Differing worldviews and their consequences

[spblat]

I'm going with the Atheist's wager.

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

The problem with that hypothesis is that there are many different opinions as to what can and should be done to 'make the world a better place'. What one individual aspires to do in this regard, another might just as ambitiously contradict, thus negating the other's efforts. The only end to that would be mass confusion.

No disagreement here, except I would change "would be" to "IS." The fact that mass confusion and disagreement exist about what it means to make the world a better place is why (at least in my case) we're sitting here hashing it all out. And of course, this confusion doesn't only arise from the conflict between (say) an atheistic Humanist and a Christian: an honest and thoughtful Muslim will certainly disagree with an honest and thoughtful Christian on what is best for the world.

As our world continues to shrink, (or "flatten" to use the Friedman term), what strategies are there for reconciling the competing and contradictory world views of the innumerable possible outlooks on life? Which of these strategies are more appealing to you? What are the consequences of allowing these differences to remain and fester?

These questions concern me deeply.

 

[elman]

I continually return to the command to love. If we do that everything else falls into place. Compete agreement on theology is not possible and not the answer as non of us possess complete perfection on theology.

 

[spblat]

Elman and I could probably make it through a life-long friendship on this basis and not find a disagreement between us strong enough to threaten that friendship.

But what of situations where love is not reciprocated? Are we to follow Matt 5:38-42 when doing so would mean our earthly destruction?

 

[elman]

Elman and I could probably make it through a life-long friendship on this basis and not find a disagreement between us strong enough to threaten that friendship.

But what of situations where love is not reciprocated? Are we to follow Matt 5:38-42 when doing so would mean our earthly destruction?

Yes that is what we should do. Earthly destruction is not as important when one believes in eternal life. I am not saying I can do this. I cannot be perfect as God is perfect, so we all must rest our hope on God being loving and forgiving--grace.

 

[spblat]

To the extent that your position is consistent with "principled pacifism" I must reject it, and I do so for most of the reasons given in this wikipedia article, not to mention my own view that we have no existence awaiting us after the earthly one your God would have us volunteer to relinquish in His name.

Given that I am more concerned about strife in this world, and that you are more concerned about exhibiting grace before God, are you and I prevented from from collaborating meaningfully on solutions to the problem I articulated in the OP?

 

[Evergreen48]

Question for you, spblat: Why do you protest so much against something which you do not believe is there?

My intellectual reason for disputing claims deriving from faith is that I think it's good to know stuff. And I think it's important to know why we know stuff. And I do not accept that it is possible to know stuff about the real world on the basis of faith alone, particularly when so much natural evidence is right in front of us, waiting to be analyzed and understood.

But your claim is derived from faith also. I do not know that God is, but I believe that God is. This is faith. You do not know that God is not, but you say you believe there is not a God. This is also faith. The greatest evidence that God is, is LIFE itself. Life is not something which can be analyzed or understood by humans. We humans are limited to the analyzation methods of 'seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching" senses. And only the result of life; not life itself, is a material or corporeal thing which can be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched, how can life be analyzed to the point that we comprehend it?

My political reason for disputing claims deriving from faith is articulated in the thread forked off this one.

I prefer peace to war. Belief drives action. People who derive their conflicting beliefs from faith are frequently at odds (even within one religion: witness Sunni and Shia, witness Catholicism and Protestantism), because people will always act in support of their most deeply held beliefs. And I'm not sure how to solve this except through war (which I abhor) or the steady and gradual emergence of reason, logic and evidence as a replacement for faith in forming the beliefs which drive our actions (which I would obviously prefer).


This is why I am here.

And how will this 'steady and gradual emergence of reason, logic and evidence' which replaces faith, affect those wars which are not belief driven as is described by "Sunni versus Shia, Catholicism versus Protestantism, but simply are the result of the following logic and reason: "This person, or these persons have something that I want, and I will take it from them even if I have maim, torture and ultimately; kill them, to get it"?

 

[spblat]

Evergreen48, there are so many areas where we disagree that this will either be a vigorous and fascinating debate, or it will feel like we're both arguing against a brick wall. I'm not sure how to achieve the first alternative, but I'll give it a shot through honesty and directness.

I do believe there is no God. I do not see this as a position of faith. I am also willing to concede that I do not know the truth of the matter. But I also believe that there is no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no unicorns, no such thing as leprechauns. I do not absolutely know these things, but I do not see these positions as a matter of faith either. Rather, nothing in what I observe in the world (and nothing in the reports about the nature of the world from people I mostly trust) has given me any reason to transition from disbelief in these things to belief. And the same thing goes for God.

I engaged in a long and tangled debate with Michael on the concept of disbelief or "unbelief" as a starting point, followed by gathering evidence, followed by analysis of the evidence, followed by some degree of belief. I hope not to repeat that debate. I tried to summarize our differences and my positions here (I recommend pages 8-10 as the "best parts" of my contributions to the debate). I think the horse is dead. I say this not to prove that I have convinced everyone, but if you object to my arguments on the same grounds Michael used, then we have to move on to other topics so that I will not go insane.

You may acknowledge that no credible evidence is available for leprechauns and the like, but you see life itself as evidence for God's existence. You say that our five senses are all that are available to gather evidence about life. You say that life itself is intrinsically not something we have the ability to analyze. I could not disagree more with all of this. Would it be productive for me to attempt to gather my scientific reasons for this? Would this help us understand each other better, or would it merely amplify our differences in what we think we know about how the world works?

Finally, you claim that war (or at least the example I gave) is not about opposing faith, but about one group wishing to simply take something of value from another group. I think this too is false, and since the claim undermines my original question, I'll try to spend more time addressing it. Actually I don't have to; Sam Harris is better at this than I am:

Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists v. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. In these cases religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years....Give people divergent, irreconcilable, and untestable notions about what happens after death [emphasis mine], and then oblige them to live together with limited resources. The result is just what we see: an unending cycle of murder and cease-fire. If history reveals any categorical truth, it is that an insufficient taste for evidence regularly brings out the worst in us. Add weapons of mass destruction to this diabolical clockwork, and you have round a recipe for the fall of civilization.

Say what you like about Sam Harris, or his other arguments. How is he wrong about this?

 

[Cajaquarius]

Say what you like about Sam Harris, or his other arguments. How is he wrong about this?

I wouldn't call Harris wrong but there are certainly many ways to interperit that information. My personal emphasis would have been on "oblige them to live together with limited resources". Humans have a great knack for creating strife where it isn't needed, but in the cases Harris mentions, religion was the easiest to rely on most of the time since you can rally the most supporters behind it. In my own opinion, I think alot of these wars may have begun over religion a long time ago but nowadays it is about personal grudges. I will kill this Muslim because a Muslim killed my parents in an ambush. The muslim who killed my parents in that ambush did so because someone of my nationality killed his sister during a battle years earlier, and so on.

As far as proof for what I think, I can really only offer my personal interpretation of recent American history. During the late 80's and early to mid 90's we had no real enemy (we had Saddam and all that but no real Communist Stalin to really dislike or spar with after the wall came down). Lacking a real enemy to rally against we turned on eachother: endless political and societal squabbling over political correctness, lawsuits galore, activists enforcing personal belief as if they were law (remember the animal rights folks throwing paint on people wearing fur and then pretending to spit on people wearing fake fur later? Not picking on them as there are many right wing activists guilty of going a little crazy to this end too), and racial tensions that lead to all kinds of trouble, including a riot.

Long story short, I have come to a personal conclusion that regardless of how we dress it up, whether in the guise of religous indifference or racial bigotry, humans will always find some unreconcilable differences to spar with eachother on. It seems to be the way we are.

