RoR: Forum

Perhaps there is no room for Islam -- or any other religion -- in a truly free society, either.

Post 1

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 1:06am

Luke writes:

Perhaps there is no room for Islam -- or any other religion -- in a truly free society, either.

Good point.

One of the more interesting and radical conclusions of strictly rational ideology -- altho' I've yet to hear another Objectivist or libertarian echo me -- is that to "teach" your children religion constitutes a ghastly unforgivable lie and a profound evil. Never mind that the parents "brought them into the world" and are paying for their upbringing -- and thus presumeably have the "right" to do with them as they will, and even "take them out" of it. As far as I can tell, religious "instruction" of an innocent, cognitively-defenseless child constitutes nothing less than brain-washing, psychological torture, and horrific child abuse. This is my personal memory of it, anyway. I think all parents who politely, respectfully, lovingly tell their children about "god" need to go to jail for a long time and have their kids put up for adoption. Anyone with me here?

Didn't think so.

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 6/08, 1:15am)

Post 2

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 3:41am

Well I agree that they are doing their children a disservice, but I wouldn't advocate jailing them! ;-) BTW, Zarqawi (sp?) was killed today. Hooray!

Post 3

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 4:26am

Perhaps there is no room for Islam -- or any other religion -- in a truly free society, either.

Mr. Setzer, to conflate all religious philosophies in one would be moral relativism and/or prejudice. In both cases, a mistake. Reality is not that simple.

Not all religions are equally moral: America was founded by religious people.

Founding America, the Pioneers acted according to their ideals, which included freedom because human freedom is a central Biblical concept. That some Christian and Atheist groups misunderstood this fact does not change the main premise.

Now, see Prof. Bernard Lewis' words on the traditional Muslim take on freedom, from the Encyclopedia of Islam:

"…there is still no idea that the subjects have any right to share in the formation or conduct of government—to political freedom, or citizenship, in the sense which underlies the development of political thought in the West. While conservative reformers talked of freedom under law, and some Muslim rulers even experimented with councils and assemblies government was in fact becoming more and not less arbitrary…"

"During the period of British and French domination, individual freedom was never much of an issue. Though often limited and sometimes suspended, it was on the whole more extensive and better protected than either before or after."

"In the final revulsion against the West, Western democracy too was rejected as a fraud and a delusion, of no value to Muslims."

Now, you may compare to other religions and philosophies.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/08, 8:10am)

Post 4

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 6:45am

Andre said:

As far as I can tell, religious "instruction" of an innocent, cognitively-defenseless child constitutes nothing less than brain-washing, psychological torture, and horrific child abuse.

I agree, Andre. Nathaniel Branden, in The Psychology of Self-Esteem, on page 240 (paperback edition) said the following:

To introduce into one’s consciousness a major and fundamental idea that cannot be so integrated, an idea not derived from reality, not validated by a process of reason, not subject to rational examination or judgment – and worse: an idea that clashes with the rest of one’s concepts and understanding of reality – is to sabotage the integrative function of consciousness, to undercut the rest of one’s convictions and kill one’s capacity to be certain of anything.

This is what religious "instruction" does.

Thanks,

Glenn

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 6/08, 9:22am)

Post 5

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 9:25am

America was founded by religious people.

Here I thought America was founded by the freemasons who were considered heretics by the Church. :-)

Post 6

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 1:54pm

Hong, I recently saw a documentary on the History Channel about the FreeMasons and how most of the founding fathers were FreeMasons. Very fascinating and bizarre at the same time. My father is a FreeMason but I had no idea what that meant growing up as a kid until I saw that documentary.

But I digress, to address some of Joel's comments:

Not all religions are equally moral: America was founded by religious people.

I would definitely agree with this. Certainly in practice, it would be irrational to say all religions are morally equivalent. Islam probably by far the worst. But that doesn't give other religions a free ride. Christianity has it's problems, very deep problems. But how religious or in what way the founding fathers were religious is far different than how religionists are today. Most of them were FreeMasons, and were as Hong pointed out called heretics.

Founding America, the Pioneers acted according to their ideals, which included freedom because human freedom is a central Biblical concept

That's funny, I didn't realize human freedom was a central Biblical concept. Actually I'm surprised you think there is ANY central Biblical concept.

So which part of human freedom includes promoting slavery, rape, and murder?

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

And there's plenty more:

http://www.evilbible.com/

(Edited by John Armaos
on 6/08, 3:06pm)

Post 7

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 3:09pm

Hey John,
Actually, I just got the freemason idea from watching the History Channel program too!

Post 8

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 4:46pm

Well, my father too was a mason, and he never told me about any 'national treasure' ;-)

[but then my name isnt Benjamin Franklin Gates, is it]

(Edited by robert malcom on 6/08, 4:47pm)

Post 9

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 5:10pm

I used to make fun of my dad's affiliation with the "Lodge." I called him Fred Flintstone, and told him he only joined so he could buy that white Harley and ride in a parade, and wear that dopy "Fez." Or is it "Fiz," whatever... And it was just so he could belong to just one more organization that didn't allow blacks or Asians or Jews or Catholics.... (He's changed a lot since then)

I stopped making fun of him when I learned how many historical people were members, and that they "do too allow blacks to be members!"

Oh, okay, then. ;)

Post 10

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 10:59pm

Good bible quotes, John! Here's another ...

book of Numbers ...
================
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
================

from:
http://www.online-literature.com/bible/quick_jump.php

Recap:
Killing little boys and raping little girls was condoned by the Lord God Almighty (our heavenly Father).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/08, 11:01pm)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/08, 11:01pm)

Post 11

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 6:19am

Hong, you wrote:

Here I thought America was founded by the freemasons who were considered heretics by the Church.

I don't know very much about freemasonry, but most of them were Theistic. In example, on wikipedia:

"Freemasonry is a fraternal organization whose members are joined together by shared moral and metaphysical ideals and, in most of its branches, by a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being."

Not very different from a religious monotheist denomination.

I think that the American colonies were basically founded by religious people of all sorts (Anglicans, Puritans, Hugenots, Dutch Calvinists, Jews, etc., and yes, Freemasons), nearly all of them considered heretics by the Roman Catholic Church and under political prosecution by coetanean European absolutism.

In example, the Puritans --who followed their own, literalist (*) interpretation of the commandments in the Hebrew Bible--, identified the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt to their emigration from England to a promised land: America.

Joel Català

(*): Ed Thompson and John Armaos, your nitpicking and hasty "recaps" on the Books of Moses --I am persuaded that Christianity can't be correct-- conveniently fits to your preconceived view:

1) We know that to take translations literally is almost always wrong --the original Bible is not in English, but in Hebrew.
2) Additionally, and your extra-contextual quotation is even more misguided, e.g., do you know a thing about the Midianites and their war against the Israelites?

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/09, 7:53am)

Post 12

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 7:56am

"Freemasonry is a fraternal organization whose members are joined together by shared moral and metaphysical ideals and, in most of its branches, by a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being."

Not very different from a religious monotheist denomination.

No I'd say the FreeMasons were far different in their metaphysical ideals than most monotheistic denominations. Being a FreeMason didn't require you believe Jesus was resurrected, it didn't require you believe he died for your sins. The FreeMasons were almost completely different than most Christian denominations. Thomas Jefferson took a razor and cut out parts of the Bible he didn't like. I don't know any Christian denomination that would allow for this.

(*): Ed Thompson and John Armaos, your nitpicking on the Books of Moses --I am persuaded that Christianity can't be correct-- conveniently fits to your preconceived view:

1) We know that to take translations literally almost always wrong --the original Bible is not in English, but in Hebrew.

First off, why can't I "nitpick" from the Books of Moses? Those books are in the Bible aren't they? If you're telling me the central Biblical concept is human freedom, then I'm going to nitpick the entire Bible to see if this is true. I don't like what I've read so far. And how convenient that I can't read Hebrew. So unless according to you, I learn Hebrew, I can never know what the Bible truly says. Which means I shouldn't give a shit about the Bible then since I can't ever truly understand it. So, let's hear those verses translated from the Hebrew into English differently then Joel. You do speak Hebrew right? Can you take the original scriptures and translate them for us correctly? Can you tell us how the translation messed up the concepts of rape, murder and slavery?

2) Additionally, and your extra-contextual quotation is even more misguided, e.g., do you know a thing about the Midianites and their war against the Israelites?

The more important question being, do I care about this probably fictional war? The only evidence of this war is in the Bible, and if we can't literally interpret the Bible as you say, then why should I believe any such war existed?

Perhaps this war was actually referring to a contractual dispute between two business men over a loaf of bread. Absurd you may say? Well it's just as valid an interpretation as any other non-literal interpretation. If I can't take words at their literal interpretation, I can make up any bullshit I want.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 6/09, 8:05am)

(Edited by John Armaos
on 6/09, 9:58am)

Post 13

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 8:44am

John Armaos wrote:

I can make up any bullshit I want.

Indeed: disrespectful bullshit.

So, let's hear those verses translated from the Hebrew into English differently then Joel.

If you are minimally interested, you may google "mistranslation from hebrew" OR "wrong hebrew translation," OR ["other related search terms"], etc. Lots of information got lost in translation --not to mention dropping context and other relevant data, as you did.

You do speak Hebrew right?

Basically, wrong. Only a few words.

Can you take the original scriptures and translate them for us correctly?

Not easy work: since the times of the Greek try of the Pentateuch, all attempts have been an utter failure. Fundamentally, there is no correct translation, and I doubt it will ever be one.

Original versions is the best option; as Italians say, traduttore, traditore. To translate is to betray.

So unless according to you, I learn Hebrew, I can never know what the Bible truly says.

Here, you partially got it. That is, you got it a 5%: besides the Written Torah --the written Hebrew Bible, which is about 5% of all the Torah information--, to get to the juice you need the Oral Torah.

There, in that 95%, you've got much more context, and other meanings and interpretations. A lifetime is not enough to get it all.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/09, 9:28am)

Post 14

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 9:56am

John Armaos wrote:

I can make up any bullshit I want.

Indeed: disrespectful bullshit.

Ah yes, but bullshit nonetheless correct? As far as being disrespectful, I'm sorry if you feel disrespected. I'm only interested in speaking the truth. If the truth is disrespectful to you, then that's your problem, not mine. Your prerogative what you want to believe, no matter how irrational that may be.

So, let's hear those verses translated from the Hebrew into English differently then Joel.

If you are minimally interested, you may google "mistranslation from hebrew" OR "wrong hebrew translation," OR ["other related search terms"], etc. Lots of information got lost in translation --not to mention dropping context and other relevant data, as you did.

You know you made the claim I'm using a mistranslation of the Bible. You are aware of the concept "burden of proof" aren't you? If you make a claim why don't you try proving it instead of asking me to do the work for you?

You do speak Hebrew right?

Basically, wrong. Only a few words.

I know a few words too but I have no further insight into the Bible, so it seems we're in the same boat? So then neither of us know what the Books of Moses is saying then correct? So how do you know it was mistranslated?

Can you take the original scriptures and translate them for us correctly?

Not easy work: since the times of the Greek try of the Pentateuch, all attempts have been an utter failure. Fundamentally, there is no correct translation, and I doubt it will ever be one.

So since there can never be an accurate translation, my original claim I can come up with any kind of bullshit still stands then.

There, in that 95%, you've got much more context, and other meanings and interpretations. A lifetime is not enough to get it all.

If a lifetime is not enough to get it all, and I can't use any translations of the Bible from the original Hebrew as true, and I can't take the Bible literally, then I can't accept anything the Bible says as true. Therefore I can't accept your claim a central concept of the Bible is human freedom. If there are no objective standards to use with interpreting the validity of the Bible, then how do we know it is valid? Or what concepts the Bible is trying to convey?

Keep digging yourself that hole Joel. It can only get deeper.

Post 15

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 10:32am

In the very same post, John Armaos wrote:

As far as being disrespectful, I'm sorry if you feel disrespected.

and then

Keep digging yourself that hole Joel. It can only get deeper.

He sounds like a sectarian ignoramus. His severe ups and downs attest this.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/09, 10:34am)

Post 16

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 10:55am

Disrespectful? - not to that which is anti-human and thus not deserve respect [respect is an earned proposition - no such thing as intrinsic respect]

Further - sorry, but the language of the day was Aramaic - and as for the Hebrew, the earliest had no vowels, so much mis-interpretation was gendered by those who had the language.. More to the point, the best translation is the Lamsa one, which works from the Orthodox version - not the GREEK one, which is what English versions are translated from...

Post 17

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 11:10am

"Freemasonry is a fraternal organization whose members are joined together by shared moral and metaphysical ideals and, in most of its branches, by a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being."

Not very different from a religious monotheist denomination.

No I'd say the FreeMasons were far different in their metaphysical ideals than most monotheistic denominations. Being a FreeMason didn't require you believe Jesus was resurrected, it didn't require you believe he died for your sins. The FreeMasons were almost completely different than most Christian denominations. Thomas Jefferson took a razor and cut out parts of the Bible he didn't like. I don't know any Christian denomination that would allow for this.

The Free Masons were actually deistic, from what I understand, and believed God played no active role in their lives. God's only role was in the creation of the universe, he made it, made the rules, designed it, and set it in motion, then left it alone. This is the allusion that is meant by the carpenters square, compass, and big "G" that makes up their symbol.

Post 18

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 11:22am

Let's reply Mr. Armaos rants one by one [his words, on grey background; mine, on white background].

Mr. Armaos wrote:

Ah yes, but bullshit nonetheless correct?

"Correct bullshit" it's still bullshit.

As far as being disrespectful, I'm sorry if you feel disrespected.

To me, Mr. Armaos words are harmless.

I'm only interested in speaking the truth.

I am interested in learning about the truth, and then talking about it.

If the truth is disrespectful to you, then that's your problem, not mine.

The truth can't be disrespectful. The truth can't have human character traits.

Your prerogative what you want to believe, no matter how irrational that may be.

Baseless accusation. Bad arguing method.

So, let's hear those verses translated from the Hebrew into English differently then Joel.

If you are minimally interested, you may google "mistranslation from hebrew" OR "wrong hebrew translation," OR ["other related search terms"], etc. Lots of information got lost in translation --not to mention dropping context and other relevant data, as you did.

You know you made the claim I'm using a mistranslation of the Bible. You are aware of the concept "burden of proof" aren't you? If you make a claim why don't you try proving it instead of asking me to do the work for you?

I give you another chance. You may learn, in example, how Christianity horned Moses [From wikipedia]:

"This story has led to one longstanding [Christian] tradition that Moses grew horns. This is derived from a mistranslation of the Hebrew phrase "karnu panav" קרנו פניו. The root קרן may be read as either "horn" or "ray", as in "ray of light". "Panav" פניו translates as "his face". If interpreted correctly those two words form an expression which means that he was enlightened, and many rabbinical studies explain that the knowledge that was revealed to him made his face metaphorically shine with enlightenment, and not that it suddenly sported a pair of horns. The Septuagint properly translates the Hebrew word קרן as δεδοξασται, 'was glorified', but Jerome translated it as cornuta, 'horned', and it was the latter image that became the more popular. This tradition survived from the first centuries AD well into the Renaissance. Many artists, including Michelangelo in a famed sculpture, depicted Moses with horns."

You do speak Hebrew right?

Basically, wrong. Only a few words.

I know a few words too but I have no further insight into the Bible, so it seems we're in the same boat?

Well, I guess we both are on planet Earth.

So how do you know it was mistranslated?

You may check the example I gave you. I know there are many more.

Can you take the original scriptures and translate them for us correctly?

Not easy work: since the times of the Greek try of the Pentateuch, all attempts have been an utter failure. Fundamentally, there is no correct translation, and I doubt it will ever be one.

So since there can never be an accurate translation, my original claim I can come up with any kind of bullshit still stands then.

I said that "I doubt it will ever be one." That's not a conclusive "never." First, learn to read.

There, in that 95%, you've got much more context, and other meanings and interpretations. A lifetime is not enough to get it all.
If a lifetime is not enough to get it all, and I can't use any translations of the Bible from the original Hebrew as true, and I can't take the Bible literally, then I can't accept anything the Bible says as true.

That's not a train of logic, but a meaningless rant.

Therefore I can't accept your claim a central concept of the Bible is human freedom.

Wrong premises, wrong conclusion.

If there are no objective standards to use with interpreting the validity of the Bible, then how do we know it is valid?

I never said that.

Indeed, I am persuaded that the Hebrew Bible does have objective standards of interpretation, all based on observation and reason.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/09, 11:29am)

Post 19

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 11:37am