Thanks for that. I thought it was just me and bismarker hanging around for a chat.

smallvice585 #125,

If backed up, that was be a sensational story.

Good pointers, sllim.

I didn’t argue that. I used an example from Peace, unambiguous actionable scripture, to highlight my point. I am not going to hang Christians on ambiguous text; dead end.

“…firstly religious people wouldn’t care; secondly science as much as religion is based on consensus.”

Don’t care? So? 1+1 doesn’t need anyone’s concern to be true. Science is based on consensus? Bold claim but zero evidence or arguement.

“The other thing is not every religion is scripture based, if your arguing on that, well then religion didn’t exist before the invention of writing…”

That’s just trite. Of course religion existed before writing. Scripture was just my shorthand for holy instruction.

“…That does not mean it is less true however, it is real in their eyes and it is rightly so for them.”

Plain silly and demeaning to theists and atheists alike. Believing my garden has fairies doesn’t make it true.

“…religious experience in many ways transcend logic if we adopt the supreme being to be ‘true’.”

I encountered this insidious non-argument before. Basically, you are violating the rules of your discourse; using reason to prop up something then shutting the door behind you and say reason cannot refute it. It’s equivalent to saying: 1+1 = banana and insisting arithmetic cannot refute you because fruits are beyond the purview of arithmetic.

“…if christians or religious believers are fundamentalists, is there a problem with that?”

I got to say your grammer in many parts of your post is a problem and lends convenient ambiguity (like some parts of scripture). In any case, the scale of any possible “problem” depends on which religion it is.

That’s the problem when you mentioned WHENEVER. Any argument that you proceed thus far is likely to be your definition of how things should be, any application requires interpretation, the problem comes in with who’s doing the defining. My use of totality experience is simple, selective picking means religious scripture is logically inconsistent which basically means saying religious experience is false, hence it shouldnt be there in the first place. That leaves us with nowhere to proceed, since by logic if it is false but the problem becomes in explaining why they act the way they did. That means you can still have a blank text and people would still act the way they did if they choose to interpret the way they want it.

The other thing is not every religion is scripture based, if your arguing on that, well then religion didn’t exist before the invention of writing. But there are otherwise archaeological evidence against your point.

If you want to draw me into an argument about whether being religious is about scripture adherence, my point is plain and simple- to adopt such a view is highly misleading of what religious experience is, much less the understanding of religion. Unless of course your agenda is to prove that religious experience or religion is thus false hence there is no need for it, well I have stated clearly many times earlier that even if thus proven on commonsensical logical ground, it does not go anywhere because firstly, religious experience is more than a matter of falscity, and religious experience in many ways transcend logic if we adopt the supreme being to be ‘true’. What you have done earlier and in many posts is to use scientific logic to argue against religion, which is in many ways a tautological dead end because firstly religious people wouldn’t care; secondly science as much as religion is based on consensus.

If it satisfy your ego, I’m not a religious believer, but that does not mean I’m set on disparaging their actions and beliefs just because I do not see how religion is based scientifically nor would common logic be able to explain. That does not mean it is less true however, it is real in their eyes and it is rightly so for them. To do otherwise means to take yourself as their pastor in telling them what should be done.

The thing perhaps, that i’m guessing would be of interest to you, would be if christians or religious believers are fundamentalists, is there a problem with that? I would say no so, because there’s no explicit causality in proving that ‘fundamentalists’ become religious militants, that only happens in the abstract construction of our mind that has no real basis in reality. Therefore, it becomes more important to look at these people, see where do they come from, what sort of group characteristics that made them up; instead of trying to find the ‘origin’ of their behaviour as ‘christian fundamentalist’ and the core origin being the scripture, which is really seeking the easy way out.

“…you were more interested in polemics than addressing the issue.”

Ok…. So let’s go back to the argument.

“Here’s a thought…. What happens then?”

I have no idea what you are on about. An example would be nice.

“As for the cherrypicking issue, yes, even if they did try to (which is really hard to prove) cherrypick and paint a picture of idealism, well what about the rest of us then?”

Who are “they” here? What is this addressing?

“The only thing is really your view on religion, is it just about following the manual according to you then? we didn’t see a manual on bomb making nor did we see a manual for taking over Aware did we? nor one which ask you to brush your teeth twice a day or buy food from Sheng Siong instead of Cheers.”

Yes, it is just about following scripture for me, as it should be (as I quoted Peace the Christian). Bomb making, taking over secular organizations are logical extensions. Sheng Siong Cheers etc is mere polemics, as you would say.

“So who’s really cherry picking here? I suggest that the issue might be complex that you think it is. If you think that by saying that someone is not christian because he or she didn’t do that or what, well the opposite could be argued of you that you are not a true atheist because u didn’t do this or that. Your task in arguing just because religion does not represent totality therefore hence false is not really going to get you any converts to your camp the same way that neuroscience and newtonian physics didn’t . Perhaps there’s much more to the religious experience in which you are inclined to believe, unless of course you choose to stick dogmatically to some certain notion arrived out of philosophical arguments without actually speaking to any Christians.”

1) The issue is complex no doubt.
2) Of course an argument can be made that I am not an atheist if I don’t do this or that. But I don’t see the relevance.
3) Speak to Christians? Any religion would apply; extinct, past, present and future; they have religious experiences too: Mormons, Scientologists, Cargo Cults, Moonies…. I (you, for that matter) wouldn’t know where to start.

“Your task in arguing just because religion does not represent totality therefore hence false is not really going to get you any converts to your camp the same way that neuroscience and newtonian physics didn’t.”

