-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Moderates give cover to religious fanatics
- Thread starter LogDog
- Start date
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
By your words. Are you telling us that you PROMOTE Christianity?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Are you telling us that you PROMOTE Christianity? :cover: (Second time asked)
It is obvious to Christians that you surely don't understand our motivations.
It is obvious to Christians that you surely don't understand our motivations.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
For the THIRD time: do you support Christianity?
If not, then just accede the point. You are telling us WHY Christians do what they do and it's all conjecture on your part. It's your bias coming through and nothing more.
If not, then just accede the point. You are telling us WHY Christians do what they do and it's all conjecture on your part. It's your bias coming through and nothing more.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
In the truth in general? Or just in disclosing your bias?
But fair enough. If you don't want to continue, I will withdraw.
But fair enough. If you don't want to continue, I will withdraw.
I agree with your analysis of the ten commandments.
The only "10 Commandments" that have to do with real moral statements on behavior are the last five. I might question the importance of not coveting but it still a behavior that is generally frowned upon if not morally all that big a deal. So you have not stealing, committing adultery, lying, murdering. But these hardly are unique to Judeo-Christian tradition. Honoring your parents is nice. You should honor your parents, but I also don't feel that is a great moral statement. The rest of them have to do with the jealous god, that you can't put anything ahead of; which day to honor him, etc etc.
The 10 Commandments are a small segment of the various and long list of thou shalt nots which range from wearing mixed fabrics to eating certain animals (and a list of which animals have clefts--which is humorous) to what to do when you menstruate, etc. Many of the shalt nots carry the death penalty. Children being disrespectful (hmm being a teacher, I'd love that one to carry the death penalty
). This is also one of only a few places that mention homosexuality, which is an abomination (people who pay attention to this should see what else is an abomination before worrying so awfully much, oh well).
The Ten Commandments is a little different only, I think, as it was personally seen over by Moses or the story goes anyway. And was written in stone (not sure that was that odd back then). But is still only partly a moral document anyway and not original at that.
OTOH, I disagree with how that has to do with moderates and abortion. I guess UCC would really be liberal/progressive, not moderate but we had a very interesting discussion on the Terri Shiavo thing (not abortion, but it drew the same right wing zeal). But it was not approached at ALL the same or in any way like the conservative side would take it. It was very much about the brain, but also about how you reach contentious decisions. Someone at the church is on a medical ethics board that makes these decisions all the time. It was as much discussing vegetative states but also on living wills and advanced directives and all that.
I think when most moderates think about stem cell research or abortion,they will be thinking of the same issues that you do-- when is a fetus viable and so on. You can see the medical aspects to the first trimester "line" and so on. I don't see any evidence that they make their decisions the same way conservatives do but come to different decisions.
To say it is not murder, would imply that they have come to the determination that it is not a full person in the medical sense.
For instance, I have heard the argument that Sam Harris uses applied by moderates and liberal religious people. This is on stem cell research. There is a fire at the fertility bank and you have your five year old with you. You could grab your 5 year old and run or you could grab a vial of embryos that contain 1000s perhaps millions of embryos. Which do you grab?
Therefore, I think that there is the same use of reason and so on.
I think lilithu's comment on murder and the ten commandments is just that a comment. A conservative bases everything on the Bible, a moderate uses a combination of something scriptural should it be applicable, reason and experience. I have never heard of a moderate saying that God says abortion is alright, etc. The formulation would more go like this: Life doesn't begin at conception or a fetus isn't viable until sometime after 3 months or... IOW, the same kinds of formulations you might make.
--des
The only "10 Commandments" that have to do with real moral statements on behavior are the last five. I might question the importance of not coveting but it still a behavior that is generally frowned upon if not morally all that big a deal. So you have not stealing, committing adultery, lying, murdering. But these hardly are unique to Judeo-Christian tradition. Honoring your parents is nice. You should honor your parents, but I also don't feel that is a great moral statement. The rest of them have to do with the jealous god, that you can't put anything ahead of; which day to honor him, etc etc.
