Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sparrow · 05-26-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

My main interest is in halting this war between the blind and the clear-sighted. Each group must realize that the other is here to stay, and that it is impossible to force an individual from one to the other. There really are two species of humans, and if we don't learn to co-exist we are doomed to continue this crippling war. I say let the blind have their schools and their laws. But let us also have our schools and our laws.

While occasionally you'll see someone here muse about how nice it would be to have a world without religion, that's not really the aim of most members here it would seem. I don't recall advocating that myself either in this thread or elsewhere. But your problem lies in identifying the groups. Each side wishes to claim the 'clear-sighted' label for themselves and the 'blind' label for the others, just to use your labels. And if they truly were species, they wouldn't interbreed.

Those who feel the laws are too lax are free to follow a stricter discipline should they so choose. No need to impose it on the rest of us. Last time I checked, there were religious based schools available to those of that predilection. Alternately, one could home school. I wouldn't hire them, but they're certainly free to take that path.

No Robots · 05-26-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

While occasionally you'll see someone here muse about how nice it would be to have a world without religion, that's not really the aim of most members here it would seem. I don't recall advocating that myself either in this thread or elsewhere.

But you have said you want to cure people of their belief in miracles.:huh:

Quote:

But your problem lies in identifying the groups. Each side wishes to claim the 'clear-sighted' label for themselves and the 'blind' label for the others, just to use your labels.

Yeah, but we know what's what, right.

Quote:

And if they truly were species, they wouldn't interbreed.

The idea is that they shouldn't, just like lions and tigers.

Quote:

Those who feel the laws are too lax are free to follow a stricter discipline should they so choose. No need to impose it on the rest of us. Last time I checked, there were religious based schools available to those of that predilection. Alternately, one could home school. I wouldn't hire them, but they're certainly free to take that path.

Yeah, democratic pluralism is definitely the precondition for what I'm talking about. It seems that many of you are motivated by a sense that democratic pluralism is seriously threatened, particularly by religious groups. The problem is that by spending our energy defending democratic pluralism, we are missing opportunities to use it.

Sparrow · 05-26-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

But you have said you want to cure people of their belief in miracles.:huh:

Are miracles a prerequisite for religion? And I don't think I said that I want to cure them of their miracles, I just want them to stop using them as justification for harmful acts and public policy. (sorry if that's redundant!) Didn't you claim earlier that you had stripped all of the miracles out of the Jesus story? Yet you still claim to be a Christian, do you not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Yeah, but we know what's what, right.

Maybe I know what's right, but I'm not confident on the we part yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The idea is that they shouldn't, just like lions and tigers.

Never heard of a liger, I see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Yeah, democratic pluralism is definitely the precondition for what I'm talking about. It seems that many of you are motivated by a sense that democratic pluralism is seriously threatened, particularly by religious groups. The problem is that by spending our energy defending democratic pluralism, we are missing opportunities to use it.

Again with the we, you, they thing. There are religious groups who do in fact threaten democratic pluralism. Not all do though. Do you perceive that atheism constitutes a danger to democratic pluralism? Would the United States somehow cease to exist if the general population became aware that the JM is at least plausible?

Clivedurdle · 05-26-2006, 12:56 PM

No Robots, aren't you an atheist xian?

No Robots · 05-26-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Are miracles a prerequisite for religion?

I think so, yes, in the sense that religion is a generalized distortion of thought, and belief in miracles is the specific manifestation of that distortion.

Quote:

Didn't you claim earlier that you had stripped all of the miracles out of the Jesus story? Yet you still claim to be a Christian, do you not?

I am a Christian atheist. By that I mean that, yes, if you apply rational analysis to the question of Christ, you come to the conclusion that he is definitely someone who is useful to our conduct of life.

Quote:

Maybe I know what's right, but I'm not confident on the we part yet.

What I mean is that those who believe in the distinction I have made demonstrate by that very belief that they belong among the enlightened.

Quote:

Never heard of a liger, I see.

Puleeze. That's the point I was making: just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Quote:

Do you perceive that atheism constitutes a danger to democratic pluralism? Would the United States somehow cease to exist if the general population became aware that the JM is at least plausible?

JM is gaining in profile. I have no problem with people promulgating it. Of course, I think it my duty to oppose it. I do think it dangerous, in the same way that I think it dangerous that some people believe that by blowing up themselves and others they get a ticket to heaven. Any ill-founded belief is dangerous. JM is particularly dangerous because it touches on something that is absolutely vital to the well-being of humanity, ie. our understanding of Christ. It is also my chief competitor for those who have broken free of religious dogma.

post tenebras lux · 05-26-2006, 01:07 PM

Glad you're back No Robots, although it's a shame you still like using blindness as an insult. 'Clear sighted' versus 'blind'

Anyhows, regarding Brunner's argument for the HJ and his case against the MJ, am I correct in thinking that he thought that if Jesus was not real and historical then he assumed that the only other option was that the Jesus story had been made up by his 'disciples' as per the gospels?

I always find it hard to get a small quote from his writings, so here's a rather long one where he whines on and on about it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by con brunner

For the grinning leer of "criticism" is proposing no less a madness than this: that the genius which is denied to Christ, this manifest genius in its incomparable, glorious wholeness, should be attributed to the assembly of fishermen, tax-collectors, sinners and harlots who have handed this picture down to us.

So this company of Jewish fishermen, tax-collectors, sinners and harlots is supposed to have invented all the qualities of this genius! And apropos of the hypothesis that religious syncretism was current at the time of Christ even among Jews, I attach no great importance to it; it is, of course, an assumption secundum ignorantium criticorum,e5 and it could only be made by someone with a frightening ignorance of the context of contemporary life and thought as reflected in the talmudic literature. And I put no weight whatsoever on the considerable bundle of hypotheses which attributes to these Jewish fishermen, tax-collectors, sinners and harlots the most detailed knowledge of the cults of Mithras, Adonis, Tammuz, Attis and Osiris, the nature myths and divinity myths of the entire world, including those of Buddhism; as well as Alexandrine philosophical speculation (which in part developed only subsequently). It goes on to assume that they were able to weave all this most subtly into the whole corpus of biblical literature (with which they were, of course, likewise thoroughly familiar!), resulting in the story of the Genius's baptism, passion and excruciating death, together with all its symbolism. For the sake of argument I will even accept this as proven (which I do not): let us assume that these Jewish fishermen, tax-collectors, sinners and harlots had all this knowledge - of which the most educated Jew of the day had not the faintest notion; they were so learned that their fellow Jews would have broken out into a cold sweat had they known, and their appearance as completely ignorant and naive blockheads was simply a very convincing deception. What would it prove? Nothing. For whence would they have got this decidedly "genial" ability to marshal the vast quantity of learned evidence? Whence this spirit? For only the Spirit can provide proof.

Why did Brunner think that the 'disciples' were historical, and is that really his case: a false dilemma between a real Jesus or a fabrication by Peter and his fishermen friends? :huh:

post tenebras lux · 05-26-2006, 01:15 PM

Of course, it's only a thin line from suggesting that the clear sighted should not breed with the blind to suggesting that jews shouldn't breed with non-jews, should be seperated into ghettos, etc. etc. I'm franckly rather shocked that No Robots even suggested it.

Then of course, I can let it get personal and ask No Robots if he thinks it better that I, with my 20/20 vision, should not breed with my SO, who is profoundly blind. Well, should we get it on or not?

Didymus · 05-26-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I tend to assume that it would have started with the reported experience of a single member of an existing group of Messiah-seekers subsequent to much Scripture studying (and fasting?) and that the experience spread by way of the psychological phenomenon referred to as "group think" or "mass hysteria".

I make the same (highly speculative) assumption, but I would nuance the process of propagation a little differently. It's certainly group think, but it might be going a shade far to call it mass hysteria.

As you suggest, mindset, receptivity and context had to have been present. But we needn't presume any dementation or irrationality on the part of subsequent believers. Equipped with only limited knowledge of the physical world, these rational people believed that the scripture they held in their hands, or heard from their teachers, was the living, infallible word of God. They believed that the prophets were God's messengers, and that those prophets accurately foretold certain events.

When the fulfillment of those prophesies - and perhaps others that were part of the oral tradition - was reported "first hand" by an authoritative source, an intelligent and pious man whom they greatly respected, what were they to think?

Didymus

No Robots · 05-26-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Glad you're back No Robots, although it's a shame you still like using blindness as an insult.

I thought by your handle you would appreciate my metaphor. You know, it is very common, and has nothing at all in the way of slur against the physically handicapped. I'm sorry you find it offensive. I should use Brunner's terms: Die Geistigen and das Volk.

Quote:

Why did Brunner think that the 'disciples' were historical, and is that really his case: a false dilemma between a real Jesus or a fabrication by Peter and his fishermen friends? :huh:

I dealt with this in another thread. I wrote:

So you eliminate, from my point of view, the first two steps in the chain of causality ie. Christ and the disciples. That leaves what? Paul? Sorry, I don't buy it. Brunner presents at length the reasons for which Paul cannot have initiated Christianity. If we eliminate Paul along with Christ and the disciples, where does that leave us? From my point of view, the first three steps in the causal chain would now be eliminated, with nothing to replace them.

What I mean by avoiding liaisons between Geistigen and Volk is that people of a spiritual inclination should not commit themselves to people who are not so inclined. It just makes better sense for all-round happiness. If I am browbeating my wife for being a crass self-seeker, and she is hassling me about being a feckless dreamer, who is being helped? I should also say that this has nothing to do with eugenics: spiritual inclination is not an inherited trait.

Clivedurdle · 05-26-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

JM is particularly dangerous because it touches on something that is absolutely vital to the well-being of humanity, ie. our understanding of Christ. It is also my chief competitor for those who have broken free of religious dogma.

May I recommend three tablespoons of Jung four times a day for the well being of humanity? He is particularly interesting on archetypes like Christ!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-26-2006, 12:56 PM	#424
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	No Robots, aren't you an atheist xian?

05-26-2006, 01:15 PM	#427
post tenebras lux Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva Posts: 5,756	Of course, it's only a thin line from suggesting that the clear sighted should not breed with the blind to suggesting that jews shouldn't breed with non-jews, should be seperated into ghettos, etc. etc. I'm franckly rather shocked that No Robots even suggested it. Then of course, I can let it get personal and ask No Robots if he thinks it better that I, with my 20/20 vision, should not breed with my SO, who is profoundly blind. Well, should we get it on or not?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.