"Prosperity Gospel"

[wenchsenior]

Heh.

:grabs popcorn and pulls up chair:

[DoubleDown]

we can use objective criteria to decide the merits of... Christianity over Santa Claus et al.

I'd be interested in hearing about some of those criteria.  My short 38 years on earth have yet to reveal any.

I would not be able to offer you any that would convince you, or that hasn't been covered before by humanity 1 million times over. My point was that lumping Christianity or other major religions practiced by billions with children's bedtime stories is like lumping the works of Shakespeare or Dickens with steamy romance novels because they're all "fiction" (can you tell I just came from the bookstore, heh). There are certain criteria (subjective and objective) we use to distinguish the quality of things; this is not news. I don't think I should have to prove the point that belief in Christ is a lot different than belief in Santa Claus -- it seems obvious to me.

[wenchsenior]

we can use objective criteria to decide the merits of... Christianity over Santa Claus et al.

I'd be interested in hearing about some of those criteria.  My short 38 years on earth have yet to reveal any.

I would not be able to offer you any that would convince you, or that hasn't been covered before by humanity 1 million times over. My point was that lumping Christianity or other major religions practiced by billions with children's bedtime stories is like lumping the works of Shakespeare or Dickens with steamy romance novels because they're all "fiction" (can you tell I just came from the bookstore, heh). There are certain criteria (subjective and objective) we use to distinguish the quality of things; this is not news. I don't think I should have to prove the point that belief in Christ is a lot different than belief in Santa Claus -- it seems obvious to me.

Nice dodge.

[sol]

lumping Christianity or other major religions practiced by billions with children's bedtime stories is like lumping the works of Shakespeare or Dickens with steamy romance novels because they're all "fiction"

That seems fair.  Like Dickens and Shakespeare, Santa and the Bible are largely fiction, too.  With a little nugget of history in there somewhere, but it's mostly buried under the grandeur of the magical stories.

And like Dickens or Shakespeare, I think the Bible is fiction with a purpose.  It not only tells an entertaining story, but tries to convey a moral lesson while revealing some interesting trait of humanity.  That's all well and good, even admirable.  I like Shakespeare (not so much Dickens).  But I don't turn to Shakespeare for advice on how to conduct stem cell research or administer my nation's foreign aid programs, so I'm a little confused about why our politicians keep turning to the Bible for these reasons.

I don't think I should have to prove the point that belief in Christ is a lot different than belief in Santa Claus -- it seems obvious to me.

You don't have to prove anything, to me or anyone else.  As long as you're happy with your beliefs, and they serve you well, and you manage to avoid using them to hurt other people unfairly.  One of the sad twists of Christianity is that a faith based on forgiveness and love is so often used to discriminate.

[okonumiyaki]

To be fair, Santa Claus/ Father Christmas is based on a historical figure, Saint Nicholas.

[Annamal]

I would not be able to offer you any that would convince you, or that hasn't been covered before by humanity 1 million times over. My point was that lumping Christianity or other major religions practiced by billions with children's bedtime stories is like lumping the works of Shakespeare or Dickens with steamy romance novels because they're all "fiction" (can you tell I just came from the bookstore, heh). There are certain criteria (subjective and objective) we use to distinguish the quality of things; this is not news. I don't think I should have to prove the point that belief in Christ is a lot different than belief in Santa Claus -- it seems obvious to me.

Subjective criteria, I agree with, religion has to be subjective otherwise there would be a great deal more consensus on the topic but you mention "objective" criteria.

Would you be able to explain those?

[sol]

To be fair, Santa Claus/ Father Christmas is based on a historical figure, Saint Nicholas.

Right, that was the nugget of truth, wrapped up in myths about flying reindeer and little elves at the north pole.  Ramses II was also a real pharaoh, and he appears in the Bible.  We have his mummy in a museum in Cairo.  A nugget of truth, wrapped up in myths about burning bushes and talking snakes.

Shakespeare also wrote about historical figures.  Julius Caesar was a real person, for example, but nobody believes that Shakespeare's version is actually the literal truth of his life any more than we believe that the book of Exodus is a literal account of Ramses' life.

[powskier]

Here's a new flash for you: they're all scammers.

Anybody who asks you for money for magical reasons is lying to you, because magic isn't real.  There is no good luck charm, no curse to be lifted, no vampire protectors or wolf bane, and there is certainly no invisible bearded white man in the sky who will send you dollars if you send your dollars to the charlatans on television.

Some churches will do great things with your money, if you choose to support them.  But you should give because you support the mission or the charity work, not because the voodoo lady says her zombie overlord will punish you if you don't. 

It's the 21st century, people.  We have robots driving around Mars.  It's time to let go of our ancient superstitions, to celebrate our myths as part of our cultural heritage but not literal truths any more than Zeus and Poseidon.  Why is that so hard?

You wouldn't ridicule someone for the color of his skin or his sexual orientation.  You wouldn't belittle a person for choosing to live in a different part of the country.  You wouldn't even make fun of someone for liking music or hobbies that you don't like.  You wouldn't insult the intelligence of someone who chose to join a club that isn't for you.

Why, then, do you feel free to blast someone else's religious beliefs?  It's crass and rude, and it has no place in a supposedly enlightened world.  It seems you adhere to the philosophy that people should be open minded -- unless you're talking about a conservative Christian point of view, and then it's fine to make fun of another person's most closely held values.

Sol is ridiculing someones beliefs. This is fine and appropriate. Have any belief you want it is your human right. Humans have rights beliefs do not. Stupid beliefs especially should be challenged and ridiculed, particularly one's that harm  and enslave others. I will defend anybody's right to hold any belief however ridicule, but the belief itself has zero right.

