Obviously we are not all Godless here

[corbyco]

This is my first day here and already I am a disturbed by some lack of integrity and respect especially regarding Christianity.

 

I am a Christian and still consider myself a scientist and a philosopher.  I hope that all discussions can be with mutual respect so that if I am wrong in anything I believe to be true then I can be shown that, by being guided to the truth through logical argument and demonstration of evidence.

 

I believe that a philosopher (and a scientist) always must have an open mind throughout their life BUT is 'allowed' to decide that certain ideas or statements are proven sufficiently to be taken as true - and so used as a foundation to build on - until proven otherwise.

 

I was brought up as an Atheist but still read the Bible from beginning to end twice (second time skipped a bit) to see what it said and what it didnt say.  I absolutely believe in the scientific method but my scientific studies have come across the incredible bias and corruption of scientists - i.e. a lot of the time they dont follow the method.

Corruption abounds not just when money is at stake but also when dealing with our origins which puts everything at stake.

 

I have had some incredible experiences that I can only label as spiritual and these have caused me to test out many of the profound statements attributed to Jesus - and found them to be surprisingly true.

 

This is why I can consider myself a Christian and yet still able to engage in philosophy and science.

[Shane]

corbyco,

 

Thank you for speaking up.

I have been discouraged by those who disregard or ridicule rather than engage in conversation. 

 

In my social sphere, the people who come closest to adhering to UPB are genuinely trying to emulate the humility and compassion of Jesus. We teach UPB and practice virtue, we simply refer to it as truth. Jesus life was a model of virtue: relationships over material gain, autonomy and responsibility over popularity and power, honesty and self discipline over pleasure and fantasy. I am saddened by the ridicule and disregard of Christians, because the integrity of character and genuine relationships, that have brought me so much joy and freedom, exist no where else I have ever been. I can never be put back into bondage. I hope that this FDR community can become an environment of real freedom, but as in any group, that will have a lot to do with the standard set by those with the most responsibility. I have discussed UPB and FDR with my close Christian friends. I find that their resistance, like mine, is primarily either the use of terms or the general tone of discussion set by Stefan. Truth is truth. Logic and reason are powerful and necessary boundaries. Neither I nor my Christian friends deny the proof requirements of existence. We are willing to concede that in the same way "truth" and "good" do not exist neither does God. If we share the ultimate goal of helping others to be free, to enjoy the peace and life giving fulfillment that comes from harmonious UPB, it seems counterproductive to attack any, among the desperate few, in this world who care about one another and respect life and truth and love. 

 

I understand that a lot of evil is done by those who use bibles and religion to justify their power. They do not represent Jesus. I have also heard convincing arguments for the destruction of all religion, based on its net negative impact on the world, and depending on how you define religion, I tend to agree. That said, it is dishonest to deny that the primary building blocks of UPB, are in perfect harmony with Jesus teaching: inalienable rights and responsibilities, proven by universality. Jesus boiled it all down, specifically for people to see that they were being manipulated by their leaders. He said that all of God's laws could be reduced to this: First, love God (virtue, truth, good) above all else. And second, love one another as ourselves, because in so doing, we prove our understanding of the first.  

 

Thanks again.

 

Shane

[prolix]

Still not obvious to me...

[dsayers]

@corbyco: Hi there. What is it you hope to gain from this forum? You mention a lack of integrity but provide no frame of reference. You mention a lack of respect with regards to Christianity as if respect is automatic and not earned. Later on, you mention corrupt "scientists" as if that invalidates the objective scientific method. These things seem like an effort to marginalize scrutiny, otherwise known as bias confirmation. You cannot find the truth without scrutiny. This is important because I sometimes see people describing their ideas being scrutinized as personal attacks which simply isn't the case.

 

Since you mentioned lack of integrity as cause for concern, I wanted to point out that "incredible experiences that I can only label as spiritual" lacks integrity. What incredible experiences? What does spiritual mean? Perhaps this is my bias, but I read this as, "I cannot explain it, therefore the explanation must be supernatural." THIS would be a corruption of the scientific method. As is believing something just because some dead guy said it. Like Einstein was a pretty smart dude. All the same, if he ever stated that 2+2=5, he'd be wrong. Just as if he stated 2+2=4, it's true because it's true, not because he said it.

