Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Charismatic Chaos
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 531 (514340)
07-06-2009 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Brian
07-06-2009 7:14 AM


Crooks & Liars
Brian writes:
I'd group all clergy as being the same, they are all crooks and liars.
I wouldn't group all of any group as being crooks and/or liars. John Shelby Spong is one example of a liberal Theologian with controversial, yet thoughtful views.
Here is a question from one of Spongs audience and Spongs response:
John Shelby Spong writes:
Elmo Hoffman, via the Internet, writes:
I have read much of your work and met you once at Stetson University in Deland, Florida, at a pastor's conference. It was the same venue where I also met Marcus Borg. I am a retired civil trial lawyer and a late-life seminary graduate, now an ordained Disciples of Christ minister, although before seminary I was a lifelong Presbyterian (USA) from the same time frame and section of North Carolina as you. My question, which gives me a great deal of trouble, is: What is your basic understanding of petitionary prayer? I believe you have said, "A God who would save the life of one prayed-for cancer-stricken child and not another would be a monster." This makes sense but gives me a great deal of trouble in considering petitionary prayer. (I have read your book Honest Prayer I find no answer to this problem there.)
Spong replies:
Dear Elmo,
Thank you for your comments and for your question. Your question on petitionary prayer is almost always the first question that comes up wherever I go to lecture. People can talk about their understanding of God until the cows come home, but nothing really changes until they translate their understanding of God into their prayers. More than anything else, our prayers define our understanding of God. So to talk about prayer, we have to define who the God is to whom we pray. To say it differently, "Who do we think is listening?"
Most people, quite unconsciously, approach the subject of prayer with a very traditional concept of God quite operative in their minds. This God is a personal being, endowed with supernatural power, who lives somewhere outside this world, usually conceptualized as "above the sky." While that definition has had a long history among human beings, it is a definition of God that has been rendered meaningless by the advance of human knowledge. This means that for most of us the activity of prayer does not take seriously the fact that we live in a vast universe, and that we have not yet come to grips with the fact that there is no supernatural, parental deity above the sky, keeping the divine record books on human behavior up to date and ready at any moment to intervene in human history to answer prayers. When we do embrace this fact then prayer, as normally understood, becomes an increasingly impossible idea and inevitably a declining practice. To get people to embrace this point clearly, I have suggested that the popular prayers of most people is little more than adult letters written to a Santa Claus God.
There are then two choices. One says that the God in whom I always believed is no more, so I will become an atheist. People make this decision daily. It is an easy way out.
The other says that the way I have always thought of God has become inoperative, so there must be something wrong with my definition. This stance serves to plunge us deeply into a new way of thinking about God, and that is when prayer itself begins to be redefined. Can God, for example, be conceived of not as supernatural person, but as a force present in me and flowing through me? Then perhaps prayer can be transformed into meditation and petitionary prayer becomes a call to action. The spiritual life is then transformed from the activity of a child seeking the approval of a supernatural being to being a simultaneous journey into self-discovery and into the mystery of God. It also feeds my sense of growing into oneness with the source of all life and love and with what my mentor, Paul Tillich, called the Ground of All Being. It would take a book to fill in the blank places in this quick analysis, but these are the things that today feed my ever deepening discovery of the meaning of prayer.

— John Shelby Spong
To me, that is not the type of response that a crook or a liar would give.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Brian, posted 07-06-2009 7:14 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-06-2009 9:02 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 49 by Brian, posted 07-07-2009 7:04 AM Phat has replied
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 07-07-2009 7:22 AM Phat has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 47 of 531 (514358)
07-06-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
07-06-2009 4:15 PM


Re: Crooks & Liars
John Shelby Spong writes:
There are then two choices. One says that the God in whom I always believed is no more, so I will become an atheist. People make this decision daily. It is an easy way out.
The other says that the way I have always thought of God has become inoperative, so there must be something wrong with my definition. This stance serves to plunge us deeply into a new way of thinking about God...
