Is humanism anti-human?
Charles Wyndham
are so contemptuous of religious beliefs, or are so certain that they are
anti-human, that they would like to see them all abolished. It invites the
consideration of whether such people are the true anti-human-ists.
Let's look at a the culture of the Australian Aborigines. First a few facts:
They lived in extended family groups, with no single leader or Chief. They
were genuinely democratic, deciding everything important by discussion and
concensus, mediated by their Elders who attained acceptance as such by their
experience and knowledge.
They had no metals, wove no cloth. They had no sciences and only very
limited technology, their way of life in a harsh and often barren country meant
continual movement, which would preclude such even if they wished otherwise.
They had no written language and no mathematics. They had all the
technology they needed to maintain their way of life, to nourish themselves (on
a diet probably better than the average 'civilised' diet). Food from all sources
was shared out equably and there was little in the way of personal property.
They controlled their numbers to match available resources.
Europeans seeing them for the first time saw them as naked savages, the most
primitive of all peoples. It has taken two hundred years to show how utterly
false was this view - and we are still learning.
For we now realise that this people had developed a spiritual life that was
deeper, more sophisticated and more totally embracing than any Western
religion. This was based on what they called the 'Dreamtime' which through
legend and parable told around the camp-fire, gave explanations for their
natural world and their position in that world. It explained each feature of
their lands, it explained the stars in the sky, it explained their origin and
their ending, but equally importantly it explained how they should relate to
the natural world. It taught them to respect all wild life and to hold
ceremonies for its protection and increase. But Western philosophy still
cannot get to grips with the reality of the Dreamtime, which has no
connection to our concept of time, the stories told are not defined in time, the
events described are 'now' just as much as they are 'then'.
But don't get the idea that these people met the concept of 'noble savages'.
They did not, they had all the qualities of all men, both good and bad.
The Aborigines lived in a world of spirits - every natural feature had its
spirit, to be respected, guarded, and sometimes placated. Every feature
of their lives conformed to this, every single aspect of their lives was imbued
with this religion which above all showed them that they were part of their
land and their land was part of them.
So what was the effect on Aboriginal society of their religion?
All anthropological studies show that the Aborigines were generally a
contented and peaceful people. There was little crime (a liitle occasional
wife stealing), social structures were highly complex but were firm and
supportive. Respect for society's norms was general. Relations with
neighbouring groups were controlled by quite elaborate customs to prevent
conflict. However in the harsh Australian outback there was no Shangri-La.
There are parallels with the history of the American Indians, however I
think that there are also great differences and that the Aboriginal story
presents issues in much starker detail.
You may have noted that I have spoken throughout in the past tense, for
the advent of Western civilisation, Western technology, and Western
science, and Western disease and Western greed, has destroyed their peace
and contentment. The loss of access to the land that was part of them, the
destruction of social structures, and the fatal attractions of civilisation's
drugs such as alcohol, have been more important than the mere intrusion of
strangers. We have witnessed one of the greatest tragedies of modern times,
in which a coherent and satisfying structure of supernatural beliefs has
been replaced by a materialism based on a science that, whatever its
benefits, is as heartless as a stone and as cold as a Scandinavian winter.
Today the Aborigines are a shattered and dispirited race. However they are
beginning to work their way back, to regain some of their lands and their
language, and to try to restore their old faiths. Will you wish them success,
or will you maintain your aberrant dogmas and insist that they should give up
all traces of those old beliefs? And destroy them utterly.
Chas.
Ron Peterson
: Today the Aborigines are a shattered and dispirited race. However they are
: beginning to work their way back, to regain some of their lands and their
: language, and to try to restore their old faiths. Will you wish them success,
: or will you maintain your aberrant dogmas and insist that they should give up
: all traces of those old beliefs? And destroy them utterly.
In Canada, some religious orders are being sued for taking native American
children away from their parents and indoctrinating them and subjecting
the children to other abuse.
I don't see why we shouldn't blame religious groups for what happened to
the Aborigines.
You need to admit that your religious beliefs may be wrong so that you can
accept responsibility of your religion for what happened to the
Aborigines.
Ron
jimmy adams
<wynd...@bigpond.com> writes
years ago (had you been on the NG then). We were "discovered" by the
more sophisticated Phoenicians (then the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and
French). So our "dreamtime" was ended much longer ago.
Would you prefer to spend a month now staying with friends in the UK,
and sharing their way of life, or with Aboriginal friends in the
outback, sharing theirs?
--
jra...@bigfoot.com
George Ricker
> This post is addressed to those naturalists, humanists, and atheists, who
> are so contemptuous of religious beliefs, or are so certain that they are
> anti-human, that they would like to see them all abolished. It invites the
> consideration of whether such people are the true anti-human-ists.
Actually, Charles, it probably *ought* to be addressed to those religious
zeolots, especially of the Christian persuasion, who asserted a
"God-given" right to "convert" the heathen (or in this case) "primitive
savages" to the "one, true religion" and, if necessary, to destroy their
cultures in the process.
Most naturalists, humanists and atheists that I know are not interested in
forcing a point of view on anyone or in depriving anyone of a point of
view that they cherish. While many of us would welcome the disappearance
of religious belief because we believe the perpetuation of such
superstitions does far more harm than good, we also think the only way
that should happen is through the education and evolution of our species.
Humankind will eventually outgrow religion. Some of us already have.
> Let's look at a the culture of the Australian Aborigines. First a few facts:
>
> They lived in extended family groups, with no single leader or Chief. They
> were genuinely democratic, deciding everything important by discussion and
> concensus, mediated by their Elders who attained acceptance as such by their
> experience and knowledge.
>
> They had no metals, wove no cloth. They had no sciences and only very
> limited technology, their way of life in a harsh and often barren
country meant
> continual movement, which would preclude such even if they wished otherwise.
> They had no written language and no mathematics. They had all the
> technology they needed to maintain their way of life, to nourish
themselves (on
> a diet probably better than the average 'civilised' diet). Food from
all sources
> was shared out equably and there was little in the way of personal property.
> They controlled their numbers to match available resources.
>
> Europeans seeing them for the first time saw them as naked savages, the most
> primitive of all peoples. It has taken two hundred years to show how utterly
> false was this view - and we are still learning.
This sort of cultural myopia was characteristic of Western Imperialism
whenever it encountered societies that were "less advanced." However, you
seem to be ignoring -- either because you are unaware or because it's
inconvenient for your thesis -- that a major constituent of that
imperialism was Western religion, specifically Christianity. The Christian
religion provided the ethical and moral framework from which those who
chose to shoulder "the White Man's Burden" (all part of "God's Plan" -
don't you know) felt perfectly justified in annihilating the populations
and the cultures of those indigenous peoples who occupied real estate
and/or controlled natural resources that they thought would be useful to
them.
<SNIP> Charles' description of aboriginal life with particular emphasis on
the role that their religion played in that culture.
> You may have noted that I have spoken throughout in the past tense, for
> the advent of Western civilisation, Western technology, and Western
> science, and Western disease and Western greed, has destroyed their peace
> and contentment. The loss of access to the land that was part of them, the
> destruction of social structures, and the fatal attractions of civilisation's
> drugs such as alcohol, have been more important than the mere intrusion of
> strangers. We have witnessed one of the greatest tragedies of modern times,
> in which a coherent and satisfying structure of supernatural beliefs has
> been replaced by a materialism based on a science that, whatever its
> benefits, is as heartless as a stone and as cold as a Scandinavian winter.
Ah ... but Charles ... you left out the impact of Western religion. And
therein lies the rub. Your attemmpted indictment of humanism (or atheism
or naturalism or all three) fails utterly because of it. The destruction
of aboriginal culture can be more properly laid at the door of the
Christian religion than it can at the door of humanism or any of the rest.
> Today the Aborigines are a shattered and dispirited race. However they are
> beginning to work their way back, to regain some of their lands and their
> language, and to try to restore their old faiths. Will you wish them success,
> or will you maintain your aberrant dogmas and insist that they should give up
> all traces of those old beliefs? And destroy them utterly.
>
> Chas.
I would *insist* on nothing, Charles. I might attempt, if asked, to
explain my own perspective to them. Apart from that, I would leave it to
them to make the choices they felt most appropriate for their lives.
That's a thoroughly humanist attitude and one that, I suspect, would be
shared by the overwhelming majority of atheists and/or naturalists as
well.
What a shame that the missionaries who accompanied the imperial raiding
party that destroyed the aboriginal society didn't adopt the same
approach.
Here a relevant excerpt from "Genocide in Australia" by Colin Tatz (1999)
A paper that is part of a series on aboriginal history. The full paper can
be found at http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/AborigPages/History.html.
Begin quoted material
*************************
Christian views of Aborigines were no better than those of the squatters
and "sportsmen". In the 1870s, a clergyman in Queensland wrote:
"If our instincts are true we must loathe the aborigines as they
are now, less estimable than the mongrels that prowl like them in the
offal of a station. By the ashes of their fire ... they are crouched with
their knees up to their chin and with a half idiotic and wholly cunning
leer on their faces, their hair matted in filth ..."
The missionaries did not simply supply a nursing service for "incurables",
or a burial service: they became active agents of various governmental
policies, such as protection-segregation, assimilation, so-called
integration and some of the
latter-day notions like self-determination and self-management. More than
agents, they were delegated an astonishing array of unchallengeable
powers. Uniquely - in terms of modern missionary activity in colonised
societies - mission boards became the sole civil authority in their
domains. They ran
schools, infirmaries, farms and gardens, provided water, sewerage and
similar public utility services, established dormitories, built jails,
prosecuted "wrongdoers", jailed them, counselled them, controlled their
incomes, forbade their customs and acted as sole legal guardians of every
adult and every child. Almost incidentally, they also tried to
Christianise the inmates according to their varying dogmas and doctrines,
with little success.
************************
End quoted material
Now here's a question, Charles.
Do you have *any* material which suggests or describes the negative impact
naturalists, atheists or humanists had on the aboriginal culture you
describe - or is this a case of you making yet another unsupported claim
that you cannot back up with anything other than your own whims and
opinions?
Well ... ????
--
George Ricker
"Goddidit" is not an answer. It is a pietistic way of begging all questions.
Elf Sternberg
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>But don't get the idea that these people met the concept of 'noble
>savages'. They did not, they had all the qualities of all men, both
>good and bad.
>All anthropological studies show that the Aborigines were generally a
>contented and peaceful people. There was little crime (a liitle
>occasional wife stealing), social structures were highly complex but
>were firm and supportive. Respect for society's norms was general.
>Relations with neighbouring groups were controlled by quite elaborate
>customs to prevent conflict. However in the harsh Australian outback
>there was no Shangri-La.
Charles, you shouldn't lie to people. Anthropologists in the
1950s and 1960s may have provided such romantic notions, but modern
scholars going over the record show a different story. While there
was comparitively little murder in aboriginal society, that's only
because there were comparitively few aboriginies. A statistical
sampling of the murder rate among Australian Aboriginies showed,
remarkably, that the odds of a male dying of homicide among
Aboriginies was 80 times higher than that of someone living in New
York City. Their belief system, for all its romantics, did little to
curtail the fact that Australian Aboriginals are a violent people.
More importantly, those that did not "buy into" the belief
system of the tribe, suffered from expulsion. In the harsh high
desert of Australia, a man without communal support died. So much for
a "humane" religious system.
>You may have noted that I have spoken throughout in the past tense,
>for the advent of Western civilisation, Western technology, and
>Western science, and Western disease and Western greed, has destroyed
>their peace and contentment. The loss of access to the land that was
>part of them, the destruction of social structures, and the fatal
>attractions of civilisation's drugs such as alcohol...
Stop right there. Nobody is responsible for someone else's
picking up a bottle and chugging from it. If you want to continue
wearing the hairshirt of modern civilization, that's your problem.
You're welcome to it.
I can point to other examples, too, Charles. The Yanomami, or
the Kung San; the "temptations" of modern culture, the promise of
enough food and water for their children, have pulled many of these
peoples out of their supposed little paradises even when their living
ranges were protected by government edict and corporate disinterest.
These were human beings, and on average human beings are primarily
hellbent on securing a better life for themselves and their children;
escaping the isolation of their system and participating in the global
economy, for whatever purpose, was their choice, and they are choosing
it completely.
>We have witnessed one of the greatest tragedies of modern times, in
>which a coherent and satisfying structure of supernatural beliefs has
>been replaced by a materialism based on a science that, whatever its
>benefits, is as heartless as a stone and as cold as a Scandinavian
>winter.
*You* call it coherent and satisfying, and certainly the
people selling it have described it as such. Nevertheless, it was
violent and, to the non-comformist, murderously cold. *You* call the
"materialism of science" heartless and cold, but I find that
heartfulness and warmth come from human beings, not rites and rituals
backed up with the threat of death.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
As he lay dozing beside me, a little voice said, "Relax. You're not the
first doctor to sleep with a patient." Then another little voice said,
"But Rebecca, you're a veterinarian."
Dan Fake
> In article <ZrMI5.7042$e5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
> "Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> >savages'. They did not, they had all the qualities of all men, both
> >good and bad.
>
> >occasional wife stealing), social structures were highly complex but
> >were firm and supportive. Respect for society's norms was general.
> >Relations with neighbouring groups were controlled by quite elaborate
> >customs to prevent conflict. However in the harsh Australian outback
> >there was no Shangri-La.
>
> and 1960s may have provided such romantic notions, but modern
> scholars going over the record show a different story. While there
> because there were comparatively few aborigines. A statistical
> sampling of the murder rate among Australian Aborigines showed,
> remarkably, that the odds of a male dying of homicide among
> York City. Their belief system, for all its romantics, did little to
> curtail the fact that Australian Aboriginals are a violent people.
>
> More importantly, those that did not "buy into" the belief
> system of the tribe, suffered from expulsion. In the harsh high
> desert of Australia, a man without communal support died. So
> much for a "humane" religious system.
>
> >tense, for the advent of Western civilisation, Western technology,
> >and Western science, and Western disease and Western greed, has
> >destroyed their peace and contentment. The loss of access to the
> >land that was part of them, the destruction of social structures, and
>
> Stop right there. Nobody is responsible for someone else's
> picking up a bottle and chugging from it. If you want to continue
> wearing the hairshirt of modern civilization, that's your problem.
> You're welcome to it.
>
> I can point to other examples, too, Charles. The Yanomami, or
> the Kung San; the "temptations" of modern culture, the promise of
> enough food and water for their children, have pulled many of these
> peoples out of their supposed little paradises even when their living
> ranges were protected by government edict and corporate disinterest.
> These were human beings, and on average human beings are primarily
> hellbent on securing a better life for themselves and their children;
> escaping the isolation of their system and participating in the global
> economy, for whatever purpose, was their choice, and they are
> choosing it completely.
>
> >which a coherent and satisfying structure of supernatural beliefs has
> >been replaced by a materialism based on a science that, whatever its
> >benefits, is as heartless as a stone and as cold as a Scandinavian
> >winter.
>
> people selling it have described it as such. Nevertheless, it was
> heartfulness and warmth come from human beings, not rites and
> rituals backed up with the threat of death.
Agreed. Just back from a mini-vacation and on one part
of the journey, a minister-in-training sat next to me (actually,
he sat next to a young lady he had apparently begun talking
to prior to boarding the plane and he ended up between the
young lady and me). He had the traditional cross necklace
(saw quite a few of those on my trip) and he talked about
his beliefs on and off to the young lady on the short 1 hour
flight. He mentioned salvation and the young lady was not
really into his Mormon beliefs as she was raised Catholic
but she was polite and mentioned she felt guilty about not
attending church, she didn't agree that Catholicism was
the top religion, but she would feel bad if she went to a
non-Catholic church.
So, what does my boring story have to do with aborigines?
Well, it's the same story (the religion thing), different verse,
as Charles is trying to convey a positive trip for religion, yet
when examined objectively, with a calm assessment of the
impact it has on that which we know to exist, this life, this
time, this experience, we find that there are both positive
and negative aspects of whatever religious experiences (i.e.,
absolute suspensions of doubt) are engaged in. Charles has
yet to demonstrate a downside to humanism, in my view, but
you've got to give him credit for trying, repeatedly, to do so.
It's very challenging to get the faithful to recognize and deal
with the downsides of faith, in general, and especially to
recognize and deal with the downsides of their favorite faith,
in particular, by choosing a more rational and more pro-human
approach to life (in my view, an approach which recognizes
the human creation of god and the advantages of dropping
the myths).
Back to my boring journey. Ironically, on the same exact part
of my journey going the other way, two young ladies sat next
to me, both of faith they openly discussed for the first part of
the hour, with the remainder of their discussion having to do
with one of the young lady's romance adventures, choosing
between two or three boyfriends, as best as I could tell. The
romance adventuress was quite an item, discussing how fickle
she was, how she had dated some poor guy who had fallen in
love with her but she didn't want to get serious, and basically
deciding she just hadn't met the "right" man but she was going
to have fun trying.
My comments to the faithful sojourners on both trips - nada as
I was deeply entrenched in reading a couple of science books
and didn't perceive that there was an easy or welcome opening
for assisting them with their life views - next time, I suppose,
I'll wear my
"FREELOVER?
Yes
God?
No"
t-shirt ... that might provide an opening of some kind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth,
freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we
all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life.
http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243
FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
(also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities)
Origins: http://x75.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=682493343
Posts: http://x71.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=682750078
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Wyndham
Chas.
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message news:8t2ip7$buu$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> In article <ZrMI5.7042$e5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
> "Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> >But don't get the idea that these people met the concept of 'noble
> >savages'. They did not, they had all the qualities of all men, both
> >good and bad.
>
> >All anthropological studies show that the Aborigines were generally a
> >contented and peaceful people. There was little crime (a liitle
> >occasional wife stealing), social structures were highly complex but
> >were firm and supportive. Respect for society's norms was general.
> >Relations with neighbouring groups were controlled by quite elaborate
> >customs to prevent conflict. However in the harsh Australian outback
> >there was no Shangri-La.
>
> Charles, you shouldn't lie to people. Anthropologists in the
> 1950s and 1960s may have provided such romantic notions, but modern
> scholars going over the record show a different story. While there
> was comparitively little murder in aboriginal society, that's only
> because there were comparitively few aboriginies. A statistical
> sampling of the murder rate among Australian Aboriginies showed,
> remarkably, that the odds of a male dying of homicide among
> Aboriginies was 80 times higher than that of someone living in New
> York City. Their belief system, for all its romantics, did little to
> curtail the fact that Australian Aboriginals are a violent people.
>
> More importantly, those that did not "buy into" the belief
> system of the tribe, suffered from expulsion. In the harsh high
> desert of Australia, a man without communal support died. So much for
> a "humane" religious system.
>
> >You may have noted that I have spoken throughout in the past tense,
> >for the advent of Western civilisation, Western technology, and
> >Western science, and Western disease and Western greed, has destroyed
> >their peace and contentment. The loss of access to the land that was
> >part of them, the destruction of social structures, and the fatal
> >attractions of civilisation's drugs such as alcohol...
>
> Stop right there. Nobody is responsible for someone else's
> picking up a bottle and chugging from it. If you want to continue
> wearing the hairshirt of modern civilization, that's your problem.
> You're welcome to it.
>
> I can point to other examples, too, Charles. The Yanomami, or
> the Kung San; the "temptations" of modern culture, the promise of
> enough food and water for their children, have pulled many of these
> peoples out of their supposed little paradises even when their living
> ranges were protected by government edict and corporate disinterest.
> These were human beings, and on average human beings are primarily
> hellbent on securing a better life for themselves and their children;
> escaping the isolation of their system and participating in the global
> economy, for whatever purpose, was their choice, and they are choosing
> it completely.
>
> >We have witnessed one of the greatest tragedies of modern times, in
> >which a coherent and satisfying structure of supernatural beliefs has
> >been replaced by a materialism based on a science that, whatever its
> >benefits, is as heartless as a stone and as cold as a Scandinavian
> >winter.
>
> *You* call it coherent and satisfying, and certainly the
> people selling it have described it as such. Nevertheless, it was
> violent and, to the non-comformist, murderously cold. *You* call the
> "materialism of science" heartless and cold, but I find that
> heartfulness and warmth come from human beings, not rites and rituals
> backed up with the threat of death.
>
Ron Peterson
: Today the Aborigines are a shattered and dispirited race. However they are
: beginning to work their way back, to regain some of their lands and their
: language, and to try to restore their old faiths. Will you wish them success,
: or will you maintain your aberrant dogmas and insist that they should give up
: all traces of those old beliefs? And destroy them utterly.
Your question is loaded with assumptions that may not be true.
Race is a bogus concept. We are all of the same species.
If people with Aborigine heritage and others wish to restore their
culture, then I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't see how their
old faiths can be restored without their rejecting the Christianity that
they were indoctrinated with.
Humanism doesn't have any dogma of any impact as I interpret it.
I don't see why you think that you should speak for the Aborigines.
Ron
Charles Wyndham
Ron Peterson <ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
news:39f44096$0$1590$3929...@news.execpc.com...
> Charles Wyndham (wynd...@bigpond.com) wrote:
> : Today the Aborigines are a shattered and dispirited race. However they are
> : beginning to work their way back, to regain some of their lands and their
> : language, and to try to restore their old faiths. Will you wish them success,
> : or will you maintain your aberrant dogmas and insist that they should give up
> : all traces of those old beliefs? And destroy them utterly.
>
> children away from their parents and indoctrinating them and subjecting
> the children to other abuse.
>
> I don't see why we shouldn't blame religious groups for what happened to
> the Aborigines.
>
> You need to admit that your religious beliefs may be wrong so that you can
> accept responsibility of your religion for what happened to the
> Aborigines.
>
Certainly religious groups must accept their share of the blame. Like everyone
else they had no understanding of the indigenous culture - they didn't believe
that there was anything that could be called a culture.
But I should like you to answer the question in my last paragraph.
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Charles Wyndham
George Ricker <gri...@iu.net> wrote in message
news:gricker-2310...@216-53-214-137.ppp.mpinet.net...
> In article <ZrMI5.7042$e5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "Charles Wyndham"
> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > This post is addressed to those naturalists, humanists, and atheists, who
> > are so contemptuous of religious beliefs, or are so certain that they are
> > anti-human, that they would like to see them all abolished. It invites the
> > consideration of whether such people are the true anti-human-ists.
>
> Actually, Charles, it probably *ought* to be addressed to those religious
> zeolots, especially of the Christian persuasion, who asserted a
> "God-given" right to "convert" the heathen (or in this case) "primitive
> savages" to the "one, true religion" and, if necessary, to destroy their
> cultures in the process.
By all means address a similar article to them if you wish. But this is alt.
philosophy.humanism, and I am talking to those who want to abolish all
religion, not to change it. If that does not include you, fine, there is no need
for you to feel challenged.
Unlike America the first settlers were not religious groups but convicts, their
guards, and men seeking new pastoral and commercial horizons.
There was no near annihilation of the indigenous people (although plenty
of individual killing). Settlers and later Christian missions had no understanding
that there even was an indigenous culture -settlers took over the land because
they wanted land, not because of some Christian ethic. Christian efforts to
convert largely failed.
> <SNIP> Charles' description of aboriginal life with particular emphasis on
> the role that their religion played in that culture.
>
> > You may have noted that I have spoken throughout in the past tense, for
> > the advent of Western civilisation, Western technology, and Western
> > science, and Western disease and Western greed, has destroyed their peace
> > and contentment. The loss of access to the land that was part of them, the
> > destruction of social structures, and the fatal attractions of civilisation's
> > drugs such as alcohol, have been more important than the mere intrusion of
> > strangers. We have witnessed one of the greatest tragedies of modern times,
> > in which a coherent and satisfying structure of supernatural beliefs has
> > been replaced by a materialism based on a science that, whatever its
> > benefits, is as heartless as a stone and as cold as a Scandinavian winter.
>
> Ah ... but Charles ... you left out the impact of Western religion. And
> therein lies the rub. Your attemmpted indictment of humanism (or atheism
> or naturalism or all three) fails utterly because of it. The destruction
> of aboriginal culture can be more properly laid at the door of the
> Christian religion than it can at the door of humanism or any of the rest.
You misunderstand me. The initial destruction of aboriginal culture was the
result of the impact of Western ways; humanist, atheist, or naturalist
philosophies, if they then existed, had nothing to do that. Christianity, as part
of Western philosophy certainly played its part - its intentions were good -
but good intentions without proper understanding of the real situation are not
enough.
> > Today the Aborigines are a shattered and dispirited race. However they are
> > beginning to work their way back, to regain some of their lands and their
> > language, and to try to restore their old faiths. Will you wish them success,
> > or will you maintain your aberrant dogmas and insist that they should give up
> > all traces of those old beliefs? And destroy them utterly.
