People voting with their feet

[nbohr1more]

Yes, Religion isn't really the root of Gay-Bashing per se. It is an evolutionary remnant of alpha-male behavior and protecting the gene-pool from undifferentiated genders. Religion merely codifies the early human's instinctual feelings about Gay people into a dogmatic document.

 

(I recall this concept being posited somewhere so I might look this up rather than leaving it as another thing I just pulled out of my arse )

[Tudor]

Well it sounds sensible. Although I'm still more into the whole idea of religion being a good thing actually.

If you look at what jesus stood for it's pretty nice, he was the very incarnation of "Do no harm, be kind, forget and forgive." And that's about as good as it gets.

[Springheel]

If you look at what jesus stood for it's pretty nice, he was the very incarnation of "Do no harm, be kind, forget and forgive." And that's about as good as it gets.

 

While Jesus is a massive improvement over the jealous, genocidal bully of the Old Testament, his morality still leaves something to be desired. The idea of Jesus as "gentle, meek and mild" is a popular view among moderate Christians, but it is only possible to think that way if you ignore large passages of the New Testament.

 

Jesus had several messages that can only be seen as immoral by today's standards:

 

First, he talks about his mission to divide families against each other:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:35)

 

Luke (12:49-51): Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division..."

 

Jesus says that no one can be his disciple unless he "hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters" (Luke 14:26)

 

Jesus also preaches the ridiculous notion that one should not plan for the future: "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" (Matthew 6:25) Fortunately, most Christians don't follow this message, or the rest of us would have to shoulder the burden of looking after these people.

 

Beyond that, Jesus is also the first to introduce the repellent notion of "thought crime". At least in the Old Testament you were judged for what you actually did or said--things under your control. Jesus introduces the concept of being judged for things that you cannot control--your thoughts and feelings. It's the very definition of totalitarianism. And the punishment? Eternal damnation--a concept also introduced by Jesus and regularly mentioned by him. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how infinite torture can be an ethical response to crimes beyond one's control.

 

Of course, "nice" Christians make excuses for these passages. See, "cherry-picking".

 

@Mortem:

Asserting that the law is no longer valid in the new covenant. If God's moral law and threat of damnation is not valid, how could Christians ever see their need for a savior from sin?

 

Whoa, on top of Biblical inerrancy, are you saying that you believe the 613 laws in the Old Testament are still valid? Fascinating! Any chance you're ready to pick up from our previous discussion on the topic?

[Mortem Desino]

First, he talks about his mission to divide families against each other:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:35)

The idea is this: if Christ had not come, the earth would have gone on undisturbed in its sin and guilt till the day of its doom. Now Christ came to take that sin and guilt away. At once war resulted, for men in their perversion clung to their sin, fought Christ and the Gospel, and thus produced two hostile camps. Christ foresaw this effect, and willed it. Emphatically he declares that he came to throw a sword on the earth. Better the war and the division, saving as many as possible, than to let all perish in their sin. Concretely Jesus describes the worst feature of what "sword" or "division" means, the rending of intimate family ties. The division is one of opposition (see verse 21).The real point in the example is that the members of one new convert's own family will become his personal enemies. One large idea is this: if one has not even enough love for Jesus to outweigh his attachment to his family, he is not worthy to be counted as a disciple.

 

Luke (12:49-51): Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division..."

The implication is that one would suppose that Jesus came to bring peace, just peace on the earth. Is he not the Prince of peace, his church the haven of peace, his greeting "Peace to you!" and that of his apostles "grace and peace"? All true. But "on the earth" takes in teh world of men, and the effect of Christ's mission on the earth in general is quite the opposite of peace, namely division, or, as Jesus put it in Matt 10:34, "a sword". This contrast shows that "peace" here is meant in the sense of harmony and an undisturbed condition. The idea is this: if Christ had not come, the earth would have gone on undisturbed in its sin and guilt till the day of its doom. But now he came by the cross to take away that sin and guilt. At once there was division, many refused to have their sin and guilt removed by the cross. Once again, better that some accept the cross, than that all the earth should perish in its sin.

 

Jesus also preaches the ridiculous notion that one should not plan for the future: "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" (Matthew 6:25) Fortunately, most Christians don't follow this message, or the rest of us would have to shoulder the burden of looking after these people.

Using your logic, the apostle Paul was the worst offender of this command. He was a tent-maker to financially support himself. You miss the contextual point. Will he who gave us our life and body, fail to help support that life and body? That most elementary logic ought to put every disciple above worry.

 

Beyond that, Jesus is also the first to introduce the repellent notion of "thought crime". At least in the Old Testament you were judged for what you actually did or said--things under your control. Jesus introduces the concept of being judged for things that you cannot control--your thoughts and feelings. It's the very definition of totalitarianism. And the punishment? Eternal damnation--a concept also introduced by Jesus and regularly mentioned by him. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how infinite torture can be an ethical response to crimes beyond one's control.

 

Of course, "nice" Christians make excuses for these passages. See, "cherry-picking".

Ever figure that an uber-being might do what he does for reasons beyond puny human minds? Never since Adam's fall was there righteousness in, by, and through law of any kind. It was always through faith apart from law of all kinds. I dare you to find one man aside from Christ who cannot sin. Too bad all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Too bad all our righteous acts are like filthy rags in comparison to the perfect Lord. Furthermore, "Hell" is torture in the way that "hell" is a state of seperation from God.

 

@Mortem:

 

 

Whoa, on top of Biblical inerrancy, are you saying that you believe the 613 laws in the Old Testament are still valid? Fascinating!

I apologize. I mistakenly assumed you knew about the divisions of types of laws.

 

You can probably call the entire old testament "mosaic law" by Hebrew definition. That gets split into three subcatagories of laws: civil, moral, and ceremonial laws. The punishments for homosexuality are under civil law. Forbidding homosexuality is under moral law (see also: 10 commandments). Ceremonial law is stuff related to worship or most other miscellany that makes modern people go 'WTF is that?!' The civil law really only mattered to Israel while it was a theocracy, and survived mostly until the Hellenization by Alexander the Great. After the Pharisees and Sadducees came about, the civil and ceremonial law became so convoluted and distorted.

 

Out of your 613 laws in the Old Testament, only 10 of them are moral law. And 'If God's moral law and threat of damnation is not valid, how could Christians ever see their need for a savior from sin?'

 

 

 

 

Any chance you're ready to pick up from our previous discussion on the topic?

No. Refuting rationalism with reason is like offering salt water to cure a thirst.

 

Besides, stuffing mustard seeds down your throat will only give you a bad case of heartburn. (cf. Mark 4:30-32)

 

I'm done. Though I suppose if you prod my ego enough, you could theoretically induce a butthurt comment or two from me.

[Summer]

Using your logic, the apostle Paul was the worst offender of this command. He was a tent-maker to financially support himself. You miss the contextual point. Will he who gave us our life and body, fail to help support that life and body? That most elementary logic ought to put every disciple above worry.

 

The point here is probably that Jesus directs people to worry less about common troubles, such as getting enough food, drink, sleep or sex, and think about higher things. To better one's self. To advance one's self and society through development. --- Although I could be reading more into this than I should since enlightenment is such a worthy goal, but a hard one to reach.

 

I dare you to find one man aside from Christ who cannot sin. Too bad all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Too bad all our righteous acts are like filthy rags in comparison to the perfect Lord.

 

Did Jesus not commit sin? Was he devoid of sin?

 

I was under the impression that he died, not only for our sins, but for his own as well. How else - and why - would he be sent down here among us petty mortals if not to experience the full spectrum of life? Both the good and the bad. To have a full life as a human, to understand what humanity is all about. His life as a human is what ultimately gave him the strength to take the cross and die for humanity and its sins.

