Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[halconero]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So are you saying in every nation where Christianity resides in some majority form, people are better off than in every country where it does not?  I don't think I can disagree with what you've said above more.   I am suggesting, as Steven Pinker does, we're all better off today.  But its not necessarily because of religion.  It seems to be so in spite of religion.  Religion, historically, just happens to be a necessity.  I think that necessity is disappearing more and more.  

Counterpoint: using the functional definition of religion as opposed to the substantive one, religion is just as pervasive today as it has been in any other era.

The substantive view defines religion as the belief in deity. This view, commonly held in the Enlightenment era, began to fall apart in the Early Modern era as British and American researchers began to more thoroughly investigate Therevada Buddhism, Confucianism, and atheistic forms of Hinduism. These all, to a greater or lesser extent “walked like a duck and quacked like a duck,” but made little-to-no mention or emphasis on gods, angels, or a creator. And so, they developed the functional definition.

The functional definition posits that religion serves various human functions by bringing together groups of people over shared rituals, worldviews (raison d’être), ethics, and common leaders, texts, or figureheads. I’ve described this in the context of civil religion before, wherein states politics subsumes some of the functional religiosity that used to be the purview of churches. Founding Fathers take the role of saints, documents such as the Communist Manifesto or the Constitution take on an almost scripture-like reverence, informal temples (or formal, if you see the inscription on the Lincoln Memorial) serve to celebrate the nation’s worldview, and national holy-days and hymns (anthems) help members of the civil religion enact group rituals (placing hands over hearts and saying the pledge) together.

Using BLM, for example, we see similarities. George Floyd as a martyr and saint-like figure, complete with artistic renditions that sometimes take on a shrine or memorial-like status with candles, picture, and flowers. People gathering together to enact group rituals (lying down and chanting in unison “I can’t breathe”). A shared worldview built on direct action, with goals including defunding law enforcement.

I say all of this uncritically. It just is. Humans like our rituals, our worldviews, our rituals, our sacred texts and figures, however related or unrelated they are to deity. Some of us enact violence on behalf of those, while others accomplish great strides towards human progression. Most of us just wanna go to church or enjoy the holy day fireworks.

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, Islander said:

You keep ignoring the argument. You still are not able to point to those "societies" you previously mentioned.

I don't think so.  As I've said, nearly every society has been able to embrace the concepts of love, just as well or moreso than the Christian societies historically have.  I do admit it's a tough thing to measure.  But I think it's a pretty logical conclusion to draw.  Since Christian socieites have participated in mass murder, slavery and every other atrocity, I don't see the Christian of the society has anything advantageous.  It so happens that many factors have gone into the enriching of our society.  I'm not saying religion was no factor at all.  

Quote

And yes, the Judeo-Christian worldview was the foundation of the Western societies that are, by far, more developed, free and enjoy greater social, political and economic protections than the rest of the world.

That did not address my question.  My question is simply, "So are you saying in every nation where Christianity resides in some majority form, people are better off than in every country where it does not?"

I do agree, we are, at present in a very good place compared to the history of the world.  

Quote

You may not be able to see it because, you either ignore the impact of the worldview in thought and behavior or, you are so invested in your own paradigm that you refuse to be confused by the facts. 

We have been trying to rip God out of the public square in this country now for five or six decades.

You have?  Whose the "we"?  It seems to me for decades the dominant religious have been trying to fight the obvious problem of keeping God nestled in the public sphere.  

Quote

The outcome is that in every possible meaningful key indicator of social wellbeing, we are worse today than in the 1960's. Simple.

I dont' think that's a little true.  In nearly every meaningful measurable way, we are better off today than 50-60 years ago.  There are more poor, but not as a percentage.  There are more poor, but in relation to keep fed and sheltered, as a percentage of the whole, we're better off.  I'd encourage you to read up on it.  Steven Pinker articulates in his book "Enlightenment Now" that our progress is dependent upon our living the secular principles of the Enlightenment.  

Quote

Without God and beyond some "practical reasons" there is no moral compass.

Not true.  

Quote

And most people, given the opportunity, will behave in an amoral way and seek after their own interests and pleasures. And without an absolute standard of right and wrong, separate from the whims and selfishness of men, societies sink into chaos and decadence. 

We need no God to say there is right and wrong.  When we appeal to God on this we simply are appealing to our conscience.  

Edited June 11, 2020 by stemelbow

[Calm]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But I think it's a pretty logical conclusion to draw.

Logic is not documentation any more than assertion. Surely you can come up with one name of a tribe, nation, geographical area, culture.... 

CFR on this.

I am curious if you can do it given your confidence and yet nothing has appeared.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 Since Christian socieites have participated in mass murder, slavery and every other atrocity, I don't see the Christian of the society has anything advantageous. 

Has there been a society on earth that hasn't participated in atrocities somewhere in their history, Christian, religious, or otherwise?  Is that reason to discount them all as having nothing advantageous to contribute?  What are you left with to draw from then?

Edited June 11, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, halconero said:

Counterpoint: using the functional definition of religion as opposed to the substantive one, religion is just as pervasive today as it has been in any other era.

The substantive view defines religion as the belief in deity. This view, commonly held in the Enlightenment era, began to fall apart in the Early Modern era as British and American researchers began to more thoroughly investigate Therevada Buddhism, Confucianism, and atheistic forms of Hinduism. These all, to a greater or lesser extent “walked like a duck and quacked like a duck,” but made little-to-no mention or emphasis on gods, angels, or a creator. And so, they developed the functional definition.

The functional definition posits that religion serves various human functions by bringing together groups of people over shared rituals, worldviews (raison d’être), ethics, and common leaders, texts, or figureheads. I’ve described this in the context of civil religion before, wherein states politics subsumes some of the functional religiosity that used to be the purview of churches. Founding Fathers take the role of saints, documents such as the Communist Manifesto or the Constitution take on an almost scripture-like reverence, informal temples (or formal, if you see the inscription on the Lincoln Memorial) serve to celebrate the nation’s worldview, and national holy-days and hymns (anthems) help members of the civil religion enact group rituals (placing hands over hearts and saying the pledge) together.

Using BLM, for example, we see similarities. George Floyd as a martyr and saint-like figure, complete with artistic renditions that sometimes take on a shrine or memorial-like status with candles, picture, and flowers. People gathering together to enact group rituals (lying down and chanting in unison “I can’t breathe”). A shared worldview built on direct action, with goals including defunding law enforcement.

I say all of this uncritically. It just is. Humans like our rituals, our worldviews, our rituals, our sacred texts and figures, however related or unrelated they are to deity. Some of us enact violence on behalf of those, while others accomplish great strides towards human progression. Most of us just wanna go to church or enjoy the holy day fireworks.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.  I take your counter-point as a useful exercise to think it through.  I suppose my point remains, that which we call are necessary as it pertains to religion, may not be.  We simply continue them and use them, thinking they are necessary.  But I'm not feeling so certain that is true.  

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Logic is not documentation any more than assertion. Surely you can come up with one name of a tribe, nation, geographical area, culture.... 

CFR on this.

I am curious if you can do it given your confidence and yetnothing has appeared n

I've already answered this.  Nearly every society ever has been has loving and giving to each other and outsiders as the various Christian societies over the course of history.  I can say there are some exceptions wherein the society was just plain broken. It seems to me the only dispute people are having on this is, they are in a Christian society now and that society has progressed beyond others in history so Christianity is best, or something.  I don't think that works.

If you're asking for a particular Chinese named society in history where they sought to be loving to each other, or a Native American named society where love and desire to be good to those who might be enemies, well, what's the point?  A name?  the problem is, I'll name them and then everyone will point out the atrocities they committed without acknowledging the comparison of the similar atrocities committed by Christian societies, perhaps in similar situations in history.  

The Sung Dynasty.  Now have your fun.  

 

[Islander]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think so.  As I've said, nearly every society has been able to embrace the concepts of love, just as well or moreso than the Christian societies historically have.  I do admit it's a tough thing to measure.  But I think it's a pretty logical conclusion to draw.  Since Christian socieites have participated in mass murder, slavery and every other atrocity, I don't see the Christian of the society has anything advantageous.  It so happens that many factors have gone into the enriching of our society.  I'm not saying religion was no factor at all.  

That did not address my question.  My question is simply, "So are you saying in every nation where Christianity resides in some majority form, people are better off than in every country where it does not?"

I do agree, we are, at present in a very good place compared to the history of the world.  

You have?  Whose the "we"?  It seems to me for decades the dominant religious have been trying to fight the obvious problem of keeping God nestled in the public sphere.  

I dont' think that's a little true.  In nearly every meaningful measurable way, we are better off today than 50-60 years ago.  There are more poor, but not as a percentage.  There are more poor, but in relation to keep fed and sheltered, as a percentage of the whole, we're better off.  I'd encourage you to read up on it.  Steven Pinker articulates in his book "Enlightenment Now" that our progress is dependent upon our living the secular principles of the Enlightenment.  

Not true.  

We need no God to say there is right and wrong.  When we appeal to God on this we simply are appealing to our conscience.  

I had a very similar argument some weeks ago here in the forum. Rather than rehashing it again, I invite you to look it up. You can not arrive to a moral universe by logic. It has been tried. Without an absolute, unchangeable moral law, there is no standard against one can measure right or wrong. I argued the same point a few weeks ago. it is around, if you care to look.  

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've already answered this.  Nearly every society ever has been has loving and giving to each other and outsiders as the various Christian societies over the course of history.  I can say there are some exceptions wherein the society was just plain broken. It seems to me the only dispute people are having on this is, they are in a Christian society now and that society has progressed beyond others in history so Christianity is best, or something.  I don't think that works.

If you're asking for a particular Chinese named society in history where they sought to be loving to each other, or a Native American named society where love and desire to be good to those who might be enemies, well, what's the point?  A name?  the problem is, I'll name them and then everyone will point out the atrocities they committed without acknowledging the comparison of the similar atrocities committed by Christian societies, perhaps in similar situations in history.  

The Sung Dynasty.  Now have your fun.  

Your claim is that no religion is superior to religion because religion is guilty of atrocities.  Yet you admit that non-religious societies are also guilty of atrocities.   So why is no religion superior? This seems like a double standard. 

[MustardSeed]

IMO, I don't believe that the present church promotes racism.  

IMO, I do believe that church (ours, theirs, others, all) attract people who are traditional, rigid, republcn, old school, purist, closed, judgemental and fairly backwards.  Church provides some safe haven for these folks and provides a structure and a traditional rigid way of operating that feels familiar and safe to these folks.

  Note that obviously not all, and probably not even most members have these qualities, but enough do, that they can be found in nearly any congregation IMO. These folks are among us.  For that reason, there would be tremendous value in general authorities strongly stating from the pulpit that we do not tolerate the idea of racism. That GOD does not tolerate racism. ( it would also help to provide common evidences of racism - such as slurs, avoidance, not allowing children to associate with or date people of different races, etc -but specifics will never be alluded to by general authorities.  But goodness it would be nice. IMO, of course.)  

Edited June 11, 2020 by MustardSeed

[Islander]

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

IMO, I don't believe that the present church promotes racism.  

IMO, I do believe that church (ours, theirs, others, all) attract people who are traditional, rigid, republcn, old school, purist, closed, judgemental and fairly backwards.  Church provides some safe haven for these folks and provides a structure and a traditional rigid way of operating that feels familiar and safe to these folks.

  Note that obviously not all, and probably not even most members have these qualities, but enough do, that they can be found in nearly any congregation IMO. These folks are among us.  For that reason, there would be tremendous value in general authorities strongly stating from the pulpit that we do not tolerate the idea of racism. That GOD does not tolerate racism. ( it would also help to provide common evidences of racism - such as slurs, avoidance, not allowing children to associate with or date people of different races, etc -but specifics will never be alluded to by general authorities.  But goodness it would be nice. IMO, of course.)  

People seldom change. No speech or statement from the First Presidency is going to change the hearts of people that are set in their ways and already made up their minds about certain facts. It is common to hear some folks talk, again and again, "when Spencer W. Kimball was President..." It has been decades since Pres. Kimball passed away but for them, those were the "golden years of the church". They are still stuck there. I left CA 10 years ago for the Mid-West and lived in two different Wards. It is all the same in this part of the country. The Wards are dead. In my current Ward we had 4 baptisms in 7 years. Convert baptisms, that is. Half the members are transplants from Utah and Idaho that have been here a few years and live as if they were preparing to move back to where they came from. The other half are local residents and from historic LDS families in the area but live such insular and withdrawn lives that they have no influence in the community. Nobody knows them and they know no one.  That is the state of affairs. We are gearing up to move West and hope for a better, more fruitful vineyard out that way. Here they bare no fruit. No speech or admonition from the prophet will change that.  I wish I was wrong. 

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

Your claim is that no religion is superior to religion because religion is guilty of atrocities. 

I apologize for any confusion, but that's not my argument.  

Quote

Yet you admit that non-religious societies are also guilty of atrocities.   So why is no religion superior? This seems like a double standard. 

I"m suggesting our best way forward at this point is to dump religion. There is no benefit to it any longer.  And yes, I've pointed out that someone can love others in a very real and helpful way without being a Christian or believing Christianity.  Indeed, anyone who is or was never Christian could be better at loving another better than any Christian.  

Edited June 12, 2020 by stemelbow

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Islander said:

People seldom change.

I don't know about that. Change is the sine qua non of the Gospel. I mean, what is repentance, if not change?

I have seen the gospel make dramatic changes in people's lives. Sometimes the change is sudden, and sometimes it happens over a period of time, but if one is willing it most certainly comes. 

 

Quote

No speech or statement from the First Presidency is going to change the hearts of people that are set in their ways and already made up their minds about certain facts.

Perhaps. There are some people who might be persuaded by words alone.

However, if one were to take the content of those speeches and messages to the Lord in prayer, then the Holy Ghost can manifest the truthfulness of it to them. And the Spirit is most definitely capable of changing hearts. 

 

Quote

It is common to hear some folks talk, again and again, "when Spencer W. Kimball was President..." It has been decades since Pres. Kimball passed away but for them, those were the "golden years of the church". They are still stuck there.

This phenomenon isn't unique to the Midwest though - it's everywhere. And I don't think it's about people being stuck in the past. It's just that people develop an affinity and are better able to remember "their prophet" (i.e., the individual who happened to be the prophet during their formative years in the church).

For many older people, that will be President Kimball; for others it will be Benson. For me, that prophet was President Hinckley. For my kids, it will probably be President Nelson (depending on how long he lives) or possibly one of his successors. 

 

 

[Amulek]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Indeed, anyone who is or was never Christian could be better at loving another better than any Christian.

Out of curiosity, how would you go about measuring something like that to tell if it was true?

Because, I've got to be honest, the most caring, loving, decent, respectful people that I have ever met have all been religious - and overwhelmingly Christian. 

I have known tons of atheists / agnostics over the years, and I have yet to meet a single one that I would put into that category.

Not saying that it isn't possible, obviously, but what you are saying here really appears to run counter to what I see in reality. 

But perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. If so, please feel free to clarify. 

 

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Out of curiosity, how would you go about measuring something like that to tell if it was true?

Because, I've got to be honest, the most caring, loving, decent, respectful people that I have ever met have all been religious - and overwhelmingly Christian. 

I have known tons of atheists / agnostics over the years, and I have yet to meet a single one that I would put into that category.

Not saying that it isn't possible, obviously, but what you are saying here really appears to run counter to what I see in reality. 

But perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. If so, please feel free to clarify. 

 

Agreed.  It's not really objectively measurable.  It was a point I raised when Pogi brought this who line of questioning up.  I do believe it's reasonable that anyone from any walk of life is as good at the concept of loving neighbor and enemy as well as another.  But again...not really all that measurable.  I"ve known many very good Christian people and some very bad ones.  I've met very good people from the many other walks of life we encounter.  In no way would I consider it quite like you do--that Christians outweigh others in terms of loving another.  Not at all.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I apologize for any confusion, but that's not my argument.  

I"m suggesting our best way forward at this point is to dump religion. There is no benefit to it any longer.  And yes, I've pointed out that someone can love others in a very real and helpful way without being a Christian or believing Christianity.  Indeed, anyone who is or was never Christian could be better at loving another better than any Christian.  

I am confused then.  You say it is not your argument, but then you seem to double down on it by saying "our best way forward at this point is to dump religion."  That to me sounds very much like "no religion is superior to religion".  The reason you have argued that religion needs to go is because it has a history of atrocities.  Help me out here, what am I missing?

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

There is no benefit to it any longer. 

You don't get to speak for me.  Billions across the globe find great benefit to it. You don't get to speak for them either.  All you can rightly say is "I don't personally find any benefit in it for me any longer."  I think it is unfortunate that you don't give religion any credit for making you who you are and for making society what it is.  It has molded you and society for the better and you should give credit where credit is due.

While it was probably my least favorite Rocky movie, I do think there is a good metaphor here.   Rocky Balboa teaches, trains, and molds Tommy Gunn into a success, then Tommy Gunn turns his back on his trainer, seeking to take all the credit for himself while giving none to the man who helped build him.  He gets to the point where he actually resents Rocky and fights against him.  Don't be a Tommy Gunn.  Give credit where it is due.  Stop fighting against the force of good that built you up. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

Wrong thread

Edited June 12, 2020 by pogi

[Nofear]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

You don't get to speak for me.  Billions across the globe find great benefit to it. You don't get to speak for them either.  All you can rightly say is "I don't personally find any benefit in it for me any longer."  I think it is unfortunate that you don't give religion any credit for making you who you are and for making society what it is.  It has molded you and society for the better and you should give credit where credit is due.

Indeed, statistically speaking, religious people and longer living and happier, even in mostly non-religious countries. Individual exceptions are just that, exceptions and not the rule.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

 

PS: This is not a one time finding either. Study after study after study through the decades generally agree.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Agreed.  It's not really objectively measurable.  It was a point I raised when Pogi brought this who line of questioning up.  I do believe it's reasonable that anyone from any walk of life is as good at the concept of loving neighbor and enemy as well as another.  But again...not really all that measurable.  I"ve known many very good Christian people and some very bad ones.  I've met very good people from the many other walks of life we encounter.  In no way would I consider it quite like you do--that Christians outweigh others in terms of loving another.  Not at all.  

I'll take a a good atheist over a bad Christian any day. The scriptures are suggestive that is God's attitude as well.

[Calm]

On 6/9/2020 at 1:32 PM, pogi said:

Show me a non-religious "discipline" before Christ that taught these things.  They may be fairly universal NOW as Christ's teachings were so influential across the globe, but show me non-religious cultures uninfluenced by Christ that teaches/practices these things as disciplines.  

This was the original question, I believe. 

The Song Dynasty began in 960 CE  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynasty

Now it is possible there was no influence on the Song Dynasty from the Christians who visited or lived in China prior to its existence, but I am not sure how you can show that. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China#Earliest_documented_period

[stemelbow]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am confused then.  You say it is not your argument, but then you seem to double down on it by saying "our best way forward at this point is to dump religion."  That to me sounds very much like "no religion is superior to religion".  The reason you have argued that religion needs to go is because it has a history of atrocities.  Help me out here, what am I missing?

I did not suggest religion needs to go because it has a history of atrocities.  I simply pointed out it has a history of atrocities.  I also suggested we're better off without it now, going forward.  There's no good reason to keep religion amongst us.  Granted, it's not going away, so I'll live with that and make the most of it.  

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

You don't get to speak for me. 

I clearly did not.  I said there is no benefit.  Feel free to disagree.  

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

Billions across the globe find great benefit to it. You don't get to speak for them either.  All you can rightly say is "I don't personally find any benefit in it for me any longer."  I think it is unfortunate that you don't give religion any credit for making you who you are and for making society what it is.  It has molded you and society for the better and you should give credit where credit is due.

While it was probably my least favorite Rocky movie, I do think there is a good metaphor here.   Rocky Balboa teaches, trains, and molds Tommy Gunn into a success, then Tommy Gunn turns his back on his trainer, seeking to take all the credit for himself while giving none to the man who helped build him.  He gets to the point where he actually resents Rocky and fights against him.  Don't be a Tommy Gunn.  Give credit where it is due.  Stop fighting against the force of good that built you up. 

I've not indicated that I"m not a product of my society.  I've also not suggested I'm not a product in many of ways of my religious beliefs, formerly held.  

It seems clear to me why this conversation keeps getting off track is simply because you keep attributing things to me I've not said, suggested, or implied.  This is another case in point of that practice.    

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

This was the original question, I believe. 

The Song Dynasty began in 960 CE  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynasty

Now it is possible there was no influence on the Song Dynasty from the Christians who visited or lived in China prior to its existence, but I am not sure how you can show that. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China#Earliest_documented_period

Hey Calm,

Just to clarify, in response to the first question you quoted from Pogi, I responded:

Quote

I think stoicism sets a pretty good example in terms of each of those concepts. 

So to the question of before Christ, I already mention stoicism as encompassing the concepts he demanded.  You stepped in as I was conversing with Islander who was not, as far as I can tell, asking to identify a society before Christ.  

It looks like this all got confused by a few.  I noticed a number of efforts to put words in my mouth and figured it fair I respond to this point of confusion as well.  

 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

This was the original question, I believe. 

The Song Dynasty began in 960 CE  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynasty

Now it is possible there was no influence on the Song Dynasty from the Christians who visited or lived in China prior to its existence, but I am not sure how you can show that. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China#Earliest_documented_period

Thanks!  

I am not familiar with the Song dynasty.  Did they really formally teach principles of loving your enemy, serving those who despitefully use you, and turning the other cheek, etc. as philosophies to live by and aspire to?  I don't know if there is a reason to prove that Christians had an influence if stemelblow can't document that they actually systemically taught these disciplines in the first place.

Edited June 12, 2020 by pogi

[Islander]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't know about that. Change is the sine qua non of the Gospel. I mean, what is repentance, if not change?

I have seen the gospel make dramatic changes in people's lives. Sometimes the change is sudden, and sometimes it happens over a period of time, but if one is willing it most certainly comes. 

 

Perhaps. There are some people who might be persuaded by words alone.

However, if one were to take the content of those speeches and messages to the Lord in prayer, then the Holy Ghost can manifest the truthfulness of it to them. And the Spirit is most definitely capable of changing hearts. 

 

 

 

 

I agree, in general. But, more specifically, I was referring to consistent, recurrent attitudes and people's behavior that evidence that, in their hearts, they are NOT really truly converted. Regardless of how long they have been "in the church". 

Change is always possible, because God is ALWAYS able to work a mighty change of heart on those that really repent and humble themselves before Him. I am not doubting that. But it is the willingness and the humility in the hearts of people that makes a difference. Remember that the Savior told Peter: "when you are converted, strengthen your brethren..." Before that takes place, it would be like plowing in the sea.  That is what I mean when I say that speeches and statements (by themselves) from the prophets do not change people's hearts. Israel were an obstinate and a stiff-necked. people. That is why I am not optimistic. We hear the same messages again and again. And they claim to read and know the scriptures but the evidence that they understand or care is not there. 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I did not suggest religion needs to go because it has a history of atrocities.  I simply pointed out it has a history of atrocities. 

Then why does it need to go?  

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I clearly did not.  I said there is no benefit.  Feel free to disagree.  

To say "there is no benefit" is a blanket and absolute statement which speaks for everyone.  How can you say there is no benefit for me?  If it benefits me and others, then how can you say "there is no benefit"? 

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I've not indicated that I"m not a product of my society.  I've also not suggested I'm not a product in many of ways of my religious beliefs, formerly held.  

It seems clear to me why this conversation keeps getting off track is simply because you keep attributing things to me I've not said, suggested, or implied.  This is another case in point of that practice.    

I am not attributing things to you that you have not said.  Perhaps you need to be more careful in using absolute and blanket statements, because those apply to me and others.  

I am not claiming that you indicated that you are not a product of your society.  I am claiming that you are failing to give credit for the good that religion offers (partly evidenced by the product of you).  You are acting like Tommy Gunn who doesn't give credit for his success where it is due, who turned on his trainer, and who actively ends up fighting against the man who helped turn him into a success.  It rubs as terribly ungracious and ungrateful. 

To say that it is not for you anymore, while acknowledging how it has positively impacted your life is one thing.  But to actively fight against it and try to rub it out of existence after the countless hours members have sacrificed to help rear you, teach you good principles to live by, and serve you seems terribly nasty.  Just walk away in peace and grace. 

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by pogi

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I"m suggesting our best way forward at this point is to dump religion. There is no benefit to it any longer.  And yes, I've pointed out that someone can love others in a very real and helpful way without being a Christian or believing Christianity.  Indeed, anyone who is or was never Christian could be better at loving another better than any Christian.  

I dislike this kind of argument. Not because I find it wrong (though I do) but because of the method used to reach it. It is purely utilitarian. We should drop religion because it is not useful. It sidesteps the question as to whether it is real. I think this mindset is part of the western world's current problem. Our sense of curiosity and exploration is dying. We seem to find little joy in knowing anything for the sake of knowing it because it is true (or right or correct if that offends someone's philosophy). Information seems to exist more and more just to be manipulated to spin a narrative or to sell something or whatever.

The question should be whether religion is correct and whether it describes things as they are. If it is correct but bad for society I say we keep it. If it is false but good for society we should chuck it.

On 6/11/2020 at 12:08 PM, Islander said:

I had a very similar argument some weeks ago here in the forum. Rather than rehashing it again, I invite you to look it up. You can not arrive to a moral universe by logic. It has been tried. Without an absolute, unchangeable moral law, there is no standard against one can measure right or wrong. I argued the same point a few weeks ago. it is around, if you care to look.  

You are confusing philosophy and reality. You may not arrive at morality via logic but everyone has it in them and act on it (to varying degrees) even if it has no logical basis. You overestimate how much logic influences human action. Parents don't love their children and lovers do not love each other and friends do not love each other because they argue their way to it from first principles. Even the most debased humans know "the rules". Watch someone who will step on anyone who gets in their way and pursue their own selfish interests without regard for anyone. Then see what happens when someone is unfair to them. They will scream unfairness or get revenge. We all know morality. Cultural and religious variations are more about overemphasis or deemphasizing the priority of the others.

The power of the Priesthood in the Church is not about goodness. Goodness is given to all via the light of Christ. Godliness is what our faith has a monopoly on.

Arguing that apostate Christianity brought progress to the western world seems silly to me. Religious liberty was not a thing to the Catholic Church as a whole until the 20th century. You will not find democracy given place of priority in western religious texts. The same arguments that some use to claim Islam can never be a religion of peace can be easily turned on Jews and Christians. The move towards freedom in the West was driven by the Enlightenment which was triggered more by revived interest in pagan classical writing than it was to studying the Bible or Christian writings. The economic freedom that led to the erosion of serfdom came from the bubonic plague and not some general interest in being fair to all. I do believe God guided those events so that that freedom manifested where the Bible was around but I think you are assuming religion was the cause.