Why we don't have a bible in the house, nor would...

That is I am uncomfortable with supposed debate which becomes unpleasantly aggressive.

Lilygran remains calm and continues with a reasoned argument.

Greatnan the content of the spoof letter was used by President Jed Bartlett in the first episode of West Wing. The character quoting this was a devout Catholic
and he was using this against extreme right wing Christian sects.
I know it was only a TV programme and not factual but in this case the writers used it to show how non-extreme people of faith can understand that the bible does not have to be taken word for word.

As a person of no religious faith I do find myself yet again in a position of defending empathising with those who have.

Petallus - which of us has not remained calm and courteous, please?
If we don't believe in any god, then of course we are going to think that those who do believe are wrong - we can't both be right. Why is it wrong for us to be able to state our views now? Why is it unkind for us to be honest about our opinions? After all, the various religions have been persecuting non-believers for thousands of years - all we are asking now is to be allowed to state our views.
Nobody has been personally offensive to any other member so accusations of unkindness are - unkind!

Thanks for your comments, folks. Please could you tell me where, exactly, I have been unreasoning and unpleasantly aggressive? Stating that I disagree and why is none of those things.

I went to bed last night thinking I'd ask lily to explain the nuances of the Abraham and Isaac story to which she refers. So I will. Lily, please could you explain the nuances you refer to? If you like I'll tell you my interpretation of the story first, but I don't mind if you go first. Let me know which you'd prefer.

For the benefit of anyone who might think otherwise, this is a perfectly friendly request. I really am interested. If you don't believe me, well, hey ho! Perhaps that will help you understand the feelings I have of non-belief in all sorts of things.

I think that perhaps some people get upset by strong feelings and are unused to having to defend, in the logical or discursive sense, their position on any subject. I'm not unused to having to defend my statements and I get the feeling lily isn't either, which is why we can have good discussions without falling out and becoming childish.

Which is what we're doing.

Lily, can you tell us how much of Christian thinking is still driven by the beliefs of those old tribes with their very limited understanding of biology and physics? There are plenty of people who still believe that the bible is the word of god and must be taken literally. Are the churches doing anything to dispel this belief? The attitude of some of the church hierarchy towards homosexuality and women suggests to me that they are not.

Hey, greatnan! Give her a chance! One at a time, please! Let's have an orderly queue!

[sticking up for lily emoticon]

Homosexuality. The range of views on most subjects represented in the Christian community can be found throughout the whole community. That includes attitudes to homosexuality. Christian doesn't equal illiberal any more than atheist equals liberal. Greatnan no, of course I can't tell you the answer to your question. I don't know every detail of every belief system of every Christian group and I'm not a theologian. Aristotle had a limited understanding of biology and physics, so did Confucius. So, for that matter, did Isaac Newton and so do modern scientists who know more but not all. That makes them ignorant in some areas, not mistaken to try to explain what is as yet beyond explanation. I can't cope with the nuances of the Isaac story until I've eaten a highly nuanced breakfast, Bags. I wish I thought you really wanted to know!

And thank you to everyone who has posted kind comments! Too early for where I am. How about ?

How do I convince you that I really want to know, lily? Have you read sarcasm into my request? It wasn't, and isn't, there. Honest.

Of course, you don't have to answer anyway. No pressure. That's also honest and sincere. When you know me better, you'll understand that that's what I am, or try to be, all the time. [bit sad emoticon]

lilygran good post.

Lily I am really interested in the nuances of the Isaac story. I was thinking about it last night.

Greatnan and Bags I went through years of hotly challenging Christian ideas/the bible etc. It's not all that difficult to find holes in most religions if you can be bothered to do it. And I was angry with Christianity for all it's sins but then I just seemed to have worked through it all and now I'm genuinely interested in what liberal intelligent Christians have to say.

Sometimes stating strongly held views comes over as steamrollering or rude. Or just plain exhausting if repetition creeps in beyond a certain point.

The churches state strongly held views all the time. Atheists feel steamrollered. Until recently it wasn't safe to say you were an atheist out loud. It's still regarded as somehow bad instead of just being regarded as a philosophical position worth arguing about.

I wish you would argue, petallus, instead of making veiled unpleasant remarks all the time. At least lily argues her case and I admire her for that whether I agree with what she says or not.

Ans yes, lily, I really am interested in what you have to say about the Isaac story too, just as petallus is. I also was thinking about it last night as I went to sleep.

I think we all have different levels of tolerance for getting to the centre of issues Petallus. I maintain interest in developing debates that get bogged down with semantics, and appreciate attempts by people like Bags, Lilygran and Greatnan to clarify terms and meanings so the debate can progress. I don't perceive any unkindness, rudeness or steamrollering, just healthy curiosity and willingness to learn from each other. Why don't we let the debate meander on and find out where it leads us all? I'm finding it very interesting

Petallus - I think you misunderstand my interest in religious organisations. I do not wish to 'pick holes in them' - I want them to stop inflicting harm by their attitude to homosexuals, women and sex. I am genuinely interested to know the views of believers on these subjects, and whether or not they think their own church is liberal and non-discriminatory.
I also want church and state to be totally separate for the purpose of legislation. Many believers also want this.
Why do you think it is permissible for Christians to state their own views repeatedly, but not atheists? These debates are not one-sided.

