How so! What do you think is the default position.
Reasons not to believe in God
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
How so! What do you think is the default position.
Your observations are so clear and hardly acknowledged by the majority.
What you expect is by all means the trend, and I don't deny that my statement contradicts what is happening. This is where the power and influence of 'miracles' can sway the multitudes overnight in the other direction, it is this dramatic change which is so deceptive and has been predicted to warn those who want to know. False religion, which constitutes the main stream churches and their off shoots, will have their day.
The beginning of their argument and cause will start with "getting the nation back to God" because they will claim that the disasters we are experiencing are correlated with not getting in with God, and not following religion. Figure that one out!
People like Aqueous have already pointed out how dangerous the political agenda's of religions are.
The entire premise of the article is false (shocking, I know, since it comes from a place called "Answers in Genesis") Atheists calibrate their moral compass on the same lodestone as everyone else: the values of the society they live in. And that society--at least in the west--is not based on Christian values. Concepts like gender equality and civil rights for minorities do not exist in the bible. The embarrassing mess we've been pulling ourselves out of for the last hundred years--women not having voting rights, segregation, oppression of racial and sexual minorities, the Glass Ceiling, prohibition--are the leftovers from a time in this country when the church was most influential in policy-making.
The better question is how the religious organizations who do come around to the right way of thinking actually do so, considering that it puts them at odds with their foundational texts.
If this were 1812, I might agree that end-times evangelism could be effective in keeping the flock together. Fortunately, for those of us who aren't brainwashed God-zombies (Gombies?) this is 2012, and miracles have gone the way of witches and the evil eye. No one really believes the televangelists when they say gay sex caused Hurricane Katrina, and they won't believe the next pasty white moron who has the balls to say that "sin" (itself an outdated concept) is the cause of some natural disaster. We simply are no longer ignorant enough to the workings of the world to believe in such things.
Presumably by that you mean the Catholic church, in which case you're again about 200 years too late. They've had their day, and their influence is waning. Already has waned, really. Churches are closing all over the country, and there weren't enough to begin with to house all those who identify as Catholic, so the very definition of the word has changed to the point where traditional spiritual leaders are no longer relevant. Without spiritual leaders and congregations, the church's political agenda goes wanting for a bent ear. The "Christian vote" has become more and more aligned with secular America, and will continue to do so absent the priests and pastors.
In other words: It's over, dude. America is entering a new age, and organized religion is a relic of a bygone day.
Like all prophecies, this one will be espoused by your descendants 200 years from now, just as your ancestors espoused it 200 years ago. It will be no more relevant then as it is today or was in the past.
I think we can all agree on that.
The golden rule is not at odds with any of the progress that has been made.
As a soundbite, no. But in context, absolutely. It was never meant to apply to women or minorities. After all, one wouldn't have another put them into bondage, yet it was perfectly acceptable to do exactly that to another.
Anyone should be able to differentiate cultural and period bias. We may very well look back on any penal system as barbaric (and it could be argued that these are often forced labor systems) if we discover an actual solution to criminality, but that does not mean that our acceptance of it now should in any way be construed as a prescription into perpetuity. Any morality we come to must include the current necessity to remove some people from society.
A little perspective is all I am saying.
And just as you wouldn't argue in favor of those dated penal codes, you shouldn't argue in favor of antiquated scripture. I mean, sure, if you want to argue that the Golden Rule is a good guideline, fine, but to argue the goodness of the Christian concept just doesn't fly. In other words, the Golden Rule you're referring to isn't the Christian version at all.
Really? How do you figure?
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. -Luke 6:31
So are you arguing that the entirety of our current morality would be obsolete if a solution to criminality were found? I guess you could say that murder would not be an issue if it never occurred, but would that change the fact that it is wrong?
You are simply cherry-picking what you seem to know are cultural and period biases to form a false dilemma of one part being outdated negating the entirety.
No, you're cherry-picking. You want to treat "Do unto others" as a soundbite, ignoring everything it actually meant and still call it a Christian value. I have no problem with Christians infusing that passage with a secular meaning, but let's not pretend it's a Christian value. It isn't.
What, exactly, do you think "it actually meant"? There is not a lot of philosophical depth to the concept in which to equivocate. I have so far ignored all the straw man arguments you are erecting, but there seems to be no end to them, so I better spell them out.
1. I never argued in favor of any scripture, only against the false dilemma of some obvious cultural and period biases discounting all validity. Funny how you seem to avoid my contemporary examples of doing just that. Care to answer any of those questions?
2. Since you have yet to explain what alternative "version" of the golden rule you claim I have referred to, there is no telling if that is or is not the Christian version. I have not commented on it other than to give you a biblical quote, which I think shows that it is the Christian "version".
