Cultural Christians.

[William]

Elon Musk has identified himself as a cultural Christian in a new interview.

"While Im not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise I would say Im probably a cultural Christian," the Tesla CEO said during a conversation on X with Jordan Peterson today. "Theres tremendous wisdom in turning the other cheek."

Christian beliefs, Musk argued, "result in the greatest happiness for humanity, considering not just the present, but all future humans Im actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think theyre very good."

{SOURCE}

For debate.

Q: Is it better for the world to be a Cultural Christian than an all-out anti-theist?

Also.

Q: Is it better to be a Cultural Christian that belong to any organised Christian religion?

Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #96]

I am compelled by my interest in your point of view and my questions are focused on wanting more information so I can better understand your position and what you are trying to convey.

I'm trying to convey that a society need not be "Culturally Christian" to be moral.

It appears you are on a different tangent to the definition provided and the questions asked in the OP.

[William]

Everything impacts on everything else and that is the nature of nature.

What kind of things do you think people should and shouldn't apologise for? We're reasonably responsible for not having avoidable negative impacts on others, right? My example is, a comet hits Earth.

Regular Joe: "I'm so sorry I don't have superpowers and didn't stop that impact. Maybe if I'd worked harder, I could have manifested some, or built a space bat or something."
Freelance Superhero: "I'm sorry I missed that one. I was elsewhere."
Superhero on Government Paycheck: "I'm extremely sorry about that comet impact. I really dropped the ball. They called me about the comet and I actually am supposed to be on call, but I was passed out drunk."

Which of these apologies sound fair or genuine to you? Is the first one disingenuous by nature?

How did this become a question of what one thinks one should/should not apologise for? Can you tie it back to the thread subject?

[Purple Knight]

But we have to, don't we? I seem to recall Jesus teaching about ways to identify false teachers (1) so one has to exercise a little discrimination to see whether a teaching be of God. It doesn't help when the idea seems to be to not Question too much but have Faith.

Some people, not limited to the religious these days, just go with whatever the first authority they encounter teaches them, and never budge, thinking that anything that goes against that is wrong, and only think they might be wrong if their authority they vested trust in, becomes laughed at by many.

I'll call this the Violet Wager:

If I am so defunct that I can be saved only by trusting others, I don't deserve to be saved, and since my own judgment is bad anyway, there's no way I can guarantee I pick the right person. If I pick the wrong person, the fact that they have better judgment than me doesn't mean they have better intent. So I have to lean on my own judgment anyway, or I could do a lot of evil.

If I am not defunct, and I can be saved (or, as an atheist, I think do good in the world) by trusting my own judgment, then not only should I, but if I decide my judgment is bad and to trust others I consider wiser, I could go to Hell, or even hurt people, when I don't deserve to.

[Purple Knight]

How did this become a question of what one thinks one should/should not apologise for? Can you tie it back to the thread subject?

Yes. I said some Christian teachings lean abusive, and JW essentially said they weren't abusive, because all those things that can be interpreted as abusive, which the Bible says, are actually true.

But there are some parts of the Bible that lean abusive.

Nobody's perfect: Is that an abusive teaching or an observable reality? I have yet to meet the person that has never made a mistake or needed to be forgiven.

I get distracted because of this nobody's-perfect nonsense because I consider it to be a religious belief, which I have encountered people claiming to be all doubt and observation, still holding. They tell it to one another and recite it like a hymn. It's not true, nobody considers that it might not be true, and it really burns my biscuits.

But as far as trying not to get distracted again, and staying true to the thread topic, I think something can be true and abusive. And keeping people under your boot always saying they're sorry is the worst form of abuse I can imagine. Yes, even if the things they're being sorry for, are true. Oh look you burned the dinner again. Yet again, you sorry piece of trash, you dropped the drink on the floor. Once more you fail, and fail, and fail, and fail. That's all you can do, so apologise again. This is something nobody should do to people, not even God.

[Purple Knight]

Now, is that hateful of you to say that ( "nobody's perfect") or is it not rather a statement of fact?

It can be both. It isn't always both, but it certainly can be. I'll admit I'm glad to be able to say it. Some places you can't, because some flat truths about people are already recognised as hateful. I like this - open debate - much better. But that doesn't mean telling the truth can't be abusive.

To be completely honest with you, I've been in a relationship with a perfect person, meaning no errors in judgment. It was Hell on Earth, apologising every 30 seconds. They never did anything worthy of it. They never even made a typo that I know of. And they would certainly never make the kinds of idiot mistakes I do, like burying the cup measurer at the bottom of 10lbs of sugar. That's a genuine mistake. I'm 100% responsible. I knew the cup was in there. I simply didn't think to think about it. They expect me to apologise, they probably should, and I do. For at least the tenth time that day if not the twentieth.

If one recognises one's mistakes and allows for those of others is this an "abusive" worldview or is it not just a balanced and realistic approach to the human experience?

As you describe it there, I would say balanced and realistic, but it depends how much you expect others to grovel and say they're sorry, and if you expect them to apologise just for existing. If someone made a typo, proofread, and didn't find it, that implies to me that they did their due diligence and the mistake was unavoidable. Without a larger context where they charisma'd their way through an interview and claimed a position as senior editor, they're not responsible for it. They're responsible for proofreading, which they did. Asking them to be sorry their wiring isn't perfect is asking them to be sorry they exist, and that's not right.

Will personal relationships be helped or hindered if we go into them expecting perfection from either ourselves or others?

Who expects perfection in this context? The person demanding that people take ownership of their mistakes and apologise, or the one saying, no, maybe we're not that responsible for every little thing?

TL;DR version: Whether "nobody's perfect" is abusive or merely truthful depends on how much you harp on it. And I don't expect people to apologise for typos if they did proofread.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #101]

I'm trying to convey that a society need not be "Culturally Christian" to be moral.

It appears you are on a different tangent to the definition provided and the questions asked in the OP.

Frome the OP:

Q: Is it better for the world to be a Cultural Christian than an all-out anti-theist?

Also.

Q: Is it better to be a Cultural Christian that belong to any organised Christian religion?

How am I on a different tangent?

[JehovahsWitness]

Nobody's perfect: Is that an abusive teaching or an observable reality? ...

I get distracted because of this nobody's-perfect nonsense ...

1. Why is it" nonsense" when you yourself admitted it to be true.
2. Do you believe only religious people say "nobody's perfect"?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #96]

I am compelled by my interest in your point of view and my questions are focused on wanting more information so I can better understand your position and what you are trying to convey.

I'm trying to convey that a society need not be "Culturally Christian" to be moral.

It appears you are on a different tangent to the definition provided and the questions asked in the OP.

It's the usual propaganda peddled by Christianity. The "You need it, true or not" apologetic.

The counter is, that you really don't. We need a moral code for society, and we need to know (be taught) why we need it, and understand why we so often ignore it.

But society in general had been hoodwinked into thinking that morality and moral codes comes from religion. It doesn't, and we can see this in that any religious society, or even irreligious ones like communist societies, have to have morality and law codes, even if they don't all agree.

The political swindle (same as the religious one) if s for the authorities to try to take credit for anything good and try to blame someone else for the bad.

The idea; the scam idea, that Christianity has peddled is that the Bible gives us a sound moral code. It borrowed a decent one fore the time, which of course endorsed slavery, subjection of women and political division. We know better now, but Christianity still tries to pretend that it is a valid source of morals. We know we can do better.

Dawkins' Cultural Christianity is different. He accepts and values his national history, as I do. But I think we rather learn from it what not to do than take it as a role model (unless we are the ignorant and bigoted chauvinist mocked by Al Murray in his standup routines).

I'm not going to say much about Elon Musk, whose reusable rocket stages made me a fan. But his car is rubbish, the hyperlink unworkable and his underground car -link virtually useless. And his support for the russian aggression against Ukraise is damn' near criminal.

So I can hardly be impressed by trying to use his opinions on Christianity or morality as some kind of Authority figure for Christianity as a reliable basis for morality.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

Everything impacts on everything else and that is the nature of nature.

What kind of things do you think people should and shouldn't apologise for? We're reasonably responsible for not having avoidable negative impacts on others, right? My example is, a comet hits Earth.

Regular Joe: "I'm so sorry I don't have superpowers and didn't stop that impact. Maybe if I'd worked harder, I could have manifested some, or built a space bat or something."
Freelance Superhero: "I'm sorry I missed that one. I was elsewhere."
Superhero on Government Paycheck: "I'm extremely sorry about that comet impact. I really dropped the ball. They called me about the comet and I actually am supposed to be on call, but I was passed out drunk."

Which of these apologies sound fair or genuine to you? Is the first one disingenuous by nature?

How did this become a question of what one thinks one should/should not apologise for? Can you tie it back to the thread subject?

I spent a while watching scambaiters videos. For those unfamiliar, they are basically Indian call - centers that ring victims pretending to be legitimate companies and have various ways of cheating the victim. Scambaiters hack into their computers and delete or steal all their files. I recall one lousebag who did the usual 'What you do? Give me my files back".
Baiter. "No, you are a scammer. You cheat people out of their money."
"I'm sorry. Give me my files back."

That has to be most insincere apology of the century. Of course, if he has really been sorry, he would not have wanted his scam - information files back.

I see no point in mind games about superheroes not being able to do everything. They save a bus going over a cliff, but Lois' car has at that time been buried in an avalanche. And even superheroes have their limits. We can't save everyone, but we can 'light a candle', rather than curse the darkness. And yes, we can indeed quote the Bible when it borrows philosophic moral ideas that are good. But we can do better than some of the moral guidance, like 'force onto others who don't believe what you do what you think would be good for them" which is what the twisted Christian version of the Golden rule translates as. Never mind the vale of tears scam. And even then, the gospels are not to blame for televangelists or the prosperity gospel. Rather it warned against false prophets and those who used the temple as a cover for their money grubbing.

The USA for a start needs to overturn a few tables, come the election.

But there we are. No point to grovel over mistakes; admit them (which the bigots and scammers, religious or political, never do) and do better. Light a candle, see the glass as half full, know how good life really is, and don't let yourself be fooled into thinking the world is spiritually sick by those who want to peddle the fake cure of religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I was going from your starting statement, which to me implied a mistake in the context (the context of not being perfect) was something somebody would have to apologise for.

Even typos should be apologised for, especially if they impact someone else. Even if they don't the are evident one has not for perfect control over ones hand eye coordination: this is not perfection.

Everything impacts on everything else and that is the nature of nature.
Would you argue that nature is imperfect.

Perhaps perfection us simply in the I of the one experiencing life in the universe
Perhaps God is not perfect in the way some folks imagine perfection ought be

Perhaps that is why some point fingers at others accusing them of not being perfect "like God is perfect"

Of course, nature is imperfect. Human eyes are less good than those of some other critters. Our skeletons were not originally adapted for walking upright. It had to evolve to do it.

We can imagine an ideal of perfection (superheroes able to do anything) or a society rid of all the imperfections, like the original Startrek Universe was based on, and they are fine as aspirations to work towards, but not a supposed perfection we should have and we are all miserable sinners because we can't do it. Even without the religious scam of selling us the religious snake oil for the sickness of 'Sin'.