Code of the Strong Atheist OFFTOPIC about 10 commandments

[Gaijin 06]

They claim that they can be tolerant of other religions, but that is against the most basic values of Christianity. The pillar of Judeo-Christian religions is the Ten Commandments, which start with :

....

2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

Erm, there is a hole in your argument the size of a mid sized European country's pension deficit.

Let's try a simple analogy for you. "You shall have no car's other than a Renault". Does this preclude your neighbour from driving a Renault?

I'll give you a clue: it does not.

Don't tar other's with your brush - just because it appears you can not believe in something and tolerate others being in something else it doesn't mean you can ascribe this belief to Christainity too.

 

[Maciamo]

Let's try a simple analogy for you. "You shall have no car's other than a Renault". Does this preclude your neighbour from driving a Renault?

I'll give you a clue: it does not.

I understand why this is so difficult to understand for an English speaker, as "you" can be both singular and plural. You argument is only true it is singular. We could ague that "God" was addressing the whole humanity, which is how it feels in the French version. See how translations are ambiguous and eventually change the original meaning ? No wonder religiousness among Christian countries vary between linguistc groups.. Japanese language does not even have a "must" or "shall". The feelings of the commandments necessarily feel more legalistic then.

 

[Gaijin 06]

I understand why this is so difficult to understand for an English speaker, as "you" can be both singular and plural. You argument is only true it is singular. We could ague that "God" was addressing the whole humanity, which is how it feels in the French version. See how translations are ambiguous and eventually change the original meaning ? No wonder religiousness among Christian countries vary between linguistc groups.. Japanese language does not even have a "must" or "shall". The feelings of the commandments necessarily feel more legalistic then.

If the meaning of the original text in the Bible was

"everyone shall have no other Gods"

then it would be translated into English as.... wait for it...

"everyone shall have no other Gods"

You can't hide behind a mis-translation to make your point, otherwise you can argue that everything can say anything.

 

[Maciamo]

You can't hide behind a mis-translation to make your point, otherwise you can argue that everything can say anything.

I am not hiding being mistranslations. I tell you how it is in the French version. Then, Christianity has always been actively seeking to convert people. Islam as well.

 

[Gaijin 06]

I am not hiding being mistranslations. I tell you how it is in the French version.

I don't care about the French version, nor the Bolivian version or the Venusian version. I've never heard of any who claims the same as you do about this matter.

You are simply reading things into this that don't exist.

 

[bossel]

You are probably half-way between Strong Atheist and Agnosticist, although closer to the former (from what you say).

Yep! Actually, I used to call myself agnostic atheist. Only because I was tired of explaining again & again what I meant by that I simplified it to atheist (since there is no realistic chance of making me a believer).

Carrying a statue of the Virgin Mary through the streets (as in some festivals in Spain and Belgium), or such things...

Well, I have to agree, that makes it very obvious...

one can only become a strong atheist by accumulating knowledge about religions and understanding some principles of philosophy and/or neuro-psychology. [...]
You cannot become a strong atheist just by believing or not believing. It's not a matter of faith or opinion, it's a matter of understanding how the human mind works,

With some strong atheists I do get the impression that it's a matter of faith for them. They make a religion of atheism (& can get quite worked up if you criticise what they find to be their - hmm, how to put it, ten commandments? - deepest convictions), which can be quite annoying in a discussion with fundamentalist Christians. As a freethinker you get shot at from all sides.

There is no need for it as memory, emotions, personality and conscience can all be explained in neurosciences (if you don't think so, study more, as I have). They can even be altered by electric impulses, injections of chemicals (hormones, neurotransmitters...) or brain operations (lobotomy, neuron implant, etc.).

On some people, religion has perverse effects, such as torture or massacre of "infidels" (a concept unknown to atheists, as their is no faith involved), or even (suicidal) terrorism.

Unknown to atheists? Communism was quite atheistic & yet they have tortured & massacred infidels. Any ideology (I count religion as such) can have these effects. It's obviously a human trait to fall for such crap.

It is people themselves who become what they want to become. Religions are just tools of manipulation.

Exactly, that's why it's useless to condemn religion as such. If there wouldn't be religion people would find other tools (as with communism, they already found some).

