|
Evil...
Sept 16, 2005 16:55:32 GMT -5
Post by rickus on Sept 16, 2005 16:55:32 GMT -5
Fine. Settled. We will work under the assumption that there is no God, nor Shepard. ALL we are really talking about are sheep then? The people? Right? We're not talking about their book? Just the people?
If that's true then you are making a blanket assumption about a group of people with individual ideas, beliefs passions and lives. And I suggest that that is an unhealthy way to frame a set of opinions. Just ask any post world war two German.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 16, 2005 17:04:34 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 16, 2005 17:04:34 GMT -5
1. "Christianity in America relies on everyone thinking that the majority is christian." There is no structure identifiable with “Christianity in America,” Tyler. I have made this point to you at least 5 or 6 times. Christianity is not monolithic and has never been so. So, which Christianity are you talking about? Which versions are problematic? Better yet, what specific ideas or beliefs are worrisome? (Some basic stuff: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity:_Denominations#Denominations ) 2. “Most of the Christians… have no real belief, faith, or will. They cling due to a lack of better alternative.” There may well be fewer Christians in the world than self-proclaimed believers in Christ. (I am sure glad that I wasn’t appointed the task of sorting them out!) But surely you will admit that some Christians do not cling because they have no real alternative. Some people are Christians because it seems to them the right thing to do. 3. “When they are dying in the hospital they squeal like piggies suddenly forgetting what they thought they knew.” A cruel fact... Some Christians have argued that the commonality of human suffering is perhaps the essence of religious experience. I think Jesus has some interesting remarks that link love and suffering… 4. “See, the truly faithful don’t cry at death. They don’t grieve the loss of the material.” That is just silly, Tyler. We humans are tiny and weak. I hurt at the thought of not seeing Jason and Justin for six months. If I should be unfortunate enough to survive them, I would still have to learn to live without them. Reason enough for sadness. 5. “If someone isn't spurred to fear, they feel no need to believe and thus don't practice the traditions necessary to maintain the belief.” What about the carrot of a more abundant life? Christianity needn’t be about adding supernatural years to our lives. It could just be about adding supernatural life to our years. 6. “If we can get their children to read just one book and gain any sort of perspective on the world, they will most of the time abandon the brainwashing of their youth and strike out in the hope of discovering the truth behind all the lies fostered in their youths by their religious leaders.” I submit that Adam, Justin and I have read at least one book, not that any of us are paragons of faith. But we would all claim to be Christians. 7. “As we succeed in eradicating the world of poverty and trauma we will also succeed in ridding the world of the plague of faith.” Perhaps this would be fodder for a nice wager? Jeff
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 16, 2005 17:09:02 GMT -5
Post by Betterout on Sept 16, 2005 17:09:02 GMT -5
See, the truly faithful don’t cry at death. They don’t grieve the loss of the material. Tyler, with all due respect, I think you're just mistaken here. Faithfulness and stoicism are not the same things. Anyone familiar with human nature will tell you that sadness and, yes, tears are natural parts of the grieving process, which is a natural reaction to loss. Back in 1994, you were about to leave for Basic, and Dave, you and I drove back to Pawhuska because you had to get something from your house. I knew I wouldn't see you for quite a long time, and I remember crying in my room that night. I wasn't scared, and I wasn't faithless. I was just emotional about an important event in our lives. Death is one of those times, too, but there are often extenuating circumstances. For instance, I didn't cry when my Grandmother Dannar died a few years ago, nor did I at her funeral, or really any time since then. It's not that I wasn't intensely sad, and it's not that I'm more faithful than those in my family who did cry. It's just that her death followed a long illness that afforded me ample opportunities to come to terms with her mortality and to say my goodbyes. Both of these occasions seem to stand against your position, and these are just two examples in my meager existence. Perhaps you have a real position, and perhaps you can back it up with the rational evidence you seem ready to worship, but--and this is just the observation from one good friend to another--it seems you don't have a leg to stand on in this case. Many of the things you've said in the past few weeks about religion in general, Christianity in particular, and even about me as a person have come across as intentionally hurtful, so I know you have some real passions backing your standpoint. Likewise, I think I've taken much offense at your statements, and have spoken quite rudely to you in front of everyone. For that, I'm very sorry. I am not, though, sorry in the least bit for believing in God, for defending my faith, for giving mad props to Jesus, etc. I know you to be a very respectful person when it comes to those who have earned your respect. I hope I am one of those, because you are so important to me, and I respect you greatly.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 0:01:53 GMT -5
Post by tenzingcory on Sept 17, 2005 0:01:53 GMT -5
www.buddhanet.netOne of the most extensive web resources on buddhism.. and unlike some Judeo sites.. its completely free ..
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 0:21:09 GMT -5
Post by tenzingcory on Sept 17, 2005 0:21:09 GMT -5
My issue with the argument of " god or no god" is this... We shouldn't focus on if there is or isn't but rather .. how do we make the leap from rational, logic to the abstract concept of the infinite and those concepts greater than the human conciousness... At least Buddhism accepts that things begin and end and begin again as pieces of something else. It seems to me that Chrisitians have to rely on infinite concepts rather than finite ones... So I'm under the assumption that if you want to attack chrisitanity you should attack it at the concept of faith... I don't think you should believe in something unless you can rationally work through the steps to that object... Its a house of cards.. In the end we are all Cartesians.. ( I know some of this is garbled.. so straighten me out Jeff)
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 2:13:12 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 17, 2005 2:13:12 GMT -5
Cory,
The real Christian hope, I'd say, is not for the people of the world to become practitioners of the Religion of the Empire. God as divine Caesar is unlovable. Neither is it for the thinkers of the world to Know God in Herself, God as disembodied rational principle is unapproachable, just as you say. The West has suffered greatly from the combination of these two terrible images of God. If that is what God is, then the Buddhist and the Psalmist must be correct: "For so he giveth his beloved--sleep" (Psalm 127:2). The chasm is too great; there is no escape.
But there is an alternative: Whenever Jesus spoke he didn’t sound much like Justinian or Aristotle. It was Muhammad who sought to forge a theocracy and the early church fathers who struggled to make Jesus intelligible. Jesus was not much concerned about either, preferring his usual parables and paradoxes. "If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight" (John 18:36). It is not, and they do not. And yet--here is The Man, a light to those who can see the kingdom here and now...and somehow not.
How? (In this case the Real question, not "why?") The answer is, I'd argue, a genuine advance in the spiritual understanding of the world. Three sample passages:
1. Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt 22:34-40).
2. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive back as much. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back. (Luke 6:32-34)
3. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other. (John 15:9-17)
Now, Buddhism also advocates love and compassion:
1. “Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth.” Dhammapada 17.3
2. “Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world.” Sutta Nipata 150
3. “The body of the Buddha is born of love, patience, gentleness, and truth.” Vimalakirtinirdesha Sutra 2
4. “The bodhisattva loves all living beings as if each were his only child.” Vimalakirtinirdesha Sutra 5
The difference, I’d argue, is that Buddhist love arises concomitantly with liberation (the true goal) whereas Christian love is simply the whole of the law. It is strange to think of Christianity as metaphysically more perspicuous than Buddhism, but I think that is exactly the case. Christianity is a devotional religion, and its claims to knowledge are really quite secondary. Not so with the Buddha. He begins by announcing a New Way, A Middle Way. Jesus doesn't bother with method; press Him on finer points and He just slips away:
“I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. … But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.” (Matt 19:23-30).
Compare The Sermon on the Mount to the Four Noble Truths: While the essence of Buddhism is certainly compatible with Christianity, the latter represents a different kind of hope.
Justin, my brother, likes to speak of self-expanding structures. Their beauty lies in the fact that they contain enough information to build themselves once an initial expansion is set in motion. The ultimate Christian faith is that love is such a structure, and its tender and uneven unfolding is a blessing to the individual and the world wherever it occurs. The Christian ideal is to let this unfolding happen without regard to oneself. Paradoxically, this is really the only way to be oneself.
More later…
Jeff
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 11:08:20 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 17, 2005 11:08:20 GMT -5
There is one church and it encompasses Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I’m sure that the skinheads protest very much when associated with the various US white-supremecist movements too. But, you are saying that the oranges are completely different because of the number of wrinkles in its skin. Of course the oranges are going to find difference, but it’s still oranges. If you were to take all of the things that are worrisome from christianity, it wouldn’t be christianity anymore. You’d even have to find a new name for it, because you’d have to get rid of the christ. I asked at the beginning of this board specifically for that, a rewrite of the bible. I was hoping to give you guys a chance to distance yourselves from the craziness and finally get an answer to the question I’ve asked three times that I know of: what do you believe. Each of you in turn declined to modify one single word in the bible. I couldn’t have asked for better proof of a monolithic faith underlying your beliefs. There is one monolithic church in the US. It has claimed responsibility for the moral direction and instruction for the populace, therefore it is responsible for the goods and ills of the populace. As the populace is immoral after centuries of Abraham being at the helm I’d say it’s time for a change.
Now, as for a specific discussion of the ills of the religious dogma? Two words. Virgin Birth. If you can argue your way out of that I’ll kiss you full on the lips. Why do you believe in a god? How do you define the word god? If it involves a modicum of ‘omni’ in it then it’s silly. Are you instead saying that there is a universal something that is common to us all? A force that binds and influences us? Kookookachoo I am the Walrus? Why won’t you alter the bible at all? Why is it sacrosanct?