I think what you are trying to say is: I argued that scripture should dictate EVERY aspect of a devotee’s life. I didn’t and I wouldn’t.

My argument is: scripture (any religion) should dictate EVERY aspect of a devotee’s life WHENEVER it applies.

he is not blur, he acts blur.

you got go NS not? army never teach you that term meh?

well the only thing i would agree with you is regarding the first line, but of course you were more interested in polemics than addressing the issue.

Here’s a thought, suppose you now do have some views on Truth which is your version that is somewhat more superior to the Christian version what happens when 80 years from now someone points out there’s some social basis to that and it’s not as founded and grounded as you thought of? What happens then?

As for the cherrypicking issue, yes, even if they did try to (which is really hard to prove) cherrypick and paint a picture of idealism, well what about the rest of us then?

The only thing is really your view on religion, is it just about following the manual according to you then? we didn’t see a manual on bomb making nor did we see a manual for taking over Aware did we? nor one which ask you to brush your teeth twice a day or buy food from Sheng Siong instead of Cheers.

so who’s really cherry picking here? I suggest that the issue might be complex that you think it is. If you think that by saying that someone is not christian because he or she didn’t do that or what, well the opposite could be argued of you that you are not a true atheist because u didn’t do this or that. Your task in arguing just because religion does not represent totality therefore hence false is not really going to get you any converts to your camp the same way that neuroscience and newtonian physics didn’t . Perhaps there’s much more to the religious experience in which you are inclined to believe, unless of course you choose to stick dogmatically to some certain notion arrived out of philosophical arguments without actually speaking to any Christians.

“…unfortunately or fortunately they couldn’t care less about your judgment.”

Besides TOC’s rules of conduct, I doubt anyone here, even you, needs anybody else’s approval to opine.

“…They choose to believe otherwise that they are good believers and continue to believe so, so is there a problem with that?”

If they didn’t, I wouldn’t have come to believe what I do: there’s a problem with consistency.

“…many things in life people cherrypick…”

I fully agree. But not everything is taken to be holy scripture.

Supposed if you adhered to a set of scriptures, find something disagreeable in it. All that’s left is to kick back and marvel at the feats of intellectual acrobatics to avoid dissonance, where there really shouldn’t be any.

The officious need to revise the word of god (through different variations of the bible, denominations of Christianity) takes the “problem” to a global scale. I don’t have the time or resources to go there. But I’ll say if one is hell bent on discerning a celestial message, one can find it in a cookbook, or a grilled cheese sandwich (as somebody did).

“…an exercise in power over definition about what the scripture is which really ignores what religious experience is all about and hides the fact that complete submission is an impossibility.”

I would argue cherrypicking defines exactly what the religious experience for the vast majority is. And if one cherrypicks enough, complete submission is not only a possibility, it is almost a certainty. What can’t be lived up to is simply discarded.

To bring it back to “there is no such a thing as fundamentalism”: there are only cherry-pickers or Christians (sometimes refer to as fundies)

The Monks’ incident in Burma is one of completely different light compared to the AWARE Saga. Buddhism is the national religion of Myanmar. Buddhist Monks are held in extremely high regard in Myanmar. Since the Junta has practically dismantled political opposition and civil society in Myanmar, the only group left, which has the organisational strength to speak up against the Junta, is the Buddhist Monks.

Especially when this pastor you are talking about has never come into your backyard and killed your chickens or something like that. He hasn’t even come into the bedroom and stop you from having sex with another man. I read the papers. All he says is that he doesn’t believe in having sex with a man. That’s his problem right. But gays will still go ahead and do it. Your parents tell you not to have sex with another person of the same sex, you listen to them? No right. Plus, parents have more power to stop you from having pleasure, they stay in the same house as you. Do you tell the police to arrest your parents? How can you people be so mean?

But i better not say so much, later you find out my address and send me death threats, or worse still rape me. The whole country should be afraid of AWARE and gays now.

[#111 Andrew Chuah]
Religious leaders regardless of faith must never interfer in Politics or Labour Groups and Pastor Derek Hong must take full responsiblities and resign as a Pastor (time has come for all religious leaders to be clearly told of this and should they insist,then they must resign immediately). It is very dangerous to have religious leaders to interfer in Politics and Labour Groups (we have seen what had happend in Burma).

I fully concur with both of you. Absolutely, absolutely.

rgds

Religious leaders regardless of faith must never interfer in Politics or Labour Groups and Pastor Derek Hong must take full responsiblities and resign as a Pastor (time has come for all religious leaders to be clearly told of this and should they insist,then they must resign immediately). It is very dangerous to have religious leaders to interfer in Politics and Labour Groups (we have seen what had happend in Burma).

Regards
Andrew Chuah

you are the one judging them now and unfortunately or fortunately they couldn’t care less about your judgment. They choose to believe otherwise that they are good believers and continue to believe so, so is there a problem with that?

If there is, well then many things in life people cherrypick, according to your definition. The scriptures that you speak of has undergone so many revisions to itself, how are you going to be fundamental in the true sense of the word? From the so called gnostic texts, the King James and the International version, so who is going to say this is the final version or is it going to be keep going to find the original artifact so that everyone can stick as closely to what is being said?

The irony is that while you seek to argue against believing in religion, you are actually using a definition so commonly used by the Taleban or so many ‘fundamentalist groups’ around the world, that is going back to the basics. It’s really a dead end because at the end of the day, it’s going to be about an exercise in power over definition about what the scripture is which really ignores what religious experience is all about and hides the fact that complete submission is an impossibility.