RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible?

RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JeffBC -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/18/2013 6:25:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The penalty for adultery was death. In the third chapter of mathew Jesus said - verily, I tell you he has looked on a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. That particular one is just too funny. Am I the only one who notes a bit of a problem insofar as continuation of our species with this one?

dcnovice -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/18/2013 6:31:47 AM)
quote: Here's the thing, an awful lot of us used to be Christians. We get it, we experienced it and that's why we are speaking up against it. Had another thought about this point. Given how large and diverse Christianity is, I'm not sure there's a single "it" that anyone experiences fully. Growing up, say, Southern Baptist is starkly different from being brought up Catholic. That, in turn, differs from the experience of many Episcopalians.

altoonamaster -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/18/2013 6:34:14 AM)
if you watch any religious person on television preaching for 2 minutes you get 5 minutes of send me money/this religion has been around 2000 yrs and still these leaches say they need my money to save more souls/if god is that powerful then why

chatterbox24 -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/18/2013 6:38:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl are we given that choice as children? If one was to grow up in a home with no value system, no religious beliefs, and as children never heard, knew, was introduced, to something they never have knowledge too then they have had no choice yet. You can not believe something you have no revelations too. My personal believe is children are special and their minds are not fully formed, and are exempt, because they are under the rules of another. Some get a choice and some don't.

tazzygirl -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/18/2013 6:54:17 AM)
growing up in a religious household, I can assure you we had no choice but to go to church, to believe as my mother did... anything less was not acceptable. Thankfully summers were spent with my grandparents

theshytype -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/18/2013 6:54:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl are we given that choice as children? In many households, the children are given no choice whatsoever. They are indoctrinated from birth in what their parents/guardians believe in. I believe that ideology is very very wrong. I brought my kids up with no influence on any particular faith. They went to many different schools. Some were christian, some were on the outskirts of it. Some were even hindu. They had many friends from all religious backgrounds and all were welcomed here. So they grew up learning about all sorts of religions and now they are old enough to make up their own minds which path to follow. I won't condemn them for their beliefs and I think it's right for me to take that stance. I firmly belive that everyone has a given right to learn all faiths and choose for themselves - not have their parents' faith rammed down their necks from birth. Just my [sm=2cents.gif] I agree with you. It wasn't rammed down my throat as a child, and I do the same for my own. When I was young, I questioned the existence of any god. I was always more analytic and very much into science. I spent some time reading about other religions. I was on the fence of what to believe, but no one could have changed my mind one way or the other. It was something only I could decide. So, when my oldest asked if God was real, I just asked her what she believed. When she asked where the bible came from, I worded it "It has been said that..." and the clever girl asked if I believed that. Instead, I asked her what she believed. My kids are influenced enough by my actions and interactions, and by that of their peers, they do not need me to create their thoughts for them. For the record, I was raised in a Presbyterian household, but my father was Catholic. I decided on my own to continue as a Presbyterian. The Dalai Lama inspires me, whereas the pope does not. Not going to church will not earn me a one-way ticket to hell as outside family members proclaim, the bible is a fine piece of literary work meant to inspire mankind to do good, and I am a Democrat.

Kirata -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/18/2013 7:21:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata What are the logical possibilities that would allow for a deity that is both good and evil while being simultaneously worthy of esteem and devotion? That last part is important, because otherwise religion is just a euphemism for ass-kissing. The answer to that lies in... Well, no. Your post addresses the issue of how evil can exist without God being evil, but that wasn't the question. The question was what logical possibilities exist for a deity who is both good and evil to be worthy of esteem and devotion. The view that "everything is God," for example, would seem at least superficially to require such a deity. So the can of worms being opened here is: What is evil? Because in the final analysis, everything turns on how we answer that supremely critical question. K.

Kirata -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/18/2013 8:45:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 I was told that the description of God as 'both transcendent and immanent'... Going off on a tangent, this is possibly the most egregious component of our monotheistic religions, and the source of all their worst excesses. Because to define deity as "transcendent and immanent" requires the existence of something else, namely, that which it transcends and is immanent within. Thus it divides reality, splits it, and shatters its unity, leaving us with a profane world to which God stands forever as "other". This is not to say that there is anything wrong with a deity who is transcendent and immanent. The problem lies with postulating a deity who is only "transcendent and immanent," a deity who is not Absolute and all-encompassing. The result is a form of Dualism, and not just a neutral dualism but a moralistic and hierarchical dualism in which the sacred and the good stand in eternal opposition to a profane and sinful world. K.

Phydeaux -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/18/2013 10:53:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata What are the logical possibilities that would allow for a deity that is both good and evil while being simultaneously worthy of esteem and devotion? That last part is important, because otherwise religion is just a euphemism for ass-kissing. The answer to that lies in... Well, no. Your post addresses the issue of how evil can exist without God being evil, but that wasn't the question. The question was what logical possibilities exist for a deity who is both good and evil to be worthy of esteem and devotion. The view that "everything is God," for example, would seem at least superficially to require such a deity. So the can of worms being opened here is: What is evil? Because in the final analysis, everything turns on how we answer that supremely critical question. K. I don't see that it did. I said that Hindu deities are both (simultaneously) good and evil. So perhaps we are not understanding each other. What evil is, of course, depends on how you frame it. If you are a relative moralist it depends on your frame of mind. If you are an absolutist it depends on a deities point of view. Personally, I find no value in moral relativism. I have no interest in John Q Public's point of view - it cannot be any more valid than mine, and I find disputes that cannot be settled - valueless as a guide to living one's life. Don't cheat on taxes. Why? Because I said so. To me the concept of good and evil has validity because of the events that jesus christ did. Jesus walked on water, fed the poor, raised the dead. I have come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly. I choose to abscribe the hashtag #good to this. Those things that are opposite #evil. To me, the event of Jesus is one of a series of demonstrations of #good (Ezekiel, #isaah #David #Solomon). And to me it doesn't matter if other religions have other pathways to #good. I've found one I choose to follow. And in fact, I couldn't disbelieve even if i wanted to -because I have seen way to much.

Phydeaux -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/18/2013 10:56:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 I was told that the description of God as 'both transcendent and immanent'... Going off on a tangent, this is possibly the most egregious component of our monotheistic religions, and the source of all their worst excesses. Because to define deity as "transcendent and immanent" requires the existence of something else, namely, that which it transcends and is immanent within. Thus it divides reality, splits it, and shatters its unity, leaving us with a profane world to which God stands forever as "other". This is not to say that there is anything wrong with a deity who is transcendent and immanent. The problem lies with postulating a deity who is only "transcendent and immanent," a deity who is not Absolute and all-encompassing. The result is a form of Dualism, and not just a neutral dualism but a moralistic and hierarchical dualism in which the sacred and the good stand in eternal opposition to a profane and sinful world. K. More or less I said this already. The decisions you make on what god is - all knowing all power etc etc - or ranscendent and immanent as you said - determine where the fault lines and where the theological questions are. I wouldn't say a deity that is only transcetdent and immanent is a problem any more than I would say "red" is a problem. Red is a color - anything beyond that is your reaction to it.

GotSteel -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/21/2013 5:59:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Here's the thing, an awful lot of us used to be Christians. We get it, we experienced it and that's why we are speaking up against it. quote: No, belief is not a choice. I've been puzzling over this, and your meaning isn't entirely clear. Are you saying belief is involuntary? Mentally? Psychologically? In some other way? Check for yourself. Choose to believe that Santa Claus literally flies around one night a year on a reindeer powered sleigh and jumps down everyone's chimneys despite being morbidly obese in order to deliver presents manufactured by elves in a north pole workshop. Can you do it? quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If belief isn't a choice, how did folks who "used to be Christians" move on to a different mindset? How did you become an A-Santa Claus-ist?

Kirata -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/21/2013 11:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Check for yourself. Choose to believe that Santa Claus literally flies around one night a year on a reindeer powered sleigh and jumps down everyone's chimneys despite being morbidly obese in order to deliver presents manufactured by elves in a north pole workshop. Can you do it? The fact that people can't "choose to believe" something they don't believe does not sustain your claim that belief is not a choice. It sounds to me like you just don't want to accept responsibility for having chosen to believe your parents, peers, or others who led you to Christianity. Maybe that's why you habitually accuse people who do believe of being gullible. But what's really gullible is imagining that anyone would find this argument convincing. K.

Phydeaux -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/21/2013 11:50:34 PM)
Thanks K I think it interesting that people think living with a moral code is easier than living without. Seems to me that if you have the guts to say you're christian (or hindu or whatever) people hold you accountable for that. Best to you..

Apocalypso -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/22/2013 2:29:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Belief is not a choice. This is easily demonstrable, try picking a belief fundimentally different from your own and believe in it. Believe in Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster, quetzalcoatl, the righteousness of the Talaban. Try it, you won't be able to believe because belief is not a choice. What you outline is pretty much Chaos Magic 101, for the record. The fact you personally are unable to do something isn't the same thing as it not being a choice. I, personally, am physically incapable of climbing Everest. That doesn't mean that everyone who climbs Everest is doing it involuntarily.

Kirata -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/22/2013 7:59:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Thanks K You're welcome, but don't get your hopes up. He'll never see it. GotSteel has chosen, presumably involuntarily though probably correctly, to enhance his enjoyment of the forum by keeping me on Hide. K.

GotSteel -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/22/2013 4:32:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso The fact you personally are unable to do something isn't the same thing as it not being a choice. You're right the study with a sample size of one I'm suggesting isn't conclusive. However, my statement wasn't based on my own research (with a sampling of one) and my purpose in advocating for that experiment is to encourage critical thinking. Here's a little better explanation of the claim I've been making: quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201109/disbelief-is-not-choice After all, though we can choose our religious affiliation, none of us can ultimately choose what we truly believe or don't believe. I disbelieve in unicorns and I could not choose otherwise, just as I also could not believe, absent new evidence that changes my understanding of geography, that New York is south of Florida. The difference between sexual orientation and personal secularity is not that one is biological and the other is a choice, because both have causal factors that eliminate choice. The difference is that sexual orientation is determined almost entirely by biology, whereas religious disbelief is much more a combination of biology and environment. If Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world's best-known atheist, had been born in the thirteenth century, chances are he would have been theistic, believing in one kind of god or another. But, having been born in the twentieth century, having experienced his life as he has, can it really be said that Dawkins chooses to be an atheist? His status as a nonbeliever is a result of his biological composition (particularly his brain function) combined with the knowledge he has gained through his life experiences. It really is not a choice at all. If more individuals today are religious skeptics than in centuries past, that is mainly because accumulated knowledge has inclined more people toward such doubt.

dcnovice -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/22/2013 7:44:12 PM)
quote: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201109/disbelief-is-not-choice Two things struck me as I looked through the piece: (a) Despite being published under the banner of Psychology Today, the essay contains no references to scientific research. (b) The author, president of the American Humanist Association, is described as "an attorney, activist, and writer." No mention is made of any scientific or psychological training he might have.

dcnovice -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/22/2013 7:45:55 PM)
quote: my statement wasn't based on my own research (with a sampling of one) What was it based on?

Kirata -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/22/2013 7:52:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Here's a little better explanation of the claim I've been making: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201109/disbelief-is-not-choice Your link is to an opinion blog written by David Niose, president of the Secular Coalition for America and author of "Nonbeliever Nation," who is a lawyer, not a psychologist. K.

dcnovice -> RE: Do Liberal Christians Hate The Bible? (7/22/2013 8:06:36 PM)
FR Two passages from the essay raised particular questions and thoughts for me: But, having been born in the twentieth century, having experienced his life as he has, can it really be said that Dawkins chooses to be an atheist? His status as a nonbeliever is a result of his biological composition (particularly his brain function) combined with the knowledge he has gained through his life experiences. It really is not a choice at all. Dawkins reportedly described his youth as a "typical Anglican upbringing" and believed into his teens. Shouldn't his movement toward atheism have been impossible then? I also have a dear friend who was reared by parents she describes as "devout atheists." Shouldn't her conversion to Christianity have been impossible as well? I couldn't help smiling at the implication that nonbelievers have "brain function" while believers don't. If more individuals today are religious skeptics than in centuries past, that is mainly because accumulated knowledge has inclined more people toward such doubt. Greater societal acceptance of nonbelief may have been a key factor too. * * * Watching the contortions the author put himself through, I keep wondering: Why is it so important to persuade people that (non)belief is not a choice? It seems to erode one of the key points I've often heard from nonbelievers, which is that their views stem from careful reasoning rooted in observation and science. If, as the author asserts, Dawkins's position is "really is not a choice at all," it seems no more intellectually meritorious than any other.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875