@Highroller -- "You're attempting to take the negative qualities you associate with Fred Phelps and extend them to all Christians just because Fred Phelps identified as one."
Are we reading the same thread? When did I attempt to do anything of the sort? I was correcting Panda's statement that Christians repudiate Phelps just as much as anyone. I am not making any sweeping generalities about Christians. I am not saying all Christians are hateful like Phelps, or anything like that.
Ultimately, it's harmful to attach yourself to a holy book (even if you're only doing the popular, "friendly" part or even just one man in it), and you don't need to. So why do it? I reject Christianity because there's no good reason to embrace it -- certainly not a reason that outweighs the massive harm that Christianity and religion as a whole inflicts on us.
Also, I had to laugh at your statements of how Christianity emphasizes the insignificance of humanity. Nothing emphasizes the insignificance of human beings like believing the entire universe was created with you in mind and that that creator knows your thoughts, hears your prayers, cares who you sleep with (and how), and wants you to sacrifice animals to him. How could a god put any more importance on the minor activities of some high primates in the Milky Way than the Christian one does? The idea that anything in the Bible could not have been written (or even hints at not being written) by ancient humans is laughable. What about stoning adulterers, sacrificing animals, and bitterly cursing fig trees says "divine" to you? If a divine being wrote any of it, why didn't they think it important to mention electricity or germ theory? The Bible is written exactly as you'd expect it to be written if it was written by ignorant, ancient huamns.
Are we reading the same thread? When did I attempt to do anything of the sort?
You can stop being disingenuous at any point.
You're attempting to fault all of Christianity because Fred Phelps has followers. This is guilt by association, and a fallacy.
Now you can waste your time making another post pretending to have no idea what I'm talking about, or you can put your effort toward typing a not-fallacious argument. I would suggest the second.
Are we reading the same thread? When did I attempt to do anything of the sort?
You can stop being disingenuous at any point.
You're attempting to fault all of Christianity because Fred Phelps has followers. This is guilt by association, and a fallacy.
Now you can waste your time making another post pretending to have no idea what I'm talking about, or you can put your effort toward typing a not-fallacious argument. I would suggest the second.
Are you literally delusional? PLEASE quote the section where I tried to fault all of Christianity because Fred Phelps has followers. I said that Phelps follows the Bible and is very Christian because he does so. I said that Christians do not repudiate Phelps any more than anyone else (as Panda claimed). I have not (at least intentionally) made any claims about Christians as a whole.
I said that Christians do not repudiate Phelps any more than anyone else (as Panda claimed). I have not (at least intentionally) made any claims about Christians as a whole.
You not only made one, you made one in the sentence that directly precedes the sentence in which you claim to not have made one.
Now, as I politely requested earlier, how about a non-fallacious argument that isn't disingenuous?
I said that Christians do not repudiate Phelps any more than anyone else (as Panda claimed). I have not (at least intentionally) made any claims about Christians as a whole.
You not only made one, you made one in the sentence that directly precedes the sentence in which you claim to not have made one.
Now, as I politely requested earlier, how about a non-fallacious argument that isn't disingenuous?
I don't see how describing someone as Christian because they abide by the Christian holy book says anything about Christians at large. Would you object to me calling someone advocating for white supremacy a white supremacist, or for calling someone calling for less government intervention a libertarian?
Originally, I was only responding to Panda saying this: "Clearly it's understood that the existence of a few high-profile hypocrites and hatemongers within Christianity does not itself impugn the religion, since there are bad apples in every institution." My argument was that Phelps isn't a "bad apple" because he is abiding by scripture. If anything, Panda is the bad apple.
He was trying to act like Christianity was not stained by Phelps or other hatemongers, when they are in fact a reflection of part of its doctrine.
I don't see how describing someone as Christian because they abide by the Christian holy book says anything about Christians at large.
Now, it's pretty damn obvious I was talking about this statement,
I said that Christians do not repudiate Phelps any more than anyone else (as Panda claimed).
Which IS a statement about Christianity as a whole.
And also is blatantly false. Pandas claim was that Christians repudiate Phelps as much as anyone else, not more than anyone else. Meanwhile, your claim was most certainly NOT that Christians don't repudiate Phelps anymore than anyone else, but instead that all Christians are discredited because of Phelps.
In regards to your claim that Fred Phelps being repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone, that seems obviously wrong. He had a large Christian following, and no atheist followers that I'm aware of. Does that not indicate that Christians have repudiated him at least a bit less than anyone else?
Which is an association fallacy.
He was trying to act like Christianity was not stained by Phelps or other hatemongers
And here is you committing the same fallacy in the previous post.
Now how long are you going to continue wasting our time by denying making statements about Christians at large in the exact same post in which you make statements about Christians at large after I quoted you making statements about Christians at large?
The fact that 40 Christians clearly do not repudiate it along with the fact that all atheists/non-Christians repudiate it should make it clear that Christians, as a whole, do not repudiate it as much as everyone else. It's just a mathematical truth. 40 is greater than 0.
This would be me, with most supernatural beliefs of all kinds. I suppose there are better belief systems than Christianity, there are worse, I don't really have a horse in this race either way. I'm not Christian because I don't think what they believe is true, not because of who they are as a group.
