Relgious stance completely offputting in posts

[AEON]

That's it? That's the example, in all human history, of how nonChristians are screwing up?

No. That's only one recent example. The history of mankind pretty much speaks for itself. If anything proves our depravity - it is history.

The Crusades are another example of Europe and the Middle East living out a nonChristian system.

Christ never commanded anyone to kill infidels.

 

[indra]

Christ never commanded anyone to kill infidels.

There are times I wonder if some Christians think he commanded them to annoy infidels to death though....

 

[AEON]

There are times I wonder if some Christians think he commanded them to annoy infidels to death though....

It is an implied task

 

[martha]

The Crusades are another example of Europe and the Middle East living out a nonChristian system.

Christ never commanded anyone to kill infidels.

Yet they claimed to be Christian, just like the right wing does nowadays.

 

[indra]

It is an implied task

And you are doing a mighty fine job of it too!

 

[blueeyedgirl]

^

If none of you mind me saying so, I think this thread has spiralled off-topic. Correct me if I'm wrong but surely the point of the original post was to question the use of quoting Scripture in FYM threads when it's irrelevant to many people here who aren't Christians. Yet instead it seems to have descended into the usual Religion versus Atheism free-for-all. I always find such discussions both exhausting and pointless. It all boils down to one simple thing:

You either believe or you don't.

So when it's that simple what's there to discuss? The answer is usually nothing. All that usually happens is everyone ends up feeling they have to justify their beliefs. And why on Earth should they? Why on Earth should I have to justify my own beliefs to you only to have them dismissed as stupid and baseless? And why on Earth should you have to justify your beliefs to me only to have them dismissed as immoral and have me crying, "You'll rot in Hell you fecking Heathens" whilst beating you to death with a hefty Pulpit Bible? The answer is you shouldn't.

People then tend to get all tetchy and upset (as all faith and none really is a very important thing to most people), things get a bit heated and personal and as a result before the thread just ends up getting locked.

So to go all the way back to what I think was the original question:

I'm totally with U2Dem on this. Faith is an incredibly personal thing. Perhaps it's the denomination I belong to but I've always felt that being a good Christian isn't about applying your beliefs to everyone else's behaviour. It's about living the best Christian life you can, nevermind about what 'er next door is up to! Yes, Christianity is an evangelical religion but at my chapel we've been told time and again that the way to convert people (it sounds sinister, I know) is to simply live a good Christian life yourself and set a good example to others. Then when people see how content you are, it might generate an interest in religion within them. You specifically DO NOT try to press-gang people into becoming a Christian. I know all the atheists are probably thinking such an idea is ridiculous and some Christians perhaps disagree with it but it makes sense to me (remember after all, that the 10 Commandments are not: "Everyone shall not" but "YOU shall not") and is one of the many, many reasons why I'm finding so much more to love about my denomination than dislike.

So with all this in mind Dazzling Amy I think I agree with you. Especially with the thread in question it was inappropriate to quote Scripture. My religion might influence my moral code (as do many things I hasten add. I'm sure you'll all be relieved to know that I do have a mind of my own!) but to express my views and opinions purely through quoting Scripture, I think that just puts people's backs up unnecessarily. It sort of alienates non-believers from the discussion really, doesn't it? Because what can non-believers really argue back with that isn't going to come across as hostile to religion?

Ick, I've spend so long typing this out and deleting other bits and then retyping it again then deleting it again, and I still don't think I've put across my feelings accurately. So I'm sorry if the first part of my post comes across as condescending and I'm sorry if the second part is confusing and doesn't make a great deal of sense but frankly, I just want to stop editing this bloody post and send it!!!

Great post

It's curious, the only time I ever think about God, religion, faith, yada yada, is whenever I come into FYM. The other 23 hours, 55 minutes of the day, the thought never crosses my mind. I think that's the answer for a happy life, don't you?

 

[indra]

It's curious, the only time I ever think about God, religion, faith, yada yada, is whenever I come into FYM. The other 23 hours, 55 minutes of the day, the thought never crosses my mind. I think that's the answer for a happy life, don't you?

It's ok dear, we all know you're a heathen.

 

[BonosSaint]

Someone like AEON and 80's (and I'm grouping them here somewhat unfairly, but as a composite) faces quintuple challenges (more or less dependent on what premises the person he is arguing with accepts) Quoting scripture is meaningless unless basic premises are accepted.

To make a rational nonbeliever see credibility in his interpretation of scripture, he must:

1. Be able to refute alternative scenarios to present God as
the only logical alternative or at least present it as a logically
strong alternative.
2. Convince that his God is the only true God.
3. Convince that Jesus is the Son of God.
4. Convince that the Bible is inerrant.
5. Convince that his interpretation of the scripture is inerrant
due to some intervention of The Holy Spirit.

