Inter-Faith Chapel, Now Disc: Made to Worship?

Maybe I've just been looking at the computer screen too long. Maybe you've brought up too much and I'm missing the point?

 

Bubba, I liked your link, but as entertaining as the dialogue is, I don't think it approaches the issue very intelligently. All the professor in the dialogue is really saying is that "if you choose not to live your life according to Christian moral values, you're not a Christian."

And I agree with that as far as it goes: If you choose not to act like a Christian, then you've made your choice not to be a Christian.

Aside from that, however, the dialogue reviews the typical false dichotomy, that even many atheists fall for, of either no God on the one hand, or the Judeo-Christian God on the other. It's really more a question of non belief in supernatural explanations for which there is no evidence on the one hand, and belief in one or more of any number of supernatural claims for whatever the reason, on the other.

If agnostic is going to be narrowly defined, then simply call it what it is: a choice about whether or not to be a Christian, a question over which indeed one can not reasonably sit on the fencepost.

The professor also made it easy on himself by finding a bluntly hedonistic student to go up against. What if a person not committed to a belief in God makes choices to live a profoundly moral life based on a reason other than hedging his bets against the nonexistence of a God? What does the professor say then? Well, you're not praying, so you've made your choice. What if the student doesn't pray for lack of plausible system for choosing which God to pray to? I could pray to 15-20 potential deities to hedge my bets in case any one of them happens to exist. Would that let me keep my agnostic membership card?

 

As I said, Joseph, I was merely presenting a few of the thoughts I've had while reading this thread. I think others may find the points I made interesting -- particularly the idea that all faiths exclude to one degree or another; and the observation that hardly anyone actually lives agnostically.

 

Merkurian, the difference between that which is appropriate for this thread and that which is not probably is found in a particular phrasing. In a thread like this, "I believe" goes a long way to help.


Jabba, I think the point the author was making was a bit broader than "Christianity vs. everything else." Regardless of how well the point was conveyed, I believe his point was that no one lives a truly agnostic life, that everyone's decisions stem from some assumption or another about the existence and nature of the supernatural.

And I'm not sure the point was conveyed all that well. I wrote that the author's writing style is a bit predictable; in truth, I find it a little simplistic. Perhaps he's writing for an audience not used to wrestling with theological issues.

I'll readily admit that the dialogue involved a one-dimensional strawman character; I'm just not sure the gist of his point is undermined by that fact.

 

Unfortunately, it was the one-dimensional strawman character that made his conclusion come out to be "If you choose not to act like a Christian, then you've made your choice not to be a Christian."

And this relates back to your discussion about exclusion. There is not agnosticism about belief or non belief in any one particular religion. Either you are an adherent and believer of a particular faith and act as if you are one, or you are not and do not.

Take me for instance. I have a great love for the Christian faith and its doctrines. But as a nonbeliever I am excluded from the comforts of salvation and grace it offers. I have made my choice. I cannot be "agnostic" about whether Christianity gets it right or not.

 

Bubba, Reading other reactions has helped me see your points, there was just too much circular logic and I'm trying to keep up while working so...I do miss somethings in the longer posts

So I take it you're Christian? Did you find the faith on your own or were you raised that way?

I do absolutely argee with your religous hypocricy comment...that's why I have chosen a religion without dogma...the only real "scripture" Wicca/pagans follow is the wiccan rede: an it hurt none do what ye will" The old if it doesn't hurt anyone do what you will. Throughout history Christianity has been too tied up in politics and agendas.

 

Jabba, I think the writer's point was not about whether a person is agnostic about Christianity or any other religion; it's about whether a person is agnostic about a deity (or deities). A person's decisions are based on one assumption or another about that deity, probably not a vague agnosticism.


Joseph, I am indeed a Christian. While my initial conversion was rooted in my upbringing, I've since more carefully examined the foundation of my faith. It does, for instance, seem to me that it is reasonable to accept the claim of the Resurrection.

More crucially to my own personal faith, I've examined myself and have found that Christian theology fits with what I know about myself -- namely, that I am not what I ought to be and that I cannot become what I ought without serious divine intervention.


And let me be clear: it's not that I think Christianity is hypocritical. It's that I think Christians are hypocritical. It's not the doctrines, it's the people.

To quote Chesterton, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."


I do see the wisdom behind "do no harm," but I think the Christian command of active love is higher and purer. Even purer still, in my opinion, is the Christian description of the proper relationship between God and man, between the Creator and His adopted son.

 

Jedi Merkurian: You're absolutely right, there is a MAJOR difference between the two. It all comes down to respect or the lack there of. I smoke cigarettes but do everything in my power to keep it from people that don't. I'll even put a smoke out if I see a family walk my direction. It is not my place on this Earth to put anyone in harms way...even if I don't think second hand smoke causes cancer, others object to it being blown in their faces, so I respect that.

After the inital snags, this thread is off to a great start! Some topics of discussion would be great and inclusive. I am more than willing to be the "resident pagan" around here. Anyone reading this that has questions that they'd rather not post can even PM me. It's nice we've made it 3 pages so far and no tempers have flared! I'd even like to help come up with some topic suggestions if you don't mind.

Bubba: You do your faith well, If all Christians were like you this would be a better world. Active love is also a part of paganism: love of all the goddesses creations...bug, tree, animal and human. The problem is that Christians are supposed to love while a lot HATE, just look at the uproar over gay rights amongst the Christians.

 

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." Certainly this seems more true today than ever.