 

 

[nbohr1more]

 

First, he talks about his mission to divide families against each other:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:35)

 

Luke (12:49-51): Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division..."

 

Jesus says that no one can be his disciple unless he "hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters" (Luke 14:26)

 

 

This kind of thing just lends more credence to the idea that Jesus was a seditious revolutionary against Rome rather than a peaceful teacher. This alludes to a call-to-action.

 

The real context here is:

 

* A Jewish state under King Herod that has severely compromised it's principals to appease Rome.

* Vast amounts of Jewish folk being subjected to severe oppression from Rome with help from Herod.

* "Upper-Cruft" Jews who enforce the establishment and help Rome oppress their fellow Jews.

* Using the Synagogue to collect funds for Rome.

* Repeated humiliation and violations by Rome whenever some new regent comes along and wants to show his might.

* A populace that has grown either apathetic to this abuse or has some sort of Iron Age Stockholm Syndrome and actually acts out against anyone who challenges Rome's dominion.

 

So along comes Jesus essentially saying "Enough is enough! If your friends and family want to accept these abuses they are not your friends you must learn to hate them. Just because Rome can put it's Iron Boot up your butt doesn't mean they can change your heart. In your heart you must be an enemy of Rome no matter what you can really do about it. God will see this and help us to defeat Rome."

 

Oddly, this is about what happened. The seed of internalized sedition from Jesus teachings resonated with TONS of people living under the boot of Rome and won converts by the scores.

 

I wonder who might come along in these modern times and seed the idea of sedition against "corporate control" or "Big Brother". Will someone's ideas for resistance against "information oppression" resonate so strongly that folks will die for them in lion filled stadiums?

Edited October 28, 2010 by nbohr1more

[Springheel]

@ Mortem:

 

Ok, we'll leave the previous discussion of how anyone can rationally believe the Bible is completely accurate, but I assume your last post is still fair game for comments?

 

The idea is this: if Christ had not come, the earth would have gone on undisturbed in its sin and guilt till the day of its doom. Now Christ came to take that sin and guilt away

 

That presumes there was no other way to "take that sin" away. The omnipotent creator of the entire universe could surely conceive of some other method to forgive our sin. Instead, he chose a method that was intentionally divisive. A method that intentionally pit family members against each other. How is that moral?

 

Using your logic, the apostle Paul was the worst offender of this command. He was a tent-maker to financially support himself. You miss the contextual point. Will he who gave us our life and body, fail to help support that life and body?

 

It's not my logic; it's the clear message of the passage (I quoted only the first verse, but the message is repeated at least three times). It ends with the clear command: "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself". Do not think about tomorrow. Do not worry about protecting your life; do not worry about finding food, do not worry about finding clothing. God will provide them all for you.

 

How would we judge a parent who teaches their children to follow such a ridiculous notion? It is the height of irresponsibility, and any parent who tried to raise their children that way would no doubt have them taken away for their own safety.

 

Ever figure that an uber-being might do what he does for reasons beyond puny human minds?

 

Ah yes, the God works in mysterious ways defense. It always comes back to that, doesn't it?

 

1. God says X is true

2. X is shown to be false, or contradictory, or nonsensical

3. But God said X is true!

4. Therefore, X MUST be true, and any issues with #2 must come from human unworthiness

 

The "you can't judge God" defense is deeply flawed. I can go into it at more length later (I've got to run), but the quick summary is this: we *already* use our puny human minds to judge God. Christians read the Bible using human reason and judge God to be good and loving and gentle and meek or whatever. They use their "puny human minds" to interpret the Bible and deduce what God's message to us is. You use your human mind to defend the Bible against criticism.

 

It's only when someone raises a difficult question or points out a flaw that suddenly our "puny minds" become a problem.

[jdude]

It's not my logic; it's the clear message of the passage (I quoted only the first verse, but the message is repeated at least three times). It ends with the clear command: "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself". Do not think about tomorrow. Do not worry about protecting your life; do not worry about finding food, do not worry about finding clothing. God will provide them all for you.

 

How would we judge a parent who teaches their children to follow such a ridiculous notion? It is the height of irresponsibility, and any parent who tried to raise their children that way would no doubt have them taken away for their own safety.

 

Disagreement over interpretation aside:

This concerns me. Are you saying children should worry about finding food, clothing and safety? I firmly believe that it is the parent's responsibility to provide these for their children. No child should need worry about these basic amenities.

[Springheel]

This concerns me. Are you saying children should worry about finding food, clothing and safety?

 

I should have been more clear there.

 

I'm saying that a parent who taught their children to never think ahead or plan for the future (don't do your homework, don't worry about whether you have a lunch or money for the bus, don't have any fear for your safety when you cross roads or go swimming, etc, etc), would be considered extremely irresponsible, if not unfit.

[Mortem Desino]

I'm glad you can't read κοινή Greek, Spring, otherwise you'd realize some fascinating stuff apparently strengthening your point. In Matt 6:25, Jesus uses a present imperative forbidding the worrying already begun. Something like, "Stop your worrying!" In 6:31, he uses an aorist prohibition, "Do not worry at all!"

 

You entirely skipped the apodasis of those passages (more specifically, the one in Matthew). "But instead [of worrying], be seeking first the Kingdom and the righteousness that are His." This is not to say that you should worship instead of feed and clothe yourself. Once again, look at Paul as a tentmaker by trade. He supported himself by taking a job. Many disciples were fisherman and even continued to fish during their disciple-ship.

 

I encourage you to do your own research (mainly because I'm extremely busy researching even harder dogmatics at the moment). Who was Jesus physically talking to in that chapter? What was the cultural context? How does the 35 AD. Hellenistic Judean setting affect how you interpret the verse? To whom was the book's author writing to?

 

Summer made a neat point concerning the "do not worry" (maybe a bit crypto-calvinist, but interesting). Nbohr understood "divisions" just by looking at history. Do a bit of reading into just the pure history, not the religion or literature, of Christ. Jesus was physically talking to people. The bible is not scatterbrained, it does not have ADD. Many mistakenly interpret scripture like a textbook. The books are letters, not lessons. They're testimonies, not texts. They're personal, not intellectual.

 

Ah yes, the God works in mysterious ways defense. It always comes back to that, doesn't it?

...

It's only when someone raises a difficult question or points out a flaw that suddenly our "puny minds" become a problem.

NOW you're getting it!

[Springheel]

@ nbohr1more:

This kind of thing just lends more credence to the idea that Jesus was a seditious revolutionary against Rome rather than a peaceful teacher. This alludes to a call-to-action.

 

Yes, there's some evidence for that. There is also a lot of evidence in scripture to suggest Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, who thought that the end of the world was imminent. Of course, since all the records of what Jesus might have said were written decades after his death by unknown authors, we frankly have no idea what he might actually have taught.

 

@ Mortem:

You entirely skipped the apodasis of those passages .... This is not to say that you should worship instead of feed and clothe yourself.

 

That is nearly exactly what it is saying. It is encouraging a complete abdication of personal responsibility.

 

Matthew:

6:31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow

 

The message is quite clearly stated. Do not plan, do not invest, do not take responsibility for where your food and clothing and safety will come from. Just leave your family and follow God, and he will provide for you.

 

In my opinion, that message is clearly irresponsible, if not immoral.

 

I apologize. I mistakenly assumed you knew about the divisions of types of laws.

You can probably call the entire old testament "mosaic law" by Hebrew definition. That gets split into three subcatagories of laws: civil, moral, and ceremonial laws. The punishments for homosexuality are under civil law.

 

I do understand the divisions of different types of laws, although there is no agreed upon method to decide which laws are which. This is perfect for those who are looking to cherry pick, and every Christian sect has its own take on which laws are still valid. The laws that seem ridiculous must not really count, because if they did, that would make God ridiculous. That's why you have many Christians saying that homosexuality is an "abomination", yet they ignore that shellfish are also an "abomination" (God says nothing to suggest that one is less significant to him than the other).

 

Forbidding homosexuality is under moral law (see also: 10 commandments).

 

Yes of course...the laws that Christians personally support are the ones that God really meant. But those foolish or unpleasant ones (like God's permission to own slaves)...those are outdated, or for someone else, or he didn't really mean it. It's all wonderfully convenient. Can you find any evidence in the Bible to support the notion that God is more offended by homosexuality than he is by eating shellfish?

 

It's also interesting that although Christians still tend to revere the Ten Commandments as meaningful moral laws, the first four of the ten have absolutely nothing to do with morality at all.

[Mortem Desino]

And my advice concerning interpretation was 100% ignored. Read into ancient Mesopotamian culture. Read about Hellenized Judean culture. It's no less than stupid to think that the bible is a textbook of all things applying to 2010 A.D. [insert hometown here]. If you want to continue demanding that your interpretation is more perfect than 2000 years of church fathers, then I'm done.

 

It's already evident that this is no more than a game of who can plug his ears tighter.

[Baddcog]

Well, it's been an interesting read following your guy's discussion.

 

And it clearly points out my issues with organized religion. 2 intellegent guys who have obviously read up alot on the subject and have some things (TDM at least) in common.

And yet can't agree at all on what the Bible actually says/means.

 

Take that and multiply it by millionss of dummies who just listen to what someone tells them it means, but then turn around and tell people how they should live their lives based on 'their' (read: what they've been told by whoever) interpretations, x thousands of years of misinterpretations/mis information based on whatever motive...

 

Then add into the mix that some people cling to religion as some sort of righteousness/excuse to do whatever they want in the name of God... And of course the fear of death and eternal damnation which makes them only cling harder. And beliefs passed down through generations...

[Mortem Desino]

I'm probably not giving Spring enough credit, though. His explanation of "cherry-picking" interpretations, passages, even single letters in a word (look up council of Nicaea: homoousios) is absolutely right: that's the biggest reason for so many sects of Christianity. And many sects make much less sense than others.

 

[Springheel]

(wow, busy week...haven't had a chance to get back to this until now)

 

it clearly points out my issues with organized religion. 2 intellegent guys who have obviously read up alot on the subject and have some things (TDM at least) in common.

And yet can't agree at all on what the Bible actually says/means.

 

Yes, I suppose that's a decent illustration of the point I've been trying to get across. I agree with the rest of your post completely. I've had discussions with people from all kinds of different views on Christianity, from those who believe that the Bible was literally dictated by God to the authors, to those who believe it is little more than a set of cultural myths, to those who think it is a code to be puzzled out, and virtually everything in between. The notable thing is that every single Christian group has their own set of arguments for why their interpretation is correct. Yet, if pressed, they can't provide any reason why the arguments for their interpretation are better than anyone else's argument--they generally fall back on faith ("well, I just believe that's what it means"), or special revelation ("you won't understand until God reveals himself to you") or some version of the Courtier's Reply ("I don't need to address your argument until you've studied theology/learned ancient hebrew/lived my life" etc).

 

If you want to continue demanding that your interpretation is more perfect than 2000 years of church fathers, then I'm done.

 

It's not really my interpretation, as I'm not at all invested in what the Bible says...I consider it to be on par with the Greek myths in terms of modern significance. The point I was trying to illustrate is that there is no way to demonstrate which of the multiple interpretations of the Bible are correct. All you can do is make a case for the interpretation you happen to favour. And while some are easier to defend than others, ultimately they all come down to personal preference.

 

That's what makes the Bible (or any "holy scripture") potentially dangerous. Bigots, murderers, and terrorists can all use it to justify their actions. And because we have culturally elevated it to the status of a magic book, these people can then claim (and firmly believe) that they have the blessing of the All Powerful Creator of the Universe to fly their planes into buildings, murder abortion doctors, or tell African villages that condoms are more dangerous than AIDs.

