Opera Nut

Christianity is not unique. Jesus has all the same characteristics as Mithra, and Christianity stole pagan festivals & symbols such as Saturnalia, the goddess Oestre, and others. Because the Christians couldn't stamp out pagan goddess worship, the Virgin Mary had to be elevated to be worthy of prayer. You know very little about the history of Christianity and its similarity to previous cults such as Zoroastrianism. All the elements of Christianity can basically be traced to previous religions. The Great Flood story can be traced to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Go read some of the philosophical/archaelogy fora here.

"Self help programs"?? What the hell are you talking about? You know zip about other religions & belief systems, from what I can tell. Telling me I am a worthless sinner as the first premise of a "self help program" is a no-win situation to me. Self-help is about self-esteem, not letting other people tell you you are a worthless horrible sinner.

This does not mean that I do not do anything wrong, far from it. I just don't want to be beaten before I start. I cannot accept original sin as unearned shame and guilt.

I worked in the court system for twenty years. They have this concept called the presumption of innocence. In other words, they don't charge everybody with a crime just for breathing and haul them into court and presume they are guilty and need to be sentenced and punished. Christianity gives you a bad rap to begin with, which is a ruse to make you think you need Jesus. It's an artificially created need.

Anybody that does nothing but think about Jesus, pray all the time, and proselytize is probably suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder. You should read "Healing the Shame that Binds You" by John Bradshaw. He was a priest for many years and talks about the harmful effects of unearned guilt and shame imposed by Christianity.


"Democracy in Iraq? Kurds?" I said NOTHING about politics. That is a straw man.

I didn't say I had a solution for all problems. You are putting words in my mouth. Why don't you go build houses in 98 degree heat like Jimmy Carter for Habitat for Humanity?? That is my idea of helping people without indoctrinating them.

Philosoft

Heh, now there's a logical defense.

"God, please do this miracle for me."
"Nope, sorry. I must preserve free will."
"But I'm asking openly and humbly!"
"Oh, well, in that case..."


Which somehow is preserved by the addition of the "openly and humbly" caveat?

Please. No region of the planet is safe from every natural disaster. And there are 6.5 billion people in any case.

That's your response to a sound logical argument? Literary devices? I'm glad to see you are able to retain your sense of flippancy whilst flailing away.

Does this mean that children who go straight to heaven lack something that a 90-year-old has? I thought everybody in heaven was perfectly happy regardless?

Is this an objective assessment of the state of the world?
Hopefully not so confused that you realize this discussion is not about politics. Please don't try to change the focus.

Opera Nut

Since radorth thinks abortions are done to "reduce inconvenience to the mother", he must be some kind of an expert on obstetrics and delivery, and women in general..........[[snicker]]]

He has no concept of the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth to women with many health conditions, dangers including death. They make it sound like pregnancy and childbirth is some kind of a picnic and they also make it sound like women make a decision to have an abortion on the spur of the moment, like going shopping. That's not true.

Many women die in childbirth or from complications even today, especially in countries with primitive health care.

In fact, for small women with a narrow pelvis, like me, pregnancy is an automatic death sentence without surgical intervention of a C-section. No ifs, ands or buts.

luvluv

Mike:

God is said to have complete and perhaps even infinite moral wisdom.

Can you see how it would be problematic, if not impossible, for even Him to put that wisdom down in a finite book?

This is a much more complicated issue than you take it to be, and cannot be seriously addressed without taking into account what the actual intent of the Bible is (apart from what certain fundies say it is) and certain aspects of the implications of the hiddenness of God. It isn't nearly so simply as "The Bible is either complete and perfect or it isn't from God." There are very good reasons why even a perfectly good, perfectly knowlegbable God would not give humankind a book with all the answers in it. (What would they need God for, at that point? The whole point of the Christian religion is that God wants FOREMOST an intimate relationship with each one of us, so it makes sense to me that He would reserve some knowledge for revelation within the context of that relationship. That's just one consideration, there are others. Don't be so quick to draw conclusions on such little evidence, my friend.)

luvluv

BTW I am re-reading the book and it is better than I remember it as being at least in terms of it's treatment of the Problem of evil. But where it lost my support is in it's treatment of the existence and nature of Hell, the death of children, and the negative aspects of church history. In these three chapters instead of being honest and saying about hell and the death of children "I don't know" (and informing people that the notion that hell is actually eternal suffering cannot be affirmed or denied Biblically) they attempt to support the fundamentalist party line. The only honest thing you can say about church history is that it has had some fantastically awful periods, to apologize for them, and to demonstrate that these periods do not proceed from Jesus' teachings but represent a departure therefrom. You can't try to make a case that no innocent child has ever died, that the "real" church has never done anythng wrong, or that hell as an everlasting torture chamber is morally superior to anhiliationalism. At least not in a page and a half. After reading these passages the first time I was extremely upset. Annihilationalism vs eternal damnation is a topic which would require AT LEAST 50 or so pages to discuss thoughtfully, and in this book it is dismissed it in (I'm not kidding) two pages. To Moreland's credit (J.P. was the interviewee in this portion) he did suggest that the fires of hell could be symbolic. But otherwise he generally toed the fundamentalist party line (it is often shocking to me just how thoroughly fundamentalist the really intelligent and philsophically sophisticated apologists are. Moreland wrote probably the most sophisticated single apologetics book I've ever read in Scaling the Secular City, but both he and William Lane Craig have a tendency to be incredibly fundamentalist in their thinking. I'm not knocking it, [I'm not a fundie but I'm close. I'm certainly closer to Craig than I am to, say, Spong.] but I have always found that surprising)

So, anyway, the book is not all bad, but those three chapters really drop the ball in many ways in my opinion. I think there is something wrong with thinking you can dismiss all or even most of your doubts via a book BEFORE having a relationship with God. Most of us only found workable solutions to these problems after years of doubt, thinking, and study. You can't deliver that to someone on a silver platter in a 15 dollar paperback.

NOGO

Perhaps the point is that the Bible does not even come close.
The Bible is the product of human intellect and as such can be said to be a botched job at pretending to be inspired.

If the Bible and those you worship it have fooled so many people it is not because of its quality but rather it reflects the very human weaknesses which allow some people to control the minds of others through fear, guilt and gullibility, this being the trademark of all religions.

Radorth

By definition. What are you talking about?

My observation that virtually all of them would still choose to live here (even if it was the best God could do) overrides your rationale anyway. I've not seen anyone refute my assertion, so you did well to avoid it

Well no, not all of it. I said I could think of other, more problematic solutions, although I would have to plagerize from those atheists who bothered to propose one.

Well given your opinion of the U.S. president, and mine of the French one, I'd say yes. One can certainly imagine an infinitely better world, but we'll have to wait for praying grandmothers to take over.

Eh? I was talking about children who face a life of misery in this world, which is, ironically, why I have some sympathy with pro-choicers. Of course in the case of American pro-choicers, convenience to themselves is the main motivator IMO. There are plenty of couples looking for babies here.

Read "I've gone off-topic myself, but I don't want to deal with this question, so I'll pretend I'm moderating the thread."

Rad

lpetrich

LP:
And do they also say to muggers, "Mug me again"?

Radorth:
Very clever, and irrelevant.

I wonder if Radorth has ever read the Sermon on the Mount.

... Jesus Christ's teaching about family life, that he was coming to break up everybody's families.

If the saving truth was at stake, yes.

Some "sanctity of the family".

Atheists love to point that out, but don't mind leaving families who condemn their beliefs.

Except that that's done as a defensive measure; look at the numerous family members in the II bboard.

IMO, the atheists on the philosohy threads who admit their hoelessness are the more honest ones.

Bullshit. Are we supposed to try to convince ourselves that we will live in some paradise where we die? And if I wanted to believe something like that, you won't want to know what I would prefer to believe.

Why not? And why not give us an aversion to getting abortions...
And eating and sex, driving cars too fast, crossing busy streets, climbing trees (yawn)

Why not? Or else make us indestructible, the way we would presumably be in Heaven.

(sex)
Or better yet, get rid of it altogether, as hinted at in Matthew 19:12
And we wouldn't be here. Oh wait. He could just impregnate ALL females by the Holy Spirit I suppose. Not a bad idea if everybody lived as Jesus did.

Or else reproduce asexually, like an aphid.

Starboy

Rad, what about the atheists that admit they have a hoe? I just used mine this weekend. Or were you referring to the "virgin" Mary?

Starboy

Sabine Grant

Hello Opera Nut... most women I have counseled after an abortion did not choose to abort based on the size of their pelvis or because they feared complications from childbirth. Their choice was indeed based on the fact that they simply did not want to assume a child at that time. There is a low percentage who will choose to abort based on medical conditions and they usualy find out about those conditions after they get pregnant believing it is safe for them to assume pregnancy. Most women who are aware of a serious medical condition which can endanger their life or the life of the child ( or geneticaly transmitted illnesses) will avoid pregnancy. There is the benefit of genetical counseling which traces the possibility of transmitted MD for example thru the mother.
In most instances, women do carry out healthy pregnancies as medical research has improved the means to make pregnancy safe for both the mother and child. Intro uterin surgery for example is another improvement.