EAC: We're doing a good job!

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You got me wrong. The Ten Commandments STILL STAND!! This IS what we will be Judged by! GOD cannot take-back or break any covenant or agreement made with man. We will fall-short of the commandments of course, henceforth ... we need ... a SAVIOR!

We will fall short because the standards are impossible to achieve for humans that were created broken by Biblegod. We will even be judged for the thought crime of coveting things, our neighbors' cattle, their slaves, their wives and so on. And the only way out of a doomed afterlife is to submit to this god, mind and spirit, and spend our lives as slaves. The game was rigged from the start.

In all religious reality, not religious fantasy, that's in fact the greatest commandment, that you're screwed so suck it up and just be a good slave. I say religious reality because I'm assuming that a religious person can also make rational observations and form rational conclusions, at least some of the time.

We've had enough discussion about how religious people spend 99.9999% of their lives doing wholly non-religious things, that their behavior is no different herein from anyone atheist. They undertake a bit of what they perceive to be good-luck-bringing behavior otherwise, but not much, which consists primarily of talking the talk. Big woot. And this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

The essential behavioral difference is that they possess and use a religious vocabulary of fantasy words. Again, big woot.

 

[bilby]

You got me wrong. The Ten Commandments STILL STAND!! This IS what we will be Judged by! GOD cannot take-back or break any covenant or agreement made with man. We will fall-short of the commandments of course, henceforth ... we need ... a SAVIOR!

We will fall short because the standards are impossible to achieve for humans that were created broken by Biblegod. We will even be judged for the thought crime of coveting things, our neighbors' cattle, their slaves, their wives and so on. And the only way out of a doomed afterlife is to submit to this god, mind and spirit, and spend our lives as slaves. The game was rigged from the start.

Sin doesn't even come into it. The instructions are contradictory; They are impossible to obey for any person or thing, including any gods.

To give just one example:
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

So, I meet a witch. What does god command me to do in this situation?

Apparently, god either: Meant something different from what is clearly stated in at least one of these cases; or god's commands here are in fact mistranslations, and not what god actually said; or one or both commands are now obsolete; or one or both commands are limited in scope, and apply only to very specific instances (despite these limitations not being mentioned in the text); or some other weaselly shit that ignores the fact that a moment ago we were being told that the commandments given by god in the bible are a set of instructions from the ultimate authority, which must be obeyed at all times if we wish to avoid eternal damnation.

If god can't write clear and detailed instructions that don't contradict each other, then the whole exercise of trying to obey him is futile. (And of course, this remains true if there are no gods, and the instructions were written by humans).

The bible isn't a set of instructions, it's a Forer Effect text - it says whatever the person reading it wants it to say.

 

[Rhea]

Omigod, no one rushes to defend orthodoxy as swiftly or fervently as an atheist! The handsome irony of it.

It’s not really ironical, in my opinion.

The religionists have a book. They brandish the book to control society. They claim it is divine. Then they go about acting as if it is not, until they are in a position to try to control society, then it’s back to orthodoxy.

Yes, but when you meet someone who isn't in fact wagging a book, or just isn't wagging a book in the way you're most familiar with, you're like "Well you're not a REAL Christian then." If Learner of all people isn't a true Christian, there must not be very many true Christians.

I think you missed what I was conveying.

THEY, not me, claim the book is divine and appropriate for oppression.
Then others of them, wag THE SAME BOOK. Indeed, even the others who discount portions of the book and claim, like you, to be different, are utterly unwilling to tear out the pages that offend them.

Until they do that, they are wagging the same book. And they clearly convey that there is something about it that they are unwilling to call human and publish without.

So I say to them, they are not a “real” whateveritis because they carry the book and call parts of it divine but parts of it not and will not desecrate it, even the human parts. Showing how they treat the WHOLE book for all of us to see. They aren’t real to their book and they aren’t real to their denial of the book.

You can be whatever you want. You call yourself “Real Christians,” but when you carry around and quote from a text that you don’t follow but can’t discard, it sure doesn’t sound real at all.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's fair to say that people worship the idea that their book is special, without seeing all the contradictions and instructions that they do not live by or even know are in their book. They like the coziness and belief that their book is all they need to know. Their book isn't even a book, it's a collection of translations and redactions from different centuries, places and anonymous authors, which is why it has so many contradictions.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, but when you meet someone who isn't in fact wagging a book, or just isn't wagging a book in the way you're most familiar with, you're like "Well you're not a REAL Christian then." If Learner of all people isn't a true Christian, there must not be very many true Christians.

I think you missed what I was conveying.

THEY, not me, claim the book is divine and appropriate for oppression.
Then others of them, wag THE SAME BOOK. Indeed, even the others who discount portions of the book and claim, like you, to be different, are utterly unwilling to tear out the pages that offend them.

Until they do that, they are wagging the same book. And they clearly convey that there is something about it that they are unwilling to call human and publish without.

So I say to them, they are not a “real” whateveritis because they carry the book and call parts of it divine but parts of it not and will not desecrate it, even the human parts. Showing how they treat the WHOLE book for all of us to see. They aren’t real to their book and they aren’t real to their denial of the book.

You can be whatever you want. You call yourself “Real Christians,” but when you carry around and quote from a text that you don’t follow but can’t discard, it sure doesn’t sound real at all.

So the only options are worshiping books or burning books? Love of something must preclude critical reflection on it, or it isn't real love?

 

[Rhea]

So the only options are worshiping books or burning books? Love of something must preclude critical reflection on it, or it isn't real love?

Sweet Merciful False Dichotomy Straw Man, Politesse!
Not what I said.

 

[Politesse]

So the only options are worshiping books or burning books? Love of something must preclude critical reflection on it, or it isn't real love?

Sweet Merciful False Dichotomy Straw Man, Politesse!
Not what I said.

Well, clarify then. What the hell is wrong with admiring a book but also applying critical thought to its contents? Why should anyone care about your notions of ideological purity, in fact?

 

[Rhea]

Well, clarify then. What the hell is wrong with admiring a book but also applying critical thought to its contents? Why should anyone care about your notions of ideological purity, in fact?

When that book is used to oppress, and those using it to oppress count YOU as one of their number because you carry the same book they carry, then it functionally matters that you give them cover.

If a sect decided to re-print the bible with the nasty oppressive shit not included, it would separate the un-oppressive believers from the oppressive ones. But one has to wonder why they don’t and won’t re-print a non-oppressive bible.

Why do you think they don’t and won’t? Why do you think people carry around a bible of which they admire just parts, and refuse to disavow the parts that zealots are counting on you to provide cover for?

Why do you admire a book that says a woman should be forced to marry a rapist? Why do you admire a book that says you should kill people of different faiths? Why do you admire a book that condones slavery? Why do you admire a book that contains stories of men who would be willing to sacrifice their own children? Why do you admire a book that recounts a planet-wide mass murder?

The other Christians see someone who carries a bible and think, “One of us, see how numerous we are! This is what makes us a “Christian Nation^TM! And why we are in the right to pass oppressive laws!”

I don’t have notions about ideological purity. I have notions about what the devotion to the bible as a whole with no parts removed does to my society. It strengthens the zealots, to the detriment of us all.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

You should like the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson (or as I call him uncle Tommy) edited the Bible giving his version. He omitted the Old Testament and, in the New Testament, he cut out all the miracles and references to heaven and hell. Jesus became pretty much just a kindly old philosopher.

But then I don't know of anyone who calls themselves Christian who like it... actually, I only know a couple Christians who even know he compiled it.

 

[Politesse]

So we would be more "true" if we... censored books??

 

[skepticalbip]

So we would be more "true" if we... censored books??

Who suggested censoring books? Anyone who wants to can buy any version of the Bible they like... and there are several versions available.

Reader's Digest has been editing popular books down to what they considered important for decades now but people can still buy the uncut version as the author wrote it.

 

[Rhea]

So we would be more "true" if we... censored books??

No one mentioned “censorship” but you.
But in a way, that reveals quite a bit about what I was saying. You say you’re different from other christians (quite vehemently), but the idea of discarding parts of the bible that you don’t believe in or even like - you consider “censorship” rather than individualizing a text for you, or removing the parts that are clearly not divine.

It’s just interesting. “Censored.” That is not at all what I said. That was from you.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion--its message becomes meaningless.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel in God in Search of Man

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion--its message becomes meaningless.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel in God in Search of Man

It's not what their book says that makes a difference to a person who reveres it, it's their belief that it is sacred. That they may experience it as something that contains knowledge or is a source of intellectual pursuit isn't a consideration. It's the same as a god and this is how they perceive it. It's their license to do whatever they wish in its name. Everything it says is good.

 

[Politesse]

So we would be more "true" if we... censored books??

Who suggested censoring books? Anyone who wants to can buy any version of the Bible they like... and there are several versions available.

Reader's Digest has been editing popular books down to what they considered important for decades now but people can still buy the uncut version as the author wrote it.

The argument made was that we should cut out parts we don't like...

But one has to wonder why they don’t and won’t re-print a non-oppressive bible.

Because the Jefferson Bible was and is inherently dishonest, that's why. It's also attacking the trees (bad verses) instead of the forest (terrrible hermeneutics). If you just cut the Bible down to, like, five chapters of relatively inoffensive fluff, I would still see literalism-based authoritarianism to be a bad idea. That's not how I think any book should be read. But I also find "vanity editing" to be a dubious practice at best. What you find to be personally acceptable about a book says more about the censor than the censored. Or, if the c word is just too scary for you to contemplate, I guess more about the abridger than the abridged. Is that okay? Abridged? Are "abridged" copies far enough from Nazism to make you feel comfortable?

 

[Rhea]

The argument made was that we should cut out parts we don't like...

No.

That was not suggested at all.

I will re-state for you:

The fact that you do not find a single bit that you are willing to cut out, even when you argue that it does not belong and you do not follow it, belies your claim that it is "just a book that you admire parts of." The ACTIONS of believers who demonstrate that they really do revere the entire bible as a whole and cannot admire it with the bad parts gone, and do not pursue a version with the bad parts gone, and would call an abridged version "censorship", those ACTIONS tell a story that contradicts the words you attempt to use to diffuse your adherence to the horrid parts. Those actions allow the ones who embrace the horrid parts in order to oppress to call you one of their number abd to attempt to use that argument from popularity to enforce their oppression.

I do not care what you do. You can do anything you want with your book. But your actions will demonstrate that your words have no meaning. You may continue to claim as loudly and as often as possible that you are a real Christian and that you are simultaneously different from other christians and that you do not support them, but I will not believe you as long as you support them by promoting the same bible that they promote that you say you don't agree with but you do.

You can do whatever you want with your book. But you have not convinced me that your claims are accurate.

 

[Politesse]

The argument made was that we should cut out parts we don't like...

No.

That was not suggested at all.

I will re-state for you:

The fact that you do not find a single bit that you are willing to cut out, even when you argue that it does not belong and you do not follow it, belies your claim that it is "just a book that you admire parts of." The ACTIONS of believers who demonstrate that they really do revere the entire bible as a whole and cannot admire it with the bad parts gone, and do not pursue a version with the bad parts gone, and would call an abridged version "censorship", those ACTIONS tell a story that contradicts the words you attempt to use to diffuse your adherence to the horrid parts. Those actions allow the ones who embrace the horrid parts in order to oppress to call you one of their number abd to attempt to use that argument from popularity to enforce their oppression.

I do not care what you do. You can do anything you want with your book. But your actions will demonstrate that your words have no meaning. You may continue to claim as loudly and as often as possible that you are a real Christian and that you are simultaneously different from other christians and that you do not support them, but I will not believe you as long as you support them by promoting the same bible that they promote that you say you don't agree with but you do.

You can do whatever you want with your book. But you have not convinced me that your claims are accurate.

So your problem isn't the book. It's that other people claim any religious identity at all.

 

[skepticalbip]

The argument made was that we should cut out parts we don't like...

But one has to wonder why they don’t and won’t re-print a non-oppressive bible.

Because the Jefferson Bible was and is inherently dishonest, that's why. It's also attacking the trees (bad verses) instead of the forest (terrrible hermeneutics). If you just cut the Bible down to, like, five chapters of relatively inoffensive fluff, I would still see literalism-based authoritarianism to be a bad idea. That's not how I think any book should be read. But I also find "vanity editing" to be a dubious practice at best. What you find to be personally acceptable about a book says more about the censor than the censored. Or, if the c word is just too scary for you to contemplate, I guess more about the abridger than the abridged. Is that okay? Abridged? Are "abridged" copies far enough from Nazism to make you feel comfortable?

My my! You do have a thing for hyperbole. Once again, I have seen no one except you who has suggested limiting what the general public can have access to and read.

The Bible is supposedly a guide to leading a "good" life. And yet there are individual Christians and Christian sects who reject some of the passages. Why the fuck would they find the idea of deleting those passages from their personal Bible so repulsive? Would they find the idea of deleting 'wrong' information from another of their how-to books equally repulsive?

Uncle Tommy thought Jesus had some a damn good insights into how people should live their lives. However, saw that all the miracle shit and authoritarian god shit as silly, wrong, and distracting so he edited his Bible accordingly.

 

[Politesse]

The argument made was that we should cut out parts we don't like...

But one has to wonder why they don’t and won’t re-print a non-oppressive bible.

Because the Jefferson Bible was and is inherently dishonest, that's why. It's also attacking the trees (bad verses) instead of the forest (terrrible hermeneutics). If you just cut the Bible down to, like, five chapters of relatively inoffensive fluff, I would still see literalism-based authoritarianism to be a bad idea. That's not how I think any book should be read. But I also find "vanity editing" to be a dubious practice at best. What you find to be personally acceptable about a book says more about the censor than the censored. Or, if the c word is just too scary for you to contemplate, I guess more about the abridger than the abridged. Is that okay? Abridged? Are "abridged" copies far enough from Nazism to make you feel comfortable?

My my! You do have a thing for hyperbole. Once again, I have seen no one except you who has suggested limiting what the general public can have access to and read.

The Bible is supposedly a guide to leading a "good" life. And yet there are individual Christians and Christian sects who reject some of the passages. Why the fuck would they find the idea of deleting those passages from their personal Bible so repulsive? Would they find the idea of deleting 'wrong' information from another of their how-to books equally repulsive?

Uncle Tommy thought Jesus had some a damn good insights into how people should live their lives. However, saw that all the miracle shit and authoritarian god shit as silly, wrong, and distracting so he edited his Bible accordingly.

You are obsessing over the Bible. I wouldn't support treating any book that way, I value books far more than religions.

 

[skepticalbip]

My my! You do have a thing for hyperbole. Once again, I have seen no one except you who has suggested limiting what the general public can have access to and read.

The Bible is supposedly a guide to leading a "good" life. And yet there are individual Christians and Christian sects who reject some of the passages. Why the fuck would they find the idea of deleting those passages from their personal Bible so repulsive? Would they find the idea of deleting 'wrong' information from another of their how-to books equally repulsive?

Uncle Tommy thought Jesus had some a damn good insights into how people should live their lives. However, saw that all the miracle shit and authoritarian god shit as silly, wrong, and distracting so he edited his Bible accordingly.

You are obsessing over the Bible.

Maybe you missed that the topic is the Bible. If we were discussing zucchini would you think I was obsessed with zucchini?

I wouldn't support treating any book that way, I value books far more than religions.

You would make for a piss poor parent if you would tell your kids to use a how-to book that had sections that you knew would result in harm to them. A good parent would tear out or blacken those sections of an otherwise helpful guide before directing their children to follow it.