• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

Meadmaker, religious tolerence is a very bad idea. A religion, like any other idea, should be criticised and examined based on its merits, and religions have no merit.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
While more knowledge is certainly valauble, are you suggesting that I'm ignorant about the twaddle and filth of Christianity?
Click to expand...

I think you're an expert about it the twaddle and filth of Christianity. The good stuff about Christianity, that's what you're ignorant about.

Prove my last statement by asking/stating...well...just ask/state it.

-Elliot
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Then why are you always an apologist for Christianity?
Click to expand...

I'm not. I've never promoted, or defended the truth of, any Christian doctrine. I simply end up challenging what I perceive to be the often unfair, unexamined and/or inaccurate statements made here about Christianity (most often when they occur in the context of history, law, evidentiary argument, logic, or another area in which I have some formal background). If that didn't happen so often here, I'd probably hardly ever speak of Christianity.


ImaginalDisc said:
Full stop. We're not talking about passages which are open to interpretation.

Edit: Here's an example of a perfectly clear and unambiguous passage which you have falsely accused me of interpreting in the most ridiculous way possible.

On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

Pray for anything in Jesus's name, and you will get it.

In Jesus's name, I pray for flying pickles with wings to conquer the moon.

See? No flying pickles with wings on the moon.
Click to expand...

This shows that you have already asked and answered for yourself, perhaps without realizing it, several key interpretive questions, such as:

1. To whom was the statement in question intended to be addressed? You obviously have interpreted it as being addressed to yourself, presumably among others. You might be justified. You might not. Either way, you made an interpretive choice.

2. What did the speaker mean by asking the Father for something in his (the speaker's) name? You have interpreted this as simply consisting in formulating a request purportedly addressed to a Father in whom you do not believe (much less regard as a father) and tacking on the phrase "in Jesus' name". That's one possible interpretation, but not the only possible one. Again, you made an interpretive decision.
 
ceo_esq said:
I'm not. I've never promoted, or defended the truth of, any Christian doctrine. I simply end up challenging what I perceive to be the often unfair, unexamined and/or inaccurate statements made here about Christianity (most often when they occur in the context of history, law, evidentiary argument, logic, or another area in which I have some formal background). If that didn't happen so often here, I'd probably hardly ever speak of Christianity.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. We clearly have a difference of opinion, but I rectract the statement regarding you being an apologist.




This shows that you have already asked and answered for yourself, perhaps without realizing it, several key interpretive questions, such as:

1. To whom was the statement in question intended to be addressed? You obviously have interpreted it as being addressed to yourself, presumably among others. You might be justified. You might not. Either way, you made an interpretive choice.
Click to expand...

Let's assume that Jesus was speaking to the disciples alone. What about the eight other instances of reptitions of the same promise I cited above?

2. What did the speaker mean by asking the Father for something in his (the speaker's) name? You have interpreted this as simply consisting in formulating a request purportedly addressed to a Father in whom you do not believe (much less regard as a father) and tacking on the phrase "in Jesus' name". That's one possible interpretation, but not the only possible one. Again, you made an interpretive decision.
Click to expand...


Here I think the text give far less lattitude than you percieve. It clearly says that whatever [you] ask for in Jesus's name, [you] will get.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Christanity has no good part.
Click to expand...

Surely the Golden Rule is a good part, isn't it?

Perhaps you meant that whatever is good about Christianity came from outside of Christianity, that it invented no good parts, and the good parts could survive without it.
 
Meadmaker said:
Surely the Golden Rule is a good part, isn't it?

Perhaps you meant that whatever is good about Christianity came from outside of Christianity, that it invented no good parts, and the good parts could survive without it.
Click to expand...

ImaginalDisc said:
And what would that be? The Golden Rule? That predates Christianity.
Click to expand...


Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. No, Christianity has no good parts, because the commraderie, off key singing, weekly gatherings, and moral lessons are all things you can get from other sources without the gnashing teeth, brimstone, and smug self-satisfaction that comes from thinking you'll be spending eternity in a magical happy land while everyone else is kept out.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
No, Christianity has no good parts, because the commraderie, off key singing, weekly gatherings, and moral lessons are all things you can get from other sources without the gnashing teeth, brimstone, and smug self-satisfaction that comes from thinking you'll be spending eternity in a magical happy land while everyone else is kept out.
Click to expand...

But how does that mean that Christianity has no good parts? You might as well argue that Christianity has no bad parts because you could get teeth-gnashing and smugness from other sources.

What if I asserted that eggs had zero nutritional value because you can get the protein and vitamin B from other sources without all the cholesterol? You'd probably think I was making an unfair misstatement about eggs, and perhaps even that I had some bias against eggs that kept me from speaking or thinking objectively about them.
 
ceo_esq said:
What if I asserted that eggs had zero nutritional value because you can get the protein and vitamin B from other sources without all the cholesterol? You'd probably think I was making an unfair misstatement about eggs, and perhaps even that I had some bias against eggs that kept me from speaking or thinking objectively about them.
Click to expand...

There is nutirion in eggs. There is no good in Christianity. It's a false analogy.
 
Meadmaker said:
And he said that Christians are even more "guilty" of this.
Click to expand...
In a commonly used manner without, I think, the pejorative intent you ascribe to it. Thus my little bit of profiling back there. :)

Many Jews, including some of the most devout and observant of the lot, are fully aware that they are basing their beliefs in their own interpretations of a relentlessy self contradictory and meaningless book. They might quibble with the word "meaningless", but not all that much. If you asked five Jews about it, you would get no more than 10 words that would be a better description.
Click to expand...
One room, two Jews, three opinions. :)

Judaism has always been a broad church (so to speak), plastic, shifting, adjusting, re-appraising, accomodating. That's just towards the centre ground, on the periphery are flakes of fanaticism and sheer weirdness. It's the archetypal Abrahamic religion, carrying lots of baggage.

There are atheists who don't regard The Book as meaningless. Behind the spin and self-justification lies a very strong thread, the quest for a just ("righteous") society. In there we have the observations of some remarkable minds applying themselves to the question : what is a just society? And in practical terms, what moral code would create such a society? That's the conundrum their god has set them. By definition it wants a just society, and by the evidence that doesn't come naturally to humanity.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
There is nutirion in eggs.
Click to expand...
And it comes from the mother. I believe in chickens, and the chicken-egg link. I have collected chickens' eggs from under their mothers morning after morning, so absent an Egg Fairy that puts them there overnight, I'm convinced. From the chicken comes the egg. In broader terms, from the mother.

From the god? No material investment - unlike the egg-producer, that's males for you :rolleyes: - but lots of demands.

I particularly like duck-eggs. Seasonal, but sensational, and packed with nutrients.
 
CapelDodger said:
And it comes from the mother. I believe in chickens, and the chicken-egg link. I have collected chickens' eggs from under their mothers morning after morning, so absent an Egg Fairy that puts them there overnight, I'm convinced. From the chicken comes the egg. In broader terms, from the mother.

From the god? No material investment - unlike the egg-producer, that's males for you :rolleyes: - but lots of demands.

I particularly like duck-eggs. Seasonal, but sensational, and packed with nutrients.
Click to expand...

I meant to say "Nutrition," of course. My ecology professor used to call eggs, "Mommy's bagged lunch." "Hi, glad you were born. Here's a yolk. Good luck!"
 
ImaginalDisc said:
There is nutirion in eggs. There is no good in Christianity. It's a false analogy.
Click to expand...

Please explain, because this seems to be at odds with what you said before. Camaraderie, moral lessons, etc. - these are arguably good things, but you seemed to be saying simply that they were good things that could be obtained elsewhere without bad things accompanying them. I understand that point, but it is a point that is distinct from (and which technically contradicts) the assertion that there are simply no good things at all about Christianity. Let's call camaraderie protein and moral lessons vitamin B, and the egg analogy seems apropos (at least it parallels the point as you expressed it).
 
ceo_esq said:
Please explain, because this seems to be at odds with what you said before. Camaraderie, moral lessons, etc. - these are arguably good things, but you seemed to be saying simply that they were good things that could be obtained elsewhere without bad things accompanying them. I understand that point, but it is a point that is distinct from (and which technically contradicts) the assertion that there are simply no good things at all about Christianity. Let's call camaraderie protein and moral lessons vitamin B, and the egg analogy seems apropos (at least it parallels the point as you expressed it).
Click to expand...

No, commraderie is not good, especially not when it comes from a feeling of exclusivity that comes from thinking that everyone else is going to hell. Every army, secret society and fraternal order has a sense of commraderie, it's nothing special. Commeraderie based on an expectation of an afterlife that'll never happen isn't good.

Moral lessons? Well, the moral lessons of Christianity are neither good, nor even comprehensible. The Bible's relentlessly contradictory about moral values, and the various Chrisitan denominations have a plethora of different answers for each question you might pose. Chrisitanity's morality is based on empty faith, rather than reason.

Christanity, being a religion, requires that its followers reject reason and rational thought in their worship, and replace it with obedience and faith. Little if any good has ever come from blind obedience and a lack of reason.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
No, commraderie is not good, especially not when it comes from a feeling of exclusivity that comes from thinking that everyone else is going to hell. Every army, secret society and fraternal order has a sense of commraderie, it's nothing special. Commeraderie based on an expectation of an afterlife that'll never happen isn't good.

Moral lessons? Well, the moral lessons of Christianity are neither good, nor even comprehensible. The Bible's relentlessly contradictory about moral values, and the various Chrisitan denominations have a plethora of different answers for each question you might pose. Chrisitanity's morality is based on empty faith, rather than reason.

Christanity, being a religion, requires that its followers reject reason and rational thought in their worship, and replace it with obedience and faith. Little if any good has ever come from blind obedience and a lack of reason.
Click to expand...

How ironic, that this latest installment ended by complaining that other people reject rational thought.
 
CapelDodger said:
In a commonly used manner without, I think, the pejorative intent you ascribe to it. Thus my little bit of profiling back there. :)


One room, two Jews, three opinions. :)

Judaism has always been a broad church (so to speak), plastic, shifting, adjusting, re-appraising, accomodating. That's just towards the centre ground, on the periphery are flakes of fanaticism and sheer weirdness. It's the archetypal Abrahamic religion, carrying lots of baggage.

There are atheists who don't regard The Book as meaningless. Behind the spin and self-justification lies a very strong thread, the quest for a just ("righteous") society. In there we have the observations of some remarkable minds applying themselves to the question : what is a just society? And in practical terms, what moral code would create such a society? That's the conundrum their god has set them. By definition it wants a just society, and by the evidence that doesn't come naturally to humanity.
Click to expand...

Well put.


On the first note, it wasn't the pejorative intent I was attempting to address, but the apparent lack of comprehension about the "meaningless" nature of the text. Among many Bible believers, especially among Jews, you would find a subset who feel that the text, by itself, is indeed meaningless. It develops meaning through the study of the text and the attempt to apply its lessons in daily life. In Jewish writings, I have seen quite a few acknowledgements of the self-contradictory nature of the Tanach texts. Among literalists, they might search for a reconciliation of the apparent contradictions to find some interpretation that resolves those contradications.

Among Jews, there are very few literalists, and they would generally, even the devout ones who believe that God himself wrote the Torah, agree that the apparent contradictions are contradictory because they shouldn't be read as specific instructions that are true at all times. God tells people to do one thing, and then he changes his mind and tells them to do something else. The righteous men and women of the Bible weren't perfect, so there's no need for their actions to be absolutely consistent.

As I've become more involved in the Jewish religion, I've realized that it is a very introspective religion. Seen in that light, the meaning of a text is based largely on the mind of the reader, and so they would indeed be studying a meaningless and self contradictory text, and they would be aware that they are doing so. Therefore, they aren't "guilty" of anything. It is their specific intent to study a meaningless and self contradictory text, and use it as a tool to develop meaning in their own lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom