Leading Bible Scholar, Philip Jenkins, Reveals the Bloody Truth About the Bible in New Book

[rug]

San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) October 25, 2011

In the Bible, Jesus states, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

The holy book is full of such dark and violent verses. Yet the Western world clings to a dangerous perception: while the Qur'an teaches warfare, the Bible's message is one of love and charity. In his new book Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses (HarperOne; November 2011; $26.99; Hardcover), renowned scholar Philip Jenkins offers a fearless examination of the dark and violent verses of the Bible and a call to read them anew in pursuit of a richer, more honest faith.

Jenkins writes, "Many Westerners consider Islam to be a kind of dark shadow of their own faith, with the words of the Qur'an standing in vicious contrast to the scriptures they themselves cherish." The September 11th attack and the militant way in which some Muslims interpret the concept of jihad are cited as examples of the inherently violent nature of Islam.

However, fanaticism is no more hardwired in Islam than in Christianity. In fact, in many eras, Christianity has initiated more violence and bloodshed than any other religious tradition-and could again, under the right conditions, Jenkins warns.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/25/prweb8900789.DTL

Looks interesting.

[ret5hd]

1. Those dark and violent verses are the underpinnings of the religious right.

those are the verses taught in our military academys, "bible" churches, and private grade schools.

[jwirr]

2. When ever you site someone as a leading Bible scholar you always

have to remember that on denominations bible scholar is another denominations heretic.

[dtexdem]

3. It all depends on where you site them when you cite them.

And how others will sight them. ;-)

[nilram]

45. Personally, if I sight them differently from where I site them

then I know they've moved -- and that's a violation, in my book, so I'll cite them. See?

[Thats my opinion]

4. Phillip Jenkins

Is a world known scholar. His main work is at Penn State Univ., but is widely read elsewhere. His latest book does indicate that the texts of Islam are less violent than much of the Old Testament. What he is trying to ward off is the notion that Islam is a dangerous radical departure from progressive religion. He makes the case well. All who take the Old Testament seriously admit that there are many places, particularly in the earlier history, that are narrow, violent and unappealing. But then came the prophets. Much of the OT is a story about a tribal and then a national enterprise. It is a nationalistic more than it is a religious recitation. But as we are often correctly told--we must take the bitter with the sweet.

[Goblinmonger]

5. Serious theological question, not snark. (surprised?)

First, if I haven't told you, I have a very strong Catholic background. Just saying so you don't go first grade on me in the response.

I see this desire to dismiss the OT by many liberal Christians and I understand the motive because there is some nasty shit in there. But, if you dismiss the Old Testament, you dismiss that which Jesus came to fulfill. If you are going to let go of the tribal stuff, then don't you have to let go of the prophecy, too, which puts a significant dent on the son of god claims.

Additionally, if you dismiss the OT, then you are dismissing a lot of the moral code upon which Christianity rests (i.e. 10 commandments) and which many Christians (including progressive ones) often rely. I don't think most people that want to just toss off the OT realize the overall implications for that.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

10. Well, for example, the notion that morality is biblically based is easy to disprove.

Richard Dawkins has an elegant argument -- Person A says, "without the Bible there can be no morality." Person B says, "so you mean we should have slavery, genocide, subjugation of women, stoning our children for disobedience?" Person A says, "oh, no, we leave out those parts, but we keep the good parts." And Person B wraps it up by saying, "How do you know which parts are good and which are bad? There must be some criteria outside the Bible that tells you which parts of the Bible are good. And if that's true, why do we need the Bible to tell us what is good, when we can just rely on those criteria?"

My own personal belief is that much of religion in general is a house of cards, and once your reason takes away even a bit, then the implications make it all tumble. But rest assured that morality remains intact even in the rubble.

[Thats my opinion]

17. Person A is flatly wrong.

Dawkins, who believes in evolution is unwilling to realize that there is evolution in religious thought, and keeps wanting to stuff believers back into some old historic attic.

I can't think of a single intellectual option where it isn't essential to view history, tradition, science, and every other discipline with discernment in which we parse it, taking the good and leaving out other parts. Can you? Or do you take as absolutist whatever discipline in which you are involved?

In whatever you do now I bet you take away a few of the old cards without the whole thing tumbling. It is the only intellectual way to live and work--unless you are a fundamentalist of some sort.

[laconicsax]

26. You ARE person A!

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

51. It is so amazing that he truly cannot see his hypocrisy, or that he willfully ignores it.

It's stupefying.

[humblebum]

52. Tag team atheism. Classic! Yes, you have indeed been stupified. nt

[cleanhippie]

60. Poe

[humblebum]

61. Staying true to form I see. nt

[Critters2]

14. Rene' Girard, also a Catholic, calls the OT a "text in travail",

a book arguing with itself. He points out places where the violence may be blamed on YHWH or Elohim, but is clearly carried out by humans (Joshua 7, for instance). It's a hard thesis to describe in a short post, but basically he sees much of the OT violence as scapegoating for the purpose of creating communal unity, blamed on God as a ways of supporting or "sacralizing" human violence. His work has freed me to recognize the violence, while not blaming it on the faith. Girard says violence is part of all human communities, of all faiths. He does believe that Jesus' emphases on forgivenss and generosity offer a way out of violence.

[Thats my opinion]

16. Nobody is talking about dismissing the OT.

What we are saying is that there are two very definite streams at work here. One is a tribal history--very much like other tribal histories. The other is a slowly developing ethical system, which doesn't begin much before the 8th century prophets. It is an evolutionary development much like other evidences of social evolution.

Jesus was faced with these two streams. He did not want to take an exclusive position so he said he came to fulfill the law--which means to adopt it to a new cultural experience. Nevertheless he finally took sides when in he declared his own mission in the words of Isaiah. (Luke 3:16-30) The conservative elders of the synagogue were scandalized that this was his position. Having announced the nature of his ministry, he followed it to the end--even while he maintained the nature of his heritage as a child of Abraham. It was an exercise in taking a clear position while walking along Occam's razor. In this case the simpler alternative--the evolution of the tradition--is the simplist answer.

[okasha]

70. Why would you have to let go of the prophecy

if you let go of the national epic in the OT? The books were written by different people, at different times and express very different world views?

By your logic, if you "let go" of Gone with the Wind, then you have to "let go" of Bruce Catton, too. I disagree.

[dmallind]

6. While the NT is less warlike, its violence is still deep and dark

If anything a bit moreso in one very important way. The Amelekites et al were slaughtered, raped, enslaved and subjugated in the OT, but they simply were mistreated and died for standing against God and his chosen. In the NT we have some but less martial violence (quite probably because these stories originated at a time when the Jews were the victims of oppression themselves not perpetrators), but we are threatened with eternal torture for standing against them. That a minority of more liberal and sophisticated Christians have moved away from the belief in the last few decades does not remove it from the majority, from scripture, or from the words of Jesus.

[Thats my opinion]

18. Please cite the warlike messages of Jesus nt

[Humanist_Activist]

20. One is cited in the OP, others include breaking up families, threat of eternal hellfire...

for those who don't follow Jesus, etc.

[dmallind]

31. You're joking, right?

For a start I pointed toward the damnation message, but one warlike message is in the OP!

[Leontius]

23. If I tell you that wearing a blindfold and earplugs while running

back and forth in a busy street can get you killed where is the violence? If I explain that my message will cause even those you hold dearest and closest to reject you if you accept it where is the violence? Is violent imagery used, yes it is but is it used as a call to actions or as a warning of its danger and possibility? The two are quite different in their intent and effect.

[dmallind]

29. If you tell me though that you made me and will destroy me forever in agony for my inbuilt failings

There is a hellish - literally - amount of violence. If God did not make me he is not the Creator. If he made me not knowing my eternal destination he is ignorant of his own work. If he knew and made me to fry for a trillion aeons in return for doing what he knew I would do for a few decades, then he is a sadistic monster AND an incompetent buffoon.

[humblebum]

7. Any history of the ancient world is equally as violent as the OT

or many Islamic writings. This indicates that these ancient texts are quite representative of the times in which they were written, or of those times about which they were written. They represent humanity, the roots of us all. We also know that it does not take religion to inspire or to carry out such mass violence.

[Critters2]

15. Well said. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Of course they were, so were the protrayal of their gods, being reflections of themselves...

the issue is, why is Yahweh, El, or however you want to call him, different from, for example, Marduk or Zeus?

[humblebum]

22. Any answer would be purely hypothetical. According to scripture,

the various cultures that inhabited the ancient world came from common ancestry and their religious beliefs also evolved orally, and sometimes written, over time from those same common ancestors. And that would also explain the similarities between the religious beliefs.

