BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 07:28 PM

Hosanna! That was 100, by the way!

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 07:44 PM

Congrats on your reading -- sincerely. Unfortunately there are few truly-read people these days. Mine has mostly been in history and geography rather than theology. Rossing I've not heard of; the rest of your list is -- forgive me -- very left. And of course Spong is off the charts. The book by Freeman sounds very intriguing. The title, certainly, appeals to me. Although I think you could argue that "reason" as such never had much of a hold to begin with, the Enlightenment notwithstanding. I'll see if I can find the Freeman book in the library.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 07:48 PM

But there are a number of "Christians," and adherents to other beliefs, that I think could use a good swift kick in the backside. Largely because of the pronouncements they insist on making, their hypocrisy, their lack of humility, and their refusal to acknowledge that the major component of religion—any religion—is mystery. Not the certainty of which they claim they are in sole possession.

No argument. Especially ones that disagree with ME ;)

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 07:50 PM

"Why the church shouldn't have been allowed ..."

Ummm..which church? There never was "the" church. **zzzzaaaappp** (me, dodging the lightning bolt from somewhere above)

Obviously, any group can choose, print, read, 'leave out'...etc, anything they wish...and therein lies fodder for a million opinions, studies, arguments, critiques and PHD theses.
Some groups have 'their' text, and assure each other that IT was 'inspired by God' - as is, with literal meanings and no tolerance for deviation. *shrug*... other groups look at them and shake their heads at the rigidity, preferring to learn and grow as they take in some essential truths, with no need for literal 'fact'.

The very fact that there IS such enormous range of opinion and belief is important, and one can approach this situation with many different attitudes...one being..."Hmmmmm...which one IS right?", while another is "Hmmm... are ANY of them right?"....and of course, "Hmmmm... maybe they are all a bit right".

Me? more like "Hmmm... how interesting. What is going on here?"

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 07:56 PM

I don't know of any body of people which calls itself Christian which has any other New Testament books than the ones you'll find at your local Bible & Book or Zondervan's or SPCK or whatever store.

The "literal fact" thing is a red herring.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 08:05 PM

What is The Book of Mormon considered? (I would have to research to find whether any 'current' folks use additional texts, but throughout history there sure were some.) The Gnostics made a big thing of it.

'red herring'?? It's quite an issue with some.

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 08:09 PM

(I also have a copy of "The Book of Oahspe" and have perused "The Urantia Book" and a couple others which were/are taken quite seriously at times.)
It's fascinating to see how many directions the religious impulse has gone.

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 08:12 PM

Red herring is a relative not absolute term; X is a red herring to discussion / talking point Y. For this discussion, based on the post of Don's that I was responding to, it's a red herring. Those "some" -- unless you're including yourself -- aren't here.

But even so, the "some groups have 'their' text" is a independent question from whether or not those groups think 'their' text is 'literal fact'. You can have your text an think it's literal fact. You can have your text and think it's not literal fact. You can not have your text. Therefore thinking your text is 'literal truth' is a red herring in the discussion about having or not having your text -- which is what this line of conversation was about.

I'd say the Book of Mormon is definitely gnostic. But you're right, I was careless. I meant of books extant at the time the NT canon was open. Such as the books that Don was talking about. I thought it was clear from the conversation so far that that was what we were talking about.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 08:21 PM

Ok...as a 'philosopher', I tend to follow interesting ideas that seem to be implied by the discussion, rather than following rigid protocol...and this IS Mudcat... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 08:32 PM

Mousethief, I know that Bishop Spong's writings get up the noses of a lot of folks, what with titles like Saving the Bible from the Fundamentalists, but what do you mean by "very left?" I think I have an idea, but I just want to be sure.

If it's what I think it is, then I would say that Barbara Rossing would be "very left" as well. One of her books is entitled, The Rapture Exposed. Not too popular with Tim LeHaye and his fans……

By the way, I am a voracious reader in a number of areas, and high on my current list are authors such as Michio Kaku (Hyperspace, Parallel Worlds, Physics of the Impossible), John Gribbin (The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everythingý), and the vast array of non-fiction science books and articles by the late Isaac Asimov (although some of these have been superceded by later writers).

I do not see this as science versus religion. In fact, I find that studying science (cosmology, astronomy, and, yes, evolution) does not contradict religion, it shows us how God did it.

My response to those who try to tell me that the earth and all of this is only 6,000 years old, that Darwin was a fraud or worse, and that there was a literal Adam and Eve is, "You worship a very small God."

I recall Carl Sagan saying that the emergence of life in the universe may very well be the universe learning to know itself. "It may be," said Sagan, "that as life emerges, God is being born!"

Wonder. Mystery. "What is it all about?" is what it's all about!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 08:47 PM

I'll let you off this time, Bill. ;)

It's not so much that Spong gets up my nose as a Christian -- it's that he's not even on the radar. He has defined himself off the map. There is nothing he believes that is distinctively Christian at all. That's okay for him, and people who want to believe along with him, but for people who really do see something unique in this Jesus of Nazareth guy, and think a religion centered around him is not such a bad idea, it has nothing to say, or at least nothing more than Buddhism or Taoism or Pastafarianism.

"Very left" -- well if you take Christian theologians generally and line them up from left (fewer truth claims, looser view of scripture) to right (absolute truth claims, very tight view of scripture), these people fall way left.

I don't know what exactly Rossing says about the Apocalypse -- but disagreeing with Tim LaHaye, and denying the Rapture as a separate event from the paraousia, are not terribly left, and one could hold those tenets and still be close to the center (depending on one's other beliefs of course). There's a danger of saying "the far right would hate this therefore it's far left" -- a lot of the spectrum lies to the left of the far right that is nevertheless not all that left.

Cool science books. I would say I have very similar views as yours regarding science. Although the Sagan thing just sounds like gobbledygook, if it's not simply process theology or ill-described pantheism. Neither of which is evil in itself, although I do happen to disagree with them.

At which point I've probably run my mouth far enough.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 10:10 PM

Okay I have placed a hold on The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason at the local library. It better be good, Firth! :D

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: GUEST,Pastinaken
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 03:02 PM

It isn't good, Mousetheif, it's great! Worth re-reading several times. I hope you enjoy it.

Little Hawk, you seem to fall for the old trap of thinking (1) that to ask for some evidence for the often very odd things people believe in is somehow an equivalent to religious fundamentalism (!)and (2)that 'spiritual' and 'religious' are neccessarily the same things. They are not. I am a deeply spiritual atheist - you should see the tears drip off the end of my nose when I listen to certain pieces of music! I know an awful lot of materialistic, hard-faced religious believers I can tell you.

You do not seem to think criticising religion is legitimate - to do so more than a few times makes it a 'pet hobby' and is to you evidence of psychological illness. When religion informs discrimination against women and the demonisation of homosexuals, campaigns against condom use in AIDS stricken Africa, campaigns agaist the rights of terminally ill people to die with dignity instead of in terrible pain - etc, etc, etc - to criticise religion is not a 'pet hobby' but a moral duty.

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 04:11 PM

Ah! But once again, GUEST,Pastinaken, you fall into the error of assuming that all religions are monolithic in their beliefs.

They are not!

Yes, I think it IS legitimate to criticize particular religions for their particular beliefs and their particular actions. But you, like many, "infidels" (used in its literal and non-pejorative sense:   "unbeliever."), condemn all religions for the beliefs and actions of only some.

Now, I jump on Pat Robertson's case for his asinine remark that the Haitian earthquake was God's punishment because they practice voodoo as ignorant, stupid, mean-spirited, and very un-Christian. But to condemn all Christians—or all religions—because to the emissions of one horse's ass is neither accurate nor just.

And your litany of offenses:   ". . . discrimination against women and the demonisation of homosexuals, campaigns against condom use in AIDS stricken Africa, campaigns agaist the rights of terminally ill people to die with dignity instead of in terrible pain - etc, etc, etc. . . ."   Not all religions are guilty of these things. In fact, not that many churches are! In fact, there is a substantial number who advocate none of the things you condemn and speak out against them themselves.

The matter merits a bit of re-thinking.

Educate yourself and—    Be fair!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 05:12 PM

Don...it's not always about 'condemning' religions for anything, but just a problem with the unwarranted influence of religious doctrines on public policy or cultural norms.
Remember when it came out about:" First Lady Nancy Reagan's reliance on a San Francisco astrologer to determine the timing of the President's every public move. "?

"Wow", said a lot of people, "not a good idea to allow such a set of unfounded beliefs be the deciding factor in serious matters!"

Hard to control, but easy to understand the concerns.

But when it comes to religion, we are often expected to ignore certain ideas and practices because they come from a person's 'sacred beliefs'?

There are all sorts of things that 'some' people really 'believe' that most of the others would be shocked to hear was affecting their lives directly. (phrenology, Tarot, crystal balls, I Ching, reincarnation...etc.)

The point is that *IF* someone makes decisions about anything with a set of premises that are either false or cannot be tested, *then* they can construct almost any conclusions from them. I have posted this basic principle of logic several times.

From false premises, anything follows!

This is not some silly arcane slogan logicians invented to tease folks with...it has deep implications.


Now...before I get the usual complaints, let me reassure everyone... I KNOW that we cannot prove religion to BE false, (or any of those other beliefs), but **religiosity**, as a guiding principle, is used daily to justify things that are obviously against sane thinking. (Pat Robertson's stupid remarks are just some of the more egregious...they get public notice) There is not some clear line drawn where stuff on one side is 'ok' and across the line is 'dumb'. The line is a continuum with degrees of concern, value judgment, and public approval or disapproval.
   The Salem witch trials were 'really bad', as was 'burning at the stake' and other grotesque distortions of what religion is supposed to be about. How about church sanctioned exorcism? Borderline, huh? Self-flagellation? Matter of personal choice, but not exactly promoted, I gather. Snake handling? Basically rejected, but tolerated in some areas and considered 'quaint' when TV producers get to film it. Reciting public prayers before a meeting or sports event? Kinda depends on where you are and who complains!
Eventually, we get to religious beliefs and practices that are widely 'approved' simply because they are 1)accepted by a majority, 2)not terribly intrusive or dangerous ...like taking communion or fasting on certain days.

The only difference in the stuff in the list is degree of 'approval', not logic or science.

It is NOT right to condemn "a religion" for obvious stupid excesses and distortions by individuals...or even to try to deny the basis on which people believe what they believe; but it is relevant to be aware that 'religiosity' can be a matter of concern when it is used to explain, justify, promote, control... and otherwise affect human interactions.

"Separation of church & state" is not supposed to be just a slogan, it's supposed to be a fair guiding principle of THIS country's progress.

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 06:15 PM

Bill, I'm not blanketly excusing religion (or religionS in general), what I am saying is that it is both untrue and unjust to blanketly condemn religion outright, for the actions of some religious people or institutions as many on this web site are wont to do.

There were such things as the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials and the Church's demanding that Galileo "recant" for speaking about what he actually saw through his telescope—all kinds of things like that—and on into religious organizations like "The Family" feeding the Ugandan anti-homosexual campaign, and, for that matter, wanting to take over the United States government.

But—neither is it just to condemn all religion, religious belief, and religious activity because of these things. These are the actions of specific individuals or specific religious institutions—not of religion in general.

I have personal experience with the immense amount of good that religious institutions do with the social programs that a number of churches are involved in in my area—and I know of similar programs of the churches in other areas. I could go into specifics (rather than all churches condemning homosexuality, for example, I know of several within a couple of miles of where I live who will perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, whether the law recognizes the union or not), but there are large areas of activity such as providing food and housing for poor and homeless to less widespread things such as visiting shut-ins and people in nursing homes and hospitals, not with the idea of "evangelizing" them, but in the spirit of, "Is there anything you need?" These folks do one helluva lot of good that simply would not get done otherwise.

And the churches encourage the members of their congregations to do this sort of thing. And the pastors and ministers themselves consider this to be one of the major duties of their job (Matthew 25:35-40).

