Have a hard time respecting the moderately religious

A lot more than two.

[QUOTE=St. Matthew, KJV]
Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many
[/QUOTE]

And IMO, the best commentary ever written on that passage:

[QUOTE=Thomas Paine, in “The Age of Reason, Part 2”, 1795]
An earthquake is always possible and natural, and proves nothing, but this opening of the graves is supernatural, and directly in point to their doctrine, their cause, and their apostleship. Had it been true, it would have filled up whole chapters of those books, and been the chosen theme and general chorus of all the writers; but instead of this, little and trivial things, and mere prattling conversations of, he said this, and he said that, are often tediously detailed, while this, most important of all, had it been true, is passed off in a slovenly manner by a single dash of the pen, and that by one writer only, and not so much as hinted at by the rest.

It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the lie after it is told. The writer of the book of Matthew should have told us who the saints were that came to life again, and went into the city, and what became of them afterward, and who it was that saw them — for he is not hardy enough to say he saw them himself; whether they came out naked, and all in natural buff, he-saints and she-saints; or whether they came full dressed, and where they got their dresses; whether they went to their former habitations, and reclaimed their wives, their husbands, and their property, and how they were received; whether they entered ejectments for the recovery of their possessions, or brought actions of crim. con. against the rival interlopers; whether they remained on earth, and followed their former occupation of preaching or working; or whether they died again, or went back to their graves alive, and buried themselves.

Strange, indeed, that an army of saints should return to life, and nobody know who they were, nor who it was that saw them, and that not a word more should be said upon the subject, nor these saints have anything to tell us! Had it been the prophets who (as we are told) had formerly prophesied of these things, they must have had a great deal to say. They could have told us everything and we should have had posthumous prophecies, with notes and commentaries upon the first, a little better at least than we have now. Had it been Moses and Aaron and Joshua and Samuel and David, not an unconverted Jew had remained in all Jerusalem. Had it been John the Baptist, and the saints of the time then present, everybody would have known them, and they would have out-preached and out-famed all the other apostles. But, instead of this, these saints were made to pop up, like Jonah’s gourd in the night, for no purpose at all but to wither in the morning. Thus much for this part of the story.
[/QUOTE]

Do you have any idea how silly that sounds? I have yet to meet a Buddhist who can beat me at chess. I guess that proves that there are no good Buddhist chess players. No, wait, it also proves that there never have been and will never be any Buddhists who are good at chess. If Kasparov converted to Buddhism, I would be able to beat him.

That aside, I would guess that there are a lot of leaders and politicians who keep their atheism private, because they know that atheists are lower than Muslims in electability in the US.

Wow! I disagree with you both! Yes, some religious people are insecure, and use their faith as a crutch. But many don’t. For them, it adds richness, color, and an emotional tone of happiness and love to their lives. It makes their lives better, the way art and music make an atheist’s life better.

And, meanwhile, moderately religious people and atheists are very well represented in the historical rolls of great leaders! Someone who has doubt in God doesn’t necessarily have doubt in his own courage, integrity, decisiveness, or in the people he leads.

It can be viewed as Hebrew mythology like other world mythologies with the same value they have. Is Greek mythology etc. without value?

Many of them would say their sins are due to their fallibility and simply faith in God brings their salvation, unlike the heathen swine who will go to hell. It’s their faith that sets them apart. There’s some technical term for this view, but I don’t recall it.

Isn’t that how religion gets created? Making your own version of how to explain things without any basis in science? Isn’t that how other religions have been created? Christianity was someone else’s own version of Judaism, and all the various Christian denominations are their own versions of Christianity.

Sure sea like Christianity is resistant to changing from its source material though, hey? I read that for many decades of the early Christian church it wasn’t even a man in the cross, but rather a lamb. The paschal sacrifice. I’ll have to find the source.

