Question about separation of church and state.
Would the following be considered a violation of the separation of church and state? If not, why? Would it be because no specific religion is being endorsed? Or perhaps because it is voluntary? I’m genuinely curious.
http://wvmetronews.com/2020/03/24/day-of-prayer-in-west-virginia-set-for-wednesday/
http://wvmetronews.com/2020/03/24/day-of-prayer-in-west-virginia-set-for-wednesday/
Comments (75)
That would make perfect sense to me. There’s nothing wrong with eating an animal that’s already dead. There’s only anything wrong with killing living animals. So if something were to be done about carnivory, it would make more sense to ban the killing than the eating. If as a consequence nobody’s able to eat meat anymore, so be it, but stopping meat-eating was never the point.
Well, what is the meat industry actually? Organizations fueled by people who're excersing their right to eat meat, isn't it? What is the church but an organization run by people exercising their right to freedom of religion, isn't it?
Likewise practicing your own religion personally and imposing you religion on others through the state. If you religion were to say it is a sin to not have a theocracy... then too bad for (that part of) your religion.
I'm not against religion per se; I'm against the church.
I'm not against eating meat; I just don't like the slaughterhouses.
There is a National day of prayer every year, the first Thursday of May, and the President is required by law to issue a proclamation for it. It is, in my opinion, a violation of church and state.
Yes.
Quoting TheMadFool
Right, but because of the separation of church and state, their decisions can’t infringe upon the rights of others, or otherwise discriminate against people who believe something other than the state approved religion.
Is this true? If so, that is certainly a violation of the separation of church and state.
Right - very difficult situation, I agree. But I think the principle would imply that it is ok for the Governor to offer a personal exhortation to prayer - it's when he starts to use the authority and instruments of office that the line is becoming blurred. It's not ideal in any case, but a matter of practical necessity in a pluralistic culture.
On the other hand, the US was very much founded on Christian principles and I myself am not a secular zealot, like, I don't agree with moves to abolish all symbols of religious belief in public life, like has been done in Montreal for example. I would rather adopt a live and let live attitude.
The phrase dates back to a time when most people had religion. Even back then according to the constitution/bill of rights it was legal to be atheist.
Are you saying religion should be banned by american government?
I don't want to insert something into what you said that you didn't say which is why i'm asking?
No, I don't believe religion should be banned but what worries me is that if philosophy has discovered anything, it's is that there's no such thing as a right answer to many of the issues we deem important and that too after thinking long and hard over many years.
Religion, on the other hand, not only claims to know the correct answers to everything but also prohibits rational inquiry into the validity of these answers. While I believe that no religion is completely wrong, I'd prefer it to be welcoming to positive, rational criticism.
Every religion I know of has a special word for those who don't believe in it and I believe most of these words translate to ignoramus. The upside of this practice of calling nonbelievers ignorant is that the faithful are under the impression that their religion counts as wisdom which, if anything, gives wisdom due recognition. The downside is once religion is equated to wisdom (in the traditional sense), it gains the advantage the latter has in terms of being both good and true, in the process making religion practically immune to any kind of criticism.
The problem with this line of thought is that believers have the wrong end of the stick re wisdom. If humanity has learned anything it's that sometimes, maybe even most of the time, we don't have the right answers. The traditional view that to have wisdom is to know everything thoroughly has been supplanted by the more realistic notion of wisdom as not only knowing stuff but also admitting ignorance. In a way then, religion, by claiming to know the truth and labeling nonbelievers as ignorant is actually proving, not that it possesses wisdom but in fact lacks it. It follows then that religion, by claiming perfect wisdom, makes itself unworthy of the attribute of wisdom. Ergo, it must open itself to critique or else continue on as an wisdom's impostor.
All what I've said up until this point is premised on religion being wrong but only as it appears to us, in this day and age. I'm open to the possibility, with great reluctance of course, that religion is correct and that either we don't understand or misunderstand religion. You know how it is...It's as easy to understand a fool as it is to misunderstand a sage.
That is a shallow caricature if ever there was one. The entire university system of the West, not to mention the hospital system, and science itself, was started by religious orders and grounded in the Judeo-Christian system.
