Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Ok, then I think we are splitting hairs.
Ok, then I think we are splitting hairs.
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.
The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Worth call out. You are arguably the most vocal skeptic on the board. If it was truly substance over style here, would you be?
Worth call out. You are arguably the most vocal skeptic on the board. If it was truly substance over style here, would you be?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
I don't understand the question.
I don't understand the question.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
An interesting read - cultures of guilt vs. shame.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/edwest...-cultures-the-silent-triumph-of-christianity/
An interesting read - cultures of guilt vs. shame.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/edwest...-cultures-the-silent-triumph-of-christianity/
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Worth call out. You are arguably the most vocal skeptic on the board. If it was truly substance over style here, would you be?
Here you claim that what matters to you is whether a person has 'good' ethical standards. The ends. And that the means to get there is irrelevant.
Now would you say that you author more positive posts...praising moral character and positive 'ends'? Or more negative posts criticizing Christianity and its role as the 'means' to the ends? Regardless of whether in your mind its true or not, you frankly almost obsessed by the later (with no less than daily posts as evidence). Also an atheist is a self defined position focused on the means...i.e., simply does not believe in God...unlike Christians which claim to follow a moral code (leading to 'ends' outcomes) by a focus on the path of Jesus. That's why on this issue you're a style over substance guy in my book.
Worth call out. You are arguably the most vocal skeptic on the board. If it was truly substance over style here, would you be?
Here you claim that what matters to you is whether a person has 'good' ethical standards. The ends. And that the means to get there is irrelevant.
Now would you say that you author more positive posts...praising moral character and positive 'ends'? Or more negative posts criticizing Christianity and its role as the 'means' to the ends? Regardless of whether in your mind its true or not, you frankly almost obsessed by the later (with no less than daily posts as evidence). Also an atheist is a self defined position focused on the means...i.e., simply does not believe in God...unlike Christians which claim to follow a moral code (leading to 'ends' outcomes) by a focus on the path of Jesus. That's why on this issue you're a style over substance guy in my book.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
It's impossible to not know Christian people while living in this nation. Some of them are very good friends of mine, they live in peace and worship in their way; sometimes they'll make passing comments stated as truths couched in the Bible that are second nature to them, cause no harm to anyone, and so I just don't poke the bear. It's when they start speaking to matters that can cause harm to others, that's when I take umbrage to their "truths."
I can't speak for Kepler, but when I criticize Christians, it's not Christianity as a whole but rather those Christians who wish to push their religion on others that becomes the problem as so many Christians have differring factional views on what the Bible states. Then you add in the charlatans who spew forth their hate under the guise of Christianity and the people who are so blinded by their hatred of group X that they contort what is essentially a book of love and compassion (New Testament) into a book about finding divisions between the people on Earth.
It's impossible to not know Christian people while living in this nation. Some of them are very good friends of mine, they live in peace and worship in their way; sometimes they'll make passing comments stated as truths couched in the Bible that are second nature to them, cause no harm to anyone, and so I just don't poke the bear. It's when they start speaking to matters that can cause harm to others, that's when I take umbrage to their "truths."
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
You saved me many key strokes. I would say it somewhat differently (and as we all know, less pithily) but it comes to the same thing. There is a difference between a soccer fan and a guy who wants to force everyone to be a soccer fan and who says if you aren't a soccer fan you're going to hell. The former has a potentially entertaining and even ennobling hobby. The latter is at best a fool and at worst a danger.
You saved me many key strokes. I would say it somewhat differently (and as we all know, less pithily) but it comes to the same thing. There is a difference between a soccer fan and a guy who wants to force everyone to be a soccer fan and who says if you aren't a soccer fan you're going to hell. The former has a potentially entertaining and even ennobling hobby. The latter is at best a fool and at worst a danger.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
This made me stop and think. You are right; I do post too much about this, and with too much certainty. I'm not actually like that in "real life," so I will take your comment as a hint that I should give it a rest from time to time. I appreciate it; thank you.
This made me stop and think. You are right; I do post too much about this, and with too much certainty. I'm not actually like that in "real life," so I will take your comment as a hint that I should give it a rest from time to time. I appreciate it; thank you.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
How many Christians really push their religion on others? How often are you approached? Remember supposedly +50% of Americans are 'Christians'. Is it a daily event?
Much of the rest of the daily Christian chatter you hear on a daily basis is conservative pundits - Fox, Coulter, Krauthammer - using Christianity to validate their ideas.
Could my point of view be balanced on the role of Christians in society today? I think so. But Christians are under such unprovoked attacks on this board by those who evidently can't...somebody has to give a counterpoint.
How many Christians really push their religion on others? How often are you approached? Remember supposedly +50% of Americans are 'Christians'. Is it a daily event?
