Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 421 of 1677 (840943)
10-05-2018 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by ringo
10-05-2018 5:52 PM


Re: One god or many
and I will forever argue that unbelief is not the default option. Subjective experience, though potentially falsifiable, is what makes belief in many originate to begin with.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by ringo, posted 10-05-2018 5:52 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by ringo, posted 10-06-2018 11:35 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 422 of 1677 (840945)
10-05-2018 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by ringo
10-05-2018 1:29 PM


Will The Real God Please Stand Up?
they are only as real as the experience allows. Hypothetically you could believe in BigFoot and commune near him every week in the deep woods. Your experience would offer no evidence, but it would in part define and indwell you. Each and every God that is taken seriously can do this. The science mind then leaps to the conclusion that they are all made up. Going back to your gold standard of objective evidence and finding none, you will then loudly crow that there are no gods.
All I am doing is disagreeing with your pronouncement.
If its real in my mind, it affects me. If enough like-minded people report the same effect, we have a candidate. Your refusal to believe in any of them only affects your little corner of reality. In short---belief leads to inner change if seriously entertained. Whether or not one or more of the candidates is real is a seperate study.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by ringo, posted 10-05-2018 1:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by ringo, posted 10-06-2018 11:46 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 423 of 1677 (840946)
10-05-2018 6:43 PM


By the way you are at the library late today!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 424 of 1677 (840949)
10-05-2018 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by PaulK
10-05-2018 4:09 PM


Re: Journalism and Moral Relativis
Sure, that's because these days "religion" is put into a separate compartment from everything else. But once upon a time Christianity in the west was generally understood to be true, not just true religion, but the truth about everything, about life and death. about history, about socioeconomic patterns, everything.
A long time ago indeed. It certainly wasn’t the view of Jefferson, for instance.
Jefferson was one of the Deists, the deviants from Christianity in their day. I'm talking about the majority of the population and the Christian leaders both before and after the Revolutionary generation, but mostly the generally held view of reality that would have been reflected in the Christian publications the book is talking about.
The difference is at heart, simple. We have an established religion, you have laws forbidding that.
Yes. Interesting to see that in reality it doesn't really make a lot of difference to the beliefs of the population. However, maybe at least your having religious education makes Brits more Bible literate than Americans are.
Unless it had a huge impact on social structures, which it did. Which in itself should justify a chapter on it in any world history book. The Protestant Work Ethic alone needs a few paragraphs at least. The effect of Protestantism on the concept of liberty that was so big in the Enlightenment needs quite a few paragraphs. Women's rights another big result. But Christianity's role in all that is now rejected and it's attributed to other sources instead.
The Reformation itself was only part of that. Though I note that you don’t mention the wars which were a big part of the impact that the Reformation did have.
As I understand it, the wars were not really intrinsic to the Reformation itself, but a political reaction given justification by it, or just the Roman Church objecting to the challenge to its power.
But is it more important than the rise of empirical science or the Industrial Revolution ? I think it would be very hard to demonstrate such a claim.
There are historians who could demonstrate that the rise of empirical science was the result of the Protestant Reformation. Maybe the Industrial Revolution too.
The story of Jesus life is the hugest event in history because God Himself came to earth as a man. And all history changed as a result
And that is purely a religious belief.
Well it's a claim about actual history so by calling it a religious belief you are saying it's a lie about history. But since it is a claim about history it has to be true or the whole thing is meaningless.
And the Protestant Reformation is another claim about history, that it did in fact restore the truths of Christianity that had been lost.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2018 4:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2018 1:02 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 425 of 1677 (840951)
10-05-2018 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by caffeine
10-05-2018 4:43 PM


