OT: religion

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=scaredyclassic]I’m guilty of being equally rude.

Sometimes I pretend to have never heard of jesus.

That’s gets their excitement level through the roof….

Then when they start I say Oooooohhhhhh. That jesus! Yeah I already have a religious identity. But thanks.”[/quote]

Or the next time someone tells you that Jesus died for your sin. You could say, “What? He dies?! I was reading that book, man.”

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As a Catholic, I believe the bible is contextual, not literal,[/quote]

What good is it having the word of god if you can interpret it any way you want? Doesn’t it then become the word of whoever is interpreting it however he wants, and not the word of god?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As a Catholic, I believe the bible is contextual, not literal,[/quote]

What good is it having the word of god if you can interpret it any way you want? Doesn’t it then become the word of whoever is interpreting it however he wants, and not the word of god?[/quote]

zk: Except I don’t believe that at all. I hold to a theology that, from a telelogical and ontological vantage, has remained internally consistent and constant for centuries.

I believe that modern American evangelicals embrace a “faith” that is immature, incomplete and ill-formed. When I listen to Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum, for example, telling me what God “thinks”, I’m repulsed. For someone to hold that the true teachings of Christ would proffer a worldview bent on destruction and war is vile and reprehensible.

I believe in the inerrancy of God’s word, but I also understand that the Bible, as it exists today, is a product of politics (meaning the First Council of Nicaea and their determination as to what was acceptable and what was not, for example the Apocryphal writings), and that the writings contained were not contiguous, thus the contradictions and the flaws.

Let me put it another way. Scaredy clearly adheres to the Judiac proscription of giving full voice to God’s name, thus his use of the word “G-d” in previous postings. As he pointed out, he has a “religious identity”. That said, however, he probably doesn’t agree with all strains of Judaism. I could point to large groups of Israeli Jewry, for example, that hold some extremely hate-filled and bigoted views on Islam and espouse a territorial prerogative that is eerily similar to the Nazi views on Lebensraum. Given Scaredy’s moderate views, I doubt very much he’d have any truck with that ilk.

Everyone’s path to God (or not) is their own. I agree completely that having God shoved in your face is wrong. If someone asks me for me views, I’ll tell them. Otherwise, however they find God (or not), is their business alone. This also illustrates the dangers of conflating religiosity with spirituality. One can be intensely spiritual and never set foot in a house of worship. Whether we believe it or not, or accept it or not, God’s divine spark exists in all of us.

My point was that one shouldn’t tar all Christians with the same brush, in the same way that one shouldn’t tar all members of a certain ethnicity or class or whatever with the same brush.

You and Scaredy represent two of the more thoughtful and well-informed posters on this board and to embrace this sort of monolithic viewpoint, candidly, is beneath you.

[scaredyclassic]

Ok. I retract. I meant the vocal strain of evangelists that make up most of temecula.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
zk: Except I don’t believe that at all. I hold to a theology that, from a telelogical and ontological vantage, has remained internally consistent and constant for centuries.
[/quote]

I’m not sure what your theology’s consistency over centuries has to do with anything. So somebody interpreted the bible centuries ago and you and the other people who agree with it have stuck with it for centuries. I don’t see the point. It’s still somebody’s interpretation.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

I believe that modern American evangelicals embrace a “faith” that is immature, incomplete and ill-formed. When I listen to Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum, for example, telling me what God “thinks”, I’m repulsed. For someone to hold that the true teachings of Christ would proffer a worldview bent on destruction and war is vile and reprehensible.
[/quote]

They might feel the same way about your interpretation. Perhaps in a couple centuries, their interpretation will still be popular and yours won’t anymore. Will that make theirs correct? It wouldn’t be the first time an interpretation lasted centuries and then fell out of favor.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I believe in the inerrancy of God’s word, but I also understand that the Bible, as it exists today, is a product of politics (meaning the First Council of Nicaea and their determination as to what was acceptable and what was not, for example the Apocryphal writings), and that the writings contained were not contiguous, thus the contradictions and the flaws.
[/quote]

So how do you decide what god really meant? And how do you decide what writings were “his” and what were the product of politics or other non-divine origins? And how is all of that not your interpretation?

