Religion Matters: Take 3

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 04:58 AMThere are segments of religion that are very negative to education, particularly for their womenfolk!, but others with a tradition of respect.  I'm not sure it's fair to link the two directly. 

In the US there has been a longstanding tradition of contempt for education and scholarship, again within a segment of the population.  In recent years that segment tends to align with a conservative element of US religion, but I think that's an artifact of the US confusion between politics and faith. 

Clearly teaching critical thinking is hazardous to faith.  But I don't think that is the motivation - I don't think the religious establishments have ever become aware of that. 
Or in short, it doesn't. That was easy.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 04:58 AMIn the US there has been a longstanding tradition of contempt for education and scholarship, again within a segment of the population.  In recent years that segment tends to align with a conservative element of US religion, but I think that's an artifact of the US confusion between politics and faith.
You sure that's just a recent thing?

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 05:17 AMQuote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 04:58 AMThere are segments of religion that are very negative to education, particularly for their womenfolk!, but others with a tradition of respect.  I'm not sure it's fair to link the two directly.
 
In the US there has been a longstanding tradition of contempt for education and scholarship, again within a segment of the population.  In recent years that segment tends to align with a conservative element of US religion, but I think that's an artifact of the US confusion between politics and faith.
 
Clearly teaching critical thinking is hazardous to faith.  But I don't think that is the motivation - I don't think the religious establishments have ever become aware of that.Or in short, it doesn't. That was easy.
Okay, but which point are you addressing?
 
What doesn't what?

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:28 AM
You sure that's just a recent thing?

I'm not sure, but it does seem like the alignment of the political right with conservative Christianity is relatively new.  Certainly it's stronger than ever before.  I don't think it dates back much past the Moral Majority movement days.  That's when the political right spotted the opportunity and co-opted religion.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 22, 2017, 10:58PMI'm normally glad to be transparent, but I don't think you meant it as a compliment.  Oh well.  But I am interested in why you expected me to be transparent?  Do you know me that well?
I merely meant you didn't need to explain your ambiguity.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:30 AMWhat doesn't what?
Well, if you look back all of, what? 2 posts?

The bible doesn't proscribe education.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 22, 2017, 10:45PMDo I believe in evolution?  That's a shocking question?  Are you suggesting that deciding that the Theory of Evolution is correct is a matter of blind faith? I'm horrified.   Just using terminology you might be familiar with.

QuoteDo you believe in evolution?
Cute.  I have enough scientific background to be able to fully understand the theory and I find it a useful tool to explain the origins of species and how they adapt to their environment and ecology.  However, that's me.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 05:36 AMI'm not sure, but it does seem like the alignment of the political right with conservative Christianity is relatively new.  Certainly it's stronger than ever before.  I don't think it dates back much past the Moral Majority movement days.  That's when the political right spotted the opportunity and co-opted religion.

Depends on how you define "political right."

Many conservative Congregationalists were Federalists, which was the "conservative" party in the early Republic.  During the Jacksonian era, many northern "conservative" Christians (doctrinally) were Whigs and then Republicans due to the slavery issue.  That adherence to the Republicans often continued into the Gilded Age of the late 19th century when the Republican party was supportive of big business, but many conservative Southern Democrats supported the Democratic party because it was the party of Jim Crow.

W J. Bryan and W. Wilson, etc were members of the Democratic party and were "progressive" by political standards, but Bryan was the face of "Fundamentalism' at the Scopes Monkey trials while Wilson was more "liberal" by theological standards.  Wilson however, was quite racist by modern standards, but both sought to impose what most what many would now consider "conservative" social policies.  Prohibition, for example, was the poster legislation for many of the progressive politicians of both parties in the early 20th century.

Many conservative Presbyterians and Lutherans supported the Democratic party during the 19th century because they saw it as more conservative on social issues.

As an American religious historian by training I can attest that the term "right" varies from era to era and blanket claims about what religious conservatives supported politically need many qualifications and nuances.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 22, 2017, 11:10PMwhat's that got to do with God's strategy?
What's what go to do God' strategy?  I'm talking about religion.  Religion uses the threat of divine punishment to keep followers in line.  From my perspective since God does not exist, he can't have a strategy.

Just a question here about this God construct.  If it is eternal and Omnipotent, why the insistence on a gender?  What could gender possibly mean to such a being?

QuoteWhere does the bible proscribe education?
Probably a poor choice of words on my part.  I should have said religion and stipulated generalized education.  However, for the bible it starts off right in Genesis 2.

Consider also Ecclesiastes:
9 Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care.

10 The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth.

11 The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd.

12 My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with[d] every secret thing, whether good or evil.


I like the 'fear of God' just to drive the point home too.

There are many other passages discouraging anything other than giving it all up to God, but I'm not going to list them all here.

QuoteI can't see how your other points are relevant.
Seriously?

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 05:57 AMAs an American religious historian by training I can attest that the term "right" varies from era to era and blanket claims about what religious conservatives supported politically need many qualifications and nuances.

I'd quibble a bit with your wording here, the bolded word.

It's correct of course, and yet I don't think it tells the story.  Your construction makes it appear that conservative religion decided to support a political stance.

I see it from the opposite direction.  I think the political right saw a huge opportunity for power, and quite cynically took advantage of the conservative religious gullibility.  

I would like to see religion and politics separated.  In fact, I'd go so far as to take the flag off the altar, but that would be going too far in most churches.  

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 05:41 AMWell, if you look back all of, what? 2 posts?
So that post is a response to the same material that the material you actually quoted was responding to, rather than a response to the material you actually quoted.
 
Well okay then ... just checking.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 05:57 AMDuring the Jacksonian era, many northern "conservative" Christians (doctrinally) were Whigs and then Republicans due to the slavery issue.
Aligned with Lincoln on that one then, I gather.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 06:16 AMI'd quibble a bit with your wording here, the bolded word.

It's correct of course, and yet I don't think it tells the story.  Your construction makes it appear that conservative religion decided to support a political stance.

I see it from the opposite direction.  I think the political right saw a huge opportunity for power, and quite cynically took advantage of the conservative religious gullibility.  

I would like to see religion and politics separated.  In fact, I'd go so far as to take the flag off the altar, but that would be going too far in most churches.  




Tim, I completely agree with you about the flag issue.  In fact in Holland, Michigan during WWI, a very conservative Dutch Reformed minister, Herman Hoeksema, got in big trouble for refusing to have an American flag in his church.  He defended the absence of the flag by saying that Christians were bound to a higher authority than the political government.  I completely agree with him, but he was blasted for his stand, mostly by those pastors in town who considered themselves "progressives."  

I also agree that political forces can co-opt religious believers.  The progressive politicians did just that in the early 20th century by using prohibition which had widespread support among many Christians as a way to ty to pass the "progressive" agenda.  

Interestingly one of the opponents of prohibition on the grounds that it should be out of the bounds of politics was the founding of my denomination, J. Gresham Machen, and the author of Christianity and Liberalism, which was considered the definitive critique of theological liberalism during that era.  His thesis, BTW, is that the Christianity and theological liberalism are completely different religions.  Machen took a lot of flack for his stand on prohibition.

BTW, here's a link to a short article on the flag controversy in Holland, Michigan for any who might want to read a fascinating article on the intersection of religion and patriotism. 

http://www.swierenga.com/DisloyalDutch_pap.html

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 06:29 AMTim, I completely agree with you about the flag issue.  In fact in Holland, Michigan during WWI, a very conservative Dutch Reformed minister, Herman Hoeksema, got in big trouble for refusing to have an American flag in his church.  He defended the absence of the flag by saying that Christians were bound to a higher authority than the political government.  I completely agree with him, but he was blasted for his stand, mostly by those pastors in town who considered themselves "progressives."
Sounds like a complete reversal as compared to the current socio(religio)political landscape in the US.
 
Thirty years ago (or forty?) fundamentalist and most conservative Christians were staunchly separationist. They couldn't tolerate Jimmy Carter (who stands alone with Obama as the best examples of solid character and family values to occupy the White House in ... what, a generation?), which I find telling, so that prompted them to dramatically change their values, and they got political--very political. And I'd argue that has a lot to do with where we are now in that regard. It's not the whole picture by any means, but it's definitely got a whole lot to do with it--especially the divisiveness.
 
Anyway ... yeah ... sounds like a complete reversal as compared to the current socio(religio)political landscape in the US.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 06:44 AM
Sounds like a complete reversal as compared to the current socio(religio)political landscape in the US.
 
Thirty years ago (or forty?) fundamentalist and most conservative Christians were staunchly separationist. They couldn't tolerate Jimmy Carter (who stands alone with Obama as the best examples of solid character and family values to occupy the White House in ... what, a generation?), which I find telling, so that prompted them to dramatically change their values, and they got political--very political. And I'd argue that has a lot to do with where we are now in that regard. It's not the whole picture by any means, but it's definitely got a whole lot to do with it--especially the divisiveness.
 
Anyway ... yeah ... sounds like a complete reversal as compared to the current socio(religio)political landscape in the US.

No, not a complete reversal unless you want to speak of multiple reversals.  Read the article on Holland, MI and you'll see that the tight connection between church and politics that existed during WWI for many "conservative" Christians. In the south many advocated a strong doctrine of the "spirituality" of the church in the 20th century so that ministers would not talk about race relations, but in the 19th century, ministers, on both sides of the issue, had spoken loudly on the subject.  The pattern of church-political relations is rather complicated in American history and no simple taxonomy works very well.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 22, 2017, 07:24PMByron and I have been discussing these issues on and off for the last 15 years or so and not got anywhere with convincing the other.I expect partly (slightly?) because I don't think either of us is trying to convert the other ... ?
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 22, 2017, 07:24PMSome people are just not able to apply critical thinking are they.  (I was deliberately ambiguous, as the statement would apply to at least one of us - and we both think its the other I'm just not as dogmatic as he is   Byron )Heh ...
 
I've come to truly appreciate Driz over that time.
 
He's helped me tremendously over the years in developing my extremely high degree of patience.
 
 
Not kidding about that previous line though, man.

[ttf_Piano man]

I think part of the confusion is the word 'conservative'. With respect to politics, it describes a set of policy preferences along with a general cultural point of view that involves a lot of flag-waving. Theologically, it probably comes closer to being a fairly strict and traditional interpreter and follower of the text.

The latter might lead one to piously reject the display of a flag in church, whereas the former might cause someone to reflexively object to the pastor who refused to display it.

John, please chime in and correct my definition of 'religious conservatism' (in the purest sense, not the current political sense).

[ttf_ronkny]

Storing this here for later
http://trib.al/Z5VFP70

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Piano man on Yesterday at 11:34 AMI think part of the confusion is the word 'conservative'. With respect to politics, it describes a set of policy preferences along with a general cultural point of view that involves a lot of flag-waving. Theologically, it probably comes closer to being a fairly strict and traditional interpreter and follower of the text.

The latter might lead one to piously reject the display of a flag in church, whereas the former might cause someone to reflexively object to the pastor who refused to display it.

John, please chime in and correct my definition of 'religious conservatism' (in the purest sense, not the current political sense).

Yes, you've got it generally correct.  To add to the mix, there is also social conservatism and economic conservative, which can sometimes coalesce with religious conservative, but not always.  Bryan for, example, was a religious and social conservative, but more of a political and economic liberal.  The wartime demonstrations of patriotism during WWI often came from theological, economic and political liberals.  It just shows that one needs to take care in using the term "conservative."  The media is notoriously sloppy in some of the distinctions above.

As I said prohibition is a classic eye-opener since most today assume that it was a conservative imposition on society, when in reality its leadership was often from the progressive political and social wings.  When I told that to my community college students when I taught American religious history I could see the incredulity in their eyes, but Ken Burns's series on Prohibition makes that very point at the beginning of the series.

One other interesting tidbit is about W J Bryan of the Scopes Monkey Trial fame and 3 times presidential candidate and Secretary of State under Wilson until he resigned over our entrance into WWI. 

He fought evolution as a thought system because he believed that it was being used to justify the squelching of the "little guy" because they were not the "fit."  He saw himself as the champion of the little guy and thus he thought he needed to oppose evolution on social grounds.  Many have been surprised to find out this fact when they've studied his life, only knowing about a fictionalized version of him from that horrible play and film, Inherit the Wind, which was about as historically accurate as a fairy tale and was really an artistic means to attack McCarthyism.  Read Larson's Summer for the Gods or Levine's Defender of the Faith-- a bio of Bryan's last years-- to get a far more accurate narrative.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 12:07 PMYes, you've got it generally correct.  To add to the mix, there is also social conservatism and economic conservative, which can sometimes coalesce with religious conservative, but not always. 
I would generally agree with John except I don't know where to put the end times wackos.  While they think they are conservative, I wouldn't think so.

[ttf_Piano man]

JtT, I agree with most of the above, but most of the time 'conservative' is self-descriptive, not necessarily applied by the media. A guy driving a pickup with flags flying on both sides and a 'Proud Conservative' bumper sticker might be first in line to criticize a conservative pastor who refused to fly a flag in church for Biblical reasons.

Rather than failing to make those distinctions, I think most general interest publications would avoid using the term 'conservative' in the purely theological sense because it would likely be misunderstood. An exception might be media coverage of the Vatican.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 12:28 PMI would generally agree with John except I don't know where to put the end times wackos.  While they think they are conservative, I wouldn't think so.

It depends on their eschatology-- view of the future.  It would take a lot of space to flesh this out, but there's a lot of variety in Christian theology apart from the main points.

Since this is among the most disputed loci of Christian doctrines, it can go all over the place as far as social conservatism, but most today would fall into the social conservative camp.  Historically it's been a mixed bag among those who completely focus on eschatology-- such a focus often can lead to an out-of-balance theology by traditional standards-- leading to widely different social stands.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Piano man on Yesterday at 12:30 PMJtT, I agree with most of the above, but most of the time 'conservative' is self-descriptive, not necessarily applied by the media. A guy driving a pickup with flags flying on both sides and a 'Proud Conservative' bumper sticker might be first in line to criticize a conservative pastor who refused to fly a flag in church for Biblical reasons.

Rather than failing to make those distinctions, I think most general interest publications would avoid using the term 'conservative' in the purely theological sense because it would likely be misunderstood. An exception might be media coverage of the Vatican.

Actually since some in the media in NYC don't really know any conservatives of any type, they do often conflate them under one rubric.  An interesting anecdote about this was when I was in seminary when Jimmy Carter was running for president and he, of course, said that he was "born again." 

American religious historian Martin Marty was a guest lecturer at our seminary and he smilingly said that he was being deluged with phone calls from NYC about what that meant because no one there had ever met someone who made that claim.

[ttf_timothy42b]

At risk of veering wildly, but:

Some of my end times friends are sure we have less than 20 years left.  None of them give us 50 years.

Within that context, it makes little sense to worry overmuch about global warming, pollution, extinction, curing disease, reducing hunger, or anything else long term.  So their priorities become different.  Elect a Republican and drive on.    

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 12:44 PM

American religious historian Martin Marty was a guest lecturer at our seminary and he smilingly said that he was being deluged with phone calls from NYC about what that meant because no one there had ever met someone who made that claim.

Nobody connected with the military would fail to recognize that phrase.

Of course that number is less than 1% of the population.

Congress is down from 70% in 1975 to 20% today.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 12:47 PMAt risk of veering wildly, but:

Some of my end times friends are sure we have less than 20 years left.  None of them give us 50 years.

Within that context, it makes little sense to worry overmuch about global warming, pollution, extinction, curing disease, reducing hunger, or anything else long term.  So their priorities become different.  Elect a Republican and drive on.    

However, I also know many other theological conservatives who believe that we are here for the long haul before the end-- often known as post-millenial in theological circles-- and most of them are also social, economic and political conservatives.

The kind of end-times speculations you mentioned above has been around for a long time and has its ups and downs in popularity and it's hard to always link it to specific political POVs.  Some are simply apolitical.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 12:51 PMNobody connected with the military would fail to recognize that phrase.

Of course that number is less than 1% of the population.

Congress is down from 70% in 1975 to 20% today.

The kicker, of course, is that Jesus said in John 3 that being "born again" is a sine qua non for being a Christian, so whether one claims to be "born again" or not, if one claims to be a genuine Christian, then by biblical standards one really is claiming to be born again.

I also remember when I was a sem student someone telling me that she was a Christian, but not one of those "born again types" and I could only smile as a student of theology since every Christian tradition has developed that idea.

So what I'm saying is that from a theological standpoint a non-born again Christian is an oxymoron.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 01:04 PM

I also remember when I was a sem student someone telling me that she was a Christian, but not one of those "born again types" and I could only smile as a student of theology since every Christian tradition has developed that idea.

It does have some unfortunate connotations. 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 01:06 PMIt does have some unfortunate connotations. 

Only to those who don't understand its use in Christian theology and are defining it in purely cultural terms as a code word for uneducated, fanatical or something like that. 

However, that is not it's theological definition which is a Holy Spirit induced moral change of character from being opposed to the biblical God to being a believing and obedient disciple.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 01:08 PMOnly to those who don't understand its use in Christian theology and are defining it in purely cultural terms as a code word for uneducated, fanatical or something like that. 

However, that is not it's theological definition which is a Holy Spirit induced moral change of character from being opposed to the biblical God to being a believing and obedient disciple.

Which happens ONLY at an altar call and ONLY if you read the KJV Bible. 

Sorry, while you're technically correct theologically, culturally that's not how it's ever used.  Same with "washed in the blood." 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 01:14 PMWhich happens ONLY at an altar call and ONLY if you read the KJV Bible. 

Sorry, while you're technically correct theologically, culturally that's not how it's ever used.  Same with "washed in the blood." 

Always irritates those of us who are theological when the culture takes a perfectly good theological term and messes it up. 

However, even in revivalistic circles, most would admit that one can be born again apart from an altar call, although some might doubt that it happens very often.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 05:49 AMI have enough scientific background to be able to fully understand the theory and I find it a useful tool to explain the origins of species and how they adapt to their environment and ecology.  However, that's me.

And I've got enough scientific background to know that I don't fully understand it, and enough to know that there are dissonances between the chemical, biological and paleontological perspectives.  My current position is that I would be more surprised to find that God didn't use evolution as part of his creative process than if he did. 

(And I mean dissonances in that there is stuff to be resolved.)

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 06:15 AMWhat's what go to do God' strategy?  I'm talking about religion.  Religion uses the threat of divine punishment to keep followers in line.  

Strategy came from you're previous comment that God needed a new marketing firm, and I replied in that context that he was happy with his current strategy. The logical progression from marketing to clearing the prisons wasn't clear to me.  And I thought we were talking about God rather than religion. 

I keep forgetting that the concepts of God and Religion are probably equivalent to atheists.  I'll try to keep this in mind.  From our perspective the two are very distinct: God is the being who created ...  whereas religion is who mankind relates to God. 

Given that humans are fallible means that religion is too.

Another point of difference is that I see the bible as different from religion and people's conception of God too. 

I mostly stay out of the religion discussions nowadays because there are too many differences between the what I know about down under and what's going on up there.

QuoteFrom my perspective since God does not exist, he can't have a strategy.

and he couldn't have a marketing firm either.  For the sake of the discussion, I know that when you talk about God you mean the concept that other people believe in. 

QuoteJust a question here about this God construct.  If it is eternal and Omnipotent, why the insistence on a gender?  What could gender possibly mean to such a being?

I think of God as male because the bible often describes him that way, and because I think the bible is God's revelation.

I think that God does this to express our relationship in ways that would not be difficult outside of a gender framework (eg he is our father)  So its benefit is as a teaching and a relational aid rather than something that is intrinsic to his nature.  So I think of God as identifying as a male to us rather than him being one.  But its not the same as a person doing that.

QuoteProbably a poor choice of words on my part.  I should have said religion and stipulated generalized education.  However, for the bible it starts off right in Genesis 2.

Really? What does it say in Gen 2 that you think is against generalised education?

QuoteConsider also Ecclesiastes:
...

12 My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with[d] every secret thing, whether good or evil.


I like the 'fear of God' just to drive the point home too.

the context is learning wisdom not general education.  If it was prohibiting any sort of education then no one would be able to read his words. 

And I guess in your point about fearing God you are referring to religious institutions that use fear to control people. 

QuoteThere are many other passages discouraging anything other than giving it all up to God, but I'm not going to list them all here.

I don't understand why you think that 'giving it all up' has anything to do with general education.  I have never heard any one make that point.  But I don't live in America so it may happen over there.  I can think of no reason why that would be true.  Down here we are encouraged to learn and prepare ourselves for whatever ministry we take on so we are able to carry out our work to the best of our ability. 

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 06:52 AMI expect partly (slightly?) because I don't think either of us is trying to convert the other ... ?
 Heh ...
 
I've come to truly appreciate Driz over that time.
 
He's helped me tremendously over the years in developing my extremely high degree of patience.
 
 
Not kidding about that previous line though, man.

Hey Byron, same here.

And its been a pleasure training you.  You've come so far. 

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: drizabone on Yesterday at 07:15 PM(And I mean dissonances in that there is stuff to be resolved.)Of course there are.  Science has the luxury, no, the necessity to be mutable.  Unlike religious doctrine.  No scientist worth his salt would argue otherwise.

QuoteStrategy came from you're previous comment that God needed a new marketing firm, and I replied in that context that he was happy with his current strategy. The logical progression from marketing to clearing the prisons wasn't clear to me.  And I thought we were talking about God rather than religion.No, I said "I think this religion needs a new marketing firm."  And previous to that I was speaking about the Bible.  It's difficult to discuss problems with the Bible without mentioning God since God is one of the major problems.  I'd like to start a separate thread on God.  I'd like to get some some consistent definition that we can all then work from.  Something that makes sense.


QuoteI keep forgetting that the concepts of God and Religion are probably equivalent to atheists.  I'll try to keep this in mind.  From our perspective the two are very distinct: God is the being who created ...  whereas religion is who mankind relates to God.  Not equivalent from my perspective, however I may be looking at God as something quite distinct from how you look at God.  That's why I made the suggestion above.

QuoteGiven that humans are fallible means that religion is too.  Good of you to admit that.  Most religious people I have talked to would never offer this view even when a lot of the things they say suggest they do hold it.


QuoteReally? What does it say in Gen 2 that you think is against generalised education?As soon as Adam is created he is forbidden from learning about good and evil.

Quotethe context is learning wisdom not general education.  If it was prohibiting any sort of education then no one would be able to read his words.I have to disagree.  Verse 12 specifically warns against spending too much effort on learning anything beyond the wisdom of God, and books (preumably non-religious books) are used as the example.  

QuoteAnd I guess in your point about fearing God you are referring to religious institutions that use fear to control people.I'm talking about the Bible.  You can barely find a chapter in the Bible where the fear of God is not wielded.  In the passage I quoted from Ecclesiastes that is expressed explicitly in verses 13 & 14.

QuoteI don't understand why you think that 'giving it all up' has anything to do with general education.  I have never heard any one make that point.  But I don't live in America so it may happen over there.  I can think of no reason why that would be true.  Down here we are encouraged to learn and prepare ourselves for whatever ministry we take on so we are able to carry out our work to the best of our ability.Supposition: If you give all of your life to God, there will be precious else you'll have time for.

However you are not to worry as God will provide the things you need.  That sentiment is expressed numerous times in the Bible.  Do you need quotes?

In addition, there are multiple warnings about spending much effort on anything other than the will and word of God lest you be led astray.  This usually comes with a verse or 2 about the fear of God and your having to answer to him.

Having said all that, I did admit to my mistaken wording.  My real quibble is with religion's and the religious' take on general education.  By general education, I mean the liberty to learn anything, including things that might possibly disagree with religious doctrine.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 07:57 AM

As soon as Adam is created he is forbidden from learning about good and evil.
I have to disagree.  Verse 12 specifically warns against spending too much effort on learning anything beyond the wisdom of God, and books (preumably non-religious books) are used as the example.  

Supposition: If you give all of your life to God, there will be precious else you'll have time for.


In addition, there are multiple warnings about spending much effort on anything other than the will and word of God lest you be led astray.  This usually comes with a verse or 2 about the fear of God and your having to answer to him.

Having said all that, I did admit to my mistaken wording.  My real quibble is with religion's and the religious' take on general education.  By general education, I mean learning things that might possibly disagree with religious doctrine.


Your comments show some fundamental misunderstanding of what theologians call the Cultural Mandate.

In the garden A and E were not told not to know anything, they were told not to eat the tree because failure at that test would give them experiential knowledge of good and evil because they had disobeyed God. It was not a command for them not to know that good and evil exists.  In fact the penalty connected with the command not to eat in Genesis shows that God had told them about the existence of good and evil.

As creature made in the image of God and given a mandate to have dominion over the earth, this mandate is full of the need to gain knowledge.  Much ink has been spilled over all that this entails because it is a rather broad mandate and includes all of cultural life.  Cultural life is full of the need for knowledge.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you really should try to acquaint yourself with how these texts have been discussed in the history of theological discussions because your understanding seems unaware of many of the nuances found in the texts.  You may not agree with what Christian theologians and Biblical scholars have said-- that certainly is your right-- but you need to be aware of the serious discussion of the implications of those texts rather than making conclusions that to most serious biblical scholars would look rather superficial and I don't say that to demean you, but to suggest that if you want to critique the Christian faith, you should look at it more in depth.

I would be happy to point you to some resources on this, if you would like to explore it further or perhaps we could discuss it here.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

So, what's the cause of a flawed creation?

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: drizabone on Yesterday at 07:15 PMI keep forgetting that the concepts of God and Religion are probably equivalent to atheists.
That doesn't make any sense at all, man.
 
Atheists don't believe a god exists, we're pretty certain religion does though ... eh?
 
God is a fiction that follows from succumbing/failing to understand the religious aspects of our nature, and failing to understand and/or adequately appreciate or own the vagaries of human brain ownership--failing to recognize and/or appreciate the difference between sentiment and reality (sounds trite, but such is the nature of denial or just anosognosia, and we know our brains play lots of cruel tricks on us like this).
 
The only official atheist "doctrine" there, by the way, is the God is a fiction part (it's not really doctrine--that's just what the term means). Everything beyond that is personal exposition/elaboration.

[ttf_ronkny]

You would never entertain the possibility that your brain is playing a trick on you in believing God is fiction? That's just as plausible.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Today at 09:14 AM
That doesn't make any sense at all, man.
 
Atheists don't believe a god exists, we're pretty certain religion does though ... eh?

Yeah, you're right. Again.

I was thinking that they would be similar in that god's and religion were both made up by people and that they both were dependent on and defined by the people that worshiped.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: ronkny on Today at 12:32 PMYou would never entertain the possibility that your brain is playing a trick on you in believing God is fiction?I was a very genuine and devoted believer up through my mid 20s, so that's pretty clearly false. I've not only entertained the possibility that God is real, I believed it from childhood through a chunk of my adult life.
 
Quote from: ronkny on Today at 12:32 PMThat's just as plausible.How are you determining the relative plausibilities though?
 
Can you explain why you think they're equivalent? Are those just some words that seem to validate your position, or is there substance behind them?

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Today at 02:42 PMI was a very genuine and devoted believer up through my mid 20s, so that's pretty clearly false. I've not only entertained the possibility that God is real, I believed it from childhood through a chunk of my adult life.

That doesn't make your perception a fact. It's just your perception. That's all it is.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: drizabone on Today at 02:36 PMI was thinking that they would be similar in that god's and religion were both made up by people and that they both were dependent on and defined by the people that worshiped.
That's a valid equivalency, but that's as far as it goes. Religion is much more than just doctrines and dogma about God though, so I think you're actually talking about God and the other allegedly supernatural aspects of religion. Or something like that.
 
If you don't believe God is non-fictional those aspects of religion do have to be just as made up--it's just a logically unavoidable consequence of God being made up. And I tend to agree with you on this as a comparison in that I'd argue those are the only "truly" or "purely" religious elements of religion--all of what's actually religion as opposed to appendages and peripherals (the other elements of religion which are actually just about people and communities and associated/often conflated with religion).
 
It can certainly be a useful equivalency if the fiction aspect in atheism is all you're illustrating or considering, or if you're isolating your variables in a disciplined manner and separating what's "pure" religion about what we conceive of as religion vs. what's actually just human and communal.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: ddickerson on Today at 02:58 PMThat doesn't make your perception a fact. It's just your perception. That's all it is.
Is it that you can't identify the subject, or is it that your faculties are immediately hijacked and you forget the subject the moment you run across anything that fails to affirm your views?

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Today at 02:42 PMI was a very genuine and devoted believer up through my mid 20s, so that's pretty clearly false. I've not only entertained the possibility that God is real, I believed it from childhood through a chunk of my adult life.
 How are you determining the relative plausibilities though?
 
Can you explain why you think they're equivalent? Are those just some words that seem to validate your position, or is there substance behind them?
There's only two possibilities. Either there is a God or there isn't.
Word's to validate my position? I used your words to suggest that you could be wrong as could I. To not give any weight to either is lazy. Yo say you used to believe and then you didn't. What is the fact that you found that changed your mind? It doesn't exist. That's why it's called faith.
Why do atheists attack believers? What's the point? Why does it matter to atheists that many people believe in God?  I have never attacked an atheist except in response to an attack on my faith. Why do atheists participate in religious discussion? Post billboards depicting believers as imbeciles?
I stick by my belief that atheists are genuinely concerned that they may be wrong. I'm not concerned that I may be wrong because there's no consequences to my faith. But there may be consequences to those without faith.

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: ronkny on Today at 03:20 PMWhy do atheists attack believers? What's the point? Why does it matter to atheists that many people believe in God?  I have never attacked an atheist except in response to an attack on my faith. Why do atheists participate in religious discussion? Post billboards depicting believers as imbeciles?

Again, I think you're trying to stir up rancor without much justification. I know many atheists, and have never met even one who put up an atheist billboard. That's like me asking, Why do Christians disrupt military funerals? None of the ones I know do that, so I don't ask the question.

What you view as 'attack' is simply disagreement. BvB disagrees with you that there's a supernatural explanation of earthly events. You disagree with him that there isn't. I don't see the attack, but I see that you want to create one out of whole cloth. For the most part, I think the discussion is pretty cordial, unless you try hard to make it otherwise. John the Theologian knows more about the Bible than I do, and more than you or BvB. I learn from him, and from T42B.

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: Piano man on Jun 24, 2017, 04:04PMAgain, I think you're trying to stir up rancor without much justification. I know many atheists, and have never met even one who put up an atheist billboard. That's like me asking, Why do Christians disrupt military funerals? None of the ones I know do that, so I don't ask the question.

What you view as 'attack' is simply disagreement. BvB disagrees with you that there's a supernatural explanation of earthly events. You disagree with him that there isn't. I don't see the attack, but I see that you want to create one out of whole cloth. For the most part, I think the discussion is pretty cordial, unless you try hard to make it otherwise. John the Theologian knows more about the Bible than I do, and more than you or BvB. I learn from him, and from T42B.
Umm... no.  I gave one example. I could give thousands. But you're missing the point. What is the purpose of atheists either attacking religious symbols, sacred music, etc? AND what is the purpose of arguing with JTT about religion? Are the atheist billboarders, and co.  nuts like the crazy church that protests military funerals? Ever hear of the freedom from religion foundation? Are they mainstream?
It is mostly cordial but again you miss the point. What is the purpose?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 24, 2017, 08:45AMSo, what's the cause of a flawed creation?

I think you are well aware of the traditional Christian understanding of the Fall.  Do you want to discuss that here?

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 24, 2017, 05:04PMUmm... no.  I gave one example. I could give thousands. But you're missing the point. What is the purpose of atheists either attacking religious symbols, sacred music, etc? AND what is the purpose of arguing with JTT about religion? Are the atheist billboarders, and co.  nuts like the crazy church that protests military funerals? Ever hear of the freedom from religion foundation? Are they mainstream?
It is mostly cordial but again you miss the point. What is the purpose?


Sure you can give thousands of examples. If you want to sow discord, you'll pick thousands of discordant examples and pretend they're typical.

I'm an atheist, but I grew up in the church and I love religious music. The atheist billboarders are indeed like the Westboro churchgoers in one respect---they aren't typical. Both are to some extent assaulting other people with their views (as do other political and religious groups who post billboards), but I think it's a lesser assault to look at a billboard during your commute than to weather the disruption of your child's funeral.

What's the point of discussing religion with JtT? He knows more about it than I do, and I learn from him. His perspective on the politically progressive roots of the Scopes Monkey Trial prosecution is something I should have known and didn't. The article he posted demonstrating that it's hard and sometimes impossible to isolate religious motives for violence was well-argued. He's clarified for me the difference, and the complicated relationship, between religious and political conservatism.

If you're on the thread only to get mad at BvB and to exclude non-believers you'll miss out on a lot of good discussion.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 24, 2017, 02:42PMI was a very genuine and devoted believer up through my mid 20s, so that's pretty clearly false. I've not only entertained the possibility that God is real, I believed it from childhood through a chunk of my adult life.
 How are you determining the relative plausibilities though?
 
Can you explain why you think they're equivalent? Are those just some words that seem to validate your position, or is there substance behind them?

Byron, are you forgetting that there are atheist converts to Christianity who claim that they were thoroughly convinced that God did not exist before their conversions?

The net result is that their personal experience can be pitted against your personal experience and the net result is a wash.  I'm not sure that just matching experiences gets us very far because their testimonies can be as convincing to us as yours is to the unbeliever.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 24, 2017, 05:26PMByron, are you forgetting that there are atheist converts to Christianity who claim that they were thoroughly convinced that God did not exist before their conversions?
Nope. I was responding to the comment:
  - You would never entertain the possibility that your brain is playing a trick on you in believing God is fiction?
 
Obviously having been a believer I have entertained such a possibility. That's all. And I think it's worth noting that I seriously doubt the reverse is true of the original questioner.
 
But I agree with you on the conversion experience dueling--not a productive route for genuine discussion. Although the nature of conversions to and from religions and atheism and such is interesting, as are apostasy and conversion testimonies ... well, they can be anyway.