Obama..... not religious?

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

To give you a non-religious example of true vs fact, consider three representations of a tree. One rendition is a photograph, the second is a painting done in fine detail, and the third is an impressionist print. Which of these is true?

None of them is 100% true, but there are degrees of similarity to the truth. The photograph is most similar to the truth (assuming its a sharp photograph), the realistic painting somewhat less similar, the impressionist painting least similar. Do you consider that a fundamentalist way of judging it?

JPB wrote:

This is where we are looking at the discussion from different perspectives -- the net value of religion for humankind. If you remove religion from humankind, you have lost more than half (guess) of the art world, the world of music, and most importantly, the social outreach provided by the religious community.

If you really think this is a good argument, try suggesting the following proposition to Mr. JPB: "If you remove Microsoft from the world of computing, you lose the operating system and Office software on more than 90% of all computers. And most importantly, you lose all the charitable work of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation." He will swiftly point out your error to you.

But even if your argument did wash, it would merely be a restatement of the third key joke in Woody Allen's Annie Hall:

Woody Allen alias Alvy Singer wrote:

this guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy; he thinks he's a chicken." And, uh, the doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn him in?" The guy says, "I would, but I need the eggs." Well, I guess that's pretty much now how I feel about relationships; y'know, they're totally irrational, and crazy, and absurd, and... but, uh, I guess we keep goin' through it because, uh, most of us... need the eggs.

Is that what you're saying (about religion, not relationships)?

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

JPB wrote:
To give you a non-religious example of true vs fact, consider three representations of a tree. One rendition is a photograph, the second is a painting done in fine detail, and the third is an impressionist print. Which of these is true?

None of them is 100% true, but there are degrees of similarity to the truth. The photograph is most similar to the truth (assuming its a sharp photograph), the realistic painting somewhat less similar, the impressionist painting least similar. Do you consider that a fundamentalist way of judging it?

No tell us which one has the most meaning.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

JPB wrote:
To give you a non-religious example of true vs fact, consider three representations of a tree. One rendition is a photograph, the second is a painting done in fine detail, and the third is an impressionist print. Which of these is true?

None of them is 100% true, but there are degrees of similarity to the truth. The photograph is most similar to the truth (assuming its a sharp photograph), the realistic painting somewhat less similar, the impressionist painting least similar. Do you consider that a fundamentalist way of judging it?

And you also have to consider, "true in what sense?" Visually, perhaps, you are correct. But they are all images seen through an artist's perspective. What if the photograph is done at dawn, while the detailed painting represents dappled sunlight, and the impressionist painting is done at sunset?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I don't care. I'm sure that when hallucinating people are hearing voices, these voices have a lot of meaning to them. That doesn't make the voices real.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

So, basically, apart from taking the opportunity to make what i'm sure you thought was a witty remark involving phlogiston, you have simply reprised your constant theme of begging the question. You assert that in order for someone to be a Christian, they must believe that the putative Christ was god. If any evidence is presented to you that this may not be universally true, you simply dismiss any exceptions as heretical, and therefore not Christians. This is a classic example of begging the question.

I'm not obsessed with the question of whether or not there are Christians who deny that the putative Christ was god, although i'm convinced there have been and are now. The greater point here, however, at which i have aimed all along, is that you and others here are apparently content to set yourselves up as arbiters, as judges of who is or is not a Christian. I find that absurd, both because i know of no reason to assume that you or anyone in this thread is authoritative in that matter, and because arguments from what Christianity is or ought to be have been basically meaningless from the very beginning of the cult. For example, the Hellnistic world, which signed on earlier than anyone else (except for a handful of Jews) was less than enthused about the prospect of circumcision. Those who read Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15, can see how important the topic was. Saul of the Tarsus, the so-called St. Paul, was quick to remove such a requirement from conversion. In that the passage of Matthew which i have already quoted has the putative Christ saying that no jot or tittle of the law shall be removed until the end of the world, and in that Leviticus calls for the circumcision of all male children ten days after birth--you have within decades of the year when this boy is alleged to have been executed a significant departure from his theological world view--i.e., strict adherence to Mosaic law. Of course, we can't be certain just how reliable scripture is, but that simply makes it more absurd for anyone person to tell another person what it means to be a Christian.

To the bible-thumpers, the Pope is the Great Heresiarch, and Catholics are no Christians. Such arguments are silly in the face of the numbers of adherents involved, and so is the idea that anyone here can tell anyone else here that they are or are not Christians, and that they are or or not hypocritical. Given the dubious authority for scripture, not only do i find the dictionary definitions of Christian sufficient, i find the notion that someone would pick and choose among the scriptures reasonable, and that doing so would not disqualify them as Christians.

Now, if anyone asserts that scripture, every last word of it, is the revealed truth of god, divinely inspired and inerrant, they will have put themselves in a particular box. At such point as they fail to execute, to kill out of hand unruly children, adulterers and homosexuals, they will certainly be hypocrites. But that will have been by their own definition, and not requirements imposed upon them by an outside party.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

I think that if religion has been removed, the arts and music and altruism would still have happened by virtue of the emotions that drive humanity. The human desire to express would have been the same, only the channel and form of the expression would be changed.

I doubt that religion can be removed.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I kind of took it for granted that when you compare a photograph, a realistic painting, and an impressionist painting, you do it "other things being equal." If other things are not equal, then you're comparing apples to oranges, and JPB's analogy becomes meaningless.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I don't care. I'm sure that when hallucinating people are hearing voices, these voices have a lot of meaning to them. That doesn't make the voices real.

Ah, perceptions. Now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty of faith.

See, you do have faith. You have faith that your perceptions are real, and they have meaning for you.

Even an agnostic, discussing what can be empirically proven, has faith. Faith that other people are not just figments of their imaginations. Faith that the so-called "reproducible experiments" performed by scientists are really reproducible, because no one has to time to fact-check every single experiment ever done.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I kind of took it for granted that when you compare a photograph, a realistic painting, and an impressionist painting, you do it "other things being equal." If other things are not equal, then you're comparing apples to oranges, and JPB's analogy becomes meaningless.

Alternately, one can look at the three depictions of the tree and come away with a new understanding of trees and beauty. Perhaps the impressionist painting is the least accurate in reproducing the image, but it might be the most accurate at capturing the ineffable meanings inherent in the tree.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

.....
I'm not obsessed with the question of whether or not there are Christians who deny that the putative Christ was god, although i'm convinced there have been and are now. The greater point here, however, at which i have aimed all along, is that you and others here are apparently content to set yourselves up as arbiters, as judges of who is or is not a Christian.....

Now, if anyone asserts that scripture, every last word of it, is the revealed truth of god, divinely inspired and inerrant, they will have put themselves in a particular box. At such point as they fail to execute, to kill out of hand unruly children, adulterers and homosexuals, they will certainly be hypocrites. But that will have been by their own definition, and not requirements imposed upon them by an outside party.

If I am correct, Setanta is saying we should not judge others as "hypocritical" as long as they themselves have not "painted themselves into a corner" by declaring the bible to be inerrant.

I would agree with that. Most people are quiet about how they specifically live their lives as "Christians". If they do not go around telling others what to believe, we have no reason to judge them "hypocritical".

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Yes, that is essentially what i am saying, and i agree both that most Christians don't throw it up in the faces of others, and the rest of us are in no position to judge them.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

In searching through your latest post, I was unable to find your explanation of Socinian theology. I'll assume, therefore, that you're just as baffled by it as I am and leave it at that.

Setanta wrote:

So, basically, apart from taking the opportunity to make what i'm sure you thought was a witty remark involving phlogiston, you have simply reprised your constant theme of begging the question.

Yes, that was a good one, wasn't it? But it wasn't question begging.

Setanta wrote:

You assert that in order for someone to be a Christian, they must believe that the putative Christ was god. If any evidence is presented to you that this may not be universally true, you simply dismiss any exceptions as heretical, and therefore not Christians. This is a classic example of begging the question.

