Religous debates and questions [2]

I like how Fry has absolutely no hesitation, no need for a second of thought in his slamming of modern religion. And the look on the face of the host is priceless.

Well said I say. If when I die I discover the Christian God as presented is the real thing and exists and I am brought before Him, I'll be trying to locate his ball sack so I can give it a good booting. That God is undeserving of any kind of praise or worship. Fry is right He would have be monstrous.

Im with Stephen Fry on this. I could never justify or except a so called "god" who one minute is kind & virtuous & the next is a rampaging bad tempered murderer. Sounds very much to me like a spoilt brat ! Hell is here on Earth with its endless reasons for self guilt & self loathing & Heaven is the inner 'you' when you see how your altruistic actions help others.

Hear! Hear! Azriel.


Not short but worth it if you have the time-

It's interesting that you can't really refute him from an intelligent design, god as the literal creator of the world/Universe and all life in it point of view. You could perhaps if you didn't see the bible as literal, but rather as an allegory. The story of creation seen through the eyes of humans in the age it was written. But if you insist on reading the bible literally, what is your answer to what he said? I certainly don't know.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Hear! Hear! Azriel.


Not short but worth it if you have the time-

Ah, I remember watching that a while ago. It is really interesting, though the question up for debate always struck me as a bit woolly. "Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?" Does that mean only a force for good? Or more a force for good than evil? Or a force for good at all? If the last one the Catholic church doing any good at all would mean you would have to answer the question yes, despite any other flaws.

Ive watched an hour of this debate & IL come back to this a bit later but, so far, I agree with Hitchens & Fry whole heartedly. I used to think the Catholic faith was an umbrella for debauched, sexually mad, wealth greedy men to hide under, men that will not allow ANYTHING to ruin what they have & will do anything to keep it. I sense no good from this faith at all & my suspicions of this faith run deep. Catholicism is a 'get out of jail free' card. Members join with the view they are well secured & untouchable & also well protected & hidden. Quite sickening all in all.

I blame the core of that on the Catholic notion a Priest can somehow absolve you of your sins if you do the right penance.
Firstly it smacks of primitive ritual- perform this magic spell and a magic result will happen a magical plane you cant see. But trust it, it will have worked. Please make a donation. And secondly it actually just allows for behaviour that is morally wrong in the knowledge you can still get to Heaven if you repent enough- or give the church enough land, or money, or your children.

Mix all that in with an all male priesthood and a ban on any sort of sex including masturbation and it doesn't take a genius to see where thats going.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If when I die I discover the Christian God as presented is the real thing and exists and I am brought before Him, I'll be trying to locate his ball sack so I can give it a good booting.

you missed the opportunity Petty.

So.. are you saying you're God, Richie? I mean - you know these things?

I'm with you, Petty. That murderer knows I don't care for Him anyway and what's the point of begging mercy from a megalomaniac schizophrenic* like that. He'll do whatever His whim tells Him to do. Typical religionist. Oh it's, "Worship Me! Worship Me!" Fuck, how insecure can you be? I suppose if I didn't actually exist, I might feel insecure too.. maybe...  

{{{*For a non-existent schizophrenic, he sure seems to have a lot of random personalities. }}}

That's one of the pithiest, most cruelly accurate portraits of God I've ever read!

bungobaggins wrote:This was an interesting talk that I watched a few months ago.



I don't know what the actual truth is, and I'll probably never find out, but I like hearing new theories, and I've never seen someone argue this specific point with backed up evidence.

This is a really interesting theory. I have read 7 Pauline epistles with this alternate interpretation of "the gospel". Not only does it make sense intuitively (evident differences between the traditional gospel accounts and the epistles), his thesis appears at least plausible. Does anyone know which are the 6 Pauline epistles he takes as authentic? They don't appear to be the ones mentioned here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). Romans, 2 Corinthians, and Philemon can be interpreted with respect to a mythological sacrifice (as asserted by his thesis), but it is not obvious that the others can. The main problem is that crucifixion (death by a "cross") is mentioned in 1 Corinthians (1:13,1:17,1:18,2:8 ), 1 Thessalonians (2:14), Galatians (3:1,5:11,6:14,6:17), and Philippians (2:8,3:18). These references would of have to have been forged. Galatians (1:13,1:16,2:7) and 1 Corinthians (9:1,9:14,11:23-25,15:9) also contain a number of additional messages which support a traditional interpretation - so there is no way I can see these letters been taken as authentic under the mythological interpretation. Without further evidence, I would say it is more likely that mythology has been infused into the accounts rather than the accounts having been invented based on mythology. Let us know if the book addresses these issues.

Note the new testament concept of hell is clearly present in the Socratic dialogues - recorded by Plato ~400BC (and it is never mentioned in the context of belief; except perhaps for godlessness - not thinking that you are the force probably helps).

(extract from deathTheory-RBB-22January2014.pdf)

That's a fairly straightforward spreadsheet calculation. What's more fun is to put in a "carrying capacity" and see the numbers go chaotic for a range of growth rates.

richardbrucebaxter wrote:

This is a really interesting theory. I have read 7 Pauline epistles with this alternate interpretation of "the gospel". Not only does it make sense intuitively (evident differences between the traditional gospel accounts and the epistles), his thesis appears at least plausible. Does anyone know which are the 6 Pauline epistles he takes as authentic? They don't appear to be the ones mentioned here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). Romans, 2 Corinthians, and Philemon can be interpreted with respect to a mythological sacrifice (as asserted by his thesis), but it is not obvious that the others can. The main problem is that crucifixion (death by a "cross") is mentioned in 1 Corinthians (1:13,1:17,1:18,2:8 ), 1 Thessalonians (2:14), Galatians (3:1,5:11,6:14,6:17), and Philippians (2:8,3:18). These references would of have to have been forged. Galatians (1:13,1:16,2:7) and 1 Corinthians (9:1,9:14,11:23-25,15:9) also contain a number of additional messages which support a traditional interpretation - so there is no way I can see these letters been taken as authentic under the mythological interpretation. Without further evidence, I would say it is more likely that mythology has been infused into the accounts rather than the accounts having been invented based on mythology. Let us know if the book addresses these issues.

I recently received both books. The first one was more theoretical with a range of examples (only half from the bible) to back up the mathematical theory. I got anxious to cut to the chase so jumped to the second book which is focussed on the historicity of Jesus. the book is a tome: like 800 pages. The guy is very methodical, and I'm still just on the background material concerning what we know of the time period, not even addressing the Jesus evidence yet. It may be another 6 weeks before I get to your specifics.

One fun thing I can say right now, which is pretty damning in itself, is that there was a whole slew of messianic cults at the time, most with a leader called "Joshua" (= "jesus" in greek). This is because Joshua was the main biblical war hero, and folks wanted to toss out the Romans. Carrier points out that with such a variety of cults, natural selection would pick one that would ultimately survive history. Those that were too direct militaristically would have been crushed by the Romans. Those that weren't open enough to Gentiles would have died a natural death. We ended up with the one that was mystical enough to bypass both Romans and Jewish dietary restrictions, then the mystical was transformed into the legend of a real man. He gives several examples of this same process happening in recent times, fully documented. I don't have the book in front of me so won't quote them now, but will get back to this.

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Comments_from_Former_Muslims

this is quite fascinating reading.

Sounds similar to what many former Christians say.

its very sad. some of them have had a terrible time.

halfwise wrote:That's a fairly straightforward spreadsheet calculation.  What's more fun is to put in a "carrying capacity" and see the numbers go chaotic for a range of growth rates.

Simulating carrying restrictions without death would be an interesting exercise - but there is no clear theory on how the organism would respond in the universes described. You might note that part of the problem is that birth rate fluctuations due to resource availability rely on threat of death (both at a conscious and a biological level).

They probably werent that important