Are Xians stupid?

Great Debates
101

Kalhoun, I’d like to address two of your ongoing points in this thread. For what it’s worth, and by way of offering perspective, I myself am not a Christian, although I was raised as one. I waver between belief in a higher power and the absence of that belief; I see evidence on both sides, and the only thing about which I am decidedly convinced is that the verdict is uncertain (and probably will always be, at least until I die and meet God, or die and… you know, don’t. Although in that case, I won’t exist, so I’ll never know, but… anyway, moving on).

My first concerns the following statement:

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I’m not talking about proof here. I’m talking about evidence. While there is evidence that my husband loves me, there is no evidence Jesus loves you.
[/QUOTE]

What is the evidence that your husband loves you? Going on the most likely assumptions, I’d say the evidence includes things like: “he tells me so;” “he seems interested in my needs and well-being;” “he engages in behavior X, which makes me happy;” and so on.

To a believer, it would seem to me, there is analogous evidence suggesting that “Jesus loves [him or her].” Heck, for me, just the fact that my wife loves me constitutes evidence arguing in favor of some divine force that cares for me (she’s pretty well out of my league). Now certainly, certainly, there are explanations for her loving me that do not involve a divine influence at all. However, there are perfectly good explanations for your husband’s behavior toward you that do not involve him loving you, are there not? Don’t you ultimately take a leap of faith when you decide that the evidence you see is evidence of love, rather than of something else?

I would argue that there is evidence that might suggest something divine. It may not suggest it to you, but it’s still evidence. Thoughts? (If the above three paragraphs don’t make any sense, I’ll try again; it’s been a long day of typing and my writing skills are flagging).

**Point the second: ** I am extremely confused by your point regarding the Religious-lite crowd empowering the extremists who do harm in the name of religion. Unless I am mistaken, it seems as though your logic proceeds thusly:

  1. Some people believe in God, and believe that He (or he, or whatever) communicates directly with his (His?) creations, but believe that these communications are essentially benign and concerned mostly with not hurting other people.

  2. Other people believe in God, but their belief manifests in more malignant ways.

  3. The belief of the people in group #1 lends credibility to the belief of the people in group #2, such that if a person feels a compulsion to kill in the name of Jesus or Allah or Xenu or whoever, he or she will think - “well, others have heard from JeAlXe in the past, so I’m not alone… this must be legit.” Whereas if the vast majority of the world’s people were athiests, someone believing they heard the voice of JeAlXe might stop for a second, and think - “hell, no one else believes this, what am I, crazy?” And then not go kill.

Ergo, 4. The belief of group #1 creates an environment in which the harmful beliefs of group #2 can flourish?

Does that about cover it? If not, then please clarify, but in the meantime, a few points:

  1. I disagree strongly with point 3, above. Crazy people need no encouragement to be crazy. If every person on earth stopped believing in God except one, and that one thought God was telling him to kill clowns in the name of Jesus, you can bet there’d be some dead clowns before all was said and done.

  2. I can’t grasp the leap inehrent in the argument. You are an atheist, yes? Presumably you emphatically do not believe that the fact that there is no god (in your mind) entitles you to slaughter anyone who crosses you, since there will be no divine retribution for it. Now supposing a hypothetical guy read syour posts here and thinks to himself, “self, Kalhoun is right. There is no god. And you know, the only thing keeping me from icepicking my annoying co-worker to death had been fear that I’d go to Hell for it.” And out comes the icepick.

You share a common belief with Hypothetical Man, yes? The belief that there is no god. Your version of that belief compels you to discuss it reasonably on a message board. His version compels him to icepick Dave in accounting. Are you responsible for his actions, or somehow complicit in them?

102

Well, we have a clear example of people demanding rigid adherence to belief in their metaphysics and arrogantly throwing out any evidence which does not correspond to their worldview, right in this thread. Strangely, it’s not among the theists!

