1 in 3 Americans Bible literalists

Great Debates
101

“They” (meaning many) claim that:

Creation science should be taught in public schools.
Gays and Lesbians should not have the right to marry.
Homosexuality is sinful.
Non-Christians are going to hell.
It is my duty to track non-believers down and convert them.
Abortion should not be legal.
Men should be the head of the household.
Every verse of the Bible is literally true.

I believe none of those claims. Therefore, I lend them no authenticity. The “authenticity” is mistakenly being produced in the judgment of the person making the comparison, not in anything that I am doing.

The beliefs that I hold in common with the fundamentalists are generally not the things that cause problems for other people.

May I also add that although I am a liberal Doper, I do not lend authenticity to conservative Dopers by posting at the SDMB.

Take it back, Kalhoun! Say it ain’t so! You really know how to hurt a girl.

102

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s a given that liberal Christianity and extremist conservative Christianity have certain beliefs in common so of course a more liberal Christian would defend those specific beliefs. What I don’t get is how sharing some beliefs is equated with liberal Christians offering tacit support for the more extreme beliefs. That seems to be what is implied when these statements are made and what I Love Me, Vol. I seems to be saying very bluntly. So, for me , it’s put up or shut up time. Make the case or stop spouting a meme that someone glomed onto simply because they don’t like religion.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not at all that beliefs are shared, it is more how the beliefs are arrived at. To avoid religion, let’s go with animal rights. Say an animal rights activist justifies his actions in terms of the inherent rights of animals as feeling beings. (And let’s assume he is not the kind of nutso who protects rats by killing people, or minks by releasing them to die.) The moderate might accept this, and say it means that we shouldn’t be cruel to animals, but then might have a hard time justifying not being a vegetarian - or even justifying laws banning meat eating. The acceptance of the premise of inherent animal rights lends authenticity to the more extreme view.

Likewise, the belief in any sort of inspiration from a divine being lends authenticity to more extreme actions based on this kind of inspiration. And enough with the dismissal of this view because liberal Christians are not creationists. No one is claiming they are - just that they are not due to non-religious reasons, not religious ones.
I’m not sure how the morals and ethics of a fundamentalist would change if he suddenly became an atheist, but I’m pretty certain that those of our liberal Christian dopers would not change one bit That’s a compliment, in case anyone is wondering.

103

[QUOTE=Zoe]
“They” (meaning many) claim that:

Creation science should be taught in public schools.
Gays and Lesbians should not have the right to marry.
Homosexuality is sinful.
Non-Christians are going to hell.
It is my duty to track non-believers down and convert them.
Abortion should not be legal.
Men should be the head of the household.
Every verse of the Bible is literally true.

I believe none of those claims. Therefore, I lend them no authenticity. The “authenticity” is mistakenly being produced in the judgment of the person making the comparison, not in anything that I am doing.

The beliefs that I hold in common with the fundamentalists are generally not the things that cause problems for other people.

May I also add that although I am a liberal Doper, I do not lend authenticity to conservative Dopers by posting at the SDMB.

Take it back, Kalhoun! Say it ain’t so! You really know how to hurt a girl.
[/QUOTE]

If you are a christian, then you must believe, at the very basic level, that jesus came back from the dead, that he was a miracle birth, and that he’s the son of a supernatural being (and thus, at least a little supernatural himself), no? If you don’t believe at least that much, I don’t think you can be considered a christian by any established sense of the word. Fundies believe this, as well. From where I sit, that is no more and no less bizarre than what a fundamental christian believes; just less mean. Am I glad liberal christians choose not to believe in the mean parts of the bible? Certainly. I think they’re better people than the fundies because of that. But they still believe far-fetched things that have no basis in fact. In that way, they lend an air of authenticity to the fundie claims.

Also, I don’t think it’s accurate to compare Dopers to religion. One is a belief, the other is a pasttime. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which is which. :wink:

104

[QUOTE=Voyager]
It’s not at all that beliefs are shared, it is more how the beliefs are arrived at. To avoid religion, let’s go with animal rights. Say an animal rights activist justifies his actions in terms of the inherent rights of animals as feeling beings. (And let’s assume he is not the kind of nutso who protects rats by killing people, or minks by releasing them to die.) The moderate might accept this, and say it means that we shouldn’t be cruel to animals, but then might have a hard time justifying not being a vegetarian - or even justifying laws banning meat eating. The acceptance of the premise of inherent animal rights lends authenticity to the more extreme view.

Likewise, the belief in any sort of inspiration from a divine being lends authenticity to more extreme actions based on this kind of inspiration. And enough with the dismissal of this view because liberal Christians are not creationists. No one is claiming they are - just that they are not due to non-religious reasons, not religious ones.
I’m not sure how the morals and ethics of a fundamentalist would change if he suddenly became an atheist, but I’m pretty certain that those of our liberal Christian dopers would not change one bit That’s a compliment, in case anyone is wondering.
[/QUOTE]

I understand that. It still seems to be a shared belief you’re talking about.

Humans in general hold a belief system that is part evidence, part experience, and part emotional attachment. Superstition and myth would fall under emotional attachment as well as bigotry and other such beliefs.
IMHO it’s the experience and emotional attachment portion that translates the input we have and colors what we do with it and how we respond. If we all arrive at our belief system in much the same way how can we decide who supports beliefs they don’t hold?

Consider an atheist who believes challenging and ridiculing believers at every turn is the way to go. {I know that’s hard to imagine :slight_smile: } In general a real jackass about his beliefs. Do you as another atheist tacitly support his abhorrent behavior and his belief that religious people deserve ridicule and being treated like superstitious idiots?

105

[QUOTE=the raindog]
What is truth?
[/QUOTE]

Truth is that which works, what gives you something you can use.

106

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Do you as another atheist tacitly support his abhorrent behavior and his belief that religious people deserve ridicule and being treated like superstitious idiots?
[/QUOTE]

‘Atheist’ is hardly fundamental to identity in the way that a religion is so I don’t recognise the concept of ‘another’ atheist.

But until people who believe in whatever nonsense they want to quit proselytising or trying to make laws or enforce social mores based on their superstitious nonsense then the offence of your hypothetical atheist is so lost in the background noise generated by the religious that it hardly registers.

When the superstitious STFU then maybe loud-mouthed atheists will tone it down.

107

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
If you are a christian, then you must believe, at the very basic level, that jesus came back from the dead, that he was a miracle birth, and that he’s the son of a supernatural being (and thus, at least a little supernatural himself), no? If you don’t believe at least that much, I don’t think you can be considered a christian by any established sense of the word. Fundies believe this, as well. From where I sit, that is no more and no less bizarre than what a fundamental christian believes; just less mean. Am I glad liberal christians choose not to believe in the mean parts of the bible? Certainly. I think they’re better people than the fundies because of that. But they still believe far-fetched things that have no basis in fact. In that way, they lend an air of authenticity to the fundie claims.

Also, I don’t think it’s accurate to compare Dopers to religion. One is a belief, the other is a pasttime. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which is which. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

Please peruse my response to Voyager and share your thoughts on that.

Let’s say a liberal Christian believes the Bible is inspired by God and meant to teach and guide us, but not to be taken literally since it’s also influenced by men.
His cousin being more a fundamentalist believes the Bible is the literal word of God
I can see how someone might make the connection that by believing the Bible is divinely inspired in some way helps support the actions of fundamentalist who justifies his actions with bible passages. I can understand it but I don’t agree.
If indeed there is some tacit support I think it’s misrepresented by making this connection. I think there is a way it happens not just in religion but in other areas as well.

If Muslims act in a sympathetic way toward terrorist extremist because of a shared belief system then I would consider that tacit support. If they condemn the violent actions of Israel and the US but are less likely to condemn similar actions of other Muslims then I would call that tacit support.
In a similar way if political parties point out the corruption of the opposing party and look the other way at the corruption of their own party members, again that is tacit support.
In Christianity I’ve seen examples of this type of thing. People may not agree with all the views of the fundamentalist but they don’t condemn their actions as readily and seem to see them as misguided Christians rather than agents for sin or whatever. OTOH they can be quick to criticize those who don’t share the label of belief.
It’s an issue that bugs me quite a bit. Rather than let the actions of the individual be a true barometer of who they are on the inside regardless of superficial labels they find a false unity in a shared label and make excuses for them. They also create an unnecessary separation between themselves and others who don’t choose to share that label.

108

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I understand that. It still seems to be a shared belief you’re talking about.

Humans in general hold a belief system that is part evidence, part experience, and part emotional attachment. Superstition and myth would fall under emotional attachment as well as bigotry and other such beliefs.

[/quote]

I’m not disputing that there are shared beliefs - I was trying to minimize them, so that Zoe wouldn’t jump on me. :slight_smile: But shared beliefs and views can come from similar thought processes, or very different ones. A religious person might be green because she thinks God commands her to preserve the earth, while I might be green for purely scientific reasons.

You are right in that emotional attachment is a driver also. I was thinking about rational reasons for beliefs, but that is a bit limiting. Still, I think neither liberals or fundamentalists would want the last word on justification for their world view to be “I feel like it” - though if they were honest in seeing this, they might be less dogmatic.

Totally agree, and I think this is also an “atheistic” justification. Beliefs not involved with god can be emotional also.

I’m not sure that’s to the point. We would want to disconnect a person’s beliefs from their way of expressing them. A better example might be your supposed amoral atheist, amoral since he sees no reason for morality without god. The contention that an atheist teaching that there is no god lends authenticity to this view does have some merit. If such cases did exist, I think atheists would have an ethical obligation to spread non-religious ethical training, in order to show such people that lack of god belief is no excuse for unethical behavior. What would not be proper is to say that since I don’t steal things, this unethical atheist has nothing to do with me.

Of course the real bottom line is whether atheism is justified. That some people misunderstand evolution, and use their misunderstanding to support eugenics, doesn’t make evolution false.

109

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Please peruse my response to Voyager and share your thoughts on that.

Let’s say a liberal Christian believes the Bible is inspired by God and meant to teach and guide us, but not to be taken literally since it’s also influenced by men.
His cousin being more a fundamentalist believes the Bible is the literal word of God
I can see how someone might make the connection that by believing the Bible is divinely inspired in some way helps support the actions of fundamentalist who justifies his actions with bible passages. I can understand it but I don’t agree.
If indeed there is some tacit support I think it’s misrepresented by making this connection. I think there is a way it happens not just in religion but in other areas as well.

[/QUOTE]

The critical issue here is what the liberal uses to decide what to believe and what not to believe. If he believes certain passages are true or not true based on evidence and logic, then he has very solid support for refuting the fundamentalists view. If, on the other hand, he disputes the inspiration of a passage because it doesn’t feel right, or goes against an internal moral code, the fundamentalist can justifiably say that the liberal is putting his own morality above God’s.
That’s what the story of Abraham and Isaac and the lamb is about, after all. God told Abraham to do something that went against his internal moral code, and Abraham did it anyway, and it turned out okay.

110

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Please peruse my response to Voyager and share your thoughts on that.

Let’s say a liberal Christian believes the Bible is inspired by God and meant to teach and guide us, but not to be taken literally since it’s also influenced by men.
His cousin being more a fundamentalist believes the Bible is the literal word of God
I can see how someone might make the connection that by believing the Bible is divinely inspired in some way helps support the actions of fundamentalist who justifies his actions with bible passages. I can understand it but I don’t agree.
If indeed there is some tacit support I think it’s misrepresented by making this connection. I think there is a way it happens not just in religion but in other areas as well.

If Muslims act in a sympathetic way toward terrorist extremist because of a shared belief system then I would consider that tacit support. If they condemn the violent actions of Israel and the US but are less likely to condemn similar actions of other Muslims then I would call that tacit support.
In a similar way if political parties point out the corruption of the opposing party and look the other way at the corruption of their own party members, again that is tacit support.
In Christianity I’ve seen examples of this type of thing. People may not agree with all the views of the fundamentalist but they don’t condemn their actions as readily and seem to see them as misguided Christians rather than agents for sin or whatever. OTOH they can be quick to criticize those who don’t share the label of belief.
It’s an issue that bugs me quite a bit. Rather than let the actions of the individual be a true barometer of who they are on the inside regardless of superficial labels they find a false unity in a shared label and make excuses for them. They also create an unnecessary separation between themselves and others who don’t choose to share that label.
[/QUOTE]

When you say that your personal, unproven, moderate version of blind faith is real, you open the door for others to say that their personal, extremist version is just as real. Since neither way is proven to be correct, the only way to not give at least a little credence to their claims is to say that there is no god and that all rewards for behavior, good or bad, are earthly in nature.

With regard to labels, those who don’t like them shouldn’t use them. You can’t expect people to choose what the accurate description of a christian or muslim or jew is when those groups can’t agree on it themselves. If you choose to call yourself one of these things, you can’t expect that the people who hear that label are going to automatically assume you’re the least offensive of the lot. Nor can we assume that you won’t ever become so wrapped up in your religion that you won’t become a threat at a later date. There are plenty of people who were born to “moderates” and who got caught up in the fever of faith and harmed others. To assume that the rest of us should respect something as precarious and powerful and potentially dangerous as blind faith is asking a lot.

I also find the coercion of children into blind faith to be particularly distasteful. No wonder people go off the beam.

111

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The critical issue here is what the liberal uses to decide what to believe and what not to believe. If he believes certain passages are true or not true based on evidence and logic, then he has very solid support for refuting the fundamentalists view. If, on the other hand, he disputes the inspiration of a passage because it doesn’t feel right, or goes against an internal moral code, the fundamentalist can justifiably say that the liberal is putting his own morality above God’s.
That’s what the story of Abraham and Isaac and the lamb is about, after all. God told Abraham to do something that went against his internal moral code, and Abraham did it anyway, and it turned out okay.
[/QUOTE]

Bolding mine.

What evidence do you have that what God asked of Abraham violated Abraham’s internal moral code?

112

[QUOTE=Enola Straight]
Truth is that which works, what gives you something you can use.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, that is not true. (irony intended)

Many, many things that are not true, work.

Similarly, many, many things are useful and yet not* true*.

In fact, look at your definition in the context of your earlier post. If “Truth” is defined as such, this definition totally eviscerates your earlier post!

113

[QUOTE=Voyager]
That’s what the story of Abraham and Isaac and the lamb is about, after all. God told Abraham to do something that went against his internal moral code, and Abraham did it anyway, and it turned out okay.
[/QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE=Rain dog]
What evidence do you have that what God asked of Abraham violated Abraham’s internal moral code?
[/QUOTE]

The test was not of a internal moral code, but a test of Abraham of if he loves God above all others.

(and It was a ram, not a lamb that God provided in the place of Issac Gen 23:13. )

114

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
and
The test was not of a internal moral code, but a test of Abraham of if he loves God above all others.

(and It was a ram, not a lamb that God provided in the place of Issac Gen 23:13. )
[/QUOTE]

I would disagree, in part. It was not a question as to whether Abraham loved God, or in fact whether God loved Abraham. For believers, I can think of no higher compliment than to have God himself call you “my friend”, which is exactly how God described his relationship with Abraham.

The test for Abraham was whether he manifest that love by faith, and more specifically demonstrate that faith by obedience.

Abraham was given an assignment that cetainly grieved his soul. Certainly Abraham knew that God was righteous, and all powerful; and could resurrect Isaac.

Nonetheless, Abraham was blessed not because he loved God (above even his son) but because he was obedient; he demonstrated that love and faith by carrying out the assignment that was given to him.

115

[QUOTE=the raindog]
The test for Abraham was whether he manifest that love by faith, and more specifically demonstrate that faith by obedience.
[/QUOTE]

Yes I would agree with this.

116

[QUOTE=the raindog]
Bolding mine.

What evidence do you have that what God asked of Abraham violated Abraham’s internal moral code?
[/QUOTE]

Genesis 22 says that Abraham loved Isaac. Are you claiming that my great**n grandfather was such a shmuck that his moral code included killing his beloved son? That’s without God asking - his moral code, which we are supposed to respect, clearly included doing anything God said. Though he argued more about saving the inhabitants of Sodom than he did about saving Isaac for some strange reason.

117

[QUOTE=the raindog]
I would disagree, in part. It was not a question as to whether Abraham loved God, or in fact whether God loved Abraham. For believers, I can think of no higher compliment than to have God himself call you “my friend”, which is exactly how God described his relationship with Abraham.

The test for Abraham was whether he manifest that love by faith, and more specifically demonstrate that faith by obedience.

Abraham was given an assignment that cetainly grieved his soul. Certainly Abraham knew that God was righteous, and all powerful; and could resurrect Isaac.

Nonetheless, Abraham was blessed not because he loved God (above even his son) but because he was obedient; he demonstrated that love and faith by carrying out the assignment that was given to him.
[/QUOTE]

God and Abraham had this relationship before the sacrifice. If you think that God had a hand in making Sarah fertile, then Isaac was the result of it.

But you’ve come around to my point. Let’s say the Bible tells you to do X - kill witches, stone gay people, whatever. Your internal moral code says that X is bad. You’ve got three choices.

The first is to do X, because, like Abraham, you are obedient.

The second is to not do X, because you can demonstrate to your own satisfaction that the command to do X did not really come from God, based on logic or evidence.

The third, and this is the liberal Christian view, I think, is to not do X because your view of God includes him only demanding things within your moral code. There was no devil in Genesis, but if there was Abraham, in this view, would have denied that it was really God telling him to sacrifice Isaac, but rather the devil. That’s clearly not the teaching of the ram in the thicket story. Obedience is clearly due to what god says, not what you want god to say.

118

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Genesis 22 says that Abraham loved Isaac. Are you claiming that my great**n grandfather was such a shmuck that his moral code included killing his beloved son?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think it has anything to do with a moral code. You don’t need a code of morals for a action you would never consider taking.

It does show the progression of Abrhams’ faith, finally being unquestioning obedience and trust in God.

119

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The first is to do X, because, like Abraham, you are obedient.

The second is to not do X, because you can demonstrate to your own satisfaction that the command to do X did not really come from God, based on logic or evidence.

The third, and this is the liberal Christian view, I think, is to not do X because your view of God includes him only demanding things within your moral code. There was no devil in Genesis, but if there was Abraham, in this view, would have denied that it was really God telling him to sacrifice Isaac, but rather the devil. That’s clearly not the teaching of the ram in the thicket story. Obedience is clearly due to what god says, not what you want god to say.
[/QUOTE]

The forth is to use the gifts of the Holy Spirit to lead you to truth.

It seems like in #3 you are using the flesh to define what God wants.

And though he is not mentioned by name in Genesis, the serpent in Genesis is defined as Satan in other places (2x in Revelation IIRC)

120

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
I don’t think it has anything to do with a moral code. You don’t need a code of morals for a action you would never consider taking.
[/QUOTE]
Sure you do; you need a code of morals in order to *define * what you would never do. Without a code of morals, there’s nothing someone wouldn’t do (well, within limits of practicality and so on).