Yes, and then again, no. It is one central, crucial concept in Christianity that I find abhorrent, anti-hominid, and an abomination unto MY lord, DNA-nature-reason. In words attributed to a supernormal spiritual advisor, the late Aleister Crowley wrote, "The word of sin is restriction." In his case, he may have had Victorian morality in mind, but he made a point. The Superman envisioned by Nietzsche (one of Crowley's gnostic saints, after all) is perhaps nothing but a rehashing of Taoism's Superior Man (Crowley was a Taoist as well) "worships" reason and fact over superstition and myth. But both men excoriated Christian morality. Once one accepts dogma as truth, one capitulates to antiquated, presentist impositions of restriction -- strictures. But the problem with "sin" does not end there.
Sin is the child of guilt. I write on learning that Matthew Warren, son of Rick, has died of his own hand. The Warren camp is closing ranks, telling the press that his son, Matthew, died of mental illness. The word tossed around is "depression," in itself ridiculous because depressed people don't ordinarily commit suicide, while seriously, chronically depressed people are hard to distinguish from bipolar syndrome, and a minimum of six months is required before any clinical psychiatrist worth her salt pronounces the specific character of the mental illness. The Warrens have told us nothing. Frankly, I should imagine that poor Matthew simply caved under the heavy burden of so much guilt. He could never measure up to Rick. That was a monumental task. Herculean. Sisyphian. But the Matthew we are not being told about probably saw the gargantuan hypocrisy of Rick Warren and could no longer tolerate it.
"Sin" presumes dogmatic wrong. It makes no room soever for individual drives and essential orientations. One is automatically a sinner for eating pork or shellfish; one must rest on the seventh day as God did and go to church; one must not go in public without a burka. The list is endless and, as Yogi might say, it never ceases. Mosheh's code, the Decalogue, is allowed on courthouse grounds because it is not a statement of Judeo-Christian morality but an illustration of the basis of almost all Western law, the principles on which our own American law was founded. And it is, indeed! All of our law, with codified exceptions, is based on much of the Top Ten shalt not's. People revile Crowley partly because of his personal habits and behavior, but also partially because they misunderstand his message. He was full aware that his "Holy Guardian Angel" was in reality his moral compass, his subconscious mind: he had no right not to become a heroin-addicted debauchee. This was his "True Will" (i.e. his personal essence, the "spirit" understood by Sir Richard Burton when he wrote, "He noblest lives and dies who keeps his self-made laws").
Free-thinkers and atheists have muchin common with all three men. Facing reality, the atheist has no bogey man to prick him with a fork, nor supernormal "lord" to reign him in when he errs, and when he fails, the atheist has no God to apologize to, certainly not to "His" "representatives on earth," The Priesthood, purveyors of poppycock and champions of confidence games played by wolves in sheeps' clothing preying on the sheep. These cowards sell imaginary "remission" and "God's" forgiveness, thriving on human weakness and guilt. The Priesthood is a cabal of confidence men who sell myth and superstition as if it were truth, then de-shekel the suckers to build McMansions with air conditioned dog houses. (Now that the televangelist scandals appear to be abating, the lifestyles of the rich and famous megachurchmen are going to be the next wave.)
Ba-da-bing, James ... utterly, absolutely, ON THE NOSE.
This is where we hit our snag when we present our case to believers. Most of them take great offense to the implication that they have been indoctrinated. People generally want to think of themselves as skeptics and rationalists who know a con when they see it. They generally are. But its the fact that they don't equivocate religion with an elaborate con that they make special pleading fallacies (that's not my god) and so forth. I've tried using analogies in this situation before and it has been effective on occasion. Also, and this may be a bit off topic, but I don't understand how anyone could justify using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. Indoctrination is the likely cause, but I look forward to your comments.
"I see all the trees, but where the F*** is the forest?!?"
That is their problem, Aaron: they've been so immersed in the bullshit that they have no idea that they're in it. Most of them have been scared out of thinking outside of the box. Others have had rote arguments which supposedly respond to the case we make, and those are typically as vacuous as the dogma they adhere to.
