Christianity and Liberty

[dan2100]

All these statements (I could provide many more) were given by prominent Catholics while they were in positions of power, not while they were being persecuted. But don't we all somehow "know" that Catholics always favored religious persecution in this situation?

So how would you explain all this?

Ghs

Were I her, I'd try a variety of the True Scotsman argument here.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Dan Ust

[George H. Smith]

All these statements (I could provide many more) were given by prominent Catholics while they were in positions of power, not while they were being persecuted. But don't we all somehow "know" that Catholics always favored religious persecution in this situation?

So how would you explain all this?

Ghs

Were I her, I'd try a variety of the True Scotsman argument here.

Ah, yes. I believe Antony Flew called it the No True Scotsman Move -- which in our case may become the No True Christian Move. Did I quote some Catholics who favored toleration? Reply: No true Catholic would defend toleration.

I'm sure we are all familiar with the No True O'ist Move.

I take it you have read Flew's Thinking About Thinking (originally titled Thinking Straight). That's a terrific little book.

Ghs

[dan2100]

All these statements (I could provide many more) were given by prominent Catholics while they were in positions of power, not while they were being persecuted. But don't we all somehow "know" that Catholics always favored religious persecution in this situation?

So how would you explain all this?

Ghs

Were I her, I'd try a variety of the True Scotsman argument here.

Ah, yes. I believe Antony Flew called it the No True Scotsman Move -- which in our case may become the No True Christian Move. Did I quote some Catholics who favored toleration? Reply: No true Catholic would defend toleration.

I'm sure we are all familiar with the No True O'ist Move.

I take it you have read Flew's Thinking About Thinking (originally titled Thinking Straight). That's a terrific little book.

Ghs

I haven't read his Thinking About Thinking or Thinking Straight. I did read his An Introduction to Western Philosophy when I was in college and often consult his A Dictionary of Philosophy. And I have a few of his others books on my shelves, but not the two you mention.

Elsewhere in this forum I mentioned scriptural and ideological determinism. I reckon I should've called the latter doctrinal determinism. This is the view that if you know someone's doctrine, you can predict the positions she or he will hold. (I make no claims to originality on this view. I believe I first read the former term in Wright's The Evolution of God, though the idea seems to have been around for a long time and even seems to pervade the culture with things like breaking stereotypes -- not necessarily ethnical or racial ones, but also religious and ideological ones.) I think this is what we're seeing here: people think they know the doctrine of those they criticize -- here, Catholic thinkers and leaders through the ages -- and already "know" they couldn't possibly support toleration. And yet it moves!

[imurray]

And yet it moves!

Indeed it does. Nice Galileo reference.

Ian

[George H. Smith]

I haven't read [Flew's] Thinking About Thinking or Thinking Straight.

These are the same book. The former is the title used by the American publisher. I would also recommend another book by Flew, Thinking About Social Thinking.

I did read his An Introduction to Western Philosophy when I was in college and often consult his A Dictionary of Philosophy. And I have a few of his others books on my shelves, but not the two you mention.

I once wrote a review of Flew's Introduction . I mentioned that it has the only humorous index entries that I had ever seen, viz., "Jesus bar Joseph" and "Mary, mother of Jesus bar Joseph."

Ghs

[dan2100]

I haven't read [Flew's] Thinking About Thinking or Thinking Straight.

These are the same book. The former is the title used by the American publisher. I would also recommend another book by Flew, Thinking About Social Thinking.

I've heard of that one too -- and meant to read it years ago, but never got around to it. I'd planned to read more of his work on Hume, but never got around to it.

I did read his An Introduction to Western Philosophy when I was in college and often consult his A Dictionary of Philosophy. And I have a few of his others books on my shelves, but not the two you mention.

I once wrote a review of Flew's Introduction . I mentioned that it has the only humorous index entries that I had ever seen, viz., "Jesus bar Joseph" and "Mary, mother of Jesus bar Joseph."

Ghs

Is your review available online? I actually remembered liking that book because of the approach: not strictly placing all the thinkers from one age with only the near contemporaries, but, if my memory's correct, looking at them from a problem or issues centered view.

[Xray]

But again--my basic point: you can't say what X-Ray said because it is a sweeping generalization.

Panoptic,

I can't see any evidence of either Dennis H. or me telling George/others "what should have happened" (?). Can you quote an example of our posts and explain exactly what you mean?

I'd be happy to. You just did it again:

Believers often see oppressive governments as sinners who violate God's law When religious individuals (or groups) stand up against oppressive governments, this basically says little about how they deal with freedom of opinion within their own organization, or if they would grant others freedom should they come into political power.

Rich Engle and Panoptic,

It looks like neither of you read my post thoroughly enough to notice the carefully placed modifiers. The result was a misunderstanding on your part.

I wrote (bolding mine): "Believers often see oppressive governments as sinners who violate God's law."

If I had left out the 'often', only then could it be called a 'sweeping generalization'.

Panoptic: This is your opinion of how believers think and how they behave. It is not based on what actually happened (i.e., supported by rigorous research of historical events), instead it is based on what you think should happen if believers behave and think the way you say they do - your whole argument is a tautology. George is dealing with real people and real historical artifacts, not theorizing off the top of head or fitting historical events to his own way of thinking.

This passage contains many errors:

This is your opinion of how believers think and how they behave.

The error lies in your assuming that it is just my personal opinion unsupported by facts. I base my conclusion on both personal experience and history.

I have had encounters with many believers, and the "sin" motive when we were discussing oppressive governments was of course present in many cases, whether it was Jehova's witnesses pointing out that "Satan" is at work here, or the Catholic nuns in my school who spoke of the "godless" communist leaders of the USSR. Just two examples of believers who brought up the "sin" motive.

As for historical events - let's take a fairly recent one, the Iranian Revolution led by the believer Khomeini. What do you think he saw in the Shah's regime? I suppose you will agree that the premises held by the believer Khomeini leave no doubt that he regarded the Shah and his supporters as sinners against Allah's will.

Or take the Christian liberation theology: "Liberation theology proposes to fight poverty by addressing its supposed source: sin." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Here we have it again.

instead it is based on what you think should happen if believers behave and think the way you say they do - your whole argument is a tautology.

Panoptic, with all due respect, but this makes no sense.

I can provide evidence to support my statement (which btw. does not state that every believer behaves that way).

As for the term "tautology", it does not apply here at all.

Sometimes yes, often no. This is an extremely sweeping generalization about religious organizations--ignoring the fundamental difference between them, that being that some of them are creed-based, and others (like the Unitarian Universalists/ www.uua.org) are covenant-based. The latter groups usually lie within a larger group commonly referred to as the "free" church. The covenants employed in the latter vary slightly, of course, but there are essential aspects that appear over and over again--many of which are democratic- and humanist-based ideas. Ours, for instance, is based on 7 principles:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations.

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations, and in society at large.

The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

I'm interested in the "transcendence" element, for the principles listed above (with a few modifications) could as well be listed in an "atheist manifesto".

From the Wikipedia Article on UU:

Unitarian Universalism is a religion characterized by support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth and by the belief that an individual's theology is a result of that search and not obedience to an authoritative requirement. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.

Both Unitarianism and Universalism have roots in the Christian faith. Historically, Unitarianism referred to the monotheistic belief in the single personhood of God and a rejection of the Christian Trinity; Universalism taught that all souls would achieve salvation and rejected everlasting Hell.

Rich E. - I have some questions about your idea of god.

Do you believe in the doctrine of original sin?

I'm strictly arguing by premises here: since the Jesus figure is based on the idea of original sin, if you don't believe in original sin, it follows that a belief in Jesus is flushed down the drain as well. Agree? Disagree? If the latter, please explain why.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Xray

[imurray]

But again--my basic point: you can't say what X-Ray said because it is a sweeping generalization.

Panoptic,

I can't see any evidence of either Dennis H. or me telling George/others "what should have happened" (?). Can you quote an example of our posts and explain exactly what you mean?

I'd be happy to. You just did it again:

Believers often see oppressive governments as sinners who violate God's law When religious individuals (or groups) stand up against oppressive governments, this basically says little about how they deal with freedom of opinion within their own organization, or if they would grant others freedom should they come into political power.

Rich Engle and Panoptic,

It looks like neither of you read my post thoroughly enough to notice the carefully placed modifiers. The result was a misunderstanding on your part.

I wrote (bolding mine): "Believers often see oppressive governments as sinners who violate God's law."

If I had left out the 'often', only then could it be called a 'sweeping generalization'.

Panoptic: This is your opinion of how believers think and how they behave. It is not based on what actually happened (i.e., supported by rigorous research of historical events), instead it is based on what you think should happen if believers behave and think the way you say they do - your whole argument is a tautology. George is dealing with real people and real historical artifacts, not theorizing off the top of head or fitting historical events to his own way of thinking.

This passage contains many errors:

This is your opinion of how believers think and how they behave.

The error lies in your assuming that it is just my personal opinion unsupported by facts. I base my conclusion on both personal experience and history.

I have had encounters with many believers, and the "sin" motive when we were discussing oppressive governments was of course present in many cases, whether it was Jehova's witnesses pointing out that "Satan" is at work here, or the Catholic nuns in my school who spoke of the "godless" communist leaders of the USSR. Just two examples of believers who brought up the "sin" motive.

As for historical events - let's take a fairly recent one, the Iranian Revolution led by the believer Khomeini. What do you think he saw in the Shah's regime? I suppose you will agree that the premises held by the believer Khomeini leave no doubt that he regarded the Shah and his supporters as sinners against Allah's will.

Or take the Christian liberation theology: "Liberation theology proposes to fight poverty by addressing its supposed source: sin." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Here we have it again.

instead it is based on what you think should happen if believers behave and think the way you say they do - your whole argument is a tautology.

Panoptic, with all due respect, but this makes no sense.

I can provide evidence to support my claim, a claim hich - I'm a stickler for preciseness - does not state that every believer behaves that way.

As for the term "tautology", it does not apply here at all.

Sometimes yes, often no. This is an extremely sweeping generalization about religious organizations--ignoring the fundamental difference between them, that being that some of them are creed-based, and others (like the Unitarian Universalists/ www.uua.org) are covenant-based. The latter groups usually lie within a larger group commonly referred to as the "free" church. The covenants employed in the latter vary slightly, of course, but there are essential aspects that appear over and over again--many of which are democratic- and humanist-based ideas. Ours, for instance, is based on 7 principles:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations.

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations, and in society at large.

The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

I'm interested in the "transcendence" element, for the principles listed above (with a few modifications) could as well be listed in an "atheist manifesto".

From the Wikipedia Article on UU:

Unitarian Universalism is a religion characterized by support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth and by the belief that an individual's theology is a result of that search and not obedience to an authoritative requirement. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.

Both Unitarianism and Universalism have roots in the Christian faith. Historically, Unitarianism referred to the monotheistic belief in the single personhood of God and a rejection of the Christian Trinity; Universalism taught that all souls would achieve salvation and rejected everlasting Hell.

Rich E. - I have some questions about your idea of god.

Do you believe in the doctrine of original sin?

I'm strictly arguing by premises here: since the Jesus figure is based on the idea of original sin, if you don't believe in original sin, it follows that a belief in Jesus is flushed down the drain as well. Agree? Disagree? If the latter, please explain why.

Xray:

You've missed my whole point. George is discussing a specific period of American history. You continue to use examples from other periods and places. The events he's discussing have already happened and George is looking at all the data available to him to create an objective picture of what took place. You, on the other hand, are not. Sure you can find a bunch of historical examples to prove your thesis, buy who here cares? We are not discussing those events here. And yes, the word "tautology" applies to a majority of your arguments. You already have all the answers, it's just a simple matter of making history fit them. Right?

I'm afraid the misunderstanding here is yours - perhaps when several intelligent people disagree with you, you should reassess your position instead of repeating the same thing over and over and...

Edited June 24, 2010 by Panoptic

[Rich Engle]

X-ray, *sigh*

Rich Engle and Panoptic,

It looks like neither of you read my post thoroughly enough to notice the carefully placed modifiers. The result was a misunderstanding on your part.

I wrote (bolding mine): "Believers often see oppressive governments as sinners who violate God's law."

If I had left out the 'often', only then could it be called a 'sweeping generalization'.

I was referring to (and cited) not that statement, but this one:

When religious individuals (or groups) stand up against oppressive governments, this basically says little about how they deal with freedom of opinion within their own organization, or if they would grant others freedom should they come into political power.

No modifiers there. Moving on, I guess:

Rich E. - I have some questions about your idea of god.

Do you believe in the doctrine of original sin?

I'm strictly arguing by premises here: since the Jesus figure is based on the idea of original sin, if you don't believe in original sin, it follows that a belief in Jesus is flushed down the drain as well. Agree? Disagree? If the latter, please explain why.

I do not know where you got the tract describing the UU faith tradition--it is fairly accurate, though brief. Wikipedia? But anyway, you seem to not be reading for comprehension in this very basic thing (creed vs. covenant). If you did, you would know that of course I do not believe in the doctrine of Original Sin. For one reason alone, because it is doctrine (dogma, actually). I'm sorry, but I have to say: this whole line of questioning shows very messy theological thinking on your part. Linking Original Sin to "belief" in Jesus... The barn door is hanging open here. Firstly, what sort of "belief" in Jesus? I can only speak for myself, as that is part of the UU way, but in this case I can say with high confidence that in this, my belief is widely if not nearly totally shared by the UU community at large. It is about as close to "doctrine" as we get--but again, speaking only for myself: Jesus was a historical figure. He was surely a great teacher, and likely prophetic (if you believe in the existence of prophet-types). He was a very unique, special individual. He was, at the least, a very proactive humanist He was not the "Son of God," at least any more so than we are all are part of the "Spirit of Life," "All That Is," or however you care to refer to "It." He was a man, like other men. Now, this would not be the time for you to start slinging scripture at me to prove your point, particularly anything from the Disciples. By the time you get to John, the motherfucker had jets on his heels. I am not a Fundamentalist, so you can't go that route. The Bible is but one of many types of what we might call historical writings of the sacred or holy variety. That would include many others from faith traditions not Christian-based.

My idea of "God." Again, I believe in what you might call "individual spiritual consciousness." Unique to each individual. An ongoing, real-time, experiental state of one kind or another. In my case, I do not even use the word "God," although when certain people choose that term, it might mean something more in-line with my views, or it may not. I will be able to tell through sharing with them. There are certain attributes, observables available when talking about how people experience their connection to the universe, for want of a better term. To this day, one of the groundbreakers still remains William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience."

But that is enough. The actual topic here is of far more importance to me, and I am enjoying the historical perspectives and illumination that George (and some others) are bringing forward. It is common for UU folks to have an avid interest in theological history. And, also because we tend to be very proactive (as in doing things rather than talking about doing things) towards human rights issues.

[George H. Smith]

I once wrote a review of Flew's Introduction . I mentioned that it has the only humorous index entries that I had ever seen, viz., "Jesus bar Joseph" and "Mary, mother of Jesus bar Joseph."

Ghs

Is your review available online? I actually remembered liking that book because of the approach: not strictly placing all the thinkers from one age with only the near contemporaries, but, if my memory's correct, looking at them from a problem or issues centered view.

I think my review, written in the 1970s, was published in "Books for Libertarians." This newsletter-style publication, edited by Roy Childs, later became "Libertarian Review." I don't think issues have ever been posted online. That's too bad, because they contained many interesting reviews by Roy and others.

Ghs

[dan2100]

Is your review available online? I actually remembered liking that book because of the approach: not strictly placing all the thinkers from one age with only the near contemporaries, but, if my memory's correct, looking at them from a problem or issues centered view.

I think my review, written in the 1970s, was published in "Books for Libertarians." This newsletter-style publication, edited by Roy Childs, later became "Libertarian Review." I don't think issues have ever been posted online. That's too bad, because they contained many interesting reviews by Roy and others.

Ghs

I imagine there are many such newsletters lost to the ages now. Kind of sad in a way.

[Xray]

Xray:

You've missed my whole point. George is discussing a specific period of American history. You continue to use examples from other periods and places.

Panoptic:

Please reread George's #1 root post, which is not just about a specific period of American history, but even goes back as far as early Christianity.

P: The events he's discussing have already happened and George is looking at all the data available to him to create an objective picture of what took place.

Characteristic of George's style is the casting of 'spotlights' here and there; I would call him more an "essayistic" type of writer. The essayistic element is one of the reasons why I find his books and articles so refreshing to read.

As for "objective picture", this is a very complex issue, since every citation and quote is already a selection.

For example, George asked me how I would explain the quotes from Christians advocating religious toleration.

But I was not implyig that every Christian is an advocate of religious intolerance. How can I say that - I was an ex-Christian myself, and I don't recall during all those years ever having been intolerant of the belief of others. But what I did NOT do during all those years was checking the premises of the Christian doctrine itself, due to a general lack of religious interest on my part coupled with a lack of courage to leave the Catholic church (an institution with which I had felt uncomfortable - to put it mildly - since childhood), "playing it safe" with the Pascalian Wager, so to speak.

I have switched to "Smith's Wager" now, which I find far more convincing. ;)

P: You, on the other hand, are not. Sure you can find a bunch of historical examples to prove your thesis, buy who here cares?

An argument can't be affected by who cares or doesn't care about it. This is a case where you can apply Rand's "Emotions are no tools of cognition".

P: And yes, the word "tautology" applies to a majority of your arguments.

Again, I have the impression that you don't know what a tautology is.

P: You already have all the answers, it's just a simple matter of making history fit them. Right?

No, wrong. My list of questions has always been substantially longer than the answers I have. I'm a seeker. We all are seekers, otherwise we would not be posting on a philosophy forum. It is precisely this 'seeker' aspect which is the common denominator of the motley crew posting here.

When religious individuals (or groups) stand up against oppressive governments, this basically says little about how they deal with freedom of opinion within their own organization, or if they would grant others freedom should they come into political power.

In 1560, while France was in the midst of violent conflicts between Catholics and Huguenots (i.e., French Calvinists). France's Chancellor, Michel de l'Hopital. said the following during his address before the opening session of the States-General:

The Christian religion is to suffer violence, not to create it, and those who wish to establish it with the help of arms, swords and pistols, act against what they profess. As Chrysostom said, we differ from the heathen who use force and compulsion, whereas Christians use only words and persuasion.

They argue in vain that they take up arms for God's cause, because God's cause does not need to be defended by arms....Our religion was neither started, nor maintained, nor preserved by the force of arms.

In 1561, at a session of the States-General of Orleans, Jacques Bienassis, vicar-general of Tours and abbot of Bois-Aubry, said:

ince the ignorance of man is such that people reach different conclusions, and that each one believes and has special reasons for believing that he possesses the true religion, we are bound in this entanglement to wait until God in His goodness takes a hand and dispels that ignorance from whatever source it arises, in order to bring us all together in the union of His own pure truth: there is indeed no sense in wanting to use force in matters of conscience and religion, because conscience is like the palm of the hand; the more it is pressed, the more it resists, and lets itself be ordered only by reason and good advice.

During the 1570s, under Catholic rule, Poland became the first country in the modern era to establish a policy of religious toleration. In defense of this policy, Poland's grand chancellor, John Zamoyski, said: "I would give half my life to bring back to Catholicism those who have abandoned it, but I would give my whole life to prevent them from being brought back by violence."

All these statements (I could provide many more) were given by prominent Catholics while they were in positions of power, not while they were being persecuted. But don't we all somehow "know" that Catholics always favored religious persecution in this situation?

So how would you explain all this?

Ghs

These are complex issues. The first question I would ask is about the real motive behind a statement. In M. de l’Hôpital's case, could it be that, since he placed the interest of the state over that of religious groups (that's what it says in the German Wikipedia article), that he said this to reduce the influence of these groups?

Da l’Hôpital das Staatsinteresse über das der religiösen Parteien stellte, wurde er von katholischer Seite heftig angegriffen.

His position was vehemently attacked by Catholics.

As for Zamoyski, it says in the Wikipedia article that Zamoyski's advocation of religious tolerance was directed against the growing power of the Catholic church and the Jesuits in Poland.

As for Bienassis, what he said certainly went against the ruling Catholic doctrine and he probably got into trouble for making such bold statements.

Frankly, George, I believe that quite a few of the religious thinkers of past times would be agnostics or even atheists if they lived today. For back then, voicing opinions even remotely reeking of going against the religious doctrine meant putting one's life in danger. So how are we to know if lip service to dogma wasn't paid in several instances by thinkers who - for good reasons - did not dare to put their radical thoughts in words the public might hear?

Even today - and this is what troubles me far more - many Christian believers, even tolerant ones, turn a blind eye to the root premise of "Original Sin" as the basis of the belief.

Rich Engle's # post is a typical example:

this whole line of questioning shows very messy theological thinking on your part. Linking Original Sin to "belief" in Jesus...

No Jesus without the premise of Original Sin and a God Father sacrificing his son to save mankind. Has Rich forgotten about all this?

Sure, Rich can interpret the Jesus figure as he sees fit, since anyone can pick elements fom anything and quilt their personal philosophy. Just as anyone can pick from Rand what suits them and leave out the rest, but the invariable result of such patchwork philosophy is that it weakens the original doctrine, and the next step is already programmed: the complete doctrine will eventually be so weak that it crumbles to dust. It has happened e. g. with Communism, and imo it will happen to every doctrine still out there. Would you agree that we are currently witnessing a dying of doctrines? "The Dying of Doctrines" how's that for a title of a book you might write in the future on that? ;)

Xray: When religious individuals (or groups) stand up against oppressive governments, this basically says little about how they deal with freedom of opinion within their own organization, or if they would grant others freedom should they come into political power.

No modifiers there.

The modifiers are "basically" and "little".

But I'll rephrase the sentence more radically to put the truth of the proposition in bolder relief:

"When religious groups or individuals stand up against oppressive governments, this does not imply that they grant freedom of opinion within their own organization, or that they, should they come into political power, will grant others freedom."

This proposition is true. Right?

All these statements (I could provide many more) were given by prominent Catholics while they were in positions of power, not while they were being persecuted. But don't we all somehow "know" that Catholics always favored religious persecution in this situation?

So how would you explain all this?

Ghs

Dan Ust: Were I her, I'd try a variety of the True Scotsman argument here.

Were I you, I would certainly not have brought up the "True Scotsman" argument here since it might give your debate opponent the idea to start a discussion about the "True Objectivist". So thanks for the inspiration, Dan!

Edited June 25, 2010 by Xray

[dan2100]

Dan Ust: Were I her, I'd try a variety of the True Scotsman argument here.

Were I you, I would certainly not have brought up the "True Scotsman" argument here since it it could give your debate opponent the idea to start an interesting discussion about "True Objectivist". So thanks for the inspiration, Dan!

I can't stop you from doing so, but I wonder if you understand what the problem with the True Scotsman argument is. Perhaps you should research it before deploying it here. Then again, it will be far more fun if you don't, so please proceed.

[imurray]

Xray,

I know what a tautology is, if I didn't I wouldn't have used the term. You do not come across as a seeker, in all honesty. Frankly, you hijack discussions and lead them way off course with your so-called "questions".

Ian

[Xray]

I do not know where you got the tract describing the UU faith tradition--it is fairly accurate, though brief. Wikipedia?

In had mentioned in my #107 post that Wikipedia was the source.

RE He was not the "Son of God," at least any more so than we are all are part of the "Spirit of Life," "All That Is," or however you care to refer to "It."

How do you know he was not the son of God? I would like to continue this discussion elsewhere and am looking for a suitable thread.

RE: The Bible is but one of many types of what we might call historical writings of the sacred or holy variety. That would include many others from faith traditions not Christian-based.

There is strong tendency toward patchwork religion today. People pick and choose here and there what suits them and quilt their own religion. The 'context-dropping' Rand criticized so much is being practised to a large degree. The effect of context-dropping here is that it weakens the original belief system.

So when people interpret Jesus merely as some benefactor of mankind, thus severing the figure from the concept of Original Sin and God sacrificing his son, this is actually a demystification of a religious figure, and by that demystification, people contribute to the deployment of a religion even if they may not be aware of it.

The same goes for philosophy. One could say that a philosophy is like a head - everbody has one. ;)

I have always been an advocate of patchwork philosophy since it meshes with my idea of individualism.

Those who are really troubled by individual patchwork philosophies or patchwork religions are the orthodox leaders of a religion/philosophy/ideology.

This easily explains why for example both Peikoff and the Pope are so intolerant of anything veering from the "pure doctrine". For they know what will lay ahead in case they allow the system being influenced by eclectic elements.

Frankly, you hijack discussions and lead them way off course with your so-called "questions".

That forum discussion on specific threads can address related issues as well is a result of the inherent dynamic in those discssions. Someone mentions a point, another poster comments on it, etc. It's like going through an aisle where opening one door leads to another door.

Like I said to R. Engle, I'm looking for a more suitable thread to continue this (a thread on religion as such would be better imo).

You do not come across as a seeker, in all honesty.

Could it be that you push away disagreeing positions by concluding that the person who holds the position can't be a seeker? I'm interested in the effect which premises have on thought systems, which implies examining the premises themselves, and the approach here can't be radical enough.

I'm not a seeker in that I 'seek' any save ideological or religious haven, if that's what you mean, but regard seeking as a permanent process of vita in motu, an adventure of the human mind.

OL can be a very inspiring place in that respect. Just think how much one can learn by e. g. reading Ba'al Chatzaf's and Dragonfly's posts dealing with natural science.

I can't stop you from doing so, but I wonder if you understand what the problem with the True Scotsman argument is. Perhaps you should research it before deploying it here. Then again, it will be far more fun if you don't, so please proceed.

In all probability it will lead in no time to a dicussion what a true Objectivist is. To what degree you will find this 'fun' remains to be seen. ;)

The Epistemology section would be a good place for this. Can you think of an existing thread where it would fit in?

Edited June 26, 2010 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

X-Ray says if you don't sign up with something on the approved list, all Hell and Fury and structrual failure await Thee:

No Jesus without the premise of Original Sin and a God Father sacrificing his son to save mankind. Has Rich forgotten about all this?

Sure, Rich can interpret the Jesus figure as he sees fit, since anyone can pick elements fom anything and quilt their personal philosophy. Just as anyone can pick from Rand what suits them and leave out the rest, but the invariable result of such patchwork philosophy is that it weakens the original doctrine, and the next step is already programmed: the complete doctrine will eventually be so weak that it crumbles to dust. It has happened e. g. with Communism, and imo it will happen to every doctrine still out there. Would you agree that we are currently witnessing a dying of doctrines? "The Dying of Doctrines" how's that for a title of a book you might write in the future on that?

The first sentence is simply Fundamentalist doctrine. And if someone wants that, they can have it. What it actually is, like many things drawn from the various historical writings that made it into The Bible (following appropriate modification, sanitization, and other editing wonders), is a simple way of explaining something to simple people, not unlike how you might explain something to a child. It is allegory. If diving deeper into things weakens Fundamentalist doctrine, well, I for one say good--in action, Fundamentalism is one of the most fucked-up things on the planet. Oh, I know some halfway-decent Fundies--harmless, decent, occasional do-gooders, even. But in Christian Fundamentalism (any Fundamentalism, really) some kind of meanness always reveals itself. In the case of Christian Fundamentalist thought, the most repulsive current example is their intolerance of gay, bisexual, and transexual gender issues. The hate-mongering and persecution knows no boundaries, and any way you slice it or read it, I'm sure Jesus never sanctioned their shit--it thoroughly conflicts with His essential core teachings. They traumatize and hurt these folks in all manner of ways. So I politely say fuck them for that. Actually, I don't even say that. I am merely sad for their hateful thoughts and deeds, and support the countermeasures that are taken by the various organizations and churches such as mine. Sadly, for us, a lot of that is simply about providing them with a safe spiritual haven, and waiting for them to stop shaking. Again, Christianity and Liberty--some are good at it, others, way not so much.

So what if hardline doctrine organizations start crumbling? Morphing is good. Dogma is usually too rigid and often flat-out just untrue for reality. If a person is developing their spirituality through many paths of study (studying say, Buddhism, Native American religion, and some form of Christianity, and transcendentalist writing all at once), what is wrong with this? It is enriching. Humans do not need to carry party cards.