I don't think you can show which doctrines specifically make someone a Christian. There is no Big Book of Christianity, there is only a fragmented scripture that isn't simple enough for you to pretend all Christians believe the same things. I also think you may be stretching with that last sentence... it is only natural to want to defend groups one belongs to. If it's true you have such thick skin, then you should definitely take note that hardly anybody else does, and consider your words accordingly. People who self-identify as Christians but take issue with a lot of the bible are still going to be offended when you explain to them how Christians are tools, no matter what explanation you offer. And, I would argue, for good reason.
To the Christians here...
- Thread starter ned flandas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christians
infornography
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 121
Actually, as an american I have gotten used to the American bashing. Largely because it was not my choice to be an American so therefore I do not identify myself as such.
Insulting someone's religion is a lot more personal than insulting their nationality since it is a choice, a decision to believe in that faith.
Similarly if someone identifies themselves as belonging to a particular political party, an attack on that party is percieved as an attack on all of its members, but an attack on a specific member is not generally percieved as an attack on the party as a whole with occasional exceptions.
Insulting someone's religion is a lot more personal than insulting their nationality since it is a choice, a decision to believe in that faith.
Similarly if someone identifies themselves as belonging to a particular political party, an attack on that party is percieved as an attack on all of its members, but an attack on a specific member is not generally percieved as an attack on the party as a whole with occasional exceptions.
trvlr2
Muse
Well, "Christianity as a whole" must have Some consistent beliefs,no? I was just curious. Perhaps you, infonog. , can tell me of yours, as you couldn't speak for H.
And, I never said that not being like Falwell was anything at all. I didn't say anything about who is more or less a xtian.
So-start by telling me about "Christianity as a whole", and where YOU fit in.
infornography
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 121
Over to the left somewhere.
I am not a Christian of any variety, but I am a low level biblical scholar. I have known christians who run the gammut of belief from the literalist to the minimalist, from the KJV authoritarian to the original text elitist, from the extreme bigot to the extremely tolerant. And I realize you did not mention Falwell, but I did in order to make a point.
I have seen convincing arguments for the belief that hell exists as a physical location and Satan is lord of that domain as well as arguments for the idea that hell is simply a detachment from the love of God and there is no such thing as Satan. Even a very good interpretation that indicated that Hell is a combination of a spiritual place in every man's heart and that Satan roams the earth by causing people to listen to that part of their hearts.
About the only thing I can think of that I have never seen Christians disagree on is that Christ is in some way divine and that he died to in some way prevent us from being punished for our inevitable sins.
trvlr2
Muse
by Infornography
O
Why study the bible if you're not a christian?
You have already indicated that it is rather murky reading If it were the true 'word of god' it would be clear, no? And not need "interpreting".
Does your statement about christ being in some way divine imply that xtians DISAGREE on exactly how he is/was supposed to be divine?
How do you get that sin is inevitable And that you should be punished?
O
Why study the bible if you're not a christian?
You have already indicated that it is rather murky reading If it were the true 'word of god' it would be clear, no? And not need "interpreting".
Does your statement about christ being in some way divine imply that xtians DISAGREE on exactly how he is/was supposed to be divine?
How do you get that sin is inevitable And that you should be punished?
infornography
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 121
Partially because many things in entertainment media reference the bible in obscure ways and I always find it fun to identify them... not sure why that is so much fun, but it really is.
Also partially so I can better understand the faithful and their beliefs. I find it fascinating from a psychological standpoint as well as a philosphical one.
That would depend on the intent of the message. I find I can learn a lot about a person by how they interpret the Bible as a believer. What ideas they latch on to and what ideas they read differently. It could also be argued that mankind has done a poor job of translating it, then retranslating it, then reretranslating it until it is a jumbled mess. All depends on how you look at it. Some people think it is perfectly clear and in need of no interpretation at all... those people scare me.
Some say he is God incarnate, some say he is a seperate intelligence from God but very closely connected, possibly that Jesus is a part of the soul of God, some say that he would have been born normal if not for being infused with the will of god as a fetus and that by virgin they meant honest (some obscure double meaning of the word in the original language).
If you look at what is generally considered to qualify as sins, then it is hard to imagine a human being who has never and will never sin short of a stillborn child. As I said before, hell can be interpreted as simply a detachment from god and the punishment could be as simple as existing seperate from the creator, which many would not consider a punishment at all.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Why be a non-Christian without studying the Bible?
Why study Greek mythology if you don't believe in Zeus?
Dcdrac
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 5,141
i have read the Bilbe, the Torah, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita nd some Bhuddist tracts.
I don't follow any of those religions, did out of wnating to know what they had to say and came away with my non beleif in any deity/deities confirmed.
Yes, I very much agree.
That's why some theists hold what I think is a mistaken notion that people can behave morally only if they believe in god -- and why some atheists hold what I think is an equally mistaken notion that morality is simply a social construct.
It would be a very scary world if people tried live morally simply because they feared god's punishment, or if they lived morally simply because society expected it of them. Fortunately that is not the case. Both theists and atheists seem to me to be capable of knowing what is moral, and of trying to live accordingly -- despite sometimes holding silly notions about why people do.
Instead of coming up with fanciful theories about why other people do (or don't) live up to certain standards, I think a good starting point is asking ourselves, why do I live as I do? We can't read others people's minds. We can read our own, if we try. Not perfectly -- all perception, even self-perception, is imperfect. But it is through our imperfect perceptions, done as carefully and as honestly as we are able, and shared with others as carefully and honestly as we are able, that we -- as a community of living, thinking creatures -- gradually improve our understanding of the reality we live in (and possibly make it a better reality to live in).
For myself, I believe the reason I behave as I do is that in my heart I am able to tell that some choices of action are wrong to do in a given situation, and others are right. This is not absolutely wrong or absolutely right, any more than things I see are absolutely green or absolutely red. But it is a distinct, and real, perception.
I do not believe this is simply arbitrary choice or the result of social conditioning. My belief is that this is as real a sense as the sense of sight, or touch, or taste. I also believe that others have this same sense -- whether they believe in god or not, whether they believe that right and wrong are real or simply social constructs, whether they believe people are able to sense what is right and wrong or think people just follow an arbitraary set of laws they have created.
Yes, I believe you have missed something. Religion can be a dogmatic system for stating a believed metaphysical reality, but it doesn't have to be. Same applies to science.
Science is both a method for determining what is true in the physical world and a body of knowledge built by using that method. Both are important, but if one thinks of science only as the body of knowledge then belief in science can be (and often has been) as dogmatic as belief in religion is currently perceived by many.
If I had been living a thousand or more years back, I would probably have as negative a view of science (as it existed then) as many atheists have of religion today. What we think of as the scientific method -- which, to me, is the essence of science -- is a fairly recent historical development, really only a few centuries old.
Even today there are people who teach science as dogma rather than as a method of inquiry. I had several such people as teachers when I was growing up. (I attended school in an area with a low standard for teachers. One substitute elementary school teacher tried to convince me that 1/2 multipled by 1/2 could not be possibly be 1/4 as I maintained, because 1/4 was smaller than 1/2 and multiplication made things get bigger!) I was fortunate to have had a love of and respect for science instilled in me at home before encountering such teachers. Sadly, with regard to religion, many people are only exposed to those who teach it as dogma.
Religion, like science, is both a method for determining what is true in the metaphysical world and a body of knowledge (or set of beliefs) built by using that method. Unfortunately, just as early methods of scientific inquiry were badly flawed (before what we now know as the scientific method finally evolved) so many methods of religious inquiry have been badly flawed. One method of inquiry is consulting a holy book. Another is consulting a holy authority. Neither of these is a very good method for determining what is and isn't true. But the existence of flawed methods of inquiry -- in science or in religion -- does not discredit the entire enterprise. It simply means we must find better methods of inquiry.
The challenge -- in religion as well as science -- is to find methods of inquiry which help us distinguish correctly between what is true and what is false. The test of how good our methods of inquiry are is how reliable the set of knowledge generated using those methods is.
Science has improved a lot over the centuries. Religion still has a lot of room for improvement. But it is as much a mistake to dismiss the idea of religion today because, historically, it has gotten so much wrong, as it would have been to dismiss the idea of science a thousand years ago on similar grounds.
I'm fairly satisfied with my religion as a good method of inquiry. Basically I believe that the same methods which underlie science -- or skepticism -- are good methods to apply to religious inquiry.
I'd prefer not to derail this thread into too many long dissertations on what I believe. (I wind up doing that more than I like already, in order to answer questions such as the ones you raise.) But I'd be glad to take up this general question of religion as a system of inquiry rather than as a body of dogma in another thread some time, if you like. (Please note that I write very slowly, and am way behind on finishing some posts for other threads I'm interested in but have not gotten back to, and please have patience with me for not wanting to get too wrapped up in such a discussion right now.)
rocketdodger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 6,946
empathy
I'm sorry the example I offered doesn't work for you.
The difference you point out is an important one. Indeed, it's why I believe we need religion as well as science. Physical phenomena such as gravity are real, and can be studied dispassionately because they can be observed outside our lives. But metaphysical phenomena -- while equally real -- can only be perceived and studied in connection with how they manifest in the way we live our lives.
I do not believe that love, respect, compassion, cooperation, honesty and justice are simply created concepts. I believe that these are real phenomena -- as real as gravity. As such, I believe they are worth studying and understanding (and aspiring to).
The general approach to studying metaphysical phenomena should be the same as for studying physical phenomena -- careful and honest observation of these phenomena as they manifest themselves in the world around us. But with things such as gravity, we are able to observe the effects not only on ourselves but also on other phsyical objects around us. This is helpful in studying and comprehending such phenomena dispassionately. With things such as love, respect, compassion, cooperation, honesty, and other metaphysical phenomena, we are only able to observe the phenomena as they manifest in our lives and the lives of others around us. Our lives are our laboratories.
In the laboratory of my life, through the limited experiments I am able to carry out and the limited observations I am able to make, I come to certain beliefs. In the laboratory of your life, through the limited experiments you are able to carry out and the limited observations you are able to make, you also come to certain beliefs. If things such as love are (as I believe) real, rather than simply invented concepts, then over time -- as we learn how to conduct meaningful inquiries, as we find ways to observe carefully, and as we find ways to record and share what we have learned -- over time those engaged in such inquiries should find their beliefs converging and should find themselves reaching similar conclusions on specific matters.
The emergence over time of such convergence is how we recognize progress in science. It is also how we recognize progress in religion. If no such convergence ever occurs -- if, as century after century passes, religous belief remains as arbitrary as astrological belief -- that will be a good indication that religion is as baseless as astrology. From my perspective, such convergence has been occurring -- slowly, over centuries, but occurring nonetheless.
Dogma said that the ownership of one person by another is justified; inquiry led to belief it is not. Today there is general consensus, regardless of religious belief (or lack of it) which says ownership of one person by another is not right. That indicates to me this is not simply an arbitrary construct but an actual truth.
Dogma said that women were not moral equals of men; inquiry led to belief that they are. Today there is general consensus that women and men are moral equals. This indicates to me this is not simply an arbitrary construct but an actual truth.
Today dogma says that homosexuality is sinful; inquiry is leading to belief that love and fidelity are good things regardless of sexual orientation. I believe that within 100 years, hopefully much less, there will be general consensus on this, and people will look back on arguments over gay marriage much as we now look back on arguments over slavery. And if so, that will also indicate to me that there is a truth here, and not simply an arbitrary construct.
These are important question, questions which I believe we as a society can and should be wrestling with -- questions as important, and as real, as questions of how plants grow, how life evolved, how stars are born, or how wood burns.
rocketdodger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 6,946
Well spoken. But I have to ask, why should we, creatures with finite life spans here on earth, wait for this convergence of religion and science? All of the things you used as examples took literally centuries to occur. Viewed from our current perspective, this is quite pathetic. How could women have been treated so badly? How could anyone think slavery is ethical? Why was there such a long fight to change people's minds?
It is good that you think religion will change for the better as time goes on. I would agree, actually, that this is happening. My problem is that it isn't nearly fast enough. On the other hand, one can come to all of these moral conclusions IMMEDIATELY if they simply use rational thought.
I am not clear if you are trying to say that you empathize with the views I expressed, that you would like to append the idea of empathy to the idea I was expressing, or if you think that what I am talking about is in actuality no more than empathy. My assumption is that you mean the third of those, but it is an assumption and I dislike having to assume what people are saying in order to reply. This is why I think it is a good idea for skeptics to spell out clearly the points they are making.
Empathy is related to what I am talking about, but it is not what I was referring to. It is amazing that we are able to feel pain at other people's pain, and joy at other people's joy -- and it is certainly something worth writing more about if you care to do so -- but it is a different ability than the one I was describing.
No matter how long we live, there will always be more to learn and more that needs doing. Knowing that I will never know everything, no matter how long I live, I am content to learn what I can and do what I can in my lifetime. The work of generations that came before us is a gift from them to us; the work we do is a gift from us to future generations.
Yes. Advances in science have taken centuries; advances in religion have taken centuries.
Perhpas that's because we are still children. Children demand to have things now. As we mature, we learn to be patient, and realize that we can't always have what we want immediately.
As a person who is motivated greatly by curiosity and a desire to find answers, I sometimes find it frustrating that I can't know the answers to all my questions now, and that some of the question I have I will never learn the answers to. And yet, as a person who enjoys working puzzles and discovering answers, I also know that sometimes the process of working out the answer is as satisfying as actually finding the answer.
That's wonderful! I look forward to reading press releases and news coverage of the alliance of rational people who have solved all the moral questions and who are in complete agreement on what is right, what is wrong, and what needs to be done.
rocketdodger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 6,946
I am a moral subjectivist so arguing about morality with you is pointless.
I would just say that your seeming approach is to change the "rules" that people follow (religion) to reflect the state of the art in morality. I prefer allowing and encouraging people to make their own moral choices using rational thought. Even if, as you contend, there is an objective morality, having people reach it on their own is much better than forcing it down their throats.
rocketdodger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 6,946
Touche`
Not pointless. We have different perceptions and different beliefs, and therefore reading you express what it is you perceive and what it is you believe is valuable to me. I know what I see; I am curious to know what others see, and to try to learn why some see things so differently from me. That helps me see better, for which I am grateful.
I agree very strongly with you on this. In matters of religion, as in matters of science, the reason why people come to adopt a belief should be because they are able to see for themselves that it is true -- not because they have been forced, pressured, coerced or manipulated into adopting it. I have no desire to force others to believe as I do, and rejection of the use of force in this way is an important part of my religious beliefs.
Last edited:
infornography
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 121
Some people don't want it any other way. Its not a matter of allowing or not allowing them to do it on their own, its a matter of them not taking the opportunities when given.
Not everyone has the capacity or desire to figure these things out on their own. Some people are just natural followers.
The fact that there are so many of those in the world is why these social or 'religious' changes are taking so very long to propogate.