tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5045069678689553127..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The Trouble With Natural TheologyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17436463890135660462010-09-24T19:31:29.767-04:002010-09-24T19:31:29.767-04:00"But a revival has taken place. Norman Geisle..."But a revival has taken place. Norman Geisler and his student William Lane Craig, who has become the leading voice for natural theology ..."<br /><br />As David Eller says, .. " with science we get better, with religion we get more."<br /><br />Never a truer word spoken. Once again, Geisler and Craig are continuing the time-honoured tradition of presenting and recirculating old and rehashed religious bunkum as 'new' theological thought. Old ideas proliferate alongside new ideas in a woefully undiscriminating, random and thoughtless mire of mythology, mysticism, astrology, alchemy, 'hero worship', magic, shamanism, and non-human supernatural [that is, unnatural] tripe [all that anthropomorphic stuff].<br /><br />The DNA of Theology is more profoundly and demonstrably related to Mythology than Philosophy.<br /><br />The basis for Natural theology is not an accumulative process, rather it is an accretion, an agglomeration of disparate data, hypotheses, 'truths' [?], all bundled into an amorphous mass predicated on undiscriminating faith and indiscriminate belief.<br /><br />With science we get far greater predictive and more nuanced explanatory power. With natural theology, the best on offer is the nonsense of prophecy with all its predictive power resting in the rear-view mirror, retrojecting through search for an appropriate phrase or statement in the bible to substantiate the claim. What a pathetic excuse for a field of study that has absolutely no value, merit or worth in a modern community.<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79765914827845979812010-02-25T19:56:57.860-05:002010-02-25T19:56:57.860-05:00Metacrock,
I wholeheartedly agree with your statem...Metacrock,<br />I wholeheartedly agree with your statements, <br /><b><br />Plantinga is an idiot<br /></b><br />and<br /><b><br />Yea yea Plantinga and Harsshorne what idiots <br /></b><br />and<br /><b><br />how stupid theology is.<br /></b><br />You are spot on with these statements. Such bare-knuckle frankness will earn you many friends among us atheists. It's so nice seeing you working so assiduously to impress us.<br /><br /><br />And I want you to know that we are honored by your assessments of us in your statements<br /><b><br />you are the great intellectuals<br /></b><br />and<br /><b><br />what a gang of great intellectuals you are<br /></b><br />Speaking for myself, I'm deeply moved.<br /><br /><br />And, though it makes my heart sing to see you write about<br /><b><br />those evil stupid Christian theologian<br /></b><br />I do have to differ with your opinion that<br /><b><br />there are more important things than nookie.<br /></b><br />I guess even the best of friends won't agree on everything.<br /><br /><br />Also, I think you show yourself to be a man of great humility when you confess to us that,<br /><b><br />you are supuiror<br /></b><br />and then repeat the sentiment in <br /><b><br />Christians are stupid and you are so Superior.<br /></b><br />Since you state the blatantly obvious with such eloquence, none of us can disagree with you on these two points. <br /><br /><br />It's so good to know that you think so highly of us atheists and that you acknowledge that "Christians are stupid." Not everyone will be so boldly honest as to admit their reverence for atheists. You are a rare breed.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-583547153158481272010-02-25T18:38:51.575-05:002010-02-25T18:38:51.575-05:00Russ said... "Scott,
Regarding natural theolo...Russ said... "Scott,<br />Regarding natural theology and baptism, I wonder how using reason and experience, the tools of natural theology, does one conclude there to be a need for baptism"<br /><br />Were people even allowed to use reason when involved in natural theology?.<br /><br />John suggested .."The consensus seemed to be that Christians could not argue for a theology based in reason and science"<br /><br />But anyway i was wondering maybe the idea of baptism, came from the idea of water also often being used to clean many other things like clothes and kitchen utensils etc.Someday some bloke watching the contrite women doing the dishes thought, hold on governor,maybe its water that cleans the soul alsoGandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30144696803832911582010-02-25T18:23:56.204-05:002010-02-25T18:23:56.204-05:00Russ said... "I think Karl Barth had it right...Russ said... "I think Karl Barth had it right when he said, <br /><br />The best theology would need no advocates: it would prove itself.