I have almost finished Asimov's Robots/empire/foundation series, and while he clearly was a genious, I can't help but think there was clearly something missing in his work. It was something he would deny to his death, and yet something that continually crept into his work. This subtle theme I am referring to is the notion of a higher power. After reading of his life, it is clear that Asimov was an athiest, and yet he saw an inherent 'goodness' in humanity, a 'natural morality' if you will. Such a thing is a lovely pie in the sky idea, but doesn't have much grounding in reality. One need only take a quick glance within themselves to realize that most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
This is where OSC trumps Asimov. While sharing several similar themes, and both displaying great genious in their storytelling, OSC's character development and plot creation display a more true depiction of reality - that humans are ultimately and eternally flawed in and of themselves. It is only an appeal to a higher power that lifts them above their decrepit nature. His stories of men of faith (regardless of their religion) are lights to humanity and continue to pull me in to whatever new endeavors he is involved in.
I'm not writing this to preach or to condemn man. I'm simply writing because as a believer, I see the true beauty in complete humility. The glory of admitting one's powerlessness and putting one's fate into the hands of one much more capable, powerful, wise, and loving.
Thank you, Orson, for living your faith.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Were you to seek to understand those of us who are optimistic agnostics, you might come to see how a lack of faith in a "higher power" does not equal a lack of faith in general.
I actually believe people are happier if they learn to take a healthy pride in themselves and their achievements rather than view themselves as helpless and debased. To me, at least, there are far more concrete reasons to have faith in humanity than there are to have faith in God.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote: One need only take a quick glance within themselves to realize that most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
My personal observation is that the general balance of people act this way, regardless of belief in a higher power. Don't underestimate the number of people who are willing to perform good deeds just to reap the reward (religious, tactile, or other.)
EDIT: I think I misread the original post the first few times through. To clarify, I don't believe that one has to believe in higher powers to motivate selfless actions.
And if you could, please apply a little breaking to the number of new threads your making and let some of the forum regulars catch up and post.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
thanks for the tip.
as to your post: "My personal observation is that the general balance of people act this way, regardless of belief in a higher power. Don't underestimate the number of people who are willing to perform good deeds just to reap the reward (religious, tactile, or other.)"
Can you call it a good deed if it is to reap reward? What makes it good? The selfish motivation of reward? I am speaking of a truly selfless act. Is there such a thing?
And, as you say, one need not believe in higher powers to motivate selfless actions, then please name an example. I can think of only one - sacrificing one's life, and even then it can become clouded.
And more specifically, what are your views on the writings of OSC? If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to care too much about a higher power. Yet you post on a site devoted to an other who is quite devoted to God. Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot? Just curious.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:OSC's character development and plot creation display a more true depiction of reality - that humans are ultimately and eternally flawed in and of themselves.
*laugh* You make some assumptions here that I think are grossly flawed.
But, then, I'm an agnostic who believes that people are at heart good, and do not need to debase themselves -- humbly or otherwise -- before any hypothetical, mythical higher power to realize the decency of their own natures.
quote:Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot?
I'm genuinely sorry for you. It must be awful to enjoy only those works produced by people who share your narrow opinion of God. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And more specifically, what are your views on the writings of OSC? If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to care too much about a higher power. Yet you post on a site devoted to an other who is quite devoted to God. Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot? Just curious.
I don't understand. Are those the only choices? And I'm setting aside the fact that I'm struggling to think which of OSC's novels could be considered about God rather than about people and stories, and I'm coming up blank. And I've read at least...oh, forty stories of his?
I also think it's presumptuous in the extreme to say, "You don't really think that, I can tell because of 'x'. You're just in denial." It's offensive because it's insulting and implies a heaping helping of ignorance on the part of the object of your criticism, and presumptuous because if he doesn't know himself well enough to be an accurate judge of what he thinks about God, who the hell are you to label him as 'in denial'?
A belief that people are good and an atheist philosophy are not, as you so casually dismiss, mutually exclusive. There is an enormous distance between 'decent' and 'good', and 'without sin' or 'stainless'.
Compounding your apparent ignorance of both Asimov and Card, I wonder what exactly you think about two of Card's heroes-Ender Wiggin and Bean (Julian Delphiki) who don't do the things you label glorious? I wonder which chapter in which book Ender admits his powerlessness and puts his complete and utter faith in some higher power? Exactly where does Bean ever think someone else is more capable, wise, and thoughtful than himself? Those two are nearly paragons of humanism.
I think you need to take a quick glance within yourself and find out if you read these books by these authors and reached conclusions you already held, or learned something you didn't expect? It took only a quick glance at your post to understand that it was the former and not the latter, but that sort of remark shouldn't bother you.
I am a man of faith but I have also been an atheist (well, agnostic really, I would never have categorized myself as atheist, not for any length of time) and I cannot tell you how irritating it is for anyone to come up to me and tell me in parable or plainspoken words that the things I say I believe, they're just nonsense, that I don't know myself as well as they do. Even as (mostly) benign criticisms like the ones you've made here, they're still irritating and presumptuous.
Instead of telling people what they're actually thinking, it's more respectful and effective to simply ask.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:OSC's character development and plot creation display a more true depiction of reality - that humans are ultimately and eternally flawed in and of themselves.
*laugh* You make some assumptions here that I think are grossly flawed.
But, then, I'm an agnostic who believes that people are at heart good, and do not need to debase themselves -- humbly or otherwise -- before any hypothetical, mythical higher power to realize the decency of their own natures.
And here's the funny thing. I'm a religious fanatic (or so I'm told) who believes that people are at heart good, and do not need to debase themselves -- humbly or otherwise -- before God to realize the decency of their own natures.
I think Mr. Seldon is making the common mistake of presuming that his religious views are the only religious views that exist, and that there's a dichotomy between his religious views and pure secularism. It's a little arrogant.
Okay, maybe not "little". Very arrogant. And not a little sad, because I think the vast majority of conflicts in the world can be traced to that kind of thinking.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot?
I'm genuinely sorry for you. It must be awful to enjoy only those works produced by people who share your narrow opinion of God.
I agree. And Hari? You probably won't understand this, but getting me and Tom to be in agreement is an impressive thing. It says a lot about you.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
You are exactly right Rakeesh. I was wrong in making such a broad presumption. The title of my post was also somewhat misleading. I did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it. I know he was a staunch non-believer and that was perfectly fine with me. What I was trying to say (and I guess I didn't put it clearly) was that what was missing in his books was the fullness of character that OSC has, and from that I made the (unsafe) leap of saying that that fullness was derived out of OSC's faith.
Now, Rakeesh, I feel you are doing more than simply replying to my ideas, and that is fine if you take offense as well, but there is no denying that OSC writes from his faith. Having also read "40 books" by the author, it is quite clear he draws on it for inspiration. Is there a problem with that? To me, there is not, and yet perhaps it does bother some.
You mention the characters Ender and Bean as prime examples of humanism, and yet I think Card would be quite disgusted to learn his writing was considered "humanistic". If you have read any of his essays, you'd see that he is quite the opposite. Just because someone is not a humanist does not mean they hate humans. It just means they recognize their short comings and realize they are the be all and end all. Because if we were the be all and end all, wouldn't that be kind of depressing?
Also, on a side note, I tire of being attacked and called ignorant, irritating, short sited, and presumptious for outlining what I believe. We live in a society that preaches tolerance and religious freedom, until you say you're a Christian. Then you become labeled extremist, or fundamentalist or bigotted. Talk about your religious freedom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We live in a society that preaches tolerance and religious freedom, until you say you're a Christian.
*laugh* Oh, my poor little victim. I cry all sorts of tears for how cruelly you're oppressed. You're right; no one should criticize you for coming here to insult them in the name of "religious freedom."
By the way, why do you believe Card made both Ender and Bean staunch atheists if he'd be disgusted by humanism?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: thanks for the tip.
as to your post: "My personal observation is that the general balance of people act this way, regardless of belief in a higher power. Don't underestimate the number of people who are willing to perform good deeds just to reap the reward (religious, tactile, or other.)"
Can you call it a good deed if it is to reap reward? What makes it good? The selfish motivation of reward? I am speaking of a truly selfless act. Is there such a thing?
I'm troubled by the idea that getting something out of an action lessens the value of that action. It implies a worldview in which we're not supposed to be happy. In which we're bad, and in which our suffering is a good thing.
If I love God and want to do God's will, then doing so benefits me. Only a robot can be truly selfless. Being selfless means there's no self there, and that's inhuman.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: And, as you say, one need not believe in higher powers to motivate selfless actions, then please name an example. I can think of only one - sacrificing one's life, and even then it can become clouded.
You're assuming that selflessness is a value to strive for. I dispute that. Strongly.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: And more specifically, what are your views on the writings of OSC?
He's an amazing writer. I love the characters (I've never really cared about any of Asimov's characters), I love the ideas, I love the action, the plot development... pretty much everything.
But I love Leo Frankowski's Conrad books, and I think his views on women and on Jews are foul beyond belief. I love a lot of Richard Wagner's music, despite his Jew-hatred. Are you saying that you can't distinguish between art and the artist?
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to care too much about a higher power. Yet you post on a site devoted to an other who is quite devoted to God. Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot? Just curious.
Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle. Talk about just being here to stir the pot.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Regarding Ender and Bean "Compounding your apparent ignorance of both Asimov and Card, I wonder what exactly you think about two of Card's heroes-Ender Wiggin and Bean (Julian Delphiki) who don't do the things you label glorious?"
Rakeesh, one could almost look on these characters as anti-heroes. Neither one of them ever finds the happiness they so desperately are in need of. They are both of almost unlimited human potential, and yet they are never satisfied, never happy, never fulfilled. While we still don't know what will happen with Bean, we have seen the End of Andrew Wiggin, and he discovered that higher power, that almost omnipotent being in Jane, In the end he couldn't do it all on his own. Food for thought I guess.
You could also look at the homecoming series. A very clear example of Card's faith at work.
He didn't try to hit you on the head with it, and I think that's why he is so popular. Yet it is still there, and for that we are all rewarded.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote: Neither one of them ever finds the happiness they so desperately are in need of. They are both of almost unlimited human potential, and yet they are never satisfied, never happy, never fulfilled.
Not true in either case. Have you read the entire series, both Bean's and Ender's?
The Homecoming series is based directly on the book of Mormon. Several people, myself included, don't like it because it does hit you on the head with his faith. I like stories, not sermons.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
I must apologize however,
It was never my intention to anger those of different beliefs, nor did I intend to portray myself as a victim. I am a white male christian and as such I have been afforded many blessings in my life and I have little to complain about. My faith is a center of strength in my life and I am thankful for it everyday. I was merely attempting to share in it a little bit, but it seems I have misrepresented it here in this forum a bit.
My main point is that whether or not Card is explicit in his novels about his beliefs, he is explicit in his essays and I wanted to applaud him for it.
With that said, thank you all for your replies, this has been a very interesting topic, and will likely continue.
I guess I'm better at stirring the pot than I realized, although with such an explosive subject I could have been a little more foresighted.
Pot
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Card is fascinated by people. His stories, with few exceptions, are powered by people: what they do, why they do it, how they act in groups, and how they deal (or don't) with the consequences of their actions. Card himself is religious and so are many of his characters, but do not make the mistake that his faith ultimately guides all of his writing.
Asimov was fascinated by ideas. His stories, with few exceptions, were powered by concepts and puzzles. His characters were often one-sided or stereotypical because they were never the point.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Side note: I am not religious at all -- I consider myself an apatheist -- but I love Card's work because his characters are rich, well-rounded people with complex emotions and motivations. That's partly because he doesn't deny them their spirituality, whatever it may be, and far too many writers ignore that to their character's detriment.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, OSC has been pretty clear that he considers Ender a humanist (certainly the speakers for the dead movement is humanist). I think actions that OSC lets his protagonists take are subconsciously/consciously informed by his particular belief system, but when that happens, it seems to create a repetitiveness in his writing, as often as any "fullness", in my opinion. You obviously feel differently.
BTW, outlining what you believe isn't the issue, it's the implying you understand what and how others believe that is wrangling most.
["If I am reading you right", for example. I have found it the case on this forum that people rarely read others correctly, particularly around anything related to morality and ethics.]
-Bok
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And more specifically, what are your views on the writings of OSC? If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to care too much about a higher power. Yet you post on a site devoted to an other who is quite devoted to God. Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot? Just curious.
I enjoy OSC because of his writing. The questions his characters wrestle with interest me just as much regardless of whether we arrive at the same places for the same reasons. But I post on this site because of the vast array of people here who generally respect each other even though we have representation from all walks of life, all ages, all religious faiths.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Such a thing is a lovely pie in the sky idea, but doesn't have much grounding in reality. One need only take a quick glance within themselves to realize that most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
I kind of disagree with this. But, perhaps because I have an unusual way of looking at religion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This nice, Catholic girl would just like to go on the record as agreeing with the agnostic, the atheist, and the Jew.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Side note: I am not religious at all -- I consider myself an apatheist
That is beautiful. You should copyright it. Is there an apatheist.com?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Yup! I thought I had coined the term but a quick Google search found not only a site already set up, but a place selling DKDC ("Don't Know, Don't Care") jewelry.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Only a robot can be truly selfless. Being selfless means there's no self there, and that's inhuman.
That bore repeating.
That may be the wisest thing I've heard in a long long time.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Communism is the way to go! To each to their abilities, to each of their needs.
Asimov I consider the greatest science fiction aurthor to have ever lived.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: The title of my post was also somewhat misleading. I did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it.
I'm puzzled. How could your title, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", mean anything other than "deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it."?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: To each to their abilities, to each of their needs.
I am capable of ruling all others with my iron fist and superior wisdom. Oh, and I need a yacht and a private jet.
-pH
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Nice screen name, Hari. Remember me? Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Communism is the way to go! To each to their abilities, to each of their needs.
Asimov I consider the greatest science fiction aurthor to have ever lived.
Only if it were apart of a hybrid system. Seriously, do you know ANYTHING at all about Mao and Stalin? Mao was the worse. Breaking his people down with fear, using every resource for his own self angrandisement (sp) Terrible person. What is needed is a combination of looking out for the interests of all of society and those of the individual. Hopefully we are struggling towards as system like that.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think Blayne's tongue may have been desperately trying to escape his cheek while he wrote that first sentence. It looks like it failed in the attempt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: My main point is that whether or not Card is explicit in his novels about his beliefs, he is explicit in his essays and I wanted to applaud him for it.
It's worth noting that many people feel his essays are excessively didactic and uninteresting for this reason. You'll find that his fiction is considerably more popular, perhaps because it is in general less preachy. (And yet, IMO, I consider his fiction a more effective moral argument than his essays.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I agree with you on that Tom, usually his essays fill me with the urge to rebel.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Perhaps the title means that complete denial is what Asimov had faith in? Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It could be parsed that way, couldn't it, Shigosei?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That works. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Agreeing with starLisa is peculiar. Agreeing with Tom Davidson is odd. Agreeing with both of them at once (as well as some other folks) is bizarre.....
I'm a deeply religious guy--something of a fundamentalist, in fact. Yet I've never agreed with the idea that people are evil by nature. I don't always agree with Asimov's perspectives, but that's one area where I admire him.
I enjoy the fact that OSC is not afraid to integrate his faith and writing, and don't take quite the offense at his essays that some people here do. (They remind me of traditional writing in the churches of Christ, actually. *wry grin*) But I agree with him less often than I do with Asimov, ironically enough.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We live in a society that preaches tolerance and religious freedom, until you say you're a Christian.
*laugh* Oh, my poor little victim. I cry all sorts of tears for how cruelly you're oppressed. You're right; no one should criticize you for coming here to insult them in the name of "religious freedom."
By the way, why do you believe Card made both Ender and Bean staunch atheists if he'd be disgusted by humanism?
I will strongly disagree with the assertion that Ender and Bean are both "staunch atheists." At one point Bean actually says he believes in God. And Ender, I think, is more of an agnostic.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: thanks for the tip.
as to your post: "My personal observation is that the general balance of people act this way, regardless of belief in a higher power. Don't underestimate the number of people who are willing to perform good deeds just to reap the reward (religious, tactile, or other.)"