> >
> > Chas.
>
> I would *insist* on nothing, Charles. I might attempt, if asked, to
> explain my own perspective to them. Apart from that, I would leave it to
> them to make the choices they felt most appropriate for their lives.
> That's a thoroughly humanist attitude and one that, I suspect, would be
> shared by the overwhelming majority of atheists and/or naturalists as
> well.
Fine, then this post does not concern you. I am well aware that it is
addressed to a minority, albeit a very noisy one.
> What a shame that the missionaries who accompanied the imperial raiding
> party that destroyed the aboriginal society didn't adopt the same
> approach.
>
> Here a relevant excerpt from "Genocide in Australia" by Colin Tatz (1999)
> A paper that is part of a series on aboriginal history. The full paper can
> be found at http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/AborigPages/History.html.
The paper is interesting and a lot of the facts in it are true. However a lot of
it is not true or is grossly exaggerated, and the paper as a whole takes a
highly political stance. It is best regarded as a case for the prosecution
written by a somewhat unscrupulous lawyer. Nevertheless there is quite a
lot to prosecute.
I spent a couple of days at a remote Aboriginal mission at Eyre in South
Australia in 1950, and can say that, at least at this mission (Baptist), the
picture given by Tatz is a gross parody of the truth. I also met a number
of girls from NSW missions around this time, and their views again suggest
to me that Katz is applying what may have happened occasionally to the
whole.
Perhaps the best answer is that the Aboriginal population is as high today
as it was at the time of the First Fleet - as far as that can be assessed.
> Begin quoted material
> *************************
>
> Christian views of Aborigines were no better than those of the squatters
> and "sportsmen". In the 1870s, a clergyman in Queensland wrote:
>
> "If our instincts are true we must loathe the aborigines as they
> are now, less estimable than the mongrels that prowl like them in the
> offal of a station. By the ashes of their fire ... they are crouched with
> their knees up to their chin and with a half idiotic and wholly cunning
> leer on their faces, their hair matted in filth ..."
'Sportsman' was a pejorative and unjustified interpolation by Katz. But,
yes, this quote well illustrates one view of people at the time.
> The missionaries did not simply supply a nursing service for "incurables",
> or a burial service: they became active agents of various governmental
> policies, such as protection-segregation, assimilation, so-called
> integration and some of the
> latter-day notions like self-determination and self-management. More than
> agents, they were delegated an astonishing array of unchallengeable
> powers. Uniquely - in terms of modern missionary activity in colonised
> societies - mission boards became the sole civil authority in their
> domains. They ran
> schools, infirmaries, farms and gardens, provided water, sewerage and
> similar public utility services, established dormitories, built jails,
> prosecuted "wrongdoers", jailed them, counselled them, controlled their
> incomes, forbade their customs and acted as sole legal guardians of every
> adult and every child. Almost incidentally, they also tried to
> Christianise the inmates according to their varying dogmas and doctrines,
> with little success.
>
> ************************
> End quoted material
The article as a whole shows clearly that settlers and governments were
primarily responsible. The Churches set up missions to help and were
charged by the authorities to also provide protection and act in lieu of
civil authority. As the writer points out attempts to Christianise were
incidental and ineffective.
> Now here's a question, Charles.
>
> Do you have *any* material which suggests or describes the negative impact
> naturalists, atheists or humanists had on the aboriginal culture you
> describe - or is this a case of you making yet another unsupported claim
> that you cannot back up with anything other than your own whims and
> opinions?
>
> Well ... ????
Try reading the post again, specifically the last paragraph.
However thanks for showing an interest.
Charles Wyndham
jimmy adams <ji...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EdD7kHA4...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...
The Brits, 3,000 years ago, had their Druidic religion, but such evidence as we
have (which is not a lot) offers no suggestion that its importance in the life of
people was comparable.
> Would you prefer to spend a month now staying with friends in the UK,
> and sharing their way of life, or with Aboriginal friends in the
> outback, sharing theirs?
Wild platypussies could not drag me off to try living as an Aboriginal for any
length of time, but then I am not an Aboriginal.
> --
> jra...@bigfoot.com
Elf Sternberg
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>Elf, I do not waste time replying to people who call me a liar.
That's rather to sad. You did attempt to deceive the audience
with your excessively romantic view of "noble savages," and I felt that
I had adequately decimated your argument.
Your refusal to deal with the issues raised has been noted.
Charles Wyndham
downside of religion, although you know well that on a number
of occasions I have told told of such downsides as fundamentalism
and inerrantism. On the other hand I have difficulty in getting
people here to admit to even the remotest inkling of the beginning
of a suggestion that there even could be any possibilty of a
downside to Atheism, Naturalism, Humanism, or even
Freelover-ism.
Frustrating isn't it.
Chas.
Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ZA5J5.4194$UL.2...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Snip
Snip.
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[...]
>All anthropological studies show that the Aborigines were generally a
>contented and peaceful people. There was little crime (a liitle occasional
>wife stealing), social structures were highly complex but were firm and
>supportive.
Just a small point ... I don't know much about the Aborigines, but "a
little occasional wife stealing" brings up rather unpleasant
connotations.
[...]
Laurie
George Ricker
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> George Ricker <gri...@iu.net> wrote in message
> news:gricker-2310...@216-53-214-137.ppp.mpinet.net...
> > In article <ZrMI5.7042$e5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "Charles Wyndham"
> > <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This post is addressed to those naturalists, humanists, and atheists, who
> > > are so contemptuous of religious beliefs, or are so certain that they are
> > > anti-human, that they would like to see them all abolished. It invites the
> > > consideration of whether such people are the true anti-human-ists.
> >
> > Actually, Charles, it probably *ought* to be addressed to those religious
> > zeolots, especially of the Christian persuasion, who asserted a
> > "God-given" right to "convert" the heathen (or in this case) "primitive
> > savages" to the "one, true religion" and, if necessary, to destroy their
> > cultures in the process.
>
> By all means address a similar article to them if you wish. But this is alt.
> philosophy.humanism, and I am talking to those who want to abolish all
> religion, not to change it. If that does not include you, fine, there is
no need
> for you to feel challenged.
I don't feel challenged. However, your post is titled "Is humanism anti-human?"
You follow that by saying you are addressing those who advocate the
abolition of all religious beliefs. Are there humanists participating in
this newsgroup who hold that position?
> > Most naturalists, humanists and atheists that I know are not interested in
> > forcing a point of view on anyone or in depriving anyone of a point of
> > view that they cherish. While many of us would welcome the disappearance
> > of religious belief because we believe the perpetuation of such
> > superstitions does far more harm than good, we also think the only way
> > that should happen is through the education and evolution of our species.
> > Humankind will eventually outgrow religion. Some of us already have.
Or is this the position you are attacking.
Maybe it doesn't apply to you, but I have observed that many religious
people view any attempt to discuss or analyze their beliefs as a threat.
<SNIP> Delete portion of post wherein Charles describes aboriginal culture
- or, at least, his version of same. I note that Western religion played a
role in the destruction of aboriginal culture. He says the role it played
was minor, if any at all. We agree that "humanism, naturalism and atheism"
had nothing to do with it.
> > > Today the Aborigines are a shattered and dispirited race. However
they are
> > > beginning to work their way back, to regain some of their lands and their
> > > language, and to try to restore their old faiths. Will you wish
them success,
> > > or will you maintain your aberrant dogmas and insist that they
should give up
> > > all traces of those old beliefs? And destroy them utterly.
> > >
> > > Chas.
> >
> > I would *insist* on nothing, Charles. I might attempt, if asked, to
> > explain my own perspective to them. Apart from that, I would leave it to
> > them to make the choices they felt most appropriate for their lives.
> > That's a thoroughly humanist attitude and one that, I suspect, would be
> > shared by the overwhelming majority of atheists and/or naturalists as
> > well.
>
> Fine, then this post does not concern you. I am well aware that it is
> addressed to a minority, albeit a very noisy one.
And a *very* small one. In fact, I doubt it exists at all. A humanist (or
atheist or naturalist) who advocated the *forcible* abolition (as a
practical matter, I don't think you can "abolish" something without using
force) would receive nothing but condemnation from all sides, and
deservedly so.
Have there really been people seriously advocating that position in this
newsgroup? Or is this just a straw man whose existence gives you the
opportunity to launch a few more verbal jibes.
Frankly, I think the title of your post answers the question. But that's
just my opinion. No need to respond. I'm done with you.
Elf Sternberg
gri...@iu.net (George Ricker) writes:
>I don't feel challenged. However, your post is titled "Is humanism
>anti-human?" You follow that by saying you are addressing those who
>advocate the abolition of all religious beliefs. Are there humanists
>participating in this newsgroup who hold that position?
Charles seems to think that we're all for rounding them up and
having them shot, but that would take all the fun out of it. It has
been far more effective to inflame no causes and create no martyrs
but, instead, to slowly and effectively teach each successive
generation to think for itself, to expose the duplicity of beliefs to
wondering eyes and to make people realize that the Christians, and the
Moslems, and the Hindus, and so on, cannot all be right, but they can
all be wrong.
Aristotle could drop in on a conversation regarding ethics,
philosophy, morality, and theology, and be up to speed in a matter of
days; the only thing that might take him time is the terminology used
today, but in truth, Charles's bailywick is one that hasn't changed at
all since Aristotle's day.
Mozart, dropped into today's music scene, would probably be
lost for only a few months; he might be amused, dismayed, or thrilled
at the range and diversity of music; Mozart appreciated both the
power of silence and the art of noise, and I suspect his response
would be thrilled. But what music does and how it is written has not
changed at all since Mozart's day; Mozart could be up to speed and
writing advertising jingles for megabucks in less than a year.
On the other hand, one could drop Newton into a modern day
conversation about the sciences and he would be completely lost. I
take for granted the fact that I know more about the motion of bodies
in space, the interactions of protein genomics, the enthalpy of
melting ice, and density of information in a given signal medium, than
Newton could ever hope to. It would take him a decade to know as much
as I do, and even then, I would continue to outpace him simply because
I'm habituated to learning, and comprehending, at an amazingly furious
pace. Hell, even "Newtonian Mechanics" classes take for granted the
fact that the students taking it know more calculus than Newton
invented in his lifetime.
Charles seems enamored of this thing called "religion" because
it gives human beings warm fuzzies, but after 5000 years of human
history those warm fuzzies are mostly from the biotic activity of
mold. Not much has changed outside of the sciences; it is the
sciences that have changed the very environment in which we live, and
it is the sciences which have progressed us to levels of comfort and
satiation that would be impossible for even people like Newton to
imagine.
Elf Sternberg
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>Dan. You say you have difficulty in getting me to discuss the
>downside of religion, although you know well that on a number of
>occasions I have told told of such downsides as fundamentalism and
>inerrantism. On the other hand I have difficulty in getting people
>here to admit to even the remotest inkling of the beginning of a
>suggestion that there even could be any possibilty of a downside to
>Atheism, Naturalism, Humanism, or even Freelover-ism.
Of course there's a downside! We're no longer linked by
the warm fuzzies that being reassured that "Gawd Luvs U" seems to
grant those that believe in it. There's always a downside to every
belief system, or lack thereof. The question is one of truth and
reality; those of us who ascribe to humanism find that those values
are greater than others.
Elf Sternberg
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>You misunderstand me. The initial destruction of aboriginal culture
>was the result of the impact of Western ways; humanist, atheist, or
>naturalist philosophies, if they then existed, had nothing to do
>that. Christianity, as part of Western philosophy certainly played
>its part - its intentions were good - but good intentions without
>proper understanding of the real situation are not enough.
Then, what's your problem, Charles? If the aboriginals were
not subjected to imperialist efforts, they would still have self-
destructed as a culture the way the Yananomi and the Kung San are
currently doing right now. Those peoples have looked at their own way
of life; they have looked the way of life of the Westerners living
nearby; they have determined that the Western way of life, for all its
apparent difficulties, is one more attractive to these people then
their own.
I am just as dismayed, if not moreso, than you are at the
forcible "culturization" of indigenous peoples. What happened to the
aboriginals in Australias and the Americas is a horrible, bloody,
violent history that we in our self-conceitedly more moral times decry
with righteous indignation, even though we're unwilling to make
reparations for our ancestor's horros.
But that's not all that important to today's discussion.
Mourn all you want the passing of this so-called "warmhearted"
culture. The fact remains that, when given a choice out, the majority
of people living that way have abandoned raw ignorance, mere
subsistence and brutal subjugation to the environment, and have
instead adopted food, comfort, and education.
It's the human thing to do.
What would you propose as an alternative course? What would
you have proposed as a preferred outcome of history?
George Ricker
> Elf
>
> --
> Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
> http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
>
> As he lay dozing beside me, a little voice said, "Relax. You're not the
> first doctor to sleep with a patient." Then another little voice said,
> "But Rebecca, you're a veterinarian."
Indeed ... but Charles also wants to have it both ways. On the one hand,
he claims to be interested in meaningful discussions on these topics, but
on the other, he makes outrageous statements about what humanists
supposedly think - something he apparently knows very little about - and
then gets upset when folks correct him.
Ah well, as I said in my last post on this topic, I'm done with him.
Besides, you've been doing a marvelous job of deflating him.
Dan Fake
> Dan. You say you have difficulty in getting me to discuss the
> downside of religion,
Actually, Charles, you misread what I wrote. See below - I stated
you have yet to demonstrate a downside to humanism.
> although you know well that on a number
> of occasions I have told of such downsides as fundamentalism
> and inerrantism. On the other hand I have difficulty in getting
> people here to admit to even the remotest inkling of the beginning
> of a suggestion that there even could be any possibility of a
> downside to Atheism, Naturalism, Humanism, or even
> Freelover-ism.
>
> Frustrating isn't it.
Elf, in his response in this thread, did mention a downside along
with the mating upside of truth. Truth has an amazing appeal
to many, it's a driving life force for many, and thank goodness
as humanity would still be steeped in the dark ages of ignorance
and superstition if that were not the case.
For me, personally, when looking at absolute truth/reality, as
best we can access it, that is the only way to go and for me,
that has no downside as that is the perfect mate to reality and
all that is worthy of our only *sure* shot at life. To dismiss
truth is to diminish the human experience, in my view.
So, perhaps it's just the destiny of the minority ('til now) to
be excited about peeling back the layers of mysteries in the
universe and searching for answers for all unknowns via the
methods present in the existentially verifiable world.
I suspect that some day, perhaps within the next few generations,
humankind will evolve to a higher symbiotic state of being with
advances being made in a wide variety of scientific fields, not
the least of which include genetics, robotics, nanotechnology,
and computer technology.
When it comes to the future of humankind, think multitelligence,
an end to our lonely existences, and the possibility of a virtual
immortality in this life, on this earth, in the next few generations.
-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
Charles Wyndham
was really husband stealing.
Chas.
Laurie S. <lea...@spacestar.net> wrote in message
news:39f66c55...@news.spacestar.net...
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:25:37 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >All anthropological studies show that the Aborigines were generally a
> >contented and peaceful people. There was little crime (a liitle occasional
> >wife stealing), social structures were highly complex but were firm and
> >supportive.
>
Charles Wyndham
> Charles Wyndham (wynd...@bigpond.com) wrote:
> : Today the Aborigines are a shattered and dispirited race. However they are
> : beginning to work their way back, to regain some of their lands and their
> : language, and to try to restore their old faiths. Will you wish them success,
> : or will you maintain your aberrant dogmas and insist that they should give up
> : all traces of those old beliefs? And destroy them utterly.
>
>
> Race is a bogus concept. We are all of the same species.
"Race: n. Any recognisable group sharing certain characteristics".
according to my dictionary.
> If people with Aborigine heritage and others wish to restore their
> culture, then I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't see how their
> old faiths can be restored without their rejecting the Christianity that
> they were indoctrinated with.
Very few were really converted to Christianity. Some acquired a
veneer overlying the old beliefs. Veneers are easily put aside. But I am
glad that you will not try to persuade them that all religion should be
abandoned.
> Humanism doesn't have any dogma of any impact as I interpret it.
>
> I don't see why you think that you should speak for the Aborigines.
Someone has to. They need all the help and support that they can get.
>
> Ron
>
Charles Wyndham
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message news:8t73hs$ok3$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> In article <QzqJ5.8254$e5.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
> "Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> >was the result of the impact of Western ways; humanist, atheist, or
> >naturalist philosophies, if they then existed, had nothing to do
> >that. Christianity, as part of Western philosophy certainly played
> >its part - its intentions were good - but good intentions without
> >proper understanding of the real situation are not enough.
>
> not subjected to imperialist efforts, they would still have self-
> destructed as a culture the way the Yananomi and the Kung San are
> currently doing right now.
You may be right, but you most certainly should not assume so. I
see no reason why the Aborigines, left alone, should not have found
a way of incorporating their culture into a life-style which accepted
some Western ways - as they are trying to do now.
> Those peoples have looked at their own way
> of life; they have looked the way of life of the Westerners living
> nearby; they have determined that the Western way of life, for all its
> apparent difficulties, is one more attractive to these people then
> their own.
This is not really so. They are now deciding that the Western culture
is NOT more attractive.
> I am just as dismayed, if not moreso, than you are at the
> forcible "culturization" of indigenous peoples. What happened to the
> aboriginals in Australias and the Americas is a horrible, bloody,
> violent history that we in our self-conceitedly more moral times decry
> with righteous indignation, even though we're unwilling to make
> reparations for our ancestor's horros.
>
> But that's not all that important to today's discussion.
>
> Mourn all you want the passing of this so-called "warmhearted"
> culture. The fact remains that, when given a choice out, the majority
> of people living that way have abandoned raw ignorance, mere
> subsistence and brutal subjugation to the environment, and have
> instead adopted food, comfort, and education.
What is this about raw ignorance and mere subsistance and brutal
subjugation. The picture is a travesty. The reality is that a "coherent and
satisfying structure of supernatural beliefs was being replaced by a
materialism based on a science that, whatever its benefits, was as
heartless as a stone and as cold as a Scandinavian winter."
> It's the human thing to do.
>
> What would you propose as an alternative course? What would
> you have proposed as a preferred outcome of history?
Isn't it obvious? That they should have been permitted to find their own
solutions.
Elf Sternberg
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>You may be right, but you most certainly should not assume so. I
>see no reason why the Aborigines, left alone, should not have found
>a way of incorporating their culture into a life-style which accepted
>some Western ways - as they are trying to do now.
Indeed. But the overwhelming, qualitative difference between
the Western culture and the Aboriginal one is that the Western culture
is a maw; it's overriding meme is one of accomodation and integration,
by caricature if necessary, of anything that's useful and attractive
about any other culture it has come into contact with. Which is why,
for another example, the European culture that came to America was able
to integrate all sorts of common notions of the American Indigenous
peoples without harm, but they're attempt to integrate our way of life,
many of them feel, has destroyed the Indian outlook completely.
>What is this about raw ignorance and mere subsistance and brutal
>subjugation. The picture is a travesty. The reality is that a "coherent
>and satisfying structure of supernatural beliefs was being replaced by
>a materialism based on a science that, whatever its benefits, was as
>heartless as a stone and as cold as a Scandinavian winter."
>> What would you propose as an alternative course? What would
>> you have proposed as a preferred outcome of history?
>Isn't it obvious? That they should have been permitted to find their own
>solutions.
Really. And what constitutes "non-intereference?" Should we
have not allowed them to see, "Hey, there's another people over here.
Their interesting characteristics are: they have far more food than you
do, they live in more comfort than you do, more of their children
survive the first years than yours do, and if you become part of their
culture, you're 80 times less likely to be murdered than if you remain
in your current states." [ Although any reliable statistics for the
Austrailian aboriginals are unavailable, the Otaheite of New Zeland have
a murder rate of 62 per 100,000. The rate in New York City is 0.8. ]
For all your continued ranting, the fact is that the vast
majority of aboriginals may whine about their romanticized past, but
they are staying in the cities and enjoying 2800 calories per day,
rather than subsistence living in the middle of nowhere.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Fast food restaurants are like gay bathhouses in San Francisco,
places where people go to engage in high-risk behaviors.
- Greg Critser
Charles Wyndham
> "Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:sZuJ5.8373$e5.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > Dan. You say you have difficulty in getting me to discuss the
> > downside of religion,
>
> Actually, Charles, you misread what I wrote. See below - I stated
> you have yet to demonstrate a downside to humanism.
Correct. Sorry. It must be obvious that the chief downside to humanism
is that it denies one of the principle motivating powers of humanity -
the power of religion.
> > although you know well that on a number
> > of occasions I have told of such downsides as fundamentalism
> > and inerrantism. On the other hand I have difficulty in getting
> > people here to admit to even the remotest inkling of the beginning
> > of a suggestion that there even could be any possibility of a
> > downside to Atheism, Naturalism, Humanism, or even
> > Freelover-ism.
> >
> > Frustrating isn't it.
>
> Elf, in his response in this thread, did mention a downside along
> with the mating upside of truth. Truth has an amazing appeal
> to many, it's a driving life force for many, and thank goodness
> as humanity would still be steeped in the dark ages of ignorance
> and superstition if that were not the case.
Thank you for recognising that the search for truth in religion has
rescued us from the dark ages. Problem is that religion sees the
truth in science but that science cannot see that religion has a
wider truth.
> For me, personally, when looking at absolute truth/reality, as
> best we can access it, that is the only way to go and for me,
> that has no downside as that is the perfect mate to reality and
> all that is worthy of our only *sure* shot at life. To dismiss
> truth is to diminish the human experience, in my view.
Truth has no downside, but do you claim to have exclusive rights
to it? Or never to be wrong?
> So, perhaps it's just the destiny of the minority ('til now) to
> be excited about peeling back the layers of mysteries in the
> universe and searching for answers for all unknowns via the
> methods present in the existentially verifiable world.
By all means peel back the mysteries where you can. You do
at least agree that there are mysteries and that answers to them
should be sought. Go to it, but don't assume any particular
outcome.
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[...]
>Thank you for recognising that the search for truth in religion has
>rescued us from the dark ages. Problem is that religion sees the
>truth in science but that science cannot see that religion has a
>wider truth.
1. Religion defies some scientific data, particularly wrt the origin
of humans. Where it can't defy it, it attempts to amend the creation
story to fit into scientific theory.
Science does not present anything as truth that is not proven. Science
presents theories, possibilities, probabilities, findings, etc.
Science tells us that things *appear* to do this and that, when it
cannot be proven.
And sometimes science discovers that it is wrong, even sometimes about
things that were previously considered to be facts. But science seems
less likely to declare things as facts today as it was many years ago.
2. Religion cannot have a "wider truth" unless it *is* the truth. A
truth is no less than a fact, and a fact must be proven.
I can *believe* something to be the truth, but it doesn't make it a
truth unless it is.
Laurie
---
www.geocities.com/tobyneige/life.html
---
"If you can't believe in yourself,
believe in someone who believes in you."
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>George Ricker <gri...@iu.net> wrote in message
>news:gricker-2310...@216-53-214-137.ppp.mpinet.net...
>> In article <ZrMI5.7042$e5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "Charles Wyndham"
>> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This post is addressed to those naturalists, humanists, and atheists, who
>> > are so contemptuous of religious beliefs, or are so certain that they are
>> > anti-human, that they would like to see them all abolished. It invites the
>> > consideration of whether such people are the true anti-human-ists.
>>
>> Actually, Charles, it probably *ought* to be addressed to those religious
>> zeolots, especially of the Christian persuasion, who asserted a
>> "God-given" right to "convert" the heathen (or in this case) "primitive
>> savages" to the "one, true religion" and, if necessary, to destroy their
>> cultures in the process.
>
>By all means address a similar article to them if you wish. But this is alt.
>philosophy.humanism,
Well, close, anyway. ;)
> and I am talking to those who want to abolish all
>religion, not to change it. If that does not include you, fine, there is no need
>for you to feel challenged.
Okay, but your target audience doesn't seem to *be* here, Charles.
I've not seen one single person in this newsgroup who would seek to
abolish religion.
In fact, I'd go so far as to opine that most people here would
probably consider such an abolishment to be anti-humanistic, an
infringement on the rights of the religious to practice their faith in
freedom.
Dan Fake
> downside of religion,
Actually, Charles, you misread what I wrote. See below - I stated
you have yet to demonstrate a downside to humanism.
> although you know well that on a number
> of occasions I have told of such downsides as fundamentalism
> and inerrantism. On the other hand I have difficulty in getting
> people here to admit to even the remotest inkling of the beginning
> of a suggestion that there even could be any possibility of a
> downside to Atheism, Naturalism, Humanism, or even
> Freelover-ism.
