[NGTM-1R]

I understand the imagery it's trying to portray, certainly, but the story used to portray it displays some of the worst aspects of Religious Dogma, that to suffer pain to prove a point is somehow noble or grand. It isn't it's stupid and pointless, especially when there is no cause to do so.

But that's hardly unique to religion. To suffer for your beliefs, to even show willingness to suffer for them, is viewed as noble (not so much grand) in almost any context. And this is much better than the alternative, is it not?

[WMCoolmon]

Wouldn't you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?

Not at all. I for one believe that there is some value and meaning when one person decides to deprive themselves of some luxury in order to honor the suffering of another. If your moral system demands that you reap the rewards bought with another's work then so be it, but don't expect me to find much justice in that.

I find the example given just as manipulative and shady as well. I suppose it's not outright deception and misuse of educational resources since the class in question could be part of a private institution. However, I have a strong dislike of the way that the professor forcibly interprets the situation for the students. My belief is that the point of education is to present the evidence, so to speak, with as little objective interpretation as possible; but to supply the students to come up with their own subjective interpretation.

For the remainder of this post, I'm going to assume that the students are part of a private Christian school, because if it was part of a public school, then something is seriously wrong because the Professor does not respect the idea of separation between church and state at all. Would you feel so comfortable if this example was done with a professor instead preaching Islam or Buddhism?

If the professor had chosen to go through with his example and simply state that what he had done was a direct allegory of Jesus' sacrifice for humanity, and how did that make you feel about being a Christian, I would consider it a very clever example and a way to present a moral quandary that the students would seriously have to consider their beliefs in order to solve. Are you truly comfortable with a religion that demands utter altruism - are you capable of accepting that?

But as the professor twists the situation around in his ending sermon, it becomes not a question of how the students felt about it, but more of a guilt trip on them for not participating in the class. I suppose that you can make some argument that that is also what Christianity is about, a guilt trip to keep people in line by using the emotional impact of Jesus' death, but it is not a very positive one and is likely to alienate people in droves. The professor clearly has an agenda in mind to focus people on his class, and is using all kinds of emotional tools to get to that goal.

I would say that the lesson the students have learned should have been that they have a duty to stand up to a source of authority if what that authority is doing is unquestionably wrong. Whatever happened to the golden rule? Did none of the students in the class think about how they would have felt if they were the one doing push-ups to give other people donuts? Did none of them have the moral fortitude to stand up to the professor and call him out on what he was doing?

As if that wasn't enough, the professor lied about what he told Steve. There isn't any injunction or parable in the Bible against deception, is there?

I suppose the lesson is consistent with Christian moral philosophy in that "The meek shall inherit the earth," and of course "I help those who help themselves." Steve could've easily called a stop to the exercise. Standing up to the professor would've done no good and only made the situation worse, if anything (Another interesting subtext to the lesson, don't stand up to authority figures). But whatever happened to the story of how God selectively chose from the Israelites the most fit, able, brave soldiers at the cost of any numerical superiority? Has that been discarded in favor of mass conversion of anyone who is receptive?

For me, I suppose the story speaks of the kind of injustices that can occur through inaction and from somebody with power thinking that they know better than anyone else. It's the kind of society that I wouldn't want to ever live in, because it forces you to think a certain way or react a certain way, or become so desensitized to the emotional tools that others use in order to ensure your compliance that you would become disconnected from those around you, incapable of basic empathy, and propagate the sort of things that forced you to become so callused in the first place. It's a very unpleasant sort of world to conceive of, where the social and emotional forces are centrifugal for those who do not fit into that codified structure defined by the religion.

I much prefer the freedom that comes with tolerance.

[colecampbell666]

Very cool metaphor, and nicely done. Yes Jesus may have suffered for our sins, but what did it gain us? there is no indication that life would have been worse had he not been staked up.

Indeed...most of the internets is the domain of vocal atheists and religion haters in general. (if anyone is insulted by this it's because you recongnize yourself. If not then good for you)

Just thank God you're not Scientologist.