[Gin1984]

I would not be able to offer you any that would convince you, or that hasn't been covered before by humanity 1 million times over. My point was that lumping Christianity or other major religions practiced by billions with children's bedtime stories is like lumping the works of Shakespeare or Dickens with steamy romance novels because they're all "fiction" (can you tell I just came from the bookstore, heh). There are certain criteria (subjective and objective) we use to distinguish the quality of things; this is not news. I don't think I should have to prove the point that belief in Christ is a lot different than belief in Santa Claus -- it seems obvious to me.

Subjective criteria, I agree with, religion has to be subjective otherwise there would be a great deal more consensus on the topic but you mention "objective" criteria.

Would you be able to explain those?

I'd also like to know what objective criteria was used to judge Christianity of better quality than my religion.  Please, do tell.

[okonumiyaki]

Objectively, I would say that the two religions at either end of the spectrum (islam and shinto) are better than christianity.

Islam is judaism 3.0, and without the theological problems of the trinity.  It is monotheism in its purest form, and for those people who need rules of how to morally live their life, is better than Christianity in that it covers much more - as Mohammed was a social and political leader, as well as a religious prophet, Islam is a way of life as well as a religion.  Much less ambiguity and grey areas.  It is also 600 years younger, so is the fresher, modernised version of monotheism. 

Shinto on the other hand is probably the oldest religion, and of all the world's great religions, probably the closest to what our primitive ancestors believed.  All things have a life force.  Some are more powerful than others (foxes, mountains, cedar trees, oddly shaped rocks, waterfalls) and worthy of veneration.  There's no moral code as such, apart from venerate nature and your ancestors.  It also isn't a jealous religion, you can mix and match shintoism with buddhism, christianity etc and the spirits won't mind. 


Feel you need God to tell you what is right and wrong, down to almost every detail?  Islam.  Feel a sense of peace when walking in the woods and want to talk to the rocks?  Shinto.

[NICE!]

I'd also like to know what objective criteria was used to judge Christianity of better quality than my religion.  Please, do tell.

The poster didn't say anything about your religion (and I didn't see you state what yours was), therefore he/she shouldn't have to do so...strawman and all. That is, unless your religion is based upon Santa Claus.

sol, I love a ton of what you post. I think you are a genuine and well-meaning dude. I also find you incredibly empathetic 99% of the time. I think I'd enjoy having long philosophical discussions with you over beers. I agree with your critique of the prosperity gospel. I agree with many of your critiques of religion, religiosity, and orthodox adherents. I'd ask that you recognize that using terms like "magic" is offensive to people. Fair or not, the connotation is not appreciated by many. In the interest of civility, I believe that it is a reasonable request to drop such terms.

Back to the OP, I wouldn't be in favor of starting such a "church." I question the tax deduction system as it stands and I look forward to watching the Oliver segment when I get a chance.

[sol]

I'd ask that you recognize that using terms like "magic" is offensive to people. Fair or not, the connotation is not appreciated by many.

I recognize that some people are uncomfortable examining their religion with the same critical eye they use for every other idea in their lives.  That was the point, though.  I'm not trying to perpetuate bad decisions by politely ignoring them. 

As for being offensive, if the terminology I used to describe belief in supernatural beings is upsetting to anyone, then I suggest they might have their priorities out of order.  Let's talk about the offenses religion has caused over the course of human history, starting with most wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11, arranged marriages to minors, blowing up girls' schools, the suppression of women and homosexuals, fatwas, ethnic cleansing, honor rape, human sacrifice, burning witches, suicide bombings, condoning slavery, and the systematic fucking of children.  Once we're all talked out over those issues and nobody is offended anymore, we can revisit whether or not it's civil to call miracles magical.

Some religious organizations can do good things.  Some of them do terrible things.  Most do both.  On balance, I'm not sure we're better off for having embraced this particular delusion.

[Gin1984]

I'd also like to know what objective criteria was used to judge Christianity of better quality than my religion.  Please, do tell.

The poster didn't say anything about your religion (and I didn't see you state what yours was), therefore he/she shouldn't have to do so...strawman and all. That is, unless your religion is based upon Santa Claus.

sol, I love a ton of what you post. I think you are a genuine and well-meaning dude. I also find you incredibly empathetic 99% of the time. I think I'd enjoy having long philosophical discussions with you over beers. I agree with your critique of the prosperity gospel. I agree with many of your critiques of religion, religiosity, and orthodox adherents. I'd ask that you recognize that using terms like "magic" is offensive to people. Fair or not, the connotation is not appreciated by many. In the interest of civility, I believe that it is a reasonable request to drop such terms.

Back to the OP, I wouldn't be in favor of starting such a "church." I question the tax deduction system as it stands and I look forward to watching the Oliver segment when I get a chance.

Actually he did:

Comparing the merits and believability of Christianity with other "belief systems" like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Greek gods, and other forms of "magic" is as lazy and misleading

I am pagan, which means I do worship those Greek Gods and those other forms of Magic are part of my religion.  And we did have part of this discussion already of this thread about the attitude of people assuming pagan beliefs are absurd, specifically referencing the Greek Gods see page three.  So yes, I would like an objective criteria that was used to judge Christianity of better quality than my religion.

[Kris]

I'd also like to know what objective criteria was used to judge Christianity of better quality than my religion.  Please, do tell.

The poster didn't say anything about your religion (and I didn't see you state what yours was), therefore he/she shouldn't have to do so...strawman and all. That is, unless your religion is based upon Santa Claus.

sol, I love a ton of what you post. I think you are a genuine and well-meaning dude. I also find you incredibly empathetic 99% of the time. I think I'd enjoy having long philosophical discussions with you over beers. I agree with your critique of the prosperity gospel. I agree with many of your critiques of religion, religiosity, and orthodox adherents. I'd ask that you recognize that using terms like "magic" is offensive to people. Fair or not, the connotation is not appreciated by many. In the interest of civility, I believe that it is a reasonable request to drop such terms.

Back to the OP, I wouldn't be in favor of starting such a "church." I question the tax deduction system as it stands and I look forward to watching the Oliver segment when I get a chance.

Actually he did:

Comparing the merits and believability of Christianity with other "belief systems" like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Greek gods, and other forms of "magic" is as lazy and misleading

I am pagan, which means I do worship those Greek Gods and those other forms of Magic are part of my religion.  And we did have part of this discussion already of this thread about the attitude of people assuming pagan beliefs are absurd, specifically referencing the Greek Gods see page three.  So yes, I would like an objective criteria that was used to judge Christianity of better quality than my religion.

I would also very much like to see this.

[DoubleDown]

Since several people have asked for objective evidence for Christianity, here's some I think deserves scrutiny. Understand that I recognize none of this is incontrovertible proof -- just evidence which has been argued ten billion times over:

1. The historical record in the Bible appears accurate. Archaeological evidence supports the stories, and many or most of the stories were written without an agenda (they were just being written as accounts of events). Yet, discoveries thousands of years later have supported the stories many times over.

2. Many people claimed to witness the miracles performed by Jesus and wrote about it. On the converse, what other kind of other historical record could we have? Having a written record at that time was itself an achievement, as there was no YouTube or iPhones.

3. Jesus allowed himself to be crucified rather than renounce his claim to being the Son of God (google the "Lord/Lunatic/Liar" argument for more details). There's no real dispute over whether Jesus lived and was crucified, it's been accepted as historically accurate. Several apostles were also beaten, tortured, and crucified instead of giving up their preaching for the cause. Of course, one could rightfully point out that we now see radical Islamists blowing themselves up for their cause too, and that level of conviction doesn't make their religion true. Agreed. However, being willingly tortured to death by authorities as pressure to renounce a claim is a far different animal from instantaneous obliteration in a bomb with the intention of killing others.

4. Jesus' teachings were monumentally influential, probably more so than any other single figure in human history. Probably no one is quoted as often. His moral code lives on thousands of years later. That is, he wasn't just a passing weirdo like David Koresh or Jim Jones. Even those who don't believe his claim as the Son of God believe him to be an amazing prophet/teacher/etc. (see Judaism, Islam). So, we can't easily dismiss his claims about who he was by chalking him up as just another cult figure with an agenda. This also goes to the point about radical Islamists blowing themselves up -- mainstream people aren't flocking to their cause; they're recognized by most as murderers, not martyrs.

5. Internal inconsistencies in the Bible are not hidden or glossed over (except maybe by lazy people). They are pored over, accepted, and attempts are made to reconcile them in some cases. But they aren't shoved under the rug. To me, that gives some slight credibility vs. someone or something, say, that claims to always be infallible.

So yes, I would like an objective criteria that was used to judge Christianity of better quality than my religion.

I was not talking about judging the quality of the religion against other religions -- I was talking about judging the quality of evidence or material for which the claim is made. That's what I meant in comparing Shakespeare to a Harlequin romance. I was saying the (subjective in this case) quality of the material tells us something about how much meaning we should attribute to it. Sorry if I did not make that clear. I was not comparing the "quality" of Christianity with paganism or other religions, but rather disputing Sol's lumping together the rich tradition of a major world religion with magic fairy dust stories. For what it's worth, I use the same judgment to discount various "Christian" sects or cult figures.

[forummm]

Since several people have asked for objective evidence for Christianity, here's some I think deserves scrutiny. Understand that I recognize none of this is incontrovertible proof -- just evidence which has been argued ten billion times over:

1. The historical record in the Bible appears accurate. Archaeological evidence supports the stories, and many or most of the stories were written without an agenda (they were just being written as accounts of events). Yet, discoveries thousands of years later have supported the stories many times over.

Should we start a religion based on Doris Kearnes Goodwin or David McCullough?

2. Many people claimed to witness the miracles performed by Jesus and wrote about it. On the converse, what other kind of other historical record could we have? Having a written record at that time was itself an achievement, as there was no YouTube or iPhones.

What evidence do you have of these other accounts, and that they are not derivative accounts (either the Bible accounts written after them and based on them or vice versa)?

3. Jesus allowed himself to be crucified rather than renounce his claim to being the Son of God (google the "Lord/Lunatic/Liar" argument for more details). There's no real dispute over whether Jesus lived and was crucified, it's been accepted as historically accurate. Several apostles were also beaten, tortured, and crucified instead of giving up their preaching for the cause. Of course, one could rightfully point out that we now see radical Islamists blowing themselves up for their cause too, and that level of conviction doesn't make their religion true. Agreed. However, being willingly tortured to death by authorities as pressure to renounce a claim is a far different animal from instantaneous obliteration in a bomb with the intention of killing others.

Lots of people have been tortured. And lots of people have been put to death while still proclaiming their innocence or something that others didn't believe to be true. What evidence is this of actual deity? There are tons of crazy people alive today who believe themselves to be Jesus.

4. Jesus' teachings were monumentally influential, probably more so than any other single figure in human history. Probably no one is quoted as often. His moral code lives on thousands of years later. That is, he wasn't just a passing weirdo like David Koresh or Jim Jones. Even those who don't believe his claim as the Son of God believe him to be an amazing prophet/teacher/etc. (see Judaism, Islam). So, we can't easily dismiss his claims about who he was by chalking him up as just another cult figure with an agenda. This also goes to the point about radical Islamists blowing themselves up -- mainstream people aren't flocking to their cause; they're recognized by most as murderers, not martyrs.

Moses' writings are used by more people. Mao's are followed by a billionish. Mohammed's too. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Harry Potter books sold over a billion copies and the films have been seen by maybe a billion people. That doesn't make them a correct religion.

5. Internal inconsistencies in the Bible are not hidden or glossed over (except maybe by lazy people). They are pored over, accepted, and attempts are made to reconcile them in some cases. But they aren't shoved under the rug. To me, that gives some slight credibility vs. someone or something, say, that claims to always be infallible.

This one is completely opposed to my own experience with Christian churches. I have spent thousands of hours in churches over decades and have never once had any pastor or other religious leader acknowledge any of the Bible's inconsistencies or inaccuracies or the fact that the text we have today was changed many times over history and wasn't written by the people that the church commonly claims to be the authors. Not one time. In fact, I got the exact opposite. People claiming the Bible is wholly without error and that it was exactly the same today as it was when God told people what to write down and that it is to be taken as literally true in every way full stop.

For those interested in some of those conflicts, read Bart Erhman's books.

[sol]

Just to pile on...

1. The historical record in the Bible appears accurate. Archaeological evidence supports the stories,

You have unfortunately been misled.  There is no archaeological evidence for the stories in the bible.  How could there be?  You thought we might have excavated some pillars of salt, or a preserved human corpse inside of a fossilized whale? 

We do have evidence that some of the people mentioned in the bible were real, like Ramses II.  There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person, outside of the bible.  Sorry.  He is not mentioned in any other contemporary text.  There are no inscriptions or records or tombs or oblique mentions of him.  He only exists in this one work of historical fiction.

Yet, discoveries thousands of years later have supported the stories many times over.

Which stories do you think have been supported by modern discoveries?  If anything, some of them (like Noah's global flood) have been disproven by modern discoveries.  It never happened.  Floods leave geological evidence, even if you could somehow get past the problem of there not being enough water on planet earth to submerge all of the land.

2. Many people claimed to witness the miracles performed by Jesus and wrote about it. On the converse, what other kind of other historical record could we have? Having a written record at that time was itself an achievement, as there was no YouTube or iPhones.

We could have other written records of Jesus or his deeds.  But we don't.  There are thousands of other historical documents from the time period, none of which mention Jesus.  Even the Romans who kept such diligent records of Crucifixions never recorded him.  Like I said, there is absolutely no corroborating evidence for Jesus' life, outside of the single work of historical fiction about his life.  It's entirely possible that the entire character of Jesus is allegorical, like all of the rest of the bible, a useful literary tool for telling a meaningful story.  What does it matter whether or not he was an actual person?

And if he was an actual person, what evidence would you have for his supposed divine origin?  In today's world, when a wife gets pregnant without sleeping with her husband, we all naturally assume she slept with somebody else.  We don't blame God, even if that child grows up to lead a social movement.

Jesus allowed himself to be crucified rather than renounce his claim to being the Son of God

I think you're taking this story too literally.  You're claiming to know the inner though processes of a character in a book, and using those inner thought processes as evidence that the character is the son of God?  See how circular that reasoning is?  Wouldn't be just as logically consistent to say the character is well-written, but still entirely fictional?  His story arc isn't really evidence that the story is true.

There's no real dispute over whether Jesus lived and was crucified, it's been accepted as historically accurate.

There is much dispute, as I think I've demonstrated.  The fact that you've never been exposed to it is pretty common, though, as the Church needs people to accept as blind faith things that the rest of the world questions. 

Jesus' teachings were monumentally influential

Home Simpson was also monumentally influential.  Fictional characters can be even more influential than real ones, especially if a whole multigenerational organization built on cultivating stories about the character can amass centuries of political power.

His moral code lives on thousands of years later.

HIS moral code?  What part of the bible do you think is original to Jesus?  All of these ideas had been around before, and were merely combined and condensed in the bible. 

So, we can't easily dismiss his claims about who he was by chalking him up as just another cult figure with an agenda.

I don't dismiss Jesus at all.  He's one of the most important ideas in history.  But at that time, he was just another heretic, one of thousands roaming the landscape.  Read up on the prophets of the era, or maybe just go watch Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Internal inconsistencies in the Bible are not hidden or glossed over

I think it's awesome that you can take a problem like logical inconsistency and turn it into support for the bible.  That's some hardcore faith.  Absolute adherence to doctrine despite any and all evidence.

[Abundant life]

"We do have evidence that some of the people mentioned in the bible were real, like Ramses II.  There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person, outside of the bible.  Sorry.  He is not mentioned in any other contemporary text.  There are no inscriptions or records or tombs or oblique mentions of him.  He only exists in this one work of historical fiction."

Josephus springs to mind as a contemporary text.

[DoubleDown]

^^^^

Exactly. That's an extraneous and authoritative reference to Jesus Christ from the Roman Empire itself. Just how many other extraneous, authoritative, contemporary texts were being written in 0 AD documenting the history and lives of Galileans roaming around the countryside? Did they forget to get out their iPhones and record everything?

Sol and others, I'm sure you understand the Bible was not written start to finish as some big work. It was pieced together over thousands of years from many different authors, and it's not even a chronological story. The Bible is a collection of many separate writings (stories, songs, letters, censuses, historical accounts, allegories, etc.), with the gospels representing different first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus. I don't really know how much more documentation we could expect. If you deny that there even lived a person named Jesus (not the son of God, not a guy performing miracles, just a "regular" guy who claimed to be God and was crucified), I'd say you are in a pretty small minority that is denying all evidence to the contrary. I'm pretty certain just about all mainstream historians would agree Jesus lived -- the only legitimate question is whether he was who he claimed to be.

[forummm]

^^^^

Exactly. That's an extraneous and authoritative reference to Jesus Christ from the Roman Empire itself. Just how many other extraneous, authoritative, contemporary texts were being written in 0 AD documenting the history and lives of Galileans roaming around the countryside? Did they forget to get out their iPhones and record everything?

Sol and others, I'm sure you understand the Bible was not written start to finish as some big work. It was pieced together over thousands of years from many different authors, and it's not even a chronological story. The Bible is a collection of many separate writings (stories, songs, letters, censuses, historical accounts, allegories, etc.), with the gospels representing different first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus. I don't really know how much more documentation we could expect. If you deny that there even lived a person named Jesus (not the son of God, not a guy performing miracles, just a "regular" guy who claimed to be God and was crucified), I'd say you are in a pretty small minority that is denying all evidence to the contrary. I'm pretty certain just about all mainstream historians would agree Jesus lived -- the only legitimate question is whether he was who he claimed to be.

I think it's reasonable to believe that there was some dude known as Jesus who existed 2000 years ago. But none of the "evidence" you provided is persuasive of the person being God.

[sol]

That's an extraneous and authoritative reference to Jesus Christ from the Roman Empire itself.

Extraneous and authoritative?  Says who?  Not wikipedia, for example.

[brooklynguy]

I'd ask that you recognize that using terms like "magic" is offensive to people.

People keep saying this, but no one has explained why.  Why is it offensive to call religion magic?  Is the belief in the supernatural not a belief in magic?  Sol has asked this question several times already without receiving any response, perhaps because it was viewed as a rhetorical question.  But can someone who finds the characterization of religion as magic please explain why that characterization is incorrect or offensive for some other reason? 

[firewalker]

I'd ask that you recognize that using terms like "magic" is offensive to people.

People keep saying this, but no one has explained why.  Why is it offensive to call religion magic?  Is the belief in the supernatural not a belief in magic?  Sol has asked this question several times already without receiving any response, perhaps because it was viewed as a rhetorical question.  But can someone who finds the characterization of religion as magic please explain why that characterization is incorrect or offensive for some other reason?

I think your question came out wrong. You sound as if you are looking for a response from someone who "finds the characterization of religion as magic."

[Gin1984]

I'd ask that you recognize that using terms like "magic" is offensive to people.

People keep saying this, but no one has explained why.  Why is it offensive to call religion magic?  Is the belief in the supernatural not a belief in magic?  Sol has asked this question several times already without receiving any response, perhaps because it was viewed as a rhetorical question.  But can someone who finds the characterization of religion as magic please explain why that characterization is incorrect or offensive for some other reason?

Because it associates their religion with so called "false" mythologies.  It was an accusation used against heretics aka non-Christians because certain magics were against Jewish law but based on a lack of actually understanding of the terms, Christians went to magic is all bad/against our religion.

[ChrisLansing]

People claiming the Bible is wholly without error and that it was exactly the same today as it was when God told people what to write down and that it is to be taken as literally true in every way full stop.

[/b]

Anyone who has studied another language and had to translate from one to another would have to realize that it's very very difficult to capture every nuance of meaning when changing from one to the other.   At the very least the bible, in English, would have to have slightly different shades of meaning.   .   

[brooklynguy]

I think your question came out wrong. You sound as if you are looking for a response from someone who "finds the characterization of religion as magic."

Thanks - I was missing the word "offensive"; I meant to ask:

"But can someone who finds the characterization of religion as magic offensive please explain why that characterization is incorrect or offensive for some other reason?"

[Noodle]

This one is completely opposed to my own experience with Christian churches. I have spent thousands of hours in churches over decades and have never once had any pastor or other religious leader acknowledge any of the Bible's inconsistencies or inaccuracies or the fact that the text we have today was changed many times over history and wasn't written by the people that the church commonly claims to be the authors. Not one time. In fact, I got the exact opposite. People claiming the Bible is wholly without error and that it was exactly the same today as it was when God told people what to write down and that it is to be taken as literally true in every way full stop.

It varies by denomination. They covered a bit of that material in my confirmation class (Methodist) but I really started learning about it in college and adult Bible study. The Disciple curriculum, for instance, which was originally developed by Methodists but is used pretty widely in mainline Protestant denominations (I was a Presbyterian at the time I participated) spends a lot of time exploring the historical origins of Biblical material and discussing how to apply texts from thousands of years ago in modern life. It comes up less often in sermons, probably because when you're trying to get a point across to a varied audience in under twenty minutes you have to keep it simple, but I have heard it discussed.

[brooklynguy]

I'd ask that you recognize that using terms like "magic" is offensive to people.

People keep saying this, but no one has explained why.  Why is it offensive to call religion magic?  Is the belief in the supernatural not a belief in magic?  Sol has asked this question several times already without receiving any response, perhaps because it was viewed as a rhetorical question.  But can someone who finds the characterization of religion as magic please explain why that characterization is incorrect or offensive for some other reason?

Because it associates their religion with so called "false" mythologies.  It was an accusation used against heretics aka non-Christians because certain magics were against Jewish law but based on a lack of actually understanding of the terms, Christians went to magic is all bad/against our religion.

Yeah, so that's no different than the "cognitive dissonance" explanation discussed above.  People are taking offense to being told they believe in magic because magic is not real and they don't want to think of themselves as believing in something that is not real.  But, in my view, there is no principled method of distinguishing belief in religion from belief in magic.  So, if people are being honest with themselves, there should be no reason to take offense to the characterization of religion as magic.

[lauren214]

Is anyone else thinking that the church of the ever-growing stache could be a great way to do the whole "urban tribe" idea that MMM proposed in a recent blog post.  Whats better than sharing your stuff with your neighbors? "Donating" your stuff to the church of the ever-growing stache, writing it off on your taxes, and then having it available for your fellow parishioners to borrow!

[Faraday]

Is anyone else thinking that the church of the ever-growing stache could be a great way to do the whole "urban tribe" idea that MMM proposed in a recent blog post.  Whats better than sharing your stuff with your neighbors? "Donating" your stuff to the church of the ever-growing stache, writing it off on your taxes, and then having it available for your fellow parishioners to borrow!

That's where the OP was trying to go when (s)he started this thread. I tried to go back there but couldn't make it stick.

I like this idea. You have to prequal borrowers and make it costly to them if they break things. But other than that, it's a lovely idea.

[Jack]

Is anyone else thinking that the church of the ever-growing stache could be a great way to do the whole "urban tribe" idea that MMM proposed in a recent blog post.  Whats better than sharing your stuff with your neighbors? "Donating" your stuff to the church of the ever-growing stache, writing it off on your taxes, and then having it available for your fellow parishioners to borrow!

That's where the OP was trying to go when (s)he started this thread. I tried to go back there but couldn't make it stick.

