Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

#41

Post by jawns »

hyperpape wrote: post #32

There's a ton that I agree with, but Taleb is not quite entirely right that Catholic (and other Christian) theology hasn't changed. The biggest change in the direction of tolerance might be the general abandonment of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism , the doctrine that the covenant between God and the people of Israel had been superceded by Jesus. You can still maintain the overall point, by arguing that…

I don't think the Catholic Church has abandoned supersessionism, as you say. What it has abandoned is a particular type of supersessionism, one that was fueled, in part, by anti-semetic bias.

In this First Things piece by David Novak, he talks about a distinction between "hard" and "soft" supersessionism:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/02/supersessionism-...

You can see a defense of this soft supersessionism in this piece by the late Avery Cardinal Dulles:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/11/the-covenant-wit...

Re: Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

#42

Post by yamrzou »

rayiner wrote: post #31
lopmotr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a bigger scale, Christians used to be anti gay for seemingly their whole history, then when others in the same western society decided gay is OK, they suddenly decided that Jesus was telling them to be tolerant all that time and all those earlier Christians had somehow got it wrong.

I think there is a strong element of that. But Jesus himself actually said almost nothing about homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testa... The traditional Christian view of same-sex activity derives from more direct statements made by Paul, and Jesus’s general statements about sexual immorality. What Paul actually meant about homosexuality depends on ambiguous translations from the…

Another basis for the Chrisitian (also the Jewish and Islamic) view on homosexuality is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Religious_v...

Re: Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

#43

Post by tertius »

earthboundkid wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a strong element of that. But Jesus himself actually said almost nothing about homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testa... The traditional Christian view of same-sex activity derives from more direct statements made by Paul, and Jesus’s general statements about sexual immorality. What Paul actually meant about homosexuality depends on ambiguous translations from the…

Jesus spoke about eunuchs, who in modern terms would be “trans”.

Not quite. Their goal re: castration was not to become female or identify as such.

Re: Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

#44

Post by f154hfds »

So the author says Weber's claim that protestant theology leads to good work ethic is 'marshmellow soft' without once refuting any actual point Weber makes about said theology. He instead makes the equally vague claim that religious texts can be interpreted in any way. This is naive for two reasons:

1. It implies that theological texts can't give any clearly definable meaning. This means that the Quran and the New Testament are essentially equivalent in terms of their impact on society. He needs to present me more evidence than he did in backing up this very strong claim.

2. It implies that there is a single predominant factor in explaining group behavior. This is a fallacy of the single cause. Sure, group-think plays a part. However, it would be very hasty to say that theology doesn't play a part as well in forming that group-think in the first place.

The Puritans had a view of theology very very different from the Catholics. They believed that their salvation was fundamentally God's choice (Calvinism) instead of their own (Arminianism). You might make the point that this refutes point 1. above, except that this 'theology' didn't come out of thin air, it came from a very literal reading of the New Testament (Romans 8:29-30 for example). This theology - particularly the doctrine of total depravity coupled with predestination - has practical implications on how one would craft the _policy_ of new institutions. This in turn necessarily trickles down into freedoms, human rights, and finally economics. The burden of proof is on the author of this article to explain how this set of beliefs (let alone Weber) are not hugely impactful on traditional western values.

Re: Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

#45

Post by tertius »

rayiner wrote: post #31
lopmotr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a bigger scale, Christians used to be anti gay for seemingly their whole history, then when others in the same western society decided gay is OK, they suddenly decided that Jesus was telling them to be tolerant all that time and all those earlier Christians had somehow got it wrong.

I think there is a strong element of that. But Jesus himself actually said almost nothing about homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testa... The traditional Christian view of same-sex activity derives from more direct statements made by Paul, and Jesus’s general statements about sexual immorality. What Paul actually meant about homosexuality depends on ambiguous translations from the…

Paul was a Jew. He was only ever relating in the NT what the Old testament was teaching. So it's very easy to understand what he was saying if you reference what he was quoting.

On sexuality being innate/not a choice. The Bible does not prohibit any innate characteristics, it prohibits actions. Actions are always choices. Homosexual actions are what the bible prohibits, the Old Testament first and then repeated (and quoted) in the New Testament.

Marriage is not involved in these prohibitions.

Re: Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

#46

Post by mellavora »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #28
dx87 wrote: post #5

I've got family members that are a good example of this. Some live in a rural area of the South and think that worsening weather is punishment for allowing gays to marry. Meanwhile when one of my cousins came out as gay, my grandparents who live a few states further North said that he didn't choose to be gay, God made him like that, and invited him and his boyfriend to thanksgiving dinner to make sure he knew that ev…

> Both groups of people are super religious (same religion even), and both use their religion to back up their beliefs, not the other way around. That’s because as far as I can tell, the purpose of “religion” is to assist in tribal bonds. Even though it’s not explicitly stated, it helps serve as a proxy for people to figure how closely to align themselves with another. When I was a child, I wondered why people who di…

Dunbar (famous for the "150 friends" rule, based on neocortex size) claims that religion is a scaling technology which allows groups to expand above the 1500 person size, which is as large as a group can get and still have most members able to recognize members by face.

Above 1500 people, a group needs a non-personal method to tag who is trustworthy and who might be plotting you harm.

