Scots Taffer on 16/1/2007 at 12:17
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
And he's right - Scots_Taffer's posts in this thread are proof of it. Scots doesn't appear to think that I should be concerned when the most powerful man in the world says atheists should have no rights. I don't think he understands that when the fundamentalists have finished the likes of me off, the moderates like him are next on the list.
- You advocated Dawkin's view at the very beginning of this thread that religion was a firestarter, the instigator of so many wars, and this implies that human nature is nearly irrelevant in these matters - I vehemently disagree. I'd say it's more to the point, as I suggested in my previous post, there is much evil in the world divorced from religion.
- I do not have a very thorough understanding of the political climate in the US, that is true, nor do I have a need to; even as a moderate I sincerely doubt they will ever have any impact upon my way of life, nor do I believe they will have any impact upon your way of life either, and I challenge you to even produce a hypothetical where the case would be otherwise.
- Again, tell me how the
CURRENT President of the United States having a view on athiests constitutes a threat to humanity? His view can quite easily be replaced by the next figurehead as elected by the public, and with poll turnouts shifting every year, who's to say that the 47% who vote Aethisem for President won't be the MAJORITY voting for their candidate? Plus, what's the statistics on a Muslim President, or a Catholic President, or an agnostic President? I'm curious, since you place so much weight in that simple statistic and presume so much further from there (unless it is all backed up by your as yet absent and silent "research").
- Lastly, again with the hyperbole:
when the fundamentalists have finished the likes of me off, the moderates like him are next on the list. Who specifically is the threat to your existence? You say I'm overemphasising your US-centric discussion and offer the balance by suggesting Islam is your next fear: aside from terrorism (which I view as a product of foreign policy driven by political and financial gain as opposed to religious), how are these religions a threat to humanity and your existence? I'm genuinely curious.
Chimpy Chompy on 16/1/2007 at 12:34
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
so much so that the president can come out and say that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens,
waht? Seriously? I mean I wouldn't be surprised if Bush had a personal bias against atheists, but has he actually publically expressed this?
Quote:
I'd happily see an end to religion, but if you think for one moment I'd wage war to see those ideologies purged from the planet, then you clearly don't understand atheism/humanism, or liberalism for that matter. Purging rival ideologies from the world through force is something that is associated with the religious, not the non-religious.
I think what Scumble is saying is, that purging is something that could be associated with anyone who has an agenda and power. Not exclusively restricted to religion. And that who knows who of us could end up being tyrants if we had an agenda and power...
Vivian on 16/1/2007 at 12:43
More importantly, what sort of shitty holidays are you going to have if you completely expunge religion? Orbital apex day? Migration-time?
Thirith on 16/1/2007 at 12:55
Unless I'm very mistaken, few of the horrors of the 19th and 20th century were based on religion. Ideology and economy seem to me to be much greater potential evils than organised religion, even than fundamentalism (although this may change in the 21st century).
fett on 16/1/2007 at 13:29
Quote Posted by paloalto
Why are you determining the efficacy of spirituality on the effect on others?Did they have the desire to change?Did your faith change you?I can only determine no since you were waiting to see it in others.
And how did you judge from an outer point of view that they had no change in their life?It is hard to understand how they could have opened up and not said why they bieleve and what they get out of it?Unless you knew where they started out from and everything about them.How did you apply you religious knowledge to help them with their psychoses?
Day to day small changes in your thinking is rather different than curing a major psychoses.It is hard to understand how you would not be changed by really applying something like,The Imitation Of The Christ in one's life.
The conversation has moved past this point but I would still like to address it. Understand that I'm speaking of a group of 100+ people that I observed and 'ministered' to since I was roughly 19 years old. So I did, in fact, know where they started from. I woke up one day to realize that we were re-hashing the same old ground. The greedy were still greedy, the lustful were still lustful, the angry were still angry, etc. In fact, I would say the majority got worse as they got older.
As for day to day change, the scriptures teach that this will happen. Not only did I not see or experience those changes, I also did not see or experience any supernatural immediate change like that described repeatedly in the NT. In the First Century, according to Luke's account, uneducated, fearful people were changed radically into bold, well-spoken, responsible, and compassionate messengers of the gospel. In a group of 100+ surely I would see either small or large change in at least 1 or 2 people?
The common argument is "well, you guys were doing something wrong," but this was a fairly mainstream group that understood the fundamental teachings of scripture. Prayer, bible study, fellowship, confessed/repented sin, as well as a healthy handling of books like 'The Pursuit of God,' 'Mere Christianity', etc. Either way, application of religious knowledge is (scripturally speaking) secondary to this promised supernatural changing into the image of Christ (though obviously a large part of it). Change should happen to people who are absorbing the scripture, regardless of how wide or narrow their scope of understanding is. I took this group though the entire bible - front to back - three times in the course of those years, explaining doctrine, theology, application, and history to them. Change? Nade, nothing, zilch, dry hump, bupkis, zero, nein.