Judaism is of course another admirable religion. I know several people of the Jewish faith who are atheists or agnostic. It does not keep them from celebrating Jewish holy days or sending their children to Sunday school to learn Hebrew. Why? Because Judaism encourages skepticism and learning and finds much of its deepest meaning in one's cultural and ancestral and familial connection to the customs of the faith.

But for none of the Jewish atheists I know would they say that they practice the rituals and celebrate the holy days of their faith as a means of hedging their bets against the possible existence of God.

 

Judaism also has the deep cultural aspect missing form Christianity. You do not need to be practicing to be Jewish...you are Jewish from birth...not believing in the faith does not erase the horrors their ancestors went through. The skeptical aspect of Judaism is wonderful...blind faith is dangerous to all.

 

I'm not sure I'd actually go so far as to say that, given the obvious trouble that even St. Peter had in being a faithful disciple of his Master and mine.

As Paul wrote in Galatians 2, he had to publically rebuke Peter -- "resist" him, actually, using the same term that Christ used in "resist not an evildoer," to allude to a different discussion we've been having. Paul had to rebuke Peter because he shirked from his duty to love his Gentile brothers in Christ.

This, after the Resurrection and Pentacost and the vision Peter had that expressly addressed the question of Gentile Christians (Acts 10).

If even Peter had such a great struggle with the standards of Christianity, it's sobering to those of us who think we could possibly meet its standards. But it's also comforting to know that God can use such flawed individuals to accomplish His will, provided that they trust in Him.

 

Yes, Christians, who account for the largest percentage of any faith on the boards, are persecuted...

You'll excuse me, I find I have nothing but contempt for this kind of adolescent insecurity, and sometimes just wish people could handle criticism in a manner vaguely like an adult would without crying afoul.

Bubba, you'll find a great many people in here echo the sentiment yet are not Christian; do you therefore find yourself siding with the Adjectival Christians (as opposed to Verb Christians) intentionally? And by that, I don't mean taking your own side but more often than not attacking the non-theistic proponents of the "Chesterton idea"?

E_S

 

With all due respect: huh? Mind running that question by me again?

 

Raised Catholic, currently non-religious vague theist-I believe in a god, or something, but I don't know what that something is.

Ba'hai sounds interesting, I'm also intrigued by the Unitarian Universalists.

 

OK Bubba; why is it when athiests make the same claim you do about "Adjective Christians" (those who pay lip service) you tend to argue with them rather than agree?

E_S

 

I don't think I do that, so I would need to see an concrete example of what you're talking about.

To elaborate, when, in the broad context of sexuality, non-Christians assert that Christians divorce at the same rate as everyone else, I don't believe I deny that fact. Rather I believe I have been consistent in acknowledging the fact that many Christians do not live up to the standard of Christianity on this point.

And when non-Christians bring up the atrocities committed in the name of Christ over the centuries, as they often do, I do not deny that atrocities occurred (though the extent might be exaggerated, and any account of Western atrocities should acknowledge things like the French Revolution and Stalin's regime). Rather, I assert that atrocities were committed despite Christ's clear teachings, not because of them.


Is this a reference to the current dialogue that Jabba and I are having? In that particular case, we disagree profoundly on what Christ's standard is to begin with. He believes Scripture (or at least the New Testament) forbids the use of force in all circumstances, I do not, and I have found his defense of his claim to be less than persuasive.

I don't see why I should pretend that his position is stronger than it is in order to apologize for the behavior of Christians when I believe that, at least on the issue of the limited use of force, we haven't been grossly disobedient to Christ's teachings in the first place. We Christians have enough reasons for contrition without accepting what I think are half-baked interpretations of Scripture.


And I don't see how this particular question fits in with the topic at-hand. I've gladly answered it, but I'm not sure how a discussion based on religious tolerance is advanced with questions that focus on a individual's character.

 

Excuse me? I wasn't crying persecution in the least. I simply made the obsservation that when someone else other than a Christian wants to promote their beliefs its ok. However, when a Christian wants to tell others about Gods Kingdom, its purpose, the benefits derived from it, and what is required to be in it, then it is considered preaching. And as far as my "adolescent insecurity" goes, don't worry E_S regarding my faith I have nothing to be insecure about. I find your comments bit condesending and as an "esteemed" moderator I would think you would be above the "labeling" others................but I guess not.

 

Under what circumstances (if any) is force, up to & including lethal force justified?

Justification is always possible.

Ideally, lethal force is never right. It may be necessary to do right, but the act itself is always regretable, disturbing and sad. Anytime lethal force may be required to meet a certain "good end," it would be better if the same ends could be achieved through non-lethal means.

 

In ob1's defense, I think you ought to include a fourth possibility:

Poster D - If you're having trouble finding a religion that is moral, just, and hopeful, I recommend (XYZ).

That's much closer to what Jabba wrote, and he implied quite clearly that other faiths (at least other, more well-known faiths) were not moral, just, or hopeful.

If 979 got in trouble for asserting that his faith is uniquely true, surely it's also contrary to this thread's purpose for others to say that other religions are uniquely moral or just.

 

I agree completely. As I posted earlier, "the difference between that which is appropriate for this thread and that which is not probably is found in a particular phrasing. In a thread like this, 'I believe' goes a long way to help."

 

Yes and I was perfectly content with the reply ViojaRisa gave me on the previous page.

There was absolutly no reason for E_S to dredge it up again almost a whole page later when the topic wasn't even being discussed anymore. It was even more inappropriate to start the adolesent insecurity bit.

Moderation at its finest.