Hitchens makes a very good point and St. Paul actually agrees with him here:

“When outsiders who have never heard of God’s law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God’s law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God’s yes and no, right and wrong.” Romans 8:14-15 (The Message)

I acted morally long before I became a believer and I continue to act amorally today. I’m not happy about it, but rather than fixate on my failings I try to fixate on Christ and his teachings. Hopefully (because what is faith without hope?) over time I will get better at it.

Hitchens’ point is flawed.

Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?

I certainly can. But I can also think of a wicked statement, or an evil action performed, precisely because of lack of religious faith.

His second challenge isn’t truly opposite of the first.

However, your “cherry picking” point was beautifully made, and an angle I wasn’t expecting. Thank you.

In my experience, Christians tend to reject the parts of the Bible that conflict with their own culture and support the parts of the Bible that oppose that culture.

For example, if you asked most Christians under what circumstances they would voluntarily hand over their daughters to be sexually penetrated by an angry mob, most Christians would be furious to the point of disorderly conduct or worse at the very question. Most fathers would fight to the death rather than hand over their daughters to be sexual slaves for a night. Yet the Bible praises Lot for doing this.

Some will say that you have to have common sense when reading the Bible. Not all Christians believe this, though; many insist that the entire Bible is inerrant and cannot be “rewritten” or “edited” in favor of common sense or decency. But those moderate Christians who revere the Bible but try to apply decency to its indecency must ask: from where does the decency come? And if they respond that the decency comes from other parts of the Bible, one must ask: how do you know that you should apply one part of the Bible against another this way, and also why does a book that insists on both God’s holiness and on decency contain such material? Did God write it, or did men write this indecency?

At that point, the Christian will know that the Bible’s inerrancy and moral standing are dead, but may decline to admit that awkward fact out of embarrassment.

there has never been a god portrayed that has had any value or idea that humans have or could have

Good points.
(Obviously, people who hold to the idea that people can’t behave ethically if they don’t fear getting smited by an imaginary supreme being are much more pessimistic about both human nature and human intelligence than we are.)

In any case, it obviously must be working, as no religious believers have ever committed any transgressions of their codes, or done any crimes or immoral actions, have they…?

Bit of a conundrum, here. If I thought I might face eternal torture for some minor misbehaviour, rationality would make me pretty damn careful not to do it. So, they don’t actually believe it any more than I do, then?

So the claim to “morality” is based on a lie that the authority and their congregation have mutually agreed to pretend to believe?

But isn’t lying a sin in almost every religion? Argh. My head hurts. Curse this atheist pursuit of reason.

(Sarcasm alert for those who have trouble spotting it)

Heather, you fall into the same trap many deists have; you confuse faith with religious legalism.

But Christian, there can’t be any faith without “religious legalism”. When the latter isn’t present, the former is called “psychosis”.

But since you believe that our minds are merely the sum of generations of conditioning, relying only on what our unreliable senses can tell us, then perhaps it is you who is psychotic. Who can know?

Ahh, so then you will concede that legalistic theists are rational? It’s only those who eschew legalism (such as myself) who are delusional? I think we are making headway here.

I do not believe what you say I believe, indeed, I don’t even understand what you say I believe. There are consequences to the non-existance of god, but those aren’t they. I certainly don’t concede that legalistic theists are rational, indeed I don’t necessarily believe that humans in general are rational, although rationality is certainly part of our toolkit. People believe all sorts of rubbish, of course they do. There are some beliefs that are considered normal, like “luck” or “fate” or “god” or your “jesus”, and some that are considered abnormal, like the belief that the TV is passing you secret messages from the jews, or that your lungs are being eaten by a rat. All of these beliefs are irrational though, the evolutionary question is are they adaptive? In that context “truth” is almost completely irrelevant. Also, our senses do not give us an imperfect vision of the real world, they aid in the internal construction of a sythetic model of a world. What you are experiencing is events within your brain. That is one of the reasons why the concept of life after death is idiotic by the way. You probably don’t want to get me going down that path…

Oh and here’s another thing Christian. I’m not coming from a position of superiority, “I’m the one guy who can see the truth” place: I’m a typical human, I have contempt for the “God” shite because it’s male. If I’d been born into a culture that worshipped a sexy goddess, I’d have been a fervent priest.
A non-erotic jesus is too boring to contemplate. Each to his own though.
I’d like to know what you think about the “life after death” nonsense.
Sex and death, the big levers.

“I’m not coming from a position of superiority…“

Tom, in the restaurant trade we used to have a saying; “There is no reality, the customer’s perception is our reality”. I’d like to believe that most of you guys don’t have any axes to grind and that your intent is to always be fair minded and even tempered yet when you suggest that I may be psychotic, an idiot and worthy of contempt….

Anyway, there are plenty of folks who get their rocks off over Jesus, if that’s your bag. (Andrew Greeley paints a picture of him that closely resembles the cover art for a Harlequin romance novel.) Eroticism should not be a bad word for Christians, it certainly is not for me. That being said, I don’t think Jesus was too concerned about my sexuality (although he never condemned anyone for not controlling theirs i.e. the woman at the well, the adulteress who was to be stoned.)

I don’t know what to think about ‘life after death’ - the Bible is certainly not very clear on it and the Jews did not believe in it. That this belief would encourage people to behave badly is possible but then again I think the opposite belief could provoke the same response. One thing that faith provides me with is hope. So if I die, (or someone I love dies) and there is a possibility that there will be something more that follows, something better - then why not? Perhaps it is nonsense. Is everything you derive happiness from practical? (I can’t wait to get my Harley. Of course that might just be my version of sexual compensation.)

yeah yeah
whatever
(sigh)

That was easy.

Nice one, Christian, and sorry about that, it had been a quite extraordinarily long day…
I’m not sure about the fair-minded and even tempered thing though anyhow, after all it’s not what people call a fair fight is it? The christians have all the power, and all the history, the atheists have nothing except sweet reason. If you’ve got a license to believe anything, you can never be wrong, can you.
Let me tell you that the cruellest and most degenerate bastards that have ever had me in their power have been devoted christians. If christanity allows that, it can’t be much good, can it? Ultimately, that’s what matters. I think that that is what would have mattered to your Jesus fellow too. No?
Cheers!
Tom

No problemo, mi amigo.

“The christians have all the power, and all the history, the atheists have nothing except sweet reason”

Only up to very recently. The tide is turning against Christian political and cultural power, and that is a good thing. Jesus’ actual message runs counter to power mongering. Those that would like to make the US (or Britain, I don’t know if that kind of stuff goes on there) a Christian nation just do not understand the Gospel.

“If you’ve got a license to believe anything, you can never be wrong,“

But this same argument can cut both ways, right? I’m sure you’re familiar with that old canard that goes; “Once you stop believing in God you will find yourself believing anything.” I don’t agree with it - it’s just a silly cliche’. But you get my point.

And Christians generally don’t endorse believing in ‘anything’. Way too many of them IMO are very restrictive as to what is an acceptable belief and what is not. Of course most Muslims and many Jews would be just as discriminatory.

“Let me tell you that the cruelest and most degenerate bastards that have ever had me in their power have been devoted christians.“

I believe you and can sympathize. I have also suffered at the hands of nominal ‘Christians’. But I would argue (in fact I usually am arguing) that those people who caused you suffering were most likely not devoted to the teachings of Jesus but devoted to a man made, corrupted and twisted idea of what true Christian discipleship is.

Just as adding up all the good things that Christians have done over the years (orphanages, schools, hospitals, hunger relief, universities)will not prove that their faith is valid, neither do the excesses and atrocities of some prove the faith of the devoted as false.

This certainly does matter to Jesus. I need not remind you that his biggest gripe was not against ’sinners’ but the self-righteously religious. He warned against the type of religion that has caused so many so much pain. Many of those we see themselves belonging in the camp of the ’saved’ may some day be surprised. “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.”

I love the blog and all, but please change the font and pale grey color of the quotes.

I can BARELY read what you’re debunking and that’s no fun!

Of course it’s a standard christian claim, that because hospitals etc have been created in the context of christian hegemony that they are somehow caused by christianity. I don’t think this is true, just as I don’t think that humans loving each other is caused by christianity. Christians believe this kind of thing because they are taught “original sin”, that is, we are all absolute swine of the worst sort, unless we join the cult. This is untrue of course, we are lovable and loving and kind-hearted and everything, as long as we are happy. It’s when we are miserable that we become dangerous, ask a “celibate” priest.

Many of those we see themselves belonging in the camp of the ’saved’ may some day be surprised. “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.”

I think this is the emotional meaning of faith. You choose to believe in a just universe, a universe where good is rewarded and wrong punished. It’s obvious that this is not the case in the directly experienced world, so let’s have an imaginary world where the scales are tipped back, where a big parent does the business with the naughty children, and of course the good children too. But it is necessary to invent an imaginary world, the life-after-death world. Because THE UNIVERSE IS NOT JUST. There is only one force for justice in the world, and in the universe known to us, and that’s us. You, and me, and all the other people who have the astonishing luxury of choice. We can make choices towards justice, or other choices.
No force will save us. Fortunately we don’t need to be saved. We just need to be left alone to get on with living and doing our human thing. The only people who can forgive us are the people we have hurt…

Tom, you are missing my point(s):

1) I just finished done saying that Christian acts of justice, kindness and mercy do not prove God. On the other hand, you can not use Christian acts of cruelty to disprove God, either. Quid pro quo.

2) God, as portrayed in the Bible, does not favor good children over bad, nor does he favor ’saved’ over ‘unsaved’. For the record, I abhor that terminology. You can translate unclean into unsaved and leper into AIDs victim. It is divisive rhetoric. It is precisely those people, those ’sinners’ that Jesus associated with. )I also think the doctrine of original sin is primitive folklore. But when taken metaphorically it can be very constructive.

You constantly make the mistake of lumping all theists into the same philosophical as well as practical camp and that is naive. I think that many organized religious practices (such as celibacy) are essentially misguided. However I will respect those personal choices and I am not arrogant enough to attack them. Just as I do not attack you nor what I feel are your mistaken beliefs. You can not rationally condemn my faith because of the actions of others that do not hold to the same beliefs. Nor can I can reasonably say that your philosophy is tainted because of the despicable or stupid actions of other atheists I know. The dog wont’ hunt. This is why the the ‘new’ breed of atheist apologists will not stand up to the test of time. Their 15 minutes of fame will soon be gone and then hopefully you will find someone with the “reasonableness” of a Russel, Mencken or Dershowitz.

We humans cannot be the ‘force of justice’ in the universe if there is no moral standard for justice. If I remember correctly, you (or was it Mike) said earlier that atheists are not constrained by morals. Justice is then determined by whomever is holding the biggest club.

Yes, you are correct. The only people who can forgive us are those we hurt and when we hurt others (or ourselves) we hurt God.

“Finished done”? Surry ’bout that. Thas the way we talks in them hills.

You’ve missed so many of my points that I feel like a dropped pencil.

This god character to whom you refer in point two is certainly different from the fantasy figure I’ve heard about, the judge, the big bad dad who’s going to give the “saved” you refer to, the “suprise” you also refer to. You know THAT god, the story is you die, and that god sticks one on you for not being a good boy, or puts you into “heaven” although you seem to have lost your cock. A hateful, controlling creator, looking over your shoulder and into your pants, a totally imaginary character by the way, a non-existant avenging killer.

My parents sent me to christian indocrination camps when I was ten or eleven, and I did invite jesus into my heart, for about two weeks. It wasn’t the imaginary friend that I decided I couldn’t take, it was the insulting idea of judgemental god. Now you complain about divisiveness in the context of your god’s judgement, as if god wouldn’t do the judgement thing because it would be so frightfully discriminatory. What kind of christian doesn’t believe in “judgement” by god?

But it seems to me you’re forced to accept the god concept in order to give your very nice jesus concept some kind of super-validity. This would be because
a) You’ve been utterly programmed beyond belief by the power of your culture as manifested in your family or other learning environments,
and, or,
b) You have a very damaged self perception, ie, the original sin type or “I am not worthy” or “I am bad shit” thinking (that’s all a lack-of-love issue of course),
and, or,
c) either because b) is true and you’re projecting (as we do) or because bad things have happened to you or to immediate forbears, or both, you experience other people as basically bad, which means the situation is subjectively hopeless,

so,

as a typical human, you formulate the idea that you need a superbeing to rescue you.

Why would evolution’s ruthless slaughter leave so daft a system standing? It exists in so many cultures, doesn’t it. It’s because we, and all our ancestors back to almost slugs, have oozed into the straw and looked around for a super being, and then the superbeing picks us up and puts us on the smiling tit. We do this like we like water, or sugar. It’s structural in our brain you know. There is no god.

So come on Christian, I’d like to know what makes you unable to follow a mortal, human, dead, jesus?

We humans cannot be the ‘force of justice’ in the universe if there is no moral standard for justice. If I remember correctly, you (or was it Mike) said earlier that atheists are not constrained by morals. Justice is then determined by whomever is holding the biggest club.

certainly not me, that’s an absurd statement.
the inclusion of “if there’s no moral standard for justice” makes nonsense of this part. How could there possibly be justice without “a moral standard”? How about having a go at my point about whether you believe in a just universe?

Cheers!
Tom

I think it is important that we remember that Jesus was human and mortal. We carelessly bandy about words concerning Jesus’ divinity and in the process we forget that Jesus was a man.

The levels on which he is also divine are not as cut and dry as the rhetoric that has been spilling out of the church for the past 2000 years. In spite of the fact that the modern church (and you) have been ‘utterly programmed’ to need cut and dry and conclusive answers that are beyond any rational doubt, there are none. This is an unfortunate by product of the Enlightenment. There is no reason to expect there to be provable answers available for every question. Even science will admit that, although there is this unreasonable faith on the part of secularists to assume that humans will continue to progressively evolve and in the process all natural mysteries will eventually be revealed. Just another religion.

To look at the Christian tradition, with the bible as it’s guide, (as well as other faith traditions with their scriptures) and expect well defined answers to life, the universe and everything is naive and baseless. These works are often poetic, metaphorical and allegorical. When we study the work of Jesus, (or the Buddha or Lao Tzu) we see that he taught primarily through simile. When asked a question he would respond often with the words, “It is like this…” Concrete answers are too limiting, especially when they will be received by a countless number of people, each with a different perspective.

This thirst for concrete and incontestable answers is something that you and your friends share with the religious fundamentalists, even the creationists. Both groups are stuck in an ‘either, or’ world view, when in actuality life is made up wof limitless ‘if,and’ situations. Even physics is coming to that conclusion.

Who sets this moral standard? Or will you tell me that it shift like the sands? I would disagree with that.

Oh, sorry. The universe is neither just nor unjust. It just is.

This thirst for concrete and incontestable answers is something that you and your friends share with the religious fundamentalists, even the creationists. Both groups are stuck in an ‘either, or’ world view, when in actuality life is made up wof limitless ‘if,and’ situations. Even physics is coming to that conclusion.

Who sets this moral standard? Or will you tell me that it shift like the sands? I would disagree with that.

no one argues that one can arrive at concrete and incontestable answers to all of the mysteries of the universe–just some of them. But formal, organized beliefs of the mainstream religions does just that, create an immense universe of incontestable, often irrational and unverifiable answers which they then use to shove their world views down our throats and use to destroy other people and civilizations. The remainder offer fewer answers to the many questions they create.

Morality does not shift with the sand, but it shifts, nevertheless, and as quickly within some religious frameworks as without. Throughout the Middle Ages, Jews were burned alive under a variety of circumstances, often condoned by the Roman Catholic church (Inquisition in Spain and elsewhere), and otherwise never opposed, as in the pogroms in the wake of the Black Death. This country and England, planned and carried out the mass burning of civilians, in the night bombing of Dresden, a non-military target, and the fire-bombing of Tokyo, in which an estimated 100,000 died in one night; this policy, of course, culminated in the dropping of the atomic bombs. I think that the only organized protest to any of this by any religious group was by the Quakers.

Good points, Kate. Actually,the Jehovah’s Witnesses also protested these atrocities of war, as did the Brethren, the Mennonites, the Bruderhof and the Buddhists. Those Christians who did not were, in my opinion, very far off the path Jesus has tried to lead us on. On my site, I have posted an interview with a Catholic chaplain who ministered to the flight crews that devastated Japan at the end of the war. He has some things to say about Christian hypocrisy.

http://sharpiron.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/just-war-a-theological-cop-out/

The shifting morals you describe are what I call ’secondary’ morals, those morals that purely societal and not only change with the times often conflict with the ‘primary’ morals.

Those primary morals are often neutralized by the legalisms in our society, those that hold a devotion to the law (either religious or civic) even if it results in compromising our conscionses. For example: the Christian who can promote the death penalty because the Bible proscribes murder,not killing. Another example is the secularist who can place more value on one persons life over another (as seen in the USSR, China and Korea).

Because people are flawed and succumb to selfishness regularly does not necessarily condemn the institutions that they belong to.

Good points, Kate. Actually,the Jehovah’s Witnesses also protested these atrocities of war, as did the Brethren, the Mennonites, the Bruderhof and the Buddhists. Those Christians who did not were, in my opinion, very far off the path Jesus has tried to lead us on. On my site, I have posted an interview with a Catholic chaplain who ministered to the flight crews that devastated Japan at the end of the war. He has some things to say about Christian hypocrisy.

True re the other protesting groups–all of them marginalized by US society and not considered very important, then or now. The christian chaplain would be a nonentity in his church, whatever it was. He didn’t matter. If he had spoken out, he would have lost his job. Many individual Catholics, nuns, priests tried to help Jews during the Holocaust, but by and large their efforts were at a low level and marginal; Pius XII was focussed on saving the lives of Catholics, not Jews, and wanted to avoid redirecting the fury of the Nazi regime and its many followers and cooperators (See Goldenhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners)
towards his flock; it is debatable how much he could have accomplished, but he could have tried. He did a lot after Rome was liberated towards resettlement, but it was too late.

Good points, Kate. Actually,the Jehovah’s Witnesses also protested these atrocities of war, as did the Brethren, the Mennonites, the Bruderhof and the Buddhists. Those Christians who did not were, in my opinion, very far off the path Jesus has tried to lead us on. On my site, I have posted an interview with a Catholic chaplain who ministered to the flight crews that devastated Japan at the end of the war. He has some things to say about Christian hypocrisy.

http://sharpiron.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/just-war-a-theological-cop-out/

-a-theological-cop-out

Because people are flawed and succumb to selfishness regularly does not necessarily condemn the institutions that they belong to.

No, but it doesn’t help. The bad witness which a very many adherents of organized religion display plus the lack of sound philosophical and theological underpinning evident to anyone willing to hold his/her nose and examine this underpinning argues against taking religion seriously, except as entertainment and a threat to the values which underlie this country, which are always under attack by various religious groups.

Sorry for the sloppy posting–I haven’t yet mastered the quoting of the quotes, editing of the quotes, etc.

I re-iterate my previous request to alter the color-pale grey- and font of the quoted piece, which makes it hard to read.

The following statement shouldn’t have been in quotes.

True re the other protesting groups–all of them marginalized by US society and not considered very important, then or now. The christian chaplain would be a nonentity in his church, whatever it was. He didn’t matter. If he had spoken out, he would have lost his job. Many individual Catholics, nuns, priests tried to help Jews during the Holocaust, but by and large their efforts were at a low level and marginal; Pius XII was focussed on saving the lives of Catholics, not Jews, and wanted to avoid redirecting the fury of the Nazi regime and its many followers and cooperators (See Goldenhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”)
towards his flock; it is debatable how much he could have accomplished, but he could have tried. He did a lot after Rome was liberated towards resettlement, but it was too late.

And then, re bad witness:

No, but it doesn’t help. The bad witness which a very many adherents of organized religion display plus the lack of sound philosophical and theological underpinning evident to anyone willing to hold his/her nose and examine this underpinning argues against taking religion seriously, except as entertainment and a threat to the values which underlie this country, which are always under attack by various religious groups.

Ahh, but Kate. Even the church can evolve. The positions on war and justice that the Catholic church held at that time are far different than those they hold today. They are now much more in line with the Gospels, which are quite static by the way. Jesus’ positions on peace, mercy, justice have never changed.

Do not discount those ‘marginal’ groups. Long after it was old news in the US there was still quite a lot of discussion in post-Christian Europe over how the Amish handled their school shooting tragedy. They set an example that resonates among many people.

It is the individual actions of people that matter most, in the long run. Only when individuals persist in bucking the current wisdom will society begin to take notice and perhaps attempt lasting change. This in no way trivializes the actions of the few when contrasted with the actions of the many. If anything it places a spotlight on the righteousness of their cause as well as the courage they display with their authenticity. The Catholic chaplain did not kowtow to his superiors because he was afraid of his job. He did so because he was afraid of being un-American. Patriotism is usually at odds with a sincere devotion to God.

Much of what we call Christianity has done a poor job of representing Jesus. Just as Communism has done a poor job of representing Marx(on a much smaller scale, of course). Do not take a position against God because of the religious actions of men.

I think it is important that we remember that Jesus was human and mortal. We carelessly bandy about words concerning Jesus’ divinity and in the process we forget that Jesus was a man. The levels on which he is also divine are not as cut and dry as the rhetoric that has been spilling out of the church for the past 2000 years.

yeah right. So jesus was mortal and also “divine”?? This is a cake and eat it situation, in which you weasel out of answering yet another point, by the idiotic hypothosis that mortal means simultaneously not mortal. In essence, you are claiming that the fairyland element exists simultaneously with the real world stuff, so you can claim to be rational when it suits your world view, and irrational when it doesn’t. In other words you can say anything you want because you are ABOVE rationality. That finishes the chances of any meaningful discussion I’m afraid.

In spite of the fact that the modern church (and you) have been ‘utterly programmed’ to need cut and dry and conclusive answers that are beyond any rational doubt, there are none.

Not in your fairyland world, how could there be. In the real world, there are cut and dried answers to very many questions, have you heard of “mathematics”? And that’s only one example of a science.

There is no reason to expect there to be provable answers available for every question. Even science will admit that, although there is this unreasonable faith on the part of secularists to assume that humans will continue to progressively evolve and in the process all natural mysteries will eventually be revealed. Just another religion.

(even you use that as an insult!) As so often in this thread, you boldly propagate nonsense. You attribute attitudes to others and then say “they’re wrong”. Here you launch into a paragraph entirely hypothecated on the idiotic assertion that “every question” makes sense. Questions originate in human brains, which can produce all sorts of utterly meaningless rubbish. Answers originate in the universe that is around us and that we are part of. If we are very wise we can sometimes create a meaningful question, and strive to find meaningful answers. Of course for you, answers can come from an alternative source, that is thousands of years of ignorant storytelling reinterpreted by you to fit your lifestyle (or by your “pastor” or whatever cult leader you follow (could be yourself of course))

To look at the Christian tradition, with the bible as it’s guide, (as well as other faith traditions with their scriptures) and expect well defined answers to life, the universe and everything is naive and baseless.

The bible? that broth of bollocks can be your special book of reassurance in a world “gone mad” but meaning? the bible? fossil authoritarian cult-crap. But wait a minute, that’s where your fantasy-jesus comes from, and doesn’t he whisper moral guidance to you? So you do think there are some answers in there, don’t you. I suppose you pick the bits that fit your lifestyle, and ignore the rest, it’s “poetry”, right?

These works are often poetic, metaphorical and allegorical. When we study the work of Jesus, (or the Buddha or Lao Tzu) we see that he taught primarily through simile. When asked a question he would respond often with the words, “It is like this…” Concrete answers are too limiting, especially when they will be received by a countless number of people, each with a different perspective.

It is like this; as long as you keep it vague you can fool some of the people some of the time, because some of the people sometimes want to be fooled. Here’s a concrete answer: there is no god. Funny how you don’t like to discuss that element, I suppose you’re claiming agnosticism and christianity both at the same time! Ha hahahhha! I know, you’re having a laugh, aren’t you! (I love the way you skirt islam by the way! Bit strict, eh?) But that “simile” stuff, DID JESUS BULLSHIT ENDLESSLY ABOUT GOD or was he misquoted? I know you avoid any mention of god, which is a bit odd, for a “christian”, on an atheist blog.

Even physics is coming to that conclusion.

I suspect you may be even less reliable a physicist than you are a theologian, but do give us an example of this

Who sets this moral standard? Or will you tell me that it shift like the sands? I would disagree with that.

There you go again with your familiar false attribution thing. Who sets the moral standard? YOU DO! YOU are responsible for what YOU DO, no fantasy loverjesus can take that responsibility away from you, and adopting this fairyland idiocy, of supernatural superheros, of “lets pretend that we don’t die”, of looking in old books for the “meaning of life”, is all about shedding responsibility for personal moral choice. That’s why religion is SO BAD. It INVENTS moral authority, it not only says what is morally WRONG, it also says what is morally RIGHT. That’s why people think it’s ok to drop bombs on other people, ask your christians or moslems, their bloody books say it’s OK.

As an atheist, I am in a permanent state of moral doubt. I don’t know what is the right thing to do, so I have to do my best to do the right thing without “guidance”. That’s why I’m vegetarian, for example. Nobody can tell me it’s alright to kill and eat mammals, so I’ve got to rely on my own judgement: DISGUSTING! Nobody can tell me that sex or drugs or stayin’ up late or sounding my horn is WRONG, because I’m responsible for what I do, and taking responsibility means making decisions and taking consequences. This is incompatible with bending over for any “moral authority”, matey, even if it is divine.
Jesus has left the building.

Ahh, but Kate. Even the church can evolve. The positions on war and justice that the Catholic church held at that time are far different than those they hold today. They are now much more in line with the Gospels, which are quite static by the way. Jesus’ positions on peace, mercy, justice have never changed.

Yeah right. It’s just that nobody’s understood them properly until now. The strangled witches and burned bodies in “jesus’ name” were just a terrible misunderstanding, right? But you get jesus right, right? Nice!

Tom, you say that my opinions put an end to any further chance of meaningful discussion. I would suggest that your last extended comment proves your point. Why so angry, man?

Mike, the New Testament has always spoken of slavery as being immoral, in that there are proscribed ways we are to treat each other and slavery is inconsistent with them. The people of every generation have selfishly chosen to ignore the moral truths of the Bible and have even ‘found’ biblical injunctions to justify their actions. As Paul was a first century man speaking to first century people he was a product of his time. His mandate was to spread Jesus teachings about a way towards peace that would work for either slave or master. Both theists and atheists who take his observations of his culture to mean that is how we should live today are, again, guilty of literal legalism. Meanwhile, if what he truly preached had spread and then been ‘religiously’ followed (and it has not) the institution of slavery would have disappeared much earlier.

My sense of morality does not come from the bible at all - it has always been ‘written on my heart’. Over time indoctrination, example and my own animalistic survival instincts led me to ignore my moral compass. The people that owned slaves always knew that what they were doing was wrong. It was religious people in both your country and mine that helped people to realize this.

If the papacy (or any religious leader) has endorsed violence, killing, torture then their understanding of the Gospels are definitely very wrong. Time has not brought this understanding about, there were men and women living thousands of years ago who understood this and spoke and wrote about it. We are arrogant when we think that we have become a morally superior generation. Just pick up a newspaper. Devolution.

I get the impression that the general revulsion you folks have for theism has prevented you from doing any meaningful study on the subject (like reading a decent biblical exegesis), outside of an atheistic apologetic. The hip-shot remarks that some of you have been tossing my way are often cliche’ and spiteful to boot. No offense taken by me, but do your really expect this style of arguing to be persuasive? What is the intent of this dialog? Do we all hope to perhaps learn from others who hold divergent views or are we more interested in slapping each other on the back and crowing about how much smarter we are than those deluded theists/atheists? (Which, no offense, you have yet to provide any evidence of.)

I checked out the site - I’ve seen much worse. But what makes you think I ignore that kind of stuff? You’ve visited my blog, I don’t shy away from taking on religious perversions - in fact they concern me much, much more than atheists do. I feel that wrong religious thinking is much more dangerous than atheist thought. That being said, I hesitate to label something ‘wrong’ - unless there is ample evidence for mean spiritedness.

Check around - I have not come up with my own version of theism (although in all honesty everyone’s faith must be personal and thereby somewhat unique even, if they deny that fact). Much of my beliefs have come through studying early church writings and the works of people like Marcus Borg, John Crossen, Brian McLaren, Dallas Willard etc. In fact, I would say that I share similar views with most of what is called the ‘emerging church’.

I think that much of what fuels your angst is the intolerant stance that has come to be identified with the Church. The sad thing is that Jesus was the most tolerant of men.