Again, I'm not bitter about this, just stating what I observed, and until I observe convincing evidence otherwise, the jury is still out for me.
Thirith on 16/1/2007 at 13:32
What about you yourself, Fett? Do you think/feel that faith changed anything inside you? Or were you brought up Christian?
By the way, thanks a lot for your posts in this thread - they're a part of why this is one of the rare religion threads that are worth reading and posting in. :) I appreciate your honest, critical appraisal of your own experiences.
fett on 16/1/2007 at 14:09
Quote Posted by Thirith
What about you yourself, Fett? Do you think/feel that faith changed anything inside you? Or were you brought up Christian?
By the way, thanks a lot for your posts in this thread - they're a part of why this is one of the rare religion threads that are worth reading and posting in. :) I appreciate your honest, critical appraisal of your own experiences.
It's hard to say. To some degree I was changed, but in retrospect I wonder if it wasn't because the logic of Jesus' teaching simply make sense. He was an honorable, compassionate person, and any attempt to be more like him is sure to make anyone a better person. I don't know how I would qualify whether or not this was a 'spiritual' or supernatural change however. I know that since walking away from that life, I haven't reverted into a homicidal, rampaging, narcissistic, maniac. I'm still faithful to my wife, patient with my kids, and pretty much like any other normal person. I wasn't raised Christian but came to it through studying Taoism and Judiac prophecy in my early 20's. I was mainly a teacher from 'outside of the camp' until my mid-20's when I kind of got sucked in. It's an odd relationship - I still teach theology from time to time on a purely academic level, and get to be involved in some amazing things (I got to go on a dig at Quamran/Dead Sea several times in the early 00's with Randall Price - one of the foremost Dead Sea Scroll scholars).
I'm still trying to come to grips with the whole thing so maybe ttlg therapy will help...:D
TheAlbaniac on 16/1/2007 at 14:37
This a great thread, and thanks to all those who contributed in a meaningful way (you know who you are...). I particularly love the way that those people on the forum who's voices I 'respect', sometimes disagree on very fundamental points.
Now to try and contribute in some way, here's two things. First, I came across this (
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html) review of the book. It's very, very negative, but makes some great points. I should still read the book to reach my own verdict, of course.
Secondly, I really liked fett's posts. I'm currently in a point in life where I'm asking the same questions. Does 'religion' do what it claims to do. Maybe this is the most fitting way to test the validity of a religion. And really, if a religion can't back up it's own claims, do you even need to bother 'disproving' it by other means?
Convict on 16/1/2007 at 14:45
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Until recently those theories were indistinguishable by the evidence, but more recent evidence has come in in favor of exotic dark matter over MGE. If the observation had been opposite, the opposite would have occurred, with frankly a great deal more upheaval since MGE was not popular. Nonetheless, dark matter
is falsifiable and may yet be falsified, in the same way that MGE recently was.
Well according to someone rather fundamentalist (Paul), Christianity is falsifiable - if you find Jesus' body you disprove Christianity. The assumption (which is widely accepted) is that Jesus was alive in the first place.
fett on 16/1/2007 at 16:02
Quote Posted by Convict
Well according to someone rather fundamentalist (Paul), Christianity is falsifiable - if you find Jesus' body you disprove Christianity. The assumption (which is widely accepted) is that Jesus was alive in the first place.
Yeah, but we've had this argument a million times, and I'll say it again - debating Jesus' historical existence isn't really an intelligent road to travel. If you've done the homework, there's not much of a question at all that he lived.
On the theological front - it doesn't matter anyway. Jesus' didn't change Judaic theology, he simply embodied it. Means of salvation, trust in God's forgiveness, etc. doesn't change one iota from OT to NT except that the OT believers were looking forward for Messiah, and the NT believers (in this day) look back to him. Salvation was available to both based on their trust in said Messiah to represent them before God. Even a cursory study of the OT reveals that Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel etc. were 'saved' by exactly the same means as NT believers - it's just that NT believers could put a name and a face to the term 'Messiah'. Hence the mantra, "God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." The scripture teaches the neither God, nor the means of salvation change.
The existence of Jesus may seem central to Western christianity, but theologically it's a moot point.
Edit: I do take your meaning about the resurrection. You're referring to Paul's claim that if 'the Christ has not risen, we are pitiable." To some degree he's right, but I believe the context has more to do with the ongoing tension between Jesus' followers and mainstream Judaism at the time. Belief in a false Messiah was tantamount to blasphemy, but it does no harm to the Messianic theology already laid out in the OT.