Re: Journalism and Moral Relativis
As I suggested to PaulK, Brits may at least be more Bible literate than Americans are because of your required religious education.
Thanks very much for the description. Bible stories taken out of context could certainly be boring and irrelevant. It's maybe good for very small children to learn them because they can later be used as a scaffolding for serious Bible study, but over the age of, say, six, I think there should be more meat in religious education than that. If the focus is Christian it should at least give the outline of Old Testament prophecies of the promised Messiah to come, which as a matter of fact do run through all those Bible stories though I suppose none of that is taught; and then the accounts of how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, that He was God who submitted to being born as a man so He could save us from our sins etc. Sounds like you didn't get much or any of that. I wonder if any other schools do.
So although your education was "Bible heavy" maybe it wasn't in a way that taught what the Bible is really all about.
As for Jesus, I understand that you believe that this was God coming to earth as a man. And yes, if that was true, it would be an event of enormous significance. Probably the most significant in all of history.
Thanks for acknowledging that.
But to those of us who do not think Jesus was God, it's of course of far less significance. Christianity is of course of undeniable significance to human history; but I don't think a useful discussion of Christianity needs much focus on Jesus' life - all that matters is what people thought about Jesus when Christianity later rose to prominence.
I may have to come back to this.
ABE, next day: Since there was no difference in what people thought about Jesus in the early centuries from what they thought later I don't see the point of this idea. I do think the gospel of salvation through His death had to be clearly recognized for it to have had the influence it did in building western civilization. Also, despite the long period of the "Babylonian Captivity of the Church" by Romanism, as Luther referred to it, the true gospel had been firmly established in I think the third or fourth century in Britain, and it was that gospel truth that the Briton Patrick carried to Ireland, which established a powerful missionary Celtic Church in Ireland. Utterly destroyed by Romanism which co-opted that history to itself since then, alas, and they even depict the rough-hewn Patrick in the ridiculous pointy fishhead hat and robes of a Roman Bishop. I'm not really sure what my point is here, sorry, maybe it will come back to me. /ABE
Thinking about this, I think deciding what needs to be covered in a basic history education is probably one of the most difficult things to decide in a curriculum. It is also, for this reason, one of the most changeable in the national standards in the UK. No one agrees on the most important things in history, so it's used as a symbolic political football - one government will complain that history is too Anglocentric and ignores most of the world and introduce requirements to learn more world history, the next will object that now history ignores British tradition and introduce more British history and so on ad infinitum.
Since Britain was prominent in Christian history I'd of course vote for emphasizing British history. I'm really sorry that US universities dropped their required courses in American History and Institutions and Western Civilization as a consequence of the Sixties' bashing of everything western and Christian. As for textbooks on history I'd like to see one written that explains all of western history as a working out of the influences of Christianity and its opponents. I guess such a textbook could be written for different age groups.
ABE: The faction that wants more emphasis on world history no doubt falsely treats it as equal to British history. The only really interesting and meaningful history on the planet has to do with the influence of Christ. A Biblical view of the rest of the world would analyze it in terms of the nature of Fallen Humanity and Satan's rule due to the Fall. Which is how it should be presented in any textbook of course. /ABE
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by caffeine, posted 10-05-2018 4:43 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by caffeine, posted 10-06-2018 12:36 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 426 of 1677 (840969)
10-06-2018 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
10-05-2018 10:33 PM


Re: Journalism and Moral Relativis
quote:
Jefferson was one of the Deists, the deviants from Christianity in their day. I'm talking about the majority of the population and the Christian leaders both before and after the Revolutionary generation, but mostly the generally held view of reality that would have been reflected in the Christian publications the book is talking about.
However, Jefferson is hugely important in determining the Federal Givernment’s position on religion - and made the distinction between religious belief and facts that may be established on more objective grounds important, in that arena, at least. Moreover, through Incorporation that position was also applied to the State Governments.
quote:
Yes. Interesting to see that in reality it doesn't really make a lot of difference to the beliefs of the population. However, maybe at least your having religious education makes Brits more Bible literate than Americans are.
I can’t say it doesn’t make a difference - it might be part of the reason why British society is more secular.
quote:
As I understand it, the wars were not really intrinsic to the Reformation itself, but a political reaction given justification by it, or just the Roman Church objecting to the challenge to its power.
This just comes back to my point that other factors were at work. Politics and religion were closely entangled. In England, especially - the break with Rome was largely a matter of politics there.
quote:
There are historians who could demonstrate that the rise of empirical science was the result of the Protestant Reformation. Maybe the Industrial Revolution too.
They might argue that but are they - to use your word - intrinsic to the Reformation ? Moreover the rise of empirical science required abandoning the idea of religious authority as final and it is a key factor in the changes that you lament.
quote:
Well it's a claim about actual history so by calling it a religious belief you are saying it's a lie about history. But since it is a claim about history it has to be true or the whole thing is meaningless.
You have clearly missed the point that I have made repeatedly. Whether it is in fact true is something that cannot be shown, certainly not by the methods of history. By calling it a religious belief I am saying that belief in it is based on religious assumptions, not on established historical facts. That does not even say that it is false, let alone that it is a lie.
The question about objectivity is not about what is actually true, it is a case about what we can determine to be true while remaining as objective about that process as we can manage. This point is fundamental to the discussion on journalism and has been since Phat started it.
quote:
And the Protestant Reformation is another claim about history, that it did in fact restore the truths of Christianity that had been lost.
It’s a false claim about history. Not as obviously false as the Mormon claim that they restored the lost truths of Christianity but still false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 10-05-2018 10:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Faith, posted 10-06-2018 7:01 AM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 427 of 1677 (840971)
10-06-2018 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by ringo
10-05-2018 5:52 PM


Re: One god or many
ringo writes:
That's overly simplistic. There are thousands of varieties of theism and every variety believes that all of the other varieties are made up.
That misses the point. Religion is all man made. Assuming basic theism is correct then religions are simply mankind's attempt to understand that deity and what it should mean to our lives. I have no doubt that none of us understand it perfectly. Yes, as a Christian I believe that Jesus perfectly modeled the nature of God but although His basic message of love of all creation, and even our enemies is simple, understanding it's application isn't always so simple, so there are disagreements and it is belief.
Sure there are lots of aspects of the Christian faith that I believe to be true, but I have no doubt that there are a lot of things I'm wrong about. Trouble is, I just don't know which parts they are.
I base my life on the faith that my understanding of God is at least close enough to the truth to use that teaching as a foundation to base my life on, no matter how imperfectly I do it.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by ringo, posted 10-05-2018 5:52 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by ringo, posted 10-06-2018 11:56 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 506 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 11:42 AM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 428 of 1677 (840974)
10-06-2018 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by PaulK
10-06-2018 1:02 AM


Christianity foundational to western society and science
What the government says is irrelevant to my point about the general acceptance of the truth claims of Christianity in western civilization, which persisted in spite of Jefferson for a very long period of time.
There are historians who could demonstrate that the rise of empirical science was the result of the Protestant Reformation. Maybe the Industrial Revolution too.
They might argue that but are they - to use your word - intrinsic to the Reformation ? Moreover the rise of empirical science required abandoning the idea of religious authority as final and it is a key factor in the changes that you lament.
Freed from the superstitions of Romanism by the Protestant Reformation, trust in empirical observation flourished based on the recognition of a God of reality, order and law.
ABE: Oh, and it was the Roman Church's adherence to Aristotle, NOT TO THE BIBLE, that was the cause of their rejection of Galileo's science. With the Bible restored and Aristotle abandoned by the Reformation, empirical science was liberated. /abe.
And as usual you are wrong that empirical science required abandoning religion. I just explained how the realistic views of the Protestant Reformation made it possible, and the only "sciences" that ever required abandoning the Biblical viewpoint are the ridiculous bogus historical sciences of evolution and Old Earthism, which are about as empirical as reading tea leaves and incapable of actual proof, OR falsification.
Well [God's becoming a man] is a claim about actual history so by calling it a religious belief you are saying it's a lie about history. But since it is a claim about history it has to be true or the whole thing is meaningless.
You have clearly missed the point that I have made repeatedly. Whether it is in fact true is something that cannot be shown, certainly not by the methods of history. By calling it a religious belief I am saying that belief in it is based on religious assumptions, not on established historical facts. That does not even say that it is false, let alone that it is a lie.
No, belief in it is based on witness evidence of such phenomena as His resurrection and ascension and walking through walls in between, also to His virgin birth, walking on the water, telling the storm to be still and so on.
But my point was that it used to be believed to be true and promoted as the truth by western society in general.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2018 1:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2018 8:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 429 of 1677 (840976)
10-06-2018 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by Faith
10-06-2018 7:01 AM