I like this idea. You have to prequal borrowers and make it costly to them if they break things. But other than that, it's a lovely idea.

(OP here -- and I am male, by the way.)

Actually, that's a neat idea that I hadn't thought of -- my idea was more along the lines of "financial coaching as 'ministry'." This, however, would be neat to incorporate in as well. Of course, there's already secular stuff like the ToolBank, Freecycle, etc. so I'm not sure how necessary it would be.

Also, "Church of the Ever-Growing Stache" is an awesome name!

[DoubleDown]

I'd ask that you recognize that using terms like "magic" is offensive to people.

People keep saying this, but no one has explained why.  Why is it offensive to call religion magic?  Is the belief in the supernatural not a belief in magic?  Sol has asked this question several times already without receiving any response, perhaps because it was viewed as a rhetorical question.  But can someone who finds the characterization of religion as magic please explain why that characterization is incorrect or offensive for some other reason?

Because it associates their religion with so called "false" mythologies.  It was an accusation used against heretics aka non-Christians because certain magics were against Jewish law but based on a lack of actually understanding of the terms, Christians went to magic is all bad/against our religion.

Yeah, so that's no different than the "cognitive dissonance" explanation discussed above.  People are taking offense to being told they believe in magic because magic is not real and they don't want to think of themselves as believing in something that is not real.  But, in my view, there is no principled method of distinguishing belief in religion from belief in magic.  So, if people are being honest with themselves, there should be no reason to take offense to the characterization of religion as magic.

I think your analysis is correct, but I think the term "magic" is being thrown around in this thread context as something that is obviously not real (to the word user), and anyone believing in such foolishness is, well, foolish and childish. The childishness part stems from comparisons to belief in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and fairies. That's what's offensive in comparing deeply held religious beliefs to "obvious foolishness" and children's fairy tales. It's pretty disingenuous to compare belief in God with belief in Santa Claus or "magic" as the term is being used in this thread.

[sol]

I think your analysis is correct, but I think the term "magic" is being thrown around in this thread context as something that is obviously not real (to the word user), and anyone believing in such foolishness is, well, foolish and childish. The childishness part stems from comparisons to belief in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and fairies. That's what's offensive in comparing deeply held religious beliefs to "obvious foolishness" and children's fairy tales. It's pretty disingenuous to compare belief in God with belief in Santa Claus or "magic" as the term is being used in this thread.

I'm not sure I understand.  You seem to concede the point that supernatural religion is by definition magical, then agree that magic isn't real, then get a little fuzzy on whether or not supernatural religion is real.

Churches are real.  Real people in real buildings, doing real charity work (and in some cases sexually abusing real children).  The messages of a religion are sort of real, in that they can have real value for teaching love and kindness.  But the talking animals and the sun standing still and the living in whales and the water bending and the great flood and the resurrections after death, those things are all magic, and thus not real.  Zeus didn't really turn into a goose to father Helen of Troy, either.

If you believe any of those things literally happened, I might suggest you have missed the point of the allegory.  You don't need to believe in flying reindeer to see the point of the Santa myth for your children, either.  Good story.  Not actually true.  You can still celebrate it once you are a grown up who knows magic isn't real.

[brooklynguy]

I think your analysis is correct, but I think the term "magic" is being thrown around in this thread context as something that is obviously not real (to the word user), and anyone believing in such foolishness is, well, foolish and childish. The childishness part stems from comparisons to belief in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and fairies. That's what's offensive in comparing deeply held religious beliefs to "obvious foolishness" and children's fairy tales. It's pretty disingenuous to compare belief in God with belief in Santa Claus or "magic" as the term is being used in this thread.

That still sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.  Is criticism of the belief in the existence of God (or gods) or other supernatural aspects of religion less appropriate only because those beliefs are actually held by large numbers of people?  Would it suddenly become inappropriate to describe Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny as "magic" if we woke up tomorrow to a world in which billions of adult people truly, honestly believed in those things?

The Wait But Why article on religion (part 1 of 2) summed up the situation extremely well.  Thousands of years of religious baggage prevent us from talking about these matters openly and impartially, which is why offense is so easily taken every time Sol tries to do so.  If we were operating in a vacuum, no one would take offense to the characterization of supernatural omnipotent beings or miraculous transformations of water into wine as "magic."  Magic is exactly what those things are, and if you believe in them, then, by definition, you believe in magic.  I'm still not sure why that statement should be considered offensive beyond the fact that it may create cognitive dissonance in the religious believer.

[DoubleDown]

Maybe the word "magic" is open to too much equivocation??? That's an honest question, not a rhetorical statement. As a Christian, I would say I do believe in "magic" in the sense that prayers are answered, Jesus was raised from the dead, he turned water into wine, etc. These are supernatural events that have no scientific explanation. I get it why people would scoff at the idea and disbelieve it. But I don't believe in "magic" in the sense that a guy can actually saw a woman in half without killing her, or that there's a guy who can fly around the globe with reindeer delivering presents everywhere.

As you've said, and I agree, there are lots of phenomena that appear "magical" until science finds a way to explain them. To me there remain some phenomena which science is unlikely to ever explain like what happens to us after death, if anything, or where/when/how the universe came to be.

I don't know how else to explain why people could draw offense at equating magic and religious belief, and I don't think it's cognitive dissonance. I'll paraphrase Justice Stewart's quotation on pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

[wenchsenior]

Maybe the word "magic" is open to too much equivocation??? That's an honest question, not a rhetorical statement. As a Christian, I would say I do believe in "magic" in the sense that prayers are answered, Jesus was raised from the dead, he turned water into wine, etc. These are supernatural events that have no scientific explanation. I get it why people would scoff at the idea and disbelieve it. But I don't believe in "magic" in the sense that a guy can actually saw a woman in half without killing her, or that there's a guy who can fly around the globe with reindeer delivering presents everywhere.

As you've said, and I agree, there are lots of phenomena that appear "magical" until science finds a way to explain them. To me there remain some phenomena which science is unlikely to ever explain like what happens to us after death, if anything, or where/when/how the universe came to be.