The rest seem fairly irrelevant. If I thought Christianity was true, I'd believe in it even if every other Christian on the planet was a terrible person. If God existed, it wouldn't matter if he was good or bad or indifferent it would simply be, first and foremost, an objective fact, and to believe or not believe based on personality traits would be silly ( e.g. "My brother put my gerbil in the microwave, so I will no longer believe in his existence." )
I'm an atheist based on what has been presented to me at the present time. It is neither a faith nor a fixed state, and should a deity materialize tomorrow I have no problem changing my viewpoint.
The fact that 40 Christians clearly do not repudiate it along with the fact that all atheists/non-Christians repudiate it should make it clear that Christians, as a whole, do not repudiate it as much as everyone else. It's just a mathematical truth. 40 is greater than 0.
Oh no, no, dude, Pandas, that's completely false. Paul most certainly did tell people to treat homosexuals differently from other people.
Where? Specifically (as to what I said earlier) where did he tell Christians to act with hostility towards homosexual non-believers? Because, yes, he told his audience not to associate with any of the "sexually immoral" people who were also professing to be Christians. Christians were to hold one another to a certain standard, but not seek to impose that standard outside of the church. I think 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 sums it up:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
This is a silly metric - just because people generally like to feel important doesn't mean that they are incapable of expressing the idea that they might not be. Lots of philosophies have included ideas of predestination, fate, determinism, etc., which minimize our role in deciding our future.
True. The weird thing about the Christian view is that you have a personal God who loves people enough to incarnate and die a horrific death for their sake, and yet who also asserts that they are dust and their best deeds are "filthy rags" in His sight. Which indicates that He loves us not because of anything we can intrinsically be or do, but because love is His nature. I am not aware of any other worldview in which humanity's relationship to the divine is so passive, in which our role is not to do any meritorious deeds or prove ourselves worthy, but simply to accept a gift of unmerited love and then to serve as conduits of that.
Why does something being naturalistic make it irrelevant? That's just nonsense.
I said that naturalistic morality is irrelevant aside from my standing as a member of society. If I have no more interest in being a member of society (perhaps due to a terminal illness) -- or if I have utter assurance that I can get away with something without being noticed -- what is to stop me from doing whatever "bad" thing strikes my fancy?
Do you assume that I haven't actually read the Bible? To take the gretachristina blog post a starting point: it may seem clever and smart to those who haven't done any serious study of Christianity; yet it is full of willful misinterpretation of the texts and basic exegetical errors. Still, I can see why someone with "modern, progressive morals" would have troubles with a lot of Jesus's teachings. That's fine. Now demonstrate that the modern and progressive morals in question are actually the best and truest morals that have ever been held, the golden standard by which all others should be judged. (Also, much of what Jesus says assumes, axiomatically, the sovereignty of God the Father. If you do not (even for the sake of discussion) accept that axiom, then many of Jesus's words will of course seem absurd.)
I reject Christianity because there's no good reason to embrace it -- certainly not a reason that outweighs the massive harm that Christianity and religion as a whole inflicts on us.
Bad religion does indeed inflict massive harm. And good religion does massive good. Why must all religion be bad? Is religious fundamentalism inherently bad; or doesn't it (as one would reasonably suppose) depend on the nature of the fundamentals? We are obviously justified in fearing an Islamic terror attack. So why don't we fear an Amish terror attack in the least?
Also, I had to laugh at your statements of how Christianity emphasizes the insignificance of humanity. Nothing emphasizes the insignificance of human beings like believing the entire universe was created with you in mind and that that creator knows your thoughts, hears your prayers, cares who you sleep with (and how), and wants you to sacrifice animals to him. How could a god put any more importance on the minor activities of some high primates in the Milky Way than the Christian one does?
Ah, but don't you see? The importance God places upon us is only noteworthy because of our inherent insignificance.
The idea that anything in the Bible could not have been written (or even hints at not being written) by ancient humans is laughable. What about stoning adulterers, sacrificing animals, and bitterly cursing fig trees says "divine" to you? If a divine being wrote any of it, why didn't they think it important to mention electricity or germ theory? The Bible is written exactly as you'd expect it to be written if it was written by ignorant, ancient huamns.
Again, I don't think that the Bible was written by God (that's what Islam says about the Koran). I believe that many human authors were, to varying degrees, inspired by God to transmit a message. The message was couched in the language and circumstances of its time and, in some instances, adulterated by the prejudices of the authors. But its overall story is clear and its message timeless.
Also, why should God have told us about electricity or germ theory? From a divine perspective, why should it matter one bit whether humans live in huts for forty years or in condos for eighty years? What does it avail us to live longer, or with more material comforts, if we are not actually living better? Look at the news and tell me with a straight face that human nature is any less avaricious, cruel, deceitful or petty than it was 2000 years ago.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
True. The weird thing about the Christian view is that you have a personal God who loves people enough to incarnate and die a horrific death for their sake, and yet who also asserts that they are dust and their best deeds are "filthy rags" in His sight. Which indicates that He loves us not because of anything we can intrinsically be or do, but because love is His nature. I am not aware of any other worldview in which humanity's relationship to the divine is so passive, in which our role is not to do any meritorious deeds or prove ourselves worthy, but simply to accept a gift of unmerited love and then to serve as conduits of that.
So what? Every religion is unique in some way which runs counter to what we might expect a human to prefer. Some sects demand extreme austerity and asceticism, which is surely opposite of our natural inclinations. Is this evidence that they are also divinely inspired? No, of course not.
Let's also remember, of course, that you've arrived at this uniqueness by picking those passages which support it, and rejecting those which do not. If allowed to do this with other holy texts, I'm sure you could create other similarly unique variations of those religions.
I said that naturalistic morality is irrelevant aside from my standing as a member of society. If I have no more interest in being a member of society (perhaps due to a terminal illness) -- or if I have utter assurance that I can get away with something without being noticed -- what is to stop me from doing whatever "bad" thing strikes my fancy?
Because your morality is presumably backed by some rational argument which convinces you of it. Just as your adherence to Christian morality is dependent on your being convinced of Christianity.
I think the hipocrisy of the christians is the biggest reason for me not to liek christianity. The people from the church keep being hypocritical in the stuff they do.
Also their elevation of the world is too old and doesn´t fit into today society.
I have more a problem with the church, especially the catholic church, than with christianity itself.
Because their fundamental opinions may be good, but the church is in my opinion just not defensible.
And as for myself I just can´t believe something as one guy watching all of us or hearing our prayers.
As an agnostic this are my thoughts: 1. Christians have done and continue to do great evil (Crusades, Inquisition, gay bashing, etc.)
People in general have done great evil, so you can't really blame christians for this...
2. Christians in general don't behave any better than their irreligious counterparts, so what's the point?
Kinda the same as point 1, is people in general who missbehave.
3. Christians are anti-scientific and contribute to social mistrust of science (i.e. Creationists).
I can't really talk about this one, I think that is mostly a US thing. I haven't seen christians deny science where I live.
4. Even Christians who accept evolution are violating Occam's Razor by proposing God, Satan, angels, etc.
Can't really talk about this subject, had to google it
5. Miracles don't happen. There's no evidence.
I think this one is what makes me a non-christian the most. I haven't found conclusive evidence of neither the existence or inexistence of God (like the alien life in space). Mathematically speaking, I can't probe or deny it.
6. Religious fundamentalism always leads to disharmony and violence; and religious belief in any capacity validates fundamentalism.
I think that fundamentalism in general leads to disharmony and violence, but religious belief doesn't necessarilly validates fundamentalism. Tibetans monks aren't that violent, right?
7. The classic problem of evil (an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is allegedly not compatible with the existence of evil).
Good and evil are just points of view, so this one doesn't bug me that much
8. The doctrine of hell is abominable.
I think this one is a misconception, so don't agree. I have seen christian schollars explain that the hell concept is metaphorical, to represent your own suffering if you don't embrace God's love. There is no flames, heat, or red goat-guy sticking his trident on you. :flame::evillol:
9. Christianity makes as many untestable claims as any other religion; why should it be right and they not be?
Similar thoughts as point 2.
I read a lot about religion and history. How could I deny or dislike something that I don't understand? I like to think of God as an alter ego of men, what they wanted to be. What I like about christianism: their love philosophy, some teachings (I think that Jesus probably existed and he was a great prophet). I also like what some christians priest can do for they community. Maybe some of you are not familiar with this, but is a common thing in third world countries. What I dislike: the way some bad people uses religion to control other people with fear and suffering. An example of this will be how Constantine embraced christianism for his own benefit. I try be a good person because of the golden rule, not because I will go to hell otherwise. I dislike the whole 'church' structure. It also made me mad when I went to curch a few times and the believers in there were really disrespectful about what was going on, they talked loud all the time (I was really quiet and solemn) and it seemed to me that all they wanted is a 'blessing', a 'heaven pass'.
On a side note, I could never understand this: if God created everything, what created God? He was just there since the beginning? If this is true, then you could ensure in the same way that humans were just there since the beginning
I believe WoTC's new policy is to make sure that every color can enjoy the exciting gameplay mechanic of making undercosted dudes and then turning them sideways. Clearly the future of magic.
Quote from "Kakaroto" »
Quote from "Disco Stu" »
Podríamos hacer un topic donde marquemos los peores horrores de ortografía.
So what? Every religion is unique in some way which runs counter to what we might expect a human to prefer. Some sects demand extreme austerity and asceticism, which is surely opposite of our natural inclinations. Is this evidence that they are also divinely inspired? No, of course not.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying. Extreme asceticism and austerity make sense if you're trying to impress God with your non-worldliness. Christianity says, "Um, hello? You can't impress God. So stop trying and just enter into His love." Like what Paul says in the famous "love" discourse: "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3).
Let's also remember, of course, that you've arrived at this uniqueness by picking those passages which support it, and rejecting those which do not. If allowed to do this with other holy texts, I'm sure you could create other similarly unique variations of those religions.
"Grace, not works" has been a rallying cry since the Reformation.
Because your morality is presumably backed by some rational argument which convinces you of it. Just as your adherence to Christian morality is dependent on your being convinced of Christianity.
Rationality is fine and good until a person is under duress, in which case circumstances could suddenly make reasonable what was before unthinkable. Moral convictions should be confirmed by reason in times of peace, but must also be grounded in a faith which sustains them in times of strife. (Not that such faith must be explicitly religious. But atheists who are willing to make great sacrifices in hard times "because it's the right thing to do" would seem to have a self-understanding that transcends naturalist orthodoxy.)
What does it avail us to live at all, in your view?
I think that these lives of ours are basically the "seeds" of a crop that has been planted in Eternity. By our choices in this life we determine whether that seed will sprout or whether it will rot and die in the ground. If we are fruitful, we basically attain godhood. But like Jesus, "who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Philippians 2:6), we are not to imagine that Christian faith is a deal we make for deification: a "pay now, buy later" sort of scheme. We are called to believe that God's love can and will transfigure us into beings of exceptional, celestial magnificence -- and then to largely forget that (except when it edifies us to remember) because we are so busy practicing and participating in love.
I apologize if my language seems obscure, but I don't know how else to speak of God.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying. Extreme asceticism and austerity make sense if you're trying to impress God with your non-worldliness. Christianity says, "Um, hello? You can't impress God. So stop trying and just enter into His love." Like what Paul says in the famous "love" discourse: "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3).
You're missing the point. I'm saying that austerity is also counter to some of our other inclinations. In addition to liking to feel important and powerful, people also like to live comfortable lives. If the doctrine that humans are not able to impress God is likely to be divinely inspired because it runs counter to man's natural inclinations, then the same should be true of ascetics. Asceticism runs counter to -different- inclinations, but the same logic can be applied.
And you still haven't answered my question about the Hellenistic fates. There is another example where our destiny is out of our hands. Do you believe this to be divinely inspired? It matches your criteria quite well, and even lacks a God which is loving and interested in us. Surely if we are looking for a philosophy which does not match our natural desires, one in which we are loved and cared for is not a good choice.
Further, what if I simply invent a new religious doctrine tomorrow, one which declares that we are doomed to eternal suffering no matter what we do, because the creator of the universe hates us. Is this not even more contrary to man's natural inclinations? Would you switch your belief to this?
"Grace, not works" has been a rallying cry since the Reformation.
I don't understand how this is a relevant reply. What you've said is that you accept certain passages of the Bible to be divinely inspired because they run counter to what you suppose a human author would come up with. You then compare this, for example, to Islam, which holds that the entire Quran is the literal word of God. Could you not just reject that tenet of Islam by the same standard, and go about picking and choosing Quran verses which you feel are unlikely to have been a human's choice? Surely we can find many such verses if we try. Should we therefore conclude that the Quran, like the Bible, contains many divinely inspired sections? If we applied this strategy to the Vedas, I'm sure we could do the same there as well.
Rationality is fine and good until a person is under duress, in which case circumstances could suddenly make reasonable what was before unthinkable. Moral convictions should be confirmed by reason in times of peace, but must also be grounded in a faith which sustains them in times of strife. (Not that such faith must be explicitly religious. But atheists who are willing to make great sacrifices in hard times "because it's the right thing to do" would seem to have a self-understanding that transcends naturalist orthodoxy.)
Why should duress undermine reason any more than it undermines faith?
Oh no, no, dude, Pandas, that's completely false. Paul most certainly did tell people to treat homosexuals differently from other people.
Where? Specifically (as to what I said earlier) where did he tell Christians to act with hostility towards homosexual non-believers? Because, yes, he told his audience not to associate with any of the "sexually immoral" people who were also professing to be Christians. Christians were to hold one another to a certain standard, but not seek to impose that standard outside of the church. I think 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 sums it up:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
Ok, I just want to back up for a second. You're aware then that Paul believed that homosexuality is sexual immorality, and those who are sexually immoral are cut off from God and doomed to damnation, right?
So how can you honestly say that Phelps finds absolutely no justification from the Bible?
Ok, I just want to back up for a second. You're aware then that Paul believed that homosexuality is sexual immorality, and those who are sexually immoral are cut off from God and doomed to damnation, right?
So how can you honestly say that Phelps finds absolutely no justification from the Bible? It's obvious where he finds his justification.
Sure, Phelps had Biblical justification for believing that unrepented homosexual acts would send people to hell. He had no Biblical justification, as a professing Christian, for how he acted.
@ Tiax:
My apologies, I've been away from Debate for a very long time. To clarify:
The foundation of Christianity is the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. The latter of which seems highly implausible. I personally find that the doctrinal explanation of the resurrection (in concert with the historical evidence surrounding the early church, which is another topic entirely) helps make that highly implausible event believable. The grounding in history is something lacking in, for example, the idea of the Fates and other such notions you proposed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
My apologies, I've been away from Debate for a very long time. To clarify:
The foundation of Christianity is the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. The latter of which seems highly implausible. I personally find that the doctrinal explanation of the resurrection (in concert with the historical evidence surrounding the early church, which is another topic entirely) helps make that highly implausible event believable. The grounding in history is something lacking in, for example, the idea of the Fates and other such notions you proposed.
So what? The fates are not an idea which claims to be grounded in history. It is a claim about metaphysical beings. Why should it be grounded in history?
Your general argument seems to be this:
If someone were to make up a religion, it would be unlikely to include X. Therefore, a religion which does include X is unlikely to be made up.
Expressed a bit more formally, you're saying that if P(X | made up religion) is low, then P(made up religion | X) is also low. This is classic confusion of the inverse.
Sure, Phelps had Biblical justification for believing that unrepented homosexual acts would send people to hell. He had no Biblical justification, as a professing Christian, for how he acted.
Would you care to demonstrate your reasoning behind this?
Sure, Phelps had Biblical justification for believing that unrepented homosexual acts would send people to hell. He had no Biblical justification, as a professing Christian, for how he acted.
Demonstrate your reasoning behind this.
"Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." Colossians 4:5-6
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter 3:15-16
Such verses support and are supported by others I've already quoted in this thread. There is no Biblical justification whatsoever for a Christian to act in a way that is deliberately hurtful or mocking towards anyone; and it would be the height of dishonesty to claim that Fred Phelps wasn't acting in a way calculated to be as hurtful and mocking as possible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"
No, here's the problem, and I want you to address it as opposed to dancing around it.
According to Paul, and this is not ambiguous, homosexual sex is a damnable offense.
Quote from Romans 1:18-32 »
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practise such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practise them.
According to Paul, homosexuality is an affront to God and an immoral sin, a sign of God forsaking people to their own baseness.
So I feel it's disingenuous to act bewildered when HerewardWake posts something like this:
The high-profile hate-mongers are the most Christian of them all since they abide by Christianity's foundational text and loudly preach it, as The Bible orders.
You can disagree with it all you want, but don't act like you have no idea where he's coming from. As I said before, it is incorrect for you to argue that the Bible consistently supports your position, just as Fred Phelps would be incorrect to argue that the Bible consistently supported him.
Of course there's justification for trumpeting that homosexuality must not be tolerated. Paul says it's a damnable offense! Damnable! That's not a metaphor, Panda, Paul's talking about a very literal eternity of suffering for those who practice sexual immorality. That those who practice it are affronts to God, engaging in wanton acts of evil, and the widespread condoning of it to be a sign of the moral degradation of our time.
If a person actually were to believe that, wouldn't there be something wrong with not protesting homosexuality? With not actively spreading the message that to be gay is a damnable offense and that eternal hellfire and suffering awaits for those who are homosexuals? Wouldn't you want to spread the word that the mark of a God-fearing person is to recognize that sexual immorality is immoral and an affront to God, and not to tolerate it? Again, the alternative is damnation. Shouldn't you work to actively redeem as many as you can?
Admittedly, it would be really nice if the Bible had no problematic or troubling verses to it, if indeed there were a consistent message against those who'd use it to justify things like slavery or intolerance toward gay people. It would be nice, but that's not the case, and we should confront that honestly.
My understanding of Panda's position is that, while it is certainly the case that the Bible's position on gays and such is that they're immoral and mustn't be tolerated, it is also the case that the Bible states that one should treat everyone with respect.
And he's saying that Phelps showed no respect whatsoever.
Just as Pandas selects the verses of the Bible he likes, and discards those he doesn't, so can Phelps' church choose the verses they like, and assign to them the interpretation they like. I guarantee you that every one of the people holding one of Phelps' picket signs can quote for you exactly the verses they feel justify that behavior. They can easily respond to verses like those Pandas has quoted by dismissing their importance in favor of the parts they prefer, just like Pandas does with verses he doesn't like.
My position is that the Bible is a collection of cool stories, and believe it's quite obviously fictional.
Based on that, I don't feel people can be justified in using Christianity, or any other religion, as a basis for extreme action.
I don't mind religion/faith/belief/ideology as a means of consolidating philosophy about life - but it should be a personal decision. The danger comes when something like that veers close to the role of law for people.
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Are we reading the same thread? When did I attempt to do anything of the sort? I was correcting Panda's statement that Christians repudiate Phelps just as much as anyone. I am not making any sweeping generalities about Christians. I am not saying all Christians are hateful like Phelps, or anything like that.
@Panda --
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html
Ctrl+F and start at Matthew.
If you want to reduce it even further to Jesus itself, here's a post I like about the immorality of Jesus's teaching:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/06/the-screwed-up-teachings-of-jesus.html
Ultimately, it's harmful to attach yourself to a holy book (even if you're only doing the popular, "friendly" part or even just one man in it), and you don't need to. So why do it? I reject Christianity because there's no good reason to embrace it -- certainly not a reason that outweighs the massive harm that Christianity and religion as a whole inflicts on us.
Also, I had to laugh at your statements of how Christianity emphasizes the insignificance of humanity. Nothing emphasizes the insignificance of human beings like believing the entire universe was created with you in mind and that that creator knows your thoughts, hears your prayers, cares who you sleep with (and how), and wants you to sacrifice animals to him. How could a god put any more importance on the minor activities of some high primates in the Milky Way than the Christian one does? The idea that anything in the Bible could not have been written (or even hints at not being written) by ancient humans is laughable. What about stoning adulterers, sacrificing animals, and bitterly cursing fig trees says "divine" to you? If a divine being wrote any of it, why didn't they think it important to mention electricity or germ theory? The Bible is written exactly as you'd expect it to be written if it was written by ignorant, ancient huamns.
You're attempting to fault all of Christianity because Fred Phelps has followers. This is guilt by association, and a fallacy.
