What is the True Meaning of Christmas (Grinches Allowed Thread)

So I am working on my Christmas sermon, and wondering what other people think the the true meaning of Christmas is. Warning, your comments may show up in a sermon tonight!

I can give you a personal, secular answer, Arctic. Christmas in my family was always a celebration of family. Its focus was reconnecting with people we didn't see very often, and it was one of the few events in our lives where ritual was important. We always made the same collection of Christmas Cookies, for example, and everyone always took the same role in the process--younger children decorated, older children iced, parents baked. We also had a rather elaborate tree-decorating tradition; ornaments were small memorials of previous times and people in our past, so each one hung was hanging a memory or a family story.

There were gifts and carols and community things as well, but mostly the holiday was the one time of year when most of our far-flung family would come together under one roof to be with each other. That was what was important.

Thanks for sharing. Until I moved to Alaska, Christmas was a significant family time for me as well.

> 1 - 3

I must agree. Christmas is about family. Even if you don't have a family or your relatives are mostly dead (or dead to you) you can still share the feelings of the season with the family of a friend - like, e.g., I do.

I am going to a big family Christmas gathering tonight. None of the people there will be my relatives, either by blood or marriage. Ages will range typically from 1 to 87. We will no doubt play Dirty Santa. And consume mass quantities of food. Some wine will be drank. Children will be taught by the experience the value of family and the joy of materialism, in equal measure.

In this family only light topics are discussed - no religion, politics or social issues. 'Tis the season just to celebrate the fact that we all are alive and well.

I assume all this is the way Jesus would want it.

When I see the now common, "Axial tilt is the reason for the season," I wonder, figuratively speaking, which season they are talking about. The geometry of the Earth's rotation and revolution causes a change in the length of days and the relative depth of atmosphere through which sunlight passes to a given point on earth; so there are seasons from climate change. There also seems to be a season of bonhomie; what might be the cause of that?

Some years ago, a decade or more, I noticed that my good will toward other people seemed to increase from about Thanksgiving until about Epiphany. I liked it. But then I began looking for it, and looking for it made it something of a construction — I lost it.

I am rarely cheerful and I am almost entirely not happy. I am not Christian. Yet I do participate in the season's doings. My niece got three packages in the mail. I am wearing Christmas themed shirts. Tonight I will go to church, a Unitarian Universalist congregation, for carols and cookies. Is the reason for this season a comfortable conformity?

Robert

Traditionally, It was the end of the hunt. We needed to be nice to each other so we could share the preserved bounty.

Modernly, it's cold and miserable. We need to be nice to each other to avoid awkward slayings.

Also, presents give us something to enjoy during the bleak winter months.

Mr.Durick wrote, "I am almost entirely not happy"
LOL. Can I have a T-shirt?

Claude Levi-Strauss on the anthropological meaning of Father Christmas. http://varenne.tc.columbia.edu/texts/levstcld093fathchri.pdf

The deepest meaning of Christmas is the incarnation—"God made man," "for our sake and for our salvation." Everything else stems from that act of grace. But as we can never get to the "bottom" of that grace, and can't even fully understand it apart from its more mundane expressions, we can never dismiss the rest of it as secondary. Is family the meaning of Christmas? Yes. Families can be a mirror of grace. Is gift-giving the meaning of Christmas? Yes. Gift-giving is also a sort of mirror of grace. Is Santa, caroling, the conquest of darkness? All yes, so long as the thing is alive with God's grace.

This is what I've come to see, anyway. This contrasts with the secular understanding, but also includes it. That is, the secular individual for whom Christmas is all about family is not wrong. It contrasts more severely with focused, exclusivist understandings of the holiday--that it's about Christ in a narrow way.

This year we're looking for the gift of a Christmas cease-fire in South Sudan, although I'm not sure we're going to get it.

I've been following that news--as best as I can, although it's confusing. Stay safe.

Well, I'm going to be the spoil-sport ...again.

I think of christmas as the enjoyment - for many people - of the ignorance of the darker sides to the stories about their favourite fictional character.
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-laughing-at-auschwitz-fotostreck...

"It will not do to say that the Nazis were anti-Christian. It won't even do to say the Jews died for racial reasons, not because of their religion. The Nazis were able to do their evil, destructive work because they were so good at playing on myths, the myths which lurk in people's minds. And this myth was that the Jews were the killers of Christ, the enemies of Christian civilisation. In that sense, Christianity is implicated fatally in the murder of the Jews." - BBC: A History of Christianity, ep 6: God in the Dock, Diarmaid MacCulloch.

Christmas as it should be is the gift of the Son of God's love. All else is secondary. If you love father, mother, brother or sister more than Christ and your own life also, you cannot be my disciple.. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that who so ever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting Life. That Life is Christ in you the hope of glory. This is not a mind thing, it's a heart thing. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Don't forget God and His Son! The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God........... Receive God's Gift this Christmas and you will be eternally grateful. HALLELUJAH!

>13 dgbsr:
Aye,right.

The belief that a Jewish son who was also his own father
had himself tortured to death, but alas, you can live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him, without equivocation, as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree, yep !!

If we meander down a devout theistic interpretation of Christmas, I tend to find that the wheels come off the bus once one objectively delves into the nuts and bolts of the tenets of the whole concept.

I didn't intend to (nor do I believe I am) being overly caustic, after all, what I stated is not misrepresentative, although admittedly said in a semi-flippant manner, fair enough. Rather, I just tend to stick to a humanistic and caring interpretation of this time of year in a similar vein to posts # 2,3 & 4.

It's hard for me not to be flippant, if I am honest, when faced with some stripped down tenets such as the trinity......... jesus christ impregnated a woman with himself so that he could be born. Once alive, he had himself killed as a sacrifice to himself to save you from the sin that he originally condemned you to...

Honestly, it's quite funny. I don't mean to be rudely facetious, I just find it akin to a Shakespearean Tragicomedy if I am gonna tell you the truth.

Have a happy new year everyone.
Here's to the health and happiness of all our loved ones with us and to the loving respectful memory of those no longer with us.

H.......umanity
E........volution
L.........ucidity
P..........rogress

A 'HELP' foundation would be, I think, a nice foundation.
It could incorporate all of the positive aspects of Theistic groups ( for yes, despite the irrationality, there are good things in it), but without the pitiful falling back on the supernatural for succour.

All that put their hope or trust in anything but God and His Christ and His infallible word, are lost. Jesus came and said that He was the way. He came not to show us a way but he said that He was the Way, the only Way! HALLELUJAH!

>15 dgbsr:

Ah,okay.

I can see that my attempt to foster a lively cogent discussion on the general topic has come asunder,lol.

An internet cut & paste incantation seems to float your boat. Go for it. I'm sure you have a plethora of further plagiarized installments up you sleeve :-)

You pray for me. I'll think for you.

From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh! Its what's inside of a man that comes out of him. No cut and past here, sorry.
God bless all,

>16 Daithioc: The problem is that your comments on the Trinity are so far off from what people believe and so far off from the doctrine as conceived by theologians, that it is like responding to a Fox News Story on Obama.

When you get some facts right, then we can talk. And granted, there is much about the Trinity to discuss, pro and con. It is, as you try to point out, far from logical, and for literal minded, people, more than a bit confusing. I have reasons for believing in it, but what I believe in, which is very close the historical conception, is far from how you portray it.

FWIW, here is my take on what Christmas means: http://tmrichmond3.net/2013/12/25/the-true-meaning-of-christmas/

Interesting interpretation of Yule.

Odin left a bow and 4 arrows in our daughter's boot.

>13 dgbsr: (et al) Are you a poe?

Love your imaginary friend more than my parents?!? And people wonder why I loathe christianity.

You know of course that we are YOUR imaginary friends.

>18 Arctic-Stranger: Dear Arctic,

How many people on this planet identify themselves as believers in the man killed by the Jews?

Do you really know what they all understand "the trinity" to mean?

What makes your take on "the trinity" the correct one? Who is to say that Daithioc's take on "the trinity" isn't ... if not (more) "correct", then at least just as valid as anyone else's?

:-)

>22 Arctic-Stranger: :-) lol

Arctic, you're not my friend. Anyone who directly or indirectly, knowingly or otherwise, takes part in perpetuating the myth that the Jews killed that fictional fig-tree-cursing character, is just not my friend. Got it? :-)

I'm sure you won't harm me down a dark alley, and I doubt I'd harm you there either, but...

I don't claim to understand the Trinity, and I thought I made it clear that there was room for discussion. But suppose I said that I thought science was ridiculous because the want create a new species of people in labs, and were trying to mix people and sheep to grow a baby who could produce wool.

You would say I have no conception of what science is really about. And you would be right.

Daith's take on the trinity is about that sophisticated. If you want to leave all discussion open up to crackpot views, can we talk about Obama's birth certificate, the hoax of global warming, and the Illuminati conspiracy?

>25 Arctic-Stranger: (You've forgotten what I think of the word "sophisticated"? Tut, tut.)

I've listened to over a thousand sermons in my life. I don't know that I wouldn't actually say that Daith's take on "the trinity" wasn't a lot more sophi... umm clear on "the trinity" than anything I ever heard preached. Maybe that's my bad. Maybe I should have had the good sense to have chosen better parents. You wouldn't care to guess just how many other sorry brothers and sisters of mine needed to choose better parents would you?

Well, I have heard a lot on NPR about science, so I guess that makes me an expert on science, right?

I am kind of amazed that you would think the popularization of complicated topics is the right way to deal with them. You must be a big fan of Fox News.

I think Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason stated it best. And he wasn't even an atheist or agnostic.

To basically paraphrase - taking the jesus myth LITERALLY as it is generally traditionally related is so absurd it is hard to think people like dgbsr aren't doing a shtik for kicks and giggles, i.e, they are just messing with our heads - otherwise they must be robotic rubes with tapioca for brains.

Of course the weird thing is such people are serious as a heart attack. I mean, that is the fact. Christ, that's sad.

OTOH, taking the whole jesus drama as some sort of poetic expression of some underlying truth or some great and wonderful ideal of humanity that speaks to our hearts in some profound way - as Arctic seems to be doing - is just as an absurd proposition.

In a nutshell there's no way to slice the cake to make a god sacrificing himself to himself (as a scapegoat to relieve humanity from deserved perdition as long as they kiss the ring) - as anything but idiocy of the highest order. And it also makes crappy poetry/metaphor.

Our service last night was more in the nature of celebration; there was no sermon as such. Our minister, whose doctoral studies were in Process Theology at Claremont, spoke briefly from this paragraph on the meaning of Christmas to a Unitarian Universalist by Lenny Scovel. Why should Unitarian Universalists especially among skeptics celebrate the holiday? It is because there is a lesson in compassion from Jesus that all of us can use, and it is a reminder of our universal need for charity.

Robert

Daith's take on the trinity is about that sophisticated.

How sophisticated do you really feel that most believer's understanding of Religion actually is? I mean, we could start tying this back into Stephen Prothero's pew studies from a few years back if you'd like to get into it.

All this knowledge and wisdom, anyone care to explain this trinity you all speak of so loosely!

>18 Arctic-Stranger:..." the problem is that....etc..."

No problem at all, for I shan't delve further. As post # 23 indicates, who are we to know what trinity means?

Who are we to know how old Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer is?

Who are we to know how long the Loch Ness Monster's tail is?

Who are we to know if the Tooth Fairy works alone or she hires out a team to help her?

It's all a bit (as I said in my post # 14) tragicomical, if we go down a path of substantive verbosity on Rudolph, the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy or a bloke allegedly born of a virgin in the Bronze Age Middle East who says he made us all.

Topic answer....What does Christmas really mean??????
(from my perspective of the mainstream Irish/UK population).....

-School holidays for children.

-Presents from Santa for the young children.99% of children simply know a big bearded bloke is gonna fulfill their present wishes.

-Joy for parents with young children , vicarious pleasure, as seeing their children's joy with the presents.

-Family get-together's, and for some families maybe the only time of the year this bonding is done.

-Sadness at this time of the year for the missing of deceased loved ones, the sadness being more acute at Christmas as it's seen and felt as a family time.

-Office Christmas parties, lots of drinking, a time to cut loose.Some cut too loose and make a bit of a scene.

- Food and drink debauchery. Levels of intake go way up in a freeflow manner.

- A time for health reflection, saying that after the Festive Season debauchery you will join a gym, cut back on the shitty food and lose weight,lol.

-Major TV and Sofa time, group talk about how good or shitty the Xmas TV programmes are this year.

ETC........

At best, in this thread-context, people go to a church for approximately 40-45 minutes (usually on a Christmas morning), and listen to a man adorned,possibly,with a mitre,talking about love,sacrifice etc.... and all stemmng from the man nailed to a cross 2000'ish years ago in the Middle East depicted in a refurbished reenactment directly behind the Clergyman's head.

MEANWHILE, the wife is sitting in deep thought wondering if this year's turkey stuffing will taste okay, the kids are wondering if the big white bearded bloke will pony up with the presents and Dad is hoping he can get some quiet time after the Xmas dinner is over and presents have been unwrapped to have a nice brandy and watch something good on the telly !!!! Jeez, this priest is taking a long time, was last year as long as this?...... Many go to church out of a "social etiquette", it's kind of the "done thing", and after all, it's less than an hour of a sacrifice and then they can back to their houses where the family fun and enjoyment begins.

In cities like London,Dublin,Glasgow,Manchester, Cardiff etc.... people in pubs and their homes are not hunched over tables deep in animated talk on the Harry Potterism's of the ins and outs of the Trinity, a Father sacrificing his only son, was Mary really a virgin etc....