[Humanist_Activist]

28. Well, the deities of scripture were borrowed from the Canaanite pantheon...

its actually chronicled in scripture and in addition it also shows the slow transition, probably from 600 B.C.E to 200 B.C.E. from polytheism to monotheism, with El/Yahweh taking up the attributes of the other gods in the pantheon. It was even described as a type of supernatural war in scripture. This, more or less, corresponds to the sacking of Jerusalem by Babylon, pantheons of the time, and gods as well, were tied to a place, to particular nations and cities, Yahweh/El was a god of Jerusalem, and so when it was sacked, his ass was kicked by Babylonian gods, the Hebrews who were exiled basically rewrote the scriptures they already had to claim that Yahweh wasn't just God of Jerusalem or Israel, but of the entire universe.

This was done because, being removed from the lands of their god, these people also lost their opportunity to worship him, so they basically placed him above all other gods, eventually to the point where, in their religious beliefs, those gods no longer existed.

The interesting thing is that archeological evidence points to this, and so does the Bible itself, which has passages mentioning other gods, and acknowledging their existence. As with any attempt to rewrite history for some particular reason, its generally incomplete and imperfect. Yahweh/El of the Bible was the head of a pantheon that included many other gods, his consort Asherah and their many children.

The ancient Hebrews were near eastern culture and just like all the others in the area, they shared many things in common with their neighbors, adapted myths, gods, folklore, etc. Nothing was really unique in there religion at the time, it was polytheistic, like any other.

[humblebum]

30. And that differs from what I said how?

You said that the Bible has "passages mentioning other gods, and acknowledging their existence" - their existence as cultural gods, but not as living gods. The Bible does certainly recognize other spiritual entities that exist, but only one GOD - capital G, and that's an important distinction.

[darkstar3]

33. Not true.

The Bible makes specific mention of the "god" you worship as that of Abraham, of Israel. The other gods are often referred to as the gods of other people. Also, the first commandment doesn't say "Thou shalt not worship false gods," it says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The Bible acknowledges these other gods on the same level as yours, and simply says that your god is jealous and will punish you for worshipping any of the others.

[humblebum]

34. Absolutely true. Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as one God.

And I never said that they did not mention other cultural "gods", but the Bible considers them nothing more than wood and stone. Those are the ones not to be worshiped. There several cultural gods mentioned - Zeus, Hermes, Bale, Marduk, etc., but none is recognized as a living being.

[darkstar3]

35. Then why the treatment of them in exactly the same way and context as your own god?

Why the wording of the first commandment? All you've done is restate your hypothesis as supporting fact. You have not answered the points.

[humblebum]

36. That answers perfectly the First Commandment. How does it not?

"No other gods" does not necessarily mean living gods. They are even referred to as gods of wood and stone. There were times when Israel did worship gods such as bale or ba'al, and many others, but eventually always came back to monotheism.

[darkstar3]

38. There is no reference to wood and stone in the first commandment.

"I am the LORD your god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." It's not just talking about gods like Ba'al, it's talking also about the gods worshipped by peoples, like the Canaanites and the Midianites. The Bible treats all of them as if they are held in equal station and power, but makes a point of saying that your god will punish you for worshipping any others.

Serious biblical scholars have known about this pantheism problem for generations, and all you're doing is ignoring it through special pleading. Your claim that they're not "living gods" and therefore your god is set apart is a fabrication of your own making.

[humblebum]

40. Well you're right, wood and stone are not mentioned in the first Commandment.

Never said they were. And nowhere in the bible does it mention that these other gods are living beings, nor does scripture recognize them as equal to the God of Abraham. Also, I never said that Ba'al was the only other god spoken about. I mentioned some of the other cultural gods. It's clear that you are not interested in an intelectual debate. You are resorting purposely misquoting me.

"Your claim that they're not "living gods" and therefore your god is set apart is a fabrication of your own making." - that is the message of the entire Bible, like it or not. You are attempt to make it say something that it does not say.

