FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Theological inconsistencies with Christianity (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Theological inconsistencies with Christianity
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My mentors, and I believe my religion exhorts its followers to serve God with "all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deut 6:5)." I was taught that if you have brains and logic, those are tools God gave you and you are meant to use them to the utmost.

I was taught to grapple with questions, to be intellectually honest. The foundations of belief need to be strong. What is admirable about self-deceit? I admire an atheist who has searched more than a theist who has not.

There's nothing intellectually dishonest about saying "I don't know". That's the real answer to these questions - I don't know why God allowed babies to die in the Bible, I don't know God's full plan, I don't know whether He can create a stone He can't lift, etc. These questions are often posed with the suggestion that we need to answer them in order to be confident in our religion. That's why the rationalization arises, as an attempt to offer answers to things we really don't know. But the truth is that any answer I'd give is only a guess; religion asks us to accept the answer of "I don't know" to many of these questions but adds that we should have faith anyway, because the driving force behind religion is not the ability to answer all the questions.

The driving force behind religion is a sort of evidence that is more compelling than the ability to answer inconsistencies from the Bible. I hesitate to call it revelation, because that brings up the image of the God telling us the answers directly, and I think that's not really the right way to describe it. It's more personal experience and observation. I'd consider it to be evidence-based and rational, in the same sense that one might say it is rational to accept something you see, feel, hear, and touch every day even before you can figure out how to fully explain it logically, simply because you know you can see, feel, hear, and touch it. Reason isn't about using one's mind in isolation; it's about using it in conjunction with one's eyes, ears, and other powers of perception.

So, the skeptic trying to undermine religion with theological inconsistencies is inevitably going to end up a bit like the Grinch in that one scene after he's taken the presents only to discover that the Whos are still singing. Christmas isn't fundamentally about the presents, and religion isn't fundamentally about having answers to questions like that. Having said that... I do like presents, and answers, and difficult questions.

[ April 20, 2009, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'd consider it to be evidence-based and rational...
Yeah, but you believe in the reality of qualia, so we need to take that with a big ol' grain of salt. [Wink]

quote:
religion isn't fundamentally about having answers to questions like that
It's fairly rare to hear people admit that religion is about feeling good about things whether or not your reasons for doing so are based on reality. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
Almost everyone believes in the reality of qualia, although most don't understand what it means to describe it in those words. A better way to ask people is "Have you ever felt pain?" Almost everyone would say yes. Only the rare few would say "No, I sometimes report to myself that I feel pain, but I don't really." But that'd be a tangent, wouldn't it?

Besides... I'm working on the assumption that most people here already take what I'm saying with quite a few grains of salt. I'd prefer it that way. [Wink]

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I was taught to grapple with questions, to be intellectually honest.
No you weren't. You were taught to say "This is a question, and oh dear, it is a good question - but fortunately we have this excellent answer to it." And then pat yourself on the back for being such an honest questioner of your faith. It's not doubt unless it could genuinely go either way; but it's an excellent mental barrier against real inquiry, to say that "well, I've already doubted, so I've done my duty."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
religion isn't fundamentally about having answers to questions like that
It's fairly rare to hear people admit that religion is about feeling good about things whether or not your reasons for doing so are based on reality. *grin*
I've heard this kind of thing more often in Richard Dawkins UK appearances rather than in America. In America, the questions are more often something like "Is religion/creationism true?" whereas in UK it often becomes "Well, who knows if religion is true, but doesn't it make people feel better/comfort them/provide for a better society?"

I can only theorize that this is due to a larger population of agnostics and less fervent theists, but it is an interesting difference.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I agree that KoM has been abrasive here. No question. Nonetheless, I really do think his very same comments would be treated with a lot more patience by atheists on an atheist forum.

<snort> Of course they would. Why would anyone think that atheist statements would be anything but praised on an atheist forum?

But if you meant that comments like Armoth's would be treated with more patience on an atheist forum than KoM's are here, you're delusional.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No you weren't. You were taught to say "This is a question, and oh dear, it is a good question - but fortunately we have this excellent answer to it." And then pat yourself on the back for being such an honest questioner of your faith. It's not doubt unless it could genuinely go either way; but it's an excellent mental barrier against real inquiry, to say that "well, I've already doubted, so I've done my duty."
Since you've no idea whether or not the question, for Amroth, really could have gone either way or not, your response is - once again - very amusing.