The 10 Commandments are a small segment of the various and long list of thou shalt nots which range from wearing mixed fabrics to eating certain animals (and a list of which animals have clefts--which is humorous) to what to do when you menstruate, etc. Many of the shalt nots carry the death penalty. Children being disrespectful (hmm being a teacher, I'd love that one to carry the death penalty
). This is also one of only a few places that mention homosexuality, which is an abomination (people who pay attention to this should see what else is an abomination before worrying so awfully much, oh well). The Ten Commandments is a little different only, I think, as it was personally seen over by Moses or the story goes anyway. And was written in stone (not sure that was that odd back then). But is still only partly a moral document anyway and not original at that.
OTOH, I disagree with how that has to do with moderates and abortion. I guess UCC would really be liberal/progressive, not moderate but we had a very interesting discussion on the Terri Shiavo thing (not abortion, but it drew the same right wing zeal). But it was not approached at ALL the same or in any way like the conservative side would take it. It was very much about the brain, but also about how you reach contentious decisions. Someone at the church is on a medical ethics board that makes these decisions all the time. It was as much discussing vegetative states but also on living wills and advanced directives and all that.
I think when most moderates think about stem cell research or abortion,they will be thinking of the same issues that you do-- when is a fetus viable and so on. You can see the medical aspects to the first trimester "line" and so on. I don't see any evidence that they make their decisions the same way conservatives do but come to different decisions.
To say it is not murder, would imply that they have come to the determination that it is not a full person in the medical sense.
For instance, I have heard the argument that Sam Harris uses applied by moderates and liberal religious people. This is on stem cell research. There is a fire at the fertility bank and you have your five year old with you. You could grab your 5 year old and run or you could grab a vial of embryos that contain 1000s perhaps millions of embryos. Which do you grab?
Therefore, I think that there is the same use of reason and so on.
I think lilithu's comment on murder and the ten commandments is just that a comment. A conservative bases everything on the Bible, a moderate uses a combination of something scriptural should it be applicable, reason and experience. I have never heard of a moderate saying that God says abortion is alright, etc. The formulation would more go like this: Life doesn't begin at conception or a fetus isn't viable until sometime after 3 months or... IOW, the same kinds of formulations you might make.
--des
robtex said:
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Rob, my God does not say "yes abortions." (The very idea of that is repulsive.) Your analysis shows that you do not know where I am coming from, since you assume my pro-choice position is due to some belief in divine revelation. Given that you know I'm a UU, I am surprised that you would think that. It makes me worried that you basically think all theists think the same way, whether we are conservative, moderate, or liberal, and that the only difference is the conclusions we happen to reach but the methodology is the same. If you as a UU - someone who lives in community with theists - can so misunderstand the diversity within theism and even Christianity, then I see little hope here.robtex said:
I am of course not a Christian but I know lots of Christians and actually listen to them when they talk of their faith. And I know that the argument between pro-choice and pro-life Christians is not an argument about interpreting whether the bible says (in so many words) "Thou shalt have abortions" and "Thou shalt not have abortions." Even amongst Christians, the bible is not the only recognized source of spiritual authority. As luna said, it seems like people are assuming that all Christians follow the fundamentalist framework. You and Harris and dogsgod and others seem to assume that the arguments are all based on divine revelation as recorded in biblical scripture and the only argument is how to interpret it. That is not the case, and honestly, if one listens to the arguments amongst Christians - really listened to them - that should be obvious. What do you guys think when a moderate/liberal Christian says that the bible is inspired by God but not the literal word of God??! It should be obvious that if the bible is not word for word infallible then considerations other than just scriptural interpretation must come into play.
For example, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will readily admit that their doctrines are not just biblical; that they recognize the authority of the traditions of the Church. That was a large part of what the Protestant split was about, with Luther saying "sola scriptura" and the Catholic church saying, scripture + tradition. In contrast, our Christian forebears the Unitarians and the Universalists upheld reason and experience as valid sources of spiritual authority. They were not the only Christians who did so. Throughout the ages, including today, various Christians (and others) have recognized these four sources of spiritual authority: revelation, tradition, reason, and experience to varying degrees. THAT is the crux of the argument.
A pro-choice Christian is not saying "The bible says that God approves of abortions" and therefore it must be true. A pro-choice Christian is saying that the bible doesn't speak about abortion, but God also gave us reason and experience - in other words, the ability to decide for ourselves what is best for us and our communities within a given situation. To take away the ability to choose is to deny what is God given. Therefore, it should be up to the woman to decide.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
You stated:dogsgod said:
"The moderate doesn't act on their religious beliefs, that's why they can be pro choice. When a Christian joins forces with the secularist and works for women's rights they are taking the issues and removing them from the church by secularizing them."
Meaning that when Christians are pro-choice they aren't being religious but instead are being secularist. What you can't seem to understand - even tho three people have tried to explain this already - is that religion does not equal fundamentalism. Yes, there are fundamentalist religionists but religion is much more vast than that. In fact, fundamentalism only started near the beginning of the 20th century as a reactionary response to modernity. I think for myself as a religious person, not in spite of it. Lots of religious people think for themselves as religious people, not in spite of it. Moderate and liberal theists believe that reason is God-given. One does not have to choose between God and reason. One does not have to put one's religion on hold in order to be pro-choice. So yes, I found your response insulting and still do.
Mike182
Flaming Queer
dogsgod said:
this is one of your posts on the first page, in case you were wondering where i was quoting you from
i am religious, and for the sake of argument we shall call me a moderate, but i would have said i'm a liberal.
do i share the same basic beliefs with the fanatics? good question! i share some of the beliefs, a belief in God would be the prime example of that.
i believe that as morally aware creatures, we have certain duties to our fellow humans, to respect them and their rights even in difference, to avoid causing unnecessary harm to others, to do my part to help those less fortunate than myself. these are all based on my religious world view, i believe we are all apart of this one sacred world and we must work together to preserve it and get the most out of it, for everyones benefit.
now, to quote the OP:
LogDog said:
do these people share the belief that i mentioned above?
as far as i am concerned, faith without deeds is not faith, we can see if a person is sincere in their faith or not by looking at their fruits. are the fruits that these people produce of the same core as my beliefs?
in other words, i the dominionist Christian is saying on one had they love their nieghbors, but on the other hand is calling for gays to be put to death, their practise of campaigning to kill gays is the only thing available to us to use as criteria for sincerity of faith, and such action is obviously not produced from a sincere attempt to love ones neighbors.
and i do hope that this post shows that even though i am religious, i think for myself from that religious framework, like so many others do
lilithu said:
Exactly, and that is the way I would deal with that particular subject.
For a Christian, the conundrum is "Thou shall not Kill" - and, as we all know, there are times when not to kill would be perpretrating a worse crime than by killing. And, to me, abortion is killing; sometimes, it is prefferable than not killing.
The ability to decide for ourselves, the maturity and the courage to do so, are the element that will make us grow spiritually; without the "choice" we are not stetching our our minds, but esscaping from what is a difficult choice.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
lilithu said:
I never mentioned fundamentalism, so why did you bother to bring that up? I'm referring to moderates vs fanatics of any religion.
The point that I am making is that the beliefs of the fanatics are supported by the moderates because they share the same basic religious beliefs with each other, belief in a God, in a soul, etc. etc. Fanatics bring some of those beliefs to their ultimate conclusions and act on them, sometimes with dire consequences. They can justify killing a few doctors in the name of God in order to save the many of His helpless unborn souls that can't fend for themselves while in the womb. Future suicide bombers have their religious beliefs reinforced everyday by the moderate population that also believes in Allah, and a heaven where 72 virgins await those that die a martyr's death.
Moderates provide cover for fanatics in this way. Moderates reinforce the fanatics beliefs everyday, and moderates should realize that the fanatics are part of the club they belong to as long as they accept these prescribed beliefs, they come with the territory.
This is obviously something that Harris would say, but it is not obvious at all why he or you would say it-- except that it makes interesting and provocative text. I would grant that moderates and fanatics believe in the same God (although, actually I'm not sure that we do!). The shared beliefs of moderates (or in my case liberal/progressive) is so far from what fanatics believe that I'm not really sure it is made of the same kind of stuff. (Your mention that you didn't say fundamentalism, maybe. I would say though that the same kinds of religious beliefs prevail in fundamentalism as in fanatical types, not always, but often. Btu that not all fundamentalists are fanatics. Still you would get a sounder argument arguing that fundamentalism is the same grounds as fanatics, at least it is often in the same range and types of beliefs. For instance, literal meaning of scripture, the scripture is always right, the scripture comes from God/is written by God, etc.).
The argument that anybody believing in a possibility of God, an agnostic or theist is somehow supporting the basis of the 9-11 terrorists, for instance, because we might both believe in a God, makes no more sense than saying, well we are both from the northern hemisphere so we have so much in common. You do realize that WHAT we believe about that God is of much more consequence than a single ambigious belief?
Are you suggesting that somehow some opinion poll in the sky (all those that believe in a life after death-- not sure that I do btw) gives this God thing some kind of power? And that power suggested by "an opinion poll in the sky" gets counting up and tallied in some way in some way that gives it meaning. Because that's certainly what this sounds like.
It sure sounds if you didn't believe in God that this somehow counts against this "opinion poll". Isn't that magical thinking?
Your "lock and load" conception of religious beliefs is interesting but a misinterpretation of what you see. The idea that most Muslims believe in the fictionalized virgins in paradise (I have heard this is not in the Quran at all) or that they would get to heaven in any case after killing civilians is just a falacy. The idea that the murder of an abortion doctor would be similar greeted is yet another one. I believe that a moderate would feel either of these people is bound for hell, and a liberal thinks there is no heaven to arrive at all. So the whole idea of a set of religious principles that will lead down a certain path to automatically get to this certain place is just not true. You could believe in a heaven, hell, soul, and after life and come to very different conclusions. You could also be a religious person-- even be a Christian-- and NOT believe in those conceptions in any way that you could identify.
I think Harris shows his ignorance of the range of religious beliefs by advocating such a position. I am reminded of the first time I heard Harris. He was speaking at a meeting he was invited to by a group of Congregationalists and Reformed Jews. He kept saying things like you believe that the Creator of the Universe has written...Well no, neither of those groups believe anything like that. He was dismayed and ended up saying stuff like well it isn't honest, it's just as bad, etc.
--des
The argument that anybody believing in a possibility of God, an agnostic or theist is somehow supporting the basis of the 9-11 terrorists, for instance, because we might both believe in a God, makes no more sense than saying, well we are both from the northern hemisphere so we have so much in common. You do realize that WHAT we believe about that God is of much more consequence than a single ambigious belief?
Are you suggesting that somehow some opinion poll in the sky (all those that believe in a life after death-- not sure that I do btw) gives this God thing some kind of power? And that power suggested by "an opinion poll in the sky" gets counting up and tallied in some way in some way that gives it meaning. Because that's certainly what this sounds like.
It sure sounds if you didn't believe in God that this somehow counts against this "opinion poll". Isn't that magical thinking?
Your "lock and load" conception of religious beliefs is interesting but a misinterpretation of what you see. The idea that most Muslims believe in the fictionalized virgins in paradise (I have heard this is not in the Quran at all) or that they would get to heaven in any case after killing civilians is just a falacy. The idea that the murder of an abortion doctor would be similar greeted is yet another one. I believe that a moderate would feel either of these people is bound for hell, and a liberal thinks there is no heaven to arrive at all. So the whole idea of a set of religious principles that will lead down a certain path to automatically get to this certain place is just not true. You could believe in a heaven, hell, soul, and after life and come to very different conclusions. You could also be a religious person-- even be a Christian-- and NOT believe in those conceptions in any way that you could identify.
I think Harris shows his ignorance of the range of religious beliefs by advocating such a position. I am reminded of the first time I heard Harris. He was speaking at a meeting he was invited to by a group of Congregationalists and Reformed Jews. He kept saying things like you believe that the Creator of the Universe has written...Well no, neither of those groups believe anything like that. He was dismayed and ended up saying stuff like well it isn't honest, it's just as bad, etc.
--des
dogsgod said: