|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evangelical Indoctrination of Children | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Scholarly journals each have their own peer-review process. This is true of theology journals as well as science journals. But only one of these two is based on empirical evidence. As Heinlein noted, Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:No. Rather, I am well enough educated in theology to know that it is not "exceptionally subjective" as you have claimed. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theology each rest on objective holy texts. Each of these religions tries to objectively determine what the holy texts mean. Each one explains this in an objective set of creeds and doctrinal statements.
quote:Yes, we do have such a consensus on many fundamental issues (e.g. the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ). quote:Yes, on some issues (e.g. historical issues, OT Jewish worship). But we differ on many other issues because Christianity accepts an additional set of objective data (the NT) which influences our interpretation of the OT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Cute rhetoric, but all it demonstrates is that Heinlein was ignorant of theology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Exactly. This is the point I was trying to make to Hyroglyphx. He was troubled that there is no "arbiter" of "true Christianity," and I was trying to make that point that science operates the same way (and even more so than theology).quote:Nobody. Or, if you look at it another way, everybody.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:Cute rhetoric, but all it demonstrates is that Heinlein was ignorant of theology. All you need to do to show Heinlein was incorrect is provide empirical evidence of one or more deities. If you can't, then theology has nothing but an elaborate and ancient fantasy as its source of study, and Heinlein was correct. If no evidence can be provided for deities, then theology is analogous to literary criticism--endless discussion and argument over what is ultimately a fictitious subject. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
quote: I think you are confusing literary and historical analysis with theistic evidence. The same processes you are referring to with regard to the Torah, the New Testament, and the Koran have been applied to the Iliad and the Odyssey. So why do we think that there is a theological significance to the first three but not the other two? Simply because we don't believe in the Greek gods anymore? Every text of every religion has literary and historical significance, but that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not god exists. Given that some of those objective literary and historical observations are that the story of Jesus, for example, parallels quite a number of previous divine stories (Dionysus, Mithras, Horus, etc.) and that there isn't any extra-biblical evidence of Jesus ever existing, how do we justify saying that the New Testament is something other than another culture's mythology? Certainly these texts are important. There is literary and historical truths to be found within them. But these books cannot be used to justify the divinity of anything. That would be circular reasoning. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote: Oh, but there are. Each sect has their authorities. That's why there are terms like "excommunication" and "apostasy" and "heresy" and "schism." There is no such thing in science. Oh, there are quacks and charlatans, to be sure, but that is simply a recognition of people who repeatedly and/or spectacularly fail to provide the goods regarding their work while refusing to acknowledge said failure. Behe's a creationist, but he's also a capable biochemist. He still has his job. He still publishes. There is no conspiracy against him no matter how much he likes to whine that there is and no matter much of a fool he makes of himself with his "irreducible complexity." So long as he keeps putting out replicatable results, he'll still be a scientist. Cameron, on the other hand, was kicked out of every professional assocation he was part of because of his violation of ethical standards. He couldn't follow protocol, his processes were deeply flawed, his conclusions are trivially shown to be false, and he has engaged in outright fraud. And yet, he continues to this day to claim that none of that is true. He's a laughing stock not because of any ideology but because he's simply a crappy scientist. The only way to be rejected as a scientist is for you to stop doing science. Nobody else can do it for you. Compare that to Pius XII who excommunicated all Catholics supporting communism and those who are clamoring for excommunication of those in this country who support abortion rights. But then again, science is about things that are true despite what you think. When two people think differently, then the problem is resolved by going to the experimental results. Religion is about things that are true because of what you think. When two people think differently, each accuses the other of falling from the "true path." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Thank you for the exchange ochaye.
I hope things are well with you ... weary writes: ochaye writes:
It might be, though it seems hardly likely that very many involved would regard the word 'magik' as fair! cavediver writes:
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? ochaye writes:
And your criteria for technically competent in what is generally regarded as an exceptionally subjective field? and anyone else who is technically competent. Chances are your right. Yet, just because a player suggests a call is unjust, doesn't support the idea that it is. That's what the referee and rulebook's for.I may be better at simply calling a spade a spade, and so, if you were the ref and vocabulary was the rulebook, how would you make the call? 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. In all fairness, that's what we're here for - to encourage each others understanding's towards a certain progression. Perhaps we've taken a lil' step ...
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. Are you suggesting that a liberal may sense themselves as something more like an evangelical or vice versa? As an aside, I get the basic sense that they are both embarrassed catholics. Curiously, catholics often seem so embarrassed by themselves that they appear to make attempts towards posing as christians in general. I think you may have touched on a similar dynamic within Message 210.
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. Do you think evangelicals, protestants or catholics make any distinctions in the concept of hell, aside from disputes in which ones are on their way?Perhaps any distinction within that doctrine may be more easily perceived as a variant on membership rules or degrees of embarrassment as well? In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you. One Love Edited by Bailey, : Spelled ochaye's name properly ... Dear friend,    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try to take advice. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot - You'll get there. Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ... Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Thank you for the exchange cavediver ...
I hope things are well with you and yours. cavediver writes: weary writes:
Sounds about right But why are we excluding the Levitical Jews? cavediver writes:
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? ochave writes:
And your criteria for technically competent in what is generally regarded as an exceptionally subjective field? and anyone else who is technically competent. lol - because they evolved into Levitical Catholics, of course. Seriously though ... I often leave them out of the mix, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they gave up tryin' ever since the Romans kicked their asses back in the seventies.
quote: Link Being that the ToRaH forbids them to perform these types of rituals in any ol' synagogue, it seems they just play it on the safe side in the meantime.
quote: Link Apparently, not having learned much after the other two were destroyed, Orthodox Jews are under the impression that their Messiah will provide a Third temple, worthy of the task of draining life's blood, some time after he arrives. Until then, they get to enjoy the veiw that the Dome of the Rock provides ...
quote: Link From what I understand, only Orthodox Jews wish to resume the ritual of blood sacrifices through the archaic slaughter of innocent farm animals (or the venemous slaughtering of their Prophets - whichever comes first perhaps). They, like the majority of practitioners with the Levitical Catholic and Christian traditions, are under the assumption that brutha Yirmiyahu, and the likes, lie about the Levite scribes forging the ToRaH during the time of the first Yerusalem Temple. On the other hand, Reform Judaism doesn't believe the current ToRaH at our disposal, made up of the first five law booklets as displayed in the common roman bible, are the Father's authentic instructions or teachings, but rather that those manuscripts are a plethora of later creative editting and redaction.
quote: Link Basically there two other prominent movements within the Jewish traditions - that I know of, in our current day; Conservative and Reconstructionist. Anyway though, the second reason I tend to leave them all out is that none of them actually require the magik of blood sacrifice to forgive sins. Keep in mind, jewfaq.org is maintained by Orthodox - or Levitical, Jews ...
quote: Link Now my main issue with the preceding notions is that, if these variant traditions don't necessitate the magik of a blood sacrifice to forgive sins and ... If - according to that author, 'some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism's past than with its future' and 'Rambam suggest{s} that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man's primitive desires' and the 'limitations' prescribed within the available written ToRaH code were 'designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors', then just why is it that they're stayin' prepared and gettin' ready to fire them bloody and murderous traditions right back up as soon as they get their paws on the Third temple? In the end, my friend, I'm still just a lil' weary ...
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 {blushes} So then, I'm also going to take this opportunity to say that I admire the way you often translate some of the more complex concepts within the boundaries of physics into in a way us less experienced laymen may easily comprehend them and - if for no other reason, you're my favorite cavediver and physicist Thanks to Son Goku and yourself, I've been sucked into the science matrix quite a few times - lol In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you. One Love Edited by Bailey, : sp. Edited by Bailey, : pnct. Edited by Bailey, : grammar Dear friend,    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try to take advice. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot - You'll get there. Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ... Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Thank you for the exchange kbertsche ...
I hope things are well with you and yours. kbertsche writes: weary writes:
I have not claimed that theology is empirical, so why do you ask me if I can demonstrate that it is? kbertsche writes:
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)? coyote writes:
Why do you treat "empirical" as the opposite of "subjective?" Theology is the virtual definition of subjectivity! You seemed to be using the differentiation between empiricism and subjectivity as a means to support a contention that theological musings are objective. Perhaps I was mistaken and, if so, that was certainly my misunderstanding.
You again seem to be claiming that "empirical" is the opposite of "subjective." Not at all ... mutually exclusive - perhaps, but not opposites though; that would seem to be false dichotomy of sorts.
Perhaps you misread my post in Message 206 where I presented evidence to the contrary. You stated that 'empiricism and objectivity are different concepts' and while that may be true ... It doesn't seem to suggest why the field of theology isn't subjective? In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you. One Love I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself. Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5239 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote:Always a pleasure, sir. Even with the smoke. It's 'ochaye' btw. The underlining tends to obscure that version.
quote:Indeed they are, thank you. I hope things are well with you, too. quote:My minimalist version, that imv should meet with the widest agreement, would be as follows: 'Might it be fair to suggest that one is 'technically competent' - whether in the context of Catholicism, Protestantism or evangelicalism- as long as one maintains theological submissions within the boundaries of apologetic discourse related to the sacrifice of Christ?' (This in no way presupposes that there was/can be a Christ, or that there was/can be a sacrifice. It is merely to set the limits for the identification of evangelicalism.)
quote:I meant that a liberal sees the evangelical's emphasis on sacrifice, even crucifixion, as what makes that person an evangelical, and not a liberal. Liberals tend to suppose that there is nothing for which a sacrifice is necessary. quote:Perhaps a liberal may be, but the evangelical is too far from the catholic mindset to be an embarrassed catholic. The catholic is like the lady in the video whose motive was to oppose the spread of Islam, and to use, one suspects, methods similar to those of Islam. The catholic believes in volkskirche, the mass conversion (indoctrination?) of whole nations, the individual suppressing personal choice in favour of the best interest (as supposed) of the many. The evangelical, otoh, is essentially a pluralist, a democrat who believes that individual choice is of paramount importance. quote:Indeed they do seem embarrassed, though there are still to be observed odd Catholics who openly advocate a return to Latin, inquisition and direct papal rule. Catholic embarrassment is much more likely than that of Protestants, either liberals or evangelicals, because Catholicism as a hierarchical institution runs counter to Western zeitgeist. Then, added to that unavoidable disadvantage, the concept of a hierarchy that seems incapable of setting a good moral example hardly diminishes the glow of its red cheeks. Also, modernism puts some of the claims of Catholicism into the unenviable category of superstition, and there are senior Catholics today who deny transubstantiation. So it's little wonder that catholics attempt to borrow some of the credibility of the evangelicalism that it unsuccessfully competes with, particularly in South America and Africa, where modernism and democracy are on the increase. And, one greatly suspects, to attempt to infiltrate Protestantism and turn it in a catholic direction. quote:No, I don't think that there is serious dispute at top level about the concept or nature of hell among traditional theologians. Current thinking is towards a view of hell as being as much as one of one's own making as one externally imposed. Literal flames are left to the fundamentalists of the USA. There is debate among liberals, yes, where the existence of hell is admitted. Membership rules are almost always related to the means of avoiding hell rather than its existence or its nature. Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Forgive me if this was mentioned, but I would like to interject some information that might be relevant. From what I know, evangelicals believe in the hell of fire and brimstone. I would like to mention, however, that Judaism, from which Christianity is derived, there is no hell in the Christian sense. In Judaism, Gehenna is more about atonement for sins and facing the shame and guilt of all the sins you committed in your life in order to cleanse yourself in preparation for receiving your eternal body in the new kingdom. It is a temporal punishment, meaning, except for a few rare cases, the punishment is not eternal.
But as has been mentioned, avoidance of the Christian hell is an effective recruiting tool. If the soul exists and is immortal, who wouldn't want to avoid eternal punishment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:False logic. What I am or am not able to show does not affect reality. Further, you seem to imply that all truth can be shown empirically. Do you really believe this?
quote:There is a lot of similarity between theology and literary criticism. But in neither field can a scholar "persuade themselves of anything" as Heinlein charged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:No; perhaps you have misunderstood my posts? I was taking issue with the claim of cavediver (echoed by Coyote) that theology is "extremely subjective." quote:Exactly. The study of these works should not be called "extremely subjective" either, since it rests on an objective text and objective techniques of literary analysis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I addressed this in Message 227.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024