http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwuUKlArgps
He comes off like a fucking petulant child.
"Well I didn't vote for 'im."
As a communist, I would think he would already have an understanding of compulsory love and fear from an establishment figure.
Yes. He is a tool. Part of being a Euro.
I liked it.
Oh, Hitchslap. I get it.
Russians aren't Europeans really, Raz.
Thousands of preachers get up every week and preach their version of the gospel, koran, whatever.
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
I mean, most of what he says is absolutely correct. The idea that human (or demi-human) sacrifice as a means of salvation is in fact morally pretty tough to justify...isn't it?
He's ranting about a religious practice that hasn't taken place for two thousand years. That seems a bit silly. But he's one of your "tribe", isn't he Berkut? Purple Dragxi etc.
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
Thousands of preachers get up every week and preach their version of the gospel, koran, whatever.
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
I mean, most of what he says is absolutely correct. The idea that human (or demi-human) sacrifice as a means of salvation is in fact morally pretty tough to justify...isn't it?
It's not human sacrifice - it's
self-sacrifice. You know, the same kind of sacrifice you make for your kids, or your parents make for you.
Look - believe in Christianity or not - I don't care. (well I care somewhat, but it's a free country). But as an attack this one is pretty lame.
Quote from: Barrister on August 09, 2011, 11:27:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
Thousands of preachers get up every week and preach their version of the gospel, koran, whatever.
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
I mean, most of what he says is absolutely correct. The idea that human (or demi-human) sacrifice as a means of salvation is in fact morally pretty tough to justify...isn't it?
It's not human sacrifice - it's self-sacrifice. You know, the same kind of sacrifice you make for your kids, or your parents make for you.
Look - believe in Christianity or not - I don't care. (well I care somewhat, but it's a free country). But as an attack this one is pretty lame.
I cannot expunge the sins of my children via sacrifice. Their moral obligation for their actions is not effected in any way by anything I do.
If my kid murders someone, there is nothing *I* can do to take away their guilt. There is no sacrifice, of self or otherwise, I can make that can expunge their guilt. The idea that someone killing themselves in order to atone for others sin is in fact morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality.
I might agree that as an attack on the concept of god dying so he can forgive us of sins we never actually committed ourselves it is pretty weak - but only because the entire idea is so ludicrous that it does seem a little odd to pick on that one aspect of worth of attention.
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2011, 12:01:31 AM
The idea that someone killing themselves in order to atone for others sin is in fact morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality.
You're going to have to explain that one to me, because I do not follow at all how it is "morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality".
and please - this is a serious question, and I will refrain from ad homs and the like. I'm sure you can come up with some 'clever' quip to answer my question, but I am not interested in scoring points. I would appreciate a serious answer, if you care to give one. :)
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2011, 12:01:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 09, 2011, 11:27:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
Thousands of preachers get up every week and preach their version of the gospel, koran, whatever.
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
I mean, most of what he says is absolutely correct. The idea that human (or demi-human) sacrifice as a means of salvation is in fact morally pretty tough to justify...isn't it?
It's not human sacrifice - it's self-sacrifice. You know, the same kind of sacrifice you make for your kids, or your parents make for you.
Look - believe in Christianity or not - I don't care. (well I care somewhat, but it's a free country). But as an attack this one is pretty lame.
I cannot expunge the sins of my children via sacrifice. Their moral obligation for their actions is not effected in any way by anything I do.
If my kid murders someone, there is nothing *I* can do to take away their guilt. There is no sacrifice, of self or otherwise, I can make that can expunge their guilt. The idea that someone killing themselves in order to atone for others sin is in fact morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality.
I might agree that as an attack on the concept of god dying so he can forgive us of sins we never actually committed ourselves it is pretty weak - but only because the entire idea is so ludicrous that it does seem a little odd to pick on that one aspect of worth of attention.
You could plea guilty for the murder. Claim you did it. While it may not assuage guilt in the moral sense you could prevent your child from being punished.
Quote from: Barrister on August 10, 2011, 12:10:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2011, 12:01:31 AM
The idea that someone killing themselves in order to atone for others sin is in fact morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality.
