Hey Robert163, still waiting for an answer…
It’s always worth remembering this whenever the moderately-religious claim their faith guides them. No, it doesn’t. Your sense of secular morality guides you into picking which verses and teachings to ignore and which to apply. These people let themselves get cold read by an inanimate object.
Good heavens. I had no idea moderate christians were such delicate hot house flowers and contrarian to boot. Do you ever remonstrate with lunatic fundamentalists like this or is it only us egotistical atheists who are capable of such rents in the fabric of society?
Deists as a group have consistent beliefs. I see no reason to believe that the universe was created by a conscious entity who no longer interferes, but you can hardly find evidence against it. They can feel better about the universe because it has a purpose while not imposing any moral beliefs on anyone else.
This is true for all Christians, moderate and non-moderate alike.
Or do you believe that only “moderate Christians” change their views over the centuries? That “fundamentalist Christians” never change their views on anything, ever? That they hold fast to a given, rigid, “true” form of Christianity, which - unlike “moderate Christianity” - never ever adapts to the times and circumstances in which the believer lives?
If so, please tell us which this “true,” non-moderate Christianity is. Is it Laestadianism? Skoptsism? Sirian Sedevacantism? Which one is it?
Exactly. In terms of morals we are all really atheists, deciding on what we like without reference to God, and then finding those verses which support whatever we’ve already decided on.
I suppose cretins who are moral blank slates who get written over by whichever preacher or fanatic they run into first are not like this, but there are no people like that around here.
Or one might rephrase that as moderate religion evolving with time, just like the science with which it frequently has to reconcile. Religions that are less amenable to change, and especially those versions practiced by fundamentalists, are at the core of lunatic fringe beliefs and their counterproductive and sometimes even violent relationship with the modern world. I would think that’s considerably worse than your philosophical disagreements with the moderates.
As a general comment in the context of this thread and not about your post, I’m not particularly a religious person (in fact, so non-religious as to be considered agnostic by most standards) but I find crusading atheists to be just about as tiring as crusading fundies. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss both have various publications out which purport to be about science, and to various degrees they are, but far too often they suddenly turn a particular set of facts into a supposed iron-clad proof that God does not exist, like a magician suddenly pulling a rabbit out of a hat. In point of fact we could spend years just debating a definition of “God”. When I see those kinds of arguments I’m inclined to enjoin the crusading atheists to give it a rest already.
In fact translating the Bible into the vernacular could get one into serious trouble.
However, while it might be true that the church didn’t want the butts in the pews from hurting their little heads thinking about complex theological matters, might it also be the case that they didn’t want the parishioners from disputing whatever church teaching their betters came up with? Much easier to keep them under control, right?
Note that the moment the Bible did get published, Christianity splintered into hundreds of pieces,
Now, if there was some nice logical way of understanding which parts of the Bible are allegories and which are true, the Church could have taught this and let people read the Bible. The lack of such a guide after all this time makes me think none can exist.
The OP seems focused on the statements made by extremists Christians, yet decries the Christians who present themselves in moderation. Besides The Bible on my bookshelf, there is no physical object the indicates I’m a Christian. If you ask, I will declare myself a Christian, but otherwise I keep my mouth shut.
I am kind and considerate of my neighbors, truthful and honest in all my dealings and never a backstabber am I. I don’t have to say I’m a Christian, the community where I live already knows it … and I enjoy their trust.
My faith lies with being a loving person, and that makes me happy and content.
Religions have certainly evolved - all religion, not just moderate religion. This is odd when you consider that they were supposed to be inspired by a being who knows the absolute truth.
If you model a real God who cares about his people, the Bible would be a lot clearer, and scientific advances would support it, not discredit it. Ministers who were amateur scientists in the early 19th century thought that exactly this was going to happen - surprise! There is no reason that Genesis couldn’t have been written about what really happened - I did this myself once. You don’t need equations or particle physics. Starting off “A long, long time ago” would be an improvement.
Please give a cite to Richard Dawkins claiming that there is iron-clad proof that no god exists. The bus ads he was involved with said, IIRC, “It is almost certain that no God exists.” Perfectly supportable. Theists owe atheists a definition, I can come up with ten types of gods before breakfast myself. You can logically disprove certain types of gods, but not all of them.
Broad brushstrokes ahead. My apologies.
I think the disconnect here is that you think that this is an improper reaction, and that many atheists such as the OP would probably say that it isn’t, the same as you’d react to an anti-vaccine activist or flat Earther.
As for it “working,” I would assume that those atheists have long given up trying to reason with most religious people.
So, why are you a Christian, and what does it mean to you?
I have several copies of the Bible on my bookshelves. I’m nice to my neighbors. I’ve been married to the same woman for 36 years and have two great kids who are now out of the house. I don’t impute any of this to my atheism.
The one difference is that my community doesn’t know I’m an atheist, because when my daughter played with kids whose parents were religious saying so might have caused problems. There is nothing good about your life that you couldn’t have without religion.
So talk about something other than religion for a change. My point is that in a lot of cases, arguing with a person of faith about religion is a poor use of your time. There are real world problems where we can find common ground with people who are moderate or non-doctrinaire believers. That’s why it’s stupid to push people away by playing this literalism game. It’s something of a bait and switch anyway: if they’re moderates you don’t respect them, and if they’re hardliners you think they’re horrible assholes. What is this supposed to accomplish again?
I agree with you 100%, it does not offend me that you don’t call upon the name of Christ. That’s your own affair and none of mine. Believe me, I’m in no position to judge you. I don’t even judge myself as well as I should.
Christianity offers a very clear-cut set of moral values that have stood quite well over time. “Thou shalt not kill” stands as good and proper as it did in prehistory. There’s just some things that have always been true.
I believe in Christ because I’m comforted by knowing I belong to something higher than just eatworksleepdie.
I hardly claimed it was a universal yardstick. It is an interesting case because much of the civilized world is undergoing a sea-change about this now, and the churches are running to catch up. To paraphrase Mr. Dooley, the church leaders may not follow the Bible, but they follow the Gallup Poll.
Where was this lovely sentiment the past 1800 years or so? Did I miss them digging up a new Bible verse saying “eh, no big deal?” The Times yesterday had a long story about a Methodist minister who got defrocked from conducting a marriage ceremony for his son who had come out. He appears to have been refrocked and has a ministry in California, natch. Did the Methodist leadership miss the memo?
Right. It was the Jews and Muslims who wanted to put the Ten Commandments in front of the court house. :rolleyes:
All that Bible stuff and the tens of thousands of books written over the centuries were all pointless, then?
Being Jewish, I’m sure my ancestors in Russia would have love Christianity being all about promoting love. Somehow, they didn’t feel the love from their Christian brothers.
Is there such a thing as “enlightened contempt?”
…I just checked. There isn’t. There’s only the old-fashioned kind.
I started out Jewish, and I can swear that you stole that Do Not Kill stuff from us.
Why Christianity? There are tons of faiths that believe in higher powers. Maybe you grew up with it, and have never wanted to examine your beliefs? However, you seem an excellent example of someone who is more moral than his god.
I grew up believing in the Bible. Not in Christianity - that is very bogus when you haven’t been indoctrinated since birth. After all, for my first 16 years no one ever let on the Exodus didn’t actually happen. Then I sat in the English book room, read the introduction to the Bible we use in AP English for the Bible as literature section, and found out about how the Bible was actually written. And the whole thing came crashing down.
But I’ve never had much need for a higher power.
More deeply, fundamentalism is a 20th century invention. Mainline churches, which can all trace their origins earlier than, say, 1880, don’t have a problem with science or evolution. Even emphasis on the Bible is a post-Gutenberg development.
Most of the Old Testament is official history anyway and most of the New Testament is speeches and parables. It isn’t exactly a falsifiable DIY manual.
Contempt about what? I have no idea what Rune’s views on gayness are. I was reacting to the denial of 1700 years (at least) of anti-gay bigotry. Which was hardly exclusive to Christianity, to be sure.
Why are the enlightened churches now enlightened? Did they discover something in the Bible they never noticed before? Did their leaders have dreams? Did they figure out that secular ethics is better to follow than religious ethics? Or did they notice that the tide of history has turned against them?
Some church people were in the forefront, but when you have no logical set of rules you get outliers, good ones in this case.
Or, as I’m sure some church leader will say soon - “We’ve always been at war with anti-gay bigotry.”
I was talking about Rune’s “I don’t care about gays!” Good for Rune, I guess. It’s kind of an issue in a lot of places.