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.
It was hyperbole and not directed at you or anyone in particular. You said, "Everyone deserves the chance to be the hero of their own story." And I just offered up that riff on "he's a legend in his own time". Sometimes I make weird connections. Nevermind. Just having a lot of encounters with people convinced of their rightness these days ... Phetaroi, the ultimate person in this subtopic chain, is not among them but some are trying very hard to style him in that fashion. And it is generally projection. And he's one of the least boastful people here, so it is offensive.
and what does that even mean? what even is that, "the ultimate person" "in this subtopic chain"
The Religious even refer to their views as "Beliefs" and "Faith"...and that is the context in which they put things forth.
So...I guess you have no basis to demand any proof for anything they present.
excellent point.
when he states his views, opinions, beliefs, he claims they are view opinions beliefs.
when others state their view, opinions, beliefs, he claims (over and over and over and over) they are facts.
consistently a double standard.
glad you pointed that out in a succinct and concise manner Gldn
excellent point.
when he states his views, opinions, beliefs, he claims they are view opinions beliefs.
when others state their view, opinions, beliefs, he claims (over and over and over and over) they are facts.
consistently a double standard.
glad you pointed that out in a succinct and concise manner Gldn
You mean like Mystic does? But neither you nor GldRule would call Mystic for that. Double standard?
You mean like Mystic does? But neither you nor GldRule would call Mystic for that. Double standard?
It's not even accurate to begin with. Facts about Buddhism stated by me are few and far between. Opinions I have about my path in Buddhism are what I generally talk about. But you know what they say...birds of a feather...
That is why I refer to conservative / evangelical / fundamentalist Christianity (or really the fundamentalist wing of any religion) as "authoritarian". Capital-T Truth is dictated and you can't deviate from it, or even really think about it. That is getting into "mere human wisdom". One must obey the official teachings of the sect. In the case of Biblical inerrantists, there's the fiction that one must obey "the word of God" but in reality is is still the specific interpretation of the Bible used by that sect and we are back to the central authority publishing the correct dogma or practice.
We would disparage thoughtful folks like you as picking and choosing what you prefer rather than carefully following "the will of God", not realizing that we were doing our own cherry picking and just not letting the sheeple do their own.
Precisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Well, that's why I like Buddhism. No god involved.
But, could you explain what you mean by that?
I wish I could as well as Mordant has done above so please refer to that post. But I will include a bit more that may or may not further develop my original idea. The conclusion I have reached now about authoritative Christians is that they prefer the predictable from others and, in my opinion, without trying very hard for it. For example, attend church every Sunday, whether or not you get anything out of it, because it is what God would want. That is an example of a religious expectation supposedly set by God that if broken is frowned upon. "Can't get easier than that to please God; just go to church."
Their point of view may be that this is done out of loyalty which should produce its own rewards for the loyal person. When a person has developed loyalty intrinsically, they have become predictable, reliable, and easy to please. Needing external rewards is unpredictable and difficult to please.
Now that I have my own child, is see there is no way to live up to the expectations of religion (that thinks it knows what God wants) by sitting in church for one hour a week. Because of my experience as a parent, I have redefined what loyalty looks like and I like my version a lot more because I am not a doormat anymore. I don't think anyone intended for me to become one though (well, maybe a few). But in general, my community simply didn't know better and couldn't show me better. How in the world then were they not cherry-picking the Bible if they didn't have fully developed concepts? That question is not really for you, Phet.
I wish I could as well as Mordant has done above so please refer to that post. But I will include a bit more that may or may not further develop my original idea. The conclusion I have reached now about authoritative Christians is that they prefer the predictable from others and, in my opinion, without trying very hard for it. For example, attend church every Sunday, whether or not you get anything out of it, because it is what God would want. That is an example of a religious expectation supposedly set by God that if broken is frowned upon. "Can't get easier than that to please God; just go to church."
Their point of view may be that this is done out of loyalty which should produce its own rewards for the loyal person. When a person has developed loyalty intrinsically, they have become predictable, reliable, and easy to please. Needing external rewards is unpredictable and difficult to please.
Now that I have my own child, is see there is no way to live up to the expectations of religion (that thinks it knows what God wants) by sitting in church for one hour a week. Because of my experience as a parent, I have redefined what loyalty looks like and I like my version a lot more because I am not a doormat anymore. I don't think anyone intended for me to become one though (well, maybe a few). But in general, my community simply didn't know better and couldn't show me better. How in the world then were they not cherry-picking the Bible if they didn't have fully developed concepts? That question is not really for you, Phet.
In my case there was a lot of emphasis by teachers on the verse that says "forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" and the stated reason for this was basically the development of healthy community and providing the individual with that community support.
In practice, though, the emphasis was very much on attendance for attendance's sake and as a sort of proof that you are still engaged. The inside joke was that you could go for months without anyone showing the slightest interest in you personally, but miss one Sunday and you get a chorus of "so where WERE you las Sunday?".
When actually present, people would sleep walk through the motions anyway, singing in the most lackluster ways possible, mumbling through responsive readings, etc. So it was pretty clear that it wasn't all that compelling on an individual level. People were, by default, "checked out". Some of this was amateur song leading and at times the delivery of sermons by people who were earnest but not remotely gifted orators. But a LOT of it was that we were just "supposed" to be there.
This is just my experience and I'm sure it varies in specific churches. My tribe was very much in the headspace of "we're just strangers passing through this world that we don't really belong in and are just holding on until the end when we'll finally get ushered into heaven and have every tear wiped away". Others have a less nihilistic emphasis. Your mileage may vary, etc.
One last point. I don't think cherry picking means they don't have "fully developed concepts". I think it happens 100% of the time. Each group finds aspects of scripture problematic for their interpretational system or a culturally a bad bit (e.g., women must always wear head coverings in church, and never speak; sell all you have and give it to the poor). They all (de)emphasize or ignore / puff different things.
So all concepts are "fully developed" in terms of themselves but there is no mythical "master synthesis" that could even BE made from scripture if you NEVER cherry-picked, because it's too inconsistent inherently to even DO that.
I wish I could as well as Mordant has done above so please refer to that post. But I will include a bit more that may or may not further develop my original idea. The conclusion I have reached now about authoritative Christians is that they prefer the predictable from others and, in my opinion, without trying very hard for it. For example, attend church every Sunday, whether or not you get anything out of it, because it is what God would want. That is an example of a religious expectation supposedly set by God that if broken is frowned upon. "Can't get easier than that to please God; just go to church."
Their point of view may be that this is done out of loyalty which should produce its own rewards for the loyal person. When a person has developed loyalty intrinsically, they have become predictable, reliable, and easy to please. Needing external rewards is unpredictable and difficult to please.
Now that I have my own child, is see there is no way to live up to the expectations of religion (that thinks it knows what God wants) by sitting in church for one hour a week. Because of my experience as a parent, I have redefined what loyalty looks like and I like my version a lot more because I am not a doormat anymore. I don't think anyone intended for me to become one though (well, maybe a few). But in general, my community simply didn't know better and couldn't show me better. How in the world then were they not cherry-picking the Bible if they didn't have fully developed concepts? That question is not really for you, Phet.
I understand now, and I like your post.
It hadn't really occurred to me in the same way as it does after reading your post, but I realized that I am a long term cherry-picker...in most things, not just religion. I am not one to just 'buy' a package deal. I think that was honed through my profession...making sure that lesson plans and later 'school plans' were honed to be successful. Yet, I remember cherry picking when I would hear bible stories and thinking 'that doesn't make sense to me' or 'how come this stuff only happened 2,000 years ago, but not today?' To me, if one doesn't cherry pick, one doesn't think. But a Thai Buddhist monk said something one day that stuck with me. If you find a teaching that doesn't resonate with you (paraphrased) it doesn't mean you have to throw it away; sometimes it's wise to set it aside because you may come back to it.
In my case there was a lot of emphasis by teachers on the verse that says "forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" and the stated reason for this was basically the development of healthy community and providing the individual with that community support.
In practice, though, the emphasis was very much on attendance for attendance's sake and as a sort of proof that you are still engaged. The inside joke was that you could go for months without anyone showing the slightest interest in you personally, but miss one Sunday and you get a chorus of "so where WERE you las Sunday?".
When actually present, people would sleep walk through the motions anyway, singing in the most lackluster ways possible, mumbling through responsive readings, etc. So it was pretty clear that it wasn't all that compelling on an individual level. People were, by default, "checked out". Some of this was amateur song leading and at times the delivery of sermons by people who were earnest but not remotely gifted orators. But a LOT of it was that we were just "supposed" to be there.
This is just my experience and I'm sure it varies in specific churches. My tribe was very much in the headspace of "we're just strangers passing through this world that we don't really belong in and are just holding on until the end when we'll finally get ushered into heaven and have every tear wiped away". Others have a less nihilistic emphasis. Your mileage may vary, etc.
One last point. I don't think cherry picking means they don't have "fully developed concepts". I think it happens 100% of the time. Each group finds aspects of scripture problematic for their interpretational system or a culturally a bad bit (e.g., women must always wear head coverings in church, and never speak; sell all you have and give it to the poor). They all (de)emphasize or ignore / puff different things.
So all concepts are "fully developed" in terms of themselves but there is no mythical "master synthesis" that could even BE made from scripture if you NEVER cherry-picked, because it's too inconsistent inherently to even DO that.
This was what I tended to find, too. When I was a boy and having to go to the Methodist church I would sometimes...well, I guess you could say taunt my grandmother. We'd go to Sunday church from 11-12. As soon as we got home she'd prepare Sunday dinner and we'd eat by 1 or 1:30. And sometimes I would ask her, "What did Reverent Durham talk about today in his sermon?" She never knew, and yet she had sat there just 90 minutes earlier listening to him in what would have appeared to be rapt attention.
It was worse in the catholic church with people standing, sitting, and kneeling to the sound of bells. Seemed almost Pavlovian.
excellent point.
when he states his views, opinions, beliefs, he claims they are view opinions beliefs.
when others state their view, opinions, beliefs, he claims (over and over and over and over) they are facts.
consistently a double standard.
glad you pointed that out in a succinct and concise manner Gldn
It is a purposeful and concerted effort to annoy and dissuade discussion of religion and spirituality in a forum for R and S. He knows what he is doing, his role in this forum. It is anti-intellectual. There is another word for it.
Interesting article that being religious seems biologically natural to humans and perhaps there is a stigma against atheists meaning many people hide that they are atheists.
Interestingly, people asked to make a religious face and an atheist face and a second group of people would ascribe values to the faces and label the atheists faces as atheist, untrustworthy, immoral, and unpleasant. This shows a clear unfair stigma.
There are stigmas against religious people too. "far right politically." My meeting house growing up was very Democratic Party orientated. Not that intelligent. Well, I am not intelligent, but many religious groups score higher averages on IQ tests than atheists including Jewish people, Quakers, Episcopalians, etc.
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.