Religion fills the gap nicely, gives you a reason to trust the other person. Works well, until it doesn't.

Long way of providing scientifically derived support to your statement on the "purpose" of religion.

Re: Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

#47

Post by hyperpape »

jawns wrote: post #41
hyperpape wrote: post #32

There's a ton that I agree with, but Taleb is not quite entirely right that Catholic (and other Christian) theology hasn't changed. The biggest change in the direction of tolerance might be the general abandonment of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism , the doctrine that the covenant between God and the people of Israel had been superceded by Jesus. You can still maintain the overall point, by arguing that…

I don't think the Catholic Church has abandoned supersessionism, as you say. What it has abandoned is a particular type of supersessionism, one that was fueled, in part, by anti-semetic bias. In this First Things piece by David Novak, he talks about a distinction between "hard" and "soft" supersessionism: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/02/supersessionism-... You can see a defense of this soft supersessionis…

You're right--I must've misremembered the shift as an outright abandonment and/or conflated abandonment by many non-Catholic theologians with the Catholic church. Frankly, the details are rather baroque.

Re: Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

#48

Post by jawns »

zebrafish wrote: post #27
dx87 wrote: post #5

I've got family members that are a good example of this. Some live in a rural area of the South and think that worsening weather is punishment for allowing gays to marry. Meanwhile when one of my cousins came out as gay, my grandparents who live a few states further North said that he didn't choose to be gay, God made him like that, and invited him and his boyfriend to thanksgiving dinner to make sure he knew that ev…

Most of the time, religious people don’t bother with actual theology. If you care to look, there is a lot of critical thinking that went into the Reformation. Both of these examples go against mainline reformed theology in America. Reformed Covenant Theology says God doesn’t punish us with earthly catastrophes and God doesn’t make people sinners. Many times, Christians just make up or guess at their own theology beca…

Concerning the Reformation and the two big doctrines that came out of it -- sola scriptura (Bible alone) and sola fide (faith alone) -- there was a Pew Research poll done a few years ago, asking U.S. Protestants about whether they ascribed to those beliefs.

Turns out, only 30 percent of U.S. Protestants believe in both sola fide and sola scriptura.

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/08/31/poll-most-p...

Re: Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

#49

Post by Ingosla »

Guthur wrote: post #26

`Now consider the following: there is nothing particularly strong in Islam’s holy text against drinking alcohol, just a rather vague recommendation of avoidance of intoxication while facing the creator.` This is a constant misunderstanding of what constitutes Islamic theology. Islamic teaching are made up of the Quran and Sunnah, the Holy text and ways and teachings of the Prophet Muhammed respectively; there is a wh…

> `Now consider the following: there is nothing particularly strong in Islam’s holy text against drinking alcohol, just a rather vague recommendation of avoidance of intoxication while facing the creator.`

Sorry but while this may be well meant from the author it is just wrong. I'm arabic native speaker and can provide more details.

First the quran was revealed in a span of 23 years. And when dealing with drinking, the quran took a step by step approach. At first, a general warning was given to forbid Muslims from attending prayers while in a drunken state (Quran, 4:43).

"O you who believe! Do not approach the prayer while you are drunk, so that you know what you say"

Then a later verse was revealed to Prophet Muhammad which said that while specifically alcohol had some medicinal benefits, the negative effects of it outweighed the good (Quran, 2:219).

"They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say, “There is gross sin in them, and some benefits for people, but their sinfulness outweighs their benefit.”"

Finally, “intoxicants and gambling” were called “abominations of Satan’s handiwork,” which warned people with self-consciousness to not turn away from God and forget about prayer, and Muslims were ordered to abstain (Quran, 5:90-91).

"90: O you who believe! Intoxicants, gambling, idolatry, and divination are abominations of Satan’s doing. Avoid them, so that you may prosper. 91: Satan wants to provoke strife and hatred among you through intoxicants and gambling, and to prevent you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer. Will you not desist?"

The Prophet Muhammad also instructed his companions to avoid any intoxicating substances (paraphrased), “if it intoxicates in a large amount, it is forbidden even in a small amount.” For this reason, most observant Muslims avoid alcohol in any form, even small amounts that are sometimes used in cooking.

Re: Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

#50

Post by prox »

Ingosla wrote: post #49
Guthur wrote: post #26

`Now consider the following: there is nothing particularly strong in Islam’s holy text against drinking alcohol, just a rather vague recommendation of avoidance of intoxication while facing the creator.` This is a constant misunderstanding of what constitutes Islamic theology. Islamic teaching are made up of the Quran and Sunnah, the Holy text and ways and teachings of the Prophet Muhammed respectively; there is a wh…

> `Now consider the following: there is nothing particularly strong in Islam’s holy text against drinking alcohol, just a rather vague recommendation of avoidance of intoxication while facing the creator.` Sorry but while this may be well meant from the author it is just wrong. I'm arabic native speaker and can provide more details. First the quran was revealed in a span of 23 years. And when dealing with drinking, t…

Question : as I understand it, the later recitations trump the earlier ones. But if it is “the eternal word”, wouldn’t all utterances be true? So you can both apply the first or the latter depending on the circumstances.

Do you know how this is resolved or interpreted?

Post reply on HN