|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 22, 2020 23:17:05 GMT -8
Id you're going to go down that road, I have a whole iconoclasm debate I can foist on you that pretty much consumed Byzantium back in the day.  |
|
|
|
Post by northbruin40 on Jun 23, 2020 1:01:34 GMT -8
That is a second commandment only to the first: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The commandment is very clear: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.So why is our "Judeo-Christian" nation so obsessed with statutes? Just as a guess, this is a tradition that developed when the majority of Christian recruits changed from a Jewish base to a non-Jewish base. The latter didn't understand many Jewish traditions and weren't committed to them. So the practices of drawing and carving images - which they were used to - took hold. Also, wasn't there a first century debate as to whether it was a "new" religion? I believe that plays into this. Actually, there are some interesting debates about those times. For instance, was the surprising lack of narrative in Saul/Paul's letters just an oversight on his part as he thought the world was ending very soon - or did he deliberately emphasize faith and downplay narrative (unlike the 4 Gospel authors)? The traditional position among Christians had been that Paul was a saint, so you couldn't question his writings, only "awe" at them. But in recent decades the different emphasis between authors is actually being debated. |
|
|
|
Post by blublood on Jun 23, 2020 7:03:32 GMT -8
The apostle Paul was not a gospel writer. His contribution to the New Testament were his epistles: Letters. If you were writing letters to people in WWII, offering them courage and hope, you probably don't spend a lot of time explaining the history of the war. Also, a lot of Paul's writings--directed to congregations--involved admonishment. They were to correct mistakes or misbehavior or straying. The gospels, particularly Luke, were an attempt to record history. Paul's epistles, by the way, were all written before the gospels. Paul never expected his letters to become scripture; it was the congregations that preserved the letters. Thanks be to God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 23, 2020 22:18:24 GMT -8
That is a second commandment only to the first: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The commandment is very clear: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.So why is our "Judeo-Christian" nation so obsessed with statutes? ermmmmm, we're not the only country with a lot of statues. The primary focus of our obsession with them right now, is tearing them down. Statues are being torn down elsewhere in the world, but not at the pace they are now. But, hey, let's tear 'em all down - start with the big Buddha's, right? |
|
|
|
Post by grant73 on Jun 23, 2020 23:53:31 GMT -8
The Taliban has in the past been pretty active in tearing down things that were a lot like statues. Religion doesn't bother me, and it may sound weird, but I think that Atheism is a religion, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 24, 2020 0:32:58 GMT -8
I think that Atheism is a religion, too. Well ... atheism is something people can get fanatical about, but it certainly is not a religion. Atheism does not attempt to explain the world, it does not prescribe any behavior, it does not turn on sentient powers pulling invisible strings, it does not present an object of worship that we must please, nor does it color the world in moral tones.
Sorry, that's one of my pet peeves.
|
|
|
|
Post by grant73 on Jun 24, 2020 4:01:45 GMT -8
-- " Atheism does not ...." --
The list of "nots" you present are criteria that I never read or thought through before. That's quite an admission, eh? My response would be that I suppose my throw-away phrase was more a figure of speech rather than a legally supportable statement. If it were to be called a crusade, does that help, or would your linguistics background find equally impressive arguments against that "figure of speech?"
And you know I am just ribbing you, kid. (Ooops, "crusade" might imply a Cross, lol.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 24, 2020 6:56:17 GMT -8
blindness, with all due respect, atheism, as practiced by many of its self-professed adherents, certainly qualifies as a religion.
While atheists specifically reject the existence of a supreme being, there a plenty of religions that aren't based on belief in a deity.
And we've seen on BZOF, and even to some extent on this board, that atheists are no less judgmental than their theistic peers.
And while you may not proclaim a belief in science as the ultimate arbiter, many atheists do, even though they cannot explain the inner workings of the Big Bang any better than most Christians can explain the inner workings of the Trinity.
Finally, if there is truly no moral color to your personal atheism, how do you justify criticizing trump, or anyone else for that matter?
I don't mean to criticize, just to prove. Again, with utmost respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by grant73 on Jun 24, 2020 7:25:21 GMT -8
A list of beliefs can be compiled to show that Trump's base -- if not exactly a religion -- at least seems like a community of adults who have faith, that:
A) Trump does NOT lie daily
B) Trump does NOT ever deny scientific facts, especially those proclaimed by HIS OWN appointees and of course this list gains new items almost every time he opens his mouth (read: every news day, especially late on Fridays!).
And Trump's religiosity was, after all, kind of "denuded"like the mythical emperor whose minions so admired his fine clothes, when Trump spoke piously of scriptures from the book of "TWO CORINTHIANS."
Again, I echo the "due respect" statements.
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 24, 2020 7:53:40 GMT -8
So why is our "Judeo-Christian" nation so obsessed with statutes? ermmmmm, we're not the only country with a lot of statues. The primary focus of our obsession with them right now, is tearing them down. Statues are being torn down elsewhere in the world, but not at the pace they are now. But, hey, let's tear 'em all down - start with the big Buddha's, right? I think you missed my point. Many call our country "Judeo Christian." Other countries do not call themselves Judeo Christian. All I am saying is, as a Judeo Christian nation, shouldn't the second commandment against statutes apply? Buddhism does not have the same injunction against "graven images." China doesn't call itself Judeo Christian. Many in our country call ourselves Judeo Christian. Actually people who defend the status quo ("our heritage") do. |
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 24, 2020 8:09:26 GMT -8
ermmmmm, we're not the only country with a lot of statues. The primary focus of our obsession with them right now, is tearing them down. Statues are being torn down elsewhere in the world, but not at the pace they are now. But, hey, let's tear 'em all down - start with the big Buddha's, right? I think you missed my point. Many call our country "Judeo Christian." Other countries do not call themselves Judeo Christian. All I am saying is, as a Judeo Christian nation, shouldn't the second commandment against statutes apply? Buddhism does not have the same injunction against "graven images." China doesn't call itself Judeo Christian. Many in our country call ourselves Judeo Christian. Actually people who defend the status quo ("our heritage") do. I got your point - you missed my point. You seem to be calling out Christians for hypocrisy, for not strictly interpreting the Bible, and allowing statues to stand. It just seems like a pot shot. A sloppy one, at that. Not to get all Confused442, but you're a Christian, you're ok (I assume) with statues. Or, do you, personally, want to go the Muslim extremist route and start tearing down statues because they are statues? I know you don't. I figure you have as much disdain for that as anyone else. So, I can't connect the dots on your comment. Therefore, it just seems like a potshot. Peace. |
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 24, 2020 8:23:11 GMT -8
>>Many call our country "Judeo Christian."
Many don't. I see it as crucial that we do not have an official or preferred religion.
Many who call our country Judeo-Christian see that as a license to force their religious beliefs on others, and I VEHEMENTLY oppose that.
|
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 24, 2020 9:07:32 GMT -8
blindness, with all due respect, atheism, as practiced by many of its self-professed adherents, certainly qualifies as a religion. While atheists specifically reject the existence of a supreme being, there a plenty of religions that aren't based on belief in a deity. And we've seen on BZOF, and even to some extent on this board, that atheists are no less judgmental than their theistic peers. And while you may not proclaim a belief in science as the ultimate arbiter, many atheists do, even though they cannot explain the inner workings of the Big Bang any better than most Christians can explain the inner workings of the Trinity. Finally, if there is truly no moral color to your personal atheism, how do you justify criticizing trump, or anyone else for that matter? I don't mean to criticize, just to prove. Again, with utmost respect. Ooook, this may be a little long ... hang on to your hats:
atheism, as practiced by many of its self-professed adherents, certainly qualifies as a religion
Let's get this out of the way first: I will agree, quite unhappily, that there is a brand of atheism out there practiced by people who used to be devout believers in something but somehow lost that faith along the way, filling the cathedral-size hole in their hearts with devout atheism. This happens. I think of them as people who claim they will never fall in love again. I am not saying those people are not legitimate atheists. They are. But there is something different going on there that is not part of what atheism is.
While atheists specifically reject the existence of a supreme being, there a plenty of religions that aren't based on belief in a deity.
Absolutely correct. I'd say whether something is a religion or not turns on whether there is a shared cosmology that's based on a story that cannot be demonstrated as a fact (let's not get into whether biblical characters did in fact live ... that's really not the cosmology). I am sure there are some religions that lie in that grey area of being kinda like a religion but kinda not. Scientology concocts a whole pulp fiction sci-fi as its origin story with a touch of spirit mysticism, but it is still a religion, in my view, because of that shared cosmological story that cannot be substantiated.
Another aspect of religion is the devotion. Adherents do not approach their religion is "meh, this is the explanation I am sticking with until a better one comes along". There is a level of acceptance of the story that you don't find with atheists normally (unless they are of the kind I mentioned above ... "dry alcoholics" kinda thing).
And we've seen on BZOF, and even to some extent on this board, that atheists are no less judgmental than their theistic peers.
Oh boy can they be judgemental pricks. Atheism provides no solution to that problem. (Though whenever I see that kind my mind goes back to the type I mentioned in the intro).
And while you may not proclaim a belief in science as the ultimate arbiter, many atheists do, even though they cannot explain the inner workings of the Big Bang any better than most Christians can explain the inner workings of the Trinity.
