I just returned

[Thats my opinion]

from the annual meeting of the Westar Institute, best known as the sponsor of the Jesus Seminar. A few years back Westar developed a method of evaluating teachings attributed to Jesus, and concluded that not much of what appears in the New Testament actually came from him. It is a world-wide group of 200 scholars who will spend the next five years investigating the roots of biblical literature. Across the bay from our meeting in Berkeley, was the meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, where a couple of thousand religious types were holding their annual assembly. These bodies are composed of theologians, historians, archaeologists, linguists and philosophers who generate what is taught in every progressive seminary and in the hundreds of universities with programs of religious studies.

Not one member of either of these groups--NOT ONE-- would recognize the caricatures found on r/t from those who don't have the slightest idea about what is going on in religion, but delight in finding yummy bits of nastiness dug up from the internet. Oner wonders why we cannot engage in intelligent conversations about what is really happening in the Christian world instead of this muckraking. What appears on r/t is a side show of religious freaks whose stuff has little to do with what the Christian faith has essentially been now or in the past. If you are seriously interested in what is happening in religion, even if you want to dispute it, that's just fine. But to delight in stomping around in quasi-religious cesspools doesn't produce anything of value. But maybe producing something of value is not the agenda. If not, what is?

[demosincebirth]

1. Sorry, but that's what you're going to get here.

[darkstar3]

2. So you surround yourself with so-called theologians who make it their hobby to weed out other Scots

and then come here to tell other members of the board that they don't know what's going on in religion?

I find it amazing that you don't see what's wrong with this picture.

[madrchsod]

3. reccomend....

[moobu2]

4. Tell them that if they truly want to understand Christianity

they need to study astrology because that is all Christianity is. It isn't that complicated if you know what it is.

[riderinthestorm]

5. Personally, I am only using this site for sex. Can't speak for anyone else though.

Pssst... I don't think you are going to get along here very well if you are only going to come on and tell us all how much we suck.

[NMMNG]

6. Basically you want to pretend that *your* version of Christianity

is all there is. You want to pretend nobody else knows anything about Christianity because they expose and discuss facets of Christianity that make you feel uncomfortable. You imply others are ignorant, even liars, because they won't indulge in your little fantasy. All of your attempts to play No True Scotsman are getting pretty desperate.


Do you really think people are pulling the stories of anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-freedom theocratic Christians out of their backsides? Do you think we make that stuff up just to taunt and aggravate you? Do you expect us to believe you just because you claim that's not what Christianity is all about? Are we to believe you when you insist your position is the correct one? Those rabid bigots claim just as fervently and loudly that their position is the correct one, and they denounce you as "not a True Christian". Why should we believe or trust you over them? You work just as hard as they do to shove your religion into everything. You are as incapable of recognizing the fact that people can be good without gods, and that religion has no place in government. In many ways you are as dangerous as they are.

[darkstar3]

10. +1

[Thats my opinion]

69. I have never inferred

that this is all that there is to the Christian faith. In fact it is probably in the minority in America. But why are you so fixated on the dark side? Perhaps it says more about you than about the issue.

[NMMNG]

70. You're hell-bent on ignoring the "dark side"

and pretending those who won't do so are attacking you, lying, making up "caricatures" for some insidious purpose.


People like me can't ignore the dark side. It affects our daily lives whether we like it or not. Our basic civil rights are under constant attack by these people, who claim to be speaking on behalf of the same god and Jesus you do. They use their "religious beliefs" to whittle away at every basic right and protection we have, and to usurp every bit of freedom we enjoy. They want to eradicate the right of women to control their reproductive systems. They work overtime to keep LGBT people from marrying, having employment and housing protections, being protected from bullying, etc. They fight against religious minorities and the non-religious except when they think they can use those groups to gang up on some other minority (such as when they use the Mormons to help bully LGBT people).

Maybe you should step outside your little cocoon and find out what it's like when you're not part of a privileged, protected majority. Then you'd understand the perspective of other people and be less likely to be so bloody dismissive all the time. Try listening for once, instead of preaching at others all the time. And stop projecting your own myopia onto everyone else.

[darkstar3]

71. And his insistence about them being fictitious and/or marginal enables them further.

Which is, when you get down to it, the real crux of the problem.

[NMMNG]

72. Indeed

They know they're not going to get any resistance from people like him. That way their claims that "Christianity is under attack from atheists, gays and other ungodly types" ring truer since we're the only ones with the spine to denounce their barbarism.

[skepticscott]

74. bye. nt

[WhollyHeretic]

7. Did you bring a couple of stone tablets with you?

The self importance is hilarious.

[PassingFair]

39. No. He but he bought the T-Shirt.

[rrneck]

41. The OP's are never very good

but the replies are a riot.

:rofl:

[trotsky]

8. Then you know what?

Not one member of either of those groups - NOT ONE - is going to recognize Christianity as it is actually practiced by a majority of Christians in the United States.

It is unfortunate that you and your theological cohorts isolate yourselves, and put on blinders to to the real Christianity of the people. I can't really blame you, I mean, it IS pretty ugly. But you do yourselves and everyone else a great disservice by pretending that it's not really there.

[Goblinmonger]

9. So now we are just caricatures?

My understanding of the Catholic religion meshes pretty well with one of my best friends from high school (the minor seminary I attended) who is not a priest.

And you don't understand why people are put off by your posts?

[Lint Head]

11. The yummy bits of nastiness dug up from the internet? Jeez, they must be really deep thinking

theologians. The internet is loaded with a wide range of opinion. I wonder if any of your group considers whether the writings that underpin the Bible were subjective or objective. There was no internet when the Bible was written which was many years after any of the events in the Bible actually happened and a lot of it was handed down by word of mouth and written down later. Wonder if there were any yummy bits of nastiness back then.

[Thats my opinion]

25. This is exactly what the Bible Seminar will look at.

But in order to make sense of the stories not just to make snarky comments without any scholarly input.

[Thats my opinion]

43. You bet there were

And there have been all through Western history--religious and secular. Even beyond the oral transmission of the stories, there is the complication of moving from orality to scrolls, and then to the codex (bound books), then to printing and now to digitalization. All along the way there were changes, not only in the text but in interpretation. Even just what books comprise the Bible remained in flux for centuries.

To your first question. All of us in these forums are convinced that the Bible did not come down from above (objective) but came up out of the community. (subjective),

[edhopper]

12. In the end

you still believe that Jesus came to earth as the son of or as a part of this supreme supernatural being called God.
We find that without merit and with no evidence to support it. Further it is counter to everything we do know about the Universe.
So whatever form of Christianity you do practice, it is based on a false premise as far as we, the nonbelievers, can tell.

[Thats my opinion]

26. You must be a superior genius

to be able to tell anyone what they believe without even listening to them, or having any appreciation as to why they come to what they hold..

[rrneck]

30. So help us out

define your beliefs.

[edhopper]

32. From your various post

I assume that you are a practicing Christian, correct me if I am wrong.
And I also assume you believe in the divinity of Jesus.
While the scholarly quest of finding what part of the Bible is historically more correct is of interest, what I am saying is that in the end we are not questioning your faith on the contradictions and misinterpretations in the Bible. We are questioning your faith in something we do not think exists. That is the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God and his son.

[Thats my opinion]

44. Thank you for the last sentence.

It is the heart of our disagreement. I recognize your position and would not want to argue with you about it. Yes, I am a practicing Christian.

There is no short answer to your Christalogical question. My best response is in about 30 pages in my book, "Building a
Biblical Faith." If you want to examine it, Amazon can get you a cheap used copy.

[cleanhippie]

58. Wait, what? You just agreed that the heart of the disagreement is that non-believers question

your faith in the unproven claim that jesus is the son of/is god? And you WOULD NOT want to argue about it?



So much for your claim that you want a reasonable discussion. It seems that nearly ALL of the claims you make are lacking any sort of truthfulness. You seem to be contradicting yourself at every turn. What gives?

[Thats my opinion]

60. bye nt

[cleanhippie]

76. Bwahahahahaha! Bye? THAT is your response, bye?

I guess we HAVE figured out your MO, and it does NOT include reasonable conversation.


And you wonder why no one takes your posts seriously.

:rofl:

[Iggo]

79. LOL...wow.

:rofl:

[rrneck]

91. If we keep asking uncomfortable questions

he'll have the entire forum on ignore. That'll show us.

[cleanhippie]

93. I think he already DOES have the entire forum on ignore.

Just about anyone who has responded to him in the last few weeks has been told they are now on ignore. Just goes to show he NEVER really wanted "meaningful" conversation, he just wanted to preach and be agreed with. I'm happy not to oblige.

[rrneck]

98. ...

:evilgrin:

[Iggo]

100. Aw, and I didn't even get a "Bye. nt."

[Boojatta]

103. Hello, hello. Each of those hellos should be worth at least half a bye.

[Iggo]

104. You're right.

I feel much better now.

:D

[skepticscott]

57. So now you've been told

that someone who claims to want "legitimate" and "meaningful" discussion has absolutely no desire to discuss what they acknowledge is the central issue of a debate.

And he tried to sell you a book...shocking.

[cleanhippie]

59. It would seem that he is really not any different after all.

Nearly everything he has said has turned out to be a fabrication or just plain false. Now he wants us to buy his book. Wow.

[Thats my opinion]

61. bye nt

[NMMNG]

64. LOL

You can't run the place so you're taking your toys and going home. You claim you want dialogue. What you want is a circle jerk.

[skepticscott]

73. Is it supposed to bother us

that you've put most of the room on ignore? Please. If all you want to see is the fawning responses of a few sycophantic apologists, that's your business, but it's hardly the tactic of someone who really wants meaningful discussion. And if you think we're less likely to challenge what you say just because YOU can't see it, think again. The responses are not primarily for you in the first place, since it was clear early on that you had no intention of engaging on difficult questions in a legitimate way. They are for people who need to see your nonsense exposed for what it is.

Have fun in your echo chamber.

[rrneck]

13. Good news!

Got it all figured out, huh? Ready to roll out Christianity 374.29413? Well, when you use your shiny new version (2000 years in development) to straighten out the rest of Christianity get back to us. After two millennia I would suggest some extra product testing.

[snagglepuss]

14. What is r/t?

[NMMNG]

15. R/T = the Religion/Theology forum

:hi:

[snagglepuss]

20. Thanks. I think I've reached an acronym tipping point

:dunce: :hi:

[bananas]

16. Welcome back!

You asked, "But maybe producing something of value is not the agenda. If not, what is?"

The r/t forum seems to serve several purposes:

1) It's a place for people stuck in fundie hell-holes to vent. I approve of this purpose, even though I'm not sure it's the best implementation. But it does serve that purpose. I used to live in the Bible-belt, and appreciate the value of this forum for that purpose.

2) It's a "dungeon" for discussions which get away from the main purpose of DU, which is to get Democrats elected. In the past some religious arguments swamped the General Discussion forum making it impossible to discuss anything else. The result seems to be that an administrative decision was made to move all religious-oriented posts into the r/t forum. I approve of this purpose, and I think they should go further, not allow r/t threads to be recommended or show up on the Greatest or Latest pages, etc, as is done with some other forums.

3) It's a troll-road on the information superhighway, a place where vagabonds can lure the innocent and unsuspecting into endless troll-fests. Some here have even said it's "fun" to get into these arguments. Fun? Does this forum seem like "fun" to you?

edit: for those who don't know what a vagabond is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagabond_%28person%29

A vagabond is a drifter and an itinerant wanderer who roams wherever they please, following the whim of the moment. Vagabonds may lack residence, a job, and even citizenship.

Historically, Nazis regarded vagabonds as "individuals who are not socially accepted," and forced them to wear a black triangle badge on their jackets, following a sentence on the grounds of vagabondage, "work shyness" and homelessness.<1>

<snip interesting etymology etc>

4) It's a place for people to connect and get beyond their differences.

[rrneck]

17. It's also a place

to inspire and be inspired by others who may not agree with you.

Sometimes.

[bananas]

19. Absolutely agree. nt

[rug]

18. Fair summary.

:thumbsup:

[darkstar3]

21. 5) It's a place to discuss religion and theology from ALL points of view.

Nothing of much "value" has ever come from discussions on this topic, but that hasn't stopped the discussions from happening for centuries. At least now, in a forum like this, such discussions can't come to violence against and eradication of minorities.

[Mariana]

22. What fundie hell-holes?

TMO doesn't seem to believe that fundie hellholes exist. The fundies we've encountered, seen, heard, and read about are only "caricatures found on r/t from those who don't have the slightest idea about what is going on in religion". Their hateful and destructive activities, that harm and threaten so many people, are just "yummy bits of nastiness dug up from the internet."

[darkstar3]

23. Good point.

[NMMNG]

24. Well said

:thumbsup:

[Thats my opinion]

27. So they admins

were able to shunt r/t off on a sideline to get the nasties out of the way so that legitimate conversation could take place elsewhere?
Wow!

[skepticscott]

28. And YOU tried to get the admins to shut R/T down

Though I doubt you appreciate the irony. Nor do you seem to have taken to heart the advice given in response to that attempt, that you could very easily avoid this forum if you didn't find it to be of value.

[rrneck]

35. The admins were "able" tomove discussion here

because they own the site.

You don't.

[skepticscott]

36. The OP remains convinced

that he is more capable than anyone else of deciding what "legitimate" discussion should be. And he has said from his earliest posts that anything critical of religion should be off-limits.

[rrneck]

37. Yep.

And he is visible from orbit wrong.

[bananas]

38. What you've seen since you've been here is mild compared to how it used to be. nt

[Thats my opinion]

62. Hi. I still think there is room for a rational conversation.

So I have just put seven on the ignored list, and will continue to discuss with anyone who is still interested.
I hope that includes you,.

[cleanhippie]

81. But YOU are the one not interested in rational conversation.

By putting everyone who disagrees with you on ignore, you are impeding any chance of it.


Your hypocrisy is stupefying.

[skepticscott]

85. When your notion of

a "rational conversation" includes only affirmation, and no criticism that isn't endlessly deferential, it's hardly a "conversation" worth having.

And wearing the length of your Ignore list like a badge of honor...can't tell you how pathetic that is. "Look at me! Look how much I've closed my mind to!"

[NMMNG]

86. You don't want rational conversation

You want people to shout "amen" to your sermon then go away.

[rrneck]

89. I'm proud to be there.

You never produced a straight answer on the rare occasions you replied anyway.

Clear your ignore list when you're wailing to talk straight.

[bananas]

40. "New Atheism" is an intolerant religious belief system based on pseudo-science

and because it's intolerant of other beliefs, they disrupt any religious discussions.
Religious liberals and even atheists who believe in religious tolerance are considered the enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

New Atheism is the name given to a movement among some early-21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." New atheists argue that recent scientific advancements demand a less accommodating attitude toward religion, superstition, and religious fanaticism than had traditionally been extended by many secularists.

[trotsky]

42. Strange how you completely misinterpreted that quote.

Almost as if you intentionally did so in order to bash atheism.

[bananas]

46. Sam Harris: "Science Must Destroy Religion"

What a tolerant statement! :rofl:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html

[darkstar3]

47. Science does destroy religion.

Over centuries, science (not to mention logic) has destroyed items of religious dogma quite frequently. Religion then remakes itself to fit inside the new paradigm. This is the circle of faith.

[trotsky]

48. So we now know two things:

1) You realize you misrepresented that quote, because you aren't even trying to defend it.
2) You didn't read past the headline of that article.

You can keep trying to bad mouth the "new atheists" (or at least the strange caricature of them you have), but it just looks more and more foolish for you to do so.

[bananas]

50. I didn't misrepresent the quote. nt

[trotsky]

53. Oh but you absolutely did.

Read it closely and I think you can figure out what it really means.

[MarkCharles]

45. Such fantasy, really quite astonishing, and so intolerant, too.

I thought Jesus wanted his followers not to tell lies.

"Pseudo-science" how can religious believers distinguish authentic scientific inquiry from the what they claim are "other ways of knowing"?

[bananas]

49. "a mishmash of Buddhism and "Time-Life Mysteries of The Unknown"

Sam Harris is one of the leaders of New Atheism and he's a crackpot.

http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/

Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

The best-selling author of "The End of Faith" may argue against Christianity, but he is also supportive of phenomena such as reincarnation and ESP, and calls for "compassionately killing" the "Muslim hordes."

January 5, 2007

Sam Harris's books "The End Of Faith" and "Letter To A Christian Nation" have established him as second only to the British biologist and author Richard Dawkins in the ranks of famous 21st century atheists. The thrust of Harris's best-sellers is that with the world so crazed by religion, it's high time Americans stopped tolerating faith in the Rapture, the Resurrection and anything else not grounded in evidence. Only trouble is, our country's foremost promoter of "reason" is also supportive of ESP, reincarnation and other unscientific concepts. Not all of it is harmless yoga class hokum -- he's also a proponent of waterboarding and other forms of torture.

<snip>

We all need our illusions. But doesn't his, a mishmash of Buddhism and "Time-Life Mysteries of The Unknown," weaken his case against Christians?

<snip>

Long discussion about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=106202&mesg_id=106202

[darkstar3]

52. "One of the leaders"?

And what exactly makes you call him that? Leaving aside for the moment the fact that "new atheism" is pejorative term and not a movement, what on earth makes you think that Harris is a leader of any kind?

He writes books, and they're not very good.

[bananas]

118. Sam Harris is not just a leader but one of the founders of New Atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

The movement's origins are often traced to the 2004 publication of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris, a bestseller in the USA. This marked the first of a series of bestsellers that took a harder line against religion. Harris was motivated by the events of September 11, 2001, which he laid directly at the feet of Islam, while also directly criticizing Christianity and Judaism.

<snip>

Referring to a 2007 debate, Dawkins' website refers to four members of the movement - himself, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens - as "The Four Horsemen", alluding to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.<4>

[laconicsax]

121. Can you explain something?

How can "New Atheism" be a seven-year-old movement when this book: http://www.amazon.com/New-Atheism-Erosion-Freedom/dp/0871238896/ref=sr_1_112?ie=UTF8&qid=1322069658&sr=8-112 about New Atheism was published in 1986?

Put another way, how can New Atheism have only started in 2004 when religionists have been complaining about it since at least 1986?

[cleanhippie]

126. Stop. Using. Facts. And. Evidence.

You are interrupting the meme.

[laconicsax]

129. Sorry, my bad. n/t

[bananas]

131. Every year, car dealerships announce New Car Models

Apparently that's impossible.

[skepticscott]

132. Wow, that was the best answer

you could come up with? This hardly seems fair...rarely does, in fact.

[laconicsax]

135. LOL! Good one!

Oh wait...you were serious?

[bananas]

51. SAM HARRIS ALERT woo-woo! woo-woo!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=106202&mesg_id=106851

47. This from a famous debunker of paranormal claims: SAM HARRIS ALERT

SAM HARRIS ALERT
Dr. Michael Eslea, Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, alerts me to a startling – and disturbing – fact ...
...Harris .. veers into woo-woo territory ... in his introductory chapter (page 41) he states that "There also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science." Turn to note 18 on page 232 to see his justification for this statement, and you will find an astonishing paragraph citing books by Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake as evidence. Harris also notes that Ian Stevenson's work (on children supposedly born with memories of past lives) "may be credible evidence for reincarnation."
Only now do I understand a certain coolness I’ve experienced in Sam’s attitude toward me, and I now think that it can be entirely explained by his romance with woo-woo ...
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-09/092206bad.html#i8

If you poke around a bit, you will see quite a few people have noticed this, not only in his book but in videos of SH and elsewhere. There is similarly a substantial amount of info available on his torture apologetics. That suggests to me that the OP is not necessarily unfair or a hit piece, as you have claimed.

[trotsky]

54. Why are you so intolerant of Sam Harris?

There is nothing about atheism that says any two atheists have to agree on anything except having no belief in gods. Sam Harris is free to believe in whatever "woo" he wants, and for you to bring it up is a red herring that does nothing but attempt to derail and disrupt discussion.

[MarkCharles]

55. Interesting how those fearful religious believers turn the lack of belief in a god into a

"religion" in order to attack it further.

They simply cannot master the concept of lack of belief.

[Angry Dragon]

29. Just so I understand your post................

You are stating that there is very little in the New Testament that is true. Yet we are suppose to give credence to 40,000 different shades of Christianity?? So in essence there is hardly anything to base these 40,000 different shades of Christianity.
So for 2067 years the people have been lied to. Does not speak well of all those churches.

Yet you get on here and attack those who question and call them names. You talk of cesspools and yet it seems that churches have walked in those cesspools a lot longer than the people on this board.

So it seems that you are saying that god exists but Jesus not so much. So if Jesus is suspect it would follow that maybe god is suspect also.

Feel free to respond with how you feel how I should act.

[Thats my opinion]

65. It is all true.

But it is not all historical.

Yes, religion has been replete with its own cesspools. I try not to step in them be they religious or non-religious. There are so many other productive places to walk. Why the fascination of those who seem fixated in slopping around in other peoples mud? So I just don't listen or respond to them any more,. I am happier for it, and I hope they are too.

[cleanhippie]

77. Yeah, your "head in the sand" approach is just another form of wilfull ignorance.

You really are no different at all.

[rrneck]

88. That's your problem.

Stop dodging those "cesspools " and drain them. That's the only way you'll get credibility.

[NMMNG]

90. There's your problem

Your Pollyanna approach (avoiding the religious cesspools) makes you blind to the vile dogma they put out, and the harm it causes others. You take out your ignorance on those who have been paying attention, and who are being hurt by these people. If you want to proclaim yourself an expert on Christianity and faith you have to study more than your particular corner of it. You need to wallow in the cesspools as well as your rose gardens.

[trotsky]

31. Why do I get the feeling...

That whether you OR someone like Fred Phelps got to run this country, I'd be prosecuted as a blasphemer?

Thank Koresh the Constitution is keeping me safe from both of you... for now.

[LeftishBrit]

33. I just returned from a serious academic conference about school education

I don't expect most discussions on the internet to be very similar to academic conferences. Most of our conversations on the forum are based on personal experience, not on research and advanced theorizing. Both types of discussion have value.

The purpose of the discussions here, given that DU is a political forum, is mainly to look at relations between religion and society/politics, not to discuss academic theology, though the latter may also be of interest to discuss.

I don't know what you mean by 'quasi-religious cesspools'. If you mean that it is unfair to judge a religion itself by the hypocritical behaviour of some of its adherents, I would entirely agree. However, it is a fact that societies and governments and activists ARE in many places using religion (several different religions) in the cause of right-wing politics, and sometimes in the cause of violence, terrorism and war, and I don't think it inappropriate to point this out and oppose it.

[Adsos Letter]

56. +1

[Thats my opinion]

66. You are right.

Religion has its own abuses, and we know them. The relationship between religion and politics is the reason for this forum. But frankly I haven't seen much here that advances that discussion. So I keep trying to inject a bit of that notion--and am met with hostility no matter what we say.
But I've not quit, just changed the group to whom I now respond.

[laconicsax]

Again, you're mistaken as to the purpose of this forum.

R/T is for DUers to discuss religion and theology, it's not exclusively about "the relationship between religion and politics." That can be discussed, but it isn't "the reason for this forum."

I've explained this to you on multiple occasions. Are you hard of reading?

[NMMNG]

68. He's not hard of reading

He just thinks, like many of his ilk, that he can come in and get his way by demanding it and ignoring or denouncing as a persecutor anybody who challenges/questions him. Why not? It's worked so well with the RRRW.

[LeftishBrit]

75. Editing, because I'd thought your reply was just to me!

In any case: I think TMO was responding to my comment that one main purpose for which the forum is used is to discuss relations between religion and politics. In fact, I was not implying that the *only* purpose was to discuss the relationship between religion and politics. What I said was that, given that DU is a political forum, that's one of the main things it will be used for; and that it's unrealistic to expect the discussions to be the same as you'd get at an academic theology conference.

It is an unfortunate fact that some people in politics use religion as a means of pushing the political and legal system to the right; discrimimating and worse against women and social minorities; especially gays; and often propping up general economic and social injustice. This is fairly uncommon but still sometimes a problem in the UK (where politics is more secular, and the religious left is much less marginalized relative to the religious right); it is obviously a much bigger problem in the USA; and a HUGE problem in parts of the Middle East, for example. So it's a problem that people on a political forum will naturally discuss. This is not saying that *all* religion abets the Right - far from it; and it can and does also happen with non-religious ideologies. But it is a serious concern, and it's only natural that many people on a forum like this will discuss and complain about the religious right, rather than engage in academic analyses of religion.

[rrneck]

67. "just changed the group to whom I now respond"

That's called quitting here. You see, all the people you have on ignore can roundly rebut everything you say and you have denied yourself an opportunity to respond. Those who you think are so hostile to you win by default. Just talking to people with whom you agree or who will accept your condescension and mistake it for dialogue doesn't further your "cause" one whit. Unless your cause is to make yourself feel good.

[tama]

95. That's a good cause

if you don't feel good, how can you help world around you feel good? IMHO that's the main point of any philosophy, religion etc., to help yourself feel good.

Also, your idea about winning is something I find strange. My mama taught me to walk away from hostiles, not try to "win" them by making them lose. Win-lose games are lose-lose games because somebody has to lose for somebody to win, and IMHO it's high time that we learn that those games lead to class societies and class wars. Win-win games are IMHO much preferable.

[Boojatta]

96. When you lose a debate, you win an opportunity to lose a misconception.

Doesn't that kind of opportunity have enough value to compensate for the fact that it usually doesn't feel good?

If nothing can be considered good unless it feels good, then we'll have to give up on childbirth and get ready for a very sudden extinction of the human species.

[tama]

99. If debates and rational arguments

really mattered that much, there would be no war on drugs, for example. The point is, they are seldom about rational thinking and all about saving face etc. social games. What really matters is emotions and feelings - if we allow ourselves to rationally accept how reality behaves.

E.g. learning is emotionally rewarding, but to be able to learn there has to be some level of ignorance to begin with.

As for children,
1) it feels good to have sex. Very good. So good you easily stop worrying about consequenses.
2) Being pregnant feels good most of the time for most of the women.
3) When very pregnant, it feels good to get that thing in you out of your body.
4) Seeing and holding that thing feels good.
5) Our bodies have e.g. anandamide systems (cf. cannabinoids) that feel good and make forget especially pain. If women really remembered how much it hurts, they would never do it again.

But this is just analysis, and bit boring. Feeling good is about this whole thing, particulars arrange as they do, including pains.

[Boojatta]

102. Edit your conclusion a bit and it might be visibly paradoxical.

If debates and rational arguments really mattered that much, there would be no war on drugs, for example. The point is, they are seldom about rational thinking and all about saving face etc. social games. What really matters is emotions and feelings - if we allow ourselves to rationally accept how reality behaves.

[tama]

106. Who and what am "I" or "us"?

The rational thinking mind? This body awareness? Both and then some? Collection of reaction mechanisms?

Or just me that writes and speaks is 1st person?

PS: and since you love logical conundrums, here's a question - is there anything really paradoxical, ie. something that is not consistent under any set of axioms?

[rrneck]

97. I agree for the most part.

TMO is looking to "win" market share for his ideology and feel like a Playa in the process.

To my mind that attitude requires a more, shall we day, direct interaction of opinions.

I would much rather see people inspire each other here than draw lines and pick sides. Inspiration happens sometimes, but there's a lot of bad blood to overcome.

[tama]

105. I would call

the OP a "humanist Christian", as philology is IMHO defining scholarly discipline of humanistic academic branches. Academic philological approach to Bible etc. can be - and is - intellectually very rewarding, just like with Plato etc., and does not diminish the ethics and mysteries involved - IMHO actually quite the opposite.

I studied Classical Greek philology in university and part of our studies, together with other classical texts was Bible. With my background, also as a translator of classical literature I see OP poster as someone approaching his religion also scientifically - in the wide meaning of the word, including humanistic philological and other sciences. Philological studies of Bible like any text contribute for example to new interpretations - translations - of those texts, which like it or not, are very central to the civilization we have been made parts of.

Most importantly, and why I have problems understanding why the "usual crowd" is giving OP so hard time (that his emotional resources dry up or go bad and he now prefers to limit the influence of those draining factors) is that he is not approaching his religion dogmatically but rationally. In many ways he's on "your side" but still gets treated like the enemy. But any case, this forum is excellent place to "test faith" in interaction with not only critical but often also hostile people, and like all of us, TMO has sometimes also lost his cool etc. And one of the believes I personally like is that we are here to learn together, so that's what we are doing, keeping on learning. Not only with skills of rational arguments and debate skills but also "spiritual" strength and wisdom and compassion.

[rrneck]

108. I don't think one can approach religion

or faith rationally. Rationality only becomes important when one puts his faith, as expressed through his religion, into practice in the real world.

The nature of the OP's faith has not been seriously questioned since, by and large, most of the people on his ignore list have little or no interest in faith at all. But we do have a problem with how he chooses to represent and practice his faith here.

He has shown time and again that he has little regard for the feelings of others, less regard for candid discussion, even less regard for the truth, and an especially high regard for himself.

Of course all we know of him is what he's written here. I have no doubt he's an upstanding citizen and a decent guy to hang out with. But the attitude he brings to this forum is indistinguishable from that of all those "bad" Christians he would like for us to ignore. That's what is getting him into trouble. It's not his faith, it's what he's trying to do with it.

[tama]

112. Rationality and practice

Practice or action is not dependent from rational or any other form of conscious thinking. Meditation is (religious) practice that silences thoughts, body acts and reacts faster than thoughts - e.g. when one stumbles and is about to fall, feet move without thinking to correct balance.

So faith can mean faith in body being able to act better without thinking than with thinking, but this does not mean that this kind of faith is irrational by any means.

[rrneck]

113. The evaluation of the effects

of one's beliefs is a rational activity, albeit influenced constantly by ones emotions. With practice comes efficency. People have been stumbling for a million years. They've had emotions for that long too. That awareness is frequently an unnoticed relationship. Within that relationship one will probably always find the question "why?".

People who believe they can fly should avoid rooftops.

[tama]

114. I can fly

and I do - in flying dreams. The "I" in dream worlds is no less "I" than other self-images. :)

As you say, practice or learning processes involve usually conscious feed-back loops and guide-lines- rational thinking and pavlovian emotional mechanisms (ouch!/yippee!), as in learning to drive a bike, but once learned "well enough", the skill becomes embodied knowledge and one can drive without thinking about it.

[rrneck]

128. Very true.

We ignore our inner lives at our peril. They are, to us, as real as our bodies.

[cleanhippie]

34. Another OP fails.

:rofl:


Classic.

[laconicsax]

63. bye nt

:rofl:

[Deep13]

78. "slightest idea about what is going on in religion"

So what is "going on" in religion? What discoveries have they made? What something of value have they produced?

[cleanhippie]

80. Asking thatsmyopinion questions will get you put on ignore, apparently.

It would seem that asking questions like you just did is NOT reasonable conversation and he will respond with "bye" and put you on ignore.


It's both funny and sad.

[Deep13]

111. He was a crummy conversationalist any. nt

[rrneck]

87. I don't much give a shit.

They can spare me the nuts and bolts. I'd just like to see them get their shit together.

[tama]

94. Philological studies of ancient scriptures

produce discoveries dependent of that scientific approach. Philosophically, it's a branch of hermeneutics. But so are also interpretations of mathematical descriptions of quantum mechanics. And any question concerning "values". Main questions about hermeneutics are 1) how to do it ethically 2) how to gain freedom from hermeneutical feed-back-loops. Those are also main issues of many religions.

One of the best known scholars of philosophical hermeneutics is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Georg_Gadamer, whose answer to question 1) was "benevolent interpretation".

[Deep13]

110. So, new ways of looking at the same old writings? nt

[tama]

115. To put it short,

yup. But to understand deeper meaning of philological approach, the text is always new and fresh with each new way of looking and reading. The text is not immutable object but constantly changing web of relations. Or in physics jargon "quantum superposition" of all possible "classical actualizing interpretations".

BTW Darwin's idea about evolution of species was derived from philological methodological comparison of manuscript traditions or "family-trees".

[Quartermass]

82. Christians are the instigators.

All instigators always have one thing in common:

They spout a bunch of crap in order to get people upset, and when people get upset with them they always have the nerve to act surprised and hurt. And what is it with them always expected people to just bow down in front of them and meet their standards anyway?

It would be nice if they learned not to be an instigator. Maybe that would actually solve some of the world's problems.

But somehow i doubt it.

Conservative Christians instigators always instigate crap through their demands. Generally, they demand that because they serve a higher power that they and only they have the authority to speak on anything and that everybody has to follow their demands and do as they say. Then they act like they're the victims when people resist and don't follow their ways.

It's an exercise in futility. Because nothing will ever change.

Even Jesus calls these kinds of Christians hypocrites.


1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.



Mathew 6, 1 - 8, KJV

[Iggo]

83. Not much?

Well, how much?

And how did you figure?

[dmallind]

84. At a meeting of PhD astronomers you don't get many people who buy astrology

Doesn't mean that it's a lie that far more people think Aries = star sign for fiery tempers than know Aries contains NGC 972 and NGC 697.

Far more people think evolution means man arose from the chimpanzee rather than underatanding the change in allele populations over time.

Sadly, our lives are more intertwined with the former group than the latter in both cases. Why do you think religion should be different?

[tama]

92. What if

"cesspools" of all kind - regardless of nomination (evangelical, new atheist etc.) are metabolical attention whores, feeding and growing on attention and especially negative attention, and the best an individual can do to drain the cesspools is to stop feeding them with negative attention "rational" arguments aka debate tactics - which does not mean ceasing to be aware of them...

[rrneck]

101. Religion isn't supposed to be rational

It's all about feelings. That's why religion gets into so much trouble when it tries to do science. It can gin up tremendous emotional involvement as well. That's why we have a first amendment.

You're right, rational arguments don't work with faith. In fact, they tend to make people dig in their heels. There are at least two ways around the problem; make people confront their feelings and if that doesn't work reply with feelings of your own. Basically: "Stop projecting that bullshit, pay attention to how I feel about this and stop fucking with me cuz yer pissing me off."

[tama]

107. I don't know

what religions are supposed to be - depend on who is supposing. Greeks served a Goddess called Peitho, a personified deity of the art of emotionally manipulating people through rational arguments. Feelings and rational arguments are not mutually exclusive, they are bundle or complex and whaddayaknow. Overanalyzing them just tends to lead to overanalyzing.

Rational thinking can and often does come to the conclusion that what is needed is less thinking and more just being (present/mindfull/etc).

I like your last paragraph. And there is art to learning what serves best what intentions at a given moment. Ars longa, vita brevis.

[onager]

109. Oh, they certainly would recognize the caricatures...

Contrary to your weird view of the world, many of those people often have to deal with Xianity's nutcakes. Just like the rest of us.

BTW, even though I am a Militant Fundamentalist Atheist with a tattoo of Stalin on my chest (I'M KIDDING!), I actually paid my own money for a copy of The Jesus Seminar's book The Acts of Jesus. But to me, it was basically just more of that shell game called "Sophisticated Theology." They tried to decipher the actual words of Jesus and printed them in red...just like the child's Bible I got for my birthday as a kid (when I wanted a genuine alien-melting ray-gun - thanks a lot, Aunty!)

First we need to prove there was an actual Jesus, then we can worry about his acts.

More to the point, since you mentioned "archeology" in your screed, do you ever read Biblical Archeology Review? I do, though I haven't picked one up in a while. I like that magazine because it always makes very clear that its emphasis is on the "archeology" first. B.A.R. has often been the leader in nailing Xian archeological scam artists, like the (happily) late Ron Wyatt.

Just about every month, B.A.R. prints a few choice letters from Fundies. They usually demand that the magazine go and find the Garden of Eden RIGHT NOW...preferably complete with two fig leaves, a snake-skin and an apple core.

So I'm pretty sure your rarified collection of "theologians, historians, archaeologists, linguists and philosophers" know all about the goofier varieties of Xian religious experience.

In fact, sometimes B.A.R. even makes fun of them.

One time the magazine did some fund-raising by selling copies of small pagan idols it had excavated on archeological digs. There was a huge uproar from the Fundie readers, blasting the magazine for selling "demonic graven images." The next month, B.A.R. ran exactly the same ad, with a big banner plastered over it saying something like - "Idols are for recreational use only. Do not worship."

:rofl:

[tama]

116. The "caricatures" still rule

Issues of humanism, philology etc. always bring to my mind the story of what happened when Erasmus of Rotterdam made a new Latin translation of Gospels based on the Greek source text. Most notably the Vulgata translates the Greek word 'logos' of the beginning of John ("en arche een ho logos...") as 'verbum' - 'word'. Erasmus translated it with Latin word 'sermo': "‘In the beginning was the Word’ (as the usual translation has it). Now Erasmus printed In principio erat sermo, ‘In
the beginning was the speech/conversation.’" assets.cambridge.org/052181/2283/sample/0521812283ws.pdf

Alas it is needless to say that those supporting the erasmian interpretation of 'logos' were persecuted and many burned on the stake, and I'm not aware of a modern translation in any language that would have meaning similar to 'sermo' instead of usual 'verbum' and the dogmatic and repressive subtext of it: "Accept My Word, or..."

PS: as for the Jesus seminar, I have serious doubts about the methodological value of majority vote in philological and and other questions... ;)

[tama]

117. Practicing Christianity

Conversation with rrneck about practice and learning in general terms brought to my mind this question: how to *practice* Christianity? Especially if we want something more and something else than just going to church and listening to the Word of the priest of this or that sect?

Erasmian humanist approach suggests one practice, having a conversation with the texts - not only canonical but also Gnostic and other non-canonical texts. It is also possible to practice patience, empathy and "agape" and other virtues in conversation with not just texts but with people.

My "most benevolent interpretation" or working hypothesis of the meme of "second coming" is that the "Christ-nature" will not come into flesh in just one person, but manifesting in all our relations. That the "I" of the "I am the way, the truth, the life" is not individual, exclusive and copyright protected, but collective, inclusive and open I&I...

Keeping also in mind that Christian traditions are just one path among many and same can be said without any reference to Christianity - in the general lines that we need to get our shit together, badly, to overcome our common challenges and problems in these "interesting times"...

[Thats my opinion]

122. Erasmus made a valiant effort

to translate an untranslatable word. It is one of the difficulties of dealing with concepts from different cultures. "Logos" in the Greek world means neither word or speech/conversation. If we only had the conceptual language of the Chinese we would understand the notion of the "Tao." And that is exactly the word we use in our Chinese translations. And it covers a lot of ground philosophically that we just don't have in English--or even Greek.

The Jesus Seminar---now the Bible Seminar--- is not fixated on voting. It has evolved more into a consensus model. It tends first to elicit the best research available.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. "If the evangelical mainstream wants me to view the religious right as marginal,...

..., then they should do more to marginalize the religious right"

Mainstream evangelicals generally do not identify with the tone and emphasis of the religious right. When people like me criticize the religious right, these mainstream evangelicals often complain that such criticisms overemphasize the influence of a vocal, but marginal, minority that does not represent the views of most evangelicals.

That’s the complaint voiced here by Timothy Dalrymple and repeated, ad nauseum, as a central organizing grievance of sites like Get Religion.

There are two very large problems with this complaint:

1) The religious right is not at all marginal — either within evangelicalism as a whole or within America as a whole; and

2) the religious right is, in fact, representative of mainstream evangelicalism.
...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2011/11/22/if-the-evangelical-mainstream-wants-me-to-view-the-religious-right-as-marginal-then-they-should-do-more-to-marginalize-the-religious-right/

Earlier posts from the excellent, well-informed evangelical Fred Clark:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2011/11/21/the-exceptional-majority-of-evangelicals/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2011/11/21/evangelical-identity-whats-your-story/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2011/11/22/the-boundaries-of-evangelical-identity/

And, as well as the large right-wing evangelical movement in the USA, we have the Roman Catholic church, the largest in the world, with its attempts to impose its dogma about contraception, abortion, and homosexuality on everyone. No, they're not much like a group that says that not much from the NT comes from Jesus. But they are the majority of the religious in the USA, when these 2 groups are added together, and so we have to pay a lot of attention to them in R/T.

[skepticscott]

120. You can expect

to be put on ignore too. For having the nerve to offering something other than fawning and obsequious agreement with the OPs agenda.

[Thats my opinion]

123. The religious right does represent much of main street religion,

And that is a problem for progressive Christians and for America.
While there are evangelicals not part of the right, they tend to get drawn into many of the very same conservative causes their rightist neighbors affirm. Consider Wallis and the Sojourners refusal to move away from a conservative stance about sexuality. Although my information says they are moving that way, but slowly and under cover.

Yes the groups you cite cannot be ignored. We progressives have to deal with their number and their power. But those of us on the other side cannot be ignored. We are numerous and active in actually getting things done. So while understanding the enormous presence of the religious right, that is not all there is. Blasting all religion as if the religious right has a corner on things is irrational and unhelpful.

[laconicsax]

124. But you just called them an unrecognizable caricature in your OP.

Now you readily admit just how recognizable they are.

:shrug:

[skepticscott]

125. NOW you admit that

the the religious right represents much of main stream religion (in direct contradiction to what you've posted before..gee) and that this fact is a problem for America. So why do you have a temper tantrum and start putting people on ignore when they point out that problem? You say that those groups cannot be ignored, but you constantly whine that people here should stop harping on what they do.

:shrug:

[cleanhippie]

127. Imagine that! In one of your few actual responses to a question, you contradict yourself. AGAIN!

I am amazed at the sheer amount of hypocrisy you display.

[rrneck]

130. Progressive christians benefit from their activities nonetheless. nt

[LeftishBrit]

133. I disagree that they do - but perhaps it's because I'm from a different country

British religious right-wingers tend to oppose and smear the religious liberals as much as they do the atheists. It's sometimes difficult to decide who is their biggest hate-figure: Richard Dawkins - or the Archbishop of Canterbury!

[rrneck]

134. We have already begun our national orgy of consumerism

called Christmas. People flock to the mall in their annual Hajj just like clockwork. The reminder of Christ's birth is an national holiday that has stretched into a two month ordeal. A fair chunk of our entire economy depends on it. Liberal and christian alike profit from it, materially and emotionally by prompting butts to land in pews and participation in our frivolous economy. And the macabre celebration of Christ's death is no different.

The profits to liberal and conservative alike have become so ingrained they are invisible to us. Much of the argument about god doesn't even have to happen. It's only contentious because the Abrahamic religions captured the "god brand" a long time ago and now we can't think in terms of spirituality without thinking about their god. Often as not in the United States when we want a soft drink we ask for a "Coke", and that stuff has only been around for about a hundred years. Give it two thousand and we might all be worshiping the "fizz god".