Bags While Lily gathers her strength over breakfast, here are my thoughts about the story of Isaac's sacrifice, for what they are worth.

It is interesting that the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, who wasn't, of course, sacrificed after all, has both obvious and less obvious parallels with the crucifixion. In Jewish liturgy it is called Aqedah which means binding. It is considered a perfect self-sacrifice (by Isaac, not Abraham) that atones for the sins of his descendants.

The nature of Abraham's sacrifice as described in Genesis is two-fold. Isaac is to be the progenitor of the chosen people and was said to have been born when his mother was ninety years old. Agreeing to sacrifice his beloved son threatens the continuation of the line of Israel. In agreeing, however, Abraham displays extraordinarily righteous obedience and is duly rewarded.

Bags my remarks are not intended to be veiled. I am saying what I think. I am not being unpleasant on purpose but I am feeling exasperated at this continued high energy attack on any kind of Christian input on this site.

Greatnan I should think there are many Christians who don't think their church is liberal and non-discriminatory. I know of at least two. And anyway, it sounds like a trick question to me.

When I mentioned closed minds I meantthat there is then no hope of seeing both sides of an issue. For instance some atheists see only bad in Christianity. This is not the case. Rowan Williams has spoken out against the way our society is divisive and unfair for instance and there are many other instances of good works done by Christians.

I don't do trick questions - I simply speak my mind as plainly as possible.
I am very much aware of the good done by many Christians , but I suspect they are just good people who would be doing charitable work whether they believed or not. However, I don't think that the good done in any way compensates for the harm done by the organised churches.
No, of course believers and atheists will probably never agree, but that does not mean that we cannot have a rational debate and ask questions of each other. It is the only way we can begin to understand why people think as they do.
If anybody does not wish to take part in such debates, they are quite at liberty to avoid them.

Quite!

Like absent, when, greatnan and, I hope, lily, I'm also enjoying this thread where it is debate. It doesn't matter to me if someone never agrees with what I'm saying; what matters is that I understand their differing point of view as far as I am able. I also hope that they will understand my differing point of view as far as they are able. That is the whole point of debate – not necessarily to prove that one point of view is right and another wrong, or that one point of view is better and the other inferior.

Thanks for your interpretation of the Isaac story, absent. That, pretty much, is how I understand it as well. I suspect that it is not over interpretation of the story and its nuances that disagreement occurs, but why the 'test' to which Abraham and Isaac were put was felt necessary by a powerful god. The god in this story seems to me to be displaying insecure human traits. Mind you, the Greek and Roman and Norse gods were like that too, so that's nothing new. It is this interpretation of the whys and wherefores of the god's behaviour, as applied to this story and others, that made me begin to question religion. If, for the sake of argument, I agree that there is a creator/power that made the universe, and we call this being God, my next totally unaggressive but merely logical thought is why would a God like that need to test the obedience and subservience of one, tiny, miniscule, fairly insignificant, animal part of his creation? Would a God that powerful need his ego soothing in such a way? And if so, why?

Bags No explanation for god's demand is given in Genesis, but I wonder whether the Isaac sacrifice also functions as something of a back story. I think I am right that Jewish tradition demanded that the first born – human or animal – should be sacrificed. However, an animal could be substituted (in fact, probably had to be substituted) for a child. The story of the ram in the thicket legitimises this substitution.

Re "insecure human traits", there are quite a lot of references in the Old Testament to god claiming to be a "jealous god". There is also something in the New Testament about the necessity of abandoning family in favour of love of god. Can't think where right this minute.

absentgrana that was very interesting and exactly the kind of deeper exploration that I like.

I have no idea who Sam Harris is but he sounds a complete philistine.
Whether you believe the religious significance of either book, they are very important in terms of their cultural and historical influence on all of Western civilisation.

It cannot helped if people if people choose to take it literally, or quote random parts out of context to suit a particular argument. They have influenced societies in a major way.

Given that in general we no longer burn people at the stake; or send small boys up chimneys, or as a state, promote slavery; etc. Some sort of moral and religious ethical views have civilised us over the centuries. Its hard to view any UK history with out Christianity as an important reference point.

Yes. I feel stronger now. I was going to research Isaac properly but what the hell. Here goes. What absent says has given me confidence. Abraham ('the first Jew ') was seeking for an understanding of the nature of a God who was very different from the other gods around. It appears that human sacrifice was a common practice at the time. One interpretation is that the story is clearly an indication that Abraham's God didn't want human sacrifice. Another is that what God does want is obedience, not slavish obedience or obedience through fear but a questioning and deliberate choice of submission. It was Isaac's choice to go with his father and an act of personal sacrifice for both. Both Isaac and Abraham were prepared to do what they believed God wanted. Christians believe that this interpretation foreshadows the self-sacrifice of Jesus whose ancestry is traced back to Abraham. The three themes, of a personal relationship with God, of a thinking and willing obedience to Him and of personal sacrifice even as far as death travel through both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. I'm not a theologian and this is a lay person's interpretation of the story. There's probably a lot I've missed out. Interpreting scripture (Jewish and Christian) is a full-time job.

Thank you, Lily and absent - your posts are very interesting. As a child, I remember thinking that my parents would never sacrifice me, no matter how much god commanded it, and wondering why any god would ask that of a parent. It just seemed like cruelty to me - and it still does!