Sacrifice of the intellect
Blonde Cupid
You continue to focus on the sacrifice of the intellect; at no time will you witness me retreating from this stand.
You could well have reserved your further commentary on Mensa until you had your statistics straight. I was hoping more that you would address the question of why you introduced stupidity and idiocy. You know, cite what you're talking about.
As to the sacrifice of the intellect, as I admitted to
LivingSacrifice in his thread regarding why people dislike Christianity:
You'll note the number of disparaging comments at Sciforums about the "Christian intellect", and, yes, I'm one of the chief proponents of that phalanx. Of course, I get my phrase, that faith is a sacrifice of the intellect, from the Christians, so I have no difficulty bandying it with reckless disregard.
Why are you so upset about a phrase coined by a Christian? For instance, as Camus notes, in
Myth of Sisyphus:
What is perceptible in Leo Chestov will be perhaps even more so in Kierkegaard. To be sure, it is hard to outline clear propositions in so elusive a writer. But, despite apparently opposed writings, beyond the pseudonyms, the tricks, and the smiles, can be felt throughout that work, as it were, the presentiment (at the same time as as the apprehension) of a truth which eventually bursts forth in his last works: Kierkegaard likewise takes the leap. His childhood having been so frightened by Christianity, he ultimately returns to its harshest aspect. For him, too, antinomy and paradox become criteria of the religious Thus, the very thing that led to despair of the meaning and depth of this life no gives it its truth and its clarity. Christianity is the scandal, and what Kierkegaard calls for quite plainly is the third sacrifice required by Ignatius Loyola, the one in which God most rejoices: "The sacrifice of the intellect". This effect of the "leap" is odd, but must not surprise us any longer. He makes of the absurd the criterion of the other world, whereas it is simply a residue of the experience of this world. "In his failure," says Kierkegaard, "the believer finds his triumph." (28)
Your thoughts?
So, in North America, Christianity is somewhere between 1 and about 1,200 different faith groups, while Wicca numbers somewhere between 1 and many hundreds of thousands. The total number of faith groups in the U.S. cannot be calculated; the value depends upon exactly how one defines "faith group" or "religion." Perhaps we can say that every person's religion is somewhat unique. Thus there are over 200 million religions in the U.S
Does this mean that we get to put the Mensa numbers to rest? After all, by this standard, the numbers are invalid.
It rests with the individual virtually irrespective of their intellect or what you see as stupidity or idiocy.
An excellent point,
Blonde Cupid. That's why we judge intellect by action and result. Should we assume that Christians in Mensa behave like some of our posters on this board?
And here we chase after a vital question: from birth, some Christians are taught to believe before they understand. As noted: they study scripture in order to reconcile it to the dogma they've already received via indoctrination. Like that hilarious University of Oregon story I related to
LivingSacrifice. The argument essentially went:
•
Christian: Homosexuality should be illegal because it says in Leviticus that God hates homosexuality.
•
Tiassa: In lieu of that, what do we do about the disabled? After all, God does say, in Leviticus, that they are not to profane what He has made holy.
•
Christian: Ephesians! Put on your armor!
It was, as I noted then, quite the display of ... uh ... intellect.
Basically what happened is that Christian with a bender against gays sought Biblical justification, using a law code which includes rules invalidating the Americans With Disabilities Act (recall that the Old Testament contains no advice to render unto Caesar). When presented with an equally-controversial portion of the same law code in the Bible, the Christian had no intellectual answer, no deft interpretation of the Old Testament to offer, but merely a frustrated call to arms.
Why, do you think, God rejoices in the sacrifice of the intellect?
The sacrificed intellect does not learn for learning's sake; it learns for faith's sake. That is, the sacrificed intellect does not seek to discover whatever is there, but rather seeks to discover what it already believes is there. Unlike an intellectual inquiry, the sacrificed intellect does not rely on the observable, but instead on the subjective. Thus, among sacrificed intellects we hear of natural phenomena being classified as angels, worshipers praying to road signs, creationists calling for a rewrite of the scientific standard to include a specific
a priori and no other, individuals and organizations who seek equality through the establishment of Christian superiority ....
Perhaps it doesn't sound complimentary to your ego. It wouldn't to mine, either. But the Christian
faith is one you seem to have chosen. This is not necessarily something I can help; I mean, I suppose I could, but I'm not sure we would have the same definition of "help" as applies to the situation.
You know, one does not necessarily need God to perform the algebraic vector equation to tell you where a theoretic mass is going to land after being thrown. But when it comes to the public (social) sphere, we see a tremendous inhibition against intellect.
Not all sacrificed intellects are going to be dysfunctional; by and large we see that so long as the society reflects Christian values as policy, Christians can function quite well. But at the same time we have a bunch of Christians running around telling us that keeping children ignorant is protecting them, that superiority is equality, and so forth. Should I assume that the "silent majority" of "smart Christians", while they don't agree with them, are unwilling to correct them in their erroneous paths? Or shall I assume that the "silent majority" (if, for instance, these people are fringe-cases, as is often alleged in the defense of greater Christianity, despite other evidence of such trends running deeply through the faith) is afraid of the erroneous ones? Or is the "silent majority" of Christians merely cowardly and in agreement with their bolder-spoken brethren?
Of course, if we apply individualist religion, the entirety of the Christian minority disappears. Of course, that's a lot of churches to build.
What has you so upset about a Christian term for faith? That I treat it negatively? I think Christianity is negative. I think the quality of the sacrificed intellect is actually a detriment to the individual and the community.
Besides, you don't take anything I say sincerely, so why bother about this phrase? Is it pride? Do you somehow feel you need to defeat this notion? Do you somehow feel you need to sweep away the idea that Christians have faith in their Bible, their God, or their Redeemer? Or do you think you finally have cause to get up and rumble? After all, from your first point you've only shown that you've missed the point. As you pointed out, if they were "knowledgeable" by your standards, they would believe.
We can take this two ways: First, we can look at it as if it says that the knowledgeable ones already believe it true before they look. Secondly, we might look at it as if once someone reads it and becomes knowledgeable, the faith becomes irresistible. I must put the second option aside, for I see it nowhere in evidence. What seems to be the consistent point out of Christians is that one can only know if they decide before they look that it's true.
Which leaves us with the idea that the knowledgeable ones already believe the Bible true. That is, they do not read it with open critical thinking skills, but with sacrificed critical thinking skills. Thus, that the dogma and the Bible don't match up creates a flabbergasting difficulty. The shattered body Christian cannot hold together. People take their camps according to faith. Thus "Christian" or "Catholic" or "Mormon"? Thus Lutheran or Missouri Synod? Which kind of Presbyterian? Or Baptist? Are gay people allowed, or do they have to become heterosexual? What about the second-marriage adulterers? Do they have to get divorced or annulled?
The
a priori acceptance that the Bible is true pretty much invalidates the intellectual process.
Tell me,
Blonde Cupid, do you have faith? Do you believe in God? Or do you have some objective proof of God that you've experienced that you're keeping to yourself?
What objective proof do you have that Jesus Christ will Redeem you? Or do you have
faith?
thanx,
Tiassa
