Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 03-27-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by henry?

Why do Christians purport Scripture to be fact when it is nothing more than a written account from people who would have been completely devoted to the man they revere as their saviour?

Christians, like everyone else, have a tendency to look for evidence that confirms their preconceptions, rather than searching for ways to undermine those preconceptions.

The scientific method is not common sense. It's usage is generally limited to those trained to use it, while consciously applying it. Even brilliant trained minds tend to fall back into the confirmation bias trap when they are not practicing their art.

Clivedurdle · 03-28-2008, 03:06 AM

The clearest example of propaganda is Jesus's attitude to the Pharisees.

Clivedurdle · 03-28-2008, 03:14 AM

Quote:

PhariseeJewish history
Main

member of a Jewish religious party that flourished in Palestine during the latter part of the Second Temple period (515 BC–AD 70). Their insistence on the binding force of oral tradition (“the unwritten Torah”) still remains a basic tenet of Jewish theological thought. When the Mishna (the first constituent part of the Talmud) was compiled about AD 200, it incorporated the teachings of the Pharisees on Jewish law.

The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim) emerged as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabaean revolt, around 165–160 BC; they were, it is generally believed, spiritual descendants of the Hasideans (q.v.). The Pharisees emerged as a party of laymen and scribes in contradistinction to the Sadducees, i.e., the party of the high priesthood that had traditionally provided the sole leadership of the Jewish people. The basic difference that led to the split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees lay in their respective attitudes toward the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) and the problem of finding in it answers to questions and bases for decisions about contemporary legal and religious matters arising under circumstances far different from those of the time of Moses. In their response to this problem, the Sadducees, on the one hand, refused to accept any precept as binding unless it was based directly on the Torah, i.e., the Written Law. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of the Written Law and the Oral Law, i.e., the teachings of the prophets and the oral traditions of the Jewish people. Whereas the priestly Sadducees taught that the written Torah was the only source of revelation, the Pharisees admitted the principle of evolution in the Law; men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems. Rather than blindly follow the letter of the Law even if it conflicted with reason or conscience, the Pharisees harmonized the teachings of the Torah with their own ideas or found their own ideas suggested or implied in it. They interpreted the Law according to its spirit; when in the course of time a law had been outgrown or superseded by changing conditions, they gave it a new and more acceptable meaning, seeking scriptural support for their actions through a ramified system of hermeneutics. It was due to this progressive tendency of the Pharisees that their interpretation of the Torah continued to develop and has remained a living force in Judaism.

The Pharisees were not primarily a political party but a society of scholars and pietists. They enjoyed a large popular following, and in the New Testament they appear as spokesmen for the majority of the population. Around 100 BC a long struggle ensued as the Pharisees tried to democratize the Jewish religion and remove it from the control of the Temple priests. The Pharisees asserted that God could and should be worshiped even away from the Temple and outside Jerusalem. To the Pharisees, worship consisted not in bloody sacrifices—the practice of the Temple priests—but in prayer and in the study of God’s law. Hence the Pharisees fostered the synagogue as an institution of religious worship, outside and separate from the Temple. The synagogue may thus be considered a Pharasaic institution since the Pharisees developed it, raised it to high eminence, and gave it a central place in Jewish religious life.

The active period of Pharasaism, the most influential movement in the development of Orthodox Judaism, extended well into the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The Pharisees preserved and transmitted Judaism through the flexibility they gave to Jewish scriptural interpretation in the face of changing historical circumstances. The efforts they devoted to education also had a seminal importance in subsequent Jewish history; after the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, it was the synagogue and the schools of the Pharisees that continued to function and to promote Judaism in the long centuries following the Diaspora.

http://www.britannica.com/bps/home#t...20Encyclopedia
Link to this article and share the full text with the readers of your Web site or blog-post.

If you think a reference to this article on "Pharisee" will enhance your Web site, blog-post, or any other web-content, then feel free to link to this article, and your readers will gain full access to the full article, even if they do not subscribe to our service.

Compare

Matthew 23:13 >>
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

henry? · 03-28-2008, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baalazel

What propaganda do you adhere to?

Baal

I think we all do adhere to propaganda in its numerous forms. Of course, I'm not implying in any way that Christians are pathetic for their faith etc, it was more a query as within historical analysis Soviet-written documents are almost always twisted to fit the aims of the party. Undoubtedly there will be Christian historians, so I was just wondering whether they wholeheartedly believe Trotsky as well as Jesus..

It is quite hard to not fall for propaganda, unless you are a total nihilist...but that would be quite boring, don't you agree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And do you know for a fact that all Christians do what you say they do?

I don't say they do what I say they do, but a Christian wouldn't really be a Christian if they didn't believe the Scripture, would they?

Henry?

Steven Carr · 03-28-2008, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaximanchild

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

a lot of people think 'ad hominem' means 'being rude' -- it doesn't. It means an argument of the type "you only say that because you are a dirty Jew/Christian/atheist/Tory/Socialist/..."

There's a little more to it than that ... an ad hominem argument is when you say "you are a dirty Jew/Christian/atheist/Tory/Socialist/... and so your claim must be false". You attack the person instead of the claim.

It is also an ad hominem argument if you say 'A person believes A. But he also believes B, which contradicts A. Therefore A is false.'

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-28-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by henry?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baalazel

What propaganda do you adhere to?

Baal

I think we all do adhere to propaganda in its numerous forms. Of course, I'm not implying in any way that Christians are pathetic for their faith etc, it was more a query as within historical analysis Soviet-written documents are almost always twisted to fit the aims of the party. Undoubtedly there will be Christian historians, so I was just wondering whether they wholeheartedly believe Trotsky as well as Jesus..

It is quite hard to not fall for propaganda, unless you are a total nihilist...but that would be quite boring, don't you agree?

No. Not only have you engaged in bifurcation here; you've ignored the fact that nihilists often have their own "propaganda".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And do you know for a fact that all Christians do what you say they do?

I don't say they do what I say they do, but a Christian wouldn't really be a Christian if they didn't believe the Scripture, would they?

You've just equivocated on the word "believe".

Accepting that "scripture" is normative for faith and life is not the same thing as regarding all that's stated in "scripture" as "fact" (i.e., something that actually happened ).

Jeffrey

squiz · 03-30-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Accepting that "scripture" is normative for faith and life..

Could you please elaborate on what you mean here by "normative for faith and life"? Also, is this your attitude to "scripture" or are you just defending others? I'm sincerely interested.

Demon · 03-30-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RareBird

Why do we call Michaelangelo an artist when he was basically a paid propagandist for the church? Oh wait, I know--because he had the balls to make God and Adam members of NAMBLA right over their unwitting noses.

How were God and Adam made into members of NAMBLA??? Is there something I'm missing?

RareBird · 03-30-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by RareBird

Why do we call Michaelangelo an artist when he was basically a paid propagandist for the church? Oh wait, I know--because he had the balls to make God and Adam members of NAMBLA right over their unwitting noses.

How were God and Adam made into members of NAMBLA??? Is there something I'm missing?

Hello...

Artistic license if you ask me to make the wrist limp and fingers almost playful. Homosexuality in the classical age was more typically older man and younger man. Michaelangelo swung from that side of the plate so it's likely no accident that he snuck in this artistic gesture to flip a little "finger" to his patrons.

Demon · 03-30-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RareBird

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon

How were God and Adam made into members of NAMBLA??? Is there something I'm missing?

Hello...

Artistic license if you ask me to make the wrist limp and fingers almost playful. Homosexuality in the classical age was more typically older man and younger man. Michaelangelo swung from that side of the plate so it's likely no accident that he snuck in this artistic gesture to flip a little "finger" to his patrons.

I thought NAMBLA (a.k.a. North American Man-Boy Love Association) was a organisation of homosexual pedophiles, as in attracted to children, like eight or nine year old boys.

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

03-28-2008, 03:06 AM	#12
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The clearest example of propaganda is Jesus's attitude to the Pharisees.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.