Picking and Choosing at the "Buffet" of Religion

[Jack Bauer]

I've been having a rather heated debate with my friend over religion. He's extremely secular and progressive in his views and practices. However, he identifies as Christian.

When I challenge him on the contradiction in his views (i.e. the clear Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and premarital sex, the divinely sanctioned genocide of whole peoples, the outright chauvinism, etc), he backpedals and says that he only views the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) as the only authority he relies on.

Since these particular books are more biographical in nature and far less inhuman than the other books of the Bible, my friend believes that this solves the logical disconnect.

Essentially, he is picking and choosing what he likes from "The Word of God". I mentioned to him that when one does this, the religious text loses all significance. He himself has admitted that he uses "modern cultural sensibilities" to read the Bible. I retorted that "Why don't you just use those modern cultural sensibilities solely then? You've already rejected 95% of the Bible, why not go all the way?"

Our conversation is basically at an impasse. I said that he's essentially creating his own ludicrous religion, while he maintains that his beliefs are logically sound.

So what say you SDN? What else can I say that would help me dissuade him from his deeply contradictory views?

[Darth Wong]

I've been having a rather heated debate with my friend over religion. He's extremely secular and progressive in his views and practices. However, he identifies as Christian.

When I challenge him on the contradiction in his views (i.e. the clear Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and premarital sex, the divinely sanctioned genocide of whole peoples, the outright chauvinism, etc), he backpedals and says that he only views the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) as the only authority he relies on.

Since these particular books are more biographical in nature and far less inhuman than the other books of the Bible, my friend believes that this solves the logical disconnect.

Essentially, he is picking and choosing what he likes from "The Word of God". I mentioned to him that when one does this, the religious text loses all significance. He himself has admitted that he uses "modern cultural sensibilities" to read the Bible. I retorted that "Why don't you just use those modern cultural sensibilities solely then? You've already rejected 95% of the Bible, why not go all the way?"

Our conversation is basically at an impasse. I said that he's essentially creating his own ludicrous religion, while he maintains that his beliefs are logically sound.

So what say you SDN? What else can I say that would help me dissuade him from his deeply contradictory views?

Is he aware that the four Gospels all tell a very different story of the man he knows as Jesus? Each one designed to market the idea to a different audience? How about the fact that Jesus cannot be followed without recognizing on some level that the man described in those texts praised the Old Testament God and advocated that others follow him, and cannot therefore be followed independently of the murderous butcher described in the Old Testament?

At the end of the day, in order to hold onto his progressive views, he must let go of the Gospels too, and obey only those parts of the Gospels which he considers acceptable. By so doing, he reduces it to the level of a fictional movie like Star Wars, where you can cherry-pick moral teachings from Yoda to follow and ignore everything else.

[TC Pilot]

So what say you SDN? What else can I say that would help me dissuade him from his deeply contradictory views?

Why bother? He's apparently already rejected "the clear Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and premarital sex, the divinely sanctioned genocide of whole peoples, the outright chauvinism" as being wrong. What difference does it make if he believes in a god and that a Jewish dissident executed by Romans was his human manifestation, if it doesn't negatively affect his ability to interact in society?

[Jack Bauer]

Why bother? He's apparently already rejected "the clear Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and premarital sex, the divinely sanctioned genocide of whole peoples, the outright chauvinism" as being wrong. What difference does it make if he believes in a god and that a Jewish dissident executed by Romans was his human manifestation, if it doesn't negatively affect his ability to interact in society?

Because the cognitive dissonance he's exhibiting is disturbing. The pursuit of truth and rationality in and of itself is its own virtue.

Also, just because he's a progressive Christian shouldn't make him immune to criticism because he's liberal in his views. Moderates in this sense are enablers for more fundamentalist believers because they turn "religious faith" into a sacred cow that cannot be criticized on the basis of rationality.

It's the same double standard by which some mainstream Christians ridicule Mormonism or Scientology as "absurd contrived superstition". But if you were to make the same claims about mainstream Christianity (or Islam, Judaism, etc), you would be labeled as an intolerant bigot.

Since when is it intolerance or bigotry to state the obvious?

[Zixinus]

If he is choosing which parts to follow, he is not taking old teachings, but making his own by his choices. If he cannot comprehend that, I fail to see how he is rational.

[TC Pilot]

Because the cognitive dissonance he's exhibiting is disturbing. The pursuit of truth and rationality in and of itself is its own virtue.

Out of curiousity, would you say you have Lockeian political philosophy?

Also, just because he's a progressive Christian shouldn't make him immune to criticism because he's liberal in his views.

I never said he should be. You've clearly already criticized him, and I've said nothing that should indicate what you did was wrong.

It's the same double standard by which some mainstream Christians ridicule Mormonism or Scientology as "absurd contrived superstition". But if you were to make the same claims about mainstream Christianity (or Islam, Judaism, etc), you would be labeled as an intolerant bigot.

I, for one, am all for people realizing how utterly retarded it is to make all sorts of idiotic claims like "The Earth's only 6000 years old," "Evolution is evil," or any other somesuch nonsense, as well as the silliness of the Book of Mormon and the disturbingly cultish Scientology.

