--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think going after the religion rather than the behavior > > > > > risks becoming a crusade and even a pogrom (figuratively > > > > > speaking), and it doesn't affect the behavior. > > > > > > > > I missed this first time through. This is a legitimate > > > > point to consider. > > > > > > Even though the point you go on to consider is not > > > at all the one I was making...OOOOO-K.
That is the point of going back and forth, to understand what points are being made. > > > > > > > I believe that religions have used this extreme use > > > > and application of the concept of challenging unproven > > > > claims (pogrom} > > > > > > Not what I meant by pogrom. I was referring to the > > > potential to portray everyone who shares a specific > > > religious heritage as Bad Guys (the way some here > > > do with Christians and many right-wingers do with > > > Muslims) pretty much regardless of behavior. > > > > That is a different discussion from whether or not their > > claims of how the world works have merit. > > Uh, right. And...? (This is a *third* discussion, BTW.) OK we are discussing different aspects of complex issues. Since I don't portray everyone who shares a specific religious heritage as bad guys it doesn't apply to me. But I can think that they are wrong about what they are asserting or that there is little evidence for fantastic claims. And that the people who make less fantastic claims are shielding the ones who do while still maintaining the absurd premise that they have a unique insight into the mind of the creator of the universe and his desires concerning this world. > > <snip> > > > > If a person today claims the holocaust never happened > > > > we challenge the idea with facts. If people claim > > > > Jesus rose from the dead we have a right to say "what > > > > is your proof?" > > > > > > Do you see any significant differences between > > > these two claims? > > > > Sure, among them that the claim that Jesus physically > > rose from the dead is among the protected ideas in our > > culture that is felt is beyond challenge despite it > > being asserted as a fact. > > Any other differences? This is annoying. There are many which one is important to you? The claims about both Jesus and the holocaust are based on historical evidence. One has good evidence and one has bad evidence. But they are both asserted as physical history about something that happened in this world, not the afterlife. the Bible uses accounts of people at the time as evidence for what they claim historically happened. > > <snip> > > > > But we have created a ban on bringing into discussion > > > > these claims as if they are exempt from the challenge: > > > > "what is your proof?" And this is hurting us as a > > > > species trying to rise above superstitious tribal > > > > beliefs about one group of humans being intrinsically > > > > superior to another in a predetermined way. And they > > > > have earned their lower status by being bad in some way > > > > that the scripture, that God wrote or approves of, > > > > describes in detail. > > > > > > You sound as religious here about your perspective > > > as the most fundamentalist Christian, Curtis. > > > > That claim is bogus. I am doing the exact opposite of > > a person who uses scriptural authority. I am saying > > that every claim religious or not is up for discussion. > > This is not my perspective, it is the basis for Western > > civilization. > > And therefore not up for discussion, right? We are discussing it. Are there topics that should not be discussed? > > What's so fundamentalist-sounding about your spiel is > your conviction as to the superiority of your views, > as well as your propensity to slay straw men (e.g., > "exempt," "protected," "shielded"). > > > > To me, it's not a matter of whether religious belief > > > is exempt from challenge; it's a matter of whether > > > indulging in such challenge is a distraction from > > > focusing on the *behavior*. I really don't care > > > whether someone believes Jesus rose from the dead > > > as long as they behave humanely. I don't even > > > especially care whether someone who holds this belief > > > thinks of themselves as better than me as long as > > > they don't allow that belief to affect their behavior > > > toward me (or anyone else). > > > > You are taking a wack-a-mole approach. I am addressing > > the root of the problem. Expecting people not to have > > their religious convictions effect their behavior seems > > unlikely. > > For good or ill. But I think the root of the problem is > failure of compassion, which hijacks religious beliefs > as justification. Our application of compassion is often shaped by our religious beliefs. I remember Diane Sawyer interviewing a man who had murdered his sister who had sex to regain the honor of their family. For him it was an act of compassion for the girl and he felt nothing but pride in restoring his family's honor. Compassion is not a universal quality especially in how it is applied. Removing it from the context of protected religious absolutes allows us the freedom to say "this is bullshit man you just killed your sister" instead of "atta boy son you are doing the work of God on earth." > > <snip> > > > In any case, many Christians who believe Jesus rose > > > from the dead use their faith in that event to > > > motivate them to behave as Jesus prescribed. We could > > > all do a lot worse, behavior-wise, than adhering to > > > Jesus's principles. > > > > The ones they pick and choose from out faulty records > > through translation you mean. So is it Ok to believe > > that Lincoln was not assassinated? Which historical > > assertions are exempt from normal questioning? > > Huh?? Is the belief that Lincoln was not assassinated > a religious one that can't be either proved or > disproved but is held on the basis of scriptural > authority? What bad behavior does it generate? It is an historical event and Jesus's resurrection is presented as an historical fact. It is not exempt from the kind of research we do to try to find what happened in the past. > > And please stop attributing to me the view that beliefs > are somehow inherently "exempt" from questioning. Again, > you're putting words in my mouth. You accused me of unsavory things like being a bigot for questioning the basic precepts of religious beliefs. That is the shield I am talking about. Claiming that someone is out of line for questioning the claims of religion as if they were any other claim we evaluate. > > > > And I doubt there are very many such people who think > > > of themselves as "intrinsically superior to another > > > in a predetemined way," or that others have "earned > > > their lower status by being bad" in some way > > > described in Scripture. > > > > I can't believe you would say that. Are you really > > unaware of what life is like in India? > > "Such" is a referent word, Curtis. "Such people" refers > back to "Christians who believe Jesus rose from the dead > [who] use their faith in that event to motivate them to > behave as Jesus prescribed." > > > > Maybe that's what *you* were taught to believe once > > > upon a time (although "predetermined" sounds more > > > Calvinist than Catholic!), but it certainly doesn't > > > characterize Christians across the board. > > > > We are confusing mythologies here. That point concerns > > Hindus. Christians have other issues. > > OK. You brought up Christians and didn't indicate you > were switching back to Hindus. And at least some > Christians also believe they're "intrinsically superior" > --as you go on to point out--so it appeared to be the > same train of thought. They share one preposterous claim. That they have a book which should not be scrutinized for its historical accuracy or probability of its claims which describes the mind of God and what we should do in this world. It is inherent in this claim that you have not only a superior view to non believers who don't know the mind of God but also of other people with their other special books that convey this absurdly inflated claim. > > > But one uniting belief for most Christian groups is the > > physical resurrection of Jesus and the authority of the > > Bible as an accurate statement of how the world works. > > I'm not sure it's "most Christian groups," Curtis. There's > quite a bit of variation, particularly with regard to the > "accuracy" of the Bible. Sure there is a continuum of beliefs ending in Unitarian probably. But the majority do believe that Jesus's death and resurrection has an effect on how they will spend their afterlife. You can only drift so far from that claim and still be a Christian. > > > And just happening to be born into Catholicism which > > leads you to an eternity in heaven while all no Catholic > > burn in hell is not much of an improvement over the Hindu > > predetermination. > > > > > Painting with that kind of broad, simplistic brush > > > is pretty much what I meant by *pogrom*. > > > > It is not simplistic to challenge their stated beliefs. > > It's simplistic to attribute certain beliefs across > the board. Christianity had many sects but most of them do share central ideas about Jesus and the unique place the Bible hold among other literature. I am not concerned with the ones who have abandoned the claim that the Bible is the word of God. Or that God didn't set up society so that people who work with caustic chemicals all day in a tannery can't send their kids to school to escape this class of work. Once a Shudra always a Shudra. > > > It is important if we are going to shed the last bits of > > superstition. We still have people in political debates > > using their absolute religious conviction for the > > oppression of gay people among others. It is time to > > challenge the basis of their claims that they have a > > special insight into how the world works. > > By all means go after their oppressive behavior. By > all means challenge their false statements with regard > to facts (e.g., that gay men are pedophiles). > > But I'd leave it to clergypersons to challenge the > belief that Sodom got zapped because its men were > homosexual; or that St. Paul was condemning > homosexual orientation rather than pagan practices. Why? I think it can be a team effort. The Bible does condone things including slavery that we reject. Picking and choosing while still viewing it as a special book with an insight into God's mind and intention is missing the root of the problem that derails this discussion. How can you argue with a person who claims that their view is God's view? > > (Nothing wrong with an intellectual discussion among > laypeople about biblical hermeneutics, but again, that's > not the first order of business for them, IMHO.) I'm not sure what you mean by the first order of business for laypeople. In my life determining my views about religion pretty much trumped everything else for a large part of my life. > > <snip> > > > It strikes me that the objection to *ideas* simply > > > because you find them "superstitious," rather than > > > evaluating people in terms of their *behavior*, is > > > akin to condemning gay people for what they do in > > > their bedrooms instead of evaluating how they behave > > > in society. > > > > You are confusing your own point here. The parallel > > would be if gay people asserted that they had to be > > gay because their gay Bible told them to be that way. > > Different parallel drawn on a different basis. I'm not > even sure what yours has to do with anything. I thought > the relevance of mine was pretty clear; I don't know why > you have a problem with it. Because it is a non sequitur. We are looking at different logical levels. I am interested in one you are interested in another as a priority. Gay sex in private does not effect me. Believing that God is against abortions so poor people in my state should have limited access does. > > <snip> > > > I also think the demand to "prove" Jesus rose from > > > the dead is idiotic on its face, from several > > > different angles. > > > > None of which you share, just letting the insult speak > > for itself. > > What kind of proof would you accept, Curtis, that a > Christian would be able to produce, assuming the > resurrection were a fact? > > It's unprovable and undisprovable, just like karma. No its not. It is stated as a historical fact with evidence to support it. Evidence that we should challenge and not pretend that believing this has as few consequences as gay people having sex in private. We may not have perfect certainty in any historical event but we do have the ability to evaluate it like any other historical claim. Are the different reports consistent would be a good place to start. > > The other biggie is that believing in it on the basis > of what the Bible says, in the absence of any other > evidence, is a criterion of one's faith. > > <snip> > > So I would like to know how you are distinguishing this > > historical fact from the claim that Socrates was poisoned. > > Why should scholars spend time making sure the claims > > about Socrates are accurate but give a pass to the Jesus > > myth? > > I don't think I ever said what scholars should do or not > do. You aren't a scholar, I'm not a scholar. We're > ordinary schmoes who want to make the world a better place. > Should we spend our time and energy denouncing religious > beliefs, or trying to stop oppressive behavior? I have stated why I put my attention where I do. I majored in philosophy and spent years reading scriptures. Of course this is going to interest me and I will see behavior as stemming from beliefs. Ordinary schmoes can refute the absurd claims of religion too. We each choose our battles and go with our interests and strengths. I am not judging you negatively for your choices. I don't believe my choice is better in general. It is just better for me. > > (I gotta get some work done; I'll try to continue this > evening if you're still at it.) I have enjoyed clarifying how I think about these topics. >