If you'd inject some of the doubt you're preaching now into your dealings with religious people, you might at least appear to be doing something more than ranting about how stupid they are.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
If the question were really in doubt, he'd have come down on the true side.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Armoth
Member
Member # 4752

 - posted      Profile for Armoth   Email Armoth         Edit/Delete Post 
You must really hate that I didn't side with you, huh?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If the question were really in doubt, he'd have come down on the true side.
So when a question is in doubt, it's impossible for an honest, thorough person to arrive at the incorrect conclusion and still be honest and thorough?

'Doubt' doesn't seem to be the correct word in that case.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Not in general. In the case of theism, yes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 7924

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.           Edit/Delete Post 
I thought I'd post this because it just appeared today in the Rhino Times, where OSC's columns appear (this is not by OSC):
quote:
Several years ago, when I was teaching a lot, I taught philosophy to college students during the year, and then, during the summer, I would teach gifted and talented high school students from all over the state in a six-week summer program at Salem College.

One day our class of about 15 students was talking about whether or not God existed and about whether or not the design of the world made any sense.

The discussion was taking place right after two students had been sent home. Students in the program are juniors and seniors in high school, and the boys were not allowed in the girls' dorms at night and vice versa. However, one guy and girl student had broken that rule and gotten together and been kicked out. So, in class, we were talking about those two and I said, right there's a good example: "God creates your body in such a way that especially at your age hormones are raging, and there is sex on the brain all the time, and it's this incredibly powerful drive God instilled in you and then, after putting that drive in you, He instructs you: 'Don't do it! If you're not married, it's a sin! In fact, if you even think about doing it, you're sinning.'"

Now, that made no sense to me, and it seemed horribly unfair; on the surface, at least, it looks like God was being outright cruel when He created that situation.

No one had a good answer for my question but then, after a moment, one guy raised his hand and, when he spoke, he gave what was not only the best answer to that question I've ever heard, but also one of the best answers to any question I'd ever heard in years of teaching.

Here's what he said: "God gives us this incredible gift sex you know, maybe the best thing He ever gave us. And, as wonderful as it is, as fantastic as it is, before He gave it to us, I think He thought to Himself, 'Wait a minute, how can I make it even better?' And then He thought: 'I know I'll make it forbidden too.'"

And I was just blown away.

I thought that was a beautiful answer. I'm not saying the answer is firmly grounded in accepted doctrine or that it's the right one. I'm just saying there's something about his answer that's very beautiful.

Because look at what this guy is doing: Rather than leaping straight away, as many people do, to the conclusion that it's a good reason to be cynical about God this student is choosing to give God the benefit of the doubt.

His answer shows his faith because it assumes from the start that God loves us and, whatever the explanation, he assumes, it must be rooted in God's love for us. And, for all I know, that student's solution to the paradox is right on the money.

Here's the thing: Yes, if you come at Christianity and the world and the Bible with only logic, reason and common sense you'll find the Bible is full of contradictions and the world can be nonsensical.

However, when you simply allow yourself to give God the benefit of the doubt, and you approach all these questions with love and faith, it all makes perfect sense even at those times when it makes no sense at all.

I just thought this was cleverly stated. Of course, it's not clear how you get enough evidence for God for God to get the benefit of the doubt the rest of the time.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, right. If you only let go of logic, reason, and common sense, why then theism makes perfect sense! Of course! Well, this is what I've been saying all along, and in some sense I'm glad the writer agrees; now if only he would take the consequence of his words, and realise that this is not a good thing.

