A Brief Summary of the Christian Bible

[Angry Floof]

...Tell a Christian about faraway humans suffering. Tell them about the girls who were kidnapped and kept as sex slaves. Then tell them that their Christian identity is not a valuable thing in and of itself, and see which one bothers them more.

The first two would be the only ones that bothered me.
The third one is just white noise.

I mean, since when do I let someone else (like an atheist) presume to tell me about my relationship with God?

Not tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, or nakedness, peril, sword…neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature…

I don't tell anyone about their relationship with God. I do tell them about their relationship to an ideological identity, though. If only Christianity were about relationships with God and not about group identity. If only.

In fact, I wish more Christians could explain this relationship to God. I mean, in actual experiential terms and not just "I believe what I believe."

I'll tell you what I believe about this based in observation and questioning, and not because of an ideology handed to me by other human beings. I believe that the majority of Christians do not experience anything like transcendence or divine presence or any kind of transformative experience that would magically make them better people. I think they believe in belief, and genuine faith in God is a very rare trait among religious believers, if it exists at all. I believe the God in the heads of religious believers is a reflection of their own fears and desires, and is shaped by their ideological environment and upbringing, and not by divine experience.

This belief of mine is based in what Christians all over the world demonstrate consistently and relentlessly.

Please find those believers in an all-loving God if such belief has any positive effect on their behavior. If they truly believe and still act like they believe only in themselves and their group identity, then it would appear that even genuine God-belief is at best irrelevant to morality or anything conducive to a peaceful tribe of seven billion. If you find them at all, they will be a small minority, and shame on them for serving as a cell in an ideological cancer in spite of their divine experiences.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, thank you for describing religion.

I think all beliefs and world views are better if not held as absolutes that cannot be questioned.

Let's question the tenets of Christianity, Islam, and the rest, shall we? Let's talk about what's lip service to compassion while worshiping identity. Let's talk about what happens to dissidents within religious groups. If you want to talk about non-religious absolutist authoritarian ideologies, fine, yes, let's do that, too.

Let's identify the beliefs and ideas that give rise to war and hatred, and why religions are so determined to not only maintain those tenets but to enshrine them and call them "morality." Let's talk about why group identity means so much more to millions of people than actual human beings.

Let's also talk about what groups and ideologies, religious or not, actually have the potential to serve a peaceful tribe of seven billion. Which ones are inclusive of seven billion and which ones doggedly separate the world in us vs them divisions. Which ones are open to change? Which ones hold cultural myopia as a holy sacrament and expect seven billion people to bow to it? Which ones value questioning and which ones operate under fear of anything different or new?

Christianity on the whole could learn something from a small sect the most of them don't know a thing about: Quakers. What's different about them that makes them so peaceful? What are their most valued tenets? Do those tenets have anything to do with why mainstream Christianity acts like a bloodthirsty baboon and Quakers consistently do not?

What tenets of Christianity, once you honestly question them, give rise to the selfish, fearful, ignorant, hypocritical horde that poses as the "moral majority" in the West these days? Why do such people have so much political and social power in the West? Why would a person of conscience and humane values object to the lazy right wing authoritarianism that passes for thought among Christians?

No, I was describing your post... Applies to this one also. You're looking at your own perspective only in terms of potential virtues, and at everyone else as both falsely homogenous and exclusively in terms of costs. You are doing the same here.

We have different religious outlooks, we are not different species. The qualities of compassion and hatred, trust and fear, wisdom and ignorance, are found in all societies.

No, I'm not. I look at what beliefs do to human minds and groups. I don't care what group identity anyone wants to put me in. Atheism doesn't define me or direct my choices in life. I'm not an atheist until religion enters the conversation.

Can you give me an example of where I've suggested that we are a different species?? Try reading my posts and you'll find constant reminders that all human beings have the capacity for all human traits. These are the very things I question and think about.

Is it possible that you are speaking from a position of ideological identity? Is it maybe just a little bit offensive that someone has the gall to question whether group identity worship might be a problem among the religious?