That's a good example: let's keep in mind the nature of the things that these folks can't explain. The Big Bang is a hypothetical event arrived at through lots of math and physics, every step of which was presumably confirmed many times over. It may not be what really happened, but we can reasonably expect that the path from here to there does not take a "leap of faith" if you will. And you can also imagine that 20 years from now some smart kid comes with a different math and shows that what counts as the "Big Bang" is actually matter leaking to our universe from another dimension, or some such and convince the scientific community with dazzling math that convinces everyone. An atheist needs to understand that this is all fluid.
At its core, the Trinity is a construct arrived at by scholars and theologians who needed to reconcile passages in the Bible into a consistent story. There is probably some deeper mystical understanding that you can achieve if you ponder on it a long time, but at the end of the day, it was a leap of faith. I can't imagine that a young theologian will come up with some fancy new translation that says "guys what we believed all this time was all wrong." The leap of faith that one took to arrive at the Trinity does not get negated by some new fact. If it does, then awesome. That's the kind of approach I would *love* to see in religion.
But still.... how arrive at the mind boggling explanation in both cases (the Big Bang vs the Trinity) are different.
Then we pull the camera back. Being an atheist does not mean you adopt science as your guide. I am sure there are a lot of atheists out there who embrace other explanations in their cosmology. There is an obvious symbiosis there, but we need to make sure we are not mixing the two way too much.
Finally, if there is truly no moral color to your personal atheism, how do you justify criticizing trump, or anyone else for that matter?
I feel like you threw two dots at me and I am not able to connect them. Morality and religion relate to one another but neither is a necessary or sufficient condition for the other, or the absence thereof. You'll need to expand on that a bit probably.
I don't mean to criticize,
Criticism is ok too. |
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 24, 2020 9:17:23 GMT -8
-- " Atheism does not ...." -- The list of "nots" you present are criteria that I never read or thought through before. That's quite an admission, eh? My response would be that I suppose my throw-away phrase was more a figure of speech rather than a legally supportable statement. If it were to be called a crusade, does that help, or would your linguistics background find equally impressive arguments against that "figure of speech?" And you know I am just ribbing you, kid. (Ooops, "crusade" might imply a Cross, lol.) It's not like I received any education in atheism. One day I woke up and realized that's what I'd been all my life -- all of whatever I had by the age 10 or 11.
What you said is a very common refrain and to my ears it comes across like saying theater is a sport because it involves people gathering to watch some action take place in front of them. I feel like people tend to pick up some pieces of what happens with atheists and place it in their mental template for religion.
All good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 24, 2020 11:43:50 GMT -8
blindness, thanks for your detailed response, and for obviously taking my post in the spirit in which it was intended.
Clearly, this subject is a pet peeve with me as well. I have two specific points and an observation, which I will try to keep brief, and general where possible.
1. I consider atheism a religion in that it consists of one or more personal beliefs, ultimately articles of faith that can neither be proven nor disproven, that shape an individual's world view. These beliefs do not need to be shared with anyone. Nor do beliefs in other religions need to be shared. Indeed, the denominational fracturing of religious beliefs in various heterodoxies is a constant in our world history. I wouldn't say this about you, but a lot of atheists make it clear they don't believe it's a religion because they look down on all religions, or more to the point, all people who are religious.
2. As far as shared cosmologies are concerned, it's turtles all the way down. They are all based on story that cannot be demonstrated as fact by 99.99% of the people that choose to believe them. This specifically includes the Big Bang, which as you rightly note, is just a theory in the first place. Very little of it has been "confirmed many times over". You just presume it has, which is, indeed, a "leap of faith". And there are several significant problems with the observed universe the Big Bang Theory cannot address. Then there's the question of what happened before the Big Bang, or why the Big Bang happened in the first place. Conversely, young theologians constantly come up with new ideas, indeed saying, "Guys, what we believed all this time was all wrong". That's where "Intelligent Design" came from, which, let's be clear, I don't believe in the slightest instance.
Now, I wholeheartedly believe in science. Science has practical applications that make all our lives better. As Neil Degrasse Tyson said, "The good thing about Science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." But religion also has practical applications that can make our lives better.
Finally, the observation. You wrote atheism does not "color the world in moral tones". My question in my previous post, that you asked me to connect the dots on, was based on the assumption that lack of moral coloring applies to your specific atheistic beliefs, and if it does, how can you say whether anything anyone does is right or wrong? As it relates to trump, you could rightly say he's incompetent, that he communicates at a low grade school level, that he is significantly lacking in cognitive and leadership skills; but without a moral coloring book, how can you say anything he's done is right or wrong? But maybe I've misunderstood you these last several years; maybe you're not not saying anything he's done is right or wrong.
I'm excited to read your response.
|
|