[Mortem Desino]

One last argument that I can present is that my sect of Christianity finds support not only from the bible, but from early founding church fathers like Chysostom and Augustine. And the beliefs fit well with Dark Age church fathers like the Venerable Bede. And with Rennaissance Martin Luther (nevermind that Calvin guy) and Martin Chemnitz. Sects like Westboro Ba-a-a-abtist church will wholly contradict and find a bunch of chastising words from church fathers' writings.

 

Yeah. It makes me so sick sometimes. I still strongly believe that once you invest in Christianity, you'll find one problem with a sect and move to another. You'll find another problem with that sect and move to another. I simply just found one worth sticking around. I never intended to speak for Christianity as a whole. Courtier's reply is just bigoted. God wants to talk to his children like, well, children.

[jdude]

Spring I don't understand the meaning of your post. Would you due away with religions, specifically Christianity because some people use these things negatively?

 

Also your previous posts:

It's not my logic; it's the clear message of the passage (I quoted only the first verse, but the message is repeated at least three times). It ends with the clear command: "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself". Do not think about tomorrow. Do not worry about protecting your life; do not worry about finding food, do not worry about finding clothing. God will provide them all for you.

 

How would we judge a parent who teaches their children to follow such a ridiculous notion? It is the height of irresponsibility, and any parent who tried to raise their children that way would no doubt have them taken away for their own safety.

 

...possibly indicate you think people who teach Christianity to their children should have their children taken away, is this correct? Also have you considered that it is saying not to worry, it is not saying not to work for these things?

[Springheel]

Spring I don't understand the meaning of your post. Would you due away with religions, specifically Christianity because some people use these things negatively?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "do away with". Religions do some helpful things. However, if I had a magic button that would get rid of dogma and irrational beliefs, I would probably push it.

 

The point that I made (and I think I've made it repeatedly in this thread) is that religion in general, and "holy books" in particular, are too often used to justify harmful things. The only reason this happens is because society elevates these books (the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc) to the status of "magic books". No one tries to use "Romeo and Juliet" or "Lord of the Rings" to justify their behaviour, because people would rightly think they were crazy.

 

If we got rid of the notion that some books are magic and just judged all books by the actual messages contained inside, we'd be much better off.

 

...possibly indicate you think people who teach Christianity to their children should have their children taken away, is this correct?

 

No.

 

Also have you considered that it is saying not to worry, it is not saying not to work for these things?

 

Yes.

[jdude]

I'm not sure what to make of your view towards religion.

 

On one hand I here you saying bullying and any hatred toward any group is unjust. Then you spin the tables and say that 'we'd be better off if religion didn't exist.' Imagine you said 'we'd be better off if homosexuality didn't exist.'

 

Additionally I don't see how you can argue that it is the height of irresponsibly to teach people to not worry about tomorrow. One can work hard to try and get the things they need and not worry about tomorrow. For example, I used to stress out over tests in school all the time, I wouldn't be able to sleep the night before. One day I realized that there's no point in me stressing out as long as I work hard. So I work hard at studying and then I don't worry at all about my test the next day. Is this the product of irresponsible parents? I don't know how you can argue that people who teach Christian doctrine to their children should have their children taken away and then in your next post say you didn't mean Christians should have their children taken away. I'd assume you'd rationally think that Christians would teach their children Christian doctrine.

 

The same argument your making could be made for anything involving communication. Television has been used to push propaganda, stereotypes, racism, ect. People get ideas from television to go out and do violent things (school shootings copy cats). I'd imagine you wouldn't want to abolish TV. But let's take it a step forward, radio, television, politics, culture, history, geography, government, boarders, money, authority all feed into the excuses to make violence.

[Mortem Desino]

If we got rid of the notion that some books are magic and just judged all books by the actual messages contained inside, we'd be much better off.

Too bad so many people pervert "the actual message" of every single religious tome on earth. Adding, removing, manufacturing a "brand-spankin' new, better" one. What's the "actual message" of just the Bible? Springheel and I have just agonized over this and neither of us agrees!

 

I'm not sure what to make of your view towards religion.

I do. I run across it all the time. Smart guys, smart conclusions. And it's all very systematically calculated, which is appropriate for a logical, systematic world. There is necessarily evidence and non-canon accounts of so many biblical happenings. But all the evidence in the world will never convince the skeptic, who will excruciatingly skeptic-ize over what's presented. And like I stated above, refuting rationalism with reason is like drinking salt water to cure a thirst.

 

My older brother brought up concerns just like yours, Jdude. The Doctor's reply is posted straight on his website:

 

Back in the day (a phrase my 18-year old son has urged me never to use in public), I had a seminary class in which Prof. Nitz abruptly halted our study for the day, set down his Hebrew Bible and asked us, "Doesn't it bother you that our church body has never had a single missionary to the Jewish people?" I would simply ask you, "Doesn't it bother you that we Lutherans don't think much about sharing the Gospel with educated and intellectual people? I do not want to sound elitist, but let's acknowledge that intellectuals are not excluded from Jesus' commission. The danger here is a pronounced strain of anti-intellectualism that has been keeping us from part of the work we ought to be doing while it is day. Perhaps it is even a case of prejudice toward an entire class of persons. But I do not need to work very hard to make this case with you, do I? I only need to point this out in order to lead you to ask, "Well, what can I do to help?" One thing that you can do to help with outreach to educated souls is to think, read and talk philosophically. Not long ago I had the chance to visit with Bill Wainright, a distinguished professor of philosophy at UW Milwaukee, prior to a grad colloquium about arguments for the existence of God. "Greg," he said at one point, "don't you think we've been getting it wrong with our students all these years? We act as if all these arguments for the existence of God (cosmological, ontological, design, what have you) were meant for unbelievers, but they were really acts of worship produced by believers."

 

I'll give you some wise advice from Martin Luther. You're not to answer with haughty words and carry things off with audacity and force as though you meant to tear up trees, but with fear and humility just as though you stood before God's judgement and were making answer. If it should happen that you were called in front of kings and presidents and had equipped yourself a good while with statements and thoughts: Just wait, I will answer them right! It may well happen that the devil wrestles the sword from your hand, and before you are aware gives you a thrust so that you stand disgraced and have equipped yourself in vain. He might also snatch out of your heart the statements which you fixed best so that you would be left even if you had them well in mind. That should certainly humble a man's haughtiness and humble him. (Translation own, and paraphrased.)

 

You are also a bit out of order. From a dogmatic perspective (and aptly 'resurrected' from an older thread):

 

First step: the Agnostic might look at the world and whether by intuition or rational thinking, recognizes that we need help in solving these problems, and there must be a much higher power or being in existence to orchestrate meaning and purpose for everything. BUT...

...Reason is a gift corrupted by evil. As we come into the world, our reason does not see the need for a God. Our will is hostile to God's. Our spirituality is dead because of evil. Therefore, by our reason, we can never discover or believe God. Reason cannot serve as a source for Christian doctrine, nor can it serve as judge over the teachings of God's word. There is a common (yet doctrinally unsound) Reformed teaching saying that human beings have the capability to find or accept God by their own free will.

 

I'll be content to mark and avoid discussing for however long these attitudes stay. My intellectual side's ego may still love to answer questions as they pop up.

[Sotha]

We act as if all these arguments for the existence of God (cosmological, ontological, design, what have you) were meant for unbelievers, but they were really acts of worship produced by believers.

 

Cool! I think this explains a lot and helps understand some of the arguments presented.

[jdude]

Cool! I think this explains a lot and helps understand some of the arguments presented.

Yea, if I'm comming off like this, that's a tab bit embarrassing, but I'm glad it's been pointed out so I know

[Springheel]

I'm not sure what to make of your view towards religion.

 

Yes, that much is clear.

 

On one hand I here you saying bullying and any hatred toward any group is unjust. Then you spin the tables and say that 'we'd be better off if religion didn't exist.' Imagine you said 'we'd be better off if homosexuality didn't exist.'

 

The reason you don't know what to make of my views is probably because you seem determined to misunderstand and/or misrepresent what I'm saying at every opportunity.

 

I never said that hatred towards any group is unjust. I think it's perfectly justifiable to hate child molesters, for example. I also never said we'd be better off if religion didn't exist. In fact, I bent over backwards to NOT say that.

 

I know you will respond with 'well tell me why religious text aren't magic books?!' That's beside the point, even if you think their nothing more than magic books please treat them and the subject with the dignity and respect they deserve

 

Ah, the delicious irony. The entire point of my post (which you seem to have completely missed) is that the biggest problem with "Holy Books" is that they are given a level of respect that they don't deserve. I treat the Bible (or the Koran, or Torah, or the Guru Granth Sahib) with the same level of respect that I would treat the Illiad, or Plato's Republic, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, or any other piece of ancient literature.

 

Some of your posts seem to have unprovoked aggression in them.

 

Let's not forget that you accused me directly of lying and using false statistics in our last discussion, and then refused to either back up the accusation or retract it. You're not exactly in a position to lecture me about "upsetting people".

 

Additionally I don't see how you can argue that it is the height of irresponsibly to teach people to not worry about tomorrow. One can work hard to try and get the things they need and not worry about tomorrow.

 

Yes, but the scripture in question specifically tells people NOT to "try to get the things they need". If you didn't get that, you need to go back and read those posts again.

 

Television has been used to push propaganda, stereotypes, racism, ect. People get ideas from television to go out and do violent things (school shootings copy cats). I'd imagine you wouldn't want to abolish TV

 

That analogy doesn't work. I'm not interested in shooting the messenger, just the message. Despite what Marshall McLuhan might say, television is a medium for communication, not a message unto itself. The Bible, on the other hand, is a series of messages.

 

I can't help but feel like you want Big Brother society that erases all cultural, historical and philosophical existences, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

If you seriously think that's what I've been saying, then we're clearly not speaking the same language.

 

@Mortem:

 

And like I stated above, refuting rationalism with reason is like drinking salt water to cure a thirst.

 

I was going to let this go the first time, but since you bring it up again....

 

You seem to be suggesting that you were using "reason" in our last discussion to explain why you took the Bible literally, but as I recall you admitted on more than one occasion that it was a matter of faith, not reason. If you have rational reasons why you think the supernatural claims of Bible should be believed, I'm still interested.

 

But all the evidence in the world will never convince the skeptic

 

People who take things on faith are fond of telling themselves that (I used to as well), because it makes it easier to dismiss those who actually require evidence. The fact of the matter is that critical thinking is completely based on using evidence to come to your beliefs--it just has to be reasonable evidence.

 

I'm fairly certain, as a reasonable person, you do the same thing in every other area of your life. You don't believe claims about the lost continent of MU, reptilian conspiracies, or Scientology, because there is insufficient evidence to justify those beliefs. However, consider the individual who was taught by her parents at an early age that the lost continent of MU was real, who gets comfort from the idea, and who is surrounded by family and friends that also believe it. To her, your disbelief would be threatening, and she would no doubt accuse you of being too "calculated" and overly skeptical, because you aren't willing to believe the books she gives you (and yes, there are several books trying to claim there is a lost Pacific continent called MU).

[Mortem Desino]

Philosophy definitely has its place, and I love learning about it; but Martin Luther, Kant, Kierkegaard, Campanella, and Jerome all thought that Aristotle (or at least rationalism) harmed the church. And I think they're right. Hello, End Times!

 

Talking like this won't convince or vastly effect anyone. There might be tiny little epiphanies, but I think I'm done here.

[jdude]

As am I, I think we should all just relax a little Let's focus on TDM!!!