"Everyone has a religion..."

[Zygote]

"Everyone has a religion of some sort, even if they have no religion."

What sort of a twisted mind can make a statement like that with a straight face?




This was heard on a (usually levelheaded) public radio call in forum this morning, spoken by the representative of the "don't fund stem cell research" side, when he was accused of pushing a religious agenda where it had no business in government policy.

[DMB]

I suppose that in their heart of hearts, at some level, they feel defensive about their unsupportable beliefs and want to drag everyone else down to the same level, in order to feel more comfortable.

[Eudaimonist]

"Everyone has a religion of some sort, even if they have no religion."

What sort of a twisted mind can make a statement like that with a straight face?

The kind that doesn't set careful limits on their concepts.

When people say this sort of thing, they sometimes associate having a "god" with having some value that is very important to them. If one is greedy, then money is one's "god". And since everyone, allegedly, has at least some one value that is very important to them, then everyone has at least one "god", and therefore a "religion" of some sort.

Alternately, "religion" may be associated with having a worldview -- any worldview. This leads some people to claim that "science" is the religion of many atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Zygote]

I have to wonder if some people are so conditioned to a concept of a guiding force, an external deity of some sort, that they simply cannon fathom the absence of such a being in someone else's worldview.

I met a Moonie in college who claimed he could us logic to prove that god exists. After a long buildup of mutually acceptable logical statements about the world and universe, he pulled God out of a hat. When I called him on it, we discovered that his carefully crafted spiel was designed to persuade other theists of the "logic" of his own cult views. He assumed that everyone had a god and his task was only to make his god sound more credible.

When I said "I don't accept that part and there is no logic to support it" he had to admit that he couldn't convince me. I like to think that I shook up his absolute faith a bit, but I probably didn't. Some people seem to be immune to doubt about such things.

[Roo St. Gallus]

In Derrick Jensen's What We Leave Behind, in a discussion of natural complexity, he cites a discussion with philosopher Stanley Aronowitz on pages 239-240, who said, "For some scientists everything outside the box - defined by the rules of scientific discourse - must be ignored. And sometimes they get very agitated when you call them on the game they're playing."

I [Jensen] responded, "And the game is..."

"Religion. Teleology. Control. The desire for prediction, and ultimately the desire to control the natural world, has become the foundation of their methodology of knowing truth.

Think about it. What is a laboratory experiment? At the beginning one must select from the multiplicity of objects and relations that constitute the world a slice to study. How do you conduct a laboratory experiment? The first thing you do is factor out the world. You factor out emotion. You factor out ethics. You factor out nature, if you want to put it that way. You factor out the cosmos. You created a situation of strict abstraction."

In other world, you reduce cause and effect to just one cause and just one effect. That is the point of laboratory experiments.

He continued, "From that, we can extrapolate propositions which correspond to the world and its phenomenon. Or rather scientists think that. And these propositions do corresponde to the world, as long as we ignore the actual physical world and its context."

I asked him, "What are the social implications of this?"

He said, "The point of science - and this may or may not be true of individual scientists - is to make the world subject to human domination. If they can abstract, and then they can predict on the basis of that abstraction, they they can try, at both human and natural levels, to use that prediction in order to exert control.

"Let's use genetic engineering as an example. The ideology underlying its conceptualization is that we cannot and will not depend on nature to yeild its own productivity, both in terms of its own development and human need. We're going to intervene, because the process of maturation has to be faster, because the output has to be more plentiful, becuase production has to be cheaper, because humans have to be more in command of the process."

Jensen responds by noting:

I need to say this again, since science is at this point a fundamentalist religion within this culture, and any criticism of science lead quickly to people misinterpreting what was actually said, and leads also to the frenetic quivering of so many sphincters: I am not saying that it is impossible to determine some degree of accuracy cause and effect (in some cases); nor am I saying that the tools of science are not useful for gaining some pieces of information; nor am I saying that we should not attempt to understand cause and effect. I am merely suggesting humility. I am saying it is arrogant, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, to think that we can even begin to comprehend the vast multiplicity of subtle and not-so-subtle associations of cause and effect in complex natural communities. And it's even more arrogant than this to perpetrate mass changes on these complex communities - to destroy those communities - without regard for the harm those changes - that destruction - causes. And even more arrogant thant this is the belief that just because you don't see - or can't comprehend even the existance of - cause and effect associations between some action and a possible reaction, they don't exist.

...hmmmm. My bold.

[Zygote]

Jensen and I have different ideas of what the phrase "fundamentalist religion" means. He also makes some sweeping generalizations about the motivation of science and scientists that has a ring of sour grapes to it. I'm not impressed.

Science and religion are different in some very profound essentials and that difference is important. For one thing, science is a heck of a lot more accurate and gets better results. A far greater percentage of religious people rely on science-based medicine than that of atheists seeking out faith healers.

But that even misses the point. Science doesn't blindly believe anything. Religion requires blind belief. The whining about scientists being arrogant, narcissistic and megalomaniacal sounds a lot like name calling by someone who wants his belief system to be placed on par with the credibility of science. He is saying that they are somehow comparable when, in fact, they are apples and elephants.

I don't think Mr. Radio Religious Man would say that he and I share much in common in the way we view theology. And yet his statement would appear to say that there is no difference. That is hardly useful.

[Roo St. Gallus]

Heh...He got your sphincter frenetically quivering.

My understanding is that Jensen is trained as a scientist. A degree in Mineral Engineering Physics. I think he is well aware of the utility of science, as well as its limitations.

He is not impressed with 'science'....at least as it is practiced by the 'civilized'.

I think he has a cogent point.

[Rie]

It's love of money Euda.
I find the OP to be worded badly because I would like to think that all humans have a tiny seed of what it takes to think of greater things than mere survival.

The word 'religion' comes from a Latin word meaning to bind or hold fast and hence it is inherently proposing a state of being that binds us to some concept outside our usual thinking... like our need to get food or be warm in Winter .

[Zygote]

We can talk definitions until we are blue in the face. The radio guy in the OP deliberately deflected criticism of his desire to obstruct perfectly legal scientific research. The point is not whether everyone has a world view or wants good things for kittens is motivated by something other than selfishness. That was his attempt to derail the conversation.

His perspective, his theology, his following of a set of doctrines not followed by all humanity, THAT is what makes him different from me and other non-believers-in-all-that-superstitious-crap. It also makes him want to shove his doctrine/belief/theology/brainwashing down the throats of a diverse country that has a distinct separation between church and state. That is what he's trying to cover up by saying meaningless things like "religion isn't a relevant objection because we all have religion." Bullshit is bullshit.

The church doesn't get to tell the state how to run the country. That is one of the things that I do love about the U.S.

[Eudaimonist]

It's love of money Euda.

I realize that this is the saying, but greed would then be the love of a god, that god being "money".


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Politesse]

I would say that all people engage in religious behaviors from time to time- we're wired to do so as part of our social programming from the earliest of ages. We take flying of leaps of faith from time to time, place trust in things that haven't been proven to us explicitly, engage in the various ritual behaviors attendant to living with other people, take comfort and euphoria in the practice of placing our lives in a context larger than ourselves. I'd say we even all engage in the habit of anthropomorphizing the abstract, a road at the end of which theism often lies.

But to say that everyone "has a religion" implies something more organized, and so is inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory.

[Roo St. Gallus]

A dogma. A claim to the ultimate truth. A closed elite of controllers of dogma and its 'correct' presentation.

Does religion require acknowledgment of the 'supernatural'?

What do we mean by 'supernatural'?

Is something like 'the Tao' 'supernatural' or not? Is 'the cosmos' 'supernatural' at all? I ask because I know some who consider these to be 'natural' and not dependent upon the 'supernatural'. How can it be supernatural, when it is co-determinant, co-existent and an identity with 'nature'?

[Roo St. Gallus]

But to say that everyone "has a religion" implies something more organized, and so is inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory.

I don't know as it is necessarily 'more organized', as it is 'engaged with ritual'. I think it very possible to 'practice religion' as an isolated individual; asceticism and isolated hermitage is a recurrent theme in many religious traditions.

[Politesse]

But to say that everyone "has a religion" implies something more organized, and so is inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory.

I don't know as it is necessarily 'more organized', as it is 'engaged with ritual'. I think it very possible to 'practice religion' as an isolated individual; asceticism and isolated hermitage is a recurrent theme in many religious traditions.

That's true, but even ascetic practices are strongly socially bounded and organized. They're built on ritual, but society creates ritual. Really, much of ascetic practices are a kind of organization. It's the means by which one approaches the numinous, but the methods used are tools created by human religious structures for the purpose. So I would say both of our sentences are accurate.

[Politesse]

A dogma. A claim to the ultimate truth. A closed elite of controllers of dogma and its 'correct' presentation.

Does religion require acknowledgment of the 'supernatural'?

What do we mean by 'supernatural'?

Is something like 'the Tao' 'supernatural' or not? Is 'the cosmos' 'supernatural' at all? I ask because I know some who consider these to be 'natural' and not dependent upon the 'supernatural'. How can it be supernatural, when it is co-determinant, co-existent and an identity with 'nature'?

I've never liked the term supernatural. It's really a throwaway word that either means "so awesome its incomprehensible" or "fake" depending of who you are talking to; either way, it files a concept away so you don't have to talk or think about it much. The Christian can say "How did God do it? It's supernatural," and the atheist can say "All that god-stuff? It depends on 'supernatural', and there's no evidence of the 'supernatural'," and then they can both say together, "So why even talk about it?" Lazy thinking to my way of seeing things. Either something is real/valid/useful, and thus "natural" to the universe if not necessarily to our way of thinking about the universe, or it isn't and it simply doesn't exist. Supernatural is an imaginary, undefined, and useless category.

[Roo St. Gallus]

What? 'Supernatural' is 'beyond nature'. 'Metaphysics' is 'beyond the physical world'.

They are both exercises, seemingly from definition, in the unreal.

Do you use 'numinous'? I'm still not quite sure on that one....it seems highly 'charged' with a lot of subjective meaning. It sounds like 'luminous' to me, but the 'n' sorta leaves me numb. When I hear that term applied I have a tendency to wonder if we are talking about cheezy lighting effects...but that's my subjective conditioning. The point is, I guess, that selecting something vaguely obscure, like 'the numinous' doesn't privilege it any more in my estimation.

[Politesse]

What does it mean to be "beyond nature"?

[Aupmanyav]

Does religion require acknowledgment of the 'supernatural'?No, at least in my case.

[Politesse]

Do you use 'numinous'? I'm still not quite sure on that one....it seems highly 'charged' with a lot of subjective meaning. It sounds like 'luminous' to me, but the 'n' sorta leaves me numb. When I hear that term applied I have a tendency to wonder if we are talking about cheezy lighting effects...but that's my subjective conditioning. The point is, I guess, that selecting something vaguely obscure, like 'the numinous' doesn't privilege it any more in my estimation.
Re "numinous": it's not my favorite term, but I use it because its currently popular in my discipline, and because it was both coined recently and thus has a bit less cultural baggage. Personally, I don't like referring to all "woo" by the same word, since it implies false homogeneity, so I try to restrict my use of the word numinous to refer specifically to the content of the spiritual experience of "feeling" or "being lifted" into an alternative realm/reality/perception, the ecstatic inversion as it has been called. As near as I can tell, that experience is much more universal and connected to our emotional centers in much the same way whoever encounters it, so I figure there is less of a factor of false homogeneity, and indeed more necessity for a universalized term to encapsulate it.

[Roo St. Gallus]

What does it mean to be "beyond nature"?


Whatever the speaker says it means. It's woo.

[Roo St. Gallus]

Thanks, Politesse.

I think a real handy word for these kinds of discussions is "ineffable".

In my experience in discussions with those who claim experience with the 'numinous' is that it eventually resolves to their assertion that the experience is not communicable....it cannot be adequately explained in words...that it is 'ineffable'.

So....If it's so damned ineffable, why the eff are we talking about it?

[Politesse]

Thanks, Politesse.

I think a real handy word for these kinds of discussions is "ineffable".

In my experience in discussions with those who claim experience with the 'numinous' is that it eventually resolves to their assertion that the experience is not communicable....it cannot be adequately explained in words...that it is 'ineffable'.

So....If it's so damned ineffable, why the eff are we talking about it?

I suspect that's true to some extent, though. Not all emotions can be easily expressed in words, especially if the available vocabulary to discuss it with is limited.

[BioBeing]

A dogma. A claim to the ultimate truth. A closed elite of controllers of dogma and its 'correct' presentation.

Does religion require acknowledgment of the 'supernatural'?

What do we mean by 'supernatural'?

Is something like 'the Tao' 'supernatural' or not? Is 'the cosmos' 'supernatural' at all? I ask because I know some who consider these to be 'natural' and not dependent upon the 'supernatural'. How can it be supernatural, when it is co-determinant, co-existent and an identity with 'nature'?

I've never liked the term supernatural. It's really a throwaway word that either means "so awesome its incomprehensible" or "fake" depending of who you are talking to; either way, it files a concept away so you don't have to talk or think about it much. The Christian can say "How did God do it? It's supernatural," and the atheist can say "All that god-stuff? It depends on 'supernatural', and there's no evidence of the 'supernatural'," and then they can both say together, "So why even talk about it?" Lazy thinking to my way of seeing things. Either something is real/valid/useful, and thus "natural" to the universe if not necessarily to our way of thinking about the universe, or it isn't and it simply doesn't exist. Supernatural is an imaginary, undefined, and useless category.

I'm not going to disagree with you here*.

But, most every theist I know is going to disagree.

To say that God is not "supernatural" is, as you say, to say that it must therefore be natural. To be a "normal" part of the universe in the same way that stars, dark material and humans are. Which would imply that god obeys the laws of the universe, and is fully amenable to study by science. Trouble with that is that there is really no need for such a god-hypothesis.




*except I don't think the atheist/skeptic is being lazy. See, we (or at least I) think that if something is real, it exists "naturally". It is a phenomena that obeys the laws of the universe and can be studied. There is no supernatural as far as I am concerned. It is people who want something to exist - gods, say, or ghosts - but have no evidence for it, no real phenomena to study, who then insist on this category of "supernatural".

[Yahzi]

Does religion require acknowledgment of the 'supernatural'?
Yes.

Religion is defined by revelation; that is, a quanta of information that is obtained by non-empirical means. At its root religion requires at least one miracle: the transgression of the laws of information theory.

Anything that does not require supernatural revelation is a philosophy. Anything that does is a religion.

It's an obvious demarcating line, but people like to obscure definitions for their own purposes.

[columbus]

"Everyone has a religion of some sort, even if they have no religion."

What sort of a twisted mind can make a statement like that with a straight face?


It is a pretty simple logical fallacy. There is probably a fancy Latin term for it. What he did was use the same word in two different sentences, but he wasn't using the same meaning for the word in both sentences.

My dictionary defines religion as "worship or service of god or the supernatural". This is one prefectly understandable meaning for the word, but not the only one. Religion could also be defined as a a belief about human understanding about god or the supernatural.

By using one meaning in the first sentence and a different one in the second sentence, one could imply that atheists have a religion. But it doesn't change the facts about the human situation.

Some people believe in god or the supernatural, and some people don't. Everybody has a belief about religion, but not everybody has a belief in religion. He conflated the two meanings for the same word.

That is why he is wrong.

Tom

[Jobar]

Everybody has a belief about religion, but not everybody has a belief in religion.

Well said.

Let's try a slight change in the statement under contention- "Everyone has a philosophy of some sort, even if they have no philosophy." We also might try 'worldview' or 'paradigm' in that slot. Might those statements be considered more accurate than using 'religion'?

I do think we aren't all using the same definition of the word 'religion' here. It appears to me that the radio caller Zygote heard probably was trying to equate religion and philosophy. I of course disagree that the two words are equivalent, as do most here, I'm sure.

But even among ourselves, look at the difference between Yahzi's understanding of religion, and Aupmanyav's. Does religion require belief in something supernatural? Are there completely naturalistic religions, or not?

I side with Aupmanyav here, and think that the essential beliefs of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism are properly naturalistic. Though there's many sects of each which speak of Gods, demons, and magic of various sorts, the central message of all those beliefs can be pared down to something like "the universe- all of existence- is one single 'thusness' or being, including all named things which seem to exist independently of each other." And the realization of this great unity is the deepest understanding we humans can reach; call it satori, call it Buddha mind, call it oneness with the Tao, or with Brahman, or with God. It's the highest truth reached by all great mystics and sages, who use different words to describe the same state of mind.

That unity, that "thusness", contains all nature. (The word 'tao' originally meant the grain or pattern in a piece of wood.) And it requires nothing beyond, above, or apart from nature.

But! It does allow for and include what is unknown as well as what is known by humanity. So, even though we continue to learn new things about the universe, those things also fit within the pattern of Tao. The unknown may be infinite; we may live in a multiverse of endless possible bubble universes, each with different natural laws. But that infinity is still fairly called 'natural'. And we, in our momentary motedom, are still unified with that infinite nature.

That, if you will, describes my religion as well as my philosophy. :) My own definition of religion is 'how finite beings relate to the infinite'- and that can be completely natural, unless you care to deny the possibility of nature being infinite.

[MattShizzle]

Not so sure about that. There are probably some people that genuinely don't care and never really thought much about it.

[Jobar]

Not so sure about that. There are probably some people that genuinely don't care and never really thought much about it.

That's so. And unless you refuse to include the severely retarded or brain-damaged in the category 'people', there are definitely people who have no philosophy *or* religion, because they have not the mental capacity to conceive of such things.

[rcscwc]

A dogma. A claim to the ultimate truth. A closed elite of controllers of dogma and its 'correct' presentation.

Does religion require acknowledgment of the 'supernatural'?

What do we mean by 'supernatural'?

Is something like 'the Tao' 'supernatural' or not? Is 'the cosmos' 'supernatural' at all? I ask because I know some who consider these to be 'natural' and not dependent upon the 'supernatural'. How can it be supernatural, when it is co-determinant, co-existent and an identity with 'nature'?
A Hindu may not beliebe in SN and still be a Hindu. But a xian cannot be a xian unless he believes in super natural like virgin birth, resurrection etc.

[MattShizzle]

Not so sure about that. There are probably some people that genuinely don't care and never really thought much about it.

That's so. And unless you refuse to include the severely retarded or brain-damaged in the category 'people', there are definitely people who have no philosophy *or* religion, because they have not the mental capacity to conceive of such things.

Also babies.

[Politesse]

A Hindu may not beliebe in SN and still be a Hindu. But a xian cannot be a xian unless he believes in super natural like virgin birth, resurrection etc.
Who says?

[Jobar]

While I've spoken to a couple of people who called themselves Christian Atheists, and a few others who called themselves agnostic Christians, most people (Christians and atheists both) seem to consider those descriptions self-contradicting.

[rcscwc]

A Hindu may not beliebe in SN and still be a Hindu. But a xian cannot be a xian unless he believes in super natural like virgin birth, resurrection etc.
Who says?

These two the basic dogmas of xianity. Anyone denying them is a heretic, and a few centuries was killed too.

[Politesse]

A Hindu may not beliebe in SN and still be a Hindu. But a xian cannot be a xian unless he believes in super natural like virgin birth, resurrection etc.
Who says?

These two the basic dogmas of xianity. Anyone denying them is a heretic, and a few centuries was killed too.

And what did the heretics have to say about that? Or do you always side against the oppressed?

[rcscwc]

A Hindu may not beliebe in SN and still be a Hindu. But a xian cannot be a xian unless he believes in super natural like virgin birth, resurrection etc.
Who says?

These two the basic dogmas of xianity. Anyone denying them is a heretic, and a few centuries was killed too.

And what did the heretics have to say about that? Or do you always side against the oppressed?
Xians were not the oppressed party. Were they? Maybe the heretics got the sticky end, denial of freedom of rejecting a dogma. Not much different today. Church does not kill heretics, but only ostracises them.

But xianity's internal problems do not make me sleeples.

[Politesse]

Xians were not the oppressed party. Were they? Maybe the heretics got the sticky end, denial of freedom of rejecting a dogma. Not much different today. Church does not kill heretics, but only ostracises them.

But xianity's internal problems do not make me sleeples.My point is that the "heretics" most certainly considered themselves Christians, and given that they have at times represented a majority, you've no reason to side with their persecutors unless you have a sympathy for authoritarianism.

[rcscwc]

Xians were not the oppressed party. Were they? Maybe the heretics got the sticky end, denial of freedom of rejecting a dogma. Not much different today. Church does not kill heretics, but only ostracises them.

But xianity's internal problems do not make me sleeples.My point is that the "heretics" most certainly considered themselves Christians, and given that they have at times represented a majority, you've no reason to side with their persecutors unless you have a sympathy for authoritarianism.

Heretics personal views do not count if they are to be treated as Aquinas advocated ie seperated from life. If X claims to be an ateist xians, the other other xians too must recognise it. Do they? NO.

But Mr. Aup, a member here, claims to be an atheist Hindu. Yours truly, a theist Hindu, recognises his claim without batting an eye. Don't you find a difference?

[Politesse]

Heretics personal views do not count if they are to be treated as Aquinas advocated ie seperated from life. If X claims to be an ateist xians, the other other xians too must recognise it. Do they? NO.Who says? And if the heretic Christians don't recognize the orthodox ones either, does Christianity just sort of cancel itself out into non-existence?

[Yahzi]

While I've spoken to a couple of people who called themselves Christian Atheists,
I've talked to people that call themselves Napoleon and the Emperor of China. But I perhaps drew a less charitable conclusion about the conversation than you did.

:D

[rcscwc]

Heretics personal views do not count if they are to be treated as Aquinas advocated ie seperated from life. If X claims to be an ateist xians, the other other xians too must recognise it. Do they? NO.Who says? And if the heretic Christians don't recognize the orthodox ones either, does Christianity just sort of cancel itself out into non-existence?

When Aquinas views prevailed, heretics and apostates and homo sexuals had no say, were not heard and were exterminated. Period.

Now they can reject the orthodox xian view. But will they then be xians? NO.

[Politesse]

Heretics personal views do not count if they are to be treated as Aquinas advocated ie seperated from life. If X claims to be an ateist xians, the other other xians too must recognise it. Do they? NO.Who says? And if the heretic Christians don't recognize the orthodox ones either, does Christianity just sort of cancel itself out into non-existence?

When Aquinas views prevailed, heretics and apostates and homo sexuals had no say, were not heard and were exterminated. Period.

Now they can reject the orthodox xian view. But will they then be xians? NO.
Homosexuals and apostates and heretics weren't exterminated, they were oppressed and surpressed. And now you are disenfranchising them.

[rog]

Heretics personal views do not count if they are to be treated as Aquinas advocated ie seperated from life. If X claims to be an ateist xians, the other other xians too must recognise it. Do they? NO.Who says? And if the heretic Christians don't recognize the orthodox ones either, does Christianity just sort of cancel itself out into non-existence?

When Aquinas views prevailed, heretics and apostates and homo sexuals had no say, were not heard and were exterminated. Period.

Now they can reject the orthodox xian view. But will they then be xians? NO.
Homosexuals and apostates and heretics weren't exterminated, they were oppressed and surpressed. And now you are disenfranchising them.

A lot of them were killed, no?

[Politesse]

Heretics personal views do not count if they are to be treated as Aquinas advocated ie seperated from life. If X claims to be an ateist xians, the other other xians too must recognise it. Do they? NO.Who says? And if the heretic Christians don't recognize the orthodox ones either, does Christianity just sort of cancel itself out into non-existence?

When Aquinas views prevailed, heretics and apostates and homo sexuals had no say, were not heard and were exterminated. Period.

Now they can reject the orthodox xian view. But will they then be xians? NO.
Homosexuals and apostates and heretics weren't exterminated, they were oppressed and surpressed. And now you are disenfranchising them.

A lot of them were killed, no?
All three and yes. But not destroyed, we are still here and many still call ourselves Christians. I see no reason to deprive us of the right to self determination.

[rog]

All three and yes. But not destroyed, we are still here and many still call ourselves Christians. I see no reason to deprive us of the right to self determination.

I would not dream of categorising you with out your consent, you are too complex an individual :)

But I would like to ask: What it is about what you believe that leads you to define yourself as Christian?

And, do you think of it [Christianity] as club that can be defined by 'orthodoxy' or is it a religion that one can accept and define for themselves?

[Politesse]

All three and yes. But not destroyed, we are still here and many still call ourselves Christians. I see no reason to deprive us of the right to self determination.

I would not dream of categorising you with out your consent, you are too complex an individual :)

But I would like to ask: What it is about what you believe that leads you to define yourself as Christian?

And, do you think of it [Christianity] as club that can be defined by 'orthodoxy' or is it a religion that one can accept and define for themselves.
Philosophically I mean Christian the same way a Kantian means Kantian; more a amicable affiliation than a statement of worship. Culturally I regard it as the more honest and forthright label. I have a copy of the Qur'an and the Tao Te Ching in my meditation space held in as much honor as that of the Bible, but I was raised a Christian (and a proud heretic) and see no reason to deny the house where my cultural assumptions are most likely to lie. It is also with Jesus that I have had the most experience and communication.

But it's my opinion that Christ's teachings were universally applicable and enlightening- you needn't be a member of "the club" to get something out of them, which is why if you ever catch me evangelizing on this forum, its more likely to be in the form of advice and guidance than of trying to convince someone to change their stated creed outright. Orthodoxy has its place, as defining the normative values of a culture. But I also think it should always be challenged and critiqued with the passing generations, or it becomes dead and worthless, and generally violent and oppressive as a result. Orthodoxy is one thing and authoritarianism another. I count self-determination in matters of religion as a human right and one close to my heart.

[rog]

All three and yes. But not destroyed, we are still here and many still call ourselves Christians. I see no reason to deprive us of the right to self determination.

I would not dream of categorising you with out your consent, you are too complex an individual :)

But I would like to ask: What it is about what you believe that leads you to define yourself as Christian?

And, do you think of it [Christianity] as club that can be defined by 'orthodoxy' or is it a religion that one can accept and define for themselves.
Philosophically I mean Christian the same way a Kantian means Kantian; more a amicable affiliation than a statement of worship. Culturally I regard it as the more honest and forthright label. I have a copy of the Qur'an and the Tao Te Ching in my meditation space held in as much honor as that of the Bible, but I was raised a Christian (and a proud heretic) and see no reason to deny the house where my cultural assumptions are most likely to lie. It is also with Jesus that I have had the most experience and communication.


In your estimation how much trouble would you had been in, in times gone by for holding those views, not to mention association with us reprobates?


But it's my opinion that Christ's teachings were universally applicable and enlightening- you needn't be a member of "the club" to get something out of them, which is why if you ever catch me evangelizing on this forum, its more likely to be in the form of advice and guidance than of trying to convince someone to change their stated creed outright. Orthodoxy has its place, as defining the normative values of a culture. But I also think it should always be challenged and critiqued with the passing generations, or it becomes dead and worthless, and generally violent and oppressive as a result. Orthodoxy is one thing and authoritarianism another. I count self-determination in matters of religion as a human right and one close to my heart.

If only the process were a bit quicker, I can't say it was anything defining, but, when I heard about Galileo and Copernicus at primary school - I instantly understood that the individual through reflection could overturn the basis of their dogma and thet their authority counts for naught, beyond brute power.

side-track/derail: without religion what do you consider the best way to instil moral values that conform to a benign ethic, within a population?

[rog]

It is also with Jesus that I have had the most experience and communication.

I'm not looking to rip on you here, but could you expand that a bit for me? Understanding is what I am about here.

[Roo St. Gallus]

It is also with Jesus that I have had the most experience and communication.

I'm not looking to rip on you here, but could you expand that a bit for me? Understanding is what I am about here.

Your attribution is wrong, it should be 'Politesse', not 'rog', rog.

ETA: My correction was unnecessary because rog is talking to himself, anyway. But he wasn't.

Is everybody confused, now?

[rcscwc]

Heretics personal views do not count if they are to be treated as Aquinas advocated ie seperated from life. If X claims to be an ateist xians, the other other xians too must recognise it. Do they? NO.Who says? And if the heretic Christians don't recognize the orthodox ones either, does Christianity just sort of cancel itself out into non-existence?

When Aquinas views prevailed, heretics and apostates and homo sexuals had no say, were not heard and were exterminated. Period.

Now they can reject the orthodox xian view. But will they then be xians? NO.
Homosexuals and apostates and heretics weren't exterminated, they were oppressed and surpressed. And now you are disenfranchising them.

Your either in denial mode about inquisition or are ignorant about about killing of apostates, heretics and homosexuals. Which of the two?

And I am not at all disenfranchising them, you might be.

[rog]

It is also with Jesus that I have had the most experience and communication.

I'm not looking to rip on you here, but could you expand that a bit for me? Understanding is what I am about here.

Your attribution is wrong, it should be 'Politesse', not 'rog', rog.

ETA: My correction was unnecessary because rog is talking to himself, anyway. But he wasn't.

Is everybody confused, now?

Thanks for pointing that out!

[Politesse]

In your estimation how much trouble would you had been in, in times gone by for holding those views, not to mention association with us reprobates?Depends on what time period I was in and how subtle I was about it. I like to think I can keep my head low, as you do often have to in order to be a person of faith in this world. "I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be cunning as serpents, and innocent as doves." The wolves weren't the atheists and liberals, methinks.


But it's my opinion that Christ's teachings were universally applicable and enlightening- you needn't be a member of "the club" to get something out of them, which is why if you ever catch me evangelizing on this forum, its more likely to be in the form of advice and guidance than of trying to convince someone to change their stated creed outright. Orthodoxy has its place, as defining the normative values of a culture. But I also think it should always be challenged and critiqued with the passing generations, or it becomes dead and worthless, and generally violent and oppressive as a result. Orthodoxy is one thing and authoritarianism another. I count self-determination in matters of religion as a human right and one close to my heart.

If only the process were a bit quicker, I can't say it was anything defining, but, when I heard about Galileo and Copernicus at primary school - I instantly understood that the individual through reflection could overturn the basis of their dogma and that their authority counts for naught, beyond brute power.Yes. There's a more true authority which stems from personal integrity, courage, willingness to service, and patience against the blind turnings of the world.

side-track/derail: without religion what do you consider the best way to instil moral values that conform to a benign ethic, within a population?All I can say is that it is never safe to trust a social system of any kind to ensure moral values, whether it is a religion or a philosophy or an economic system or even a pedagogical method. I'm not saying that human community is bad- many people united are exponentially stronger than a person alone- but large populations of people start following a different set of rules, and that social moral constant is prone to getting hijacked by greed or wrath, or exploited by power structures. Any sufficiently large social system will eventually fall prey to this fate unless it is being constantly critiqued and revitalized. The only way to counter this is to raise your children well- teach them to be the critics as well as the critiqued, to refuse to do any moral action they cannot justify or understand, to eschew hypocrisy and embrace wisdom when they can find it. You can't give a nation a conscience, but you can raise the next generation to recognize when conscience is failing. Wisdom is a slender and fragile thing, but it endures as long as there are a few to uphold it.

[Roo St. Gallus]

All I can say is that it is never safe to trust a social system of any kind to ensure moral values, whether it is a religion or a philosophy or an economic system or even a pedagogical method. I'm not saying that human community is bad- many people united are exponentially stronger than a person alone- but large populations of people start following a different set of rules, and that social moral constant is prone to getting hijacked by greed or wrath, or exploited by power structures. Any sufficiently large social system will eventually fall prey to this fate unless it is being constantly critiqued and revitalized. The only way to counter this is to raise your children well- teach them to be the critics as well as the critiqued, to refuse to do any moral action they cannot justify or understand, to eschew hypocrisy and embrace wisdom when they can find it. You can't give a nation a conscience, but you can raise the next generation to recognize when conscience is failing. Wisdom is a slender and fragile thing, but it endures as long as there are a few to uphold it.

Boy, howdy...Do I agree with that. Ramen!

[diana]

It's love of money Euda.

I realize that this is the saying, but greed would then be the love of a god, that god being "money".


eudaimonia,

MarkAgree, Mark.

I was just thinking that there is no real difference between "money" and "the love of money" in this context. So you have money, and that's ok as long as you don't love it? Fine. Go give it to the poor.

I don't see that happening, though.

d

[diana]

BTW...if we all need a religion, here's mine: The Church of Beer (http://thechurchofbeer.com/).

d