The Bible is a book.

Actually, the canonical process was started around 130 CE or thereabouts, by a heretic named Marcion. The Council of Nicea, in the early 300s decided the ultimate canon, true, but the issue had pretty much already been decided by most orthodox Christian institutions.

As for the Gospels of Mary M and Judas and whatnot, they were almost all written long after the death of Christ, decades after the canonical gospels were written. They don't even come close as "source texts" and are thus justifiably rejected.

Just thought I'd say this.

- Puck G, your resident Bible scholar

Well, I think I can say

Christianity is oppressive
Many Christians are oppressive
All Christians as a group are oppresive
The advocacy, propagation, and institutionalization of Christian doctrine is oppressive

and pretty much mean the same thing. Go ahead and pick your favorite one.

What about Christianity is oppressive?

Which Christians are oppressive?

Which group of Christians are you talking about?

How is the advocacy, propagation, and institutionalization of Christian doctrine oppressive?

I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate, but I would like to make two observations:

1) I understand the basis upon which you make these statements, considering the history of "mainstream" religions claiming to be of the Christian faith.

2) I also understand that you make some broad generalizations here that are self-defeating in statement.

I am sure not going to defend some of the things we've seen done in the name of "Christianity". But I'm also sure not going to say that "All Christians as a group are oppressive". That's going from one end of the pendulum swing to the other. I know quite a few Christians who are not oppressive at all. On the other hand, although I know a number of athiests and non-Christians who are oppressive, I am not going to tell people that is the case with all of them as a group.

I surely see problems earth-wide that have nothing to do with Christians or Christianity. I think if you were to substitute "humans" for "Christians/Christianity" in your statements above, you'd have just as valid a post.

You're right. There's nothing hateful about telling someone they've made an unwise decision, and that works both ways. There's nothing hateful in a non-believer telling a Christian that they believe Christian philosophy is flawed, or for a Christian to tell an atheist, or a Jew to tell a Muslim. It only becomes hateful when any of the above try to force someone of a different faith to live according to beliefs not of their choosing.

If we lived in a perfect world where no one's religious beliefs affected the lives of those around them you'd have a valid argument, but we don't live in that world. There's probably no force on earth that has had a greater impact (sometimes for good, often for bad) on humanity. Given that status there are few other sets of ideas that so demand discussion, debate, and dissent. Especially at this particular junction in history where the line between church and state has seldom been more blurred in the United States, and religious identity continues to be such a powerful catalyst and justification for tribal groups to rise up in endless wars over land, resources, domination, and control. That hardly qualifies religious belief as simply a deeply personal belief that should be sacrosanct, the questioning of which is "impolite".

This social taboo against questioning religious belief is a cultural meme that propagates from generation to generation through repetition and shaming, and it exists as a tool to suppress dissent against the powers that be. It's really no different than adults telling children not to question their parents when they're told what to do and how to behave. When anyone speaks out against religion in this culture others are quick to admonish them for being rude and out of line. That response is a learned behavior that has no rational or logical justification beyond its usefulness as a tool to stifle dissenting voices within a culture.

Religious ideas are no different than any others. They deserve no more special protection from dissent than any other ideas. When that special protection is asserted, demanded, and enforced, you have oppression... not just hurt feelings or wounded egos. You end up with populations who believe the sun orbits the earth for generations after it's been conclusively proved otherwise. You end up with people continuing to suffer and die from diseases that could be prevented with birth control. You end up with progress stifled and freedoms curtailed at the hands of religious thought and identity. Stem cell research, anyone? Gay marriage? Christians and Jews at war with Muslims in the "holy land"? Religious thought might bring people inner peace and tranquility, but it also brings them war, nonsensical laws, suppression of science, and a million wagging fingers should you dare to speak out about it. When your personal beliefs affect me and my ability to live my life according to my own beliefs, my ability to ask questions, my ability to express my views, it's anything but a "personal belief."

If people kept their most deeply held convictions to themselves and used them solely as a guide for their own personal journey through life, well that'd be swell, but that's not the way the world works. People make choices according to those convictions that affect everyone. Christians in our government are right now trying to amend the bloody constitution to deny basic human rights to a minority group based on their most deeply held personal convictions. Speaking out against the arrogance and the destructive and oppressive power of such belief may be uncomfortable. It might even be "impolite" at times. It's also vital and necessary.

All that could be said about atheists as well, but I don't hear much bashing of atheists here just because they are atheists and have an agenda they think is best for everyone else.

Atheists demanding America remove any reference to God is an action that affects us all. We know the large majority believe in God, yet we have a tiny minority dictating how we all will live. Ironically, they are seeking to have their beliefs instituted in Government while removing the beliefs of the majority.

Also, I agree there should be no Government Church, that's all the constitution seeks to prevent. There is no "separation of faith and Government"

And I see no one seeking to take away the rights atheists have always enjoyed. They are not persecuted.

Neither are Christians for that matter.