<br /><br />Of course, we never see a theology proving itself. Theology never provides evidence for its own veracity. What we see instead is theology's advocates passing off their own personal ideas as insights from god. There's nothing consistent or coherent among these advocates claims."<br /><br />Yeah Russ, its like a idea thats always been found lacking any real convincing evidence.For most good ideas, more and more conclusive evidence usually arrives over time,but not evidence for gods.We have the idea,then nothing.<br /><br />Gravity and wind didnt really even really need any advocates did it,apples and coconuts dropping onto peoples heads, while they noticed the trees moving! around each time they felt great gusts of wind on their faces, soon enough taught most punters exactly the same! thing.<br /><br />The only thing i see coming through that looks "consistent" or "coherent" among these faith advocates claims is (faith), its become obvious they are all followers of guesses!.<br /><br />It cannot even be said one person is even any the wiser, even after thousands and thousands of years now.<br /><br />Sure ideas have chopped and changed to suit the time and culture, but not one person has yet made any brake-through to prove they can say they are starting to understand gods.Not one<br /><br />It does seem quite "consistent" and "coherent" to start to be able to conclude, it seems obvious! these peoples ideas all stem from myths back in a superstitious and fearful era, when knowledge was very lacking!!.Back then even killer lightning bolts and killer earthquakes,tsunami desease drought etc, were all often thought personally to do with anger of the "gods" by most everyone.<br /><br />The fact that ALL these ideas began back in times of great ignorance seems what honestly looks the most consistant and coherent thing.Its what looks most logically connected.<br /><br />Our Christian friend Metacrock comes here and says stuff like..> "the most billiant minds in hsitory have been theologians." .Im thinking yeah go crock! you great bundle of intellectual joy,but maybe some "brilliant minds" of long ago in history, also once thought maybe gods actually threw the killer lightning bolts at us too .<br /><br />Simply having a brilliant mind, doesnt always stop people from being stupid.Some people are even brilliantly stupidGandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84996443774065294722010-02-25T17:29:54.175-05:002010-02-25T17:29:54.175-05:00Metacrock,
I concur with your having said,
it...Metacrock,<br />I concur with your having said, <br /><b><br />it's not atheist so it must be stupid!<br /></b>Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-946362971132114372010-02-25T17:01:42.604-05:002010-02-25T17:01:42.604-05:00Russ said,
"There are those of us who see al...Russ said,<br /><br />"There are those of us who see all of you in the same light as you see each other: wrong."<br /><br />Well said.<br /><br />And, Metarock, what about dyslexia would keep you from using spell-check software?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85052710780563441662010-02-25T14:47:01.524-05:002010-02-25T14:47:01.524-05:00Scott,
Regarding natural theology and baptism, I w...Scott,<br />Regarding natural theology and baptism, I wonder how using reason and experience, the tools of natural theology, does one conclude there to be a need for baptism. Clearly, natural theologians must use the Bible as a source of propositions that they then argue for using their own experience and reason. Never mind that all persons have differing suites of experience and capacities for reason to draw on and thus it would be perfectly reasonable to expect them to reach different conclusions.<br /><br />It seems disingenuous to me that one would want to start with a Bible-based, and thus questionable, conclusion and then set out to justify it with subjective reasoning capacity and experiences. To me it is exactly as John stated in his post, <br /><b>What they have done is to defend what they were led to believe because of an initial commitment, usually in their youth, which controls how they approach these arguments.<br /></b><br /><br />These natural theologians are often educated in fields requiring analytical and critical thinking skills like philosophy. However, when those first few drops of theology condense from that philosophy still, these guys get so intoxicated they immediately abrogate their well-honed mental faculties. I don't understand why natural theologians bother with studying the tools of the philosophers, since, when they are stoned on theology, they are every bit as dazed, daft and dumbfounded as Fred Phelps, David Koresh, Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89820553423327023632010-02-25T12:56:32.906-05:002010-02-25T12:56:32.906-05:00I think Karl Barth had it right when he said,
Th...I think Karl Barth had it right when he said, <br /><b><br />The best theology would need no advocates: it would prove itself.<br /></b><br />Of course, we never see a theology proving itself. Theology never provides evidence for its own veracity. What we see instead is theology's advocates passing off their own personal ideas as insights from god. There's nothing consistent or coherent among these advocates claims. Supposedly, Christians and Muslims grovel to the same god, but if that's the case no one can bridge the abyss that separates their theologies. To Christians Jesus is their religion's entire raison d'etre, but to Muslims Jesus was just a nice guy.<br /><br />The god of Islam is clearly not the same god of Christianity. So, natural theology's notion that reason and non-supernatural experience are sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a god refutes itself when Christians conclude Yahweh via natural theology and Muslims conclude Allah with the same. To be sure the gods of the Norse, Celtic, Greek and Roman pantheons could all be resurrected through natural theology. Since in natural theology all reason, experience and evidence lead without discrimination to all gods, natural theology shows itself to be nothing but one more toy for philosophy playtime.<br /><br />Again, I think Karl Barth was spot on: <br /><b><br />The best theology would need no advocates: it would prove itself.<br /></b>Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24338133251182413002010-02-25T12:20:18.383-05:002010-02-25T12:20:18.383-05:00Al wrote: It follows that the separated Churches a...Al wrote: <b>It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. </b><br /><br />Al, <br /><br />The problem here is that it would be just as easy to proclaim that these people will NOT be saved as any negative claim is just as defendable as a positive claim. <br /><br />God could take or make exceptions in specific cases and use divine revelation to inform some specific group, which you're not apart of. You must accept this as true because much of what you hold to be authentic communication from God was "revealed" to only a few. Should this not be the possible, then God hasn't revealed anything in particular, except for extremely vague propositions, such as that he exists. <br /><br />While there might be elaborate accounts for why this these individuals "have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.", it's just as easy to create an elaborate account as to why they would be excluded. In fact, many have done just that throughout history and even today. <br /><br />It just happens to be that some are more culturally accepted than others. <br /><br />There simply isn't any clear, difficult to vary, causal chain of events that results in salvation. It's all theological conjecture based on stolen concepts of human motivation and past attempts to create accounts of what we observe.<br /><br />On one hand, God is all powerful and created everything out of nothing, including logic, etc. But on the other hand, God had to sacrifice himself to himself to remove our "sins", and we have to believe this actually occurred in reality to receive salvation?<br /><br />Take Baptism, for example. There isn't anything remotely causal about the act (in it's many forms) which could lead us to think it is actually 'necessary' for salvation. Instead, it seems to be more of a symbolic requirement "issued" by God. But if a requirement that could stand in the way of salvation is completely metaphorical, then how could you be sure it some other symbolic act was actually required by God instead? We simply couldn't tell as baptism has no more causal basis for endowing salvation than some other act, such as planting a seed. <br /><br />Without any hard to vary reason to prefer one symbolic act over another, it becomes one of many contradicting archetypes that claim to be a requirement made by God to receive salvation.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89917237192637107012010-02-25T12:09:01.209-05:002010-02-25T12:09:01.209-05:00Metacrock: No one will debate you because your poi...Metacrock: No one will debate you because your points have all been refuted and you still think you won. <br /><br /><br /><b>they have all been called names, is that the same thing?<br /><br />what a gang of great intellectuals you are. why you are so far up ther you are almost on the level with the Governor of Texas!</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65128936143141322622010-02-25T12:05:50.552-05:002010-02-25T12:05:50.552-05:00Goprairie: You keep coming back with the same delu...Goprairie: You keep coming back with the same delusions and errors. Why?<br /><br />Not only does he keep coming back with the same erors, but with the same nasty attitude. People talk about the angry atheist, Joe exemplifies the angry theist.<br /><br /><b>aahahah what a pack of fools. you sit over patting each other on the back acting liek you are supuiror and you jus ta bunch of know nothings who never went to gradute school ridiculing great thinkers whose sandels you are not fit to clean, whose words you can never complrehend bu ti hav ethe attutide.<br /><br />Look at this, not one of you has managed to make a single substantive arguer about the subject matter. in this whole chlorophy of stupidity there are massive statements of how stupid theology is not but one single intellectual response to the empirical evidence taht I posted. you cannot respond to an augment intelligently. you even have to attack my dyslexia because that's the level of your stupidity.<br /><br />Plantinga is an idiot, you are the great intellectuals, not one of you can make a single substantive argument against what I said. I bet you can't even remember the original point that I made.<br /><br />Yea yea Plantinga and Harsshorne what idiots the why who spells stuff right he's the real intellectual.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78608971319826739652010-02-25T12:00:12.424-05:002010-02-25T12:00:12.424-05:00J.L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock,
You obviously ha...J.L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock,<br /><br />You obviously have some sort of cognitive defect. You would be better understood if you use a spell checker. You say,<br /><br /><b>you have a cognitive defect yourself. Mine is called dyslexia. yours is called being stupid. you would be better understood if you a had a brain.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62552314744321534772010-02-25T11:58:09.294-05:002010-02-25T11:58:09.294-05:00Metacrock, first, most of what you've written ...Metacrock, first, most of what you've written here is a "crock!"<br /><br /><b>that's not an argument. calling it names doesn't make it go away. I used several academic source, I am an academic historian. If you look at what John said about jme he says "this guy is the real deal." he called my school and he knows that I was a Ph.D. candidate nnwo you tell me my that's crock? hu? because just saying that is not an argument. you are not an intellectual.</b><br /><br /> Secondly, the topic of the blog is natural theology, how has anything you have written related?<br /><br /><b>Russ alluded The Sucker man study you tell me! ask Russ, I was just answering him. <br /><br />can't you guys even follow argument? you want to propagate this myth that Christians are stupid and you are so Superior and you can't even follow a simple line of reasoning!</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Can we get back to the subject at hand?<br /><br /><b>you never got to it to begin with. Natural theology is not about science and not about who is intellectual and it about Sweden having a better from of government.</b><br /><br />On a side note (but related) I just got a copy of Alister McGrath's book "A Fine-Turned Universe" and will be adding it to my collection of books on natural theology. I hope to get around to reading it sometime this year.<br /><br /><b>you are the one who wanted to get back to the topic! what does that have to do with it?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15376255289328204112010-02-25T11:43:31.971-05:002010-02-25T11:43:31.971-05:00Breckmin: You seem to take a position that dogs an...Breckmin: You seem to take a position that dogs and chimps and rats have similar biology because God like the design and reused it. Except if that were true, why did he include wacky stuff like the route of certain essentials of the male repoductive system where things loop around in ridiculous routes. The route makes sense if seen as a result of the ancestral animal switching from standing on four legs to two, causing the routes to get stretched out to work in this circuitous way. God would just use a direct route, you'd think. I.e., not reuse the parts that could be done more efficiently and effectively? So also for the routes of nerves in the human neck that make sense only as seen in the context of the horzontal spine becoming vertical. God would reroute those too, eh? If he was smart? Read "Why Evolution is True" before you trot out ideas like design reuse to explain animal body similarities. Evolution fits with how things are. God as an explanation requires us to accept ridiculous claims about God, like that he would think those things were good design.