Sunday School

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I recently debated with some student from a local theological college. They said very similar things about the Day of Judgement so that nobody can escape justice especially for serious crimes like murder. Hitchens often talked about this vicarious redemption or scapegoating of sins. I gave them an example of why I find it vulgar and of poor moral standing.

A priest who raped a young boy (one of many) from the ages of 6 to 12 is on his death bed and confesses his sins to another priest who tells him he is forgiven. He has never having been confronted about his crimes and never sought forgiveness from his victim, never mind acknowledged his crime or offered any kind of apology until now. He is however genuinely sorry and remorseful on his deathbed. He then dies “in a state of grace”.

The boy grows up, never finishing his education and becomes a drug addict and alcoholic. No one believes him when he admits some of what the priest did. He spirals further into depression and gets HIV from a dirty needle. One night when committing a burglary he is confront by the homeowner. In the ensuing struggle he kills the homeowner and flees the scene. In his panic he takes an overdose and dies within  hours aged 16.

I asked the students who does their God allow into Heaven and who does he send to Hell. The priest who was genuinely remorseful and dies in a state of grace or the 16 years old drug fueled killer who spent every day of the last 10 years cursing god. According to Christian doctrine the priest gets in. If you think not then on whose authority are you speaking? What would be the final justice?

If the homeowner was a “real Christian” and lived an unblemished saintly Christian life, he would be in Heaven too? Why would he need justice if he was already an immortal in Heaven?

Would your God consider sending the child rapist to Hell and allowing the atheist killer into Heaven? Careful with your answer as you have already said my sense of morality is weak because I see morality as relative and not coming from an absolute authority.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

“3) blaming women for all this, as usual. This third part is actually quite hard to figure out and unpack.”

– sexual desire can make people do crazy things.  It can make them forget about everything else that they usually take care about.  So, presumably, when the Genesis story was written, it was encoded that men are entitled to blame women for making them go crazy and do embarrassing things.

Then, the whole thing gets lumped together into one crazy story about snakes, apples, trees of knowledge, etc.

@reg – “myths”

– a myth can have value.  For example, the Crucifixion and Ressurrection.  This is a good metaphor for all kinds of metaphorical “dying and being reborn”.  It’s a thing that happens in life.  There are lots of things about the Jesus story that have this kind of value, and in fact, he went around making up parables to make some of his points.

“Would your God consider sending the child rapist to Hell and allowing the atheist killer into Heaven?”

– I really don’t know, since that whole frame of reference is a load of crap designed to benefit the people in charge.  What would a decent Christian say?  That’s the real question.  I think they would probably be hard pressed to give you an answer, since so many aspects of conventional theology don’t seem to add up.  It seems that there is no universal agreement on who exactly gets into heaven.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

A myth can have value……

Yes, in an historic sense. But a myth is fiction. It is not something to base your life upon or use as a means of determining truth. Why have Faith in a myth if you know it is a myth and not factual?

So what if the alleged Jesus went around narrating parables if those same parables are founded upon mythology. What is the big deal about them? Are they really that valuable to anyone when the rest is BS? He did not raise the dead, cast demons into swine or feed thousands with some fish and bread. These things did not happen as recorded decades after the event. What does it take for people to grasp that the dead stay dead and that humans to not become immortal?

BTW when I pose that question to atheists most of them showed concern for the innocent victim while the Catholics became apologists for the priest. That tells me enough to continue to claim that the standards of Biblical derived morality are lacking.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

 I think they would probably be hard pressed to give you an answer, since so many aspects of conventional theology don’t seem to add up.

Conventional theology is the problem. It is the study of nothing. When you derive your moral code from myth and your standards from a delusion of thinking you know what the Creator of Universe wants then you are going to be left impoverished.

Maybe the parable of the alleged Jesus about building a house on rock instead of sand could have some merit here. If you build your morality on sand your foundations will continually sink and eventually people will notice your head is buried in that same sand too.

[NoelParticipant]

Thanks Reg: Tuesday and I finally got around to finishing up Sunday school.

The story about the kid and the priest; big believer in the statement “the drugs and alcohol are a symptom of a much deeper problem “. Btw: I identify with that story.

thanks again Reg

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Thanks Noel, I agree. Any form of self-harm is a symptom of some unresolved or unrecognized problem. That includes any form of drug where often the legally prescribed ones are the worst or eating disorders where a sense of having control of food gives a (false) sense of empowerment. I would include religion in there too as it seeks to suggest one is helpless and worthless without swapping one dependency for another. The AA is like this. I think initially it can help people to face up to their problem but then it gets them dependent on some imaginary external power rather than on their own inner strength.

When I hear people says they have been “sober for 17 years, 3 months and 4 days….” I think they have become dependent on not being addicted or even dependent on the sensation of being “cured”. I think this is the wrong place for their head to be at after all that time. You are not free if you keep thinking about what helped to free you.