Edit: And incidentally, if those are really the best arguments the writer can conceive of for the Universe being badly designed, he should give up on columns and start selling those natty little straw hats; he'd make a fortune. This is exactly what I meant by 'having done one's duty' by questioning: He is very carefully selecting some extremely weak questions, which he can - such a coincidence! - easily answer. Seriously, Christian rock? Let's see him explain cancer with his cheerful little metaphors.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
Read more carefully... He does not suggest letting go of logic, reason, and common sense. He suggests coming at the questions with "love and faith" in addition to logic, reason and common sense.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
Love and faith are methods of information processing that very easily lead you to false conclusions. If you want to know whats true, you'd never use them to answer questions. If you want to reinforce pre-conceived notions, then they are great.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Xaposert:
Read more carefully... He does not suggest letting go of logic, reason, and common sense. He suggests coming at the questions with "love and faith" in addition to logic, reason and common sense.

No, what he's saying is that when reason and common sense tell you something that you do not like, ignore that, and believe whatever the hell you want to believe, and label that "love and faith".

That is exactly what letting go of reason and evidence means.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
Logic, reason and common sense are also methods of information processing that very easily lead you to false conclusions. Logic and reason depend entirely upon the assumptions fed into them (garbage in, garbage out) and are very difficult to use precisely and correctly if you aren't a computer. Common sense is just a set of assumptions which could easily be wrong.

I'm sure you could set up an experiment to get some idea of which method of information processing leads to the best conclusions. Get together a bunch of average adults and give them a test with various types of questions - and then ask them how they determined the answer to each question. My guess is that the MOST mistakes would come from questions where the adults tried to logically deduce the answer at test time, and the least mistakes would come from questions where the adults trust some expert who had told them the answer in the past. (Actually, this sounds similar to Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - do you think people do better putting faith in a phoned friend or trying to logically deduce the answer on their own?)

My guess is that the best method of information processing involves using many of the methods together.

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Xaposert:
Logic, reason and common sense are also methods of information processing that very easily lead you to false conclusions. Logic and reason depend entirely upon the assumptions fed into them (garbage in, garbage out) and are very difficult to use precisely and correctly if you aren't a computer. Common sense is just a set of assumptions which could easily be wrong.

But we have a good way of determining if our assumptions are right or wrong...we reality test them, and we throw them away when they fail reality testing.

What kind of reality testing can you submit the belief "Jesus died for my sins" to?

Or what about "That baby has no soul"?

quote:
I'm sure you could set up an experiment to see which method of information processing leads to the best conclusions. Get together a bunch of average adults and give them a test with various types of questions - and then ask them how they determined the answer to each question. My guess is that the MOST mistakes would come from questions where the adults tried to logically deduce the answer at test time, and the least mistakes would come from questions where the adults trust some expert who had told them the answer in the past.
This tells us a great deal more about you than it does other people.

But sure...why don't you find two groups of people who've never heard of the Monty Hall problem. One group you give an accurate simulator, and ask them what the simulation reveals about whether to stay or switch, and the other group will pray for a minute.

Which group do you think will have the right answer more often?

Or another one...there are four chicks in a nest. Which is more likely...that there are 2 males and 2 females, or that the ratio is something else? One group goes prays for a minute, the other writes out all the possible permutations of chicks.

Which group do you think will have the right answer more often?

But how about this test...we've had really rigorous evidenced-based reasosning for a few hundred years now, faith and love for millenia.

How many children were cured of malaria using faith, versus how many have been cured by evidenced-backed reasoning?

If your adult child had cancer, and your son or daughter-in-law said that they were rejecting evidence-based medicine in favor of nothing but love and faith, would you honestly be okay with that? Woud you expect the optimal health outcome from that course of action?

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How many children were cured of malaria using faith, versus how many have been cured by evidenced-backed reasoning?
My guess is that very few parents tried to use evidence-backed reasoning to deduce a method of protecting their child from malaria, and most that did probably failed. In contrast, most parents (at least in this country) successfully protected their child from malaria by having faith in their doctor.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:
How many children were cured of malaria using faith, versus how many have been cured by evidenced-backed reasoning?
My guess is that very few parents tried to use evidence-backed reasoning to deduce a method of protecting their child from malaria, and most that did probably failed. In contrast, most parents (at least in this country) successfully protected their child from malaria by having faith in their doctor.
But its not faith, not really. It's supported by evidence and reason. Faith by definition is not adequately supported by the evidence, and the evidence is that medical treatment works better than prayer at curing malaria.

And you still refuse to answer anything else I wrote, and I think it's pretty clear why. I imagine that if you were seriously hurt by someone because they ignored what the evidence told them, and did what their faith, or gut told them, you would be livid. If you lost your house, or your life savings, or someone you loved, you wouldn't accept "Well, the evidence told me that something terrible would happen, but my gut said it would all be fine, and I went with my gut, wasn't that the right thing to do?" as an explanation.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Here's what he said: "God gives us this incredible gift sex you know, maybe the best thing He ever gave us. And, as wonderful as it is, as fantastic as it is, before He gave it to us, I think He thought to Himself, 'Wait a minute, how can I make it even better?' And then He thought: 'I know I'll make it forbidden too.'"

In what warped way does being forbidden make something better?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Fruit
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
That's not the point. The point is that the kid was willing to exercise some tortured logic in a post-facto attempt to justify God's behavior, having started from the assumptions that a) God exists; b) God is all-powerful; and c) God is benevolent. The author found this charming; I find it sort of sad.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
That's not the point. The point is that the kid was willing to exercise some tortured logic in a post-facto attempt to justify God's behavior, having started from the assumptions that a) God exists; b) God is all-powerful; and c) God is benevolent. The author found this charming; I find it sort of sad.

IMO, where the kid got it wrong was in assuming that he understood God's position on sex. When I was faced with that particular conundrum (at about puberty,) it took me approximately 12 seconds to figure out which assumption to discard.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, of course. Certainly your god couldn't object to any impulse of yours, unless the impulse were socially unacceptable; that would be unpleasant, and we can't have that, can we now?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
God objects to many of my impulses. Those objections make a certain amount of sense, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM,

quote:
Not in general. In the case of theism, yes.
Well of course. It'd have to for you, wouldn't it?

ETA:
quote:
Well, of course. Certainly your god couldn't object to any impulse of yours; that would be unpleasant, and we can't have that, can we now?
Heh!

We can't have you injecting a little doubt (even if it's only for the sake of argument) into your dealings with the idiotic theists. That would involve ceding that you are completely, utterly right about the matter, and we can't have that, can we now?

---

Paul,

quote:
Love and faith are methods of information processing that very easily lead you to false conclusions.
If they are used exclusively, then of course. Just as the total absence of those considerations is a very easy way to lead someone to awful but true conclusions.

If you actually do believe that love is an idea which can only be used to lead one away from the correct conclusions, well, that's really a regrettable thing to believe in my opinion. But I suspect that's not quite what you believe, rather that you were speaking generally about something quite specific.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
God objects to many of my impulses. Those objections make a certain amount of sense, though.

See my edit. I think you'll find that it's really amazing how well your god's objections match up with the currently fashionable theory of morality. Such a coincidence!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
God objects to many of my impulses. Those objections make a certain amount of sense, though.

See my edit. I think you'll find that it's really amazing how well your god's objections match up with the currently fashionable theory of morality. Such a coincidence!
Oooo! Maybe we're (as I have suggested) getting better at figuring out what God really wants for us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
See my edit. I think you'll find that it's really amazing how well your god's objections match up with the currently fashionable theory of morality. Such a coincidence!
I vaguely recall something about her faith being built on belief in and following the teachings of (as she sees them, of course) someone who was very, very radically out of step with the current fashionable morality of the time.

Strange!

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
The time, not necessarily her time.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
There is plenty that is radically different from this time as well - even radically different from most current liberals.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
There is plenty that is radically different from this time as well - even radically different from most current liberals.

Kate is pretty accurate in this statement. It's why I find it so strange that Christian conservatives get such a rotten taste in their mouth when socialism is mentioned. Jesus brought it up almost 2000 years ago.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
God objects to many of my impulses. Those objections make a certain amount of sense, though.

See my edit. I think you'll find that it's really amazing how well your god's objections match up with the currently fashionable theory of morality. Such a coincidence!
Oooo! Maybe we're (as I have suggested) getting better at figuring out what God really wants for us.
And this is the particular time in history when we've figured everything out, and there aren't any differences between social morality in your part of the world and the Truths That Are Written In The Stars? Such a coincidence!

quote:
I vaguely recall something about her faith being built on belief in and following the teachings of (as she sees them, of course) someone who was very, very radically out of step with the current fashionable morality of the time.
And if any part of that person's teachings should differ from what kmb's intuition tells her, why then, that part was misunderstood by the scribes at the time.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The time, not necessarily her time.
Tom, surely this becomes more laughable than incisive when said to a Christian of Christianity. Because whatever else you say about the many, many flaws of Christianity, it certainly didn't start as a religion that appealed to the moral mores of its day.

Furthermore, can you name me a Christian church or denomination that is satisfied with the status quo? That says, "American culture's views on morality are in line with God's views of morality." Betcha can't.

Of course then you or he will get into specifics about what was meant was that the religion is in line with that culture's views on morality...but that's not what was said, and it's untrue of Christianity again as well, to use an example.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
The United States is many cultures, and doesn't have 'a' view on morality. Churches that are in line with their own locality's views on such, though - well, I challenge you to find a counterexample.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And if any part of that person's teachings should differ from what kmb's intuition tells her, why then, that part was misunderstood by the scribes at the time.
So your indictment is of kmb specifically, not Christians in general?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The United States is many cultures, and doesn't have 'a' view on morality. Churches that are in line with their own locality's views on such, though - well, I challenge you to find a counterexample.
Since you haven't provided an example, I fail to see why you're asking for a counterexample.

And while there certainly isn't one specifically codified view on morality, there certainly are some themes accepted that bear on morality. Here's an easy one: divorce. Very, very acceptable by American standards (using American divorce rates as an example), but I don't hear a lot of churches pointing out how it's acceptable for Christianity.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
God objects to many of my impulses. Those objections make a certain amount of sense, though.

See my edit. I think you'll find that it's really amazing how well your god's objections match up with the currently fashionable theory of morality. Such a coincidence!
Oooo! Maybe we're (as I have suggested) getting better at figuring out what God really wants for us.
And this is the particular time in history when we've figured everything out, and there aren't any differences between social morality in your part of the world and the Truths That Are Written In The Stars? Such a coincidence!

quote:
I vaguely recall something about her faith being built on belief in and following the teachings of (as she sees them, of course) someone who was very, very radically out of step with the current fashionable morality of the time.
And if any part of that person's teachings should differ from what kmb's intuition tells her, why then, that part was misunderstood by the scribes at the time.
And 1000 years from now, people will have figured out what we misunderstood. I said we were getting better, not that we were done.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
It seems to me that this is potentially a 'can God create a stone not even He can lift?' type of question....

In any case there does not seem to be a logical contradiction, as in the stone-too-heavy-to-lift case.

Just because it was brought up again: the paradox of the stone comes about only because the meaning of 'omnipotent' shifts. If the meaning is held constant then there is no paradox.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
The United States is many cultures, and doesn't have 'a' view on morality. Churches that are in line with their own locality's views on such, though - well, I challenge you to find a counterexample.
Since you haven't provided an example, I fail to see why you're asking for a counterexample.

And while there certainly isn't one specifically codified view on morality, there certainly are some themes accepted that bear on morality. Here's an easy one: divorce. Very, very acceptable by American standards (using American divorce rates as an example), but I don't hear a lot of churches pointing out how it's acceptable for Christianity.

Try this one, then:

quote:
Official Stance on Divorce: "Unitarian Universalists hold that divorce is entirely a matter for conscientious decision on the part of the persons involved."
As for the counterexample, I don't feel obliged to give an example of a straw man, or church in this case; but reducing the claim to what I actually said, I do not think you will find a counterexample.

quote:
So your indictment is of kmb specifically, not Christians in general?
kmb is the most egregious example I'm aware of, but a lot of Christians do this. Not all.

quote:
And 1000 years from now, people will have figured out what we misunderstood. I said we were getting better, not that we were done.
And yet you apparently cannot give a single example of a question where your intuition disagrees with moderately liberal mainstream thought of today! You who have prayed and 'thought deeply' on these issues! How can you seriously claim that this is inspiration from outside your social circle?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Well for starters, it hasn't always been my social circle. I used to be considerably more on the libertarian end of the political and social spectrum. Also, a fairly small percentage of my social circle is at all religious.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
The time, not necessarily her time.
Because whatever else you say about the many, many flaws of Christianity, it certainly didn't start as a religion that appealed to the moral mores of its day.



Wasn't this precisely Tom's point?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geekazoid
Member
Member # 7610

 - posted      Profile for Geekazoid   Email Geekazoid         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Oh, right. If you only let go of logic, reason, and common sense, why then theism makes perfect sense! Of course! Well, this is what I've been saying all along, and in some sense I'm glad the writer agrees; now if only he would take the consequence of his words, and realise that this is not a good thing.
KoM: The one thing that you, as a man of logic haven't noticed is that logic is also based on faith. In fact, religion is just as logical as science and common sense, it just starts of with a different axiom.

All logic is based on axioms, unprovable facts that we presume are true for no reason, or that we consider true by definition. In science that axiom is that we can trust what we observe.

This belief is also has many things that go against it. Things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and the double slit experiment show that the act of observing something changes it. Therefore, how can we trust what we observe when observation affects the results? Science also has flaws because it is based on an unprovable axiom Science is also based on belief.

The axiom of most religions is that God exists. everything else about the world is looked at starting with that belief, just as everything in the way that science looks at the world starts from the belief that you can trust your senses. Religious people build their lives around the idea that God created the world for us and therefore every single bit of information or question they receive goes through that filter and therefore they use logic to reach answers to your questions by looking towards God for an answer.

These are each only one axiom for each. Both science and religion have many more axioms

KoM: you seem to get really angry at these people who believe simply because they turn towards their axiom instead of yours. However, if someone tried to tell you that we couldn't trust that the speed of light is constant because we can't trust observation, you'd turn to your axiom and say that people should do more experiments to find out rather than say that science is completely wrong.

These people are using logic just as much as you are because they are using their axioms to logically build up an answer to the question asked. Not only that, you guys are using the exact same logic because just as they start off with the axiom of their religion, you start off with the axiom of your religion. You start off with the fact that God doesn't exist and you see everything through that filter because no matter what you say, there is no proof to whether or not God exists.

Posts: 42 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
If you got sick, which would you rather do: Pray, or take medicine? Unless you genuinely are indifferent between these two options, you don't believe what you are saying, you're just putting up a wall of rationalisation. Science (not 'logic') and religion both make claims about the Universe. Science works. Religion doesn't. Deal.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
Geekazoid,

The fact that an axiom is not provable does not mean it is presumed true "for no reason" or is thought to be "true by definition". Axioms in science normally have ample empirical justification. Furthermore they are continually tested. Is the same true for theistic axioms?

FYI you appear to be using science and logic interchangeably in places.

Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geekazoid:
... The axiom of most religions is that God exists. everything else about the world is looked at starting with that belief

Nope, they usually have multiple ones and they usually call them something else.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So your indictment is of kmb specifically, not Christians in general?
Kate frustrates KoM because her God is not recognizable as God at all; He's basically whatever she's decided to believe. There are no strictures to her religions, no beliefs, that she has not -- from KoM's point of view -- already decided to believe. In other words, as he sees it, she took a moral framework and squeezed a god into it.

His criticism -- that her God perfectly reflects her morals -- is meant to apply to her specifically and to what I call mushy religion in broad strokes.

=========

quote:
The axiom of most religions is that God exists.
This is a very silly axiom for a number of reasons. For one thing, it's very high-order for an axiom; it'd be like me saying "I am the King of the World, entitled to indulge my every whim" -- and then declaring that I'm being perfectly rational, since that's axiomatic.

Besides, I don't think most religious people do take "God exists" as axiomatic. I think there are other axioms that lead them to belief, but which do not necessarily presuppose the existence of a deity.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QUOTE] but I don't hear a lot of churches pointing out how it's acceptable for Christianity.

Try this one, then:

quote:
Official Stance on Divorce: "Unitarian Universalists hold that divorce is entirely a matter for conscientious decision on the part of the persons involved."

Point of Order: Unitarian Universalism is not Christianity.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know how it'd be possible to tell. [Smile]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  13  14  15   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2