Charlie
-
Posts
373 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Charlie
-
-
IMHO, the difficulty of this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding, both within and without the church, of the nature of sin. The Bible, at least in many interpretative traditions, does portray homosexuality as a form of sexual and social deviancy. What we miss, however, is the fact that the Bible labels ALL forms of sin as social and spiritual deviancy. If God has established and ordered the world, then God gets to say what things deviate from that established order. And God has spoken.
In a sense, secular society is ahead of the church on this one when it cites modern scientific discoveries that there is something fundamental to their make-up that causes a same-sex attracted person to gravitate toward members of their own sex. Instead of arguing against this, the church should be pointing out that this is what Christianity has affirmed all along: Human beings are broken. The brokenness takes a wide variety of forms, but we are all fundamentally flawed, sinners in the core of our beings. Sin is not something we DO, it's something we ARE.
How we as Christians, forgiven sinners, treat other people, other sinners, is the same regardless of their particular deviant proclivities: We call them to repent and believe the good news that God has forgiven their sins in Christ. Repentance does mean we have to acknowledge our deviancy, our sinfulness, before God. Refusal to acknowledge our sin, or insistence that what God has called sin is not sinful, casts doubt on the validity of that repentance. Yet even here there is grace, because repentance and forgiveness are not one-time events, but a way of life for the Christian.
The church has often erred by, as you say, insisting that those with SSA simply "stop being queer." Christians don't "stop being queer" any more than they "stop being gluttons" or "stop having an explosive temper" or "stop worrying" or what have you. Our sinful nature doesn't leave us when we repent and believe. But, we are given a new nature, one that is perfectly righteous and without all those sinful, deviant tendencies we were born with. These two natures are at war within us -- and the Bible does tell us to put the old nature to death and put on the new nature. This is painful and difficult and sometimes feels as though it goes against everything that is within us, but Christians are called to suffering and to bearing a cross. We should bear each other up as well, for each of us should know the struggle of daily denying ourselves the desires that feel most natural to us, whatever form they take.
Thank you for the explanation. So, from my perspective, it sounds like you're solving the problem of not treating queer people like "deviant scum" by suggesting everyone is deviant scum, and the appropriate treatment is to encourage one another to fight off the scum part of their nature by allowing the good part of the nature to increase in power. When the good part is stronger, the scum part won't deviate as much, and the scummy quality will lessen.
The events the OP talks about, rejecting lgbt family members, makes more sense when considering sentiments shared by Crimson Wife and Bluegoat. If refusing to change, and if trying to convince Christians to change instead, is understood as subversive, then one logical conclusion is to remove the threat if it can't be subdued. In your faith tradition, how does the church respond when a person refuses to accept what the church teaches and wants the church to change its teaching instead? What would they advice for a parent in their home in that scenario?
I think you misunderstand what science explains about sexuality and behavior in general. There is no default perfect mark that is missed or broken, there is only what survives. Humans are social creatures and individual evolutionary traits are varied. As homosexuality doesn't threaten the whole, it's not identified as being broken or wrong in any way. It just... is.
-
3
-
-
There is a lot of stuff from society that gets mixed up into the teachings of the church.
For a really long time society treated anyone not het as deviant scum. To the extent that the church followed suit, it was OTT and wrong. But there are residuals from that.
The church can teach that the behavior is wrong without teaching that people are scum. And church members can follow that teaching.
Are you suggesting the church has always accepted homosexuals and society is only now catching up? Or that the church has historically offered a warm and friendly kind of encouragement to queer people to just stop being queer (!), and the non-church, secular society was the source of aggressive, hostile response to homosexuality?
I wonder if there is a Christian denomination that doesn't have any history of formally speaking or acting out against homosexuals in a way that would today be considered treating people "as deviant scum."
But mostly, I'm having a little trouble understanding how trying to convince a queer person to just not be queer is not implying homosexuality is a kind of sexual or social deviancy (as if sexuality can be chosen, much less chosen "responsibly"), and that their nature is, well... as icky and undesirable as scum, even if more polite rhetoric is used.
-
1
-
-
Not too long ago I learned the concept of souls comes from the same cognitive process that give us Theory of Mind skills and the ability to think about, remember, and plan around others without them being present (the idea of "disembodied minds"). One example given to show this is an instinctual thought pattern was a puppet show for 4 year old subjects that featured an alligator puppet that ate a bird puppet. Or mouse. I forget. Anyway, the alligator ate the bird-or-mouse. The children were then asked questions like, Is the bird still alive?
No.
Does the bird need food or toys in the alligator?
No.
Does the bird till think about things?
Yes.
Arguably, this shows that we have an innate "attachment" to the minds of others, and death throws this off, thus the idea of the mind living beyond death. It all makes sense to me, but now I can't help but to think of South Park's Lemmiwinks. It's awful, but it still makes me giggle.
-
1
-
-
I think it is unrealistic to discuss severe mental illness that impairs objective decisions and executive functioning with a physical illness that does not impaire judgment about that illness. I could have all manner of illnesses that manifest in a physical way and not have my mental judgment about treatment clouded. By definition, the same is not true for many mental illnesses. So while removing the stigma of mental illness is important, I don't think that should be done at the expense of looking after this objectively.
I do believe the examples I gave, like alcohol or ideologies including nationalism and religion, can and sometimes do impair objective decisions and executive functioning, thus my examples. But ultimately, my objection was to the idea of coerced treatment prior to a crime because one might be committed in one scenario - while ignoring when it happens in another. The reason I object to that, besides the affront to personal liberty, is because prejudice distracts us from our goals, and I think these kinds of goals are among the most important in any society.
-
3
-
-
I don't want to live in a society (and thank god, neither do most people in my society) where the government can force me to take drugs because they know it would be better for me - not because I am dangerous to others, not because I am dangerous to myself, but because it would make my life better by the common definition.
No thanks, nope, nada.
Agreed. 100%. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right we shouldn't take lightly, even when moral dilemmas are real and practical issues for many good and innocent people. But if we change the vocab and replace this particular risk with other known risks, perhaps it will be easier to see the problem.
"We can make sure treatment is undertaken in order to keep people safe, even if it means they do not agree. Because the alternative, many (not all. never saying all) times is that innocent people will be hurt (including the child who is not vaccinated, themselves)."
"We can make sure treatment is undertaken in order to keep people safe, even if it means they do not agree. Because the alternative, many (not all. never saying all) times is that innocent people will be hurt (including the drinker, themselves)."
"We can make sure treatment is undertaken in order to keep people safe, even if it means they do not agree. Because the alternative, many (not all. never saying all) times is that innocent people will be hurt (including the fundamentally religious person, themselves)."
"We can make sure treatment is undertaken in order to keep people safe, even if it means they do not agree. Because the alternative, many (not all. never saying all) times is that innocent people will be hurt (including the white nationalist, themselves)."
Unless the argument is to compel treatment for other well known links to potential dangerous behaviors, this prejudiced approach directly conflicts with the goal of removing the stigma of mental health, which is a fantastic idea for so many reasons. While it may be easy to understand why this proposed solution is popular, surely we can do better as a society. Surely we can come together to consider the facts and apply them in such a way that is both practical and ethical. Or who knows, maybe someone will figure out a way to make a profit off helping people with severe mental illnesses in such a way that preserves the integrity of their person. That person will change what sympathy looks like. Until it becomes profitable however, we can only go forward by changing our approach to reflect the knowledge we have, and inspire researchers to uncover more knowledge. What might happen if next summer's bucket challenged targeted schizophrenia?
Edit: Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see every child vaccinated. I'd love to see the end of violence and accidents caused by inebriation. I'd love to see all religious teachings to be so benign that no one fears shopping for Christmas presents or seeking medical care at their local Planned Parenthood. But not at the expense of giving up my own autonomy. I value my liberty and the liberty of my society too much to give it up for this, especially when there are alternatives.
-
3
-
-
This is not a thought experiment. This is peoples' lives. Do not "play" devil's advocate. Ask genuine, real, questions -- that you really mean. Please. And if you don't mean it, please don't poke. I have no patience for play on this topic.
Forgive me, I was trying to not make it personal but to keep it general. I think many of us have close connections with this topic and getting personal is a bad idea. I think SporkUK is right on the money. While it's understandable to imagine our own experience is pretty universal, the fact is most people with mental illness are victims rather than aggressors. The idea that they ought to be stopped before they do anything dangerous is a frustrating and aggravating double standard every time I hear about an act of violence for ideological reasons. But we don't consider ideological reasons to be precursors to violence - even when the correlation is clear - like we see mental illness as precursors to violence - even when the correlation is not there. We see what we want to see, incorporating facts that support our beliefs. That's natural, no one does it on purpose, but it's holding us back from our own stated goals of helping loved ones.
-
3
-
-
In the teen the part of the brain that can smell their own body odor, past-due socks and underwear and overly-ripe bedclothes is replaced with a pizza super sensor.
