The Atheist Thread

Octafish wrote: Nevertheless, you cannot deny that violence is not inherent in the Bible, even in Genesis God's "hardening" of the pharoah's heart and the subsequent slaughter of the firstborn is something which would hardly fit in to other religions like Buddhism.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Wouldn't it be possible that God manifested to different races using a form, language and ethnic ways that they could accept?   All the messages from the sacred texts despite the formal difference have a similar message:     Chapter 3, verse 172, of the Koran: "Of those who answered the call of Allah and the messenger, even after being wounded, those who do right and refrain from wrong have a great reward."   1 Peter 3 of the Bible: <SPAN id=en-WE-7191 ="sup">9</SPAN>You must not do wrong things to those who do wrong things to you. You must not say wrong things to those who say wrong things to you. But ask God to bless those people. This is what you have been called to do. Then God will bless you.     Buddhism Sutta-Nip.149: Just as a mother might protect from harm the son that was her only child, let all-embracing thoughts of love for every living thing be thine. An all-embracing love for all the universe, in all its heights and depth and breadth. An unstinted love, not marred by enmity.”     Doesn't all this texts seem as narrated and/or inspired by the same God?   I'm sure that if you would show this phrases to a Christian, not expert in the sacred texte, would easily believe that the three are in the Bible.   Couldn't the same God in a different manifestation inspired the three texts?   Iván

    Ivan,

Without addressing the follow-up discussion, which clearly deviated from your original question into the realm good-bad, right-wrong – back to your post.

Providing excerpts from a text is a very subjective method as a man tends to seek whatever suits his goal and disregards the rest. I’m sure you’re aware that the Bible is full of controversial statements. The passage from Peter you submit can be easily countered with "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." If it’s inspired by the same God, wouldn’t it be considered at least a minor imperfection? Wouldn’t it be proper to think this imperfection is more feasible for man?

I consider religion to be a philosophy at its core since every religion tries to get to the nature of things. Most likely, religion began as an attempt by the early humans to explain the being (a primitive-level philosophy) and turned into ritualized worshipping and eventually religion after some enterprising humans realized the potential of it as an ideological tool. Every philosopher looks for devote followers as they could provide for his earthly needs while he keeps his philosophizing.

In light of the above, do you think that preaching submission by different religions is a mere coincidence? All three passages you provided are just that. Would it be prudent to assume that in order to exert control effectively over their fellow citizens those enterprising guys put forward the message of pacification and obedience?

Furthermore, ethnicity and race don’t define good and bad – people do. So if God is One, He must be One for both a pious catholic in the Vatican and a cannibalistic savage in the Amazon. Yet the notion of good and bad is drastically different for the two. I’m sure the Amazonians don’t eat their shamans because their religion prohibits them from devouring their fellow tribesmen although nothing would stop them from munching on a missionary, which again fortifies the assumption that people create the rules.

IVN

I'm an atheist that believes in God.

Mharo wrote: bhikkhu wrote: Octafish wrote: Nevertheless, you cannot deny that violence is not inherent in the Bible, even in Genesis God's "hardening" of the pharoah's heart and the subsequent slaughter of the firstborn is something which would hardly fit in to other religions like Buddhism. Just to clarify (again, because I think it is an important point), Buddhism is not religion. There is no deity worship. There are members of my temple that still have Christian beliefs. It is a path to enlightenment.      But your signature reads "his holiness, the Dalai Lama". Isn't that some kind of deity worshiping?(Please don't be offended, I'm completely ignorant and curious in this matter )

Just because something is hallowed, or revered as holy, does not mean it has to be associated with something supernatural. If you Ask the Dalai Lama himself, he will say he is just a simple monk.

It is the concept of the Buddha we revere. We pay homage to those that have gone before us, those among us, and those to come.


    
    

Edited by bhikkhu - January 10 2007 at 22:57

Mharo wrote: I'm never satisfied with this kind of justification for the incoherences. I understand the need to use metaphors to explain some phylosophical ideas to semi civilized communities (whatever that means). But the idea of a God that creates inferior beings that are not capable of understanding his designs only to be forced to find retorted (and hard, and unclear) ways of getting across his message seems illogical to me. Why would a God want people to interpret what he says in different (and contradictory) ways?

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 10 2007 at 23:24

Mharo wrote: I'm never satisfied with this kind of justification for the incoherences.I understand the need to use metaphors to explain some phylosophical ideas to semi civilized communities (whatever that means). But the idea of a God that creates inferior beings that are not capable of understanding his designs only to be forced to find retorted (and hard, and unclear) ways of getting across his message seems illogical to me.Why would a God want people to interpret what he says in different (and contradictory) ways?

    You apply human logic here. What if there’s divine logic which is beyond human comprehension?

IVNORD wrote:   Goldenavatar wrote: It seems like a lot of people are talking without a clear understanding of some basic theology. I do not claim to be an expert but a lot of the misunderstanding definitely stems from not understanding the concept of Original Sin. Do you think that the way things are now is the way God created them? They are not. Of course if you refuse to accept the reality of Original Sin, good luck understanding the human condition.       We would be very much obliged if you enlighten us on the subject, especially the reality of it.

Octafish wrote: If God is omniscient, wouldn't he know that a primitive society would skew his message in ways he didn't intend? If he knew that, couldn't he have simply waited a few millenia to spread his message? Besides, you talk as though all the violence is in the Old Testament, there's plenty of hate in the New Testament as well, be it regarding homosexuals, unbelievers, etc. And Jesus himself says not to disregard the prophets and the Old Testament... obviously he had some faith in the truth of their message.

John 15:6 (New King James Version)

6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

I'm not quite certain if this is refering to Hell or literally burning blasphemers, but in either case it doesn't seem too happy go lucky to me.

And the "free will" argument doesn't really work for me, as it doesn't answer my question, unless you're implying that God cannot predict our actions because we have free will, which would seem to contradict the whole "omniscient and omnipotent" deal.

Octafish wrote: John 15:6 (New King James Version) 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. I'm not quite certain if this is refering to Hell or literally burning blasphemers, but in either case it doesn't seem too happy go lucky to me.   It's clearly a reference to hell, Jeneus NEVER said a word in favot of violence. And the "free will" argument doesn't really work for me, as it doesn't answer my question, unless you're implying that God cannot predict our actions because we have free will, which would seem to contradict the whole "omniscient and omnipotent" deal.   The man will get his message when it's ready, God doesn't grow and evolve for us, he lets us grow and decide.   I remember a coach from my soccer team (A priest) at school, somebody asked him if God will make us win if we prayed, he said "Yes, but if you practice a lot and play well".   Good doesn't choose what path to follow for us, he gives us the alternative and when we're ready we accept it or reject it.   I wonder, why so much effort of some atheists trying to descredit a God they say doesn't exist?   Isn't this too much effort for a fanstasy from their perspective?   Iván