Calling all non-kooky Christians...

[Finella]

However, when I said that most Christians do not abide by the Ten Commandments, I assumed you knew I meant that they believe there are legitimate exceptions to many of the commandments. Sure only a few Christians kill other humans (the same could be said of virtually any group), but they agree that killing in certain cases is justified. It would seem to me that if you condone killing, then you are just as bad as somone who kills.

I agree myself. Thus I have a problem with Christians who scream murder at those who get abortions, but have no qualms with capital punishment. These are the same Christians who say they take the Bible as 100% inerrant and God-spoken; thus, as Buddyh pointed out earlier, fundies are just as likely to take whatever parts of the Bible they like and leave what they don't like.

But my point, as you have obviously taken, is that there are no hard-and-fast rules in Christianity. Even the most commonly quoted rules are subject to interpretation, exceptions and outright ignoring. I am sure you do not condemn anyone who works on the Sabbath, or for that matter who is forced by circumstances to work seven days a week (for example, soldiers during wartime). It is simply a rule which was outdated and therefore tossed out.

And as to your last paragraph, I agree that an honest Christian will admit their faults, as will an honest atheist (I have too many to count). But by your own admission, some of the basic tenets of your religion are not even faults in your eyes, or at least they are so minor that they are hardly worth mentioning.

And, thus, the problems with forms of Christianity made up of hard-and-fast rules. I cringe whenever I hear people say, "Everything you need to know is in this Bible!" because while there is a wealth of information, it's mostly a historical account of our relationship with God, not an answerbook.

My problem here at this forum has been that some athiests seem to have a similar black-and-white opinion of Christians based on their experience with Christianity in the past. All Christians are whacked and have illogical, prejudiced and condemning attitudes toward anyone who is non-Christian. Not the case. How to dispel this image of Christianity?

---,--'--{@

 

[Kiri]

So then... critical thinking and religion? Hmmm... I like it! How do we make it appealing, though?


---,---'--{@
(another rose for you...)

Thanks...
(takes the rose and chews on it thoughtfully)

Appealing...hm.
I'll speak from my own experience: I've always derived pleasure from learning, and while my studies are not always deep, they cover a broad range, and I try to organize all this miscellany (the bits that I believe to be true, at least) into a coherent picture of How the Universe Works. That's why I like science: it's the process by which we arrive at a more-accurate "map" of existence. The features of this map are verifiable (or at least supported by solid theory) and so provide a increasingly reliable guide to negotiating the terrain of this four-dimensional cosmos.
But the universe contains more than just the energetic, physical world: spirituality is also a fact of our existence. I already trusted the scientific method, so I explored spirituality in the same way: by picking a hypothesis, that is to say, a context within which to operate. I became a pagan both because of my literary interest in mythology and because as religions go, it's pleasingly baroque and rather hedonistic.
What I found out was that adherence to religion is usually inconsistent with a scientific worldview (no surprise, really), and that many people, when faced with this unsettling inconsistency, feel compelled to choose one over the other, to their detriment I think. I believe the resolution to this dilemma is to recognize that while spiritual Truth and scientific Fact are both valid within their own contexts, they're not interchangeable. Moreover, if there's any doubt in the matter at hand, I think it's better to give primacy to science (testable hypotheses) over religion (essentially, untestable hypotheses). It makes for a more-tidy worldview.
Now, I don't think many people are quite this inclined to subject their religion to critical review. People practice religions for emotional purposes, and hew tightly to them commensurate to their level of general insecurity. So, the first step towards making this appealing is to convince people that it's quite all right with God to ask tough questions. In religious terms: God created us for this very purpose, and will neither strike us down nor condemn us to hell for enacting that purpose. Why else have intelligence, and the will to use it? The fear is what holds people back from this; dispel the fear, and the exploration becomes an adventure. It might even be fun.

Of course, this is the LAST thing people with heavy investments in organized religion would wish to hear. Where would the churches be, if everyone decided suddenly to make up their own minds about God?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

But the universe contains more than just the energetic, physical world: spirituality is also a fact of our existence.

Whoa, there pardner.. Them's fight'n words in a skeptical arena..

