Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Each person has to find reason that they alone will accept the responsibility for the consequences of their beliefs. No one has the luxury of claiming "I was Misled" it is our responsibility to not be misled.
I think you may be onto something with this personal responsibility thing. I think part of the problem is that people don't realize that they are not doing so. When someone makes the statement "God says" they are not taking personal responsibility for their words or the actions that follow. They are deferring to a higher power and in doing so are giving their own power away. They may or not be correct but in either case they should understand that the responsibility lies with them and not God.
In the group I was in they manipulate language to trick people. Someone from the higher ups will say: "We would do well to adhere to the council given by God to abstain from unclean practices (cite rule to follow)(cite scripture that doesn't even apply). In reality it should read this way: "You would do well to adhere to the council given by me to abstain from unclean practices."
You've got a big fat contradiction there, Vizio. If God singled you out from all the billions of other people He could have called then there WAS something special about you. God loved you more than He loved the rest of us poor schmucks. He pulled you out of the muck of sin and left nearly everybody else of color in poor countries in it. Christians call that "unmerited favor". Put another way, God favored you above all the others. Put still another way, God IS a respecter of person, contrary of Peter in Acts 10:34.
Well this doesn't happen often but I am going to defend ol' Viz here. In saying god has been gracious to him he's not suggesting himself alone. I'm sure he acknowledges that god has been gracious to many others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
And notice that 99% of those He bestowed this "unmerited favor" on are mostly white, well-off people in developed countries with 1st-class standards of living.
You are hyperbolizing. While many churches aren't well integrated, you can hardly claim that people of color represent only 1% of the evangelicals in America. The historically black congregations alone amount to about 6.5%. 45% of blanks identify as Baptist. 83% of them identify as Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
That is known by another form of salvation called "salvation of the elite"
There is more substance to this criticism but I don't see it as confined to theism or fundamentalism. It is more of a structural problem in American society generally.
There is a lot to criticize about fundamentalism, to the point where in my view it's hard to overdo it. But I feel you have managed to here.
I think you may be onto something with this personal responsibility thing. I think part of the problem is that people don't realize that they are not doing so. When someone makes the statement "God says" they are not taking personal responsibility for their words or the actions that follow. They are deferring to a higher power and in doing so are giving their own power away. They may or not be correct but in either case they should understand that the responsibility lies with them and not God.
In the group I was in they manipulate language to trick people. Someone from the higher ups will say: "We would do well to adhere to the council given by God to abstain from unclean practices (cite rule to follow)(cite scripture that doesn't even apply). In reality it should read this way: "You would do well to adhere to the council given by me to abstain from unclean practices."
This goes right along with the way they invariably "verify" that what they believe is "true".
When asked for specifics it is ALWAYS the "deep personal experience" method. Coincidentally, this method typically reveals one of the mainstream Deities (Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, etc) almost every time.
They then tell you that they realize that this unprovable, unsubstantiated, usually intangible, anecdotal experience they purportedly had will probably not be proof to you...but it is good enough to satisfy them.
For some reason...they refuse to see that they haven't actually provided any actual evidence at all...let alone proof of the actual existence of whatever Deity they claim to be their God.
They have verified nothing. But they delude themselves that they have. Why, I don't know.
RELIGION: The ultimate brainwashing scam...many times, self-administered.
Indeed I can ... which is why I would never make such a statement. Nor is that the claim you are addressing. What's actually being discussed is that IF there is objective truth then when someone identifies it they are inherently identifying all conflicting beliefs as incorrect. IF you discover One True God then you are inherently identifying belief in other gods and unbelief in any god as incorrect.
Which works fine if you are not in search of a reasonably objectively correct perception of reality but simply want everyone to feel good about their own personal subjective opinion of reality. And I'm not saying that's wrong ... only that most of the time in my experience, faith claims are not of the form, "this is what I feel or wish to be true for myself only". They are generally of the form, "this is what I am absolutely certain is true and if you don't agree with me, you threaten the way I'm controlling my fear of death / insignificance / the unknown / lack of control over my life and therefore you threaten my very existence".
Then you will be delighted to know that I DO accept that others ARE different from me and aren't hostile about it nor do I attack them for it.
You will be even more delighted to know that most atheists are exactly like me in this regard.
