“I live on the other side of the year 1724. Maybe that’s not a significant year to you, but in the western world medical science finally determined that every woman has an egg cell. Prior to that time they thought that the woman was simply the receptacle for the life of the new baby, not a contributor to the life of the new baby. And from that moment on we have had to face the fact that women are co-creators in equal dimensions of every life that has ever been born, including the life of Jesus of Nazareth. That is we now know that if Jesus has Mary for Jesus’ mother, he has fifty per cent of his genetic code from his mother, so he is fifty per cent human. And if you literalize the birth stores of Matthew and Luke, you would have to say that he is fifty per cent divine. That is not exactly what the church has tried to teach about Jesus. A half human half divine creature, but you cannot live in the modern world of genetics and not come to that conclusion if you literalize the story of Jesus’ birth. And so there’s a real sense in which the discovery of the egg cell ended the literal biological understanding of the virgin birth forever. And I have to live in this 21st century.

“I live on the other side of Charles Darwin. And Charles Darwin not only made us Christians face the fact that the literal creation story cannot be quite so literal, but he also destroyed the primary myth by which we had told the Jesus story for centuries. That myth suggested that there was a finished creation from which we human beings had fallen into sin, and therefore needed a rescuing divine presence to lift us back to what God had originally created us to be. But Charles Darwin says that there was no perfect creation because it is not yet finished. It is still unfolding. And there was no perfect human life which then corrupted itself and fell into sin, there was rather a single cell that emerged slowly over 4½ to 5 billion years, into increasingly complexity, into increasing consciousness.

“And so the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the fall becomes a nonsensical story. So how can we tell the Jesus story with integrity and with power, against the background of a humanity that is not fallen but is simply unfinished?

“I live on the other side of Sigmund Freud, and so I have to face the fact that my church has been exposed as keeping people in a state of perpetual dependency; playing control games, playing guilt games. Not calling people as St Paul once suggested, into the fullness of the statue of Christ Jesus that is within us, but keeping us docile and servile and dependent and childlike. Oh the Christian church has encouraged enormous immaturity among the peoples who are its primary adherence.

Timmy - “What do you believe Marx?”

Instead of spending God knows how long writing up my view of every single Christian doctrine, doctrines which often differ from denomination to denomination, I’ll just quote Spong because I agree with what he’s saying here:

“I am a child of the 21st century. That is a very different time from the time in which my faith tradition was born - we think in very different ways. I live on the other side of Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo. I cannot possibly conceive of my planet earth as the cente of a three-tiered universe. I know rather that the sun, around which my planet earth revolves, is a middle sized star in a galaxy called the Milky Way that has over a hundred billion other suns or stars within it. And I know that my galaxy the Milky Way is only one of 125 billion galaxies in the visible universe, with distances that can only be measured in light years, beyond even our capacity to embrace. So I can no longer think of God as sitting somehow just above this earth; periodically invading this world to accomplish some miraculous thing, keeping record books on the likes of you and me, sending guilt, reward, sickness, weather patterns to punish. That’s simply not a god that is a conceivable concept for me.

“I also cannot imagine trying to suggest that there was once a literal star that was hung in the sky to announce the birth of a man named Jesus. Nor can I imagine that that star could be dragged across the sky, the roof of the earth or the floor of heaven, perhaps by one of the angels that apace so slowly that wise men could actually follow it. I cannot believe that there was a time when this Jesus of Nazareth, having completed his work, decided to return to where God is, and so he simply rose off this earth to go beyond the sky. I know that if Jesus rose off this earth and went far enough, he didn’t get to heaven he got into orbit. I live in a very different kind of universe from the universe in which the bible was written, and I cannot pretend that that is not so.

“I live on the other side of Isaac Newton, who helped us to understand the laws by which our physical universe operates; who helped to remove some of the mystery of life, and who dramatically narrowed the field in which people, our ancestors in faith once though that miracles and magic occurred. I do not live in a world where people can walk on water, or still a storm, or take five loaves of bread and feed 5000 men plus women and children. If that is a requirement of my commitment to Jesus, I find it difficult to stretch my mind outside the capacities of my world view.

Timmy - I observe the Christians who surround me and tell you what they tell me that they believe.
Josh - The majority of Christians that I’ve met, as well as the majority of churches that I attend do indeed state that they believe vehemently that Jesus came back to life, that Mary was a virgin, etc

Do these Christians have any idea where the Bible came from or how it was written and compiled? Do they even know in what time frame the different books were written? If you mentioned the council of Hippo to them, would they know what you were talking about? Do they have any knowledge of how Christian doctrines and dogmas developed? What about the Christological dogmas? Have they ever heard of Chalcedon? Have they heard of docetism or monophysitism? If you’re answering “no, no, no” then these Christians are ignorant of the history and teachings of their own alleged faith. Thus, they are the last people you should be going to if you want to gain any sort of serious knowledge about Christianity. I recall a Protestant relative of mine asking me once if Catholics believe in original sin, despite the fact that it was St. Augustine, a Catholic, who came up with the term in the first place. Perhaps you should ask some of those knowledgeable and learned Christians you correspond with and “observe” where that term came from and see if they even know something as simple as that.

Josh - “The type of ‘religion’ you’re discussing requires a massive amount of education.”

Not in the least. I was reading the Bible critically while paying attention to its historical, cultural, and literally contexts when I was still in high school. All one needs is a good study Bible (I mentioned several in an earlier post). These Bibles are right at the local Barnes and Nobles. They’re not hard to find, and no Christian has an excuse to be ignorant. As I pointed out, they’re even serious Bibles available for kids nowadays. If a person wants to go beyond that, they’re a lot of works of popular theology by Borg, Spong, etc. that are affordable and easy to read.

Josh - “Rather than study what some moderate in an ivory tower may say religion is, I think it is more pragmatic, as well as accurate to look at the majority of members.”

For one thing, most of these moderates are priests and ministers with parishes and churches. Many, like Spong, are or have been bishops. All of them are participating on level or another at a church. They’re not locked away in a university somewhere. Furthermore, I was a Catholic when I developed most of these views and I did so with the help of, not in spite of, my priest. If there exists a majority of Christians in the US who are unaware of the developments in Biblical scholarship and theology, that is the fault of each of them as individuals, not the fault of the entirety of the Christian religion.