That’s exactly how religions get created, but that happens either by claiming divine inspiration(John Smith, Ellen G. White) or simply “I don’t wanna”(Henry VIII). People cherry picking from religious texts is entirely a personal matter. Most people just use religion to justify their moral beliefs, which is illogical if comforting. If there was a God, the odds of your fallible human ass sharing the same moral values he does are very, very slim.

John Smith?

I’ve a question for the OP: How do you know that the people whom you call moderates really are not the ones living their religion to the fullest? Why is it you get to be the one to characterize the depth of their faith?

In many cases, you can’t. Not all relgious texts are clear. There is always going to be a legitimate dispute over interpretations in many cases. But when someone is moderate and claims moderation by simply disregarding clear teachings they find objectionable, then they are not living their religion to the fullest, as you put it.

The clearest example is Jesus’ teaching on divorce. It couldn’t be clearer: divorce is a sin unless your partner committed infidelity. He doubles down on it actually: if you divorce your wife, you make her an adultress if she goes to be with another man.

Again: Why do you get to be the one to decide that is the case? Every religion I know of has a tradition of interpretation of its scriptures and other teachings. It’s up to them, as members of that religion, to decide if the way they’re interpreting same happens to be within their faith’s tradition.

Well, since he was talking to Jews at the time, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that not all of the Jews at that time considered his teaching to be valid. Today’s Jews certainly don’t, I imagine. for the Christians, there are a number of reasons given for why the issue of divorce is not as strict in the various denominations as there are denominations. Of course, it’s up to the membership of those denominations to decide on why that is.

Also: Which John Smith were you referring to? There were a few religious leaders with that name.

I get to decide my own opinion about someone’s religious practice. Obviously my authority extends no further on the subject. But if someone wants to convince me that they are indeed a pious follower of their god, I need to hear a plausible explanation for why certain teachings are being disregarded.

As I said earlier in the thread, I’m Jewish, and in my circles it’s more rebellion than anything else. If you ask a Jew if he keeps the Sabbath or keeps kosher, they’ll usually just say “yes” or “no”. They won’t try to tell you that you don’t have to do that stuff. We all agree we have to do that stuff. Most of us just don’t wanna.

Many Christians on the other hand, seek endorsement from their God and church for their rejection of teachings.

So you’re back to evaluating the depth of their faith on how you decide their scriptures should be interpreted. IMHO, that’s not being fair.

I seem to remember that not all Jews, even Jewish leaders, agree on that view.

“No fanatic like a convert”, I guess Or in his case like someone who’s looking from the outside. Have you ever considered that, for those Christians, their interpretation of their scriptures shows that their deity has already granted them such endorsement or acceptance?

Still waiting on which John Smith you’re talking about. Can’t really discuss his views without knowing which person and which views you referred to.

Words mean things. We can disagree on tons of stuff, but words that have plain, uncontroversial meanings should not be one of them.

There’s always going to be some, but I doubt you’ll find very many who would say that eating pork is not a sin. You can defend the right of Jews to eat pork without claiming that God is okay with that. Besides, if one is offended that another would judge their religious practice, then they should look at the plank in their own eye, because they are deciding what God thinks despite clear evidence to the contrary.

I’m always open to hearing their views. I don’t have a personal stake in whether or not a Christian believes divorce is endorsed by God as a solution to a loveless marriage. But if for whatever reason a Christian is trying to convince me, I need SOMETHING. Scripture couldn’t be clearer on that point.

The Mormon dude.

The problem is, on many subjects, the Bible says one thing in one place, and another in another. I don’t think Jesus could have been any clearer about the importance of following Mosaic Law, but almost all Christian denominations say you don’t have to, because Paul, who didn’t believe a word of Christian doctrine for most of his life, quickly saw that he couldn’t sell the Gentiles on following it.

I think you must mean Joseph Smith.

I agree. My own interpretation is that Mosaic law still applies to Christians, except for things that expressly changed as a result of Jesus’ ministry. For example, why would you offer sacrifices anymore? So while I lean towards Mosaic law still being valid(then again, I’m biased being Jewish), I understand Christian denominations thinking it does not have to be followed.

