seebs

Well, of course. If you thought otherwise, you'd be a Christian. So what?

I don't think the trueness of the thing is something we have any way to know, although we can speculate if we wish. As to what good it is... Christians will happily talk about what good it does, but the question of what good it is if it is not true is a largely useless one; one doesn't believe something for the effects of belief, but because it seems to be true.

Note that there's a serious problem of conflation to be faced here; you must be careful to distinguish between "the effects of belief in Christianity" and "the effects of the thing believed in". Inertia has effects on me, but they are not the results of my belief in Newtonian physics!

Well, do you know what it really means? If so, how? If not, how can you possibly want to "challenge" it, if you don't even know what you'd be challenging?

This generalization is probably moving at very close to c. "Overall", I don't think we have any way to tell. However, I don't see any connection from "harm than good" to "false claims". You seem to be presupposing the false claims, but I have no idea how anyone could establish the underlying claims to be false. The pragmatic argument turns out to be a very shoddy one; if you really want to fix Christianity, you should first learn to distinguish between harmful and beneficial varieties and trends within the faith. Then, I suggest, you should get involved in supporting the beneficial varieties.

Sitting around tearing the entire thing down strikes me as a very unproductive use of time.

So?

Often, yes. So what? The purpose of the Christians in holding these beliefs is not to serve someone's social engineering goals. We believe them because they are true; as it happens, the universal morality preached by God Himself turns out to be a good one. This should come as no surprise, and nor should it be seen as surprising that thoughtful non-believers living in a world steeped in religious thoughts and the beliefs of Christian philosophers often come to these same conclusions. This supports the theory that morality is objective; you can discover it independently, and it really does work.

But I see no reason for me to change my theological beliefs just because you and I probably share some political beliefs. That's putting the cart before the horse, in the finest style.

the shadow

I rather like the way the Spanish believers express themselves. Excuse me for resoting to the Spanish language but:

"Soy catolico, apostolico pero no fanatico."

Sort of sums it up to me. I don't believe a trnaslation is necessary here and it would take wawy from the poetic.

Rational BAC

Seebs is doing very well in defending liberal Christianity.---And Christianity in general.

The problem the OP has is it fails to recognize the diversity of Christian beliefs. Most all of them defendable. And that is where its strength lies.

Christianity cannot be defeated because it cannot be pin pointed. It cannot be easily categorized. It cannot be scrutinized scientifically or rationally.

It just is.

So be it.

Classical

If someone could give me an example of why a christian is any better off than an atheist or agnostic, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I think that a liberal christian is just keeping a type of faith, which he may well define as christian, in order to dodge the tought questions that have faced christianity throughout the centuries. "Faith" is nothing to me but an emotional, psychological crutch.

I certainly think there are ways of determining whether or not things are true or not. Of course some things are easily proven true or false and others the verdict is not in yet and may never be. In the case of the claims of christianity, such as a resurrection, how can we really know two thousand years later whether or not such a claim is true? It is very unlikely, because this type of thing has never been documented anywhere, any time. Further, one can try to study history and see if there are other such claims, which there certainly are in ancient religions, and try to determine if these claims are also true. Once again, it is very unlikely that any claim of a person being resurrected from the dead ever happened anywhere. Same with virgin births.

I do not wish to follow any religion that makes such dubious claims.

I feel quite the opposite here. I would be more likely to have a favorable opinion of the liberal christians because I find that they are much more concerned with helping the poor, attending to social needs, etc, in spite of the fact that there religion may well be based on false claims.

Good point.

I can say that I know what christianity means from being a christian for over twenty years. Granted, my experience was as a fundie, but still I have a good idea of what it meant. Having read the bible from cover to cover twice, taking careful notes the second time, studying it in Hebrew and Greek as a college minor, I am quite sure I know more about the bible and christian doctrine than most professing christians. I mentioned my catholic partner, saying he had no clue. I think I was correct in this assessment. When I asked him if he knew why jesus died on the cross, he confessed he never really knew or understood the reason. He is simply not interested, but doesn't want to challenge the religion taught from his mother's knee.

Again, I think you have a good point in here, but I am convinced to my own personal satisfaction, that the claims of christianity are not true.

You know what, Seebs? You may be right. Having been a fundie for twenty years, I panic in the aftermath of the 2004 election, where Jerry Falwell is dancing in the streets. I can see that some of my biggest allies may be liberal christians in one sense.

You lost me here, Seebs. You are making saying that the claims of your religion are true, and I do not think such a claim can be defended. I do not think "God himself" ever preached anything, let alone a universal morality. What we know is a result of thousands of years of human experience. Period. I see no need or use for a god here.

What is truly ironic, is that we probably don't share a lot of the same political beliefs. Let me put it this way: I am from a very religious right, conservative christian family. My religious views were the first to go. My political views are still evolving.

I'm enjoying the discussion here, Seebs. Thanks for participating. :wave:

Classical

Seebs is doing a fine job making his points, but my problem is that he is presupposing that the claims of christianity are true. This is exactly what the fundies are doing. They are not starting from the beginning and examining whether or not the claims are true.

I recognize the diversity in doctrine. I just believe that at one point in any religion, certain tenets must be held in order to call oneself a believer of that religion.

Strongly disagree on this one! Christianity has been scrutinized from almost every possible angle both scientifically and rationally and it has fallen with a mighty CRASH. Now you may not agree with me, but this is my personal observation from my personal studies. My reading of this scrutiny is what deconverted me after 20 years.

seebs

Well, I am indeed assuming it to be true at the moment, but that's hardly relevant. What I'm doing is showing that my position is legitimately called Christianity. If Jesus really was God, then my position is a kind of Christianity, and fundamentalism is not the only "real" Christianity. Even if the fundamentalists are right, and I am wrong, on all the points of doctrine, I am nonetheless a Real Christian, whatever the fuck that means.

I'm not trying to show that my position is true, only that it's legitimately called Christianity, and that absolute correctness in doctrine is entirely unnecessary for that claim.

Classical

Real christians would never use the "f" word. Just kidding.

seebs

"I have three things I would like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse than that, third, you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
--Tony Campolo, as quoted in Christianity Today

seebs

The evaluation of the claims is a separate question from whether I really hold to them.

Thus the Creeds.

Christianity teaches morals, and it teaches matters of faith (the existence of souls, the afterlife, etc.).

Both of these are entirely outside the scope of science, so they obviously haven't been scrutinized scientifically. (To be fair, they have been scrutinized from every possible angle scientifically. And hey, look, I just did it again!)

As to rationally... I've seen a lot of people casually dismiss Christian teachings on issues like, say, the correct response to hostility or enemies, as "obviously irrational", but they turn out to work just fine.

seebs

Er, why should I be "better off"? If holding a belief made me better off, that would be some kind of emotional crutch. The only thing it offers me, so far as I can tell, is that my beliefs describe the world more accurately than they used to. I personally value this, but I cannot demonstrate that it makes me "better off".

That said, I certainly don't think I'm "dodging" these questions. I'm still wrestling with 'em. In some cases, Christianity gives me tentative working answers... But that's not an endpoint, that's a starting point.

Depends on how loosely you want to describe things. I know at least a couple of people who have been legally dead for at least a few minutes. But sure. I have no idea how to determine whether such a claim is true or not.

I have no way of evaluating this probability claim. I would say that, if it happened, it was a miracle. I have no way of saying how likely or unlikely it is that at least some miracles occur.

So far as I can tell, you've pre-declared the claims dubious, at least partially because you don't follow the religion.

Ahh, a pragmatist! Anyway, positive outcomes are neat, but I don't think a belief should be adopted based on theories about what people will do if they believe it; it's from precisely that kind of argument that you get a lot of the most nasty fire-and-brimstone preaching; attempts to engineer people into being nice.

Hmm. You have a good idea what that kind of Christianity is. How do you know that it was the only one?

Ahh, but you probably know it with a fundamentalist slant. This turns out to matter. You might know better than most what words are used; you may have a particular view on what they meant, and that view may be colored by your background.

Or he knows something very important, which is that the exact reason for which it happened a given way is not known to us, and that the various churches that claim certainty on the exact mechanism are making it up after the fact.

Sure. But the claims you are rejecting may be somewhat different from the claims I accept. (You'd probably reject mine too, but they aren't necessarily the ones you were exposed to.)

Quite possibly.

Perhaps, but the point is, that these beliefs were reached by other people is not particularly a problem for Christianity. It's either a non-data-point (because of the sampling error, in that everyone doing this thinking has been exposed to Christian thought anyway), or an affirmation (because we find that these beliefs are true even when we don't try to justify them by saying God preached them).

Well, for what it's worth, I'm a sort of old-school Republican. I actually liked Reagan, and I still like people like William F. Buckley Jr.; I'm not fond at all of Bush.