Timmy - “First of all if you were going for a laugh by defending christianity under that screen name you have succeeded.”

I’m not so much defending Christianity, or religion, as I am pointing out that you are ignorant of the diversity of belief within the Christian faith, and that it makes little sense to make generalizations about a group of 2 billion people. Many Christians in Asia, for example, find it ludicrous to state that Christ is the only savior or the only path to God, even though many Christians here consider this to be the very essence of Christian faith. Does that mean that the Asian Christians are less Christian than the American ones?

As for the name Marx, it’s a political thing. Incidentally, “Heart of a Heartless World,” a book that I recommended, was written by a Marxist. It’s a brilliant book by an atheist who actually knows what he’s talking about. Other atheists could learn a lot from it (hint, hint).

Timmy - “You claim to not be a Christian, but you claim to know better than I what Christians believe.”

Christianity is part of my cultural heritage so I still participate in it. Dennett also goes to church from time to time. Besides that I’m a Unitarian Universalist. Insofar as what Christians believe is concerned, their beliefs are just as diverse as any other group’s. That’s the point of what I’m saying.

Timmy - “You are claiming to know what Christians believe and most would completely disagree with you.”

Some Christians believe this, others believe that. Some would agree with me, many would not. That’s my point, that there are a variety of opinions within the Christian faith.

Beside the actual content of the debate, I find myself somehow fascinated and distracted by the words used by people of the “truthdig” ilk.

Using “racist” (even though it makes no sense with reference to Harris) is the nuclear bomb of left wing accusations.  Even if they have to stretch, they find a way to stick it in the conversation… a kind of blow to the kidneys when the fight is lost.

For those of you who aren’t Americans, you must understand that we have something of a fetish about race.  If you ever want to score immediate points, and make a cheap grab for higher ground, accuse your opponent of racism.  As freaky as it sounds, it is VERY effective...you’ll even get ooohs and aaaahs and rounds of applause.

In the hellish circumstances of an unreformed religion, the dogmatic liberal has a prime opportunity to drop jaws with his open minded and sympathetic compassion.  It’s a way of impressing us ... sort of like flexing one’s liberal muscles on a beach full of those who compete for having the most open mind.

That sounded a bit awkward, but it’ll do.

side note: Timmy… you are a VERY funny dude!  Good work.  Have you tried out for Last Comic Standing? (or is that insulting to you?)

Marx,

Start with this one.
You claim to not be a christian, but you claim to know better than I what christians believe.
So tell me a couple of things that christians believe, that you do not believe.
There must be some differences in belief between you, othrwise you would be a christian. So what do they believe that you don’t?

Marx,

First of all if you were going for a laugh by defending christianity under that screen name you have succeeded. I am having a good chuckle.

What do you believe Marx?
Do you believe that God created the universe?
Do you believe that the Christians are right?
Do you believe that the Muslims are right?
Do you believe that the Jews are right?
Do you believe that the Hindus are right?
Are the Buddhists right?

If any one of those theologies is right, the rest are wrong.
Most likely, and most obviously, all of them are wrong.

I’ll have to deal with the rest of your post later but I just want you to know that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. You are claiming to know what Christians believe and most would completely disagree with you.

I just went on to Anne Coulters web-site where millions and millions of christians blog every day. I went on to one of the discussion boards and asked:Is God literally the creator of the universe? Is Jesus literally the son of God? I was chastised for asking a stupid question and given a resounding “of course!”

I started out as a christian Marx. I have lived among christians my whole life and for the last two years I have been blogging intensely with christians. Most disagree with you. Most that I have encountered do believe that Adam and Eve were literally the first two people created by god.

I don’t tell Christians what they believe.
I observe the Christians who surround me and tell you what they tell me that they believe.

But it would really help in this discussion if we are going to have an honest dialogue, if you would enlighten us to what you believe.

What do you believe Marx?

Marx,
While impressive, your statements seem to bolster Sam Harris’s argument.  The type of ‘religion’ you’re discussing requires a massive amount of education.  Those that you are quoting would be considered ‘moderates’.  Sam says he has no beef with the behavior of moderates in regard to religion except in that they apologize and cover for their fundamentalist brethren. 

Rather than study what some moderate in an ivory tower may say religion is, I think it is more pragmatic, as well as accurate to look at the majority of members.  The majority of Christians that I’ve met, as well as the majority of churches that I attend do indeed state that they believe vehemently that Jesus came back to life, that Mary was a virgin, etc.

I think those points aren’t as important to debate for obvious reasons, but it sheds light on the ‘moderates’ role in defending the fundamentalist wackos—this thread is a good example of people touting moderate views in defense not of their actions, but of those that are killing people. 

Instead of persecuting those outside your religion who are actively stating that they don’t think this behavior is acceptable, it would behoove a religion to persecute those claiming to be within the religion that are not practicing it.  Until this happens, one must assume that the silence is a sign of acceptance that those extremists are indeed part of your religion.

“The definition of religion used by Religious Humanists is a functional one. Religion is that which serves the personal and social needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical world view.

“To serve personal needs, Religious Humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals, methods for dealing with life’s harsher realities, a rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense of purpose.

“To serve social needs, Humanist religious communities (such as Ethical Culture societies and many Unitarian-Universalist churches) offer a sense of belonging, an institutional setting for the moral education of children, special holidays shared with like-minded people, a unique ceremonial life, the performance of ideologically consistent rites of passage (weddings, child welcomings, coming-of-age celebrations, funerals, and so forth), an opportunity for affirmation of one’s philosophy of life, and a historical context for one’s ideas.”

He further writes:

“The fact that Humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox. Another is that both Religious and Secular Humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point of eschewing faith altogether. The dichotomy between reason and faith is often given emphasis in Humanism, with Humanists taking their stand on the side of reason. Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather as an alternative way of being religious.”

Also,

“Religious Humanism is usually without a god, without a belief in the supernatural, without a belief in an afterlife, and without a belief in a “higher” source of moral values. Some adherents would even go so far as to suggest that it is a religion without ‘belief’ of any kind-- knowledge based on evidence being considered preferable. Furthermore, the common notion of ‘religious knowledge’ as know- ledge gathered through nonscientific means is not generally accepted in Religious Humanist epistemology.

“Because both Religious and Secular Humanism are identified so closely with cultural humanism, they readily embrace modern science, democratic principles, human rights, and free inquiry. Humanism’s rejection of the notions of sin and guilt, especially in relation to sexual ethics, puts it in harmony with contemporary sexology and sex education as well as aspects of humanistic psychology.”

And,

“Religious Humanists, in embracing modern science, embrace evolution in the bargain. But individuals within mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism also embrace modern science--and hence evolution. Evolution happens to be the state of the art in science today and is appropriately taught in science courses. That evolution has come to be identified with Religious Humanism but not with mainline Christianity or Judaism is a curious quirk of politics in North America. But this is a typical feature of the whole controversy over humanism in the schools.”

Timmy, in reply to your most recent post, let me state that I absolutely, unequivocally, DO NOT believe in tribalism. If you look up “Burke Lecture John Shelby Spong” on Google you’ll find some thoughts on religious tribalism which you might find quite interesting.

You wrote: “Nothing but trouble arises when large groups of people pretend to know who god is, and what god wants. Clearly no one does.”

Let me provide you with another quote:

“What, then, can we honestly say about certainty and faith? The hard step we must take is to acknowledge that subjective certainty regarding a particular tradition or any given belief is less a sign of its veracity than it is of the socialization procedures by which we were indoctrinated with that particular understanding and of the emotional needs and conditioning that undergird that certainty. To progress to broader understanding, we must rupture established securities, realizing that our own religious ideas are not necessarily superior to others, and admitting that others reach toward the good and the true as we do. This means characterizing ourselves and our own religious tradition as seekers among other seekers, rather than as truth-possessors in the midst of ignorant, arrogant, erroneous, or poor-faithed others.”

That’s a quote from Mary Jo Meadow, professor emerita of psychology and religious studies at Minnesota State University, Makato. She is a Catholic and a nun of the Sisters for Christian Community who is also vowed to the Theravadan Buddhist nun’s precepts. I agree with her statement entirely.

You wrote: “I suspect that you and I are the same kind of reluctant atheist.”

I tend to define myself as a religious humanist. Frederick Edwords explains:

The point is that it makes no sense to say that “Christians believe this” or that “Christians believes that.” You need to distinguish between fundamentalists and moderates and realize that there is much diversity within the Christian faith. As I mentioned earlier, it is commonly believed among Christians, for instance, that God was revealed to us through Jesus. However, there are countless interpretations as to what exactly that means.

“You say atheists don’t understand christians? Christians don’t understand christians”

I’m not saying atheists don’t understand Christians. I would not criticize you for making generalizations and then turn right back around and do the same. No, there are a great many atheists, some who I know personally, others who I have heard or read, who understand Christianity just fine. I already mentioned Dennett. Scott Mann is another atheist who has written an excellent book, “Heart of a Heartless World: Religion as Ideology.” I’m not saying they understand Christianity and religion because I agree with all of their opinions (I don’t), I’m saying that within the texts which they have written and the speeches and interviews which they have given they have demonstrated a real, solid, comprehensive knowledge of the Christian faith.

It makes sense to actually pursue some sort of authentic understanding of the subject of one’s inquiry and analysis, don’t you think? I’m reminded of all of the creationists I’ve argued with who have never even read a single book on biology yet pretend to speak as if they are some sort of an authority on the subject.

“They believe that Jesus literally, not figuratively, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.”

John Dominic Crossan has studied at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and the Ecole Biblique in Jordanian East Jerusalem. He has written nearly thirty books on Biblical scholarship.

He writes:

“The Easter story is not about a single day, but reflects the struggle of Jesus’ followers over a period of months and years to make sense of both his death and their continuing experience of empowerment by him. Second, stories of the resurrected Jesus appearing to various people are not really ‘visions’ at all, but are literary fiction prompted by struggles over leadership in the early Church. Third, resurrection is one-but only one-of the metaphors used to express the sense of Jesus’ continuing presence with the followers and friends.”

There is much debate among Biblical scholars and theologians, but even many of the less liberal ones would say (and have said/written) something similar on this subject. You’d be hard pressed to find one who support the idea that Jesus’ body was simply resuscitated after three days.

To quote R. Gregor Smith: “We may freely say that the bones of Jesus lie somewhere in Palestine. Christian faith is not destroyed by this admission. On the contrary, only now, when this has been said, are we in a position to ask about the meaning of the resurrection as an integral part of the message concerning Jesus. The reality of Jesus with which we have to do in faith at this point is not an irrational addendum to his whole life. We are not asked to believe in the empty tomb, or in the resurrection: but in the living Lord. So far as the historically ascertainable ‘acts’ are concerned we have the faith of the disciples nothing more.”

I mentioned Bishop John Shelby Spong in my second post (this being my fourth post). Here’s what he says about the ascension:

“The ascension story, as Luke tells it in the Book of Acts, assumes a flat earth covered by a domed ceiling beyond which heaven exists and God dwells. Jesus rises in order to enter the keyhole in the sky to be enthroned at the right hand of God. But in a space age, rising from this earth into the sky does not result in achieving heaven. It might only result in achieving orbit. The image of Jesus in eternal orbit with white tunic flying in the breeze does nothing for my spiritual understand and trivializes the deeper meaning of the biblical story.”

Again, most Biblical scholars and theologians would agree. None of this is to suggest that there isn’t lots of intense, even angry debate among Christians in scholarly circles. However, it is taken for granted that something like the ascension is metaphorical, not literal.

“They believe that he will literally return to earth. They believe that heaven is a real place where their literal spirit will literally go.”

This post is just getting longer and longer, and I haven’t eaten breakfast yet. So I will simply say this: No, they don’t.

“They believe that Jesus literally performed miracles and that Mary was literally a virgin.”

Most Biblical scholars (including Geza Vermes, a Jew) do indeed believe that Jesus performed at least some miracles. They believed he may have been participated in some healings. However, even someone like Walter Kasper, a Cardinal who works in the Vatican, reject the nature miracles like walking on water, etc. There are also a minority who understand all of the miracles to be metaphorical.

The theologically literate don’t tend to find Mary’s virginity probable, or for that matter, important. Again, this is true of even the more middle of the road folks like theologian Fr. Richard McBrien or or Biblical scholar John P. Meier.

Timmy,

There is a serious gap between Christians who are familiar with the advances in Biblical scholarship and theology and those who aren’t. It would be helpful to take that into account before making generalizations about the Christian faith.

You wrote: “I am pretty sure that all Christians believe that Jesus was literally the son of God, (some believe he was also God at the same time).”

First off, no Christian I’ve met, even the fundamentalist ones, LITERALLY understands Jesus to be God’s son. That is, they do not believe that God is a male sexual being who copulated with a female sexual being to beget offspring. Any Christian with any sense at all will realize that God does not literally beget, generate, or father, and these are metaphors. That said, many Christians believe Jesus to be divine, one in being with the Father, sharing the same divine essence with him, etc. The gap I wrote about comes into play here. Theologians and Biblical scholars recognize the historical relativity of Christian dogma. They recognize that there are various Christologies within the New Testament and that most traditional high Christology is based on Greek interpretations of the Gospel of John, despite it being the last of the canonical gospels to be written (it was authored at around 100 C.E.). The common approach among theologians and Biblical scholars is to focus on a low Christology, that starts with the historical Jesus. While many theologically literate Christians do refer to Jesus as divine, they usually mean that God is present especially, particularly, and uniquely to them in Jesus, a human person. They do not mean simply that “Jesus is God.” Even in traditional Christian orthodoxy that statement would be dangerously near to several heresies, as Christian dogma holds that Jesus is one with divine being with two nature, a human and a divine one, not simply that “Jesus is God.”

You also wrote: “They further believe literally that this God created the universe”

Um, you are aware that the big bang theory was created as the theory of the primeval atom by a priest, Fr. Georges Lemaître, right? You also aware that the lead witness against intelligent design at the Dover Trial was Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a devout Catholic and the Professor of Biology at Brown University, right? Surely you’re aware that there are quite a few Christians working in the scientific field, people like physicist Dr. Stephen Barr, who has said that “It is embarrassing that this ‘Creationism’ versus Evolution battle is still going on” and Jesuit Fr. George Coyne who stated that “Intelligent design isn’t science, even if it pretends to be?” Of course, most of all, I’m sure you’re perfectly aware that is Katherine Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, is a marine biologist?

Or, maybe you aren’t. Hmm.

“and promised a parcel of land to the Jews while handing them the rule-book by which all humans should live.”

LOL! No Biblical scholar or theologian or any Christian who reads the Bible critically does not recognize the mythology and tribalistic nonsense that is prevalent within the Old Testament. Again, the gap comes into play here.

“Most believe that God literally killed all of humanity in a flood.”

Why don’t you take a look at the study notes of the The New Oxford Annotated NRSV Bible or The HarperCollins Study Bible? Even the study notes provided by scholars in confessional bibles such as the Catholic New American Bible or New Jerusalem Bible don’t take these myths literally. You can even look at Breakthrough! a Good News Translation for middle school age children to support my point.

“They believe that Moses literally received the 10 commandments from God.”

Nope, theologically literate Christians do not believe this, nor does any Biblical scholar or theologian.

I want to thank Marx for adding to the discussion, and I agree with a lot of what you have written.  I haven’t read everything you wrote yet, but I will as soon as I find time.

Timmy said: “Religion is a bunch of small groups of men competing for the ascendency of moral authority over the entire human race.” This is a very simple and childish way of looking at religion.  The world is more complicated than that.  As Marx has mentioned, Hedges went to Harvard Divinity School (even got accepted to Union Theological, probably the best divinity school in the country) and is the son of a Presbyterian minister.  He knows a little more about religion than you do.  If you’re an atheist, why do you get to define what religion is?  I strongly disagree with the definition you gave.  It’s ignorant and irrational.

Hey SkinnerPunk,

How’s it going? Here’s my website.
http://www.timrykert.com
Good to hear from you.

Marx,

Read back further and you will see that Cat and I were having a discussion about his Islamic friend who lives in the US. It was Cat who suddenly switched mid conversation to talking about the bible in General because he knew he could not argue with my assessment of the Koran.

That being said I stand by my assessment of all religion.
Do you have an answer for my assertion that all christians believe in those parts of the bible that I listed literally?
And if you agree that they do, I don’t know how you could disagree because they do or they go to hell, then how do you not see how supporting this ideology is the most divisive world view that anyone could have. Moderate religion supports the fact that the bible is literally inspired by the deity who created the universe and who has rules for all humanity to follow or face the ultimate punishment. And these rules are to be delivered through the religion of one particular tribe.

Of course this ideology creates war and terror. How could it not?

If we are to all get along, we need to drop ancient tribal claims to ultimate knowledge and accept that no one currently knows the nature of our existence. If you want to believe that your inner moral voice is your creator talking to you then go ahead. Just be personally, and open mindedly spiritual about that. The minute you try to ascribe that feeling to one particular religion you are supporting the most divisive idea that humans have ever invented. Religion is a bunch of small groups of men competing for the ascendency of moral authority over the entire human race. Those practicing it are the dupes of these moral authoritarians.

Timmy,

Cat wrote “And then they respond by saying that the Bible clearly states that people must take every word seriously.”

In reply, you wrote: “It does.”

After quoting the Bible entirely out of context (something else which you picked up from fundamentalists?) you wrote:

“The book says that these are all the words of god.
A supposedly timeless god.
And the religion is completely based on the book.
If you disregard huge chunks of this book because it was obviously written by power mongering lunatics, why would you want to believe that what remains is proof of god?”

Cat also wrote “I would like to ask why someone cannot be a religious person and believe in a loose interpretation of the Bible”

Your reply stated “Because that sentence is an oxymoron. The book states very clearly that it is not to be taken loosely, but rather very seriously.”

You further wrote “I will call anyone who believes in a religion based on that book that they are the most brainwashed of dupes, and that for obvious reasons, religion is the most dangerous and divisive ideology in history.”

The context of these remarks would indicate that you were referring primarily to the Bible. That said, if I was in error, I apologize.

Kudos Timmy! It has been a month or two since I have posted here, but you and Linda seem to have things in hand.
It would be fun to actually see who you folks are… does anyone have a BLOG or photo-site where we can see you?
This is me sitting next to my friend, the potato.
http://picasaweb.google.com/BehaviorKelton/KeltonAndFr iends/photo?authkey=zTqG-19bOmY#5111733070058402642

Marx,

You need to read more carefully before you comment.
All of the comments you refer to were about the Koran and they were correct.

Hello Marx,

Welcome to the conversation.
First of all, in that quote I was talking about the Koran, which is believed by muslims to be the literal word of god. And that religion does not allow for any reinterpretation of the Koran. Any softening or westernization of that religion is blaspheme to the extreme.

But are you suggesting that christians take none of the bible literally?
by all means correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that all christians believe that Jesus was literally the son of God, (some believe he was also God at the same time).
They further believe literally that this God created the universe and promised a parcel of land to the Jews while handing them the rule-book by which all humans should live.
Most believe that God literally killed all of humanity in a flood.
They believe that Moses literally received the 10 commandments from God.
They believe that Jesus literally, not figuratively, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
They believe that he will literally return to earth.
They believe that heaven is a real place where their literal spirit will literally go.
They believe that Jesus literally performed miracles and that Mary was literally a virgin.

Who decides what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are to be taken as allegorical? The Romans? The Council of Nicea? The Emperor? The Pope? The Lutherins? The Methodists?, The Mormons? The Fundamentalists? The Anglicans? The orthodox?

Where is the objective morality in that heap of confusion? And that’s just a few of the over 3000 christian sects. All believing that different parts are literal and allegorical. You say atheists don’t understand christians? Christians don’t understand christians.

Nothing but trouble arises when large groups of people pretend to know who god is, and what god wants. Clearly no one does.

Wether you believe the entire bible is literal, or you just believe that the parts I mentioned above are literal, which all christians do, you are supporting the very dangerous theory that one very large group of people know who the one true god is, and all the other religions are wrong and blasphemous.

I suspect that you and I are the same kind of reluctant atheist.
I call myself an atheist because I believe with conviction and complete confidence that all of these versions of god created by man are precisely that. But I am also an atheist to the beliefs of some atheists that there is no reason for our existence, our imagination, our drive to wonder why? Our love, our joy. Something is up with all of that, and I personally love to think spiritually about it all, which is why I am all the more offended by people who claim to know what it all means, and they have a huge helping of dogma to go with it.

Spirituality good.
Religion bad

In further reply to Timmy’s comment, “And the religion is completely based on the book,” I must add that it is commonly accepted among scholars that the earliest parts of the Bible weren’t written earlier than 10 B.C.E. That means the Abrahamic faith existed for something like 800 years before the story of Abraham was even written. Timmy also quoted the Torah several times, which was written around 300 years after Moses. Even when it comes to the gospels, there is a 35 to 70 year gap between their subject (Jesus) and the texts (Mark likely being the earliest gosppel, and John being the latest). Again, the books of the Bible were created to give expression to a religious faith that already existed independently of any religious texts. Historically then, faith has not been based on the Bible. Even after scripture was canonized, the majority of believers remained illiterate, and got their faith from the celebration of Sunday Eucharist and other ceremonies, not from the Biblical text.

Today, smart Christians have learned that taking the Biblie seriously does not necessarily mean taking the Bible literally. Instead, it means taking up the task of demythologizing the Bible. It means applying historical criticism to the texts and trying to find the deeper meaning behind all the stories.

I just have to emphasize that it is spectacularly presumptuous that anyone would suggest that every serious Biblical scholar and theologian for nearly the last 200 years wasn’t really a Christian, and that fundamentalism is really the only authentic form of the Christian faith. I can’t help but think of someone like John Shelby Spong. He was baptized Episcopalian as an infant, confirmed as an adolescent, seminary educated, ordained a priest at 24, made a bishop at 44 and served as one for 24 years. Yet, he isn’t a fundamentalist and dismisses Biblical inerrancy as offensive nonsense. Thus, he has been kidding himself for all of the many decades he has spent serving the church, as he is not really a Christian at all. I apologize, but that reasoning doesn’t strike me as making any sense at all. Most Biblical scholars have spent their whole lives working and studying in the church. They have read the Bible hundreds of times, verse by verse, in Hebrew and Greek. They are well acquainted with Christian teachings. Yet you, an atheist speaking from the outside, are going to tell them that they are not Christians?

I’m late to the conversation, and this is my first post on this site, but I saw this and couldn’t help but comment.

Timmy wrote:

“The book states very clearly that it is not to be taken loosely, but rather very seriously. It is simply idiotic and disingenuous to belong to a religion who’s main doctrine is the complete submission to the will of god, and who’s book sates very clearly that it is the infallible word of god, and to decide to disregard many of the main doctrines because they are not socially acceptable in the western democracy you have decided to live in.”

The Bible makes no such claim. How could it, when it was not written as a single volume but instead consists of books that were generally written independent of each other over centuries? There was not even an official Christian canon until the councils of Hippo and Carthrage in the 300s. Nowhere in the Bible does it claim to be the infallible word of God, a teaching that came much later. What I always find surprising about atheists today is how many of them take fundamentalist claims about Christianity to be normative of the faith. Thus, if fundamentalists say that you must either believe the Bible 100% or not at all, they must be right! This, despite the fact that if you told an early Christian that the Bible is the infallible word of God, s/he’d have no idea what you were talking about. Same goes for an ancient Jew.

You also wrote: “And the religion is completely based on the book.”

Are you kidding? The Bible is an OUTGROWTH of ancient Jewish and early Christian faith. The Bible comes from and gives testimony to ancient Judaism and early Christianity, not the other way around. Are you really suggesting that before the earliest book of the Tanakh (Old Testament) was written there was no Jewish religion, or that the New Testament existed before Christianity?

Insofar as Isaiah 40:8 is concerned, it does not refer to the Bible, which did not even then exist as we know it, but to divine revelation. Isaiah, bring a prophet, understood himself as transmitting divine revelation to the people of Israel. I’d be very interested to see if you can find a single serious Biblical scholar or theologian, Christian, Jewish, even secular, who interprets Is. 40:8 in the same way as you do.

