Ahh, the sign of our times. Complete intolerance of intolerance. Sounds like a cliche, I know, but bear with me for a sec. Take any old belief at all. Something mundane, just to make the point clear. Let’s take gravity. Without having a real scientific picture of all the workings of gravity, I can still reliably count on being able to walk down the street without flying off into the sky. It’s obvious to anyone that gravity works even if we don’t bother to learn how it works.
Now, if I came along proclaiming that gravity is a lie embedded into all your sheep-like minds from birth and whoever believes it actually exsists is greatly decieved, most likely, and quite understandably, I’d get tossed into a loony bin.
Granted, there is a difference between my example and a thing like religion. It’s a bit more difficult to come up with irrefutable proof on the religion. However, my point stands. That being that if a person takes in all the information they can and compares it with their life experiences, applies a little logic and common sense to make sure it isn’t absolutely absurd, once they reach a conclusion (pick a religion they think is true), it only makes sense that they should think that claims to the contrary are false.
To go through that proccess and find something that makes perfect sense to me, then then for me to say, “Well, I think this is right, and that over there says the opposite, but I’m not going to say that over there is wrong” would be madness. I’m not saying that a person shouldn’t continue to question their own conclusions. New information or experiences should always be considered, and in some cases, make me rethink my previous conclusions.
In short, always be willing to be wrong, but you have to remember that somebody is wrong.
Why embarrassing? It’s a lot like a man being asked why he chose to marry his wife, what made her so special to him–and the man shrugs and says, “Ah, I just married the first girl I met.”
I’m not embarrassed to be an American, usually, but I would be if I embraced Americanism as the one true, good nationality.
I have no problem with imposing mores. But to do so by means of ridiculous stories, and then allowing children to literally believe those stories, I see as imposing severe intellectual (and often ethical) handicaps. I didn’t learn to think until I got rid of religion, and I see a lot of evidence that most Christians don’t think much either.
Let’s avoid accusing each other falsely, shall we? Thanks. If you read the Schopenhauer quote, you’ll see that he said that people can be made to believe anything, no matter how absurd, if taught at an early enough age in the proper way. This could include moralities and ethics, but I didn’t say that it did. However, pointing out absurdities in a line of reasoning is one reason we have debates. Even if I had called Christian morality absurd, I haven’t insulted anyone personally.
If your Christian morality really includes learning “to be respectful of others,” no problem. Christian morality, as often as not, teaches Christians to be disdainful of others. For example, when you called me out for quoting Schopenhauer, do you think your tone was respectful?
I don’t assume that Christian always equals fundamentalist, though it often does. But If you can teach that mythology without instilling blind credulity, good for you.
Actually, DrFidelius mentioned a social group within a community, with shared attitudes about proper behavior. Fitting in. There’s nothing much wrong with fitting in, though it may not be the main expressed purpose of religion.
The way I was taught it in Church was to Hate the sin, not the sinner. As a Christian, one accepts the entire Bible and, yeah, thinks anyone who denies it is wrong. That does not mean a Christian believes the other person is bad since the Christian belief system tells us not to judge or condemn others. We are all sinners and only God will distinguish between the righteous and the non-righteous. I do not think that is intolerance, just very very strong beliefs.
Now we’re getting a little closer to my point. I don’t think it is reasonable to look at one myth (for lack of a better word) and take it as truth at the expense of damning the other myths.
I like analogies …
Let’s say there are 100 people in a room. Each one of them is holding the same Rorschach Inkblot. Each one of them will tell me they see a different thing. Some will be similar to each other, some might confer with each other and choose similarities, some might be totally out of left field, but all will be different.
Should I choose to agree with the fourth guy from the left because he kind of makes sense, or should I listen to everybody’s opinion, take a look at the inkblot myself and make up my own mind?
I think we may be closer to agreement on this than you might think. Definately listen to everyone’s ideas and of course make up your own mind. But, after all that, if you decide that it looks like a butterfly, and the guy next to you thinks it looks more like a nuclear weapon hitting his mother in law while she’s sunbathing, I would expect you to say “Naw… I think you’re wrong on that one.” That doesn’t mean you have to disrespect him, or even try to convince him that he’s wrong. My own personal beliefs are very clear in my mind and I think that many people around me have reached conclusions that just aren’t true. They’re still my friends, and we still have a good time together and all that. I just think they’re wrong on some issues.
Kymri, I think one of the things you might be missing is that religion is often both subjective and personal. I might rephrase your statements as:
In the above scenario, there isn’t any need for anyone to be wrong - until and unless one party imposes beliefs on another. In Jack’s inkblot analogy, the harm begins when someone insists that all the inkblots are pictures of the sunbathing mother-in-law, and only heretics disagree.
