My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Panacea]

Hammurabi's code.

Yes, it does predate Christianity. And I would say it is wrong to say that the ideals of love were unheard of, or never commonly held in a nation, before Christianity. I would think it's fair to say, though, that Christian ideals WERE quite uncommon in the Roman empire, and the rest of the 'civilized' world at the time Christianity arose. The point is the same, but you exaggerated it.

Thanks. I should have recognized it.

I spoke a little too broadly when I used the word love. Certainly love was not an uncommon idea, but it tended to stay within ones own racial or religious groups. That's why the parable of the Good Samaritan is soooo important. Prior to Christianity, the idea that someone could do a good deed for someone foreign was a largely foreign idea. Forgiveness and redemption were not common ideas either. The Hebrew Bible was littered with rules regulating blood guilt.

Objection. Multiple objections, frankly. Eastern religions had this stuff figured out hundreds of years before Christ,

Conceded. I had talked previously of Western thinking, but should have been more specific with that particular post.

( and frankly religion did not invent empathy even then )

Also true, but again, ancient peoples tended to see themselves as people and foriegners as something sub human. Consider this: many nations word for themselves translates to people.

and its even arguable that he picked up a number of ideas from them ( his followers certainly co-opted the details of his birth from them and inserted Jesus into them instead ).

We don't know enough about Jesus to know where he got his ideas from. He was either a carpenter or a stone mason (the word for his trade in Hebrew can be translated either way), but it's uncertain if he knew how to read and write. He certainly could have come across someone from the Far East since IIRC Judea was on the Silk Road. We do know that details from many religions were co-opted to fit Christianity to make it easier for locals to convert. Since the earliest fragments of the New Testament only date to the 4th century, and we only know of Christ's life through the Four Gospels (and precious little at that), it is hard to know specifics.

It also did *not* spread like wildfire, it took hundreds of years and the Roman Empire to get it around the Mediterrean. It was not love and hope that won the day either, it was the fact he advocated for the well being of anyone that would follow him regardless of status and the fact his teachings coincided with some already established Greek traditional beliefs that made it easy for people to hop the fence without feeling like heretics.

Certainly it did. It was well enough known for Nero to blame Christians for the fire that destroyed Rome in 64 AD, only 30 or so years after the Crucifixion. It simply didn't become the state religion and gain real power until the ascension of Constantine in 307 AD.

His ideas were not revolutionary and had the Roman Empire not switched over to Christianity, its doubtful it would have spread as much as it has. In fact early Christianity was pretty damn varied from region to region and most of it would be considered heretical these days.

I respectfully disagree. Christianity was widespread by the ascension of Constantine in 307 AD. It is likely that his conversion was a shrewd political move, intended to win him wider support. Certainly Christianity was quite varied from region to region, this is true, but had broken into 2 main camps: Orthodoxy (what became the modern Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches) and Gnostics. When Constantine became Emperor he convened the Council of Nicea to sort it all out, and the Gnostics lost and were suppressed.

[Duelist925]

this is a case of wanting your cake and eating it too.
If God is perfect, and God inspired the bible, how can it be less than perfect.
I used to be Christian, and I know how it works, I've heard that exact line repeated over and over again, the Bible is perfect for God says it is so.

Ahh biblical literalism.

You do know that the majority of sane, thinking christians see this as being just as silly as saying "grimms fairy tales" was completely factual?

Sadly, sane thinking christians tend not to be within the more vocal section. -_-

To take the bible entirely literally is damn near impossible in this day and age, since much of it simply doesnt freaking work now. Then? A lot of it was necessary, or was added in by morons intent on furthering their own bigotries. As has been pointed out by better minds than me.

And I like shrimp.

Um, wouldn't said "fundie priests" claim that "obviously this is God's will"?


And you didn't catch that if someone told me the extremes I would have to go to in order to follow them, including abandoning my family (it was written, don't deny it), I would walk away from that person? There was nothing esoteric in what Jesus or I had said; unless, of course, you have to take an "indirect" route in the true spirit of an apologist.

Two points: This doesn't answer my original question of how Christ could be considered a hatemonger.

And second: Thats the entire freaking POINT of that passage. Saying, "This shit is HARD AS BALLS. Dont do it unless your committed, 110 percent, mofo".

Its not saying you have to hate anyone. Its saying, "unless your willing to endure some extreme shit, dont try and help me do my job"

[Gravekeeper]

Um, wouldn't said "fundie priests" claim that "obviously this is God's will"?

Hey, thanks, you just proved the exact point you were responding too. Consider yourself amongst the faithful now I guess?

