What in the name of god is bible study?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Felch
Well how can you say that the religious people who commit atrocities were "good people to start with"? It's just your personal bias versus the cold facts of experimental results.

It's not about solely committing atrocities per se, but rather being able to justify them morally.

Even the Nazis didn't try and justify the Holocaust morally--they denied it ever happened or their own part in it. Not one of them stood up at Nuremburg, proudly proclaimed that he had taken part in the Final Solution and proceeded to defend it as something that was good and just. The fact that they tried to hide what was happening from the invading forces demonstrates that they knew it was something that was morally unjustifiable.

A Bible literalist can't deny that the atrocities therein didn't happen, nor can he say that God ordered the Israelites to do something immoral, so he has no option but to believe that the slaughters were morally sound. Furthermore, these same literalists have been quite vocal about genocide in places like Darfur. I do not accept the idea that all Bible literalists are genuinely evil people, so I am left with only one logical conclusion--their religion has convinced them to accept something as morally good that they would otherwise find abhorrent.

[Felch]

That's a lot more nuanced than "it takes a religion for good people to do bad things." What you seem to mean is, "It takes a religion to rearrange the moral order so that good people will feel good about evil things."

But even that's not true, unless you broaden the scope of religion to include political ideologies. The Khmer Rouge, the SS, both sides in the Spanish Civil War, they all committed atrocities and felt justified in creating a better world. You might say that these are evil people, but who knows? Without Hitler urging them on, many of the SS may have lived peaceful, non-genocidal lives.

The fact is that no simple statement like "it takes religion for good people to do evil things," is true. Sometimes it's true. But sometimes good people do evil things for other reasons, like to conform to the expectations of a group, or to provide for their family, or any number of motivators. And sometimes, rotten people do good things because religious superstition has put the fear of God into them.

Most often though, religion and politics are just rationalizations for the things people would do anyways. If you were intent on plundering the Aztecs, but saying that they were human sacrificing pagans made it easier, you'd justify it with religion. That doesn't mean that the justification is the real motive. People aren't that simple.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Felch
That's a lot more nuanced than "it takes a religion for good people to do bad things." What you seem to mean is, "It takes a religion to rearrange the moral order so that good people will feel good about evil things."

Inevitably, a one-line statement isn't going to contain all the possible nuances.

But even that's not true, unless you broaden the scope of religion to include political ideologies. The Khmer Rouge, the SS, both sides in the Spanish Civil War, they all committed atrocities and felt justified in creating a better world. You might say that these are evil people, but who knows? Without Hitler urging them on, many of the SS may have lived peaceful, non-genocidal lives.

This was exactly why I brought up the Nazis. I don't think in any of these cases that the perpetrators of the atrocities in question acknowledged them and morally justified them. The Nazis morally justified intolerance of Jews and other "undesirables," yes, but there was no attempt to morally justify their wholesale slaughter--they just did it. Again, no Nazis were out there after the fact stating how the Holocaust was a moral good.

But sometimes good people do evil things for other reasons, like to conform to the expectations of a group,

If a person is doing something he would ordinarily find evil just to fit in, I'd say that he isn't a good person.

or to provide for their family,

If you mean stealing food to feed a starving family, I don't think that's evil. If you mean willingly working as a concentration camp guard to pay the bills, then I'd say that person is not a good person.

And sometimes, rotten people do good things because religious superstition has put the fear of God into them.

Never said otherwise on this one. This wasn't addressed in the saying.

Most often though, religion and politics are just rationalizations for the things people would do anyways. If you were intent on plundering the Aztecs, but saying that they were human sacrificing pagans made it easier, you'd justify it with religion. That doesn't mean that the justification is the real motive. People aren't that simple.

I think that's true. But my point was that religion can also make people who otherwise wouldn't believe such a thing in any other circumstance into ardent, believing advocates. That's because religion, unlike political philosophies, claims to know the absolute moral truth as dictated by God. As the story of Abraham and Isaac shows, committing atrocities because God orders it--when you would otherwise be aghast at them--is a virtue in religion.

[Elok]

Wait, so the Nazis murdered something like eleven million people, but because they didn't morally justify it they're better than the Spanish Inquisition somehow? A dead body's a dead body, you know, whether the person was burned in the stake or shot in the head, whether the people who killed him were filled with fervor or just following orders. I'd actually say that the latter is worse. You can at least theoretically appeal to an idealist's higher impulses. An apathetic follower, forget it.

