first name basis

[Kron3007]

This is one of the reasons religion seems so crazy to many of us non-religious.  You are openly embracing logical contradictions. 

I promise you, that you also embrace a whole series of logical contradictions, as do we all.

Perhaps this is true, but there are degrees of logical fallacy and Christians are on a whole other level.

I am a little curious of the series of logical contradictions you assume I subscribe to though.  I suppose the main difference is that if you explain the contradiction to me I am likely to alter my world view accordingly, whereas Christians just drop the old F-bomb (faith) and soldier on.

[Wahoo Redux]

His take is pretty good. He's summarized things better than me (so that Harvard PhD obviously had some value).

As he alludes to, if the "purpose" of the Bible is to give absolutely clear answers to every moral question for all time, it's a horrible failure. If it's "purpose" is to give us a window on the ongoing development of the relationship between God and humanity, it gives tons of insight.

I'm not making my point clear.

We are used to Christians using the Bible as a tool.  This tool is meant to batter our thinking into its proper shape.  We have had debates on this very Fora in which Biblical prohibitions against certain sexual practices were used as debate points.  But when faced with the obvious problems with Biblical claims (ex. "slavery") and exegesis (ex. homosexuality) and our modern zeitgeist, well, then suddenly we cannot hold the Bible to its Word because, you know, those people were thinking different than we are, and the Bible is open to interpretation anyway...

You can't have it both ways, my friend.  Either the Bible is the Word of God which we are to follow or you have a very interesting mythology which offers some hints on how to live and a great many things we throw away.

And the vagueness of the Constitution is a big problem.  But again, these are human agents, not God, so that is not a very good analogy.

[apl68]

This is one of the reasons religion seems so crazy to many of us non-religious.  You are openly embracing logical contradictions. 

I promise you, that you also embrace a whole series of logical contradictions, as do we all.

That's a fair point.  Logic's a useful tool to help us get through life on a day-to-day basis.  But like all systems of human thought, it has its limitations.  There's no such thing as a life of absolutely perfect logic.  People who try to maintain an absolute logical consistency in all their actions have a history of losing their minds.  That's part of why I'm okay with not knowing and understanding everything that has to do with God or why God does or allows this or that.  I'm prepared to recognize that there are things above my pay grade--above all of our pay grades.

[apl68]

apl, I am not speaking of you, please understand, because I am positive you are a true, kindly Christian----our debates about lifestyles notwithstanding.

But how can you separate actions from the religion that sanctions said actions?

The apology that "[whoever] is not a true follower of Christ" is a facile and superficial response, even a cliched response.

I guess I don't understand why that's so facile or superficial a response.  To me, it only makes sense.  I mean, if I am in a position of authority (or am trying to be) and tell somebody to do something, and they say that they'll follow my orders, but then go and do something completely different from what I tell them, then how can they be considered my "follower?"  They might say they are, might even be recognized as somebody taking orders from me, but in practice they aren't.  Professed Christians who don't actually make a point of practicing what Jesus says aren't actually following Jesus.  And Jesus said that such people aren't actually his followers.

Anyway, that's the best I know how to explain it.  I'm honestly not trying to debate anything here.  I'm just trying to explain what I believe.  I can't make somebody accept it.

[Wahoo Redux]

This is a very weird collection of examples. I mean ok, crusades, inquisition are pretty standard and I see the logic. But the other two examples are weird.

Nazism was pretty anti christian in its outlook and most of its leaders wanted to undermine and eventually destroy it in Germany. In the meantime they settled for trying to coopt it. Individual christians in Germany responded to this in a variety of ways. Some enthusiastically joined in, many others disapproved quietly, and a small number resisted, mostly paying for it with their lives. This included groups like the White Rose, a group of religious protestant teenagers who learned what was happening, decided they had to do something and distributed pamphlets denouncing the regime. Almost all of them were murdered by the regime. You could say various things about all of this, but it doesn't seem to fit with the first two examples.

In other words, the Nazis were Christians.  The leadership may have wanted absolute power after their presumed victory in the war, but the Christian population was perfectly complicit with open Nazi atrocities.  Nazi Germany was one of the greatest failings in the history of Christianity. 

The Branch Dravidians are even odder in this context. It was a tiny break away sect of the seventh day adventists which was taken over by David Koresh. Koresh's relationship with Christianity before the Branch Davidians was quite shallow-he converted and belonged to a church briefly in his early 20s before being thrown out after claiming a divine revelation that he should marry the pastor's 14 year old daughter. Blaming "Christianity" for Koresh is like blaming the 1960s counter culture for Charles Manson.

The '60s counter culture absolutely had a great deal to do with the creation of Charles Manson. "Helter Skelter" is a Beatles' song.  Have you read Manson's biography by Jeff Gunn?  It's a trip. 

Koresh was a Christian, tiny break-away or not. His outlandish claims were Biblically based. Herald Camping also comes to mind as does Joel Osteem. The point was that we can see pretty much what we decide to see in the Bible.  That is problematic. 

[Wahoo Redux]

apl, I am not speaking of you, please understand, because I am positive you are a true, kindly Christian----our debates about lifestyles notwithstanding.

But how can you separate actions from the religion that sanctions said actions?

The apology that "[whoever] is not a true follower of Christ" is a facile and superficial response, even a cliched response.

I guess I don't understand why that's so facile or superficial a response.  To me, it only makes sense.  I mean, if I am in a position of authority (or am trying to be) and tell somebody to do something, and they say that they'll follow my orders, but then go and do something completely different from what I tell them, then how can they be considered my "follower?"  They might say they are, might even be recognized as somebody taking orders from me, but in practice they aren't.  Professed Christians who don't actually make a point of practicing what Jesus says aren't actually following Jesus.  And Jesus said that such people aren't actually his followers.

Anyway, that's the best I know how to explain it.  I'm honestly not trying to debate anything here.  I'm just trying to explain what I believe.  I can't make somebody accept it.

I respect what you believe.

It is simply too easy an answer to try and separate the religion from the follower, particularly if the follower finds sanction for their actions in the religion.   

[Kron3007]

This is one of the reasons religion seems so crazy to many of us non-religious.  You are openly embracing logical contradictions. 

I promise you, that you also embrace a whole series of logical contradictions, as do we all.

That's a fair point.  Logic's a useful tool to help us get through life on a day-to-day basis.  But like all systems of human thought, it has its limitations.  There's no such thing as a life of absolutely perfect logic.  People who try to maintain an absolute logical consistency in all their actions have a history of losing their minds.  That's part of why I'm okay with not knowing and understanding everything that has to do with God or why God does or allows this or that.  I'm prepared to recognize that there are things above my pay grade--above all of our pay grades.

Sure, you can never achieve perfection, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't have standards.

If an adult believes in the Easter bunny, you would likely question their logic.  If they said l, well your not perfectly logical either, that doesn't change the fact that believing in the Easter bunny is illogical does it?

[little bongo]

The ultimate experts on the origin of faith, of course, were Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner doing their "2,000-year-old man" routine:

INTERVIEWER: Did you believe in anything?

OLD MAN: Yes, a guy – Phil. Philip was the leader of our tribe.

INTERVIEWER: What made him the leader?

OLD MAN: Very big, very strong, big beard, big arms, he could just kill you. He could walk on you and you would die.

INTERVIEWER: You revered him?

OLD MAN: We prayed to him. Would you like to hear one of our prayers? "Oh Philip. Please don't take our eyes out and don't pinch us and don't hurt us....Amen."

INTERVIEWER: How long was his reign?

OLD MAN: Not too long. Because one day, Philip was hit by lightning. And we looked up and said..."There's something bigger than Phil."

***

I. too, agree that there's something bigger than Phil. I think a lot of us would. Beyond that... well, there's always "The Life of Brian":

https://www.google.com/search?q=life+of+brian+work+it+out+for+yourselves&sca_esv=576501417&sxsrf=AM9HkKm9pBlImqSscX1eH3ISLwMl6aQOgg%3A1698243838267&source=hp&ei=_iQ5ZYX9DaHMkPIPx_6x0Ac&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZTkzDocfkPGcPJE0AiSdciU9D821x_6u&ved=0ahUKEwiF9OCls5GCAxUhJkQIHUd_DHoQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=life+of+brian+work+it+out+for+yourselves&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IihsaWZlIG9mIGJyaWFuIHdvcmsgaXQgb3V0IGZvciB5b3Vyc2VsdmVzMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIqldQAFiTTnAAeACQAQCYAZUBoAHDHqoBBTI3LjEzuAEDyAEA-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&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:b2dc2f2d,vid:9xSpYSxcvFk,st:0

[marshwiggle]

His take is pretty good. He's summarized things better than me (so that Harvard PhD obviously had some value).

As he alludes to, if the "purpose" of the Bible is to give absolutely clear answers to every moral question for all time, it's a horrible failure. If it's "purpose" is to give us a window on the ongoing development of the relationship between God and humanity, it gives tons of insight.

I'm not making my point clear.

We are used to Christians using the Bible as a tool.  This tool is meant to batter our thinking into its proper shape.  We have had debates on this very Fora in which Biblical prohibitions against certain sexual practices were used as debate points.  But when faced with the obvious problems with Biblical claims (ex. "slavery") and exegesis (ex. homosexuality) and our modern zeitgeist, well, then suddenly we cannot hold the Bible to its Word because, you know, those people were thinking different than we are, and the Bible is open to interpretation anyway...

There are, broadly speaking, three different positions within Christendom on this:

• conservative-literalist; assume virtually everything must be taken at face value, so rules are timeless.
• liberal-literary; the Bible was a book written by humans, and reflects the prejudices, etc. of their cultures, so things that were written that our culture disagrees with can be ignored.
• middle-of-the-road-ongoing interpretation; principles which are consistent through scripture always apply, but changes in context may affect how.

The most vocal groups are the first two. So, for instance, on the issue of homosexuality the first group is against it, the second group supports it, and the third group will include people both for and against, and many still trying to figure it out. (This would include people, for instance, who accept gay civil marriage while not supporting it within the church; i.e. it's a rule for Christians which does not apply to the rest of society.)

You can't have it both ways, my friend.  Either the Bible is the Word of God which we are to follow or you have a very interesting mythology which offers some hints on how to live and a great many things we throw away.

And the vagueness of the Constitution is a big problem.  But again, these are human agents, not God, so that is not a very good analogy.

But unless you believe Christians should all have some sort of infallible pipeline to God, then the interpretation problem is very similar to the constitution. Even if the writing of Scripture was "inspired", (and as the earlier article mentioned, what that means is far from crystal clear), then unless the interpretation is similarly "inspired", then it's still open to error and confusion by humans.

In any endeavour involving humans, human agents are always going to cause problems, even when they're well-meaning.

[Wahoo Redux]

• liberal-literary; the Bible was a book written by humans, and reflects the prejudices, etc. of their cultures, so things that were written that our culture disagrees with can be ignored.
• middle-of-the-road-ongoing interpretation; principles which are consistent through scripture always apply, but changes in context may affect how.

Yeeeeeessssss, we've been over this.  And this is right where the problem lies.  You are back to cherry-picking.

I'll say it again.  You can't have it both ways.

But unless you believe Christians should all have some sort of infallible pipeline to God

If I am going to be told what God wants from me, then hell yeah, I want an infallible pipeline to God.

If you do not have a pipeline, then we are back to the problem above.  You cannot have it both ways.  Keep religion out of politics, out of public policy, and out of our faces unless you have a pipeline. 

It's that simple.

[ciao_yall]

A person uses their religion as a tool of their own expression.

A good person uses their religion to make themselves a better person.

A jerk uses their religion to justify being a bigger @ssh0l3.

[marshwiggle]

Quote from: marshwiggle on 10/25/2023, 10:41:42 AM

• liberal-literary; the Bible was a book written by humans, and reflects the prejudices, etc. of their cultures, so things that were written that our culture disagrees with can be ignored.
• middle-of-the-road-ongoing interpretation; principles which are consistent through scripture always apply, but changes in context may affect how.

Yeeeeeessssss, we've been over this.  And this is right where the problem lies.  You are back to cherry-picking.I'll say it again.  You can't have it both ways.Quote But unless you believe Christians should all have some sort of infallible pipeline to GodIf I am going to be told what God wants from me, then hell yeah, I want an infallible pipeline to God.If you do not have a pipeline, then we are back to the problem above.  You cannot have it both ways.  Keep religion out of politics, out of public policy, and out of our faces unless you have a pipeline.  It's that simple.

So does this mean there should never be public discussion about things like antisemitism or Islamaphobia? Should religious people be forbidden from stating their reasons for voting in a certain way if it involves their faith? If so, then should there be similar rules to "Keep [ethnicity, sex, sexual orienation] out of politics, out of public policy, and out of our faces"? Who should be allowed to vote and speak?

A person uses their religion as a tool of their own expression.

A good person uses their religion to make themselves a better person.

A jerk uses their religion to justify being a bigger @ssh0l3.

A jerk uses their nationality, sex, sexual orientation, profession, etc. to justify being a bigger @ssh0l3.
Religion has no monopoly on this.

[Wahoo Redux]

So does this mean there should never be public discussion about things like antisemitism or Islamaphobia?

Never said anything of the sort.  As a matter of fact, should we just admit there is no "pipeline to God," these discussion gain some piquancy. 

Should religious people be forbidden from stating their reasons for voting in a certain way if it involves their faith?

"Forbidden!?"  Always the sense of being victimized.

No.  We want voting to be as free of constraint as possible. 

What we want are for religious people to truly, honestly, earnestly evaluate their own beliefs in light of their faith lacking a "pipeline to God."  This is on you, not on me.

If so, then should there be similar rules to "Keep [ethnicity, sex, sexual orienation] out of politics, out of public policy, and out of our faces"? Who should be allowed to vote and speak?

Complete, hysterical, typical self-victimizing strawmen.  I said nothing of the sort.

See above.

What this ruptured pipeline does create, however, is a need for someone like me to oppose people who expect the world to adhere to their faith.  We've seen that very thing here, on this Fora.  You didn't mean to admit there is no "pipeline," but you did.  You also were circled into admitting that the core of Christianity, the Bible, is more or less a book written by people, so it is not a facsimile of the Word of God, but a compendium of inspired impressions, therefore we cannot expect it to be perfect.  The "ergo" here seems pretty obvious to me.

A person uses their religion as a tool of their own expression.

A good person uses their religion to make themselves a better person.

A jerk uses their religion to justify being a bigger @ssh0l3.

A jerk uses their nationality, sex, sexual orientation, profession, etc. to justify being a bigger @ssh0l3.
Religion has no monopoly on this.

Yeah.  No one is going to disagree.  Do you have a point?