The great and all powerful religion thread!
- Thread starter cookiecutter
- Start date
Well, do you feel that these differences actually have any impact on the arguments levelled against religion or Christianity in particular that have been provided in previous pages of this thread? If you do then by all means elaborate. However I seriously doubt that they do and personally am honestly not all that interested in the differences between the no doubt tens of thousands of various different religious doctrines and sects that are outthere. Sure some may be more malevolant or more benign than others but in the end they are all founded on the same flawed principals in my eyes (especially when dealing with theistic doctrines).
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
I will keep this short. The evangelical sect is much more based around the idea of controlling and have much ideas of how to make someone believe. The "Christ's army" is a evangelical thing. All of these moral control programes came from them.
The catholic religion is does not stand for that. I am not asking for you to be catholic. But for those making a stand against the Christan religion, go ahead, but please make it a little more precise. The truly flawed areas lie in the evangelical,baptists and the born-agains. This is just my thought.
zoidberg
Mallcore Kid
your thinking of my cousin who married a jew and changed here name to zoidstein!
rabid headbanger said:
stfu
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
One of my teacher's names was Emily Steinberg. For Biology, junior year of HS. She was curiously NOT Jewish.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
I had an insanely jewish psychology teacher in 10th grade, named Feldman. This is before I was really cognizant of the "jews" though, so I was unaware of this at the time.
Apparently, after I got a 5 on the AP test, the year after he would talk about me in class all the time, because I was the first sophomore in my school to get a 5 on an AP test. I don't know if that says more about me or how shitty my high school was.
Apparently, after I got a 5 on the AP test, the year after he would talk about me in class all the time, because I was the first sophomore in my school to get a 5 on an AP test. I don't know if that says more about me or how shitty my high school was.
This is why I voted for you.
Every sect of Christianity is incredibly flawed when it comes to the rationality of their beliefs. If you would like to show me why my prior arguments against Christianity do not apply to Catholicism then by all means do so.
Also, the Catholic church is NOT a good organization. Have we forgotten about the widespread corruption, sexual abuse, and homophobia that is rampant throughout the church? Not to mention their lack of support to AIDS charities in Africa all because they think condoms are bad.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Jesus Christ - I'm pretty sure that could have been said in about 1/3 as many words.
How does one go about being "insanely jewish"? Did he randomly break into a mean fiddle solo or talk about compound interest or something?
That may be true but it does not change the fundamentals upon which the religion is based and therefor will not sway any atheist's basic view of it. But you are right that the more evangelical and fundamentalist doctrines are a lot more poisonous and a lot more aggressive in spreading and enforcing their highly dubious and distorted moral standards.
Every Christian person I know adheres to more down to earth doctrines (though I'm not even sure what exactly some of them are) and I honestly have no problem with any of those people. But that doesn't stop me from fundamentally disagreeing with their existential (and in some cases maybe even moral) views.
That may be true but it does not change the fundamentals upon which the religion is based and therefor will not sway any atheist's basic view of it. But you are right that the more evangelical and fundamentalist doctrines are a lot more poisonous and a lot more aggressive in spreading and enforcing their highly dubious and distorted moral standards.
Every Christian person I know adheres to more down to earth doctrines (though I'm not even sure what exactly some of them are) and I honestly have no problem with any of those people. But that doesn't stop me from fundamentally disagreeing with their existential (and in some cases maybe even moral) views.
zoidberg
Mallcore Kid
did anyone here know zombie is actually a voodoo god? i thought it was intresting. my source, the dictionary.
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
These slipped through, this stuff is fun to talk about. Plus I've been reading up a bit.
As for the archaeologically related stuff: these claims were probably made by someone who has read the arguments made by Albright without looking at the rebuttals. Overview:
The Albright theory is based around the Merneptah stele, a big rock that indicates an Israelite presence in Canaan around 1220 BCE. Albright adds the 400 years of exile indicated by Genesis 15:13 to get us to ~1600 BCE (the middle bronze age) as the date for the events of the ancestral narratives (Abraham and friends). The evidence found by Albright here was:
1. Names - basically names in languages cognate to Hebrew existed in the middle bronze age.
2. Customs based on the Nuzi texts, customs described in the bible existed in the middle bronze age.
3. Ancestral lifestyle certain tomb paintings depict a nomadic lifestyle in this era, and Egyptian execration texts say the land of the biblical wandering was sparsely populates (and thus well suited for a nomadic lifestyle).