3. No, I have not neglected any significant point, as I clearly stated that cultural/period biases were obvious in the scripture. It is you who has claimed a false dilemma by ignoring any moral value at all based solely (cherry-picking) on these cultural/period biases.
Like I said, a little perspective would be a good thing.
hence we come back to why you can manage one system with the tools of discrimination and remain absolutely adamant about not using them in another
its not a necessary stage but a common one.
There is no time requirement since its all about how long one maintains an unsuitable attitude.
no more than being meticulous at the ascending process is for people who are already buddhists
:shrug:
so then it comes back to the example of knowing about the north pole, and at which point the information becomes "comprehensive" enough to begin the journey (or whether the differences in levels of knowledge is all about quality - which in turn spells out whether one is going to go for the rough, bumpy "kannistha" sort of approach or something a bit smoother)
already ready explained this - basically it boils down to what value one sees the community offering, how much one wants it, and the degree one can discriminate the social structures (so one isn't put off by someone yelling, regardless of their body weight or gender - I remember when I first came to the movement I encountered many "interesting" people). You are right, there is the aspect of which value may be more substantial than the other (as explained by the four types who come to KC) but that still stands as a detail to simply seeing a value one desires and mapping out a plan to acquire it. Failure in either of these two departments will simply see one side tracked into more what one sees as relevant pursuits (ie other attachments take the fore) or suffering due to totally messing up the relationship/interaction side of things ... which are generally the two popular destinations of kannisthas and explains why they have a rough time, why they find it difficult to sustain their spiritual life and why it is declared as an unsatisfactory level of performance by spiritual authorities.
Are you having trouble finding my posts on this subject? Seems hard to believe, given that you replied to them.
Evasion.
What contemporary examples? You haven't offered any, only a hypothetical regarding a future where criminality doesn't exist. And what you're arguing in favor of is ignoring the context of the scripture and applying the passage in a secular sense. I have agreed with that notion. What I don't agree with is that this is somehow a "Christian" idea, which was your original argument. Or did you forget already? Let's review, seeing as you apparently have short-term memory issues:
So your original argument was that the foundational texts are not at odds with modern secular progress, and you gave the Golden Rule as an example. I pointed out that the Golden Rule did not apply as broadly then as it would today, as such a concept as we know it today is inapplicable with slavery or the subjugation of women.
This conversation has clearly gone over your head, so I'm not sure what the point of continuing this is, but I'll try again: There is no alternative version of the Golden Rule (well, that's technically incorrect; there is a form of the rule in just about every civilization ever) only a different context. You seem to think that what it means today is what it meant 2,000 years ago, but you are wrong.
Those "biases" define the text. The bible lays out rules for slavery--it doesn't abolish it. It mandates the woman be secondary to the man--it does not mandate gender equality. This is why I said that if you want to apply "Do unto others..." to a modern situation, you have to engender it with secular values. In other words, if we applied it in the same context it is applied in the bible, it wouldn't count against oppression, racism, misogyny, etc..
In the Buddhism of the Pali Canon, one is not expected to please or live up to the expectations of someone one has never personally met and doesn't even know whether that person exists.
In the Buddhism of the Pali Canon, one can take on any small portion of the instruction, practice with it, and assess the results for oneself. And one needn't first commit to become a Buddhist or a follower of the Buddha before one does any of that.
Besides, the majority of the Pali Canon really is just common sense, with there being absolutely nothing controversial about it. This is one reason why some people dismiss the Pali Canon, claiming that since it is so plain, it is not possible that an enlightened being could teach something like that. Of course, as it turns out in daily life, common sense isn't so common. So the formulations in the Pali Canon can be very useful.
In contrast, in theism, one is expected to please and live up to the expectations of someone one has never personally met and doesn't even know whether that person exists or not.
In theism, one first needs to commit to the whole path before one can do anything on it.
I don't have a problem with rude behavior per se. I have a problem with rude behavior when I am in a situation where I am supposed to unconditionally trust a person who is rude to me.
The only thing that keeps me reflecting on all this is the fear that fideism may be the only path for some people, that it may be the only path for me, and that I just might have to ease into the prospect of having to trust people I find totally untrustworthy.
Answers in Genesis? You linked to Answers in Genesis?!
Because it's highly unlikely that she's been faking it all her life to the point of extremist obsession. It interests me how you cannot demonstrate rational evidence of God, so instead, you consistently try to cast doubt on others. Pathetic.
Holy shit, Wynn's a vampire...
Neverfly,
Yes. What's wrong with that?
My question was, how do you know she believes/(d) in God?.
Try and answer the question, it's very simple, or you will be proving the former statement correct.
jan.
Yes. What's wrong with that?
My question was, how do you know she believes/(d) in God?.
Try and answer the question, it's very simple, or you will be proving the former statement correct.
jan.