Progressive Christianity

[Jack Knave]

I think you underestimate the ancients. Faith and prayer is much more than reading, hearing and understanding. It involves all the senses, including sight, smell, taste. Posture also. I always thought that how a church and its liturgy look (that is if they have any liturgy at all) fairly accurately reflects its faith. Bare church, minimalist liturgy, long dull sermons....well, you get the picture.

So you want a church and a religion with a razzamatazz? Something to keep you entertained. In other words I can't see how a "duller" (in your words) approach could cause such a loss of faith.

What you are really talking about is culture, your culture. Did the early Christians have all this? I think not. So what is your spiritual justification for all this razzamatazz? Or to be specific your particular brand of razzamatazz.

Who are the ancients?

[Jack Knave]

As maybe as this all maybe, Hillside is effectively saying ''science has nothing to say about religion(he uses the term 'ignores') but.............''. He thus immediately resurrects the idea of science having an affect on religion.
He knows it isn't science which has led to an increase in atheism since there is no methodology which establishes that but still sees some merit in reviving Jack Knaves thesis.

All it is is a battle of ideas. And as the intellectual capacities of mankind increased; an increase in consciousness, religion had to gradually adjust its perspective as science or the investigations of people debunked the previous explanations of religion that God did this and that. This has been the process for the last 500 odd years or so. This led essentially to Darwin's ideas that dealt a significant blow to the God brigade, and as we know have been fighting back ever since.

[Nearly Sane]

All it is is a battle of ideas. And as the intellectual capacities of mankind increased; an increase in consciousness, religion had to gradually adjust its perspective as science or the investigations of people debunked the previous explanations of religion that God did this and that. This has been the process for the last 500 odd years or so. This led essentially to Darwin's ideas that dealt a significant blow to the God brigade, and as we know have been fighting back ever since.

What is the scientific measure of an 'increase in consciousness'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All it is is a battle of ideas. And as the intellectual capacities of mankind increased; an increase in consciousness, religion had to gradually adjust its perspective as science or the investigations of people debunked the previous explanations of religion that God did this and that. This has been the process for the last 500 odd years or so. This led essentially to Darwin's ideas that dealt a significant blow to the God brigade, and as we know have been fighting back ever since.

well I'm not sure about a battle of ideas, nor that the intellectual capacities of mankind have increased,
I am even less sure about an increase in consciousness. Science may be against Godsliteralrighthandism but American Biochemist, Darwinian and theist Martinez Hewlett has pointed out that fundamentalism of that type is a relatively recent phenomenon.

So I think your version is an urban myth.

Organised religion as Nearly suggests does itself in by siding with oppressive forces and party politics such as the Spanish Falange and in this country the practice of landlords insisting on worker tenants attending church as part of a package of subservience including King country, party and elders and betters. But as we now know church attendance was always a dispensible feature for the powerful who now insist on internet connectivity with and of a worker for every waking moment.

[Jack Knave]

What is the scientific measure of an 'increase in consciousness'?

That's the psychological background that enabled man to see the world in a new light.

[Nearly Sane]

That's the psychological background that enabled man to see the world in a new light.

mi'lord, mi'lord!!! What is it, Knave? I believe, mi'lord that we have discovered the purest  WOO!!!!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You:

Science has no unintended consequences. What is the matter with you?

Me:

How on earth can anyone respond to ignorance as deep as that? Of course science has unintended consequences – Thalidomide? The banning of DDT? The introduction of cane toads to Australia?

Is any of this ringing a bell for you?

Anything?

So how does that work then? You make a bonkers assertion and insult me, I correct you and you just ignore the correction as if nothing had happened. It happens a lot I know (your “philosophy has nothing to do with logic” will live long in the memory for example) but, either way, it seems dishonest to me…

…not that you care about that of course, but even so.

[Jack Knave]

mi'lord, mi'lord!!! What is it, Knave? I believe, mi'lord that we have discovered the purest  WOO!!!!!

As you would say that's a tu quoque.

Just because you are too stupid and blind to understand and see these things doesn't make it woo. How would you explain how people think? And how would you explain what they think, its content?

[Jack Knave]

well I'm not sure about a battle of ideas, nor that the intellectual capacities of mankind have increased,
I am even less sure about an increase in consciousness. Science may be against Godsliteralrighthandism but American Biochemist, Darwinian and theist Martinez Hewlett has pointed out that fundamentalism of that type is a relatively recent phenomenon.

So I think your version is an urban myth.

The roots of all this stems from around the Greek time 2500 years ago or so. Consciousness etc. doesn't just change and hey presto everything appears. It's a gradual process. The ground work has to be laid which is often than not unconsciously formed. And it is a battle of ideas, what are you doing now but battling with your ideas against others.

Organised religion as Nearly suggests does itself in by siding with oppressive forces and party politics such as the Spanish Falange and in this country the practice of landlords insisting on worker tenants attending church as part of a package of subservience including King country, party and elders and betters. But as we now know church attendance was always a dispensible feature for the powerful who now insist on internet connectivity with and of a worker for every waking moment.

That doesn't explain why breakouts from the traditional system happen at a given time, and these breakouts can't be just a reforming of the old ideas and customs etc. but new and progressive approaches that move to new "territories" and genres.

[Nearly Sane]

As you would say that's a tu quoque.

Just because you are too stupid and blind to understand and see these things doesn't make it woo. How would you explain how people think? And how would you explain what they think, its content?

I wouldn't say it is a tu quoque, because it isn't. You could argue it's an ad hominem attack, not fallacy, but I think that it just attacks the deepity that you had attempted.

I don't think we have a full understanding of how and what people think. I definitely wouldn't try and sum it up in a meaningless one line deepity though.

[Jack Knave]

I wouldn't say it is a tu quoque, because it isn't. You could argue it's an ad hominem attack, not fallacy, but I think that it just attacks the deepity that you had attempted.

It is a tu quoque but you can't see it because you are working on an assumption to your position that makes you think you understand things but in fact makes your position just as much woo, or not, as mine.

I don't think we have a full understanding of how and what people think. I definitely wouldn't try and sum it up in a meaningless one line deepity though.

Some of the wises words have be done as one liners!!!

And again, 'meaningless' is your relative judgement, and not a good one.

[Nearly Sane]

It is a tu quoque but you can't see it because you are working on an assumption to your position that makes you think you understand things but in fact makes your position just as much woo, or not, as mine.

Some of the wises words have be done as one liners!!!

And again, 'meaningless' is your relative judgement, and not a good one.

Just to help you out with your misunderstanding of the tu quoque

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[Jack Knave]

Just to help you out with your misunderstanding of the tu quoque

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

No, it's you that don't understand why it applies to your comment and so think it has been misused.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How on earth can anyone respond to ignorance as deep as that? Of course science has unintended consequences – Thalidomide? The banning of DDT? The introduction of cane toads to Australia?

What foolishness made you bring this up?
These aren't the consequences of science they are the consequences of the lack of it!!!
This kind of thing happens when we get overconfident that we understand science sufficiently as in the hands of the new atheists who are flattered by acolytes who make parrot noises such as ''our understanding of science means that we can dispense with religion''. Whether wittingly or not, New atheists are in danger of encouraging absolution from actually knowing about science through POP science rather like pre reformation bishops selling indulgences........IMHO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

And again, 'meaningless' is your relative judgement, and not a good one.

I assume that by “meaningless” NS means “meaningless for other people”. Any notions can be meaningful for those who have them, but that meaning is just subjective until and unless they can build a logical path to “true for you too” objectivity. Now in some cases that’s easy – for gravity for example I can set out various tests that will do the trick – but when people assert “God” etc there are no such logical paths.

That’s why “meaningless” is more than a “relative judgment” here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What foolishness made you bring this up?
These aren't the consequences of science they are the consequences of the lack of it!!!

Seriously? Seriously seriously though?

So when people did science, implemented their discoveries and then found that entirely unexpected and unintended consequences ensued you think that meant they didn't do science at all? 

I think perhaps you need to take another sabbatical to try to get your thoughts in some kind of order.

This kind of thing happens when we get overconfident that we understand science sufficiently as in the hands of the new atheists who are flattered by acolytes who make parrot noises such as ''our understanding of science means that we can dispense with religion''

Stop digging. Seriously, for your own sake - stop digging.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

I assume that by “meaningless” NS means “meaningless for other people”. Any notions can be meaningful for those who have them, but that meaning is just subjective until and unless they can build a logical path to “true for you too” objectivity. Now in some cases that’s easy – for gravity for example I can set out various tests that will do the trick – but when people assert “God” etc there are no such logical paths.

That’s why “meaningless” is more than a “relative judgment” here.

It's not my fault that other people are ignorant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seriously? Seriously seriously though?

Yes, Yes , Yes Hillside.....Too much confidence in ones own and societies handle on science.

Evidence Thalidomide, The Milgram experiment............ list is endless

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

It's not my fault that other people are ignorant.

What makes you think that you're not the one who's ignorant? If, say, you believe in something you call "God" what tests would you apply to satisfy yourself that you're not mistaken?

Is it also not my fault that you're ignorant of my certain knowledge about leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it also not my fault that you're ignorant of my certain knowledge about leprechauns?

Thin at one end, fat in the middle, thin at the other end?

[Nearly Sane]

No, it's you that don't understand why it applies to your comment and so think it has been misused.

Your explanation of why it applied is in conflict with the definition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes, Yes , Yes Hillside.....Too much confidence in ones own and societies handle on science.

Evidence Thalidomide, The Milgram experiment............ list is endless

Dear god but you're slippery. Your claim remember was: "Science has no unintended consequences. What is the matter with you?" (Reply 117)

I then suggested to you Thalidomide as precisely an example of science having an unintended consequence. Now you shift ground entirely from, "science has no unintended consequences" to "people sometimes have too much confidence in science" (a completely different issue) and then have the gall to quote back to me the example I used to falsify your previous mistake!

Have you any idea how scummy this makes you look?

Anything?

[Bubbles]

Jesus appears to have been progressive for his time, he spoke to strange women for a start.
Something men generally didn't do.

He mixed with tax collectors and other riffraff, something else people who aspired isn't his group, at that time didn't do.

Loving your enemy is pretty radical, not many people achieve that one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Dear god but you're slippery. Your claim remember was: "Science has no unintended consequences. What is the matter with you?" (Reply 117)

I then suggested to you Thalidomide as precisely an example of science having an unintended consequence. Now you shift ground entirely from, "science has no unintended consequences" to "people sometimes have too much confidence in science" (a completely different issue) and then have the gall to quote back to me the example I used to falsify your previous mistake!

Have you any idea how scummy this makes you look?

Anything?

I never talked about "confidence in science" read the posts will you

[Dicky Underpants]

Jesus appears to have been progressive for his time, he spoke to strange women for a start.
Something men generally didn't do.

And suggested that one at least was a variety of dog. Jesus may have been an exceptional chap, but the records (especially Mark's gospel) do not portray him as whiter than white.