If he fails at any of these steps, his interpretations will carry little weight with anyone who does not accept any or all of the premises. The burden is on him as he is the one trying to convince. Pushing someone to defend their point of view and claiming victory if they cannot is not successful argument. It may highlight weaknesses in the other's logic, but does not prove strength in his.

And convincing a former believer turned agnostic/atheist is a whole other ball of wax.

The same burden is on the nonbeliever who wishes to convince
a believer that there is no God. But frankly, I don't see much energy being expended to CONVINCE there is no God--except as a defensive reaction--therefore no substantial burden exists. A_W has taken on that burden. Others may have, but my head is spinning.

I have consistently used the word "convince" as opposed to "prove" for obvious reasons.

On a personal level, I'm not taking any position on this debate. I don't know. It's not important to me at this point that I believe one way or the other in the existence of God.

 

[dazzlingamy]

Why do i need to convince anyone there is no god? For the religious who believe there is no way they'd give up their beliefs for me saying anything.

but to convince there is no god. Well there is no proof there is a god, nothing has ever been show to be from god, or things happen because of god. We have a book written so long ago by not even the god himself but by some people who "knew" him. Religion seems to be made up of people telling other people what they're doing wrong, and being over confident that they're the right religion. and basically, religion has been behind nearly every war, and terrorism activities since the beginning of "religion"

I want no part of it.

 

[BonosSaint]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. I don't see any need or requirement to convince anyone there is no God. I see no illogic in atheism. I was only pointing out that there are more believers on board trying to convince people there is a God than there are nonbelievers trying to convince believers--a demographic observation.

I'm only saying that if your intent were to convince, to change someone's belief, you would be under the same argumentative burden--step by step with obviously different premises. If that is not your intent, you have no burden.

In my original post, I was specifically noting that quoting scripture to people who do not believe is irrelevant. To take it to a point where it is relevant, several hurdles must be jumped and it is not a given you will be able to make someone jump those hurdles.


I agree that the overwhelming amount of posts (if not posters) based on theology in one form or another interrupts debate from secular point of view and almost always derails it, which is why I rarely participate in any thread that started out secular and turned religious. I get bored.

So, simply, I am agreeing with your frustration.

(And TheQuiet1 had a remarkable post).

 

[dazzlingamy]

Oh i was thinking you were saying that non believers arn't trying to change peoples ideas very hard, and i was aying we don't have too, and don't really want to, just want to be a voice in a sea of "scripture" and bluster.

but thanks for agreeing. I must read posts more properly in future

 

[intedomine]

yeah its a public school so the RE "teacher" isn't actually a teacher, but a person from the local church. They are extremly religious and seem desperate to do as much religious stuff in the half an hour a week they get. I was also surprised with how she spoke about their questions. Like sayign that there is no way but god's way is very overbearing i think!

First and foremost, your opening post was an absolute stunner and I agree wholeheartedly...post of the year!

And what a thread this has been! A joy to read, and without any real viciousness....nice and diplomatic....

Re RE, I can't believe these classes are still going! We used to have a "nice ol' Lady" from some local church come and preach to us back when I was an impressionable young chap in an Australian public primary school....it was disgraceful, if you are gonna have Religious Education, let it be Education about all religions and not just the Christianity!

It's hard to comprehend how people constantly whinge about "political correctness gone mad", when obviously political correctness hasn't gone far enough!


Personally, I'm agnostic. I don't NEED to believe there is a God so I don't. Others can do so, and to me it might seem utterly insane, but whatever floats your boat...

There appears to be too many ambiguities and inconsistencies with the philosophies that are put forward by religious texts, so I just ignore 'em and try and develop my own values from what I interpret as being common sense...

The sweet ol' ethic of reciprocity, which many religious folk do preach, yet don't always practice...

The ethic of reciprocity is all I need and what I live by. All the rest of the jargon can just shove it...

And I do think that being a Melburnian (as you are Amy) does make it a little awkward to read all these references to scripture. It just seems as if Americans are more inclined to reference them and have faith in God or live through Jesus or whatever. I don't encounter many hardcore Christians or people who actually read the bible or go to church, so FYM is a very alien place for me (and perhaps other Aussies) in that respect.

 

[BonosSaint]

Oh i was thinking you were saying that non believers arn't trying to change peoples ideas very hard, and i was aying we don't have too, and don't really want to, just want to be a voice in a sea of "scripture" and bluster.

but thanks for agreeing. I must read posts more properly in future

Rereading my own original post, I thought that might be what you were thinking. I should have made that clearer. There was ambiguity there, but since there was no ambiguity in my own head about that particular post, I didn't catch it.

 

[fly so high!]

And I do think that being a Melburnian (as you are Amy) does make it a little awkward to read all these references to scripture.

 

[1stepcloser]

Bill Hicks went to my High School. Used to go see him all the time at clubs in Houston in the early and mid 80's. Check out my "location", third mall from the sun. Sound familiar?


I miss Hicks all the time.

Wow. Thats pretty cool. Often the question gets asked if you could bring one person back from the dead who would it be? loads of people always say John Lennon or Elvis ect.. but i would bring back Bill Hicks without a doubt. It's amazing how relevant his material still is, particularly with the Iraq war.

That guy had vision and insight beyond most.

"Making marajuana illegal, a plant that grows naturally on our planet, is like saying God made a mistake when he made the world"

 

[maycocksean]

Great posts, Quiet1 and BonosSaint. Both made excellent point.

From the perspective of this Christian, I don't think there's much point in trying to "convince" someone to believe.

I don't think that people who choose to embrace faith do so because they were "argued into it."

 

[yolland]

Quoting scripture is meaningless unless basic premises are accepted.

To make a rational nonbeliever see credibility in his interpretation of scripture, he must:

1. Be able to refute alternative scenarios to present God as
the only logical alternative or at least present it as a logically
strong alternative.
2. Convince that his God is the only true God.
3. Convince that Jesus is the Son of God.
4. Convince that the Bible is inerrant.
5. Convince that his interpretation of the scripture is inerrant
due to some intervention of The Holy Spirit.

If he fails at any of these steps, his interpretations will carry little weight with anyone who does not accept any or all of the premises. The burden is on him as he is the one trying to convince. Pushing someone to defend their point of view and claiming victory if they cannot is not successful argument. It may highlight weaknesses in the other's logic, but does not prove strength in his.

The same burden is on the nonbeliever who wishes to convince a believer that there is no God. But frankly, I don't see much energy being expended to CONVINCE there is no God--except as a defensive reaction--therefore no substantial burden exists. A_W has taken on that burden. Others may have, but my head is spinning.

I have consistently used the word "convince" as opposed to "prove" for obvious reasons.

Some great points in here, very lucidly put...you should, like, be writing the Cliffs Notes for Kant or something.

 

[BonosSaint]

Having been a huge fan of Cliffs Notes in high school and college, I am highly flattered.

 

[TranceEnding]

There are times I wonder if some Christians think he commanded them to annoy infidels to death though....

hahahahhaha


oops, sorry ..

 

[VintagePunk]

Please forgive us "skeptics" that don't want to put all our moral eggs into this wet paper basket.

That's great, no one's asking you to.

 

[AEON]

I don't think that people who choose to embrace faith do so because they were "argued into it."

This is actually not true in my case. I wandered down the path of Philosophy before I was engaged in Theology. It was Plato that opened my mind to God, then Augustine and Aquinas who opened my mind to Christ, and finally the writing of Paul led me to faith.

In order to converse with anyone about any topic, Christian or non-Christian, there simply must be acceptance of the four (non-negotiable) foundations of rational discourse: 1) law of non-contradiction; 2) law of causality; 3) basic reliability of sense perception; and 4) the analogical use of language (you can’t spend hours debating the meaning of the word “is” )

If any of these four principles are ignored – then there is not point in having a discussion. It will either break down into absurdity or simply never leave the starting point (i.e. debating of the meaning of the word “is”). However, as long as these principles are adhered to, then yes, even Christians can have rational discourse with non-believers.

 

[anitram]

If any of these four principles are ignored – then there is not point in having a discussion. It will either break down into absurdity or simply never leave the starting point (i.e. debating of the meaning of the word “is”). However, as long as these principles are adhered to, then yes, even Christians can have rational discourse with non-believers.

I don't understand why looking specifically at language equates to the impossibility of rational discourse for you.

It seems to me like it would be a rather important point for those who insist on a literal reading of any scripture. With the passage of time and the multiple translations, it stands to reason there are inaccuracies in our present version, not just linguistically referring to specific words, but in terms of context (ie. who was the audience the scripture was written for, why was it written, etc). It certainly implies a purposive approach, and yet you'd completely ignore that by writing it off as semantics.

In that case, I agree there can be no rational discourse; yours would be missing a rather substantive issue.

 

[A_Wanderer]

basic reliability of sense perception

Perception of reality is maleable, lysergic acid diethylamide teaches us that.

 

[AEON]

Perception of reality is maleable, lysergic acid diethylamide teaches us that.

All this teaches is that you can't rely on what someone is talking about while they are frying on LSD.

Of cource perception isn't perfect. But if two people can't agree that they are both indeed standing on a sidewalk in NYC in the year 2006 and not floating on a Cheezit the size of a galaxy millions of years in the past - there really is no chance for rational discourse.

 

[AEON]

I don't understand why looking specifically at language equates to the impossibility of rational discourse for you.

It seems to me like it would be a rather important point for those who insist on a literal reading of any scripture. With the passage of time and the multiple translations, it stands to reason there are inaccuracies in our present version, not just linguistically referring to specific words, but in terms of context (ie. who was the audience the scripture was written for, why was it written, etc). It certainly implies a purposive approach, and yet you'd completely ignore that by writing it off as semantics.

In that case, I agree there can be no rational discourse; yours would be missing a rather substantive issue.

The truth is in the axioms, in the ideas, and in the events. The key to studying Scripture is looking at consistency of themes, and not merely one word or one passage. If something in the Bible seems to contradict something else - it is important to look through ALL of Scripture and see how it fits into God's consistent message of Justice and Grace.

 

[maycocksean]

This is actually not true in my case. I wandered down the path of Philosophy before I was engaged in Theology. It was Plato that opened my mind to God, then Augustine and Aquinas who opened my mind to Christ, and finally the writing of Paul led me to faith.

But that was your search. The argument was between the philosphers and your own heart (not to mention the Holy Spirit doing His marvelous work). I'm guessing you didnt' have a person trying to "break you down" theologically, logically, philosophically until you were left no choice but to concede they were right and accept Christ into your life. At some point, I know you were captured by the love of Jesus, you were drawn by the Person of Christ. Surely that is what finally drew you over the line to full commitment.

Granted there are a FEW people I've met who seem to have become Christians--or changed denominations-- rooted only on being "convinced it's right" but they are the worst kinds of Christians, IMHO. They hold onto their "belief" because they are certain that makes them unassailably right and able to "break down" any person who opposes them.

I actually met a guy last year who used that exact terminology.
"You gotta break 'em down," he told me, as he bragged about how he could convert any person. He might use different strategies--be kind and gentle with some, logical with others, and in some cases--the really stubborn ones--he'd have to just nail them with unassailable scripture after unassailable scripture until they collapsed in tears and admitted he was right. (As awful as it sounds, I'm not exaggerating).

 

[BVS]

The truth is in the axioms, in the ideas, and in the events. The key to studying Scripture is looking at consistency of themes, and not merely one word or one passage.

Interesting, so consistency IS important to you?

 

[martha]

I actually met a guy last year who used that exact terminology.
"You gotta break 'em down," he told me, as he bragged about how he could convert any person. He might use different strategies--be kind and gentle with some, logical with others, and in some cases--the really stubborn ones--he'd have to just nail them with unassailable scripture after unassailable scripture until they collapsed in tears and admitted he was right. (As awful as it sounds, I'm not exaggerating).

I suspect he frequently sits by himself on public transportation.

 

[AEON]

But that was your search. The argument was between the philosphers and your own heart (not to mention the Holy Spirit doing His marvelous work). I'm guessing you didnt' have a person trying to "break you down" theologically, logically, philosophically until you were left no choice but to concede they were right and accept Christ into your life. At some point, I know you were captured by the love of Jesus, you were drawn by the Person of Christ. Surely that is what finally drew you over the line to full commitment.

This is true, and I take NO credit of my own. I am just saying, the Holy Spirit had to "break down" a ton of Philosophical barriers in order for me to open my heart. It was nothing short of divine intervention. But God does promise to answer those who GENUINELY seek Truth.

My other point is this - faith does not have to be the enemy of reason. (Kant is very much misinterpreted on this point).

 

[AEON]

I actually met a guy last year who used that exact terminology.
"You gotta break 'em down," he told me, as he bragged about how he could convert any person. He might use different strategies--be kind and gentle with some, logical with others, and in some cases--the really stubborn ones--he'd have to just nail them with unassailable scripture after unassailable scripture until they collapsed in tears and admitted he was right. (As awful as it sounds, I'm not exaggerating).

Maycocksean, it certainly sounds like you've run into some "fringe" characters.

I only hope they are not tainting your view of Christianity as a whole. Evangelism is part of your job, please try and remember that before you become too critical of those who genuinely are trying to use the whole arsenal of tools to bring others into the kingdom.