I do, however, have two beefs with the way they do that:

  1. “Fulfilled” doesn’t mean abolished. They basically seem to be saying the Law exists, it just doesn’t have any practical meaning
  2. They still follow the Law, they just aren’t clear about which parts they still follow.

But since there’s a ton of wiggle room on that issue, I don’t press the point.

However, things Jesus himself said, you would think that would be taken by all of his followers as Holy Writ.

Ah, yes, thank you.

Of course not. Besides, Jesus didn’t say anything about the law being fulfilled, which makes no sense anyway, because laws aren’t fulfilled, prophecies are. He said the Law would be in effect until heaven and earth pass, and ALL is fulfilled, meaning all the prophecies.

[QUOTE=Jesus, King James 2000 Bible]

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[/QUOTE]

And he prophesied all kinds of crazy things:

[QUOTE=Jesus]
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
[/QUOTE]

None of those prophecies has been fulfilled yet.

If Jesus was just talking about his crucifixion, then he would be devoting a major part of his most famous sermon to telling everybody to be sure to obey the Law for just the next few months. Ridiculous.

Yeah, that’s how I see it. But he did change some things and some things were just automatically changed. Plus there are some parts of the law that expressly apply only to the Israelites, plus some laws that only apply to Israelites living in the Holy Land vs. other laws that apply “wherever you may dwell”. The nature of Mosaic Law itself creates interpretation problems simply by the fact that there’s no Temple. You offer sacrifices to the High Priest of the Temple, but what do we do when there’s no Temple? That’s where interpretation comes into play.

But then there’s resting on the Seventh Day. We can interpret rest, but it’s awfully hard to interpret it to mean going to work.

Well, you’re not the one who gets to decide what it means in a particular other group’s religious writings for them today.

Actually, a whole big movement in Judaism said that very thing: not following the laws of kashrut is not a sin for them. And that’s the rabbis talking.

Huh?

You also are not the one who gets to decide that a particular other group’s religious practices are etched in stone or forever bound without change to their earlier writings. There are groups who consider not only scripture but also tradition as determining “the will of God”; and there are groups who believe in an open canon of scripture to determine “the will of God”.

If you’re going to chastise them, perhaps you should know what you’re talking about. The founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was Joseph Smith, Jr.

Depends on the context. People have religious freedom. I don’t get to decide what their religion means to respect that freedom. Neither do courts, for that matter. Religion is personal.

However, if we’re going to debate an issue like whether the moderately religious are truly religious to the outside observer…

Doesn’t surprise me that SOME people feel that way, but even among secular Jews it is not a mainstream thing. Ask any Jew on the street if it’s a sin to eat pork and they’ll say, “Of course!” while munching on their bacon. Most Jews don’t feel the need to have God endorse their rebellion.

But I do think it’s reasonable for me to ask by what authority they change Scripture. Do they believe it came from God? Do they have an explanation for why He changed His mind and guided the hearts of a few, leaving his flock divided and squabbling?

No, I don’t get to decide what people’s practices are valid, but I also don’t have to accept faulty logic. Faith and reason are supposed to be compatible, but when words cease to have meaning and religion is just whatever morals society already endorses or frowns upon plus deity, then reason has completely left the building.

I neither chastised the Mormons nor Seventh Day Adventists. As a matter of fact, I find both sects to be refreshingly true to their beliefs. It’s mainline churches that seem to draw people just looking for endorsement of their personally held beliefs.
I get that for those of us who don’t have much use for religion it’s nice that many religious people are abandoning the harder teachings that can make them no fun at parties. But if we embrace reason, HOW they get there matters as much as them getting there. One of the historical problems with the “moderately religious” is that they tend to be the first to fall prey to modern day messiahs, while those inflexible fundies tend to hold on to their faith. We atheists tend to know better as well, but since there’s no afterlife we keep our mouths shut until the storm passes.