Can you present some of your facts .. ( ... regarding spirituality .. )

.... " I can feel it.. " Doesn't count.. That's a ' feeling ', and maybe a 'fact' for you, but not for anyone else..

. I already trusted the scientific method, so I explored spirituality in the same way:

Another interesting assertion. Can you give us an example of applying the SM to a hypothesis regarding spirituality?

 

[Kiri]

Whoa, there pardner.. Them's fight'n words in a skeptical arena..

Can you present some of your facts .. ( ... regarding spirituality .. )

.... " I can feel it.. " Doesn't count.. That's a ' feeling ', and maybe a 'fact' for you, but not for anyone else..



Another interesting assertion. Can you give us an example of applying the SM to a hypothesis regarding spirituality?

Diogenes, I was called away before I could finish my post, so I sent it to the board in case this stupid machine crashed and lost all my text. Please, go back and read the rest of it and see if I make more sense!
You DO raise good points, and I'll try my best to address them.

 

[Tricky]

I agree myself. Thus I have a problem with Christians who scream murder at those who get abortions, but have no qualms with capital punishment. These are the same Christians who say they take the Bible as 100% inerrant and God-spoken; thus, as Buddyh pointed out earlier, fundies are just as likely to take whatever parts of the Bible they like and leave what they don't like.

Yes, it is unfortunate that those people are the ones who get all the press. It is also too bad that many people think all atheists are people who sue to have "under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance.

And, thus, the problems with forms of Christianity made up of hard-and-fast rules. I cringe whenever I hear people say, "Everything you need to know is in this Bible!" because while there is a wealth of information, it's mostly a historical account of our relationship with God, not an answerbook.

My problem here at this forum has been that some athiests seem to have a similar black-and-white opinion of Christians based on their experience with Christianity in the past. All Christians are whacked and have illogical, prejudiced and condemning attitudes toward anyone who is non-Christian. Not the case. How to dispel this image of Christianity?

Well, you pretty much have to muzzle all the wacked out Christians, which of course, is impossible. But I think you will find a wide range of attitudes towards Christianity among the atheists on these boards, ranging from hostility to condescension to friendliness.

There is no doubt that many atheists, at least the ones who grew up in a very Christian society, harbor some resentment at either being shunned by Christian society, or having to keep silent about their beliefs. In fact, most of us are still very quiet about our beliefs because of the stigma attached by so many people. I can't discuss my beliefs with 75% of my family, though they have no problem preaching Jesus to anyone within earshot (or email-shot). I am fairly understanding about this, but sometimes it is hard after listening to "praise God" every third sentence not to engage them in discussion about our differing beliefs. This board has been a wonderful pressure valve. Apparently, some people have more "pressure" to blow off than others.

It is too bad that you never met a wonderful Christian poster here by the name of Potato Stew. I haven't seen him post in several weeks. Perhaps he got fed up with the attitude of "some" atheists. But was an excellent person with infinite patience and never a bad word about anyone. He also was an intelligent, consistant and non-dogmatic debater who caused more than one of us to look carefully at out beliefs. He would have been the ideal person to reply to your original post here.

Originally posted by Kiri
But the universe contains more than just the energetic, physical world: spirituality is also a fact of our existence. I already trusted the scientific method, so I explored spirituality in the same way: by picking a hypothesis, that is to say, a context within which to operate. I became a pagan both because of my literary interest in mythology and because as religions go, it's pleasingly baroque and rather hedonistic.

I would debate whether or not spirituality is a "fact" of our existence. I certainly see no evidence for anything other than our old boring physical universe.

However, I applaud you on your choice of religions. My wife is Pagan and so, many of our friends are as well. I have nothing but good things to say about a religion that is nature-friendly, science-friendly and non-judgmental. The main problem I have with Pagans is that they tend to be suckers for every New Age woo woo idea in the books, from homeopathy to ear candling. I realize that is a generalization, but one need only look at what is for sale at our pagan conventions to see the overall truth in it.

You might be interested on this very interesting thread on
Wicca. It died out several months ago, but I would be happy to see it revived.

 

[Loki]

Tricky,

If you stated that rock and roll is "superior" to heavy metal, then you would have to provide reasons why (rational) or just say it is what you believe (faith).

