Christians, for my own sanity...

[Ritterin Sophia]

Okay, LadyTevars thread got me wondering, and I know there's more of you here on SDN than Muslims or Jews and I only really know much about Christianity, so you could probably more readily answer my questions.

Throughout my childhood I basically paid lip service (Unintenional Pun, I assure you) to the Christian dogma, though, for the past couple years I've come to accept that I am indeed an atheist, I know it must shock you all to find an atheist on SDN!

So, my first question is, why do you moderate christians seek to take your religion back? People like Pat Robertson and the Phelps are indeed extremist, however, I don't see what the point of 'retaking' your religion is if your religion supports and encourages those views. I hear you speak of doing good, but what's the point if the stories in your own Bible speak of you God doing horrible things and you can still actually call you God 'good'?

My second question is, why do you take some parts of the Bible literally without any evidence whatsoever, and not others? I mean if it isn't true then what's the point of having them?

[Adrian Laguna]

I can't really talk about the protestant sects, which have this tendency to insist the Bible is the literal word of God. In the case of the Catholic Church it acknowledges that the writers of the Bible are human, with all the flaws that being human entails. Furthermore, the Catholic faith isn't based on the Bible alone.

There is a huge body of work accomplished during the Middle-Ages that gives the Catholic faith pretty firm philosophical foundations, like Saint Agustine's resolution of the problem of God's omniscience and free will, or Saint Anslem's ontological proof of God's existence. Then there are various other things that have become part of the faith through one way or another despite the lack of Biblical support. For example, the Bible does not say that Jesus of Nazareth was born in the night between December 24 and 25. However, the birth of Jesus is celebrated on December 24th or 25th (depending on where you live). The Bible makes no real mention of saints, they are largely a creation of the Church.

The Church's stance on abortion is another example of something that has little or no Biblical support. Interestingly enough, while their stance is definitely backward and detrimental, it is based on a doctrine that when it was implemented was very forward thinking and a moral imperative. Namely, they declared the incredibly widespread practice of infanticide to be heresy of the highest order. Well over a thousand years later the policy can't handle modern medical technology, though that's only a minor annoyance in the face of what it accomplished.

As to "taking back the religion". Well, in many ways one's religion is like another nationality. It's very natural for people to try to improve their country, and become distressed when people who they see as destructive to their country's values or social/economical/geo-political health attain high office. You may argue that the religion supports the views of the extremists, however the religion is not set in stone. Aside from a very narrow range of core beliefs (none of which involve gays, abortion, or severe punishments for adultery), Christianity as a whole can be surprisingly flexible. The fight between extremists and more secular moderates is a fight about which side's interpretation and supplements to the core beliefs shall be the gold standard.

[Ritterin Sophia]

There is a huge body of work accomplished during the Middle-Ages that gives the Catholic faith pretty firm philosophical foundations, like Saint Agustine's resolution of the problem of God's omniscience and free will, or Saint Anslem's ontological proof of God's existence.

Can you expand upon this?

The Church's stance on abortion is another example of something that has little or no Biblical support. Interestingly enough, while their stance is definitely backward and detrimental, it is based on a doctrine that when it was implemented was very forward thinking and a moral imperative. Namely, they declared the incredibly widespread practice of infanticide to be heresy of the highest order.

So God committed heresy?

You may argue that the religion supports the views of the extremists, however the religion is not set in stone. Aside from a very narrow range of core beliefs (none of which involve gays, abortion, or severe punishments for adultery), Christianity as a whole can be surprisingly flexible.

Abortion, maybe not, however, you can't seriously be trying to say that the Bible doesn't have a bigotted view on homosexuality and a backwards view on matters of sex.

[Magus]

So, my first question is, why do you moderate christians seek to take your religion back?

Because fundamentalism sucks. Also because theocracy, which fundamentalists would be happy to implement (so long as it's a theocracy of their viewpoints), sucks.

People like Pat Robertson and the Phelps are indeed extremist, however, I don't see what the point of 'retaking' your religion is if your religion supports and encourages those views.

