News flash: Everyone's against "stupid." Stupid religion, stupid politics, stupid anything. But people disagree on what's stupid.
The current religious trend for Americans who consider themselves educated and forward-thinking is away from Christianity. This is partly because the country has been primarily Christian since it's inception, and the perception is that for most of this time, said people figure it hasn't stopped people from doing what's considered by today's standards bad and immoral. You know, being prejudiced, violent, short-tempered, prone to vice, etc. For isntance, it didnt' stop people from keeping women from voting, or throwing blacks down wells, or from getting drunk and beating their wives or getting into vicious brawls. Even now, the perception for most non-Christians is that the church is more concerned about preventing gay marriage than, for instance, promoting education and submissiveness to one's neighbor.
I can understand why. The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill and turn the other cheek against those who strike you, and live in poverty and servitude, but many of our religious today are defense-strong, big economy political conservatives. I may be mistaken, but I believe this is typical of either the "Protestant" or "Presbyterian" Christian sects. I'm not sure, but these views of 'the rigteous tend to be the strong and mighty" is associated with one particular strain of Christianity. I just can't remember which.
Also, Christianity seems to many to be the mainstream, somehow, so they get the satisfaction of being 'outside' and 'different' which gives a feeling of sophistication.
On the flip side of the coin, for those who adhere to it in this day and age, they get the reverse pleasure of being stubborn, rock-solid, and, again, rebels and outsiders, cuz, let's face it, that's what Christians are today. It's part of the religious culture in America to not only not change views or practice to suit modern times, but to actually stand fast against such changes. There is a great deal of satisfaction and personal glory that comes from being the righteous hold out. a last refuge against a rising flood.
It does seem to be a rule that, with freedom and economic prosperity, the likelihood of people holding fast to traditional views and practices lessens. People become more aware of other views, and they're far more likely to go for something other than what they were raised on. It's the "Grass is Greener" rule. This is especially more likely among the young, who are always attracted by anything that seems new, different, and stimulating.
Basically, Christianity is struggling because it has traditionally been dominant, and, unfortunately, during periods of poverty and strife, when negative cultural traits like superstition, intolerance, and hypocrisy were more rampant. So, it's kinda picked up the label that it's not the real thing.
I think it also helps that the Bible, to an ordinary reader, reads like the Dickens. The language is archaic, and the syntax out-of-date. I myself am baffled by the choice of italicization. Some people also believe they see inconsistency in some dogma, and feel much of it goes without justification. Again, though, that's one of those things that the adherents feel no obligation to change, and the non-adherents feel any obligation to seek to understand. There's pride on both sides.
With most modern religions, there's a hard-headed element in them. "They're true because they're true." And when you see several like that, you tend to assume that the likelihood of any of them being right is next to nil.
Personally, I call myself Christian, but I'm more of a "Rudimentary Christian." I just take the whole thing to mean "Look, do unto others the way you'd have them do unto you, and that's all that matters." I'm horribly underinformed according to other individuals, however. For instance, the only parts I tend to give any real attention to are the Gospels (the bits about Jesus himself), because they seem to be the most understandable, and the wisest. I see some things elsewhere that seemed to be written by people who barely understood.
But I'm not getting into any religious discussoins by well-meaning fellows who feel the need to "Enlighten" me. I've seen a lot of that, and I always walk away confused.
A Question for Skeptics of Religion
Started by
Guest_Vorpal_*
, Sep 19 2004 01:14 PM
68 replies to this topic
#62
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 19 September 2004 - 11:38 PM
And that's why I don't attack your ignorance on the other facets of Christianity, because the Bible (the part you don't believe in) says to let every man be convinced in his own mind.Originally posted by Ditto McCloaker@Sep 19 2004, 11:25 PM
Personally, I call myself Christian, but I'm more of a "Rudimentary Christian." I just take the whole thing to mean "Look, do unto others the way you'd have them do unto you, and that's all that matters."
#63
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 19 September 2004 - 11:54 PM
I can understand why. The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill and turn the other cheek against those who strike you, and live in poverty and servitude, but many of our religious today are defense-strong, big economy political conservatives. I may be mistaken, but I believe this is typical of either the "Protestant" or "Presbyterian" Christian sects. I'm not sure, but these views of 'the rigteous tend to be the strong and mighty" is associated with one particular strain of Christianity. I just can't remember which.
Protestants have too many subdivisions for a statement like that to be true, and the Presbyterians are definitely NOT as a whole affiliated with any political sect. I'm not sure which sect you're referring to with the "strong and mighty," thing, but it does seem like there is one that just isn't springing to mind.
#64
Guest_Vorpal_*
Guest_Vorpal_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 September 2004 - 10:21 AM
Man... I almost finished repling to Ditto and then the Unix machine in the lab crashed! This always happens... Once I get the stamina to try to reply to everything again... I'll try to reply... probably later this afternoon after my last class.
#65
Guest_Vorpal_*
Guest_Vorpal_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 September 2004 - 04:30 PM
Okay... trying this for the second time. I'm going to try to remember all the points that I originally said to this post before the computer I was working on crashed.
First, off, one main thing that I saw throughout your post, Ditto, was taking the filth that takes the name of Christ and using that to establish a stereotype for all of Christianity. This is not a new development in complaints against Christianity (this has been said about Christians since the first century AD) ... it is not simply a development in modern times... though I understand why you may think it may be.
People simply have the perspectives of their lives, maybe of the lives of their parents or grandparents if they were lucky enough to learn from their experiences. But to give a non-religious example of this idea... most people in the modern peace-movement think it started with the Vietnam War. They no nothing of the peace protests of wars passed, the Revolutionary War was fought by less than a third of the colonial population. The War of 1812 had peace protests in DC and Baltimore and New York, and almost led to the secession of New England from the Union. World War 1 and 2. College Students in England protested WWII while Hitler threatened invasion. Peace protesters today know nothing of the failed Kellogge Pact. And they think they've thought of something new. They think they've found new answers to old problems... but they've simply rediscovered old answers to old problems.
Now on to Ditto's post.
But those people fail to realize that Christianity also allowed for the establishment of individual rights, religious freedom, and personal freedoms. And also, the point of bringing bad examples of "Christianity" to allow someone to define the entire thing negatively is essentially intellectually dishonest.
I don't think there is any direct tenant that says a Christian has to live in poverty... In fact I know there isn't. Passages about giving up riches, is to eliminate anything that may prevent you from serving God. If it is your riches, then you need to get rid of it. It's the whole idea of cut off your rght hand if it causes you to do evil. That's the idea, not that a Christian has to be in physical poverty (unless that's what you need to serve God)
Also... I don't understand why you're stereotyping Christians as greedy, social conservatives... there is absolutely no evidence for that... I need something more substantial than that to take any of that point into consideration. You're a victim of religious stereotyping (which should be just as bad as ethnic stereotyping in my opinion)
This is why I asked everyone to define what they believed Christianity was. I believe you're talking about Christianity in the sense of "popular" or what someone may call "lay" Christianity. You use the broadest definition of Christianity there is: Whatever claims to be Christian must be Christian. And while that may be mainstream, I think smaller groups who don't refer to that broad definition seem themselves as outside and different.
And anyway you slice it, they're still different than everyone else is Non-Christian. But this has always been an arguement against Christianity... ever since 60 AD or so... Roman called Christians "haters of mankind" (I mentioned this before) because Christians would not participate in Pagan Holidays "like everyone else" they would not worship the emporer "like everyone else" and so the general thought was that Christians hated the rest of mankind (which seems to be a general arguement you may be making) ... But of course Jesus said that Christians would be persecuted because of him... so that's why they see no problem in it.
This has to deal with what is viewed as truth. Most Christians believe that Jesus Christ revealed absolute truth, and to say that you can change truth because of the "changing world around you" denies that truth which you adhere to.
If a Christian was to completely conform to the world around them... what would make them Christians?
And that's how it's always been.
Of course, Christianity has always been about freedom. Though you think Paul is a crackpot... he has a lot to do with Christianity as it is today, and he is all about freedom. There's always the dilemma between morality and freedom for the Christian (and maybe if you paid more attention to Christian writings, maybe you'd see these issues addressed)
Again... my question would be, what is your definition of Christianity here... I can figure it out.
You are not confined to reading the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, there are very many good modern translations that are an easy read. A few examples: New American Standard, New International Version, New Revised Standard, even New King James. They are retranslated for the modern American reader, with no archaic or out-of-date wording.
Italicization in English Bibles are not for emphasis. They represent words that were added by the translators to clarify the meaning of the passage, but the word/s does not actually appear in the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek (whichever it happens to be) because translation is like that... it's not an exact science. I hope that clarifies the meaning of italicization in English Bible.
I think there is inconsitency in dogma of some denominations with the Bible... but I really don't see inconsistencies with religious thought in the Bible... can you give an example?
I completely agree... that is a problem with mindless zombie religious followers.
I want to ask you... what sayings of Jesus do you take to be actually said by him? Is there a formula that you use, or is it based upon what you feel he taught?
I agree... I've felt the same way with certain people.
First, off, one main thing that I saw throughout your post, Ditto, was taking the filth that takes the name of Christ and using that to establish a stereotype for all of Christianity. This is not a new development in complaints against Christianity (this has been said about Christians since the first century AD) ... it is not simply a development in modern times... though I understand why you may think it may be.
People simply have the perspectives of their lives, maybe of the lives of their parents or grandparents if they were lucky enough to learn from their experiences. But to give a non-religious example of this idea... most people in the modern peace-movement think it started with the Vietnam War. They no nothing of the peace protests of wars passed, the Revolutionary War was fought by less than a third of the colonial population. The War of 1812 had peace protests in DC and Baltimore and New York, and almost led to the secession of New England from the Union. World War 1 and 2. College Students in England protested WWII while Hitler threatened invasion. Peace protesters today know nothing of the failed Kellogge Pact. And they think they've thought of something new. They think they've found new answers to old problems... but they've simply rediscovered old answers to old problems.
Now on to Ditto's post.
Originally posted by Ditto McCloaker@Sep 20 2004, 12:25 AM
News flash: Everyone's against "stupid." Stupid religion, stupid politics, stupid anything. But people disagree on what's stupid.
The current religious trend for Americans who consider themselves educated and forward-thinking is away from Christianity. This is partly because the country has been primarily Christian since it's inception, and the perception is that for most of this time, said people figure it hasn't stopped people from doing what's considered by today's standards bad and immoral. You know, being prejudiced, violent, short-tempered, prone to vice, etc. For isntance, it didnt' stop people from keeping women from voting, or throwing blacks down wells, or from getting drunk and beating their wives or getting into vicious brawls. Even now, the perception for most non-Christians is that the church is more concerned about preventing gay marriage than, for instance, promoting education and submissiveness to one's neighbor.
But those people fail to realize that Christianity also allowed for the establishment of individual rights, religious freedom, and personal freedoms. And also, the point of bringing bad examples of "Christianity" to allow someone to define the entire thing negatively is essentially intellectually dishonest.
I can understand why. The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill and turn the other cheek against those who strike you, and live in poverty and servitude, but many of our religious today are defense-strong, big economy political conservatives. I may be mistaken, but I believe this is typical of either the "Protestant" or "Presbyterian" Christian sects. I'm not sure, but these views of 'the rigteous tend to be the strong and mighty" is associated with one particular strain of Christianity. I just can't remember which.
I don't think there is any direct tenant that says a Christian has to live in poverty... In fact I know there isn't. Passages about giving up riches, is to eliminate anything that may prevent you from serving God. If it is your riches, then you need to get rid of it. It's the whole idea of cut off your rght hand if it causes you to do evil. That's the idea, not that a Christian has to be in physical poverty (unless that's what you need to serve God)
Also... I don't understand why you're stereotyping Christians as greedy, social conservatives... there is absolutely no evidence for that... I need something more substantial than that to take any of that point into consideration. You're a victim of religious stereotyping (which should be just as bad as ethnic stereotyping in my opinion)
Also, Christianity seems to many to be the mainstream, somehow, so they get the satisfaction of being 'outside' and 'different' which gives a feeling of sophistication.
This is why I asked everyone to define what they believed Christianity was. I believe you're talking about Christianity in the sense of "popular" or what someone may call "lay" Christianity. You use the broadest definition of Christianity there is: Whatever claims to be Christian must be Christian. And while that may be mainstream, I think smaller groups who don't refer to that broad definition seem themselves as outside and different.
And anyway you slice it, they're still different than everyone else is Non-Christian. But this has always been an arguement against Christianity... ever since 60 AD or so... Roman called Christians "haters of mankind" (I mentioned this before) because Christians would not participate in Pagan Holidays "like everyone else" they would not worship the emporer "like everyone else" and so the general thought was that Christians hated the rest of mankind (which seems to be a general arguement you may be making) ... But of course Jesus said that Christians would be persecuted because of him... so that's why they see no problem in it.
On the flip side of the coin, for those who adhere to it in this day and age, they get the reverse pleasure of being stubborn, rock-solid, and, again, rebels and outsiders, cuz, let's face it, that's what Christians are today. It's part of the religious culture in America to not only not change views or practice to suit modern times, but to actually stand fast against such changes. There is a great deal of satisfaction and personal glory that comes from being the righteous hold out. a last refuge against a rising flood.
This has to deal with what is viewed as truth. Most Christians believe that Jesus Christ revealed absolute truth, and to say that you can change truth because of the "changing world around you" denies that truth which you adhere to.
If a Christian was to completely conform to the world around them... what would make them Christians?
It does seem to be a rule that, with freedom and economic prosperity, the likelihood of people holding fast to traditional views and practices lessens. People become more aware of other views, and they're far more likely to go for something other than what they were raised on. It's the "Grass is Greener" rule. This is especially more likely among the young, who are always attracted by anything that seems new, different, and stimulating.
And that's how it's always been.
Of course, Christianity has always been about freedom. Though you think Paul is a crackpot... he has a lot to do with Christianity as it is today, and he is all about freedom. There's always the dilemma between morality and freedom for the Christian (and maybe if you paid more attention to Christian writings, maybe you'd see these issues addressed)
Basically, Christianity is struggling because it has traditionally been dominant, and, unfortunately, during periods of poverty and strife, when negative cultural traits like superstition, intolerance, and hypocrisy were more rampant. So, it's kinda picked up the label that it's not the real thing.
Again... my question would be, what is your definition of Christianity here... I can figure it out.
I think it also helps that the Bible, to an ordinary reader, reads like the Dickens. The language is archaic, and the syntax out-of-date. I myself am baffled by the choice of italicization. Some people also believe they see inconsistency in some dogma, and feel much of it goes without justification. Again, though, that's one of those things that the adherents feel no obligation to change, and the non-adherents feel any obligation to seek to understand. There's pride on both sides.
You are not confined to reading the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, there are very many good modern translations that are an easy read. A few examples: New American Standard, New International Version, New Revised Standard, even New King James. They are retranslated for the modern American reader, with no archaic or out-of-date wording.
Italicization in English Bibles are not for emphasis. They represent words that were added by the translators to clarify the meaning of the passage, but the word/s does not actually appear in the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek (whichever it happens to be) because translation is like that... it's not an exact science. I hope that clarifies the meaning of italicization in English Bible.
I think there is inconsitency in dogma of some denominations with the Bible... but I really don't see inconsistencies with religious thought in the Bible... can you give an example?
With most modern religions, there's a hard-headed element in them. "They're true because they're true." And when you see several like that, you tend to assume that the likelihood of any of them being right is next to nil.
I completely agree... that is a problem with mindless zombie religious followers.
Personally, I call myself Christian, but I'm more of a "Rudimentary Christian." I just take the whole thing to mean "Look, do unto others the way you'd have them do unto you, and that's all that matters." I'm horribly underinformed according to other individuals, however. For instance, the only parts I tend to give any real attention to are the Gospels (the bits about Jesus himself), because they seem to be the most understandable, and the wisest. I see some things elsewhere that seemed to be written by people who barely understood.
I want to ask you... what sayings of Jesus do you take to be actually said by him? Is there a formula that you use, or is it based upon what you feel he taught?
But I'm not getting into any religious discussoins by well-meaning fellows who feel the need to "Enlighten" me. I've seen a lot of that, and I always walk away confused.
I agree... I've felt the same way with certain people.
#66
Korhend
-
- Members
-
- 2,213 posts
The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!
Posted 20 September 2004 - 09:23 PM
It is both! For Mussolini in the very doctrine of Fascism declares it to be a spiritual conception. I'll summarize the spiratual beliefs as well as I can.Originally posted by Vorpal@Sep 19 2004, 02:24 PM
I hope that's a joke... Fascism is a form of government...
The state is more then a consesus of people. It is a vibrant, living spirit. It exists in the past and the future, as well as obviously the present. Unlike you or me the state is immortal, and it is our purpose on this earth to contribute to this state. We live on in the contributions we make to our fellow countrymen. This applies not only to members of the political aspect, for example one could say, every time someone exercises freedom of speech, Thomas Jefferson lives on. In every Serbic Child today, Il Duce lives on.
"The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals or groups are outside the State.... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative."--Encyclopedia Italiana
"Always Remember that those that have fallen for the revolution and the empire march at the front of your collums"--Fascist Decalouge
#67
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 20 September 2004 - 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Vorpal
Italicization in English Bibles are not for emphasis. They represent words that were added by the translators to clarify the meaning of the passage, but the word/s does not actually appear in the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek (whichever it happens to be) because translation is like that... it's not an exact science. I hope that clarifies the meaning of italicization in English Bible.
If I may add to that...
Not all translations have italizations. The KJV does, because it is an exact, word for word translation from the original Greek and Hebrew. But if you've ever taken some other foreign language (even a modern one like French), you know that things don't translate word for word. So extra (italicized) words need to be added to get the grammar right.
Newer versions like NIV don't italicize words because they aren't word for word translations.
#68
Guest_Vorpal_*
Guest_Vorpal_*
-
- Guests
Posted 21 September 2004 - 10:30 AM
Yeah, the NIV has footnotes or brackets instead of italicization.
But the KJV is definitely not a word for word... Hebrew and Greek sentences don't have the same senatence structure as English. Italicized words are words that don't have some Greek of Hebrew equivalent, but are considered neseccary to understand the text in English.
But the KJV is definitely not a word for word... Hebrew and Greek sentences don't have the same senatence structure as English. Italicized words are words that don't have some Greek of Hebrew equivalent, but are considered neseccary to understand the text in English.
#69
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 21 September 2004 - 07:12 PM
It's not exactly word for word, of course. But it's mostly word for word.
Actually, I've compared the KJV and the Textus Receptus; they match up pretty well.
Actually, I've compared the KJV and the Textus Receptus; they match up pretty well.
