In response to:
I actually would like to assume that all those who have posted here are intellegent. To assume that those who defend and promote the teachings of the bible have not read anything else is wrong. That tey choose to accept the bible as thier most trusted resource is no different than accepting funk & wagnell over encyclopedia britannica. They feel the bible is a better source of wisdom than Darwin, Socrates, Shakespeare, Mark Twain or Stephen King. Just because they don't quote other sources does not mean they are not conversant with them. The pro-God support thier position with thier most trusted source material, the anti-God quote thier most trusted sources. The debate informs and educates both sides. Just as I accept the philosophy student's Socrates, I accept the christian's Bible. And give both the credit for being familiar with the opposition's source material.
As for the sarcastic dialog, I will certainly take a great deal of responsibility for that. While I may not have started it I have certainly participated. I would like to think that some circular logic positions have been exposed, and some ridiculous assumptions shaken.
I have the advantage of retrospect. I can remember a time when I thought that the philosophers and those who rebeled against the status quo were the promise of a brighter future. I found that with time they failed me, and am thankful that I had a tolerable grounding in scripture, that has allowed me to persevere in spirit, when the promises of the philosophers failed me. For the young I have hope that their minds will open to accept a higher power. For the bitter old I hope for mercy.
It is sad that some see the church, whatever the denomination, as a sinister form of subjugation. Karl Marx called it "The opiate of the masses.". The doctrine of this man's 'Communist Manifesto' has been the cornerstone of some of the most represive regimes in modern history. These regimes are quick to restrict and control the church, knowing that within the church's morality, the spirit of liberty's flame is sheltered, and with it hope. What I get from your post is that you feel that the moral code that churches support is wrong. I disagree.
Hi, no, not so much the moral code as I think there are many commendable facets evident in basic moralities.
What I dont get is, despite many contradictions in the Bible (500 or so was my last info), as a youngster, whenever I dared question aloud any of my musings, I would be assured that a 'leap of faith' was what I had to make in order to 'get it' - as an adult I realised that what was being asked of me was not so much a leap of faith as 'blind faith'. I leave you to answer the morality issues inherrent in this matter.
The issue of Jesus and Karl Marx as the spearheads of their ideologies, well yes, I see both as good guys who's teachings, both, were corrupted by ruling classes. What Marx said wasnt quite as mundane os 'the opiate of the masses' his words held much more depth
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions".
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
I think my favourite part of the above quotation is the bit which refers to 'the illusory nature of religion'. Once somebody can come back at some of us 'doubters' with 'acceptable' refutations of words such as these then I would gladly refer to a bible passage of their choice but when sarcastic digs and personal insults rule the day - nah, you are welcome to it - I want no part of perpetuating bad feelings
