Secularism
Everybody’s favorite young college student, Jumping from Conclusions, has recently introduced me to the writings of Robert Green Ingersoll. Ingersoll was a writer and orator, back in the days when public oratory was a form of entertainment.
Ingersoll often spoke on progressive issues of the day: women’s suffrage, anti-slavery, and agnosticism. His writing often denouned religious belief, and for this he was both popular and extremely controversial for his day.
On this site, I often accuse Christians of accepting a Church Creed, through which they interpret their Scripture. While I don’t think Ingersoll actually formulated a Creed, this short speech, entitled Secularism comes mighty close to one.
The next time you hear somebody ask “If there is no God, what is the purpose in life, and the point of living?”, point them to this:
SECULARISM.
SEVERAL people have asked me the meaning of this term.
Secularism is the religion of humanity; it embraces the
affairs of this world; it is interested in everything that touches
the welfare of a sentient being; it advocates attention to the
particular planet in which we happen to live; it means that each
individual counts for something; it is a declaration of
intellectual independence; it means that the pew is superior to the
pulpit, that those who bear the burdens shall have the profits and
that they who fill the purse shall hold the strings. It is a
protest against theological oppression, against ecclesiastical
tyranny, against being the serf, subject or slave of any phantom,
or of the priest of any phantom. It is a protest against wasting
this life for the sake of one that we know not of. It proposes to
let the gods take care of themselves. It is another name for common
sense; that is to say, the adaptation of means to such ends as are
desired and understood.
Secularism believes in building a home here, in this world. It
trusts to individual effort, to energy, to intelligence, to
observation and experience rather than to the unknown and the
supernatural. It desires to be happy on this side of the grave.
Secularism means food and fireside, roof and raiment,
reasonable work and reasonable leisure, the cultivation of the
tastes, the acquisition of knowledge, the enjoyment of the arts,
and it promises for the human race comfort, independence,
intelligence, and above all liberty. It means the abolition of
sectarian feuds, of theological hatreds. It means the cultivation
of friendship and intellectual hospitality. It means the living for
ourselves and each other; for the present instead of the past, for
this world rather than for another. It means the right to express
your thought in spite of popes, priests, and gods. It means that
impudent idleness shall no longer live upon the labor of honest
men. It means the destruction of the business of those who trade in
fear. It proposes to give serenity and content to the human soul.
It will put out the fires of eternal pain. It is striving to do
away with violence and vice, with ignorance, poverty and disease.
It lives for the ever present to-day, and the ever coming to-
morrow. It does not believe in praying and receiving, but in
earning and deserving. It regards work as worship, labor as prayer,
and wisdom as the savior of mankind. It says to every human being,
Take care of yourself so that you may be able to help others; adorn
your life with the gems called good deeds; illumine your path with
the sunlight called friendship and love.
Secularism is a religion, a religion that is understood. It
has no mysteries, no mumblings, no priests, no ceremonies, no
falsehoods, no miracles, and no persecutions. It considers the
lilies of the field, and takes thought for the morrow. It says to
the whole world, Work that you may eat, drink, and be clothed; work
that you may enjoy; work that you may not want; work that you may
give and never need.
The Independent Pulpit, Waco, Texas, 1887.
I like the idea of putting the phantoms away, and letting the gods take care of themselves. It fits with the natural world we see around us everyday. It makes sense of life. It makes more sense than trying to force a mystery religion, which demands absolute trust and submission to the unknown, into my life.
It is just common sense.
You can read more of Ingersoll’s writings here.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Common sense may not be so common. When, in the history of our species has the religion of secularism shown itself successful? Ingersoll’s secularism is a lot like Christianity stripped of its supernatural elements. I see this as an over-reaction against the abusers of those supernatural elements to lord it over people. A bit of common sense: Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath-water.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
There is something natural and noble and clean and down-to-earth wholesome about what you and Ingersoll describe as “secularism”, HeIsSailing. It is the native air of humanity, no less valuable or lovely because it cannot be “all”.
But it cannot be all for one reason - the great energy it calls forth and employs must be spent on something greater than humanity, else it turns inward and destroys that thing it ought to benefit - humanity. Energy spent on nothing higher than the self becomes selfishness. And it is selfishness that is destroying the humanity - indeed, the whole earth.
When I read the description you have given, I am struck with the thought that this is exactly how humanity was meant to be employed. For a moment, I can forget that the “secular” in our societies is just as tarnished as what we consider the “spiritual” - just as self-centred, just as tainted with self-interested stubbornness. The theological hatreds and sectarian feuds Ingersoll heralds the absence of in “secularism” are not the result of religion - they are the result of darkness and selfishness within. Until that is replaced by light, everything good and solid and lovely that can be remembered and imagined by the human race is doomed to the same whorl of hatred and ugliness and destruction that we find ourselves in now. It is worship that lifts secularism up and brings it out of bondage to self. The God of the Bible is a secular God. There is no dichotomy between spiritual and secular with him. He says, “whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God”. All actions are equal in his sight. Eating is no less a form of worship than meditating. All energies are exercised in secular pursuits, but offered as worship to Love- Light- Truth- God. Thus selfishness is forced out and “secularism” is set free.
Oh, the idea of secularism, in its reference to the natural, the human, the earth-y, the practical, the touchable - is satisfying and refreshing for its firm simplicity. It appeals deeply to the human in us. We know that we were made for such a life.
But there is no power in secularism that enables us to live nobly, cleanly, with humanity.
Only God offers us freedom from the great tragedy of selfishness.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
**But it cannot be all for one reason - the great energy it calls forth and employs must be spent on something greater than humanity, else it turns inward and destroys that thing it ought to benefit - humanity. Energy spent on nothing higher than the self becomes selfishness. ** Isn’t there a difference, though, between focusing on humanity and focusing on self? When I see the phrase focusing on humanity, I see that as focusing on other people, which is then the focus on something greater than the self. So I do think there’s power in secularism, sometimes a greater power than religion. Certain aspects of religion can turn one to the self, in the concept of us vs. them, with the ‘us’ being better than the ‘them.’ Secularism can take away that divide and see all as equal.
Has secularism been abused? Yes. So has any other path of life that has been followed.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Ed Lyman sez:
“Ingersoll’s secularism is a lot like Christianity stripped of its supernatural elements.”
Yes, I think you are right - this is a fair judgement. In your opinion, what do the supernatural elements add to life, to our understanding, to our humanity?
Note: even though it sounds it, this is not a facetious question.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Thus saith JennyPo:
” Energy spent on nothing higher than the self becomes selfishness. And it is selfishness that is destroying the humanity - indeed, the whole earth.”
You are undoubtedly correct here, JennyPo - living a life of selfishness does surely corrupt. But I think you are mischaracterizing the point. I don’t think Ingersoll is arguing for a life of ‘eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die’ or selfish nihilism. Rather, it is closer what Ed Lyman described above: the best and most noble aspects of Christianity without the Supernatural element. I don’t think I wrote a single article in which I complained about being lorded over with a Christian ethic that I could not uphold. No, most of them were my failure to grasp or come to grips with the Supernatural element of Christianity.
I love giving of myself to those are more needy. I love being generous with my time, money and effort, as does my wife, and I don’t think that will change no matter what my vision of God. Yes, I can attribute that to the sound ethical standards that Christianity has given me, and for that I will be always grateful. But if I may quote an old friend of mine, “I would love be a missionary if it wasn’t for all the religion that came with it”.
JennyPo continueth thusly:
“The theological hatreds and sectarian feuds Ingersoll heralds the absence of in “secularism” are not the result of religion - they are the result of darkness and selfishness within.”
Bingo - you nailed it right here. And the Bible teaches this as well, that the Flesh is thoroughly currupt. This is one problem I have with the debates that I hear between Christians and agnostics/atheists. The atheist will inevitably (and rightly) say, “Look at all the death, killing, torture, etcc.. committed in the name of God!” To which the Christian will always (and rightly) counter “Yeah? well look at all the killing done under the name of atheist governments!” Well, they are both missing the point in my humble opinion. Whoever it was who said “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”, was dead on target. Absolute power corrupts whether the powerful are Christians or not. God, whoever God is, is not going to save power-hungry humanity from committing terrible damage and atrocities on each other. It does not matter what name they will do it under, they are going to do it - because we are imperfect, selfish, and sometimes very stupid human beings. Adding God to the equation does not make us any better as far as I can tell.
JennyPo continues:
“But there is no power in secularism that enables us to live nobly, cleanly, with humanity. Only God offers us freedom from the great tragedy of selfishness.”
Here is where we disagree. And my previous paragraph will explain why. All I can add is my own experience - that I know many Christians and non-Christians alike who are thoroughly selfless. Belief in God does not seem to be a variable in that equation. I just see too many Christians who are skunks to say that I see legitimate supernatural freedom in God.
Here is a quick example - remember the Dawkins video that you and I both put on our sites? There was a section with Dawkins interviewing Ted Haggard. Now I am typing this knowing next to nothing about Haggard, but I have no doubt just from watching that video, that had Haggard had the power, he would have had Dawkins arrested for Heresy on the spot. Maybe I am misreading the man’s face and expressions during that interview, after all I am just an armchair psyco-analyst. But I am pretty certain that if Haggard, one of the most prominent Christians in the entire country, lived a few hundred years ago, and if the Church had the political power it once had, Haggard would have had Dawkins arrested, and dare I say maybe something worse.
Why am I so certain of that? Human nature allowed it before, even in Christians, and human nature is what it is.
JennyPo sez:
“The God of the Bible is a secular God. There is no dichotomy between spiritual and secular with him.”
JennyPo, I want to understand you, but this just went right over my head. Can you explain a bit here? Thanks
April 26th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Thus saith Heather:
“Has secularism been abused? Yes. So has any other path of life that has been followed. ”
Yeah, I think you are on target here. See my responses on this to JennyPo - I would like your opinion on that.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
HIS –
I think your responses to JennyPO are correct. I think your disagreement — and I may be misinterpreting Jenny here — are in how secularism is viewed. Jenny, my impression is that you feel once God is removed from the equation, humans immediatly only focus in his/her immediate self. Whereas you’re using secuarlism as people focusing on humanity in general, even with people s/he doesn’t know. Now, secularists can only focus on the individual, and use it as an excuse for selfishness. But as HIS notes, religion can also hugely tap into that, because it brings one into an ‘exclusive’ group. It’s amazing how quickly a sense of belonging can produce a sense of superiority (Note: I’m not saying any religious person who has posted comments has done this. I’m speaking for a general impression — such as Ted Haggard). Both secularism and religion can actually help people tap into the darkness and selfishness of human nature.
I’ve read a lot of blogs where people rejected Christianty and embraced secularism, and were kinder to strangers and such. To me, I would see that actually embracing God for the first time. Jenny’s discussed this before, such as choosing love over hate is choosing God, even if a person says, “I reject God.”
April 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Re: Christian skunks. Yep, but consider how many of them would proclaim their Christianity if it resulted in confiscation of their property, imprisonment, or even martyrdom. So, are these the models we need consider in evaluating the power of the faith? I say no, look at those who would be willing to give the last full measure rather than renounce their faith. And, there are such people if you look around.
Re: Haggard the inquisitor. Actually, I believe the persecution brought in the name of Christianity has been far more politically motivated than religiously-per-se, as least as we conceptualize them today. In many times past, of course, the lines were very blurred.
Re: Supernatural elements, how do they help? Ritual, like worship meetings, may help ground people in routine and community. Remember, the religious attendee in the US lives 7 years longer than the non-attender. Assurance (the blessed kind) can comfort the sick and dying and also the survivors. Wonder, mystery can stretch ourselves beyond the here and/or the now. Miracles, to the few who benefit, great, to the rest of us, just a nice story to share… For many whose culture contains supernatural ideas (demons, hexes, etc.) the victory of Christ can mean great peace. Holiness and perfection can be better conceptualized by the average person than via esoteric secular metaphysics. As I consider this, all I need do is look upon my daughter with Down Syndrome and mental retardation. The complex worldview of the skeptic would leave her utterly bereft and adrift. The simple understanding offered by my faith is a storehouse of good for her life. And, the complex understanding offered by my faith can be the same to me. There is truly something inclusive about the faith, for those on the poles between simple-complicated, spiritual-pragmatic, process-people, eastern-western, failed-successful, poor-rich, and so on.
Re: Heather’s comment about saying “I reject God” but doing exactly as God wants and the alternative, saying “I love God” but doing exactly as God does not want. AMEN, I think that is in Matthew 25.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:04 am
HeIsSailing,
I think maybe I misunderstood your question. I think you are asking, “do we need magic, or is ordinary life enough?”
If this is what you mean, then yes, I agree, human beings were made for the “secular” (non-magical) life. But there are two more things that we need. First, we need to worship. Nope, I don’t think that means we need to feel that we are nothing. Rather, we are not merely animal. There is a spirit within that longs for something more - something that we come achingly near to when we love truly, when we come into contact with nature, sometimes in art and in science. There is something bigger than us in those things that touches us on another level than the physical.
Second, we need a context for our work and leisure and wisdom - something to work for, something to learn about - that is greater than us. Even serving humanity - though useful because it drags us out of the stinking pit of individual selfishness - is unsatisfactory when it costs more than it gives back in the here and now. If we suffer greatly for Love; if we die to allow the Light to shine in the universe; if we work and strive for Truth - these things, being greater than us, give context to our work and our suffering and save it from being idealistic, naive, childish, and worst of all - pointless. They add purpose and progression to the work of humankind - without this kind of purpose, we are stuck in a kind of “Groundhog Day”, each life, however nobly lived, being swallowed by the great machine, and even while affecting others, not building upon what has gone before.
Do we need a “superperson” to tell us all what to do and perform magic tricks? Emphatically, NO.
Do we need a God who is able to lift us out of ourselves - a God who is, in his essence - not just his position - greater than us, as Love and Light and Truth are greater than us? Do we need a Savior who will come and live among us and feel our hurt and our shame and offer us something better? Do we need Love to make our charity more than an exercise in self-congratulation? Do we need a God who is more than we are?
I feel my need of him.
I don’t think for a minute that Ingersoll is arguing for “selfish nihilism”. There is nothing lovely in that. What I want to say is that Ingersoll ignores the problem of “selfish nihilism”. He forgets, and allows me to forget for just a moment, that selfish nihilism is destroying all aspects of our society, including the secular. I take no issue with “secularism” - as I have already asserted, it is a high good and deeply appealing, but it doesn’t answer our real problem. What is needed is neither more of the “secular” nor more of the “supernatural”, but a way of dealing with this destructive force.
If you look at what calls itself “Christianity”, it is understandable that you conclude that God - the supernatural - the spiritual - religion - offers even less of an escape from selfishness than what we may devise on our own as individuals.
I have two things to say to this:
First, whether we believe he exists or not, we need the kind of God who is able and willing to save us from ourselves. It is clear that we either cannot or will not.
Second, if he does exist, he is certainly not the God that the “Christianity” of our world imagines he is.
That Ted Haggard and hordes of “Christian” skunks say they follow a God who calls himself all that they are not is beside the point. They are, as you point out, not to be trusted. But what do they have to do with GOD? I may say I am a follower of Pavarotti - but is Pavarotti to be blamed for my singing?
HeIsSailing sez:
“God, whoever God is, is not going to save power-hungry humanity from committing terrible damage and atrocities on each other.”
No, but he can and does offer individuals who choose him (notice I didn’t say “who call themselves Christians”!) the power to overcome their own selfishness.
HeIsSailing sez:
“I love giving of myself to those are more needy. I love being generous with my time, money and effort, as does my wife, and I don’t think that will change no matter what my vision of God. Yes, I can attribute that to the sound ethical standards that Christianity has given me, and for that I will be always grateful. But if I may quote an old friend of mine, “I would love be a missionary if it wasn’t for all the religion that came with it”.”
(I agree with your friend.)
HeIsSailing, you seem like the kind of person I can really admire. I can’t judge you, because I can’t see into your soul. I can’t tell you that you personally need God. But personally, I do. I dream of being a person full of love, ready and able to give without any expectation of receiving; able to sacrifice myself and yet not waste my energies; able to accept pain without having my love weakened by it; able to will no evil; able to control my tongue; able to discipline my life. I imagine these things, but I am unable to even begin them without Jesus Christ. Because I know him, do I always choose to do what he allows me freedom to do? Sadly, no. I am full of selfishness yet. And yet, when I do choose, it is possible!
Do I seem to be saying that “Christians” are better than non-Christians? Have better ethics? Forgive me, please! My three closest friends in the world (other than my sisters) are all non-Christians. They are better, wiser, and kinder than I am. I admire them and I am better for knowing them. But I know no one, Christian or non-Christian, who is thoroughly selfless. I am amazed if you know even one, HeIsSailing!
Ethics are no Christian invention. The gentle Buddha offers us in western society an array of ethical perspectives we have barely even considered. But only the God of the Bible even claims to give us the power to overcome selfishness. Whether he exists or not, we need him! We need him to set us free from this endless spiral of hatred and destruction.
Christians are not better than non-Christians. But God has allowed me the freedom to be far better than I was without him - not because I lack “Christian” ethics, or the ability to imagine the good I should be - but simply because without him, I do not have the power to do what I imagine. He gives me the ability to become more than I am without him.
The Great Divide (spiritual versus secular):
“Secularism means food and fireside, roof and raiment,
reasonable work and reasonable leisure, the cultivation of the
tastes, the acquisition of knowledge, the enjoyment of the arts,
and it promises for the human race comfort, independence,
intelligence, and above all liberty. It means the abolition of
sectarian feuds, of theological hatreds. It means the cultivation
of friendship and intellectual hospitality.” (Ingersoll)
These things are not separate from God. They are the proper pursuits of humanity, within the context of worship. They were meant to BE the means of humanity’s worship of God and the unity of individuals with each other. God is not the one who separates ‘reasonable work and reasonable leisure, the cultivation of the tastes, the acquisition of knowledge,” etc., from prayer and meditation, public worship, spiritual teaching and learning. He is not the one who forces us to choose between them. For him, both are the domain of humanity. Both are equally valuable. Secular pursuits as he meant them to be are just as much a part of knowing him, just as “high” as religious ones. The “secular” is meant to be spiritual, or contextualized; and the “spiritual” is meant to be secular, or brought down into the daily, the mundane, the physical.
Oh, if I could only pull aside the curtain of “religiousness”, of “Christianity” as you know it, and let you glimpse, for even a moment, who is the God who is Love! Then you would know who it is you hunger for, and why you are so angry at the empty, foolish God who attempts to take his place. Then you would never stop searching for him and dreaming that he could be
REAL.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I really liked Ingersoll’s ‘ideal’ state of securalism - I think I agree with Ed on the ’stripped down religion’ part (just exclude a God image and there ya go). Very idealistic.
My question for Ingersoll would be the simple basis of morality on various subjects in a secular mind-set? He mentions plenty of great values in his speech but what are the strong under-pinnings for each and every secularist to abide by these values? Is there a common denmoniator (ex: a ‘love every neighbor’ idea) for the whole community?
“It has no mysteries, no mumblings, no priests, no ceremonies, no falsehoods, no miracles, and no persecutions.” (Ingersoll)
I would say this Ingersoll is embellishing here on some levels of his definition. No falshoods, come on…as if anyone can say that about their belief system…that’s suspect.
I would say secularism seems to be something I hear coming out of people like Dawkins and Harris’ mouth in recent years (and Schermer). There seems to be some talk about eradicating religion altogether in this rationale system - which claims extreme tolerance - but when affronted by any religion they seem to away with it’s destruction before calling for it to change. So secularism does raise some concerns for me (of a faith they have ought against).
Now Ingersoll’s idealism is awesome but it’s not the reality either. Secularism has many faces and some of them are hellbent on religious destruction (and most of the enlightened ones outright oppose any faith as irrational).