Clearly, you don't know what "begging the question" means. I put forward a definition of "Christian." Some sects fall within that definition, others do not. You may not agree with my definition, but establishing a definition does not, in and of itself, "beg the question."

If your definition is better than mine, then put it forward as I have done and we can hold it up to the same scrutiny. Right now, though, you're just arguing that some people have called themselves Christians and that's good enough for you to consider them to be Christians. In effect, you're saying that your definition of Christian includes everyone who says that they are a Christian, which is, I contend, quite possibly one of the worst definitions that anyone could come up with.

Setanta wrote:

The greater point here, however, at which i have aimed all along, is that you and others here are apparently content to set yourselves up as arbiters, as judges of who is or is not a Christian.

I don't see why that's so unreasonable. You've done it yourself, when you said that Moslems and Bahais are not Christians, so it's a little late to be saying that no one is qualified to set himself up as an arbiter of who is Christian and who isn't.

A definition merely establishes a category, in which some things are included and some are excluded. It's an aid to understanding, not some sort of theological device by which the saved are separated from the damned. A definition is only as good as its "fit" with the facts. On that basis, I think my definition of "Christian" is pretty good and yours is pretty weak. You obviously disagree. Just don't deceive yourself into thinking that I'm the only one offering a definition here.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I am not at all baffled by the fact that Socinians did not consider the putative Christ to be god, which is why i referred to that example.

It certainly is begging the question when the definition you provide for Christian is the matter in dispute, which is what has been going on all along in these exchanges. You allege that the definition of Christian entails believing in the divinity of the putative Christ. I dispute that, and when i provide examples to counter that claim on your part, you final argument of refuge is that if they don't believe that, ipso facto, they aren't Christians. That's as blatant an example of question begging as one could hope to see.

You now conveniently forget that i advanced some definitions from two commonly respected dictionaries of the American language as definitions for what Christian means, and that when i made my remarks about Muslims and Bahai's, i specifically referred to those definitions. There is a huge difference between appealing to the authority of a recognized and accepted source such as the American Heritage Dictionary or the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and appealing to the authority of some anonymous joker at an online bulletin board with a penchant for wearing a silly fez.

So far from thinking you're the only one offering a definition here, i recognize that i have also offered definitions, and provided links to the sources of those definitions. Apparently, the source of your definition is auto-oracular. You mustn't be surprised if i remain unimpressed with that.

1 Reply

I just read someone complaining that, while waitresses get 15 %, God gets only 10 %.

I responded that waitresses give better service, and that the 10 % goes to the church, not to God.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB, I'm really going to just pick a few items here...or this thing is going to get out of hand. I understand that you may consider other arguments you made to be of more importance...in which case, you can come back and ask for my comments on whatever I missed that you want covered.

The notion that the people I call hypocrites are somehow “looking at the Bible as a whole” is bunk as far as I can see.

The most fundamental item that has to be considered is the notion that the a GOD exists...and that the Bible reveals ANYTHING about that GOD.

There is absolutely no way the Bible is useful whatsoever in answering the question: Is there a GOD?

Unless one is willing to unequivocally assert that the men who actually wrote the words contained in the Bible ACTUALLY KNEW that a GOD exists...and that the GOD actually gave them information about what IT expects of humans...and what pleases IT or offends IT...

...it is of no use whatsoever in that department!

The people using the Bible HAVE GOT TO be asserting that these writers KNEW a GOD exists...and were in communication with that GOD. Short of that, it makes absolutely no sense to claim it has any more moral authority than, as Thomas suggested, The Sopranos...or Gulliver's Travels.

You realize this when you wrote:

Quote:

the liberal christian sees a story of a tribal people who were given guidance by god

That is not a throw away line, JPB. That is monumental in this discussion we are having.

Think of the implications of it on the arguments you are making...and the ones several others of us are making. (i.e. There is a GOD...the GOD was communicating with the people doing the writing, and the GOD was "guiding" them as to what the GOD expected of humans...and what pleased or offended the GOD.)

Quote:

Religious journalist Ron Harper wrote, "The Bible is true and some of it happened" as a way to highlight the problem that christianity and other religions run into when they tries to equate "true" and "fact".

For certain parts of the Bible are true. I am as sure of the fact that there actually was a place called Rome (as stated in the Bible) as of anything else I can think of. Yes...there was a place called Judea...and the Romans did occupy it...and Egypt existed...and a Pharaoh ruled it.

But so what?

None of us are questioning that...although some of the stuff that is supposedly historical has been deemed by some scholars to be self-serving nonsense. (The Egyptians may well have expelled the Hebrews from Egypt...rather than, as the Bible teaches, escaping by having their god kill a bunch of Egyptian babies.)

Lemme stop here. Reply to this if you choose...and bring up any items you want me to comment on...also if you choose.

Interesting discusion!

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I am not at all baffled by the fact that Socinians did not consider the putative Christ to be god, which is why i referred to that example.

Well, the fact (if indeed it is a fact) that the Socinians didn't consider Christ to be god is immaterial, since my definition of "Christian" doesn't require that a person believe that Christ was god. But that was a nice bit of dodging the issue there, I must hand it to you.

Setanta wrote:

It certainly is begging the question when the definition you provide for Christian is the matter in dispute, which is what has been going on all along in these exchanges. You allege that the definition of Christian entails believing in the divinity of the putative Christ. I dispute that, and when i provide examples to counter that claim on your part, you final argument of refuge is that if they don't believe that, ipso facto, they aren't Christians. That's as blatant an example of question begging as one could hope to see.

I was right: you don't understand what "begging the question" means. Here's a handy guide for future reference.

Setanta wrote:

You now conveniently forget that i advanced some definitions from two commonly respected dictionaries of the American language as definitions for what Christian means, and that when i made my remarks about Muslims and Bahai's, i specifically referred to those definitions.

Yeah, that was a fallacious argument, but I didn't want to get into it at that time.

Setanta wrote:

There is a huge difference between appealing to the authority of a recognized and accepted source such as the American Heritage Dictionary or the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and appealing to the authority of some anonymous joker at an online bulletin board with a penchant for wearing a silly fez.

Actually, in terms of logic, there's not much difference at all. But then I never set myself up as an authority. My definition stands or falls on its own terms -- it doesn't rely on some extraneous and irrelevant authority for its validity. That your argument does is, of course, your problem, not mine.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Ah, perceptions. Now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty of faith.

See, you do have faith. You have faith that your perceptions are real, and they have meaning for you.

Even an agnostic, discussing what can be empirically proven, has faith. Faith that other people are not just figments of their imaginations. Faith that the so-called "reproducible experiments" performed by scientists are really reproducible, because no one has to time to fact-check every single experiment ever done.

And you think that is a logical argument for the kind of "faith" that supposes there is a god who kills babies to get his way...and suggests murdering people who don't kiss its ass?

Really???

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Quote:

If I am correct, Setanta is saying we should not judge others as "hypocritical" as long as they themselves have not "painted themselves into a corner" by declaring the bible to be inerrant.

I would agree with that. Most people are quiet about how they specifically live their lives as "Christians". If they do not go around telling others what to believe, we have no reason to judge them "hypocritical".

Not even if they ARE hypocrites, Wandel???

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Not even if they ARE hypocrites, Wandel???

We may not be talking about the same thing, Frank. I would not be able to call someone a hypocrite as long they are not telling me or others what to think or how to behave. (I honestly believe that most people are quiet about their religion or lack of religion.)

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

I would not be able to call someone a hypocrite as long they are not telling me or others what to think or how to behave.

Telling someone what to think or how to behave isn't hypocritical if the person doing the lecturing is being consistent. Rude, maybe, or presumptuous, but not hypocritical.

1 Reply

Obama..... not religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know