Jesus: All About Lies
30Sep. 09
Australian readers may have noted the media blitz by the Christians for their new campaign, Jesus: All About Life.
This has provoked a few responses
- Those in charge of the campaign failed to purchase www.jesusallaboutlife.com, they just use the .au version. This alternate site is called Jesus: All about Lies and says:
Jesus. All About Lies is an about-time media campaign developed by people who use reason. It aims to motivate people to use reason, rather than rely solely on institutions historically built on power, for the basis of their morals. We are aiming to run outreach events for the general public which are promoted by thinking people and through the jesusallaboutlies.com website.
- I wrote a song called All About Life that draws on the language of addiction to describe religion.
Tags: atheism, Christianity, Frozen Summers, music, Religion
December 16th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
If you have such a low opinion of us here Joanna (after we gave you a voice and an opportunity to state your case) then you can leave.
We don’t have to agree with your arguments. You stated arguments, yes, but just because you think they are good doesn’t mean we do. If you can’t accept that why are you here?
Obviously your level of evidence is lower than ours, you accept things and that is your choice, we choose not to accept thing son what we think is poor evidence.
And on another point, why not got comment on a post that isn’t to do with Jesus. Stop being a trolling apologist.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
“the simple fact that if you don’t stretch before exercise, you might well injure yourself?“
Except you don’t.
I never stretch before exercising, and I’ve lost 40kgs of fat and gained decent muscle definition over the past few years without a single injury.
“studying some of the early Church fathers’ teachings and philosophy“
I think I did that, the subject was called Early Christian Literature and Thought. It was a third year university subject, and I did pretty well at it.
“you should try Judaism“
Judaism is a lie. Most of the major events of the Torah didn’t happen. The Jews were never in egypt, Moses couldn’t have written the Torah and recorded his own death.…
December 16th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
On behalf of everyone involved in this and other threads, I would like to offer a full apology for raising the ire of Joanna and causing such long winded, circular arguments. I assure you all, it was not my intention. But I agree with Skelliot. Joanna, if you do not like our ideas, if you think I am a bigoted, narrow-minded, anti-catholic monster, then do not read my posts, do not comment, if I am that offensive to you just ignore me. Attacks from both sides are not being helpful in anyway and are getting in the way of any genuine discussions that could have been happening instead.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:52 am
I’m was not making attacks — I was raising issues that were not being addressed and coming under fire for making them at all, just as the Church was coming under fire in the posts.
I’ll make one last attempt to make a point here in response to frozen summers question about proof of G_d. First I have to set some ground work by discussing free will because the premise is that to prove G_d exists does not necessarily have to entail purely material arguments.
Ok, so, let’s take the issue of free will.
Now we know that rape is bad because no one wants to be raped — if they did it would not be rape (which is why I’ve chosen such a serious example — few other situations are quite as clear cut). But sex by force is natural enough — it happens in the animal world and in the human world too. However, nowadays most people accept it is terrible — so where does that attitude come from? More crucially what makes one man rape, another man want to rape but decide not to, and another man have no inclination to commit rape at all?
We can put it down to free will, but that only makes sense if we accept that the self is not entirely physical. If we decide that the self is entirely physical, then free will is a myth — we are a product of genetics — biochemistry, bioelectricity and that’s it. Sure you can add the complication of cultural and environmental factors that might contribute to shaping a person’s attitudes and ultimately behaviours, but nonetheless, everything is completely predetermined in such a world. Where does free will live? There’s simply no place for it, if all decisions are purely physical and environmental. It would simply be a case of if you put the right genes in the right environment, that’s the recipe required for a rape to take place and it would be guaranteed. And all events — such as placing a given being in a given environment would be predetermined too.
So in such a world there is no right or wrong — everyone is merely a product of circumstances. Laws make no sense and punishments make no sense — at least there can be no blame or claims pertaining to just or unjust behaviour. In such a world, you can criticise no one for anything. No one gets to choose whether they are an atheist or a theist — we are all just made as we are and get no say in any of it. Even if, as in my case or frozen summer’s case, we change from one thing to another during the course of a lifetime, none of it has anything to do with us, so what are the debates about? Where does the anger at other peoples’ opinions and actions come from? How can anyone accuse anyone of anything like prejudice, or hypocrisy or … anything? Does it not intrigue you that you are just going along for the ride and playing no part in deciding whether or not to debate with someone? That your attempt to change their mind has a predetermined outcome?
Now I ask — is it true that you have no free will? Does that feel accurate to you? Do you play no part in your decision making? What do you think?
If you can be clear on this, we might have a starting point for debating the existence of G_d.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:47 am
“is it true that you have no free will?“
Yes, ultimately everything is purely mechanistic, and if we had a complete understanding of physics then we could accurately model a complete person in a computer and predict all their decisions based on various inputs.
The issue is that from our conscious perspective we do appear to be able to make choices, but science has shown that our brains begin to make the appropriate movements based on a decision before we consciously make that decision.
Of course the Bible teaches that there is no free will too. So the free will issue is a red herring. God’s existence is not dependent on our capabilities for decisions.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Frozen Summers wrote:
“Of course the Bible teaches that there is no free will too. So the free will issue is a red herring. God’s existence is not dependent on our capabilities for decisions.”
That’s bizarre — Judaism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity hinge entirely around free will and place great emphasis on choosing the right moral actions. I’m afraid you are confusing Calvin’s ideas with those of Judeo-Christian tradition, which it is entirely antithetical to. The problem with Protestantism is that it is based on some pretty major ill-informed heresies. Martin Luther wanted to throw the book of James out of the Bible, calling it “an epistle of straw” because it totally contradicted his notion of salvation by faith alone and stated clearly that “faith without deeds is dead”. Judaism is totally about good deeds and always has been. Traditional Christianity was and is too.
The problem with Luther’s made up idea of sola scriptura is that it divorces scripture from tradition and accepted interpretation.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
The debate regarding free-will Vs determinism is far more nuanced than what has been implied. Determinism says that the ‘decisions’ we make are caused and controlled by what has gone before them, the factors leading up to them. There is no one type of determinism that all determinists think is correct. Like anything there are multiple interpretations, not just one. This idea is also relevant when discussing your comments regarding Luther, who I am guessing you do not agree with, judging by your comment about his ideas being divorced from tradition. The problem that I see with that is that it is ignoring the fact that the original interpretation has the same roots, ultimately, as Luther’s– some guy says it means this. How does that make it any more a correct interpretation than Luther’s?
December 17th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
You can see how problematic the subject of determinism is then?! It seems very weird that we should be no more than spectators in a written play — rather like the pawns in some pagan or Greek epic…
James asked: “How does that make it any more a correct interpretation than Luther’s?”
Simply put, not all that can be conceived is of equal value — some statements are better grounded in fact than others. I dare say when I picked up the Origin of Species when I was 10 years old, I was in considerably less of a position to understand the subject and make unilaterally extrapolated pronouncements on it than an adult biologist.
The Catholic position is that one should not try to interpret Biblical texts on one’s own, without giving credence to the magisterium — the ongoing democratic collective understanding of doctrine. (Before anyone points it out, yes the current Pope does have the ultimate authority on matters of faith in dispute, but it is extremely rare for him to invoke his papal authority — I think it may have happened twice, some people say just once…)
Anyway, it’s a but like science — for the most part, a new discovery has to fit with current understanding, or explain itself if it doesn’t. Luther added a word to the Biblical text in order to suggest that faith ALONE was required and that was very dishonest. It is a lie that humankind has paid a significant price for in terms of Protestant vs Catholic bloodshed.
So what makes one interpretation more valid than another? Probably one’s knowledge of the subject, the ability to make sound judgements, and the humility and integrity not to impose one’s own agendas onto the subject…
answer = education + intelligence + probity (moral integrity)
December 17th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
@Joanna
Its not about interpretation its plain from the text — God hardened pharaohs heart (cf Exo 4) — something that negated his free will. We are chosen from before creation for salvation (cf Eph 1 etc) — something that removes our free will to choose salvation.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Again these are passages taken in isolation and out of context that go against the bulk of Judaic and Christian thought prior to the reformation. So, yes it is all about interpretation. Study the principle of free will as explained in Judaism and you will find out. The Bible was written by many different people and expresses different perspectives at different times — there was never a single strand of Judaism — it is a body of thought — which is why there are so many debates and dialogues being thrashed out in yeshivas and coming up with a variety of conclusions.
Your interpretation is just that. It does not say that G_d always intervenes to affect everyone’s thoughts and moods — just that He did it in this instance. As for your new testament passage, obviously Judaism wouldn’t recognise it as valid at all and Catholic theology is analytical enough to study passages in light of an entire body of knowledge, not just an isolated passage. The evangelical view of the Bible as the unerring word of G_d is a modern and untraditional distortion that doesn’t stand up because of all the contradictions and different views and priorities expressed in it.
Another big thing is that if you are reading the Bible in English, you have to deal with the translator’s bias. If gehenna gets translated as hell, it changes the nature of the passage significantly. Did Jesus descend into hell or into sheol / hades? http://www.ccel.org/node/570
What was Ham’s crime against Noah? There are 3 possible translations of the Hebrew text, ranging from indiscreet to shocking to very shocking.
You need to study MUCH more — and from religious sources. Find out what the Jewish perspective is before you disregard it as lies. That would give you a grounding for understanding where Jesus was coming from and you could then decide for yourself how much you think his teaching coincided with or went against his native Judaism and how positively you view that situation to be. But please remember that yours would only be one view and also that the Evangelical Christian voice does not speak for Christianity or its history — it largely flies in the face of it.