Yeah, probably the same part of the brain that can't recognize if the dishes in the dishwasher are clean or dirty, but can identify cheesy foods a mile away.
-
3
-
-
And--what about her right to a functioning brain--which would require treatment, involuntarily if necessary.
There need to be serious safeguards, but one big difference between our time and the institutions of a couple of generations ago is that we do now have a lot of decently effective treatments. For many people, inpatient treatment would only need to be temporary in order to get them sufficiently stabilized to manage continuing outpatient treatment, with a brain functional enough to make rational decisions.
Breaking down the stigmas surrounding mental health problems and treatments is a necessary component of developing a more effective system. Personally I would like to see the distinction between "mental health/illness" and other health/illness go away. We have more than enough data at this point to acknowledge the physiological reality of illnesses that impact the brain. We don't separate out illnesses of other organs in the same way.
Right? And yet rather than recognizing the brain's health to operate on the same spectrum as every other organ health, we as a society assume the mind (which is the function of the brain) is in charge unless something goes really, really wrong. This goes against the information we have, but not against the reality we assume to have, or the beliefs we want to have. I think until we as a society are willing to accept that sometimes facts don't back up our beliefs, we'll have this conflict. Until then, we're at the mercy of those who authorize the distribution of funds.
-
2
-
-
For those who disagree that involuntary treatment should not be a priorty --
If she had been treated, even involuntarily committed, those 5 people would be alive today. Whose rights are more important (her right to freedom/not treatment or their right to live)???
Interesting thought experiment here. Do you mind if I play devil's advocate? Assuming this person had exhibited violent behaviors in the past, why was she not given adequate care to prevent future episodes? Assuming she didn't exhibit violent behaviors in the past, how does one determine who is most likely to do so in the future? What risk behaviors warrant required treatment? Assuming certain behaviors increase risk of violent behaviors against others, do we stop with mental health or pursue other risk behaviors? For example, it would appear that identifying as a white nationalist is the most common marker in an act of terrorism in the US, followed by (if not in conjunction with), being Christian. Should people be involuntarily treated for dangerous personal beliefs if those beliefs and behaviors (ie, rants and threats on social media) create a positive correlation with violence against others?
-
3
-
-
re distinction between appeasement of / punishment from the divine v all-too-human coercion:
Ah. I agree that it *is* important to distinguish between the two. Perhaps I misunderstood you back upthread; what I gleaned from the picking up the Sabbath sticks business was that because *I* envisioned the divine more amorphously / less personal-god-theistically than some of my more observant comrades, *I* was not constrained in my everyday actions by fear of a punitive God smiting me, but that *they* might well be. Which is not how it works for anyone I know IRL.
Whereas subtle and not-so-subtle forms of human coercion for non-compliance with established community norms is real, and troubling to me, and among the several reasons why I belong on the progressive end of the spectrum. I am very much a child of the Enlightenment, valuing individual choice even as I also value community care and mutual obligation. And not all Jews are. There is tension between the two values, and one of the differentiating elements between the strands of Judaism is the extent to which they tilt in one direction v the other.
re human limitations and "God from the gaps"
I certainly don't myself speak in "God from the gaps" language, though it may be one of those terms (like "materialist" and "relativist") that nobody really claims for themselves, but are only used by others to label ideas (rather often before dismissing them, lol).
If coerced to tick a box, of the range of choices that folks interested in such labels bandy about, I expect I come closest to "non-overlapping magisteria." A mostly different set of concerns, framed by mostly different types of inquiry.
What I meant was, if the evidence supported the story of the Exodus to have happened as written, then it would behoove people to appease God, because evidence would show that noncompliance has disastrous results. But it doesn't. I didn't mean to suggest you or anyone else should or does appease such a character, or even that one exists. I only meant to give examples of the importance of evidence, which you say you don't really consider, but I see evidence (!) to the contrary (sorry! puns were never my thing, lol!).
I did not realize "God of the gaps" is considered derogatory. I did a quick search and found wiki's explanation that it was coined by Christian theologians to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence. However he very next sentence explains how it's become derogatory (wiki, god of the gaps). I was not aware of that (either of them, actually), so I'll retract that (and now is when I fear my poor memory will betray me and I'll say it again sometime, having forgotten that I just learned this :-( ). In any case, your position is that of a theist, however you determine that divine to work. Thank you for clearing that up. I was confused, lol!
