The world has pretty much stayed the same for human history, so why are all of our maps so different?
Ignorance is a big one. We just didn’t know what was outside of our backyard. We had to rely on rumors and hearsay, and ended up with maps that were incomplete or full of bizarre conjecture about dragons and the like. We had to do what we could with what we could learn from our surroundings.
Another is priorities. Today’s maps include lots of roads and political boundaries, because that’s what affects us. Three hundred years ago, it would have been sea currents and natural obstacles.
Then there is consensus. When your entire class is using the Mercator projection, you don’t want to be the guy with that novelty map that shows Australia at the top. You need a map that makes sense in your context.
Likewise a religious practice can be thought of as a way to try to map the divine. What you come up with is going to be inevitably influenced by knowledge, priorities and culture, and will look different from place to place and time to time, but they will all be attempts of understand an essentially in changing thing.
You mean to say that without the words written in the NT about this Jesus character you wouldn’t have internalised the concept of being a humanist? You couldn’t have figured out on your own not to be an asshole? To treat people decently and just be a decent person?
Really? religious people need a book to tell them this?
I never said that. I would hope I’d have figured that out on my own. I’m just saying that’s where it started for me. Some people, including many people who are in church every Sunday, don’t appear to have figured it out. If it were that easy, the world would be a much better place. If people are decent, I don’t give a rat’s ass how they got there. I wouldn’t care if they used a bible to wipe their bungholes.
First, I don’t believe you were “only partly Christian.” I’m here arguing that we should respect religious moderation, and that people should be encouraged to tailor their religious faith to suit their personal needs.
But, at a second level, Christians must make some choices, because they cannot follow all of the things that are covered in Christianity. Just to begin with, you can’t be both Catholic and Protestant. People have a very wide latitude in choosing a denomination, but, by doing so, they are, necessarily, emphasizing certain doctrinal elements and neglecting others.
Even the most determined Fundamentalist is going to be compelled to choose between certain doctrinal interpretations.
I’m saying this is fine! Choose freely! Your faith should serve you; you shouldn’t have to serve your faith.
Too easy. Facts: Psychologists took homosexuality out of the DSM. Blacks fought bravely and competently in WWII. The most bigoted members of our society hid behind white masks. In short the same facts that shaped atheist/agnostic opinion also shaped the opinions of believers.
Well, sort of. I mean the late and lamented Polycarp’s theology was well grounded in scripture, well grounded in pre-fundamentalist Christian practice, and perfectly capable of adapting to changing circumstance.
I think the analogue to the absolute truth for all eternity would be the Bill of Rights itself, not the Court decisions that are based on it. Of course additional amendments could overturn aspects of the original 10, so the analogy isn’t perfect. I’m just saying that it isn’t difficult to point to eternal Christian (or whomever) truths while allowing for human error. Those wanting examples of such a process presumably lack sufficient exposure to fan-wank: if you can do it with Star Trek, you can certainly do it with the Bible.
Not if that eternal God has nothing to do with the religion, or any religion, true. Say God spoke to someone 3,000 years ago and has taken a powder since then. Naturally religions drift as they take on the characteristics of their leaders and their cultures. But though each leader will say that he is speaking for god, he actually has no clue about what God wants.
If God gave a shit, he could come down here and inform us of what religion, if any, conforms to his desires. The excuses for God’s absence sound like parents telling a kid that his dog went to a farm in the country.
Since God has not corrected this drift (and with n religions at least n-1 of them are drifting) he either doesn’t care or doesn’t exist. Neither offers me a reason to go to shul.
Poly was a perfect example of someone who structured theology around his sensitivities. He is a great example of someone who was a far better person than his god.
But we have all sorts of arguments about what the Bill of Rights means, not the least of which involve the Second Amendment.
Christians ret-conned the serpent into Satan, for example. The Bible is kind of like some computer languages - almost any random string you type is grammatically legal. The Bible looks more and more like some fiction written without nearly enough writers meetings to keep things consistent. Look at Genesis - it appears there were two popular legends of creation, so the editor threw them both in to keep the public happy.
So psychologists get to rewrite not only the DSMV, but also the New Testament? Christians didn’t have the information to realize blacks were real people until they fought and died on the newsreels?
