tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post2269494080428686258..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Is America Christian?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54306131748820355812010-01-23T09:56:56.099-05:002010-01-23T09:56:56.099-05:00Rob R, How perverse you are. How sad and silly yo...Rob R, How perverse you are. How sad and silly your religion makes you.<br /><br />What you say here is tiresome, weak, predictable, philosophically inconsistent and wrong.<br /><br />I'll have more to say.<br /><br />Peace through humanity,<br /><br />RussRusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39217583232964928332010-01-20T17:09:35.434-05:002010-01-20T17:09:35.434-05:00Rob
Sorry you feel the way you do but I am pretty...Rob<br /><br />Sorry you feel the way you do but I am pretty happy actually. Much happier since I dropped the need for supernaturalism. I call them as I see them and with you I see someone with only a hammer in his toolbox so the world looks like a nail. You claim intellectual flexibility but exhibit a rigidity common to most 20th Century Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism. I don't know what to do with your assertions except to say, "okay Rob, I'm sure you believe that." While recognizing that what you say denies the current practice of your religion.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11953353082327996862010-01-20T00:08:14.425-05:002010-01-20T00:08:14.425-05:00You are arrogant. Plain and simple and it is shame...<em>You are arrogant. Plain and simple and it is shameful.</em><br /><br />Yes, I probably am arrogant unfortunately. But though you might be able to wax eloquent on your humility, I don't think I will look to your example.<br /><br />And may the Lord bless you and your household and may you one day fully know of the authentic love of God of which your current expressed frustrations know nothing. <br /><br /><em>Communicating within the rules of philosophy allows you to stay connected with one way of seeing the world.</em><br /><br />there's good quality of thought and poor quality of thought and philosophy is aimed at working out the difference.<br /><br /><em>Unfortunately your philosophical ruminations are inferior to observed data and Russ' use of statistics</em><br /><br />irrelevence is irrelevence whether you dress it in statistics or not.<br /><br /><br />As for the rest, it's unfortunate to see your thought deteroriate into nothing more than personal attacks instead of dealing with the issues. Your skepticism has made your thinking futile.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37358789895707662202010-01-19T11:17:38.376-05:002010-01-19T11:17:38.376-05:00Rob,
For your edification.
http://www.alternet.o...Rob,<br /><br />For your edification.<br /><br />http://www.alternet.org/belief/145172/why_it%27s_so_tricky_for_atheists_to_debate_with_believers?page=entireChuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62896836929780607822010-01-18T22:07:45.517-05:002010-01-18T22:07:45.517-05:00Rob,
You are arrogant. Plain and simple and it i...Rob,<br /><br />You are arrogant. Plain and simple and it is shameful.<br /><br />One can refute the claims you make without adhering to an academic standard of philosophical dialogue.<br /><br />It happens all the time in the real world.<br /><br />Communicating within the rules of philosophy allows you to stay connected with one way of seeing the world. It is not the only way to see the world and it does not guarantee that what you see is real. It only guarantees that you can agree with your own premise.<br /><br />Unfortunately your philosophical ruminations are inferior to observed data and Russ' use of statistics and my support of that use, while not adhering to academic standards of philosophical dialogue, do provide hard evidence to the probable reality that your perspective on Christian living is nothing more than philosophically derived wishful thinking.<br /><br />You can assert that your Christianity is real all you want but the behavior of your fellow Christians seems to indicate that the authority you appeal to is illusory.<br /><br />I'm sure you feel good about yourself that you have run your appreciation of the most common cultural myth known to you through your philosophical grinder but, that does not mean your ideas help anyone, solve any real world problems or adhere to reality at all. You've rationalized a way to feel intellectual while maintaing a modicum of agreement with your mom. That is all.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30839736259349322902010-01-18T11:35:03.352-05:002010-01-18T11:35:03.352-05:00I agree with you but in the context of Paul's ...<em>I agree with you but in the context of Paul's illustration but in so doing I must ask; if the Corinthian Church was as carnal as Paul describes and yet they were Christians filled with the Holy Spirit why then did not the in-dwelling make them a "new creation" as the doctrine of salvation promises?