Not to be a complete dork, but my favorite religious quote comes from George Carlin:
But if the only thing you looked for in a wife was someone who cooked the way you liked and was a snappy dresser, then perhaps the first girl you met is a fine choice. Sometimes, the first thing that works is fine, if it meets all your needs. As Doc F said in his first post, there might well be something that more closely reflects your internal landscape, but nothing’s going to be a perfect fit, so why fix something that ain’t broke?
You wanna show me where Dr. Fidelius or I made that claim? You won’t, 'cos we didn’t.
:shrug: Ok. I see it as providing an understandable framework within which to develop. For example, I want my kid to know all about sex and where babies come from. But a two-year-old simply cannot understand all the issues involved. Am I a bad person for telling him “from his mommy’s tummy?” Nope. I see it as the same thing with philosophy. They gotta start somewhere, or they’ll never have the knowledge they need to develop their own philosophies later in life.
Hey, when I was little I thought what I saw in the movies or on TV was real. Didn’t scar me. Much. And “ridiculous stories” exist in the secular world, too. It takes a very intense and dedicated breed of skepticism to completely shield one’s children from allusion, metaphor, and parable.
I think that’s an extremely limiting generalization.
If no offense was intended, you have my apologies. You provided the Shopenhauer quotation in response to Dr. F’s discussion of how he chooses to raise his children. CLearly you did not intend it that way, but it’s most definitely how it came across to me. (“Never would I tell anyone else how to raise his or her children, but [what you were just talking about is absurd]”)
“I’m a Christian.”
“Christian morality is absurd.”
C’mon, MrO, work with me here–can you see how that might be perceived as insulting?
That’s certainly what the Christ said.
Well, yes, it was intended respectfully, and I’m very sorry if you found it otherwise. Such was not my intent. I saw a thinly-veiled insult of the beliefs another person had just communicated to you, and asked for a little tolerance from you.
But hell, I’m not a Christian.
You’re right–Christians are sometimes total dickweeds. So are atheists, Jews, Hare Krishnas, and followers of the IPU (May Her Hooves never be shod!). People of all creeds are sometimes assholes, and they sometimes use their religious beliefs to justify their assholitude.
But before you tar everyone with the same brush, remember that the Christ’s teachings are by and large in keeping with many other faiths, and non-theist morality as well. To wit: be nice to others, respect nature and Creation and God (however you perceive God), and don’t be a jerk.
That’s the basis of Christianity, and the basis of the ethical and moral system we’re discussing.
So, you don’t think mythology can contain truth? You don’t think one can teach about mythology without demanding blind obedience to dogma?
:shrug: Ok. I disagree.
I don’t think that was what he was saying at all. No child is ever raised in a vaccuum. If I want my child to learn certain ways of behavior, it’s easiest to be a part of a group that holds to those ways of behavior. It’s not a matter of fitting into that group, its a matter of learning from that group. If I want my kid to learn Christian ethics, I’ll make sure he knows a community of Christians.
Damn andros, that’s good. I could hardly have said it better myself. Thank you.
To get back to something MrO said earlier:
If God does, indeed maintain a Hell, then I am almost certain to be going there. For almost every religion which includes the concept of a place of punishment after death I am a heretic, an infidel, or at worst a heathen. Not much chance hitting that lottery.
I still try my best to be a good person as I understand the concept, and within the cultural framework to which I am accustomed. Being damned to Perdition for all Eternity is no reason to be nasty to the people with whom I share this life.
Yes, my point exactly. If our needs are few, they can probably be met by whatever religion is handy. But if religion is to measure up to its own claims (peace that passeth understanding for now, and eternal salvation for later, to name two), I’m curious about why so many people settle on the one that they happen to be born into.
First, there is no claim in what I said, and I didn’t suggest that anyone else made a claim either, so there really isn’t any point to respond to in this remark. But in spite of the snotty tone (or do you also think that this is respectfully phrased?), I’ll do your work for you and point out the implication: that many, perhaps most religious people do consider their religion to be the one true, good one. And most versions of Christianity teach their followers exactly that. The reason I made that implication was to draw attention to the fact that you brought the nationality thing into the argument as though it were relevant to this discussion in some way, which it wasn’t. I’m pleased that you now seem to agree.
Apology accepted. Is it possible that you’re just a bit defensive?
Once again, I didn’t say that Christian morality was absurd. That’s what “even if I had” suggests. I know, English grammar is tricky. It is the “handy collection of stories” that I consider absurd. If that insults you, then perhaps I should have tried to word it more gently. But after years of lurking and a month of posting here in GD, I have observed that people say what they think pretty bluntly, if (usually) respectfully.
Yes, it is. It is not what I have observed in your behavior.
Fine, use whatever tone you like. I’ve got a pretty thick skin. But if you ever wonder why non-believers don’t listen to you, and if you aren’t above taking a lesson from an atheist, your tone is one thing I’d recommend thinking about.
[QUOTE]
No, I didn’t say that. I think one can teach about mythology without demanding blind obedience. I also think that when one teaches mythology as though it were literally true, it stunts the intellectual and ethical growth of the child.
At last, a partial response to my question. You see, I am not posting to this thread in an effort to tell anyone that they are wrong in their beliefs. I’m posting in an effort to find out how some people can claim Christianity, but do so more or less passively. Perhaps it’s because I have a somewhat serious, literally-minded personality, but it seem to me that if the claims of Christianity are true, they deserve to be taken damn seriously. I’m simply curious about Christians who don’t feel compelled to take it so seriously.
This last response, from DrFidelius, seems to tell me that some don’t really claim Christianity as an insurance policy against hell, but for its other benefits. That’s fine with me. At least those “passive” Christians aren’t as hostile as the zealous ones.
And looking back at my first post, addressed to the author of this fine sig, I see that it could be read as an effort to challenge the Doc’s beliefs. I apologize for that. I really was merely jumping at the chance to ask for some insight from someone who seems to hold a position that has long confused me: intelligent, articulate, Christian who acknowledges that Christianity is more or less a “default” religion for those born into predominantly Christian societies, and that it may not be the best answer, but follows it anyway.
I take MrO’s point entirely, since it’s one that I’ve often reflected upon myself. Although I do think he needs to take on board the fact that andros is an atheist
I’ve mentioned to friends and family before that if I believed in the Christian God - really truly believed - then that would be the single most important thing in my life. It would have to be! You’d dread me, I’d be the real bell, book and candle type. Witchburnings? Damn right. We’re trying to save a soul here! Damn right I’d be shouting that other religions were wrong, wrong, wrong. Frankly, you don’t want me as a believer.
Because if it’s true, it’s a Big Fucking Deal. But because it is such a BFD, I want BF evidence first. Which I don’t have.
I’ve never understood how someone can take such a passive view on the matter.
Is praying for non-Christians an act of intolerance or an act of love?
Is forbidding non-Christians to hold their views (whatever they are) an act of intolerance or an act of love?
Judge for yourself…
For Christians to view non-Christians as ‘lost sheep’ is not intended as an insult. Why would you insult someone who you love (I know we’ve never met but…)? Christians are commanded to ‘love’ their fellow men/women. Jesus didn’t come to save the believers… they were already saved. He came because he loved everyone and dearly wanted to recover those who are lost to him.
I’m sure that you feel that you are not lost and that you know what your life is about. Jesus Christ (and true Christians) will never force you to follow him or love him… but from his viewpoint (which your OP prompted)… he still views you as lost (to him!).
Well, thanks for seeing my point. You summed it up well.
To be honest, I still don’t know what prompted that pissing match with andros. First, I was interested specifically in the perspective of DrFidelius (who admittedly said that andros represented it well enough). Second, andros accused me of saying several things that I simply didn’t say. Third, and most important to me, andros’ remarks struck me as rude. I take some of the blame too–as I admitted recently, my first post could have been worded more carefully. For all I know, andros and I may have much in common. Anyway, I’d prefer to be on friendly terms with everyone here, whatever their beliefs.
I don’t know how old you are and cannot make any assumptions about your record collection. Does Jim Reeves mean anything? Hmmm… get a copy of his greatest hits CD and listen to ‘Welcome to my world’:
It goes like this:
*Welcome to my world, won’t you come on in?
Miracles I guess, still happen now and then,
Step into my heart, leave your cares behind,
Welcome to my world, built with you in mind.
Knock, and the door will open,
Seek, and you will find,
Ask, and you will be given… the key to this world of mine.
I’ll be waiting here, with my arms unfurled,
Waiting just for you, welcome to my world.*
Funnily enough, the significance of the words had never struck me until I became a Christian (I don’t know whether they were significant or not for JR either).
Jesus is waiting for you with his arms unfurled… he’s waiting just for you… however zealous you would be… warts and all…because he loves you.
I agree absolutely with the first bit. It is a Big Deal! It’s a matter of life and death! How big can you get already?
As far as the second bit goes… the evidence bit:
Knock, and the door will open,
Seek, and you will find,
Ask, and you will be given… the key to this world of mine.
It’s up to you to… (but there would be plenty of help if you requested it).
with the first bit. It is a Big Deal! It’s a matter of life and death! How big can you get already?