[quote=“Richardm”]As long as the walls are soft.
I’m off to church now.[/quote]
Say hi to your god for me. Tell him or her that if he or she is real then I was only joking.
[quote=“porcelainprincess”] And your pat comparison doesn’t work for three reasons:
- The Fundamentalist doesn’t stop at “No?” But the Secularist (the one you call a “Fundamentalist” in your strained comparison) does. You won’t see a Secularist canvassing door to door, or standing outside your church. The two sides clash when the Fundamentalist tries to impose his belief system on the Secularist (viz. “intelligent design” in science classes in Kansas, etc.).[/quote] No. You’ll see the Secular Fundamentalist using the mechanisms of state to declare public displays of religiosity to be forbidden. See France.
[quote=“porcelainprincess”]
2. The Fundamentalist cannot prove that I’m “damning myself to Hell” (Michigan, perhaps). But the Secularist can make an excellent case for why religion is just plain dumb all round. Here’s the deal: if you’re religious in any way, shape, or form, you don’t get to make fun of the thetans in Tom Cruise’s body or the Moonies or Jim Jones or the sneaker cult in San Diego or the Hare Krishnas in white robes who used to hang out in airports. You know the guys in the temples in Taiwan who slash themselves? You don’t get to make fun of them. Got that? You can’t, because you’re the same. Exactly the same.[/quote]
See, that was dumb. Because I’m religious, I have a particular insight into the religious imagination that you lack. Therefore, understanding the target’s soft spots, I’m better able to skewer religious idiocy much more effectively. Of course, I begin, and spend the most time chipping away at idiocy within my own tradition. It’s called the via negativa, or way of renunciation, and it’s an important aspect of any inherited tradition.
Faith, fact, proof. Only one approach… now that’s funny.
His name is “Nietzsche”, just over 100 years ago he did a number of the death of God, which he pinned on those who confused “fact” with “truth”. A pretty sloppy scholar, his rhetoric nonetheless resurrected a strand of critical theology that was too long neglected. You should check it out.
Lots of religious people disagree with that approach, and some run around looking for historical proofs of their faith (with varying degrees of success). On the literary end of things, that was the origins of modern, western literary criticism, which has borne all sorts of good fruit.
Oh no! Look, there’s TWO approaches that don’t involve drinking the kool-aid.
It’s really getting a bit deep all this isn’t it! Just for the record, my opinion is that anyone who 100% believes in the fact that they are right about anything is a scary individual. It is this sort of mind set which is sending this world on a course with the oblivion that so many religious fantatics crave. Well, I for one wish to stay on this planet for as long as possible and don’t wish to meet my maker so to speak for a very long time!! :s
Agreed. Anyone who 100% believes in the fact that they are right about anything is well on the way to adopting a fundamentalist position. In religion, politics, or virtually any significant life concern, that’s scary.
[quote=“puiwaihin”]Reconciling Old and New Testament God
…But you really can, with a little faith, reconcile the two records.
The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are exactly the same. There are no differences between them. Why would God then authorize the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people so that his “chosen” people could have a choice land?
This is where faith comes into play. The answer here would be, “I don’t know. I’m not God. But I’m sure he had a really good reason.”[/quote]
That isn’t much of a reconciliation.
Are you 100% sure of that?
I’m disappointed. I lay my ideological cards on the table, and all you can come up with is this?
[quote]Reason, he argues, has run amok; instead of the enlightened utopia envisaged by Voltaire, the modern West is a soulless machine run by technocratic elites that promise efficiency but create disasters.
Voltaire’s Bastards : The Dictatorship of Reason in the West[/quote]
How, pray tell, do you get from my proclamation that religion is dumb to “technocrat elites” promising “efficiency” but creating disasters? You’re not seriously trying to place me into this field full of strawmen, are you?
The blurb for the book says all you need to know about what groundless tripe it is. First of all, the premise is flawed from the get-go, and if it were actual science it would be rejected out of hand, because, you see, there’s the small problem of the lack of a control. If our modern, western societies so beholden to “reason” have produced naught but devastations on every front, how are we to know that non-post-Enlightenment religious societies might have done any different, if not worse? We don’t, because we don’t have a control for which to judge.
But never mind that. To claim that we in the west have led a substantially secular existence prior to WWII is ridiculous anyway. We have not. Granted, we did go through our Age of Reason, so, sure, we’ve since then tended to find sources of groundwater through comparatively advanced technical means as opposed to bowing down before the water god who requires tribute in the form of three unblemished calves before sundown on the second Thursday of each month. Sure, in some fundamental ways our societies have been “run on reason.” But to suggest that we’ve been a bunch of happy secularists living completely free of the tyranny of religion is not borne out by experience.
