Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side

[heidler1]

I realize this is not NEWS, but I never saw it before.

From The TimesSeptember 27, 2005

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

[nichomachus]

1. Without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things

But to get good people to do bad things, you need religion.

[Nihil]

18. Certain amount of truth there ...

> But to get good people to do bad things, you need religion.

... but to be honest, you would have to include the "religion" of
greed (money, possessions), the "religion" of power (political,
military, sexual) and the "religion" of fame (publicity, vanity).

With the above proviso, I totally agree with you! :hi:

(And yes, I know that not only do the above three "religions" overlap
with each other, they often greatly overlap with the practitioners of
the more widely recognised religions too.)

[Diane R]

2. Amen.

[RufusTFirefly]

3. cum hoc ergo propter hoc?

I'm a non-believer but I'm still wary of potential fallacies of causation.

That said, I think there is more likely a correlation between religion and a country's social safety net.

In general the countries that do a better job of taking care of their citizens are also the least religious.

[heidler1]

7. My most religious friends tend to say, "god will take care of that."

I especially noticed this the Iraqi war came up.

[Wednesdays]

9. You're right about the logical fallacy

At the same time, religious countries can't lay claim they're better countries, though.

[roguevalley]

15. people chose as a nation what they will become. look at the 'choice' of fuck head

and cheney. look what we became. since non-religious and religious chose him, you can't lay it out on just religious. when we live with our heads up our butts and cast around for a daddy when things go boo-boo, then we get our butts paddled. I agree to a point but after that, everyone is to blame.

[nichomachus]

10. Actually, it's "post hoc ergo propter hoc"

Back to Latin 101 with you

[Occam Bandage]

16. Wrongo.

"Post hoc" means "after this." "Cum hoc" means "with this." This is a case of cum hoc, not post hoc.

[bamacrat]

91. I love your logic.

And I agree, took me back to my Intro to Logic class.

[Juche]

4. What is the mechanism

How are the two issues related?

I do know that authoritarianism is strongly correlated with religious fundamentalism from the works of Bob Altemeyer. I also know authoritarianism is tied into attitudes like a tolerance for inequality and abuse of those who are deviant.

So maybe authoritarian christians are more likely to give a giant middle finger to the bottom 50% of the country, and then as a result you see crime, pregnancy and STDs explode. Black people in the US still have it bad, but the rates of dysfunction (disease, crime, poverty, unemployment) were far worse under Jim Crow (which conservative christians wanted to uphold). Plus the emotional, social and information repression they pursue leaves people too ignorant on issues like birth control or able to get help. At the risk of sounding like a bigot, blacks have a higher unemployment and crime rate than whites and gays have a higher rate of suicide and drug abuse than heterosexuals and that can be attributed to the social repression and exclusion they face from society at large. It is authoritarian christians who are generally behind that repression and exclusion. So maybe (since the author didn't give a mechanism) authoritarian christians with their tolerance of inequality and intolerance of diversity drive so many people out of the mainstream that they end up suicidal, criminal or disfunctional in some other way.

Either way, I don't think it is religion itself that is the problem, but authoritarianism. I think authoritarians are just drawn to religion. A left wing progressive who joins a church will likely start working on fighting poverty and global warming. A right wing authoritarian will start oppressing women, gays and non-whites. It is more the authoritarianism than the religion that seems to be a problem.

[heidler1]

5. I think your analysis rings true.

[FiveGoodMen]

6. "I think authoritarians are just drawn to religion"

I think religious upbringing often creates authoritarians:

* There is one and only one right way

* God decides what it is

* Our job is to obey it without question

* The preachers God has chosen will tell you what's what

* God has ordered you to go into the world and set everyone else straight

[Sal316]

14. You've just described fundamentalism....

Congratulations.

:sarcasm:

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Yes I have. Why the sarcasm?

[Sal316]

37. Because of the broad brush you used.

...and the fact that a religious upbringing does not increase the odds one is an authortarian.

[FiveGoodMen]

42. I say it does.

[Sal316]

45. Well, as my grampa used to say...

...there's an ass for every seat.

[FiveGoodMen]

46. Your grampa's sayings don't bolster your argument

[Sal316]

47. It wasn't to bolster my argument.

.....wait for it........

[FiveGoodMen]

48. You mean it was just to be personally insulting?

[Sal316]

51. That's what it "seems" like to you.

While in reality, it's just another way of saying "everyone's got an opinion".

So, congratulations on jumping to another conclusion based on what "seems" to be instead of what really is.

[FiveGoodMen]

52. With every post, it seems more and more like it, yes.

[Sal316]

53. .....and?

Quite honestly, I'm rather sick and tired of seeing bad theology put forward, not only from non-believers, but from believers as well.

Too much credit is given to theology based on what "seems" instead of what truly is. More often than not, here bad theology is put forth by non-believers. They spout off complete theological nonsense based on what it "seems" to them, and when confronted and corrected by using proper context (cultural, linguistic, historic), their response is typically "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Nobody here is out to convert anyone.

There are theologians, like me, here on DU whose interest is purely putting bad theology out to pasture.

The arguments I see here from non-believers are the other side of the "God hates Fags" coin. Both are horribly wrong theological interpretations based on what scripture "seems" to say. If that makes them uncomfortable to be in that same league... oh well. They made the bed, now it's time to lie in it.

So, forgive me if I'm a little short and dismissive with some people's shallow theology, especially after giving them the proper context.

The problem with "mile wide and inch deep" theology also deeply affects today's church. This isn't just a "believer/non-believer" issue.

[FiveGoodMen]

54. Well, just suppose that the theology of which you speak is actually false.

People offer up comments on what they don't agree with and you tell them they're stupid or uninformed, but maybe the criticisms are legitimate and the deep theology is just a shell game to keep people from seeing that there's no there there.

[Sal316]

56. Whether you believe or not... its your choice.

...but don't expect bad theology to go unchallenged.

Things like saying the God of the OT was an authoritarian dictator without even the slightest comprehension of the context and purpose of the Holiness code.... is bad theology.

Things like "The Bible says Gays should be killed" is bad theology.

Things like "The Bible says wives should submit to their husbands" is bad theology.

Things like "Adam was a white man with red hair" is bad theology.

Like I said, nobody here is out to convert.

...as far as people being told they are uninformed, when it comes to theology, sometimes they are. That's a fact.

Are they stupid? No. Sometimes intentionally ignorant (when ignoring proper context after having been given it), but stupid, no.

Finally, if some of the non-believers here would like to actually be taken seriously, then I'd invite them to do the following.

People's religious beliefs are just that, beliefs. They're very personal and help make them who they are.

They aren't fairytales.

They aren't superstitions.

People "with imaginary friends" aren't stupid, backwards, ignorant, or uneducated.

Not all believers are loudmouthed, condemning right wing hypocrites. In fact, there are substantially more liberal-leaning believers who actually take what Jesus said about servanthood seriously. The difference is, we don't stand on the street corner and crow about how wonderful we are and how horrible everyone else is. We prefer to walk Jesus and not just talk Jesus.

Deal?

[FiveGoodMen]

58. "without even the slightest comprehension of the context and purpose"

Unless you hear from God personally, you don't know that purpose.

You either take the book's word for it, or the interpretation of someone you've listened to.

If the book or the person is right, then you know something.

But books can be wrong. Beliefs can be mistaken. Purposes can be misconstrued. They can even be lied about.

The people claiming that it's superstition or a fairy tail aren't ignorant -- they think you're wrong.

Unless you can prove that you're right, that's where it stands.

[Sal316]

59. Well then....

...according to you I guess I just pissed away thousands of dollars and wasted years studying theology.

I should just wait for God himself to tell me what He means.... oh, wait, I already do that....by approaching scripture prayerfully and being open to hearing the "still, small voice" of God speaking through the Holy Spirit.

Guess that makes me an ignorant, backwoods, uneducated, stupid adult with imaginary friends, right?

[FiveGoodMen]

60. Sort of depends on whether your God exists, doesn't it?

[Sal316]

61. Well, He does.

...and if you don't believe that, one wonders why you'd involve yourself in discussions about doctrinal issues. Unless the point to spout pseudo-intellectual talking points and insult believers, in which case, thanks but no thanks.

[FiveGoodMen]

63. Because much of the religious world wants to impose their will on the public

In an effort to oppose that, I make it a point to establish the fact that there are very good reasons not to believe.

You're the one who wants to make this doctrinal.

Others here have merely expressed disbelief in the entire notion that God (at least the one of the Abrahamic tradition) exists.

You keep saying we don't get it.

We get it.

We don't buy it.

[Sal316]

64. I disagree

"...much of the religious world wants to impose their will on the public"

Are there loudmouthed asswipe believers who want to do that? Yes...and it's reprehensible. They don't get that Christianity is to be a reckless, subversive faith that stands in opposition to the Kingdom of the world.

It was really good for 300 years....right up until the Battle of Milvian Bridge. The unholy marriage of Christianity and the Sword is the worst thing that could have ever happened to it.

Others here have merely expressed disbelief in the entire notion that God (at least the one of the Abrahamic tradition) exists.

Then I guess you better get busy telling over half of the people on Earth that they're being foolish...Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike.

[FiveGoodMen]

65. "I guess you better get busy telling over half the people they're being foolish"

What do you think I've been doing in this thread?

If you know where I can address over half of the world's people all at once, please tell me.

I'll be glad to go and say the same things there.

[Why Syzygy]

67. Once you've torched or run off

all the religiously liberal and tolerant believers, who will stand with you when the rabid right wing extremists come for you?

[FiveGoodMen]

69. Most of the churches didn't oppose Bush's wars-of-choice

Even if they weren't all rabid right.

I fully expected that they would oppose Bush considering the galaxy-sided gap between the teachings attributed to Jesus and Bush/Cheney's constant lies and pure evil.