You're going to have to explain that one to me, because I do not follow at all how it is "morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality".
and please - this is a serious question, and I will refrain from ad homs and the like. I'm sure you can come up with some 'clever' quip to answer my question, but I am not interested in scoring points. I would appreciate a serious answer, if you care to give one. :)
The basic story of Christ is that it was *necessary* for him to be tortured and murdered in order to atone for the sins of humanity (and even the idea of shared guilt for things one has not done is morally reprehensible). I am not sure how I can explain that a moral system that requires human sacrifice (even if it is fake human sacrifice since Christ was not actually human, and didn't actually die) to forgive the sins of others is not moral beyond the obvious.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 12:30:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2011, 12:01:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 09, 2011, 11:27:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
Thousands of preachers get up every week and preach their version of the gospel, koran, whatever.
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
I mean, most of what he says is absolutely correct. The idea that human (or demi-human) sacrifice as a means of salvation is in fact morally pretty tough to justify...isn't it?
It's not human sacrifice - it's self-sacrifice. You know, the same kind of sacrifice you make for your kids, or your parents make for you.
Look - believe in Christianity or not - I don't care. (well I care somewhat, but it's a free country). But as an attack this one is pretty lame.
I cannot expunge the sins of my children via sacrifice. Their moral obligation for their actions is not effected in any way by anything I do.
If my kid murders someone, there is nothing *I* can do to take away their guilt. There is no sacrifice, of self or otherwise, I can make that can expunge their guilt. The idea that someone killing themselves in order to atone for others sin is in fact morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality.
I might agree that as an attack on the concept of god dying so he can forgive us of sins we never actually committed ourselves it is pretty weak - but only because the entire idea is so ludicrous that it does seem a little odd to pick on that one aspect of worth of attention.
You could plea guilty for the murder. Claim you did it.
That would be more immoral, since it would be allowing the guilty to escape punishment or the consequences of their actions.
Quote
While it may not assuage guilt in the moral sense you could prevent your child from being punished.
Which would not reduce the child's moral guilt one bit.
Of course, maybe you could have this make sense...
What if the child was falsely accused by some morally unjust actor, and then the parent is simply accepting the punishment in order to save the child. That would, perhaps, even be noble. And since the basic concept of "sin" that presumably requires Christs fake murder is itself grotesquely immoral, this could work.
Of course, then you have a moral system where God has set themselves up as the false accuser. So that might have some few problems itself...
I can actually remember in confirmation class in 6th grade really struggling with the entire concept of huamn guilt and the idea that Christ was necessary to expunge that guilt. The entire story simply made no logical sense at all to the extent that each step simply did not follow from the step before it. I was very surprised everyone, including my pastor, simply accepted it without question.
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2011, 07:03:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 10, 2011, 12:10:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2011, 12:01:31 AM
The idea that someone killing themselves in order to atone for others sin is in fact morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality.
You're going to have to explain that one to me, because I do not follow at all how it is "morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality".
and please - this is a serious question, and I will refrain from ad homs and the like. I'm sure you can come up with some 'clever' quip to answer my question, but I am not interested in scoring points. I would appreciate a serious answer, if you care to give one. :)
The basic story of Christ is that it was *necessary* for him to be tortured and murdered in order to atone for the sins of humanity (and even the idea of shared guilt for things one has not done is morally reprehensible). I am not sure how I can explain that a moral system that requires human sacrifice (even if it is fake human sacrifice since Christ was not actually human, and didn't actually die) to forgive the sins of others is not moral beyond the obvious.
Doesn't this tie in to a tradition of assuming debt at the time, even moral debt? Sons assuming the sins/debts of the fathers. Family members paying restitution for crimes committed etc. The family or clan unit being far more important to life than the individual.
Regardless, the reason I posted this was that I found the argument so inane. Some of my best friends are atheists, and while I worry for their souls (though frankly no more than for my own. Perhaps, indeed, far less given that as a nominal believer I have a far greater responsibility than a non-believer.) I have nothing against them for it. I just find it hilarious how people can worship at this man's altar when his rhetoric is not any more logically compelling than that of your average Mufti.