It's not my sense of identity that suggests that submitting to authority is the opposite of conscience. It's observation and questioning that bring me to that conclusion. It's not my sense of identity that makes me balk at belief systems that perpetuate us vs. them attitudes, punishment mentality, negativity bias, authority worship, etc. It's my ordinary humanity, especially now that it has been freed of the religious ignorance I grew up with.

I don't give a shit what you want to label me. I do give a shit about my tribe of seven billion, and I do give a shit about why that tribe is invisible or demonized by large groups of people who let their precious identity and its selected mouthpieces dictate their thoughts.

You are, nevertheless, pointing an accusatory finger at one aspect of religion - authoritarianism - which in reality you know is not exclusive to religious societies. While ignoring eusocial aspects of religious life that you must know exist. We are all human, and our upsides and downsides as a species are pretty universal. Anyone can be motivated by compassion or greed, by a desire to know the truth or a desire to avoid it. I am not interested in labels, but I am interested in people.

 

[Angry Floof]

No, I'm not. I look at what beliefs do to human minds and groups. I don't care what group identity anyone wants to put me in. Atheism doesn't define me or direct my choices in life. I'm not an atheist until religion enters the conversation.

Can you give me an example of where I've suggested that we are a different species?? Try reading my posts and you'll find constant reminders that all human beings have the capacity for all human traits. These are the very things I question and think about.

Is it possible that you are speaking from a position of ideological identity? Is it maybe just a little bit offensive that someone has the gall to question whether group identity worship might be a problem among the religious?

It's not my sense of identity that suggests that submitting to authority is the opposite of conscience. It's observation and questioning that bring me to that conclusion. It's not my sense of identity that makes me balk at belief systems that perpetuate us vs. them attitudes, punishment mentality, negativity bias, authority worship, etc. It's my ordinary humanity, especially now that it has been freed of the religious ignorance I grew up with.

I don't give a shit what you want to label me. I do give a shit about my tribe of seven billion, and I do give a shit about why that tribe is invisible or demonized by large groups of people who let their precious identity and its selected mouthpieces dictate their thoughts.

You are, nevertheless, pointing an accusatory finger at one aspect of religion - authoritarianism - which in reality you know is not exclusive to religious societies. While ignoring eusocial aspects of religious life that you must know exist. We are all human, and our upsides and downsides as a species are pretty universal. Anyone can be motivated by compassion or greed, by a desire to know the truth or a desire to avoid it. I am not interested in labels, but I am interested in people.

Then you should be interested in how elements of ideological belief affect individuals and groups of human beings. You seem to think that all human behaviors, good or bad, are distributed evenly across populations, or that it has nothing to do with ideology if they are not.

My claim is that all humans have the capacity for all human behaviors, not that all humans demonstrate them evenly or have the same tendencies. I also claim that ideology and social mechanisms play a huge role in how those tendencies arise. In other words, nature and nurture aren't really two separate things but rather a constant interplay outside of which no human exists. I also claim that it is a worthwhile endeavor to understand how belief affects minds and behavior. Some beliefs are more harmful than others, and claiming otherwise equates to claiming that all beliefs are meaningless, which would make religion irrelevant.

Rather than defend an ideological identity (that will eventually die off or morph into something completely different), why not examine how beliefs affect human culture and behavior, particularly the attachment to belief-identity?

The reason ISIS and the KKK exist is not because of a few extremists. The few extremists exist because of the multitudes of identity-carriers that make the world a comfortable place for extremists to thrive in.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

..."Once upon a time there wasn't anything, and so a god made everything. Then people were made, and a lot of stuff happened within the little circle on this map:

In the bible God did heaps of things outside that circle.
Have you read the bible?

That would constitute an anachronism.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You can simplify it even more.

Once upon a time people wondered how they got here, why they are here, and what happens after they die. So God told them.

So your Bible told you, and you believed it, and believe it even now.

Yes. Pretty much.
But you know, it wasn't called "The Bible"^TM when it was being written.