Below are the exact phrases.
Deu 4:35 You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other
Deu 4:39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other
1Ki 8:60 so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other
Isa 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."
Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,
Isa 45:6 so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other
Isa 45:14 This is what the LORD says: "The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush, and those tall Sabeans--they will come over to you and will be yours; they will trudge behind you, coming over to you in chains. They will bow down before you and plead with you, saying, 'Surely God is with you, and there is no other; there is no other god.'"
Isa 45:18 For this is what the LORD says--he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited--he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other
Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other

And about "wood and stone":

Deu 4:28 There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell.
Deu 28:36 The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone
Deu 28:64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods--gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.
Deu 29:17 You saw among them their detestable images and idols of wood and stone, of silver and gold.
2Ki 19:18 They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by men's hands.
Isa 37:19 They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by human hands.
Eze 20:32 "'You say, "We want to be like the nations, like the peoples of the world, who serve wood and stone." But what you have in mind will never happen.

[darkstar3]

41. Sure reads to me like it's a book about eliminating competition.

I don't see any difference between the way the Israeli god is mentioned and the way other gods are mentioned. I've read the book and I can tell you that it certainly doesn't go out of its way to separate the various gods based on substance or existence. Rather, it acknowledges their existence and the worship given to them, then asserts that the Israeli god is the only one that should be worshipped. The verses you pull here are examples of that very phenomenon, and the repetition only goes to prove my point.

[humblebum]

42. Then you never "read" the book. I have. What you claim is totally

debunked by those verses, and yet you persist. You have made no clear points. Only idle rambling.

[darkstar3]

43. "debunked by those verses"?

Firstly, you edited the post to add the wood and stone stuff. Secondly, it doesn't do a thing because it doesn't change the way the Bible handles the gods of other people like the Canaanites and others who were ordered exterminated by your god. Thirdly, if you think the phrase "there is no other" means that the bible doesn't acknowledge the existence and worship of other gods, you're deluding yourself. You must really fall for cheap advertising.

But since you've resorted to calling my posts "idle rambling", you've devolved to fallacy and there's nothing left to do here.

[humblebum]

44. "edited the post to add the wood and stone stuff." Yep.

You are right. Changes nothing. perfectly legal. I'm sorry you feel so threatened, but you have been thoroughly debunked even without the verses concerning wood and stone.

I might be misunderstanding those few verses and the several others I did not reference. But my own interpretation of the words, "there is no other" means that "there is no other."

But of course, I guess one could technically say that "wood" is a living thing (as long as it is still attached to a tree). So golly gosh! Ya got me there.

However, there is one mention of another "god" that lives. 2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to the "god of this world" as Satan.

[Humanist_Activist]

49. Thats funny, the God of Abraham was El Shaddai, the God of the other two Yaweh...

It was only through later editing that those two distinct gods were merged.

[humblebum]

50. Hardly. Different names for one God with many attributes.

El Shaddai is Yahweh.

There is no doubt that there were tribes that were polytheists. Scripture is replete with examples of that and the people of Israel were polytheists at points in time, but Judaism is monotheistic with many names for a single diety. To say that "my god" comes from a pagan pantheon, is pure speculation. Hypothetical.

[Humanist_Activist]

53. Then where did he come from, and to claim this is speculation is false...

Obviously the Yawhist sect won out, and re-edited scripture to reflect this, doesn't change the fact that El/Yahweh was a member and indeed leader of a pantheon of gods, if you admit that El Shaddai is Yahweh, then Yahweh/El was head of the Canaanite pantheon, and an offshoot of that cultural group most likely formed what eventually became Judaism. At first it developed from henotheist to eventually monotheistic, but this is much more recent than many suppose, approximately around 200 B.C.E.

[humblebum]

55. Purely hypothetical. That is not to say that there were not polytheists living

among the Jews, that is well documented. But you have now moved into a murky area in which there is absolutely no objective evidence. It is not unusual to find a similar name or names for different dieties in neighboring groups. However, Judahism, itself, is a monotheistic religion with one God and many names for that singular diety.

Your argument is purely hypothetical and barely rising to that level, to say the least.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. So basically you are saying that Judaism developed in a vacuum?

That it is unlike every other religion in the world, and was above influence from its neighbors?

[humblebum]

57. Where did I ever say that or even suggest it? But, it was certainly

an established monotheism long before 200 BCE. We know that polytheistic religions existed among the people of the Middle East long after 200 BCE simply by examining Islamic history. Religions have always influenced other religions. That takes nothing away from the fact that Judahism is a monotheism.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. Where is the evidence for this long established monotheism? And can you give an estimated date?

Remember, I said that the monotheism developed slowly from about 600 BCE(since the sacking of Jerusalem) to about 200 BCE.

