|
29497. pelty - 6/24/2009 11:15:35 PM Can we let that last bit stand for the metaphorical language complaint? I am not exactly sure of what you speak but will try to learn more as we continue and see if I can avoid it or, if I think it is pressingly necessary, I will try to say why I think this is so... 29498. pelty - 6/24/2009 11:32:26 PM Lastly (I think), to your objections on points of doctrine, I am not sure how to approach that (and I am not trying to run and hide with my tail between my legs! Ha!). Obviously, every belief system is going to have elements that are of great import. Even people who claim no religion have points on which they are philosophically dogmatic (there is no God! The Christian worldview is BS!), so I am not quite sure about the precise nature of your issue, to be honest. Do you not like the fact that there are so many contentious points over seemingly meaningless issues? In some cases, I agree, on others, I am sure I would disagree. I asked the "Messiah" question simply because it can have different valences for different people, but for me (and this may be a fault, though I am not disposed to see it as such!), definitions are important. I want to know what we mean by a given word or phrase. That is why I asked the question. 29499. pelty - 6/24/2009 11:36:54 PM "I don't have to limit my discussion to stay within your doctrinal frame of reference."
Speak in whatever doctrinal mode you wish.
"Having said that, I could very easily have a discussion using ONLY doctrines, concepts, and Biblical frameworks within YOUR belief system. It would be a discussion that yuo not be very happy with. IOW, Christianity can use its own concepts to destroy itself."
Are you threatening me? :-) I am perfectly happy to have any conversation you wish to have (within reason), so if you want to speak within a Christian doctrinal context, have at it. If not, then that is fine too. I have no beef with you, anomie, and since it was you who instigated the discussion, I am more than happy to allow you to drive it. 29500. pelty - 6/24/2009 11:40:13 PM I wrote:
"Where "Christian morality" differs from "secular morality" or other religious/philosophical systems is in how God views our morality."
This could be phrased better and I am sorry I missed this in the Preview. It should probably be closer to something like "...how God views some of the actions that a person might view, within his or her system, as moral." 29501. alistairConnor - 6/25/2009 12:05:20 AM "Even people who claim no religion have points on which they are philosophically dogmatic (there is no God! The Christian worldview is BS!)"
That's a very broad brush you're tarring us with. I would be interested to put it to the test (dogma is anathema to me!) I mean honestly, you can have your god, I have no problem with that. In fact, you can have as many as you want. As long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses.
"Where "Christian morality" differs from "secular morality" or other religious/philosophical systems is in how God views our morality."
Can you see how comical this looks to a non-Christian? Because in my frame of reference, God doesn't give a shit about our morality. Does this mean there is no difference between your morality and mine? No, the difference is that you refuse to be the final arbiter of your own morality; you don't trust your own moral compass. 29502. anomie - 6/25/2009 12:43:29 AM Pelty, I'll be short only because most of the folks here are probably tired of my same old rants... Starting where AC left off. Christian morality can be summed up as "Might makes right". You don't have your own morality and therefore you don't accept responsibility for it. You've sold out to a horrendous idea of a God who created sin and then condemmed people, commited several genocides, and still keeps childrren sick, and allows airplanes to fly into buildings.
On language: You have entire conversations that don't make any sense at all and that YOU can not even explain.
- Introduce people to Jesus
- Christ died for your sins
- Eat, this is my body
- The Holy Spirit
- The bible is the "word of God"
Explain ANY of those in a way that holds language to a specific reference and I'll give you bonus points.
No, I'm not threatening you, and I'd like nothing more than for a Christian to complete a simple conversa
29503. anomie - 6/25/2009 12:48:17 AM ...simple conversation in plain English about their beliefs, but no one has yet been able to do it. I even allow bible quotes.
As to what I believe and assert...not much. I allow that everything you believe MAY be true. But I allow that with everybody else too. So I don't say there is no God. I don't know.
If I missed something let me know. I'm not avoiding anything, just trying to stay brief. 29504. anomie - 6/25/2009 12:49:14 AM And Pelty, I meant to add that I thought your last post was gracious and fairly open minded. I appreciate that and didn't want it go unmentioned. 29505. pelty - 6/25/2009 4:25:05 AM "dogma is anathema to me!"
Webster's definition of "dogma" is
1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
Thus, it would seem, your dogma is "'dogma is anathema to me!'" I am not trying to be cute, by the way. This is truly your staked claim. So you *do* have a dogma, but it is one that, on its face, allows for much breadth of opinion, but I bet if you were pressed a bit harder, you would have other dogmata (or, at least, some corollaries). Indeed, it would seem that Corollary A is "You may have religion (or gods), but you may not speak it (or of them) aloud in a public manner (if I am understanding your "As long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses" statement correctly)." So we are beginning to flesh out your doctrine here a little bit. I imagine if we pressed in a bit, we could find more dogmata.
"Can you see how comical this looks to a non-Christian? Because in my frame of reference, God doesn't give a shit about our morality. Does this mean there is no difference between your morality and mine? No, the difference is that you refuse to be the final arbiter of your own morality; you don't trust your own moral compass."
I do see how it appears comical, yes, but is it really all that surprising? I would expect people with two different, and in some ways, opposing worldviews to have serious reservations about this or that aspect of the other's. As for the final part of your statement, you are right, I do refuse, or I would say "relinquish" my right to be my own moral guide, but I do it because of *my* "dogma," just as you refuse to do so because of *your* "dogma." We are not *so* different after all! :-)29506. pelty - 6/25/2009 4:39:09 AM anomie,
"As to what I believe and assert...not much. I allow that everything you believe MAY be true. But I allow that with everybody else too. So I don't say there is no God. I don't know."
Thank you for your post. I appreciate your kind words. I will try to address some of what you bring up tomorrow, but I am not going to try to claim that I have answers for everything you bring up. I don't. Full stop.
What I do appreciate is your agnostic stance; I think it is an intellectually honest one. By the way, for you and all who are reading this, I am not trying to "win hearts for Jesus" or even "win" a debate. Thus, there will be times I say, "I don't know" and if that means, "I lose" (though I am not sure it *should* mean that), then I can live with the loss. I simply wish to exchange ideas and to see if we can make one another understand each other a little better. I am saddened to hear of the "prejudice" one of the Moties has for Christians based on the effects of the Christian Right (though I think it is understandable, sadly), so it would be great if we could just "tawlk amongst ourselves" a bit.
Anyhow, I will try to address those things I feel capable of handling tomorrow. I may be a sporadic visitor, I must warn you, because I have much on my plate at the moment, but I will try to respond as best I can. 29507. Ms. No - 6/25/2009 7:31:50 AM Pelty,
I simply meant that if one group presents their side of the argument in such a way as to convince others to vote in favor of it, then that is simply the way the system works. Of course, the judicial branch certainly can play a role in whether a given law ultimately remains on the books. I meant nothing sinister in my statement...
No, I didn't think you did. I generally assume positive intent on the part of others. It makes for far more productive discussion. ;->
Personally I don't think the State has any business being involved in marriage. A civil contract between two or more parties, yes, but not "marriage" which is a holy sacrament defined however a particular faith wishes to define it --- provided that it doesn't violate the rights of any of the involved parties.
Which is all a roundabout way of saying that I support both gay marriage and polygamy although I'm currently witholding support for the LDS because it was their money and influence which got Prop 8 passed here just a few months ago.
As for what I mean by Messiah, it is simply that Jesus Christ was a willing sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. I don't think one can honestly claim to be a Christian if one doesn't believe that. At root, that is what defines Christianity. It's what separated the first Christians from their Jewish faith. The virginity of Mary, debates about the Trinity, the question of transubstantiation and when to celebrate the high holy days are all arguable according to denomination, but not the belief that Christ died for man's sins.
Certainly there are other articles of faith required by the various churches, but much of that is like arguing what it means to be an American. Regardless of what you believe, if you were born here or naturalized you're American whether or not you support flag burning amendments or ever bother to vote.
The Catholics can excommunicate you, but they can't divest you of your belief in Christ and so long as you believe, you're a Christian. 29508. Ms. No - 6/25/2009 7:59:08 AM Pelty,
That was my tendency to get a rash when people randomly announce to me that they are Christian.
We've discussed one of the reasons why but I think it only fair to point out that some of my reaction is because of my own religious upbringing. I was not brought up in an Evangelical faith ---- Catholic, Epsicopalian & Methodist with a fair shot of Judaism ---- so religious discussion was reserved for private audiences within one's family or congregation or among close friends. Not quite as private as one's sex life, perhaps, but certainly not the sort of thing that one went about blithely proclaiming to strangers and casual aquaintences.
So, while most of my discomfort has to do with overly aggressive Christians --- the sort of folks who turn to you at the bus stop and ask if you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior --- some of my discomfort is certainly attributable to having been raised to believe that religion isn't for polite discussion. By polite I mean casual, public and suitable for tea parties with non-intimates...or fellow morning commuters on public transit.
I will say that over the last year I have become less reactionary about this because so many of my students and fellow faculty members have casually shared with me their religious affiliations. With few exceptions none of them have been offensive in the least about their announcements and I've been able to take them for what they are --- sharing personal information in an overture of friendship and trying to get to know me better.
I've had to mediate a couple of religion-based raised voice discussions over the past year, but nothing too terribly awful. I have been shocked and apalled, however, by the lack of scholarship among many of my students with regard to their religious knowledge.
The very idea that they are being told in their churches that Catholics aren't Christians is more than a little troubling. That they don't realize that they use the same Bible, that if not for Catholics there'd be no Protestants -- that they have no idea how Protestantism even began --- this is all very disheartening. 29509. judithathome - 6/25/2009 1:08:41 PM But if you are honest with yourself, do you not think to some degree that you view your worldview to be "true" (and mine false as ours cannot co-exist, can they?)?
This was addressed to Alistair but my first thought upon reading it is going be expressed, nonetheless. Ha!
Why can't each be true? Just because I like sushi and you don't, that doesn't mean sushi is worse for one of us than the other. That is my point about religion: me not having a religion doesn't diminish your beliefs one whit. Just as your having a religion shouldn't diminish my lack of one.
Each belief system is true to those who hold them, so long as none of us harms others with what we believe. The fact you believe Jesus died for our sins is true for you...that I don't believe it doesn't make it less true for you. I happen to believe Jesus was a wise man with the personal magnetism to sway people into believing what he believed...your belief that he was divine doesn't make what I believe about him to be any less true to ME.
I would be happy as a clam if coexistance of belief happened. To me, the problems come when one side or the other tries to say that what THEY believe makes the other untrue.
As to morality, if we're all working toward the same goal...goodness, peace, the happiness of all...what does it matter if it's a secular or a religous goal?
29510. pelty - 6/25/2009 3:48:17 PM Ms. No,
"Why can't each be true? Just because I like sushi and you don't, that doesn't mean sushi is worse for one of us than the other."
Each cannot be true because they have at their heart dissonant assertions. I say "There is a God" and AC (I think) says "There is no God." One of us is wrong here. Now, divergent viewpoints such as ours can coexist well enough, but at some point we will have the opportunity to find out who is right and who is wrong. Your sushi example is not exactly of the same species as it is possible for both of us to have different feelings on the matter and both of them be true. I do not like sushi. You do. There is not lurking in the background the question of whether sushi truly is Tasty (as though there is some Platonic Form of Tasty). On the other hand, when it comes to G/god, we are making a statement about his existence. He either is a being that exists or does not exist. Now, whether this being is (or is not) the Christian God is an entirely different matter, of course. I am not interested in discussing that at the present time, but I do think that your sushi example falls a little short, if I am reading it correctly.
"Each belief system is true to those who hold them, so long as none of us harms others with what we believe. The fact you believe Jesus died for our sins is true for you...that I don't believe it doesn't make it less true for you. I happen to believe Jesus was a wise man with the personal magnetism to sway people into believing what he believed...your belief that he was divine doesn't make what I believe about him to be any less true to ME."
I agree that the truth as we hold it is true to US, but objectively one of us has to be wrong. Either Jesus is only a wise man with exceptional rhetorical and persuasive abilities who died an ignoble death and from whom arose a religious movement *or* I am right and he is a "theos aner", a divine man, whose death had a salvific effect, etc. I would aver here, however, that ours represent but two poles on a larger spectrum into which we could insert different views. For example, we could allow the Muslim perspective of Jesus which differs on some key points, and I am sure others could be brought up as well. Nevertheless, if any of the differing views are correct, only one of them can be. Jesus cannot have died on the cross (Christian perspective) and not died on the cross (Muslim perspective). Relativism is all lollipops and rainbows but when the rubber meets the road it cannot hold up. 29511. pelty - 6/25/2009 3:51:21 PM "As to morality, if we're all working toward the same goal...goodness, peace, the happiness of all...what does it matter if it's a secular or a religous goal?"
For the living of life on this earth and enjoying peace and happiness, it doesn't matter. 29512. pelty - 6/25/2009 4:00:17 PM "So, while most of my discomfort has to do with overly aggressive Christians --- the sort of folks who turn to you at the bus stop and ask if you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior --- some of my discomfort is certainly attributable to having been raised to believe that religion isn't for polite discussion."
I am not entirely comfortable with this myself a) because I would not want to be approached in this manner and b) I have serious doubts about its efficacy.
"I've had to mediate a couple of religion-based raised voice discussions over the past year, but nothing too terribly awful. I have been shocked and apalled, however, by the lack of scholarship among many of my students with regard to their religious knowledge."
Re; the first sentence, I originally read it that you have had to "medicate a couple of..." which, I must say, alarmed me a bit!
Your second point is a hot one for me. I understand the desire to keep religion out of the public schools, but in doing so we have raised a generation of students who have no knowledge of the basics about a text that sits at the foundation (whether we like it or not) of our culture. I think that a historical, rather than religious, introduction to religious texts - Bible, Quran, etc. is a valuable component of education. Religion is a vital component of the human experience (even for those who reject religion since they still have to interact with religionists). Why we do not allow it to be taught in a way that gives people a basic literacy is beyond me (well, I understand the concerns people have, but I think we should move beyond them as we are doing a disservice to our young people). 29513. anomie - 6/25/2009 5:05:01 PM Pelty,
As far as I know nothing prevents public schools from teaching the bible as you suggest. It is a common misperception generally, and a flase claim of some Christian groups in particular who really want schools to indoctrinate instead of educate. 29514. anomie - 6/25/2009 5:07:11 PM "divine man" Now there's a doozie! It begs for a new category of existance and new word. 29515. anomie - 6/25/2009 5:15:09 PM Pelty, sorry for the late response, but it was back in post 29467 where you said:
"My take, though I know it will not win many fans here, is that Christians should worry more about introducing people to Jesus, who is capable of changing hearts on social matters (not to mention some other pretty important stuff!), ".
29516. Ms. No - 6/25/2009 5:24:44 PM Pelty,
You've gotten Judith and I confused. Judith had the post about sushi.
But you did have my post about medicat-...er, mediating correctly.
As to a class in comparative religion, I would have no objections provided the teacher wasn't pushing any particular faith.
The problem, as AC points out, is not that religion can't be discussed in schools but that a certain segment of Christians want only their version taught....and they also want it taught in science class.
The people objecting most vigorously to a comparative religion class would not be atheists and agnostics, but fundamentalist Christians.
All of which is moot in my state since we don't have the funding to teach any electives whatsoever in the vast majority of schools.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