Now you can waste your time making another post pretending to have no idea what I'm talking about, or you can put your effort toward typing a not-fallacious argument. I would suggest the second.
Are you literally delusional? PLEASE quote the section where I tried to fault all of Christianity because Fred Phelps has followers. I said that Phelps follows the Bible and is very Christian because he does so. I said that Christians do not repudiate Phelps any more than anyone else (as Panda claimed). I have not (at least intentionally) made any claims about Christians as a whole.
You not only made one, you made one in the sentence that directly precedes the sentence in which you claim to not have made one.
Now, as I politely requested earlier, how about a non-fallacious argument that isn't disingenuous?
I don't see how describing someone as Christian because they abide by the Christian holy book says anything about Christians at large. Would you object to me calling someone advocating for white supremacy a white supremacist, or for calling someone calling for less government intervention a libertarian?
Originally, I was only responding to Panda saying this: "Clearly it's understood that the existence of a few high-profile hypocrites and hatemongers within Christianity does not itself impugn the religion, since there are bad apples in every institution." My argument was that Phelps isn't a "bad apple" because he is abiding by scripture. If anything, Panda is the bad apple.
He was trying to act like Christianity was not stained by Phelps or other hatemongers, when they are in fact a reflection of part of its doctrine.
Which IS a statement about Christianity as a whole.
And also is blatantly false. Pandas claim was that Christians repudiate Phelps as much as anyone else, not more than anyone else. Meanwhile, your claim was most certainly NOT that Christians don't repudiate Phelps anymore than anyone else, but instead that all Christians are discredited because of Phelps.
Which is an association fallacy.
And here is you committing the same fallacy in the previous post.
Now how long are you going to continue wasting our time by denying making statements about Christians at large in the exact same post in which you make statements about Christians at large after I quoted you making statements about Christians at large?
"5. Miracles don't happen. There's no evidence."
This would be me, with most supernatural beliefs of all kinds. I suppose there are better belief systems than Christianity, there are worse, I don't really have a horse in this race either way. I'm not Christian because I don't think what they believe is true, not because of who they are as a group.
The rest seem fairly irrelevant. If I thought Christianity was true, I'd believe in it even if every other Christian on the planet was a terrible person. If God existed, it wouldn't matter if he was good or bad or indifferent it would simply be, first and foremost, an objective fact, and to believe or not believe based on personality traits would be silly ( e.g. "My brother put my gerbil in the microwave, so I will no longer believe in his existence." )
I'm an atheist based on what has been presented to me at the present time. It is neither a faith nor a fixed state, and should a deity materialize tomorrow I have no problem changing my viewpoint.
UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU's prison: blue is the new orange is the new black.
Mizzix Of The Izmagnus : wheels on fire... rolling down the road...
BSidisi, Undead VizierB: Bis zum Erbrechen
GTitiania, Protector Of ArgothG: Protecting Argoth, by blowing it up!
GYisan, The Wanderer BardG: Gradus Ad Elfball.
Duel EDH: Yisan & Titania.
In Progress: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV duel; Grenzo, Dungeon Warden Doomsday.
Suppose that this is true.
How is this in any case statistically relevant?
Where? Specifically (as to what I said earlier) where did he tell Christians to act with hostility towards homosexual non-believers? Because, yes, he told his audience not to associate with any of the "sexually immoral" people who were also professing to be Christians. Christians were to hold one another to a certain standard, but not seek to impose that standard outside of the church. I think 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 sums it up:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
True. The weird thing about the Christian view is that you have a personal God who loves people enough to incarnate and die a horrific death for their sake, and yet who also asserts that they are dust and their best deeds are "filthy rags" in His sight. Which indicates that He loves us not because of anything we can intrinsically be or do, but because love is His nature. I am not aware of any other worldview in which humanity's relationship to the divine is so passive, in which our role is not to do any meritorious deeds or prove ourselves worthy, but simply to accept a gift of unmerited love and then to serve as conduits of that.
I said that naturalistic morality is irrelevant aside from my standing as a member of society. If I have no more interest in being a member of society (perhaps due to a terminal illness) -- or if I have utter assurance that I can get away with something without being noticed -- what is to stop me from doing whatever "bad" thing strikes my fancy?
Do you assume that I haven't actually read the Bible? To take the gretachristina blog post a starting point: it may seem clever and smart to those who haven't done any serious study of Christianity; yet it is full of willful misinterpretation of the texts and basic exegetical errors. Still, I can see why someone with "modern, progressive morals" would have troubles with a lot of Jesus's teachings. That's fine. Now demonstrate that the modern and progressive morals in question are actually the best and truest morals that have ever been held, the golden standard by which all others should be judged. (Also, much of what Jesus says assumes, axiomatically, the sovereignty of God the Father. If you do not (even for the sake of discussion) accept that axiom, then many of Jesus's words will of course seem absurd.)
Bad religion does indeed inflict massive harm. And good religion does massive good. Why must all religion be bad? Is religious fundamentalism inherently bad; or doesn't it (as one would reasonably suppose) depend on the nature of the fundamentals? We are obviously justified in fearing an Islamic terror attack. So why don't we fear an Amish terror attack in the least?
Ah, but don't you see? The importance God places upon us is only noteworthy because of our inherent insignificance.