Food for thought from Greg Koukl:
“If you were walking down a dark street at night in the center of Los Angeles and you saw 10 young men walking towards you, would you feel more comfortable if you knew that they had just come from a Bible class?” Maybe religion isn’t all that bad a thing?
April 27th, 2007 at 10:21 am
“Hold those in service in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone. Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.”
But what happens when your society is economically devastated, and a convincing politician makes it clear that it is time to mercifully euthanize the mentally retarded, the demented, the hardened criminals and the severely mentally ill, and sterilize those who seem to be likely to produce such “drags” on the common good? After all, our secular society exists to perpetrate itself: survival and growth in knowledge and mastery over our inner and outer worlds are the point of it all. So, those whose presence serves as a drag and threat can be mercifully set aside: after all, if they were enlightened and able to decide as we can, they’d see it as their duty. No, without the supernatural, most people would have a very hard time not buying that philosophy.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Hmmm…whenever “secularism” is brought up, I tend to notice an interesting dichotomy. When we use the term “Christian” we are often referred to the best of the best. The “true Christians.” The ones that demonstrate love for the neighbors. The ones that freely give of themselves.
Yet when the term “secularist” is referred, the person automatically assumed is the worst of the worst. The selfish, miserly ingrate who refuses to help others. In other words, for “Christian” we mean an equivalent of Mother Theresa, but for “secularist” we must be talking of a person like Ebenezer Scrooge. (Until he became a “Christian” of course!)
The simple reality is that there are good Christians and bad Christians. Selfish secularists and charitable secularists. From my vantage point, I see neither group as having any “edge” on the other. (Which, for a plug, says a bit of the necessity of a god-belief.)
Ingersoll is being idealist here—but that is partly the point. That we don’t need a god-belief to have the same idealistic goals, methods and even results as theists. If a theist needs their god belief in order to be altruistic—then more power to them! In fact, if that is the sustaining foundation for their generosity, then the worst thing I could do is provide a means for the loss of that foundation. (Luckily, from my perspective, having lost that foundation, I did not equally lose my sense of helping others.)
I can recognize how and why a theist would need such a belief. Can the theist equally recognize why I would not?
societyvs—the short answer is that there are no underpinnings for each and every secularist to abide by the same virtues as listed by Ingersoll. We draw our values from a variety of sources, including Christianity, philosophy, pragmatism, observation and most importantly of all-communication. I would think we actually except our values to be different.
Instead what we do is argue and debate and attempt to persuade other secularists, based upon comfort, selfishness, and observation as to the benefit and detriment of certain actions. Is this so different from anything else? Why is it that “values” are placed in a special category, whereas other actions are considered more mundane?
If I saw a friend attempting to “bolster” a bonfire by pouring gasoline out of a can on it—I would attempt to persuade them to do something different. I would attempt, by examples, and logic and reason, to explain the possible bad outcomes as compared to the possible good outcomes.
In the same way, if my friend was beating his wife, even without some god-belief, I would attempt to persuade them to do something different. Using the same methodology.
In the same way that I would try and talk my brother out of a bad investment, I would try and talk him into giving to the local rescue mission. Or give blood to the Red Cross. Or be an organ donor.
Theists are beginning to realize that simply saying “God says it” doesn’t cut it anymore. That no longer imposes the mandate on the world it once did. The question then is—what will?
Ed Lynam,
I personally live on a social contract/aversion moral scheme, but the simple answer to your question of what prevents a society from killing the weak would be a combination of selfishness and observation.
Take a simple example. Assume we prefer intelligence. So we institute a policy to “euthanize” the 10% least smart people—however that is determined. After doing that once, we are still left with 10% of people who are the least smart. Best do away with them, too. If we eliminated the lowest 10% once a month, (assuming a zero population growth) the entire human race would be wiped out in 16 years.
The reason that we DON’T propose to kill the least intelligent, the least strong, the least communicative, is that it is a greater reflection of who we are, as compared to who they are. We can observe past societies that have done so to their own detriment. The one great thing about humans is the ability to learn from their mistakes. The one terrible thing is that we seem to keep needing to learn.
I do think you are correct, though, that most people need a god-belief in order to sustain morality. But if they all don’t—what is wrong with a little secularism?
April 27th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
An example of the “kill the weak” society that showed remarkable success: Sparta. In the context of threat, i. e. economic scarcity due to global climate change and overpopulation, a Spartan society could show itself capable of outcompeting the rest. It could well be the “ideal secular social organization”, and so, why not institute it? We may want to consider this, as our grandkids may be contemplating this in 50 years.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
SocietyVs sez:
“I would say this Ingersoll is embellishing here on some levels of his definition. No falshoods, come on…as if anyone can say that about their belief system…that’s suspect. ”
Ingersoll sez No Falsehoods in the context of religious belief, that is, no falsehoods concerning the non-tangible life lived for the Spiritual - “no mysteries, no mumblings, no priests, no ceremonies, no
falsehoods, no miracles, and no persecutions.” - all in the context of religious belief.
The Fundamentalist thinks any belief outside of Jesus CHrist is a falsehood, after all.
More:
“There seems to be some talk about eradicating religion altogether in this rationale system - which claims extreme tolerance - but when affronted by any religion they seem to away with it’s destruction before calling for it to change.”
What? Cmon, nobody is talking about eradicating religion. You live in Canada, things may be different up there. I am not saying here that religion is a bad thing - I have lived in the system for over 40 years, and see much to admire. And we still live in a country which cherishes religious freedom.
Let’s put it this way - I don’t hang out in Secularist or Agnostic/Atheist circles. I still hang out in Christian circles. And if they had their druthers, The United States would be a Theocracy run by Jesus Christ himself - or at least a good righteous representative for Him. Christians are just as liable to establish religious restrictions on a nation as any one else - they have done it before, there is no reason it won’t happen in the future. At the same time, I don’t know what athiests/agnostics want. I DON’T want religious restriction on anybody, anybody can believe as they see fit. I think I can have that viewpoint whether I am a Flaming Fundamentalist, or a Flaming Atheist, can’t I?
I am not joining a team. This is not a political party that I am joining. I could care less what they are thinking. I just have to respond to what makes sense to me. The articles on this website have shown that the Supernatural makes little sense to me, the Bible as the Word of God has little if any authority, and I really doubt now that Jesus is any kind of Savior from Sin. So where does that leave me?
Society continues:
“Now Ingersoll’s idealism is awesome but it’s not the reality either. Secularism has many faces and some of them are hellbent on religious destruction (and most of the enlightened ones outright oppose any faith as irrational). ”
Not that I don’t disagree with you, but we can easily apply that to Christianity being hellbent on destruction of other religions. I say that any idealism is not reality. Does idealistic Christian philosophy ever work ideally?
more from SocietyVs:
““If you were walking down a dark street at night in the center of Los Angeles and you saw 10 young men walking towards you, would you feel more comfortable if you knew that they had just come from a Bible class?” Maybe religion isn’t all that bad a thing?
I never once said it was a bad thing - belief in the Supernatural makes little sense to me, that’s all. But to answer your question - yeah I would probably be comfortable knowing 10 young Bible students were headed my way. But I can only speak for myself in a very ethnocentric situation.
Let’s change the location to Laramie Wyoming, and your name is Matthew Shepard - or any other gay guy. You see 10 people whom you know just studied the last part of Romans 1 in Bible Class, and they take it seriously. Would you feel very comfortable?
What if you were a Jew walking outside the Ghetto of Krakow in 1940, and you saw 10 people leave Bible Class and walking toward you. Would you feel very comfortable?
What if you were a Black Minister in 1954 Montgomery, Alabama and you saw 10 White men who just left Bible Class walking toward you. Would you feel very comfortable?
I could go on, but you get my point. No I don’t think religion is necessarily a bad thing - neither lack of religion, or lack of belief in a Supernatural Diety. Neither is perfect, because we are imperfect. Both are faulty, because humans are faulty. Both have wonderful, humane, charitable people, and Both have scoundrels - because humans are diverse creatures. I don’t see how belief in a Diety makes a difference, or adds any enrichment in life in either case.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
**In other words, for “Christian” we mean an equivalent of Mother Theresa, but for “secularist” we must be talking of a person like Ebenezer Scrooge. (Until he became a “Christian” of course!)** I have noticed this, as well.
I think the basic element of secularism is the betterment of humanity. The basic element of CHristianity is love of God and love of neighbor. In a way, both have the same basic element. The dangerous thing about secularism is that it can, for some people, become all about the survival of self. But one of the dangerous elements of Christianity is that it can reduce someone to doing nothing to help one’s fellow neighbor, because the Christian is all set — when s/he dies, s/he goes to eternal bliss. It’s that view of Christianity that many secularists find repellent and fight against, because that is such a selfish view.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
“The simple reality is that there are good Christians and bad Christians. Selfish secularists and charitable secularists. From my vantage point, I see neither group as having any “edge” on the other. (Which, for a plug, says a bit of the necessity of a god-belief.)” (Dagoods)
On this point I also agree since we know this is true of both groups. But divergent & different societies is quite the fickle piece of the puzzle and how these notions (of faith and secularism) fit into them is part of the point for me. I will explain this a bit later.
“In fact, if that is the sustaining foundation for their generosity, then the worst thing I could do is provide a means for the loss of that foundation” (Dagoods)
I agree. In which I find it weird that this is said because it raises a very important point for me…are you willing to protect my right to believe in God even if you do not? Would you also be willing to speak out against the likes of other secularists who do not think I should have this right? These things are important.
“Can the theist equally recognize why I would not?” (Dagoods)
You don’t believe the story of Christianity - cool. I will be more than happy to ‘walk the line’ for your freedoms as a fellow human being.
“Instead what we do is argue and debate and attempt to persuade other secularists, based upon comfort, selfishness, and observation as to the benefit and detriment of certain actions.” (Dagoods)
Okay, then is it also true that not each secularist need be an intellectual? Some are I know that (inculding yourself) but are all people of secular backgrounds as intellectual about the use of their ‘actions’?
“Why is it that “values” are placed in a special category, whereas other actions are considered more mundane?” (Dagoods)
I think any value we hold is the very pinnacle of any action we may think of doing (what I call a paradigm). Values is no special category - it is the category of which we decide what means a lot to us and what does not - this then makes up the actions we will committ (ex: charity vs. greed, love vs. hate, etc). I think actions are what we do based upon what we believe and thought through. It’s total system of thoughts, experience, emotions, and for some - faith. Then we develop our value (which changes over time) which is the idea we hold highest in a certain situation and we act upon it at will.
“I would attempt, by examples, and logic and reason, to explain the possible bad outcomes as compared to the possible good outcomes.”
(Dagoods)
I have no problem whatsoever with reasoning with someone (i agree and do the same). However, this doesn’t always work in every situation you can possibly face in life. You use the example of your friend beating his wife. Well reasoning with him while the punches reign down isn’t solving the problem then and there. I have this situation happen a lot to me and I intervene. I have a friend who likes to start fights when he is drunk (well a few friends actually). I always step in the middle and stop my friend when all the reasoning fails. There is no good outcome in those situations when fists are flying and I know this - hell I have it reasoned out before hand. But saying some words won’t stop my friend(s) - but getting in the middle will. I’ll ‘walk the line’ for them when they can’t. So I think reason sometimes does take a backseat to reality.
“Theists are beginning to realize that simply saying “God says it” doesn’t cut it anymore. That no longer imposes the mandate on the world it once did. The question then is—what will?” (Dagoods)
Well that’s an interesting idea ‘God said it’, it still holds weight for me - however not so much without contemplation on what the words after or before it are. If someone says ‘God wants us to kill all infidels’ - I will persue the idea and likely find it contradicting to something about God saying ‘blessed are the peacemakers’. I still think the gospels are the word of God and place upon them my respect…they’ve more than earned it in my life.
In the same breath you won’t see me on any site claiming ‘God says this…’why? I don’t speak for God. I merely read the words of Jesus and try to live according to them (as I elaborate them in many situations and what values they proposing). So I get your point about people liberally using the ‘God says’ as a cop-out and for their own personal support of what they teach (or do). I have some reservations on the same thing.
“The Fundamentalist thinks any belief outside of Jesus CHrist is a falsehood, after all.” (HIS)
Sorry HIS - for one that talks a lot of context I missed that one - sorry about that…my miff.
“What? Cmon, nobody is talking about eradicating religion” (HIS)
Better get reading more Dawkins and Harris then (secularists of our times). They not only want to eradicate it, they find it dangerous - from moderates to fundies - they aren’t making catergories on this issue. But this isn;t Ingersoll I know - but it’s fruit from the same vine…”It means the abolition of sectarian feuds, of theological hatreds…It means the destruction of the business of those who trade in fear” (Ingersoll). I see two words in those sentences that explode off the page - aboltion and destruction. Notice he uses ‘theological hatreds’ as his reasoning. I could use those in a battle of the wits for the absolution of a European State as they colonized many places in pure cruelty - including the America’s - but that’s just silly when used in that sense.
“I DON’T want religious restriction on anybody, anybody can believe as they see fit. I think I can have that viewpoint whether I am a Flaming Fundamentalist, or a Flaming Atheist, can’t I?” (HIS)
I agree - I have great respect for religious ‘freedom’ - for the Christian and most anybody else with a faith based system. However when one side is not concerned with that freedom (ie: religion) one has to begin asking the questions which are most pertinent - then what is the solution being proposed? Is there one? I agree, no one should be restricted to ask their questions and hold their beliefs.
“So where does that leave me?” (HIS)
It leaves you asking a question apparently. I am not knocking the website or even some of Ingersoll’s viewpoints - I am knocking specific ones which exist until this day in the mind of skeptics - is religion neccesary? I think it is but I ain’t forcing anyone to believe that and neither are most faith groups. Perception is half the beauty in that sentence.
“Not that I don’t disagree with you, but we can easily apply that to Christianity being hellbent on destruction of other religions. I say that any idealism is not reality. Does idealistic Christian philosophy ever work ideally?” (HIS)
I questioned the idea of secualrism and it gets turned around onto how this is happening in the faith of Christianity - when the question isn’t even asking this. Just so we both are aware of this - this is very common in hardcore atheistic circles - the old schoolyard thing of ‘look what he/she did though’ in a comparison game which goes nowhere.
If Christianity is so hellbent on the destruction of other religions - where is your current context of this idea? I am guessing if it is inherent in the faith it would still strongly exist. Now you can use America/Canada/Britain for that example if you want but that’s quite the stretch - since none of them claim being that in the press.
As for the idealism in the Christian faith I agree - there is problem right now with there idealism and their actual actions (or what they publicly support sometimes). Well, let’s get out there and change that then. I really don’t share their idealism on a lot of issues and I challenge them at a lot of roads on some of their values. But I think that’s part of the responsibility of someone that claims religion can be changed and does not need to be eradicated (myself). I take some of the stuff to heart, digest it, then come back and try to change the idealism into something more realistic (ex: the idea of perfection - highly unattainable). But that’s quite the quest and I propose any Christian who is upset with the current system - speak out and demand some change - it does work.
The problem for me that is inherent to my very system and community is the idea that ‘there is a God’ - it’s built right into my community’s core values of what the person is (physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual)…that system is indigenous to the America’s (from Indian peoples). And this is where I break down the weirdness of Eurocentric ideals.
Europeans came over to this continent with their political systems, language, history, enlightenment, and namely religion and colonized the Indian peoples (made them subject to their laws, politics, religion, etc)…even killed a lot of them in the name of the ‘new land’. They forced Indian peoples to ‘assimilate’ to this new system - which included religion and we had no choice but to obey. However, the oral tradition of a people is something hard to erase and we managed to keep aspects of our culture alive. But at that time up and into the 1900’s this system promoted religion hardcore.
Now we have this same Eurocentric system trying to destroy what they built. They are not sure they were right about religion and now question it’s validity - well it’s their system to question. These ideas are new but they are taking a firm root on this continent. Okay I get it but at it’s core is something that Indian peoples detested all along - colonization.
It’s just another new brand of colonization being introduced (in some senses). Hey if the European people want to do away with their religion I am more than happy to watch. But if that idea starts to be forced upon a value system of the Indian peoples I am a part of I would have to ask - why? Do we want that? Did we develop either of these ideas? Is this something we will be ‘forced’ to adhere to even if our culture is adamantly opposed to it? If it is forced on us - that my friend is colonization in the 2000 era.
Now the first colonization is still something my community is struggling to come to terms with and we are still trying to eradicate the problems that developed from it (in Canada). My people have the lowest employment rates, highest penal system rate, highest murder and violent crime rate, lowest education rates, highest suicide rates, substance abuse problems second to none on this planet, poverty that is sometimes considered 3rd world-ish, problems with sustaining the family unit, etc…the list goes on and on. Last thing we really need is the removal of one of the core values from our cultural system that actually helps sustain the less healthy parts of our community.
So when I hear talk of doing away with God (Dawkins and Harris) I just have to believe they ‘know not what they are saying’. As intellectual as an arguement as they can propose it is like listening to someone proposing more destructive ‘colonization’ of indigenous people groups - as if it was enlightening to think like they do. It would be the exact opposite in my community and I know that full well.
Meanwhle, we have people in those inner cities and reserves with secular attitudes - and this is such a foreign idea to them - they have no real idea the beauty of a faith in God (which is part of their system and they are within poverty conditions). These same people keep on adding up those statistics I mentioned before since so few of them understand their own culture and have been blinded by more than a century of oppression of that culture. I have seen the ideas of Eurocenticism in my community and they created more lunacy than lucidity. And if my faith can be part of the solution of these kids getting some of their culture back - then I see no problem with that.
Belief in God isn’t an idea that is controlled by a certain dominant culture and that’s what I believe.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
sorry I got all weird and went on forever on the site. Peace be upon you!
April 27th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Societyvs: If you are ever in Ohio, try to see Schoenbrunn. They have a reconstructed village and an outdoor play that tells the story. Just before the American Revolution, Moravian missionaries went to the Delaware tribe, and some of them converted and took on village life, as opposed to hunting/gathering/rudimentary agriculture. This was entirely peaceful and voluntary, many of Delaware did not participate. One of the worst atrocities of the American Revolution occurred when American militia captured a peaceful Christian Delaware village and burned its inhabitants to death, after locking them in their church. Interestingly, the blockbuster movie by Mel Gibson, The Patriot, c 2000, has a scene in which the British do such an act against an American village. What a lie, no such act occurred by the British! My point is that I totally agree that belief in God ought not be controlled by a dominant culture one way or the other. That is one of the reasons the wise writers of the Bill of Rights made clear that established religion, i.e. dominant culture forcing religion upon all was bad; but, also that prohibiting the free exercise of religion was also bad. Unfortunately, the checks and balances have not always been sufficient to prevent many terrible abuses over the years, a testimony to the evil nature of our hearts. In fact, my ancestors were Roman Catholic settlers in Pennsylvania, and were victims of a Protestant majority in their county that manipulated the justice system to impoverish their “papist” neighbors.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:07 am
DagoodS sez:
“I do think you are correct, though, that most people need a god-belief in order to sustain morality. But if they all don’t—what is wrong with a little secularism?”
I agree with you, DagoodS, that the world could do with a lot of Ingersoll’s brand of secularism. Moreover, I maintain that a god-belief that is based on a lie, though it fool people into a kind of “morality”, will eventually leave society less moral. If the choice we must make is between secularism and empty religion, then a thousand times let us have secularism! God is to be preferred only if he is, as the Bible claims, Love; Light; Truth.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Heather sez:
“Jenny, my impression is that you feel once God is removed from the equation, humans immediatly only focus in his/her immediate self. Whereas you’re using secuarlism as people focusing on humanity in general, even with people s/he doesn’t know. Now, secularists can only focus on the individual, and use it as an excuse for selfishness. But as HIS notes, religion can also hugely tap into that, because it brings one into an ‘exclusive’ group. It’s amazing how quickly a sense of belonging can produce a sense of superiority.”
