Is atheism/religion a force for good or for bad in society?

[Neutraligon]

Exodus 22:18

At the risk of belaboring it, you talked about witches and then said, "... you yourself are picking and choosing witch part of scripture to obey."

...I just noticed that...

[Jumalariik]

Ok, I'll do it.
Matthew 5:39
2 Corinthians 3:6
Mark 13:21-3
John 8:7

If you know the context of John 8:7, you will see my point.

So again you are picking and choosing. They are simply picking a different verse.

No, I'm pointing out that scripture says that after Jesus, the relationship between God and man is fundamentally different (Corinthians), then quoting Jesus when he spoke against the killing of sinners (John 8:7)(he also said that there is no righteous man) and then showing where he says that people should not be violent (Matthew) then showing in Mark that people will falsely speak in his name but to disregard him. If you can have an argument as scripturally correct, your main point will be true, only then.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So again you are picking and choosing. They are simply picking a different verse.

No, I'm pointing out that scripture says that after Jesus, the relationship between God and man is fundamentally different (Corinthians), then quoting Jesus when he spoke against the killing of sinners (John 8:7)(he also said that there is no righteous man) and then showing where he says that people should not be violent (Matthew) then showing in Mark that people will falsely speak in his name but to disregard him. If you can have an argument as scripturally correct, your main point will be true, only then.

Yet Matthew 5:17 disagrees with other things Jesus says given it pretty explicitly says OT laws are still in effect.

[Neutraligon]

So again you are picking and choosing. They are simply picking a different verse.

No, I'm pointing out that scripture says that after Jesus, the relationship between God and man is fundamentally different (Corinthians), then quoting Jesus when he spoke against the killing of sinners (John 8:7)(he also said that there is no righteous man) and then showing where he says that people should not be violent (Matthew) then showing in Mark that people will falsely speak in his name but to disregard him. If you can have an argument as scripturally correct, your main point will be true, only then.

If the relationship is different then you cannot claim any of the old testament. Again, you are choosing to interpret it one way, they have chosen to interpret it differently. There are contradictions, hence why the bible can be interpreted in any way a person wants. That does not make them less of a Christian, it just means they interpret it differently than the way you have chosen to do so. They place importance on different passages. The fact of the matter is scripture supports it. Add in the fact that Jesus said he did not come to change the law and the witch thing still exists. If you are willing to claim the 10 commandments, and the other good things in the old testament, then you must equally claim the bad.

[Jormengand]

Also, I should point out that all the things posters in this thread, as well as Greta Christina (against whom the OP seems to have a personal vendetta), have said were unarguably done by religious people, and because we're answering the question written in the title, I'd say that religion is in fact a force for bad.

[Neutraligon]

Also, I should point out that all the things posters in this thread, as well as Greta Christina (against whom the OP seems to have a personal vendetta), have said were unarguably done by religious people, and because we're answering the question written in the title, I'd say that religion is in fact a force for bad.

I keep wondering if someone can name one good thing religion can do that cannot also be done by secular means. And no saving people's souls doesn't count.

[Old Tyrannia]

Actually, that's widely believed to be a mistranslation. The real commandment is "do not suffer a poisoner to live," which in the context of the time is fairly understandable.

Mind sourcing that, even the Chabad translation translates it as sorceress.

Having looked it up, it does appear that the theory about "poisoner" has generally been a rejected and the accepted translation of Exodus 22:18 from the original Hebrew is indeed "do not suffer the sorcerer/sorceress to live," so I apologise for that mistake. The confusion appears to have arisen from the early Greek translation of Exodus, which used the Greek word "pharmakeia" to translate "witchcraft", a term which is related to poisons and drugs (I'm guessing this is the root of the word "pharmacy"). The term was probably used to refer to witches who used magical potions of some sort, or else used drugs in the manner some shamans do to invoke "visions". I've heard this theory repeated a number of times, however, so I think I can be forgiven for assuming it was true, considering I'm no biblical scholar.

[Christiaanistan]

Uhhh, if you follow the advice given in the Book of Numbers, chapter 31, then I'm going to sort of back away from you really slowly.

The thing is, there are a lot of suggestions in your scriptures, like that, which are actually kind of evil. You do not go strictly according to your scriptures at all. You interpret in a manner that you were trained to interpret.

There is a correct way of interpreting scripture and an incorrect way.

And there are people who say that your method is wrong.

One major example of how people impose traditional, standard interpretations onto their scriptures that are seriously divorced from what the scriptures actually say is the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25. A direct, literal reading of the story suggests that the servant actually protected his master from getting into trouble by burying the money and returning it later, since his master had been breaking the law. The servant even made a good faith effort to turn his master away from his dishonest habits.

The parable is clearly and explicitly explained in Matthew 25:45, and all that the Parable of the Talents means, based on a literal reading and taking it in context with the other opinions of Matthew, is that bad things happen to well-meaning people, and well-meaning people can be misjudged and mistreated in life. This was really sort of revolutionary because, in his culture, it was generally assumed that people who were poor or suffering from illness or naked or hungry were in that condition because they had committed some abominable sin and really deserved what was happening to them.

However, the standard interpretation is that the master represents God, and the servant was really a weaselly and horrible person who was disobedient to his master. Even the most liberal Christians will insist that it's a story about how you should be blindly obedient, even though it's pretty clear that Matthew is describing the master as an outright bastard.

If you don't believe that the master from the Parable of the Talents is being portrayed by Matthew as a bastard, then refer to Matthew 25:29, where the master says something that contradicts everything else that Matthew tries to teach. In the Book of Matthew, that entire book is extremely sympathetic toward the underprivileged. Matthew, just like Luke, routinely begs the rich and powerful to show mercy to the poor and tells them that they are better off with nothing than living with ill-gotten gain while the poor starve. The master is the antithesis of everything that Matthew believed, and the servant represents the kinds of people that Matthew spent most of his career trying to stand up for.

Christians do not follow their scriptures because they do not want to. In some cases, such as in the case of Numbers 31, that is a relief. In other cases, it's really kind of sad.

[Jumalariik]

Also, I should point out that all the things posters in this thread, as well as Greta Christina (against whom the OP seems to have a personal vendetta), have said were unarguably done by religious people, and because we're answering the question written in the title, I'd say that religion is in fact a force for bad.

I keep wondering if someone can name one good thing religion can do that cannot also be done by secular means. And no saving people's souls doesn't count.

-Giving people hope in bad times.
-Giving powerful unity.
-Being the largest NGO healthcare provider in the world.

[Neutraligon]

Mind sourcing that, even the Chabad translation translates it as sorceress.

Having looked it up, it does appear that the theory about "poisoner" has generally been a rejected and the accepted translation of Exodus 22:18 from the original Hebrew is indeed "do not suffer the sorcerer/sorceress to live," so I apologise for that mistake. The confusion appears to have arisen from the early Greek translation of Exodus, which used the Greek word "pharmakeia" to translate "witchcraft", a term which is related to poisons and drugs (I'm guessing this is the root of the word "pharmacy"). The term was probably used to refer to witches who used magical potions of some sort, or else used drugs in the manner some shamans do to invoke "visions". I've heard this theory repeated a number of times, however, so I think I can be forgiven for assuming it was true, considering I'm no biblical scholar.

Actually how theses mistakes happen is interesting to me. Thanks for the info.

[Neutraligon]

I keep wondering if someone can name one good thing religion can do that cannot also be done by secular means. And no saving people's souls doesn't count.

-Giving people hope in bad times.
-Giving powerful unity.
-Being the largest NGO healthcare provider in the world.

- Can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means.

[Zottistan]

I keep wondering if someone can name one good thing religion can do that cannot also be done by secular means. And no saving people's souls doesn't count.

-Giving people hope in bad times.
-Giving powerful unity.
-Being the largest NGO healthcare provider in the world.

If the religious weren't the largest NGO healthcare providers in the world, the largest NGO healthcare provider in the world would be secular.

[Jumalariik]

-Giving people hope in bad times.
-Giving powerful unity.
-Being the largest NGO healthcare provider in the world.

- Can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means.

The last one is not done through secular means.
Give me one good thing that secular means can do but religion can't.

[Zottistan]

- Can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means.

The last one is not done through secular means.
Give me one good thing that secular means can do but religion can't.

Be grounded in fact and objective logic.

The whole point is that they can both achieve the same results, so there's no need to believe in things without evidence.

[Neutraligon]

- Can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means.

The last one is not done through secular means.
Give me one good thing that secular means can do but religion can't.

Science is purely secular.

[Jumalariik]

-Giving people hope in bad times.
-Giving powerful unity.
-Being the largest NGO healthcare provider in the world.

If the religious weren't the largest NGO healthcare providers in the world, the largest NGO healthcare provider in the world would be secular.

The Catholic Church is the biggest NGO hc provider now, it'l probably be that way for a while.

[Neutraligon]

If the religious weren't the largest NGO healthcare providers in the world, the largest NGO healthcare provider in the world would be secular.

The Catholic Church is the biggest NGO hc provider now, it'l probably be that way for a while.

however secular means can also provide the same service. And again if the Catholic Church did not exist, the biggest would be taken by some other group.

[Jumalariik]

The Catholic Church is the biggest NGO hc provider now, it'l probably be that way for a while.

however secular means can also provide the same service. And again if the Catholic Church did not exist, the biggest would be taken by some other group.

Did you find 1 good thing that seculars can do but religion can't?

[Old Tyrannia]

-Giving people hope in bad times.
-Giving powerful unity.
-Being the largest NGO healthcare provider in the world.

- Can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means.

Probably, but removing religion from the equation would also remove much of the motivation for these things. You can say that morality is secular and people would still feel obliged to do good things without religion, but in truth much of what you consider "secular" morality is based on Christian teachings, at least in Europe and North America; it could be argued that without Christianity's influence, our modern society would not have adopted many, if any, of the ideals we now take for granted; sure, an atheist might believe in forgiveness, charity and free will, but to what degree is that the result of being brought up in a society saturated with Christian ideals? Even if we're not religious, we're all influenced hugely by religion; it plays a huge role in our culture, and even where Christian theology has gone the influence of Christian morality often remains. And personally, I am glad of that influence on society.

[Neutraligon]

however secular means can also provide the same service. And again if the Catholic Church did not exist, the biggest would be taken by some other group.

Did you find 1 good thing that seculars can do but religion can't?

I already did, look above. Science is purely secular. Religious people may do science, but they are baing it on purely secular reasoning.

[Zottistan]

If the religious weren't the largest NGO healthcare providers in the world, the largest NGO healthcare provider in the world would be secular.

The Catholic Church is the biggest NGO hc provider now, it'l probably be that way for a while.

You missed the point. If the largest NGO healthcare provider wasn't religious, they'd have to be secular. And that aside, there's no reason that secularist NGOs couldn't best that.

[Neutraligon]

- Can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means
-can be done through secular means.

Probably, but removing religion from the equation would also remove much of the motivation for these things. You can say that morality is secular and people would still feel obliged to do good things without religion, but in truth much of what you consider "secular" morality is based on Christian teachings, at least in Europe and North America; it could be argued that without Christianity's influence, our modern society would not have adopted many, if any, of the ideals we now take for granted; sure, an atheist might believe in forgiveness, charity and free will, but to what degree is that the result of being brought up in a society saturated with Christian ideals? Even if we're not religious, we're all influenced hugely by religion; it plays a huge role in our culture, and even where Christian theology has gone the influence of Christian morality often remains. And personally, I am glad of that influence on society.

I don't think the underlined is true. People tend not to be douchebags. They tend to like helping people. I would claim you are wrong that it is based on religious or Christian teachings. Many of those things are based on self interest and empathy, not Christianity.

[Jumalariik]

The last one is not done through secular means.
Give me one good thing that secular means can do but religion can't.

Science is purely secular.

No it's not.
The fact is that for the majority of human history, science and religion have been very connected.

[Neutraligon]

Science is purely secular.

No it's not.
The fact is that for the majority of human history, science and religion have been very connected.

Again the methodology used was purely secular. The scientists may have been religious, but that's about it.

[Jumalariik]

Probably, but removing religion from the equation would also remove much of the motivation for these things. You can say that morality is secular and people would still feel obliged to do good things without religion, but in truth much of what you consider "secular" morality is based on Christian teachings, at least in Europe and North America; it could be argued that without Christianity's influence, our modern society would not have adopted many, if any, of the ideals we now take for granted; sure, an atheist might believe in forgiveness, charity and free will, but to what degree is that the result of being brought up in a society saturated with Christian ideals? Even if we're not religious, we're all influenced hugely by religion; it plays a huge role in our culture, and even where Christian theology has gone the influence of Christian morality often remains. And personally, I am glad of that influence on society.

I don't think the underlined is true. People tend not to be douchebags. They tend to like helping people. I would claim you are wrong that it is based on religious or Christian teachings. Many of those things are based on self interest and empathy, not Christianity.

Not true. Look at pre-Christian pagan morality and Christian morality, both are very different. Christian morality being far better in my mind.