A Brief Summary of the Christian Bible

[Politesse]

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

Except, of course, when they are. I could quote Bible verses and centuries of writing and philosophy, but would it matter?

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.

You describe it in terms of what you see, and refuse to admit that your emotions are the guide of what you see.

 

[Angry Floof]

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

Except, of course, when they are. I could quote Bible verses and centuries of writing and philosophy, but would it matter?

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.

You describe it in terms of what you see, and refuse to admit that your emotions are the guide of what you see.

Everyone's emotions influence them in some way. I think it's a matter of maturity and honesty to admit that, don't you? Everyone's perceptions are distorted and limited to some degree. What you and I don't seem to agree on is that there are useful tools for mitigating the cognitive pitfalls of these limits. No one will ever be completely free of them, but pretending you don't have them only makes you more susceptible to them.

If you know how a trick is done, you can't be tricked by it anymore.

So here we are talking about the tricks of our own minds that religions like Christianity hijack and reinforce.

Whatever my faults, I can never again be guilted and shamed into believing in a magical punisher or forgiver. I know that I don't need that. To whatever extent I might need punishment or forgiveness, my fellow human beings are there to do that. I, myself, am also capable of punishing or forgiving myself. As an infant, it was easy to make me believe I needed forgiveness from a magical man I couldn't see, but now it's not possible to make me believe that, at least not without severe abuse and trauma to diminish my critical faculties.

This is not to say that religious believers are brain damaged, but only that they have not been shown the trick yet, and that their ideology and group identity serve to protect them from seeing how the trick is done. Once they've seen how the trick is done, they would also require serious damage to go back to not knowing.

Whatever my faults, there are a number of lies that I cannot go back to believing. I can post a list of lies here if you like. They include things like "atheists are under the spell of Satan." I don't think you need me to do that, though. I think you are well aware of what lies get obliterated when people start to question.

 

[Politesse]

Except, of course, when they are. I could quote Bible verses and centuries of writing and philosophy, but would it matter?

You describe it in terms of what you see, and refuse to admit that your emotions are the guide of what you see.

Everyone's emotions influence them in some way. I think it's a matter of maturity and honesty to admit that, don't you? Everyone's perceptions are distorted and limited to some degree. What you and I don't seem to agree on is that there are useful tools for mitigating the cognitive pitfalls of these limits. No one will ever be completely free of them, but pretending you don't have them only makes you more susceptible to them.

If you know how a trick is done, you can't be tricked by it anymore.

So here we are talking about the tricks of our own minds that religions like Christianity hijack and reinforce.

Whatever my faults, I can never again be guilted and shamed into believing in a magical punisher or forgiver. I know that I don't need that. To whatever extent I might need punishment or forgiveness, my fellow human beings are there to do that. I, myself, am also capable of punishing or forgiving myself. As an infant, it was easy to make me believe I needed forgiveness from a magical man I couldn't see, but now it's not possible to make me believe that, at least not without severe abuse and trauma to diminish my critical faculties.

Well, I certainly would never object to any of that. You should believe those things.

I just don't see a necessary connection between your moral self-liberation and pejorative generalizations about people who carry a different religious label from yourself. If you were consistent with these principles, you would extend the same right of self-determination to others, and realize that a person can and very well might come to different conclusions than you on cosmology, without it being the successful outcome of some authoritarian plot.

 

[Angry Floof]

Except, of course, when they are. I could quote Bible verses and centuries of writing and philosophy, but would it matter?

You describe it in terms of what you see, and refuse to admit that your emotions are the guide of what you see.

Everyone's emotions influence them in some way. I think it's a matter of maturity and honesty to admit that, don't you? Everyone's perceptions are distorted and limited to some degree. What you and I don't seem to agree on is that there are useful tools for mitigating the cognitive pitfalls of these limits. No one will ever be completely free of them, but pretending you don't have them only makes you more susceptible to them.

If you know how a trick is done, you can't be tricked by it anymore.

So here we are talking about the tricks of our own minds that religions like Christianity hijack and reinforce.

Whatever my faults, I can never again be guilted and shamed into believing in a magical punisher or forgiver. I know that I don't need that. To whatever extent I might need punishment or forgiveness, my fellow human beings are there to do that. I, myself, am also capable of punishing or forgiving myself. As an infant, it was easy to make me believe I needed forgiveness from a magical man I couldn't see, but now it's not possible to make me believe that, at least not without severe abuse and trauma to diminish my critical faculties.

Well, I certainly would never object to any of that. You should believe those things.

I just don't see a necessary connection between your moral self-liberation and pejorative generalizations about people who carry a different religious label from yourself. If you were consistent with these principles, you would extend the same right of self-determination to others, and realize that a person can and very well might come to different conclusions than you on cosmology, without it being the successful outcome of some authoritarian plot.

If only that were true. To read this thread and to be a member of a freethought community full of outspoken atheists and sit here and say it's just a matter of not liking a different label from my own... I think this conversation is over. That takes some serious mental tap dancing. It takes great nerve and an astounding depth of willful ignorance.

One last time and then I'm done with you. I do not care what people call themselves. That is a backward tendency very popular among the religious to assume that everyone else thinks like you do in classifying your fellow human beings as "not one of us." As if that label is the most important thing about you. Would you recognize someone who doesn't need to do that? It's crazy just how much you are willing to ignore just to maintain that demonization of people who criticize an ideology that reinforces the worst of humanity, hijacks our innocence and ignorance, appeals to fear and prejudice, exacerbates cultural myopia, and cultivates authoritarianism, black and white thinking, demonization of outgroups, and egotism. It promotes conflict and encourages an inhumane world view.

Yet you just so badly need to make me fit into that little demon cartoon in your head. It doesn't even have anything to do with me. It has to do with your tribe of seven billion and your insistence on carrying on an ideological identity that is maladaptive to this reality.

If Christians were not bent on social dominance, on punishing outgroups, on demanding undeserved respect for their magical group identity while taking zero responsibility for what their ideology wreaks in the world, while lazily submitting to an authority (because that's really a hell of a lot easier than developing a conscience), and turning a blind eye to the abuses those of their ideological identity pour onto out-groups, you might have a leg to stand on. But you don't. You might as well just stick out your tongue and say, "well, YOU'RE a poopoo head!"

If you had the courage and intellectual honesty, you could set aside your need to demonize me and actually face the criticisms of Christianity.

But OK, let's just pretend it's about me not liking someone else's label. That's the ticket. Thank you for proving me right and congratulations for serving as a cancer cell in the tumor of religious batshittery in the world.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I just don't see a necessary connection between your moral self-liberation and pejorative generalizations about people who carry a different religious label from yourself. If you were consistent with these principles, you would extend the same right of self-determination to others, and realize that a person can and very well might come to different conclusions than you on cosmology, without it being the successful outcome of some authoritarian plot.

Why cosmology? Most of the religious folks I know don't even know the word exists, let alone what it means. Cosmologically speaking, however, just a few centuries ago christians were burning people alive for having a cosmology that disagreed with declared religious cosmology. I think that may be Floof's point.

Shouldn't we be talking about geology or germ theory or paleontology? Should people be allowed to "self determine" that they can pray a child out of disease, even if the child will die, or that the earth is only thousands of years old, and not billions? Should they be allowed to self determine that scientific findings can be suppressed? Religion historically has done this.

 

[Politesse]

Well, I certainly would never object to any of that. You should believe those things.

I just don't see a necessary connection between your moral self-liberation and pejorative generalizations about people who carry a different religious label from yourself. If you were consistent with these principles, you would extend the same right of self-determination to others, and realize that a person can and very well might come to different conclusions than you on cosmology, without it being the successful outcome of some authoritarian plot.

If only that were true. To read this thread and to be a member of a freethought community full of outspoken atheists and sit here and say it's just a matter of not liking a different label from my own... I think this conversation is over. That takes some serious mental tap dancing. It takes great nerve and an astounding depth of willful ignorance.

One last time and then I'm done with you. I do not care what people call themselves. That is a backward tendency very popular among the religious to assume that everyone else thinks like you do in classifying your fellow human beings as "not one of us." As if that label is the most important thing about you. Would you recognize someone who doesn't need to do that? It's crazy just how much you are willing to ignore just to maintain that demonization of people who criticize an ideology that reinforces the worst of humanity, hijacks our innocence and ignorance, appeals to fear and prejudice, exacerbates cultural myopia, and cultivates authoritarianism, black and white thinking, demonization of outgroups, and egotism. It promotes conflict and encourages an inhumane world view.

Yet you just so badly need to make me fit into that little demon cartoon in your head. It doesn't even have anything to do with me. It has to do with your tribe of seven billion and your insistence on carrying on an ideological identity that is maladaptive to this reality.

If Christians were not bent on social dominance, on punishing outgroups, on demanding undeserved respect for their magical group identity while taking zero responsibility for what their ideology wreaks in the world, while lazily submitting to an authority (because that's really a hell of a lot easier than developing a conscience), and turning a blind eye to the abuses those of their ideological identity pour onto out-groups, you might have a leg to stand on. But you don't. You might as well just stick out your tongue and say, "well, YOU'RE a poopoo head!"

If you had the courage and intellectual honesty, you could set aside your need to demonize me and actually face the criticisms of Christianity.

But OK, let's just pretend it's about me not liking someone else's label. That's the ticket. Thank you for proving me right and congratulations for serving as a cancer cell in the tumor of religious batshittery in the world.

I have no idea what to make of this. It's not about labels, but you'll rant for paragraphs about a label and all the evil it does... ??? You're capable of understanding that not everyone who isn't you is the same, but make blanket statements about what everyone who isn't an atheist does and why? I'm honestly baffled.

I haven't demonized you, you seem perfectly nice. That's got no bearing on whether you're right.

And all that business about me being obsessed with a label is silly, I haven't even got one.

 

[Politesse]

I just don't see a necessary connection between your moral self-liberation and pejorative generalizations about people who carry a different religious label from yourself. If you were consistent with these principles, you would extend the same right of self-determination to others, and realize that a person can and very well might come to different conclusions than you on cosmology, without it being the successful outcome of some authoritarian plot.

Why cosmology? Most of the religious folks I know don't even know the word exists, let alone what it means. Cosmologically speaking, however, just a few centuries ago christians were burning people alive for having a cosmology that disagreed with declared religious cosmology. I think that may be Floof's point.

Shouldn't we be talking about geology or germ theory or paleontology? Should people be allowed to "self determine" that they can pray a child out of disease, even if the child will die, or that the earth is only thousands of years old, and not billions? Should they be allowed to self determine that scientific findings can be suppressed? Religion historically has done this.

I love science, what are you on about? Yes, there's some bad history there, but that doesn't mean everyone who respects a religion hates geology, that's ridiculous. We wouldn't have a geology if that were so.

Were it not for the knowledge that comes from my own branch of the sciences, I wouldn't be so annoyed about all the prejudice and blind generalizations about religious groups.

 

[Angry Floof]

Politesse, I am astounded at the relentless tap dancing you are willing to do to deflect criticism of Christianity. Amazing.

Fortunately for the world, that doesn't stop the rest of us from questioning. And given the nature of information availability and exposure that almost the whole world now has to myriad perspectives and view points, the questioning will only continue and previously unchallenged "traditions" have no choice but to change.

Of course, there is also culture clash, but that's also a symptom of cultural myopia and ignorance of people in ideological environments that teach them to be afraid of Other and of change, but cultural myopia and ignorance will eventually erode, too.

IF the religious nut jobs don't kill us all first.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I just don't see a necessary connection between your moral self-liberation and pejorative generalizations about people who carry a different religious label from yourself. If you were consistent with these principles, you would extend the same right of self-determination to others, and realize that a person can and very well might come to different conclusions than you on cosmology, without it being the successful outcome of some authoritarian plot.

Why cosmology? Most of the religious folks I know don't even know the word exists, let alone what it means. Cosmologically speaking, however, just a few centuries ago christians were burning people alive for having a cosmology that disagreed with declared religious cosmology. I think that may be Floof's point.

