Anne Neville’s post reflects what I’ve read on the subject; that coveting something is a far more involved action than just thinking about something.
It’s hard to know what to say and when. I’ve raised a few hackles by being a little to blunt and direct. Only MHO of course but I think you did confront the girl tempted by adultery simply by mentioning the moral context. In the case of the braggart I would think that would be a perfect opportunity to point out what an incredible hypocrite he was being by being so disrespectful and immoral about woman and still criticizing you. It’s not a matter of reasoning or convincing him you are correct. Even though the effort might seem wasted you never know when a heartfelt sincere statement might plant a seed that is nourished later by someone else. I also think that on occasion speaking directly about what we think and feel is as much for us as whomever we’re speaking to.
<snip>
How small? How do you arrive at that number? Even if we see examples of hypocrisy does that mean those people aren’t making progress?
The brand name of the vehicle doesn’t really matter, it’s the journey. It’s not for you or I to say which vehicle is the right one for someone else.
I agree. Oddly enough, rather than a blanket acceptance of beliefs as a personal off limits subject, I think confrontations and challenging the beliefs of others is the way to understanding and progress. We can honor someones right to choose their own path while speaking bluntly about how that choice effects ourselves and others.
I would note that even with it’s superstition religion and religious people have been an integral part of the progress mankind has made. The spiritual component of mankind remains an unsolved mystery which we are still exploring. Organized religion with all it’s issues is still a part of that. The key is stressing the personal transformation component of most religions rather than ritual and lip service to religious icons.
I would agree that there is plenty of hypocrisy. I’m not convinced it will vanish if we make the switch from a religious approach to a more philosophical one. We don’t need to abandon religion as a whole to transform it into something that stresses rationality and causality. People are made up of emotions that are connected to how we judge morally. Reason and logic are good tools but they cannot e the only tools. That’s not how humans are built.
highlight the text you want to use quotations on and click the word balloon in the tool bar.
I did confront the girl, but not from a religious/antireligious standpoint. As for 'the braggart, as I mentioned in my original post, we were in a bar, drinking, and in my experience very few semi-drunken debates are at all productive. I believe I did draw his attention to his hypocrisy, but I didn’t push it any further. You’ll have to trust my word when I say that arguement would have been futile. As for expounding personal beliefs, I would agree with you; it can be carthartic, but I do not wish to interject them where they aren’t welcome. The people who are most likely to find truth in the things you say are also the ones who aren’t adverse to hearing your thoughts in the first place.
I think this stems from sloppiness of the post which it responds to (which I wrote-poorly). What I was originally trying to express was the idea that the people who best exemplify the tenants of their respective faiths (and thereby seem to derive the greatest benefits from them) are the most neutral personalities to begin with. (As to how I arrived at this, it is almost strictly through personal experience.) I honestly cannot argue that even the worst Christians aren’t improved by being Christians. Maybe without Christianity (and the other religions) we would still brutal savages, at least moreso than we are today. More on this below.
From the first sentence in this quote, I am guessing you’ve never been expelled from a house for your religious beliefs, or lack thereof. I have. (In the interest of fairness, it was have a prolonged and heated debate.) And I learned from that experience. I am not as vocal as I would sometimes like to be; if questioned I will state my Atheism, and possibly give a brief explanation of how I arrived at the stance. If someone is genuinely interesting in hearing my opinions, and it seems likely that we can discuss/debate like adults, then I’ll gladly comply. But I do not try to proselytize anyone, because I know how annoying that can be, no matter what the person is ‘selling’, and I do not wished to be considered the Atheistic equivalent of a Evangelical Christian. It is my desire for people who do not know that I don’t believe in ‘God’, to, upon learning this, say-‘He’s a good guy, and he doesn’t need ‘God’ as a perpetual motivation to be one.’ I think that sort of revelation may well do more to change the way people view Atheism than anything I could possibly say.
The influence religion has had upon shaping the modern world isn’t a topic I am an authority on, so I will not pretend that this is a statement I can refute. I cannot write that last sentence without a passing mention of all the deaths accumulated in wars fought in the various names of ‘God’-I would like to see someone try to equate the travesties of the Crusades with ‘progress’.
That being said, let us suppose that religion has been the key impetus that has brought us to the world as we know it. Have we not finally come far enough (scientifically, if in no other aspect) to dispense with the fairy tale ever afters, and stand up to reality, as best we understand it? To me religion is that shabby blanket that we thought had magical powers when we were young-the one that we clutched until we fell asleep, certain that it would ward off the goblins and ghosts and spirits lurking in the darkness. Yes it was comforting and there is an inherent fear of letting go of things which comfort us, but how ridiculous would it be for a 40 year old man to walk around clutching the last shred of his blankie, as if he still believed it to be as magical as his parents told him it was when he was young? That pathetic man, to me, is the modern religious community.
Every day we exploit scientific phenomena so complex that only a century ago it was considered stuff of fantasy. Even if the average person cannot grasp the workings of these wonders, can’t they grasp that they work-and that they do so on principles which someone has discovered and researched so meticulously that they not only understand them, but have harnessed them? How many of these principles, which in millenia passed were understood only as the will of ‘God’, do our greatest minds have to capture and set before us before we, as a society, can be forced to part with the fabric of unreality, of conjecture and superstition, and realize that our blankies were never magical, and thus pitch them into the woodstove, where they belong?
Yes, but if the rituals aren’t necessary, why obey them? Why must these transformations be thrust upon people with imagined rewards for those who obey and imagined tortures for those who do not? Doesn’t anyone feel that being just is reward, and impetus, enough?
I would agree with that statement, but the reason that Christianity draws my ire is that, by proclaiming yourself a ‘Christian’, you are making a promise to make your best attempt to follow that faith. People can dance around this point and say that they’ve never promised that to anyone in particular and thus aren’t liable to anyone in particular either, but this is inane. If I call myself honest, then, in effect, I’ve made a promise-to the world-not to lie. When you accept a lable, it is your duty to try to live up to it-and perhaps that is the reason religious hypocrisy riles me so. Not only are people making the promises, but many seem to do so without the first intention of trying to fulfill them. (Incidentally this is also the reason I am so enraged when policemen, congressmen, judges, and other people who’ve sworn to serve the public interest are found to be breaking the very laws they are supposed to uphold.)
All I can say to this is that emotions aren’t baseless; although we might not understand as much when they overcome us, they arise from the things we believe. Our emotions don’t create our judgements, they are the products of it.
Reason and logic are the foundation of every technological innovation ever made; it is man’s superior capacity for these that separate him from the rest of the animals. If you are proposing that we suspend these things for periods of time, pray tell what should we pick up in their stead? Unreason? Illogic? If you are suggesting that we supplement reason and logic with something else, what would that be? And, no matter what your answer may be, in what way could it possibly improve upon the conclusions we would draw using reason and logic alone?
I know that humans are not built this way, per say, because we tend to magnify things that happen to us and those we care about. But, if I can come to that conclusion, then can’t we all step back and try to view situations objectively whenever we realize that our reactions are extreme? It may not be a natural trait, but it can be learned.
Thank you. Your answer was very good. I’m especially glad that you mentioned possible divergence within each tradition.
I recall that as a “believer” I couldn’t quite believe that an instance of sexual attraction, even dwelling on it a bit, was enough to constitute sin. I developed an interpretation that was pretty similar to what you outlined as “at least one Jewish interpretation.” It wasn’t all that easy a sin to commit in my view.
Because I still had this in the back of my mind I was predisposed to think that, even if Judaism placed some “conditions” on just what constitutes coveting, there would probably still be no big difference.
I think, though, your evaluation of how some, perhaps many, Christians look at it is accurate. And that does make a significant difference, so point taken.
True Blue Jack
Agreed that more is involved than just thinking about something. See my post above in reply to Anne. 
There was a regretable limitation in my choice words in saying, “As far as I can see, coveting is mental, not actual.” I meant “mental” to involve thoughts, emotions, and the will. Especially the will. But I never said anything to make that clear.
True Blue Jack
There’s a lot of variance within both Christianity and Judaism. It’s hard to say what “Christianity” or “Judaism” says on a particular topic, because different denominations and different people within denominations interpret things differently.
That’s true even if you believe that the Bible was dictated letter-for-letter by God and preserved perfectly to this day, and is literally true. Even if that’s the case, you have to figure out what exactly is meant by terms like “covet”- nowhere in the Bible does it say exactly what constitutes coveting and what doesn’t.
They may help some people to cultivate the good qualities that the religion encourages. I find keeping kosher to be spiritual, for example, because limits on what I can eat remind me that food and drink are not the most important thing in my life. Keeping Sabbaths and religious holidays can serve as a reminder that work and everyday mundane tasks (that tend to expand to fill all time available) are not the purpose of life. Someone who can put keeping a weekly Sabbath day ahead of things like making money and getting chores done may (but not necessarily will) get some practice for when it comes time to put the needs of other people ahead of things like making money.
That’s not true of everything in life. Don’t try using reason and logic, while ignoring emotion, in an argument with your spouse, for example. And we all know people who chose a reasonable and logical college major or career path without thinking about whether this is what they like to do, and who are miserable in their jobs. Reason and logic may separate us from the animals, but emotion and beliefs are what separate us from the machines…
Another important problem with reason and logic- they are amoral. Science and technology without externally imposed ethical constraints of some sort don’t have such a good track record. Those constraints don’t, of course, have to be religious in origin, but they often are. An example: most of the countries that rejected the forced sterilizations and worse of the eugenics movement were Catholic, and were brought to that conclusion (which most people today, religious and not, of course think was the right one) by their religious ideas.
Anne Neville, I think you and I are operating from very different viewpoints, so please do not be offended by anything herein; I assure you it isn’t meant to inflame.
I can somewhat understand what (I think) you are saying about the positivity of rituals that cultivate reflection, but I still cannot grok the need for such strict and universal guidelines-unless it is to engender a sense of comraderie among those who practice the same rituals. The word ‘groupthink’ comes to mind whenever I think of such things. Maybe it is just me, but the moments of greatest clarity and reverie I’ve ever experienced (what some call ‘spiritual moments’) have usually occurred very far from the constructs of men.
For the record, yes I was contrarian child who despised ‘rules for the sake of rules’ and for whom the answer ‘Because I said so,’ was never a satisfactory response to the question, ‘Why?’
Speaking from experience, the most vitriolic arguments I’ve ever had with a female arose precisely because one or the other of us dismissed reason and logic. As I’ve said, emotions are the product of thought; they do not just spontaneously descend upon us from the ether. If you are angry, you probably think you have been the victim of some injustice. If you are scared, it is because you suspect that their is something to be scared of. If you are sad, you probably think that you are impotent in the face of something which you find disagreeable. If you consider forgiveness an emotion, then it is the product of a series of thoughts. You’ve considered someone’s transgressions against you, and weighed them against that person’s positive traits and the sincerity of their contrition and the longing you would feel if you were to banish them from your life, and you make a decision. To think emotions are somehow divorced from thought is pure folly, but what is true is that our most unreasonable, and most damaging, emotions are products of unreasonable thoughts. Replay all the arguments you’ve ever had, and I’ll bet the one word that you could use, in one way or another, to describe them all is ‘unreasonable’.
Isn’t it unreasonable to choose a major or occupation, no matter how practical or financially lucrative, without first taking into consideration whether or not you will find it satisfying?
In my opinion, ‘beliefs’ (in the religious sense) are the product of a lack of critical thought-they are conjectures made during times so far removed from ours in terms of general knowledge that it is positively shocking that they continue to exist. And reason and logic also separate us from machines, which are certainly products of those two things, but do not have the capacity for either.
This is a valid point, but why do we need hundreds upon thousands of pages of precepts, cannons, commandments, doctrines and rules? Can’t we just posit the Ethic of Reciprocity (AKA The Golden Rule) and then deduce an answer to every moral conunundrum from this? Has there been an (manmade) injustice in history which could not have been avoided had the person/people in power stopped to envision themselves in their victims’ position?
I apologize for taking this one out of order/context, but I wanted to address it last. I believe that their is no purpose to life, insofar as a fates or destinies are concerned, yet I know the idea that there is some greater plan is one of the greatest drawing points of Chrisianity. I cannot fault people for being afraid to adopt my outlook, because it can be, at times, bleek, unfulfilling, disconcerting and confusing. All of those things, however, plus the fact that I sometimes revile the idea, do not mean that it isn’t true.
So, how do you function, you might ask, if you believe that life is pointless? The answer is simple-in the place of a purpose, I have a goal, and it is; To seek the greatest happiness afforded me within the constraints of my potentialities and deficiencies, and, during this pursuit, I will endeavor to never intentionally infringe upon the rights of another to do the same.
Oh I know. I’m not talking about debate or discussion. I’m only saying when certain moments are presented then speaking your mind can be a good thing without it making any perceivable difference in the person at that moment.
I’m not into witnessing myself. Usually life just brings events and opportunities. One example. At a family gathering one guest made an off hand putting down gays. Most folks, myself included, let it go without comment. My daughter called her on it and defended gays. That was ll that was said but I was proud of Danielle for seizing the opportunity to denounce hatefulness. Our best and only meaningful witness is how we are as a person and how we relate to others.
Here on the boards I’ve enjoyed hearing the ideas of others and being questioned and challenged about my own. I think it’s time for people to think about what they believe and why. Then how to act on those beliefs.
Years ago I accompanied a friend to a Pentecostal service and went to a gathering after that. One lady offered an example of turning her problems over to Jesus that I didn’t like. It struck me as an attitude of “I don’t really have to try to make things better, all I have to do is lay my problems at Jesus feet” I asked her why God should help her if she isn’t willing to put forth the effort herself. I wasn’t ejected from the house but it got awfully cold in there.
I’ve learned to honor people’s right to choose their own path and to respect the uniqueness of their personal journey. Most of us are a unique mix of some good qualities and some not so good ones. When our beliefs clash and there’s a bit of a confrontation there’s a good chance for everyone involved to grow. I do take issue with anyone who thinks their way of looking at things is obviously the superior way. It’s folly.
Then IMHO you have far too narrow a view of our modern religious community. What you describe is one small facet of a very diverse community.
I support using all the evidence available to form our world view.Fighting superstition is fine, if you limit it to things you can compile convincing evidence about. There are religious traditions that I think fly in the face of existing evidence. The concept of God or a god, remains open for discussion.
People are drawn to the light but make the mistake of worshiping the lamp. Ritual and tradition can be a positive thing as long as we don’t cling to them too much or elevate them to the point where they are the goal rather than a means to the goal.
Who gets to decide what a Christian is supposed to be? You the atheist?
I’ll respond to the rest in the AM
More on this. I agree that if you eagerly tout yourself as Christian then certain basics should be accepted. Honesty for one. Less openly critical and judgmental of others another. The cases you gave certainly apply. Can you praise Jesus and have an adulterous affair, or brag about your sexual conquests and your lack of respect for women? People do however interpret Christian responsibility differently so in more subtle cases it’s not for you or I to determine what a Christian ought to do. People sometimes struggle and fail. A moment of weakness is not the sum total of their religious commitment although they should expect it to affect their witnessing.
Interesting statement. I’m not sure I agree. Certainly our day to day moment to moment choices are influenced by emotion. Those would be judgments would they not?
PLease note that I recognized reason and logic as useful tools. The others would be our emotions and our intuitive consciousness.IMO the true spiritual journey is about the transformation of the inner person. Life isn’t made up of just conclusions either. It’s a determination to act or become different than we started out.
What is it about reason and logic that moves someone to risk themselves for another? To give of their time and energy to others in service? To go out of their way to help a stranger? What is it about reason and logic that made people stand up for the rights of others at great risk to themselves?
As I said, IMO the true spiritual journey is about self exploration and examination. Becoming aware of and learning to master the subconscious things that move us so that more of our decisions and actions are conscious ones. In Christian terms, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us.
What I’m suggesting is that with all it’s issues the religious path works for some as a vehicle for self improvement. I no longer call myself a Christian but I also realize that it is not for me to say what the correct path is for someone else.
I think we need to examine the actions that result from a chosen path and try to shift what is stressed. It’s not so important which lamp we choose to light our way if we are all drawn to the same light.
That is an important function of religious ritual (or cultural ritual, for that matter)- it helps hold a society together, which increases the survival chances for at least some members of that society. It makes people feel like members of a community, and makes them more likely to help a fellow member who is having some problem (and, of course, that means that if you have a problem, your community might pitch in to help you).
It is. It’s equally unreasonable to choose a system of religious beliefs that ignores spiritual experiences you have had that lead you to believe that there is or isn’t some sort of god or gods. I have had such an experience- I tried being an atheist, but found that I just couldn’t talk myself into believing it.