Heather, I feel that once God is removed from the equation, humans have nothing higher than themselves to direct their energies towards; nothing that collects and amalgamates their energies into a whole that is more meaningful than the sustenance of human society. There is no propulsion; there is no overarching purpose. We become children playing rather than a community working together for what is, in essence, greater than each and all - not love, but Love.
With your assessment of religion I can only agree - the exclusivity and sense of superiority it engenders is far worse than the circularity of secularism. If God himself offers us nothing better than the likes of this, then it is only hard-headedness and the sense of exclusivity you describe that could keep us from throwing off such a spectacular lie and embracing the fresh air of secularism.
I am all for secularism and the religious “mumblings” it ties securely and puts out with the trash. But I am not convinced that such a perspective precludes God - only that it precludes the God that is popularly known.
April 28th, 2007 at 6:15 am
HIS asked the key question**In your opinion, what do the supernatural elements add to life, to our understanding, to our humanity?
**
Answer: everything. In Ingersoll’s materialistic worldview, everything is solved by food and fireside, roof and raiment, etc.. The result is a string of meaningless platitudes. We live in a sinful world yet Ingersoll would have us believe that sin recides only in church organizations, a dangerous denial of reality. No wonder secularism has crashed and burned so many times since then.
“It (Secularism)has no mysteries”
Except for when it might actually work…
“no mumblings”
For the rest of the sentence anyway. What is “considers the
lilies of the field, and takes thought for the morrow” but “mumbling”?
“no priests…no persecutions”
Sorry, but he must mean NOT YET. Who is Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot…?
Secularism doesn’t work because it places man’s last best hope in man, and man is hopelessly corrupt. Our only true hope is connecting with a Creator who can lead us to an eternal peace and satisfaction that sustains us in this world and the next. Without the objective, absolute truth of God there is no sense, common or otherwise. Ingersoll’s house is built on the sand, and history has subsequently confirmed that.
Fascinating discussion. Keep up the provocative posts.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Jenny,
** I feel that once God is removed from the equation, humans have nothing higher than themselves to direct their energies towards;** This would probably depend on how one defines God, then. If we’re going with the definition we both agree on — Love, Light, Truth — then in some ways, it’s incredibly hard to ever remove that from the equation. But if someone says, “I’m not doing this for God, I’m doing this because it’s the right thing to do” then the person is in fact doing the action out of response to God. So I would agree with you, based on the definitions of God as Love and Truth.
Jim,
**We live in a sinful world yet Ingersoll would have us believe that sin recides only in church organizations, a dangerous denial of reality.** I don’t get this imepression from the article. Rather, the church can be used in a lot of ways for abuse — such as the Catholic Church, and the priests who were molesting the children. Or other Protestant pastors who abused their congretation by stealing money. In some ways, saying that one is religious can give a free-pass for sinful behavior. Those are the type of attitudes that Ingersoll is responding to.
**“no priests…no persecutions”
Sorry, but he must mean NOT YET. Who is Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot…?** I would say, and I’m sure most “normal” secularlists would agree with me, is that was secularism abused. Just as Christianity has its own examples of abuse, but you would agree that those forms of abuse can’t be used to showcase Christianity as it should be.
**Secularism doesn’t work because it places man’s last best hope in man, and man is hopelessly corrupt.** I think what secularism is supposed to do is place one’s hope in the potential of man to better himself, to think of others, and the potential for man’s goodness. Not necessarily man himself, but what man could be. It doesn’t say that man isn’t flawed, though.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Oh, my! So much to address, and just one little comment by which to do so. I will attempt to cover some ground, then…
Ed Lynam,
I have no idea how to define a “society that showed remarkable success.” How does one define “success”? If it is to get the trains to run on time, then Authoritarianism has shown remarkable “success” regardless of theistic belief.
If it is about surviving for a period of time, Aztecs did so as well in a theistic society. Would you recommend we claim that theists are desiring to re-institute human sacrifice? We could argue that economically numerous Muslim countries have demonstrated remarkable success. Should I worry about a theocracy?
To claim that secularism views Sparta as an “ideal secularist society” and is likely to institute mandatory euthanasia on the weak and elderly is a strawperson of Statue of Liberty proportions. Do you know of a secularist that is claiming Sparta as the “ideal secularist society”? Do you have a writing of a secularist that is claiming we should start mandatory euthanasia?
societyvs,
You ask a great question in “are you willing to protect my right to believe in a God even if you do not?” The short answer is “Depends on the god.” But it is more complicated than that, so I will have to blog it out. My answer would be far too long for a comment.
I don’t believe the story of theism. Not just the Abrahamic God. Certainly not just the Christian version of the Abrahamic God.
What I am seeing (not from you, but in general) is an overall impression that “supernatural” belief of secularism is superior to the “natural” belief of secularism. BUT the overreaching premise is that it must be the CORRECT supernatural. The Islamic treatment of women of secularism (I would hope) would be decried. The U.S. Southern states position of utilizing the Christian God for slavery is equally deplored.
All theists seem to be saying that supernatural view of humanity is better. Maybe only slightly better, but still better. However, equally there is the view the some views of supernatural are incorrect.
The perpetual question for us non-believers—how are we to determine which is the accurate depiction? Because they equally say that you are incorrect. While you all battle, we will attempt to move humanity forward. Sometimes hand-in-hand with you. Sometimes (it seems) in direct opposition to you.
And societyvs, I understand that it is not ALWAYS intellectual discussion. Sometimes it is a hug. And secularist are often strong on laws imposed to protect the weak. Like wives being beaten.
Jim Jordan,
To some extent you are correct that secularists pin our hopes in humans. Because that is our sphere of influence. We have little hope that aliens will “someday” come and resolve our energy problems. Or that monkeys will solve global warming. Or that a god will appear and straighten out this perplexing question of whether homosexuals should be in the U.S. Military.
However, this does NOT mean that we do not recognize humans’ ability to be both good and evil. We still would impose laws. We would still have traffic tickets. We are not some “pie-in-the-sky” belief that all we need is love.
On a personal note, if I have any regrets of my Christianity it is the belief of total depravity. As a secularist I am free to actually see the good in humans. Humans helping others out of purely selfless intent. Good deeds unrecognized by humans and gods alike. A charitable act that will go unrewarded by all.
While I understand that your belief requires you to view humans as completely corrupt and unable to perform an act worth more than a dirty tampon, it is an unenviable position. I love being able to recognize the greatness with the horribleness of other humans. To love them for that greatness.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Hey Dagood
Mankind certainly has good points, even great ones. After all, we are all given God’s spiritual image, which is great. We certainly are to love others for their greatness, as you say. The idea that humans are “completely corrupt” based on the Christian worldview is a straw man argument.
The error in Secularism is that it depends on a mere consensus of humans to justify it. The Christian worldview is much more stable for two reasons: the Word constrains it, and no one except God can be God. We are all subservient to God’s judgment and we cannot usurp that power w/o severe consequences.
Ed pointed out that politically powerful, organized religion is the problem that skeptics confuse with “religion” or a “religious worldview”. This is where Christianity can be used to abuse others. Does that make it equal or worse than Secularism? No. In Secularism, there is nothing to mitigate evil. In Christianity, there is both the Word (which does not lead anyone to commit evil) that can always be used to expose evil, even among Christian leaders, and there is a living God that limits the reach of evil. An intellectually honest skeptic can’t deny the first principle and cannot disprove the second.
Peace.
April 29th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Oops, I was the “anonymous” post.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Jim Jordan: The idea that humans are “completely corrupt” based on the Christian worldview is a straw man argument.
Wellll…that depends on the Christianity, true? Certainly for some that entitle themselves as Christians that may be strawish. But not all. We could review the following website of Christians that support the concept of total depravity:
http://www.afcministry.com/Calvinism_total_depravity.htm
Or, if you prefer a number of articles:
http://graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/subcats.asp?id=1|4
Not to mention Isaiah 64:6, of course. See, the difference between my claims of what Christians say, is that I can actually find sites where Christians make such claims. But can we find where secularist state that Sparta was an “ideal” society? Hence the reason I stated “straw person.” I will gladly withdraw that with an apology if I am incorrect.
Out of curiosity, what would term is the difference between your words of “hopelessly corrupt” and mine of “completely corrupt”? Are you saying that we are still capable for doing good acts? Then how are we “hopelessly corrupt”?
More: The error in Secularism is that it depends on a mere consensus of humans to justify it. The Christian worldview is much more stable for two reasons: the Word constrains it, and no one except God can be God.
Yes, we DO depend on humans to justify secularism. (We also recognize that “consensus” may be a goal, but not the sole goal, nor necessarily the primary goal. Disagreement can breed positive development. If we had complete consensus we could never grow!)
How is this any different than theism? While there may be a claim as to a backdrop of a god, the reality is that the only way in which a god is communicated is by humans. Using Christianity as an example—how was the Bible written? By humans. What does it contain? What humans claim God said. Who determined what was included in the Bible? Humans. Who copied and translated the Bible? Humans.
Both secularism and theism consists of humans communicating with other humans. The only difference is what we communicate—not that we communicate.
While a phrase such as “God’s Judgment” sounds awesome in its proclamation, in the end it is one human claiming to another a principle. We have no God stepping forward on its own and informing us of its intentions. What secularism is saying is rather than constantly searching for this perpetually out-of-reach creature in the mist, which other humans claim exists but provide no proof, start living with other humans as if no such creature exists.
More: In Secularism, there is nothing to mitigate evil.
Not true at all. Secularism recognizes humans’ ability to do evil acts. I will say it again and again. That is why it is supportive of laws, government, justice, punishment, restitution and recognition. It has every intention to reduce evil, since it sees its existence. Look at what Ingersoll said: “It is striving to do away with violence and vice, with ignorance, poverty and disease.”
Secularism is NOT repeat NOT “Eat, Drink and Be Merry for Tomorrow we die.” Please, PLEASE–if you desire to be effective in talking to secularists, strive to understand what they say. To continue to paint them with what Christians say they are is discourteous.
More: In Christianity, there is both the Word (which does not lead anyone to commit evil) that can always be used to expose evil, even among Christian leaders, and there is a living God that limits the reach of evil. An intellectually honest skeptic can’t deny the first principle and cannot disprove the second.
Hmmm…interesting choice of words. So if I dare deny the first principle or disprove the second, apparently I am either stupid or dishonest. Well…I guess I could be called worse. *wink*
If by Word, you mean the Christian Protestant Bible, I say that it fails to expose evil and leads people to commit evil. The Tanakh supports the notion of child sacrifice, women and humans as property, genocide and the lack of individual responsibility for evil acts. The New Testament supports wife abuse, women as subservient, slavery, prejudice and tacit approval of the Tanakh. I claim those as evil in themselves, let alone failing to expose them as evil.
Further these claims have led people to have slaves, be prejudice, and treat women abusively. I equally claim that leads people to evil.
Secondly, I would disprove the existence of a God that limits the reach of evil. But we would have to set some parameters before I would go any further in that regard.
Don’t get me wrong, Jim Jordan, secularism is not perfect either. I am not trying to turn this into “Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Christians do it too.” But if you are going to use Christianity as a superior system to Secularism, I am going to review it.
There is much good in Christianity. There is charity, and love and community. However, that does not mean we put our blinders on to much evil in Christianity as well. Just as naturalists surmise—since both secularists and Christianity is made up of humans (and ONLY humans) they share many of the same problems.
There is no god to give Christianity the edge.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:28 am
“BUT the overreaching premise is that it must be the CORRECT supernatural” (Dagoods)
I think so. As you do, I decry the issue of Islam and some of it’s tenets (but I ask Muslims to speak to their own about these same abuses). I also look at many Christian dogma’s and speak against them if they are something that helps to ‘destroy my neighbor’ and not ‘help my neighbor’ (that example of slavery - I would most definitely speak against - and would ask people around them with this condition to outright comdemn this treatment of others). I use condemn in the way (I will never participate and nor should anyone else) and not in a niolent way.
“The perpetual question for us non-believers—how are we to determine which is the accurate depiction?” (Dagoods)
I have quite a simple version for an answer on this. Love your neighbor as you love yourself (or as you want to be loved) or do to others as you would like (ideally) done to you. For me, these ideas promote the best in humanity and at the same time reflect a love for God’s creation (or a love for God that is based in a love for others - and is realisitic - based on the human experience). Any values that deviate from this idea within religion need to be questioned altogether as somewhat devious to our fellow humans. For me, this is what I use as the core teachings about faith. SoI can easily say I don’t like slavery, some aspects of capitalism, some aspects of communism, some aspects of Islam, some aspects of Christianity, etc…there are problems and most of them reside in what Irshad Manji calls ‘dogma’. Things can be changed.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
DagoodS sez:
“Out of curiosity, what would term is the difference between your words of “hopelessly corrupt” and mine of “completely corrupt”? ”
Try dropping a dead mouse into a bowl full of pudding. It’s not completely corrupt - the pudding hasn’t become dead mouse, it’s still good pudding. But who’s going to eat it?
DagoodS sez:
“If by Word, you mean the Christian Protestant Bible, I say that it fails to expose evil and leads people to commit evil. The Tanakh supports the notion of child sacrifice, women and humans as property, genocide and the lack of individual responsibility for evil acts. The New Testament supports wife abuse, women as subservient, slavery, prejudice and tacit approval of the Tanakh.”
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are employing hyperbole as a literary device here, but even at that, I think you have outstripped its reach.
Do you really believe this? I honestly would like to know, because it changes the whole nature of this kind of a discussion.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
jennypo,
To be clear, I am convinced that the Tanakh and the New Testament are solely human efforts to explain human relationships with a God. Neither YHWH or Divine Jesus exist. Unfortunately, included in their explanation we have instances of exactly what I have recounted. Instances that are not easily explained away with a consistent methodology. (If one picks and chooses, obviously, they can easily be ignored.)
While the authors were doing the best they could within the society and knowledge of their times, subsequent understanding reveals these as the ancient atrocities that they were. But yes, the notions are all there. Either directly stated as approved by God, or if one holds to inspiration– indirectly approved by God.
(And I was responding only to the “evil” statement of Jim Jordan. Equally there is quite a bit of moral and charitable notions in the Bible as well–as pointed out by societyvs, in things such as “love your neighbor.” I am not trying to say the WHOLE thing is evil by any stretch. Just that there are some parts that it is time to recognize them for what they are.)
1. Child sacrifice. Gen. 22:2; Judges 11:30-40; Numbers 31:40 (possibly)
2. Women and Humans as property. Lev. 25:45-46 Deut. 20:12-15, Deut. 22:28-29, Numbers 31:17-18, Judges 21:19-23.
3. Genocide. Numbers 31, Joshua 10:40, Joshua 11:11-14, Judges 20-21, Deut: 20:16-17. 1 Sam. 15:2-3.
4. Lack of Individual responsibility. 1 Sam. 15:2-3, 2 Sam. 3:29, 2 Sam. 12:13-14, 2 Sam. 24:15-17,
5. Wife Abuse. 1 Peter 3:1. (What is “submissive in the same way?” See 1 Peter 2:18-21)
6. Women as subservient. 1 Cor. 14:34, 1 Tim. 2:11-15, 1 Peter 3:1-6
7. Slavery. Lev. 25:45-46. Deut. 20:12-15, 1 Cor. 12:13, 1 Peter 2:18-21
8. Prejudice. Matt. 10:5, Matt. 15:24-28, Mark 4:12-13
9. Tacit approval of the Tanakh. Matt. 5:17, Luke 24:27.
I am sorry, but those concepts are clearly contained within. We cannot run from it, or excuse it. If you would not accept these assertions with any other religious claim, you should not with your own.
I am uncertain how my pointing this out would change the nature of the discussion. I do not hold the Bible as any more divine than the Moabite Stone or the Iliad. It is of no surprise, therefore, to an atheist that the authors attempted to justify actions they believed legitimate by claiming that a God sanctioned it.
Again, I do not hold the Bible out as an evil work. Nor do I hold it out as a moral work. It is a human work, and just as we are able to perform moral and immoral acts—so to the Bible.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
**Try dropping a dead mouse into a bowl full of pudding. It’s not completely corrupt - the pudding hasn’t become dead mouse, it’s still good pudding. But who’s going to eat it?** I don’t think that comparison works, though. As soon as the dead mouse is dropped in, the pudding is no longer good. The entire thing has been contaminated. The pudding itself has been changed, and thus can’t fall into the category of ‘pudding.’
But when bringing that to a person — with the sin being the dead mouse and the person being the pudding — that would elimnate the person’s ability to commit one single good act. No one would ever do a random act of kindness, or forgive someone who has betrayed them, or pursue the right course of action even if it costs them their life/career/and so on. But when using the phrase ‘hopelessly corrupt’ or ‘completely corrupt,’ that means that no one can ever do one single act.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of UNJUST SUFFERING BECAUSE he is conscious of God.
To this you were called because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’
When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he ENTRUSTED HIMSELF TO HIM WHO JUDGES JUSTLY.
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
I Peter 2: 18 - 24
DagoodS, if you honestly see this as support for slavery, then the discussion is radically changed, in my mind. In order to discuss something constructively, then we need a point of reference on which we can agree. This demonstrates to me that our viewpoints are irreconcilable - any discussion on these terms degenerates into pure argument, rather than a productive exchange of viewpoints, reasons, ideas. We don’t disagree on the conclusion; we disagree on the base premise.
It is true that I believe the Bible to be the inerrant, inspired word of God and the revelation of that God to the intellect. But I consider that a conclusion, not a base premise. I don’t begin from there, which is why I can enjoy discussing it with people who have vastly different viewpoints from mine.
I couldn’t see the above passage as a call to slavery even if it had been penned by Salman Rushdie rather than Peter.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
One of the concepts I’ve found very useful in considering the human and divine aspects of scriptures is that, yes, of course the Bible is a human book. It had human authors, it was created by humans at a council called to decide on a canon, and it has been passed on by human scribes and translators. It can be studied as a human book. Some of the most expert people in the world on the Bible don’t believe in its God. Also, the Bible does not contain universal truths for the most part, that is not its primary purpose. The “universal” truths can be condensed into fairly succinct statements of faith. It mostly contains stories and interpretations of events that its authors experienced as they understood them. The Bible becomes divine as the reader or hearer allows the Holy Spirit to help apply it in relationship with God. The relationship is the key. God may have used the passage above in 1 Peter very differently to relate to a Greek slave in a Roman household than he intends to use it with you or me. He may use the concept of hell very differently with a Viking warrior who has tortured his victims, but is about to turn to a new, more peaceful religion than he would use that concept with me. The ordinary, human words of the Bible become divinely inspired as they leave the page and are read or heard by the believer. Each person is unique, and what God seeks is for us to love him, relate to him. If we try to interpret the Bible as a totally divine book, we’ll make the fundamentalist’s error. If we only interpret it as human, then we make the non-believer’s error. The proof is in the pudding (sorry, bad joke) regarding the efficacy of this process in the individual’s life, which is clearly very non-uniform, there being Christian saints and Christian skunks.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:25 am
Jenny,
I think many would see the I Peter 2:18-24 passage as support for slavery because it has been used that way so often in the past. And for many people today, I think they find slavery wrong inspite of that passage, not because of it (note: I am NOT lumping you or anyone else into that category and saying you only find slavery wrong because you live today). But for Peter saying for slaves to submit to their masters no matter what, because it brings glory to God … that does look like an endorsement. Paul and Peter in many ways don’t seem to concerned about slavery, given that they don’t speak out against it, and actually use the language to say be a slave for Christ and such. Slavery was seen in those times as an acceptable practice. Yes, slaves were also attracted to early Christianity because of how it was radical in terms of making those who practiced it equal. But that still left many slaves as slaves.
