Imagine with me for a moment ... if Mrs. Powell hadn't forbidden her husband from running for president. Colin Powell could have beaten Al Gore by a convincing, repectable margin. He would have pursued a more moderate, but still effective, war on terrorism. He would have maintained our international standing. And he'd be virtually unbeatable in this reelection, with far fewer angry, slathering critics.
But for a choice made by a single person, we would live in a better world.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, all that, assuming that some good ole boy from Texas didn't shoot him.
There was a relatively honorable Republican candidate for President in 2000 that would have done all those things. His name was John McCain. He didn't win.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, if McCain couldn't beat Bush in those primaries, I don't think Powell would have either. Powell is more of a deviant from the Repub party line than McCain -- he supports affirmative action and social programs.
Although perhaps Bush's trips to Bob Jones University would've looked a bit worse if he'd been facing a black opponent.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
McCain had the disadvantage that no one in the general populace had heard of him, while Bush's instant name recognition and connection to a past era made him an easier sell to the common voter.
Colin Powell had him beat. The common voter knew Powell's name and respected him for things he, personally, had actually done for this country.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
On a personal level I understand Mrs. Powell's request. There is still lots of latent racism out there. I have no doubt he would have been a larger target for assasinations than most presidential condenders.
If it looked like he was going to win, there could have been large scale racist uprisings, that would probably have been violent at least occasionally.
Would you want your family embroiled in the middle of that?
AJ
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Powell is pro-choice. He would never win the Republican primary. Name recognition is nothing if you go against your conservative base.
If he is willing to become pro-life by 2008, he can make a serious run for the nomination
[ August 31, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Don't be silly. Rove made sure that the BushCampaign smeared McCain with a massive dose of lying TV&radio advertisements -- including ads run by "independent"groups -- just as he has in every campaign in which he was involved. Along with coordination with Limbaugh&clones, Rove used character assassination to push Dubya's nomination forward.
[ August 31, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bullcrap, McCain didn't have the advantage of name recognition that Bush did, but that's hardly the only or even anywhere near the most important difference. He lost because Bush's people ran a much lower brow and negative campaign than McCain did. McCain (who I both worked and voted for) ran a much more honorable campaign. While he was talking about what he thought needed to be done with the military and not at all mentioning that George Bush flew in the silver spoon brigade during the war when he could be bothered to show up for military service at all, the Bush campaign were lining up veterans to smear his war record. When he was campaining on issues, the Bush campaign was labeling both him and Democrats and setting up push polls saying the he had an ilegitimate black child. McCain also didn't answer almost every serious question with "Jesus", stood for things outside of the traditional republican agenda, and was distinctly not the type of guy that a majority of Americans thought they'd like to have as a drinking buddy.
Colin Powell would have come up against all of these problems as well, with the added benefit that many of Bush's hardcore supporters wouldn't support him because of the color of his skin. He would have, however, picked up votes from Blacks and Democrats, but that wouldn't have helped him win the primaries.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And again, Alma Powell said she believed that if Colin Powell ran for President, he was putting both himself and his family in danger from a significant proportion of the American people. For myself, seeing how just being the First Family is an incredible strain, I could see how this added strain of moving up to number 1 on every anti-black racist's to kill list would be something that would really disuade me from wanting my husband to run for President.
Posted by Khal Drogo (Member # 6786) on :
Yea, he might have made a good president, if he survived....
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Do you have any idea how many calories a single one of those cinnamon rolls has?
Tempt me not with your baked goods, bride of Satan!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
On the other hand, every time I see McCain standing next to President Bush on the campaign trail I think, "Four more years. He's only doing this so the Republican power brokers will back him in 2008. We just need to survive 4 more years."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Churchill was banished to the extreme fringe of the ConservativeParty because of his constant criticism of Germany's NaziParty, his farseeing opposition to his party leaders' desire to coddle up to Nazism, NevilleChamberlain's attempts to appease Hitler. And when Hitler's war fell upon Britain, Chamberlain fell from power and Churchill became the star which guided the UnitedKingdom through its darkest hours to the hopeful dawn of a new world.
There is no comfort in seeing a man sell his soul in exchange for his party's current goodwill, for hypothetical future political support of his ambition to become leader. Sad to think that maybe McCain is correct: that the era of statesmanship is dead in America; and only politicians who bend to the will of the inheritance&trust-fund oligarchs can hope to survive.
[ September 02, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Yeah, Aspectre...it's a shame that someone who tries to appease the deadly enemies of America, the world, and freedom, can get to be President.
Wait...just who is Dubya appeasing again?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"just who is Dubya appeasing again?"
Oil companies and fundamentalist Christians, both of whom have done a lot more damage to America than terrorists ever could.
[ September 01, 2004, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh please.
I know you're resentful of religion, but I didn't know you had sold your cars.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom, I don't know that I disagree with you. . .
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
C'mon. If Tom's near lifeless body were pulled from a burning building by a Christian, Tom would complain that the guy had said a prayer over him afterwards while waiting for the paramedics to arrive.
Or that he'd done it only to have the opportunity to give Tom the "fires of Hell" speech.
Tom speaks of Christians as Klansmen speak of blacks.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nope. Firstly, I do not paint all Christians with the same brush; I reserve any disdain for fundamentalists. That you do not draw a distinction is, I suggest, a flaw.
Secondly, as I've posted before, I regard Christian fundamentalists as the single biggest threat to my way of life and to American culture as a whole. They have the potential and the power to do considerably more damage to the country than any foreign power.
------
BTW, Sopwith, the whole "complain while a prayer is said over him" is an evocative but highly erroneous distortion of my position. Perhaps you should spend the time you've wasted coming up with a creative insult actually figuring out how I really feel on the issue.
-----
(And kat, I WOULD sell my car if there were other sources of reliable transportation that I could afford; sadly, no such viable options exist in this area. To continue the parallel, this is why I oppose school vouchers. *grin*)
[ September 01, 2004, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you don't distinguish amongst fundamentalists - they're all bad?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. They're all bad in the same way that a Palestinian kid who roots for the stone throwers is bad.
He might be a great kid. He might take care of his elderly mother, never raise a hand in violence, buy cake for total strangers, and volunteer at a local hospital -- but his allegiance is given over to a group with evil goals and evil methods, even though he grants that allegiance for non-evil reasons.
Now, I would say that just such a person would be a perfect target for conversion; if he could be persuaded to reconsider his allegiances, or to change the organization to which he's chosen to belong from the inside, then more power to him. And fundamentalists who're actively working to talk people out of fundamentalism, like Phelps, would get a pat on the back from me -- if, of course, they weren't doing it entirely by accident and in an odious fashion.
---
(Remember, you guys said there could never be such a thing as an evangelical agnostic. *grin* )
[ September 01, 2004, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. Tom's a bigot.
Who knew?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The great thing about being prejudiced against people due to voluntary group membership is that it's not bigotry (at least, not in the way you mean it; by the technical definition, of course, it is. *grin*)
That's like saying that someone who thinks less of bank robbers is a bigot, because he doesn't keep an open mind about armed robbery -- or that someone who wouldn't make time with a terrorist is a bad person, because terrorists can't help the way they are.
I would like to point out that people can choose to stop supporting Christian fundamentalism at any time, in the same way they can stop sending money to the Irish Republican Army or building car bombs in their basement.
I oppose Christian fundamentalists because I believe Christian fundamentalism is oppressive, malicious, and dangerous, and a philosophy that inevitably leads to violence, ignorance, and despotism. I oppose Islamic fundamentalism for the same reason. Which one makes me more bigoted?
[ September 01, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Assigning attributes to every member of a group because of the actions and beliefs of some other members of the group is one of the hallmarks of bigotry.
In other words, it's not bigoted to hate armed robbers because they commit armed robbery, or because armed robbery deprives people of property, or because threatening people is wrong.
It is bigoted to hate all armed robbers because some of them use the money to finance drug operations.
Dagonee Edit: Here's why it's bigoted:
quote:I oppose Christian fundamentalists because I believe Christian fundamentalism is oppressive, malicious, and dangerous, and a philosophy that inevitably leads to violence, ignorance, and despotism.
Again, you're projecting some expressions of the philosophy on all of them, and implying some big conspiracy. "Those fundies all stick together."
[ September 01, 2004, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've got all sorts of evil running along in my brain, right now. . .
I don't think Tom's a bigot, because I could never see him trying to remove civil rights from fundamentalists. He's not Germany, in other words-- I feel comfortable that he'd allow Nazis and Dittoheads to speak their minds in the Republic of Tom.
I, however, as a Perhaps-Fundamentalist, would feel about as comfortable living in the Republic of Tom as an Orthodox Jewish boy would in a Parisian school.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, you misunderstand me. I believe ignorance and oppression are inevitable consequences of religious fundamentalism. They may not be INTENDED consequences, but they're consequences nonetheless; it's like making armed robbery a more serious crime than unarmed robbery because people are more likely to get hurt, even if the armed robber doesn't actually shoot anyone this time or shoots someone without meaning it.
[ September 01, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, you misunderstand me. I believe ignorance and oppression are inevitable consequences of religious fundamentalism. They may not be INTENDED consequences, but they're consequences nonetheless; it's like making armed robbery a more serious crime than unarmed robbery because people are more likely to get hurt, even if the armed robber doesn't actually shoot anyone this time or shoots someone without meaning it.
"It's not those fundies fault - they're just dumb because of their religious beliefs."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How do you define religious fundamentalism, Tom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The quick and dirty definition of fundamentalism, as far as I'm concerned:
Defining one's morality based on one's faith, rather than choosing a faith based on one's morality.
This leads to other indicators of fundamentalism, like a literal interpretation of religious text, an unwillingness to entertain other points of view, slavish adherence to taboo, etc. But it really all boils down to defining "good" as what your god says "good" is, instead of defining God as what "good" is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're not helping your cause, Tom. That definition includes an awful lot of religious people if you force the world into your dichotomy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, I never said it would be an easy fight. But, then, neither did I say it was a dichotomy; it's perfectly possible to be both religious and sensible.
It's NOT, however, possible to be both sensible and fundamentalist, because part of the definition of the latter involves deliberately rejecting common sense in favor of "faith," whatever that is.
[ September 01, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's not the dichotomy, this is:
quote:But it really all boils down to defining "good" as what your god says "good" is, instead of defining God as what "good" is.
Many people believe that both are true.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that both CAN'T be true, Dag.
Either there's a higher "good" out there, independent of its sources, or there isn't. If "good" is merely behavior as defined by an ancient entity, that means it's not any more "good" than any other behavior recommended by some other ancient entity; it would be like wearing a locket saying "What Would Wilford Brimley Do?"
"Good," under that definition, merely becomes a form of servitude, a badge of team membership: "I'm Good, because I obey Bill. You're not, because you obey Harry."
Ergo, the CONCEPT of "good" has to exist independently of a god in order for it to have any meaning as a concept instead of a playbook.
Obedience without understanding is not a virtue.
[ September 01, 2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Obedience without understanding is not a virtue.
Good can be what God defines and obedience can exist with understanding at the same time.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, a number of higher powers would hold that obedience without understanding is a virtue.
"Do what you're told but trust me, it's a good thing."
Since the thread is challenging what is and is not good, virtues are a matter of perspective.
-Trevor
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
'And next, on Unsupported Assertion Deathmatch. . . .'
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, the thread isn't about what's good or not but about Tom making sweeping generalizations about members of a religous group.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, I would submit that no religion of which I'm aware on Earth has a philosophy which is described by your hypothetical.
----
*nod* The difference, Trevor, is that I believe in a higher good. And consequently, I would not define doing what a powerful being told me without question as "good."
It's far too easy to come up with hypothetical, sci-fi examples of why this would be a bad thing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, I belong to one.
quote:"Good," under that definition, merely becomes a form of servitude, a badge of team membership: "I'm Good, because I obey Bill. You're not, because you obey Harry."
This underscores your fundamental misunderstanding. It is good to obey God, both because his commands are good and because obedience is due God as the Creator.
Dagonee
[ September 01, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ahhh, got it.
Tom believes there is a uniform, higher or even absolute concept and principles of "good" with or without a supreme being.
Such a code is even binding the Supreme being, although we must trust His judgement when obeying his will as we cannot discern the inherent nature or purpose of His instructions.
The organized religions believe their Supreme Being is Good and as such trust Him implicitly. And believe their Supreme Being to be the source of all things and as such the canon reference for Good.
Tom believes there is a Supreme Good, but not necessarily in a Supreme Being, or that the Supreme Being so addressed is, in fact, Good.
-Trevor
Edit: For expanding the religious viewpoint
[ September 01, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Tom's not a bigot. I agree with him... Some Fundamentalist types really scare me. I don't hate them, but I fear befriending them because if they knew how I was they might hate me or at least try to make me change.... I do agree that they should not try to foust their beliefs on a larger society. Especially when it comes to sex education in this day and age. The cases of HIV infection should be decreasing, but they are not... That is something to be concerned about...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Got it in one, Trevor.
---
And no, Dag, I would say that the Christian God is empirically, as described in the Bible, not good. Let me be clear: He murders all of humanity. Twice. He is, in fact, said to be the author of a book in which He brags about doing it once and promises to do it again. He demands that a man sacrifice his own son, only to replace him with a sheep at the last second; note that any excuses for this act are all extra-scriptural, except for Mormons. His servants delight in the complete extermination of tribes. And He sends His OWN son down to be killed because He doesn't want to just forgive everyone's sins without some killing first. If you're Catholic, you believe that He routinely turns the soul of bread into an aspect of Himself without changing the bread in any other way.
This is irrational behavior. It is, in fact, behavior that violates the very moral codes that He has asked His followers to uphold. To accept these actions as "good," we MUST assume that we do not and/or cannot understand the underlying excuses for them.
I've had a similar conversation on this board before, and I agreed that I would be much relieved if Christian fundamentalists, instead of spending so much time trying to convert people to their worldview, instead used their direct line to God in order to talk Him out of destroying the planet. Sadly, this does not appear to be a burgeoning trend for prayer in the fundie community.
I LEFT a church over its attitude towards the apocalypse. I certainly don't need to tolerate that attitude in churches I didn't even feel like joining.
[ September 01, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
None of this, of course, excuses Tom's sweeping generalizations, especially since they're based on serious misunderstandings of what others actually believe.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Some Fundamentalist types really scare me. I don't hate them, but I fear befriending them because if they knew how I was they might hate me or at least try to make me change....
"Some" is very different than all, which is Tom's original premise.
quote:I do agree that they should not try to foust their beliefs on a larger society. Especially when it comes to sex education in this day and age. The cases of HIV infection should be decreasing, but they are not... That is something to be concerned about...
Actually, if traditional Christian sexual morality were followed there would be almost none sexually transmitted HIV cases. It's very unfair to blame HIV infection rates on one very small part of an overall larger philosophy.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I understand that God is Good. Because I know that He is, I trust His commandments.
As I follow the commandments, I gain an understanding of the why, and my appreciation for God's goodness grows, and my trust in Him deepens.
I submit that this is sensible.
[ September 01, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you, Scott. That was well put.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It was well-put, but it was also unfortunately unverifiable. I would submit that for everyone to whom Scott's sentence would apply, there is a counterexample.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'm neither defending nor attacking Tom - he's more than capable of expounding on his view points without my help.
As I don't fall into either viewpoint, I'm simply enjoying the discussion.
-Trevor
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Of course, unlike YOU, dagonee, I am a megalomaniacal tyrant, bent on world domination or destruction.
I'm a Mormon.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
And counter-examples for everything. I hear there's one for gravity. . .
So if I drop a penny in a vacuum, and it doesn't fall at the right rate of gravity, do I blame physics? Or do I look for a crack in the vacuum?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Scott's example is indeed well put.
However, how does he know God is good? Religious faith? If one has faith in his God, it is easy to believe His actions are Good and should therefore be obeyed.
I submit that for someone without the same religious faith, blindly accepting God's word as to the Higher Good is unacceptable because it lacks any credibility. Without faith that God exists or serves the assigned role in reality, one cannot believe in God as being the source of all Good.
The basic conflict between the two viewpoints:
God exists. God is the creator of all things. God is Good.
God may or may not exist. God's role, if any is unknown. God may or may not be Good.
It boils down to Faith - either you have it or you don't.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It was well-put, but it was also unfortunately unverifiable. I would submit that for everyone to whom Scott's sentence would apply, there is a counterexample.
That's all I'm saying, Tom - there are counterexamples. I don't deny there are corrosive fundamentalists of almost all religions. But you've tried to make a case that everyone who holds these beliefs is corrosive.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nope. I'm saying that everyone who holds these beliefs subscribes to a cause which is inevitably corrosive.
Like the palestinian kid in my first example, they aren't out there throwing rocks themselves, but they support -- perhaps even for good reasons -- people who are.
[ September 01, 2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
TMedina-- Either one has mathematical capability, or one does not.
It is my belief that faith is like any talent-- acquireable.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Don't worry Tom, it only took me about 15 seconds to come up with that phrase, it wasn't too hard considering the tools I had to work with.
I have, however, spent quite a bit of time wondering about the fellow that was the target of the sentence.
Wondering things like:
"I wonder where the dividing line is between fundamentalist and Christian in his perspective."
"I wonder if it is easier to judge someone for the name on the building they walk out of on Sunday at noon, than it would be to actually find out what that person stood for."
"I wonder how Christianity has hurt this man."
"I wonder if he'd be offended if I remembered him in my prayers when he was sick, injured or in trouble."
"I wonder if he learned who I was and how I live my life, if he would judge me for my deeds rather than my affiliation. And in so doing, might he gain a new perspective on my affiliation?"
"I wonder what threat me and my ilk present to this fellow as we just simply try to live our lives and make the best of it we can."
So, yeah, I spent a wee bit of time on the statement, but a lot more on the fellow who prompted it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm saying that everyone who holds these beliefs subscribes to a cause which is inevitably corrosive.
So we're back to "all those fundies stick together?"
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Like the palestinian kid in my first example, they aren't out there throwing rocks themselves, but they support -- perhaps even for good reasons -- people who are.
So, does this mean that people who share beliefs with someone else support every decision that they make? You should probably stop shopping at any company that has ever done anything illegal or unethical, and refuse to believe in anything that has ever been misused or misinterpreted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Your answers:
1) See my definition of fundamentalist. A Christian who is good first and Christian second is not a fundamentalist.
2) If you think I don't know what most churchgoers stand for, you don't know much about me.
3) It's not that Christianity has hurt me much, although individual Christians have been occasionally insulting. It's that fundamentalism in general -- the belief that a cause justifies an action -- has been one of the driving forces for evil in the world.
4) Nope. If, however, you were praying with the hope that you'd get bonus points from God for doing so (as some people do), or praying self-righteously and conspicuously -- as in "I'm praying for you, Tom" -- I'd be a bit offended. In general, however, I don't think prayers on someone else's behalf are a huge deal, although it's pretty rude to do it if they've made it clear that they're bothered by it.
5) I judge EVERYONE by their deeds. Your affiliation, however, is also a deed, unless you were born a fundamentalist and never thought you were free to change.
6) Hell is other people, said Sartre. What you consider "just simply trying to live your life" and what I consider just simply trying to live MY life wind up frequently at odds with each other. I would submit that my way of life is considerably friendlier to fundamentalism than fundamentalism is to mine.
------
"So, does this mean that people who share beliefs with someone else support every decision that they make?"
When you can show me a substantial number of fundamentalists agreeing that the behavior Christian god has been regrettable and many of His interventions should probably have been handled differently, I'll agree that they are not willing enablers of that evil.
[ September 01, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: A Christian who is good first and Christian second is not a fundamentalist.
What about someone who's both simultaneously?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's only possible, Dag, if you grant that Christianity is never at odds with goodness, and that the issue never need come up. History shows that, all hypotheticals aside, this is highly unlikely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When you can show me a substantial number of fundamentalists agreeing that the behavior Christian god has been regrettable and many of His interventions should probably have been handled differently, I'll agree that they are not willing enablers of that evil.
Tom, I doubt you'd find many Christians of any stripe who believe that any of God's behavior was regrettable or that He should have handled things differently.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Scott - granted, anyone can develop faith.
The question then becomes - what faith should I subscribe to?
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Although will all Christians agree on what God actually did?
Do all Catholics agree with the LDS bible?
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: That's only possible, Dag, if you grant that Christianity is never at odds with goodness, and that the issue never need come up.
The problem here is that you and I have different ideas about what is good, and you don't have any more proof that you're right than I do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, I doubt you'd find many Christians of any stripe who believe that any of God's behavior was regrettable or that He should have handled things differently."
But, see, many of those Christians will refer to these behaviors as allegories, or stories; things we don't need to take literally. Your typical "the Bible is the literal word of God" fundamentalist will not, however. All these fundamentalists have to fall back upon, then, is their faith that the complete destruction of the human race is better -- on an absolute moral level -- than any other alternative.
I find that philosophy pretty darn evil, and am unapologetic about it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's only possible, Dag, if you grant that Christianity is never at odds with goodness, and that the issue never need come up. History shows that, all hypotheticals aside, this is highly unlikely.
Now you're confusing the institutions of Christianity with the religion of Christianity. Ironically, fundamentalists propbably have the less institutional loyalty than most other Christians.
Dagonee
[ September 01, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Now your confusing the institutions of Christianity with the religion of Christianity."
As almost every single institution of Christianity has been led by someone who has claimed to know the will of the Christian God, I find it relatively impossible to distinguish between them. In fact, the "worship the God, not the church" belief seems relatively pagan to me, especially since it's only one step away from my own "there is an absolute good, independent of the will of any hypothetical god" argument.
If God has not taken steps to ensure the integrity of His church(es), He is liable for their flaws.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, are you willing to accept responsibility for everything evil done by those who hate Christian fundamentalism?
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: If God has not taken steps to ensure the integrity of His church(es), He is liable for their flaws.
I wonder what he could have done without taking away part of a person's free will.
[ September 01, 2004, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"are you willing to accept responsibility for everything evil done by those who hate Christian fundamentalism?"
As I haven't joined any organization to that effect, no. When and if I get around to joining the Society for Thinking People (or whatever), I'll of course expect the behavior of the people in that organization to reflect upon me. More importantly, I will expect people to assume that my voluntary membership reflects my tacit endorsement of the behavior of the organizaton's leader.
"I wonder what he could have done without taking away part of a person's free will."
I would submit that killing somebody is about as powerful a way of taking away their freedom as anything else out there.
[ September 01, 2004, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"are you willing to accept responsibility for everything evil done by those who hate Christian fundamentalism?"
As I haven't joined any organization to that effect, no. When and if I get around to founding the Society for Thinking People (or whatever), I'll of course expect the behavior of the people in my organization to reflect upon me.
A there's no "National Christian Fundamentalist" organization, and many are actually entirely independent church's, I wonder why you feel comfortable lumping them together then. It can't be their common philosophy, since that's not enough to give you responsibility for others who think as you do.
quote:"I wonder what he could have done without taking away part of a person's free will."
I would submit that killing somebody is about as powerful a way of taking away their freedom as anything else out there.
Not if there's an eternal soul, it doesn't.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It can't be their common philosophy, since that's not enough to give you responsibility for others who think as you do."
I think it's safe to say that all Christian fundamentalists have pledged allegiance to the Christian god and are therefore responsible for His behavior.
"Not if there's an eternal soul, it doesn't."
Do you believe in an eternal Hell?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes I do.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
But Tom, how do we know that your definition of Good is the right one?
How do you know that the overall Good isn't just "What's good for Tom."
Let's talk in the general here about the more prevalent world religions and their adherents. They can look back over a history, over centuries, if not millenia, of debate and reasoning. They can look at their failures and they can always look at what they were striving to achieve.
Let's look more specifically at Christians. Libraries are filled with the debates and reasoning of learned men as well as those who have interjected their own prejudices and notions into their beliefs. The writings of St. Francis of Assisi sit beside those of the Spanish Inquisition. CS Lewis's writings sit beside the histories of the Crusades.
It's not all Canon, but it is a library from which a Christian can learn from, the good and the bad. History and legend, story and anecdote, belief and heresy, all wrapped up together. Inconsistancies and debate abound, the saints and sinners both clamoring for their part in history.
And then let's go back to the Canon of Christianity, the New Testament and Christ's life. Just the Gospels, just the actual words of Christ. That's the real, core, fundamentals.
He speaks of Love: for God, for self and for fellow man. He speaks of responsibility: to God, to self and to fellow man. He speaks of equality and heals the lepers, walks with a woman by his side, and submits his life, but not his will, to the crowd and the blood they demanded.
And through it all is a theme often untouched, that the very Son of God, even at the cost of his precious life, must submit to the will of God for there were much bigger issues at stake than one man's life. That even with a death sentence (and we are all born under one) He had to live his life for other people, even though those people would kill him in the most horrid way available to them at the time. That he would not just suffer death, but humiliation in the process.
And that when he returned, three days later, he would show and speak to say that there is a reason for everything that happens and that we will understand better after we have crossed that threshold.
And lastly, that as Christians, all it takes to cross that threshold is the willingness to reach out our hand, believe, and step across in full faith that it is better on the other side. There is no worthiness test, for none could ever be fully worthy. That there is nothing required more than simply stating that you are human and accept the Salvation freely given.
Boy, that sounds much simpler than it feels, but that's all there really is to it, when you get down to the core of it, the real fundamentals about being a Christian. It's a convict on the table, the IV already in his arm, awaiting capital punishment when a man he's never met walks in and says, "Get up, walk free, I will take your place and die in your stead."
Everything else is just us humans trying to rationalize out what a Christian should do with their lives. It's a gift given to a committee and every member of the committee has a different idea of what should be done with it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you believe in an eternal Hell, killing someone and damning them to that Hell -- as, for example, described in Revelations -- is a pretty firm rejection of free will.
----
Sopwith, I know the Sunday School Primer version of the God of Love.
I look forward to that God kicking the ass of the God who's going to kill me and send me to Hell.
[ September 01, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not really, since people who end up in hell have chosen to go there.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How so?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
That's a freebie Scott - by defying the Church or God's teachings, if you happen to believe they are two seperate things.
By committing a mortal sin or being excommunicated and so on.
I assume by Catholic Dogma you can't end up in Hell by accident or mistaken identity.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How so? Because God is choosing to end the life of someone who might well repent before dying. Unless, of course, you make the argument that God knows this person would not repent -- which pretty much makes a hash of free will, really.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
There's a difference between choosing what someone will do and knowing what they will do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. I believe that ScottR made an analogy once on this topic involving his young children and a candy bar.
But if you know you're going to be mowing the grass, and your child is lying on the grass, do you mow it anyway out of respect for his free will? Because many Christians believe God's that kind of person, although they'd never say so; He'll run you over with the lawn mower if you don't move, and doesn't bother yelling more than once or twice to make sure you hear.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Wow, Tom, you've taken my entire life, all of those years I've lived so far, and pushed me back down to the faith held by a six year old.
Thanks, and I actually do mean thanks. I really do appreciate it, not with the least bit of sarcasm.
That I have gone through my travels and travails, my searching and seeking, my sins and shortsightedness and come back to the simple belief held by a child, the simple desire to both be good and do good, just because that is something that one should just simply do.
My friend, you may just understand more than you think. And you may have inadvertently hit on exactly what the real fundamentalism is.
Christ didn't turn away the children, but admonished his followers to let the children come to him, because how they believed was the purest and most genuine. And that their motivations were purely good, there were no machinations behind their belief, no agendas. Just faith, belief and goodness.
To be equated with that, means that I might be on the right path.
To know Salvation for what it is and attach no strings to it. To do Good just simply because it is the right thing to do. To judge those I meet purely on the basis of who that person is, with no preconceived notions. Now that is true enlightenment.
Thank you, once again.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I want to say there is an inherent paradox:
God knows all things, so He automatically knows what choice I will make before I make it?
If life has became a theoretical exercise since the outcome is pre-determined, why are we doing this?
Which only becomes a paradox depending on your definition of free will.
Oy, my head is hurting.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's what it should be all about...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That I have gone through my travels and travails, my searching and seeking, my sins and shortsightedness and come back to the simple belief held by a child, the simple desire to both be good and do good, just because that is something that one should just simply do."
I'm glad that you find this comforting. Just remember, as you relax in the bosom of your comforting, simple faith, that your loving God -- the one to which you've written such beautiful paeans -- also intends to kill every single human being on this planet and torment the greater part of them for all eternity. By comparison, Al Qaeda only killed 3000, and didn't even touch their souls.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Tom,
I'll try to explain what's in my head.
In the long run, getting the lawn mowed isn't as important as your child's life. So I may yell and scream but if he doesn't get up, my bigger problem is the discipline of the child than the short grass.
But it's possible that God has a plan that is even more important than the lives of the people who have attempted to thwart him at every turn. And you can't say he yells once or twice, historically the people that have been mowed over in the Bible weren't just in the way. They were blatantly disobedient.
You can only take the "children" analogy so far. I believe that there's a difference between little kids who haven't learned any discipline, patience, or self-control, and full grown adults who've had every opportunity to make themselves available to God's will.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: If life has became a theoretical exercise since the outcome is pre-determined, why are we doing this?
Would you prefer to have never lived at all?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I believe that there's a difference between little kids who haven't learned any discipline, patience, or self-control, and full grown adults who've had every opportunity to make themselves available to God's will."
So what, exactly, justifies sentencing a grown adult to an eternity of Hell -- after killing them yourself? Would it include merely being, for example, a Buddhist?
"historically the people that have been mowed over in the Bible weren't just in the way. They were blatantly disobedient."
If you believe in the Rapture, you believe that God will in fact kill billions of people who are just "in the way."
[ September 01, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I reserve any disdain for fundamentalists
I'm getting me a T-shirt that says:
quote:Proud to be disdained by TomDavidson
And I SO hope God allows me to be present when He someday has a chat with Mr. Tom....
Farmgirl Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
PSI, if I'm damned to eternal torment because of an arbitrary system established by my Creator and my only option to save my soul is to spend my life puzzling out what He(?) meant without benefit of a guide or at least a couple of hints I can decipher to guide me...well...yes.
I've had some fun in my time, but not so much that I'd be willing to embrace an eternity of Pain, Suffering and Despair.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Heck, Farmgirl, so do I. Then again, I'd settle for having a chat with God at all.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Farm, you're welcome to be present when God has His chat with me.
Just because He can see everything clearly from his position upon High doesn't mean I can appreciate the view from my spot in the rat's maze.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I mean, those eggrolls last week were good, but damn - they weren't that good.
-Trevor
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:my only option to save my soul is to spend my life puzzling out what He(?) meant without benefit of a guide or at least a couple of hints I can decipher to guide me...well...yes.
He gives us a guide, TommyD. You just choose to not recognize or validate it. That is your choice..
Farmgirl
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Tom, I think what you're referring to is the Tribulation, and you are making assumptions about my beliefs...the qualifier "if" doesn't change that.
My belief is that the Tribulation probably isn't going to happen until the people in the world are so bad that there's no reason to keep them around.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:And I SO hope God allows me to be present when He someday has a chat with Mr. Tom....
While I recognize that Tom is being inflammatory and most likely doesn't care what anyone says to him, I think it's important to note that it is exactly this kind of statement that so many non-theists find so off-putting.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Must have struck a nerve there with you, Tom.
We all die here on Earth, God never said otherwise. He sent word that there was an End coming, sometime, somewhere. I call that fair warning. And then gives us the choice of how we prepare for it and where we will end up.
A human life only lasts so long, and there are no guarantees given to any of us as to how long that may be. Old age, illness, accident, the actions of others, anything can end it, we are fragile.
What day the world will end should never have a single moment's bearing on one's life. Because I can guarantee this, one day you die. Why? That's just the way it is. You live your life accordingly. Judgement day may be thirty minutes from now, or thirty-thousand years away.
Death, however, can happen at any moment. It's nothing personal, no matter how much it may be taken personally. It happens to each and every one of us. What you do with that time, how ever short it may be, is your business.
If God says, "Here's the rules" and then sends his Son to further break it down to you and simplify them, and then you don't pay some heed to it, how can you hold God responsible for your actions?
You can wring your hands over the prospect of the End Times, but it's much better on an individual scale if you concentrate on the fact that your own time does end.
And if the End Times prophecies really, really get under your skin, just think of it this way: you're not born as the sheep or the goats, you choose entirely on your own.
Don't blame God, however, if you haven't made up your mind by the time the buzzer goes off. Salvation is just as valid one millisecond before the buzzer as it is a millenia ahead of time.
Surely you're not mad at God because he didn't let you personally take a peak at the clock so you'd know how long you've got to work with. He hasn't let any of the rest of us see it yet, either. And it wouldn't be fair for any of us to know.
This isn't about trying to get unfinished homework done before the class bell rings.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
One of the comforting things about being damned to hell for all eternity is that I know I'll be in good company.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tom, help me out. It seems to me that you’re defining fundamentalism as “belief that is irrational and dangerous” and then stating “fundamentalism irrational and dangerous.” And while I’ll grant that, if one accepts the definition, the statement is obviously true, I don’t see that it’s particularly useful. What am I missing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
PSI, what about all those people who believe the Tribulation is going to happen in their lifetimes? Am I justified in calling these people sick and evil?
-----
"He gives us a guide, TommyD. You just choose to not recognize or validate it."
While you were in fact responding to a quote from Trevor, this could as easily apply to me. So I'll reply.
God does NOT "give" us a guide. Here's what he does:
A man shows up at your house and demands that you remove your shirt. When you ask why, you explain that it's because anyone who is wearing a shirt ten minutes from now will be killed by a giant panda. When you ask why the panda will come, he explains that it's because he has SENT the panda, and believes that everyone who wears shirts deserves to die. Do you remove your shirt, obeying the man -- on the assumption that this panda exists? If so, haven't you just basically said that, by being a Christian, the terrorists win? That you're capitulating to terror because you're scared of the consequences, and lack the power to prevent it?
This is the "guide" we have. There's no proof of the consequences, or any evidence that the path exists; the people warning you of the danger serve the being that is directly endangering you.
God is the one choosing to kill me. He's the one choosing to sentence me to Hell. He is, if these things are true, my ENEMY. Why would I bend knee to this being?
(Note: Mormons get a free pass on this argument, in that they don't believe that God can choose whether you'd 'go to Hell' or not, and do in fact believe in higher standards independent of God.)
-----
"Salvation is just as valid one millisecond before the buzzer as it is a millenia ahead of time."
Why is there a buzzer? Is it kind of a mass murderer to let you know that, some time in the future, he'll be coming by?
------
Dana, I'm defining fundamentalism as "a belief that morality is defined by one's selected god." This is, in a way, both broader and narrower than classical definitions of fundamentalism, but I think it's more useful. (Note: ideally, I'd use the word "fanaticism" here, but fewer Christians ever think of themselves as fanatics -- even if they DO believe in literal readings of the Bible and put Rapture bumper stickers on their car.)
If, for example, you can say something like, "My God would NEVER kill a billion people, no matter what this book says" you are not a fundamentalist. Heck, if the thought bothers you enough that you start looking for clever excuses -- like "My God must have a really, really good reason to kill a billion people, a reason I just don't understand right now" -- you're only on the fringe.
-----
Sopwith, I'm trying to decide whether you're being deliberately disingenuous or not about the methods of God's mass murder. I find it hard to believe that you haven't read the Book of Revelations, but also find it hard to believe that someone who has would describe it in tones as fluffy and antiseptic as "God has told us an End will come." Do you believe it to be purely metaphorical?
[ September 01, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:While I recognize that Tom is being inflammatory and most likely doesn't care what anyone says to him, I think it's important to note that it is exactly this kind of statement that so many non-theists find so off-putting.
Sorry if it was offensive to you, Saxon. I didn't mean it to be. I wasn't meaning it as a "judgment", (like God would be condemning) I meant it as I was picturing the look on Tom's face when/if he realizes there is a God....
Is it still offensive in that context?
Farmgirl
Then again, I guess as a fundamentalist Christian, there probably isn't anything I could say that wouldn't be found offensive by some people here, regarding my beliefs, -- when I choose to stand by my beliefs.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Salvation is just as valid one millisecond before the buzzer as it is a millenia ahead of time.
I've heard this enough times to know that this is accurate, but it doesn't really seem fair to me. If a person lives his entire life as an avowed atheist and only changes his mind when he sees actual physical proof of God, such as the apocalypse happening as laid out in Revelations, that doesn't seem much like faith and repentance to me. Why should he be rewarded for something that seems so much like a cop-out?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
FarmGirl - that was me, not Tom.
And honestly, I have yet to receive a hint that I could embrace as undeniable.
I'm not saying "I know there is a God and I deny him." What I am saying is God has not shown himself to me in such a fashion that I could recognize it for the Divine Message it was intended to be. And lacking that proof, even if I could never repeat it or reveal it to anyone else, I cannot bend knee to what may very well be a figment of someone's imagination.
As God is all-(knowing, seeing, powerful), He must be aware of my limitations and must also know what would be required for my belief.
Now it's possible I just wasn't meant to make the cut and I'm damned to Hell after serving a minor role in helping someone else to make the cut. Which kinda sucks for me.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI, what about all those people who believe the Tribulation is going to happen in their lifetimes? Am I justified in calling these people sick and evil?
Probably not.
There seems to be a big thing missing in all your arguments...the people who aren't expected to have to endure the Tribulation. (I realize there are Christians who don't hold to this but I think most of them do so I'm working with that.)
So, if I go on the assumption that most people who have an understanding of what the Bible says about the Tribulation are going to be followers of the Bible, then they probably won't qualify as sick or evil to God.
Actually, we are all evil. The difference in the end will be which people chose to do their best to live God's way, and fight the evil nature, and those who do not.
edit to add: this is all my opinion, of course. Everyone can do themselves, and me, a favor and add IMO to the end of every sentence.
[ September 01, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:God is the one choosing to kill me. He's the one choosing to sentence me to Hell. He is, if these things are true, my ENEMY. Why would I bend knee to this being?
Tom, God gives you CHOICE (that is freewill) He is saying "Choose me -- Choose whether to live (according to His grace) or choose to die" Pretty black & white there.
You are saying, "I don't agree with this, God. I don't think this is right that you are making me choose, so I am choosing to NOT choose" (basically) and in so doing, YOU are choosing to have yourself die -- HE isn't choosing to kill you. You are condemning yourself.
So you are arguing the process, the plan, with Him, the Creator. He is only your enemy in your eyes because you are choosing to put Him in that role..
Farmgirl
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Wow...all this discussion because Mrs. Powell asked her husband not to run for president!
Amazing discussion and fast, fast, fast. Hard to keep up. About to post a good idea and BAM! They haved moved on.
Stuff that I think Tom pointed out were quickly shot over as the conversation moved on to eternity, God's chat (with gloating audience, it appears) with Tom, and Why Hell Is A Good Thing.
People who MAYBE are fundamentalist on here are responding defensively, which is reasonable because it must be horrible to be told by someone who doesn't believe what you believe that your ideas are wrong or dangerous. I can't possibly imagine what that would feel like in these enlightened times.
That said, though, Tom made a point about Goodness and people were all like "well, how do we know Tom's ideas of goodness are the RIGHT ones?" and so on. Well, he gave some pretty clear examples and while not representative of all things good or evil, they are talking points.
In addition to the violence perpetuated against humanity throughout the Biblical accounts and the torturous mind games played on not only those who don't believe but some who are devout, God also sent someone else to sleep with a married man's wife to begat a child. That there is adultery if the woman was willing and rape if not yet this is Good because...why? The end justified the means?
This is maybe what Tom is getting at...if we use God as a role model for what is good and define good by what He has done...can't anyone else see that this could lead to some nasty behavior towards humanity? Could lead? Who am I fooling...HAS led to such atrocities. And yes, it isn't all Christians that are directly involved in these crimes but a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible will always lead to behavior contrary to what many believe to be "good." This goes for such interpretations from Jewish or Muslim fundamentalists as well.
Can anyone honestly say that rape, murder, and adultery can be at all GOOD things? I know some of us will have shades of difference in what is good or evil, but c'mon...these are the biggies one would HOPE all people could get behind in terms of where they fall on the good-evil axis.
fil
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:And I SO hope God allows me to be present when He someday has a chat with Mr. Tom....
See, you may say that you want to be there to see the rapture and share in share in Tom's inevitable Joy of being with the supreme creator, but that's certainly not how it comes across. It smacks of you wanting to be there when Tom realizes he's wrong. If I said I hope there's enough of an afterlife to establish that Farmgirl was wrong about Christianity before she disappates into oblivion would you find that childlishly offensive?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Playing God's Advocate, I would suggest that if you repent a second before the buzzer, God will know what you did and why you did it and the repentance would not have been genuine and probably not count.
Although I'm not sure if God requires legitimate repentance or just the ritual.
I think we can all agree it would be difficult, if not impossible to trick God as commonly defined.
-Trevor
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Farmgirl,
It's not that I was particularly offended, nor that I think you are wrong for holding or expressing your beliefs. I just wanted to try to reach toward mutual understanding. I think that understanding the perceptions that others have of us and the things we say and do is very important. Not in order to change what we say and do, necessarily, just so that we can be fully aware of the impact of our actions.
---------------------------------
On something of a tangent, do you (or anyone else, for that matter) think that belief is a matter of choice?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
To be fair, I'd like to be there when Tom and God meet in the hereafter, for various reasons.
-Trevor
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
One frigid early spring morning, a farmer goes out to repair the roof on his barn. He takes his ladder out and sets its base on a frozen solid pile of horse manure because he can easily climb up the manure pile and then the ladder to reach the roof.
He works on the roof and gets it completed by the end of the day, which has gotten much warmer as the sun came up. He starts to climb down the ladder, but because the manure pile has warmed up and thawed, the ladder falls over, sending the man crashing to the ground. The man breaks his arm and ends up sueing the ladder manufacturer over the accident.
The ladder had warning signs all over it about safe usage, including specifically that you should set it on a solid, stable surface.
Was it the ladder manufacturer's fault that the farmer didn't remember that the laws of physics dictate that the pile would thaw as the day warmed up?
(Sadly, this is a real story. A court did decide that the accident was the ladder manufacturer's fault for not being more specific.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, I'm on the record before as saying that I would be absolutely THRILLED to die and discover I was wrong, even if it meant an eternity of Hell. The idea of Hell as an eternity of selfishness and/or isolation from God scares me a lot more than a Hell of fire or brimstone, because at least the latter Hell comes with ANSWERS.
"He is saying 'Choose me -- Choose whether to live (according to His grace) or choose to die'"
And as I said before, this is pretty much letting the terrorists win, isn't it? Why does "convert or die" sound better coming from somebody invisible?
-------
Sopwith, your analogy is only accurate if the following is also true:
1) The ladder manufacturer also made the barn, and made it tall enough that ladders were necessary. 2) The ladder manufacturer put manure on the lawn. 3) The ladder manufacturer froze the manure. 4) The ladder manufacturer was standing behind the guy climbing the ladder, and saw him put the ladder on top of the manure. 5) The ladder manufacturer has power over the law of gravity, and could at any time have slowed or stopped the man's fall.
[ September 01, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: (Sadly, this is a real story. A court did decide that the accident was the ladder manufacturer's fault for not being more specific.)
Note to self: Get these lawyers for self on Judgement Day!
fil
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Fil - can we question what methods God chooses to employ?
The rape and torture of someone might have been the test of his or her faith necessary. Which may not have been required of another person.
Certainly we view it as evil and without merit, but as God's design is unknowable and unfathomable, can we really condemn the act as evil and not part of God's plan that we simply have not been made aware of?
Disclaimer: I'd prefer not to believe that, but the story about the Devil's Advocate testing the saint puts the theory into vaguely plausible terms.
-Trevor
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Frankly, I’d rather be a fly on the wall when Tom and God figure out how to communicate with each other in this life. I think it will/would/could be an interesting conversation.
On another note, fil, I’m very curious why you used the term “a married man’s wife” (do unmarried men have wives?) rather than “a married woman.” Just curious, you understand.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
T, this smacks of "end justifies the means" again. that any act, even one that appears evil on the surface if done for some "greater plan" can mean a Good thing for all! So killing all the Jews in Germany, if done for a great plan, can be a good thing if we just commit to the vision. I don't beleive in moral absolutes as a rule, but by allowing any unspecified and unclear "master plan" be the excuse for atrocities towards humanity I tend to have concerns with people with fundamentalist backgrounds in positions of power and authority over others. Any war or act of torture or act of evil can be justified with some vague notion that in the end, all will be better. If that isn't frightening, I don't know what is.
fil
[ September 01, 2004, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: On another note, fil, I’m very curious why you used the term “a married man’s wife” (do unmarried men have wives?) rather than “a married woman.” Just curious, you understand.
Because I am redundant and repeat myself? That is just good ol' bad grammar!
fil
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To put it another way, using the Steve Guttenberg vehicle "Short Circuit" as a touchstone of human experience: Christian fundamentalists are the kind of people who'd watch that film and root for Nova Robotics. Or does Number Five no longer have a right to live just because Dr. Marner had other uses for him?
If I would indeed not have life if God had not granted it to me, does that mean He has the unquestionable right to dictate terms under which I may exist?
[ September 01, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:People who MAYBE are fundamentalist on here are responding defensively, which is reasonable because it must be horrible to be told by someone who doesn't believe what you believe that your ideas are wrong or dangerous. I can't possibly imagine what that would feel like in these enlightened times
Actually, until, as the one who took exception to Tom's remarks first, I can safely say that at that time it never crossed my mind that Tom would consider me a fundamentalist.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Fil, you need to specify which "T" you mean.
But yes, welcome to the paradox.
Depending on your interpretation of the issues contained in this thread, you can justify almost atrocity ever committed as furthering God's grand design.
It doesn't mean the serial rapist or the mass murder is going to Heaven for fulfilling his role, but then nobody said it was fair, either.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As this debate goes on, I become more and more aware that I'm better off using the word "fanatic" instead of the word "fundamentalist," even if it reaches fewer people. Because while there's a good deal of overlap, it's theoretically possible to be one without the other, and my working definition on the first page applies better to the former than the latter. Unfortunately, we've so abused the phrase "Islamic fundamentalist" that "Islamic fanatic" doesn't quite have the same resonance, even if it's more accurate.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
This is what bothers me- It's the sort of person who is, say, a devout Muslim who has a daughter that talks to a man outside of the family then kills her or has her killed. Or the kind of person who is against abortion but believes it's ok to kill an abortion doctor. Extreme, yes, but it bothers me. These are acts of evil... there are so many instances of this in the bible that drive me insane. Instead they are brushed off.. But it's still WRONG. Ultimate evil is hurting another human being but it's done so many times... Not by people here, but by these.. extremists... It's what turns me away from religion in the first place. I try to find compassion and warm, but instead I get a wall of rules and laws that mean nothing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Synth, once again I need to point out that Tom's original statement condemns a lot of people who think both of those acts would be terribly wrong.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And condemns a lot of people who do NOT consider murdering the entire human race to be evil.
If I belong to a church that teaches witches should be burned, and somebody else in the church burns a witch according to instructions even though I personally never would, what kind of person am I if I don't reconsider my membership?
[ September 01, 2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And condemns a lot of people who do NOT consider murdering the entire human race to be evil.
Well, if we all become Democrats, it's just a matter of putting us out of our own misery. . .
[ September 01, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, I must have missed the part in the Bible that orders Christians to murder the whole human race.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Scott, isn't this thread tangled enough without dragging politics into it?
-Trevor
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I believe in tangles, Tmedina.
I was borned an' raised in a brar' patch.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, politics in a thread about who should be president? What were you thinking?
Dagonee Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I believe Tom's talking about the notion that on Christ's second coming, the wicked will be burned as stubble.
How can we, as Christians, live with a God that would do this sort of thing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because we believe He's good and knows more about what's right and wrong than we do?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Considering your gleeful and willing contribution to the unraveling of this thread, keep the tounge action to yourself.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Well, some of us do, at any rate.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
There seems to be a lot of concern here about God killing people. Do those with these concerns dislike the death penalty? Or killing in self-defense?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I was thinking more along the lines of, "I'm okay with the whole armageddon thing, as long as you update your sense of architecture. I mean, gold basins and candles? What are we, 1200 B.C.E.? Come on now, Big Guy, work with me here."
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Is there a difference between who does the killing? God can kill, but man cannot?
Or man can kill, but God should not.
Idle musings.
But in answer to your question Bev - I don't have a clue. I've lost track of who was arguing what.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: If life has became a theoretical exercise since the outcome is pre-determined, why are we doing this?
I have to quote this again because it occurs to me that I missed the key part of this statement.
I don't personally believe that God has already decided who is going to Heaven or hell. I'm assuming that's what you mean by pre-determination.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:s there a difference between who does the killing? God can kill, but man cannot?
Definitely, if you assume God has much greater knowledge than we do.
Dagonee
[ September 01, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I propose that there are certain situations where it is not wrong for man to kill man. Maybe it is because I am LDS. The Book of Mormon has a lot of war in it. It has situations where righteous people reluctantly go to war in order to preserve their rights and freedoms to worship.
As I do not think it is always wrong for man to kill, I think God certainly has a right to also.
Mormons are *not* pacifists.
[ September 01, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:what kind of person am I if I don't reconsider my membership?
The problem with this is (or at least a problem with this is), we’re not talking about membership in an organization. There is, as has been pointed out, no “International Association of Fundamentalists.”
Some of us on this thread are members of particular Christian organizations, should we reconsider our membership in those organizations when members of other organizations, who also self identify as Christian, commit acts we disagree with? And if so, does that apply to other descriptors as well? Should I no longer call myself a feminist, since some feminists commit acts I find reprehensible?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Dana, it probably depends on if the feminists have those reprehensible things in their mission statement. I think that's what Tom's saying.
[ September 01, 2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
PSI, my point is that I can choose not to belong to a specific feminist organization because of their mission statement, but why should I choose not to be a feminist at all becasue of the mission statment of some organization that I'm not a member of, just becasue they also call themselves feminist?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I agree with you, lady.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*twitches a bit* I've heard peopel say that god will send people to hell for things like being gay or divorce or stealing... How is that right? In the Old Testiment God would smite people for the slightest crimes. Even if he is God, is it still right?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't believe that God "sends people to Hell" for various crimes. I think that we all have the same propensity for committing these types of crimes.
In the end, God says to choose him and live. The fatal "crime" is to fail to choose God.
My mother-in-law always says that there are a million ways to Christ, but that Christ is the only way to God. I don't know how that's relevant, I just like how it sounds. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I still don't understand that though... Sending people to hell for not being Christian... it doesn't seem right and moral and fair to me...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Since I believe that God is just, I believe that he had a good reason for his "smitings", and that there may have been reason beyond what was apparent in the text.
In fact, I am more likely to think that there is an error in what was written in the Old Testament than I am to think God kills people on a whim. I believe in a God that makes sense and is consistent with Himself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dana, I think a more important question is "should I reconsider my membership if my GOD does something I find reprehensible, like kill everyone on the planet?"
And if you DON'T find killing everyone on the planet to be reprehensible, maybe you should. (*points back to the "Short Circuit" analogy*)
What authority does God have that gives Him the right to kill me?
[ September 01, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Short Circuit analogy is a non-starter, since the company is not the one who created Number 5's "soul," "consciousness," or whatever yo want to call his self.
It was a bolt of lightining, the ultimate act of God.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Love. That's the only righteous authority anyone has. God's authority comes from love and omniscience.
That's why manipulation by those close to you is so evil - it's the twisting and making evil of what is incredibly good.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.
I don't know Syn. Has God changed or has our perception of God changed?
Depending on your point of view and which interpretation you hold to, there may or may not be anything wrong with God taking a pro-active stance on smiting and damning.
For example: If God is indeed Good and all things proper and He decides to smite someone, obviously it must be right because God Himself is the source of Good and since we cannot understand His designs, we cannot question the validity of his actions.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bear in mind Syn, your question is the root of more than a few doubters.
It seems designed to coerce people created with free will to choose God or be damned to Hell. Might makes right, after all.
Another school of thought suggests that God is working within a given framework and is bound by law and regulation, whether self-imposed or not. While we do not understand the true purpose of God or the role of the Devil in this struggle, it is the way things are and fair does not enter into it.
Or Damnation is an inevitable consequence of Nature, like Death and the only means to escape this inevitable consequence is to love and worship our Creator (who apparently made a flawed creation, one might argue).
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I still don't understand that though... Sending people to hell for not being Christian... it doesn't seem right and moral and fair to me...
In my head I always think of God's will as an ultimate force that can't be fought against, the difference that God can think and choose.
But I liken his will to the law of gravity. You can fight against it and refuse to follow it, but if you jump off a building you will still hit the ground. God could make the ground soft and fluffy, but it's not like he hasn't put giant signs up that say "Do not jump, death immenent."
When you follow the law of gravity you will be firmly attached to the ground, (or swimming in the air using currents for uplift ) which is the optimal setting for leading a constructive life. You have the choice to jump, despite the fact that he warns you that jumping will kill you.
Letting you die when you hit isn't cruelty. It's only our own ego that encourages us to do what God has lovingly warned us against.
[ September 01, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"God's authority comes from love and omniscience."
Which part of that includes killing all the firstborn of Egypt? I mean, I know what you're saying, Katie, but "He's entitled to kill you because He loves you" seems like a non-starter to me.
---------
Dag, if you MUST extend that analogy, let's pop over to "A.I." -- where the robot is designed with something akin to a soul. Does the designer, who after all intended to create a robot with some autonomy, have the right to recall and/or destroy that robot when it displays that autonomy?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
One belief held in particular by the LDS is that where greater light and knowledge is given there is greater condemnation. It may have been that the people smitten for "seemingly small" things were people who knew and understood God far better than the average person, sinning against a greater knowledge and therefore held to a higher standard than others were. There are many other possibilities also. But there is no way a "God of Love" delights in the shedding of blood.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure anyone has managed to make clear why a "God of Love" feels the need to smite, much less smite people who are closer to him MORE.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
It is hard for me to follow that analogy. You still have the problem that the creator of the AI kid was an imperfect being that isn't omniscient, as God is.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, some of us believe that our free will does continue after death--for quite awhile in fact, before our "final judgement". Passing from this life to the next does not erase our free will.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
PSI: So what really gives God the right to kill anyone He wants is omniscience, rather than the act of creation?
---
beverly, I've already said the Mormons get a few "get out of jail free" cards when it comes to classical Christian theology.
[ September 01, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Tom,
quote: This will hurt me more than it does you.
or
quote: Spare the rod, spoil the child
Smiting is required for the betterment of the whole. And since we don't know if the person smited actually existed, it's possible God didn't actually kill anyone but rather put on a very convincing show.
Actually, Tom could be God - challenging the strength of our Faith in defiance of all challenges and tests.
-Trevor
Edit: For form and clarity.
[ September 01, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, if you MUST extend that analogy, let's pop over to "A.I." -- where the robot is designed with something akin to a soul. Does the designer, who after all intended to create a robot with some autonomy, have the right to recall and/or destroy that robot when it displays that autonomy?
In my worldview, the soul, if it was created, wasn't created by the humans, so they have no authority over it.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Of course, if we are so concerned about death, and God is master over all, people of all ages die every day, all sorts of circumstances. I propose that death is not horrendous.
OK, Tom. I am left wondering, though, if I should bow out of the conversation or not. I speak for the benefit of others also.
If I could assign a reading assingment for this topic, it would be the very, very long Jacob chapter 5 found in The Book of Mormon. It is an allegory that compares the world to a grove of olive trees and the master of the grove as God. It details how he deals with the trees in an effort to get them to live and thrive and produce good fruit rather than wild fruit. Some pruning and destruction is involved.
[ September 01, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Dana, I think a more important question is "should I reconsider my membership if my GOD does something I find reprehensible, like kill everyone on the planet?"
Ah. Well, since I think the whole point of the flood story was God’s promise not to destroy the earth and everyone on it, I guess I’m not a fundamentalist/fanatic by your definition.
Not that I really ever thought I was.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I propose that death is not horrendous."
So you think this whole "let's destroy Al Qaeda" thing is pointless?
-----
Dag, if you're going to conclude that all human worth -- which you're pretty much defining as soul, here -- comes from God, then we're going to run into another definitional issue as a consequence of that "fanaticism."
It is, of course, a consequence of my belief that I am worth something independent of my connection to God that I believe human life -- and morality -- possesses and value at all. I submit that a belief to the contrary is exactly what makes fanaticism dangerous.
------
Dana, leaving aside your rejection of a literal interpretation of the Tribulation, wouldn't your acceptance of the Flood story suggest that you believed God had already killed almost everyone on the planet ONCE?
[ September 01, 2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI: So what really gives God the right to kill anyone He wants is omniscience, rather than the act of creation?
No, that wasn't my point. I just wouldn't lay that right in the hands of a human "creator" (still trying to follow the analogy although I agree with Dag about God being the creator of the soul) because a human can't know what's best in the long run.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"because a human can't know what's best in the long run"
So, again, is this "know(ing) what's best in the long run" the determining factor? If a human knew the consequences of allowing someone to live, should that human be allowed to kill with impunity if he knew it was best for the world?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Assuming that he also knew it was part of God's will, then probably yeah. But so far no human has existed with those qualities, and never will. A human with omniscience cannot exist. Only God has that quality.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tom, only if I believe that it's literal history. Which I don't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"A human with omniscience cannot exist. Only God has that quality."
Why do you make that claim? Do you have any proof, or are you making (as many Mormons would) a definitional argument: that anyone with omniscience would be God?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: It is, of course, a consequence of my belief that I am worth something independent of my connection to God that I believe human life -- and morality -- possesses and value at all. I submit that a belief to the contrary is exactly what makes fanaticism dangerous.
What, specifically, is dangerous about believing that you have worth to your creator, as opposed to worth that exists in your mind?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The danger is this: if people have no worth other than to their Creator, and I believe that there are people out here working to defeat that Creator, there is no legitimate reason for me to respect these individuals or recognize that they possess any intrinsic worth. This is, in fact, exactly the logic that permits me to fly an airplane into a building to kill 3000 people who are not worth anything to my Creator.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: 8"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
My only proof regarding God comes from the Bible, which I'm sure you already knew.
But then, your only proof for your particular belief is that you've decided that it's true.
edit to add: ISA 55:7-9 NKJV
and,
Re: worth: You assume that I believe that only believers have worth to God.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."
I guarantee you, PSI, that if a gunman were to shoot me down in a KMart and give this as his reason, it would come as cold comfort.
-----
"You assume that I believe that only believers have worth to God."
Nope. But I assume that you COULD come to believe that.
There are fanatical Muslims out here who already believe that. There are fanatical Christians who believe that AIDS is a plague sent to kill gays, and that the Twin Towers thing was a deliberate sign from God to remind us of our failings.
Once you admit that human beings have no intrinsic worth, and that their worth exists only in the perception of a being that exists based entirely upon your subjective interpretation, you are one step away from blowing somebody up at a sidewalk cafe.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Tom: Can you explain how that relates? I'm stumped.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is, of course, a consequence of my belief that I am worth something independent of my connection to God that I believe human life -- and morality -- possesses and value at all. I submit that a belief to the contrary is exactly what makes fanaticism dangerous.
And I propose that any attempt to define human worth while ignoring the most basic elements of human existence are futile and ultimately harmful.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I mean, I already said that I don't believe that any person has the omniscience that God possesses, and therefore doesn't have the right to shoot you down in KMart.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I see I have some catching up to do after my lunch hour.... and probably half of dozen more replies will post as I write this <grin>
Just as someone above used the example of gravity -- a law that just is -- you jump off the building you die -- so it is with the fact that you can NOT be in God's presence if there is evil. Basically he said, "If you sin, you die" just as we would say, "If you jump off the building, gravity is going to make you go downward"
So there is nothing we can do, of ourselves, to make us worthy to be in God's presence. That is WHY He gave us a way to overcome that barrier -- by having Jesus die to cover all of our sins, so that we AREN'T evil when we come before His presence, and He CAN deal with us.
To answer Syn -- in the old testament, they had not yet had the covering of Christ's blood to be intercessor for them. They still had to deal with the penalty of sin in their lives.
So now we have a choice to say, "let the blood of Christ cover my sin so I can stand before you, God" or we can choose NOT to ask for that (He doesn't force us to accept it). If we choose to not accept, then it is the same as saying "I'm choosing to step off this building, even though I know the penalty of gravity, because I don't want to take the gift that will KEEP it from happening."
Farmgirl
edit: for typos
[ September 01, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: "I propose that death is not horrendous."
So you think this whole "let's destroy Al Qaeda" thing is pointless?
Tom, that is an awfully big leap. I believe the wrongful taking of life is horrendous.
But we all die, and I believe that God does have the right to decide when. That is because I believe that He is not only omniscient, but completely trustworthy. I trust Him to love all of His children and act in both the individual best interest and the best interest of the whole, I trust Him to be the balancing force between justice and mercy, a perfect judge.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I propose that any attempt to define human worth while ignoring the most basic elements of human existence are futile and ultimately harmful."
That's certainly possible. Which basic elements do you believe I'm ignoring?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The danger is this: if people have no worth other than to their Creator, and I believe that there are people out here working to defeat that Creator, there is no legitimate reason for me to respect these individuals or recognize that they possess any intrinsic worth.
Unless that Creator has given explicit instructions that you are to love others as yourself.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Once you admit that human beings have no intrinsic worth, and that their worth exists only in the perception of a being that exists based entirely upon your subjective interpretation, you are one step away from blowing somebody up at a sidewalk cafe.
That's a huge jump, Tom. I could just as easily say that, because you believe that it's harmful for me to believe and teach that worth comes from God, that you are one step away from taking my kids away from me because I might "harm" them.
In fact, you're probably a lot closer to acting on that than I am to blowing someone up on the sidewalk, because I believe that God has ordered me not to kill.
That's the consequence of believing that YOU are the one deciding how to define morality, when, in fact, you are just as flawed as every other human on this planet.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"so it is with the fact that you can NOT be in God's presence if there is evil"
Farmgirl: why did God make it that way?
-----
Dag: that's cold comfort to all the people that God ordered other people to kill, isn't it? If the message is really "love your neighbor until I tell you otherwise," then the only thing lacking is the follow-up command to start the massacre.
-----
"I could just as easily say that, because you believe that it's harmful for me to believe and teach that worth comes from God, that you are one step away from taking my kids away from me because I might 'harm' them."
This is a perfectly reasonable belief, although I should point out that you know me considerably better than you know God and therefore have more reason to believe that this is unlikely.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Aside: While I'm pretty sure that there are instances of it, I can't think of any. Can you give me examples from the Bible where God ordered someone to kill? Honest question, I can't remember.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:"so it is with the fact that you can NOT be in God's presence if there is evil"
Farmgirl: why did God make it that way?
God didn't. That's just the way it is.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Tom, I don't know -- and I don't know that I CAN know with this present, human mind. God is just so pure that He cannot be associated with the presence of evil.
Oh, and PSI...
quote: My mother-in-law always says that there are a million ways to Christ, but that Christ is the only way to God.
Give your MIL a hug for me -- that is perfect.
Farmgirl
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Which part of that includes killing all the firstborn of Egypt? I mean, I know what you're saying, Katie, but "He's entitled to kill you because He loves you" seems like a non-starter to me.
Hmm...so you're saying that even if you granted that God did create us
"He's right to kill you because of his love and ominiscience." That statement is acceptable - the true love guarantees a non-self motive, and the omniscience prevents the "good intentions, crappy execution" problem with a lot of good intentions. There may still be results that may seem to have crappy execution, but once we've granted omniscience, unless we claim for ourselves, we can say we are missing some pieces.
He's entitled to kill you because because he loves you. I think this is like the (ha!) Good Samaritan laws, or the second law of robotics - a good being will not let another come to harm through inaction. If it is better, in the long run, for ourselves, to have something happen that's horrid in the short run, to NOT do it would be an act of aggression and violence. It's allowing a patient to die because a doctor refuses to give the pain of an antiobiotic shot.
He's not entitled by love. He's required to.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I asked a question on page 3 that, while tangential, is still, I think, relevant. Is belief a matter of choice? Do people really choose to believe or not to believe?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes, you choose to believe to disbelieve.
edit: at least after a certain point you do. When you are a child, you just believe what you are taught. But you get to a point where you consider that you might have been taugh wrong.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yes, I believe so. Sorry it didn't get answered before.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:It is, of course, a consequence of my belief that I am worth something independent of my connection to God that I believe human life -- and morality -- possesses and value at all. I submit that a belief to the contrary is exactly what makes fanaticism dangerous.
This is, I think, one of our fundamental definitional differences. I not only believe that you have no worth apart from your connection to God, I believe you have no existence apart from your connection to God. And I don’t mean by that just “if God hadn’t created you you wouldn’t even be here.” I mean that God is the continual sustaining of all existence, the ground of all being, ultimate reality, however you want to phrase it. God goes on strike = the universe poofs out of existence.
Edit: The universe, and any other universes that may or may not exist, and anything else that exists.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: This is a perfectly reasonable belief, although I should point out that you know me considerably better than you know God and therefore have more reason to believe that this is unlikely.
Oh, I didn't think I knew you very well at all. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Can you give me examples from the Bible where God ordered someone to kill?"
Sure. Check out Samuel and his conversation with Saul on the godly demand for genocide.
----
"If it is better, in the long run, for ourselves, to have something happen that's horrid in the short run, to NOT do it would be an act of aggression and violence."
Now grant, for a moment, that the person involved is either not omniscient or not benevolent. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that justice is done?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I asked a question on page 3 that, while tangential, is still, I think, relevant. Is belief a matter of choice? Do people really choose to believe or not to believe?
Yes, but..it's not a choice between a rousing testimony and a complete absense of belief. It's a choice, but it's a choice that is made constantly, in a thousand tiny steps. Faith is a gift, but it starts with a desire to know and believe, and acting on that desire and not stifling belief if it starts to grow.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Saxon -- I felt like I answered that question in my post ABOVE where you posted the question (when I talked about Tom's choice)
By the way to everyone: Good to have Hatrack back in full force on this thread! After KamaCon everything seemsed so "dead" for awhile I was afraid we were never going to hit the tough subjects again for fear of offending all our newfound friends.
Farmgirl
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Actually, after thinking about it, I don't agree. I know God a good deal better than I know you, if I assume that everything God has told me is true, and everything you have said is true as well.
edit: at PSI. Knoew, indeed. I just couldn't decide on a verb tense so I went with both.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Yes, you choose to believe to disbelieve.
quote:Yes, I believe so. Sorry it didn't get answered before.
Interesting. Why do you think so?
Let me put it this way. Being who I am, I cannot imagine any way that I could believe in God short of something like Him appearing to me. I could say that I believed. I could go to church and live my life by the Bible and act in all other ways for His glory. But no matter what my actions were, inside I still wouldn't believe. I don't think I have any choice in the matter. I don't choose not to believe, I just don't. Sometimes I would like to believe in God. I think it would be comforting. Sometimes I even try to believe. But it's not something I have any control over. I don't think anybody chooses whether or not they have that fundamental faith. In my opinion, you don't believe in God or not believe in God because of things like love or hate or the good or bad things that have come out of religion. You just do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Now grant, for a moment, that the person involved is either not omniscient or not benevolent. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that justice is done?
The power of God is the priesthood. No power or influence can be maintained or weilded except by persuasion, patience, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love-unfeigned, kindness, and pure knowledge.
If God wasn't benevolent, the priesthood wouldn't work.
Added: See D&C 121:41-42
[ September 01, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Now grant, for a moment, that the person involved is either not omniscient or not benevolent. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that justice is done?
I understand that this is a possibility in the minds of many. And if it were so, there would be no checks or balances, since God is supreme. Who can stop someone who has absolute power and authority? I understand, because I think you have said it before, that if the God of the Bible exists, this is how you view Him to be--Evil.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I still want Powell as President... *sigh*
[ September 01, 2004, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dana, I've got no argument with your logic there, although (leaving aside our obvious difference in premises) I do have two theological quibbles: a god of that sort seems to be dramatically and somewhat pathetically reduced in scale by the Bible, and furthermore would seem to have no particular reason to do much of anything like, say, the creation of universes. I understand the appeal of that kind of cosmology, but it would seem to reduce human lives to far, far less than toy soldiers; we're not even created as learning exercises or experiments, if you grant your premise, and serve less purpose than either.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:But it's not something I have any control over. I don't think anybody chooses whether or not they have that fundamental faith.
Sorry, Sax. I just have to disagree with you here. I think everyone CAN choose. You only believe you can't. I do believe you have the power to choose.
Farmgirl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now grant, for a moment, that the person involved is either not omniscient or not benevolent. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that justice is done?
That's why I am in favor of freedom of religion - because we can't rely on our interpretation as it effects people beyond our own being, except where others' interpretations cause tangible harm.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: You just do.
Why do you think that is? Do you think a person is born with "faith" encoded in their DNA? I wonder how that would evolve.
I'm not being flippant, really. I'm just wondering.
But I don't think someone just "has faith". I think it's something that you search for, if you're interested.
But, it's entirely possible that you are a believer in disguise. Maybe your time just hasn't come yet. What I mean is, every believer became one at a certain point, when they chose to believe. Maybe you have that point but you haven't come to it yet.
Just musing.
My personal belief is that if you are really interested in learning the truth, it will come to you one day. I know there are people on this forum who have testimony against that, but none of them have died yet.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If God wasn't benevolent, the priesthood wouldn't work."
Um....DOES the priesthood work? It seems odd to base an argument for God's benevolence on something that should be scientifically verifiable.
-----
"Do you think a person is born with 'faith' encoded in their DNA?"
Actually, there's some evidence that people with faith have different brain structures than people without, and that there's some genetic predisposition involved.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Saxon, thanks so much for your thoughts on whether a person can or cannot have faith. I do like katarina's description. I don't think I can go from complete skeptic to firm believer just by wishing it so. I think that we all gravitate to beliefs that ressonate to us, that make sense to us, that seem to be proved time and time again to be true. Some of us feel that way about our religious faith. It makes sense to us. It appeals to us. It has been proven time and time again to be what we believe it to be.
It is not a simple matter of one decision.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: we're not even created as learning exercises or experiments, if you grant your premise, and serve less purpose than either.
Nope. We’re created as friends, and lovers, and because God enjoys stories. Which I much prefer to being a learning exercise, or an experiment.
I'll get to your other point in a bit.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Sorry, Sax. I just have to disagree with you here. I think everyone CAN choose. You only believe you can't. I do believe you have the power to choose.
Again, I find this fascinating. So, likewise, you believe that, you being you and not some other hypothetical person, you could actually choose not to believe in God? Or is belief not a choice while disbelief is?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:"If God wasn't benevolent, the priesthood wouldn't work."
Um....DOES the priesthood work? It seems odd to base an argument for God's benevolence on something that should be scientifically verifiable.
That's the power of God. That's the "smiting" thing. If you think God doesn't have power, then the problem isn't the abuse of it.
Priesthood = Power of God It's the same thing that God uses to do his work.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
kat, I'm conpletely not understanding what you're saying. Translate, please?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"We’re created as friends, and lovers, and because God enjoys stories."
Dana, you're operating here on a considerably different level than many of the Christians who've posted thus far, so I can't really apply other assumptions to your argument.
I find it hard to believe that a God who creates people for the sole purpose of having friends, lovers, and good anecdotes would also punish and "train" those people with the threat of Hell and agonizing "tests of faith" in life, much less send 'em all through the fires of Armageddon. Do you believe in none of those more punishing concepts?
------
As I understand Mormon theology, Dana, kat believes that God has no power except insofar as He uses it for good. Ergo, it can be assumed that anything God does is good because, were it not, He could not have done it. It's a circular argument of a slightly different nature.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Saxy, I believe that to believe is a choice made once.
God says no one (or is it nothing) can "snatch you out of my hand". I include myself on that list.
That goes right against Mormon beliefs, I suppose.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom asked what the checks are this omnipotent being, given the hypothetical situation that the omnipotent being isn't benevolent and/or omniscient.
The check is that the power of God only works when used with those qualities listed earlier. In other words, the power of God can ONLY be used for good - being used for evil (awesome) is not an option.
--
PSI, I do believe that no one can take you away from God, but you can take yourself away.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In the sense that I think you mean them, no I don't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is why I love Mormonism: it's clearly a later-era Christian faith, since it appears designed to resolve some of the more obvious theological paradoxes by simply removing omnipotence from Godhead and writing a few scriptures specifically targeted at ethically troubling passages in the Bible. It makes for fun conversations.
-----
Dana: I've got no problem with your God, but you wouldn't like me to say why. *cringe* And I WON'T say why, because the last time I said why at someone else's request, over my objections, that someone called me an asshole.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, PSI, we do believe people can "fall from grace". I remember discussing this very issue with people I talked to as a missionary. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ah, thank you kat (and Tom). The word “priesthood” was confusing me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Doesn't it make sense that when God made a prophet again, he'd give a few answers?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom: Or it is what it claims to be: God's church restored after an apostacy.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, I think it's possible to turn away from God to a point where your life is no longer blessed, and you aren't building rewards, and Satan can get in and make you screw up and lead OTHERS astray, but that your fundamental salvation is still intact, you just won't have much when you get there.
But then, there's the argument that a person who was truly saved wouldn't make choices that extreme in the first place, he he. : )
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
That will teach me to nod off in mid-debate again.
-Trevor
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This is a very interesting thread because we are trying to refine our doctrinal beliefs in my church right now. We're an independent church, and really had no clear statement of beliefs, which we feel we need - so we're working in small groups to talk out the various theologies.
I think all questions come back to the essential one: "Why did God create man?"
My answer: To glorify Him. We don't exist for our own sake - we exist because we were created. And we we were created for His purpose.
God didn't create man on a whim and then get surprised by the Fall and think "Oh wow, I've got to invent a way for these poor fallen creatures to get back into my presence. I know! I'll send a son of mine to die for them, that oughta do it."
Everything is part of a plan and has been since before time. We don't know the plan, we can only grasp small portions of the plan with our limited undersanding. Some if it doesn't make sense and it's not supposed to - we will never understand it in full while we are hindered by our mortality and our limited human understanding.
Is the God that ordered the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn the same one that says "Love your neighbor as yourself?" Yes, He is. Do I have a hard time accepting that sometimes? Yup. That's why I have faith.
God can slaughter the firstborn, he has that authority and the power to do so. I do not. What he expects of me is obedience - I am to obey the new covenant that was instituted by Christ, which tells me to love my neighbor as myself. Because of that, I could never murder a human being. But it is not for me to judge what God does - if he should allow the wholesale murder of a group of people that doesn't make Him any less the God that I follow and obey. Because I accept that I don't have the ability to grasp His purposes.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
(To PSI) There is a passage in The Book of Mormon that addresses the incorrect belief that we can do a little sin here or there, God will punish such with a few lashes, and they will at last be saved. LDS doctrine is that you have to endure to the end, continue faithful, in order for your salvation to be realized.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shrug* I would say that I'm hardly qualified to decide how likely any given sect is to hold "the Truth," given the number of sects out there and the passion and happiness exhibited by their believers. I DO find Mormonism less logically objectionable than most Christian alternatives, however, and regret that I find the histories of the Book of Mormon far too implausable to credit with truth.
-------
"But it is not for me to judge what God does - if he should allow the wholesale murder of a group of people that doesn't make Him any less the God that I follow and obey."
Belle, there is a solemn beauty in that philosophy. It is also a philosophy that scares the living crap out of me.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tom, I’m pretty sure I know why. No worries. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No, I can see that. There is a passage in the Bible that orders us to "endure until the end, and you will be saved." I'll have to think about that some more.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Belle, there is a solemn beauty in that philosophy. It is also a philosophy that scares the living crap out of me.
Tom, you do bring a smile to my face.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*passes Tom a bag of briquettes*
-Trevor
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:See, I think it's possible to turn away from God to a point where your life is no longer blessed, and you aren't building rewards, and Satan can get in and make you screw up and lead OTHERS astray, but that your fundamental salvation is still intact, you just won't have much when you get there.
But then, there's the argument that a person who was truly saved wouldn't make choices that extreme in the first place, he he. : )
I agree with this 100%, PSI, and thanks for summing up my feelings better than I could myself.
Edit: dratted HTML code
[ September 01, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: and regret that I find the histories of the Book of Mormon far too implausable to credit with truth.
That's cool. It is certainly a debatable topic. I find that the evidence for those histories is harder to refute than the evidence against, but then, I may be biased. Well, biased though I may be, I am ultimately a seeker of truth. I don't feel I am someone who just accepts things blindly and freely questions in spite of my faith.
It's kinda like evidence for or against God. While there isn't a truckload of evidence for, I feel there is more for than against. And the against is much easier to refute.
I would love to discuss this further with you, but I don't know if Hatrack would be an acceptable place to do so.
The Mods are like God--they reserve the right to kick out whatever or whoever isn't playing by the rules.
[ September 01, 2004, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Why do you think that is? Do you think a person is born with "faith" encoded in their DNA? I wonder how that would evolve.
I'm not entirely sure why I've come to my conclusions about faith. It came out of considering my own personal beliefs.
When I was younger, I used to be anti-religious, rather than areligious. I used to have conversations with my friends about why religion was a Bad Thing. I quit doing that after realizing that there are plenty of good and decent religious people out there as well as realizing the utter hypocrisy of bad-mouthing other people's beliefs while still resenting the fact that they bad-mouthed mine. But in any event, most of my statements on the reasons for my disbelief followed the pattern "I don't believe in God because I don't like such and such effect of religion." But on further reflection, despite the fact that I still didn't like certain things about organized religion, it became apparent that I didn't like those things because I didn't believe in God, not the other way around. So I did a lot of soul-searching and realized that there wasn't any reason why I didn't believe. I just didn't. I may like or dislike different aspects of faith and religion, but they really didn't affect whether or not I believed.
As to how people acquire faith or non-belief, I don't know if I can completely articulate it. I think that the "I" is something that is a product of both certain inner qualities with which we are born and the experiences that we gain through living. Some parts change over time (nurture), some don't (nature). It may be that some people are predisposed at birth to want to believe in things, though I have a hard time buying that completely. However it is acquired, faith is something basic and automatic. This is not to say that faith precludes doubt, but as far as I can tell, doubt is something that lays on top of a pretty solid core. It's not an immutable core, just solid. I think the beginnings of that core are molded when we are too young to really think about it, and the rest of our experiences in life build on that in one way or another.
quote:But, it's entirely possible that you are a believer in disguise. Maybe your time just hasn't come yet. What I mean is, every believer became one at a certain point, when they chose to believe. Maybe you have that point but you haven't come to it yet.
I will admit that this is possible, but I think it unlikely. When I acknowledged that there was no reason for my disbelief, it actually made me even more sure of myself.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Dana, you're operating here on a considerably different level than many of the Christians who've posted thus far, so I can't really apply other assumptions to your argument.
I find it hard to believe that a God who creates people for the sole purpose of having friends, lovers,
We are? So far, I am in total agreement with everything Dana has posted so far, so I'm not sure why you think we are on a different level.
quote: So, likewise, you believe that, you being you and not some other hypothetical person, you could actually choose not to believe in God? Or is belief not a choice while disbelief is?
Saxon, you ask a good question here, and perhaps I should re-examine the way I said it the first time. I am meaning you can choose to open your mind to the possibility and ask God to help you believe -- not that it is an instantaneous thing that just suddenly happens.
Work calls - more later.
Farmgirl
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: This is not to say that faith precludes doubt, but as far as I can tell, doubt is something that lays on top of a pretty solid core.
Depending on how much evidence there is, it is easier to doubt something than to believe. Especially since there are different levels of doubt. You see, for me I always accept the possibility that I might be wrong. But I don't think I am. If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't have faith.
I know that some athiests and agnostics have found faith. I imagine their stories are among the most fascinating. I don't know what the process is, but I imagine for them in particular, it involves things "fitting together" and "making sense".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I imagine their stories are among the most fascinating."
Oh, I wish. In general, they tend to be of two sorts (and I'll try to be fair, here):
1) I did a lot of research, and found this one flaw in a scientific theory that didn't make any sense to my then unhappily atheist mind. I kept doing more research, and research into that scientific flaw led me to the inescapable conclusion that God must exist in order to account for this flaw. I believe other scientists know this in their hearts, but lie to themselves about it. I will someday write a book.
2) I knew a person who was of X faith. That person was good and happy and full of joy and radiant light. I was intrigued, and even though I'd looked into other religions, I asked this person to tell me more about hers. Something about it rubbed me the right way, and either I was instantly transformed into a believer and sank to my knees at the power of God's word or went away skeptical but determined to, through dint of constant repetition, convince myself of the truth of her testimony. I have since directly experienced the power of God in my life.
[ September 01, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I respect and admire Dana, but we have major theological differences. But we both know that, so it's cool.
Beverly, I agree that Hatrack is probably not the place to discuss the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but like Tom, I have a very hard time accepting it - I'd be interested in a friendly email discussion if you are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So far, I am in total agreement with everything Dana has posted so far...."
Farmgirl, you've called yourself a fundamentalist before, and I thought you were doing so in the classical sense. Do you not believe in the literal truth of the Flood and Tribulation? Do you believe these are both metaphors?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Depending on how much evidence there is, it is easier to doubt something than to believe. Especially since there are different levels of doubt. You see, for me I always accept the possibility that I might be wrong. But I don't think I am. If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't have faith.
I disagree that it is easier to doubt something than to believe. I think the two things are not really the same. Belief is positive. You believe there is a God. I believe there is not. Those are both positive statements. Doubt is negative. It only exists in relation to a positive belief. For me doubt is not a question of there being no God. When I doubt, I think that maybe there might be a God. See what I mean? But it is no more difficult to have my core belief than it is to doubt my belief. The difficult thing is to believe something to the point where doubt is completely eliminated.
quote:I know that some athiests and agnostics have found faith. I imagine their stories are among the most fascinating. I don't know what the process is, but I imagine for them in particular, it involves things "fitting together" and "making sense".
I'm sure there are many atheists who have become religious. Likewise, there are many theists who have lost their belief. I don't know exactly what the process is for change, but I think that it has to do with the parts of you that change with experience.
Let me put it a different way. I've asked people before if they could choose not to believe in God, and one answer I've heard is that they could choose not to believe but they choose not to do so. Now, while it may be true that they choose not to do so, I think that, they being who they are, could not make any other choice. If you can choose, but will always make the same choice, if there is no choice in the choice, that's not really choosing. If a person really could choose whether or not to believe, or even choose whether or not to "open their mind" to the opposite belief, then to me that sounds like the faith is not really that strong at all. But I don't think most people are really like that. I think most people would be unable to bring themself to make the other choice, and if that's the case, they really don't have much, if any, control over the decision.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The difficult thing is to believe something to the point where doubt is completely eliminated.
I am not to that point.
saxon, your description of it not being a choice reminds me of predestination--the idea that because of who we are and our circumstances, there is only one choice we can make on any given issue. I'm not so sure I believe that. It may be so, I don't know.
I think I could choose to refute every piece of evidence that I have for God's existance if I wanted to. It would probably involve being dishonest with myself or just leaving certain items alone--not dealing with them. After all, I don't have much "hard" evidence. It is mostly "soft" evidence, the kind that can be dismissed. I don' know why, but I am thinking of the X files right now, with Fox as the believer and Scully as the skeptic.
But I would have to want to, I would have to have motivation. I don't have that motivation at this time.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom: Perhaps you have done more research than I on the conversions of these people. I just assumed that atheists and agnostics are such because they need things to make sense to them. So I assumed that their finding of faith would invovle things making sense. Your examples seem to describe the act of believing as a choice, as saxon believes it is not. Saxon, do you feel that these people are "latent believers" and the ones who lose their faith are "latent agnostics"?
Belle: I would be happy to discuss it with you via email. My email is in my profile--feel free to ask anything you wish. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Your examples seem to describe the act of believing as a choice, as saxon believes it is not."
Well, I'm not sure about that. Most of the people I've seen who fall under these two categories were either born into areligious families, or left a childhood religion soon after high school but, sensing a void, kept looking for something to fill the gap. These people seem to me like exactly the kind of people who are predisposed to faith, but simply didn't have the opportunity to practice it.
(Note: I think this site has a few agnostics who converted, right? They're probably better sources of info than my second-hand observations.)
[ September 01, 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I believed in God when I was younger. Interestingly, what has driven me from religion to agnosticism and has been driving me toward atheism (to the point, now, where I self-identify as a member of the latter group) is my study of religion and my interactions with (some) religious people. I will not believe in the Christian God who did the things described in the Old Testament. Period. Christianity and Judaism are thus elimiated. I see no reason to accept that Muhammad heard the voice of God in his head and was not simply schizophrenic. And I have not attained satori-enlightenment, thus I am not a Buddhist.
Though I must say that of all of the religions I have studied, Zen Buddhism is the only one that resonates with me in any way. (Edit: It's the only one that doesn't have that hint of "I know better than you, because I have the TRUTH," since it makes no explanatory claims.)
One other thing has struck me through this thread. Dagonee, I can't shake the feeling that you are being intentionally obtuse. You know what Tom means, but you have yet to actually address his point that funamentalism in general is a dangerous thing. If you don't like his definition, then offer your own, for f*#@'s sake, instead of offering snappy one-liners.
[ September 01, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm curious - Farmgirl, Dana, everyone that is Christian how do you classify yourself?
Right now we have a vigorous (but civil ) discussion in our church between the Arminians and the Covenant Theologists. I was raised southern Baptist but am married to a Presbyterian who is a strong Covenant (aka Reformed) theologist. I'm not sure what to call myself, exactly! Still reading and studying and praying about it. I know that I feel like I understand and agree with the Reformed view in most cases.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:saxon, your description of it not being a choice reminds me of predestination--the idea that because of who we are and our circumstances, there is only one choice we can make on any given issue. I'm not so sure I believe that. It may be so, I don't know.
It does sound a bit like predestination, doesn't it? The reason I don't think of it as being actual predestination is because people are not a self-contained universe. We are affected by things outside of ourselves. Despite the fact that I can't think of what it would take, I have to admit that there is a possibility that something could happen to me that would make me believe in God. But something would have to happen, and when it did, I wouldn't be the same me anymore. And I also think that there's enough real randomness to the universe that there's no way to know what the final outcome will be. So, no, not really predestination.
quote:Saxon, do you feel that these people are "latent believers" and the ones who lose their faith are "latent agnostics"?
The way Tom describes them certainly makes them sound that way to me. And I've known people who seem to fit that mold. But I think there must be other people who make that type of change who aren't necessarily just acting out their latent desires.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Belle, I’m a Wesleyan theologian, with Tillichian leanings. Which puts me closer to Arminian than Reformed. But I also have a passion for 4th century theology that makes me think I might have been Eastern Orthodox in another life. (Except, of course, that I don’t believe in reincarnation. )
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
LOL, Dana.
Our church's motto if you will is
In Essentials, Unity In Non-Essentials, Liberty In All Things, Charity
What we're doing right now, is making certain we all know what the essentials are! But, we have such a loving, accepting environment, that the Arminians and the Reformed theologists have thus far been able to co-exist happily.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
If it's easier to doubt than to believe why is it that religion seems to be the only thing in the world where the majority takes the hard road?
Not saying that belief is easy. I'm more along the lines of not comparing the two since I can't think of any reliable way to make the comparison.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Farmgirl, you've called yourself a fundamentalist before, and I thought you were doing so in the classical sense. Do you not believe in the literal truth of the Flood and Tribulation? Do you believe these are both metaphors?
Tom, yes I am a fundamentalist, and I do believe in the literal translation, and I know that dkw does not, but that she believes that these are metaphors. I'm not saying she and I agree on all aspects of our Christianity.
To me, whether they are metaphors or literal is not fundamental to Salvation -- I believe dkw and I both believe pretty much the same thing when it comes to the basics of what salvation is.
Farmgirl
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"To me, whether they are metaphors or literal is not fundamental to Salvation."
Ah. But the thread wasn't about whether certain things are essential to Salvation. The thread was about whether certain things are EVIL.
Dana, who does not believe that the Flood or Tribulation are meant to be taken literally, does not have to justify the extermination of the human race. You, however, do.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I'm curious - Farmgirl, Dana, everyone that is Christian how do you classify yourself?
Right now we have a vigorous (but civil [Big Grin] ) discussion in our church between the Arminians and the Covenant Theologists. I was raised southern Baptist but am married to a Presbyterian who is a strong Covenant (aka Reformed) theologist. I'm not sure what to call myself, exactly! Still reading and studying and praying about it. I know that I feel like I understand and agree with the Reformed view in most cases.
Belle, I have not read up on church "labeling" history enough to know how I would wish to "label" myself. Meaning, I don't know which pigeonhole other Christians would choose to put me in.
I go to a Bible Church. In some ways, I see a lot of similarities between them and the Baptists, but there are discrepancies. Pretty much, though, I just take the Bible at its word.
Farmgirl
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'll tell you what -- our pastor is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and probably holds pretty closely to their statement of belief (which is what I just linked to). Perhaps dkw can scan through this and let you (and me) know which pigeonhole of Christianity I am in...
Farmgirl
[ September 01, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: If it's easier to doubt than to believe why is it that religion seems to be the only thing in the world where the majority takes the hard road?
Not saying that belief is easy. I'm more along the lines of not comparing the two since I can't think of any reliable way to make the comparison.
Perhaps. I find for myself that doubts are easy, while faith takes, well, faith. That leap into the darkness. But I have been one to choose to take that leap, and I feel that I have benefited from it.
I look at faith as a sort of work. But I define faith differently than belief. For me, faith requires actions that align with belief. It denotes confidence.
Here is an example: I believe that I should pray often. I believe that doing so will bless my life and bring me closer to God. But my faith is not as strong as it could be, considering the times I "forget" to pray regularly. If I had strong faith in the power of prayer in my life, I would pray a lot more frequently than I do.
As things are now, it is more something I "make" myself do (and try to do with sincerity) because I believe in it. In doing so, I am "exercising faith". I have to constantly "work" at it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I can't shake the feeling that you are being intentionally obtuse. You know what Tom means, but you have yet to actually address his point that funamentalism in general is a dangerous thing.
You know what twinky, (edit: voluntarily remove very insulting comment). Tom made a sweeping generalization that people who hold the fundamentalist belief are evil and dangerous, even those who don't want to push their agenda on others. He's assigning blame for the actions of one group to members of a related group. In fact, he called them great threats to this country, making no distinction between believers and actors. And he has confirmed repeatedly in this thread that it's the beliefs themselves he holds dangerous, not how they're acted upon.
quote:If you don't like his definition, then offer your own, for f*#@'s sake, instead of offering snappy one-liners.
If someone says "X is dangerous," it would very rude of me to redefine X on my own and then use that definition to refute his points. I'm very clear on what Tom means, and I've had no reason to change my original assessment of it.
For f*#@'s sake, Tom is the master of snappy one-liners in these discussions. You want to say something substantive, do it. You don't like the way I'm posting, report me, ignore, refute me, or shut the hell up.
Dagonee
[ September 01, 2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom made a sweeping generalization that people who hold the fundamentalist belief are evil and dangerous, even those who don't want to push their agenda on others."
Well, no. I made a blanket statement that the fundamentalist belief -- fundamentalism, if you will -- is evil. The people who ascribe to it may or may not be evil. (And even then, I suspect we should really be using the word "fanaticism," and the only reason we aren't is that people may be uncomfortable with the concept of Christian fanatics.)
[ September 01, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
You know, it doesn't really work all that well to put "(edit: remove insulting comment)" in there if you don't want to be insulting. Especially when we can see that it's not really an edit.
Edit: That's odd. When I wrote that there was no edit notification at the bottom of your post. If that was just my browser being weird then ignore the second sentence.
[ September 01, 2004, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yep. They're all bad in the same way that a Palestinian kid who roots for the stone throwers is bad.
All fundamentalists are bad as someone who roots for stone throwers. Even if they don't root for someone who does the bad actions. That's what you said, Tom.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dag, I think you're going to regret that post in a minute. Not the content, but the delivery.
--------
As a pure numbers game, of course fundamentalist Christians are more dangerous than terrorists. There are more of them. Taken as a whole, water balloons are more dangerous than terrorists.
Fundamentalists are human, and there are a lot of them. Selected members aren't annoying because they are fundamentalist - they are annoying because they are human. If it wasn't one belief set that justifited the inevitable crappy human actions, it would be something else.
Condemning a whole people because of a few of them are hypocritical humans IS lazy and bigoted. But that's human. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You know, it doesn't really work all that well to put "(edit: remove insulting comment)" in there if you don't want to be insulting. Especially when we can see that it's not really an edit.
Edit: That's odd. When I wrote that there was no edit notification at the bottom of your post. If that was just my browser being weird then ignore the second sentence.
I wasn't trying not to be insulting, I was trying not to subject others to the vulgarity. And I edited out of my post in the reply window after pasting it in from my word processor. I edited the post immediately after, but did not add that edit at that time.
Dagonee
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I think you're going to regret that post in a minute. Not the content, but the delivery.
Possibly. But twinky obviously hasn't regretted his, at least not enought to take any action.
I've had to hear arguments just like Tom's all my life aimed at Catholics (specifically at me) from people making grand generalizations based on a partial understanding of what some Pope did to Gallileo. This is not a philosophical issue for me.
Dagonee
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I hope this doesn't sound rude, but did you ever think your life might be a little more enjoyable if you didn't take everything quite so personally?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah, kat, it's not that I believe fundamentalist humans are capable of doing stupid things. It's that I believe fundamentalism ITSELF is a stupid thing. Ergo, they have chosen to hitch their cart to a horse full o'evil, even if they don't realize it or if they think that horse is going somewhere nice along the coast.
In other words, I think that believing that human lives -- and the ethical structures we've built up to protect them -- are meaningless outside of the context of faith is an inherently dangerous philosophy. It produces a mindset that, far too easily, can be used to justify literally any wicked policy while simultaneously repressing examination or discussion of such policies.
I cannot think of a single case in which fanaticism is healthier than its alternatives.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dag: I'm sorry this has been a lot to take. I very much appreciate how you explain your religion here - Catholics everywhere should be proud of you.
quote:In other words, I think that believing that human lives -- and the ethical structures we've built up to protect them -- are meaningless outside of the context of faith is an inherently dangerous philosophy. It produces a mindset that, far too easily, can be used to justify literally any wicked policy while simultaneously repressing examination or discussion of such policies.
So what you're saying is that terrorists are the ultimate expression of everything you find scary in fundamentalism. That's fine - and a whole lot less gratuitously insulting.
---
I half expected saxon to pass me something groovy.
[ September 01, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know what, I don't take that much personally. For some reason someone calling me obtuse seems personal. For some reason, calling someone evil based on a perverted understanding of their beliefs strikes me as personal.
Dagonee
[ September 01, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I agree, actually. Catholics take a lot of crap, and Dag's generally very patient when sticking up for his religion.
(Dag, do you not see the distinction between calling a philosophy evil and calling people who call themselves adherents of that philosophy evil? Personally, I don't think most fundamentalists have critically examined enough of their faith to really understand the evil on which they're hanging their hats.)
[ September 01, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In other words, I think that believing that human lives -- and the ethical structures we've built up to protect them -- are meaningless outside of the context of faith is an inherently dangerous philosophy. It produces a mindset that, far too easily, can be used to justify literally any wicked policy while simultaneously repressing examination or discussion of such policies.
While an ethical construct outside any sense of responsibility to a higher authority can also justify any wicked policy while simultaneously repressing examination or discussion of such policies.
Dagonee
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Dags, I'll grant you that the obtuse thing was personal. I'm not convinced that Tom was talking about you or your specific beliefs, nor that he misunderstands things as much as you think he does, nor that you fully understand his position. That may be because I, myself, am misunderstanding things. But I'll certainly agree that the obtuse thing was personal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"While an ethical construct outside any sense of responsibility to a higher authority can also justify any wicked policy while simultaneously repressing examination or discussion of such policies."
Only if you attempt to classify that ethical construct as unassailable. And, as far as I know, the only way to do that is to appeal to a higher authority.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Good point, Dag. I think the issue here is individuals choosing to be evil. I don't think there are many groups of organized religion that I would call evil. "Give me your money and you will be saved" comes to mind, if I am trying to just come up with something on the fly.
If you examine the actual doctrine of the group, you will find mostly good most of the time. But the followers, being human, will often twist those doctrines to serve their own purposes.
Does the same go for terrorists? If we look at the doctrines of Islam, does it condone their behavior, or are they smaller clumps who in their bitterness and anger, have twisted Islam to their purposes?
Is that what a fundamentalist or fanatic is? Someone who has twisted doctrine to an evil purpose?
[ September 01, 2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Only if you attempt to classify that ethical construct as unassailable. And, as far as I know, the only way to do that is to appeal to a higher authority.
Or if you pronounce a whole host of ethical constructs as inadmissible because they do rely on a higher authority.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't think there are many groups of organized religion that I would call evil."
The Mayans believed that human sacrifice was a necessary thing to maintain the order of the universe. You cool with that?
Note: they killed fewer people than the Bible says the Christian God has.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oooo, yeah, I'd say that was a pretty evil religion. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom -- is this a presently organized religion, and do they do this right now?
edit: 'Cuz if not, then it doesn't apply to what bev said.
[ September 01, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Note: they killed fewer people than the Bible says the Christian God has.
Do the numbers really matter? I think the reasons matter far more.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
In defense of the Mayans, they performed human sacrifice because they believed, they Believed it necessary.
There aren't any records of God or Jesus appearing to these poor heathens to save their souls.
Can we condemn them as evil just because their Faith, every bit as strong as yours, didn't happen to share the same tenets?
-Trevor
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I read this entire thread before posting, and nowhere has Tom actually called YOU a fundamentalist OR a fantic, Dagonee. But you went ahead and made that assumption right after his first post, and everything you've posted to this thread since then has played off that assumption. I assumed you were doing it on purpose, since I didn't know that this was a hot-button issue for you.
Edited to add: Clearly, I was wrong, and you aren't being obtuse. Sorry for saying so, then.
[ September 01, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, do you not see the distinction between calling a philosophy evil and calling people who call themselves adherents of that philosophy evil? Personally, I don't think most fundamentalists have critically examined enough of their faith to really understand the evil on which they're hanging their hats.
Tom, you've not made that clear at all:
quote:I think it's safe to say that all Christian fundamentalists have pledged allegiance to the Christian god and are therefore responsible for His behavior.
quote:All these fundamentalists have to fall back upon, then, is their faith that the complete destruction of the human race is better -- on an absolute moral level -- than any other alternative.
I find that philosophy pretty darn evil, and am unapologetic about it.
There's not many other ways to take these statements.
Besides, there's an inherent unfairness to what you're doing. If what the fundamentalists believe is true, then that belief contains compelling arguments as to why those acts aren't evil. You're picking and choosing from amongst their beliefs.
quote:Dags, I'll grant you that the obtuse thing was personal. I'm not convinced that Tom was talking about you or your specific beliefs, nor that he misunderstands things as much as you think he does, nor that you fully understand his position. That may be because I, myself, am misunderstanding things. But I'll certainly agree that the obtuse thing was personal.
I didn't think he was talking about my beliefs until much later in the discussion.
Dagonee
[ September 01, 2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Farmgirl, my brother in law is currently attending Dalls Theological Seminary. it's a wonderful school, if your pastor is a graduate from there then he is certainly a very intelligent and dedicated person, it's not an easy program to complete.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
To answer my own question about what a fundamentalist is or a fanatic:
I think a fundamentalist is someone who is trying to get to the heart of their religion, feeling that the main group has gone astray. They may be good or bad. But fundamentalism of itself is not evil, IMO.
A fanatic, on the other hand, implies being misguided. It is a better word, I think.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Can we condemn them as evil just because their Faith, every bit as strong as yours, didn't happen to share the same tenets?
I claim it is evil in that it goes against my morality. Isn't that what we all define evil as being? I understand Tom and twinky thinking the God of the Old Testament is evil. I disagree, perhaps because I feel I have additional information that puts those things in perspective.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: There aren't any records of God or Jesus appearing to these poor heathens to save their souls.
If you believe that The Book of Mormon is an actual scriptural and historical record, then yes, there is.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bev - you define evil as per your individual sense of morality. Do you believe in the possibility of something as evil that you might not personally consider as evil?
Or better - something someone else considers evil but you don't classify it as such. Is evil then subjective, a matter of opinion and perspective?
And I may have to sit down and read the Book of Mormon for reference material - but I haven't seen anything in secular history to suggest this.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trevor, I believe in an absolute morality, that God is the only one who fully understands it. I think that I may be wrong on some of my assessments. I am, after all, only human. And all us humans seem to differ ever-so-slightly in our regard for what is moral and what is immoral. I do not condone the behavior of terrorists. But they believe they are doing God's will. I think they are not.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I think a fundamentalist is someone who is trying to get to the heart of their religion, feeling that the main group has gone astray. They may be good or bad. But fundamentalism of itself is not evil, IMO.
I think that's a good definition, actually -- or at least, it makes sense to me and I can't offhand think of any group I would consider "fundamentalist" who doesn't fit that description.
I don't think fundamentalism is evil, but I think it can be dangerous simply because that sort of focus can result in narrow-mindedness and outright blindness, things which I think are very, very dangerous. I think everybody needs to be able to at least LISTEN to everybody else, and fundamentalism can lead to fanatacism:
quote:A fanatic, on the other hand, implies being misguided. It is a better word, I think.
I agree that fanatic is a better word, but would you consider a Christian fanatic "misguided" even though they believe in one of the same books as you? (Leaving the Book of Mormon aside for the moment, let's just stick to the one book all Christians have in common for now ).
Edit:
I guess what I mean, to clarify, is: would you consider such a person "misguided" or just "overzealous" or some similar adjective?
[ September 01, 2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I agree that fanatic is a better word, but would you consider a Christian fanatic "misguided" even though they believe in one of the same books as you?
Sure. I believe there are Christian fanatics, and many of them believe in the Bible as I do. Heck, I believe there are LDS fanatics and they believe in all the same books of scripture as I do. Yes, I think it can be dangerous and even evil when taken too far.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Alas-- not Frivel and Schleck
Fanatic
I've lost my direction but I double my speed The signs on your heart are too tough to read This road is too lonely, I cry for the light. I race past your window, get lost in the night. And the trail is too dim, or my soul is just damned, Am I chasing shadows or do you hold my hand? My unwhispered question, "Am I out of your grace?" Is forgotten behind me, sacrificed to the chase. And so I run or I limp, I fly or I crawl You lift up my heart, but then let me fall. I'm not looking for answers, just a moment of peace But the dark path runs long, and there is no release.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Scott, you make me never want to even try to write poetry. That's gorgeous. Do you have a book?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Do the numbers really matter? I think the reasons matter far more."
Why did God have Jesus killed, again? There are several Christian religions which believe that this fulfilled a need for blood sacrifice. If the numbers don't matter, why is this philosophy different from what the Mayans did?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I see some pretty major differences from the outset. But perhaps I don't understand Mayan culutre all that well. Tell me, were their human sacrifices willing sacrifices, or were they forced? Were they taken from the rebellious, or as prizes of war? I don't know the circumstances, so that makes it hard to compare and contrast with something else.
Tom, how familiar are you with LDS doctrine about the atonement? I am not an expert on the doctrine of other denominations, so I don't know how it compares. I have never believed that "God killed his Son". I do, however, believe that the atonement was necessary for mankind's redemption from the consequences of the Fall.
[ September 01, 2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Just for the record, I consider myself to be a fanatic.
I wouldn't kill anyone unless it was self-defense, though.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
PSI, in what sense? I imagine to some people I am a fanatic. I prefer "dedicated". I figure the difference is in whether, in the eye of the beholder, the person is misguided in their dedication.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Hmm, well some people would say that believing that homosexuality is wrong to be misguided. So to those people I am a fanatic.
edit: to add important words : P
[ September 01, 2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Gotcha. You don't seem fanatical to me.
That coming from another fanatic.
[ September 01, 2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not much for rhyming couplets usually, but your wordplay's pretty good, Scott. Of course, I knew that already from your propensity for humour
quote:Sure. I believe there are Christian fanatics, and many of them believe in the Bible as I do. Heck, I believe there are LDS fanatics and they believe in all the same books of scripture as I do. Yes, I think it can be dangerous and even evil when taken too far.
Then I think we mostly agree. I imagine there are plenty of specific cases we'd disagree on, but that's fine as long as we're speaking the same language Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am in awe of Scott's spontaneous genius.
Twinky, good to know we are on the same page. It's OK if we are in different paragraphs.
[ September 01, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I wouldn't kill anyone unless it was self-defense, though."
Not even if you thought God asked you to?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Why did God have Jesus killed, again?
Love + omniscience + 1st law of robotics
[ September 01, 2004, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't feel like reading the 32433432545 posts that turned up while I was at work, but why did God punish the whole species for a mistake 2 people made? This never, ever, ever, makes sense to me...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, they WERE the only two people...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Death coming was a consequence, but not a punishment. The fall had to happen - it was part of the plan from the beginning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
twinky, I just saw your second post w/ edit about the obtuse comment. Thanks.
What are rules of ettiquette on removing parts of a post that, as Kat so wisely predicted, I regret the delivery in? Is it disingenuous to do so once people have commented on it?
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
God follows laws and is bound by them. The consequence of Adam and Eve partaking was death. No way around that. Christ's death and subsequent ressurrection allows all man to be ressurrected, good or evil. The ressurrection brings them back into the presence of God the Father. Whether or not they stay in His presence is another matter.
The other consequence of the partaking is the nature to sin. No one can sin and thereafter endure the presence of God except through the atonement of Christ, His suffering for the sins of man. There was absolutely no other way.
This, of course brings up a whole slew of new questions. Feel free to ask.
[ September 01, 2004, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: What are rules of ettiquette on removing parts of a post that, as Kat so wisely predicted, I regret the delivery in? Is it disingenuous to do so once people have commented on it?
It's up to you. Most things, I choose to leave in because, well, it happened and that's that. We all are human, we all make mistakes and we all say things we later regret. The important thing is that you are both cool with what happened.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm only down to lukewarm at the moment, actually.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I wouldn't worry too much about it simply because we're almost to the next page. I always leave my posts (I do typo fixes and sometimes add content with an edit label), even when I've planted my foot thoroughly in my mouth, but if I had to make a guess about the "official" etiquette I'd say that if you really want to edit it just label your edit(s).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Got ice?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I just burnt my breakfast because I was reading this thread and not watching the grill.
Darn interesting theological discussion! You owe me rye bread!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Here you go . With some extras.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Yummm.
That just makes my substitute white sandwhich bread toast and vegemite (they were my last two pieces of rye) even less satisfying.
Oh well, I guess I expanded my mind.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I've learned the hard way to never cook and post at the same time.
And PSI? Believing homosexuality is wrong does not a fanatic make.
When you start building pipe bombs and lashing people to fence posts...we might have to reconsider your label.
-Trevor
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
From what we know of Mayan culture, yes, all their human sacrifices went willingly. The sacrifice was the re-enactment of Quetzalcoatal voluntarily killing himself (actually his twin self, but still himself) at the beginning of time. The world grew out of his corpse. The Quetzalcoatal stand in was painted blue and volunteered their heart -- the greatest honour. Their sacrifice renewed creation.
They had plenty of other more minor blood sacrifices throughout the year. The elder of every house would be bloodletted every night. The king's penis would be cut open and the queen's tongue cut and their blood would be burned. The will of the gods could be seen in the smoke and this is how wars, crops, and new temples were decided.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Interesting. It is my personal belief that the traditions of Quetzalcoatal are remnants from the actual visit Christ made to those people long before as chronicled in The Book of Mormon. That they went willingly in symbolism of what Christ (Quetzalcoatal) did (dying to redeem man) reminds me a lot of the tradition in the Philippines where men (and perhaps women, I don't know) volunteer to be crucified before Easter. They are not killed, and quite often the nails only go through the webbing of their feet and hands, but the motivation is very similar. To honor Christ's atonement. Their method is just less... committed.
I personally find both practices to be repugnant to God, but I understand that those who do it in the Philippines are honored greatly for their sacrifice and their willingness to approach suffering what Christ suffered. My personal belief is that Christ suffered so that we did not have to. I believe the only sacrifice he requires of us is "a broken heart and a contrite spirit" in recognition of what was done for us.
I realize that my calling Quetzalcoatal Christ would be deeply offensive to someone of that culture and perhaps others. But it is in alignment with my beliefs--for I do believe that Christ visited them and that I hold in my posession the record of it.
[ September 02, 2004, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I thought Quetzalcoatl was Aztec, not Mayan?
Ah-- here's an answer:
quote:Lastly, it must be kept in mind that despite Quetzalcoatl being an Aztec name, the cultures preceding them had their name for him as well, and applying their own unique attributes to him. Consequently, Quetzalcoatl is related to many names and incarnations, and seems to play a prominent role in a pantheon of virtually all the other Mesoamerican deities. Quetzalcoatl himself goes by the names of Gukumatz, Nine Wind, and Kukulcan among others. These are the most common names found in the general Aztec and Mayan cultures, with Quetzalcoatl maintaining a host of avatars with whom he is intimately connected with or represented by.
Of poetry? Sure, I've got two or so-- Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass and Robert Frost's Collected Works.
Or did you mean my OWN poetry? Sadly, no. I have a Word document, though. Does that count?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, not ALL Aztec/Mayan blood sacrifices went willingly, mind you. Captives taken in war were generally part of mass sacrifices to the gods -- especially Huitzilapoctli, IIRC -- for further military favor.
Basically, both religions believed that the gods only listened to you if you spilled blood, and only did you favors if you spilled a LOT of it. I would be very, very leery of connecting Aztec and Mayan blood cults to the LDS church in any way; it's not really a comparison I think you'd want to make.
[ September 02, 2004, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We eat babies, Tom.
Human sacrifice is for pansies.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is nice to see Hatrack back in form.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I know. It's been out of shape so long, I'd thought it'd never get its figure back. . .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Too many babies?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
or perhaps too much (marshmallow) fluff?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You can never eat too many babies. Delicious, nutritious, and fun to catch.
Fluff? What fluff? Are you trying to start something, Megan?
[ September 02, 2004, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Yes! Unfortunately, however, I have to go to teach. Yeah, that's it...teach...
*runs away!*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I hate to admit it, but I think the whole "eating babies" joke is getting more than a little long in the tooth. Want to retire it for something not quite so cliche?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you think eating babies gets old, you just haven't had it cooked right.
---
There's always the horns idea.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Yeah, and besides... it is we Unitarian Universalists who eat babies. Sheesh.
fil
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, see, that one's not really comedy gold, either. For one thing, the whole "eating babies/horns" thing isn't actually a legitimate mainstream comment directed at Mormons, so it lacks real satirical value in the first place. And on this site, it's WAY overused, especially as a bit that wasn't particularly incisive to start with.
For self-deprecating humor -- or, in this case, humor that's pretending to be self-deprecating -- to work, you have to start with a premise that people find remotely credible or actually associate with the group in question. Jokes about coffee, seagulls, magic underwear, temple recommends, and beehives are therefore considerably more ripe for humor.
The "didn't you know we all have horns" makes a good one-off quip, but Mormons on this board treat it like a rich vein of humor instead of the strip-mined wasteland that it is.
(Note: that said, Dag's response of "too many babies" WAS funny, because it took the cliche to an amusing conclusion. It's like the chicken crossing the road to do something useful.)
[ September 02, 2004, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm keeping the joke alive to annoy you, Tom.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But you don't have another suggestion...
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I want to be there in Heaven when God explains to Tom that we should have been eating babies all along.
fil
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Katie, I'm not about to start posting suggestions on jokes about Mormons that I think Mormons should find funny. If calling the destruction of the entire planet an evil act is a controversial claim that spawns six pages of defensiveness, I'm not NEARLY brave enough to start making fun of home teachers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Who's defensive? I'm not defensive. Why is it always the other guy who's defensive? I'm not. It's him, right? Right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If calling the destruction of the entire planet an evil act is a controversial claim that spawns six pages of defensiveness
Interesting categorization.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom's dug in his heels, Dag. But he's very civilized about it. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Not even if you thought God asked you to?
I actually expected this question, and no. This is how my thinking goes. I don't personally believe that God talks audibly to people anymore, since we were given the Holy Spirit. And it would take a lot more than a niggle in my mind to get me to believe I was really supposed to kill someone.
I'm doing my best to follow God, but you don't kill someone unless you are very sure that's the only solution and I don't believe that God is ever going to make that clear enough to me that there is no doubt.
Truthfully, if something/someone came before me and told me to kill someone, and said they were a messenger of God, I'm not sure I'd believe them. There are two kinds of angels out there. : ) The Bible tells us to test all spirits to be sure they are from God. I think if someone came to me and directly ordered me to go do something that God had already told me not to do, or something that directly contradicted things God had already said, I'd have to wonder about the quality of the messenger. I mean, Satan's "angels" were originally just like the others, and they are pros at disguising and deceiving. My personal belief is that the only way you can tell a real messenger from a false one is by the message they give.
Besides, I also believe that 99% of what I need to know is in the Bible, and that, because I have the Scriptures to read, God guides me in small ways via the Holy Spirit. I don't need God to come down and tell me what to do straight out in every situation, because the Bible covers nearly everything I need to know.
This is not to say that I think God can't guide people more forcefully, I can't attest to another person's experience. And I don't necessarily believe that there can be no more revelations from God, but I still think it's necessary to compare the revelation to scripture we already have before accepting it. Does it expand, or contradict?
Now, because I know you will bring up the places in the Bible where God orders people to kill, let me say that I need to read those passages again before I get too deep into how I feel about them. I will say that, since the Holy Spirit became our main source of information from God, I don't believe that he comes to people and tells them things like that anymore.
I just don't see that it is something that's ever going to happen, or even meant to happen in the times we live in.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Yeah, and besides... it is we Unitarian Universalists who eat babies. Sheesh.
Yeah, you guys do a little bit of everything. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Come now. Those that believe that the death of Jesus was necessary also believe that he was not a mere moretal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So the blood sacrifice of mere mortals is evil, but the blood sacrifice of gods made flesh is okay?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What's your objection to it?
It was voluntary. Hence the concept of martyr and why it was such a big deal.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I would be very, very leery of connecting Aztec and Mayan blood cults to the LDS church in any way
It's kinda hard for there *not* to be a connection when The Book of Mormon is (probably) about their ancestors. Just because they twisted the true gospel of Christ into something so ugly and vile doesn't make me leery of connecting them. The sins of the ancient Americas are the responsibility of the individuals involved.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: So the blood sacrifice of mere mortals is evil, but the blood sacrifice of gods made flesh is okay?
Considering it was absolutely, 100% necessary for the redemption of men, YES!
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I think there's a world of difference between dying to redeem man and dying to renew creation, Bev. Also, I don't know how fair it is to say that they're mimicking Christ just because their creation myth has someone dying to redeem/renew/create. That's a pretty common theme in creation myths from around the world (I believe). To me it sounds like you're stating with a conclusion and working toward the data rather than visa versa.
Of course, there's no real point in me bringing this up, is there?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Did you read the link I posted?
I am not starting backwards. I have a book of scripture that talks about Christ visiting these people. It is obvious from all the evidence that symbols and stories of Christianity were widespread through the people of this continent. I am drawing a very logical conclusion.
Besides, considering how many centuries had passed since that visitation, it is astounding that anything at all would remain. I am impressed at how much evidence is actually there.
[ September 02, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: It was voluntary
Really? I kind of thought he had no real choice in the matter. Or is this the "choose to have a safe, happy afterlife or BURN IN HELL!" sort of choice. You know, not really a choice. Or as Tom sort of put it the "Convert or Suffer!" choice that Christians offer in the after life or the Muslims offer in this one. Not really a "two roads diverge" choice where the outcomes aren't quite so clearly defined.
fil
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, it was a choice. Christ volunteered for the job before the earth began, and even in the Garden of Gethsamane and on the cross, it was always voluntary. It was a self-sacrifice.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
My understanding was that because of Christ's sinless state, if He had not gone through with it, He alone would have been worthy of returning to God. All the rest of mankind would have been lost.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
*shrug*
Yeah, forget I mentioned it. It comes down to a differing opinion of The Book of Mormon, really. Something that isn't really reconcilable.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
OMG, the Book of Mormon says that Christ visited the Mayans???!!! I really HAVE to read this book! And here, I merely thought it was time travelers from the far future. That certainly does explain two more books of OSC to me now.
Honestly, this surprises the heck out of me. Is this seen as a tale meant to teach a lesson or is this seen as true history? Are there Mormons who see this story in two ways as Christians do the Bible? I mean, do some see it as truth in history only (fundamental) vs. those who see it as Truth in meaning, but not likely historically? Wow. When did Jesus (as a human? Another human? Ghost? Holes in hands?) do this visit? Was he born again in the body of a human as a baby or just "poof" showed up? Sorry for my naivete in this but dang...blew me away.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So the blood sacrifice of mere mortals is evil, but the blood sacrifice of gods made flesh is okay?
It should also be noted that the people who took part in the actual betrayal, tormenting, and cricifixion were committing evil acts, even though God used those acts for a far geater good.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
fil, in the interest of preserving this discussion, you should probably take that question to another thread. I'm pretty sure this thread will drown under the weight of The Book of Mormon replies. Actually, I'm reasonably sure there was a thread that talked about it recently. You could probably do a search for it.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Christ volunteered before the earth was formed? Well, it makes it an easier choice when a) you know you really do exist and b) you know you really will exist after the event. What makes choices tough is when you DON'T know the outcome for sure. That is choice with real consequences. This is why I have a hard time sympathizing with the "no mere mortal" Jesus. I have much more sympathy with Jesus as a human who was so devout in his belief that he made the ultimate sacrifice not knowing if he was right or wrong. For Jesus, already an fully realized immortal godbeing to say he will...continue to be so after some mucking around with the humans...well, it is like creating a religion around Bill Gates taking a day to go to the hunger shelter and fill soup bowls for dinner. Sure, the intent was nice but a) he didn't really sacrifice a whole lot and b) the next day, he is still the (nearly) richest man in the world.
And now we know one reason why there are so many versions of Christians in the world!
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Bob, I thought this was a thread about Powell's wife being the devil? Seems just as on topic as the rest of the stuff!
Good point though. Didn't read your post until after I posted my last question. But it mostly keeps in tune with the "fundamentalist view" of one's religion. Mostly.
fil
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
fil,
I'm trying to find another thread that talks about it, but it is a huge topic.
Here's the answer from the church. It's less detailed, but more official and gives a jumping off point if you want more information: http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1090-1,00.html Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fil, I don't know of any LDS who takes the story as anything but literal. Some background: the people originally came from Jerusalem. They were lead by God across the sea to the American Continents. There were others who were led there in a similar manner. They brought scriptures with them so that their descendants would not forget the commandments of God.
They believed in Christ and had prophets, visions, and miracles. They were taught that Christ would be born in the area of their origins, would be the Son of God, would suffer, heal others, and sacrifice His life to redeem man. When Christ was born, they had a sign given, a day a night and a day without darkness. A new star also (I assume the same star seen in the Old World).
At the time of Christ's death, there was a terrible cataclysm, much worse than anything recorded happening in the Old World. Following that were three days of darkness. Shortly after the darkness dissipated, Christ appeared to a large group of people in his ressurrected form, holes in his hands and feet and all. He spent several days with them, visiting different groups, teaching them. The account of his visit begins int 3rd Nephi chapter 11.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Given the nature of the coming forth of the book of mormon (an angel appears to Joseph Smith, shows him where the plates on which it was written are buried, Joseph Smith translates the plates with divine guidance), it's either exactly what it says it is or a complete fabrication. It came forth fully formed, so it wasn't shaped by the centuries. Not these centuries anyway - there was quite a bit of history going into them before they were buried.
Anyway, yes, the visit of Christ and the history of the people is literal in the broad strokes, or else the entire thing is one heck of a joke.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fil, about Christ knowing ahead of time and being "no mere mortal", yes, it probably made dying a whole lot less scary. LDS doctrine teaches, though, that the real horror of the atonement was not the humiliation, the physical suffering and death, but the spiritual suffering He endured on top of it all that began in the Garden. He was literally suffering for the sins--spiritual Hell, for all of mankind. That is an inexpressible horror that we will never know. His only comfort was that it would have an end and that His suffering would benefit many, whom He loved.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Yeah, forget I mentioned it. It comes down to a differing opinion of The Book of Mormon, really. Something that isn't really reconcilable.
It is only irreconcilable in the fact that it can't be proved to a skeptic or disproved to a believer. Such things can still be discussed civilly and enjoyably in order for both parties to understand the other better. I am not trying to prove anything. I am just answering questions, and I shared an article with pertinent information.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Beverly, those are definitional. Clearly if one believes one does not disbelieve, and if one is skeptical one does not believe.
However, plenty of people who have been classified as skeptics have become classified as believers, and plenty of people who have been classified as believers have become classified as skeptics. We have several of both on this board, including for the LDS church in particular.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ah, so then the discussion isn't irreconcilable after all? I'm not sure what you are saying, fugu.
I figure BtL doesn't want to discuss it a) out of a lack of interest b) out of a fear of getting into an arguement c) out of a fear that he might be wrong
I am one who tries to make "b" not such an issue by trying my best to explain and understand the other POV.
[ September 02, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"things can still be discussed civilly and enjoyably in order for both parties to understand the other better."
Which is, of course, why I like discussing theology with Mormons. It's really Christianity with most of the rough edges (logically speaking) filed down.
What's really fun, though, is trying to discuss theology with a mixed group of mainstream Christians AND Mormons -- because they'll both gang up on you from two completely different and irreconcilable perspectives, based on premises not necessarily shared among groups and therefore demanding different arguments. It's good practice.
----
bev, the discussion IS irreconcilable. It's just not necessarily unpleasant. What makes it occasionally difficult from the viewpoint of someone who isn't Christian is when one of the people you're arguing with believes in a literal Bible and an omnipotent God; another Christian believes in a metaphorical Bible and an omnipotent God; and another person believes in a literal Book of Mormon, a metaphorical Bible, and a non-omnipotent God. Arguments that address one such person fail to apply completely or at all to the beliefs of one of the others, meaning you have to work three times as hard.
[ September 02, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: What's really fun, though, is trying to discuss theology with a mixed group of mainstream Christians AND Mormons -- because they'll both gang up on you from two completely different and irreconcilable perspectives, based on premises not necessarily shared among groups and therefore demanding different arguments.
And hopefully they don't get too ticked off at us Mormons. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
:snort:
You're the wrong person to be using the angst smiley. Have you not figured out yet that Mormons are the majority religion here?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, Tom, you chose to be an agnostic-- now deal with the consequences.
:huff:
And dkw-- I believe that bev's smiley represents the baby I ate last night, as a symbol of all those who oppose Pax Mormona.
[ September 02, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What I find particularly interesting is that, in conversations like these, Mormons and Lutherans and Catholics and Baptists wind up on the same "team," even though -- as we've seen on this thread -- they share almost none of the same underlying assumptions OR rationales behind their faith. It almost makes me wish there were agnostic schisms to take my side in debates.
[ September 02, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Arguments that address one such person fail to apply completely or at all to the beliefs of one of the others, meaning you have to work three times as hard.
Yeah, I can sympathize with that. This discussion has been a prime example.
dkw: I never thought "angst" was a very good description for that smilie. He looks more... nervous to me. I am nervous about offending others.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It almost makes me wish there were agnostic schisms to take my side in debates.
You've got Trevor and twink. There are plenty of others, but most don't care enough to check threads like this. I'm sure you could drum up quite a good team, if'n they were willing.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Bev, largely (a) with a healthy smattering of (b). Not so much (c). And a fair amount of (d) where (d) is a lack of desire to engage in a discussion with a foregone conclusion. That being, we'll agree to disagree and be done with it. Sure there's a possibly for greater understanding, but I just don't feel like it right now Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tom: you really see us all on the same "team"? That's frightening.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bah, it was an example. Christ told everyone to do this in memory of me. He said the first shall be last and the last shall be first. He said what you do to the least of people, you do to me. He said love is the highest law. He said if someone wrongs you, wish them and do them well.
If any of these teachings were respected in mainstream Christianity, the world would be a much different place. Christianity is a promise that has rarely been fulfilled. It't about safety or security. It's not about power. That's what the devil offered Jesus, and what he scorned.
The cup that Jesus drank, that he agonized over in Gethsemene, is there for us as well. When people make comments like "I'd like to be there when Tom meets God, so I can see how he feels about being so wrong." or "The reason to believe in God is so you go to heaven as opposed to hell." they're not only refusing the cup, they're spitting in it.
If you want to see people hurt, no matter how justified you might think this is, you are acting against Christ message. If you think being a Christian is supposed to bring you security and power, you're choosing the wrong side of the Jesus/Satan debate. If you think, like Peter, that the sword is necessary to protect your religion, you lack faith.
edit: I think christians are wonderful people who light up the world and help out selflessly. I'ts too bad that I know so very very few of them. I know a heck of a lot of CHRISTIANS though. Those guys, they're going to be the ones coming after me if our country ever takes a serious decline. Well, not really. Most of them won't be on the leading edge. They'll be holding their coats though and/or denying that anyone calling themselves Christians could be stoning people to death.
---
P.S. I gotta admit, I was shocked that this topic grew so quickly. I didn't think that a political topic not directly centered on either of the two candidates would tkae off so fast. I should have know it was about religion.
[ September 02, 2004, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I was thinking, I know that LDS are the largest religious group represented here, but I think another part of it is that some of us tend to be very vocal. There are many LDS posters here that don't care to participate, and many of other groups or non-groups tend not to be as vocal. I get that feeling with liberals and democrats on this board it seems like there are more democrats than republicans, but are there really, or are the democrats just more vocal? I don't know the answer.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It's just not necessarily unpleasant. What makes it occasionally difficult from the viewpoint of someone who isn't Christian is when one of the people you're arguing with believes in a literal Bible and an omnipotent God; another Christian believes in a metaphorical Bible and an omnipotent God; and another person believes in a literal Book of Mormon, a metaphorical Bible, and a non-omnipotent God. Arguments that address one such person fail to apply completely or at all to the beliefs of one of the others, meaning you have to work three times as hard.
I think you create the situation to play like other people do crossword puzzles.
I don't feel bad at all. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
BtL: OK Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think you create the situation to play like other people do crossword puzzles."
Oh, I'm not COMPLAINING. In fact, I specifically said it was good practice.
That said, I don't CREATE the situation; I'm just aware of the fact that any discussion of Christianity on this board will inevitably involve at least three mutually incompatible views of the religion, in the same way that any discussion of Islam will wind up involving, well, Amira.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Tom: you really see us all on the same "team"? That's frightening.
If that team is "Against Tom", then, yeah.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:If that team is "Against Tom", then, yeah.
Good grief, I hope not. I'd quite posting altogether before I'd join that team.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know anyone on that team. There was Baldar, but we killed him.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw, You don't see people as one the same team in these debates. That frightens me. For many people here (on both sides), how right you are has very little to do with what you say and much more about what side you play for.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mr. Squicky, that you think people proclaim their heartfelt beliefs in order to curry favor with a side instead of because that is what they believe says more about you than it does about them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If you are not for Tom, you are against him.
Those who are not against Tom, are for him.
And I shall play the middle against both ends. . .
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Mr. Squicky, the idea that there are only two sides in this discussion is ridiculous. Bev and I are starting from completely different world-views. They have some similarities (and some that are more similar in language than in substance), but they aren’t the same, and each of them also has similarities with Tom’s view that the other doesn’t share.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nods to dkw* There was a REASON I didn't name names, y'know. I'm not about to start coming up with hypothetical rosters, even if you threatened me with alligators. *grin*
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*threatens Tom with an alligator, just to see*
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*threatens Tom with a crocodile*
Was that a nod to my most recent post, or the one before it? (edit: I mean the one two before it)
[ September 02, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
If you are going to draw a line anywhere in a religious discussion, it makes sense to draw it between those that believe in a supreme being and those who don't. Tom happened to be the most vocal in this discussion of the later group. No need to assume that I think all those on one side of the line look at things the same way. "Those that believe in a supreme being" or even "Those who believe in Christ" are pretty broad categories just as are "athiests" and "agnostics".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw, I think it was PSI claimed to believe in what you did, despite belonging to a wildly different background. Unless you (meaning you specifically) are going into details, people here always claim agree with you, even though you and I know that they really don't. It's not about actual beliefs, it's about what team you're on. You're wearing the CHRISTIAN colors, so they know to root for you.
There is a deep divide between the CHRISTIAN and the ANTI-CHRISTIAN/ATHEIST teams, both in society and here on Hatrack. There are some people who don't play the religous team game, but many people do. For a lot of people, they've made up there mind before you even said anything, because of the label you wear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It was Farmgirl, IIRC. What's bizarre to me is that I think I'm probably closer to Dana's worldview than she is, even though they use the same names for wildly different concepts.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Ah...the old "If you are anti-Christian you must be an athiest" or "If you are an athiest you are anti-Christian." I would argue there is more in common among fundamentalist christians than there is among athiests (most of whom aren't anti-Christian but ARE clearly supportive of separation of Church and State).
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There is a deep divide between the CHRISTIAN and the ANTI-CHRISTIAN/ATHEIST teams, both in society and here on Hatrack. There are some people who don't play the religous team game, but many people do. For a lot of people, they've made up there mind before you even said anything, because of the label you wear.
Well, this is certainly a nice easy way to categorize people on the basis of something you can't possibly know.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Hark! Hath my name been invoked?
Since the answer is yes, (thanks Bev), I shall rejoin the conversation.
There are two teams, for all practical purposes - the believers and the non-believers.
The specifics of the believers will vary, but as long as there is an opposing team to present a unified front to, it doesn't matter. Once the non-believers go away, the true believers get to sort out which ones really are the True believers. And generally speaking, the sorting process isn't nearly as amicable as the discussion threads on HatCrack.
However, I don't think anyone here is interested in converting anyone else - I think we are all interested in knowledge and perhaps a dash of Truth. And from the question, thought and answer sessions we are so fond of, I think we all move closer to something. Understanding, perhaps.
And for the record Bev, most of the discussions on this thread have more or less mirrored our discussions about God, religion and any such meta-physical understanding of Life as we know it.
Why Tom likes to engage in the periodic showdown with Dag and other believers, I can't speculate. Maybe he's searching for the one bit of insight necessary to complete his incomplete understanding. Maybe he just likes to argue.
At any rate, yes - I can be found in the rosters of the non-believers. Barring any Divine Revelation that fits my requisite parameters, I don't see that changing any time soon.
-Trevor
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Read closer, fil. This is more the “if you are a Christian you must be an anti-atheist.” (Which I guess in one sense is true, but a pretty limiting descriptor). Besides, plenty of Christians “ARE clearly supportive of separation of Church and State.”
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: There are two teams, for all practical purposes - the believers and the non-believers.
Turtle-twinkies. I don’t buy it.
Edit: And I'm offline for the rest of the day. Have fun, all.
[ September 02, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why Tom likes to engage in the periodic showdown with Dag and other believers, I can't speculate. Maybe he's searching for the one bit of insight necessary to complete his incomplete understanding. Maybe he just likes to argue."
You missed out on the one crucial thread, about six months ago, that set me on this path. I declared my intentions to become an evangelical agnostic, and convert people who're sure there either is or is not a God to being as wishy-washy as I am.
I'm bringing the message to the unwashed, y'know. *grin*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Turtle-twinkies? *laugh*
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You don't think so, Dk?
What's the one unifying theme between all the people who post for the existence of God and/or Jesus Christ in some form or another.
The fact that they believe in God and/or Jesus Christ.
What's the one unifying theme of Tom, Twinky, myself and anyone who posts against religion, God and/or Jesus Christ?
The fact we don't believe.
If you can provide a better analysis, I'd love to hear it.
-Trevor
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom: It's been going on longer than six months, and it's because you care. *twinkle* You care about religion. This kind of thing matters. This is all very encouraging, you know.
*dances out of the way*
[ September 02, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Well shucks Tom - I was close.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, actually, Trevor, you were completely right. I just stepped up my efforts a little while back. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So the one unifying theme among people who agree on one thing is the one thing they agree on?
(Okay, now I’m really gone. I’m meeting friends from California for lunch. :happy dance: )
[ September 02, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's a reason people of wildly different faiths seem to be on the same side in certain debates. It's pointless to argue about the proper meaning of Communion if you don't believe in Christ, and pointless to argue about Christ's position in the Trinity if you don't believe in a God that takes an active role in the universe, and pointless to argue about whether God takes an active role in the universe if you don't believe He exists.
So the farther down you are in that belief chain, the larger number of different faiths will agree on the generalities at a given level.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually Kat, I'm more curious than caring.
I don't understand and it's something that maybe I should understand, but I don't. So I'm willing to listen, poke and nose around the subject while I have the time to spare to the subject.
So maybe I care about my curiosity, but since I don't know that I believe in God or an immortal Soul, I can't care about that.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trevor, I think part of it is that Tom is an evangelical agnostic. He would like to convert others to the agnostic point of view. You seem more content to disagree and just understand the other side. Both make for interesting discussions, but Tom's tend to be a bit more... I can't think of a word for it. His points seem to take issue with other's beliefs more, I guess. "Attacking" may be too strong a word.
Edit: Sorry, started writing this before seeing many of the other responses
[ September 02, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm just doing unto others. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Am I wrong, dkw? (I hope you enjoyed lunch, by the way. )
All of the people posting in favor of the existence of God, et. all differ on the specifics, but they do agree on the fundamental idea that God does exist.
All the people posting nay all agree that God either doesn't exist or probably doesn't exist and our individual reasons will vary, but our disbelief in varying degrees is the one factor we have in common.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bev - confrontational? Aggressive? Interested in converting?
I find it amusing to think Tom may be doing the Lord's work by providing challenges to the faithful.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just to be clear, I was NOT voting "nay" on the existence of God. I was specifically pointing out that religious fanatics are bad people, even if their God exists.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I'm just doing unto others.
I don't see it that way. I don't try to take pot shots at the agnostic or athiest POV or any other belief system (unless I think it is evil). Well, maybe with the athiests because I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on. I would only try to convert them to agnosticism too. But agnostics I sympathize with. They ask, "how can you know for sure?" And I say, "You can't. At least, not yet."
[ September 02, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Tom, how can religious fanatics be bad if their God exists?
If their God tells them to convert the heathen and non-believer by word or sword because the greater evil would be to allow their heathen souls to spend an eternity in damnation, are they really bad?
Since they are doing their God's work who is the supreme being and decider of the abritrary concepts of Good and Evil.
You say they are bad, but since you don't believe in their God who clearly, for purposes of this argument does exist, doesn't that render your moral judgement of their actions moot?
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It is bad if you believe such a God is Evil and you have to fight against Him tooth and nail in order to keep good. Of course, such a battle would be a losing battle if God is supreme.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Well, maybe with the athiests because I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on.
That may well be true, but it's only fair to point out that they have exactly as much of a leg to stand on as theists do.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bev - well, athiests have their belief. They just disbelieve what you believe. Or more appropriately, they don't believe what you believe.
And when all is said and done, you and the athiest are working on faith.
The agnostics just don't have faith - one way or the other.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. I don't believe in an arbitrary concept of Good.
If there is an evil god, and no good god, and its servants are doing his bidding, they are evil.
A god which serves the good may also have followers which serve the good; there is no danger in this. A god which serves the good may also have followers which serve it; there is slight danger in this. A god which serves itself, with followers that serve it, is essentially amoral and highly dangerous.
Basically, I demand very high standards of my gods.
[ September 02, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hmmm, maybe it is my bias on the issue. But I have always felt that theists have more evidence than atheits. I thought they just took the lack of more evidence as convincing, which I think is silly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, where do you believe morality comes from?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But I have always felt that theists have more evidence than atheits."
Yes, that would be your bias on the issue. Unless you consider "evidence" on the atheist side to consist of proofs that something invisible does not exist, as opposed to disproofs of theistic evidence.
To do otherwise would be rather unreasonable; I could submit that an invisible purple panda is hovering over me, typing this post as I look on, and I'd have more "evidence" than you have of that fact.
-------
kat, I don't think good or evil "come from" anywhere. I think that, ultimately, they're purely axiomatic and definitional; they are, in fact, divorced from concepts of cultural morality and/or ethics. It's like asking where the color "red" comes from -- not what causes it, or why we choose to call it red, or even its frequency, but why we think of the color we see at that frequency as being THAT color as opposed to any other color. And there may be some people who are insensitive to this morality, and simply don't pick up on it the way most of us do. They may in fact be "color blind" in this way, although their failure to perceive the correct nature of the color does not mean that the color is DIFFERENT for them. I think religions exist to help the colorblind, and to provide larger frameworks for the tough ethical questions like "is it okay to harm someone if, in so doing, I help a hundred people;" in the same way that it's hard to pick out a color from a thousand paint splatters, sometimes it's hard to figure out what's right from millions of conflicting options, and it's nice if you have another pair of eyes or a guidebook to help.
Now, I choose to believe this. I'm almost certainly not right; the concepts of good and evil are almost certainly inventions of morality, and can't be tied to something as concrete and physical as, say, the heat-death of the universe. But I think that it's possible to develop certain basic statements of axiomatic "good" from which you can develop a common morality, and that these axioms are in general shared by human civilization except when artifical moralities -- like, say, religions and creeds -- repress them.
[ September 02, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Provided, of course, your belief structure is correct.
But fanatics are only bad if we accept your premise of a Supreme Good, a standard or standards to which all other actions are held.
Although it could be argued that fanatics could actually warp the intent of their God and as such are as opposed to the true Faith as the heathen, pagan and non-believer.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Basically, I demand very high standards of my gods.
Understandable! If someone has so much power and authority, we must demand high standards of them because of the sheer power they have.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Hmmm, maybe it is my bias on the issue. But I have always felt that theists have more evidence than atheits. I thought they just took the lack of more evidence as convincing, which I think is silly.
As far as I know, there is no objective evidence at all in either direction. Everything that I've ever heard claimed as evidence by either "side" is either highly subject to interpretation or so personal as to be completely unverifiable. It really all boils down to a feeling, what seems right to each person. But that's not really evidence.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I could submit that an invisible purple panda is hovering over me, typing this post as I look on, and I'd have more "evidence" than you have of that fact.
Tom, I'm pretty sure that "invisible" and "purple" are mutually exclusive.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Yes, that would be your bias on the issue. Unless you consider "evidence" on the atheist side to consist of proofs that something invisible does not exist, as opposed to disproofs of theistic evidence.
I have never understood how that proves anything. If there is a God and He wanted to make Himself obvious, He certainly would be able to do so! The only *logical* conclusion for any theist is that He chooses not to. I feel I understand some very good reasons for why He would choose not to. They make sense. But that is not in any way evidence. When I say "evidence" I am referring to, well, actual evidence.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
"We demand? We expect?"
Such hubris to make demands of our Creator. Who are we to dictate what the Supreme Being should believe or value?
Why do we assume the Supreme Being is a good person or a nice guy? Maybe he created life to bask in the glory of pain and suffering. Hope was required to ensure humanity continued to struggle and endure the pain and suffering our God so gloried in.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Saxon, I would agree with you that the evidence that exists isn't conclusive. You will never see me claim that. It is *evidence*. The article I posted earlier is an example of this.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Conversely Bev, it's possible God doesn't make Himself known because, well, He doesn't exist.
A lack of proof does not disprove something. A failure or inability to disprove something does not prove something.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Such hubris to make demands of our Creator. Who are we to dictate what the Supreme Being should believe or value?
We are free-thinking beings. We have concepts of Good and Evil whether or not we all perfectly agree on the specifics. We would not have any hope of power to change an evil or amoral god, but we can rebell against him, as I believe many are wont to do. Of course, such efforts would come to naught, but that wouldn't stop people from trying.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Conversely Bev, it's possible God doesn't make Himself known because, well, He doesn't exist.
A lack of proof does not disprove something. A failure or inability to disprove something does not prove something.
Exactly! That is why I didn't cite it as evidence. Because it's not.
How can anyone possibly have evidence that there is no God? That makes no sense. It is far easier to have evidence that he does--but of course, most evidence *can* be refuted. Think about our court system. Can we really know someone is guilty? We can only know "beyond reasonable doubt". We can still doubt.
The only thing we can be relatively sure of is scientific, repeatable observation. And even then we don't understand what is happening. We just know that every time we let go of a rock, it falls to the large body beneath our feet.
[ September 02, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, I'm pretty sure that 'invisible' and 'purple' are mutually exclusive."
Ah, but can you PROVE it? If I tell you that the panda has told me that it's purple underneath its invisibility, does that answer your question? Maybe the ways of the panda are ineffable, and enlightenment can only come when you understand how the panda can be both purple and invisible. It could be that the "purple" bit is a metaphor. It COULD be that your understanding of "purple" is wrong.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
So, knowing we would rebel, isn't that even more incentive for God not to reveal Himself or to show his true colors?
And since we argue that Good and Evil is defined by the Supreme Being, would we really rebel against the entity who defines and decides such things?
Or do you agree with Tom's notion of a Supreme Good?
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: So, knowing we would rebel, isn't that even more incentive for God not to reveal Himself or to show his true colors?
Sure.
We are capable of imagining a god that is evil and disagreeing with that morally. Whether or not we could *truly* rebell, well that was my point. How can a rebellion against a supreme being be effective?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Ah, but can you PROVE it? If I tell you that the panda has told me that it's purple underneath its invisibility, does that answer your question? Maybe the ways of the panda are ineffable, and enlightenment can only come when you understand how the panda can be both purple and invisible. It could be that the "purple" bit is a metaphor. It COULD be that your understanding of "purple" is wrong.
Given that I'm slightly colorblind, it's rather likely that my understanding of "purple" is slightly different from yours. I'd say that "purple" is a word with a definite meaning, though, and is inextricably tied to vision. If light does not reflect from an object, it cannot be purple. I would say that this invisible panda needs to define his terms better.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
That depends on why Humanity was created to begin with.
Sometimes it's not a matter of winning, but rather losing on your terms.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There is no possible direct physical evidence on this plane of existence that can prove or disprove the existence of the type of God posited by traditional Christianity. No matter how grand the miracle or how loud the proclamation from the cloud, there is always a conceivable physical explanation that would cover it, and people who will believe that explanation. Conversely, no matter how mundane an event is, there is always the possibility it was the result of direct divine influence.
It's a fruitless search.
Dagonee
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
That is exactly what I was trying to say, Dag.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"There is an invisible panda that, were he not invisible, would be purple, and it's floating over my head."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: That depends on why Humanity was created to begin with.
Yup. Of course I think you know my belief on why humanity was created. God procreation.
quote: Sometimes it's not a matter of winning, but rather losing on your terms.
Yeah, I see this as being Tom's mindset if he were to discover that the God of the Old Testament were indeed the God of this universe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That is exactly what I was trying to say, Dag.
I know. I thought I'd make it more explicit, especially the part about physical evidence.
Of course, this opens up a fun conversation on the nature of proof and evidence.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And how would you react given the same circumstance Bev?
Althoughto be fair, I'm not sure anyone could accurately predict how they would react when presented with incontrovertible proof God exists.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Proof not subject to dispute by the person at hand.
However, I firmly believe any such proof of the Divine would have to be highly individualized as Dag pointed out, no two people can agree on exactly what form that proof would have to take to be accepted.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: And how would you react given the same circumstance Bev?
If I had faith that God was evil or *knew* He was evil? I dunno. I think I'd give up hope and be really depressed. I'm really not much of a rebell, especially if the battle was a hopeless one. I'd probably just try to live a good life and be happy with what I could.
[ September 02, 2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bev - well, not even if God was evil, per se.
What if he was the God from the Old Testament or even a God not of the LDS doctrine?
Or not even a Christian God, but rather a pagan Earth Mother?
I don't think Tom would be alone in wanting to "lose on his own terms."
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trevor, I am totally confused then. I am not sure what you are asking.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
How would you feel if you knew, beyond any doubt, that God was something other than what you have believed Him to be?
Not evil as we've discussed, but what if he was the God of the Old Testament or a God not of the LDS doctrine or even a pagan Earth Mother figure?
-Trevor
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Bev said
quote:I don't see it that way. I don't try to take pot shots at the agnostic or athiest POV or any other belief system (unless I think it is evil).
I read this as: If Beverly thinks something is evil, she believes it's okay to "take pot shots" at it, or otherwise disagree with it.
Isn't that what Tom's doing? It seems that a set of believers often ask the listener to understand "from their point of view" that they're simply doing what they believe is right. And often, the listener acquiesces that fundamental point. Not always, of course. But how many times have you seen someone say, "I don't like prosetylizing, but I understand that in their mind-set, they have to."
So.... in Tom's mind-set, he _has_ to fight the fundamentalist religiosity because They Are Evil To Him. You don't have to agree, but a certain amount of give and take is requested. If it's obvious we have to try to respect your belief even though it contradicts ours, shouldn't you try to respect his belief even though it contradicts yours?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: How would you feel if you knew, beyond any doubt, that God was something other than what you have believed Him to be?
Ahh! You mean what if I discovered I was wrong? Well, changing your whole paradigm is never easy, but I like to view myself as a seeker of truth. I would like to believe that I am not one who would resist truth just because it isn't what I thought it was. But it is hard to know for sure.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Isn't that what Tom's doing?
I dunno, Tom is supposedly an agnostic. That means he doesn't believe anything concerning religion. But certainly he has beliefs. He believes that fundamentalism is dangerous. I agree that it can be. But when he starts trying to tear down another's faith, as an agnostic, I find that strange--because a true agnostic thinks any belief system *might* be true. Just, we can't know it. I can see an atheist doing that, but not an agnostic.
quote: I read this as: If Beverly thinks something is evil, she believes it's okay to "take pot shots" at it, or otherwise disagree with it.
I don't mind him disagreeing with me. I don't mind him asking questions, even hard ones. Where atheism is concerned, I criticize it because it is illogical. I don't see how theism is illogical. If you think it is ridiculous, like a big pink easter bunny in the sky, that's fine. But that doesn't make it *illogical*.
[ September 02, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It's not the question of beliefs, it's the question of having a sense of what is evil. And I think Tom does live life with a sense of knowing what evil is, to him.
Isn't that enough?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have no issue with that, dabbler. Others might, but I don't.
Now, if he thinks something is evil and I can think of a specific way that he is misintepreting something, I will point it out. But I recognize that different people have different belief systems and moralities.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Or Tom is subjecting each Faith to his own rigorous testing process in order to determine it's validity and veracity in his own mind.
I dunno - I'm playing Devil's Advocate today for all sides.
-Trevor
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But I have always felt that theists have more evidence than atheits. I thought they just took the lack of more evidence as convincing, which I think is silly.
Part of the point of atheism is that it doesn't need evidence. It says "I'm not going to believe in things that don't have supporting evidence." Atheism is not an active thing. It is the lack of an active thing (belief). There are militant atheists, so to speak, but it is not a necessary condition of being an atheist.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Or Tom is subjecting each Faith to his own rigorous testing process in order to determine it's validity and veracity in his own mind.
Not a bad thing. That is a motivation I can respect. But some of his comments seem more malevolent.... Nothing in this thread, mind you, just other stuff while I've been here.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Part of the point of atheism is that it doesn't need evidence. It says "I'm not going to believe in things that don't have supporting evidence." Atheism is not an active thing. It is the lack of an active thing (belief). There are militant atheists, so to speak, but it is not a necessary condition of being an atheist.
Sounds more like agnosticism to me. Atheists are confident that there is no God. Confidence implies proof or at least evidence.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Where atheism is concerned, I criticize it because it is illogical. I don't see how theism is illogical. If you think it is ridiculous, like a big pink easter bunny in the sky, that's fine. But that doesn't make it *illogical*.
I don't see where atheism is any more or less logical than theism. Logic can allow you to arrive at either conclusion. But logic is only useful if your postulates are correct. I don't see where any of the postulates on either side are proven.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think your definition of "malevolent" is highly subjective, if not outright erroneous. I hadn't realized you felt so strongly about missionary work. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Beverly, it seems that this entire tom-centered portion of the thread was exactly on that topic, though. Tom made a statement, and people were offended that he was using his sense of Evil to call a group Evil.
I'm not trying to argue that you're not allowed to call Tom wrong. But it seems that I have heard some theists say on this board that arguing against them requires a certain tact and respect. It seems reasonable to expect the same tact and respect back at a non-theist.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Sounds more like agnosticism to me. Atheists are confident that there is no God. Confidence implies proof or at least evidence.
The line between atheism and agnosticism is blurrier for some people than others. The problem with saying "Atheists are like this" is that different people use the term in different ways. Personally, I agree more closely with your definition of atheism than twinky's, but that doesn't stop lots of people who self-identify as atheists from holding philosophies along those lines.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Is it untenable for someone to say they are an atheist and "have faith that there is no God"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bev, some atheists draw a distinction between "weak atheists" -- who say "I don't believe God exists because there's no evidence that He exists; it would be like believing in unicorns" -- and "strong atheists," who are far rarer and say "I have faith that God does not exist."
Agnostics and weak atheists are often blurred, mainly because most people we call agnostics today ARE weak atheists, and almost no agnostics are REALLY agnostic by the original definition of the term.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I think your definition of "malevolent" is highly subjective, if not outright erroneous. I hadn't realized you felt so strongly about missionary work.
I have never used the tactics of tearing down another's beliefs (again, excepting perhaps atheism). I think missionary work is most effective when you build bridges rather than creating gaps. Especially when you realize you cannot force conversion. You can only be a facilitator. Again, no argument with anything you have done lately, but some things I have seen you do in the past.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Sounds more like agnosticism to me. Atheists are confident that there is no God. Confidence implies proof or at least evidence.
Agnosticism: The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
(Those are from Dictionary.com, which references Webster's, WordNet, and various other sources.)
"Disbelief in the existence of God" does not require evidence. In fact, it requires precisely what we have -- no evidence at all. As I said, the statement is simply "I am not going to believe in things for which there is no evidence." There is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore I do not believe in God.
DENIAL of the existence of God, a more "militant" atheism, fits more with your view. However, denial of the existence of God is not a necessary condition for being an atheist -- all that's necessary is a lack of belief (in other words, you don't have to DO anything to be an atheist).
Edit:
I used to be agnostic, by the above definition, but am now an atheist. I'm what Tom would call a "weak" atheist, I suppose, though I dislike the term (preferring to label the other atheists as "militant" ).
[ September 02, 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I have never used the tactics of tearing down another's beliefs (again, excepting perhaps atheism).
Why is it acceptable in some cases but not in others?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Beverly, it seems that this entire tom-centered portion of the thread was exactly on that topic, though. Tom made a statement, and people were offended that he was using his sense of Evil to call a group Evil.
I'm not trying to argue that you're not allowed to call Tom wrong. But it seems that I have heard some theists say on this board that arguing against them requires a certain tact and respect. It seems reasonable to expect the same tact and respect back at a non-theist.
I apologize. I have tried to be very respectful of others beliefs. Perhaps I don't understand the atheist POV.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I'm curious, I don't mean to be rude. When you say " I have tried to be very respectful of others beliefs." do you include atheism as a belief? Because you seem to feel that atheists don't have beliefs.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Why is it acceptable in some cases but not in others?
Perhaps because I don't feel I am doing any damage whatsoever. If I try to tear down the faith of any believer, I may be driving them away from God and salvation. Why would I want to do that?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: There are two teams, for all practical purposes - the believers and the non-believers.
I would say this is not true. There are those people who are part of the moral majority, and those who diverge. We used to have atheists and agnostics on this board who would side with the moral majority Christians/Jews/Mormons, etc., because while they didn't believe in God, they believed quite deeply in the basic moral rules and laws.
Conversely, we have 'liberal' Xians/Mormons/etc., who side with non-believes that don't believe in some of the 'moral majority'(for lack of a better word) beliefs--no gay marriage, keep drugs illegal, death penalty, etc.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Possibly because they don't -- or at least they don't HAVE to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Gaaak! Watch who you call liberal. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: "Disbelief in the existence of God" does not require evidence. In fact, it requires precisely what we have -- no evidence at all. As I said, the statement is simply "I am not going to believe in things for which there is no evidence." There is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore I do not believe in God.
I disagree with you there, but it's just because of the vaguaries of the English language.
Here's the definiton of disbelief from dictionary.com: "disbelief: The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief."
Disbelief is more than simply not believing. Disbelief in anything requires just as much evidence as belief.
edit: Disbelief in the existance of God is a denial of the existance of God.
[ September 02, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Vera (Member # 2094) on :
quote: There is no possible direct physical evidence on this plane of existence that can prove or disprove the existence of the type of God posited by traditional Christianity. No matter how grand the miracle or how loud the proclamation from the cloud, there is always a conceivable physical explanation that would cover it, and people who will believe that explanation. Conversely, no matter how mundane an event is, there is always the possibility it was the result of direct divine influence.
It's a fruitless search.
quote: However, I firmly believe any such proof of the Divine would have to be highly individualized as Dag pointed out, no two people can agree on exactly what form that proof would have to take to be accepted.
Alot of people say this, but I don't think it is true. I think objective proof would be possible if god wanted to give it. Is there anyone who wouldn't have been convinced by Ellie's proof at the end of "Contact"? I mean the book, not the movie, since they end very differently. I know it would for damn sure convince me.
It was repetable and verifiable by anyone, so it didn't depend on trusting eyewitness testemony of a miracle. The message was woven into the very fabric of the universe, so it could only have been placed there by an omnipotent being at the creation of the universe.
Carl Sagan was an athiest, but I think he wrote the most profoundly religious book I've ever read. Maybe because I'm a scientific agnostic myself (I don't deny the possibility of god, but I'm very, very skeptical, and about 90% sure that the athiests have the right of it, and would certainly want some pretty strong proof before I accepted something that seems pretty implausible to me) it would take and athiests argument to convince me. I think something like Ellie's proof, which didn't rely on my own sense or anyone else's is what it would take. And if that would convince me, I think I would convince anyone.
Edit to add: Tom is right. I'm a weak athiest; I think it's possible a god could exsist, but there is no evidence and it's a bit like believeing in unicorns or fairies. Also, until a few years ago I would have called myself an athiest without a second though because athiest=someone who didn't believe in god. It is only in recent years that I've heard athiesm redefined as active denial, and so had to redefine myself as an agnostic. In a way this kind of annoys me, and I can't help but think this redefinition is an attempt on the part of the religious to redefine athiesm to make it easier to argue against.
[ September 02, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Vera ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
dabbler, I look at trying to change a "strong atheists" mind more like trying to change the mind of someone on politics. I think it is a secular issue rather than a religious one. As I said, if I am trying to convert a "strong atheist" to anything it is agnosicism or "weak atheism". To me it is not a religious issue, it is reasoning.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Perhaps because I don't feel I am doing any damage whatsoever. If I try to tear down the faith of any believer, I may be driving them away from God and salvation. Why would I want to do that?
I think it's a little unreasonable to expect people to accept you trying to change their beliefs just because you think it's for the best when you don't accept other people trying to change your beliefs just because they think it's for the best.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:If I try to tear down the faith of any believer, I may be driving them away from God and salvation. Why would I want to do that?
Well, people trying to tear down the beliefs of nonbelievers seems to be why Tom has become a militant agnostic. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Disbelief in anything requires just as much evidence as belief.
Which is to say, not much at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And, y'know, I don't see how it's possible to be an evangelical agnostic without introducing skepticism and doubt. You can't very well build bridges to someone's belief when the whole point is that their belief in anything at all may well be wrong, and they shouldn't be so sure of it. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I disagree with you there, but it's just because of the vaguaries of the English language.
Here's the definiton of disbelief from dictionary.com: "disbelief: The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief."
Disbelief is more than simply not believing. Disbelief in anything requires just as much evidence as belief.
Well, one of the other definitons of atheism listed over at dictionary.com uses the phrase "lack of belief" instead, which I consider (incorrectly, it would seem) synonymous with "disbelief."
I firmly believe (and THIS is very much an active belief) that you DON'T have to actively believe anything to be an atheist.
Edit:
Actually, Saxon75, I'd go so far as to say "none."
[ September 02, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Even as I have been "attacking" strong atheism here, I have not ever directed such attacking at an individual. When ssywak and I had our discussion awhile back, my thrust was to present the existance of God as at least as likely as His non-existance. I never attacked his beliefs, not that I know of. I merely tried to express things as how I see it. Inasmuch as Tom does the same, I have no problem with it. But when he mocks individual's faith, I do have a problem with it. I never mocked ssywak's faith.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, presenting reasons for skepticism is OK. Mocking is not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have NEVER mocked someone's faith. I have, however, occasionally pointed out when conclusions they have drawn from that faith are evil, illogical, or silly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My impulse was to sigh and say "Yeah, that's not mocking at all."
However, when presented with a belief, scorn is not the emotion it solicits.
[ September 02, 2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I will consider that in the future when you have said something that bugs me. Is that fair?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I firmly believe (and THIS is very much an active belief) that you DON'T have to actively believe anything to be an atheist.
See, I don't know if I can completely go with you there. I don't think it's really possible for people to disbelieve in something in the way you mean, unless they simply don't think about it at all. I agree that not believing in something and believing that it does not exist are two different things, but I just don't see how a person could completely fail to have a belief one way or the other about something that he has spent any time thinking about.
quote:Actually, Saxon75, I'd go so far as to say "none."
I'm inclined to agree.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Let me explain a bit about my husband's personal lexicon (mph). He will say that he does not like something. When he says it, it never means that he dislikes it, only that he does not actively like it. That may explain his feelings about the difference between "disbelief" and "not believing". To him, "disbelieve" is very much active and not passive at all.
[ September 02, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Does your husband merely lack belief in the panda, or does he disbelieve it?
[ September 02, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Let me explain a bit about my husband's personal lexicon (mph). He will say that he does not like something. When he says it, it never means that he dislikes it, only that he does not actively like it.
I do that myself, actually. Most often in response to the question "Do you want to do X?" Although, I often end up clarifying that I don't want not to do it, either.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
You know, Tom, I'm relatively certain that you disbelieve the panda, yourself.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:See, I don't know if I can completely go with you there. I don't think it's really possible for people to disbelieve in something in the way you mean, unless they simply don't think about it at all. I agree that not believing in something and believing that it does not exist are two different things, but I just don't see how a person could completely fail to have a belief one way or the other about something that he has spent any time thinking about.
Well, here's how I did it:
As an agnostic, I spent years wondering, studying religions, reading philosophy, and trying to come to grips with this "God" business in some way that I could be satisfied with, but I was never able to get past the "I don't know" stage. Finally, I decided that there wasn't even enough evidence* for me to bother wondering about it at all anymore, and simply left the whole internal discussion by the wayside. The best way to describe my view about God is that I lack belief in God's existence.
Now, I do believe some things -- things like the need for evidence before accepting propositions, et cetera. I have BELIEFS, but they don't really involve God anymore because I'm sick of thinking about God. Like I said, the internal discussion has been left behind in my memory and subconscious. I don't think about it anymore. I've stopped looking. Should I start looking again at some point in the future, I'd probably go back to agnosticism.
*I don't just mean physical evidence, here. I would accept the existence of God if I had a spiritual experience that convinced me God exists -- through, for instance, prayer or meditation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I very actively disbelieve in the Judeo-Christian God, as presented in the Bible and related texts; I make no bones about that. I am, however, entirely agnostic about the existence of gods and/or supernatural existences of other sorts. That the Christians are almost certainly wrong does not mean that no one else out there could be right.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I see. It boils down to us having different definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic."
Edit: That was to twinky.
[ September 02, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Let me explain a bit about my husband's personal lexicon (mph). He will say that he does not like something. When he says it, it never means that he dislikes it, only that he does not actively like it. That may explain his feelings about the difference between "disbelief" and "not believing". To him, "disbelieve" is very much active and not passive at all.
Sure, I do that too, though I usually specify: "I don't like that -- I don't DISlike it, I just don't actively like it." So I'll stick to "lack of belief," which descibes my feelings on the matter, just so that there is no further confusion. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I very actively disbelieve in the Judeo-Christian God, as presented in the Bible and related texts; I make no bones about that. I am, however, entirely agnostic about the existence of gods and/or supernatural existences of other sorts. That the Christians are almost certainly wrong does not mean that no one else out there could be right.
True enough, but I still think it's quite likely that you believe that there is no invisible panda floating above your head who, were it not invisible, would be purple.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, that is an interesting brand of agnosticism. Would you go so far as to say that when only the God of the Bible is considered, you are atheist?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Twinky, I understand. I personally would define you as an apathetic agnostic. But that is my own personal lexicon. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I see. It boils down to us having different definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic."
Yeah, I guess so. I think, though, that based on the myriad defintions available at dictionary.com, we are conveniently both right.
Also, another reason that I've adopted the atheist label for myself is to allow for the possiblity that I might become a "strong" atheist, as bev put it. I confess that I have felt some rumblings in that direction lately, though I'm aware that it's probably mostly anger-related. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Does your husband merely lack belief in the panda, or does he disbelieve it?
I can't speak for my hubby, but I am a purple panda agnostic. Of course, since the very idea of a purple panda has never before been introduced to me or history, I think it is pretty unlikely. If you gave me some good references and evidence for why I should believe in this purple panda beyond just your own perceptions, I may start to consider it a possibility.
Kinda like Bigfoot. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I personally would define you as an apathetic agnostic.
That's a sensible label. However, if recent trends continue, I'll even be an atheist in YOUR books sometime next year. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Twinky, sorry that religion has given you cause for anger. Certainly you are not alone in that. If you ever wanted to talk about it, I would be more than happy to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"True enough, but I still think it's quite likely that you believe that there is no invisible panda floating above your head who, were it not invisible, would be purple."
Would you tell a LDS that she doesn't REALLY believe in the Book of Mormon? Sheesh, man, who are YOU to question whether or not I think there's a panda when I say there's a panda? What, you think I'm pandering to all the other panda-maniacs out there? That I'm just pretending to let the panda type for me to get the votes and fit in?
*huff*
"Would you go so far as to say that when only the God of the Bible is considered, you are atheist?"
I'm not sure you can use the word "atheist" that way, but I know what you mean. So sure. I think there is ample evidence that the major branches of Christianity are, in fact, untrue, although this does not necessarily reflect upon the existence of any god.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fascinating, Tom. I think I was somewhat aware that you felt this way, but didn't know much about it. I'd be interested in knowing more about your beliefs on the matter. It doesn't have to be on Hatrack though. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Twinky, sorry that religion has given you cause for anger. Certainly you are not alone in that. If you ever wanted to talk about it, I would be more than happy to.
Oh no no, it wasn't religion that gave me cause for anger*. Sorry, I should have been more clear about that.
*And really, even in situations where "religion" could be said to have made me angry, it's always PEOPLE, not religion itself, who actually do the things that make me angry. So no, no worries on that score.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Actually, Tom, you never specifically said that there was a panda. I wish you would get off the fence and just own up to your panda-related beliefs.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Don't look now, but there's a big purple panda behind you!
Twinky: I think I understand. That is probably a lot more the truth with people, since the teachings of most major religions today (I feel a need to specify "today" now ) are in essence good. But the followers... that is another matter entirely.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bah, Tom is just panda-ring to the crowd.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I have to apologize - I was told my pun was unbearable.
I've promised to stop being ursinine.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I beat you to that pun. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It wouldn't surprise me, but I try not to read your posts any more than absolutely necessary.
-Trevor
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Again, you're projecting some expressions of the philosophy on all of them, and implying some big conspiracy. "Those fundies all stick together."
Actually, ANY religion is, precisely: a conspiracy.
Religious groups are most well known for conspiring to build churches, conspiring to teach their children some version of morality, conspiring to establish rituals to remind people to be true to that version of morality during everyday life.
quote: It's NOT, however, possible to be both sensible and fundamentalist
Here, Tom may be using the word sensible quite literally. That is, in response to sensory input, rather than from assumed information.
I must say that I am bothered by Tom's sweeping generalizations here also, even though I agree with him. I think the problem really comes from the multiple definitions of "fundamentalist." Tom has chosen one such definition, (his own) and used the term in broad-brush fashion. That's a good way to tick people off, and it's unnecessary.
What I'm getting from Tom's version of the word "fundamantalist" is someone who refuses to use their own senses to check the truth of their religious doctrine, combined with the tendency of religions to "conspire" (as above) to evangelize obsolete and unsupportable assertions. That's a really bad thing.
Edit: Jeez, I just noticed how far this thread has gone past the first page. Oh, well.
[ September 02, 2004, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Note: when correcting someone's definition, read beyond the first page to see if they've done it for you. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Glen, you say that Tom has chosen a definition to tick people off, and then call all religions conspiracies?
What, exactly, is your definition of a conspiracy? I know what the dictionary definition is, and it ain't pretty.
Under conspiracy all it said was a group conspiring together. Then look under conspire:
Main Entry: con·spire Pronunciation: k&n-'spIr Function: verb Inflected Form(s): con·spired; con·spir·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conspirer, from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe transitive senses : PLOT, CONTRIVE intransitive senses 1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b : SCHEME 2 : to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>
It uses such terms as "unlawful" and "wrongful act". The second definition, while not negative, does not apply to this situation.
What were you thinking in using that term?
Do you think that the leaders of all churches do not believe their own doctrine? That they are purposely deceiving their followers? That is a pretty disparaging point of view, and one that I must call you on. You claim to have knowledge of deceit in ALL religions. If that isn't sweeping, I don't know what is.
You may personally think that there is no God and that all theists are delusional or misguided, but to claim that they are being deliberately led astray.... Wow. That takes the cake.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Oh, sweet Beverly - I think Glen was being sarcastic when he said all religions were conspiracies.
They conspired to build churches, teach their children moral lessons and so on.
I'm going out on a crucifix here and guess he belives the building of churches and teaching young people moral values to be a good thing.
Likewise, we could accuse Sister Theresa of conspiring to do good deeds, etc.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sarcastic?
*scratches head*
*blinks*
OK
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I didn't find anything wrong with him saying that.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Did you understand what I was getting at, or am I being deliberately obtuse again?
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
That's my point.
Ok, I'll backtrack - Beverly chastised him for calling religions "conspiracies".
Having read his post, he alleged that religions "conspire" to do good works, build churches, teach moral values, etc.
He was using the word "conspire" in a sarcastic sense, as one normally doesn't conspire to do good deeds.
I think Bev didn't catch his sarcasm. And I'm not doing a good job of illustrating it.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
No, it didn't even occur to me that he might be making a joke. If he was, I apologize. If he wasn't, I stand by what I said above.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Pssst!
I'm conspiring to tell dirty jokes?
What's the difference between Michael Jackson and acne?
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ewwww, I don't think I want to know.
>.<
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bev, I think you are just jumping up and down because the word conspiracy sounds evil to you.
But if you look at what he actually said, ignoring any negative connotations, it complimentary, and not offensive at all. So we conspire to teach a specific morality to our children? Guilty as charged.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
<--- Schemes in evil glee how to teach son not to hit sister
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You're a braver man than I am, Mr. Head.
Could you hear her all the way in your office?
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Teach the sister to hit back.
That does wonders for dissuading brothers from hitting.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
We already talked about it before he posted.
Besides, we just have that sort of relationship. If he disagrees with me, he is not afraid to boldly say so and I to him.
[ September 03, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ah brave and wise.
-Trevor
Edit: I notice that was an edited afterthought, Bev.
[ September 03, 2004, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, it was. I just couldn't quite think how to put it. Porter and I have an unusual relationship. We don't get mad at each other for being candid. I don't expect him to defend me if he thinks I am wrong. We both value honesty and try to be completely upfront with each other. Porter does tend to be far more curt than I though. But I hold my own.
I just wasn't sure how to articulate that briefly. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That doesn't seem odd to me at all.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oh, yeah, sure. Disagree with me. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
The fact is, many men "walk on eggshells" around their significant other. There seems to be a general feeling that women are more likely to get irrationally offended at a word than a man. Though, sometimes it goes the other way too.
Porter says what he thinks--there isn't much filter between thought and spoken word. That's the way he is. I don't let it bother me. I used to, but after 6+ years, you understand each other's "style". I actually love the fact that I always know he is telling me the truth. That is the very heart of sincerity.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No woman that needs to have people walk on eggshells for her ever made it past a first date with me.
edit: Not because of lack of interest on my part, but because they were never interested in me once they got to know me.
[ September 03, 2004, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Teach the sister to hit back.
This was the tactic in my extended family growing up. The rule was, if you hit someone they get to hit you back, and if they won't, the adult in charge gets to do it.
Many a fight ended with the aggressor pleading with the victim: "Hit me! Hit me! Please! Please hit me."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Tom:
If your post about correcting someone's definition is directed toward me (I can't tell) I was not correcting your definition, merely explaining my interpretation of what I think you are saying. And yes, I realized after I posted it that there were nine more pages I didn't know were there (I had read to the bottom of the page and hit the reply button).
TMedina:
I'm not sure sarcastic is the correct word to use, but yes, you got the gist of it. Perhaps "ironic" is a better term.
beverly:
Your definition #2 is what I had in mind. Religions work together to accomplish things.
One of those things is evangelism, which, from the atheist viewpoint is not a good thing. Suddenly perspective turns what religions would call a "good work" into something more insidious.
So perhaps another definition of "fundamentalist" would be: Someone who believes that since his/her viewpoint is fundamentally correct, s/he is justified in ramming it down everyone else's throat.
Most religions preach tolerance of some sort, and many are actively working to reconcile, or to establish interfaith relationships, yet they still function under the assumption that the truth of God is fundamentally correct. Even the word "interfaith" leaves atheists out of the equation.
An example of how this works out is that after 9/11, there were many community gatherings, vigils, support groups, etc. intended to provide individuals with the opportunity to feel the healing comfort of being part of a larger community that was sharing the same pain and confusion. Yet the invitiation to attend these vigils invariably said: "Members of all religions are welcome to attend." It didn't occur to these people that their invitation specifically excludes atheists. And we were hurting too.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't know how many athiests would have attended - for those of us who don't believe in a Supreme Being, any notion of praying to a figment of undigested beef would not have helped ease the pain.
And the idea that any such support group would have involved some notion of religious overtones would have kept athiests away, even if the support group didn't have any intention of holding a prayer service or similar ritual.
So, to clarify, I can't fault the religions involved as they were kind enough to make their invitations open to "all faiths" - any athiest not attending would have done so out as much a misguided notion of what would be offered as much as what might actually have been offered.
It's the same reason why I don't attend functions sponsored by religious organizations. I either don't want to be sermonized to, or I feel like I'm attending under false pretenses and I don't care for the "thief in the night" feeling.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yet the invitiation to attend these vigils invariably said: "Members of all religions are welcome to attend." It didn't occur to these people that their invitation specifically excludes atheists. And we were hurting too.
Goes back to the "Is atheism a religion?" question.
I think the answer is contextual, and in this context it clearly is.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Vera
quote: Tom is right. I'm a weak athiest; I think it's possible a god could exsist, but there is no evidence and it's a bit like believeing in unicorns or fairies. Also, until a few years ago I would have called myself an athiest without a second though because athiest=someone who didn't believe in god. It is only in recent years that I've heard athiesm redefined as active denial, and so had to redefine myself as an agnostic. In a way this kind of annoys me, and I can't help but think this redefinition is an attempt on the part of the religious to redefine athiesm to make it easier to argue against.
My feeling on this is that you shouldn't have to redefine yourself at all. "Active denial" is an accusation made of atheists by theists. Bear in mind, Noah Webster was a Calvinist minister. His original definition of atheist was:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God, or supreme intelligent being. An atheist was formerly disqualified as a witness, and in England could not qualify for membership in the House of Commons. 2. A godless person; one who lives immorally, as if disbelieving in God.
Definition #2 isn't so much a definition as an insult. Even his first definition assumes the existence of God, which is unnecessary for the purposes of defining atheism.
One of the things about atheism is that since we are defined by what we aren't, there really is no motivation to get together and "do atheist stuff." Hence, we don't "conspire" much.
However, the overwhelming pressure exerted by religion acts as a motivating force, and atheists do react to it by getting together and commiserating. As a result, newsgroups such as alt.atheism, and websites such as infidels.org are among the most heavily trafficked on the internet.
If you go there, you will find that the atheist community is rather adamant that the definition of atheist is: "One who lacks belief in a god or gods."
I for one get pretty ticked when someone tells me that this definition is wrong, and Webster's is right. Theists have no business telling me what I believe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, they're not telling you what you believe. They're saying what a word in the English language mean. Language is developed by the community at large, and a word is not the exclusive domain of those who lay claim to it.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Trevor:
This was a pretty hot topic on alt.atheism at the time. Bear in mind, most of these groupings weren't billed as "Prayer vigils." Many were sponsored by fire departments or schools, and were just intended to fill a void, since the general feeling at the time was some kind of empty, painful helplessness. We all wanted to feel like we were doing something about it, but there was nothing to do. So yes, a lot of atheists felt left out of these events.
It would have been easy enough simply to say: "Everyone is welcome to attend." But none of the atheists I was in contact with at the time saw any such invitation.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dagonee:
I know southerners who insist that the "n-word" is merely a word that identifies black people.
As far as the english language is concerned, in the word atheism the prefix "a" simply means "not." An atheist is simply "not a theist."
The reason this is important is that we have to live with it as an accusation. Most atheists are "in the closet" so to speak. Some even go to church, since it keeps peace in the family. To insist that we "deny" god is putting words in our mouth. It's unnecessary, and inaccurate.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I have nothing of importance to add to this, but I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed following along with the debate. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hmm. In the revived spirit of Hatrack I think this thread is really inappropriate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How so?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well the title for one. Is comparing Mrs. Powell to the Devil any better than comparing George W. Bush to Hitler?
I mean in terms of absolute moral depravity you've got to hand it to the Devil every time.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And as I made it clear early on in the thread, I think Mrs. Powell's fear for her husbands life is pretty legit. I say that having a significant other who is multi-racial, and having seen some of the crap they have to deal with.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Comparing sombody to the devil is over-the-top enough that it manages to not be as offensive as comparing somebody to Hitler, who was just a human, after all.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Um. . . let's not get carried away.
One of the two threads was using hyperbole. The other was trying to make a realistic comparison.
Unless you're all being sarcastic. . .
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
But who is judging what's "over the top"? The argument could easily be made that the Bush-Hitler thing was just as over the top.
AJ
Especially when there are people out there that believe in a literal Devil but deny the Holocaust.
[ September 08, 2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Besides, everyone knows that women are the devil.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well how was the Bush-Hitler thread NOT hyperbole?
Did the person actually mean it as a truly legit comparison? I think that Rabbit made it clear from the beginning that it was.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Except that the initial poster on this thread made it clear that he/she doesn't REALLY think Mrs. Powell is the devil.
Anyway-- it's true that Colin Powell's wife will not let him run for president.
It is not true that George Bush said some of the things that were credited to him in That Other Thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It is not true that George Bush said some of the things that were credited to him in That Other Thread."
It's more technically accurate to say that we aren't sure that George Bush said some of those things. He may well have said them; if he didn't say them, some conservative preachers are lying. Ergo, the quotes are flimsy and deceptive but not proven inaccurate.
[ September 08, 2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Considering that Rabbit referenced the Al Gore/Unibomber thread in her first post, I think it was obvious it was hyperbole.
(obviously hyperbole can be offensive, but that's exactly my point)
AJ
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Scott, I'm confused. (I promise, not trolling -- honest questions).
Would it have been tolerable to compare the statements of Bush Jr to the statements of Hitler, provided that there was sufficient substantiation that each, indeed, did make the claims attributed to him?
Would it have been tolerable to compare the statements of Bush Jr to those of the Unabomber or Stalin, provided that there was sufficient substantiation that each, indeed, did make the claims attributed to him?
Would it have been tolerable to title a thread "Bush Jr is the Devil," even if there was joking around afterward?
I confess to being very confused. I find inaccuracy always to be distressing, and I was quite distressed to find that the real transcripts of Bush Jr's 2003 State of the Union did not include the quotes attributed to him (as noted by Kristine Card), despite the fact that this inaccuracy is blazoned across the net.
But I don't understand the above distinctions, if they are being made.
[Edit: "okay" -> "tolerable"]
[ September 08, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As someone who didn't get a chance to read that Gore/Unibomber thread, I was not aware that it was supposed to be hyperbole.
Actually, I'm still not entirely convinced.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So at worst this thread title is unacceptable, not the initial post nor the discussion of that post.
They've changed thread titles before while leaving the post ("Good...OSC...").
There was no way to salvage the locked thread.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
m_p_h, just a curious question, bear with me here. Do you know Rabbit's religious affilation?
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Can the mods not unlock a thread once it is locked? Like deleted threads?
For the record, I am of the opinion that the locking was not necessary. But that is neither here nor there. My reason for thinking that is because while some might buy into such a silly comparison, I think few, if any, on Hatrack would. I don't think the discussion was a lost cause or unproductive.
But I can understand that our mods found it extremely offensive and repugnant and therefore locked it. It may have been a decision made in the passion of the moment--and even so I wouldn't fault them for it. It is their right, and the price I pay to be here. I am a child trying to obey the rules in my friend's house for the priviledge of playing there.
[ September 08, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, I know nothing about Rabbit's personal life.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well I find one of the ironies of all of this m_p_h is that Rabbit is decidedly and devoutly LDS from everything I know. And I bet you would have given her more of a pass had you known. It's just human nature.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why would anyone give anyone a 'pass' just because they belong to the same religion?
(I knew that Rabbit was LDS, btw.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well, most groups will turn a blind eye to one of their own. I'm speaking in generalities not specifics. I think it was fabulous that Mrs. Card did hold Rabbit to a higher standard, but I didn't see a lot of outrage coming from the normally conservative LDS contingent present on this board. M_p_h in particular, seemed to be going along and having fun with the thread, even though I would view him as conservative.
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I was pretty sure that The Rabbit was LDS. But then there is also Moon Rabbit, and both are rare enough posters that I get them mixed up.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sara, for all that we disagree on things, I don't know that you are capable of trolling. I profoundly respect your adherence to Good Sense and Civil Discourse.
I think all manner of assertions can be made-- what I believe got Kristine riled up was that the assertions were being supported on a bed of misinformation.
I suppose acceptable hyperbole is in the eye of the beholder. I can say that celia is, without exception, the most evil, the most degenerate, the most damning influence on Hatrack, and no one would bat an eyelash.
But if I use the same terms to describe Lalo, it may be taken quite seriously.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I thought that the whole thing was in bad taste, and was trying to diffuse what I veiwed as cruel and unfair by fluffing it to death.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
By the way,
quote:I can say that celia is, without exception, the most evil, the most degenerate, the most damning influence on Hatrack
Is a MUCH better signature line than
quote:But I LOVE you, celia! Why can't you see that? What do I have to do to make you understand? - Jon Boy
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You know, it must be my bias, but it didn't occur to me that that was being presented as a direct comparison. For me it was an amusing exercise at comparing what I know about the two men and trying to figure out who would have said what. A conundrum, if you will.
I guess, more than anything, it just means I need to get the hell away from Hatrack.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks, Scott. Getting riled up about inaccuracy is something I can relate to.
I still don't get why the quotes attributed to Bush Jr's 2003 State of the Union address were not fact-checked before assertion by so many across the net. That's so easy to do (transcripts are on on the main fed page, on CNN's page, on the major network pages, on C-Span's pages), yet the untrue assertion was made over and over, even by the Boston Globe. Bizzare.
I'm also not sure why any of those quotes were seen as troubling, actually. I mean, I find them troubling, but I wouldn't find any of them (even the Hitler ones, from what I remember) to be unexpected from a Christian leader. Mind you, I'd prefer not to have such a leader over me speak in this way in his or her official capacity, but I would have just chalked it up to one of those things I dislike, not something horrifying.
I say this not to be difficult, just that the strength of the reaction to them [all around] seemed unexpected to me.
[ September 08, 2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm with BtL on this one. It was a fun mental exercise, because the quotes had been removed from context in such a way as to make it as difficult as possible to determine which of them said it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
at PSI. Knoew, indeed. I just couldn't decide on a verb tense so I went with both.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)