1 in 3 Americans Bible literalists

[Kalhoun]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
So everything is up for grabs, and there is no moral behavior that is consistently positive for us and our fellow man? It’s all personal preference so if we go through a phase where people are killing each other right and left and treating each other with unbelievable cruelity it’s okay because it’s personal preference?
[/quote]
Of course it’s not “okay.” It just is. There will always be people who are at odds with others, who at the same time truly believe that their way is the right way. That’s the disconnect in mankind. We do not all have the same experience; we’re not automatons who are programmed to think and feel exactly alike. That’s life.

True. Thats why the truth is about the spirit of our intent rather than the specific action.

Well, if what you’re saying is that people have good intentions for the most part, I’ll agree. That doesn’t mean much when their good intentions shit all over mine, though. Therein lies the disconnect.

Then this is a major point of disagreement between us. IMHO that we are connected is true beyond any effort we make to deny that connection. We are connected as the cells in our own body are connected, all playing a role in the living organism of this planet. When we act contrary to that truth we injure others and ultimately ourselves since we are all part of the same living organism.

If, by connection you mean “we’re all in this together”, yes, of course we’re connected. But if you’re talking about common bonds and common goals, well…there are some similarities, but I wouldn’t go as far as calling them solid connections. Really, it’s more like crochet than a tight weave. I only have to watch the news to see the disconnect between men. It would be nice if it was closer to your vision, but I just don’t see it that way. I think the reality of it is about as far from your Truth as it could possibly be.

Any of us could be wrong. I’m curious though. Are you saying that morality and ethics are all personal preference and there really aren’t choices that are consistently more positive in consequences. So from Hitler to Gandhi it doesn’t matter, it’s just preference?

Well of course there are a few things that seem to provide more positive consequences. A few. That doesn’t mean we will always agree on what’s good. There are too many variables that go into a person’s experience to say that there is a consistent truth in morality or ethics. Man doesn’t work that way.

Well gosh…now you’re accusing me of being dishonest? Where’s the tragic puppy dog eyes emoticon? Here’s the surprising paradox. While believing in an ultimate truth that we all share I recognize that the path to that truth is unique to each person. I may not agree with the choices and the path others take but I also know that it is not my path, and not for me to decide what is right or true for them at this moment in their lives. I react and interact knowing that it is as much my instruction as theirs.

Of course we all have our own path. This isn’t a revelation. It’s the only possible way to advance through life. I’m just not clear on what the role of your spirit guide is. At times you sound like you dismiss the god creature (particularly when you’re talking how you change paths throughout your lifetime). And other times you sound like he’s laying out the path for you. I’m quite serious about this. I cannot for the life of me tell if you believe in god or not. And if you do, I have no idea what his function would be in your life.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Of course it’s not “okay.” It just is. There will always be people who are at odds with others, who at the same time truly believe that their way is the right way. That’s the disconnect in mankind. We do not all have the same experience; we’re not automatons who are programmed to think and feel exactly alike. That’s life.
[/QUOTE]

I agree it’s that way now, and that it’s not okay. Should we make an effort to make things better? Is there any point to such an effort?

Well, if what you’re saying is that people have good intentions for the most part, I’ll agree. That doesn’t mean much when their good intentions shit all over mine, though. Therein lies the disconnect.

I’m not sure people have good intentions for the most part. When I say the spirit of the intention it’s more than that. People may believe they are doing what is “right” on some level, or they may find reasons to rationalize and justify their actions, but just as you pointed out that the same act can have good or bad consequences, the same act can have different motivations as well. Doing the inner work to find our own true intention is part of the work that makes things better. That’s a lot of what Jesus and Buddha talked about and IMHO a brilliant observation about the nature of man. You can create laws and make moral arguments but for real change to take place you have to approach and change the inner person.

If, by connection you mean “we’re all in this together”, yes, of course we’re connected. But if you’re talking about common bonds and common goals, well…there are some similarities, but I wouldn’t go as far as calling them solid connections. Really, it’s more like crochet than a tight weave. I only have to watch the news to see the disconnect between men. It would be nice if it was closer to your vision, but I just don’t see it that way. I think the reality of it is about as far from your Truth as it could possibly be.

Again, do we make an effort to make things better or do we just shrug and “C’est la vie”?

IMHO the reason the world is as it is lies in how we see our role in the world and to each other. Rather than see ourselves connected like the cells in the same body we see ourselves as disconnected. I agree with you that looking at the world we can see the disconnect. It doesn’t have to stay that way.

Of course we all have our own path. This isn’t a revelation. It’s the only possible way to advance through life.

I agree. You made some comment about us not being automatons or there being a one size fits all answer. I was trying to point out the paradox of the answer being contained within us pursuing our unique paths.

I’m just not clear on what the role of your spirit guide is. At times you sound like you dismiss the god creature (particularly when you’re talking how you change paths throughout your lifetime). And other times you sound like he’s laying out the path for you. I’m quite serious about this. I cannot for the life of me tell if you believe in god or not. And if you do, I have no idea what his function would be in your life.

I reject the concept of a god that is separate and out there somewhere controlling everything. Whatever god may or may not be we are of the same stuff. In the same way my genes are in my children the living spirit in us is a part of whatever god is. Believing in that connection is where the god concept becomes useful for me. Prayer is not so much asking Dad for a favor as it is trying to tune in to a higher consciousness and awareness.

[Kalhoun]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I agree it’s that way now, and that it’s not okay. Should we make an effort to make things better? Is there any point to such an effort?
[/quote]
I believe we should make an effort, but I think failure on many levels is inherent. We simply will not always agree on what is best for the planet and its inhabitants.

I’m not sure people have good intentions for the most part. When I say the spirit of the intention it’s more than that. People may believe they are doing what is “right” on some level, or they may find reasons to rationalize and justify their actions, but just as you pointed out that the same act can have good or bad consequences, the same act can have different motivations as well. Doing the inner work to find our own true intention is part of the work that makes things better. That’s a lot of what Jesus and Buddha talked about and IMHO a brilliant observation about the nature of man. You can create laws and make moral arguments but for real change to take place you have to approach and change the inner person.

I agree. You can’t legislate intent; only actions. Unfortunately, some people aren’t capable of a meaningful change. Either they don’t have the tools or they’re missing the capacity to live outside their own existence. There are many reasons for that, and not all of them are reversible. We’re kind of stuck with what we’ve got in many cases.

Again, do we make an effort to make things better or do we just shrug and “C’est la vie”?

I think efforts to promote positive change are laudible, but you also need to realistically understand that it’s never going to be enough to thwart the bad in the world. There’s no magic wand. We just keep plugging away the way man has for centuries.

IMHO the reason the world is as it is lies in how we see our role in the world and to each other. Rather than see ourselves connected like the cells in the same body we see ourselves as disconnected. I agree with you that looking at the world we can see the disconnect. It doesn’t have to stay that way.

We can chip away at it, but it’s a neverending battle. For every “convert” we have for the promotion of good, we get another who doesn’t care.

I agree. You made some comment about us not being automatons or there being a one size fits all answer. I was trying to point out the paradox of the answer being contained within us pursuing our unique paths.

Right. That’s the only thing we CAN do. There’s no other option. That’s one of the reasons I dislike group think. For every million people who think X is the only way, you’re losing a million opportunities for someone to come up with a fresh idea.

I reject the concept of a god that is separate and out there somewhere controlling everything. Whatever god may or may not be we are of the same stuff. In the same way my genes are in my children the living spirit in us is a part of whatever god is. Believing in that connection is where the god concept becomes useful for me. Prayer is not so much asking Dad for a favor as it is trying to tune in to a higher consciousness and awareness.

Well, while I like your concept, it’s not a definition of god that we can work with. It may provide some kind of comfort, but it implies an outside entitiy, which, from what I gather, you do not subscribe to. You’ll communicate your ideology more succintly if you choose another term. To me, it sounds like “compassion” or “cooperation” more than it does “god.”

[lekatt]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Generally when people talk about the Inquisition, Crusades, and other such stuff they’re using it to show that Christians can be bad people. Not because they are personally angered by it, necessarily. I think you may have misread that.

My own personal definition of Christian would be “do they follow the teachings of Christ”, except there seems to be quite a bit of difference, even among those who claim to be Christian, as to what those teachings actually are and which are to have priority. My own definition of a Christian then is “anyone who self-identifies as Christian”; certainly meaning that some who are not will get in, but reduces the risk that you ignore all “true” Christians entirely.
[/QUOTE]

Those ancient history quotes are brought up often on this board.

I have to disagree with your definition of Christian. Identifying yourself as a doctor does not make you one. There has to been some kind of action, thought, and deed that goes with the one who claims Christianity.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=the raindog]
I read the post, and understand the context. I still find the posts confusing. Is the ‘opposite’ liberal christians lending authenticity to atheists?

But no matter. Please let me know which ‘fundamentalist’ Christians post here. Better yet, please give a URL or two of some exchanges where a fundamentalist Christian posted here (w/ biblical cites!) and was subsequently confused I promise to read every thread/exchange you post.

Best as I can tell, it is a rare event that fundamentalist Christians post here, and even rarer that they time to post reasoned, researched cited arguments. So, I’d like to see handful of those exchanges if you will. It’s equally rare that a liberal Christian posts a well thought out, informed, researched, cited argument.

Can you show me some of those exchanges?
[/QUOTE]

The authenticity each side is lending is that discussions and conclusions should center around logical chains of reasoning and the evidence. We might come to different conclusions, but the general approach is the same. I don’t know if you’d count Liberal as liberal Christian, but his discussions are based on logical arguments. I may consider them to be flawed, but they are about as far from “the Bible says it and I believe it” as you can get.

Most Bible quoters are drive by posters. Because the SDMB lends authenticity to the position and debate is good, they don’t last long. I don’t archive things, and I’ve been in this game too long to think they will respond rationally, so your guess at the start of a search is as good as mine. I think his4ever might have done some quoting - not a driveby in that case. Search for driveby in GD - most accusations of drive by posts seem to be religion based, as some devout person convinces him or herself that this flock of heathen only needs the word of God to see the truth.

[Kalhoun]

We done scared 'em off. The few that chose to hang around were pretty fucked up in the head.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=the raindog]

Does the Judeo/Christian God, commonly called Jehovah (among other names), and desribed in the Torah/Bible, exist?

Either way, can you prove this?
[/QUOTE]

Not good enough. Do you mean the God who had a son, or the one who didn’t (which is the one I used to believe in.) Do you mean the God who insipred a perfect Bible (the one 30% of Americans believe in) or the one who gave general inspiration, and allowed many myths and errors into the Bible.

Do you mean a god who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, one who is only the first two of these omnis, or one who isn’t omni anything?

I ask since I can prove that some of these Gods don’t exist, in the legal sense of prove, not the mathematical sense, but not others.
This doesn’t have a lot to do with atheism, since neither of us could probably prove that Brahma doesn’t exist, yet neither of us believes in him.

I’m going into this level of detail to show the extent of the definition problem. The short answer is that few if any atheists claim to be able to prove that all gods don’t exist, and it is the burden of the theist to define the god he believes in and demonstrate that it exists. I’m not even asking for proof - it is hard enough to prove that Paris exists. The same level of evidence for god as for Paris would do fine for me.

[yoyodyne]

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Those ancient history quotes are brought up often on this board.

I have to disagree with your definition of Christian. Identifying yourself as a doctor does not make you one. There has to been some kind of action, thought, and deed that goes with the one who claims Christianity.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, the “No True Christian” fallacy!

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Those ancient history quotes are brought up often on this board.
[/quote]
Yes, I know. That’s the part of your post i’m not disagreeing with. People do bring up the bad things committed by religious people in the past. Certainly. But they generally don’t use it when talking about how they are personally angered about religion or religious people. I would say “they don’t ever”, since i’ve never seen it done, but it’s very possible i’ve missed a time when this has happened. Would it be possible for you to cite me up some occasions of someone using history (not actually ancient history, but *medieval * in those cases, apologies for the nitpick) of religious violence as a reason for personal anger?

I have to disagree with your definition of Christian. Identifying yourself as a doctor does not make you one. There has to been some kind of action, thought, and deed that goes with the one who claims Christianity.

The problem with that is that your interpretation that there must be action, thought, and deed is not a definition shared by all Christians or all people. Why should I take your definition over anyone else’s? If one Christian defines the term to include himself but exclude another, who in turn defines it to include himself and exclude the former - whose definition do we go with?

I’m well aware that there are problems with my definition - as indeed I pointed out in my post. The problem is that the more you define “Christian” down, the more you run the risk of accidentally removing “true” Christians from the definition. I’m reasonably happy to leave it as open as I can, in order that as many true Christians are included. When it comes to doctors, OTOH, I may be risking my life, so i’m equally happy to reduce the definition down to “someone with medical knowledge” in order to treat me. Sure, I could run the risk of leaving some doctors out - people with doctorates in physics, or theology, for example - but generally i’m willing to lose some people if it means better healthcare for me. Selfish, but I hope reasonable.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=yoyodyne]
Ah, the “No True Christian” fallacy!
[/QUOTE]

While I assume this is a joke, lekatt’s answer is not necessarily an example of the fallacy. The fallacy extends to characteristics of something not essential to their nature. McTavish not eating haggis doesn’t make him not a true Scotsman. If McTavish had been born in Kenya of Kenyan parents with Kenyan roots going back thousands of years, then we might well call him not a true Scotsman without getting into trouble.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

I’m well aware that there are problems with my definition - as indeed I pointed out in my post. The problem is that the more you define “Christian” down, the more you run the risk of accidentally removing “true” Christians from the definition. I’m reasonably happy to leave it as open as I can, in order that as many true Christians are included.
[/QUOTE]

But if we agree that the definition of Christian includes, say, belief in the divinity of Jesus, then someone without that belief isn’t a true Christian by definition. And we must separate followers of Jesus from the reilgion. Jefferson was being a Christian in the first sense when he wrote his revised NT, but not in the second. We here are all Cecilists, but that’s not a religion. (For most, at least.) The follower of Jesus sense is broader than the religious sense.

