I guess I really don’t get how you can be negative on religion, and not have the slightest bit of disregard or lack of respect for someone who holds that view. Maybe you could help me out here.
Well, as Anne Neville points out above, love isn’t always enough. There have been several people who I have loved who I have chosen not to marry because of various types of incompatibility. I think no less of any of them because of it, or affect my opinion of THEM…I just knew that neither of us would be happy in the RELATIONSHIP. Totally different concept.
But it would be a good idea to limit yourself to people who are OK with your not practicing a religion. That doesn’t necessarily mean an atheist, though it does rule out some religious people. If you would be uncomfortable with a spouse going to church/synagogue/whatever every week, that rules out the people to whom that is important.
And then there are things like keeping kosher, which is a whole 'nother ballgame. Since keeping kosher to some people’s standards requires that no non-kosher food ever be cooked in their kitchen, it would be very hard for them to live with or be married to someone who didn’t keep kosher- the non-kosher person would basically have to keep kosher at home, which is quite a bit to ask of a non-Jew (especially at Passover).
My personal theory on mixed-faith couples is that they work best when one or both partners aren’t really involved in their religion (or lack thereof), and where neither partner wants to change the other’s faith or lack thereof. There are atheists who I would say shouldn’t seek out anyone except another atheist for a relationship (Der Trihs being an example), and atheists who could make a relationship with the right religious person work. There are religious people who I would say shouldn’t look for a relationship with someone outside their religion, and religious people who could make a mixed-faith relationship work. It’s not as simple as “mixed-faith relationships never work” or “mixed-faith relationships can always work if the people involved are willing to work at it”.
I was not implying that I couldn’t look them up. It was your assertion, not mine. I was asking you to make a cohesive and comprehensive support of your claim—to help me understand why you felt that way. And I should be required to figure out your rationale? Of course, it is still possible—and maybe likely—that I’ve been conked in the head recently.
And so hyperbole isn’t a surrogate for a cohesive, rational discussion either. Nor is the buckshot, “I’ve read all the threads at SDMB on this topic, and I already know your argument so I don’t have to have one.”
FTR, I had no argument. In fact, I am of the distinct opinion that the SDMB is a virtual cesspool of ignorance on many topics, and the bible is one of them. For every poster who is actually knowledgeable about the bible*, there are 500 whose only talent is something called “Google-Fu.” (recently “Wiki-Fu” seems to be the surrogate of choice)
I was simply trying to ascertain which group you belonged to.
Toward that end, I just asked you to support your claim. So far, you haven’t. (in a cohesive way anyway) I’m more interested in what you have to say, then you saying ‘what I’m going to say.’ I’ll take care of what I’ll say, Ok?
If you don’t have a working knowledge of the bible, that’s perfectly fine with me, I don’t care either way. If you do, I’d be interested in seeing your thoughts. It really is that simple.
(*IMO, one need not be a scholar. (a term that comes cheaply, so it seems) However to have a working knowledge of the bible requires a substantial investment. In spite of the fact that the bible is the most widely distributed book in history, very few people actually have a working knowledge of it. (especially in modern times) Still, most people have had some exposure to it, through childhood, church etc. I suspect that exposure and the advent of Google/Wiki/Online Bibles w/search features etc have most posters eager to post.
So what’s your story? You posted some texts, without comprehensive commentary that shows a knowledge of the texts. If you’re knowledagble about the topic, I’d love to hear it–even if makes me look like an ass. :dubious: .
Since you mentioned “hell”, we can start there. Cool?)
(Btw, you mentioned you’ve read all these threads. Great! However you haven’t shared your thoughts. Further, I’ve read the same threads and in my opinion and experience there are only a handful of posters—and I’m mean that literally---- that have a real knowledge of the bible. And, imho, only one (1) poster here renders that knowledge free from political, humanist or other biases; a poster that renders the texts in an objective straight forward and highly informed way: FriarTed.)
I’ve been a bit busy the latter part of this week and by the time I got back to this thread, your response to my post #61 had already been thoroughly rebutted by DtC and others.
You have not responded to their rebuttal.
I have a particular fondness for a certain car that I owned in my late teens. In my mind, it was and is a great little car, and I believe that at an emotional and quite deep level. I’m quite capable of raving about it for hours to anyone who will feign interest while covering deep boredom.
