Scots Taffer on 19/2/2009 at 13:56
gravity is only a theory moron
fett on 19/2/2009 at 14:18
Ok then, the Bible has all types of warm fuzzy bits to make you a better person and cause good stuff to happen.
Here's the problem:
As I've gone to great lengths in this forum (and from a podium for 10 years) to point out, the Bible itself does not allow for a 'pick and choose' theology. In other words, I can't live by 'love your neighbor as yourself' and ignore 'anyone who loves their family more than me is unworthy'. I can't obey 'be in the world but not of the world' and simultaneously 'have no fellowship with unbelievers, even to eat or drink with them.'
The point is that the casual reader can find all sorts of nice stuff to help them through life, but a life-altering obedience to the words of the book (called for my Moses, Jesus, and Paul) necessitates an all or nothing approach. I won't bore you here with the 200+ passages to support this, but it won't take you long to find some if you flip through the NT.
This is one of the things that led to my de-conversion. Can I love God more than my family? I found that I couldn't. And it wasn't just a theological dilemma. Because of the all or nothing approach, my family was put in several situations that forced me to make that choice, both emotionally and physically - to the point of life and death in two separate cases. Why would a God who commands a husband and father to lay down his life for his family, simultaneously condemn him for doing so by choosing them over himself?
Anyone who's ever been knee-deep in Christianity knows that at the end of the day, no matter how much you talk about loving gay people, non-believers, democrats, or abortion doctors, there is an undercurrent of hatred and condemnation towards them because they are in sin. Any 'love' you are commanded to show them is negated by the conditions attached to it. By the Bible's definition, love is not an emotion, it's an action - how can I 'love' a homosexual friend, but refuse to have a social relationship with him? It can't be done - my words contradict my actions. And so the theology contradicts itself, frame it however you want to make yourself feel better. I know because I did it for 20 years. The cognitive dissonance eventually starts to drive you insane. Which explains, in a nutshell, why most believers of any faith are a bit flaky in the common sense department.
Kolya on 19/2/2009 at 14:49
If you go that way, if you call out everyone who has an individual approach to christian religion for applying a 'pick and choose' theology, you deny religion the right to change for the better and accomodate to modern people's lives. In fact you're attacking those religious people who are probably the closest to you. Pick your enemies wisely because religion won't go away, and hence the only way for atheists like us to live with it, is to support those within the church who fight for a modern religion that's tolerant and open minded. Of course there are lots of contradictions, because this thing exists for a good 2000 years now and it has never been a homogeneous world view to boot.
In short: This all or nothing approach you're sporting for personal reasons isn't doing anyone a favour, and your stupendous knowledge of the matter only seems to cloud that fact.
fett on 19/2/2009 at 15:07
I'm not saying it's a good thing or that anyone should take that tack. The point is that there's a philosophical contradiction at the very core of this idea that religion is about 'love.' It seems to me the best 'modern' approach is to realize what exactly the bible is in its historical context and abandon any pretense of 'love' based on its teachings. As others have said itt - there are plenty of other, more sound reasons for morality.
Of course you're right. Realistically it's not going away, so the rational thing for an atheist to do is to support a more liberal slant on its theology. You're still going to have a bunch of people running around like psychological ticking timebombs because they know deep down it doesn't wash. I honestly wonder which is more dangerous in the long term.
And by the way, I'm not 'sporting it' for 'personal reasons' - I'm highlighting the problems with taking the bible literally, as most evangelicals do.
Kolya on 19/2/2009 at 16:10
A lot of people need their faith in love because they would break on the rocks of modern civilisation. And those shiny lighthouses of logic and science do nothing for them to navigate modern anonymity, alienation and loneliness. Telling these people that their christian belief in love is wrong and contradictory will only enforce their insecurity and fears.
And for what? Because you would like to see every aspect about religion clearly defined and logically backed up? You're failing to see the very point of religion then. And your argument is intolerant and dangerous.
EDIT: I think you're still taking religion way too serious, fett. It can be a great emotional stabilizer. You may denounce that as 'pick and choose' or 'feelgood religion' or whatever. But they're humans; wavering, shaky beings in a tumultous world. And your answer and my answer to this is to hold on to reason and humanism. That doesn't mean one should look down on or attack others who are trying to hold on as well, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, maybe.