Instead, they are too busy living a temporal existence and getting on with life and all the stuff it throws at us.

In 2013 humans are well capable of introspection, empathy, joy, sadness and wonderment etc... without the need to fall-back on supernatural fiction.
Thank G#%. No, don't thank him. Give "ourselves", humans, a pat on the back for having 'evolved' to such a level that we are capable of love and empathy.

If you want to be SOPHISTICATED on the trinity,lol,well then, go for it. :-) You're alone on that one, I'm afraid.

If you want to talk about Christmas and its meaning on a HUMAN level, I am all ears.

3- in -1 and 1-in-3 is a bit off the beaten path for me,....and if I'm honest, your mainstream Irish/ British person also. Doesn't even register.

> 29

Well, that's the liberal/socialist Jesus. He's the good one.

It's the republican Jesus that is the bad one. That guy should get out of town.

>30 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Jesse, I think in any field there are those who study all the details and lead the way in explanations, and there are many others who happily use the results of those studies without necessarily knowing all the details. Many of us live as citizens and generally obey the laws without knowing all the history of our nation nor the fine details of the constitution, etc. Many of us use computers without having any real understanding of the science and technology behind them. Why would you expect religion and religious doctrine to be any different?

"Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty thousand page menu, and no food." - Robert M. Pirsig

>19 Arctic-Stranger: You're crediting the present-buying trait of mammals to your imaginary friend.

Those people suffering away in JtF's article are the losses discounted, while your coat-man is the equivalent-to-pure-chance win miscredited to christianity in the same way that gambling addiction discounts it's losses, focusing on the wins.

I'm somewhat reminded of this TED talk by some "reverend". A desperate-seeming attempt to retain the word 'God' for reasons of mere affection for the word in a kind of Pavlovian way. In your case, as I've already stated, by crediting actually mammalian behaviours to your beloved word. As the preacher said: "Let go!"

>36 zangasta: If you're referring to the article linked in this thread, it's not my article, it's an atheist's article published in a left-of-centre newspaper which is certainly no apologist for religion.

>37 John5918: Yes John, I expressed myself more clearly at first, indicating you had linked to it, and then aimed for brevity. My bad.

I feel I have to whittle at #s 19 & 12.

(((How to achieve accuracy...?)))

Bearing in mind that I'd claim that that man could've gotten a coat through mere empathy for him - without the mumbo-jumbo - ie if I deign to credit christianity with this act of kindness, would you truly feel that one coat here, and one coat there, really outweighed the suffering and death of the holocaust?

The Solstice (by whatever name you choose to call it) has been a time for millenia for family/tribe to take stock, to assess whether or not they'll make it to the spring and good hunting again. And if they will, then it's a time to celebrate, to rejoice in surviving yet another dark time, another winter.

Besides, it's freaking cold out there; better to take a day to huddle around a fire and stay warm for a day. Unless you die, there will be another day to do chores.

Even in a commercialized world, that spirit remains; reconnecting with the people who mean something to you and that (you hope) you are valued by them.

#4 - Friends are the family we choose.

>41 BruceCoulson: it's freaking cold out there

Not in the southern hemisphere, where it's high summer.

5. It's hard enough to be happy when religions insist on the goal of dying to achieve 'heaven', and then not being able to prove it, leaving you in 'limbo'. ;-)

>43 BarbaraBlackcinder: I don't question your personal experience of religion, but I do think it is very sad that that is the way religion has manifested itself to you.

If you google "how to evangelise," that manifestation is actually pretty standard recommended practice.

>45 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Yes, of course. I don't deny it happens. But most of those Google hits are about evangelical protestants, who are only one manifestation of Christianity, admittedly a loud and visible one in the USA.

Interestingly the third Google hit for "how to evangelise" is "how not to evangelise", which gives a slightly different perspective. The term evangelisation is probably also used differently by the world's largest Christian church than it is by protestant evangelicals. To the former it is more about bringing about God's kingdom in the world, to the latter about proselytisation.

Pope Francis, probably currently the most popular religious leader in the world, has also weighed in, with a quote attributed to his namesake St Francis: share the Gospel always; when necessary, use words.

> 44

Let's cut the crap, jtf.

Religion is all about discounting the importance of this (temporal) life and focusing on the importance of the (eternal) life after death.

In the view presented by religion the ONLY purpose of this life is to do or believe the right thing and not do or believe the wrong thing, thus qualifying for the good place in the next (eternal) life and not the bad place in the next (eternal) life.

You present yourself as some sort of learned theologian and yet you do not understand this?

Are you kidding us?

If you do not agree with the definition of religion - the actual definition of religion - then what game are you playing?

Are you JUST a believer in the social gospel?

What about life after death? Are you perhaps an atheist who thinks it best to humor the inferiors who can't make it without fairy tales? Are you some sort of Bishop Spong character, just using the language and acting as a religious leader because its the best - and easiest - job you qualify for?

If not, then what the heck ARE you?

>47 JGL53: I don't think I have ever denied that those manifestations of religion do exist. I challenge you to accept that other manifestations also exist.

> 48

I agree.

Now - what is your particular manifestation of religion?

Uh - everybody eventually makes it back to the highest level - as the Hindus and Buddhists believe?

Is it the Golden Rule - and Nothing else?

Or something different? What?

How about saving us from guessing? If your view of christianity is really hot stuff then don't be shy. Tell us precisely and succinctly ALL about it.

Even if you don't like to proselytize, I give you special dispensation.

Break it down for us.

>49 JGL53: I don't think I'm capable of describing a whole lifestyle, a worldview, a relationship in a soundbite, a sentence, a paragraph, a set of intellectual assertions. If you look at my posts on LT over the years you get a sense of how I see religion. I know you've read many of them already as you routinely ridicule them!

And lest you think I am out on a limb religion-wise, I think you'll find that broadly I'm not so far from the current leader of my particular church.

JtF:
Matthew 5:15
1 Peter 3:15

Go on, don't be shy. The only one who'll bite you here is ...me :-).

>50 John5918: (Assuming I remember correctly which is your leader; it is so seldom that we interact...:)

Broadly, you resist equality for women and LGBTs, you oppose self-determination for pregnant women, you think condoms more evil than AIDS, you resist justice for victims of child rapists, you want to encounter atheists so you can tell us we're going to Hell, ...? All based on claims involving something - 'God' - that nobody's ever seen...

Just checking, you understand...

_______

Footnote: Reactionary vintage vatican virgin

>52 zangasta: In my experience talking to John on these forums, he does not practice his religion as a series of talking points. Unlike you, who seem only able to confront the religious as if they were a series of Fox New broadcasters.

He is also doing far more on the ground work than me, an atheist, at confronting the suffering and injustice visited upon human beings. Including dealing with rape, torture, AIDS, and all the attendant horrors that come with working for peace in a volatile country prone to violence.

Though I do of course not know, I'll concede he's also doing a lot more than me.

How does that justify perpetuating the dumb ideas that resulted in six million dead Jews?

>53 southernbooklady: Ah, I see my error.

I should of course stop pointing to the horrid disease John is carrying, and rather focus on the man in stead.

John, possibly you're a really nice chap, you and Arctic both. Now would you just please consider taking measures against that stuff you're spreading about so liberally?

Your argument is lazy. Substantively, it isn't any different than the poster who trots out "You are all God haters." Or asking how anyone could claim for themselves a philosophy that let to the genocide of millions of people (Pol Pot, Stalin).

You can argue that faith is "dumb" of course. But you should argue on the merits or your position. Knocking down straw men may make you feel better, but it looks pretty silly to everyone else.

> O_o

I do think that faith is a failed way of acquiring knowledge of how the world actually works.

Oddly enough though, what I was referring to as dumb ideas, was things like "virgin birth" and Jewish culpability.

And I think the notion that Adam gave birth to Eve is just a ludicrous fantasy born of an insecure male mind. So what?

Once again, these are just talking points. Your nitpicking about the specifics of the religion -- any religion -- does nothing to confront the believer's overall world view of his or her faith. Any more than a person waving gay porn at you does anything to address your notion of what constitutes a moral life.

Try confronting people on their own terms of what religion means to them, and then you'll have a place to discuss why it means something different to you.

But sneering at people gets you nowhere, and just makes you look like you can't come up with a rational argument.

Let me try this a different way...

I want to buy something off you that you have tagged at $100. (Substitute your local currency for $ throughout.)

I offer you a $10 bill.

"No. It's $100."

"But that is $100. :-)"

"Errm. No, that's only $10."

"But it is $100. And I teach prisoners that it's $100. :-) And it's really meaningful to me that this is $100. In fact, maybe I'm starting to feel a little offended right now."

"Still only $10."

"You really are lazy. Try seeing this bill as I see it. Go on, have a little faith."

___________________

At least all this "debating" is flexing my creativity muscles... Oh, right, you wanted a rational, not creative, argument. My bad. Maybe I'm trying too hard to get through to the theistic mindset.

I enjoyed the thoughts on your blog, Arctic. Thanks for sharing.

>58 southernbooklady: Very true! I believe there are psychological studies that confirm that very point.

>59 zangasta: Maybe I'm trying too hard to get through to the theistic mindset.

I don't think you're trying at all.

you wanted a rational, not creative, argument.

Yes I do.

I think what you are trying to present is the unicorn argument against belief. (It's a valid argument, but it's been made many times on these fora and has not notably convinced anyone to jump ship and swim to the other side.) But the way you flit from thing to thing makes it hard for me to be certain. Your nonlinear debating style comes across as incoherent to me. (And not especially "creative").

Thanks, southernbooklady!

>28 JGL53:

Thanks, JGL53 !

> 63

No, Thank You.

- So we basically have four types who come here to "debate" religion and its associated issues:

1. Atheists - who are looking for any theist to come up with any kind of logically sound and rational argument for theism even being a live option. Up until December of our lard 2013 we have been sadly disappointed. When are you theist folks gonna come up with the goods? Never, one might predict?

2. Theists of the "I certainly can prove god's existence" type.
These folks ALWAYS seem to slip in their own defecation and fall back hard on their heads. When will they ever come through for us? Again, it seems actual judgment day and the last trump will arrive before they ever make any more sense than a dog howling at the moon (metaphorically-speaking).

3. Theists who just preach by rote - absolutely no semblance of an "argument", just naked assertions. Bible humping bible-humpers who hump bibles. Mindless zombies. Completely useless.

4.Theists or other religionists who are convinced that analyzing and criticizing religion takes away its magic and wonder. They are only here to encourage us to think nice thoughts, be nice to one another, love god, love your fellow man (humans), love yourself, yadda, yadda. IOW, they have no need to argue the specifics or even admit what their particular beliefs are or creed is. It is not about thinking or reasoning to them - those are only tools. It is all about feelings - for our fellow humans - agape love. They have no use for prickles - they only preach goo.

I'm not sure which group of theists is inherently the most annoying.

I'm gonna have to go with #4.

The observation that theistic beliefs are defended on one of three grounds seems correct to me:
- Starting point: "They are true."
- Once holes have been embarrassingly poked in truth-claims: "They are beneficial."
- If one can get past that: "Atheism is bad."

Great, so "they are literally true" isn't held to very much around here. (Though I frankly think more highly of people who make direct claims, eg "You're going to hell", "Jesus really cursed that pig tree." They don't leave me feeling as if I'm wrestling an oiled fig.)

"Atheism is bad" tends to get burned pretty quickly. I even saw John (I think) recently voluntarily qualify himself by admitting the universality of the good qualities he was claiming for his belief system. An attitude possibly picked up from his leader, whose statement I recall was corrected the very next day: "Keep worrying catholics, atheists are still going to hell."

But we seem to be stuck in two ruts: claims of "sophistication", and claims of beneficiality of some sort. The latter of which generally entails misattributing boringly common human behaviour, or some "sophistication" of it's own. "Sophistication" can manifest itself as, for example, a "hermeneutic" of that long and gloomy walk which entails a father's willingness to butcher his own son - ie discounting the actual contents of the story in favour of things which are not there. (Who's to say that "Abraham's" morality, and not his 'faith', was being tested?)

"Sophistication" can also manifest itself as "meaningfulness", a concept conveying benefit and/or "truth" in varying measures. eg Supposedly, roses lack value because their beauty fades; they have to persist into "eternity" to be valued. (Bah! Humbug.) If belief in this "benefit" is induced, it is conflated with "truth".

(I think there was some other sub-point I wanted to describe, but I clarified more thoughts for myself than I realised were waiting in the wings, so I'm calling it a post here. I realise this will entail some sloppy editing, but... you're not paying me.)

My holocaust obsession is an attempt at addressing claims of benefit. I'm not entirely blind to the probability that christians are human beings, who just like Auschwitz guards, find "meaningful" various beliefs or actions I find distasteful. And there is a point to be made: In all this talk about how various atheists "don't appreciate what theists' beliefs mean to them", aren't theists at all interested in learning what theists' beliefs mean to atheists? What gives? Seems unfairly one-sided.

_______

Apparently an important wrapper to these three points - and though I'm not going to claim to remain at all times strictly on one side of the line: Criticism of cancer is not criticism of it's victim. ... Ah. So pointing out that cancer is dangerous makes people feel a discomfort they would rather avoid? To the extent of blaming me for pointing out their condition is in fact not the boon claimed? (So - just out of curiosity - how exactly do you propose that we talk Auschwitz guards out of their jobs?)

_______

You may claim as much as you like that I'm failing, but I see no grounds for your claim that I'm not trying. eg One reason for my refusal to attempt to "see the extra 0 through faith" derives from this viewing attempt to understand how belief works. But also, I'm not so much trying to speak to the theistic mindset in it's own jargon, as I am attempting to convey to it my reception of it's claims. I doubt I'm failing entirely; and they're welcome "to give an answer".

_______

You wouldn't be able to tell me why #61 reminds me somehow of Asch's conformity studies would you?

#64

Perhaps atheists who debate religion are indeed looking for a "logically sound and rational argument for theism even being a live option".

Other atheists seem quite content with an option that many theists adopt; 'I've found an answer that works for me, thanks'. No debate, no effort to convert; simply living a life content that you have an answer to your questions.

And if being an atheist is indeed a wonderfully fulfilling lifestyle with rich rewards, then you shouldn't need to 'debate' or 'argue' your position; people are going to look at you, see how satisfied you are with your life, and tell themselves 'What's his secret? I've got to find out'. (The same is true for theists as well.)

Many of those 'debating' the issue, on both sides, appear to be trying to convince themselves as much as the other side.

"The self-styled 'moderates' provide the shady tree under which the derogatorily labelled (though also, oddly, self-styled) 'fundamentalists' build their pie-in-the-sky."

Liberally paraphrased from Sam Harris.

> 66

Well, that's a rather cynical view. I would give the topic a more benevolent interpretation than that.

Under your analysis Simon Wiesenthal was just an annoying asshole.

And all debates, including I suppose the classical debates at Oxford and Cambridge, are all ridiculous wastes of time.

I think you should rethink all this. Perhaps your prejudices are showing through.

> 65

"...theistic beliefs are defended on one of three grounds...:

- Starting point: 'They are true.'
- Once holes have been embarrassingly poked in truth-claims: 'They are beneficial.'
- If one can get past that: 'Atheism is bad.'"

That all has such a ring of truth to it that it bears repeating. At least once. Maybe a lot.

> 67

Essentially true. By using the same god language the liberals give the literalists cover - to claim they are in the majority, in order to invoke argumentum ad populum.

It's really effing asinine when one thinks about it.

>66 BruceCoulson:

I have an idea that there may just be others out there like I was 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 23, 28, 32, 39, etc, years of age.

I'd like to get through to them, let them know there's a way out of the incoherent, unintelligible babblings of the "authorities" set to "guide" them.

I'd like to attempt to ... If I could actually manage to decontaminate even just one carrier of the faith virus, I'd be reducing the chance of their poisoning the upbringing of those people I care about.

And there are people out there who are being decontaminated. At a rate higher than the breeding rate of religious families? I dunno, but that seems no reason to give up.

And I enjoy exploring these ideas with various people. Sometimes.

>65 zangasta: You may claim as much as you like that I'm failing, but I see no grounds for your claim that I'm not trying.

I came to that conclusion because your response to John's inability to distill his entire world view down to a twitter post was "you resist equality for women and LGBTs, you oppose self-determination for pregnant women, you think condoms more evil than AIDS, you resist justice for victims of child rapists, you want to encounter atheists so you can tell us we're going to Hell, ...?"

It was a facile statement that pretends the man who is Catholic is interchangeable with the institution of the Catholic church. (Not to mention mis-representing at least some of the tenets of that church). A cheap rhetorical trick that ignores the realities of how believers live their lives.

Personally, I prefer to deal in realities. That means knowing the difference between what a person thinks and what an institution preaches. Or what a person does, and what a church tells them to do. There are very good reasons to be an atheist -- as a philosophical position is has a strong foundation that does not need to rely on this kind of rhetorical sleight of hand to make its case. It deserves a better defense than the one you've chosen to wave around.

>66 BruceCoulson: Many of those 'debating' the issue, on both sides, appear to be trying to convince themselves as much as the other side.

One of the reasons I originally started chiming in on LT Talk was to test philosophical positions that I held only casually, to see if they stood up to challenge. The end result has been to strengthen my original opinions, solidifying my initial, vague, "I don't believe in God" to a firm acceptance of atheism. In fact, despite how it might look, I have a feeling that I'm more "hardcore" than most of the atheist posters here, in that I'm not in the least agnostic. I sort of feel about the idea of God the way I feel about people who insist Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare: show me positive evidence.

But I have LT to thank for helping me to refine what I think, and I like a good debate, which is why I get impatient with people on either side of the issue who resort to rhetorical tricks when they could be discussing something of substance. As I said, I think it's a lazy way to argue.

>71 southernbooklady: Ah, thanks for becoming specific about what you saw as a problem. :-)

May I, however, draw your attention to that little question mark you quoted me on? Or would that be too little to satisfy your sense of fairness? Perhaps it's location conveyed to you another meaning than I intended?

>72 zangasta: If there is another interpretation than the explicit, I'm open to hearing it. Right now I don't see it.

BruceCoulson wrote
"And if being an atheist is indeed a wonderfully fulfilling lifestyle with rich rewards, then you shouldn't need to 'debate' or 'argue' your position; people are going to look at you, see how satisfied you are with your life, and tell themselves 'What's his secret? I've got to find out'. (The same is true for theists as well.)"

I do set an example in real life. I'm arguably loads more fun in person. However, this is a forum. I wish people to know that taking religion seriously is dangerous. I find the best examples are the replies from the religious.

>71 southernbooklady:

I think that one difference between us entailed in your post, is that whereas the evils of Nazism are "obvious" to both of us (though presumably you know about as little about Nazism as I do), the evils of christianity is obvious has gradually manifested itself only to me.

Let me attempt an explanation which I've been wanting to attempt for a few days now of three levels of evil I see in christianity:
- christianity's inherent evils, eg Abraham's long and gloomy walk with Isaac, Jewish culpability for Jesus' death, discounting actual life for life "after death";
- christianity's adherents' blindness to said inherent evils, whether through "hermeneutic" befuddlement(1), ignorance, or whatever;
- "Blissful" blinkeredness.

I am someone who really appreciates those pictures (Laughing at Auschwitz) that I linked to earlier. They show how though your day job consists of murdering people, you can enjoy -rather well even! - yourself; your life can have purpose and meaning. Another manifestation of this phenomenon is Chinese foot binding. And christianity. You can align yourself with one of the very worst calamities to have hit humankind, and yet be content with your life; you can remain "blissfully" unaware of my first and second gripes.

___________

1: Even as a child I found Abraham's acquiescence to Yahweh's trolling disturbing, but when I made the effort of reading Genesis from cover to cover some years ago, deliberately pushing the preachments from my mind, and attempting to read it as it was actually written (or at least translated!), I discovered a very different book from what had been presented to me.

>73 southernbooklady: I'm asking JtF if this is what he stands for?

> 73

He may see jtf at the very least as an enabler.

I might agree.

In the sense that a person who knowingly furnishes a gun to a psycho-killer is to some degree responsible for the resulting massacre of innocents.

By Z's standards Amy American who votes and pays taxes has enabled the Vietnam War, the War in Iraq, drone attacks, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, slavery, TSA overreach, and the reign of terror in Chile.

All tax payers should renounce their citizenship and/or move to a "pure" country that has no history of repression.

#68

I'm not sure I see any connection between someone who spent a great deal of time hunting and capturing suspected war criminals for trial and debates about belief. Are you saying that hunting criminal suspects for trial is a waste of time? (I'll agree that it's probably pretty annoying for the suspects, but I doubt an overwhelming concern for their welfare motivated you.)

And I'm quite sure that as a rationalist, had the crimes been committed for other motivations (say, political; such as the Armenians or various Asian ethnic groups in the Soviet Union) they would have been equally crimes deserving of agressive prosecution.

And that's quite a leap from questioning agressively debating a particular subject to presuming that I'm saying that all debates are wasteful and pointless. (Many debates ARE wasteful and pointless; but that can be said about most human pasttimes. Or rather, the points often seem to be confirmation bias rather than actually learning anything.)

#71

Note I said 'many', not 'all'. In human affairs, there's very few blanket statements that can apply to everyone; there are almost always exceptions. If the discussions have been of benefit to you, that's excellent. You do seem to be one of the people looking for clarification, not justification, of your thoughts on the matter.

#74

"I wish people to know that taking religion seriously is dangerous"

Very well; how are we defining 'religion'? Is it solely belief in supernatural forces? Does that make atrocities proposed or committed for other reasons less dangerous? What if rulers believe in a political system with the same fervency (and ruthlessness) as a supernatural belief system; does that convert it to a religion?

>76 zangasta: If so, your question suggests several things:

--an associative leap from "faith" to "repression" that is about as relevant to the believer as a leap from "homosexual" to "pedophile" is to a gay person.

--you have not paid attention to any of john's posts, either in this thread or in any other where you both meet.

John's position on the role of the church, on Catholicism, or Christianity can be challenged and debated without turning it into something it is not.

And for what it is worth, you are completely wrong in your assessment of my position on religion. I am very hostile to organized religion of nearly all kinds--the jury is still out for me on some types of Buddhism. So I very much see the harm perpetuated by Christianity. I'm female after all. I have to contend with ingrained, institutionalized, and internalized misogyny 24/7. You talk about the Christian's culpability in the Holocaust? If you are male, then believe me you've got no room to talk.

I am nevertheless capable of seeing the difference between the church, and the church goer. Just as I am capable of distinguishing between the NRA and the gun owner. The individual man and the entire edifice--religious and secular--he has constructed to keep women down.

I mean, come on, people--surely you can muster up a better way to debate with sincere believers than name-calling and pointing fingers. You've got to be smarter than that.

>77 JGL53: In the sense that a person who knowingly furnishes a gun to a psycho-killer is to some degree responsible for the resulting massacre of innocents.

Given that John lives in the Sudan, and he and his wife are often risking their lives to stop the massacre of innocents, I find this statement beneath contempt.

> 80 "...Given that John lives in the Sudan, and he and his wife are often risking their lives to stop the massacre of innocents, I find this statement beneath contempt."

Then john should concentrate on his good deeds, which are indeed commendable, and quit wasting his valuable time defending his indefensible, irrational and immoral belief system here at LT forums. If he did so I would have less contempt for him. E.g., he believes in hell. So much for john.

Speaking of contempt there is plenty of contempt to go around here. I would welcome you to the club but as I recall you have already received your share at various times so I guess not.

BruceCoulson wrote,
"Very well; how are we defining 'religion'?"

Religion is literally a willing suspension of disbelief. It invites irrationality. It causes neuroses, because we're really smarter than that.

Religion can distract from and dismiss reality. Dreaming of an afterlife can make actual life infinitesimal.

Religion can isolate and belittle people.

It looks to me that unless we realize the starkness of reality, we cannot know just how much we need each other.

Wiki definition of religion:

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

>82 androidlove: That looks more like an opinion or a judgement than a definition.

Bruce asked how "we" were defining religion for the argument. I assume that he wanted to know my definition so that he could sportingly argue on my terms.

I define religion as - a willing suspension of disbelief.

I then go on to demonstrate aforementioned danger.

>82 androidlove:: Religion can do all of the negative things you list.

But religion can also do many positive things. Religion can elicit empathy and compassion for others, especially for the poor and marginalized. Religion can provoke men and women to stand up for justice against oppression. Religion can provide hope and relief to people who suffer from the darkest of despairing evils.

His faith in God is what provoked Maximilian Kolbe to step in and offer himself in place of a stranger at Auschwitz. Somehow, his witness of extraordinarily selfless love and charity escapes your analysis of the death camps.

I openly and willingly admit that many evils--the gravest of evils--have been committed in the perverted name of religion. I openly and willingly pray for forgiveness for such evils, whose commission was a blasphemy against the God in whose name they were done.

But for this to be a productive conversation, you have to be willing in turn to admit to the great good done in the name of religion.

If you remain intentionally and maliciously "blinkered" to that reality, then you are the very hypocrite whose presence amongst believers you denounce.

nathanielcampbell wrote,
"Maximilian Kolbe"

My dad couldn't wait to "go see Jesus" either. Can you blame them?

nathanielcampbell wrote,
"many evils--the gravest of evils--have been committed in the perverted name of religion"

Then why participate in this easily abused fantasy? It obtains perceived validity through numbers.

>87 androidlove:: It is a sad form of "humanism" (and unworthy of the name) that spits upon the graves of those who sacrificed themselves to save the lives of others.

What is the sacrifice in achieving eternal bliss? Jihadists do it all the time.

BBL

Kolbe's eternal bliss involved being sent into a room with no heat and no food with something like ten other men until they all died of hunger. Men were randomly sent there and Kolbe took the place of one man, knowing what it entailed.

I guess in your book he should just tried to steal food from the others.

>87 androidlove: Then why participate in this easily abused fantasy

It is in the nature of human being to "easily abuse" all fantasies--religious and secular.

> 91

Actually not all abuse is equal.

I can only imagine that all humans engage in suspension of disbelief, at least temporarily, in order to enjoy fictional works - say, Moby Dick or Sister Carrie. This is especially necessary to enjoy fantasy fiction, say Star Wars and Star Trek and Avatar.

Religion is suspension of disbelief taken as a world view or philosophical conviction - as a lifelong state of mind. And therein lies the problem - as basically pointed out by androidlove.

The fact that the religious type of suspension of disbelief many times has good effects is no justification to accept it as an ipso facto good thing. However the fact that the religious type of suspension of disbelief can and does many times have Really negative effects is a good argument against it. That seems unfair, but life is unfair.

An analogy might be meditation. For twenty minutes twice a day one might take a time out of sorts - going to a quit place, sitting in the lotus position, and either count from 10 to 1 and back to 10 continuously, or focus on a spot on the wall in front of you, or half-close the eyes and try to completely blank out your mind.

This therapeutic practice can help ameliorate the "monkey mind" that could plague (especially) the modern person and give a sort of needed tune up as it were by clearing out the cobwebs.

However, if one decides to just meditate every waking moment and never cease other than to quickly eat or utilize the toilet then that might not be good for the mind/brain or one's life.

The fact that some few do a lifelong meditation and get by and seem to be happy is not a recommendation for us all to withdraw from ordinary life, as it were, 24/7.

Not a perfect analogy since the absolutist meditator is only withdrawing from life and not (necessarily) living in a fantasy world of his or her own creation while rejecting the real world.

I first encountered the story of Kolbe in David Toole's Waiting for Godot in Sarajevo.

Here is part of the Wiki article on him: After the outbreak of World War II, which started with the invasion of his nation by Nazi Germany, Kolbe provided shelter to refugees from Greater Poland, including 2,000 Jews whom he hid from Nazi persecution in his friary in Niepokalanów. On 17 February 1941, he was arrested by the German Gestapo and imprisoned in the Pawiak prison. On 28 May, he was transferred to Auschwitz as prisoner #16670.

At the end of July 1941, three prisoners disappeared from the camp, prompting SS-Hauptsturmführer Karl Fritzsch, the deputy camp commander, to pick 10 men to be starved to death in an underground bunker in order to deter further escape attempts. When one of the selected men, Franciszek Gajowniczek, cried out, "My wife! My children!", Kolbe volunteered to take his place.
In his prison cell, Kolbe celebrated Mass each day and sang hymns with the prisoners. He led the other condemned men in song and prayer and encouraged them by telling them they would soon be with Mary in Heaven. Each time the guards checked on him, he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered. After two weeks of dehydration and starvation, only Kolbe remained alive. The guards wanted the bunker emptied and they gave Kolbe a lethal injection of carbolic acid. Some who were present at the injection say that he raised his left arm and calmly waited for the injection. His remains were cremated on 15 August, the feast day of the Assumption of Mary.

In WWII Untold numbers of Russian men who were true believers in Marxism-Leninism died, many in agony, fighting for the utopian ideology in which they sincerely believed. Many women did too. Many many of these men were rewarded military honors for their unselfish sacrifices.

In WWII thousands of Japanese men (kamikaze) volunteered to sacrifice themselves for their ideology of emperor and ancestor and race worship. Many many of them did give their lives unselfishly for their ideology.

In the 1980-1988 war between Iraq and Iran many many thousands of young Iranian men, some hardly teenagers, ran across open fields into the teeth of Iraqi firepower to an almost certain death. Their sacrifice was dedicated to their religion and their country.

There are thousands of such examples throughout history. Some of the martyrs were religious idealists, some held to secular idealism.

These are facts. Some people here may hate facts, but too effing bad. "Facts is facts" and facts speak for themselves.

So - no ideology, secular or religious, proves it is the "One and Only Truth" by the example of utter belief to the point of severe suffering and death by its followers. If so then there are innumerous examples of the "one and only truth" - which I believe is a flat out logical impossibility.

So Mr. A-S has related a most sad and heart-wrenching dramatic factual story. It even brought a tear to my cynical eye.

But it proved no eternal and unique truth.... other than the obvious fact that humans many times are willing to immolate themselves for a believed truth (out of a host of possible truth claims).

The story of Kolbe is indeed a harrowing one. That many others have made what is often termed "the ultimate sacrifice" does not not diminish what Kolbe did. The phrase "they gave their lives" is often repeated for those who had their lives taken. Whether such sacrifice is made in the heat of the moment, with adrenalin flowing, or calmly offering to take the place of another, those actions cannot be compared by the rest of us. Well, at least most of us. That Kolbe was made a saint by the Catholic church is fitting, what less memory should he deserve?
What is perverse is, that in the late 20th century, it was necessary for his beatification to be confirmed by the "evidence" of intercessory "miracles" on his behalf. Were his deeds not enough, that claims of magic had to be invoked, in order for him to be so recognised?

> 95

The R.C. church does not issue suggestions. The R.C. church has rules - rules which they allege come from god. It is what makes them a religion.

These rules don't have to make sense to anyone, even the R.C. church, since god's thoughts are not our thoughts, god's mind by definition is beyond (human) understanding. Understand?

Questioning the (god) rules - that is considered very bad - following the rules - that is obligatory and expected - otherwise bad things will happen to good people. Know what I mean?

Arctic-Stranger wrote,
"I guess in your book he should just tried to steal food from the others."

I guess that in your book, you advocate beating puppies.

Arctic, you are a never ending source of amusement.

"Religion is suspension of disbelief taken as a world view or philosophical conviction - as a lifelong state of mind. And therein lies the problem - as basically pointed out by androidlove."

I would point out that many completely secular systems; the aforementioned marxist/leninist/stalinist soldiers; fall under that definition quite nicely. The True Believer, as Eric Hoffer observes, doesn't have to accept a supernatural force to suspend their disbelief about a political or philosophical system. So, under this definition of religion, the majority of organized religions are merely examples of that state of mind; not directly a cause of it. So, we can see that ranting about the non-existence of God is attacking a symptom of what some feel to be a disease, ignoring the root cause of the matter. Which can make the ranter feel good about being superior; but doesn't solve the problem in the slightest. "You'll make more gods, in name of Whom, to burn, and maim, and slay."

It also ignores that the suspension of disbelief appear to be quite natural to humans.

And there's the problem that resistance to common sense; to rational decisions made from available evidence, is also the mark of people who manage to make real changes in society, because they refuse, in the face of all evidence, to accept 'it's always been this way, and it will always be this way'.

>98 BruceCoulson: So, under this definition of religion, the majority of organized religions are merely examples of that state of mind; not directly a cause of it.

Exactly. Thank you for your succinctness.

BruceCoulson wrote,
"ignoring the root cause of the matter"

It's insecurity.

98

As well as the True Believers of modernity.

97

You denigrate a man who made a noble sacrifice as someone who was just hoping for a quick ticket to eternal bliss. Are you saying he should have been more modern, and realized that all he could hope for is a decent life here and now? If so would you criticize him for stealing food to attain that end?

If not, what should he have done?

Or did you just dismiss him because NC brought him up, and not knowing anything about him, you thought a snide (but apparently ignorant ) remark was in the appropriate knee jerk response?

I can't imagine all that drama being enjoyable. There is no way I can change you. I can only hope that people who are on the fence can take something from your behavior.

> 98 "I would point out that many completely secular systems; the aforementioned marxist/leninist/stalinist soldiers; fall under that definition quite nicely..."

Yes, I agree. So?

> 98 "...The True Believer, as Eric Hoffer observes, doesn't have to accept a supernatural force to suspend their disbelief about a political or philosophical system..."

Yes, I agree. So?

> 98 "...So, under this definition of religion, the majority of organized religions are merely examples of that state of mind; not directly a cause of it..."

Yes, I would agree. So?

> 98 "...So, we can see that ranting about the non-existence of God is attacking a symptom of what some feel to be a disease, ignoring the root cause of the matter..."

Who is ranting about the non-existence of god? I believe I put the burden on the believer to prove his case and he fails. I win. I point out the obvious and you interpret as rant. So who died and made you the arbiter of all this? Must I take you seriously? Why?


> 98 "...It also ignores that the suspension of disbelief appear to be quite natural to humans..."

I pointed out this very thing at the beginning of my post #92. Now you act as if this is a new idea of which you now need to inform us? Are you being disingenuous or are you just a poor reader?

> 98 "...And there's the problem that resistance to common sense; to rational decisions made from available evidence, is also the mark of people who manage to make real changes in society, because they refuse, in the face of all evidence, to accept 'it's always been this way, and it will always be this way'..."

Say whaa? Can you restate that paragraph in non-gobbledegook standard English? I am sure it is an interesting and informative avowal, it just smells like it is cognitively unsound. Bath it and perfume it and run it by us again.

> 101

"As well as the True Believers of modernity."

I wonder - do I qualify as a "True Believer of modernity."?

OK. Cause it sounds like a good thing to me.

I mean, what is the alternative - a True Believer in witchcraft? A True Believer in taboos, totems, magical amulets, signs and wonders, ancestor worship? The Nicene Creed? What?

lol.

I can't imagine all that drama being enjoyable. There is no way I can change you. I can only hope that people who are on the fence can take something from your behavior.

Wisely said. The principals in such conversations rarely change. But we can hope that your words will give a moment's pause to those attracted to your views. It is not often that people take their views to their natural conclusion, to bear the fruits the ideas promise. But it is certainly eye-opening to see you snidely attacking a man who endured starvation and death to save a stranger.

What is perverse is, that in the late 20th century, it was necessary for his beatification to be confirmed by the "evidence" of intercessory "miracles" on his behalf. Were his deeds not enough, that claims of magic had to be invoked, in order for him to be so recognized?

Meh. On some level I agree with you. But being enrolled as a canonized saint isn't merely recognition. Every member of the church is a "saint," and anyone who dies in the friendship of God is a dead saint. You can pray to your grandmother, if you wish, and you could pray to Kolbe from the moment he died. Being enrolled in the canon is a commendation of a particular individual to the entire worldwide church, forever, and involves setting a saint's day and so forth. The process aims to make sure the church doesn't enroll someone who later turns out to have been not what he seemed to be.

>106 timspalding: I think many Catholics would agree with you, Tim, that the miracle thing is a bit superfluous and maybe the process of canonisation needs a bit of aggiornamento. But as you say, there has to be a process for the public, official proclamation of a saint, and as you also say, there are plenty of non-official saints that we can look to.

Personally I think Nelson Mandela should be made a saint, even though he's not a Catholic, but really it doesn't matter because people venerate him and draw inspiration from him anyway.

The process aims to make sure the church doesn't enroll someone who later turns out to have been not what he seemed to be.

I'll start praying to Madiba to cure my bunion, in case it might promote his cause at some time in the future.

>108 jbbarret: No, it's the toenail of St Vibiana which will cure your bunions (see http://www.somareview.com/scruples.cfm)!

The Gospels said nothing about the day of Jesus' birth, so the early Christians did not celebrate it. The historical addition of Christ to the celebration of the winter solstice did not occur until after 300CE and as late as 1800, some devout Christian sects, like the Puritans, forbade their members from celebrating Christmas because it was considered a pagan holiday. Wiki

>109 John5918: That's funny, and thanks for your concern, but I don't really have bunions. Never have had. It wasn't a scientific claim.

For those who have bunions and for those who do not have bunions, let us pray.

The true meaning of Christmas--Christ came to save us from our bunions! (he says as he struggles to finish a sermon where the text in question is the slaughter of the innocents.)

We've had bunions ever since the Fall.

>113 Arctic-Stranger:

The 'aul Salvation conundrum,lol. Potential tete-tete as
christ knocks on a door.

christ- "Let me in".
Human- "Why?".
christ- "So I can save you"
Human- "From what".
christ- "From what I'm going to do if you don't let me in".

Gotta love that carrot and stick. :-)

>113 Arctic-Stranger: the slaughter of the innocents

The real thing is going on in parts of South Sudan at the moment. I imagine our pastors won't have to look too far for inspiration for their homilies on the topic.

>116 John5918: I often wonder how much of the violence in the Middle East and Africa would be ameliorated if we truly embraced solar power on a planet-wide scale.

115

Are you so bigoted that you think this is what I preach? You might want to try a dose of reality as an antidote to your prejudices.

> 117

A bit of solar mythology sounds like a smashing idea.

I mean, it's worth a shot. Helios or Ra, one fiction is as good as the next, move over Jesus and give one of the other creations a go at it.

My personal favourite would be for Aphrodite to marry Mars. War and love would make a really complex child.
Aw heck, let's just stick with this Jesus dude.

>118 Arctic-Stranger:
How would I know what you preach or what your inner
rumblings are?
I've never met you, have no idea about you.

My post was about a jesus and a human.
What you preach or don't preach, up to you...."Fill your boots...." as they say in the British Army.

You don't know, yet you link a comment like that to the thread where I said I was working on a sermon. Now you want to back track from your snide comment because you realize you spoke out of turn, yet you will not admit the mistake.

You either made a mistake by linking your comment to mine, or you are afraid to admit your bias. Either way, you may want to rethink how you post in the future.

>121 Arctic-Stranger:

Listen, to help you out here.
I hate to break it to you, but I honestly didn't do a verbatim read on 100+ posts on this thread. I scrolled down to close to the bottom and saw the light-hearted nature of the banter in posts #112 and #113 about being divinely saved from bunions, and I posted accordingly, post number 112 being yours and 113 being another person(whom I also don't know).
The rest is water off a duck's vertebrae to me.
I would think, nay, assume, that I would be similarly so far down your radar of consciousness as to not even warrant a scintilla of real prejudice to begin with,likewise.
Because that's how I feel, not just about you, but any person who has posted on this thread.That is not tantamount to me having ill-feeling to anyone on here either, let me add.

> 122

To make an apropos analogy: the best way to view A-S is as if he were a toy which you occasionally take out of the box to play with. And don't pretend he is a real person. That is no fun. It makes the game too damn weird - as the toy would make a mighty weird person.

> 115

That is not just a funny religion-based joke - which it certainly is - but it takes the concept "joke" to a level of ultimate purpose of what a joke can be.

Any joke, to be funny and qualify as a joke, must be ultimately based in reality. To do otherwise is to get a "I don't get it." response from anyone to whom you tell it.

Your joke puts in a nutshell the entire ontology of christianity - as it has always been traditionally understood (before the minority of "liberals" starting smearing vaseline on the windshield, i.e., averring religious language all has profound meaning but we shouldn't "literalize" it - hardly at all).

I.e., in a somewhat larger nut shell, either the Nicene creed is just metaphorical language, in which case there is no serious disagreement between religion and atheism - some of us appreciate the expressive "poetry" and some of us don't - Or it Is most certainly historical and literal, in which case we have a insane vs. sane debate - which generates a lot of heat but very rarely any light. Another analogy - do NOT attempt to tell a five year old there is no Santa. That argument is pretty much going nowhere.

lol.

A) your little ditty has little to do with Jesus or Christianity, and nothing to do with Christians who post on this thread, most of whom show much more respect to atheists than they receive from them.

B) You might try reading a post before you respond to it.

A good joke, as we all could agree, bears repeating:

christ- "Let me in".
Human- "Why?".
christ- "So I can save you"
Human- "From what".
christ- "From what I'm going to do if you don't let me in".

> 124. You might try reading a post before you respond to it.

For some reason, I haven't read any of this thread until today and have just now finished reading all of the posts (well, nearly all). Let me see if I've understood the gist of the discussion.

It's good to be good.

It's bad to be bad.

Nazis are bad.

It's stupid to think stupid things. Thinking things that aren't true is stupid.

Bad people do bad things. People who do bad things are bad. People who are stupid are bad. Therefore, stupid people do bad things.

Many of the people who have posted on this thread are stupid.

Some of the people who have posted on this thread are not stupid.

Nobody who has posted on this thread thinks they are stupid.

Did I get this right, or am I stupid?

edited to correct stupid error

>123 JGL53: And don't pretend he is a real person.

Ah, so you are among those who think the reality we interact with is just a convenient model, easily discarded when convenient because it's, uh, not really real.

Did I get this right, or am I stupid?

Well, the title of the topic did specify "Grinches allowed," so I guess it is to be expected that would attract a gaggle of them.

jburlinson wrote,
"Did I get this right, or am I stupid?"

Don't forget the ones getting their knickers in a wad over dead people.

I'm off to give comfort to the living. BBL

> 127 "Ah, so you are among those who think the reality we interact with is just a convenient model, easily discarded when convenient because it's, uh, not really real...."

Yes I will concede that A-S is real. It is just that he seems so unreal.

But I'm glad to know you are here to keep us all on the pedantic tract.

Are you a teacher in real life?

> 126

You certainly have a knack of boiling things down to the essentials.

Are you by chance a teacher in real life also?

>128 androidlove: I'm off to give comfort to the living.

Good. That's something that Christians can identify with.

JGL53 wrote,
"pedantic"

LOL That's the word I've been I've been searching for. Thank you.

>131 John5918: Just came across this quote in the NYT by a former director of the World Bank: in the last 50 years the church has probably lifted more people out of poverty than any other civic institution in history. Giving comfort to the living indeed.

http://mnatheists.org/news-and-media/letters-and-essays/178-10-things-christians...

It's a shame that poverty is allowed to exist. However, inequality seems to be a big motivator. If we were all equal, then power over others would be nullified.

>106 timspalding:
It didn't occur to me who you are, despite my previous misplaced and erroneous error reports. I feel that I should at least reply if not bow.

1st, the dead are dead. I have no reason to respect them. They're flower food.

2nd, if the most important thing to someone is reaching heaven, and being a martyr is the cherry on top, why should I admire the deed? My dad, who was in no way poor, starved himself, smoked generic menthol lights, and constantly labored. Someone remarked that it seemed he was trying to kill himself. He was. He told me he was ready to see Jesus. My dad fell over backward shoveling snow. He too got what he wanted.

>135 androidlove:

1st, the dead are dead. I have no reason to respect them. They're flower food.

You may perhaps respect their memory. I won't speak of yours, but most people do not purge their memory of loved ones, now that they're flower food. And we remember, say, Martin Luther King or Hitler in different ways--ways apart from their broadly similar value for plants. I do not, of course, demand that you believe Fr. Kolbe is still alive. But history is history, and some history is ugly and some beautiful.

There is a difference between the good you wish, and the pain you must endure for it. It seems likely to me that you have at some point shrunk from some action--whether of morality or just risk-taking--because you were afraid, or found it arduous. Does that mean you didn't want it? All believing Christians hope to go to heaven. It's quite another thing to give your life over, day by day in work and toil, or in a few days of being starved to death.

timspalding wrote,
"It seems likely to me that you have at some point shrunk from some action--whether of morality or just risk-taking--because you were afraid, or found it arduous."

It seems likely to me that you cannot understand me and hazard a guess based on your own outlook.

>133 John5918: A small change to your post would remain accurate:
Just came across this quote in the NYT by Catholic writer Robert Calderisi: in the last 50 years the church has probably lifted more people out of poverty than any other civic institution in history.

>137 androidlove:

You must be a moral mountain climber--never having shrunk from anything you thought was good. I commend you. You may be unique in the history of mankind.

Tim, I'm always trying to do the right thing. I have no regrets.

>138 jbbarret: Well, yes. There are many other labels that could also accurately apply to him. But his field is economics and international aid, he has written about it and been praised by that Catholic cheerleader The Economist (only joking about it being a Catholic cheerleader), and it is indeed significant that he has been a director of the World Bank and has been deeply involved in aid and development from that perspective. I hope you're not suggesting an argumentum ad hominem - that any professional expert who happens to be a Catholic is automatically disqualified from commenting on his area of expertise.

>140 androidlove:

Well then, I hope you continue to live that way. It would truly be something to never shrink from something you felt you ought to do for others, especially if your sense of what would be good for yourself and others is a good deal larger than would be pleasant and convenient.

I assume some people, for some hypothetical fun, want to know what I'd do if I were Max. I'm not really a fan of "what would you do?", because it's not actually happening to me. But, if I were Max, I would have followed Max's path. If it were I, I probably wouldn't have made it that far, as I'm pretty bold. However, If "I" were in that exact position, I would have done nothing. I would have been there because of a bold plan I had to kill at least one of my captors.

I had to kill at least one of my captors.

Two bodies fertilize plants better.

Yes

Tim wrote,
"especially if your sense of what would be good for yourself and others is a good deal larger than would be pleasant and convenient."

That's another good reason to work for income equality and peace on Earth. LOL

>141 John5918: I hope you're not suggesting an argumentum ad hominem - that any professional expert who happens to be a Catholic is automatically disqualified from commenting on his area of expertise.

No, of course not. But Calderisi is not unknown for using what I trust to be accurate economic data, such as that in the NYT article, and going on to suggest the importance of, say, the views of Catholicism over Protestantism. In that respect, his pronouncements on economics are not always neutral from a religious perspective. That is the only reason why I suggested a little balance to the description former director of the World Bank in #133.

>146 androidlove: That's another good reason to work for income equality and peace on Earth

I'm glad to see that you are in complete agreement with Pope Francis on this.

>140 androidlove: I'm always trying to do the right thing. I have no regrets.

That is why everyone does whatever they choose to do. "Regrets" come in when we change our mind about whatever we've chosen to do being the right thing after all. People without regret are people who think they are never wrong.

johnthefireman wrote,
"I'm glad to see that you are in complete agreement with Pope Francis on this."

He's working hard on that re-branding. It would be great if he could change the minds of believers, as there are so darn many of them.

Even if the pope could bring a socialist technological utopia, I'd still be an atheist. If the world were somehow my ideal, yet everyone else believed, I would still hold onto logic.

southernbooklady wrote,

"People without regret are people who think they are never wrong."

I don't think I would be where I am if I hadn't learned from inefficiency and failure. I just don't wear a cilice.

>150 androidlove: re-branding

Actually another interesting quote from that same article is, "He represents an essential continuity in the Roman Catholic Church’s mission..."

Catholic Social Teaching in its modern form is generally said to have begun with a document on "Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour" called Rerum Novarum issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891.

>150 androidlove: Even if the pope could bring a socialist technological utopia, I'd still be an atheist. If the world were somehow my ideal, yet everyone else believed, I would still hold onto logic.

Suggesting that what a person believes is irrelevant to what they do. Pope Francis, for example doesn't care if you believe in God or not, as long as you are helping the poor.

I don't think I would be where I am if I hadn't learned from inefficiency and failure. I just don't wear a cilice.

I find it interesting that your interpretation seems to be self-centered. After all, trying and failing is not usually considered something to regret--most scientists will tell you that failure is its own source of learning. There's nothing to regret about making the attempt, however.

"Regret" is usually something we feel when our actions have unintended consequences--when they hurt someone. Sometimes ourselves, but often other people. When that happens, we may not wear a hair shirt or weep and tear at our hair. We may, however, feel sorry for the harm we have caused and take some care to avoid doing so in the future.

southernbooklady wrote,
"Suggesting that what a person believes is irrelevant to what they do"

If it happens, I'll eat my hat.

southernbooklady wrote,
"take some care to avoid doing so in the future."

I think that's what I said.

In my self centered view, I find no reason to beat myself up. Your mileage may vary.

>153 androidlove: "Suggesting that what a person believes is irrelevant to what they do"

If it happens, I'll eat my hat.

I suppose I should have clarified, since you missed the context when you left out the second part of that statement: How about "Suggesting that what a person believes is irrelevant (to you) to what they do."

If your goal is to help the poor, why would it matter to you the reasons someone decides to help? They may do so because Jesus Christ told them to do so in their favorite book, or the Pope told them to do so in his latest sermon, or just because they have compassion and empathy. You may do so because you have compassion, or because you believe in eradicating social injustice, or because the girl you've got the hots for volunteers at a local soup kitchen and you want to get into her pants. What does any of that matter as long as the poor get their help. Who are you (or I) to judge anyone's motives, when what matters are the results?

It's great that good stuff gets done.

My arguments are about efficiency and sanity.

>155 androidlove: well, then we are back to the fact that human beings are by nature both inefficient and irrational. They are traits that infect, or enhance, every ideology and every endeavor. They are sometimes poisioness, and sometimes beneficial. But they are not unique to religion.

That is why everyone does whatever they choose to do. "Regrets" come in when we change our mind about whatever we've chosen to do being the right thing after all. People without regret are people who think they are never wrong.

Right. And people whose actions always meet ones intentions. I doubt that anyone alive can claim that. AL may perhaps means that he takes a healthy psychological attitude toward moral failing--not beating himself up over them, perhaps. And, ultimately, the good is what you should do (definitionally so), not necessarily what you should feel bad about after not doing. :)

Pope Francis, for example doesn't care if you believe in God or not, as long as you are helping the poor.

I don't think that's quite true.

southernbooklady wrote,
"they are not unique to religion."

They are the results of self-deception, of which religion is a form.

But once again, a capacity for self-deception is an attribute of being human. It is sometimes harmful and sometimes useful. It is rarely non-existent though.

Let us all stipulate that religious people and religious institutions, down through the ages and up to today, have done many good things that jesus could only be proud of. We can assume that without the religious belief, fervor, and commitment to the various creeds such good things would not have been done or as great (or can we?). In any case the pragmatic effect of religious belief is many times good. May we all stipulate and agree that this is the case?

OK.

We could also agree that many bad things have been done in the name of religion that undoubtedly makes jesus very disappointed, perhaps even makes him cry.

Let us all stipulate that such is likewise the case - can we not?

OK.

Now - in weighing the effects of religion, does the scale tip to the side of the good or to the side of the bad? I.e. is religion worth the trouble - does the good outweigh the bad?

Ah - there our point of contention we shall never agree upon. Agreed?

That is to say, cherry-picking one's proffered examples does not prove anything.

E.g., if I only concentrate on the charitable work done by Hezbollah and ignore or attempt to cover up or "explain away" their atrocities, people will see through that, will they not? Plus, they will suspect me of being a member myself otherwise what's with the Hezbollah apologetics?

However I will end here with a rant against religion. Let us take the BTK guy as an example. He did a lot of good things in his life, according to his fellow Lutheran church goers. He was president of their congregation, a Cub Scot leader, a pillar of the community type. And yet, occasionally, he murdered people in cold blood, apparently just for the thrill of it.

So, can we discount the less than one per cent of his life he was a very bad boy because 99 + per cent of the time he was a valued citizen? Most people would reply "Hell Effing NO!"

This is my attitude toward religion (religion normally defined - as belief in non-empirical invisible entities who act with intention in our lives and the universe, including the "revelations" humans claim to have concerning such).

Religious belief is supposedly the origin of (or is at least deemed necessity for) commitment to moral behavior and a purposeful life. I call bullshirt.

I say look at the overall history of religious belief and its sum total effects on humans. There is very little wheat to be gleaned from that effing pile of chaff.

southernbooklady, your defense seems to be, "Everybody else is doing it."

Even though you avoid my point, I won't repeat it "once again". This back and forth has gone beyond comical into tiresome. Is the tactic to wear me out?

As I discussed with John once (at least once) before, if I'm drowning I may not care who fishes me out for what reason. But past the immediate danger, ulterior motives do matter, usually greatly. It is not indifferent that Christian missionaries "do good" in Africa in the name of Christianity, because of the noxious content of Christianity (mutatis mutandis, any religion).

I think someone who can openly say that they have no regrets about any moral actions they have taken is practicing self-deception at a much higher level than most Christians. Anyone who is so sure they are always right is at the epicenter of self-deception.

#160

Then there is still a question.

Let us accept your thesis (for the sake of this discussion) that, on the whole, religion (as you define it) is more of a negative influence than a positive.

Then why do billions of people still cling to it? We don't see large numbers of people using a barter economy. We don't have millions of people people relying solely on supernatural methods of medical treatment. We don't see countries eschewing the Internet and returning to telegraphy and regular mail services for rapid communication.

In short, when presented with something better and more effective, people rather swiftly (1-2 generations) abandon the old ways (much to the dispair of their elders).

And yet, although many people are leaving traditional, organized churches, many of them still cling to some vague, fuzzy notion of religion. In spite of the negative effects of belief.

Why?

Arctic-Stranger wrote,
"I think someone who can openly say that they have no regrets about any moral actions they have taken is practicing self-deception at a much higher level than most Christians."

I'm sorry you're feeling pangs of guilt. I thought that your forgiveness ceremony relieves you of those.

Arctic-Stranger wrote,
"Anyone who is so sure they are always right is at the epicenter of self-deception."

I totally agree.

BruceCoulson wrote,
"Why?"

I already gave you the answer on post #100. It's insecurity.

I prefer to call them lessons in humility.

I'm sorry that you feel humilated.

>168 androidlove:: You do understand, don't you, that for Arctic (as for many of us), humiliation is something to be welcomed (even if begrudgingly), as it reveals our failures and weaknesses, to which our pride would otherwise keep us blind?

But perhaps such introspective honesty is not something you value.

nathanielcampbell wrote,
"But perhaps such introspective honesty is not something you value."

I practice it constantly. I even backup my notes online.

#166

So, do you feel that atheism offers a cure for insecurity? If not, then do you have a possible solution to the problem as defined?

>160 JGL53: Now - in weighing the effects of religion, does the scale tip to the side of the good or to the side of the bad?

Well, this is a question I tend to answer at a more localized level than a global one. For example, I think as a rule religious interference in civil government is bad, bad, bad--because the only way to ensure true freedom of conscience is to refuse, uh, religiously, to codify it as legislation. My hostility to organized religion in the United States is based in the observation that religiously-minded people seek to codify their beliefs as my laws.

In the US, also, the religious lobby--the most vocal part of it, anyway--is peculiarly anti-intellectual, and thus takes the dangerous position that it is okay to dispute scientific fact in the name of religious freedom. Which is why we're in the ludicrous position of having to tell people who should know better that yes, climate change is a reality and yes, evolution is really happening, whether you want to accept it or not.

But these are weirdly American issues. In the Middle East, the problem might be more that religious dispute has fueled a never-ending war, and that religion has perpetuated a system of misogyny and repression so extreme that shooting a 14 year old girl in the head for going to school became a devout and justified act.

The tendency to violence is always there, but the reasons we choose to justify violence are myriad, and not--once again--uniquely founded in a religious mindset (whatever that means). People are followers, tribal, lemmings, herd mentality, no matter what the herd they choose to adopt. One could as easily talk about the crisis of homelessness in a capitalist economy, or the rampant corruption of your average secular state.

In any case, if I had to pick one social ill as the first and worst toxin to global equality and peace, it wouldn't be religion. It would be patriarchy. That insecurity that @androidlove seems to think is the root of all evil? Men seem to have that in spades.

>171 BruceCoulson:

The best cure for insecurity is security. As a species, we do a horrible job of providing security.

Resignation to reality can also ironically alleviate insecurity.

>167 Arctic-Stranger:, 168 I prefer to call them lessons in humility.

I'm sorry that you feel humilated.

Snarky, but a deflection. "Humility" != "Humiliation"

Humility: "I don't know"
Humiliation: "You are stupid"

>174 southernbooklady:
There's no reason to feel humiliated because you don't know. Please, people need to stop flogging their selves.

if I had to pick one social ill as the first and worst toxin to global equality and peace, it wouldn't be religion. It would be patriarchy.

Aren't all the major religions invested in propagating a system of patriarchy, of patriarchal authoritarianism? Our Father who art in heaven.

Seems to me there are direct organic ties between patriarchy and religious doctrine.

>175 androidlove: same deflection.

>176 LolaWalser:
What is the difference between someone humiliating someone, and someone humiliating their self?

>176 LolaWalser: Certainly all the current ones are. Religion is a very effective tool of patriarchy. Which suggests that if the underpinning of patriarchy were gone, they'd deflate like balloons.

But that's fantasy-land, of course. So we do what we can, where we can.

>178 androidlove: and still the same deflection. You are boring me.

>180 southernbooklady:
I'm glad I can return the favor, but what is the difference?

This is strange.
http://www.pastoral-counseling.com/1/post/2013/02/humility-or-humiliation-what-i...

This touches on this thread as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humiliation_of_Christ

There's interesting stuff here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility

"The act of imposing humility upon another person is called "humiliation"."

"Submitting to God and legitimate authority"

Well let's clarify our terms, shall we?

Humility, according to Merriam-Webster, is "the quality or state of not thinking you are better than other people : the quality or state of being humble."

So when Arctic speaks of "lessons in humility" he is, among other things, speaking of the kind of lesson that reminds one that he or she is not superior to others

Humiliation, once again from Merriam-Webster: "to make (someone) feel very ashamed or foolish"

Which a) is not a de facto result of achieving a state of humility and b) seems to be a goal you are pursuing, to what end, I can't fathom.

No, no, etymology is meaning! Didn't you get the memo?

AS linked humility to regret. It sounds to me like he's flogging himself. I also get the vibe that he's having bouts with delusion of grandeur.

Mortification (a form of humiliation) was once the via regia to humility. Hence, the cilice and flagellation.

>185 timspalding: No, no, etymology is meaning! Didn't you get the memo?

Especially if you need it to get out of losing an argument.

>186 androidlove: I also get the vibe that he's having bouts with delusion of grandeur.

My 12-step friends like to tell me, "if you spot it, you got it."

southernbooklady wrote,
"if you spot it, you got it."

Well, that would destroy the field of psychology.

I'm unclear what today's world could have against self-flagellation for spiritual purposes. It was, after all, enthusiastically consensual.

I was waiting for that.

In related news...
http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=20306703

#173

Insecurity is the natural state of mankind.

For untold thousands of years, we were concerned about whether we would have enough to eat that day, or the next day. With the invention of agriculture, we became dependent on the weather, and so the insecurity about food didn't end. In fact, although agriculture meant more food (generally) it added insecurities, as now powerful organizations could also wreck havoc in your life.

And so it goes; until now, when the last three generations of humans have lived under the threat of imminent annihilation, either by malevolent actions of people beyond our control, or error by those same people.

Resignation to utter helplessness to ensure our survival may lead to acceptance of the state of insecurity; ironically, acceptance of 'what is' is taught most by that evil force of religious faith.

BruceCoulson wrote,
"Insecurity is the natural state of mankind."

It's natural in that everything is natural.

I'm glad that you understand that it is perpetuated by the insecure who need power to end their insecurity.

It is perpetuated by those who accept their lowly lot in life which was created by those who seek power.

BruceCoulson wrote,
"acceptance of 'what is' is taught most by that evil force of religious faith."

The flock are told to accept a supernatural being with odd requirements. The flock are taught to take the words of men as the voice of this being. They are not not taught reality.

Humiliation has a technical use in religion, which is different from its use in everyday culture. (Kind of like how selfishness means something different to Ayn Rand than to a four year old.)

Nathaniel was using it is the technical sense, and being a scholar of the middle ages, that usage comes easier to him than to say, SBL who, albeit very intelligent, may not be familiar with the technical usage, but is dead right when she points out the differences between humility and humiliation.

Is nuance lost on androids?

The flock are told to accept a supernatural being with odd requirements. The flock are taught to take the words of men as the voice of this being. They are not not taught reality.

Unless you are wrong.

I might be. That is where faith comes in for me.

Might you? Or are you dogmatically certain?

There are other uses for humiliation besides spiritual ones (see BDSM).

>194 Arctic-Stranger:
"Is nuance lost on androids?"
No, I got the link you made to "regret" in post #167. How do you define regret?

Arctic-Stranger wrote,
"Or are you dogmatically certain?"

I'm certain you are incorrect. Above all other failings of the argument for Christianity is the lack of proof. Christianity makes a big claim, but offers no proof of the supernatural entity it calls, simply, God.

>198 androidlove:: "Above all other failings for the argument of Christianity, is the lack of proof. "

Above all other failings of this continued argument against Christianity is the failure to recognize that what you really mean is, "Christianity makes a big claim, but offers no proof that I am willing to accept within the limited parameters that I have personally set for the nature of proof."

As Christians (usually) in these fora have said time and again, the proof of God's existence is qualitatively different from the narrower definitions of logical and evidentiary proof used by fields such as mathematics and the natural sciences.

For Christians, the proof is in the personal experience of a personal relationship with divine. While intellectual assent is one step in the process of faith, it is almost never the first step. Rather, the first step happens to you. You do not choose it -- it chooses you.

The facile and ultimately ineffectual demands of the atheist that the theist provide "proof" (which the atheist has predefined to exclude the actual nature of divine proof) will never be met with a satisfactory answer, because they are asking the wrong question.

My faith, which is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen (Hebrews 11:1), is not something that I can simply explain to you -- or at least, not in a way that will ever convince you of its validity. And this is because it is in the nature of faith that it resists such facile explanation. I cannot prove God to you -- you must allow God to prove Godself to you.*

-----------
*Edited: Although it is less elegant than "himself", I have changed this to "Godself" in the hopes of doing my little part to break down the pernicious barriers of patriarchy that would privilege a masculine side of a divinity that actually transcends gender (or subsumes it, depending on what inherently problematic image you would use).

"If I believe, then I will believe." doesn't meet my standards.

>200 androidlove:: Exactly. It doesn't meet your standards.

ETA: But it's not that you must first believe in order to believe. Rather, it's that you must be open to the horizon of possibilities that includes both belief and disbelief, rather than shutting yourself up within the enclosure of your presumptions.

>200 androidlove: Now you just need to remember that your standards only apply to you.

200> Would you agree that religion can be "real" even if God is not?

nathanielcampbell wrote,
"rather than shutting yourself up within the enclosure of your presumptions."

Look at the history of religion and see who's making presumptions.

OK, I believe. Well, that was a fun trip. Now I don't. I've studied marketing, magic, and tarot. I know how these mind games work.

southernbooklady wrote,
"Now you just need to remember that your standards only apply to you."

I side with logic and the scientific method, so there are a few others who have my standards.

BRB

Let me offer an analogy:

A man walks into a pizzeria and asks for sushi.

The server replies, "We're a pizzeria -- we don't serve sushi."

The man then gets angry and demands that they serve him sushi. When they still demur, he tells them that they are stupid because they aren't meeting his standards.

He then storms out, convinced that all pizzerias are bigoted, intolerant, and evil, designed only to enslave the masses and delude them by not serving them sushi.

Never once did it occur to him that his expectation that a pizzeria serve sushi may have been the source of the disagreement.

ETA, for the record: I actually do know of a pizzeria in Boston that served sushi (or at least, California rolls) -- it was a vegan joint that used soy-cheese and tofu-based "meats".

>204 androidlove: I side with logic and the scientific method

Then you wouldn't be asking for proof of God, just positive evidence.

ETA: Nathan, the problem with your analogy is that the pizza guy thinks that all food is a kind of pizza, and the sushi guy thinks that all food is a kind of sushi.

Personally, I prefer to cook at home.

>206 southernbooklady:: "I prefer to cook at home."

Amen to that!

>206 southernbooklady: "just positive evidence."
Alright, try me.

>206 southernbooklady:: "Nathan, the problem with your analogy is that the pizza guy thinks that all food is a kind of pizza, and the sushi guy thinks that all food is a kind of sushi."

Not necessarily. In fact, the point I was trying to make is that there is both sushi and pizza, and that they have their distinct flavors, as it were. In demanding that religion justify itself based purely on the methods of the natural sciences, android is the guy who insists that pizza be judged on the flavor profile of sushi.

I readily accept the existence of both, which is why, e.g., I don't use the book of Genesis as a science textbook.

ETA: As a theologian, I think that Gould's concept of the non-overlapping magisteria is problematic, at least as a whole theory of knowledge; but it is nevertheless a good approximation of the ground-game of the two fields.

Pizza and sushi both belong to a common category--"food". A person might survive on either sushi or pizza. Religion and science are fundamentally different and categorically opposed. A person does not get the same thing from religion and from science.

>210 LolaWalser:: So the analogy isn't foolproof -- but I think the point I was trying to make vis-a-vis demanding scientific evidence of a non-scientific epistemology stands.

203> Yes, I'm sure it is "real" to people. However, I'm sure some part of the brain is aware it's a lie.

I have to go now. I anticipate 2014 being a very busy year (it's a resolution), so I won't be here as frequently.

I tried to avoid discussing religion with the religious, but someone in the Happy Heathens forum suggested I should. Thanks, jbbarret.

I hope I've helped someone reading this thread escape a cult or confirm their doubts.

>212 androidlove:: "I tried to avoid discussing religion with the religious"

That makes about us much sense as, "I try to avoid discussing science with scientists."

But as long as you're happy in your self-enforced bubble of isolation....

A person does not get the same thing from religion and from science.

Nor does someone get the same thing from pizza as textual criticism. Things that exist and methods of knowing are different.

The truth lies somewhere between Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins. Perhaps?

>212 androidlove: So it's my fault? Again?

I think a better analogy would be the logician whose car has broken down. Logically he has done everything correct, but the car will not start. He knows that he has a spark, so it must be a fuel problem. He replaces the fuel pump, logically, and the then the fuel filter, etc. The car still does not start.

His younger brother, a high school drop out offers to fix the car for $50. In an hour the car started.

What was broken was the fuel indicator. It was stuck on 1/4 tank. The younger brother had to make a slight jump out of the system, bring assumptions in from outside the fuel system, and make an inference.

Again, not a perfect analogy, but shows how getting stuck in rut can keep you stuck.

Or take the brilliant researcher who is unhappy because he does not know how to get along with people. (I actually knew quite a few of these in my time.) Nothing in the lab or classroom will tell them how to make friends, or even partake in a friendly, casual conversation. All their skills as a scientist are actually working against them in some cases.

Believing in God is more like making a friend that discovering scientific facts or deducing logical inferences.

> 217 "...Believing in God is more like making a friend..."

Well, if one hears voices in one's head I can only imagine it best that one make friends with them all. - Otherwise it might be rather disconcerting to the wife and kids if you have a slap fight with yourself at breakfast over having oatmeal and yogurt or the fried eggs and bacon.

And nobody even thought of suggesting an imaginary friend.

You are quite right SBL; I could have a sex change. ("Thanks to the advances in medical science provided by religious studies.")

And of course John could not quit spouting non sense. Because... because... well, because his imaginary fiend wouldn't like that.

___________________

>86 nathanielcampbell:

Christianity: 6,000,000
Maximilian Kolbe: 2,001
Nathaniel Campbell: -5,997,999
Keep 'em coming, Nat!

___________________

>91 southernbooklady: "It is in the nature of human being to "easily abuse" all fantasies--religious and secular."

"Apart from the fact that no penalty is imposed for not sharing them, my illusions are not, like religious ones, incapable of correction." - The Future of an Illusion

___________________

>136 timspalding: "you have at some point shrunk from some action--whether of morality or just risk-taking--because you were afraid, or found it arduous."

For instance not standing up to my mother for hurting me. Because maybe, possibly, it was her imaginary fiend that told her to say those things. So I'd better shut up.

____________________

>138 jbbarret: Thanks! (jbbarret) (for the clarification on Calderisi.)

It seems that the ..."devil" (lol) is indeed in the details...

____________________

>141 John5918: (JtF)

Speaking of Herr Teufel:

Just because you're an expert in a field, doesn't mean that your delusions won't influence you to speak unreality:
Interview with Justice Scalia with the following gems:
"I even believe in the Devil."
"Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that."

(And of course, experts can say silly things even within their own field!)

____________________

Oh dear. Poor, sorry people.

(I couldn't get myself to read all of that.)

____________________

>154 southernbooklady: (SBL)

Ah, those pesky results.

Billions of people going round thinking there's a Celestial Dictator whose "mind" they really should be concerning themselves with "acquainting" themselves with. And the tithes. Never forget the tithes.

____________________

>156 southernbooklady: (SBL)

Religion is institutionalised counter-productivity.

____________________

>157 timspalding:/159 "I don't think that's quite true." (re Bergoglio's claimed indifference to god-belief.)

lol. Beat me to it.

Though I'll add:
Day 1: Bergoglio: "I want to encounter atheists."
Day 2: Correction by underling: "Keep worrying Catholics! Atheists are still going to Hell.

Alternatively: Bergoglio wants to have encounters with atheists... So he can tell us we're going to Hell...

____________________

>160 JGL53: (JGL)

I'd love to be shown the causal link between belief that water can be turned into wine, and Kolbe's empathy-inspired step-in.

Someone with HIV/AIDS does Good Things™? HIV/AIDS is still a Bad Thing™.

_____________________

>165 BruceCoulson: "why do billions of people still cling to it?"

Thanks for asking. I'll try to arrange my thoughts in a separate post. I don't know how long that might take.

_____________________

>192 BruceCoulson: "humans have lived under the threat of imminent annihilation"

Yes, being constantly told that Heysoos was returning "soon", with a horrific tribulation (including Armageddon), all followed of course by "eternal" damnation (because my integrity as a child and teenager prevented me from committing myself to something I did not understand(1)), sure left me feeling terribly insecure. Even to the point of finding life to be pointless. Without purpose or meaning, one might say.

As a digression: though the TV news would occasionally talk about the possibility of nuclear war, that never bothered me at all.

To prevent you from worrying about me: I feel a lot better now that I know to dismiss all supernatural claims.

____

(1) Due to it's contradictions, incoherence, and outright irrelevance to actual life.

_____________________

>199 nathanielcampbell: (Nathaniel)

Someone was talking about how good A Game of Thrones (the TV series) was, so I decided to read the (first(2)) book.

In it, there is a scene where a brother and sister are discussing their future. At one point one of them (I think the brother) reaches out and tousles the hair of the other. That fiddled with my emotions.

I can't avoid feeling that when "liberals" talk about their "proof" of 'God' (and certain other ways they phrase themselves), the above is actually what they are talking about: Some religious text or other plays them like a fiddle.

Either that is seen as valuable in and of itself, or it is mistaken as being proof of the actual existence of 'God'. Or Quetzalcoatl, etc. I'm unimpressed either way; the first possibility should be stated as such in unambiguous language.

___

(2) I don't care to have my emotions played with in that manner, ie simply because the author can, so I decided that I would read no more of that author beyond finishing that particular book.

_____________________

I'm not going to state which, but there are some posts here which made me really LOL. In a good way. :-) Thanks!

I cannot remember exactly what in this thread made me think of this article, but you might appreciate it anyway.

Disclaimer: I'm not quite convinced that those hunter-gatherer religions really qualify as religions in my book.

>220 zangasta: >Religion is institutionalised counter-productivity.

So is capitalism on a bad day.

>222 southernbooklady: And on a good day?

>223 zangasta: And religion on a good day?

>224 John5918: Oh dear.

Please show me the causal link between belief that water can be turned into wine, and something productive.

Helpful hint: You might want to avoid looking in the direction of Newton. Apparently he spent more time studying alchemy than any of his ...productive... studies. Of course, I don't know that he did so because of that belief; maybe it was due to his belief in virgin birth? Or that Lazarus was raised from the dead? Or...?

And I really should rather have asked sbl for an example of capitalistic unproductivity. I frankly didn't quite get what she was driving at.

>225 zangasta:: "Please show me the causal link between belief that water can be turned into wine, and something productive."

Please show me how the love of God revealed in the Gospel and spread through grace around the world, to bring light to the darkest corners of human barbarism, can be reduced to believing in one particular miracle reported in the Gospels.

To put it another way: as Tim has also recently argued, why are such stupidly and ignorantly reductive caricatures of religious faith to be tolerated by people who are supposed to be educated and rational? If a person of faith made such ignorant remarks about science, they'd be roundly condemned as an irrational idiot. Why then do atheists get a pass for showing such astounding ignorance of what religious faith is really about?

Jesus began his ministry by changing water into wine. He ended it by changing wine into blood. Go figure.

Reminds me of the dying Scotsman who asked his mate to pour a bottle of whisky over his grave. "Certainly," came the reply, "but do ye mind if it passes through me kidneys first?"

>226 zangasta:



...just as an example.

227

An astronomer once said to a theologian, "I don't know why theology has to be so complicated. I mean, isn't it all just 'Jesus loves me, this I know'?"

To which the theologian said, "Yes, as much as all astronomy is 'Twinkle, twinkle, little star.'"

>230 southernbooklady: Thanks, sbl. :-)

That there, I would say, is not an example of unproductivity, but rather of ... well I actually don't know exactly...

Ooops, I changed that from counter-productivity to unproductivity. It's been a long day. Well... still.

>227 nathanielcampbell: Finally! A theist too causes me to LOL in this thread. Just not in the same way as the atheists. lol Actually... LOL

Oh boy.

How on this helio-centred Earth does one go about addressing such ... weirdness?

Charlemagne spread it with his armies. Some vintage vatican virgin(s) through the conquistadors, King Leopold with gun in ha... actually ... that possibly is a bit unfair.

I'm sure you all know the joke - seeing that we've become comedians here - which ends with the Eskimo asking the missionary "then why did you tell me?"

I've got nothing more at this point in time...

My guess is you know nothing of Eskimo, or as they prefer Alaska Natives. You wouldn't use the N-word in a joke, would you?

>165 BruceCoulson: "why do billions of people still cling to [religion]?"

Let's start here: The telegraph actually exists. This means that it's (relative) inferiority can be seen and evaluated and ultimately rejected. (Yes, I'm all too aware that certain cultural phenomena categorised as religion actually exist too. lol)

It seems to me - generally speaking - that religions consist of two parts:
- The supernatural;
- The social. Mostly manifested as a social club.

Regarding the supernatural part: It in itself does of course not exist(1), but - to our regret - the claims for them do. And I include things like jumping up and down under priestly command, and prayer, under the supernatural; or they at least are used to engender / reinforce belief in the supernatural.

Regarding the social part: Social clubs do exist. I don't have a problem with social clubs as long as that is what they are claimed to be. Wrapping a social club in the word 'church' immediately associates it with the supernatural.(2) Naming a school after a "saint" ditto.

Social clubs can be examined and evaluated, and constantly are. As women get more and more freedoms in the secular world, they start getting uppity; demanding the freedom to dress more as they please for instance. Social clubs adapt.

Though it is true that supernatural claims exist, the supernatural that they supposedly refer to does not exist, which allows the claims to be moulded as the claimants see fit. (There is no accountability.) This means that the claims are couched in language allowing ever more "sophisticated" levels of deniability. ("You're just ignorant and uneducated!" being one ultimate form of deniability. "You can't read my mind!" another.) One has to know a lot of things about the world, eg the history and evolution of the claims, to be able to reject them. And then, for much of history, only in the sanctuary of one's own mind (which can't be read); eg does anyone here know what Newton's religious beliefs were? As the level of knowledge of the real world increases among people, the claims have to adapt to survive. This has been happening rather slowly, but the pace seems to be picking up. :-)

So why do religions survive? Because people like social clubs, and have liked them for longer than religions have existed, I would suggest. People claim that religion provides community. I'd say, no, community precedes religion. In fact, community probably provides a breeding ground for religion. For instance, community provides an arena for telling stories. Which unfortunately get taken seriously at some point.

I see that I need to throw in something about the wrapping of the social club in the language of the supernatural claims... OK, there I did it. Sort of. Ummm... In earlier times, when people knew less about the world, it was easier to sell religion as mostly the supernatural stuff. As time passes, the supernatural has less and less chance of sustaining people's interest. So the social club is strengthened.

Religions survive because our social needs survive. And because most of us don't gain the wherewithal to realise that it's actually the social club we enjoy; the supernatural is just a millstone.

The fact that priests' livelihoods depend on religion also plays a role. eg The mohel who claims that "circumcision is no worse than having your hair cut."

(This feels like it wound up becoming a bit muddled. Oh well.)

_________________________

(1) The claim that "you can't prove that [some-arbitrarily-"defined"-(with-inbuilt-deniability)-imaginary-being-eg-Barry-Trotter] doesn't exist" is as baloney as Zeno's claim that "an arrow can't hit it's target" and needs to be eradicated from serious discourse.

Even some religious circles admit that the supernatural doesn't actually exist, eg A History of God comes awfully close to doing so.

(2) If I had the opportunity to visit one of these "atheist churches", I might do so ...once, but I think it is a mistake to call them churches. If for no other reason than that I doubt that it then could attract many Muslims or Jews or Hindus.

>221 zangasta: I'm not quite convinced that those hunter-gatherer religions really qualify as religions in my book.

and

>236 zangasta: It seems to me - generally speaking - that religions consist of two parts:
- The supernatural;
- The social. Mostly manifested as a social club.

The easiest way to win an argument is to insist that you get to define the terms. Of course, you end up just talking to yourself, but at least you can't lose the debate.

>235 Arctic-Stranger:

"Eskimo (or Esquimaux (French)) is a term, considered by many to be pejorative, for the indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia), across Alaska (United States), Canada, and Greenland. Alternate terms, Inuit–Yupik (for Alaska: Inupiat–Yupik) have been proposed. Two main groups have historically been referred to as Eskimos by outsiders: the Yupik and Inuit, especially the Iñupiat of Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, is related. The term Alaska Natives refers to all indigenous peoples of Alaska, including Northwest Coast and Athabaskan tribes."

I haven't bothered memorising all these details - as apparently neither have you - but basically I'm not really into bowdlerisation. Especially not into such a mouthful. (I believe btw that the joke refers to an inhabitant of ...Greenland.)

On a more interesting note, I take it you are in agreement with the rest of that post. You know, seeing as what that was all you had to complain about.

No? Oh well.

_______________

<feigned innocence>N-word? Care to elaborate?</feigned innocence>

On another interesting note, I was sitting someplace when I heard a girl/teenager sitting behind me go "Eeny, meeny, miny, mo", presumably while picking from the menu. I wasn't quite sure exactly what to think of it. Maybe she didn't know how it continues, and that said continuation would in ...different circumstances have applied to herself...

>237 southernbooklady: Good night sbl...

Actually I probably have more Native Alaskan friends than you have Christian friends. I didn't memorize the details, I used to live among them. (I am a former Alaskan, who worked with Alaska Natives in many different contexts.

I also know more about the missionaries bringing their faith to the Alaska Natives, positive and negative aspects, than you know jokes.

#238

In my experience, most people prefer called by their names, rather than ethnic groupings.

But perhaps I've lived a sheltered life.

#236

'Social clubs adapt' And religions can't?

#221

It probably doesn't matter whether YOU think they were religions or not. If the people who took part in them thought they were, then that's all that matters.

When an Inuit introduces themselves they say, Hello, my name is Raymond. My Inuit name is Alaukalak. My father is ...... My mother is..... And my people are....

They see themselves as part of a tradition, which is more important than who they are as individuals.

Interesting. I freely admit that my knowledge of the far northern peoples comes from various books of arctic explorers, and is no doubt exceedingly minute.

Still, I'm sure it's considered rude to continue calling them by a name you consider appropriate, rather than the name(s) they've provided. (And I tend to doubt that they insist on all the names, all the time...:))

I find your prioritisations so terribly interesting.

More about that spread around the world that Nat mentioned:

"That’s why David Livingstone, when he went to Africa as a missionary, said that the first step of missions is to destroy the local culture. Destroy it through capitalism, because as you create a desire for Western goods, they will realize how worthless they are and they will listen to the missionary about their god. That is an effective strategy, by the way." - The Pirahã

Do you have the source for that? I'm suspecting Livingston's comments were more nuanced than that. But who knows. Do you?

>245 zangasta: Missionaries are not a monolith, and some missionaries were certainly closely connected with the colonial project. But, as I've said elsewhere, you will find many Africans reflecting on the role of missionaries in the liberation of Africa who will acknowledge that one of the contributions they made was precisely the opposite of realising "how worthless they are". In fact the church affirmed their dignity as human beings, in stark contrast to the colonialists.

Now isn't this Wiki article interesting...

To spare myself future solipsistic nincompoopery from theists, I will of course modify my referencing of the joke from 'Eskimo' to 'Inuit'. However, in my head I will know that 'Eskimo' actually is quite correct, even if technically it should be qualified as 'speaker of Eskimo'.

I've been accused of refusing to get outside of my own head, possibly even by you yourself Arctic. Isn't it odd then that you insist on forcing your own narrow-mindedness on others? "Native Alaskans" indeed! In Greenland!

Time to get out of your own little head and attempt to find out how the big world outside it actually works?

_______
Edited to correct the link.

>246 timspalding: I provided you with the source I have, Tim.

>247 John5918: I think I might just let myself be inspired by this Nazi.

I guess I should start with Mein Kampf, making sure of course to apply my hermeneutics to it. Good thing that there's absolutely nothing wrong with accusing the Jews of having killed Jesus, because I believe there's a lot of that in there, and it might be hard to ...hermeneutralise.

>249 zangasta:

Yes, I know. I don't trust it to be an accurate summary of Livinston's views.

>241 BruceCoulson:

"'Social clubs adapt' And religions can't? "

I made the claim that religions come in two parts. I showed how both parts adapt (you even quoted me on one part). And yet you attempt to imply that I claim that the sum of the parts doesn't adapt. How droll.

"If the people who took part in them thought they were" religions.

Let me know when you know what people were thinking back in the day, eigh?

>237 southernbooklady:

The back of my head did want to write that "two parts" differently, but I was focusing on the survivability question. I think it possible I'll be more satisfied next time.

Speaker of Eskimo?

But then what do I know? I only lived among Inuits and Yupi'iks. You have your head.

I bet you still use the term "darky." Because, you know, in your head that is right.

>254 Arctic-Stranger: I made the booboo. I should have linked to this article.

I shall correct my post.

>231 Arctic-Stranger: "Twinkle, twinkle"
I read somewhere (I wish I could remember where exactly now but I do know it was a reputable author) that when Karl Barth first landed in the United States for his only visit, an intrepid reporter asked him what was the most important fact about his religion. Barth's reply is reported to have been a succinct: "Jesus loves me; this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Here endeth the interview.

I have done my research and have decided that the saying could very well be apocryphal. What sources I could find conflict as to where exactly Barth could have said the reputed message - but they are all consistently in the United States - New York, Princeton, Chicago. One source seems to be insistent that he was at the divinity school in Chicago at the time that Barth was there and heard the question and the supposed reply. He is now a bishop in Australia so I guess we must give some credence to his statement.

>256 WMGOATGRUFF: When a good friend of mine -- who is gay, and Jewish -- recently converted to Catholicism I asked him how he reconciled all the political stances of the church with his new found faith. He quoted a priest who had been acting as his spiritual adviser on his journey: "If it ain't love, it ain't God."

>256 WMGOATGRUFF:, 258 I think it comes back to the fact that for many religious people it is about a relationship with God more than the intellectual beliefs. Over the millennia faith communities have formed and have reflected on that relationship with God, and have each developed their own narrative. Most of us situate ourselves within one of those communities and/or narratives. But the community and the narrative are not necessarily the first step; the relationship with the divine is. Or, as it was put in these two posts, love.

>259 John5918:, 258 You guys are the greatest. I can count on the two of you to bring forth a story, a parable, or an elucidating statement that encapsulates the theme. I find great comfort in your postings.
With regard to SBL's posting - as I recall what Jesus said the prima inter pares of all the laws is the Shema which a Jewish convert to Christianity could easily accept as its converse: God so loved the world etc.
Btw to JTF - I will be celebrating my birthday again today with my family and I fully expect to eat no goat!!

Is there a prize for being the last person to post in a thread?

We have come full circle in this post which original theme was an inquiry into the true meaning of Christmas so that in Christian love born at Christmas time we can include scoffers, jibers, sneerers, deriders, and teasers (my synonym dictionary just gave out) as part of the world that God so loved.

I've experienced "christian love". You can keep it. Though I'd be happy for you to find actual love. :-)

>263 zangasta:: "Though I'd be happy for you to find actual love."

How do you know that we haven't?

>264 nathanielcampbell: lol

Too easy.

Notice the qualification? "christian love"

>265 zangasta:: So "christian love" is not "actual love"? How do you know? Have you actually ever experienced the former? Or is the "experience" that you claim thereof nothing more than a reactionary prejudice?

>265 zangasta: Once again, you can win arguments by demanding everyone use your definitions, but you're only talking to yourself at that point anyway, so it's an empty victory.

>266 nathanielcampbell: Short memory? >>>263 zangasta:

>268 zangasta:: Then I repeat from 266: Is the "experience" that you claim of "Christian love" nothing more than a reactionary prejudice?

That is: how do you know that the Christian love I experience is NOT "actual love"?

That is: how do you know that the Christian love I experience is NOT "actual love"?

If it is "actual love", why do you feel the need to attach the modifier "Christian" instead?

Because you are qualifying it.

And you'll notice that by placing the word 'experience' in quotation marks, you're implying a No True Scotsman. You're playing precisely the game that sbl is accusing me of.

And speaking of which: sbl, I've said this before (though possibly not to you): as long as I define as clearly as I can the terms I'm using such that others in the discussion can see what I mean by a word, that can only be helpful to clear communication. As opposed to No True Scotsman accusations.

(Thanks, StormRaven, I was feeling uncertain about using the word 'qualifier'.)

Nathaniel, by the simple act of supernaturalising love (through adding the modifier 'christian'), you are turning it into something other than what it is.

By calling a social club a 'church', you are supernaturalising it; you are turning it into something other than what it is.

Etc.

>271 zangasta: You are potentially implying a No True Scotsman. Possibly you are merely quoting me?

If it is "actual love", why do you feel the need to attach the modifier "Christian" instead?

English has a deficit in its words for love. Greek has four. English has one. So in English we have to say romantic love, brotherly love, erotic Love, friendship, unconditional love, familial love, and even sometimes Christian love. All of the above are actual loves.

> 270. If it is "actual love", why do you feel the need to attach the modifier "Christian" instead?

That's an interesting question, one that might deserve its own thread -- one which might be better located in the LT Christianity group.

When it comes to the Let's Talk Religion group, it seems to me that love is a many splendored thing, to coin a phrase. I'm thinking of the Hindu concept of Ishta-devata or "main deity" or "cherished divinity" -- the form of God that the worshiper finds most congenial, or lovable, if you will. I remember having a conversation with a fellow who claimed that Vishnu only is capable of bestowing moksha on the worshiper, but that that didn't mean that any given person's Ishta Devata must be Vishnu. The achievement of perfection is also possible for those who are worshipping other deities, like Shiva or Durga Devi -- as long as Vishnu is OK with giving moksha.

It isn't that much of a stretch to imagine that Christ could be a perfectly good Ishta Devata.

That actually sounds a bit desperate.

I'm going out on a limb here, but
"erotic Love" (slip of the shift key or significant?) surely is actually lust?

"romantic love" is "puppy love", ie not "actual love"?

"brotherly love" sounds defensive to me: "It's not incestuous!" (Or something...)

"friendship" is not love. It may entail love, but that's a separate issue.

"unconditional love" simply is a variety of things. In a christian context, it's a lie: "Knock, knock! Let me in!" "Why?" "So I can save you from what I'll do to you if you don't ...let me in!"

"familial love" - I wary of this. Does anyone else want a go?

>271 zangasta: as long as I define as clearly as I can the terms I'm using such that others in the discussion can see what I mean by a word, that can only be helpful to clear communication.

Or, you can make it a point to understand what others mean by a term, and address it accordingly. In fact, I'd say both approaches are necessary for clear communication.

Have you ever been in love? This kind of reminds me of explaining faith. Maybe for you, what you said is true, and I will not disagree.

But for me, erotic love is more than lust, romantic love is more than puppy love, brotherly love is certainly not incestuous, friendship is a form of love, depending on the friend (go read your Aristotle) and familial love is the strong bond I have for my kids. I apparently experience these all in a very different way from you.

An example of brotherly love; many years ago a colleague of mine decided I was depressed and needed exercise. He started showing up at door (with my permission) at 6:00 am on Tuesday mornings, and we would walk a couple of miles. We did that for eight years, until he moved. Now we call one another once a week, to continue that conversation that started with the walking. I would not say he is a friend. He is more than that, and less than that in some ways. We never see one another socially, nor do we hang out outside of official functions--and our weekly appointment. That is brotherly love. I do love him, not in a romantic, or erotic way, and not as a friend. I love him as a brother in faith.

I guess you have to be there.

I could write of others, but I doubt you want to know a lot about the Redhead and I. Suffice it to say, our erotic and romantic love is much more than lust and puppy love.

I have had friendship in the past, but having just moved, that is something I lack. I am not talking about acquaintances. I am talking about the guy I used to ski with, canoe with, fish with, bike with...and just hang out with. We talked about everything. Unlike my colleague, we did hang out in social situations, a lot. If there was a party, we would end up talking to one another. That is friendship as love.

Attempt made. Does anyone understand what I am talking about or am I just talking to to myself?

Yes, I understand what you are talking about.

>278 Arctic-Stranger: Arctic, "all" I see you doing, is describe different frameworks within which love may, or may not, exist.

For instance, hypothetically, someone could pester your door at 6:00 AM because you payed them to do so. You might still appreciate their contribution to your well-being, but there would not necessarily need to be any love involved. I'll readily grant you - of course - that you probably appreciated it more as it actually happened.

"friendship is a form of love, depending on the friend"

A succinct example. With the "right" friend, friendship is a framework for love to abide within.

-

Thanks for making the attempt. I think that basically what makes us disagree here, is that I'm more analytic than you are. I break things down, well, I like to think I try to do so, into their constituent parts. I don't think doing so is of much interest to you. Which in some ways is just fine of course. That is, it doesn't have the same potential for harm when talking about love as when talking about 'faith'.

>277 southernbooklady: "I'd say both approaches are necessary"

Are you contradicting yourself from #267, or did I somehow manage to put across some minor point?

When it comes to the word 'faith', I think my approach from now on (actually, I've started elsewhere already) is to point out that the OED apparently has 14 different definitions for the word. So which one is being meant? If someone means 'hope', use 'hope'. If they mean 'Jabberwock', that's what they need to use. Simply nattering away about how I can't read their minds is actually dumb.

>281 zangasta: Defining your terms works as a strategy for clarity, but only when there is a consensus on the definitions between you and whoever you are talking to. Your disinclination to acknowledge what others mean by the term "love" in all its shades is an illustrative example, since it is quite to clear everyone else that a term like "brotherly love" does not carry incestuous implications.

Honestly, I have a terrible time following your posts to any kind of point. You seem to equate contrariness with argument or debate, but since you rarely follow through with your own clarifications, it is very hard for me to tell what you are really trying to say.

> 283. it is very hard for me to tell what you are really trying to say.

It's probably just as well. I have the sneaking feeling that he's not trying to say anything particularly complimentary to any of his fellow posters.

> 273. >271 zangasta: You are potentially implying a No True Scotsman. Possibly you are merely quoting me?

This is a very interesting post, in that it is addressed to yourself and seems to be an attempt to correct yourself on how to construct a phrase. Suggesting to yourself that you are quoting yourself is also a little odd, but not unprecedented.

>270 StormRaven:: "If it is "actual love", why do you feel the need to attach the modifier "Christian" instead?"

I don't feel the need to do so -- it was your friend @zangasta who introduced the distinction in post 263

(Why it is that you can't be bothered to follow the thread of discussion in the 7 posts previous to yours is not a question I can answer.)

> 286. Why it is that you can't be bothered to follow the thread of discussion in the 7 posts previous to yours is not a question I can answer.

"Why" questions are very difficult for a scientist to answer. Often, when trying to answer a "why" question, a scientist subtly shifts to answering a "what" or a "how" question instead.

For example, when the child asks why the sky is blue, the scientist usually contents herself with explaining how the sky is blue.

#287

"Because it isn't green!"

Lucy van Pelt

>286 nathanielcampbell:

lol

In 263, I am quoting from the waffle that is 262.

"Why it is that you can't be bothered to follow the thread of discussion in the [] posts previous to yours is not a question I can answer."

And speaking of 262, can I please have the final word here? I'd so much rather end the thread on the thread itself than on some means of appropriating the thread by some twist of weirdness as a "victory" for some brand of dumb.

On the most yin of nights yang is born, so keep hope alive. After several million years of evolution, some sort of response to the seasons is probably hard wired into our genes.

Funny request. "Can I have the final word?" No, that is something you earn. It is not given to you just because you want it. And as far as I can tell, SBL is dead on right. You have not earned it, although I think she has.

Oh come on, I was hoping we could leave it with quiksiva's clever little response, but no, you had to go and spoil it.

(As if the final word is earned! lol Sometimes, yes, often, no.)

In this case, yes. and I have not earned it.