To be honest though, I am optimistic about the way we are and have even come to accept it, really. As an avid fan of history and psycholgy I believe we have come a long way from a much more violent and darker past. Many of our greatest technological and medical advances have come as a result of our differences and as a result of war and strife as well. Perhaps it is just our way to continue our evolution as a species despite being at the top of the food chain and without a single real predator to drive us to change? I like to think that the future is bright and that we are moving towards a time when we can move past all this self made strife.

That last part isn't a highjack from Harris' topic but a reply to the last few lines of the opening post. Not to gang up with the others and bully you as you presented many good points that made me think, just presenting some alternate views.

 

[Evergreen48]

I do believe there is no God. I do not see this as a position of faith.

You confine me to one certain position, while leaving yourself free to take whatever position suits you best. If believing that 'God is', is a position of faith, then the rule of practicality demands that believing 'there is no God' be a 'position of faith' also.

I am also willing to concede that I do not know the truth of the matter. But I also believe that there is no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no unicorns, no such thing as leprechauns. I do not absolutely know these things, but I do not see these positions as a matter of faith either. Rather, nothing in what I observe in the world (and nothing in the reports about the nature of the world from people I mostly trust) has given me any reason to transition from disbelief in these things to belief. And the same thing goes for God.

Your error here is that you attempt to put things, which if they did exist, would be material or physical, in the same 'slot' with God who is not a physical or material being.

You may acknowledge that no credible evidence is available for leprechauns and the like,. . .

I acknowledge only that if there were such things as 'leprechauns and the like' they would be detectable through sight, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching.

. . . but you see life itself as evidence for God's existence.

Correct for the most part, except that I do not claim 'God exists'. My claim is that 'He is'.

You say that our five senses are all that are available to gather evidence about life.You say that life itself is intrinsically not something we have the ability to analyze.

No, I did not say that our five senses are all that is available to gather evidence about life. I said to the effect that life itself cannot be analyzed by using the five senses. We have the ability to analyze the result of life by seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching the result. But life itself can not be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched. For it is an immaterial entity.

I could not disagree more with all of this. Would it be productive for me to attempt to gather my scientific reasons for this?

Scientific reasons? What is science but a line of thought or reasoning? How does thinking or reasoning come about except it be triggered by one or more of the 'five senses'?

Finally, you claim that war (or at least the example I gave) is not about opposing faith, but about one group wishing to simply take something of value from another group.

Yes, that is exactly what I claim. The people in the example you gave are only using 'religion/faith' (if you would make religion and faith synonymous) as an excuse to war with one another, when all the while, the real reason for the 'first shot fired' and the ready return of fire, is that each side desires to prove to its opposer, and to self also, that it is more powerful than the other. This is the only logical conclusion that can be reached, if it is as you say (emphasis mine), they 'are at odds (even within one religion . . . )'

Originally Posted by Sam Harris (The End of Faith, p. 26)

Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists v. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. In these cases religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years....Give people divergent, irreconcilable, and untestable notions about what happens after death [emphasis mine], and then oblige them to live together with limited resources. The result is just what we see: an unending cycle of murder and cease-fire. If history reveals any categorical truth, it is that an insufficient taste for evidence regularly brings out the worst in us. Add weapons of mass destruction to this diabolical clockwork, and you have round a recipe for the fall of civilization.

Say what you like about Sam Harris, or his other arguments. How is he wrong about this?

I think Sam Harris is wrong about this because people with divergent, irreconcilable and untestabel notions about what happens after death being obliged to live together with limited resources, is not the cause of war, nor is it the cause of civilizations falling. And I think that Sam Harris must have tunnel vision if he thinks that the 'what happens after death' argument is the greatest and most powerful threat to an otherwise peaceful and civilized society. IMO, 'limited resources' would present the greatest threat to a peaceful, civilized society.

