Religion, weaponized religion, and the separation of church and state

[David Dennison 18939]

7 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I believe in God, creator of all that is. I also believe that science, like religion, attempts to describe what is, as well as mankind’s relationship to what is. Religion, writ large and imo, has done a remarkable job of describing what is. 
Supporting my opinion is a tl,dr post.

I want to point out that science often describes what is after religion has already made the same description. This is the latest example, as science now is examining the idea that monism is what is, (and was awarded Nobel’s prize for physics in doing so.)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/quantum-monism-could-save-the-soul-of-physics/

 

Apologies if this has been discussed. I am catching up, and, AB, I want to ask that your claim, in another thread, that secular philosophy is the only force opposing the worst actions of humanity, be supported and examined,

Science, as opposed to religion, looks for evidence to describe what is.

[Brian Fantana 6689]

Wow.

[Brisketexan 105172]

1 hour ago, HamsterHookah said:

Since Briskettexan has entered the chat, let me cut him off at the pass so we don't get the same message regurgitated in 5 different ways; for the vast amount of American performative Christians, cruelty is the point.

I said it BT, so you don't have to. Please. Give us something more original and authentic. I feel like Brendan Fraser at the end of The Whale when he desperately asks his online writing students to just please write something new and different and authentic.

You covered it.  There's really not much empirical basis for refuting the point, so I think that's covered.

But we can certainly go on a related tangent about how bullshit "religiosity" has fucked up our culture and our politics.

1) If you rely on a system of faith/magical belief, and fear of divine repercussions, in order to behave decently and ethically, you are a fucking sociopath.  The concepts and broad benefits of behaving decently and ethically exist, robustly, outside of any religious framework as well.

2) When you can't even TRY TO FOLLOW the core elements of that faith/magical belief (be decent to your fellow man, don't be a dick), and in fact do the opposite, ALL THE WHILE claiming that the very faith/magical belief you claim "membership" in shields your actions from all criticism or consequence because that's your "religious freedom," you are a sociopathic dick.

If our religion, culture, and politics, were run based on the moral and ethical foundations that define and run through both religious AND secular systems (be decent to your fellow man, don't be a dick), we'd be in astounding shape.  Yet we have a society lurching at breakneck speed toward theocracy (running on "religiosity" to the exclusion and in opposition to any "secular" values) that is violently opposed to 1) the very value system that faith is supposedly built on and 2) that same value system that lives outside of religion.

So, yeah, Hookah, I'll say the conclusion -- in America, 2023, religion is poison.  

[HamsterHookah 112]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You covered it.  There's really not much empirical basis for refuting the point, so I think that's covered.

But we can certainly go on a related tangent about how bullshit "religiosity" has fucked up our culture and our politics.

1) If you rely on a system of faith/magical belief, and fear of divine repercussions, in order to behave decently and ethically, you are a fucking sociopath.  The concepts and broad benefits of behaving decently and ethically exist, robustly, outside of any religious framework as well.

2) When you can't even TRY TO FOLLOW the core elements of that faith/magical belief (be decent to your fellow man, don't be a dick), and in fact do the opposite, ALL THE WHILE claiming that the very faith/magical belief you claim "membership" in shields your actions from all criticism or consequence because that's your "religious freedom," you are a sociopathic dick.

If our religion, culture, and politics, were run based on the moral and ethical foundations that define and run through both religious AND secular systems (be decent to your fellow man, don't be a dick), we'd be in astounding shape.  Yet we have a society lurching at breakneck speed toward theocracy (running on "religiosity" to the exclusion and in opposition to any "secular" values) that is violently opposed to 1) the very value system that faith is supposedly built on and 2) that same value system that lives outside of religion.

So, yeah, Hookah, I'll say the conclusion -- in America, 2023, religion is poison.  

Thanks for saying your piece, you can yield back your time here and go back to the other thread about pedos-in-the-church and make sure everyone hears the same message, over and over.

Edited March 22, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[HamsterHookah 112]

14 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

A remarkably incorrect description of the real world.   Seriously.

Actually it's quite beautiful, in the harmonized and elegant way in which that word means.

 

23 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I believe in God, creator of all that is. I also believe that science, like religion, attempts to describe what is, as well as mankind’s relationship to what is. Religion, writ large and imo, has done a remarkable job of describing what is. 
Supporting my opinion is a tl,dr post.

I want to point out that science often describes what is after religion has already made the same description. This is the latest example, as science now is examining the idea that monism is what is, (and was awarded Nobel’s prize for physics in doing so.)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/quantum-monism-could-save-the-soul-of-physics/

 

Apologies if this has been discussed. I am catching up, and, AB, I want to ask that your claim, in another thread, that secular philosophy is the only force opposing the worst actions of humanity, be supported and examined,

Beautifully stated and supported

[Brisketexan 105172]

Just now, HamsterHookah said:

Thanks for saying your piece, you can yield back your time to the other thread about pedos-in-the-church and make sure everyone hears the same message, over and over.

I'd love to hear a counter-argument.

Also, take into account the "pedos in faith, but how our leadership has decided that Polly Darton singing "Jolene" is the REAL threat to our kids' sexual safety," I'd love to hear your thoughts on that as well.

The topic of this thread is weaponized religion.  I addressed it.  I addressed it especially in light of the fact that it's been weaponized in a direction that's 180 degrees off from what the ACTUAL direction would be, if our culture and politics were actually following the direction of that faith system.  You are welcome to address it, this is the thread for it.

[Brian Fantana 6689]

Stop you're hurting his fee fees

[WhatTheBuck 28793]

13 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Religion, writ large and imo, has done a remarkable job of describing what is. 

You mean like gravity, and spacetime, what the moon and the stars are, how the sun is at the center of our solar system and Earth orbits around it? How about the age of the earth and of the universe? Hell, how about just the shape of the earth? How about evolutionary biology, how all life on this planet is descended from a common single-celled ancestor? How about genetics and the function of DNA? Or about the anatomy of the human brain and it’s role as the center of thought, memory, consciousness, and emotion? What has religion gotten right about any of those things? I’d say religion has done a remarkably bad job of describing what is. 

[Brian Fantana 6689]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You mean like gravity, and spacetime, what the moon and the stars are, how the sun is at the center of our solar system and Earth orbits around it? How about the age of the earth and of the universe? Hell, how about just the shape of the earth? How about evolutionary biology, how all life on this planet is descended from a common single-celled ancestor? How about genetics and the function of DNA? Or about the anatomy of the human brain and it’s role as the center of thought, memory, consciousness, and emotion? What has religion gotten right about any of those things? I’d say religion has done a remarkably bad job of describing what is. 

 It's god. All of that is god. Dumbass!

[WhatTheBuck 28793]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

 It's god. All of that is god. Dumbass!

The explanation is so elegant in its simplicity.

Like they say, religion doesn’t give you answers, it just gives you an excuse not to ask questions. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

The fact that the “religious” people posting in this thread are discussing everything BUT the actual topic of this thread is very telling.

They fucking know they can’t defend the way the evangelical assholes are using their beliefs as a cudgel for cruelty and to bend the law to their will.

So instead y’all are falling for their “philosophical” debates so they don’t have to defend the premise of the actual debate.

And “complementarism”?

Complementarians assign primary headship roles to men and support roles to women based on their interpretation of certain biblical passages. One of the precepts of complementarianism is that while women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches subscribing to this view.

[HamsterHookah 112]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'd love to hear a counter-argument.

Also, take into account the "pedos in faith, but how our leadership has decided that Polly Darton singing "Jolene" is the REAL threat to our kids' sexual safety," I'd love to hear your thoughts on that as well.

I addressed this in post #48 Edit to copy and paste it for you since you evidently missed it:

"Surprise surprise that religions and religious institutions are wicked and full of sin (because they are made up of people who are preternaturally so). 

So even in religion and religious institutions you see a spectrum: far right theocrats and extremists to the far left loons of women preachers with rainbow pride robes, and everything in between.

Get in where you fit in and worry about the plank in your own eye first, is my motto. I care less about what drag shows are going on in society than I do with what I'm doing to lead my kids and family in the home. If I do my job correctly, God willing, the rest will work itself out. Though of course that's not necessarily a guarantee, God's will be done, and proverbs are principles and not promises...

But that leads to the best life lesson for the short sojourn we have on this planet until we go to our real home: we are in control of nothing really, so just do what you think is best, in the present, one day at a time.

And love those who you disagree with. Maybe even more than you do those who make it easy to love.

I love you all, especially you usual suspects."

Quote

The topic of this thread is weaponized religion.  I addressed it.  I addressed it especially in light of the fact that it's been weaponized in a direction that's 180 degrees off from what the ACTUAL direction would be, if our culture and politics were actually following the direction of that faith system.  You are welcome to address it, this is the thread for it.

I more or less agree that "Christians" are a blight and a thorn in the side of a real Christian trying to be in the world but not of it. At best, they believe in Jesus and have just been deceived and need sheepherding, at worst they have co-opted and perverted what it means to be a Christian and follower of Christ.

But to be fair, all of us self-identifying believers have, because we all fall short and what it means to be righteous and holy is so overwhelmingly complex and layered that no man can accomplish it fully, and finally. Which is why we needed a savior in the first place (In my Christian opinion).

Reducing Christianity down to "just be nice to people and don't be a dick" is a sophomoric take on a very serious and real call to walk with Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit, if you believe the bible to be inerrant. This is why most people I know who take being a Christian seriously are a) in their bible constantly because it's a living and breathing work that seemingly changes every time you read it; the same verse can come alive in a different way as if your eyes to see have changed and b) wrestle with the seeming contradictions and paradoxes, but beauty and truth, that is as complex and difficult as it is simple and easy. 

What makes the topic difficult for me is that I have had a psychic change due to being called and having my name written in the book of lambs, and because of that I know how wicked and sinful my innate state is-- as we all are. So when people profess with their tongues to be believers it's difficult to suss out the ones who are grifting from the ones deceived; only God knows the faith and character of another man's heart. Though we can judge by the fruits, as well, which I think is a part of our gaining wisdom and discernment.

All this to say, I agree the weaponization of Christianity and the overly political ambitions is bad and not good for anyone except those with the political ambitions.

But also, historically Christianity perverts and wallows in sin when comfortable and thrives when marginalized and is not as accepted-- socially, politically, etc.-- so maybe this reflexive move to lump all Christians as hateful and cruel will ironically help.

Edited March 22, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[Willfully Horn 8039]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

You mean like gravity, and spacetime, what the moon and the stars are, how the sun is at the center of our solar system and Earth orbits around it? How about the age of the earth and of the universe? Hell, how about just the shape of the earth? How about evolutionary biology, how all life on this planet is descended from a common single-celled ancestor? How about genetics and the function of DNA? Or about the anatomy of the human brain and it’s role as the center of thought, memory, consciousness, and emotion? What has religion gotten right about any of those things? I’d say religion has done a remarkably bad job of describing what is. 

All excellent points. We differ in our reaction to your points in that you hold religion to a higher standard than do I. Science does have the built in doubt. I suppose I extend that same doubt to religion.

As an example, those spinning Sufis came up with an absolute number of galaxies. We now think they were off by a factor of 10. That is quite an error, but less so in terms of a common understanding of the scale of the universe.

[formermav43 4606]

6 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

The fact that the “religious” people posting in this thread are discussing everything BUT the actual topic of this thread is very telling.

They fucking know they can’t defend the way the evangelical assholes are using their beliefs as a cudgel for cruelty and to bend the law to their will.

So instead y’all are falling for their “philosophical” debates so they don’t have to defend the premise of the actual debate.

 

That’s not really true if you go back to the first page or so.

But this thread has predictably devolved into the same tired talking points of every other religion thread. And it’s not just because of the “religious” people. #bothsides for real though

[HamsterHookah 112]

3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

That’s not really true if you go back to the first page or so.

But this thread has predictably devolved into the same tired talking points of every other religion thread. And it’s not just because of the “religious” people. #bothsides for real though

In both an effort to steer the thread back on track and in my selfish interest, because I struggle with this and respect you and your faith, what is your take on the question of obligation or duty to vote versus abstaining, as a Christian?

Be in the world but not of it, and give to Caesar what is Caesar's, is what I try to come down on as a way to wash my hands of anything politically, but is there a proactive calling, in your opinion, that forces one to engage politically?

As you can imagine there are hundreds of pro and con essays for both sides on this topic via a google search...

[Brisketexan 105172]

1 minute ago, HamsterHookah said:

I more or less agree that "Christians" are a blight and a thorn in the side of a real Christian trying to be in the world but not of it. At best, they believe in Jesus and have just been deceived and need sheepherding, at worst they have co-opted and perverted what it means to be a Christian and follower of Christ.

Agreed.  You give people more benefit of the doubt than I do, but that's perhaps a difference of degree in our thinking, that's all.

2 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

But to be fair, all of us self-identifying believers have, because we all fall short and what it means to be righteous and holy is so overwhelmingly complex and layered that no man can accomplish it fully, and finally. Which is why we needed a savior in the first place (In my Christian opinion).

A very important point.  And one that is hyper-abused.  Because degree and direction matter.

The goal of being Christian is to walk the Way.  And as Bozo Casanova once said (and I have since stolen from him), the correct answer to the question "are you a Christian?" is "not yet, but I'm trying to be.  YES, the goal is so unattainable by ordinary human beings that falling short is our destiny.  But degree and direction matter.

The goal of football is to advance the ball past the opposing goal line.  Some teams are better at it than others.  NO team is good enough to score on every play.  But when I see a team on the field that CLAIMS to be a football team, but instead of advancing towards the opposing goal line, they are running the ball backwards and tackling themselves, I am comfortable judging that they are not playing the game in good faith (or, they're running some Greg Davis plays, but let's not go there).

It's also got a logical cousin in the political arguments we see these days -- "ALL politicians are liars/crooks" (cousin to "all of us are fallen and can't perfectly walk the Way of Christ") which is then used as an EXCUSE not just to deviate from the aspirational path, but to actually walk the OPPOSITE WAY.

Fuck that.  We are all fallen.  We are all dishonest.  But we should still walk, as best we can, in the right direction.

7 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

Reducing Christianity down to "just be nice to people and don't be a dick" is a sophomoric take on a very serious and real call to walk with Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit, if you believe the bible to be inerrant.

"if you believe the bible to be inerrant" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and is likely a recipe for bullshit.  I mean, if you understand and accept that the Bible is a mix of actual events AND allegories meant to convey a greater truth, then yeah, you can believe it's "inerrant."  If you believe that it means that the story of Noah is 100% literal truth, you swallowed poison (and relatively recent poison, by the way -- that "belief" is a relatively modern construct, as in within the last 150 years).

And no, "be nice to people and don't be a dick isn't a reduction or a sophomoric take.  It is (again, analogously), the foundational/Constitutional principle of the faith.  Don't listen to me, listen to the guy you claim to follow:

Quote

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."  Every law, rule, standard of behavior, etc., must pass that constitutional muster -- is it consistent with, and not violative of the constitutional rules of "love god, and love everyone else and don't be a dick to them?"  YES, Christianity (and judaism, FYI) ARE reduced to that.  Because if they are not -- if they are not grounded in those principles -- then they become a mess of legalism that ends up departing radically from the foundational/constitutional principles.

Exhibit A: American Christianity.

13 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

But also, historically Christianity perverts and wallows in sin when comfortable and thrives when marginalized and is not as accepted-- socially, politically, etc.-- so maybe this reflexive move to lump all Christians as hateful and cruel will ironically help.

My pastor wife agrees.  I like her take.  "A necessary event in this faith is resurrection.  For Christianity to become what it should be, it first has to die.  It's in its death throes now, perhaps it's time for this version of Christianity to die, so something better can take its place.  It's time for death and resurrection."

[Brisketexan 105172]

5 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

Be in the world but not of it, and give to Caesar what is Caesar's, is what I try to come down on as a way to wash my hands of anything politically,

Bullshit take.  And lazy.  "Render unto Caesar" is both a lazy excuse for inaction AND a lazy excuse for using the state to inflict cruelty.  I have more on this, but need to grab some lunch.

[WhatTheBuck 28793]

15 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

As an example, those spinning Sufis came up with an absolute number of galaxies. We now think they were off by a factor of 10. That is quite an error, but less so in terms of a common understanding of the scale of the universe.

That wasn’t a function of their religion. They didn’t achieve their answer through a religious act. Religious people can do mathematics and science but that doesn’t make their mathematics and science products of their religion. If a Christian doctor performs a heart transplant, we have medical science to thank for that feat, not Jesus Christ. Doctors of all faiths, and of no faith, can and do perform the same feat. Isaac Newton was a religious man and believed in a creator God but calculus is mathematics, not religion. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

First I want to say thank you for engaging in a way that is not clearly just an excuse to hear yourself talk. I mean that and not condescendingly.

Quote

It's also got a logical cousin in the political arguments we see these days -- "ALL politicians are liars/crooks" (cousin to "all of us are fallen and can't perfectly walk the Way of Christ") which is then used as an EXCUSE not just to deviate from the aspirational path, but to actually walk the OPPOSITE WAY.

This is an interesting take because it seems the same people who have a problem with this statement don't seem to have a problem with eschewing nuance and context  "all cops are bastards" or "all republican voters are nazi's".