From Ammendment 1 -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


"respecting the establishment of a religeon" includes religions that are not run by the governement.

In Fact if you do a Word Find in Explorer and Word on the word "god" (and "God" neither exists in the Constitution.

Its the Declaration of Independence that mentions a Creator.

I think your wrong on this one - since Aethists by definition are not a religeon. Instead the governement's role is to be Secular.

Its important to remember Religeous Persecution wasnt a dim memory in the 1780's.

So yes we have freedom to believe in God, but we also have freedom from the beleifs of others. Including the right to be Aethesits, or believe in the yellow-blue mushroom diety.

Even the Pledge of Allegiance did not mention God until Congress imposed it in 1954 ( so it did not Mention God for 62 years prior)

I respectfully disagree. I can find nothing in the constitution that says that the government must shield people from religion or that the government must ignore the fact most Americans do believe in God.

It simply says congress can make "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I love how the founders made the constitution plain English so all can understand it.

Christians arn't persecuted in America? Tell that to the Mormons.

I think you are wrong on that Kevn, because you are ignoring historical intent. Our founders fought the war partly to be free of forced religion.

To be sure, here are some quotes about religion from our founders:

Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.

Jefferson -- in a letter to William Short

More Jefferson:

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Also Adams:

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Here's Thomas Paine:
I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

Finally let's hear from James Madison:

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

Just something to think about.

.

Who is forcing religion? Is having "In God we Trust" on money forcing you to believe in God?

I abhor forcing beliefs on the unwilling. But that isn't the issue.

OK, now the discussion is getting on the right track... and getting interesting.

The one reason that I posted here in the first place was because of the manner in which the OP opened the thread. "The Bible is just a book." Now maybe all he wanted to do was get a discussion started. Bleh. I can do that with my eyes closed. "Elvis Presley was a hack singer." There, new discussion.

He gave no reasons for the post, no supporting thoughts or facts. Kind of had the flavor of putting a stick on one's shoulder and daring somone to knock it off. So I felt the only reply warranted was basically, "What are you trying to achieve here?" I didn't see any wisdom in posting a one-liner that could easily come across as a direct attack on the faith of hundreds of millions of people earthwide. Which is why I said: "Not wise".

Now, to question whether religion has upheld the teachings of the Bible, to question those teachings to determine whether or not they have foundation, is the right (and perhaps responsibility) of every human on the planet. But the wise course is to do so with respect, without bias, with an open mind and with determination to reach one end above all others: the truth of the matter.

Unfortunately, on forums such discussions usually turn into opinionated shouting matches. Which again, is why I said, "Unwise". I have never seen the matter of religion discussed in a mutually respectful manner on a forum without attracting those who respect no one's opinion and belief but their own. Who knows though... this might be a first.

A basic thought and a prediction:

People state that the existence of religion in our society, laws and government, is a matter of people forcing that religion down other's throats. But is it? Dictionary.com defines democracy as:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5, The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Now, if one believes in democracy and the facts show that the majority of the inhabitants of the U.S. claim to be Christian, then it is foreseeable and understandable that the law is going to be directed primarily by Christian beliefs.

If one believes in democracy, that means one accepts that fact, even if the results disagree with his/her own personal opinion or desires.

Now admitted, sometimes the majority is wrong (in fact, oftentimes it is). And sometimes the laws passed in this country are not the will of the majority, no matter how much the government tries to pretend it is. But a lot of what goes on in this country is indeed governed by the Christian faith... because the vast majority of people in this country claim to be Christian.

However, there is a growing and very vocal minority who are fighting against that. They believe in the rule of the individual and in uber-tolerance, with their campaign slogan stating, "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, it's ok". Of course, whether it actually is a harmless activity or not is often a matter of personal opinion-- and the ultimate effect of their campaign on society as a whole is often ignored.

It's basically a movement of the individual looking out for his own personal rights... and pity the perrson that points out that individualism uncontrolled is another word for anarchy. The person who believes in a stable society and general laws governing all people equally is becoming somewhat unpopular. A man is a murderer-- unless he had a bad childhood. Obscenity is wrong-- unless it's "art". Hate organizations are not tolerated-- unless they're exercising freedom of speech. And the list goes on and on.

Eventually it gets to the point that nothing is stable, nothing is true, nothing is sacred, nothing is wrong. As each person individually thinks, so is it, and no one has the right to say otherwise. If they do, they're stepping on his "freedom of speech". Disregard the fact that the person who opposes him actually is exercising freedom of speech.

What it all comes down to is, "If you don't agree with me, you're suppressing my rights and forcing me to live by your ethical code." The common term for this philosophy is "Relativism"... and what it basically boils down to is a disregard for societal obligation and a worship of the individual as God... of course due to his/her numerous years of experience, vast wisdom and omnicience.

And as a banner for this belief they have a very real, very valid point: What has society brought upon this world so far? It's kind of hard to argue against that point, because it's pretty obvious this world is an ongoing train wreck.

Now, the prediction: because of this quickly growing philosophy and its attractiveness to governments in general (after all, a disorganized, unco-operative movement is far less dangerous than the very organized and potentially militant Church)... Relativism might actually win out in the end. Laws are already being passed, not by the majority, but by appointed court officials, outlawing even the tiniest aspects of religion in government (you can't display the ten commandments on the court lawn, even though it's been there for 150 years). This is just the tip of the iceberg. Before long, we will see "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, from our buildings, from society itself. It might even get to the point that those who have been so against religious persecution in the past... will themsevles become persecutors as they start rounding up the last of the die-hard Christians.

A little far-fetched? If we think so, we have failed to learn from history. Or do we forget that Hitler's target was the Jews... supposedly because they were oppressing German society.

Fanaticism is the same no matter what banner it marches under.

Do you believe your religious standards should be the norm for all within your country regardless of their personal beliefs?

Please do not misrepresent the position of atheists with your own propagandized extremist Christian mythical view of us. Oh, wait, you just did.


Bull and shit. It is our position that our government was founded on SECULAR principles, not Christian -- and wouldn't you know it, a secular government is much better prepared to protect YOUR right to believe and worship how you wish because it doesn't have a dog in the fight.

On the other hand, the Christian nutcases are claiming that atheists (and the ACLU, of course) are out to destroy Christianity when the REAL issue is the use of taxpayer funds & property to perpetrate non-secular ideas.


So what exactly is your beef with the work the ACLU has done to oppose desecularization then?


If my children are forced to say a prayer at the start of public school classes, or are presented with Christian symbolism at every turn in a secular school, then YES it is wrong. Faith is best taught in the home, not by the government and certainly not by the schools.

Of course, it was George Bush Sr. who once said "Atheists are not patriots. This is a Christian country." How's that for persecution?

I'll turn it back on you, however - no one is seeking to take away the rights of Christians to worship as they please. That's just a pile of disingenious, self-serving claptrap. You're not martyrs. Not in this country.

You really should read this book before you compare what individualist in society in America are doing to Christians to what many Christians did in Nazi Germany - considering that Christians were the perpetrators and it's not a very good comparison:



It is perhaps because of things like this that many individualists, whether they are pagan, atheist, Jewish, Native American or other fight so hard for their right for individualism.

Do I think they will be rounding up the last Christian? No, but I do think it's possible that one hundred years from no there we no longer be a single Cherokee person left, nor a single Blackfoot. I hope I am wrong.

.

I've always found the labeling of relativism to be rather humorous. The label makes no sense unless one assumes that there are absolute truths, so anything that deviates from it is relativistic. I think what's labeled relativism is simply an acceptance that everything outside of physical material law truly is relative. There are no absolutes. Gravity can be measured. God's hate for homosexuality can't. We can't even find any concrete evidence that there's a god to act as an absolute moral authority, and even then a lot of us would want to check his credentials. It's all subjective opinion. A lot of things we can all agree on like not wanting to be murdered or having anyone take our stuff. After that it gets pretty fuzzy. There's no absolute center between right and wrong. There's only consensus or lack thereof.

"Truth always originates in a minority of one, and every custom begins as a broken precedent." ~ Nancy Astor

And I can say I'm the queen of england, it doesn't make me right.

This mean I can stop making with the curtsey when I see you?

(1) Christianity is a concept. The Bible is an attempt to codify the concept. Blame the ancient Egyptians - they started the practise with The Book of the Dead and passed the idea on to various Semite and Hebraic peoples.

(2) Real Christians don't talk about their religious beliefs except with people that they are close to, or in certain circumstances, people who sincerely ask. Why? Because one's religious beliefs are personal, intimate, passionate, and sacred. People who flaunt their beliefs in public, even in defense of those beliefs, are the moral equivalent of exhibitionists in raincoats. Yes, that does sweep up quite a few who call themselves "Christians". But it also includes many who call themselves Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others.

(3) Christianity has been the source of much violence in the world. The same is true of every religion or secular ideology that purports to have a "truth". Which is just about every religion or secular ideology....

(4) Nothing you say about religion will be remembered in a hundred years. People will be making the same arguments as though they were brand new. For thousands of years, religion was a recreational passtime. Now we have professional football, NASCAR, socialism, and pornography to compete with it.

(5) There is no way in hell you can know what I believe from this post. Assume nothing. (And if you're sharp, you'll realize that I just gave it away.)

(6) In a novel I once read, one of Greg Bear's characters asked an alien: "Do you believe in God?" The alien replied, "I believe in punishment." That's what public religion is: punishment.

No it doesn't. You'd have to offer a pretty good case first.

Actually a real Christian follows the example and teaching of Jesus Christ. If Jesus says in Mark 16:15 to go into all the World and preach to all, would that mean Jesus was telling His disciples to be "exhibitionists in raincoats"?