Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Indoctrination of Children
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 211 of 295 (526404)
09-27-2009 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Bailey
09-26-2009 9:22 PM


You're onto something.
quote:
Might it be fair to suggest that one is 'technically competent' - whether regarding Levitical Catholicism, Levitical Protestantism or Levitical Evangelicism in general, as long as they maintain their theological submissions within the boundaries of apologetic discourse as it relates to the magik of a blood sacrifice?
It might be, though it seems hardly likely that very many involved would regard the word 'magik' as fair! And the word 'blood' is a decontextualised pejorative, in the context. But at least it is a beginning, and one that reaches towards the nub of the matter.
Even liberals may agree that Christianity has something, however vaguely, to do with sacrifice, even crucifixion; even liberals would agree that an evangelical makes these concepts of central importance, or he is something more like themselves.
So getting a link between concepts of sacrifice and hell in the evangelical/Protestant framework, as distinct from the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or liberal contexts, seems to be the next step.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Bailey, posted 09-26-2009 9:22 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Bailey, posted 09-28-2009 6:00 AM ochaye has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 295 (526411)
09-27-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by kbertsche
09-26-2009 8:24 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
Who arbitrates such things in science? All scientists and pseudo-scientists claim to be "true scientists," just like the "no true Scotsman" theory.
One fundamental thing you are overlooking. There is actual physical evidence to support a theory. Who decides what evangelism means is subjective. That makes all the difference in the world.
In Christianity we have some creeds which have been accepted by both Catholics and Protestants; these creeds act as "arbiters" of fundamental theological questions. Catholics also have a Pope and Magesterium to arbitrate disputes.
LOL! Who is the Pope? The "vicar" of Christ??? That's as anti-biblical as it gets.
Science has none of these things, so one could argue that the problem is more acute in science than in theology.
Uh, no, it's called "peer-review," a concept lost on most creationists.
Please refer to my quote.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by kbertsche, posted 09-26-2009 8:24 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ochaye, posted 09-27-2009 9:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 225 by kbertsche, posted 09-27-2009 10:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 213 of 295 (526414)
09-27-2009 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by kbertsche
09-26-2009 8:30 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
Can you present evidence that theology is "generally regarded" as "exceptionally subjective?"
Err...
Dear god, surely you are not so naive to think that theology is NOT subjective? If it is not, then after 2000 years, I guess that we have a concensus amongst the theologians of all major denominations of Christianity, that also agree broadly with the theologians of Judaism as far as the OT is concerned? Do we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by kbertsche, posted 09-26-2009 8:30 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by kbertsche, posted 09-27-2009 10:36 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 214 of 295 (526417)
09-27-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Bailey
09-26-2009 9:22 PM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
Might it be fair to suggest that one is 'technically competent' - whether regarding Levitical Catholicism, Levitical Protestantism or Levitical Evangelicism in general, as long as they maintain their theological submissions within the boundaries of apologetic discourse as it relates to the magik of a blood sacrifice?
Sounds about right But why are we excluding the Levitical Jews?
And I am going to take this opportunity to say that I adore your posts, Weary, and you're are my top poster for 2009
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Bailey, posted 09-26-2009 9:22 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Bailey, posted 09-28-2009 6:05 AM cavediver has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 215 of 295 (526418)
09-27-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Hyroglyphx
09-27-2009 8:06 AM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
quote:
One fundamental thing you are overlooking. There is actual physical evidence to support a theory.
There is a major confusion here, one suspects. We are not discussing the subject-matter of a discipline, but its terminology. Physicists are agreed about the meaning of the word 'proton', for instance. It is used by physicists world-wide in communicating with each other, referring to the same concept. Likewise, there is an objective meaning to the the word 'evangelicalism'. It is used by theologians of widely different traditions in communicating with each other, and they all agree as to what the word means, perhaps not with quite the same precision as the physicist with the proton, but with sufficient precision to easily enable conduct of a meaningful discussion.
quote:
Who decides what evangelism means is subjective.
Far from it. Those who use a word, any word, have the necessity, if required, and if they want to be noticed by serious people, of making clear what they mean by it! It has to be said that, at present, there are few signs in this thread of skeptics wanting to be noticed.
The word 'evangelism' is quite easily investigated by use of a dictionary. The same may be said of the word 'evangelicalism', for that matter. There is a very significant difference in their meanings, it should be said.
Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-27-2009 8:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 216 of 295 (526446)
09-27-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by ochaye
09-24-2009 5:38 AM


