A Question for the Christians

[Galactus]

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

One couldn't with any certainity.

THen again, one cannot say anything with certainity.

[Iskaral Pust]

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

I did not mean to suggest they do. I was raised in the Catholic faith and I was shocked when I encountered the literal biblicists in America. Genesis-belief seems to be unique (in my experience) to reformed churches in and descended from the US. But the ignoring of Christ's central tenets happens among Catholics and Protestants alike.

Zadok/MFC - you are a shining example of a thoughtful Christian. Unfortunately you are seriously out-numbered by conservative white evangelical Christians who viciously resist social policies that would help poor people of color (many of whom are also Christian). The politics of the Christian fundies seem to worry about abortion and gay marriage far more than helping thy neighbor.

Many of the largest Christian churches here follow a doctrine much more based on OT and seem to ignore the tenets of the NT. I'd guess that Jesus would be a limp-wristed disappointment to many evangelical Christians in America.

And I do attend a large Presbyterian church each week (not even one of the more fundamental denominations). I'm not just guessing at this based on the rantings of Glenn Beck.

[Dornish]

What does being wrong have to do with respect?

People deserve respect. Ideas deserve scrutiny.

[Eponine]

Zadok/MFC - you are a shining example of a thoughtful Christian.

Ironic.

[Ormond]

And I do attend a large Presbyterian church each week (not even one of the more fundamental denominations). I'm not just guessing at this based on the rantings of Glenn Beck.

And which "large Presbyterian church" do you attend?

I am sure there are large Presbyterian churches in the Chicago area that don't fit the stereotypes you are perpetuating here.

[The Fan]

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

EDIT: To put it in more precise terms he's taking your argument ("Irrational thoughts should be respected if they are justified by religion.") to it's logical conclusion. That's not necessarily 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.

That is correct.

Actually 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.

Yes and no. I said "irrational thought...as the very foundation for...their life." And in this instance, I was referring to religion, but it is not limited to that. I would say the same thing of someone who lived their life based on Disney stories, held Aladdin as a prophet and Snow White as the virgin mother.

Irrational is irrational, the source is inconsequential. Further, given that flawed foundation, in time, there is no doubt that the inability to exist outside that exceedingly narrow set of lessons will lead that person to have to fabricate rules to apply to a situation they do not have a set rule for. Given enough copies of copies of a copy in this way, these "rules" will mutate into anyone's guess, but still be given the validity of the original ruleset, a clear fallacy.

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.

Anyone who doesn't fight against and oppose irrational thoughts and especially denounce, publicly AND privately, the irrational actions of those whose beliefs they share. No one should be more vocal in protest when a doctor is killed than the pro-life contingent, but it seems no group is more silent about the taking of a life than they are. Perhaps pro-some-life is a more apt title.

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...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.

I believe you have hit upon one of the biggest issues here, in that if god gave a person their conscience, that person is no longer responsible to his community for his actions, he was "just made that way" and personal responsibility is removed. In addition, even if held responsible, the prevailing notion that is if a person's justification is based upon religious beliefs, no matter how perverted or distorted, that justification carries a higher basic value, i.e. (from my original example) "I killed him because the park bench told me I could save the Revered Cheddar" and "I killed him because this sacred book said I was righteous and just in doing so." Both obviously, equally horseshit, but to the right ears, one sounds perfectly insane, and one sounds legitimate.

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)

That is the intended idea, yes. Irrationality, left to its devices, will always result, eventually, in negative consequences.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Ironic.

To be fair, I do argue the pro-religious/theistic perspective quite often, so I can see how my views could be construed as such. However, I will say that many of my own religious attitudes and biblical perspectives are quite consistent with a large number of my theologically-inclined peers in academia, the ministry, or ministry training (mostly PC:USA).

[wolverine]

soooo, uh, what's the point of using the Bible as a reference?

And, yeah, sorry SNAY but it's not an odd direction for a discussion like this to take. I'd say it's sort of an obvious direction.

Why attempt or lay claim to adhere to a set of teachings when there's always an out? I don't think Christianity was intended to be a "Choose your own religion" or "Build your own faith". Not to say that there is anything wrong with building your own faith/moral code. I just don't understand why/how people can then call themselves Christian or the like. Why would you want to while knowing that you do not fully intend to live up to its ideals in the first place?

So what should people who believe in Christ but also believe their may be flaws with the bible call themselves? That seems like an odd statement to me when there are umpteen million different Christian denominations. There is a lot of inconsistency within the Christian faith. Can the beliefs of every agnostic be summed up by knowing they are agnostic? Where does your morality or code of conduct come from? I think everyone's morality is formed by more than just their religion.

Even the new testament was most likely written by men a fairly long period after Jesus was on Earth. Unless you really believe all of the bible is God-breathed, which I don't think it is in God's nature to do such a thing, it can be interpreted or even ignored in many ways. I barely remember what I ate for supper two days ago, let alone what someone said 20+ years ago.THer

[wolverine]

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

I have one parent who is Catholic and one who is Lutheran. I would say the division of people in my midwest rural corner of the world is roughly 40% Catholic, 49% Protestant (mostly Lutheran), 1% other.

Anyhow I have a lot of exposure to various Christian denominations and in my limited experience Catholics believe what they are told to believe. By the very nature and origins of their religion Lutherans rationalize and actually think about their beliefs.

Sorry to stereo-type but when asked why about a belief a Catholic may respond with because that is our religion where as a Lutheran will actually try to give a reason for the belief.

[Balefont]

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.

No no no, Isk, you've got it all wrong. It all comes down to individual interpretation. Haven't you been paying attention?!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

Not all religious folk are bashing others over the head with their faith. Therefore, bashing all theists for the shitty behavior of some is unfair and unwarrented IMHO.

[AverageGuy]

So what should people who believe in Christ but also believe their may be flaws with the bible call themselves?

A conservative Christian once made the point to me that if you can pick and choose from your holy text based on the idea that some of it's flawed, you can ultimately decide anything you want, and what's to say you don't decide the entire thing's flawed? I struggled with the idea for a while, but I can't really find anything wrong with the point. If I'm going to argue that flawed men wrote about the world being created in seven days because they didn't know better, I can't argue against the idea that flawed men wrote about the idea of a Supreme Being because they didn't know better. Ultimately it led me to question the entirety of my religious beliefs.

[Stubby]

Stubby,

Not all religious folk are bashing others over the head with their faith. Therefore, bashing all theists for the shitty behavior of some is unfair and unwarrented IMHO.

Granted.

I meant it in the context that the basher could come from any religion.

[C S]

That is correct.

Yes and no. I said "irrational thought...as the very foundation for...their life." And in this instance, I was referring to religion, but it is not limited to that. I would say the same thing of someone who lived their life based on Disney stories, held Aladdin as a prophet and Snow White as the virgin mother.

Irrational is irrational, the source is inconsequential. Further, given that flawed foundation, in time, there is no doubt that the inability to exist outside that exceedingly narrow set of lessons will lead that person to have to fabricate rules to apply to a situation they do not have a set rule for. Given enough copies of copies of a copy in this way, these "rules" will mutate into anyone's guess, but still be given the validity of the original ruleset, a clear fallacy.

Anyone who doesn't fight against and oppose irrational thoughts and especially denounce, publicly AND privately, the irrational actions of those whose beliefs they share. No one should be more vocal in protest when a doctor is killed than the pro-life contingent, but it seems no group is more silent about the taking of a life than they are. Perhaps pro-some-life is a more apt title.

I believe you have hit upon one of the biggest issues here, in that if god gave a person their conscience, that person is no longer responsible to his community for his actions, he was "just made that way" and personal responsibility is removed. In addition, even if held responsible, the prevailing notion that is if a person's justification is based upon religious beliefs, no matter how perverted or distorted, that justification carries a higher basic value, i.e. (from my original example) "I killed him because the park bench told me I could save the Revered Cheddar" and "I killed him because this sacred book said I was righteous and just in doing so." Both obviously, equally horseshit, but to the right ears, one sounds perfectly insane, and one sounds legitimate.

That is the intended idea, yes. Irrationality, left to its devices, will always result, eventually, in negative consequences.

Here's a rational thought for you. All the major religions that exist today have been around for thousands of years. Are they flawed? Yes, absolutely, every last one of them. Do some of the beliefs maintained cause problems even on the scale of genocide? Certainly. But keep in mind that they are the foundations for all the major civilizations of the world. Religion is the accumulation of thousands of years of human wisdom expressed in symbolic language. So when you look past the obvious flaws of whether it's literally possible that Jesus walked on water or Moses parted the Red Sea, maybe there's something there of value. Granted,there's often a lot of bullshit to dig through to find those pearls of wisdom.

edited to remove a stray punctuation mark

[Galactus]

A conservative Christian once made the point to me that if you can pick and choose from your holy text based on the idea that some of it's flawed, you can ultimately decide anything you want, and what's to say you don't decide the entire thing's flawed? I struggled with the idea for a while, but I can't really find anything wrong with the point. If I'm going to argue that flawed men wrote about the world being created in seven days because they didn't know better, I can't argue against the idea that flawed men wrote about the idea of a Supreme Being because they didn't know better. Ultimately it led me to question the entirety of my religious beliefs.

There's a solution to that: Radical Spiritualism (Quakers are sometimes considered of this particular group) they see the Bible as an account of people's interactions with the Holy Spirit (more or less) it's not neccessarily true: True revelation comes from direct contact with the Holy Spirit/Inner Light.

For the most radical spiritaulists the Bible is rejected entirely as a source of revelation: Revelation has to come dirctly from the Holy Spirit.

Naturally, neithr catholic or protestant mainstream denominations had much use for them :P

[C S]

A conservative Christian once made the point to me that if you can pick and choose from your holy text based on the idea that some of it's flawed, you can ultimately decide anything you want, and what's to say you don't decide the entire thing's flawed? I struggled with the idea for a while, but I can't really find anything wrong with the point. If I'm going to argue that flawed men wrote about the world being created in seven days because they didn't know better, I can't argue against the idea that flawed men wrote about the idea of a Supreme Being because they didn't know better. Ultimately it led me to question the entirety of my religious beliefs.

This is a failure to take responsibility. Everything that humans have created, discovered, developed, etc., is flawed to some extent. How about trying to make some honest judgments about what has value and discarding what doesn't? Realize that your going to get some things wrong and accept that and move on with your life.

[The Fan]

Here's a rational thought for you. All the major religions that exist today have been around for thousands of years. Are they flawed? Yes, absolutely, every last one of them. Do some of the beliefs maintained cause problems even on the scale of genocide? Certainly. But keep in mind that they are the foundations for all the major civilizations of the world. Religion is the accumulation of thousands of years of human wisdom expressed in symbolic language. So when you look past the obvious flaws of whether it's literally possible that Jesus walked on water or Moses parted the Red Sea, maybe there's something there of value. Granted,there's often a lot of bullshit to dig through to find those pearls of wisdom.

I don't know if "thousands of years of human wisdom" is the best summary, perhaps the culmination of collected superstitions that are ever less relevant to the modern world.

Human beings crave understanding and explanation, and in the ancient past, the long past, and even the fairly recent past, religion explained many things. In this day and age though, an enormous amount has been explained in scientific, observed, rational ways, and in the future, even more will, I suspect until the point where irrelevant becomes comically ridiculous.

Now we joke and snicker when we see a caveman who was scared of fire, but in the future, people are going to joke and snicker that we thought there was an imaginary man in the sky that gave us a pass/fail at life, and we killed each other to please him.

Religion does have a few nuggets of wisdom in the neck deep BS, even if (as I believe, rightly or wrongly) they were co-opted from simple common sense and self-preservation, such as Don't Kill, Don't Steal, Don't Eat Pork that's been sitting out in the desert sun without refrigeration for a week, etc.

Diamonds in the vast rough though, those good tips. Late for a meeting, back soon.

[C S]

Fan,

As a scientist, I have a great deal of respect for science, but it doesn't tell us a whole lot about human interaction beyond the basic brain chemistry behind it. Nor does it adequately address art and culture and the societal bonds that tie us together (and tear us apart). Now, you can have all those things without religion, but that's not how our species developed. Maybe there is a reason for that.

[AverageGuy]

There's a solution to that: Radical Spiritualism (Quakers are sometimes considered of this particular group) they see the Bible as an account of people's interactions with the Holy Spirit (more or less) it's not neccessarily true: True revelation comes from direct contact with the Holy Spirit/Inner Light.

Yeah, I went to a Friends school for a year, heard all about the inner light. I don't really see it as a solution, though.

[Eponine]

There's a solution to that: Radical Spiritualism (Quakers are sometimes considered of this particular group) they see the Bible as an account of people's interactions with the Holy Spirit (more or less) it's not neccessarily true: True revelation comes from direct contact with the Holy Spirit/Inner Light.

I found trying to believe that I was in some kind of contact with tHS to be more of a mindfuck than just believing that I had to accept the doctrines of a book.

This is a failure to take responsibility. Everything that humans have created, discovered, developed, etc., is flawed to some extent. How about trying to make some honest judgments about what has value and discarding what doesn't? Realize that your going to get some things wrong and accept that and move on with your life.

What would taking responsibility entail then, with regards to religious belief? AverageGuy DID make an honest judgment about what had value and discarded what didn't have value to him, and what he discarded was Christianity.