I don't know how else to explain why people could draw offense at equating magic and religious belief, and I don't think it's cognitive dissonance. I'll paraphrase Justice Stewart's quotation on pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

But presumably you WOULD believe these things happen if god made them happen? Are you sure god isn't making them happen? If you don't believe god would make them happen, why, when god's will is essentially unknowable?

[wenchsenior]

Re: why believers take offense when their beliefs are called magic, even though by any objective criteria, many religious beliefs are obviously just that.

As a nonbeliever, I suspect it is because believers form huge parts of their identities and self-image around faith in magic/supernatural occurrences of their particular religious type. If you are in the faith majority, you are swimming in a sea of like minded identities. Whereas, almost no one over the age of 10 is building their identity and behavior around the idea of Santa Claus' existence and the idea that he can manage to get around the entire globe in one night in a flying sleigh.

I suspect it's a matter of self-image and identification. A very much simpler analogy would be when you hear people ripping apart the plot-line of a movie that you absolutely LOVE and that resonates hugely with you emotionally. Objectively, you might be able to look at the plot-line and recognize that the critics really are correct; but emotionally, the experience is still so important to you that hearing that someone thinks that movie is structurally flawed and stupid feels like they hate you and are personally attacking you.

[sol]

feels like they hate you and are personally attacking you.

Sure,I can see why they might feel that way.  I've tried to be clear in this thread that it's the ideas that are ridiculous, not the people, and that there is an enormous vested interest in convincing people to buy into the ridiculousness.  It's not really surprising that people fall for it, just like it's not surprising that people fall for the prosperity gospel BS.

But I've also tried to repeat myself when talking about the value of these ideas as cultural identity, separate from the ridiculous magic part.  It angers me that religious leaders continue to insist that you believe in stupid things to be a good person, like threatening damnation if you don't accept the resurrection as literal fact.  Why is that a criteria?  Why can't you embrace the teachings of Christianity as valuable while also accepting that animals can't really talk, and those parts of the bible that are obviously fantastical are deliberately allegorical?  It doesn't diminish the message in any way to admit snakes don't really talk or the earth wasn't really created in seven days.

[wenchsenior]

feels like they hate you and are personally attacking you.

Sure,I can see why they might feel that way.  I've tried to be clear in this thread that it's the ideas that are ridiculous, not the people, and that there is an enormous vested interest in convincing people to buy into the ridiculousness.  It's not really surprising that people fall for it, just like it's not surprising that people fall for the prosperity gospel BS.

But I've also tried to repeat myself when talking about the value of these ideas as cultural identity, separate from the ridiculous magic part.  It angers me that religious leaders continue to insist that you believe in stupid things to be a good person, like threatening damnation if you don't accept the resurrection as literal fact.  Why is that a criteria?  Why can't you embrace the teachings of Christianity as valuable while also accepting that animals can't really talk, and those parts of the bible that are obviously fantastical are deliberately allegorical?  It doesn't diminish the message in any way to admit snakes don't really talk or the earth wasn't really created in seven days.

I agree. I have no idea why we can't separate these things. It baffles me.

[DoubleDown]

Regarding denying whether Jesus existed even as a person, wanted to point out that view is definitely outside the scholarly mainstream. A google search will provide ample sources, here's the Wikipedia summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[8][9][10][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.[nb 5][15][nb 6][2]:168–173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.[18][nb 8][20][21][22]

Sol, you say belief in the supernatural part about religion is ridiculous, yet you claim Jesus even existing as a person is a myth like Santa Claus. Why should anyone believe your scientific or academic reasoning on the matter when you deny mainstream scholarly/scientific opinion? It sounds to me much like climate science deniers.

[DoubleDown]

Maybe the word "magic" is open to too much equivocation??? That's an honest question, not a rhetorical statement. As a Christian, I would say I do believe in "magic" in the sense that prayers are answered, Jesus was raised from the dead, he turned water into wine, etc. These are supernatural events that have no scientific explanation. I get it why people would scoff at the idea and disbelieve it. But I don't believe in "magic" in the sense that a guy can actually saw a woman in half without killing her, or that there's a guy who can fly around the globe with reindeer delivering presents everywhere.

As you've said, and I agree, there are lots of phenomena that appear "magical" until science finds a way to explain them. To me there remain some phenomena which science is unlikely to ever explain like what happens to us after death, if anything, or where/when/how the universe came to be.

I don't know how else to explain why people could draw offense at equating magic and religious belief, and I don't think it's cognitive dissonance. I'll paraphrase Justice Stewart's quotation on pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

But presumably you WOULD believe these things happen if god made them happen? Are you sure god isn't making them happen? If you don't believe god would make them happen, why, when god's will is essentially unknowable?

Answers in order, hopefully hitting them all:

A. Yes, I would believe them IF I had reason to believe God made them happen. But there is no reason to believe it.
B. Yes, I'm as sure that God isn't making an illusionist actually saw a woman in half as I am that gravity will make a ball thrown up come back down.
C. Because the God I believe in doesn't act arbitrarily or without purpose. For those of us that believe in the bible, much of God's will and purpose is revealed and therefore knowable, and he makes it explicitly clear that he doesn't act arbitrarily.

[brooklynguy]

Why can't you embrace the teachings of Christianity as valuable while also accepting that animals can't really talk, and those parts of the bible that are obviously fantastical are deliberately allegorical?  It doesn't diminish the message in any way to admit snakes don't really talk or the earth wasn't really created in seven days.

For what it's worth, based on my admittedly anecdotal experience, this is exactly what most secular Jews already do.  My family, for example, fills Elijah's cup with wine during our Passover seder not because we actually believe that a ghost will show up to drink it, but just to celebrate tradition and keep customs alive.  Among most of the secular Jews I know, I'd go as far as to say that "Jewishness" is essentially completely divorced from religion (or at least belief in supernatural religion) -- we embrace the traditions, teachings and identity of being Jewish, but that has nothing to do with the belief in the supernatural or anything else necessarily associated with religion.

