tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1059501936689386888..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Christianity Simply Reinvents Itself Over and Over in Every GenerationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43923592482783422442009-09-21T04:54:33.816-04:002009-09-21T04:54:33.816-04:00John, good points. It seems as though the "a...John, good points. It seems as though the "apostle" Thomas agrees with you, that is, if we can consider the book "Disappearance of the Universe" to be authored by Thomas of present(Gary Renard) and Thomas of 100 years in the future (one would need subscribe to the idea of transmigration of souls to accept this). <br /><br />This book relates what happened from Thomas' point of view. None of the desciples were all that keen on what Jesus was all about. And they were in disagreement as to what the resurrection was all about. Thomas had a hunch it had more to do with mind...like an awakening state of mind. Others thought it had to do with getting a new body after we die. For his slant on it, Thomas was snubbed by the others, who maintained an eschatology more in line with traditional orthodox viewpoints, as represented by the school of thought of the Pharisee class. <br /><br />The NT represents a mutilated Christology devolving from some very early misinterpretations that tied an otherwise unrelated worldview to Jewish roots. <br /><br />As such, it is based on sandy premises...a faulty foundation that has to continually be propped up by neo-thinkers. It's like a lie that has to be backed up by more lies that get more and more rediculous as it goes along. <br /><br />However, there was a grain of truth to be found in the authentic teaching legacy of Jesus as represented by Thomas, Stephan and Mary (Magdelene) who were all shunned (silenced, suppressed) in one way or another. Their legacy is shunned to this day among the "orthodox" believers. I work part-time to revive their legacy (as I have understood it from the aforementioned book) and get a lot of animosity and cold shoulder from the ortho-crowd (the popular path). My experience with this suggests that the problem is embedded within the thinking mind of man...a tendency to resist reason and truth. And this is because "man" and "truth" are mutually exclusive. The truth is antithetical to man's apparent existence. So, it must "die" in order for "man" to be "saved". The thing is, salvation is not for man. It's for the mind of the Son of God, who suffers as he imagines himself to be something he's not, namely, the world of man. <br /><br />Urban MonkThe Equity Foundationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11529386036483716697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3402508529143572042009-03-06T15:18:00.000-05:002009-03-06T15:18:00.000-05:00James B, thanks for visiting! I did a search over ...James B, thanks for visiting! I did a search over on Amazon for you and <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=history+of+theology" REL="nofollow">here are the results</A>. Which books you get will depend on how much in depth you want to go. You can also do searches for specific topics and see the various views represented. There are also <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=christian+theology" REL="nofollow">Christian Theology</A> works which will articulate the various views (most of which will argue for their particular view but you'll get the point). <BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79103102784311781912009-03-06T13:48:00.000-05:002009-03-06T13:48:00.000-05:00John,Great forum and insights! New reader here. Li...John,<BR/>Great forum and insights! New reader here. Like most of my life, late on the seen, but glad to have found this web site. Quick question, can you recommend an author/study that shares more details about the development of christian dogma? Thanks, JamesJames Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677049194133005685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84442127281622914152009-02-24T21:06:00.000-05:002009-02-24T21:06:00.000-05:00Doug,Yes it was on topic, because my post spoke of...Doug,<BR/><BR/>Yes it was on topic, because my post spoke of theological changes, and also unfulfilled prophecies that Christianity needed to invent new explanations for. <BR/><BR/>The deity of Christ doctrine is absent from the supposed writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, Peter, Jude, and James. The doctrine is based entirely on presupposition and a handful of obscure passages by John and Paul and 99% of their writings distinguish Jesus from God also. The evolving Christology from primitive Christianity to today's Evangelical Christology was clearly the result of years of debate and warring and several councils (of inspired, holy men no doubt). <BR/><BR/>Unfulfilled prophecies are related because they show that Christians do not care about being honest and faithful to their holy books, but rather are simply interested in self preservation and trying to remain useful and relevant today.<BR/><BR/>The fact that their is so much reinventing and doctrinal disagreements is proof Jesus prophecy of sending the holy spirit to guide his disciples into all truth is unfulfilled. <BR/><BR/>Now maybe you can try to explain how it is fulfilled if you believe that.Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138090992136922216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33903400268706852462009-02-24T15:13:00.000-05:002009-02-24T15:13:00.000-05:00Doug I totally get the free thinking thing, but I...Doug <I> I totally get the free thinking thing, but I don't see that it's incompatible with seeking God, as much as I have an open mind about God might actually be like. Religion, on the other hand, is a different matter. </I> .... oh yes !!<BR/><BR/>As children we are taught about God in terms kids can understand – generally absolutes – this becomes what we believe. At some point we need to transition our beliefs from this simplistic model an adult worldview … but … along the way we have to “lose” our belief/faith and develop a new one – one that encompasses shades of grey one that is more sophisticated than the bible literalistic model.<BR/><BR/>Some (most)denominations do not provide a means for this transition; they are themselves stuck in a simplistic religious model based on an inerrant literalistic interpretation of the bible. So, as in my case, I was tempted by atheism to replace my simplistic “Sunday School” beliefs. <BR/><BR/>Certainly atheism responded to the emotional side of my feeling let down by religion (it won the “heart” side if belief) – but it failed to meet the intellectual challenge (it lost the battle for the “head” element of belief). <BR/><BR/>But the more I read and studied and participated in discussion sites like this the more I came to realise that:<BR/><BR/>* I had to research until I found an internally consistent rational model (atheist or theist) that made sense of all the available evidence<BR/><BR/>* replacing my old beliefs with atheism required a bigger leap of faith than believing in God<BR/><BR/>Like you I recognised that an open mind was not only compatible with seeking the truth but essential. You can’t but miss the irrationality and bias in the rhetoric of both sides. My blog sort of reflects my journey – on it (and here) I have tested my developing theist beliefs against whatever & whoever atheists could offer up – and I have to thank those atheists who helped me to become a theist.<BR/><BR/>Yes I believe there is a God – do I have all the answers? I wish.<BR/><BR/>Hamb kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61812731268735426032009-02-24T00:33:00.000-05:002009-02-24T00:33:00.000-05:00Deist Dan -- Was that on topic or within this conv...Deist Dan -- Was that on topic or within this conversation AT ALL?<BR/><BR/>stragebrew, thanks for your thoughtful comments.<BR/><BR/>The thing is that even with a five-year discovery for a cure for Alzheimers looming, there is no hope or or good news that science has to offer for my grandfather who is 90 now and has other conditions to deal with. I imagine other lives will benefit from the fruits of research, but my family will not forseeably be among them. This is leaves me with my original sentiment: wouldn't be nice if science had gotten it right sooner? It is no fault of the scientific community to get this information out sooner, but it's not reasonable to place my hope in the process.<BR/><BR/>My bi-polar friend places all his hope in the every-changing landscape of medications available to him, but the latest news from him last week is that his condition is getting worse. I wouldn't recommend for him to stop taking medication, but at the same time, I'm not sure putting faith in the meds are going to make his life better. :-(<BR/><BR/>I'm all about Baysian statistics -- that's what we used in my last startup to match up people with media they would enjoy. But that's totally an aside. :-)<BR/><BR/>I'm not quite tracking you with the experience of "there is no safety net of the divine". This is an ontological statement -- an assertion of what is or is not. A communication of experience, on the other hand, involves an expression of the thoughts and feelings of the person or group at a some time or over a period of time. What has been your experience that would lead to your conclusion? I certainly know the experience of forgiveness when I encounter it, and I know that my sincere pleas for forgiveness have been accepted (by my wife!). That's the kind of thing I'm looking for.<BR/><BR/>You asked if I consider my previous indoctrination sacrosanct with respect to your statement that "you alone are responsible to the world". My previous experiences with religion aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the influences of western culture in general. American is a highly individualistic culture in that the independent individual is idealized over over teamwork or dependence on others. ("I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude." -- Henry David Thoreau) Eastern culture is exactly the opposite -- the group defines the individual. (These are generalizations, but accurate.) But then you go on to say that "cooperation must be achieved globally", which I agree with, but I don't see how that jives with statement "you alone are responsible to the world".<BR/><BR/>I can see how you would say that religion forbids global achievement. But I don't see how exploring the idea that there is a god to be experienced comes into direct conflict with global achievement. Wouldn't that be imposing an assumption about the god being sought? Note that I don't equate religion with seeking a higher power.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, how does the experience of freedom to choose come into conflict with what I'm proposing? Are God and free thought mutually exclusive (again, imposing no assumptions upon that being)? To be clear, when I use the term "God" or "god", I am not assuming a Christian or Musim or Buddhist god. Just a supreme being.<BR/><BR/>Is the atheistic notion of finding one's self (as you say) also incompatible with seeking God? To be open-minded about this, if God did create everything around us, wouldn't it stand to reason that knowing the creator might reveal something about the created?<BR/><BR/>Please explain your assertion that you "must feel comfortable with that relationship...that is the bottom line! otherwise it is false." There are so many ways I can think of that this doesn't jive with atheism's proposal to cooperate globally. If I'm uncomfortable with the way someone looks or smells, or maybe I'm uncomfortable with women because I've been reject by so many of them, or another person unintentionally says something to offend me, does that mean my discomfort has invalidated the relationship? I think these points of discomfort are exactly the kind of things that come in relationships that build character and acceptance over time. I would like to be in good relationship with everyone around me, even those that offend me from time to time. I think this is the spirit of the Golden Rule stated by so many world religions.<BR/><BR/>I understand what you're saying about moderation. That is good common sense and I practice it as much as I can, but is this something peculiar to atheism that I should aspire to fully understand?<BR/><BR/>Again, I ask the question: what is the atheistic experience? I'm not looking for assertions or advice, just ways in which your or any lives have been enhanced. I totally get the free thinking thing, but I don't see that it's incompatible with seeking God, as much as I have an open mind about God might actually be like. Religion, on the other hand, is a different matter. If I'm asked to conform my thoughts to a rigid belief system, that offends my free-thinking sensibilities.