It's quite amusing the little game the folks over at Debunking Christianity have going. Anything that counts against their view really counts for it. No evidence can ever count against it because when people take the Bible as a source for social justice, that proves the Bible causes oppression even more so because they aren't sincere they are only using it because it's influential. But when they use it for oppression that means it's really producing bad views of oppressive nature. What proves this? Well all the examples that are used by me to show that the Bbile spurs social justice! The fact that they are using it for social justice proves that they are really using it because it oppressive.
here is my exchange with Loftus from the comment section:
Loftus:
Joe, are YOU or what you wrote here relevant?
Meta:
where is Hector? I want Hector!
can't he defend his own stuff?
Loftus:
You said, Relevance is where you find it, and if we find the Bible to be relevant then it is so.
I too find the Bible to be irrelevant to the needs of modern people.
Meta:
I'm sure that your little 3% of the world population is terribly so much more relevant than our 90% (those believe in some kind of God). You can't claim that the world view of two billion people is not relevant! By every sane measure the Bible is relevant and you make it irrelevant by voice your personal feelings about it.
Loftus:
Now of course this hinges on the truth, i.e. what we think about the Bible, and that's a matter for debate.
The cases you cite show nothing. Within every society, especially a free society, reform movements use whatever is culturally acceptable to make their arguments.
Meta:
More of the same spin doctor double bind. Anything that coutns against my view is automatically wrong, nothing can ever count against my view. If people disagree they are the enemy if they don't know that counts for me.
This is nothing more than heads I win tails you lose. You can't discount and negate the motivational beliefs of the world's
social activists throughout history. You Might get away with that answer in any given situation but not all of them throughout history!
Yes in every situation, like you said. that just means that the Bible does not manufacture fascists it manufactures social justice.
Loftus:
Within a Christian society they will use the Bible because people believe it.
Meta:
Duh, that's what makes it relevant. What a game you are playing. do you really believe your ploy? It's just a classic double bind. If counts against me it doesn't count, if it doesn't count for you it counts for me.
Loftus:
Gays use the Bible. J.S. Mill used the Bible when arguing for Utilitarianism and gender equality.
Meta:
And this is supposed to prove it's not relevant? Are you thinking that you want to find a source of totally unambiguous certain knowledge that tells us exactly what to think absolutely without any sense of uncertainty in every stiatuion?
You seem to think that if there are diverse views about a text that text is totally chaotic and has no communicative value? But that is so unpostmodern. Derridians would tell us all texts do that. Indeed we can reconstruct any text to that same extent.
Loftus:
Pacifists and war mongers use the Bible, as do abortion rights advocates and clinic bombers.
Meta:
Stalin used Atheism, the communists were atheists, and business men and capitalists are atheists.
Loftus:
But just because people use the Bible does not mean they believe it.
Meta:
above you say they do believe it, and that's why its' used for so many different things.
i quote "Within a Christian society they will use the Bible because people believe it."
(1)if nazis and warmongers are using it becasue its good propagand and they don't really believe it, that means the bible didn't produce their views, they are capitalizing on it.
(2) you can't read the journal of John Woolman or the works of any those groups and not see they were sincere in their beilefs.
(3) disengenious to try and dogmatically negate their sincerity when you don't know anything about them. are you student of the nineteenth century labor movement? Do you claim some kind of expertise in the study of Quakers, ranters, levelers, the pesant revolts or any of that stuff?
How about Nicaragua? Did you go there, did talk to the people about their faith? I did.
Loftus:
It must be dealt with in a Christian culture if you want to see change.
Meta:
there are those who are under the impression that that would be a definition of relevance.
Loftus:
It actually has been an obstacle to change on so many fronts, and as such, it would be better if we didn't have to treat it with any special moral relevance in our debates.
Meta:
you just contradicted yourself again. you just admitted it has spurred the search for social justice, even if you do impune their motives or using it. which in my view only shows your ignorance of those movements. But it really doesn't matter because that makes it relevant a prori.
You have no facts to back your opinion on any of this, it becomes more apparent that when you use the term "relevant" we should "I don't' like it." That's what we are really talking about, your matters of taste.
Loftus:
Liberation theology, for instance, did not need the Bible for its social agenda. It was largely Marxist in origin anyway. The Bible was mostly used in service of Marxist Socialism.
Meta:
Now he's an expert on liberation theology!
what do you know about it? Did study it in seminary? O I'm sure it was covered in some class you were in, I specialized in it. I met actual liberation theologians working on the ground in Nicaragua. I met a priest who was asked to hide under the bed because the contras were coming, and he chose to take a gun. I talked to him about how he made that choice nd squared it with his faith. I met Jose Meges Bonino, the priest who took the gun in Nicaragua was a good friend of Gustavo Gutierrez, did you meet such people? I talked tohe Nicharaguan amassador to the United States about her specific faith. Did you?
Loftus:
I think the Bible hinders us from being totally human, and as such is irrelevant to the needs of human beings.
Meta:
That is your opinion, it is a matter of taste. You don't like it, that's your view. You are entitled to it. It's not backed by any facts.
Loftus:
Joe, name me one important moral truth we humans first learned in the Bible, that we still value today, which has not been taught outside of Christian cultures, and which we do not recognize apart from the Bible.
Meta:
(1) Jesus saves: Now I get to do the Karl Barth thing: Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so!
(2) why does it have to be unique to the bible?
(3) name me one important fact we find from atheism that we can't get somewhere else?
(4)we need all the sources we can get. The bible is a major source.
Loftus:
Now name me as many examples and commands as you can think of that are found in the Bible, which, because they are in the Bible, have caused great human and animal suffering.
Meta:
when you prove to me that Stalin was not an atheist and was not motivated by atheism!
can't you see the illogical and silly nature of the game you are playing? Can't you see how totally illogical your argument is? I can find abuses of this text so the text is Bad. but there are numerous examples of the text being used to support and nurture good things, but they don't count. people are just using it because it's popular and believed. but that's why they abuse it and use it wrongly, but that really counts against it, but using it as a stimulus for social justice doesn't count at all. It only counts against it and never count for it, but people believe it in droves and that's why it's irrelevant.
totally chaotic and game playing world view! you must no concept of being consistent at all!
Loftus:
And name me as many examples and commands that you can think of that are not found in the Bible, which, if they were in the Bible, would keep those who believe the Bible from committing the above atrocities.
Meta:
Love your neighbor as yourself
Loftus:
I think we'd be better off without the Bible, Joe, just like we'd be better off without the Koran.
Meta:
Stalin was an atheist; we are better off without atheism.
Read about my legs
No comments:
Post a Comment