I don’t understand it either, but your failure to see that Christians just don’t care that they are being inconsistent is also hard for me to understand.
Oh, no, that is not my problem… I know they know (but don’t care) that they are being inconsistent.
My sad obsession with this topic/web site is from having a pathetically boring life…
I don’t think that you understand that we believe that we can evolve in our understandings of interpretation of Scripture. Of course they can be wrong about all sorts of stuff. However, the authors of the Bible didn’t actually come up definitively with the concepts of original sin (was being fought out in the 300s between Augustine and Pelagius), the trinity (the notion that Christ was a man persisted from very soon after Jesus died), etc., etc. - Christian believers on the basis of Scripture and prayerful consideration (obviously while listening for the Holy Spirit) formalized those ideas. We continue to affirm it or revisit it, and plenty Christians do have issues with original sin or the trinity. Many of my fellow co-religionists reject the idea of original sin (though I have a friend who says, quite persuasively IMO, that original sin is the only verifiable Christian doctrine ;)).
I think the issue stems from that a lot of atheists think that moderate or liberal Christians are just wishy-washy pick and choosers (probably because that’s how evangelicals try to portray them). They don’t realize that there is a long and very deep theological tradition in mainline Protestantism or Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, but that I know far less about). I know plenty of Lutherans (who evangelicals may tag as liberal wishy-washy types) who would scoff at Evangelism for being theologically shallow.
Look, I’m happy to talk with you more if you like but if you wanted me to sum up in one sentence my problem with your POV (not with you) it would be:
You just want to maintain the benefits of being religious when you discover some problematic issue within the bible. So you try to change a frog into a toad to suit your purposes instead of dealing with a frog as a frog.
(I realize the frog/toad analogy is not from the bible)
I just think you have absolutely no idea how non-literalists read Holy Scripture. We absolutely do try to deal with the problematic passages - that’s why there is a common lectionary that makes us deal with those texts (at least once every three years as we make our way through the Bible). So we can struggle with it and find out why those people wrote some of those things and what it may mean for us. (Or rather, the Pastor has to struggle and deal with it in his or her sermon while the rest of us listen ;)).
Ok, at this point, what is left to be said?
My problem with moderate christinaity is, as a Atheist critical of religion, I have to wade through an army of you guys to get to the “hardcore fundamentalists” preaching hatred and hellfire and doom and that the earth is 6000 years old and that global warming is a myth and the jesus wants you to own an AR15.
How silly would that person look in Denmark, in Japan? No one would take them seriously. Their message would fade into obscurity within a decade, or less. But here in the USA the moderates, willingly or unwillingly, provide cover to the fundamentalists.
I am being critical of your position, ISiddiqui, but I do not have ill will towards you personally. You seem like a decent sort of fella to me. My criticism is how your position affects the overall dynamic.
You have to ‘wade through us’ because you are posting on the SDMB and blaming all of us for the statements of a few (who don’t post here). Trust me, those fundamentalists don’t like us either. They think we are sellouts to the culture, because they don’t understand how we read the Bible either (I remember a fundamentalist Pentecostal who I took to the ELCA church who was shocked that we actually read the Bible outloud in every service). So, it makes no sense to link us all together (just as it’d make no sense to link all Americans together based on the foreign policy of one President).
Faith. Tradition. The passing of ideas from father to son, from teacher to student, from minister to flock.
The introduction of new ideas, as by Charles Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses,) Ellen White (Seventh Day Adventists,) Mary Eddy (Christian Science,) Joseph Smith (Latter Day Saints,) Victor Wierwille (The Way Ministries,) and so on.
How do you know which of these is the one correct way?
Self-education and study, including research of various topics, is one of the most fascinating ways to spend an evening.
I don’t want to be rude, but you seem to prefer to know than to learn. Learning, I assure you, is far more gratifying.
(Alas for many of us, a fair amount of learning entails unlearning! Unlearning things that I thought were correct has been a VERY large part of my SDMB education.)
And you, no offense, are “inside the bubble”. I’m not sure if you comprehend, really, what it is like to live in the deep south as an unbeliever. I do not want to exaggerate… it is not the worst thing ever, it is not horrible… it is just a frustrating and illogical environment to live in.
When I lived in NYC for 15 years, previous to where I live now, this was 2 years ago, if all of the USA had been like NYC in terms of religion, for the past 50 years… my complaints would be… weak and pathetic. But NYC and Seattle and San Francisco are not really indicative of the religious consciousness of this nation as a whole, are they?
I’ll be glad to let you have the last word on this topic… whether that is a large or small point you want to make on either account.
Why would you possibly want to “wade through” them?
They’re on our side! They’re moderates! May God Bless Them, and may their tribe only increase! Moderate Christianity is not the enemy; they’re the best allies you’re ever going to find.
It isn’t atheists who are keeping the theocrats from taking control. It’s the moderate Christians!
You’re sticking out your tongue at the very people who stand on the ramparts of liberty, keeping the world free for us atheists!
Yeah, I’m guilty of that, not only on religion but on any/all/most strong opinions that I have. I’m not sure what else I will say at the moment beyond admitting that your criticism is accurate.
I’m actually not sure I agree with this. I’m not sure my example will be correct either. But I will do my best to make my point, even if it proves to be wrong or illogical.
Rewind to 1985. Setting, the suburbs for some large city (500,000+) in North Carolina or Kentucky or Tennessee. A popular radio preacher has given several sermons on the decay of america and our need to return to fundamental values. Among these are “spare the rod spoil the child”. Now, they will get a lot of backlash but they will also get a lot of cover and acceptance, simply because they are speaking into a culture which is already habituated to the concept of “spare the rod spoil the child”. Try giving that speech on the radio in some Asian city, full of Buddhists, adherents of non violence, people who are not habituated to the concept of "“spare the rod spoil the child”. Do you not think his message would have a lot harder time being delivered in Tibet than it would in Tennessee?
I realize my example may not be perfect. It is meant as a thought experiment, an analogy, to illustrate my point.
That’s exactly what I think, although not because of anything the evangelicals say. It’s simply been my experience, supported by consistent and credible polls from Pew and the like, that most adult Christians know less about the Bible than I did when I was ten years old, nor do they care much what their own denomination teaches about issues that are important to them, nor can they articulate the differences between the doctrine of their denomination and its major competitors.
I get into debates with Dopers who seem to think that most Christians are amateur scholars and theologians, and have come to their rejection of, say, the death penalty for homosexual acts, through lengthy consideration of the context and culture of the time and place the Torah was written, or their knowledge of the role of allegory in ancient Hebrew poetry, etc. Unfortunately, that’s horseshit.
The sad truth is, they have never given those verses any thought, because they didn’t even know they were in the Bible, because they know next to nothing about the Bible.
Think I’m exaggerating?
– A 2010 survey showed that only one third of Catholics, and only half of Christians overall, can even name the four Gospels. I really, really wish they had asked them to name the books of the Pentateuch. What percentage would you guess would get all five? I’d say even 20% is optimistic, and probably less than 10% would be able to tell you anything of substance about anything in the Pentateuch after Exodus.
– (Same survey) only 40% of Christians guessed that Job is famous for his steadfastness during suffering, even though his name is proverbial for it, and even though it was a multiple choice question with only three alternatives, namely Moses, Abraham, and Elijah, and even though they could easily eliminate Moses and Abraham because they had even easier questions about them, with the same four choices.
– A 2015 survey found that “Roughly half or more of U.S. Catholics say that using contraceptives, living with a romantic partner outside of marriage and remarrying after a divorce without an annulment are not sins.” No matter how low my opinion of US Christian awareness, I find it impossible that they don’t know that the Church considers those actions to be sins. So your argument that Christians depend on other sources than the Bible for their beliefs is irrelevant, because they clearly don’t care what their denomination is supposed to believe, whether the source is Biblical or not.
We’ve even seen very recently that many Catholics instantly lose their confidence in the Pope if he disagrees with them on global warming or whatever.
The only reasonable conclusion is that most self-professed Christians don’t know or care what is in the Bible, or what they are supposed to believe from other sources; they just inherit their “faith” from their parents, who likely knew as little about it as they do, and they tune out anything in the Bible or their denomination’s teachings (should they ever happen to stay awake in church) that they don’t like.
The sad truth is, many US Christians know more about the Quran than the Law of Moses, because they like to say how primitive and barbaric and stupid the Quran is regarding the treatment of women or apostates or non-believers, in complete ignorance that the Torah says exactly the same thing. Right now, Christians are horrified at ISIS destroying temples that have stood for centuries, as they were horrified when the Taliban destroyed some giant statues of Buddha several years ago. Those stupid, barbaric Muslims! Where do they get shit like that??? How could anyone think the Quran wasn’t written by a lunatic?
