01 Mar 09
4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasFrom what I can gather, it seems likely that you have little to no feel for the nature of statistics.
I presented the Barna Groups findings nearly verbatim regarding the moral superiority of the 'evangelical' group based on the seven different conditions/beliefs in relation to other Christians and non-Christians. I don't know why you're even bothering trying to pick these findings apart as if they are my own interpretations of the data.
I'd try to explain to you some of the hazards of blindly reading too much into statistics, but then you'd have to actually read my posts in their entirety. There's a reason Twain said what he did.
While you're at it, why don't you actually address the points in my previous posts instead of just firing off baseless comments, insinuations, etc. ? But then you'd have to read them.
I still can't get over the fact that you made an insinuation like you did without having read my post in its entirety. You must be one of those "few" evangelicals lacking integrity. The fact that it came on the heels of your puffing up your chest and trumpeting the moral superiority of you "real Christians" is too much. How sorry is that?
01 Mar 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThat axe is still grinding away isn't it. You are so desperate to see Christianity as a broken , dysfunctional religion and Christians as hypocrites. What is it that you are trying to prove to yourself?
From what I can gather, it seems likely that you have little to no feel for the nature of statistics.
I'd try to explain to you some of the hazards of blindly reading too much into statistics, but then you'd have to actually read my posts in their entirety. There's a reason Twain said what he did.
While you're at it, why don't you actually addres ...[text shortened]... peting the moral superiority of you "real Christians" is too much. How sorry is that?
Just let it go ToO.
02 Mar 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneFrom what I can gather, it seems likely that you have little to no feel for the nature of statistics.
From what I can gather, it seems likely that you have little to no feel for the nature of statistics.
I'd try to explain to you some of the hazards of blindly reading too much into statistics, but then you'd have to actually read my posts in their entirety. There's a reason Twain said what he did.
While you're at it, why don't you actually addres ...[text shortened]... peting the moral superiority of you "real Christians" is too much. How sorry is that?
Like I said, I repeated pretty much verbatim what the Barna Group said:
"Christian evangelicals are a small proportion of the national population, representing just 7% of the adult mass. However, they are the group whose faith is most clearly evident in their behavioral choices...
"There is a strong connection between the faith views and practices of evangelicals and their lifestyle. Evangelicals also emerged as the group most likely to attend church; pray to God; and read the Bible. By definition, they believe in the accuracy of the Bible, contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their faith with others, claim that their religious faith is very important in their life, reject the idea that Jesus Christ sinned, describe God as the Creator who still rules the universe today, and believe that Satan is real. That body of beliefs - and the worldview it represents - has produced a distinct way of living in an increasingly postmodern culture - a lifestyle that is increasingly at odds with the accepted norms."
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=164
I still can't get over the fact that you made an insinuation like you did without having read my post in its entirety. You must be one of those "few" evangelicals lacking integrity.
ToO, I apologize! OK? I should have read your entire post and I made a hasty comment. Let it go, would ya? First off, I never claimed to be an 'evangelical', secondly, I have never claimed to have impeccable integrity. I made a mistake, I owned up to it, let's move on...
02 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/i]Reiterating that you "repeated pretty much verbatim what the Barna Group said" is irrelevant. From what I can tell, your powers of discernment are not very strong. If you want to get some sense of some of the pitfalls of drawing conclusions from statistics, try reading my earlier posts.
[b]From what I can gather, it seems likely that you have little to no feel for the nature of statistics.
Like I said, I repeated pretty much verbatim what the Barna Group said:
[i]"Christian evangelicals are a small proportion of the national population, representing just 7% of the adult mass. However, they are the group whose faith is most cle med to have impeccable integrity. I made a mistake, I owned up to it, let's move on...[/b]
Move on? Move on to where? You've not only stopped addressing the content of my posts, but evidently can't be bothered to read them.
"Moral superiority" indeed. Pride goeth before the fall.
02 Mar 09
1 edit
I suspect that most moral/ethical behavior is influenced by our beliefs—personal, cultural, religious, philosophical—as well as by tendencies and predilections that are less well-defined (aesthetics, for example: a sense of what lends to a beautiful life).
For Buddhists, the primary ethical/moral term is compassion. For some, this may derive from a belief system that includes such things as karma and reincarnation (a kind of works-salvationism, perhaps). For others, it derives from such principles as non-separability and mutuality, without further metaphysical speculation.
In all cases, discernment is required: compassion is not necessarily the same as being “nice”. Brutal honesty, for example, may be an act of compassion even if it seems rude. It is always a matter of the particular, not the abstract: the needs of this person here and now. Only the “ego-construct” is concerned with what others judge from the otuside.
Also, compassion is not necessarily “self-sacrifice” (not talking about the “ego-self-construct here”, but the whole being): it just as well (I would say better) flows from a generosity of spirit—an extension and expansion of oneself. As such, it becomes a joyful, rather than a joyless, affair. Again, from a Buddhist perspective, this derives from the experience of non-separability and mutuality.
