Free society thrives on debate. If debate is not free and open there can be no freedom of speech and thus no free society. But to have debate one must have two sides which are allowed to present their reasoning freely and fairly. If one side just dogmatically refuses to ever accept the evidence of the other side, there is no debate. Dialog can be extremely helpful and it is necessary to maintain a free society. But when debate is impossible then dialog is impossible. More than hate, what has contributed to the shutting down message board debate is ignorance, and a stubborn insistence that no matter what the other side says, their evidence must be doubted at all costs. This means their is no free and fair debate at least concerning religion on the net.
The fault is not that of atheists alone, but atheists turn a blind eye to their own culpability. They turned the focus of my message about hate groups into a name calling thing, and refused to listen to the warning, but chose to become offended and see it as a mere pissing contest. Don't even bother sending in messages about how "Christians do this too." I know they do. I know there is a lot of ignorance in the Christian camp. I had a whole blog about that, but the atheists wouldn't support it.
This is about the atheist contribution to ignorance. There are certain issues about which the atheists as a general body have just decided they will simply ignore the facts and continue to assert bull shit. Now, come on, there are such issues of which the Christians refuse to face facts too. I know that there are Christians who just refuse to listen on evolution, problems in biblical texts, and other matters of science which can be easily documented. But there are matters upon which the atheist community as a whole is either condoning the ignorance, or just does nothing to stop it.
these are not things that one sees now and then. They dismissed the hate group challenge on the basis that "yea it's one or two atheists somewhere out there." But these misconceptions are found on every message board, every single day on the net. In fact its a social fad. Teenagers are told it's what the cool people want you to believe. It's become socially mandatory in school, you have to slander Christianity on pain of coolness! It's a fad, and it's based upon ignorance.
Here are some of those issues:
(1) Gainsaying evidence.
I am holding a pissing contest with a guy now on Christiansrus. I would say "debating" but there is no debate going on. I have 300 studies, he has 0, he asserts I have proven nothing. No I have proven that religion is good for you because I have 300 studies that prove it. This guy has demonstrated many angels for denying what is clearly stated by 300 operate empirical studies. Of course he denies the studies are any good. this guy doesn't even give a reason, he just says "they are no good." He has no studies but goes on asserting "you have proven nothing." No that's not how debate works. When you document what you argue with empirical studies, it is proved until you prove the studies are no good or don't apply. On an EZBoard some guy asserted those are all just Christian pastors asking their flock to email him and tell him how happy they are. I quoted, cut and paste, twelve pages, (counting by single space word program) of these quotes; social scientists at secular universities such as Abraham Maslow (major famous figure, hierarchy of need guy) they weren't emailing and saying they are happy, they did scientifically designed surveys and studies which were carried under the same conditions that any other social science research is carried out. But "I refuse to believe it. it cannot be true, therefore it is not true, therefore it doesn't count."
I put forth my version of the anthropic argument and I quoted four major physcists, two or three of them were atheists. One was Paul Davies, who at one time was a major atheist and very popular with all the Godless crowd for his God And the New Physics. But now he's a theist of sorts, or at least a deist and argues he anthropic thing. Of course the atheists dropped him like a hot rock. He used to be a major smart guy of science, now he's an idiot. They will call him an idiot. they will call him a fundie (even though he's not actually a Christian) and say he doesn't know anything even though he's won major awards. One of the physicists I quoted was Andre Lynde. He's an atheist and major physicists and invetor of one of the first inflationary theories. He says some things that are very helpful to the anthropic argument. This same guy, Quantir, says "prove that he knows that." Well he's a major physicist an expert, "that's appeal to authority." So they have expert opinion dismissed as appeal to authority. that is crap because there is no fallacy called "quoting experts is a fallacy." Doesn't happen. The fallacy about appeal to authority is appeal improper authority! No logic book on earth says it's a fallacy to quote from authorities.
But this guy argues "prove he knows anything." They gave him the science awards for being an idiot right? "Now that we have dispensed with the Nobel Prize, the award for idiot of the year goes to Paul Davies." As for Andre Lynde I said he's quoting empirical research. The issue is that the stars are moving away from point 0 in evenly spaced intervals in all directions, no one can account for this. He says how do they know that? Well astronomical observation the Doppler shift and all that. He says prove that proves anything. Then he wants me to go over the mathematical equations on the anthropic stuff and proven they really prove that the universe is improbable. Well you have four major physicists saying it, you have no counter evidence, that should be enough. NO, not for him. he's just going to deny the facts as long he lives no matter who says it. of course I'm sure if Dawkins said something he wants to believe that would be good enough for him. When it gets to the point where four experts in agreement with studies to back them vs 0 evidence is not enough then there is no debate and no possibility of debate. This is gain saying the evidence.
(2) Gainsaying Theological expertise.
At some point the atheist community just up and decided they would never accept the word of any theological person regardless of his position or what he was commenting upon. I have seen them carry this to the extreme of denying that major theological and Bible scholars are experts even in the area of their expertise. It means absolutely nothing to them that someone has a Ph.D. from a world class university, vs. someone who has no graduate training in the field and doesn't know the languages.Means nothing at all. They will accept Doherty's "expertise" over that of the major scholars in the field, event though Doherty has no Ph.D. is not trained in Biblical studies and does not read the text in the original language. That just doesn't matter. I've seen atheist just dogmatically say "no religious person can have any kind of expertise." They just refused to believe a scholar because he was a priest. Even though he's recognized as a world class scholar in his field. This is nothing more than sticking their fingers in their ears and shutting their eyes real tight and shouting "lalalalal I will not listen! lalalalala" I can understand refusing to take a theologians word for scientific matters. I can even understand, although am still outraged at refusal to take William Lane Craig's word on cosmology on the grounds that he's not a scientist. But these guys are denying recogized scholars who are imminent in their field, and their field is theology. It's a theological matter they are being quoted on.
(3) Jesus myth.
I realize this is a special group within atheism. I realize that most atheists may not agree with the Jesus myth thing. But it continues to hang over the net casting a Pall on all discussions related to Jesus. Its' nothing more than a sheer dogmatic refusal to accept facts. First, they are bucking the whole historical establishment. Not one single major historian anywhere, even mediocre ones who agree. The only academics I've seen who do are lit crit guys and they will say anything. But they show absolutely no regard for historians or the way history is done. They have just dogmatically decided they have to be right and they value the analysis of non experts over experts.
Secondly, thier basic premise is a lie. The basic premise is "there's no evidence that Jesus every existed." I have seen them say just that phrase many many times. But they do not understand what historical evidence is. They are counting as "evidence" something like being on the six o'clock news. When one provides a host of evidence that Jesus existed, then they just say "none of that was contemporary." By contemporary they mean up to the minute, ti's on the new tonight. The guys is standing here writing at the momement "there is Jesus over there. I see him walking around as I write." But of course they do actually have that, but they wont accept it because they can't. It's blows their world view.
The first thing they did by the use of fallacy no 1 above, gain say the evidence, was just to shut down any reference to the Gospels at all. The gospels might as well not even exist. Their reasons for thinking the Gospels are so inauthentic they can't be used for anything, not even to show what Christians believed, is so circular and stupid it doesn't bear going into. Its' basically this, The Gospels have miracles in them and that makes them stupid so they must be wrong. They also offer a lot of bull shit about they weren't written by eye witnesses and all that sort of thing. All of that is so debatable. Christians can always make good cases for authorship but they got tiered of having no answers so they jsut decided to make a king's x. Those answers don't count and we just wont becasue we refuse to ever believe under any circumstances.
Of course they can only pull this off by their sue of fallacy no 1 above.The myther standard for proving the historicity of a person is totally out of sinc with that used by historians. Historians allow ancient historians as authorizes and will appeal to them for proof on matters a hundred or two hundred years after the writing. That's what historians do, they write history, not the evening news. Historians believe that Pilate existed. They didn't used to but they found two mentions and that's all it took just two to make Pilate real. But even though there are about twelves mentions for Jesus (extra biblical non Christian) those don't count for anything. All historians accept them, that's just appeal to authority.
What's really funny and instructive is what happened with the atheist fascination for John Dominick Crosson. Thoughtout the 90's up to about 2004 Crosson was the darling fo the atheists. Atheists would say to me "Crosson disproves the whole bible he says it's a pack of lies." I recall atheists saying just that thing. Of course Crosson would never say that. He was their hero. They quoted him all the time. Urbild and I began pointing that he had his own faith and he believed. His stock when down somewhat. Then Corsson himself was quoted in a published lecture saying that Doherty didn't know what he was talking about. He said that the Gospels are evidence a prori that Jesus existed. The fact that the people who wrote them are talking about Jesus as flesh and blood man in history proves that they believed that, and there's no reason to doubt it. They dropped him like a hot rock. Just like Davies, overnight he became a total idiot. Now I've seen atheists call him "fundie!" He is the arche liberal! He helped start the Jesus seminar! But suddenly that doesn't count in his favor anymore, now he's an idiot because he thinks he knows more than Doherty.
So it comes to be that the best evidence for something is none at all, and the best credentials are none at all. The best studies are none at all.
Free and fair debate cannot continue. This must change. ignorance rules. this is intolerable! There is no point in wasting one's time debating with people who haven't the slightest intention of debating fairly.
I know there are atheists who are not like this, even though it is the vast majority who are. At least, the vast majority of those who post on message boards. But this is not happening on my boards. My boards are nice. Everyone likes them and we have brilliant deep friendly discussions and no insults! I do not tolerate trolls or people who come there to ridicule or harass or feel superior to Christians. But we have a great time it's the best boards on the net.
I am serious, I have never found any other boards like these. The atheists who post there are intelligent and sharp and they are my friends.
important pages of interest concerning topics above.
Mytholgoical Jesus: answering the Jesus myth bull shit
Historical Jesus pages. a vast aray of proof Jesus existed
My anthropic arugment
Doxa Forums, the most ejoyable discussion Christians and atheists can have on the net.
21 comments:
Jesus Christ is a Roman deception based on lies told about me.
Now I know where this will lead, because I have had similar encounters on other forums and sites. But please, be patient and take the time to truly understand. I am not trying to merely spam you and I don't earn money from my activities, I truly walk the walk. Both sides of this great divide have been deceived into fighting each other so the Vatican and its cohorts could profit and gain power. Contemplate Machiavell.
The world descends towards greater disasters and debacle than humanity has ever known, and clueless people are still fighting over ages-old lies and delusions. If we don't take effective and proactive steps quickly, there will be very little left to haggle over. The only way humanity will survive the great dangers that now loom large is through wisdom and cooperation.
In that spirit, I am taking concrete action, in my own way, to end the rancor and deception. Since I am neither an atheist, skeptic, or a follower of any religion, please don't assume that I am trying to defend any of these groups or their positions. In fact, I'm going to kill all of your sacred cows so we can finally have truth, justice, wisdom, and peace.
Open Letter to Religious Leaders
Open Letter to Atheists and Skeptics
The time for the removal of ignorance has arrived, like a thief in the night !!!
Ok thanks. good luck with that.
I'm understanding more now what you're talking about, Joe. I used to have friendly religious discussions in the Off-Topicisms of my fan forums. Now all of a sudden it's, "Believing in God is no different from believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy," or "Believing in God is just a way to make an uncomfortable universe more comfortable for you. It's easy to relate to a dad, but hard to relate to the Big Bang."
And I'm wondering what happened? Why did my beliefs suddenly go from being considered fairly, to being outright disrespected? And why? I wonder if another member on my forum is now frequenting atheist sites? Because it's only happened recently, and so far it seems to be only one person who has switched from respect to out-of-hand dismissal.
I bet that's the case. They have made it in and cool to slander Christianity.
We ought to look more closely at what many of these historians think that Jesus Christ was like. They'll likely say that he was someone like Sabbatai Zevi, someone completely human who got a large following and who ended up with lots of miracle stories told about him.
In effect, they believe that the mythicists are partially right.
To clarify this question, let's do a thought experiment where you travel back in time to Palestine around 30 CE and try to visit Jesus Christ. Do you expect to find him? What do you expect him to be like?
I think that there would have been no historical Jesus Christ to be found, and those historians would likely believe that he was someone like Sabbatai Zevi or John the Baptist or Simon bar Kochba.
Would it have been possible to watch him and photograph him conjure up bread and fish? Or walk on water? Or drive some demons into some pigs? Or curse a certain fig tree? Or rise from the dead? Wouldn't it be great to have photographic evidence of Jesus Christ's resurrection?
We ought to look more closely at what many of these historians think that Jesus Christ was like. They'll likely say that he was someone like Sabbatai Zevi, someone completely human who got a large following and who ended up with lots of miracle stories told about him.
In effect, they believe that the mythicists are partially right.
no they don't. what do you mean "partly?" mythers don't say there was really a guy but we don't know much about him. they say the very idea of Jesus was made up and the historians say that is crap.
To clarify this question, let's do a thought experiment where you travel back in time to Palestine around 30 CE and try to visit Jesus Christ. Do you expect to find him? What do you expect him to be like?
one thing is for sure, he would not be forgettable. why would thy even bother to remember him if he didn't have something going for him?
I think that there would have been no historical Jesus Christ to be found, and those historians would likely believe that he was someone like Sabbatai Zevi or John the Baptist or Simon bar Kochba.
what does that mean? He was like John the Baptist. the doctrine of the Trinity says he was a real man. no one thinks he walking around like God in a man suit.
Would it have been possible to watch him and photograph him conjure up bread and fish? Or walk on water? Or drive some demons into some pigs? Or curse a certain fig tree? Or rise from the dead? Wouldn't it be great to have photographic evidence of Jesus Christ's resurrection?
why do those things bother you so? are you afraid to believe them? what if they are mythology does that mean there's nothing there wroth believing? why would it mean that?
Here is what I mean by the mythicists being partially right. Many mainstream scholars consider the Gospels to be partially fictional, where the fictional parts include the miracles and the virgin-birth story and the genealogies.
So if one wants to prove that all four Gospels are letter-perfect documentaries, complete with being able to take footage of Jesus Christ working miracles if one had been there, then claiming the authority of mainstream scholars is a poor way to go.
Here is what I mean by the mythicists being partially right. Many mainstream scholars consider the Gospels to be partially fictional, where the fictional parts include the miracles and the virgin-birth story and the genealogies.
half the Jesus myth theory is not the Jesus myth theory. To say there are some ficitonal things doesn't make the mythers half right. Because real schoalsr were saying that years before the Jesus myth thing came back from the nineeth century trash pile.
Jesus myth says that Jesus was totally made up. He was fictional and the concrete aspects of his life were added in the early second century. Just to say there was some real guy but we don't know much about him does not make the Jesus myth people half right. others have said that.
So if one wants to prove that all four Gospels are letter-perfect documentaries, complete with being able to take footage of Jesus Christ working miracles if one had been there, then claiming the authority of mainstream scholars is a poor way to go.
those are not the true options. that is a false choice. Its' not as though either lits totally perfect to the letter or the Jesus myth is right. That's totally absurd.
why do you and other atheists always set up straw man arguments? when have i ever argued for inerrant bible?
Metacrock, I find it curious that you are not describing all the Biblical errancy that you believe in, since you are so firm in stating your rejection of Biblical inerrancy. Perhaps you can tell us what you think is the grossest errancy in the Bible.
In any case, do you really think that the sorts of "historical Jesus" theories in mainstream secular scholarship are good supports for your theology?
A Jesus Christ who had a 100% human biological father, who was conceived in the usual way, who never worked any miracles, and who stayed dead after he was executed, just for starters.
Interestingly, theologian John Haught seems to think that that's the sort of JC you would meet if you went back in a time machine; he claims that JC's resurrection could not have been photographed.
Metacrock, I find it curious that you are not describing all the Biblical errancy that you believe in, since you are so firm in stating your rejection of Biblical inerrancy. Perhaps you can tell us what you think is the grossest errancy in the Bible.
The point that I've always been making is that the Bible is truth and you should seek its truth and live by it. The little knit picking problems atheists find in it are only relevant to a discussion about tearing down fundamentalism. they have no relevance here since I'm not a fundie. Rather than dwell on unimportant matters, why don't we discuss the truth the Bible teaches us?
In any case, do you really think that the sorts of "historical Jesus" theories in mainstream secular scholarship are good supports for your theology?
good enough
A Jesus Christ who had a 100% human biological father, who was conceived in the usual way, who never worked any miracles, and who stayed dead after he was executed, just for starters.
nothing in secular history proves that. you have to just assert naturalistic assumptions to pull that off. I see no reason why I should abandon the creeds just to satisfy some ideology I don't believe in.
Interestingly, theologian John Haught seems to think that that's the sort of JC you would meet if you went back in a time machine; he claims that JC's resurrection could not have been photographed.
2:30 PM
the theological world is quite diverse.
You write:
The point that I've always been making is that the Bible is truth and you should seek its truth and live by it.
That's not addressing the issue of what errancy the Bible contains. In fact, shouting "Truth! Truth! Truth!" seems like what an inerrantist would do.
And as to rejecting miracles requiring "naturalistic assumptions", nobody seems to need "naturalistic assumptions" to believe that the miracles of religions other than theirs are pure fiction.
You write:
The point that I've always been making is that the Bible is truth and you should seek its truth and live by it.
That's not addressing the issue of what errancy the Bible contains. In fact, shouting "Truth! Truth! Truth!" seems like what an inerrantist would do.
You think the only people who believe in truth are fundamentalists? I think that's pretty short sitted. sorry to hear you don't beieve in truth.
Since liberal chrsitians dont' claim that the bible has to be literally true; literal history or literal science, why would it be such shattering admission to say there are mistakes? That only means there are things that not historically or scientifically true in a literal sense.
Nos is that he form of truth ou can endorse? You don't think truth is where you find it?
And as to rejecting miracles requiring "naturalistic assumptions", nobody seems to need "naturalistic assumptions" to believe that the miracles of religions other than theirs are pure fiction.
so you reject biblical miracles on supernatural grounds? how does that work?
8:08 PM
Delete
Why be so afraid of criticizing fundamentalist literalism directly? If it's a dumb way to interpret the Bible, then is it really that hard to say so directly and explain way?
I've noted elsewhere that the Religious Left, or at least the Religious Non-Right, has been remarkably wimpy and cowardly in the face of the Religious Right. Where are all the theses nailed to church doors? Even if in a metaphorical way.
Why be so afraid of criticizing fundamentalist literalism directly? If it's a dumb way to interpret the Bible, then is it really that hard to say so directly and explain way?
You have no right to say that. you have no idea of what I've done. I had the fundie watch blog. where were you to support it? were you one of the two hits a week it got when it was up? I doubt it. i know them. you weren't one.
were you there when I got banned from CARM becasue I stood up to Mat Sclick and his bs? No you were not not! Where you there in real life when I faced Bork supports who were beating up the liberals in the proest, faced them down Ghandi stile while they shouted up on my face "YOU MURDERING QUEER!" I think you were not there.
btw I am not gay I told "I am a Christian, I opposes Bork because of his Civil rights record." Their anwer was to get in my face and shout that I'm a murdering queer. have you ever confronted them that way?
I've noted elsewhere that the Religious Left, or at least the Religious Non-Right, has been remarkably wimpy and cowardly in the face of the Religious Right. Where are all the theses nailed to church doors? Even if in a metaphorical way.
You mean wimpy my friend a Priest in Nicaragua who, when told to hide under the bed because the contras were coming asked for a gun so he die on the barricades with his people?
or wimpy like Ida Force and the other nuns murdered by the death squads in El Salvador? Or wimpy lie Arche Bishop Romero who continued to speak against the death squad government even though he knew it meant he would die?
Do you mean wimpy like Martin Lutehr King? Or the Freedom riders? Or the people who got beat up at the lunch counters memers of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?Or you do you man wimpy like those who were sprayed with fire hoses?
Just because you think making people who cause you to feel guilty feel bad in return is the major issue in life, that doesn't mean there aren't more important things that need doing.
This is the sort of thing that I mean: What would Falwell do? -- some Religious Left leaders got together to mourn their lost political clout.
As to your Fundie Watch, was it anything like Fundies Say the Darnedest Things?
This is the sort of thing that I mean: What would Falwell do? -- some Religious Left leaders got together to mourn their lost political clout.
have you ever read a single page of any liberal theologian? I seriously doubt that you have the slightest idea what it' about or what it's like.
You think it's people like Farlwell and that's tragic. Ignorant.
theological liberals have been at work in the world all along. Their efforts were blunted when the political left went down the drain. But they've leading the anti-war movement, trying to house the homeless, fighting poverty, and a lot of them have gone overseas to work in the third world.
they don'thave lots of money, they aern't telling telling old women in nursing homes send me your dimes and God will make you rich. So they don't have a lot visibility int he media. that doesn't mean they haven't been doing tings.
Christan invented hospitals did you know that? yea the Greeks had some hospital like things, bu those were gone with the Roman empires. Christians started hospitals in the middle ages and in modern world. Christians built modern science, you didn't know that, but it's true.
other than the UN Christianity is the world's major charity organization.
As to your Fundie Watch, was it anything like Fundies Say the Darnedest Things?
No, it was like atheist watch noly about fundies.
that fundies say the darnedest thing is ran by an idiot.
Loren I am having a hard time seeing the difference in the "new athesits" and the brow shirts. You mock things you don't understand. You wont read the real stuff, you read only to find things to mock. You refuse to think bout it fairly.
I can easily imagine you going to an atheist book burning and burning bibles and Paul Tillich books and languing talking about how all the evil religious things need to be destoryed.
I just have a feeling you are not gong to even try to change that image in my mind. you are going to re confirm it by saying something like "see how evil christians are, they get angry and say bad things. when you hound the, all the time, totally unfairly, and take away the last little thing they have in lue of the carrier that was stolen from them, and shout them down with lies and slander. They are just so easily ticked off.
It's one thing to be a political activist; it's another thing to criticize fundies' theology. And Metacrock, you've devoted much more verbiage to criticizing atheists and atheism than you have to criticizing fundies and fundamentalism.
And why do you think that "Fundies Say The Darnedest Things" is run by an idiot? It's basically a version of "Fundie Watch", isn't it?
And as to inventing modern science, everybody was at least a nominal member of some Christian sect in late medieval and early modern Europe -- Christian sects that you consider heretical, like Catholicism and mainline Protestant sects. Furthermore, they had taken up what Hellenic pagans and Muslims had done before them. So we ought to worship the Greek gods, shouldn't we?
Some early modern scientists did have theological concerns, like Sir Isaac Newton. But he hid his rejection of the Trinity to avoid endangering his career prospects. Yes, he believed that Jesus Christ had not been God.
And as to the latitudinarians that you've mentioned as promoting their work, they got their name from being considered deplorably lax in doctrine and practice.
And while we are on the subject of heretical heroes, did you know that Martin Luther King, Jr. had believed that Jesus Christ was 100% human? That he was not the Son of God, that he was not born of a virgin, and that he didn't rise from the dead. He said as much in a seminary paper, "What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection?"
And if Christianity is such a super scientific rationalistic religion, then why isn't it very apparent in the New Testament? Why isn't much of the New Testament dedicated to a lengthy, respectful discussion of pagan philosophers that builds on their work?
Loren said...
It's one thing to be a political activist; it's another thing to criticize fundies' theology.
totally meaningless statment. I wonder if you even know what an activist is. Activism is for more of a commitment, more effective, more important to do.
And Metacrock, you've devoted much more verbiage to criticizing atheists and atheism than you have to criticizing fundies and fundamentalism.
You don't know that you didn't read fundie watch. Besides this is an apologetics blog.
And why do you think that "Fundies Say The Darnedest Things" is run by an idiot? It's basically a version of "Fundie Watch", isn't it?
No way. That sight is nothing more than the guy finding a bunch of quotes to take out of context to ridicule and mock by making people look bad. Fundie watch was real analysis. That guy has no analysis and he takes everything out of context.
he quoted me to mock me, he took what I said totally out of context because he didn't understand it becasue he's a brain dead moron.
that guy is what I call a ridicule artist. all he knows is making fun of people. he's just trying to hurt people to get attention and feel special.
And as to inventing modern science, everybody was at least a nominal member of some Christian sect in late medieval and early modern Europe --
NOPE! that bull shit does not wash. It tells me you have not studies the period! If you had would know that is a totally inadequate response. it's not true, since Newton and the lats were very devout. Due to Newton argument form deign was considered scientific fact until LaPlace (early nineteenth century).
Christian sects that you consider heretical, like Catholicism and mainline Protestant sects.
what in the HELL makes you think I consider Catholicism heretical??? see you have GOT To stop stereotyping people and stop arguing against straw men and stop projecting your expectations on other people and start trying to learn what they really think!
Furthermore, they had taken up what Hellenic pagans and Muslims had done before them. So we ought to worship the Greek gods, shouldn't we?
HU? I'm afraid you lost me on that little bit of sophistry.
Some early modern scientists did have theological concerns, like Sir Isaac Newton. But he hid his rejection of the Trinity to avoid endangering his career prospects. Yes, he believed that Jesus Christ had not been God.
that is neither here nor there. He certainly did believe in God, he believed that science was done to the glory of God, he believed that argument from design was a scientific fact and should be regarded as a law of physics. He didn't put that in his laws of physics.
This was my dissertation topic. I studied Newton for many years. His rejection of the Trinity was based upon a common misconception that revolved around lack of textual evidence. Textual criticism was in its infancy and he did not have the researches or insights we have today.It is likely he might be Trinitarian if he lived today.
And as to the latitudinarians that you've mentioned as promoting their work, they got their name from being considered deplorably lax in doctrine and practice.
that has nothing to do with anything. Actually they did not get their name from being lax. They got their name for wanting laitutide. they weren't lax, they wanted to flexible on the issue of confessing. That dealt with a controversy that came out of the English civil war, and the Cromwell's round heads. It had nothing to do with the Newtonian period and anyone who thought they were lax was dead by the time Newton came along.
they were never charged with any kind of heresy. I wouldn't care if they were.
And while we are on the subject of heretical heroes, did you know that Martin Luther King, Jr. had believed that Jesus Christ was 100% human?
Nope, he did not. you need to try reading his doctoral dissertation, as I have done.
btw you are just making assumptions based upon strew man. I am not fundie. stop trying to react ot me as though I am a fundie. I am not alarmbed by heresy like fundies are. I don't think ti's a good idea. I try to stick to the guide lines of orhtodoxy as much as possible but I am not freaked out by heresy per se. stop trying to treamt me like some kidn of southern baptist form alambama. see you need to learn theollgy.
if you knew what liberal theology was about you would know what terrible foxpau you have made!
That he was not the Son of God, that he was not born of a virgin, and that he didn't rise from the dead. He said as much in a seminary paper, "What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection?"
I bet you have not read that paper. I have. I've read his dissertation. Go read his dissertation then we can talk.
btw what you quote on that doesn't mean anything. that doesn't say that he didn't believe those things.
And if Christianity is such a super scientific rationalistic religion, then why isn't it very apparent in the New Testament?
no one says Chrisianity is scientific sweetheart. Newton thought so, I am not Newton. I say science and religion have diffeent domains. they are about answering the same questions. They don't compete becasue they are about different things. Religious people need to use science as a tool, scientists need religion to help them integrate their lives into a meaningful sense of being int he world. But science and religion are not enemies and they are not the same thing. Neither of them is the only form of knowledge.
Why isn't much of the New Testament dedicated to a lengthy, respectful discussion of pagan philosophers that builds on their work?
Because the writers were not writing to pagan philosophers. they were writing to people for whom philosophy was meaningless.
NT is very simple. it says stuff like don't steal and be kind, because its talking to very ignorant illiterate people, most of them were slaves. they probably had one guy in the group who could read the letter to them.
there are only two NT writers who had any knowledge of philosphy. The Gospels were written by ignroant people.you can tell that by reading the orignal Greek. Matthew could barely write. John is well written but very simple.
Paul and Luke are the only two who knew philosophy. Neither one is writing to philosophers.
Paul doesn't write like a Rabbi but one can tell form his words that he is a rabbi. Luke doesn't write as though to an audience of doctors but one can tell he is a physician.
There's a certain problem with Fundie Watch. This is what it now is, with no reference to you, so I don't have access to your version.
And how did the FSTDT team quote you out of context? What context did they omit?
Also, the Greek philosophers were, in a way, the real inventors of science, so a sign of being scientifically-minded would be a willingness to acknowledge their work and build upon it. Philosophers in the medieval Islamic world were that way, as were late-medieval and early-modern western Europeans. But there is none of that in the New Testament.
Whether the NT was addressed to the Greek philosophers is an irrelevant side issue. And making put-downs of the Bible in the hope of defending it...
The classical-Greek origins of our intellectual tradition is why we use words like "school" and "academy" with their classical-Greek origins and not (say) Hebrew "beth sefer".
There's a certain problem with Fundie Watch. This is what it now is, with no reference to you, so I don't have access to your version.
those guys have nothing to do with my fundie watch. they just stole my name. I elemenated the old fundie watch. I turned it into atheist watch and the old posts are all deleted. they have gone where ever pixels go when they die.
And how did the FSTDT team quote you out of context? What context did they omit?
they took it out context. what confuses you about that? I mocked something I said as though it was stupid but they didn't' understand because there was nothing stupid about it.
Also, the Greek philosophers were, in a way, the real inventors of science, so a sign of being scientifically-minded would be a willingness to acknowledge their work and build upon it.
that has nothing to do with modern science. The world was cut off from scientific thinking for centuries. Are you saying Newton and Boyle weren't scientifically minded?
Philosophers in the medieval Islamic world were that way, as were late-medieval and early-modern western Europeans. But there is none of that in the New Testament.
Irrelevant. doesn't have to be in the new testament. One can find islands of science here and there throughout history but none of that is what made it catch hold in the world. For that we owe a huge debt tot he church men of England in the seventeenth century.
Whether the NT was addressed to the Greek philosophers is an irrelevant side issue. And making put-downs of the Bible in the hope of defending it...
HU? I am sorry, I think your reasoning is very convoluted and I don't think understand history very well and I don't you know much about early Christianity.
weather or not the early Christians were scientific has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian contribution to modern science.
The classical-Greek origins of our intellectual tradition is why we use words like "school" and "academy" with their classical-Greek origins and not (say) Hebrew "beth sefer".
which has absolutely nothing to do with the rise of modern science. The Heberw has a tremendous input into Western civ too. Everyone knows that. That is a kid stuff for history of ideas classes.
Yes the Greeks are the bed rock. When the Greaco-Roman synthesis failed they ceased to be a factor. What they taught us was picked up by the Church and carried on in a new form that was the new Greco=Hebraic synthesis in Christianity.
Post a Comment