Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

quote:

---

My point was that these events are objectively the most important in all human history, and the fact that you dispute this is evidence of the burying of the truth the book is about.

---

According to your religious beliefs.. However, school history texts are not supposed to give special credence to religious beliefs - neither yours, nor anyone else’s. That should not be hard to understand.

quote:

---

As for the Catholic information I was responding to the quote that suggested it was the history of Protestantism that was most slighted. That's what it said

---

It said that in the context of claiming that Christianity in general was under-represented. Including Catholicism.That is hardly justification for you to bring up your nasty conspiracy theories. Which is exactly what you did.

quote:

---

Which view is of course according to your PC beliefs. No, I sincerely mean that those events are objectively the most important in all human history though I do expect you to keep wrongly reinterpreting it as merely according to my religious beliefs. Cuz that's today's revisionist dogma, thanks do doubt6 at least in some part to the influences described in the book under discussion.

---

If you believe that you can objectively demonstrate that claim - without assuming your religious beliefs - then go ahead and do it. If you can’t then that’s proof I’m right.Of course my view is neither PC nor revisionist and those are really just terms of abuse you throw in to try to discredit opposing views. The fact that it makes no sense in this context proves it.

quote:

---

Which is just another piece of PC revisionism, not believed before the last century or so.

---

James Madison would disagree, I think.

quote:

---

I responded to the stated claim that Protestantism is particularly slighted.

---

And - given that the context is the allegation that Christianity in general - including Catholicism - has been slighted it hardly justifies the claim that it is due to a Catholic conspiracy to erase Protestantism.

quote:

---

There are real conspiracies in this world, contrary to PC revisionist dogma which would like to bury that fact since it is a cover for some of them, and for the sake of anybody who might have the intelligence to take it seriously it is certainly justification for exposing them.

---

Just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion exposed the Jewish Conspiracy.

quote:

---

Nope. The Protocols was ONE document shown to have been a forgery, but I've collected a pretty long list of publications and quotations documenting the plots of the Jesuits against Protestant governments,

---

Of course you miss the point.But even on the level you are considering there are plenty more anti-Semitic works. You could very likely come up with an equally impressive list of citations if you chose to dig in that vile body of work.And let’s note that the list on the right includes Paul Serup’s book and we know how his case fell apart when he came here.

quote:

---

Serup's case did not fall apart, he simply saw no point in arguing with the mentality he found here. His book is extremely well documented.

---

You mean that he ran away because he needed to make a good case?
I mean when he starts on a different set of events altogether, has only circumstantial evidence that can reasonably explained without invoking a conspiracy it is pretty clear he doesn’t have much.

quote:

---

Only a hidebound bias like yours could dismiss that list of sources as you do

---

When we know that low-quality and highly biased secondary sources make the list it is difficult for anyone to take it seriously.
But I guess you can smooth over that fact with baseless personal attacks.

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

It's very interesting that Religious Education is required in the UK where you're all going so dreadfully secular, while we are told religion is not permitted in school at all. It's not true but that's the prevailing misunderstanding.

---

The difference is at heart, simple. We have an established religion, you have laws forbidding that.

quote:

---

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. 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.

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

And the Protestant Reformation rescued the truth about all that from its centuries of burial in pagan superstitions in the Roman Church, and restored the truth to us.

---

And so is that,Why on earth would you bother to dispute my point if you were going to openly admit it a short while later ?

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.

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.

quote:

---

Sorry for getting impatient but it was like being called a liar. Heresies simply don't count in my frame of reference, they don't even really exist, and wouldn't be taken into account in any cultural presentation of Christianity either.

---

I see. You want to suppress important parts of Christian history.

quote:

---

And it's only unbelievers who think there are any contradictions in the gospels. You all think they are important but to me they are just irritating nonsense.

---

The existence of the contradictions is objective fact. And they can be relevant to historical investigation of the Gospels. The differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke, for instance shows us that early Christians believed that Jesus was of Davidic descent but had no clear idea of his ancestry. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So it is very disappointing when I encounter unbelievers insisting that the heresies that were defeated long long ago are equal in value to the accepted doctrines of Christianity, and must be taken seriously.

---

You got angry because caffeine pointed out that there were many ideas about Jesus in the early centuries. Whether it is because you want that fact suppressed (and you clearly do) or because caffeine caught you in an error I cannot say.And it is certainly true that you will say things that you ought to know are false. Like your recent claim that you had witness evidence for the virgin birth.For an honest person you do seem to say a lot of things that aren’t true.

quote:

---

So obviously I am not cut out for debate. I want to tell what I know to be the truth and have it accepted just because I'm honest and it IS the truth. That's it

---

You mean that you want everyone to agree with your opinions whether they are true or not. It doesn’t matter how strongly you believe something - it can still be false. That is where debate comes in. And if you lose you get angry again because you vcan’t admit that your belief is not true.

quote:

---

I told the exact truth. I get frustrated and impatient with people referring to long-discredited heresies as if they carry any weight today. "Many ideas about Jesus in the early centuries" all got soundly trounced by the great men of the Church whose names have been honored ever since.

---

Well you assume they were trounced. Nevertheless those ideas did exist and were even written down. Some different ideas, like the different genealogies remained in the texts chosen as canon.

quote:

---

I get frustrated at being asked to reinvent the wheel by unbelievers who have no clue about anything do with the truths of Christianity.

---

You aren’t. You are getting angry at people pointing out the fact that those different ideas existed.

quote:

---

Or truth about anything in these discussions for that matter. Such as yourself.

---

By which you mean people who dare to tell truths you don’t like.The truth is that you are irrational and deeply prejudiced and these faults cripple your ability to debate. You don’t like that but it is a truth you make very, very obvious.

quote:

---

See you don't understand anything. There are no different genealogies

---

Like I said you are irrational and prejudiced and frequently wrong.Matthew 1:1-17Luke 3:23-38

quote:

---

You must spend a lot of time dreaming up nasty things to say about me.

---

Why would I need to dream anything up when I can just see it by reading your posts ?

quote:

---

You look for truth by comparing many varieties.

---

I look for truth by finding the evidence and applying reason.

quote:

---

She insists that she has found and knows the truth and that nobody seems to care.

---

And she is often wrong.

quote:

---

You insist that since she cannot prove her case you (and others) remain unconvinced.

---

That is not unreasonable of us is it ? We shouldn’t believe things just because somebody says so. Especially someone who is frequently wrong.

quote:

---

Sorry, what I meant is that they were not meant to be the same genealogy which is what you are implying.

---

They both claim to be Jesus’ lineage through Joseph (although Luke adds that Joseph is not Jesus’ actual father).

quote:

---

You have no ability to see anything I say correctly. Zip.

---

Yawn. Well I know for a fact that I don’t need to spend any time thinking up nasty things to say about you. I just point out the obvious truth.