But I didn't see much of that.

So, I'm not counting on any believers standing with me, ever.

Either way, I think the view of the world that I'm defending is worth defending -- for the good of all.

Final note: "Torched or run off"? I've been pretty polite in this thread. I have not returned insult for insult. So I take it that you view any opposition as unacceptable aggression?

[Why Syzygy]

74. Maybe you weren't looking.

In an Address to the Diplomatic Corps at the Vatican on January 13, 2003, the Pope declared that “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations” and reiterated that “war cannot be decided upon . . . except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions.”
http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/f/popes_on_iraq.htm

New Antiwar Ad Launched
'Iraq Hasn't Wronged Us,' Bishop From Bush's Church Says
by Alan Cooperman

The National Council of Churches will begin airing a television commercial today in which a bishop of the United Methodist Church, President Bush's denomination, says going to war against Iraq "violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ."

The 30-second ad, scheduled to appear several times a day over the next week on the CNN and Fox cable networks in New York and Washington, is part of an accelerating television, radio and print media campaign by Win Without War, a coalition of organizations opposed to invading Iraq.

The choice of a Methodist bishop as a spokesman is intended to emphasize the opposition to war from America's mainstream churches and to convey that the peace movement is middle-of-the-road and patriotic, according to Win Without War's national director, former representative Tom Andrews (D-Maine).
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0131-02.htm

Religious opposition

On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a just war as defined by Catholic theology.

US civil-rights leader the Reverend Jesse Jackson condemned the planned invasion, saying in February 2003 that it was not too late to stop the war and that people "must march until there is a declaration of peace and reconciliation."<60>

The Vatican also spoke out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters that war against Iraq was a preventive war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a just war. The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings in the Islamic world. On February 8, 2003, Pope John Paul II said "we should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable."<61> He spoke out again on March 22 2003, shortly after the invasion began, saying that violence and arms "can never resolve the problems of man."<62><63><64>

Both the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, and his successor, Rowan Williams, spoke out against war with Iraq.

The executive committee of the World Council of Churches, an organization representing churches with a combined membership of between 350 million and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries,<65> issued a statement in opposition to war with Iraq, stating that "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter."<66>

Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine has argued that, among both evangelical Christians and Catholics, "most major church bodies around the world" opposed the war.<67>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War

[FiveGoodMen]

77. I was looking in my neck of the woods

Come from a religious family.

Relatives in many churches.

Yes, I know there were some good ones.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

88. What part of "OFTEN" didn't you understand?

Brush seemed fairly sized to me.

[laconicsax]

17. What is the Abrahamic god if not a totalitarian dictator?

He dictates what to wear, what to eat, when to work, how to cut your hair, when you can have sex and who you can have it with, and how much skin to cut off the end of your penis. Not only that, he'll sentence you to an eternity of torture for any transgression against these laws, up to and including thought-crime. His love has no bounds.

[Sal316]

19. Was your question ...

...."How to totally miss the point?"

Context is important, and you obviously don't have a clue about it.

[FiveGoodMen]

23. You seem to be trying to get at something. But you're not making yourself clear.

[laconicsax]

26. No, I'm pretty sure my question was, "What is the Abrahamic god if not a totalitarian dictator?"

In fact, I believe those are the exact words I used.

Reading the Bible is important, and obviously you don't have a clue about it. Everything I said is backed up by Scripture. If you want to say that the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously, you'll get no argument from me.

[Sal316]

36. Answer: you

Category: Gate mouths with no latches.

Reading the Bible is important, and obviously you don't have a clue about it.

Wow, the adage is true. You DO make an ass of yourself if you assume things. I'm a theologian, so it's YOU that doesn't have a clue about it.

Everything I said is backed up by Scripture.

That's the same thing that the: fundamentalist gay bashers say, the white supremacists say, the dominionists say... so congrats, you've now shown your ass to the world.

If you want to say that the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously, you'll get no argument from me.

Ahhh.. now I get you. You're in R/T simply to stir the pot.

[laconicsax]

38. If you are a theologian, then I retract my statement concerning your knowledge of the Bible.

You should know exactly what the Abrahamic god's laws are concerning the following:

-what to wear
-what to eat
-when to work
-how to cut your hair
-when you can have sex and who you can have it with
-how much skin to cut off the end of your penis.

You should also know exactly what the punishments are for transgression against these laws. (In case you skipped class that day, it's usually death.) Christianity adds the option of forgiveness for transgressing against these laws provided you beg the Abrahamic god's son for forgiveness. The caveat is that you are born guilty of a crime committed by someone else, thought-crime is considered an offense and punishment changes from death to an eternity of torture.

I assert that this relationship between the Abrahamic god and its followers is essentially a totalitarian dictatorship.

It must be tough seeing someone point this out, knowing that it is factually accurate, and wanting to argue against it. You must think that your position is completely indefensible or you wouldn't feel the need to resort to name-calling

You say that you're a theologian. If that is true, I challenge you to show how the relationship between the Abrahamic god and its followers isn't essentially a totalitarian dictatorship.

If you can't, I invite you to continue calling me a fundamentalist gay basher, a white supremacist, a dominionist, or any other charge you can come up with.

[Why Syzygy]

40. It is ..

The Kingdom of God is not a Democracy. You're right about that.

However, the OT provided for sacrifices to atone for a lot of the failings. Otherwise no one would have survived.
And, you know what the NT has to say (sort of).

[laconicsax]

41. It's hard to be precise about what the New Testament says about a lot of things.

Contradictions are too prevalent for nearly anything definitive to be said about it. For example, Jesus says that the Mosaic covenant ended with John the Baptist and then immediately says that those same laws still apply (Luke 16:16-17).

[Why Syzygy]

68. The point was it too provided

a method of forgiveness. Remember when Jesus said he did not come to condemn the world?

How many people do you suppose Saddam gave an opportunity to change their minds?
THAT would be your totalitarian dictator.

[laconicsax]

71. What about someone who killed 70,000 men as punishment for taking a census?

2 Samuel 24 has God killing 70,000 men as punishment for David taking a census.

Believe me, if the Old Testament didn't have God committing such horrific acts I wouldn't say totalitarian dictator.

[Why Syzygy]

79. What about ..

that doesn't change the point I provided. This is the problem with your so-called discussion style.
You don't ABSORB any responses to current topic. You just spout off a new one.
I'm not going there with you.

I'm sure God is aware of your opposition to his character and is duly unsurprised.

eta: http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1024.htm

[laconicsax]

80. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were trying to change the subject.

How many people do you suppose Saddam gave an opportunity to change their minds?
THAT would be your totalitarian dictator.

The implication is that the Abrahamic god, through offering forgiveness, is not a totalitarian dictator. I wasn't really interested in wasting time pointing out the few good things for which that Saddam was responsible since it effectively change the subject. To address it briefly, the forgiveness offered is for absolution of a crime committed thousands of years ago. This is hardly a charitable act.

The link you provide is a nice piece of work. If anything, it supports my position. David committed an offense and God killed 70,000 men to teach him a lesson. David learns his lesson, offers a burnt sacrifice to atone, and God ends the killing.

The lesson David learned? Israel is God's property to do with as he pleases. There's also the lesson that to God, 70,000 lives are nothing compared to the transgressions of one man. It's completely wicked. If there are any moral lessons to be learned here, it is that God frequently shows the antithesis of moral behavior. It doesn't matter if the ancient Israelites didn't see it that way because excusing it on those terms suggests that nothing has changed since it was written, meaning that such behavior is still moral.

The god of the Old Testament is a wrathful, vindictive, murderous individual. Have you read the part of Exodus associated with Passover? The Pharaoh is portrayed as a villain who refuses to release the Jews from slavery until God kills every first-born child in Egypt. Completely glossed-over is that prior to every 'no' response by the Pharaoh, God 'hardens Pharaoh's heart' to induce that response. Hell, at the outset, God tells Moses that he is setting the Jews free so that they can worship God. Not to free them from slavery, but so that they will be free to worship the Abrahamic God. That they were in bondage is secondary.

This is the picture for thousands of years--God owns Israel and is eager to deal death for defiance. This is the very picture of a totalitarian state. If any real ancient king had so blithely committed atrocities on this scale, he would be widely regarded as the one most brutal tyrants the ancient world ever knew.

You (or Sal316) may argue that's a simplistic reading or 'bad theology,' but I doubt you'd be so dismissive you agreed with the conclusion.

[Why Syzygy]

81. In an earlier

reply I said "It is..", and certainly NOT a Democracy.

Mentioning Saddam was to show the contrast between an unforgiving, imperfect human dictator and an all powerful and forgiving God. It wasn't a change of topic at all.

Sal offered the historical context, which you refused to consider or take in context. (Unlike Sal, I am not a Theologian.) Somewhere in the beginning of the Mosaic people, someone made a willing decision to follow YAHWEH and become HIS people. That would be Abraham. He didn't have to do so. He left his homeland and ancestral family behind and struck out for parts unknown. He made promises, binding covenants, with God, and thereby committed all of his descendants to the same conditions. You may not like it or agree with his decision, but it was done. Just as the "Democratically" elected GW took some strategic actions that bound us all to a common fate, decisions have consequences.

When the PEOPLE demanded Kings rather than Judges to rule them, God obliged. Not a dictatorial thing to do on the whole. As the King, David took a special place in the working out of their destiny. You may not like it or agree with the rules, but that made him responsible for all of the Kingdom, and it was predicated on the desires of the people. I believe they understood this principle.

I appreciate being exposed to new ideas or ways of thinking, but you must admit that volunteering to discuss those concepts with someone who rejects the other's very basis is daunting. It may not do much for you, but it serves to sharpen my view. I fully anticipate your complete rejection of all of the foregoing; mainly because you have already shown yourself to be of the opinion that you are wiser than God.