103

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]

So when I said something like “Would you mind if I opened this window a bit?” there was a pretty fair chance he would go off on me like this:

“Do you think I’m a moron? Do you think I WANT to sit here sweltering in the heat because I’m too stupid to open the window? Listen, Mr. Pee Aitch Goddamned Dee, I may not have the education and the fancy degrees that you have, but I think I know when it’s too hot in here, and let me give you a little bit of advice: even the little people know the difference between hot and cold, and here’s a flash from one of the little insignificant people you look down your nose at, you smartassed fraud: It’s just fine in here, there’s no need to open the window. Oh, I don’t have any fancy measuring devices to prove my point but I have something better, something you don’t need nine years of graduate schooling to grasp: I have the common sense that God gave me, mister, and believe you me, I’d rather have that than all the useless pointy-headed booklearning in Creation…”

.
[/QUOTE]

Are there really people like this? What else can you tell us about him, or are willing to? It must have been horrible for your wife growing up (or ex-wife, depending on how this person came to be your former FIL).

I think he probably had extreme anger issues.

104

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I already told you this doesn’t come from books. It’s a simple deduction that any six-year-old can make. Why do I have to have a cite for something that is commonly understood?
[/QUOTE]

Because the specific point I am objecting to is not commonly understood. It’s a connection you made up.

It isn’t. That is not my objection which should have been clear. Believing that God can and is willing to reveal his will to every person on the planet is not the issue. It is you claiming that the folks you refer to as “religion lite” are somehow supporting the extremists who commit heinous acts in the name of God simply because they also believe God actually exists, that has prompted my request for evidence. I believe you are drawing a conclusion and making that connection with zero evidence. So far, you’ve done nothing to support that specific point.
People have different concepts of God and it is up to each individual to decide which rings true for them. In that choosing they still have to take responsibility for their actions prompted by that belief.

A person who focuses on “love thy fellow man” and the belief that God wants him or her to care for others and share a message of love, are by their actions, demonstrating what they value and what their beliefs are. For you to say they are somehow supporting religious nuts that kill others seems to me completely without merit. I’ve asked you to defend your position. You seem unable to do so.

No it isn’t. You simply rephrased and repeated. You are assuming the connection you are making is valid. I’ve asked you to present any evidence you have that is is. You have presented exactly zero, and just repeat that it’s obvious. That isn’t evidence or a debate. That is you assuming your particular belief is correct without any substantial evidence. You’re simply creating the connection in your own mind and calling it obviously logical. Does that sound familiar? To me it sounds like the same thing you criticize in believers. Don’t feel alone. You’re not the only atheist I’ve seen do this kind of thing. I think it’s dam funny.

FTR I’m perfectly fine with religious belief being examined and criticized done correctly it’s a very healthy thing for all concerned. If you’re going to feel free to openly criticize others beliefs then be prepared to have your own examined.

105

[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
Kalhoun, I’d like to address two of your ongoing points in this thread. For what it’s worth, and by way of offering perspective, I myself am not a Christian, although I was raised as one. I waver between belief in a higher power and the absence of that belief; I see evidence on both sides, and the only thing about which I am decidedly convinced is that the verdict is uncertain (and probably will always be, at least until I die and meet God, or die and… you know, don’t. Although in that case, I won’t exist, so I’ll never know, but… anyway, moving on).

My first concerns the following statement:

What is the evidence that your husband loves you? Going on the most likely assumptions, I’d say the evidence includes things like: “he tells me so;” “he seems interested in my needs and well-being;” “he engages in behavior X, which makes me happy;” and so on.

To a believer, it would seem to me, there is analogous evidence suggesting that “Jesus loves [him or her].” Heck, for me, just the fact that my wife loves me constitutes evidence arguing in favor of some divine force that cares for me (she’s pretty well out of my league). Now certainly, certainly, there are explanations for her loving me that do not involve a divine influence at all. However, there are perfectly good explanations for your husband’s behavior toward you that do not involve him loving you, are there not? Don’t you ultimately take a leap of faith when you decide that the evidence you see is evidence of love, rather than of something else?
[/quote]
No, I don’t see that as a leap of faith at all. It is based on my interpretation of his actions. Not words, not thoughts…it comes from evidence; not faith. And my definition of love may be 180 degrees from yours. It’s meaningless to anyone but me. Jesus may have done nice things for people back in his day, but there is no one (save for a few football players) who credit him with “doing” anything to express his love for the flock. Why a feeling or a vibe is sufficient for the existence of god when it wouldn’t be for a spouse is beyond me. But hey…have at it!

I get that. My biggest beef with that is that they lower the standard of evidence when it comes to religion. Concepts that assume no worldly power or consequence are held to a much stricter standard of evidence than the standard they apply to The Saver of Souls. Besides… most of them freely admit that it is faith; not evidence, that brings them to their belief in god.

Yes, that about covers it, with the exception of the JeAIXe thing.

but in the meantime, a few points:

That’s right. But who’s to say who’s crazy? There is a whole region of the world that thinks violence is not only acceptable, but encouraged with regard to perceived religious slights or social infractions. Are they *all * crazy? Says who?? From where I stand, they’re no crazier than the crowd gathered under the viaduct staring at Salt Stain Mary in Chicago.

Just because a person’s religious enthusiasm manifests itself differently than another person, we don’t call them crazy… Until they start killing people, right? Then they’re off the beam. Well, if we agree that god talks to people, why would that person be any crazier than all the Dopers who claim to have had the exact same experience?

But he was expressing his faith! Where do you draw the line? Many believers claim their faith to be the strongest force in their life. People gravitate toward what is comfortable and label it as The Truth. If we respect one religion, simply because someone said they heard voices and the voices were divine, we have to respect them all. Who are you to say the crazy muslim isn’t acting on god’s authority?

The difference is he isn’t ice-picking in the name of god. He’s doing it because he’s a) nuts, or b) really pissed off at his co-worker. I don’t see how a person who doesn’t claim to hear voices can show up in a conversation where we’re discussing the validity of one religious close encounter over another. If you don’t feel the need to prove your (not you personally) close encounter, why should anyone else have to explain theirs? When you put the religious “chosen” (who is acting on god’s audible directive) and the secular nutcase next to each other, how do you tell which is which? Oh yeah…the religious guy is the one with the lawyer; the atheist is the one strapped to a gurney. :wink: I know lots of folks around here claim to have communicated directly, but I don’t recall any of them saying they know what god says to other folks. How do they know the terrorists weren’t acting on divine orders??? Because god just doesn’t say things like that? SAYS WHO??? The terrorist just said god DID tell him to. There’s nothing to back it up. Only his personal experience. Why shouldn’t he claim divine communication? Everyone else does!

Directly, of course not. That was never the intent of my post. I hope you can understand that from an atheist’s standpoint, the hearing of voices, if the person is not willing to accept that they were the result of mind games, look equally insane whether we’re talking about a woman feeding the poor or a terrorist strapping a load of dynamite to his chest.

106

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Because the specific point I am objecting to is not commonly understood. It’s a connection you made up.
It isn’t. That is not my objection which should have been clear. Believing that God can and is willing to reveal his will to every person on the planet is not the issue. It is you claiming that the folks you refer to as “religion lite” are somehow supporting the extremists who commit heinous acts in the name of God simply because they also believe God actually exists, that has prompted my request for evidence. I believe you are drawing a conclusion and making that connection with zero evidence. So far, you’ve done nothing to support that specific point.
People have different concepts of God and it is up to each individual to decide which rings true for them. In that choosing they still have to take responsibility for their actions prompted by that belief.

A person who focuses on “love thy fellow man” and the belief that God wants him or her to care for others and share a message of love, are by their actions, demonstrating what they value and what their beliefs are. For you to say they are somehow supporting religious nuts that kill others seems to me completely without merit. I’ve asked you to defend your position. You seem unable to do so.

