Woo's Woo in Christianity

[Oldfarmhouse]

One of the problems for those who adhere to Christian doctrine (any doctrine, really) is the existence of people who were at one time strong believers in the faith and then at some point abandoned it. The reason that this is a difficult issue for the believers is that former members often provide detailed coherent descriptions of how they came to question, doubt, and eventually reject the doctrine.

Almost invariably the reasons for leaving differ between ex-members and current members. Former Christians often describe a process of investigation into the claims made by the group and ended up with very unimpressive answers. Ex-Christians discuss education and how the increase in knowledge and exposure to different cultures and ideas renders the theology useless to accurately describe the world.

On the other side Christians give very different reasons that people leave the faith. Invariably members of the faith will blame the person who left the church and never admit to the possibility theat the doctrine is inadequate. I will say that there are exceptions -- if they dont blame the person who left then its that crafty devil who led them astray.

For discussion -- why do you think Christians become ex-Christians?

[Oldfarmhouse]

For 30 years I have seen engineers disproportionately represented in biblicist versions christianity, often presenting themsleves as some sort of voice of intelligent credibility. I have no idea why. (Well, I have some theories.)
But what AquinasD was saying, and I agree, is that few Christains, not even the self-congratulatory bible reading engineers, are deeply and solidly grounded in philosophy and theology and the history thereof. That seems to make a difference. Otherwise people come in and out for shallow reasons, and their religious discernment and discourse is as low as everything else in pop culture - more interesting as sociology than as theology (just like this forum). So it' about more than raw intelligence, more than cleverness. It has to do be being learned and wise about religion, something I personally have never encountered in the many engineer-fundamentalists I have met, indeed quite the opposite in my own experience (I have some theories).
When did the bible become the whole of christianity or what one is supposed to study anyway? I'd say that studying it in absence of a solid grounding in hardcore philosophy and theology, as well as several other fields, does more harm than good. Which is why the best religious studies departments and seminaries require studies in all related fields.
But I agree that biblical studies is a fascinating field with endless possibilities.

Just because someone has put a whole bunch of metaphysical concepts in place of the typical religious dogma does not mean it is any more rational. While it might come up with some interesting concepts, but .. well.. I don't see the need to have those concepts intertwined with the concept of an all powerful creator. Dealing with a more sophisticated set of concepts doesn't make it any less 'woo'
More of the scholars will realize it's symbolic rather than literal, but that doesn't mean it isn't more 'true'.


And when it comes to the hardcore philosophy and theology, just what percentage of Christians are into that anyway? The vast majority of the rank and file Christians are not into the more esoteric ideas.

I do see scholars trying to rationalize the more outrageous claims of religious ideology -- it's just symbolic, it really means (blah blah,) if you look at it from a 38' angle while standing on your head and it's Tuesday afternoon and a plane is flying over...

I can see where they manage to tone down the 'woo' level a few notches -- but they shoot themselves in the foot because it is supposed to be a supernatural miraculous reality-defying construct in the first place and when one attempts to rationalize it -- no more miracle and it still doesn't fit with reality.

As for the average Christians -- I think that a majority of Christians are Christians for no more reason than their parents are Christians.

[ttruscott]

For 30 years I have seen engineers disproportionately represented in biblicist versions christianity, often presenting themsleves as some sort of voice of intelligent credibility. I have no idea why. (Well, I have some theories.)
But what AquinasD was saying, and I agree, is that few Christains, not even the self-congratulatory bible reading engineers, are deeply and solidly grounded in philosophy and theology and the history thereof. That seems to make a difference. Otherwise people come in and out for shallow reasons, and their religious discernment and discourse is as low as everything else in pop culture - more interesting as sociology than as theology (just like this forum). So it' about more than raw intelligence, more than cleverness. It has to do be being learned and wise about religion, something I personally have never encountered in the many engineer-fundamentalists I have met, indeed quite the opposite in my own experience (I have some theories).
When did the bible become the whole of christianity or what one is supposed to study anyway? I'd say that studying it in absence of a solid grounding in hardcore philosophy and theology, as well as several other fields, does more harm than good. Which is why the best religious studies departments and seminaries require studies in all related fields.
But I agree that biblical studies is a fascinating field with endless possibilities.

You misunderstand if you think your words here:

few Christains, not even the self-congratulatory bible reading engineers, are deeply and solidly grounded in philosophy and theology and the history thereof.

demean us at all or mean anything about our faith or experience with Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

2 Corinthians 12:10
That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

[Slopeshoulder]

For 30 years I have seen engineers disproportionately represented in biblicist versions christianity, often presenting themsleves as some sort of voice of intelligent credibility. I have no idea why. (Well, I have some theories.)
But what AquinasD was saying, and I agree, is that few Christains, not even the self-congratulatory bible reading engineers, are deeply and solidly grounded in philosophy and theology and the history thereof. That seems to make a difference. Otherwise people come in and out for shallow reasons, and their religious discernment and discourse is as low as everything else in pop culture - more interesting as sociology than as theology (just like this forum). So it' about more than raw intelligence, more than cleverness. It has to do be being learned and wise about religion, something I personally have never encountered in the many engineer-fundamentalists I have met, indeed quite the opposite in my own experience (I have some theories).
When did the bible become the whole of christianity or what one is supposed to study anyway? I'd say that studying it in absence of a solid grounding in hardcore philosophy and theology, as well as several other fields, does more harm than good. Which is why the best religious studies departments and seminaries require studies in all related fields.
But I agree that biblical studies is a fascinating field with endless possibilities.

Just because someone has put a whole bunch of metaphysical concepts in place of the typical religious dogma does not mean it is any more rational. While it might come up with some interesting concepts, but .. well.. I don't see the need to have those concepts intertwined with the concept of an all powerful creator. Dealing with a more sophisticated set of concepts doesn't make it any less 'woo'
More of the scholars will realize it's symbolic rather than literal, but that doesn't mean it isn't more 'true'.

It makes it more well thought out, and makes it quantitatively if not qualitatively different.

Define "true."

And when it comes to the hardcore philosophy and theology, just what percentage of Christians are into that anyway? The vast majority of the rank and file Christians are not into the more esoteric ideas.

How is this relevant or how does it raise to the level of a dismissal? Most guitarists play badly and most listerners have no ear. Should I burn my records and gear because my conservatory education makes music a farce?
It' supposed to trickle down. The educated leaders are supposed to make the benefit of their learning available through better teaching and preaching, and in my part of the world, they do.

[Slopeshoulder]

For 30 years I have seen engineers disproportionately represented in biblicist versions christianity, often presenting themsleves as some sort of voice of intelligent credibility. I have no idea why. (Well, I have some theories.)
But what AquinasD was saying, and I agree, is that few Christains, not even the self-congratulatory bible reading engineers, are deeply and solidly grounded in philosophy and theology and the history thereof. That seems to make a difference. Otherwise people come in and out for shallow reasons, and their religious discernment and discourse is as low as everything else in pop culture - more interesting as sociology than as theology (just like this forum). So it' about more than raw intelligence, more than cleverness. It has to do be being learned and wise about religion, something I personally have never encountered in the many engineer-fundamentalists I have met, indeed quite the opposite in my own experience (I have some theories).
When did the bible become the whole of christianity or what one is supposed to study anyway? I'd say that studying it in absence of a solid grounding in hardcore philosophy and theology, as well as several other fields, does more harm than good. Which is why the best religious studies departments and seminaries require studies in all related fields.
But I agree that biblical studies is a fascinating field with endless possibilities.

Just because someone has put a whole bunch of metaphysical concepts in place of the typical religious dogma does not mean it is any more rational. While it might come up with some interesting concepts, but .. well.. I don't see the need to have those concepts intertwined with the concept of an all powerful creator. Dealing with a more sophisticated set of concepts doesn't make it any less 'woo'
More of the scholars will realize it's symbolic rather than literal, but that doesn't mean it isn't more 'true'.


And when it comes to the hardcore philosophy and theology, just what percentage of Christians are into that anyway? The vast majority of the rank and file Christians are not into the more esoteric ideas.

I do see scholars trying to rationalize the more outrageous claims of religious ideology -- it's just symbolic, it really means (blah blah,) if you look at it from a 38' angle while standing on your head and it's Tuesday afternoon and a plane is flying over...

I can see where they manage to tone down the 'woo' level a few notches -- but they shoot themselves in the foot because it is supposed to be a supernatural miraculous reality-defying construct in the first place and when one attempts to rationalize it -- no more miracle and it still doesn't fit with reality.

This is a coarse, anachronistic, and reductionistic caricature of what contemporary religious thinkers and leaders grounded in post-enlightenment philosophy and theology actually do. And it mertis no further comment.

As for the average Christians -- I think that a majority of Christians are Christians for no more reason than their parents are Christians.

I agree. It's a cultural inheritance, and the same dynamic is true for all belief systems and geographies. What's wrong with that?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 42:

...
2 Corinthians 12:10
That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Then soon as ya become strong, danged if ya ain't weak again. But that's cool, that makes ya strong. But that ain't cool, 'cause that make ya weak. But hey, you're right back to being strong. But being strong makes ya weak. Yeah, but now that you're weak, you're strong! But dangit, that makes ya weak. Strong! Weak! Strong! Weak! Strong!

...
4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Typical Christian, hiding behind the Bible to insult all who disagree.

But for the love of God, don't you dare have an atheist throw these insults back, that'd be "uncivil".

I :censored: on your book.

[Slopeshoulder]

For 30 years I have seen engineers disproportionately represented in biblicist versions christianity, often presenting themsleves as some sort of voice of intelligent credibility. I have no idea why. (Well, I have some theories.)
But what AquinasD was saying, and I agree, is that few Christains, not even the self-congratulatory bible reading engineers, are deeply and solidly grounded in philosophy and theology and the history thereof. That seems to make a difference. Otherwise people come in and out for shallow reasons, and their religious discernment and discourse is as low as everything else in pop culture - more interesting as sociology than as theology (just like this forum). So it' about more than raw intelligence, more than cleverness. It has to do be being learned and wise about religion, something I personally have never encountered in the many engineer-fundamentalists I have met, indeed quite the opposite in my own experience (I have some theories).
When did the bible become the whole of christianity or what one is supposed to study anyway? I'd say that studying it in absence of a solid grounding in hardcore philosophy and theology, as well as several other fields, does more harm than good. Which is why the best religious studies departments and seminaries require studies in all related fields.
But I agree that biblical studies is a fascinating field with endless possibilities.

You misunderstand if you think your words here:

few Christains, not even the self-congratulatory bible reading engineers, are deeply and solidly grounded in philosophy and theology and the history thereof.

demean us at all

I wasn't trying to demean anyone.
And who's this "us" of whom you speak? Christian engineers of biblicist pursuasion?

or mean anything about our faith or experience with Christ.

It doesn't. How is this relevant in any way to what I wrote? I only refer to the way in which certain people in my experience (christian engineers of biblicist pursuasion) seem to make faux intellectual claims that don't rise to the level of serious understanding. What are you talking about?

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

2 Corinthians 12:10
That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

No one's insulting or persecuting anyone.
No one's commiting the "sin of intellect."
Geez.

[Oldfarmhouse]

For discussion -- why do you think Christians become ex-Christians?

IMO many reject Christianity over 1 major issue, sex.

How can something so beautify actually be evil? It is because of many of the misunderstandings and the inherent Phariseeism of the church attacking people over what they believe is sin in another's life and the biggest area of attack is human sexuality.

Most professing Christians don't have a clue what the law actually says about what is forbidden. They expand it to things they think might lead to sin and forbid that as well.

Old Testament Law on sexuality forbad only a few things.
1) Don't rape (death penalty for violation)
2) Don't take another man's wife (death penalty for violation)
3) Don't commit incest (at the time of Moses and beyond) (death penalty for violation)
4) Don't take a girl's virginity without her father's blessing (fine paid to the father, had to marry her, couldn't divorce her)

Who would even attempt to argue that the top 2 are not evil? The third is understandable with our knowledge of genetic problems. In every case someone is hurt by the action. Basically the law was don't use sex to hurt someone. Even the case of taking a girl's virginity was about don't steal what doesn't belong to you.

So only those things were forbidden in heterosexuality. The definition of fornication is 'unlawful sexual intercourse' so it had to be included in that list but modern Christianity has expanded the definition to include much more as forbidden. For example, a couple living together outside of marriage isn't fornication. It is actually taking on a concubine which isn't forbidden in the law.

Phariseeism by expanding on the law by traditions of man make the law much harsher then it actually was intended to be.

IMO those Pharisical views on human sexuality is the biggest problem that keep people out or drive them out due to being attacked over sexual issues whereas Yah gave us our desire and commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. He just expects us to be responsible with our actions and not to hurt people by our actions.

The enemy tends to focus on sexuality as a major wedge to drive people away from Yah. People flee from the harshness of the Pharisical views thinking it is a requirement placed by Yah.

I have to disagree entirely with the initial statement. I see what you are doing here as trying to maintain an erroneous stereotype -- those people who have a pathologically unrestrained labido and run screaming from Christianity because their desire to have a roll in the hay with any warm-blooded thing overpowers their need to conform to goodness and light.

Hooey.

There are numerous resources online where one can read that accounts of people who at one time fully embraced religious doctrine and chose to abandon it. I have yet to read one account in which someone claimed that restrictions of sexual behavior had anything to do with their decision. It appears that people leave religion because the doctrine is lacking more than anything else. It is not easy to keep pretending that something makes sense when it doesn't. In this regard, one could say that they are taking the easy way out. BUT --- (BIG BUT [just one 't,' get your mind out of the gutter]) -- if you read the stories written by people who leave religious groups you will find many of them heartbreaking. Stories about how people ended up rejected by family, friends, almost everyone they ever knew. How people became bombarded with hostility. Not easy, nothing easy about it. People don't put themselves through that just because they want to get laid.


AND --- if someone does just want to get laid all the time there is no reason to abandon Christianity. Christian leaders and sex scandals? Common as mud.

[Goat]

...At the current time, we can verify 3 apparent spatial dimensions...

See this article

...The word 'profound' is so vague. care to quantify it?

For any human endeavor, we necessarily start with basic assumptions which cannot be proven. For any human endeavor, almost any and every possible "starting assumption" has been adopted or will be adopted, and we cannot even in principle know which (if any) of our starting assumptions correspond to objective reality (whatever it might be). The human condition is such that all of what passes for "knowledge" is really just a convenient label for "what seems to work given certain conditions and assumptions."

And how does that justify the word 'profound'.

And, when it comes to assumptions.. many assumptions can be tested. You can make predictions, and while it might 'prove' an assumption, it can often filter out an assumption.

[TheJackelantern]

I was suggesting no such thing. Lacking an intellectual grounds does not mean one is stupid, it just means one isn't cognizant of the issues relevant to their beliefs, which an otherwise smart person might well be. I only suggested that there may be some who, having never obtained an intellectual grounding, find other popular philosophies more powerful that are atheistic.

That's circular logic that is utter nonsense.. When someone tells another they lack intellectual grounds because they leave a religion, that's attempting to use social dogma and control mechanisms to make that person feel like they are stupid, and should resubmit their lives to your ideology. This tactic is commonly used in your religion as social control by social out casting and shunning the individual.. And sorry, you have no intellectual grounds to state that popular philosophies are more powerful than Atheistic one's... What you are basing this one is emotional ans social control. Atheistic grounds are grounded in evidence, logic, and reasoning with an amplitude of critical thought on the subject.. And this is what religions do not like..They do not like people thinking for themselves or being critical of their ideological constructs.. What makes religion powerful is that it preys on human vulnerability and weaknesses by pure intention of doing so..

If anything, I'm pointing out that it requires a certain amount of intelligence and intellectual application to maintain a robust Christian faith that we find important and substantial.

Or intentional ignorance and dishonesty.. However, your choice of faith / belief is yours unless someone has made if for you. Being a part of the tribe is indeed a very powerful tool, and it can be said that it takes a certain amount of intelligence and intellectual application to leave such religions. A robust freethinker finds the need to know actual truth that can actually have some tangible and substantial backing to it that doesn't rely entirely on preying on one's ignorance, weaknesses, emotions, and vulnerabilities... These are the first tools religion uses, and they are designed to stop critical thought, instill doubt, and make the person feel as if they should submit their lives to the ideology or face being an out-cast, a worthless being, or one to be damned as an abomination ect...

Ever ask a Theist to convince you without needing to use social dogma, fear, or preying on your human vulnerabilities and weaknesses? Well, they can't, and they can't seem to not stop trying to. It's about 99% of their entire argument.. It's the fish school behavior where the outsiders get preyed upon.. Either join the school, or become an out-cast to get eaten by the Great White Shark in eternal damnation.

Most theists I have debated spend most of their time on theses type of forums appealing to ignorance, preying on human weaknesses, and trying to circumvent logic, reason, and rationality while almost always avoiding having to deal with issues and those hard questions they don't like to answer. So I fail to see how that is intellectually grounded with any sort of intellectual integrity. Many of them don't even realize they are doing it because they are so programmed into doing it.

[Confused]

From Post 42:

...
2 Corinthians 12:10
That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Then soon as ya become strong, danged if ya ain't weak again. But that's cool, that makes ya strong. But that ain't cool, 'cause that make ya weak. But hey, you're right back to being strong. But being strong makes ya weak. Yeah, but now that you're weak, you're strong! But dangit, that makes ya weak. Strong! Weak! Strong! Weak! Strong!

...
4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Typical Christian, hiding behind the Bible to insult all who disagree.

But for the love of God, don't you dare have an atheist throw these insults back, that'd be "uncivil".

I :censored: on your book.

Moderator Warning

The post marked in blue really serves no purpose in this debate but to flame bait/ridicule. There are several more civil and tactful ways you could have made your point without resorting to taunting.

The words in green do nothing but stereotype and really are not necessary.

As for the comment in indigo, I am not sure what context you are attempting to apply it towards aside from more taunting. Please try to remain civil and adhere to the rules of this forum.
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.