What I find astonishing about this is the notion that a believer can change beliefs -- even change the very conception of what God is -- in response to (on the basis of) real-world experience and evidence. Prayer really isn't working for you? Well, you should conclude that you have the wrong idea of what prayer is all about, and/or who/what you are praying to, and change your ideas...
What a concept!
The part that strikes me as a cheap shot is describing atheism as "an easy way out", using this phrase in what seems intended as a pejorative sense. I suppose it could be granted that adopting atheism (or at least highly skeptical agnosticism) is easier in some regards than trying to adopt some different form of religious faith. But I don't see anything pejorative about this -- adopting some other form of religious faith means trying to apply some other belief system in the absence (or in spite) of evidence, and that might be just as hard as it was with the ones you just left behind (i.e. impossible).
It seems to me that once you've made the decision that evidence and reality matter, and that you are willing to abandon certain religious beliefs because they are totally unsupported by observation, there's every good reason to keep applying that standard of validation, and to maintain your skills for doing a critical, evidence-based assessment of each new concept that comes along.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 07-06-2009 4:15 PM Phat has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 531 (514359)
07-06-2009 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Brian
07-06-2009 7:14 AM


Re: Religion Can Be A Drug
You really cant blame Benny here, you have to blame the morons who go along to this crook.
I do agree that this is very sad, but I'd group all clergy as being the same, they are all crooks and liars.
I agree with Phage here. Most of them are mislead, not that they are not culpable for being duped at the same time to a degree.
While there is an incalculable number of sinister ministers out there butchering Jesus' message, I really don't believe that all or even most men of the cloth are evil.
I've had the fortune to meet just as many wonderfully humble Christians as I have audacious hypocrites. My grandmother doesn't have a mean bone in her body but, bless her heart, she really is amazingly ignorant. She thinks that you'll get the common cold if you leave your shoes out in the humid air overnight. I don't think she even knows what a virus is. Seriously...
Rather than trying to explain anything modern to her, because it would take way too long, you just have to nod politely and comply respectfully.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Brian, posted 07-06-2009 7:14 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 49 of 531 (514384)
07-07-2009 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
07-06-2009 4:15 PM


An obvious crook and liar
Hi Phat,
To me, that is not the type of response that a crook or a liar would give.
Well, just for a wee surprise , I disagree!
This creature is every bit as evil as Benny Hinn!
What he is essentially saying is that he knows that Christianity is a heap of sh*t, but he wants to keep it going under some different guise.
Why doesn't he just come out and say that he now thinks that Christianity is nonsense instead of trying to repackage it? He has came to the conclusion that the religion he preached for so long is actually garbage, why not just admit that and move on instead fo trying to mislead more people?
I know why.
He is preying on those Christians who are having doubts about their faith. He is saying " hey, I know that at this moment in time you are having doubts about your faith because a lot of it doesn't make sense right now, but I had these doubts too, and here is how I overcame these doubts". Buy my books!
He's a crook Phat, every bit as bad as Hinn and all the others. He is a liar too, completely dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 07-06-2009 4:15 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 07-07-2009 9:42 AM Brian has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 50 of 531 (514386)
07-07-2009 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
07-06-2009 4:15 PM


Re: Crooks & Liars
H iPhat,
I have to say that I agree with Brian about the essential dishonesty of Spong's position. Take a look at this;
Spong writes:
Can God, for example, be conceived of not as supernatural person, but as a force present in me and flowing through me?
What utter nonsense! He is reducing God to the status of some kind of New Age hippy energy field, yet at the same time he is happy to refer to this alleged phenomenon as "God", complete with capital letter, as for a personal pronoun. This is clearly hypocritical.
It is also completely at odds with the Bible. The god described in both Old and New Testaments is, quite clearly, a big-supernatural-father-figure-in-the-sky. He is emphatically not some hippy-dippy energy field. Spong has thrown out the entire Bible and yet he still pretends to be Christian. As far as I can tell, he isn't.
