Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on April 21, 2016, 08:27:11 PM
-
... supersede the pagan/polytheistic religions?
How and when did Christianity fill the void left by the demise of the Greek and Roman pagan religions?
Or was there ever a void for Christianity to fill?
I have heard that some believe that Christianity came along at just the right time when the “pagan/polytheistic" religions of the Roman world were on the wane when people had become 'sophisticated' enough to realise that the ancient Greek and Roman mythologies were simply nowt but stories.
It has been claimed that Christianity succeeded principally because of its inherent superiority to the other religions of the empire because monotheism is clearly a more philosophically defensible position than polytheism and its multitude of gods.
But was this position a gradual creep, or fully fledge from its concept?
-
... supersede the pagan/polytheistic religions?
How and when did Christianity fill the void left by the demise of the Greek and Roman pagan religions?
Or was there ever a void for Christianity to fill?
I have heard that some believe that Christianity came along at just the right time when the “pagan/polytheistic" religions of the Roman world were on the wane when people had become 'sophisticated' enough to realise that the ancient Greek and Roman mythologies were simply nowt but stories.
It has been claimed that Christianity succeeded principally because of its inherent superiority to the other religions of the empire because monotheism is clearly a more philosophically defensible position than polytheism and its multitude of gods.
But was this position a gradual creep, or fully fledge from its concept?
Some of it was spread by force.
Not because it was superior.
Christianity is just another " story"
IMO
-
Hmm.. but where did Christianity originate from?
Was it fully fledged before it became the state religion of the Roman Empire?
Was it honed over the centuries to fit Hellenistic musings and adopted by Latin expectations in order to keep the populace subservient?
Or was it organic from its conception?
-
Hmm.. but where did Christianity originate from?
Was it fully fledged before it became the state religion of the Roman Empire?
Was it honed over the centuries to fit Hellenistic musings and adopted by Latin expectations in order to keep the populace subservient?
Or was it organic from its conception?
Christianity answers two questions do I need a redeemer and can I redeem myself?
Anyone who doesn't ask those questions at some stage isn't fully functional in my opinion.
And that's why it isn't just another story but one of the great world views.
-
Christianity answers two questions do I need a redeemer and can I redeem myself?
Only one question, actually, because if the answer to the first question is "no" then the second is redundant.
-
One of the greatest things about losing my faith was realising that the only person who can save me is me. I screw up, I pay.
It's taking personal responsibility rather than clinging onto the notion of a cosmic get-out-of-jail-free card.
-
Only one question, actually, because if the answer to the first question is "no" then the second is redundant.
Actually the first question should be do I need redemption. Otherwise the second doesn't make sense.
-
Dear Farmer,
I always enjoy your posts, you are a nutter but my kind of nutter, a void for Christianity to fill, well yes, history, the whole of history tells us we have always had the poor, Christianity sings out to the poor, it gives them a hope but the early Christians gave more than hope, they gave real stuff, like food and companionship.
But thank you, once again an atheist reminds me of what being a True Christian means, helping the less fortunate, helping your Brother and Sister, Farmer that is a Amen. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Less of the nuts free wee man.
A wee free question ya nutter:
How far west had Christianity advanced before Constantine adopted it?
Was it just an Eastern inconvenience that he had to adopt because of the African influence?
-
Christianity answers two questions do I need a redeemer and can I redeem myself?
Anyone who doesn't ask those questions at some stage isn't fully functional in my opinion.
And that's why it isn't just another story but one of the great world views.
Fortunately your opinion has no more value than anyoneelses.
Christianinty was spread in exactly the same way as Islam is now spreading; by bullying and violence, especially after the conversion of Constantine.
-
Fortunately your opinion has no more value than anyoneelses.
Christianinty was spread in exactly the same way as Islam is now spreading; by bullying and violence, especially after the conversion of Constantine.
It is sad that religion has led humanity down a blind alley ... wasting time and effort which could have been spent on scientific investigation.
-
Dear Farmer,
Was it just an Eastern inconvenience that he had to adopt because of the African influence?
I follow yours posts and I notice you are like a lawyer, you hardly ever ask a question that you don't know the answer to already, so tell me about this African influence, I can't remember reading about a African influence in Bamber Gasmeters wonderful book The Christians, jog my memory, enlighten me.
Dear Owlswing,
Christianity was spread in exactly the same way as Islam is now spreading; by bullying and violence, especially after the conversion of Constantine.
Not under Constantine's rule, if I remember correctly Christianity was a option under his rule, one reason why it became popular with the Roman soldiers was that they were guaranteed a day off each week if they attended Church, it was only after Constantine's death, and If I remember correctly his conversion was a death bed conversion, Christianity was then enforced by the next Emperor.
Dear Leonard,
It is sad that religion has led humanity down a blind alley ... wasting time and effort which could have been spent on scientific investigation.
Do you really think so, would I now be the proud owner of hover boots if those pesky Christians had not stuck their oar in.
Gonnagle.
-
It is sad that religion has led humanity down a blind alley ... wasting time and effort which could have been spent on scientific investigation.
It is sad that science has led humanity to nuclear weapons, they were invented and used long before there were any nuclear power stations, and to various mutations and assorted nastinesses that science "had no way of knowing would be the results of scientific investigation".
Sometimes humanity needs a mixture of science and religion - the difficulty is deciding where the balance point is.
-
Dear Owlswing,
Not under Constantine's rule, if I remember correctly Christianity was a option under his rule, one reason why it became popular with the Roman soldiers was that they were guaranteed a day off each week if they attended Church, it was only after Constantine's death, and If I remember correctly his conversion was a death bed conversion, Christianity was then enforced by the next Emperor.
Gonnagle.
If this is not after the conversion of Constantine.
when was it?
-
It is sad that science has led humanity to nuclear weapons, they were invented and used long before there were any nuclear power stations, and to various mutations and assorted nastinesses that science "had no way of knowing would be the results of scientific investigation".
Sometimes humanity needs a mixture of science and religion - the difficulty is deciding where the balance point is.
Science is a way of understanding the universe we find ourselves in and religion is storytelling. In what way do you create a balance between understanding and fiction?
I don't see how citing examples of people using science to do bad stuff has any relevance to a balance with religion. It's not like religion consistently encourages good behaviour, is it?
-
Dear Owlswing,
Not arguing, just trying to show that very early Christianity was not all bullying and violence.
Gonnagle.
-
... supersede the pagan/polytheistic religions?
What do you mean by the thread title and its extension at the front of your OP, Thrud?
I could understand if you had asked 'When did Christianity supersede ..', but I'm not sure that the Christian mission has ever superceded anything outside of Christianity.
-
Science is a way of understanding the universe we find ourselves in and religion is storytelling. In what way do you create a balance between understanding and fiction?
I don't see how citing examples of people using science to do bad stuff has any relevance to a balance with religion. It's not like religion consistently encourages good behaviour, is it?
You tell me something in the mis-begotten world that is consistent - apart, of course, from the inherent duplicity of politicians.
Balance - praying that some bloody scientist doesn't find a way of "understanding the universe" by which, all un-knowing, he destroys the Earth and humanity with it!
Science has not "consistently encourage(d) good behaviour, there have been scientists who have been anything but good for humanity - look at what crawled out of the woodwork due to the free hand given them by Nazi Germany. Others like them surely still exist but underground.
-
What do you mean by the thread title and its extension at the front of your OP, Thrud?
I could understand if you had asked 'When did Christianity supersede ..', but I'm not sure that the Christian mission has ever superceded anything outside of Christianity.
Part of the Christian mission was and is the total destruction of all other religions - Thou shalt have no other God but me!
-
Hmm.. but where did Christianity originate from?
Was it fully fledged before it became the state religion of the Roman Empire?
Was it honed over the centuries to fit Hellenistic musings and adopted by Latin expectations in order to keep the populace subservient?
Or was it organic from its conception?
Thrud, Christianity grew out of Judaism, and for the first couple of centuries was a movement of (not for) the poor and disenfranchised - in other words, it was a movement that moved up the social chain, not down it. During this time its followers were vilified and persecuted across the Roman Empire. Slowly, it began to spread into the mlitary, where it displaced Mithraism. It was, in part, 'adopted' by Constantine in order to stop any potential rebellion within the army. In fact, all he really did was to play an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan in 313, which decreed tolerance for Christianity in the empire, and to call the Council of Nicea in 325. When he died 2 years later, The Roman Empire was no more 'Christian' than it had been when he took power in 306AD.
It didn't really 'take off' as a state religion until his sons began to push it more over the 40+ years following their father's death. From all I've read, the Empire didn't really embrace it as a state religion until nearer the late 400s.
-
Only one question, actually, because if the answer to the first question is "no" then the second is redundant.
Or vice versa, Shaker ;)
-
One of the greatest things about losing my faith was realising that the only person who can save me is me. I screw up, I pay.
It's taking personal responsibility rather than clinging onto the notion of a cosmic get-out-of-jail-free card.
Well, since the latter isn't even considered within Jesus' teaching, you don't actually seem to have come to any other conclusion that most Christians, Rhi.
-
Or vice versa, Shaker ;)
No. Try again.
-
Fortunately your opinion has no more value than anyoneelses.
Christianinty was spread in exactly the same way as Islam is now spreading; by bullying and violence, especially after the conversion of Constantine.
The only difference, as far as I am aware, is that Islam was spread by some degree of violence from day 1, Christianity wasn't spread by violence for about its first 500 years. No-one can disagree with the suggestion that once it became the state religion of what was - at the time - the world's superpower, the methods of extension changed from peaceable to less peaceable.
-
Was it just an Eastern inconvenience that he had to adopt because of the African influence?
What influence was that, Thrud? Its worth remembering that Christianity spread East, at the same the as it spread West, and it was established in Rome by the middle of the first century. As far as I'm aware, it had reached Britain by the end of the 1st Century - so some 200 years before Constantine appeared.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/uk_1.shtml
-
Dear Stranger,
Yes I would kind of agree that religion, all religion is storytelling, fascinating story us humans and a big part of us is religion, been with us since, well I was going to say, since we first stepped out of the caves but in the light of Nearly Sanes thread regarding monkeys performing religious rituals, it has probably been with us even longer, we are and it is a fact, a religious animal.
But Owlswing and Albert Einstein are both right,
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
There needs to be someone watching science and asking, hang on are you absolutely sure about this, sadly with splitting the atom, Pandora's box was opened, it is what man does with the finding of science that needs to be scrutinised.
Gonnagle.
-
There needs to be someone watching science and asking, hang on are you absolutely sure about this, sadly with splitting the atom, Pandora's box was opened, it is what man does with the finding of science that needs to be scrutinised.
Gonnagle.
[/quote]
Scientists themselves do this. They are always testing and modifying their theories.
Religion never does, it was just a blind alley that served its purpose in former times, but had no place in the modern world.
-
Hmm.. but where did Christianity originate from?
Palestine or near by.
Was it fully fledged before it became the state religion of the Roman Empire?
Yes.
The answer is still yes, even if you are one of the people who believe it was invented by Constantine or Eusebius.
Was it honed over the centuries to fit Hellenistic musings
Christianity started out hellenistic. It's a syncretism of Greek mystery cults with Judaism.
-
You tell me something in the mis-begotten world that is consistent - apart, of course, from the inherent duplicity of politicians.
Death and gravity.
Balance - praying that some bloody scientist doesn't find a way of "understanding the universe" by which, all un-knowing, he destroys the Earth and humanity with it!
Do you think praying will help?
Science has not "consistently encourage(d) good behaviour...
I didn't say it had - I was trying to understand why thought some sort of balance between science and religion was needed.
-
There needs to be someone watching science and asking, hang on are you absolutely sure about this, sadly with splitting the atom, Pandora's box was opened, it is what man does with the finding of science that needs to be scrutinised.
Why do you think religion is any good at doing that?
-
Christianity answers two questions do I need a redeemer and can I redeem myself?
Anyone who doesn't ask those questions at some stage isn't fully functional in my opinion.
Anybody who answers them in the affirmative isn't fully functional in my opinion.
-
If this is not when was it?
Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in 380CE under the rule of Theodosius I.
-
Dear Leonard,
I see two questions in your post.
They are always testing and modifying their theories.
Of course they are, but that is not what Owlswing, me, or Albert Einstein are talking about,
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
The way I see it, scientists relentlessly pursue, they don't stop and say, bugger that, I am not going down that path, what if some madman gets a hold of this knowledge, scientists are human, they don't suddenly lose all their human failings when they gain their PHD and one of those human failings is stupidity. :(
The other question is,
Religion never does, it was just a blind alley that served its purpose in former times, but had no place in the modern world.
Religion has no place in modern times, O'Riley, I will now write to the CoS, the RC, CoE, Barnado's, Sally Ann and tell them to pack their bags, their services are no longer required, the government will now foot the bill for all the wonderful work they do.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger,
Why do you think religion is any good at doing that?
They have been doing it for a very long time, some good, some bad, religion, all religions at its base deals with all of man's failings, greed, hatred, man's inhumanity to man, and yes before I am jumped upon, they have also been the cause.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Actually as I think about it, did someone mention balance and checks, was this what wee Albert was talking about.
Someone has to watch but who is watching the ones doing the watching, what the hell am I talking about, I blame Farmer :o
Gonnagle.
-
They have been doing it for a very long time, some good, some bad, religion, all religions at its base deals with all of man's failings, greed, hatred, man's inhumanity to man, and yes before I am jumped upon, they have also been the cause.
Yes, they have - that's the point; some religion has affected some people positively, but then again, some religion has affected some people negativity and has caused great harm. So why do you think religion is any good at being a balance to anything?
Actually as I think about it, did someone mention balance and checks, was this what wee Albert was talking about.
I haven't a clue what he was talking about; do you?
-
Christianity answers two questions do I need a redeemer and can I redeem myself?
Anyone who doesn't ask those questions at some stage isn't fully functional in my opinion.
And that's why it isn't just another story but one of the great world views.
I think Christianity found a solution, and then had to work out what the problem was. Well, I guess it's OK to work backwards, why not, it's just that there are different versions of the problem.
-
Dear Stranger,
Great harm, great good, sorry but we have been down this road before, what did the Romans ever do for us, or Christianity or any other major religion, I say, we abolished Slavery, you say, yeah who started it.
All I am saying is someone has to watch, religion is doing the watching, asking the questions, of course as I try to get my head around evolution, science is also watching religion, and so it should, you can't read about evolution without someone having a dig at the fundies.
Gonnagle.
-
All I am saying is someone has to watch, religion is doing the watching, asking the questions
It's not the asking of the questions I mind but the basis for the answers it comes up with that I have a problem with.
-
Dear Shaker,
Exactly ( if I understand you correctly ) the same can be said about religion, just because you become a Priest, Holy Father, Minister, Vicar, Imam mean that the stupidity gene is removed, their motivations for asking need to be questioned.
Gonnagle.
-
It is sad that religion has led humanity down a blind alley ... wasting time and effort which could have been spent on scientific investigation.
Until very recently, it was the religious - clergy, imams, monks & nuns, etc. - who were the leaders in scientific investigation, LJ. Perhaps you would rather that no scientific development had taken place until atheism reared its head.
-
Until very recently, it was the religious - clergy, imams, monks & nuns, etc. - who were the leaders in scientific investigation, LJ. Perhaps you would rather that no scientific development had taken place until atheism reared its head.
Atheism reared its head a very long time ago indeed. The ancient Greeks did science, or didn't you realise?
-
Science is a way of understanding the universe we find ourselves in and religion is storytelling. In what way do you create a balance between understanding and fiction?
Possibly by accepting that scientists will often use logical reasoning processes to extrapolate from certain evidence, which some years, decades, even centuries later are found to have been untrue: in other words, scientific 'stories' have grown up around the thinking.
-
Dear Hope,
Well yes, the old what did the romans ever do for us argument, I have been told/read that Islam was once the very seat of scientific discovery, a golden time when all faiths got together to further scientific understanding.
But someone is sure to say, yeah! what about the crusades, what about slavery being mentioned in the Bible, old argument, even older than our very own Leonard :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Possibly by accepting that scientists will often use logical reasoning processes to extrapolate from certain evidence, which some years, decades, even centuries later are found to have been untrue: in other words, scientific 'stories' have grown up around the thinking.
I'm unsure what you mean, can you give an example?
[edit:]
PS and how would/could/does religion provide a "balance"?
-
Part of the Christian mission was and is the total destruction of all other religions - Thou shalt have no other God but me!
Actually, Owlswing, this is untrue. For one thing, you quote a Jewish maxim, suggesting that the mission you refer to is the mission of Judaism. But even then you are mistaken, because the instruction was to the Jewish people and those who might want to align themselves with the Jews. It wasn't a global instruction.
The mission of Christianity is to inform people that there is one way to God, namely through Jesus' death and resurrection. It doesn't require people to become a believer; rather it gives them the choice to do so.
-
No. Try again.
'Vice versa' depends on which perspective you start with, Shakes. After all, there are those who have been brought up outside of any religious context who have converted from that understanding in adulthood.
-
The mission of Christianity is to inform people that there is one way to God, namely through Jesus' death and resurrection. It doesn't require people to become a believer; rather it gives them the choice to do so.
Nice when people are given the choice, isn't it?
-
Scientists themselves do this. They are always testing and modifying their theories.
Sometimes detrimentally, LJ. Science may be unbiased, but scientists aren't always.
Religion never does, it was just a blind alley that served its purpose in former times, but had no place in the modern world.
There has probably been as much change in Christianity, even other religions, as there has been in science. Sadly, some of that change has been negative - nuclear weapons, treatment of woman - some of it positive - abolition of slavery, the discovery of vaccination and vacines.
-
Christianity started out hellenistic. It's a syncretism of Greek mystery cults with Judaism.
The Hellenistic influence came after the faith had been in existence for a number of years and was never all-embracing.
-
Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in 380CE under the rule of Theodosius I.
And how long does it take after something is adopted as a state concept before it becomes widespread? Especially in an extensive and multi-cultural empire as Rome's?
-
Atheism reared its head a very long time ago indeed. The ancient Greeks did science, or didn't you realise?
I'm aware that the Greeks 'did' science, but they also 'did' religion; or are you suggesting that it was only Greeks who were atheists who did the science. I was also asking LJ if he would prefer that history showed that only atheists have 'done' science.
-
Well yes, the old what did the romans ever do for us argument, ...
I believe that the answer to that argument is ' a lot'. They invented (perhaps reinvented) a variety of scientifically efficient weapons, ways of thinking, etc.
-
I'm aware that the Greeks 'did' science, but they also 'did' religion; or are you sauggesting that it was only Greeks who were atheists who did the science.
Not only but predominantly, since the records demonstrate that the sort of proto-science we're talking about now amongst the pre-Socratics was done by that group of thinkers conveniently lumped together as atomists (or as we would now say m****ialists - I don't want to type out the word in full or it'll get Vlad out of his coffin).
-
Nice when people are given the choice, isn't it?
OK, here's a challenge for you Shakes. Find a passage in the New Testament that either records Jesus instructing his disciples to force others to become his followers, or records one or other gospel/epistle writer instrucing their readers to do the same.
I would be amongst the first to reiterate my oft-repeated statemment that the Church down the centuries hasn't been perfect, and has sometimes been worse than horrific, but does that mean that the principles of Christianity themselves support that behaviour?
-
Not only but predominantly, since the records demonstrate that the sort of proto-science we're talking about now amongst the pre-Socratics was done by that group of thinkers conveniently lumped together as atomists (or as we would now say m****ialists - I don't want to type out the word in full or it'll get Vlad out of his coffin).
And they were the only ones doing the science? Do the records indicate that?
-
And they were the only ones doing the science? Do the records indicate that?
Helpful hint: if you read a post carefully and attentively you might just find that it saves you writing a question already answered ::)
-
I'm unfamiliar with this but a little digging would suggest that you have oversimplified, but it matters little to the point. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that what you say is correct, then it wouldn't be a "scientific story", it would be a statistical mistake.
But it was taken as read for many years, and became accepted fact.
Humorism was never a scientific idea in any modern sense of the word.
I know that some like to think that science wasn't really born until the Enlightenment, but some of the ideas that pass for 'modern' science had been suggested and worked on by ancient Chinese and Indians.
I literally laughed out loud at that.
I'm glad you did; perhaps you can find a Biblical passage or passages that suggest that it wasn't true. In fact, I've been known to laugh out loud in the middle of sermons when the preacher says something that I find open to questioning.
It's odd how some people can combine religious faith with scientific curiosity but some clearly manage it.
Perhaps the 'odd ones' are those who can't. ;)
You haven't said how religion itself can be used as a "balance" to science...
Well, as I said, it can be because religion encourages questioning and enquiry. Sometimes, that questioning and enquiring will have scientific ideas their target. However, I'm not one who regards sceince and religion as being at odds with each other, as I seem to get the impression you do. Rather, I regard them as complimentary; they ask and answer different questions about reality.
-
Helpful hint: if you read a post carefully and attentively you might just find that it saves you writing a question already answered ::)
Yes, I saw the 'pre-Socratics' definer, but then people have been 'doing' science for centuries. As I pointed out a recent reply to SKoS, science was being pursued long before the Greeks became of any importance.
-
Well, as I said, it can be because religion encourages questioning and enquiry. Sometimes, that questioning and enquiring will have scientific ideas their target. However, I'm not one who regards sceince and religion as being at odds with each other, as I seem to get the impression you do. Rather, I regard them as complimentary; they ask and answer different questions about reality.
What's the process by which religion's answers to what it questions can be ascertained to be true or false, please?
-
What's the process by which religion's answers to what it questions can be ascertained to be true or false, please?
I've answered this before Shakes. Remember that even science can only ascertain the truth or falsehood of a theory from the perspective of human understanding and experience. So, it seems to me that both science and religion can be seen to be based on the same basis.
-
I've answered this before Shakes.
You're very fond of claiming this but when pressed are then suddenly unable to provide a pointer to where and when you supposedly said it. Where and when did you answer it? What will it be this time? Forum closed down years ago? It was removed by the mods? Cat had a bout of diarrhoea and shat all over it, miss?
Remember that even science can only ascertain the truth or falsehood of a theory from the perspective of human understanding and experience.
I don't know of any other kind, do you?
So, it seems to me that both science and religion can be seen to be based on the same basis.
If you're saying that religion is an entirely human construct, comprised of human ideas with no external or objective referent anywhere outside the human cranium, I'm happy to agree.
-
I've answered this before Shakes. Remember that even science can only ascertain the truth or falsehood of a theory from the perspective of human understanding and experience. So, it seems to me that both science and religion can be seen to be based on the same basis.
You left out method: the science version is well understood but the religious equivalent seems to be absent. Perhaps you could provide said method.
-
I know that some like to think that science wasn't really born until the Enlightenment, but some of the ideas that pass for 'modern' science had been suggested and worked on by ancient Chinese and Indians.
And...? Ideas aren't rejected just because they predate modern science.
I'm glad you did; perhaps you can find a Biblical passage or passages that suggest that it wasn't true.
But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.
James 1:6-8
Well, as I said, it can be because religion encourages questioning and enquiry.
So you say. Have you come up with that objective methodology for answering assessing religious claims, yet?
[edit]
can't seem to type the right worms today...
-
You left out method: the science version is well understood but the religious equivalent seems to be absent. Perhaps you could provide said method.
Mumble mumble mumble rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb mumble mumble.
-
You left out method: the science version is well understood but the religious equivalent seems to be absent. Perhaps you could provide said method.
As I said, science and religion (or at least Christianity) encourages one to question one's experiences ('test' is the word often used in the Bible). If what you have experienced runs counter to what Jesus teaches then it is likely that it isn't of him - in the same way that if an experiment produces results that run counter to existing data and understandings, it is likely that the results are wrong. However, neither suggest ditching the experience/results. Instead, one stores tham up until such time as there are corroborating experiences/results that can be used to develop a new understanding of the underlying principles.
-
Mumble mumble mumble rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb mumble mumble.
I notice that you have tried to keep this quiet lest science be shown to be equally flawed. ;)
-
I notice that you have tried to keep this quiet lest science be shown to be equally flawed. ;)
You win the evasion of the year award even though it is still April, since I doubt we'll see anyone present a better example this year (other than from yourself of course).
-
I notice that you have tried to keep this quiet lest science be shown to be equally flawed. ;)
Oh no, not at all - the successes of science are plain to see but are easily pointed out to the terminally Hopeless if really necessary. I'm asking you - Gordon is also asking you; SKoS is also asking you - what process religion uses to determine that its answers to the questions it asks are correct or incorrect answers. The scientific process here is easily covered; where's the religious equivalent? You allege that you've already answered this - somewhere, sometime - so: where?
-
Oh no, not at all - the successes of science are plain to see ...
As are its failures, but you would rather these weren't mentioned as they undermine your reliance on it. As for answering SKoS's question, I've explained in a number of places across this board, and then briefly explained again in my last post. It's all about 'testing' or asking questions.
-
As are its failures, but you would rather these weren't mentioned as they undermine your reliance on it.
Not at all. Its failures are its failures and pretty much what you'd expect from an entirely human endeavour carried out by fallible and information-limited human beings. I wouldn't expect anything so stupid as it being perfect, faultless, infallible or any other synonym - would you?
Now - this equivalent method with regard to religion that you mentioned: where is that and what is it? I'm still unaware of anything other than what can broadly be called the scientific method as a consistently accurate and universally reliable method of investigating stuff with built-in checks and balances designed to make it as objective as humanly possible and to weed out personal preference, wish and bias. You claim an equivalent for religion but seem shy about actually stating it.
Wonder why.
As for answering SKoS's question, I've explained in a number of places across this board
Where?
-
As I said, science and religion (or at least Christianity) encourages one to question one's experiences ('test' is the word often used in the Bible). If what you have experienced runs counter to what Jesus teaches then it is likely that it isn't of him - in the same way that if an experiment produces results that run counter to existing data and understandings, it is likely that the results are wrong. However, neither suggest ditching the experience/results. Instead, one stores tham up until such time as there are corroborating experiences/results that can be used to develop a new understanding of the underlying principles.
It's difficult to know where to begin. You clearly don't understand the scientific method; if a result falsifies a theory, then the theory is wrong.
As for the religion bit: (just for a start): what was the test that the bible was to be used? What was the test that Jesus' teachings (as recorded) were the standard? What was the test that anybody's experiences could be "of him"? What was the test that this had anything to do with any god?
-
As I said, science and religion (or at least Christianity) encourages one to question one's experiences ('test' is the word often used in the Bible). If what you have experienced runs counter to what Jesus teaches then it is likely that it isn't of him - in the same way that if an experiment produces results that run counter to existing data and understandings, it is likely that the results are wrong. However, neither suggest ditching the experience/results. Instead, one stores tham up until such time as there are corroborating experiences/results that can be used to develop a new understanding of the underlying principles.
Well that isn't a method at all.
First of all you'd need to quantity 'what Jesus teaches' so that these can be expressed minimally as test criteria against which comparisons can be made: criterion referenced measurement is an established method (which I used myself in my studies, so I'm familiar with it). So, what criteria do you have and how have you determined validity?
In addition 'experiences' and 'results' are separate issues that have different implications, and you are conflating the two unless you have a method to quantify 'experiences': so have you? In addition, in academic research results aren't usually just deemed to be 'wrong' unless the methodology is flawed, which is where academic supervisors have a role to play (I was lucky to have two Profs as supervisors), and especially where statistical tests are being used the outcome of there being no significant difference or association may well be relevant depending on what is being studied.
It seems to me that you don't really understand research methods at all.
-
Christianinty was spread in exactly the same way as Islam is now spreading; by bullying and violence, especially after the conversion of Constantine.
Not in the early stages when it actually got round the empire...and pagans were the one's throwing Christians to the lions........cue no true pagan argument.
-
Well that isn't a method at all.
A method? Well that isn't an ontology at all.
-
Well, since the latter isn't even considered within Jesus' teaching, you don't actually seem to have come to any other conclusion that most Christians, Rhi.
Rubbish - all you have to do to get the Christian get-out-of-jail-free card is to bend your knee to the Christian God and give up any sort of freedom to do anything banned by the Christian God in the Bible!
-
A method? Well that isn't an ontology at all.
Funny thing is Vlad, both the Profs who were my academic supervisors (who were very strict about research methods) never mentioned 'ontology', and I suspect they were better qualified than you are on this issue.
-
A method? Well that isn't an ontology at all.
Right, do you really need me to drag up the previous posts on this subject?
You admitted that God could not be shown to be objectively true. We all agree that someone seeking Gog might get to a point where they believed the existence of God was objectively true.
As we all know that is not the same as demonstrating it to be objectively true.
Very happy to go though the older posts, but are you?
-
As are its failures, but you would rather these weren't mentioned as they undermine your reliance on it. As for answering SKoS's question, I've explained in a number of places across this board, and then briefly explained again in my last post. It's all about 'testing' or asking questions.
errm what are these failures exactly?
People make an observation.
They develop an hypothesis of what the principle factors might be.
They then test the hypothesis against previously untested data (in a way that is independent of the person carrying out the test and in which the variable(s) under scrutiny have been isolated.
If it fits, the hypothesis is accepted (on a provisional basis).
If the model doesn't match reality then the model is refined of rejected.
If the model matches reality then it becomes our best understanding until further data comes along that refines or destroys the model.
What is wrong with that approach?
Can you outline a similar method for you on-naturalist stuff? i.e. following on form the previous thread can you give me the name and adrees of an academic who has published a paper that says that scientific explanations to spontaneous healing CAN be ruled out.
I did a search of Elsevier and ScienceDirect the other day (as part of my professional subscription) but failed to find one.
-
Right, do you really need me to drag up the previous posts on this subject?
You admitted that God could not be shown to be objectively true. We all agree that someone seeking Gog might get to a point where they believed the existence of God was objectively true.
As we all know that is not the same as demonstrating it to be objectively true.
Very happy to go though the older posts, but are you?
Bump
-
Right, do you really need me to drag up the previous posts on this subject?
You admitted that God could not be shown to be objectively true. We all agree that someone seeking Gog might get to a point where they believed the existence of God was objectively true.
As we all know that is not the same as demonstrating it to be objectively true.
Very happy to go though the older posts, but are you?
Yet, we don't actually know whether what is claimed for science is objectively true, either, Stephen. As I have pointed out before, the history of science has been littered with false starts, dead ends, arguably unacceptable outcomes (eg nuclear weapons) and scientific laws that have stood for a period (both long and short) before being shown - to the best of the new generations ability - to be mistaken, false or incomplete. Science is based, regardless of what you and others like to argue, on experience and observation which is then filtered through human understanding. How does this differ from religious belief? Science is very good in many aspects of life, but doesn't even attempt to look at, let alone answer many of the moral and ethical issues that make up 'the rest of' real life.
-
Yet, we don't actually know whether what is claimed for science is objectively true, either, Stephen.
It is however, objectively testable. That is what science does. It produces hypotheses that are then either confirmed or falsified.
As I have pointed out before, the history of science has been littered with false starts, dead ends, arguably unacceptable outcomes (eg nuclear weapons) and scientific laws that have stood for a period (both long and short) before being shown - to the best of the new generations ability - to be mistaken, false or incomplete.
As one would expect from the way it works. Delving back to pre-scientific ideas, like humorism for example, is however, dishonest.
Science is based, regardless of what you and others like to argue, on experience and observation which is then filtered through human understanding.
...and which is objectively verifiable. It is organised to minimise personal bias and subjectivity. Experimental results have to be repeatable and observations confirmed.
How does this differ from religious belief?
Fundamentally: science is characterized by objectivity (intersubjective verification), while religion appears to have no objective means by which it can be tested at all.
Despite repeated questions, nobody has come up with an objective way of testing religious claims. This post of yours is just the latest instance of you blatantly avoiding the question.
-
Bravo.
-
Right, do you really need me to drag up the previous posts on this subject?
You admitted that God could not be shown to be objectively true. We all agree that someone seeking Gog might get to a point where they believed the existence of God was objectively true.
As we all know that is not the same as demonstrating it to be objectively true.
Very happy to go though the older posts, but are you?
You cant help hawking methodology for evidence for an ontology can you?
-
You guys are clearly infected with ologismy. :)
-
You cant help hawking methodology for evidence for an ontology can you?
There goes that damned parrot again.
Squawk! Squawk! Squawk! Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight! Squawk! Ontology! Squawk! Squawk! Methodology!! Squawk! Squawk!
-
There goes that damned parrot again.
Squawk! Squawk! Squawk! Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight! Squawk! Ontology! Squawk! Squawk! Methodology!! Squawk! Squawk!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You cant help hawking methodology for evidence for an ontology can you?
I don't recall hawking anything.
If you want a response to your message can I request that you first express it in plain English.
-
I don't recall hawking anything.
If you want a response to your message can I request that you first express it in plain English.
You can't get blood from a stone.
-
Yet, we don't actually know whether what is claimed for science is objectively true, either, Stephen. As I have pointed out before, the history of science has been littered with false starts, dead ends, arguably unacceptable outcomes (eg nuclear weapons) and scientific laws that have stood for a period (both long and short) before being shown - to the best of the new generations ability - to be mistaken, false or incomplete. Science is based, regardless of what you and others like to argue, on experience and observation which is then filtered through human understanding. How does this differ from religious belief? Science is very good in many aspects of life, but doesn't even attempt to look at, let alone answer many of the moral and ethical issues that make up 'the rest of' real life.
Hard to improve on SKOS's answer.
But I would like to emphasis the verification point. This is where your and Vlad's arguments for the existence of God fall flat on their face. You have no methodology for verifying them as objectively true. You have claimed to have one but ....well we all know the rest.
Actually to be fair to Vlad he has admitted that he doesn't have one.
-
I don't recall hawking anything.
Stephen? Hawking?
-
Science is a method....it might be THE method....but you've got to get from that Ladies and Gentlemen to the virtue of whatever it is you believe in or the virtue of not believing in something other people do.
Don't forget boys and girls you are deluded if you think you hold the default position.
-
Science is a method....it might be THE method....but you've got to get from that Ladies and Gentlemen to the virtue of whatever it is you believe in or the virtue of not believing in something other people do.
Don't forget boys and girls you are deluded if you think you hold the default position.
No the default position is clearly that things are treated as undemonstrated until they are, in fac,t demonstrated. Otherwise you would soon get to the ludicrous position of holding multiple contradictory things as objectively true.
As to your first part, what I or anyone else believes is irrelevant to your claims. You make the claim it is up to you to demonstrate its objectiveness, if that is, you want people to take your claim seriously.
-
No the default position is clearly that things are treated as undemonstrated until they are, in fac,t demonstrated. Otherwise you would soon get to the ludicrous position of holding multiple contradictory things as objectively true.
As to your first part, what I or anyone else believes is irrelevant to your claims. You make the claim it is up to you to demonstrate its objectiveness, if that is, you want people to take your claim seriously.
You are again perpetuating the myth that you and your ilk support and do science and people not like you don't. You have science and we have science, therefore what is the difference?
Can you demonstrate for instance that you can only know about naturalistic things? That is a belief, Stephen.....please demonstrate the virtue of it. I would say put up or shut up but silencing opposing views but that is I move the desire of people who are largely, IMHO, on your side of the argument and frankly you guys show no sign of trying to understand where they are coming from.
There are of course honourable exceptions to that and one of those, from my point of view very recently produced one of the most timely and sensible posts I've seen on the matter.
-
Can you demonstrate for instance that you can only know about naturalistic things? That is a belief, Stephen.....please demonstrate the virtue of it.
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.
I have said on many occasions that I DO NOT SAY that you can only know about naturalistic things. You have been corrected on this on many occasions so please stop lying.
Naturalistic things certainly exist, I'm sure you agree. In order for us to admit non naturalistic things into the same category we need a method to determine if those things do indeed exist. NOTE AGAIN, that is not the same as saying they don't/can't exist. They remain in the undemonstrated category. That is until someone can come up with a verification method that teks them out of that category. We are still waiting.
-
Actually to be fair to Vlad he has admitted that he doesn't have one.
I Hope you are not taking that as much of a concession though since you cannot demonstrate any position that isn't tainted by some kind of scientism or another.
-
I Hope you are not taking that as much of a concession though since you cannot demonstrate any position that isn't tainted by some kind of scientism or another.
Add yet another 'ism' to Vlad's intreminable list of 'isms'!
-
You left out method: the science version is well understood but the religious equivalent seems to be absent. Perhaps you could provide said method.
Method is not ontology Gordon.
-
I Hope you are not taking that as much of a concession though...
I take it as exactly that. A concession that you can't get from a subjectively true for you God (although it feels objective to you) to an objectively true God.
... since you cannot demonstrate any position that isn't tainted by some kind of scientism or another.
[/quote]
I don't recall attempting to demonstrate a position have I?
Saying that your position is undemonstrated is not in itself a position.
-
Science is a method....it might be THE method....but you've got to get from that Ladies and Gentlemen to the virtue of whatever it is you believe in or the virtue of not believing in something other people do.
OK, let's play this game.
What I believe: I'm happy to accept as objectively true (at least as a working assumption), those things that can be objectively tested. That is, those things for which there is objective evidence.
Its virtue: it works.
The virtue of not believing other things: if I just accepted things that other people believe, just because they believed them, I'd end of with multiple contradictory beliefs, which would be very confusing.
-
OK, let's play this game.
What I believe: I'm happy to accept as objectively true (at least as a working assumption), those things that can be objectively tested. That is, those things for which there is objective evidence.
Its virtue: it works.
What works? What is it which is working? Your belief? or what you know?
I probably believe everything you believe as objectively true.....what is it then that is different from us and what is it in that difference is it that makes you objectively true and me objectively false?
-
Method is not ontology Gordon.
I take that this 'method is not ontology' is your latest catchphrase, Vlad.
Have to say it isn't very funny: it is ridiculous of course, but not funny.
-
What works? What is it which is working? Your belief? or what you know?
It works in the sense that I can have some degree of confidence in what I believe because there is objective evidence. It minimizes personal bias and mistakes.
I probably believe everything you believe as objectively true...
Well, you seem to have problems with logic but I suppose there is a large overlap, yes.
...what is it then that is different from us and what is it in that difference is it that makes you objectively true and me objectively false?
To the extent that you can provide objective evidence for what you believe, I am happy to agree with you. Those things that you believe to be objectively true but can't supply evidence for, remain in the realm of guesswork. They may possibly be true but, unless there is evidence or some logical argument, I see no reason to think that they are. NOTE: that is not the same as claiming they are false.
-
It works in the sense that I can have some degree of confidence in what I believe because there is objective evidence. It minimizes personal bias and mistakes.
Well, you seem to have problems with logic but I suppose there is a large overlap, yes.
To the extent that you can provide objective evidence for what you believe, I am happy to agree with you. Those things that you believe to be objectively true but can't supply evidence for, remain in the realm of guesswork. They may possibly be true but, unless there is evidence or some logical argument, I see no reason to think that they are. NOTE: that is not the same as claiming they are false.
But you believe that 'It works' is a virtue. I believe that that is a misuse of the word virtue.
You need therefore to show that your belief 'It works' is a virtue.
-
But you believe that 'It works' is a virtue. I believe that that is a misuse of the word virtue.
You need therefore to show that your belief 'It works' is a virtue.
virtue
A good or useful quality of a thing
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/virtue
It's useful.
What do you mean by the word?
-
virtue
A good or useful quality of a thing
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/virtue
It's useful.
What do you mean by the word?
OK, but how is it objectively useful? Since some could construe what you see as utility as inconvenient?
-
OK, but how is it objectively useful? Since some could construe what you see as utility as inconvenient?
I don't know why you struggle with this. People make claims (not religious believers) and state that the substance of those claims is objectively true. It is useful to treat those claims as undemonstrated (not false) until their is a way to establish that claim as objectively true.
If you do it the other way around you will soon find that believe in contradictory things.
That is why it is useful, it stops you accepting contradictory things as true and takes a huge stride to the elimination of personal bias.
I can also see why lot's of people do find this inconvenient, because they are unable to demonstrate their objective claims to be objectively true.
-
I don't know why you struggle with this. People make claims (not religious believers) and state that the substance of those claims is objectively true. It is useful to treat those claims as undemonstrated (not false) until their is a way to establish that claim as objectively true.
If you do it the other way around you will soon find that believe in contradictory things.
That is why it is useful, it stops you accepting contradictory things as true and takes a huge stride to the elimination of personal bias.
I can also see why lot's of people do find this inconvenient, because they are unable to demonstrate their objective claims to be objectively true.
All it is Stephen is I have trouble with people who say they only believe what they know....Because commitment to that is itself a belief, a step of faith rather than knowledge.
Also the definitions of knowledge and belief and evidence are based on a belief footing rather than the definition of evidence which is being touted.
Science works....I agree with. That any knowledge outside science is not knowledge I don't.
-
All it is Stephen is I have trouble with people who say they only believe what they know....Because commitment to that is itself a belief, a step of faith rather than knowledge.
Also the definitions of knowledge and belief and evidence are based on a belief footing rather than the definition of evidence which is being touted.
Science works....I agree with. That any knowledge outside science is not knowledge I don't.
We are close on an agreement.
Science works....I agree with.
Me too. :)
I need to make a slight alteration to the second part in though.
That any knowledge outside science is not knowledge I don't.
That any knowledge outside science is necessarily not knowledge I don't.
-
We are close on an agreement.
I feel strangely heartwarmed by that remark.
-
All it is Stephen is I have trouble with people who say they only believe what they know....Because commitment to that is itself a belief, a step of faith rather than knowledge.
No, it's a practical acceptance that there is an objective world. It's an extension of believing that walls exist, which is useful for not walking into them. The objective world is an in-your-face reality of human experience that everyone shares. It is inescapable; even if it isn't true, it might as well be.
Science works....I agree with. That any knowledge outside science is not knowledge I don't.
Fine; but that brings us right back to the question of how we assess claims of objective truth that are not evidenced in the objective world in which we all find ourselves.
This is where you can provide a method of doing so....
-
No, it's a practical acceptance that there is an objective world. It's an extension of believing that walls exist, which is useful for not walking into them. The objective world is an in-your-face reality of human experience that everyone shares. It is inescapable; even if it isn't true, it might as well be.
Fine; but that brings us right back to the question of how we assess claims of objective truth that are not evidenced in the objective world in which we all find ourselves.
This is where you can provide a method of doing so....
Stand by for another dodge. :)
-
No, it's a practical acceptance that there is an objective world. It's an extension of believing that walls exist, which is useful for not walking into them. The objective world is an in-your-face reality of human experience that everyone shares. It is inescapable; even if it isn't true, it might as well be.
Fine; but that brings us right back to the question of how we assess claims of objective truth that are not evidenced in the objective world in which we all find ourselves.
This is where you can provide a method of doing so....
Science is only good for matter energy. You cannot get round that.
Under your own scheme anything else is belief. You have belief which is not objectively proved therefore you cannot lecture people under the pretext that you don't.
You have therefore said everything it is objectively true and we should no longer be hearing anything else from you.....under your own criteria.
Goodbye then.
-
Goodbye then.
If that means you are going to ignore him from now on, he is one lucky guy!
-
If that means you are going to ignore him from now on, he is one lucky guy!
I never ignore anyone particularly if they are in the thick of antitheistic category confusion.
-
Science is only good for matter energy. You cannot get round that.
Matter and energy is not a description of what science deals with, but never mind.
Under your own scheme anything else is belief. You have belief which is not objectively proved therefore you cannot lecture people under the pretext that you don't.
Gibberish. I assume you accept that there is (or might as well be) an objective world? You want to claim other things can be objectively true too.
That's fine but we need some way of finding out what else is true. You (and others) keep dodging that question.
This is a very simple concept and a very simple (and practical) question.
Goodbye then.
That you keep running away from....
-
I never ignore anyone particularly if they are in the thick of antitheistic category confusion.
Then you are guilty of giving SKOS false hopes by saying goodbye to him. :)
-
Hmm.. but where did Christianity originate from?
Was it fully fledged before it became the state religion of the Roman Empire?
Was it honed over the centuries to fit Hellenistic musings and adopted by Latin expectations in order to keep the populace subservient?
Or was it organic from its conception?
In Hebrew Scriptures and a Messiah promised before the Roman Empire.
-
One of the greatest things about losing my faith was realising that the only person who can save me is me. I screw up, I pay.
It's taking personal responsibility rather than clinging onto the notion of a cosmic get-out-of-jail-free card.
I think you mistook playing Monopoly for Christianity.
Christianity gives you the reason you end up in prison and why there is no get out of jail card just a pardon.
Sometimes you do have to take responsibility for throwing the precious pearl out because you have no understanding of the value...
-
Actually the first question should be do I need redemption. Otherwise the second doesn't make sense.
Maybe the truth is do you 'Want' redemption and do you know enough truth to seek it and not self?
-
Dear Farmer,
I always enjoy your posts, you are a nutter but my kind of nutter, a void for Christianity to fill, well yes, history, the whole of history tells us we have always had the poor, Christianity sings out to the poor, it gives them a hope but the early Christians gave more than hope, they gave real stuff, like food and companionship.
But thank you, once again an atheist reminds me of what being a True Christian means, helping the less fortunate, helping your Brother and Sister, Farmer that is a Amen. ;)
Gonnagle.
Not that Love conquers all, because God loves us unconditionally?
-
Less of the nuts free wee man.
A wee free question ya nutter:
How far west had Christianity advanced before Constantine adopted it?
Was it just an Eastern inconvenience that he had to adopt because of the African influence?
True Christianity is not the Constantine Christianity.
It is the Christ Christianity... Those born of Spirit and Truth....
-
Fortunately your opinion has no more value than anyoneelses.
What value would that be?
To himself and God, his opinion has value. Is there something we are missing as I see nothing and no one else whom his opinion should matter to or even value in the world.
Christianinty was spread in exactly the same way as Islam is now spreading; by bullying and violence, especially after the conversion of Constantine.
Constantines Christianity may indeed in the hands of evil men spread that way.
But the Christianity of Christ is spread by two things... Spirit and Truth and that way being found only in Christ.
The reason you miss the real deal is that you are so taken up with the fake.
You have to love truth and seek it, to find it.
-
It is sad that religion has led humanity down a blind alley ... wasting time and effort which could have been spent on scientific investigation.
Had you met Jesus, even in a blind alley, you would never have turned your back on him.
He exemplified everything good about God and had shown us that love and truth is the way forward.
If you cannot respect Gods truth how can you really have any truth in your own truth.
I know you accept what you want for yourself. I know you try to do no harm to others.
But even the Pharisees with their self-righteousness never entered into the Kingdom.
Sometimes people get so caught up at the door displaying their manners they never get to enter.
-
It is sad that science has led humanity to nuclear weapons, they were invented and used long before there were any nuclear power stations, and to various mutations and assorted nastinesses that science "had no way of knowing would be the results of scientific investigation".
Sometimes humanity needs a mixture of science and religion - the difficulty is deciding where the balance point is.
MAN
Haven't man done enough without making it worse.
It was not religion who made those weapons. It wasn't religion who took science down the path it now follows.
Science didn't lead man anywhere. Man invented science and used it for his own evil ends.
-
Had you met Jesus, even in a blind alley, you would never have turned your back on him.
He exemplified everything good about God and had shown us that love and truth is the way forward.
If you cannot respect Gods truth how can you really have any truth in your own truth.
I know you accept what you want for yourself. I know you try to do no harm to others.
But even the Pharisees with their self-righteousness never entered into the Kingdom.
Sometimes people get so caught up at the door displaying their manners they never get to enter.
Jesus might have been an ok bloke, although he had faults and failings like the rest of us, but as there is NOTHING good about the deeds attributed to god, hopefully he was not like his 'father'.
-
Jesus might have been an ok bloke, although he had faults and failings like the rest of us, but as there is NOTHING good about the deeds attributed to god, hopefully he was not like his 'father'.
What faults and failings did he have. Plural so more than one of each.
As for 'GOOD' what is good? God created man... God created world.. all good.
Who really turned man evil and caused the world to decay?
MAN Why was that? Because Eve believed God was bad that he was keeping something good from them when he wanted what was really best and good for them.
Hence like yourself believed the worse and ended up getting what she sowed.
You have no reason or right to call God evil. You never created man or the world. You have no understanding of Gods power or reality about man and the world.
Till you can reason you are like Eve out for yourself and unable to make an argument based on sound knowledge and judgement. When you have some then let us know.
-
What faults and failings did he have. Plural so more than one of each.
As for 'GOOD' what is good? God created man... God created world.. all good.
Who really turned man evil and caused the world to decay?
MAN Why was that? Because Eve believed God was bad that he was keeping something good from them when he wanted what was really best and good for them.
Hence like yourself believed the worse and ended up getting what she sowed.
You have no reason or right to call God evil. You never created man or the world. You have no understanding of Gods power or reality about man and the world.
Till you can reason you are like Eve out for yourself and unable to make an argument based on sound knowledge and judgement. When you have some then let us know.
I think any decent person would regard the deeds attributed to god as evil. If the creation myth had any credence it appears it created humans for its own sick enjoyment.
As for Jesus, that guy was hardly perfect. As I have mentioned before, cursing a fig tree for having no figs when out of season, was stupid, trashing the Temple was vandalism, and frightening the pigs over a cliff when playing crazy hocus pocus, was WRONG and not to his credit. Expecting people to leave their responsibilities and follow him was not right and showed he was very up himself. Jesus probably had some charisma, which encouraged people to follow him, but he was no kind of deity, imo.
-
I think any decent person would regard the deeds attributed to god as evil. If the creation myth had any credence it appears it created humans for its own sick enjoyment.
So, protecting a given group of people from the violence of others is evil? Rescuing same group of people from exploitation is evil? Providing same group of people with sustenance whilst they wandered around the desert is evil? I could go on.
As for Jesus, that guy was hardly perfect. As I have mentioned before, cursing a fig tree for having no figs when out of season, was stupid, ...
and was a illustration of a more profound teaching.
... trashing the Temple was vandalism, ...
no more so than the vandalism that the Jewish religious leaders had been committing for centuries by allowing the money changers and sacrifical animal sellers to set up in the one part of the Temple precinct that was meant to be open to non-Jews, thus stopping them from sharing in the worship of the Jewish God had they wanted to.
... and frightening the pigs over a cliff when playing crazy hocus pocus, was WRONG and not to his credit.
Do you actually know that this was a case of mental ill-health, rather than anything potentially more serious? No. You simply don't like to accept that Jesus wasn't something more than merely human.
Expecting people to leave their responsibilities and follow him was not right and showed he was very up himself. Jesus probably had some charisma, which encouraged people to follow him, but he was no kind of deity, imo.
So, are you suggesting that no-one ought to have to work away from home? That no-one should look to better themselves by moving out of their familial form of work (rather like the caste system that still applies in many parts of India)? Are you suggesting that no-one should be sent abroad to serve the national interest whilst there, or choose to go abroad in order to find work?
I'm afraid that your opinion in this area seems to run massively counter to normal life, Floo.
-
Until very recently, it was the religious - clergy, imams, monks & nuns, etc. - who were the leaders in scientific investigation, LJ. Perhaps you would rather that no scientific development had taken place until atheism reared its head.
I'll give you Georges Lemaître and Gregor Mendel. Who else?
-
The Hellenistic influence came after the faith had been in existence for a number of years and was never all-embracing.
Nope. It was there right from the beginning. Jesus and his followers grew up in a Hellenistic society.
-
So, protecting a given group of people from the violence of others is evil? Rescuing same group of people from exploitation is evil? Providing same group of people with sustenance whilst they wandered around the desert is evil? I could go on.
Commanding Genocide?
-
So, protecting a given group of people from the violence of others is evil? Rescuing same group of people from exploitation is evil? Providing same group of people with sustenance whilst they wandered around the desert is evil? I could go on.
You forgot the first part of that story. You know: the bit where God inflicted a number of increasingly nasty plagues on the Egyptians culminating in killing every first born male after he had already won the argument.
-
You forgot the first part of that story. You know: the bit where God inflicted a number of increasingly nasty plagues on the Egyptians culminating in killing every first born male after he had already won the argument.
Yet it was only after he had inflicted this final one that Pharoah was willing to release the hebrews - and even then, they had to flee under cover of darkness.
I seem to remember that a certain world war continued for about a year after the 'argument had been won'.
-
Nope. It was there right from the beginning. Jesus and his followers grew up in a Hellenistic society.
I would disagree, jeremy. Hellenism may have been prevalent across the Mediateranean by that stage, but one of the things that many Roamns seem to have found odd about the Jews was the fact that thay largely avoided it. The Hellenistic influence only really began to impact on the faith with the arrival of Saul/Paul, and even then it eas tempered by a strong Jewish understanding.
-
Yet it was only after he had inflicted this final one that Pharoah was willing to release the hebrews - and even then, they had to flee under cover of darkness.
I seem to remember that a certain world war continued for about a year after the 'argument had been won'.
Couldn't he have simply changed the Pharaoh's mind without releasing plague's willy-nilly?
-
Not sure that my opinions in regard to either run particularly counter to real life, Shakes. Remember that real life is somewhat larger than Western society.
I'm sure that in my corner of Western society your views are at odds with most of the population in both regards. In fact if you look at the evidence of what people think and believe - or don't believe - as provided by surveys and opinion polls and so forth that remains the case pretty well across the West.
-
Couldn't he have simply changed the Pharaoh's mind without releasing plague's willy-nilly?
It was changing Pharoah's mind, or rather the hardening of his heart that caused most of the problems. Though why harden his heart and then kill babies, who knows, other than a penchant for mass slaughter.
-
I'll give you Georges Lemaître and Gregor Mendel. Who else?
Robert Grosseteste, Nicole Oresme, Otto Brunfels, William Turner, Francis Bacon, Laurentius Paulinus Gothus, Seth Ward - a few from before the 18th century; Stephen Hales, John Michell, Maria Agnesi - a few from the 18th century; Samuel Vince, William Kirby, William Buckland, Edward Hitchcock, Adam Sedgewick, Temple Chevalier, Robert Main, Gregor Mendel - a few from the 19th century; William Dallinger, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Lemaitre as you've already mentioned - from the 20th Century; Alberto Dou Mas de Xaxàs, Noella Marcellino, Alister McGrath, Guy Consolmagno, George Coyne, Michel Heller, John Polkinghorne - a few still alive (I think).
Note that this is just a selection of priest/nun/monk scientists who have been leaders in their fields.
-
I'm sure that in my corner of Western society your views are at odds with most of the population in both regards. In fact if you look at the evidence of what people think and believe - or don't believe - as provided by surveys and opinion polls and so forth that remains the case pretty well across the West.
But, if all you do is look at Western society (which is, admittedly, a somewhat generalised term anyway), you are not looking at real life for the majority of the global population. As I've noted before, there are some areas of Western society that I believe are far in advance of non-Western societies, but there are also areas where it lags equally far behind non-Western societies.
-
But, if all you do is look at Western society
Which is the one I live in. I've been to others and know a good many people from other societies, but don't make a point of bragging about it. When you talk about real life I'd have thought it obvious that people are going to base their views on their real lives which are lived in specific places at specific times in cultures with specific mores. You can discuss other places out of academic interest, I suppose, but if you don't live there it's not your life.
As I've noted before, there are some areas of Western society that I believe are far in advance of non-Western societies
Embrace of diversity, tolerance of various minority groups, emphasis on across-the-board equality being just some of those areas.
-
I think any decent person would regard the deeds attributed to god as evil. If the creation myth had any credence it appears it created humans for its own sick enjoyment.
As for Jesus, that guy was hardly perfect. As I have mentioned before, cursing a fig tree for having no figs when out of season, was stupid, trashing the Temple was vandalism, and frightening the pigs over a cliff when playing crazy hocus pocus, was WRONG and not to his credit. Expecting people to leave their responsibilities and follow him was not right and showed he was very up himself. Jesus probably had some charisma, which encouraged people to follow him, but he was no kind of deity, imo.
What you write makes no sense.
How did the fig tree refuse? It isn't a person has no soul. So explain what happened.
As for God, what is this 'decent' thing. All you show the scholars especially the worldly scholars is that you have no respect for authority or anyone who is higher than yourself in the grand scheme of things. A good child obeys their parents but a bad child rebels. Some people are not good at judging situations.
They have no idea of the reality of co-existence.
War has been around you for years and yet you understand nothing at all...
-
Yet it was only after he had inflicted this final one that Pharoah was willing to release the hebrews - and even then, they had to flee under cover of darkness.
False. You need to occasionally read your own holy book. I believe this isn't the first time you have been caught out by your own scriptures.
In Exodus 11 we learn that God deliberately hardened Pharaoh's heart. In Exodus 12 we learn that Pharaoh actually drove the Israelites out.
Oops. You seem to be good at getting the basics of your own religious stories wrong.
I seem to remember that a certain world war continued for about a year after the 'argument had been won'.
So what?
As an off topic point, which World War are you talking about?
-
I would disagree, jeremy.
You would be wrong.
Hellenism may have been prevalent across the Mediateranean by that stage, but one of the things that many Roamns seem to have found odd about the Jews was the fact that thay largely avoided it.
This is totally untrue. Palestine had under Hellenistic control since around 332BCE when Alexander conquered it. Why do you think the Septuagint was written? Clue: quite a lot of Jews could read Greek, but not Hebrew.
Why do you think the New Testament is written exclusively in Greek?
You seriously have no idea do you?
-
Dear Farmer,
I follow yours posts and I notice you are like a lawyer, you hardly ever ask a question that you don't know the answer to already, so tell me about this African influence, I can't remember reading about a African influence in Bamber Gasmeters wonderful book The Christians, jog my memory, enlighten me.
I was thinking of the Early Church fathers and about the influence of the ones from North Africa on Church regulations.
Perhaps I should condense my opening salvo to thus:
Why Did Christianity Succeed?
After Jesus' execution a group of his followers, illiterate Jewish peasants from the backwoods of rural Palestine, began to spread the word about the approaching "Kingdom of God" and how the way to salvation was to follow Jesus' teachings because he had been resurrected according to scripture, (the Jewish book, not the gospels. the gospels hadn't been invented yet,) and as the suffering servant of God had promised to appear once again to herald the coming kingdom on this earth and only allow those who understood his teaching into this coming paradise.
How did this notion spread so rapidly and thoroughly to become a major religion in the ancient Mediterranean?
How did it eventually after 300 odd years, take over the entire Roman Empire and ultimately becoming the most powerful religious force in the Western World of its day?
In what way can we explain the success of Christianity?
-
Mods can you delete permanently any post that references homosexuality in this thread. This is not what it is about!!
-
Mods can you delete permanently any post that references homosexuality in this thread. This is not what it is about!!
Moderator:
Fair point Thrud, so I'll lock it while we have a look. While I'm at it I'll move this thread to the Christian Topic.
Update: I've removed the most obvious examples to the Mod Board, so I'll unlock and move this thread to the Christian Topic.
-
You have no reason or right to call God evil.
Until you can actually demonstrate the existence of your god then your ju-ju isn't much different to any other superstitious mumbo jumbo.
-
Which is the one I live in. I've been to others and know a good many people from other societies, but don't make a point of bragging about it. When you talk about real life I'd have thought it obvious that people are going to base their views on their real lives which are lived in specific places at specific times in cultures with specific mores. You can discuss other places out of academic interest, I suppose, but if you don't live there it's not your life.
Unfortunately for you, Shakes, you live in an increasingly global society, in which competing values and ideas exist, and intrdependence on other parts of that global population are day-by-day occurrences
Embrace of diversity, tolerance of various minority groups, emphasis on across-the-board equality being just some of those areas.
OK, 'diversity and tolerance of various minority groups. I notice the use of 'various' - very telling. 'Emphasis on across-the-board equality ...', provided that you aren't an immigrant, Black/Hispanic/Native American, a Muslim, a Communist (historically), etc., [in the USA], Aborigine or Maori in Australia and New Zealand, etc. Remember that one of the key issues in our own EU referendum is over immigration.
These claims all sound excellent as sound-bites, but in reality they are often being observed in the breach - and by Governments and authorities no less than the public at large.
Now, before you run off on one of your accusations that I prefer non-developed nation societies, I will reiterate again that I am very privileged to live in the society in which I live, but also reiterate that it, like just about every aspect of life across the world, needs to improve. For instance, we like to claim that we have the best healthcare service in the world, yet it is creaking and groaning under the strain of an ever more elderly population and failures to address issues such as mental health and social care,the latter of which goes hand in hand with healthcare - other than in government and local authority spheres. I also live in a society were young people seem increasingly to treat their parents and grandparents with at best disrespect, and at worst sheer abusiveness; a society where people are increasingly trying to disprove John Donne's maxim that 'no man is an island, entire of itself, ...'.
In closing, my view is that 'society' - be that Western, Eastern, Northern or Southern - is flawed and broken. Some soceties are more flawed than others, some are more broken than others.
-
OK, 'diversity and tolerance of various minority groups. I notice the use of 'various' - very telling.
Is it? Why?
-
Perhaps I should condense my opening salvo to thus:
Why Did Christianity Succeed?
After Jesus' execution a group of his followers, illiterate Jewish peasants from the backwoods of rural Palestine, began to spread the word about the approaching "Kingdom of God" and how the way to salvation was to follow Jesus' teachings because he had been resurrected according to scripture, (the Jewish book, not the gospels. the gospels hadn't been invented yet,) and as the suffering servant of God had promised to appear once again to herald the coming kingdom on this earth and only allow those who understood his teaching into this coming paradise.
OK, lets start to analyse that. For starters, were the followers illiterate? Probably not as Jewish society - even in the 1st Century AD - put a high value on basic education. Most lads (though, agreed, not necessarily girls) would be educated up to what we would regard as the equivalent of Years 5/6. (10-11 year olds) They would then go into vocational work, such as carpentry, agriculture, fishing, leatherwork, etc. - or 'further education' to prepare to be clerks, rabbis, leaders, etc.
The rest of the 2nd paragraph isn't perfect, but I'll leave it as vaguely representative.
How did this notion spread so rapidly and thoroughly to become a major religion in the ancient Mediterranean?
Partly because it wasn't imposed from the top of society but grew from the bottom up. For much of those first 300 years, it was the 'preserve' of the slaves, the servants, the working class and towards the end of that period, the lower eschelons of the army.
How did it eventually after 300 odd years, take over the entire Roman Empire and ultimately becoming the most powerful religious force in the Western World of its day?
As it came t have more and more influence in the army (see above), so the authorities and military leadership came to fear that it might initiate a mutiny by the soldiery.
In what way can we explain the success of Christianity?
The most obvious is that it offered hope to the downtrodden, the disenfranchised and the marginalised. But, at the same time, it was for all of humanity. Yes, the church in the 500s and after botched this message in greater or lesser manner, but the underlying truths still held strong, even if amongst the less powerful, the marginalised and the disenfranchised.
-
Is it? Why?
Its telling because, compared - for instance - to Jesus' teachings, in which 'diversity and tolerance weren't even mentioned because they imply inequality and division, and were aimed at humanity as a whole; 'various' continues the inequality and division theme because, by definition, the term implies that not all groups are included.
-
I understand what you are saying, Hope, but wonder if you are reading too much into that particular section of what Shaker said. I agree that Jesus's teachings were aimed at everyone so there was no need for him to mention 'tolerance and equality', nor 'various' people. However we live in a world where there is blatant intolerance and inequality so 'tolerance and equality' are virtues which we try to embody and encourage, and that cannot be done without mentioning them.
As to 'various', we may wish to embrace the entire human race but we don't know them so we deal with different groups as they come into our sphere of consciousness, whether by knowing them personally or knowing of them. That's where the word ''various'' comes in, it isn't so very vague, it is merely a way of describing many people or peoples whilst acknowledging there are others we do not know.
-
Partly because it wasn't imposed from the top of society but grew from the bottom up. For much of those first 300 years, it was the 'preserve' of the slaves, the servants, the working class and towards the end of that period, the lower eschelons of the army.
Sklavenmoral or slave morality built upon ressentiment, as Nietzsche put it.
The most obvious is that it offered hope to the downtrodden, the disenfranchised and the marginalised.
... by convincing people that they won't actually be prey to the thing they hate and fear most, not really.
-
Its telling because, compared - for instance - to Jesus' teachings, in which 'diversity and tolerance weren't even mentioned because they imply inequality and division, and were aimed at humanity as a whole; 'various' continues the inequality and division theme because, by definition, the term implies that not all groups are included.
No it doesn't. Various means various, as in "Lots but too many to list individually." I could have enumerated the examples I had in mind if I'd foreseen that you'd have a comprehension breakdown over such a simple word.
Didn't Jesus (supposedly) say he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel? That doesn't encompass the whole of humanity, presumably.
-
There's also Matt 5-6:
5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
-
There is also:
1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
-
Seems to be a significant difference between what Jesus himself said of himself (it is alleged) and what was claimed for him by others later on.
A glaring contradiction in the Bible? Say it ain't so!
-
I wouldn't say it ain't so because it's there in black and white.
He healed people who were not Jews.
-
Until you can actually demonstrate the existence of your god then your ju-ju isn't much different to any other superstitious mumbo jumbo.
Until you can demonstrate you have an understanding of my God you cannot even begin to know if someone had produced evidence.
As for superstition and mumbo jumbo you cannot judge what you haven't read and do not understand.
But hey! don't let a thing like ignorance stop you, it hasn't done so far.
-
But hey! don't let a thing like ignorance stop you, it hasn't done so far.
That's a keeper!
-
OK, lets start to analyse that. For starters, were the followers illiterate? Probably not as Jewish society - even in the 1st Century AD - put a high value on basic education.
This is interesting. When people point out that the gospels were not written down for about 40 years and therefore there must be errors of transmission, you like to insist that, in societies where the only means of transmission are oral, then oral transmission is accurate.
Would you like to make up your mind. Was the society in Palestine literate or not. You can't have it both ways.
Most lads (though, agreed, not necessarily girls) would be educated up to what we would regard as the equivalent of Years 5/6. (10-11 year olds) They would then go into vocational work, such as carpentry, agriculture, fishing, leatherwork, etc. - or 'further education' to prepare to be clerks, rabbis, leaders, etc.
In reality, of course this is nonsense. Maybe five or ten percent were literate. How else do you explain the complete absence of Christian documents in the first twenty years of its existence?
-
Dear Farmer,
Post 143.
In what way can we explain the success of Christianity?
I think Hope has made a pretty good stab at answering your question in post 149 but would add, right religion right time.
To repeat, Christianity sang out to the poor, same today as it was back in the times of early Christianity, the poor far outweighed the rich, it really was a religion for the common man.
I can't remember the exact words of a quote I read from Josephus, something about crazy Christians gathering at dawn and giving their food and goods away for nothing, not a bad selling strategy.
But I too would question your term "illiterate followers" maybe by today's standards, are today's standards any better, I don't need to remember stuff I just google it :o but I think we need to remember that early Christians were heavily influenced by Greece and the Greeks were very big on education.
Now it is just a little theory of mine and maybe someone on the forum who knows more about Greek history or how they were educated can say, Gonnagle you are talking pish, but I think they were taught differently back then, they didn't have the three R's they had four, the fourth being remembering, they were highly educated in remembering stuff, books, paper, pen and ink were not common commodities.
Anyway, lots of stuff why Christianity was a success, I think God thought, time for a rebrand, Jesus son, get off yer arse and do something, and he did ;)
Gonnagle.
-
As to 'various', we may wish to embrace the entire human race but we don't know them so we deal with different groups as they come into our sphere of consciousness, whether by knowing them personally or knowing of them. That's where the word ''various'' comes in, it isn't so very vague, it is merely a way of describing many people or peoples whilst acknowledging there are others we do not know.
Whilst I appreciate that we 'don't know the entire human race' ourselves, there are enough people who have studied the globe's population and people groups for us to know pretty well about them. However, we only have to look at our own society to see how much the mantra of 'tolerance and diversity' is paper thin. Look, for instance, at the current situation in British Cycling, the attitude of the Government itself to the disabled or even attitudes to immigrants. Jesus' teachings are very clear on this - it is unacceptable. However, there is a difference between "tolerance and diversity' and real equality.
-
Sklavenmoral or slave morality built upon ressentiment, as Nietzsche put it.
... and we all know that Nietzsche isn't infallible!!
... by convincing people that they won't actually be prey to the thing they hate and fear most, not really.
I'd agree, Shaker, not really. It wasn't, and isn't, anything to do with not being 'prey to the thing they hate and fear most'. It is to do with relationship, both with the creator and the rest of humanity.
-
... and we all know that Nietzsche isn't infallible!!
He never set himself up as such and nobody treats him as if he is.
Unlike some I could name.
I'd agree, Shaker, not really. It wasn't, and isn't, anything to do with not being 'prey to the thing they hate and fear most'. It is to do with relationship, both with the creator and the rest of humanity.
So the alleged exemption from death has nothing to do with it then? Right.
-
No it doesn't. Various means various, as in "Lots but too many to list individually." I could have enumerated the examples I had in mind if I'd foreseen that you'd have a comprehension breakdown over such a simple word.
Didn't Jesus (supposedly) say he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel? That doesn't encompass the whole of humanity, presumably.
Oxford Dictionary:
various:
ADJ:
1 Different from one another; of different kinds or sorts:
dresses of various colours; his grievances were many and various
1.1 Having or showing different properties or qualities:
their environments are locally various
DETERMINER & PRONOUN
More than one; individual and separate:
various people arrived late
[AS PRONOUN]: various of her friends had called
In none of these definitions really match yours, I'd go with the Oxford Dictionary.
Didn't Jesus (supposedly) say he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel? That doesn't encompass the whole of humanity, presumably.
He did, and that was speaking about himself (Matthew Chapter 15). In Chapter 10, he was giving instructions to his disciples for a specific, time-limited 'project'. He later instructed his disciples to 'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, ...' In all cases I know of, later instructions supersede earlier ones.
-
There's also Matt 5-6:
5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
And that was a specific, time-limited 'project', Rhi. Matthew 28 gives a later instruction that is commonly known as the 'Great Commission'.
-
Seems to be a significant difference between what Jesus himself said of himself (it is alleged) and what was claimed for him by others later on.
A glaring contradiction in the Bible? Say it ain't so!
You mean that there is a contradiction between what Jesus believed his own purpose to be, and what he believed his disciples' purpose to be?
-
Would you like to make up your mind. Was the society in Palestine literate or not. You can't have it both ways.
In reality, of course this is nonsense. Maybe five or ten percent were literate. How else do you explain the complete absence of Christian documents in the first twenty years of its existence?
Oh, so you regard someone who can't write to be uneducated? Literacy isn't the only level of education someone needs to be able to be educated. If, as you say, only 5 or 10% of the population was literate, why write anything down whilst you still have the eye-witnesses able to visit and talk to people in person.
-
You mean that there is a contradiction between what Jesus believed his own purpose to be, and what he believed his disciples' purpose to be?
No. The contradiction is between what Jesus (according to the story) believed his mission to be, and what his later followers believed his mission to be.
-
Moderator:
Fair point Thrud, so I'll lock it while we have a look. While I'm at it I'll move this thread to the Christian Topic.
Update: I've removed the most obvious examples to the Mod Board, so I'll unlock and move this thread to the Christian Topic.
Cheers..
-
Oh, so you regard someone who can't write to be uneducated? Literacy isn't the only level of education someone needs to be able to be educated. If, as you say, only 5 or 10% of the population was literate, why write anything down whilst you still have the eye-witnesses able to visit and talk to people in person.
Oh come on, that appears to be a daft comment coming from a teacher! Writing is one of the most important elements to education along with reading, if you can't write you are lacking in education. However it doesn't necessarily mean you are unintelligent, just not had the opportunity to be educated in that way.