• In total there are 14 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 14 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 16: Is Religion Child Abuse?

#64: Mar. - May 2009 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Unread post

All of that was well thought out and coherent thank you for the response… however I have a problem with the foundation of your position.
RT
As a teacher of universal love, clearly a main theme in the Bible, the story is of his inevitable conflict with the world of pain.


This is not at all a clear theme in my opinion… it seems to be a belief that is independent of the text, possibly indoctrinated before the bible was ever read, which supporting material is then used to maintain…

Jesus as written (in my opinion) was a bully, a coward and a jerk, not the embodiment of love or justice. This teacher of universal love seems absent when simply reading the text.

Maybe my standards are too high?

Later
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

Frank 013 wrote:All of that was well thought out and coherent thank you for the response… however I have a problem with the foundation of your position.
RT
As a teacher of universal love, clearly a main theme in the Bible, the story is of his inevitable conflict with the world of pain.


This is not at all a clear theme in my opinion… it seems to be a belief that is independent of the text, possibly indoctrinated before the bible was ever read, which supporting material is then used to maintain…

Jesus as written (in my opinion) was a bully, a coward and a jerk, not the embodiment of love or justice. This teacher of universal love seems absent when simply reading the text.

Maybe my standards are too high?

Later
The Bible mentions love, by one count, 697 times, 439 times in the Old Testament and 258 time in the New Testament. The Easter Passion is about the conflict between the perfect man and the world of pain, and about how ordinary people cannot understand what Jesus calls the main commands, to love God and love neighbour as self. These teachings promote universal love, and are not sectarian as per church tradition.

You do have a bee in your bonnet Frank, calling Jesus a coward. The story of the cross is the epitome of human courage.

We got on to this from the question of whether religion is child abuse. I would say yes when it promotes ideas that are known to be false, but no when its teachings are evidence based, such as the principle that God is love.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Unread post

We got on to this from the question of whether religion is child abuse. I would say yes when it promotes ideas that are known to be false, but no when its teachings are evidence based, such as the principle that God is love.
Evidence based. Exactly what evidence? The few sentences, out of thousands, you choose to select to support your position while hundreds others contradict it?

If we are going by evidence, then surely the great mass of vengeful, petulent, jealous, petty, foot-stamping outweighs the few begrudging snippets of love.

If we seek evidence for what "love is" then perhaps we should consult a scientist?

Christianity is what it is. The bible is what is written within it. Your position may be "God is love". But that does not reflect the majority of what is written in the bible.

I have spoken with many christians. Many of whom have not put in the thought about their belief that you have, RT. I certainly credit you for doing that work when so many i talk to simply do not. But clearly, "God is love" is A positon, one of many, that can be made from the language in the bible. Not the central, most prominent, most easily understood, or most obvious position the bible takes.

You are super-imposing your world view over the one used in the bible. Do not mistake one for the other.

I imagine we would all be better off if the world had taken your stance, but it has not.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Unread post

RT
The Bible mentions love, by one count, 697 times, 439 times in the Old Testament and 258 time in the New Testament.
That is a nice little tid-bit of information, but it does not change the jealous, petty or hateful nature of god in the Old Testament or the bully preaching of Jesus in the New Testament. I would be interested to see the context of those 697 times… How often are they used as a description of god?

And just as a curiosity, do you know how many times the word hate is used? Or how many acts of hatred are committed or commanded by god in the bible?

You know, so we can have a balanced view on the subject…
RT
You do have a bee in your bonnet Frank, calling Jesus a coward. The story of the cross is the epitome of human courage.


Jesus shows his yellow side on more than one occasion…

Jesus preaches
And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. (Luke 12:4)


But then when threatened himself he hides and sneaks away.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple... (John 8:59)
This is a pure case of do as I say, not as I do and is hypocritical and cowardly by my standards.

His cowardly nature is also noted here…
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because Jews sought to kill him. (John 7:1)


The cross example is not very impressive to me, it certainly is not the “epitome of human courage” that you claim that it is.

Jesus foretold his own death and as an all powerful being could have averted it, in other words he committed suicide.

This act of self destruction hardly seems like an example of courage.

Furthermore it seems that Jesus might have expected to be rescued as is demonstrated by his words to Pilate…
If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.
-John 18:36
Of course Jesus himself would not fight… just his servants.

Also what did Jesus sacrifice?

Not his life, he ascended to heaven to live with god in a place of calm, peace and joy. Jesus fled his problems on earth for the joys of heaven; this is not a noble sacrifice, in my opinion this is self serving and cowardly.

If you want an example of human courage see Spartacus. He died (really died… not trading misery for joy) by throwing himself at several centurions while fighting for freedom.

Leonidas and his Spartans fought to the man to protect their way of life…

These are examples of true courage and they can be found in the real world, we do not need to look to a fairy tale for such bravery, especially when the example is lacking.


Later
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:This discussion has a neat segue to American Gods where Neil Gaiman argues precisely that this common scientific view of the relation between belief and existence is incorrect. A main theme of the book is that Gods exist in human hearts, and fall out of existence when they are forgotten and ignored. Gaiman's outlook is actually compatible with a key Biblical text, 1 John 4:16 - "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God" - in suggesting that God is not an entity but a quality of human existence. Here we have belief in love serving to make God exist, with a constructed narrative a main part of the nature of an imagined God.
I don't think Gaiman is arguing anything. American Gods is a work of fiction and Gaiman is telling a story, not espousing Christian values except those which are inherently human to begin with. You seem to be applying your Christian worldview to things that have nothing to do with Christianity. The Bible doesn't help us to understand love. As Frank says, it is more likely to show us how to hate. More importantly, the Bible is such a mishmash of conflicting texts that it can be used to argue anything. This interpretation of love = god is no different from using the Bible to, say, condemn homosexuality. Whatever you like. The Bible is open to any interpretation.

If anything, one of the themes of American Gods is about the power of human belief, but to equate this story with Biblical parable just isn't very meaningful in my opinion.
Last edited by geo on Sat May 23, 2009 12:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Unread post

RT
Philo, a student of messianic movements in Palestine who lived at the time of Jesus and wrote widely about just the sort of thing that Jesus was supposedly up to, never once mentions him. If Jesus flew under Philo's radar he was a master of disguise and invisibility, or there may have been something so way out in his ideas that Philo chose to ignore him.
It seems unlikely that Philo would have ignored the activates of Jesus, especially if Jesus was teaching the things mentioned in the bible… largely because Philo himself adhered to many of those ideals and wrote about them.
RT
I particularly like the line that visiting prisoners is an activity of the elect. Do you get many Christians visiting prisoners in your jail?
Yes and no… the people allowed to visit prisoners must be either directly related or on a list of people supplied by the inmate, although many are no doubt Christians.

Church groups were allowed to visit in the past, but there were way too many problems with the visitors passing contraband to the inmates and causing problems within the prison.

This was not done on purpose (at least not for the most part) but from ignorance.

What harm is there in giving an inmate some gum?

Well gum can be used to contruct shanks or as a mold to copy keys.

Many people were manipulated into bringing worse things into the convicts as well, which ended those sorts of visits, sometimes with the visitor being brought up on charges of introducing a controled substance into the prison.

Sexual advances and attacks, on both male and female visitors also turned many such groups away.

Later
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

That's precisely what I gathered from looking into the book while deciding to buy it, geo. It's a book of fiction, where I originally thought it was meant as non-fiction the way Robert was talking about it. Still an interesting read, but entirely within the scope of fictional entertainment.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

johnson1010 wrote:
We got on to this from the question of whether religion is child abuse. I would say yes when it promotes ideas that are known to be false, but no when its teachings are evidence based, such as the principle that God is love.
Evidence based. Exactly what evidence? The few sentences, out of thousands, you choose to select to support your position while hundreds others contradict it? If we are going by evidence, then surely the great mass of vengeful, petulant, jealous, petty, foot-stamping outweighs the few begrudging snippets of love. If we seek evidence for what "love is" then perhaps we should consult a scientist?
Hi Johnson, fair questions, but quite complicated. In reading the Bible, Jesus and Malachi caution us that we need to separate the wheat and chaff, that there is a lot of rubbish mixed in with a saving message. Clearly, Jesus argues that the nature of this saving message is that God is love. For example, his calls to love your enemies, love your neighbours, and love God with all your heart, mind, soul and spirit, are premised on a theory of the nature of God, and are said to be the foundation of the law, transforming the ancient Mosaic teachings of hatred and exclusivity.

The Gospel of John takes this further with its suggestion that Jesus was the incarnation of pure love. This theory of the nature of God as love, in my reading, suggests that human society can progress if we are completely honest and relate to each other through love, meaning a respect for the intrinsic value of all life and its complex inter-relationships, recognising the sanctity of all nature. The forgiveness that results from such honest love is presented by Jesus as a way to dissolve the hatred which is the ordinary instinctive human reaction to things we don’t like.

Regarding whether this has any evidentiary basis, the question can be posed as to which theory of God improves the world, and which theory makes it worse. John’s equation between God and love is compatible with the teachings Jesus describes as most important. Rather than positing a metaphysical entity, the teaching that God is love says that divinity is encountered wherever we find love. You are right that this Foreigner question, ‘I want to know what love is’, is a scientific problem, especially given that love is such an amorphous quality. My view is that taking “God is love” as the saving message of the Bible gives us a scientific tool to assess the merits of other Biblical claims.

I say this is scientific because it starts from a theory that is compatible with science, defining God as the underlying quality that all love has in common. I know it is hard to escape from the false idea of God as metaphysical entity, but that is what is implied by this equation. You might ask, if that is all there is to God then what is the point? My view is that if love is the wheat within the chaff of the Bible then it is very useful to isolate and analyse this central teaching to assess what Biblical ideas are redeemable.

Taking this method further, the problem is what are the consequences of human failure to love? Hatred is like a cancerous tumour in the world, blinding people to the potential for cooperation and improvement and sowing the seeds of delusion and abuse. The beauty of the ethic of forgiveness is that there is always scope for recovery, as long as those who are forgiven understand their error. Where people march on an adamant path of delusion even a God of love cannot save them.
Christianity is what it is. The bible is what is written within it. Your position may be "God is love". But that does not reflect the majority of what is written in the bible.
Again, your comment is very partisan. The Bible clearly states that the law of love replaces the law of revenge, in its main central text, the Sermon on the Mount. That is why Christians separate the Bible into the New Testament and the Old Testament, precisely because the new teaching of Christ is centred on a new ethic of love. The church has failed to live up to this ethic, but it remains the inspiring vision at the source of Christianity.
I have spoken with many christians. Many of whom have not put in the thought about their belief that you have, RT. I certainly credit you for doing that work when so many i talk to simply do not. But clearly, "God is love" is A position, one of many, that can be made from the language in the bible. Not the central, most prominent, most easily understood, or most obvious position the bible takes. You are super-imposing your world view over the one used in the bible. Do not mistake one for the other. I imagine we would all be better off if the world had taken your stance, but it has not.
No, in this context I am not super-imposing, but drawing out what is already there but has been neglected. I agree with you that “God is Love” is hard to understand, but that does not diminish its centrality to gospel theology.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: What Jesus is clear about is that salvation is for those who do works of mercy, not those who mouth orthodoxy.....
Calvin got Jesus completely wrong in his theology of limited atonement
You need to be selective in what you believe Jesus really said in order to ignore words like those Frank has quoted, words that make it clear that belief was central to avoiding the flames of Hell, and that a "if you're not for us, you're against us" mentality prevailed. I know the Jesus Group has done this kind of selection, but I fail to see the point. They rely on shaky historical grounds, and what is to stop them from selecting the Jesus they want to be real? But also I see you repeatedly saying that this or that figure perverted the real essence of Christianity, when the germ of such views is clearly in the original documents. You have to do a thorough "Thomas Jefferson" on the Bible to arrive at the document that bears out your view of what it means.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

RT: "In reading the Bible, Jesus and Malachi caution us that we need to separate the wheat and chaff, that there is a lot of rubbish mixed in with a saving message."

You are still inside the box here Robert. Back out even further, and you realize that your interpretations are justified by other "meta"-interpretations. You're being circular.
Post Reply

Return to “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - by Christopher Hitchens”