What we DO on the other hand is that when asked what we do or don't believe and why, we say so. And often when all that is going on is simple disagreement ... even though my unbelief and my reasons for not believing might at times make the listener uncomfortable with my answers ... that does not mean it constitutes hostility or that it is an attack. Maybe you don't like that some people are indifferent to the gods or don't believe they exist ... nor would I expect you to like it. But can you please separate your discomfort from some nefarious plot to harm you?
The problem of course is that disagreement inherently challenges the belief you are disagreeing with and the religious are very accustomed to automatic deference and a free pass in the marketplace of ideas such that they have historically never had to explain, justify or defend their ideas -- often their ideas didn't even have to make the slightest bit of sense. This is changing in recent generations and the change is accelerating. And so the Other with the funny ideas and lack of respect for the sacred texts and traditions and rituals and notions commonly accepted on faith alone must be cast in the role of villain. They must be attacking, hating, undermining, rebellious, and subversive whether or not they actually are because to accept them as just another person with a personal opinion is to demote your own beliefs to personal opinions -- at the very least. I say at the very least because in practice if your personal opinions don't have any advantage over mine then it calls into question the basis of your inherently (as a human) tenuous grasp on your existential angst, regardless of whatever extent your particular angst is conscious.
Many liberal or new age / new thought religious folk talk a good game when it comes to "everyone's ideas are equally valid" but when push comes to shove the reality is that in their minds the ideas of the religious are more equal / valid than the ideas of the irreligious. They don't actually WANT the ideas of others to be equal, they want them to be substantially equivalent, viz., they have to acknowledge the supernatural or god and a roughly equivalent interpretive framework. Because each person is convinced that any "reasonable" person would at least in broad strokes agree with them, that there will be differences in emphasis only, not in fundamental conclusions.
These are my observations based on personal opinion and thought and do not necessarily represent my view of you personally and specifically BTW.
Even though the excerpts below which are taken from the quote denote emphasis on the person, it is worth noting that religion is the life of the person. References to the person can also be read as references to the life of the respective person.
"when someone identifies it
IF you discover One True God then you are
but simply want everyone to feel good about their own personal subjective opinion
form "I feel or wish to be true for myself only".
generally of the form, "this is what I am absolutely certain is true and if you don't agree with me, you threaten the way I'm controlling my fear of death / insignificance / the unknown / lack of control over my life and therefore you threaten my very existence".
Then you will be delighted to know that I DO accept that others ARE different from me
nor do I attack them for it.
You will be even more delighted to know that most atheists are exactly like me
my reasons for not believing might at times make the listener
Maybe you don't like that some people
The problem of course is that disagreement inherently challenges the belief you are disagreeing with
and the religious
as just another person with a personal opinion is to demote your own beliefs to personal opinions
I say at the very least because in practice if your personal
your particular angst
Many liberal or new age / new thought religious folk
comes to "everyone's ideas
the ideas of the religious
ideas of the irreligious.
the ideas of others to be equal
they have to acknowledge the supernatural or god
Because each person
"reasonable" person
agree with them
These are my observations based on personal opinion
my view of you personally"
This goes right along with the way they invariably "verify" that what they believe is "true".
When asked for specifics it is ALWAYS the "deep personal experience" method. Coincidentally, this method typically reveals one of the mainstream Deities (Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, etc) almost every time.
They then tell you that they realize that this unprovable, unsubstantiated, usually intangible, anecdotal experience they purportedly had will probably not be proof to you...but it is good enough to satisfy them.
For some reason...they refuse to see that they haven't actually provided any actual evidence at all...let alone proof of the actual existence of whatever Deity they claim to be their God.
They have verified nothing. But they delude themselves that they have. Why, I don't know.
RELIGION: The ultimate brainwashing scam...many times, self-administered.
I do not expect you or anyone else to believe that which I believe. but I do hope every person has found reason to believe that which they believe or do not believe.
I adamantly despise any form of proselytizing and detest conversion stories and the reasons why somebody believes something. We each have to search on our own and we our self must find reason to believe what we believe or disbelieve. We should never accept the experiences of others as the definitive "proof".
Our goal should be that of constant searching and continuous attempts at verification. We will never find absolute proof of anything, all we can attain is successive approximations and do our best to always advance in the direction of truth.
What is proof to you will not be proof to me nor will what is proof to me be proof to you.
The Qur'an reiterates that fact of life in Surah 109
SAY: "O you who deny the truth! - 109:1 (Asad)
"I do not worship that which you worship, - 109:2 (Asad)
and neither do you worship that which I worship! [1] - 109:3 (Asad)
"And I will not worship ~hat which you have [ever] worshipped, - 109:4 (Asad)
and neither will you [ever] worship that which I worship. [2] - 109:5 (Asad)
Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine !" [3] - 109:6 (Asad)
The point being that we each carry the responsibility for the results of our beliefs. Therefore it behooves each of us to constantly seek to verify all things we believe. Not just in relation to relation but in all facets of our life. As we must live by the consequences of our choices we carry the burden of constantly verifying the validity of them and anticipate the results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte You've got a big fat contradiction there, Vizio. If God singled you out from all the billions of other people He could have called then there WAS something special about you. God loved you more than He loved the rest of us poor schmucks. He pulled you out of the muck of sin and left nearly everybody else of color in poor countries in it. Christians call that "unmerited favor". Put another way, God favored you above all the others. Put still another way, God IS a respecter of person, contrary of Peter in Acts 10:34.
Well this doesn't happen often but I am going to defend ol' Viz here. In saying god has been gracious to him he's not suggesting himself alone. I'm sure he acknowledges that god has been gracious to many others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte And notice that 99% of those He bestowed this "unmerited favor" on are mostly white, well-off people in developed countries with 1st-class standards of living.
You are hyperbolizing. While many churches aren't well integrated, you can hardly claim that people of color represent only 1% of the evangelicals in America. The historically black congregations alone amount to about 6.5%. 45% of blanks identify as Baptist. 83% of them identify as Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte That is known by another form of salvation called "salvation of the elite"
There is more substance to this criticism but I don't see it as confined to theism or fundamentalism. It is more of a structural problem in American society generally.
There is a lot to criticize about fundamentalism, to the point where in my view it's hard to overdo it. But I feel you have managed to here.
Thrillobyte here:
I think you're missing my overall point:
If there is hyperbole it's used to make a point. Christianity has played a major--probably THE major influence in politics in this country. Vizio says God picked him out of the unwashed masses, not for anything he done to merit. The question has to asked, "Why Vizio? Why not me? Why not him" The truth is Vizio doesn't have the slightest clue whether or not God picked him. What Vizio does have is this warm fuzzy feeling of love that swells up with him whenever he thinks of God. He interprets that as God loving him with some kind of special love that God doesn't give others. In reality, it's just a subjective emotion that anyone can feel if they put themselves into the right frame of mind. God has nothing to do with it. Human emotions do. I suspect Vizio is a closet Calvinist. All Calvinists think they were specially chosen by God to be saved---that's what made Calvinism so popular and it's just another form of religious elitism.
Religious elitism has its roots in rich white folks who believed: "We were specially chosen by God to assume power and run this country. The proof is God gave us this unimaginable wealth, power, prominence, and influence."
Ever wonder why we say "There really is a difference between us and the rich. They live in a totally different universe." The Koch Brothers never shook hands or had dinner with a single employee of theirs. But they are as "Christian" as the day is long. Same with the Crouches of TBN, same with the Copelands of GodTV, same with most Wealthy Christians. It's what makes Joel Osteen's megachurch so popular. People go there to mingle with wealth and influence. God doesn't enter the picture at all. Elitism is at the heart of the rot that is corrupting Christianity in this country. Young people see this more and more and that is a large part of why they are dropping out of Christianity.
I do not expect you or anyone else to believe that which I believe. but I do hope every person has found reason to believe that which they believe or do not believe.
I adamantly despise any form of proselytizing and detest conversion stories and the reasons why somebody believes something. We each have to search on our own and we our self must find reason to believe what we believe or disbelieve. We should never accept the experiences of others as the definitive "proof".
Our goal should be that of constant searching and continuous attempts at verification. We will never find absolute proof of anything, all we can attain is successive approximations and do our best to always advance in the direction of truth.
What is proof to you will not be proof to me nor will what is proof to me be proof to you.
The Qur'an reiterates that fact of life in Surah 109
SAY: "O you who deny the truth! - 109:1 (Asad)
"I do not worship that which you worship, - 109:2 (Asad)
and neither do you worship that which I worship! [1] - 109:3 (Asad)
"And I will not worship ~hat which you have [ever] worshipped, - 109:4 (Asad)
and neither will you [ever] worship that which I worship. [2] - 109:5 (Asad)
Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine !" [3] - 109:6 (Asad)
The point being that we each carry the responsibility for the results of our beliefs. Therefore it behooves each of us to constantly seek to verify all things we believe. Not just in relation to relation but in all facets of our life. As we must live by the consequences of our choices we carry the burden of constantly verifying the validity of them and anticipate the results.
I hear ya Wood.
You've probably seen many times that I have said I'm cool with anyone's Belief (I often give the analogy of believing in "The Great Plucked Chicken" Deity)...as long as it doesn't cause harm to self or others.
But I do want it to be clear that (and you've seen this many times as well) it is understood that "personal experience" and anything else anecdotal can never qualify on even the broadest standard of logic and reason as any kind of objective/empirical evidence or proof used to verify anything.
If all one is using as a basis is that...their Belief has no actual verification.
In the case of people who believe in any Religious Deity or Religious "Holy" Books....all they can ever have as evidence to support their Belief is "what they were told by others", either through what they heard or what they have read.
This is exactly what you refer to as "sheeple" that are "followers" believing something without any real verification.
My point is: Anyone who Believes in Religious Deities or dogma...are, from a standpoint of known protocols of logic and reason, necessarily "sheeple followers". This is because they really don't have anything that is substantiated or verified by any standards that stand up to scrutiny. Even if they believe they do...they really don't.
Religious Believers can never be, from a Pure Logic & Reason standard of verification for most of what they Believe, anything BUT "sheeple followers".
I hear ya Wood.
You've probably seen many times that I have said I'm cool with anyone's Belief (I often give the analogy of believing in "The Great Plucked Chicken" Deity)...as long as it doesn't cause harm to self or others.
But I do want it to be clear that (and you've seen this many times as well) it is understood that "personal experience" and anything else anecdotal can never qualify on even the broadest standard of logic and reason as any kind of objective/empirical evidence or proof used to verify anything.
If all one is using as a basis is that...their Belief has no actual verification.
In the case of people who believe in any Religious Deity or Religious "Holy" Books....all they can ever have as evidence to support their Belief is "what they were told by others", either through what they heard or what they have read.
This is exactly what you refer to as "sheeple" that are "followers" believing something without any real verification.
My point is: Anyone who Believes in Religious Deities or dogma...are, from a standpoint of known protocols of logic and reason, necessarily "sheeple followers". This is because they really don't have anything that is substantiated or verified by any standards that stand up to scrutiny. Even if they believe they do...they really don't.
Religious Believers can never be, from a Pure Logic & Reason standard of verification for most of what they Believe, anything BUT "sheeple followers".
In my opinion the important part is that every person acknowledge responsibility for what they believe or do not believe. How they verify and what they accept as proof is individual. But, each person must be aware they them self are willing to accept the consequences of their choices.
None of us can be complacent, we must always be seekers and to constantly refine our methods. If it is my desire to accept the teachings of Ivan Badinov as the ultimate authority of truth, I alone will be responsible for the results. It is in my own best interest to always seek verification to the best of my ability.We become sheeple when we stop questioning.
In my opinion the important part is that every person acknowledge responsibility for what they believe or do not believe. How they verify and what they accept as proof is individual. But, each person must be aware they them self are willing to accept the consequences of their choices.
None of us can be complacent, we must always be seekers and to constantly refine our methods. If it is my desire to accept the teachings of Ivan Badinov as the ultimate authority of truth, I alone will be responsible for the results. It is in my own best interest to always seek verification to the best of my ability.We become sheeple when we stop questioning.
But this is where the problem lies Wood.
HOW one verifies, or "what they accept as proof" CANNOT be "individual"...at least not if it is to be worth anything . There MUST be standards. If there are no standards...anybody could claim anything to be verified on nothing more than their say so about having a "personal experience" of some sort about it.
When it comes to Religious Deities...how are you supposed to "seek verification" in any way that is known to hold any real merit?
Other than having someone tell you about it in speech or writing...what could ever be done to "refine the methods"?
What methods? There are none I know of that meet any kind of logical standard. I'd really like to hear some specifics...but I never hear any.
All that is ever offerd is the obligatory "personal experience" thing. Also...it seems that if this "personal experience" is purported to be "deep"...that is supposed to give it better ability to provide answers. Now, that raises the question of how you differentiate the "deep" personal experiences from the regular ones.
I just don't get it. Maybe you can provide some answers. Thus far...nobody had provided any.
You place so much emphasis and importance on seeking proof, and verification, and continued questioning. It seemed like a Religious person with such a attitude would possibly be someone with some real insight and answers for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