This is leaving aside any question about the actual nature of Nazi motivations, which I haven't really researched. But consider the difference of circumstances. Jesus says "don't deny me on Earth, or I'll deny you in Heaven." Adolf says "don't bother me, I'm trying to kill myself before the Allies get here." There's nothing to be gained whatsoever from standing up for Nazism at Nuremberg. The struggle, at least in its current iteration, has failed, and you could argue that it would gain more if the loyal officer shut up and laid low so he could help it later. So I suspect it's not a matter of substantive difference so much as of the limitations of Nazism compared religion. Don't mistake material weakness for ethical strength.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
Wait, so the Nazis murdered something like eleven million people, but because they didn't morally justify it they're better than the Spanish Inquisition somehow?

I'm not making any such statement. While it makes me sick that a good person can be convinced of the righteousness of committing an evil act, I'd say that is absolutely no worse than an evil person committing an act just for evil's sake. The fact that the Nazis couldn't morally justify their acts shows that they were evil human beings who committed atrocities not because they thought it was right, but rather because they served an end that was ultimately about power/wealth/etc.

It's just that the fall is greater for religion. Nazism attracted brutes and thugs and deviants far moreso than scholars and intelligentsia (who fled Germany in droves). Religion usually attracts a much more sophisticated crowd, at least to its leadership.

This is leaving aside any question about the actual nature of Nazi motivations, which I haven't really researched. But consider the difference of circumstances. Jesus says "don't deny me on Earth, or I'll deny you in Heaven." Adolf says "don't bother me, I'm trying to kill myself before the Allies get here." There's nothing to be gained whatsoever from standing up for Nazism at Nuremberg. The struggle, at least in its current iteration, has failed, and you could argue that it would gain more if the loyal officer shut up and laid low so he could help it later. So I suspect it's not a matter of substantive difference so much as of the limitations of Nazism compared religion. Don't mistake material weakness for ethical strength.

I think this reinforces my point more than it argues against it. Nazism did not have the power to inspire its followers to proclaim their moral righteousness in failure. Compare this to religious martyrs. But even when Nazism wasn't obviously failing, they took some steps to cover up these crimes. That doesn't speak to them having moral certitude that what they were doing was righteous.

Yes, religion makes promises that no other ideology can match: eternal paradise, 72 virgins, etc. That's all the more reason it is able to convince people to do awful things who otherwise wouldn't.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If by rallied you mean withdraw entirely from Lambeth and hold his own conference, then sure.

Why are you trying to paper over the schism? You've lost most of the Africans and most of your church, which is a pity because it was entirely unnecessary.

No, they haven't renounced their membership in the Anglican Communion. If you don't believe me you can take a look at the recently updated webpage for the Anglican Communion. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/index.cfm
The Anglican Chuch of Kenya, the Church of Nigeria, the Church of the Province of Uganda, the Church of the Province of Central Africa all clearly have stayed within the Anglican Communion. If you're talking about the so called "Anglican Communion Network" that's formed out of renegade parishes in the US, Canada, South America, Uganda and Kenya you can see from their webpage: http://www.acn-us.org/ that they hardly comprise anywhere close to a majority of Anglicans in any of those areas. You might alos note that all of their leadership in Africa appear to be Americans. I guess they couldn't trust the importance of their mission to the natives?

Calling your brothers and sisters in Christ bigots is a pretty low blow too.

If the shoe fits..... I've been an Episcopalian all my life. I've been a member of parishes rocked by the controversies of the 60's and 70's. I've seen members turn beet red and storm out of church over eulogies for Martin Luther King or the ordination of a women in the diocese. Some of them left the Episcopal Church and became Baptists, others sought out some of these rengade parishes. I'm not certain what portion of the members of the AAC are the old time racist and misogynist bigots and what portion are the newer anti-gay bigots, but I will say this, bigots aren't my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I interviewed folks in the Southern Cone here in Vancouver, who left the Anglican church of Canada, and they all said the same thing. They were disgusted by the role of their bishop, and wanted ecclesiastical oversight by someone who was actually committed to the teachings of Christ.

You're talking about rengades from the Anglican Church of Canada, not the Protestant Episcopal Church. I've got no idea what's going on in Canada.

Saying that Focus and the Family is paying bishops is an outright lie.

I didn't say that did I? I said the African bishops were being paid by wealthy supporters of Focus on the Family.

There are plenty of well-meaning Anglicans both in Africa and outside who are disgusted by the actions of a few episcopalians who have left the church and want to take the church with them.

The folks I spoke to were perfectly willing to leave, and they don't need any money from Focus in the Family.

Yes, but you're talking about Canada. I know for a fact that PECUSA maintains no parishes in Vancouver. It's against the oldest canons of the Anglican Communion.

[Boris Godunov]

Episcopalians

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, Ben. Mathematics is an unbounded subject.

First, I don't see whether a subject is bounded has anything to do with whether the subject is of value to study. Chess is bounded, but we couldn't come close to approaching the depths of chess in it's entirety. I'd argue that scripture is the same.

The bible is finite. It's thick (or not really thick, I'm not sure what American Christian denominations use the Old Testament), but it contains only that many facts and ideas.

Chess contains a finite number of positions, yet it is for all intents and purposes unknowable.

Well, it would be, but it contradicts itself, so I don't think that building your own personal bible out of the big one is something worth doing.

For someone who shows very little desire to study the bible you sure know lots about the contradictions. Where does the bible contradict itself?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First, I don't see whether a subject is bounded has anything to do with whether the subject is of value to study. Chess is bounded, but we couldn't come close to approaching the depths of chess in it's entirety. I'd argue that scripture is the same.

That's not true.

Checkers has been "solved", Chess is not far behind.

Chess contains a finite number of positions, yet it is for all intents and purposes unknowable.

Not true.

This is actually an area in game theory & computer science that is making tremendous progress. The last I'd read (which was just recently), all 3 to 6-piece Chess games and some 7-piece chess games have been solved in the past five years. All 3-3 and 4-2 endgames are solved in the 6-piece set. The 5-1 are only "partially" solved still but there are some trivial cases still that prevent it from being fully solved.

The technique is retrograde analysis. It will work for the full 32-piece game, it's just a matter of time for it to be solved.

Someone commented recently on my remark about chess being boring, this is why. Go is a far better game. I can continue to kick your ass and discuss this in another thread if you choose, but something tells me history majors may struggle with the concept of retrograde computer analysis.

Sidenote: Dr. Schaeffer of the University of Alberta solved checkers and wrote an AI (Chinook) that can never lose. He taught me about game theory and compilers while he was an IBM Research fellow in the summer of 2005, while I was working at the IBM Toronto software lab myself. Brilliant guy.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm not making any such statement. While it makes me sick that a good person can be convinced of the righteousness of committing an evil act, I'd say that is absolutely no worse than an evil person committing an act just for evil's sake. The fact that the Nazis couldn't morally justify their acts shows that they were evil human beings who committed atrocities not because they thought it was right, but rather because they served an end that was ultimately about power/wealth/etc.

It's just that the fall is greater for religion. Nazism attracted brutes and thugs and deviants far moreso than scholars and intelligentsia (who fled Germany in droves). Religion usually attracts a much more sophisticated crowd, at least to its leadership.

So it's a sort of backhanded compliment, almost. Well, I'll take it that way.

I think this reinforces my point more than it argues against it. Nazism did not have the power to inspire its followers to proclaim their moral righteousness in failure. Compare this to religious martyrs. But even when Nazism wasn't obviously failing, they took some steps to cover up these crimes. That doesn't speak to them having moral certitude that what they were doing was righteous.

Or just that they were aware that what they were doing would be met with disapproval by uninitiated reactionaries (or whatever word Nazis used for "heathen"). If it comes to that, early Xians held their meetings in secret; there's a part in the Liturgy where the priest says aloud, "The doors, the doors!" Now a meaningless exclamation, in the days of persecution it was a sign for the door-wardens to close the doors before the creed so the civil authorities couldn't poke their noses in and catch everyone in a mass confession of "guilt." It's not necessarily a matter of moral certitude--it could just as easily be old-fashioned cover-your-ass.

Yes, religion makes promises that no other ideology can match: eternal paradise, 72 virgins, etc. That's all the more reason it is able to convince people to do awful things who otherwise wouldn't.

So it's not really a matter of ethical superiority so much as inferiority of appeal? So what?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, they haven't renounced their membership in the Anglican Communion. If you don't believe me you can take a look at the recently updated webpage for the Anglican Communion.

They left Lambeth and held their own conference. They no longer take communion with episcopalians. That's a sign they no longer consider you folks to be a part of their church.

Why would they leave the Anglican communion? They are the Anglican communion. How can you brand the majority of Anglicans as renegades? That makes no sense. The African church hasn't changed their theology one whit. The Episcopalians have drastically changed. That makes the Episcopalians renegades.

You might alos note that all of their leadership in Africa appear to be Americans. I guess they couldn't trust the importance of their mission to the natives?

Still no evidence for your outrageous charge that they are bought and paid for by the Americans. It seems to me they are all part of the same group of people who are unhappy with the new direction the Anglicans have gone in light of accommodating the episcopalian innovations. The African church has remained faithful to Christ and whether they stay within the Anglican communion depends on which way your head totters.

I honestly think the only way to save Anglicanism would be to kick out the Episcopalians and let you have your own church. You already think that way, so the only thing that would change is that you wouldn't have to answer to other Anglicans anymore and could do whatever you want.

If the shoe fits.....

How is defending the teachings of Christ bigotry?

bigots aren't my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Then the Anglicans are in schism, thanks to that one statement. You call everyone who disagrees with you bigots, and then are surprised when they refuse to take communion with you. I'm not surprised. That's what happens when people condemn one another rather then trying to love one another.

[quote]
Yes, but you're talking about Canada. I know for a fact that PECUSA maintains no parishes in Vancouver. It's against the oldest canons of the Anglican Communion.
{/quote]

The fact is the division is not just the Africans, and the rationale behind the divisions has nothing to do with bigotry but everything to do with Christ. You've brought together parishes with nothing in common with each other simply then the word of God that they share.

I've seen what's happened in Vancouver, and while the PECUSA doesn't have any parishes there, that already shows me there are two churches, which was my point. You've already split, you think differently, and you no longer think of them as your brothers and sisters. What more needs to be said to say you are in schism?

[Ben Kenobi]

Okay that is bullcrap. Crusades were acts instigated by the popes against any dissident religion around in the times.

In 600 AD the area was primarily Christian, and the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were extremely prominent.

Then 60 years later the Muslims overrun the whole area and slaughter the Christians. They destroyed the Christian kingdoms in Africa, and in most of Spain, and threatened the Byzantine Europe.

It took 200 years to level, and throughout that period there was constant warfare between the Muslims and between the Christians.

The Crusades weren't isolated events. The pope excluded the Spanish from the crusades because they had the Reconquista. The Crusades were merely the extension of the overall conflict between Christians and Muslims.

That is why Innocentius III could order a crusade against the Cathars in the south of France.

First through 15th crusades were all against the Muslims in the Levant...

The Byzantines were threatened by muslims yeah, but the pope didn't give a rats ass about the orthodox heretics.

Heretics? Why did the Pope hand over Antioch to the Byzantines?

[Elok]

I don't know that precise moment in history, but I'm going to guess political necessity. If he were that concerned about us we wouldn't have had to kick the damned Franks out of Constantinople on our own after the Fourth.

[Ben Kenobi]

Checkers has been "solved", Chess is not far behind.

Checkers hasn't been solved for all possible positions. It's only been solved for the strongest starting position.

Checkers has 10^31 moves on a 8x8 board, but chess has 10^138 moves. If we can't strongly solve Checkers, then we aren't ever going to strongly solve Chess.

Someone commented recently on my remark about chess being boring, this is why. Go is a far better game. I can continue to kick your ass and discuss this in another thread if you choose, but something tells me history majors may struggle with the concept of retrograde computer analysis.

You think I was unaware that there are engame tables?

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't know that precise moment in history, but I'm going to guess political necessity. If he were that concerned about us we wouldn't have had to kick the damned Franks out of Constantinople on our own after the Fourth.

Why would he hand Antioch over to Heretics?

It makes no sense. The Orthodox have never been heretics and the Catholic church has never considered them to be such. The issues that divide us are different then between Catholics and Protestants, so much so that you are still in communion with us, although that opinion is not yet reciprocated.