Since I have started blogging here just this past October, I have felt the sting of religious intolerance in almost every thread I have participated in.
I love religion. I think it is an invaluable resource in my effort to understand my place in the world. Part of my understanding of my place in this world is knowing how small that place is. In the course of human history it is as small as the planet earth is to the Milky Way Galaxy.
I have been scorned by religion in my own life. I have also scorned others in the name of religion in my early life.
People who live religiously often misjudge others. Some people who live morally don't understand the hipocrisy of religious people who live immorally. Atheists demand tangible proof. Spiritualists claim faith in the unseen.
All pretend to know and seek Truth. In reality they all claim exclusive ownership to Truth, and refuse to participate in any open conversation.
Intolerance abounds. I argue that anyone seeking Truth need look no further than the course of human history on the planet. In any honest search, the scar that hate has left on the face of Earth cannot be minimized. Individuals might plead for their souls at the foot of the throne of God, but the overwhelming Truth will not hide or give refuge to propagators of hate.
I believe that certain humans have been placed on the earth in order to speak the voice of Truth. Those persons have lived, preached, and died in the names of Peace and Love. The world has responded cruelly and inhumanely to them. How is it that the dominating world religions have gotten away with promoting hate in their names?
Very interesting blog post. I'm definitely inclined to agree. It's interesting to see how different people can take the same things through the view of their religion. I wish there was more charity when discussing religion and controversial topics. It would lead to more honest truth searches and maybe the hate would die down.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Which hate are you referring to?
Indeed an awesome blog...
:-)
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm
...the problem most often originates in the reaction of religious folks who aren't used to having their beliefs challenged at all, and who tend to freak out when they are held to same strict standards of rational argumentation that are common-place in the discussion of virtually any other topic. When the topic of discussion is anything BUT religion, all parties generally expect that arguments will be logically framed, and assertions will be supported with evidence, and that a failure to follow these two simple guidelines will result in a categorical dismissal of the offered opinion. Religious people asking for "charity" seem to actually be asking to be excused from having to converse in a rational fashion, and then get pissed off when someone calls them on it.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I think you're underestimating religious people. I know I question my religion constantly. I have taken many religious classes, of which questioning is a fundamental part. I personally believe that if you do not have doubt, then you do not have faith. I am willing to talk with anyone about it, as long as they are reasonably respectful. Religious intolerance has been practiced by every major religion, even Buddhism (Sri Lanka, for example) and Non-religion (most Marxist states). The real problem arises when people aren't willing to allow dissent from any belief, whether religion or philosophy.
...have a rational basis that can be logically defended?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake!
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Well if you're using the word logic literally, then yes. God can logically be proven real. That doesn't necessarily make him real, because one can logically prove something true that is actually not true. Now I'm sure you're using a broader definition of the word. Can I logically prove my religion in that sense? No. But I can logically justify why I believe it and try to live it. To quote Trey Parker
.
I imagine you are using the Sam Harris conversational intolerance idea. Now I go into a long rant about how Sam Harris is a total hypocrite and clearly the least profound and least intelligent among the hardcore anti-religionists, including Dawkins and Hitchens. Either way, you are still being intolerant. I'm sure you would bring up the gay issue, but I'll end with saying if you ever want to be tolerated, you're going to have to tolerate other belief systems because you are not going to eradicate religion and your only feasible option is to try to create tolerance by being tolerant yourself.
Just so we're clear, when I refer to "logic," I am in almost all cases (including this one) referring to informal logic. And, you can only "logically prove" something that is not actually true is when your logic is either invalid or unsound (or both).
As for Sam Harris, I can't say that I've ever actually studied the man, but I do like his concept of Conversational Intolerance which essentially asserts that religious ideas should be subject to the same rigorous standards of logic, reason and critical thinking that apply to any other subject of discussion or debate.
If you can do that, then we might have an interesting and entertaining conversation. If not, then I suspect that I will be the only one of us that is entertained by what would follow.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake!
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
i am glad to learn that such exercises entertain you. I thought that you must become exhausted and bored by going through this same rigmarole over and over again. I thought that your fervor stemmed from a moral obligation to save all of us poor deluded souls.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
...which of course the evidence suggests do not actually exist. I am however concerned that your delusions might lead you to do something unfortunate to me or to the people I love.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake!
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
or anyone you love. I am not in the game of hurting anyone. Honestly, I don't think there is anything threatening at all about my beliefs. I do not believe that they cause me to do unfortunate things.
I am perfectly aware that for some religious belief systems do cause people to do unfortunate things to others. I think that this is a more important cause for concern than the actual status of God's existence, or lack thereof.
I also think that people who do hold religious beliefs should study this phenomenon thoroughly in order to understand the erroneous conclusions that people of religious faiths have made or do make.
I found an interesting article in my school's online library, which is not in service at the moment, but I will try to remember to look for it when it comes back up.
A man argued that the cure for religious crimes and intolerance on the part of religious people was actually *more* religion, not less.
At first I was in total disagreement. The more I read, though the more i understood his position. He was saying that no religion teaches hate, intolerance, or violence. He was arguing that if everyone who professed faith in a religion spent more time studying their scriptures and praying, the more they would understand their own religion better, and the less likely they would be to commit the heinous acts we have seen in the world done in God's name.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
"A man argued that the cure for religious crimes and intolerance on the part of religious people was actually *more* religion, not less."
Anyone who reads the Old Testament and takes the lessons of that book to heart is surely not going to be more tolerant. I haven't read as much of any other religious text, but from what I've seen, I wouldn't say there is a great deal of difference.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
this comment was written using the orange curled-up fox, so be happy & a little mellow
Is Muslim another subset or part of being Black ? I want to go to a home where they don't look at me as I am an alien from outer space, come to destroy their planet.
What I Want...
I don't understand....
I mean, no one does actually follow the Old Testament to the T, but as far as I'm concerned that just bolsters my argument...
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Honestly, I don't think there is anything threatening at all about my beliefs.
You are a christian, yes? Your beliefs center around the bible, yes? Is it not true that your bible contain the following instruction?
Now...call me crazy, but I simply cannot accept the assertion that any belief based on a bible that contains something like this isn't threatening to me and mine.
I am perfectly aware that for some religious belief systems do cause people to do unfortunate things to others. I think that this is a more important cause for concern than the actual status of God's existence, or lack thereof.
If you treat the symptoms of a disease, you may get some relief but ultimately the disease remains and the symptoms will eventually return. The only way to truly remove the symptoms of a disease is to treat the cause of the disease itself.
He was saying that no religion teaches hate, intolerance, or violence.
Well, that's just bullshit. For example (and this is just one of many)...
The fact is that the bible is FILLED with literal commandments to kill all sorts of people...witches, gay people, disobedient children, the followers of other religions, anyone who masturbates, the men, women and even the infant and unborn children of "god's" enemies. The list goes on (and on, and on, and on...).
