FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Reload this Page His example tempts me...
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM
Search

 
Page 10 of 13 « First 89 10 1112 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-17-2003, 02:38 PM   #91
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,364
Default
I have to admit Fenton that you are a funny funny funny guy... your comment reminds me of the Life of Brian....
Sabine Grant is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 02:41 PM   #92
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by GeoTheo
When Christians act good and loving apparently it proves nothing.
When they act poorly apparently it invalidates Christianity.
Good thing I'm not a computer in a vintage sci-fi flick or else that logic would cause me to blow a gasket.
That's why I like thinking about Plato's Royal Lie, expressed in his Republic, written about 2360 years ago.

In his Republic, his society's sacred books would be banned. That's right, Homer and Hesiod had to go, because they have such bad examples as heroes lamenting and gods laughing. Drama would be banned on the ground that it's demeaning for a male actor to have to imitate villains and women. There are various other rather totalitarian features of his Republic, which would be ruled by an elite of philosophers. But the crowning one is its official ideology, a religion that Plato called a "royal lie". According to it, the philosopher-rulers are really made of gold, the soldiers of silver, and the common people of bronze and iron, with the familiar hierarchy of value for those metals.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 02:42 PM   #93
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Selva Oscura
Posts: 4,120
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by GeoTheo
It's not a ludicrous extrapolation. If I met a Guy who wore red shoes and he was the nicest, most decent and loving person I ever met and I attributed it to the shoes and said to myself-
"Boy, it must be the shoes! Where can I get a pair!" that would be a ludicrous extrapolation. But if this person is immersed in his faith as Whispers describes so that everything he does is an act of serving Christ and this in turn makes him an extremely decent, honest, genuine and loving person-to the degree that he really stands out from others- I would say there is somthing to it.
I think you need to look at cause and effect. What is different about this person that makes him stand out from others?
I think what makes them stand out is that they try to exemplify Christ living through them in thought word and deed.
When people do this they stand out and draw people to themselves. Much like Christ did.
In your previous post, you implied that someone on this thread had said it was perfectly valid to judge a religion based on the bad behavior of its adherents but not valid to judge it based on the good behavior of it adherents. I asked you for a quote because I have read this whole thread and nobody has ever said that.

In this latest post you are claiming the extrapolation from good behavior is a valid argument because religions have behavioral tenets so if they work for a person, that must speak to the truthfulness of a religion. In other words, your argument good behavior = good religion, but bad behavior ≠ bad religion. Why? Somebody like Andrea Yates or Fred Phelps believes they are following the behavioral tenets of the xanity as much as Whispers' friend believes he is. Why is the latter example acceptable to you and the former not?
livius drusus is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 02:46 PM   #94
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Bemidji
Posts: 1,197
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Sabine Grant
.

I would much prefer to see a person embracing Christ thru a personal and private spiritual inquiry than because of any good PR any christian may demonstrate.
Well, I don't agree that it is merely a matter of good PR. I also don't see how a person can embrace Christ through a "personal private spiritual inquiry" are you a panentheist by any Chance?
GeoTheo is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 02:57 PM   #95
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,364
Default
GEO THEO : I think you will find a reply to your question in the long post I took the time to explain my position on the theme of this thread. Then can you evaluate where you consider I belong.
It probably will not affect my personal relationship with God though.
Sabine Grant is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 03:01 PM   #96
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,364
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by livius drusus
In your previous post, you implied that someone on this thread had said it was perfectly valid to judge a religion based on the bad behavior of its adherents but not valid to judge it based on the good behavior of it adherents. I asked you for a quote because I have read this whole thread and nobody has ever said that.

In this latest post you are claiming the extrapolation from good behavior is a valid argument because religions have behavioral tenets so if they work for a person, that must speak to the truthfulness of a religion. In other words, your argument good behavior = good religion, but bad behavior ≠ bad religion. Why? Somebody like Andrea Yates or Fred Phelps believes they are following the behavioral tenets of the xanity as much as Whispers' friend believes he is. Why is the latter example acceptable to you and the former not?
Bonjour Livius...
Interesting question. I am not answering for Theo. Only for myself. Yates and Phelps's behaviors are harmful to mankind. Richard is not.
Sabine Grant is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 03:17 PM   #97
JCS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: right over there
Posts: 753
Default
Quote:
But if this person is immersed in his faith as Whispers describes so that everything he does is an act of serving Christ and this in turn makes him an extremely decent, honest, genuine and loving person-to the degree that he really stands out from others- I would say there is somthing to it. I think you need to look at cause and effect. What is different about this person that makes him stand out from others?
Ok, then I choose Andrea Yates & Deanna Laney as my examples for examining the cause and effect. What makes these women stand out? God told them to kill their children, just as the bible instructs. Women immersed in their faith + Children + god = murder. Hmm....christianity is very bad for the health of little children.


I bet he still doesn't get it.
:banghead:
JCS is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 04:06 PM   #98
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,647
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Sabine Grant
Bonjour Livius...
Interesting question. I am not answering for Theo. Only for myself. Yates and Phelps's behaviors are harmful to mankind. Richard is not.
Irrelevent. The question is not whether certain Christians have harmed or benefited mankind. The question is....

Why does a single sample of a "good" Christian (take your pick of loving, kind, charitable, well adjusted Christians) somehow validate the Christian religion, but a single sample of a "bad" Christian (take your pick of hateful, psychotic, not so well adjusted Christians) not invalidate the Christian religion?


Duck!
Duck! is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 04:13 PM   #99
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,364
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Duck of Death
Irrelevent. The question is not whether certain Christians have harmed or benefited mankind. The question is....

Why does a single sample of a "good" Christian (take your pick of loving, kind, charitable, well adjusted Christians) somehow validate the Christian religion, but a single sample of a "bad" Christian (take your pick of hateful, psychotic, not so well adjusted Christians) not invalidate the Christian religion?


Duck!
go back a few posts.. so I do not have to repeat what I have already explained and introduced CLEARLY for all to read as my position as " to whether or not people ought to be drawn to a particular religious faith based on how the followers of that faith behave.. etc etc etc..." ...
Then if you have any further questions... as long as you do not assume anything anylonger.
Sabine Grant is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 04:24 PM   #100
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,647
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Sabine Grant
go back a few posts.. so I do not have to repeat what I have already explained and introduced CLEARLY for all to read as my position as " to whether or not people ought to be drawn to a particular religious faith based on how the followers of that faith behave.. etc etc etc..." ...
Then if you have any further questions... as long as you do not assume anything anylonger.
Okay, I'll reread this thread. I don't want to misrepresent anyone. However, I was merely responding to your remark that Yates and Phelps have had negative influence on people whereas Richard has had a positive influence on people.

I don't see how these three examples and the negative or positive influences they may or may not have had on people are relevant to the discussion at hand.

The argument as I see it is whether or not it's valid to take a single happy well adjusted person who is a Christian and to conclude that Christianity is therefore valid or makes people happy or whatever.


Duck!
Duck! is offline  
 
Page 10 of 13 « First 89 10 1112 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:13 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.