 

[bossel]

I don't care about the French version, nor the Bolivian version or the Venusian version. I've never heard of any who claims the same as you do about this matter.
You are simply reading things into this that don't exist.

I don't think, you're correct here. The origin of your argument with Maciamo was this:

2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

Erm, there is a hole in your argument the size of a mid sized European country's pension deficit.
Let's try a simple analogy for you. "You shall have no car's other than a Renault". Does this preclude your neighbour from driving a Renault?

Now, in Maciamo's example it should be pretty clear from the context that "you" is plural. The question Maciamo put forward whether it is as clear for a native English speaker - since plural & singular "you" are homonyms - as for a speaker of a language where this is better differentiated is therefore legitimate.

It's all right for you lot in Europe! But by the time I get to sit down and do this, I have about thirty bloody posts :bawling: to sift through and digest!

Being one of the lot in Europe, it's just the same for me. Don't have so much time to post (only after my girlfriend's gone asleep) & then there is such an interesting thread with too many posts.

 

[Gaijin 06]

Now, in Maciamo's example it should be pretty clear from the context that "you" is plural. The question Maciamo put forward whether it is as clear for a native English speaker - since plural & singular "you" are homonyms - as for a speaker of a language where this is better differentiated is therefore legitimate.

So why is the translation into English not explicit?

If it really does mean everyone why not use the word "everyone" ?

 

[bossel]

So why is the translation into English not explicit?

If it really does mean everyone why not use the word "everyone" ?

Hmm, I don't really remember the Bible stuff, but what I remember is that even if it were you in the singular, everybody would be meant: "You (who read or hear this) have to do this or that..."

Anyway, I'm not the one who translated it. For translation issues I recommend to contact the translators (perhaps you'd need a medium for this).

 

[Gaijin 06]

Hmm, I don't really remember the Bible stuff, but what I remember is that even if it were you in the singular, everybody would be meant: "You (who read or hear this) have to do this or that..."

What about the people who don't hear or see it? Are they compeled to live by the 10 commandments? (this is exactly what Maciamo is implying). You (everyone) should do this. Obviously this is absurd. Do I expect you to live by the laws of Bolivia even though you are not Bolivian and have never heard of them? Of course not.

That is exactly the point.... the code is for Christians to live by. Not the whole world. Maciamo as normal has dragged the conversation round such we're not even debating the original issue.

What he wrote was

So, a true Christian who believes in what is written in the Bible cannot be tolerant of other gods or atheism.

I just don't believe that is the case. It doesn't say "don't be tolerant of other gods or atheism", nor does it imply it.

 

[Kinsao]

What about the people who don't hear or see it? Are they compeled to live by the 10 commandments? (this is exactly what Maciamo is implying). You (everyone) should do this. Obviously this is absurd. Do I expect you to live by the laws of Bolivia even though you are not Bolivian and have never heard of them? Of course not.

Yeah, someone who had never heard of ten commandments couldn't be expected to obey them. I am confused as to the point of the argument, in this case. *agrees with Index*

Unknown to atheists? Communism was quite atheistic & yet they have tortured & massacred infidels. Any ideology (I count religion as such) can have these effects. It's obviously a human trait to fall for such crap.

You are so right... unfortunately. :souka:

Errr... I've lost the thread of the thread... :gomen:... what exactly about 10 commandments is it meant to be about? :clueless: Whether they are a "good" thing (instructing people to behave in moral/ethical way that's beneficial to society) or a "bad" thing (restrictive rules that cause more harm than good)? Or is the original query just about whether the 10 commandments apply to everyone or just Christians... whatever...?

I guess... if you agree in something being a good thing, then it's natural that you think others should agree in it too... if you think it's right to live by 10 commandments, it's your life choice and obviously you think you have made the right choice... otherwise you wouldn't have chose it... therefore, it would follow logically you would want others to behave in similar way... but, if you have half a brain you can recognise that not everyone thinks the same as you do, and people have different ideas of how they want to live their life... I think being tolerant to other people's views is not a matter of religion but just of politeness... you can respect a person without necessarily agreeing with everything they believe.

 

[bossel]

What about the people who don't hear or see it? Are they compeled to live by the 10 commandments?

You hit the point where I see a major flaw in Christianity. How can you be a "sinner" for not believing in the Christian god (or believing in some other deity) if you never heard of God?

(this is exactly what Maciamo is implying).

Not sure about this.

You (everyone) should do this. Obviously this is absurd.

Obvious for you. But for the writers of the Bible? For Believers?

Do I expect you to live by the laws of Bolivia even though you are not Bolivian and have never heard of them? Of course not.

Not quite true. As we say in Germany: Ignorance is no excuse. Just because you don't know the laws, doesn't mean they're not applicable. There are quite some cases here in Germany when people are punished for breaking a law they never heard about.

the code is for Christians to live by. Not the whole world.
[...]
I just don't believe that is the case. It doesn't say "don't be tolerant of other gods or atheism", nor does it imply it.

According to the Bible, AFAIK, the whole of mankind is to believe in the Christian god, whether people want to, or not. This god is said to have killed quite a number of people who didn't live up to his standards.

 

[Maciamo]

What about the people who don't hear or see it? Are they compeled to live by the 10 commandments? (this is exactly what Maciamo is implying). You (everyone) should do this. Obviously this is absurd. Do I expect you to live by the laws of Bolivia even though you are not Bolivian and have never heard of them? Of course not.

It means "You who hear this" not "everyone". As always you think I mean things I have never said. It's really difficult to discuss with someone who can't understand anything properly. Basically, Christians have only massacred people who did not want to convert after telling them about the Bible. Look at the colonisation of America. People who did not want to convert after the missionaries had done their job were killed. More usually, in Europe, the Church executed people who knew very well about the bible and Christianity (from the middle ages, it was impossible to live in Europe and not know about Christianity), but had diverging ideas, or ideas that contradicted what was in the bible. E.g. philosopher Giordano Bruno was burnt on the stake in Rome for saying that the earth revolved around the sun and stars were like the Sun, and Galileo was later jailed for "insinuating" the same.

 

[No-name]

The interesting point about the Ten Commandments, is that the decalogue we normally recognize may not be the "Ten" at all. In Exodus,they are never refered to as the "ten commandments" or as what was written on the tablets. The list of ten actually might appear later in the book.

 

[MeAndroo]

You hit the point where I see a major flaw in Christianity. How can you be a "sinner" for not believing in the Christian god (or believing in some other deity) if you never heard of God?

For the record, I'm a recovering Catholic.

Christians are sinners as soon as they are born, because they believe in the idea of "original sin." When Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden for disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit, God proclaimed that it would not only haunt them, but their descendants as well. Since all people descend from the original, they all are burdened with this original sin. At least in Catholicism, baptism is the path out of original sin. One must accept the ideals of the church and take part in additional sacraments, namely Communion (a re-enactment of the Last Supper), Reconciliation (confession of sins), and Confirmation (confirming one's faith in your late teens), in addition to others.

Good people unexposed to Catholicism are believed to arrive in Purgatory, instead of Heaven. Along with these people are unborn babies, who never had the opportunity to be baptized, but still have original sin.

My priest at the Catholic Center in college was one reason I began to look at the Church in a different light. He openly confronted the Vatican's conservative nature, and challenged each person to examine themselves to see if their faith was a result of parental conditioning or of actual dedication. Then again, he no longer has a parish and has been accused of various...transgressions.

Anyway, hope this helps clear up some of the confusion.

 

[Mycernius]

For the record, I'm a recovering Catholic.

Christians are sinners as soon as they are born, because they believe in the idea of "original sin." When Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden for disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit, God proclaimed that it would not only haunt them, but their descendants as well. Since all people descend from the original, they all are burdened with this original sin. At least in Catholicism, baptism is the path out of original sin. One must accept the ideals of the church and take part in additional sacraments, namely Communion (a re-enactment of the Last Supper), Reconciliation (confession of sins), and Confirmation (confirming one's faith in your late teens), in addition to others.

Good people unexposed to Catholicism are believed to arrive in Purgatory, instead of Heaven. Along with these people are unborn babies, who never had the opportunity to be baptized, but still have original sin.

My priest at the Catholic Center in college was one reason I began to look at the Church in a different light. He openly confronted the Vatican's conservative nature, and challenged each person to examine themselves to see if their faith was a result of parental conditioning or of actual dedication. Then again, he no longer has a parish and has been accused of various...transgressions.

Anyway, hope this helps clear up some of the confusion.

Catholics believe in original sin, not all christians. During the reformation the idea of original sin was done away with. To a lot of Christians there is no purgatory, it is a Catholic concept. I always thought that unbaptised babies went into limbo not purgatory. If you look at the medaevil concept of hell, limbo is the first 'area' you enter. Here can be found the unbaptised, heathens born before the coming of Christ, but deemed Good or Rightous people. According to Dante Julius Caeser and Virgil (his guide) lived here. Actually I heard on the radio that the Catholic Church has decided to say that unbaptised babies do not go to limbo, but enter heaven. Isn't amazing how easy it is to change a religious idea when your in charge and people will accept it. Yet if a non-believer said this he would be scorned.

Edit: Some links to Catholic views on Limbo and Infants
http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo1.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo2.htm

Pope to abandon idea of unbaptised babies forever in limboSTEPHEN MCGINTY

THE Catholic Church is preparing to abandon the idea of limbo, the theological belief that children who die before being baptised are suspended in a space between heaven and hell.

The concept, which was devised in the 13th century and was depicted in numerous works of art during the Renaissance, such as Descent into Limbo by the painter Giotto, and in Dante's masterpiece, the Divine Comedy, is of a metaphysical space where infants are blissfully happy but are not actually in the presence of God.


The idea of limbo was developed as a response to the harshness of early Church teachings which insisted that any child who died before he or she was baptised would still be stained by Original Sin and so would be condemned to hell.

The belief, which is unique to the Catholic Church, has fallen out of favour over the past 50 years. It is rarely mentioned and until recently has been left in its own kind of limbo.

However, an international commission of Catholic theologians, meeting in the Vatican this week, has been pondering the issue and is expected to advise Pope Benedict XVI to announce officially that the theological concept of limbo is incorrect.

Instead, the new belief is expected to be that unbaptised babies will go directly to heaven.

Pope Benedict had already expressed his doubts about limbo when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church's doctrinal watchdog.

In an interview in 1984, he said: "Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith. Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis."

According to Italian Vatican commentators, the reluctance of the theologians to use the word limbo was demonstrated in the way in which the Vatican referred to it in its official statement for this week's meeting. It referred to the week-long conference as a discussion on "the fate of children who die without baptism".

Pope Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, gave the commission the task of looking at the issue in 2004 and there has always been speculation that he wanted to drop the concept after he wrote his own papal document which gave no clear answer to the question of what happens to children who die before being baptised.

The late pope had written: "The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God. In fact the great mercy of God, who wants all men to be saved, and the tenderness of Jesus towards children allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who die without baptism."

That view was in contrast to what Pope Pius X had declared in 1905: "Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having Original Sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory."

The fate of children who die before baptism has interested Christians since the religion's earliest days.

The idea was first suggested by St Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD), who believed that the unbaptised would neither be punished nor access the full glory of God.

This was dismissed by St Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), who insisted instead that baptism was necessary for salvation and that even babies would be consigned to hell if they were not baptised.

He did, however, concede that once in hell their torment would be the mildest of all its residents. This torture of the innocent was unacceptable to St Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274 AD), who was the first major theologian to speculate about the existence of a place called limbo, whose name is derived from the Latin limbus which means "hem" or "edge". There, on the edge of heaven, the unbaptised would exist in a state of what he described as "natural happiness".

Last night, John Haldane, a professor of philosophy at St Andrews University and a consulter to the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture, said that the issue of limbo was "something of a medieval curiosity" that no longer preoccupies people. He said that the reason the Catholic Church was clarifying its position was that people still wrongly perceived heaven as a place and not as a state of being.

"The idea of limbo conjures up the image of God as some kind of government bureaucrat who says to people, not just babies, 'Sorry, you don't have your passport stamped with baptism, you'll have to wait over there'.

"Instead, God's powers are such that He can overcome the issue of Original Sin as He chooses, according to special circumstances."