Spong writes:
Then perhaps prayer can be transformed into meditation and petitionary prayer becomes a call to action.
What's the pint in that? Why not just meditate if you want to meditate and simply call it meditation? If you want to issue a call to action, just call people to action (and I have no idea why a person praying on their own would need to call themselves to action). Calling these actions prayer just obfuscates matters an guarantees the continuing survival in worshippers minds of the supernatural god that Spong says doesn't exist.
Spong writes:
The spiritual life is then transformed from the activity of a child seeking the approval of a supernatural being to being a simultaneous journey into self-discovery and into the mystery of God.
Again, he denies the existence of a supernatural god, but uses the personal pronoun in his next breath.
Spong's approach doesn't turn pray into a "journey". It turns it into an exercise in pointless waffle and mutual delusion. It certainly doesn't sound like Christianity.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Fix dB.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 07-06-2009 4:15 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 07-07-2009 9:58 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 51 of 531 (514400)
07-07-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Brian
07-07-2009 7:04 AM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
The point I am trying to make, Brian, is that you somehow have this fanatical aversion to all religious people. Over at Dreamcatcher we have a topic on John Shelby Spong and here is a short YouTube clip about him:
Brian, why do you have such an almost fanatical disdain for Theologians? The man certainly had an education. He did not graduate from some mail order diploma mill. True, he does sell books, but when did that become a crime?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Brian, posted 07-07-2009 7:04 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Brian, posted 07-07-2009 11:04 AM Phat has replied
 Message 57 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 9:33 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 52 of 531 (514403)
07-07-2009 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Granny Magda
07-07-2009 7:22 AM


Hippy-Dippy Counselor
GrannyMagda writes:
The god described in both Old and New Testaments is, quite clearly, a big-supernatural-father-figure-in-the-sky. He is emphatically not some hippy-dippy energy field. Spong has thrown out the entire Bible and yet he still pretends to be Christian. As far as I can tell, he isn't.
So this brings up an interesting question: What is a Christian?
He (God) is emphatically not some hippy-dippy energy field.
NIV writes:
John 15:26-27-- "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.(...) John 16:5-11
"Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
Next question: What is the difference between the Holy Spirit, otherwise known as the Counselor, and your alleged hippy-dippy energy field?
Edited by Phat, : fixed quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 07-07-2009 7:22 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Granny Magda, posted 07-07-2009 11:39 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 53 of 531 (514409)
07-07-2009 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Phat
07-07-2009 9:42 AM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
But what he is promoting Phat is NOT Christianity.
If he was honest he would admit that he had been following a pile of crap for years, and now he would like to search for some other answers because Christianity is wrong.
He wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Why cant he just admit that Christianity is wrong?
And yes, all religious people have something missing.
Edited by Brian, : formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 07-07-2009 9:42 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 07-07-2009 11:19 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 126 by Phat, posted 10-29-2009 11:35 PM Brian has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 54 of 531 (514412)
07-07-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Brian
07-07-2009 11:04 AM


What IS Christianity?
Brian writes:
Why cant he just admit that Christianity is wrong?
And yes, all religious people have something missing.
Are you trying to tell me that he is a Christian?
Perhaps on a logical level Christianity makes no rational sense. In my mind, agnosticism is the most logical position to hold, since none of us knows anything for certain. Furthermore, Christian Beliefs can and are an emotional crutch for those who are grieving and who are depressed. I believe, however, that this is where irrational spiritual beliefs have some value to society. They give people hope. People need hope when logic shows us hopelessness. This does not mean that society should not try and improve itself.
I am not an advocate of hiding in a cave waiting for Jesus The Magic Sky King to come back and rescue all of us pitiful sinning humans who were unable to save our own planet. I believe that humanity should try and do our very best at making our world a better place and I agree that much of organized fundamentalist religion can hold people back from becoming educated and rational enough to make a difference.
