Messages

You are right in some aspects... It is tiring to discuss this. I ask expecting a concrete answer, and all I get is mysticism... I have good stamina, though:

-Is that "Coming from God" moral  indistinguishable from non-God inspired moral?
-Can bible work as a moral guide if anyone reading it can take completelly different teachings?
-How many believers here were upbrought in a religious environment?

So, my friend, my interpretation of what you mean is that Bible finally is a drum to amp your original moral... Then, why using it? Why not going to the original source of moral (yourself).

I do.

And if you believe that my moral is as good than yours, you must recognise that Bible does not work better than not using it.

If you think that your morale is better than mine, then, we are going back to the one of my biggest compliments about religion: Many religious people think they are superior. Quite annoying, to be honest.

Still... moving sticks: SSH and Misj'. Can I ask you about your religious educaction? Were you bred into a religious environment or not?

Now those countries start to do have large quantities of religious people (Spain, for example). Since they parents were religious, in a degree, or definitelly more religious than kids, we can say that yeah, the less religious you uprise a kid, lesser religious he/she is.

And... Hehe... That' s funny. Why you said "Someone tell Saturn to stop moving in such a stupid way!"

If you said "Mercury", you' ve nailed it. Newton' s theories were inconsistent with Mercury' s movement.

Actually... Einstein proved that Newton was wrong. Newtonian physic do not work under circumpstances of high gravity, like happens in Mercury' s orbit. Newton was never able to explain the weird things Mercury' s orbit was doing.

Newton discovered a consequence of the theory of relativity that worked under most of the circumstances... So, basically, yes... Someone should have told Mercury to stop moving in such stupid way!

EDIT: Yes, American constitution, another good example that you think is going to help your cause, but actually doesn' t. The american constitution is reintepreted by judges everyday. When there are problems of interpretations, the problem raises till the Constitutional Court, which emmits a veredict that must be followed by anyone under the constitution. A veredict that can' t contradict any other paragraph of the constitution, and if it does, constitution is changed. A veredict that is published and publicitated so anyone can follow it. Most of the counties include a referendum if something in the constitution has to be changed.

Do religion do that? I am not sure if it has some kind of equivalent to the Constitutional Court. I guess it has, but I don' t know... There must probably a ecumenical or teological "curia" (I don' t know the English name) which takes the bible and says "Okay guys, let' s focus in this episode... Onan". After years of deliverations, arguments, consults reading different sources they came with something: "That episode means this and this".

And then it comes a difference I really know about religion and Constitution. When the constitutional says something, the message is spread so any judge at any court can know what to do, how to judge and which punishement to apply to those not following the rule. If sames happens with religions, message does not arrive, and, if arrives, most of the believers do not care. "If they say masturbation is bad but I do like it, I will go on doing it... God has an inmense mercy, he will forgive me... and those guys in Rome can be wrong, anyway!" Some priests marry gays. Some others fall in love and get married (Yeah, renouncing to go on being priests, because they can't go on being it, but doing something seen as a "sin" anyway...). Some others can even get annoyed with the central authority, nail 95 thesis in a door an start their own interpretation of religion... Yeah... all very simillar to the american judicial system...

Okay, Misj', this is how the arguments between you and me go:

M-There are as much interpretations for the bible as readers:

No, I say - and said from the beginning - that everybody is entitled to his or her own interpretation of the data, and that one persons interpretation is not necessarily more rational or logical just because it comes to another conclusion than someone else. This was also reflected in my example of the Jewish idea of 70 interpretations.

N-But then, Bible is invalid as a "manual of morale".
M-But I have a version of the Bible that says that God was punishing Onan not for wasting the seed, but for not wanting to continue his brother' s line. ***(Which is weird, because if Onan pregnants her brother' s wife he shouldn' t be continuing his brother' s line, but Onan' s, but it' s ok...)***
-N: But that has nothing to see with what I said about the Bible validity as a manual of morale... Let me try to know what you are thinking... Do you mean that Bible, if we go to one unique source IS valid as a manual, because everybody should take the same teachings from it?
-M: No; M-There are as much interpretations for the bible as readers:

No, I say - and said from the beginning - that everybody is entitled to his or her own interpretation of the data, and that one persons interpretation is not necessarily more rational or logical just because it comes to another conclusion than someone else. This was also reflected in my example of the Jewish idea of 70 interpretations.

