| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/03/2011 02:30:04 PM · #2076 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
Do you think that the christian argument may have been required in order for it to be taken seriously? I suspect that many, many times that sort of content is added / considered simply because christians are basically incapible of accepting any new thought or idea, unless it is demonstrated that scripture supports the assertation?
In short, is it really a part of the genesis of these thoughts, or is it simply a required part of any argumnt (even today if you want the christians on board, then you'd better support your position through scripture) |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 03:53:46 PM · #2077 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Do you think that the christian argument may have been required in order for it to be taken seriously? I suspect that many, many times that sort of content is added / considered simply because christians are basically incapible of accepting any new thought or idea, unless it is demonstrated that scripture supports the assertation?
In short, is it really a part of the genesis of these thoughts, or is it simply a required part of any argumnt (even today if you want the christians on board, then you'd better support your position through scripture) |
That's an interesting hypothesis. I guess supporting evidence would be to see a consistent, but failed secular argument which was finally successful when the Christian argument was added to bolster things. I'm not enough of a historian to be able to declare this was NOT the case, but this pamphlet, for example, would weigh against that since they indicated this was among the very first, if not the first, pamphlets urging unconditional abolition. Likewise, the story in Britain also seems not to support the hypothesis. It took William Wilbeforce twenty plus years to effect abolition (and then only after his death). His argument was Christian throughout.
EDIT: I just understood a second possible interpretation of your post. Do you mean that the author of the pamphlet only added the Christian argument because he knew he needed it to be taken seriously and didn't subscribe to it himself? That I would pretty quickly reject unless you have good evidence to support it. What gain would we have making that assumption other than your a priori wish to discount the Christian impact? It doesn't provide any other insight. My paragraph above was about the overarching argument of abolition in society, not just this one pamphlet.
PS: If you value wiki, it appears he was a real Christian. (David Walker, abolitionist)
Message edited by author 2011-03-03 16:03:13. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 04:17:57 PM · #2078 |
| Stupid athiests causing slavery. Good think the Christians stepped in and abolished it. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 04:26:02 PM · #2079 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Stupid athiests causing slavery. Good think the Christians stepped in and abolished it. |
lol |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 04:26:31 PM · #2080 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Stupid athiests causing slavery. Good think the Christians stepped in and abolished it. |
Preach it brutha! ;P |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 07:04:14 PM · #2081 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Do you think that the christian argument may have been required in order for it to be taken seriously? I suspect that many, many times that sort of content is added / considered simply because christians are basically incapible of accepting any new thought or idea, unless it is demonstrated that scripture supports the assertation?
In short, is it really a part of the genesis of these thoughts, or is it simply a required part of any argumnt (even today if you want the christians on board, then you'd better support your position through scripture) |
That's an interesting hypothesis. I guess supporting evidence would be to see a consistent, but failed secular argument which was finally successful when the Christian argument was added to bolster things. I'm not enough of a historian to be able to declare this was NOT the case, but this pamphlet, for example, would weigh against that since they indicated this was among the very first, if not the first, pamphlets urging unconditional abolition. Likewise, the story in Britain also seems not to support the hypothesis. It took William Wilbeforce twenty plus years to effect abolition (and then only after his death). His argument was Christian throughout.
EDIT: I just understood a second possible interpretation of your post. Do you mean that the author of the pamphlet only added the Christian argument because he knew he needed it to be taken seriously and didn't subscribe to it himself? That I would pretty quickly reject unless you have good evidence to support it. What gain would we have making that assumption other than your a priori wish to discount the Christian impact? It doesn't provide any other insight. My paragraph above was about the overarching argument of abolition in society, not just this one pamphlet.
PS: If you value wiki, it appears he was a real Christian. (David Walker, abolitionist) |
Well, the first is the more useful interpretation, as there's some measurable hypothesis, which, you know I like a lot!
The second, I think, is mostly useless, as even if he was a "fake" Christian there would be no way to tell... (which, btw, I think any Christian who will selectively believe and disbelieve in their holy book is pretty much fake by definition, as I feel it's pretty much 100% or 0% when it comes to faith, but of course, this is a tangent)....
Essentially, if he was a "fake" Christian, then he would have a great need to keep his lack of faith a secret, much like dear Mother Teresa did (except those silly little letters that she later wanted destroyed)... Of course, I'm sure you'll see that article as a win, where I see a huge fail. Many, many, many people have had to do a great job of pretending to believe in whatever religion, either to gain status/success, or simply to avoid a horrible death. And, of course, I have huge problems with that, as it's a great illustration of the threat that religion (in general) presents. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 08:29:00 PM · #2082 |
LOL, nope gays are bad again, the bible says so.
See that's the whole problem right there, no self-checking, you can support whatever position you want with a little scripture, some faith, and a cup of tea.
Everyone claims to know what the bible supports, and what God wants, but they disagree so regularly that it seems pretty logical to conclude that all of the participants are basically engaging in one huge circle jerk that ends in bloody warfare over every freaking subject that comes up for debate, with neither side having any evidence, but both sides claiming to be the righteous cause.. Don't you see a pattern? Don't you see a problem? I know I'm not just imagining this shit. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 09:43:50 PM · #2083 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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? |
No, it wouldn't. People believe all sorts of things about evolution, often erroneously. I seriously doubt a significant percentage have even read 'On the Origin of Species', so their thoughts on the subject obviously didn't come from that book. What you could get is Darwin's reasoning and insights that led to the theory of evolution because: we know he actually wrote it, the original manuscripts still exist, no personal interpretation is required, and we can rationally examine those same insights and logical conclusions today without invoking magic... none of which holds true for the Bible. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 09:58:25 PM · #2084 |
So, Shannon, it's your position that if we want to study and understand peoples' positions on any topic whatsoever, we should ignore the source materials since some of the people have never read them?
Personally, I'd think if I wanted to study ANYthing related to a particular topic, I'd be best served to go to the source and get an understanding of that topic, so I could better comprehend how people have deviated from that.
But what do *I* know, anyway...?
R. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 10:33:56 PM · #2085 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Personally, I'd think if I wanted to study ANYthing related to a particular topic, I'd be best served to go to the source and get an understanding of that topic, so I could better comprehend how people have deviated from that. |
Yes, studying reference material makes sense for understanding the topic, but it DOESN'T make sense for understanding people's beliefs on the topic. Quoting the 14th amendment does not necessarily equal what people believe about the the rights of native-born infants, and quoting the Bible does not equal what people believe about Christianity. This is easily demonstrated. The final book of the New Testament says, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." So, would quoting the above make any sense at all as "proof" that Christians believe people are judged according to their works? Clearly not– we've heard endless arguments in these threads that only faith matters, not works. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 10:34:15 PM · #2086 |
Maybe it's a semantics thing again (hey, there's a surprise). Perhaps what I ought to have said is, "this is what Christianity has to say about outgroup treatment." rather than "this is what Christians have to say about outgroup treatment". It's silly that one has to point these things out and they are not assumed, but whatever. Talking with Shannon is like walking though oobleck.
In any rational conversation, quoting the Bible to reflect Christian ideology wouldn't garner a second thought. Especially when it would be quoting Christ, in the sermon on the mount. If there is any "desert island chapter", this would be it. My evidence can, of course, be rejected, but that isn't my worry. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 10:35:50 PM · #2087 |
Shannon of course left out the next two lines of that passage:
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
So salvation seems to be dependent on being in the book of life, not by our actions. We will be held to account for our actions for sure, but our salvation is based upon being in the book of life.
So of course when things are taken out of context it can be made to look like Christians should believe all sorts of things.
Message edited by author 2011-03-03 22:39:18. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 11:25:04 PM · #2088 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
So salvation seems to be dependent on being in the book of life, not by our actions. We will be held to account for our actions for sure, but our salvation is based upon being in the book of life. |
Thank you for emphasizing my point with exclamation marks and highlighter: ye olde personal interpretation thing ensures that quotes cannot be used as proof of what people believe. The bible says true believers can handle venomous snakes and drink deadly poison without harm, so I should be able to quote that passage as what Christians believe, right? Not a chance. Read that quote again. "...which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." So what exactly is the point of judging if merely being on the list is all that matters? A simple roll call would suffice if the bouncer was only looking for a name.
It looks like Jason's going for the, "OK, you get into heaven, but it says here in this book that you fried ants with a magnifying glass, so you have to sit in the nosebleed seats and we're cutting your daily ration of virgins. Be thankful you weren't a Peruvian indian who never heard of Jesus or someone raised to believe in Allah. They're toast." Never mind the absurdity of an omniscient being having a list to keep track of names, although there IS a precedent: "he's making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice..."
More to the point, Sneezy is trying to reconcile his oft-stated belief that faith is the only requirement for salvation. If there's anything you should be able to declare as something Christians believe, the means of achieving salvation would be it since that's the whole object of the game. And yet, you can't point to a favorite quote from Jesus or any other character as evidence that "Christians believe only faith is required for salvation." According to the Catholic Church (as in, THE SINGLE LARGEST GROUP OF CHRISTIANS) salvation is "received at baptism; may be lost by mortal sin; regained by penance." |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 11:41:13 PM · #2089 |
oi vey.
