This thread has been sponsored by "Mexican Standoff": the insect repellant with BITE!

Also by "Stubborn as a *******; why all who question me should burn in hell" the new book by George W. Bush.

Maybe y'all should just agree to disagree! :roflol:

KlutzDio I Wrote:"I'll start simply by saying that "killing" is not equivalent to "murder". That remedies most of your claims right there. For example, capital punishment (for a capital crime) is not murder. Many wars fall into this as well."

So your exercise in semantics makes justifies the death of those killed by Christians or Christian authorities? In place of "remedies" above, I'll call it "rationalized" or "rationalization."



From the common Christian, they usually assert their belief in God based on the Bible and their belief in the truth-value of the Bible based on their belief in God.

Maybe we will have to agree to disagree. I didn't expect much more than that, these sorts of debates on the internet rarely if ever get beyond that.

I don't see the distinction between "killing" and "murder" as semantics. They are 2 distinct words, w/ distinct definitions. Your grandfather, and many others, may not believe the differences are meaningful. I understand the point, but I still disagree.

Quote:Next you say, "It is a selective consideration, but selecting is indeed part of higher criticism."

Maybe it's criticism, I see it as a rationalization of wrongs exacted upon humanity at the hands of either Christians or Christian authorities. And while Christianity doesn't have to take responsibility for these acts, Christians and Christian authorities are responsible for oppression (including killings and murders) and suppression of advances in human knowledge.

I think we agree that the individuals who perpetrated these acts should be held responsible. (I believe they will be.) I'm not sure we agree about the labels these folks get...perhaps a distinction between a 'christian' (a social or customary term) vs 'Christian' (a devoted follower of Christ, who would repent of infractions)

Quote:You conveniently ignore that Christians and Christian authorities have used fear and cruelty to advance its doctrines, dogmas and practices in order to control the cultures it does control.

I didn't ignore them, I just insist that "world domination" isn't equivalent to "murder" at least hypothetically. I'd already conceded that atrocities were committed in the guise of Christianity.

Quote:I find it funny you lump Newton, a deist, in with Christians.

I hesitated to consider Newton. I have read mixed reviews of him, although deist isn't precisely my understanding of his beliefs from those who argue against him being a Christian. I haven't read his work first-hand, so it's always risky when that is the case. Feel free to flame me for not being intellectually honest.

Quote:Oh yeah, Newton was persecuted by religious authorities for his advances in science.

I hadn't read that. Of course Hugh Ross is persecuted these days too. But, I question greatly the one who does it the most: that buffoon Ken Ham. And, if it makes you feel any better, I've gotten heat for taking that position!

Quote:This brings up another criticism of Christianity and Christians: while Christ did preach non-violence (arguably), why haven't Christians practiced it? Instead, they've practiced ideas of revenge as justice, of cruelty as kindness.
I could go on and quote the Gospels to argue that Christ was not entirely committed to non-violence, and in fact, puported a cruel sense of morality. But I think I'll leave it alone for now.

While a handful of Christians have accepted messages of peace and worked towards this goal, most have accepted punishment through killings, murder, death as being the best application and example of Christian ethics.

Actually, I've lost alot of respect for the Anabaptists (I think I am using that term correctly. If not I apologize to them) who hold to the non-violence approach. I think your last paragraph answers your first: It's a mis-interpretation to say that Jesus was exclusively "non-violent". Moreover, looking to Romans, there is a clear affirmation that the role of government is to excercise justice, and that may include using the 'sword'.

But, I'm not saying that Christians should or would pursue world peace at any price. (Peace is somewhat subjective anyway, that makes it even trickier to discuss.) I was just pointing out some of the good that has come from Christianity...and that the West has had much positive come from Christianity...positives that aren't evident in other parts of the world where Christianity hasn't been widely accepted.

Quote:I gathered my interpretation after watching news reports that included interviews of Christians coming out of the movie (all in all, I saw about 40-50 Christians who commented on the movie after seeing it opening night).

Yes, but I've seen other interpretations on this board and in the Sports Bar. Interpretations that you seem to `ignore`, despite the fact that they don't seem to conflict w/ your actual observations.

Quote:I'd like to say that I think it's awfully funny for you to mention "epistemology" and then later you say, "I'm not going to judge truth based on their shortcomings. "

Since you are vague in mentioning "truth" I can only assume you mean Christian "truth" or biblical "truth." Since you asked about my epistemological theories, I'll say that yours and mine are similar. We both seem to accept the correspondence theory of truth, which is Aristotlean in origin (arguably) and it asserts that truth comes from beliefs on "facts" and the way these correspond to other beliefs we may or may not hold. The problem with the correspondence theory of truth lies in the fact it collapses upon itself because all beliefs are supported by other beliefs. In epistemology, nothing is firm, nothing is absolute. All philosophical work in epistemology is plagued with serious problems and objections that cannot be overcome.

I'm not certain that is my epistemology exactly, but ok. Sure, epistemology needs to make some "assumptions", accept some "axioms". I don't know if that's a serious problem, but I agree it cannot be overcome.
I do insist that a belief system be internally-consistent. And, I am a plague to Christians who don't do this, nor behave that way. I'm a plague to anyone else who doesn't do this too.
But, as a scientist I believe in empirical observations to confirm truth. Not all truth can be confirmed this way, but of that which can, it better be consistent w/ your other beliefs.
I do happen to find Christianity the most consistent of belief systems, even if I don't understand everything. (And I don't give Sagan or Gould much credit here. Despite Gould's credentials, I would insist that his work is crap.)

Quote:Other than that, you provided some counterarguments, but your conclusions that my criticisms are unfounded are similar to waving your hand at any opposing idea or thought and simply asserting, "that's not true."

Your criticisms of people are probably well-founded. Some folks anyway. Maybe alot of folks. History has plenty of blemishes.
However, I think you overlook many of the good things in your zeal.
But, the real point is looking at the original text. You can bash on old Popes or modern-day southern baptists...that's fine. But, your commentary about the Bible and the Christ is often lacking; in historical and theological contexts. That's what I find most troubling.

Well I was expecting vitriol and veiled insults in your response and you surprised me again, Dr. T!

An empiricist who believes the Bible, well go figure!

At least you acknowledge it is inconsistent or you don't understand all of it. My grandfather is a devout Christian who is awfully critical of his Baptist orthodoxy. Sometimes he simply appeals to fideism and sometimes he claims the Bible is a long metaphor. At other times he appeals to literal interpretations.

You mention zeal in characterizing me and while I may purport zeal in discussion, that is not a fair portrayal of me. I am a skeptic and a cynic, not only on religious matters but political and social contrivances as well. In contrast to your empiricism, I oftentimes, but not always, even launch into criticisms of what I see with my own eyes--Plato being the one who pointed out that seeing is NOT believing. In short, the senses are not accurate and neither are the emotions.

In any event I am even critical of my agnosticisms and with the veracity of a scientists I test and retest my agnostic hypothesis over and over in addition to retesting my hypothesis that Christianity is evil cloaked as righteousness. I often times wonder if I'm wrong about it all. So I do entertain the possibility, but what confirms it is my hypotheses stand up to test after test, even upon the acknowledgement and perusal of new evidence(s).

On the logical level, after having read various versions of the Bible, there is nothing believable about any of it. For me to believe it would be on the same plane as believing in square circles or the honest politician!

Nonetheless, I have read the Bible and I've read Homer. There's not much difference to me. I've read many versions of the Bible, while a believer and again as one critical of this book. The first Bible I read was a Catholic Bible, standard curriculum for one attending a Jesuit institution. I admire the Jesuits, they hold nothing back in their philosophy of education. My admiration of them is the organization's admittance of wrongs in the past, of terrible un-Christian-like wrongs perpetrated by the very Jesuit institution. They did instill in me a critical spirit and they pointed out much of the church and Bible history.

Since you don't accept my criticisms of the Bible, perhaps you should look into it yourself.
I recommend as a primary source, J.N. Hilgarth, ed. Christianity, Paganism and the Conversion of Western Europe, 350-700.
Another primary source collection would be From Iraneus to Aquinas, Documents in Early Christian Thought--editors, Wiles and Santer, but this book is very common. I even saw it at barnes and noble!

As for secondary sources, first and foremost is Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
I'd also recommend the anthropological work by Harvard's favorite son, Joseph Campbell entitled Transformations of Myth Through Time.

There's also some very good primary sources on Hindu and Buddhist theological works that predate the Bible. After reading Campbell I found many of these in my university library. Some of the main figures in these eastern religions (arguably) bring ethical theories into their respective societies, much like Christ. Many mythologies of the east directly parallel the stories and fables of the Bible. What Campbell lacks is hard evidence that the Easterns did influence the West, but Persian and Greek societies predating the Bible and Abraham were seafaring and trade (arguably) occurred between the two "worlds."

Other than that you bring up, "I do insist that a belief system be internally-consistent."

That said, how do you rectify biblical inconsistencies? Namely, plants did not exist but they did exist prior to God's creation of them? Gen. 1:11-13, 26-31, Gen. 2:4-7.
What about God creating the sun on the fourth day, after God created the earth? Gen1:14-19. Such a claim is impossible because the earth came after the sun.
As an empiricist, how do you rectify the idea that God created the world in six days time, when empirical evidence suggests otherwise? Gen. 1:1-23

What about when Cain killed Abel, and there were no other humans on the earth, acc. to biblical lore. Did incest aid the population of the species?

In leiu of these inconsistencies, I suggest George Santayanna who says,

"There are two stages in the criticism of myths...The first treats them angrily as superstitious; the second treats them similingly as poetry...Religion is human experience interpreted by human imagination...The idea that religion contains a literal, not symbolic, representation of truth and life is simply an impossible idea. Whoever entertains it has not come within the region of profitable philosophizing on that subject. Matters of religion should never be matters of controversy. We seek to honor the piety and understand the poetry embodied in these fables."
--from Sense and Beauty

And, if you haven't some Kierkegaard would be good reading to, that is, it supports the fideists' position and very aptly constructs the rubric that reason and faith cannot coexist within the same sphere of influence.

Can I get back to this at a later date? I actually have to do work these days.