I wonder if you had conceived of the idea yourself before Hitchens wrote God is Not Great.

By the same token, we can also say that Science is a totalitarian dictator. I happen to be of the belief that God designed those rules and standards that allow us to discover, measure and count the order of the Universe. From your viewpoint, Science may be the dictator that ordains the planets to move in the same paths year upon year, that governs cell division, that keeps strands of DNA intact so that species reproduce in kind, that holds us firm to the planet, etc. etc. Is Science to blame for all death? Or God?

[laconicsax]

84. I disagree with you on five points.

On God's wisdom:

Let us suppose that the Genesis 1-3 depicts true events.

God creates the universe and creates into it two people who have no concept of right and wrong. He places them in a garden with a tree the fruit of which will give them knowledge of right and wrong and tells them that if they eat that fruit, they will die. A serpent later tells them that they won't die and convinces them to eat the fruit. Without understanding the concept of right and wrong, they have no way of being able to evaluate the situation and determine the correct course of action and no way to know that the serpent shouldn't be trusted. Upon eating the fruit, they gain knowledge of right and wrong and learn that what they had done was wrong. God then punishes them for their ignorance and doesn't stop there--he makes it so that every human being is born inheriting that first sin.

What is God's wisdom in all of this? He created a situation where the two people eating the forbidden fruit was a very possible outcome. Wouldn't an all-knowing god be able to predict this? What's more, but he lied to them. He said that if they eat the fruit, they will die. They ate the fruit and lived for nearly 1000 years. The serpent is supposed to have tricked Eve into eating the fruit, but his trick consisted of telling her the truth that she wouldn't die from eating the fruit, but would learn about good and evil. God lied, the serpent told the truth, and Eve had no way of knowing that she shouldn't listen to the serpent (despite the fact that he was telling the truth).

Does this strike you as wisdom on God's part? It strikes me as the acts of a naive being, unable to predict the consequences of its actions. I would say that there are roughly 6 billion people capable of greater wisdom than this.

On forgiveness:

A forgiving entity does not make a person culpable for the actions of a distant ancestor and then give them the choice of asking for forgiveness or suffering an eternity of torture. Those are the actions of a petty tyrant.

Forgiveness is not holding that person responsible for someone else's behavior in the first place. It isn't making forgiveness conditional on a choice between life and death. Forgiveness is unconditional. I'm pretty sure that's generally agreed upon when it comes to Christians talking about the importance of forgiving others.

On a king's responsibility:

The issue isn't whether David, as king, was responsible for Israel. The issue is that Israel, not David, was punished for his actions.

When God came to David and told him that he could choose his punishment, David said, "I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man." (2 Samuel 24:14) 'God is merciful, I place myself in his hands.' God's merciful punishment was to kill 70,000. David saw that God's actions were unjust--"Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father's house." (2 Samuel 24:17)

David was prepared to take responsibility for his people and God was prepared to have David's people take responsibility instead.

To draw on your W analogy, suppose he is tried and convicted of war crimes. Should he be punished, or should we be punished? If you regard God's actions as just, then we should be imprisoned to make amends for W's crimes and W should have to pay a fine once he's learned his lesson.

On the historical context of this issue:

I reject the importance of the historical context in this matter because it doesn't change anything. A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of how it is entered into. Abraham brought his family into it, Moses brought the Israelites into it. Was Stalin less of a dictator because the Bolsheviks set up the government that he later led? Is Kim Jong Il less of a dictator because the post-WWII government decided on Soviet-style reforms? Was Nazi Germany less of a totalitarian state because the democratically elected German parliament intentionally set it up that way?

God is not less of a dictator because the arrangement was initially entered into willingly.

On science:

By your reasoning, literacy is a dictatorship for enabling us to read the Bible, which in turn tells us what God's dictatorial laws are. Science enables us to better understand the natural world, which in turn reveals its laws. Either way, the universe is indifferent to our existence.

I wonder why it is that theists routinely attack science. Why not math or spelling? Why not gym class or solfege?

Also, I haven't read Hitchens' book. I did get the idea from him after watching a discussion in which he refered to the Abrahamic god as a 'supernatural, celestial dictatorship.' I thought about what that meant and concluded that it was an accurate description. Months later, I listened to a 'god' debate between him and someone else where he stated the idea and his opponent, rather than refute, contorted into a pretzel trying to justify it as a good thing.

I'm sure that I have picked up elements of his wording much in the same way I'm sure you didn't come up with the 'god is forgiveness' meme completely independent of outside influence.

[Why Syzygy]

85. I didn't attack science.

I LIKE science.

I fully anticipate your complete rejection of all of the foregoing; mainly because you have already shown yourself to be of the opinion that you are wiser than God.

Since you're wiser than God, there is nowhere to go with this.

[laconicsax]

86. Your statement shows that you too are wiser than God.

Just to say.

[Why Syzygy]

87. huh.

You give him less credit than I thought.

[FiveGoodMen]

72. To make your comparison work

Hussein has to first declare that everyone -- EVERYONE -- is a condemned POS who's going to be tortured for as long as possible.

Then he provides a method for getting out of it.

And they thank him profusely.

[Why Syzygy]

75. I'll go with Sal's

method on this. Bad theology.

[FiveGoodMen]

76. I've read the book.

[FiveGoodMen]

44. "the OT provided for sacrifices to atone for a lot of the failings"

Including sacrifices women could make to atone for having their periods.

[Sal316]

43. Nice shallow theology.

Since you seem to be such an expert, I'm sure you'd already know that all 613 mitzvot in the OT were part of the Holiness code.

I'm sure you'd also know that the economic system given to Moses by God was, essentially, socialism with it's prohibitions against usury, and the wealth redistribution of the Jubilee years. This was to counter the idolatry of materialism. This way nobody would get rich at the expense of others, because every Jubilee of Jubilees (~49-50 years), property and all would be returned to its original owner.

You see, in the Old Testament, the words most often associated with the concept of holiness are varying forms of the word qadash, which means “be holy, removed from common use."

Additionally, the noun qôdesh, or “holiness,” is used 469 times in the Old Testament. The context in which it's used is “the essential nature of that which belongs to the sphere of the sacred and which is thus distinct from the common or profane.”

As far as the reasoning behind the law of Moses, Robert Mccune, in Ecclesiastical Separation puts it this way.

“Separatism was a way of life, not just a matter of food, seed, animals, and garments. Their relationship to God and the other nations was depicted in these graphic visual aids. What probably provoked scorn and ridicule from others was a badge of honor for them. The principle of separation was woven by God into their social structure, into the very warp and woof of everyday life.”

The whole point of being God's Chosen, was to be a society completely separate from the world. Period. God’s prohibitions that
required separation may range from touching an unclean object that made a person unclean until evening to those activities that required permanent separation by death. Yet, there was almost always a "way back" to God.

From McCabe: "God instituted the sacrificial system to provide sacrifices to atone for their sinful actions. Believing Israelites followed God’s sacrificial requirements. When an Israelite genuinely repented and his repentance was accompanied by the right sacrifice, God forgave his sins. Thus believing Israelites were forgiven sinners who followed God’s requirements set up in the sacrificial system to atone for sin. For an Israelite who rebelliously rejected the Mosaic Covenant, God made no provisions for sacrifice; and even if a covenant-rejecting Israelite would be in a position to offer a sacrifice, perhaps as a result of his position in the theocracy—as was the case with Saul—God did not accept his sacrifice (e.g., Ps 51). Those who defiantly rejected the Covenant were to be cut off from the covenant community without any hope of redemption, as was the case when Nadab and Abihu were permanently cut off in Lev 10."

So now you can take your shallow, literalist theology and go back to bashing Christians or whatever it is you do to make yourself feel smart. If it makes you feel uncomfortable to be in the same league as fundamentalist gay bashers who think the Bible condemns gays to death, Christian Identity folk who believe Jesus was a white man, and dominionists who believe America is the "New Israel", tough. They're all bad theology based solely on a superficial understanding of the words completely devoid of any context whatsoever.... just like your assumption is.

[laconicsax]

49. I never claimed to be an expert.

Also, historical context, however interesting, doesn't address the point.

In case you missed it, I'll provide it again in the hopes that you will address it rather than a related issue.

The relationship between the Abrahamic god and its followers resembles a totalitarian dictatorship.

If this issue doesn't make you uncomfortable, address the issue at hand. If you think the relationship doesn't resemble a totalitarian dictatorship, explain why.

If this issue makes you uncomfortable, as I suspect it does, feel free to continue to sidestep and resort to name-calling. If you want, you can start a new thread for the sole purpose of attacking non-believers.

[Sal316]

50. I did address it.

The historical context and purpose behind the Holiness Code IS the point.

It was your choice to ignore that and stick with your "God is a vindictive authoritarian dictator" meme.

It's your comfy "safe place", and I can respect that.

This issue, when looked at in it's totality, obviously makes you uncomfortable, as it contradicts your created reality.

You may go back to sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you" now.

[laconicsax]

55. If you consider that a refutation, who am I to argue.

You're the expert.

[Sal316]

57. I guess facts and context don't matter to you.

Congratulations, you've become this cartoon.

[laconicsax]

70. For the record, I don't wear glasses.

Oh, and you didn't address my point.

Providing the historical context under which a system was created doesn't refute it. You wrote a nice summary of the prefered isolationism of the Abrahamic god's chosen people. While it is relevant to why they created the laws, it doesn't refute my claim system. What you did was the equivalent of rebutting a claim that the Hawaii was the 50th state to join the US by saying that the British had explored and colonized Hawaii in the 19th century.

Either way, you've managed to consistently demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion. Since you already have all the answers, maybe a book and speaking tour would be a better use of your time than trying to enlighten believers and non-believers alike on an anonymous message board. If you want people to simper and accept your (possibly) educated opinion as indisputable fact then you should teach Sunday school classes to very young children.

[FiveGoodMen]

73. Ad hominem

Again

[Occam Bandage]

21. Well, now you're mixing up the Jewish and the Christian gods all willy-nilly.

The eternity of torture is the Christian god, who is a bit more lax on which rules you must follow, and also grants full remission for all sins by apologizing to a man who wears a robe and who cannot have sex. The God of the Hebrews of the Old Testament doesn't have the eternity of torture, but rather claims he will punish transgressions and reward obedience among his chosen people in this life, which could be disproven pretty easily.

[laconicsax]

25. They're the same god.

Last time I checked, Christianity's 'God the Father' is the same as the Jewish god of the Old Testament.

The son of the Abrahamic god, who in some circles is also the Abrahamic god, is supposed to have stated quite clearly that the Old Testament laws are binding forever. (Matt 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). I maintain that if Christians are beholden to the laws of the Mosaic covenant.

(I find it very amusing that some Christians point to this to justify their selective reading of the Old Testament laws while citing other passages to explain why the other Old Testament laws don't apply to them.)

Even if you treat the two interpretations (Judaism and Christianity) as independent gods, those gods are individually a totalitarian dictators.

For the Jewish interpretation, change "sentence you to an eternity of torture" to "punish you severely" and replace "up to and including thought-crime" with "or for even taking a census."

For the Christian interpretation, change the second sentence to "he has condemned you to an eternity of torture for something that is supposed to have happened 6000 years before you were born, but might let it pass if you beg his son for forgiveness."

His Love has no bounds.

[Why Syzygy]

28. Have you read

the Book of Enoch? I'll provide a link if you need one. You'll LOVE IT!

[laconicsax]

29. I'd appreciate that.

I only know of its history and a summary of its contents, but I've never had a chance to read it.

[Why Syzygy]

30. My pleasure.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/book_of_enoch.htm

Since you seem especially fond of speaking of the "punishments", I thought to mention it.

[laconicsax]

33. Thanks.

[Occam Bandage]

32. Sure, believers would say they are, and historically they certainly are identical,

but theologically they're different enough that I think a distinction is warranted. Some people would claim they believe Krishna and Jesus are manifestations of the same God, but I wouldn't claim they're the same when discussing them.

Anyway, when talking about the OT laws, the NT is absolutely fucking schizoid. Jesus claims repeatedly that the law has not been changed, but that he has come to "fulfill" the law (whatever that might mean), but then claims that breaking the law isn't always breaking the law, when asked what the greatest commandment in the law is makes up two (love God and love neighbor), and to top things off, in Acts 10 God specifically tells Peter that he has made nothing that is unclean (specifically food, and in context it is obvious he means people as well)--which does not just change the law, it detonates it.

I think the only remotely coherent reading of Christianity as regards Jewish law is that Jesus claims he did not come to change the law, because the law was always just "love God and love your neighbor," only in more words, and with many more rites tacked on to appease the blood debt of humanity. Jesus came to fulfill the debt, and in doing so, stripped off the old legal particulars, leaving only love of God and love of Man. (Of course, then we get into that 'God loved humanity and was mad at humanity forever so he made himself human so he could kill himself so he wouldn't be mad at humanity any more' nonsense, which is hopeless, but eh)

Of course, such a reading doesn't give people much room to control each other. Obviously no organization that truly believes that is not going to survive in competition with an organization that still flogs the Obey horse.

[Meshuga]

82. Yes, theologically they are completely different

And regarding Jesus speaking of Jewish Law, I am not even clear if he means the Law as in the written Torah (in the Hebrew Bible) or the twofold Pharisaic law from the time. The two are different and reflect values from different times.

The priestly sect that did not believe in "World to Come" and resurrection was the sect that followed the laws in the Pentateuch as "the law."

When it comes to theology, there is a lazy way (we all use) of saying it is all the same God with the nature we all like to give to this God. But if one studies the Hebrew Bible to begin with, the God in there has different and very conflicting natures depending on the source or version of the biblical story contained in scripture.

Rabbinical Judaism is the only form of Judaism and as tradition says, "Torah has 70 facets and each time you read it you will see a new one." The mystics go further in criticizing those who can only see the stories as fools. Rabbinical Judaism has to take power away from the written Torah in order to survive and keep the oral Law open ended. Those sects that attempted to make the law static disappeared eventually.

[nichomachus]

11. Partly, it's the Us vs. Them phenomenon

Nothing creates divisions like religion - and it has since the beginning of recorded history.

Group A always fostered the divisions between it and Group B and all the other groups, who were, ipso facto, wrong and to be avoided at all costs -- and killed if necessary.

People went to great lengths to distinguish themselves from the other groups. Some painted their faces different colors. Some were tattooed. Many dietary restrictions were designed to prevent adherents from mingling with non believers.

