Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Walter_Mitty · 09-06-2002, 07:34 AM

Slippery and frustrating!

Ask her why the church once taught literal interpretation. Ask her why suggesting anything else would have once gotten you imprisoned, tortured, or killed. Ask her why if the Bible was meant to be studied via alegory and the like, how come God allowed it to be taken literally for thousands of years.

St. Augustine: �None of these [canonical] authors has erred in any respect of writing.�

Martin Luther: �The scriptures have never erred, the scriptures cannot err... it is certain that scripture cannot disagree with itself�.

Then show her these statements:

Quote:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America�s Statement of Faith:

�This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the inspired word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith and life �

Excerpts from the Statement of Belief of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod:

�...We believe that Scripture is a unified whole, true and without error in everything it says, for the Savior said, �The Scripture cannot be broken� (John 10:35). Therefore it is the infallible authority and guide for everything we believe and do.�

Article XII of the The Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy (1978):
�We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.�

The Wesley Biblical Seminary�s Statement of Faith:

�We hold the following: 1. The supreme authority of the Word of God which stands written in the sixty-six books of the Holy Bible, all therein being divinely inspired by Almighty God and therefore without error or defect in the autographs.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod outlines its stance in �A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod�:

1. ��Since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, it goes without saying that they contain no errors or contradictions, but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth, also in those parts which treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters, John 10:35.�

Section three reads:

3. We reject the doctrine which under the name of science has gained wide popularity in the Church of our day that Holy Scripture is not in all its parts the Word of God, but in part the Word of God and in part the word of man and hence does, or at least, might contain error. We reject this erroneous doctrine as horrible and blasphemous, since it flatly contradicts Christ and His holy apostles, set up men as judges over the Word of God, and thus overthrows the foundation of the Christian Church and its faith.�

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread!

joedad · 09-06-2002, 08:21 AM

This board has a disproportionately high number of deconverted "christians" as opposed to "believers," so I think that fact is coloring the conversation. If you're able to see all religious belief structures as variations on a theme, seeing christians maybe as neopagans, jews as neoMardukians, Babylonians as neoAn worshippers, etc. and then ask your same question, I think I'd probably agree that you are talking about types of personalities.

My deconversion from RC didn't cause me to become Jewish, or consider Eastern mysticism or leave me searching for what I thought was the one true religion or religious experience that was somewhere out there to be found, if I could but only find it, my El Dorado of sorts.

I still have feelings of awe and wonder, such as when I'm in Yosemite Valley, or Carlsbad Caverns, or trekking the high desert or contemplating the weirdly grotesque but beautiful form of the Bristlecones high in the White Mountains. If such things qualify as religious, then perhaps I never deconverted in the first place, but merely substituted a new set of icons because I felt they were more representative of my personal values and "identity" than those that came before.

And doesn't religion do the same thing? I'm certainly not a religious expert but older religions seemed more connected to natural processes, wanting to explain and draw strength from them, and perhaps by default, elevating them somehow. I can't speak from experience in religions other than RC, but I'd think that all religions are prepackaged cultural identities. Some people retain them, some people find new identities. But the type of person we are probably doesn't change short of the brain itself changing, and I seem to recall some research having been conducted recently about a specific part of the brain wherein seems to reside our "personality."

joe

Viti · 09-08-2002, 10:51 PM

Wildernesse...not sure how to answer your second question. I am a strong atheist, in that I think I am right and I think theists are holding onto a fairytale...I still love many people who are theists.

HOWEVER, I still say "bless you" when someone sneezes (it's a social nicety anymore...even theists no longer believe demons can get you when you sneeze), I simply say thank you if someone says they'll pray for me...I even still say "thank God" sometimes (I was such an apathetic xian I never meant this literally anyway)

I think getting in people's faces is counterproductive to humanism. Putting someone on the defensive is NOT going to make them think...they simply won't hear anything you say anymore. I deconverted through my own research...if some "rabid" atheist had come screaming at me I may have held on to my sad little version of pantheism just out of spite.

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>

wildernesse · 09-09-2002, 12:27 PM

David Bowden/wide-eyed wanderer:
I think you're on to something though. I think atheists often don't know the whole nature of the beast they're engaging, prior to debating believers here or lumping them together in their minds. Those atheists who only knew the most closed-minded forms of Christianity while they were believers probably can't begin to appreciate the subtle, liberal and basically tolerant apologetics of Hans Kung, and don't understand why someone as undeniably brilliant as Tolstoy or other modern thinkers would hold fast to this religion. The fundamentalistic Christianity that molded these atheists is a rather impoverished version, and they don't get the Christianity of Erasmus or the monk who wrote "The Cloud of Unknowing."
That said, an atheist who did get Christianity in its higher forms is well-equipped to point out its flaws.

This is what I’m trying to get at when I ask if atheists can realize that they have religious ideas about Christianity (in specific) that influence their thinking about religion and those who are religious. What David said is much more eloquent than I could have said, and I agree with the last sentence as well.

To all of you who were confused about the use of “fundy atheist” I will try again to explain myself. When I use the term fundy I don’t mean that there are fundamentals of atheism that are ascribed to, nor am I talking about those who are sure of their non-belief or strong enough and confident to tell people that they don’t believe. The term fundy to me, whether applied to believers or non-believers, brings to mind a person who will not accept a person who is different from them as having value or having valuable viewpoints. A person who is convinced that s/he is the bearer of absolute truth and a standard of the best way to live and is convinced that all opposition should be rooted out. I think that you can be a fundy atheist, a fundy Christian, a fundy vegetarian, a fundy Democrat, etc.

I do think that fundy-ism is a personality issue and a maturity issue. I don’t have a problem with those of you who are upset and angry at not being able to be free from religion in the public sector. This isn’t fundy-ism, this is self-respect.

Bibliophile:
Intelligent criticism of someone’s belief is not a personal attack. The theist should be able to objectively scrutinize the secular viewpoint and the freethinker should be allowed the same courtesy in regards to the theist. The problem is, many times people have their identities closely linked to their belief systems. Also, many more have political or personal motivations that go hand in hand with their beliefs. This means that by applying rational criticism to these beliefs may be seen by some, as an attack on the person, their politics, or their agendas.

I agree that criticism of a viewpoint is not a personal attack by definition—but some people are quite capable of combining criticism with personal attacks. I have been thinking about whether this thread is a result of my dislike for some posters, and my labeling of them in my head as fundy atheists. It is definitely an outgrowth of that feeling—but I don’t know how much of it is “See, some atheists are as stupid and irrational and offensive as theists!” and how much of it is an actual question about being able to recognize preconceptions that we have. If I’m honest (and of course, now I’m being honest

) I think that the motive behind the thread is the first and that my OP managed to be the second—for the most part.

I think what really gets my goat, is being called part of “Kristianity” whose beliefs are 1), 2), and 3)—and not being able to be an individual within a complex belief system. Dang it, I’m special! Haha. My mother would wholeheartedly and objectively agree with me. Every week there’s a new thread on this board about atheism not being a worldview, or that not all atheists believe the same thing, or that atheists have half a billion (individual) ways of viewing the world/humans/chocolate—but Christians belong in a thread marked “They all Look alike To Me”.

Got to stop now—I feel really hysterical hormone-driven ranting coming on, and it’s usually better if I just go take a nap before I snap and get all weepy. I’ve already deleted half of my post due to the weirdness factor.

--tibac

Ab_Normal · 09-09-2002, 01:09 PM

Quote:

wildernesse said:
<strong>but Christians belong in a thread marked �They all Look alike To Me�.
</strong>

I acknowledge that I have this problem myself. I get so tied up in my objections to Christianity in total that I let it color my attitudes toward individual Christians, who may or may not deserve it. It's too easy for me to forget that there is a wide variance in Christian beliefs, and concentrate only on the most egregious examples of fundy inanity. I guess I'll just have to keep working on it.

Edited to add: the really strange part is I wasn't fundamentalist before I deconverted, but now my knee-jerk reaction to "Christian" is "Fundie!". Weird.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Ab_Normal ]</p>

MadMordigan · 09-09-2002, 01:22 PM

but Christians belong in a thread marked “They all Look alike To Me”.

Christians all believe that dead men come back to life. All of them believe we go on to live eternally after we die. And ALMOST all of them believe the entire universe was created just so we could crawl around on this insignificant ball of mud.

The absurd belief in these things (not to mention the bizarre morality that says that holding these beliefs is the APEX of virtue) is shared by all christians. Its not even a stereotype, its what makes people christian by definition.

Walter_Mitty · 09-09-2002, 01:38 PM

If it makes you feel any better...

I don't think "you all" look alike. In fact, once you start seriously studying x-tianity and its various sects/denominations, you start to realize how diverse it really is.

So much so that I have to use a very broad definition when classifying that which is "Christian."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-06-2002, 08:21 AM	#32
joedad Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: PA USA Posts: 5,039	This board has a disproportionately high number of deconverted "christians" as opposed to "believers," so I think that fact is coloring the conversation. If you're able to see all religious belief structures as variations on a theme, seeing christians maybe as neopagans, jews as neoMardukians, Babylonians as neoAn worshippers, etc. and then ask your same question, I think I'd probably agree that you are talking about types of personalities. My deconversion from RC didn't cause me to become Jewish, or consider Eastern mysticism or leave me searching for what I thought was the one true religion or religious experience that was somewhere out there to be found, if I could but only find it, my El Dorado of sorts. I still have feelings of awe and wonder, such as when I'm in Yosemite Valley, or Carlsbad Caverns, or trekking the high desert or contemplating the weirdly grotesque but beautiful form of the Bristlecones high in the White Mountains. If such things qualify as religious, then perhaps I never deconverted in the first place, but merely substituted a new set of icons because I felt they were more representative of my personal values and "identity" than those that came before. And doesn't religion do the same thing? I'm certainly not a religious expert but older religions seemed more connected to natural processes, wanting to explain and draw strength from them, and perhaps by default, elevating them somehow. I can't speak from experience in religions other than RC, but I'd think that all religions are prepackaged cultural identities. Some people retain them, some people find new identities. But the type of person we are probably doesn't change short of the brain itself changing, and I seem to recall some research having been conducted recently about a specific part of the brain wherein seems to reside our "personality." joe