There are two ways to gain salvation. 1) A perfect life. 2) Faith in Jesus Christ as your savior.
You die. You are judged. Did you live a perfect life? No. Do you then have Jesus Christ as your savior? Yes. You are saved. If you weren't initially judged (and found lacking), what would Jesus be saving you from? It makes perfect consistent sense if you give it a moment's thought. But you always try to look at everything in the most distorted way possible.
Message edited by author 2011-03-03 23:42:04. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 11:46:33 PM · #2090 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
oi vey.
There are two ways to gain salvation. 1) A perfect life. 2) Faith in Jesus Christ as your savior.
You die. You are judged. Did you live a perfect life? No. Do you then have Jesus Christ as your savior? Yes. You are saved. If you weren't initially judged (and found lacking), what would Jesus be saving you from? It makes perfect consistent sense if you give it a moment's thought. But you always try to look at everything in the most distorted way possible. |
...But what about those poor souls that pre-dated Jesus, never heard of him or were raised in other religions. Surely you can't possibly mean that a supreme being would save only Christians.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 12:10:13 AM · #2091 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
oi vey.
There are two ways to gain salvation. 1) A perfect life. 2) Faith in Jesus Christ as your savior.
You die. You are judged. Did you live a perfect life? No. Do you then have Jesus Christ as your savior? Yes. You are saved. |
And then the Catholic with a Jewish accent says, "Oy vey."
There is one way to gain salvation. 1) You are baptized.
You die. If you were baptized and lived a perfect life, you're saved. If you weren't baptized, you go skinny dipping in lava. If you were baptized, but committed mortal sin, you join the guys treading fire unless you repented.
Still think you can quote the Bible as proof of what Christians believe? I'll believe in miracles if you ever grasp the folly of your exercise.
BTW... the faith OR perfect life concept of salvation you posted doesn't exactly lend credence to your notion of morality coming from religion. By this test, the most immoral person on the planet goes to heaven if he has faith, while it's possible for a disbeliever to lead a perfectly moral life. Whoopsie!
Message edited by author 2011-03-04 00:21:36. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 12:38:07 AM · #2092 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There are two ways to gain salvation. 1) A perfect life. 2) Faith in Jesus Christ as your savior. |
A fly by post, maybe, but a few honest questions. How does/would Jesus define a perfect life?
Does one need to desire salvation to justify faith in Christ? If so, does that desire render the faith disingenuous, i.e., imperfect? Is salvation attainable? |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 12:43:31 AM · #2093 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
doesn't exactly lend credence to your notion of morality coming from religion. |
What I find interesting in this segment, as you imply, is that morality can not possibly come from one aspect of life. Our Rabbi certainly teaches morality to our kids, but so do I, and not necessarily from the position of faith. Limiting the source of morality to religion is a strong value judgment that walks a line of chaos. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 12:47:43 AM · #2094 |
I guess I need to know what is available to me to support things that I write here. What can I use as evidence? If Louis contends that Dawkins' idea of "universal love" has never been seen and I want to counter by saying such an idea is not new, what could I write that would be accepted?
I really want to know.
I should also hear from all of you, because if only one of you answers, then I can't be sure that's what all of you think.
I then want to know if this level of evidence is being applied equally in the conversation. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 12:57:48 AM · #2095 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There are two ways to gain salvation. 1) A perfect life. 2) Faith in Jesus Christ as your savior. |
A fly by post, maybe, but a few honest questions. How does/would Jesus define a perfect life?
Does one need to desire salvation to justify faith in Christ? If so, does that desire render the faith disingenuous, i.e., imperfect? Is salvation attainable? |
Hey Ben. Nice to drop by. :) I am honestly not sure I understand your second group of questions. Can you clarify? Also, it's always helpful to know where you are coming from (did I catch you are Jewish from your other post mentioning Rabbis?) because then I know what vocabulary I can potentially use and how it will be understood.
As for your first question, that's actually a pretty good one. This is off the top of my head, so bear with me. Jesus, in his conversation with the rich young ruler, mentions the ten commandments, but he goes a step further and talks about giving everything to the poor and following Him. In the Sermon on the Mount he also clearly indicates that motives and intent are as important, if not more important, than actions. All-in-all it's a very high standard. I have always thought it doesn't matter in the end because even if we used our own standard, we all fail to meet our own standard of perfection (if we are honest). |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 07:38:39 AM · #2096 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
oi vey.