-
I'm quote fond of dark chocolate. In moderation, of course....
re "cultural Judaism," language, theism and "partnership with the divine"
Right. "Cultural Judaism" connotes different things to different people, but I suppose I'm too Special a Snowflake to fit tidily into either the "cultural" or the "theistic" box -- I attend pretty closely to sacred *texts*, probably spending more time and thought grappling with them than the average "cultural" or Reform Jew; but my *beliefs* re the nature of the divine are both too amorphous, and also (after some number of years trying nail them down with clarity and specificity... and finally deciding that that very effort was really not very Jewish, but was, rather, a reaction to how religion was default-defined in America by the hegemonic frame) too irrelevant to be terribly useful even to ME.
I envision religion as a kind of language, through which (some) people try to express certain ideas.
(FWIW, I envision mathematics similarly, as a language, albeit one largely focused on the expression of different types of ideas.)
The idea expressed in the partnership metaphor, tikkun olam, derives from several teachings from the mystical side of the tradition; but here is my rendition of a quite down-to-earth Jewish legend that describes pretty well how I understand it to work. I am by disposition even less suited for mysticism than for philosophy, yet the metaphor that God needs *us* to complete the work resonates quite deeply with me.
Does that render me eligible for the "theist" box? Shrug.
re how critical it is, or isn't, that the Nile literally turned to blood
The bolded is an interesting thought experiment, which I'll have to think about a bit more.
Certainly it is true that I do not spend time or effort on "appeasement." And while there are traditions and foods with which I and my family mark the Sabbath, we do not "observe" Sabbath as does YaelAldrich and other families on the more traditional end of the Jewish spectrum. But while I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, I really don't think my fellow Jews who do observe the full range of restrictions as everyday actions do so out of appeasement, or out of a belief they'll be smote in punishment by an angry God if they don't. That is -- forgive me -- a rather childish conception of a serious (if not necessarily literal) attachment to their understanding of the covenant as received through the tradition.
The ideas that are resonant to me that arise out of the Exodus narratives are around the experience of coercion, of the courage to break out of coercion even into the unknown, of the fear of wandering and homelessness, of the power of hope. Of the imperative for us today to act in solidarity with those who are similarly coerced, to welcome the stranger for once we were strangers in Egypt. Of the powerful allure of shiny false leadership. That the psychology of enslavement can result in such PTSD brokenness that people who have endured it may not ever be able, Frodo-like, to return to wholeness.These are universal insights of the story. And of the particularist covenant standing at Sinai: that we belong to one another, that we are responsible for one another, grumbling and stiff-necked and disparate and quarrelsome though we may be.
I don't know that evidence for blood in the Nile, however conclusive it was one way or the other, would make much difference to my receipt of those insights. The insights transcend the historicity of the details (much like the blood on Lady Macbeth's hands). YMMV.
re not relating personally to the preoccupation in others for "evidence"I'm struggling to put words to this.
I've been very fortunate to have been very enriched by participation in two long term interfaith groups and various other shorter term discussions. I am a different person because of what I've learned in such fora.
And while there are all kinds of premises and processes and perspectives and slants of light that vary considerably across faith traditions, a few of which I have consciously tried to integrate into my own worldview (the concept of mindfulness, on which I'd say the Buddhists are thought leaders) and others that I am deeply attracted to (the Sufi concept of the beloved Divine, ever stretching out to welcome us in; the sense of roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-to-work LDS purpose, the dialing back of the self in service to others) even if they're not *quite* aligned to where I'm currently at; and many others that I feel I've briefly glimpsed through the veil... the preoccupation of a certain subset of (seemingly only) Christians with "evidence" still baffles me.
To your comment, I certainly recognize and acknowledge the empirical reality that immense longing for "evidence" exists. It's manifest on this very thread. But, yeah. I don't personally relate. To me it redirects from the transcendent divine to the trivial and profane (which in Judaism means something closer to "worldly" than "smutty").
Which pretty much restates where we were about 3 pages back, I'm afraid... :lol:
With regard to the idea of trivializing a religious belief to "a rather childish conception," I think it's important to distinguish between appeasing God and facing punishment. Regardless of what the unacceptable behavior is, be it picking up sticks or being gay, the punishment always and only comes from the community, from people. God never does punish anyone. In fact, God doesn't actually do anything, it's the offended believers who do. I don't think that's a childish conception but a fairly accurate conclusion. Dissenters may get punished, from a private rebuke (even your own!) to public shame to capital punishment, there's potential risk in leaving a religious belief. In this thread, the punishment includes suffering warnings, rebukes, threats, pleas, and proselytizing in general. Not as dire as losing your head, but still, it's a negative consequence that functions to change another person's behavior.
You talk of a "God from the gaps," where he is understood to be the stand in for things we do not yet understand. Thank you for explaining that. Naturally I wonder if a belief in the God of the Gaps is then predicated on what is known, or what is understood by a single individual or group? And how does one know where the gaps begin without knowing and considering evidence? But now we're getting into the "correct" religious approach to understanding a thing that can't be known, this explanation that atheists reject, and that gets back to proselytizing, lol!
-
3
-
-
re questions and implicit premises behind the questions
Charlie, there is so much in this that fires off so many cascading thoughts! And I so wish we could sit over a glass of wine, or steaming mug of tea if wine is not your thing, and hash on out in person. I'm a little reluctant to launch here, in part because I do not mean to hijack again, but also because I approach matters of my faith tradition so very differently than how you've laid out here that it's hard for me to find the right entry point to get there. I don't mean to "deflect," but I honestly cannot begin to describe my own attachment within your frame of "evidence as matching points between belief and reality." To attempt (weakly) through a very imperfect analogy, I could not describe why poetry matters, or why music and art matter, using the terms of "evidence" and "belief" and "reality." Those three terms are quite inadequate in describing the mechanism of what poetry (of the three arts, the one that most touches me personally) is about or how it works. And yet, empirically, we look around and see that to some people poetry and music and art do matter -- to a subset of people, a great deal.
Bluegoat referenced Charlotte Mason a bazillion posts upthread with something along the lines of where you go depends in large measure on where you start and how you define the premises. I concur with that idea. Among the most basic discoveries when folks coming from different faith traditions come together in interfaith discussions is the discovery that we look to our respective traditions to ask quite different questions, and implicit in those questions are premises which also vary quite a bit.
It's a tricky thing, making generalities.
In America, I think religion is generally linked to questions about what happens after death.
That is, to my mind, largely the legacy of the country's majority / dominant faith tradition. Christianity speaks explicitly about post-mortal salvation, particularly in its proselytizing forms. Proselytizers seek to save souls in the world to come. As we've seen in two different WTM threads over the last few days, the anguish felt by parents whose children are questioning their FOO faith are concerned about their children's fate after death. The "universalist" thread explores what elements are deal-breakers from the perspective of post-mortal outcomes. On these boards, as well as in interfaith groups I've been in IRL, many Christians express the idea that this life is so tiny compared to the eternal life to come as to pale in comparative significance. This explicit emphasis on post mortal outcomes implicitly elevates the paired narratives of the expulsion from the Garden, and Jesus' atoning sacrifice, to central prominence. The impact of the Expulsion story is revealed in the view of humanity described in the link you shared; and the impact of the atonement-salvation narrative drives both the Who is a Christian analyses and also the fervor in some circles for proselytizing*.
But as I know you know, not all religions place nearly the same importance on what happens after death. Many religions are far more focused on cultivating qualities such as compassion, mindfulness, unity, order etc in THIS life. Whether as a corollary to that difference, or perhaps it's a different dimension entirely, not all religions are particularly (or at all) theistic. What sacred texts mean, stripped out from the theistic- and salvation-focused set of questions, is not answerable by "evidence."
The Exodus narratives have a similar centrality of place within Judaism as do the paired Expulsion / Resurrection narratives within Christianity. They define the peoplehood and the covenant of the faith. Our elevation of those stories above the others frames a different core question for Jews, with different emphases -- not What happens when I die? but rather, How ought we live? or the theistic version of the same question, How does God want us to live? which are in turn premised on an orientation to this life, here and now; and concern with communal experiences/relationship with God rather than on the individual. And the meaning of those narratives -- their truth -- is rooted in those frames of community and continuity and the relentlessness of that question, how shall we live? Not in archaeological artifacts or ancient scribal records.
Two other analogies, that perhaps can point a little bit to the kind of "reality" I find in my sacred texts, despite a singular lack of "evidence": I personally find meaningful "truth" in the unwashable blood on Lady Macbeth's hands, and also in the tragic locked consequences of secrecy and mistrust between Cupid and Psyche. I find meaning in both those narratives that informs my understanding of the world. Those types of narratives, and the metaphors within them, to me reveal "truth." It is a different kind of truth than I expect from science textbooks. For the latter I demand evidence. For the former I look for resonance. I do not for a moment "believe" in the literal truth of the Cupid story; whether there really was a historical Lady Macbeth who actually said those precise words is irrelevant to the meaning of the narrative.
*FTR, I'm really really really really opposed to proselytizing in both its explicit and its IMO more insidious tit-for-tat souls-for-services forms. For a rather long laundry list of reasons.
On your other, intriguing Cosmo Quiz:
FWIW, I got all these correct, the second and third the first run through; the first one I mentally answered the intuitive (and wrong) default first, but double-checked my algebra before following the link. Which according to the link would suggest mine is not the sort of disposition that is vulnerable to faith attachments.
And indeed FWIW my attachment isn't intuitive, though I would never claim it to be "evidence-driven" either. For that matter Dawkins' scale, which so many Americans seem to embrace as so elucidating, strikes me as so responsive to a specifically Christian, specifically *American* conception of religion which is not just theistic and belief-based, but specifically monotheistic and in many formulations MALE-theistic at that, as to be nearly a caricature.
I could go on forever, my friend, but I fear I have managed both to go on far too long already, AND fail to answer your prompt. Truly I don't mean to deflect. I just can't quite respond to those terms because those are not my processes. It's like we're flying at different altitudes, or something.
Right back at you, Pam. Wine, or tea. What are your feelings about dark chocolate? Anyway, as I read this post it makes me think you're not a theistic believer, that your Judaism is cultural, but then in your next post you mention peoplehood and shared obligations and community "which is sometimes expressed in terms of acting in a type of partnership with the divine in healing the world." And, well, that threw me off! You mention "the divine" as if it's an actual thing with which you can, well, partner up and work. So now I'm not quite sure what you mean about being flummoxed by a conversation that focuses on evidence. This post I'm quoting makes it sound like theism is just a part of the story that binds your community together, but the next post makes it sound like there is a belief taken in faith that a divine entity exists and in some ways can/will/may or may not interact with you or you with it. But now we get into your personal beliefs and I don't want you to feel compelled to explain yourself or defend your beliefs. So I'm going to try and keep this general, and not personal.
Whether or not you believe there exists a divine entity with which humans can interact doesn't change my point about the importance of evidence. And here's why I think that: If there was evidence the Exodus happened as told, if there was evidence that the river really did turn to blood and there was a sudden and deadly plague on livestock and all the firstborn sons died in the night, and if there was evidence Moses led a group of people the population of Chicago out of Egypt with the help of a mighty deity, I daresay your religious practices would be different. But there is no evidence for these things, so your community doesn't spend its time appeasing such a deity, which the evidence would suggest is of utmost importance. Instead, your community wrestles with ethical questions, and the idea of a deity is nestled comfy in the background, no more than a character in a story that unites you with your community around the world. So you do rely on evidence, you rely on it to determine what is true. And knowing what is true guides you to knowing how to respond in any given situation. It is true that there is no danger of pissing off a deity capable of killing all firstborn sons overnight, so picking up sticks on the Sabbath doesn't warrant punishment. It is true there is no reason to develop technology to protect yourself from staffs that can turn into snakes. It is true that we need not consider a terrorist attack capable of turning all the water in the city of Paris to blood. These things are true and this reality guides your religious beliefs and every day actions.
So I'm left with thinking you can't personally relate to the discussions that delve into the evidence regarding the history of Jesus, because if that were a part of your religion, whether or not he really existed would be of no more importance than whether or not Moses really existed. This approach is what I imagine will be adopted by the Christian community as fewer people believe (or care) if Jesus was real. But surely you can appreciate why others do, right? I imagine so, which is why I think your comment refers to not relating to this, not that you don't understand why others consider evidence for their religion important. I mean, we have people rewriting science textbooks for the purpose of convincing believers there is evidence for their religious beliefs. So for many people, evidence is very, very important, and I expect you recognize that, but don't relate to it. But please, forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you here. I don't mean to speak for you, just repeat back and respond to what I understand you to say.
-
3
-
-
They are quite bad. CS Lewis was not a gifted writer (and a most illogical person when writing apologetics) and these tales are a mishmash (as his friend Tolkien told him forthrightly).
The series at times breaks into cringe-worthy racism. They are pushed (especially in homeschooling circles) for the obvious Christian allegories more than the literary value IMO.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe alone has value as a cultural reference point. Otherwise drivel.
Bill
I'm so glad you said that. Thank you! I never heard about them as a kid, but read the aloud with my kids because they were supposed to be so great. My kids rolled with it, but it always bothered me that I didn't like them when people said what great literature they are. They didn't make a lasting impression here.
-
1
-
-
I guess I don't understand. I don't expect the Bible to be a perfect example of God's will or wishes. Because it was written by en with their own biases, agendas, etc. So I'm not surprised to not find perfection within it, in any sense including morality.
I think we agree they fully, independently, composed their histories, laws, poetry, letters, etc. I think we agree they wrote what they believed best recorded, or at least best revealed, a real God. While their culture and our culture is miles apart (and years, in the thousands), there is nevertheless a link that ties the modern theist's morality with the ancient theist's morality. That link is faith, and it's the ethics of faith and loyalty to a supernatural character that Lady Florida disagreed with. Namely, it's unethical because it purposefully ignores morality in favor of obedience, despite the known and avoidable harm done to others.
-
4
-
-
Geesh, I guess I can't escape the brainwashing.
But I often wonder why despite that I really just don't believe any of it. Yet so many people do. Like what is weird about me I wonder?
It's not weird. It's just a different approach to thinking about questions. Do you remember study that asked three questions to predict whether you're more or less likely to be a religious believer?
1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? ____cents
2. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? _____minutes
3. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? _____days
[Answers and explanation here] The conclusion of this little study showed that the more religious the undergrads were, the less likely they were to have demonstrated effective analytical reasoning on the three questions. And the better the students did on the questions, the less likely they were to have strong religious beliefs.
So it's not weird to lack belief and it's not weird to have belief. It just means there are different ways to approach the same questions, including questions like why do we do what we do, what happens after we die, why did it rain on my wedding day, why is my cat chasing something that isn't there?
-
6
-
-
You seem to know a lot about this. What is with the comments I've heard from some Christians regarding their god being a jealous god? Jealousy strikes me as a pretty odd characteristic given the other traits he is said to have.
Well, I don't know a lot about this, I lack, dare I say it, sufficient education, lol! But it's an interesting question, isn't it? We think of jealousy as a feeling related to fear of losing control, anxiety over potential loss. That's why rivals are intolerable - they might take what you have or want to have. A jealous God really only makes sense when you remember Yahweh was considered to be one of many rival gods. Remember the tricks Moses' God Yahweh did to one-up the tricks the Pharaoh's Egyptian God did during the whole ten plagues event? Nevertheless, this characteristic remains, rationalized as a metaphor for marriage, or for the affections of one's heart, but that's not how it was understood and accepted originally.
-
4
-
-
Again...I don't think God wrote the Bible. I think a bunch of men who reflect their culture and social reality wrote it.
Yes, and I agreed with you. I'm suggesting it's not relevant to the point that you replied to. I'm suggesting it is a deflection to avoid the point you replied to.
-
2
-
-
Ugh, clowns creep me out and every time I scrolled past this thread title last night I started panicking a little. Better after sleep.
Anyway, DH wears a CPAP. The other night, I was reading and he had already gone to sleep. Suddenly, he bolted up, ripped his mask off, and started "strangling" it at arm's length.
Me: "What the heck just happened?"
DH: (after about 30 seconds of silence and confused mumbling) "There was a raccoon attacking my face."
He doesn't quite remember this event occurring.
Oh no! I'm sorry!
But I'm still giggling.
Bad Charlie.
-
Hilarious.
My husband is quite the sleep talker. He can even open his eyes, converse and still be functionally asleep. Sometimes I have resorted to asking increasingly funny questions to gauge if he is waking up or if he is still asleep.
What's the weirdest conversation you can remember steering him through? My husband doesn't respond well to questions, but one of my kids does. They're getting older now and stay up later than I, but more than once I've bolted to one child's room as he was hollering. I thought there was someone in there, because, why else would he be hollering like that? Well, he was just making sure whoever he was talking to could hear him tell them about the yellow pen which turned into a mountain that made the flarblegargensons.
-
1
-
-
Again...I don't think God wrote the Bible. I think a bunch of men who reflect their culture and social reality wrote it.
Well, leaving aside the fact that no one actually suggests the idea of Yahweh coming down from his holy mountain to write the bible over many centuries as a ghost writer (ha) attributing authorship to people like Solomon, David, or Paul, Christian lore conventionally treats the bible as being divinely inspired. But even leaving that aside and assuming the bible's simply a collection of letters and post cards to friends and family far away, collected and tied together first with string and later bound in leather, it still tells us something of the nature and character of the main character, El/Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Ghost. Furthermore, the Christian religion claims to have a superior moral code based on believing in and following this particular God above all others, a God who can and will supernaturally lend moral aid to loyal followers.