As for Spong being a Christian, I believe that if he was in fact an Episcopal Bishop for many years, that in and of itself would validate his status as a Christian. Having checked his resume, I find that he was in fact an Episcopal Bishop.
Finally, in order to make a claim that Christianity is wrong, we would have to conclude that everyone abandon all forms of belief and stick with logic, reason, and reality. (Got that from jar )
In the context of this old topic of mine that I have reopened, we can see why Charismatic Christianity and unthinking hyper-emotionalism is wrong, but we should not dissuade the freedom of people who choose to have hope beyond our natural lives. Should we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Brian, posted 07-07-2009 11:04 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2009 1:38 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 58 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 9:43 AM Phat has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 55 of 531 (514416)
07-07-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Phat
07-07-2009 9:58 AM


Re: Hippy-Dippy Counselor
Cheers for the reply Phat,
quote:
So this brings up an interesting question: What is a Christian?
We could discuss that one until the proverbial cows come home. In my view though, Spong has gone so far away from the Bible that his philosophy no longer bears any resemblance to what the authors of the Nicene Creed had in mind. When he says "God" he is talking about an entity that has staggeringly little in common with the Bible or with tradition forms of Christianity.
Were I in his position, I would feel obligated to come clean and admit that my views were not Christian, and in fact were not even especially religious; Spong seems to be pushing a vague philosophy rather than a religion.
quote:
What is the difference between the Holy Spirit, otherwise known as the Counselor, and your alleged hippy-dippy energy field?
Well first, I can't be sure that the "energy field" actually is what Spong believes in; that's just what it sounds to me like he's pushing.
In fairness, the answer to your question is "Not much." The Holy Spirit sounds like a pretty good match for what Spong is getting at.
My problem with this is simple; where are God (with that big fat capital G) and any kind of divine Jesus in all of this? The spirit is only one aspect of God and not even that if you aren't Trinitarian. In Spong's world, God the Father seems to be entirely absent. That in turn leaves Jesus as little more than an especially smart and "spiritual" mortal. Sure, you could centre a philosophy around the teachings of such a man, but a religion? That seems to me to be going a bit too far.
Spong is also guilty of equivocation on a massive scale. Worship is love. Prayer is meditation. God is "the source of life" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Worship is living life to the best of one's ability.
No they're not. He's just trying to redefine Christianity back into some kind of relevance.
An atheist is just as capable of living life to the fullest as any Christian or for that matter, Jew, Hindu or Zoroastrian. It is not worship and it won't become worship no matter how diligently Spong tries to equivocate. We all know what is meant by the word "worship" and "living life to the fullest" is not it.
It is my opinion that Spong is only hanging onto the trappings of Christianity out of tradition and sentiment. He defends the practise of prayer because he wants to preserve the comforting ritual that he enjoys, even while he recognises the contradictions that it presents.
As for the Bible itself, he doesn't seem to believe much of it. When you get to this point, it seems to me that clinging on to the Bible and the "Christian" label, is both intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. It is also counter-productive; why keep the Bible at all when it contains so much to promote the kind of primitive sky-father religion that Spong goes out of his way to denounce? Isn't it just going to lead people astray (creationists spring to mind )?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 07-07-2009 9:58 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 56 of 531 (514479)
07-08-2009 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Phat
07-07-2009 11:19 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Hi Phat,
You asked Granny what a Christian was. I would like to try to answer that one for you.
The word Christian is used 2 time's in the Bible.
Acts 26:28
Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
1Peter 4:16
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
The word Christians is used only one time in the Bible.
Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The disciples who were followers of Christ was called Christians first at Antioch.
The only reason these people would be called Christians as they were already followers of Christ was that they were living a life like Christ lived.
In my 47 years of preaching and pastoring I have never met a person who was living a life like Christ did.
I have met a lot of so called Christians and self called Christians but you are not a Christian until you are living a life that the atheist, the agnostic, the Pharisee and the natural man say that man is a Christian. Or that man is living a life like Christ did.
You see Christ gave up everything even His life so mankind could be restored to fellowship with God.
I can't get people to give up 3 or 4 hours of their time and some not even 30 minutes of their time a week to study what God would have them do.
So my definition of a Christian is a person who is living a life like Christ did.
I am not a Christian. I am a follower of Christ who is trying each day to be more like Him.
Phat writes:
As for Spong being a Christian, I believe that if he was in fact an Episcopal Bishop for many years, that in and of itself would validate his status as a Christian. Having checked his resume, I find that he was in fact an Episcopal Bishop.
You have proof he is a man of religion nothing else. Being a Bishop, Priest, Pastor or Pope don't make you a Christian.
He doesn't fit my description of a Christian.
(FUI Matthew 1:23 tells us His name would be "Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.")
So what makes you think he is a Christian?
Since he doesn't really believe in God, then he would not accept Christ as God.
If you think he is a Christian what is your definition of a Christian?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 07-07-2009 11:19 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 531 (514491)
07-08-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Phat
07-07-2009 9:42 AM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
Phat writes:
Brian, why do you have such an almost fanatical disdain for Theologians? The man certainly had an education. He did not graduate from some mail order diploma mill.
This is quite the non-sequitur. What about education makes someone not worthy of disdain for unethical behavior?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 07-07-2009 9:42 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 531 (514493)
07-08-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Phat
07-07-2009 11:19 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Phat writes:
I believe, however, that this is where irrational spiritual beliefs have some value to society. They give people hope. People need hope when logic shows us hopelessness.
Irrational hopefulness wastes resources and in some cases gets people killed. Contentedness need not be contingent on a fantasy. People who rely on religion to solve their problems are setting themselves up for dissapointment, and those who solve their own problems are wasting their efforts with religious practices.
In essence you are arguing that religion is a recreational pastime, which would be fine except that it HURTS PEOPLE. People die every day because religion prevents them access to proper medical care. People (mostly women and minorities) are prevented education and other rights that would increase their utility to society, because of religion. If say, soccer caused all of that it would be sufficient reason to ban the sport regardless of its enjoyable properties. Why not religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 07-07-2009 11:19 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 10:25 AM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 105 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 9:22 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 59 of 531 (514494)
07-08-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Phage0070
07-08-2009 9:43 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Phage0070 writes:
Phat writes:
I believe, however, that this is where irrational spiritual beliefs have some value to society. They give people hope. People need hope when logic shows us hopelessness.
Irrational hopefulness wastes resources and in some cases gets people killed.
You are correct. But what has that to do with where irrational hopefulness has some value to society?
You can't seriously be promoting that since irrational hopefulness can be used for the purpose of evil that it therefore should be completely banned, can you? If that's the case, then to stay consistent we'ed have to ban pretty much everything. Like nuclear power or even giving money to the poor.
Pretty much anything can be corrupted in some way. Just because religion has been grossly corrupted in vast quantities doesn't mean that the good parts aren't still good.
Contentedness need not be contingent on a fantasy.
As a general statement, you are correct. For each and every human on an individual level, you are wrong. There are some people who do require a fantasy to be content.
People who rely on religion to solve their problems are setting themselves up for dissapointment, and those who solve their own problems are wasting their efforts with religious practices.
This depends entirely on which problems are being solved, and what efforts are being spent. Throwing out religion or irrational hopefulness entirely is just a bit too far, though.
I agree that a world with no religion would be better than the world we have right now. However, a world that can identify and make use of the good parts of religion is better than a world with no religion at all.
In essence you are arguing that religion is a recreational pastime, which would be fine except that it HURTS PEOPLE.
Funny, I find that "in essence" he is saying that religion can (even should?) be a recreational pastime. And if used as such then it does not hurt people. It's when religion hurts people that it should be berated, not when it's helping people.
People die every day because religion prevents them access to proper medical care. People (mostly women and minorities) are prevented education and other rights that would increase their utility to society, because of religion.
All true. And it all occurs when religion is used as much more than "a recreational pastime."
I agree with all your gripes, but your method of attacking them is a bit exaggerated, and you're eliminating some very beneficial aspects of religion. I agree that religion is not required... for anything. However, there are beneficial aspects of irrational hopefulness that can help massive numbers of people in extremely efficient ways.
Of course there are dangers and avenues of corruption, just like pretty much anything. Right now, those paths to manipulation are wide and easily abused. But we should focus on eliminating corruption and manipulation, not general sweeping ideoligies such as "religion."
Using the fact that some religion hurts people to promote the banning of all religion is just as corrupt and manipulative as using the fact that some science is wrong to promote the banning of all science.
The point is to promote the banning of corruption and manipulation as to prevent hurting people. To use corruption and manipulation to destroy religion is not solving the problem, it's exactly this sort of good-themed method that opened the doors for all the trouble that exists within religions. To open the doors again in order to remove religion isn't going to change anything, it'll only shift the actual issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 9:43 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Phage0070, posted 07-08-2009 11:42 AM Stile has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 531 (514498)
07-08-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Stile
07-08-2009 10:25 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Stile writes:
You can't seriously be promoting that since irrational hopefulness can be used for the purpose of evil that it therefore should be completely banned, can you? ... Just because religion has been grossly corrupted in vast quantities doesn't mean that the good parts aren't still good.
Of course not. I simply don't consider irrational hopefulness to be one of those good parts. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," is probably something worth keeping, but it didn't really originate with Christianity anyways.
Just because something has good parts in the midst of serious detractors does not mean that we shouldn't switch over to a better alternative.
Stile writes:
There are some people who do require a fantasy to be content.
Arguably because of their upbringing giving them unreasonable hopefulness. Oh well, we can just keep them fooled until they die and they will never be disappointed.
Are you arguing "Ignorance is bliss,"? If being more ignorant is more blissful, where do we draw the line?
Stile writes:
However, a world that can identify and make use of the good parts of religion is better than a world with no religion at all.
Where do you get that? Why not a world that has the good parts of religion without the need to weed out the harmful stuff? Why is there this assumption of an arbitrary increase in meanness when religion is gone?
Stile writes:
Funny, I find that "in essence" he is saying that religion can (even should?) be a recreational pastime. And if used as such then it does not hurt people. It's when religion hurts people that it should be berated, not when it's helping people.
Religion can be used as recreation; there is no objective reason why praying for enjoyment should be any different than throwing a ball around a field for enjoyment. I did not say that if it is used as a recreation it does not harm people; I said that "just for fun" isn't an acceptable justification for something that does harm people.
Religion should be praised and berated for its merits and demerits respectively. I am simply of the position that the merits of religion that cannot be divorced from religion itself are false and have better alternatives.
Stile writes:
However, there are beneficial aspects of irrational hopefulness that can help massive numbers of people in extremely efficient ways.
Then please, oppose my sweeping generalities with hypothetical examples. Note however that I am not suggesting religion cannot be helpful in certain circumstances, I am arguing that in those circumstances there is a better alternative that does not require religion.
Stile writes:
The point is to promote the banning of corruption and manipulation as to prevent hurting people.
Right, and going from the initial assumption that there are no gods and religion is false, you have two options: Either you believe the religion and are simply wrong, or you don't believe and are intentionally manipulating people to do what you want them to.
Ultimately that is what religion is; either it is people bumbling around in the dark looking and hoping for things that will never happen, or willfully deceptive participants who may (or may not) have good intentions.
If I threaten someone with death to get them to give to the poor, does it matter if I would actually kill them, or that a good deed was accomplished? Especially compared to the potential of simply cultivating such behaviors in society?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 10:25 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 1:04 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024