Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

[busterman62]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

It's based on a "noble lie,"

If you start from the assumption, "I know absolutely," you are apt to be reckless and arrogant, and demand comprehensive and sweeping actions.

Hmm?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

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.

In the US or in all probability worldwide, religion is faar more likely to create acts of generosity (including saving lives) than violence...by millions to one.

Not judging them...just came up with organizations with codes.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

...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'.

Why do you either have to reject the OT or include it? Is there no grey? IMHO Faith is more like a living organism than an inert object. It is not meant to be stagnant. Over the years it has changed within the context of culture, environment, exposure to variables. Every change has been embraced by some and vilified by others. I imagine how we practice faith/interpret the Bible now would be unrecognizable (and probably baffling) to the Disciples. Consider that each of the Gospels was written for a different audience- Jews of the time, Gentiles, Romans, all had different cultures and they were written to appeal to the culture being addressed. We are looking at all of them through the lens of the modern world which skews the meaning. ONe of the most interesting things I have heard about the Bible was Jews at the time didn't tell a story to address detail but to get the point across. So- the important thing should be figuring out what the message is, not the minutia.

I had a Rabbinical student as a patient who explained to me that part of Judaism is the practice of questioning and discussion regarding the meaning of different parts of the 'scriptures', This was to foster a deeper understanding of the reasoning and meaning of what was written. It is not in anyway supposed to be viewed rigidly. There are passages where Jesus was practicing this when he discussed the meaning of passages.

As we have clearly seen here different Christians certainly have different views about the 'correct' interpretation of Christianity. Atheists being defined as having such narrow views of Christianity is not accurate. I find they are much more open minded and knowledgeable about the various versions of Christianity than the avg Christian.

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.

Religion is not the cause of anything. The use of religion to support a position of violence, exclusionism or anything else is just the tool a person/culture has to support what they want.

In the US or in all probability worldwide, religion is far more likely to create acts of generosity (including saving lives) than violence...by millions to one.

Not judging them...just came up with organizations with codes.

Don't know if I agree with this, much as I would like to. In my area there are way more acts of generosity, etc from secular organizations than churches or faith based groups. On the other hand there are all sorts of silly movements spawned by Faith based organizations to tell people how to live their lives (the Christian version of Sharia law).

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Religion is not the cause of anything. The use of religion to support a position of violence, exclusionism or anything else is just the tool a person/culture has to support what they want.

It's not quite that simple, because some ideas are better soil for violence than others. Evangelical monotheisms like Islam and Christianity are better breeders of violence than non-evangelical faiths like Judaism or syncretic faiths like Buddhism. A doctrine that claims universality is liable to be much more dangerous than one which makes no claims beyond its adherents. Likewise, open and shifting faiths, like pantheism, are much less likely to excuse abuse in their name than dogmatic faiths, particular those that posit some afterlife retribution that looks suspiciously like the revenge of a jealous, barely abstracted father/warlord figure.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Atheists have an even more rigid worldview of Christianity than all but the most extreme Christian as is evident here.

This is a category error. You keep trying to claim that not being a stamp collector is just being a VERY narrow stamp collector. Atheism is not anti-theism, it's a-theism. Here is the difference in a way I think you'll see. As a believer, you are often cognizant of your belief throughout the day. As a non-believer, the only time I think about religion is when I'm debating a believer. I do not view a beautiful bird and think "look at that ENTIRELY NON-SUPERNATURAL bird," and when I sit down to eat I don't begin with a prayer to "our ENTIRELY NATURAL AND MECHANISTIC EMPIRICALLY-OBSERVABLE universe."

God is just one more of an infinity of hypotheses I don't accept. I also don't believe in Russell's teapot, but the only time I would think about it and talk about it would be when confronted by an Orthodox Teapotian (a Reformed Teapotian would be cool and just brew and let brew).

As a believer, the world revolves around God. But as a non-believer, the world doesn't revolve around not-God. Not-God's a hypothesis I accept, but it's an obvious one like not-Moon-cheese and not at all important to me except when Godfolk try and force their ideology down my throat.