No it isn’t. You simply rephrased and repeated. You are assuming the connection you are making is valid. I’ve asked you to present any evidence you have that is is. You have presented exactly zero, and just repeat that it’s obvious. That isn’t evidence or a debate. That is you assuming your particular belief is correct without any substantial evidence. You’re simply creating the connection in your own mind and calling it obviously logical. Does that sound familiar? To me it sounds like the same thing you criticize in believers. Don’t feel alone. You’re not the only atheist I’ve seen do this kind of thing. I think it’s dam funny.

FTR I’m perfectly fine with religious belief being examined and criticized done correctly it’s a very healthy thing for all concerned. If you’re going to feel free to openly criticize others beliefs then be prepared to have your own examined.
[/QUOTE]
Look…I’m not going to play this game with you. You either believe that people who talk to god are delusional or you believe that whatever people claim to be god’s directive is good because that is the nature of god. If god told someone to fly a plane into a building, who are you to question it? After all…it’s what god wants. You can’t have it both ways. Simple. Get it?

107

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
You either believe that people who talk to god are delusional or you believe that whatever people claim to be god’s directive is good
[/QUOTE]
So either everyone who claims to talk to God is delusional (or dishonest), or no one is? False dichotomy!

108

Wow, Kalhoun, play Excluded Middle much?

Obviously, if we ever met in real life, you would consider me as precisely identical to the guys who flew planes into the World Trade Center, and therefore attempt to kill me at your first opportunity, right? Because there is no inbetween there – either I’m an Evil Theist and not deserving to live, or I should give up my delusions – is that what you’re saying?

I believe, and frankly have neither the interest nor patience, nor do I any longer give a shit, that you were one of the people encouraging the pro-gay liberal Christians on this board to speak out more, and not leave the impression that Christianity gives to the world to the likes of Phelps, Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, Wildmon, and their ilk. Lovely bit of self-contradiction you have going, if that was indeed the case!

I made a comment in the Pit that I believed that the two rights grouped as “freedom of religion” in the First Amendment needed defending against the crypto-theocrats who would legislate stuff like mandatory school prayer as written and led by the school administration, mandatory Pledge of Allegiance, the insidious meme that this country was founded on “the ideals of [“real” i.e. fundamentalist] Christianity,” etc.

It saddens me to know it also has to be defended against dogmatic atheists like PRR, gonzomax, Der Trihs and yourself. But so be it!

You have every right to hold whatever views you choose on issues of religion, the supernatural, mythology, ethics, etc.

But when you start demanding that others must follow your standards or be classed with the evil and lunatics, you show yourself no different in essence than Fred Phelps and Jimmy Dobson.

Nice company you choose to keep!

109

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
So either everyone who claims to talk to God is delusional (or dishonest), or no one is? False dichotomy!
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I wish I’d said it that succinctly and precisely.

What really cracks me up is people subtly ridiculing believers while passing this kind of baloney off as logic.

110

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Look…I’m not going to play this game with you. You either believe that people who talk to god are delusional or you believe that whatever people claim to be god’s directive is good because that is the nature of god. If god told someone to fly a plane into a building, who are you to question it? After all…it’s what god wants. You can’t have it both ways. Simple. Get it?
[/QUOTE]

sounds like…it’s a matter of faith to you and you can’t be bothered with trying to defend it with logic. I love the irony.

also, what Thudlow said.

111

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I already told you this doesn’t come from books. It’s a simple deduction that any six-year-old can make. Why do I have to have a cite for something that is commonly understood?
[/QUOTE]

Fallacy: ad populum

What you’re saying is that you don’t need no steenkin’ proof but everybody else does. Interesting.

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
It is based on my interpretation of his actions.
[/quote]

And here you’re saying that the proof you offer to is a construct of your own mind; that which you perceive. How is that proof? Essentially you’re saying ‘I’m right because I think I’m right’. Sorry but that’s not terribly persuasive.