I understand that many modern christians would like to re-cast their religion in a more positive light, but I really don't see how one can be intellectually honest in regards to the contents of the bible and actually do that. Until modern christians stop trying to make excuses for the contents of the bible instead of condemning that blood-soaked manual of forced conversion for what it is, then I will have to keep my distance from you, and keep one hand on my own sword just in case you prove to be more like the christians of the bible (and of the history of its followers, since) than you would like to admit (or perhaps, realize).
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
after all this time you still think I am a Christian? I thought I made myself clear on this several times. My beliefs are not centered on or around the Bible. I do see some value in the Bible, but that value to me is more as a history book than anything, and yes, sometimes I drift into symbolic interpretations, but I only take that line as far as I would take a daydream.
Taken in a historical context, the culture of the time and place must be considered. I do not agree with much of what is written in the Bible. I have big issues with a lot of what is in the Bible.
I do not think it is fair though to assume onto all Christians the militant literal interpretations of the Old Testament that most of us read. For Christians, Jesus' life was a pivotal event that released people from the obligations of the Law laid out in the Old Testament. Jesus did not teach intolerance. He surrounded himself with whores and tax collectors, the most disdained people of his time.
Throughout the gospels are examples of him resisting the old laws, by throwing a tantrum outside the temple where people were engaging in selling and bartering, from interrupting an execution by challenging the people, "whoever is free of sin, let him cast the first stone."
The truth is there has been a lot of confusion in the world by combining Judaism with Christianity. In terms of Judaism, I think it is interesting that most Jews are very interested in human rights and are more tolerant of subsets of "sinners" than both Muslims and Christians, even though their scriptures are the most intolerant when taken literally.
From what I have studied and observed, modern Reform Jews see the events of the Old Testament as lessons. The important message to be gathered from all of the drama, disobedience, and punishment, is really one of karma.
The law that says the sins of the father will be be on the heads of generations that follow is the most important one. This does not necessarily have to be seen as a spiritual law, but a logical one. Decisions made in history have written our current situation today. This is what I see as the driving force of modern Judaism. The effort exerted today is on making decisions that will allow for future generations to live in freedom.
When historical contest is removed, and scriptures are taken literally, I agree that is very potent recipe for intolerance and even violent oppression of people.
Within historical context, understanding the nature of tribal feuds puts a different light on the old scriptures. I am not arguing that this justifies it, only that this understanding is necessary for accurate interpretation.
I have many issues with the Bible, which is why I am not affiliated with any church, or particular religion. If I had to pick a religion to claim, it would probably be Toaism. I would love to say Wicca, but I am far from a position to be a practicing one. Ideologically though, it encompasses my beliefs.
Anyway, my particular line of questioning of the Bible began when I was 9. Why would an all knowing God create humans, knowing that they would sin, knowing that they would be hellbound, still choose to create them? Was it only for his pleasure and entertainment?
How can God be a loving and merciful God if he so frequently exacted vengeance and wrath on his people? Even the Israelites, his chosen people, suffered greatly. Job, his most faithful servant, was tortured by Satan with God's permission.
God hardened Saul's heart, in order to allow for events to play out the way God wanted. If God can harden people's hearts, what does that say about human free will?
God made King David his most beloved, despite the fact that he committed adultery with Bathsheba and used his power as king to have her husband killed. Obviously for God playing favorites happened more often than objective judgment.
I cannot reconcile my beliefs with the Bible. I cannot defend it. The best answer I have come up with for myself is that the Bible is not written by God. It was written by scribes and scholars thousands of years after events took place. The scriptures reflect the agendas of the Jewish peoples of the first temple, after it was destroyed.
When applying a divine will or reason to human events where human corruption have abounded, there is going to be major conflict, contradiction and room for dispute. Unfortunately, it also serves to justify hideous acts. it is very dangerous.
I don't entirely agree with the argument I presented, which I attributed to someone besides myself. I do believe though that careful examination of what Jesus taught and envisioned for his followers was not in alignment with such actions. Jesus, like Ghandi taught passive resistance, love, and tolerance. He taught self responsibility, not judgment and punishment of others.
Also for the record, in case you haven't picked it up by now, I am a staunch advocate for gay rights. I am also very opposed to any law based on religion or scripture. If you wish to question that, please see my blog, Secularism; Religion Vs Science.
I know I appear to be a living breathing contradiction. That is because I choose not to reject or accept anything completely. I choose to examine everything. There are bits and pieces of everything that I accept and reject. While I am fascinated by religion, and do spend a lot of time thinking about and analyzing it, I am not a religious person.
I am interested in tearing down rigid belief systems. I am also interested in understanding them. I am also interested in tolerating people who live in differing belief systems. This is the enigma I live in.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
...that you are one. However, you DO use a lot of "christianisms" in your blogs and comments, such as the affectation of referring to your deity as "God." Most religions refer to their deities by specific names. The use of the captialized "God" is virtually unique to the Abrahamic religions. And, you do reference the bible defensively often enough in your responses--as you did above--to make the assumption understandable.
Even so, christians aren't the only religious people that are prone to violence. They're just the most poignant example, seeing as we live in a predominantly christian country. And they certainly aren't the only religious people that are irrational. ALL religious beliefs, even yours, are based on irrational assumptions, which leads me to proceed with caution and a heavy dose of skepticsm when dealing with you.
Jesus did not teach intolerance. He surrounded himself with whores and tax collectors, the most disdained people of his time....Jesus, like Ghandi taught passive resistance, love, and tolerance. He taught self responsibility, not judgment and punishment of others.
That's a rather selective reading of the bible, I think. The character referred to as Jesus in the bible was quite clear in his support of the pronouncements of the old testament, including its system of rewards and punishments...
And let's not forget that even the character referred to as Jesus in the bible was perfectly willing to use physical violence to compel others to conform to his beliefs regarding the way he thought others should be practicing the religion he proselytized...
Taking a whip and driving people away with it certainly doesn't sound like "passive resistance" to me. What it does show me is that even the very best example of what it means to be a christian is still prone to violence if you don't do things they way he wants you to.
Hence, my caution...
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
However, dumping out money, and using a whip to drive people away does not necessarily mean that he actually hit anyone with it.
You bring to my mind stories written in the gnostic gospels, of Jesus as a child. He got angry at a boy and struck him dead. Then he felt remorse and raised the boy from the dead. People started fearing him then and his parents had no idea how to handle him. This story shows just how awkward it must have been for Jesus if he indeed was born "The Son of God." As a child he was probably very dangerous, if he did not fully understand his purpose.
Frankly, I respect a healthy dose of righteous anger.
I find the gospels not canonized into the Bible far more interesting than the ones that were. There are stories of Jesus studying in monastaries in India. The gospel of Judas is particularly fascinating to me. I have never understood what Christians find so threatening about such stories. If indeed Jesus was who and what they profess, there is no story told from anyone's perspective, regardless of their righteousness or lack thereof, that would taint him. In fact by studying all of them, people might get a clearer picture of who he was as a whole.
