Have a hard time respecting the moderately religious

[OurLordPeace]

@Malden_Capell

It’s like Doctor Who canon (which for many may as well be a religion); there’s acres of it that contradicts past and future episodes, but the fans explain away the contradictions. There’s episodes and facts that are embarrassing or out of fashion, so they are ignored or explained away (“The Doctor’s half-human!”). There’s tons of apocrypha and outer-canon not officially endorsed, but fans can pick and choose as they personally see fit into their own canon (the Big Finish Audios, the comics, the books and so on). But the Bible is the TV show, which fans are just as willing to be picky about or ignore the contradictions.

Does this mean that those who ignore the Doctor’s claim to be half-human, or overlook that the First Doctor almost brained a caveman, or that Time Lords are inexplicably dull and repressed despite their enormous power, are somehow deficient? Nah.

@even_sven

I am a big fan of David Allen’s “Getting Things Done” productivity method. It has really helped me to become more organized, understand my workflow, and identify my priorities at work. Indeed, I’d say David Allen’s books have a lot of wisdom and even truth about productivity, and if think a lot of people would benefit from adopting his methods like I have.

But I don’t use all of his methods exactly as outlined in his books. I don’t expect his books to be the flawless theory of everything, even if I do think they are generally wise and insightful. Some of his methods don’t make sense in my workplace. And some of them aren’t helpful or relevant to me. So I do the parts that make sense.

But I do use most of them- I find value in the coherent system he has developed, which has been used and refined for decades-- even if I find some bits kind of silly or some of his explanations a little unlikely. I like drawing on something established, with documentation and a culture around it, rather than trying to make up every thing for myself.

And of course there are other productivity methods with value. One of the big advantages of Allen’s method is they have evolved in a culture like mine- an American office. It plays well with other aspects of American office life, and it makes sense to my team. But if I worked on an assembly like or in a creative workplace, or even a workplace that has largely adapted another method, Allen’s methods might not be the best one for me to follow.

These are clever, but actually false equivalencies. As much as I appreciate things like Moff’s Law, and get frustrated and annoyed with the rudeness and ignorance displayed by non-fans of whatever we’re talking about, the fact is that people rarely (though not never, see Mormons and Scientologists) try to assign truth and ultimate importance to franchises begun deliberately as fiction.

Similarly, things like the Allen techniques are rarely given the weight attached to religion, outside of the more important stances (“party line”) of some regimes/movements.

[Reyemile]

[QUOTE=Bozuit]
Many moderate Christian beliefs that exist today were different 50 years ago. In another 50 years, they’ll be different again as the moderately religious redraw their lines once again according to the prevailing theories of what is acceptable at the time. Moderate religion is a complete mess of doublethink, question-begging and intellectual cowardice.
[/QUOTE]

@Measure_for_Measure

When I learn of new facts, I modify my opinions. What do you do?

What new facts led to the modification of Christianity?

Bozuit is claiming that moderate Christianity is changing because moderate Christians are manipulating their own religion to suit their preconceived notions of morality. Can you explain the new facts–not just changes in opinion polls or public mores–that have led moderate Christian churches to consider homosexuality, miscegenation, tolerance for atheism, etc., acceptable and not sinful?

[Steken]

@OurLordPeace

These are clever, but actually false equivalencies. As much as I appreciate things like Moff’s Law, and get frustrated and annoyed with the rudeness and ignorance displayed by non-fans of whatever we’re talking about, the fact is that people rarely (though not never, see Mormons and Scientologists) try to assign truth and ultimate importance to franchises begun deliberately as fiction.

So?

Parts of the Bible are certainly intended as “fiction” - see, for example, Jesus’ parables and allegorical stories. Reading them as such - reading any part of the Bible as such - doesn’t by and in itself make a person less of a “true” Christian.

Compare with Plato’s Atlantis. That story was almost certainly intended as allegory - and reading it as such doesn’t make a person less of a “true” Platonist.