09-08-2002, 10:51 PM	#33
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Wildernesse...not sure how to answer your second question. I am a strong atheist, in that I think I am right and I think theists are holding onto a fairytale...I still love many people who are theists. HOWEVER, I still say "bless you" when someone sneezes (it's a social nicety anymore...even theists no longer believe demons can get you when you sneeze), I simply say thank you if someone says they'll pray for me...I even still say "thank God" sometimes (I was such an apathetic xian I never meant this literally anyway) I think getting in people's faces is counterproductive to humanism. Putting someone on the defensive is NOT going to make them think...they simply won't hear anything you say anymore. I deconverted through my own research...if some "rabid" atheist had come screaming at me I may have held on to my sad little version of pantheism just out of spite. [ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>

09-09-2002, 12:27 PM	#34
wildernesse Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,578	David Bowden/wide-eyed wanderer: I think you're on to something though. I think atheists often don't know the whole nature of the beast they're engaging, prior to debating believers here or lumping them together in their minds. Those atheists who only knew the most closed-minded forms of Christianity while they were believers probably can't begin to appreciate the subtle, liberal and basically tolerant apologetics of Hans Kung, and don't understand why someone as undeniably brilliant as Tolstoy or other modern thinkers would hold fast to this religion. The fundamentalistic Christianity that molded these atheists is a rather impoverished version, and they don't get the Christianity of Erasmus or the monk who wrote "The Cloud of Unknowing." That said, an atheist who did get Christianity in its higher forms is well-equipped to point out its flaws. This is what I’m trying to get at when I ask if atheists can realize that they have religious ideas about Christianity (in specific) that influence their thinking about religion and those who are religious. What David said is much more eloquent than I could have said, and I agree with the last sentence as well. To all of you who were confused about the use of “fundy atheist” I will try again to explain myself. When I use the term fundy I don’t mean that there are fundamentals of atheism that are ascribed to, nor am I talking about those who are sure of their non-belief or strong enough and confident to tell people that they don’t believe. The term fundy to me, whether applied to believers or non-believers, brings to mind a person who will not accept a person who is different from them as having value or having valuable viewpoints. A person who is convinced that s/he is the bearer of absolute truth and a standard of the best way to live and is convinced that all opposition should be rooted out. I think that you can be a fundy atheist, a fundy Christian, a fundy vegetarian, a fundy Democrat, etc. I do think that fundy-ism is a personality issue and a maturity issue. I don’t have a problem with those of you who are upset and angry at not being able to be free from religion in the public sector. This isn’t fundy-ism, this is self-respect. Bibliophile: Intelligent criticism of someone’s belief is not a personal attack. The theist should be able to objectively scrutinize the secular viewpoint and the freethinker should be allowed the same courtesy in regards to the theist. The problem is, many times people have their identities closely linked to their belief systems. Also, many more have political or personal motivations that go hand in hand with their beliefs. This means that by applying rational criticism to these beliefs may be seen by some, as an attack on the person, their politics, or their agendas. I agree that criticism of a viewpoint is not a personal attack by definition—but some people are quite capable of combining criticism with personal attacks. I have been thinking about whether this thread is a result of my dislike for some posters, and my labeling of them in my head as fundy atheists. It is definitely an outgrowth of that feeling—but I don’t know how much of it is “See, some atheists are as stupid and irrational and offensive as theists!” and how much of it is an actual question about being able to recognize preconceptions that we have. If I’m honest (and of course, now I’m being honest ) I think that the motive behind the thread is the first and that my OP managed to be the second—for the most part. I think what really gets my goat, is being called part of “Kristianity” whose beliefs are 1), 2), and 3)—and not being able to be an individual within a complex belief system. Dang it, I’m special! Haha. My mother would wholeheartedly and objectively agree with me. Every week there’s a new thread on this board about atheism not being a worldview, or that not all atheists believe the same thing, or that atheists have half a billion (individual) ways of viewing the world/humans/chocolate—but Christians belong in a thread marked “They all Look alike To Me”. Got to stop now—I feel really hysterical hormone-driven ranting coming on, and it’s usually better if I just go take a nap before I snap and get all weepy. I’ve already deleted half of my post due to the weirdness factor. --tibac

09-09-2002, 01:22 PM	#36
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	but Christians belong in a thread marked “They all Look alike To Me”. Christians all believe that dead men come back to life. All of them believe we go on to live eternally after we die. And ALMOST all of them believe the entire universe was created just so we could crawl around on this insignificant ball of mud. The absurd belief in these things (not to mention the bizarre morality that says that holding these beliefs is the APEX of virtue) is shared by all christians. Its not even a stereotype, its what makes people christian by definition.

09-09-2002, 01:38 PM	#37
Walter_Mitty Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: . Posts: 467	If it makes you feel any better... I don't think "you all" look alike. In fact, once you start seriously studying x-tianity and its various sects/denominations, you start to realize how diverse it really is. So much so that I have to use a very broad definition when classifying that which is "Christian."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.