A Question for the Christians

[Lord O' Bones]

YOU ARE SUCH A MEANIE POOPIE-HEAD, I ABJURE THEE AND CAST THEE OUT! I bet you aren't even wearing pants! (I did find out how you could legitimately become a pirate though, if you move. Or if you trust anything you see on this site.)

Holy crap. That's actually intriguing.

And of course I'm not wearing pants.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

(s)he's not equating: (s)he's making an analogy. Two different things.

EDIT: To put it in more precise terms (s)he's trying to take your argument ("Irrational thoughts should be respected if they are justified by religion.") to it's logical conclusion. That's not neccessarily your position of course, but that's a case of you not stating your premises clearly, not a fault of logic by the person in question.

Actually (s)he said.

When a person is not only influenced by irrational thought, but uses it as the very foundation for the way they live their life, it is not a question of if that will be detrimental, it's when and how bad.

I believe the countless victims of the Crusades, the 6 million+ victims of the Holocaust, the 3,000+ in the World Trade Towers, and several physicians who lost their lives for performing operations others found distasteful, would very, very much disagree.

If you believe your god is telling you others must die, it is precisely the same as a park bench telling you others must die. They are mortally dangerous irrational beliefs. When rational people do not admit and confront that truth, and fight against it with equal conviction, they are complicit in any of these heinous acts.

Bold mine. They explicitly stated that people who subscribe to religious faith will always act detrimentally, and then conflated that directly into the Crusades and the Holocaust. So yeah, direct linky between religion and murder.

[C S]

Please define which "respect" you mean in your second sentence.

I'm clearly not Galactus, but how about this for a definition of being respectful.

Don't be an ass to or around someone just because you think their beliefs (religious or otherwise) are nuts.

edited fer speling

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Can I ask a related question?

How often do adults find themselves in a position to engage in or walk away from physical altercations?

Last time it happened to me, I was 14. People argue back and forth about the ability to "turn the other cheeck" but how many have had an experience that required this choice as an adult?

(In the "world" I live in (professional office type peoples) this is extremely rare)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Can I ask a related question?

How often do adults find themselves in a position to engage in or walk away from physical altercations?

Last time it happened to me, I was 14. People argue back and forth about the ability to "turn the other cheeck" but how many have had an experience that required this choice as an adult?

(In the "world" I live in (professional office type peoples) this is extremely rare)

I'm going to guess not nearly as often as they did in Roman-occupied Palestine.

[Eponine]

I believe the countless victims of the Crusades, the 6 million+ victims of the Holocaust, the 3,000+ in the World Trade Towers, and several physicians who lost their lives for performing operations others found distasteful, would very, very much disagree.

If you believe your god is telling you others must die, it is precisely the same as a park bench telling you others must die. They are mortally dangerous irrational beliefs. When rational people do not admit and confront that truth, and fight against it with equal conviction, they are complicit in any of these heinous acts.

All that shows is that religion can be used as a rationale for doing heinous things. It doesn't show that any person with religious beliefs is one step away from murder.

The bolded statement, do you mean that rational people must fight against people with homicidal ideas about how the will of god should be carried out? That seems fairly obvious. Or do you mean that anyone who doesn't fight against any display of irrational religious belief is complicit in all the wrongdoings done by anyone religious. Because that's just plain crazy talk and completely blowing out of proportion how religion will affect someone.

Many people who may be simply wrong about religion (and obviously I think they are) have chosen a religious practice that adheres to a form of morality that inherently decries murder and injustice. If they thought that they heard something telling them to kill people, they would immediately "recognize it as not being from god", because the foundation of their belief depends on a god that doesn't promote murder (whether this can be the Christian god is irrelevant to the discussion). Because the morality they ascribe to their god likely also assumes that such a god doesn't change his mind or shift the definition of morality, they aren't going to suddenly believe that their good and loving god has become a god who wants them to murder people. They are people who have thought through the moral implications of actions and settled on a belief that is accepted by rational people. If they have some irrational religious beliefs causing them to ascribe their morality to religious causes, it doesn't change that their moral values are in accordance with socially accepted standards.

If a person's beliefs are not to murder or perpetrate other crimes, to obey the laws of the land as best as possible except in the case of serious injustice, and to use their conscience to determine the rightness and wrongness of an action, I think most people would say that's a reasonable standard of someone who isn't likely to be one step away from snapping. IMO, it really doesn't change the person's view of morality if he also has the idea that this morality came from a god and the god gave him his conscience. This is a description of a lot of people - because having some irrational beliefs doesn't mean that someone has no other basis in their life for determining morality and acceptable behavior.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

While I can kind of see this argument, it doesen't *quite* jive with the context. (eg. "Do not resist an evil person") of the sentence.

Of course, it's possible the sentence was added later on by people not actually familiar with the cultural context of Jesus' day.

Except, "resist" has more of an aggressive connotation, as opposed to a passive-aggressive one, which is the one that Jesus appears to be advocating, due to the presumed minimization of violence in taking a passive-aggressive stance. Plus, I doubt that "Do not resist an evil person" stands alone as a statement either, but also in deeper cultural and textual context. Furthermore, I also think that this is a passage that tries to discourage retaliation, especially considering that retaliation against those likely to strike Jesus's primary audience could get them killed.

[Iskaral Pust]

This is an area where modern Christians inspire mockery and pity. They can stick to a literal reading of Genesis, but they ignore the direct words of Christ as reported in the gospels.

Christ's direct teachings, particularly pacificism, abjuration of wealth and aiding those less fortunte, are consistently ignored by most Christians. And evangelical Christians seem to be even further away from these than most Catholics.

How do they manage to turn such a blind eye? Is that nagging Catholic guilt really just cognitive dissonance?

If the second coming happened tomorrow, Christ would be raging at the hypocrites once again.

BTW - I really liked the rationalizations in this thread. There is no doubt that man created god in his own image, right down to the individual level.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

This is an area where modern Christians inspire mockery and pity. They can stick to a literal reading of Genesis, but they ignore the direct words of Christ as reported in the gospels.

They can also not do what you describe. It's probably best to avoid such generalizations of modern Christians then, eh? ;)

Christ's direct teachings, particularly pacificism, abjuration of wealth and aiding those less fortunte, are consistently ignored by most Christians. And evangelical Christians seem to be even further away from these than most Catholics.

How do they manage to turn such a blind eye? Is that nagging Catholic guilt really just cognitive dissonance?

The man who also ordered his followers to buy a sword? The man who also asserted that he did not come to bring peace, but the sword?

If the second coming happened tomorrow, Christ would be raging at the hypocrites once again.

He likely would, but not necessarily for the reasons you state. He would also likely be pointing judgmental fingers at you.

BTW - I really liked the rationalizations in this thread. There is no doubt that man created god in his own image, right down to the individual level.

It's worth noting that a number of these rationalizations in this thread are being provided by atheists.

[Shryke]

This is an area where modern Christians inspire mockery and pity. They can stick to a literal reading of Genesis, but they ignore the direct words of Christ as reported in the gospels.

Christ's direct teachings, particularly pacificism, abjuration of wealth and aiding those less fortunte, are consistently ignored by most Christians. And evangelical Christians seem to be even further away from these than most Catholics.

How do they manage to turn such a blind eye? Is that nagging Catholic guilt really just cognitive dissonance?

If the second coming happened tomorrow, Christ would be raging at the hypocrites once again.

BTW - I really liked the rationalizations in this thread. There is no doubt that man created god in his own image, right down to the individual level.

Catholics don't take Genesis literally so I don't know where you are getting all this from.

[Godlikebuthumble]

I've always taken the teachings of Jesus to be, in sum, quite succinct.

Also, regarding the social and cultural context of "turn the other cheek" as discussed above (which I happen to agree with), just think for a second: you're preaching to the natives of a politically unstable, militarily occupied region. D'you really think it's wise to say: "Be excellent to each other and all, but if that legionnaire backhands you, feel free to give him the what-for"? Who- or whatever Jesus was, he kinda doesn't strike me as a complete moron.

[El-ahrairah]

Catholics don't take Genesis literally so I don't know where you are getting all this from.

They're not required to, more like.

[Galactus]

Except, "resist" has more of an aggressive connotation, as opposed to a passive-aggressive one, which is the one that Jesus appears to be advocating, due to the presumed minimization of violence in taking a passive-aggressive stance. Plus, I doubt that "Do not resist an evil person" stands alone as a statement either, but also in deeper cultural and textual context. Furthermore, I also think that this is a passage that tries to discourage retaliation, especially considering that retaliation against those likely to strike Jesus's primary audience could get them killed.

My point is that if taken in context it's clearly at least an admonition that self-defence is not a thing christians should be engaging in. You might call that passive-aggressive assholiness I guess :P To me the point seems to be (taken in context) that Jesus just doesen't think that your personal pride or your personal bodily integrity is something that's worth getting into a fight over (now, God's Law or some such? That's a different matter entirely) it's more of a de-personalization thing (if that makes sense).

EDIT: Of course, Jesus probably believed that God was going to redo the world order pretty soon anyhow. So it's not as if it was neccessarily a long-term commandment (although then again he seems to imply that this kind of attitude should be a part of the Kingdom of God)

[Galactus]

Actually (s)he said.

Bold mine. They explicitly stated that people who subscribe to religious faith will always act detrimentally, and then conflated that directly into the Crusades and the Holocaust. So yeah, direct linky between religion and murder.

I think the argument there (which may or may not be a fallacy, but certainly worth investigating) that acting irrationally is by it's very nature acting detrimentally: To act rationally is to act with the highest good in mind (however that is defined)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I think the argument there (which may or may not be a fallacy, but certainly worth investigating) that acting irrationally is by it's very nature acting detrimentally: To act rationally is to act with the highest good in mind (however that is defined)

I think we're in the right place for that kind of discussion, it's a mainstay of science fiction. Does rational action always lead to a non-detrimental end? HAL-9000 acted rationally according to the information available to it, and tried to kill everyone aboard the ship.

[Galactus]

I think we're in the right place for that kind of discussion, it's a mainstay of science fiction. Does rational action always lead to a non-detrimental end? HAL-9000 acted rationally according to the information available to it, and tried to kill everyone aboard the ship.

I'm not sure "rationally" and "logically" are the same things. HAL's logic is valid, but should not the premises have to be sound as well in order for him to be "acting rationally"? (And that gets into further interesting debates like "Was what HAL did wrong?" which gets even trickier :P)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

My point is that if taken in context it's clearly at least an admonition that self-defence is not a thing christians should be engaging in. You might call that passive-aggressive assholiness I guess :P To me the point seems to be (taken in context) that Jesus just doesen't think that your personal pride or your personal bodily integrity is something that's worth getting into a fight over (now, God's Law or some such? That's a different matter entirely) it's more of a de-personalization thing (if that makes sense).

EDIT: Of course, Jesus probably believed that God was going to redo the world order pretty soon anyhow. So it's not as if it was neccessarily a long-term commandment (although then again he seems to imply that this kind of attitude should be a part of the Kingdom of God)

Except that Jesus does instruct his followers to buy swords for self-defense (Luke 22:35-38), so it is not necessarily an admonition against self-defense that Jesus presents in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. If it is not an admonition against self-defense, then we have to ask what Jesus was advocating for instead. I think that sologin's response highlighting the socio-political context of Judea is quite salient. It's quite passive-aggressive, which also fits in well with Jesus's other passive-aggressive comments (e.g. "Rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but rend unto God what is God's.").

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I'm not sure "rationally" and "logically" are the same things. HAL's logic is valid, but should not the premises have to be sound as well in order for him to be "acting rationally"? (And that gets into further interesting debates like "Was what HAL did wrong?" which gets even trickier :P)

But if we take as a given that one must be acting under sound premises to be acting rationally, how then can anyone truly act rationally when everyone has biased premises and incomplete information?

[Galactus]

But if we take as a given that one must be acting under sound premises to be acting rationally, how then can anyone truly act rationally when everyone has biased premises and incomplete information?

One could presumably still act rationally, one just wouldn't be able to know whether one acts rationally. (which seems perfectly OK a conclusion to me)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

One could presumably still act rationally, one just wouldn't be able to know whether one acts rationally. (which seems perfectly OK a conclusion to me)

But then how could one say "rational people must (act as I do)" if one can't know if one's actions are rational?