Personally, I've done my bit with arguing with people online about the whole belief vs. atheism business, and I'm tired of it to the point where, unless someone wants to be particularly persistent, I won't waste my time. In the real world, I will be polite with the JWs who come to my door, but their religion will get positively NO RHYTHM with me, nor will it get any respect, as it has earned none.
And the next time some JW says that we're of two different schools of thought, my answer will be, "You're right. I base where I stand on facts in evidence and proven, demonstrable theory. You base yours on myths out of a 2,000-year-old book which has neither corroboration nor second source, which contradicts itself too often to be credible, and is more violent than the craziest piece of celluloid Sam Peckinpah ever shot. If you want to live in the first century, be my guest. Do not presume for one instant that I want to forsake the 21st century for that horror."
It's time they learned that they are WRONG.
Me, too, but we go on preaching to the choir. You should pardon the expression.
Your "off topic" next to last line illustrates the circular logic of trying to prove the existence of God with reference to the Buy Bull, which believers always claim to be proof of the existence of the deity. "I know God exists because the Bible tells me so." (Yes, and that is like saying Jesus told you so. In fact, let's write a song about Jesus loving us, for the Bible tells us so.)
I understand what you're saying completely. I get tired of the usual back and forth with believers too. I find myself arguing in the defensive stance 90% of the time ( I don't generally like confrontation) but when these arguments are made they need to be challenged. I think it would be immoral if we didn't. That however is a place where atheists can and should be in their element when debating theists. Familiarity with the Bible (and the atrocities within) are a powerful weapon against their indoctrination.
I believe that oftentimes believers think that they have the morality card in their back pocket ready to play it like a foul at a soccer game. But when one points out that the Abrahamic God not only condones but sanctions the practice of slavery, slaughters entire cities full of people, has a very peculiar idea of what righteousness is (see the story of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah where two angels are about to be raped and he decides it would be better to let his two daughters be raped instead of dying like a man the way any real father would), the idea of this being's benevolence comes into question. This is especially potent in mixed company where they would have either admit that these things are wrong and their god isn't great, or say that slavery is OKAY in public.
You may disagree friends, but that's just how I feel about it.
Smart man, your Grandpa. It's kind of scary to think about what they believe their god does for them, too. Yeesh...
My friends are VISIBLE ... ALL of them. An invisible friend who may or may not be there and may or may not help based on some inexplicable whim is of no interest or use to me. My REAL friends are infinitely more reliable, more enjoyable in good times and more support in the bad ones.
Why should I bother with an invisible friend?
Yes, I agree, by all means!
Religion may change, Brandi, but typically only when it HAS to. It changes when it gets it's nose rubbed in its own shit, when it is so demonstrably wrong that even it has to acknowledge its own screw-up. Otherwise, it still wants to treat itself and its dogma as absolute and unwavering, which is pretty amusing to think about. "Conditionally absolute" - what a concept!
I remember when LEDs were first invented and what a neat concept they were, and I wondered how long it would be before I saw them used in something. Then I was STUNNED to see them showing up in everything from calculators to instrument displays to pilot lights not six months later. Science discovered something, engineering took it and applied it and there it was in the field for all to use and enjoy.
Four centuries ago, Galileo showed decisively that not EVERYTHING orbits the Earth, and that indeed, the heliocentric model of the solar system not only was far simpler than the epicycles which described the movement of planets under the geocentric model, but that it was THE model. It took until the Wotyla's papacy for the church to come to terms with that not-so-little factoid, and that is one among too many to count.
Religion doesn't want to change. Religion wants to insist that it is RIGHT, and having to change means it must admit that in some aspect it is WRONG. Of course it is, considering that religion is based so much in prevarication, mendacity and outright LIES. Because of that, eventually, religion will die. The problem remains PEOPLE, people who are afraid, afraid of death, and all the bullshit taught to them by other scared people. So long as religion can keep people afraid, it will stand.
But as ol' Zimmerman once sang, "Oh, the times, they are a changin'..."
Outstanding! May I repost?
Yes, Religion NEEDS ITS LIES. To stay in business it has to say its lies are knowledge.
Stuart Firestein titled his book well: Ignorance: How It Drives Science.