Frankly, when I see this sort of thing going on, and then I hear or read someone rattling on about how evil and rotten "religion" is, my response to this is a simple and direct, "You don't know what you are talking about!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 06:39 PM

Don...I basically agree with almost everything you've said about irresponsible condemnations. I DO know, myself, of many, many good, kind and valuable contributions made to special causes...and to society as a whole by, and in the name of, various religious entities.
I was awed as I grew up by the way the local Mennonite communities would 'arrive' after some disaster, such as a tornado, and simply work and help until things were better...then quietly go home. Their 'beliefs' told them that such giving was a good thing.
I attended the major local Unitarian 'church' for several years, and personally participated in some programs for and about the community. (I was even introduced as a Unitarian minister during the Civil Rights marches in Mississippi...and I didn't try to correct the introduction, because what we were doing was seen by many locals as a religious commitment.)

But in this case, I was threading a slightly different needle, and it is hard to clearly state the point I was making without it sounding like veiled criticism.

I can only hope that I can convey some sense of the conundrum we face in both practicing freedom OF religion and and assuring freedom FROM religion for those who wish it.

Mutual respect of the good points of each other's values is always a valuable, but awkward to reach, goal.

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 09:55 PM

True, indeed, Bill. I think we're on the same page.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 10:34 PM

God, that was beautiful.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 10:12 AM

And we in the West will continue to wring our hands and debate morality whilst the Medieval idiots in Tehran carry on.

Or at least, until the oil runs out.........

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 01:05 PM

Then it really gets ugly.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: GUEST,Pastinaken
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 02:44 PM

Don Firth, Bill D has neatly put his finger on the problem. No one is pretending that all religions are equally to blame for various religion-inspired abuses - any more than all religions can take the credit for various religion-inspired kindnesses. Though religious apologists make the latter mistake remarkably often!

The problem is that the motives for each are not based on any kind of hard evidence, and this is a worry. If one thinks that God wants you to quietly help help hurricane victims, one does so. If one thinks God wants you to murder abortion doctors,one does so. One points to 'faith' as a motive in each case.

This is why I condemn religious thinking in general, except for the rare occasions when it stays harmlessly between the thinker's ears and does not influence action.

It is unevidenced and thus simply too open to abuse.

Things are made worse by the general feeling - ably articulated on this thread by Little Hawk - that religion should somehow be out of bounds to criticism. If an individual, corporation, government or dictatorial regime behaves badly one may criticise. But if one criticises a religion, or (more importantly) the archaic mindset that underpins all faith-based religion, one can (in general, not from Little Hawk) expect personal atacks and accusations of bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 03:38 PM

Yup! Where it gets ugly is when folks assume that all the population of Teheran and environs are medieval idiots. Not so.

Although it doesn't get much press here, it does get some. Against a fairly cranky government, there are what is more-or-less the equivalent of the kind of student protests that took place here in the U. S. in the 1960s. Traveler's in Iran say that most Iranians like and are friendly toward American tourists—and toward America in general—perhaps a bit more friendly that their government would like them to be.

The way to defuse the situation is not to try to order the Iranian government around and impose boycotts and sanctions, but to—as Ray Ramsey, the weatherman said—do the friendliest thing:   talk, discuss, negotiate, maintain lines of communication.

After all, and like a lot of Christians who don't really know a helluva lot about the teachings of Jesus, a lot of Muslims don't really know all that much about what Mohamed said.

And one of the things Mohamed said was, "If you kill one human being, it is as if you have killed the whole world." In other words, don't!

So those fanatics who talk young folks into turning themselves into bombs are, in a word, disobeying the commandments of the Prophet.

Lest we forget, there are some darn good reasons for a lot of Middle Easterners to be a bit crabby toward Europeans and Americans. Nearly a thousand years ago, a bunch of goons wearing tin suits went over there to beat the crap out of them for no particular reason, and ever since then, we've been ordering them around, telling them how to run their affairs, and plundering their natural resources. And we're still at it!

I think I'd get a bit sore, too!

####

And GUEST,Pastinaken:

More than one deranged serial killer, when caught, has said, "I killed them because God told me to!"

I don't think one can fairly blame God for that!

There are lots of insane ideas floating around out there, based on personal interpretations of all kinds of sources, from trying to read things into the Mayan calendar that aren't really there, to reading a scientific article and misunderstanding much of it, to skipping around in the Bible and cherry-picking particular verses, taking them out of context, and putting them together in ways that make them sound as if they mean something entirely different.

I don't think one can fairly blame the Mayans, the scientist who wrote the article, or the Bible for the dark spiders that crawl around inside some peoples' heads.

If there were a commandment in the Bible that said, "Thou shalt go forth at night and slay young women with a knife," then I would say that David Berkowitz, better known as "the Son of Sam" serial killer in New York in the 1970s could honestly say that what he was doing was his religious duty.

But there is no such commandment.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: GUEST,Pastinaken
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 04:55 PM

You seem to be making my point for me, Don!

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 08:08 PM

So I guess we are also on the same page.

As long as a particular belief does not condone mayhem, one cannot justly condemn the belief if one of its avowed adherents commits an act of said mayhem. Even if he claims that he was following his beliefs.

Quakers are reknown for their pacifism, so if a Quaker were to run amok, it's hardly fair to blame all Quakers for the actions of that one person.

I can say for a fact that exceedingly few Christians agree with Pat Robertson's remark about the Haitian earthquake being "God's punishment" for anything! Christianity (presumably based on the teachings of Jesus) simply doesn't work that way.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Feb 10 - 08:32 PM

I think I will toss in here...because Don's point about "the teachings of Jesus" gives me an opening, the point that many philosophers, most notably Kant, argued that doing good and moral principles did not require religious prophets to explain it, to lead them by the nose, or to threaten them with eternal punishment in order to establish sane, reasonable behavior.

from that link.."Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the "Categorical Imperative" (CI). Immorality thus involves a violation of the CI and is thereby irrational. Other philosophers, such as Locke and Hobbes, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these standards were either desire-based instrumental principles of rationality or based on sui generis rational intuitions. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason will reveal only the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Yet he argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle) and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency."

Now, obviously, the details of Kant's arguments are beyond many of the folks who need guidance, but IF those who can see the point were to work to make it available in non-philosophical language, we might get by with a LOT less confusing disputes about interpretation of various religious moral Gerrymandering. Ideally, at least for me, preachers would be telling their congregations that Jesus exemplified really good logic & reason.

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: GUEST,Pastinaken
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 05:51 AM

Don Firth: 'As long as a particular belief does not condone mayhem...'

Sadly that rules out Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism... all of 'em quite keen on mayhem in various circumstances.

I think you took me the wrong way when I said that you seem to be making my point for me. I meant that that the loony who charges around with a knife killing for God is not really that much more crazy than someone who has decided to live his life by a set of rules devised by a supernatural being who does not exist. As I said in my first post, the habit of believing in things without evidence is a recipe for trouble.

As for not blaming God for the deranged person - I don't blame God for anything because he isn't real.

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 06:16 AM

"I don't blame God for anything because he isn't real."
More good sense.
"And we in the West will continue to wring our hands and debate morality"
I'm afraid we in the West do a little more than hand-wringing or talking, and are quite capable of commiting the most horrendous of atrocities in the name of our beliefs and interests
Jim Carroll (Ireland)

Subject: RE: BS: How to rule by fear - Execute them
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Feb 10 - 03:18 PM

Bill D. is right on the money!!

GUEST,Pastinaken, There is a lot more out there being called Christianity than Jesus would have approved of. And there are lots of people who consider themselves Christians who are really NOT, if you compare what they believe, say, and do with what Jesus taught.

By the way (and this is a very important point, as I see it), much of what Jesus taught does not really depend on a belief in God. You don't have to believe in a supernatural being to "Love one another" and take care of those in need.

If Jesus had worn a toga and taught in the agora in Athens, with no more religious overtones than Socrates, he would have been considered a very important ethicist.

His presumed divinity does not alter much of his teaching one way or the other. That's part of the mythology (see comments above about Joseph Campbell).

You can hardly call yourself a Keynesian economist if you generally ignore the economic principles of John Maynard Keynes. But all too many of those who call themselves Christians talk and act as if they had never read a word that Jesus is presumed to have said.

I don't think you can blame Jesus for that.

Don Firth