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Let me put it another way. Scaredy clearly adheres to the Judiac proscription of giving full voice to God’s name, thus his use of the word “G-d” in previous postings. As he pointed out, he has a “religious identity”. That said, however, he probably doesn’t agree with all strains of Judaism. I could point to large groups of Israeli Jewry, for example, that hold some extremely hate-filled and bigoted views on Islam and espouse a territorial prerogative that is eerily similar to the Nazi views on Lebensraum. Given Scaredy’s moderate views, I doubt very much he’d have any truck with that ilk.
[/quote]

Different strains of a religion. I get it. Not sure why you think I don’t.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Everyone’s path to God (or not) is their own. I agree completely that having God shoved in your face is wrong. If someone asks me for me views, I’ll tell them. Otherwise, however they find God (or not), is their business alone. This also illustrates the dangers of conflating religiosity with spirituality. One can be intensely spiritual and never set foot in a house of worship. Whether we believe it or not, or accept it or not, God’s divine spark exists in all of us. [/quote]

Or, whether we believe it or not, it doesn’t.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

My point was that one shouldn’t tar all Christians with the same brush, in the same way that one shouldn’t tar all members of a certain ethnicity or class or whatever with the same brush.
You and Scaredy represent two of the more thoughtful and well-informed posters on this board and to embrace this sort of monolithic viewpoint, candidly, is beneath you.
[/quote]

If, by “monolithic,” you mean that I think that all christians have the same beliefs, I don’t think that. And I’m not sure why you’d think I think that. I never said that all christians proselytize. I said the ones who do are rude.

Now, if you count my belief that all christians (and all religious people) are placing their faith in a fantasy, then, in that case, my viewpoint is monolithic.

[scaredyclassic]

Historically the catholics were pretty aggressive prosyletizers.

Aren’t the catholics still trying to get their membership numbers up by focusing on Africa and south america vrecruiting?

My wife’s family is Catholic but I suspect they may be crypto Jews whose ancestors glad the inquisition and only pretended to be cathokics

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Historically the catholics were pretty aggressive prosyletizers.

Aren’t the catholics still trying to get their membership numbers up by focusing on Africa and south america vrecruiting?

My wife’s family is Catholic but I suspect they may be crypto Jews whose ancestors glad the inquisition and only pretended to be cathokics[/quote]

Scaredy: At the risk of sounding snarky, aren’t we all crypto Jews when it comes right down to it?

I’m Jesuit educated, so I completely agree about the “aggressive” proselytizing and it’s a big reason I don’t practice it myself. It goes without saying that the Catholic Church, like the United States, can alternate between good works and horrifingly bad behavior in equal measures.

That was one of my main points on not confusing religion and spirituality, along with not confusing the Bible with faith.

As a Catholic, I’m familiar with the liturgy, just as being a Jew, you’re undoubtedly familiar with the use of Judiaca and the highly ritualized religious rites it’s used for. I’m pretty sure that you can easily distinguish between religion and spirituality in that example.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: No. This has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible. You’re missing my point pretty completely, and my mention of the First Council was an attempt to explain how slavish adherence to scripture can be dangerous and self-defeating because it’s based on a flawed and contradictory manuscript. I was also trying to explain that my beliefs are not based on the Bible, but rather the teachings of the Church, and therefore the mention of centuries of internal consistency.

This would give lie to the idea that these teachings would fall out of favor at some point in the future. Is it possible? Absolutely. But these same teachings have also evolved over time as well. Now before you jump to that “A-ha!” moment and point out the discursive nature of that comment, I would point out that it illustrates the robust nature (empirically speaking) of the doctrine, not the weakness.

As to indulging in a “fantasy”, sure, why not? After all, you and I aren’t arguing the same thing at all. You can deny God’s existence in your soul to your heart’s content, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Just as I can argue the contrary and it doesn’t make it so, either. Again, this comes down to religion versus spirituality and you cannot deny the existence of spirituality, regardless of its type.

I have faith. And, if, say, my other choice would be to embrace the clinical nihilism of a “bio-ethicist” like Peter Singer or the racist eugenics of a Margaret Sanger, uh, no thanks. I’m not trying to put forth a strawman here, just so we’re clear, just proffering the thought that Science with a capital “S” hasn’t done such a great job, either, in explaining the how or why of things that seem just beyond our understanding. Faith and Reason can co-exist quite effectively, and there are centuries upon centuries of great examples. Why would someone with free will and any sort of intellectual curiosity deny themselves any path, regardless of where it leads?

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
zk: No. This has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible. You’re missing my point pretty completely, and my mention of the First Council was an attempt to explain how slavish adherence to scripture can be dangerous and self-defeating because it’s based on a flawed and contradictory manuscript. I was also trying to explain that my beliefs are not based on the Bible, but rather the teachings of the Church, and therefore the mention of centuries of internal consistency.
[/quote]

I understand that you don’t interpret the bible literally. My question is, if you’re following the teachings of the church and not the bible, where does the church get its divine authority from? How are the teachings of the church the word of god? Who decided what the word of god is and how did they decide that? Surely the teachings of the church are based, to some degree, on the bible. Not the literal text of the bible, but rather the interpreted text of the bible.

Either somebody is interpreting something, or somebody in the church has heard the word of god directly. Or do you have another explanation for how the teachings of the church are the word of god?

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This would give lie to the idea that these teachings would fall out of favor at some point in the future. Is it possible? Absolutely. But these same teachings have also evolved over time as well. Now before you jump to that “A-ha!” moment and point out the discursive nature of that comment, I would point out that it illustrates the robust nature (empirically speaking) of the doctrine, not the weakness.
[/quote]

Well, now you’ve lost me completely. That makes so little sense that, given your reasonable and intelligent nature, I have to assume I’m not understanding what you’re saying. It sounds like you’re saying that, because the teachings of the church have changed over time, that is empirical evidence that the teachings of the church are “robust.” Whatever “robust” means, exactly. I’ll assume it means strong, vigorous, able to withstand attack or other outside forces. But I have to assume, correct me if I’m wrong, that the word of god would be unchanging. So, if you have to change your theology – even incrementally or over long periods of time – then it can’t really be the correct word of god. Somebody must have interpreted it incorrectly at some point. And if it’s possible for your leaders to interpret the word of god incorrectly, then how can you really trust anything they say?

Here is the crux of my point. If you interpret the bible literally, then you’re following a religion who’s god can’t go more than a page or two without contradicting himself or saying something brutal or disgusting. And if you don’t follow the bible literally, then you’re not really following the word of god, but rather the word of the men (the church) – who, as far as I can tell, have not been deemed directly in touch with god – whom you’ve charged with leading you. Men who are flawed, as all men are. Men who can’t possibly know the real word of god.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

As to indulging in a “fantasy”, sure, why not? After all, you and I aren’t arguing the same thing at all. You can deny God’s existence in your soul to your heart’s content, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Just as I can argue the contrary and it doesn’t make it so, either. Again, this comes down to religion versus spirituality and you cannot deny the existence of spirituality, regardless of its type.
[/quote]

I don’t deny the existence of spirituality. Nor of religiosity. Nor of schizophrenia. I merely disagree with the conclusions drawn about reality by anyone possessing any of those things.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

I have faith. And, if, say, my other choice would be to embrace the clinical nihilism of a “bio-ethicist” like Peter Singer or the racist eugenics of a Margaret Sanger, uh, no thanks.

[/quote]

As you know, that’s not your other choice. And, as you know, the above statement really is beneath you.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

I’m not trying to put forth a strawman here, just so we’re clear, just proffering the thought that Science with a capital “S” hasn’t done such a great job, either, in explaining the how or why of things that seem just beyond our understanding.

[/quote]

That’s ridiculous. Science has explained almost everything about our world that we didn’t understand before we came up with science. Sure, there are things we still can’t explain with science. But there’s no reason to think that, at some point we will be able to explain all things that are understandable to the human brain through science. And if we can’t explain them, that doesn’t mean that there’s some divine explanation for them. Just that we haven’t figured it out yet. Just like we hadn’t figured out that the earth revolves around the sun, or that the earth is (more or less) spherical, or that infections come from bacteria.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Faith and Reason can co-exist quite effectively, and there are centuries upon centuries of great examples. Why would someone with free will and any sort of intellectual curiosity deny themselves any path, regardless of where it leads?
[/quote]

I don’t know why someone with free will and any sort of intellectual curiosity would deny themselves any path, either. I have explored and rejected quite a few explanations that go beyond the laws of physics (including many religions) due to lack of evidence. I believe that if either of us is denying themselves a path, Allan, it’s you. I seriously doubt that you (or 5 billion other people) are able to look at this question without your deeply –held beliefs getting in the way of your rationality.

[svelte]

Happy Easter to all my Christian friends out there. 🙂

[zk]

[quote=svelte]Happy Easter to all my Christian friends out there. :-)[/quote]

Indeed.

And Chag Kasher V’Sameach to our Jewish friends.

And happy Rama Navami to my Hindu friends.

[scaredyclassic]

Linus’ unwavering and evangelical belief in the Great Pumpkin seemed kind of inspirational. His faith never wavered after so many disappointments. Yet the reader knew he was on a fools errand.

I do deny the existence of any spiritual experience independent of whatever altered brain state one achieves. You can take a bunch of drugs or pray all night or meditate or be saved, but in the end we are just exercising our neurons.

You can get pretty revved up waiting all night in the pumpkin patch but that doesn’t mean any spirits touched you.

[scaredyclassic]

That said, just because something doesn’t exist doesn’t mean you shouldn’t respect it and that it has no purpose. We are wired to believe

[scaredyclassic]

Inverting pascal wager …I am so confident in my position that I am willing to wager an eternity in heaven. Is any believers faith stronger than that?

[moneymaker]

Let’s look at God’s record for a moment:
Adam and Eve-failure
Noah-next great experiment-didn’t eliminate sin
What next? Immortality so that we have to live with our sins-I predict failure there as well. As much as I like to see the best in people it seems when we get together we tend to mess things up.
With immortality we will all have to be fixed just like our pets from the shelter, i think that takes a lot of fun out of it

[Author]

Posts