>
> Frustrating isn't it.
Elf, in his response in this thread, did mention a downside along
with the mating upside of truth. Truth has an amazing appeal
to many, it's a driving life force for many, and thank goodness
as humanity would still be steeped in the dark ages of ignorance
and superstition if that were not the case.
For me, personally, when looking at absolute truth/reality, as
best we can access it, that is the only way to go and for me,
that has no downside as that is the perfect mate to reality and
all that is worthy of our only *sure* shot at life. To dismiss
truth is to diminish the human experience, in my view.
So, perhaps it's just the destiny of the minority ('til now) to
be excited about peeling back the layers of mysteries in the
universe and searching for answers for all unknowns via the
methods present in the existentially verifiable world.
I suspect that some day, perhaps within the next few generations,
humankind will evolve to a higher symbiotic state of being with
advances being made in a wide variety of scientific fields, not
the least of which include genetics, robotics, nanotechnology,
and computer technology.
When it comes to the future of humankind, think multitelligence,
an end to our lonely existences, and the possibility of a virtual
immortality in this life, on this earth, in the next few generations.
-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
>
Charles Wyndham
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message news:8tb2r3$u88$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> In article <715K5.9557$e5.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
> "Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> >You may be right, but you most certainly should not assume so. I
> >see no reason why the Aborigines, left alone, should not have found
> >a way of incorporating their culture into a life-style which accepted
> >some Western ways - as they are trying to do now.
>
> Indeed. But the overwhelming, qualitative difference between
> the Western culture and the Aboriginal one is that the Western culture
> is a maw; it's overriding meme is one of accomodation and integration,
> by caricature if necessary, of anything that's useful and attractive
> about any other culture it has come into contact with. Which is why,
> for another example, the European culture that came to America was able
> to integrate all sorts of common notions of the American Indigenous
> peoples without harm, but they're attempt to integrate our way of life,
> many of them feel, has destroyed the Indian outlook completely.
So in an ideal world Western culture should have stayed out of Australia.
Can you offer anything to support your contention (at least I think it is
your contention) that the American Indians were destroyed not by
Western culture, but by their attempts to integrate with it?
> >What is this about raw ignorance and mere subsistance and brutal
> >subjugation. The picture is a travesty. The reality is that a "coherent
> >and satisfying structure of supernatural beliefs was being replaced by
> >a materialism based on a science that, whatever its benefits, was as
> >heartless as a stone and as cold as a Scandinavian winter."
>
> >> What would you propose as an alternative course? What would
> >> you have proposed as a preferred outcome of history?
>
> >Isn't it obvious? That they should have been permitted to find their own
> >solutions.
>
> Really. And what constitutes "non-intereference?" Should we
> have not allowed them to see, "Hey, there's another people over here.
> Their interesting characteristics are: they have far more food than you
> do, they live in more comfort than you do, more of their children
> survive the first years than yours do, and if you become part of their
> culture, you're 80 times less likely to be murdered than if you remain
> in your current states.
Stick to facts Elf. Either withdraw this claim or offer substantive evidence.
" [ Although any reliable statistics for the
> Austrailian aboriginals are unavailable, the Otaheite of New Zeland have
> a murder rate of 62 per 100,000. The rate in New York City is 0.8. ]
What have the Maori races got to do with it, even if your figures are true.
> For all your continued ranting, the fact is that the vast
> majority of aboriginals may whine about their romanticized past, but
> they are staying in the cities and enjoying 2800 calories per day,
> rather than subsistence living in the middle of nowhere.
There is no ranting and no whining. Your picture of the Aboriginal past is
not based on fact - for example their original diet was a lot better than
most Western diets. What you so scornfully and with so little
understanding call "nowhere" was their land and the heart of their life.
Elf Sternberg
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
> "Race: n. Any recognisable group sharing certain characteristics".
>according to my dictionary.
So computer programmers constitute a race? That's an
interesting conundrum.
>> I don't see why you think that you should speak for the Aborigines.
>Someone has to. They need all the help and support that they can get.
My experience during the Olympics is that they're doing quite
fine on their own.
Elf
--
Elf Sternberg
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>Correct. Sorry. It must be obvious that the chief downside to
>humanism is that it denies one of the principle motivating powers of
>humanity - the power of religion.
Actually, even humanism does no such thing. One of the best
things I've read recently is Peter Singer's "Towards a Darwinian Left,"
in which, among other things, he points out that human beings will
naturally form heirarchies; evolution has given them a number of
instinctual bases to do so, one of which is religion, and that humanism
is best when it recognizes and operates within this framework, rather
than trying to deny it.
What humanism *does* is address the notion that religion's
tribal influences and reliance on supernaturalism must be overturned if
human beings are to get anywhere.
>Thank you for recognising that the search for truth in religion has
>rescued us from the dark ages. Problem is that religion sees the truth
>in science but that science cannot see that religion has a wider truth.
I think this is an artificial divide, Charles, that exists only
in the minds of religion's apologists such as yourself. "Science," such
as it is, represents a concrete thing, a collection of processes for
deriving the truth of a proposition from evidentiary bases. "Religion,"
in contrast, represents only an abstraction, and its meaning is as
varied as the belief systems that fall under its rubric.
"Science," therefore, can see no such thing in "religion,"
because "religion" as such can only be investigated as an
anthropological and sociological phenomenon, not as a thing unto
itself.
This is why atheist humanists (for there are religious
humanists, a truth you consistently ignore for reasons unfathomed by
those of us who are still willing to talk to you) reject the notion that
there is a wider truth in religion. As I pointed out in another post,
science has proceeded greatly since the days of Aristotle, but religion
has not. Any quest for truth must involve a change as one gets closer
to it, no quest of the sort is going on within any religion that I know
of, precisely because the consequences of such a quest have inevitably
been the destruction of the religion. No religious belief system's
collection of claims stands up to evidentiary basis.
>Truth has no downside, but do you claim to have exclusive rights
>to it? Or never to be wrong?
No, the issue is that, if science comes across an uncomfortable
fact that stands in contrast to accepted "truths" of the past, science
willfully and often instantly ditches said accepted truths. I can't
imagine a religion doing that. Even John Paul 2nd's latest round of
apologies come across as insincere when you read the text in its
entirety. There is not one apology to a human being; the Church
admitted no wrongdoing to any group, be it Jews or pagans. The apology
is to God, for failing to "do His will" in the most enlightened manner
possible.
This is the main issue. Does religion... progress the way
science does? It does not, I maintain; it is at best reactive, changing
to suit the times to avoid fading completely from human memory, but it
is not in any way progressive the way knowledge is.
Charles Wyndham
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:07:50 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >George Ricker <gri...@iu.net> wrote in message
> >news:gricker-2310...@216-53-214-137.ppp.mpinet.net...
> >> In article <ZrMI5.7042$e5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "Charles Wyndham"
> >> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This post is addressed to those naturalists, humanists, and atheists, who
> >> > are so contemptuous of religious beliefs, or are so certain that they are
> >> > anti-human, that they would like to see them all abolished. It invites the
> >> > consideration of whether such people are the true anti-human-ists.
> >>
> >> Actually, Charles, it probably *ought* to be addressed to those religious
> >> zeolots, especially of the Christian persuasion, who asserted a
> >> "God-given" right to "convert" the heathen (or in this case) "primitive
> >> savages" to the "one, true religion" and, if necessary, to destroy their
> >> cultures in the process.
> >
> >By all means address a similar article to them if you wish. But this is alt.
> >philosophy.humanism,
>
> Well, close, anyway. ;)
>
> > and I am talking to those who want to abolish all
> >religion, not to change it. If that does not include you, fine, there is no need
> >for you to feel challenged.
>
> Okay, but your target audience doesn't seem to *be* here, Charles.
> I've not seen one single person in this newsgroup who would seek to
> abolish religion.
Check with such as Elf Peterson who considers religion immoral, or some of
Dan Fake's many effusions, and quite a number of others. I guess that while
they would not actively work to formally abolish religion they would certainly
want to see it go, and do their best in the NGs to work towards its demise. In
the context of the post I guess that would like to see the Aborigine peoples
abandon all religious ideas. What I wanted to find was a doctrine of tolerance,
of allowing people to form and hold their own beliefs.
I was probably too dismissive of George Ricker's post, and I regret that.
> In fact, I'd go so far as to opine that most people here would
> probably consider such an abolishment to be anti-humanistic, an
> infringement on the rights of the religious to practice their faith in
> freedom.
I am sure that you are right.
Charles Wyndham
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:44:33 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Thank you for recognising that the search for truth in religion has
> >rescued us from the dark ages. Problem is that religion sees the
> >truth in science but that science cannot see that religion has a
> >wider truth.
>
> 1. Religion defies some scientific data, particularly wrt the origin
> of humans. Where it can't defy it, it attempts to amend the creation
> story to fit into scientific theory.
Only fundamentalists deny scientific data, others do not accept some
unproven scientific theories. But in science very little if anything is
considered to be finally 'proven', everything is subject to revision - which
is one of the glories of science.
Religion does not really try to amend the creation story, some reject
it, others try to interpret it in the light of science - usually unsuccessfully.
> Science does not present anything as truth that is not proven. Science
> presents theories, possibilities, probabilities, findings, etc.
> Science tells us that things *appear* to do this and that, when it
> cannot be proven.
>
> And sometimes science discovers that it is wrong, even sometimes about
> things that were previously considered to be facts. But science seems
> less likely to declare things as facts today as it was many years ago.
>
> 2. Religion cannot have a "wider truth" unless it *is* the truth. A
> truth is no less than a fact, and a fact must be proven.
This is where we part company Laurie. Religion considers that it has all
the evidence it needs to establish a basic level of truth around which there
is much that is believed by faith but not established beyond doubt. Scientific
proof is only of importance to those material things that come within the
purview of a material science. The wider view that religion has includes
matters that are not material.
Justin R. Martin
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> This post is addressed to those naturalists, humanists, and atheists,
who
> are so contemptuous of religious beliefs, or are so certain that they
are
> anti-human, that they would like to see them all abolished. It invites
the
> consideration of whether such people are the true anti-human-ists.
>
> contented and peaceful people. There was little crime (a liitle
occasional
> wife stealing), social structures were highly complex but were firm
and
> neighbouring groups were controlled by quite elaborate customs to
prevent
> conflict. However in the harsh Australian outback there was no
Shangri-La.
>
> There are parallels with the history of the American Indians, however
I
> think that there are also great differences and that the Aboriginal
story
> presents issues in much starker detail.
>
> You may have noted that I have spoken throughout in the past tense,
for
> the advent of Western civilisation, Western technology, and Western
> science, and Western disease and Western greed, has destroyed their
peace
> and contentment. The loss of access to the land that was part of them,
the
> destruction of social structures, and the fatal attractions of
civilisation's
> drugs such as alcohol, have been more important than the mere
intrusion of
> strangers. We have witnessed one of the greatest tragedies of modern
times,
has
> been replaced by a materialism based on a science that, whatever its
> benefits, is as heartless as a stone and as cold as a Scandinavian
winter.
>
> Today the Aborigines are a shattered and dispirited race. However
they are
> beginning to work their way back, to regain some of their lands and
their
> language, and to try to restore their old faiths. Will you wish them
success,
> or will you maintain your aberrant dogmas and insist that they should
give up
> all traces of those old beliefs? And destroy them utterly.
>
There will always be people that argue that ignorance is bliss.
Although there is a certain amount of weight to this argument, you are
going to have to understand that there are always going to be people
that refuse to remain ignorant of the world around them.
When ignorance confronts knowledge, knowledge always wins.
(Note that I am not saying might makes right, only that might wins)
-
Martin's Law -
An average person will believe X is true if and only if that person
either:
1) Wants X to be true
2) Fears X might be true
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ron Peterson
: Check with such as Elf Peterson who considers religion immoral, or some of
: Dan Fake's many effusions, and quite a number of others. I guess that while
: they would not actively work to formally abolish religion they would certainly
: want to see it go, and do their best in the NGs to work towards its demise. In
: the context of the post I guess that would like to see the Aborigine peoples
: abandon all religious ideas. What I wanted to find
: was a doctrine of tolerance,
: of allowing people to form and hold their own beliefs.
We need to distiguish religions, people who are religious, and their
actions in making moral judgements. Each individual should have a choice
on whether they will believe in the precepts of a particular religion or
follow its customs.
If an Aborigine wants to live in a house instead of sleeping out in the
cold, they should be able to do so. Even penquins don't like going outside
on a cold day.
I think that it is possible that religious beliefs might offer us some
intuition on societal problems, but that discussions on solutions to
social problems shouldn't be dependent on religious beliefs.
Ron
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[...]
>Check with such as Elf Peterson
Elf Peterson? ;)
Laurie Swenberg
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>Laurie S. <lea...@spacestar.net> wrote in message
>news:39fa64a5...@news.spacestar.net...
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:44:33 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
>> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >Thank you for recognising that the search for truth in religion has
>> >rescued us from the dark ages. Problem is that religion sees the
>> >truth in science but that science cannot see that religion has a
>> >wider truth.
>>
>> 1. Religion defies some scientific data, particularly wrt the origin
>> of humans. Where it can't defy it, it attempts to amend the creation
>> story to fit into scientific theory.
>
>Only fundamentalists deny scientific data, others do not accept some
>unproven scientific theories. But in science very little if anything is
>considered to be finally 'proven', everything is subject to revision - which
>is one of the glories of science.
>
Things can be demonstrated to be true. Like I said, science seems
fairly careful to avoid stating theories as facts.
But we know, for example, that we have two lungs that compress and
expand when we breath. We know that friction causes heat. We know that
clouds carry rain. There are many, many facts in science.
>Religion does not really try to amend the creation story, some reject
>it, others try to interpret it in the light of science - usually unsuccessfully.
>
How many religious people reject the creation story? (I assume we're
talking about the Christian/Jewish religions here)
How can one be religious when rejecting the first words of the Bible?
>> Science does not present anything as truth that is not proven. Science
>> presents theories, possibilities, probabilities, findings, etc.
>> Science tells us that things *appear* to do this and that, when it
>> cannot be proven.
>>
>> And sometimes science discovers that it is wrong, even sometimes about
>> things that were previously considered to be facts. But science seems
>> less likely to declare things as facts today as it was many years ago.
>>
>> 2. Religion cannot have a "wider truth" unless it *is* the truth. A
>> truth is no less than a fact, and a fact must be proven.
>
>This is where we part company Laurie. Religion considers
Considers.
> that it has all
>the evidence it needs to establish a basic level of truth around which there
>is much that is believed by faith but not established beyond doubt.
Faith. This is still all about a *belief*, not a truth. "I believe
this to be true" is still only a belief. The only truth to it is that
it's true that one believe is.
I may have faith that a friend is telling the truth when he is in fact
lying. I may defend him in that. But I may be wrong. Regardless, until
I am shown to be wrong, if I believe it to be the truth, I will regard
it as such. This would be a "wider truth," but it would not
necessarily make it truth at all.
> Scientific
>proof is only of importance to those material things that come within the
>purview of a material science. The wider view that religion has includes
>matters that are not material.
And not necessarily *true*.
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
So? I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of things fade away from existence,
but that doesn't indicate an interest in seeing them abolished.
> and do their best in the NGs to work towards its demise.
By arguing against it? Their statements and back-and-forth
discussions/arguments in a Usenet newsgroup are far less intrusive in
anyone's lives than the Jehovah's Witnesses who periodically show up
at my door.
> In
>the context of the post I guess that would like to see the Aborigine peoples
>abandon all religious ideas.
You know, one statement doesn't necessarily translate into another.
It's always easy to say "so you're saying that..." but it loses
something in the translation much of the time, quite possibly because
what follows is so often *not* what the person is saying.
I can be fascinated by the religious beliefs of primitive people; it's
more interesting than those of contemporaries. I don't begrudge them
their beliefs, and I can easily understand how primitive people weave
stories to explain their place in the universe.
But we're not Aborigines, and we don't have to weigh our feelings
about religion on whether spirituality was good for those people.
> What I wanted to find was a doctrine of tolerance,
>of allowing people to form and hold their own beliefs.
>
Allowing? Who's not *allowing*? Arguing against someone's beliefs is
NOT an act of denying them their beliefs.
If humanism centers around humans living their lives without relying
on religion, posts in a humanist newsgroup about religion are likely
to involve some strife. Humanism isn't a "don't worry, be happy"
philosophy. It's not as directed as some philosophies, but it does
have *some* direction.
>I was probably too dismissive of George Ricker's post, and I regret that.
>
>> In fact, I'd go so far as to opine that most people here would
>> probably consider such an abolishment to be anti-humanistic, an
>> infringement on the rights of the religious to practice their faith in
>> freedom.
>
>I am sure that you are right.
Then what's the problem?
mr.enigmatic
> at my door.
They never show up at my door! It's not fair, I like to argue with people!
Mr Enigmatic UK www.metaphysics.freeserve.co.uk
Charles Wyndham
Chas.
Laurie S. <lea...@spacestar.net> wrote in message
news:39fc92f4....@news.spacestar.net...
Charles Wyndham
No need to be defensive Laurie, I am not challenging you.
> > and do their best in the NGs to work towards its demise.
>
> By arguing against it? Their statements and back-and-forth
> discussions/arguments in a Usenet newsgroup are far less intrusive in
> anyone's lives than the Jehovah's Witnesses who periodically show up
> at my door.
I rather enjoy discussions with JWs. They are sincere, always polite and
non-confrontational.
> > In
> >the context of the post I guess that would like to see the Aborigine peoples
> >abandon all religious ideas.
>
> You know, one statement doesn't necessarily translate into another.
> It's always easy to say "so you're saying that..." but it loses
> something in the translation much of the time, quite possibly because
> what follows is so often *not* what the person is saying.
I guess . . . May be wrong, but I don't think so.
>
> I can be fascinated by the religious beliefs of primitive people; it's
> more interesting than those of contemporaries. I don't begrudge them
> their beliefs, and I can easily understand how primitive people weave
> stories to explain their place in the universe.
>
> But we're not Aborigines, and we don't have to weigh our feelings
> about religion on whether spirituality was good for those people.
I am not quite sure of your point here - I think I agree . . .
> > What I wanted to find was a doctrine of tolerance,
> >of allowing people to form and hold their own beliefs.
> >
> Allowing? Who's not *allowing*? Arguing against someone's beliefs is
> NOT an act of denying them their beliefs.
>
> If humanism centers around humans living their lives without relying
> on religion, posts in a humanist newsgroup about religion are likely
> to involve some strife. Humanism isn't a "don't worry, be happy"
> philosophy. It's not as directed as some philosophies, but it does
> have *some* direction.
That is to say a tolerant philosophy. That is what I was hoping to find
in the answers, but failed to find.
> >I was probably too dismissive of George Ricker's post, and I regret that.
> >
> >> In fact, I'd go so far as to opine that most people here would
> >> probably consider such an abolishment to be anti-humanistic, an
> >> infringement on the rights of the religious to practice their faith in
> >> freedom.
> >
> >I am sure that you are right.
>
> Then what's the problem?
The problem, Laurie, arises when some people, not most people, display
a level of combatative intolerance that disgraces humanism.
Charles Wyndham
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:24:54 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Laurie S. <lea...@spacestar.net> wrote in message
> >news:39fa64a5...@news.spacestar.net...
> >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:44:33 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
> >> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >Thank you for recognising that the search for truth in religion has
> >> >rescued us from the dark ages. Problem is that religion sees the
> >> >truth in science but that science cannot see that religion has a
> >> >wider truth.
> >>
> >> 1. Religion defies some scientific data, particularly wrt the origin
> >> of humans. Where it can't defy it, it attempts to amend the creation
> >> story to fit into scientific theory.
> >
> >Only fundamentalists deny scientific data, others do not accept some
> >unproven scientific theories. But in science very little if anything is
> >considered to be finally 'proven', everything is subject to revision - which
> >is one of the glories of science.
> >
> Things can be demonstrated to be true. Like I said, science seems
> fairly careful to avoid stating theories as facts.
>
> But we know, for example, that we have two lungs that compress and
> expand when we breath. We know that friction causes heat. We know that
> clouds carry rain. There are many, many facts in science.
The examples are matters of observation, not strictly science. But I don't
disagree with your general point.
> >Religion does not really try to amend the creation story, some reject
> >it, others try to interpret it in the light of science - usually unsuccessfully.
> >
> How many religious people reject the creation story? (I assume we're
> talking about the Christian/Jewish religions here)
>
> How can one be religious when rejecting the first words of the Bible?
Rejection as literal fact Laurie, only fundamentalists interpret the creation
story literally - and not all of them.
> >> Science does not present anything as truth that is not proven. Science
> >> presents theories, possibilities, probabilities, findings, etc.
> >> Science tells us that things *appear* to do this and that, when it
> >> cannot be proven.
> >>
> >> And sometimes science discovers that it is wrong, even sometimes about
> >> things that were previously considered to be facts. But science seems
> >> less likely to declare things as facts today as it was many years ago.
> >>
> >> 2. Religion cannot have a "wider truth" unless it *is* the truth. A
> >> truth is no less than a fact, and a fact must be proven.
> >
> >This is where we part company Laurie. Religion considers
>
> Considers.
>
> > that it has all
> >the evidence it needs to establish a basic level of truth around which there
> >is much that is believed by faith but not established beyond doubt.
>
> Faith. This is still all about a *belief*, not a truth. "I believe
> this to be true" is still only a belief. The only truth to it is that
> it's true that one believe is.
Is it your position that something only becomes true at the moment that
science comes up with a proof of it? Shades of Schrodinger's cat, who's life or
death is supposedly only determined when the box is opened.
> I may have faith that a friend is telling the truth when he is in fact
> lying. I may defend him in that. But I may be wrong. Regardless, until
> I am shown to be wrong, if I believe it to be the truth, I will regard
> it as such. This would be a "wider truth," but it would not
> necessarily make it truth at all.
>
> > Scientific
> >proof is only of importance to those material things that come within the
> >purview of a material science. The wider view that religion has includes
> >matters that are not material.
>
> And not necessarily *true*.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Charles Wyndham
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message news:8tgisq$c9$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> In article <pBpK5.10070$e5.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
> "Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> >Correct. Sorry. It must be obvious that the chief downside to
> >humanism is that it denies one of the principle motivating powers of
> >humanity - the power of religion.
>
> Actually, even humanism does no such thing. One of the best
> things I've read recently is Peter Singer's "Towards a Darwinian Left,"
> in which, among other things, he points out that human beings will
> naturally form heirarchies; evolution has given them a number of
> instinctual bases to do so, one of which is religion, and that humanism
> is best when it recognizes and operates within this framework, rather
> than trying to deny it.
>
> What humanism *does* is address the notion that religion's
> tribal influences and reliance on supernaturalism must be overturned if
> human beings are to get anywhere.
"Addressing the notion" is a fine bland phrase, but does it imply that
humanism is required to actively campaign against people's beliefs.
This seems to be a personal view of some who actively invade Christian
groups, rather than a general view. Certainly it is not part of any
recorded principles of humanism that I have seen, which emphasise
tolerance rather than conflict. Even you, Elf, do not always display a
great deal of tolerance towards views you disagree with.
> >Thank you for recognising that the search for truth in religion has
> >rescued us from the dark ages. Problem is that religion sees the truth
> >in science but that science cannot see that religion has a wider truth.
>
> I think this is an artificial divide, Charles, that exists only
> in the minds of religion's apologists such as yourself. "Science," such
> as it is, represents a concrete thing, a collection of processes for
> deriving the truth of a proposition from evidentiary bases. "Religion,"
> in contrast, represents only an abstraction, and its meaning is as
> varied as the belief systems that fall under its rubric.
If you see religion as having no truth, then for you it has no truth. Science
cannot at present investigate religion - I hope that one day it will be able
to.
> "Science," therefore, can see no such thing in "religion,"
> because "religion" as such can only be investigated as an
> anthropological and sociological phenomenon, not as a thing unto
> itself.
>
> This is why atheist humanists (for there are religious
> humanists, a truth you consistently ignore for reasons unfathomed by
> those of us who are still willing to talk to you)
Oh very nasty, and quite untrue. Back off a bit. This is supposed to be
a discussion not a personal war.
> reject the notion that
> there is a wider truth in religion. As I pointed out in another post,
> science has proceeded greatly since the days of Aristotle, but religion
> has not. Any quest for truth must involve a change as one gets closer
> to it, no quest of the sort is going on within any religion that I know
> of,
How close do you get to what is happening in religion? Here in Australia
there is a great deal of discussion, particularly about the role of women
in the Church and about fundamentalist views. And progress is certainly
being made.
> precisely because the consequences of such a quest have inevitably
> been the destruction of the religion. No religious belief system's
> collection of claims stands up to evidentiary basis.
> >Truth has no downside, but do you claim to have exclusive rights
> >to it? Or never to be wrong?
>
> No, the issue is that, if science comes across an uncomfortable
> fact that stands in contrast to accepted "truths" of the past, science
> willfully and often instantly ditches said accepted truths. I can't
> imagine a religion doing that.
I was not asking whether science was ever wrong, but whether humanists
would ever admit to error. Better to stick to the point.
> Even John Paul 2nd's latest round of
> apologies come across as insincere when you read the text in its
> entirety. There is not one apology to a human being; the Church
> admitted no wrongdoing to any group, be it Jews or pagans. The apology
> is to God, for failing to "do His will" in the most enlightened manner
> possible.
It is interesting to me that you should study Roman Catholic matters so
deeply. But I am reluctant to draw conclusions.
> This is the main issue. Does religion... progress the way
> science does? It does not, I maintain; it is at best reactive, changing
> to suit the times to avoid fading completely from human memory, but it
> is not in any way progressive the way knowledge is.
Comparison of religion and science is pointless and self-defeating. They
are two different animals. The only issue in this bit of the thread is
whether there is a downside to humanism. We may have gone as far as
we can on that.
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
I'm not *being* defensive. I'm making a point.
>> > and do their best in the NGs to work towards its demise.
>>
>> By arguing against it? Their statements and back-and-forth
>> discussions/arguments in a Usenet newsgroup are far less intrusive in
>> anyone's lives than the Jehovah's Witnesses who periodically show up
>> at my door.
>
>I rather enjoy discussions with JWs. They are sincere, always polite and
>non-confrontational.
>
Yuck. That's part of their strategy; it's harder to turn away sincere,
polite, non-confrontational people.
The point is, I don't *like* strangers coming to my door and
chattering away about things as personal as religious beliefs.
A co-worker earlier this year opened her door to some woman who was
campaigning against pornography. I said she should have told her about
how I'd just shown her where to find pictures of naked men on the net.
>> > In
>> >the context of the post I guess that would like to see the Aborigine peoples
>> >abandon all religious ideas.
>>
>> You know, one statement doesn't necessarily translate into another.
>> It's always easy to say "so you're saying that..." but it loses
>> something in the translation much of the time, quite possibly because
>> what follows is so often *not* what the person is saying.
>
>I guess . . . May be wrong, but I don't think so.
Guesses often are.
>> I can be fascinated by the religious beliefs of primitive people; it's
>> more interesting than those of contemporaries. I don't begrudge them
>> their beliefs, and I can easily understand how primitive people weave
>> stories to explain their place in the universe.
>>
>> But we're not Aborigines, and we don't have to weigh our feelings
>> about religion on whether spirituality was good for those people.
>
>I am not quite sure of your point here - I think I agree . . .
>
Okay...
>> > What I wanted to find was a doctrine of tolerance,
>> >of allowing people to form and hold their own beliefs.
>> >
>> Allowing? Who's not *allowing*? Arguing against someone's beliefs is
>> NOT an act of denying them their beliefs.
>>
>> If humanism centers around humans living their lives without relying
>> on religion, posts in a humanist newsgroup about religion are likely
>> to involve some strife. Humanism isn't a "don't worry, be happy"
>> philosophy. It's not as directed as some philosophies, but it does
>> have *some* direction.
>
>That is to say a tolerant philosophy. That is what I was hoping to find
>in the answers, but failed to find.
>
The kind of tolerant philosophy you seem to be looking for would *be*
a "don't worry, be happy" philosophy, it seems. You seem to be seeking
a philosophy that is all-accepting, and I don't think humanism
reflects this. Organized religion conflicts with the premise of
humanism. A humanist can certainly respect the right of others to
worship, but there's no particular humanist-based reason for a
humanist to feel at peace with religion. It's a conflict, and it makes
sense for a humanist to engage in debate about religion, when
pro-religion arguments arise.
>> >I was probably too dismissive of George Ricker's post, and I regret that.
>> >
>> >> In fact, I'd go so far as to opine that most people here would
>> >> probably consider such an abolishment to be anti-humanistic, an
>> >> infringement on the rights of the religious to practice their faith in
>> >> freedom.
>> >
>> >I am sure that you are right.
>>
>> Then what's the problem?
>
>The problem, Laurie, arises when some people, not most people, display
>a level of combatative intolerance that disgraces humanism.
It's called arguing, Charles. Some people argue more strenuously than
others. I'll argue pretty strenuously over certain subjects, and you
might say that I am intolerant toward certain things I find offensive.
I don't go looking for such arguments; they come to where I am, and I
respond -- sometimes combatively, even.
As far as "disgracing" humanism, such arguments IMO *reflect* it. It's
a fairly "nice" philosophy, but it's not as warm and fuzzy as you
would perhaps like, or as other philosophies might be.
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
<looks down at chest>
I don't observe any lungs there.
The knowledge of the function of lungs comes from science.
>> >Religion does not really try to amend the creation story, some reject
>> >it, others try to interpret it in the light of science - usually unsuccessfully.
>> >
>> How many religious people reject the creation story? (I assume we're
>> talking about the Christian/Jewish religions here)
>>
>> How can one be religious when rejecting the first words of the Bible?
>
>Rejection as literal fact Laurie, only fundamentalists interpret the creation
>story literally - and not all of them.
>
I think you're underestimating the numbers of people who believe the
creation story. Every Christian *I* know believes it -- if not
literally, to the extent that they can take some from the creation
theory and some from the scientific theory and come up with an answer
that satisfies them.
I don't get how a Christian can reject the creation theory anyway;
accepting even elements of the scientific theory paves the way to
accepting evolution, which eradicates yet another Biblical story, that
of the first man and woman on earth. The more someone accepts of
science, the more the Bible looks like a fairy tail.
>> >> Science does not present anything as truth that is not proven. Science
>> >> presents theories, possibilities, probabilities, findings, etc.
>> >> Science tells us that things *appear* to do this and that, when it
>> >> cannot be proven.
>> >>
>> >> And sometimes science discovers that it is wrong, even sometimes about
>> >> things that were previously considered to be facts. But science seems
>> >> less likely to declare things as facts today as it was many years ago.
>> >>
>> >> 2. Religion cannot have a "wider truth" unless it *is* the truth. A
>> >> truth is no less than a fact, and a fact must be proven.
>> >
>> >This is where we part company Laurie. Religion considers
>>
>> Considers.
>>
>> > that it has all
>> >the evidence it needs to establish a basic level of truth around which there
>> >is much that is believed by faith but not established beyond doubt.
>>
>> Faith. This is still all about a *belief*, not a truth. "I believe
>> this to be true" is still only a belief. The only truth to it is that
>> it's true that one believe is.
>
>Is it your position that something only becomes true at the moment that
>science comes up with a proof of it?
Truth is fact, no? Facts require proof.
> Shades of Schrodinger's cat, who's life or
>death is supposedly only determined when the box is opened.
The fate of Schrodinger's cat is an unknown. Regardless of whether you
believe the quirky theory that, because you don't know whether the cat
is dead or live, it must be both, the *truth* is that you*still* don't
know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box.
>> I may have faith that a friend is telling the truth when he is in fact
>> lying. I may defend him in that. But I may be wrong. Regardless, until
>> I am shown to be wrong, if I believe it to be the truth, I will regard
>> it as such. This would be a "wider truth," but it would not
>> necessarily make it truth at all.
I'd like to know what you think of this part.
>> > Scientific
>> >proof is only of importance to those material things that come within the
>> >purview of a material science. The wider view that religion has includes
>> >matters that are not material.
>>
>> And not necessarily *true*.
>
>You are entitled to your opinion.
Apparently we differ on the definition of a truth.
Ron Peterson
: That is to say a tolerant philosophy. That is what I was hoping to find
: in the answers, but failed to find.
Humanism is tolerant, but individuals that are humanists may not be.
I think that those that wish to participate in humanists discussions
should avoid making arguments based on religion or other dogmatic creed.
: The problem, Laurie, arises when some people, not most people, display
: a level of combatative intolerance that disgraces humanism.
Try participating in threads other than those concerned with religion such
as voting rights, sexuality, abortion, weapons, and taxation.
Ron
Elf Sternberg
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>> Really. And what constitutes "non-intereference?" Should we
>> have not allowed them to see, "Hey, there's another people over here.
>> Their interesting characteristics are: they have far more food than you
>> do, they live in more comfort than you do, more of their children
>> survive the first years than yours do, and if you become part of their
>> culture, you're 80 times less likely to be murdered than if you remain
>> in your current states.
>Stick to facts Elf. Either withdraw this claim or offer substantive
>evidence.
Those ARE the facts, Charles. The infant mortality rate among
primitive peoples is one in THREE; in the Western world, we have a
rate of one in 10,000. The murder rate among the Inuit, the Ache, the
Kung San, the Ohaeite, the Yanamoai, and other primitive peoples is
always significantly highter than that in the west, by orders of
magnitude. We do have more food than they do, to the extent that we
have an obesity problem in the Western world.
You can probably succesfully argue whether or not "comfort" is
relative. All the rest are numerical facts to be found in the
Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology (Routledge Press, 1994).
Elf
--
Elf Sternberg
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>"Addressing the notion" is a fine bland phrase, but does it imply
>that humanism is required to actively campaign against people's
>beliefs.
Sure. Where those beliefs are irrational and anti-humane,
humanists will actively and gleefully point out these facts. The
trouble is, one could not, for example, dismantle Christianity and
make it a "humane" belief system; Christianity without John 3 is not
Christianity at all.
>Even you, Elf, do not always display a great deal of tolerance
>towards views you disagree with.
Oh, agreed. I tend to lose patience quickly with people who
hold onto tribal belief systems that have centuries of bloody warfare
and ongoing xenophobia as their defining characteristics.
>If you see religion as having no truth, then for you it has no
>truth. Science cannot at present investigate religion - I hope that
>one day it will be able to.
I cannot see "religion" as having a truth any more than I can
see "language" having a vocabulary. Both are abstractions for
collections of symbols and behaviors. "Japanese" has a grammar and a
vocabulary. "Christianity" has a history and purports to have a
truth.
The question is: does it?
>How close do you get to what is happening in religion? Here in
>Australia there is a great deal of discussion, particularly about the
>role of women in the Church and about fundamentalist views. And
>progress is certainly being made.
Oh, Charles, that's deceitful. The "progress" being made is
toward secular liberalism and away from the very religious identity
to which modern liberalism arose in opposition. No "progress" has
been made in determining which among the myriad religions being
followed ardently in Australia by various sects is the one with the
truth.
And that's the real question here, isn't it? Which religion
has THE truth? Which one has even a fraction of it that cannot be
derived by rational and humanistic means? And which one, when
confronted with the myriad horrible and vicious contradictions found
within, has been willing to change its ways?
>It is interesting to me that you should study Roman Catholic matters
>so deeply. But I am reluctant to draw conclusions.
And well you should. It interests me because of all the
belief systems extant on the face of the Earth, it is the one with the
most double-talk, the highest count of intellectuals, and the most
dishonesty, a factor more of its sheer size. In the class of evils,
Catholicism is first rate.
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message news:8tgisq$c9$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
>> In article <pBpK5.10070$e5.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
>> "Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
[...]
>> >Truth has no downside, but do you claim to have exclusive rights
>> >to it? Or never to be wrong?
<perplexed look>
I don't even know what this question *means*.
How does one have "rights" to the truth?
And why would anyone claim never to be wrong?
>> No, the issue is that, if science comes across an uncomfortable
>> fact that stands in contrast to accepted "truths" of the past, science
>> willfully and often instantly ditches said accepted truths. I can't
>> imagine a religion doing that.
>
>I was not asking whether science was ever wrong, but whether humanists
>would ever admit to error. Better to stick to the point.
I would imagine most humanists would admit to error. They're human,
after all.
laurie
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Sorry Laurie, sorry Elf, sorry Ron. Just not my day.
>
>Chas.
>
Hey, I rather enjoyed the giggle.
Laurie
Laurie S.
<mr.eni...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>than the Jehovah's Witnesses who periodically show up
>> at my door.
>
>They never show up at my door! It's not fair, I like to argue with people!
I'd send them your way, but it would be a looooong walk...
Charles Wyndham
They can be extremely irritating, particularly when I'm busy. But when there
is time I look on it as opportunity to exchange ideas with a group whose
views are very different from my own. Such exchanges are always valuable
and shake up any tendency towards complacency, provided any discussion
is sincere, polite, and non-confrontational - which of course applies here
just as well. (re-reading that it sounds a bit pompous, sorry).
Not so. But it is a philosophy that says that you have a right to your
views as I have a right to mine. With the only proviso perhaps that the
views are not cruel, criminal, or life-threatening. (Rather subjective but it
is the best I can do).
> You seem to be seeking
> a philosophy that is all-accepting, and I don't think humanism
> reflects this. Organized religion conflicts with the premise of
> humanism. A humanist can certainly respect the right of others to
> worship, but there's no particular humanist-based reason for a
> humanist to feel at peace with religion. It's a conflict, and it makes
> sense for a humanist to engage in debate about religion, when
> pro-religion arguments arise.
Sure.
> >> >I was probably too dismissive of George Ricker's post, and I regret that.
> >> >
> >> >> In fact, I'd go so far as to opine that most people here would
> >> >> probably consider such an abolishment to be anti-humanistic, an
> >> >> infringement on the rights of the religious to practice their faith in
> >> >> freedom.
> >> >
> >> >I am sure that you are right.
> >>
> >> Then what's the problem?
> >
> >The problem, Laurie, arises when some people, not most people, display
> >a level of combatative intolerance that disgraces humanism.
>
> It's called arguing, Charles. Some people argue more strenuously than
> others. I'll argue pretty strenuously over certain subjects, and you
> might say that I am intolerant toward certain things I find offensive.
> I don't go looking for such arguments; they come to where I am, and I
> respond -- sometimes combatively, even.
I try not to argue Laurie. It never resolves anything and too often leads to
lasting bitterness. It is better to try to discuss matters with a view to
reaching common ground, or at least to narrow the area of disagreement.
Charles Wyndham
Ron Peterson <ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
news:39fd9c46$0$99052$726...@news.execpc.com...
> Charles Wyndham (wynd...@bigpond.com) wrote:
>
> : That is to say a tolerant philosophy. That is what I was hoping to find
> : in the answers, but failed to find.
>
> Humanism is tolerant, but individuals that are humanists may not be.
>
> I think that those that wish to participate in humanists discussions
> should avoid making arguments based on religion or other dogmatic creed.
Difficult when the issue at stake is one that involves both religion and non-
religious humanism. Deliberately treading on toes is controversial but it is at
times the only way of finding out what people really feel.
> : The problem, Laurie, arises when some people, not most people, display
> : a level of combatative intolerance that disgraces humanism.
for completeness I should have added "and some people, not most people,
display a level of combatatative intolerance that disgraces Christianity".
> Try participating in threads other than those concerned with religion such
> as voting rights, sexuality, abortion, weapons, and taxation.
I would like to, but I don't have time even to deal properly with the NGs or
threads that I currently attend.
>
> Ron
>
Charles Wyndham
The biological function, true. The rest came from chopping people up. Which
needs little science.
> >> >Religion does not really try to amend the creation story, some reject
> >> >it, others try to interpret it in the light of science - usually unsuccessfully.
> >> >
> >> How many religious people reject the creation story? (I assume we're
> >> talking about the Christian/Jewish religions here)
> >>
> >> How can one be religious when rejecting the first words of the Bible?
> >
> >Rejection as literal fact Laurie, only fundamentalists interpret the creation
> >story literally - and not all of them.
> >
> I think you're underestimating the numbers of people who believe the
> creation story. Every Christian *I* know believes it -- if not
> literally, to the extent that they can take some from the creation
> theory and some from the scientific theory and come up with an answer
> that satisfies them.
The key word is 'literally'. If you happen to live in the American bible belt
you will get a very distorted view.
> I don't get how a Christian can reject the creation theory anyway;
> accepting even elements of the scientific theory paves the way to
> accepting evolution, which eradicates yet another Biblical story, that
> of the first man and woman on earth. The more someone accepts of
> science, the more the Bible looks like a fairy tail.
The key word again is literally. Only fundamentalist Christians, a not so large
but noisy minority, believe the Genesis creation literally - and not all of
them. The story of Adam and Eve is widely accepted as a morality story,
or at best an allegory. The more one accepts from science, or more
directly, the more fairy stories rejected, the closer one gets to the heart
of Christianity.
> >> >> Science does not present anything as truth that is not proven. Science
> >> >> presents theories, possibilities, probabilities, findings, etc.
> >> >> Science tells us that things *appear* to do this and that, when it
> >> >> cannot be proven.
> >> >>
> >> >> And sometimes science discovers that it is wrong, even sometimes about
> >> >> things that were previously considered to be facts. But science seems
> >> >> less likely to declare things as facts today as it was many years ago.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. Religion cannot have a "wider truth" unless it *is* the truth. A
> >> >> truth is no less than a fact, and a fact must be proven.
> >> >
> >> >This is where we part company Laurie. Religion considers
> >>
> >> Considers.
> >>
> >> > that it has all
> >> >the evidence it needs to establish a basic level of truth around which there
> >> >is much that is believed by faith but not established beyond doubt.
> >>
> >> Faith. This is still all about a *belief*, not a truth. "I believe
> >> this to be true" is still only a belief. The only truth to it is that
> >> it's true that one believe is.
> >
> >Is it your position that something only becomes true at the moment that
> >science comes up with a proof of it?
>
> Truth is fact, no? Facts require proof.
No. A fact is still a fact even if it has not been observed, a truth is still true even
if no evidence has been found to prove it.
> > Shades of Schrodinger's cat, who's life or
> >death is supposedly only determined when the box is opened.
>
> The fate of Schrodinger's cat is an unknown. Regardless of whether you
> believe the quirky theory that, because you don't know whether the cat
> is dead or live, it must be both, the *truth* is that you*still* don't
> know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box.
But what is the truth about the cat's life BEFORE the box is opened, before
there is any proof one way or the other?
> >> I may have faith that a friend is telling the truth when he is in fact
> >> lying. I may defend him in that. But I may be wrong. Regardless, until
> >> I am shown to be wrong, if I believe it to be the truth, I will regard
> >> it as such. This would be a "wider truth," but it would not
> >> necessarily make it truth at all.
>
> I'd like to know what you think of this part.
It doesn't really match my use of the term "wider truth", which expressed
only that there could be a genuine truth that science cannot see.
> >> > Scientific
> >> >proof is only of importance to those material things that come within the
> >> >purview of a material science. The wider view that religion has includes
> >> >matters that are not material.
> >>
> >> And not necessarily *true*.
> >
> >You are entitled to your opinion.
>
> Apparently we differ on the definition of a truth.
>
The only difference that I can see is in whether something can be true even if
there is no scientific proof for it. But are we getting any closer to understanding
each other?
Charles Wyndham
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message news:8tkt15$9ul$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> In article <MYKK5.10600$e5.3...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
> "Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> >> Really. And what constitutes "non-intereference?" Should we
> >> have not allowed them to see, "Hey, there's another people over here.
> >> Their interesting characteristics are: they have far more food than you
> >> do, they live in more comfort than you do, more of their children
> >> survive the first years than yours do, and if you become part of their
> >> culture, you're 80 times less likely to be murdered than if you remain
> >> in your current states.
>
> >Stick to facts Elf. Either withdraw this claim or offer substantive
> >evidence.
>
> Those ARE the facts, Charles. The infant mortality rate among
> primitive peoples is one in THREE; in the Western world, we have a
> rate of one in 10,000. The murder rate among the Inuit, the Ache, the
> Kung San, the Ohaeite, the Yanamoai, and other primitive peoples is
> always significantly highter than that in the west, by orders of
> magnitude. We do have more food than they do, to the extent that we
> have an obesity problem in the Western world.
We are talking about Aborigines, not Inuit, Ache, Kung San, Ohaeite,
Yanamoai or any other people you consider primitive. I am
still waiting for evidence of the Aborigine murder rate, or infant
mortality, or of a poorer diet. Are you going to provide it or to withdraw.
Charles Wyndham
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message news:8tkt19$9vn$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> In article <9Q8L5.11310$e5.3...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
> "Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> >"Addressing the notion" is a fine bland phrase, but does it imply
> >that humanism is required to actively campaign against people's
> >beliefs.
>
> Sure. Where those beliefs are irrational and anti-humane,
> humanists will actively and gleefully point out these facts. The
> trouble is, one could not, for example, dismantle Christianity and
> make it a "humane" belief system; Christianity without John 3 is not
> Christianity at all.
Do you mean chapter 3 of John's Gospel? What do you find in it
that is inhumane? Or perhaps I should ask you whether you
understand what he is talking about.
> >Even you, Elf, do not always display a great deal of tolerance
> >towards views you disagree with.
>
> Oh, agreed. I tend to lose patience quickly with people who
> hold onto tribal belief systems that have centuries of bloody warfare
> and ongoing xenophobia as their defining characteristics.
Ongoing xenophobia? are you thinking of Jews and Palestinians,
Irish and Ulstermen, Serbs and Albanians. Religious differences
do not help, but it would be historically illiterate to see religion
as the cause.
> >If you see religion as having no truth, then for you it has no
> >truth. Science cannot at present investigate religion - I hope that
> >one day it will be able to.
>
> I cannot see "religion" as having a truth any more than I can
> see "language" having a vocabulary. Both are abstractions for
> collections of symbols and behaviors. "Japanese" has a grammar and a
> vocabulary. "Christianity" has a history and purports to have a
> truth.
>
> The question is: does it?
Fair question, but not one we are likely to agree on!
> >How close do you get to what is happening in religion? Here in
> >Australia there is a great deal of discussion, particularly about the
> >role of women in the Church and about fundamentalist views. And
> >progress is certainly being made.
>
> Oh, Charles, that's deceitful. The "progress" being made is
> toward secular liberalism and away from the very religious identity
> to which modern liberalism arose in opposition. No "progress" has
> been made in determining which among the myriad religions being
> followed ardently in Australia by various sects is the one with the
> truth.
Ignorant and offensive Elf. Do you have any actual knowledge of the
state of religion in Australia? Or of the sectarian position? Or of
the progress being made, other than what I have told you?
> And that's the real question here, isn't it? Which religion
> has THE truth? Which one has even a fraction of it that cannot be
> derived by rational and humanistic means? And which one, when
> confronted with the myriad horrible and vicious contradictions found
> within, has been willing to change its ways?
>
> >It is interesting to me that you should study Roman Catholic matters
> >so deeply. But I am reluctant to draw conclusions.
>
> And well you should. It interests me because of all the
> belief systems extant on the face of the Earth, it is the one with the
> most double-talk, the highest count of intellectuals, and the most
> dishonesty, a factor more of its sheer size. In the class of evils,
> Catholicism is first rate.
You've been reading some of Dan Fake's old posts. He is frequently
full of rant, but you aren't.
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>Laurie S. <lea...@spacestar.net> wrote in message
>news:39fd3bdd....@news.spacestar.net...
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:38:33 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
>> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Laurie S. <lea...@spacestar.net> wrote in message
>> >news:39fc9ae3....@news.spacestar.net...
>> >> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:24:54 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
>> >> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >> >Religion does not really try to amend the creation story, some reject
>> >> >it, others try to interpret it in the light of science - usually unsuccessfully.
>> >> >
>> >> How many religious people reject the creation story? (I assume we're
>> >> talking about the Christian/Jewish religions here)
>> >>
>> >> How can one be religious when rejecting the first words of the Bible?
>> >
>> >Rejection as literal fact Laurie, only fundamentalists interpret the creation
>> >story literally - and not all of them.
>> >
>> I think you're underestimating the numbers of people who believe the
>> creation story. Every Christian *I* know believes it -- if not
>> literally, to the extent that they can take some from the creation
>> theory and some from the scientific theory and come up with an answer
>> that satisfies them.
>
>The key word is 'literally'. If you happen to live in the American bible belt
>you will get a very distorted view.
I live in Minnesota.
Regardless, how would "strong Christians" be a *distortion*? There
aren't small numbers of these people
>> I don't get how a Christian can reject the creation theory anyway;
>> accepting even elements of the scientific theory paves the way to
>> accepting evolution, which eradicates yet another Biblical story, that
>> of the first man and woman on earth. The more someone accepts of
>> science, the more the Bible looks like a fairy tail.
>
>The key word again is literally. Only fundamentalist Christians, a not so large
>but noisy minority, believe the Genesis creation literally - and not all of
>them. The story of Adam and Eve is widely accepted as a morality story,
>or at best an allegory.
