The question of whether a religious institution can be determined as per se evil from a cursory and decontextualized reading of their religious doctrine remains in the negative. — Hanover

Link this back to what we're talking about. — Hanover

The currency of religion is trust.

Learning things like mentioned before (from aggressive proselytizing strategies to priestly abuse of minors) undermines one's trust in a particular religion, or in religions in general.

We are justified to expect a measure of purity and straightforwardness from the very people who promote them.

For me as an external observer (who is perhaps on a spiritual quest), the religious institution has one chance to prove itself trustworthy. Approaching a religion should not be an exercise in ignoring red flags or inventing excuses as to why said religious institution is justified to do whatever it's doing.

If some religious institution truly holds the keys to heaven, then it shouldn't have any blemishes. And by this I mean primarily blemishes that the religious institution itself recognizes as such (e.g. the way the RCC did, by apologizing on numerous occasions by now; I'm not even talking about things that I may consider red flags and blemishes).

If the religious institution wants total trust from us, it needs to earn it. If it wants us to stake our eternity on its teachings, it needs to be flawless (which was actually the line of reasoning for why the RCC denied any wrongdoing for so long).

So it's not about whether a religious institution can be determined as per se evil, it's about whether it earns a particular person's trust or not.

Yay, a revised edition of god's final and infallible word! The irony is endless.

A most wonderful people. — Hanover

As a translator for the local language, I once witnessed a regional organizational meeting of missionaries at the local LDS church.
"Get their trust! Get their phone number!" their leader instructed them.

And some of them say "Democraps" instead of "Democrats".

And then they go and stone little girls. — Hanover

Excommunication can be the consequence for adultery in the LDS church, though.
Bear in mind that in an LDS setting, excommunication can mean that the person will lose their job, their home, their friends, their family (because Mormons tend to be very tightly knit socially and economically).

Excommunication is not stoning, of course, but it can critically worsen the person's socio-economic status, even to the point where they face homelessness or death by suicide for lack of socio-economic options.

26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” — Matthew 15:21

Oh, so we, the outsiders, are the dogs? And the Lord is our master anyway ...

The fact that someone can be one's guru and another's charlatan just goes to show that there is no objectively determinable fact of the matter about whether anyone is a guru or a charlatan.
— Janus

Or does it just say that determining the difference is very hard? — Tom Storm

No. It's that people so often approach the matter of enlightenment in an externalizing manner. They refuse to look at their own intentions, their own words, their own actions, and just focus on the other person. Seeking the answers out there.

"Is this person a genuine teacher or is he a charlatan?" is the wrong question. The right question is more along the lines of, "Whom am I looking for? A genuine teacher, or do I just want someone who will provide me with another fancy layer of denial and delusion?" Asking oneself the latter question makes the former one redundant.

So I shouldn't say that I am American? — Ennui Elucidator

Like I said, it's about making a point of using a group term for oneself. It's about using a group term for oneself for the purpose of obtaining special rights and benefits for oneself.

It's one thing to check "American" or "male" on some questionnarie. It's quite another to say, "I'm an American, therefore, I'm free to invade other countries and the people there must kneel before me" or "I'm male, and women must worship me."

When people describe themselves with the term "Christian", they tend to mean the latter, ie. that on account of being Christians, they deserve special treatment and have special rights, that they are above ordinary people.

I'm under the impression the OP is thinking about this in more general, even "metaphysical" terms. Ie. when one's survival depends on things one doesn't understand, one is profoundly vulnerable.

What characterises a tendency? How do you use actions to evaluate a 'tendency to act as if' on those states? What scope of behaviours does any particular tendency require for its evaluation? And finally - how does the answer to those questions interface with the argument?

The absence of those answers I think interfaces very clearly with the argument - the lack of answers makes it ambiguous how a believer acts as if (stoning is good) based on their worship of a God who in some context of evaluation approves of stoning. It isn't clear how to get from a tendency to act as if God is worthy of worship to a tendency to act as if stoning is justified. — fdrake

Add to this the problem that we're dealing with events that are potentially rare statistically.

Realistically, how often does a person know an adulteress, and is in a position to stone her?
Perhaps once or twice in the whole lifetime. Definitely not enough to establish a pattern as far as actions go, so we're left with a theoretical examination of a person's beliefs.

But they refuse to do so. Now what?
— baker

I walk away I suppose. I'm not going to progress to fisticuffs. — Isaac

Sure, but the point is that there is a whole culture of people refusing to play by the rules. We cannot just ignore them, nor their success.

What use is fairness, when people can live just fine without it?
— baker

Again, you're misconstruing my intent. I never claimed fairness was indispensable.

Then you don't have much of a case for fairness.

I'm not entitled to an opinion about what the meaning is to me, what it's value is to me. — Isaac

The right to freedom of speech doesn't include the right to be heard.

But again, what does that have to do with Lewis and your extension of his neglected argument to summarily writing off Christians without knowing anything about the individual? — Ennui Elucidator

A person stops being an individual the moment they use a group term for themselves. If someone wants to be treated as an individual, then they shouldn't make a point of calling themselves Christians.


(And that's leaving aside the huge topic of Christians refusing to treat other people as individuals.)

seems the best you can argue is that the bible reinforces a morality you already accept.

That's fine. — Banno

But why then do those people say they're getting their moral principles from the Bible?

Special in what way? That everyone owes them obedience?
— baker

No one owed them obedience. It is like you aren't even trying. Read the book. Find textual support for your glib. If you can't, give it up. If you can, produce it. — Ennui Elucidator

I have no glib. I read the book, a lengthy academic theological edition with ample footnotes and commentary. I prefer the simple and the literal reading. So I noticed there was all that talk about what applies for the Israelites. Paul wrote letters to these and those people. And so on. I was not addressed in any of those writings. As such, I did not feel addressed by the book.

I have noticed, however, a marked difference between how I read the book and how the Christians I know read it. I don't know a single Christian who thinks that what the Bible says doesn't apply to me. Not a single one. They all believe that what the Bible says applies to all of mankind, that all of mankind must follow the rules set out in the Bible. (This is what themes like "Modern people are godless, sinful" are all about.)

In contrast, I distinctly remember a scene from an old biblical film where a character, played by the young Anthony Hopkins, addresses precisely this issue. Namely, a number of religious people argue that everyone must obey the law as set out by God. While Hopkins' character argues that such is not the case, that outsiders are not subject to that law, and also that insiders cannot force the law upon outsiders.
I thought this was extremely strange, because this is precisely not how Christians go about this matter.

Anyway, the point is that you're setting yourself up as the epistemic and moral authority over Christians when you expect them to justify their beliefs to you. Why should they submit to you?

doesn't have anything to do with me in particular, nada. — jorndoe

Who is writing your posts? Who is saying the things that come out of your mouth? Someone other than you? Are you just opening your mouth when objective reality is the one doing the talking?

Who says this didn't really happen and won't happen again if Christians seize power? — Raymond

We already know what that looks like. Right wing political options tend to affiliate themselves with Christianity. You know what that looks like in your respective countries.

No. The Bible was not a universal code and it anticipates the people Israel living in a world with many nations not subject to their local war god's rules for the chosen. That is one of the typical misreadings about the Biblical Israelites - that they wanted everyone to be like them. They didn't. They were special. — Ennui Elucidator

Special in what way? That everyone owes them obedience?

Outlining a theory that actions are driven by beliefs says nothing about restraining or punishing, or even judging, people by their beliefs. — Janus

People are being judged for their beliefs every day, and punished. In job interviews; in relationships with family, friends, acquaintances; in courts. We are already living in the kind of society you asked me whether I wanted to live in.

Let's say that A is 'in church' and B is 'in the vestry'. We could say the priest believes "it's OK to molest boys" when he's in the vestry but believes "we should protect the innocent" when he's in the church - two belief-stories which are contradictory, but never meet. Or we could say the priest believes "it's OK to molest boys when in the vestry and we should protect the innocent when in church" (note the changed quotation marks). So the second story captures the effect of the context within the belief. Then we can interrogate that belief-story because there'll be a hidden belief about the vestry and the church that might yield a better story (less painful dissonance). The vestry is private, the church isn't so maybe it's "it's OK to molest boys when hidden but we should protect the innocent when in view". — Isaac

Or perhaps he doesn't see it as "molestation" at all. Maybe he read a lot about ancient Greek culture where paedophilia is regarded as a good and normal thing. Maybe he doesn't think children are automatically innocent. Maybe he himself was a victim of priestly sexual abuse as a child and is now repeating the pattern. Maybe he lost his faith and is since then in a volatile psychological state, more likely to engage in problematic or even criminal behaviors.

I'm not saying this to excuse the priests. It's just that these are also the realities of religious life.


(I don't know about English literature, but in some languages, there is a whole subgenre of literature the theme of which is the troubled inner life of priests. This is also the theme of some works of art. It seems plausible enough that actual priests have similar problems.)

When people are looking for these stories, they'll more readily pick one off the shelf than make one up themselves. The myths and narratives that a society offers matter a lot to the kind of society that results because of this. It' my belief that a contradictory mythology such a Christianity offers - with the sort of contradictions Lewis is highlighting - offers a narrative which allows for such horrors as priestly child abuse, much more readily than better mythologies might, precisely because of these underlying themes (that God's actually something of a git himself. That he sees the rites, cassocks and prayers as more important that the behaviour...).

When you look at this in the context of Christian culture as a whole, priestly child abuse is, sadly, not some egregious special case. People can be quite rough on eachother, and Christians are no exception. Physical violence, domestic abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, ...

And all of this is just to further point out that those who wish to open up the Bible, read a passage, and then comment on what it must mean in a vacuum without referencing the religious doctrine as a whole aren't providing a meaningful analysis of any known religion. — Hanover

Sure, but the responsibility is also on those who popularize the Bible. Arguably, their responsibility is bigger. The Bible (usually in a simple version without footnotes) is available in many places for free. People are being encouraged to read it.


(One of the reasons Roman Catholicism discouraged literacy and reading the Bible for so long was precisely this concern that if ordinary people are left to themselves reading the Bible, they are very likely going to become confused, lose faith.)

Sometime later, god chose a specific group of people among the nations to make another covenant with (see Exodus) with laws that applied ONLY to that group. Anyone who was not part of the chosen people was not required to follow ANY of the laws given specifically to the chosen people. — Ennui Elucidator

But those non-chosen people are also said to be doomed, are they not? They are automatically classed as the enemies of the Lord, as the enemies of the chosen people, no?

Absent the Christian being a part of the chosen people to which the Bible refers, they are not required to do any of the bad stuff that people keep complaining about.

And there are those who would say that this is a naive literal reading of the Bible!

I keep writing these posts that are somewhat complementary to yours — trying to add in whatever I feel you’ve left out that’s important — and I never really get around to trying to deal head-on with the arguments, such as they are. (And I’ve never given fdrake that response to Mengele I promised.) Maybe it’s just my temperament, but when an argument is at loggerheads like this, I tend to think both sides are wrong (and right, in their own way) and try something else. — Srap Tasmaner

The scary thing is that we're living in times where we feel we need to discuss such topics to begin with.
In an ideal society, the OP and the essay it refers to should not exist, or should be regarded as redundant, because in such a society, people would think, "But of course we should not admire those who worship a god who dooms people to eternal damnation! How can anyone even think to doubt that!!"

But we're living in times where we have to justify our basic moral intuitions with arguments. It's not clear it is possible to succeed in that.

(@Michael, would you join?)

Now, you're strawmanning me. — Baden

No, it was a genuine question seeking clarification. You didn't need to assume evil intent.

The Boss of this forum once said words to the effect that we should stop pretending that this forum is a democracy. So ...

And to point out >>

If you feel a mod is deliberately trying to intimidate you on the basis of being a mod, that's something you can report. But so far, it just sounds like a regular day on TPF.
— Baden

Interesting.

So this is a place where might makes right? That's what you, as moderators, really believe in?

I wasn't being criticized. To criticize me, they would have to refer to something I actually said, a position I actually hold. Instead, someone in a position of power accused me of things I didn't say, and insisted in it, not listening to me at all.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Relying on magic is tricky, it simultaneously gives one a sense of power and of helplessness.

For a conscientious person, not knowing how something works also gives rise for concerns over the safety of it and how to maintain it best (so as to not incur unnecessary expenses). Such a person will also feel a measure of anxiety upon considering that other people might not know how something works and thus act with it in ways that endanger everyone involved.

Take, for example, modern cars and modern drivers. A conscientious old-school driver knows, for example, that if you start a car on an incline, it can first slide back a bit, and that therefore, a greater safety distance toward the car behind is advised. Modern drivers, used to automatic transmissions and atuomatic brake-hold on an incline don't know this, and thus don't maintain sufficient safety distance. So when there is an intersection on a slope, there is greater likelihood of a collision after the car in the front backslides, and possibly this driver's fault.

I just think there is a huge power differential regarding the people that know the technology and those that just consume it. I think it is this that is the real political-economic power in the world- who understands and can produce the technology. — schopenhauer1

Being able to produce the technology seems to be what makes the difference.

Merely knowing how something works doesn't seem to give one much advantage over those who don't. In a consumer society, knowledge of how something works is, at best, a "factoid"; by and large, it's not needed, it's irrelevant. By the time some piece of technology breaks down due to wrong or suboptimal use, it's time to replace it with a newer model anyway.

Perhaps some day you'll get tired of being a dick. Or not.

You're just providing further evidence for my points.

None. You argued that the situation I described as 'fair' was not, in fact, the case. What's 'fair's and what's 'the case' are two different things. So the 'fairness' of x is not made illusory by showing that x is not the case. If you want to argue that x is not fair (ie, it's apparent fairness is merely illusory), then the matter of whether x is the case is immaterial. — Isaac

What use is fairness, when people can live just fine without it?

I can't see a way in which a priest, considering a little 'extra-curricular choir practice' with the boys would actually think "I'll be tortured in hell for eternity if I do this, but at least I'll get my rocks off for a five minuets - whatever, I'll do it". No-one's thinking that way. — Isaac

Actually, it's the kind of thinking that some Christians impute upon outsiders. It's what all those "Knowingly rejecting God's mercy and freely choosing hell" are all about.

- - -

The problem of hell is how to reconcile our ideas of it with the perfect goodness of God. — Srap Tasmaner

By leaving the ivory tower, and going to live in the real world, the world of blood, sweat, and tears.

You didn't answer my question.

Anyway, the point is that you're setting yourself up as the epistemic and moral authority over Christians when you expect them to justify their beliefs to you. Why should they submit to you? — baker

You can't lock someone up on the suspicion that they might do something "problematic". Would you want to live in a society where that was common practice? — Janus

Refer to

Why the protected status, why the concern for Christians being morally judged? Their book's shit, I mean there can't really be any argument about that. It says that girls ought to be stoned to death for Christ's sake! That's a shit book. — Isaac

Or it's a book that forces us to think in terms of existential urgency. A tribe that wants to survive and obtain and keep power has to maintain strict norms regarding everything that pertains to reproduction and the prospect of producing new members of the tribe. Hence all the rules about women and sex.

It's naive to think that nowadays, people are somehow above and beyond existential urgency, beyond concerns for survival and power.
Nowadays, we are actually no more existentially safe, our survival is no more guaranteed than it was for the old tribes millennia ago. It's just that these are largely tabooed topics, we brand them as "barbaric".

For me, one of the most interesting parts of the Lewis article is not the argument itself, but the reminder of how 'hidden' it is. Arguments about whether God exists are two a penny, the misdoings of the Christian Church are well known, but what's less often accepted is the simple fact that we accept (even venerate in our political leaders), adherence to a religion which is fundamentally flawed. God does some abominable things in the bible - no doubt about that.
/.../
Yes they can be interpreted in some way as to make them less abominable, but that's not the point. The point is that in any other circumstance can you imagine uncovering this kind of writing in a book one of our political leaders had in their briefcase - there'd be outcry, scandal, the politician concerned would be sacked and disgraced, interpretation go hang. It simply would not be tolerated in any other guise than religion, but religion is actually admired as a characteristic in our leaders. Why? History. Christianity has been with us for decades, so we've learned to live with it, learned to wear it as a badge on our sleeve, not to actually follow its edicts, but just as a token that we're the morally serious. — Isaac

No, it's more than just history. Politics is, literally, about matters of life and death, it's about survival, about wellbeing, people's careers being at stake, people's lives being at stake. Politicians decide about things that affect us all, that are a matter of life and death for us all.

Religion addresses those same fundamental existential concerns.

It's just that in "civilized" society, people don't talk about these things openly, straightforwardly. The Nazis, on the other hand, did spell it out, and "civilized" society called it "barbaric".

I agree with the distinction, I think the point made in the article in the OP (and argued by Banno) is closer to judging Christians though. Namely because once their beliefs are interrogated, it is arguably a sensible decision to take their ethical intuitions and reasoning abilities with, at best, a large pinch of salt. Something is definitely found wanting in the believer due to their belief, here. — fdrake

Or the believer understands the urgency of existential issues in a way that a philosopher doesn't.

If I'm asking anything of Christians it's that they take part in the usual social game of post hoc rationalisation that everyone else plays. — Isaac

But they refuse to do so. Now what?

- - -

Christians, or anyone else, have to justify themselves to whatever extent the situation requires. If you put up a sign and say, "I only admire people that don't admire an evil god," and a Christian walks over to your table and says, "I want you to admire me, but I worship an evil god," then the Christian is obliged to justify themselves as qualifying under your criteria. — Ennui Elucidator

You can hold up your sign all day long, for years, and no Christian will come along. IOW, the situation you describe doesn't happen in real life. Christians don't care if you admire them or not, they don't care about your standards of respect. They don't seek your admiration, nor your respect. If anything, they want you to obey them, to submit to them.

People operate in a social sphere and are subject to all of the same conditions as anyone else. When discussing social interactions and the negotiation of power, justification is a basic means by which one person attempts to accomplish their purpose. You can't just exempt yourself from justification to another because you think some claim of yours is sacrosanct - the other person dictates the rules for what is required for them to cooperate.

Except that Christians (and religious/spiritual people in general) don't care about this silly little expectation of yours. They very much do exempt themselves from justification.

Discussing your own personal conduct (which is what both Lewis and Banno do) is not the same as establishing what governments can or should do. A "human right" to religion is a claim made against states, not individuals.

On the contrary, it is from Christians that I have heard the idea brought up first; I hadn't thought of it before.
For example, a Christian lady once defended her case this way in a discussion, namely that she has the constitutionally granted rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The rest of us then had no choice but to shut up and respect her constitutionally granted rights.

You are capable of acting and making moral judgments independent of the state and in opposition to that state, be it secular or not.

Unless you live in a state that is only nominally secular.

It would be great if you could talk about your judgment rather than hypothesizing about the judgment of some nondescript moral agent cum state actor.

I think religion/spirituality is the triumph of Social Darwinism. I don't admire the religious/spiritual, or the Jehovah worshippers, but I acknowledge that they have devised an evolutionarily advantageous way of life.

Look at us, talking about them, giving them our headspace and forum bandwidth for free. While they don't care about us. They surely know something we don't!

- - -

Maybe that second question is somewhat out of the scope here. But to me, the answer is exactly what Lewis is driving at, because I'd hazard the answer would be "well that's obviously allegorical because if it wasn't, it'd be awful" — Isaac

Would it?

Whom would a group of people who is intent on surviving and prevailing worship?
Someone very powerful, someone who can grant them victory, someone who can grant justification for their struggle for survival and power.
In short, someone like Jehovah.

No, not "any" sentiment, just the racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. ones. This isn't complicated at all,just don't post hateful/prejudiced BS and you're fine — Seppo

LOL.

I once posted a couple of posts where I expressed my concerns over the safety and effectiveness of the covid vaccines. From this, a prominent poster and a moderator accused me of being an anti-vaxxer, and the moderator even went on a crusade against me for it. Repeatedely accusing me of stances I don't hold.

So much for not posting "hateful/prejudiced BS".

There is no line - how can there be? Determining what is acceptable to a site by mods is not a science but an interpretive art. — Tom Storm

Surely there are principles.

What are you really getting at? It appears you are looking for rigid categories of unacceptability because your sense of fairness has been pinged by mod decisions. You've noticed that some objectionable ideas are allowed and some are not and there doesn't seem to be a measurable line for determination. I think this may be unavoidable. I recall Emerson's aphorism - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Watch it, you might get banned, and not having seen it coming!

How do you explain the consistency with which religious/spiritual people don't act on what they preach?
How do you explain that when conversing with so many religious/spiritual people, there is a palpable contempt or hatred, sometimes blatant, sometimes just under the surface on their part?
— baker

To be fair this applies to many (if not all) areas of human behaviour not just religion. The same thing happens in most organised value systems - especially politics - where people regularly betray their ostensible principles. There's a reason there's a word for hypocrisy...

The kinder explanation for this would be that those folk are stuck in dualistic thinking and divide the world into winners and losers, with scorn and hatred constantly on the boil. In other words, their spirituality is shallow and ritualistic and they are unable to partake in the good or the true. — Tom Storm

The simpler explanation is that religion/spirituality is exactly as it appears, exactly as it is practiced by religious/spiritual people.
Thus:

It _is_ religious/spiritual to be eager to assume and take for granted the worst about others.
It _is_ religious/spiritual to act in bad faith.
It _is_ religious/spiritual to make empty promises.
It _is_ religious/spiritual to quickly resort to ill will.
It _is_ religious/spiritual to promote one thing and do another.
It _is_ religious/spiritual to have double standards.

And this is not to be repudiated. Religion/spirituality is the triumph of Social Darwinism, an evolutionary success.

If we start from the premise that Philosophy in the original or true sense is love of, and quest for, truth and that systems like Buddhism also aim to discover the truth — Apollodorus

Wrong. Buddhism isn't after the truth in the general sense you're using the word here. For the Buddhist quest, most truths that people tend to be after are irrelevant.

For example, from what I see, there is no evidence that Buddha attained enlightenment.

Guess what? There is no Buddhist who is losing sleep over your not seeing any evidence that Buddha attained enlightenment.

But, more importantly, you don't care whether they do or don't.

I'm not saying that this applies to Buddhism exclusively but, basically, what tends to be the case is that what we’ve got is evidence-free assertions that are being defended by means of other, similarly evidence-free claims.

Upon which you pile on more evidence-free claims. But wait, that pile is evidence!

The fact that someone can be one's guru and another's charlatan just goes to show that there is no objectively determinable fact of the matter about whether anyone is a guru or a charlatan.
— Janus

Or does it just say that determining the difference is very hard? — Tom Storm

No, it means it's advisable not to be a dick.

You guys have been displaying here a pervasively passive attitude toward religion/spirituality. As if religion/spirituality was something that is done to you, that others do to you, or that others manifest (or fail to manifest) for you. As if you played no part in the matter, or as if what you do has no bearing on the quality of the interaction between yourself and the prospective teacher. And as if the quality of the interaction between yourself and the prospective teacher is entirely and solely the responsibility of the prospective teacher; or at least that as far as you are concerned, you can do no wrong.

This is the stereotype about men and sex; you are replicating it in reference to religion/spirituality.

The difference of opinions shows that there is no objectively determinable quality of art works, music and literature. — Janus

The difference of opinions shows only that there is a difference of opinions. Nothing more.

Someone being one person's guru and another's charlatan doesn't make that person a guru, or a charlatan.
— baker

The fact that someone can be one's guru and another's charlatan just goes to show that there is no objectively determinable fact of the matter about whether anyone is a guru or a charlatan.

I'll translate this into language that you might be better able to understand:

Harry: Hey, I got laid last night. Susan is really good in the sack!
Dick: Really? I want to hit that too!
(a week later)
Dick (to Harry): You liar! You told me Susan was great in the sack! I did her last night, but it sucked. Man, you made a fool out of me!


Question: Is Susan to blame for Dick's bad experience of the sexual relation between them?

Pretty much the way Buddhists and Hindus disparage and misrepresent Christianity. — Apollodorus

Because when foreigners invade your country, the only sensible thing to do is to kneel before them and let them have your country, right?

Or is that only when Christians invade your country ...

yet the Holocaust was wrong, really bad. — jorndoe

The Nazis didn't think so, obviously.

Anyway, the point is that you're setting yourself up as the epistemic and moral authority over Christians when you expect them to justify their beliefs to you. Why should they submit to you?