[karajorma]

I should probably leave the satire to Swift but he'd dead and I'm not so here goes.......

Turning to his class, the professor said, 'My wish is that you might understand and fully comprehend all the riches of grace and mercy that have been given to you through the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He spared not His only Begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all, for the whole Church, now and forever. Whether or not we choose to accept His gift to us, the price has been paid.'

Wouldn't you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?

At this point Professor Alan Theist comes in from next door. Theist has seen Christianson's demonstrations before and has noticed some rather large flaws each time. Professor Theist suggests that any of the students who wish to get a head start on the advanced ethics course (which unlike the Freshman course isn't forced on everybody) may wish to come to the lecture hall next door and hear a counterpoint.

At this point some of the students collect their bags immediately and move. Some think about it and decide to go over. Others decide to turn on some loud music in the lecture hall so they party with Christianson and can't possibly hear anything from next door.

In the advanced ethics lecture hall Prof. A. Theist starts his lecture. "The biggest problem I have with Christanson, is that he expects you all to be perfect. Whenever someone fails to be perfect in my class I don't assume that they deserve to be punished. As long as you tried hard that's good enough for me.
 Furthermore if pretty much everyone fails I wonder if maybe I might be the problem. I set everything up. If the whole class has disappointed me then maybe it's my fault for doing things in the wrong way. If people are skipping my classes maybe my lecturing style is too boring. If people are failing my tests maybe I shouldn't schedule them the day after the superbowl. Yeah Steve managed not to make any mistakes but we all know that Christianson was helping him more than the rest of you. It's easy to be perfect when you're getting help like that. I certainly wouldn't feel guilty for minor mistakes I might make if I was on my own."

"Let me ask you a question. When you got stuck with Christianson's course how many of you tried to find him and ask for help?"

Quite a few hands go up from those in the class.

"How many of you actually got an answer?"

Only a few hands remain up. The professor points to Fiona, one of the girls who still has a hand in the air. "What answer did you get?"

"Well I went to his office but the door was locked" Fiona says "So I shouted "Dr Christianson? Are you there?" but I didn't get any answer so I said "I've got a problem with my essay" and at that point I'm sure I heard a voice say something that sounded like 4th floor. So I went to the 4th floor of the library and found a book that helped me. So I guess that must have been him in the office"

"Are you sure?" says the professor, "How do you know it wasn't the Janitor or the radio?"

"Well I got the right answer" says Fiona "so it must have been him"

"Okay, in that case let me ask everyone. Did anyone actually definitely see Dr. Christianson when they had a problem? I don't mean maybe hear his voice through a door, I mean actually physically see him."

All the hands in the audience stay down this time.

"So in other words despite his need for you all to pass every test and hand in work of high quality, when you needed him he either wasn't there or gave advice that was hard to understand or interpret? What about his notes? Were they easy to follow?"

There's a general shaking of heads. The professor points at one of the male students. "What was the problem with them, Thomas?"

"The second semester notes completely contradicted the ones from the first, sir. They said that a whole bunch of things weren't ethical but the second semester notes said that they were all fine."

The professor nods. "And the second semester is when Steve took over as Christianson's RA, right? Christianson insists that none of the earlier stuff was wrong, simply that the new stuff he collaborated on with Steve supersedes it. So lets have another show of hands, given all that how many of you still feel that making mistakes was all your own fault?"

Only a few hands go up this time.

"Keeping that in mind, let's move on to Steve's so called sacrifice. Christianson said that the only way you could have an end of term party was to be perfect even though he knew you couldn't be. In fact given the poor quality, incomplete notes he gave you it was a forgone conclusion that many of you would fail tests. But despite the fact that Christianson should know that deep down he is the one to blame for that failure he insists that you shouldn't have failed and decides to attach a ridiculous penalty to that failure.

"But then having decided that maybe you could come to his party after all Christianson decides that Steve can do the penalty instead. Did Christianson decide to allow you to do the penalty? Scott, you tried. What was his response?"

Scott stands up and replies that Christianson wouldn't let him.