I have had several people tell me they were abused by the clergy. Often when they discover I am an atheist I get told about it. Sometimes I run an information table on the high street for atheist organisations and I have had to get someone to cover for me (on 3 occasions over 4 years) as I have had to help someone compose themselves after breaking down while talking to me.

When the stories of clerical child abuse first broke (here in Ireland) I discovered that several of the people I had gone to school with had been abused. Some very badly over a long period of time. It explains a lot when I look back. I went through a period of wondering how I never noticed anything but then I was only a kid too and this was the 1970’s when the world was in black and white. When the news broke priests and Christian Brothers seems to get abducted overnight. They were suddenly just gone, off to other parishes in different countries to continue their work.

One thing these boys all had in common was alcohol and drug abuse and I know many took their own lives.

I think the main reason (but probably not the only reason) I was not abused was that I had a bad attitude towards the religious teachers in school. When I was 13 a Christian Brother punched me in the face for correcting him over an incorrect statement he made about the works of Aquinas. I was “summoned” to the head masters office (both were Christian Brothers) and they demanded that I apologize. So I said “I am very sorry you dirty fucking sheep shagger” and told them that I would “come back and fuck them both up when I was older”. I got expelled so I went and reported them to the local police (who ignored me) because I started laughing too much when I reported what I had called him. Anyway in those days the Christians were permitted to assault children, so the police were never involved. I was “allowed” back to school a few days later after my midterm results came in. 8 straight A’s and the highest result in religion in the class.

I stopped drinking alcohol about 7 years ago. I suspect recover time was become tougher and I became aware I was no longer bullet proof. I never had a problem with it but I was a party animal. I party without it now and it is just as much fun, if not even more.  It is a case of “been there, done that and left the t-shirt in some strangers’ house”. I never miss it and think it was probably the best day’s work I ever did. I smoke some weed now and then because I enjoy flying along with those “higher streams of consciousness” I am sometimes privileged to get.  Anyway weed is not a drug. Good weed is a treat. It keeps me honest with myself. It is a basic staple of life as Hunter S. Thompson once said……or was it Freewheelin’ Franklin?

[Dang MartinParticipant]

I had an experience that relates to the concept that AA is a dependency swap.

Worked with this musician in the 80s. He drank a LOT, and was also the guy who was always snorting cocaine off his motorcycle seat, an exotic dancer’s body, or the toilet seat. Really anywhere.

He was really an intolerable a-hole.

Then he joined AA and found Jesus. He’s very self-righteous, and he absolutely HAS to go to his meetings, even 20 years later. It’s as if he is addicted to meetings.

He’s still an intolerable a-hole, with the difference being that it was easier when he was drunk/wasted, because you could dismiss him and put him to sleep in a chair, and that was that. Now he’s got sober energy added to the mix.

We don’t hang out anymore, and it’s got nothing to do with being sober. I also partied hard back then. One day, it just wasn’t fun anymore, so I just walked away from it. No withdrawals. No problems.

I’m truly sober, and one of the key identifiers is that I don’t have to constantly declare that I’m sober, as if I need to convince the world, as well as myself.

Conversely, he is NOT sober. Sure, he’s off drugs and alcohol, but he’s still addicted to something, and still behaves like an addict. Maybe that’s the difference between us; that he is an addict and I am not.

I did have a period a few years ago where I’d have weed every single night before going to sleep. Totally zonked out. But then I just stopped because I felt “saturated,” if that makes sense. No withdrawals or problems. It just wasn’t working anymore [no longer felt pleasant], so I stopped.

I do consider myself fortunate in this regard, for both my brother and sister struggled their entire lives with addiction. Now my sister is dead from it, and my brother will be lucky to make it through the end of the year. Dad was addicted to cigarettes.

Mom has no vices, so maybe I get my good fortune from her [we’re the only ones left]. Can’t say that a god who requires worship did it, as you’d think that being would take a big steamy dump on my head as pre-eternal punishment.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by  Dang Martin. Reason: Clarity

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I knew this girl who once told me that her ex-partner’s constant talk of his new found sobriety “thanks to the power of Jesus” was enough to drive her to drink!!

I think it is replacing one dependency for another. I know a salesman who has to know where the AA meetings are in any town if work means he is away from home for a night. He gets worked up into a state of panic if he can’t find one or will travel several miles after a full day’s work to attend one. It’s when he starts with the Jesus stuff that I can only shake my head. It is pathetic. He has been sober for over 20 years and still worried that he can’t get through a few days without attending a meeting. I almost wish Homer Simpson would turn up to the same one.

I don’t miss not have to listen to coke heads. But I do miss the “bad craziness” (Hunter S. Thompson again) and the weird and wonderful characters. Anything could and often did happen.  I remember waking up one morning in some flat and I went out to find a shop but got lost. It took me about 10 minutes to figure out I was in a city about 150 miles from home. I only smoke top class weed on occasion and only when I need to.  I think I am morally obliged to smoke some now.

[_Robert_Participant]

All this rain in Texas ! It’s a fucking miracle, don’t you think ?

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

It must be. I just can’t think of any other possible reason for it. It must be part of some cosmic plan. It can’t be Climate Change and cuts to non-defensive federal spending or cuts to the EPA play no part. Maybe Trump could build a very wide and long canal to divert the water instead of a wall? It would save a lot of money. It could be great. Tremendous!

[StregaModerator]

A moat!  Brilliant!

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

“Then, the whole thing gets lumped together into one crazy story about snakes, apples, trees of knowledge, etc.”

– there should also be a talking bush.

[.Spectator]

@Reg

Explain yourselves if you can.

I’m not going to bother putting each bullet point in quotes  and references every single line you wrote or we’ll be here all day…..

Succinctly: You seem to be forgetting that the Bible is not just one book. You ask when it stops being allegorical and starts being factual but are we still discussing Genesis or have we moved on to the broader picture? If you want a summary to “explain myself ” in 240 characters or less…..to sum up and explain the entire Bible without venturing into proletyzing territory you’re smoking grass (again).

Going back to at least address my claim about Genesis specifically and on what “authority” I make my claim, I personally have no authority. I’m not a Bible scholar. I have not read it in the original language or even seen the original book. Have you?? Okay then….So we can at least agree that neither of us really has all the information we need to have any authority to make our claims except for the limited information we do have about the Bible and our own knowledge and subjective experiences.

But what I can speak to is this: As a student of literature (I got my bachelors degree in Spanish) I have studied quite a bit of Latin American literature IN Spanish. One of the focuses that fascinated me the most was “dichos” and oral tradition. I can speak with authority when I say that oral tradition is how many things were passed down from generation to generation. Sure every time you tell a story it changes a bit but it is a FACT that the creation story is one passed down in many cultures in many ways. Our relationship to the Earth and how we came from it is part of being uniquely human. Is it literally true? No. But it’s not fake either. It’s history. Culture. Sociology…..It speaks to the time and mentality of when it was written and that culture’s understanding of how we came alive. It recognizes at its core that we are finite in this world and that there is a force greater than ourselves. We either embrace that or we don’t. You can name God whatever you want but at the end of the day you have to reconcile if you don’t see any “evidence ” for God then how do you explain how we came to be? Evolution can be true and still believe that there is a force in this world greater than yourself. I do believe that.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

You seem to be forgetting that the Bible is not just one book..

Ok but what does that matter to my point?  I am asking you which book of the Bible is factual. Most Christians I debate with tell me it is the Word of God from start to finish. They have unambiguously stated that Genesis is a literal account of how God created the Heavens and the Earth.  They contradict you entirely. They have studied the Bible for years, on a daily basis. They attend courses and conferences on Scripture, often referring back to the ancient Hebrew or Greek.

If you are not a Biblical scholar or have not studied the ancient texts then on whose authority are you claiming that all these Christians are wrong? You are not arguing against the atheist (my) position. You are arguing against what other Christians claim. Why do you get to say you are right and they are wrong? Is it because you say so or just believe so, or do have a more grounded explanation for what you claim.

I am asking at what point in the Bible does it become factual and how do you know it is at that point? At what point are you in agreement with the claims of other Christians.

You can name God whatever you want but at the end of the day you have to reconcile if you don’t see any “evidence” for God then how do you explain how we came to be?

Belle that is the classic “Argument from Ignorance”. We don’t know, therefore God did it.

Evolution can be true and still believe that there is a force in this world greater than yourself. I do believe that.

Evolution is 100% factually true. There is no doubt over this. However you are not claiming to believe in a “force greater than yourself”. You are claiming the Christian God is that force, that you can communicate with Him and that you will become an immortal. You are claiming you believe things that I say you cannot possibly know.

You cannot claim the God of the Bible created man and woman in their present forms if you accept Evolution. Even if it is allegorical it is completely inaccurate. He could not have created man and animals on the same day!! It is an infantile account.

On Day 6 it came to pass that God created a hot underground pool with some chemicals and on day 3,500,000,000,000 023 some life was formed.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer. Reason: written before I had my morning coffee

[Dang MartinParticipant]

Ah, Genesis. Ever wonder why most of those happy re-creations of Genesis seem to leave out Genesis 38?

The answer is revealed: https://youtu.be/cGecYM8S1r0

The entire bible was put together by committee. In other words, they voted what would be left in, and what would be left out.

This question can be asked of MANY things, including why Genesis would have TWO versions of the creation story. But why would they include Genesis 38?

I don’t like discussing the bible with Christians, because most haven’t even bothered to read the whole thing.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer. Reason: to fix link to video

[Author]

Posts