112

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
So either everyone who claims to talk to God is delusional (or dishonest), or no one is? False dichotomy!
[/QUOTE]

Well how are we supposed to distinguish between the bullshit and the real deal? No proof…no accountability. There’s always the cherry-picking. That’s a given.

113

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Wow, Kalhoun, play Excluded Middle much?

Obviously, if we ever met in real life, you would consider me as precisely identical to the guys who flew planes into the World Trade Center, and therefore attempt to kill me at your first opportunity, right? Because there is no inbetween there – either I’m an Evil Theist and not deserving to live, or I should give up my delusions – is that what you’re saying?
[/quote]
Oh fercrissakes, Poly. You know that’s not what I’m saying, as I’ve already *said * as much. I’m saying that if you are to be believed with regard to communicating with god, so is everyone else who claims it. When you say “It’s religion, so no one has to be able to see the evidence except me” you leave me two choices: take your statement at face value or assume you’re deluded or dishonest. If I accept it at face value, I have to afford that same acceptance to everyone who claims it. There’s no way to gauge the honesty or validity of your statement.

You’re (deliberately?) misreading what I’ve said. These are two different issues we’re talking about here. It’s not like you to miss the distinction. One is the issue of gay rights in the church and your (sellf-professed) duty to shout down those who try to trample on the rights of others. To me, and particularly with regard to Phelps and the boys, that is a social issue, albeit facilitated to some degree by your faith.

The other issue is entirely different. You have often, over the years, said that your close encounter with god was “evidence” enough for you of his existence. I have heard your argument that it doesn’t have to manifest itself in a way that others could corroborate in order to be classified as evidence. If that’s the case, I assume you believe all other accounts of close encounters? If I’m wrong about that, please correct me. If you don’t believe all the others, how do you determine which to keep and which to ignore? If I believe you, why would I not believe the others?

That’s great, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the idea that religion is somehow exempt from the standards of evidence that everything else is held to. I’m talking about how that exemption makes it impossible to differentiate between who is right, who is wrong, who is crazy, who is deluded, or who is simply caught up in the moment.

Again…I never said anything of the sort. I’m simply saying that if you don’t give us anything to work with, we have two choices: to believe all of it or none of it. I don’t see how you could believe your experience and not give that benefit of the doubt to anyone who claims to have experienced it as well.

114

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Well how are we supposed to distinguish between the bullshit and the real deal? No proof…no accountability. There’s always the cherry-picking. That’s a given.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t have to distinguish between the two. You make your own judgments based on the actions of a person, believer or otherwise. Feeding the hungry is quite a different action than killing the innocent isn’t it? If you choose to ridicule and devalue compassion and kindness because of what you perceive as foolish beliefs thats your choice as well.

115

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I’m talking about the idea that religion is somehow exempt from the standards of evidence that everything else is held to.
[/QUOTE]

Except, as I noted above, your own statements.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I love the irony.
[/quote]

What cosmosdan said.

116

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]

Again…I never said anything of the sort. I’m simply saying that if you don’t give us anything to work with, we have two choices: to believe all of it or none of it. I don’t see how you could believe your experience and not give that benefit of the doubt to anyone who claims to have experienced it as well.
[/QUOTE]

The problem is that those are not the only two choices for anyone. Claiming that they are is simply wrong. In a previous post you agreed with

when your concept was described. Belief of group 1 {the more liberal believers who focus on loving interaction with others rather than rigid dogma} creates an environment where the beliefs of group 2 {religious extremists willing to kill} can flourish.

IMHO this is false and unsupported. You certainly haven’t been able to support it. If the above is the cornerstone supporting your theory it’s really in trouble, since your above statement is false.

117

Okay, the grounds for presuming that a god exists have been spelled out several times before. But let’s take a walk through them, to make sure nobody is making false apprehensions about what’s being said.