But let’s play the game anyway. Here’s a question: what kind of society do you suppose we might have if we were not so beholden to reason as we have been? Perhaps something like modern-day Saudi Arabia might be a good example? Or Yemen? I don’t know, I’m just throwing out examples.
Hi. Me again. I’m the one that you, for some odd reason, seem to want to tar with the same brush as the people in France who don’t want girls to wear hijabs to school. You seem to fall back reflexively into strawman mode when you take up an argument. I gotta say, it gets a bit tiresome.
I think that law was a bad one (I also got into a drawn-out discussion with you about the fact that excessive Arab/Muslim immigration is self-evidently bad for western societies, but finding ways to limit it without compromising the fundamental principles that make us “western” is tough, much less trying to keep girls from covering their heads once they get into the country), and is too great a restriction on freedom. This is in obvious and clear contradistinction to the supposed restrictions on freedom that laws forbidding Sikhs to carry WEAPONS to school would represent.
You’re playing with semantics when you try to make the epithet “secular fundamentalist” stick to me. I hold that, yes, religion is silly fundamentally speaking. It is medieval and creepy. It should not play a role in public life, as, indeed, it mostly does not in modern western societies (the USA excepted). Separation of church and state all the way. Worship whom you wish, but don’t make me worship whom you wish.
How exactly does this make me a “fundamentalist” in the style of someone like Pat Robertson, or, indeed, some 20 to 30% of the population of the USA (pulling percentages out of a hat here, but can anyone substantively refute them?)?
I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You’re “better able to skewer religious idiocy” than me? What, the system of theology you adhere to or find comforting is more plausible than, say, that of Aum Shinrikyo or the Moonies? Whatever are you going on about? Are you going to get into an argument, next, over how many camels you can fit on the head of a pin? Because, at base, what we’re talking about is some sort of belief in a god out there that you form some sort of relationship with. Aren’t we?
I grew up going to church. I even had a pentecostal conversion at one point, and spent a few months speaking in tongues during my sixteenth year. I “get it.” Or, I should say, I got it, and then grew out of it.
You’re not seriously trying to convince me that, for example, a subdued sect like the Quakers are any less ridiculous (or pitiful) for believing in a god than are a troop of slobbering voodoo slaves in Haiti or brainwashed pre-pubescent Tibetan monks that bang on bells to invoke their deities?
[quote=“Jaboney”]Faith, fact, proof. Only one approach… now that’s funny.
His name is “Nietzsche”, just over 100 years ago he did a number of the death of God, which he pinned on those who confused “fact” with “truth”. A pretty sloppy scholar, his rhetoric nonetheless resurrected a strand of critical theology that was too long neglected. You should check it out.
Lots of religious people disagree with that approach, and some run around looking for historical proofs of their faith (with varying degrees of success). On the literary end of things, that was the origins of modern, western literary criticism, which has borne all sorts of good fruit. [/quote]
You’re running off into non-sequiturs. Forget Nietzsche: he needn’t enter in to the equation here. As a religious person it may be difficult for you to grasp this, but here it is: there’s no secular “theology” at work in my argument. It’s all very simple: there’s no convincing reason to believe in a god or gods. The notion of talking into the air to some higher entity that you feel is concerned for you is patently ridiculous, even childish. Do it if you want to, but don’t expect me not to guffaw if you attempt to get into some kind of serious discussion about it. You might as well tell me about faeries flying to the moon and bringing back cheese while you’re at it.
And the notion of an “historical proof” for one’s faith is too absurd to even contemplate.
This is kinda funny. You believe there’s a being out there somewhere that cares about you, and you communicate to him or her in some fashion.
But I’m the “scary” one?
You guys can all just go to hell.
They’re already in Taiwan.
They’re already in Taiwan.[/quote]
Okay. Go to Denmark!
They’re already in Taiwan.[/quote]
Okay. Go to Denmark![/quote]
You have no mercy. None.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Agreed. Anyone who 100% believes in the fact that they are right about anything is well on the way to adopting a fundamentalist position. In religion, politics, or virtually any significant life concern, that’s scary.[/quote]I’m 100% sure I’m having steak for dinner. 
bobepine
No, I disagree. Me believing something 100% is ok and is in no way fundementalist. Me bashing someone’s skull in because he doesn’t believe what I believe in is.
You may want to choose to believe that life is one long flexible, small “l” liberal critique. Not all people feel that way. I believe certain things with all my heart and mind, and I am hardly fundementalist.
jdsane
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“puiwaihin”]Reconciling Old and New Testament God
…But you really can, with a little faith, reconcile the two records.
The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are exactly the same. There are no differences between them. Why would God then authorize the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people so that his “chosen” people could have a choice land?
This is where faith comes into play. The answer here would be, “I don’t know. I’m not God. But I’m sure he had a really good reason.”[/quote]
That isn’t much of a reconciliation.[/quote]
There are two reconciliations here. The first is the OT JHVH and NT God. They need to match. The matching is done by looking in the OT and finding where God shows mercy etc. and then looking in the NT and seeing a few instances of God acting in exactly the same fashion as he did in the OT where people criticize God for being cruel and unloving.
I’ll not spend the time to point out the instances of the OT God showing tender mercy in the OT, but I will point out a few instances of the NT God not showing very much mercy in the NT.
#1- The high priest Zacharias was struck dumb for expressing doubt towards God. Luke 1: 18-20
#2- Jesus violently throws people out of the temple. Mat. 21:12
#3- Jesus curses a tree that does not give him food. Mat. 21:19
#4- Church members die instantly for lying to a representative of God. Acts 5:1-10
These are very much the sort of action expected of the OT God.
The second reconciliation is between those sort of acts and a belief in a God who is perfectly loving, just, and merciful. That’s the real hard sell. I’ll just quote one OT scripture:
Ezekiel 33:11
To me, this scripture more than any other expresses that God is only wrathful because of the requirements of justice. He has no desire to see the death of people, to send anyone to hell. But he does when he knows it is necessary.
Maybe you think it is still not much of a reconciliation, but I think you can say that the OT God and the NT God are the same, and unchanged. You can also still believe that God is perfectly loving given the OT record. It just requires a little faith.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
[quote=“puiwaihin”]
The second reconciliation is between those sort of acts and a belief in a God who is perfectly loving, just, and merciful. That’s the real hard sell. I’ll just quote one OT scripture:
Ezekiel 33:11
To me, this scripture more than any other expresses that God is only wrathful because of the requirements of justice. He has no desire to see the death of people, to send anyone to hell. But he does when he knows it is necessary.
Maybe you think it is still not much of a reconciliation, but I think you can say that the OT God and the NT God are the same, and unchanged. You can also still believe that God is perfectly loving given the OT record. It just requires a little faith.[/quote]
That’s fine if God is using the death penalty against murderers, rapists, thieves, and other truly evil people, but what about all the innocent people who just happened to have the misfortune of being born into a rival tribe? I’m sure that among the first-born Egyptian sons that God slew all throughout Egypt in one night, some of those boys were nice boys. When God wiped out Soddom Hiroshima-style, what about all these innocent women and children who didn’t deserve his punishment? God as a babykiller doesn’t sit well with me.
I know the fundamentalist answer to this - that we are all born in sin, and from the moment of our birth, we are all wretched sinners who deserve to go to hell. Only Jesus can save us from hell. Babies who died before they could get baptized are roasting in the fires of hell for eternity.
[quote=“bobepine”]I’m 100% sure I’m having steak for dinner.
bobepine[/quote]
You have more faith than me.
Yep. It works for the statements “There is a God” and “There is not a God” equally well.
Same thing with “I’m having steak for dinner”
You gotta show me the steak.
In the case of Soddom, we get it quite clear that God knew that there wasn’t a single person worth saving in the whole city. The one family left that wasn’t fit for destruction was warned to leave.
But that’s really irrelevant. Even if there were some innocents we can still reconcile things. We just have to think of things from a greater perspective.
What exactly is the purpose of life? The way I see it, it’s a learning experience. Without mortality and the conditions we have here it would be impossible to comprehend pain and suffering and thus to really understand good and evil. It’s a time when we will experience pain, doubt, failure, remorse, and death. It’s a time to learn to love good for the sake of goodness itself, or to choose some lesser happiness.
But life is very temporary. We’re being sent to summer camp, and when we come back we’ll be better for the experience.
Now, you may not agree with this. But for the sake of the argument, go along with it for the moment.
If life is a temporary training ground, then God causing someone to die (directly or indirectly) is just bringing them back from their training. What to us looks like a tragically cut short life could be exactly what that soul needed to finish their training. The experience of death itself could be all that person needed to be ready to come back.
And how do we know they were ready? We don’t. But God would know. And he’d know if, given another 20 years of life, they would choose good or evil. That’s where faith comes in, trusting that God knows each soul and is acting for their benefit even when we can’t see how that could be possible. We see someone chopping someone else up with a sword and think how horrible it is for the person getting chopped. But that could be what that person needed to learn about pain and death, and then on to happiness and better things for the rest of eternity.
Yeah, I’ve heard that explanation, and I don’t buy it either. Neither do many othodox Christians.
But then, I’m not an orthodox Christian.