I find the story of Jesus fascinating mostly because of the impact he had on the world. I respect him as a human being. I do not believe that he is the Messiah except when considering others like Socrates, Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. To me they are Messiahs in their own right. To me Jesus was the Son of God in the same way that we are all children of God, which he himself said.
His divinity only goes as far as his influence on the planet, which is dependent on people's belief and worship of him. Had he been forgotten, or minimized in the way that say Confucius was, he would not have been divine at all, at least on no greater level than Confucius was.
I feel about the Bible the same way I do about all mythologies and other religious or sacred texts. It's value to me is as a story of humanity, not of God. I tend to focus on it the most because it is the most prevalent in our culture and it is the one most people are familiar with.
As far as my use of God as my chosen word or title, I only use it because it is the most universally understood. I do not actually believe that God is a personality. I do not believe that God is a Father, or a Judge. I do not believe that God directs actions or events on the earth.
I have no problem using "Allah" if talking one on one with a Muslim, or "G-d" when talking with Jews. Each religion deserves the same respect in my book.
I choose the word God to describe my sense of a greater life force that exists beyond the physical realm that we know. In truth my concept of God is most like the concept of "The Force" in Star Wars.
I understand that this is irrational. I also respect your position, and if I were in your shoes, I would probably feel the same way. I just hope that those who disagree with me understand my position accurately. That is hard to do because honestly I do not understand myself all that well. Actually, what I believe to be true is everything and nothing all at the same time.
My pursuit of religious studies is not so that I can understand God, but so that I can understand humans. I do not believe that God cares one bit about religion. I believe that religion was created by humans as the first attempt at creating a lawful society.
In a way people are still living very primitively, believing that we better be good so we don't go to Hell, and so we can go to Heaven, etc. That kind of "faith" is as useful to me as Santa Clause. I believe "animism" is an adequate word to describe certain people's fascination with natural disasters as being brought on by God in order to punish people on earth. Again, I find this to be ridiculous.
Until humans learned that we should not harm each other because that is not human, they needed God to fear in order to keep people in line. Of course that gets all screwed up and skewed once people started using God to justify killing and oppressing others.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
However, dumping out money, and using a whip to drive people away does not necessarily mean that he actually hit anyone with it.
That's pretty weak. Besides, the orginal Greek specifically indicates that the act being described was a violent one.
καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέστρεψεν.
The Khone Greek ekballō, which translates as "he drove" is more specifically defined as "to cast out, drive out, to send out...with notion of violence" or "'to cast forth,' with the suggestion of force."
I find the gospels not canonized into the Bible far more interesting than the ones that were.
Unfortunately, the non-cannonical texts are even less well supported in terms of historicity than the frankly sketchy and often blatantly inaccurate accounts of the cannonical bibles (the contexts of which the main branches of the christian religion can't even agree upon).
I understand that this is irrational.
Unfortunately, I don't think one can excuse irrational behavior by simply admitting that it is irrational. I can't think of any other context where a reasonable person would suggest that they should be respected for such blatantly irrational behavior, and I see no justification for making an exception just because the source of this admitted irrationality is religious in character.
Until humans learned that we should not harm each other because that is not human, they needed God to fear in order to keep people in line.
Unfortunately, I can't fathom the suggestion that religion somehow reduced the amount of violence in the world. The evidence would not seem to suggest it, and the history of religion would I propose actually suggest the exact opposite.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
is not an excuse, nor a justification. It is fact. By your definitions, i have no choice but to admit to being an irrational being. Just because that bothers you does not mean it bothers me. I rationally understand why I believe the way I do, however because I have no objective evidence to present to you or anyone else, I must admit that it is indeed irrational.
Perhaps the difference between me and other people of "religious orientation" you have known is that my beliefs are not dependent on scripture. You can tear scriptures down all you want. Until you prove to me and the rest of the world that I am insane and have me committed because of my own personal experiences you have no power over me, but that would make you as oppressive as your enemies.
I can live with or without any religion or Bible. Whether or not gnostic gospels have any more or less historical basis is irrelevant because even the accepted gospels claim irrational things. If they present delusions and irrationalities, what difference does it make if others do so to a lesser or greater degree? If a person chooses to pay any of it any mind, they might as well as look at the whole picture.
Mythology is mythology. If evidence pointing to the existence of Aphrodite is stronger than evidence pointing to Zeus, is a person "more rational" for believing in Aphrodite?
There is evidence that Jesus existed and that he was executed by Romans. Beyond that, all is speculative.
I hope that if I deserve respect it is not because of my beliefs but because of my actions. If I do not have your respect, too bad for me. You are free to give respect where you see fit, and to withhold it in the same manner.
I am simply not so sure of myself as to stand firmly on things that I already know to be questionable. That is pure stupidity and willfully blind ignorance, in my book anyway. Forgive me for being so 'rational' as to keep myself in check and not allowing my fantasies to dictate how I treat or judge others.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I will reply to you, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I find it interesting that while I agree 110% with what he said, I am surprised that you resort to such sentiment, especially considering the amount of religious rhetoric he uses.
I really do wonder how a person can dismiss spirituality and the soul yet still harbor sentiment for the human heart and "love."
Within the context of our dialogue here, if I take on what I perceive to be your position, I find his appeal to religious people to be sarcastic and belittling.
I am disgusted with my state and with individuals I had the misfortune of dialoguing with who supported Prop 8. To me it is a grave violation of human rights.
At the same time I have a hard time with someone such as yourself who rejects every ounce of religious influence supporting appeals to religious rhetoric for your own cause. I find this to be extremely hypocritical.
If you see value in resorting to recitation of scripture to support your own political agendas without applying the same harsh criticism you cling to for people such as myself, how can I respect your position?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
...and will reply to you, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
First off, you're taking these quotes out of context. The commandments in Deuteronomy and Leviticus were only for the Jews. There were no "Christians" in the Old Testament. The purpose of the Law was to show humankind that salvation cannot be earned. Do I understand why God gave these commandments? No, not all of them. But he is also a God of great love, so much so that He let His son die for our sins, all of humankind, for all of time.
Secondly, the Law was "fulfilled" when Jesus came. We are not bound to that anymore. Instead of being put to the sword or stone, the people in the passages you quote can be saved, even though they deserve death (and we all deserve death, by the way, myself included).
You can't just quote a few random passages and then say that "modern" Christians are just trying to cover up what their religion really is. Read the New Testament and you'll see what true Christianity is.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
but I will respond anyway. I am perfectly aware of the doctrine of the christian church and its explanations for things, but I do not agree with it.
I believe that the laws in the Old Testament came out of a need for people to survive. Many of the old laws were related to hygiene, and if adhered to would keep people healthy.