Of course is it true that there are dogmatic close-minded provincial believers, but the same can be said of militant atheists. Honest doubt is very much part of every religious believer's life, and those who can sanguinely accept religious nostrums without ever questioning their meaning are not by any means exemplars religious faith.
There is a very powerful cultural mythology in secular western culture, the 'conflict thesis', that religion and science are forever in conflict and that only one can win. That was very much the work of some eminent 19th century intellectuals, like William Tyndall and others, carried on now by their modern counterparts like Richard Dawkins. But again it is based on a shallow caricature; there are many scientists who hold religious beliefs, see for example The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell.
This dichotomy is the result of some particular developments within Western religious history; particularly Luther and Calvin's insistence on 'salvation by faith alone'. A lot of the problems go back to the suppression of the gnostic element in religious life; the means by which individual believers, or rather, practicers, come to see and know the truths of the faith in their own lives. 'Believe and be saved', is the teaching; 'don't, and be damned', is the usual implication. It seems like an open and shut case, a black and white situation, but that is very much a construct of our particular place in history.
Quoting TheMadFool
Who is this 'we'? All mankind? All cultures? All philosophies? All religions? Who doesn't know what, exactly?
Sadly...it IS so!
The Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives is the officer of the United States House of Representatives responsible for beginning each day's proceedings with a prayer. The House cites the first half of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 in the United States Constitution as giving it the authority to elect a Chaplain, "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers".[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
The Chaplain of the United States Senate opens each session of the United States Senate with a prayer, and provides and coordinates religious programs and pastoral care support for Senators, their staffs, and their families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate
And to make a sad story even sadder:
The House chaplain earns $172,500 a year while his Senate counterpart — currently Seventh-day Adventist minister Barry Black — earns $160,787. Adding staff and office expenses, the annual cost of maintaining these largely ceremonial tips of the hat to Christianity approaches $1 million.
Considering the complacent and apathetic nature of modern people who adhere to the religion that i've chosen, i'm not sure i can argue that my religion is worth defending based on performance. Many of my chosen religion, construe a complacent and apathetic spirit as the Holy Spirit ("the comforter"). While i believe the Holy Spirit does sometimes condone complacency and apathy, it seems these people only embrace these spirits. That Holy Book says "test the spirits" (not that this implies not doing this is blasphemie against the Holy Spirit) meaning there are more than one spirit(s) according to that Holy Book amd not all of them are holy. The last "book" in this Holy book says there are 7 Holy Spirits (to my understanding of what is written)
As for all religions being the same, temple prostitution and child sacrifice was common among the Amorites (canaan and Iraq) and also other city states of Iraq, Hindu/India, Parthian/Greek, and also Roman, and i would guess there are more, i don't think its fair to say all religions have the same god/gods.
Also there have been Atheist rulers in history that have ruled with a rod of iron even to the point of imposing fear by randomly shooting citizens in the back of the head.
This is true but, in my humble opinion, the good work done in these cases stand in stark contrast to and is sadly undone by what religion did later on - persecution of science is well documented, no? Goes by the term inquisition or so I heard. I deeply appreciate religion for birthing and nurturing science if that's what your claim is but, as we all know, the romance between them didn't last long for scientific discoveries contradicted religious doctrine in ways that precluded an amicable solution.
As far as I can tell, the difficulty seems to be with the religion, for it, as I said, doesn't tolerate criticism and science was/is in the process of laying down all the things religion got wrong. On the other hand, science is open to criticism and, if well-known science communicators are to believed, finding flaws in scientific theories is the hallmark of scientific progress.
In addition, the early love story between science and religion came about only because the latter lacked the foresight to see the consequences of developments in the former. Had the religious establishment know that science would eventually contradict it, the support science received from it would have never materialized.
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting Wayfarer
Thank you for reminding me that not all scientists are atheists and that there are scientists who're believers but this is as much evidence of compaitibility between religion as science as an American who had communist leanings is evidence that America and the Soviet Union were compatible. People and what beliefs they hold don't count as evidence for the rational worthiness of the beliefs themselves.
I wish you could expand a bit on what you said in the last paragraph about how "...that is very much a construct of our particular place in history". What do you mean by that? Do you mean to say that the current situation of animosity between religion and science is just an accident and that things could've been different? Frankly, it would be a big surprise for people to see two contradictory theories get along unless it's just a matter of agreeing to disagree instead of actual resolution of the issues between them.
Quoting Wayfarer
Let me ask you this: is there anyone, or even a group, who has the right answers to everything?
I seem to have overlooked the dark side of atheism but I don't think atheism per se flips a switch inside our heads that make us go from peace loving, docile lambs to murderous, bloodthirsty villains. I'm not calling for criticism of religion because of the violence associated with it, although that would make a very good argument. What concerns me is the violent opposition of religious folks to subjecting the doctrines of their religions to proper scrutiny. No atheist will kill you for being a theist but the converse isn't true.
The Pope and Stalin have killed for not being Catholic/Athiest.
I would argue the corruption of religion dates back to whether a religion becomes like the religions of ancient Iraq. Temple prostitution in modern hinduism is an example of this.
Americans typically don't get violent over religion in modern times. Alot of American violence is over economic or on the other hand domestic issues.
Well said. And I think your sentiments are spot on as well.
I think it's a popular myth. It's part of the 'conflict thesis' that I mentioned. The Trial of Galileo and the Scopes Trials are held up as examples of the animosity, but again, if you dig down into the history and literature, none of it is open and shut. Galileo was of course a brilliant scientist and unfairly prosecuted, but when you read into the history and politics, it is a very complex picture; there were very senior Catholics who were appalled that he was censured and regarded it as an historic error. ("The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go", was one of their sayings. But they were drowned out by reactionary conservatism, which is characteristic of many large institutions.) It was political as much as religious.
As for the conflict between evolutionary theory and religion, I see the real conflict (like Plantinga does) in terms of the conflict between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism. Again, there are scientists in that field who are absolutely committed to the study of evolutionary theory but who still understand human life against a religious background. Theodosius Dobzhansky, who more than anyone is responsible for the modern evolutionary synthesis, remained a committed Orthodox Christian all of his life. (For that matter, neither the Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox communions ever condemned Darwin's works - that honor belongs uniquely to American Evangelical protestantism.)
The Inquisition is indeed a horrible stain on the Catholic Church, particularly the persecution of the Cathars, and the activities of the loathsome General Torquemada. I don't think anyone could ever defend any of that. But the way I see it now, they are examples of how human nature can corrupt the most noble of intentions.
But, there's a great book around, God's Philosophers, by James Hannam, which shows how essential the fundamental tenets of Christian Platonism were in the development of modern science. There are many others as well. Look into Stanley Jaki, an Hungarian Benedictine monk with PHDs in physics, philosophy and theology; he mounts an argument that modern science could only have sprung from Christian roots. (I myself think that Platonism and its Aristotelian descendants were indispensable in that.)
Quoting TheMadFool
The relation of science and religion in European culture is product of a particular set of historical circumstances. It's a lot deeper than accident - it's more like an Hegelian dialectic, of thesis (divine creation), anti-thesis (scientific materialism) and now an emerging synthesis (which I see in various disciplines like systems science, biosemiotics, and environmentalism which are neither theistic in the traditional sense nor materialistic in the modern sense.)
I think there was a really unfortunate emphasis in Western religion on orthodoxy, which basically means right belief; the experiential and gnostic facets of religious experience, which were preserved in Indian and Chinese religions, were suppressed, forced underground. I think, arguably, this is because belief is a much easier thing to manage than knowledge; once you can convince the populace that they must believe what you tell them, then control is much easier to maintain. The reaction against that, the wall of separation between the sacred and profane that became necessary - all of this is part of that deep picture. Which, very handily, comes right back to the OP.
considering this an online forum, i have no basis to argue with you right now. If you have never met a decent religionist in the flesh, then i have no argument at this point.
I've been an agnostic for over 60 years now...and I have known MANY people who are religious who are decent, reasonable, intelligent people...some of whom go out of their way to help with the needs of their fellow human.
Anyone (like Pinprick, apparently) who thinks "religious = mostly bad" and "without religion = mostly good" is simply not giving the issue sufficient reflection.
Good, decent, bad, evil, generous, envious, caring, oblivious, moral, depraved, merciful, resentful, kind, malevolent, considerate, compassionate...are traits shared equally by theists, agnostics, and atheists.
It is time we all come to realize that.
well in this modern age i would have to agree with that
Quoting Wayfarer
Would you agree that certain aspects of a belief system, like associated claims of exclusive rights to the truth and infallibility make them easier to corrupt, especially in combination with human weaknesses among which the most relevant here are abhorring being contradicted and a proclivity to strongly identify our person with our beliefs, the two reinforcing each other? This deadly cocktail of conditions is to be found nowhere more easily than in religion and if one adds to it other human failings of lust for power and money, we create an environment conducive to the rise and perpetuation of corrupt and brutally oppressive theocratic regimes.
While I don't think this is the inevitable fate of religion, there's no denying the existence of a deep flaw in religion, just there to be either exploited by the unscrupulous or mishandled by genuine believers with predictable results.
Quoting Wayfarer
Thanks for the reference and also for making me realize the possibility of my views being hopelessly biased.
Quoting Wayfarer
Great angle. Thanks for letting me in on it.
Quoting Wayfarer
This speaks to the first paragraph in this post.
The problem I see re corruption and religion is that the latter is about submission to a higher power and this acts as a magnet to politicians and statesmen - people who'd like nothing more than to legitimize and consolidate power through divine association.
Perhaps I digress.
How do you feel about the US Constituion and the Bill of Rights? I understand its not perfect but how do you feel about the document itself rather than how history played out?
Chistianity and Islam is drastically different. There is a concept in Christianity called the Pale of orthodoxy, which to make an overly simple statement "There are about 10 or so accepted denominations or relative theology sets that even though they have significant differences, the interpretations aren't deemed heretical". I would argue if a Christian is reasonable and tries somewhat to embrace "turn the other cheek", they don't have anything to worry about in terms of correct theology (ofcourse they have to accept John chapter 3 to a strong measure as it is traditionally understood).
Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement.
As far as rejecting religion altogether, that has never had great (keyword: great) results. Yes embracing religion doesn't always have good effects either.
Actually Jihadism is in the Koran. Are you saying otherwise? Mohomad the founder of Islam was a "great" general/warlord.
It does. The Establishment of Religion clause of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution was not a stand against theological ideas or styles of life but the removal of an arbiter who decided which of those are okay or not.
The decision to make that rule a central principle of government was influenced by noting how all the wars of religion came from restricting those expressions and forms.
In that sense, the secular is more about avoiding bloody conflict on the basis of belief systems than anything else. A political riot act, if you will.
Sure, but I don’t see the relevance here. You mentioned the corruption of religion, but not of a specific religion.
Quoting christian2017
They aren’t deemed heretical by who? Accepted by who? Are there other denominations that claim to be Christian, but are not accepted? If so, on what grounds?
Quoting christian2017
Sure, but I meant total agreement.
Quoting christian2017
There are many statements in all of the religions texts, but people interpret them differently. Usually some mixture of literal and metaphorical/allegorical. I know Jihadism is in the Koran, but not all Muslims practice it. My point is there is no way to determine who is following the “correct” or “uncorrupted” doctrine. Perhaps Jihadism should be taken literally, or perhaps not. It is very easy and convenient for a Theist of a particular religion to sit back and denounce all aspects of their religion as corrupt that they disagree with.
" It is very easy and convenient for a Theist of a particular religion to sit back and denounce all aspects of their religion as corrupt that they disagree with."
I agree. Do you agree with your own statement?
As far as Pale of Orthodoxy is concerned, how many Pentecostals, United Methodists, Presybiterian (liberal or conservative), Anglican, and even Catholic to some extent actively barrage each other or even kill each other over theology. Most Christians critisize other christians (or kill) over money. If you want to critisize the modern christian church, the primary accusation you can make is over the churches use of money, the church's view of the work ethic of the poor, and how the church view's modern building codes and land practices. Most christians are angry at other christian over economics.
There are many Muslim theocratical countries and they have a tremendous amount of land, why is it they can't be happy with the amount they have? And why when they expand is it not about expanding a secular nation but instead a theocratic nation?
That adds confusion to your post. So i had to comment on it because that changes what you are saying a very significant amount.
Religions clearly become corrupted, no doubt. When much younger, I generally regarded mainstream religion as being the fossilised remnants of once-living insights. If I’ve tempered that view, it’s because I’m now much more aware of my own weakness and fallibility.
Quoting TheMadFool
Many religions would say the flaw is in human nature, which tends to corrupt whatever it handles.
What are the 'truth claims of religion'? There's a blog post by Willliam Vallicella analysing Josiah Royce's philosophy of religion. He sees religion in these terms:
Strikes a chord in me, but not in that many others. But the point is, religion(s) are, or ought to be, concerned with existential realities not with what we nowadays call empirical hypotheses.
Sorry. I'm too ignorant to make a sensible comment on the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. All I know is Kurt Godel, the mathematician, is believed to have discovered a loophole in the US constitution that could change the world's greatest democracy into a totalitarian dictatorship. He is said to have tried to make this known to the judge responsible for his US citizenship but was talked out of it by Albert Einstein who thought it would upset the judge and make Godel lose his chance to become an American citizen. Perhaps it's apocryphal. I don't know but you never know...
Quoting TheMadFool
I would argue its very hard to write an air tight legal code that has removed 100% of loop holes. It would be funny if one day a future despot used that loop hole and a subset of the US population to on the philosophical level over throw the rest of the constitution and i guess hypothetically a large subset of the US population. I'm curious as to what that loop hole is.
I have no idea. Nevertheles, if Godel was right, it exists, waiting to be discovered by a person who means business as far as making faerself an absolute dictator is concerned.
probably one of the more plausible conspiracy theories.
Is it a conspiracy theory? No truth? Not even a teensy weensy bit? You needn't answer.
I believe alot of conspiracy theories are true. I guess we are defining conspiracy theory differently.
Forget that I asked. Thank you.
So, it would appear that the case of the praying governor will result in the DOP going forward.
The Establishment Clause protects religious institutions as well as secular institutions. Active and persistent state involvement in religious affairs has a tendency to be harmful, all round, just as active and persistent religious involvement in the affairs of state has often turned out badly.
One of the reasons why religion remains a large factor in American life is that there was no established church. Nothing prevented the people from engaging in 2 1/2 centuries of religious activism, innovation, or invention (take the Mormons as an example). Established churches in some European countries contributed to finally more secular societies.
Highly cogent question. Take Psalm 137:7-9
This isn't the only reference to bashing in the brains of the enemies' infants in the Bible. Acquiring and keeping the promised land was not a tea party. So, where does that leave us?
You didn't ask me, but one example of corrupt religion would be one of the causes of the Reformation: The wanton sale of indulgences for the purpose of financing real estate projects in Rome--St. Peter's Basilica. At best it was a pious fraud; at worst it was abuse of the faithful.
Now, there is hardly a congregation in the United States (there are some exceptions) that is not driven by the needs of its building. New roof, new boiler, broken windows, fix the organ--all projects costing hundreds of thousands of dollars on even moderate sized buildings. The congregations taking loving care of their real estate have little money left over to feed the hungry, house the homeless, care for the sick, and so on. By secular standards, the church is doing what it should be doing--taking care of business, and the property is definitely a piece of the business. By Christ's standards, the building is an abomination -- a storing up of wealth in buildings that need continual and expensive maintenance.
Corrupt? Or just trapped?
In some ways for you to accept my explanation of corrupt religion you would first have to believe there is a possibility that there is a religion that is not corrupt.
However for the fun of it i'll play this game anyway. A corrupt religion might have temple prostitution like ancient iraq, founders of the religion who were severe sex offenders (i'm sure you'll ask me to define sex offender), child sacrifice, unwarranted decimation of cities (Joshua didn't commit genocide because he didn't target the amorites in ancient iraq), rejection of just laws, rejection of their own key holy books and i could go on but i'll stop for now.
In addition to this i would like to add that if you murder someones parents and the adopt them you shouldn't tell them "i murdered your parents but when you are a teenager you'll understand all of these adult things".
Were there adoption agencies in 1300 BC?
My interest in religion was never centered around 'holy books', as such, it's certainly not bible-centred. I'm interested in philosophy of religion and mysticism in the true sense of that oft-abused term. But as others have pointed out, the corruption of religious institutions is a fact of history; I think as soon as something becomes an institution, then it implements a power-structure, and wherever there's power, there's the possibility of corruption.
In an ideal state, the leaders of the hierarchy would always act disinterestedly and for the greater good; presumably, there are at least some religious leaders that have done that, but there's also plenty that have not.
Quoting Pinprick
There is no detached, objective or scientific way to determine it.
If you look at objectively-determinable questions - how best to control the spread of COVID-19, for instance - whilst there might be different schools of thought, the answers can be determined scientifically, based on the understanding of infection vectors, the characteristics of this pathogen, and so on. You have a method on the one side, and the result on the other. That is the underlying framework of the objective sciences.
A religious discipline poses different questions and operates along a different axis - one where the believer is both the subject and the object of the discipline. It requires a personal commitment or a realisation that it matters to you personally. It is in that sense 'subjective' but at the same time, as religions generally reject self-centredness, then it relies on a kind of detached subjectivity, rather than subjective in the sense of being an expression of one's particular likes and dislikes. (Tricky point, I know.)
This is the basis of the is/ought problem first identified by David Hume: that science deals with what is measurable, whilst religions are concerned with what is right or true (in the sense of Truth with a capital T). The quandary for a technologically-advanced culture is that the two sets of standards are incommensurable - meaning that from the viewpoint of secular culture, it's impossible to make value judgements about the overall veracity of different religions - say, scientology, Santeria, and Catholicism. The only criteria in secular culture is that they attract believers, and are therefore legitimately a matter in which individuals exercise freedom of choice. But the truth or falsity of such systems of belief is not really a matter that can be judged from a secular point of view (except insofar as they encourage anti-social or illegal behaviours in which case they are judged on the basis of civil law).
Quoting Pinprick
In Continental philosophy - not so much anglo-american - 'hermeneutics' is a recognised discipline, which is mainly concerned with interpretation of texts, especially sacred literature, in the light of current culture. This has lead to the concept of the 'hermeneutic circle':
To me personally, religious texts are, or can be, evidence of mankind's 'encounter with the sacred' although that perspective draws more on anthropology and religious psychology.
If you try, I could be persuaded. Of course, I’m not implying that the founders of any religion were corrupt, I don’t think that’s even possible, unless we have different ideas of what corrupt means.
Quoting christian2017
With the exception of rejecting their own holy books, none of these things necessarily make a religion corrupt. If the founder of the religion intended for its adherents to practice temple prostitution, sex abuse, etc. then those practices would be completely in line with that religions doctrine. Have there been religions that have rejected their own holy books?
Quoting christian2017
I literally have no clue what you’re trying to get at here...
"In addition to this i would like to add that if you murder someones parents and the adopt them you shouldn't tell them "i murdered your parents but when you are a teenager you'll understand all of these adult things".
Were there adoption agencies in 1300 BC?"
You asked what i mean by this, some say Joshua shouldn't have killed the children (assuming he did and i assume he did) of the cities he conquered (book of joshua old testament), had he not killed them the parents would have a strange conversation with their adopted children when they became teenagers. Also child sacrifice was common among amorites in canaan as well as in ancient iraq. Hammurabi was actually an amorite just in case you didn't know.
If you would like me to go on and on about the culture of canaan i can. Territories in history have certainly been conquered over much lesser crimes.
In regards to what is below:
However for the fun of it i'll play this game anyway. A corrupt religion might have temple prostitution like ancient iraq, founders of the religion who were severe sex offenders (i'm sure you'll ask me to define sex offender), child sacrifice, unwarranted decimation of cities (Joshua didn't commit genocide because he didn't target the amorites in ancient iraq), rejection of just laws, rejection of their own key holy books and i could go on but i'll stop for now.
— christian2017
With the exception of rejecting their own holy books, none of these things necessarily make a religion corrupt. If the founder of the religion intended for its adherents to practice temple prostitution, sex abuse, etc. then those practices would be completely in line with that religions doctrine. Have there been religions that have rejected their own holy books?"
___________________________________
If you disagree with these things in that you don't find them to be corruption, either my concept of reality is severely flawed or yours is and there is no point in us trying to convince each otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if at this point we get into a discussion about post-modernism.
You could be laughing at me behind your computer know full well you do find these things are corruption. Why would i try to convince you of these things. To me this is like trying to convince you that 1 + 1 = 2.
However only time will tell which one of us is correct. Perhaps these things i label or call "the corruption of religion" don't matter and as Paul in the Bible says "if we are wrong about what we believe, we are the lowest among all people". I'm sure i butchered that verse a little bit.
I see. I’m not interested in the justification, or lack there of, of Joshua’s actions.
Quoting christian2017
That’s not necessary.
Quoting christian2017
I’m not trying to move into post-modernist territory. I agree that the things you mentioned are bad, but bad doesn’t equal corrupt, at least not in my view. I see corruption to mean something like changing the meaning of what a particular holy book/passage/ doctrine says so that it suits your needs. Pretending to be doing “God’s will,” but actually pursuing your own selfish needs. The problem is we can’t simply ask the authors what they meant, so it is left for the rest of us to interpret. Also, there is the problem of contradictory passages in religions texts. One passage says “love thy neighbor,” while others promote violence, such as the one @Bitter Crank provided above. Some followers practice the former, while some practice the latter. So which group is corrupt, and which is not? Each group will just point the finger at the other group, and, as @Wayfarer mentioned, there is no objective way to settle the dispute. Do you have a solution?
Also, I promise my comments are sincere. If my questions seem stupid it is due to my lack of understanding. I simply ask because I want to learn.
I essentially agree with this. However, I’m questioning how you, or anyone else, can know that these power grabs that you’re describing aren’t the intended consequences of the founder of the religion? I assume that these theocrats would provide some scripture to justify their actions. Just as I assume that that there would be scripture against their actions. The inherent contradictions in these texts is a big part of the issue.
Quoting Wayfarer
Then you accept that your claim that religions have been corrupted is only an opinion? If not, on what do you base your belief upon?
Quoting Wayfarer
Isn’t calling a religion corrupt a value judgment?
I’m not that cynical. If that makes me a believer, so be it.
Indeed, it may seem the rot can be traced back to the radix; fanatics are known to recite verses word for word from the holy books to justify their atrocities. All I can say is, stretching charitability to its limit, the all-good god of religion is simply incompatible with a being who issues kill orders; ergo it has to be that we misunderstand the holy books.
A lot of people would say that, but read this post again.
There's an intuition in some religious philosophies (or philosophical religions) that reality is not what it seems, or to put it another way, appearances are not necessarily real, that there is a reality that is concealed or masked by appearance.
If secular modernism had a principle, it would be that only appearances are real. It is precisely the rejection of the notion of there being a veiled reality that is its salient characteristic.
What interested me about religious experience in the first place was because of moments of 'piercing the veil', so to speak (mainly by way of hallucinogenic agents, although that was a long time ago). This lead me to believe that there was a sense in which the spiritual teacher (sage) had pierced the vale of appearances and discovered another dimension of reality unknown to the many. That is what initially drew me in the direction of gnosticism, new religious movements and the like. So that opens up a kind of perspective on religion that is different to either secular materialism or "main-street" religiosity.
So from the gnostic perspective (although I'm not formally gnostic), there's belief (pistis), opinion (doxa) and knowledge (gnosis) which is the insight into the reality behind appearance. (That is actually preserved in modern science, but with numerous caveats, chiefly that the reality behind appearance is dumb stuff rather than mind, which is where it irretrievably splits from gnosticism).
I formed the view that some crucial element was suppressed at the formation of Christianity with the suppression of gnosticism.The gnostic element of the ancient world was suppressed in favour of 'ortho-doxa' which was politically much more expedient, with its emphasis on obedience and believing. (Buddhism was a very different model, one of 'passing on the torch', centripedal rather than centrifugal, and retaining a place in its epistemology for gnosis, which it designates 'jñ?na'.)
In fact the gnostic elements have always persisted in Western culture but have mainly been forced underground, but they do bubble up from time to time, and besides, they've actually influenced many major scientists and philosophers; there's books on the secret history of science which cover this.
But the main cultural dynamic that developed was 'right belief' or orthodoxy, defended on pain of death, and then quarrelled over through centuries of religious warfare, on one side; and 'rational science' on the other side which reacted against religious authoritarianism and sought to understand the natural world purely in its own right.
But the unfortunate fact, which the gnostics and Buddhists understand, is that 'the natural world' does not have any intrinsic or truly substantive reality. So modern man is stuck in this plight of worshipping an illusory domain.
So, if you call that 'faith', then so be it.
Here's a short argument:
1. God is all good (goodness which we're familiar with)
2. The holy books are god's words
3. if the holy books are god's words then the holy books don't have mistakes
4. The holy books don't have mistakes (2, 3 modus tollens)
5. If god commands killing then, either the holy books have mistakes or god is not all good
6. The holy books don't have mistakes and god is all good (1, 4 conjunction)
7. god doesn't command killing (5, 6 modus tollens)
8. Either god commands killing or we've misunderstood the holy books (we've misread some lines as orders to kill)
9. We've misunderstood the holy books (7, 8 disjunctive syllogism)
Well i agree judging someone's character (or discerning someones character) is extremely difficult to do accurately. Self doubt and extreme self doubt very often leads to excessive suffering but in the end i would argue leads to great results. These are things i avoid as much as possible.
Just as atheists in government judge/discern people and even have political power, so do christians who have a certain amount of power.
The simple matter of the thing is only time will tell.
The medieval peasant being oppressed by the medieval church, had to wait for his/her day. Perhaps that day never came.
1 is unknowable, because the evidence for it (the holy books) is suspect. The goodness we’re all familiar with doesn’t include endorsing murder, etc. Also, if you’re going to come to the conclusion that we’ve misinterpreted the holy books regarding the endorsement of murder, you could just as easily say that we’ve misinterpreted them regarding the goodness of God.
9 isn’t true. The holy books have been interpreted in multiple ways, therefore someone got it right. The question is who.
You could just as easily make the opposite argument using the same evidence.
1 becomes “God is all bad”
5 becomes “If God commands love thy neighbor then...
6 becomes “The holy books don’t have mistakes and God is all bad.”
7 becomes “God doesn’t command love thy neighbor.“
8 becomes “Either God commands love thy neighbor...
Imagine if we come into contact with super-intelligent aliens who've mastered intergalactic space travel. If in a conversation with them, you notice what appears to be an "inconsistency" would you doubt them or yourself? The answer to this question will guide you to the answer to the question, "did god really command that we should not kill and at the same time order genocide?" Before you answer the last question, bear in mind that god is both all-good and of infinite intellect and, ergo, you should be leaning towards an answer that factors in the intelligence-gap between us, humans and god viz. that the fault lies in us and that we've misunderstood god's words as it appears in the holy books.
Wouldn’t them being “super-intelligent” depend on their ability to be consistent? Or better yet, their ability to communicate effectively without inconsistencies being perceived by the listener? Regardless, I would ask them to clarify what they meant.
Quoting TheMadFool
How would I know that God is all good and all knowing? You seem to be insisting that I assume this, but the only evidence that suggests this (holy books) is precisely what is being questioned. Besides, wouldn’t the assumption of an intelligence gap make assuming about God’s character unreasonable? If he is so much further advanced than I am, how could I possibly guess at his intentions?
You're begging the question by assuming that the aliens are being inconsistent and we've discovered the inconsistency. I'm only asking you to consider the other possibility - there is no inconsistency at all and what we see as one is the result of our limited minds grappling with god's genius par excellence.
Quoting Pinprick
Yes, I am insisting that you don't reject the following:
1. God's onmibenevolence
2. The veracity of the holy books
If you choose not to accept the two assumptions above my argument is garbage. However, before you do that keep in mind it's something that everyone does; you might want to leave the pack and strike out own your own.
Ok, sure that is a possibility, but I don’t see how there’s enough evidence to make it true or convincing. Conversely, there isn’t enough evidence to make the opposite true or convincing either. I’m questioning how people can claim that a religion is corrupt when there’s no clear or convincing evidence to suggest what an uncorrupted version of that religion is. I’m claiming agnosticism on the subject, not necessarily trying to make the case that God is or isn’t good or bad. My claim is that it is unknowable due to the inconsistencies in the evidence itself (holy books).
Quoting TheMadFool
I’m asking on what grounds? That everyone else does? Surely you’re aware that’s a fallacy. It appears that you are trying very hard to make 1 and 2 unquestionable or off limits.
Quoting TheMadFool
And if I choose to accept them you’re conclusion logically follows.