Ahh, but there’s a problem there. To whom or what does the Ethic of Reciprocity apply? 200 years ago, the idea that it should apply to black people would have been unthinkable to most people in the US. Today, it would be unthinkable to a lot of people to say it applies to animals as well as people. Ethics is complicated, and it really can’t be reduced to a one-liner.
So you admit action is necessary for people who wish to overcome their problems-then my question would be 'Is prayer?’
I doubt you mean this as I took it, since everyone thinks that their own viewpoints are superior to those that differ from them significantly, or they would not adhere to them. I am guessing that you meant that you take issue with those who proclaim the superiority of their views and try to impose them upon others-if this is the case, I agree.
Fair enough, but I would like to elucidate the passage you are responding to. I dismissed the many and varied differences between rituals and doctrines of modern religions so that I could address their central and unifying theme, that being; That there is a ‘God’, and he is observing us and will punish or reward us as he sees fit according to our actions. There has not ever been one scrap of objective scientific evidence to support any part of that statement, and I am astonished that it persists in a world so scientifically advanced as ours.
Some would call the fossil record ‘convincing evidence’ that the world is orders of magnitude older than indicated in the Bible. Some would say that the fact that humans share more than 99% of their DNA with chimpanzees ‘convincing evidence’ that the two species evolved from a common ancestor, and that men were not created by God in the Garden of Eden. Yes, neither of these sentences exactly refutes the existence of ‘God’ but they do substantially damage the credibility of the Bible. But you are right, I cannot claim with certainty that their is no ‘God’; vast improbability doesn equate to impossibility. But, since a universe with an omnipotent ‘God’ is necessarily more complicated and therefore less likely than a universe without such a being, I would say the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the theists.
It isn’t for anyone to decide. Or, rather, the decision is made by any person voluntarily accepts any lable.
Say I undergo the training and certification processes necessary to become an Electrician. Now, the day I put my add in the phone book, I have promised that I am knowledgeable about, and will obey, the laws and codes that apply to that profession. Now suppose that instead of following these laws, I parse through them, dismissing the ones I find inconvenient. I think it is safe to say that I word would get out eventually and I would be viewed with appropriate suspicion and would be forced to reform my actions or relinquish the title.
Christians, however, are not subject to the decrees of ruling bodies insofar as their ‘spiritual’ lives are concerned, so many of them go blithely about, dismissing whatever commandments or doctrines they don’t find expedient, while paying lip service to upholding the book which contains them, with the only constaints upon their hypocrisy being whatever remorse may arise in their consciences, or possibly the shame visited upon them by those close to them. Obviously this approach doesn’t work in all cases. I guess what I am trying to say is that, in my opinion, the ‘true Christians’ should get together and renounce the ‘lip service Christians’, and not allow them to go around setting the precedents for what non-believers expect when they think of ‘Christian behavior’. I’d have much more respect for Christians in general if their weren’t so many charlatans going around wearing their label.
Yes I agree that there is some room for interpretation in the Bible (from my limited knowledge), but I believe that most of the largest ideas are expressed unequivocally; such as the idea that one shouldn’t engage in adultery and that one should remain chaste until marriage. The latter of these is almost laughable to comtemplate in a society that is 3/4 Christian and in which the average male loses his virginity at 16 years of age-the average female at 17. Does sleeping with someone before you are married make you a bad person? I don’t think so. Does it make you a bad Christian? I don’t know, but it certainly isn’t ‘Christian’.
Again, emotions arise from our thoughts-I do not know how to convey this other than to ask you, the next time you experience a strong emotion, stop for a moment and consider from whence it arose. Although you may not realize it, you think, then you feel-and this goes for the even the smallest emotions.
All typed out for the moment, but more to come…
Great post, Incensed. I’ve got my eye on you!
Seconded. Incensed, you have given voice to many of my own strong feelings. (And in my opinion, you communicate in a very coherent and tactful manner. Please stick around.)
I note your first sentence, and, if recollection serves, you also previously stated that humans need to be more reliant on causality and rationality; both of these stances are ones with which I agree.
I would say that it is compassion, which is the realization that humans, despite various cultural, ethnical, religious, sexual, and societal differences, are fundamentally the same. Humans are an inherently social creature; we see another person enduring hardship, and our heart goes out to them-Why? Because we see them as reflections of ourselves, and thus any injustice visited upon them is an affront to our since of justice and propriety. People make sacrifices to help others-Why? Because they derive a sense of satisfaction from their benevolence; they feel as if they have at least partially rectified a situation they find abhorrent.
I agree with the first part of this quote, but I cannot grasp the second and third sentences. I am not trying be condescending, but I do not understand how you recommend that humans learn to master their subconscious desires or urges through the process of conscious thought, then describe the process of doing so as “allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us.” To the best of my knowledge the idea of ‘The Holy Spirit’ is pretty much what the name implies-A disembodied ‘God’ that comes to people to coax them in the proper direction when difficult decisions arise. To me, this seems to be the antipode of conscious thought, so I do not understand the statement you were trying to make, and can offer no rebuttal.
I understand that religion can have a positive influence on some peoples lives, and that many such people find its structure and tradition comforting, but one of the main problems I have with Christianity is that it is based upon ideas for which there is no scientific evidence. I begrudge people their faith because it is the product of archaic fallacy, and they have largely adopted their religions and ideas and beliefs for no other reason than because their parents and neighbors and communities mindlessly indoctrinated them with these ideas, which they themselves had never examined objectively.
If evidence in favor of Christianity arises, then I will adapt my stance accordingly, but, until that time, I feel that people, no matter what their pursuit, should start with the truth, with reality as best as it is understood, and attempt to broaden their knowledge from there. You say it isn’t for us to proclaim what paths people follow in pursuit of the truth, I say that it is inherently hard to arrive at the truth when you consult an untruth for guidance.
I won’t attempt to refute the positive benefits of social interaction; It has been proven that humans are intrinsically social beings and that separating a person from a group with which they relate is to invite illness and, in more extreme cases, death.
However I do take issue with the basis of some of these groups. History is littered with atrocities and injustices created when groups of people operate upon a flawed first premise (mainly that another group is different or inferior to them in some base way). Therefore, I take issue with any group that gathers to celebrate or discuss as fact (or at least substantiated hypothesis), something for which there is no scientific evidence. Christianity falls into this group. I do not mean to imply that I fear Christians or groups of Christians or that I think they will embark upon some sort of attemtp to purge heretics and non-believers-I do not. I am merely trying to state that an untruth, which may be innocuous enough (or even beneficial) when it is believed in single, isolated instances, can be the force that guilds armies when it is adopted by the mob.
I have no experience with ‘spiritual experiences’, so I can’t offer any criticism or affirmation of them. I will say that, if you sincerely believe that you have had a ‘spiritual experience’(ie-been touched by ‘God’ or some other omnipotent force), then I absolutely wouldn’t fault you for trying to understand this encounter through religion.
I understand what you are trying to say; The plight of African Americans in this country until the 1860’s (and1960’s) is one example of what happens when those in power are able to convince their followers that a group is sub-human. The extermination of Jews during Holocaust is another. However, I think we have reached a point of scientific advancement were we can reasonably establish a precedent for ‘being human’(ie an individual’s DNA more closely resembles that of the ‘average’ human than that of the ‘average’ chimp), and all those who meet this criterion should be ‘done’ “as you would have them do unto you.”
I understand that this position could be considered callous towards animals-specifically the great apes-but I believe, as a race (the human race) it is incumbent upon us to end the systematic exploitation and extermination of others of our species before we can fully turn our attention toward securing the ‘rights’ of other species. (I do not mean to imply that I don’t think we shouldn’t try to make parallel advances on both fronts simultaneously-I sincerely hope we do-only that we should direct the bulk of our attention and efforts toward those of our own species first.)
Anne Neville-Sorry for the delay, I would have posted last night, but my wireless crashed.
Kalhoun and Beaucarnea-Thanks for the posts; I was beginning to feel like a didactic thread-killer (and maybe I am), but this is really one of the first opportunities I’ve had to express my views in a ‘civilized’ forum, and it is nice to know that at least a couple of people understand what I am trying to say.
Also, please overlook the various typos and grammatical mistakes-my mind is perpetually 4 words in front of my fingers.
Only time for a partial response this morning.
Do you mean necessary or useful? Is concentration necessary? Is meditation? How about just focusing our thoughts? Prayer is not just asking big sky daddy for favors although I recognize it is occasionally used that way. In fact the very action we’re speaking of can be seen by some as prayer. In the midst of helping the poor our heart reaches out to try and understand and find the path to aiding them.
That is the case but just to fine tune the answer a bit I’ll note that it’s not necessary to believe your own viewpoints are superior. We can recognize that we are doing the best we can with our current information, knowing that we still have plenty to learn. Rather than superior my viewpoint is what’s works for me right now, until I have information to believe otherwise.
I’m enjoying our exchange and will try to find time this evening to respond more completely.
Just a couple observations here. I feel that communication is falling by the wayside in this thread. One, prayer is quite different from concentration or focusing. Prayer, in the dictionary I use, has nothing to do with focus or concentration:
Now, I suppose we could treat this word as we do so many other religion-oriented words, such as “god” and “love”, and say that it means something different to some people, but that would be another willfully placed obstacle in the quest for understanding between men. Prayer is a petition or exchange with a supernatural being; not organizing one’s thoughts, meditating, planning, focusing or “doing” anything constructive. If you mean to say something about the worth of those actions, those would be the words you would choose if you wanted to express yourself clearly.
Secondly, when you say things like *“We can recognize that we are doing the best we can with our current information,…” * it makes me think that you think thoughts and ideas can be classified as information. While I hate to keep referring to dictionary definitions, I feel that it’s the best way to promote mutual understanding.
If you believe there is a supernatural being that you’re communicating with, that’s your perogative. However, calling those thoughts and emotions “information” seems a bit presumptuous to me.
I hope you don’t take my objections to your choice of words as anything more than my wish for a clear, comprehensive exchange. This trend toward the free-form defining of words is one of my pet peeves. I don’t see how it serves either side of the discussion.
I see. You might be surprised to know how many Christians who do indeed believe in God do not see this being as punishing and rewarding us as he sees fit according to our actions. Many do but the details of belief concerning the nature of God and his dealings with us do vary.
Here they say.
Here they say.
I contend that your view is built on a limited and narrow understanding of the variations and nuances of Christian theology. Some may believe as you describe but it is error to think that reflects a central and unifying theme.
For brevity’s sake let’s stick to belief in God. You’re correct. There isn’t any objective scientific evidence that God is. That in itself is just not enough. That should be obvious. The spiritual journey is an inner subjective one. Many believers have experienced something they identify as the transcendent, the divine, the spiritual. God. They are neither seeking or trying to present objective evidence about those subjective experiences.
That some includes me and many Christians. If we’re only going to discuss the fundamentalist beliefs that are the easy targets we can stop wasting time. It’s likely I agree with you more often than not. Christianity is more diverse than that.
That’s true if they want to prove to you or anyone that God is. Most don’t.
How many mistakes could you make before you were forced to surrender your title? Do you know? If you did have your license revoked , but then saw the error of your ways, could you regain your license?
I truly see your point and believe it to be a valid one. I deal with churches frequently at work. I’ve met the meek sincere people and the dishonest manipulative charlatans. When there are millions of people and millions of dollars involved that’s what happens. Humans being human, even with a title. Many churches and denominations do have specific guidelines about behavior. Excessive drinking, dishonesty, adultery, etc. can result in being excommunicated. Groups like the Sojourners are doing exactly what you suggest. They got tired of the right wing fundamentalists claiming they were the voice of true Christianity and got together to say, “That’s not my Christianity, and we won’t surrender the title to you.”
Do you suppose Christians teach their children to remain chaste until marriage or do they teach that it really doesn’t matter? If I break a law occasionally should I renounce my citizenship?
When I’m thinking about the feelings I just had, which came first?
AFAICT Thoughts can evoke feelings and feelings can evoke thoughts. Sometimes our emotions are prompted by things going on in our subconscious. I’m not convinced that would be called thinking.
Okay compassion. I’m not sure how much satisfaction there is in giving up our freedom, possessions or our very lives for some abstract cause we believe in for reasons that are hard to explain. It doesn’t seem all that logical or reasonable to me. The more noble qualities of mankind, the very ones you think Christians are hypocrites about, are not born from thinking but something deeper within us. It is at least as necessary as logic and reason.
I’m sorry that wasn’t clear.
I believe the inner journey can help us grow as people. If there are subconscious motivations and issues that result in prejudice, arrogance, selfishness, fear, self doubt, resentment, we can, through the inner search and effort, grow out of these negative qualities. First we honestly recognize the negative qualities within, and make a conscious choice to purge them, believing that they can indeed be purged.
Other than that I was only saying that this process in Christian terms is often seen as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that does , as you say, guide believers toward the truth. The truth about themselves. I don’t see it as the antipode of conscious thought. It’s not looking for a foreign entity to tell us what to do, but rather it’s seeking a deeper part of ourselves. The still small voice our intuitive consciousness that can illuminate the moment.
The problem I have with this is nobody lives their life completely on objective scientific fact.
I agree that those who claim to value and seek the truth should not place tradition over facts. There are certain religious beliefs that linger on despite plenty of objective fact against them. I think growth is only hindered by that type of practice. OTOH people do grow at different rates and in different ways so we should be very cautious about criticizing others. Have you ever met someone who was brilliant in one facet but kind of a prick in other areas? How about a simple average person who has the proverbial heart of gold and contributes in that way to the lives around them? Which is superior?
You seem to think that anyone who really examines the beliefs they were taught by their parents can only conclude that it’s all bogus. That strikes me as the atheist equivalent to “If only you’d surrender your heart to God, you’d understand” Many believers do accept without serious questions because they trust the people who taught them. You’re wrong to think that’s all that happens. Many believers can tell you about their personal subjective spiritual experiences. Many beliefs such as my own have evolved and changed through an ongoing search, study, and the use of logic and reason. Do you assume it can’t really be logic and reason if the conclusion is different than yours?
I agree with this statement as written.
I think some people you don’t agree with are doing just that, starting with the truth as best they understand it, and attempting to broaden their knowledge from there.
As we make that attempt we must be willing to let go of our own prejudices, and preconceived notions. We must be willing to recognize our emotional attachment to certain ideas and have the courage to seriously question them. This kind of activity is good for people on both sides of faith based beliefs.
Those are nice definitions. I’m not trying to be evasive. Since the point at least in part is to fight ignorance and promote understanding I thought you might want to understand what prayer is for the people who actually pray.
Look at the words supplication and petition in your own definitions. Those couldn’t have anything to do with focus and concentration? Whatever the issue might be , problems with our kids, problems at work, or in a relationship, the act of taking time alone to pray about it is more than just saying “Dear God, fix these things in Jesus name, thanks a bunch” It is indeed, recognizing a problem, focusing on it, concentrating on the need and desire to handle it correctly and trying to tap into that inner intuitive consciousness I mentioned earlier. What seems to bother atheists is the form this takes. By prayer to God and asking for guidance from the Holy Spirit it appears that it can only be looking for something outside ourselves to solve our problems. I’m here to tell you, that is not the case.
I see your point and I agree in the need to clarify in communication. I do think the language in religion that places God as some being out there somewhere , or that keeps us children of some father figure needs to be altered for the sake of growth. Still, what’s the purpose of limiting the definition of prayer if it doesn’t really reflect what is going on within the person. How does that promote understanding? Sure it’s an exchange between the person praying and God, but it is more than that. IMHO to really promote understanding we must deal with the nuances of what is going on and why it actually works for people.
If OTOH you want to limit the definition in order to make it easier for you to dismiss it as nothing constructive, have at it.
Does it? It appears to me in many of these threads that there is a real effort by atheists to try and limit the conversation to objective scientific fact and use that as a means to dismiss and ridicule religion. Given the subject matter it seems completely inappropriate to me. Nobody…and I do mean nobody, lives their lives based solely on scientific objective information. Much of our lives , our morality, our day to day decisions and reactions to others is based on our subjective experiences and our emotions. To have a realistic and useful discussion about religion and beliefs we must include those don’t you think? I’m all for defining the lines drawn between objective fact and the subjective experience but in these discussions thsoe lines seem to fluctuate all too often and I don’t think believers are the only ones doing it. When I make a statement like the one I made above I am including our subjective experiences as part of the “information” we use to go forward. Why? Because that’s how people actually function. The information may is incomplete and influenced by bias. It’s not scientific data, but it is how we function as people.
I can understand that and I’m all for it. I do however feel we must be realistic in those definitions. If they do not accurately represent reality do they promote understanding?