Re: Christianity foundational to western society and science
quote:
What the government says is irrelevant to my point about the general acceptance of the truth claims of Christianity in western civilization, which persisted in spite of Jefferson for a very long period of time.
Then don’t complain that state schools don’t present Christian views as truth.
quote:
Freed from the superstitions of Romanism by the Protestant Reformation, trust in empirical observation flourished based on the recognition of a God of reality, order and law.
That is a rather simplistic view. Let us not forget that you put religious authority over science (and please don’t waste our time with the usual lies). Catholics have been at home with science for some time - and conservative holdouts aside - more so than you.
quote:
ABE: Oh, and it was the Roman Church's adherence to Aristotle, NOT TO THE BIBLE, that was the cause of their rejection of Galileo's science. With the Bible restored and Aristotle abandoned by the Reformation, empirical science was liberated. /abe.
Of course the Bible is geocentric.
quote:
And as usual you are wrong that empirical science required abandoning religion. I just explained how the realistic views of the Protestant Reformation made it possible, and the only "sciences" that ever required abandoning the Biblical viewpoint are the ridiculous bogus historical sciences of evolution and Old Earthism, which are about as empirical as reading tea leaves and incapable of actual proof, OR falsification.
Since I never said that science required abandoning religion I can hardly be wrong about it.
You on the other hand have just demonstrated that you do reject good empirical science - in your usual nasty way.
quote:
No, belief in it is based on witness evidence of such phenomena as His resurrection and ascension and walking through walls in between, also to His virgin birth, walking on the water, telling the storm to be still and so on.
Miracle stories are hardly uncommon in ancient accounts. Putting these as special is just an example of your religious bias. Even the claim to have witness evidence is hardly solid. And when it comes to the virgin birth it is just ridiculous. Are you really claiming to have a first hand report of a virginity test carried out on Mary ?
quote:
But my point was that it used to be believed to be true and promoted as the truth by western society in general.
Which is just a matter of religious influence on society. A religious influence that has clearly failed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Faith, posted 10-06-2018 7:01 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 430 of 1677 (840981)
10-06-2018 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Faith
10-05-2018 3:45 PM