</em><br /><br />Chuck, consider what a like minded soul to me, Luke at common sense <a href="http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6276" rel="nofollow">atheism said.</a><br /><br />You raise a real problem, a problem which does not effect my usage of Paul's passage in the context of John's thread on the challenge as surely as Russ's objection did not have much to do with my usage of that passage.<br /><br />That said, I have a simple explanation. The presence of the Holy Spirit does not take away responsibility and freedom which is present during our spiritual growth and during authentic trials that bear real risk during (and providing part of the context for) that growth. And the Holy Spirit is not intended to make us autonomous without the need for guidance from scripture and other Christians (that would invalidate an essential of the gospel which is to make us a community). We are responsible to utilize all of the resources that God has given us, and that we fail to do so is our responsibility and failure.<br /><br />Scripture never paints the Holy Spirit as eliminating personal responsibility. Old testament prophets like Jonah and Jeremiah demonstrate this. Moses demonstrated this. All of these men had the spirit but were reluctant or failed in some aspect or another. Balaam may have been an example, who was originally a pagan, yet one who recieved revelation from God. On that basis, it may be arguable that he had the Holy Spirit. He joined the Israelites but eventually he saught to turn them away from God.<br /><br />And back to Paul to the Corinthians (where this illustration comes from) he had to instruct them to use their gifts from the spirit wisely (such as speaking in tongues).<br /><br />You are bringing a view of how you think the spirit should work to scripture instead of allowing scripture to describe how the spirit works via weighing all the scriptural evidence.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41913951959592899672010-01-17T23:24:04.702-05:002010-01-17T23:24:04.702-05:00Rob,
I agree with you but in the context of Paul&...Rob,<br /><br />I agree with you but in the context of Paul's illustration but in so doing I must ask; if the Corinthian Church was as carnal as Paul describes and yet they were Christians filled with the Holy Spirit why then did not the in-dwelling make them a "new creation" as the doctrine of salvation promises?<br /><br />That is Russ' point and mine too. You appeal to the authority of a church that points to it's unique relationship to the creator of the universe via a doctrine that says God lives inside of you but then appeal to a caveat to this doctrine that human will in a prescriptive manner must activate this god's efficacy.<br /><br />The authority of the Holy Spirit which you appeal is rendered incoherent at best and invisible at worst when you take into consideration both the ancient and present behavior of those claiming his authority as their own. <br /><br />IF the church is one body it is schizophrenic.<br /><br />Of course I don't believe that at all. I believe that the Holy Spirit is a myth and a metaphor used by an ancient man in ancient times to get people to try and behave so that their community could survive. The warring factions of Christians in contemporary times proves the promises of a Holy Spirit is a heuristic for people to organize their desire for institutional control. I see nothing of what you claim in the real world.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67719265334418716652010-01-17T22:19:39.174-05:002010-01-17T22:19:39.174-05:00post 3 of 3
They were judged to be exceedingly h...post 3 of 3<br /><br /><br />They were judged to be exceedingly happy by psychologists who visited the tribe on the basis of how much they smiled and laughed. With their high emphasis on empiricism and low emphasis on emotional commitments to spouse and children, I can't help but think that this is simply in line with the idea that ignorance is bliss. That's not to say that they don't have a degree of wisdom, they do know their environment extremely well. But I doubt that their amount of smiling and laughter truely reflects the depth of joy for which we are intended. Their happiness is accredited to their simple way of life. They surely lack one of the rest of the world's major sources of emptiness, materialism and so this may very well may be part of their happiness.<br /><br />I also can't fully agree with the equal but different view of their culture given that their ultra empiricism would prevent the hights of culture that has been achieved by less empirical cultures such as our own. Science after all would not work in their mind set since scientist must rely on the word of other scientists that they never meet. Their ultra empiricism also judges history beyond their father's remembrance to be unworthy of their time (hence their lack of interest in Everett's teaching's on Jesus). Is this a value judgement that we can be neutral to, that for instance, the holocaust isn't worthy of our time if we don't hear of it at least 2nd hand?<br /><br />Given these considerations, I don't see this tribe as that strong of evidence for the irrelevance of Christ for the world's need or even their own. One would be better off speaking of the Scandinavians in that matter (even though it's questionable to seperate their humanistic values from their Christian heritage).Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49294931886093910512010-01-17T22:19:10.946-05:002010-01-17T22:19:10.946-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38490319824030754652010-01-17T22:18:42.660-05:002010-01-17T22:18:42.660-05:00post 2 of 3
One of the claims russ made is that t...post 2 of 3<br /><br />One of the claims russ made is that the Piraha of South America don't need Christ nor the idea that they have sin to repent of. They appeared to be exceedingly happy to the missionary, Daniel Everett who learned their language and lost his faith because they overturned his belief that everyone needed the gospel. And their happiness and simple way of life enamored him to the point that had no desire to change them. They were also exceedingly resistant to the gospel due to their ultra empiricism where they pay little to no heed of what anyone says that was not observed by them personally or at least something that that was observed by an associate of the speaker.<br /><br />After watching the video Russ linked to, I looked up some reviews of his book "Don't sleep...".<br /><br />Here's a snippet of John Fisher's (real name) review at Amazon.<br /><br /><em>The Pirahã live in the present. They are happy. <b>They are sexually promiscuous and change family partners with only a modicum of fuss.</b> They spend much of their time together, sometimes in family groups but often in larger gatherings. They talk and they talk and they talk. They don't seem to sleep much, talking all night long. Sometimes they help each other but at others, <b>let nature take it course without interfering, especially around childbirth. They may not come to the aid of a birthing mother who is in trouble and dispose of infants without mothers.</b> They make a big fuss about old men lost in the jungle. They let children play with dangerous things and <b>don't coddle them when they hurt themselves. The crying of weaned children, who no longer get so attended to, are ignored.</b> Children are quickly given adult tasks. They don't seem to fight much among themselves <b>but have killed outsiders and exiled members who were troublesome. The author witnessed one incidence of gang rape which was forceful but not violent. The author doesn't tell us how it affected the victim.</b></em><br /><br /><br />I can't read the emboldened parts without thinking that there is significant room for social change here. Clearly for mothers in trouble and orphaned babies, this tribe has a brutal negligence. That is an obvious issue. Less obvious to perhaps secular minds is the fault that may be found with alleged low drama of their "divorces" (and promiscuity). But of course, if sexuality is deeply sacred, then this is a terrible waste.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12725914480949713472010-01-17T18:53:22.418-05:002010-01-17T18:53:22.418-05:00Chuck, personal attacks from you aside and your in...Chuck, personal attacks from you aside and your insistance that I continue off topic, I'll say this much to the matter that is actually on topic (and granted, a continuation of the topic from which this post came).<br /><br />If Russ intended (and I actually don't care whether he intended or not, it is sufficient that you raise the issue) that his description of religious illiteracy was against my discussion on Paul's description of the body of Christ, I don't see it as an adequate response at all. I was responding to John Loftus' challenge which was an insistance that Christians should approach our religious knowledge in a certain way. I treated Paul's speach on the body as prescriptive, not descriptive and that is how Paul intended it as it was for Christians who did not have the proper view of diversity within the body of Christ. That the church has often (yet most certainly not always) failed to live up to the standard outlined by Paul's of appreciation, tolerance and use of our diversity in skill, gift and ability doesn't mean that the church ought not continue to strive toward that standard. And John's idea (so I assume is implied) that all of us Christians ought to focus on the claims of skeptics to the fullest is at odds with this standard.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />goprarie, <br /><br />I don't mind that russ's post became a topic at all. I meant what I said and if you felt it was whiny, that was the voice with which you read it.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80428709510818119812010-01-17T10:44:49.689-05:002010-01-17T10:44:49.689-05:00Living in Fredericksburg, Virginia, I find these s...Living in Fredericksburg, Virginia, I find these stats hard to accept. We have two Christian bookstores, one quite large. Of course, they also sell a lot of resin crosses with floral decor. I sell used books on Amazon, and sell a steady trickle of religious books, mostly the ramblings of some lady who has overcome one of life's problems with the help of God. I page through these books when I list them, and the trend I see is "every man his own prophet." A whole book can be based on just a couple of Bible quotes and wholesale creation of personal mythology. Oh, and the historical inaccuracies I find show that they've attended the Ken Hovind school of Creative History.nazanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00575864305225735387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38015908349217737952010-01-17T09:35:53.842-05:002010-01-17T09:35:53.842-05:00well, instead of dealing with the interesting and ...well, instead of dealing with the interesting and important question posed, we have sunk to a whine-fest about who john treats better on HIS blog. grow up??<br />as to the point, I wanted to say that many people ASSUME we do live in a 'christian nation' and so they tolerate things they should not and do not question things they should question. they allow christianity to creep into government, allow us to have government holidays that are christian holidays. they tolerate political candidates who make choices based on christian ideology and who make comments asking them to pray during speeches and who pray for guidance in their own decision making. that a president relied on prayer to a non-existant entity to make decisions about going to war should have caused an uproar but it was accepted. <br />americans assume christianity is good and therefore spend money on christian charities without quesitoning what actually happens to that money. <br />there are many other harmful effects on policy and society due to this sloppy thinking and the assumption that we are a christian nation, including discrimination against those of other religions and more, against the declared non-religious. <br />but the good news is that much of this christianity IS largly a culture thing and not truly a belief thing. hopefully, as atheism gains visibility and acceptance (thanks to sites like this and the outside activities of their owners such as books and talks) people will see that it is okay to stop claiming allegiance to something they don't actually believe in.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63129596474443564882010-01-17T08:25:33.735-05:002010-01-17T08:25:33.735-05:00Is America Christian?
Oddly interesting question....<i>Is America Christian?</i><br /><br />Oddly interesting question. There are different intentions assumed for this 3-word question.<br /><br />a.)Is the majority religion of America, Christian?<br /><br />b.)Is America a Christian nation?<br /><br />The difference in inference of these two questions is the difference between receiving a toy pony and a real pony. <br /><br />Demographic data gives a <i>yes</i> to answer 'a.'<br /><br />Historical data gives a <i>no</i> to answer 'b.'<br /><br />End of discussion.mud_rakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786611698569598023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12397053161442753762010-01-16T19:04:31.306-05:002010-01-16T19:04:31.306-05:00Rob you said,
"Actually no, I do not. I am a...Rob you said,<br /><br />"Actually no, I do not. I am an inclusivist which means I hold that the message of Jesus is the ultimate truth and Judeo-Christianity provides opportunity to delve into that. And yet other cultures and religions still give evidence of God's grace at work amongst the gentiles which we see indicated in scripture such as Acts 17 where Paul says that God has provided a means throughout the world for people to find him and ascribes some claims from pagan philosophers and a pagan poem to Zeus to Yahweh even as he criticized idolatry in the same passage."<br /><br />This seems insane to me. Basically you are saying that you can respect other cultural claims to truth because you holy book says it is okay to do that. But isn't deferring to a holy book as the authority on sanction simply empowering your religion as superior? It is a basic passive-aggressive move done by Evangelical Christians in America right now. <br /><br />"Christianity is very compatible with a variety of epistemic and metaphysical claims though it has important implications in both areas."<br /><br />Meaning what exactly? <br /><br />Please don't quote-mine me when I am making a point and instead, respond to the total phrase. I agree with Russ' argument in as much that it refutes your claim to a unified Christianity using Paul's allusion to the interdependence and discrete functioning members have akin to specific bodily functions. You used metaphor to discredit John's challenge and Russ responded with statistics to show you that your claim to unity does not measure up. He discredited your claim, plain and simple. Now you can appeal to the authority of apologetic authors (which have a low-probability of influence based on the statistics Russ shared) or you can concede that your appeal to Paul's metaphor does not match the actual church that is behaving today. You can want the church to be what it is but the statistics seem to show it is something other than a good bride to your savior.<br /><br />"It did not Discredit that most of your loudest voices for atheism are of people who aren't aware of their own uncritical modernistic disposition in a post modern time when that disposition has been seriously called into question."<br /><br />Tell me what you stand for don't tell me why someone who sees no need for what you are selling is philosophically wrong.<br /><br />When I say a priori I simply mean that you are not dealing with the conversations being had with an honest and sincere and humble desire to uncover truth as the argument reveals it. You deny the evidence to maintain the position you had prior to entering the conversation but act as if you are trying to get deeper into the understanding of what is being discussed. In short you are basically making an altar call using gussied up philosophical arguments and I think you lie when you say you truly want to join and ponder what is workable for people. You want to defend your faith. That is all and it is pedestrian.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44666548109237814152010-01-16T18:08:05.723-05:002010-01-16T18:08:05.723-05:00Do you believe Christianity is the only worldview ...<em>Do you believe Christianity is the only worldview that offers truth or not?</em><br /><br />Actually no, I do not. I am an inclusivist which means I hold that the message of Jesus is the ultimate truth and Judeo-Christianity provides opportunity to delve into that. And yet other cultures and religions still give evidence of God's grace at work amongst the gentiles which we see indicated in scripture such as Acts 17 where Paul says that God has provided a means throughout the world for people to find him and ascribes some claims from pagan philosophers and a pagan poem to Zeus to Yahweh even as he criticized idolatry in the same passage. And furthermore, I am a slightly more radical inclusivist in that I believe that other religions and cultures may hold truths, even spiritual truths which was not revealed in the scriptures. Anyone with an honest appraisal of the early church has to agree with this given our indebtedness to greek philosophy which was used to refine and develope Christian theology (though at the same time, we also ought to be wary of where that influence may have taken the church fathers to make some wrong choices).<br /><br />For that matter, Christianity is not a complete world view if you define a world view as an exhaustive view of the world. I'm sure John Loftus was an authentic Christian and a follower of Christ, but I doubt that our views of the world were exactly the same though they agreed on some of the most important matters. Christianity is very compatible with a variety of epistemic and metaphysical claims though it has important implications in both areas.<br /><br /><em>Russ' cumulative argument discredits most of what you argue specifically,</em><br /><br />No, it did not discredit that the best Christian Christian writings relevent for apologetics were to be found in apologetic literature. It did not Discredit that most of your loudest voices for atheism are of people who aren't aware of their own uncritical modernistic disposition in a post modern time when that disposition has been seriously called into question. And that not all Christians have to have an equal education and understanding surely does not suggest that religious illiteracy is a good thing.<br /><br /><em>His cumulative case points to the illegitimacy of your premise that a Christian worldview is the most truthful</em><br /><br />That's all very well and good which does not discredit most if not all of the things I mentioned to which he was replying.<br /><br /><em>obfuscation using philosophical argumentation to support an a priori conclusion?</em><br /><br />huh?<br /><br />If my conclusions are a priori, then there's no point in arguing against them.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46477118078537977102010-01-16T16:38:08.319-05:002010-01-16T16:38:08.319-05:00Rob,
Do you believe Christianity is the only worl...Rob,<br /><br />Do you believe Christianity is the only worldview that offers truth or not? <br /><br />Russ' cumulative argument discredits most of what you argue specifically, your rebuttal of John's challenge by using Paul's metaphor of the body as a reason for the observed variance in the Holy Spirit's efficacy amongst believers.<br /><br />His cumulative case points to the illegitimacy of your premise that a Christian worldview is the most truthful or, as you put it, holds the least "epistemic risk".<br /><br />Do you believe what you stand for or not?<br /><br />And, if so, how can I trust that your perspective isn't really just obfuscation using philosophical argumentation to support an a priori conclusion?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53370059162460103752010-01-16T16:21:53.481-05:002010-01-16T16:21:53.481-05:00Rob drops the philosophical stuff [his college maj...<em>Rob drops the philosophical stuff [his college major] while mom drops the Leviticus and Deuteronomy stuff. </em><br /><br /><br />But in defense of my professors, i was a mediocre student.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48928032408343573552010-01-16T15:59:59.068-05:002010-01-16T15:59:59.068-05:00In short, I endorse Russ' arguments and find y...<em>In short, I endorse Russ' arguments and find you to be a little dishonest in backing away from them.</em><br /><br />call it dishonest chuck, but I'm done with this tangent. But you did not read carefully what I wrote! And that's all I offer. I'm sorry but I'm quite sick of those who ignore the points made because they throw out red herrings, and I don't do the same. I HIGHILIGHT that what I say here should not be taken as a response to the content of the topic post AND that it deserves to be addressed. In doing so, my tangent is not a true red herring.<br /><br />If I respond here again, it will be in reaction to what is actually said in the topic (and because John Loftus posted it for general discussion, and as such, it is no longer a discussion specifically with Russ).<br /><br />If I don't respond here, it's because I am already involved in conversations and I am limited in time.<br /><br />But then again, as this is a typical russ comment, there are a ton of claims made here most of which could not be satisfactorily discussed or debated in the context of one session.<br /><br />There's religious illiteracy of the amongst the cultuerally Christian. Yes, that should be remededied. People who claim to be Christians ought to take more responsibility for their faith. There was a lot of statistics there, but I just don't see this as a conceptual problem for Christianity but a part of the problem that pretty much all of scripture is geared to deal with, that is spiritual growth which needs to be engaged.<br /><br />Then there's reference to allegedly non-religious indigenous peoples. I don't know much about them. Then there's the atheistic scandanavian countries which are supposedly and very well may be very humanistic (compassionate). Course many of the humanistic values they have arguably have their roots in Christianity. But russ is cherry picking the evidence to discount atheistic socieities that didn't do so well, principally your former communist countries ("oh, but they were religious in their communism" whatever that means).<br /><br />Then he challenges the idea of original sin, though the effects are one of the most empirically verifiable amongst Christian claims.<br /><br />And of course, what would a Russ post be without a hysterical rant such as he ended with calling Christians liars and saying they aren't to be trusted? Yeah, Chuck, I'm dishonest cause I don't want to engage that but if I must, I could respond in the same spirit to say that atheists are liars because their mothers lie to them early on by telling them they are handsome.<br /><br />Well mountains and mountain more could be written on any of those and I don't claim to be the one to be able to do it. I know John says I am the answer man, but the fact is, I select the topics I respond to (as does everyone else) not just for quality but also where I actually have a significant amount to contribute.<br /><br />So there you have it chuck, I have adressed some of the content while I recognize that it can't be the last word and again, I don't have time to pursue that which is of questionable value anyhow. But in addressing the specific content, again, I have shown more respect for Russ's posts than he shows others. All of that was a response to me and yet it had nothing to do with what I actually wrote and had nothing to do with John's challenge for 2010.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61859209835057544642010-01-16T15:38:52.275-05:002010-01-16T15:38:52.275-05:00A bit of history may help define the comments of R...A bit of history may help define the comments of Rob R. Rob R. and his mother Barb R. run the best homophobic blog in Toledo. The two of them are a tag-team made in heaven.<br /><br />Rob drops the philosophical stuff [his college major] while mom drops the Leviticus and Deuteronomy stuff. Together, they are two of the most righteous christians of whom I know.mud_rakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786611698569598023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33339066558538587882010-01-16T14:49:53.790-05:002010-01-16T14:49:53.790-05:00"If you're doing business with a religiou..."If you're doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing.His word isn't worth ****.<br />Not with the good lord telling him how to **** you on the deal."<br /><br />-- William BurroughsOwenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04547766582911955996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35209314949877718422010-01-16T14:03:05.765-05:002010-01-16T14:03:05.765-05:00Rob,
Are you really looking to challenge accepted...Rob,<br /><br />Are you really looking to challenge accepted truths and come to a better understanding of reality or, are you using philosophical argument to defend the faith you think to be the truth?<br /><br />Russ uses statistical arguments (sometimes by Christian organizations) to blow holes in your premise that Jesus Christ is one person in a triune God who necessitates the salvation of all men and, if one submits to the authority of Christ then there will be perfect unity.<br /><br />Do you not believe those things?<br /><br />Do you not use philosophical argument to defend your personal style of faith?<br /><br />Russ simply challenges your intellectual arrogance and religious presupposition with statistical fact. <br /><br />I do understand people as they understand themselves and I understand you to be someone who thinks he has the secret of the universe wrapped up in his particular version of religion which he defends by obscuring reality via philosophical argument and an ignorance of how that religion operates in the real world.<br /><br />Russ deals in real world facts that challenge the religious authority you appeal to.<br /><br />I'd like to see you deal with his arguments and make a case one can observe in the real world for the authority you claim. From my vantage your philosophical musings make you feel comfortable about your faith but don't do much to address how the real world works.<br /><br />In short, I endorse Russ' arguments and find you to be a little dishonest in backing away from them.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4746927427074567832010-01-16T13:02:55.538-05:002010-01-16T13:02:55.538-05:00Rob, there was one guy who came back using differe...<em>Rob, there was one guy who came back using different names and was obnoxious.</em><br /><br />Well, there was one lady that I thought some of her stuff was out of the blue including some comments on relativism.<br /><br /><br /><em>Besides, I make the decisions around here.</em><br /><br />Sounds good to me, and while my original comments may insite more comments along those lines (and naturally Russ may defend himself) what I said is the last of it on my part, except I would suggest that I treat Russ's comments with more respect than he treats others just to simply note that that what is said is worthy of discussion, that points have been made and i don't pretend that the tangents answer the criticisms made. Russ in the process of his rabbit trails grants nothing and answers nothing in the context of the discussions in which they are discussed.<br /><br />I think that's just great that you recognize in Russ's post exactly what I recognized. They are worth their own topic. But that's what they should've been to begin with. And I would attempt to explain why they qualify as rabbit trails except russ will do more of the same as well as take something I said out of it's original context to boot.<br /><br />And hey, since you did mention me in the post as it was originally some kind of response to me, I felt it even more reasonable to point out the context in which Russ argued (which is significantly out of context, the content of which somewhat makes sense conversationally speaking (yeah Christians need to be challenged, cause their also religiously illiterate on their own grounds) but was even further out of context in that it was alleged to be a response to the specific things I had said about your post).Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31961247540367716612010-01-16T12:39:02.963-05:002010-01-16T12:39:02.963-05:00I've wondered if American "aliteracy"...I've wondered if American "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliteracy" rel="nofollow">aliteracy</a>" and anti-intellectualism tend to limit the influence of fundamentalist religiosity. Studying the bible and supporting literature looks <b>way</b> too much like school work to have mass appeal. <br /><br />By contrast, the Europeans I've talked to, especially Germans, wonder why most Americans haven't filled their homes with the books they've bought and read. Apparently Germany has more bookstores than churches; whereas in the U.S., even rural college towns will have churches but no secular bookstore other than the one the college operates to sell textbooks.Mark Plushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03859046131830902921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47223757093700005762010-01-16T12:38:54.422-05:002010-01-16T12:38:54.422-05:00Rob, there was one guy who came back using differe...Rob, there was one guy who came back using different names and was obnoxious. He offered the same arguments over and over, offering nothing new and derailing discussions. Besides, I make the decisions around here.<br /><br />Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com