"Yeah, funny that." says the professor "He let last years class do the push ups themselves. In fact he had a whole chart up on the board detailing exactly how to do them. In fact, I think it's in your first semester notes somewhere. You'd think he'd offer people the choice rather than obligating them to feel guilty to Steve. I guess he likes them feeling guilty to him and he feels that it's a better system than dropping this entire punishment system and simply giving everyone a donut."

[colecampbell666]

Go kara.

[WMCoolmon]

Very well done.

[Stealth]

Indeed...most of the internets is the domain of vocal atheists and religion haters in general.

Only cause the vocal religious people are in general too dumb to figure it out.

actually i like to think it's more like "The only way they can get people to listen to them, is to get online and find them"

[Kosh]

What are they complaining about? In the US they have a monopoly on AM radio.

[Ace]

Hallowed are the Ori

Hallowed are the children of the Ori.

[TrashMan]

Interesting Kara...alltough filled with holes and flaws more than swiss cheese...


Speaking of which, the whole guilt trip..I find the anegdote rather interesting. Guilt has always been a tool trought human history. Still is. In fact, everyone is using it.
When you say to a religious person that he's a mindelss follower and doesn't think, aren't you actually trying to make him feel guilty about that? When a person kills or brakes a law and you scorn him for that, what's that other than imposing a feeling of guilt?
In fact, it's impossible to go trough life without making somebody feel guilty sometimes, weather you want it or not. It's just the way things are.

Now, while that hypothetical approach by that teacher is not something I would do, it is still a good effort. And at the end of the day, trying your best is all you can do...you own words I believe Kara?
But honestly, I don't know why I really bother posting...

[jdjtcagle]

Interesting Kara...alltough filled with holes and flaws more than swiss cheese...


Speaking of which, the whole guilt trip..I find the anegdote rather interesting. Guilt has always been a tool trought human history. Still is. In fact, everyone is using it.
When you say to a religious person that he's a mindelss follower and doesn't think, aren't you actually trying to make him feel guilty about that? When a person kills or brakes a law and you scorn him for that, what's that other than imposing a feeling of guilt?
In fact, it's impossible to go trough life without making somebody feel guilty sometimes, weather you want it or not. It's just the way things are.

Now, while that hypothetical approach by that teacher is not something I would do, it is still a good effort. And at the end of the day, trying your best is all you can do...you own words I believe Kara?
But honestly, I don't know why I really bother posting...

You know what is full of holes?

That spelling
Sorry, I'm guilty of the same crime so no hard feelings?

Really, it looks bad on our position as freethinking Christians in a forum of mostly outspoken atheist.

@G0atmaster - I don't like the metaphor, philosophically speaking it's biased and that turns people off.  IMO a more invitational pattern of thought leads to God (it's a gift) although Christianity deals in absolutes and God convicts as such. 

Anyway, sorry for not adding much to the conversation

[karajorma]

Interesting Kara...alltough filled with holes and flaws more than swiss cheese...

And yet you struggle to find a better one than it's okay for God to drop the guilt bomb on people cause everyone does it?

Now, while that hypothetical approach by that teacher is not something I would do, it is still a good effort.

Christians see is as an affirmation of their faith. Atheists see it as a manipulative way of enforcing arbitrary rules. So yes, it's a very good metaphor for Christianity.

[Stealth]

And yet you struggle to find a better one than it's okay for God to drop the guilt bomb on people cause everyone does it?

just because Christians try to make people feel guilty, doesn't mean that God is trying to.  why would God need to make anyone feel guilty...

[colecampbell666]

Christianity deals in absolutes

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I'm sorry, Anakin jdjtcagle.

[Flipside]

I'm not saying I don't believe in a God, but my faith in religion in general is absolute Zero, I don't think God intended us to worship Him/Her/It at all, I think that is a purely human piece of manipulation. I don't believe Heaven is like some kind of exclusive nightclub with a Bouncer, making sure everyone wears the right shoes, that, too, is a tool of religions across the world, and metaphors such as these make me certain that the whole 'Christ suffering for our sins' line is one of the most subtle pieces of emotional blackmail ever thought of.

I would say that as poor Steve stumbled from the room exhausted, Christ appeared, put a millstone around Mr Chrstiannson's neck and dropped him in the Ocean, as per Biblical requirements.

It's the whole image of a teacher forcing one set of children to make another child suffer in order to impose his own religious views that annoys me, that's not teaching, that's coercion.

As Stealth says, I don't blame any kind of God for this, but I do indeed blame human insecurity, and the willingness of certain people to use things such as emotional blackmail to dominate children, they say it is about religion, but it isn't it's about control, and the security of being in a group that has the same customs as you do.

[TrashMan]

Interesting Kara...alltough filled with holes and flaws more than swiss cheese...

And yet you struggle to find a better one than it's okay for God to drop the guilt bomb on people cause everyone does it?

And when did I say that? I said that guilt is an integral part of humanity and is used by everyone (including you).
God may or may not be using it, but if he does I see no problem with it.

Christians see is as an affirmation of their faith. Atheists see it as a manipulative way of enforcing arbitrary rules. So yes, it's a very good metaphor for Christianity.

Let me answer that graphicly:

[Zoltan]

I'm not saying I don't believe in a God, but my faith in religion in general is absolute Zero, I don't think God intended us to worship Him/Her/It at all, I think that is a purely human piece of manipulation. I don't believe Heaven is like some kind of exclusive nightclub with a Bouncer, making sure everyone wears the right shoes, that, too, is a tool of religions across the world, and metaphors such as these make me certain that the whole 'Christ suffering for our sins' line is one of the most subtle pieces of emotional blackmail ever thought of.

I would say that as poor Steve stumbled from the room exhausted, Christ appeared, put a millstone around Mr Chrstiannson's neck and dropped him in the Ocean, as per Biblical requirements.

It's the whole image of a teacher forcing one set of children to make another child suffer in order to impose his own religious views that annoys me, that's not teaching, that's coercion.

As Stealth says, I don't blame any kind of God for this, but I do indeed blame human insecurity, and the willingness of certain people to use things such as emotional blackmail to dominate children, they say it is about religion, but it isn't it's about control, and the security of being in a group that has the same customs as you do.

I couldn't agree more. I see no problem with belief in a higher being, but quite frankly, religions are made and run by humans. And people (especially in groups with power), are generally manipulative pieces of ****.

[achtung]

And yet you struggle to find a better one than it's okay for God to drop the guilt bomb on people cause everyone does it?

just because Christians try to make people feel guilty, doesn't mean that God is trying to.  why would God need to make anyone feel guilty...

So people would be reminded of him/her/it every time they saw an act of noble self-sacrifice!  I mean, why not have someone else's acts help strengthen your believer's religious conviction? 

Interesting Kara...alltough filled with holes and flaws more than swiss cheese...

And yet you struggle to find a better one than it's okay for God to drop the guilt bomb on people cause everyone does it?

And when did I say that? I said that guilt is an integral part of humanity and is used by everyone (including you).
God may or may not be using it, but if he does I see no problem with it.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that a Christian God is supposed to be perfect, and shouldn't even need to use these coercive methods.

[General Battuta]

Christians see is as an affirmation of their faith. Atheists see it as a manipulative way of enforcing arbitrary rules. So yes, it's a very good metaphor for Christianity.

Let me answer that graphicly:

I don't know, Kara's remark makes sense to me. It takes both sides, doesn't it?

I don't see what you're actually disagreeing with, unless you think atheists don't see it that way...

[karajorma]

Christians see is as an affirmation of their faith. Atheists see it as a manipulative way of enforcing arbitrary rules. So yes, it's a very good metaphor for Christianity.

Let me answer that graphicly:
http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/8076/elephantsbr0.jpg

Your explanation leaves a lot to be desired. Which part is crap? That Christians see it as a good metaphor? That atheists do for different reasons?

Maybe you should take the time to write a proper response rather than going straight to the funny pictures. You know, actually try to participate in an adult discussion rather than trying to reduce it to the juvenile level you're trying to.