Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

wtfunny, whatever Christian wronged you in the past, I am sincerely sorry that it happened. Your stance is beyond simple disbelief in God. You are obviously angry with the entire institution. Whatever happened to you in the past, whatever breach of trust, I honestly hate that it happened.

Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints. I pray you give faith another chance.

You're right. The Bible looks exactly as we'd expect it to if it was written by ignorant, non-shoe wearing, desert dwellers. The problem arises when people claim that the Bible is the product of an all-knowing, perfectly moral god.

While we are at it, let's get rid of the Constitution... how smart could a bunch of guys wearing wigs and overcoats in an un-air-conditioned courthouse in the middle of the summer have been, really?

thejeff wrote:

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

You're right. The Bible looks exactly as we'd expect it to if it was written by ignorant, non-shoe wearing, desert dwellers. The problem arises when people claim that the Bible is the product of an all-knowing, perfectly moral god.

While we are at it, let's get rid of the Constitution... how smart could a bunch of guys wearing wigs and overcoats in an un-air-conditioned courthouse in the middle of the summer have been, really?

The Constitution is built with a method to change and update it as times change. Holy books have proven to be less straightforward to revise for the modern age.

thejeff wrote:

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

You're right. The Bible looks exactly as we'd expect it to if it was written by ignorant, non-shoe wearing, desert dwellers. The problem arises when people claim that the Bible is the product of an all-knowing, perfectly moral god.

While we are at it, let's get rid of the Constitution... how smart could a bunch of guys wearing wigs and overcoats in an un-air-conditioned courthouse in the middle of the summer have been, really?

No one (hopefully) is claiming that the Constitution is the perfect word of the perfect god. Even the people who created it put in mechanisms for its change.

thejeff wrote:

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

You're right. The Bible looks exactly as we'd expect it to if it was written by ignorant, non-shoe wearing, desert dwellers. The problem arises when people claim that the Bible is the product of an all-knowing, perfectly moral god.

While we are at it, let's get rid of the Constitution... how smart could a bunch of guys wearing wigs and overcoats in an un-air-conditioned courthouse in the middle of the summer have been, really?

Smarter than a Bible dude, that's a given.

The moment you realize that the Bible need to be defended on any subject matter (morality, history, etc) should be the moment you realize that the Bible isn't the product of a perfect being. Some people are slower than others to pick up on this.

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

The moment you realize that the Bible need to be defended on any subject matter (morality, history, etc) should be the moment you realize that the Bible isn't the product of a perfect being. Some people are slower than others to pick up on this.

#sin

thejeff wrote:

While we are at it, let's get rid of the Constitution... how smart could a bunch of guys wearing wigs and overcoats in an un-air-conditioned courthouse in the middle of the summer have been, really?

Those guys were plenty smart: smart enough to recognize that their Constitution might need to change with the times, so they included an amendment process that has been used dozens of times.

[I do find it interesting that the Framers--god-believers to a man, and almost all sincere Christians--deliberately kept "God" and "Jesus" out of the document.]

So the wise writers of the Bible would probably also welcome changes to *their* document, as times changed--right? You know, as a value of pi more accurate than 3 (1 Kings 7:23) became available, for instance?

And, of course, that's just what believers have been doing, though informally, for a millennium and more. It's been a long time since Jews have actually stoned and otherwise killed people, the way that they so frequently are required (not permitted--required) to do in the Torah.

And certainly Christians have largely gotten away from observing most of the 600+ commandments that are in the law--the law that JC *explicitly* said was to be observed. Why? Well, in large part because Paul (who, remember, never met JC and never read the Gospels, which were written after his time) wanted the Church to grow--and recognized that potential converts would prefer to eat pigs if that was their primary source of animal protein, and would prefer *not* to get circumcised (ow!).

Much has changed since Paul's time, and so Christianity has continued to change--as have Judaism and even Islam (though perhaps not as much): people like to work on the Sabbath (understanding that "work" includes turning on a light switch, or driving a car), for instance, and many divorced people like to remarry.

So things change, and one would hope they'll continue to change. (I personally look forward to Islam's maturing the way Judaism and Christianity have, and hope it will be soon!) What *haven't* changed (much) in the Abrahamic monotheisms are the foundation texts--but given that their adherents already pick the rules that they want to follow and ignore others, perhaps those texts will be updated sometime, to better reflect a) reality and b) a changing--dare one say "grownup"?--morality.

Great points by several posters about my comment on the Constitution. (Of course, it was a joke, but great comments nonetheless).

You all underline my point. The Constitution, written by men, would certainly need to be changed. Luckily, the framers were smart enough to predict that, hence the Elastic Clause, possibility of Amendments, etc.

The Bible, otoh, was divinely inspired by God. There is no need for "amendments" to it. Truth will remain truth for all time. Attempts to "amend" God's word have given us everything from Islam to Mormonism.

Yeah, about that... wrote:

[I do find it interesting that the Framers--god-believers to a man, and almost all sincere Christians--deliberately kept "God" and "Jesus" out of the document.]

This is a small side issue, but it really grinds my gears when people claim that the Founders were Christians; they mostly weren't. Hamilton certainly was, but he was only one a the few who espoused Christian orthodoxy. It should be noted that "deism" differs a great deal from "theism." They are not synonymous.

Some examples for you:

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

Jefferson, writing to Adams: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding...."

Jefferson's bible was the King James version with all of the miracles removed.

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." -Benjamin Franklin

"The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues – and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now – and so help me God." -Thomas Paine

thejeff wrote:

The Bible, otoh, was divinely inspired by God. There is no need for "amendments" to it.

The Bible is absolutely riddled with contradictions. Also, have you ever heard of the Four Source hypothesis or the Documentary hypothesis? These make sense of what cannot be made sense of.

Here is an example of a contradiction for you. "Are the laws of Moses useful?"

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:18-19)

How on earth can you possibly square this circle?

The Gospels can't even agree on which day Jesus was crucified, his genealogy, what he said as he died, or how many people (if any) were crucified with him. How can the Bible be perfect on matters of morality, yet disagree on details? It's pretty sloppy work for an all powerful deity.

thejeff wrote:

Great points by several posters about my comment on the Constitution. (Of course, it was a joke, but great comments nonetheless).

You all underline my point. The Constitution, written by men, would certainly need to be changed. Luckily, the framers were smart enough to predict that, hence the Elastic Clause, possibility of Amendments, etc.

The Bible, otoh, was divinely inspired by God. There is no need for "amendments" to it. Truth will remain truth for all time. Attempts to "amend" God's word have given us everything from Islam to Mormonism.

...from Islam to Mormonism.....to Christianity. Don't forget that one. It's just one more to add to the list of b@stardizations of Judaism.

But since the Bible can't be "amended," are the rules of the Old Testament still applicable? Could I go procure a slave from the nations around me? Could I beat it as long as it didn't lose a tooth or an eye or die within a couple of days?

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

...from Islam to Mormonism.....to Christianity. Don't forget that one. It's just one more to add to the list of b@stardizations of Judaism.

But since the Bible can't be "amended," are the rules of the Old Testament still applicable? Could I go procure a slave from the nations around me? Could I beat it as long as it didn't lose a tooth or an eye or die within a couple of days?

Undoubtedly you could beat it. Indeed, I have little doubt that you already do on a regular basis.

However, you most likely could not beat your slave with a name like "Sloetry in Motion". It depends, of course - what's your PR?

Stagger Lee wrote:

Yeah, about that... wrote:

[I do find it interesting that the Framers--god-believers to a man, and almost all sincere Christians--deliberately kept "God" and "Jesus" out of the document.]

This is a small side issue, but it really grinds my gears when people claim that the Founders were Christians; they mostly weren't. . . . It should be noted that "deism" differs a great deal from "theism."

Sorry, but that's not true. Take a look, for example, at the list of the signers of the Constitution:

Wikipedia conveniently provides links to a bio of each; and, though many of the bios are quite brief and some don't touch on religion at all, nevertheless a majority of the 39 signers were some kind of Christian...that is, they mostly WERE.

There certainly were a few deists in the bunch; but, contrary to your assertion, deists DO believe in a god: "Deism: The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws." And thus, by definition, deists ARE theists ("Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods.")

All of which, as you say, is a side issue. The main issue is that these god-believers deliberately crafted a secular government.

Yes, many of the signers had religious affiliation. Religious affiliation does not mean they were orthodox Christians; most were not. Church affiliation was often mandated by governments, since prior to the founding of the U.S. there was no such separation between church and state.

I never made the statement that the difference between deism and theism is belief in God or gods. You must have inferred that somehow. Deism is the belief that God created the material world but does not get involved in its concerns. Theism is the belief that God created the world and is actively involved it its functioning. These are two wildly different ideas.

A deist cannot be a "Christian" as the term was understood in the 1770s, since the mainstream view was that God controlled everything. Deism is anathema to what most would call Christianity.

Let me help you out:

George Washington - hard to know; rarely went to church, never took communion.

John Adams- Unitarian deist

Thomas Jefferson - deist

James Madison - deist

Alexander Hamilton - Christian (mostly)

John Jay - Christian

Benjamin Franklin - deist

James Monroe - deist

Thomas Paine - deist

Thanks for the help. I'll accept all your attributions, at least for discussion's sake.

The Constitution had 39 signers. The deists you listed (presumably, every one you could come up with--and I'll include George) number seven. Please tell me how seven out of 39 is "mostly."

Deism is, by definition, one kind of theism, so it certainly does not "differ[ ] a great deal" (your words) from theism.

And, when you get a chance, please try to focus on the main point: god-believers created a godless Constitution/government!

thejeff wrote:

The Bible, otoh, was divinely inspired by God. There is no need for "amendments" to it. Truth will remain truth for all time. Attempts to "amend" God's word have given us everything from Islam to Mormonism.

Nonsense. The entire NT is one big amendment.

thejeff wrote:

wtfunny, whatever Christian wronged you in the past, I am sincerely sorry that it happened. Your stance is beyond simple disbelief in God. You are obviously angry with the entire institution. Whatever happened to you in the past, whatever breach of trust, I honestly hate that it happened.

Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints. I pray you give faith another chance.

Jeff, sometimes you come across like a somewhat reasonable person. So I'll try.

Can't you see that you just did exactly what I outlined is the root of the problem?

a) you put this on me. This isn't about me being angry. It's not about "me" at all. It's about the absurdity of a way of seeing the world that is inconsistent with ourselves, with seeing, and with the world itself. It's also about a moral code that continually attempts to denigrate those who who don't apply.

b) It's about pretending that some kind of moral code is hidden with these scriptures that is somehow handed down via an unseen overseer. Name one thing the bible outlines as divinely inspired morality that isn't perfectly common the world over (or, on the other hand, like 'don't steal', isn't completely irrelevant if a culture doesn't employ the concept of possession).

Xianity hasn't simply "wronged" me. It's a very destructive force that wrongs entire populations of people. And has done so for centuries. Show me one indigenous culture where Xians haven't undermined their entire way of living and coerced their own on top of that. And don't pretend anything's changed on that regard; if you think for a second it wouldn't work exactly the same way today you're fooling yourself. Your closing sentence illustrates that perfectly.