 

[spblat]

I am weary of long back and forth conversations, for they tend not to be very illuminating lately. I deny confining you to any position, I deny that I made any error in grouping God with imaginary tangible things (God and they either exist in some sense or they do not; I gave you nothing to object to other than a glimpse of my thought process), and yet I lack the resolve to debate the particulars of our differences in the way we see the world. So I will simply ask you, Evergreen48:

What is your opinion of the future of the human race? Here on this earth? Is the question of our survival, harmony and well being here on this earth a matter of concern for you? If it is a matter of concern for you, what (if anything) gives you hope that the conflicts engulfing the planet can subside, slowing the pace of earthly misery and death? Do you deny that faith (and the action it motivates) is even a contributor to the tension and strife tearing humanity apart? What shall we do together, you and I, an atheist and a Christian, in order to increase the chances that our grandchildren will live in a safer world than this one?

EDIT: Thanks for the post Cajaquarius. Didn't mean to ignore you, I found your post thought provoking and interesting and devoid of anything for me to dispute.

 

[Evergreen48]

I am weary of long back and forth conversations, for they tend not to be very illuminating lately. I deny confining you to any position, I deny that I made any error in grouping God with imaginary tangible things (God and they either exist in some sense or they do not; I gave you nothing to object to other than a glimpse of my thought process), and yet I lack the resolve to debate the particulars of our differences in the way we see the world.
So I will simply ask you, Evergreen48:
What is your opinion of the future of the human race?

I am assuming that you are asking my opinion as to what the state or condition of an individual will be after its mortal body dies?


We know that once life has ceased in any living, breathing creature, the physical body of that creature will eventually deteriorate to the point that it will not be distinguishable from whatever earthly terrain which finally claims it. And I think for some (very few, ratio wise) out of the human race, this is their final destiny. But as to the greater portion of humanity: Though the mortal bodies will unadvoidedly meet with the same fate as do the 'very few', the individual identity of each will continue on . . . and on, and on, and on, and on . . . . On, or in, a celestial plane where there will be joy and pleasure unspeakable by any human tongue, and incomprehensible by human thought or reason.

Here on this earth?

Some happiness and contentment for all. Some pain and misery for all. I believe that it is from experiencing both, and the individual's reaction to these experiences, that our personal identities are formed.

Is the question of our survival, harmony and well being here on this earth a matter of concern for you? If it is a matter of concern for you, what (if anything) gives you hope that the conflicts engulfing the planet can subside, slowing the pace of earthly misery and death?

On the question of our survival: No, I do not concern myself with this, as I believe that for as long as the earth itself survives, the human race will survive. But as to the conditions here on earth in which humanity survives: Yes, I am concerned about this. And it behooves me to do what I can to relieve as much suffering and pain of those around me as is humanly possible.

As to the harmony among the earth dwellers: The best that I as a human individual can do is, 'do unto others as I would have them do unto me.' - - - (paraphrase of a comment from He who was called Jesus, approximately A.D. 33 -34 )


"Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. . . . . . avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt *heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." (Saul (later known as Paul) of Tarsus. - 56-58 A. D.)

*Excerpt from "The Hermit", by Thomas Parnell (1679-1718)

"The mean, suspicious wretch, whose bolted door
Ne'er mov'd in duty to the wand'ring poor;
With him I left the cup, to teach his mind
That Heav'n can bless, if mortals will be kind.
Conscious of wanting worth, he views the bowl,
And feels compassion touch his grateful soul.
Thus artists melt the sullen ore of lead,
With heaping coals of fire upon its head;
In the kind warmth the metal learns to glow,
And loose from dross, the silver runs below."

Do you deny that faith (and the action it motivates) is even a contributor to the tension and strife tearing humanity apart?

I deny that faith in God is the contributing factor in the tension and stife which tears humanity apart.

I confirm that if all had faith in God to the extent that they would do their very best to obey His commandments, the tension and strife among humans would not exist to the point that it would tear it apart.

What shall we do together, you and I, an atheist and a Christian, in order to increase the chances that our grandchildren will live in a safer world than this one?

Our children and grandchildren must do this for themselves in their turn. We, together, or separate, cannot do this for them.

 

[spblat]

I see. Thank you for your thoughtful response. I just want to point out an area or two where we see things quite differently.

I deny that faith in God is the contributing factor in the tension and stife which tears humanity apart.

I didn't mention God, I just mentioned faith in general. This is important to me because of what you said next:

I confirm that if all had faith in God to the extent that they would do their very best to obey His commandments, the tension and strife among humans would not exist to the point that it would tear it apart.

If only God clearly and unambiguously commanded all of us consistently, this view would be easier for me to share. But when people believe--as a matter of faith--that they are commanded by God to ostracize, imprison, dehumanize, kill or otherwise abridge the rights of people who believe differently from they do (as seems quite apparent in our world), then we have the trouble which has motivated me to start this thread.

 

[Evergreen48]

I see. Thank you for your thoughtful response. I just want to point out an area or two where we see things quite differently.

I didn't mention God, I just mentioned faith in general. This is important to me because of what you said next:

Please excuse my assumption, but I was under the impression that faith, or belief that 'God is' versus the faith, or belief that 'God is not', was the core, or the most essential part of this discussion. I drew this conclusion or assumption from your answer to the question which was asked of you in the 'Liberal Theology' forum ( The Good Samaritan Hypothesis: The Unconcious or Unwilling Acceptance of Christ ) :

" Why do you protest so much against something which you do not believe is there?"

Your answer to that question was as follows:

I hope that I do not protest too much. If I protest, I do so for two reasons. One is intellectual and one is political.

My intellectual reason for disputing claims deriving from faith is that I think it's good to know stuff. And I think it's important to know why we know stuff. And I do not accept that it is possible to know stuff about the real world on the basis of faith alone, particularly when so much natural evidence is right in front of us, waiting to be analyzed and understood.

My political reason for disputing claims deriving from faith is articulated in the thread I forked of of this one. I prefer peace to war. Belief drives action. People who derive their conflicting beliefs from faith are frequently at odds (even within one religion: witness Sunni and Shia, witness Catholicism and Protestantism), because people will always act in support of their most deeply held beliefs. And I'm not sure how to solve this except through war (which I abhor) or the steady and gradual emergence of reason, logic and evidence as a replacement for faith in forming the beliefs which drive our actions (which I would obviously prefer).

This is why I am here.

And so, since the examples you gave used the 'Sunni and Shia', who both profess a belief that there is a God (Allah) , and Catholicism and Protestantism, whose beliefs are also based on the premise that there is a God, by this you did indirectly mention God. And you did intimate that your reason for 'being here' was to try to do away with faith in a Supreme Being who cannot be proven to exist, and to replace it with sure knowledge which could be derived from the analyzing of natural evidence existing in the 'real world'.

Surely you can see the dilemma that has arisen when you reduced your argument to the effect that it is 'faith in general' of which you speak, and not the faith or belief that there is a Supreme Being (God).

If only God clearly and unambiguously commanded all of us consistently, this view would be easier for me to share. But when people believe--as a matter of faith--that they are commanded by God to ostracize, imprison, dehumanize, kill or otherwise abridge the rights of people who believe differently from they do (as seems quite apparent in our world), then we have the trouble which has motivated me to start this thread.

God does clearly, unambiguously and consistently command all of us to obey the same laws. And ostracizing, imprisoning, dehumanizing, and killing others because they believe differently than they, is not of God's commandments. And though they may claim this to be a matter of their faith in God, it is not. For if they truly believed in God, they would obey His commandments which clearly and unambiguously teach against this.

 

[spblat]

Hi Evergreen48--

Indeed, the fact that Sunni and Shia, Catholic and Protestant all believe that there is a God, amplifies my point. In wringing my hands about our collective earthly future, I'm not principally concerned with the division between atheists and theists; it's my perception that theists are killing each other in horrifying numbers over their opposing interpretations of their beliefs, which come from divergent points of faith.