Shouldn't we be talking about geology or germ theory or paleontology? Should people be allowed to "self determine" that they can pray a child out of disease, even if the child will die, or that the earth is only thousands of years old, and not billions? Should they be allowed to self determine that scientific findings can be suppressed? Religion historically has done this.

I love science, what are you on about? Yes, there's some bad history there, but that doesn't mean everyone who respects a religion hates geology, that's ridiculous. We wouldn't have a geology if that were so.

Were it not for the knowledge that comes from my own branch of the sciences, I wouldn't be so annoyed about all the prejudice and blind generalizations about religious groups.

Scientists certainly engage in confirmation bias, same as religion does. But it is also true that scientists support the collection of scientific knowledge. And when that knowledge leads to new theories supported by facts science changes. Religion, generally speaking, does not do this, certainly not christian religions. Their loyalties divide based on interpretations, claims and teachings, but never on the discovery of new knowledge.

 

[Politesse]

Politesse, I am astounded at the relentless tap dancing you are willing to do to deflect criticism of Christianity. Amazing.

You can criticize Christianity all you like. Who said you couldn't?

- - - Updated - - -

I love science, what are you on about? Yes, there's some bad history there, but that doesn't mean everyone who respects a religion hates geology, that's ridiculous. We wouldn't have a geology if that were so.

Were it not for the knowledge that comes from my own branch of the sciences, I wouldn't be so annoyed about all the prejudice and blind generalizations about religious groups.

Scientists certainly engage in confirmation bias, same as religion does. But it is also true that scientists support the collection of scientific knowledge. And when that knowledge leads to new theories supported by facts science changes. Religion, generally speaking, does not do this, certainly not christian religions. Their loyalties divide based on interpretations, claims and teachings, but never on the discovery of new knowledge.

Why couldn't a religious person want the same things? Are you under the very false impression that all scientists are atheists?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You can criticize Christianity all you like. Who said you couldn't?

- - - Updated - - -

Scientists certainly engage in confirmation bias, same as religion does. But it is also true that scientists support the collection of scientific knowledge. And when that knowledge leads to new theories supported by facts science changes. Religion, generally speaking, does not do this, certainly not christian religions. Their loyalties divide based on interpretations, claims and teachings, but never on the discovery of new knowledge.

Why couldn't a religious person want the same things? Are you under the very false impression that all scientists are atheists?

A religious person wants their scientific curiosity to comport with their religion. Hence they invent stuff like creation museums and "irreducible complexity." They are simply loyal to their religious beliefs to a fault. My one sibling is a good example because he still holds to a "higher power" while dismissing the Jesus tale as juvenile silliness.

 

[Politesse]

You can criticize Christianity all you like. Who said you couldn't?

- - - Updated - - -

Scientists certainly engage in confirmation bias, same as religion does. But it is also true that scientists support the collection of scientific knowledge. And when that knowledge leads to new theories supported by facts science changes. Religion, generally speaking, does not do this, certainly not christian religions. Their loyalties divide based on interpretations, claims and teachings, but never on the discovery of new knowledge.

Why couldn't a religious person want the same things? Are you under the very false impression that all scientists are atheists?

A religious person wants their scientific curiosity to comport with their religion. Hence they invent stuff like creation museums and "irreducible complexity." They are simply loyal to their religious beliefs to a fault. My one sibling is a good example because he still holds to a "higher power" while dismissing the Jesus tale as juvenile silliness.

There are plenty of non-Creationist Christians; indeed, this isn't even the majority perspective anymore, by the numbers.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A religious person wants their scientific curiosity to comport with their religion. Hence they invent stuff like creation museums and "irreducible complexity." They are simply loyal to their religious beliefs to a fault. My one sibling is a good example because he still holds to a "higher power" while dismissing the Jesus tale as juvenile silliness.

There are plenty of non-Creationist Christians; indeed, this isn't even the majority perspective anymore, by the numbers.

So are you claiming that when science disagrees with religious teaching that religious people simply accept that their religion is wrong but continue to be religious? Isn't it more the case that they begin to make excuses for what their religion says and start inventing things like higher powers and ceremonial deism to cover over the conflicts? That's what I see, that their religion is still more important, which is what Floof is saying, and with which I agree.

