Test of Faith

[MartinHarper]

I fail to see how being Christian is any more or less convenient than atheism.

[bigdjiver]

... you'll see why evolution cannot be expected to lead in the direction of sociopathy.

I believe that we are all descended from men that have raped, and men and women that have murdered their sexual rivals, or from people that have selected mates based on stolen wealth. I regard those acts as sociopathic. I suspect that it has to be in the genetic make-up of all of us, just needing the right circumstances to trigger the sociopathic behaviour. Fortunately the vast majority of people are brought up in environments that suppress such behaviour and the triggers for it.

FWIW My views on evolution predate Dawkins by some time. "In the beginning was the word" and that word was "evolve", and even that word / law evolved. The only thing that come from nothing is a law that can evolve from nothing. Perhaps Dawkins should re-read the bible.?

[Gus]

FWIW My views on evolution predate Dawkins by some time. "In the beginning was the word" and that word was "evolve", and even that word / law evolved. The only thing that come from nothing is a law that can evolve from nothing. Perhaps Dawkins should re-read the bible.?

Have some sympathy with this view. There are areas of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, which I don't take literally. If the writing were supposed to be understood by non-scientific folk, giving them a detailed account of the Big Bang etc may not have been too useful I don't see a direct contradiction between 'known' evolutionary science and the Word of God.

[Barry Shnikov]

I believe that we are all descended from men that have raped, and men and women that have murdered their sexual rivals, or from people that have selected mates based on stolen wealth.

What you believe than is considerably less useful in this discussion than what you can demonstrate.

I regard those acts as sociopathic.

Well, they aren't. Check your definition of sociopath.

I suspect that it has to be in the genetic make-up of all of us, just needing the right circumstances to trigger the sociopathic behaviour. Fortunately the vast majority of people are brought up in environments that suppress such behaviour and the triggers for it.

On what do you base your suspicions? Again, check your understanding of 'sociopath'.

FWIW My views on evolution predate Dawkins by some time.

I don't wish to appear antagonistic but I don't believe you. The Selfish gene was published in 1976, and the Blind Watchmaker in 1986. No one was thinking in the terms set out by Dawkins in Gene and its more technical follow up, The extended phenotype, prior to his exposition of the thesis. (I except Dawkins and his mentor, whose name escapes me).
I simply don't believe that you were thinking along similar lines prior to that.

"In the beginning was the word" and that word was "evolve", and even that word / law evolved. The only thing that come from nothing is a law that can evolve from nothing.

What?

[Barry Shnikov]

Here's a modest challenge to Christian believers.

Can you explain what process is used to determine which bits of the Bible are indispensible and which bits can be jettisoned/treated as allegory/whatever?

Oh, and by the way, an appeal to authority (viz "it was decided by Pope Dubious the Eighth that...") cuts no mustard because that doesn't give the process. The question can only be answered by outlining the process the Pope used to make his decision.

The point is that if you take 100 christians at random from 100 random places on earth you are going to get nearly 100 different versions as to the reliability, authority and meaning of the bible. And the bits which get tossed out are the ones that tend to coincide least with the current cultural mores.

[Gus]

The point is that if you take 100 christians at random from 100 random places on earth you are going to get nearly 100 different versions as to the reliability, authority and meaning of the bible. And the bits which get tossed out are the ones that tend to coincide least with the current cultural mores.

Ahem ... are you suggesting that the Popes just collected 100 random bods and not the many masses of learned scholars and philosophers Barry I wonder, what dark thing has happened to you to make you so bitter about something that probably doesn't affect you. You come across with a man on a mission .. why?

[bigdjiver]

What?

It is in the genes. My sons teacher said of him "He does not just think outside the box, he is outside the box, occasionally coming in."

What you believe than is considerably less useful in this discussion than what you can demonstrate.

Demonstrate what? That rapists produce more progeny than murder victims?

...Check your definition of sociopath....Again, check your understanding of 'sociopath'.

You don't give the definition you are working to. Mine is along the lines of "Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others. " I think we are all descended from ancestors who have exhibited that behaviour at times, are a lot, if not all, of us are probably all capable of exhibiting socopathic behaviour in particular circumstances.

...I don't wish to appear antagonistic but I don't believe you. The Selfish gene was published in 1976, and the Blind Watchmaker in 1986. No one was thinking in the terms set out by Dawkins in Gene and its more technical follow up, The extended phenotype, prior to his exposition of the thesis. (I except Dawkins and his mentor, whose name escapes me).
I simply don't believe that you were thinking along similar lines prior to that.

In my teens I was thinking that "evolve" is the first law of our universe. That the significant unit of life on this planet is the ecosystem, that mankind is just a temporary flowering and seed dispersal mechanism, whose function during the short existence of mankind is to carry our ecosystem to other worlds, that the watchmaker is not blind, that a Lamarkian mechansim has evolved, and when species are faced with a change in their environment they have a load of genes which tend to direct mutations in the most likely direction for success. There are bacteria that have 1/4 of the genetic make-up that we posess. I don't think evolution has preserved that number of genes because they are necessary to make a bacteria, I think it is because they are necessary to make lots of different bacteria. There is some mechanism not yet discovered or proven which directs mutations towards coping with the changes in their environment. When the climate hots up mutate to bacterium A, when it cools down mutate back to bacterium A. There have been billions of years to evolve such a mechanism.
When I was at school I was reading a book a day, and I went through the Woking libraries collection of science fiction, and then that of the Croydon library and bookstall that would swap two second-hand sci-fi mags for an unread one. Long before Dawkins there was Asimov. (around 500 books and monthly science articles in his magazine.) Do not assume boundaries to my thinking.
It is a small step from a selfish gene to a (when advantageous) sociopathic one.

[Ghost]

Here's a modest challenge to Christian believers.

Can you explain what process is used to determine which bits of the Bible are indispensible and which bits can be jettisoned/treated as allegory/whatever?

Oh, and by the way, an appeal to authority (viz "it was decided by Pope Dubious the Eighth that...") cuts no mustard because that doesn't give the process.

Hopefully this will answer your question, but if not let me know why and I'll see if I can improve.

Christians believe in God. They believe Christ is the Son of God.

After that it gets a bit confusing.

Speaking for Catholics only - Christ appointed Peter as the first Pope. All further Popes are from this lineage. That is where their authority comes from.

As I understand it Mormons consider Catholics to have a direct Authority through this lineage, but they also consider it to have been a bit banged about simply by having humans involved. John Smith represents a new beginning and a new lineage, again with the Authority of God.

The question can only be answered by outlining the process the Pope used to make his decision.

In both cases I believe considerable prayer is involved in making decisions, as well as a considerable amount of study by a number of scholars. Although the Pope can use his Authority to declare something as "infallible", in practice this rarely occurs.

[Barry Shnikov]

Ahem ... are you suggesting that the Popes just collected 100 random bods and not the many masses of learned scholars and philosophers Barry I wonder, what dark thing has happened to you to make you so bitter about something that probably doesn't affect you. You come across with a man on a mission .. why?

I'm generally credited with writing clearly and concisely. But sometimes on this board I feel like I could use some 'pointy hand' icons. or perhaps a diagram-drawing facility. (As in, 'jeez, you need a diagram?')

The point about the 100 christians is that there will be only superficial agreement between them on the question of the bible. And yet we outsiders are expected to take seriously the piffle that is spouted about it, and if we challenge its veracity there is a chorus of offended bleats.

As for my feelings about religion, I don't think 'bitter' gets close. Outraged, indignant, infuriated, mildly amused - all, at some time or other. Bitterness you can keep for apostates - I was never a believer, except in the sense that there was a time when I needed to grow up and develop my intellect so that I could see the truth.

A man on a mission - hmm. I watched (while making some detached cuffs out of glittery christmas wrap for the local NYE ball) the program about the making of the Life of Brian. We are talking about less than 30 years ago, and yet there were people (Mary Whitehouse, the Festival of Light - hah! festival of ignorance more like) who felt that their faith permitted/demanded that they should try to ensure that the film was not seen by anyone, or if not then anyone in Britain, or if not then anyone in any local authority area where the Colonel Blimps on the council were prepared to ban a film about which their only evidence was a short letter from Mary Whitehouse.

Religious people put their belief ahead of the ordinary, everyday interests of other people. Until ALL OF THEM stop doing it, practise their beliefs only at home or in a church, stop indoctrinating their children, keep out of politics and education - people like me are going to keep complaining about it.

[Barry Shnikov]

It is in the genes. My sons teacher said of him "He does not just think outside the box, he is outside the box, occasionally coming in."

Er...is that it? Let's hope your inability to follow logical arguments wasn't passed on...

Demonstrate what? That rapists produce more progeny than murder victims?

Well, I am asking you to give some justification for what you stated, in your post, were your beliefs. Unless, of course, you were just mentioning them in passing, and didn't expect your readers to consider it a contribution to the discussion in the thread.

You don't give the definition you are working to.

Um, I'll gamble and say I'll be happy with any definition from a respected dictionary. Your definition - which I have snipped - is as useful as defining strawberry jam as 'sticky and red'.

In my teens I was thinking that "evolve" is the first law of our universe. That the significant unit of life on this planet is the ecosystem

(my italics)
Just what do you expect people to do when you write cobblers like that? What do you mean by unit of life? What do you mean by significant? I can't accept, taking the words at their everyday value, that the statement is accurate or useful.
The rest of your post shows that you do not appear to understand natural selection, nor evolution. If, however, you do understand it then you appear to be suggesting that it is wrong. That will require some argument on your part. Might as well try to convince us that computers are technically impossible. Or that bumble bees can't fly.

[Barry Shnikov]

Hopefully this will answer your question, but if not let me know why and I'll see if I can improve.

Christians believe in God. They believe Christ is the Son of God.

Sorry, but it doesn't. I'm asking you to explain how you personally decided certain bits of the bible are not essential or perhaps even anathema to the beliefs you hold. Any any other christians might do the same.

I suspect if all the christians on the forum answered the question, we'd get no two answers the same.

Maybe the moderators could split the thread?

[Astro]

but I couldn't find any references where God actually tells anyone to go and rape someone else.

Look in Judges.

God doesn't tell the man to rape anyone, I agree, but it seems perfectly acceptable for the guy to give his concubine to some blokes to be raped instead of himself. It's disgusting.

Here's a modest challenge to Christian believers.

Can you explain what process is used to determine which bits of the Bible are indispensible and which bits can be jettisoned/treated as allegory/whatever?

Yeah, the whole of The Old Testament.
Jesus formed a new Christian religion, so the Old Testament is void for Christians, but not Jews.

Speaking for Catholics only - Christ appointed Peter as the first Pope. All further Popes are from this lineage. That is where their authority comes from.

Wasn't Peter the one who denied jesus 3 times before the **** crowed?

He was rubbish. He also denied women the right to preach, which was against what Jesus taught.

[Baruch]

Religious people put their belief ahead of the ordinary, everyday interests of other people.

That's a broad generalisation, and in the case of most of us, unfair. SOME religious people are like that, but many of us are not.

[Ghost]

The point about the 100 christians is that there will be only superficial agreement between them on the question of the bible.

Fair enough. You can say the same about 100 scientists, 100 dancers, 100 painters etc though, so that's more a statement of human nature.

Religious people put their belief ahead of the ordinary, everyday interests of other people. Until ALL OF THEM stop doing it, practise their beliefs only at home or in a church, stop indoctrinating their children, keep out of politics and education - people like me are going to keep complaining about it.

Hmm change "religious" to "ethical", "moral" or even "good". Then what happens? Are you saying politics and education should be completely amoral? What makes aethists better at defining right and wrong?

Sorry, but it doesn't. I'm asking you to explain how you personally decided certain bits of the bible are not essential or perhaps even anathema to the beliefs you hold. Any any other christians might do the same.

Ah ok I'll try again

I suspect if all the christians on the forum answered the question, we'd get no two answers the same.

Again Human nature. There's two differrent answers.

1. As a Catholic I'm not the Pope so it's not my job to sort it all out (thankfully)
2. For me personally

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'There is no commandment greater than these." ~ Mark 12:29-31

which I think you actually should get agreement on with other Christians.

Look in Judges.

God doesn't tell the man to rape anyone, I agree, but it seems perfectly acceptable for the guy to give his concubine to some blokes to be raped instead of himself. It's disgusting.

The Jews reaction was

"Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"
Judges 19:30.

"The tribes of Israel sent men throughout the tribe of Benjamin, saying, "What about this awful crime that was committed among you? 13 Now surrender those wicked men of Gibeah so that we may put them to death and purge the evil from Israel." "
Judges 20:12

So no, to be fair it wasn't considered "perfectly acceptable".

Wasn't Peter the one who denied jesus 3 times before the **** crowed?

Gotta love the automatic **** He was also forgiven three times by Christ.

He was rubbish. He also denied women the right to preach, which was against what Jesus taught.

Not to mention the joy that is St Paul where women are concerned.

That's a broad generalisation, and in the case of most of us, unfair. SOME religious people are like that, but many of us are not.

By all means stop people who abuse power, cause pain and sufferring in the name of God or frankly anyone else. But no-where in the Christian faith does it say you're supposed to go around hurting others - quite the opposite, it's a religion founded on Love.

[MartinHarper]

That rapists produce more progeny than murder victims?

Only about 5% of rapes result in pregnancy. Having a girlfriend or a wife is a superior reproductive strategy.

[Barry Shnikov]

Only about 5% of rapes result in pregnancy. Having a girlfriend or a wife is a superior reproductive strategy.

Ah! Now, reproductive strategy, that's my kind of talk. But - I'd be interested if you have a reference.

[Barry Shnikov]

Fair enough. You can say the same about 100 scientists, 100 dancers, 100 painters etc though, so that's more a statement of human nature.

Well, painters and dancers, yes. Scientists, no. If you enquire re the scientist's speciality, there will be a substantial degree of consensus; if you enquire re any other part of science the reply will be more circumspect.

Hmm change "religious" to "ethical", "moral" or even "good". Then what happens? Are you saying politics and education should be completely amoral? What makes aethists better at defining right and wrong?

No, I'm saying that people whose 'world picture' is based on things about which they haven't the faintest shred of proof should not try and impose their beliefs on everybody else, except to the extent that those beliefs conform with majority opinion.

Ah ok I'll try again
Again Human nature. There's two differrent answers.
1. As a Catholic I'm not the Pope so it's not my job to sort it all out (thankfully)
2. For me personally
which I think you actually should get agreement on with other Christians.

That tells me which bit of the bible that you consider indispensible; what it doesn't tell me is how you arrived at your decision. I repeat, my question is what process is used to prune the contents of the bible in order to arrive at a working 'holy book' for each believer.

By all means stop people who abuse power, cause pain and sufferring in the name of God or frankly anyone else. But no-where in the Christian faith does it say you're supposed to go around hurting others - quite the opposite, it's a religion founded on Love.

Well, see, that's not quite true, and that's what I'm getting at. Parts of the bible do have god giving explicit approval to quite inhumane acts that would nowadays be considered war crimes. It's no use to say 'Oh, that's the OT, I don't believe that' because all that Jesus claimed (or is claimed on his behalf over the next few hundred years) to be is based on the OT. What he espoused was his own, but without the authority of the OT we are entitled to say 'Who are you to tell us what to do?' So how does the Christian know that he can rely on the bits which prefigure Christ but ignore some of the bits which don't?

The claim 'Jesus is the son of god' depends, doesn't it, on having a god for him to be a son of? And the evidence of that god's existence came from the OT? But if the OT is not an utterly reliable document, what principles do you use to distinguish the reliable from the unreliable bits?

[bigdjiver]

Only about 5% of rapes result in pregnancy. Having a girlfriend or a wife is a superior reproductive strategy.

Having a girlfriend, or more than one, and a wife is a superior reproductive strategy. Rape, of course, is out of the question, but "we were both drunk" works just as well. Murdering your local sexual rivals is a no-no, but buying your mate an extra drink before he drives home is just "thoughtless". The "selfish gene" knows how to act nice. Meanwhile removing a far away despotic government and plunging foereign gene pools into bloody civil wars is good selfish gene strategy too. We are all born containing nasty and nice, and the mechanisms for knowing which to be and when.

I also doubt that 5% of marital intercourse results in pregnancy.

[Ghost]

Well, painters and dancers, yes. Scientists, no. If you enquire re the scientist's speciality, there will be a substantial degree of consensus; if you enquire re any other part of science the reply will be more circumspect.

If you consider the different branches of Christianity to be specialisation, then I think the concept holds. eg if you ask a group of Anglicans on their position on divorce it's likely the same, whereas they would differ from Catholics.

No, I'm saying that people whose 'world picture' is based on things about which they haven't the faintest shred of proof should not try and impose their beliefs on everybody else, except to the extent that those beliefs conform with majority opinion.

The thing is "love one another and yourself" isn't exactly the property of Christianity.

Monty Pythons the Meaning of Life was basically "Look after yourself and be nice to each other"

Bill & Ted - "Be Excellent to Each Other"

So am I allowed to express my opinion that it's prefferrable for our society to act in such a manner?

That tells me which bit of the bible that you consider indispensible; what it doesn't tell me is how you arrived at your decision.

I think of it like learning Maths. Get the hang of basic addition first, then worry about Calculus. So I'm working on getting the hang of "Love God, yourself and your neighbour". So I haven't exactly pruned anything.

Well, see, that's not quite true, and that's what I'm getting at. Parts of the bible do have god giving explicit approval to quite inhumane acts that would nowadays be considered war crimes. It's no use to say 'Oh, that's the OT, I don't believe that' because all that Jesus claimed (or is claimed on his behalf over the next few hundred years) to be is based on the OT.

Science changes, but it's still based on the previous science.

The claim 'Jesus is the son of god' depends, doesn't it, on having a god for him to be a son of? And the evidence of that god's existence came from the OT? But if the OT is not an utterly reliable document, what principles do you use to distinguish the reliable from the unreliable bits?

Some Pharisees came and tested Jesus by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" "What did Moses command you?" he replied. They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female'. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10 v 2-12

So the Old Testament is reliable for the time and place when it was being used. However as circumstances change, God is allowed to update it through Prophets / Christ.

It's similar to trying to explain an F16 to someone in the Old Testament. You'd probably end up with a "magical dragon" or something. It doesn't mean that F16s don't exist.

[Will]

Religious people put their belief ahead of the ordinary, everyday interests of other people. Until ALL OF THEM stop doing it, practise their beliefs only at home or in a church, stop indoctrinating their children, keep out of politics and education - people like me are going to keep complaining about it.

What if a Christian asked you to keep YOU'RE beliefs out of politics and education, to stop indoctrinating people with the belief that there is no God and that everything has been created out of nothing and by random chance, and to only practice your beliefs at home or at Richard Dawkins meetings?