There are two ways to gain salvation. 1) A perfect life. 2) Faith in Jesus Christ as your savior.
You die. You are judged. Did you live a perfect life? No. Do you then have Jesus Christ as your savior? Yes. You are saved. If you weren't initially judged (and found lacking), what would Jesus be saving you from? It makes perfect consistent sense if you give it a moment's thought. But you always try to look at everything in the most distorted way possible. |
There you go again, acting like what you believe is fact..
Give me one shred of logic that leads you to this conclusion, with using the bible or feelings, or ...... |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 07:42:41 AM · #2097 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess I need to know what is available to me to support things that I write here. What can I use as evidence? If Louis contends that Dawkins' idea of "universal love" has never been seen and I want to counter by saying such an idea is not new, what could I write that would be accepted?
I really want to know.
I should also hear from all of you, because if only one of you answers, then I can't be sure that's what all of you think.
I then want to know if this level of evidence is being applied equally in the conversation. |
Something that is testable and able to be disproven if incorrect. No self referencing, no feelings, no voices in your head. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 07:44:38 AM · #2098 |
n/m
Message edited by author 2011-03-04 07:45:18. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 09:55:41 AM · #2099 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There are two ways to gain salvation. 1) A perfect life. 2) Faith in Jesus Christ as your savior. |
A fly by post, maybe, but a few honest questions. How does/would Jesus define a perfect life?
Does one need to desire salvation to justify faith in Christ? If so, does that desire render the faith disingenuous, i.e., imperfect? Is salvation attainable? |
Hey Ben. Nice to drop by. :) I am honestly not sure I understand your second group of questions. Can you clarify? Also, it's always helpful to know where you are coming from (did I catch you are Jewish |
Yes. With regards to the second question, does your paradigm require the desire for salvation? If I do not have the desire for salvation, can I still have faith in Christ?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As for your first question, that's actually a pretty good one. This is off the top of my head, so bear with me. Jesus, in his conversation with the rich young ruler, mentions the ten commandments, but he goes a step further and talks about giving everything to the poor and following Him. In the Sermon on the Mount he also clearly indicates that motives and intent are as important, if not more important, than actions. All-in-all it's a very high standard. I have always thought it doesn't matter in the end because even if we used our own standard, we all fail to meet our own standard of perfection (if we are honest). |
This is essentially what most of us have heard for much of our lives.
Corey, I don't think a testable hypothesis is needed for religion. Defeats the purpose of spirituality. But I will say that I've yet to accept the logic of salvation through an imperfect life (let's just use the pedophile priests as an example) just because they believe and purport to have faith. I believe that type of faith deserves the desire for salvation which, one would hope, lead to living a "good" life (like not destroying children). You linked Teresa earlier, I wonder if she led this type of life. Full of doubt and uncertainty but a true desire for salvation which bolstered her life and actions. More than respectable in my book, and requires no proof, just her prior actions.
Message edited by author 2011-03-04 09:56:10. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 10:28:02 AM · #2100 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Corey, I don't think a testable hypothesis is needed for religion. Defeats the purpose of spirituality. But I will say that I've yet to accept the logic of salvation through an imperfect life (let's just use the pedophile priests as an example) just because they believe and purport to have faith. I believe that type of faith deserves the desire for salvation which, one would hope, lead to living a "good" life (like not destroying children). You linked Teresa earlier, I wonder if she led this type of life. Full of doubt and uncertainty but a true desire for salvation which bolstered her life and actions. More than respectable in my book, and requires no proof, just her prior actions. |
And that is why we can never agree. You think it's ok to work without logic and evidence, I do not.
As for Mother Teresa, I can tell you this, if I'm suffering and in pain, the last person I want caring for me is someone who believes that only through suffering and pain will I ever be saved...
We agree on good deeds, but you seem incapable of separating the sky-god from acts, they are unrelated - human nature provides the impulse for kindness and giving, the sky-god gives justification for anything you want justification for, which does include kindness and giving, but also includes many more reprehensible things.
Of course, for some reason, (perhaps it's faith? <<--mostly kidding) neither you nor the Doc can seem to do something so simple as not put in e in my first name, despite the fact that it's present on every post I make.. Not that I find it offensive, but it really does show that fact checking is an important thing to do, and that we are often wrong in our perceptions... Something religion actively refuses to acknowledge.
Message edited by author 2011-03-04 10:28:44. |
|
