Moderates sheltering fundamentalists

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Resist the urge to anthropomorphize his actions and ascribe him human limitations. His book should be PERFECT, unless he willfully made it misleading.


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

So tell Him how He could have done it in a way that can't be twisted and misinterpreted by His creatures.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, while I am pretty awesome, I am far from perfect, so this is sort of a silly thing to keep harping on. Its in the definition of God that he could easily, and by easily I mean infinitely easily, have accomplished this. But I will give my God powers a work-out, if that would appease you:

Whatever the central, key meaning (or meanings) to the Bible is, make the book read differently for everyone who opens it. Just make it so that every person who reads the Bible sees whatever is necessary for that individual to see to get the message. This is subtly different from just forcing the reader to believe, since the concession here is that the purpose of the Bible is to directly influence and lead us. So, when you read the Bible, you would probably read it very much as it currently is, since obviously that was enough to convince you. If I read it, it would be slightly different, but equally convincing.

Is that a good first draft? I can have the accountants crunch the numbers for you, if this is something we feel like going forward with.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is that a good first draft?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Why have a book at all? God could just reach down into your brain and make you think what He wants you to think.

What I meant was a communication to all. Something that doesn't make God a puppet master and us His robots.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is that a good first draft?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Why have a book at all? God could just reach down into your brain and make you think what He wants you to think.

What I meant was a communication to all. Something that doesn't make God a puppet master and us His robots.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I made the statement at the beginning, that the purpose of the Bible was ALREADY to influence and lead us. How is my version any different? Your slippery slope argument applies equally well to ANY action God takes on Earth.

Writing each book to a specific audience is the dream of a great writer. His book wouldn't be written to enslave each individual, only to make each individual GET THE POINT.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's written for us but not to us. It's possible we CAN toss out all recommendations in the entire book since it wasn't written to us. Except the message that god exists and the holy spirit lives within us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be getting it somewhat, though you still insist on a simplistic answer to a complex question. Yes, the Bible if written for us rather than to us. No, that doesn't make it worthless except for a fortune cookie aphorism.

Let the discernment that I am sure you have tell you where a specific social context is be being addressed and where the message is general to every reader at all times. Keeping that hermeneutic in mind, it's amazing how easy understanding becomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I've got it, we can use our human reason to figure out which part of God's word is literal, and which part is alagorical or outright doesn't apply to us. Could you explain this type reasoning a little more to me, it's still hazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have the general idea. Who is the relevant audience? It could be certain people under specific circumstances thousands of years ago, or every reader. How to tell which? The Bible explains itself, but, as with anything complex, a scholar must be diligent. In this case that means actually reading the whole book, not just random snippets here and there.

A certain amount of background is also required to understand what the Bible or any other writing from a radically different cultural context is communicating. If one tries to interpret the work of an ancient source as if it were created today, quite a few ridiculous misunderstandings are likely to follow.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By calling yourself a moderate Christian, you are dignifying the bible. That you throw out the parts you don't like, doesn't change the fact that the bible is still a very important book to Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the 'sheltering' issue in a nutshell. Once a christian claims there are messages from god in the bible but they need to be 'interpreted' then the guy next door can claim the same position and merely a different interpretation.

Once the bible is granted to be the word of god, a fundie can take the high ground and claim ( but not entirely validly) that it's a purer take on god's meaning to read what he wrote as he wrote it and not poison it with our personal spin.

It's a pretty weak argument against a fundie to say "I can interpret it, but you can't ... when his claim is that he's trying not to.". Iow, in that sense, moderates strengthen the fundie position and certainly shelter it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not "granting" that the bible is the word of god, I'm saying I believe it. You're free to do whatever you want. The fact that I believe it shouldnt influence your judgement of the book's truth. Nor should it lend any support to fundamentalists - they should be judged on their words and actions and I should be judged on mine.

If you truly believe that I cant support it "a bit" because people will use that support to promote their own evil ends - how about bigots who inspire racial hatred and violence who then hide behind free speech. Should I not support free speech either on the grounds that I am "sheltering" bigots?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not "granting" that the bible is the word of god, I'm saying I believe it. You're free to do whatever you want. The fact that I believe it shouldnt influence your judgement of the book's truth. Nor should it lend any support to fundamentalists - they should be judged on their words and actions and I should be judged on mine.

If you truly believe that I cant support it "a bit" because people will use that support to promote their own evil ends - how about bigots who inspire racial hatred and violence who then hide behind free speech. Should I not support free speech either on the grounds that I am "sheltering" bigots?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, our defense of free speech does shelter bigots.
'Should' we lesson our support of it for that reason? Unlikely, but it's still honest to admit the sheltering.( do we have anti-pornography laws?).

It's not a matter of "should be judged.." or " should I.." the question was 'how' the sheltering occurs. It validates that unaccountable, unchallengable claims are ok, and makes it impossible to "judge them on their words....." because they have an untouchable authority to justify their actions, the 'same' authority that moderates expect their morality or actions taken from to be honored by others. ( of course morality doesn't come from religion but that's a common claim).

Pretty common stuff. They have the 'why are you picking on me when johnny does the same thing' defense handed to them by moderates.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, our defense of free speech does shelter bigots.
'Should' we lesson our support of it for that reason? Unlikely, but it's still honest to admit the sheltering.( do we have anti-pornography laws?).

It's not a matter of "should be judged.." or " should I.." the question was 'how' the sheltering occurs. It validates that unaccountable, unchallengable claims are ok, and makes it impossible to "judge them on their words....." because they have an untouchable authority to justify their actions, the 'same' authority that moderates expect their morality or actions taken from to be honored by others. ( of course morality doesn't come from religion but that's a common claim).

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not claiming it is ok to make unchallengable claims, nor am I unaccountable for my actions. If my religion tells me to do something I would expect to provide a moral justification of that other than "because the bible says". If I couldnt - ie if the bible said "Do this immoral act" (immoral by my moral faculties) then I wouldnt do it.

Also, I think Dawkins goes further than how - I think he clearly says it is wrong (ie that we moderates should stop doing it).


[ QUOTE ]
Pretty common stuff. They have the 'why are you picking on me when johnny does the same thing' defense handed to them by moderates.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not handing them that defense, because I am not doing the same thing. I dont think religion is about morality - "the bible says it's ok" is not part of my justification for any of my ethical or moral beliefs.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not handing them that defense, because I am not doing the same thing. I dont think religion is about morality - "the bible says it's ok" is not part of my justification for any of my ethical or moral beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

As has been mentioned, you don't fit the 'moderate christian' category very well, and the main thrust of 'sheltering' that applies to a liberal religious approach is the validation of 'magic-thinking' and the desire/demand/expectation for it to be respected by others.

The bulk of christians do claim, erroneously, that their morality comes from their religion. Your personal approach falls into a more general dawkinsian claim.

Typical moderate christians/other give fundies the most shelter, followed be more freethinking such as yourself, followed by astrologers and people who believe in lucky shirts.

I find it interesting that this isn't a ho-hum conclusion.

You keep shifting this to a 'should I stop...' or somesuch. Yes, the world would be better off without magical thinking, but it's a question each person needs to approach for themselves. Sheltering extreme views isn't the only harm it does.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You keep shifting this to a 'should I stop...' or somesuch. Yes, the world would be better off without magical thinking, but it's a question each person needs to approach for themselves. Sheltering extreme views isn't the only harm it does.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt mean it to seem a shift. The whole point of my original post was should I stop professing my belief, since it does damage of some sort.

I dont see the argument at all (perhaps I'm getting closer) but if it is sound, then it has implications - since it means something I'm doing is doing harm. (Although you'll never make it stick if I keep my faith to myself, which seems the position I would adopt if this argument convinces me).

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is that a good first draft?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Why have a book at all? God could just reach down into your brain and make you think what He wants you to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe he just makes us smart enough to figure most of it out on our own. If your argument is that any book God came up with would be subject to the various pitfalls and differences in interpretation that your current one has, I would argue that not revealing himself to us at all and letting us figure it out ourselves is a better strategy than giving us something that can be so grossly interpreted and creating a religion that discourages critical thought.

[ QUOTE ]
What I meant was a communication to all. Something that doesn't make God a puppet master and us His robots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why deciding you're worthless and submitting yourself to a religion as restrictive as Christianity is a promotion above being a robot. I'd rather be brainwashed into doing something, than being told to do something or face damnation.