[humblebum]

59. You seem to be stating nothing but equivocalities. The Bible itself

shows that monotheism developed slowly, and that the monotheistic element existed at least as far back as 600 BCE. Before Jerusalem fell in 586, we are certainly told that monotheism had been abandoned by many or most of the residents in the Southern kingdom. The farther back one goes, the more ambiguities surface.

[Humanist_Activist]

48. Your god was the head of a pagan pantheon, to use modern terminology...

You must remember that much of the old testament was written when the ancient Hebrews were polytheistic, hence some of the contradictions in the Bible and puzzling stories in the Bible.

An example would be Exodus, when the Hebrews settled in the promised land, they stopped worshipping Yahweh, a war God, to worship Ba'al and Asherah, God of storms and Goddess of fertility. Why would they abandon the, as you put it "One God with a capital G"?

[dmallind]

32. Yes - and none should be held up as the inspired word of a perfect being either

For that among many reasons.

[struggle4progress]

8. "... Jenkins is a contributing editor for The American Conservative ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/

According to Wikipedia, Jenkins switched from Catholic to Episcopalian; perhaps the following quote, from one of his articles on a Cato Institute website, sheds some light on that:

"... So much of modern American liberalism has its roots in the Catholic social justice tradition, exemplified in the labor movement, and later in movements for peace and human rights ..."
The Stillborn Modernization
by Philip Jenkins
Reaction Essay
October 12th, 2007
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/10/12/philip-jenkins/the-stillborn-modernization/

[rug]

9. He also writes for "First Things", which is hardly a conservate journal.

[humblebum]

11. Switching from Catholic to Episcopalian probably indicates a movement

to a more liberal attitude toward religion.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Or a problem with the supremacy of the pope.

Or a problem with interpretations of Mary. Or a problem with transubstantiation. Or a host of other problems. It wouldn't be hard to go from liberal Catholic to conservative Episcopalian.

[humblebum]

13. They don't call Episcopalian "Catholic light" for nothing. nt

[Goblinmonger]

24. If I weren't an atheist,

I would be an Episcopalian. I like that church.

[NMMNG]

21. This isn't news to many of us

We're just shouted down whenever we mention it.

[Thats my opinion]

25. Shouted down?

if you want to see what REAL shouted down is like, justs go back and read the diatribes against religious people on good old r/t.

[NMMNG]

27. You would know about diatribes

Perhaps you'd like to have the forum closed down so you won't have to deal with mean old atheists anymore?

[Thats my opinion]

37. I firmly believe there can be

creative and positive conversations across religion lines and between religious lines and non-religious lines. But we rarely get that on r/t. And i think you know full well why. Dealing with "mean old atheists" is not productive. Dealing with thoughtful rational atheists who are willing to talk and listen is very productive. That is what I'm looking for. What are your goals?

[darkstar3]

39. So you'll only debate with the "house atheists"?

Oh I know, I know, "you're on ignore and I'm far too proud of that fact." :eyes:

[trotsky]

46. I firmly believe there can be those conversations too.

Telling atheists that they can't be moral without religious people around to teach them is a tough way to start one off, though.

[NMMNG]

47. You want to deal with thoughtful, rational atheists

Where are the thoughtful, rational theists?

Really, you continually post essays impugning anybody who doesn't ascribe to religion, particularly your religion. Then you pretend it's all the fault of the atheists that you can't get any rational, thoughtful discussion.

[Thats my opinion]

54. No sir!

Then you have not read what I write. I do not impugn those who don't subscribe to religion. In fact i appreciate many who are very opposed to what I say. There are good conversations in which I have learned many things. I do write off those who just want to be nasty, rude and whose every post is a snarky attack. I no longer even see many of them. So go back and read what I have written. I affirm different points of view, particularly those thoughtful atheists who respond.

[laconicsax]

62. Look, Charles...

The non-believers on this forum are repeatedly telling you how your 'innocuous' statements DO impugn those who don't subscribe to religion and rather than listening and carefully considering that they may be right, you say, "you didn't read what I wrote."

We do read what you write; it says more than you're willing to admit.

[NMMNG]

63. You have repeatedly impugned people who are non-religious

You've been told this each and every time you've done it. Each time you complain that you were misunderstood, or that the person didn't read your piece fully/well enough. You choose to pretend the problem is atheists when it's your own attitude and writing. When you're a hammer everything is a nail. You're a hardcore theologist, and you can't see anything without applying your faith to it. You can't see the world, or even a single event (such as OWS) without using your faith-colored-lens to translate it. Perhaps that's why you don't see how you're denigrating non-religious people with every post you make.

[Thats my opinion]

64. i realized that on r/t there are those who would be happier

if there was no religion, and it had no part in anything. Hating all religious references they spend lots of time saying this on r/t. So when someone who comes along who sees religion as part of life, they (you) get your hair on end. There is a religious factor in ethics. There is areligious factor in the demonstrations.

I just have to chuckle that you are critical of someone on RELIGION AND THEOLOGY who keeps bringing up religion. Of course my posts are about the relationship between religion and the rest of life. That is why I am posting here and not on stamp collecting or something. If non-religious people don't want religion in anyone else's posts, and are offended by the very mention, they had better go where religion is not in the title.

[cleanhippie]

65. You were just given the EXACT reason why you are not getting the conversation you want...

and instead of acknowledging what is being said to you, you CONTINUE to tell us that it's not you, that its us.


Charles, its you. You ARE the barrier to the thoughtful conversation you claim to want to have. You bust in here on a high horse and tell everyone "You are doing it wrong! Do it my way!" and then wonder why no one wants to listen to you.


Wake up and smell the coffee, brother, what YOU are doing is turning away the very people you claim to want to have a conversation with.

Its YOU, Charles. You. No matter how much you think we are all wrong, its YOU who is creating the obstacle.

Why are you unable to see and accept that?

Jeesh!

[NMMNG]

67. Stop banging your head against that wall

It's obviously impervious to reason.

[laconicsax]

66. We don't "hate religion" nor are we "offended" by the mention of it.

That's a ridiculous straw man of the legitimate grievances associated with your posts.

You're showing yourself to be one of the nastiest posters I've seen by not merely refusing to acknowledge that the content and meaning of your words are offensive, but by insisting that those offended are little better than petulant little children who just aren't getting their way.

Your responses on this issue are identical to those of "you just hate sex" to a feminist commenting on the rank objectification of women in society.

I've said before, and I still believe that you're a decent person who is sincere in their desire to engage in "thoughtful discussion," but it's becoming increasingly apparent that the main obstacle is your own attitude.

[NMMNG]

68. Nice straw man

But again you're wrong.

There is a religious factor in ethics.

But you repeatedly try to pretend religion owns ethics. All religion does is co-opt ethics and try to give a veneer of superiority to them. Things done in the name of a god or one's "deeply held religious beliefs" are considered sacrosanct, no matter how vile they may be. If anybody questions or challenges them they're engaging in "religious persecution". A statement of "Killing is wrong" can be challenged and discussed. A statement of "My god/religion says killing is wrong" is not allowed to be questioned or challenged without claims that the person is "attacking" the believer.

Then people who don't use religion as a basis for their ethics (even though they may have an essentially identical ethical framework) are considered morally suspect, untrustworthy, dangerous. At best there are accusations that they "got their morals from religion and are just denying it". At worst they're denounced as enemies of moral, righteous religious people.

Even worse, religion can be used to justify clearly immoral acts. How many unscrupulous acts and even atrocities have been justified by people claiming they were acting "in the name of God"? Fake clinics are set up to lie to pregnant women and bully them out of having abortions. Gay people are abused in religious "reparative therapy" programs. Abortion clinics and gay bars are bombed. "Religious convictions" are used to deny medical treatment to women and LGBT people. The list goes on and on.


Of course my posts are about the relationship between religion and the rest of life.

The problem is that you're finding relationships where they don't exist. You're not only creating them out of whole cloth, you're trying to co-opt things you like on behalf of religion. OWS may have some religious people participating but it is not a religious movement. It's about people denouncing corporate greed. Nonetheless you, like so many before you, tried to use religion to co-opt it. You'd take a box of tissues and try to make it a religious object by citing the way tissues dry people's tears, then comparing that to the way Mary Magdalene dried Jesus' feet with her hair.

Atheists don't care about religion in everyday life. They do object to people trying to infuse it into everything, everywhere.

[cleanhippie]

69. ^^^Thatsmyopinion, HERE is the conversation you asked for! ^^^ Look at the responses, HERE IT IS!

And yet, you run away from these responses and start a new topic complaining you cannot get anyone to engage you on a serious level.

What the fuck, man?