ochaye writes:
quote:
From that detailed statement of faith read here, there is obviously awareness that Christianity requires no 'works', as they are called, but the statement insists on works nevertheless, thereby making faith worthless. So it is actually a flat contradiction of Christianity, or at least of Protestantism (Catholicism promotes works-justification also).
And thus, we see the problem.
You're not a Christian. You're a Paulian. Christ said that salvation is through works (after all, as a Jew, that is the law: It is by your actions that you show yourself to be righteous.) But Paul, since he was trying to convert people who didn't really want to be converted, started playing fast and loose...circumcision didn't really mean actually cutting off your foreskin, faith was good enough, etc., etc. Especially given his rivalry with the Jamesians who were not as compromising. "Faith without works is dead," and all that.
Are you sure you're a Christian?
See, this is the problem with you're approach. I'm sure you'll dismiss it as an argument from popularity, the very fact that you're dismissing the Catholics from being Christians due to their emphasis on works is telling. You're so deep in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that you can't see that it can easily be applied to you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ochaye, posted 09-24-2009 5:38 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ochaye, posted 09-27-2009 5:15 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 217 of 295 (526447)
09-27-2009 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Rrhain
09-27-2009 4:57 PM


quote:
Christ said that salvation is through works
'They asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."' Jn 6:28-29 NIV
'"Just as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the desert, in the same way the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. Because God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may not die but have eternal life."' Jn 3:14-16

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 4:57 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 218 of 295 (526448)
09-27-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by ochaye
09-26-2009 10:46 AM


ochaye writes:
quote:
The criteria are those agreed by 'the Catholic' expert theologians, Protestant expert theologians and uncommitted expert theologians. Party bias is irrelevant at this level.
So since these theologians all agree that these groups are Christian, who are you to contradict them? Why is your opinion better?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by ochaye, posted 09-26-2009 10:46 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by ochaye, posted 09-27-2009 5:33 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 219 of 295 (526449)
09-27-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by ochaye
09-27-2009 5:58 AM


ochaye writes:
quote:
However, basic technical terminology can be agreed in theology, just as chemists can agree on the meaning of the word 'amphoteric', and economists can agree on the meaning of the word 'fiscal'.
And since your own group of vetted "theologians" all agree that these groups are actual Christians and not "posing" (your word), then who are you to contradict them?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ochaye, posted 09-27-2009 5:58 AM ochaye has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 220 of 295 (526450)
09-27-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Rrhain
09-27-2009 5:28 PM


quote:
So since these theologians all agree that these groups are Christian
They don't, as it happens. But spiritual status is irrelevant. Expertise is relevant. Even the expertise to read a good dictionary might suffice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 5:28 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 6:20 PM ochaye has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 221 of 295 (526451)
09-27-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by kbertsche
09-26-2009 8:24 PM


kbertsche writes:
quote:
Who arbitrates such things in science?
Nobody. Or, if you look at it another way, everybody.
You are looking for authority in science and there simply isn't any. Things are true despite what anybody says, not because of it. We don't listen to Einstein simply because he's Einstein. It's that he can show his work such that you can do the same thing to see if it works for you.
The only "authority" in science is whether or not the system works. It doesn't matter who said it. The only thing that matters is if the model works.
quote:
Science has none of these things, so one could argue that the problem is more acute in science than in theology.
Quite the opposite. Science has transcended the argument from authority. There are no "arbiters." Now, scientists are human and humans like authority, but the process of science is self-correcting and will work beyond the foibles of its practitioners.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by kbertsche, posted 09-26-2009 8:24 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by kbertsche, posted 09-27-2009 10:48 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 222 of 295 (526453)
09-27-2009 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by ochaye
09-27-2009 5:33 PM


ochaye responds to me:
quote:
quote:
So since these theologians all agree that these groups are Christian
They don't, as it happens.
And this would be where you start naming names. Who are these people? Why are your theologians better than mine?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by ochaye, posted 09-27-2009 5:33 PM ochaye has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 223 of 295 (526463)
09-27-2009 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Bailey
09-26-2009 11:02 PM


Re: Brief interlude
quote:
Are you able to demonstrate how theology is derived and guided by experimentation, as opposed to belonging to your mind rather than to a god or god(s)?
I have not claimed that theology is empirical, so why do you ask me if I can demonstrate that it is?
You again seem to be claiming that "empirical" is the opposite of "subjective." Perhaps you misread my post in Message 206 where I presented evidence to the contrary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Bailey, posted 09-26-2009 11:02 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Bailey, posted 09-28-2009 6:32 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 224 of 295 (526465)
09-27-2009 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Bailey
09-26-2009 11:38 PM


Re: blue skies on the horizon ...
quote:
Where do you perceive any claims within my query k-bert?
Message 204 was only meant to offer reasoned argumentation.
I was referring to cavediver's claim in Message 199, which was echoed by Coyote in Message 205. Sorry for any confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Bailey, posted 09-26-2009 11:38 PM Bailey has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 225 of 295 (526467)
09-27-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Hyroglyphx
09-27-2009 8:06 AM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
quote:
One fundamental thing you are overlooking. There is actual physical evidence to support a theory. Who decides what evangelism means is subjective. That makes all the difference in the world.
In Message 201 I was not speaking of "evangelism" but "theology."
quote:
quote:
Science has none of these things, so one could argue that the problem is more acute in science than in theology.
Uh, no, it's called "peer-review," a concept lost on most creationists.
Scholarly journals each have their own peer-review process. This is true of theology journals as well as science journals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-27-2009 8:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2009 10:23 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024