The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like...

[French Rage]

..Debates on a Message Board Will Ever Actually Change Anyone's Opinions, So That It Doesn't Have to Contaminate Other Threads Where a Few People Are Just Trying to Wish Each Other a Happy Holiday.

Continue.

You know, I probably see eye to eye with Timothy A on slim to nil on dogma, but it's not like he goes around in political threads yelling at or condemning people or anything like that. He just wants to make an occasional post about something he enjoys, in a purely positive way, and if you don't happen to agree he seems more than happy to let you be. So if he starts a thread that in no way affects you and is just as easy for you to ignore, just let it be. If you wanna get snarky, just post it in a political thread, people will be happy to take up the issue there.

I think the only thing I would like less than agreeing with Old Pio is getting sodomized by a broomstick, though even that may be a close race (because of the former getting worse, not the latter getting better). So the fact I actually felt the need to actual start a thread over such an issue should tell you how asinine a couple people's posts are getting. Well that, and I figured by making some noise over here it will pull people out of the other thread and let that thread by what the people enjoying it would prefer it to be.

(**** title length limits.)

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

+1

Some atheists/agnostics need to be lazier. Save your indignation for when "Christians" try to change laws or schools based on their beliefs. Some people make me wonder if they sit around when they get money and take a permanent marker to cover up "God" anywhere it appears.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

+1

Some atheists/agnostics need to be lazier. Save your indignation for when "Christians" try to change laws or schools based on their beliefs. Some people make me wonder if they sit around when they get money and take a permanent marker to cover up "God" anywhere it appears.

What strikes me sometimes in discussions with some "atheists" is when you ask them why people should behave in a moral fashion. Most of them mumble something that sounds like it would be religious except they strenuously argue over the term "God" wanting to have something that fills that space but only to insist that it be called something different.

 

[MUnRPI]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

What strikes me sometimes in discussions with some "atheists" is when you ask them why people should behave in a moral fashion. Most of them mumble something that sounds like it would be religious except they strenuously argue over the term "God" wanting to have something that fills that space but only to insist that it be called something different.

One of the many strengths of Secular Humanism

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

...Also known as the Foxton and Old Pio argue non-stop about stuff that 95% of the rest of the posters on USCHO don't want to hear about thread.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

What strikes me sometimes in discussions with some "atheists" is when you ask them why people should behave in a moral fashion. Most of them mumble something that sounds like it would be religious except they strenuously argue over the term "God" wanting to have something that fills that space but only to insist that it be called something different.

are you saying atheists can't have a moral creed?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

are you saying atheists can't have a moral creed?

It's the old fallacy that my faith tells me A is the only source of B, and you admit you don't have A, therefore you "logically" must not have B.

OTOH, if you ascribe to a religion that makes itself the only truth, you can't escape the fallacy.

So while it's tiresome to see it repeated endlessly, it's at least understandable. Nor is it stupid. A lot of very smart folks have, I wouldn't say "fallen for it," but have willingly allowed themselves to be enfolded in it because it gives them satisfaction. C. S. Lewis was a very unhappy guy until he decided to take the plunge; after that, he was a (comparatively) happier guy. Considering that along with a lot of useless and unreadable bunk Lewis also produced some pretty good (though overrated) fiction and also the single best non-fiction book on the Medieval worldview ever written, I'd say anything that kept him from blowing his brains out was a net win for him and us.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

are you saying atheists can't have a moral creed?

Not at all, I'm saying exactly the opposite. Most atheists have a very strong moral creed, they've seen how ruinous hypocrisy can be in the hands of those who use religion as a club to repress others, and are understandably appalled. I'm quite sympathetic.

I meant that many atheists have a problem articulating why a moral creed is important and why they have a strong one which they follow. Some have done so; many wind up sounding like they believe strongly in something greater than themselves and are fine with that as long as you don't use the word "god" to describe it.

Today's "atheist" isn't all that different in substance from Martin Luther. Luther rebelled against the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church in 1517; many atheists today rebel against the perceived hypocrisy of organized religion in general. I humbly suggest they use too broad a brush; while I also understand very well where they are coming from.

Luther still believed in god, most atheists seem to believe in something "like" god as the basis for morality, just not "exactly" god.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

It's the old fallacy that my faith tells me A is the only source of B, and you admit you don't have A, therefore you "logically" must not have B.

OTOH, if you ascribe to a religion that makes itself the only truth, you can't escape the fallacy.

Yes, that pernicious word, "only." As I understand it, Jesus himself never claimed exclusivity; and it makes much more sense to me that he is one of many "children of God."

When I was younger, I tried to write a science fiction novel based on the Michael Rennie version of The Day the Earth Stood Still in which "god" in the guise of advanced sympathetic aliens sent two emissaries to earth. One was Jesus and the other was the Buddha. These aliens realized that "right brain / left brain" humans needed an exemplar for each to make a complete understanding of the whole. Yin and Yang seem to exist as quantum mechanical principles as well as metaphysical ones.

I like to think we are all children of God, and however Jesus (or the Buddha) came to be, he is a role model of what human perfection might look like. If he were the "only" son then what chance do the rest of us have? If he was the "older brother" then we all could try to be like him.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

Dangerous thread for me.

What strikes me sometimes in discussions with some "atheists" is when you ask them why people should behave in a moral fashion. Most of them mumble something that sounds like it would be religious except they strenuously argue over the term "God" wanting to have something that fills that space but only to insist that it be called something different.

Maybe I"m agreeing with your or disagreeing...not sure.

But I believe folks can have a moral background independent of Christiainity and God. Many countries have compassionate peoples overseas that have not directly encountered Christianity.

However, I will say that the progress of human compassion and the human condition in society since the printing and dissemination of the Bible has been absolutely unmistakable. Starting with folks like Luther, abolition of serfdom, slavery, child labor and the arrival of equality has been spearheaded in the west (no big surprise as that's where Christianity occurred) and is now part of global culture. IMO thank you Jesus.

It's the old fallacy that my faith tells me A is the only source of B, and you admit you don't have A, therefore you "logically" must not have B.

OTOH, if you ascribe to a religion that makes itself the only truth, you can't escape the fallacy.

So while it's tiresome to see it repeated endlessly, it's at least understandable. Nor is it stupid. A lot of very smart folks have, I wouldn't say "fallen for it," but have willingly allowed themselves to be enfolded in it because it gives them satisfaction. C. S. Lewis was a very unhappy guy until he decided to take the plunge; after that, he was a (comparatively) happier guy. Considering that along with a lot of useless and unreadable bunk Lewis also produced some pretty good (though overrated) fiction and also the single best non-fiction book on the Medieval worldview ever written, I'd say anything that kept him from blowing his brains out was a net win for him and us.

Heard a position advanced by CS Lewis yesterday about Jesus=son of God that I thought was pretty powerful.

He said as Jesus claimed he was the Son of God...he did not leave available the option of great teacher and all around good guy. In fact due to the claim, he was either...insane, evil or in fact as claimed the son of God. Lewis very effectively made the case on Jesus' teaching, compassion and works that Jesus was neither insane nor evil...and I must agree, there is quite a bit of evidence in the Bible on this. That leaves one option open.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

Heard a position advanced by CS Lewis yesterday about Jesus=son of God that I thought was pretty powerful.

He said as Jesus claimed he was the Son of God...he did not leave available the option of great teacher and all around good guy. In fact due to the claim, he was either...insane, evil or in fact as claimed the son of God. Lewis very effectively made the case on Jesus' teaching, compassion and works that Jesus was neither insane nor evil...and I must agree, there is quite a bit of evidence in the Bible on this. That leaves one option open.

Yes, that sounds fine....I don't think Jesus himself ever used the word "only" when he described himself as "a" Son of God. It's that word "only" that leads to so much warfare in the name of God, with said warfare being totally antithetical to Jesus' actual teachings.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

He said as Jesus claimed he was the Son of God...he did not leave available the option of great teacher and all around good guy. In fact due to the claim, he was either...insane, evil or in fact as claimed the son of God. Lewis very effectively made the case on Jesus' teaching, compassion and works that Jesus was neither insane nor evil...and I must agree, there is quite a bit of evidence in the Bible on this. That leaves one option open.

I've read that (Mere Christianity, right?), and it's a bunch of bunk. It's only effective if you already believe. He's basically asking you to believe that people are pure black or pure white - that EVERYTHING they do is bad or EVERYTHING they do is good. Life is a whole lot more complicated than that.

I could call myself the Son of God, and I assure you that I am none of those 3 options. If there's a 4th option for me, why isn't there for Jesus?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

I could call myself the Son of God, and I assure you that I am none of those 3 options. If there's a 4th option for me, why isn't there for Jesus?

I thought there was, isn't it called "metaphor"?

 

[joecct]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

Everything you wanted to know (and used to have to memorize) about the Catholic Church: http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/

There!

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

Heard a position advanced by CS Lewis yesterday about Jesus=son of God that I thought was pretty powerful.

Can't resist asking where you head C.S. Lewis yesterday? I was sure he wasn't amongst us anymore! He wrote a lot of good, thoughtful stuff.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

Can't resist asking where you head C.S. Lewis yesterday? I was sure he wasn't amongst us anymore! He wrote a lot of good, thoughtful stuff.

He said

Heard a position advanced by C.S. Lewis

not that he heard C.S. Lewis. Reading comprehension there Bob.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

He said not that he heard C.S. Lewis. Reading comprehension there Bob.

Somebody's a little too serious today.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

Mmmmmm......CSLewis....

Best steak & ale pie in a pub in Oxford (I went to all 110 that I could find when I lived there). Best pie overall is at The Pieminister, though.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

I've read that (Mere Christianity, right?), and it's a bunch of bunk. It's only effective if you already believe. He's basically asking you to believe that people are pure black or pure white - that EVERYTHING they do is bad or EVERYTHING they do is good. Life is a whole lot more complicated than that.

I could call myself the Son of God, and I assure you that I am none of those 3 options. If there's a 4th option for me, why isn't there for Jesus?

Lewis' apologetics are among the most ridiculous things ever written by a smart person. They are right up there with Anselm's Ontological Argument. I'm sure if Aquinas had read Mere Christianity he'd have eviscerated it. I had a priest in CCD (basically Sunday School for Catholics) tell me once that he detested Lewis' aggressive attacks on atheism because anybody with half a brain reading them would choose atheism.

But I take the main point of his selective blindness to be a great moral lesson in humility. Nobody reading (and certainly not writing) this post will ever produce anything remotely as interesting or wonderful as Lewis' historical analysis of art and literature. If somebody that smart and deep in some ways can be that dumb and superficial in other ways, it's a lesson to all of us to tread lightly.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

Lewis' apologetics are among the most ridiculous things ever written by a smart person. They are right up there with Anselm's Ontological Argument. I'm sure if Aquinas had read Mere Christianity he'd have eviscerated it.

But I take the main point of his selective blindness to be a great moral lesson in humility. Nobody reading (and certainly not writing) this post will ever produce anything remotely as interesting or wonderful as Lewis' historical analysis. If somebody that smart and deep in some ways can be that dumb and superficial in other ways, it's a lesson to all of us to tread lightly.

...and an ironic example of exactly what Lewis was trying to argue against: that Jesus could't be so "smart and deep" as a moral teacher and yet so "dumb" as to believe he was the Son of God.