| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2011 08:56:11 PM · #2051 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was quoting the Bible, Jesus to be precise ... |
Unless you have a sound recording hidden away somewhere, it accurately reflects what "someone" said Jesus said ... |
Duly noted.
Of course I'm not even sure I'm responding to a guy named Paul. But at the least I'm responding to someone who says this is what Paul thinks. :) |
I know Paul exists, because I've met him. We have driven twisty roads together. I can say the "Paul" in this thread sounds like the Paul I know. But it might not be the Paul I know. What I don't know is whether it matters: given that I have faith in the Paul that was, and cannot distinguish the possibly-would-be-Paul from the Paul-that-was, does any of it matter, if the teachings ring true?
R. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 09:03:37 PM · #2052 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, your first point would then trigger the question again of why Dawkins is so antireligious when acting out "universal love" seems to be considered decent under the religions you mentioned. |
Because religion instantly abandons decency when beliefs are at stake. Muslims may consider freedom of speech an example of decent human rights, but another Pakistani official was murdered today for daring to oppose anti-blasphemy laws and I shouldn't even have to mention Iran. Many of the same Christian groups who feign the virtues of equality and tolerance actively campaign against gay marriage, treading the very same moral trail they blazed against interracial marriage. Plain old human decency doesn't carry these superstitious justifications for prejudice.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Westboro, of course, doesn't represent Christianty any more than skinheads represent Germans or the ELF represents environmentalists. And, your characterization of the abolitionist movement as being mainly secular is revisionist history writ large. |
True enough, but in the same vein your religious views don't represent mainstream Southern Christians before the Civil War. "Starting in the 1830s, there was a vehement and growing ideological defense of slavery. Slave owners claimed that slavery was a positive good for masters and slaves alike, and that it was explicitly sanctioned by God. Biblical arguments were made in defense of slavery by religious leaders such as the Rev. Fred A. Ross and political leaders such as Jefferson Davis. There were Southern biblical interpretations that directly contradicted those of the abolitionists, such as the theory that a curse on Noah's son Ham and his descendants in Africa was a justification for enslavement of blacks." Protestant Christians were as much a pillar of opposition then as are to gay marriage now. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 09:08:15 PM · #2053 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I know Paul exists, because I've met him. We have driven twisty roads together. I can say the "Paul" in this thread sounds like the Paul I know. But it might not be the Paul I know. What I don't know is whether it matters: given that I have faith in the Paul that was, and cannot distinguish the possibly-would-be-Paul from the Paul-that-was, does any of it matter, if the teachings ring true? |
That's hardly comparable. At least you were a direct witness (in stark contrast to any Biblical author), and this Paul isn't the subject of supernatural folktales appearing decades after the fact. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 09:14:22 PM · #2054 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I know Paul exists, because I've met him. We have driven twisty roads together. I can say the "Paul" in this thread sounds like the Paul I know. But it might not be the Paul I know. What I don't know is whether it matters: given that I have faith in the Paul that was, and cannot distinguish the possibly-would-be-Paul from the Paul-that-was, does any of it matter, if the teachings ring true? |
That's hardly comparable. At least you were a direct witness (in stark contrast to any Biblical author), and this Paul isn't the subject of supernatural folktales appearing decades after the fact. |
Give him time; he's already legendary in DPC. Meanwhile, lighten up a little on me: you have GOT to know that was all tongue-in-cheek, right? :-)
R. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 09:20:47 PM · #2055 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, your first point would then trigger the question again of why Dawkins is so antireligious when acting out "universal love" seems to be considered decent under the religions you mentioned. |
Because religion instantly abandons decency when beliefs are at stake. Muslims may consider freedom of speech an example of decent human rights, but another Pakistani official was murdered today for daring to oppose anti-blasphemy laws and I shouldn't even have to mention Iran. Many of the same Christian groups who feign the virtues of equality and tolerance actively campaign against gay marriage, treading the very same moral trail they blazed against interracial marriage. Plain old human decency doesn't carry these superstitious justifications for prejudice.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Westboro, of course, doesn't represent Christianty any more than skinheads represent Germans or the ELF represents environmentalists. And, your characterization of the abolitionist movement as being mainly secular is revisionist history writ large. |
True enough, but in the same vein your religious views don't represent mainstream Southern Christians before the Civil War. "Starting in the 1830s, there was a vehement and growing ideological defense of slavery. Slave owners claimed that slavery was a positive good for masters and slaves alike, and that it was explicitly sanctioned by God. Biblical arguments were made in defense of slavery by religious leaders such as the Rev. Fred A. Ross and political leaders such as Jefferson Davis. There were Southern biblical interpretations that directly contradicted those of the abolitionists, such as the theory that a curse on Noah's son Ham and his descendants in Africa was a justification for enslavement of blacks." Protestant Christians were as much a pillar of opposition then as are to gay marriage now. |
I'm not denying that position, but at every time there were Christians defending slavery, there were those working for its abolition. In fact, if history mentions a single driving force against Western slavery it would have to be William Wilbeforce. I realize it's a bit more complex than that, but you can hardly overstate his life's dedication along with Pennsylvania Quakers and other religious organizations. Similarly, just as there were secular forces opposed to slavery, there were strong secular arguments supporting it. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 09:25:17 PM · #2056 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Give him time; he's already legendary in DPC. Meanwhile, lighten up a little on me: you have GOT to know that was all tongue-in-cheek, right? :-) |
I saw the bulge in your cheek and figured it wasn't an olive. The flawed comparison was made by Jason, not you. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 10:07:09 PM · #2057 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I know Paul exists, because I've met him. We have driven twisty roads together. I can say the "Paul" in this thread sounds like the Paul I know. But it might not be the Paul I know. What I don't know is whether it matters: given that I have faith in the Paul that was, and cannot distinguish the possibly-would-be-Paul from the Paul-that-was, does any of it matter, if the teachings ring true? |
That's hardly comparable. At least you were a direct witness (in stark contrast to any Biblical author), and this Paul isn't the subject of supernatural folktales appearing decades after the fact. |
Give him time; he's already legendary in DPC. Meanwhile, lighten up a little on me: you have GOT to know that was all tongue-in-cheek, right? :-)
R. |
I have walked (some of) the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem, and even been to the Golan Heights, but AFAIK I've never taken the road to Damascus ... :-) |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:59:38 PM · #2058 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But in the end, none of this is new. We should love our enemies and pray for those who are unkind to us. That's what God would want. . |
*LOL*
Ok, so what proof do you have of this? Or is this, like every other statement about god, really more about what you would want, projected into your own theology?
ETA: Don't even worry about "proof" because I know Christians tend to have a very odd definition of proof..... Instead, let me ask, what observations have you made, directly, that have led you to this conclusion? |
I was quoting the Bible, Jesus to be precise, so it quite accurately reflects the Christian position. |
^------ o_O |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:09:20 AM · #2059 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We should love our enemies and pray for those who are unkind to us. That's what God would want. |
*irony* I just stumbled across this in a rant thread from 2008 and cracked up:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The fallacy with that is you presume to know the mind of God. |
|
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:26:44 AM · #2060 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We should love our enemies and pray for those who are unkind to us. That's what God would want. |
*irony* I just stumbled across this in a rant thread from 2008 and cracked up:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The fallacy with that is you presume to know the mind of God. |
|
:) This makes me happy. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 01:06:34 AM · #2061 |
You guys are silly. Corey asked me what my proof was for saying what I said. Since I was speaking about what the Christian position was, it is clearly reasonable to quote the Bible as authoritative for how Christians feel. Since it seems Corey is not quite as up on his biblical passages as I suspect others are, I'll quote the passage:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
I didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I know you guys don't even believe in God. Why would I present the passage as anything other than representing the Christian position?
The larger picture, what I often hear, is the thesis that Christianity stands in the way of this "universal love". In fact, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the removal of Christianity, or religion in general, would lead to a more "universally loving" culture. If there is any evidence one way or the other, it is to suggest that ingroup/outgroup activity would continue unabated and may even increase.
We all argree that there are elements of "human nature" that need to be combatted. Christianity, however, rather than an encouragement to these base elements, acts as a brake. Take abolition. Human nature encourages people to subjugate others for their own benefit. When we see Christianity used to support this activity (as Shannon pointed out), it is only done by people with a personal interest in such activity. That's human nature warping Christianity, not the other way around. We do not see Northern churches arguing that they, too, should also own slaves. We do not see examples where Christians were reticent to own slaves, but convinced that they should do so because of the precepts of their faith. We only see people who want slaves because they are benefitted by them and using Christianity to try to get their way.
Message edited by author 2011-03-03 01:07:16. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 01:29:17 AM · #2062 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When we see Christianity used to support this activity (as Shannon pointed out), it is only done by people with a personal interest in such activity. That's human nature warping Christianity, not the other way around. |
Better tell that to the authors of the new testament. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 05:21:17 AM · #2063 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[
I was quoting the Bible, Jesus to be precise, so it quite accurately reflects the Christian position. |
Sorry Doc, but quoting the bible, (for some of us at least) is most certainly NOT exactly what we would consider proof.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 07:27:51 AM · #2064 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The larger picture, what I often hear, is the thesis that Christianity stands in the way of this "universal love". In fact, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the removal of Christianity, or religion in general, would lead to a more "universally loving" culture. If there is any evidence one way or the other, it is to suggest that ingroup/outgroup activity would continue unabated and may even increase.
...We only see people who want slaves because they are benefitted by them and using Christianity to try to get their way. |
I think that's a fair summary: religion has relatively little impact on human morality (which is why, being a realist, its absence would have little or no effect). Rather, human nature informs religious expression and belief.
It's not what you've been arguing though.
