More to the point, about me

[DWill]

I know I've already introduced myself, but I don't know my way around here well enough to know where these thoughts properly go. Would you believe that I didn't realize, before signing on, that BT is a place for freethinkers? I just wanted to plunge in. When I realized the type of community BT is, I wasn't displeased at all, because I have been down the road of religion a bit and have come to a place that could be accurately called Freethinking. I've been engaged in a debate on the letters page of our local paper on the Is-America-a-Christian-Nation issue. I'm reading Susan Jacoby's book on freethinkers, also the Sam Harris book The End of Faith.
So the fit is good, but on the other hand, I have more difficulty than some in singling out theistic faith as a bad influence. Well, my wife and two kids go to a Presbyterian church (where I was a member for eight years), and I still like many of the people there. Every now and then I attend, and though I don't participate in much of the service, I usually have my share of warm/fuzzy feelings from what I see. I mean, whatever beliefs these people may hold, in almost every case they seem propelled by them to be kind, open, and accepting. I have a lot of trouble believing that we as a society would be better off if the churches were emptied.
I don't know who may have read The Thanatos Syndrome, by Walker Percy. The narrator of that book was appealing to me, he was so live-and-let-live about matters of belief. Even when his own wife became pretty much born-again, he took it in stride and didn't think it needed to be a wedge between them. Okay, it was fiction and maybe couldn't happen in our lives, but I just liked the way he didn't wall himself off from anybody. (Say, could we consider that book for the group?) My personality is showing through, certainly. I don't like to think ill of people, and would rather risk being naive than fingering someone's religion as a problem. And I don't like confrontation, admittedly.
But, I'm happy that, in my observation so far, this is a place that welcomes freethinking in the literal sense of that word. Glad to be able to talk with you all.

Will

[jales4]

Hi Dwill,

This is a great forum, isn't it?

My personality is showing through, certainly. I don't like to think ill of people, and would rather risk being naive than fingering someone's religion as a problem. And I don't like confrontation, admittedly.

Great qualities to have!!

I am interested in learning about other peoples belief's, but in a respectful manner. I am just plain curious on what people believe, and why, and how they got to believe the things they do.

Jan.

[Frank 013]

DWill
On the other hand, I have more difficulty than some in singling out theistic faith as a bad influence. Well, my wife and two kids go to a Presbyterian church (where I was a member for eight years), and I still like many of the people there.

Whatever beliefs these people may hold, in almost every case they seem propelled by them to be kind, open, and accepting. I have a lot of trouble believing that we as a society would be better off if the churches were emptied.

You may have missed the point of the criticism of theistic faith. First and foremost the criticism is of the belief not the believer. I have many friends that are Christians I both like and respect them. I do not however respect their belief. Religious belief seems to be a product of unawareness and false information supplied by the church, and I cannot respect that.

Secondly that kind open and accepting attitude is in many cases (from my experience, which has apparently been very different from yours) reserved for other members of their faith. When it is discovered that a person has no interest in that pastime the attitude changes to Pity, disappointment, and sometimes outright dismissal and loathing.

From an outsider's standpoint religions can be described (at best) as "meddlesome", constantly trying to direct everyone (believer and non-believer alike) under their suppositious and outdated rules.

Often times my description can be far worse depending on the action taken by the believers at that time.

Later

[DWill]

Frank 013,

Thank you for your comment, but I cannot agree with (or at least I could not duplicate) your splitting of the believer and the belief, respecting one but disliking the other. This sounds too much like what fundies may say about condemning the sin but loving the sinner. Generalizing about people who belong to a church can be tricky as well. If we say that a belief is like a lever that actuates a behavior, by that criterion I think many churchgoers don't have true beliefs in the dogma of their religion. They draw something, selectively, from the liturgy or scripture, they value membership in the church community, but they are actually in outlook and behavior pretty thoroughly secular. I do wonder how they can give lip service to creeds without really believing them, but that is not my business and it causes no harm that I can see. You see, I want to avoid divisions except when absolutley necessary.

Will

[Frank 013]

DWill
Thank you for your comment, but I cannot agree with (or at least I could not duplicate) your splitting of the believer and the belief, respecting one but disliking the other. This sounds too much like what fundies may say about condemning the sin but loving the sinner.

I look at it like this... I do not smoke, I do not and never have seen the appeal and I do not respect the decision to start smoking, but I do have friends that smoke.

I can like the person but not respect a particular decision or (in the case of religion) belief.

I judge a person by their individual merit not their habits or belief/non-belief.

Religions all too often do encourage (both actively and passively) the judging of a people by their beliefs/non-belief.

DWill
Generalizing about people who belong to a church can be tricky as well.

I agree, that's why I reserve my criticism for the absurdity of the belief and not the person who believes it.

DWill
If we say that a belief is like a lever that actuates a behavior, by that criterion I think many churchgoers don't have true beliefs in the dogma of their religion. They draw something, selectively, from the liturgy or scripture, they value membership in the church community, but they are actually in outlook and behavior pretty thoroughly secular. I do wonder how they can give lip service to creeds without really believing them, but that is not my business and it causes no harm that I can see. You see, I want to avoid divisions except when absolutely necessary.

Community is all fine and good but religions throughout history (Christianity is no exception) have been abused to cause wars, encourage genocide, excuse slavery and the subjugation of women... I could go on and on.

Like you said it is a belief "that actuates behavior" but it has and is regularly used to manipulate the followers into doing something terrible.

Right now religion and its believers are responsible for holding back critical medical research in the form of stem cell research, denying women the right to choose what is right for their own life, keeping gay people from being able to marry, the rampant spreading of deadly venereal diseases in Africa, attempting to destroy educational standards in America with the introduction of intelligent design... again I could go on.

I see this as harmful on a large scale.

From my point of view this influence is also currently being used to demonize atheists. I grant you atheists are a danger to theism; after all we lead fine and moral lives, which the church would have you believe that you need them to accomplish. Atheists are living examples that religion is unnecessary for a wholesome life and that scares the church.

What I do not see is this "live and let live" attitude that most believers say that they have.

Tell a few religious people you are an atheist and see what happens...

Later

[Robert Tulip]

I reserve my criticism for the absurdity of the belief and not the person who believes it.

Hi Frank, the trouble here is separating true from false belief. I agree with you that definitely false beliefs should be criticized as absurd, but there is a big grey area, especially where a belief may have an intended or unintended good consequence. Beliefs are archetypal memes, evolving through history by cumulative adaptation. Many ideas adapt by departing from their original intent (eg carrot and stick). You cannot just say that the idea of God is absurd and leave it at that, and it is equally invalid to say that because past ideas of God were false therefore God does not exist. It could still be possible to formulate an acceptable doctrine of God.

Community is all fine and good but religions throughout history (Christianity is no exception) have been abused to cause wars, encourage genocide, excuse slavery and the subjugation of women... I could go on and on. Like you said it is a belief "that actuates behavior" but it has and is regularly used to manipulate the followers into doing something terrible. Right now religion and its believers are responsible for holding back critical medical research in the form of stem cell research, denying women the right to choose what is right for their own life, keeping gay people from being able to marry, the rampant spreading of deadly venereal diseases in Africa, attempting to destroy educational standards in America with the introduction of intelligent design... again I could go on. I see this as harmful on a large scale. From my point of view this influence is also currently being used to demonize atheists. I grant you atheists are a danger to theism; after all we lead fine and moral lives, which the church would have you believe that you need them to accomplish. Atheists are living examples that religion is unnecessary for a wholesome life and that scares the church. What I do not see is this "live and let live" attitude that most believers say that they have. Tell a few religious people you are an atheist and see what happens... Later

Indeed, but I think you over-estimate the power of religion. I am interested in the interface between science and theology, and find it interesting how intolerant scientific people are about theological ideas in general. Theology is in fact a term of abuse in scientific circles where it signifies incoherent and unsubstantiated thinking. I agree with you to some extent about the large scale harm that Christianity is making in the USA and elsewhere, but really, there is a stinking hypocrisy in the inability of people who say the Bible is the most important book to actually discuss and honour the teachings of Jesus. From the point of view of the Roman Empire, Jesus was an atheist.

[Penelope]

Please Miss, Robert Tulip said:-

From the point of view of the Roman Empire, Jesus was an atheist.

Now come on Robert....are you just being provokative?

Surely from the Roman POV....Jesus was a Jew!!!!

They must have thought him an anarchist or a revolutionary....but I can't see how they could ever have thought him an Atheist.

The Romans were polytheistic I know......and the Jews are very big on the 'one God' viewpoint - but that is where we have been arguing with them for centuries.....the Jews were appalled at the Christians' claim that Jesus was God. In fact, I think that is why I am so interested in Jesus as a character, and his teachings....because he taught the same as Buddha except for that stumbling block.....he definitely claimed to be the deity.

I have had many arguments about this over the years....but the thing which captures my attention in the Bible....is the picture of the apostle St. Thomas - (the only sensible one of the lot - for doubting) but he fell down and worshipped Jesus.....saying my Lord and my God.....and I have even looked at the Hebrew characters.....and the name is God Almighty....not 'a god'.

I would have thought Jesus would have said, ' Get up you silly man'. But he didn't.....in fact, I think what he actually did say is very interesting.

Unless of course, the text has all been tampered with and altered. Although, why they should do that and then go on and be martyrd for their faith, would be a puzzle.

[Penelope]

Furthermore:

Robert said:-

there is a stinking hypocrisy in the inability of people who say the Bible is the most important book to actually discuss and honour the teachings of Jesus.

Well, I don't say the Bible is the most important book. It is a collection of books bound together.....and some of those books are more interesting than others.

But, I am throwing down the gauntlet here.....I want to talk about Jesus and his teachings....I have been frustrated for years....people who are atheists are not interested in discussing who He was, and religious people don't want to disturb their complacency and talk about what he said.

I want to talk discuss who he was and what he said......because we sure as hell cannot 'sit on the fence' on the subject of Jesus. What is reported about him, does not allow that.

And I bet you anything I don't get a response on this one.

[Frank 013]

RT
Hi Frank, the trouble here is separating true from false belief. I agree with you that definitely false beliefs should be criticized as absurd, but there is a big grey area, especially where a belief may have an intended or unintended good consequence. Beliefs are archetypal memes, evolving through history by cumulative adaptation. Many ideas adapt by departing from their original intent (eg carrot and stick).

I believe "truth" should come before false belief even if that belief sometimes has a good outcome.

After all religion offers nothing beneficial that cannot be attained by other (more truthful) means.

RT
You cannot just say that the idea of God is absurd and leave it at that,

Sure I could...

but that is not what I am doing. I am saying that the stories associated with those beliefs are archaic and absurd and so are many of the imposed rules and judgments. I am also saying that those rules and judgments cause a host of problems in modern society. And finally I am saying that I do not want those absurd and archaic rules imposed on me by making them law.

RT
and it is equally invalid to say that because past ideas of God were false therefore God does not exist.

First of all I never said that, but since you bring it up... it is a convincing argument, if god were the origin of all things why is it that he was unknown in history until the Jews came up with him? Why would this awareness be so localized? What makes this religion so true when all of its predecessors and competitors are so obviously false?

RT
It could still be possible to formulate an acceptable doctrine of God.

Acceptable to whom? I personally am not in the market for a god and there are plenty of people who think of their current doctrine as not just acceptable but divine.

RT
I am interested in the interface between science and theology, and find it interesting how intolerant scientific people are about theological ideas in general.

That would be because they are completely unsubstantiated claims and often outlandish, requiring a person to start with an assumption and accept information based on that assumption that no person could possibly know and can never prove.

RT
Theology is in fact a term of abuse in scientific circles where it signifies incoherent and unsubstantiated thinking.

Yep, there is no room in the scientific process for that kind of thinking.

RT
I agree with you to some extent about the large scale harm that Christianity is making in the USA and elsewhere, but really, there is a stinking hypocrisy in the inability of people who say the Bible is the most important book to actually discuss and honor the teachings of Jesus.

Some of what Jesus says in the Bible is good common sense advice, but none of it was original even at the time of its writing. And much of what Jesus says is complete nonsense, but the churches either do not quote those passages or claim they mean something other than the face value writing.

In short the teachings of Jesus as written in the bible are so easily manipulated into whatever a person wants it to mean that they are rather worthless as moral guidelines, this is not just my opinion but a lesson of history.

RT
From the point of view of the Roman Empire, Jesus was an atheist.

As Penelope said the Romans (if they thought of Jesus at all) considered him a Jew.

First of all the name Jesus did not make a splash in Rome until more than a generation after his alleged death; and then it was a minor plunk at best.

It wasn't until the Emperor Constantine instituted Christianity as the state religion some 300 years later that Christianity became more than a mysterious fish cult, it had been widely known as a slave's religion until that time.

Constantine guided the establishment of the Christian church, uniting the people under the church and the church under the emperor. The Christian powers that were, were more than accommodating, they were fighting over the honor to be in bed with the tyrant.

That was the formation of today's Christianity it was and remains a doctrine of control.

As far as Jesus' teachings... "The Jesus Seminar" (a group of historical and religious scholars) have determined that somewhere around 89% of what Jesus says in the Bible cannot be attributed to a real person. It was either taken from older scripture (other older Jewish writings) or clearly added later (forged). Leaving 11% that could possibly be attributed to a real Jesus person.

This does not validate a real Jesus in any way however; it just means that there is a small percentage of the Jesus manuscripts that is not copied or forged.

Penelope
I want to talk discuss who he was and what he said......because we sure as hell cannot 'sit on the fence' on the subject of Jesus. What is reported about him, does not allow that.

And I bet you anything I don't get a response on this one.

This depends; do you want to discuss who Jesus was as written? Or do you want to discuss the possible historical figure?

I am open to discussing both, but I warn you neither character is really one to be admired.

Later

[Penelope]

Frank said:

As far as Jesus' teachings... "The Jesus Seminar" (a group of historical and religious scholars) have determined that somewhere around 89% of what Jesus says in the Bible cannot be attributed to a real person. It was either taken from older scripture (other older Jewish writings) or clearly added later (forged). Leaving 11% that could possibly be attributed to a real Jesus person.


I have never heard this before - and other than saying of the Jewish writings denigrating what we know about Jesus, 'Well, they would wouldn't they'?

However, how can we know.....it is certainly true that the Gospels do not correspond.....telling the same stories....different facts. But there is something compulsive about the Gospels' disparity....why would they record different facts..about the same story. Surely they would have altered them to correspond...but they don't.

I do realise that all that about a virgin birth is hard to swallow, and actually they said this about Buddha, that he was born of a virgin....centuries earlier. What does that matter though? Surely what matters is the teaching of the man.... but what fascinates me is that Jesus is reputed to have said, 'Lo I am with you always even to the end of time.'

Well he wasn't just talking to his disciples was he? He said, 'Peace I give unto you, my peace I give you, not as the World gives....let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid....... these sayings are what make me want to study more about Jesus.......I really have no axe to grind....I have nothing to convert anyone to......because I don't know....but I find the recorded words of this man compulsive.......and I can't see how they can be used for manipulation.

If we really examine what Jesus said, there is nothing manipulative at all. In fact he removed all the rules. As soon as he died, what did we do?

Starting making up rules again.....and arguing.....I am thinking here about the Epistles of St. Paul.....