However, the reality (while it pains me to say so) is that while the car had its good points, frankly any similarly sized and priced modern car would would piss on it on every single point of rational comparison (Ouch, typing that hurt. Seriously.).
If I went to a car discussion board and participated in threads discussing the merits of similar cars and advanced the proposition that this car was particularly outstanding, I’d get ridiculed from left, right and centre. I would have no poor opinion of posters who would do so. I would just have been a twit to have expected any different.
This post is a particularly good example of precisely why IPU, FSM and MSP arguments are necessary.
I guess by “free from bias,” you mean “from a highly confessional standpoint.” I like Friar and I agree he’s well educated on the subject but he’s hardly unbiased or objective. I don’t know what you mean by a “humanist bias” but I suspect you mean non-devotional, which is no bias at all and is a position which must be adopted at least provisionally if one expects to be able to do any legitimate, critical analysis at all. If you go into your study with an assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that all Biblical miracles really happened, that it describes literal, historical events, etc. then you’re not being objective. You come off as arrogant when you declare that no one around here is your peer when it comes to Biblical knowledge, especially when your criteria is largely based on how much an individual agrees with your own theological readings.
If I recall correctly, I’ve actually argued for your position on the existence of a “Hell” concept in the Bible and against chad’s* (I think I feature prominently in some of the threads that chad is referring to). If had a bias “against” Christianity or the Bible I would try to argue FOR the existence of a hell concept but my objectivity and desire for accuracy does not allow me to do that. I have nothing to gain for my lack of theistic belief by arguing against hell, so I, for one, don’t have any “humanistic bias” about examining the question and arguing a conclusion. Whatever you think of the Biblical knowledge on the SDMB, you don’t need to poison the well by pronouncing it a “cesspool” before anyone even opens their mouths.
Far be it for me to describe another poster on the SDMB as supercilious, Sarahfeena, so I’ll just call this some pretty blatant selection bias. It sounds to me like you’re going to hale your kids into church unless they can write a doctoral thesis on why religion has no meaning to them. How about if they just say “Because there’s not a shred of evidence for god’s existence, every argument anyone’s ever suggested for his existence is deliberately equivocal at worst, infinitely recursive at best, and none of them hold water, even if there were some infinitessimo that augured for the supernatural, there’s no way to choose between the hundreds of conceptions of the divine actively worshipped today, not to mention the thousands of others from antiquity, and if if all that weren’t the way it is, the god they talk about in your church every week is one of the worst possible contenders because he’s supposedly omnipotent in a world that’s consumed with suffering; ergo, he’s directly responsible for grandma’s cancer, and crib death, and child sex rings, and the cancellation of Arrested Development, and the dissolution of the Antarctic ice sheet, and the taste of brussels sprouts, and the fact that right now army veterans are trying to keep warm sleeping on a steam grate while lying in pools of their own piss; he could fix all that with but a thought, but he not only chooses not to, he’s the one who made all that stuff happen in the first place.”? (Or, the shorter version “If he exists, he’s a dick.”)
While I can concede the possibility of eternal existence in a state of spiritual lostness as “Biblical truth”, I can only reconcile it with my belief in Yahweh/Jesus as a God of Ultimate Love & Justice by taking either the C.S. Lewis position
(Damnation is Self-Imposed Exile from God) or the Eastern Orthodox position
(Damnation is Willfully Chosen Hostility to God in the Full Light of His Presence).
I think eventual Annihilation is more likely but I hold to the possibility of eventual
Reconciliation for every soul/spirit to God.
May I remark that it’s really odd that we all are in harmony on this- Dio the Cynic, raindog the Russellite (are you JW or Bible Student), and myself the rather unorthodox Assembly of God-ist.
That’s a pretty good explanation. (Not the shorter version. I think I would need a little bit more meat than that.) I was attempting to answer what I believe was kind of an unfair question, anyway. The one kid I have right now is 2 years old. I have no idea what kind of person she will grow up to be, or what all the various reasons or circumstances she might have for not wanting to go to to Church. All I am saying if that if she is old enough & has formed enough of an opinion to have a good reason not to attend church, I might well consider allowing her to make that decision. If she doesn’t meet this criteria, then how can I do anything other than what I think is in her best interests? Kids don’t want to go to school sometimes, either…should we just let them stay home & forget about it?
Oh, please…don’t be so uptight. That was a joke. I guess I should have put a after it.
I’m sorry you think my POV is on par with that. I am not sure exactly what I have said that you find to be so ridiculous. I am religious. I have no problem whatsoever with people who aren’t, and in fact, rarely even think about it. I DO have a problem with people who think less of ME because of religion. I guess that is the part that compares to you and your car…that I should just EXPECT people to think less of me for this. I am sorry, but I don’t think it’s analagous, no matter what kind of board I am on. If I came on here and flamed people right and left for their non-religion, then I would expect people to think less of me. JUST by virtue of being religious though, doesn’t seem to warrant it, IMO. Why is it OK for non-religious people to be intolerant, but not OK for religious people to be intolerant?
If, when you refer to “certain people who don’t seem to have any regard for the opinions or feelings of others”, you refer only to people who simply flame the religious for flaming’s sake, then fine, I agree with you.
But that is exceeding rare. 90% of the people around here who express negativity and scepticism about religion do so **by ** reciting facts and logic, and **because ** they are expressing their heartfelt beliefs. That may be unpalatable to you, that may hurt your feelings and trash your opinion. Tough luck.
Don’t come to a rationalist message board and expect anything different.
In a single aphorism: if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don’t get annoyed at the chefs who’ve turned the ovens on: they may have done so with regard to your comfort, but that is not their priority and nor should it be.
We have been told people would mock us and ridicule us. In fact we should suffer this burden gladly.
Where we have failed, as a group, is that we have been just as hardhearted and mean spririted as non-believers. Often even moreso. Even when we have explicit instructions from our God instructing us not to be that way.
Every religion has its detractors. Just as the example given by Princhester, any view held strongly; religious, musical taste, favorite cars- can and will be disputed by another.
The persecution complex suffered by Christians is tiring. Of course, given the history of Your People, we should expect no less. But the *rest of us * have learned so much about biology, medicine, other cultures and creeds; heck- we have advanced greatly in the last 100 years in all the diciplines of science- that we are frustrated to tears that many Christians insist on clinging to outdated parable and ancient social laws that simply exclude so many kinds of people.
The Biblical commands as to who should be stoned, shunned, ostracized, and rejected is a list so long that I don’t understand why some of you aren’t ashamed of it. The violence depicted in the Old Testament is just more proof that hate and prejudice can be encouraged by your faith. The love, enlightenment, and inner peace that many devout Christians describe is obscured (for me) by all of the hate and retribution that I have read.
If we mock and ridicule; it is because we see so much hate and prejudice in your beloved book.
Look, I am not really all that sensitive, and this is getting a little out of control. My original comment was in reference to poster such as Der Trihs. If anyone here can find facts and logic in his arguments against religion, then I would love to have them pointed out, because I sure don’t see it.
As a rule, atheists are neither hard-hearted nor mean-spirited. They’re no different than anyone else. If you believe that you are “just as…” then exactly what benefit is there in belief over non-belief?
Sorry for backtracking, but I know that Shodan is smarter than this.
The above statement is precisely as true (or untrue) for theist morality as it is for atheist morality. You take it on faith that the God of the Bible exists, and you work from there. I take it on faith that human happiness is important, and work from there. Any non-theist who argues that any action is right or wrong, or that someone “should” or “shouldn’t” do something is not making a meaningless statement. He is saying that a given action is inconsistent with our presumably shared premises about morality. Since almost everyone concurs that happiness is inherently better than misery, it seldom occurs that I can’t make a moral judgement of someone else’s action.
Actually, a secular morality often requires less faith than a nonsecular one.
For example, if I believe I shouldn’t kill someone because God doesn’t want me to, then that’s two aspects of faith - that God exists, and that the desired goal is reached; God is happy. On the other hand, if I as an athiest believe I shouldn’t kill someone because it would be a punishment to their family, that’s only one aspect of faith; that punishing their family is a thing to avoid. The desired goal - no punishment - can be observed to be done. So a thiest’s morals often require more faith than an athiest’s.
after it.