Since when is it intolerance or bigotry to state the obvious?

Where did I say I thought what you had done was wrong?

[NomAnor15]

Jack Bauer

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it sounds like you're making a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of statement. You say that your friend can't pick and choose things from his religion to follow, because it's logically inconsistent, but what if he decided to follow every precept in the Bible? Wouldn't that also be an undesirable result? So he can't pick and choose....and he can't follow every rule....doesn't that leave complete rejection of the religion as the only option? Not much room for leeway there. Please let me know if I missed something important here, this is just my impression from the thread so far.

[Jack Bauer]

Doesn't that leave complete rejection of the religion as the only option?

Bingo.

As for your earlier point, at least fundamentalists are consistent in their beliefs. I give them credit for actually following what their religious texts clearly state, as misguided and irrational they might be.

[Darth Wong]

I would prefer to say that complete rejection of the authority of religion is the only palatable option. If you say you reject religion in its entirety, some fucktard will invariably cherry-pick good statements from the Bible and ask why you reject them.

[Rye]

So what say you SDN? What else can I say that would help me dissuade him from his deeply contradictory views?

Why bother? He's apparently already rejected "the clear Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and premarital sex, the divinely sanctioned genocide of whole peoples, the outright chauvinism" as being wrong. What difference does it make if he believes in a god and that a Jewish dissident executed by Romans was his human manifestation, if it doesn't negatively affect his ability to interact in society?

In all fairness, I've seen "progressive" Christians (at least online) believe that, then sway to deism and then go crashing back to full blown creationist when they feel like they're betraying their beliefs and gone too far. While there's no evidence this person is going to do it, you may as well root out silly thinking if you can.

[TC Pilot]

Fair enough.

I'll ask you too, since it seems to apply: Do you adhere to John Locke's political beliefs?

[Zixinus]

Have you tried the argument that by cherry-picking according to "modern sensibilities" then he IS following "modern sensibilities" anyway, he is just dishonest about it?

[Darth Servo]

Its impossible to accept the Bible in its entirety, given the number of contradictions in it. Even your most rabid fundy picks and chooses what part they like and don't like.

[Rye]

Fair enough.

I'll ask you too, since it seems to apply: Do you adhere to John Locke's political beliefs?

From what I know of Locke, yeah, there's at least significant overlap. Why?

[TC Pilot]

Because there's just as much "cognitive dissonance," as Jack Bauer puts it, involved in adhereing to "natural rights" as it is to believe in a religion. Look at the American Declaration of Independence, for example. Throw out everything after "We hold these truths to be self-evident" and replace it with "that God exists" or "God created the universe," then see what you think of Locke.

You want a rational, secular state? You want "the pursuit of truth and rationality," as Jack Bauer said? Go talk to Hobbes.

Or does "rooting out silly thinking" only apply to religion?

I hope that doesn't sound all too harsh. It's not meant to be.

[Darth Wong]

Because there's just as much "cognitive dissonance," as Jack Bauer puts it, involved in adhereing to "natural rights" as it is to believe in a religion. Look at the American Declaration of Independence, for example. Throw out everything after "We hold these truths to be self-evident" and replace it with "that God exists" or "God created the universe," then see what you think of Locke.

You want a rational, secular state? You want "the pursuit of truth and rationality," as Jack Bauer said? Go talk to Hobbes.

Or does "rooting out silly thinking" only apply to religion?

I hope that doesn't sound all too harsh. It's not meant to be.

Did it hurt when you shoved your head so far up your ass that you were eating your own kidneys?

Secular philosophers such as Locke publish various ideas which they attempt to justify, and there is no inherent contradiction or logical disconnect in picking and choosing from which of those ideas you agree with. However, religion is completely different; it does not attempt to justify any of its ideas: it simply declares them as divine law, and attempts to support itself solely through an appeal to the authority of its own invented creations such as deities and mythological stories. To accept only part of a religion is to admit that you reject its claim of authority, and if you reject its claim of authority, then there is no reason to accept any of it because it is entirely based upon its own authority. To accept only part of a philosopher's work is to declare that some of his arguments were more convincing than others: an entirely reasonable statement and one which would apply to virtually any philosopher.

[TC Pilot]

Did it hurt when you shoved your head so far up your ass that you were eating your own kidneys?

Yeah, probably.

Secular philosophers such as Locke publish various ideas which they attempt to justify, and there is no inherent contradiction or logical disconnect in picking and choosing from which of those ideas you agree with.

That's good, because according to Locke, only atheists and Catholics should not be tolerated by the state.

To accept only part of a philosopher's work is to declare that some of his arguments were more convincing than others: an entirely reasonable statement and one which would apply to virtually any philosopher.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying you should throw out all of a philosopher's work because you should throw out all of a religion's claims/texts/etc. I'm saying you, or rather Zuul and, presumably, Jack Bauer should not apply a doube-standard. Sure, religion is irrational, baseless, and logically invalid. But to turn around criticizing this guy's "cognitive dissonance" when he should instead focus on "The pursuit of truth and rationality," etc is a double-standard when you accept a political philosophy justified by God.

Unless there's some empirical, rational justification for the idea of "natural rights" I've missed.

[Darth Wong]

Unless there's some empirical, rational justification for the idea of "natural rights" I've missed.

Hey fucktard, since when did anyone say that they actually thought Locke's arguments were necessarily sound on this matter? But the fact is that human rights are a valuable construct which can be used in order to derive a number of rules of social conduct that, on balance, tend to reduce the amount of abuse typically inflicted on the people by their rulers. The fact that Locke did a shitty job of justifying the idea does not mean that it's useless, moron. And unless someone in this thread defended that, you're simply full of shit for declaring that it's self-contradictory to support the idea of human rights.

[K. A. Pital]

What the fuck does Locke do with this? People said that their views may overlap with Locke; I'm sure the views of this Christian discussed here may overlap with the views of fairly liberal SDN readers, hell, even myself, in what concerns other matter than God-belief!

But for Christs' sake, people don't use Locke as the source of their views, he just happens to propose _several correlated ideas_. In the example with teh Christian, he deliberately takes his views from Holy Writ, then "adjusts" them to what he thinks are current cultural norms.

That's not what people here did with Locke; in fact I doubt they did anything with Locke at all.

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck does Locke do with this? People said that their views may overlap with Locke; I'm sure the views of this Christian discussed here may overlap with the views of fairly liberal SDN readers, hell, even myself, in what concerns other matter than God-belief!

But for Christs' sake, people don't use Locke as the source of their views, he just happens to propose _several correlated ideas_. In the example with teh Christian, he deliberately takes his views from Holy Writ, then "adjusts" them to what he thinks are current cultural norms.

That's not what people here did with Locke; in fact I doubt they did anything with Locke at all.

Look at how TC Pilot conducted himself here: he posted a leading question, intended to generate a certain response. He didn't exactly get that response, but he proceeded as if he did anyway, because he had a whole argument worked up in advance, with no particular concern about whether it actually applied to anything that was said in this thread. What a fucking sophist twit.

[TC Pilot]

Oh no, something that doesn't explicitely relate to the original subject at hand! Get it!

If you want to blow a single part of what I posted out of proportion and start talking about Locke rather than it just being an example of "cognitive dissonance" by Jack Bauer, and implicitely Zuul[/i] too, that he seemed so loathe about, fine, but take it to the Politics forum.

[Darth Wong]

Oh no, something that doesn't explicitely relate to the original subject at hand! Get it!

If you want to blow a single part of what I posted out of proportion and start talking about Locke rather than it just being an example of "cognitive dissonance" by Jack Bauer, and implicitely Zuul[/i] too, that he seemed so loathe about, fine, but take it to the Politics forum.

What is your malfunction, fucktard? It's not about "not explicitly relating to the original subject", you stupid little shit. It's about you resorting to gross strawman distortions of what other people are saying in order to support a point that you were obviously planning on making regardless of whether it had anything to do with anything that anyone said in this thread. That shit is against our rules, ass-wipe.

[K. A. Pital]

Since you're fucking dense let me explain the mechanics of your strawman and hijack.

Out of curiousity, would you say you have Lockeian political philosophy?

He has his own political philosophy, based on rational analysis which he himself did - not just of Locke's works but of many works of theory and his life practice; he's not on taking Locke's writings as holy writ, then throwing out whatever irks him too much or anything. In fact I doubt that he just read Locke and then proceeded to form his political views upon that.

So you entered the thread with a planned hijack and strawman. Way to go.

Note that the same argument could be made about any rational idea: "You support scientist X?" "Of course I do" "But some of his ideas are racist, so you also subscribe to slavery/racism". How does that fucking follow, moron? Neither the writings of a man dictate that all follow them to the letter (writings of God however do), nor do people use Locke as a basis for their philosophy instead of forming a worldview based on their own rational analysis, then finding that some points overlap with Locke!

Make strawmen somewhere else - a religious person thinks that the Holy Writ dictates worldview. He didn't suddenly find that his views "overlap" with some of the more liberal Bible passages; he started to believe the thing is a Godly revelation and then throw out stuff which he found too atrocious for himself to reconciliate.

[Rye]

Oh no, something that doesn't explicitely relate to the original subject at hand! Get it!

It is pretty clear that you wanted someone to say "yes" so you could vent some stuff about Locke, but you jumped the gun. For one, the logical criticism of religious views doesn't really prompt a conversation about Locke, Hobbes or Nietzsche, and it can be taken on its own. This whole "steer the conversation to more familiar ground" thing is something we've probably all done (including me, I've certainly derailed conversations in the past towards religion because I've trod the area a lot more and know it better), but in this case, it would be better to just admit it rather than make yourself look worse by intentionally derailing a thread.

If you want to blow a single part of what I posted out of proportion and start talking about Locke rather than it just being an example of "cognitive dissonance" by Jack Bauer, and implicitely Zuul too, that he seemed so loathe about, fine, but take it to the Politics forum.

I said there was overlap, that happens with lots of philosophers, even religious ones. I don't agree with Hobbes that man's nature is some sort of bellum omnium contra omnes, to quote an Anaal Nathrakh song, for instance, but I like some of the other stuff he said.