Here’s what Deut 12, the Law of Moses, says about the subject:
[QUOTE=Moses]
2 Destroy entirely all the places where the nations you are to dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains, on the hills, and under every green tree. 3 Tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, burn up their asherahs, and chop down the idols of their gods, that you may destroy the very name of them from that place.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not disputing your assertion that the various denominations have more or less consistent theologies which date back centuries. I’m just saying that only a small minority of the denomination members know, or care, much about it.
I see your point [Robert163]…and it is not a bad one.
But progress has been made since 1985 (let alone since 1935, or 1715.) And much of that progress is owed to moderate Christians, who have been pushing back at the boundaries of intolerance, hatred, anger, and intrusion. They have been more successful than atheists, by having the ability to work within the system.
There is a general principle of Revolutions that the people inside the establishment are often more instrumental than those outside. We can be glad of moderates like Billy Graham and Robert Schuller, who have helped hold the line against Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts.
Never let The Perfect become the enemy of The Good. I think this is a mistake you’re making throughout this thread (and in a number of other threads on the SDMB.)
I’m an atheist, and a pretty hard-edged one. I don’t just say, “There’s no evidence for God,” I say, firmly, “There is no God.” I’ll never be a friend of organized religion. But, Holy Hannah, I’d far rather there be moderate religionists than the other kind!
Ok, I will take your points under advisement. Certainly I could learn to moderate my views a bit. I won’t deny that they are excessive.
Good, does that mean you’ll start respecting OP’s threads and concentrating on their thread titles a bit more? I’m all for little tangents, but for someone that supposedly is such a strict literalist on the bible, you’ve spent the last four pages of this thread talking about that, with almost nothing concerning the Christian heaven. Now if anyone comes on to this thread thinking this was going to be about the OP, they will have to wade through the last four pages of you going unabated AGAIN on your strict literalist view of the bible, nothing else will do, which would have all been fine and dandy too, if it was you mostly talking about the Christian heaven.
Your notions about Buddhist child-rearing practices are as confused as those about moderate Christians. “Spare the rod spoil the child” is a specific phrasing of an idea that’s actually got nothing to do with religion and which exists in a lot of cultures irrespective of religion. There are Buddhists who spank and who give damn big beatings, same as there have always been parents from the Religions of the Book who did not.
Start? Probably. However, you never simply “start” there. You insist that it is the entirety, despite the fact that there is no organically begun religion that has ever done so. (Dianetics/Scientology and Book of Mormon/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are both actual creations with a known point of origin and history, and are the only two religions of which I am aware that actually began with a book.)
There are many religions, (particularly in pre-literate societies), that have no scripture. The religions that do have scripture all began prior to the writing of the scripture. Insisting that the scriptures, which were written by people attempting to capture the beliefs, but which were not written prior to the beliefs, must be held up as the only correct expressions of belief is historically wrong and logically wrong. The people who wrote and organized scripture recognized that. The Books of Chronicles in the Hebrew Scriptures retell, basically, the same story as is found in Genesis through 2 Kings, but they differ in theological emphasis. Heck, Genesis, itself, starts out with two contradictory stories. The ancient Jews recognized this and yet still regarded both as Scripture. There has long been a belief that the Epistle of James was written in deliberate contrast to the declarations on Faith in the Pauline Epistle to the Romans, yet the church accepted both as scripture.
Scripture tells stories to present a group’s understanding of truth. Yes, it is myth, but in an anthropological sense, not in the common use of the word to mean “not real.” The points of the stories are often (not always) more important than the facts stated in them. However, stories are always open to interpretation and the meanings change as the understanding of society changes. You may find this problematic, of course, and it provides no reason for you to believe anything in some group’s scripture.
You are perfectly welcome to look at scriptural conflicts and inconsistencies and draw the conclusion that scripture, (or all of religion), fails to satisfy your desire for direction in life. However, your attempts to dictate what other people must believe and how they must regard scripture fails on your misunderstanding of how it is used among believers. The notion of some not-very-well-read internet poster dictating to several billion people the ways in which they are to regard their holy books, (in which said poster does not believe), is risible. Your insistence in dragging your error into one thread after another to declare a point that fails on the evidence is merely silly.