Re: Journalism and Moral Relativis
Faith writes:
All I recall is that the emails sound weird, nothing like the way any normal person would talk about pizza.
The question remains, since Podesta believed his emails private, why would he write in code.
Here's the emails you're probably referring to:
quote:
Did you leave a handkerchief
From:ses@sandlerfoundation.org
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
CC: eryn.sepp@gmail.com
Date: 2014-09-02 17:54
Subject: Did you leave a handkerchief
Hi John,
The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yorus? They can send it if you want. I know you're busy, so feel free not to respond if it's not yours or you don't want it.
Susaner
From: Kathryn Tate [mailto:kathy@ktate.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:04 AM
To: Sandler, Susan
Cc: Sandler, Herbert
Subject: You left something at the Field house
Susan & Herb
I just came from checking the Field house and I have a square cloth handkerchief (white w/ black) that was left on the kitchen island.
Happy to send it via the mail if you let me know where I should send it.
I also meant to inquire yesterday about the pillows you purchased. I can send them as well, if you let me know where they are in the house.
Safe travels to all
Kate
On Sep 1, 2014, at 4:18 PM, "Sandler, Susan" > wrote:
Thanks, Kate. We all really enjoyed it and it was very informative for us, and were talking about how great we think you are.
________________________________
From: Kathryn Tate [kathy@ktate.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 12:05 PM
To: Sandler, Herbert; Sandler, Susan
Subject: Links to Houses in Vineyard Haven & Chilmark
Susan & Herb
Here are links to the houses we drove by today located in Vineyard Haven.
1 House at the end of the road to Lake Tashmoo at Kuffie's Point
'+imgs[0]+'
2. House along side Owen Park( the last one we drove to) Patty has never had anyone complain about noise from the town wharf or parking area.
However, the VH Band does play on Sunday evenings inside the bandstand at the top of the street. It's on 3 floors.
'+imgs[0]+'
3. House across from the VH Yacht Club, which I feel the ceilings are too low for you and Steve, but Patty asked me to send along.
'+imgs[0]+'
Here are links to the 3 houses in Chilmark
1. The first one owned by the Danish gentleman, Christian
'+imgs[0]+'
2. Squibnocket Associates
'+imgs[0]+'
3. Jaffe House on Stonewall Beach and Pond.
'+imgs[0]+'
Thanks for all piling into the car. It definitely was more fun with everyone and think of all the gossip you would have missed if
we were in two cars.
Let us know if you have any other questions about any of the houses.
Safe travels to all
Kate
Kathryn Tate
Kendall & Kendall Real Estate
Vineyard Haven, MA 02568
508 - 693 - 2243
508-280-6243 mobile
So go ahead, do your coded conspiracy theory thing. If you look up the conspiracy theory on the web instead of creating your own, keep in mind that the phrase "cheese pizza" occurs nowhere in the entire Wikileaks Podesta collection.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Faith, posted 10-05-2018 3:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 10-06-2018 1:52 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 431 of 1677 (840984)
10-06-2018 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by Phat
10-05-2018 6:34 PM


Re: One god or many
Phat writes:
and I will forever argue that unbelief is not the default option.
But you don't argue it. You only assert it. You might as well assert that the moon is made of green cheese.
Phat writes:
Subjective experience, though potentially falsifiable, is what makes belief in many originate to begin with.
Yes, ignoring reality is what makes belief originate. How is that a good thing?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Phat, posted 10-05-2018 6:34 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 432 of 1677 (840986)
10-06-2018 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Phat
10-05-2018 6:40 PM


Re: Will The Real God Please Stand Up?
Phat writes:
Going back to your gold standard of objective evidence and finding none, you will then loudly crow that there are no gods.
You know that isn't true. Have you ever heard me loudly crow that there are no gods? I've given you every opportunity to show me your god or any other god or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. With no evidence, and no reason to distinguish on from the other, the logical conclusion is that they are all made up.
Phat writes:
In short---belief leads to inner change if seriously entertained.
And yet, that "inner change" is just one more thing that you can't support with evidence. Why is there often no outward evidence of the change? As Jesus said, the branch that does not produce fruit is thrown into the fire.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Phat, posted 10-05-2018 6:40 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 433 of 1677 (840987)
10-06-2018 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 427 by GDR
10-06-2018 2:04 AM


Re: One god or many
GDR writes:
Assuming basic theism is correct then religions are simply mankind's attempt to understand that deity and what it should mean to our lives.
But why would you assume that? If the application of theism is made up, why not concede that theism itself is likely made up too? If Moby Dick is made up, isn't Ishmael made up too?
GDR writes:
I base my life on the faith that my understanding of God is at least close enough to the truth to use that teaching as a foundation to base my life on, no matter how imperfectly I do it.
But you can do that without the redundancy of the god concept (Occam's Razor).

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by GDR, posted 10-06-2018 2:04 AM GDR has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 434 of 1677 (840993)
10-06-2018 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Faith
10-05-2018 11:09 PM


Re: Journalism and Moral Relativis
As I suggested to PaulK, Brits may at least be more Bible literate than Americans are because of your required religious education.
Thanks very much for the description. Bible stories taken out of context could certainly be boring and irrelevant. It's maybe good for very small children to learn them because they can later be used as a scaffolding for serious Bible study, but over the age of, say, six, I think there should be more meat in religious education than that. If the focus is Christian it should at least give the outline of Old Testament prophecies of the promised Messiah to come, which as a matter of fact do run through all those Bible stories though I suppose none of that is taught; and then the accounts of how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, that He was God who submitted to being born as a man so He could save us from our sins etc. Sounds like you didn't get much or any of that. I wonder if any other schools do.
So although your education was "Bible heavy" maybe it wasn't in a way that taught what the Bible is really all about.
When I think about it, I think we rarely read the Bible itself (could be misremembering). We rather read paraphrases of the stories. You will probably interpret this differently to me. I recall once or twice actually following the teacher's recommendation and looking up actual Bible passages; and discovering how strange the Bible is. Thee story that springs to mind is the one about Abraham (?) quickly chopping off his son's foreskin and putting it on his son's forehead, in a successful attempt to forestall God's inexplicable and sudden demand for his son's death. None of the weirdness with the foreskin was mentioned in the summary of the story we'd read in class, and I believe we were often shielded from the actual text to maintain the fiction that these stories from a distant and alien culture carried lessons for our lives.
Since there was no difference in what people thought about Jesus in the early centuries from what they thought later I don't see the point of this idea.
Obviously you know this is not true, since there are plenty of accounts of Christ from the early centuries of the Christian era that you consider false, as there are views from later centuries you consider false. There have been many interpretations of Jesus down through the centuries.
My only point, though, was that the actual details of Jesus' life are poorly attested. You can discuss the history of Christianity simply by discussing what different Christians believed and did. The true Jesus behind all that doesn't matter (I know you think different - but bear in mind I'm talking from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in God).
Since Britain was prominent in Christian history I'd of course vote for emphasizing British history. I'm really sorry that US universities dropped their required courses in American History and Institutions and Western Civilization as a consequence of the Sixties' bashing of everything western and Christian. As for textbooks on history I'd like to see one written that explains all of western history as a working out of the influences of Christianity and its opponents. I guess such a textbook could be written for different age groups.
ABE: The faction that wants more emphasis on world history no doubt falsely treats it as equal to British history. The only really interesting and meaningful history on the planet has to do with the influence of Christ. A Biblical view of the rest of the world would analyze it in terms of the nature of Fallen Humanity and Satan's rule due to the Fall. Which is how it should be presented in any textbook of course. /ABE
What's interesting is, of course, inherently subjective. Lots of people are fascinated by things I could not care less about. What's interesting is what holds your interest, and everyone has different interests.
You've discussed the idea that Christianity is not given the prominence in education you think it should because of some nefarious conspiracy. But think this through - you think, as you've said, that the only important history is about Christ and his influence on the world. As you're aware though, lots of people in this world are not Christians. Anyone who sets out to sincerely and honestly write a history of the world. focusing on the events that they consider most important, is bound to write a history that in your opinion lays too little stress on Jesus and the Reformation unless they share your beliefs. Not because they're trying to be hostile to Christianity, but because these events would clearly actually be less important than you think they are if your beliefs were not true.
I believe you've mentioned that you were not Christian in your younger days. If you'd considered the most important events in history then, would you have said Jesus and Luther? And if not, would this be because you were engaged in a conspiracy to undermine Christianity, or just because you had a different perspective on things than you do today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Faith, posted 10-05-2018 11:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 10-06-2018 1:25 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 435 of 1677 (840995)
10-06-2018 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by ringo
10-05-2018 5:52 PM


Re: One god or many
That's overly simplistic. There are thousands of varieties of theism and every variety believes that all of the other varieties are made up.
That's obviously false. Lots of theists believe that other theists whose beliefs seem incompatible are actually saying the same thing in a different way. Whether that makes sense is another matter entirely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by ringo, posted 10-05-2018 5:52 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024