Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Metacrock · 01-21-2002, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:


Reactor, you are making yourself look stupid. What's wrong with wholesale healing? Modern medicine has made possible the wholesale curing of many diseases -- do you really want to turn your back on it on account of its wholesale nature?

Meta =>I don't know this Reactor fellow, and I haven't seen all of his posts. But from what I have seen, I would think a long time before saying he makes himself look stupid. Based upon my limited experince of his work I would say he does not, as a general rule.

Metacrock · 01-21-2002, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:


Why not this miracle:

On the evening of September 11, 2001, US East Coast time, the following happens:

All the victims of those kamikaze hijackings are restored to life in this world, for all of us to see.

The culprits are also restored, but are chained to pigs.

The World Trade Center and the Pentagon are fully restored, complete with really good air-defense systems.

The four airliners are fully restored and placed in nearby airports as if nothing had happened.

Meta =>Why not just have us born in heaven and never have any trials or problems. The whole thing about the supernatual is that it is not the negation of the natural but it's ground and end. The natural seeks the supernatural in the way that King said "the arch of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." Thus the supernatural is not a complete abrogation of the natural but a tendency which nature manifests from time to time (according to creative purose and wisdom). Thus such "whole sale miracles" as you say are anti-thetical to life in the natural.

We are meant to endour. God is not a utilitarian, there are more important things in life than just pleasure over pain. "This is the whole duty of man, to fear God and keep his commandments." So the meaning of life is to find duty in relation to God, not merely to have a good time (however I say not merely because being Irish I like a good time as much as the next Texan).

Metacrock · 01-21-2002, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Don Morgan:
Responding to Meta ...
Responding to Meta ...
I had asked: Is that ["John the atheiod"] meant to be an insult? Should I, as a fellow nontheist feel insulted (as you say that you do when Christianity is insulted)?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta responds:
I don't know. How should I feel when atheists say "Xian?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't a question of how you should feel, rather it is a question of how you should behave. You allegedly have "God's" Holy Spirit residing in you and you allegedly have the power of prayer at your disposal. Put it into action and provide the kind of Christian witness that would make you seem different than a non-Christian -- if possible.

Meta =>so you're taking it as an inslut? Then why did you ask?

I had said: You seem very fond of stating as certainties what you cannot possibly know.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta responds:
How do you figure that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Anyone who makes a statement such as you did, namely: "Because they wont take the time to think about them or find out what they are," isn't JUST making an observation, he is drawing a conclusion based on his/her observation(s), a conclusion which may or may not be correct, a conclusion stated as a certainty and which you cannot possibly know with certainty -- unless you are omniscient.

Meta =>But you have no more knowledge of my intentions or my heart than I do of yours or theirs. yet you seem fiarly certain that I meant the "atheoid" thing as an insult. Does this mean you agree that one can go by the actions and words of others? If so than why does this not answer the matter here?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta had said:
Let's see how well defiened they are. But first observe, the motvation for this could well be because liberal christianity is the real thing! It is the scholarly version, since these guys are far too uneducated to deal with that they have to dismiss it as though it is meaningless because they are really scared to death to actually try to argue with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

I had responded: ... or it could well be that liberal Christianity is simply a whitewash of REAL fundamentalist Christianity by those who are too weak-kneed to embrace REAL fundamentalist Christianity.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta responds:
See now here's a prime example of what I said above. you obviously don't know the history of theology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another conclusion stated as if it were fact, an erroneous conclusion in my case, and an insulting one at that. Not becoming a so-called Christian.

Meta =>not at all. if you had asserted that the Alamo took place in 1935 I could maintain that you don't know Texas history. When you make fundamental mistakes about theology that require only general knowledge it is clear that you don't know the history. Now that is not a personal insult, that is a matter of book learning. To say that one doesn't know something is not to insult the intelligence, it is merely an invitation to read. I never said you don't have the native intelligence to understand it. I said only that you have not taken the time, for perhaps perfectly justifiable reasons, to find the answer.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta responds:
Rather than take the time to learn it, you make assertions. As I pointed out, the fundies were a 19th century reaction agaisnt something that already existed for almost two centuries, in fact since the Rensiassance. So this is not possible that liberaism is a watered down version of something that did not exist until after it did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

And as I said, the idea behind the fundamentalist movement was to get back to the fundamentals of Christianity, what they considered to be the essence, the essential doctrines.

Meta =>that is the ostensible line. But most chruch historians are convinced that it was in reaction against modernity. Now you miss the crucial point which was that it was not the ancient faith of the original chruch but came very late. IN fact you admit that, which means it is not the true christianity it is a modern reaction.

Quote:

Like it or lump it, Meta, you don't have much of an idea of what original Christianity was really like. No one does. And the fact of the matter is that had not the headquarters Church in Jerusalem and its leadership been destroyed circa AD 70, Christianity as we know it today would likely be far different than what we have.

Meta =>That's a nonsquitter becasue I'm not the one arguing for going back to it. I'm content to take the overall tradition as it can be understood from history as a developing conversation. I have argued that we are not called to go back to some Reaganite golden age of faith like the moral majority.

Quote:

There is also the matter of the loss of many of the earliest documents in the burning of the library at Alexandria. And then there is the matter of the use of books in the Early Church which are now considered noncanonical.

Meta =>1) You can't argue from books we dont' have. We don't have them that doesn't prove anything that they aren't there to argue from.

2) argument form the gaps; we don't have this therefore it must have been destroyed, no evidence of that. The fact that we dont' have them doesn't prove they were destroyed.

3) Bede's research has put the library fire to rest competely.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta responds:
I know [fundamentalism] was a modern reaction to a modern world, that's what I said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I know that. You do recognize agreement when you see it, don't you?

meta =>No when it comes wrapped in such hostile tones.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
... saying they want to get at the fundamentals doesnt' make them right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... nor you right, nor them wrong, nor you wrong.

Meta =>It's not important that I be right. I never said I was right, or that I was trying to be right. all I said is that I am faithful to what I think I know. That's all any man can do.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
Their quest for fundamentals is illbegotten.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the quest for a watered-down liberal Christianity which is palatable to true intellectuals is ill-begotten.

Meta ->That it may be. But since I am a true intellectual, and have been one all my life, and growing up in Texas that was not easy to come to, that's what I find that speaks to me and changed my life. Again, what else can one really do but be faithful to what one thinks one knows?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
The Bible never calls us to guard a list of fundamentals and it never calls us to seek some golden age of "true faith."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Whether the Bible calls you to guard a list of fundamentals or not is irrelevant to whether there is a list of fundamentals which you should guard in order to be true to your faith.

Meta =>I fail to see why I should let you decide that for me? I'm the one with the faith, so why should I not be the one to decide (at least for myself) what I think that faith entails? As for the notion that there is such a list, obviously if my statment is true and the Bible doesn't call us to gurad a list then there is no list to guard, at least not in the Bible. If it's not in the Bible then by fudie standards it's not there and doesn't matter.

Quote:

HOWEVER, what the Bible does and does not do and say should not matter much to someone who thinks of it as less than inerrant.

Meta ->Of course it should! that's just another fallacious assumption based upon your VP background. It matters what it says becasue it is the primary document that has shaped Christian identity and to understand the conversation of the tradition we have to undestand that document.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
the first century chruch was screwed up. The Corinthians were a first century chruch, the seven chruches of Asia minor were first century chruches and Jesus says of them "I will spew you out of my mouth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

On the contrary, the Bible says that the author of Revelation says that Jesus said such and such. But unless you accept the Bible as inerrant (which you have said you don't) then you cannot say with certainty that Jesus said such and such based on a Bible verse.

Meta -> That's a wesal argument! trying to get tricky here, but it's just legalistic mumbo jumbo. The fact of the matter is that the document reflects a certain dispossition of those chruches. Therefore, there is nothing sacrosanct about being in the fist century per se. What we need to be doign is trying to understand the tradition as a whole and to understand how to live by the core message, as we can understand it, without too much dissent, and translate that into our own time. That task is not served by creating some artificial canon within the canon and bogging the chruch down in a faile dogmatic based upon the ideology of a camp.

Quote:

(Do you still insist that liberal Christians, apologists, and theologians DON'T pick and choose what they will take literally in the Bible?)

Meta =>yea

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
We are never called to restore some golden age of faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Irrelevant. You ARE called upon to maintain the faith and -- if you put any stock in Revelation -- to not add to or subtract from at least that book (although Christians do it all the time, reading into it what isn't there and then redefining it when its alleged prophecies fail to materialize).

Meta =->Can the C of C hermenuitics. This is unworthy of your intelligence. You have abandoned your point about 20 times now. You have nothing left of your orignial position and yet you cling to the illusion that you are making a point. Your original position is gone; the idea that the fundies are the true chruch becasue they somehow harken back to some fundamental set of truths. That is totally eskewed and your whole argument is a straw man. No one gave you the authority to say that that faith entails, no one assigned you to define it, espeicially not for me. This is my view and if you want to argue with me you deal with my view. I dont' care about your theological baggae. you renounced the right to define the faith. So cut the strawman lose. You have no right to tell me what my faith is about!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
We are called to move forward in our understanding and in our relationship with God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don:"Please quote the chapter and verse where you are called on to move forward in your understanding and in your relationship with "God" and then tell me why it matters given that you don't believe the Bible to be inerrant and/or infallible."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the language of the NT, moving form glory to glory, running the race, moving ahead, moving on toward the goal, coming to deeper knowledge, not looking back to some fabaled time like the Reagan adminsitration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

No, that is your interpretation of the NT. Others who are at least equally well-informed and sincere hold different interpretations of the "language of the NT."

Meta =->Well so what? that is the most dishonest way to argue. Man you were C of C! you know why? Becasue you are asserting that your reading is priveledged but then you wan to assert that because my reading is not privielged then it must be wrong and I have to accept that of others. But you dont' practice that for your reading. But all I can do is go by my reading. Now that should go without saying. As reasonable peopel we should understand without having to expalin it that we follow our own readings. If I'm wrong, well I'm wrong, but that's the way I read it so that's what I do. That is as reasonable as anything gets. It then say "well you could be wrong so you can't do that" is totally unreasonable because there is nothing else one should do. I am speaking for myself, I 'm not imposing rules for everyone, I'm speaking of my own theolgical assumptions, and what else should they be based upon but the way I read it? NOw I could just join the orhtodox and accept their dogma but that would still mean not being cut out of the American fundie mold. The Othodox or the RCC have a claim to speak for the tradition, so I could just follow them without thinking, but they would accept my view, especially the RCC after VAT II.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta had said:
Secondly, VP assumes that God is going to dictate a letter like a business man dictating to a secretary. But that is a false assumption. There is no reason to assume that this is the hall mark of inspairtion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

I had responded: And there is no reason not to assume it either. After all, it certainly would be in the realm of a perfect and omnipotent "God" to inspire a perfect, infallible, and plenary "Word of God."

NO I gave reasons not to. You seem to have cut them out. And you never did demonstate why a "perfect" God would have to do things that way.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
Why would it? That's just circular reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

I could ask you the same question and then make the same comment. If mine is circular reasoning, then so is yours.

MEta =>That doens't follow. Circular reasoning is when the premise rests on the conclusion. How does my premise rest on my conclusion? My premise is that revelation is a verbaliztion of the feeling of utter dependence. My conclusion flows out of that, that the text need not be historically accurate or scientific. How is that circular?

Quote:

But I don't think either is a case of circular reasoning. Rather I think it is a matter of what is self-evident. I feel that it should be quite obvious to you that there is no arguing with the fact that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could inspire a perfect, infallible, and plenary "Word of God" if he/she/it wanted to do so. To me, that is self-evident.

Meta =>So in your mind "could" equals "did?" That doesn't follow. This whole issue is predicated upon the assuption that God is a cosmic suzerian who wants to give dictation. I already told you that I don't buy that. So why should I then assume he is? I also argued that you are laoding the terms with your own assumptions thus perfect = verbal and omnipotant = plenary, and so froth. yet you have said nothing to indicate why we should load the terms in that way. I have given reasons why we should not, becasue obviously he didn't. That is made manifest by the lack of literal historicity in the early chapters. So he didn't do it we have reason to exect he should, so that's not really an argument.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
That's based upon the assumptions of verbal plenary to begin with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. It is based on no assumption. It is based on the definitions of "perfect" and "omnipotent."

Meta =>NONONONONONON, it is based upon your definitions of "perfect" and "omnipotent." And your defitions are loaded in such a way as to reflect the necessity of verbal plenary inspiration. You just dogmatically assume that "perfect" means literal history and that "omnipotent" means Plenary inspiritaion.

you can't even establish why one should think that God is omnipotant. Why not "maximal greatness" as the standard? It doesn't say it in the creeds, the OT seems to indicate a God who doesn't know certain things, and the NT never uses that term.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
There are reasons to think God wouldn't do it that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course there are -- in the minds of liberal Christians.

Meta =>Ad hom

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
For one thing it can't be done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Then you deny the omnipotence of your "God." No ifs, ands, buts about it, you simply deny the omnipotence of your "God" when you say "it can't be done."

Meta ->I don't remember what it was I said that about. I don't define omnipotant as the ability to do anything even nonsense. If something is logically contradictory we should not expect that God could do it. Moreover, I'm as inclined to accept "Maximal greatness" in place of "omnipotence." (see Hartshorne and also Plantinga)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
It's a navie appraoch to lanague.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naive approach to language or not, it is well within the capability of an omnipotent "God."

Meta =>That's just a ridiculous way to argue. If it's a niave approach to lanuage we have no reason to expect it to be a standard.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
For another thing, it ignores the nature of a persoanl relationship with God. The existenial personal experince model is far more in keeping with such a relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

My opinion is that the "existential personal experience model" is in keeping only with a nonexistent, nonomnipotent, imaginary/personal "God," a god who exists only in the mind of a believer.

Meta =>Non sequitter. your personal limites credulity are unimportant here. We are discussing the rational basis of my theology. If I can believe that then makes sense to base assumptions upon it. Moreover I doubt that you even understand what I'm talking about.

...

I had said: In fact, to think that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could possibly have anything to do with an imperfect, incomplete, and fallible "Word of God" (or "book," if you prefer) is somewhat of an oxymoron.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
more circular reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me, it not circular reasoning at all but rather it is self-evident.

Meta =>That's fine, it doesn't illustrate the irrationality of my system since I can demonstate a warrent for believing that it is circular. You have fallen into the mistake of proposing your personal tastes as theological answers. No offense but your habits are not the issue here.

Polycarp · 01-21-2002, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:
Really? I thought the diocease/church/coven whatever paid for it.

No... No... No... A thousand times "no"... Only in a minority of cases. Your tax dollars subsidize it, though, if you're an American. How do ya like that?

Metacrock · 01-21-2002, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Don Morgan:
Responding to Meta ...Part II of "Fun With Don."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
You are reading in the assumptions of verbal plenary as though they are the foundational assumptions of the faith, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Do you think of yourself as clairvoyant or omniscient? If not, then you cannot possibly know what I do and don't "read-in."

Meta =>I need not be a clairvoyant. All I need be is a logician. You seem stragely unware of the fact that certain logical imperatives imply logical consequeces.

Quote:

In any case, you are wrong. I am not "reading-in the assumptions of verbal plenary as though they are the foundation assumptions of faith." Rather I am stating what seems to me to be self-evident. It surprises me that you don't see it that way yourself.

Meta =>That's just equivocation. Obviously you assume that the basic assumptions of the VP are the foundations of the faith becasue that is the logical implication; everyone one of your arguments stems from the premise that is identical to VP.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
There is no reason to equate God's perfection with a verbalized form of revelation, or to equate perfection in communication with details of litteral history and science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Do you understand the meaning of the words "perfect" and "omnipotent" in some special way that means something less than what those words actually mean?

Meta =>Apparently. I know that "prefect" does not reduce to "litteral" and "omnipotent" is not a synamim for history, so I see no reason to make literal history the hallmark of truth.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
The Bible as a whole could be totally mythological and still be a perfect communication of God to humanity. There is just no reason to equate perfection with literalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

I am not talking about it being mythological or nonliteral. I am talking about it being fallible, flawed, imperfect.

Meta =>O< well, hmmmmmmmmmmm, and what is "fallible" and "flawed?" Apparently it has something to do with reflecting literal history, otherwise what's the beef? If that is not the hallmark of those terms then how does my view reflect any sort of flaw in the text?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta had said:
Thirdly, it assumes that literal history is the hallmark of truth. This is why atheists like it because they all they have to do is find the mythological elements and they have a great argument against the Bible. But all they really have is an argument against a modern version of hermeneutics which failed becasue it was falwed to begin with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had responded: Under your view, the Bible was apparently flawed to begin with. Putting one's faith into a so-called revealed religion which is based on a book which is flawed from the start seems to me to be intellectually dishonest and unwise.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
That argument only makes sense if you define "flawed" as "non literal."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Hardly. The argument also makes sense if you define "flawed" in the case of the Bible as being inconsistent, offering unsound precepts, attributing to "God" acts which "He" himself would or should condemn, etc.

Meta =>But that's a problem of the canon. The Bible never says "thou shalt have a Bible." The Bible is a creature of the tradition; the tradition is a gurdian of the deposit of truth in Christ's words. Fundies make the text into a god because they think the text has to be perfet. Nowhere does the Bible assume the Bible. Moreover, I never agreed that has any unsound precepts. The problem with the Amalekite thing for example is a problem of the canon. 2 Sam shoulnd't be in it. It is, but that's a matter of what we understand about its being there rather than just the fact that it is there. To then come along and say "O this is there so it proves that the whole thing is no good" clearly comes form the assumption that there is this dictation that one has to follow to the letter because it's suppossed to be literal. Otherwise we can just understand it as an artifact of history, this is a certian reflection of the way some people understood their relation with God at one time and we are not necessarily bound to understand our relationship with God in that same way.

But then that goes back to my view of the OT as a whole, that it's just a framework to make sense of Christ. Messiah has no meaning apart from the cultural framework of Judaism. So the OT establishes that cultural frame and that's why its in the canon.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
I see no reason to undersatnd it that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

If you truly see "NO reason" then you are being myopic. Myself, I see little reason (not "no" reason) to understand it the way that you do.

In my opinion, you, like Helen, essentially have a religion of your own making.

Meta =>Helen? Of Troy? That's a completely unfair statment. You have gain said and ignored all my arguments to this point, and you are still impossing the verbal plenary assumptions with no warrent.

1) revelation is a verbalization of the feeling of utter dependence, and reflection of the author's/redactor's experiences of God, either culturally or personally.

2) The canon is a means of demarkating the texts that have shaped the identity of the tradition, it is a creature of the tradition, it is the tradition that is important, we have to understand it as a conversation with the dead in light of our own personal experinces.

3) we use histoircal critical methods to recover what we can of the text to understand what it was about.

No way that is merely of my own making. That binds me to several committments in terms of hermeneutics and theology which cannot merely the cast aside with a whim. It implies a committment both to a personal relationship with God and to a sceitnific study of hermeneutical methods.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
"Revealed" religion does not have to mean merely historical details and scientific facts, it can also mean that God's character is revealed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Of course, and it could even mean that it was "revealed" differently to everyone to whom it was revealed, "God" being something of a chameleon of trickster. But this sort of "God" wouldn't be much more satisfying (or much less satisfying) than the "God" of the Bible, the "God" of Christianity.

meta ->Nor does he have to be any different.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
In fact that is the clue, Jesus is the revelation,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given your view of the Bible, you cannot be sure that such is the case.

Meta ->Of course I can, becasue that's what the tradition says, that's a universal given within the coversation.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
... the Bible is just the written record of the communitie's encounter with the revelation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

You can't be sure of that either. It may be nothing more than the written ramblings of various primitive "religious existentialists" who didn't know what they were talking about.

meta ->NO I certainly can be sure of that, because the tradition has embrassed these writtins as the shaper of Christian idenity. To that extent it doesn't matter if it can be backed up historically in an empirical way because know historically it has done at least that much.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta had said:
Foruth, the old saw that liberal view is just "take what you want and leave the rest" is stupid, and it is so becasue that's what the whole science of textual criticism is desinged to do, to give one a means of understanding the original nature of the text. That's what we use rather than just what we like, textual criticism and the history critical method. That offers a totally scientific and very accurate way of being able to understand exactly what is mythology, what is litteral, what is added and what is original. It's not 100% accurate but it is very good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had responded: If you believe that textual criticism and the historical approach to the Bible (as well as the other techniques of so-called higher criticism) can arrive at what is and is not believable, so be it. In that case, however, you will need to apply those same techniques/methods to other alleged Holy books such as the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc. Have you?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
actually I have, to an extent. The Moslems have not made the big deal of persevering texts in order and understanding their groupings as have Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

On the contrary. I think that the copies and translations of the Koran are better preserved than are the Biblical books in terms of being faithful to the original(s).

Meta => Yes but they have done no textual criticism. We dont' know if those texts are redacted or how they are redacted and so forth. AT least I don't.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
They have not subjected it to that kind of anaylsis so the spade work has not been done and I don't the lanague so I can't do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

On the contrary, Muslims claim that the Koran is in complete harmony with science, that it doesn't suffer the historical and scientific flaws that the Bible does.

meta ->That's not what I mean. I'm talking about redaction of the text not wheather it has a bunch of parler tricks (and that's what the fundies claim about Genesis too).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta continues:
But it's not important anyway, because that only assums that this one book is the truth to the exclusion of all other books.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had asked: Is that ["John the atheiod"] meant to be an insult? Should I, as a fellow nontheist feel insulted (as you say that you do when Christianity is insulted)?

My, you do pick and choose. You are referring to Solomon Spaulding, an amateur author who allegedly wrote a novel called "Manuscript Found" which allegedly became the foundation of the Book of Mormon according to Walter R. Martin, former Director of The Christian Research Institute, Wayne N.J., as put forth in his book "The Kingdom of the Cults" published by Bethany Fellowship.

Martin takes on the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Mormonism, Spritism, Theosophy, Zen Buddhism, Bahai, Unity, Seventh Day Adventism -- anything which he considers both a cult and a threat to [his version of] Christianity.

As he himself puts it: "I am a Baptist minister of the conservative school of thought. It is impossible for me to say with Dr. Braden that 'I am an unrepentant liberal to the present.' ... It has been wisely observed by someone that 'a man who will not stand for something is quite likely to fall for almost anything.'"

That is totally fallacious, if I'm not standing for something why am I writting all this?

---------

And that's where I'll leave it for that describes very well what I think has occurred with you and others like you who have a religion which is essentially of your/their own making. When one has redefined Christianity to the extent that you and Helen have, for example, there is little point so far as I am concerned in continuing to discuss it.

Meta => You have manifestly lost that issue. The so called "relgion of your own making" has far more claim to the tradition of Christainity than do the fundies. It's connected to the chruch the creeds through not only German Luther's (who actually have apostolic assendence as Bishops) but the Roman Catholics as well. The fundies in America are nothing more than an anti-intellectual rabble that rebelled against the Reformed branch in the second great awakening and strayed frome the crees and the councils because life on the frontier allowed them to do so. the liberals are the thinkers of the chruch, the academics, they inhabit the big name instutitions such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, Tubingdon, Sur Bon, ect. Liberal Christians include the lion's share of great thinkers in the tradition. But it's not just liberals but neo-orothdox as well. So you have no leg to stand on. you are merley defending the rabbel to set up a straw man because they are esier to attack.

--Don--

Metacrock · 01-21-2002, 07:10 PM

Don Morgan is the most dishonest rhetorician I've ever seen. His whole concept of argument (like that of Ferell Till) is to shame the opponent with a false standard of having not lived up to some strawman version of Christianity which he has chosen for no better reason than that it is easy to attack.

He does not have the right to determine what the Christian faith is about. He gave up that right when he gave up the faith. I am the only person who has the right to decide what my faith is about.

Anunnaki · 01-21-2002, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Polycarp:
[b]

No... No... No... A thousand times "no"... Only in a minority of cases. Your tax dollars subsidize it, though, if you're an American. How do ya like that?

I for one am saddened AND sickened by such a hideous abuse of tax dollars. I personally would rather see that money go to someone who would kick me square in the testicles than have one more penny of it go towards the programing and assimilation of one more robot like yourself.

Anunnaki · 01-21-2002, 08:06 PM

Metacrock:

Quote:

I am the only person who has the right to decide what my faith is about.

Indeed you do,but I find it unfortunate that you have chosen to continually share it with the rest of us and assume that we are stupid or ignorant when we disagree with you.

-DM- · 01-21-2002, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:
Don Morgan is the most dishonest rhetorician I've ever seen. His whole concept of argument (like that of Ferell Till) is to shame the opponent with a false standard of having not lived up to some strawman version of Christianity which he has chosen for no better reason than that it is easy to attack.

He does not have the right to determine what the Christian faith is about. He gave up that right when he gave up the faith. I am the only person who has the right to decide what my faith is about.

It would seem that I must have hit a nerve with Metacrock. Here he is once again stating his erroneous opinion as if it were certainty, spewing insults in the process (and yet seeming to expect that we should care when he complains about the way that he is treated).

I have news for Metacrock: any of us have the right to determine what the Christian faith is about. (But notice the switch that Metacrock pulled from talking about the Christian faith to his own, personal faith.)

--Don--

Reactor · 01-21-2002, 11:15 PM

Sorry lpetrich, I have answers for both of your quesions. I'm just not used to this much writing... and thus, a little slow to respond.

I think you're asking the wrong person as to why the miracles you've outlined haven't happened. Why not, you ask? They sure sound fine to me, especially the last two. My point was that God is the one who determines the 'why nots'.

I didn't think I was making myself look stupid by asking if turtonm wanted or needed wholesale healing. What turtonm wants may not be what we need-- God being the one who decides that. I have no problem with wholesale healing, nor did I say that I did before.

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

01-21-2002, 07:10 PM	#46
Metacrock Banned Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA Posts: 1,734	Don Morgan is the most dishonest rhetorician I've ever seen. His whole concept of argument (like that of Ferell Till) is to shame the opponent with a false standard of having not lived up to some strawman version of Christianity which he has chosen for no better reason than that it is easy to attack. He does not have the right to determine what the Christian faith is about. He gave up that right when he gave up the faith. I am the only person who has the right to decide what my faith is about.

01-21-2002, 11:15 PM	#50
Reactor Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 43	Sorry lpetrich, I have answers for both of your quesions. I'm just not used to this much writing... and thus, a little slow to respond. I think you're asking the wrong person as to why the miracles you've outlined haven't happened. Why not, you ask? They sure sound fine to me, especially the last two. My point was that God is the one who determines the 'why nots'. I didn't think I was making myself look stupid by asking if turtonm wanted or needed wholesale healing. What turtonm wants may not be what we need-- God being the one who decides that. I have no problem with wholesale healing, nor did I say that I did before.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.