I've never heard this. Perhaps fundamental Christians aren't such a
minority after all.
> The more one accepts from science, or more
>directly, the more fairy stories rejected, the closer one gets to the heart
>of Christianity.
>
Why would that be? The heart of Christianity is contingent on
believing in the fairy stories, AFAICS. Diluting the faith doesn't
seem to make it stronger.
>> >> >> Science does not present anything as truth that is not proven. Science
>> >> >> presents theories, possibilities, probabilities, findings, etc.
>> >> >> Science tells us that things *appear* to do this and that, when it
>> >> >> cannot be proven.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And sometimes science discovers that it is wrong, even sometimes about
>> >> >> things that were previously considered to be facts. But science seems
>> >> >> less likely to declare things as facts today as it was many years ago.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2. Religion cannot have a "wider truth" unless it *is* the truth. A
>> >> >> truth is no less than a fact, and a fact must be proven.
>> >> >
>> >> >This is where we part company Laurie. Religion considers
>> >>
>> >> Considers.
>> >>
>> >> > that it has all
>> >> >the evidence it needs to establish a basic level of truth around which there
>> >> >is much that is believed by faith but not established beyond doubt.
>> >>
>> >> Faith. This is still all about a *belief*, not a truth. "I believe
>> >> this to be true" is still only a belief. The only truth to it is that
>> >> it's true that one believe is.
>> >
>> >Is it your position that something only becomes true at the moment that
>> >science comes up with a proof of it?
>>
>> Truth is fact, no? Facts require proof.
>
>No. A fact is still a fact even if it has not been observed, a truth is still true even
>if no evidence has been found to prove it.
>
I see. You're saying that that which we cannot know is a fact/true IF
it in fact IS true.
Of course. But we can't KNOW it, so we can't legitimately define it as
a truth. The definition of "fact" is not "that which may be true."
>> > Shades of Schrodinger's cat, who's life or
>> >death is supposedly only determined when the box is opened.
>>
>> The fate of Schrodinger's cat is an unknown. Regardless of whether you
>> believe the quirky theory that, because you don't know whether the cat
>> is dead or live, it must be both, the *truth* is that you*still* don't
>> know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box.
>
>But what is the truth about the cat's life BEFORE the box is opened, before
>there is any proof one way or the other?
>
It's an unknown. The experiment may or may not kill the cat. We have
no way of knowing what the truth is until we open the box to find a
live cat or a dead cat.
>> >> I may have faith that a friend is telling the truth when he is in fact
>> >> lying. I may defend him in that. But I may be wrong. Regardless, until
>> >> I am shown to be wrong, if I believe it to be the truth, I will regard
>> >> it as such. This would be a "wider truth," but it would not
>> >> necessarily make it truth at all.
>>
>> I'd like to know what you think of this part.
>
>It doesn't really match my use of the term "wider truth", which expressed
>only that there could be a genuine truth that science cannot see.
>
*Could* be. You say that religion relies on a "wider truth," but what
you referring to above is a *possibility*. "Possible truth" means that
something may or may not be true. It is not a "wider truth."
Besides, religion *doesn't* rely on the possibility that it is true;
it relies on the belief that it IS true.
>> >> > Scientific
>> >> >proof is only of importance to those material things that come within the
>> >> >purview of a material science. The wider view that religion has includes
>> >> >matters that are not material.
>> >>
>> >> And not necessarily *true*.
>> >
>> >You are entitled to your opinion.
>>
>> Apparently we differ on the definition of a truth.
>>
>
>The only difference that I can see is in whether something can be true even if
>there is no scientific proof for it.
This is irrelevant to whether we can CALL something a truth. An
unknown is still an unknown regardless of whether it's true or false
in reality.
> But are we getting any closer to understanding
>each other?
I've understood you all along. I just disagree with you.
Laurie S.
<wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>Laurie S. <lea...@spacestar.net> wrote in message
>news:39fd355c....@news.spacestar.net...
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:19:03 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
>> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >That is to say a tolerant philosophy. That is what I was hoping to find
>> >in the answers, but failed to find.
>> >
>> The kind of tolerant philosophy you seem to be looking for would *be*
>> a "don't worry, be happy" philosophy, it seems.
>
>Not so. But it is a philosophy that says that you have a right to your
>views as I have a right to mine. With the only proviso perhaps that the
>views are not cruel, criminal, or life-threatening. (Rather subjective but it
>is the best I can do).
Of course we have a right to our views.
We also both have a right to *express* our views, even to argue for
them.
Well, I try not to waste my time with lasting bitterness. And it's not
my immediate concern if an argument resolves something; my part in an
argument is to express disagreement, to argue my case, and to argue
against the other persons' POV.
Hell, I argue on an almost daily basis with one of my best friends. We
haven't had an iota of lasting bitterness, and in fact we value the
arguments. I even yell at him once in a blue moon, and I'm not even
angry at him at the time. I'm just impassioned.
> It is better to try to discuss matters with a view to
>reaching common ground, or at least to narrow the area of disagreement.
Well, if you're merely discussing things. If you're completely at
odds, it doesn't seem like a likely scenario.
Dan Fake
You're incorrect, once again, with your attack against me.
Take too many insult pills today? I think you're confusing
the word rant with the phrase "cogent expression of the
true nature of our being", and both Elf and I have a lot
in common there, although our personalities/experiences
and expressions are unique to the essence of that which
we are.
Oh well, I forgive you, again, as my basic FREELOVER
principles deem it an appropriate action to take.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth,
freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we
all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life.
http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243
FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
(also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities)
Origins: http://x54.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687518828
Top 100: http://x61.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685683580
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Wyndham
>On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:17:54 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
><wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Laurie S. <lea...@spacestar.net> wrote in message
>>news:39fd355c....@news.spacestar.net...
>>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:19:03 +0800, "Charles Wyndham"
>>> <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> >That is to say a tolerant philosophy. That is what I was hoping to find
>>> >in the answers, but failed to find.
>>> >
>>> The kind of tolerant philosophy you seem to be looking for would *be*
>>> a "don't worry, be happy" philosophy, it seems.
>>
>>Not so. But it is a philosophy that says that you have a right to your
>>views as I have a right to mine. With the only proviso perhaps that the
>>views are not cruel, criminal, or life-threatening. (Rather subjective but it
>>is the best I can do).
>
>Of course we have a right to our views.
>
>We also both have a right to *express* our views, even to argue for
>them.
Of course. We seem to agree.
Arguing with someone you know well can be fun, but if you want to reach
agreement it is more profitable to discuss. I have known a number of good
friends who have broken with each other because they argued.
>> It is better to try to discuss matters with a view to
>>reaching common ground, or at least to narrow the area of disagreement.
>
>Well, if you're merely discussing things. If you're completely at
>odds, it doesn't seem like a likely scenario.
If you are COMPLETELY at odds there is no point in either arguing or discussing,
Charles Wyndham
In the bible belt you would hear little other than Fundamentalist views. I
reckon that most of these distort the Bible's message and are anything but
'strong'.
>>> I don't get how a Christian can reject the creation theory anyway;
>>> accepting even elements of the scientific theory paves the way to
>>> accepting evolution, which eradicates yet another Biblical story, that
>>> of the first man and woman on earth. The more someone accepts of
>>> science, the more the Bible looks like a fairy tail.
>>
>>The key word again is literally. Only fundamentalist Christians, a not so large
>>but noisy minority, believe the Genesis creation literally - and not all of
>>them. The story of Adam and Eve is widely accepted as a morality story,
>>or at best an allegory.
>
>I've never heard this. Perhaps fundamental Christians aren't such a
>minority after all.
It's true Laurie.
>> The more one accepts from science, or more
>>directly, the more fairy stories rejected, the closer one gets to the heart
>>of Christianity.
>>
>Why would that be? The heart of Christianity is contingent on
>believing in the fairy stories, AFAICS. Diluting the faith doesn't
>seem to make it stronger.
Ockham's Razor. In no way is the heart of Christianity dependant on the fairy
stories in Genesis, the removal of which concentrates, not dilutes.
Can you tell me where I can find the meaning of the many abbreviations and
symbols that are used, such as AFAICS?
Whether or not you know that something is true only decides whether you can
personally declare it to be so. It doesn't affect the truth itself.
>>> > Shades of Schrodinger's cat, who's life or
>>> >death is supposedly only determined when the box is opened.
>>>
>>> The fate of Schrodinger's cat is an unknown. Regardless of whether you
>>> believe the quirky theory that, because you don't know whether the cat
>>> is dead or live, it must be both, the *truth* is that you*still* don't
>>> know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box.
>>
>>But what is the truth about the cat's life BEFORE the box is opened, before
>>there is any proof one way or the other?
>>
>It's an unknown. The experiment may or may not kill the cat. We have
>no way of knowing what the truth is until we open the box to find a
>live cat or a dead cat.
But the truth as to whether the unfortunate puss is alive or dead exists before
the box is opened, even if we don't know it.
>>> >> I may have faith that a friend is telling the truth when he is in fact
>>> >> lying. I may defend him in that. But I may be wrong. Regardless, until
>>> >> I am shown to be wrong, if I believe it to be the truth, I will regard
>>> >> it as such. This would be a "wider truth," but it would not
>>> >> necessarily make it truth at all.
>>>
>>> I'd like to know what you think of this part.
>>
>>It doesn't really match my use of the term "wider truth", which expressed
>>only that there could be a genuine truth that science cannot see.
>>
>*Could* be. You say that religion relies on a "wider truth," but what
>you referring to above is a *possibility*. "Possible truth" means that
>something may or may not be true. It is not a "wider truth."
>
>Besides, religion *doesn't* rely on the possibility that it is true;
>it relies on the belief that it IS true.
Certainly, but religion considers that it has sufficient evidence to justify a
belief that some things re true.
>>> >> > Scientific
>>> >> >proof is only of importance to those material things that come within the
>>> >> >purview of a material science. The wider view that religion has includes
>>> >> >matters that are not material.
>>> >>
>>> >> And not necessarily *true*.
>>> >
>>> >You are entitled to your opinion.
>>>
>>> Apparently we differ on the definition of a truth.
>>>
>>
>>The only difference that I can see is in whether something can be true even if
>>there is no scientific proof for it.
>
>This is irrelevant to whether we can CALL something a truth. An
>unknown is still an unknown regardless of whether it's true or false
>in reality.
I understand your point, but the definition of 'a truth' does not depend on
whether we can call it such. A truth exists in its own right.
Elf Sternberg
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>> Sure. Where those beliefs are irrational and anti-humane,
>> humanists will actively and gleefully point out these facts. The
>> trouble is, one could not, for example, dismantle Christianity and
>> make it a "humane" belief system; Christianity without John 3 is not
>> Christianity at all.
>Do you mean chapter 3 of John's Gospel? What do you find in it
>that is inhumane? Or perhaps I should ask you whether you
>understand what he is talking about.
Yes, I mean John, chapter 3.
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world to
condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed
in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
That is bloody tribalism boiled down in a nutshell. "If
you're not one of us and you're not willing to be one of us, you're
condemned." It has been used to excuse two thousand years of violence
and bloodshed, and, y'know, I don't see any other way to interpret
that statement. It's as crystal clear as it could be.
>Ongoing xenophobia? are you thinking of Jews and Palestinians, Irish
>and Ulstermen, Serbs and Albanians. Religious differences do not
>help, but it would be historically illiterate to see religion as the
>cause.
I don't see it as the cause; I see religion as an *expression*
of that xenophobia, a handmaiden to the thought processes that, as
John 3:18 shows, creates an "us" and a "them" and condmens the "them"
to pain and suffering.
>Ignorant and offensive Elf. Do you have any actual knowledge of the
>state of religion in Australia? Or of the sectarian position? Or of
>the progress being made, other than what I have told you?
No, to be honest, I do not. But you have not presented
anything other than what I described. If "progress" is being made in
religion, it is away from a literal reading of the texts towards a
liberal reading of the texts. That, in turn, opens the door to any
interpretation one may wish, at which point the religion itself
becomes a diffuse and unidentifiable morass.
Charles Wyndham
>In article <rcKL5.12876$e5.3...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
> "Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>>> Sure. Where those beliefs are irrational and anti-humane,
>>> humanists will actively and gleefully point out these facts. The
>>> trouble is, one could not, for example, dismantle Christianity and
>>> make it a "humane" belief system; Christianity without John 3 is not
>>> Christianity at all.
>
>>Do you mean chapter 3 of John's Gospel? What do you find in it
>>that is inhumane? Or perhaps I should ask you whether you
>>understand what he is talking about.
>
> Yes, I mean John, chapter 3.
>
> [16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
> Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
> everlasting life. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world to
> condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
> believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed
> in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
>
> That is bloody tribalism boiled down in a nutshell. "If
>you're not one of us and you're not willing to be one of us, you're
>condemned." It has been used to excuse two thousand years of violence
>and bloodshed, and, y'know, I don't see any other way to interpret
>that statement. It's as crystal clear as it could be.
Try harder Elf. "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world".
If you don't accept him he cannot help you. Read what is said with a
clear sight, not through the mists of your prejudice.
>>Ongoing xenophobia? are you thinking of Jews and Palestinians, Irish
>>and Ulstermen, Serbs and Albanians. Religious differences do not
>>help, but it would be historically illiterate to see religion as the
>>cause.
>
> I don't see it as the cause; I see religion as an *expression*
>of that xenophobia, a handmaiden to the thought processes that, as
>John 3:18 shows, creates an "us" and a "them" and condmens the "them"
>to pain and suffering.
But religion is not xenophobic. Religion condemns no-one. People condemn
themselves by their "us" and "them" mentality, and sometimes use religion
as a weapon instead of as a salve.
>>Ignorant and offensive Elf. Do you have any actual knowledge of the
>>state of religion in Australia? Or of the sectarian position? Or of
>>the progress being made, other than what I have told you?
>
> No, to be honest, I do not. But you have not presented
>anything other than what I described.
> If "progress" is being made in
>religion, it is away from a literal reading of the texts towards a
>liberal reading of the texts.
Very true. Except that rather than use the word "liberal" I would say
"rational".
> That, in turn, opens the door to any
>interpretation one may wish, at which point the religion itself
>becomes a diffuse and unidentifiable morass.
Freedom of conscience means essentially that each individual must find
his own path. This is a strength, not a weakness, although Churches are
only slowly learning to give up their dogmas (some are not even trying)
and to come to terms with that freedom.
Elf Sternberg
Wynd...@bigpond.com (Charles Wyndham) writes:
>On 2 Nov 2000 17:37:27 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
>Try harder Elf. "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
>world". If you don't accept him he cannot help you. Read what is said
>with a clear sight, not through the mists of your prejudice.
I am reading what is said, and the implication of John is that
there is no alternative. John in the quote you tossed off is trying to
be reassuring: "You don't HAVE to go to Hell. There is a way out. Be a
part of *my* tribe and you'll go to paradise." It's tribalism.
>But religion is not xenophobic. Religion condemns no-one. People
>condemn themselves by their "us" and "them" mentality, and sometimes
>use religion as a weapon instead of as a salve.
There you go again, Charles, saying "religion" when you really
mean "my syncretism." Many individual religions are *very* xenophobic;
original Judaism was virtually "Kill 'em all, they're not God's people"
is flavor, for example.
>>If "progress" is being made in religion, it is away from a literal
>>reading of the texts towards a liberal reading of the texts.
>Very true. Except that rather than use the word "liberal" I would say
>"rational".
What could be more rational than reading what is written and
taking it to heart? How can a Christian claim to ignore Leviticus 13:6
and still be a Christian? Your "rational" approach is simple
saladbarism; "This works in the context of the society in which I live,
so I'll keep it; that does not, so I'll ignore it." It is a
narcissistic, liberal reading, one in which every person sees in the
story him or herself, not the God originally descr
>>That, in turn, opens the door to any interpretation one may wish, at
>>which point the religion itself becomes a diffuse and unidentifiable
>>morass.
>Freedom of conscience means essentially that each individual must find
>his own path. This is a strength, not a weakness, although Churches
>are only slowly learning to give up their dogmas (some are not even
>trying) and to come to terms with that freedom.
That freedom must include the freedom to come to the ultimate
truth, which is that what you've got after you've blended the story in
the book, the tradition, and your own emotions, is nothing more than
simple superstition standing side-by-side with humanistic guidelines for
living. Humanism is simply there, when you're all done playing
refrigerator poetry with "the word," to ask if it's really worth it to
hang on to such silliness, looking at the past, and the hurt its all
caused.
Charles Wyndham
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I
have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all
knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but
have not love, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body
to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade
itself, is not puffed up;
does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no
evil;
does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether
there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish
away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be
done away.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as
a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part,
but then I shall know just as I also am known.
And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is
love.
Elf, unless you can come to accept that the basis of Christianity is love and
compassion, you will never understand it.
Beside teaching like this all your little niggles and criticisms are petty and
childish.
Chas.
On 4 Nov 2000 16:53:06 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
>In article <3a035b4...@news.bigpond.com>
> Wynd...@bigpond.com (Charles Wyndham) writes:
>
>>On 2 Nov 2000 17:37:27 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
>
>>Try harder Elf. "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
>>world". If you don't accept him he cannot help you. Read what is said
>>with a clear sight, not through the mists of your prejudice.
>
> I am reading what is said, and the implication of John is that
>there is no alternative. John in the quote you tossed off is trying to
>be reassuring: "You don't HAVE to go to Hell. There is a way out. Be a
>part of *my* tribe and you'll go to paradise." It's tribalism.
>
>>But religion is not xenophobic. Religion condemns no-one. People
>>condemn themselves by their "us" and "them" mentality, and sometimes
>>use religion as a weapon instead of as a salve.
>
> There you go again, Charles, saying "religion" when you really
>mean "my syncretism." Many individual religions are *very* xenophobic;
>original Judaism was virtually "Kill 'em all, they're not God's people"
>is flavor, for example.
>
>>>If "progress" is being made in religion, it is away from a literal
>>>reading of the texts towards a liberal reading of the texts.
>
>>Very true. Except that rather than use the word "liberal" I would say
>>"rational".
>
> What could be more rational than reading what is written and
>taking it to heart?
>
> How can a Christian claim to ignore Leviticus 13:6
>and still be a Christian?
>
> Your "rational" approach is simple
>saladbarism; "This works in the context of the society in which I live,
>so I'll keep it; that does not, so I'll ignore it." It is a
>narcissistic, liberal reading, one in which every person sees in the
>story him or herself, not the God originally descr
>
>>>That, in turn, opens the door to any interpretation one may wish, at
>>>which point the religion itself becomes a diffuse and unidentifiable
>>>morass.
>
>>Freedom of conscience means essentially that each individual must find
>>his own path. This is a strength, not a weakness, although Churches
>>are only slowly learning to give up their dogmas (some are not even
>>trying) and to come to terms with that freedom.
>
Dan Fake
For edification of folks unaware of the nature of Charles' passage,
it's a bible quote:
>
> Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have
> not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
>
> And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
> mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that
> I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
Sorry, when you're angry, you're something. When you're thinking,
you're something. The attempt to dismiss the human experience
as if it's nothing unless love is involved is logically erroneous and
quite misleading when it comes to the dangers, of both a personal
and material nature, when it comes to blindly loving something or
someone.
>
> And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though
> I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
Actually, giving your body to be burned is not wise and should
be avoided if at all possible. I suppose the statement is meant
to convey that someone might, in the day and age the passage
was written, give their body to be burned for some blind faith
reason not consistent with the views of the writer, seeking some
kind of thumbs up from some imaginary being. Sounds like
a rather sick approach to life, that, regardless of the so-called
love or lack of same involved in such an activity.
On the other hand, maybe this was referring to some choice
made to be burned as in burned after one dies, with some
supposed afterlife gain to be had there. If you're aware of
the nature of what is being referred to here (the body burning
thing), please let us in on it.
>
> Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not
> parade itself, is not puffed up;
>
> does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked,
> thinks no evil;
Seems hell and love don't jive, eh?
>
> does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
Interesting, supposedly supporting truth. Hmmm...
>
> bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all
> things.
Believes all things? That's not good. Bears and endures all
things? Sounds like a promotion of slavery to me.
>
> Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will
> fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is
> knowledge, it will vanish away.
Sorry, knowledge and truth go hand-in-hand and knowledge,
despite the efforts of the promoters of myth during the dark
ages, seems to find a way to surface in the minds of humans
knowledgeable about the deceits of the myth promoters. As
for ultimate destiny, hmmm, seems to be a philosophy that
in the christian afterlife, your memories will be erased - Yikes,
death of self - sounds scary, to me, for without a past, who
are you?
>
> For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
Prophesy - the art of saying anything but the truth, forgetting
the failures, and delighting when the shotgun approach gives
interpreters opportunities to delude the gullible.
>
> But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part
> will be done away.
False promises - Jesus was supposed to come long ago and
far away, twice - didn't happen the first time - didn't happen the
second time.
>
> When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child,
> I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish
> things.
Absurd philosophy trying to diminish the value of open-mindedness,
search for truth, exploration, wonder, innocence, and childlike oneness
with the best aspects of the human nurturing nature. Also, this one
sentence alone is used by authoritarians to diminish the value of fun
and the value of treating life in a manner free of the adult burdens of
guilt and hate.
>
> For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now
> I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
False promises and untrue commentary on the nature of the real
world as we know so much more about our natural world than
the writer of the myths you're reciting. The mirror is crystal clear,
thank you, with the promise of increasing clarity as the power
of the scientific method manifests itself over the coming decades.
>
> And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of
> these is love.
Faith is, in my view, an aspect of human behavior humankind
would best be served by leaving in its past. Ever heard of the
faith of the nazi youth or the faith of the inquisitors?
Hope, cool when based on realism and possibilities in a natural
world, not a 'make believe' one.
Love, cool as long as it's well-placed and doesn't end up in
slavery, despair, and heartbreak.
>
> Elf, unless you can come to accept that the basis of Christianity
> is love and compassion, you will never understand it.
Elf is one of the most intelligent and well-meaning posters in the
newsgroups. Your simple-minded attempt to dismiss him is yet
one more example of your inability to think outside your delusion.
As for the side of christianity which you left out of your post:
Cruelty and Violence
(from the christian bible, old & new testamyths)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html
Family Values
(from the christian bible, old & new testamyths)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/family.html
Foul Language
(from the christian bible, old & new testamyths)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/language.html
Injustices
(from the christian bible, old & new testamyths)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/injustices.html
Insults to Women
(from the christian bible, old & new testamyths)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women_list.html
Intolerance
(from the christian bible, old & new testamyths)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/intolerance.html
Murder of/Condemnation of Homosexuals
(from the christian bible, old & new testamyths)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay.htm
Sex
(from the christian bible, old & new testamyths)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex_list.htm
>
> Beside teaching like this all your little niggles and criticisms are
> petty and childish.
Can't resist that personal attack at the end, can you? Ironic that
you were trying to promote the love of christianity and you chose
to end your post with a statement lacking in love.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth,
freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we
all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life.
http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243
FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
(also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities)
Origins: http://x54.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687518828
Top 100: http://x61.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685683580
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Chas.
>
>
> On 4 Nov 2000 16:53:06 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
>
> >In article <3a035b4...@news.bigpond.com>
> > Wynd...@bigpond.com (Charles Wyndham) writes:
> >
> >>On 2 Nov 2000 17:37:27 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
> >
> >>Try harder Elf. "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
> >>world". If you don't accept him he cannot help you. Read what is said
> >>with a clear sight, not through the mists of your prejudice.
> >
> > I am reading what is said, and the implication of John is that
> >there is no alternative. John in the quote you tossed off is trying to
> >be reassuring: "You don't HAVE to go to Hell. There is a way out.
> >Be a part of *my* tribe and you'll go to paradise." It's tribalism.
> >
> >>But religion is not xenophobic. Religion condemns no-one. People
> >>condemn themselves by their "us" and "them" mentality, and sometimes
> >>use religion as a weapon instead of as a salve.
> >
> > There you go again, Charles, saying "religion" when you really
> >mean "my syncretism." Many individual religions are *very* xenophobic;
> >original Judaism was virtually "Kill 'em all, they're not God's people"
> >is flavor, for example.
> >
> >>>If "progress" is being made in religion, it is away from a literal
> >>>reading of the texts towards a liberal reading of the texts.
> >
> >>Very true. Except that rather than use the word "liberal" I would say
> >>"rational".
> >
> > What could be more rational than reading what is written and
> >taking it to heart?
> >
> > How can a Christian claim to ignore Leviticus 13:6
> >and still be a Christian?
> >
> > Your "rational" approach is simple
> >saladbarism; "This works in the context of the society in which I live,
> >so I'll keep it; that does not, so I'll ignore it." It is a
> >narcissistic, liberal reading, one in which every person sees in the
> >story him or herself, not the God originally descr
> >
> >>>That, in turn, opens the door to any interpretation one may wish, at
> >>>which point the religion itself becomes a diffuse and unidentifiable
> >>>morass.
> >
> >>Freedom of conscience means essentially that each individual must find
> >>his own path. This is a strength, not a weakness, although Churches
> >>are only slowly learning to give up their dogmas (some are not even
> >>trying) and to come to terms with that freedom.
> >
Elf Sternberg
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>Elf, unless you can come to accept that the basis of Christianity is
>love and compassion, you will never understand it.
Oh, Charles, all religions are full of pretty poetry,
Christianity one of them. But, until you admit that the loving words
and kindness are either for those within, or are enticements for those
without, you will never understand why I and those like me reject it.
Because for those adamant in their rejection, Christianity, like all
apocalyptic religions, has but one response, and that response is
brutality.
Charles Wyndham
Dan, if I have to chose between Paul and you, you really are a non-starter.
Elf is certainly intelligent, (come to that you're no fool either) and I am very
happy to believe that he means well, but neither you nor he should try to
challenge something without genuinely trying to understand it. That means
putting aside all prejudices and being prepared to learn. I would have hoped
that your recent discussions with Sunny would have helped you but you seem to
have learned nothing from him.
I never try to "convert" people on this NG, nor do I push my own theology at
them, however I do try to counter the prejudice that is to be seen in a few
correspondents here, and to encourage a better understanding of what
Christianity is really about.
Dredging up prejudiced criticisms of what human beings thought and wrote over
two thousand years ago may seem very clever to you, but it does not even begin
to touch the heart of Christianity today.
Live in the present Dan, not in your bitter memories of the past.
Chas.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> Dan, if I have to chose between Paul and you, you really
> are a non-starter.
Interesting, you suggest we not look to the past (below)
yet the past is exactly what you're basing your views
on (Paul and others in your bible).
>
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 18:45:52 GMT, "Dan Fake"
><dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >"Charles Wyndham" <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> >message news:vs1a0tk7lncke8iqa...@4ax.com...
> >
> >[skipped for brevity]
> >
> >As for the side of christianity which you left out of your
> >post:
> >
>
> Elf is certainly intelligent, (come to that you're no fool
> either) and I am very happy to believe that he means well,
> but neither you nor he should try to challenge something
> without genuinely trying to understand it. That means
> putting aside all prejudices and being prepared to learn.
> I would have hoped that your recent discussions with Sunny
> would have helped you but you seem to have learned nothing
> from him.
My discussions with Sunny are always helpful.
>
> I never try to "convert" people on this NG, nor do I push
> my own theology at them, however I do try to counter the
> prejudice that is to be seen in a few correspondents here,
> and to encourage a better understanding of what Christianity
> is really about.
2 points - 1) your bible tells you to try to convert others
so if you refuse to do so, you're countering the philosophy
of Paul and of your bible, 2) by presenting your views you
are engaging in human discourse in which opinions/views are
impacted and in so doing, you're part of the play, you're
an advocate for your views, and you're mistaken if you think
that by stating you're not trying to convince (convert)
anyone of anything that you have some esteemed position
above those who are more honest with ourselves regarding
our views.
>
> Dredging up prejudiced criticisms of what human beings
> thought and wrote over two thousand years ago may seem
> very clever to you, but it does not even begin to touch
> the heart of Christianity today.
You use the bible as the foundation for your faith and
dismiss criticism of it as if criticism was of no worth
at all, while at the same time saying you choose an
ex-persecutor of Jews from the past, Paul, over views
from the present, as presented by yours truly. I wonder
what Paul knew of evolution, continental drift, DNA,
genes, cures for diseases, diseases, natural disasters,
the vastness beyond vastness of the universe, and the
rest of the knowledge humankind has discovered since
Paul's time. If one conjectured that Paul knew nothing
of such things, they'd be mighty close.
Paul lived in a time of myth whereby myth was -the only-
explanation for unknowns - it was just a matter of
deciding what myths you wanted to follow.
Paul, you might note, is included in some of the biblical
criticism links detailed below, which, by the way, are
merely comments/opinions/pointers to the contents of your
foundational document.
>
> Live in the present Dan, not in your bitter memories
> of the past.
Ignore the past and the mythical nature of human constructs
and the harm that has come to humankind by following said
constructs, and imperil both your present and future.
Choose the past (Paul) over the vast amount of knowledge
in the present, and one must wonder why you place faith
in an ex-persecutor of Jews over individuals in the modern
age whose worst crime (speaking metaphorically/symbollically
here) is swatting a fly. Choose the past (Paul) and you're
choosing someone whose Christ was nothing more than an
imagined super-being (I'll provide references if you're
interested in Paul's apparent lack of knowledge or interest
in the supposed human being who went by the name Yeshua or
Jesus per the gospels).
> >[skipped for brevity]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth,
freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we
all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life.
http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243
FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
(also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities)
Origins: http://x54.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687518828
Top 100: http://x61.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685683580
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Elf Sternberg
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>Dan, if I have to chose between Paul and you, you really are a
>non-starter.
Ah, Charles, what a pleasant primate you make.
Charles Wyndham
>In article <vs1a0tk7lncke8iqa...@4ax.com>
> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>>Elf, unless you can come to accept that the basis of Christianity is
>>love and compassion, you will never understand it.
>
> Oh, Charles, all religions are full of pretty poetry,
>Christianity one of them. But, until you admit that the loving words
>and kindness are either for those within, or are enticements for those
>without, you will never understand why I and those like me reject it.
>Because for those adamant in their rejection, Christianity, like all
>apocalyptic religions, has but one response, and that response is
>brutality.
Elf I have news for you. There is no Hell in the Bible. The word usually
translated as Hell is Sheol, which means the home of the dead, or the grave.
When translated into Greek, Sheol becomes Hades, which you will know from Greek
myth is also the home of the dead. Another word used is Gehenna, which was the
name of the waste dump outside Jerusalem where rubbish was burnt. When you die,
Elf, your body is so much waste, so this should scarcely bother you. There is
something closer to a fiery Hell in Revelation, which at best is pure allegory.
Only Fundamentalists read it literally.
However in the absence of a real Hell you should not be surprised if the writers
of the Gospels, in the real and violent world of the first century used the
ideas of Sheol and Gehenna to warn people of the serious consequences of their
actions.
The use of the idea of Hell by fire and brimstone preachers and evangelists is
disgraceful, but you should not confuse Christianity with those who disgrace it.
But why are you so adament in rejecting anything. Do you really believe that
you know all that there is to know?
>
> Elf
Charles Wyndham
As you often do Dan, you seriously misunderstand. When I say "live in the
present" I mean live with the ideas of the present. Obviously we learn from the
past, whether we look at the views of Confucius, Plato, Christ, Paul, Tom Paine
or anyone else. We take what we believe to be good and true from each and
compound our own philosophy - acknowledging the right of everyone else to
compound theirs.
But because we now have so much more information we should never accept past
doctrines intact. What matters are today's doctrines, and if you wish to
challenge them you must first find out what they are.
You were brought up in a Baptist home (please correct me if this is wrong) and
rebelled against what you were taught. In your shoes I would have done the same
because the Baptist faith is a mainly Fundamentalist faith, and I regard
Fundamentalism as a serious distortion of Christianity. I suspect that you
still see Christianity through fundamentalist eyes. And I suspect that instead
of coming to terms with your rebellion as you matured you have allowed it to
become an obsession.
Fundamentalists hold that the Bible has all that matters. In a sense they
worship the Bible, not God. To a Christian today the Bible is seen as having
been written by human beings, putting down what they believed to be true. It is
only one source of information, and it is a source that has always to be treated
with care. The importance of Paul is that he started his work only a few years
- probably between two and five - after Christ's death, and maybe thirty years
before the first of the Gospels were written. He offers the best evidence
available of the views of the early church, but the evidence is limited because
only a few of his writings were preserved, and because he was writing for the
people of his own time, not for 2000 years into the future.
Some of what you say is so far from the truth that is it quite astonishing -
Paul as persecutor for example.
I am not your enemy Dan, but I find many of your views extremist and narrow, as
considering anything that you do not personally accept as possible to be
impossible, and I am the enemy of those views.
Chas.
On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 18:35:07 GMT, .d.a.n.f.a.k.e. <d_a_n_...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> As you often do Dan, [skipped typical personal attack
> mode of Charles]
I refute all of your personal attacks, once again. If
you wish to discuss religion or humanism, do so but try
to stop the personal attacks, please, as they add nothing
but distraction/diversion/defamation.
As for Paul and his view against Jews, seems to fit right
in with mythical anti-Jewish sentiment of the mythical
Jewish son of god ...
Jesus says "the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall
be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping
and gnashing of teeth." Mt.8:12
Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them
which killed the prophets." Mt.23:31
This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has
been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries.
Mt.27:25
According to the gospel of John, the Jews persecuted Jesus
and "sought to slay him." Jn.5:16, 7:1, 7:13, 10:31, 11:8
If you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell.
(Sorry.) Jn.12:48
God will torture forever those who don't know the password
to heaven. Acts 4:12
After Saul "increased the more in strength, and confounded
the Jews," the "Jews took counsel to kill him." Acts 9:22-23
Herod beheads James the brother of John and imprisons Peter
"because he saw it pleased the Jews." Acts 12:1-3
Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas
(the sorcerer) blind. Acts 13:8-11
The Jews of Antioch, after seeing Paul's success in
preaching, were envious and blasphemed God. Paul then
declares them to be "unworthy of everlasting life."
Acts 13:45-46
Once again "the Jews stirred up" trouble and "raised
persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them
out of their coasts." Acts 13:50
"The unbelieving Jews" stir up trouble again for Paul
and incite the people to try to stone him to death.
Acts 14:2-5
Those who disagree with Paul's religious views are
damned. Gal.1:8-9
The Jews form a grand conspiracy to kill Paul. They vow
not to eat until the job is done. Acts 23:12-15
Those who try to follow the law (i.e., the Jews) are
cursed. Gal.3:10
Paul accuses "the Jews" of killing Jesus, persecuting
the prophets, displeasing God, and being "contrary to
all men." He concludes that the wrath of God will "come
upon them to the uttermost." 1 Th.2:15
To Paul, Jews are unruly liars "whose mouths must be
stopped." Titus 1:10-11
- - -
Being that the new testamyth (of which Paul ended up
playing a substantial role) had a significant contributory
impact on the anti-semitic followers of christianity for
the last 1700 years (and still does so amongst some
christian and non-christian cults/sects), I'd say you
would do well to distance yourself from such views and
from the promoters of such views.
-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
Elf Sternberg
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>Elf I have news for you. There is no Hell in the Bible. The word
>usually translated as Hell is Sheol, which means the home of the
>dead, or the grave. When translated into Greek, Sheol becomes Hades,
>which you will know from Greek myth is also the home of the dead.
>Another word used is Gehenna, which was the name of the waste dump
>outside Jerusalem where rubbish was burnt. When you die, Elf, your
>body is so much waste, so this should scarcely bother you. There is
>something closer to a fiery Hell in Revelation, which at best is pure
>allegory. Only Fundamentalists read it literally.
There you go again, Charles. When *you* begin to "interpret"
the Bible, deciding what *you* want it to mean, what *you* want to be
allegory and what *you* want to be literal, you admit that the Bible
is a complete work of fiction onto which you impress your own
prejudices and opinions. The Bible is nothing, then; Charles'
opinions are all that are important.
Why not make the final step and admit that the Bible is
completely unnecessary to your happiness? It may as well be, after
all.
jimmy adams
> The importance of Paul is that he started his work only a few years
>- probably between two and five - after Christ's death, and maybe thirty years
>before the first of the Gospels were written. He offers the best evidence
>available of the views of the early church, but the evidence is limited because
>only a few of his writings were preserved, and because he was writing for the
>people of his own time, not for 2000 years into the future.
>
Charles, I agree with your assessment of the importance of Paul to your
Church, but not for the reasons which you give.
As I see it, Paul found Christianity as a failed sect of Judaism -
failed in the sense that it had been rejected by all but a handful of
Jews. He had the idea that it (including eternal life, not then widely
offered) might appeal to Gentiles (Acts XIII xlvi). I don't think that
this idea is fairly represented as "the views of the early Church",
since its members were all Jews, and Jesus was "of the House of David".
In order to broaden the appeal, Paul wrote much about the fact that
Christians did not need to be circumcised, nor to follow Jewish dietary
practices. Of course, these changes might have suited his own
predilections.
The passage you quote from Corinthians is not, I would suggest, typical
of Paul. We are more familiar with his railings (from Romans on) against
women, fornication, idolatry, homosexuality - for all of which death was
the obvious remedy. This may be what you were referring to when you said
that he was not writing for today?
--
jra...@bigfoot.com
Charles Wyndham
wrote:
>In article <bk7f0t8a5jquvu3u6...@4ax.com>,
> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>> As you often do Dan, [skipped typical personal attack
>> mode of Charles]
>
>I refute all of your personal attacks, once again. If
>you wish to discuss religion or humanism, do so but try
>to stop the personal attacks, please, as they add nothing
>but distraction/diversion/defamation.
I am not aware of making any personal attacks on you Dan and am sorry that you
should think that I have. It would have been better if you had not clipped my
whole post. However if you want to refute anything I said please go ahead.
If, as you suggest you wish to discuss, then do so. But cutting a post and
ignoring all the matters offered in it for discussion is not a very effective
way of doing so. It would appear that what you want is not a discussion but a
platform.
Talk to me Dan, not to your personal demons.
Chas.
Charles Wyndham
wrote:
>In article <bk7f0t8a5jquvu3u6...@4ax.com>, Charles Wyndham
><Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes
>
>> The importance of Paul is that he started his work only a few years
>>- probably between two and five - after Christ's death, and maybe thirty years
>>before the first of the Gospels were written. He offers the best evidence
>>available of the views of the early church, but the evidence is limited because
>>only a few of his writings were preserved, and because he was writing for the
>>people of his own time, not for 2000 years into the future.
>>
>Charles, I agree with your assessment of the importance of Paul to your
>Church, but not for the reasons which you give.
>
>As I see it, Paul found Christianity as a failed sect of Judaism -
>failed in the sense that it had been rejected by all but a handful of
>Jews.
When Paul started his work Christianity was anything but a failure. It was
expanding quite fast among Jews in Judaea and in Samaria. However it failed to
achieve among Jews the critical mass needed to survive the dispersion following
the Roman wars.
> He had the idea that it (including eternal life, not then widely
>offered) might appeal to Gentiles (Acts XIII xlvi). I don't think that
>this idea is fairly represented as "the views of the early Church",
>since its members were all Jews, and Jesus was "of the House of David".
The early Church in Paul's terms included both Jews and non-Jews, the latter,
because Paul was working in virgin territory, soon outnumbering the former.
Paul was a man of passion and conviction and the suggestion that he had the idea
that something "might appeal" to Gentiles is a serious misunderstanding of him.
>In order to broaden the appeal, Paul wrote much about the fact that
>Christians did not need to be circumcised, nor to follow Jewish dietary
>practices.
> Of course, these changes might have suited his own predilections.
A bit prejudicial don't you think? Surely his genuine aim was to free people -
Jews as well as Gentiles - from the useless rules and regulations of the law of
Moses.
>The passage you quote from Corinthians is not, I would suggest, typical
>of Paul. We are more familiar with his railings (from Romans on) against
>women, fornication, idolatry, homosexuality - for all of which death was
>the obvious remedy. This may be what you were referring to when you said
>that he was not writing for today?
The passage lies at the heart of Paul and at the heart of Christianity. But in
matters of detail Paul was a child of his time and could no more separate
himself from the mores of his time than anyone else. But most of the somewhat,
to our eyes, absurd ideas on such matters as the position of women come from
letters such as 1 Timothy and Ephesians which are widely accepted as not written
by Paul. Perhaps you are more familiar with his "railings" than with his real
teaching because anti-Christian activists in the posts and articles that present
themselves to you prefer to concentrate on them and ignore the real teaching.
(The other side of the coin is that those Christians who read only pro-Christian
views stop thinking for themselves and end up with some questionable ideas too).
When Paul speaks of "life" and "death" he means spiritual life and spiritual
death.
Paul believed that the world would end, with a second coming of Christ, in the
very near future, within most people's lifetime. Hence a lot of his advice was
essentially a sort of holding action, not as guidance for the next two thousand
years.
Charles Wyndham
>In article <qv7f0tkofe278n9j4...@4ax.com>
> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>>Elf I have news for you. There is no Hell in the Bible. The word
>>usually translated as Hell is Sheol, which means the home of the
>>dead, or the grave. When translated into Greek, Sheol becomes Hades,
>>which you will know from Greek myth is also the home of the dead.
>>Another word used is Gehenna, which was the name of the waste dump
>>outside Jerusalem where rubbish was burnt. When you die, Elf, your
>>body is so much waste, so this should scarcely bother you. There is
>>something closer to a fiery Hell in Revelation, which at best is pure
>>allegory. Only Fundamentalists read it literally.
>
> There you go again, Charles. When *you* begin to "interpret"
>the Bible, deciding what *you* want it to mean, what *you* want to be
>allegory and what *you* want to be literal, you admit that the Bible
>is a complete work of fiction onto which you impress your own
>prejudices and opinions. The Bible is nothing, then; Charles'
>opinions are all that are important.
The translation of Sheol into "Hell" in most Bibles is a fact. The translation
of Gehenna, into "Hell" in most Bibles is a fact. That non-Fundamentalists
regard Revelation, if they regard it at all, as allegory, is a fact.
So what is the problem? Surely you don't want there to be a Hell just so that
you can hit the nasty Christians over the head with it.
But what is your gripe with interpretation generally? You would not be terribly
happy in a world where everyone saw things the same way, and read things the
same way, and you had no-one to debate or discuss things with.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:58:22 GMT, .d.a.n.f.a.k.e. <d_a_n_f_a_k_e@my-
deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <bk7f0t8a5jquvu3u6...@4ax.com>,
> > Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> As you often do Dan, [skipped typical personal attack
> >> mode of Charles]
> >
> >I refute all of your personal attacks, once again. If
> >you wish to discuss religion or humanism, do so but try
> >to stop the personal attacks, please, as they add nothing
> >but distraction/diversion/defamation.
>
> I am not aware of making any personal attacks on you Dan
> and am sorry that you should think that I have. It would
> have been better if you had not clipped my whole post.
I usually skip detailed responses regarding personal
attacks, as it's my desire to focus on issues of
relevance to our readers - in this post, side issues
such as Paul came up and we've discussed those,
although you had nothing to offer regarding my
comments on the flaws of the new testamyth's and
Paul's statements in your latest reply.
> However if you want to refute anything I said please
> go ahead.
Done, just not as detailed as you like. If you want
to talk about me, start a thread (others have - oh joy)
but if you want to focus on issues of relevance to
pro-humanism or anti-humanism, you'd be best served
by leaving the personal attacks out of it.
>
> If, as you suggest you wish to discuss, then do so.
> But cutting a post and ignoring all the matters offered
> in it for discussion is not a very effective way of
> doing so. It would appear that what you want is
> not a discussion but a platform.
>
> Talk to me Dan, not to your personal demons.
No, I don't follow demons, not of metaphor and not
of those that blind faith folks believe in. Do you?
In summation, humanism is extremely pro-human when
it focuses on the positive side of human nature
and efforts to encourage those, as well as when
it reveals the dangers inherent in anti-humanism.
See FREELOVER principles for my angle on what
pro-humanism is all about.
Elf Sternberg
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>But what is your gripe with interpretation generally?
My gripe with "interpretation generally" is that
interpretation is an admission that the Bible cannot be taken
literally, and that the interpreter is overlaying the Bible, or any
other religious text, with his own prejudices, expectations, and
interests. It's that simple. The "religion" you talk about becomes
indistinguishable from the humanists' quest for a rational society in
all ways but one: the interpreter falls back on irrational and
undemonstrable beliefs when reality fails to be comforting enough.
jimmy adams
<Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes
> Perhaps you are more familiar with his "railings" than with his real
>teaching because anti-Christian activists in the posts and articles that present
>themselves to you prefer to concentrate on them and ignore the real teaching.
>(The other side of the coin is that those Christians who read only pro-Christian
>views stop thinking for themselves and end up with some questionable ideas too).
Funnily enough, Charles, I pay more attention to what professed
Christians say about their faith than the views of non-Christians. I
have spent much time in Christian churches, listening to priests and
others reading and interpreting the Bible.
But I am encouraged by your response, since your openness suggests that
you have largely removed yourself from the confines of the Church. At
present your views could best be described as Wyndhamanity, a kind of
humanism with nostalgic backward references to old certainties, now
realised to be rather less certain (like Paul's anticipation below).
>
>When Paul speaks of "life" and "death" he means spiritual life and spiritual
>death.
>
>Paul believed that the world would end, with a second coming of Christ, in the
>very near future, within most people's lifetime. Hence a lot of his advice was
>essentially a sort of holding action, not as guidance for the next two thousand
>years.
>
Charles Wyndham
>In article <eqth0tk0qkif0cs7a...@4ax.com>
> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>>But what is your gripe with interpretation generally?
>
> My gripe with "interpretation generally" is that
>interpretation is an admission that the Bible cannot be taken
>literally,
But isn't it obvious that the Bible cannot be taken literally? You should
approve, not be critical.
>and that the interpreter is overlaying the Bible, or any
>other religious text, with his own prejudices, expectations, and
>interests.
Isn't that to some degree inevitable, can you suggest any way of avoiding it?
But it applies to most texts, not just religious ones.
>It's that simple. The "religion" you talk about becomes
>indistinguishable from the humanists' quest for a rational society in
>all ways but one:
OK so far.
>the interpreter falls back on irrational and
>undemonstrable beliefs when reality fails to be comforting enough.
This is your view, OK for you. It is not mine, but I have no particular wish to
convert you. You see more of a downside to religion than an upside, I see more
of an upside and try to encourage the enemies and denigrators of religion to
take a more understanding and tolerant position.
>
> Elf
Charles Wyndham
wrote:
>In article <fgth0tsccukjktfje...@4ax.com>,
> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:58:22 GMT, .d.a.n.f.a.k.e. <d_a_n_f_a_k_e@my-
>deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <bk7f0t8a5jquvu3u6...@4ax.com>,
>> > Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As you often do Dan, [skipped typical personal attack
>> >> mode of Charles]
>> >
>> >I refute all of your personal attacks, once again. If
>> >you wish to discuss religion or humanism, do so but try
>> >to stop the personal attacks, please, as they add nothing
>> >but distraction/diversion/defamation.
>>
>> I am not aware of making any personal attacks on you Dan
>> and am sorry that you should think that I have. It would
>> have been better if you had not clipped my whole post.
>
>I usually skip detailed responses regarding personal
>attacks, as it's my desire to focus on issues of
>relevance to our readers - in this post, side issues
>such as Paul came up and we've discussed those,
>although you had nothing to offer regarding my
>comments on the flaws of the new testamyth's and
>Paul's statements in your latest reply.
Were your quotations showing how Paull was persecuted by Jews intended as
answering my request for evidence that Paul was a persecutor of the Jews.
Somehow this looked a bit too strange to be worth answering? As for the rest
see my comments.
Was there anything else in that post to which you would like an answer?
>> However if you want to refute anything I said please
>> go ahead.
>
>Done, just not as detailed as you like. If you want
>to talk about me, start a thread (others have - oh joy)
>but if you want to focus on issues of relevance to
>pro-humanism or anti-humanism, you'd be best served
>by leaving the personal attacks out of it.
Dan, I attack your ideas when I see them unjustified, and I attack your way of
presenting them when that way appears to include sweeping generalisations,
exaggerations, and a lack of rationality. You would not expect otherwise. But I
do not attack you personally.
You are the only individual on the NGs that I follow that regularly, and
persistently, opens large numbers of threads directly attacking religion,
particularly attacking christianity. You should not be surprised that I am
interested in trying to find out how and why you developed a need to do this.
>>
>> If, as you suggest you wish to discuss, then do so.
>> But cutting a post and ignoring all the matters offered
>> in it for discussion is not a very effective way of
>> doing so. It would appear that what you want is
>> not a discussion but a platform.
>>
>> Talk to me Dan, not to your personal demons.
>
>No, I don't follow demons, not of metaphor and not
>of those that blind faith folks believe in. Do you?
The only demons I know of are those mental phobias that afflict people who are
obsessed with their own views.
>In summation, humanism is extremely pro-human when
>it focuses on the positive side of human nature
>and efforts to encourage those, as well as when
>it reveals the dangers inherent in anti-humanism.
I agree with you here, but it should also focus on the need to counter the
negative side.
It is also a good idea to focus on the positive side of Christianity and efforts
to encourage those - and on a need to counter the negative side.
>
>See FREELOVER principles for my angle on what
>pro-humanism is all about.
>
>-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
>
>>
>> Chas.
>>
>> >
>> >As for Paul and his view against Jews, seems to fit right
>> >in with mythical anti-Jewish sentiment of the mythical
>> >Jewish son of god ...
>> >
>> >Jesus says "the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall
>> >be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping
>> >and gnashing of teeth." Mt.8:12
Metaphor
>> >Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them
>> >which killed the prophets." Mt.23:31
Not 'the Jews" but those he was speaking to and who were condemning themselves
>> >This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has
>> >been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries.
>> >Mt.27:25
Don't blame Matthew for the way his words were used.
>> >According to the gospel of John, the Jews persecuted Jesus
>> >and "sought to slay him." Jn.5:16, 7:1, 7:13, 10:31, 11:8
So?
>> >If you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell.
>> >(Sorry.) Jn.12:48
Distortion of the actual words used. Are you afraid of being judged?
>> >God will torture forever those who don't know the password
>> >to heaven. Acts 4:12
Gross distortion. How can Christ save anyone who won't recognise him.
>> >After Saul "increased the more in strength, and confounded
>> >the Jews," the "Jews took counsel to kill him." Acts 9:22-23
So?
>> >Herod beheads James the brother of John and imprisons Peter
>> >"because he saw it pleased the Jews." Acts 12:1-3
So?
>> >Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas
>> >(the sorcerer) blind. Acts 13:8-11
Only temporary and a suitable punishment in a harsh age.
>> >The Jews of Antioch, after seeing Paul's success in
>> >preaching, were envious and blasphemed God. Paul then
>> >declares them to be "unworthy of everlasting life."
>> >Acts 13:45-46
Reasonable. Why should God save those who oppose him.
>> >Once again "the Jews stirred up" trouble and "raised
>> >persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them
>> >out of their coasts." Acts 13:50
So?
>> >"The unbelieving Jews" stir up trouble again for Paul
>> >and incite the people to try to stone him to death.
>> >Acts 14:2-5
So?
>> >Those who disagree with Paul's religious views are
>> >damned. Gal.1:8-9
Cursed, not damned (KJV).
>> >The Jews form a grand conspiracy to kill Paul. They vow
>> >not to eat until the job is done. Acts 23:12-15
So?
>> >Those who try to follow the law (i.e., the Jews) are
>> >cursed. Gal.3:10
The "curse of the law" was that following it did not produce justification.
>> >Paul accuses "the Jews" of killing Jesus, persecuting
>> >the prophets, displeasing God, and being "contrary to
>> >all men." He concludes that the wrath of God will "come
>> >upon them to the uttermost." 1 Th.2:15
He says "wrath", not "wrath of God". In AD 70 they suffered Roman wrath..
>> >To Paul, Jews are unruly liars "whose mouths must be
>> >stopped." Titus 1:10-11
Author of Titus is unknown - late first century.
But it seems quite a good idea to silence unruly liars.
You will have to do a lot better than this if you want to demonstrate
anti-Jewish sentiment.
>> >- - -
>> >
>> >Being that the new testamyth (of which Paul ended up
>> >playing a substantial role) had a significant contributory
>> >impact on the anti-semitic followers of christianity for
>> >the last 1700 years (and still does so amongst some
>> >christian and non-christian cults/sects), I'd say you
>> >would do well to distance yourself from such views and
>> >from the promoters of such views.
Do you think that I do not? Or is this a sort of sneaky accusation of
anti-Semitism.
Laurie S.
<Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>On 8 Nov 2000 17:31:21 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
>
>>In article <eqth0tk0qkif0cs7a...@4ax.com>
>> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>>
>>>But what is your gripe with interpretation generally?
>>
>> My gripe with "interpretation generally" is that
>>interpretation is an admission that the Bible cannot be taken
>>literally,
>
>But isn't it obvious that the Bible cannot be taken literally?
To some, yes.
> You should
>approve, not be critical.
>
Well, it's not an either-or thing. If it cannot be taken literally,
and one "approves" of such a thing, one may still be critical of the
interpretations (or simply disagree with them), and may be doubly
critical when the interpretations are used to try to support something
that is purported as real.
>>and that the interpreter is overlaying the Bible, or any
>>other religious text, with his own prejudices, expectations, and
>>interests.
>
>Isn't that to some degree inevitable, can you suggest any way of avoiding it?
>But it applies to most texts, not just religious ones.
But religious texts are different. When we interpret other texts, we
don't have a community of believers presenting a deity as part of the
text. That's a pretty significant factor.
My favorite animated children's movie is "The Last Unicorn." I feel no
pressure to believe in the existance of unicorns. But in reading the
Christian Bible, in a largely Christian society, there *is* a pressure
to believe.
OTOH, I felt no such pressure to believe in Indian spirits when I read
a book on the subject a couple of years ago. It was to me like
watching "The Last Unicorn." Legend stuff.
It's a little difficult to read the Bible that same way, when most of
the people around you don't see it as a legend, but as a vehicle of
worship of a god they believe is real. If I talked, in my town, about
Indian spirits as legend, people wouldn't think anything of it. If I
talked about God as a legend, people would likely be offended. If I
wrote a column along those lines in the paper, we'd be inundated with
letters to the editor, calling for my head on the chopping block. (I
got enough flak when I wrote in favor of the decriminalization, even
legalization, of prostitution. I've toyed with the idea of writing a
pro-porn (or at least anti-anti-porn) piece during Pornography
Awareness Week for the past two years, but I ran short of time both
years. I suppose I should just write it ahead of time and keep it on
hand.)
I think Elf's objections are more that if the Bible is open to
interpretation, it becomes something that can be back-engineered to
support what you want it to support.
And I think there are plenty of passages that cannot possibly be
interpreted to my satisfaction as positive messages, no matter how
watered down they get. Even if you interpret them in a different
light, there must have been *some* reason the message was sent in the
first place.
Dan Fake
Actually, you're misrepresenting the bible quotes. Paul's
hate and accusations of hate against Jews is within those
quotes.
Since it's Paul's and (many of faith would argue, holy)
views at issue here, anything promoting hatred of Jews
calls into question whether humans, in the modern age,
should be worshipping the stuff in it, admiring it, or
dismissing it as a human-constructed document with
anti-human overtones.
> intended as answering my request for evidence that Paul was
> a persecutor of the Jews.
See above. Also note Paul was a persecutor of christians
of early vintage prior to his christ constructions, and many
of those christians of early vintage were Jews - perhaps
that's where a lot of his embedded anti-Jewish sentiment
is derived from.
> Somehow this looked a bit too strange to be worth answering?
> As for the rest see my comments.
Answered, you're just ignoring the ramifications of what you
don't like in the bible quotes presented.
>
> Was there anything else in that post to which you would like
> an answer?
Yes - do you think the new testamyth is one of the
significant contributing factors in the development of
anti-semitism and the horrors bestowed upon the
Jews by groups of christians in human history?
>
> >> However if you want to refute anything I said please
> >> go ahead.
> >
> >Done, just not as detailed as you like. If you want
> >to talk about me, start a thread (others have - oh joy)
> >but if you want to focus on issues of relevance to
> >pro-humanism or anti-humanism, you'd be best served
> >by leaving the personal attacks out of it.
>
> Dan, I attack your ideas when I see them unjustified, and I attack
> your way of presenting them when that way appears to include
> sweeping generalisations, exaggerations, and a lack of rationality.
Charles, you're incorrect. If you want to present your
evidence against me, and despite my continued requests
to focus on the issues rather than attacking me, present
them.
You must understand that claims made without evidence
are empty and easily dismissed, don't you?
> You would not expect otherwise. But I
> do not attack you personally.
Charles, you're not one with responsibility for your
inflammatory views.
>
> You are the only individual on the NGs that I follow that regularly, and
> persistently, opens large numbers of threads directly attacking religion,
Charles, is there a God? No. Do I wish for all followers of
religion to free themselves from it? Yes. Do I see a better
way, a more nobler way, a freer way, a more pro-human
way for humans to life? Yes.
> particularly attacking christianity. You should not be surprised
> that I am interested in trying to find out how and why you
> developed a need to do this.
Clearly presented via the link to the "Top 100" posts in my sig.
Any questions?
>
> >>
> >> If, as you suggest you wish to discuss, then do so.
> >> But cutting a post and ignoring all the matters offered
> >> in it for discussion is not a very effective way of
> >> doing so. It would appear that what you want is
> >> not a discussion but a platform.
> >>
> >> Talk to me Dan, not to your personal demons.
> >
> >No, I don't follow demons, not of metaphor and not
> >of those that blind faith folks believe in. Do you?
>
> The only demons I know of are those mental phobias that afflict
> people who are obsessed with their own views.
Know this, up close and personal, do you?
>
> >In summation, humanism is extremely pro-human when
> >it focuses on the positive side of human nature
> >and efforts to encourage those, as well as when
> >it reveals the dangers inherent in anti-humanism.
>
> I agree with you here, but it should also focus on the need to
> counter the negative side.
>
> It is also a good idea to focus on the positive side of Christianity
> and efforts to encourage those - and on a need to counter the
> negative side.
Oh shock, you mean christians should promote their views and
disbelievers should promote their views -or- are you saying, it's
OK for believers to promote their views but disbelievers should
tread carefully, cautiously, shyly and close their eyes to the
downsides of faith and close their minds to views promoting
freedom from faith?
> >
> >See FREELOVER principles for my angle on what
> >pro-humanism is all about.
> >
> >-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
> >
> >>
> >> Chas.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >As for Paul and his view against Jews, seems to fit right
> >> >in with mythical anti-Jewish sentiment of the mythical
> >> >Jewish son of god ...
> >> >
> >> >Jesus says "the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall
> >> >be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping
> >> >and gnashing of teeth." Mt.8:12
>
> Metaphor
Are you willing to talk to your christian brothers and sisters
and convince them that it's a metaphor?
>
> >> >Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them
> >> >which killed the prophets." Mt.23:31
>
> Not 'the Jews" but those he was speaking to and who were
> condemning themselves
>
> >> >This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has
> >> >been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries.
> >> >Mt.27:25
>
> Don't blame Matthew for the way his words were used.
The author of Matthew is unknown - look it up.
>
> >> >According to the gospel of John, the Jews persecuted Jesus
> >> >and "sought to slay him." Jn.5:16, 7:1, 7:13, 10:31, 11:8
>
> So?
For those who follow the holiness of the bible, this acts
as a promotion of anti-semitism.
>
> >> >If you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell.
> >> >(Sorry.) Jn.12:48
>
> Distortion of the actual words used. Are you afraid of being judged?
Actually, you're really a disbeliever in biblical literalism. Me,
too. I'm willing to talk to believers about that. Are you?
>
> >> >God will torture forever those who don't know the password
> >> >to heaven. Acts 4:12
>
> Gross distortion. How can Christ save anyone who won't recognise
> him.
Distortion? How so? Is this one of those bible segments
you are one with me on talking to believers about disbelieving?
>
> >> >After Saul "increased the more in strength, and confounded
> >> >the Jews," the "Jews took counsel to kill him." Acts 9:22-23
>
> So?
See above regarding holy document problems with attacking
Jews and the way in which that impacted folks towards anti-semitism
in the past 2000 years.
>
> >> >Herod beheads James the brother of John and imprisons Peter
> >> >"because he saw it pleased the Jews." Acts 12:1-3
>
> So?
See above.
>
> >> >Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas
> >> >(the sorcerer) blind. Acts 13:8-11
>
> Only temporary and a suitable punishment in a harsh age.
Sorry, you're promoting anti-humanism if you think making someone
blind is OK in a so-called holy document.
>
> >> >The Jews of Antioch, after seeing Paul's success in
> >> >preaching, were envious and blasphemed God. Paul then
> >> >declares them to be "unworthy of everlasting life."
> >> >Acts 13:45-46
>
> Reasonable. Why should God save those who oppose him.
It's anti-human, there is no God, and it promotes people hurting
people.
>
> >> >Once again "the Jews stirred up" trouble and "raised
> >> >persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them
> >> >out of their coasts." Acts 13:50
>
> So?
See holy document promotion of anti-semitism issues above.
>
> >> >"The unbelieving Jews" stir up trouble again for Paul
> >> >and incite the people to try to stone him to death.
> >> >Acts 14:2-5
>
> So?
See holy document promotion of anti-semitism issues above.
>
> >> >Those who disagree with Paul's religious views are
> >> >damned. Gal.1:8-9
>
> Cursed, not damned (KJV).
And that's pro-human?
>
> >> >The Jews form a grand conspiracy to kill Paul. They vow
> >> >not to eat until the job is done. Acts 23:12-15
>
> So?
See above.
>
> >> >Those who try to follow the law (i.e., the Jews) are
> >> >cursed. Gal.3:10
>
> The "curse of the law" was that following it did not produce
> justification.
Cursing humans is pro-human?
>
> >> >Paul accuses "the Jews" of killing Jesus, persecuting
> >> >the prophets, displeasing God, and being "contrary to
> >> >all men." He concludes that the wrath of God will "come
> >> >upon them to the uttermost." 1 Th.2:15
>
> He says "wrath", not "wrath of God". In AD 70 they suffered Roman
> wrath.
So, God wasn't involved, there? You must be one of the no God
impacting real life followers, those who treat God as a non-entity
in the real world. Cool, I agree with you on that.
>
> >> >To Paul, Jews are unruly liars "whose mouths must be
> >> >stopped." Titus 1:10-11
>
> Author of Titus is unknown - late first century.
> But it seems quite a good idea to silence unruly liars.
It's anti-semitic.
>
> You will have to do a lot better than this if you want to
> demonstrate anti-Jewish sentiment.
You will have to consider your bible in a more realistic light
in order to assess its anti-human impact on humankind.
>
> >> >- - -
> >> >
> >> >Being that the new testamyth (of which Paul ended up
> >> >playing a substantial role) had a significant contributory
> >> >impact on the anti-semitic followers of christianity for
> >> >the last 1700 years (and still does so amongst some
> >> >christian and non-christian cults/sects), I'd say you
> >> >would do well to distance yourself from such views and
> >> >from the promoters of such views.
>
> Do you think that I do not? Or is this a sort of sneaky
> accusation of anti-Semitism.
It's an accurate assessment of the impact of faith in
and support for the new testamyth.
Elf Sternberg
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>On 8 Nov 2000 17:31:21 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
>> My gripe with "interpretation generally" is that
>>interpretation is an admission that the Bible cannot be taken
>>literally,
>But isn't it obvious that the Bible cannot be taken literally? You
>should approve, not be critical.
Apparently it is not obvious that the Bible cannot be taken
literally and it has not been obvious for 2000 years. We're one of
the first few generations, late in the Bible's life, that is not
taking the Bible literally, at least not all of us.
>>and that the interpreter is overlaying the Bible, or any other
>>religious text, with his own prejudices, expectations, and
>>interests.
>Isn't that to some degree inevitable, can you suggest any way of
>avoiding it? But it applies to most texts, not just religious ones.
But only religious texts purport to be The Word of God,
infallible, unalterable, without pity or hope of appeal should the
follower go wrong. Once you have chosen *an* interpretation, unless
you're willing to engage in the most bizarre form of intellectual
self-deception, you're stuck with one of two conditions: absolute
surety that you have God's dicta figured out and you can live with
them, or incessant and painful self-doubt that you might be wrong.
>>the interpreter falls back on irrational and undemonstrable beliefs
>>when reality fails to be comforting enough.
>This is your view, OK for you. It is not mine...
You purport that the intepreter relies only on rational and
demonstrable evidence to support his or her beliefs, then?
Charles Wyndham
Your quotations show that some Jews hated Paul, but no-where do they
show that Paul had any hatred for his fellow-Jews.
>> intended as answering my request for evidence that Paul was
>> a persecutor of the Jews.
>
>See above. Also note Paul was a persecutor of christians
>of early vintage prior to his christ constructions, and many
>of those christians of early vintage were Jews - perhaps
>that's where a lot of his embedded anti-Jewish sentiment
>is derived from.
Did he persecute tham because they were Christians or because they were
Jews? You still have offered nothing to support your claim that Paul persecuted
the Jews.
>> Somehow this looked a bit too strange to be worth answering?
>> As for the rest see my comments.
>
>Answered, you're just ignoring the ramifications of what you
>don't like in the bible quotes presented.
>
>>
>> Was there anything else in that post to which you would like
>> an answer?
>
>Yes - do you think the new testamyth is one of the
>significant contributing factors in the development of
>anti-semitism and the horrors bestowed upon the
>Jews by groups of christians in human history?
No. A few verses been used by anti-Semites, but it is not the cause of
anti-Semitism.
>>
>> >> However if you want to refute anything I said please
>> >> go ahead.
>> >
>> >Done, just not as detailed as you like. If you want
>> >to talk about me, start a thread (others have - oh joy)
>> >but if you want to focus on issues of relevance to
>> >pro-humanism or anti-humanism, you'd be best served
>> >by leaving the personal attacks out of it.
>>
>> Dan, I attack your ideas when I see them unjustified, and I attack
>> your way of presenting them when that way appears to include
>> sweeping generalisations, exaggerations, and a lack of rationality.
>
>Charles, you're incorrect. If you want to present your
>evidence against me, and despite my continued requests
>to focus on the issues rather than attacking me, present
>them.
Try to hear what I say. I DO NOT ATTACK YOU PERSONALLY.
I attack your views when I see them unjustified, and I attack your way of
presenting them when that way appears to include sweeping generalisations,
exaggerations, and a lack of rationality.
>You must understand that claims made without evidence
>are empty and easily dismissed, don't you?
>
>> You would not expect otherwise. But I
>> do not attack you personally.
>
>Charles, you're not one with responsibility for your
>inflammatory views.
I don't understand this remark. If you consider my views inflammatory, who am I
trying to inflame? Your continual attacks on Christianity in a Christian NG
might more reasonbly considered inflammatory.
>>
>> You are the only individual on the NGs that I follow that regularly, and
>> persistently, opens large numbers of threads directly attacking religion,
>
>Charles, is there a God? No. Do I wish for all followers of
>religion to free themselves from it? Yes. Do I see a better
>way, a more nobler way, a freer way, a more pro-human
>way for humans to life? Yes.
>
>> particularly attacking christianity. You should not be surprised
>> that I am interested in trying to find out how and why you
>> developed a need to do this.
>
>Clearly presented via the link to the "Top 100" posts in my sig.
>Any questions?
Not sufficient. How you see yourself may not represent reality, and the origin
of your motivation is not revealed.
>>
>> >>
>> >> If, as you suggest you wish to discuss, then do so.
>> >> But cutting a post and ignoring all the matters offered
>> >> in it for discussion is not a very effective way of
>> >> doing so. It would appear that what you want is
>> >> not a discussion but a platform.
>> >>
>> >> Talk to me Dan, not to your personal demons.
>> >
>> >No, I don't follow demons, not of metaphor and not
>> >of those that blind faith folks believe in. Do you?
>>
>> The only demons I know of are those mental phobias that afflict
>> people who are obsessed with their own views.
>
>Know this, up close and personal, do you?
Only from observation, Dan. Only from observation!
>>
>> >In summation, humanism is extremely pro-human when
>> >it focuses on the positive side of human nature
>> >and efforts to encourage those, as well as when
>> >it reveals the dangers inherent in anti-humanism.
>>
>> I agree with you here, but it should also focus on the need to
>> counter the negative side.
>>
>> It is also a good idea to focus on the positive side of Christianity
>> and efforts to encourage those - and on a need to counter the
>> negative side.
>
>Oh shock, you mean christians should promote their views and
>disbelievers should promote their views
Disbelievers are more likely to be listened to if they show that they are
capable of taking a balanced view.
> -or- are you saying, it's
>OK for believers to promote their views but disbelievers should
>tread carefully, cautiously, shyly and close their eyes to the
>downsides of faith and close their minds to views promoting
>freedom from faith?
>
>> >
>> >See FREELOVER principles for my angle on what
>> >pro-humanism is all about.
>> >
>> >-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Chas.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >As for Paul and his view against Jews, seems to fit right
>> >> >in with mythical anti-Jewish sentiment of the mythical
>> >> >Jewish son of god ...
>> >> >
>> >> >Jesus says "the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall
>> >> >be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping
>> >> >and gnashing of teeth." Mt.8:12
>>
>> Metaphor
>
>Are you willing to talk to your christian brothers and sisters
>and convince them that it's a metaphor?
My Christian brothers already know it is metaphor. As do you.
>>
>> >> >Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them
>> >> >which killed the prophets." Mt.23:31
>>
>> Not 'the Jews" but those he was speaking to and who were
>> condemning themselves
>>
>> >> >This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has
>> >> >been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries.
>> >> >Mt.27:25
>>
>> Don't blame Matthew for the way his words were used.
>
>The author of Matthew is unknown - look it up.
So what?
>>
>> >> >According to the gospel of John, the Jews persecuted Jesus
>> >> >and "sought to slay him." Jn.5:16, 7:1, 7:13, 10:31, 11:8
>>
>> So?
>
>For those who follow the holiness of the bible, this acts
>as a promotion of anti-semitism.
It is true - or would you prefer a mealy-mouthed censored version that concealed
the truth?
>>
>> >> >If you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell.
>> >> >(Sorry.) Jn.12:48
>>
>> Distortion of the actual words used. Are you afraid of being judged?
>
>Actually, you're really a disbeliever in biblical literalism. Me,
>too. I'm willing to talk to believers about that. Are you?
As you well know, I do. But why distort the words?
>>
>> >> >God will torture forever those who don't know the password
>> >> >to heaven. Acts 4:12
>>
>> Gross distortion. How can Christ save anyone who won't recognise
>> him.
>
>Distortion? How so? Is this one of those bible segments
>you are one with me on talking to believers about disbelieving?
Read the passage again. The distortion is obvious and not honest.
>>
>> >> >After Saul "increased the more in strength, and confounded
>> >> >the Jews," the "Jews took counsel to kill him." Acts 9:22-23
>>
>> So?
>
>See above regarding holy document problems with attacking
>Jews and the way in which that impacted folks towards anti-semitism
>in the past 2000 years.
Once again, would you prefer a mealy-mouthed censored version that concealed the
truth? Or perhaps this is one of the quotes you see as justifying your claim
that Paul persecuted the Jews.
>>
>> >> >Herod beheads James the brother of John and imprisons Peter
>> >> >"because he saw it pleased the Jews." Acts 12:1-3
>>
>> So?
>
>See above.
Once again, would you prefer a mealy-mouthed censored version that concealed the
truth?
>>
>> >> >Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas
>> >> >(the sorcerer) blind. Acts 13:8-11
>>
>> Only temporary and a suitable punishment in a harsh age.
>
>Sorry, you're promoting anti-humanism if you think making someone
>blind is OK in a so-called holy document.
What matters is the action not the document. For society 2000 years ago a
temporary blindness would have been seen as pretty reasonable.
>>
>> >> >The Jews of Antioch, after seeing Paul's success in
>> >> >preaching, were envious and blasphemed God. Paul then
>> >> >declares them to be "unworthy of everlasting life."
>> >> >Acts 13:45-46
>>
>> Reasonable. Why should God save those who oppose him.
>
>It's anti-human, there is no God, and it promotes people hurting
>people.
It does nothing of the sort. I repeat, why should God save those who oppose
him?
>>
>> >> >Once again "the Jews stirred up" trouble and "raised
>> >> >persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them
>> >> >out of their coasts." Acts 13:50
>>
>> So?
>See holy document promotion of anti-semitism issues above.
Once again, would you prefer a mealy-mouthed censored version that concealed the
truth? Or perhaps this is one of the quotes you see as justifying your claim
that Paul persecuted the Jews.
>>
>> >> >"The unbelieving Jews" stir up trouble again for Paul
>> >> >and incite the people to try to stone him to death.
>> >> >Acts 14:2-5
>>
>> So?
>
>See holy document promotion of anti-semitism issues above.
Once again, would you prefer a mealy-mouthed censored version that concealed the
truth? Or perhaps this is one of the quotes you see as justifying your claim
that Paul persecuted the Jews.
>>
>> >> >Those who disagree with Paul's religious views are
>> >> >damned. Gal.1:8-9
>>
>> Cursed, not damned (KJV).
>
>And that's pro-human?
Ever cursed anyone Dan? Ever sworn at anyone?
>>
>> >> >The Jews form a grand conspiracy to kill Paul. They vow
>> >> >not to eat until the job is done. Acts 23:12-15
>>
>> So?
>
>See above.
Once again, would you prefer a mealy-mouthed censored version that concealed the
truth? Or perhaps this is one of the quotes you see as justifying your claim
that Paul persecuted the Jews.
>>
>> >> >Those who try to follow the law (i.e., the Jews) are
>> >> >cursed. Gal.3:10
>>
>> The "curse of the law" was that following it did not produce
>> justification.
>
>Cursing humans is pro-human?
In this case the curse was an unavoidable result of their actions.
>>
>> >> >Paul accuses "the Jews" of killing Jesus, persecuting
>> >> >the prophets, displeasing God, and being "contrary to
>> >> >all men." He concludes that the wrath of God will "come
>> >> >upon them to the uttermost." 1 Th.2:15
>>
>> He says "wrath", not "wrath of God". In AD 70 they suffered Roman
>> wrath.
>
>So, God wasn't involved, there?
Why did you deliberately distort the quote Dan? Is the truth not sufficient?
Paul saw the steadily rising conflict between Judaism and the Romans and
correctly forecast the outcome.
>You must be one of the no God
>impacting real life followers, those who treat God as a non-entity
>in the real world. Cool, I agree with you on that.
>
>>
>> >> >To Paul, Jews are unruly liars "whose mouths must be
>> >> >stopped." Titus 1:10-11
>>
>> Author of Titus is unknown - late first century.
>> But it seems quite a good idea to silence unruly liars.
>
>It's anti-semitic.
Rubbish Dan. Read it again.
>>
>> You will have to do a lot better than this if you want to
>> demonstrate anti-Jewish sentiment.
>
>You will have to consider your bible in a more realistic light
>in order to assess its anti-human impact on humankind.
I continually review my understanding of what the Bible says, but I do so
without imposing on it deliberate distortions.
>>
>> >> >- - -
>> >> >
>> >> >Being that the new testamyth (of which Paul ended up
>> >> >playing a substantial role) had a significant contributory
>> >> >impact on the anti-semitic followers of christianity for
>> >> >the last 1700 years (and still does so amongst some
>> >> >christian and non-christian cults/sects), I'd say you
>> >> >would do well to distance yourself from such views and
>> >> >from the promoters of such views.
>>
>> Do you think that I do not? Or is this a sort of sneaky
>> accusation of anti-Semitism.
>
>It's an accurate assessment of the impact of faith in
>and support for the new testamyth.
Dan, anti-Semitism is a vile thing, so is anti-Americanism, or for that matter
anti-Australianism. But it does not arise from the Bible, although some
extracts from the Bible are used by anti-Semites to try to justify their
position.
>-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
Charles Wyndham
>In article <91im0tslaekm7v2ha...@4ax.com>
> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>>On 8 Nov 2000 17:31:21 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
>
>>> My gripe with "interpretation generally" is that
>>>interpretation is an admission that the Bible cannot be taken
>>>literally,
>
>>But isn't it obvious that the Bible cannot be taken literally? You
>>should approve, not be critical.
>
> Apparently it is not obvious that the Bible cannot be taken
>literally and it has not been obvious for 2000 years. We're one of
>the first few generations, late in the Bible's life, that is not
>taking the Bible literally, at least not all of us.
Not really true. People have been trying to rationalise parts of the Bible
since the year dot. The heavy hand of the hierarchy has been pretty successful
in crushing their efforts. The breakthrough came with Ronan at the end of the
nineteenth century.
>>>and that the interpreter is overlaying the Bible, or any other
>>>religious text, with his own prejudices, expectations, and
>>>interests.
>
>>Isn't that to some degree inevitable, can you suggest any way of
>>avoiding it? But it applies to most texts, not just religious ones.
>
> But only religious texts purport to be The Word of God,
>infallible, unalterable, without pity or hope of appeal should the
>follower go wrong.
The texts are neutral. What you have described is the essence of
fundamentalism, which I abhor.
>Once you have chosen *an* interpretation, unless
>you're willing to engage in the most bizarre form of intellectual
>self-deception, you're stuck with one of two conditions: absolute
>surety that you have God's dicta figured out and you can live with
>them, or incessant and painful self-doubt that you might be wrong.
Why only offer the two extremes? Interpretation and understanding is a
continuous process, with no final end result. No doubt some, perhaps many, of
my interpretations of individual points are wrong, but I have confidence that
the core is true. Talk of bizarre forms of intellectual self-deception only
suggests a total lack of understanding of the process.
>>>the interpreter falls back on irrational and undemonstrable beliefs
>>>when reality fails to be comforting enough.
>
>>This is your view, OK for you. It is not mine...
>
> You purport that the intepreter relies only on rational and
>demonstrable evidence to support his or her beliefs, then?
Yes, but what is acceptable evidence for me may not be acceptable for you.
>
> Elf
Charles Wyndham
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:40:18 +0800, Charles Wyndham
><Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>On 8 Nov 2000 17:31:21 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <eqth0tk0qkif0cs7a...@4ax.com>
>>> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>But what is your gripe with interpretation generally?
>>>
>>> My gripe with "interpretation generally" is that
>>>interpretation is an admission that the Bible cannot be taken
>>>literally,
>>
>>But isn't it obvious that the Bible cannot be taken literally?
>
>To some, yes.
>
>> You should
>>approve, not be critical.
>>
>Well, it's not an either-or thing. If it cannot be taken literally,
>and one "approves" of such a thing, one may still be critical of the
>interpretations (or simply disagree with them),
Certainly. I was only suggesting approval of the understanding that the Bible
should not be taken literally.
>and may be doubly
>critical when the interpretations are used to try to support something
>that is purported as real.
>
>>>and that the interpreter is overlaying the Bible, or any
>>>other religious text, with his own prejudices, expectations, and
>>>interests.
>>
>>Isn't that to some degree inevitable, can you suggest any way of avoiding it?
>>But it applies to most texts, not just religious ones.
>
>But religious texts are different. When we interpret other texts, we
>don't have a community of believers presenting a deity as part of the
>text. That's a pretty significant factor.
But it cannot affect the way we approach and try to understand the text.
The views of any community we belong to can affect our conclusions, but should
not affect the approach.
>My favorite animated children's movie is "The Last Unicorn." I feel no
>pressure to believe in the existance of unicorns. But in reading the
>Christian Bible, in a largely Christian society, there *is* a pressure
>to believe.
>
>OTOH, I felt no such pressure to believe in Indian spirits when I read
>a book on the subject a couple of years ago. It was to me like
>watching "The Last Unicorn." Legend stuff.
>
>It's a little difficult to read the Bible that same way, when most of
>the people around you don't see it as a legend, but as a vehicle of
>worship of a god they believe is real.
I agree that it is difficult. That is why so many stop trying to use their
intelligence and swallow the whole Fundamentalist line intact.
Laurie, where I can I find the meanings of such abbreviations as OTOH?
>If I talked, in my town, about
>Indian spirits as legend, people wouldn't think anything of it. If I
>talked about God as a legend, people would likely be offended. If I
>wrote a column along those lines in the paper, we'd be inundated with
>letters to the editor, calling for my head on the chopping block. (I
>got enough flak when I wrote in favor of the decriminalization, even
>legalization, of prostitution. I've toyed with the idea of writing a
>pro-porn (or at least anti-anti-porn) piece during Pornography
>Awareness Week for the past two years, but I ran short of time both
>years. I suppose I should just write it ahead of time and keep it on
>hand.)
If you seem to attack people's deeply held views they will naturally be
offended. Try attacking the downside of those views, while giving credit to the
upside, if you feel you must attack something. But religions always have more
than their fair share of fanatics and they can't be avoided entirely.
>I think Elf's objections are more that if the Bible is open to
>interpretation, it becomes something that can be back-engineered to
>support what you want it to support.
Yes, this is a real danger.
>And I think there are plenty of passages that cannot possibly be
>interpreted to my satisfaction as positive messages, no matter how
>watered down they get. Even if you interpret them in a different
>light, there must have been *some* reason the message was sent in the
>first place.
There is no difficulty once it is realised that the books of the Bible were
written by ordinary human beings writing what they believed to be true, and
often writing of their own personal experiences.
Laurie S.
<Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:00:01 GMT, lea...@spacestar.net (Laurie S.) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:40:18 +0800, Charles Wyndham
>><Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 8 Nov 2000 17:31:21 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
[...]
>>>>and that the interpreter is overlaying the Bible, or any
>>>>other religious text, with his own prejudices, expectations, and
>>>>interests.
>>>
>>>Isn't that to some degree inevitable, can you suggest any way of avoiding it?
>>>But it applies to most texts, not just religious ones.
>>
>>But religious texts are different. When we interpret other texts, we
>>don't have a community of believers presenting a deity as part of the
>>text. That's a pretty significant factor.
>
>But it cannot affect the way we approach and try to understand the text.
>The views of any community we belong to can affect our conclusions, but should
>not affect the approach.
>
But it does, for most people, so it can't just be discarded.
Objectivity is a desirable thing, but it's difficult to be objective
about Christianity when you've been brought up in a Christian society.
I *can't* use the same ways to approach and understand the Christian
Bible that I could use with other religious texts. Perhaps it would be
advantageous to be that objective, but I'm not, and I don't think I'm
a particularly unobjective (is that a word?) person.
>>My favorite animated children's movie is "The Last Unicorn." I feel no
>>pressure to believe in the existance of unicorns. But in reading the
>>Christian Bible, in a largely Christian society, there *is* a pressure
>>to believe.
>>
>>OTOH, I felt no such pressure to believe in Indian spirits when I read
>>a book on the subject a couple of years ago. It was to me like
>>watching "The Last Unicorn." Legend stuff.
>>
>>It's a little difficult to read the Bible that same way, when most of
>>the people around you don't see it as a legend, but as a vehicle of
>>worship of a god they believe is real.
>
>I agree that it is difficult. That is why so many stop trying to use their
>intelligence and swallow the whole Fundamentalist line intact.
>
Perhaps they never started to use their intelligence.
But that's not the "difficult" I'm talking about. The difficulty I'm
referring to is that I can sit here in my cozy little apartment trying
to study the Bible as a work of myths and legends, there are two
churches across the street in which people don't think in terms of
myths and legends.
And these aren't fundamentalist churches. They're Lutheran parishes,
one of which (the ELCA church) is more palatable than the other (the
stricter Missouri Synod parish).
I don't go around asking people their religious beliefs, but I've
never known anyone IRL who identified as an atheist, and I've rarely
encountered people IRL who called themselves agnostics. I write for
the newspaper here and know a wide variety of people, including many
community leaders, and I've noticed that most of the so-called
"important people" are regular churchgoers. To pick apart the Bible in
their presence of active Christians would present a problem in that
they're not likely to be willing to accept that there is any
possibility that God does not exist.
I'm not saying that I need to be able to do this in the presence of
these people; I'm saying that the environment in which I live hampers
my approach to Christian texts (one could argue that I allow this
hampering to happen, but that's largely Wayne Dyer semantics -- I
don't presume that anyone "makes" me do anything) because I am in the
minority here. If I was in a larger, less rural-conservative
community, I would have more access to people with beliefs similar to
my own, and the pressure to be a "good Christian" would have less
impact.
>Laurie, where I can I find the meanings of such abbreviations as OTOH?
>
Sorry, I remember you asked me about an abbreviation earlier and I
haven't yet replied (I can't keep up with Usenet -- I have a bazillion
posts in my outbox!). OTOH = on the other hand.
Hey, I'll make a separate posts using all the abbreviations I can
think up, okay? Look for something like "Charles -- abbreviations".
I'd think that there must be a document on the net with a list of
these, although I've never seen one. I used IRC before Usenet, so I
had some of the abbreviations down (like "btw" (by the way)), but
Usenet brought in a lot more. Took me a while to figure them out; some
I could get from context, but others not -- one that I still can't
quite parse is (IIRC) FWVO. The closest I've come is "for what value
of" in looking at the context, but it doesn't quite make sense, and I
can't remember the context anyway!
>>If I talked, in my town, about
>>Indian spirits as legend, people wouldn't think anything of it. If I
>>talked about God as a legend, people would likely be offended. If I
>>wrote a column along those lines in the paper, we'd be inundated with
>>letters to the editor, calling for my head on the chopping block. (I
>>got enough flak when I wrote in favor of the decriminalization, even
>>legalization, of prostitution. I've toyed with the idea of writing a
>>pro-porn (or at least anti-anti-porn) piece during Pornography
>>Awareness Week for the past two years, but I ran short of time both
>>years. I suppose I should just write it ahead of time and keep it on
>>hand.)
>
>If you seem to attack people's deeply held views they will naturally be
>offended. Try attacking the downside of those views, while giving credit to the
>upside, if you feel you must attack something.
I don't think it's possible not to offend a lot of people, at least
here, if you're talking about prostitution and pornography. There are
plenty here who wouldn't be offended, particularly among younger
people, but the older conservatives are perhaps more vocal. People
tend to be more vocal about things they are against than they are
about things they see as "fine by me" but not necessarily embraced by
them.
What was cool about the prostitution column was that my high school
English teacher wrote to me about it. Not only did she like the
thoughts (and she's around 80!), but she praised my grammar as well
(she's a stickler; in high school she'd correct you if she overheard
you chattering in the hall =)). I have to write to her in reply; I've
had her mailing address taped on my computer for months, but I keep
forgetting to do it -- a person really shouldn't put off such things,
with 80-year-old people or with younger people, because you never know
what can happen and things can go unsaid forever that you really want
to be heard.
> But religions always have more
>than their fair share of fanatics and they can't be avoided entirely.
>
We have one guy here who routinely responds to any controversial
column/editorial we write (as well as to some of the national
columnists we use). I don't write many editorial columns (I'm a sports
editor, after all), but I think he's reponded to most of them:
When I criticized spanking, he wrote a rebuttal that said at the end:
"The Bible says if you don't spank your children, you don't love them.
Do you love your children, Laurie Swenson?" When I criticized a
school-sponsored abstinence speaker (whose links to religious groups
are strong, and whose insistence on monogamy is also strong), he
suggested that the newspaper might want to consider whether I should
remain in its employ.
>>I think Elf's objections are more that if the Bible is open to
>>interpretation, it becomes something that can be back-engineered to
>>support what you want it to support.
>
>Yes, this is a real danger.
>
And in a Christian community, that danger is not as "real" when
interpreting other religious texts, in terms of presentation. If I
studied Hinduism, there would be no one around living the faith.
>>And I think there are plenty of passages that cannot possibly be
>>interpreted to my satisfaction as positive messages, no matter how
>>watered down they get. Even if you interpret them in a different
>>light, there must have been *some* reason the message was sent in the
>>first place.
>
>There is no difficulty once it is realised that the books of the Bible were
>written by ordinary human beings writing what they believed to be true, and
>often writing of their own personal experiences.
That's a vague position, and as such doesn't remove the difficulty.
Someone writing what they believed to be true doesn't explain why it
was so believed, whether it was handed down by God or through the
teling of stories. It came from somewhere, and as long as there are
many people who believe that it came from God, and some people who
believe that it came from somewhere else (perhaps a belief in the God
stories), there will be difficulties.
General morals and religious morals overlap considerably, but many
religious morals have NO relevance at all if there is no God.
Dan Fake
> [skipped]
>
> Disbelievers are more likely to be listened to if they show that they are
> capable of taking a balanced view.
Thank god? 00-__-00
-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
>
> > [skip]
Charles Wyndham
I try to distinguish between the approach - that is the method of tackling the
task - and the execution. We should have sufficient objectivity to approach any
text in the same way. What too often happens is that we approach a text with
the specific object of trying to prove it right or wrong, instead of trying to
find out whether it is right or wrong.
>>>My favorite animated children's movie is "The Last Unicorn." I feel no
>>>pressure to believe in the existance of unicorns. But in reading the
>>>Christian Bible, in a largely Christian society, there *is* a pressure
>>>to believe.
>>>
>>>OTOH, I felt no such pressure to believe in Indian spirits when I read
>>>a book on the subject a couple of years ago. It was to me like
>>>watching "The Last Unicorn." Legend stuff.
>>>
>>>It's a little difficult to read the Bible that same way, when most of
>>>the people around you don't see it as a legend, but as a vehicle of
>>>worship of a god they believe is real.
>>
>>I agree that it is difficult. That is why so many stop trying to use their
>>intelligence and swallow the whole Fundamentalist line intact.
>>
>Perhaps they never started to use their intelligence.
>
>But that's not the "difficult" I'm talking about. The difficulty I'm
>referring to is that I can sit here in my cozy little apartment trying
>to study the Bible as a work of myths and legends, there are two
>churches across the street in which people don't think in terms of
>myths and legends.
I would be happier if you sat in your cozy little apartment (can I join you?)
trying to study the Bible to find out what is myth and legend, and what is
factual.
>And these aren't fundamentalist churches. They're Lutheran parishes,
>one of which (the ELCA church) is more palatable than the other (the
>stricter Missouri Synod parish).
>
>I don't go around asking people their religious beliefs, but I've
>never known anyone IRL who identified as an atheist, and I've rarely
>encountered people IRL who called themselves agnostics. I write for
>the newspaper here and know a wide variety of people, including many
>community leaders, and I've noticed that most of the so-called
>"important people" are regular churchgoers. To pick apart the Bible in
>their presence of active Christians would present a problem in that
>they're not likely to be willing to accept that there is any
>possibility that God does not exist.
>
>I'm not saying that I need to be able to do this in the presence of
>these people; I'm saying that the environment in which I live hampers
>my approach to Christian texts (one could argue that I allow this
>hampering to happen, but that's largely Wayne Dyer semantics -- I
>don't presume that anyone "makes" me do anything) because I am in the
>minority here. If I was in a larger, less rural-conservative
>community, I would have more access to people with beliefs similar to
>my own, and the pressure to be a "good Christian" would have less
>impact.
I accept this as a difficulty, although it may affect the execution rather than
the approach.
>>Laurie, where I can I find the meanings of such abbreviations as OTOH?
>>
>Sorry, I remember you asked me about an abbreviation earlier and I
>haven't yet replied (I can't keep up with Usenet -- I have a bazillion
>posts in my outbox!). OTOH = on the other hand.
>
>Hey, I'll make a separate posts using all the abbreviations I can
>think up, okay? Look for something like "Charles -- abbreviations".
>
>I'd think that there must be a document on the net with a list of
>these, although I've never seen one. I used IRC before Usenet, so I
>had some of the abbreviations down (like "btw" (by the way)), but
>Usenet brought in a lot more. Took me a while to figure them out; some
>I could get from context, but others not -- one that I still can't
>quite parse is (IIRC) FWVO. The closest I've come is "for what value
>of" in looking at the context, but it doesn't quite make sense, and I
>can't remember the context anyway!
I would be very grateful for anything you can give - but please don't feel
bound to spend too much valuable time on it.
Nasty, but there are also people, particularly on alt.atheism, who explode in
outrage if any religious views are expressed.
>>>I think Elf's objections are more that if the Bible is open to
>>>interpretation, it becomes something that can be back-engineered to
>>>support what you want it to support.
>>
>>Yes, this is a real danger.
>>
>And in a Christian community, that danger is not as "real" when
>interpreting other religious texts, in terms of presentation. If I
>studied Hinduism, there would be no one around living the faith.
>
>>>And I think there are plenty of passages that cannot possibly be
>>>interpreted to my satisfaction as positive messages, no matter how
>>>watered down they get. Even if you interpret them in a different
>>>light, there must have been *some* reason the message was sent in the
>>>first place.
>>
>>There is no difficulty once it is realised that the books of the Bible were
>>written by ordinary human beings writing what they believed to be true, and
>>often writing of their own personal experiences.
>
>That's a vague position, and as such doesn't remove the difficulty.
>Someone writing what they believed to be true doesn't explain why it
>was so believed, whether it was handed down by God or through the
>teling of stories. It came from somewhere, and as long as there are
>many people who believe that it came from God, and some people who
>believe that it came from somewhere else (perhaps a belief in the God
>stories), there will be difficulties.
Certainly there are difficulties. Concepts of God, or of the soul can never be
defined or understood textbook fashion, and only through the experiences of
others who feel that they have had some experience of God, and through any
similar experiences that we may have had ourselves, can we get anywhere near to
an understanding. I think that the difficulties should be welcomed as an
incentive to study and would be unhappy to see everything presented as cut and
dried fact.
>General morals and religious morals overlap considerably, but many
>religious morals have NO relevance at all if there is no God.
I prefer to think that morality encompasses absolute values and that if some
particular detail, thought to be derived from the Bible, has no absolute value
then that particular bit of the Bible needs more scrutiny.
I don't normally push my web-site at people, but in the event of your being
interested in my approach to study of the Bible you could have a look at:
www.users.bigpond.com/Wyndkelm/
Elf Sternberg
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>> But only religious texts purport to be The Word of God,
>>infallible, unalterable, without pity or hope of appeal should the
>>follower go wrong.
>The texts are neutral.
ROFL. Okay, Charles, I now know you're not serious about this.
Thanks for the giggle.
Caput Mundi
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
8u9csr$ac0$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
I readily go that last mile and admit that the bible is only one book among
many and completely unnecessary for my happiness. Satisfied?
Sven Kalbitzer
Düsseldorf, EU
Caput Mundi
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
eqth0tk0qkif0cs7a...@4ax.com...
> On 7 Nov 2000 17:07:39 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
>
> >In article <qv7f0tkofe278n9j4...@4ax.com>
> > Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> The translation of Sheol into "Hell" in most Bibles is a fact. The
translation
> of Gehenna, into "Hell" in most Bibles is a fact. That non-Fundamentalists
> regard Revelation, if they regard it at all, as allegory, is a fact.
But what if 'hell' is defined as an underworld place, with someone (a God? a
Devil?) guarding and reigning over it? Is not the Hades an obvious
paralellel to a Christian hell if defined so?
Ciao
Sven Kalbitzer
Düsseldorf, EU
Caput Mundi
>
> interpretation is an admission that the Bible cannot be taken
> other religious text, with his own prejudices, expectations, and
> indistinguishable from the humanists' quest for a rational society in
> undemonstrable beliefs when reality fails to be comforting enough.
>
That is why we have the one and Catholic Church, and there designated
servants, servi servorum dei. Your heretic thoughts have already been
condemned by the Councils of Trient, Basel, Regensburg and many others,
including the Vaticana.
jimmy adams
<kalb...@uni-duesseldorf.de> writes
>>
>> >In article <qv7f0tkofe278n9j4...@4ax.com>
>> > Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
>>
>
>> The translation of Sheol into "Hell" in most Bibles is a fact. The
>translation
>> of Gehenna, into "Hell" in most Bibles is a fact. That non-Fundamentalists
>> regard Revelation, if they regard it at all, as allegory, is a fact.
>
>Devil?) guarding and reigning over it? Is not the Hades an obvious
>paralellel to a Christian hell if defined so?
>
Hell is not mentioned in the Christian bible.
In my Book of Common Prayer (which seems to be an important Christian
document) appears the Apostles' Creed, including the lines: "I believe
in ... Jesus Christ .... Who was ... crucified, dead, and buried, He
descended into hell".
Another of your certainties now a little less so?
--
jra...@bigfoot.com
Caput Mundi
jimmy adams <ji...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
whJ2LBA2...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8urhm1$i...@poseidon.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>, Caput Mundi
> <kalb...@uni-duesseldorf.de> writes
> >
> >Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> >eqth0tk0qkif0cs7a...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> >In article <qv7f0tkofe278n9j4...@4ax.com>
> >> > Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> writes:
> >>
> >
> >> The translation of Sheol into "Hell" in most Bibles is a fact. The
> >translation
> >> of Gehenna, into "Hell" in most Bibles is a fact. That
non-Fundamentalists
> >> regard Revelation, if they regard it at all, as allegory, is a fact.
> >
Caput Mundi
> Hell is not mentioned in the Christian bible.
> In my Book of Common Prayer (which seems to be an important Christian
> document) appears the Apostles' Creed, including the lines: "I believe
> in ... Jesus Christ .... Who was ... crucified, dead, and buried, He
> descended into hell".
>
> Another of your certainties now a little less so?
James, that is the Nicene creed which originated in 325 A.D. It is not part
of the bible, although your prayer book may be of some importance.
Sven Kalbitzer
Düsseldorf, EU
Laurie S.
Agreed, but it's likely that Jimmy's quoting the Apostles' Creed
(since that's what he lists it as) which is also widely used in
Protestant churches. Incidentally, the Nicene Creed used today is a
substantially edited version of the original creed. The Apostles'
Creed, I believe, predates the contemporay Nicene Creed.
Laurie