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

[Kepler]

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

...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.

Which Jesus may never have believed, anyway.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a guy who taught in parables might have been being figurative when he said he was "the son of God."

(And yes, I realize that Christianity has much less to do with ticky tacky trivia like what Jesus actually said or meant than it does with how the ensuing 2000 years have interpreted it to meet its own needs in each age. Which is no knock on Jesus or Christians at all. It is as it should be.)

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Which Jesus may never have believed, anyway.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a guy who taught in parables might have been being figurative when he said he was "the son of God."

(And yes, I realize that Christianity has much less to do with ticky tacky trivia like what Jesus actually said or meant than it does with how the ensuing 2000 years have interpreted it to meet its own needs in each age. Which is no knock on Jesus or Christians at all. It is as it should be.)

That's why it's helpful to go back to what the Greek manuscripts of the early centuries (of which there are huge numbers) say. No one should take what others tell them blindly as the truth, whether in the realm of Christianity, or elsewhere.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

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.

Based on this passage, it appears you don't believe in Jesus' true exceptionalism. Afterall if we're all son's of God, he's really just one of us. Honest question, do you consider yourself more Jewish?

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.

Of course life's more complicated. I said I just heard the concept yesterday...and based on his general concept, it was advanced very effectively. If folks want to harrass CS Lewis, its usually good to do so by directly digging up and addressing his logic.

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 could jump out a plane without a parachutte too. The point of all this is that you don't and neither has anyone else. You don't regularly speak in front of large crowds espousing revolutionary ideas on human compassion and do great works bordering on miracles...and you don't tell everyone you know that you're essentially God.

When you do...then we'll decide what you are.

 

[duper]

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

I have to say, I agree with what seems to be Foxton's general notion that religion is the source of most of the world's ills, and that it, collectively, is slowly destroying humanity. That's not to say that it has never done anything good, because as pointed out earlier, there was a time in human history when some really good stuff was done in the name of gods. And mind you, I'm not talking about organized religion, no, I'm talking any religious beliefs. I think they are misguided and harmful at best, and full-on destructive at worst. But I also recognize that I'm pretty much the fringe on this one, and that there is no need for me to antagonize people about it. So when I see a thread titled something along the lines of "Christ is Risen," even though I believe that that thread is propagating a false and destructive worldview, I leave it the hell alone, because, well, what good could possibly come of my trolling it? I actually am annoyed that this thread intrigued me enough to cause me to go back through that one to find out if it was, in fact, the impetus for this one.

 

[Rimbaud]

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

 

[5mn_Major]

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

I have to say, I agree with what seems to be Foxton's general notion that religion is the source of most of the world's ills, and that it, collectively, is slowly destroying humanity. That's not to say that it has never done anything good, because as pointed out earlier, there was a time in human history when some really good stuff was done in the name of gods. And mind you, I'm not talking about organized religion, no, I'm talking any religious beliefs. I think they are misguided and harmful at best, and full-on destructive at worst.

This post is not trolling but a valid and even somewhat common point of view. To summarize your pov is that religious beliefs has been/can be beneficial to society and organized religions have been/can be a negative to society. What is important to acknowlege what the drivers are...as that's how you start to find solutions.

What's driving all this is not faith itself being a bad influence but rather extremists who are attracted to religion and often pervert it to their own uses. If you think about it the key actors where destructive behavior is coming from individuals on the fringe of society: Falwell types, Islam extremists, Hitler, etc. And they focus on small components of the overall doctrine. These folks are attracted to religion as it gives them legitimacy to influence others. So blame and address extremism and not the general concept of faith as if religion was gone they'd find another area...nationalism, etc....to attempt to influence the populous.

 

[FreshFish]

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

Based on this passage, it appears you don't believe in Jesus' true exceptionalism. Afterall if we're all son's of God, he's really just one of us. Honest question, do you consider yourself more Jewish?

Your question is a bit of a non-sequiter, isn't it?

I consider myself "all of the above" in a sense, as every major faith and spiritual tradition conveys basically the same message.

If you are walking in a beautiful garden full of many delightful paths, isn't your time better spent enjoying and admiring the riches, instead of arguing with people about which path is "the best"? Does the act of disputation help anyone lead a better life? Isn't "very very good" okay too? How many people truly believe that there is only one exclusive path to salvation? doesn't that belief imply that God is mean, jealous, and petty? (sorry, pal, even though you lived an exemplary life and all your actions are fully consistent with my teachings, you can't have salvation because the way you were brought up, you never even heard of Jesus to begin with)

I believe that Jesus was exceptional, yes. I also believe the Buddha was exceptional. I merely said they were both sons of God. and also, according to Christian doctrine, isn't the reason Jesus was god may flesh precisely because that made him "one of us"?