By your fruits you will know them. Jesus offers this as a warning to his followers to not get fooled by charlatans teaching a false message, thereby missing the straight and narrow path to heaven. It's a warning that also suggests that not only is one's eternal life at risk by following the wrong message, but the message itself is confirmed good and true by the moral behavior of the one bringing it. In short, moral behavior associates you with God, who is considered the source of morality. It's like, you know you're going to be talking with Mormons when two young men on bicycles, white shirts, ties, and name tags approach you with a smile. These things announce their origins - the Church of Latter Day Saints. Jesus says you don't need these outward things to announce your origins, your behavior will do it for you. Morality is very tightly tied in with the biblical message, most particularly the Christian one.
The answer to that is that an omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect God wouldn't flub up his one and only source that reveals himself to humanity. Regardless of who actually put quill on parchment, the purpose of the bible is to reveal the nature and character of the God of Abraham, from his introduction in Genesis through his corporeal incarnation as Jesus, and impart a message for, well, there's actually lots of differing messages in the bible depending on what section you take, but for Christians the purpose is to impart a message for gaining eternal life as well as leveling up your moral code (to infinity if you believe some of the passages). To suggest morality comes from God is to ignore the nature and character of God as we know it, I guess is the tl;dr version, lol!
-
4
-
-
The other night bf said, "what is a name for an apple that still has seeds?"
And I was like, "what...? You're sleeping."
And he says, "Corey." And went right on snoring.
Get you a man who tries to tell jokes in his sleep :p At least it was better than a couple of weeks ago when he was whispering all horror movie-style and freaked me out.
:laugh:
-
To be fair, plenty of Christians would say that he probably did, but that he didn't write the Bible, humans did. Men, in particular.
I think this answer misses the bigger point. The point is, if morality comes from God, there should be some indication of this as true. The bible would be the most obvious place to have this information, or at the very least, it should be included in there. If you're the God of a universe and you want humanity to know you, wouldn't you be invested in the success of the bible if that was the resource you chose to provide? Wouldn't you do what you, as an omniscient god, knows what would be necessary for humanity, both at the time of writing and down the road? Wouldn't that include arguments for morality that evolve as civilizations do? Instead, we see an example of a collection of literary works that reflect the moral, cultural, legal, and social reality of the ancient Near Middle East.
-
5
-
-
No, he said that because it is true. Clowns *will* eat you. Clowns are evil. People prepare for zombies, but the real danger are clowns.
That explains the magnet a friend gave dh for Christmas one year:
-
6
-
-
That is hilarious.
Right? Last night he asked me where the flatterninge was. I said, "What?" He asked louder, "WHERE'S THE FLATTERNINGE?"
I said, "It's under the thing!"
He woke up a bit more and said, "What the heck is that?"
"I DON'T KNOW! WHAT THE HECK IS A FLATTERNINGE?!?"
*Grumble grumble snore*
I love sleep-talking conversations!
Share yours, please!
-
2
-
Religion and LGBTQ
in The Chat Board
Posted
I think I communication my thoughts about science poorly. I don't admit science imposes its own moral threshold. I don't understand science to impose a moral value on anything. Morality is a quality humans assign, relative to any given culture. Humans decide a moral value of a thing based on knowledge of that thing, and because in time scientific explanations replace religious understanding, I would argue this more accurately explains why more Christians are accepting of their lgbt kids than ever before rather than a misunderstanding of God's law. I also imagine it's due to the internet creating a smaller global neighborhood. The people we know are no longer determined by our geographical location, and that means all kinds of new experiences and ideas and moral considerations to learn about.
What I find interesting is that even in this thread we can see that Christians have never yet come to a consensus about sin and nature and God's law - what it is and how it should be applied. It would seem that there's really no way to know what is a sin, and so we see throughout history Christians are constantly updating their opinions about what God's law means. After all, how can you misunderstand what cannot be understood in the first place?
I'm not tracking with you in the bold, but as far as the underlined, I imagine kicking your own child out is understood by some Christians (the ones the OP talks about for example) as the sacrifice being called to make for the good of that child. I imagine they imagine Christ giving them strength to do what they consider to be the "right thing" in honoring God's law. I can't imagine kicking my child out of my house for that. I just can't. There doesn't seem to be remorse among those who do, and I can only guess it's because their faith keeps them going. They believe they're taking the high road, and they believe they're right in God's eyes. How else could they go to sleep at night, you know?
I enjoy your explanations, and sometimes short and sweet doesn't cut it, lol! Besides, I kind of get my geek on when it comes to moral discussions like this, so thank you right back!