I do find it kind of miraculous that people started to become aware of such things. The fact that historically it is explained to us as having come from God.
Moses was the first judge, and his job was to uphold civility of the Israelites. His job became too hard, so he had to appoint others below him to govern over smaller matters, and he had to have them organized, so that 10 people answered to one man, and 100 to another, and 1000 to another, etc..
The old laws kept people in line. If they came from God, that is why. if not, than it came from humans. Either way, it was a government.
"the people in the passages you quote can be saved, even though they deserve death (and we all deserve death, by the way, myself included)."
This is one that will puzzle me forever. The truth is that we are all going to die. So to say we deserve it is a little presumptive. I do not believe your Bible backs this up, but even if it does, it is one of the core reasons I cannot be a Christian. Nature certainly says that certain things we do in our lifetime will either prolong or shorten our lives, not accounting for accidents and disasters.
Smoking, drinking, promiscuity all have the potential to lead one to an early death. Once again, "morals" or "God's Will" simply seeks the best for us. To attach a component of anger, wrath or judgment on natural consequences is again, an act of "animism."
You might as well get with your local Native American tribe and call on the god of rain to visit the west coast of CA so we don't go into terrible drought, needing to mooch water off Canada and the rest of the country.
A loving God would not have all people already condemned from the moment of birth. However, life, science, biology, physiology, etc., does have everyone born to limitations. To ascribe this to some "will" of a "loving" "man" "God" is ludicrous.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
...every major, modern christian sect includes the new testament (which I have, read and studied on a scholarly level, thank you) in its basic theological doctrines. Likewise, those same verses are regularly trotted out by those same christians when they are asked to provide a justification for their religiously-motivated objections to homosexuality. In fact, I would suggest that the argument you present is a perfect example of a modern christian "trying to cover up what their religion really is. "
But even if all of that wasn't true, I would still have reason for concern. Let us pretend for a moment that all religions aren't just the fictional ravings of charlatans and madmen, and suppose that this "God of great love" is actually a real being of some kind. Is it not true that "the LORD" referred to in the old testament is the same character as "the LORD" referred to in the new testament? If that is the case, then I think I have reason to be concerned about "his" feelings for me, seeing (as you so perfectly point out) that "his" point of view is that "we all deserve death." That's kind of, well...a lot of words come to mind...capricious, violent, brutal, judgmental, and frankly insane.
In any case, if "the LORD" of the old testament is supposed to be "the sameLORD" as the one presented in the new testament, then ALL of the brutality, the bloodthirstiness, the genocides, the forced conversions, the human sacrifices, and the unilateral pronouncements of death sentences issued at "his" command don't just magically disappear. A religion that is based on some sort of horrific monster living in the sky that can only be appeased by the blood of his own son is just a little bit too...hmm, more words again...primitive, foolish, fear-based, but most of all twisted...to make sense to me.
And finally, no matter how you try to pretend otherwise, the history in this case just isn't on your side. In fact, the christian religion has a VERY bloody history, all committed in the name of that very same "god," and justified (to "his" worshipers) by those very same books. But more to the immediate point, all we have to do is look around in our predominantly christian country and notice that gay and lesbian people face an extraordinarily high level of identity-motivated violence (being something in the realm of seven times more likely to be targeted as such) to realize that a concern of this sort, i.e. that these teachings could very well lead to being attacked by some fanatical christian, are very real.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You do realize that one of the most touted anti-gay Bible verses are those in Leviticus, right?
If you want to dismiss the Mosaic Laws, then you have to dismiss all of them. That includes Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 -- two of the most touted of all anti-gay verses.
Blackout's quotes are not just "random verses" that he picked. Those are the ones constantly thrown around in the disputes between gays and anti-gay Christians.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
they were the *only* 2. there is also the story of sodom and gommorha, which in my understanding is not specifically about homosexuality, but about homosexual rape.
I could be wrong, if anyone knows of any others, might as well bring 'em all to the table. That way we can have a better understanding of why Christians specifically feel so terribly threatened.
I worry far more about the sins of gluttony, lust, and drunkenness, since these have a very real, tangible, measurable, negative consequences on society.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Well, the exact meaning of Sodom and Gammora is not something I know, but that's kind of besides the point. If you dismiss the OT, you gotta dismiss all of the OT and that's where that lovely story comes from.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
that once the OT is dismissed, homosexuality as a sin is dismissed, since it is not addressed whatsoever in the NT.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Yup. I believe there's something about sexual immorality, but I can think of plenty of candidates to fill that role that have nothing to do with homosexuality...
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Conservapedia cites four places in addition to the two in Leviticus, though I find all but the verse in Romans to be questionable at best, since "homosexual" was transliterated and doesn't have a literal translation into the original languages of the Bible. The closest word, if I remember right, translates to something along the lines of "boy lover" at worst and "effeminate" at best. The verse in Jude is also questionable because it talks about the sins of angels, not man, and only relates to the sins of man through reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, which is in itself questionable in regards to homosexuality (I argue that S&G isn't even about homosexual rape, but gang rape and rape in general, since the story talks about everyone in the city wanting to "know" the angels that came to visit).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
excellent! 5 stars!
great depictions of the social blasphemies signatured by the religious right.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Since I have started blogging here just this past October, I have felt the sting of religious intolerance in almost every thread I have participated in.
What I have found here is that most of the people here feel very strongly about their beliefs (duh). Most of them are also polar opposites of one another, and as such, tend to butt heads a lot (I know of at least one pair of people that aren't really allowed to participate in each others' discussions regarding religion because they clashed so hard). The most vocal, of course, are the Christians and the Atheists.
From what I've seen, the two butt heads the most because of the nature of the groups and individuals. Many of the Christians on here have, at one point in time or another, appealed to the Bible as the source of Truth. However, the Atheists see this as circular logic (the Bible tells the truth because it says it does) -- i.e. logical fallacy. Contention point number one - logic and faith don't generally mix well. There's also such applications as, for one example, gay marriage. Christians feel justified banning gay marriage because their religious beliefs say it's immoral. However, several individual atheists see it as stepping on others' rights - contention point number two. Then, there's the very nature of Christianity - go forth and spread the word. People try to do that, and most people don't want to hear it, in part because most people (on this site, at least) have already heard it, probably a hundred or more times - contention point number three.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I am curious to know about those bloggers who were banned from commenting on each others blog! I bet that's some entertaining stuff.
I was also prompted because of a comment someone left on my blog "Rabbinical Judaism" with all kinds of false assumptions just because I wrote about a part of Jewish history that included the history of the creation of Jewish religious texts.
Also, I got sucked into a riptide of a debate on Lennon12's blog, "What is your religion."
It just bugs me that I can't say "God," "Jesus," or "the Bible" without a torrent of negative energy.
Just for the record, before making assumptions about me based on one idea you choose to read of mine, you are invited to read my profile to get a general idea of my orientations.