As for the piggies stuff… That was based on an assumption of a belief in life-after-death being central to christianity. You may not believe it, but your church relies on it for cash and these people that squeal count on it for sanity. These people aren’t crying because they might go a while without seeing their cousins. I’m not talking about weeping at the strength of the moment. They have the same eyes a weasel caught in a bear-trap does. They are terrified that they are going to cease to be. No body screams at the thought of spending a little time without seeing their spouse.
The carrot of a more abundant life. Think about that for a sec. If you’re right, wouldn’t you find centers of faith listed on the ‘best places to live’ surveys or maybe the ‘most satisfied with life’ surveys? Instead you see them high up on the ‘teen pregnancy’ lists and the ‘incidence of rape’ statistics. If your religion was viable or effective in any way, wouldn’t you see our government becoming better and more effective with the will of the religious seen manifest in it? How can you say that your faith-system is good when it brings naught but evil and despair to its adherents? Smell that fruity smell? You can tell a smoker from a photograph. You can see it in the way they walk and the look in their eyes. You can see the influence of the ‘bad’ on every ounce of their being. Can’t you see the influence of your church on our world? The teachings of Jesus are too far away to influence the people of our world. We need a new prophet. I hope one of you will step up.
There is but one life for each of us. I have chosen to spend it with you all because of the respect I have in each of you. I would be doing a disservice to each of you were I to do anything other than to do all I can to challenge your knowledge and beliefs. My intent is to hurt. It is, in fact, to kill you. Each of us are not the person we were when we first met and there have been several times when I have been utterly reborn after a small utterance from one of you. If I were to get my wish, I’d die utterly each day to be reborn incrementally closer to the I that could be capable of perceiving the whole of reality. I won’t let politeness get in the way of truth.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 12:42:44 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 17, 2005 12:42:44 GMT -5
Tyler, Feel free to check my logic for consistency and coherence, to check my evidence for applicability and adequacy, but, please, if I give arguments don’t ignore them. When you do, we just waste time. You don’t get anywhere by starting with the premise “Christianity is Christianity is Christianity.” It’s just false. You are wrong about it. And any argument with a false premise is invalid. You are not fighting me on this one, you are bucking the rules of logic. To show you why it is false, yet again, look here—I am, out of simple respect for your intelligence, passing over the snake handlers and the strychnine swallowers: Landmarkism: mb-soft.com/believe/text/landmark.htmwww.geocities.com/baptist_documents/landmark.index.htmlAccording to these guys, it violates NT principles to speak of a universal, spiritual church. So, by your own argument: 1. Tyler says, “Christianity is monolithic.” 2. Tyler reads and understands the doctrine of Landmarkism, which says by definition Christianity is not monolithic. So what does Tyler do? He wants to say, “Those Landmarkists must be wrong!” But when he does, he recognizes a group that claims to be Christian but which he says really isn’t. But that means that when he was talking about Christians in 1.), he wasn’t talking about all of them. So, he must revise 1). Go for it Tyler. Revise it. You’ll see that saying the Bible makes all Christians the same is like saying the Constitution makes Democrats and Republicans the same. I realize you think that Christians hold some silly views. We can talk about them, if you like. Adam, Justin, and I agree with you, of course. And you wouldn’t want to make enemies of the folks on your side, would you? The rest will have to wait. I have to go to the grocery store—I am out of strychnine, and service is tomorrow morning! Jeff
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 12:57:38 GMT -5
Post by Voice of Diversity on Sept 17, 2005 12:57:38 GMT -5
Hey, we keep conveniently leaving Mandy off this list of Christians. Let's be fair here.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 13:26:32 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 17, 2005 13:26:32 GMT -5
Mandy, you fucking Christian! Consider your included.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 13:26:54 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 17, 2005 13:26:54 GMT -5
1. Tyler says, “Deistic religions are monolithic.” 2. Tyler reads and understands the doctrine of Landmarkism, which says by definition Christianity is not monolithic. 3. Tyler disagrees with their doctrine in 2 that christianity is not monolithic. 4. That doesn’t make them non-christians or non deists. 1. Tyler says, “Deistic people are silly.” 2. Tyler reads and understands the doctrine of Deists which says by definition they are the only non-silly ones. 3. Tyler disagrees with the doctrine in 2. 4. They’re still silly.
Tyler says: “Those Landmarkists must be wrong!” Tyler doesn’t say that they aren’t really christians, just trying to keep the girls out of the clubhouse. They are wrong when they say there isn’t a monolithic church. And, they are christians. They still share 90% of the same beliefs as any given baptist congregation. One of the hallmarks of the Abrahamic faiths is a section of it claiming that because some other group doesn’t meet their criteria for their religion that the other group isn’t actually in the same religion. ‘Repent or burn’. That doesn’t make it true. Also, just because you all don’t agree, it doesn’t make you separate. I’m going to expand the definition and say that ‘the church’ includes all deistic faiths. There is no substantial difference in your belief structure in any way that matters.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 13:34:04 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 17, 2005 13:34:04 GMT -5
4. That doesn’t make them non-Christians
Quite right. What it means is that your original notion of monolithic Christianity must be flawed. It doesn't matter whether the Landmarkists are right or wrong. I am talking about your definition of Christianity. Tyler, are they Christians or not by your definition? If you say they are, then your definition must be false because here are Christians saying that Christianity is by definition not monolithic. If you say they aren't, then your original definition did not include them. See the problem: It's a contradiction so long as I have the meanings of the terms correct.
If I don't then, that would give you another way out. For example, you could say, "When I say monolithic I am not referring to the sameness of their beliefs or practices." But if you go that way, then just what do you mean by calling them monolithic? I think you would have to mean, "There is all kinds of Christian diversity, but we can treat them all the same because we don't really like to think about our beliefs and values very much." I doubt you'll go that way. Or did you, already? Well, I hope you see the problem with stereotyping and bigotry down that road. It should be enough to turn you around.
Jeff
PS Americans today probably share 90% of the values of a slave owning Southerner in the 1850s. It’s just that the 10% difference really matters. Isn't it true that humans and chimps share 98% of their DNA? Heck, all religious people share quite a lot in common. So, you still owe a justification of your smear tactic.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 13:43:56 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 17, 2005 13:43:56 GMT -5
I keep thinking that you want this monolithic charge to stick because you don't want to get down in the dirt and talk about actual beliefs and practices. Is that the case? If so, it's lame. If not, why is it so important to paint everyone with the same brush? Don't you want to be the kind of person who thinks in as much detail as necessary?...especially about other people?
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 13:47:21 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 17, 2005 13:47:21 GMT -5
It's like I'm watching the old star trek episode where the guys with the black and white halves of their faces are working so hard to argue their differences when the truth is that all the things that separate them are inconsequential. The negative effects come from what they have in common.
The negative effects come from what you all share in common.
All religious people share enough in common to make their religions monolithic in all ways that matter. You can argue about the individual things that make your faiths different, but all you're really doing is working hard not to look at the inherent flaws in a deistic faith. You can't poke god.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 13:48:33 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 17, 2005 13:48:33 GMT -5
Actual beliefs and practices. Please give me a list of your beliefs specifically involving religion.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 14:17:33 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 17, 2005 14:17:33 GMT -5
I've tried. You can find my essays about this all over the board. Let's speed this process: Please, provide a list of religious beliefs and practices you find objectionable.
I will continue to try to spell out my religious beliefs, but you must understand this is the work of a lifetime.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 14:26:54 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 17, 2005 14:26:54 GMT -5
Heaven, hell, moral actions based on personal gain or loss, all of the bible's mythology (virgin birth, angels, devils...), ambiguity in the article that is proclaimed to be a guidebook to life, the existance of a god.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 17:02:48 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 17, 2005 17:02:48 GMT -5
Okay, good.
Not all Christians hold all these views, certainly I don't. So, it may be that many of us would be acceptable to you. Further, some of these are views that I've never heard a Christian espouse. For example, I think it would deny the essence of the religion to hold that the morality of actions depends on personal gain or loss. This is a decidedly unchristian view, on most interpretations of the religion. Amanda, Adam, and Justin is this not so?
If you amended the view to "moral actions are based on some maximal conception of human gain and loss, say the greatest happiness for the greatest number" then I will have heard of Christians who hold the view, though most still wouldn't I'd wager--certainly I wouldn't. But then there are lots of folks who would hold to consequentialism who aren't Christians at all. So this would effectively take the debate off religious grounds.
So it looks like your big objections are to the elements of the mythology and possibly to the nature and function of myth itself. I agree that these can be distracting. And there is the danger that believers will take them to be literal truths instead of metaphors to live by. But, there is always the chance someone will blow his arm off with a firecracker. I've given this Joseph Campbell quote before, but it is relevant here: "God is a metaphor for the transcendent ground of all being, something beyond any feeble attempt to conceptualize. And there are generally two kinds of people in the world: Those who want to see that metaphor as the literal truth and those who want to see it as a complete lie. It is neither."
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 17:13:45 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 17, 2005 17:13:45 GMT -5
I think your beef is with literalism. Mine is too.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 18:18:05 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 17, 2005 18:18:05 GMT -5
It's not literalism. I think literalism is not only the best, but the only way to go. I think the bible is bunk because it is open to interpretation. I think that the Abrahamic traditions are bunk because they fall apart if you try to interpet their books literally and if you don't, you're doing nothing but making excuses for a fatally flawed system.
|
|