And, you'd also be wrong. Sorry, but that's just the way it is - and don't give me none of that 'faith' crap.

 

[Loki]

Slightly more serious....

I'd post something more substantial but Gregor and Yahzi have already covered it pretty well - liberal Xians want a foot in each camp. As much as I find Potatostew (the anti-Yahzi) and Stamenflicker (the anti-Gregor) to be intelligent and non-belligerent, I find their weird forced marriage of faith and reason to be very contrived. Of course, it works well for them, and so that's what matters most from their perspective, and my opinion can be dismissed!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.. an excellent person with infinite patience and never a bad word about anyone.

I think he said a bad word about me one time... But, I'm sure I deserved it..

I'm a lot nicer now..

 

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Whoa, there pardner.. Them's fight'n words in a skeptical arena..

Can you present some of your facts (regarding spirituality)? "I can feel it." doesn't count. That's a ' feeling ', and maybe a 'fact' for you, but not for anyone else.

OK, I was trying to make just that point: that spirituality is an element of our emotional, rather than intellectual, experience of reality. It's entirely subjective, and highly reflective of our individual personalities. Religions are contexts within which we can express spirituality; they contain no verifiable facts, but instead are creatures of the psyche.
So, if I say Religion A is better than Religion B, it's only so in relation to my own emotional state.
(Note: I am at this time choosing to neither practice nor even believe in any particular religion.)

Originally posted by Diogenes
Another interesting assertion. Can you give us an example of applying the SM to a hypothesis regarding spirituality?

Religions are to spirituality what hypothesis and theory are to science. I tried out Buddhism for awhile, but decided that: (A) my knees wouldn't take all that kneeling, and (B) I have few ancestors I feel like worshipping. The Zen variety still has appeal for me, but I really suck at trying to sit still and think of nothing. Again: no "facts" as are understood in science, just emotional experiences. I stopped practicing as a pagan when I got tired of doing the upkeep and maintenance.
I'll explain what I think of Christianity later.

Conflict with observation is the failure of hypothesis;
conflict with one's own heart is the failure of religion.

 

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Tricky
I would debate whether or not spirituality is a "fact" of our existence. I certainly see no evidence for anything other than our old boring physical universe.

I define spirituality as a complex of emotional experiences and expressions, relating to our general need to feel "located" within the universe. It's not objectively "real", but must still be taken into account; certainly, their spirituality affects how a person deals with reality. We are emotional beings, and so must deal with the universe on that level AS WELL as that of the intellect. (Even the damn Vulcans pursue logic...er, religiously.)
Listen, here's one of my favorite forms of spiritual expression:
I set up my telescope and train it upon galaxies that lie at unfathomable distances from us, and I think about just what is involved in that moment, that act of observation: Billions of suns, trillions of miles, the aeons taken by the light to find its way to my little mirror... To be involved with this evokes feelings of awe in me, and I'd feel very small indeed if I did not know that I was looking at processes that are intimately linked to my own origins. At these times, I know that I too am integral to the universe, as much a part of it as the stars, and no less wonderous.

I like flying kites, too.

However, I applaud you on your choice of religions. My wife is Pagan and so, many of our friends are as well. I have nothing but good things to say about a religion that is nature-friendly, science-friendly and non-judgmental. The main problem I have with Pagans is that they tend to be suckers for every New Age woo woo idea in the books, from homeopathy to ear candling. I realize that is a generalization, but one need only look at what is for sale at our pagan conventions to see the overall truth in it.

Boy, have you got THAT right!!
I gave up trying to explain science to the woo-woo crowd; here's hoping I'm more successful in explaining religion to the skeptics!

 

[Finella]

Listen, here's one of my favorite forms of spiritual expression:
I set up my telescope and train it upon galaxies that lie at unfathomable distances from us, and I think about just what is involved in that moment, that act of observation: Billions of suns, trillions of miles, the aeons taken by the light to find its way to my little mirror... To be involved with this evokes feelings of awe in me, and I'd feel very small indeed if I did not know that I was looking at processes that are intimately linked to my own origins. At these times, I know that I too am integral to the universe, as much a part of it as the stars, and no less wonderous.

This reminds me of a meditation I journaled on last week after Ash Wednesday. The admonition to "remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return" reminded me of Carl Sagan: "We are made of starstuff." Indeed, to be literally, atomically part of the Big Bang and all that was created is an awesome thing to remember. And, as part of my faith, realizing that all of it was loved into Being by God makes it even more awe-some.

---,--'--{@

 

[Tricky]

This reminds me of a meditation I journaled on last week after Ash Wednesday. The admonition to "remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return" reminded me of Carl Sagan: "We are made of starstuff." Indeed, to be literally, atomically part of the Big Bang and all that was created is an awesome thing to remember. And, as part of my faith, realizing that all of it was loved into Being by God makes it even more awe-some.

---,--'--{@

Actually, what it makes me think of is a Walt Whitman poem,

When I heard the learned astronomer

When I heard the learned astronomer,

When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,

When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,

When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,

How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,

Till rising and gliding out I wandered off by myself,

In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,

Looked up in perfect silence at the stars.

 

[Mike B.]

What about the Westar Institute?

www.westar.org

They are practically atheists as far as I can tell though they call themselves Xians.

They do the Jesus Seminar that voted on what they thought the actual words the historical Jesus said as opposed to what was put in his mouth by the evangelists later on.

They focus more on love thy neighbor stuff rather than mystical things.

 

[Kiri]

Take Two

Another interesting assertion. Can you give us an example of applying the SM to a hypothesis regarding spirituality?

I didn't do well with this earlier; let me take another run at it.

I approach religions as though they are testable hypotheses. The criterion for success or failure of the experiment is: "Do I really want to believe this? Is this what I wish to be?" So I study, and I meditate, and debate with myself. Each religion proposes a slightly different shape for the world, and I try them on for size, and see how well or not they fit all else that I've confidently accepted. Experiments run their course, and I always learn a little more, and try to incorporate that into my worldview.
I accept that the pious would be appalled at my lack of enduring faith, but I was made to ask questions, and my approach serves me well in this most personal matter: I am comfortable living in this universe.

 

[Kiri]

This reminds me of a meditation I journaled on last week after Ash Wednesday. The admonition to "remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return" reminded me of Carl Sagan: "We are made of starstuff." Indeed, to be literally, atomically part of the Big Bang and all that was created is an awesome thing to remember. And, as part of my faith, realizing that all of it was loved into Being by God makes it even more awe-some.

---,--'--{@

So: you share my emotions, if not the precise spiritual context within which they are expressed.

 

[Kiri]

Actually, what it makes me think of is a Walt Whitman poem,

Oh, wow... That was beautiful. That's it precisely.

My thanks to you.

 

[Tricky]

Oh, wow... That was beautiful. That's it precisely.

My thanks to you.

I'm glad you like it. I'm a BIG poetry fan. I like it too, because it says a feeling that most of us have experienced, but I have to say that Walt was a bit of a jerk. He walks out of a lecture because astronomy isn't mystical enough? I wonder if I could have gotten away with that excuse when I was taking astronomy in school.

 

[Finella]

A new book...

Hi, there...

Sorry, it's been a while. Lovely poem, Tricky. I donno, I think I'm with Walt... I got awfully bored in my astronomy class and I prefered to look through the telescope myself.

Wanted to share with you all an excerpt (it'll prolly be a long one) from a book I've finally picked up after buying it ages ago. I'm wondering what the interest in this subject would be, whether people are friendly to this author or not (don't know if there's a Ken Wilber fan/hate club here). I think this guy's brilliant, but then, I'm a Believer... ha. Maybe this would warrant a new thread, since we seem to have exhausted the present subject. Let me know what you think.

So here we go. This is from the Note to the reader from The Marriage of Sense and Soul by Ken Wilber. I think it captures a lot of the problems you see here in this forum regarding religion and science, and within society.

"It's hard to say exactly when modern science began. Many scholars would date it at roughtly 1600, when both Kepler and Galileo started using precision measurements to map the universe. But one thing is certain: starting from whatever date we choose, modern science was, in many important was and right from the start, deeply antagonistic to established religion.

"Most of the early scientists, of course, remained ture believers, genuinely embracing the God of the Church; many of them sincerely believed that they were imply discovering God's achetypal laws as revealed in the book of nature. And yet, with the introduction of the scientific method, a universal acid was released that would slowly, ineveitably, painfully eat into and corrode the centuries-old steel of religion, dissolving, often beyond recognition, virtually all of its central tenets and dogmas. Within the span of a mere few centuries, intelligent men and women in all walks of life could deeply and profoundly do something that would have utterly astonished previous epochs: deny the very existence of Spirit.

"Despite the entreaties of the tenderheared in both camps, the relation of science and religion in the modern workd--that is, in the last three of four centuries--has changed very little since their introduction to each other in the trial of Galileo, where the scientist agreed to shut his mouth and the Chruch agreed not to burn him. Many wonderful exceptions aside, the plain historical fact has been that orthodox science and orthodox religion deeply distrust, and often despise, each other.

"It has been a tense confrontation, a philisophical cold war of glbal reach. On the one hand, modern empirical science has made stunning and colossal discoveries: the cure of diseases such as typhoid, smallpox and malaria, which racked the ancient world with untold anguish, the engineering of marvels from the airplane to the Eiffel Tower to the space shuttle; discoveries in the biological sciences that verge on the secrets of life itself; advances in computer sciences that are literally revolutionizing human existence; not to mention plopping a person on the moon. Science can accomplish such feats, its proponents maintain, because it utilizes a solid method for discovering truth, a method that is empirical and experimental and based on evidence, not one that relies on myths and dogmas and unverifiable proclamations. Thus science, its proponents believe, has made discoveries that have relieved more pain, saved more lives, and advanced knowledge incomparably more than any religion and its pie-in-the-sky God. Humanity's only real salvation is a reliance on scientific truth and its advance, not a projection of human potentials onto an illusory Great Other beofre whom we grovel and beg in the most childish and undignified of fashions.

"There is a strange and curious thing about scientific truth. As its own proponents constantly explain, science is basically value-free. it tells us what is , not what should be or ought to be. An electron isn't good or bad, it just is; the cell's nucleaus is not good or bad, it just is; a solar system isn't good or bad, it just is. Consequently science, in elucidating or describing these basic facts about the universe, has virtually nothing to tell us about good or bad, wise and unwise, desirable and undesirable. Science might offer us truth, bit how to use that truth wisely: on this science is, and always has been utterly silent....

"In the midst of this silence, religion speaks. Humans seem condemned to meaning, condemned to find value, depth, care, concern, worth, significance to their everyday existence. If science will not (and cannot) provide it, most men and women will look elsewhere. For literally billions of people around the world, religion provides the basic meaning of their lives, the glue of their existence, and offers them a set of guidelines about what is good (e.g., love, car, compassion) and what is not (e.g., lying, cheating, stealing, killing). On the deepest level, religion has even claimed to offer a means of contacting or communing with an ultimate Ground of Bring. But by any other name, religion offers what it believes is a genuine wisdom.

"Fact and meaning, truth and wisdom, science and religion. It is a strange and grotesque coexistence, with value-free science and value-laden religion, deeply distrustful of each other, aggressively attempting to colonize the same small plant. It is a clash of tutans, to be sure, yet neither seems strong enough to prevail decisively nor graceful enough to bow out altogether. The trial of Galileo is repeated countless times, moment to moment, around the world, and it is tearing humanity,more or less, in half."

*returning to Finella*

The latter sentence recalls my mind to the current theological and political situation in the middle east, terrorism, and Iraq. Wilber wrote this in 1997, but it's very relevant.

I'd like to know people's thoughts on this... I have a couple points I think he missed/overlooked already... but I'm curious what you all think.

---,---'--{@

 

[Ruby]

Re: The only ethical Christian is a kookie one

Let me define a liberal Xian as one who (i) has read parts of the bible, (ii) accepts Jesus as a historical figure, (iii) accepts Jesus as a divine figure (more than man), and (iv) believes in an after life. And no more.

Thus you can be a liberal Xian without accepting: (i) biblical inerrancy, (ii) original sin as a historical truth, (iii) eternal punishment for non-belief, or (iv) an impending second coming.

A fundamentalist Xian must accept inerrancy, original sin, a real ark, eternal punishment, virgin birth, a second coming, the trinity, the resurrection, answering of prayers, snake handling, and etc.

__________________________________________

I enjoyed reading your definitions. Although some Christians would agree with your definitions, most would not. In my experience, I have found that those who are considered *liberal* Christians are those who do not live by legalistic rules set up by a church org. They are also prone to be more open and undertstanding of secular view points and other religions. They are less likely to preach or cram bible scripture down anyone's throat. They see the world around them as a place to make friends as opposed to seeing it as their mission field.

I am considered a *liberal* Christian to other Christians, but might seem more like a fundamentalist to the secular world. I do believe in a virgin birth and the resurrection. I do believe Jesus was God in flesh. Those very beliefs put me in the *Fundy* catergory. I do not call myself a "Trinitarian" or use the trinity description. I won't go near snakes!



>>>>>"My argument is that the only logically consistent position to take - if you're going to profess a belief - is fundamentalist xian.

A liberal xian says:
1. I'm going to pick and choose what to accept from the Bible
2. I'm not basing my decision on what is a 'core' belief on external proof or archeological evidence.
3. I'm not basing my decision on core beliefs based upon divine instruction to me.
4. I'm just chosing those parts that make me feel good."<<<<

In response to--#1. I, personally, don't pick and choose, but I am liable to be accused of that by bible thumping fundamentalists.

#2. I do look to archeological evidence, but don't know if I base my core beliefs on it.

#3. I am cautious about *Divine* instruction.

#4. I don't just choose the parts that make me feel good. I do, however, play close attention to the things that are cultural in scripture or things that are not intended for the New Testament church. Most fundamentalist take a lot of bible passages literally that are not supposed to be taken that way....or they try to make something applicable for this point in time that were only a part of the culture for the time they were written in.



>>>>"A fundamentalist says:
1. I believe everything in the bible - 100%
2. As a result I need to: proselytize, accept the ark, accept the imminent second coming, believe in a wrathful OT god, & etc."<<<

1. I do believe everything in the bible is accurate...at least, I think the original writings were accurate. I think that some things have not been made clear in translations or even have been a bit distorted. So, I feel that the bible in it's current translations is not inerrant. You only have to start studying the original Hebrew and Greek to find that out.

2. Yep, a fundamentalist must definitely believe in proselytizing, second coming, a wrathful OT God etc. I don't believe in proselytizing...at least not by a fundamentalist terms. I don't know if I believe in a second coming or a *Rapture*. I am still studying these things as they are not clear enough in scripture to believe in the way most fundamentalists present. There are some things the OT portrays about God that bother me, but I don't discard them.

>>>>>While we don't want to hang around the fundamentalist, his position is internally consistent (although externally contradicted by science). We like the liberal, but his position is 'wacky' because it's the gospel according to himself. "<<<<

Actually, as a *liberal* Christian, I am careful to study and understand what scripture is saying. A lot of fundamentalists believe as they do because it has been taught to them that way. They dare not study things out to see if there's another view. They tend to stand on their view point of scripture as it being the only one possible. Granted, there are some passages that can only mean one thing, but there is so much that is not clear and can be taken many ways. As a liberal, I can accept that some things are not clear and therefore cannot be followed. A fundamentalist will say that their viewpoint is correct, even when a passage is not clear. Some will say that if you do not follow their viewpoint, you are doomed to *Hell*. I have come up against this over and over.

 

[Ruby]

****************
Now, as to the Ten Commandments. Many Chrstians are unaware that the famous Ten Commandments they see on leaflets all the time are not the ones on the tablets. Most people call refer to this little speech by God in Exodus 20 as the "Ten Commandments"


In actuality the Ten Commandments were the covenant with Israel given to Moses on the mountain as described in Exodus 34:28 That is where the words "Ten Commandments" are actually used, and they are considerably different from the list above. There is some overlap, though, and it still looks like God is only speaking to the Israelites. Does this mean that the "popular" Ten Commandments are only for Jews?
..............................................................

<font=courier><font color=red>Hi, I hope you don't mind if I give my opinion on this. I believe that the ten commandments were only for the Jews. Although they are now a guide for believers, they are not something that can be lived under like the Jewish nation did. The Christian church lives under grace, not OT law. It's not possbile to follow the OT laws and all it's provisos.</font>