For this blog, I will again make myself clear. I do not ascribe to any one religion. All religions are interesting to me. I don't think any one of them is 100% accurate. To me religion is a reflection of the human experience in a particular region, that started at a specific time in history, and is distorted, or exhorted as time goes on.
What interests me is the study of the effect that religion has had on the planet throughout history.
I realized the other day at work that open conversations about religion are very rare. I happened to get into a conversation with 2 coworkers and it was very refreshing. I had my religious studies text book with me, and someone asked me about it. I was talking about my final project for the class which would entail going to a religious ceremony of a faith different from my own. I said I wanted to go to a Jewish synagogue. A nurse working with me is Jewish, and was telling me about all the different kinds of synagogues in our area.
I said I liked the concept of the Jewish family. Her two daughters were raised in Hebrew school. One is in Africa researching AIDS, and one has just finished her MS in Health Administration. I like how the Jewish community fosters education and personal growth. She asked me if I was actually looking for a religious community. I said I wasn't sure, because i was afraid of my baby being hurt by church, but I also did see potential benefits for her if we were active in a church community.
This nurse said she thought I might like Saddleback Church, a Christian church in our area, that happens to be one of the biggest in the country. The pastor is Rick Warren who was recently on Time magazine, and wrote the popular self-help book, "The Purpose Driven Life." I said, "I don't like Christian churches, I was raised in them." She asked me why. I said, "Because, as it says in my text book, too many American Christian churches teach that humans are basically evil, and I really disagree with and dislike that."
Another coworker was listening, and he said, "Actually, I go to Saddleback Church, and that's not what I believe. My church teaches that people become evil as a result of events and abuses that happen in their life on earth." I said I didn't like the Christian tendency to push its ideals on others, such as homosexuals. He said, "There are a lot of gay people in our church. My church doesn't see homosexuality as evil. There are a lot of Muslims in our church too." I said that I didn't believe that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is going to Hell. I said that I thought that Jesus' message was love, and that anyone who understands and lives love should be "saved." The church I was raised in would have me thinking that Ghandi was going to Hell.
He agreed with my idea about living in love being more important than claiming faith in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. Then I said that I believe in reincarnation, and that my ideas don't fit into the Christian church. He said, "From hearing you talk, I don't think it's a matter of your ideas not fitting. You are having an ongoing, open conversation with yourself, and that is very healthy."
We talked a lot more, these were just things I thought interesting to bring up here. I myself am prejudiced when it comes to religion. I assume that all Christians must be like the ones who raised me.
At the end of the conversation, the Jewish nurse said, "I love these kinds of conversations, they really open people up." I think we all felt refreshed, and connected, and appreciated the inside look into each others' actual beliefs. Most people walk around assuming everyone is different, religion is personal, not to be talked about, etc, etc,. I like what happens when people can discuss it without getting defensive and angry.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
You can ban someone from commenting on your blog? COOL!
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Not exactly. I'm not sure who was initially being referred to, but I can guess. I think, strongly discouraged would have been a better word (or words) than banned. Of course, I don't know that.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Got it : ) Interesting...
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Strongly discouraged is a good way to put it. They tend to have multiple TOS violations when they talk to each other, so we strongly requested they just back off and avoid each other.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Please, please tell us who it was?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
It's not important now, since they haven't talked in ages. I see no reason to tarnish their current standing on the site by mentioning their names.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Did I say banned? (It doesn't say now and it's been a week, so I honestly don't remember.) It seems it was a poorly judged use of words (and perhaps poor judgment to bring up the topic in the first place, though I thought I was vague enough to not raise questions, but it seems I was mistaken).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Just for the record, before making assumptions about me based on one idea you choose to read of mine, you are invited to read my profile to get a general idea of my orientations.
Where did that come from? I don't recall doing anything other than commenting on what I've seen go on on this site.
I completely agree that religion/beliefs should be openly talked about. The aversion to challenging one's beliefs (and therefore not talking about it) is part of what turned me off to mainstream Christianity.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
turtlesuds wrote:
"Just for the record, before making assumptions about me based on one idea you choose to read of mine, you are invited to read my profile to get a general idea of my orientations."
That wasn't for you specifically. That was a universal you, meaning everyone except me who might choose to make assumptions about me. It's basically a moot now because I have chosen to basically put all of my beliefs on the table as this blog has progressed.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
As a Christian, I totally support gay marriage. As for the morality of homosexuality, I used to think it was wrong, then I thought it was okay, now I don't care. I'm not gay, so there is no moral qualm there, and whether or not being gay is wrong, it should have no affect on how I treat a gay person, from a Christian perspective. Even if I was strongly opposed to homosexuality, it wouldn't change my political views. The mixing of government and religion is toxic to both government and religion.
The point of being a Buddhist is that you DON'T AGREE WITH one way to heaven. The point of being a Muslim is because you DON'T BELIEVE IN any other Scriptures other than the Koran. I became a Christian because I DON'T BELIEVE IN any other way to heaven except through Jesus.
Religion warrants beliefs, which mean that you don't agree with something, and are thus intolerant of something.
Read and comment as you like.... http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/starving-musician
Disagreement and intolerance are very different. I don't agree with the Christian religion (or any other religion) and I do argue philosophical and theological points, because I enjoy that. However, the only time I want religion to go away (so I guess I'm being intolerant at that point) is when religion seeks to impose itself on others.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Almost.
Islam disagrees with Judaism and Christianity and even seeks the death of those who follow those faiths. Is this disagreement or intolerance? I think it's both.
Accepting everything is the biggest paradox human history has ever seen - how can you accept those who believe one thing, accept those who believe the entire opposite thing, and still be a human being who knows what up and down is?
Read and comment as you like.... http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/starving-musician
It occured to me that maybe we can also say that tolerance is not the same as agreeing with or believing in the same things. This is how we can still know up and down.
I am Christian but I understand the points of atheism and paganism etc, and am perfectly tolerant of their lack of Jesus. As odd as it may seem, it is possible to love them and be nice all the same.
hmmm....maybe that does not make sense and I really am confused with all this tolerance.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
Disagreement and intolerance don't exclude each other, but don't necessarily go hand in hand.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Both judaism and christianity ALSO contain commandments in their core teachings to kill the followers of other faiths (and even followers of the same faith, that don't act a certain way). There are also modern radical christian and jewish groups that advocate and have attempted to carry out these commandments as such in modern times. You can find radical groups associated with MOST (if not all) religious belief systems. The islamist radicals are just the ones currently on everyone's radar, due to recent world events.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Anyone who eats meat of an unclean animal (pork) they are also damned. One benefit of studying religion as a history of human behavior is seeing the history of how these ideas have played out.
Once any person in a conversation about religion demands that the literal text of a particular faith is the foundation of a person's belief, or lack of belief, the conversation cannot progress. That has been proven, many times over.
I find it interesting that whenever I bring up the idea of God I am slammed with scriptures as evidence that my beliefs are false. Who said I believe that every word in the Bible, or any religious text, is divine and written by God?
There is another way to look at things. What if we decide to have open conversations, and ask each other about our beliefs instead of assuming and bludgeoning?
If Christians could stop insisting that the Bible is concretely God's own word to humanity, and take into consideration the fact that the Old Testament was written by scribes and scholars in an effort to preserve Jewish oral tradition, they would probably gain some ground.
If atheists could stop demanding scientific proof from anyone who claims a religion, spirituality, whatever, they could understand the importance of faith to those same people. They would understand that faith is the ONLY basis of their opponents beliefs, and therefore, demanding that they prove the tangibility of that faith is utterly ridiculous.
No amount of effort to dissect and dismantle the integrity of scripture will change anyone's mind, especially not Christians. Jesus himself said that his parables were meant to confuse nonbelievers, but his chosen apostles were given the gift of the Holy Spirit which would guide them in their understandings. How can an atheist, who has no belief in the Holy Spirit, think that their interpretation of the Bible means anything to a Christian? The two are reading 2 completely different books.
Atheists and faithholders alike would benefit from studying religions historically in effort to better understand that the misconceptions that have evolved over time are not a result of the actual teachings of Jesus, Muhammed, or other prophets, but rather a result of layers upon layers of misinterpretations that have become so deeply embedded into the fabric of our societies and governments.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
If atheists could stop demanding scientific proof from anyone who claims a religion, spirituality, whatever, they could understand the importance of faith to those same people.
Why should religious people get a free pass from the normal expectations of a rational argument? We atheists don't just ask for scientific (or more accurately, I would suggest...objective) evidence from religious people. We ask for it from everyone, regardless of the subject matter being discussed. And, most of us DO understand how important religious people consider their beliefs to be...but that doesn't excuse those people from having to defend those beliefs rationally when the subject is discussed, nor does it permit them some unassailable status of authority from which to make baseless declarations about nature of the universe without being challenged.
No amount of effort to dissect and dismantle the integrity of scripture will change anyone's mind, especially not Christians.
Well, that's just not true, and I put forth myself as an example. I was raised in a strict christian home, attended a private christian school, and attended church actively and devoutly as a believer for more than 20 years. I come from a family of educators, and I was encouraged to study the bible on a scholarly, as well as spiritual level. It was that study that first led me to question the alleged moral authority of the christian religion. In fact, I would suggest that if you talk to a lot of atheists, you will find that most of us come from religious backgrounds.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I just think that common courtesy should be that atheists should only challenge a religious or self claimed "spiritual" person's beliefs in the manner you describe IF and WHEN that person is trying to impose their beliefs on you. I know that happens a lot, and I don't blame anyone who chooses to point out the ridiculousness of such behavior. In that case they should be challenged. In the case of Christians for policing homosexuality, for example, they should be challenged, especially if they resort to scriptural citations to justify themselves.
Such behavior is not "spiritual" and promotes further intolerance. There are fewer scriptures about homosexuality than any other sin, including eating pork. The next time a Christian wants to quote the Bible to defend that particular prejudice, I suggest telling them that they have committed a worse offense to God if they eat bacon. Similarly, to lust after a woman is to have committed adultery, which is actually a violation of the Ten Commandments. If we want to apply Biblical law to our society, pornography is a far worse threat than homosexuality.
I also think that by demanding logical explanations from every single person who holds spiritual beliefs, you are suggesting that all such people are insane and/or stupid and I think that is offensive, especially because such people are in the vast majority across the world.
I appreciate what you said about your upbringing, and I am aware that most atheists took a religious faith seriously at one at time. I know that most people who are bold enough to claim atheism have done their homework.
I appreciate your process in studying Christianity and coming to your own conclusion. That is exactly what I want to defend, everyone's right to do the same. It is impossible that everyone would come up with the same conclusions. I happen to believe that we are all equal in the sight of God and that we have been given amazing brains, and free will. I know we can argue about free will, and I'd be happy to do so, but not on this blog, please.
We are designed to be free thinking individuals who have the ability to think critically and to make decisions that don't go along with everyone else. That is one of the most amazing things about humans. Why would anyone want to strangle that phenomenon? Why would anyone insist that we all think alike?
The other problem is that faith is not objective. It cannot be. That is why people who claim to have religious faith are being stupid when they try to impose it on others. If they really want to do what God would have them do, they would pray for others, and do the best to be an example of goodness in their own life. They wouldn't waste time in conflict with nonbelievers. They wouldn't "cast their pearls before swine," and would know that by attacking others, they are only pushing people further from God.
The main reason I brought this up (the atheist vs christian thing) in this blog is because people went from simply challenging to me to almost attacking me with false assumptions. You can ask me to argue rationally all you want, but I will draw a line when you begin to exercise prejudice against me. Usually i would draw that line by simply not engaging with you anymore, but I decided to try to open up a new conversation. Thank you for joining me here.
Typically I think atheists are rational people, but I have seen the face of prejudice when they hastily jump to conclusions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset over it. I just want to keep you people accountable too. It goes both ways.
My goal is to make it possible for people of all belief systems to have open conversations with each other, without being angry, defensive or offensive. It is that simple. I would love to engage in a conversation that went something like this:
"What do you believe?"
"I believe....."
"That's interesting. I don't believe that because....."
Why is offense and defense the immediate tactic?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I can't speak for everyone, of course, but the whole reason I come to ProU is to encounter and engage people who do not agree with me. If you look at ProU's About Us page, it says this...
ProU isn't just any old internet forum. We encourage people to engage and challenge one another. Sometimes things get a little too heated (*looks innocent*), but this kind of back-and-forth is an intentional part of our community.
I also think that by demanding logical explanations from every single person who holds spiritual beliefs, you are suggesting that all such people are insane and/or stupid and I think that is offensive, especially because such people are in the vast majority across the world.
They aren't necessarily "insane" or "stupid." Some religious people are simply misguided, some are naive and some have been fooled by the charlatans that lead them, but I think that ALL religious people (yes, even my good friends here on the staff) are being irrational in regards to the subject of their religious beliefs. To quote a famous atheist (Anatole France), "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
And we accept that belief, as long as you don't turn into those crazed Christians who try to convert everyone they meet. Your discussions are pretty interesting, after all.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I don't think we're in any danger of Blackout turning into a crazed Christian.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
:rofl:
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I come from a loooong line of crazy christians. That's why I am so intolerant of their bullshit. I know from whence it comes, an to where it leads.
:boom:
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Hmmmm... seems like I left out a word or two. I meant to say 'turn out like those crazed Christians', just, you know, being atheist instead of Christian. Things tend to sound better in my head than they do on paper :)
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I am not interested in converting Blackout, or anyone else, for that matter. I have discovered a single word that seems to accurately describe my personal belief system:
Pantheism: the belief that everything is divine.
I am aware that many fundamentalists would have me condemned to Hell. As well as Blackout, and Ghandi.
It's all good. I can't imagine better company to suffer eternally with.
The only thing that makes me a little sad is that I believe that Blackout is divine, and he doesn't. Oh well. His divinity does not require his acceptance of it. I only hope he won't be offended at my imposition of my own belief. Will he challenge me to prove it logically? I think i can take that on too. I just read his blog for the first time. (Bad turtlesuds, bad.)
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
The only thing that makes me a little sad is that I believe that Blackout is divine, and he doesn't. Oh well. His divinity does not require his acceptance of it. I only hope he won't be offended at my imposition of my own belief. Will he challenge me to prove it logically? I think i can take that on too. I just read his blog for the first time. (Bad turtlesuds, bad.)
You're intrigued me. Yes, I will challenge you to prove logically, that I am "divine." I would suggest that you start by setting a working definition for your use of the word, "divine," just to make sure we are on the same page about what you are actually claiming.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I had to sit on this for a little while. I hope that Blackout the Divine will show mercy on me.
So here goes:
Dictionary definition first:
Interestingly, I found out that divine is a verb, a noun, and an adjective. See:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divine
Logically speaking, I don't think that Blackout the Divine would find issue with me saying that he is divine if I choose the following definitions from the dictionary:
As a verb, Blackout divines when he discovers by insight or intuition. He perceives intuitively.
As an adjective, the Divine Blackout is supremely good, or superb.
As a noun, I could argue that Blackout the Divine is a theologian, one who studies the philosophy of religion.
A point of issue would occur if I were to suggest that Blackout is:
"of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god b: being a deity",
While I might myself believe that, I won't encourage anyone else who thinks with logic alone to accept that idea of mine.
I would like to suggest that what makes Blackout divine, as well as any other human being, is the ability to manipulate matter. Further, it is the ability to translate thought, which has no physical manifestation, into action, and sometimes into physical objects. It is the ability to create and invent. Original thought is divine.
The ability to communicate and share a reality with another human being is divine. In other words, it is the ability to extend oneself beyond the physical body, and in so doing, alter the environment or another person's reality, and occasionally alter history for the rest of mankind.
I also believe that when people reject their own divinity, they don't stop being divine. What does happen though, is that because they are unaware of their effect on the world, they actually do great harm to the world. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing. Inaction and apathy are crimes to humanity. Others choose to use their divinity for selfish reasons, to feed their own ego, and actually inflict harm on others.
BTW, I thought some of you might find it interesting to know that my religious studies professor called me a radical, and then said he loved me.
I'm not surprised, but still, is anything I have said really all that weird? It all seems very logical to me. I'm sure Blackout will use his divinity to correct me if I am wrong, and then I will be enlightened, and grateful for his decision to direct it towards me, therefore shifting my reality.
I would take a slight issue with your first definition of "divine" being applied to me, since Webster also defines "supreme" as the "highest in rank or authority," which I am not. I am well-versed, but not I would suggest, "supreme."
A point of issue would occur if I were to suggest that Blackout is:
"of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god b: being a deity",
While I might myself believe that, I won't encourage anyone else who thinks with logic alone to accept that idea of mine.
You are correct...I would take issue with this one if you tried to apply it to me. Any discussion along this line would require you to establish the actual existence of "god" objectively, which I would propose you cannot do.
In regards to this...
I would like to suggest that what makes Blackout divine, as well as any other human being, is the ability to manipulate matter. Further, it is the ability to translate thought, which has no physical manifestation, into action, and sometimes into physical objects. It is the ability to create and invent. Original thought is divine.
The ability to communicate and share a reality with another human being is divine. In other words, it is the ability to extend oneself beyond the physical body, and in so doing, alter the environment or another person's reality, and occasionally alter history for the rest of mankind.
I would suggest that humans are in no way unique in our ability to manipulate matter, to think or to create. MOST living things manipulate their environment on at least some level, and all conscious beings seem to do so in a manner similar to (if less complex than) our own methods. Communication is also common throughout the animal kingdom, again to varying degrees that relate directly to the level of consciousness from one species to the next. I also fail to see how the ability to manipulate matter, to think and to create, or to communicate in the physical world connects meaningfully to any of the definitions you proposed, above.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Remember, I am a pantheist. Humans have been able to connect with each other despite barriers of geography, language, and death. The fact that humans have chosen to record history as it occurs makes it possible for me to know about people like Anne Frank and Isaac Newton. The Human story continues, changing daily because of individual thought. Our current story is built on the thoughts of hundreds of thousands others who are dead. They live on in the human story, despite the fact that they no longer occupy physical matter, that we are aware of.
"I would take a slight issue with your first definition of "divine" being applied to me, since Webster also defines "supreme" as the "highest in rank or authority," which I am not. I am well-versed, but not I would suggest, "supreme."
I appreciate your humility.
"I also fail to see how the ability to manipulate matter, to think and to create, or to communicate in the physical world connects meaningfully to any of the definitions you proposed, above."
Well, we may have come to the end of this tangent, but I hope it won't squelch the original conversation. The reason I choose the word divine to describe those things is because it is these very qualities that people ascribe to God. God is supposed to be the creator of all, and gave humans free will. What humans do on earth with that free will, and their own divinity, is a reflection of the power of God.
I can say that you are divine, that is, ""of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god b: being a deity", based on the fact that you possess the qualities that are attributed to God by God believers. Don't misunderstand, I do not think that God must exist in order for us to be divine. The power to think and to create is ours, no matter what. As an atheist, I am sure you can accept that without God in the equation, we are the most powerful entities that we are aware of. In that sense, I can say that we are each an individual deity that creates our own reality, assimilating elements that we perceive into that reality, constantly shifting and changing the planet, whether or not we are aware of it.
Thanks for playing! That was fun, for me anyway.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
...and so I will reply to you, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Are you suggesting that people's beliefs are unimportant? The conversation we are having here is very civil. The atheist/Christian debate can get heated, but few crimes are committed because of it.
Globally though, it is the refusal to discuss varying beliefs that is to blame for hideous crimes against inhumanity. Our conversation here could become a prototype for a forum that would allow people to address their differences of beliefs in a civilized manner.
I have created a new post called "Rules for Religious Tolerance," Please come and visit me there:
http://progressiveu.org/blog/50564-rules-religious-tolerance
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Quote: turtlesuds wrote:
"No amount of effort to dissect and dismantle the integrity of scripture will change anyone's mind, especially not Christians."
Blackout wrote:
"Well, that's just not true, and I put forth myself as an example. I was raised in a strict christian home, attended a private christian school, and attended church actively and devoutly as a believer for more than 20 years. I come from a family of educators, and I was encouraged to study the bible on a scholarly, as well as spiritual level. It was that study that first led me to question the alleged moral authority of the christian religion."
