Radcliffe Emerson

As a somewhat theist, and as a Unitarian Universalist, I believe we should look at the good wisdom that exists in all of the world's religions, and stop insisting that any one particular religion is the only one that's correct.
The world should try to start getting along as the human race and forget religious hatred and bickering over differences. I think Jesus would want it that way.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Good.
Then, if you "select truth based on facts that can be proven", and you "do not see any evidence of [a conscious force that may (sic!) have created the universe]", why do you "tend to believe some kind of conscious force may have created the universe" and proclaim yourself "a somewhat theist"?

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

Why does being a theist require that I subscribe to man-made creeds?
Look up deism, I lean toward that more than anything other than agnosticism.
It just seems a reasonable concept to me that the universe was made out of some kind of control.
Whether that control is a conscious entity or just an energy force is beyond me. Who knows?
I can exclude facts where a general belief in some kind of being exist. I cannot exclude facts where human beings say you must conform to these creeds and beliefs because we wrote it in a book without evidence to back it up.
If hard proven evidence beyond doubt ever surfaces in this world that Jesus or any other spiritual person was indeed the offspring of a divine being, I'll be the first to worship it. No such evidence exists however, because no human has ever been divine, or physically raised from the dead, or born of a virgin. Science refutes that these are possible, and as scientific findings generally can be backed by evidence, I'll stick with science.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I'll stick with science (methodological naturalism) as well, which is why I'm an atheist rather than "a somewhat theist" who "lean[s] toward [deism] more than anything other than agnosticism". My question to you is: Why do you equivocate? Science has served you very well and, as a result, the God-Of-The-Gaps rules an ever shrinking domain. Why cling to 'somewhat theism' or lean toward deism?

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

lcb

the Koran, Baghidad Vita, etc must be the red headed step children of the theist-atheist debates.doesnt anybody ever fight over their most intimate details?

Family Man

No, you haven't, but it's implicit in the Christian position. You are correct that in evaluating historical documents the time and place is an important consideration. However, we are not talking history here; we're talking about a claim of godhood. That a man Jesus in the 1st century would not condemn slavery would be understandable. That a god Jesus wouldn't condemn slavery is outrageous, and he would have had to acknowledge the immorality of it. Christians can not make claims of absolute morality then discard it when discussing the historical implications of the Bible.

No one here has made the claim that Christianity is responsible for slavery any more than it was responsible for the end of it. That Christianity encouraged it simply demonstrates that Christianity is, and always has been, a human -- not divine -- institution, just as Jesus's unwillingness to condemn slavery demonstrates his lack of divinity.

Or more accurately, you believe that our political and social situation has declined. I'm not sure the blacks lynched by white christians during Jim Crow would agree with your assessment.

I would argue that what you decry are positive developments (as I am married to an Asian and have mixed race children, I am worried by the implicit racism of your remarks.) I suggest that you establish that we are in decline and how multi-culturalism and postmodernism is destroying this country. Otherwise, I see no reason to respond to an obviously loaded question.
Vork's hatred (or not, I don't speak for him) is irrelevant. Your hatred of atheism (assuming that's true) would also be irrelevant. Vork has refuted your arguments with accuracy and detail and without rancor. Your dismissal of his argument by attributing it to his "hatred" is only a dodge. It is fair to say I strongly dislike Christianity. That doesn't invalidate my arguments, though it may cause you to ignore them.

Are you aware that one of the basic tenets of science is that it's conclusions are tentative and are subject to change when the evidence demands it? Plate tectonics, for example, was ridiculed when it first appeared. Your science education is sorely lacking, which brings us to:

They don't. As new evidence is found, theory is revised to fit the facts (not the other way around). If the facts are such that the theory is untenable, it is discarded in favor of a theory that better fits the facts. Plate tectonics replaced an earlier theory that didn't work, as one example. The trouble for creationists is that evolution does fit the facts.

The only one kidding himself here is yourself with these unsupported assertions.

Good grief, why would I want to lower myself to your level? The only "discretion" you use is if it supports your religion, you'll buy it. I'm not a scientist, but I know enough about science to recognize anti-science propaganda when I read it.

Oh, and since you didn't reply to my point about abolitionists I can assume that you're conceding that Christianity did not require abolitionists to oppose slavery?

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

lcb

pardon my naivete, but why couldnt an intelligent designer use evolutionary processes in addition to other creative processes?

Family Man

Yes, but the next time you read about, for example, an earthquake, ask yourself what is so "intelligent" about the design of this world. (I've got a sudden urge to read Candide again.)

Beach_MU

I'm not sure how you can say that no one claims to attribute slavery to Christianity and then in the next sentence suggest that Christianity encouraged it which pretty much is the same exact thing.

Or more accurately, you believe that our political and social situation has declined. I'm not sure the blacks lynched by white christians during Jim Crow would agree with your assessment.

Yes I do believe that our political and social situation has declined as Vork pointed out at the beginning of this discussion. And I'm not saying that many bad things haven't been done "in the name of Christianity", but don't confuse those acts and the beliefs of those people with what the Bible teaches. Simply because a group of radical people call themselves "christian" doesn't mean they follow anything that the Bible teaches and if you read the Bible you will realize that it doesn't promote or defend their ideas, regardless of how they twisted what it says.

I would argue that what you decry are positive developments (as I am married to an Asian and have mixed race children, I am worried by the implicit racism of your remarks.) I suggest that you establish that we are in decline and how multi-culturalism and postmodernism is destroying this country.

There was no implicit racism in any of my remarks and I think it unwarranted to make such a personal attack on me when there is no evidence to support any such idea. The idea of accepting other cultures is a perfectly wonderful idea and I have absolutely no problem with anyone of other another culture or race. As far as multi-culturalism and postmodernism I didn't say they are destroying this country, I merely said that there is no direct evidence to suggest that they have had some profound influence on improving our society. In recent history, crime rates have risen as have violence in schools. I merely made an observation that also in recent history the influence of Christianity has decreased. Does this mean christianity prevents crime or violence, no, but the presence of multi-culturalism or postmodernism has either.

Are you aware that one of the basic tenets of science is that it's conclusions are tentative and are subject to change when the evidence demands it? Plate tectonics, for example, was ridiculed when it first appeared.

I am aware of this basic tenet of science and it is this exact reason why I don't hold it as highly as you would suggest I should. To me if science says that it will change it's conclusions whenever the evidence demands, it certainly doesn't make it the absolute authority on the natural world. Also this suggests that if something contradicts science then science can simply define the terms so that it doesn't.

As far as the rest of your post it makes few points and instead seems to simply focus on personal attacks which I'm sure you can understand are not really the topic of this forum. Feel free to open up a new topic where you can get together with other people and senselessly attack others to make yourself feel better.

Oh, and since you didn't reply to my point about abolitionists I can assume that you're conceding that Christianity did not require abolitionists to oppose slavery?

Lastly, I hope you will forgive the fact that I do, as I have stated many times, have other things to do in my life than comment on every arguement that is proposed against me. My lack of response to your point, does not at any point suggest that I agree with you or that concede that you are correct. It merely means I didn't have the time to comment on every single point someone makes. Please at least try and be reasonable.

Family Man

I'm going to deal with this first. I have found that, in many discussions on this board, that theists will choose to ignore important arguments and answer only parts they feel have an answer for. I have no problems with you not answering minor points I made; I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to expect you to answer the major thrust of what I have to say. That you have failed to do in both of your responses to me. My main point is that, if Christians are going to claim that there is such a thing as absolute morality derived from God, how could Jesus the God fail to condemn it knowing, as he must have, how repulsively immoral it was? I think it is the height of reasonableness for you to either address this point, or admit your error.


No one has been claiming that Christianity caused (which is what the term attributes implies) slavery. Of course slavery would have existed without Christianity. It existed before Christianity. That doesn't change the fact that Christianity has been used to condone it and that Jesus failed to condemn it, even when he did address the issue.

Ah, the Not a True Christian argument. Of course, all the preachers who defended slavery and Jim Crow felt that their interpretation was "biblical". It must be very comforting for you to know that you (and your close associates, I presume) know the "true" interpretation. I'm not sure the Catholics, Mormons, or any other Christian group you don't belong to would agree with you that you behave "biblically".

Ah yes, pick the part you where you can gain some sympathy. Tell me, Beach, exactly what is multi-culturalism? It's that we respect the views and cultures of people of different races. To oppose multi-culturalism suggests we must all go along with the majority culture, which your case I presume is white and christian. To say that multi-culturalism is causing the "decline" implies that those who tolerate other cultures in our society are causing the decline. Can you understand how such a position contains some implicit racism. You almost certainly didn't mean anything racist (which is why the term implicit was used), but I don't think you've really thought it through very well either. And you might do well to stop overreacting and accusing others of personal attacks when you find your position challenged. It doesn't reflect well on you.

And perhaps you'd like to give us evidence that multi-culturalism has caused this supposive "decline". In doing so, you might consider how this can be true since our country has always been multi-cultural.

Great. How do you square this with the notion that multi-culturalism is causing a "decline"?

Destroying or declining? Nice quibble.

And there is no direct evidence that they have hurt this country either. So what's your point?

First, crime rates have fallen in recent years (at least until this last recession). I will concede that school violence, at least of the deadly variety is up, but where's the causality? It is because Christianity (thankfully) is declining, or is it because kids have better access to firepower? (As someone who was bullied, and bullied badly, during the seventies while going to school, I believe the latter.)

Second, let's assume that your crime rate was rising. This is compared to what? A few years ago, historians studied church records of medieval England (circa 1300). Their conclusion? That the murder rates at the time were many times higher than the murder rates of today, despite living in a very religious society (but then, they were probably extremists who didn't live biblically). And they largely got away with it, as the more powerful villagers were generally the perpetrators.

Third, and closer to our own time, others in this thread have pointed out to you that there is a positive correlation between the crime rate and how Christian the society is (but then, they're probably all extremists).

Finally, we live longer, healthier and more satisfying lives. We have more options than even our parents did. Real income is up compared to previous generations. We can believe in any religion of our choice, or none at all. We have the right to vote, and voice opposing political opinions without fear of official retaliation. My son goes to a school, unlike the one I went to, where bullying is not tolerated. We've become more tolerant of people with differing opinions, and racism -- while still existent -- is not nearly as virulent as in the past. We can even communicate electronically through computer bulletin boards.

In short, there is no reason to believe that the decline of Christianity is causing a "decline in our society". Or that multi-culturalism is causing a decline. Or that post-modernism is causing a decline. Or that there is even a decline at all.

That's a typical Christian response. Ignore the evidence; the truth is set immutably in stone and can not possibly change. What a stupid way of viewing it!

Let's consider the implication of this view. Let's say a person is convicted of rape. Years later, DNA proves conclusively that he is innocent. Do we ignore the new evidence because, to paraphrase yourself, "we can't change our views even if the evidence demands it"? Or do we reject our previous theory that he was guilty and free him because he's innocent? And if we do the latter, what's so wrong about science revising its theories in light of new evidence? Why does the first theory always have to be the correct theory, which is what it appears you're implying?

Science is not changing the rules. The rule is that scientific conclusions are always tentative and subject to revision dependent on the evidence. Unlike Christianity, science does not claim to be absolute truth and your statement above clearly demonstrates you don't understand how science works.

And, no, science doesn't just "redefine terms". It changes ideas when evidence warrants.

And what personal attack was that? That your own personal attack on Vork was simply a dodge to avoid his argument? Or that lynching of blacks in the past belies your point that our society is "declining"? Vork had a point: you need to learn that attacking your position is not the same as a personal attack. The only personal attack I've seen here is your statement that Vork has a "hatred of Christianity". You're simply dodging again.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>