  1. There is nothing logically inconsistent in supposing that a god created the Universe in a manner consistent with, and using the methodology of, what science can tell us about its origins. A literalist six-days part-the-waters scenario is inconsistent. But if we presume that to have been myth, and instead postulate a creation-by-Big-Bang, abiogenetic molecular biology for the origin of life, genetically-shaped punctuated equilibrium evolution for the diversity of life over time, etc., it’s not inconsistent. Not required, either – any honest theist will admit that. Occam’s Razor suggests there is no need to presume a god from the nature of the Universe. But remember that Occam’s Razor is abductive – as between you forgetting where you set down your car keys, and magical pixies moving them, the answer which calls for the least odd assumptions is the more likely.

Note what this suggests: the only reason for presuming a Creator God is if He has some further evidence pointing to His existence. God is not a conclusion to be drawn from the Universe as His creation – but neither does it exclude that possibility.

  1. God is a logical necessity. Any number of proofs in deductive logic and formal logic, of the sort that gives equations of the form ~K U L → M if not N, are advanced, hotly debated, debunked, reformulated, etc. I don’t propose to advance any of them – I frankly lack the training to work with them, and in any case feel that this is not how He wishes to be demonstrated. I merely note that some great minds find them persuasive (as well as some equally great minds who find them totally unpersuasive).

  2. God can be redefined as this, that, and the other thing: pantheism (all that exists is collectively God); panentheism (everything that exists is within but not equal to God); God is the laws by which things happen; God is a philosophic construct, the ultimate ground of all being; etc. This is all well and good, but it transforms any dialogue into Humpty Dumptyism – “God is what I define Him as, so you have no right to disagree.” My bottom line here is that whatever God may be or not be, the characteristics of illimitable power (not necessarily omnipotence but practically so) and illimitable knowledge and wisdom (same caveat with regard to omnipotence) and the ability to interact on a personal level with humans are necessary characters. Caligula claimed to be a god; he died. Father Devine claimed to be the incarnation of God, but he couldn’t comprehend relativity. The Cosmos may or may not fit someone’s concept of God, but the Cosmos does not interact as if a person with many if any humans. ( ::: waits for Cosmosdan’s rejoinder ::: )

  3. The Bible bears record of God’s supposed interactions with His Chosen People and then the incarnation of one Person of a triune Godhead and His life and teachings as Jesus of Nazareth. Put on the brakes here, and let’s look at what is postulated and what is not. For the conservative Christian, the whole thing is supposedly “the word of God” either dictated directly by Him or written by humans somehow so inspired by Him that they could introduce no error into it. I suspect that there’s unanimity among Dopers in considering that postulate the digestive wastes of male bovines.

Rather, what liberal Christians think about the Bible is precisely what a scholarly atheist like Diogenes does: it was the work of human authors who purported to describe their interactions with and understanding of the God in whom they believed. But we take it a step beyond that, and say that an approach to an understanding of His true nature can be discovered by the critical reading of the work – not accepting with credulity that He commanded a genocide 3700 years ago (any more than He did the same thing with another of His believers four years ago) – but instead sifting through the detritus of various people’s preconceptions to see what lies behind and beneath them. And there is a consistent call to ethical behavior, worship as a mode of humbling human arrogance rather than sycophancy to a despotic deity, a call to humane treatment of one’s fellow man as equivalent to proper response to Him. When you see that same message reiterated as having supposedly come from Moses, Isaiah, Micah, David, Jesus, and Paul, you begin to get a sense of a common theme that is not purely human invention.

And you apply scholarly techniques to find out what exactly was being said, by whom, to whom, in what idiom and with what cultural presuppositions, before you start deciding what’s purely cultural myth and what’s from that divine substrate. This is not “cherry-picking” – it’s running quality control measures on what cherries you put up for sale to the public.:wink:

  1. The testimony of people who have claimed to experience Him in their lives. Now, any one, or even several, such testimonies can very easily be self-delusion, hallucination, delirium, you name it. Granted. But when there is a consistency across multiple cultures and 20 centuries to what such experiences are reported as, it becomes a bit less likely that it’s purely self-delusion. If your child comes and excitedly tells you there’s a tiger in the woods, you smile indulgently and think how wonderful a child’s imagination is. But if eight children and three adults independently report having seen a tiger in the woods, never having heard each other’s stories, you wipe off the indulgent smile and call the game warden to report the possibility of a cougar having entered the area.

  2. The nature of deity is such as to make demonstrating a proof or disproof by scientific means extraordinarily difficult. One can in fact analyze whether prayer is beneficial to health, whether claimed supernatural healings do in fact happen, etc. That does not relate to the existence of God himself, but to supposed claims about Him --though of course any such story debunked becomes that much less evidence for His existence.

For me, I’m quite prepared to concede a Jamesian will to believe and credulity in myself – I’ve been “burned” by unscrupulous people trading on that in the past. Therefore I approached looking at my theophanic experience with quite a bit of skepticism – the farthest thing from “blind faith.”

However, what He did in those events was, in a phased manner, to reshape my personality in a manner that I consider has made me a far happier and emotionally healthier individual – and to have, in part, done it by causing me to take steps that led to such results by things that I myself could not have foreseen. The most obvious one of those is my “son” Chris, probably the most fulfilling relationship other than my marriage in my life – and I am certain that I would never have met him if it had not been for following a sense of doing what God had implanted in me to do for what turned out to be his friends before he had moved away, close to a month before his return and our first encounter. And it was in learning to relate to Chris as father figure, and in the wisdom that 16 years of hard knocks had given him, that I came to terms with most of the problems in my own personality and to overcome them. As between a God who had already spoken to me in my life and for whom there was abundant historical testimony having moved me to reach out to Chris’s friends and in consequence to meet him (which is what appears to have happened), pure chance, and the putative presumption that my subconscious is not only a genius at reshaping my own pyschology in ways that I was as yet actively fighting but also clairvoyant and precognitive to know that encounter would happen, I find the “God kicked my ass into doing the right thing for those boys” scenario to be the one that requires the least presumptions. Yes, coincidences do happen – but this one requires the sort of complex sequences of coincidences to occur that one justly rejects a book as depending on deus ex machina too extensively for.

An exercise for people: sit down with a Bible, ignore the O.T. and everything from Acts on, classify if you like the miracle stories as credulous reports from the Weekly World News or National Perspirer-- but look at what Jesus’s actual teachings are, and what they say about the God for whom He supposedly spoke. The character of that God is not one who is interested in depriving gay people of rights in the name of some bizarre fundie morality scheme, nor of telling people to fly airplanes into buildings. Jesus uses hyperbole, parables (easily recognized as typical Jewish haggadah and halacha), pithy sayings, etc. But when all is said and done, he’s painted a picture of a loving God intent on bringing people to humane, righteous behavior – by working in their lives, not by externally commanding them. This is why I claim that there’s an intrinsic difference between our stance and those of the fundies and the Islamic terror-radicals.

Finally, I don’t claim that anyone is required to believe on account of that evidence. To me it’s highly suggestive of something active throughout history – and when that Something became active in my own life, I recognized it in history as well. What I do insist on is the same as always: your right to believe or not believe as you choose is conditioned on your willingness to extend the same right to others. Or, as someone once said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” :slight_smile:

118

Gee, Polycarp. You write good.

119

yes he does, but I feel the need to point out a rather enormous middle that he excludes as well:

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
For the conservative Christian, the whole thing is supposedly “the word of God” either dictated directly by Him or written by humans somehow so inspired by Him that they could introduce no error into it. I suspect that there’s unanimity among Dopers in considering that postulate the digestive wastes of male bovines.

Rather, what liberal Christians think about the Bible is precisely what a scholarly atheist like Diogenes does
[/QUOTE]
If Christianity were neatly divided into two camps, outsiders would have an easier time of understanding it. The reality is that there is a broad spectrum of beliefs. The difficulty of understanding this is what leads some people to just throw up thier hands and say “they’re all alike.”

120

well a little bit last Tuesday. It was a moment of weakness. :slight_smile: