elusive sky

.

Tercel said:
"Imagine professed believers in the General Theory of Relativity had slaughtered billions in its name.
Would you then disbelieve it on moral grounds?"
-----

On scientific grounds? No.
On moral ground? YES !!!

The difference is that Christing is a moral teaching, and Relativity, a scientific one. If General Relativity failed to explain gravity & space-time it would be a failed theory and we would discard it. If Christiantiy fails to teach morality, it would be a failed teaching.

.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: elusive sky ]</p>

Bede

I must admit that I’m not sure why I’m bothering but it might be worthwhile if one person is interested in history instead of polemic.

Vork, I presented a long essay on the methodologies used and accepted by nearly all critical historians. If you don’t like them, I’m sorry, but I don’t really care. As I’ve said before, arguing with people way out on the fringes is simply boring and like arguing with creationists. You’ve convinced yourself that pretty much the entire body of NT scholarship is wrong. Fine – go and write and book and tell us why. For the moment, I’ll stick to the mainstream.

The view of history presented here is so warped and one sided it is hard to know where to start. I’ll ignore the Hitler was Christian stuff – we’ve been over this a million times and always found it to be baseless which is why historians of the Nazis don’t buy it. The atrocities in Yugoslavia are a better case as the strife was between religious groups and local clergy were involved.

The crusades are usually portrayed as the war-like Christians falling on the peace loving Muslims. Well, rubbish. Alexis (late of these boards) called for the crusades because after Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was about to be overrun by the Seljuk Turks. The big picture is of Muslim expansion with desperate (and largely unsuccessful) rearguard action by Christians right up until Vienna in the seventeenth century. Only then did the tide well and truly turn. It is our patronising Eurocentric views that make us see the Christians as the bullies rather than the underdogs who lost half their land to Muslims and sometimes looked like they would loose it all.

So I blame the Muslims? Not a bit of it – they were just being human. There have been loads of great Empire builders and Christianity didn’t influence many – take the Persians (about three times), the Romans, the Zulu, the Maya, the Aztecs, the Mongols and the Spanish. These last ones did indeed conquer much of America although it is hard to say that wiping out the Aztecs was a bad thing. Even harder to see why Christianity was the reason the Spanish built an Empire even though they were just doing what every other culture has done under those circumstances. Besides, it was disease that did the most damage to the natives (who were not these noble savages you all seem to imagine) which the Spanish knew nothing about at all.

Anyway, what do you atheists want to do but wipe out all belief systems? What’s the difference between you and a Christian missionary (except most of you can’t be bothered to get off your arses). You claim you don’t use violence – I expect that like most other people, if you had the power, you would.

The fact is that you have bought into a myth. A myth of freedom fighting against religious oppression, a myth of science shaking off superstition, a myth of reason being able to take man to utopia. Like many myths, it has elements of truth, but these are wielded into a great fantasy that provides you with the role of heroes in mankind’s struggle for liberty.

Quite frankly, I wish you’d all grow up.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede’s Library – faith and reason</a>

Anunnaki

LMAO!
This is great advice coming from an adult who talks to an imaginary friend!

Don`t ever change Bede. You bring such joy and laughter everywhere you go.

Vorkosigan

I

Vork, I presented a long essay on the methodologies used and accepted by nearly all critical historians.

The issue wasn't whether they were used by critical historians; the issue was whether they were applicable to the NT. So far you've studiously avoided that core issue. What a surprise that is!

If you don’t like them, I’m sorry, but I don’t really care. As I’ve said before, arguing with people way out on the fringes is simply boring and like arguing with creationists.

Like Dom Crossan? He's ripped those "criteria" of yours to bits, as I pointed out in my response. And he feels the same way I do: there's no way you can reach into the NT and grab a nugget of history. It is impossible with the tools we have. I am sorry you keep erecting strawmen and deliberately refusing to understand the issues at stake. And labeling your opponents "creationists." Looks like you've been taking Nomad lessons, answering with insults, errors and evasions.

The facts are simple: there is no justification for regarding the gospels as history or historical documents, or containing anything other than legendary embellishment of stock historical characters. None. If there is, bring it on, Bede.

You’ve convinced yourself that pretty much the entire body of NT scholarship is wrong. Fine – go and write and book and tell us why. For the moment, I’ll stick to the mainstream.

There is no mainstream -- all scholars find a different Jesus -- as the scholars themselves are wont to point out. If you aren't familiar with historical Jesus scholarship, I understand, but I can't understand why you continue to make silly comments like this.

And no, I have not convinced myself NT scholarship is wrong. NT scholars are dead right on many points. But the reason they believe in the HJ is historical inertia, not proven arguments. Visited Peter's webpage on the HJ? Which of the many there would you identify as the mainstream?

The view of history presented here is so warped and one sided it is hard to know where to start.

Especially when one's historical knowledge is as limited and as biased as yours is.

I’ll ignore the Hitler was Christian stuff – we’ve been over this a million times and always found it to be baseless which is why historians of the Nazis don’t buy it.

Nobody raised this issue. The issue was Catholic involvement in and support of Hitler, Mussolini and the Holocaust.

The atrocities in Yugoslavia are a better case as the strife was between religious groups and local clergy were involved.

Thanks.

The crusades are usually portrayed as the war-like Christians falling on the peace loving Muslims. It is our patronising Eurocentric views that make us see the Christians as the bullies rather than the underdogs who lost half their land to Muslims and sometimes looked like they would loose it all.

Who cares whether the Muslims were warlike or not? Christians didn't have any right to walz in and attack them. You raise a non sequitor here that I already lectured you once on. The issue is Christian crimes, not Muslim ones. Address the issue, please.

And once again, even though it has already been mentioned in this very thread, you failed to address the issue of Christian on Christian violence in the crusades. You're a typical pathetic apologist, ignoring what you can't account for.

These last ones did indeed conquer much of America although it is hard to say that wiping out the Aztecs was a bad thing.

You're a piece of work, Bede. Aztec babies? Aztec children? Aztec women? Woodworkers? Farmers? Potters? They all deserved to die? There were lots of solutions to the Aztecs that fell short of wiping them out. Like I always say, scratch a Christian, find a nihilist. You're just plain sick.

Even harder to see why Christianity was the reason the Spanish built an Empire even though they were just doing what every other culture has done under those circumstances.

Earth to Bede: the issue isn't Spain invading the New World, it's the destruction of local culture, religion, and beliefs for the sake of the Canaanite Sky Fairy. Address the issues, please. It's the use of Christianity to control and dominate local cultures destroy their beliefs, and demoralize and divide them. It's Christian approval of conquest, destruction and slavery. Address that, if you dare.

Besides, it was disease that did the most damage to the natives (who were not these noble savages you all seem to imagine) which the Spanish knew nothing about at all.

Who said the savages were noble? What has the behavior of others to do with the savagery of Christians?

Anyway, what do you atheists want to do but wipe out all belief systems? What’s the difference between you and a Christian missionary (except most of you can’t be bothered to get off your arses). You claim you don’t use violence – I expect that like most other people, if you had the power, you would.

Freethinkers have never gone around stamping out other's beliefs, and we never will. And why should we be missionaries? What a dumb comment that was! The whole point is to let people think on their own, not convert them at gunpoint to other systems of thought, trash their cultures, and kill fellow-thinkers, like Christians always do.

The fact is that you have bought into a myth. A myth of freedom fighting against religious oppression, a myth of science shaking off superstition, a myth of reason being able to take man to utopia. Like many myths, it has elements of truth, but these are wielded into a great fantasy that provides you with the role of heroes in mankind’s struggle for liberty.

ROFTL. Speaking of myths, how about that Sky Fairy of yours?

Quite frankly, I wish you’d all grow up.

If approving of genocide is an example of Christian maturity, no thanks. Good work, Bede, you're a shining example of your faith.

Vorkosigan

Bede

'Pathetic' and 'sick'? Somewhere I hope it is possible to have a civilised argument with people with whom you don't agree who won't resort to insults the moment the argument slips away from them.

A shame it isn't here. And comparing ultra sceptical fringe wrok to creationism isn't an insult - especially coming from a Christian who would love it if the creationists were right (although, sadly, they aren't).

Account for Christian on Christian violence? Easy - its the same explanation as human on human violence. Listening to you lot you'd think that non-Christians were all pacifists. And that is the issue and not a sttrawman. You want Christian atrocities to beat Christians with and for no other reason. But to do this is height of hypocracy because there isn't anything special about Christian violence except perhaps that Christians often realise it is wrong. You tell me to ignore all non-Christian matters to try and cover your tracks because the only thing you care about is to denigrate Christianity at all costs - including the truth.

Finally, I did not say I approved of genocide. Trying to twist peoples words to turn them back into insults is typical tactics for teenagers losing an argument. So is using language like 'sky fairy'.

I repeat, I wish you'd just grow up.

BTW, Crossan uses an excellent methodology in his HJ work, marred only by his need to fit the evidence to his theory. I cover this in my essay. That he has misgivings about some criteria is true but besides the point - especially as he uses a good number of them (multiple attestation and embarressment being examples).

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

excreationist

Here are some quotes from websites. Note that I don't know how accurate this is.
from <a href="http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tinq.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tinq.htm</A>
from <a href="http://www.geocities.com/osred/persecution.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/osred/persecution.htm</A>
That webpage goes into quite a bit of detail about how rulers in different European countries made their countries become Christians, etc.

Vorkosigan

'Pathetic' and 'sick'? Somewhere I hope it is possible to have a civilised argument with people with whom you don't agree who won't resort to insults the moment the argument slips away from them.

Bede, review your comments about wiping out the Aztecs.

A shame it isn't here. And comparing ultra sceptical fringe wrok to creationism isn't an insult - especially coming from a Christian who would love it if the creationists were right (although, sadly, they aren't).

Ultra skeptical fringe work....like Crossan. Go back and re-read his section on methodology in Birth. Crossan uses those criteria sparingly, and not often on the gospels. And where he does, he is often wrong (on the Baptism by John, for example). The point is that they do not constitute a methodology that can give you history, only one that can be used on what we already know to be history. And the gospels are not history, but storytelling, legend, and religious propaganda.

Account for Christian on Christian violence? Easy - its the same explanation as human on human violence. Listening to you lot you'd think that non-Christians were all pacifists. And that is the issue and not a sttrawman. You want Christian atrocities to beat Christians with and for no other reason. But to do this is height of hypocracy because there isn't anything special about Christian violence except perhaps that Christians often realise it is wrong.

Your best defense is that Christians are like everyone else. Hooboy. We used that one when we were ten "Johnny did it, so I can too." That's no defense, Bede.

In point of fact, you behave worse than us freethinkers do. We don't harass, intimidate and kill each other over doctrinal issues like Christians. In point of fact, there are groups, such as Buddhists, who generally refrain from murdering each other and non-believers. Ultimately, many of those people butchered by the Church in sectarian disputes might have lived otherwise. Sad, but there it is.

So, your defense of Christians as no better or worse than anyone else is simply wrong (even if you bravely admit that Christianity is a morally failed system). Buddhism carries no similar taint of intersectarian butchery. Neither does Bahaism. Or several other religions I could name. Why do you think Christianity is so special in this regard? What is it about Christianity that drives its adherents to butcher each other and non-believers?

You tell me to ignore all non-Christian matters to try and cover your tracks because the only thing you care about is to denigrate Christianity at all costs - including the truth.

I must say, your rhetoric has improved immensely.

I haven't told you to "ignore" all non-Christian matters. They are irrevelant here. This issue before us is to explore and explain why Christians, who profess a religion of love, have a record of atrocities second only to Communists. You seem to think that by pointing out nasty behavior among the victims of Christianity, it makes it somehow OK. But Bede, the prior existence of African slavery does not excuse Christian support of it. The brutality of Aztec rule does not excuse the subsequent worse brutality of Christian usage....they are totally unrelated.

I do not recall that the Aztecs made similar claims for their religion; so they are not in the position of complete hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy that your religion is. The Inca religion, after all, was invented specifically to help subjugate conquered peoples. Ostensibly, Christianity did not have that use. Practically, of course, that has been one of its most celebrated roles.

BTW, which untruths have I uttered? The only one lying here is you, as we shall see.....

Finally, I did not say I approved of genocide.

Horseshit. Here's what you said:

These last ones did indeed conquer much of America although it is hard to say that wiping out the Aztecs was a bad thing.

let's see that one on the instant replay "....it is hard to say that wiping out the Aztecs was a bad thing."

Trying to twist peoples words to turn them back into insults is typical tactics for teenagers losing an argument.

So is lying. But only one of us is guilty here.

Replay says "....it is hard to say that wiping out the Aztecs was a bad thing."

The reader may judge for himself what Bede's meaning is here.

So is using language like 'sky fairy'.

I will stop.

I repeat, I wish you'd just grow up.

Sorry, but comments like this invite the use of terms like "sky fairy."

BTW, Crossan uses an excellent methodology in his HJ work, marred only by his need to fit the evidence to his theory. I cover this in my essay. That he has misgivings about some criteria is true but besides the point - especially as he uses a good number of them (multiple attestation and embarressment being examples).

Crossan uses those criteria sparingly, and not often on the gospels. And where he does, he is often wrong (on the Baptism by John, for example). The point is that they do not constitute a methodology that can give you history, only one that can be used on what we already know to be history. And the gospels are not history, but storytelling. Multiply attested legends are still....legends.

He doesn't have "misgivings." He says clearly:

It must be admitted that all those criteria have been around for quite some time, and their employment has not created a consensus on anythingp. 144

..Meier's criteria are not methodological enough to discriminate accurately between the various layers of the tradition.p 147.

And of course, from p. 149:

I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way, acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata.

Crossan is pretty clear, in his discussion. Meier's -- and your -- employment of the criteria is worthless, although they seem to make you both feel good. In short, NT studies has no historical methodology, Bede, and thus is not in a position to tell us to what extent the gospels reflect history. If such a methodology existed, you would bring it out and end this discussion. The criteria of Meier's cannot do this. Applied to The Lord of the Rings or Lord of Light, they would make history of them. You have faith to fill in the breach, the rest of us are constrained by intellectual honesty to report that there are no answers currently available to us, as Crossan says. Repeatedly -- everything depends on the assumptions you make about the sources. And in the case of NT scholarship, the assumptions have been driven by faith considerations.

If there were some historical methodology, Peter's web page on the HJ would have no material, would it?

Peter and I are currently discusssing these issues in the thread on John 1 in BC&A. I promise not to insult you if you drop by. Anyway, we need more knowledgeable participants, and you certainly have read more on this topic than I have.

Vorkosigan

Tercel

So true. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

MortalWombat

Maybe Cassie Bernall's mom could write a book about that too.

Tercel

Well I'm doubting it for one. I don't know much about the "destroyed Classical culture" allegations, but from what I know of history it's pretty much straight out false to say that Christianity ushered in the dark ages. Didn't the dark ages begin with the military conquest of the Christian Roman Empire by the non-Christian barbarians? The dark ages hence been ushered in by the fall of Christianity.

I would say the same about most atheist posters on this board.

We'll I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything: The more I've learned, the more I know I don't know.
Given that people like Bede and I not to mention thousands of others, can study it up, down, inside and out and come away thinking it's all true, perhaps you should consider the possibility that it could be you that has the incorrect opinion.

Generally I'd agree. The Fundamentalist Christian apologists spend their time twisting facts and presenting biased one sided arguments. One of my greatest dissappointments about Atheism and "Free-Thinking" was to discover that the Atheist Apologists are all too often just as bad. It seems only liberal Christians such as Bede and I, and a few of the more enlightened atheists here, are capable of actually accepting the evidence as it stands.