The very idea that two sects can try to "retake" a religion from each other would imply that what said religion "supports and encourages" is not set in stone, or that those trying to retake said religion don't believe it should be.

I hear you speak of doing good, but what's the point if the stories in your own Bible speak of you God doing horrible things and you can still actually call you God 'good'?

I suspect this would be akin to looking through an American history book (a real one, not a politically correct one) and attempting to emulate the good and learn from the bad. As for the second part of your question, I don't have a good answer at this time, and I'm not certain I'll be able to discover an adequate one, given more time.

My second question is, why do you take some parts of the Bible literally without any evidence whatsoever, and not others? I mean if it isn't true then what's the point of having them?

It's mostly a matter of faith that at least some of the Bible has a measure of accuracy to it. That said, it's important to be able to admit that there will be errors, as there will in any man-made text.

[Elaro]

Essentially, it's a "shut up, you're making my side look stupid" thing. Where the sides, here, are "pro"-Christianity (Christians) and "anti"-Christianity (us). So when we say that religion makes people do bad things, the "mainstream" says no, but the fundies prove our point. Ergo, "let's make the fundies go away" a.k.a "retaking our religion".

[Masami von Weizegger]

The problem a lot of folks have with the "Take Christianity back from the extremists" angle is that even without the dubious interpretation of some Biblical passages, there's still a lot of damning stuff tucked away in there.

As such, a liberal Christian will obviously choose to put their faith in the parts of the Bible that already fit snuggly into their world view while either ignoring the other parts or dismissing it as analogy/a different time/not really part of Christianity.

The normal explanation given is that, "As the Bible was authored by man obviously some bits of chest-thumping jingoism and fanatical devotion to the social orders of the day are expected but all the bits I like form the TRUE MEANING of the Bible and Christianity!"

From this lone poster's ignorant standpoint, it's not all that different from the fundie standpoint, also formed of selective acceptance of passages that fit into their own views already.

[Howedar]

That would be a more relevant criticism if these things were said without the historical knowledge that ancient times were rather more brutal and bloody than things are today, and therefore that ancient writers would almost certainly write with a more hellfire-ish bent than would modern readers.

[Ritterin Sophia]

That would be a more relevant criticism if these things were said without the historical knowledge that ancient times were rather more brutal and bloody than things are today, and therefore that ancient writers would almost certainly write with a more hellfire-ish bent than would modern readers.

So moral relativism? Can you explain how it's any bit better that a Christian would kill a Muslim a thousand years ago than a Muslim who'd kill christians today?

[Howedar]

Complete red herring, you stupid fuck.

[Ritterin Sophia]

In what way? You're saying it's okay for them to be complete barbarians and slaughter people based on victimless vrimes, race, and religion, just because everyone was doing so, that's moral relativism, cunt stain.

[Adrian Laguna]

There is a huge body of work accomplished during the Middle-Ages that gives the Catholic faith pretty firm philosophical foundations, like Saint Agustine's resolution of the problem of God's omniscience and free will, or Saint Anslem's ontological proof of God's existence.

Can you expand upon this?

A little bit yes, but not much. I've only recently begun to raise myself above the well of nothingness that's been my knowledge of philosophy.

Saint Anslem's ontological proof, proving God's existence through reason alone, is rather elegant. Basically his argument is that if it is possible to conceive of the most perfect being, then said being necessarily exists because it would not be the most perfect being if it exists only in your mind. This argument is stronger than it seems at first, it took 700 years until someone finally laid it to rest. Immanuel Kant showed that the argument had a flaw, not in logic, but in grammar. However, the ontological proof is still not dead, merely that particular version of it (though I hear new versions have this tendency to be self-refuting).

So God committed heresy?

I'm pretty sure "do not question God" is a pretty high up on the tenets of Christianity. Not to mention that God would by definition not be bound by human laws. Though if God is omniscient and omnipotent then humans are in a rather poor position to be questioning God's actions. Furthermore, we can go back to my earlier statement that the Bible is not and has never been said to be perfectly accurate as is.

Abortion, maybe not, however, you can't seriously be trying to say that the Bible doesn't have a bigotted view on homosexuality and a backwards view on matters of sex.

Again, depends on your interpretation of it. There is one passage that forbids homosexuality. In fact, if you read it too literally it only forbids male homosexuality. The very same section also forbids eating shellfish, but you don't see Fundies trying to ban the Red Lobster restaurant chain.

[Howedar]

In what way? You're saying it's okay for them to be complete barbarians and slaughter people based on victimless vrimes, race, and religion, just because everyone was doing so, that's moral relativism, cunt stain.

By all means, find where I said that. Otherwise, go learn to read.

[Anguirus]

Basically his argument is that if it is possible to conceive of the most perfect being, then said being necessarily exists because it would not be the most perfect being if it exists only in your mind. This argument is stronger than it seems at first

Really? Because every version I've seen of it is totally nonsensical. It's not a problem with grammar, either; it is a failure as an argument because it's simply a word-game to begin with.

To be "perfect" is a totally subjective concept that has nothing to do with existing. I could just as easily argue that actual existance is a sort of pollution and so a perfect being must necessarily not exist.

Another problem is that no two people will concieve of the exact same "perfect being," indicating that it is NOT a universal concept and, again, is subjective.

[Psycho Smiley]

It would appear that this argument simply attempts to define God into existance. According to the Iron Chariots counter-apologetics wiki:

In this argument, existence is given as one of God's attributes as part of the definition: if X is God, then X has the property of existence. This is logically equivalent to "if X does not exist, then X is not God." It does not prove that there are any entities that actually match the definition.

In short, this argument boils down to "show me a god, and I'll show you an existing god." It is a form of circular reasoning because the existence is built into the assumptions.

[Imperial Overlord]

Basically his argument is that if it is possible to conceive of the most perfect being, then said being necessarily exists because it would not be the most perfect being if it exists only in your mind. This argument is stronger than it seems at first

Really? Because every version I've seen of it is totally nonsensical. It's not a problem with grammar, either; it is a failure as an argument because it's simply a word-game to begin with.

To be "perfect" is a totally subjective concept that has nothing to do with existing. I could just as easily argue that actual existance is a sort of pollution and so a perfect being must necessarily not exist.

Another problem is that no two people will concieve of the exact same "perfect being," indicating that it is NOT a universal concept and, again, is subjective.

The ontological arguement, among Christians, was always contentious as a proof of God's existence. One of the first counter arguments (by a Christian monk) was that if you substitute the word "island" for "God" in the argument you prove the existence of a perfect island by reason alone, which is, of course, bullshit. I'm really surprised to see any Christian bring it up as an actual argument of God's existence instead of as a interesting artifact of medieval thought.

[Adrian Laguna]

To be "perfect" is a totally subjective concept that has nothing to do with existing. I could just as easily argue that actual existance is a sort of pollution and so a perfect being must necessarily not exist.

Another problem is that no two people will concieve of the exact same "perfect being," indicating that it is NOT a universal concept and, again, is subjective.

One of the first counter arguments (by a Christian monk) was that if you substitute the word "island" for "God" in the argument you prove the existence of a perfect island by reason alone, which is, of course, bullshit.

Anselm dealt with these two criticisms. The first is that if you can understand the phrase "most perfect being", then you have already conceived such a being. The reply to the second is that nothing in the definiton of an island that entails perfection, whereas the definition of God does. Since it's obviously more perfect to exist than to not exist, then the conception of God entails God's existence.

Like I said, the argument has been shot down, but it took a long while. You need to understand that for a very long time the Platonic approach of pure reason held sway over the minds of philosophers. I brought it up as an example of Catholicism's philosophical grounding. There's also the work of various other philosophers, not to mention the many thinkers whose ideas never gained much traction. The Medieval world was rife with debate. The issue of the universals (the referents of words) alone had so much conflict that John of Salisbury in the 12th Century claimed that there were as many theories on the topic as there are heads.

All of this builds into my larger point that the Christian faith is not a monolithic entity with all its parts etched into unchanging stone.

[Imperial Overlord]

uot;]One of the first counter arguments (by a Christian monk) was that if you substitute the word "island" for "God" in the argument you prove the existence of a perfect island by reason alone, which is, of course, bullshit.

Anselm dealt with these two criticisms. The first is that if you can understand the phrase "most perfect being", then you have already conceived such a being. The reply to the second is that nothing in the definiton of an island that entails perfection, whereas the definition of God does. Since it's obviously more perfect to exist than to not exist, then the conception of God entails God's existence.

Anselm's replies were bullshit then and they're bullshit now. His entire argument is begging the question, as was pointed out when he first made it. Perfection is just as part of a "perfect island" as it is in a "perfect being". His semantic whoring got him a sainthood but the ontological argument was widely believed to be flawed by many Christian thinkers from the beginning. It is not, in any sense, "an elegant proof", but rather a semantic trick that relies on getting the other side to accept and use two different uses of the word "perfect" in order to perform a contortion of logic.

[Darth Wong]

Like I said, the argument has been shot down, but it took a long while.

Only because nobody seriously tried for a long time, not because it's actually difficult to shoot down. The argument is nothing more than a non sequitur, for fuck's sake. No more logical than "trees have leaves, therefore God must exist". Indeed, in order to shoot it down, one need only point out that the logical connection from A to B is never really established in the first place.

[CmdrWilkens]

As a more general reply I tend to associate myself more with a very Gospel oriented view on Christianity. Certainly there are many things within the four gospels we wouldn't accept today but as a whole (and viewed as a literary whole rather than examining each story without reference to the whole) the Gospels talk about a man who went across most of Israel healing the sick, raising the dead, and otherwise performing miracles regardless of the creed or background of those to whom the gift was given. The root of christianity is the idea that we must have faith that God exists (and I fully hold to the notion that there can never be proof of God's existence otherwise faith would be meaningless, having faith is trusting to the existence of something which I know I cannot prove true which in and of itself certianly seems a highly silly proposition) and that jesus was sent to show us a new path that by trust in him we might gain life after death. I think the most telling piece would be to examine to actual Nicene Creed which serves as the central profession of faith amongst most denominations. Its a neat littel document which holds virtually every bit of core orthodox christianity and contains not a single word about how we should conduct our interpersonal affairs. Essentially that leaves me (and those liek minded) with the idea that a man, who was God, who took in all to himself whetehr they were the lowest of the social low or the highest of the high and spoke to them all as equals then that is the example we should follow. Those who seek to exclude or control others are those I would see, and again others like minded would see, as going against the very grain of Jesus's life where he willingly accepted death rather than let his disciples fight their way out from Gethsemane, that example tells me not to force antyhing I believe on another but rather let my own actions and faith speak for themselves for if they are true then there is no need for force.

So yeah long winded response that may make no sense but that's the viewpoint I come from and why I personally have great distaste for the Pat Robertsons and the super evangelicals and the born-agains of the world.

[Rye]

A little bit yes, but not much. I've only recently begun to raise myself above the well of nothingness that's been my knowledge of philosophy.

Saint Anslem's ontological proof, proving God's existence through reason alone, is rather elegant. Basically his argument is that if it is possible to conceive of the most perfect being, then said being necessarily exists because it would not be the most perfect being if it exists only in your mind. This argument is stronger than it seems at first, it took 700 years until someone finally laid it to rest.

It's not strong at all, the first time I heard it I refuted it in a matter of minutes, it's the worst argument for God in my opinion. Firstly, "perfection" is a value judgment, not an objective property, "perfection" has nothing to do with whether something exists. Indeed, according to Plato's ontology, such "perfect" entities are conceptual in nature and not physical.

Secondly, you don't get to define things into existence like that, you get to define existing things in relation to other existing things. Like with the island example, while "perfect" may not be inherent to the definition of an island, it is inherent to the definition of a perfect island or a perfect million pounds in my bank account. This doesn't make them exist.

So God committed heresy?

I'm pretty sure "do not question God" is a pretty high up on the tenets of Christianity. Not to mention that God would by definition not be bound by human laws.

Runs up with some issues with 1 Thessalonians 5:21 then, doesn't it?

Though if God is omniscient and omnipotent then humans are in a rather poor position to be questioning God's actions.

*loads anti-apologetics philosophy shotgun*

Can an omnipotent and omniscient entity increase or change what it knows? Yes? Then it's not omniscient. No? Then it's not omnipotent.

*disposes of stinking smoky shells*

Abortion, maybe not, however, you can't seriously be trying to say that the Bible doesn't have a bigotted view on homosexuality and a backwards view on matters of sex.

Again, depends on your interpretation of it. There is one passage that forbids homosexuality. In fact, if you read it too literally it only forbids male homosexuality. The very same section also forbids eating shellfish, but you don't see Fundies trying to ban the Red Lobster restaurant chain.

Actually no, Paul forbids it too. It's really wishful thinking that Jesus would be okay with it, what with him understanding the jewish mythology and everything.

[R. U. Serious]

So, my first question is, why do you moderate christians seek to take your religion back? People like Pat Robertson and the Phelps are indeed extremist, however, I don't see what the point of 'retaking' your religion is if your religion supports and encourages those views. I hear you speak of doing good, but what's the point if the stories in your own Bible speak of you God doing horrible things and you can still actually call you God 'good'?

THe problem you have, is that you operate from the assumption, that that the fundamentalist loonies view of their faith is the correct(er) one, and the moderates got it wrong. From that POV it indeed doesn't make sense. But you have to understand that moderates operate from the position that their interpretation of their faith is the correct one - and the loonies are only given them a bad rep by being loosely associated with them (relying on the scripture and terms) but distorting things.
So, I guess you really want to have a different discussion: namely about which view of a specific faith is the "correct" one, or the one which - objectively - comes closest to what the God of said scripture would want. So, you're taking sides with the fundamentalists in that dispute and want to challenge the moderate Christians in the hopes that - if they are really decent (moderate) people - they will see that the fundamentalists are correct and hence will drop their religion. I very much doubt that is going to work...

I see that attitude a lot, more so when it comes to Islam. I think people must have a very warped sense of how the average human works, if they think they'll have any success with that approach. Better to not take sides with the fundamentalists and give them more legitimacy. Most people don't like to "stick out" and question everything - they consider their culture and their religion an important part of who they are. It's like asking someone who's worked all their life (satisfied) at huge multinational company X, and you tell them, capitalism doesn't work well for everybody (too many people get screwed) and they should really stop working there. Not gonna happen.

[Anguirus]

The first is that if you can understand the phrase "most perfect being", then you have already conceived such a being.

...which still doesn't make it exist.

I understand that you aren't trying to mount a serious defense of the argument, but as others have said it still doesn't even begin to prove anything.

[Darth Wong]

I still can't believe that people even refer to the "ontological proof" as if it was ever a legitimate philosophical argument. It's not just flawed, like Pascal's Wager; it has no substance in the first place. It's just as much of an arbitrary leap in logic as "I scratched my balls yesterday, therefore God exists."

[Gaidin]

Nonetheless, I'd figure that when something like that was around as long as it was before being shot down, it'd be a good thing to understand its influence on such a culture, whether or not all that can really be said of it philosophically is "illegitimate".

[Darth Wong]

Nonetheless, I'd figure that when something like that was around as long as it was before being shot down, it'd be a good thing to understand its influence on such a culture, whether or not all that can really be said of it philosophically is "illegitimate".

What "influence" on culture? Most people have never even heard of the term "ontological". It's nothing more than an obscure little piece of bullshit promoted by the Church a long time ago, which normal people have never heard of and which sounds not just stupid but laughably stupid on its face.