[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[John Reimer]

Hello Me,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> as a Christian, I am supposed to show the world my faith.
>> 
> That is the crux of my personal objection to organised religion.
> 
> The need, desire or worse, imperative, to announce or demonstrate ones
> "faith" to the wider world. It leads to the need to condemn those who
> announce or demonstrate a different faith, or even minor variations of
> the same faith. And that leads to wars, and extremism.
> 
> Whilst faith is between the individual and their god, it affects
> noone, except the individual. Hurts no one, And satisfies the criteria
> of most rational reading of most every set of teachings. The
> individual has their relationship with their god, and demonstrates
> their faith to the only two entities that matter to that relationship,
> in private. Shared faith between like minded individuals is fine, but
> once the need to demonstrate to non-like minded individuals takes
> precedence, all hell breaks loose. (Worded carefully!)
> 
> I can accept, and even admire, when individuals reach their own level
> of understanding about the teachings of their faith and choose to
> constrain their own lives and deeds in the light of that
> understanding. The problems arise when they seek to constrain the
> lives and deeds of others in the light of their understanding.
> 
> Indeed, I would go as far as to say that it isn't true faith if there
> *is* a need to demonstrate it. That smacks entirely of the need for
> validation of ones ideas and understanding from other mortals. And
> that's not "faith".
> 
> Of course. My need to expound my thoughts on this is equally, a
> demonstration, seeking (perhaps), validation. But then I make no claim
> to having faith.
> 
>> take that for what you will.
>> 
> I take it as the conservative statements of a rational and thoughtful
> man who's given the subject a lot of thought, as have I, but simply
> reached different conclusions.
> 
> And, perhaps in that, we are not so dissimilar. We both, I think,
> allow for the possibility that rational people can consider the same
> evidence (and lack thereof) and reach different conclusions. No
> absolutism. And, I hope, we both accept that neither of us will ever
> know the truth for sure. We may believe, but we cannot, in this life
> at least, know.
> 
> Be well. b.
> 



I'm not sure what you mean by organised religion, but does your dislike apply 
also to organized systems like secular humanism, naturalism, and such.  Does 
the fact that evolution, big bang theory, and other topics have been taught 
(and probably still are in many areas) as /fact/ to many elementary students 
strike you as "organized".  These things among many other things in the public 
systems have been very organized for a long time, including pervasive humanistic 
worldviews.

If you believe the effects of indoctrination by other pervading worldviews, 
including those associated with athiesm, are dangerous, I will consider your 
above statements "consistant".  Otherwise, it would only seem that you are 
trying to pass the blame onto worldviews you personally dislike.

Incidentally, this keeps coming up: Christianity is not an organized religion 
in itself.  It is a worldview.  Roman Catholicism is an organized religion. 
 Mormonism is an organized religion...  Many forms of Protestantism are organized 
religions.  I have a particular dislike for organized religion myself.

About "personal faith":

I primarily argue against the personal faith idea because it doesn't work 
either (otherwise translated: "if it works for you, that's cool; but that 
doesn't mean its for everybody."  Accusing all the world's problem to be 
on the head of those who try to share their faith with others is another 
over-simplification in what appears to be actively dodging reality.  If a 
worldview exists that explains the operation of this world, then it is reasonable 
to believe that it should be shared with others so that they can understand 
how to approach the problems they face (stress: it is still a choice!).  
It is also fair to share the stated consequences of rejecting that faith. 
 The person is not obligated to believe anything that is said, but rather 
can ignore it (In fact, he isn't even obligated to listen to what you have 
to say!) - yet, those consequences should be taken seriously and if the said 
worldview is correct, rejection of it will not make the consequences any 
less untrue.  

Here's a gentler analogy:  if a person believes that a  person is about to 
walk off the end of a 1000 meter cliff that he apparently doesn't see, then 
he is showing much love and concern to introduce him to the possibility that 
sudden death is imminent.  The motivation behind sharing that worldview should 
be care for the other person... not power or control.  If he does it for 
power and control, the person sharing his faith is indeed doing a deadly 
and dangerous deed -- and in terms of Christianity is an outright fake.  
The Bible warns of these kind of people.  

One point here, though: I admit  that a worldview applied through an organized 
religion with deadly ideology is indeed dangerous.  My constant claim here 
is that Christianity is a worldview that is helpful, and not only helpful, 
but necessary for the perservation of life (spiritual), sanity, order, and 
hope. If people disagree with this (and, they do, I know), I will most certainly 
try to point out the reason why I believe this to be so in comparison to 
other worldviews. (Incidentally, it seems popular and acceptable to disparage 
the Christain worldview, but few are allowed to undermine the other ones... 
unless he wants to be ridiculed and derided. But hey, I game. :) )

On the other hand, if we /really/ believe that having a personal faith is 
good, and keeping it to ourselves is even better, maybe we shouuld consider 
this: we actually invite significant conflict with no resolution by following 
this principle.  For example, one person's faith believes sex is ok in marriage, 
another believes it's ok with any consenting adults, yet another believes 
it's okay to force sex; another believes homosexuality and lesbianism is 
normal; eventually another group decides that since all the other forms were 
determined acceptable, then pedaphilia must be normal too (note, I use these 
examples not to offend people, but to make stark analogies of potential conflict). 
 Each of these groups decide that they needn't step on each other's toes 
because those things are /personal/ decisions and absolutes are a monumental 
"no-no".  Nobody says anything about the other's activities and a law of 
"moral entropy" begins to form; lives are destroyed -- venereal diseases 
and resulting cancers grow rampant among the "looser" groups; humans of all 
ages become psychologically scarred, families become non-existant; children 
of a new generation grow up ever more apathetic, ammoral and without identity 
(rotating parent syndrome); civilizations decline rapidly as abortions increase 
(similar to the historical results of child sacrifice in "pagan" religions 
of times past).  There are many historically examples of similar downward 
spirals of nations as moral decay sets in.

In summary, there is a huge cost, in itself, of pursuing "let everyone alone" 
mentality.  Whatever the case, common interest groups will inevitably form 
(incidentally, /with/ or /without/ religion) and organize.  Now, I don't 
know how long these groups can survive with "leave and let live" mentality, 
but history shows that it doesn't last forever.  This is the making of revolutions 
and history is full of such (once again: with and without claimed religious 
basis!).  Eventually someones rights overcome anothers whether or not there 
are absolute standards to decide what is right or wrong.  Just consider how 
successfully forceful gay rights activists have been about their beliefs. 
 People continue to push against societal limits if they feel it is possible. 
 And it will be inevitable, with this mentality, that people will continue 
to push moral limits as far as the culture allows for the time. 

The bounds of morality are set for a reason in the Christain worldview.  
The Bible defines immorality, explains the distructive force of it and where 
it finally leads.  It also clearly explains why nobody is capable of overcoming 
immorality on their own strength; people condemn themselves by not accepting 
the gift offered by the Christ.  It claims that Jesus is the only source 
of that strength... and apart from him, no man is holy, can live a holy life, 
or see the Father in heaven.  The requirement is denying oneself completely.

Now, the athiest, who rejects the existance of such bounds, or says some 
bounds "exist" naturally in culture and societies natural pressure to conform, 
is left with a changing morality that really has no form, existance, or containment: 
it is considered evolving (even though that evolution appears to be heading 
in the wrong direction that is contrary to the preservation of life!)  It 
shape shifts as society changes such that there is no real way to hold somebody 
accountable for "evil" doing - but at some point one group DOES force this 
issue and decide on what rights are real or not real... for a time.  So much 
for "leave and let live".  It disappears anyway and religion doesn't have 
anything to do with it.

Can you see where this leads? Those that propose "personal faith" as the 
ultimate way to "get along" find themselves trapped in a subjective (now 
becoming a popular accusation in this group :P) cycle and, as much as some 
would love to pass the blame, the blame is just as surely on the inactive 
and apathetic as it is on those that abuse opportunity for a "religious" 
cause.  That leads me to think that there is more to the equation than meets 
the eye.

Organization is dangerous, but please realize the source is not in mere religion.


-JJR