N-But then, Bible is invalid as a "manual of morale"....

And go on till the infinite. I think we should FOCUS in one aspect of the discussion and not "moving sticks" (The chinese equilibrism exercise with sticks and plates... That what you are doing to me...). And those aspects, as far as I remember, are:

-Can bible work as a moral guide if anyone reading it can take completelly different teachings?
-How many believers here were upbrought in a religious environment?

Two yes or noes, and explanations of both replies, thanks...

But as you said, individual examples do not work much for assuming something... Some examples googled in the internet do not prove as "patently false" that most of the believers were raised in a spiritual environment (It disproves ALL were, though... A statement I never deffensed, on the other side...)

We should make a world poll to know that: "Which is the percentage of the believers who were raised in a religious envirnment and which is the percentage of the believers who did convert when they were adults".I googled for it and I didn' t get any approppiate entry... If you can find one, I would be pleased if you post it here.

Told that, I just can trust in my perceptions... And that perceptions tell me that the percentage of believers that were raised as believers is very high (All the ones I know, to be honest) and the percentage of converted when adults is very few (None of the ones I know, actually). The range might be a bit limited, but let' s say that I am wrong for how much... 20%, even 30%? Okay, then the percentage of religious raised in a religious environment is 70%. A lot. And assuming that I am 30% wrong (Which is assuming a lot...)

How many of the believers do you know are so because "converted"? Only 20 examples in the internet? Any personal one?

Let' s make a small poll here... SSH, Misj', Miguel, LGM... Were you raised in a religious environment or in a neutral one?

I am quite sure that, the most religious the education was, the most "degree of believing we have"

Hehe... I knew the song, Zoot, it' s great. (IMHO, of course...)

And Misj', I don't  get your point... Do you mean that if everybody followed your source should agree with your point?

I don' t think so, BUT, even with that... (next step in my reasoning) How can we recognise that *this* and not the other is the correct source? How can we know, even if we go to the oldest, most reliable version in theory, that there' s not going to appear another older source saying the opposite? We can' t.

If Religion is like that, it' s basically like science, who constantly re-examinates its believes and is able to change them if something different to the  stablished is prooven... But in the other direction. Science looks the PRESENT to see if something from the PAST was wrong. Religion looks the PAST to see if something in the PRESENT is wrong...

And, as much as I can respect hebrew shepperds, I don' t really think that they have much to tell to me...  

SSH: And much more Christians converting to Muslims as well... Do we go now into "The Religion with most converssions" or "The religion with most followers" win? Then, I think Christianism is definitelly losing (Catholisicsm already did):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3653800.ece

Misj'... Finally I understand it!!! It' s easy when a believer do explain what he believes in spite of posting a long passage, no?

Now... Knowing what you think of it... Do you agree with me that many people doesn' t agree? Yes. Many people thought that this passage was condemning any kind of waste of sperm, no matter if masturbating, in a homosexual relationship or in a zoophilian one.

So, Bible does not work as a manual of morale, since anyone can find certain sentence to justify everything, from killing to robbery, to the opposite if they twist the words enough (And nobody said you can' t twist the words a little, since Bible does not come with intructions...)

A Roschard... if you are good, you will go on being good. If you are evil, you will go on being it, but with "divine justification".

And Ozzie... what is to be raised as atheistic? I never was told a word about religion by my parents, only "We will talk of it when you will be a teenager" and received religion at school, so, I think I was mildly religious upbrought... I was not told "anything of the die hard atheistic stuff" I said here, so, basically no... I haven't been raised as "atheistic" but as "neutral".

It' s important, Khris... I want to bring the point that "X Bible readers, X teachings" (Something that Misj sees as "good"). I said it before... If I ask 20 pilots how does the manual of the Boeing 767 tell about wind speed in wings 2 in two miles of distance to the landing track, they will say "40 knots". If I ask the altitude at that point, they will say "1000 feet" (Or whatever, I don't mind... they will all reply something reasonabily similar). I don' t think 20 different replies should be seen as "good" here. Why when we talk about religion it is? Religious amnisty, again.

If I ask a priest about that Onan passage, and what it means toward masturbation or homosexuality, I will probably have as much as replies as priests asked. Can' t you (believers) see then that "religion" can be taken individually, with no need of more ceremonies?

So, the Sin why God punished Onan finally was "eyaculating without intention to procreate" or not?

Man, if masturbation is not "Eyaculating without intention to procreate", then, what it is?

I didn' t want to discuss about that because I assumed you were not thinking God punished Onan for "spilling the seed without intention to procreate" but because Onan dissobeyed God. I assumed that because, from, the beginning you said "God did not punished Onan for this", and you quoted the entire paragraph, allowing people to take any decission about the meaning of it... If you really think that God did punish Onan for "coitus interruptus" then, that God dislikes masturbation is a logical consequence. It' s like saying "my dad does not like me to hurt animals... I will try killing one, I am not sure if he will dislike it" Of course he will.

If God "forces" a person to lie with a woman he does not like because some ancestral law, and punishes him because after that, because he did not finish the act, we have three possibilities:
a) God punished the man for dissobeying him. (YOU said this is not the case)
b) God punished him for lying with a woman, and eyaculating without will to procreate. Why? I don' t know. Maybe because of this ancest law of not spilling the seed, or because he lied with a woman without wanting to procreate (Both work for punishing masturbation, as well... Wasting voluntarilly semen is wasting semen voluntarilly, no matter if it's a coitus interruptus, a wanka, making love to a cow or to a man)

And that raises a question to me... Does that paragraph tell you that you can make love to your wife if she has been told to be unfertile? Making love to her would be wasting your sperm with a woman which can't have kids...

I don't want to follow such an unfair "Omniscent God", sorry.

But Misj, if you go even a bit further and read my posts you' ll see that I didn' t wanted to talk about what the book says (Basically because my point is that the book does not say anything in clear). My point is that Bible brings as much different teachers as readers. You don' t think God punishes Onan for wasting the seed (I don' t know why you do think Onan is punished, though? Because he dissobeys God?)  but I, when reading that, think he is.

Two people, 2 teachings.

So... what to we do? Easy. Go to the "authorities" and ask... And here comes the teologycal congress, makes a meeting and say "Ok... Misj was right, Nacho not... God punishes Onan for disobbeying God, not for wasting sperm".

BUT

Those people who decided who was right or not ARE NOT GOD. So... I am going even to consider that, yeah, Bible is sacred and was inspired by God.

How can we, even with that, follow it's beliefs since the teachings are made by mere, flawable man? Impossible. At least I wouldn' t.

And if God was punishing Onan not for dissobeying him, but for wasting the seed, he was pursuing masturbation and homosexuality as well.

And Ozzie... we all know you were a sabotager It' s okay, don' t be sad! 

Man... If what God was punishing was sperm wasting, masturbation is, may lightning strike me where I stand if it is not.

And I didn't went into "That line punishes bestiality and homosexuality" as well, because, even considering that it is, I didn' t want to put "Bible" into that unpopular position... Everybody likes fuckin' animals.

Man... When somebody wants to argue does not use this----> 

Got it?

Googling a bit before assuming that I was wrong could save you from showing your ignorance, yes... I mean a "Which is that episode of the bible you are talking about, Nacho" should have been better that "You are a silly idiot who doesn' t know what is talking about, man... I am sure the Bible was talking about crop, or something else. I mean... it said "seed". It had to be something vegetal!!!" 

I am happy that this debate is being re-conducted into something profitable!

I am specially happy that SSH used an emoticon (This one--->  )in a post directed to me. It is the way I wanted this discussion to go, and I deeply apology for the times where my behaviour made it not going that way, if I did...

Now...

@SSH: Physics allways behave in the same way. In the way particles behaved in the initial instants of big bang there was hidden a secret code of how things would be in the future.

In time=0 everything could have happened. If any particle changed it' s possition, things could fall up, and not down, in this universe, and we wouldn' t see it like "weird". In time=0.000....1 the rules for how the biggest were going to behave were set. In an instant our physic model was here. There'  s no room either (IMO) to say: "See? God was there to make this complicate indetermination in order, directing it to take us preciselly to the place where we are" because if that indeterminations behaved different and physics were different, there would have been another "Universe" where everything would be seen as "normal", even if "weird for us, (The "things falling up" example).

There is no room, according to what we know now, and apparently that knowleadge can be increased, but not substantially changed, to say "Assuming everything behaved the same allways is a HUGE assumption". It is not... things allways behaved the same, physically, in non microscopical terms. That theory also implies that, if there was something before Big Bang, it' s been erased. Big Bang it' s a "tabula rasa".

The "We don' t know what happens in indeterminations" thing (Sorry, I can' t recall who said it) is not a valid example. What happens in indetermination, like Hawking radiation that can escape from Black Holes travelling at hyper-lightspeed, does not affect us, but the smallest particles. It is like if you tell to me that a cell in my brain is going to explode because a fish in the Chinese sea is swimming south. It simply does not affect. Its range is limited. It' s like saying that you can get burned by the shine of the star that is out of the solar system, and I was there, measuring it' s radiation and telling you "Meassures say 0. Atmosphere does not allow the tiniest effect of that star to enter here".

They are not good examples, since the light of the stars would be entering in my eye, I couldn' t see it otherwise, or "the fish could affect you in a weird "butterfly" effect", but my point is that indeterminations, or what happens in quantum mechanics can't "affect" us.

My last point is about the "You can' t explain love either". Well... I can' t, because I haven' t focused on this, but love has a rational, evolutive and cultural explanation. "Love" is explained by something happening in our body, (difficult to explain), but not inexplicable. Please, don' t make me google for "Physiological explanation for love", but I will if you want. That "happening in our bodies" has been turned by the evolution and our culture into the Occidental idea of gentle, platonic love. But that physiological thing happening in another places of the world did not end in the same place where we (Occidentals) are. Muslims can marry three women. In certain tribes of Africa "real love" is just between males, women are just to lie with them for a night and have babies. Love is not equal everywhere because "love" is not something metaphysical that sprouts magically in our souls.

Like God. If you want to explain the concept "God", using "Love", think it twice because you are opening your own tomb. God was not an unique concept that magically sprouted in the minds of everybody, at the same time, as we could expect of something "superior" to happen. "God" is cultural.

First Godesses were fat ladies (Paleo Venusses). Troglodytes thought that God was giving women big hips to have healthy strong kids.

In some other places "God" was a thunder. In some others "God" was a river... Centuries after we had the polytheism and some centuries after we had the Monoteism. Nowadays some people believe in Allah, some other in Yahve, some others in God (This three are supposed to be the same, but we hate the other sides more than any others...), some others believe in Vishnu, some others in Druidism and some others in Manitou. How can "a real Omniscent God" allow that? All the evidences show is that we are facing a cultural developement, perfectly documented. Like love...

So, if you want to go on with this "Love and God is the same", I concur. Both are cultural conventions, one took us to marry with a person of the opposite sex, and the other took us to look to the skies and tell "there' s someone there superior".

And Zoot... don't show your ignorance in such a obvious manner please... The "seed" thing was told by God when punishing Onan when He caught him performing a "coitus interruptus". So, yes, God was meaning "semen" when He said "seed", and he was punishing him for that. Every "sperm" is sacred for God, and every wasted drop is a Sin... 

I don't  mind your attempt to speak in Spanish, I appreciate it, actually! (It' s "Yo no comprendo" or "Yo no lo entiendo", though)

So... you want me to say why Genesis is irrational?

*Phew* Okay.

According to what we know about physics, Universe was created from a infinitelly small spot of infinite density and infinite gravity. It' s a physical inditermination, which means that physic laws do not exist there. It is an indetermination that was the beginning of time, and created our physic laws, which means that, if anything existed before that t-1, it was totally erased.

So, even if there was a God in the Big Bang, he was killed. Which means that he had no control over nothing from t=0, so, even what we thing if "IT" must be false, since he was not there to inspire us.

And because I know that the earth was not created in 6 days. And because I know all animals were created at the same time along those 6 days. Because I know (Or "all evindences tell me that..." if you preffer, and you can apply it to all the "I knows" you see here) that some other animals were extinted before the actual ones. Because I know that man was not created by mud, but by history of evolution.

Happy? I guess not, since you believe...

And well... You mentioned Hare Krishna... I don' t know why, a "deffense of christianism because there are even more nuts religions over there"? Some people tried that tactic... Which is a weird deffense, I think... You would be accepting "religion is nuts" (note the quotes), I don' t mind if there are another that are even more... If that is your argument, I agree... Some are more "unreal" than others, and some are more dangerous than others. I talked of "religion" and it it has moved to "Christianism" or "Bible" it' s been just because of the momentum of the thread... I could change "Christianism" for "Religion" if you want...

@Ghost: If you didn' t said that, I am sorry... That was the perception I had of your posts, a perception that can be totally flawed. I am sorry... I post from memory. There' s no need of you the leave this thread, if you don' t want.

@Andail: Not me... (The personal stuff, I mean)

Okay I reply:

A) 2+2 is 4. I don't think it' s necessary to develope that more...

B) Okay... I think we all agree that there are sentences in Bible against masturbating and homosexual behaviour, no?

"Thou sall not throw your seed", "And Sodoma was punished because of its behave", etc, etc...

Ok: Sentences that can work for someone looking into the Bible looking for phrases supporting masturbation or homosexuality:

Jesus: "That, free of sin, throw the first stone". "Love one each other, in that way they will know you are my desciples"

Want more? We can look for "Sentences saying it is ok to kill" and "sentences saying it is not ok to kill", and go on, forever.

C and D are just rants, so, I don' t mind, I just accept it...

Actually, not, Stupot. I said that the facts are stupid. I never said that literalists are stupids

In the same way that saying "Your mother sells herself" isn't saying she's a whore, she just does whorey stuff.

No, it isn' t... But it' s ok.

Portaying yourself as a victim is the only way to get something of this, since if you enter in the rational side of the discussion, you are lost, and you know it...But it' s ok. It' s sad that you want to throw me to the lions with that tactic, saying that I mean what I don't mean, but it' s ok...

Oh! An edit!

I don't think I agreed that. I really don't understand why its hard to believe in a talking snake, for example, if you believe in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient God. Now, I don't think its necessary for the whole Bible to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean there's any reason why an omnipotent God couldn't have done things just as it says. Of course, this is predicated on the belief in an omnipotent God so I don't expect atheists to understand.

Preciselly... Read your post again, and if you can' t see something weird in "I really don't understand why its hard to believe in a talking snake" discussion is over.

Man... Do I really have to say again that I don' t consider (even literalistics) stupids?

But, sorry... even your decided deffense of the 40 words chickens can say, the whole paradise story is a complete no sense... It' s a irrational story. The history of God alone in the "nothing", who become bored, created earth and created man from mud, then a woman, from his rib, because the man needed irrational story.

Saying it is irrational is not stupid. Saying that 2+2=5 is irrational and saying 2+2 is not equal to 5 is not. You can' t use the "respect my beliefs" argument here.

That "recpect it all" actually has never done. We do not respect one man who believes that killing virgins is good for his Karma, do we? We do not respect people telling Jews are fags and that we must gas them all, do we? We do not respect someone denying holocaust (We don' t... In many countries we imprison him even...) Which is good.

I am not trying to say that religious people are virgin killers, antisemites or holocaust negationists, ok? My point is just that "We never respected EVERYTHING".

As we shouldn' t happily accept that "irrational stories", per se.

Actually, not, Stupot. I said that the facts are stupid. I never said that literalists are stupids, I can' t judge them all... Some will be, for sure, as at any segment of society. Some of them will not... Some of them will be even more intelligent than me, probably in a similar percentage that at any other segment of society...

They (Literalistics) might have no other chance than believing in what they do. Maybe they have been educated that way, or they had an experience that can easily turned into "supernatural" without the appropiate training, being "converted" in that way. Man, even I have seen "UFOs" and made "astral travels" that should have been extremelly convincent without my personal training! 

If I am told that RGB=250,0,0 is "Green", in spite of the most common aception of "green" (0,250,0), I will keep saying it' s green for the rest of my life. If I'm told that when I am a kid, by someone who I totally trust, like a teacher, my parents, or any other adult that RGB 250,0,0 is green, 250,0,0 will allways be"green" for me.

That' s another of my main compliments about "Religion". It' s something we tell to kids, when they have no tools to set a propper deffense, and they don' t really "accept" it. They simply "obbey". Actually, I know the case of a friend whose parents decide not to talk her about religion till when he was a teenager (Her father was Jew, her mother is Christian). When she was adult and she was asked about "what religion to chose", she said: "No one". I know it' s probably not enough to use it a rule for the rest of the world, but WE CAN'T KNOW untill we test it. Something simillar happened to me, and, in spite of receiving Religion at class, I decided to be atheistic. My point is that if you are raised "neutrally", in the XXIth centuty, you' ll be, 90% of the cases, atheistic.

Question: Anyone of the believers here was raised "neutral" and became believer when adult?

And Ghost, you seem to keep saying "Nacho wants to focus this debate if Religion should sepparate from the State". No. I' ve mentioned religion classes, but the parent telling to its 3 years old kids is not "The State".

And no. I am not going to reply LGM because, according to what he posted, he is the kind of discreet "spiritual" man whose beliefs do not enter in confrontation with mine. He gave enough evidences about a personal conception of spirituality that I can't argue with, because what he basically said is: "I believe in something and it works for me, full stop". I can' t argue with his beliefs because I don' t exactly know in what he believes... I can' t argue with him because I agree with him.

Not with his "inferiority complex" phrase, but I think that was directed to InC, anyway... And if it was directed to my, I am not going to discuss it either, since some people here intoxicated this thread enough ("Nacho believes all believers are stupid, Nacho says it' s time to finish with religions, Nacho thinks Religion is the main problem of the world, and that it must be terminated, blah, blah, blah...") that I can't blame him either...

Can we do that? Because "Religion works for me for being a better person, it is a set of moral rules, etc, etc..." is an argument believers constantly say. Of course, when the "church" pisses it off, they inmediatly claim "THAT is not religion!!!"

And I am not talking of paedophiles, etc... I think that has nothing to see with religions, but about some "weird" idieologies of things done by the church (No using condom, not to abort at any case, not to extra-matrimonial relationships, not predicating with the example of sharing their goods with the poor, etc...) They can say all that things "ARE Religion" because the Bible is a big "Roschard". It can work for justifying almost everything... If you want a paragraph for beating someone, you can find it, if you want a paragraph telling you can not masturbate, you will find it, if you want  a paragraph saying that you may not marry people of your same gender, you can do it... But if you want to find paragraphs saying JUST THE OPPOSITE, you will find them, and if you do not, you can quote some Christ quotes about "free will, I am here to make men free" and that "do the others what you want the others do to you" and you got it. YOu can use bible for everything!

So, another point of mine is that Bible didn' t made anyone better... People who was good, stills being good with the bible, because bible just pops out what you really had inside. If you are a bastard and you really want to blow a Bus in Tel Aviv, it' s not the Coran which tells you to do it... You wanted to do it, and sacred books confirmed what you wanted to do.

Same with "church". We can' t say "What church is doing is not approppiate according to the sacred books", because "sacred books" don't really say anything clear... Everything is just too vague. Jehova's witnesses example is, IMO, good. They took a greek version, they translated it, and they feel that' s the propper version. If there was a line in that original version that, twisted, implies that you can' t receive blood, then, it' s God' s word: Let's obbey.

But it' s not God' s words... Who knows what that line orginally said.

Bible is invalid as a source of anything because it' s vague, imprecise and had lots of misstranslations... That is, IMO, almost out of discussion.