The thinking Christian will read the Bible critically, aware of the historical, cultural, and literary contexts in which it was written. There is nothing unChristian about this, nor is the term “thinking Christian” contradictory, as I’m sure you’re thinking. I resent the idea that Christians must either given in to the idiocy of fundamentalism or promptly declare themselves to be apostates. Being that Hedges in the son of a minister and spent years studying at Harvard Divinity School, I think it’s safe to say that he is in a better position to determine what does and does not constitute authentic or acceptable Christian faith than you.

Daniel Dennett was mentioned earlier. I’m a fan of Dennett’s work on religion (I’m also a fan of his other work) precisely because he is one of the few atheist authors that I have yet to read or hear who possesses any sort of comprehensive understanding of the Christian religion in all it’s diversity. I have no doubt at all that he would disagree with the comments of yours which I’ve quoted. Unlike the other “new atheists,” he does not take one segment of the Christian religion, i.e. fundamentalism, and define it as being the entirety of the faith. His approach to Christianity is an educated one. It is not simplistic. Despite the fact that I disagree with his definition of atheism, being that I fall under it and do not regard myself as an atheist, I think he is brilliant. Unfortunately, the loud, angry, and arrogant types like Hitchens, etc. are the ones who sell more books.

Pity.

Good points Linda. Hopefully Cat will read them without the blinders on.

On another note, I have gotten into a debate with a fellow atheist blogger named GAD on a site that he set-up. We are actually debating about our different brands of atheism. Proof that atheism is not itself a belief, because we are at odds.
It’s an interesting conversation and we are looking for more input.
Join the debate and weigh-in.

http://atheistgods.blogspot.com/

Hope to see you there.

Cat:

Part 4 (final comments)

You are confusing the “war on terror” with the Iraq War.  As you know, the real war on terror began weeks after 9-11 in the mountains of Afghanistan and was the correct decision on behalf of Bush.  This decision has little application to your analogy “if we don’t fight communism abroad in Asia we’ll be fighting it at home.” The war in Afghanistan was, at the onset, a sane and intelligent reaction to the attacks on our own soil.  A sovereign nation has the moral justification to protect and defend itself by fighting the perpetrators harming it.  Many, many liberals supported Bush in his decision. 

Bush then went AWOL and started his dirty little war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorism.  Now that Al Queda has penetrated the Iraq borders the threat of terrorism is rearing its ugly head even there.  We are paying a hefty price for our lack of diligence in Afghanistan and our knee-jerk reaction in Iraq.  I hold our president responsible for most of it.

Bush attempts to incite fear by using the phrase “if we don’t fight them there (in Iraq) we will fight them here” to justify his rationalization of the war, but he has no evidence fighting in Iraq is quelling attacks on our own soil.  Many believe the opposite; it is eliciting more fury and hatred against us.  When you hear conservatives acknowledge Iraq is “the worse foreign policy blunder in the history of the US” you know we are in dire straits.

I cannot speak for others, but if the worse-case-scenario were to occur and Islamic fundamentalist had access to nuclear warheads, I have little doubt they would hesitate to use them on us. If that were the case our government would be morally responsible to do something about it.  What that “something” would be I can only fathom. 

I agree with Josh about dropping the bomb. It was an ugly thing to do, and highly controversial, but it was not terrorism.  Sam talks about ethics in his book and the importance of intent. He says, “where ethics are concerned, intentions are everything.” This “rule of thumb” applies logically, morally and justifiably to war and aggression throughout the world. And any past, present or future abuses our government takes in implementing this rule has made and will make us as a people complicit in acts against humanity. 

The “real” war on terror cannot be analyzed in the same light as our fight against communism.  Terrorism is a tactic to incite fear, intimidation and submission.  Communism is a political/economic philosophy about the State’s relationship to its people (a lousy one I might add.) In our relationships with Communist governments, détente has been successful.  The fear of nuclear annihilation keeps everyone in line. No sane government wants nuclear war heads fired at them.  I suspect even the despot in North Korea keeps that in the back of his mind.

Communists (fortunately) do not embrace the metaphysics of martyrdom as religious believers of Islam do. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a perfect example of this.  Do you think a Cuban Missile Crisis scenario with fundamental Islamists aiming nuclear weapons at us would end peacefully as it did over 40 years ago with Cuba?

It is self-evident the lessons we learned from Vietnam do not aptly apply to fighting terrorism as we know it today, but there are ironic, eerie and fatal similarities between the Vietnam and Iraq, which have little if any relevance to terrorism in the 21st Century.  The fog of wars will never cease.

It has been a while, but I’m back…
I believe, Cat, you’ve missed Sam’s point.
Sam does not say that religion is evil.
Sam says that we must stop protecting religion.  He wants it to be brought down to the same level as all other things you mentioned would replace it (Communism, Socialism, any sort of political reform movement)...we criticize what these things stand for, whether because they’re dangerour, or illogical.  However, society won’t dare criticize religion.  We accomodate it...and will do so until we die from it, if something doesn’t change.

I don’t think that a comparison of the US’s nuclear strike with the acts of terror are at all accurate or fair.
There are several major differences:  a) we were in a war with an identified country and told them to surrender or we would annhilate them.  They refused, we followed through.
b) our leaders were extremely despondent to have to resort to such extreme measures and did so only after much deliberation and hand-wringing. 
c) our own countryman criticized (and still criticize) that strike…

Now—let’s look at the religious terrorism:
a) they are only at war with those who aren’t of their religion (so that means there is no identified enemy)—they state, ‘convert to our religion or we will annihilate you)
b) they are joyful to kill many innocents—in fact, believe they are going to be rewarded for an eternity for doing so
c)not a single religious leader has said anything to criticize it.  They only heap honors and titles on those that propogate it.

Do you see a difference?

Part three
Cat:

To continue…
You state, “All these arguments portray Islamists as dangerous people, not innately, but as a result of their faith. Muslims can accomplish good…”

Harris is not arguing “all” Islamists or Muslims are “bad.” Even I would suggest that is over the edge. What I read him to say is violent fundamentalists Islams are not being challenged or criticized for the egregious acts by their fellow moderate Islams and this lack of accountability from the people who ought to be pointing their moderate fingers at their fundamentalist brethren and publicly condoning such acts (in the very least) does not occur.  Give me one example of a Islamic or Muslim leader who has criticized his religious brothers for their religious beliefs that have driven them to immoral acts of behavior.

In addition, there is the question of why moderates are themselves perpetrating some rather atrocious acts against their own people: read, the mutilation of female sex organs and forced marriages of young girls which I view as a form of rape, rings out clearly in my mind.

Sam Harris has some important things to say about moderate Islamists and their silence and it is worthy to take note of it. 
Since you have read The End of Faith, I will quote briefly from it to make my point.

Harris says from page 116:

“The justice of killing apostates (of Islam) is a matter of mainstream acceptance if not practice.  This appears to be why there did not appear a single reasonable Muslim living on earth when the Ayatollah Khomeini put a bounty on the head of Salman Rushdie.”

You remember Mr. Rushdie? He wrote a book entitled “Satanic Verses” and was issued a fatwa for his “blasphemy” against Islam.  He had to go into hiding for many years to escape death.

Sam explores this further by quoting a “moderate”, Cat Stevens (a “Westerner” who changed his name to Yosuf Islam) and converted to Islam.  Mr. Stevens made some not-so-moderate comments about the fatwa placed on Mr. Rushdie.  If you read his words (on page 262 in the footnotes) you must ask yourself, as a reasonable person, are these the words of a moderate religious person? What exactly is a moderate Islamist?  Are they believers who are too indoctrinated, intimidated, scared, worried (can I add brainwashed?) to speak out against the violent acts of their fundamentalist brethren or are they simply believers in the literal truth of Islamic dogma but are not pushed to the brink of performing such acts of atrocity?  I don’t know. But what, I do ponder, is this:  Is there a panacea for their denial? 

end of part 3--to be continued.......

part two

Cat:
I thank you for starting a real dialogue here with me/us in your last post.  It was well thought out and meaningful.  It gives me more focus and direction.  There has been much written the last few days on this thread and I am still working on your previous comments that I do not want to ignore. ( Specifically your statements that not all Muslums are bad and the “pro-Vietnam” ideas you setforth.) I’ll get back to you soon with a response about those because they are important topics in this discussion.

Then I plan to address your latest post which Timmy has already taken the lead in and made some good points....

One comment to leave with you --in the hopes that you and Timmy can find some common ground:  When you say “Timmy scares me” because of his views and you are offended he suggest you leave the country, my reaction to it is, so what?  Granted, the statement is a bit edgy, but let Timmy speak his mind as we all have a right to do.  Turning him into a fear-factor is hyperbole and ignores more ominous and dangerous factors in the world. Timmy is not promoting his own suicide or killing people because he believes in a utopian afterlife, so let’s give him space to say what he needs to say.

No, it is not the Timmys of the world that scare me. It is the plethora of liberals and moderates who ignore the dangers of fundamental religions and acquiesce to their nonesensical, dangerous and errant beliefs.  The Left claims to hold in high esteem the values of liberalism and democracy, yet they ignore how religious beliefs ---those we call “literal"---completely annihilate such values.

We are on a slippery slope into a dark abyss if we (Liberals/Moderates) do not begin to challenge and question these beliefs with reason and intellect.

Ominous:  It is nice to hear your thoughts.  Thanks for your ideas about “rhetoric.”

..to be continued… end of part 2

Part 2:

Cat’s words in quotes:

“Many argue that the Bible must be taken literally.  But why do they make the rules?”

If you’re talking about me you have it backwards. I argue, as does Harris, that the bible should not be taken literally. It is a work of fiction.

“ Why can’t the Bible be taken figuratively?”

It can, and should be. But all of it should be taken figuratively, not just part of it. Why would anyone take some of it literally, and some of it figuratively. This makes absolutely no sense.

“And then they respond by saying that the Bible clearly states that people must take every word seriously.”

It does.

“This still doesn’t mean one can’t reinterpret the Bible.  People can do whatever they want.”

Of course they can. Jesus reinterpreted the bible. Mohammed reinterpreted the bible. Joseph Smith reinterpreted the bible. But all of those people started new religions to go with their new interpretation.  Your friend for example can reinterpret the Koran and try to find some rosy meaning behind god’s command that women be subservient to their fathers and husbands. That they keep silent, and not be educated. But then your friend has started a new religion. Why would he still call himself a muslim? Muslims believe that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man. That’s what muslims believe. Muslim Imams and clerics have no rosy interpretation for those verses. They take those ones literally. And they do make thew rules for muslims. Your friend can believe what ever he wants to believe. It’s not me saying that your friend is no longer a muslim once he chooses to reinterpret god’s word differently than the Imams, it is muslims. I don’t understand why you don’t get that.

“And if religion perverts people’s morals and conscience, than how is it that Martin Luther King became one of the greatest, if not, the greatest moralists of the 20th century?  How is it that the Salvation Army has helped improve poverty worldwide?”

First of all, I did you a favor by leaving Malcolm X out of that quote.
But you are being silly here Cat. If religion corrupted every mind we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. No one has ever claimed that it did. It generally preys on the weak minded. Unfortunately, we live in a world with a great number of weak minded people who are susceptible to the kind of brainwashing that people like Dr. King are not. That stuff you listed is Just good people, doing good things.

“The Bible and the Koran are books that help people understand their natures.”

Cigarettes help people relax.
I think people should stop criticizing cigarettes.

Part 1:

Cat’s words in quotes:

“I would say that Sam Harris’ main point is this: Religion is a childish invention which has corrupted the minds of millions of people, and had therefore caused them to commit acts of violence in the name of their God.”

You haven’t really missed the mark here, but yourt wording doesn’t explain it very well at all.
I think that Sam’s main point is:
1. religion is untrue.
2. It is dangerous for people to believe that it is true, because of the nature of the ideology. It is claiming to know what the all powerful creator of the universe wants from us. All of us, not just those in the religion. Those outside the religion are breaking the rules with dire consequences to come for them. Those outside the religion are going to hell. Anyone who breaks gods comands will be punished severely. There isn’t anyone in the religion who doesn’t believe that. God punishes the unbelievers. 

That’s the trouble with just one religion. Now add several other religions which also claim to know what the all powerful creator of the universe wants from us. All of us. Only their creator is different, and wants other things. Most importantly, their creator wants everyone in the world to stop believing in the words of other gods, and only listen to him. Or be severely punished.

You are absolutely right Cat. Evil is an internal human trait common to all.
Harris doesn’t deny this, neither do I. Religion is the the most efficient trigger for human evil. Not the “love thy neighbor” stuff obviously. But look at what I just described above Cat. Does that not seem like an unbelievably perfect recipe for disaster in it’s design to bring out the evil in humans? To cause war and strife over extremely important things that aren’t true.

“ I agree that there are many horrible things in the Bible, but let’s remember that the Bible was essentially a struggle.  In other words, the Bible is a work of literature that portrays what men thousands of years ago thought about the nature of their lives.  It shows their effort to try and make sense of a chaotic world.”

Correct Cat.
It is not the word of god, but exactly what you just said.

Lindadugan :

I will try to argue my point as objectively as I can, as to make myself clearer.  I don’t want to “keep throwing a few rotten eggs here and there”.  My goal is to illustrate why Harris’ fundamental argument is erroneous. 

I would say that Sam Harris’ main point is this: Religion is a childish invention which has corrupted the minds of millions of people, and had therefore caused them to commit acts of violence in the name of their God.

Those who observe wars briefly will most likely find that religion has been used as a means of going to war.  They might say that the Crusades and that the Shiite-Sunni conflicts were caused by religion.  If religion did not exist, they would say, terrorists would not be suicide bombing the Israelis or Americans in the name of God.  People would be more peaceful.  These assumptions, however, externalizes evil.  Evil becomes an outside force, when really it is something that is contained in all of us.  We, as humans, have the capacity for evil.  It is human nature, not religion.  If it weren’t for religion, other kinds of institutions would take its place: Communism, Socialism, any sort of political reform movement. 

Sam also dismisses religion as a childish notion that fools people instead of actually helping them.  I agree that there are many horrible things in the Bible, but let’s remember that the Bible was essentially a struggle.  In other words, the Bible is a work of literature that portrays what men thousands of years ago thought about the nature of their lives.  It shows their effort to try and make sense of a chaotic world.  Many argue that the Bible must be taken literally.  But why do they make the rules?  Why can’t the Bible be taken figuratively?  And then they respond by saying that the Bible clearly states that people must take every word seriously.  This still doesn’t mean one can reinterpret the Bible.  People can do whatever they want.  They have the choice.  And if religion perverts people’s morals and conscience, than how is it that Martin Luther King became one of the greatest, if not, the greatest moralists of the 20th century?  How is it that the Salvation Army has helped improve poverty worldwide?  How is it that Malcolm X, a Muslim, boosted the civil rights movement enormously?  The Bible and the Koran are books that help people understand their natures.  Unfortunately, totalitarian regimes will corrupt religion, and turn it into a rallying cry, but this is not religion.  This could be because of racism, or economic disaster, or racism, or social unrest, or other forms of hatred.  But it is not religion.  And people should have enough of a conscience to understand that. 

If any of this is unclear or if you would like to expand and idea in here, mention it in your next post and I’ll be glad to elaborate.

I don’t mean to sound glib, but before people keep abusing the term “rhetoric” I thought I’d do everyone a favor and tell them to stop. The word is not pejorative and an invocation of it to suggest someone is employing patently false or misleading statements is just plain wrong. Sorry, but if anyone in a debate wants to be taken seriously (the rhetorical term is called “ethos") they should be certain that they employ their terms correctly. Basic college stuff.
Below is a cut and paste job from Wikipedia, providing a pretty decent overview of the term.

Rhetoric (from Greek ῥήτωρ, rhêtôr, orator, teacher) is generally understood to be the art or technique of persuasion through the use of oral or written language; however, this definition of rhetoric has expanded greatly since rhetoric emerged as a field of study in universities. In this sense, there is a divide between classical rhetoric (with the aforementioned definition) and contemporary practices of rhetoric which include the analysis of written and visual texts.

Historically, classical rhetoric has its inception in a school of Pre-Socratic philosophers known as Sophists. It is later taught as one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are dialectic and grammar) in Western culture. In ancient and medieval times, grammar concerned itself with correct, accurate, pleasing, and effective language use through the study and criticism of literary models, dialectic concerned itself with the testing and invention of new knowledge through a process of question and answer, and rhetoric concerned itself with persuasion in public and political settings such as assemblies and courts of law. As such, rhetoric is said to flourish in open and democratic societies with rights of free speech, free assembly, and political enfranchisement for some portion of the population.

Contemporary studies of rhetoric have a more diverse range of practices and meanings than was the case in ancient times. The concept of rhetoric has thus shifted widely during its 2500-year history. Rhetoricians have recently argued that the classical understanding of rhetoric is limited because persuasion depends on communication, which in turn depends on meaning. Thus the scope of rhetoric is understood to include much more than simply public--legal and political--discourse. This emphasis on meaning and how it is constructed and conveyed draws on a large body of critical and social theory (see literary theory and Critical Theory), philosophy (see Post-structuralism and Hermeneutics), and problems in social science methodology (see Reflexivity). Every aspect of human life and thought that depends on the articulation and communication of meaning can be said to involve elements of the rhetorical.
It has also spawned its own method of inquiry known as Discourse Analysis.
End quote

And this is more than piddling over semantics or nuance. It’s important. Understanding what we say and write is important. As an atheist myself, I find, along with Sam Harris, that the dictates, diatribes, and mandates allegedly proscribed by a deity to a pious herd of acolytes slavering to do his bidding is one of the most terrifying and unnecessary realities that a modern and rational society should have to face. The threat exists in the language and how it’s interpreted. There is no one correct reading of anything, no one true claim to truth that language can assert to anyone. When Hedges said that writing “freezes” language in the debate, I almost fell out of my chair.

This whole little spiel of mine, I feel, is what Harris, Hitchens, et al are coming back to: the words themselves. It’s what Harris was talking about when alluding to the Jains: nowhere in their doctrines or beliefs is there any possible way to misinterpret the text and go out and bomb an abortion clinic or fly a plane into a building. It’s just not there.

Cat:  I’