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15317195599934002547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58635491378018959922009-02-23T19:00:00.000-05:002009-02-23T19:00:00.000-05:00Jesus said he would send his holy spirit of truth ...Jesus said he would send his holy spirit of truth to guide his disciples into all truth..<BR/><BR/>Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. <BR/><BR/>Yet Christians kill people, try to dominate the world, and cannot agree on anything. The list of doctrinal differences covers nearly every doctrine imaginable, many more than John listed. Thus Jesus is a false prophet and the bible is not true.<BR/><BR/>Jesus also said he would return to judge the world in that generation, which did not happen...<BR/><BR/>Mat 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. <BR/><BR/>How many things does Jesus have to get wrong before Christians realize they have bought into ancient superstitions?<BR/><BR/>I heard Christians on the radio the other day explaining how the reformers could put to death heretics and yet remain saved disciples of the prince of peace! Christians will say and do anything to justify their precious fairytale.<BR/><BR/>Here is a challenge to all Christians visiting this site, and i would like John to post this as a separate post/challenge. <BR/><BR/>Show me where Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, James, or Jude said Jesus is God. The most fundamental doctrine of Christianity is non-existent in 99% of the new testament and based entirely on a handful of passages from John and Paul. The gauntlet is thrown and I will personally refute every argument made from those books if John permits it.Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138090992136922216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41477639178418756132009-02-23T04:31:00.000-05:002009-02-23T04:31:00.000-05:00Hi Doug,'Alzheimer's. My grandfather (father's fat...Hi Doug,<BR/><BR/>'Alzheimer's. My grandfather (father's father) is currently suffering from that. Rather, I should say that my grandmother is suffering more since she has to take care of him'<BR/><BR/>I am sorry to hear that...it is a terrible and tragic malady...I wish you and your family strength...<BR/><BR/>I saw my Mother suffering with terminal Cancer in the last few weeks of her life...and you are right...the carers have it all to do...and after three weeks of it I was shattered both physically and mentally!<BR/>She died within three days of my having to return to work in another country...it was none to soon...<BR/><BR/>But anyway the good news...<BR/>Alzheimer's will be brought under control possibly within five years!<BR/><BR/>The research seemingly has a green light from the White house...and restrictions will be lifted soon...<BR/>The researchers know where they are going...and they will get there!<BR/><BR/>Hope is tangible...for the first time in medical history...pity it has been delayed for so long...we would be there by now otherwise!<BR/><BR/>'But that doesn't prevent me from applying scientific method to my own discoveries.'<BR/><BR/>No of course not...nothing like a bit of Bayesian statistical analysis to clear the air ;-)<BR/><BR/> '(Valentine's day is a particularly troublesome topic, for all you keeping track at home.)'<BR/><BR/>Ahh! yes indeed...but if you really want to hear the female dragon roar....forget their birthday....tis awesome dude!<BR/><BR/>'here is no safety net of divine ...'go to church pray forgiveness and all will be well'<BR/><BR/>I can neither confirm or deny this point, but I'll point out that this isn't an experience, but an assertion (or conclusion?).'<BR/><BR/>It is seemingly a very real experience for some folks though...it allows them to go out and do exactly the same thing again the following week...tis why RC is so popular after all!<BR/><BR/>'You alone are responsible to the world...it is a great honor!<BR/><BR/>Again, not a point I can or desire to argue from my cultural upbringing.'<BR/><BR/>Why do you consider your previous indoctrination sacrosanct?<BR/><BR/>'The Western world has glommed on to this kind of individualism.'<BR/><BR/>Ahh! but that is the point...Atheism requires...nee... demands that co-operation and report is the glue that will secure society...<BR/><BR/>Cooperation must be achieved globally...my point earlier is that this seems extremely unlikely because religion forbids this by default...<BR/>That barrier must be removed sooner rather then later otherwise it will do for us all East and West !<BR/><BR/>This begins with family...community...state ...country etc etc...<BR/><BR/>It is not individual interest...it is because you are individual that you are morally obliged to work together with other individuals...otherwise there will be no more individual...simple like so! <BR/><BR/>'what are your personal experiences in atheism that support your conclusions?'<BR/><BR/>Freedom to choose without threat of hellfire or guilt...<BR/>There are bad folks...there are good folks...there are Atheists...there are theists...belief in any personal spirituality does not garantee freedom from human frailty...be that mental or physical or greed or hate...etc<BR/>Atheism just releases the shackles to pursue a freedom that is personal and responsible...that is the greatest gift anyone can offer humanity...truth and responsibility towards it...<BR/>'Experience'...every day is an experience....and being thus mentally free is the greatest experience...and it is a human right!<BR/><BR/>Atheism is not quantifiable as a religious nirvana or revelation...there is no witness statements to a great light descending from heaven...that you can use to justify your stance...it is not religion in any way...it does not resemble religious delusional experience it is a way of life...simple like so!<BR/>Being honest to yourself is a prerequisite to joining the club...some can...some cannot!<BR/>That is why it is Atheism and not Religion....diametrically opposing points of view... except one does not require delusion or hysteria to function as a bona fide position!<BR/><BR/>If you are looking to see what you can expect from Atheism...then you can expect to find the most important thing in your life...<BR/><BR/>You find yourself!<BR/><BR/>'I don't care if the people who share my enjoyment are loony with respect to religion. I just want some company on common interests. Hence my interest in relationship.'<BR/><BR/>well no one says you cannot...<BR/>And sharing and caring is one of the natural worlds most wonderful gift.<BR/><BR/>Everyone deserves a partner in life to live with...childhood prepares us for that commitment...and one day we may choose ...it does not matter if it happens to be the same sex or if it is the opposite sex...it is a natural and perfectly normal thing to do...but you...in yourself...must feel comfortable with that relationship...that is the bottom line!<BR/>otherwise it is false.<BR/><BR/>Ostracism for a religious point of view or non-religious point of view is not a good enough or even legitimate enough reason that it should be denied...folks who do that are not worthy of any love...let alone their version of some spurious God's love!<BR/><BR/>'Maybe my anticiptaion to see the next the Gordie Howe hat trick should be replaced by an interest in football, or maybe sushi is inferior to Indian cuisine, or maybe there is no reason to interact with people on the internet.'<BR/><BR/>Be true to yourself...that is the whole point...if you enjoy watching Gordie Howe hat tricks then why deny it by looking at something you think you must watch but which does not capture your same admiration!<BR/>If you enjoy interacting on the net why not...I do not see the dilemma...mind you as a confirmed and life long atheist that might sound trite!<BR/><BR/>I am not suggesting over indulgence...or greed or a dozen other hedonistic Romanian delights...I am suggesting moderation in pleasure and relaxing the uptight guilt ridden straps that hold human expression to a minimum!<BR/><BR/>Responsibility in all things...not just who you want to bed or eat or see! <BR/><BR/>As for you bi-polar friend...just be there for him...in the end it is the only thing that you can do!strangebrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363952849589195649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68195070549836632992009-02-23T02:59:00.000-05:002009-02-23T02:59:00.000-05:00"Guys, you make this too easy for me!Do you not th..."Guys, you make this too easy for me!<BR/><BR/>Do you not think Paul’s notion of God would not have developed if he had access to a couple of thousand years of Christian scholarship? Really? He has contributed to what we understand today, but theologians did not stop thinking after Paul ... maybe you did?"<BR/>We don't make it easy for you. You make it easy on yourself by not addressing the issues.Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47933893136197546202009-02-23T00:24:00.000-05:002009-02-23T00:24:00.000-05:00Guys, you make this too easy for me!it implies tha...Guys, you make this too easy for me!<BR/><I>it implies that Paul, for example, had a less evolved notion of God than you. </I> Do you not think Paul’s notion of God would not have developed if he had access to a couple of thousand years of Christian scholarship? Really? He has contributed to what we understand today, but theologians did not stop thinking after Paul ... maybe you did?<BR/><BR/><I>If truth is absolute; if God never changes; if the Bible is the inspirited World of God (the truth once delivered to the saints);</I><BR/>Your argument is valid (i.e. if the premises are true the logic flows) but it is not valid - the premises are not correct.<BR/><BR/>1) Let’s deal with the first two. It is patently false to suggest that because something is immutable (unchanging) that our ideas about it cannot change. Our ideas are not identical with that in which be believe ... you can't just apply reasoning. about one to the other - philosophy 101!<BR/><BR/>2) The “inspired word” – OK but that in no way places a limit on the revelation (or did I miss the bit that says 'thou shalt not increase thy knowledge'). As with (1), if the revelation of the faith to the apostles is unchanged that place no restriction on our understanding of the revelation as it applies to our time - Jude says it should not be deviated from – nothing about increasing ones understanding of it.<BR/><BR/>… but then I tend to the Catholic view that the doctrine = scripture + tradition and a non-literalist approach to the bible (true in revelation about salvation but not intended to be treated as scientifically or historically accurate).<BR/><BR/>So perhaps what you and JWL have done is demonstrate the superiority of the Catholic approach over that of the evangelical churches … :) what you have not demonstrated is that Christian theology should not evolve! … but then perhaps you equate all Christianity to the extremist view we both think benefits form a good debunk now and then!<BR/><BR/>By the way Harry – neat side step on Jude as prophecy! … my sources date Jude between 60 and 100 – but I liked your quickness of mind.<BR/><BR/>Sala kahle -peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65933367453562486842009-02-23T00:10:00.000-05:002009-02-23T00:10:00.000-05:00Wow, getting deeper. That's great.stragebrew, it'...Wow, getting deeper. That's great.<BR/><BR/>stragebrew, it's interesting that you mention Alzheimer's. My grandfather (father's father) is currently suffering from that. Rather, I should say that my grandmother is suffering more since she has to take care of him. In this whole discussion, I see my father, who I previously mentioned had a heart condition, is very much unconfortable seeing his father in such a sad state because he knows there very well be a genetic component to the disease. Anyway, my first disposition is to say: I encourage all science to share AND compete openly on information to this issue! But corps may not see the sharing part as I do. But who, in reality, opposes development for a cure or at least some ease for Alzheimer's? (As opposed to, say, a cure for AIDS?) Again, my beef with religion. I won't say any more.<BR/><BR/>As for social sciences, no need to go on. All I seem to remember from college sociology is that you're free to have an opinion and make observations to that point, but no solid conclusions may be drawn because they're highly subjective. But that doesn't prevent me from applying scientific method to my own discoveries. Reiterate my experiences with my wife. Only through trial and error can I really know what will make the both of us satisfied. (Valentine's day is a particularly troublesome topic, for all you keeping track at home.)<BR/><BR/>You said: <I>There is no safety net of divine ...'go to church pray forgiveness and all will be well'</I><BR/><BR/>I can neither confirm or deny this point, but I'll point out that this isn't an experience, but an assertion (or conclusion?). I'm looking for experiences, which is to say, thoughts and feelings that occurred from actual life events.<BR/><BR/>You said: <I>You alone are responsible to the world...it is a great honor!</I><BR/><BR/>Again, not a point I can or desire to argue from my cultural upbringing. But I will point out that this is an almost patently American conclusion. The Western world has glommed on to this kind of individualism. However, the East and Near-East would disagree whole-heartedly -- not on the theological terms but on cultural terms. The Eastern half of the human population believes that people share fully with each other in their resposibility to make the world a better place. There is little or no "guilt" in individual wrong-doing, only group honor is at stake. If you do something wrong, it shows poorly for your friends and family. If you do something well, everyone shares in the honor. It's not about the person, it's about the relationships with the larger group. This is a point of view I don't understand fully because of my individualisting upbringing, but a valid one no less. I don't want to be ignorant of it.<BR/><BR/>So my question again is this: what are your personal experiences in atheism that support your conclusions? Tell me stories of how it went well for you. I'm not looking for assertions or truth claims, just experience. That is to say, what are some times in your life that support your assertions and conclusions. I'm open to the richness of atheistic life if it presents itself to me.<BR/><BR/>As for my statement "'I can have all the knowledge of the natural world, but if I'm living a dry, solitary life, at distance from everyone around me, all that knowledge is for naught" -- I think you misunderstand. Let me share an experience to illustrate.<BR/><BR/>I can isolate myself in a room for a weekend with nothing but my computer, a high speed internet connection, the finest sushi, craft beef, NHL hockey, and video games. (I do earn enough money to make this a reality on a regular basis!) And when I imagine that, I this "SWEET!". But I know from experience that this is a well of pleasure that runs itself dry over time. I would MUCH rather experince each one of those things with someone else who appreciates them. In some sense, I don't care if the people who share my enjoyment are loony with respect to religion. I just want some company on common interests. Hence my interest in relationship.<BR/><BR/>Or maybe I'm doing it wrong! Maybe my anticiptaion to see the next the Gordie Howe hat trick should be replaced by an interest in football, or maybe sushi is inferior to Indian cuisine, or maybe there is no reason to interact with people on the internet. But as far as I can see, my relationships give me a reason to savor life from day to oday. And a reason to tell my occasionally suicidal, entirely bipolar best friend to keep seeking the best in life.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15317195599934002547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31468752720249797782009-02-22T20:14:00.000-05:002009-02-22T20:14:00.000-05:00Well put Piero!If truth is absolute; if God never ...Well put Piero!<BR/><BR/>If truth is absolute; if God never changes; if the Bible is the inspirited World of God (the truth once delivered to the saints); then Christian apologist have created their own “Catch 21” problem.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64022824193812895382009-02-22T19:33:00.000-05:002009-02-22T19:33:00.000-05:00"Nowhere has anyone explained why Christian theolo..."Nowhere has anyone explained why Christian theology should not evolve as human understanding grows."<BR/>It should not, because it implies that Paul, for example, had a less evolved notion of God than you. Hence you would have no reason to take him seriously. Hence you should dismiss his teachings. Hence you would not be a Christian. Hence you and everybody else would be happier.Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51749467617670753112009-02-22T18:31:00.000-05:002009-02-22T18:31:00.000-05:00Akakiwibear, I would placed Jude in relation to wh...Akakiwibear, I would placed Jude in relation to when (outside of Paul) Jesus became THE Christ.<BR/><BR/>Since the advance Christology of Jesus (as presented in the Gospel of John) dates from about 90 + CE, I would place Jude before John and thus, <I>prophecy</I>.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14114868825197580492009-02-22T18:12:00.000-05:002009-02-22T18:12:00.000-05:00'On this one it is clear that the theists have a g...'On this one it is clear that the theists have a good lead. Solid comments by Jason (I guess that’s why JWL wants to ban him) Doug and Brian have been met with little better than rhetoric and bluster.'<BR/><BR/>Someone that considers changing the record might be more advantageous for Christians then pretending a hollow victory is more important!...and that would be a change!strangebrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363952849589195649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68224570867083302612009-02-22T17:31:00.000-05:002009-02-22T17:31:00.000-05:00Hi Harry, Not sure what your point in The Buckle o...Hi Harry,<BR/> Not sure what your point in <I>The Buckle on the Bible Belt Loosens Again </I> was - although I liked the tongue in cheek title.<BR/><BR/>As for your <I>Based on the actions of the Jewish leadership in Jesus’ day; Jesus himself was prophesied here!</I> well that is interesting in that Jude is dated around 90AD ... I guess it just proves the value of hindsight ;)<BR/><BR/>Sala kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26216331200349860562009-02-22T16:19:00.000-05:002009-02-22T16:19:00.000-05:00Hey Akakiwibear, please check out my latest post T...Hey Akakiwibear, please check out my latest post <I>The Buckle on the Bible Belt Loosens Again: N.C. Presbyterians Vote To Approve Ordaining Homosexuals</I><BR/><BR/>"Jude 18 “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires” which this post certainly seems to have proven true ;)"<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Based on the actions of the Jewish leadership in Jesus’ day; Jesus himself was prophesied here!</B>Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87347177884029893122009-02-22T15:43:00.000-05:002009-02-22T15:43:00.000-05:00An advantage of getting to a post late is you get ...An advantage of getting to a post late is you get to review all the comments and form an opinion of who is ahead, who has a real case and who is blustering to save face.<BR/><BR/>On this one it is clear that the theists have a good lead. Solid comments by Jason (I guess that’s why JWL wants to ban him) Doug and Brian have been met with little better than rhetoric and bluster.<BR/><BR/>Nowhere has anyone explained why Christian theology should not evolve as human understanding grows. I suspect if it had not developed we would hear the same voices raised in criticism of that! <BR/><BR/>Come now children … why should that which has been written not be studied and our understanding not be enhanced by that study? How can rational beings think that we should not learn? ... but this atheist argument hinges on Christians not ever learning. <BR/><BR/>Now John, since you clearly feel Jude to be the authority on these matters you will have no dispute with Jude 18 “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires” which this post certainly seems to have proven true ;)<BR/><BR/>OK John I know your point is that a literalist interpretation of the passage may lead one to the conclusion you have extracted here; that if every detail of faith were constant then there would be no change. <BR/>Certainly I agree that your interpretation is not supported by the range of Christian beliefs … but so what? ... there are two conclusions that can be draw here.<BR/>Either (as is the point you try to make) that Christian belief is flawed OR that the interpretation you have based you argument on is flawed. The latter is clearly the case – and by implication your argument needs it to be so.<BR/><BR/>So ALL you have demonstrated is that a particular interpretation (and one in which the full implications of the word “faith” has provided food for many a biblical scholar) is suspect. <BR/>You have NOT in any way demonstrated that Christianity is a flawed belief – only that there are multiple interpretations of what has been written … no big win there for you, demonstrating the obvious.<BR/><BR/>Sala kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23884284032779309162009-02-22T08:51:00.000-05:002009-02-22T08:51:00.000-05:00Hi Doug.'One the one hand, applying effort to make...Hi Doug.<BR/><BR/>'One the one hand, applying effort to make discoveries, and on the other hand, going along (eargerly or tacitly) with the policies of an organization that seeks to use those discoveries.'<BR/><BR/>Maybe you have a point...but methinks these days it does not quite work like that...<BR/><BR/>A large project...say ...for the point of example... developing a medicine to combat Alzheimers disease!<BR/><BR/>This will be split up into different facets of the development...<BR/>And usually...because most drug company policies dictate...they work in isolation...no one knows what the lab across the way is working on...<BR/><BR/>One lab team might be analyzing pure GP data...another might be sample collecting.<BR/>One lab might be gene sequencing or expressing...another might be checking anti-bodies or a dozen other variables...<BR/>DNA comparisons in families...or other sufferers.<BR/><BR/>Could be up to 20 odd labs involved from different parts of the country...tasked with a specific goal...they are not told the why!<BR/><BR/>They know folk talk...the less they know the better from a companies perspective...all this to corner a market and out fox the competition...who are probably doing exactly the same thing!<BR/><BR/>The Americans did this during the Human Genome analysis...<BR/>They kept it fairly quite what they were actually doing...although the implications were kindda obvious....<BR/>The scuttlebut was..."Oh be another 5 years before we have it!'<BR/>They released the full sequence 6 months later...after having managed to secure patents on several aspects of genome elements...<BR/><BR/>The why is speculative....but possibly the major insurance companies want access to specific DNA profiles..obvious reasons...but they need a map to work out the prognosis of the owner of their DNA sample.....remove parts of that map for legal reasons removes an effective overview...<BR/><BR/>That is the benefit of doubt good point...the other side of the coin is...they want to make money by selling relevant snippets to the Insurance companies using the knowledge locked under legal key..<BR/>This means they retain the power...insurance companies have to come to them for analysis! <BR/><BR/>So it is not straightforward...when science gets goosed by business there is only one winner with a smile!<BR/><BR/>'To my original concern, all this stuff can get wrapped up under the umbrella of "science" in people's minds.'<BR/><BR/>Which is exactly what the religious bunnies try and do...all the evil in the world all the negatives can be laid at science's door....thus encouraging folks to reject this evil Satan inspired endeavor!<BR/><BR/>Tis a classic wedge document that has always been flaunted at a religious indoctrination target.<BR/><BR/>'I'm not convinced that science isn't suitable to apply toward social interations. Certainly sociologists try this all the time. (But doesn't it seem hard for "social scientists" to to have a first-class representation in the scientific community!)'<BR/><BR/>There is a standing epitet that Scientists apply to this uneasy classification b'twixt 'n' b'tween social science and 'real' science...<BR/><BR/>'We had to part company over scientific differences...we were scientific...they were different!'<BR/><BR/>Take that how you will...but the point is social sciences is a far different kettle of worms then science generally gets involved with.<BR/><BR/>Not saying it cannot be...but the error bars get wider and less useful!<BR/><BR/>'have you had any experiences in your pursuit of atheism that supports good relationship?'<BR/><BR/>Yes ...the fact that you alone are responsible for action words and demeanor...in other words...you cannot commit a crime and claim that god told me to...examples the Yorkshire ripper or more lately the Bush/Blair unholy alliance...<BR/><BR/>There is no safety net of divine ...'go to church pray forgiveness and all will be well'<BR/><BR/>Atheism means growing up intellectually...it means relating on a one to one basis with the world...not a one+invisible fairy to one!!<BR/><BR/>You alone are responsible to the world...it is a great honor!<BR/><BR/>'I can have all the knowledge of the natural world, but if I'm living a dry, solitary life, at distance from everyone around me, all that knowledge is for naught.'<BR/><BR/>Why must that be so?...the only reason is directly related to the abject paranoid and terrified hysteria of the afflicted that wants atheism outlawed..because it is a threat to their own delusions...if atheism spreads they will be the minority and they will indeed be the looneys in society confirmed...they know that and are wetting themselves with doubt.strangebrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363952849589195649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72592721295502882212009-02-21T23:00:00.000-05:002009-02-21T23:00:00.000-05:00So much good stuff here! Thanks everyone for resp...So much good stuff here! Thanks everyone for responding.<BR/><BR/>strangebrew -- Point taken about companies, governments, and other authorities that can drive an interpretation of science to a bad end. I can't help but wonder though if scientists might also play a dual role sometimes. One the one hand, applying effort to make discoveries, and on the other hand, going along (eargerly or tacitly) with the policies of an organization that seeks to use those discoveries. I guess that's kind of a problem with being human. I recently had a similar dilemma where I worked for a startup doing great, helpful things for music, movies, and TV for many years, but they changed their direction toward squeezing dimes out of unwelcome advertising, which I found most unpalatable. I chose to stop creating software for them and instead went to higher ed in the private sector. I had to reevaluate what I was doing and who I was working for. Perhaps scientists have an ethical responsibility to take a stance like this when it matters.<BR/><BR/>To my original concern, all this stuff can get wrapped up under the umbrella of "science" in people's minds. To the unaware public, scientists engaged in research geared for, say, WMDs could be considered just as lousy as the governments they work for, giving science a bad name.<BR/><BR/>It's pretty clear that some people leave their religions for the same reasons, myself included. Call that a reevaluation too. I have absolutely no desire to be labeled or to subscribe to a belief system. However, I am open to talking about issues of faith and hearing what's been useful for people to try. Like I said before, I see religion as a kind of expression of a desire to understand relationship. Whether or not it's make believe isn't the issue (for me). But the desire to understand relationship is still there. That's why I'm interested in opening up the discussion around that point.<BR/><BR/>I'm not convinced that science isn't suitable to apply toward social interations. Certainly sociologists try this all the time. (But doesn't it seem hard for "social scientists" to to have a first-class representation in the scientific community!) For example, I know that, from experimentation, what my wife likes and does not like. Sometimes she's unable to articulate that clearly and so some trial and error is needed to smooth over those rough spots.<BR/><BR/>I'm totally sympathetic to your desire to ditch religion and start over. I don't think that's necessarily naive. My question to you (and others of atheistic leanings) is this: have you had any experiences in your pursuit of atheism that supports good relationship? I can ask the same question of other religions, and they have answers. Sometimes really unhelpful, uneffective answers, but answers none the less.<BR/><BR/>I can have all the knowledge of the natural world, but if I'm living a dry, solitary life, at distance from everyone around me, all that knowledge is for naught.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15317195599934002547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17303721343247782302009-02-21T20:46:00.000-05:002009-02-21T20:46:00.000-05:00I wasn't putting forth that it was a good argument...I wasn't putting forth that it was a good argument by any means. I was simply stating that he was not addressing the postulation but redefining it instead, again without serious address...<BR/><BR/>"I mostly don't like it because relgionists often use it as a tactic to separate science from their religion to uphold the idea that they are competing for truth down two different paths."<BR/><BR/>I don't like it either. If a religion is true, there should be no competition with science. But different interpretations of the findings are warranted so long as the actual facts are not denied (yet even the non-religious can misinterpret the facts)Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00402235121829273791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6811691642760924292009-02-21T20:19:00.000-05:002009-02-21T20:19:00.000-05:00Jon,"..why, instead of addressing the actual prese...Jon,<BR/><BR/><I>"..why, instead of addressing the actual presented issue (that scientific deductions need to be reevaluated from time to time) you seek to redefine the word used in the postulation?"</I><BR/><BR/>1. Just because the average person uses the word "science" to describe bodies of things doesn't make it the right thing to do or the right way to see things. I mostly don't like it because relgionists often use it as a tactic to separate science from their religion to uphold the idea that they are competing for truth down two different paths. Of course, they are only competing when scientific findings contradict scripture or dogma, otherwise religionists leave it up to scientists to discover the truth about anything not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Like how to build those cars that get you to church.<BR/><BR/>2. The fact that scientific deductions need to be reevaluated from time to time doesn't need a defense because nobody ever pretended that they don't. Science doesn't even claim to know the truth, only what's theoretically true based on the observable phenomena of nature. Their truth is always conditional.<BR/><BR/>3. Other people pointed out already that the comparison of science and religion was a weak one. Name one religion that states that all of its practices, dogma, and knowledge are subject to change based on better information in the future. Many religionists believe that we already got the best information and we've just been corrupting it.<BR/><BR/>4. An attack on the conditionally true scientific theories does nothing to undermine science in any way because it will always be scientists that corrects the mistakes with the exact same method of science and usually newer observations.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08481216009948063890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50905704078285094772009-02-21T17:34:00.000-05:002009-02-21T17:34:00.000-05:00Scientific theories have never changed because of ...Scientific theories have never changed because of a change in theology. Theology, on the other hand...Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24840222603904589832009-02-21T15:57:00.000-05:002009-02-21T15:57:00.000-05:00Strangebrew – “As far as I can see there were thre...Strangebrew – <BR/>“As far as I can see there were three councils of Nicaea in total...although other separate councils were held by the different denomination over the centuries...but the three main councils were the ground rules so to speak the last council was held in 680ad...<BR/>Since then the doctrine has been individually tweaked but not substantially changed at all.”<BR/><BR/>As the topic of this post concerned who Christianity kept fundamentally changing, it’s good to hear someone say it’s been tweaked but not really changed – which I agree with. In the efforts of full disclosure, there were actually seven councils in Nicaea, the last in 787ad. In terms of accepted doctrine, however, you are correct that this is approximately where agreement between Catholicism and Protestantism stopped, generally speaking.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Doug - <BR/>But I do criticize religions in going too far in prescribing rigid thought and behavior, as those things seem to work against good relationships. – Jesus said the same against the Pharisees…<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the scientific method can be applied here to good effect. Try stuff, and if it doesn't work, reevaluate. – The sad thing is that many, we’ll use marriage as an example, ‘seek’ to test and evaluate. Except when it doesn’t work out, they divorce, remarry, and try the exact same thing again. When it comes to relationship, there are many out there who misinterpret this approach and simply try the same thing until they find someone it works with… I’m not opposed to this idea, but very few use it correctly.<BR/><BR/>Back to strangebrew – <BR/>“…more likely is the reaction my god is better then your god..my religion is more righteous then yours...and so on and so forth...Religions do not want a one size fits all...they want to dominate...that has been the bottom line since before the crusades!”<BR/><BR/>I could be wrong, but I do not consider “my god is better than your god” is likely; generally I think it is more “My god is and your god isn’t.” It is not about whose is better or more righteous but what they believe to be true. And though some may desire to dominate, I do not think it is across the board (maybe the just don’t want the other guy to dominate; freedom of religion?). The crusades were a man-made quest under the guise of religion to take more territory, and especially wealth. Jihad was a retaliation to this, but also an effect of Islam believing the following Allah’s command is of utmost importance, because he is not a god of relationship but of dominance. There is not love for creation in Allah, only that he wants it to follow his will. (tangent, my apologies)<BR/><BR/>“folks are not keen on their dogma getting ditched...usually because it is their identity”<BR/>Admittedly true for many. In cultures where one is catholic, Christian, Buddhist, etc simply because they grew up in a catholic, Christian, Buddhist, etc family, it could be expected that a backlash would occur if everyone else did; or it may simply be ditched it everyone else thought it should be ditched. However, for ‘true believers’ this would never happen; only group-think.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00402235121829273791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54552939247004441152009-02-21T14:57:00.000-05:002009-02-21T14:57:00.000-05:00"Science is expected to change, but Christianity? ..."Science is expected to change, but Christianity? Not to the extent that we see in history and the world today."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I have to agree with Kiwi here.<BR/><BR/>"It seems people are trying to make a argument, but no one put in clear terms what the argument is.<BR/>Suppose that Christianity is true. What would stop people from misinterpreting scriptures? What stop people to make up new theological ideas? What would stop people to speculate about the details of the faith? Nothing, as far as I can see. So shouldn't the diversity of opinions be expected, regardless of if Christianity is true or false?"<BR/><BR/>The notion that change in Christianity and disagreement among Christians says something significant about whether Christianity's origins are divine is being thrown about as if it were self evident, and as if anyone who disagrees is a moron. Let me provide a counterexample: John Polkinghorne's 'critical realist' approach to Christianity is consistent with both change in Christianity and with the notion of its divine origins. Now, I'm not arguing, "Polkinghorne has spoken -- end of debate!" Rather, I'm presenting first, the example of an undeniably brilliant man who knows his church history, theology and science and who sees no serious problem with change in the Christian tradition; and second, the example of a historically and theologically informed approach to understanding Christianity that is not only consistent with 'differences,' but which in a sense presupposes and embraces them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com