[sol]

Sol, you say belief in the supernatural part about religion is ridiculous, yet you claim Jesus even existing as a person is a myth like Santa Claus. Why should anyone believe your scientific or academic reasoning on the matter when you deny mainstream scholarly/scientific opinion? It sounds to me much like climate science deniers.

Not at all.  It seems I wasn't clear enough.  I've been trying to acknowledge that the bible, like Santa and Shakespeare's characters, is a myth built around a nugget of historical truth.  I have no problem with the belief that Jesus was a real person, as that's a question that won't ever be definitively answered unless we find an occupied tomb.

It's the magical stories around that nugget that I have issues with.  Saint Nicholas: probably a real person.  Flying reindeer: magical myth.  Santa myth: still fun to celebrate!

[lauren_knows]

I have no problem with the belief that Jesus was a real person, as that's a question that won't ever be definitively answered unless we find an occupied tomb.

Quite the conundrum, as an occupied tomb would nullify a lot of the story, eh? :)

[sol]

I have no problem with the belief that Jesus was a real person, as that's a question that won't ever be definitively answered unless we find an occupied tomb.

Quite the conundrum, as an occupied tomb would nullify a lot of the story, eh? :)

Only if you're stuck on the literal interpretation.  If you believe that Jesus rose in spirit, or that his ideals were resurrected by his followers in an allegorical "you can't kill a good idea" kind of way, then an occupied tomb would be proof that at least he actually lived and died like the bible says.  Otherwise it's all carefully curated stories perpetuated by a group of politically powerful men who maintained their power by retelling the stories as literal fact.

[Sailor Sam]

I've tried to be clear in this thread that it's the ideas that are ridiculous, not the people <snip>

Clear, sure. But so strident that it still kinda feels like you're beating me over the head with my own arm. May I ask what the harm in dropping the hotly contested magic term would be? Even if you believe the term best, even if you don't understand why the term is offensive, it's been empirically demonstrated to make people tetchy. The defense reaction short-circuts most attempts to change hearts and minds.

I once had a very nice conversation with a 7th Day Adventists, because she started out with common ground. I didn't have much time for the street-corner guy who began by telling me I was hell-bound.

[GuitarStv]

If there wasn't magic in faith, what exactly would you have faith in?  Religious faith is all about belief in something special (typically miraculous) without proof.

[DoubleDown]

Sol, you say belief in the supernatural part about religion is ridiculous, yet you claim Jesus even existing as a person is a myth like Santa Claus. Why should anyone believe your scientific or academic reasoning on the matter when you deny mainstream scholarly/scientific opinion? It sounds to me much like climate science deniers.

...  I have no problem with the belief that Jesus was a real person, as that's a question that won't ever be definitively answered unless we find an occupied tomb.

Ah, my mistake then. I thought you were denying even that, thanks for clarifying.

[lauren214]

Is anyone else thinking that the church of the ever-growing stache could be a great way to do the whole "urban tribe" idea that MMM proposed in a recent blog post.  Whats better than sharing your stuff with your neighbors? "Donating" your stuff to the church of the ever-growing stache, writing it off on your taxes, and then having it available for your fellow parishioners to borrow!

That's where the OP was trying to go when (s)he started this thread. I tried to go back there but couldn't make it stick.

I like this idea. You have to prequal borrowers and make it costly to them if they break things. But other than that, it's a lovely idea.

(OP here -- and I am male, by the way.)

Actually, that's a neat idea that I hadn't thought of -- my idea was more along the lines of "financial coaching as 'ministry'." This, however, would be neat to incorporate in as well. Of course, there's already secular stuff like the ToolBank, Freecycle, etc. so I'm not sure how necessary it would be.

Also, "Church of the Ever-Growing Stache" is an awesome name!

I think that financial coaching as a type of ministry is a great idea too! Could be the church of the ever-growing stache's public service/community contribution.

And yes, my suggestion is similar to things that already exist except for the deductibility and having a consistent inventory of items.
I'm sure my initial suggestion is only the tip of the tax-exempt iceberg. I'm sure that some of the tax savvy members can come up with some other strategies.

I agree that the church of the ever-growing stache is a pretty awesome name.  And surprisingly descriptive of the basic principle of the faith as well :)

[forummm]

Maybe the word "magic" is open to too much equivocation??? That's an honest question, not a rhetorical statement. As a Christian, I would say I do believe in "magic" in the sense that prayers are answered, Jesus was raised from the dead, he turned water into wine, etc. These are supernatural events that have no scientific explanation. I get it why people would scoff at the idea and disbelieve it. But I don't believe in "magic" in the sense that a guy can actually saw a woman in half without killing her, or that there's a guy who can fly around the globe with reindeer delivering presents everywhere.

As you've said, and I agree, there are lots of phenomena that appear "magical" until science finds a way to explain them. To me there remain some phenomena which science is unlikely to ever explain like what happens to us after death, if anything, or where/when/how the universe came to be.

I don't know how else to explain why people could draw offense at equating magic and religious belief, and I don't think it's cognitive dissonance. I'll paraphrase Justice Stewart's quotation on pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

If you were an alien and came to Earth and someone told you that some people believe in an all-powerful being that controls everything and turned water into wine and raised people from the dead (including himself) and healed the sick and made a couple fish and loaves feed thousands and was born from a virgin, etc. And that some other people believed in people getting sawed in half and being reassembled and people correctly identifying what card people picked and a special man that can stop at over a billion houses around the world in 24 hours, etc. You would think both of those are equally fanciful. In truth, the first set of beliefs is much more unbelievable.

But to you because you've grown up in the culture and have become accustomed to those first set of claims, they seem reasonable. And because everyone admits that we made up the 2nd set of claims they are not credible. But they are both equally reliant on magic.

the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces