Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3942 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 124 of 200 (386090)
02-19-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Archer Opteryx
02-18-2007 4:46 AM


Re: The Sam Harris Plan
I'll echo Percy when I say that I think your skepticism is rooted in an ignorance of the entirety of Harris' position.
I tried to explain this to breannaki in the Harris/Sullivan thread:
Message 93
I can sort of see where you think Sam Harris is claiming that religious moderates don't call fundamentalists on their bullshit. Of course they do, but I think his point in context is that they don't do it on the level of questioning the basic dogma from which fundamentalism derives!
...
His claim is that if you are unwilling to question your basic dogma then any derivation on that dogma that is destructive is not going to be met with the same amount of disdain that someone from outside the dogma would offer.
...
Take for example Fred Phelps. Most mainstream Christians distance themselves from Phelps claiming that there are other overriding Christian principles (humility, love thy neighbor, etc) that make his behavior wrong. But few if any will ever examine the more basic idea that their dogma against homosexuality is at all wrong. That is why you have Christians who will adamantly say that Fred Phelps is wrong yet still go to the polls and vote to pass a ban on homosexual marriage.
Sam is saying that problem is not Phelps, Bin Laden, {insert fundamentalist here}. The problem is a basic philosophy, not based on reason, that is flawed and that otherwise reasonable religious moderates will refuse to even question that philosophy.
Now there are some problems that I see now in my treatement after reading this thread and that is the issue of what is a moderate. I don't think Harris' would consider jar or myself grouped into that category because we do not let our dogma override our skepticism of the base traditions.
There are plenty of people though who hold what most people would subjectivly consider moderate views of Christianty who fall directly into what Harris is talking about.
I don't think it is black and white though and I agreed with breannaki in that post that it IS valid to criticise Harris on the over generalization. I don't think that takes away from the basic truth of what he is saying though which is that a non-insignificant number of people can be described exactly as he does.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-18-2007 4:46 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 02-19-2007 3:01 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3942 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 127 of 200 (386105)
02-19-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
02-19-2007 3:01 PM


Re: The Sam Harris Plan
I think there's a point there - if you really have integrated skepticism and doubt into your Christianity, then surely you've come to the conclusion that the miracles and divinity of Jesus - even the very authenticity of the statements he's supposed to have made - aren't supported by any evidence; and if that's so, in what sense can you be said to be a "Christian"?
I don't know. It is a valid question that can probably be asked to myself, jar, arach, etc. You are picking up on the exact theme that I was trying to convey to Archer. My definition of moderate does not include myself, jar, arch, and other examples of people on this board. I am with buzsaw on this one in saying that we are probably better catagorized as extreme liberal Christians or not even Christians at all. In fact, I explicitly do not meet the conditions that Harris iterates as defining a Christian in Letter to a Christian Nation let alone a moderate variety of that.
I'll post that later when I get home.
IIRC there was the following minimum condition:
1. Belief in the divinity of Christ.
2. Belief that the Bible is the inspired work of God.
3. Belief in the virgin birth of Christ.
4. Belief that only faith in Christ's divinity will buy you a ticket to heaven.
I fail on at least 2 of those 4. I can concieve that jar fails on at least one of them.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 02-19-2007 3:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 6:57 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 02-20-2007 9:37 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3942 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 140 of 200 (386207)
02-20-2007 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
02-19-2007 3:01 PM


Sam Harris Definition of a Christian
the "Christian" I address throughout is a Christian in a narrow sense of the term. Such a person believes, at a minimum, that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that only those who accept the divinity of Jesus Christ will experience salvation after death.
A little further down he says...
Consequently, liberal and moderate Christians will not always recognize themselves in the "Christian" I address. They should, however, recognize one hundred and fifty million of their neighbors. I have little doubt that liberals and moderates find the eerie certainties of the Christian Right to be as troubling as I do. It is my hope, however, that they will also being to see that the respect they demand for their own religious beliefs gives shelter to extremists of all faiths.
So I suppose by that statement that Harris would group jar, myself, trixie, arach, etc into moderate/liberal Christians.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 02-19-2007 3:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 02-20-2007 10:41 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3942 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 143 of 200 (386227)
02-20-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by jar
02-20-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Sam Harris Definition of a Christian
Yea, I do disagree with the over generalization that Harris conveys.
(the spelling errors were mine by the way. I was typing in the quote from the book)
I do think though that Harris has a point when you consider public discourse over certain key issues where mainstream Christianity has asserted itself. Now it may just be a result of my ignorance, but I rarely see a moderate or liberal Christian when arguing, criticize the taboo of homosexuality as a dogma itself. They may argue that we need to be tolerant or such but only in the VERY liberal case do they ever seem to denounce the dogma on its merits alone.
IMO this is a big reason why even in this more accepting day and age we are actually seeing MORE done to prohibit homosexual rights than guarantee them.
Like I said, as a generalization, Harris is wrong. In the specific cases he brings up, I think he has valid concern that moderates are sheltering extremist views by not denouncing the basic traditions from which the extremists stem.
The problem with people who believe we live in an apocalypic society is not that they are misinterpreting Revelations. The problem is that Revelations is completely and utterly invalid as prophecy. Yet most of my very liberal Christian family would never dare to question that one day Armageddon will actually occur or be critical of any fundamentalist who not just believes the same but shapes policy around it.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 02-20-2007 10:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by jar, posted 02-20-2007 5:56 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024