I'd like to cue the Joan Osborne song here, the theme music from Joan of Arcadia.

 

[bronconick]

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

I have to say, I agree with what seems to be Foxton's general notion that religion is the source of most of the world's ills, and that it, collectively, is slowly destroying humanity. That's not to say that it has never done anything good, because as pointed out earlier, there was a time in human history when some really good stuff was done in the name of gods. And mind you, I'm not talking about organized religion, no, I'm talking any religious beliefs. I think they are misguided and harmful at best, and full-on destructive at worst. But I also recognize that I'm pretty much the fringe on this one, and that there is no need for me to antagonize people about it. So when I see a thread titled something along the lines of "Christ is Risen," even though I believe that that thread is propagating a false and destructive worldview, I leave it the hell alone, because, well, what good could possibly come of my trolling it? I actually am annoyed that this thread intrigued me enough to cause me to go back through that one to find out if it was, in fact, the impetus for this one.

Eh, religion still has a large use in the world today. You can make an argument that everything you write about here is true on a macro level, and that it slows the advance of science, helps in poisoning our politics, and acts a crutch for our advancement as a society. It's basically why most communist nations dismissed and attempted to repress religion as a whole.

However, on an individual level, people don't care about the nebulous "improvement of mankind" "or the promise of the future" as a reason for hope, especially if you don't think there's anything beyond death. I view it as Kepler's comments earlier about CS Lewis writ large. I think having faith and the belief and hope that things will be better in this world or the next is huge on an individual level, and all those macro things when broken down are nothing more than massive groups of individuals.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Eh, religion still has a large use in the world today. You can make an argument that everything you write about here is true on a macro level, and that it slows the advance of science, helps in poisoning our politics, and acts a crutch for our advancement as a society. It's basically why most communist nations dismissed and attempted to repress religion as a whole.

However, on an individual level, people don't care about the nebulous "improvement of mankind" "or the promise of the future" as a reason for hope, especially if you don't think there's anything beyond death. I view it as Kepler's comments earlier about CS Lewis writ large. I think having faith and the belief and hope that things will be better in this world or the next is huge on an individual level, and all those macro things when broken down are nothing more than massive groups of individuals.

That didn't work out so well for Communist countries. A lot of good and bad has been done in the name of various religions, but history does not show that eliminating religious freedom/beliefs from a country is somehow helpful or positive.


As for Jesus just being another son of God, if one takes the Bible as meaning what it says, the New Testament quotes Jesus as saying "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through me." (John 14:6) Or Acts 4:12 that says "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Those are clear claims to exclusivity that you either have to dismiss, in which case you would logically dismiss Jesus for making a false claim of eclusivity, or you have to accept what he said and reject claims that Jesus is just one of many paths. I'm not telling anyone which way to go, just that if you take Jesus' teachings at face value, he can't be just one of many paths.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

There's a difference between installing a totalitarian regime that undermines religion, and religion simply fading away as an integral part of everyday life. I'm going to guess that most of the atheists here are in the latter camp.

As to bronconick's other point -- it seems kind of like "A Few Good Men." People *need* religion on that wall.

I'm guessing that wasn't the intent, though.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

There's a difference between installing a totalitarian regime that undermines religion, and religion simply fading away as an integral part of everyday life. I'm going to guess that most of the atheists here are in the latter camp.

Those certainly are different scenarios. Agreed. Now, whether the absense of religion under either scenario will in the long term have a similar effects on society is certainly a subject open to debate.

 

[bronconick]

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

There's a difference between installing a totalitarian regime that undermines religion, and religion simply fading away as an integral part of everyday life. I'm going to guess that most of the atheists here are in the latter camp.

As to bronconick's other point -- it seems kind of like "A Few Good Men." People *need* religion on that wall.

I'm guessing that wasn't the intent, though.

Pretty close, actually. I subscribe to the Dilbert belief that civilization is hordes of morons with a few geniuses grabbing us collectively by the scruff of our necks and hurling us forward. It was that darned printing press where geniuses could share information where things went crazy.

Stephen Hawking and his peers may be fine with going through life understanding that nothing here matters and we're insignificant specks on the *** of the universe. Most of the 300 million people in this country are not fine with that being our eventual lot in life. Religion fills that hole. Unless it got replaced by something, religion disappearing will have a negative effect on our society as a result.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Stephen Hawking and his peers may be fine with going through life understanding that nothing here matters and we're insignificant specks on the *** of the universe. Most of the 300 million people in this country are not fine with that being our eventual lot in life. Religion fills that hole. Unless it got replaced by something, religion disappearing will have a negative effect on our society as a result.

Which is basically just a Utilitarian argument for continuation of religion. Why not just make the Utilitarian argument directly and say that more people will be happier more of the time if we each treated other as we would like to be treated? Same result, less dishonesty.

 

[bronconick]

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

Which is basically just a Utilitarian argument for continuation of religion. Why not just make the Utilitarian argument directly and say that more people will be happier more of the time if we each treated other as we would like to be treated? Same result, less dishonesty.

Because Pascal's Wager is clearly needed in a large minority of the population to get them to act in such a way.

 

[Kepler]

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

Which is basically just a Utilitarian argument for continuation of religion. Why not just make the Utilitarian argument directly and say that more people will be happier more of the time if we each treated other as we would like to be treated? Same result, less dishonesty.

I don't think that's the point he was making.

The mass of people -- the populations who make TV ratings and best seller lists what they are -- seem a lot happier when they have a Cosmic Family to belong to, with the threat of "wait till your father gets home." It's Plato's noble lie.

Which is a dumb name, as since the whole point is there is absolutely no way to "know" anything about metaphysics it should have been called "well, Plato's story is just as good as anybody else's."

 

[FreshFish]

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

The mass of people ... seem a lot happier when they have a Cosmic Family to belong to

I'm more than a little surprised that the Gaia hypothesis hasn't garnered more attention and support. That's the direction the global warming zealots should have taken, instead of fudging data. Then they wouldn't need to fudge any data or even to argue whether "global warming" was anthropogenic or occurring naturally.

Based on my understanding of quantum mechanics, the Gaia hypothesis actually makes sense to me.

 

[Timothy A]

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

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.

You have correctly summarized my approach and I'm glad that I am coming across the way I hoped I was. I feel that when it comes to religion, there is almost no changing of minds through debate. I do welcome civilized debate about religion, it gives me a chance to witness for Christ and strengthen my faith through Bible study spurred on by the civilized debate. As you have seen, I try and ignore the trolls (on non-hockey discussions anyway), being on this board for 9 years I know that is pointless to address them.

Jesus being the Son of God discussion....Jesus WAS/IS the Son of God, because the Bible says so. When you read the Bible, don't interpret or over-think it, just read it and take it for what it says. It's full of amazing mind-blowing events that are inexplicable by the human mind, but we're talking about God here, not some human genius like Sir Isaac Newton.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

That's the direction the global warming zealots should have taken, instead of fudging data.

Indeed. Current strains of Fox-ian antienvironmentalism bear more than a passing resemblance to religious dogma.

Well played.

 

[bronconick]

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

I'm more than a little surprised that the Gaia hypothesis hasn't garnered more attention and support. That's the direction the global warming zealots should have taken, instead of fudging data. Then they wouldn't need to fudge any data or even to argue whether "global warming" was anthropogenic or occurring naturally.

Based on my understanding of quantum mechanics, the Gaia hypothesis actually makes sense to me.

Clearly it's because the books where Asimov started talking about Gaia were the weakest of his Foundation novels.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

Indeed. Current strains of Fox-ian antienvironmentalism bear more than a passing resemblance to religious dogma.

Well played.

Didn't want to troll, but I don't want to derail the thread, either. I'll indulge in just one more post to explain, and then drop it.

Assuming that Fish was referring to the East Anglia 'Climategate', what's really remarkable is the sheer level of scientific illiteracy that went into the right wing media/blogosphere's response. And that's being charitable. A less charitable take would be that they intentionally misinterpreted many of those emails. No need to go that far, though. The point is that there isn't - and never was - evidence of any of the types of malfeasance that the skeptics* claimed. But, clearly, evidence mattered a lot less than simply having faith in the certitude of one's judgment that they "proved" fraud.

*It's a sensitive subject because I used to work in Virginia (thankfully, no more), where that sort of blind faith apparently is enough to motivate legal witch hunts (see Cuccinelli, Ken). It's also annoying because the whole climate debate is sullying the reputation of skepticism. Skepticism should be a cornerstone of scientific practice - not the latest incarnation of the ancient art of hurr-derp. The controversy would be a lot more interesting if skepticism didn't have the intellectual maturity of a temper tantrum, amounting to lots of screaming and throwing things around. If you think that James Hanson is Lamarck, then prove it. Don't tell me biology is garbage; show me Darwin. If Michael Mann is Ptolemy, then don't tell me astronomy is garbage. Show me <s>Kep</s> err, that's just weird. Show me Copernicus. (much better). You know . . . do science or something.

N.B. Enviros don't get a free pass, either. I'm pretty sure I lost a job once when, at an interview, I mentioned that it was unfortunate that environmentalists responded to Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist by screaming "Heretic!" They took advantage of a few factual mistakes to excuse themselves from engaging with the larger claim that, before endorsing just any climate/energy policy, we should consider the opportunity cost -- what else could be done with those resources? A perfectly reasonable argument to have, and one that deserved to have a place in any policy debate.