My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...

[Tex]

Unless you understand the difference between the human right to claim something, vs the ability to demonstrate a claim, you will NOT understand how wrong you are.

I fear you are using "demonstrate" in a very restricted sense. No, I cannot produce an experiment that will repeat consistently and show there is God. I can give you logical proofs and show you logical cohesion. This isn't good enough for some to say it's correct, but it is, regardless of the popularity contest.

Christians are certainly capable of morality, but it is because they are humans and humans are capable of morality. If you can accept that people outside Christianity can be moral, then you should be able to see that morality is evolutionary based and NOT the invention of a label.

People outside of Christianity are moral all the time. Jews and Muslims is the easiest example, especially with straying from pre-marital and extra-marital sex. That is moral. Even if a completely hostile atheist were to give to the poor, they would be moral. If morality is evolutionary though, it's arbitrary. It's whatever benefits the species that should develop. This really doesn't actually mean morality as religions use it. Morality in your system is just a thing we do because our genes tell us to. Morality in our system actually tells us to resist different compulsions because they are inherently bad. In a sense, you are a slave to your own genetic code. We're given principles that may or may not be in every individual, and we're to follow them any way.

Most of all, what is the harm of being immoral? The government will come get you? What if you are the political leader? What if you're Stalin? Who's going to stop you from starving Ukraine? What is the fundamental problem with commanding ethnic cleansing as an atheist leader? You definitely can't say, "killing people is wrong" because that isn't in this guy's genetic code to want to do right now. Perhaps there should be a grand law that unites all people?

This lack of understanding is WHY ANY religion AS A CONCEPT is dangerous. Not because all in that label, any label, are or will be dangerous, but because religion DOES set up "in group" vs "out group" and bases the "in group" mentality as being the special inventor of all human morality.

There is "in group" vs. "out group" in politics, gangs, religion, football, and every high school ever. They must all be equally dangerous.

Religious division is PRECISELY because of the false notion that A LABEL and not nature itself, invented morality. THAT is what makes religion dangerous. Failing to recognize this allows you, who may not be violent yourself, to make excuses for the others within Christianity who are and would be violent if given the chance. Now please don't falsely accuse me of picking on your religion, or hating religious people.

A label does not invent morality. I agree there. However, the only defense I give of violence is in defense of another. Personally, I don't even think we're supposed to have self-defense, but that's just me. I will gladly stop injustice wherever I see it.

However, you have to stop saying religions are dangerous. Political leaders cause wars and sin causes harm. Mohammed was both the leader of a religion and, basically, the executive power of a regime. The Pope after 1000 C.E. had an army because he was both king of the Papal states as well as religious leader for the Christians. The Darfur raids were out of greed and hatred for the Christians. Hitler was "catholic" and hated Catholicism's teachings (especially that Jesus and all apostles were Jewish). The affect of the religion played no part. Stalin saw religion as evil and his morality was... well... Iffy, to say the least. It doesn't take religion to cause harm. Harm comes through people one way or another.

"They shouldn't do that" is also not my point. "They aren't real(whatever)" is also not my point. Religion sets up in group vs out group the same as a political party. When you understand this you will see religion as the weapon it should be treated like.

Then why not ban political parties? I think that people are the problems, not organizations. Otherwise, we need to abolish countries.

If as believers of all labels around the world claim "religion works", if it worked so well then why is there still so much global division? The part they always miss is "works for who?" And it "working" always comes at the expense of the "out group".

All religions claim they have a solution, but we're not interested in making a utopia here. That is impossible. People have evil inclinations from the moment they exist. All people. You, me, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa had/have evil inclinations. Unless we change people, we can't have utopia. If we force people to change, we're not a religion any more, but a cult (governmental bodies go from protecting to enslaving the people). Two things are required for this: government and religion, both attempting to excel as much as possible in their respective areas of influence.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've noticed that a certain subset of believer like to make claims about logical arguments more often then they attempt to present them - and they seem to be the holy grail of christendom at the moment....but unfortunately, logic is only as good as what you plug into it...so, no, it wouldn't be enough -in and of itself- and it's not a matter of popularity.

[radorth]

Civility in the west is in spite of that book, not because of it.

This is a gratuitous assertion, not supported by facts. I will agree it's in spite of the hypocritical Christians, but because of those who did salt the earth-- the early Quaker and Methodist abolitionists and all those to follow, the first builders of hospitals and asylums, the first to march for civil rights, all the men and women who demanded religious freedom under intense persecution, all of which led to your freedom , a freedom you use to completely distort history as if unbelievers ever did much more than invent some medical cures and a hydrogen bomb. And when they did do something big, like Communism, or the French Revolution it was a bloody disaster that made the Inquisitions look surprisingly civil.

At the same time Voltaire was saying slavery was necessary to an economy, Wesley was calling it the scourge of the earth. Franklin marveled at "the change soon made in our citizens" after Whitefield preached. Locke was a fundy Christian by your standards. Hooker was the first to accept unbelievers and other denominations in the town he oversaw as the price of religious freedom. The Salem witch trials you make so much of were stopped by a Christian fundy lawyer. Maybe he read what Jesus told us to do about heretics. (Nothing)

Now, tell me what the unbelievers did before Christians did. I'm all ears.

---

I've noticed that a certain subset of believer like to make claims about logical arguments more often then they attempt to present them - and they seem to be the holy grail of christendom at the moment....but unfortunately, logic is only as good as what you plug into it...so, no, it wouldn't be enough -in and of itself- and it's not a matter of popularity.

I gave you Durant's rationale for believing the gospels, and he was hardly a Christian. What is your reponse to him then?

[The Grand Nudger]

Trying to find it to quote it for a thorough response, linky? (can't seem to find it)

late edit- May have found what you're looking for a response to, in a diff thread

The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies -- for example, Hammurabi, David, Socrates -- would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed -- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

That it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Contradictions aren't really all that impressive to me, nor is consistency. I'm fond of reminding people that you won;t find many contradictions within the pages of Bram Stokers Dracula, or between printings of it either. In fact, wide disparity between narratives that purport to be accounts of the same thing would be very surprising to me - especially considering the value these accounts would go on to have. Consistency in a narrative is the hallmark of good stroytelling, and of good editing, but not necessarily the hallmark of accuracy in content (but feel free to hang some garlic over your windows and doors tonight - if it worries or convinces you).

In sourcing that bit (and it's author) the thing that strikes me firstly is that it was written in 1944. Our knowledge of the time period presumably in question is perhaps a tad better developed, today, than it was at the time of writing. The authors notions of how well the narrative had been authenticated is a reflection of 1944 - at the very least. Hammurabi, David, Socrates - if there -weren't- an element of legend to these people it would surprise the hell out of me. The notion of them "fading to legend" is, I suppose, a little amusing to me in that regard - because they're already there. Hammurabi is fairly well fleshed out - plenty of tablets with his name on them, even what we are willing to propose as his own letters. The archaeological record can bear out the contents thereof and corroborate the data without requiring the testimony of any persons or foundational myth. Still plenty of room for legend - and certainly there are legendary tales to be told about Hammurabi. Seeing David even included here very plainly shows the disadvantage this authors position in time conferred. David, in stark contrast to Hammurabi, has a grand total of two (2) pieces of what might be corroborating evidence...and the archaeological record tells a tale so different than the one recounted in the OT that it's difficult to conceive of a David that is anything less than legend, and probably approaching a great deal more (myth). Socrates, well, IIRC there are more words attributed to him in plays (that we don't accept as historically accurate depictions of the man) than anywhere else. Nevertheless, the evidence for a historical socrates isn't what I would call knockdown by any stretch-with many folks simply accepting that there was some socrates..accepting that what we know of socrates may not, strictly speaking, be true of whoever the man was. Again, some elements of legend in the most sympathetic of readings. If we wanted to invoke these three characters though, I'd say that jesus has a lot less in common with Hammurabi than he does with either David or Socrates.

Whew, that was alot for what is essentially just a preamble, a few lines....but onward and upward....what I see next is a hasty reference to "embarrassing details". I suppose I can only ask whether or not the embarrassing details in mormon scriptures are convincing to you, or the embarrassing details in norse epic? Do these things, for you, help to establish the veracity of Mormonism or Asatru? Even so, some of these "embarrassing details" are very plainly narrative devices. They serve to keep the plot moving forward-or to present the protagonist with an opportunity to do his thing, some even appear to be very clever ways of humanizing the character of christ or endearing him to us (which is important, since we need to care about this character).

Next up is the contention that the story of jesus was invented by a few simple men in one generation. I don't know what would compell the author to state this as a position of others (except, perhaps, that maybe this was the position of someone in his experience. I'm of the opinion that the christ narrative took a bit more than a single generation to put together (in fact -that it's still being put together today- as a narrative). As to whether or not the character described is a powerful or appealing personality...I suppose that would be a matter of opinion. I don't share the authors opinion. I don't think that the ethics described are so lofty (after all, we have a reaffirmation of thought crime and the introduction of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice/deicide - just to point out two examples), and I definitely don't think that the narrative presents me with any inspiring vision of brotherhood. I don;t think that the construction of any character at any time (within any time-frame) by anyone is in any way more miraculous than the notion of the dead rising from their graves (and I suspect that this statement has at least a touch of hyperbole to it).

If literary criticism were the only tool we had to go on to judge the contents of our past I'm afraid that we would have a much less complete picture of that past before us today. In fact, I think we;d have a picture of the past that is more like the picture offered in 1944..rather than 2013. Laying that aside, I would hope that the trouble undertaken to construct this jesus would give at least a competent account of whomever the narrators wanted to portray jesus as- otherwise they failed as storytellers. Whether this particular story is the most fascinating feature of the history of western man...I don't think that was true even in 1944(and I have a busy 69 years more history to consider) - but the authors opinion is free to differ from mine.

Now, I want to clarify something here. Durant (in his other works, and even on the subject of christ) was pretty reliable with regards to removing magic from the equation. So, claiming that he "believed in the gospels" is a tad disingenuous. But whether or nt Durant was willing to propose that there was some jesus - the man and whether he had any evidence for jesus the-man would be an entirely different proposition. If he possessed any evidence that we do not possess now he never made any mention of it, and we certainly don't have any now either. Jesus Christ, the miracle working son of a god is an entirely different proposition, and having no evidence for a jesus-the man...you can imagine where jesus-the god finds itself.

So, having gone through all of this...I have to ask you why you felt that this excerpt (or my opinions of it) or the beliefs of Durant (or anyone really) would have to do with the post you quoted? Was this meant to be a logical argument for the existence of a god? An argument for the rationality of belief in the christian god? Because if that's the case...that would be an entirely different (and much shorter) post. I will say that either way (or if it was something else entirely) it's a good example of the part of the quoted post that I mentioned that logic was only as good as what you plug into it. I have higher standards of evidence than Durant, and this is likely due in no small part to having access to better sources of information, more advanced tools and methods for exploring history - this is just a consequence of -my- position in time. That being said....if I was going to try to tease an argument out of that exerpt - it's difficult to miss the argument from incredulity. It would seem that Durant simply couldn't imagine how the character might be invented. Those assumptions about how many generations it took, how many men were involved, the overall historicity of the account (and also that of others..David particularly) might have lead to that unfortunate conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Godscreated]

What does jealousy have to do with revenge in respect to the God of the Bible, especially when He is described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Stupid question. It is written in the book that he ADMITS he is jealous. And hell as a concept reflects that jealousy. Now please proceed with your dodging and cherry picking.

The questions not stupid, you can't go to scripture and find the answer. God made hell, when Lucifer fell and long before God said He was a jealous God. I do not cherry pick through the scriptures, I don't need to, I study enough that I do not have to stoop to that practice.

[KichigaiNeko]

Stupid question. It is written in the book that he ADMITS he is jealous. And hell as a concept reflects that jealousy. Now please proceed with your dodging and cherry picking.

The questions not stupid, you can't go to scripture and find the answer. God made hell, when Lucifer fell and long before God said He was a jealous God. I do not cherry pick through the scriptures, I don't need to, I study enough that I do not have to stoop to that practice.

Actually G-C man made Hell and we have found the gateway to Hades.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/news/...6611365115

So your religion isn't that wonderful afterall G-C. It has it's beginings in paganism.
And another myth bites the dust

[Neo-Scholastic]

...the early Quaker and Methodist abolitionists and all those to follow, the first builders of hospitals and asylums, the first to march for civil rights, all the men and women who demanded religious freedom under intense persecution, all of which led to your freedom , a freedom you use to completely distort history as if unbelievers ever did much more than invent some medical cures and a hydrogen bomb. And when they did do something big, like Communism, or the French Revolution it was a bloody disaster that made the Inquisitions look surprisingly civil.

I could not have said this better myself. Excellent work.

[The Grand Nudger]

What is excellent about that "work" Chad?


the early Quaker and Methodist abolitionists and all those to follow,- I'm glad that people found it within their hearts and faiths to renounce slavery, again, our spotty track record in and out, in and out. I'm also glad that they had the balls to stand up to their fellow christian slaveholder.

the first builders of hospitals and asylums, - the first builders of these things? Not even by a mile. Country was initially filled with people of christian faith, buildings were thus erected by peoples of christian faiths I find this less impressive or indicative o christianity than you do. Had it been uslims, muslims would have built the buildings

the first to march for civil rights,-and the last, apparently, to oppose them even unto today.

all the men and women who demanded religious freedom under intense persecution, - intense persecution from other christians

all of which led to your freedom - a freedom absolutely defined by it's distance from your faith

a freedom you use to completely distort history- uh huh...

as if unbelievers ever did much more than invent some medical cures and a hydrogen bomb.- I see, "distorting history" is to be avoid, "omitting history" np.

And when they did do something big, like Communism, or the French Revolution it was a bloody disaster that made the Inquisitions look surprisingly civil. - Nothing makes the inquisition look surprisingly civil, nor would the inequity of others excuse ones own.

[Brian37]

Stupid question. It is written in the book that he ADMITS he is jealous. And hell as a concept reflects that jealousy. Now please proceed with your dodging and cherry picking.

Stupid answer. The original Hebrew word means jealous/zealous.
Please proceed to cherrypick "jealous"...

Of course it does not mean that, because "interpretation" is always the dodge. Ok have it "Yahweh", "zealous", my bad. 19 hijackers were "zealous" in their belief too, didn't turn out so well for 3,000 people.

"Jealous or zealous" it still amounts to a head character that wants everything his way and anyone who gets in his way gets hurt.

AND you included jealous yourself as a meaning, read your own words.

Not to mention the Hebrew god is a rip off of the storm god Yahweh of the Canaanite pantheon.

It doesn't bother you that this alleged all powerful being writes this instruction manual so well that no one can agree on the instructions or how they should be "interpreted".

Look this is how it works for you, for Jews, for Christians, and for Muslims.

"Interpretation" coincides always with the one who claims "I got it right".

If I owned a bicycle factory and hired your god to write the assembly instructions, the bike would end up with squid for spokes, and a peanut butter and Jelly sandwich for a seat, and I'd have to keep re hiring employees because they would kill each other over which version of assembly instructions to put in the box.

Take your god goggles off. They way the god character of all the gods Abraham are written, is a nasty guy who does not take kindly to dissent, call it what you want.

Thats like arguing someone is less dead if they get stabbed in the heart vs shot in the heart.

Zealous is the same family as zealot. Which makes your deity an obsessed asshole.

---

...the early Quaker and Methodist abolitionists and all those to follow, the first builders of hospitals and asylums, the first to march for civil rights, all the men and women who demanded religious freedom under intense persecution, all of which led to your freedom , a freedom you use to completely distort history as if unbelievers ever did much more than invent some medical cures and a hydrogen bomb. And when they did do something big, like Communism, or the French Revolution it was a bloody disaster that made the Inquisitions look surprisingly civil.

I could not have said this better myself. Excellent work.

SO if no other sect of any other religion were capable of doing good, then evolution would be dependent on that particular label and it really would own rights to inventing morality. It takes religion to divide humanity and it takes those within religion to ignore their own dogma to stay relevant to the social norms of their time.

Oh and the old COMMIE dictator bullshit. You do realize that for oppression to work it requires an unmovable absolute power, like God?