It's probably because they lack sufficient scientific understanding to discard that comforting old identity, even though they see their religion as insufficient to explain their observations. Their gods still make miracles happen like saving a kids life or explaining the beauty of a flower. And I should add they remain very loyal to that old group identity.

 

[Politesse]

A religious person wants their scientific curiosity to comport with their religion. Hence they invent stuff like creation museums and "irreducible complexity." They are simply loyal to their religious beliefs to a fault. My one sibling is a good example because he still holds to a "higher power" while dismissing the Jesus tale as juvenile silliness.

There are plenty of non-Creationist Christians; indeed, this isn't even the majority perspective anymore, by the numbers.

So are you claiming that when science disagrees with religious teaching that religious people simply accept that their religion is wrong but continue to be religious? Isn't it more the case that they begin to make excuses for what their religion says and start inventing things like higher powers and ceremonial deism to cover over the conflicts? That's what I see, that their religion is still more important, which is what Floof is saying, and with which I agree.

It's probably because they lack sufficient scientific understanding to discard that comforting old identity, even though they see their religion as insufficient to explain their observations. Their gods still make miracles happen like saving a kids life or explaining the beauty of a flower. And I should add they remain very loyal to that old group identity.

There's a degree of difference between "a religious authority is wrong about a specific topic" and "religion is wrong about everything". Most people negotiate this distance at least occasionally. Even fundamentalists, though they might not like to admit it. And not everyone is a fundamentalist. What does a progressive Protestant Christian lose by accepting that evolution is a good explanation for biological diversity? From a prog-Christian perspective, the Bible isn't supposed to be a scientific textbook in the first place, that isn't what it was created for. No conflict.

I guess what you're upset about is that many people weather these conflicts without losing their faith, and you believe that they ought to lose their faith, that science, if correctly followed, fundamentally precludes religious belief. I do not agree that science is religiously partisan, however. The whole advantage of science is that it relies on that which can be empirically confirmed and thus sits at a level of truth which is beyond the boundaries of philosophical disagreements. A property of a material thing is what it is regardless of one's beliefs about the metaphysical context in which that fact is true. It is, in fact, remarkably good at creating common ground, and there are no religious requirements to practicing or understanding science. Anyone, anywhere, can replicate a scientific result, and it will work exactly the same way regardless of their religious beliefs. Or it isn't science at all. Either science works equally well for Christians and non-Christians, or it has become methodologically illegitimate.

 

[Jobar]

I want to take a shot at joedad's original question.

The Bible is a record of Man's interaction with God, in his aspect as the judging Father Yahweh/Jehovah, and the forgiving Son Jesus Christ.

My first thought was that the Bible, and Christianity, are both too diverse to summarize at all. But perhaps my version is broad (or maybe 'vague' would be a better word) enough to be recognizable to anyone.

Notice that it works even if you consider the central character- God- to be completely fictional.

 

[Lion IRC]

...So are you claiming that when science disagrees with religious teaching that religious people simply accept that their religion is wrong but continue to be religious?

Science reinforces my religion.

 

[Politesse]

I want to take a shot at joedad's original question.

The Bible is a record of Man's interaction with God, in his aspect as the judging Father Yahweh/Jehovah, and the forgiving Son Jesus Christ.

My first thought was that the Bible, and Christianity, are both too diverse to summarize at all. But perhaps my version is broad (or maybe 'vague' would be a better word) enough to be recognizable to anyone.

Notice that it works even if you consider the central character- God- to be completely fictional.

You know, that's not so bad. Though a Jew might take issue with the first half!

 

[Jobar]

He did specify the Christian Bible.

And I freely admit that description conveys so little information about the Bible that it isn't really useful.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...So are you claiming that when science disagrees with religious teaching that religious people simply accept that their religion is wrong but continue to be religious?

Science reinforces my religion.

For example...

 

[Jobar]

...So are you claiming that when science disagrees with religious teaching that religious people simply accept that their religion is wrong but continue to be religious?

Science reinforces my religion.

For example...

I wondered about this, too. From Galileo's telescope to Franklin's lightning rod to Darwin's theory of evolution, it appears to me that science calls religious ideas into question, rather than reinforcing them.