The war on faith.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Every school has a biased education, and the Catholic Church is an organized entity. Is it possible a Catholic school would allow Russell's works or Nietzsche's? I guess it's not impossible, I'll grant you that. Improbable though. There are some Catholic schools where reading Nietzsche is enough to get you punished, and that's a step up from some of the older Catholic schools. They don't have a good rep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, I thought Nietzche and Russell were philosophers. I didn't realize they were religious historians. I don't understand why you think I need to read these authors to be "familiar" with all sides of Christianity. (No, I haven't read them -- perhaps I will get to it eventually).

I HAVE read books about Jesus from a historical perspective. Where the authors were Professors of history with NO religious background or biases. Since I am very familiar with the history aspect, I feel like my education in Christianity is very well founded.

I'm not discounting atheist philosophers arguments -- never have. This is where you are starting to claim things I didn't say. I have been arguing with you this whole time regarding the nature of Jesus and Christianity. Not about the actions of its members, but about its fundamental ideals.

If Nietzche or Russell have something to say about Jesus that a panel of historians do not, I would like to be enlightened. I wasn't aware they spoke out against Jesus Christ. If they can somehow provide insight that a historian cannot, I stand corrected.

[ QUOTE ]
You've required sources to believe what I said about things like the Midianites (again, bread and butter for the atheist, about as basic as Noah's flood is for Christians)

[/ QUOTE ]

See, now you're getting back to your extremely annoying habit of REALLY stretching the truth. I never said I didn't believe you're Medianite story, AT ALL. Seriously, stop lying. I said I wasn't so sure there wasn't more to the story. And you know what? I was right. You implied something that was completely false (that the Israelites invaded Midia without provocation simply because they needed to be purified). When I said I was familiar, I meant I knew of opposing viewpoints and how they thought. It doesn't mean I'm familiar with specific arguments or I've memorized common literature that an atheist uses. I also have no need or desire to "pre-empt" your arguments. I'm fine with taking them on one at a time.


Also, your inclusion of the Crusades and the Inquisition leads me to believe you have really, seriously (and I mean this with all honesty) put zero effort into trying to understand my arguments. I've said countless times that groups supposedly doing things in the name of God have, throughout history, distorted religious ideals to justify horrible actions [edit for clarity].... That was one of my MAIN POINTS for like 5 posts in this thread.... The fact that I had to type that out actually just really annoyed me. WTF, are you for real?

[Matt R.]

OK, I've seen that you've calmed back down -- you were pretty close to pissing me off again.

Please don't be too offended by the tone of the last post, I tried to keep it as civil as possible. I'll leave it up so you can see my responses.


Seriously though -- if you think Nietchze and Russell can provide me some insight on the nature of Jesus (that is more valid than a historian's) I really would be glad to hear it.

[madnak]

Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" is an excellent primer on the atheist viewpoint. Nietzsche's approach to religion is also at the core of many (but not all or even most) atheist's conceptions. Really, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible almost makes everything else obsolete. The thing is it's hard to figure out what's most relevant in the flood of information there. Also it makes me look unbiased (really, it's that bad). The overall best basis may just be a google search for "arguments against Christianity." That's really what the atheist position consists of. And when the Bible comes up, you'll notice certain frequent examples that almost every educated atheist will use (including the Midianites, because it has great "stopping power").

I don't think atheistic interpretations of the Bible are the best place to look, because atheists frequently interpret the Bible as a work of fiction. And as a work of fiction, there's really nothing wrong with it (other than the boring lineages). So the position on Christianity (rather than the Bible per se) tends to be more organic.

[Matt R.]

Really quickly:

I googled "Nietzche on Jesus", and from the results I gather that Nietzche respected and admired Jesus. He simply questioned Christianity and the divinity of Jesus. He wasn't against Jesus' teachings either -- he simply believed that the people who called themselves "Christians" did not really follow his teachings.

I was never arguing for the divinity of Jesus, as I know that's a point you would never accept. I was arguing for his teachings. So far, it doesn't appear Nietzche's views contrast anything I've said about the inherent "goodness" of Jesus. Maybe there is more to it that I haven't seen yet though. I just hope you didn't think I was trying to convince you Jesus was God or anything.

I will get to that link you provided sometime soon. Thanks for the info.

[madnak]

I'm speakly mainly of Nietzsche's general views on religion. Which are really very complex, to be fair. But when he says things like "God is dead" and writes books like "the Antichrist," he's bound to draw some interesting followers. He can also be scathing because he's a good writer (unlike most philosophers).

SAB is just ammunition really. If you ever intend to argue with atheists, it's a good resource. And if you want to see the supposed flaws in the Bible laid out it's the place to go. But it's hard to navigate because their goal is basically to document every little thing anyone might have a problem with.

[Dane S]

The issues are deeper than religious faith. You can take it away and the world will still be filled with insanity.

[DougShrapnel]

Buddists are excluded from the war on faith. For the reason that if a central tenet of buddism was disproven, buddism would change. Religious faiths that belong in the war are the ones that prevent inquiry into the deeper issues.

[Dane S]

I agree that religion is generally a Bad Thing, but I think religion is a symptom, not the disease. And many nonreligious folks these days, myself included, have the disease as bad as anyone.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Buddists are excluded from the war on faith. For the reason that if a central tenet of buddism was disproven, buddism would change. Religious faiths that belong in the war are the ones that prevent inquiry into the deeper issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the nature of this war?

Arguing the case against faith based beliefs or banning faith based practice and teaching, or ...

chez

[MidGe]

Well, I just spent a few hours going thru the SAB site.

I went thru each book of the OT and the NT, just looking at the references annoted as "Intolerance" and "Cruelty and violence".

How can any one who has read the bible, give it any moral significance, is beyond me!