The Ten Commandments are not at the core of my belief system. I don’t have a problem with them as representing important teachings for one individual to adopt as God’s demands on his own ethical system. People who don’t put Britney Spears, the Pittsburgh Steelers, System of a Down, A+F clothes, or something else ahead of ethical treatment of other people, are always good to have around. People who do not use God’s name to harm others or misrepresent the truth, should be commended for it. People who take time themselves to rest, relax, get in tune with the world about them and its Creator, and who give those who work for them the same opportunity, likewise deserve praise. People who show respect for their parents, people who refrain from taking the life of another outside the law, people who do not cheat on their marriage vows, people who do not steal, cheat, con others out of their property, people who will not lie to harm another, people who are not jealous of another’s prosperity – these are good people.
People who, on the other hand, set up the Ten Commandments as an idol, are prepared to use God’s name in vain to defend doing so, who bear false witness against their fellow man on account of his beliefs, his sexuality, etc., people who attempt to legislate their view of God’s will as binding on others and who arrogate to themselves the right to judge others – these people are breaking those commandments as surely as those they judge.
What is at the core of my belief system is Jesus’s Summary of the Law (cf. Matthew 22:34-40), the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12), the New Commandment (John 13:34), the need to practice non-judgmentalism (Matthew 7:1-2) and compassionate behavior towards others (Matthew 25:31-46) and how they apply in one’s daily life.
Perhaps this is not the yes-or-no answer you were looking for. But it’s the one that accurately reflects my views.
I do, however, have to live in a world where people are acting in broad and meaningful ways, based on thoughts and feelings attributed to god. When a believer shares his “experience” with the world outside his own brain, it is indeed my business. When some people accept the “god communique” as a valid reason for a particular behavior, I sometimes have to live with the results of that acceptance. It is my responsibility to look at those reports with a skeptical and scientific eye.
Kalhoun, there is no way for me to know for certain when and to whom the Holy Spirit is communicating something. When it happens to me, it isn’t a “voice” that I hear and isn’t something I am supposed to proclaim to others. It’s personal.
There are times when my response to someone’s saying “God told me to do this” is skeptical. Maybe I shouldn’t judge, but I do. I know that there are Christians that can be delusional just as easily as non-believers.
Somebody appointed you the arbiter of these things? Gee, I must’ve missed the memo.
BTW, it is incumbent upon the putative recipient of the message to be cautious for the very reason Zoe mentioned; there is no certainty that This Is The Voice Of God; it’s not like an auditory hallucination. And any one of us can be guilty of wishful thinking.
If you want to rail against the David Koreshes of the world who claim God’s telling them to kill people, go ahead, but when you encounter normal mortals who are not
blindly accepting dogma’ :rolleyes: but rather living their faith like - oh you know - regular people, then what concern is it of yours?
Doesn’t warrant disbelief, either. You can have no more certainty than can I. Do you admit that?
I think you make a valid point here I think you made some excellent points in your recent response to Poly. I think it’s perfectly valid to expect reasonable modern people to honestly consider the available hard evidence. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect the average believer has examined that evidence. The information may be available and accessible but the average believer isn’t aware. It takes generations for scientific data to become common knowledge. They need a motivation to look at this evidence and honestly consider it. Much of the public believes what they are often told without taking the time to critically scrutinize the details. Tradition and the emotional attachment to certain beliefs also play a big role. I think we’ve seen on the SDMB and in this very thread that even intelligent atheists aren’t all logic and science. They sometimes hold unfounded beliefs that are influenced by emotions rather than data, wouldn’t you say?
People are reluctant to surrender long held beliefs even in the face of evidence. The challenge is to find an effective way to get people to honestly consider the evidence and to really examine their own beliefs.
Although I see no reason for God belief to be the default, I don’t see it as illogical for people to come down on the belief side. **Voyager **recently made an excellent point talking about people believing provisionally. I think it’s healthier for people to realize that it’s okay or even expected that their beliefs may change over time. Clinging to and making tradition more important that truth is not healthy.
I agree. I think you should also admit that you look at it with an emotional eye as well.
That’s why I say judge the action. If an atheist, Hindu Muslim, Jew or whatever acts with kindness , compassion, and honesty, I celebrate that. I don’t much care about the details of his belief except for conversation. It’s how that belief translate into actions that effect me and others that I care about. I agree that religious beliefs need to be challenged. It’s good for people. Challenged is different from ridiculed or dismissed. People who pull a couple of verses out of a 2000 year old book to try and defend their persecution of others need to be called to task. People who use their belief to justify heinous acts need to be stopped. Beliefs inevitably cause interaction and that interaction challenges beliefs.
Thanks, but no; that would be a hijack, and it’s not like my specific beliefs are rare or exotic. I’m close enough to an evangelical that someone inclined to call them stupid could lump me in with them … but also close enough to yourself that someone calling me stupid might be willing to, in turn, throw you into the same bin.
I understood your post as more-or-less saying that “yes, conservatives have a ridiculous hermenutic, but mine is much better;” if I am correct in my understanding, I would just suggest that before you push the guy on the far end off into the crevasse, you first make sure you’re not roped to him.
If we didn’t think that our views were accurate, then we wouldn’t hold them. I really don’t see anything in Polycarp’s post that ridicules those who disagree with him. He is respectful to those who find value in the Ten Commandments while pointing out the dangers of worshipping them. I don’t know how he could have been more reasonable.
Science assumes “I may be wrong about all or any of this–please show me where you think I’ve made an error and I’ll be grateful to you for correcting me–this is all a work in progress, with the assumption being made provisionally that we’re correct about things that we haven’t yet shown to be erroneous, of which there are I’m quite sure many items.” Religion, particularly Xianity, doesn’t apply any particular lessons from scholarship showing that certain literal assumptions have been erroneous–it’s all “No, that’s true, that’s also quite true, yes that’s the way it works,” and then finally centuries after being shown to be wrong about its literal assumptions, they’ll concede “Okay, okay, that’s not LITERaLLy true, but it’s true as a metaphor, so it’s just as good,” as if there isn’t something morally disturbing about having deceived believers for centuries into accepting the authority of monstrous falsehoods. Science is eager for correction, while religion clings to its cloak of self-proclaimed authority in the absence of evidence.
This is the essence of cherry-picking. Poly claims to believe in the literal Bible a little bit–that God exists, that Jesus said some of the things he’s quoted as saying, and I-don’t-know-what-all-else. Other parts he feels free to reject in their entirety, and other parts he accepts metaphorically as true. I’m fine with that–in fact, I take the same position, as do many atheists. It’s just the proportions that we interpret differently: the parts I accept, or find beautiful, or find useful as parables about the human condition, are much smaller than those Polycarp does, and I choose not to accept the assumption that he makes that God is a real entity. But because he and I differ in the passages we choose to accept in an ancient text, my position gets universally reviled in the U.S., I am ineligible to seek higher office (I’d make a really good Congressman, btw, and an excellent Postmaster-General) and am discriminated against as a child in school and routinely endure a lifetime of bias crimes that are taken for granted as No Big Deal, Quitcher Bitching, while Poly gains universal praise for speaking openly about his religious beliefs (yes, I understand he’s also beloved for many other reasons, many of which stem from his belief system.) The vast majority of Americans find professing belief in a Deity to be praiseworthy in itself, and the absence of that belief to to indicate a lack of morality and character, which I find extremely disturbing if what each of us truly believes is (as I assert) subjective and unknowable.
It doesn’t bother you to make this stuff up and then to repeat it after having been shown that it is not accurate? Do you not think that that harms your case just a wee bit?
Can you provide an actual example of a “literal assumption” that took “centuries” for Christianity to acknowledge was not a “literal” event?
(Let’s get the common misunderstandings out of the way immediately:
Augustine of Hippo had pointed out the moral nature of the text of Genesis around 400–nearly 1,400 years prior to the discovery by (Christian) scientists that the world was created and built up by a series of natural events over a great many years.
The Catholic church had accepted the Galilean concept of the Copernican model fewer than 100 years following his trial.
Most major Christian denominations (including the Catholic Church) had accepted the basic premise of Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection within thirty years of his first publication, (actually around forty years prior to the work of (the Christian) Dobzhansky’s work that provided the framework of the mechanism of Evolution).
Most major Christian denominations have been at the forefront of providing scholars who have performed critical analysis of the scriptural texts that have demonstrated that events such as Exodus and the Davidic Kingdom were either exaggerated elaborations of much smaller events or imagined for the purposes of moral instruction.)
It’s all connected. I don’t think you can discuss the OP without discussing all of it.
A lot of great discussion points here. I’m sorry I’m unable to participate fully, but with the new job (IT support for a catholic hospital system…can ya stand it??), so I can’t devote my full attention to it. I am still interested in reading all the other posts so I hope you guys continue on with the thread.
But if you look and look for thousands of years and all you find is a deer, wouldn’t you figure they were just mistaken? That they just kind of worked themselves up…got caught up in it all? Didn’t the Our Lady of Fatima thing (hope I got that right) report of thousands of people claiming to have witnessed the sun crashing into the Earth? They’d all swear to it. But it simply didn’t happen. We know that to be true because we’re all still here and science tells us that gazillions of tons of flaming hydrogen and Earth don’t mix.
Meh. I thought the OP was trying to prove that attacking the intent of someone who says or implies you’re ignorant was an act of stupidity, and often an act of reflexive group stupidity when the pile-on starts.
As for a more generic analysis of religion specifically… well, of course established religions cling to their myths and rituals. That’s what “established” means.
[bolding mine}
I like the way you put that. I came to a point where it seemed more important to seek truth rather than cling to tradition. My beliefs really began to change after that. There are lots of different, often conflicting, things that are widely accepted by different groups. The desire or need to agree with the group you are comfortable with can be pretty powerful. It can be real tricky sometimes to challenge specific details of doctrine without someone feeling like you’re attacking their entire belief system.
No, the witnesses said the sun “danced in the sky.” Some of the descriptions said that it seemed as though it was hurtling towards the earth, but no one claimed it there was an actual collision.
And you’re not calling me a fucking liar or anything in GD, right? Of course not. :rolleyes:
I’m talking about the insistence the church(es) had on a literal reading of Genesis for centuries before Darwin had proven evolution scientifically (to the degree he he proved anything) but people had speculated that maybe the Genesis story is kinda made up fiction invented by people who didn’t really, you know, know anything about the way the world came into being. The way some dumbass like Bishop Ussher wasn’t hooted out of his pulpit for suggesting pseudo-scientific bullcrap, while people who suggested a longer timeframe were ridiculed for their anti-authoritarian ideas. The way the church wasn’t in the forefront of the movement suggesting that their Biblical version of the world’s origins (and other scientific stuff in its very earliest stages) was pure fiction but instead insisted that it was solid fact. You know, the way people swear on Bibles in some primitive cuiltures as a sign of their devotion to the purest form of truth?
I wouldn’t object to getting back to the OP, though, and some of the early points about the more useful dichotomies I laid out for your consideration, which point to differences that are real and not just insulting.