I would walk away from that person? There was nothing esoteric in what Jesus or I had said; unless, of course, you have to take an "indirect" route in the true spirit of an apologist.

I'm not even Christian for starters. I'm just sick of this bullshit on the forums of blaming the entirety of human suffering on Christianity based on a handful of fundie dickheads in the US. Its both irrational and offensive.

this is a case of wanting your cake and eating it too.
If God is perfect, and God inspired the bible, how can it be less than perfect.
I used to be Christian, and I know how it works, I've heard that exact line repeated over and over again, the Bible is perfect for God says it is so.

Because your life experience is obviously the foremost source for the entire world. Do you think all Muslims are terrorists too?

Conceded. I had talked previously of Western thinking, but should have been more specific with that particular post.

Makes more sense in that context. Though we're still dealing with the Roman Empire. They even had friggan tort laws before Christianity came along. -.-

Also true, but again, ancient peoples tended to see themselves as people and foriegners as something sub human. Consider this: many nations word for themselves translates to people.

Tribalistic dickery. Not like we ever god rid of that. ><

We don't know enough about Jesus to know where he got his ideas from. He was either a carpenter or a stone mason (the word for his trade in Hebrew can be translated either way), but it's uncertain if he knew how to read and write. He certainly could have come across someone from the Far East since IIRC Judea was on the Silk Road.

Its actually not that unlikely at all. Many of Jesus's parables are similar too if not exactly the same as Buddha's, and Buddhist monks were in town at the same time Jesus was. Jesus and Buddha's birth stories are similar, there's even a number of parallels in their lives and teaching methods. The story of Buddha's life was also known in Greece by the time of Jesus. As Buddha predates him by hundreds of years. There was even a religion that combined Buddhism and Christianity at one point, but like many religions from the Mediterrean, it either disappeared or was effectively wiped out when Christianity began gaining political power.

Certainly it did. It was well enough known for Nero to blame Christians for the fire that destroyed Rome in 64 AD, only 30 or so years after the Crucifixion. It simply didn't become the state religion and gain real power until the ascension of Constantine in 307 AD.

Nero needed a scapegoat and Christians were pretty low on the sympathy list. Christianity existed in small pockets throughout Europe up until Constantine, and from there it took another 300 years to spread fully around Europe and did so through the efforts of the Roman Empire.

Here, this shows it a tad better than explaining it.

Dark blue is before Constantine up to 300 AD. Light blue is 300 years later at 600 AD. Note that light blue is also pretty much the same shape as the map of the Roman Empire. Without the Roman Empire and later empires stemming from it through the age of exploration ( and that whole "convert or else" kick they got on around 1000 AD and on ), it would have been a different story and might have stayed largely regional like Islam.

[Hyena Dandy]

I would walk away from that person? There was nothing esoteric in what Jesus or I had said; unless, of course, you have to take an "indirect" route in the true spirit of an apologist.

Surprisingly, despite what people have been saying, there is a difference between apologetics and explaining a misconception. Apologetics is defending a religious claim through reason. What he was doing was not apologetics. He said that you had misused a quote. If he was an apologist, he would have tried to prove that Christianity is true. Not simply that what you said does not mean what you said it means due to the SENTENCE BEFORE IT. >_>

[Ipecac Drano]

Two points: This doesn't answer my original question of how Christ could be considered a hatemonger.

Telling people that they would have to go to that extreme in order to be in his flock is bad enough.

Hey, thanks, you just proved the exact point you were responding too. Consider yourself amongst the faithful now I guess?

That would be a poor guess, considering that I don't believe in Jesus, let alone gods.

I'm not even Christian for starters. I'm just sick of this bullshit on the forums of blaming the entirety of human suffering on Christianity based on a handful of fundie dickheads in the US. Its both irrational and offensive.

I'm sick of people who make such claims when all religions have something to answer to. Since Xtianity was brought up here, it became the focus of this topic.

Do you think all Muslims are terrorists too?

Nope, but like the Xtians, they have a holy book with bad scripture in it as well.

Surprisingly, despite what people have been saying, there is a difference between apologetics and explaining a misconception. Apologetics is defending a religious claim through reason. What he was doing was not apologetics. He said that you had misused a quote. If he was an apologist, he would have tried to prove that Christianity is true. Not simply that what you said does not mean what you said it means due to the SENTENCE BEFORE IT. >_>

I've studied apologetics and stopped when I realized how many logical loopholes were needed. "Apologist" is just a whitewashed way of saying "bullshitter".

[Hyena Dandy]

I've studied apologetics and stopped when I realized how many logical loopholes were needed. "Apologist" is just a whitewashed way of saying "bullshitter".

That's not even remotely related to what I said.

[Panacea]

That's Biblical Literalism. It's a highly contested topic within the Christian community. It's accepted by a lot of Evangelical groups, but not by everyone. In fact, a lot of people will say it's, well, quite silly.

Most Christians are not Evangelicals. The mainstream Christian denominations (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Methodism, Lutherism, Anglican/Episcopalian, Quakers, among others) do NOT believe the Bible is the literal Word of God. They believe the Bible is part history, part roadmap to faith. Not only CAN you question it, you SHOULD question it because asking questions leads to stronger faith.

Hey, thanks, you just proved the exact point you were responding too. Consider yourself amongst the faithful now I guess?

I'm not even Christian for starters. I'm just sick of this bullshit on the forums of blaming the entirety of human suffering on Christianity based on a handful of fundie dickheads in the US. Its both irrational and offensive.

And I thank you for that . . .

Tribalistic dickery. Not like we ever god rid of that. ><

No, and aren't likely to any time in the near future

Its actually not that unlikely at all. Many of Jesus's parables are similar too if not exactly the same as Buddha's, and Buddhist monks were in town at the same time Jesus was. Jesus and Buddha's birth stories are similar, there's even a number of parallels in their lives and teaching methods. The story of Buddha's life was also known in Greece by the time of Jesus. As Buddha predates him by hundreds of years. There was even a religion that combined Buddhism and Christianity at one point, but like many religions from the Mediterrean, it either disappeared or was effectively wiped out when Christianity began gaining political power.

Now this is a good point, though there are substantial differences between the life story of Jesus and the Budda (the former being a carpenter's son, the latter being the son of a king). But remember also, the Hebrew prophets had predicted the coming of a Messiah centuries before, and all of Israel was waiting for His arrival. There were a lot of guys running around at the time claiming to BE the Messiah, such as Simon of Peraea.

Nero needed a scapegoat and Christians were pretty low on the sympathy list. Christianity existed in small pockets throughout Europe up until Constantine, and from there it took another 300 years to spread fully around Europe and did so through the efforts of the Roman Empire.

True. My point was to show how far Christianity spread in a short period of time, however.

Here, this shows it a tad better than explaining it.

Dark blue is before Constantine up to 300 AD. Light blue is 300 years later at 600 AD. Note that light blue is also pretty much the same shape as the map of the Roman Empire. Without the Roman Empire and later empires stemming from it through the age of exploration ( and that whole "convert or else" kick they got on around 1000 AD and on ), it would have been a different story and might have stayed largely regional like Islam.

Great map; thanks for sharing it. But it does show how far Christianity spread in a relatively short time.

I'm not meaning to say it ever was an overwhelmingly popular religion immediately, merely that it spread rapidly and had enough members to be well known to Roman authorities.

Telling people that they would have to go to that extreme in order to be in his flock is bad enough.

To have a religious faith in that time and place was not an easy or a safe thing. The Romans were pretty tolerant to the locals as long as the taxes were paid and social order was maintained. But the mainstream Jewish priesthood was very intolerant to anything that threatened their power. And a lot of Jews were unhappy and saw the priesthood as complicit in Roman rule (due in part to the fact the chief priest was picked by the Romans, much like the Chinese pick the Catholic Bishops in China--it didn't work any better then than it does now). Jews were waiting for the Messiah to come and free them from Roman rule. Jesus was telling the faithful that freedom would not come without a price.

Do you think OUR freedom that we enjoy in our modern American democracy came free? Think what the Continental Army went through at Valley Forge. The price Jesus was telling his faithful they would have to pay is little different from the price our forefathers paid to win the American Revolution. Do you think Washington is a bad man because he "made" his troops endure that?

That would be a poor guess, considering that I don't believe in Jesus, let alone gods.

You seem to be oblivious to GK's satire.

Nope, but like the Xtians, they have a holy book with bad scripture in it as well.

I wouldn't say bad scripture. I would say good scripture that has been horribly twisted to mean what specific people wanted it to mean. The fault of that is not in the Word, but in the reader.

I've studied apologetics and stopped when I realized how many logical loopholes were needed. "Apologist" is just a whitewashed way of saying "bullshitter".

Saying apologist is saying "bullshitter" is intellectual laziness. You don't want to address the argument so you dismiss it out of hand.

[Ipecac Drano]

That's not even remotely related to what I said.

I wasn't paraphrasing you.

Saying apologist is saying "bullshitter" is intellectual laziness. You don't want to address the argument so you dismiss it out of hand.

But I did address the argument in that part you skipped over about how apologetics relies on logical loopholes.

[Hyena Dandy]

I wasn't paraphrasing you.

Yes, but hypothetically you were RESPONDING to me, yes? So, what you say should actually be RELATED to what I said.

"That wasn't apologetics" is not countered with "Apologetics is bullshit."

That does not address my argument that IT WASN'T APOLOGETICS.

Most Christians are not Evangelicals.

Definitely true. I mostly follow Evangelical politics, though. I don't subscribe to it, but the main faith-based blog I read (slacktivist on Patheos) is run by an Evangelical.

[Rapscallion]

I find it fascinating how a debate over the apparent wrongs of a group of non-believers has turned into the apparent wrongs of believers.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

That seems to always happen.

[Andara Bledin]

I find it fascinating how a debate over the apparent wrongs of a group of non-believers has turned into the apparent wrongs of believers.

I don't.

Any discussion of religion on Fratching turns into the same exact thread, over and over and over again.

^-.-^

[Duelist925]

Telling people that they would have to go to that extreme in order to be in his flock is bad enough.

Again, two things. First: Does this mean you're recinding the title of "hatemonger" then? Since you still haven't justified that.

Second:How? How is warning your followers that shit will go down if yuu follow him as bad as hatemongering? As pointed out elsewhere, the warning, in its time, was very much needed, since there was a decent chance of being killed for following him. So....what in the name of Gygax is wrong with that warning?

Please remember, he's not Ordering these people to do anything wrong. Hes Warning them that shit is going to go down.

That would be a poor guess, considering that I don't believe in Jesus, let alone gods.

"Sarcasm" "Satire" "Wit".....do these words mean anything to you?

I find it fascinating how a debate over the apparent wrongs of a group of non-believers has turned into the apparent wrongs of believers.

Rapscallion

I don;'t think I've seen a single thread on religion where that didn't happen. >.<

[Gravekeeper]

That would be a poor guess, considering that I don't believe in Jesus, let alone gods.

Seriously, I'm pitching em slow but they're still sailing over your head. You might want to stand up so you catch one of these. -.-

I'm sick of people who make such claims when all religions have something to answer to.

Do they now? Pop quiz! What does Buddhism answer too?

True. My point was to show how far Christianity spread in a short period of time, however.

My point was that it didn't spread so well because it was an unheard of revolutionary set of ideas. It faced an uphill battle and it had to work to get traction if not skulk around to avoid persecution ( as many beliefs did at the time ). Ultimately, it ended up being the right flavour for the right place and time. It needed only to be tenacious enough to endure until it got political power on its side. Then the rest is, as they say, history.

It fit well with some of the more traditional Greek beliefs in the area, it ignored social status and most importantly perhaps: It was easy for the layman to understand because of Jesus himself. Which may be where its real power came from back then. Not so much the idea's, but the advertising: Jesus's teaching style and using parables to impart his ideas to the common man. Something that anyone could understand without needing to be literate or educated in any way. It was also a teaching style he may have picked up from the east. As its the style used by Buddha, as well as many other eastern religions.

There's a reason we all remember Aesop's fables, but not the 12 Tablets of Roman Law. -.-

I find it fascinating how a debate over the apparent wrongs of a group of non-believers has turned into the apparent wrongs of believers.

And how this turn came about here, as it appears too in every thread, because of the non-believers. -.-

[smileyeagle1021]

I find it fascinating how a debate over the apparent wrongs of a group of non-believers has turned into the apparent wrongs of believers.

Rapscallion

It's not that surprising. It's a cycle that has been going on for centuries, though sometimes the names of the groups are different, but one group will criticize another group for their wrongdoings then the group that is criticized will respond back "but if you weren't doing (insert wrongs here), then we wouldn't be doing what you criticize us of" or "yeah, well, we aren't the only ones, just look at what wrongs you've done"
I'm sure if there were sizable enough groups of Eagle scouts on this board, and someone talked about the evils of Boy Scouts of America for their sexism in only allowing boys and that the Boys and Girls club is much better for allowing equal opportunity, I guarantee that it would turn into a debate over which organization has done more wrongs over their lifetimes (BSA would get trashed for sexism, allowing troops to practice religious discrimination, and their homophobic policies, while Boys and Girls would be trashed for their lax oversight of individual organizations that has led to at least regional abuse scandals). A lot of people feel there can be only one Truth (if that weren't the case you'd never see missionaries going door to door, because if there is multiple Truths then it wouldn't be urgent to make sure people knew The Truth), so for us to be right, the other person must also be wrong.