Can you call it a good deed if it is to reap reward? What makes it good? The selfish motivation of reward? I am speaking of a truly selfless act. Is there such a thing?
And, as you say, one need not believe in higher powers to motivate selfless actions, then please name an example. I can think of only one - sacrificing one's life, and even then it can become clouded.
And more specifically, what are your views on the writings of OSC? If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to care too much about a higher power. Yet you post on a site devoted to an other who is quite devoted to God. Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot? Just curious.
How old are you?
:::Edited because I read his later posts.:::
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
One problem I have with some authors is that they don't have the skill to convey their worldview as part of a consistent, interesting, and unfolding narrative. In fact, they tend to just take a shortcut and give some character a longish speech about how the world MUST work. Or, worse yet, they just break frame and preach at the reader directly.
Card manages to avoid those problems to the point where I can enjoy even his works that ARE more or less directly taken from his personal social or religious views. Even the series that I knew ahead of time were more or less based on LDS narrative elements I was able to just enjoy the story and not worry about whether the books represented an attempt to preach a particular message. I simply enjoyed the time I spent reading them.
Asimov, probably because his stories were less strong on character and dialog -- his own analysis of the original Foundation Trilogy is brutal and spot-on -- tends to give the reader his views on things in a less story-driven manner. But still, he does it well because he was telling a story and was pretty well wrapped up in the story when he was writing. Part of his genius, I think, is being able to keep it all straight given that he pretty much published first drafts and his writing process was a lot like a compulsive disorder (from what he said about about it).
I found some of Asimov's to be off-putting. When Asimov stuck strictly to science (which he really did know well), I liked his essays immensely. In other cases, I felt like he came off as an egotistical, opinionated, narrow-minded jerk. I can't remember specifics now, but there were definitely a few times where I thought "whoa, what a @$@#$#."
I find it's often the case that when people are well respected in one field, they become sought-after "opinion makers" on practically everything. (My favorite example is Linus Pauling. For some reason, after he shared the Nobel Prize, he was like an instant expert on everything. Reporters would get quotations from him on anything that sounded even vaguely like "science," whether it was in his area of expertise or not.)
Ultimately, I have just learned to discount people's opinions when they stray from their area of true expertise.
It's possible for even a brilliant man like Asimov to have merely a layman's casual knowledge of a vast many topics -- especially complex social issues -- and his opinions should be treated pretty much the same way one would treat the opinion of just about any other person who lacks real depth of knowledge in a specific area.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: The title of my post was also somewhat misleading. I did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it.
I'm puzzled. How could your title, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", mean anything other than "deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it."?
Well Hari?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By the way, why do you believe Card made both Ender and Bean staunch atheists if he'd be disgusted by humanism?
Ender was not a staunch atheist - he specifically states that he believes in God in Xenocide, and he makes no such positive statement either way prior to that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, as much as I dislike inaccurate descriptions of others beliefs, which Hari almost certainly did, I don't think putting a *laugh* in front of a statement disagreeing with his own opinion is any better on the politeness scale.
[ March 16, 2006, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: We live in a society that preaches tolerance and religious freedom, until you say you're a Christian.
I think this is true to some extent, but only because the term "Christian" tends to be broadly defined by those outside the club and narrowly defined by those inside it.
That is, the family next door would probably state that the "Christianity" of practicing Catholics is questionable, and that LDS doctrine is cultish, possibly even Satanic. This is not my personal belief, mind you, but they would definitely exclude a great number of people who would self-identify as "Christian" from their definition of True Christianity. (I think most Christian denominations do this, actually).
Why they haven't wrapped their house in aluminum foil, I'll never know. (FYI, they are not named "Flanders", but the kids can't come over anymore because they saw a Peewee's Playhouse video here once, and I let my kids watch Scooby Doo. *shame* )
Christianity, in my experience, is like a room that is much smaller on the inside than it is on the outside.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: The title of my post was also somewhat misleading. I did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it.
I'm puzzled. How could your title, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", mean anything other than "deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it."?
I think Hari simply misspelled, "Oops."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: The title of my post was also somewhat misleading. I did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it.
I'm puzzled. How could your title, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", mean anything other than "deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it."?
Well Hari?
I think our Hari may have turned out to be a hit and run poster. I think he didn't realize who/what he was dealing with when he dropped in here.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Alternately, you know, he could have been posting from work and had other things to do with his evening, and will be back online today. You can't expect a guy to become as addicted as we all are on his first day.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: By the way, as much as I dislike inaccurate descriptions of others beliefs, which Hari almost certainly did, I don't think putting a *laugh* in front of a statement disagreeing with his own opinion is any better on the politeness scale.
Maybe not, but you have to admit it's either pretty humorous or pretty sad that he can be so out of tune with other people's feelings that he could write the initial post in this thread, then cry "oppressed Christian victim" when he's called on it.
To be fair, though, he later tries to apologize and for the most part he seems sincere. That's more than many people are willing to sacrifice in the name of civil conversation. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hari Seldon,
quote:Now, Rakeesh, I feel you are doing more than simply replying to my ideas, and that is fine if you take offense as well, but there is no denying that OSC writes from his faith. Having also read "40 books" by the author, it is quite clear he draws on it for inspiration. Is there a problem with that? To me, there is not, and yet perhaps it does bother some.
Who's denying it? You're speaking against an argument that hasn't been made. There's a term for that.
quote:You mention the characters Ender and Bean as prime examples of humanism, and yet I think Card would be quite disgusted to learn his writing was considered "humanistic". If you have read any of his essays, you'd see that he is quite the opposite. Just because someone is not a humanist does not mean they hate humans. It just means they recognize their short comings and realize they are the be all and end all. Because if we were the be all and end all, wouldn't that be kind of depressing?
I think you're on shaky ground talking about how disgusted Card would be to hear his characters viewed in such a way, but at least this time you prefaced it with "I think". I've read every essay the man's got posted on this website, including his World Watch and War Watch essays. Don't you understand humanism well enough to know that it basically devolves to "Love thy neighbor"? Furthermore, not all types of humanism are incompatible with religious beliefs.
quote:Also, on a side note, I tire of being attacked and called ignorant, irritating, short sited, and presumptious for outlining what I believe. We live in a society that preaches tolerance and religious freedom, until you say you're a Christian. Then you become labeled extremist, or fundamentalist or bigotted. Talk about your religious freedom.
Well if you tire of being attacked, you could try not saying ignorant, irritating, short-sighted and presumptuous things. As for your little persecution complex...well, frankly I think it's hysterical. Our religious freedom isn't threatened. I didn't even mention your Christianity, all I said was that I found it irritating when religious people speak the trains of thought you have (and the same for atheists, really), and you leapt to my attacking your Christianity?
So apparently an attack on religion-which I didn't make-is in your eyes an attack on Christianity. There's more of that presumption. Oh, and 'as a side note' I didn't label you a fundamentalist, extremist, or bigot.
quote:Rakeesh, one could almost look on these characters as anti-heroes. Neither one of them ever finds the happiness they so desperately are in need of. They are both of almost unlimited human potential, and yet they are never satisfied, never happy, never fulfilled. While we still don't know what will happen with Bean, we have seen the End of Andrew Wiggin, and he discovered that higher power, that almost omnipotent being in Jane, In the end he couldn't do it all on his own. Food for thought I guess.
Card's messages are not often about happiness but about joy, which to me means finding something good and honorable and worthy of love in a life filled with suffering. Wiggin and Bean strove all their lives, yes, and never really found nice happily ever after ending happiness, it's true. But they both also constantly worked for the betterment and protection of their friends, human and otherwise, at great cost to themselves.
In what way, exactly, is that an 'anti'-hero? Is there some unwritten rule that heroes must find happiness, lest they be anti-heroes? As for Jane, when you make remarks like that I cannot help but think you're speaking from ignorance. Because there was something of Ender in Jane, and the other way around. Jane was not Jane until she met Ender. The governing spirit was there, but did not become Jane until Ender.
As for the Homecoming books, of course they're an evidence of faith. They're a work in telling the Book of Mormon in a science-fiction setting. It would be almost impossible not to be a work of faith.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Maybe not, but you have to admit it's either pretty humorous or pretty sad that he can be so out of tune with other people's feelings that he could write the initial post in this thread, then cry "oppressed Christian victim" when he's called on it
True, but the laugh I'm speaking of isn't related at all to that issues. It's targeted squarely at his statement of what he believes, not what he thinks others believe. And it was made before the "oppressed" comment.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I think Hari shows quite a bit of promise. He's well spoken, obviously reads and thinks about the stuff he's reading, and seems interested in getting along. He's got opinions that a lot of us disagree with pretty strongly, but many people here have opinions that a number of us disagree with pretty strongly.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Alternately, you know, he could have been posting from work and had other things to do with his evening, and will be back online today. You can't expect a guy to become as addicted as we all are on his first day.
Let this be a warning to you, Hari. If you maintain your present course, hopeless addiction lies in your future. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:yet I think Card would be quite disgusted to learn his writing was considered "humanistic". If you have read any of his essays, you'd see that he is quite the opposite. Just because someone is not a humanist does not mean they hate humans. It just means they recognize their short comings and realize they are the be all and end all. Because if we were the be all and end all, wouldn't that be kind of depressing?
You should Google 'Secular Humanist Revival' sometime, Hari. They used to have an audio of it in the Hatrack Store, but I guess they sold out...
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
For fear of setting off another round of violent response, I offer this: Clearly I have been caught in a position that seems very difficult to defend, and to even some laughable and juvenile, as witnessed by some of the more derrogatory replies I have recieved. To be honest, I did not expect such a one sided, polarized debate, so I feel it necessary to be completely honest with the forum.
As is quite obvious from my posts, I am a Christian (duh). However, I am also well educated in the sciences and arts due to 5 expensive years of university (student loan OUCH). Already, this begins to open up room for contradiction in one's life. But why stop there? My best friend is a WASP, yet on his wedding day, as he married a beautiful Lebanese girl, he announced he was converting to Islam (huh?!). I shall continue. My wife was raised a Christian also, but it is helpful to note that her father was born and raised in Han China as a staunch buddhist. Her dad's family remain staunchly buddhist and we get to put fruit by Buddha every time we visit them in Toronto.
Now, my intention is to neither induce sympathy, nor is it to show how tolerant I am, and it is definately not a covert attempt at racism. My point is that life is usually wrapt in contradiction, and yet I have little doubt regarding my belief in Christ. Why? Because of faith. Some might immediately laugh at me for my faith in the unknown, but upon further examination, don't we all possess some faith in the unknown?
Those who are religious will not disagree, but those who are not, just consider it for a moment. Doesn't belief in evolution require the same, if not more, faith than belief in Christ? (DID I just open another can of worms? Or as my American friends say, Night Crawlers?) Ok, evolution aside, b/c that's another day, to those of you agnostics, doesn't a belief in man's inherent goodness require even an ounce of faith? Its not something that can truly be proven one way or another is it?
This is my point, we all have faith, whether we admit it or not. That is what makes being human so wonderful, and is often what separates humanity from robots in Asimov's books - their ability to have faith, to make a leap of reason. While many of you hit it on the head re: Asimov's humanism, I still do not back off from saying that he was a man of faith - I guess I just had to qualify that statement a little better.
Oh yes, and about becoming addicted - you're right, this is deadly... good thing my job is so slow! Forgive me for not being able to reply in a more timely fashion.
And on a completely unrelated note - Has anyone seen V for Vendetta yet? I know its only out today, but BitTorrent probably had it out for a month Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Ah, Dag. I thought you were referring to
quote:*laugh* Oh, my poor little victim.
, but I see you were referring to
quote:*laugh* You make some assumptions here that I think are grossly flawed.
Sorry. I didn't read back far enough.
Noemon, I agree that Hari shows promise. The opening post kinda raised my hackles, but it was lucid and polite enough that my first response seemed grossly out of proportion to the perceived offense, so I didn't even post it. I honestly don't think he meant to be offensive, and that's half the battle. I, for one, hope he continues to post.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
One more thing:
I realize now that at the beginning I was coming of far too judgmental, and that was wrong. I am a believer, and i do believe in sinful man, but I also believe in God's beauty, and love, and grace, and there is beauty and wonder in humanity also, because of this. I simply meant that coming to a realization in my inadequacy has been one of the most liberating experiences of my life, and putting my life in the hands of one much more capable has freed me from so much of the burdens of this world.
A wise person told me that fear is the absence of faith. Whether you agree with it, it makes sense today. We live in a world (especially in Canada) where fear is a reality, its on our news, in our schools, in the way we raise our children (if i ever have kids I can better speak on this then). We are bullied by fear mongers every day - bird flu, hurricaines, global warming, food poisoning, e coli, cancer from eating anything, fat is it good or is it bad? - i could go on forever. We are induced into scared little children afraid to even leave the house - we become the agoraphobic earth people Asimov warned of. But to me, fear is not an option. Why should I be afraid? I have faith that this is not the end, so all I can do is go on living and trust these matters are in the hands of someone much more qualified to see the big picture.
But just in case, I've begun a strict regimen of licking every chicken I see, just small doses at first so I can build up immunity, while sitting next to a microwave oven that is always running, sitting in my hurricane proof bomb shelter eating only red meat, no carbs, and powering it all with wind turbines, solar cells and a man made waterfall. If only my flock of Seagulls hair didn't require so much hairspray, oh well, these old spray cans aren't bad are they? CFC's are good right?
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
There is one notion I must continue to refute, because it is dangerous and I will never agree to hit.
Rakeesh equates Humanism in its base form to being the golden rule, and also strongly tied to religion.
Perhaps in some religions, man is the center, and we can all take solace in the power of positive thinking, but this is not the case in a truly monotheistic religion, nor can it be.
To call a monotheistic religion humanistic is quite a dangerous path. It puts man above God, and if you do that, you aren't left with much of a religion. Now, I am not denying anyone's right to be a humanist, that is not my place, but I simply wish to make the distinction.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
When you say "quite a dangerous path" what exactly are you referring to? Is there a specific danger you have in mind, or are you thinking more along the lines of a "slippery slope" and we don't know where we'll end up, but it won't be good.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
But getting there is half the fun!
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
CURSE YOU NOEMON! I am addicted - does 15 posts in 10 minutes count? ARG!
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
slippery slope - that's it... now to me, a slippery slope might be deemed a dangerous path, unless you were toboganning, then it might be considered fun, although your mother might still see it as dangerous, especially if she was a fear monger.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It'll be okay, Hari. It goes in spurts. A conversation will have everyone intersted and move really fast for a few hours, and then there won't be anything going on you want to talk about for awhile. Or we'll all have yelled at each other enough that everyone gets frustrated and gives up, except for one or two die-hards. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My point is that life is usually wrapt in contradiction, and yet I have little doubt regarding my belief in Christ.
Hari, the mere fact that you consider it a "contradiction" to have non-Christian friends and family suggests that you might not be as full of "contradictions" as you suggest.
quote:Doesn't belief in evolution require the same, if not more, faith than belief in Christ?
No. If you want more explanation of why, just ask.
That said, a belief in the inherent goodness of humanity does require some faith. But, then, I don't think there's a single atheist or agnostic on this board who'd suggest that all faith is bad. However, the idea that fear is MERELY the absence of faith is, IMO, grossly flawed and potentially dangerous -- because it suggests that the presence of faith is somehow proof against fear. The mere fact that so many people can have faith in Christ and yet fear, say, the influence of liberals in Hollywood -- or the Rapture, or Muslim infidels -- suggests that this is untrue. How many people have faith in our country, or in their families, and still fear for them?
Fear is more than the absence of faith. It is the essence of attachment.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Tom - I've read, I've studied, I've even once BELIEVED in evolution (belief - implies faith) - and yet it does require faith - were you there when we sprang out of nothingness? is there a fossil record of the nothingness from which we came? You have to have faith that evolution occurred because the record is so incomplete. And that is ok, there's nothing wrong with that, scientists use faith all the time - if they didn't have faith in their theories (a theory implies a lack of factual support, and thus faith in it is necessary) why would they continue to search for evidence for it?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:After reading of his life, it is clear that Asimov was an athiest, and yet he saw an inherent 'goodness' in humanity, a 'natural morality' if you will. Such a thing is a lovely pie in the sky idea, but doesn't have much grounding in reality. One need only take a quick glance within themselves to realize that most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
This is not true. I have taken much more than a quick glance within myself and others and have found a very clear universal goodness within people, which often can be framed as issues of self-interest (since many people are interested in being good) but which is nevertheless fundamentally good. Therefore it is not true that one "need only" take a quick glance within themselves to see what you are saying is true. You need a more convincing reason.
quote:Because if we were the be all and end all, wouldn't that be kind of depressing?
Why? Of all the things that could be the be all and end all of this world, I would think we'd be the least depressing. If God had a good reason for making the world, I would think "for the sake of human beings" would be a pretty good one.
quote:To call a monotheistic religion humanistic is quite a dangerous path. It puts man above God, and if you do that, you aren't left with much of a religion.
Why does a humanistic religion have to put man above God? That's not necessarily what humanism means.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hari, thanks. Slippery slope arguments are not very compelling, IMO. I mean by that that a vague worry of general decline is sort of part of the human condition -- each generation sees the next generation as...well...degenerate.
If all of that were really true, however, I think it's safe to say that human beings would have been reduced to a greasy stain on the forest floor by now.
The very fact of our longer-term survival through a long series of successively "worse" generations would seem to argue that there's more to humanity than sin and degradation.
Or, of course, God's (nearly?) infinite patience...
Ultimately, I think that religion operates best at the individual level. If you have personal slippery slopes, that's one thing. But slippery slope arguments for all of humanity are just not convincing.
For example, I know some Biblical literalists who assert that any departure from the exact wording of their particular preferred (English) translation of Scripture is a "slippery slope." They deny the role of the mind in interpreting scripture on a personal level. I understand the logic -- they need something "solid" upon which to build their faith, and they've decided that Scripture IS (must be) that solid foundation. I think they take it too far in asserting that there is no other pathway to enlightenment -- even among Christians. But they are HUGE believers in the "fact" that the rest of humanity is on a slippery slope because they don't believe like they do.
What I'm trying to say is that whenever someone identifies themself as a Christian and starts talking "slippery slopes" I tend to just nod politely and wander off somewhere.
Not that this younger generation isn't degenerate, mind you!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've even once BELIEVED in evolution (belief - implies faith) - and yet it does require faith - were you there when we sprang out of nothingness?
If you believed in evolution, you clearly never understood it. And, yes, I'm hardly surprised that someone who merely "believed" -- in a religious sense -- in a scientific theory had little difficulty replacing that belief with nonsense. (If you want to debate evolutionary theory, let me know and I'll dig up a few threads. Warning, though: historically, Creationists have had their hats handed to them in these threads.)
I submit that your use of the word "faith" in this context is somewhat misleading. By your logic, you "believe" and "have faith" in gravity, electromagnetic fields, chromosomes, and subatomic particles. "Faith" when used in a religious sense is not up to the same standard, I'm afraid.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Ultimately, I have just learned to discount people's opinions when they stray from their area of true expertise.
It's possible for even a brilliant man like Asimov to have merely a layman's casual knowledge of a vast many topics -- especially complex social issues -- and his opinions should be treated pretty much the same way one would treat the opinion of just about any other person who lacks real depth of knowledge in a specific area.
I so agree. I remember when I first came across his Asimov on the Bible. My first reaction was to laugh. My second reaction was to wonder if he was as faux-knowledgable in all the other areas he claimed to be knowledgable about.
It's like Tom Clancy. I read Red October and the rest of the Jack Ryan books, and then he wrote The Sum of All Fears. He'd strayed into an area he didn't know much about, and it was laughable. The action was great. The dialogue was great. The plot was riveting. But only as pure fiction, entirely detached from reality. And it made me wonder if he was as inaccurate when it came to the Soviets and the Japanese.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:By your logic, you "believe" and "have faith" in gravity, electromagnetic fields, chromosomes, and subatomic particles. "Faith" when used in a religious sense is not up to the same standard, I'm afraid.
Why not? We DO have faith in gravity, electromagnetic fields, chromosomes, etc, don't we?
The only significant difference between that faith and religious faith is that YOU have the former but not the latter. YOU happen to think that scientific evidence is a good reason to have faith in something, but "because the Bible says so" is not. That does not make your faith in conclusions based on scientific evidence any less of a faith than the faith of those who come to religious conclusions based on what the Bible says.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
We have faith in those things because of the evidence and testing that support them. I think that's a much more significant difference than what you're saying is the only one.
Added: Your last two sentences weren't there originally. I don't buy that proposition.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:We have faith in those things because of the evidence and testing that support them.
Why do you think religious people have faith in God? It's because of the evidence they believe they have for his existence - religious texts, personal experiences, observations about the world around them, or even the mere fact that people they trust told them it was true.
Faith does not just appear, even in religion. It arises when a person sees some sort of evidence for something - enough so to convince them that it is true. Even the Disciples didn't just believe in Christ for no reason - they had to see evidence of miracles first.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I've read, I've studied, I've even once BELIEVED in evolution (belief - implies faith) - and yet it does require faith - were you there when we sprang out of nothingness?
Evolution is a theory of how life changes over time, Hari. It doesn't address how life began.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why do you think religious people have faith in God? It's because of the evidence they believe they have for his existence...
I'd have thought so, but I've actually had several religious people insist that this is NOT the case.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Tres: There's a world of difference between the kind of evidence you're talking about and the kind of evidence -- and note that I also included testing -- that is used to support scientific theories.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'd have thought so, but I've actually had several religious people insist that this is NOT the case.
Yes, but I am usually inclined to think they are mistaken. Ask them more questions and see if there really is something that led them to believe what they do - even if they don't call it evidence. I am religious and my faith is based in certain evidence - but not of the scientific variety!
quote:There's a world of difference between the kind of evidence you're talking about and the kind of evidence -- and note that I also included testing -- that is used to support scientific theories.
Yes, they are very different types of evidence. But does that make the faith drawn from one type of evidence not faith? I don't see why it should. That'd be like people who have faith based on an actual personal religious experience claiming that their faith isn't really faith, because their evidence is a better sort than those who believe based solely on the Bible's word.
It is still the same basic idea - jumping from a conclusion supported by some evidence to a belief that you have confidence in. It's still faith, or the equivalent, regardless of what type of evidence supports it and how good you personally think that evidence is.
As a side note, I suspect that you have tested very very few of the scientific theories you believe in. If you are like me, you have read most of them in books, and believe in those theories only because someone has told you that someone else has tested them and determined them to be true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it boils down to "is this scientifically and independently testable," Tres. Even if twinky hasn't personally verified the existence of quarks, he knows that it's possible for people who try to do so reliably.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Insisting that two things are equivalent doesn't make it so. I don't think your analogy is valid.
Also, I don't think your last point is particularly relevant. If the testers are trustworthy -- for instance, subject to the stricutres of the scientific method and peer review -- it doesn't matter whether I did the testing myself. Part of the point of science is applying a single "standard" to each hypothesis. Religion doesn't have the same rules.
All of this is to say that if you're going to define "faith" broadly for the purposes of this discussion, then yes, people have "faith" in scientific theories. However, such a statement does not, contrary to what you suggest, imply any equivalence between science and religion. The basis for and nature of the "faith" are fundamentally different.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it boils down to "is this scientifically and independently testable," Tres. Even if twinky hasn't personally verified the existence of quarks, he knows that it's possible for people who try to do so reliably.
Yes. Not only is the proposition falsifiable, but there is a mechanism in place for encouraging reality to resist that assumption -- i.e., the point of science is to keep trying to prove assumptions wrong. That's the core of how null hypotheses function.
Note, though, that "falsifiable" is a bit of a hand-wavey term. Elsewhere on this site, someone has raised the concern that whatever evidence comes up seems to be reinterpretable to support global climate change theory, and so -- in that case -- the falsifiability of the proposition is being called into question.
It's a good question from an intelligent poster. I wish I knew more and could puzzle through it for myself.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:That's the core of how null hypotheses function.
*swoon*
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
OK, now you're just making me jealous. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My faith is not based on evidence, it is based on choice. Now, having made the choice to believe in a God of infinite love, I see the "evidence" of God's hand in my life all the time. But my faith is not dependent on that. I believe that this core choice to believe is stronger than "evidence" - that I would still choose it even if my other senses couldn't support it.
And, Hari, Christianity is a pretty "big tent". I, for example, believe that we are created good, just as all of God's creation is good. And I recall that the Holy Spirit, which I believe is present in each of us, "with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified".
Good thing we got that monotheism/trinity thing safely categorized as a mystery back in the fourth century, eh?
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Thanks Noemon, you are completely right.
Tres - you see what I am getting at - thank you - my point is that faith is unavoidable, no matter how much evidence or support there is, we are still human, and as such, not all knowing.
Yet I would take it even one step further, but in so doing probably annoy everyone again - I have faith because I have faith, not because the evidence has led me in that direction, that starts to errode faith. the point i guess is that there is no talking me out of that faith - it is beyond reason. Now to many that probably is a terrible thought, but think about it. Has anyone here who has posted on this topic shown any indication that they might change their stance? Not likely - we all have faith that our ideas are correct - our belief is so strong, that while supporting evidence is handy, we likely would still hold on to it, unless some major evidence came to contradict it. All of us hold to some faith that is beyond reason (unless that reason hits us with a hammer and gives us no choice), and it is ok, no, not just ok, it is good. It is what makes it so impossible for us to agree on this issue, and yet it sets us apart. So, shall we take it on faith that we must agree to disagree?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Agreeing to disagree is what we do best here at Hatrack.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon:
A wise person told me that fear is the absence of faith. Whether you agree with it, it makes sense today. We live in a world (especially in Canada) where fear is a reality, its on our news, in our schools, in the way we raise our children (if i ever have kids I can better speak on this then). We are bullied by fear mongers every day - bird flu, hurricaines, global warming, food poisoning, e coli, cancer from eating anything, fat is it good or is it bad? - i could go on forever. We are induced into scared little children afraid to even leave the house - we become the agoraphobic earth people Asimov warned of. But to me, fear is not an option. Why should I be afraid? I have faith that this is not the end, so all I can do is go on living and trust these matters are in the hands of someone much more qualified to see the big picture.
I can understand where you're coming from on this, Hari, and there are people of many faiths that would agree with you--it's a pretty central concept in everything from the Bagavad Gita to Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.
The thing is, if you're going to operate as though the material world is real, a little fear is a good thing. Too much fear is debilitating, obviously, but too little fear can be deadly. You know how mice have an instinctual aversion to the scent of cats? Take an ordinary mouse and let it catch a whiff of cat and it'll exhibit all the signs of being afraid. There is a parasite, however, that spends part of its life cycle in mice, and part of it in cats. When infected with this parasite, mice completely lose their fear of cats. I'm sure that it must be nice for them, being liberated from fear that way. Well, nice right up until the point where the cat's paw pins them to the ground, anyway. At that point I expect that it sort of sucks. Fear, in moderation, is an adaptive trait in the material world.
In terms of the threats that exist toward humanity, fear can serve as a motivator for positive change. We're scared at the moment the bird flu is going to mutate into a human to human transmissible form, and that fear is driving us to work on ways of limiting the impact of the disease once it does so (whether we'll be successful or not I'm not sure. I hope so). Without fear I don't think that we'd be motivated to try.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Once again Noemon, you've trumped me - i played the left bauer, but you still had the right. (sorry, i play too much Euchre)
I agree with you - fear, in moderation, as is the case with pretty much anything, is healthy, and important. But I still hold to my view that we are too easily swept up into a panic frenzy over every new little fear.
Take for example the "SARS outbreak" a few years back in Toronto. It pretty much destroyed T.O.'s reputation, and it is still recovering. But consider that only a few hundred people got it, and only a handful of those actually died. Considering that during the same time frame hundreds died from the common flu, its quite shocking how panic stricken everyone became. Food for thought I guess (unless you're eating beef... then beware of the mad cow)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Insisting that two things are equivalent doesn't make it so.
Nor does insisting they are not.
quote:If the testers are trustworthy -- for instance, subject to the stricutres of the scientific method and peer review -- it doesn't matter whether I did the testing myself.
And if the Bible is trustworthy, it doesn't matter if we've actually witness those miracles ourselves. But how do you know testers and science textbooks and Bibles are trustworthy or not?
quote:All of this is to say that if you're going to define "faith" broadly for the purposes of this discussion, then yes, people have "faith" in scientific theories. However, such a statement does not, contrary to what you suggest, imply any equivalence between science and religion. The basis for and nature of the "faith" are fundamentally different.
I agree completely with this. I don't imply that science and religion are equivalent. I'm only implying they are both based on evidence, and also both require faith of some sort.
I feel the need to make this point because people often imply that because religion is based on faith, it is not based on evidence. And others imply that because science is based on evidence, it has no use for faith. Neither of these is true. What IS true is that science and religion are based on different types of evidence, which are convincing to different degrees to different people. And hence science and religion also require different degrees of faith for different people.
When Tom says that religious faith isn't up to the same "standard" as scientific faith, all he is really saying is that he trusts scientific evidence but doesn't trust the sort of evidence needed to believe religiously. And that's no suprise, because he isn't religious. But he should not expect his point to be at all convincing to Hari, who apparently DOES find religious evidence convincing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:My faith is not based on evidence, it is based on choice. Now, having made the choice to believe in a God of infinite love, I see the "evidence" of God's hand in my life all the time. But my faith is not dependent on that. I believe that this core choice to believe is stronger than "evidence" - that I would still choose it even if my other senses couldn't support it.
But here's what I don't understand: Why would you choose to do anything unless you had a reason to? Why would you choose to believe without having a reason to think you should?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: I agree with you - fear, in moderation, as is the case with pretty much anything, is healthy, and important. But I still hold to my view that we are too easily swept up into a panic frenzy over every new little fear.
Now that I absolutely agree with. Y2K, SARS, Monkeypox, the subject matter of virtually any local 10:00 News broadcast--we're very good at trotting out boogymen to terrify ourselves with.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I have faith because I have faith, not because the evidence has led me in that direction, that starts to errode faith. the point i guess is that there is no talking me out of that faith - it is beyond reason. Now to many that probably is a terrible thought,
Yes, to me that is a terrible thought. Without reason, faith like that seems very similar to the faith of a rabid dog that everything that moves is out to kill them and must be bitten. (Or perhaps a less agressive metaphor would be the faith of a drug user that, hey, it's all good.)
quote:. . .but think about it. Has anyone here who has posted on this topic shown any indication that they might change their stance? Not likely -
OK, if you wish to not annoy many of us, you need to temper sentences like this. Many of us may not have shown an indication of willingness to change our stance to you and on this thread, but most of us are willing to do so in the face of a well-reasoned arguement. I, for one have changed my stance on many things since joining Hatrack, and even more things thoughout my life. You don't know any of us well enough to make such blanket statements.
quote: we all have faith that our ideas are correct - our belief is so strong, that while supporting evidence is handy, we likely would still hold on to it, unless some major evidence came to contradict it.
I can't parse this sentence because it seems to contradict what you wrote before it.
quote:All of us hold to some faith that is beyond reason (unless that reason hits us with a hammer and gives us no choice), and it is ok, no, not just ok, it is good. It is what makes it so impossible for us to agree on this issue, and yet it sets us apart. So, shall we take it on faith that we must agree to disagree?
Can you show me which faith I hold that is beyond reason? And I'm baffled how you declare something "good" and then support it only with the idea that this "good" thing makes agreement impossible.
Furthermore, I don't take it on faith that we must agree to disagree. I may come to that conclusion (and quickly if you choose to retreat into faith beyond all reason), but I'll have to be shown through the evidence of corresponding with you before I'll accept it as true. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Ah, Dag. I thought you were referring to
quote:*laugh* Oh, my poor little victim.
, but I see you were referring to
quote:*laugh* You make some assumptions here that I think are grossly flawed.
Sorry. I didn't read back far enough.
Noemon, I agree that Hari shows promise. The opening post kinda raised my hackles, but it was lucid and polite enough that my first response seemed grossly out of proportion to the perceived offense, so I didn't even post it. I honestly don't think he meant to be offensive, and that's half the battle. I, for one, hope he continues to post.
Sorry, Karl. I didn't even see the second *laugh*.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Now to many that probably is a terrible thought, but think about it. Has anyone here who has posted on this topic shown any indication that they might change their stance?
Well, yes. If you can prove to me, for example, that evolution is a load of bunk, I'll change my mind.
quote: When Tom says that religious faith isn't up to the same "standard" as scientific faith, all he is really saying is that he trusts scientific evidence but doesn't trust the sort of evidence needed to believe religiously.
Specifically, I trust both logic and reproducible evidence. It is my assertion that these are superior tools to those used by religious faith.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Tres - you are right, I do have a reason for my faith - but i still believe my faith came first. make sense? probably not... oh well
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I feel the need to make this point because people often imply that because religion is based on faith, it is not based on evidence. And others imply that because science is based on evidence, it has no use for faith.
I think those who make such statements are using "faith" to denote religious faith and "evidence" to denote scientific evidence. I tend to notice a different implication being made -- the suggestion of equivalence that I alluded to earlier. I think that may have to do with our respective positions. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: To call a monotheistic religion humanistic is quite a dangerous path. It puts man above God, and if you do that, you aren't left with much of a religion. Now, I am not denying anyone's right to be a humanist, that is not my place, but I simply wish to make the distinction.
Hari, don't you think it might be more productive to first ask what someone means by "humanistic"? I mean, you're assuming it means putting man above God. I don't think that's a correct definition of the term at all. It's certainly not the way I use it.
Dialogue works better, I think, if you first check to see that you're using terms the same way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hari, I think I understand what you are saying about faith. I think that my faith is similar. Where I have trouble is with trying to equate religious faith with belief in scientific evidence. It is like trying to compare apples and quarks. Two totally different processes and it is inappropriate and even dangerous to conflate them. While my reason informs my faith, it does not command it. I hope that, should I lose my reason, my faith will remain.
And Karl and Tres, I get that this can be a horrible thought. Faith that is beyond reason (not contrary to, but beyond) is terrifying. It is not safe. Whether or not it is good depends on what you choose to believe.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Belief is such an interesting thing. In many instances, such as, I suspect, here, it serves at least as much to define reality as to describe it.
Hari tells us that he's basically an evil person, and I see no reason to doubt him. He probably does look inside himself and see no reason to help other people besides selfish ones.
But it seems to me that it's hardly fair to describe everyone as being as evil as Hari. For myself, I feel a strong drive to help others. It fulfills me, brings me joy, and is something I choose to do in an attempt to bring the world more towards what I'd like it to be. As part of this, I've met and befriended loads of people, from all different backgrounds - including Christians - who also are very dedicated towards helping others.
I've also, as part of my profession, studied groups and historical cultures where selfless altruism was the norm. Again, these groups spanned many different backgrounds and included Christians.
One thing all these people were similar on though, is belief. That is to say, in my experience not one of them believed what Hari said, that all people everywhere only help others out of selfishness. In general, the people who claim to believe this, however, do act like Hari describes.
For example, this belief has been found to correlate very strongly with the extrinsic side of the Allport's intrinsic versus extrinsic religion scale, so much so that it is often considered part of the extrinsic axis. And people who score highly on the extrinsic side tend to exhibit more selfish behavior and beliefs than both people who score highly on the intrinsic side and the population in general. For example, they exhibit significantly higher levels of prejudice, they show far less spontaneous altruistic behavior, and they show a much stronger affinity towards authoritarian beliefs and behavior. In the classic Milgrim experiment, they conform at significantly higher levels, which basically means they're more willing to kill people because a man in a lab coat tells them to. They display significantly lower levels of empathy and emotional sensitivity and fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.
The world is a different place for these different groups of people, and, I imagine, for Hari and myself. But the main source of this difference seems to lie, not in the external world, but in our internal beliefs. Hari believes he is evil and can do no better. I think as long as he believes that, that this is going to be true.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Thanks, starLisa. Nice to have you around.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote: For example, this belief has been found to correlate very strongly with the extrinsic side of the Allport's intrinsic versus extrinsic religion scale, so much so that it is often considered part of the extrinsic axis. And people who score highly on the extrinsic side tend to exhibit more selfish behavior and beliefs than both people who score highly on the intrinsic side and the population in general. For example, they exhibit significantly higher levels of prejudice, they show far less spontaneous altruistic behavior, and they show a much stronger affinity towards authoritarian beliefs and behavior. In the classic Milgrim experiment, they conform at significantly higher levels, which basically means they're more willing to kill people because a man in a lab coat tells them to. They display significantly lower levels of empathy and emotional sensitivity and fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.
Fascinating, MrSquicky. Thanks for the detail and references -- I'm going to look this one up.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:What I was trying to say (and I guess I didn't put it clearly) was that what was missing in his books was the fullness of character that OSC has, and from that I made the (unsafe) leap of saying that that fullness was derived out of OSC's faith.
In this "unsafe leap" you assume that all theists can write better characters than atheists. I think your "unsafe leap" is more of a cliff jump. You cannot take two books out of the trillions that have been written and make an assumption like that. You sound like one of my horrible English essays which makes sweeping assumptions out of very little to go on.
quote:We live in a world (especially in Canada) where fear is a reality,
Have some perspective. The amount of real fear and doubt (even for atheists) in Canada is minimal. Possibly it is one of the safest places in the world. If you see fear around you in things like the tiny threats of e coli and bird flu- if these are the sort of things that only your faith keeps at bay- you are seriously misguided.
quote:most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
You assume that goodness and self-interest are mutually exclusive; you can be one, or, at the other end of the spectrum, you can be the other. You cannot say that because it implies that a person without self interest is totally good, which of course is untrue.
I can have the 'purest', most selfless ideas and I can be a brutal murderer. I can serve myself, and be loved and good. These two things are not on the same spectrum.
quote:A wise person told me that fear is the absence of faith.
EDIT: A lack of fear is the absence of common sense. What's that story where the man facing a flood refuses to be saved by a rowing boat and helicopter because he trusts in God? It is okay to be rightfully afraid of dangerous and scary things, because that fear is what drives us to do the right things.
I do fear environmental disruption, and so I try to reduce my own personal impact on the world. I fear dying or being injured in a car crash, so I wear a seatbelt and I drive safely. I fear the house burning down, so I blow out the candles before I leave the room and check the oven when I go to bed. I fear racism and violence and so I oppose it. Our fears are part of what makes us act the way we do, and they are part of what makes us act and achieve: if we do not fear, what is there here on earth to do- and you cannot deny that some things at least are wholly earthly.
[ March 17, 2006, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If I can dig up the the thread, CT, I did a whole tihng on this a couple of years ago, complete with some references. It went quite a bit further afield than this, though. If you're interested in following the idea I'd suggest locus of control, dominance/submission, and ambiguity/uncertainty tolerance as good terms to throw in as well.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks. I remember that thread very vaguely -- I was in the middle of doing a lot in my life that time, and I wasn't doing much more than skimming. Glad it came up again. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:They display significantly lower levels of empathy and emotional sensitivity and fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.
And then they become Republicans...
Calm down, I was joking.
Seriously, I do think that religion of any "brand" can be used to either make you feel different or more "special" than other people or it can be used to encourage you recognize the inherent "specialness" in all of humanity, indeed in all of creation. I hope that I choose the latter. I try to.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It fulfills me, brings me joy,
You see? You're selfish after all. You only help people because doing so 'fulfills' you and 'brings you joy...'
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You skipped the third part. And saying that is like saying that I only eat because it makes me feel good. It's absurdly reductionist.
I help because empathy and altruism are part of my core nature. If you want to label that as selfish, then everything is selfish and the term loses all discrimatory meaning. I help because it's what I do, not because I'm looking to get something out of it.
---
CT's here's the thread (I kick in around the third page). It's a lot less complete than I remembered but there you go.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mr. Squicky:
I should have been more clear. Thus, consider this smiley retroactive:
[ March 17, 2006, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You skipped the third part. And saying that is like saying that I only eat because it makes me feel good. It's absurdly reductionist.
I help because empathy and altruism are part of my core nature. If you want to label that as selfish, then everything is selfish and the term loses all discrimatory meaning. I help because it's what I do, not because I'm looking to get something out of it.
Actually, I don't think it's reductionist at all. It says that aiming for selflessness is a mistake. That teaching people to strive for selflessness is teaching them to strive for the impossible (and undesireable).
There's selfish, though, and there's selfish. That's why the term "rational selfishness" exists. To be graspingly and mindlessly selfish is very different than being wisely and justly selfish.
Saying that you do something because it's part of your nature isn't completely tautological, but it does beg the question. Questions, rather. (a) Why is it part of your nature? (b) Should it be part of your nature? (c) Is it really part of your nature? (d) Are there other parts of your nature that can, do, or should take precedence, and if so, why, and if not, why not?
Raising selfless up as a value strikes me as a weapon. A way of telling people that they can never really live up to the gold standard. And it's internally contradictory. If it's better to give than to receive, for example, then the people you give to are inherently flawed. Because they're receiving.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Dear Mr Squicky,
It was never my goal to label humanity as evil. A more objective reading of my post would reveal that my posts argue that through humility, selflessness, grace, love, and faith, a better way can be found. I don't believe I used the word evil. But perhaps I did. If so, then you are right and I shall remain the evil person, doomed to a life of villainy. Thank you for informing me thusly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It was never my goal to label humanity as evil.
Was it not your intent to argue that, unless they accept God, individual humans will remain evil?
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Actually, this thread was intended to argue that Asimov was a man of faith, not "pure science" b/c there is no such thing. Whether you accept God is not my place, and whether or not you are evil is not up to me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lisa, I'm not really sure where all that came from. Either I apparently said an awful lot more than I thought I did, much of which I don't agree with, or you're addressing a whole bunch of things I didn't say.
For one thing, I'm not sure that I'm talking about "aiming" or striving for selfishness. I addressed it more as a non-teleological expression of an underlying nature.
I also don't know where you got the beter to give than to receive thing from. (Actually that's not really true. I suspect it's part of the Objectivist canned arguments. It sounds also pat.) Is it better to talk than to listen? To me, you have to have both, on the part of all parties for something to be a converstation. Likewise, community is largely defined by [ii]reciprocal[/i] interactions between its members.
The middle section seems to be connected to what I'm saying. If you'd like to see my answer to many of those questions, I recommend the thread that I linked to for CT.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Whether you accept God is not my place, and whether or not you are evil is not up to me.
That's not quite the question I asked. In your opinion, are people who do not accept your God natively evil?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hari, It seemed to me that you were saying that Asimov, despite his claims to the contrary, must have believed in a higher power because he had human beings being good and at times selfless, which you seemed to imply was impossible without God or some equivilent.
I believe you expressed it like this:
quote:After reading of his life, it is clear that Asimov was an athiest, and yet he saw an inherent 'goodness' in humanity, a 'natural morality' if you will. Such a thing is a lovely pie in the sky idea, but doesn't have much grounding in reality. One need only take a quick glance within themselves to realize that most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
If your intent here was not to classify human nature as evil and wholely selfish, I'd be interested to know what it was.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by those terms. What does it mean to be a "man of faith" as opposed to one of pure science?
I'm a scientist who studies human nature and I find much to be optimistic about. Certainly, I seem to find more good in human nature through scientific study than some people, yourself included, seem to find in their faith based view.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Actually, this thread was intended to argue that Asimov was a man of faith, not "pure science" b/c there is no such thing.
Wait Hari, I'm puzzled again. Your newly stated purpose for this thread, "to argue that Asimov was a man of faith, not 'pure science'" is very much in keeping with the title of this thread, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", but seems to me to be in direct opposition to your claim that you "did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it". Either you're all over the place on this one or I'm misreading you completely. Could you clarify a bit?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, I knew you were sarcastic, but a lot of people do trot out that tired argument, so I figured I'd address it. Professionally, that's up there with the "There's no such thing as intelligence. It's just a social construct." as the most annoying brainless bs I have to put up with.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think those who make such statements are using "faith" to denote religious faith and "evidence" to denote scientific evidence.
Yes, but the problem is that then they will often follow "Religion is not based on evidence" with a statement like "I don't believe in religion because I need evidence to believe something." The first statement is true if "evidence" refers only to scientific evidence. But the second statement deceptively shifts to a more broader meaning of evidence - because the vast majority of everyday things you believe are not based on scientific evidence. For instance, I believe it is almost 2:00 right now because I observe a clock (which I trust to be correct), not because of any scientific evidence. Nobody believes ONLY what they have scientific evidence for. So when someone says they need evidence to believe something, they must be referring to evidence in more broad a sense than just scientific evidence.
So to be more accurate, one should say "I don't believe in religion because the evidence that supposedly supports religion is not of the sort that I find convincing." But this is more difficult to show, because then it opens up the issue of why that evidence is not convincing. It is easier to simply say there is no evidence at all for religion - but that is also not accurate and not fair to any arguments in favor of religious belief.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres, It's actually pretty clear if you understand epistemology. There are significant and generally unbridgible differences between evidence when you're talking about a scientific versus a religious context. The same can be said for the faith required by trusting in your senses and in decriptions of science that you haven't observed and faith in religion.
THe words may be the same, but the underlying concepts are, epistemologically speaking, very different.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Actually, this thread was intended to argue that Asimov was a man of faith, not "pure science" b/c there is no such thing.
Wait Hari, I'm puzzled again. Your newly stated purpose for this thread, "to argue that Asimov was a man of faith, not 'pure science'" is very much in keeping with the title of this thread, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", but seems to me to be in direct opposition to your claim that you "did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it". Either you're all over the place on this one or I'm misreading you completely. Could you clarify a bit?
If Hari is anything like me, sometimes he only really finds out what he was trying to say in the beginning by working through a discussion about it. (That's happened to me a few too many times. ) But if so, that can be an awkward situation to be in.
I can't follow Hari's argument through its various permutations in this thread as a single cohesive whole, but maybe it makes more sense as a journey of coming to understand something. (Does that make sense?)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That makes quite a bit of sense, CT. Thanks!
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
I couldn't have put it better myself CT. Beautiful. If only I could be so coherent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Still waiting to hear whether you think someone can be a good person without God in their life, Hari.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
I believe I have already answered the question Squick. If you need to pigeon hole me as evil, and simplify my argument to that, then go right ahead, but I have made more than the single post that you are referencing, and while I have been up and down and all over the place, I'm pretty sure I've said more than just humans are evil.
If you would like to press the issue that is fine, but I'm not sure what else to say about it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hari, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm having a hard time following what your opinion is right now. This may be why you are getting some many questions. From my perspective, it might help if you answer these questions as opposed to saying that you already have, because much of what you've said is, to me, unclear and much that seemed clear you appear to now be explicitly or implicitly claiming to no longer believe.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Well, Tom, I already answered you, but I'll answer again, since you've been waiting so patiently.
I think by a secular standard, sure, a person can be good without God in their life.
By a Biblical standard, without God, no a person can't. But if one doesn't believe in God, then that really doesn't matter does it? And when I say by a Biblical standard I don't simply mean following the 10 commandments b/c that is simply legalism.
You see, I didn't want to get preachy, but since the point has been forced, I will expand on this.
Being good and following the law should not be seen as one in the same thing (by law I mean Mosaic, not Federal). To be good in a Christian sense begins first with a love for Christ. Once that is established 'good' acts are a result, as a 'fruit' of one's faith. - you see a Christian does not do good in order to be a Christian, they do good BECAUSE they love Christ. This is not to say one always does good when they accept Christ. They are still human, and they still screw up.
So, sure, a human can be good, in the eyes of the world, but in the eyes of God, that isn't always so simple.
But let me ask you Tom, do you believe in God?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: To be good in a Christian sense begins first with a love for Christ.
Actually, honey, (just between us Christians), I'm pretty sure it starts with God's love for us.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
kmbboots... you are exactly right. Thank you for correcting me. That is always the beginning, regardless of what we do, what we say, who we are, it starts with God's love for us, which leads to an inflowing of the Holy Spirit which allows us to understand better, and love Christ.
Thanks Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hari, I'm not sure I get the distinction. Are you saying that, taking their acts into consideration, Christians and non-Christians have at least the same potential to do good, but that the good acts of Christians come from a different place?
Also, I think you may find that Christians are not called to follow most of the Mosaic laws.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Actually, MrS, a careful reading of scripture does actually show the importance of the Mosaic laws, just not in the same way they were regarded prior to Christ's resurrection. The so called 'golden rule' that everyone knows so well is a summary of the Mosaic law. The first rule is that thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, and with all thy spirit. - this tenet summarizes the first part of the 10 commandments. The 2nd tenet is thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself - the other half of the commandments - it continues - on these hang both the law and the prophets.
before I answer your other part MrSquicky, might I ask you a question? Do you believe an act is good regardless of its motivations?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hari, A careful reading of scripture will also encompass Acts 15, detailing the Council of Jerusalem, where the issue of holding Christians to the Mosaic laws (which are significantly more than just the 10 Commandments) was debated and, except for certain specified types of laws, rejected.
In the sense that I suspect you mean, I don't believe an act is good regardless of its motivations, with the caveat that it's much more complex than that.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
MrS, You are exactly right. Christians are no longer beholden to the Mosaic law. Simply for the fact that they have been released from bondage to this law through Christs death and resurrection. Christ drank the cup of suffering for his people so that we might look to the cup of blessing. But nowhere does it say the law is to be thrown out or rejected. It remains a useful guide for all Christians. If it were not so, it would not be a part of God's infallible word to his people. As Christians, the Bible is not some outdated manual where we can chose what we would like to believe from one part and ignore other parts. It is all the word of God and as such must be taken as a whole. I hope that clarifies things for you a bit. I know that was a bit of a digression.
In terms of goodness, as a believer, God doesn't simply look at your acts. He also looks at the motivation. For the thought of killing another is as bad as having carried out the act. And when I say motivation, it is difficult to explain if one doesn't believe. To me, a good motivation is doing something for God's glory. Now I know that my acts are rarely properly motivated, and that pains me to realize, but it is the truth, and it is what I strive for. To me that is my definition of good.
I don't know if you hold yourself up to that test MrSquicky. I don't want to assume anything. But that is what I hold myself too. Do you find something implicitly or explicity wrong with that?
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Anyway, thank you for the fine debate MrS. But I must be off now. The BBQ is calling my name, and words, while they are interesting, simply cannot fill my stomach like a good rack of ribs can....mmmmmmmm ribs.
Have a great evening.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But nowhere does it say the law is to be thrown out or rejected. It remains a useful guide for all Christians. If it were not so, it would not be a part of God's infallible word to his people. As Christians, the Bible is not some outdated manual where we can chose what we would like to believe from one part and ignore other parts. It is all the word of God and as such must be taken as a whole.
The BBQ is calling my name, and words, while they are interesting, simply cannot fill my stomach like a good rack of ribs can....mmmmmmmm ribs.
Is it wrong of me to laugh at this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The ribs might be beef, Chris. Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
nope, not at all.
I am Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Not that this proves Hari or Squicky's points one way or the other, but the Acts 15 reference was interesting. From what I understand, the debate was mostly regarding Gentile (non Jew) converts to Christ, not Jewish. The debate was mostly concerning circumcision of the converts, which was not relevant to the Jews at the time.
The reason this is interesting is because although the symbolism changed, the reason for the symbolism didn't really. From what I understand, any Jewish converts were required to be circumcised, symbolizing their allegiance with the covenant people of God. Likewise, Christians must be baptized to enter into their covenant with God.
So when Hari brought up the 10 commandments being implied in the 2 greatest commandments, and you responded with Acts 15, that's what came to my mind. Not that it's incredibly relevant or anything, I just thought I'd share.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Certain parts of the Bible are outdated and/or basically savage laws and customs (say keeping Kosher). They were recognized (and often reviled) as such by many of the Gentile followers of Jesus, which brought them into conflict with the Jewish Jesus followers. The resolution of this conflict was one of the main motivating factors behind the convocation of the Council of Jerusalem, which recognized that the central Christian religion was a new thing and not just an outgrowth of Judaism. Many of the Gentile Christian communities had little use for the Jewish Scriptures for the first couple of centuries, although there was a strong and occasionaly violent movements for their inclusion into canon.
There's a necessary component to Jesus's admonition that you're missing there. Love of your neighbor is said to be "like unto" or the same thing as love of God. By Jesus's teaching, you can't do one without the other. If you follow Jesus's teaching by focusing on God's glory without including genuine love of your neighbor, you're aren't doing it right. Conversely, those who act out of a love for their neighbor must necessarily being showing love for God, even if they they are not Christian.
On a non-theological note, if you do things and interact with people to fulfill some external requirement, not only are you missing the point, but you are also unlikely to actually keep to those things. Love of your neighbor is a natural thing, but when you approach it as something you have to do as an imposed external rule, you alienate it from yourself.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: On a non-theological note, if you do things and interact with people to fulfill some external requirement, not only are you missing the point, but you are also unlikely to actually keep to those things. Love of your neighbor is a natural thing, but when you approach it as something you have to do as an imposed external rule, you alienate it from yourself.
I don't think it's strictly a non-theological point you've made there MrSquicky.
I think that the method of the Jews in observing the Law of Moses is in part what motived Christ to make the statement that he did. They had become so focused on keeping the numerous external laws that they failed to recognize the import behind them.
In the 10 commandments example that Hari used, if you are keeping the greater two, then by default they will be keeping the 10.
Note: This is a Christian POV. I acknowledge that people of the Jewish faith see it differently.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
I think we are arguing the same point now but from different POVs MrSquicky. I have already mentioned that obedience to God's law is not done out of some external motivation, but is essentially a fruit of ones faith. Let me simplify that for you. A Christian doesn't follow the law because they are forced to, no they follow God's law to show love for God. So, you are not doing things and interacting with people to fulfill some external requirement. That would be legalism, and Christ was quite clear how he felt about this in dealing with the Pharisees. No, you do things and interact with people to demonstrate Christ's love for you. This involves humility, sacrifice, even suffering in the name of service.
Also, Thank you BaoQuing for your interpretation of Acts 15. That is what I read it as too. Not as a denial of the law, but a transformation.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
BTW, the ribs were good, and they WERE pork - I'm not kosher. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hari, You do realize that the Kosher laws are part of the Mosaic laws, right?
Also, I don't think you're getting it. As long as you are not living people for the sake of loving people, no matter what your other reasons are, even if they be to demonstrate Christ's love for you, your follwing of the law is at best imperfect.
And there's the flip side to that, which is that those who love others for the sake of loving others are fulfilling the law even if they are not Christian. What say you to this?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:In terms of goodness, as a believer, God doesn't simply look at your acts. He also looks at the motivation. For the thought of killing another is as bad as having carried out the act.
Do you really believe this? Simply thinking about killing someone is equal to actually carrying out the act? I think this is an over-statement of what Jesus was talking about when he said lusting after someone is already committing adultery in your heart. Surely you don't believe this "adultery in your heart" is equal to actual adultery.
I believe that motivation is important to an individual in terms of their own growth, but I don't think a wrong motivation negates a good act. The act itself, in my opinion, is still a good act. The individual may not fully benefit from doing good for the wrong reasons, but the good is still done. Food from a self-aggrandizing pseudo-philanthropist still fills bellies, after all.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:You know how mice have an instinctual aversion to the scent of cats? Take an ordinary mouse and let it catch a whiff of cat and it'll exhibit all the signs of being afraid. There is a parasite, however, that spends part of its life cycle in mice, and part of it in cats. When infected with this parasite, mice completely lose their fear of cats. I'm sure that it must be nice for them, being liberated from fear that way. Well, nice right up until the point where the cat's paw pins them to the ground, anyway. At that point I expect that it sort of sucks. Fear, in moderation, is an adaptive trait in the material world.
Noemon, I'd never heard this before. I'm curious to know more. Well, so is Fahim, but he's too wussy to ask. Would you mind telling me more about this or telling me what it's called so I can look it up?
Yeah, I know, it's just a really really minor detail that has nothing to do with the rest of the thread... Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you follow Jesus's teaching by focusing on God's glory without including genuine love of your neighbor, you're aren't doing it right. Conversely, those who act out of a love for their neighbor must necessarily being showing love for God, even if they they are not Christian.
A = loving God. B = loving neighbor.
You're saying it's possible to do A without doing B, but not possible to do B without doing A. Yet you're treating "like unto" as meaning identity, not similarity.
That doesn't seem consistent to me. If the two are the same, then a person is doing one when doing the other. Yet you say one can do A without B.
Why is the relationship not symmetric?
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: A = loving God. B = loving neighbor.
You're saying it's possible to do A without doing B, but not possible to do B without doing A. Yet you're treating "like unto" as meaning identity, not similarity.
That doesn't seem consistent to me. If the two are the same, then a person is doing one when doing the other. Yet you say one can do A without B.
Why is the relationship not symmetric?
I believe it's the old "Abou Ben Adam" theory ... but I'm only guessing At least as far as B goes ... A, I'd think is kind of self-explanatory in the real world.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of believe in loving God through loving and caring for other people... But I am very weird.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I kind of believe in loving God through loving and caring for other people...
I believe in that as well. But I don't believe either half of love God and love your neighbor is disposable or that either can be performed completely by doing the other alone.
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I kind of believe in loving God through loving and caring for other people...
I believe in that as well. But I don't believe either half of love God and love your neighbor is disposable or that either can be performed completely by doing the other alone.
Granted - I feel the same way But there is no accounting for the notions that people get into their heads. Some believe that they can love God and still kill innocents in the name of God. It's all a matter of personal belief and everybody's mileage varies ... or at least, seems to.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
MrSquicky,
"Hari, You do realize that the Kosher laws are part of the Mosaic laws, right?" ---- yes MrS. I do, and you're right, my eating pork completely throws my whole argument out the window - thank you for catching me in such a blatant contradiction, I am at your mercy....
"Also, I don't think you're getting it. As long as you are not living people for the sake of loving people, no matter what your other reasons are, even if they be to demonstrate Christ's love for you, your follwing of the law is at best imperfect"
--- actually MrSquicky, your understanding of Christian love is incomplete. Allow me to fully quote scripture, and perhaps it will become more clear for you Mark 12:28-31 KJV "...Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord; And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first and great commandment. And the second is like, namely this, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
So, as you see MrS., your argument that the two commandments are equal is incorrect. It is quite clear that the first is the greatest, and the second while like unto it, must flow from the first.
Your understanding of the law appears incomplete. You reason that, based on this law, one can love another simply for the sake of loving them, and this is legitimate whether you believe or not. But that only holds if you hold both parts of the law up as equal. However, A does not equal B, as I've noted. A is the first and greatest commandment, and thus loving a person for the sake of loving is not enough by this standard. Now, many will disagree with me, but if we argue based on these 2 commandments, then the argument holds.
And, since I'm quoting scripture and you appear so versed in it, may I remind you of Matthew 5:17-19 - Jesus is travelling through Galilee, and he has addressed a crowd, teaching the Beatitudes, and he says this: "Thnk not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
-This relates back to our discussion regarding the validity of the law. I think it comes pretty coherently from Christs lips what one should make of the law, don't you? But if you don't believe in Christ, then it really makes no difference anyway does it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think it comes pretty coherently from Christs lips what one should make of the law, don't you?
So, um, does this mean you intend to keep kosher from now on?
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Yes, because clearly "thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thou shalt love thy neighbour" includes pigs. In fact, there is a lovely family of swine living next door to me and we recently had a roaring good game of bridge.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
And we are definately missing the point now aren't we?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm fairly sure at least one of us is. Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
And its not you right Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
It's gonna be cool to see if Hari, now, will be open to a little perspective change courtesy of hatrack, or if the arguments in which he'll inevitably become entangled here will just serve to dig him deeper and deeper into his current world view.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think about the spot where Hari got into a bit of trouble was when he said
quote:You are exactly right. Christians are no longer beholden to the Mosaic law. Simply for the fact that they have been released from bondage to this law through Christs death and resurrection. Christ drank the cup of suffering for his people so that we might look to the cup of blessing. But nowhere does it say the law is to be thrown out or rejected. It remains a useful guide for all Christians. If it were not so, it would not be a part of God's infallible word to his people. As Christians, the Bible is not some outdated manual where we can chose what we would like to believe from one part and ignore other parts. It is all the word of God and as such must be taken as a whole. I hope that clarifies things for you a bit. I know that was a bit of a digression.
It seems like a contradiction: Christians are not to be held to the Law of Moses. However, the law is contained in the Bible, which is not outdated and contains God's unchanging infallible word to his people.
Hari, it seems that this dichotomy exists in either your understanding or in the way you have presented your arguments in this thread.
I like Hari. He has been sincere, thoughtful, willing to take criticism (constructive or not), and also admits when he was mistaken. Now that's rare here at Hatrack.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Yes, because clearly "thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thou shalt love thy neighbour" includes pigs. In fact, there is a lovely family of swine living next door to me and we recently had a roaring good game of bridge.
You do realize that God only commanded those things to the Jews, right? And if you want to extend those to non-Jews, why not also extend the prohibition of eating pork? It's a bit of a double standard, no?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Your understanding of the law appears incomplete.
Hari, please don't do that while I'm drinking. I almost ruined a perfectly good keyboard.
I hope you don't take offense, but honestly, you telling someone else that they lack understanding of the law is just a little giggle-inducing.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: And, since I'm quoting scripture and you appear so versed in it, may I remind you of Matthew 5:17-19 - Jesus is travelling through Galilee, and he has addressed a crowd, teaching the Beatitudes, and he says this: "Thnk not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
Ah, la. And yet, according to Acts, he abrogated the law. If kashrut, then why not the rest? Or have heaven and earth passed, and we just haven't noticed it?
That whole "Eat!" thing in Acts sounds like James (it was James, right?) would then be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but only because he listened to Jesus.
Also, I recall a parable in which Jesus said that you can know a tree by its fruit. That a good tree can't give bad fruit. If that's the case, wouldn't the Inquisition and the various other abuses committed by every other Christian denomination at one time or another turn this parable into one of self-condemnation?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: By a Biblical standard, without God, no a person can't.
I think you meant to say "by a Christian standard".
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Kate, CT, etc... please don't take offense. I'm just irked at Mr. Seldon's self-righteousness, as well as his belief that he knows more than he actually does.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You do realize that God only commanded those things to the Jews, right? And if you want to extend those to non-Jews, why not also extend the prohibition of eating pork? It's a bit of a double standard, no?
Because we believe that God himself extended those two things (and several others that were consistent with the Noachide laws which had already been "extended" to non-Jews.) It's not a double standard.
quote:I'm just irked at Mr. Seldon's self-righteousness, as well as his belief that he knows more than he actually does.
Luckily we have your self-righteousness to counter-balance his.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hey, if I can serve a useful purpose, I'm glad.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
TL, I wonder, why does becoming open to perspective change mean giving up my beliefs? Have I asked anyone else here to give up their beliefs? I simply have stated mine. Apparently that is not a positive thing to do here, or am I not understanding you correctly?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Sometimes I find myself a bit frustrated by OSC's religions lecturing between the words of a lot of his stories. But I admire the integrity and morality of a lot of his characters just the same. Especially the message of taking care of your family.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Star Lisa, I will be the first to admit that my knowledge is limited at best, I was simply trying to clarify some misinterpretations that I had been noticing. If one is going to make an arguement quoting scripture, then it is important that it is being used correctly. Scripture you see, is meant to be taken as a whole, big picture, all of which points to the coming of Christ and his resurrection, so you see, when single passages are used out of context, they don't always make sense.
Now, when you responded to my comment of "thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thou shalt love thy neighbour" as a command that God only extended to the Jews, I had to respond back to you. On this point you could not be more mistaken. This command was made by Christ, not merely to the Jews, but to all who would listen.
As for your comment that Christ abrogated the law, that is also incorrect. In nowhere does it say that Christ cancelled the law. Yes he is the fulfillment of the law, but that does not mean he cancelled it.
And when I say Biblical standard, I hold it to mean the same thing as a Christian standard. But perhaps I'm being too hopeful.
And finally, the analogy of the good tree is also incorrect. When he speeks of the fruit tree, he speeks of the dead, gnarled, and unproductive branches being pruned, gathered, and burned, so that the tree may produce good fruit once more.
Please do not misunderstand. I am not trying to convert you, or anyone here, I am attempting to clarify misrepresentations of what I consider to be a holy work, and a piece of beauty. If I have offended you, please accept my apologies. I don't see my self as more righteous than you or anyone else here. Righteousness is something I will never attain in this life, I can only strive to be better, and yet usually I fail. If I have failed anyone in how I have represented my faith I apologize, I merely was trying to elucidate what to me is truth.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:TL, I wonder, why does becoming open to perspective change mean giving up my beliefs? Have I asked anyone else here to give up their beliefs? I simply have stated mine. Apparently that is not a positive thing to do here, or am I not understanding you correctly?
Since I didn't say anything remotely similar to what you're suggesting, I'd say not understanding me correctly would be a good guess.
Jesus.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Scripture you see, is meant to be taken as a whole, big picture, all of which points to the coming of Christ and his resurrection...
You realize you're saying this to an Orthodox Jew, right? Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Lisa, I'm not offended at all. The discussion appears to be staying productive, which is my clue to keep reading. *smile)
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
TL, please refrain from using Christs name in that way. It might not bother most, but to me it is much worse than some vulgar swear word. You wouldn't want me to start dropping the F word wherever I pleased would you?
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Tom,
I didn't know that, but thank you for the info. I have deep respect for your beliefs. I wasn't trying to force you to believe in what scripture says, my point was that some people use its verses out of context, and if we are going to have a discussion that is scripture based, then it is helpful to understand the context and the purpose of the book. But, if you're Jewish, then the 2nd section of the Bible doesn't really apply eh?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It is starLisa that is Orthodox Jewish. Tom has his own story, and I'll let him tell you that one.
As for me, I was raised Catholic but do not practice the faith any longer.
----------
Edited to add: And I'm shamed to say that I don't recall whether I (or anyone else) ever welcomed you here to Hatrack, Hari. Welcome!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Star Lisa, I will be the first to admit that my knowledge is limited at best, I was simply trying to clarify some misinterpretations that I had been noticing. If one is going to make an arguement quoting scripture, then it is important that it is being used correctly. Scripture you see, is meant to be taken as a whole, big picture, all of which points to the coming of Christ and his resurrection, so you see, when single passages are used out of context, they don't always make sense.
Aw... Hari. It's hard to get angry at you when you're so clearly out of your depth here.
There's nothing whatsoever in the Bible (and I use the term to denote what you would call the Hebrew Bible, or "Old" Testament) that points to Jesus. Except for the beginning of Psalms 146.
There is nothing in the Bible about a virgin giving birth. That's a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. In fact, all of the Christological references that are claimed to be in the Bible are misreadings. I'd be more than happy to explain them to you one by one, if you're interested. I'm not sure Hatrack is the right place, however.
If you're truly interested in knowing God and doing His will, there's a whole world of knowledge out there that you've shut yourself off from, because of a mistake that was made a couple of millenia ago. Don't get me wrong: It's good that you believe in God. It's good that you recognize Him as your Creator. It's good that you recognize the Bible as being something other than a bunch of patched together stories, as some modern scholars claim. All that is good.
What's not so good is the way in which you seem to see God as fallible. As lacking either omniscience or honesty. That troubles me.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Now, when you responded to my comment of "thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thou shalt love thy neighbour" as a command that God only extended to the Jews, I had to respond back to you. On this point you could not be more mistaken. This command was made by Christ, not merely to the Jews, but to all who would listen.
These commands were given to the Jews in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The fact that Jesus may have repeated them... well, he was (if he existed) a Jew, speaking to other Jews. He's hardly the only Jew who repeated those lines.
God labeled His commandments to the Jews as "eternal statutes" (too many places to cite them all). He said that choosing not to keep them was choosing death (Deut. 30:15,19, etc, etc.). Was James not a Jew (Acts 10)?
God told us that if a prophet comes in His name and tells us to depart from even a single one of his commandments, he is a false prophet, and has incurred the death penalty (Deut. 13, Deut. 18). Of course, the thing with James and the non-kosher food seems to have happened after Jesus died, so I'm not sure how you'd go about executing someone who is already dead.
And a prophet is not just someone who decides to preach. You can't be a false prophet unless you've first been determined to be a prophet, capable of discerning God's will. And there's no sign that Jesus ever fell into that category, so he never even really qualified to be a false prophet. Lucky break for him, I guess.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: As for your comment that Christ abrogated the law, that is also incorrect. In nowhere does it say that Christ cancelled the law.
He violated Shabbat and encouraged his students to do the same. In a vision, he told James to eat non-kosher food. Now, I don't actually think either of those things happened, but if they did, that's pretty much abrogating the laws of the Torah.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Yes he is the fulfillment of the law, but that does not mean he cancelled it.
Hari, that doesn't even really mean anything. I've heard that phrase used over and over, and it still lacks meaning. Laws are laws. A person can't be a fulfillment of a code of laws. The fulfillment of a code of laws is keeping the laws. A person can keep them or not. He can teach others to keep them or not. But he can't just announce, "Hey, I'm here to replace them."
Think it through. God said they were eternal statutes. That means forever. And God knows everything. He isn't limited by past, present and future the way we are. If He says the laws are permanent and then later says, "Oops, not any more", then either he isn't omniscient, because he didn't know he was going to change his mind, or he isn't honest, because he never intended them to be permanent in the first place. Either way, that doesn't square with who God is.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: And when I say Biblical standard, I hold it to mean the same thing as a Christian standard. But perhaps I'm being too hopeful.
Not hopeful, Hari. Offensive. Truly. I get that you and your coreligionists have hijacked the Bible. And for a long time, it was dangerous for anyone to gainsay you:
Jew: Hey, that's our Bible! Christians: Kill the Jew!
Nowadays, we're lucky to be in a position where Christians have mostly stopped that kind of thing, but the underlying attitude seems to remain in your claim. The Christian Bible is the Christian Bible. It's not "The Bible". I am an Orthodox Jew, and I consider the Bible to be binding on me (and all Jews). That doesn't not include anything from your religion.
I could say that worshipping Jesus is biblically prohibited. And that'd be accurate, in its context. But if I were to say that in a group that wasn't exclusively made up of Jews, where there might be Christians present, then I'd be saying, "Screw the Christians; what they think makes no difference." That's what you're doing, Hari. Open your eyes, please, and realize that you aren't in the privileged position that Christians were in for centuries in Europe, where disagreements could be handled with fire and steel.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: TL, please refrain from using Christs name in that way. It might not bother most, but to me it is much worse than some vulgar swear word. You wouldn't want me to start dropping the F word wherever I pleased would you?
Hari, I don't mind you referring to your deity as "Jesus", but using the C word implies a connection to the Jewish concept of the Messiah. And it's deeply offensive to me to have such an important Jewish concept misused in a way that I see as idolatry.
On the other hand, I could decide to grin and bear it. I could decide that while your use of the C word is deeply offensive to me, you aren't using it with intent to offend. And that if I go on a forum where not everyone is of the same mind, I'm going to have to live with the dire prospect of not forcing others to abide by my standards.
The thing is, though, I'd want to see you recognizing that yourself, otherwise, there's no real reason why I should recognize it in your case. Right? You don't have a privileged position here, right? So how about if you don't like what TL writes, just... live with it. Don't be like the Muslims who insist that everyone else must abide by their taboos regarding the representation of Muhammed. Recognize that there are people here who don't believe in your Jesus, and others who don't even believe in God. Recognize that TL using "Jesus!" as an expletive is no more offensive to you than you using "biblical" as a synonym for "Christian" is to me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: I didn't know that, but thank you for the info. I have deep respect for your beliefs. I wasn't trying to force you to believe in what scripture says,
Dude, it's not Tom who is an Orthodox Jew. It's me. And I do believe in what scripture says. I contend that it is you who do not.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: my point was that some people use its verses out of context,
Hari. From my point of view, you've just described Christianity as a whole. You took a book of holiness and by taking verses out of context, have used it as an excuse for adopting idolatrous practices. And then killed us en masse when we protested.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: and if we are going to have a discussion that is scripture based, then it is helpful to understand the context and the purpose of the book. But, if you're Jewish, then the 2nd section of the Bible doesn't really apply eh?
As a Jew, the only "sections of the Bible" that exist are the three sections of what you think of as the "first section".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You took a book of holiness and by taking verses out of context, have used it as an excuse for adopting idolatrous practices. And then killed us en masse when we protested.
Wow.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:You wouldn't want me to start dropping the F word wherever I pleased would you?
Actually, for what it's worth, I would be absolutely fine with that. I post on some fora where it's allowed and use it whenever I please in that environment.
Here, it isn't allowed, so I respect the rules. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You took a book of holiness and by taking verses out of context, have used it as an excuse for adopting idolatrous practices. And then killed us en masse when we protested.
Wow.
Gah. I apologize if anyone got caught in the crossfire. I'm referring to Hari and those of his mindset, specifically. He has a triumphalist attitude that's irking me. It's one that absolutely is responsible for the things I mentioned. Many Christians have moved beyond that. Hari, it seems, has not, at least in attitude.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:TL, please refrain from using Christs name in that way. It might not bother most, but to me it is much worse than some vulgar swear word.
To me it isn't.
*shrug*
The world is a wide, wild, and diverse place, full of people with many different kinds of beliefs and many different kinds of attitudes. To ask everyone to conform to *your* standards is ridiculous.
Are you one of those people who would ask a Catholic to remove a Crucifix because the image of Christ being killed is offensive to you?
*IS* the image of the Crucifix offensive to you?
Just curious.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
By the way, I *will* refrain from using Christ's name in a vulgar way. I have no problem showing a little courtesy to those whose beliefs are different from my own. I know you're not the only one around here who holds Jesus in high regard -- so.... Done.
But out of curiosity, Hari, what do you think is the more offensive act -- someone who doesn't believe in Jesus saying, "Jesus," or somebody else telling him what he should and shouldn't say.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:TL, please refrain from using Christs name in that way. It might not bother most, but to me it is much worse than some vulgar swear word.
To me it isn't.
*shrug*
The world is a wide, wild, and diverse place, full of people with many different kinds of beliefs and many different kinds of attitudes. To ask everyone to conform to *your* standards is ridiculous.
Are you one of those people who would ask a Catholic to remove a Crucifix because the image of Christ being killed is offensive to you?
*IS* the image of the Crucifix offensive to you?
Just curious.
It's offensive to me. But not so much that I'd demand that someone take it off.
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Don't be like the Muslims who insist that everyone else must abide by their taboos regarding the representation of Muhammed. Recognize that there are people here who don't believe in your Jesus, and others who don't even believe in God.
That's a pretty large blanket statement starLisa Not all Muslims are as you seem to believe or describe here. So I'd ask that you too recognize the fact that Muslims, Christians, Atheists or Jews, we are all simply very fallible people all of whom display certain traits which are not laudable.
[Edit: Corrected grammatical mistake]
[ March 20, 2006, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Fahim ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I took Lisa's comment to be referring to a subset of Muslims, rather than all of Islam.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Yep -- everybody's got faith. Even agnostics have faith that they don't need to resolve the questions they're agnostic about.
I don't think Asimov saw it that way. He thought of himself as a skeptic. But I study machine learning, and there's a kind of reasoning called "defeasible," meaning, "We'll stick with this assumption until we have reason to change it." It saves having to continually re-evaluate decisions, which is computationally intractable. People use this too, and it saves having to continually think about everything. When Asimov had surgery, he had faith that the doctors weren't all lying to him about the need for it.
And he had faith in his political and religious views, enough to promote them.
I don't see Asimov's characters as idealized; lots of them were cranky old poopheads. But they didn't agonize over moral decisions like OSC's often do. My impression is that for Asimov, all moral decisions were easy. And if you came up with a different answer than he did, you were an idiot.
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I took Lisa's comment to be referring to a subset of Muslims, rather than all of Islam.
If she said "some of the Muslims", I would have agreed with you but since it said "Muslims" and I consider myself to be a Muslim but I certainly don't think anybody else has to abide by my belief systems. So, I guess I'm excluded from the "Muslims" she describes and so, that sounded a lot like a blanket statement to me
[Edited for clarity]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
She said "Don't be like the Muslims who insist...". If she had said "Don't be like the Muslims, who insist..." I'd interpret it the same way that you are. As it is, though, it reads more to me like she's talking about a subset of the population. If my interpretation is wrong and yours is right it's a vile, bigoted statement, no two ways about it. I'm hoping mine's right.
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
I see your point Guess we'll have to leave it up to Lisa to clarify ... Of course, "vile and bigoted" is a bit too strong I'd have said a rather unenlightened perspective myself ... but then again, that's just me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
For what it's worth, I read it like Noemon did - as a subset of Muslims. Similar to "Don't be like those fathers who come home drunk and beat their kids". That's not equating "fathers" with "child abusers", it's describing a subset.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fahim: I see your point Guess we'll have to leave it up to Lisa to clarify ... Of course, "vile and bigoted" is a bit too strong I'd have said a rather unenlightened perspective myself ... but then again, that's just me.
Mmmm...okay, "vile" might be a bit much. I'd have to stick with bigoted though. Happily, it doesn't apply here, I'm pretty sure.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Don't be like the Muslims who insist that everyone else must abide by their taboos regarding the representation of Muhammed. Recognize that there are people here who don't believe in your Jesus, and others who don't even believe in God.
That's a pretty large blanket statement starLisa Not all Muslims are as you seem to believe or describe here.
Fahim, I had to read what I'd written a few times before I could understand what you were talking about.
I know you may not be willing to take my word for it, but I'm usually pretty careful with grammar, and with my use of commas. Had I been saying what you thought, I would definitely have put a comma after "Muslims", by way of setting off a descriptive clause about Muslims. "Muslims, who insist, etc." I didn't do that because I was referring specifically to the Muslims who have been claiming of late that non-Muslims are required to abide by the taboo against representations of Muhammed. "Muslims who insist, etc."
I'm aware that not all Muslims insist on that, even if they are the voices we most often hear.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There's nothing whatsoever in the Bible (and I use the term to denote what you would call the Hebrew Bible, or "Old" Testament) that points to Jesus. Except for the beginning of Psalms 146.
Oh, Lisa... look, I'm sure you've got your view (and reasons for that view) of things, but do you really think that Messianic prophecies and the interpretation thereof are so easily and clearly interpreted?
I mean, not even the Jews all beleive the same thing about the subject. About the only thing that Reforms, Conservatives, and Orthodox Jews agree on (from my observations) is that he HASN'T come yet.
Christians have had 2000+ years to study the Old Testament and implement analogies and typifyings and symbologies that all point to Christ as the Messiah. (Moses raising the brass serpent in the wilderness for example) If you're going to address the question, you need to go a lot deeper than what you *think* you need to go; because Christianity has moved beyond mere verses. You have to sort out stories.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fahim: I see your point Guess we'll have to leave it up to Lisa to clarify ... Of course, "vile and bigoted" is a bit too strong I'd have said a rather unenlightened perspective myself ... but then again, that's just me.
Funny... I would have said the same as you. But it's moot, since I wasn't saying that. I very much had the recent cartoonapalooza on my mind.
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I know you may not be willing to take my word for it, but I'm usually pretty careful with grammar, and with my use of commas.
Of course I'll take your word for it, there is no reason I shouldn't Put it also down to irritation (not directed at you mind you ) at the general habit of talking about "Muslims" generally instead of talking of specific cases and saying "some portion of the Muslim community" or something to that effect. Once Noemon pointed it out though, I could see that it could be interpreted in two different ways ... and yes, I don't pay that much of attention to commas as my wife keeps telling me Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Scott, while this is not an argument I consider useful or fruitful, I do not feel I could let your statements go.
This is one of the few things that (to my knowledge) Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox do agree on.
And most (not all, agreed) of those 2000+ years have been spent examining translations. Not to mention coming from a bias that what was being looked for was there -- and not surprisingly, finding it.
To those of us with no reason to make those inferences and logical leaps, they are glaringly absent. (Of course, coming from a bias of our own.) Despite MORE than 2000 years of analysis, primarily in the original language.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Certainly, rivka-- I understand your point, I think.
The Christian view of Jesus-as-Messiah doesn't base itself on one or two verses of scripture (as I feel was sL's implication); or even a number of scriptures.
For example, sL pointed out that the verse in Isaiah 'A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel...': I agree that the verse was taken out of context, and that on the surface has no bearing on the Messiah (since, you know, it's talking about Syria and Ephraim's attempt to destroy Judah). As a Christian, though, I think the verse foreshadows Christ in the same way that I think that Moses raising the brass serpent in the wilderness foreshadows Christ.
So, it's not a matter of just saying "Oh, well, the word 'virgin' in that verse doesn't really mean 'girl-who's-never-had-sex-before,' it just means 'young woman.' Or 'that verse isn't referring to the Messiah, it's referring to a child born at the time of Ahaz.'
In anycase, like sL, I'm not particularly disposed to debating this here-- I note that your objections to Christian interpretation on Messianic verses ("Not to mention coming from a bias that what was being looked for was there -- and not surprisingly, finding it. ) are in fact, quite valid.
The fact that Christians found what they were looking for does not answer the question of whether or not Christ is actually the Messiah.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:There's nothing whatsoever in the Bible (and I use the term to denote what you would call the Hebrew Bible, or "Old" Testament) that points to Jesus. Except for the beginning of Psalms 146.
Oh, Lisa... look, I'm sure you've got your view (and reasons for that view) of things, but do you really think that Messianic prophecies and the interpretation thereof are so easily and clearly interpreted?
I think that the prophets said what they meant to say. What God meant them to say. I think that the prophets were part of an ongoing cultural/educational chain that stretched back to Sinai and has continued until today. And I think that they said what they did in that context.
Scott, when someone comes at a text outside of its context, anything can be found there. For example, in the beginning of Genesis, God commands us: "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and conquer it." The same word that means "to conquer" can also mean "to pickle". Strictly from the words as they appear, God could have been commanding us to pickle the earth.
That's an absurd example, because pickling the earth just doesn't make any sense. But if some cult existed that was devoted to soaking everything in vinegar or brine, they might feel otherwise.
When the prophets say something like "I will give you a new covenant", reading out of context could support the Christian idea of a "new covenant". But given a context in which God made it--literally--impossible for anyone, even Himself, to abrogate the "eternal covenant" He made, that's an inadmissible reading. You see?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I mean, not even the Jews all beleive the same thing about the subject. About the only thing that Reforms, Conservatives, and Orthodox Jews agree on (from my observations) is that he HASN'T come yet.
Well, bear in mind that the Reform and Conservative and suchlike have as their defining characteristic a rejection of the chain of knowledge and culture that reaches back to Sinai. And the reason for this is that it cramps their style. It gets in the way of being like everyone else. I feel badly for individual Jews who were raised in these movements (I'm one of them, incidentally), because they've been robbed of their heritage.
Don't make the mistake of seeing them as divergent traditions. Where they diverge is specifically in their rejection of Jewish traditions. And as such, bringing them as an example doesn't work.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Christians have had 2000+ years to study the Old Testament and implement analogies and typifyings and symbologies that all point to Christ as the Messiah.
<shrug> They were starting with their conclusion. Using ones conclusion as a premise is frowned upon. Further, these tend to be based on mistranslations, misunderstandings, and outright misstatements.
One missionary I ran into once (named Ron) pointed, for example, to the Binding of Isaac. When God tested Abraham by commanding him to sacrifice his son. During this story, Abraham tells Isaac, "God will see to the lamb, my son". And at the end of the story, God brings out a ram for Abraham to sacrifice in place of his son.
Ron's argument went like this. Abraham was a prophet of God. He said that God would produce a lamb to be sacrificed. The ram could not have been what he was talking about, because a ram isn't a lamb. Therefore, it was alluding to a lamb in the future.
Now, leaving aside the pagan idea of Jesus as a sacrifice for many or all people, where Ron went wrong was relying on translations. Abraham actually tells Isaac that God will prepare a seh. What's a seh? It's a small domesticated farm animal. A goat is a kind of seh. A sheep is a kind of seh. A large domesticated animal is called a shor (generally translated as "ox"). A cow is a kind of shor, as opposed to a seh. So is a zebu. So is a bison. Probably aurochs were as well.
But terminology as used in the Torah doesn't always translate directly into English. A beheima is a particular category of four-legged animal. Cows and sheep are in this category. A chaya is another category, which includes deer, for example. In English, what terms would you use for such categories? Well, in translations of the Bible, you often see beast and wild beast. I actually used "domesticated animal" in the previous paragraph when what I really meant was beheima. Wild bison are in that category, though, even though they aren't domesticated.
Ron didn't know this. And he was looking, hard, to find some sort of Christological reference he could use for missionizing Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: (Moses raising the brass serpent in the wilderness for example)
Hezekiah destroying that same serpent because it'd become the object of idolatrous worship?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If you're going to address the question, you need to go a lot deeper than what you *think* you need to go; because Christianity has moved beyond mere verses. You have to sort out stories.
I don't think so, Scott. Though I'm happy and willing to show you in every single case why the reference is unworkable. The fact is, Christianity never fulfilled its burden of proof. For most of its history, it won its arguments with sharpened steel, rather than logic. Nowadays, you want to use 2000+ years (which would take us back to Jesus in diapers, more or less) of existence as an indication that rational arguments had been made for all that time, and I'm sorry to tell you that history simply doesn't support you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:For most of its history, it won its arguments with sharpened steel, rather than logic.
This is just so ironic, I had to quote it.
quote:Nowadays, you want to use 2000+ years (which would take us back to Jesus in diapers, more or less) of existence as an indication that rational arguments had been made for all that time, and I'm sorry to tell you that history simply doesn't support you.
:shrug:
Not the argument I was making at all. I'm saying that you can't clarify one or two scriptures and expect all Christendom to fall apart.
quote:Hezekiah destroying that same serpent because it'd become the object of idolatrous worship?
God is certainly capable of carrying the analogy out to this end. But if you're going to work along with it anyway, keep in mind that you first have to look to the serpent for salvation from death.
And if we want to get REALLY crazy with this idea, we could say that the idolatry shown by the Israelites toward the brass serpent was a type of the apostasy to take place after Christ's death. And that God would destroy the apostasy through the introduction of a prophet to restore true worship.
Oddly, that analogy probably works pretty well for both Jews and Mormons.
quote:The fact is, Christianity never fulfilled its burden of proof.
Like I said, I'm not disposed to debate whether or not Christ is the Messiah. I understand that you don't believe it; I don't blame you, even though I do believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah then, and will be the Messiah to come.
What I want to communicate to you is that your current tack of dismissing Christian intepretation of Old Testament stories and verse is not likely to be taken as valid by anyone that is not already an adherent to your point of view.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For most of its history, it won its arguments with sharpened steel, rather than logic.
Christianity was winning arguments long before Christians had the sharpened steel.
it's fine to disagree on scriptural interpretation. We'll find out who's right one day. But to claim that Christianity's spread was based on "sharpened steel" ignores 300 years of history. Christianity was well established when Constantine had his dream.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, by at least one interpretation of "well established". Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:For most of its history, it won its arguments with sharpened steel, rather than logic.
This is just so ironic, I had to quote it.
I'm actually quite curious as to what irony you saw in the statement. I thought it was fairly straightforward and accurate.
From time to time over the past couple of millenia, we'd be called forward to "debate" the issue. Often against an apostate Jew. One of the most famous of these occasions involved King James I of Aragon, who forced Rabbi Moses ben Nachman to debate the apostate Pablo Christiani. This page has a translation of Rabbi Nachman's account of the event, which ended with King James saying "Let the dispute be suspended. For I have never seen a man whose case is wrong argue it as well as you have done."
Of course, it couldn't end there. Eventually, Rabbi Nachman had to flee for his life into exile.
When one person has logic and reason on his side and the other person has a deadly weapon and the support of the king on his... well, it doesn't all go according to logic and reason.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Nowadays, you want to use 2000+ years (which would take us back to Jesus in diapers, more or less) of existence as an indication that rational arguments had been made for all that time, and I'm sorry to tell you that history simply doesn't support you.
:shrug:
Not the argument I was making at all. I'm saying that you can't clarify one or two scriptures and expect all Christendom to fall apart.
Oh, I had no such thought. I was merely pointing out that it was never together in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Hezekiah destroying that same serpent because it'd become the object of idolatrous worship?
God is certainly capable of carrying the analogy out to this end. But if you're going to work along with it anyway, keep in mind that you first have to look to the serpent for salvation from death.
Only in the sense that I have to go to the doctor when I have strep throat. It doesn't mean that I'm forever after dependent upon that doctor for my health.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And if we want to get REALLY crazy with this idea, we could say that the idolatry shown by the Israelites toward the brass serpent was a type of the apostasy to take place after Christ's death.
There were only a few who treated the serpent in that way. And note that Hezekiah was a righteous king and dealt with those people and their folly as appropriate. Characterizing it as "idolatry shown by the Israelites" is the kind of rhetoric that's in line with the accusations of being Christ-killers that we've dealt with for the past couple of millenia. It's in poor taste, to say the least.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And that God would destroy the apostasy through the introduction of a prophet to restore true worship.
This apostasy was destroyed by a righteous Jewish king. He may have been influenced by his father-in-law, the prophet Isaiah, but he was the one who destroyed the apostasy.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The fact is, Christianity never fulfilled its burden of proof.
Like I said, I'm not disposed to debate whether or not Christ is the Messiah. I understand that you don't believe it; I don't blame you, even though I do believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah then, and will be the Messiah to come.
My issue is that you aren't satisfied to deem him the Messiah. Thinking that someone who died is the Messiah is strange, but it's not idolatry. Worshipping the Messiah -- turning the concept of Messiah into one of deity -- is the problem.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What I want to communicate to you is that your current tack of dismissing Christian intepretation of Old Testament stories and verse is not likely to be taken as valid by anyone that is not already an adherent to your point of view.
Oh. Bummer.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:For most of its history, it won its arguments with sharpened steel, rather than logic.
Christianity was winning arguments long before Christians had the sharpened steel.
it's fine to disagree on scriptural interpretation. We'll find out who's right one day. But to claim that Christianity's spread was based on "sharpened steel" ignores 300 years of history. Christianity was well established when Constantine had his dream.
Sadduceeism spread strongly and deeply for 2-3 centuries before the Second Temple was destroyed, and the main supporters of it were either killed or assimilated into gentile culture. Had the Sadducees taken over an empire and gone on to slash and burn their way into history, you'd be correct in saying that they spread even before they acquired the power to win arguments with extreme prejudice.
Same with those Jews who went astray after Baal and Astarte during the time of the monarchy in Israel. Sects happen. They come into being, and then they die out and we go on. There are a handful of Karaites left (a sect which started around th 600s CE) today. There are even remnants of the Samaritans, tribes brought into Israel by the Assyrians after they conquered the northern kingdom of Israel.
I'm not saying that no one would have ever fallen into this error had Christianity not become the state religion of the Roman empire. I'm just saying that they never would have been more than the Sadducees, the Karaites, the Samaritans and the rest.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not saying that no one would have ever fallen into this error had Christianity not become the state religion of the Roman empire. I'm just saying that they never would have been more than the Sadducees, the Karaites, the Samaritans and the rest.
I realize that's what you're saying. You're still wrong.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
In your opinion. And you're wrong in mine. How about that. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. It's not something that can be proven one way or another. All we do know is that there've been Jewish heretical sects before that have lasted a few centuries, and the only one that ever made it to the big time was the one that murdered those who disagreed by the hundreds of thousands. That's a fact. Whether it might have taken off the same way without the bullying is never going to be more than conjecture.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In your opinion. And you're wrong in mine. How about that.
Do you think you're telling me something I don't know here, Lisa? You seem to be taken aback every time I address you as directly as you address others.
quote:All we do know is that there've been Jewish heretical sects before that have lasted a few centuries, and the only one that ever made it to the big time was the one that murdered those who disagreed by the hundreds of thousands.
Perhaps the attempts at violent supression by some Jewish people in the days following the crucifixion actually helped. Again, who knows?
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
StarLisa, you mistake my humililty for ignorance. I was not claiming that because I didn't know everything that I was "out of my league" as you implied. I was merely conceding the fact that as a human, I am constrained by my limited capacity to know everything. It would appear that you, are not constrained, and your ability to 'know-it-all' is only surpassed by your willingness to tell us all about it.
We obviously will never agree on Biblical interpretations, and we might as well admit that right now, because no matter how much you argue to the contrary, both of our views are faith based, and are very difficult to contradict. Nor would I want to sway you from your faith, as it obviously means a great deal to you. I don't think personal attacks are necessary on this forum. And that, almost always is what happens when people argue from a faith perspective. I respect your faith - its good, its more than many have. And just as I respect yours, I will stand by mine. I respectfully decline your offer to 'enlighten' me of my ignorance. If that is what you think of my views, then I don't see much need in continuing a conversation.
Just sayin'
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm actually quite curious as to what irony you saw in the statement. I thought it was fairly straightforward and accurate.
Have you read the book of Joshua lately? Specifically, Joshua 6:21.
When was the last time you spoke with an Amalekite?
There's plenty of bloody hands to be shown. The irony is that you pretend that the Jewish history is squeaky clean and filled with a people who love logic and reasonable discourse, and would never deign to enforce their religion by force of arms.
That's not true, and you should know it. In fact, some of your recent discussions about the reign of the Messiah directly contradict this view.
Joshua's camp was not some random offshoot of the Jewish faith-- it was the whole kit-n-kaboodle. When Samuel and Saul and David and the Simeonites destroyed the Amalekites, down to the last squalling baby, they were acting as representatives of the Jewish god.
Is your vacillation contingent on the idea that Jewish atrocities were ordered by a real god?
Incidentally, the Book of Mormon is the only bit of scripture anywhere that explains WHY the inhabitants of Canaan were ripe to be destroyed. I don't expect you to take it as valid, but I've got an excuse for supporting the God that ordered all that destruction. I'm anxious to hear why YOU support a God that could order the death of children-- and what makes that god any better than say, Molech.
quote:Characterizing it as "idolatry shown by the Israelites" is the kind of rhetoric that's in line with the accusations of being Christ-killers that we've dealt with for the past couple of millenia. It's in poor taste, to say the least.
Don't cop a persecution complex with me. I'm a Mormon. We wrote the book on persecution complexes. I mean, it's a whole INDUSTRY in Utah, churning out books and pamphlets and raising money for the poor abused Saints in Cinncinnati or wherever.
You realize that if the Israelites had not been so idolatrous more than half of the Old Testament wouldn't exist, right? It's right there for everyone to read it; blame the prophets for being so darned honest about how often God had to call 'em in to correct His people.
So I don't understand why you're upset about me calling the Jews idolatrous. They were. And then they repented, and came clear. And then they discovered Ashteroth, or Ba'al, or Diana, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and screwed up again. Lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.
What's the big deal about a gentile bringing it up?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I'm actually quite curious as to what irony you saw in the statement. I thought it was fairly straightforward and accurate.
Have you read the book of Joshua lately? Specifically, Joshua 6:21.
When was the last time you spoke with an Amalekite?
Ah. So you're saying that the bloody history of the Church was commanded by God? Interesting. I wonder how many Christians agree with that. Very many of them seem to want to dissociate themselves from that, in my experience.
And if it wasn't, then the analogy falls flat on its face.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: There's plenty of bloody hands to be shown. The irony is that you pretend that the Jewish history is squeaky clean and filled with a people who love logic and reasonable discourse, and would never deign to enforce their religion by force of arms.
It's true. God gave us the Land of Israel, and instructed us to give the Canaanites the choice of submitting, fleeing, or fighting and dying. Adopt our religion or die was never on the list.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Joshua's camp was not some random offshoot of the Jewish faith-- it was the whole kit-n-kaboodle. When Samuel and Saul and David and the Simeonites destroyed the Amalekites, down to the last squalling baby, they were acting as representatives of the Jewish god.
Indeed we were.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is your vacillation contingent on the idea that Jewish atrocities were ordered by a real god?
Point to the so-called "vacillation" or retract it, Scott. I may be many things, but vacillating is hardly one of them.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Incidentally, the Book of Mormon is the only bit of scripture anywhere that explains WHY the inhabitants of Canaan were ripe to be destroyed.
In your limited knowledge. Surely you realize that just because you don't know of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Leave aside that the Torah says explicitly that the Canaanites were guilty of bloodshed and immorality and idolatry (and every conceivable combination of the above). Our "scripture" is not limited to the biblical books you're aware of.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't expect you to take it as valid, but I've got an excuse for supporting the God that ordered all that destruction.
Do ya, now? Well, Scott, you see, we stood at Sinai and heard God speak. God wasn't a theoretical idea to us. Not a matter of "faith". The Creator of Everything told us that (a) The Canaanites were evil and needed to be destroyed, (b) The Land of Canaan was given to us as an inheritance, and (c) a whole set of instructions on what we were supposed to do about it.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm anxious to hear why YOU support a God that could order the death of children-- and what makes that god any better than say, Molech.
Molech wasn't a god any more than Olah and Chatat and Shlamim were. It was a type of sacrifice. That's the problem with translations. Archaeologists have found records in Carthage of various types of molech sacrifices. It's probably best translated as a "suasion" sacrifice.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Characterizing it as "idolatry shown by the Israelites" is the kind of rhetoric that's in line with the accusations of being Christ-killers that we've dealt with for the past couple of millenia. It's in poor taste, to say the least.
Don't cop a persecution complex with me. I'm a Mormon.
You can't possibly draw a comparison. A couple of centuries of difficulty in one single country? But I don't really care. It's not about the persecution. It's about the inappropriate labeling of an entire people based on the actions of a few. God has a right to do that. You don't.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: We wrote the book on persecution complexes. I mean, it's a whole INDUSTRY in Utah, churning out books and pamphlets and raising money for the poor abused Saints in Cinncinnati or wherever.
Everyone's got to have a hobby, I guess.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You realize that if the Israelites had not been so idolatrous more than half of the Old Testament wouldn't exist, right?
Why didn't Moses get to enter the Land of Israel? It's not as though anything he did would have been considered so bad if done by anyone else. But Moses was on a higher level, and there were greater expectations for him.
There's an interesting thing in the Talmud. There was this great Sage, Rabbi Eleazar son of Azariah. Tenth generation descendent of Ezra. The story starts that he had an ox he used to work on Shabbat. That's how the Talmud works. It starts with short statement that contain a world of information. That make you ask questions. And the first question is, "Why would such a statement be made when no such thing ever happened?"
See, that's a violation of Shabbat. What was actually the case was that Rabbi Eleazar had a neighbor who worked his ox on Shabbat, and Rabbi Eleazar didn't rebuke him. And because of Rabbi Eleazer's stature, it was considered appropriate to speak as though he'd done it himself. "With great power comes great responsibility", and all that.
Same with King Solomon worshipping idols. He did no such thing, of course, but he allowed his foreign wives and concubines to.
Everything that's written in the Hebrew Bible had the Jews as its intended audience. Internal criticism can be easily taken out of context by others.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's right there for everyone to read it; blame the prophets for being so darned honest about how often God had to call 'em in to correct His people.
That's often? Please. Most of the time, the prophets weren't even complaining about idolatry. They were complaining about people thinking that they could go through the motions of repentance (sacrifices) without the requisite penitence and correction of their actions. And like I said, God expects things from us that He doesn't expect from others. We get blamed far more easily because of it.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: So I don't understand why you're upset about me calling the Jews idolatrous. They were. And then they repented, and came clear. And then they discovered Ashteroth, or Ba'al, or Diana, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and screwed up again. Lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.
What's the big deal about a gentile bringing it up?
Context, Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Ah. So you're saying that the bloody history of the Church was commanded by God? Interesting. I wonder how many Christians agree with that. Very many of them seem to want to dissociate themselves from that, in my experience.
And if it wasn't, then the analogy falls flat on its face.
Nah. The irony is there, unanswered. Waiting for you to accept it and cope with it.
I'll tell it not to hold its breath.
quote:God gave us the Land of Israel, and instructed us to give the Canaanites the choice of submitting, fleeing, or fighting and dying. Adopt our religion or die was never on the list.
:shrug:
You're right; I don't see anywhere where this choice was offered to the inhabitants of Jericho.
And it's not much of a choice, is it? 'Make way, or die!' So much for reason and logic. Irony, irony, all is irony.
quote:Point to the so-called "vacillation" or retract it, Scott. I may be many things, but vacillating is hardly one of them.
Here's where you vacillate: "It's okay for Jews to drive out and murder, as long as God commands it. It's NOT okay for anyone else, no matter the reason, because God doesn't speak to them."
Do you see why I find this point laughable?
quote:Well, Scott, you see, we stood at Sinai and heard God speak.
It's too ironic that you would use this example, on this very topic...
Yes, the Israelites heard the voice of God on Sinai. And then built themselves a mute golden idol to worship.
quote:It's not about the persecution. It's about the inappropriate labeling of an entire people based on the actions of a few. God has a right to do that. You don't.
God has the right to inappropriately label an entire people?
THAT explains the conquest of Canaan!
To clarify, if a Mormon were to worship an actual Book of Mormon, I'd call him an idolater, too.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Point to the so-called "vacillation" or retract it, Scott. I may be many things, but vacillating is hardly one of them.
Here's where you vacillate: "It's okay for Jews to drive out and murder, as long as God commands it. It's NOT okay for anyone else, no matter the reason, because God doesn't speak to them."
Do you see why I find this point laughable?
Well, I see something laughable, but I don't think it's the same thing you're thinking of. It was right for us to do it, that one time. Because God commanded it and it was right. That certainly doesn't convey some sort of ongoing right to kill.
Also, you need to look up the word "vacillation", because as the saying goes, "I don't think that word means what you think it does."
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Well, Scott, you see, we stood at Sinai and heard God speak.
It's too ironic that you would use this example, on this very topic...
Yes, the Israelites heard the voice of God on Sinai. And then built themselves a mute golden idol to worship.
Read more carefully. Of a nation of 2-3 million people, only 3,000 were involved in that sin.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: God has the right to inappropriately label an entire people?
If God does it, it's not inappropriate. By definition. We don't believe in some abstract morality that's above God. Though I'm aware that you do.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: To clarify, if a Mormon were to worship an actual Book of Mormon, I'd call him an idolater, too.
Your point being?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Read more carefully.
You're right, I do need to read more carefully. While reading Deuteronomy 9, I noticed that the Lord does give his reasons for having the Israelites enter Canaan.
quote:Of a nation of 2-3 million people, only 3,000 were involved in that sin.
However, the rest of the chapter is spent with Moses saying how he had to beg the Lord not to destroy the Israelites for making the idol so soon after hearing His voice. 3000 people WERE killed that day, but I think Moses makes it abundantly clear in both Exodus 32 and Deutoronomy 9 that the sin lays with a much greater portion of the camp of Israel. And it wasn't like Sinai was the last time that the Israelites committed idolatry.
Look, what I'm going for here is to help you understand that if you're going to lambast Christians for being bloodyhanded in the name of their religion, you've got to accept the fact that you're going to be called on the same charge, too. Ditto with idolatry. And saying "God said to kill them, so it's okay" sounds an AWFUL lot to your listeners like excusing jihad.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'd just like to say that I don't have anything to say directly to any of the points... but this thread is highly interesting.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Because God commanded it and it was right. That certainly doesn't convey some sort of ongoing right to kill.
Out of interest, how many situations were presented in the Bible in which people were commanded NOT to kill? The right to kill on God's behalf seems pretty firmly established throughout.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Of a nation of 2-3 million people, only 3,000 were involved in that sin.
However, the rest of the chapter is spent with Moses saying how he had to beg the Lord not to destroy the Israelites for making the idol so soon after hearing His voice. 3000 people WERE killed that day, but I think Moses makes it abundantly clear in both Exodus 32 and Deutoronomy 9 that the sin lays with a much greater portion of the camp of Israel.
Nope. It's the same as Moses being forbidden to go into Canaan. We'd just heard God speak. We should have crushed the Golden Calf perps on the spot. But that doesn't mean that we were all guilty of it. Moses commanded the Levites to kill all those who were bowing to the calf, and they did.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And it wasn't like Sinai was the last time that the Israelites committed idolatry.
Again, you say "the Israelites committed idolatry", when it was only some who did. That's uncalled for. It's like seeing a crime committed by a black person and labeling black people in general as criminals. Or labeling all Catholics as pedophiles. Or all Mormons as bigamists.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Look, what I'm going for here is to help you understand that if you're going to lambast Christians for being bloodyhanded in the name of their religion, you've got to accept the fact that you're going to be called on the same charge, too.
Nope. We did what we did to the Canaanites and Amalekites after a direct command from God. Unless you want to claim that what Christianity did was commanded by God in the same way, your argument is invalid. By all means keep repeating it, though. And I'll keep refuting it.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Ditto with idolatry. And saying "God said to kill them, so it's okay" sounds an AWFUL lot to your listeners like excusing jihad.
I don't care what it sounds like to someone who is looking for a cause to be offended, Scott.
I'll ask you again: Did God command the leaders of Christendom to pillage and murder and torture and genocide? If you think so, I'll simply disagree, but at least there'll be some sort of parity here. But I want to hear you say that it was not only okay, but good and right and holy for the Church to commit the butchery of the Inquisition, the genocide of the Cathars, and all of the other similar abuses. Wiping out the Canaanites and Amalekites was good and right and holy. I won't weasel; I say it straight out. Enslaving the Idumaeans (that was John Hyrcanus, a Jewish Hasmonean king of the 2nd century BCE) was not good, and not right, and not holy, and none of my people praises that action.
Speak up, Scott. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who'd like to hear your judgement of the Christian conquests.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Can't speak for Scott, but I believe that the Crusaders, etc, did believe they were commanded by God. And they were horribly wrong.
Thanks, BTW, Lisa for your earlier concern. I am not offended at all; I am touched that you asked.
Hari, I echo CT's welcome. I hope you are not too bruised by your visit here, but you did rather plunge right into the deep end. Whether or not you meant them to, your posts sounded, at least to me, as your attempt to show us the error of our ways. As most of us have given a great deal of thought to our various positions on God, that is a rather dangerous tone to take with us. We will tend to respond, as you did to Lisa, with, "I respectfully decline your offer to 'enlighten' me of my ignorance."
Even among Christians there is a great deal of disagreement. Dag and I are both Catholic and I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm a heretic and is just too polite to say so.
That having been said, lively discussion and well written posts are welcome here, and so are you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dear me. I haven't been following the thread, but this page is a perfect example of why I think the problem of religion will in the end only be solved by violence. Some people just won't listen to reason.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Dag and I are both Catholic and I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm a heretic and is just too polite to say so.
Kate, I know you were probably joking, but I think no such thing.
I'm actually a little sensitive about such things. Not that I think it was out of line as a joke - I just wanted you to know.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm sorry, Dagonee. I was using you to poke fun at my own lack of orthodoxy and I shouldn't have.
I am glad to know that you don't think so though, as I do value your opinion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No need to apologize. Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I agree, this is a particularly interesting discussion, now that I've finally winged my way back to it. The question asked before are probably a bit of a moot point now, so I'll watch for the next set.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: God has the right to inappropriately label an entire people?
If God does it, it's not inappropriate. By definition. We don't believe in some abstract morality that's above God. Though I'm aware that you do.
For some reason, this exchange comes about one step away from scaring the daylights out of me. Not too sure, but I think it is because reminds me of some of the topics and justifications in my History of the Crusades class.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't care what it sounds like to someone who is looking for a cause to be offended, Scott.
I don't think anyone's looking to be offended, sL, but if I say, "God commanded us to kill homosexuals and take their land," KarlEd's got a right to be extremely wary of me.
You don't seem to catch that point. Frequently. And you seem to think that I'm interested in arguing doctrine-- I'm not. I'm interested in pointing out the ironies I see in my religion (after all, Mormons claim the Old Testament applies to them), and it seems to me your missing some wonderful chances for questioning your own position-- but that's your business, I suppose.
quote: Did God command the leaders of Christendom to pillage and murder and torture and genocide?
No. But He knew that it would happen, the same way He knew that the Ephraim and Judah would fracture, and that they'd fall to the Babylonians.
Keep in mind, sL, that according to Deuteronomy 9 (or my translation anyway) the Israelites were not given the land of Canaan because they were righteous. From my reading of it, they were given Canaan to show the power of the Lord-- meaning that the Lord was able to take a destitute, broken, homeless, rebellious family, and despite their weaknesses, do great things with them.
As a Christian and as a Mormon I find great value in this perspective.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If God does it, it's not inappropriate. By definition.
I hate this definition of goodness. It's been used to justify some really awful things.
You can tell the good people because they do good things - not the other way around.
There is an exception for God. There is not an exception for people.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I don't care what it sounds like to someone who is looking for a cause to be offended, Scott.
I don't think anyone's looking to be offended, sL, but if I say, "God commanded us to kill homosexuals and take their land," KarlEd's got a right to be extremely wary of me.
So would I, obviously. On the other hand, that analogy implies that you are either a Canaanite or an Amalekite. And since we both know that not to be true, the analogy joins its predecessors on the Isle of Failed Analogies.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You don't seem to catch that point. Frequently.
You're misconstruing my lack of agreement as a lack of understanding.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: Did God command the leaders of Christendom to pillage and murder and torture and genocide?
No.
Good. Then your analogy fails. Thanks for playing.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: But He knew that it would happen, the same way He knew that the Ephraim and Judah would fracture, and that they'd fall to the Babylonians.
The northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Keep in mind, sL, that according to Deuteronomy 9 (or my translation anyway) the Israelites were not given the land of Canaan because they were righteous. From my reading of it, they were given Canaan to show the power of the Lord-- meaning that the Lord was able to take a destitute, broken, homeless, rebellious family, and despite their weaknesses, do great things with them.
Context, Scott. Deuteronomy 9 doesn't exist in a vacuum. God promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that we'd possess that land. It's a gestalt, Scott. You can't pull one verse or chapter out of your... excuse me, out of your sleeve like that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:If God does it, it's not inappropriate. By definition.
I hate this definition of goodness. It's been used to justify some really awful things.
You can tell the good people because they do good things - not the other way around.
There is an exception for God. There is not an exception for people.
I completely agree with you. Looking at what I wrote, I can see how you might have thought that was what I mean, and I'm sorry I wasn't more careful. In the context of what I was responding to, I was speaking explicitly of God.
We're supposed to imitate God in many ways. Not all. God has the right to destroy Jerusalem because we didn't live up to the high level of what was expected of us. We wouldn't have the right to do the same.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, that makes sense. Thank you.
[ March 21, 2006, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:On the other hand, that analogy implies that you are either a Canaanite or an Amalekite. And since we both know that not to be true, the analogy joins its predecessors on the Isle of Failed Analogies.
The point is: am I, or would I ever be, analogous to an Amalekite? Some of the things you've said and implied says most definitely that I would be.
And that's why the analogy stands.
Additionally, while *I* believe that the people who persecuted the Jews were not doing so at God's command, *THEY* almost certainly believed that they were following God's will.
In your view, does this excuse their actions?
Additionally, what is your view of the Babylonian captivity? Was it of God?
quote: Deuteronomy 9 doesn't exist in a vacuum. God promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that we'd possess that land.
Context is important. Is your reference to God's promise to Abraham, et al your way of putting it in context?
I don't understand how what I said is out of context. God says in verses 12-14
12 And the LORD said unto me [Moses], Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou has brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image.
13 Further more the LORD spake unto me saying, I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
14, Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they.
Now, I assume in verse 13, God's referring to the Israelites; Moses calls them stiffnecked in verse 6 of the same chapter as well, and in verse 7, says that they've been rebellious from the time they left Egypt even until they're just about to enter Canaan. He reiterates their rebelliousness in verses 22-24
Further, Moses goes on to relate that he begged God to spare the nation of Israel not just this once at Sinai, but also a number of other times.
But maybe I've missed a meaning somewhere. God promised Canaan to the sons of Jacob, yes-- but on terms of their obedience to his laws. (See Deut. 8:19-20; also, just about all of the book of Judges. And a bunch of 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles... you get the idea)
Canaan was meant to be inherited on God's terms, not solely on the merit of a bloodline.
Further, I need to apologize-- I've been far too sarcastic and flip in this discussion, and it hasn't helped anything.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)