Are God's commandments unambiguous in warning us against hurting each other? You didn't claim it in these specific terms, but to the extent that God's commandments reach us from the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, etc., God is not someone I can see as peaceful. In terms of the Bible, I cite Exodus in particular (where we find one version of the commandments handed down to Moses, alongside all sorts of laws that are thankfully no longer generally observed in the West), and I have seen a passage or two even in the New Testament which take a somewhat less conciliatory tone than the Sermon on the Mount.

In another thread here at CF, I cited a few passages from the Qur'an which would have been useful in supporting my current claim that God's commandments as received in holy texts do not unambiguously drive us toward peace with each other. That thread (along with another one on which I was quite active) has been deleted without a trace and without explanation, much to my deep chagrin. I am not inclined to retype these passages. In fact, unless my queries about this to CF admin folks are answered, (any CF mod reading this is respectfully but urgently asked to PM me) my short career as your debating partner will end, and I'll have to seek conversation with you in a more open environment (my hope is that the problem is innocuous: that the threads vanished as a result of recent uptime and database troubles here, and can be restored).

EDIT: A search for topics about deleted threads turned up a thread about the deleted threads. This thread has also been apparently deleted.

 

[spblat]

Around once a year (this is one of those times) I'm reminded of a brilliant piece in The Onion, published after 9/11/2001. It's called "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule" (link contains some explicit language).

Every time I read this, it brings tears to my eyes.

..."I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm [deleted] serious!"

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

In fact, the whole post-9/11 issue (language and imagery warning) is touching genius.

 

[Evergreen48]

Hi Evergreen48--

Indeed, the fact that Sunni and Shia, Catholic and Protestant all believe that there is a God, amplifies my point. In wringing my hands about our collective earthly future, I'm not principally concerned with the division between atheists and theists; it's my perception that theists are killing each other in horrifying numbers over their opposing interpretations of their beliefs, which come from divergent points of faith.

If the theists are killing each other in horrifying numbers as you say, this should give you some relief from wringing your hands about the earthly future of mankind, inasmuch as this ongoing slaughter of theists among their own selves, in time, will certainly do away with everyone else except the atheists. Then there won't be anyone left except the atheists to populate the earth. That should secure mankind's future here on earth once and for all. As this may take a while yet, you will just have to be patient. And though you may not see this in your life time, you can pass along this great hope and expectation to your children and grandchildren by teaching them to not become involved in theism, as this would surely get them hurt or killed. And I am sure you will be remembered fondly by them for your grand contribution to the good and wellbeing of mankind.

Are God's commandments unambiguous in warning us against hurting each other?

Yes they are.

You didn't claim it in these specific terms, but to the extent that God's commandments reach us from the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, etc., God is not someone I can see as peaceful. In terms of the Bible, I cite Exodus in particular (where we find one version of the commandments handed down to Moses, alongside all sorts of laws that are thankfully no longer generally observed in the West),

Without asking you to be more specific, I am assuming that you are referring to the history recorded in the Old Testament of God's commanding execution (putting to death) as the penalty for breaking of some of His laws after having commanded 'you shall not murder'. The only reply I could have to that is that, if you do not recognize the difference between the motive for the putting to death of a person who has committed atrocious crimes against humanity, and the motive for taking someone's life because you hate them; or for revenge, or to get them out of the way that you might obtain something that they own which you want for yourself, then really you haven't entered into very much deep thinking concerning this matter.

And as to the form of execution (the options for the method were few) which was used; namely, stoning:

"Stone him with stones." We are not to suppose that the culprit was exposed to the unbridled fury of the thousands of Israel ; this would be brutality, not justice , for the very worst of tempers and passions might be produced and fostered by such a procedure. The Jews themselves tell us that their manner of stoning was this: they brought the condemned person without the camp, because his crime had rendered him unclean, and whatever was unclean must be put without the camp. When they came within four cubits of the place of execution, they stripped the criminal, if a man, leaving him nothing but a cloth about the waist. The place on which he was to be executed was elevated, and the witnesses went up with him to it, and laid their hands upon him, then one of the witnesses struck him with a stone upon the loins; if he was not killed with that blow, then the witnesses took up a great stone, as much as two men could lift, and threw it upon his breast. - Adam Clarke, accomplished Hebraist and bible scholar. (1760 or 1762- 1832)

. . . . and I have seen a passage or two even in the New Testament which take a somewhat less conciliatory tone than the Sermon on the Mount.

I will have to ask you to be specific with your claim regarding New Testament writings.

Originally Posted by The Onion
..."I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm [deleted] serious!"

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

Around once a year (this is one of those times) I'm reminded of a brilliant piece in The Onion, published after 9/11/2001. It's called "God Angrily Clarifiies 'Don't Kill' rule" (link contains some explicit language).

Every time I read this, it brings tears to my eyes.

Very sad indeed!

In fact, the whole post-9/11 issue (language and imagery warning) is touching genius.

And sadder yet that the standard for being genius has been so lowered.

 

[spblat]

You take me for quite a cynic!

Rather than repeat my previous points, I'll let this go; please do not take my silence on your suggestions as assent.

I'm no Bible scholar, but the first time I scanned through it I was stunned by nearly every random passage I came upon. How's 2 Kings 2:23-24 for example?

Unless I have misunderstood your tone Evergreen48, I think it is best that we not take our conversation much further.

 

[Evergreen48]

I'm no Bible scholar, but the first time I scanned through it I was stunned by nearly every random passage I came upon. How's 2 Kings 2:23-24 for example?

A standard question deserves a standard answer:

Q: In 2 Ki 2:23-24, what precisely does the Hebrew say here?
A: There are three key Hebrew words here:
Speak evil of: According to New International Bible Commentary p.421 the Hebrew word for curse here is not herem, meaning "devote to destruction", but qalal, meaning "speak evil of".
Mauled: The bear "tore" the 42 young men according to Green's Literal Translation. The KJV says "tare", which is the archaic form of "tore". "Mauled" is the term in the NKJV, NIV, NRSV, The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 4 p.174, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.542, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.393, and 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.127. 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.330 believes this means the youths were killed.
Young men: The Hebrew means a 17-year old like Joseph (Genesis 37:2), younger children or men up to around 20.
Q: In 2 Ki 2:23-25, why were those 42 youths mauled by bears?
A: Two points to consider in the answer. Contrary to what some atheists have asserted, Elisha does not bear the responsibility for the bears. They were sent directly by God. The Hebrew word for "youth can include 20-year olds, and there youths apparently were a gang. The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.307 adds that the word your "youth" here can mean a young child (2 Kings 5:14), but it is the same word used of Joseph at 17 years old, (Genesis 37:2), and the trained men in Abram's army (Genesis 14:24). The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 4 p.178 says that ferocious bears, Ursus Syriacus, were common in Palestine at this time.

http://www.biblequery.org/

Unless I have misunderstood your tone Evergreen48, I think it is best that we not take our conversation much further.

In that case, I will leave it to your discretion to say when the conversation is finally over.

 

[KCDAD]

Say what you like about Sam Harris, or his other arguments. How is he wrong about this?

I would agree that people have killed and oppressed each other ever since the beginning of mankind.
I disagree that religion is the cause... I contend it is the excuse, or the rationale used to kill and the justification of it later... but the cause of all wars and killing is selfishness, greed and fear. There is no need for any of that if you believe in God.

 

[Mumei]

Are you saying that because religion isn't the primary motivator, but is simply an excuse used by those wanting to go to war, it is exculpated?

I'm sure that religion was simply an excuse used by those in power to get to war, oftentimes, but I also don't doubt that the "common people" wanted to go to war for the religious reasons they were told they were going to war for.