I'd go further and say that secular political philosophy is probably a bigger influence on modern human morality (liberty, equality, fundamental human rights, free speech, freedom of religious expression etc). Tension results from the need of religious institutions to keep up with developments in moral philosophies and scientific breakthroughs - both of which constantly chip away at what used to be the exclusive domain of religion.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2011 09:42:18 AM · #2065 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Corey asked me what my proof was for saying what I said. Since I was speaking about what the Christian position was, it is clearly reasonable to quote the Bible as authoritative for how Christians feel. |
So posting the relevant biblical quotes would serve as proof that Christians believe snakes can talk, rabbits chew their cud, true believers can drink deadly poison without harm, etc.?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the removal of Christianity, or religion in general, would lead to a more "universally loving" culture. If there is any evidence one way or the other, it is to suggest that ingroup/outgroup activity would continue unabated and may even increase. |
LOL "There is absolutely no evidence, but if there is, it's this..." We'll just consider it a coincidence that Scandinavian countries perennially rank at or near the top of rankings for both happiness and social spending and near the bottom for belief in gods. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 10:49:30 AM · #2066 |
But of course Scandanavian countries were very much like that before they became more and more secular. It isn't as if they went from a country constantly at war with itself to one of peace and tranquility. Follow along with me. If you consider Christianity to be an impediment to the ideals of "universal love", then we are looking for examples where there was less "universal love" before and more after Christianity was discarded. A second issue, of course, is that these countries are not completely secular. It is possible the underpinnings of religious life, even at a lower level, are enough to keep society functioning well. You are scientific enough to know that the evidence you seek would be very hard to come by because of the complexity of culture. There are far too many variables for you to be able to pin any increase in "love" on a decrease in religion. Yet, you confidently make that assertion.
EDIT: I had to look this up because I actually didn't know it, but even in these Scandenavian countries, it's still a minority that doesn't believe in God or some "life-force". Sweden 23%, Denmark 19%, Norway 17%, Finland 16%. (source) Those numbers seem pretty low to suddenly declare the societies as hallmarks of secular thought. Let's put it this way. If I were to present this level of evidence to assert the opposite hypothesis, you would laugh me out of the room.
Message edited by author 2011-03-03 12:00:30. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 11:59:02 AM · #2067 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So posting the relevant biblical quotes would serve as proof that Christians believe snakes can talk, rabbits chew their cud, true believers can drink deadly poison without harm, etc.? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Of course Christians believe those things, but only as miracles and not the standard way things are. |
I have to admit that I fully expected you to move the goalposts here rather than make the most insane response possible. None of the examples I listed were miracles, but biblical assertions of the standard way things are.
Message edited by author 2011-03-03 11:59:57. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:01:39 PM · #2068 |
| So this is your line of reasoning? He makes some good points about religious life...must talk about rabbits and snakes. Pretty typical. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:09:05 PM · #2069 |
I'll tell you what. For the purposes of this argument I totally concede the point to you. The Bible contains factual errors of science. How does this change the fact that if one were to try deduce Christian tenets about ingroup/outgroup behavior a good source would be the purported words of Jesus because Christians universally accept them as instructive for their doctrines? It doesn't. You so love red herrings I'm beginning to think you are part seal.
If a student came up to me and said, "I'm writing a dissertation on Christian views on ingroup/outgroup behavior, but I don't know anything. Where do you think I should look for help?" you suggest my answer should be, "Don't look in the Bible, it has talking snakes and cud chewing rabbits."?
Message edited by author 2011-03-03 12:11:49. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:15:20 PM · #2070 |
| My reasoning is that you cannot use a quote from the Bible as proof of what Christians believe unless it's actually true that Christians believe every quote from the Bible. Clearly they do not. Some Pentecostal churches handle venomous snakes because the Bible says they can. Does that mean you believe the same thing? At best you can say that some Christians believe a given quote, but then it's no more convincing than what some people believe about UFOs. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:17:21 PM · #2071 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If a student came up to me and said, "I'm writing a dissertation on Christian views on ingroup/outgroup behavior, but I don't know anything. Where do you think I should look for help?" |
I would suggest actual studies of Christian ingroup/outgroup behavior since Biblical belief varies wildly between denominations and sects. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:18:38 PM · #2072 |
| A non-religious friend of mine (his dog's name is Darwin) joined a church for a while in order to network. He's a financial advisor. Broke into that group, LOL. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:21:26 PM · #2073 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
My reasoning is that you cannot use a quote from the Bible as proof of what Christians believe unless it's actually true that Christians believe every quote from the Bible. |
HAHAHAHAHAHA.....
If someone were to be writing a dissertation of what people who believed in evolution thought regarding evolution, would reading Darwin's Origin of Species be a good place to look? Does that mean you believe every quote in that book? (careful with your answer...)
Message edited by author 2011-03-03 12:24:06. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:46:23 PM · #2074 |
| I'm gonna check out for a while. It's a busy day and the fact that we are actually arguing as to whether the Bible can be instructive as to Christian thinking is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 02:23:15 PM · #2075 |
Just stopped by to drop this link I happened to see when opening Google news. Interesting stuff...
Rare anti-slavery pamplet acquired by U.Va.
If you want the cliff notes for the sake of this argument:
In the 76-page, 8½-inch-by-5-inch pamphlet, Walker urged slaves to rise up against their owners, and argued for the abolition of slavery on moral and Christian theological grounds.
"It really was the very first document in the United States to call for the immediate, uncompensated abolition of slavery," said Harry L. Watson, director of the University of North Carolina's Center for the Study of the American South.
|
|