Quote

Fuck that.  We are all fallen.  We are all dishonest.  But we should still walk, as best we can, in the right direction.

I agree. A quote I like and often think about is "Obedience is a long walk in the same direction". Some days you might only take a step. Heck some days you might take two backwards, but as long as you can make up the ground and move forward, as staggering as it may be...

Quote

"if you believe the bible to be inerrant" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and is likely a recipe for bullshit.  I mean, if you understand and accept that the Bible is a mix of actual events AND allegories meant to convey a greater truth, then yeah, you can believe it's "inerrant."  If you believe that it means that the story of Noah is 100% literal truth, you swallowed poison (and relatively recent poison, by the way -- that "belief" is a relatively modern construct, as in within the last 150 years).

Whatever the bible affirms is true; is true. Whatever the bible affirms is false; is false. This is what I mean by the bible being inerrant. Feel free to disagree, but that's what I believe.

Quote

 

And no, "be nice to people and don't be a dick isn't a reduction or a sophomoric take.  It is (again, analogously), the foundational/Constitutional principle of the faith.  Don't listen to me, listen to the guy you claim to follow:

"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."  Every law, rule, standard of behavior, etc., must pass that constitutional muster -- is it consistent with, and not violative of the constitutional rules of "love god, and love everyone else and don't be a dick to them?"  YES, Christianity (and judaism, FYI) ARE reduced to that.  Because if they are not -- if they are not grounded in those principles -- then they become a mess of legalism that ends up departing radically from the foundational/constitutional principles.

 

This is where we will fundamentally break and disagree with one other.

I believe your distilling the word down to a single "be nice to people" is a reduction and sophomoric. Just like I believe the people who say "God is Love" and I love XYZ, so that means it's okay", is sophomoric and reductive.

As to the commandment, you can't love your neighbor if you don't love God first. So the order of operations makes sense. 

But what does it mean to love everyone else? You can get into the different greek versions of the word love and as you know with a Christian wife who has studied the word, there are 4 different types of love mentioned (agape, storage, philia, eros).

Loving your neighbor (at least, loving them well) doesn't mean to agree with everything they do, especially in sin. It doesn't mean to just agree to whatever because it makes them feel good--- sometimes the best way to love people is the hardest by calling out what they are doing or who they are becoming is harmful or will lead in death (physical or spiritual).

These are my opinions and beliefs, at least, and I don't represent these for any other Christian just myself.

[HamsterHookah 112]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bullshit take.  And lazy.  "Render unto Caesar" is both a lazy excuse for inaction AND a lazy excuse for using the state to inflict cruelty.  I have more on this, but need to grab some lunch.

I'd like to hear more. I, too, have found it to be lacking which is why (and in answer to Patricio's question of if I voted for Abbott) I mentioned that I struggle with wanting to abstain and feeling more and more called to just separate myself from the madness that is politics since 2018 (or maybe ever, and I just awoke to it in 2018), but have yet not. I try to be as apolitical as possible in my personal, home, family, work and church life. Anyways I'd love to hear your take on this in all seriousness.

[Neonmoon 38129]

On 3/21/2023 at 10:19 AM, Patricio Swayze said:

It feels like more and more we are headed towards theocracy in this country. At the very least, the right are determined to commingle church and state much more. This goes for all religions, but since we are in the US, that mostly means Christianity. They weaponize it for whatever cause and policy they are trying to push on the country.

How is this stopped?

To discuss your original question, how is this stopped?

Education.

However, it's hard to educate people when they are being fed propaganda at warp speed from home, church, social media and Fox News. Look up the ways to reverse indoctrination. It's not easy. It doesn't matter if it's from a cult, a kidnapper, or religion. They have to come to this conclusion on their own. You can supply all the facts and reason you want, it won't combat their emotional attachment to the cult/kidnapper/religion. 

 

[Guest]

Message board debates on religion were much more fun when the skeptics and the believers sought to establish that their opponents were intellectually inferior.  You could find some error your opponent made or some obscure reference they got wrong and hammer them with counter points backed up by the full force of internet links, and exit victorious with a false sense of intellectual supremacy.   

At some point it switched to debates on which side is morally inferior, which overall are much less interesting discussions.  I’m not under any delusions about my hypocrisy and other moral failings.  I am, however, still delusional about how well I know and can argue various metaphysical and epistemological positions, and I would like to cling to those delusions via debates on football message boards.  Sadly, the message board preachers have run off the pedants.  

[gyroprotagonist 2594]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That wasn’t a function of their religion. They didn’t achieve their answer through a religious act. Religious people can do mathematics and science but that doesn’t make their mathematics and science products of their religion. If a Christian doctor performs a heart transplant, we have medical science to thank for that feat, not Jesus Christ. Doctors of all faiths, and of no faith, can and do perform the same feat. Isaac Newton was a religious man and believed in a creator God but calculus is mathematics, not religion. 

sorry too good to pass up

I have an M.D. from Harvard. I am board certified in cardiothoracic medicine and trauma surgery. I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England; and I am never, ever sick at sea.

So I ask you, when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry, or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death, or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trauma from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, you go ahead and read your Bible, Dennis, and you go to your church and with any luck you might win the annual raffle. But if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17th, and he doesn't like to be second guessed.

You ask me if I have a God complex?

Let me tell you something:

I AM GOD.

 

Some of this is that there are sooooo many religions and offshoots that some of them are bound to be right some of the time on some of the stuff.  religions are even evolving (heh heh) like the FUMC having churches split off because how dare gay people attend church or want to contribute in said church.  

 

 

[Willfully Horn 8039]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That wasn’t a function of their religion. They didn’t achieve their answer through a religious act. Religious people can do mathematics and science but that doesn’t make their mathematics and science products of their religion. If a Christian doctor performs a heart transplant, we have medical science to thank for that feat, not Jesus Christ. Doctors of all faiths, and of no faith, can and do perform the same feat. Isaac Newton was a religious man and believed in a creator God but calculus is mathematics, not religion. 

