Religion & Morality

[artist4perry]

The fact that there are so many Christian denominations, all of whom interpret the bible differently, does suggest an element of multiple choice. Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

Begs the question, if the God who created this universe really wants to get to know us, and has a plan for us, why does he seem incapable of making his wishes known in a simple, concise, indisputable fashion that everyone can agree on?

Because men are flawed.

Look at me, God has a sense of humor for sure! LOL

[Gideon]

The fact that there are so many Christian denominations, all of whom interpret the bible differently, does suggest an element of multiple choice. Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

Begs the question, if the God who created this universe really wants to get to know us, and has a plan for us, why does he seem incapable of making his wishes known in a simple, concise, indisputable fashion that everyone can agree on?

Because men are flawed.

And women are moreso.

[artist4perry]

The fact that there are so many Christian denominations, all of whom interpret the bible differently, does suggest an element of multiple choice. Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

Begs the question, if the God who created this universe really wants to get to know us, and has a plan for us, why does he seem incapable of making his wishes known in a simple, concise, indisputable fashion that everyone can agree on?

Because men are flawed.

And women are moreso.

Hey I said look at me didn't I? I am about as flawed as one can be!

[Duncan]

O.K. I was just wondering. Nothing insinuated by asking. Sometimes it helps to know peoples point of origins. I guess I just don't see it as multiple choice.

The fact that there are so many Christian denominations, all of whom interpret the bible differently, does suggest an element of multiple choice. Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

The same phenomenon is present in law and politics. In fact, I'd argue such ambiguity is present in just about everything involving critical interpretation of language.

Quite, but people kill each other over differences in religous interpretation of scripture.

[Gideon]

O.K. I was just wondering. Nothing insinuated by asking. Sometimes it helps to know peoples point of origins. I guess I just don't see it as multiple choice.

The fact that there are so many Christian denominations, all of whom interpret the bible differently, does suggest an element of multiple choice. Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

The same phenomenon is present in law and politics. In fact, I'd argue such ambiguity is present in just about everything involving critical interpretation of language.

Quite, but people kill each other over differences in religous interpretation of scripture.

Again, not a phenomenon exclusive to religion. (But I do see your point.)

[Duncan]

O.K. I was just wondering. Nothing insinuated by asking. Sometimes it helps to know peoples point of origins. I guess I just don't see it as multiple choice.

The fact that there are so many Christian denominations, all of whom interpret the bible differently, does suggest an element of multiple choice. Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

The same phenomenon is present in law and politics. In fact, I'd argue such ambiguity is present in just about everything involving critical interpretation of language.

The other thing I was going to say was that in law and politics there are mechanisms for resloving differences of opinion and abiguity i.e. elections and the judicial process.

[Gideon]

O.K. I was just wondering. Nothing insinuated by asking. Sometimes it helps to know peoples point of origins. I guess I just don't see it as multiple choice.

The fact that there are so many Christian denominations, all of whom interpret the bible differently, does suggest an element of multiple choice. Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

The same phenomenon is present in law and politics. In fact, I'd argue such ambiguity is present in just about everything involving critical interpretation of language.

The other thing I was going to say was that in law and politics there are mechanisms for resloving differences of opinion and abiguity i.e. elections and the judicial process.

But these mechanisms are hardly perfect. For example, the U.S. political system defers to the Supreme Court when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution and the problems therein are well documented.

[artist4perry]

O.K. I was just wondering. Nothing insinuated by asking. Sometimes it helps to know peoples point of origins. I guess I just don't see it as multiple choice.

The fact that there are so many Christian denominations, all of whom interpret the bible differently, does suggest an element of multiple choice. Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

The same phenomenon is present in law and politics. In fact, I'd argue such ambiguity is present in just about everything involving critical interpretation of language.

Quite, but people kill each other over differences in religous interpretation of scripture.

Again, not a phenomenon exclusive to religion. (But I do see your point.)

Again, if a man kills because a Dog tells him to, we don't kill all dogs. Some nut kills because he claims his Tv tells him to does not mean we get rid of TVs
People who kill over religious disagreements does not mean all people of religion would kill over a disagreement over religion. Extremism comes in many forms.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater guys! Because someone interprets something and does something bad, does not make the original tennents bad.

Case in point, the internet, can it be used for good or bad? Both. But because someone has chosen to use it for bad do we get rid of all internet use? See? It is putting all under an umbrella.