The rebuttal led by Thompson (1974):
1. These names were not restricted to nor especially frequent in the middle bronze age.
2. The Nuzi texts arent from a Semitic culture and dont parallel biblical customs all that closely (look it up).
3. The clothing in the cited tomb paintings suggest the depictions are of the Arabian peninsula, not Canaan, and the areas mentioned werent sparsely populated solely in the middle bronze age.
Albrights dating also introduces anachronisms Philistines werent present in the area during the middle bronze age, and several settlements (eg. Beer-Sheba) werent occupied in the middle bronze age.
You can also look at Joshua. Twenty of the towns mentioned as conquered during the 13th century BCE (still going by Merneptah stele dating) have been excavated, and only six of were both occupied and destroyed during this century. Two of those six have been discovered to have been conquered and destroyed not by Israelites, but Philistines. Also the well-known account of the destruction of the walls of Jericho is historically problematic; archeological evidence dates this event to 1550 BCE.
Principle source: Coogan.
One needs to look into the sources, biblical writers had strong biases and motivations for writing much of the Deuteronomistic history (Deuteronomy through Kings) is written with a huge bias against the Northern kingdom of Israel, is really big on Judah, the benefits of monarchy and the perils of lesser governmental systems (ie. judges), the importance of the temple in Jerusalem over other lesser temples, Joshua is the second coming of Moses, the legitimacy of the Davidic line of kings over the kings of Israel, etc. There were political gains to be made by having (say) ones line of descent linked with popular and powerful historical/folkloric characters and legends.
The easy ones are false etymologies; these demonstrate the problems with historical inaccuracies in the bible on a simple level. Look at the naming of Moses pharaohs daughter names him this because she pulled him from the water, according to Exodus 2:10 (the Hebrew for Moses is similar to the Hebrew word for to draw from the water a common theme in the bible is naming people after events associated with their birth, see Isaac [to laugh] and Adam [from adamah, meaning earth]). But why would pharaohs daughter, an *Egyptian*, name this random child she found after a Hebrew phrase? The etymologies given by the bible are rarely historically accurate, they are folk etymologies.
As for the archaeologically related stuff: these claims were probably made by someone who has read the arguments made by Albright without looking at the rebuttals. Overview:
The Albright theory is based around the Merneptah stele, a big rock that indicates an Israelite presence in Canaan around 1220 BCE. Albright adds the 400 years of exile indicated by Genesis 15:13 to get us to ~1600 BCE (the middle bronze age) as the date for the events of the ancestral narratives (Abraham and friends). The evidence found by Albright here was:
1. Names - basically names in languages cognate to Hebrew existed in the middle bronze age.
2. Customs based on the Nuzi texts, customs described in the bible existed in the middle bronze age.
3. Ancestral lifestyle certain tomb paintings depict a nomadic lifestyle in this era, and Egyptian execration texts say the land of the biblical wandering was sparsely populates (and thus well suited for a nomadic lifestyle).
The rebuttal led by Thompson (1974):
1. These names were not restricted to nor especially frequent in the middle bronze age.
2. The Nuzi texts arent from a Semitic culture and dont parallel biblical customs all that closely (look it up).
3. The clothing in the cited tomb paintings suggest the depictions are of the Arabian peninsula, not Canaan, and the areas mentioned werent sparsely populated solely in the middle bronze age.
Albrights dating also introduces anachronisms Philistines werent present in the area during the middle bronze age, and several settlements (eg. Beer-Sheba) werent occupied in the middle bronze age.
You can also look at Joshua. Twenty of the towns mentioned as conquered during the 13th century BCE (still going by Merneptah stele dating) have been excavated, and only six of were both occupied and destroyed during this century. Two of those six have been discovered to have been conquered and destroyed not by Israelites, but Philistines. Also the well-known account of the destruction of the walls of Jericho is historically problematic; archeological evidence dates this event to 1550 BCE.
Principle source: Coogan.
Valerie
¯\(ã)/¯
- Aug 29, 2005
- 6,765
- 4
- 38
Timothy 2: 11-13, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not decieved , but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. yet woman will be saved through bearing children. If she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."
Among others.
Widespread corruption is a part of human nature and it is sure to happen to any group that has a wide group of members. You seem to not comment on the good that the church does, both on large
terms and on local terms. Lets not forget the various forms of aid that ARE in Africa. Homophobia is around in other people also. Regardless of me being of Catholic faith I find it disgusting. The Vatican only does so much in terms of support and that is when local communities lend their own hand to help. You argument is one-sided in the worst way.
