Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Indoctrination of Children
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 226 of 295 (526468)
09-27-2009 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by kbertsche
09-27-2009 10:15 PM


Re: Peer review and "peer review"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by kbertsche, posted 09-27-2009 10:15 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by kbertsche, posted 09-27-2009 10:41 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 227 of 295 (526471)
09-27-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by cavediver
09-27-2009 8:42 AM


Re: Methodological Naturalism
quote:
Dear god, surely you are not so naive to think that theology is NOT subjective?
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:
If it is not, then after 2000 years, I guess that we have a concensus amongst the theologians of all major denominations of Christianity,
Yes, we do have such a consensus on many fundamental issues (e.g. the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ).
quote:
that also agree broadly with the theologians of Judaism as far as the OT is concerned? Do we?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by cavediver, posted 09-27-2009 8:42 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2009 3:17 AM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 228 of 295 (526473)
09-27-2009 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Coyote
09-27-2009 10:23 PM


Re: Peer review and "peer review"
quote:
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
Cute rhetoric, but all it demonstrates is that Heinlein was ignorant of theology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2009 10:23 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2009 11:09 PM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 229 of 295 (526476)
09-27-2009 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Rrhain
09-27-2009 5:38 PM


quote:
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.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 5:38 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2009 3:42 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 230 of 295 (526480)
09-27-2009 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by kbertsche
09-27-2009 10:41 PM


Re: Peer review and "peer review"
quote:
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
Cute rhetoric, but all it demonstrates is that Heinlein was ignorant of theology.
Or perhaps he was correct.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by kbertsche, posted 09-27-2009 10:41 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by kbertsche, posted 09-28-2009 10:56 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 231 of 295 (526490)
09-28-2009 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by kbertsche
09-27-2009 10:36 PM


kbertsche writes:
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by kbertsche, posted 09-27-2009 10:36 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by kbertsche, posted 09-28-2009 11:10 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 232 of 295 (526491)
09-28-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by kbertsche
09-27-2009 10:48 PM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
He was troubled that there is no "arbiter" of "true Christianity,"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by kbertsche, posted 09-27-2009 10:48 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 233 of 295 (526500)
09-28-2009 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by ochaye
09-27-2009 6:22 AM


Re: You're onto something.(regarding sacrifices)
Thank you for the exchange ochaye.
I hope things are well with you ...
weary writes:
ochaye writes:
cavediver writes:
ochaye writes:
and anyone else who is technically competent.
And your criteria for technically competent in what is generally regarded as an exceptionally subjective field?
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!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ochaye, posted 09-27-2009 6:22 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by ochaye, posted 09-28-2009 8:28 AM Bailey has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 234 of 295 (526501)
09-28-2009 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by cavediver
09-27-2009 8:45 AM


What about the Levitical Yuhdeans though?
Thank you for the exchange cavediver ...
I hope things are well with you and yours.
cavediver writes:
weary writes:
cavediver writes:
ochave writes:
and anyone else who is technically competent.
And your criteria for technically competent in what is generally regarded as an exceptionally subjective field?
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?
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:
jewfaq.org writes ...
      For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time.

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:
jewfaq.org writes ...
      We stopped offering sacrifices because we do not have a proper place to offer them. The Torah specifically commands us not to offer sacrifices wherever we feel like it; we are only permitted to offer sacrifices in the place that G-d has chosen for that purpose. Deut. 12:13-14. It would be a sin to offer sacrifices in any other place, akin to stealing candles and wine to observe Shabbat.

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:
jewfaq.org writes ...
      The last place appointed by G-d for this purpose was the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Temple has been destroyed and a mosque has been erected in the place where it stood. Until G-d provides us with another place, we cannot offer sacrifices. There was at one time an opinion that in the absence of an assigned place, we could offer sacrifices anywhere. Based on that opinion, certain communities made their own sacrificial places. However, the majority ultimately ruled against this practice, and all sacrifice ceased.
      Orthodox Jews believe that when the messiah comes, a place will be provided for sacrificial purposes.

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:
jewfaq.org writes ...
      Reform Judaism does not believe that the Torah was written by G-d. The movement accepts the critical theory of Biblical authorship: that the Bible was written by separate sources and redacted together. Reform Jews do not believe in observance of commandments as such, but they retain much of the values and ethics of Judaism, along with some of the practices and the culture. The original, basic tenets of American Reform Judaism were set down in the Pittsburgh Platform. Many non-observant, nominal, and/or agnostic Jews will identify themselves as Reform when pressed to specify simply because Reform is the most liberal movement, but that is not really a fair reflection on the movement as a whole. There are plenty of Reform Jews who are religious in a Reform way. The NJPS found that 35% of American Jews identify themselves as Reform, including 39% of those who belong to a synagogue. There are approximately 900 Reform synagogues in the United States and Canada. For more information about Reform Judaism, see The Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
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:
jewfaq.org writes ...
How do Jews obtain forgiveness without sacrifices?
      Forgiveness is obtained through repentance, prayer and good deeds.
      In Jewish practice, prayer has taken the place of sacrifices. In accordance with the words of Hosea, we render instead of bullocks the offering of our lips (Hosea 14:3) (please note: the KJV translates this somewhat differently). While dedicating the Temple, King Solomon also indicated that prayer can be used to obtain forgiveness (I Kings 8:46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Our prayer services are in many ways designed to parallel the sacrificial practices. For example, we have an extra service on Shabbat, to parallel the extra Shabbat offering.
But isn't a blood sacrifice required in order to obtain forgiveness?
     No. Although animal sacrifice is one means of obtaining forgiveness, there are non-animal offerings as well, and there are other means for obtaining forgiveness that do not involve sacrifices at all. The Biblical book of Jonah tells of an entire community condemned to destruction that was forgiven when they simply repented and fasted, without ever offering any sacrifice, blood or otherwise. (Jonah 3)
      The passage that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required is Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul." But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10, 11 and 12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood."
Were sacrifices a symbol of the savior to come?
      Not according to Judaism. Jews don't believe that people need supernatural salvation from sin (sincere repentance and good deeds are sufficient to obtain forgiveness; see above), and don't believe that sacrifice has anything to do with a savior or messiah.
      Quite the contrary, some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism's past than with its future. Rambam suggested that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man's primitive desires.
      Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. Cain and Abel offered sacrifices; Noah and his sons offered sacrifices, and so forth. When the laws of sacrifice were given to the Children of Israel in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully circumscribes and limits the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by cavediver, posted 09-27-2009 8:45 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 235 of 295 (526503)
09-28-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by kbertsche
09-27-2009 10:05 PM


Re: Brief interlude
Thank you for the exchange kbertsche ...
I hope things are well with you and yours.
kbertsche writes:
weary writes:
kbertsche writes:
coyote writes:
Theology is the virtual definition of subjectivity!
Why do you treat "empirical" as the opposite of "subjective?"
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 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by kbertsche, posted 09-27-2009 10:05 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by kbertsche, posted 09-28-2009 11:15 AM Bailey has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 236 of 295 (526517)
09-28-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Bailey
09-28-2009 6:00 AM


Re: You're onto something.(regarding sacrifices)
quote:
Thank you for the exchange ochave.
Always a pleasure, sir. Even with the smoke.
It's 'ochaye' btw. The underlining tends to obscure that version.
quote:
I hope things are well with you ...
Indeed they are, thank you. I hope things are well with you, too.
quote:
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?
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:
Are you suggesting that a liberal may sense themselves as something more like an evangelical or vice versa?
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:
As an aside, I get the basic sense that they are both embarrassed catholics.
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:
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.
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:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Bailey, posted 09-28-2009 6:00 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Izanagi, posted 09-28-2009 10:22 AM ochaye has replied
 Message 251 by Bailey, posted 09-29-2009 6:27 AM ochaye has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 237 of 295 (526544)
09-28-2009 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by ochaye
09-28-2009 8:28 AM


The existence of Hell
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by ochaye, posted 09-28-2009 8:28 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by ochaye, posted 09-28-2009 11:23 AM Izanagi has not replied

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


Message 238 of 295 (526550)
09-28-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Coyote
09-27-2009 11:09 PM


Re: Peer review and "peer review"
quote:
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.
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:
If no evidence can be provided for deities, then theology is analogous to literary criticism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2009 11:09 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Theodoric, posted 09-28-2009 2:21 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 239 of 295 (526552)
09-28-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Rrhain
09-28-2009 3:17 AM


quote:
I think you are confusing literary and historical analysis with theistic evidence.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2009 3:17 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2009 11:42 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 262 by Rrhain, posted 10-05-2009 9:56 PM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 240 of 295 (526555)
09-28-2009 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Bailey
09-28-2009 6:32 AM


Re: Brief interlude
quote:
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?
I addressed this in Message 227.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Bailey, posted 09-28-2009 6:32 AM Bailey has 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