It was never being written as an it.

Perhaps my summary in the OP should start, "A collection of religious accounts which make the basic claim that" Once upon a time....

 

[Politesse]

Rather than defend an ideological identity (that will eventually die off or morph into something completely different), why not examine how beliefs affect human culture and behavior, particularly the attachment to belief-identity?

What exactly do you mean by "examine", here?

 

[Angry Floof]

Rather than defend an ideological identity (that will eventually die off or morph into something completely different), why not examine how beliefs affect human culture and behavior, particularly the attachment to belief-identity?

What exactly do you mean by "examine", here?

I mean question. Question the "traditional" assumption that religion makes people behave better, more altruistic, kinder, etc. Question how threat of eternal fire affects people subconsciously, especially little children. Question how submitting to authority might be the opposite of conscience. Question beliefs in external entities, especially invisible, supernatural ones that can be blamed or credited for things that human beings or ordinary nature are wholly responsible for. Question ideas of "saved vs. unsaved" and how that might serve as a divisive force in the world. I have more suggestions if you're interested.

 

[Politesse]

Rather than defend an ideological identity (that will eventually die off or morph into something completely different), why not examine how beliefs affect human culture and behavior, particularly the attachment to belief-identity?

What exactly do you mean by "examine", here?

I mean question. Question the "traditional" assumption that religion makes people behave better, more altruistic, kinder, etc. Question how threat of eternal fire affects people subconsciously, especially little children. Question how submitting to authority might be the opposite of conscience. Question beliefs in external entities, especially invisible, supernatural ones that can be blamed or credited for things that human beings or ordinary nature are wholly responsible for. Question ideas of "saved vs. unsaved" and how that might serve as a divisive force in the world. I have more suggestions if you're interested.

Ah, I thought as much. So not, like, actually examining things. Say, seeking out new information and the perspectives of those who know most about the subject.

 

[Angry Floof]

I mean question. Question the "traditional" assumption that religion makes people behave better, more altruistic, kinder, etc. Question how threat of eternal fire affects people subconsciously, especially little children. Question how submitting to authority might be the opposite of conscience. Question beliefs in external entities, especially invisible, supernatural ones that can be blamed or credited for things that human beings or ordinary nature are wholly responsible for. Question ideas of "saved vs. unsaved" and how that might serve as a divisive force in the world. I have more suggestions if you're interested.

Ah, I thought as much. So not, like, actually examining things. Say, seeking out new information and the perspectives of those who know most about the subject.

You mean for perspective? Because that is not how religion works. Religion means going to other human beings to tell you what God means.

We are not talking about finding out how microwave ovens work. We're not talking about learning a new skill, are we?

Now that I think of it, yes, that is how religion works - it's a skill one has to learn but NOT by any means the skill of self reflection.

Because religious God concepts have nothing to do with your own subjective, first-hand experience of human existence. They have to do with conformity and identity, so therefore, yes, you need to go to other people and have them teach you what to think.

Because self-delusion isn't a thing that the religious need to question at all. Because there are no such things as cognitive pitfalls and certainly no such things as critical thinking tools, the very things those crazy atheists imagine might have the power to mitigate self-delusion, right?

That's the ticket.

By the way, have you seen the "Critical Thinking: A Cheatsheet" thread by chance?

Pffth. Never mind. Not important.

 

[Politesse]

You mean for perspective? Because that is not how religion works. Religion means going to other human beings to tell you what God means.

If you had asked any religious person about this, you'd know this was not true.

We are not talking about finding out how microwave ovens work. We're not talking about learning a new skill, are we?

Research and critical thinking are absolutely skills which can be improved with use and time.

Now that I think of it, yes, that is how religion works - it's a skill one has to learn but NOT by any means the skill of self reflection.
Because religious God concepts have nothing to do with your own subjective, first-hand experience of human existence. They have to do with conformity and identity, so therefore, yes, you need to go to other people and have them teach you what to think.

According to whom?