Except for those who believe in the divinity of Jesus, but seem to care not at all for doing what he told them to do. That might be a Christian in the second sense but not the first.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I believe we should make an effort, but I think failure on many levels is inherent. We simply will not always agree on what is best for the planet and its inhabitants.
[/QUOTE]
Good enough. We have found a point of agreement.

I agree. You can’t legislate intent; only actions. Unfortunately, some people aren’t capable of a meaningful change. Either they don’t have the tools or they’re missing the capacity to live outside their own existence. There are many reasons for that, and not all of them are reversible. We’re kind of stuck with what we’ve got in many cases.

I see that as a race we have grown a little in the blip that is recorded history. Progress is agonizingly slow. Will we bring about massive damage to the planet and it’s ecosystem before we bring about meaningful change? Who can say? I just rest on my belief that continuing positive effort and personal growth is what I can do.
When I consider the possibility of the survival of our consciousness after the death of the body I wonder about purpose of this physical word and sometimes think.
Classes come and go but the second grade is always the second grade.

I think efforts to promote positive change are laudible, but you also need to realistically understand that it’s never going to be enough to thwart the bad in the world. There’s no magic wand. We just keep plugging away the way man has for centuries.

I agree except I’d change never to “not in my lifetime” It may seem like the same thing but it’s a difference that offers a little more hope for me. We see that the ripples of the efforts of people from the past that effect the lives of people today. I agree we have to do what we can and let the rest go without driving ourselves nuts over it.

We can chip away at it, but it’s a neverending battle. For every “convert” we have for the promotion of good, we get another who doesn’t care.

It sure seems that way. I can’t draw it here but I remember seeing a chart in a notebook about personal growth and I relate it to humankind’s growth as well. We don’t progress up, backslide a bit, and then level off, and repeat the process, gradually moving ahead. It’s more like putting pencil to paper and making a series of connected spiraling circles that gradually move ahead and up, the high point of each circle being the most progress we’ve made so far. When I first saw it, it evoked, an “Oh Shit that’s true isn’t it?”

Right. That’s the only thing we CAN do. There’s no other option. That’s one of the reasons I dislike group think. For every million people who think X is the only way, you’re losing a million opportunities for someone to come up with a fresh idea.

Again I agree. People cling tenaciously to tradition and what “has” to be true, even when there are indicators that it isn’t. They can be so unwilling to reconsider a concept and rework it, or discard it. IMHO it’s okay for someone to think Jesus is the only way, using Jesus as an icon to improve themselves, as long as they realize that their concept of what Jesus represents and what that requires of them, will change. Hopefully they can be intuitive enough to understand that a Buddhist or secular humanist, is really working on the same goals.

Well, while I like your concept, it’s not a definition of god that we can work with.

Now that’s funny. Who exactly is we? What’s the work we can’t do?

It’s important for me in dealing with all the concepts of god, to change the focus from some being out there somewhere to something that lives within and personal growth be the goal rather than obedience to a daddy figure.

It may provide some kind of comfort, but it implies an outside entitiy, which, from what I gather, you do not subscribe to. You’ll communicate your ideology more succintly if you choose another term. To me, it sounds like “compassion” or “cooperation” more than it does “god.”

I’ve considered that, but when talking to believers the word god comes in pretty handy. If we start from a point of agreeing that “God is” we can discuss concepts of God and what that means for us humans. The goal for me is understand where they are coming from and to try and and get them to truly consider other concepts.
When dealing with non believers I find myself defending the validity of choosing a spiritual path. There seems to be some concept that if we could only get people to stop all this superstitious nonsense the world could really improve. While I agree in part I question which approach to the issue really allows progress rather than just conflict.

I’d rather find points of agreement with folks than focus on our differences. Points of agreement tend to allow discussion rather than argument. It also seems important to me to find where the line is drawn between allowing people the freedom to choose their own path, something we all want, and knowing when to stand up and say, “Now hold on just one freakin’ minute”