Why? I thnk its a bit ironic that someone might wind you up a bit?
Someone please explain.
Religious people believe in God. That God is a supernatural being who is all powerful.
So why does that God care if I say anything against it? Why would a supernatural all powerful being give a fuck if I say it doesnât exist? Why would it care if i write a book which criticises it? Why is this superpower so sensitive?
I genuinely do not understand.
Youâve never read the Quran Iâm guessing.
Iâm pretty good on christianity (thou shall not take the lordâs name in vane) and Iâm reasonably sure that the same act against another named deity (whoâs name it is often blasphemous to use) is considered beyond serious.
But why? What difference does it make to God what I say or think? Itâs like an elephant getting upset over the actions of an ant.
i suppose the laws are written by clerics who wanted it easier to keep their positions of power without question.
its a kind of a funny question that i think you know the answer to, God probably doesnt care, like alot of religious protocols, its been written and (sometimes) corrupted by humans.
to a lesser extent god probably doesnt care if you covert your neighbors wife, or a host of other things
So God doesnât think that if I write a book which is critical of it that i should be stabbed in the neck?
I personally find the only way these things make sense is if you think of religions like some kind of animals that have evolved throughout human history. The religions with the traits that are most conducive to their survival and spread are the ones that have succeeded and are still with us. Tearing down images of competing religions, burning books and punishing / killing people that deny your âtruthâ are very successful traits for these kinds of animals. Thatâs why many of the remaining ones have these rules / practices. They helped them succeed and survive this long.
When I think about it this way I no longer see much point in trying to apply moral philosophy to the rules / practices of religions. The only question I ask is âwould that have helped the religion survive and spread?â. If the answer is yes then it makes sense in this context.
i wouldnt know.
my guess is no, but my other guess is why would you bother and why would the guy who stabbed you in the neck bother? both would be human falacies, not an act of betrayal to a god.
just to clarify thoughâŚa book criticising god and a book criticising humans who corrupt religous organisations would be two different things, no?
you could even write a book questioning the existence of a dietyâŚbut to criticise a god, to me, would be a futile exerciseâŚfirst of all, to criticise a god it assumes you agree in the existence, and to agree in the existence, what would you be criticising?..the trees arent tall enough? the fish taste a bit off if kept in the sun?
I strongly recommend that you google the Atheist Experience and listen to all the back episodes.
Iâm not sure Iâd describe the book in question (the satanic verses) as necessarily being critical of anything. It is a very long time since I read it, but I think the reason it is considered blasphemous is that it takes a story about Mohamed from the Quran and retells it - changing the âtruthâ that must be believed.
I was wondering if somebody could give me a rational explanation of one of the Bible stories.
Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem to pay their taxes/take part in a census (odd in itself, but hey ho)
So when Joseph and Mary (pregnant) were traveling, were they married?
If they were married then it is pretty certain that in order for the marriage to be a valid union, they would have had to consummate the union. So that then puts into question the âvirgin birthâ
If they were not married the question arises - what was an unmarried pregnant woman doing traveling alone ( at a time when this would have been considered sinful) with an unmarried man?
I have never been given a logical answer to this connundrum.
They traveled to their town of origin, Bethlehem, for the census. Thatâs how they did it.
They were not married yet. They were betrothed, stronger than engaged, but not yet married. To get out of the betrothal arrangement would require a divorce. Indeed, Joseph offered to divorce Mary on the quiet to protect her reputation, as he knew he wasnât the father.
In essence they were all but married when they traveled, so it wouldnât have been a disgrace. The bigger societal disgrace was that Mary was pregnant.
Obviously belief in the virgin birth aspect is a different discussion. Even some people who believe in God struggle with it, never mind those who do not believe in God.
Care would not be a right term. From a Christian point of view, God loves us and wants us to know that and receives and accepts His love. But it is also made clear that this acceptance has to be made on the free will of the individual. So Yes God cares but not in a way that religious fanatics made it out to be. It is religious extremists and fanatics who have turn faith into a war of us against the rest of the world. These people, regardless of religion, cannot accept that people can disagree and sometimes disagree very much. But there is nowhere that says killing another person because of a disagreement in faith is reflective of a God. If anyone believes that God congratulates and rewards you for killing another person in His name, these people are psychotic and will find themselves deeply disappointed when they eventually die and see the ârewardsâ they think they are getting.
Hope Salman Rushdie recover well.
Because the idiots and their faith is so fickle.
no, re read the question.
ive no doubt crusty old men clinging onto power would get offended (for tactical reasons), but would the actual diety be offended.
How about the Old Testament prophesy that the messiah would be born of Davidâs line? As soon as you retcon Jesus to be a virgin birth, then he obviously has nothing to do with Davidâs lineage. Itâs interesting seeing the bible tie itself in knots trying to justify that.
The idea of a virgin birth is common place in a great many religions, and Christianity almost certainly borrowed in from earlier faiths. Horus was born to a virgin. Dionysos was. Ra was. Romulus and Remus. Attis.
If you want to make up a messiah the very first first thing to do is to claim they had nothing to do with all that dirty sex business. I suppose if you are as sexually repressed as religious founders tend to be it makes sense.
Havenât kept up with this thread but just my 2 cents worth. I think the teachings of Jesus provide a good way to live your life. They are very different to many of his so-called followers (love your neighbour, turn the other cheek, standing for the poor and vulnerable and against the rich, powerful and religious hypocrites). He didnât mention homosexuality, abortion or the other things that many Christians get worked up about.
Clearly the bible is a collection of stories/allegories that we canât take literally, but we also canât detach from the cultural context of the time.
Christians have been responsible for some terrible things throughout history, but also some of the greatest advances, including in ethics/morality.
I think we do need understanding for people who have been brought up in religious communities. Itâs very hard to detach from that and see everything logically without emotion. Iâve long since stopped going to church. I donât miss the sermons, the songs, the self-righteousness and the total lack of critical thinkingâŚbut I do miss the community, the relationships, the positivity and the love.
The problem is that he said he would change not a jot nor tittle of the law Matthew 5:18. So he didnât cancel any of the hideous commandments from the Old Testament, think there were 613. Didnât say slavery was wrong, didnât say murdering witches and homosexuals was wrong. You have to ask yourself. if he was godâs son and the OT was wrong, why?
Not here for a theological debate. Have become much more comfortable with uncertainty as have got older. Donât feel any need to convince people for or against Christianity