 

[Angry Floof]

If you had asked any religious person about this, you'd know this was not true.

Research and critical thinking are absolutely skills which can be improved with use and time.

Now that I think of it, yes, that is how religion works - it's a skill one has to learn but NOT by any means the skill of self reflection.
Because religious God concepts have nothing to do with your own subjective, first-hand experience of human existence. They have to do with conformity and identity, so therefore, yes, you need to go to other people and have them teach you what to think.

According to whom?

According to the religious. They demonstrate this every day.

Every single question I posed is a question of critical thinking. Please explain how questioning a belief is not critical thinking.

Belief happens in our heads. It doesn't matter what's in the heads of religious mouthpieces and teachers and so-called leaders.

If you can't examine what's in your own head, then you do not know what critical thinking means.

Do you understand the importance of, for example, peer review in scientific research? What is the purpose of peer review, in your own words?

Also, I ask again if you've read the thread I mentioned.

 

[Politesse]

Every single question I posed is a question of critical thinking. Please explain how questioning a belief is not critical thinking.

"Questioning" means nothing if you aren't able to critically and honestly examine the answers to your questions.

Belief happens in our heads. It doesn't matter what's in the heads of religious mouthpieces and teachers and so-called leaders.

Now you are contradicting yourself; just a few posts back you said that believers don't think for themselves, and can only believe what leaders tell them to...

If you can't examine what's in your own head, then you do not know what critical thinking means.

Are you examining your own head, or the imaginary heads of imaginary foes? Who, as it happens, believe exactly those things which you most disagree with, to the greatest degree possible?

Do you understand the importance of, for example, peer review in scientific research? What is the purpose of peer review, in your own words?

Of course, it is a daily part of my life. The purpose of peer review is multiple; it expands the pool of knowledge being brought to bear on a topic, increasing the likelihood that a diverse set of specializations is brought to bear on a question, subjects ideas to informed critique, encourages positive flow of information, and usually democratizes the production of knowledge to a certain degree. Peer review ensures that published information will tend to reflect or at least address the current consensus on the issue being researched, and that it does not contradict well known results which would obviously falsify its content. It also, negatively, encourages the formation of academic cliques, biases balance of knowledge in the direction of prestigious universities, and discourages the participation of newer researchers in critical conversations, sometimes resulting in loss of consensus data as well as minds.

Are you claiming that you've subjected this silliness to peer review? Because I think I missed that issue of SSSR

Also, I ask again if you've read the thread I mentioned.

No, I have not.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think you missed an important aspect of the purpose of peer review, and that is bias. If scientists were always objective and never subject to their own egos, emotions, etc., there would be no need for peer review.

Let me try again. Do you understand that every human is susceptible to bias and other cognitive pitfalls in our thinking, and if so, how do you mitigate those pitfalls in your own thinking?

Do you check with your ideological group to see if your beliefs align with the consensus (the basis of religion)?

Do you accept an authority's word without skepticism (a cornerstone of religion)?

Do you agree that knowledge gained even by science is sometimes wrong, but that it is self-correcting in that it does not dictate absolutes (like religion does) and does not require attachment to preconceived beliefs (like religion)? But that the scientific method reflects a recognition that human minds are susceptible to cognitive error and so tools like peer review are needed to help mitigate this reality?

Do you agree that science is a process of questioning and testing, and not of faith or blind acceptance?

Does Christianity offer any such tools of intellectual honesty to their followers?

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, I did a really stupid thing and deleted Politesse's most recent post thinking I was deleting my own. My apologies, Politesse. Fortunately, I had copied the post and had it on my clipboard, so I pasted it into a PM to him to repost if he chooses. Meanwhile, I want to post my responses.

I think you missed an important aspect of the purpose of peer review, and that is bias.

That was included in my definition.

If scientists were always objective and never subject to their own egos, emotions, etc., there would be no need for peer review.

Absurd. Peer review is critical to the scientific process for many important reasons, not just that one.

I did not say "just that one." I am pointing out what you seem to have missed or conveniently glossed over. No one is exempt from cognitive error and the scientific method reflects that understanding of human nature. Social dominance religions do not reflect this understanding, and in fact, thrive in populations that are ignorant of their own nature.

Do you think it might be useful for individuals to apply this understanding to their own religious beliefs?

I think it's not only useful, but imperative for any possibility of a peaceful tribe of seven billion.

Let me try again. Do you understand that every human is susceptible to bias and other cognitive pitfalls in our thinking, and if so, how do you mitigate those pitfalls in your own thinking?

Of course. I have always been aware of the limits of my knowledge and motivations, and test them constantly.

Do you check with your ideological group to see if your beliefs align with the consensus (the basis of religion)?

No. What "group" are you even referring to?

Hello? We all have ideological groups, whether religious or not. You know damn well that religious groups like Christianity are about conforming to the group ideology. The only "self-reflection" encouraged is to make sure you're conforming to the ideology. Of course, they like phrases such as "right with God" but that is not a matter of conscience when "God" is defined for you.

(Back to the Quakers for a moment. They practice, not only pay lip service to, the belief that every individual must be free to interpret the divine as they see fit. This is antithesis to mainstream Christianity. Your pastor or priest defines God for you. What kind of Satan-loving hippie lets people just decide for themselves what God is?!

Do you accept an authority's word without skepticism (a cornerstone of religion)?

No, nor do I agree that you are describing "religion" accurately.

Christianity is absolutely about submitting to authority over one's own conscience. Are you really this ignorant? What exactly are you trying to defend with this tap dancing? Like scientology and other cults and social dominance ideologies, Christianity likes to pay lip service to "free will" but only if you choose what the ideology says you should. Otherwise, you're a heretic, or confused, or rebellious.

Do you agree that knowledge gained even by science is sometimes wrong, but that it is self-correcting in that it does not dictate absolutes (like religion does) and does not require attachment to preconceived beliefs (like religion)? But that the scientific method reflects a recognition that human minds are susceptible to cognitive error and so tools like peer review are needed to help mitigate this reality?

I agree to your description of science, more or less. Indeed, your position would be much improved by critical review of exactly the sort you are advocating for.

You mean applying critical thinking to religious belief? Damn right I advocate for that.

Do you agree that science is a process of questioning and testing, and not of faith or blind acceptance?

That's not all that science is, but yes.

Well, religion isn't.

Does Christianity offer any such tools of intellectual honesty to their followers?

Your tendency to swap back and forth between "religion" and "Christianity" is most confusing. This is like posting a critique of utilitarian ethics which, half the time, describes "philosophy" as the primary threat.

Nice try. The thread is about Christianity, but you know as well as I do that many other religious ideologies are also social dominance machines like Christianity.

If you want, we can start a side discussion about definitions of philosophies vs. religions, but for this discussion is about Christianity, even if the conversation may include some examples of similar ideological traits of other religions.

Of course, "not all." But in this thread, that is just a lame attempt at detracting from the nature of social dominance ideologies like Christianity, that rely heavily on ignorance, fear, and conformity, and on avoiding and discouraging critical thinking, self reflection, intellectual honesty, or independent thought of any kind that questions the belief system.

 

[Politesse]

Christianity is absolutely about submitting to authority over one's own conscience.

This is very nearly the opposite moral to that taught in Jesus' actual actions and sermons.

Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”. She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”


On another Sabbath, he entered the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse him. But he knew their thoughts, and he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come and stand here.” And he rose and stood there. And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” And after looking around at them all he said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” And he did so, and his hand was restored.

 

[Angry Floof]

Oh, I believe there's tons of stuff Jesus taught that is not reflected in either the actions or the thoughts of those who call themselves Christians. IF ONLY.

 

[Politesse]

Oh, I believe there's tons of stuff Jesus taught that is not reflected in either the actions or the thoughts of those who call themselves Christians. IF ONLY.

But... we do think about those things. You're just saying that we don't.

 

[Angry Floof]

Oh, I believe there's tons of stuff Jesus taught that is not reflected in either the actions or the thoughts of those who call themselves Christians. IF ONLY.

But... we do think about those things. You're just saying that we don't.

I'm saying that the influence of Christianity on the world is not in any way the influence of critical thinking, or of any of the supposed goodness Jesus supposedly taught. The influence of Christianity on the world has consistently been ignorance and conflict.

Are you familiar with scientology? Well, they have a lot of teachings that look great on the surface, but when you look deeper there are some serious problems, and lo and behold, what do we actually see in the world from scientologists? Google "scientology harassment" or similar phrases and see.

Some of those ideological problems of scientology are similar to those of Christianity.

Conform, submit to authority, punish outgroups, punish non-conformists, punish questioning, etc.

They also both view the world outside of their ideological bubbles to be evil or broken or inferior or dangerous. The wider world will not serve you. Satan/evil reigns there. No one will help you like we do. Do not stray from this narrow ideology and you will be OK/saved/happy/correct/morally superior. Stick close to the group and don't let Satan/entheta tempt you to think unauthorized thoughts.

If only believers in religions like these could stick to the humane bits of their teachings.

If only these religions offered some way of mitigating the poisonous effects of authoritarianism, absolutism, tribalism, fear, and ignorance.

What kind of teachings do you think could mitigate such poisonous effects on groups of humans?

 

[Politesse]

If only these religions offered some way of mitigating the poisonous effects of authoritarianism, absolutism, tribalism, fear, and ignorance.

What kind of teachings do you think could mitigate such poisonous effects on groups of humans?

I don't think they can.

Which is why I think it's silly that you're essentially blaming Christianity itself for the existence of the sin and malice that it has not succeeded in defeating. That is sad, but it is not the result of Christianity. Rome rode Jupiter's shadow into the murk of empire; the Soviet union followed the ghosts of Marx and Lenin. These forces are stopped by correct teachings, whatever their source.

And again, it is not true that "Christians" do not follow Christ's instructions. Neither of the passages I quoted are obscure or unknown. To consciously describe Christian history exclusively in terms of its darkest chapters, and the characteristic mania of fundamentalism whatever its justification, is worshiping your own biases, not avoiding them. And an obviously ridiculous way to approach the world.

 

[Angry Floof]

If only these religions offered some way of mitigating the poisonous effects of authoritarianism, absolutism, tribalism, fear, and ignorance.

What kind of teachings do you think could mitigate such poisonous effects on groups of humans?

I don't think they can.

Which is why I think it's silly that you're essentially blaming Christianity itself for the existence of the sin and malice that it has not succeeded in defeating.

Bullshit. I'm blaming Christianity for willful ignorance, and purposely, actively, willfully teaching that the tools that could possibly defeat "sin and malice" must be feared and condemned.

That is sad, but it is not the result of Christianity.

What's sad is you thinking you need to put words in my mouth to make my comments easier to attack.

Rome rode Jupiter's shadow into the murk of empire; the Soviet union followed the ghosts of Marx and Lenin. These forces are stopped by correct teachings, whatever their source.

What correct teachings? You mean critical thinking? Honesty? Self reflection? Christianity doesn't teach those things.

And again, it is not true that "Christians" do not follow Christ's instructions. Neither of the passages I quoted are obscure or unknown. To consciously describe Christian history exclusively in terms of its darkest chapters, and the characteristic mania of fundamentalism whatever its justification, is worshiping your own biases, not avoiding them. And an obviously ridiculous way to approach the world.

No, I mainly describe Christianity in terms of what we actually see in the world today, right now, all over the world, all over the headlines, as well as in the past.

Anyone can pluck out nice-sounding bits from the Bible or Quran or the works of L. Ron Hubbard. But try asking the tough questions to followers of these "scriptures" and you will find out just how much the group identity is valued far above honesty or humanness.

And if I wanted to worship my own biases, I'd still be a Christian.