 

Out of curiosity, if you were raised atheist, how did you come to describe yourself as a Christian? I know you said your read the Bible beginning to end, but one would expect this to discourage faith, not invoke it.

 

@Shane: You forgot the, "Oh and if you don't obey, I'm going to torture you with fire for all eternity," part. Guessing the right answer isn't the same as arriving at the correct answer by way of sound methodology. Not stealing from, assaulting, raping, and murdering other people is moral because it's logically consistent. Not because somebody specific is credited with saying it.

[Boohickey11]

It's like reverse trolling. It reminds me of how a small group of a few communists would attend a meeting but wouldn't sit together. They would argue from different sides of the room to make it look like there were more people on their side.

 

The point is... don't feed the trolls.

[Alan C.]

Why does Christianity merit respect?You call yourself a philosopher and scientist. Where is the truth, logical argumentation, and demonstration of evidence in Christianity?Having an open mind doesn't mean one must entertain all manner of fatuous nonsense.

[LovePrevails]

I would like to know why the Judaeo-Christian god is worthy of anything but contempt, he drowned the entire world.

He put believers through torturous trials and smote, bloodily and without mercy, those who did not believe.

[Boohickey11]

Don't... feed... the trolls...

[Shane]

@dsayers: Eternal torture is not taught by Jesus or his disciples. It is a primarily Catholic, false teaching. You will not find an accurate linguistic interpretation of first century church text or any other historically validated texts to support that teaching. When Jesus talks about being cast out, he is speaking of being denied access to the relationships only possible in the body of mutual respect and care. This is perfectly congruent with what I hear Stefan recommend regarding ostracizing abusers. The UPB is for abusers to be outcast, where they will rightly experience the self imposed consequence of emptiness and destruction at the hand of fellow abusers. 

 

@LovePrevails: The stories of creation, the flood, and Job were not intended to convey historical fact. They are stories, versions of the existing legends most common among the different populations of the time. The biblical versions were intended to: exclude multiple deities, rejected human sacrifice, and establish individual universal rights and responsibilities. There are several different forms of literature within the Christian bible. None of which was ever intended to convey scientific information. There are a few legal texts and historical records but the bulk is Hebrew narrative. The remainder is made up of songs and letters and poems, better understood in a completely foreign time and culture. No sincere individual refers to songs from the radio or children's books from the library for scientific theory. They can however be used to explain and express powerful truths about our culture, human emotion, and even philosophy.  

[Josh F]

I hope you can understand that many people here were abused into religion, and to expect them to respect it disrespectful to their own experience.  I was personally brainwashed into a different cult called Jews, so I can relate tangentially.  

[Shane]

Why does Christianity merit respect?You call yourself a philosopher and scientist. Where is the truth, logical argumentation, and demonstration of evidence in Christianity?Having an open mind doesn't mean one must entertain all manner of fatuous nonsense.

 

Perhaps I'm being presumptuous in responding here. If so, I apologize.

 

Is a person of virtue (honesty, humility, generosity...), who does not initiate force, worthy of respect, on that basis alone?

 

Christianity is widely misunderstood. Jesus is the only approved model for Christian behavior, the rest are flawed attempts at best. People who respect the rights of others and humbly commit to virtue have earned my respect.

 

The natural consequence of living in harmony with others is the evidence. Everywhere truth has ever been earnestly sought, people have become more free. The greater the number of people united in pursuit of truth, the greater the impact has been. The governing authority in the ideal christian model is universal truth (GOD), not one man or group over another, man beside man equal under the authority of truth, everyone submitting to one another as truth is made more clear. Most people's only exposure to Christianity is through self-righteous abusers who use the bible and religion to rationalize their violence. It would be ridiculous to accuse Jesus of violence.

[PatrickC]

Oh corbyco, you didn't  come here not knowing what this forum was about surely?.. That said, if you really have an issue, take it up with one of Stef's calls. I think it will be more useful than with walls of counter arguments in text.

[Shane]

I hope you can understand that many people here were abused into religion, and to expect them to respect it disrespectful to their own experience.  I was personally brainwashed into a different cult called Jews, so I can relate tangentially.  

I think that I do understand. I apologize if you feel you are having to re-live some of that trauma. I have only the expectation that you be consistent in your treatment of truth seeking individuals. All kinds of people seeking truth have only pieces of the big picture, including myself. I have no malicious intent. I hope to be humble enough and intelligent enough to recognize and embrace truth when it is presented.  

