Errors and Contradictions in the Bible

[jazzypaul]

there are Christians that follow The Bible that do much good, day in and day out.  But what about the Christians that run food pantries, homeless shelters and drug treatment centers?  Are they evil scumbags, too?  How about all of the white churches that joined the fight for civil rights throughout the south in the late 50's and early 60's? 

When was the last time that "Athiests International" got together and did such things?

There are plenty of people of all religions AND no religion who do good in this world ... no one group should get any special billing.

Why do you feel the need to take a swipe at people who have different beliefs than you (atheists)? Aren't you doing just what you're castigating Take 5 for?

Chrome,

I don't see how you could get that out of what I said. Let me clarify, to make sure that you understand...

Take 5 said...

And here it is folks: the underlying horror of Christianity- the philosophical basis of why this digusting religion is the 2nd biggest stumbling block of human progress of our time (the first being mass starvation).

and

By the way, don't get into a battle of semantics, it's pointless and makes you look foolish. You believe in a God, yes? You have a holy book, yes? You have rituals? You're in a religion, pal, deal with it. That fundy game of changing the meaning of words to lie their way into a point is old and tacky.

Should I not defend my faith? And that is, sir, MY faith. I cannot speak for the muslims or hindus or buddhists, as I am not one, and I would be out of place to do so. However, I am a Christian, and yes, I will point out that when we follow Christ's teachings and keep our focus on what Christ did and why Christ did it, that we, as a group, are capable of some pretty cool stuff, through Him.

Isn't it funny that Take 5 can take a downright mean spirited swipe at my religion and my God, and the good that we attempt to do, and it's fine. But when I point out that we are indeed doing good in the world, Chrome is there within 10 minutes to decry the points that I make?

Chrome, when you come to my defense as quickly as you came to Take 5's, we'll talk about the fairness of the issue. Until then, learn to read what people type before you attack it, please.

[JSngry]

This whole duality trip is cracking me up.

[Joe G]

That's the name of the game.

[JSngry]

That's a sucker game, bro.

There ain't no duality, there's only unity. Everything else is a choice between incomplete perceptions.

Edited August 24, 2004 by JSngry

[JSngry]

Oh yeah, that's just my opinion.

[JSngry]

But I'm sticking to it until given a more viable alternative.

[JSngry]

But I don't see any way around it.

[Chrome]

Isn't it funny that Take 5 can take a downright mean spirited swipe at my religion and my God, and the good that we attempt to do, and it's fine. But when I point out that we are indeed doing good in the world, Chrome is there within 10 minutes to decry the points that I make?

Chrome, when you come to my defense as quickly as you came to Take 5's, we'll talk about the fairness of the issue. Until then, learn to read what people type before you attack it, please.

I don't have time for a full repsonse, but I guess it depends on how you're looking at things ... you weren't, in fact, JUST pointing out the good that Christians are doing ... you also had to take a "mean-spirited" swipe at atheists, too.

I didn't mean to actually defend Take 5 so much as point out your apparent hypocrisy here.

[jazzypaul]

Isn't it funny that Take 5 can take a downright mean spirited swipe at my religion and my God, and the good that we attempt to do, and it's fine.  But when I point out that we are indeed doing good in the world, Chrome is there within 10 minutes to decry the points that I make?

Chrome, when you come to my defense as quickly as you came to Take 5's, we'll talk about the fairness of the issue.  Until then, learn to read what people type before you attack it, please.

I don't have time for a full repsonse, but I guess it depends on how you're looking at things ... you weren't, in fact, JUST pointing out the good that Christians are doing ... you also had to take a "mean-spirited" swipe at atheists, too.

I didn't mean to actually defend Take 5 so much as point out your apparent hypocrisy here.

here is the difference my dear Chrome...

Take 5 says some downright cruel things which cannot be proven about Christianity. They were cruel on their face, cruel in their spirit and cruel in their intention.

I counter with something that is VERY true: when have we ever seen a group united under the flag of atheism with the singular cause of helping out the world's poor, sick and hungry? Umm, that would be never.

That makes me a hypocrite? That's strange. There's nothing hypocritical about it. if anything, it makes you far more of a hypocrite than me. Why? Simple. As an atheist, you're supposed to be smarter, fairer and more balanced than me, a simpleton that believes in a big God up in the sky that made everything. Yet, with all of your supposed balance, you get upset when somebody points out the very real fact that we've yet to see a charity that gathers its troops under the idea of atheism. Instead of jumping up and down defending someone that has the cuth of a swarm of angry hornets, you should be attempting to prove me wrong. But you haven't. Instead, you feel the need to label my statement in a way that is most certainly, at the very least, misleading.

So, once again, learn to read what I write instead of what you think. Then let's debate.

[Uncle Skid]

I counter with something that is VERY true: when have we ever seen a group united under the flag of atheism with the singular cause of helping out the world's poor, sick and hungry?  Umm, that would be never.

Earthward

The Fred Hollows Foundation

This Foundation has worked in 29 countries and has restored sight to more than a million people  Even after he was diagnosed with cancer Fred continued with his work. He died 11 years ago.

Fred was very outspoken on his atheist beliefs. His widow, Gabi Hollows took over the Foundation after his death.

And of course (as Chrome already pointed out), there's a whole bunch of secular charities that do wonderful work as well.

[Joe G]

That's a sucker game, bro.

There ain't no duality, there's only unity. Everything else is a choice between incomplete perceptions.

Can you clarify? (In other words: Who you callin' a sucker? )

The real game, as I see it, is transcending duality and separateness. Which is often easier said than done, as we can see by this thread...

[7/4]

I must be the only one not tired of Take Five. Love that Joe Morello drum solo at the end.

Great tune as long as it's played in it's original form, "Takin' Five" doesn't count.

[ejp626]

I counter with something that is VERY true: when have we ever seen a group united under the flag of atheism with the singular cause of helping out the world's poor, sick and hungry?  Umm, that would be never.

Yet, with all of your supposed balance, you get upset when somebody points out the very real fact that we've yet to see a charity that gathers its troops under the idea of atheism. 

From my perspective, fighting religion is very low on my list of organizing principles. If I was a militant atheist, well, perhaps I would spent time setting up an atheist hospital and an atheist school system. But to me that very militancy is a sign that religion has a disproportionate impact on your life. I would think about religion very little if it weren't for the success of the religious right in trying to impose their views on me.

Again, from my perspective, I simply don't see the point in setting up competing charities so long as there is a reasonably good charity out there that seems to come from a secular humanist base (which many do), or a progressive base (Hull House for example) or even a big-tent approach to Christianity. Do I really need to set up Atheists for the Environment to compete with the Sierra Club? I give regularly to a Chicago soup kitchen; since they do not proselytize while handing out food, it doesn't concern me if some of the workers are Christian. Now the exception I would make would be if I lived in an area where there were only Catholic hospitals and health care providers. Then I would feel an obligation to build a non-Catholic hospital that had a broader range of services.

[jazzypaul]

I counter with something that is VERY true: when have we ever seen a group united under the flag of atheism with the singular cause of helping out the world's poor, sick and hungry?  Umm, that would be never.

Earthward

The Fred Hollows Foundation

This Foundation has worked in 29 countries and has restored sight to more than a million people  Even after he was diagnosed with cancer Fred continued with his work. He died 11 years ago.

Fred was very outspoken on his atheist beliefs. His widow, Gabi Hollows took over the Foundation after his death.

And of course (as Chrome already pointed out), there's a whole bunch of secular charities that do wonderful work as well.

Points to make here:

1) Earthward is doing some good work. I will agree with them that the Islamic countries would be better governed by secular governments. All countries should be governed by secular governments. And I will agree that stepping in to thwart congregations who believe that children should only be allowed to be healed by supernatural powers is necessary. But, the original question was this: when have we seen "atheists international" (obviously, insert name of real atheist organization here) up and go to Africa, or Alabama for that matter, to go feed the hungry and heal the sick? Earthbound certainly isn't doing that. Instead, they're calling what they do charity when what it really amounts to is PR for the atheist movement. Everything that they're undertaking has an alterior motive. That's not really awe inspiring. They may be good works, but it's not charity for charity's sake. At which point, it's empty anyway.

2) Fred Hollows is indeed doing some great work in Australia. And it's great that his foundation is. But they're not exactly putting their atheism at the top of their webpage.

3) Secular foundations and atheist foundations are two separate things. When something is secular, they're simply not bringing God to the table. Atheist foundations are basing the cornerstone of their existence on the idea that God does not exist. There's a huge difference there.

So, please, keep bringing them out. But, in the meantime, you've still yet to show me an organization whose very cornerstone is atheism that is out there doing charitable work for the simple purpose of helping mankind.

[jazzypaul]

I counter with something that is VERY true: when have we ever seen a group united under the flag of atheism with the singular cause of helping out the world's poor, sick and hungry?  Umm, that would be never.

Yet, with all of your supposed balance, you get upset when somebody points out the very real fact that we've yet to see a charity that gathers its troops under the idea of atheism. 

From my perspective, fighting religion is very low on my list of organizing principles. If I was a militant atheist, well, perhaps I would spent time setting up an atheist hospital and an atheist school system. But to me that very militancy is a sign that religion has a disproportionate impact on your life. I would think about religion very little if it weren't for the success of the religious right in trying to impose their views on me.

Again, from my perspective, I simply don't see the point in setting up competing charities so long as there is a reasonably good charity out there that seems to come from a secular humanist base (which many do), or a progressive base (Hull House for example) or even a big-tent approach to Christianity. Do I really need to set up Atheists for the Environment to compete with the Sierra Club? I give regularly to a Chicago soup kitchen; since they do not proselytize while handing out food, it doesn't concern me if some of the workers are Christian. Now the exception I would make would be if I lived in an area where there were only Catholic hospitals and health care providers. Then I would feel an obligation to build a non-Catholic hospital that had a broader range of services.

Competing charities? Are you kidding me? Are there still hungry people in the world? If so, then one, or two, or ten charities are not enough. Is AIDS still rampant in Africa? Then there's not enough being done. Is poaching of endangered species still a problem? Then there's not enough being done. It's not like there's a Hull House in every city, or even a Pacific Garden Mission or Rainbow Center. There's still a need for more charity and giving in the world. I would like to see the majority of that charity done by Christian organizations, not to be missionaries and force our beliefs upon others, but rather so that people can see faith in action. But that's me. Different Strokes for different folks, right?

Funny how the libertarian around here is the one talking about the increased need for charity, and the liberals are saying that there's no need for more charity. It's funny that so many here feel no problems with calling Christianity any number of things, but as soon as the atheists get called to the mat, I'm a hypocrite. It's quite strange that good deeds done with the most divisive of all motives are supposed to be applauded, but Christians that provide real charity to people in need are scumbags trying to trap the poor and defenseless.

It's time to look around people. It's time to start thinking about the wedges that we're driving between us. It's time to start doing more listening and less talking. I agree that the fundamental branch of Christianity is doing irrepairable damage to itself, Christianity at large and the country. But trying to get any of the atheists here to simply acknowledge that the teachings of Jesus do indeed have merit is like pulling teeth. It's time for everyone to shut up and think before opening one's mouth (or post). Shrdlu's constant preaching is completely annoying. My ranting probably gets on quite a few people's nerves as well. But that's no worse than cheap shots being taken by Alexander and Take 5 and others. If there is to be an open dialogue, questions and answers are one thing, but thoughtless swipes are another. If we want an open dialogue, I'm down, but if this is just going to be a parade of people trying to prove that they're smarter than their religious counterparts, this is going to get tired really fast.

[connoisseur series500]

But I, too, take issue with the idea that we are born in sin. I believe - no I know - that the core of our being is untarnished, complete, pure innocence.

anti-Calvinist!

Edited August 24, 2004 by connoisseur series500

[Uncle Skid]

But, the original question was this: when have we seen "atheists international" (obviously, insert name of real atheist organization here) up and go to Africa, or Alabama for that matter, to go feed the hungry and heal the sick? Earthbound certainly isn't doing that. Instead, they're calling what they do charity when what it really amounts to is PR for the atheist movement. Everything that they're undertaking has an alterior motive. That's not really awe inspiring. They may be good works, but it's not charity for charity's sake. At which point, it's empty anyway.

A couple of points back at ya:

Your original question was “have we ever seen a group united under the flag of atheism”, not “insert name of real atheist organization here” or whatever. A detail, yes, but I felt Earthward was a good example that proved you wrong, as they are “Earth’s Atheist Resistance”, and they explicitly state that they are “run by volunteer atheists and agnostics”.

By the way, what constitutes a “real atheist” organization anyway? Seeing as none of us can seem to agree on what a “True Christian” is, I’m fairly confident we won’t come to any consensus on that subject.

The thing that surprises me most is your seemingly immediate assertion that they have ulterior motives. Their mission statement doesn’t mention PR for the atheist cause -- they seem to be genuine. Do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise? You admit they are doing good work. I’m not trying to be condescending here -- I’m just curious.

I agree that the Hollows foundation does not specifically mention atheism. But, to ejp626’s point: why should they? It’s simply not particularly relevant to the advancement of their cause. I pointed them out as an example of a good cause started by a non-religious person.

FWIW, I think you completely missed the point of ejp626’s post. I read it as a very good explanation as to why there aren’t more overtly atheist-based charities. I don’t think he (she?) was advocating that there is no need for more charities, rather that there are plenty of ones that aren’t primarily based on Christian proselytizing that are worthy of support.

Incidentally, I acknowledge, as do many non-religious people, that the teachings of Jesus have merit. Erroneous atheist stereotypes can be as damaging as Christian ones.

[JSngry]

That's a sucker game, bro.

There ain't no duality, there's only unity. Everything else is a choice between incomplete perceptions.

Can you clarify? (In other words: Who you callin' a sucker? )

The real game, as I see it, is transcending duality and separateness. Which is often easier said than done, as we can see by this thread...

The suckers are the ones who pick a fight based on one side or the other of the duality/dualities rather than attempting to, as you say, transcend duality and separateness (success at which would result in a state of unity, right?).

A fool and his harmony are soon parted.

Edited August 25, 2004 by JSngry

[JSngry]

And I'll go one step further and suggest that it's not really a matter of "transcending" duality and separateness in order to achieve unity, it's "simply" a matter of just accepting it (unity). Unity is not something we invent or earn, it's just the way things ultimately are going to be, no escaping it. Just because we are unable/refuse/whatever to see it doesn't mean it's not real. Or that it's not always there. It is. What we too often invent are reasons for not accepting it. What we need to transcend is ourselves, not something external.

On one level, that's a semantics game, but on another it's not - how do you "discover" something that's already there? It might be a personal discovery, a breakthrough, even, but so is the revelation that toughing your genitals feels good.

I had a comic strip (forget which one it was) on my fridge door for years that said, "Always remember - you're unique. Just like everybody else."

I LOVE that!

Edited August 25, 2004 by JSngry

[jazzypaul]

Skid,

I think you missed a few of the points I was trying to make. Some of them simple, and some of them not so much...

Your original question was “have we ever seen a group united under the flag of atheism”, not “insert name of real atheist organization here” or whatever. A detail, yes, but I felt Earthward was a good example that proved you wrong, as they are “Earth’s Atheist Resistance”, and they explicitly state that they are “run by volunteer atheists and agnostics”.

"insert name of real atheist organization here" was simply put in because I know there is no charitable organization called "atheists international." That's all.

Reading Earthward's website, I got the distinct feeling that if a church was burning down in their neighborhood (for example), they wouldn't exactly be doing anything to help. That's what a charity does, it helps where help is needed, not where you deem help necessary.

What I meant by a real atheist organization however is an organization that functions in the same realm as a Red Cross, United Way, March of Dimes or Salvation Army that gathers themselves under the flag of atheism. Not a "charitable organization" that only helps out likeminded causes. Yes, those exist in the Christian world as well, and I think just as little of them.

And a good cause by a non-religious person was not what I was getting at. Chrome seemed upset that I mentioned that there are Christian organizations doing good throughout the world, and I simply wanted to know where their atheist counterparts were. So, an organization that is simply non-religious as opposed to atheist doesn't answer my question. (as I have stated before, non-religious simply means a lack of acknowledgement of God, atheism is the religion of no god. There is a difference...)

FWIW, I think you completely missed the point of ejp626’s post. I read it as a very good explanation as to why there aren’t more overtly atheist-based charities. I don’t think he (she?) was advocating that there is no need for more charities, rather that there are plenty of ones that aren’t primarily based on Christian proselytizing that are worthy of support.

And, you know what, I might have possibly completely missed his/her point. It happens, you know. And I'll always be the first to admit it when I'm wrong. But one thing that really drove me up a wall was this...

I give regularly to a Chicago soup kitchen; since they do not proselytize while handing out food, it doesn't concern me if some of the workers are Christian.

What this essentially says is, "if they were preaching to the homeless, I wouldn't give to them." Really? Some place is offering food and shelter to those who are less fortunate, and you're going to withhold funds from them because they're teaching the word of God? That's mighty heartless, isn't it? If they're doing good for a community, and doing even the smallest amount of good to raise their community up, then it's worthy. End of story. No argument. Any argument of the issue says more about you than it ever could about the charity in question.

Edited August 25, 2004 by jazzypaul

[Uncle Skid]

(as I have stated before, non-religious simply means a lack of acknowledgement of God, atheism is the religion of no god. There is a difference...)

jazzypaul, if I misunderstood your points, I apologize. I think our “lack of unity” results from different definitions of atheism – I do not consider it a “religion”. I know you disagree; here’s something to consider (and it even talks about unicorns! B-) ): Is Atheism a Religion?

What this essentially says is, "if they were preaching to the homeless, I wouldn't give to them." Really? Some place is offering food and shelter to those who are less fortunate, and you're going to withhold funds from them because they're teaching the word of God?

Like ejp626, if I were given a choice among charities offering food and shelter, I would favor the ones that don’t teach the “word of God”. Obviously, I can’t contribute to all good causes, so I will naturally pick the ones that don’t put conditions on their work.

For instance, I donated to our local Rescue Mission many times over the years. When I came across another organization that did similar things, but wasn't religious, the money now goes there instead. It’s not a matter “withholding” funds, it’s simply directing funds to a different organization.

Do Rescue Missions do go work? Of course! I just prefer to donate elsewhere, because I strongly disagree with the “filthy sinner, and God has saved me in spite of that” viewpoint.

[JSngry]

"Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." - Alan Watts

[take5]

when have we ever seen a group united under the flag of atheism with the singular cause of helping out the world's poor, sick and hungry? Umm, that would be never.

Because there is no such thing as a "flag of atheism." This takes me back to the semantics game- you treat atheism as a religion. An atheist is simply one who doesn't believe in the existence of a god or gods. This is not a religion. Calling the lack of something that very thing is ridiculous. You want to talk about insulting posts? That is insulting to my intelligence.

I don't believe in leprachauns and evil ghost mummies. Is that a religion? Are we in the relgion of a-leprachauns-and-evil-ghost-mummies?

Atheists have nothing to preach or teach or evangelise or sell or what-have-you, because it's no a belief system- it's nothing. It's just a word that means I don't believe in God. So the idea of an "atheist charity" is absurd.

I don't know where I you got this idea that I think all Christians only do bad things, et al. I was criticising the missionaries that use food and medicine to preach. I think that's horrible, cruel, and cynical.

I've read the Bible, much of it in Hebrew. I studied Judaism and Christianity, thank you very much. I've also studied the history of Christianity. So your condescending criticism of my supposed ignorance is out of place.

I hope I wouldn't have to regurgitate the obvious axiom that there are good and bad people of all faiths and no faiths, blah blah blah. We all know that.

The point of my post had nothing to do with any of that. It was a challenge to the philosophical stance of Christianity that humans are innately evil. I still feel it is an inherently negative idea which has been used to keep people down for centuries. I know too many kids that were scarred by that talk and entire populations were kept ignorant and broke because they were taught that their time on earth is meaningless compared to their time in "heaven," so they accepted their crappy circumstances. The Renaissance challenged this and it is those humanistic principles that can save us from intellectual darkness.

Oh, and nice shot at my tag. I use it for lots of stuff outside of jazz, and I rather like it.

[Chrome]

Sigh ... I hate when a post gets so much action overnight (when I can't post) that I don't even know where to start responding in the morning.

Anyway, my basic feelings on religion are pretty close to my feelings on race, etc.: There's a fine line between taking pride in who you are/what you believe and xenophobia.

And when it comes to religion, especially any kind of "organized" religion, this problem is inevitable. If one believes that one's religion is right, it almost necessarily means the other religions (or no religion) is wrong ... that's the very nature of most religions ... the jews are the "chosen" people, if you don't accept christ you'll go to hell, etc. ... it's all "you have to do it my way or you're wrong."

And once you get that "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset going about religion, it's easy for it to expand to other areas, as usually happens.

And, FWIW, I'm not an atheist.

[Joe G]

"Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." - Alan Watts

Hanging up my argumentative hat now. B-)

the revelation that toughing your genitals feels good.

Toughing? OUCH!