Much of the rest of the daily Christian chatter you hear on a daily basis is conservative pundits - Fox, Coulter, Krauthammer - using Christianity to validate their ideas.
Could my point of view be balanced on the role of Christians in society today? I think so. But Christians are under such unprovoked attacks on this board by those who evidently can't...somebody has to give a counterpoint.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Good to hear you can self reflect. Will it stick?
Good to hear you can self reflect. Will it stick?
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
I found an article that sheds a bit more light on the subject. I'm hoping folks forgive me for posting its text. Its a bit heavy in its introduction of Carter and its use of the labels left/right (which I don't like), but it does make some interesting points:
Can the Evangelical Left Rise Again?
Last week, after President Jimmy Carter announced that he will undergo treatment for brain cancer, admirers traveled for miles to attend his Sunday school class in Plains, Georgia. The former president and long-time Southern Baptist taught about forgiveness and peace in his class, and took photographs with everyone who had traveled to see him. He was, in other words, much as he always has been: a progressive Evangelical with a warm and patient presence, the president charged with the task of restoring dignity and integrity to the White House following the cynicism-inducing administrations of presidents Richard Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson.
Did Carter succeed in undoing American cynicism about politics? Despite his best efforts, and the public's general respect for him as a person, it seems the project was always doomed. Can the same be said about the tradition he represents? For the Evangelical left, once a substantial contingent of American life, is now seemingly small and powerless compared to its rightwing counterpart.
“I sometimes argue that Jimmy Carter is the last progressive Evangelical,” says Randall Balmer, a professor of religious studies at Dartmouth and author of Redeemer: The Life of Jimmy Carter. That is, Carter was the last progressive president whose election relied heavily upon the votes of Democrat-friendly Evangelicals. In fact, Balmer says, the same Evangelicals who voted en masse for Carter in 1976 turned against him in 1980, resulting in his devastating defeat by Ronald Reagan, whose presidency sparked a string of victories for the Evangelical bloc that would later be known as the religious right.
The turnabout in Evangelical political orientation was preceded by a long history of Evangelical political activity on the left. Balmer points out that Evangelicals were particularly active in the Antebellum South, though northern Evangelicals also maintained a political presence, advocating for public schools, prison reform, women’s rights, and the abolition of slavery. By the twentieth century, he says, the dominance of Evangelical progressives had been somewhat reduced by immigration and other political shifts; nonetheless, they busied themselves with campaigns for social justice and women’s suffrage. Progressive Evangelicals were also active in the labor movement, supplying spiritual vigor to the early growth of unions, as Valparaiso University historian Heath Carter points out in Union Made: Working People and the Rise of Social Christianity in Chicago. (It is Professor Carter I quote in the remainder of this article, not the former president.)
By the seventies, this tradition had germinated into a thriving branch of Evangelical protestantism. These left Evangelicals were anti-war, pro-civil rights, and deeply concerned with people on the margins of society. Progressive Evangelicalism comprised a variety of different strands, from the hippie-esque “Jesus People” who viewed Christ as a counter-cultural figure (think Godspell) to the politically serious social justice advocates who founded Sojourners magazine. “The people at the center of the Evangelical left in the seventies were young, white Evangelicals,” Carter says, “but they were networked with black peers who were pushing them on issues of race, and they were in turn running with that.” Jimmy Carter, with his devotion to racial justice and commitment to alleviating the ravages of poverty, rode this wave of progressive Evangelical sentiment all the way to the White House.
But as Carter ascended to the presidency, several events began to undermine the momentum of the Evangelical left. Balmer points to the long, drawn-out battle between the IRS and Bob Jones University over the tiny Christian school’s racially discriminatory policies. Because of a purported Biblical injunction against interracial marriage, Bob Jones University refused admission of black students until 1971, at which time it began admitting only married black students. Due to this policy, the IRS sought to remove the school’s tax-exempt status, and the resulting outcry among fundamentalist supporters of the university targeted Jimmy Carter personally for blame. Both anti-racist and an occupant of the White House, Carter now represented at least two things his former Evangelical compatriots had grown suspicious of: desegregation and the federal government. With their racial resentment newly aroused and a small-government streak arising from it, Balmer argues, the Evangelical right began to develop swiftly, and the already-established political right was more than glad to integrate the fledgling movement into its ranks.
In the ensuing decades, the Evangelical right overwhelmed the Evangelical left for a number of reasons. The right marshaled a great deal of money in mobilizing Evangelicals to their cause, and in so doing managed to not only invite Evangelicals into the fold of the GOP electoral base, but also to fuse Republican Party loyalty into the fabric of Evangelical life. “The Evangelical left never identified with the Democratic Party,” Carter notes. “They never quite feel at home in American politics, they’ve never been quite comfortable with how parties draw the boundary lines.” Part of the trouble was with abortion, which quickly became a sharply delineated right-versus-left issue, putting progressive Evangelicals with a distaste for abortion at odds with their fellow leftists.
While Evangelicals on the right found themselves in lockstep with the GOP, Evangelical lefties are much more prone to splitting their votes among different parties depending on their commitments, reducing their political power. Progressive Evangelicals were also less successful at building up the media empires that came to define the Evangelical right through the work of televangelists and popular, politically engaged preachers. And, with their commitment to inter-racial justice, the Evangelical left was never able to capitalize on the racial resentment and nostalgia for a segregated past that tend to surface among distressed white Americans during times of political unrest. For all these reasons, the Evangelical right easily defeated Carter in favor of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and followed that victory with several more: the elections of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
Which were perhaps, in retrospect, pyrrhic victories. “The Bush years were very good to the Evangelical left,” Carter says, in that they demonstrated to Evangelicals the hazards of lending unquestioned support to the GOP. Will progressive Evangelicals therefore reemerge as a political force? “I’m pessimistic about that,” Balmer says. “It would take a lot of money, a lot of organizing, a lot of re-education.” Carter is more sanguine, noting that young Evangelicals seem less loyal to the Republican Party than their parents, and might be willing to break ranks come election season. Both professors agree that the Evangelical tradition is rich with progressive values and campaigns for justice, especially when it comes to serving the most disadvantaged members of society. Throughout his long life post-presidency, Jimmy Carter has certainly never given up on this brand of Christianity, and if a new wave of progressive Evangelical youths follow in his footsteps, he could have no finer legacy.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122716/can-evangelical-left-rise-again
I found an article that sheds a bit more light on the subject. I'm hoping folks forgive me for posting its text. Its a bit heavy in its introduction of Carter and its use of the labels left/right (which I don't like), but it does make some interesting points:
Can the Evangelical Left Rise Again?
Last week, after President Jimmy Carter announced that he will undergo treatment for brain cancer, admirers traveled for miles to attend his Sunday school class in Plains, Georgia. The former president and long-time Southern Baptist taught about forgiveness and peace in his class, and took photographs with everyone who had traveled to see him. He was, in other words, much as he always has been: a progressive Evangelical with a warm and patient presence, the president charged with the task of restoring dignity and integrity to the White House following the cynicism-inducing administrations of presidents Richard Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson.
Did Carter succeed in undoing American cynicism about politics? Despite his best efforts, and the public's general respect for him as a person, it seems the project was always doomed. Can the same be said about the tradition he represents? For the Evangelical left, once a substantial contingent of American life, is now seemingly small and powerless compared to its rightwing counterpart.
“I sometimes argue that Jimmy Carter is the last progressive Evangelical,” says Randall Balmer, a professor of religious studies at Dartmouth and author of Redeemer: The Life of Jimmy Carter. That is, Carter was the last progressive president whose election relied heavily upon the votes of Democrat-friendly Evangelicals. In fact, Balmer says, the same Evangelicals who voted en masse for Carter in 1976 turned against him in 1980, resulting in his devastating defeat by Ronald Reagan, whose presidency sparked a string of victories for the Evangelical bloc that would later be known as the religious right.
The turnabout in Evangelical political orientation was preceded by a long history of Evangelical political activity on the left. Balmer points out that Evangelicals were particularly active in the Antebellum South, though northern Evangelicals also maintained a political presence, advocating for public schools, prison reform, women’s rights, and the abolition of slavery. By the twentieth century, he says, the dominance of Evangelical progressives had been somewhat reduced by immigration and other political shifts; nonetheless, they busied themselves with campaigns for social justice and women’s suffrage. Progressive Evangelicals were also active in the labor movement, supplying spiritual vigor to the early growth of unions, as Valparaiso University historian Heath Carter points out in Union Made: Working People and the Rise of Social Christianity in Chicago. (It is Professor Carter I quote in the remainder of this article, not the former president.)
By the seventies, this tradition had germinated into a thriving branch of Evangelical protestantism. These left Evangelicals were anti-war, pro-civil rights, and deeply concerned with people on the margins of society. Progressive Evangelicalism comprised a variety of different strands, from the hippie-esque “Jesus People” who viewed Christ as a counter-cultural figure (think Godspell) to the politically serious social justice advocates who founded Sojourners magazine. “The people at the center of the Evangelical left in the seventies were young, white Evangelicals,” Carter says, “but they were networked with black peers who were pushing them on issues of race, and they were in turn running with that.” Jimmy Carter, with his devotion to racial justice and commitment to alleviating the ravages of poverty, rode this wave of progressive Evangelical sentiment all the way to the White House.
But as Carter ascended to the presidency, several events began to undermine the momentum of the Evangelical left. Balmer points to the long, drawn-out battle between the IRS and Bob Jones University over the tiny Christian school’s racially discriminatory policies. Because of a purported Biblical injunction against interracial marriage, Bob Jones University refused admission of black students until 1971, at which time it began admitting only married black students. Due to this policy, the IRS sought to remove the school’s tax-exempt status, and the resulting outcry among fundamentalist supporters of the university targeted Jimmy Carter personally for blame. Both anti-racist and an occupant of the White House, Carter now represented at least two things his former Evangelical compatriots had grown suspicious of: desegregation and the federal government. With their racial resentment newly aroused and a small-government streak arising from it, Balmer argues, the Evangelical right began to develop swiftly, and the already-established political right was more than glad to integrate the fledgling movement into its ranks.
In the ensuing decades, the Evangelical right overwhelmed the Evangelical left for a number of reasons. The right marshaled a great deal of money in mobilizing Evangelicals to their cause, and in so doing managed to not only invite Evangelicals into the fold of the GOP electoral base, but also to fuse Republican Party loyalty into the fabric of Evangelical life. “The Evangelical left never identified with the Democratic Party,” Carter notes. “They never quite feel at home in American politics, they’ve never been quite comfortable with how parties draw the boundary lines.” Part of the trouble was with abortion, which quickly became a sharply delineated right-versus-left issue, putting progressive Evangelicals with a distaste for abortion at odds with their fellow leftists.
While Evangelicals on the right found themselves in lockstep with the GOP, Evangelical lefties are much more prone to splitting their votes among different parties depending on their commitments, reducing their political power. Progressive Evangelicals were also less successful at building up the media empires that came to define the Evangelical right through the work of televangelists and popular, politically engaged preachers. And, with their commitment to inter-racial justice, the Evangelical left was never able to capitalize on the racial resentment and nostalgia for a segregated past that tend to surface among distressed white Americans during times of political unrest. For all these reasons, the Evangelical right easily defeated Carter in favor of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and followed that victory with several more: the elections of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
Which were perhaps, in retrospect, pyrrhic victories. “The Bush years were very good to the Evangelical left,” Carter says, in that they demonstrated to Evangelicals the hazards of lending unquestioned support to the GOP. Will progressive Evangelicals therefore reemerge as a political force? “I’m pessimistic about that,” Balmer says. “It would take a lot of money, a lot of organizing, a lot of re-education.” Carter is more sanguine, noting that young Evangelicals seem less loyal to the Republican Party than their parents, and might be willing to break ranks come election season. Both professors agree that the Evangelical tradition is rich with progressive values and campaigns for justice, especially when it comes to serving the most disadvantaged members of society. Throughout his long life post-presidency, Jimmy Carter has certainly never given up on this brand of Christianity, and if a new wave of progressive Evangelical youths follow in his footsteps, he could have no finer legacy.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122716/can-evangelical-left-rise-again
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
I might have figured something out, in terms of being told that "running is my god" and that I sold my soul for running:
The people who told me that aren't very active. Going to the mailbox exhausts them. They have trouble driving past a Burger King/McDonald's without stopping. So I am detecting jealousy in their statements... and two, if I spent my free time talking about sitting on my arse, developing the butt groove on my couch, and watching local sports team play SPORTS!, nobody would have said anything.
I might have figured something out, in terms of being told that "running is my god" and that I sold my soul for running:
The people who told me that aren't very active. Going to the mailbox exhausts them. They have trouble driving past a Burger King/McDonald's without stopping. So I am detecting jealousy in their statements... and two, if I spent my free time talking about sitting on my arse, developing the butt groove on my couch, and watching local sports team play SPORTS!, nobody would have said anything.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
And so it begins. If it is thought about in the Mother Country, how soon here?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...security-vetting-under-Home-Office-plans.html
And so it begins. If it is thought about in the Mother Country, how soon here?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...security-vetting-under-Home-Office-plans.html
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Never...and you can snip this post for posterity.
Never...and you can snip this post for posterity.
Remember - I said thought about. I don't think it has a prayer of being enacted on either side of the Pond. But some believe in nothing is too good for homeland security!
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
The time the legislation would have some teeth. The impacted religious dude would say 'uuhhh...last I heard there is this little thing called the 1st amendment'.
The time the legislation would have some teeth. The impacted religious dude would say 'uuhhh...last I heard there is this little thing called the 1st amendment'.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Patriot Act and the rest of the Bill of Rights have conflicts and few said BOO! when, in the furor of post 9/11, it was adopted. Strange things happen when people are afraid (see camps, internment 1942).
Patriot Act and the rest of the Bill of Rights have conflicts and few said BOO! when, in the furor of post 9/11, it was adopted. Strange things happen when people are afraid (see camps, internment 1942).
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Looks like the Anglican Communion is headed for a separation
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...f-divided-anglican-communion?CMP=share_btn_fb
Looks like the Anglican Communion is headed for a separation
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...f-divided-anglican-communion?CMP=share_btn_fb
- Status