[Duncan]

I was referring to the absurdity of the 1000's of different Christian groups there are, all of whom think that they have a monopoly on understanding god's word.

[Arianddu]

O.K. I was just wondering. Nothing insinuated by asking. Sometimes it helps to know peoples point of origins. I guess I just don't see it as multiple choice.

The fact that there are so many Christian denominations, all of whom interpret the bible differently, does suggest an element of multiple choice. Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

The same phenomenon is present in law and politics. In fact, I'd argue such ambiguity is present in just about everything involving critical interpretation of language.

Quite, but people kill each other over differences in religous interpretation of scripture.

Or people use differences in belief and interpretation of scripture as an excuse to kill people for money, power, land, greed, or simple psychotic pleasure. And I'd say when you look at it, just as many wars have been started for differences in political and legal interpretation and belief as religious ones.

As an atheist, the only moral victory I can claim over a random religious person is that no one has justified war and murder in the name of my belief. Every other moral issue comes down to the individuals involved.

[verslibre]

Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

It's not hard to understand why. Some Christians are literalists — they take scripture literally, at face value — whereas others don't take the entirely of the Bible as totally literal, i.e. they discern what is metaphorical and literal, etc.

[Melissa]

It amazes me that it is O.K. for everyone to add their two cents into this discussion but Christians.

Not true at all, I think you're just taking the opinions of people who don't share your same view and making them out as some kind of personal attack against you and/or your faith. If you're at peace with it like you say you are, shouldn't be the case. They're just sharing their thoughts and not one of them have stated it's not ok for Christians to share their thoughts too.

[conversationpc]

Hitch Hitchslapping Sean Hannity and Jerry Falwell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WddjWqTryog

Not exactly the example I would want to be associated with if I was an atheist.

[Duncan]

Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

It's not hard to understand why. Some Christians are literalists — they take scripture literally, at face value — whereas others don't take the entirely of the Bible as totally literal, i.e. they discern what is metaphorical and literal, etc.

The great book of multiple choice. You get to choose which bits to believe and those not to.

[S2M]

Altruism v. Ethical Egoism

Any thoughts? I'm an ethical egoist. My thoughts in a bit.

[conversationpc]

Why would God do things to make me doubt him?

My point exactly, and the biggest factor in my own deconversion. Why do things (or refuse to do things) that only lead toward to doubt or disillusionment within his followers? Has nothing to do with believers throwing a fit because things don't work out the way people think they should. Has everything to do with the Bible's promises failing with great consistency to be true, and needing to be shored up with grand, improbable leaps of logic by people who give an eternal free pass to The Almighty just because he's "God", and because our fallen minds we simply cannot comprehend his wonderful, perfect intent or timing.

Maybe the fault isn't with God...but with you?

That's EXACTLY what religion always does - points the finger back at the person instead of God or those in authority. It's potentially the most emotionally and psychologically damaging aspect of religion when things don't work out as promised, because some people beat themselves up pretty bad trying to figure out why they can't feel or hear God anymore. When it's sweet, it can seem pretty sweet, but if that placebo effect ever starts wearing off, you're in for an emotional roller-coaster.

I don't agree with the way Stu said it but he does have a point. I know tons of people who blame God and everyone else except for themselves for their faith or lack thereof. I can't count the number of times I've heard people say they can't believe in God because of how many of those who claim to follow him act. While it's unfortunate that some who call themselves Christians act, they are responsible for their own behavior. Conversely, the person using that as a poor excuse for unbelief is not taking responsibility for themselves or acting appropriately, either.

Also, there are plenty of examples of people who are following Christ and are true Christians but those get overlooked (sometimes even by myself as a Christian) because people in general today are often only looking for the poor example and completely miss seeing the good examples. The bad ones stick out. The ones who are living a good Christian life often don't stick out, not only because people aren't looking for it but because they also aren't drawing attention to themselves by their bad behavior. They aren't perfect and never will be but they're out there nonetheless.

[verslibre]

Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

It's not hard to understand why. Some Christians are literalists — they take scripture literally, at face value — whereas others don't take the entirely of the Bible as totally literal, i.e. they discern what is metaphorical and literal, etc.

The great book of multiple choice. You get to choose which bits to believe and those not to.

That's not what I meant.

This country is co-governed by two ruling parties that don't see eye-to-eye. That's not hard to understand, right?

[Duncan]

Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

It's not hard to understand why. Some Christians are literalists — they take scripture literally, at face value — whereas others don't take the entirely of the Bible as totally literal, i.e. they discern what is metaphorical and literal, etc.

The great book of multiple choice. You get to choose which bits to believe and those not to.

That's not what I meant.

This country is co-governed by two ruling parties that don't see eye-to-eye. That's not hard to understand, right?

Your statement is not hard to understand, but I'm not sure how it relates to the discussion. People don't vote based on faith, but I am aware that some of your governors seek divine intervention in solving the problems facing society.

I making a point about faith and what is the true faith. Out of the 1000's of different beliefs there is no reason to believe that one has any more claim to being right than any other.

[S2M]

I'm about to make the bold claim that ALTRUISM is a detriment to mankind....and I'm not the first to recognize this. Altruism supposes that individuals should sacrifice their lives for others instead of living theirs for themselves...denying the value of the individual. If everyone looked after themselves, there would be no reason to look after others...within reason, of course....Ethical Egoism is a school of thought concerning how people ought to live their lives, not how they do live it.

Consider this example:

John and Ken are applying for the same job...Ethical Egoism dictates, just like it has been for decades, that It's every applicant for himself...an altruistic viewpoint would have one, or each candidate deferring the job to the other person....and this never happens.

Another example:

Let's say altruism the the moral theory of society..and everyone had to look out for another person. So John is responsible for Sue, and sue for Mary, and Mary for Jason, and Jason for Steve, and Steve back to the original john....if ANY person is lax in his or her altruistic duties..the whole chain falls apart. Which is why saying that everybody should be responsible for their own well being is logically the only morality to follow. If you mess up, it only affects you. I know the comebacks for this example...so save them...lol. I'm not talking about the immediate family dynamic.

Any Rand accounts force response given by one of her followers...

"Once when Barbara Brandon was asked by a student, 'What will happen to the poor....? ---she answered: 'if you want to help them, you will not be stopped.'"

[verslibre]

Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture.

It's not hard to understand why. Some Christians are literalists — they take scripture literally, at face value — whereas others don't take the entirely of the Bible as totally literal, i.e. they discern what is metaphorical and literal, etc.

The great book of multiple choice. You get to choose which bits to believe and those not to.

That's not what I meant.

This country is co-governed by two ruling parties that don't see eye-to-eye. That's not hard to understand, right?

Your statement is not hard to understand, but I'm not sure how it relates to the discussion.

This is how it relates to the discussion: "Put two Christians in a room and they will disagree on the meaning of scripture." Except in this case, replace "Christians" and "[the meaning of] scripture" with "politicians" and "policy."

I hope that clears it up for you.

[Duncan]

No it doesn't. We are talking about the word of god that we must obey, but can't even decide what the true version is compared to political argument, which I can choose to accept or reject via the ballot box. God is judging me. I judge the politician. It is the polar opposite.

[Gideon]

compared to political argument, which I can choose to accept or reject via the ballot box.

Agreed in principle, but not in practice. Consider that a singular vote is insignificant when the majority comes into play. You might very well personally reject a politician and/or policymaker and find, come November, that he still has a job, making decisions that you still don't like but are ultimately forced to obey.

And I'd also argue that, in the U.S. at any rate, the most influential office in terms of long-term effects is (in theory) out of the public's reach: the Supreme Court.

[conversationpc]

I've come to realize over the years that people who argue to defend their faith to high heaven ( ), and claim no one can shake it, are the ones that actually DO have shaky faith. Those who are at peace with their faith, don't fight to defend it against those who don't share the same view. Just sayin'.

That's not true at all. All Christians are called to defend their faith. Now, there are times I think when you need to gracefully bow out of an argument but, if you claim to be passionate about something, to just simply always ignore a challenge is also wrong.

Regardless, it's a double-edged sword. Folks like S2M would claim that people with faith who are challenged about it and don't answer are just avoiding conversation or know that they're already beaten. However, if you do respond, even if it's calm, measured response, then you're stupid, misled, argumentative, etc. It's basically a no-win position.

[verslibre]

No it doesn't. We are talking about the word of god that we must obey, but can't even decide what the true version is compared to political argument, which I can choose to accept or reject via the ballot box. God is judging me. I judge the politician. It is the polar opposite.

You brought up how two Christians don't always see eye-to-eye on something.

And because you choose to accept or reject via the ballot box doesn't mean you're not going to be affected by changes in policy. If the sales tax is raised, you have to pay it at the checkstand, etc.

At least nobody is forcing you to go to church.

[verslibre]

I've come to realize over the years that people who argue to defend their faith to high heaven ( ), and claim no one can shake it, are the ones that actually DO have shaky faith. Those who are at peace with their faith, don't fight to defend it against those who don't share the same view. Just sayin'.

That's not true at all. All Christians are called to defend their faith. Now, there are times I think when you need to gracefully bow out of an argument but, if you claim to be passionate about something, to just simply always ignore a challenge is also wrong.

Regardless, it's a double-edged sword. Folks like S2M would claim that people with faith who are challenged about it and don't answer are just avoiding conversation or know that they're already beaten. However, if you do respond, even if it's calm, measured response, then you're stupid, misled, argumentative, etc. It's basically a no-win position.

Even worse when it's a music forum populated by pseudointellectuals.

[Melissa]

I've come to realize over the years that people who argue to defend their faith to high heaven ( ), and claim no one can shake it, are the ones that actually DO have shaky faith. Those who are at peace with their faith, don't fight to defend it against those who don't share the same view. Just sayin'.

That's not true at all. All Christians are called to defend their faith. Now, there are times I think when you need to gracefully bow out of an argument but, if you claim to be passionate about something, to just simply always ignore a challenge is also wrong.

Regardless, it's a double-edged sword. Folks like S2M would claim that people with faith who are challenged about it and don't answer are just avoiding conversation or know that they're already beaten. However, if you do respond, even if it's calm, measured response, then you're stupid, misled, argumentative, etc. It's basically a no-win position.

Sorry but it is true to a pretty well degree, and not just in religion. You're entitled to see it how you wish.

[S2M]

I've come to realize over the years that people who argue to defend their faith to high heaven ( ), and claim no one can shake it, are the ones that actually DO have shaky faith. Those who are at peace with their faith, don't fight to defend it against those who don't share the same view. Just sayin'.

That's not true at all. All Christians are called to defend their faith. Now, there are times I think when you need to gracefully bow out of an argument but, if you claim to be passionate about something, to just simply always ignore a challenge is also wrong.

Regardless, it's a double-edged sword. Folks like S2M would claim that people with faith who are challenged about it and don't answer are just avoiding conversation or know that they're already beaten. However, if you do respond, even if it's calm, measured response, then you're stupid, misled, argumentative, etc. It's basically a no-win position.

Even worse when it's a music forum populated by pseudointellectuals.

Sorry, but i just don't agree with this statement. I'm degreed in philosophy(logic), and there's nothing remotely pseudo about it....I would rather hear an 'I don't know', then to sit through a BS, faith-based, straw-grasping, verbal diarrhea-laden dissertation on something that someone heard from a man who claims he's spoken to an invisible wizard who loves us, but chooses to live as an absentee landlord, while people suffer unimaginable atrocities because there is a greater purpose that we, lowly humans, are too stupid to comprehend in the bigger picture.....just saying.

[Rip Rokken]

Hitch Hitchslapping Sean Hannity and Jerry Falwell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WddjWqTryog

Not exactly the example I would want to be associated with if I was an atheist.

Well, he was probably a little inebriated, lol - he usually is:

Hitch explaining his glass of scotch on the Bill Mahar Show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PS9U5yQS9E



And from the same episode...

Hitchslapping rapper Mos Def regarding Osama Bin Laden (from 5:35 on):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ew9CngVeFA

Classic!

[conversationpc]

Not exactly the example I would want to be associated with if I was an atheist.

Well, he was probably a little inebriated, lol - he usually is:

Hitch explaining his glass of scotch on the Bill Mahar Show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PS9U5yQS9E

I guess that would explain it.

[S2M]

Dave...No one can defend faith. That's why it is called, FAITH. It's entire meaning is indefensible...anything not based on logic cannot be defended. It's not a knock, it is the truth.

Proclaiming that there is a god...is no different than claiming the Orioles will win the WS this year. Then when asked why the fan thinks that....a reply of - I just know they are, I have faith - is all one gets.....