The religion your describing seems to me to be an empty one, a mirror reflecting the beliefs society holds anyway, serving no purpose other than to let people pat themselves on the back and feel like they’re doing Gods work to do exactly what they originally were going to do regardless.
That is a false dichotomy: a person’s understanding of God can be between “perfect” and “no clue”.
That is your expectation of God. I do not share it.
Fundamentalist belief has the same “problem”, since Christian understanding of God has has changed considerably over time. But it’s not a problem. Every person has their own relationship with God. No one is responsible for justifying someone else’s beliefs.
Again, you’re trying to approach religion like a mathematical proof, with axioms and theorems, that is immutably valid or invalid. Religion doesn’t work that way. There’s no necessity that religion remain constant. Even “fundamentalist” Christianity is unlike any previous interpretation of Christianity, and it too is currently evolving.
You’re welcome to your own opinion, of course. I do not share it.
True if the person is giving his opinion about what God’s intentions are. The Talmud and related works are full of contradictory opinions. But I was referring to someone who claims God tells him what God wants. That is either true or false.
So, you think God doesn’t give a shit? Or that God has no rules or morals or expectations of us? That he caused us to be created and then went off on holiday? Or do you think that all the supposed documentation of God’s expectations of us is false?
This thread has all been about what moderates don’t believe, but very little about what they do believe and why. Especially the why part.
To me this boils down to the fact that Belief is not fact and once it can be proven then it is not belief, but fact. The Bible cannot be proven, any belief is from belief in another human and even being the idea of a Supreme Being is a belief.
We do know that anything written is done by another human or words passed down or a personal belief or thought. Our beliefs are in reality not of God, but from humans.
When the New Testament turns out to contradict reality, which of the two must give way?
Rather, the religion of centuries past overstepped itself. It felt comfortable, not only making declarations of faith, but also declarations about the real physical world.
Some of those declarations have been proven false. The wise religionist abandons those parts. Trim the dead branches from the tree. It doesn’t mean the whole tree is dead. It just means that it tried to outgrow its legitimate resources.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have been declaring the exact date of the end of the world for nearly 140 years now. They’ve been wrong every single time. Does that mean there is no Jehovah? Not at all. It merely means that foolish religionists have been trying to leverage their faith into issues of fact…and failing.
I’m that way about my crutches too. However, I agree with Czarcasm that this isn’t really a crutch.
I have faith in the concept that it’s worthwhile to be ethical. I don’t have solid proof of this, just a few anecdotal corroborations. So, I take it on faith. It might be counterfactual, but it helps make my life work. I wouldn’t call that a crutch either.
The question here is not about fact but about why people believe the way they do - what reasoning is behind it? We don’t have to ask why a moderate does not believe in the Flood - we can just assume she knows the evidence and rationally rejects the myth. But why believe the Bible that X is wrong and not believe it when it says Y is wrong?
Yes, everything is passed down. How does one determine whether the stuff that is passed down is worthy of belief or not?
Now, if someone says that it just feels right, I can accept that. But they shouldn’t have a fit if someone says that their beliefs are not rationally determined.
Just to add that it doesn’t really matter if the beliefs are correct or not. Plenty of people have rationally arrived at incorrect beliefs, or irrationally arrived at correct ones.
It depends on where the declarations come from. If from Aristotle, then they can be abandoned with no problem. If however the false declarations were supposedly handed down by God in the same breath as moral declarations, can’t we reject both? And also doubt that the religion had any connection to God?
We can’t reject Jehovah necessarily, but we can reject what JWs say about anything based on their Biblical interpretation.
You know, one can be deeply religious, and still understand that the Bible isn’t meant to be a science textbook, and that salvation is available to all, not just to Christians (of whatever stripe), and so on, and so on.
I question your understanding of what it means to be religious at all, let alone “moderately” religious.
I think the second point answers the first. A religious believer can say that the message, while originally from God, had to be transmitted through fallible human conduits.
God originally said it (they might believe) but the Prophets only got a muddled, purely human version of it. They had to translate it from “Pure Deity” to the language of the day. So, God didn’t make the error; people did.
(Now, of course, I don’t follow this path of reasoning. But…if someone else wants to, I don’t see fit to condemn them.)