[Dragonwriter]

It is a self-evident truth that people have the right to choose what they want to believe. I am continually astounded by how people who hold the concepts of freedom, choice, and self-determination as paramount values can so easily fall to the temptation of disrespecting the ethical and moral agency of other human beings who ALSO promote those very same moral values. The whole issue speaks far too much of tribalism to me.

 

I will never force my religious beliefs on anyone, nor simply expect them to share them. I also will not attempt to change anyone's mind on the issue without their consent. But I feel it fair to expect the same in return.

[Josh F]

I think that I do understand. I apologize if you feel you are having to re-live some of that trauma. I have only the expectation that you be consistent in your treatment of truth seeking individuals. All kinds of people seeking truth have only pieces of the big picture, including myself. I have no malicious intent. I hope to be humble enough and intelligent enough to recognize and embrace truth when it is presented.  

Don't expect anyone to respect your religious ideas, but you can absolutely expect us to be respectful to you if that respect is mutual.  We're hardly a vicious community.  

[Lars]

...although we are vicious toward people who defend child-abuse.

[powder]

beliefs or faith based ideas are not due any respect, people are, if they earn it.  

[JMH4UA]

I hope you can understand that many people here were abused into religion, and to expect them to respect it disrespectful to their own experience.  I was personally brainwashed into a different cult called Jews, so I can relate tangentially.  

 

I don't think he is asking for anyone to respect his religion (albeit I could be wrong), but I think he is asking for mutual intellectual respect in his own personal conversations. If that is the case, then I totally agree with him. Because this is the alternative: I was raised religious and based on my extremely negative experiences with non-religious people I should automatically give no respect to the non-religious. Of course, this is not the action I take because I know that generalities do not apply to every individual so I treat people with the same respect that I expect to be treated with UNTIL they give me a reason not to respect them.

[dsayers]

It is a self-evident truth that people have the right to choose what they want to believe.

 

If it was evident, it wouldn't require stating. Your use of the words "truth" and "right" are manipulative to preempt scrutiny. Your use of the phrase, "choose what they want to believe," is a disconnect from reality. In no uncertain terms, I'm talking about mental illness. First of all, if our interpretation of our senses conflict with the real world, then it is our senses that must give way. Secondly, holding what one wants to believe over the real world is a rejection of one's own capacity for error.

 

Don't get me wrong, Harry Potter fans can congregate and revel in their common interest and even fantasize about elements of that fantasy world that aren't explicit in the stories that created that world. It's when they start treating that fantasy as if it's real or as if because they believe it's real, we must refrain from scrutinizing that claim (must respect them) that a problem begins. If Hogwart's says that theft is bad, it's a nice sentiment. But Hogwart's saying it doesn't make it true.

 

disrespecting the ethical and moral agency of other human beings who ALSO promote those very same moral values

 

Let's not mince terminology here. Values are subjective. Morality is objective. "Moral values" is a contradiction in terms.

 

I've already covered that somebody that says "stealing is wrong" isn't necessarily virtuous. If they arrived at that conclusion by way of "this book said so," then they can just as easily be convinced out of that position. Especially if the conclusion is "murder is wrong... except against those people because they arrived at that conclusion by way of another book." If however they arrived at that conclusion by accepting that they own themselves and others do too, so stealing, assaulting, raping, and murdering would be violating their victim's self-ownership (which they would not abide against themselves), THIS is virtuous.

 

Faith (bigotry) is not a virtue. Arriving at sound conclusions without sound methodology is not virtue.

[MysterionMuffles]

This is my first day here and already I am a disturbed by some lack of integrity and respect especially regarding Christianity.

 

Yes because social shaming as your first time here is a way to command respect from people. I don't even have to read the rest of your post to know that you're either terribly misguided or are just out to troll us.

[tasmlab]

There's a sticky thread just to address this very phenomenon:

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/533-for-our-religious-friends/

[Good man]

On 9/20/2014 at 2:14 PM, corbyco said:

This is my first day he

[Dragonwriter]

If it was evident, it wouldn't require stating. Your use of the words "truth" and "right" are manipulative to preempt scrutiny. Your use of the phrase, "choose what they want to believe," is a disconnect from reality. In no uncertain terms, I'm talking about mental illness. First of all, if our interpretation of our senses conflict with the real world, then it is our senses that must give way. Secondly, holding what one wants to believe over the real world is a rejection of one's own capacity for error. Don't get me wrong, Harry Potter fans can congregate and revel in their common interest and even fantasize about elements of that fantasy world that aren't explicit in the stories that created that world. It's when they start treating that fantasy as if it's real or as if because they believe it's real, we must refrain from scrutinizing that claim (must respect them) that a problem begins. If Hogwart's says that theft is bad, it's a nice sentiment. But Hogwart's saying it doesn't make it true.  Let's not mince terminology here. Values are subjective. Morality is objective. "Moral values" is a contradiction in terms. I've already covered that somebody that says "stealing is wrong" isn't necessarily virtuous. If they arrived at that conclusion by way of "this book said so," then they can just as easily be convinced out of that position. Especially if the conclusion is "murder is wrong... except against those people because they arrived at that conclusion by way of another book." If however they arrived at that conclusion by accepting that they own themselves and others do too, so stealing, assaulting, raping, and murdering would be violating their victim's self-ownership (which they would not abide against themselves), THIS is virtuous. Faith (bigotry) is not a virtue. Arriving at sound conclusions without sound methodology is not virtue.

Soooo... in all of that, is there any point at which you are going to outright state that I am required to change my mind, whether I want to or not? Are you going to come out and state that you do not respect my right to hold these ideas at all, even peacefully? Because if all you are saying is that you believe me deranged, or that I do not fit within the bounds of your definition of virtue, or that you do not wish to associate with me because of my beliefs, then that's all fine; more power to you in that, I support your right to say, believe, and do such. What I have a problem with is the unspoken implication that I am not allowed to believe at all; that my mind is not mine, and that if I peacefully choose to disagree with the most common evidence, then I run the risk of being compelled to change.

[PatrickC]

No one is asking you or anyone to change their minds, but it does appear the OP wanted to make some shaming commentary about this community regarding atheism. Calling a spade a spade, seems reasonable in this regard.

[MMX2010]

No one is asking you or anyone to change their minds, but it does appear the OP wanted to make some shaming commentary about this community regarding atheism. Calling a spade a spade, seems reasonable in this regard.

 

Exactly.  The main idea behind his original post is, "This is my first day here and already I am a disturbed by some lack of integrity and respect especially regarding Christianity."

[Dragonwriter]

Okay, awesome. Thank you for that clarification.

 

You have my blessing (not that it means anything, but still). Carry on.

[Josh F]

I don't think he is asking for anyone to respect his religion (albeit I could be wrong), but I think he is asking for mutual intellectual respect in his own personal conversations. If that is the case, then I totally agree with him. Because this is the alternative: I was raised religious and based on my extremely negative experiences with non-religious people I should automatically give no respect to the non-religious. Of course, this is not the action I take because I know that generalities do not apply to every individual so I treat people with the same respect that I expect to be treated with UNTIL they give me a reason not to respect them.

What does ANY of this have to do with religion?  Religiosity has been injected into a conversation about respect, for no reason.  And its really goofy to pre-emptivily demand respect.  This whole thing wreaks of a much deeper thing not being expressed.  The OP has only 2 posts.  You have 9, and Shane 12.  This conversation feels very dishonest, like we're being trolled.  

[corbyco]

Excellent - thank you everyone for engaging.

 

What I hope to gain from this forum:  Where I am wrong then I will be guided to the truth by philosophical discussion. Where I am nearer the truth perhaps others will be guided nearer to it.

No I dont believe that respect should ever be automatic - but surely the point of a philosophical forum is to at least take a little time to point out errors with evidence - politely - even if (especially if?) you believe someone to be way off the truth.

I am a firm believer in the scientific method and am not saying that corrupt and biased scientists invalidate the method - just that they are not following it. (Listen to Stefan talking about climate change distorted evidence for example). It means you cant just quote scientists to prove a point - you need to dig deeper.

 

OK - so I picked this forum first because I consider this one of the few subjects that Stefan seems to bring up with bitterness and misunderstanding.  I have the greatest respect for the amount of research that goes into almost every other subject but am amazed when Stefan refers only to religion with the same statements describing an abusive aggressive cult - which is completely not my experience from dozens of churches I have attended around the world in the last 20 years. (I travel a lot)

 

My experience of Christianity is almost exactly one of a free market.  The Church is offering a service that you can listen to, or not, support, or not, give money to, or not.  The ones that dont get support fail and close.  The ones that people connect with and find helpful flourish. 

I know there are Catholic, Muslim and cult churches that are not like this but I have never, ever, been told in the Protestant church, that if I dont give money, dont obey the leaders, dont believe the leaders, I will go to hell.

Its the opposite.  You are saved by grace - and its free and it cant be taken away from you.

 

I do however give money to the church.  I was for a long time part of the leadership of one church where every single penny given either went to the sick, the poor or those with a temporary need - home and abroad - and if anything was left over it helped fix the roof.

 

Our current church got hold of dozens of mobile homes after Hurricane Sandy hit ( USA ) and put up lots of families for free until they got sorted out. All paid for by voluntary gifts to the church. Crowd funded?

 

The congregations are full of people wanting to learn how to follow a non-aggression principle - called being loving to everyone whatever their background, gender, race, skin colour and even if we dont agree with their lifestyle.

 

BUT - how ever much I think this is all excellent - I still keep a door open to the possibility that perhaps God doesnt exist and that all of the good that we do is just due to our passion to do good - not because a 'God' is using us to do good. At 55 I think I have had enough personal experiences to feel confident I am close to the truth - but I will try and keep an open mind until I die.

 

Thank you everyone for taking the time to contribute.  Please guide me to what particularly can be discussed most usefully.

What is the absolute core of your atheism?

 

How about we start with forgiveness?  As I understand it Jesus invented forgiveness as before Him it was always an eye for an eye and the right of revenge.  I think I am right in saying that Stefan does not believe in forgiveness (please forgive me if I am misrepresenting) and yet I have proven again and again to myself that when I forgive it sets me free from bitterness, fear and the desire for revenge.

I would of course not give the person the chance to hurt me again, and even involve the law so that they reap the correct consequences of their actions  -  but I then forgive and hope they learn how they have been wrong, wish them well and get on with my life. It makes me feel free from the past and start afresh.

[powder]

corbyco, I am not even sure what it means to 'believe' in forgiveness but I do agree with what Stef has to say about it, and yes, I think you are misrepresenting his position on forgiveness.  My understanding is that forgiveness is an involuntary response to virtue.  You can find ways to talk yourself into to feeling certain ways I am sure but that does not fit into my idea of a good way to manage relationships.  

 

I grew up with religious indoctrination and have spent many years studying and researching religion and spiritual traditions and esp the history of them.  I actually like to debate the kinds of things you propose in your last post, esp stuff like 'saved by grace' but I don't think you will get much traction with that stuff here.  

 

I have the same problem with religions like christianity that I have with the state: problems are solved with violence.  Yes, including the Jesus salvation story; I don't think the euphemism 'saved by grace' makes it any less horrifying.  His heinous 'return' scenario as proposed by modern christian doctrine is unspeakable in its violence and suffering and so I cannot in good conscience support, advocate, or be tolerant (respectful if you will) of any organization that stands behind such ideas.  

 

I am curious about your statement about being open minded and interested to see how that will play out.  I Hope it will be rewarding for you.  

[RyanT]

 I think I am right in saying that Stefan does not believe in forgiveness (please forgive me if I am misrepresenting) and yet I have proven again and again to myself that when I forgive it sets me free from bitterness, fear and the desire for revenge.

I would of course not give the person the chance to hurt me again, and even involve the law so that they reap the correct consequences of their actions  -  but I then forgive and hope they learn how they have been wrong, wish them well and get on with my life. It makes me feel free from the past and start afresh.

 

'Stefan does not believe in forgiveness'.....that is a pretty loaded premise?

 

Lets say my neighbor borrows my lawnmower, unbeknownst to him there's a huge rock hiding in the long grass, he hits it and bang!...there goes my Mountfield. He explains the situation, apologizes and immediately offers to buy me a new one, I think ''what a great guy'' and of course if he wants to borrow the new one he's welcome any time...all is forgiven?    

 

Now lets say he just quietly wheels it back round, a few days later I spot the damage, he totally denies any knowledge, perhaps faced with overwhelming proof he eventually 'fesses up, but then refuses to pay anything...or maybe starts trying to haggle compensation on his terms, 'Well look it wasn't exactly new...but I'm willing to give you £50, no hard feelings?' 

 

I'm going to be pissed off he threw my kindness back in my face like that, but what can I do? take him to court over it? So I 'chalk it up to experience', the guys a dick, it cost me £200 to find that information out...lucky though it wasn't £2000?...I get on with my life, but like you 'of course I'm not give him the opportunity again' so have I actually 'forgiven him'?

 

Alternatively of course, I could 'turn the other cheek' as the bible teaches and let him brake my strimmer too?

 

...this kind of 'forgiveness' only serves the evil and immoral. 

[dsayers]

surely the point of a philosophical forum is to at least take a little time to point out errors with evidence - politely - even if (especially if?) you believe someone to be way off the truth.

 

Politeness is another thing that isn't automatic. If you reject 2+2=4 because the person presenting it isn't polite, then it's not the truth that you seek. Generally speaking, "politeness" is another tool for manipulators to artificially cull resistance/control others.

 

The congregations are full of people wanting to learn how to follow a non-aggression principle

 

This is not true. The NAP is rooted in self-ownership while Christianity teaches you that God owns you. Also, people are in a congregation firstly to seek out others who will reinforce their delusions in lieu of logic, reason, or evidence. Secondly, after the delusion is agreed upon, to avoid the consequences of not doing so (hell)/reap the rewards of doing so (heaven). Your quote here is like saying that people pay taxes to help society function when in fact they do so to avoid being assaulted and kidnapped.

 

You said, "My experience of Christianity..." but went on to talk about the behaviors of Christians instead of Christianity. You also seem eager to repeat that you dig philosophy and science without demonstrating it. By this I'm referring to the way you keep speaking as if the onus is on other people to disprove what you believe in. You cannot describe yourself as a scientist if you do not even observe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I referenced this lack of integrity and asked how you came to describe yourself as Christian. See, Christianity (atheism too) is a conclusion. How you arrived at that conclusion was what I sought and what you are withholding.

 

I am glad that you brought forgiveness up. It's a good example of how Christianity and philosophy are in opposition. Philosophy is a method by which we can determine the truth value of objective claims regarding virtue. Christianity teaches that forgiveness is a virtue. But forgiveness is not something that can be given. It's something that the guilty have to seek out and earn. Those who teach that forgiveness should be given are indoctrinating you to ignore their transgressions. In fact, when you say:

 

I have proven again and again to myself that when I forgive it sets me free from bitterness, fear and the desire for revenge.

 

...you are actually talking about forgetting. As in, failing to process. Fear and anger are positive experiences. They help us to identify that which would harm us and avoid it. Failing to process this only allows for it to continue. Meaning that to forget (give "forgiveness" where it isn't sought and earned) is unhealthy. It is the antithesis of virtue. You are erasing yourself for the benefit of predators.

[Yeravos]

My experience of Christianity is almost exactly one of a free market.  The Church is offering a service that you can listen to, or not, support, or not, give money to, or not.  The ones that dont get support fail and close.  The ones that people connect with and find helpful flourish. 

 

I am curious, what do you think about the children of the people that attend this free market of churches? Is it voluntary for them? 

 

Also, what reason and evidence led you to believe that God does exist?

[Bipedal Primate]

Politeness is another thing that isn't automatic. If you reject 2+2=4 because the person presenting it isn't polite, then it's not the truth that you seek. Generally speaking, "politeness" is another tool for manipulators to artificially cull resistance/control others. This is not true. The NAP is rooted in self-ownership while Christianity teaches you that God owns you. Also, people are in a congregation firstly to seek out others who will reinforce their delusions in lieu of logic, reason, or evidence. Secondly, after the delusion is agreed upon, to avoid the consequences of not doing so (hell)/reap the rewards of doing so (heaven). Your quote here is like saying that people pay taxes to help society function when in fact they do so to avoid being assaulted and kidnapped. You said, "My experience of Christianity..." but went on to talk about the behaviors of Christians instead of Christianity. You also seem eager to repeat that you dig philosophy and science without demonstrating it. By this I'm referring to the way you keep speaking as if the onus is on other people to disprove what you believe in. You cannot describe yourself as a scientist if you do not even observe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I referenced this lack of integrity and asked how you came to describe yourself as Christian. See, Christianity (atheism too) is a conclusion. How you arrived at that conclusion was what I sought and what you are withholding. I am glad that you brought forgiveness up. It's a good example of how Christianity and philosophy are in opposition. Philosophy is a method by which we can determine the truth value of objective claims regarding virtue. Christianity teaches that forgiveness is a virtue. But forgiveness is not something that can be given. It's something that the guilty have to seek out and earn. Those who teach that forgiveness should be given are indoctrinating you to ignore their transgressions. In fact, when you say: ...you are actually talking about forgetting. As in, failing to process. Fear and anger are positive experiences. They help us to identify that which would harm us and avoid it. Failing to process this only allows for it to continue. Meaning that to forget (give "forgiveness" where it isn't sought and earned) is unhealthy. It is the antithesis of virtue. You are erasing yourself for the benefit of predators.

Excellent Posts! I have nothing to add because all of your replies have been a slam dunk. I wish I could double up my up-votes on all of your posts in this thread :-)@corbyco I highly recommend Stefan's book 'Real Time Relationships.' :-)

[corbyco]

Gosh - so many points.   I hope you are pleased to know that in all future topics I start, I will try and keep to one short simple statement.

 

I will keep to 2 of the points.  Forgiveness and 'what about the children'.

 

I am glad that you brought forgiveness up. It's a good example of how Christianity and philosophy are in opposition. Philosophy is a method by which we can determine the truth value of objective claims regarding virtue. Christianity teaches that forgiveness is a virtue. But forgiveness is not something that can be given. It's something that the guilty have to seek out and earn. Those who teach that forgiveness should be given are indoctrinating you to ignore their transgressions. In fact, when you say: ...you are actually talking about forgetting. As in, failing to process. Fear and anger are positive experiences. They help us to identify that which would harm us and avoid it. Failing to process this only allows for it to continue. Meaning that to forget (give "forgiveness" where it isn't sought and earned) is unhealthy. It is the antithesis of virtue. You are erasing yourself for the benefit of predators.

 

You say that '..forgiveness is not something that can be given.." and yet it is something that I give.   I give it, freely, because it is beneficial to me to not live the rest of my life in bitterness.

Also you are mis-representing or misunderstanding Christian forgiveness when you say "...indoctrinating you to ignore their transgressions..".  Noone is looking to ignore transgressions but its more about not seeking personal revenge.  And I am certainly not .".actually talking about forgetting..".  I agree that every experience is a learning experience.

 

As an example, if a woman comes to the (protestant) church saying her husband is abusing her - they would advise her to leave him, go to a sanctuary and call the police.  They would then advise, once she is safe, that she prays for him to recognize the evil he is doing and find God so that he learns to love (non aggression). If she can forgive him, whether he is sorry or not, then she can move on, having learned from the experience, and start afresh without dragging around the ball and chain of bitterness, fear and anger.

 

Giving forgiveness is easy once you understand that people behave as they do because of how they were brought up ( see most of Stefans videos) - so its kind of not their fault - although they must still take responsibility, reap the consequences of their actions and be shown the error of their ways so they have a chance to change.

[PatrickC]

You are misunderstanding forgiveness, at least in the way philosophy sees it. I've often heard forgiveness conflated to be something the victim needs to exhibit in order to overcome supposed bitterness and hatred.

 

Why do you propose a victim would feel bitterness and hatred for the perpetrator and if so why would that be even wrong. For instance I have had several people that have stolen from me and assaulted me in the past. I was never even adequately compensated by them, let alone saw any remorse or conscious desire to change or modify (improve) their behaviour. No amount of willingness on my part brings me to forgive them, but since they are not a part of my life, my thoughts are no longer consumed by them and I have no desire for revenge.

 

Anger would be a healthy reaction to someone wronging you. Forgiveness on the other hand would be an involuntary response to the perpetrators active (and seen) modification of his/her life and their enhancement of my own.

 

Having empathy and understanding as to why a person acts out badly in the way they do, doesn't automatically hand them a 'get out of jail free card'. True forgiveness is earned and the only person capable of inspiring it, is the perpetrator. In this way the true virtue comes from the perpetrators successful attempts to atone for their previous actions and the forgiveness comes as a natural outcome of that and the relationship they are probably developing together. As in your husband and wife scenario.