Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[carpedm9587]

Then why did you go off on a long rabbit trail with me when I said the solution to societies problem was Jesus?

I didn't see it as a rabbit trail. Your responses implied (stated?) that Jesus and Christianity were the solution due to some unique characteristics. I was merely pointing out that most of the characteristics you were citing are not unique to Christianity, and Christianity is not even the source of these concepts. I also do not think any belief system that is misaligned with reality is a good idea. As an atheist, religions are (by definition) misaligned with reality. If I didn't think they were - I wouldn't be atheist.

[One Bad Pig]

Seer - I don't get caught up in biblical debates. It pretty much always goes the same way: disagreement on interpretation and each side justifying their position. The bible is not my "basis for life" so I don't get into the business of defending/arguing other people's interpretations of the book. You will have to have those arguments/discussions with the people who hold those views.

Of course - at the end - the highest probability is that you will walk away claiming you have "proven" your position correct, and they will do the same. It's a somewhat pointless exercise, IMO, because there is no way to resolve the dispute.

Yes, much easier to just magnify differences all out of proportion and throw one's hands up in despair, and act as if you haven't started anything controversial. You're pretty good at that - it's one reason why attempted dialog with you is so frustrating.

I know, you'll just say there's no need to dialog with you, that I can just walk away. What makes that difficult is the sheer amount of wrongness you post.

duty_calls.png

[Sparko]

I didn't see it as a rabbit trail. Your responses implied (stated?) that Jesus and Christianity were the solution due to some unique characteristics. I was merely pointing out that most of the characteristics you were citing are not unique to Christianity, and Christianity is not even the source of these concepts. I also do not think any belief system that is misaligned with reality is a good idea. As an atheist, religions are (by definition) misaligned with reality. If I didn't think they were - I wouldn't be atheist.

You are welcome to your opinion. Mine is that Jesus is needed. Society has been very secular for decades now and hasn't solved anything.

[seer]

Seer - I don't get caught up in biblical debates. It pretty much always goes the same way: disagreement on interpretation and each side justifying their position. The bible is not my "basis for life" so I don't get into the business of defending/arguing other people's interpretations of the book. You will have to have those arguments/discussions with the people who hold those views.

Nonsense Carp, you bring this stuff up then just hand wave. For instance when we discussed the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality you agreed that texts were clear. Now if a Christian wants to claim that homosexuality is not sin he needs a justification, but what ever that justification it is not Biblical. And that is the point, people often fall prey to the present cultural zeitgeist rather than taking Scripture on face value. The problem, for the most part, is not with the texts but with us. So yes my position, Biblically, is correct.

[Sparko]

Nonsense Carp, you bring this stuff up then just hand wave. For instance when we discussed the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality you agreed that texts were clear. Now if a Christian wants to claim that homosexuality is not sin he needs a justification, but what ever that justification it is not Biblical. And that is the point, people often fall prey to the present cultural zeitgeist rather than taking Scripture on face value. The problem, for the most part, is not with the texts but with us. So yes my position, Biblically, is correct.

My point to Carp is that people need Jesus, not "Christianity" per se. Because not everyone follows the actual teachings of Jesus. Heck none of us do perfectly. But the principals and values Jesus taught us to live by are what our society needs today. Even if other religions teach similar things, so what? The values are the same: Loving one another, being good parents, children loving their parents, wholesome families. Respect. etc.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, much easier to just magnify differences all out of proportion

I don't agree that the differences are "all out of proportion."

and throw one's hands up in despair,

I can assure you I feel no despair. It's not my problem - I'm no longer a Christian.

and act as if you haven't started anything controversial.

I am aware that my opinions (on this site) are likely to be controversial - especially as a former theist/Christian.

You're pretty good at that - it's one reason why attempted dialog with you is so frustrating.

And yet you continue to respond. Really, OBP - complaining that you're frustrated is a little pointless. End your frustration and talk with someone else. I assure you, I will not be offended.

I know, you'll just say there's no need to dialog with you, that I can just walk away.

"yes"

What makes that difficult is the sheer amount of wrongness you post.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34506[/ATTACH]

To you.

[seer]

My point to Carp is that people need Jesus, not "Christianity" per se. Because not everyone follows the actual teachings of Jesus. Heck none of us do perfectly. But the principals and values Jesus taught us to live by are what our society needs today. Even if other religions teach similar things, so what? The values are the same: Loving one another, being good parents, children loving their parents, wholesome families. Respect. etc.

Exactly, and no matter what Carp says there is a moral impetus and influence when I man believes in a God given moral code that can not be matched in atheistic beliefs...

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, you bring this stuff up then just hand wave.

Seer - I am noting that a particular type of discussion is pointless because it has no avenue for resolution. You then invite me to engage in that exact discussion. So why are you surprised that I decline to engage? If it is a type of discussion you find to be valuable - then have it. But you'll have to have it with someone else. It's no longer my area of interests.

For instance when we discussed the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality you agreed that texts were clear.

I agree that there are anti-homosexual passages in the Christian bible.

Now if a Christian wants to claim that homosexuality is not sin he needs a justification, but what ever that justification it is not Biblical.

And yet they point to biblical passages for their justification - mostly those that call for accepting others, treating one another with kindness, etc. Again - I am not saying they are right and you are wrong. I am saying there is no way to resolve your dispute because each of you picks which passages to emphasize and how to interpret them. Indeed, each of you determines how to approach the bible as a whole: the literal meaning - the spirit of the text - etc.

And that is the point, people often fall prey to the present cultural zeitgeist rather than taking Scripture on face value.

Like I said - - how the text is approached.

The problem, for the most part, is not with the texts but with us. So yes my position, Biblically, is correct.

Of course it is - and so is their position - that it is "biblically correct." That it is aligned with traditional church teachings. Etc. Etc. Etc.

[One Bad Pig]

And yet you continue to respond. Really, OBP - complaining that you're frustrated is a little pointless. End your frustration and talk with someone else.

You, of all people, should know how difficult it can be to walk away from a conversation, or allow something you think is wrong to go unchallenged.

[carpedm9587]

My point to Carp is that people need Jesus, not "Christianity" per se. Because not everyone follows the actual teachings of Jesus.

The point, Sparko, is that "the actual teachings of Jesus" are differently interpreted and justified - with each interpreter claiming "they have it right."

Heck none of us do perfectly. But the principals and values Jesus taught us to live by are what our society needs today. Even if other religions teach similar things, so what? The values are the same: Loving one another, being good parents, children loving their parents, wholesome families. Respect. etc.

I don't disagree with a single element on your list. We should love one another. We should be good parents. We should have loving families (child-to-parent, parent-to-parent, parent-to-child, child-to-child). We should have wholesome families. We should treat one another with respect. But then we will disagree on who can/should be permitted to be a parent - and who can marry whom. You or MM will call someone a moron or lamebrain or replace their posting name with a pejorative mocking name and defend it as "in line with Jesus' teachings."

And the differences are not just me to you but also, as I noted, among Christians - and all biblically justified and defended as the "will of god." It is why the term "Christian values" is a nebulous one (to some degree) as are Muslim values and <insert religion X here> values. It is why I don't think "the solution" is Christianity or even "Jesus."

I am more focused on the moral principles and their basis and justification than I am on religions claiming to have moral authority or unique moral justification. While the latter may have had some value to the development of human society, I see that value as diminishing over time. I think we are at an inflection point where it is time for us to let these constructs go.

[carpedm9587]

You, of all people, should know how difficult it can be to walk away from a conversation, or allow something you think is wrong to go unchallenged.

It is true I enjoy a brisk discussion/debate. The difficulty I have long struggled with is leaving an incorrect perception/assumption about my motivations or my personhood stand unchallenged. That is a dynamic that has certainly surfaced here - but I'm working on it and making progress...slowly. My goal is to focus on the discussion/argument at hand and leave by the wayside personal observations. So far I'm about 7% successful

[carpedm9587]

Exactly, and no matter what Carp says there is a moral impetus and influence when I man believes in a God given moral code that can not be matched in atheistic beliefs...

There is no question that "god said it" provides a motivation for some people that atheism cannot replace. The existence of a motivation does not make the perceived source of that motivation real. The danger is - when the perceived source of my motivation does not actually exist - I leave myself open to being swayed/controlled by people who then claim to speak for that motivational source. Industry is replete with examples.

[Sparko]

The point, Sparko, is that "the actual teachings of Jesus" are differently interpreted and justified - with each interpreter claiming "they have it right."



I don't agree with a single element on your list.

We should love one another. We should be good parents. We should have loving families (child-to-parent, parent-to-parent, parent-to-child, child-to-child). We should have wholesome families. We should treat one another with respect. But then we will disagree on who can/should be permitted to be a parent - and who can marry whom. You or MM will call someone a moron or lamebrain or replace their posting name with a pejorative mocking name and defend it as "in line with Jesus' teachings."

We were discussing jobs and poverty and that one of the main causes of poverty was men leaving their family instead of caring for them. If a man becomes a Christian and dedicates his life to following Christ, some of the values he will adopt is that he has to care for his family. And love his wife, and actually be MARRIED to her. And all that is good for society.

Now if you want to argue that atheism teaches all that, then my only answer is, then why isn't it working?

[carpedm9587]

Fixed. It was supposed to say "disagree" - as the following text should have made evident.

We were discussing jobs and poverty and that one of the main causes of poverty was men leaving their family instead of caring for them.

Yes

If a man becomes a Christian and dedicates his life to following Christ, some of the values he will adopt is that he has to care for his family.

That is indeed a widely held Christian value - perhaps even universally. At the very least, I know of no Christian sect that takes an opposing view.

And love his wife, and actually be MARRIED to her. And all that is good for society.

Agreed - intact families are good for society.

Now if you want to argue that atheism teaches all that, then my only answer is, then why isn't it working?

I don't think "atheism" teaches anything specific around that. Atheism does not have an accompanying body of doctrine and rules, that I know of. It is nothing more than the observation that the idea of a god is a false one - that such beings do not exist outside the minds of their adherents. As society moves towards embracing that reality - it will need to shift it's "god-centered" values to a different basis (human/value based, for example). In that shift - there will be discord and disarray. Change usually comes with some degree of confusion/discord.

It is seldom a good idea to reject a change simply because it creates some degree of confusion. That philosophy leads to little/no change. It is also not a good idea to have change merely for the sake of change. A justified change needs to come with efforts to minimize confusion.

My original response to you was to note that I do not agree that retreating into theistic thinking is the right path forward for us as a species. It also does not meet the criteria of "practical" and "doable." Our world is secularizing (as well as globalizing). Figuring out how to make that work is a better path than trying to turn back the clock, IMO.

[seer]

I agree that there are anti-homosexual passages in the Christian bible.

Good!

And yet they point to biblical passages for their justification - mostly those that call for accepting others, treating one another with kindness, etc. Again - I am not saying they are right and you are wrong. I am saying there is no way to resolve your dispute because each of you picks which passages to emphasize and how to interpret them. Indeed, each of you determines how to approach the bible as a whole: the literal meaning - the spirit of the text - etc.

That is a false dichotomy Carp, one can believe that homosexuality or adultery or stealing are sin, yet still be gracious to the sinner, since we are all in the same boat. To deny the text in favor of of a personal peccadillo is wrongheaded on so many levels.

Like I said - - how the text is approached.

But we already agree that homosexuality is considered sin in Scripture, it is not about how you approach the text in this case, it is about ignoring or rejecting the text.

Of course it is - and so is their position - that it is "biblically correct." That it is aligned with traditional church teachings. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Really? How are the supporters of homosexual behavior Biblically correct? Be specific please