If one’s moral behavior is at odds with one’s beliefs, that is a problem of cognitive dissonance: one might adjust either one’s beliefs or one’s behavior.
I do not know why—albeit from the perspective of different underlying beliefs—this all would not be true of Christians as well. I personally would not make any comparisons of relative “moral success” or “moral failure” between the two religions.
EDIT: This post is not directed at anyone in particular; just general thoughts.
02 Mar 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you want to get some sense of some of the pitfalls of drawing conclusions from statistics, try reading my earlier posts.
[/i]Reiterating that you "repeated pretty much verbatim what the Barna Group said" is irrelevant. From what I can tell, your powers of discernment are not very strong. If you want to get some sense of some of the pitfalls of drawing conclusions from statistics, try reading my earlier posts.
Move on? Move on to where? You've not only stopped addressing ...[text shortened]... n't be bothered to read them.
"Moral superiority" indeed. Pride goeth before the fall.
----------------ToO-------------------------
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!🙄
You were the one who was putting forward the idea that "christians were no more moral than the rest of the population" based on ......well........nothing really. No stats and no evidence......and yet here you are lecturing away to others about " the pitfalls of drawing conclusions from statistics"...........🙄🙄😲
Is anyone else picking up this BS on their radar?????
02 Mar 09
1 edit
I have to question the objectivity of a pollster who makes statements like this:
"The consistent deterioration of the Bible as the source of moral truth has led to a nation where people have become independent judges of right and wrong, basing their choices on feelings and circumstances. It is not likely that America will return to a more traditional moral code until the nation experiences significant pain from its moral choices."I also have to note that asking people if they have lied is perhaps not the best way to test their honesty. 😵
03 Mar 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitits true America has lost its way, return to us, all is forgiven, we shall recolonize you, we shall forget about those miscreant Bostonians throwing all the tea into the sea, you forget that we torched the Whitehouse and all will be well, i mean its a helluva huff you took just cause we wanted to recuperate a little taxation in the name of protecting you,
I have to question the objectivity of a pollster who makes statements like this:[quote]"The consistent deterioration of the Bible as the source of moral truth has led to a nation where people have become independent judges of right and wrong, basing their choices on feelings and circumstances. It is not likely that America will return to a more tradition ...[text shortened]... ote that asking people if they have lied is perhaps not the best way to test their honesty. 😵
oh how i weep at the thought that those little women in little houses on the prairies are no longer, when American values meant something, when the Waltons were real! I should know i got the box sets!
03 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitYeah, there are a number of problems with the study cited by epi that make it difficult to be able to draw broad conclusions with any real confidence.
I have to question the objectivity of a pollster who makes statements like this:[quote]"The consistent deterioration of the Bible as the source of moral truth has led to a nation where people have become independent judges of right and wrong, basing their choices on feelings and circumstances. It is not likely that America will return to a more tradition ote that asking people if they have lied is perhaps not the best way to test their honesty. 😵
03 Mar 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne.....and yet you seemed able to draw your own conclusions without too much difficulty on the back of no statistics at all.
Yeah, there are a number of problems with the study cited by epi that make it difficult to be able to draw broad conclusions with any real confidence.
03 Mar 09
It is my belief that to a large extent our actions are based on our own internal morals which are a result of upbringing, culture, religion etc.
I think it is quite common for religious people to have a different personal set of morals from what they claim their religion requires. The result is we see it as hypocrisy.
I have met a number of Christians who readily admit that they cannot and do not live up to the standards their religion preaches as being 'right'.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by FMFyou presume too much FMF, i was not intent to ridicule anyone nor anyones values, for there seems to me, you must of course realize that i have never set foot on American soil, and have therefore only what has entered the common culture to go by, that in programs like the Little house on the prairie etc, Christian values were taken seriously and had a tangible effect in everyday life and being a hopeless romantic it has saddened me greatly to think that this may have diminished, thus what we are left with is a convenience brand of Christianity, reminiscent and exemplified in Homer Simpson.
I am curious as to why you choose to ridicule Christian values in this particular way.
05 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead....and why is that hypocrisy then? If someone claims to be a follower of good nutrition and diet and exercise but also admits that they do not always live up to the highest ideals of nutritiionalists do we say they are hypocrites?
It is my belief that to a large extent our actions are based on our own internal morals which are a result of upbringing, culture, religion etc.
I think it is quite common for religious people to have a different personal set of morals from what they claim their religion requires. The result is we see it as hypocrisy.
I have met a number of Christians w ...[text shortened]... that they cannot and do not live up to the standards their religion preaches as being 'right'.
Sure , if they go around slagging off others for eating chocolate whilst they themselves have a Mars bar on the go , then that's a different matter.
Most Christians are just being honest about how they aspire to (but also fall short of) God's holiness. You can interpret this as hypocrisy if it suits you but there are many fields where people admit to not living up to their ideals and we don't assume they are hypocrites.