Your process was your own, and to impose it on someone else demanding that they come to the same conclusion that you did is bordering on intolerance.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I disagree. You made an inclusive generalization of which he is a poster boy for the opposite and used himself as an example.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
that Blackout should not share his knowledge and experience. I said he should not impose it on others, in the same manner that Christians should not impose their process onto us.
There is a big difference between exchange of information and imposing one's beliefs.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
What blackout said was hardly imposing
I was referring to his general tone on other blogs. He has been a complete gentleman here.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Perhaps you should have said that, instead of quoting what he's said here, then?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I'm a Big Blue Meanie.
Muahaha.
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You're going to scare all the children away from my blog!
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Just the kids?
:yikes:
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I'm not sure I understand. The reason for my suggestion of using caution to Blackout was because I have seen the process of "dismantling and dissection of scripture" used as a weapon against someone else's beliefs. Blackout defended his right to do that. I am not saying he doesn't have a right to do that, I was simply suggesting that his own bias might cause him to pre-judge, and that his eagerness to bring people to the wells of logic could be taken by some to be equivalent of the radical Christian's need to bring us all to Jesus Christ.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
The "dismantling and dissection of scripture" is a favorite passtime of mine. The problem for (in this case) christians is that you can't wave a book around in someone's face and tell them that it represents a "holy" source of special knowledge that tells you how you should be living your life, and then turn around and deny the relevance of that book to your beliefs when it is discovered that the book says something that you A) didn't know about or B) can't explain away while remaining consistent to your stated values.
My opinons about the contents of the bible are not "pre-judged" because I first leaned about the bible and its contents in the context of a devout believer. It was only later, after years of study that I began to question and the ultimately to dismiss the relevance of the bible as a source for good morals (or for that matter, good history). The reason I tend to be so aggressive about it is that as a member of a minority that is regularly the target of religiously-motivated discrimination, it behooves me to confront and to counter the arguments of those who try to use the bible as an excuse to treat other people as less than equal. If I offend a few people along the way, oh well. Personally, I think that if more christians were just a bit better educated about what their bible actually says, there would be a lot fewer christians (and which in my opinion, would be a good thing).
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
No argument there. I tend to forget that atheists get so much crap. They usually prey on me, so I fight back. I respect them though as formidable forces, and appreciate them very much. If it weren't atheists, who are the most willing to break down societal injustice that is backed only by scripture or religion, our world would be a much scarier place. We need atheists. In fact, the world has far more to fear from radical Christians than atheists.
And you are right, if a few people get their feelings hurt along the way, oh well, and many Christians deserve it. I just don't like being lumped in with them and treated the same way. That is where I have encountered atheistic prejudice, from Blackout, and others. It's all good now.
if you could elaborate more on that and be more specific?
"The heart's memory eliminates the bad and magnifies the good."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." http://www.progressiveu.org/012450-old-and-gold-times-change-my-immigran...
social injustice to make laws and policies based on religious beliefs or scriptures with no other reference. It is socially unjust to discriminate against gay people because of a Bible verse. That is one example. People still resort to citing Bible verses to justify racist beliefs. Thank God most of our country has figured out that they are crazy, but I still see it happening. There are many examples but this would make for a very long skinny column.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
will make me stand out more than someone who is lighter or darker, nothing is based on skin color in the actual texts, which is why if you have ever read the Late works/essays written by Malcolm X,
you might learn why he became a Muslim ;)
"The heart's memory eliminates the bad and magnifies the good."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." http://www.progressiveu.org/012450-old-and-gold-times-change-my-immigran...
Putting that on my "to read" list.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I will try to find some online links...or I might have actually read it in a book but when I have time...I'll get on that and send it to you :)
"The heart's memory eliminates the bad and magnifies the good."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera
"close your eyes, clear your heart..." http://www.progressiveu.org/012450-old-and-gold-times-change-my-immigran...
Very well done blog. You have not only proposed tollerence eloquently, but also demonstrated it consistently. Much of the intollerence I see is simply people that are too lazy or ignorant to take the care and effort, that you have shown here, to respect the feelings of others with very widely divergent perspectives. Some, and they KNOW who they are, have as a part of their faith (though the Athiests often don't realize it is a faith), the goal of eliminating the other faiths.
You have a chance of educating the ignorant, or inspiring the lazy, but when you speak to the bigots that think they are the only ones that own the truth most of the benefit comes from exposing them to the audience since they are not here to learn themselves.
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
Atheism is a lack of belief. If someone says, "I believe in Bigfoot," then they are a cryptozoologist. If someone says "I will only believe in Bigfoot if you can show me actual, objective evidence of Bigfoot's existence," then that person is not also a cryptozoologist. That person is merely skeptical of those who believe in Bigfoot.
The argument that atheism is a "religion" or a "faith" or a "belief" in the same way that religion is all of these things is a semantic tactic that hopes to avoid having to address the irrational core of theism by projecting its flaws disingenuously onto the atheist's argument. All versions of theism rely on a positive assertion of belief in some unprovable point. Of course, you will sometimes find inexperienced (and often angry) young atheists (young to the idea, not necessarily young in age), that attempt to assert that "there is no 'god'." Rational atheism, however, asserts nothing but rather asks for one simple thing...evidence.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
that this idea:
"Rational atheism, however, asserts nothing but rather asks for one simple thing...evidence."
was called agnosticism. I thought that atheists do assert the very firm belief that there is no God. I have a much easier time understanding agnostics than I do atheists, personally.
I think they are more rational because they don't exclude possibilities and don't take on such an egocentric attitude of "if I cannot perceive it my tiny little brain, it cannot exist."
That is my *experience* I am talking about, nothing else.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Many people confuse agnosticism with non-denominational theism, but this is not correct. BOTH agnosticism and atheism are considered "skeptical" ways of thinking. The difference is that an agnostic asserts that the ultimate truth of the question of whether or not such beings is inherently unknowable, thus rendering the question of "is 'god' real" to be a meaningless pursuit. An atheist asserts that the question of the existence of supernatural beings should be subject to rational tests (just like any other question of the existence of _____ ), and should thus be proveable. The lack of evidence, however, leads atheists to presume that the exitence of such beings is highly unlikely (at best).
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
that explains why atheists are more challenging than agnostics. I wanted to say that explains why atheists are such pains in the a-- but I don't want to risk another TOS violation!
By saying "non-denominational atheism" you make it sound an awful lot like a religion.
And you have confessed that you have an agenda to convert others!
:phbt:
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
He said 'non-denominational theism', not atheism. As in 'I believe in God, but don't follow any specific religion.'
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
"BOTH agnosticism and atheism are considered "skeptical" ways of thinking"
so even after you point that out, it still appears to me that he meant atheism? I am not sure, but I am sure Blackout will come back out and clarify.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude