That was hard to read. Hardly generous or understanding of Christians who aren't rabid morons - Leftists have trouble with the idea of moral supremacy. Christians and other monotheists can point to codified moralities and draw direct lines between infractions and the actual consequences of same, and argue for the evidence that shows these morals are superior to other moralities (or lack thereof, masquerading as such,) but attack articles like this hardly have a suitable replacement for the moral frameworks they try so hard to trash.
Deuteronomy 21: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Yeah, I have trouble with the idea of moral supremacy. You can keep it, thanks.Christians and other monotheists can point to codified moralities and draw direct lines between infractions and the actual consequences of same, and argue for the evidence that shows these morals are superior to other moralities
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard."
Hey, thanks for replying - I appreciate you took the time to do so. I'd like to say that you took a single, relatively short passage of an entire 66-book wisdom tradition, which contains poetry, myth, history, and correspondences, and used it as a strawman or false equivalent to discount not only the rest of the "book", but also the centuries of rich, thoughtful guidance that has developed alongside it. If American (or more broadly, Western) society can disagree and debate about the intent or interpretation of such recent, smaller, explicitly prescriptive documents as the Constitution, then I claim it would behoove us to give that much more consideration to something like a millennia old religious framework and worldview. Rather than throwing it all out because there are textual contradictions or some parts that you disagree with (I also disagree and discount some parts). I think your reading of the source material is ultimately shallow if your comment is reflective of your thoughts as a whole regarding Christianity. There is a wealth of thought surrounding how the New Testament changes the way the Old Testament Laws (specifically including the Deuteronomy passage) are to be conceptualized and interpreted, if at all. Again, thanks for engaging.
Hi, yeah, always happy to see some proselytizing out in the wild. Happy to engage amicably if a bit barbed :) I was raised in the Evangelical Christian tradition. If you think my reading is "ultimately shallow", you've got another thing coming. You can say I've cherry-picked the text, but the Bible is full of similar, and some more blatant, passages. If you want to discount some of those passages, that's your go-ahead. It's your book after all. But you can't claim a moral supremacy from the text while also discrediting the text based upon your preference. If you discredit the text based on your preference, it appears to onlookers that you've substituted the moral authority of the text for your own - not a great look if you're trying to set yourself apart from everyone else out here ethically "winging it". Kinda looks like you're doing a bit of cherry-picking on your own. How do they taste? Pitted? Would like to know your thoughts on that apparent contradiction.
I'm glad you're engaging, and I can handle some barbs - I am a Christian in the modern world, and barbs are common and not always misguided. I apologize if I mis-characterized your reading of the bible. I certainly made some assumptions based on your reply, and it seems many of them were incorrect. I'm sorry for that - poor debate and discussion skill on my part. So, I would argue that if you used a single passage to negate the bible because of that passage's seeming contradictions, then yes you have cherry-picked, but I don't cherry-pick when I disagree that the same passage is not contradictory. But let me explain why. In my understanding, from my own readings and from the teachings I've received from others in the faith, the bible taken as a whole and understood properly as a collection of different writings with different objectives (this is important - not every passage in the bible should be taken literally, and this is supported by the context of the literature of the day in which each piece was written and the historical reading thereof), the New Testament tells the story of how the Passion Story and Jesus' Resurrection (etc.etc.) not only creates a new paradigm between man and God, but also abolishes a lot of the Old Testament legal structures because in Jesus is found the New Law, the New Way. For O.T. Israelites, the Law was the only way to godliness/heaven. The N.T. creates a radically new narrative in which the Law is no longer that Way. Jesus is the Way now. I'm sure none of this is new to you, having been raised in the community. But it's key, because I find it supports my claim that cherry-picking is not necessary for the bible as a whole to be consistent and true. It's holistic in its entirety, and the key is the radical change that Jesus brings to reality. It follow that moral supremacy is a valid claim, because I'm not "discredit[ing] the text based on [my] preferences". I'm informing passages that SEEM contradictory at first blush with the wider context of the rest of the biblical narrative. And this is where the argument that I'm cherry-picking becomes weak for me - I don't see it as cherry-picking. I see it as reading the passages into the greater context. Inter-textual (between the books in the bible) reading is critical because the work is complete in its wholeness, not in specific passages. If you have some more blatant passages to point out, I'd appreciate it. I may not be able to refute your claims, as I'm only human and still have a long life journey ahead.
Hey hey, that's no problem. Just wanted you to know a little about who you were talking to before you started jumping to conclusions about how much I've thought about this and what my understanding of the material might be. The interpretation that Jesus' death rewrites the saving covenant is just that - an interpretation, curated, reinforced, and maintained by religious scholars and followers. There are many other opposing interpretations of that event, and each lays claim to "moral supremacy" (though I agree with KB, that is a detestable phrase). The Evangelical sect makes no argument for moral supremacy that these others do not. Historically, Protestantism is a centuries-long tradition of interpreting religious texts according to changing human preferences. In fact, it sounds like you explain a familiar thought process. An old paradigm exists that conflicts with a set of mores. The OT "old" paradigm is distasteful for whatever reason - killing children being one of them, ostensibly and agreeably. So a part of the set of known mores is that we don't really want to murder our children for insolently drinking late at night and eating Burger King too often, and so a new interpretation is required to fit our stated cultural preference. A new interpretation is required to fit modernity, how humans now live. "But PTR, if the text remains the same, how does the new interpretation come about?" Someone just says it, 95 theses-style. The Bible is clear, succinct, and to the point: kill insolent sons, deny women public voice, give away all possessions. Human-interpreted theology is a convoluted maze of analysis, clarification, explanation, caveats, perception, perspective, and omission. "I'll take Cherry-picking for $500, Alex!" Usher NT "new" paradigms - a la Jesus' Covenant of Salvation - which will soon be OT "old" paradigms in a few thousand years (i.e. now), and the OT "old, old" paradigms are detestably, can't-cop-to-it archaic. NT "new" says you don't have to kill your children, "Praise God!" It says women are subservient, "Praise God!" It says give away everything you own, "Hell no!" (note: would rather not get bogged down in passages, as that's a rabbit trail of several hundred pages and 66 books of "wisdom tradition, [...] poetry, myth, history, and correspondences") And as people realize that they do want women's suffrage, and as people realize that they don't want to give away eeeeeverything, still yet even more interpretations occur. The ancients weren't prepared for modern philosophy, and so now the interpretation of God's omnipotence must also jive with free will. We have to figure out how God's omniscience and soul-saving grace can account for the lost indigenous souls, for babies, for dogs. People choose individually how these fit their morality - they interpret, you interpret, I interpret. I morally interpret without all that because as long as I'm ethically "winging it", I'm starting from scratch. Explaining and justifying all this 4000 year old theology is not how I want to spend my "long life journey ahead". If it makes you better to choose from an old book, that's ok. I've read some of those too. But you've got to realize that at the end of the day, everyone's just figuring out what to believe based on what they know and experience. It's a scramble; there's no supremacy to be had.
I'm pretty gassed for the day from all of this (in the middle of a workday), so I'm going to sign off for now with the admission that I sometimes struggle to determine what is human interpretation and what is divine revelation. Even still, at the bottom of all things, I do see an objective reality that is informed by the bible and God's guiding hand throughout history. Of course, we haven't even scratched the concept of individual revelation that does help us understand God's will when we read the bible, but that would be a whole can o' worms on this page I don't want to open. I could anticipate how you will all react to it anyways - :) I don't think it's fair to project into the future and predict exactly what society and culture will think about today's religions and philosophies. But we can disagree on this. "Explaining and justifying all this 4000 year old theology" I prefer to look at what I do as pursuing the truths in the 4000 year old theology, and refusing to throw the baby our with the bathwater just because modern times seems to believe they've discounted the entire body of thought with a couple hundred years of sometime sketchy philosophy. "I morally interpret without all that" This is a whole other debate to be had, about the source of morality. Theists argue that morality is inherent in humans and therefore needs to come from somewhere objective. I wonder how you make moral judgments and interpretations? What is the moral ideal against which you measure ideas, claims, and actions? (honest inquiry, not a gotcha) I appreciate you refraining from attacking my character throughout all of this, I really do. It's tiring to hear over and over that I'm intellectually bankrupt, that I'm disingenuous, that I'm a sheep, etc. etc. etc. every time I talk about my worldview online. I appreciated hearing well-crafted arguments against my positions instead.
1. Agreed, I spent too much time on this today. 2. I don't need to predict. It's happening now, my dude. 3. Your basis is no better than mine. We all have the same pool of human knowledge. Apologists use the same sketchy philosophy as the rest of us. 4. I trust myself to act and think in the right way. I trust the people around me to let me know if I don't. Same as everyone else, you included. More on that if we ever talk again. 5. See #4.the middle of a workday [...] sign off
I don't think it's fair to project into the future and predict exactly what society and culture will think about today's religions and philosophies. But we can disagree on this.
pursuing the truths in the 4000 year old theology [...] with a couple hundred years of sometime sketchy philosophy
I wonder how you make moral judgments and interpretations?
I appreciate you refraining from attack
The fundamental issue is that you argue moral supremacy, based on "codified moralities." Minus the ingroup jargon, you're saying "we're better than you because we have a book." PTR found an example of your book wherein the execution of disobedient children is spelled out discretely. You're not better than us because you have a book; your book has countless examples where its morality has been eclipsed by thousands of years of cultural development. Your counterargument is that he's cherry-picking your book. Well, yeah. If it's the book that makes you morally superior, we should all be able to grab at will. And sure - there's 66 books of contradictory advice that scholars and leaders have been cherry-picking for thousands of years. That's what religious leadership is. But for those of us who didn't grow up with the tradition of the inviolate, infallible word of God, your book sure does say a lot of stuff, lots of it no bueno. Some people cherry-pick the good stuff. Some people cherry-pick the bad stuff. Roy Moore could argue "moral supremacy" just as effectively as you can. Just as effectively as I can. Evangelicals and fundamentalists love getting bent out of shape about Islam because Mohammed and Aisha had a child marriage but will happily point to Zachariah and Elizabeth to justify Roy Moore dating teenagers. So you can claim that your book gives you moral supremacy? And you can claim that we should all read it more? But it makes the rest of us completely discount what you have to say. protip: never use the phrase "moral supremacy." EVER. It's a Good Christian Way of saying "I'm better than you, Jesus told me so." I don't see no Jesus, holmes. Just you and me right here. If Jesus wants to talk to me, he can come find me - he sure doesn't need you interpreting for him.
"PTR found an example of your book wherein the execution of disobedient children is spelled out discretely." Indeed, the passage does exactly that. However, a key understanding of the bible is that the New Testament explicitly "retcons" the Old Testaments laws and legal structures. I explained this a bit more at length in my reply to PTR's comment elsewhere in this thread, and I would prefer not to type it out again to avoid clutter, but I do think it's a key point that explains why that passage doesn't cause me mental friction. The O.T. Israelites had only the Law and their adherence to it to redeem them/get to heaven/be godly. Jesus' Big Claim is that his death and resurrection as atonement for all mankind forever replaces the Law with His Love. Even if you don't beleive in Jesus, this retroactively changes the way that we must scholarly read a lot of the O.T. passages, especially when they are prescriptive or legalistic in nature. The contradictions don't matter in the light of Jesus' paradigm shift. The moral codes of a Christian are vastly different than the moral codes of a pre-Christ Jew, and this is important. Where the morality comes from is different. The book is the word of God, and the "no bueno" parts are therefore read in an incomplete or context-lacking manner that doesn't take this very important N.T. reality into account. Someone who points to Zachariah and Elizabeth to justify child sexual abuse is blatantly misreading the bible. This is something both you and I agree on. But you use this misreading to claim that the seeming contradiction discredits the rest of the book, whereas I claim the seeming contradiction is actually a misunderstanding of the way the N.T. informs the O.T. I'd also like to point out that if someone were to discount "everything [I] have to say" because I claim that my "book gives me [(more specifically, the religion or the philosophy, and person of Christ, I follow)] moral supremacy", then I'd say that person is unreasonable. Literally, that person is unwilling to reason with me further because of a single claim. That's not my problem - that's a lack of critical thought and and uncharitable way to engage with other people. protip: I don't think I'm better than anyone. Christianity teaches me that I'm not. God tells me I'm no better than you. That's a foundational tenant of Christian worldview. You put word in my mouth when you say things like that. You certainly don't see no Jesus, and that's fine. If you looked, with an honest vulnerability and humility that you don't already know the truth about everything (not to imply that you do think so, just saying that's part of the journey for anyone), you'd find Him in some way that He revealed Himself to you. Part of Christian understanding is that the free will we're granted means we have to open the door and let him in. He's not going to barge in and shout in your face about how you need to believe in Him. He doesn't need me interpreting for Him, but He has called His people to proclaim the truth, whatever that may be. Thanks for reading if you made it this far :)
If you don't think you're better than anyone, why wrap yourself in concepts such as "moral supremacy?" Especially as your arguments, at their basic level, are "my sherpas are better than yours." You started out arguing the moral code of the bible. So we pointed out its fallibility and subjectivity to interpretation. So you're doubling down on its interpretation. Roy Moore, as an evangelical, is using the exact same bible you are to justify his moral code - his "moral supremacy." You reject this claim out of hand. But you can't. If you're both reading the same bible, and you're both picking what to interpret and what not to interpret, it's the picking. If it's all the word of God then it's all perfect. If it isn't all the word of God then it is man who decides what to follow and what not to follow. And if I decide to follow none of it, and you decide to follow some of it, but you insist that it is your adherence to it that leads to a better life, then sorry pal, you do think you're better than anyone. You are stating in no uncertain terms that you think you're better than me. And I understand that you've tossed a lovely word salad so that you don't have to taste the bitterness of the arugula but it's still in there, buddy. We all see it. We all experience it. You found Jesus because someone told you how to do it while at the same time insisting he's there for everybody and it's just not the case. Religion is a creed of like-minded people who reinforce each others' moral and philosophical framework but rhetoric is addressing and conversing with those outside of your framework. And your style of discussion is "step into my framework." No. You're not engaging us. You're not. You feel like you are, and you can talk about your outreach this Sunday, but the fact of the matter is you're playing "debate a heathen MadLibs" and we all know it. We can all smell it. Nobody is putting words in your mouth, we're calling you on the fact that you're talking around us until you can drag things back into your framework. I'm sure you see that as a refusal to see the truth; that's usually where these things go. Fundamentally: for purposes of debate, there are no truths. There are no maxims. The logical inconsistencies of your belief structure are fair game and the more you use them, the less compelling your rhetoric.
It's great that you have this image of me as a stereotypical Church-Warrior who's going to report back to my herd about my battles with the heathens, but it's inaccurate. Let's try and give other people some credit that they're deeper than what we can see. Religion as I've experienced it is people challenging each other on what they believe so that we can all discover what the truth is, rather than the herd-mentality echo-chamber that you seem to envision. "You're not engaging us. You're not...you're playing "debate a heathen MadLibs" and we all know it. We can all smell it." This isn't an argument, it's a mixture of an ad hominem and strawman attacks. The strength of any of my claims has nothing to do with why I would be driven to make them, if we're having a rational discussion. I also don't think of you as a heathen, I barely know anything about you and your experiences in life - I'm not out here trying to win Jehovah's Witness Points To Avoid The Rapture And Make It To Heaven. I'm trying to discover the truth. "If you don't think you're better than anyone, why wrap yourself in concepts such as "moral supremacy?"" Because I think that the objective morals I live by are better than any other - that is significantly different than saying I am better than other people. You aren't able to see a difference between the two because your arguments rest on the presupposition that subjective interpretation is the firmament of reality for any person. You've betrayed your worldview with the words "There are no truths. There are no maxims". If you do actually believe that about existence, then we can go no further in this discussion. You are now trying to pull me into your framework of subjective relativism, when a basic education/reading in logic and philosophical reasoning would show you the internal incoherence of the claim "there are no truths", and all the rationales that follow it. Your paragraph stating that the individual's interpretation is the ultimate definition of a text also reinforces your buy-in to this philosophy. I lay claim to an objective reality and objective truths that exist outside a person's subjective experience of them. If we are unable to reconcile these two viewpoints, then we won't find common ground about this topic.
Sometimes I like to poke at an opponent a little bit. See where he squeals. See where he gets offended. Gives you a sense of what drives him. Sorry 'bout that. It was useful, though - you've made it pretty clear that you do not consider yourself to be like every other happy believer sharing his love of God with strangers on the Internet. You have to understand, however, that for purposes of discussion you're using arguments most of us have seen a thousand times. Rehashing statements that many of us have been parrying for decades. And you're at a disadvantage: Christianity isn't monolithic but it's a lot more consistent than agnosticism, atheism or, hell, literally any non-Christian tradition whether Abrahamic or otherwise. We have a much better idea where you're coming from simply because you're flying a banner. When poked, you fly it higher. FUNDAMENTALLY: faith cannot be reasoned and reason cannot be taken on faith. The argument stops there. I have no interest in dissuading you of your faith and know (have known for thirty years) that even if I did, reason wouldn't be a useful tool. Your faith is an internal construct reinforced by external social frameworks. JUST AS FUNDAMENTALLY: those frameworks have less than zero power to influence the opinions or thoughts of those outside that framework. If we were hangin' out, if you talked me into coming to the YoungLife dance, if I showed up some Sunday I would be within that framework and the inherited knowledge of that group would then be available to me. I would regard it as a participant in your tribe, or at least as a visitor. But we have none of that between us - we are words with attitude separated by screens. So look. I know that you think your "objective morals" are better than any other. But I also know that you don't even know what my morals are. Just like I know that your drive to adhere to your "objective morals" puts you in a position of righteousness compared to those who eschew them. The framework necessary to say "I gotz the truth, you don't, but that doesn't make me better than you" is that internal framework we've been talking about. It's that social construct that is wholly and completely absent when you debate the Heathens. Here - let's try an exercise in faith. For the sake of argument, I would like you to pretend that having The Truth does make you a better person. It's not much of a step, but it's a step into an alien mental framework. How do you feel? How do you regard the rest of the world? What are your thoughts on, say, the Rohingya? And what would you say to those people who think you're wrong? I'll bet you can't do it. When confronted with the (false) interpretation of my beliefs as relativism, you peaced the fuck out, G. Like every. other. "stereotypical Church-Warrior" I've ever debated. And you don't have to do that. Great friend of mine was a youth pastor for fifteen years. Debated original sin with no less than Tim LaHaye. So I've had these discussions. And they can be interesting. Both sides can learn something. But you're right - if you're not willing to get out of your tent it isn't gonna do anybody any good.
Man, I don't know if I want to jump into this very active thread or not, but I don't feel like starting something else, so here I am. This isn't directed at you madmatt112 or anyone else in this thread, I'm just chewing the fat here. While not exactly focusing on the same thing you're talking about, I think one of the important things for people to remember (both religious and non-religious) is that we're often tempted to make conclusions that fit our world view and then seek ideas and evidence to confirm it after the fact. If we're all being honest with ourselves, we all do it to varying degrees and frequencies, for any number of reasons. It's easy, it's comforting, it feels good, just to name a few. One of the things that can make religion particularly prickly, and I'm mostly talking with revealed religion in mind, is that the belief system often intertwines law, philosophy, spirituality, and metaphysics in such a way that whether or not certain concepts are believable are wholly contingent on whether or not you accept and believe other concepts in the same philosophy. For a super stripped down example, if someone from an Abrahamic Religion was asked whether or not they believe animals have souls, they'd probably answer "no." The logic might flow something like this. Man was created in God's image, so only man has a soul. Evidence of a soul is the ability to know, recognize, and come to God, and therefore exhibit Godly attributes like wisdom and knowledge. Humans are the only animals on the planets to embrace science and the arts to such a massive degree and this is proof God has given us souls. Therefore only humans have souls. What that logic relies on is A) souls exist, B) God exists, and C) metaphysically the two are aligned in that particular and specific way. Since we don’t know for certain any of those three points, all we can really know for certain is that only humans have significantly higher cognitive abilities. The spiritual hows and whys are then taken on faith. Where it gets interesting though, where it gets challenging, is that because our religious faith helps to form our morals, that world view affects how someone views animals and therefore how they treat them. Combined with other religious beliefs and cultural beliefs, that means that we can run the whole spectrum from “deforestation and factory farming is okay” to “I need to embrace veganism because as a child of God I’m a steward of the Earth.” What I’m trying to get at, is that it’s important to examine our faiths and how it affects us and to notice and reduce the blind spots that our faiths create. The more we rely on faith alone to influence our behavior and the more gaps we allow it to have, the more we run the risk of having compromised morals. As a somewhat related aside, one of the other challenges that we have to contend with is that religion often reinforces and rewards the behavior of finding proof in subtlety and nuances. As a result, a positive feedback cycle can often be created, in that we find nuances to reinforce our world view and we adjust our world view to look for more and more nuances to reinforce and justify our beliefs. We end up looking for that needle in the haystack, so focused on the needle that we forget about the haystack, the tree it’s sitting under, the forest the tree is in, and the fact that it’s the middle of a December night and we’re standing in a random forest in Washington trying to find a needle. Me personally? I've read up on a ton of religions over the course of my life. I love learning about them. They're absolutely fascinating and colorful and inspiring. For each one though, I've found stuff that I've found weird, uncomfortable, confusing, and sometimes silly. Yes, even my own. I'm not going to say anything particular about any religion, partly because my reactions are shaped by my experiences and world views, but more importantly I try to go out of my way to not disparage the beliefs of others unless there is an issue of deep and immediate concern. That said though, for every person out there (religious and secular), if we don't find things about our own beliefs that brings up hard questions, there's a pretty good chance that A) we're not as well versed in our beliefs as we think or B) we're not looking at our beliefs, our lives, and our selves objectively. Understanding others and understanding ourselves fundamentally, both in a religious and in a secular sense, comes from asking questions, doubting our own preconceived notions, and challenging ourselves to dig further and learn more. Sitting idle isn't gonna take us anywhere. (Edit: That's one of the things that's wonderful about this website in particular. I have participated in and watched many challenging, insightful, and sometimes frustrating conversations.) So to make a long story short, there can be reasoning found in faith, but we need to be really careful with that reasoning and how we wield it. This applies both to religious and secular beliefs.faith cannot be reasoned and reason cannot be taken on faith.
An axiom is "a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true." If we both accept the axiom, we can both debate and discuss that which flows from the axiom. Important to note: there are no axioms in science. Nothing is assumed. And when debating with someone who doesn't hold the same axioms you do, shit falls apart real quick. Watch: Axiom, so (false) axiom. Axiom, and therefore axiom. Biased observation therefore conclusion. If you're buddhist, man isn't created in God's image. there's no reason to assume that image has anything to do with soul. Your definition of "soul" is proprietary therefore your definition of wisdom and knowledge are, too. "to such a massive degree" is a choice - if a chimp can get ants to climb on a stick we aren't the only tool makers and to wrap it all up in a "therefore only humans have souls" only serves to demonstrate how dependent on your framework your "reason" truly is.For a super stripped down example, if someone from an Abrahamic Religion was asked whether or not they believe animals have souls, they'd probably answer "no." The logic might flow something like this.
Man was created in God's image, so only man has a soul. Evidence of a soul is the ability to know, recognize, and come to God, and therefore exhibit Godly attributes like wisdom and knowledge. Humans are the only animals on the planets to embrace science and the arts to such a massive degree and this is proof God has given us souls. Therefore only humans have souls.
I have spent many years studying both Theology and Philosophy and am currently finishing my MA in Systematic and Philosophical theology from the University of Nottingham. Your observation about axioms is spot on. Wittgenstein described many religious arguments as playing word games. Two individuals can argue all day long, but if their definition of a term is not the same or at the very least agreeable, then there is no definite conclusion to be had. American evangelicalism has one of the weakest systematic theologies and is built primarily upon fideism. One must give up outside thinking and enter the circle of cohesive thought to know anything at all. This goes against historical Christianity which in fact relies on eyewitness account and outside data for its conclusions. It is also common for evangelicals to assume things about Christian doctrine that Scripture does not necessarily reveal. Animals and souls for instance. The Imagio Dei does not inherently imply that animals are without souls. And in fact, if one believes in the fall, he believes that man has rejected the Imagio Dei. The problem is not necessarily religion or Christianity but is the circular reasoning and fideism adopted by American Evangelicalism.
In addition to the books, I produce and co-host a podcast with Drs. of Theology, History, and Philosophy. We did a series on apologetics that touches on a lot of this.
During undergrad trained under Dr. Rod Rosenbladt and Dr. John Warwick Montgomery. They both apply analytic philosophy to Christian thought. Dr. Montgomery wrote a book called Tractatus Logico Theologicus Despite its name, it is straightforward to read and is an excellent place to start in regards to the philosophy of Christian thought. I work for 1517 one of his publishers, enter code "hubski" at checkout for 15% off. https://shop.1517legacy.com/products/tractatus-logico-theologicus Other Suggestions: - C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity, and An Experiment in Criticism - For Systematics the best reformation one is Philip Melanchthon's Loci Communes - Modern lay level systematic Called to Believe by Dr. Steve Mueller (I studied systematics under Mueller, keep in mind this book is written for students who want to work in the church) - Philosophy: Ayer Languge, Truth, and Logic Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus This is only the tip of the iceberg haha. What I tried to come up with is the intersection of faith, reason, and a basic look at a historical/systematic approach to doctrine.
No problem. I love making the podcast, and nearly every episode has a handful of book recommendations. We have covered the basics of Christian doctrine, Apologetics, and we have some great episodes on figures in church history. We are in our third year now, and this month I became the director of the 1517 podcasting network which I am launching in April. Anytime you want more reading hit me up.
I pretty much agree with everything you just said here. I think one of the difficult things for us to do, is appreciate the perspectives from other people. I don't mean appreciate like we would a gift, but appreciate as in understanding the nature of something. It's very easy for us to have a kneejerk reaction where because we outright reject someone else's axiom, we are tempted to find their perspective completely without merit and unworthy of consideration. In some instances, this is really true. If the axiom that someone holds is completely toxic that the logic that stems from it is additionally toxic, we should reject the logic. Sometimes though, it's not true. For example, even though I'm not a Buddhist and I don't believe in Karma, I am still capable of appreciating the concept of Karma, how it feeds into their notions of spiritual development and morality, and how it can and cannot inform my perspective of any statement they have to make where Karma might be a core concept in that argument. If I metaphorically plug my ears and say "Lalala! Karma is dumb! Reincarnation is wrong! The progress of the human soul is linear and only goes in one direction! You're wrong!" I've put a severe hampering on the conversation and possibly the relationship of the person I'm conversing with. Where as, if I say, "I don't believe in Karma the way you do, but I see why you object to the idea of factory farming when you view the subject through the lens of your belief" all of the sudden the conversation goes better and I find myself looking at an old argument, through a new lens, potentially deepening my understanding of said argument and my personal position on it. This applies in a lot of areas, not just religious, from personal relationships to public policies.
Question - If you already think your morals are superior to others ( even if you don’t think every bit of you is superior ) than how do you analyze your actions and change ? How do you grow ? For understandings sake, let me lay out the religious people I know. I think the other religious ones pretend to like them (Is pretending to like somebody morally right ?) They’ll say that their religion has moral supremacy but they’re a flawed little human. ( I know you say you live by these morals so you’re not claiming the same thing ). They’ll preach to other people the morals of this religion and every time they realize they’ve been a shit person for the past few months conveniently have a revelation and decide that they’ll be different like yesterday. Except changing a behaviour doesn’t happen over night and then they just fail and the cycle repeats. Thing is ? It’s not even that these people don’t want to admit to themselves or to us regular folks, they don’t want to admit that they aren’t perfect and God’s lights ain’t going to change that. Hard work and determination changes that. So they all just fake it until they die. So, back to my point, they have an out when they realize they’ve been a shit person via the gods moral/I’m flawed approach. You say that the morals you live by are better than everybody else’s. So you can’t admit when you’ve been wrong. In my opinion that means you can’t grow in any meaningful way without admitting that maybe your morals aren’t perfect considering they drive most of or decisions. It’s like when school children go to Africa and help build schools. My friend was there doing something else for a bit, you know what happened at night to the building ? The local men went and fixed everything the kids did wrong. Tell these school kids this and instead of going oh wow I didn’t realize I wasn’t helping at all I should shift my focus they get upset and defensive. You know why ? Because they only ever did it to feed a false sense of morality. Feeling like they’ve done the right thing is actually more important than doing the right thing. So what sets you apart ? How do you take in new information and actually reanalyze your actions if you already think your morality compass is the best ? How do you grow in this regard ?
Short. Out of context? But what context can that exist in? Strawman? No. Not really. It's just goddamn hilarious that it existsThere she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
-Ezekiel
I agree with you! That passage IS hilarious, but the context of the day and the historical understanding that large penises were often seen as crude, vulgar, or savage in many cultures in that time helps me understand why the author (and all the subsequent "shepherds" of the bible) kept it in there to help illustrate his point. All of this being said, that Ezekiel passage has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the bible's claims, teachings, morality, and the wider Christian religion itself though. And that's something I notice in discussions around Christianity and faith in general - these passages are red herrings that allow someone to criticize the text, but they have very little relation to the broader religion and worldview.
OK dude. Why are evangelical Christians not outraged by the existence of Donald Trump? Let alone his presidency. Two Corinthians. The dude fucking said that contains his favorite Bible verse. Two. Not Second. Two. "Leftists" would probably have fewer issues with people who would use the word leftist if not for the rampant hypocrisy
Hey steve, this is a really interesting question. My thoughts follow, and I'm really curious to know what yours are! I think a large part (not the entirety) of why Trump voters voted the way they did, even the Evangelicals (let us be charitable and agree that not all Evangelicals are the same, not even close, but for expediency treat them as a unit here), boils down to two major themes: 1) Hillary Clinton was a garbage candidate from start to finish, and the DNC was abhorrent in its push to crown her as President at the expense of all else. Her and the DNC's messaging (often amplified by sloppy media operations[this is my way of saying Liberal Media Bias without sounding like a moron]) was often insulting to vast swaths of conservative Americans, and helped a) push moderates to the right, and b) get republicans voting in droves. 2) Many Americans hold political views, values, and beliefs that are better represented by the Republican party than the Democratic party. This is simple - they'll hold their nose about Trump and vote for him anyways because they fear worse outcomes from the Democratic option than the Republican option. There is often not a viable third option, and that is part of why D.T. is a thing. Thoughts?
Hey, I haven't once said that anybody should vote for, support, or oppose any specific political candidate or even party! I'm not arguing for Trump. I was stating the reasons I think many people ended up voting for him even he seems like a morally distasteful or even evil character. How does that make me full of shit? Man, you're being harsh on me today. It's fine to disagree with my ideas, but you've been downright hostile.
Hey man, thanks for apologizing at least. I appreciate it :) I didn't expect quite so much response when I posted my first comment, so I'm not surprised it wasn't well articulated. Thanks for your honesty.
I dunno man... as a pretty religious person... I can say that religion has nothing to do with this. anecdote: I was a registered republican. I thought that was important. In 2006 I was boo'd off the stage of my local caucus because I suggested we get out of other peoples' wombs and bedrooms, and select delegates who were more concerned about fiscal responsibility and following the constitution. (gay marriage and abortion were _still_ the main talking points for the party... and I was tired of it... we have bigger fish to fry). Needless to say, I'm no longer a registered republican. Too many republicans are too busy tying their morals and religion to their politics. I get it that your religious values inform who you are and what choices you make... but I am pretty tired of the government (and the people who elect them) trying to legislate morality. Sure... this article is pretty harsh on "evangelical christians" (a term that I loathe by the way). But it is highlighting the cognitive dissonance that many of us see in a large swath of people who claim to believe in certain things, claim to vote on said beliefs... and then proceed to give a free ride to a dude who basically flies directly in the face of those beliefs: liar, cheater, swindler, adulterer, misogynist, etc... I mean... the dude is an order of magnitude worse on the "morality" scale than Clinton ever was... but religious people look the other way because of..... his..... stance on tax cuts? because of his business savvy? I just don't get it.
Do you claim that Christians should be outraged at the existence of Donald Trump? I don't think he lives a demonstration of Christian values and beliefs. Donald Trump does not represent all Christians. Donald Trump is a person, not an archetype. His likely total lack of knowledge of the bible does not surprise me, but it does nothing to nullify the bible itself.
I suppose the reason I said "leftists" was because the article was written from a perspective I would define as "leftist", and I was taking issue with the article and some of the presuppositions and premises that leftist thought holds. Part of that is the moral relativism that I see eating the heart of civilization, decimating self-identity, and destroying social fabrics. I'm fine with you disagreeing with me on these things, and I don't want to start another argument, but I am trying to answer your question honestly. I don't think Christians should oppose Trump. It's more nuanced than that. I think Hillary Clinton would have been equally un-Christian of a leader in the White House, that being said. I just don't think I'd prescribe Christians either 100% supporting or 100% opposing Trump - things are more nuanced than that.
Since you brought up archetypes, I'm kinda curious who you mean by "Leftists". For what it is worth, I don't know of her (heck, I haven't even read the piece) but I checked out the author's twitter page, and she is followed by accounts I'd consider Leftist (Kshama Sawant, AK Press, Haymarket Books, Verso Books).
I think many people assumed that I support Trump, or that I think Christians should support Trump. I do not. I took the opportunity of this article to vent some other thoughts that were related - like the article's bashing of Christians who do support Trump because it's an easy attack. I also would like to go back to a point I made elsewhere in this thread that the reason many Evangelicals voted for Trump is because they decided that in the final analysis, Clinton was the more immoral choice for the country. Again, I don't agree or disagree with that position, but I heard it from a LOT of more moderate Trump supporters.
I don't think Trump embodies any Christian morals that I know of. I'm certainly not trying to argue that he does, nor am I claiming that Christians should have voted for him. Hope that clarifies :)
I get the impression you're being glib, but in case you're not, what are you getting at?
That's cool that you think it's nonsense. I'd appreciate if you helped me understand what specifically was nonsensical about what I typed. Seems fairly coherent and structurally consistent to me.
Hey man, I'm really quite open to listening and understand your views. I really am. I'm not here to fight or bash you. I may defend my views at times, but I really do want to hear what you have to say. If someone can explain that I'm misguided in some way, I'm all for that - it's happened many time before, and will happen many times in the future.
Unfortunately, you're making a specific claim that what I said is nonsense. Having made the positive claim, the onus is on you to support your claim. I'm sorry, but I can't just magically "awaken" to something you know. I consider myself quite self-aware, and do a lot of self-work to stay humble and learning. Jungian Analysis, etc.etc.etc - your ad hominem argument that I am not self-aware is not valid in regards to your claims.
I think our conversation has reached it's conclusion, if the only thing you have left to say to me is that I'm an idiot. I may be, but I don't think so. I appreciate the time you've given to our little back-and-forth, even so. Thanks, tacocat.