click to expand...

JetLeg with this post you have succeeded in showing, better than any of us atheists, why religion has got to go.
 
JetLeg said:
It's simple.

You have a spiritual text. And in it there are things about loving your brother, and being good. So, you can assume that the writer is not a lunatic.

Then you see that he says "Sell all of your belongings". So, you can safely assume that he did not mean that literally, since then it would be lunacy.
Click to expand...

No, it's just simple minded (and completely without logic).

There is no reason to make that assumption at all, other than it makes you feel good to think that way.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Or...

You have a spiritual text. And in it there are things about selling all of your belongings. So, you can assume the writer is a lunatic.

Then you see he says "Love your brother". So you can safely assume he did not mean that literally, since he's a lunatic.
Click to expand...

He can't deny that your statement is 100% as logically sound. (Well, he can, but he won't have a leg to stand on, so to speak)
 
scotth said:
He can't deny that your statement is 100% as logically sound. (Well, he can, but he won't have a leg to stand on, so to speak)
Click to expand...

Nope, I can't. This is a bit confusing.


But when reading the philosophy of someone, should you not give him at least the benefit of the doubt that he is not a lunatic?
 
JetLeg said:
Why?
Click to expand...

1) You cannot assume someone is not a lunatic just because some of their speech seems reasonable. Virtually every lunatic says much that make perfect sense. Even if I let you by on that, we would have to assume this long list of things is true, not of which I am prepared to grant you:
a) Jesus existed in anything like the biblical presentation
b) That he was divine
c) Or that the most reasonable explanation of the bible is something other than it was the work of fevered bronze aged imagination.

2) And the text you suggest that needs an interpretation clearly doesn't. It is very clear, direct, and repulsive. And, nowhere in the surrounding text is the tiniest clue that it was meant to be taken in any way other than literally. And even if we did decide it needed interpretting.... if the bible doesn't mean what it says is means, who am I to trust to know what it REALLY meant?
 
JetLeg said:
Nope, I can't. This is a bit confusing.


But when reading the philosophy of someone, should you not give him at least the benefit of the doubt that he is not a lunatic?
Click to expand...

When something is claiming to be the Inspired Word of God(tm), why should I give it any benefit of any doubt? Why should God suck so bad at being lucid when so many humans have done so much better?

ETA: It seems such a low mark (being a better writer than lets say Shakespeare) for a being with the purported attributes of god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom