Sojourner553

When I was around ten, I remember my Baptist Sunday School teacher giving a moral lecture on the important of "witnessing" to others about Jesus.

I stood up and asked, "If no one had ever even heard of Jesus, would they still go to hell?"

"Yes" was the reply.

This hit me hard. For I knew this had a "mean spiritedness" to it -- (How could it be the person's fault if he or she never HEARD of Jesus). To me, believing this would contradict the principle that God was "all good".

But as I found later, the Bible is full of meanness and cruelty. Most people just haven't read it, or read it carefully.

As Mark Twain would say later:

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me,
it is the parts that I do understand."
The British author J. R,

Ackerley once wrote to a friend,

"I am halfway through GENESIS, and quite appalled by the disgraceful
behavior of all the characters involved, including God."

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ETHICS.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ETHICS.TXT</a>

One of the reasons why there has been so many atrocities throughout history -- with a large percentage of this by RELIGIOUS groups is because of the LACK OF PROHIBITIONS in the Bible -- including the Ten Commandments against:

--torture
--slavery
--child abuse/neglect (this might fall under torture)
--belief in superstitions such as witchcraft and demonic possession.

It could be argued that that prohibition against killing did not stop religious groups. To which I would respond, this is because religious leaders such as St. Augustine taught that it was better to persecute heretics than allow them to spread their heresies:

"…before the good sons can say they have "a desire to depart, and to
be with Christ," many must first be recalled to their Lord by the
stripes of temporal scourging, like evil slaves, and in some degree like
good-for-nothing fugitives."

The Inquisition decided that death was also appropriate for heretics!

The Golden Rule did not stop these atrocities. In fact it was twisted to allow them.


For a history of how the Golden Rule was used to twist support for slavery see:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ETHICS2.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ETHICS2.TXT</a>


There are important humane laws we take for granted now that were not founded on religious principles -- indeed CONSERVATIVE religious groups fought them tooth and nail at first based on the principle these humane laws were not found in the Bible!

I could have given examples on Slavery. I have chosen here the first child abuse case of Mary Ellen.

Please show me PRECISELY where I am wrong on this.

-- Sojourner


************************************************
-- Corporal Punishment --

Both Catholics and Protestants held that babies were born in a state of
sin and wickedness--therefore strict measures were needed in order to
acquaint the young with the ways of God.

Proverbs 23:13-14 was frequently quoted in support of this position, which
states:

"Withhold not correction from the child for if thou beatest him with
the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod and shalt
deliver his soul from death".

Proverbs 20:30 states:

"Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost
parts."

Other verses supporting physical punishment of children include:

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely
put to death.... (leviticus 20:9)

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth
him betimes." (Proverbs 13:24)

"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction
shall drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15)

And most harsh of all according to Deuteronomy 21:18-21:

a man with " a stubborn and rebellious son" is commanded to stone him to
death.


These verses have been condensed to the popular saying (actually a
line from Samuel Butler (1664)):

"Spare the rod, spoil the child".


The belief is that a harsh whipping can keep a child from "going bad".
Sometimes parents give their sons beatings to "keep them strong", "to keep
them from growing up like a wimp", or more serious "to beat the Devil" out
of them.

There have been several modern cases of children being BEATEN TO
DEATH by their Fundamentalist parents--who sincerely were NOT aware of the
consequences of their spankings, and believed they were "saving" their child
from leading a live of sin. They were truly shocked to find that beating
their child, unlike the verse promises, CAN lead to their child's death!

Psychologist have warned that harsh beatings have negative long term
affects on the child. For example, Susan Forward in her book TOXIC PARENTS,
states that "[b]eatings have proved to be only temporary deterrents, and
they create in children strong feelings of rage, revenge fantasies, and
self-hatred. It's quite clear that the mental, emotional, and often bodily
harm caused by physical abuse far outweighs any momentary advantages."
(Susan Forward, TOXIC PARENTS, P 126)

Surprisingly, social attitudes have not only changed towards child beatings,
but on definitions of child abuse as well. Prior to the late 1800s, there
was no law that prevented maltreatment to children in the U.S.

Interestingly the first humane organization in America was formed to protect
animals – not humans. In 1866, Henry Bergh, a philanthropist and diplomat,
founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
and prompted the New York state legislators to pass the country's first
effective anti-cruelty to animals law. Eight years later, in 1874, a nine-year
old girl named Mary Ellen was found tied to a bed like an animal, neglected and
brutally beaten by her foster parents.

Earlier legal efforts to intervene on behalf of the child had failed,
because the law upheld parental rights of child discipline. The ASPCA was asked
to intervene to protect Mary Ellen by arguing that Mary Ellen was a member of
the animal kingdom--and thus entitled to the humane laws on the books that
protect the health of animals. (Darwin's theory of evolution was evoked in
support that humans are a member of the animal kingdom.) The case received
wide media publicity, and the Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
(SPCC) was formed a year later, in 1876. The SPCC was an important element
of the growing social movement to outlaw child labor.

Laws outlawing child abuse were not enacted, until almost a century after
physicians began reporting on the problem. The first medical study on child
abuse was published in 1888 by Dr. S. West. (T.Solomon, "History and
Demography of Child Abuse", PEDIATRICS 51 (1963) 773-6). In 1946, there was
a study by Dr. John Caffey on the subject of hemorrhaging that follows a head
injury. (1)


There was not much public interest in the problem of child abuse,
until Henry Kempe's article "The Battered Child Syndrome", appeared in the
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION in July of 1962. Not only were
descriptions of the injury included, but it was noted how the parents commonly
denied they had mistreated the children. The publicity of the problem played
a major role in legitimizing legal intervention on behalf of children. By
1974, eighteen of the fifty three US states and territories had set up various
laws against child abuse and neglect. By the 1980s, all states had established
some form of child abuse and neglect laws. _________________________________________
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>
Section VI, Chapters 3,4,5,6

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

"What we have learned from recent headlines and from the exposure of similar transgressions by fundamentalist Protestant and Jewish leaders is that "traditional values" are not necessarily best upheld by traditional institutions."

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000021794mar26.column?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Do pinions" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-000021794mar26.column?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Do pinions</a>

Brian K.

Wow! I never expected this outcome and this content. I love it. I hope this continues. I would first like to say I respect ManM for his "Theist" thoughts and for standing by them. Please know that they don't fall on deaf ears. I would like to now address the topic presented and extend it by asking if only the strong minded go to heaven.This is an example, please, bear with me for a moment.

Example: Sally is a local Christian and has a close friend who is Atheist. She, of course, respects his thoughts and they debate their points of veiw everyday. Say one day a heated argument presents itself and she is really stumped by a question her friend has asked. On her way home, she wonders about the possible answers to the question. She, even for a moment, doubts there is a real answer and thus doubts her faith.BOOM! She is struck by lightning and dies. Now, Sally has been a Christian for all of her life and has followed her faith, but in her last moment alive she happened to have even the smallest ounce of doubt. Will she burn, eternally for her last second of doubt?

I hope this isn't too far off the topic, if so i will post a new topic
Thanks again, Brian

Brian K.

Back to the original topic. I have another question. Is it "OK" to assume that the reason so many steriotypes are presented to Atheist is because when you state "I am a Christian, your basic belif system is known to the other", but when you say "I am an Atheist, you have only shed light only on the fact that you don't beleive in God", your belif system is not known to the other. Is this an "OK" assumption.

ManM

Brian,
In response to your first question, I do not think we can judge the final state of anyone. I believe that in the next life we will all be in paradise. However, the conditions for evil will no longer be present. No more ignorance, secrecy, physical suffering, etc... Whether this is a blessing or a curse depends solely on how you react to it. And so to answer your question, I cannot really know how Sally will react. Myself, I hope to have the humility to ask forgiveness from all those I have harmed. And even should the whole world refuse to forgive me, I know God will not reject me and will always allow me to live peacefully in paradise. I also hope to have the strength to forgive those who have harmed me. If I do not, then I may well spend the rest of eternity being bitter and hateful, simply because it isn't fair that those who have hurt me are enjoying paradise alongside me. Even in the midst of beauty, I may be experiencing the hell of hate. Sally's doubt will not be the deciding factor, but rather her reaction to her doubt when she is faced with the truth.

Regarding your second point, I think you are correct. The fear of the unknown does play heavily into it. JL's comments are on target as well. God and goodness are not separate for the Christian. When someone denies God, he is essentially denying goodness and affirming it's opposite, namely evil. God is love, and so the atheist denies love. What could be more horrid than that?

Again, let me give a disclaimer for the benefit of more aggressive natured forum folk. The criticisms of atheism given here are only a matter of popular impressions. Please do not launch into a rant about how silly they are, because I would most likely agree with you and steal your thunder. And then I would beat you silly with a metaphysical bapping stick. Ok, maybe not, but you get the idea.

Sojourner553

_________________________________________________
ManM:
God is love, and so the atheist denies love. What could be more horrid than that?

Again, let me give a disclaimer for the benefit of more aggressive natured forum folk. The criticisms of atheism given here are only a matter of popular impressions. Please do not launch into a rant about how silly they are, because I would most likely agree with you and steal your thunder. And then I would beat you silly with a metaphysical bapping stick.
_____________________________________________

So which is it? All atheists are horrid or not?
Have the courage of your convictions -- one way or the other 'show a little backbone'! (I think that last line is from an Indiana Jones movie...)

For myself,I do not claim all(!) Theists are horrid (just REPUBLICAN theists. Smile)

Know the story of the deathbed scene of David Hume?
*********************************************
The English philosopher David Hume is sometimes presented as an example of
a virtuous, but atheist philosopher. Adam Smith once said of David Hume:

"Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and
since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise
and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit".

Hume, recognized that religious individuals expected him to live a
NON-virtuous life because he was an atheist. In response, he once joked
that he considered himself to be "a sober, discreet, virtuous, frugal, regular,
quiet, good-natured man--OF A BAD CHARACTER." (emphasis mine.)

Knowing Hume's reputation as a virtuous man, James Boswell, a religious
Christian, wondered if Hume might recognize his "error" and recant his
atheism just before he died, so that he could go to heaven. Boswell therefore
paid a call on David Hume on July 7, 1776--as the latter lay on his deathbed.

What Boswell found was a smiling, good-humored man who had no inclination
to convert on his deathbed. Indeed, Hume shook him up when he insisted
"that the morality of every religion was bad"-- and that "when he heard a
man was religious, he concluded that he was a rascal, though he had known
some instances of very good men being religious."

Boswell was especially disturbed by this last remark, as this was just the
"extravagant reverse" of what was claimed against "infidels". He was also
taken aback how Hume appeared so comfortable with the idea of his own
mortality-- and his lack of fear of any hell. Boswell pondered over what
could be the basis for Hume's morality, since it was not the Christian faith?
Boswell related how he had bad dreams for several months following Hume's
death trying in trying to understand this.

Obviously he could never "reconcile" this in his mind.

==============================================
And ManM, for youR "evil atheist" crack I will "get even" by subjecting you to the humor of Mark Twain (Smile)

*Satan hasn't a single salaried helper; the Opposition employ a million

*If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

*Manifestly, dying is nothing to a really great and brave man.

*I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.

*If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian.
*There has been only one Christian. They caught him and crucified him -- early.

*Against a diseased imagination demonstration goes for nothing.

*One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat.
-- Mark Twain, Notebook (1900)

*The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it.
-- Mark Twain, Notebook

*I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious -- unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by force.
-- Mark Twain

*What God lacks is convictions -- stability of character. He ought to be a Presbyterian or a Catholic or something -- not try to be everything.

*A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows

*The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is morally bound to tenderly care for it, protect it from hurt, shield it from disease, clothe it, feed it, bear with its waywardness, lay no hand upon it save in kindness and for its own good, and never in any case inflict upon it a wanton cruelty. God's treatment of his earthly children, every day and every night, is the exact opposite of all that, yet those best minds warmly justify these crimes, condone them, excuse them, and indignantly refuse to regard them as crimes at all, when he commits them. Your country and mine is an interesting one, but there is nothing there that is half so interesting as the human mind.

*Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand

*When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know.

*If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God -- a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell -- except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven -- the kind described in the world's Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.

Sojourner

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

ManM

Sojourner,
I do not think that atheists are horrid. As I've said before, I am only giving the reasoning behind the stereotypes. If you wish to know exactly where I stand, read a few of my comments from <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=00000" target="_blank">this thread.</a>

Or for the lazy: "Just as Christianity has murderers in it's ranks, it also has Saints. The same can be found in any religion, and also within the ranks of atheists. This fact leads me away from general criticisms based upon a specific group's actions. Now if all the members of a specific group acted in a certain way, only then I would look at their beliefs as being relevant."

Also, thank you for the literature. No one can detract from the beauty of people such as Hume and Twain standing up for the good. I too recoil with disgust when presented with the same Christianity they dealt with.

Sojourner553

Thank you for your reply. You definitely have backbone (Smile) and I would brand you as a good individual as well!


Help me with this thought experiment, if you don't mind.

I personally wish religion (pick one) were true. (I also LIKE Santa Clause, fairies, superman, Mr. Spock, the good guys...) But my investigations into the matter have proven (to me) with a high degree of certainty that this is false. I understand you do not agree with me, but this is my most sincere, objective view.

The question I wish to pose is this: if say a "bad" Devil took power over a "good" God and was now the most powerful being in the universe, would it be a Christian's moral duty to obey him-- ie the "Devil"-- as master of the universe.

I would choose to help out the good guy (or the good God in this example) even if it not only did NOT gain me anything, but harmed me as well. I do not see many of my Christian friends following me into this -- they are always promised any sacrifice they make now will ALWAYS be rewarded with a long life in heaven?

This to me smacks of greed, a less pure or noble motive -- than the desire to do what is best, even if it gets you nothing (or worse).

Your thoughts?

Sojourner

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Brian K.

Well....I would like to say, once again, that I'm glad ManM took a stand as a Theist and he stuck to it....Sojourner must have misunderstood you. N-E-Ways I agree with Sojourner that doing good deeds now may give you endless bliss is purly a lure of greed. I personally would do it because it really feels good but if a gift of gratitude was offered I would humblely accept it. I'm not saying i am not one bit greedy, everyone is, but I think something so pure and righteous as religion should good deeds be nessecary as a good Christian or whatever. It shouldn't be criteria for a better afterlife. It's like renting to own.... you pay a little here and there until it's fully paid off. This is a bit "tainted".
Brian

ManM

Sojourner,
I'm sorry, I do not know what a generalized Christian response to your question would be. Personally, I do not believe morality is derived from power or the ability to reward. The Christian view that I adhere to understands morality as the loving relation between the figures in the trinity. It has nothing to do with heaven, hell, power, or divine command. And so it really wouldn't matter if the devil gains more power than God. I will still follow the good to the best of my strength, simply because in my heart I know it to be good.

Brian,
A good deed is truly it's own reward. There is no need for a giant sky daddy to give out cookies. I just find it interesting that we find fault the moment the good deed is done for a reward and not it's own sake. This seems very Taoist in nature. He who does not seek the reward finds it while those who search remain in poverty.