Again, I don't think that the Bible was written by God (that's what Islam says about the Koran). I believe that many human authors were, to varying degrees, inspired by God to transmit a message. The message was couched in the language and circumstances of its time and, in some instances, adulterated by the prejudices of the authors. But its overall story is clear and its message timeless.
Also, why should God have told us about electricity or germ theory? From a divine perspective, why should it matter one bit whether humans live in huts for forty years or in condos for eighty years? What does it avail us to live longer, or with more material comforts, if we are not actually living better? Look at the news and tell me with a straight face that human nature is any less avaricious, cruel, deceitful or petty than it was 2000 years ago.
So what? Every religion is unique in some way which runs counter to what we might expect a human to prefer. Some sects demand extreme austerity and asceticism, which is surely opposite of our natural inclinations. Is this evidence that they are also divinely inspired? No, of course not.
Let's also remember, of course, that you've arrived at this uniqueness by picking those passages which support it, and rejecting those which do not. If allowed to do this with other holy texts, I'm sure you could create other similarly unique variations of those religions.
Because your morality is presumably backed by some rational argument which convinces you of it. Just as your adherence to Christian morality is dependent on your being convinced of Christianity.
Also their elevation of the world is too old and doesn´t fit into today society.
I have more a problem with the church, especially the catholic church, than with christianity itself.
Because their fundamental opinions may be good, but the church is in my opinion just not defensible.
And as for myself I just can´t believe something as one guy watching all of us or hearing our prayers.
1. Christians have done and continue to do great evil (Crusades, Inquisition, gay bashing, etc.)
People in general have done great evil, so you can't really blame christians for this...
2. Christians in general don't behave any better than their irreligious counterparts, so what's the point?
Kinda the same as point 1, is people in general who missbehave.
3. Christians are anti-scientific and contribute to social mistrust of science (i.e. Creationists).
I can't really talk about this one, I think that is mostly a US thing. I haven't seen christians deny science where I live.
4. Even Christians who accept evolution are violating Occam's Razor by proposing God, Satan, angels, etc.
Can't really talk about this subject, had to google it
5. Miracles don't happen. There's no evidence.
I think this one is what makes me a non-christian the most. I haven't found conclusive evidence of neither the existence or inexistence of God (like the alien life in space). Mathematically speaking, I can't probe or deny it.
6. Religious fundamentalism always leads to disharmony and violence; and religious belief in any capacity validates fundamentalism.
I think that fundamentalism in general leads to disharmony and violence, but religious belief doesn't necessarilly validates fundamentalism. Tibetans monks aren't that violent, right?
7. The classic problem of evil (an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is allegedly not compatible with the existence of evil).
Good and evil are just points of view, so this one doesn't bug me that much
8. The doctrine of hell is abominable.
I think this one is a misconception, so don't agree. I have seen christian schollars explain that the hell concept is metaphorical, to represent your own suffering if you don't embrace God's love. There is no flames, heat, or red goat-guy sticking his trident on you. :flame::evillol:
9. Christianity makes as many untestable claims as any other religion; why should it be right and they not be?
Similar thoughts as point 2.
I read a lot about religion and history. How could I deny or dislike something that I don't understand? I like to think of God as an alter ego of men, what they wanted to be.
What I like about christianism: their love philosophy, some teachings (I think that Jesus probably existed and he was a great prophet). I also like what some christians priest can do for they community. Maybe some of you are not familiar with this, but is a common thing in third world countries.
What I dislike: the way some bad people uses religion to control other people with fear and suffering. An example of this will be how Constantine embraced christianism for his own benefit. I try be a good person because of the golden rule, not because I will go to hell otherwise. I dislike the whole 'church' structure. It also made me mad when I went to curch a few times and the believers in there were really disrespectful about what was going on, they talked loud all the time (I was really quiet and solemn) and it seemed to me that all they wanted is a 'blessing', a 'heaven pass'.
On a side note, I could never understand this: if God created everything, what created God? He was just there since the beginning? If this is true, then you could ensure in the same way that humans were just there since the beginning
Sorry if the english is not right!
Yeah, that's what I've been saying. Extreme asceticism and austerity make sense if you're trying to impress God with your non-worldliness. Christianity says, "Um, hello? You can't impress God. So stop trying and just enter into His love." Like what Paul says in the famous "love" discourse: "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3).
"Grace, not works" has been a rallying cry since the Reformation.
Rationality is fine and good until a person is under duress, in which case circumstances could suddenly make reasonable what was before unthinkable. Moral convictions should be confirmed by reason in times of peace, but must also be grounded in a faith which sustains them in times of strife. (Not that such faith must be explicitly religious. But atheists who are willing to make great sacrifices in hard times "because it's the right thing to do" would seem to have a self-understanding that transcends naturalist orthodoxy.)
I think that these lives of ours are basically the "seeds" of a crop that has been planted in Eternity. By our choices in this life we determine whether that seed will sprout or whether it will rot and die in the ground. If we are fruitful, we basically attain godhood. But like Jesus, "who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Philippians 2:6), we are not to imagine that Christian faith is a deal we make for deification: a "pay now, buy later" sort of scheme. We are called to believe that God's love can and will transfigure us into beings of exceptional, celestial magnificence -- and then to largely forget that (except when it edifies us to remember) because we are so busy practicing and participating in love.