The same basic principles applies for both fictional and non-fictional works - its fans and followers pick and choose and interpret as they see fit, and on and on it goes.

[Pleonast]

@Reyemile

What new facts led to the modification of Christianity?

Bozuit is claiming that moderate Christianity is changing because moderate Christians are manipulating their own religion to suit their preconceived notions of morality. Can you explain the new facts–not just changes in opinion polls or public mores–that have led moderate Christian churches to consider homosexuality, miscegenation, tolerance for atheism, etc., acceptable and not sinful?

You’re answering your own question. Christians are changing their religion based on their changing understanding of God and the world. And this is expected, the Bible itself describes how belief changes over time and within people.

[even_sven]

@OurLordPeace

These are clever, but actually false equivalencies. As much as I appreciate things like Moff’s Law, and get frustrated and annoyed with the rudeness and ignorance displayed by non-fans of whatever we’re talking about, the fact is that people rarely (though not never, see Mormons and Scientologists) try to assign truth and ultimate importance to franchises begun deliberately as fiction.

Similarly, things like the Allen techniques are rarely given the weight attached to religion, outside of the more important stances (“party line”) of some regimes/movements.

Again, you are trying to prove moderate Christians are inconsistent by judging them according to the standards of fundamentalist.

I don’t think moderate Christians give religion the weight you claim they do.

[Reyemile]

@Pleonast

You’re answering your own question. Christians are changing their religion based on their changing understanding of God and the world. And this is expected, the Bible itself describes how belief changes over time and within people.

But how does this make sense? Did God approve of the persecution of homosexuals once, but doesn’t any more? Or did he never approve of it, and 1900 years of Christians were all wrong?

And again, what facts led to this changing conclusion? If religion changed simply to accommodate the social preferences of its adherents, then the OP’s point is supported and moderate religion seems to suffer from inconsistency. In short, the fundamentalists hold the internally consistent (if wrong) view that divine morality should govern society, while moderates appear to believe that societal morality should govern the divine.

[Learjeff]

You can’t really make sense out of faith. Thomas Aquinas tried; he was brilliant and still failed, and that was before there was clear evidence that the Bible got many basic things wrong, if interpreted literally. It’s even harder to now.

Yet still, there it is: many people have faith.

I have a hard time respecting anyone who believes in Hell, or more importantly, anyone who actually worships a God who would condemn souls to eternal torment. In the abstract, I can’t! But then I think of people I know, whom I love and trust and appreciate and whose opinions on a wide array of things I deeply respect, including people who are far more intelligent and educated than I am.

Go figure. I attribute it several main factors.

The first is that we’re very impressionable as children, and for many of us, it’s very hard to cast aside early impressions. Not so much so for me, at least regarding religion. Well, it was an emotionally difficult process, but an inescapable one.

The second is that I suspect we might indeed have a genetic propensity. There’s an interesting book about this, “The God Gene”, which I didn’t find particularly compelling in its thesis, but it was food for thought and there might be something there.

The third is probably related to the second, in that our brains are designed to find causes for things, and just aren’t happy about things with no causes. My father would say “Just look at all the order in the world? What could have caused that?” My answers were easy: “(1) Just look at all the chaos in the world! What could have caused that? (2) What caused whatever caused the order? (3) The [natural] order you talk about developed as a result of evolution. No designer required.” He never finds them the least bit illuminating.

[Pleonast]

@Reyemile

But how does this make sense? Did God approve of the persecution of homosexuals once, but doesn’t any more? Or did he never approve of it, and 1900 years of Christians were all wrong?

And again, what facts led to this changing conclusion? If religion changed simply to accommodate the social preferences of its adherents, then the OP’s point is supported and moderate religion seems to suffer from inconsistency. In short, the fundamentalists hold the internally consistent (if wrong) view that divine morality should govern society, while moderates appear to believe that societal morality should govern the divine.

People’s understanding of God changes. One’s beliefs changing based on changing circumstances is a virtue, not a flaw. While God is eternal, humans and our cultures are not.

I think you’re trying to approach religion like a mathematical proof, something immutable and either valid or invalid. That’s not what it is. Religion is mutable. Compare the God experienced by Abraham to that of Moses to that of Jesus to that of Paul (and many others described in the Bible). Look at the evolution of Christian sects over the past 2000 years. The same thing continues today.

Why do you ask about our religion changing, when our entire oral and written histories describes our evolution? It is religion’s nature to reflect the society it is a part of. For example, a fact that has changed is that our society has realized that it’s wrong to persecute those of us who have different sexual orientations. So our religion is changing in response.

Asking about does “God approve” or not is missing the point. The starting point of Christianity is that “I have done wrong” and then that God has given us the means to be saved. The details of where we’ve erred are not important.

Of course, I am a “liberal” Christian and speak only mine own opinion . I’m sure others can speak for themselves.

[Czarcasm]

@Pleonast

The details of where we’ve erred are not important.

All those that were mistakenly persecuted beg to differ, and wouldn’t have minded A Voice From Above saying something along the lines of “HEY! DON’T DO THAT TO THEM!”

[Learjeff]

@Alessan

The thing about atheists who claim they don’t understand moderate religious people - I just know that if some twist of fate made them religious, they’d be utter ISIS-level fanatics. Only fanatics don’t understand moderates.

Lol. Perish the thought!

@Robert163

So then, your definition of “interpreting the bible” is ignoring the unpleasant parts?

Every single Christian religion ignores parts of the Bible. Not the ‘unpleasant’ ones, but the ones that don’t fit with their theology.

@Ken001

Atheists and agnostics believe all religious people live breathe and accept the most extreme interpretations of their religion.

This is not true.

For some strange reason its impossible for critics to recognise that most religious people are moderate and its more a matter of culture than to die for.

This is not true.

@Onyerbike

Most of everybody is nuts in their own little way.

This is true!

@Alessan

For me, religion gives the universe meaning

Thanks for sharing. I think you have a lot of company in that. It disappoints me that so many people seem to need something supernatural in order to appreciate the incredible miracle that reality is.

@bldysabba

But that’s just the thing. How do you decide these things are good and proper?

You ask God and he tells you. At least, that’s the idea. It didn’t work for me.

@Shakes

Not having to pay taxes

Religious people have to pay taxes. Churches don’t, but atheists can form nonprofit organizations too.

Ignorant atheists often talk about how the US government subsidizes religion though tax breaks. That’s not a subsidy, it’s simply not collecting a tax, and as I said above, you don’t have to be religious to get that break, you just have to be nonprofit. I wish folks would give up on this canard. It doesn’t do the nonreligious cause any good.

@Alan_Smithee

There are a couple of things people seem to have trouble getting.

Thanks for sharing.

Most religious people don’t study the Bible to interpret it; they rely on their religious leaders to do that. This isn’t ignorance or stupidity, it’s recognizing the fact that it takes years of hard study to come up with a coherent interpretation. This is similar to the fact that we don’t read Newton to learn about Newtonian physics, we learn it from a teacher who’s studied it for years and uses a textbook that has it culled down to what a high school or entry level college student can understand.

The difference isn’t in that regard. The difference is the vehemence with which one will hold to the tenets they’ve learned (in church vs. in school). Well, maybe that’s not always such a big difference!

Studies show that when political subjects are discussed, it usually stimulates the emotional centers of the brain, at the expense of the rational centers. I’m sure the same is true regarding religion. As Russell said, the things we get hot under the collar about aren’t the ones based on rational grounds.

@even_sven

Again, you are trying to prove moderate Christians are inconsistent by judging them according to the standards of fundamentalist.

That would be a mistake.

In my experience, fundamentalists aren’t any more rational or logically consistent in their theology than moderates. Even those who claim to be literalists rarely limit themselves to literal interpretations, and they ignore the contradictions or find ingenious ways to sweep them under the rug (through interpretation!)

No, fundamentalists are simply those who go to preachers who are fundamentalists, and who get all up in it. They don’t interpret the Bible literally, because they let women who are having their periods cook for men, when that is specifically forbidden in Leviticus, right near where it says “Man shall not lie with man as with woman.” They rarely give up all their money to the poor, or follow many of Christ’s similar commands.

[Reyemile]

@Pleonast

Why do you ask about our religion changing, when our entire oral and written histories describes our evolution? It is religion’s nature to reflect the society it is a part of. For example, a fact that has changed is that our society has realized that it’s wrong to persecute those of us who have different sexual orientations. So our religion is changing in response.

I’m missing something here. If religion is changing in response to societal changes, then where exactly does god come into it?

[Pleonast]

@Reyemile

I’m missing something here. If religion is changing in response to societal changes, then where exactly does god come into it?

God is the divine part of religion and what distinguishes it from simply being “culture”.

[tim314]

@Robert163

Why even bother to be religious if you are just going to make up your own version of the religion?

Well, I guess it was good enough Moses/Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha/Joseph Smith/etc.

[MichaelEmouse]

@Pleonast

God is the divine part of religion and what distinguishes it from simply being “culture”.

How do you determine which part of the religion is the God-part and which part of the religion is the culture-part?

For example, oppressing gays, was that the culture-part? Now that a lot of people have realized oppressing gays is a bad idea, we’ve discovered the God-part?

It’s an attempt to deify one’s own opinions. Instead of saying: “I hate gays and I think we should treat them badly” one can start off hating gays then find relevant parts in the Bible and say “God hates gays and wants us to treat them badly”. One can even start believing earnestly that God hates gays which makes discussion that much more difficult than if everyone admitted it was based on their own opinion.

(This should not be taken to mean that religious people are the only ones to do this. It is only the most prominent aspect of the general phenomenon)

[Pleonast]

@MichaelEmouse

How do you determine which part of the religion is the God-part and which part of the religion is the culture-part?

I don’t, because it doesn’t matter to me.

[Alessan]

@Learjeff

Thanks for sharing. I think you have a lot of company in that. It disappoints me that so many people seem to need something supernatural in order to appreciate the incredible miracle that reality is.

I am constantly in awe of the beauty, complexity and sheer magnitude of the universe, and I don’t need God to do that. I certainly don’t need God to explain how the universe works. What my belief does, instead, is help me find *my *place in this mind-shatteringly immense universe - which is something science isn’t supposed to answer. Science doesn’t care about purpose, because objectively speaking, there’s no such thing.

Call it a crutch, if you will. But it’s *my *crutch, and I like it.

[Czarcasm]

@Alessan

I am constantly in awe of the beauty, complexity and sheer magnitude of the universe, and I don’t need God to do that. I certainly don’t need God to explain how the universe works. What my belief does, instead, is help me find *my *place in this mind-shatteringly immense universe - which is something science isn’t supposed to answer. Science doesn’t care about purpose, because objectively speaking, there’s no such thing.

Call it a crutch, if you will. But it’s *my *crutch, and I like it.

Why call it a crutch? Think of it as a chair. A place to sit, observe and think.

[Alessan]

Well put. Thanks.

[Reyemile]

@Pleonast

I don’t, because it doesn’t matter to me.

If all you can offer are platitudes about god and culture and it doesn’t matter to you enough to analyze or explain, why are you in Great Debates at all? It doesn’t contribute to the discussion in the slightest.

[Pleonast]

@Reyemile

If all you can offer are platitudes about god and culture and it doesn’t matter to you enough to analyze or explain, why are you in Great Debates at all? It doesn’t contribute to the discussion in the slightest.

This discussion is about why some Christians believe what they do. I’ve given my honest opinions as a liberal Christian. If the answer to a question is “it’s not relevant” than that’s the answer you’re going to get.