"Nonsense" about Christianity

[Vraith]

Yes, I'm diggin' the quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes...

Yes, this is so much nicer than usenet's requoting format.

This reminds me of a thread a year or so ago where we did this for a few pages. It was fun.

It's starting to be fun...but highly Un-Orthodox ....hmmm..or not, since all done the same...

[Auleliel]

Yes, this is so much nicer than usenet's requoting format.

This reminds me of a thread a year or so ago where we did this for a few pages. It was fun.

It's starting to be fun...but highly Un-Orthodox ....hmmm..or not, since all done the same...

I think we should probably get back on topic (whatever the topic is...).

[Cybrweez]

It was about nonsense....

[Loredoctor]

It was about nonsense....

Nonsense.

[aliantha]

So we never actually got off-topic, then! I feel better about hijacking the thread now -- thanks, guys!

[Cybrweez]

Hey Loremaster, I asked this question way back in beginning, and I'm still curious.

To be honest, and not meaning to generalise here, I get the impression from some Christians here they feel they are persecuted. I am curious to read about this 'nonsense' too, given that there have been a couple of occasions when a Christian directly attacked theories as nonsense (without explaining what they meant).

loremaster, that general sense you have may be b/c Christians see the removal of all things Christian from a country that is deeply tied to that belief. I'm curious, what would you expect in such a situation? And, do you think this removal is dispassionate?

[rdhopeca]

Hey Loremaster, I asked this question way back in beginning, and I'm still curious.

To be honest, and not meaning to generalise here, I get the impression from some Christians here they feel they are persecuted. I am curious to read about this 'nonsense' too, given that there have been a couple of occasions when a Christian directly attacked theories as nonsense (without explaining what they meant).

loremaster, that general sense you have may be b/c Christians see the removal of all things Christian from a country that is deeply tied to that belief. I'm curious, what would you expect in such a situation? And, do you think this removal is dispassionate?

I am not intending to speak for Loremaster, but I would like to give my response to this.

IMO, "the removal of all things Christian" overstates the issue. I see it as more of a leveling of the influence on our society. Christian influences should not be rubber stamped by placing the word "God" on our currency, or in our Pledge of Allegiance, or other public "approvals" of Christianity. That's what the Church is for. Say it all you want (free speech is still free speech), put a sign up on your house, put signs outside of your church, to your heart's content. We are all free to worship in our churches and our homes (or not) as we see fit.

Until we all agree that we can put "Buddha Lives" underneath "In God We Trust" on the 1 dollar bill, there should be no such commentary on the dollar. If you want to call that "removal of all things Christian", that's fine, but to me, that's a flawed perspective. It shouldn't have been there to begin with.

[aliantha]

It *wasn't* there to begin with. I believe "In God We Trust" was added to US money at about the time "under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance, wasn't it? Around the time of the Army/McCarthy hearings?

I'm not Lore either, but I'm happy to respond, too. I think I understand what you're saying, Weez, and if you look at it that way, I suppose I can understand why Christians would feel embattled. But I don't think that's what it's all about. It's about folks of other religions, here in nation with no state religion, looking for a place at the table (as rdhopeca said).

I'd like to emphasize that: America does not have a state religion. Regardless of the inferences you care to draw from the religion(s) of our Founding Fathers, that is still a fact. If they had wanted to make America a Christian nation, they could easily have done so. But they didn't. They could also have restricted press freedom, but they didn't do that either. Why? Because the Founding Fathers believed that a plurality of views would make the nation stronger.

[rusmeister]

I think Andy's point can be best stated that the Christian faith, even in its divided forms, was seen by most, by and large, as a proposition of truth - as something that was actually true, and not merely a personal opinion that one could be free to have or not have. (Of course people were free to not worship and not believe, but most DID believe - in Christianity, specifically - and the laws and society were built around that). THAT is what has changed. For those who still see it to be something true - the actual truth of the nature of the universe - what you see as freedom today is actually a devastating degradation and spiraling into insanity. The freedom to be insane.

I'm not going to argue that - it is self-evident (and if it's not, then it's like trying to argue about color with a blind man). You may hold them to be wrong, but they are not, on the whole, unreasonable to see things that way. Otherwise, I'll try to follow Fist's advice.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I think Andy's point can be best stated that the Christian faith, even in its divided forms, was seen by most, by and large, as a proposition of truth - as something that was actually true, and not merely a personal opinion that one could be free to have or not have. (Of course people were free to not worship and not believe, but most DID believe - in Christianity, specifically - and the laws and society were built around that). THAT is what has changed. For those who still see it to be something true - the actual truth of the nature of the universe - what you see as freedom today is actually a devastating degradation and spiraling into insanity. The freedom to be insane.

It works both ways. What you see as today's insanity others see as a freedom from religious abuse. The desire to return to some halcyonic era is the result of nostalgic contemplation which conveniently forgets all the insanity that did exist. For example, back in those good ole days unwed teenaged mothers existed, but it was kept a deep, dark family secret that was only talked about in whispers among closest family members.

So I'm saying that there were reasons for trying to get away from the era of knuckle-cracking-with-the-ruler nuns in elementary school. There are probably other good examples showing that such authoritarianism is arbitrary and an abuse of power. Every age has its demons, and of course it is said that Satan can appear as an angel of light. I'm sure that many children back in those days thought that must have surely been the case with nuns and other abusive authority figures.

This is an age of rebellion, but if you see it as evil, remember where SRD has stated that evil always sees itself as good or well-intentioned. You can't convince people of their eee-villl by showing them their evil ways and bashing them over the head with the Bible when they have so many reasons to back themselves up. It just so happens that their e-vill doesn't come from Bible verses such as "spare the rod and spoil the child."

I'm not going to argue that - it is self-evident (and if it's not, then it's like trying to argue about color with a blind man). You may hold them to be wrong, but they are not, on the whole, unreasonable to see things that way. Otherwise, I'll try to follow Fist's advice.

IOW, "If you can't understand it, I can't explain it." Too bad that only works with explaining color to blind men. After all, color is a sensation, not an object of the understanding per se. You can certainly explain color to a blind man such that he understands it. In fact, I've known a deaf person to explain how she understands, even intuitively, the nature of sound because she has felt the vibrations of sound when it was loud enough to feel. And so the old adage about blind men fails.

[aliantha]

I think Andy's point can be best stated that the Christian faith, even in its divided forms, was seen by most, by and large, as a proposition of truth - as something that was actually true, and not merely a personal opinion that one could be free to have or not have. (Of course people were free to not worship and not believe, but most DID believe - in Christianity, specifically - and the laws and society were built around that). THAT is what has changed.

But that's what I'm saying, rus -- *nothing* has changed. Americans have always been free to believe in God, or not. The putative Truth of one religion or another has nothing to do with this basic freedom that was built into the Constitution from the get-go.

Christians may have felt, for a long time, like Christianity was the default state religion, because they were in the majority (and I daresay they still are). But it is not, and it has never been. America has no state religion.

[Cybrweez]

For those that know this country's history, the idea of God, specifically Christianity, is tightly woven since the beginning. You mention the motto and pledge. Have you read some speeches from earliest Presidents? Have you studied some of the original state constitutions? Have you read the Declaration of Independence? These do not give you a sense of a secular country/society. And today, those early writers would be sued.

ali, you can see it as getting a place at the table, but don't forget to add getting rid of some other places. Places that have been there since the foundation. So, I'm only saying, what would you expect from those old places? You've talked about paganism w/rus a bit. Imagine you were around when Roman empire was turning Christian, and paganism was declining. Would you have said to yourself, ahh, others are coming to the table, getting rid of all things pagan. I'm happy! I imagine you would be frustrated, and all the Christians are thinking, we're just coming to the table. And the table needs changing.

[rdhopeca]

For those that know this country's history, the idea of God, specifically Christianity, is tightly woven since the beginning. You mention the motto and pledge. Have you read some speeches from earliest Presidents? Have you studied some of the original state constitutions? Have you read the Declaration of Independence? These do not give you a sense of a secular country/society. And today, those early writers would be sued.

I have read them. And, they had the freedom to say such things. But, they also had the foresight to draft into the Constitution the freedom to not believe in those ideas and principles, and maintain a society free of ties to any single religion or belief system.

I personally have no problem with a sitting President mentioning his beliefs in his speeches, as long as he has no problem with me discarding it as irrelevant, and does not require me to utter those same phrases myself.

Additionally, if today, those early writers would be sued, why has no one sued any of the last few presidents for mentioning God in his speeches?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

For those that know this country's history, the idea of God, specifically Christianity, is tightly woven since the beginning.

The Founding Fathers were not Christians, they were mostly deists, and Thomas Jefferson was an atheist.

Try this site www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html.

[Fist and Faith]

What's the alternative?? That we not have the freedom to be "insane"? That we not have the freedom to be non-Christians?

It may not be to your liking, but that doesn't make it wrong. Time was, you had 100 seats at that table. Well, it's my table too, and I have every bit as much right to sit at it as you do.

This country was not founded to be a Christian country, even if it was strongly influenced by Christianity. It was founded to be a free and equal country. I suppose Isreal might be a good example of a country that is not, and was not intended to be, in regards to religion, a free country. I suppose it's possible to have a truly democratic vote in the USA on whether or not to make us a Christian country. If that came to be, I would hope the vote would be to remain a free and equal country, instead.

IMO, a part of the country can be set aside for those who do want to be the Christian Nation of America, or whatever it might be called. I've never understood why, with all the Americans who want the USA to be that, it hasn't happened.

Anyway, it seems to me society was just paying lip-service to Christianity when it instituted the laws back in the day. I doubt some of the bigger events in our history, the events that made us what we are, like the near-genocide of Native Americans and slavery, are Christian ideals.

I think Andy's point can be best stated that the Christian faith, even in its divided forms, was seen by most, by and large, as a proposition of truth - as something that was actually true, and not merely a personal opinion that one could be free to have or not have.

I think a better word would be "belief." Some believe in, for example, the form of Christianity that says some go to Hell when they die, and suffer eternal horrifying torment. Others - some calling themselves Christians, others not - do not believe in Hell. But it can be the opinion of some who do believe that that form of Christianity is true that that God does not deserve any love or obedience from us.

[aliantha]

ali, you can see it as getting a place at the table, but don't forget to add getting rid of some other places. Places that have been there since the foundation.

Who said anything about getting rid of old places at the table? I'm not talking about banning anybody, Weez. I'm talking about getting a bigger table.

Once again: Pagans don't proselytize. They have no expectation that everybody will eventually become Pagan.

[rusmeister]

I think Andy's point can be best stated that the Christian faith, even in its divided forms, was seen by most, by and large, as a proposition of truth - as something that was actually true, and not merely a personal opinion that one could be free to have or not have. (Of course people were free to not worship and not believe, but most DID believe - in Christianity, specifically - and the laws and society were built around that). THAT is what has changed.

But that's what I'm saying, rus -- *nothing* has changed. Americans have always been free to believe in God, or not. The putative Truth of one religion or another has nothing to do with this basic freedom that was built into the Constitution from the get-go.

Christians may have felt, for a long time, like Christianity was the default state religion, because they were in the majority (and I daresay they still are). But it is not, and it has never been. America has no state religion.

Apples and oranges, Ali.
You're talking about the Constitution and what it allowed. I'm talking about what most people actually believed. Sure, there has always been nominal faith minus a serious attitude towards it. But most laws and customs were built around the assumption that Christianity, not Islam or Paganism is actually the truth. The holidays celebrated were "Christmas" and "Easter", (lest we get distracted, I'll add: with the accent on the same events - Christ's Incarnation and Resurrection - as seen outside of the English-speaking world), not "Ramadan" and "Kwanzaa" (talk about an artificial holiday imposed artificially by a minority). Holiday meant "holy day" and people generally agreed that it was holy, even if they weren't.

Andy, I don't think you're taking the right tack by speaking of "places at the table". It's underlying assumption that the truth is something that can be determined by democratic vote. If there is ultimate truth to the nature of the universe, then it would remain true even if no one at all believed it. Thus, opinions are irrelevant to that truth. They either align to one degree or another with that truth, or they do not.

Fist, you linked two disparate sentences together. I only said "the freedom to be insane" - which ought not to be. There is no "right to insanity".
One can be non-Christian and be sane, if wrong. But to embrace a "right to insanity" IS insanity.

There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H. G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called "Doubts of the Instrument." In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all -- the authority of a man to think.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch3.html

[Fist and Faith]

I hope you'll explain the difference between the freedom to be insane and the right to be insane. I can't imagine how I can be free to be insane, yet not have the right. I am free to murder, in the sense that I have the capability to murder. At any moment of the day, in fact. But the society I live in decides what rights I do and do not have. Unless I choose to live apart from all societies, I must accept that the one I choose to live in has the power/authority to decide what rights I do and do not have in many situations.

But what society, group, or individual (or whatever) is denying me my right to be insane? Either the chemicals, wiring, or whatever, in my brain work well enough that I'm sane, or they work so incorrectly that I'm insane. Freedom and rights don't enter into it. I don't have the freedom or right to be a genius of music or physics.

As for equating not believing the Christian faith, even in its divided forms, with insanity... To throw such insults out there, as though it is a matter of common knowledge, or common sense... And having not the slightest idea how such a thing can even be viewed as an insult... Insanity is when someone thinks they can walk off a 30-story building, and not fall. Insanity is believing murder should be allowed in our society. In short, insanity is believing something that will cause death or harm, to an individual or society, will not cause death or harm. Not believing the Christian faith does not cause death or harm to an individual or society. That would only be the case if the Christian faith was the only way to ensure life and health. But some who do believe do not work to ensure life and health; and some who do not believe do work to ensure life and health.

[rdhopeca]

There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H. G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called "Doubts of the Instrument." In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all -- the authority of a man to think.

You should have ended this with "the authority of a man to think - provided, of course, he believes in God." But no doubt, that is of course, implied, as people who do not believe in God are not thinking clearly.

At the risk of being insulting, this quote is nonsense. That you can defend the crusades and slaughter of innocent people in the name of "defense of reason" is absolutely laughable. You defy your own central tenets - "Thou shalt not kill" - in the name of your "loving and forgiving" God. This very paragraph embodies every reason why I do not believe. "If they do not believe what we believe, then slay them, for they are defying reason." You might as well have said "those who do not believe are going to hell".

Frankly, just because this country was founded on values that could be congruous to Christian values, that does not mean that they then believe that Christianity is "the truth". It just means that they had some common sense and maybe even some simple decency. But what people believe is irrelevant. And do you know why? Because the Constitution was formed to allow it to be irrelvant. We all have the right to believe what we want, even if someone else classifies it as insane. That is preferable to you sticking your cowardly knife in my back for daring to think for myself, in defiance of your supposed "reason".

[rusmeister]

I hope you'll explain the difference between the freedom to be insane and the right to be insane. I can't imagine how I can be free to be insane, yet not have the right. I am free to murder, in the sense that I have the capability to murder. At any moment of the day, in fact. But the society I live in decides what rights I do and do not have. Unless I choose to live apart from all societies, I must accept that the one I choose to live in has the power/authority to decide what rights I do and do not have in many situations.

But what society, group, or individual (or whatever) is denying me my right to be insane? Either the chemicals, wiring, or whatever, in my brain work well enough that I'm sane, or they work so incorrectly that I'm insane. Freedom and rights don't enter into it. I don't have the freedom or right to be a genius of music or physics.

As for equating not believing the Christian faith, even in its divided forms, with insanity... To throw such insults out there, as though it is a matter of common knowledge, or common sense... And having not the slightest idea how such a thing can even be viewed as an insult... Insanity is when someone thinks they can walk off a 30-story building, and not fall. Insanity is believing murder should be allowed in our society. In short, insanity is believing something that will cause death or harm, to an individual or society, will not cause death or harm. Not believing the Christian faith does not cause death or harm to an individual or society. That would only be the case if the Christian faith was the only way to ensure life and health. But some who do believe do not work to ensure life and health; and some who do not believe do work to ensure life and health.

Fist (and Rob), you went reading something I wasn't saying. I thought I had gone to pains to distinguish between being insane and merely being sane and wrong. This talk about 'insult' is jumping at shadows. I'm not equating unbelief with insanity. If I say that your view is in some way mistaken, that is not an insult. Regarding insanity, it appeared that you were defending a freedom to be insane. (I could have been mistaken on that, and that doesn't make me insane.) A sane (healthy) society does not grant insanity freedom. It confines it, and prevents it from doing damage, to the self or to others.

Insanity has a slightly broader definition than you grant it. The person who believes (present tense, now) that he is Napoleon and has a duty to lead the french armies to sweep Europe is insane, even if he hurts no one. He is mentally not healthy.

The person whose thoughts lead them to deny the validity of thought and to deny objective reality are equally insane, whether their thoughts cause physical damage to others or not.