Bible, a source of ethical values? (Warning, religious thoughts!)

Rogue Keeper on 28/1/2008 at 12:09

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

It makes plenty of sense, it's a common expression that people use simply out of habit.

Then perhaps they are more infuenced by Christian concepts than they are willing to admit. Still, it looks funny.

Quote Posted by Catbarf

Generally, the aspirations of science have little to do with wanting to be a god. Genetic engineering, for example, was born not out of a desire for power but rather the practical applications of improving peoples' lives.

An idealistic but not very practical insight into scientific practice. Most scientists - commercial scientists should be added - are not idealists, they have individual ambition to become famous and they compete with others for fame and prestige. Absolute majority of scientific progress we have seen in last century has been born in commercial sector. Science, technology and power can go well together, many scientists can be bought and science is not immune from corruption, power uses advanced technology to reach it's goal - more power. Continuous improvement of peoples' lives, perfection of human body and mind and eventual creation of a superhuman and new social segregation which can rise from it, are not mutually exclusive either.

Sure, many atheists don't mind Christmas. And excellent opportunity to get out of workplace, spend extra money in malls and eat more cakes. So it's one of the few material gains of Christianity they don't mind to enjoy.

Rug Burn Junky on 28/1/2008 at 14:18

Quote Posted by BR796164

I also find it funny when atheists apontaneously use "Oh my God" or "Jesus Christ". That makes no logical sense.... Just a sidethought, heh.

Actually, I make a conscious decision to do that, and one of the reasons I tend to use the f bomb to emphasize each.

If you're a "good christian," saying either is blasphemous. It's become cheapened and secularized through overuse to the point where that feeling is lost, but it's still a weakening of religion every time people get used to hearing it, and a subtle highlighting of the flaws of following a religion.

I don't use it because it means anything to me, but because I know that it will make some people uncomfortable with their own religion, and others desensitized. Upon hearing "fucking christ" it leaves a choice of hypocrisy (by biting one's tongue) or intolerance (by trying to force me, a non believer, into conforming to superstitions I give not one shit about). When faced with that dilemma enough times, I would hope it would eventually cause one to examine the nature of their beliefs. The choice may not be conscious, or noticed, but they're all drops in the bucket that add up over time. Especially when it becomes so prevalent in society.

There's always more than one layer to communication, and it's sad you geeks take so much shit literally and at face value without recognizing that there may be subtext or unintended consequences to language.

Hier on 28/1/2008 at 14:46

Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky

Upon hearing "fucking christ" it leaves a choice of hypocrisy (by biting one's tongue) or intolerance (by trying to force me, a non believer, into conforming to superstitions I give not one shit about).

I don't get the first part. How is it hypocritical for the Christian to bite his tongue when he hears other people blaspheme?

I get the hypocrisy if he's the one yelling "fucking Christ", but not if it's other people around him saying it.

fett on 28/1/2008 at 18:55

I wouldn't say it's hypocrisy in the traditional sense, but unlike Judaism and early Christianity, modern Western Christianity strongly promotes 'standing up' and 'making your voice heard' in the face of anti-Christian language or ideas. In fact, neglecting to do so is comparable to denying Christ or one's faith in most circles. Silence = compliance or agreement in their minds. Some might even consider it un-American.

This is not at all a Biblical concept, but rather one that has arisen from our modern Christian paranoia that they are somehow being socially and politically edged out or shouted down by the liberal/atheist left.

Hier on 28/1/2008 at 19:03

That would be my impression as well, fett.

A Christian choosing <i>not</i> to be militant and confrontational over something as inconsequential as another person's choice of expletive would seem, to me, to be far <i>more</i> in keeping with their faith than the opposite. I don't see any hypocrisy in the former; I see some in the latter.

the_grip on 28/1/2008 at 19:16

Quote:

neglecting to do so is comparable to denying Christ or one's faith in most circles

i don't know if i'd say "most" circles. Maybe most wacky crazy evangelical circles, but the Christians i know would look at such statements more along the lines of poor taste than blasphemy (i.e. just as if you would say "fucking shit" instead of "fucking christ").

However, most of the wacky evangelical groups equate saying, "God damn" or even "God" as breaking the commandment about taking Jehovah's name in vain... another modern twist that doesn't really stab at what that particular commandment is all about. An outspoken Christian or Jew who willingly participates in an activity that causes unjust violence to someone else or oppression to poor or weak folks is much closer (or is) breaking that commandment than the Christian or Jew who hollers, "God damn it!" when they stub their toe.

Modern evangelicalism is nutso in my book.

fett on 28/1/2008 at 19:35

You said it yourself - modern evangelicalism IS nutso, but the loudest Christian voice in the county is comprised of exactly that group of people. Evangelicals pretty much dominate the Christian culture via radio, TV, and publishing, not to mention that the three largest denominations consider themselves evangelical. These are the groups that boycott Disney, TV shows, cleaning products, etc. and often accomplish their goals in that manner. And profanity is a MAJOR issue with them, both privately and publicly (as in media). Joining it with blasphemy is a really big deal.

Case in point, there are several bands/artists over the last 20 years that Christian media has been enamored with - U2, Midnight Oil, King's X, Live, Evanescence, etc. Members of these bands could violate almost any Christian taboo (drunkeness, homosexuality, adultry/co-habitation, liberal views on political issues, etc.) and Christian media still embraced them. The first time Bono (and eventually the others) dropped the F bomb in an interview (94-95?) it made HEADLINES in almost all the Christian music magazines. This was HUGE in Christian music - Christian stores pulled their albums, and they were dropped by that scene like a fresh turd. Same thing happened to P.O.D. for using the word 'shit' in a credit listing, and Evanescence for using it in a cover song on a DVD release). Fast forward to Bono's Africa charities - the Church gets onboard, but then again, Bono has been rather tame since the early 00's. About a year ago, he drops the F-bomb again in an interview, and once again, U2 is blackballed from Christian media. Why?

They rely on herd mentality rather than recognizing (as RBJ said) that there might possibly be a subtext or purpose for using language in a particular way or context. No deeper consideration is given to why it was used, only that it was used, and that it is unacceptable.

Personal story: I took a pastor to task several years ago for stealing $700 and misappropriating thousands more - I was his assistant. The group I was part of brought in an arbiter to 'get to the bottom' of the situation. During the meeting, the pastor mentioned that I had 'used profanity' when initially confronting him about his deception and embezzlement (I used the word 'bullshit' at one point). For an entire hour, the meeting diverted to the way in which I addressed the issue (with profanity), and away from the issue itself (the mysterious disappearance of thousands of dollars in tithes and offerings). Which is the larger issue? To a sane person - the FUCKING MONEY.

But I used the word 'bullshit' and that 'needed to be addressed'. Mind you, this is one of the more forward-thinking/liberal and open groups in The Church today.

So yeah, it's cu-coo city with most of these people.

Rug Burn Junky on 28/1/2008 at 20:20

Quote Posted by fett

Yeah, I get that it's the modern version for which it's the most hypocritical.

But just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean we're not really after them. ;)

But really, I'm not looking for confrontation with it. It's more the fact that as people become desensitized, to it, it's no longer enforced. And when there are rules within a system that aren't enforced, they begin to seem arbitrary, and when that sort of relativism happens is when people begin to question the validity of the system itself.

the_grip on 28/1/2008 at 20:35

fett, i do agree with what you are saying re:evangelical media. i guess i'm referring more to the average Jane and Joe that i run into.

Funny, though, the parish i used to attend (before we moved) had a great priest who had no problem cussing in his homilies. He dropped "shits" and "fucks" in casual discussion and even when teaching when he wanted to make a point. What makes this funny (to me) is that this parish is probably one of the most orthodox around when it comes to historic Christian teaching, liturgy, etc. (even other orthodox parishes kind of "wow, that place is orthodox"), but it is hated by the evangelicals in my town mainly because we somehow "worship Mary" and have no problem with martinis and cigarettes. So maybe my experience is a bit biased in the other direction, or maybe i just call bullshit when evangelicals start referring to themselves as being the monopoly of Christian understanding.

jtr7 on 28/1/2008 at 23:20

Quote:

But really, I'm not looking for confrontation with it. It's more the fact that as people become desensitized, to it, it's no longer enforced. And when there are rules within a system that aren't enforced, they begin to seem arbitrary, and when that sort of relativism happens is when people begin to question the validity of the system itself.

One of the reasons Lot was ushered out of his beloved city. One of the reasons believers are called the "salt" of the earth. Being surrounded by unrepentant mockers only serves to prove to the believer there is a need for balance and pleading for mercy to stave off wrathful judgment. If you sin to prove sinning isn't or shouldn't be an issue, you will be perceived by believers as needing to be saved, needing prayer, needing a healthier focus for your energy. "Oh you poor soul. So filled with hatred...."

After all these years I only suspected that that motive was one of the many for "taking the Lord's name in vain." You're the first, in my limited experiences, that I've heard admit it. Sadly, RBJ, it only proves to the believers that the world is increasingly wicked--even if it's just as wicked as it's always been, and history proves there is no winner, only a swinging pendulum of relatively brief victories for different perspectives. There are backlashes (literally as well as figuratively), revolutions, atrocities, and it never ends.