Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
5mn,
How essential is theism to your Christian philosophy?
5mn,
How essential is theism to your Christian philosophy?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
- Thread starter St. Clown
- Start date
- Status
unofan
Well-known member
A quarter of Americans isn't substantial? That's more than the number of people who voted for Trump in the primaries.
I didn't say ahead of, but again, most Christians believe in the whole Bible, not just select parts. But that's neither here nor there. I'm not going to down that path again. I thought we're talking faith vs. realism, not the definition of Christianity (for the umpteenth time)
I didn't say that. I said that faith is not better than realism. Again, they are different means to the same end.
Because throughout history, and even today in many countries, heresy is a capital crime and people generally like keeping their heads? We've had this discussion before too. It's also not surprising that 90% of advancements in this country were made by Christians when Christians made up 90% of the population until very recently.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
It seems to me that "faith" is the internal experience, while what "matters" is external: how we behave toward each other. "Don't lie, don't take things that don't belong to you, don't deliberately try to hurt others out of meanness and spite." You don't have to have "faith" to behave that way, just a moral compass and sense of ethics.
However you get the moral compass and sense of ethics is up to you; what matters to everyone else is that you display them all day every day. There is a scholarly philosophical article that argues that one does not have to have faith at all to have ethics and morals. I posted a link earlier in this thread but I can't find it readily now. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a whole section on this topic. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
It seems to me that "faith" is the internal experience, while what "matters" is external: how we behave toward each other. "Don't lie, don't take things that don't belong to you, don't deliberately try to hurt others out of meanness and spite." You don't have to have "faith" to behave that way, just a moral compass and sense of ethics.
However you get the moral compass and sense of ethics is up to you; what matters to everyone else is that you display them all day every day. There is a scholarly philosophical article that argues that one does not have to have faith at all to have ethics and morals. I posted a link earlier in this thread but I can't find it readily now. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a whole section on this topic. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
There is no reason to tear down someone else's attempt to live a good life just because you don't agree with his motivations. What works for some people doesn't work for others.
As I noted a few times, people argue over the "why" when the only thing most of us care about is the "what": that you behave well toward others in society.
There is no reason to tear down someone else's attempt to live a good life just because you don't agree with his motivations. What works for some people doesn't work for others.
As I noted a few times, people argue over the "why" when the only thing most of us care about is the "what": that you behave well toward others in society.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
There actually is something that resembles an organized orthodoxy for atheists to justify why right and wrong are important and why we ought to care for each other even without having to have a Deity tell us to.
There actually is something that resembles an organized orthodoxy for atheists to justify why right and wrong are important and why we ought to care for each other even without having to have a Deity tell us to.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
OK, I have time now.
I don't disagree with your premise as much as you might think. One of my core conservative tendencies (don't laugh) is an appreciation for solutions and institutions that have demonstrated staying power over long time periods. Religion is a VERY successful human invention, and few human inventions have the potential at least to transmit positive moral teachings that religion does. The competing social organizing principles until now have been force majeure and utilitarianism; both are, IMO, anti-human in that they are hostile to the "angels of our better nature."
So much for the good of religion, which is substantial. The bad is:
(1) It's based on a "noble lie," and a lie which it is just not that hard to suss out. A weak keystone means the potential for complete collapse. And, indeed, with greater literacy and greater knowledge religious belief decreases. Doubt is the hallmark of wisdom and doubt is the enemy of faith. Religion was a pre-scientific, pre-rational solution that is no longer applicable once we know things.
(2) Maintenance of the noble lie for the portion of the population that will never achieve knowledge has often been suggested as a social control mechanism. This is, firstly, cynical and immoral, which is a bad way to go about spreading morality. But more than that it causes violent rifts and tears in society. The first target of the demagogue is the demonization of elites as having fallen away from the faith. Even here, among intelligent and mostly open minded people, it isn't unusual to run across people who honestly think that moral sense is predicated on spirituality. This is a seriously negative unintended consequence of the strategy of throwing hosts and chalices to the Great Unwashed in lieu of giving them access to education and then having to deal honestly with their challenge to the social order. It has its roots in an anti-democratic Machiavellianism that was, at best, a weigh station between mass illiteracy and universal education. Its time is passed.
(3) It breeds parochialism and violence the more you take it seriously. If religion were understood as an arbitrary game that we all agree to pretend, like sports or a movie or Santa Claus, then we could have its benefits without descending into anger, fear, and reprisal. But the more someone actually has True Belief, the worse it is for them being able to function in a world where there are thousands of faiths. At best they go through life smugly happy they will get the meat afterlife and everyone with a different faith will get the no meat afterlife. But historically it leads to the slaughter of infidels, forced conversion from one fairy tale to another, and/or the dehumanization of a large part of the population as, literally, "evil." God is a good idea to the extent you remember She isn't real.
(4) It's an app that considers its inability to upgrade as a feature, not a bug. This makes it more and more irrelevant as the realities of life change. Anti-homosexuality was a great idea when population growth was vital to the tribe's existence and non-baby producing sex literally wasted seed as a public asset. The second-class status of women was natural in a world were women were possessions. Banning shell fish was great if your economy was based on herding and the fishermen in the next valley were stealing your business. Banning pork was a good idea if you had a runaway Trichinosis epidemic and no refrigeration. None of that stuff means anything anymore, and pretending it does, just because it's in a Magic Book that you're not allowed to challenge or amend, hurts millions. Religion's delivery mechanism, top-down and infallible, is a tyranny that introduces immorality into the heart of a moral code. The game is not worth the candle.
OK, I have time now.
I don't disagree with your premise as much as you might think. One of my core conservative tendencies (don't laugh) is an appreciation for solutions and institutions that have demonstrated staying power over long time periods. Religion is a VERY successful human invention, and few human inventions have the potential at least to transmit positive moral teachings that religion does. The competing social organizing principles until now have been force majeure and utilitarianism; both are, IMO, anti-human in that they are hostile to the "angels of our better nature."
So much for the good of religion, which is substantial. The bad is:
(1) It's based on a "noble lie," and a lie which it is just not that hard to suss out. A weak keystone means the potential for complete collapse. And, indeed, with greater literacy and greater knowledge religious belief decreases. Doubt is the hallmark of wisdom and doubt is the enemy of faith. Religion was a pre-scientific, pre-rational solution that is no longer applicable once we know things.
(2) Maintenance of the noble lie for the portion of the population that will never achieve knowledge has often been suggested as a social control mechanism. This is, firstly, cynical and immoral, which is a bad way to go about spreading morality. But more than that it causes violent rifts and tears in society. The first target of the demagogue is the demonization of elites as having fallen away from the faith. Even here, among intelligent and mostly open minded people, it isn't unusual to run across people who honestly think that moral sense is predicated on spirituality. This is a seriously negative unintended consequence of the strategy of throwing hosts and chalices to the Great Unwashed in lieu of giving them access to education and then having to deal honestly with their challenge to the social order. It has its roots in an anti-democratic Machiavellianism that was, at best, a weigh station between mass illiteracy and universal education. Its time is passed.
(3) It breeds parochialism and violence the more you take it seriously. If religion were understood as an arbitrary game that we all agree to pretend, like sports or a movie or Santa Claus, then we could have its benefits without descending into anger, fear, and reprisal. But the more someone actually has True Belief, the worse it is for them being able to function in a world where there are thousands of faiths. At best they go through life smugly happy they will get the meat afterlife and everyone with a different faith will get the no meat afterlife. But historically it leads to the slaughter of infidels, forced conversion from one fairy tale to another, and/or the dehumanization of a large part of the population as, literally, "evil." God is a good idea to the extent you remember She isn't real.
(4) It's an app that considers its inability to upgrade as a feature, not a bug. This makes it more and more irrelevant as the realities of life change. Anti-homosexuality was a great idea when population growth was vital to the tribe's existence and non-baby producing sex literally wasted seed as a public asset. The second-class status of women was natural in a world were women were possessions. Banning shell fish was great if your economy was based on herding and the fishermen in the next valley were stealing your business. Banning pork was a good idea if you had a runaway Trichinosis epidemic and no refrigeration. None of that stuff means anything anymore, and pretending it does, just because it's in a Magic Book that you're not allowed to challenge or amend, hurts millions. Religion's delivery mechanism, top-down and infallible, is a tyranny that introduces immorality into the heart of a moral code. The game is not worth the candle.
Last edited:
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
And I'm restating what I've said in the past. Doesn't matter.
2/3 of the population (80% of Christians based on your math) call him God and the broader consensus is that Christianity is based on 'the life and teachings of Jesus'. Jesus came later and qualified/countered what most Christians consider a directional Old Testament. Atheists don't seem to follow this, but the relevant sources and chronology is critical here.
It isn't just that Christians have had 90% of achievements (which even I might debate)...its that often the Word has been the de facto/stated motivator.
And I'm restating what I've said in the past. Doesn't matter.
2/3 of the population (80% of Christians based on your math) call him God and the broader consensus is that Christianity is based on 'the life and teachings of Jesus'. Jesus came later and qualified/countered what most Christians consider a directional Old Testament. Atheists don't seem to follow this, but the relevant sources and chronology is critical here.
It isn't just that Christians have had 90% of achievements (which even I might debate)...its that often the Word has been the de facto/stated motivator.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
So ONLY if it's in the New Testament, then it counts as the most current Word of God, is that right? So as I understand it, what the New Testament states will be the Divinely inspired word to be held as sacrament.
unofan
Well-known member
So I should go tell all my former religion teachers and Catholic priests that they shouldn't waste their time with the Old Testament or the letters of Paul, because even though they're in what they consider to be the Word of God they don't matter.
I guess all those Ten Commandment monuments around the country should be destroyed, too, since they come from the Old Testament.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
So people make a deal out of a different philosophy. Its really not. IMO here's the deal.
Most are introduced to Christianity via church or a religious school, etc. The point is that they are introduced as 'we believe in God' first. And then, 'oh now that we believe in God, what does that mean?' I'm of the opinion that that's putting the cart before the horse. I think its this 'we believe in God' first is what cause some to become irreligious later or feel like they've been subjected to an empty belief to the point they actively work against faith in general.
I was reintroduced by spending time with the meaning (i.e., Jesus' Word) as isn't that what truly matters? So for me, its 'who/what is God' first rather than the belief itself in terms of chronology and in terms of why I'm Christian. And a belief in God as love naturally fell out of that.
So for me, theism has become an integral part. For someone like me, I suppose its possible to not have the theism part. But theism just raises the importance of the meaning (i.e., the Word) to a critical nature which ensures it plays the role in one's life that it really needs to.
So people make a deal out of a different philosophy. Its really not. IMO here's the deal.
Most are introduced to Christianity via church or a religious school, etc. The point is that they are introduced as 'we believe in God' first. And then, 'oh now that we believe in God, what does that mean?' I'm of the opinion that that's putting the cart before the horse. I think its this 'we believe in God' first is what cause some to become irreligious later or feel like they've been subjected to an empty belief to the point they actively work against faith in general.
I was reintroduced by spending time with the meaning (i.e., Jesus' Word) as isn't that what truly matters? So for me, its 'who/what is God' first rather than the belief itself in terms of chronology and in terms of why I'm Christian. And a belief in God as love naturally fell out of that.
So for me, theism has become an integral part. For someone like me, I suppose its possible to not have the theism part. But theism just raises the importance of the meaning (i.e., the Word) to a critical nature which ensures it plays the role in one's life that it really needs to.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Perhaps so. Many teachers put church doctrine ahead of the Bible. And in terms of the Bible, they put arguably too much time on the OT as there's just so much content there. When there is ambiguity on a topic, you need to pick your priorities. They should put the focus on Jesus and keep Him as the final say.
Although I'm largely a separation of church and state guy (so yes, limit where they appear), Jesus clearly validated and prioritized the Ten Commandments.
I'll have to get back to others later.
Perhaps so. Many teachers put church doctrine ahead of the Bible. And in terms of the Bible, they put arguably too much time on the OT as there's just so much content there. When there is ambiguity on a topic, you need to pick your priorities. They should put the focus on Jesus and keep Him as the final say.
Although I'm largely a separation of church and state guy (so yes, limit where they appear), Jesus clearly validated and prioritized the Ten Commandments.
I'll have to get back to others later.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
See, you lose me here because now you're all but saying your version of Christianity is the correct one, and anyone who does it differently, like a Church that makes up 1/4th to 1/3rd of all Christians in this country, must be wrong. We're back to debating who counts as Christian, and as proven in this thread we have irreconcilable differences on that one.
Again, if it works for you, great. But what works for you won't necessarily work for Joe Schmoe and could even lead him down the wrong path.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
So by your logic...if someone who hates the country and does what they can to betray it, calls themselves a US loving patriot. You would say...well yeah, they must be a US loving patriot. Whereas by definition, they are not what they say.
Its not 'my version of Christianity'.
Webster: religion based on Jesus Christ
Dictionary.com: religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus Chris
Oxford: religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth
thefreedictionary.com: religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus
Wiki: religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus
Its the world's version of Christianity. What is your basis for saying Christian teachings should go counter to Jesus' Word and the golden rule?
So by your logic...if someone who hates the country and does what they can to betray it, calls themselves a US loving patriot. You would say...well yeah, they must be a US loving patriot. Whereas by definition, they are not what they say.
Its not 'my version of Christianity'.
Webster: religion based on Jesus Christ
Dictionary.com: religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus Chris
Oxford: religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth
thefreedictionary.com: religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus
Wiki: religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus
Its the world's version of Christianity. What is your basis for saying Christian teachings should go counter to Jesus' Word and the golden rule?
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Then what percentage of the country do you think is a 'true' Christian? The census says 80%, but you clearly disagree.
First off, the Golden Rule predates Jesus by at least one or two millennia, and can be found buried in the Old Testament in Leviticus, so let's not confuse his use of it with it being his original idea.
The teachings? I can't speak for every other denomination, but Catholicism treats the entire Bible as the Word of God (albeit from an allegorical sense, not a literal one). It even adds in extra books not found in the King James version. More to the point, the mere fact that the Bible contains more than just the Gospels should be proof that the Gospels are not the end all, be all. If the rest isn't important, then why would God bother including it in his Word? And let's not get into the fact that God shouldn't need his Word to be clarified or changed later on, either. If the Gospels contradict the Old Testament, then God is contradicting his own word.
Then what percentage of the country do you think is a 'true' Christian? The census says 80%, but you clearly disagree.
First off, the Golden Rule predates Jesus by at least one or two millennia, and can be found buried in the Old Testament in Leviticus, so let's not confuse his use of it with it being his original idea.
The teachings? I can't speak for every other denomination, but Catholicism treats the entire Bible as the Word of God (albeit from an allegorical sense, not a literal one). It even adds in extra books not found in the King James version. More to the point, the mere fact that the Bible contains more than just the Gospels should be proof that the Gospels are not the end all, be all. If the rest isn't important, then why would God bother including it in his Word? And let's not get into the fact that God shouldn't need his Word to be clarified or changed later on, either. If the Gospels contradict the Old Testament, then God is contradicting his own word.
Last edited:
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Maybe 60-90%. Don't know, but clearly literal interpretations are in a significant minority.
You didn't answer my question about the basis of your assertion that teachings can and should go against Jesus. But as usual, I will address your point.
OK...so say you (as a human) were assigned to develop the canon for what would soon to be the Bible, with the purpose of documenting Jesus (God). Jesus quoted 24 OT books and He was anticipated in many of those. You have two choices. You include the Old Testament or throw it away. Why would you not include it? It doesn't mean that you worship the Bible over Jesus/God - even if Catholic doctrine thinks you should. That belief system started for the exits with the printing of the Bible and Luther. OTOH, Atheists have an even more rigid worldview of Christianity than all but the most extreme Christian as is evident here.
And absolutely, Jesus contradicted the OT. In fact, Jesus primary purpose was to set the record straight. 'You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth; But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.' For an atheist with an overly rigid worldview, this is heresy. For a Christian, we now know what to believe. By definition, the Gospels are not the 'be all' but they are the 'end all'.
Maybe 60-90%. Don't know, but clearly literal interpretations are in a significant minority.
You didn't answer my question about the basis of your assertion that teachings can and should go against Jesus. But as usual, I will address your point.
OK...so say you (as a human) were assigned to develop the canon for what would soon to be the Bible, with the purpose of documenting Jesus (God). Jesus quoted 24 OT books and He was anticipated in many of those. You have two choices. You include the Old Testament or throw it away. Why would you not include it? It doesn't mean that you worship the Bible over Jesus/God - even if Catholic doctrine thinks you should. That belief system started for the exits with the printing of the Bible and Luther. OTOH, Atheists have an even more rigid worldview of Christianity than all but the most extreme Christian as is evident here.
And absolutely, Jesus contradicted the OT. In fact, Jesus primary purpose was to set the record straight. 'You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth; But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.' For an atheist with an overly rigid worldview, this is heresy. For a Christian, we now know what to believe. By definition, the Gospels are not the 'be all' but they are the 'end all'.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Its about Jesus Word. There is a difference. See below.
Its about Jesus Word. There is a difference. See below.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Your conclusions are all quite rational. They are logical. The issue is with your frame of reference.
The only religious you see are brainwashed individuals who are suddenly prone to ignorance and violence. Faith does not create that in people. People are wired that way from birth or develop those tendencies via social relationships while young. Church shouldn't get credit for development of a great (or bad) child...its parenting. Likewise...if faith itself caused violence, wouldn't we see more than just a tiny fraction of those of faith be prone to violence? Overseas Muslim extremism is a very small percentage of the total Muslim population and is not a result of faith...but of bleak conditions, possibly some jealously, and definitely hostilities built up over decades. They turn to an extremist code...if Islam didn't exist, it would be some other code (see the KKK, the Nazi party, the Masons, etc.). If the US has +50% of its population as Christians, wouldn't we see tens of thousands of religious caused deaths each year? It doesn't happen, because violence is no more common among American Christians...and probably much, much less common than among non Christians.
OTOH, if you look at charitable outcomes...faith in the US is driving a hugely disproportionate amount of generosity. And it should. Because afterall, that's the Christian code.
Again, I believe your worldview is of limited visibility to what's going on out there and is clouding that folks are just finding a code to live by and a support structure that works for themselves...and one that is largely positive in nature.
I know...faith has been a great vehicle for social change throughout the centuries.
Your conclusions are all quite rational. They are logical. The issue is with your frame of reference.
The only religious you see are brainwashed individuals who are suddenly prone to ignorance and violence. Faith does not create that in people. People are wired that way from birth or develop those tendencies via social relationships while young. Church shouldn't get credit for development of a great (or bad) child...its parenting. Likewise...if faith itself caused violence, wouldn't we see more than just a tiny fraction of those of faith be prone to violence? Overseas Muslim extremism is a very small percentage of the total Muslim population and is not a result of faith...but of bleak conditions, possibly some jealously, and definitely hostilities built up over decades. They turn to an extremist code...if Islam didn't exist, it would be some other code (see the KKK, the Nazi party, the Masons, etc.). If the US has +50% of its population as Christians, wouldn't we see tens of thousands of religious caused deaths each year? It doesn't happen, because violence is no more common among American Christians...and probably much, much less common than among non Christians.
OTOH, if you look at charitable outcomes...faith in the US is driving a hugely disproportionate amount of generosity. And it should. Because afterall, that's the Christian code.
Again, I believe your worldview is of limited visibility to what's going on out there and is clouding that folks are just finding a code to live by and a support structure that works for themselves...and one that is largely positive in nature.
I know...faith has been a great vehicle for social change throughout the centuries.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
This is untrue. I fully agree religion doesn't create violence, but the absolutism of religion has historically been fecund ground for violent rhetoric and action. Certainty breeds overreach.
If you start from the assumption, "I don't know," you are apt to be cautious and modest, and suggest partial and conditional actions.
If you start from the assumption, "I know absolutely," you are apt to be reckless and arrogant, and demand comprehensive and sweeping actions.
This is untrue. I fully agree religion doesn't create violence, but the absolutism of religion has historically been fecund ground for violent rhetoric and action. Certainty breeds overreach.
If you start from the assumption, "I don't know," you are apt to be cautious and modest, and suggest partial and conditional actions.
If you start from the assumption, "I know absolutely," you are apt to be reckless and arrogant, and demand comprehensive and sweeping actions.
busterman62
I got a pocket full of kryptonite
- Status