Again, this is NOT 'our Christian heritage' -whatever that is.Problem is, Anchorman, there are alternative versions of what is 'Christian' - and that includes a very longstanding interpretation that is discriminatory on all sorts of grounds. Lets not forget that both slavery and racial segregation (both in the USA and SA) were justified by an interpretation of Christianity. And currently we see Christianity being routinely used as justification of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
As Christians, we have no right to discriminate on grounds of need - quite the opposite, in fact. I rejoice that many American Christian groups are amongst those suing Trump claiming his policies are illegal under U.S. law.
They are certainly antichristian.....you HAVE read the media this morning? People granted visas now turned away - not only Moslems, or perceived 'enimies', but women and children, and some who even helped America in her illegal wars.
the 'Land of the free' is soiled by a man like Trump.
Problem is, Anchorman, there are alternative versions of what is 'Christian' - and that includes a very longstanding interpretation that is discriminatory on all sorts of grounds. Lets not forget that both slavery and racial segregation (both in the USA and SA) were justified by an interpretation of Christianity. And currently we see Christianity being routinely used as justification of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.Your post has whetted my appetite for a possible thesis from the same public atheist stable on why Stalin and Pol pot were Christians.......possibly based around Stalin's attendance at a seminary and Mr Pot once having a good friend called Chris.
So it may well not be part of your Christian heritage (and good on you for that), but it is part of other people's Christian heritage - and it is for you to argue, and hopefully, win that argument within your own religion. And I trust if you take up that challenge that you wont 'cherry pick' which people shouldn't be discriminated against and those that it is OK.
IMHO this is another largely non sequitur post based on a ridiculous modern notion of self identification and ''religion is the root of all evil (question mark) philosophy''.Which is still something that nobody has ever claimed, despite your being told this repeatedly.
Your post has whetted my appetite for a possible thesis from the same public atheist stable on why Stalin and Pol pot were Christians.......possibly based around Stalin's attendance at a seminary and Mr Pot once having a good friend called Chris.Distraction tactic.
IMHO this is another largely non sequitur post based on a ridiculous modern notion of self identification and ''religion is the root of all evil (question mark) philosophy''.
IMHO this is another largely non sequitur post based on a ridiculous modern notion of self identification ...What do you mean by that Vlad. There is no accepted interpretation of Christianity - hence the huge numbers of separate denominations which vary in their interpretations of what Christianity means. And further how that interpretation should play out in our society.
and ''religion is the root of all evil (question mark) philosophy''.Where did I say that Vlad? I didn't - quite the reverse - actually what I was doing was pointing out to Anchorman that although his view, based on his interpretation of Christianity, are (to my mind) right, that others have view with I, and I assume he, find abhorrent which are also justified on the basis of Christianity.
What do you mean by that Vlad. There is no accepted interpretation of Christianity - hence the huge numbers of separate denominations which vary in their interpretations of what Christianity means. And further how that interpretation should play out in our society.Yes.......and you eagerly accept them as Christian views because it suits your argument.
You may not like that a different Christian denomination takes an alternative view to you and uses the bible (presumably the same source as you do) to justify racial segregation or Westboro Baptist type extreme views
Would you welcome a group of insistent and convinced flat earthers as geophysicists.....I doubt it.
Yes.......and you eagerly accept them as Christian views because it suits your argument.I make no judgement - I merely state that both groups are equally convinced that their interpretation of the bible is the correct one and there is no way that either can prove the other wrong.
Would you welcome a group of insistent and convinced flat earthers as geophysicists.....I doubt it.
You can dismiss flat Earthers using evidence. On what basis do you dismiss the interpretations of Christianity that you don't like?The new testament. They are clearly seen to be bowdlerising it in exactly the same way Flatearthers bowdlerise reference to curvature. Any one should have realised that.
The new testament.That's the same source text that all 30-odd thousand denominations of Christianity claim to base their contradictory and inconsistent beliefs on.
I make no judgement - I merely state that both groups are equally convinced that their interpretation of the bible is the correct one and there is no way that either can prove the other wrong.They are clearly seen to be bowdlerising the Bible rather than taking a different interpretation in the same way Flatearthers edit out curvature or people edit out bowdlerisation of the bible. Which is what you seem to be doing here.
And that is the difference with your rather poor analogy with flat earthers as geophysicists - as the principles of geophysics can prove that flat earthers are wrong and therefore being a flat earther is not consistent with being a geophysicist. By contrast you cannot prove that the Westboro Baptist church's interpretation of the bible is wrong
That's the same source text that all 30-odd thousand denominations of Christianity claim to base their contradictory and inconsistent beliefs on.Non sequitur to the question of bowdlerisation.
They are clearly seen to be bowdlerising the Bible rather than taking a different interpretation in the same way Flatearthers edit out curvature or people edit out bowdlerisation of the bible. Which is what you seem to be doing here.Wrong - using the defining methods of geophysics it is possible to prove flat earthers wrong. There is no such equivalent manner in which you can prove the Westboro Baptist church's interpretation of the bible to be wrong. You might think they are wrong (as may many many others) but that isn't the same as proving them wrong. And no doubt they will be as vehemently committed to their interpretation of the bible as you are to yours.
Wrong - using the defining methods of geophysics it is possible to prove flat earthers wrong. There is no such equivalent manner in which you can prove the Westboro Baptist church's interpretation of the bible to be wrong. You might think they are wrong (as may many many others) but that isn't the same as proving them wrong. And no doubt they will be as vehemently committed to their interpretation of the bible as you are to yours.Non sequiter to Bowdlerisation I'm afraid. Same principles apply. Any organisation which ignores complete tracts of a discipline cannot be representative of that discipline whether the original discipline is right or wrong.
And no doubt they would think that you are 'airbrushing' out of the bible certain elements which they feel are critical to their interpretation just as you feel they are doing. It is simply alternative interpretation of the same starting material.
Any organisation which ignores complete tracts of a discipline cannot be representative of that discipline whether the original discipline is right or wrong.And yet, given how often you invoke their names, you seem happy to take Stalin and Pol Pot as in some way representative of atheists generally and insinuate that a forty-year-old popular science book provided the ideological footings of Thatcherism even though it had nothing to say about politics or economcs at all, and furthermore, Dawkins has spoken out, forcefully and often, against that kind of me-first selfishness.
Non sequiter to Bowdlerisation I'm afraid. Same principles apply. Any organisation which ignores complete tracts of a discipline cannot be representative of that discipline whether the original discipline is right or wrong.You are arguing from your own conclusion.
You are arguing from your own conclusion.You have blurred up the line between having a disagreement over a text and bowdlerising it to suit a poor argument which depends on the demographic of this forum to give it the sustenance it would rightly not deserve in a world of full scrutiny.
No doubt the Westboro Baptists firmly believe that you are ignoring complete tracts of discipline, namely those that lead to their interpretive conclusions from their reading of the bible. The whole reason why we have different denominations is exactly for the reason that each believes others inappropriately focus on, or ignore, aspects of doctrine which they feel are irrelevant or critically important (delete as appropriate). So please justify objectively why your reading of the bible is right and theirs is wrong.
The Westboro Baptist church would fail any application of the trades description act.In your opinion - no doubt in their opinion your brand of Christianity would fail the trade's descriptions act.
In your opinion - no doubt in their opinion your brand of Christianity would fail the trade's descriptions act.Once again......you are confusing interpretation with Bowdlerisation.
That's the point - we are in the world of differing opinion and interpretation from the same starting point. Who is right, who is wrong, damned if I know, but then it isn't my argument - it is for the varying brands of Christianity to argue the toss until they come to an agreement (and I'm not holding my breath). For the rest of us we have no alternative to accept both as simply different brands of Christianity, rather than one as being Christianity and the other not-Christianity.
Once again......you are confusing interpretation with Bowdlerisation.Firstly it was you who brought up Bowdlerisation, not me - I was already discussing interpretation, so let's focus on the original discussion shall we.
The issue is yours and your inability to discriminate.
30-odd thousand denominations of Christianity
You mean 30-odd thousand denominations of Protestantism.
And at least eighteen of Orthodoxy.
Eh? The Monophysites and others like them ceased to be Orthodox when the rejected the faith of the Chalcedonian fathers.
You do realize how comical this is, don't you?
You'll need to explain yourself then.
Eh? The Monophysites and others like them ceased to be Orthodox when the rejected the faith of the Chalcedonian fathers.
.........according to ONE branch of Orthodoxy........
The ecumenical councils are the mark of orthodoxy. Reject the councils or even part of them and one ceases to be orthodox. It's as simple as that.
Once again......you are confusing interpretation with Bowdlerisation.
The issue is yours and your inability to discriminate.
-
Nope.
Rejecting the 'Councils' is simply rejecting the 'Councils'.
It's as simple as that.
Spoken like a true heretic. The holy ecumenical councils are the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. They articulate the apostolic and orthodox faith in response to heresy. To reject them is to reject the Holy Spirit.
Zzzzz!its them flies again!
Spoken like a true heretic. The holy ecumenical councils are the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. They articulate the apostolic and orthodox faith in response to heresy. To reject them is to reject the Holy Spirit.In your opinion.
In your opinion.
Please be aware that other opinions are available.
No, not in my opinion. It is the belief of historical Christianity.
No, not in my opinion. It is the belief of historical Christianity.In your opinion.
In your opinion.
Other opinions are available, including plenty who think your position is wrong and their view on Christianity is correct.
No, not just my opinion. The councils themselves and their anathemas are proof of this, that they are the mark of orthodoxy.Hmm - self validation - not really very robust I'm sure you will agree.
Hmm - self validation - not really very robust I'm sure you will agree.
So effectively your argument is that you are right because the hierarchy in your denomination says they are right. Well guess what chum, all denominations think they are right and their hierarchies also adopt self validation to 'prove' they are right. But of course all are merely opinions.
We'll the Proddies broke off from the Roman Catholics who broke off from Orthodoxy. They both ended up falling under the anathemas of the councils which they too, until they broke away, used as the mark of orthodoxy. They chose whim instead of collegiality.And ...
Eh? What is 'heretical' in accepting the God given Scripture and letting Him work through it, rather than wasting time with a shower of flawed men in funny costumes, who were often as corrupt as the rulers they served (and sometimes appointed)?
And ...
Sure I understand the history, but this is completely irrelevant to the point, which is who (if any) are right. No doubt the groups that broke away did so because, in their opinion, the more established denomination has moved away from what they felt was the true path of Christianity. So just because one organisation is older is no guarantee of greater veracity.
No visible link to the Apostles means they cannot be the Church.In your opinion.
The proof that your approach has little or nothing to do with the Holy Spirit is in the fact that protestantism fragmented almost immediately into divers sects. Why? Because they all feel they can interpret the holy scriptures on their own whim. The Apostles gave us the example at Jerusalem: collegiality.
I would suggest that this is an indication that the said 'Holy Spirit' is non-existent. In the former case, the structure of the Church was held in place by hierarchical structures adumbrated in the Pastoral Epistles: in other words the apparent unity was maintained by power. In the case of Protestantism, the rapid fragmentation occurred not so much because everyone felt free to obey their 'whims', but because they thought that each individual could gain the ear of the deity.
Still, I suppose the 'priesthood of all believers' is scriptural - but that's a good recipe for a free-for-all in the first place :)
Nowhere does it say in the NT that all believers are priets. That is a protestant invention.
In your opinion.
I think 1 Peter 2:5-9 is the reference. Honestly, you'd have thought a god could at least make its message clear and unambiguous....
That's the passage they use, yes, but it definitely doesn't say all believers are priests. Neither does St. John in the Apocalypse. If it's so obvious then it seems strange that no one noticed it for 1500 years until some fat German monk came along.
Whatever you happen to think of the scriptures that still doesn't say all believers are priests.
Just the ones in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia at the time of writing, then?
He merely says the Church is a royal priesthood, not that all its members are priests.
Right - a priesthood made up of people who aren't priests...
Listen, Tim nice but dim, it seems you're unable to see the distinction, even if it is subtle.
The proof that your approach has little or nothing to do with the Holy Spirit is in the fact that protestantism fragmented almost immediately into divers sects. Why? Because they all feel they can interpret the holy scriptures on their own whim. The Apostles gave us the example at Jerusalem: collegiality.
Nowhere does it say in the NT that all believers are priests. That is a Protestant invention.
Some unusual usage of the word "priesthood" perhaps?
priesthood
noun
often the priesthood
1[mass noun] The office or position of a priest:
‘the ordination of women to the priesthood’
1.1 Priests in general:
‘there was relief among the Anglican priesthood’http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/priesthood
Seriously?
You have read the book of Acts, have you?
Division amongst the early Church was there at the outset!
The 'council of Jerusalem' where Peter and Paul had a stushie only papered over the cracks!
Face it, the church has been fragmented from the outset. There have been councils - sometimes imposed by very corrupt Roman and Byzantine rulers - in an effort to unify the church in the Emperor's own image - thankfully failed.
God's spirit has worked - and continues to work - through His people, sometimes despite the tradition bound anachronisms which seek to bind Him.
Not according to Peter.
Again, spoken like a true heretic who follows his own whim instead of the Holy Spirit and the Church Christ himself founded. Perhaps you can explain to all here from where do you get your articulation of the Most Holy Trinity?
Nay! Merely that the Church is "a holy nation, a royal priesthood". It does not imply that all those within the Church are priests, only that there is a priesthood.
Again, spoken like a true heretic who follows his own whim instead of the Holy Spirit and the Church Christ himself founded.
Then maybe you can show us all where St. Peter says all believers are priests? He doesn't in any of his epistles.
-
From the fact of the expanding, growing church - which is God's family.
From the fact of the underground Church in China, the persecurted Church in various nations, growing, fulfilling Scripture - and not a shower of hidebound traditionaluists.
"The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot extinguish it" (John 1:12, NLT)
From the fact of the expanding, growing church - which is God's family.
From the fact of the underground Church in China, the persecurted Church in various nations, growing, fulfilling Scripture - and not a shower of hidebound traditionaluists.
"The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot extinguish it" (John 1:12, NLT)
Right, so when it says "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession...", it should be read as "But some of you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession..." or does this only apply to the priesthood bit: "But you are a chosen people with a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession..."?
Anchs,
Been a while since we had someone try the survivor bias fallacy. Congrats!
"Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. The survivors may be actual people, as in a medical study, or could be companies or research subjects or applicants for a job, or anything that must make it past some selection process to be considered further.
Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence (Correlation proves Causation). For example, if three of the five students with the best college grades went to the same high school, that can lead one to believe that the high school must offer an excellent education. This could be true, but the question cannot be answered without looking at the grades of all the other students from that high school, not just the ones who "survived" the top-five selection process."
(Wiki - emphasis added)
But the Church is neither an educational facility nor a business. The Church is a visible institution founded by Christ. Visible, so that we might know where to go in order to be saved. This is foretold in the OT with Noah and his ark.
Maybe you're just pretending to be dense. Anyway, Here's an almost similar use of words when God spoke to Moses in reference to the ancient Israelites during the exodus and which St. Peter no doubt had in mind.
"And Moses went up to God: and the Lord called unto him from the mountain, and said: Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: You have seen what I have done to the Egyptians, how I have carried you upon the wings of eagles, and have taken you to myself. If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation."
Fun as it is watching bald fellas arguing over a comb, does it not occur to you that you have much bigger fish to fry than minor doctrinal differences if you expect the underlying claims to be taken seriously?As you are well aware BH those 'minor doctrinal differences' have lead to countless people being killed over the centuries.
Just a thought.
The word priestly has a different meaning. Oh, WTF, you really don't understand how utterly silly all this is, do you?
You're arguing about an old, inconsistent, self-contradictory book of obviously human made myths, as if there were the slightest hint of a scrap of evidence to suggest that it was anything more.
As you are well aware BH those 'minor doctrinal differences' have lead to countless people being killed over the centuries.
Hi Prof,
Yes I am, and that's just the point: trivial differences in understanding or interpretation fester and become excuses for slaughtering each other generations on. The Sunni and Shiite muslims have the same issue.
Hi Prof,Indeed.
Yes I am, and that's just the point: trivial differences in understanding or interpretation fester and once entrenched become excuses for slaughtering each other generations on. The Sunni and Shiite muslims have the same issue.
Yes, you must be dense.
They're not minor.In your opinion - and as with so many other issues other opinions are available - including those of outsiders, such as myself, for whom the 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin' type pointlessness seems deeply, well, pointless as well as ultimately completely trivial.
They're not minor. The two sects of a paedo-prophet inspired by a demon is no comparison either.
Really? I guess you must have a hint of a scrap of evidence to suggest that bible isn't an old, inconsistent, self-contradictory book of obviously human made myths, then.
Do tell.
Or perhaps you should try actually reading the bible some time - I mean to see what it says, rather than to confirm what you 'know'.
Anchs, Been a while since we had someone try the survivor bias fallacy. Congrats! "Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. The survivors may be actual people, as in a medical study, or could be companies or research subjects or applicants for a job, or anything that must make it past some selection process to be considered further. Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence (Correlation proves Causation). For example, if three of the five students with the best college grades went to the same high school, that can lead one to believe that the high school must offer an excellent education. This could be true, but the question cannot be answered without looking at the grades of all the other students from that high school, not just the ones who "survived" the top-five selection process." (Wiki - emphasis added)- Not survival - expansion! And 'expansion' can mean simply that those who find the Gospel a way of life want to share their hope with those who need to know hope. And, as I pointed out, it seems to work.
Well, seeing as I've read the scriptures several times over and in the Byzantine and old Roman liturgies the scriptures are read considerably more extensively than in any Protestant service, then I'm quite confident I know the scriptures fairly well.
Christianity survived because Constantine happened to pick it and gave it the kick start it needed, not because there was a man/god at the centre of it. Thinking otherwise is just more survivor bias.
- Not survival - expansion! And 'expansion' can mean simply that those who find the Gospel a way of life want to share their hope with those who need to know hope. And, as I pointed out, it seems to work.
Christianity has survived precisely because it is the work of the Holy Spirit. Constantine was merely a tool. Pray for us holy Constantine and his mother Helena.
ad,And it is certainly a very poor argument that there is something special about Christianity (or even one denomination of Christianity as AO seems to think) on the basis of its longevity.
I don't doubt that you believe that quite sincerely, which is precisely why survivor bias can be so pernicious sometimes. All sorts of phenomena survive and thrive for reasons other than an inherent characteristic - you have to look through the wrong end of the telescope just to assume after the event that the one you happen to favour was special all along. Had Constantine chosen a different cult, no doubt you'd be telling us just as fervently now why that one was so special instead.
Ah well.
The one true God* has been known since our first parents Adam and Eve**.* Other one true gods available.
The one true God has been known since our first parents Adam and Eve.
Really? I guess you must have a hint of a scrap of evidence to suggest that bible isn't an old, inconsistent, self-contradictory book of obviously human made myths, then.
Do tell.
Or perhaps you should try actually reading the bible some time - I mean to see what it says, rather than to confirm what you 'know'.
Well, seeing as I've read the scriptures several times over and in the Byzantine and old Roman liturgies the scriptures are read considerably more extensively than in any Protestant service, then I'm quite confident I know the scriptures fairly well.
The one true God has been known since our first parents Adam and Eve.
[...] if you're that removed from the reality, you're probably a lost cause...Quite.
No. Absolutely not alone. At all.Ditto.
Ditto.
I was amazed some years ago when my oldest friend (from school) said, after we had seen or heard something on TV, and I made a brief sceptical comment, 'Yes, but what about Adam and Eve?' She had not long before that attended an Alpha course - 'nuf said!!
As a matter of mischievious interest.
How many human precursors would have to have simultaneously developed the mutation/s for humanity for nature to avoid the charge of being swiveleyed fundamental creationist?
Sorry in advance for any bonfires subject to micturations.
42, perhaps.No....That's your IQ.
Indeed.Still confusing practical expurgation with arguing over interpretation I see.
Now I actually need intentionally started this thread - it was split out from another thread.
But my initial point was that there are differing views on what constitutes Christianity, and that the notion that claiming others who have a different interpretation are somehow not really Christians is completely untenable and totally unprovable. And can there be a better set of posts to prove my point than those on this thread between different Christian posters.
Still confusing practical expurgation with arguing over interpretation I see.
No....That's your IQ.41 more than your's then.
Still confusing practical expurgation with arguing over interpretation I see.Explain yourself - what do you mean by 'practical expurgation' - a term I don't think you have used before and not clear in its meaning.
Yes.......and you eagerly accept them as Christian views because it suits your argument.
Would you welcome a group of insistent and convinced flat earthers as geophysicists.....I doubt it.
The new testament. They are clearly seen to be bowdlerising it in exactly the same way Flatearthers bowdlerise reference to curvature. Any one should have realised that.
Well, ignoring the Westboro Baptists for a moment, on this thread we have had a convinced Orthodox believer, who claims the unbroken ancestry of his Church goes back to Christ, and that therefore his beliefs are truly 'Christian', arguing that a fairly liberal Protestant is a 'heretic'. Do you want to refight the Reformation as well, or are you happy to embrace both to your magnanimous (and no doubt capacious) bosom?
Explain yourself - what do you mean by 'practical expurgation' - a term I don't think you have used before and not clear in its meaning.
He's got a magnanimous and capricious bosom?
I thought he was a fella?
???
He's got a magnanimous and capricious bosom?
I thought he was a fella?
???
Vlad,Get a dictionary for starters.
The problem there of course being that one Christian's "practical expurgation" is another Christian's "interpretation", and vice versa.
How would you propose to sort one from the other?
41 more than your's then.Laugh? I couldn't start.
Get a dictionary for starters.
Vlad,Hillside
Now try reading the question again. Each opposing variety of Christian thinks the he's "practically expurgating" and that the other is "bowldlerising" or some such.
Each relies on his faith for his position.
Now what?
Learn the difference between expurgation and interpretation.
There is so much that can be stripped off something before it ceases to be that.
Any group of people who have hate as their leitmotif are not Christians. Even though it is the model New Atheists may like.In my opinion you have spent a lot of time shoehorning Christians into a cod caricature.
Vlad,No I'm saying that if a plane has ballast tanks and a conning tower it isn't a plane.
Learn to read a question. You’re just trying the “no true Scotsman” fallacy here – Fred Phelps thinks he’s “practically expurgating” and you’re bowldlerising just as much as you think it’s the other way around.
Why should anyone think that either one of you is right and the other is wrong?
No I'm saying that if a plane has ballast tanks and a conning tower it isn't a plane.
If you can make a proper case I will gladly found a Chapter of Christians for Dawkins spreading blessings of God through the message of atheism........or any self contradictory nonsense you care to mention.
There is so much that can be stripped off something before it ceases to be that.Not as simple as that, old fruit - look up the Sorites Paradox, one of the oldest philosophical conundrums going.
Vlad,So let's see....if it self identifies as a duck, barks and lifts its hind legs at a lamppost......it must be a duck.
Which is exactly what Phelps would say about your stripe of Christianity, supported by the bits that help him and having "practically expurgated" the bits that don't.
You're really struggling with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy aren't you.
I don't have a dog in the fight here. Phelps (or whoever) can make his "proper" case by quoting and expurgating, you can do the same. You both think you're right because you have "faith" that you're right.
Now what?
Vlad,Non sequitur to the issue at hand.
I don't have a dog in the fight here. Phelps (or whoever) can make his "proper" case by quoting and expurgating, you can do the same. You both think you're right because you have "faith" that you're right.
Now what?
No I'm saying that if a plane has ballast tanks and a conning tower it isn't a plane.But that is because there is a clear and accepted definition of a plane.
So let's see....if it self identifies as a duck, barks and lifts its hind legs at a lamppost......it must be a duck.
Non sequitur to the issue at hand.
Besides I don't say because I have faith I must be right. Like you I have faith that I am right.
The Faith as a virtue crock is a concoction brewed at Atheist Central and promulgated by Dawkins little wizards.
Vlad,Still waiting for Vlad to explain what he means by 'practically expurgates' but not holding my breath. So I presume this to mean ignoring in any practical manner a section in the bible. So accepting that the text exists but that it is irrelevant and should be ignored.
Oh dear. Phelps says that the Bible “self-identifies” as homophobic – look, it says so right there in Leviticus! – and “practically expurgates” the bits that contradict that.
You on the other hand say that the Bible espouses love - look, it says so right there in a different part of the same book! – and “practically expurgate” the bits that Phelps references.
Whence then your “self-identifying” when the same book supports both positions?
Still waiting for Vlad to explain what he means by 'practically expurgates' but not holding my breath. So I presume this to mean ignoring in any practical manner a section in the bible. So accepting that the text exists but that it is irrelevant and should be ignored.
Now the issue here seems to me that the bible is very long and very complicated and practical expurgation is inextricably linked to interpretation, often in completely different section of the book.
So let's take the old favourite of non Christians to imply inconsistency/hypocrisy on the part of Christians from Leviticus 19:19:
'You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.'
Now most Christians ignore this - they 'practically expurgate' the phrase - i.e. they know it is there, they aren't directly interpreting it as 'yup pull on that poly/cotton shirt - all is fine' but they ignore it. Why - because elsewhere they interpret other section as meaning that the rules of Leviticus 19:19 can be ignored or 'practically expurgated'.
So 'practically expurgation' and interpretation are inextricably linked. They aren't the same but interpretation of one section leads to practical expurgation of another section.
So let's take the old favourite of non Christians to imply inconsistency/hypocrisy on the part of Christians from Leviticus 19:19:
'You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.'
Now most Christians ignore this - they 'practically expurgate' the phrase - i.e. they know it is there, they aren't directly interpreting it as 'yup pull on that poly/cotton shirt - all is fine' but they ignore it. Why - because elsewhere they interpret other section as meaning that the rules of Leviticus 19:19 can be ignored or 'practically expurgated'.
So 'practically expurgation' and interpretation are inextricably linked. They aren't the same but interpretation of one section leads to practical expurgation of another section.
Hi Prof,
I think that the point is that Christians themselves have to bring something to the party - they project. Thus if, say, you're a nasty piece of work Phelps type then you'll project that onto the text and expurgate the bits that don't suit. And vice versa. That way each of them ends up with a god that suits - loving, vengeful etc - made in his or her own image.
The only way out of that - to decide what the Bible actually "self-identifies" as rather than what you'd prefer it to self-identify as - is to find some logic or evidence outwith the text itself.
I certainly agree with this, blue. You can certainly find texts of both kinds in both the Old and New Testaments. However, those Christians who want to be faithful to as much of the given text as possible will tend to say that God is both a god of love and justice. I'd have no problems with that, except that the idea of punishing individuals for all eternity for temporal crimes (or apparently, according to 1John, for simply not believing) doesn't seem to me to be particularly just.
And just to clarify matters for those who think that the Old Testament is the main repository of all nastiness and ideas of eternal torment: this is completely untrue. All ideas about eternal punishment belong to the New Testament, and are found nowhere else .
First of all love concedes the possibility of rejection. Experience tells us that one can pour love onto someone without any constructive alteration. A haven of love I would say excludes for instance the purely selfish ego. As the orthodox might say heaven would actually seem like hell for some..
What I find a more serious matter (which I've already alluded to earlier) is how Christians like Vlad manage to interpret texts that portray Jesus as not so meek and mild. Vlad has said that the important criterion in these matters is 'love' - that is what marks out true Christians. However, I don't know if he would use this as a yardstick to exclude certain texts from the NT itself, where love certainly doesn't seem to be the guiding principle. I quoted "Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and all his angels", which is an example, but certainly not the only one of this kind. As has been noted, we haven't heard Vlad justifiy himself on a number of things, and I'd certainly like to know how he deals with the fire-breathing Jesus: whether he just gets out his scissors and says "not authentic Jesus", or whether he has a convenient 'interpretation'.
First of all love concedes the possibility of rejection. Experience tells us that one can pour love onto someone without any constructive alteration. A haven of love I would say excludes for instance the purely selfish ego. As the orthodox might say heaven would actually seem like hell for some..
I think there is also the nominality question…
Christianity is a distinctive thing which it is possible to be out with. It is perhaps those who think they have wangled inclusion who Jesus is referring to. Here not the Dawkinses of the world.
If one finds themselves troubled by this I would search oneself to find out how and why.
Vlad,You've certainly got balls admitting to non comprehension of the straightforward.
Well, them’s words all right. Yup definitely words, I’ll give you that. Any chance of arranging them into a coherent sentence of some kind though, and better yet one that expresses a cogent thought of some kind?
Ta.
Oh gawd…
And again, only with meaning or content please?
Not troubled, baffled. What are you even trying to say here?
First of all love concedes the possibility of rejection. Experience tells us that one can pour love onto someone without any constructive alteration.You want to have a quiet word with your (apparent) co-religionist Alan Burns, who seems to think that love isn't love unless a reciprocal, requited two-way street.
You've certainly got balls admitting to non comprehension of the straightforward.
Calm yerself down, have a glass of something and try again only using plain terms that you actually understand and that express a cogent thought.For Findus crispy pancakes' sake, bluey, that leaves us with "yes", "no" and "potato."
For Findus crispy pancakes' sake, bluey, that leaves us with "yes", "no" and "potato."
Have a word with yourself, man.
First of all love concedes the possibility of rejection. Experience tells us that one can pour love onto someone without any constructive alteration. A haven of love I would say excludes for instance the purely selfish ego. As the orthodox might say heaven would actually seem like hell for some..
I think there is also the nominality question. Christianity is a distinctive thing which it is possible to be out with. It is perhaps those who think they have wangled inclusion who Jesus is referring to. Here not the Dawkinses of the world.
If one finds themselves troubled by this I would search oneself to find out how and why.
As is well known, there are a number of words for 'love' in koine Greek, and it is important to understand what you actually mean by 'love' in this case, God's love, before you start making comparisons with one-to-one human situations. The Orthodox concept I've always found particularly unconvincing, since it seems predicated on the ideas of convinced believers who cannotI'm not sure how sound the claim that 'I am not unconsciously rejecting God' or indeed ''not unconsciously doing anything without a physical consequence'' can be.
imagine a situation where there is no God as the ultimate reality, and presume that therefore anyone who does not believe must be consciously or unconsciously directly rejecting the supposed divine reality. A little more acquaintance with the actuality of what humans experience in their lives gives the lie to this idea .
A genuine intellectual non believer may not yet have met God.
Vlad,Reason his way to ''No God?'' I don't think even the great Dawks has done that.
Anyone up for a game of fallacy top trumps?
I'll go first with this reification fallacy.
Doubtless you'll be along soon Vlad to explain away the contradiction inherent in someone reasoning his way to "no god" then being troubled by not meeting this god. How troubled are you exactly by not yet meeting Colin, the Great Chieftain of the Leprechauns?
Just a wee bit anxious maybe?
A genuine intellectual non believer may not yet have met God. And that thought may feel troubling in itself.Which translates to 'you are wrong but you don't yet realise you are wrong'.
Reason his way to ''No God?'' I don't think even the great Dawks has done that.
I think it's not for you but for Dicky to offer his ''reasoning'' or even his agreement that he has ever reasoned his way to ''No God''.
Which translates to 'you are wrong but you don't yet realise you are wrong'.I'm afraid that's the implication of anyone arguing a position they hold.
How patronising is that.
Vlad,Thanks for the qualification. We now have your actual mere assertion.
"No god" meaning "no reason for me to think there's a god" here
Thanks for the qualification. We now have your actual mere assertion.
Which translates to 'you are wrong but you don't yet realise you are wrong'.As someone a bit older my experience was that RE was a bolt on extension of Bible stories rather than a briefing in the theological and anthropological aspects of Christianity.
How patronising is that.
And I think that suggestion doesn't really align with our cultural upbringing. We aren't in a society where atheists and agnostics may have drifted through life unaware of the concept of God or Christianity and therefore not really met God. Rather in the UK most kids are very well aware of the notion of God and Christianity from a very early age. Even if not brought up in a religious household our schooling system (not just faith schools) is biased towards a default position that there is a God, and likely that God is the Christian God - certainly this will be true through primary school years.
So rather than atheists and agnostics not having the chance to interact with 'God' and Christianity they will have had ample opportunity, probably considered themselves believers as children (as that's what drops out of the culture within their society and schools) and have come to recognise as they become adults that there is nothing in it - no evidence for God, no need for God and therefore choose not to believe.
Certainly through my own upbringing (child born in mid 60s) the default was that you should believe and indeed I spent plenty of time thinking I did believe, indeed trying to believe. But the reality was that I didn't, as soon as I wasn't trying it was clear to me that I didn't believe, try as I might. I then got to the point (early 20s) of coming to recognise that I didn't believe and at that point I went with my gut, my intellect and my conscience and accepted that I was an atheist. Since that time nothing has really shifted that view - I've never really had doubts about my atheism.
Vlad,I'm sure there are untroubled atheists. But those posting copiously on a religious forum are evidently not among them.........mind you I think that puts you in a better position than them.
Presumably that meant something in your head when you typed it?
Anyway, the question you're trying to deflect us from concerned why on earth an atheist would be "troubled" by the idea of "not meeting" god as you claimed. If you're going to keep avoiding it that's up to you, but it'd save time at least if you just said so.
Ta.
I'm sure there are untroubled atheists. But those posting copiously on a religious forum are evidently not among them.........mind you I think that puts you in a better position than them.
These shortfalls are evident in the poverty of theological knowledge neatly demonstrated by Dawkins in his concession that he didn't needn't need to know about theology.
Vlad,Ah, The Myers shuffle.....Warmed over atheist wankfodder.
You keep feeding me the fallacies, I'll keep knocking 'em out of the park!
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
(P Z Myers)
Presumably you made a deep study of leprechaunology before dismissing its claims then?
Vlad,I don't think all are....and that is where Dawkins has difficulty with fellow atheists in his displays of the ''No true scotsman'' fallacy.
Oh dear. Atheists may well be “troubled” by the behaviour of theists.
As someone a bit older my experience was that RE was a bolt on extension of Bible stories rather than a briefing in the theological and anthropological aspects of Christianity.So what - in all sorts of area young children tend to be exposed to a simplistic version of ideas for the very reason that they are ... err ... children.
Very few children I imagine would have been exposed to an evangelical treatment of Christianity.
These shortfalls are evident in the poverty of theological knowledge neatly demonstrated by Dawkins in his concession that he didn't needn't need to know about theology.This is an entirely different point, but is also a very weak one.
Well, seeing as I've read the scriptures several times over and in the Byzantine and old Roman liturgies the scriptures are read considerably more extensively than in any Protestant service, then I'm quite confident I know the scriptures fairly well.
No evidence, then.
If you had read what I said, you would have realized that I wasn't suggesting that you hadn't read the bible or didn't 'know' it. I was suggesting trying to read it with an open mind, rather than reading at to confirm your pre-existing beliefs.
But if you're that removed from the reality, you're probably a lost cause...
So what - in all sorts of area young children tend to be exposed to a simplistic version of ideas for the very reason that they are ... err ... children.But my reply number 143 is not about exposure to the Bible.
But that is irrelevant - the point I was making was that most kids in the UK would have been exposed to the bible, the notion of god and to christianity. None of these are hidden concepts, yet you try to imply that atheists are so because of a lack of exposure to the bible
I don't agree with anything here.
If you do not believe in god then the details of the theology that flow from a belief in god aren't relevant. I presume you don't believe in the ancient norse gods. Now you might find it interesting to learn about their theology, but I'm sure you would accept that there is no necessity so to do. And in that respect you would be using exactly the same argument as Dawkins.
Ah, The Myers shuffle.....Warmed over atheist wankfodder.
Wordage equals argument eh Hillside. Ha Ha.
Presumably Myers wasn't getting sufficient attention when he put a pin in a communion wafer.
I don't think all are....and that is where Dawkins has difficulty with fellow atheists in his displays of the ''No true scotsman'' fallacy.
Vlad,The point is that Dawkins and Myers are argumentum ad ridiculum men....and that's why they make you, rather than me...well....intellectually ''moist''.
I’ve noticed that you do that a lot when you lose an argument – just throw abuse at it in the hope it goes away.
It’s very simple. You complained that your unrequited bromance object Richard Dawkins dismissed the claim “God’ with insufficient understanding of theology. The Courtier’s Reply rather elegantly makes the point that that’s akin to saying you can’t tell that the foundations are missing unless you have a degree in the stress engineering of roof structure.
Bluehillside then by expecting me to take Leprechaunology seriously because it is an important part of Dawkinism is pure humbug on his part.
This post is light on content and heavy on rhetoric. Like the Myers shuffle.
What about the spiritual journey of CS Lewis...
Vlad,Surprised by Joy CS Lewis published by Collins £8.99 from Amazon, Available at Waterstones, all good bookshops and probably some bad ones too .
What "spiritual journey"?
Ah, The Myers shuffle.....Warmed over atheist wankfodder.No you have to read the word and understand them, which may be a difficult concept for you, admittedly.
Wordage equals argument eh Hillside. Ha Ha.
Surprised by Joy CS Lewis published by Collins £8.99 from Amazon, Available at Waterstones, all good bookshops and probably some bad ones too .
But my reply number 143 is not about exposure to the Bible.Waffle
It is about the commentating of it by largely disinterested educators merely fulfilling curriculum obligations.
In other words there is virtually no commentary on Christianity.....and the evidence is paucity in knowledge of the relationship between God and Christ, a world of lack of understanding of the holy spirit, salvation etc.
Any report on RE has shown how ''bolt on'' this is.
If there is any commentary on Christianity it is on the ''historical importance of it'' this is what quaint old people once believed'' and historical importance is a guaranteed turn off.
And after all of that atheists claim that they came up with their disinterest in knowing about Christianity as their own.
In any event the urge by many on this board to eradicate the memory of ideas runs counter to a proper view of education IMHO.
No you have to read the word and understand them, which may be a difficult concept for you, admittedly.And we all know that to describe something as bollock naked is to have gone nuclear.
You don't have to understand the finer points of haute couture (high fashion) to know that somebody is bollock naked.
I don't agree with anything here.Then I trust you have made yourself fully acquainted with the theological details of the several thousand deities claimed to exist now and through the past centuries. Because if you haven't, and particularly if you think that not to be important then you are demonstrating crass double standards.
What about the spiritual journey of CS Lewis where he acknowledges that informative models of theology have been offered by ancient people?So what - other 'spiritual journeys' are available, including, of course, plenty of people whose journey ends up in them deciding that god doesn't exist and that religions, based on a god are therefore incorrect in principle. And of course in many cases those journeys will have started from a religious upbringing (just like C S Lewis' - whose journey was never really one of non belief to belief, but merely a journey in belief). Don't forget his killer quote which demonstrates that he was never an atheist:
WaffleAgain remind yourself of my reply 143.
The point is, and remains, and you have confirmed, that children are regularly exposed to the bible, the notion of god and to christianity in a manner which is largely age-appropriate (and that is relevant as the kind of information you seem to be requiring is way beyond the understanding of an 8-year old for example). And if that child as they mature wants to know more there are endless opportunities for them to do so to allow them to explore faith should they choose to do so.
So the point is that people end up as atheists and agnostics as adults not through lack of opportunity to expose faith and lack of exposure to the bible, the notion of god and to christianity, but in spite of it.
And we all know that to describe something as bollock naked is to have gone nuclear.
The more half arsed ''fallacies'' new atheists have to invent to hide their own ''bollock nakedness'' the more they can slip up on one or another of them.....like painting yourself into a corner by laying mantraps instead of paint.
Vlad,Doubtless ''going nuclear'' then will turn out to be something only a theist can be guilty of...in the weird and whacky world of theist hating New Atheism.
That's not what "going nuclear" means.
Then I trust you have made yourself fully acquainted with the theological details of the several thousand deities claimed to exist now and through the past centuries. Because if you haven't, and particularly if you think that not to be important then you are demonstrating crass double standards.Ah, The no true Scotsman defence.
So what - other 'spiritual journeys' are available, including, of course, plenty of people whose journey ends up in them deciding that god doesn't exist and that religions, based on a god are therefore incorrect in principle. And of course in many cases those journeys will have started from a religious upbringing (just like C S Lewis' - whose journey was never really one of non belief to belief, but merely a journey in belief). Don't forget his killer quote which demonstrates that he was never an atheist:
“I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.”
No-one who actually does not believe in the existence of god would ever claim to be angry with something they don't believe exists - it is non-sensical. Lewis was never really an atheist, merely someone pretending to be.
Ah, The no true Scotsman defence.An atheist is a person who does not believe in god or gods.
And we all know that to describe something as bollock naked is to have gone nuclear.That might be all you "know" by it, but thinking people understand the analogy.
The more half arsed ''fallacies'' new atheists have to invent to hide their own ''bollock nakedness'' the more they can slip up on one or another of them.....like painting yourself into a corner by laying mantraps instead of paint.No, you see, a good analogy like the Emperor's new clothes one has to make some sense. You can't just string random words together and hope that people will be impressed by your pseudo erudition.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in god or gods.Of course an atheist can lament the non existence of God just like an a leprechaunist can lament a world devoid of happy leprechauns or an a jiminy cricketist lament the absence in the world of the chirpy chap.
In what way are the following statements:
'I was also very angry with God for not existing.'
And
'I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.'
Consistent with someone who doesn't believe in god or gods.
Of course an atheist can lament the non existence of God just like an a leprechaunist can lament a world devoid of happy leprechauns or an a jiminy cricketist lament the absence in the world of the chirpy chap.He isn't lamenting the non existence of god - indeed he is angry with him for not existing (which of course makes no sense) and is also angry with him for creating the world - which also makes no sense if you don't believe god exists, as a non existent entity cannot create anything.
The other possibility is of course is that we are all Goddodgers.
That might be all you "know" by it, but thinking people understand the analogy.It's a shit hyperbolic analogy. Jeremby.
No, you see, a good analogy like the Emperor's new clothes one has to make some sense. You can't just string random words together and hope that people will be impressed by your pseudo erudition.
He isn't lamenting the non existence of god - indeed he is angry with him for not existing (which of course makes no sense) and is also angry with him for creating the world - which also makes no sense if you don't believe god exists, as a non existent entity cannot create anything.I think the point is that he realises himself as another atheist who protesteth too much methinks.
Lewis comes across as a disgruntled theist, kind of playing at being an atheist - note that he cannot bring himself to say that he did not believe that god exists, merely that he maintained that god did not exist. The two aren't the same.
Doubtless ''going nuclear'' then will turn out to be something only a theist can be guilty of...in the weird and whacky world of theist hating New Atheism.
How about making hyperbolic claims then? Or in the case of Myers and Dawkins claiming Bollock nakedness...
Hyperbollock claims?
Ah, The no true Scotsman defence.
Of course an atheist can lament the non existence of God just like an a leprechaunist can lament a world devoid of happy leprechauns or an a jiminy cricketist lament the absence in the world of the chirpy chap.
The other possibility is of course is that we are all Goddodgers.
I'm not dodging what they represent Hillside.... stabs of various comprehensiveness at what the divine is.
You have a shockingly limited almost dawkinsian knowledge of the arguments IMHO read some books on the subject.
Thanks for this post Hillside which can be quoted whenever you accuse people of dodging the truth of whatever it is you believe in....Thus revealing yourself as a big minty brown stripey one.
It's a shit hyperbolic analogy. Jeremby.You mean it's one that you cannot answer. It's actually a pretty good analogy and destroys the "he doesn't know any theology therefore he can't comment on the existence or otherwise of God" whiney non argument.
You mean it's one that you cannot answer. It's actually a pretty good analogy and destroys the "he doesn't know any theology therefore he can't comment on the existence or otherwise of God" whiney non argument.He can comment on it but an uninformed opinion is always going to be that.
He can comment on it but an uninformed opinion is always going to be that.And in what way is that different to the theology associated with any of the thousands of deities purported to exist for you.
He can comment on it but an uninformed opinion is always going to be that.Do you need to be informed on the finer points of the difference between cotton and linen in order to tell if somebody is naked? No.
The Courtiers reply is therefore merely a rhetorical tool designed to bolster a felt immunity from scrutiny by New Atheists.
If it isn't the No true atheist thing...it's because there are no true atheists.Are you really suggesting that there aren't people who don't believe in god or gods, because that is all it takes to be a 'true atheist'.
I think the point is that he realises himself as another atheist who protesteth too much methinks.Nope I think he recognised that he was a believer who, for whatever reason, was trying to fool himself into thinking that he didn't believe, hence the phrase 'I maintained that God did not exist' rather than the obvious one that an atheist would use, namely 'I did not believe that god exists'.
Do you need to be informed on the finer points of the difference between cotton and linen in order to tell if somebody is naked? No.Alright I concede it and admit it......Dawkins, Myers and you are bollock naked.
Are you really suggesting that there aren't people who don't believe in god or gods, because that is all it takes to be a 'true atheist'.All I am saying prof is that you can be a true atheist and lament that there isn't God or feel angry that he isn't there.
And in what way is that different to the theology associated with any of the thousands of deities purported to exist for you.I'm sorry but the position is that I agree with everything you can come up with....and then some. No appeal to science can gainsay my 'extra' ......because it just er, doesn't.
Either you have detailed knowledge of every theological proposition, linked to every religion and every deity or you are just as guilty as those you criticise.
Or is it only ignorance when associated with atheists?
Worth noting too that during his supposed 'atheist' phase C S Lewis became preoccupied with occultism. The whole point about atheism is that we don't believe in a supernatural deity, why then would an atheist believe in the occult which is firmly embedded in the concept of supernaturalism and is fair more aligned with the principles of theism than it is with atheism.Theism is about God. One can believe in beings thrown up naturally with supernatural powers.
Lewis believed and was searching for an alternative outlet for his belief while trying to convince himself he didn't believe. I've never seen anything about Lewis that convinces me that he ever really didn't believe in god or gods.
He can comment on it but an uninformed opinion is always going to be that.
The Courtiers reply is therefore merely a rhetorical tool designed to bolster a felt immunity from scrutiny by New Atheists.
Alright I concede it and admit it......Dawkins, Myers and you are bollock naked.Yes and no. I was pretty certain you'd come back with some useless piece of twatterey, but not that particular piece of useless twattery.
You didn't see that coming did you.
A belief that has an eternal self perturbed universe is supernatural since none of it can be proved naturally.Nope. The World is clearly not supernatural because it is here and it exists. You may choose to claim the means by which it came into existence is supernatural, I prefer to admit I don't know how it came into existence.
Nope. The World is clearly not supernatural because it is here and it exists. You may choose to claim the means by which it came into existence is supernatural, I prefer to admit I don't know how it came into existence.I don't think non existant was ever a definition of the word supernatural whereas not susceptible to scientific investigation is.
I'm sorry but the position is that I agree with everything you can come up with....and then some. No appeal to science can gainsay my 'extra' ......because it just er, doesn't.So effectively you are saying that you hold a position (principle of comprehensiveness) which, in your view, means you don't need to know theological details of all religions.
In terms of theological proposition. I work on the principle of comprehensiveness. and that there is something that is the fulfilment of all theological positions.
All I am saying prof is that you can be a true atheist and lament that there isn't God or feel angry that he isn't there.Indeed, but that isn't what Lewis is saying. He didn't feel angry (in a general sense) because there isn't a god. No he clearly said he was angry with god - you cannot be angry with something that doesn't exist - it makes no sense.
Theism is about God. One can believe in beings thrown up naturally with supernatural powers.A theistic mindset is one that accepts supernatural entities, whether god (necessarily) or the many other supernatural entities and phenomena that are part and parcel of religions - such as angels, miracles etc etc.
Indeed a belief that has an eternal self perturbed universe is supernatural since none of it can be proved naturally.
Indeed, but that isn't what Lewis is saying. He didn't feel angry (in a general sense) because there isn't a god. No he clearly said he was angry with god - you cannot be angry with something that doesn't exist - it makes no sense.
He was directing his anger at god and therefore he must have believed that god existed. No atheist directs their anger, or anything else, at god for the simple reason that they don't think that god exists.
Yes, Dicky, I think 'Mere Christianity' is still touted as some kind of brilliant work, when as you say, it seems very poor. He spends a lot of time on objective morality, with the usual non-arguments. The fact that it is still often recommended, shows how poor Christian apologetics is today.
The same situation prevails with regard to historical research. Theologians need not be afraid of any historical conjecture, for revealed truth lies in a dimension where it can neither be confirmed nor negated by historiography. Therefore, theologians should not prefer some results of historical research to others on theological grounds, and they should not resist results which finally have to be accepted if scientific honesty is not to be destroyed, even if they seem to undermine the knowledge of revelation. Historical investigations should neither comfort nor worry theologians. Knowledge of revelation, although it is mediated primarily through historical events, does not imply factual assertions, and it is therefore not exposed to critical analysis by historical research. Its truth is to be judged by criteria which lie within the dimension of revelatory knowledge.
Psychology, including depth psychology, psychosomatics, and social psychology, is equally unable to interfere with knowledge of revelation. There are many insights into the nature of man in revelation. But all of them refer to the relation of man to what concerns him ultimately, to the ground and meaning of his being. There is no revealed psychology just as there is no revealed historiography or revealed physics. It is not the task of theology to protect the truth of revelation by attacking Freudian doctrines of libido, repression, and sublimation on religious grounds or by defending a Jungian doctrine of man in the name of revelatory knowledge.”
Yes, Dicky, I think 'Mere Christianity' is still touted as some kind of brilliant work, when as you say, it seems very poor. He spends a lot of time on objective morality, with the usual non-arguments. The fact that it is still often recommended, shows how poor Christian apologetics is today.
Well, to me this seems no more than an ultimate appeal to subjectivity: "God has spoken to me, so I know". In my mystic days, I would have endorsed such musings. However, Russell summarily dismissed arguments like this. No matter how apparently devastating the 'revelations' may be, ultimately they remain true for the individual only. And 'true for me means true for you' is certainly a position built on sand.
Yes indeed, Prof. Lewis' "Surprised by Joy" (from which the above references come, I think) is full of this kind of confused thinking - as is that tawdry little volume "Mere Christianity", which is riddled with puerile non-sequiturs. It is one of the wonders of publishing and radio broadcasting that this 10th-rate thinker ever became a major spokesman for Christian thought in the English-speaking world, whatever his virtues as an imaginative writer may have been. That his religious prosings seem to have been a significant element in Vlad's conversion speaks volumes.I'm rather a fan of the Narnia books, having a soft spot for them form childhood (albeit the final two written are pretty tedious).
Still, I'll forgive Lewis quite a lot for having written "Till We Have Faces".
I'm rather a fan of the Narnia books, having a soft spot for them form childhood (albeit the final two written are pretty tedious).So there is a fourth member or fifth of the trilemma.
But I've never been taken with the intellectual strength of his arguments on Christianity. So for example the 'mad, bad or god' trilemma that he seemed so fond of. This is a ludicrously weak argument - as it ignore perhaps the most obvious and likely reason - that Jesus' words and teachings were misinterpreted and/or exaggerated by others writing later for their own ends. To simply ignore this possibility (which 'mad, bad or god' implicitly does) demonstrates either a lack of honesty and integrity, or a woeful lack of intellectual rigour.
And it isn't just atheist commentators who have criticised Lewis' manifestly poor 'mad, bad or god' argument.
Demonstrate that Jesus was misquoted.
Yes, Dicky, I think 'Mere Christianity' is still touted as some kind of brilliant work, when as you say, it seems very poor. He spends a lot of time on objective morality, with the usual non-arguments. The fact that it is still often recommended, shows how poor Christian apologetics is today.It's great
Demonstrate on what basis the quotes attributed to Jesus are distinguishable from fiction. If you can't, given the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies, then we are in pinch of salt territory.Haven't you heard of fake news? Fiction indistinguishable from fact. You are giving an argument from incredulity.
Haven't you heard of fake news? Fiction indistinguishable from fact. You are giving an argument from incredulity.
Vlad,Those are exactly the things about a house which keep us warm or do you believe in transubstantiation Ha Ha Ha.
............in myhumbleworthless opinion.
Fixed it for you.
PS Hope you're not too cold tonight, what with a house being "the same as" bricks and cement and stuff.
Indeed I have: very worrying it is too, especially for gullible types.You obviously didn't get it. If you think you can distinguish any fake news item from a factual one then you are deluded about your capabilities.
Now, as regards my alleged argument from incredulity: given the history of human artifice in relation to anecdotal accounts, my asking you (and I'll ask again) 'Demonstrate on what basis the quotes attributed to Jesus are distinguishable from fiction' doesn't seem unreasonable: any chance of a meaningful answer?
You obviously didn't get it. If you think you can distinguish any fake news item from a factual one then you are deluded about your capabilities.
If you take Jesus quotes as fiction then you are bound by the same principles to take any quotes from ancient history as fiction.
But then Gordon history isn't I've noticed your strong suit.
Straw man - I didn't say I was immune from falling for fake news or 'spin'. It does pay to be sceptical though, especially in relation to claims that are highly unusual.Then you are committing the Genetic fallacy.
Depends on the provenance and the content.
Then you are committing the Genetic fallacy.
So there is a fourth member or fifth of the trilemma.It isn't a small point - it lies at the heart of the dishonesty (or intellectual paucity) of the argument. What Lewis is trying to do is provide a forced choice on 3 options - with 2 of them seeming rather unsavoury thereby trying to prove the third to be correct. But this is false choice as there are far more than 3 options, and the ones he has chosen to ignore are those that are firstly highly plausible and secondly doesn't require us to make a value judgement on Jesus (i.e. was he mad, bad or god) - most likely he was none of those 3, he was a prophet and teacher and over the decades and centuries his teachings and words have become embellished with translation - with those responsible for that embellishment signed up to him as their leader, so therefore not impartial. Don't forget that Kim Jong Il shot a round of a 38-under par round that included no fewer than 11 holes in one in his one and only round of golf.
Jesus though could still though be mad, bad or God couldn't he so you are making something big out of small point.
To say that Jesus could have been misquoted (an act of either madness or badness) or wrong (in which case belief if not true is madness...which is what a lot of New Atheists believe anyway) is stating the bleeding obvious.So you accept that there are more options than mad, bad or god then - in which case thanks. And in doing so you ride coach and horses through Lewis' poor argument and you are in the company of those well known New Atheists such as William Lane Craig!!!
Demonstrate that Jesus was misquoted.I don't need to demonstrate it, merely to indicate it to be a possibility (which you have accepted) and having indicated it to be a possibility the forced trilemma of Lewis crumbles to dust.
To say that Jesus could have been misquoted (an act of either madness or badness) ...The mad, bad or god of Lewis' trilemma refers to Jesus and not those of his entourage (and later) who might have misquoted him. So your implication that someone who was not Jesus misquoting Jesus is 'mad or bad' in trilemma terms is simply not the case - it has no relevance in the trilemma which was about Jesus thinking he was god when he wasn't (mad) or knowing he wasn't god but claiming he was (bad).
If you take Jesus quotes as fiction then you are bound by the same principles to take any quotes from ancient history as fiction.I think there are very few 'quotes' from ancient history where you could credibly argue that they are direct quotes - i.e. exactly the words spoken at the time.
If you take Jesus quotes as fiction then you are bound by the same principles to take any quotes from ancient history as fiction.
It isn't a small point - it lies at the heart of the dishonesty (or intellectual paucity) of the argument. What Lewis is trying to do is provide a forced choice on 3 options - with 2 of them seeming rather unsavoury thereby trying to prove the third to be correct. But this is false choice as there are far more than 3 options, and the ones he has chosen to ignore are those that are firstly highly plausible and secondly doesn't require us to make a value judgement on Jesus (i.e. was he mad, bad or god) - most likely he was none of those 3, he was a prophet and teacher and over the decades and centuries his teachings and words have become embellished with translation - with those responsible for that embellishment signed up to him as their leader, so therefore not impartial. Don't forget that Kim Jong Il shot a round of a 38-under par round that included no fewer than 11 holes in one in his one and only round of golf.Lewis is probably as honest as you can get since he acknowledges humanities universal condition of falling short of the mark morally.
So you accept that there are more options than mad, bad or god then - in which case thanks. And in doing so you ride coach and horses through Lewis' poor argument and you are in the company of those well known New Atheists such as William Lane Craig!!!
I don't need to demonstrate it, merely to indicate it to be a possibility (which you have accepted) and having indicated it to be a possibility the forced trilemma of Lewis crumbles to dust.
Point being that Lewis' argument only holds water if you can prove that Jesus wasn't misquoted - which of course you can't.
For many if not all antitheists on hereI'm wondering who all of those people are.
The wire of antitheism is that Jesuses [sic] words are bollocks because we are helpless and hapless bonobos caught in a Darwinian game.
Lewis is probably as honest as you can get since he acknowledges humanities universal condition of falling short of the mark morally.
For many if not all antitheists on here their subtext is either or all the following......that Christians are mentally deficient or abbérant or they are lacking morally and that would go for Jesus himself who led people to believe he was the son of God.......there are multiple sources on that and you have yet to establish that his quotes are made up by others.
I did detect earlier confusion by others between Jesus sayings and his ministry of miracles.
We are very much at the wire here and I'm afraid you either believe they are our Lords words or not.
The wire of antitheism is that Jesuses words are bollocks because we are helpless and hapless bonobos caught in a Darwinian game.