But you’re also correc that if two people read something in a radically different light, it’s too easy to descend into an argument rather than remain a beneficial discussion.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:10 am
HeIsSailing,
I love theistic discussion. Because of that love, I have a terrible tendency to not only go down rabbit trails, but ENJOY discussing tangents. If I am taking this blog entry off-track, please give me a (gentle) nudge in the ribs, and I will happily back off to take up this conversation another day.
jennypo,
The reality is that our worldviews ARE irreconcilable. I am an atheist. You are a theist. While I hate limiting my options to opposing dichotomies, I am uncertain of where, in-between, you and I can agree on a mutual reference point that there both is and is not a God. I say the Bible is neither divine nor inerrant. You do. Again, I am unaware of some mutual reference point that we can agree it is both inspired and not. Inerrant and not. Whether these things individually are a “premise” or a “conclusion” I will let you decide.
However, I do think that even within those irreconcilable worldviews, conversations CAN be constructive, as long as we both treat each other with respect, and listen to the other person. We may never agree, but we can each learn from the other, and perhaps give others something to think about.
You have displayed courtesy and respect throughout the conversations I have observed, I see no reason to think that you would stop now. Why NOT discuss with those of differing viewpoints to “stretch our mental legs”?
However, there is one item that if we are irreconcilable with no mutual reference point, I would heartily concur the conversation will get absolutely nowhere. That is—if we have differing methodologies. See, I say if the Christian is going to take the Bible as inspired, they are stuck with both the good and the bad. If it is in the Bible, we have to deal with it. We cannot pick and choose the good parts, and ignore the bad ones. We can’t skip verses, merely because they are unpleasant or do not conform to our view.
Oh, it is O.K. if we come up with a methodology for how or why certain portions may be skipped. I can understand why Mark 16:9-20 can be justified as needing skipping. I am not saying that the KJV Bible I just bought at Wal-Mart is the one and only, and we cannot intelligently discuss why some of that should be excluded.
But we have to come up with a method—a reason—for doing so. Not simply because it is uncomfortable, or not what we desire.
And, to be honest in our discussion, that is what it appears to me you are doing in your method. Deciding to not observe portions that would need addressing, at least on their face. What is your method for determining what is applicable and what is not in the Bible?
So let’s talk about slavery…
(I presume you were only using slavery as one example out of the other items listed. I do NOT think that simply because you picked just this one, that means you must agree with the others. However, this leaves the troubling prospect that those others would need be dealt with as well.)
First some background, before we get to 1 Peter. Is there any argument that Mosaic Law provided for the institution of slavery? I would think not. Slaves were considered property. Ex. 21:20-21. As I pointed out, the Hebrews were ordered to take captives as slaves. The Law provided numerous instructions surrounding slaves. Lev. 25:39-55. The Ten Commandments take slavery for granted. Ex. 20:10, 17. See also Ex. 21:27, 32. Deut. 15:12-18.
I do not have time to go through all the references to Tanakh persons who had servants, without God stating any disapproval to the practice. Included would be Gideon, Boaz, Samuel, David, Solomon, Priests, etc.
The Tanakh not only allows for slavery, but Mosaic Law gives numerous instructions surrounding the obtaining of slaves, the treating of slaves, and the eventual release of slaves.
Fast-forward to New Testament Christianity.
As a general principle, there are items within Mosaic Law which were done away with, due to the new covenant. Food restrictions, circumcision, and special days come readily to mind. However, we do not find a similar removal of slavery in the New Testament. While this is not determinative (I will get to that in a minute) it is illuminating.
Assume we have a Law that includes items A, B, C, D and E. And a new law comes along, saying, “Nope. ‘A,’ ‘C’ and ‘E’ no longer apply. They are not in the law.” This would leave us with the conclusion that ‘B’ and ‘D’ remain as good law. By delineating some that are not, we are left with the idea that the rest remain applicable.
So—is this how the authors treat slavery? As if it is still acceptable and applicable? Yep.
Paul uses slavery as an example. 1 Cor. 7:21-23, 12:13, Gal. 3:28, 4:1-7, Rom, 6:6, 6:16-22, 14:4. If slavery was a sin, perhaps I could see one comparison, but over and over Paul treats it as an institution by which to use an example. Like marriage, or the human body. Further, when Paul writes to Philemon, he asks Philemon to take Onesimus back “as a brother.” Paul says nothing about slavery for Christianity being unlawful or prohibited. If he was asking Philemon to release him, it was as a favor—not a God-given mandate.
It gets worse.
The Deutopaulinical books of Ephesians, Colossians and Pastorals do not prohibit slavery–they actual prescribe rules about slavery! Just like Mosaic Law. They not only treat it as acceptable, they give commandments as to how masters are to treat slaves, and slaves respond to masters. Eph. 6:5-9, Col. 3:22-4:1, 1 Tim. 6:1-2, Titus 2:9-10. The author of James and Jude refer to themselves offhandedly as slaves without any trace of embarrassment at the institution. James 1:1, Jude 1.
Every author to this point treats it as a part of life. Something that is not only acceptable as an institution, but requires regulation within its application!
Perhaps Jesus prohibits slavery? Not at all! Just like the Epistles, Jesus treats slavery as an institution. He uses slavery as an example and in his parables. He treated slavery as a common occurrence—like fishing or shepherding or counting money. A station in life. See Mark 12:2-4, 13:34-37. Matt. 10:24-25, 13:27-28, 18:23-33, 21:34-36, 22:4-13, 24:45-50, 25:14-30. Luke 12:37-47, 14:16-24, 15:11-24, 16:13, 17:7-10, 19:12-22, 20:9-16. And John 13:16.
jennypo, I did not list all those verses to look intimidating, nor to impress the world with my Bible knowledge. The reason I listed all of those is to demonstrate that slavery is talked about over and over and over and over and each and every time it is not prohibited. This is not some mere mention in one clause in one verse. It is repeatedly referred to and repeatedly treated as acceptable.
But since the Bible is made up of various books from different points of view, perhaps, in the face of this daunting mountain of passages, some author takes issue with what every other persons states and prohibits slavery. Bringing me to 1 Peter 2….
You skipped a verse when you quoted that.
Why?
Let’s look at what you stated (your emphasis):
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
“For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of UNJUST SUFFERING BECAUSE he is conscious of God.
…
“To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps, “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
“When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he ENTRUSTED HIMSELF TO HIM WHO JUDGES JUSTLY.
See that “…”? That is a skipped verse. When people skip verses, it causes me to wonder why. In this case especially.
I could see, as you have written it, that arguably one could maintain that the “unjust suffering” of vs. 19 is referring to the institution of slavery as a whole in the previous verse. However, once we insert the missing verse, what the author is claiming as “unjust suffering” becomes clearer:
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
“For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.
“But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God
“To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps, “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
“When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly.
Notice that the author says it is just to receive a beating for doing wrong. He contrasts that to suffering for doing good. The “unjust suffering” of vs. 19 is referring to the harsh master of vs. 18, as explained in vs. 20.
Once the verse is re-inserted, the injustice would be a slave taking a beating for not doing anything wrong. There is nothing here that says slavery is wrong. In point of fact, it emphasizes that a slave taking a beating for doing something wrong is just! There is no prohibition to abolish slavery. There is no prohibition for a slave taking a beating for doing something wrong.
Every single passage either treats slavery as neutral, or supports it, while providing rules on how to implement it.
jennypo, I truly hope that I have portrayed this in a loving manner as possible. I agree that arguments are not very profitable, but discussions can be beneficial. While I agree to treat the Bible fairly, I cannot see how we can get around all these passages that (to me) clearly provide for slavery. I can’t help wonder why the verse explaining what “unjust suffering” was (notice the same term—“suffering” was used in both) was skipped.
What I see are people who pick and choose which verses they desire in support of their position. That may work for them; but many, me included, can’t justify it.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I am an atheist. You are a theist.
Dagood. In all situations you are an atheist? If you truly believe there is no ultimate judge, wouldn’t you be in a constant vortex of revenge? Most every atheist I know believes that you should “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Yet this Golden Rule is intrinsically theistic. It requires an ultimate judge, or else the person is foolishly trusting in nothing. Woudn’t you agree? Ironically, your complaint with Christians is that many are not authentic, i.e. you’re disappointed that so many Christians are bad theists, or would you call them practical atheists?
IMO, what Jennypo is saying about suffering is that the believer trusts that God’s ultimate justice will be fair. We then let go of our own wrath and let God be God, which is exactly what we’re doing in observing the Golden Rule.
Dagood, you are looking at the Bible through a very thick lens. At a glance I see your long list of complaints reflect a desperate attempt to spin contextual truths into outright crimes against humanity. You should also spend a little more than a dollar 96 on your next Bible and get a Life Application Study Bible. As Ed would rightly say, it’s in the application that the activation occurs.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Jim,
**It requires an ultimate judge, or else the person is foolishly trusting in nothing. Woudn’t you agree?** Why would “Doing unto others as you have them to unto you” require an ultimate judge? Society functions best for all people under that role. It ensures certain stability, and survival and just a relationship based on trust with another person. I don’t think it implies theism. I think I can speak for both spiritual and athiest in that living in a constant state of revenge is unhealthy, and many would agree with me. Hating people is a waste of energy, and gives the other person power over you.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:03 pm
**Dagood. In all situations you are an atheist? If you truly believe there is no ultimate judge, wouldn’t you be in a constant vortex of revenge?**
Why would an atheist be in a constant state of revenge? I see absolutely no reason.
**Most every atheist I know believes that you should “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Yet this Golden Rule is intrinsically theistic.**
I disagree that it is intrinsically theistic. It is talking about being kind to man, without even mentioning a higher power! And also, the Golden Rule did not even originate with Christianity.
**It requires an ultimate judge, or else the person is foolishly trusting in nothing.**
The Golden Rule makes you the judge! Do to others as you would have them do to you! It says it’s up to you! It doesn’t say it’s up to a god! It really does imply a secular mindset.
**Dagood, you are looking at the Bible through a very thick lens. At a glance I see your long list of complaints reflect a desperate attempt to spin contextual truths into outright crimes against humanity.**
Genocide is pretty much the definition of a crime against humanity, isn’t it? Not even sparing the infants. . . well check out what the God of the Bible commands Saul to do to the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15 for something that happened previously. It really sounds like the whole revenge thing used to commit a crime against humanity. I think it would be a lot more of a “spin” to make that fit in with an omni-benevolent God than to “spin” it into a crime against humanity.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:42 pm
DagoodS,
The verse I omitted was purely an oversight. The Bible I was using has rather fine print and I missed the verse. With respect, I still don’t see even in a vague way how it contributes an ounce to the argument that the Bible advocates slavery.
It is not that you are an atheist and I am a theist that further discussion is pointless. Theism is not something I assume - that is, I don’t consider the presence of God in the world a place to start discussing - it is a conclusion I draw from many other things that you and I can discuss more or less objectively. We can analyse what aspects of the world we share an experience of and then we can identify where our thinking diverges. If I say the moon shines, and you say the moon reflects, then we can define our terms, discuss our ideas and possibly learn something. At the very least, we can understand each other’s thought process. But if I say that there is no such thing as “reflection”, then what further can be said?
As I have said before, I do not live in a Christian bubble. Most of my friends, and all of my close friends, (with the exception of my sisters) are non-Christians and agnostics. I enjoy learning about their viewpoints, most of which I can thoroughly understand and sympathise with even while I disagree. But profitable discussion has to be based on a common understanding about something.
Where you see a call to slavery, I see a call to love. The New Testament rings throughout with a plea for Christians to love, to return evil for good. It never addresses political institutions, because its focus is the individual heart. It never advocates social change of any kind - it advocates individual transformation. Peter is saying nothing different here, just bringing it down “to where the rubber meets the road”. He is a man who has been beaten and imprisoned unjustly, so he is talking about something he knows about.
Even if I’m a slave being beaten, shall I return love for violence?
Yes, says Peter. Stop the vicious cycle. Don’t trust in political changes or reformation of the social conscience of the age - trust in God, who judges all things righteously. Commit yourself to him, as Jesus did, and counter hatred with the power of love, as he did. When they hit him, he didn’t hit back. Although he died, he was triumphant. Measure things by God’s yardstick, and be free from the cycle of violence, hatred, fear. Don’t run away. Stand up, accept unfairness and hurt, and give love in return. Like Jesus.
Even if you didn’t see that, then we could still discuss.
But you see darkness where I see light. We lack an objective reference point. I am utterly at a loss.
I still respect both you as a person and your right - no, responsibility- to have your own opinion. But your view is so far removed from my understanding that I have nothing to say to it.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Hi Jumping
**Why would an atheist be in a constant state of revenge? I see absolutely no reason.**
Of course they’re not, because they’re not fully athiests.
**I disagree that it is intrinsically theistic. It is talking about being kind to man, without even mentioning a higher power! **
The higher power is clearly inferred.
**And also, the Golden Rule did not even originate with Christianity.**
Did the Creator of the universe originate with Christianity?
**The Golden Rule makes you the judge!**
Really? With the “Do unto others..” rule wouldn’t your hands be tied? If someone really needed a kick in the back side, you would have to desire that same treatment for yourself!
**well check out what the God of the Bible commands Saul to do to the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15 for something that happened previously.**
No, not 1 Samuel 15, I’m melting! My faith is destroyed! Sorry for the humor, friend, but God can do that, you know.
**I think it would be a lot more of a “spin” to make that fit in with an omni-benevolent God than to “spin” it into a crime against humanity.**
I used the term “spin contextual truths into crimes against humanity“. First, what the Amalekites reaped in 1 Samuel 15 is a consequence for what their forefathers sowed in Exodus 17. Similarly, the folks in 1600s America set in motion the deaths of over a million Americans 200 years later in the Civil War by ushering slavery in.
Second, God alone has the authority to take away life. Life is His business.
Third, 1 Samuel 15 reminds us of how appalled God must be with us. If this computer that I write on started to do whatever it wanted to do and little or nothing that I wanted it to do I would run an anti-virus program [the law and the prophets?]. Then when that failed I would have to throw it out.
Fourth, God did not choose to throw us into the pit, fortunately. Jesus paid the price that the Amalekites paid under the old covenant.
Fifth, equality is restored through Christ. Jumping, your complaint on the Amalekites’ treatment is based on the inequality of that sentence of death. Inequality feels instinctively wrong to us. Let us all be condemned to nothingness (the atheist perspective) or let us all be saved (the universalist perspective) are our two natural responses to 1 Samuel 15. But God’s response is quite supernatural.
In fact, 1 Samuel 15 has a Messianic prophesy in it. See verse 28-29 Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one better than you. 29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.“
God has infinite value and through Jesus He gives us our infinite value back. He pays the price that we could never afford to pay. Sorry for the “Good News” plug, but you’re the one who brought up 1 Samuel 15.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:21 pm
**Of course they’re not, because they’re not fully athiests.**
I don’t understand how you get this. Are they lying to us and to themselves?
**The higher power is clearly inferred.**
In “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” where is there any implication of a higher power?
**Did the Creator of the universe originate with Christianity?**
I have my doubts.
**Really? With the “Do unto others..” rule wouldn’t your hands be tied? If someone really needed a kick in the back side, you would have to desire that same treatment for yourself!**
I don’t understand your point here. It is up to your own judgment. If I think I would want someone to act a certain way towards me in a certain situation, that is the way I should act toward them in the situation.
**First, what the Amalekites reaped in 1 Samuel 15 is a consequence for what their forefathers sowed in Exodus 17.**
Punishing the later generations (even infants) for the sins of their forefathers is just wrong, by our consciences and by basic morality. How does that fit into God’s view (through Jesus) of “love your enemies”?
**Second, God alone has the authority to take away life. Life is His business.**
If He exists, then maybe this is true. But His existence is not an established fact here, for one. And the God presented in the Bible appears so contradictory at certain points, that I find it hard to believe that He was accurately described in it, if He exists.
**Third, 1 Samuel 15 reminds us of how appalled God must be with us. If this computer that I write on started to do whatever it wanted to do and little or nothing that I wanted it to do I would run an anti-virus program [the law and the prophets?]. Then when that failed I would have to throw it out.**
Well, if God had foreknowledge when He created the Bible, then He knew what was ahead of Him. Also, your computer analogy is very different from God’s situation with us. For one, computers don’t feel pain or suffering. Also, we don’t have the knowledge/power to change the program ourselves to make it work correctly. If we did, I would think we would make it workable rather than destroying it. God has all the power, theoretically. So He could have made them obey.
**Fourth, God did not choose to throw us into the pit, fortunately. Jesus paid the price that the Amalekites paid under the old covenant.**
Why would God create us just to throw us into a pit?
**Fifth, equality is restored through Christ. Jumping, your complaint on the Amalekites’ treatment is based on the inequality of that sentence of death. Inequality feels instinctively wrong to us. Let us all be condemned to nothingness (the atheist perspective) or let us all be saved (the universalist perspective) are our two natural responses to 1 Samuel 15. But God’s response is quite supernatural.**
See, that’s the thing, though. No matter what the Bible says God did, it would not be immoral. Because He is supernatural. It’s good because God does it. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth here, but that comes across loud and clear. Looking at it that way is not being objective–out the window goes that objective morality that we are supposed to have received from God. With Him, we can’t use it! With Him, anything goes! By any conceivable standards of morality, killing infants for the wrongdoings of their forefathers (or for any reason) is wrong. And some may respond, “God’s ways are above our ways.” But we don’t know that! In fact, in the New Testament, we are even told to love those who don’t love us. That is later followed by “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” So was He not being perfect when He ordered the genocide of that people? He wasn’t loving those who didn’t love Him, like we loathable humans are commanded to do!
**In fact, 1 Samuel 15 has a Messianic prophesy in it. See verse 28-29 Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one better than you. 29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.“**
I’m not trying to offend you here, but that reeeeaaaallllyyyy seems like a stretch to make that into some kind of prophecy. The Glory of Israel does not change His mind. . . but the Law changed from “eye for an eye” to “turn the other cheek.” That sounds like a change to me. Also, there are mentions of God in both Testaments sending deluding spirits to people. That may not technically be a lie, but it sure doesn’t seem honest!
“He is not a man, that he should change his mind”
I especially do not see how this part could be used as any kind of Messianic prophecy! It says God is not a man! But Jesus was at least part-man! How does that part fit Jesus at all?
I really do not accept that as any kind of Messianic statement. It is talking about God– it says he doesn’t change His mind or lie. Fair enough (although both statements are debatable). And then it says He is not a man. Fair enough– I mean, He’s God, right? Other than those those points, what is left? Nothing. Where, in there, is the Messianic prophecy?
May 1st, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Hey Jumping,
I would suggest you give the “Do unto others..” rule more thought. Unilateral acts of kindness without mandating anything in return either depends on a trust in man’s goodness [unlikely] or trust in a just judge who will ultimately correct inequalities. You are bound to be burned over and over again if you follow this rule. To continue in it is to trust in a higher power or lose your mind IMHO.
**Punishing the later generations (even infants) for the sins of their forefathers is just wrong, by our consciences and by basic morality. How does that fit into God’s view (through Jesus) of “love your enemies”?**
Nothing I could say here would move you one iota. Here’s the Christian response anyway. Christians believe that death is not the end and that we are incapable of being good on our own. Without Christ we are in a state of war with God, as were the Amalekites. Today we say that children are automatically innocent until they’re old enough to break the law. That is simply a cultural bias that should not be used as a measuring stick to judge God’s actions. If it makes you feel any better, a supernatural God is not limited to what happens in the natural life, even if it ends in murder. He could draw those Amalekites in to salvation if He so desired.
**See, that’s the thing, though. No matter what the Bible says God did, it would not be immoral.**
I would point out that God sending His Son would be a sea