I apologize if my language seems obscure, but I don't know how else to speak of God.
You're missing the point. I'm saying that austerity is also counter to some of our other inclinations. In addition to liking to feel important and powerful, people also like to live comfortable lives. If the doctrine that humans are not able to impress God is likely to be divinely inspired because it runs counter to man's natural inclinations, then the same should be true of ascetics. Asceticism runs counter to -different- inclinations, but the same logic can be applied.
And you still haven't answered my question about the Hellenistic fates. There is another example where our destiny is out of our hands. Do you believe this to be divinely inspired? It matches your criteria quite well, and even lacks a God which is loving and interested in us. Surely if we are looking for a philosophy which does not match our natural desires, one in which we are loved and cared for is not a good choice.
Further, what if I simply invent a new religious doctrine tomorrow, one which declares that we are doomed to eternal suffering no matter what we do, because the creator of the universe hates us. Is this not even more contrary to man's natural inclinations? Would you switch your belief to this?
I don't understand how this is a relevant reply. What you've said is that you accept certain passages of the Bible to be divinely inspired because they run counter to what you suppose a human author would come up with. You then compare this, for example, to Islam, which holds that the entire Quran is the literal word of God. Could you not just reject that tenet of Islam by the same standard, and go about picking and choosing Quran verses which you feel are unlikely to have been a human's choice? Surely we can find many such verses if we try. Should we therefore conclude that the Quran, like the Bible, contains many divinely inspired sections? If we applied this strategy to the Vedas, I'm sure we could do the same there as well.
Why should duress undermine reason any more than it undermines faith?
So how can you honestly say that Phelps finds absolutely no justification from the Bible?
Sure, Phelps had Biblical justification for believing that unrepented homosexual acts would send people to hell. He had no Biblical justification, as a professing Christian, for how he acted.
@ Tiax:
My apologies, I've been away from Debate for a very long time. To clarify:
The foundation of Christianity is the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. The latter of which seems highly implausible. I personally find that the doctrinal explanation of the resurrection (in concert with the historical evidence surrounding the early church, which is another topic entirely) helps make that highly implausible event believable. The grounding in history is something lacking in, for example, the idea of the Fates and other such notions you proposed.
So what? The fates are not an idea which claims to be grounded in history. It is a claim about metaphysical beings. Why should it be grounded in history?
Your general argument seems to be this:
If someone were to make up a religion, it would be unlikely to include X. Therefore, a religion which does include X is unlikely to be made up.
Expressed a bit more formally, you're saying that if P(X | made up religion) is low, then P(made up religion | X) is also low. This is classic confusion of the inverse.
"Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." Colossians 4:5-6
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter 3:15-16
Such verses support and are supported by others I've already quoted in this thread. There is no Biblical justification whatsoever for a Christian to act in a way that is deliberately hurtful or mocking towards anyone; and it would be the height of dishonesty to claim that Fred Phelps wasn't acting in a way calculated to be as hurtful and mocking as possible.
That is interesting. I like that quote.
If only many Christians actually adhered to it...
According to Paul, and this is not ambiguous, homosexual sex is a damnable offense.
According to Paul, homosexuality is an affront to God and an immoral sin, a sign of God forsaking people to their own baseness.
So I feel it's disingenuous to act bewildered when HerewardWake posts something like this:
You can disagree with it all you want, but don't act like you have no idea where he's coming from. As I said before, it is incorrect for you to argue that the Bible consistently supports your position, just as Fred Phelps would be incorrect to argue that the Bible consistently supported him.
Of course there's justification for trumpeting that homosexuality must not be tolerated. Paul says it's a damnable offense! Damnable! That's not a metaphor, Panda, Paul's talking about a very literal eternity of suffering for those who practice sexual immorality. That those who practice it are affronts to God, engaging in wanton acts of evil, and the widespread condoning of it to be a sign of the moral degradation of our time.
If a person actually were to believe that, wouldn't there be something wrong with not protesting homosexuality? With not actively spreading the message that to be gay is a damnable offense and that eternal hellfire and suffering awaits for those who are homosexuals? Wouldn't you want to spread the word that the mark of a God-fearing person is to recognize that sexual immorality is immoral and an affront to God, and not to tolerate it? Again, the alternative is damnation. Shouldn't you work to actively redeem as many as you can?
Unfortunately, Pandas, your asking a question like, "Where do you see intolerance condoned in the Bible?" just demonstrates to me a lack of understanding of the Pauline Epistles.
Admittedly, it would be really nice if the Bible had no problematic or troubling verses to it, if indeed there were a consistent message against those who'd use it to justify things like slavery or intolerance toward gay people. It would be nice, but that's not the case, and we should confront that honestly.
And he's saying that Phelps showed no respect whatsoever.
Based on that, I don't feel people can be justified in using Christianity, or any other religion, as a basis for extreme action.
I don't mind religion/faith/belief/ideology as a means of consolidating philosophy about life - but it should be a personal decision. The danger comes when something like that veers close to the role of law for people.
"OH GOD MY BRAIN IS EXPLOADING AT HOW BAD THE ART IS ON MY OWN CARD"
-A friend's first impression of Ancestral Recall
10/10, I tapped.