Go back, watch Forrest Gump. Stupid is as stupid does. Our reasons and philosophical/theological theory behind that don't matter one bit in the end.
Herbrand on 19/2/2009 at 16:13
Hi fett,
I wasn't sure at first if I should parecipate in the thread, as this kind of discussion in highly accessed forums tend to be... unpleasant, but since the majority of taffers on this site seem to be mature enough - on both sides - I changed my mind.
Most of the people here seem to be American, hence they refer to Protestant Christianism; I am Catholic, so if my point does not apply to your experience of faith I apologize.
In short, my experience was the opposite of yours: when I matured intellectually and was exposed to a score of different ideologies and philosophies, I was glad to find out that I could ultimately keep a strict observance of my moral praecepts while still being a humanist: for the Christian doctrine is indeed based on human empathy and natural moral.
Someone might have raised an eyebrow at this statement, but in fact every time the Christian doctrine violates (inclusively) the Golden Rule (that is, by forbidding something that is not damaging for the actor's nor other people's freedom), it does that by protecting the society as a whole, whose importance comes before the freedom of the single individual.
Selfishness and individualism can go a long way in justifying actions that we Christians perceive as immoral, but on the other hand, every time I ask myself the logical reasons of a certain rule, I can see the human benefits for the world if a substantial amount of people were to adhere to them. As a future father, this is even more true in the light of being an ethic example for the young ones and the future generation.
So, regarding the attitude toward sinners: I don't throw the first stone (nor the second, nor the last), first because Christianity comes without a political system, and second because if I want to change them and convert their hearts - for their own good and in full spirit of brotherhood - I must first be an example of a good HUMAN being and be kept in good esteem by them; for no one changes just because you tell them so, but one's example of righteousness WILL ultimately bear good fruits and can inspire others to seek the same.
fett on 19/2/2009 at 18:35
Quote Posted by Kolya
EDIT: I think you're still taking religion way too serious, fett. It can be a great emotional stabilizer.
Seems it's pretty serious business. People flying planes into buildings, denying their kids health care, drinking poison kool-aid, and such-like. It's sure as hell isn't harmless.
I'll grant that not everyone takes it that seriously, but many, many people do. I'm not a rabid atheist either - they can believe what they want. I'm just saying that when taken to the extremes commanded by their own book, it is dangerous, and yes, emotionally destabilizing. You could argue that not many people take it to this extreme, but if that weren't the case, gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states, there would be no evolution vs. creationism debate, and social upheaval over issues like abortion and stem cell research wouldn't exist. How many stories of abuse, pedophilia, drowning children, and sexual scandal do we have to hear before drawing the conclusion that something isn't quite right in this 'community of faith?' I'm not saying they should be morally superior to everyone else (these maladies exist in society as a whole), but the message of the gospel is to turn depraved people into lovers of truth and light. They should at the very least not be *worse* than society at large. It could be argued that such a picture is emerging.
I'm the first to admit that my experience is subjective. There may be plenty of emotionally healthy, psychologically balanced people of faith out there. But in my view, the theology itself (by its own admission - "I have come to heal the sick, the healthy do not need a doctor") attracts people who are unstable and dysfunctional. That in itself is not bad, but it begs the question - does the community of faith, the theology of the Bible, and the dogma therein move them in a more positive, functional direction, or does it simply excuse, empathize, and perpetuate their dysfunction? In my experience, the latter is the case. I hope it's not that way across the board, but I feel like I've had plenty of opportunity to see that opinion proven wrong. So far, it hasn't been. :erg:
I remain open to being proven wrong, however. I hope to be - it would make my life a lot easier at this point. :)
Queue on 19/2/2009 at 19:13
Oh my David (that old joke still), if you want to hear something distrubing give the kool-aid tapes from Jonestown a listen.
R Soul on 19/2/2009 at 19:20
Quote Posted by fett
there would be no evolution vs. creationism debate
What's wrong with such a debate? I don't mean the flaws in the arguments, but the debate itself.
Quote:
and social upheaval over issues like abortion and stem cell research wouldn't exist.
Can it only be religious people who think of a foetus as more than just a cluster of cells?
SD on 19/2/2009 at 19:48
Quote Posted by R Soul
What's wrong with such a debate? I don't mean the flaws in the arguments, but the debate itself.
Would you say the same of a debate over whether the Earth was round or flat?