Quote from: Barrister on August 09, 2011, 11:27:36 PM
It's not human sacrifice - it's self-sacrifice. You know, the same kind of sacrifice you make for your kids, or your parents make for you.
Look - believe in Christianity or not - I don't care. (well I care somewhat, but it's a free country). But as an attack this one is pretty lame.
I don't know man. The story almost suggests that if the Romans and the Sanhedrin had decided to be cool with Jesus and he died peacefully in his bed surrounded by his followers then our sins would never be forgiven. So should we therefore be cheering the Romans on? I get the triumph of the spirit over the death and all that but the blood sacrifice element just seems like some traditional pagan mumbo-jumbo superstition thrown in there.
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2011, 08:51:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 09, 2011, 11:27:36 PM
It's not human sacrifice - it's self-sacrifice. You know, the same kind of sacrifice you make for your kids, or your parents make for you.
Look - believe in Christianity or not - I don't care. (well I care somewhat, but it's a free country). But as an attack this one is pretty lame.
I don't know man. The story almost suggests that if the Romans and the Sanhedrin had decided to be cool with Jesus and he died peacefully in his bed surrounded by his followers then our sins would never be forgiven. So should we therefore be cheering the Romans on? I get the triumph of the spirit over the death and all that but the blood sacrifice element just seems like some traditional pagan mumbo-jumbo superstition thrown in there.
It's certainly how I read it.
Both Judas and the Romans were necessary tools for the events to unfold in a desireable direction.
An argument could of course be made that despite being necessary conductors, the choices they made that placed them in those positions were still in and of themselves "sinful".
But then, the Bible is at first glance full of contradictions and it's certainly not easy to get a good picture of what the message actually is which is made very evident in the amount of dissent and sectarianism.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2011, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.
Agreed. If there is one problem in religious sphere, it's that atheist viewpoint gets crammed down our throats.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2011, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2011, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.
Agreed. If there is one problem in religious sphere, it's that atheist viewpoint gets crammed down our throats.
Well, I would say it's a pretty minor problem compared to the far more pressing issues of religious fundamentalism.
However, it is certainly irritating to have the atheist viewpoint pushed so hard in entertainment and especially so in a more or less completely secular country where actually saying out right "I believe in God" is almost as fruitful as declaring your love of carnal intimacy with babies.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2011, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2011, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.
Agreed. If there is one problem in religious sphere, it's that atheist viewpoint gets crammed down our throats.
What I find funny is Berkut's knee Jerk defense of Hitch after he calls us all "tribal".
All the mystery religions of around 100-50 BCE were a bit whacked. One became a state religion of Roman empire and now we are still trying to figure out how somone who, according to Canon, was God, died, but stayed as God, somehow saved someone living 2000+ years later.
If you had not grown up with that as your faith BB, you have to admit, it would be a tough sell.
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2011, 07:03:15 AM
The basic story of Christ is that it was *necessary* for him to be tortured and murdered in order to atone for the sins of humanity (and even the idea of shared guilt for things one has not done is morally reprehensible). I am not sure how I can explain that a moral system that requires human sacrifice (even if it is fake human sacrifice since Christ was not actually human, and didn't actually die) to forgive the sins of others is not moral beyond the obvious.
I think you simply don't understand the story, and so are re-writing it to fit your own purposes.
I would agree that the whole crucifiction* thing is overdone and more than a bit simplistic and even silly, but that someone had to fake their own death to pull it off isn't really a moral issue. In the story, Jesus had to die so that the gates of heaven got unlocked, as I understand it. No one got autoforgiven as a result; what happened was that the level cap was lifted and people could level into heaven, if they had enough karma points to do so.
* not mis-spelled
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
All the mystery religions of around 100-50 BCE were a bit whacked. One became a state religion of Roman empire and now we are still trying to figure out how somone who, according to Canon, was God, died, but stayed as God, somehow saved someone living 2000+ years later.
If you had not grown up with that as your faith BB, you have to admit, it would be a tough sell.
Missionaries do a fairly good job.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
All the mystery religions of around 100-50 BCE were a bit whacked. One became a state religion of Roman empire and now we are still trying to figure out how somone who, according to Canon, was God, died, but stayed as God, somehow saved someone living 2000+ years later.
If you had not grown up with that as your faith BB, you have to admit, it would be a tough sell.
Given how christianity has spread, evidently not THAT tough a sell, even if some salespeople did grantedly resort to rather violent methods of preaching. :D
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2011, 07:06:53 AM
That would be more immoral, since it would be allowing the guilty to escape punishment or the consequences of their actions.
That's not necessarily immoral. I can think of many cases in which the moral outcome is that the guilty escapes punishment.
QuoteI can actually remember in confirmation class in 6th grade really struggling with the entire concept of huamn guilt and the idea that Christ was necessary to expunge that guilt. The entire story simply made no logical sense at all to the extent that each step simply did not follow from the step before it. I was very surprised everyone, including my pastor, simply accepted it without question.
It is a retcon of the Osiris story, and retcons seldom make much sense.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2011, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.
And it's so fucking shrill and self congratulatory. There is a very strong aspect of "I'm an Atheist and this is what makes me smarter then you".
Quote from: grumbler on August 10, 2011, 11:04:31 AM
It is a retcon of the Osiris story, and retcons seldom make much sense.
I thought you knew better then to read books recommended by Crazy Canuck.
It might just be because I live in Texas but I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Quote from: grumbler on August 10, 2011, 10:58:15 AM
I would agree that the whole crucifiction* thing is overdone and more than a bit simplistic and even silly, but that someone had to fake their own death to pull it off isn't really a moral issue. In the story, Jesus had to die so that the gates of heaven got unlocked, as I understand it. No one got autoforgiven as a result; what happened was that the level cap was lifted and people could level into heaven, if they had enough karma points to do so.
* not mis-spelled
:D
While I have no idea to what extent your remark is a joke, this kind of "clever" witticism really makes you look like nothing but a gigantic jackass.
"
Heh heh crucifiction *chortle* we atheists are so clever"
No. You're really not.
Sure, the guy who initially thought of it was clever, but repeating something clever doesn't make you clever by proxy. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2011, 09:23:09 AM
Agreed. If there is one problem in religious sphere, it's that atheist viewpoint gets crammed down our throats.
:lol:
And :lol: to the responses, as well.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 11:02:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
All the mystery religions of around 100-50 BCE were a bit whacked. One became a state religion of Roman empire and now we are still trying to figure out how somone who, according to Canon, was God, died, but stayed as God, somehow saved someone living 2000+ years later.
If you had not grown up with that as your faith BB, you have to admit, it would be a tough sell.
Given how christianity has spread, evidently not THAT tough a sell, even if some salespeople did grantedly resort to rather violent methods of preaching. :D
well you were selling it to people who thought nomes lived in trees and stuff , so they were more receptive lol
Quote from: SlagrosHowever, it is certainly irritating to have the atheist viewpoint pushed so hard in entertainment and especially so in a more or less completely secular country where actually saying out right "I believe in God" is almost as fruitful as declaring your love of carnal intimacy with babies.
Maybe it plays better for me here in the States, since I've been confronted with actual surprise and occasional prejudice for being an atheist. People tend to look at you funny, since the atheist content if South Carolina is probably less than 1%. I don't usually bring it up, but if someone wants to talk about Christianity, I'm not going to sit there and lie to them.
And Osiris is pretty cool. I like how he (and Isis and Set) combine a lot of elements that in Biblical myths get separated, specifically Adam and Eve and more obviously Cain and Abel.
Also, one of the grosser sex scenes in mythology. Incest? Check. Necrophilia? Damn straight. The resulting baby has a bird's head? Okay, that might be symbolic.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 12:09:09 PM
Quote from: SlagrosHowever, it is certainly irritating to have the atheist viewpoint pushed so hard in entertainment and especially so in a more or less completely secular country where actually saying out right "I believe in God" is almost as fruitful as declaring your love of carnal intimacy with babies.
Maybe it plays better for me here in the States, since I've been confronted with actual surprise and occasional prejudice for being an atheist. People tend to look at you funny, since the atheist content if South Carolina is probably less than 1%. I don't usually bring it up, but if someone wants to talk about Christianity, I'm not going to sit there and lie to them.
Probably. I think a lot of the confusion in a lot of threads here stems from the fact that it's not just a body of water separating Americans from Europeans in general and Scandinavians in particular.
But in fact, I actually follow the same philosophy you do, so we certainly have common ground as well. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 12:09:09 PM
Quote from: SlagrosHowever, it is certainly irritating to have the atheist viewpoint pushed so hard in entertainment and especially so in a more or less completely secular country where actually saying out right "I believe in God" is almost as fruitful as declaring your love of carnal intimacy with babies.
Maybe it plays better for me here in the States, since I've been confronted with actual surprise and occasional prejudice for being an atheist. People tend to look at you funny, since the atheist content if South Carolina is probably less than 1%. I don't usually bring it up, but if someone wants to talk about Christianity, I'm not going to sit there and lie to them.
And Osiris is pretty cool. I like how he (and Isis and Set) combine a lot of elements that in Biblical myths get separated, specifically Adam and Eve and more obviously Cain and Abel.
Also, one of the grosser sex scenes in mythology. Incest? Check. Necrophilia? Damn straight. The resulting baby has a bird's head? Okay, that might be symbolic.
I think you would a stronger case arguing the similarities between of Dumuzid and Enkimudu and Cain and Abel rather then from Egyptian religion. Both involve an effort to appease a god by both a shepherd and a farmer and both end with the deity favoring the shepherd. Though how exactly it ends is unknown. We do know that Dumuzid the Shepard did not die in that story. He is dragged to the underworld in another story failing to be sufficiently unhappy when his wife (the deity who was appeased) died. Dumzid is referred to in the bible though, where he know as Tammuz. I think one of he prophets complain that women still mourn him as evidence of polytheism still exiting amongst the Jews of that time. It's also good evidence that the Hebrews not only knew of the story but it was once part of their religion.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2011, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2011, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?
Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.
Agreed. If there is one problem in religious sphere, it's that atheist viewpoint gets crammed down our throats.
Fair enough--I don't think a direct connection is possible to establish, but in broad strokes I can see some similarities.
Atheist evangelism was one of those culture shocks for me. I'd never heard of anything similar over here. People simply ignore religion altogether.
It might be just a consequence of the puzzling importance Americans still give to religion, more than anything else.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 11:02:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
All the mystery religions of around 100-50 BCE were a bit whacked. One became a state religion of Roman empire and now we are still trying to figure out how somone who, according to Canon, was God, died, but stayed as God, somehow saved someone living 2000+ years later.
If you had not grown up with that as your faith BB, you have to admit, it would be a tough sell.
Given how christianity has spread, evidently not THAT tough a sell, even if some salespeople did grantedly resort to rather violent methods of preaching. :D
The reasons it spread are are different through the ages. For example the reason the Roman Empire adopted it as its state religion is an interesting study. From that point on the only real question was what form of Christianity would prevail not whether Christianity itself would be dominant in Europe.
There is no great mystery as to how Christianity spread after that - as you said the sales methods were less than moral...
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2011, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 11:02:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
All the mystery religions of around 100-50 BCE were a bit whacked. One became a state religion of Roman empire and now we are still trying to figure out how somone who, according to Canon, was God, died, but stayed as God, somehow saved someone living 2000+ years later.
If you had not grown up with that as your faith BB, you have to admit, it would be a tough sell.
Given how christianity has spread, evidently not THAT tough a sell, even if some salespeople did grantedly resort to rather violent methods of preaching. :D
The reasons it spread are are different through the ages. For example the reason the Roman Empire adopted it as its state religion is an interesting study. From that point on the only real question was what form of Christianity would prevail not whether Christianity itself would be dominant in Europe.
There is no great mystery as to how Christianity spread after that - as you said the sales methods were less than moral...
It would indeed seem like most great leaps forward for christianity have been top-down efforts rather than grass roots first. But still.
Morality is in the eye of the surviving beholder.
Huh. More arguments for my position - my usual one (which I'm not sure if I've said on here before; I'm sorry if I have) is the concept of original sin. Omnipotent, omniscient God makes man. Man promptly fucks it up because man is fallible. Either God is a liar and not omniscient, or else God creates man to take a fall and is a sadist. Thing is, worship of either kind of entity seems at least vaguely immoral.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2011, 02:02:39 PM
Huh. More arguments for my position - my usual one (which I'm not sure if I've said on here before; I'm sorry if I have) is the concept of original sin. Omnipotent, omniscient God makes man. Man promptly fucks it up because man is fallible. Either God is a liar and not omniscient, or else God creates man to take a fall and is a sadist. Thing is, worship of either kind of entity seems at least vaguely immoral.
The Eden story is wierder than that.
God isn't angry at Adam for screwing up - the gods (plural, in that story and only in that story) are
frightened that Adam, and hence humans, may become 'like them', and threaten their power. It is the god's fear that makes them turf Adam & Eve out of the guarden.
Seriously, check it out. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2011, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2011, 02:02:39 PM
Huh. More arguments for my position - my usual one (which I'm not sure if I've said on here before; I'm sorry if I have) is the concept of original sin. Omnipotent, omniscient God makes man. Man promptly fucks it up because man is fallible. Either God is a liar and not omniscient, or else God creates man to take a fall and is a sadist. Thing is, worship of either kind of entity seems at least vaguely immoral.
The Eden story is wierder than that.
God isn't angry at Adam for screwing up - the gods (plural, in that story and only in that story) are frightened that Adam, and hence humans, may become 'like them', and threaten their power. It is the god's fear that makes them turf Adam & Eve out of the guarden.
Seriously, check it out. ;)
And this is why Genesis/B'reisheet is one of the most damaging pieces of literature ever written. (It's the first place you hear about the brit milah too, which doesn't help. :P )
The only modern contender is Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2011, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2011, 02:02:39 PM
Huh. More arguments for my position - my usual one (which I'm not sure if I've said on here before; I'm sorry if I have) is the concept of original sin. Omnipotent, omniscient God makes man. Man promptly fucks it up because man is fallible. Either God is a liar and not omniscient, or else God creates man to take a fall and is a sadist. Thing is, worship of either kind of entity seems at least vaguely immoral.
The Eden story is wierder than that.
God isn't angry at Adam for screwing up - the gods (plural, in that story and only in that story) are frightened that Adam, and hence humans, may become 'like them', and threaten their power. It is the god's fear that makes them turf Adam & Eve out of the guarden.
Seriously, check it out. ;)
If one were to be speculative, there are for instance of course ample signs that the biblical creation story doesn't really describe the creation of
the universe per se, but only of the creation of
a universe in the sense of a tribal splintering and the forcing out of Adam and Eve into what is for all intents and purposes a "new" world.
If one were a blasphemous fucktard with no regard for one's immortal soul, that is.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 10, 2011, 01:37:43 PM
Atheist evangelism was one of those culture shocks for me. I'd never heard of anything similar over here. People simply ignore religion altogether.
It might be just a consequence of the puzzling importance Americans still give to religion, more than anything else.
I think Hitchens was born British.
I thought Christopher Hitchens lived in Britain. Apparently he lives in America.
In any event, he's a leftist who supported the Iraq War. He's a Goddamn hero. Like me.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 06:54:36 PM
I thought Christopher Hitchens lived in Britain. Apparently he lives in America.
In any event, he's a leftist who supported the Iraq War. He's a Goddamn hero. Like me.
He supported the war cause he still gets a hard-on for forced social engineering. Communists never change.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 07:05:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 06:54:36 PM
I thought Christopher Hitchens lived in Britain. Apparently he lives in America.
In any event, he's a leftist who supported the Iraq War. He's a Goddamn hero. Like me.
He supported the war cause he still gets a hard-on for forced social engineering. Communists never change.
It is incredibly arousing.
If you are attracted to failure, sure.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 07:16:29 PM
If you are attracted to failure, sure.
OK, President Hayes.
President is your middle name? I can see that becoming an issue when you're in a mental hospital.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2011, 07:41:57 PM
President is your middle name? I can see that becoming an issue when you're in a mental hospital.
I have more then one. I had indecisive parents.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2011, 07:41:57 PM
President is your middle name? I can see that becoming an issue when you're in a mental hospital.
Especially when somebody decides to rub out the "P." :P
My poor "P'. :(
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2011, 11:25:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2011, 07:41:57 PM
President is your middle name? I can see that becoming an issue when you're in a mental hospital.
Especially when somebody decides to rub out the "P." :P
I doubt rubbing it out would be an issue, as long as it's done in private.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 06:54:36 PM
I thought Christopher Hitchens lived in Britain. Apparently he lives in America.
In any event, he's a leftist who supported the Iraq War. He's a Goddamn hero. Like me.
he is a US citizen now as well.
Was it Hitchens who said "waterboarding is torture" after being subject to torture and people still believed him? A person will say anything.
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2011, 01:53:22 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2011, 11:25:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2011, 07:41:57 PM
President is your middle name? I can see that becoming an issue when you're in a mental hospital.
Especially when somebody decides to rub out the "P." :P
I doubt rubbing it out would be an issue, as long as it's done in private.
:lol:
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 03:45:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2011, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2011, 02:02:39 PM
Huh. More arguments for my position - my usual one (which I'm not sure if I've said on here before; I'm sorry if I have) is the concept of original sin. Omnipotent, omniscient God makes man. Man promptly fucks it up because man is fallible. Either God is a liar and not omniscient, or else God creates man to take a fall and is a sadist. Thing is, worship of either kind of entity seems at least vaguely immoral.
The Eden story is wierder than that.
God isn't angry at Adam for screwing up - the gods (plural, in that story and only in that story) are frightened that Adam, and hence humans, may become 'like them', and threaten their power. It is the god's fear that makes them turf Adam & Eve out of the guarden.
Seriously, check it out. ;)
If one were to be speculative, there are for instance of course ample signs that the biblical creation story doesn't really describe the creation of the universe per se, but only of the creation of a universe in the sense of a tribal splintering and the forcing out of Adam and Eve into what is for all intents and purposes a "new" world.
If one were a blasphemous fucktard with no regard for one's immortal soul, that is.
The question of influences on christianity is very interesting. When I was reading book VI of the Aeneid I very much saw the similarities to the christian after-life (however Virgil more or less says it is all allegorical by having the hero exit through the gate of horn through which false dreams come to humans). Did some searches and it seems I wasn't alone in seeing the similarities: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/christian-epic/
The Aeneid would have made a good bridge into the new religion as it was the national epic of Rome and was taught in schools all over the empire. It was used religiously for fortune-telling by asking a question and opening the book at random and looking for answers on the page that turned up. The caesar-cult would morph into christian caesaropapism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism) which would survive in the eastern church of the byzantines and russians and would later morph into stalinism.
Quote from: Pat on August 12, 2011, 07:44:15 PM
The question of influences on christianity is very interesting. When I was reading book VI of the Aeneid I very much saw the similarities to the christian after-life (however Virgil more or less says it is all allegorical by having the hero exit through the gate of horn through which false dreams come to humans). Did some searches and it seems I wasn't alone in seeing the similarities: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/christian-epic/ (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/christian-epic/)
The Aeneid would have made a good bridge into the new religion as it was the national epic of Rome and was taught in schools all over the empire. It was used religiously for fortune-telling by asking a question and opening the book at random and looking for answers on the page that turned up. The caesar-cult would morph into christian caesaropapism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism) which would survive in the eastern church of the byzantines and russians and would later morph into stalinism.
Then again, your brain is geared towards pattern recognition, and you may be seeing causation where there's simply random similarity or humanity at work.
Well at least I'm not alone in having my brain geared towards seeing this particular pattern. ;) C.S. Lewis became an atheist for a few years after reading the Aeneid. The similarities were never denied by the church. Instead Virgil was considered a herald of christianity.
As for seeing a direct line from the caesar-cult into caesaropapism, that's not exactly new either, nor that caesaropapism morphed into stalinism with it's mind-crimes. Revolutions often conserve more of the previous system than one might think, just look at Tocqueville's study of the old regime and the revolution.