[Juche]

12. Personally, I think nationalism is the biggest threat now

The concept that people in one nation count, are good and deserve healthcare but people in other nations are irrelevant are not is a bigger threat in my view. The world wouldn't have stood by during Rwanda if it were happening domestically in their own countries. We wouldn't stand by while so many people die of poverty related diseases either.

Religion builds barriers between people, but I don't think it is a huge threat on that front anymore, except for a handful of battles in places like Israel, the US or Pakistan.

[nichomachus]

13. The two go hand in hand -- or used to

In the early days, religion and national identity went together. Your god or gods were national -- which is why, for example, the Romans had such problems with people who refused to worship the Roman gods. It was an offense against the state. It was an outright refusal to accept the authority of the state. It was treason.

[rrneck]

8. Organized religion

tends to bleed off resources for itself that would be better spent by individuals for their own spiritual development. Money is the most obvious example. The more pernicious evil is allowing what amounts to corporations to develop and distribute our spirituality based not on what we really need but on what will enhance their power and profit. The bigger they get, the more they feed off us.

The only spirituality we get from most religions these days is little more than a one size fits all piece of kitsch. No wonder we're shooting at each other.

[Occam Bandage]

20. That's not a very good conclusion to draw.

It might just as easily be that societies wracked with social problems are more likely to turn to religion; this study may well be an analogue to saying "people who have seen a doctor in the past month are more likely to be ill than people who have not, countering the view of pro-medicine advocates that doctors make people healthier."

It might be that both are driven by a third cause, such as an unjust economic system disempowering people; the lower classes might turn to religion for the same reasons they turn to drugs, sex, and violence. It might (most likely) be that social problems, religion, and the third cause are all constantly interacting with and reinforcing each other.

[heidler1]

24. IMO religion causes unjust economics, disempowering, class warfare and hate.

[Occam Bandage]

31. I think history doesn't back up that theory.

Economic and social movements are almost always a leading edge, and religion a trailing yet extraordinarily visible reaction. I don't doubt a link between religiosity and cultural illness/stagnation, but I do doubt the particular causative link you've proposed.

[anonymous171]

90. I thought Marx said it was the other way around. nt

[Meshuga]

27. I agree

Societies facing problems will turn to religion and the ultra religious thrive in bad economical conditions.

But while reading the article I could see the point of how some religious groups have a big role in creating problems we face and adding more fuel to the fire. For example, The powerful groups who are against abortion are also very vocal against sexual education and contraceptives that could significantly lower the number of abortions.

The US is smothered by active religious groups of this type and things don't get done because these groups can influence elections. Our president had to pass the religion test (just enough) to be elected. So I think the article and your conclusion are all relevant in one way or another.

[varkam]

34. While that is true, the study *does* seem to support the contention that...

religion is not necessary to have a "moral" society, as so many seem to claim.

[Occam Bandage]

35. That is certainly true as well. That position is garbage.

As is every other argument for the necessity of religion I have seen. Which is a strange argument, I think; whether it is useful for some people to believe in God is an entirely different question from whether God exists.

[heidler1]

66. I agree that religion is emotionally necessary for many people or it would not be so prevalent.

I do not believe it is necessary for a modern whole society. When a society is so dominated by a religion that that religion can dictate who wins elections you are likely going to end up with leaders like Reagan and Bush which we did. This very likely was not true before televangelists and mega churches.

[Occam Bandage]

78. I don't think it's necessary for anyone at all,

except to the extent that it is necessary for people to continue to believe whatever they believe. I think each religion is something of a symbiotic organism. It "reproduces" each time it gains an adherent through either childhood indoctrination or through adult conversion, and of course can mutate with each reproduction. I think it's subject to natural selection, and so evolves. It is natural and it is prevalent in human society, and I think that through natural selection it is molded to fit the societies in which it lives. I think that therefore much of what we ascribe to religion ought instead be ascribed to societies.

Fundamentalist religion has from time to time had enormous influence in American politics--usually following times of great societal change, since fundamentalism is at its core a mass cry against societal change. The current spasm of religious power (of which I hope we are seeing the decline) is nothing compared to the fundamentalist wave around the time of the Civil War. It was then, after all, that "in God we trust" got stamped on everything in sight.

[DeSwiss]

39. This cartoon seemed apropos.....

[Critters2]

62. The anthropologist Rene Girard says that religion was created

to systematize and ritualize the violence that otherwise was running rampant in early human culture. He says community stressors would build to the point of violence, a scapegoat would be chosen and attacked, and the violence seemed to move the community back to peaceful coexistence. As people observed this pattern, they began to set aside special times and victims for the violence that created peace. They then began to credit the gods or a god with having given them these ideas, probably because they did understand the violence as a bad thing and wanted to deflect responsibility for it.

According to this theory, to which I subscribe, btw, there would be more violence without organized religion. Hard to test, because all cultures now have religions, but Girard makes good arguments based on strong evidence. I recommend his book _The Scapegoat_.

[rd_kent]

83. Ya think?

If religion disappeared tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

[and-justice-for-all]

89. religion divides people...nt