A devout Christian would probably list being a Christian as one of the three or four most important things to know about them. Being an atheist isn't even in my top 40.

 

[unofan]

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.

Yes I did, I made several points about how the entire Bible is generally considered the Word of God by a significant number of Christians. You just don't agree with it. Which is fine, that's a reason there are a bijillion different faiths out there, but don't say I didn't address your points.

Just because you disagree with the Catholic interpretation doesn't make the Church's position somehow less Christian or valid than your own.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Why do you either have to reject the OT or include it? Is there no grey? IMHO Faith is more like a living organism than an inert object. It is not meant to be stagnant. Over the years it has changed within the context of culture, environment, exposure to variables. Every change has been embraced by some and vilified by others. I imagine how we practice faith/interpret the Bible now would be unrecognizable (and probably baffling) to the Disciples. Consider that each of the Gospels was written for a different audience- Jews of the time, Gentiles, Romans, all had different cultures and they were written to appeal to the culture being addressed. We are looking at all of them through the lens of the modern world which skews the meaning. ONe of the most interesting things I have heard about the Bible was Jews at the time didn't tell a story to address detail but to get the point across. So- the important thing should be figuring out what the message is, not the minutia.)

Just to be clear. My point is not that not that we need to adopt or ignore the Old Testament 100%...its along the lines of what you say. I was proposing at the development of the Biblical canon in 300AD: do you as a human exclude the OT and its forever lost? Or do you include it so that all of the references are included and give readers the option of having the OT as well as the Gospels? I am proposing you of course would include it and give folks the rest of the story. Having access to the OT is worth the risk of some putting it ahead of the Gospels. Yes, its the message and not the minutia.

As we have clearly seen here different Christians certainly have different views about the 'correct' interpretation of Christianity. Atheists being defined as having such narrow views of Christianity is not accurate. I find they are much more open minded and knowledgeable about the various versions of Christianity than the avg Christian.

I still do not find this to be the case about atheists. For starters, how many atheists hang their disbelief on the OT? Lots. IMO that's a fairly superficial position and ignores the nature of Christianity. And most don't get that faith provides an invaluable, positive tool for the individual for the purpose of aiding in solving life's problems. Nor do they understand the incredible motivation it has and continues to provide in the improvement of society. I look this up every year, but somewhere around 80% of the top 20 charities are Christian based with the outcomes of saving tens of thousands of lives every year. I could go on and on and on. Christians typically get all this practically instinctually.

Don't know if I agree with this, much as I would like to. In my area there are way more acts of generosity, etc from secular organizations than churches or faith based groups. On the other hand there are all sorts of silly movements spawned by Faith based organizations to tell people how to live their lives (the Christian version of Sharia law).

Yeah, I know there's a lot of propaganda out there that Christians really don't give. The United Way, the Salvation Army, St. Judes, Food for the Poor. In addition to many surveys that show Christians give more, large faith based or faith originated charities provide a surprisingly large amount of charitable giving in the US. The only thing I can figure is that people set ridiculous standards of Christians being expected to do 90% of all charitable giving.

http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

This is a category error. You keep trying to claim that not being a stamp collector is just being a VERY narrow stamp collector. Atheism is not anti-theism, it's a-theism. Here is the difference in a way I think you'll see. As a believer, you are often cognizant of your belief throughout the day. As a non-believer, the only time I think about religion is when I'm debating a believer. I do not view a beautiful bird and think "look at that ENTIRELY NON-SUPERNATURAL bird," and when I sit down to eat I don't begin with a prayer to "our ENTIRELY NATURAL AND MECHANISTIC EMPIRICALLY-OBSERVABLE universe."

God is just one more of an infinity of hypotheses I don't accept. I also don't believe in Russell's teapot, but the only time I would think about it and talk about it would be when confronted by an Orthodox Teapotian (a Reformed Teapotian would be cool and just brew and let brew).

As a believer, the world revolves around God. But as a non-believer, the world doesn't revolve around not-God. Not-God's a hypothesis I accept, but it's an obvious one like not-Moon-cheese and not at all important to me except when Godfolk try and force their ideology down my throat.

A devout Christian would probably list being a Christian as one of the three or four most important things to know about them. Being an atheist isn't even in my top 40.

See my post below.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Guys, this is really simple. Jesus is God. He corrected the OT as needed and set the record straight. His Word as God trumps the balance of the Bible. By definition, His concepts are what matters for Christians. Whether you believe so or not, faith improves many lives by giving those strength, companionship and a code to live by. Violence in faith as a percentage is tiny...and therefore, a causal correlation of faith to violence does not exist. Positive outcomes driven by faith based motivations have included major changes in society including charity, healthcare, civil rights, slavery, etc...and no its not the only giving, but Christianity continues to dominate charitable giving and organization. Sorry, but atheists get all that wrong.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Sorry, but atheists get all that wrong.

No, it's that atheists don't care about all that. You keep trying to discuss the superiority of painting with oil vs acrylics with people who dance. All your arguments are pre-locked and loaded for people you think are against x. We keep trying to tell you that knowing x isn't real isn't the same thing as being against x.

x til you're blue; we don't care. Just don't act like you have the right to x in our face, cuz you don't.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

No, it's that atheists don't care about all that. You keep trying to discuss the superiority of painting with oil vs acrylics with people who dance. All your arguments are pre-locked and loaded for people you think are against x. We keep trying to tell you that knowing x isn't real isn't the same thing as being against x.

x til you're blue; we don't care. Just don't act like you have the right to x in our face, cuz you don't.

That's what I said. Your rigid disbelief is in something that's not Christianity based on its universal definition or substantiated outcomes. This is why most Christians don't give you the time of day.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

That's what I said. Your rigid disbelief is in something that's not Christianity based on its universal definition or substantiated outcomes. This is why most Christians don't give you the time of day.

OK. I give up.

 

[unofan]

Guys, this is really simple. Jesus is God. He corrected the OT as needed and set the record straight. His Word as God trumps the balance of the Bible.

Since you love the definition provided in Wikipedia, let's read a bit further in the article, shall we?

"Christianity, like other religions, has adherents whose beliefs and biblical interpretations vary. Christianity regards the biblical canon, the Old Testament and the New Testament, as the inspired word of God. The traditional view of inspiration is that God worked through human authors so that what they produced was what God wished to communicate. The Greek word referring to inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16 is theopneustos, which literally means "God-breathed"."

The Bible, OT and NT alike, is considered canon for Christians. If the Old Testament is what God wished to communicate, and God is infallible, why would it need later correction?

 

[joecct]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

As somebody once wrote: "I do not question the Word of God, only what man has made of it."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

As somebody once wrote: "I do not question the Word of God, only what man has made of it."

Careful.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Just to be clear. My point is not that not that we need to adopt or ignore the Old Testament 100%...its along the lines of what you say. I was proposing at the development of the Biblical canon in 300AD: do you as a human exclude the OT and its forever lost? Or do you include it so that all of the references are included and give readers the option of having the OT as well as the Gospels? I am proposing you of course would include it and give folks the rest of the story. Having access to the OT is worth the risk of some putting it ahead of the Gospels. Yes, its the message and not the minutia.



I still do not find this to be the case about atheists. For starters, how many atheists hang their disbelief on the OT? Lots. IMO that's a fairly superficial position and ignores the nature of Christianity. And most don't get that faith provides an invaluable, positive tool for the individual for the purpose of aiding in solving life's problems. Nor do they understand the incredible motivation it has and continues to provide in the improvement of society. I look this up every year, but somewhere around 80% of the top 20 charities are Christian based with the outcomes of saving tens of thousands of lives every year. I could go on and on and on. Christians typically get all this practically instinctually.



Yeah, I know there's a lot of propaganda out there that Christians really don't give. The United Way, the Salvation Army, St. Judes, Food for the Poor. In addition to many surveys that show Christians give more, large faith based or faith originated charities provide a surprisingly large amount of charitable giving in the US. The only thing I can figure is that people set ridiculous standards of Christians being expected to do 90% of all charitable giving.

http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/

I think Kep has eloquently addressed this. It might help for you to open your mind and entertain the possibility that not all people who don't believe start from a position of belief and then look for disclaimers. If they don't believe, the Bible may not come into the equation, superficial or not. My personal experience is non-believers give way less thought to why they don't believe than you do. For many it is a non-issue that they don't think about at all. I expect if you discuss God with non believers the way you try to here they probably are fairly reactionary. You apparently spend a great deal of time thinking you are empathizing but doing so from your own point of view. I am a believer who does a fair amount of thinking about my faith and I find your assumptions to be no where near what I think.

How does this:
In my area there are way more acts of generosity, etc from secular organizations than churches or faith based groups. On the other hand there are all sorts of silly movements spawned by Faith based organizations to tell people how to live their lives (the Christian version of Sharia law).
translate into Christians don't give? I have no idea what 'propaganda' you are reading but you are arguing apples and oranges. What I said was In my area most of the organizations doing the bulk of good are secular. That doesn't mean Christians aren't giving. It means people do not need to be Christian to be motivated to do good for their fellow human.

How I see this Guys, this is really simple. Jesus is God. He corrected the OT as needed and set the record straight. His Word as God trumps the balance of the Bible. By definition, His concepts are what matters for Christians. Whether you believe so or not, faith improves many lives by giving those strength, companionship and a code to live by. Violence in faith as a percentage is tiny...and therefore, a causal correlation of faith to violence does not exist. Positive outcomes driven by faith based motivations have included major changes in society including charity, healthcare, civil rights, slavery, etc...and no its not the only giving, but Christianity continues to dominate charitable giving and organization. Sorry, but atheists get all that wrong.

FYP. You have an insular, constricted view of the world.

OK. I give up.

Every once in a while I forget that I should say this before I post.

As somebody once wrote: "I do not question the Word of God, only what man has made of it."

That about sums it up.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

See, you lose me here because now you're all but saying your version of Christianity is the correct one [for him, absolutely; however, not necessarily for anyone else].

FYP so that it is now clear to you what he means.

What part of "my journey" (my= 5mn_Major first person) wasn't clear before?


It sounds like, for him, it is a nourishing and sustaining poetry. Why would that bother you? What makes it so hard to be happy for him to have found something that gives so much meaning to him?

Not once did he say you also should adopt his viewpoint, IIRC....

 

[unofan]

Not once did he say you also should adopt his viewpoint, IIRC....

No, he just says any other view point is categorically wrong, which has the same effect.

I've gone out of my way to say that whatever works for him is great (if you had kept reading the post you quoted, you'd have seen that), but he seems intent on saying it's his way or the wrong way.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Not once did he say you also should adopt his viewpoint, IIRC....

He's not using those words, but that's exactly what he's said throughout all of these threads.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

he seems intent on saying it's his way or the wrong way.

He's not using those words, but that's exactly what he's said throughout all of these threads.

hmm...it seemed to me more like the enthusiasm of anyone who found something new and exciting in his life, eager to share the news about how wonderful it was, and why everyone else should try it too.

"Hey, I just saw the greatest movie ever! you should go see it too! here, I'll even buy you a ticket!"

To me that doesn't come across as "I'm right and you are wrong" but maybe we can just agree to disagree. I don't think that his "movie" is nearly as great as he makes it out to be either, but having dealt with plenty of zealots in my time, I see nothing to be gained by trying to dampen his enthusiasm. From the right perspective it can even be a bit endearing. It is a decent movie, far far better than "agree with me, or pay me tribute, or I'll kill you." I just happen to enjoy eastern cinema a lot more.