I like this post, and yes, Islamic folks have been instrumental in advancing science, and mathematics. In my (limited) understanding, though, Sufi’s credit their cosmology to mystics, so I am yet to be persuaded by your opening sentence.

[nbmishoid 962]

1 hour ago, HamsterHookah said:

Actually it's quite beautiful, in the harmonized and elegant way in which that word means.

 

Beautifully stated and supported

Beauty is a matter of taste.  De gustibus, non est desputandum.  Truth is not a matter of taste.  More a matter of sufficient effort.

Edited March 22, 2023 by nbmishoid
Grammer

[nbmishoid 962]

7 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

sorry too good to pass up

I have an M.D. from Harvard. I am board certified in cardiothoracic medicine and trauma surgery. I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England; and I am never, ever sick at sea.

 

 

What, never?

[Willfully Horn 8039]

It is disgusting and entirely unacceptable that Republicans are attempting to establish a de facto national religion. I will continue to spend time, effort, my voice, and my money in opposition.

There are people who try to love God, and also to love their neighbor, the other. Who vote for tolerance, and oppose intolerance, who vote for the rights of women, vote for the rights of all of humanity. Are they not also Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims etc?

This thread reminds me of the gender wars,  because I agree with the argument but not the conclusion. I am the father of two young women. They know that no one is fiercer in support, or more accepting of their autonomy, than I. Don’t tell me that I support a patriarchal framework for their future because I am a man.

 

[956 Worldwide 34736]

21 hours ago, nbmishoid said:

Everyone?   Shall all Christians read the Koran, study the Buddha, etc.   There are thousands of documented religions.  Shall all of us study relativity, evolution, and Black history.   I think these last three would be better for all to read, if we are seriously ranking reading opportunities.

The Bible might be more interesting and useful to a thoroughgoing atheist than even to a devout believer.
 

The Bible is a collection of writings and books, all written down by various people who didn’t realize they were writing the Bible and in some cases, may not have even thought of what they were writing as “religion.” We’re lucky that people found some spiritual value in a lot of them because otherwise they’d likely have been lost. The sheer timeframe of what you have in your hand when you pick up the Bible is unique in a way that’s hard to grasp. You’re holding in your hand artifacts that date from the rise and fall of Assyria, the Persian Empire, the shadowy world of Homer, Alexander, the Roman Republic and the fledgling Roman Empire. 
 

And who is speaking in them? Nomadic Bronze Age tribesmen trying to figure out how to put a society together. Furious wandering preachers calling for a return to the good old days. Patriots who are struggling in exile. Fierce opponents of oppressive colonialists. Poets who are in love. Brilliant thinkers who are grappling with how to reconcile ideas they got from Aristotle and Plato with their deeply held convictions. Oppressed minorities trying to navigate a system that’s stacked against them. The perspective of the colonized against the colonizer and the other way around. 
 

And that’s not even getting into the fact that basically all of Western history and literature which gradually becomes the world history and literature society that we livein becomes incomprehensible without at least a passing familiarity with these books. It’s funny you mentioned Black history in your post— I really don’t know how you even begin to touch the subject, especially American Black history, without an encounter with the Bible.
 

To put it mildly (and I do think other religious texts belong in schools as part of secular instruction), the Bible has a secular historical, literary, and cultural value that’s far more expansive and influential than most explicitly religious texts. Your problem lies with how you’ve been told to approach it and read it and not with the writers and texts themselves, even if you don’t agree with them. It’s Ok because they don’t always agree with each other. 

Edited March 22, 2023 by 956 Worldwide

[nbmishoid 962]

Thanks, 956, another well informed and reasoned post.   
 

Fact is, I have read the Bible, numerous times - the number of chapters read a week was one of my challenges in COC Sunday school.   How I know ( or thought I knew) there are 1008 chapters in the Bible.   I imagine I just got sick and tired of it. 
 

But I’ve read perhaps 1500 books since then, predominantly non fiction, almost all of which seemed to me better, in terms of informing my world to the betterment of society.   All of them give me context.  There is no special sort of context.   I guess I conjecture a special relativity applying to published thought:  there is no center, and no common point of reference.  How can there be?

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Sweatergawd this thread

[956 Worldwide 34736]

9 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Thanks, 956, another well informed and reasoned post.   
 

Fact is, I have read the Bible, numerous times - the number of chapters read a week was one of my challenges in COC Sunday school.   How I know ( or thought I knew) there are 1008 chapters in the Bible.   I imagine I just got sick and tired of it. 
 

But I’ve read perhaps 1500 books since then, predominantly non fiction, almost all of which seemed to me better, in terms of informing my world to the betterment of society.   All of them give me context.  There is no special sort of context.   I guess I conjecture a special relativity applying to published thought:  there is no center, and no common point of reference.  How can there be?

You feel that way (I am guessing) because most of those books were written for you and by people substantially similar to you. That’s the off-putting and valuable thing about ancient texts, which becomes apparent the further back you go. It’s one of the few places we can grapple with the world as seen through the eyes of someone truly Other than us.  But who are still people and who are still recognizable.

Anyway, your point about not being a “center” of reference is to my mind misguided as the great voices of Western and increasingly world literature and philosophy since about AD 400 are basically having a conversation with each other about the Bible and the people it inspired, angered, and revolted. Whether it’s true, whether it should be changed, whether it’s good, whether it’s bad, or whether it’s pointless.  I mean, that’s basically the Big Debate of American politics. The only thing that’s certain is it can’t be ignored. 
 

And sure, that won’t build you a water filtration plant but you’re going to have a hard time understanding WTF is happening around you and why so many people are angry without it. 

[Biff Tannen 45694]

4 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

The other thing about truth is, it's true whether you believe it to be or not.

About 75 million voting Americans from 2020 need to learn that.  

[gyroprotagonist 2594]

1 hour ago, nbmishoid said:

What, never?

yeah, he kinda contradicted himself in Hunt for Red October when dropped off to the aircraft carrier and was about to shit his pants.

[Biff Tannen 45694]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

It is disgusting and entirely unacceptable that Republicans are attempting to establish a de facto national religion. I will continue to spend time, effort, my voice, and my money in opposition.

There are people who try to love God, and also to love their neighbor, the other. Who vote for tolerance, and oppose intolerance, who vote for the rights of women, vote for the rights of all of humanity. Are they not also Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims etc?

This thread reminds me of the gender wars,  because I agree with the argument but not the conclusion. I am the father of two young women. They know that no one is fiercer in support, or more accepting of their autonomy, than I. Don’t tell me that I support a patriarchal framework for their future because I am a man.

 

This is a good post

[nbmishoid 962]

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You feel that way (I am guessing) because most of those books were written for you and by people substantially similar to you. That’s the off-putting and valuable thing about ancient texts, which becomes apparent the further back you go. It’s one of the few places we can grapple with the world as seen through the eyes of someone truly Other than us.  But who are still people and who are still recognizable.

Anyway, your point about not being a “center” of reference is to my mind misguided as the great voices of Western and increasingly world literature and philosophy since about AD 400 are basically having a conversation with each other about the Bible and the people it inspired, angered, and revolted. Whether it’s true, whether it should be changed, whether it’s good, whether it’s bad, or whether it’s pointless.  I mean, that’s basically the Big Debate of American politics. The only thing that’s certain is it can’t be ignored. 
 

And sure, that won’t build you a water filtration plant but you’re going to have a hard time understanding WTF is happening around you and why so many people are angry without it. 

Guess is wrong, but well intended.  About 50 of those books were in my field, the rest not. I can’t deny the significance of the range of issues the Bible and other ancient texts bring to the fore.  I don’t buy, in principle, that any book has the last word, and I have a hard time granting societal design priority status to a tale of fiction.  Why not Cormac McCarthy?

Whatever topic the Bible brings up, that you and I might care to discuss, there must be hundreds of better researched and explained versions that are closer to “the data”, and on these three points better suited for reference. 
 

I’m not so much anti Bible as pro diligence, work ethic, etc in pursuit of knowledge that will help oneself and the world.  Leaning on the Bible is not working nearly hard enough.  Working hard is the key lesson UT gave me.  Those words on the Union… 

[formermav43 4606]

3 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

In both an effort to steer the thread back on track and in my selfish interest, because I struggle with this and respect you and your faith, what is your take on the question of obligation or duty to vote versus abstaining, as a Christian?

Be in the world but not of it, and give to Caesar what is Caesar's, is what I try to come down on as a way to wash my hands of anything politically, but is there a proactive calling, in your opinion, that forces one to engage politically?

As you can imagine there are hundreds of pro and con essays for both sides on this topic via a google search...

I do not vote. I think I've talked about that before on this board (or one of it's predecessors), so I won't write an extended theological defense of that right now; maybe later, it there's more interest or I have more time than I have at the moment. Partly that is practical, for reasons you seem to grasp yourself, in trying to conscientiously support either major party; partly it allows me to maintain what you might call a "prophetic distance" and be critical, like I talked about before, without anyone being able to dismiss me as a partisan.

But mostly it is because I am deeply mistrustful of the church trying to co-opt the state to try and accomplish its goals. I think that misconstrues both our mission and our method. But we do not often think about that critically, because we think as Americans first and Christians second.

More to the point, I see a pretty standard false dilemma at work in some of what you said (and in Brisket's response, for instance). Political activism in a conventional sense and withdrawal are not our only two options. How is that being "in the world but not of the world?" The former looks pretty worldly; the latter is not in the world in any meaningful sense. But what if we really tried to live like Jesus as a community? As Stanley Hauerwas so profoundly put it, "The church does not have a social strategy; the church is a social strategy." We are supposed to be an alternative polis; "Jesus is Lord" was a radical political statement in the first century world. But it's much easier to try to compel people than it is to walk the way of the cross.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Neutrality helps the oppressors not the oppressed.

Not voting is not something to be proud of.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

 Don’t tell me that I support a patriarchal framework for their future because I am a man.

It matters not that you are a man, you (and I mean you) seem to have been willing to look to the future with your spirituality and see it beyond a small-minded framework (God is big!) while being mindful of the past. The danger to this country is coming in the form of the Janus-mouthed that would say to your daughters: 'you have autonomy....within the roles to which you are assigned because you are female.' That religion is traditionally patriarchal, that our society is historically patriarchal does not mean all men support it but that, similar to but not the same way as with racism, there is a lot of baggage to overcome as American society grapples with the backlash of whether we collectively are going to move forward with respect to those topics such as race, gender, sexuality, and so on or are we going to stop the clock so to speak. It would be wonderful if citizens of all faiths or no faiths or some faiths supported the separation between the government and religions and supported the rights of all as you apparently do. But my faith in that is weakening as the day grows long. Especially if men get gruntled when women bring up issues that they themselves have not had to consider (where have we grappled with that in the recent past?).

 

Where our eyes should see the small things about ourselves, those things such as *kindness to others, the many types of love, compassion, generousity, and grow them outward to become larger in our communities...for some reason we don't do that: we take the infinite love and glory of the universe, the potential of humans to grow and hope and expand beyond their horizons no matter the circumstances of their birth or their gender.. we take that and we shrink it down into a tiny box and in our hubris we place others inside so we can feel control and feel comfortable about ourselves. We simultaneously are comforted by and afraid of those boxes.

 

*...what is essential , is invisible to the eye. One of Mr. Rogers' favorite quotes and has likewise been one of mine. Peace.

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Mrs Whiggins
Apologies for the poorly written soapbox speak. It's all too much today.

[atomheartbevo 89755]

8 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Has anyone pointed out that religion is one of many psychological tools human animals use to combat the terror associated with knowing they are going to die?

You know you are going to die, but don't speak for the rest of us.

I mean, you can say that our victims are going to die, and that's accurate and fair, but don't assume everybody else will die.

[sheeeit 129]

On 3/21/2023 at 9:19 AM, Patricio Swayze said:

 

It feels like more and more we are headed towards theocracy in this country. At the very least, the right are determined to commingle church and state much more. This goes for all religions, but since we are in the US, that mostly means Christianity. They weaponize it for whatever cause and policy they are trying to push on the country.

 

As a father, I am concerned about indoctrination of my kids. I have said it before, but I feel like most religions, including Christianity, are a net negative for humanity. Not only would I be worried my kids could be sexually assaulted, I have daughters and am very worried about how all this bullshit might affect their bodily autonomy and health. Now with all the destruction and take over of the education system, it sometimes feels like soon I will have to explain to my girls that the world isn’t 6,000 years old. I know I am not the only one who feels this way.

 

How is this stopped?

Why do y’all on the right insist on pushing your beliefs onto others in the form of policy and law?

Good thread mostly.  I'd like to debate with you but need some clarification.  Can you be specific about examples of the right trying to comingle church and state?  It is easier to respond to specifics than generalities.  

I agree 100% that religion should be completely separated from policy.  I hate it when politicians mention their religious beliefs in conjunction with some policy. The rub is when morality/ethics are embedded in laws/policy.  It is certainly possible that some politician could author legislation that is good and moral and deserving of thoughtfulness.  That same politician might say that he authored the legislation as a result of his religion.  He might actually feel in his heart that this is true.  He might just be saying it to gin up his base.  I suppose only the author knows for sure.  But, just because he used religion is not a reason to automatically disregard his legislation.  It is hard for me to come up with actual policy that is pushed by the right that is predominantly religious in nature.  By that I mean the actual text of the bill/legislation.  

Not at all playing gotcha here.  But would you give a few examples of what you see happening?

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

17 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Can you be specific about examples of the right trying to comingle church and state?

Roe v. Wade would like a word.

[Willfully Horn 8039]

39 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It matters not that you are a man, you (and I mean you) seem to have been willing to look to the future with your spirituality and see it beyond a small-minded framework (God is big!) while being mindful of the past. The danger to this country is coming in the form of the Janus-mouthed in our country that would say to your daughters: 'you have autonomy....within the roles to which you are assigned because you are female.' That religion is traditionally patriarchal, that our society is historically patriarchal does not mean all men support it but that, similar to but not the same way as with racism, there is a lot of baggage to overcome as American society grapples with the backlash of whether we collectively are going to move forward with respect to those topics such as race, gender, sexuality, and so on or are we going to stop the clock so to speak. It would be wonderful if citizens of all faiths or no faiths or some faiths supported the separation between the government and religions and supported the rights of all as you apparently do. But my faith in that is weakening as the day grows long. Especially if men get gruntled when women bring up issues that they themselves have not had to consider (where have we grappled with that in the recent past?).

 

Where our eyes should see the small things about ourselves, those things such as *kindness to others, the many types of love, compassion, generousity, and grow them outward to become larger in our communities...for some reason we don't do that: we take the infinite love and glory of the universe, the potential of humans to grow and hope and expand beyond their horizons no matter the circumstances of their birth or their gender.. we take that and we shrink it down into a tiny box and in our hubris we place others inside so we can feel control and feel comfortable about ourselves. We simultaneously are comforted by and afraid of those boxes.

 

*...what is essential , is invisible to the eye. One of Mr. Rogers' favorite quotes and has likewise been one of mine. Peace.

 

 

 

My wife and I agree that our daughters refuse to accept that any box exists. 
 

🤘

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Good thread mostly.  I'd like to debate with you but need some clarification.  Can you be specific about examples of the right trying to comingle church and state?  It is easier to respond to specifics than generalities.  
I agree 100% that religion should be completely separated from policy.  I hate it when politicians mention their religious beliefs in conjunction with some policy. The rub is when morality/ethics are embedded in laws/policy.  It is certainly possible that some politician could author legislation that is good and moral and deserving of thoughtfulness.  That same politician might say that he authored the legislation as a result of his religion.  He might actually feel in his heart that this is true.  He might just be saying it to gin up his base.  I suppose only the author knows for sure.  But, just because he used religion is not a reason to automatically disregard his legislation.  It is hard for me to come up with actual policy that is pushed by the right that is predominantly religious in nature.  By that I mean the actual text of the bill/legislation.  
Not at all playing gotcha here.  But would you give a few examples of what you see happening?

No problem.

Legislation that restricts the liberties of LGBT community such as outlawing gay marriage. Venture into that specific thread for a myriad of laws that affect and hurt them. Abortion was mentioned, but in general women’s rights and bodily autonomy. You see saber rattling about going after contraception now.

That should be a good start, I am sure others will chime in.

[HamsterHookah 112]

1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

I do not vote. I think I've talked about that before on this board (or one of it's predecessors), so I won't write an extended theological defense of that right now; maybe later, it there's more interest or I have more time than I have at the moment. Partly that is practical, for reasons you seem to grasp yourself, in trying to conscientiously support either major party; partly it allows me to maintain what you might call a "prophetic distance" and be critical, like I talked about before, without anyone being able to dismiss me as a partisan.

But mostly it is because I am deeply mistrustful of the church trying to co-opt the state to try and accomplish its goals. I think that misconstrues both our mission and our method. But we do not often think about that critically, because we think as Americans first and Christians second.

More to the point, I see a pretty standard false dilemma at work in some of what you said (and in Brisket's response, for instance). Political activism in a conventional sense and withdrawal are not our only two options. How is that being "in the world but not of the world?" The former looks pretty worldly; the latter is not in the world in any meaningful sense. But what if we really tried to live like Jesus as a community? As Stanley Hauerwas so profoundly put it, "The church does not have a social strategy; the church is a social strategy." We are supposed to be an alternative polis; "Jesus is Lord" was a radical political statement in the first century world. But it's much easier to try to compel people than it is to walk the way of the cross.

Thank you for this response. God bless you, brother.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9341]

Anyone else 'member onemug from the hornfans days when asked about the impossibility of the Noah's Ark fable and how--if you just ignored all of the 2 or 3 million other reasons why that event could never have happened as described in the Bible, how the fuck hippos would have been able to descend Mount Ararat--onemug's response was "god would have made sure to put the surefooted hippos on the Ark"?

I 'member.

[royiv 9332]

21 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

But, the Fathers had no problem with any faith or the atheist if they happened to be one.  as long as the checks cleared. 

FIFY.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Anyone else 'member onemug from the hornfans days when asked about the impossibility of the Noah's Ark fable and how--if you just ignored all of the 2 or 3 million other reasons why that event could never have happened as described in the Bible, how the fuck hippos would have been able to descend Mount Ararat--onemug's response was "god would have made sure to put the surefooted hippos on the Ark"?
I 'member.

Please tell me you have seen videos of the ark park in Tennessee (I think). It’s FUCKING AMAZING. They call dinosaurs dragons and they coexisted with man.

Sorry, it’s in Kentucky.

[sheeeit 129]

4 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

No problem.

Legislation that restricts the liberties of LGBT community such as outlawing gay marriage. Venture into that specific thread for a myriad of laws that affect and hurt them. Abortion was mentioned, but in general women’s rights and bodily autonomy. You see saber rattling about going after contraception now.

That should be a good start, I am sure others will chime in.

Appreciated.  Lets start with abortion.  I was raised catholic and lost all interest at one time and am more or less back now.  Admittedly agnostic and do have to question those that believe beyond any doubt.  I am not opposed to abortion within certain limitations and think the current Texas law is terrible.  That being said, I read a lot about the recent overturn of Roe and religion is never mentioned in any of the court documents I could find.  No question the battle against abortion is being waged by many that profuse to be religious, but that doesn't mean that they are pushing their religion on anyone. It is an issue that many religious people feel very strongly about, and, they are engaging in their right to make their voices on the issue heard.  Abortion is never going to be settled as there just seems no way to make a scientific case for when life begins.  We tried with "fetal viability" but it is still arbitrary.  It is not my belief, but I can understand someone thinking abortion is killing a life, and I can respectfully disagree with that position.  But if you feel abortion is killing a life then that is not only a religious wrong but also a societal wrong that we already make illegal.

On the LGTB issues, we are probably going to have to be more specific.  Interesting that you used the phrase "restricting liberties".  It seems almost all conflict in this regard is when 2 or more different groups/people both feel their liberties are being restricted.  If we are talking about Gay Marriage (which I am in complete agreement with) and potentially the Supreme Court with Obergefell, if the case gets overturned it will be on ideological/legal basis rather than religious.  Obviousy there has been a lot of LBGT, especially trans, in the public eye lately.  Maybe there is legislation out there that is different, but when I read the actual text of the various laws, they seem to be based on fairly rational thinking.  I may disagree with them, but I do not think they are "religiously" written.  No question they are favored by many on the religious side of things but every contentious issue has rabid sides.

I actually think the ability of religious people to get certain pet ideologies passed into law is is lesser now than in the past.  Before most of these laws were passed in darkness to the masses.  Now we get to see and read everything.  I strongly believe that the influence of purely religious fanatics is waning.

To your last point about how we can stop this (even though I do not feel it is something that is really getting worse), I think the answer is that you cant.  And, more importantly, you shouldn't.  Religion is never, ever going away.  It is a bit of a pendulum at times and has wide sways in followers, but it always swings back the other direction.  The religious right is pretty big and they are always going to have some influence.  The best way to curtail them is to watch what they do and call them on things when they go too far.  But our system of government already does a really good job (certainly compared to the rest of the world) of protecting the rights of the minority in 2023.  

[atomheartbevo 89755]

3 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

It is disgusting and entirely unacceptable that Republicans are attempting to establish a de facto national religion. I will continue to spend time, effort, my voice, and my money in opposition.

I've said this before, but here in Texas, almost always when I hear somebody (family, friend, other acquaintances) bring up how we need more religion in school, I point out to two things to them - there is a moment of silence every morning and if the Christian kids want to pray, so be it, if they don't, that's upon the parent.

But the other thing I bring up is that Catholics are the largest religious group in Texas, and I ask them if they want their kids to be instructed in the ways of the Catholics and to recognize the Pope as an authority figure for their kids and as a direct line back to Jesus, etc..  Most of them get really fucking uncomfortable and are like "no, that's not what I meant I don't want my kids being instructed in Catholicism" etc., which then brings up the point that what they want is their particular brand of Christianity taught. I just laugh and say "oh, no, you'll get your Catholicism and you'll like it, or you'll shut up about it or send your kids to a private religious school if that's what you want".

[atomheartbevo 89755]

It's a weird time.  We are now living in an era where evangelicals embrace Donald Trump, a man who has not only publicly admitted multiple times to paying off a porn star to stay quiet, but who has no shame in admitting that he's done that (which raises the question how many times he's done it in the past - he was pretty comfortable with complaining that she didn't stick to her end of the bargain).  He makes a mockery of the evangelicals and Christians who support him, and they don't care as long as they get some executive order or some shout-out from him.

That raises the question of why the folks pushing for more religion in the government or whatever, aren't even willing to criticize those like Trump who make a mockery of them, and why the rest of us should bother listening to them about anything related to religion.