Does the statement "Love your enemies,do good to those who hate you and pray for those who despitefully use you" inspire hatred in men? In light of many such clear statements I think it really is foolish to make your assertion that it inspires hatred in men.

You're making me pull out my hair. That "The bible inspires hatred in men" is proven by the content contained atthis website. Really Flann, read my claim carefully, then go to the website and check the contents.

This organization pulls the justification for their hatred verbatim from the bible. They quote passages as they preach hatred. This is true even while the majority of American Christians do not agree with them.

If agreement can be fluid and subjective what is it's basis? Society agrees. What if society changes it's mind tomorrow?

The basis is a difficult thing to understand, as is most true things when compared to fantasy. Think of it as a free-floating rationale. We know we should "do good unto others", because adhering to this rule as a society is the only sustainable way in which others will do good unto us. <-- the concept conveyed by this sentence is the basis, the free floating rationale.

It is the golden rule, contained in every world religion to date. The reciprocity inherent in the rule is self-evident, granted men have the reasoning faculties to figure it out.

I could try to convey the concept with different wording if it doesn't make sense. It is unpacked a mile deep at sites such as the SEP. To my knowledge, they don't have the "basis". It's sort of foolish to pack so much concept into a single sentence, but I don't think anything more would work for you.

As far as society changing it's mind, it happens all the time. What happens if they get it wrong, you ask? World War 2. Stalin. The Inquisition.

There is reasoning behind behavior, behind morality. Sometimes men's reason goes astray, and morality with it. History shows that morality is a flexible thing. If morality were absolute, how could men do evil? The golden rule is a reasoned conclusion, not an absolute imperative given by some god. When men come to the wrong conclusion about what is right, wars happen.

I know videos are awkward for you but the Siverman/White debate covers a lot of these questions.

There is no content on this subject more authoritative or top-notch than the SEP website. Go there and start reading, it will answer your questions. There is a basis for morality that does not allow for Hitler to be right. It requires accepting an axiom as a starting point, but that is no different than having faith in a god as a starting point. The axiom that is accepted to begin reasoning is proven by history to lead to human flourishing, or at least be the least restrictive. There are many varieties of morality across the world, and some are pretty bad. What twists morality is when you interpret some of the cornerstones, such as purity or sanctity, in a strict way, and elevate these requirements above the third axiom; the golden rule, which deals with the prevention of harm.

LanDroid wrote:Is the Gawd of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam actually this small minded? No, this is proof of a negative: Yahweh does not exist.

Didn't some of the work written by Joseph Campbell pretty much prove the Bible to be myth and literary allegory? I'm speaking as someone raised in church, the son of a preacher who had 12 years of Christian school. There's still very much of the faith I have not, and probably cannot shake off; however, the Biblical text, specifically in reference to the Old Testament, strains credulity.

Just to respond to a couple of things here and on another thread. Your recent post here and elsewhere on the sexism in science thread Landroid, are a bit like soundbite criticisms.
They can't be addressed by soundbites. On "let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Obviously Jesus wasn't saying that adultery is now o.k or good and also said "go and sin no more." He also did say there would be a future judgement for sin and was voluntarily crucified to make atonement for sin, so he took it seriously.
On slavery and related matters, I'm going to provide a link to a fairly detailed response to criticisms by new atheists from Paul Copan.I don't claim these are facile explanations but it may provide some context and understanding from a Christian perspective.
http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45
Hi movie nerd,How are you?
I expect you have an interesting story being a son of a preacher, about how you have arrived at where you are now.
I'm not very familiar with Joseph Cambell but I gather from what you say that he takes a mythicist approach.
I'm stubbornly sticking to my belief in the supernatural in connection with the bible though that's a minority view here among booktalk posters as I'm sure you have noticed.
In any case your ideas and posts are thoughtful and welcome.
P.s Did you ever see a movie called "Wise Blood" directed by John Heuston with Brad Dourif and an actress whose name I forget giving brilliant performances in it. It's from the 1970s and is a black comedy set in the bible belt which is quite poignant as well as funny. A neglected movie masterpiece I think.

Flann 5 wrote:Hi movie nerd,How are you?

I expect you have an interesting story being a son of a preacher, about how you have arrived at where you are now.

I'm not very familiar with Joseph Cambell but I gather from what you say that he takes a mythicist approach. I'm stubbornly sticking to my belief in the supernatural in connection with the bible though that's a minority view here among booktalk posters as I'm sure you have noticed. In any case your ideas and posts are thoughtful and welcome.

P.S. Did you ever see a movie called "Wise Blood" directed by John Heuston with Brad Dourif and an actress whose name I forget giving brilliant performances in it. It's from the 1970s and is a black comedy set in the bible belt which is quite poignant as well as funny. A neglected movie masterpiece I think.

To be honest I have no idea where I am now, spiritually speaking, I have been reading a lot in my time here in college, and a lot of Biblical stuff, specifically Old Testament scripture, which simply strain credulity for me. But I dig and respect much of what Jesus said, and thus along with the somewhat spiritualy reverence I put on the written word in general, lead me to label myself as a Christian still. It is all rather complicated for me, if that makes sense.

I have noticed a strong left-leaning, atheist/agnostic slant in much of the postings here on the forum. I personally think that's a good thing; after all, at home, at the church, and at the private Christian school I used to go to, I received a lot of contradictory and strange information regarding other religious affiliations besides Baptist Christianity. This includes Atheism/Agnosticism. Perhaps in reading the posts I can learn more.

When you say you stick to the supernatural in reference to the Bible, are you saying you are a Biblical literalist? My parents are literalists, and I came from that line of thinking myself; I can full understand that train of thought, though my own mind won't let me accept it. Just a personal thing, if that makes any sense at all.

I haven't seen WISE BLOOD. From what you've said about it, I might just have to pick up a DVD copy the next time I'm in the store.

Movie Nerd wrote: I have noticed a strong left-leaning, atheist/agnostic slant in much of the postings here on the forum.

You're right about many of us being atheist/agnostic, but only some are probably left-leaning.

When it comes to religion, it is natural to criticize the political right because that's where it has the most influence. Other than that, sometimes it's hard for me to decide which major political party I dislike more.

Dexter wrote:You're right about many of us being atheist/agnostic, but only some are probably left-leaning.

I may have misworded my statement before; certainly for many Americans, political affiliations are a complicated and free-flowing enterprise.

I'm an agnostic atheist and an X-Conservative. I'm now registered as an Independent.

Movie Nerd wrote:When you say you stick to the supernatural in reference to the Bible, are you saying you are a Biblical literalist? My parents are literalists, and I came from that line of thinking myself; I can full understand that train of thought, though my own mind won't let me accept it. Just a personal thing, if that makes any sense at all.

I haven't seen WISE BLOOD. From what you've said about it, I might just have to pick up a DVD copy the next time I'm in the store.

Hi Movie Nerd.
I think you can stream that movie free online. It's based on short stories by Flannery O Connor and is full of quirky religiously dysfunctional characters. It's unusual and very well acted. Great dialogue,very well observed by O Connor.
The whole question of literalism and the bible is difficult. I don't think it's all literal and try to understand it as it seems naturally to read, whether narrative,parables or symbolism. I don't have difficulty with the supernatural as I believe in God.
I appreciate it's difficult for you given your parent's views and expectations.I think it's good you try to work things out yourself but I imagine it's difficult given your upbringing. It's all learning. It's good to be critical of everything. Joseph Cambell's views have their critics too so it's no harm to see what they have to say also.
Worldviews rule it seems to me. Whether God exists or not makes all the difference.

A worldview is such a complex thing, meaning much more than the existence of God. On the other hand, that one issue seems to blow all other away in terms of priority in the individual and collective conscience.