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7499953877286078962010-02-25T11:32:06.030-05:002010-02-25T11:32:06.030-05:00Breckmin: New genes: Obviously you don't kno...Breckmin: New genes: Obviously you don't know how genes and genetics work. There are not unique genes for every characteristic, rather, there are 4basic kinds of genetic material. They are linked together to mean different things depending on how their order and lenghth. Words are made of letters. There are 26 letters. How many words are there. What does it take to make a new word? NOT new letters, just existing letters combined in a novel sequence. By using some existing stuff, letters, in a new combination, it is easy to make up a new words with new meanings. The new word did not require new material arising from scratch, merely that existing material be combined in a slightly new way. Some combinations work as words and many do not. For example, I can add ge from genetics to turf from landscaping and get gerf and it makes no sense. It won't enter common usage. Or I can take gen from genetics and combine it with idiot and call people like you who make up objections to evolution based on crappy understanding of the basics of genetics a 'genidiot' and if the audience here finds it to their liking and uses it a few times, it has become a new word. No new letters appeared out of nowhere but a new word came into being. Take your genidiocy somewhere where gullible people live.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22947722313886987912010-02-25T11:25:58.575-05:002010-02-25T11:25:58.575-05:00Goprairie: You keep coming back with the same delu...Goprairie: <i>You keep coming back with the same delusions and errors. Why?</i><br /><br />Not only does he keep coming back with the same erors, but with the same nasty attitude. People talk about the angry atheist, Joe exemplifies the angry theist.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303844254669819239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70225731326409858332010-02-25T11:18:21.550-05:002010-02-25T11:18:21.550-05:00Metacrock: No one will debate you because your poi...Metacrock: No one will debate you because your points have all been refuted and you still think you won. You are not debatable because you don't follow the rules. I would not play Scrabble with you either, because you would redefine the rules, make up new words with wacky definitions, declare foul if I rejected your non words, and when I had more points in the end, you would declare that I did not play fairly and declare yourself the winner. When you then asked someone else to play you, the self-declared champ, and they declined, you would be on here telling us no one will play Scrabble with you because of your superior Scrabble prowess. No one will debate you, true, but it is not for the reasons you claim. The reasons are obvious to everyone but you. You keep coming back with the same delusions and errors. Why?goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90762533471080332652010-02-25T11:10:35.980-05:002010-02-25T11:10:35.980-05:00J.L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock,
You obviously ha...J.L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock,<br /><br />You obviously have some sort of cognitive defect. You would be better understood if you use a spell checker. You say, <br /><b><br />I know faar more than you do and moer than you ever will I am much muc much more hintellectual than you ever thought of bieng.<br /></b><br />Today's intellectuals can and do use spell checkers. Cognitively or perceptually handicapped intellectuals employ such tools as a matter of course to decrease the likelihood that they might be misunderstood. Clearly, you don't care if you communicate well. You're an apologist for your version of a Christian god, but make no effort to make your message clear. You are fortunate that your god does not exist, since you are an appallingly bad emissary.<br /><br />Undoubtedly, many of the heroes from your Bible's hit parade shared your lack of concern concerning being understood. For example, your version of a Christian god simply commands <i>Believe in me or burn forever!</i> Like you, your version of a god fails to communicate adequately, yet, like you, it insists on being respected. Like you it screams and throws tantrums and threatens, rather than facilitating communication through evidence.<br /><br />That your god does not exist becomes obvious when we consider that it has no action in the world and those who represent it, you for instance, are little more than buffoons and jesters, falling and screeching over one another to proclaim to us all what their version god told them in private. The rest of us don't get to hear what they say their god told them, yet we're supposed to accept that it applies to each of us, even when what they say is observably wrong.<br /><br />No extant god wanting its message to be brought to the world would choose you to make it happen. But, because gods don't exist, even someone like you who can't give his words the respect of a spell check can do the hawking. Are you perhaps transliterating your own speaking in tongues?<br /><br />I don't understand why you aren't more careful, more considerate of the words you write, since you claim to believe that those words can impart beliefs. Those beliefs become emblazoned on a soul. You further believe that your god performs a post mortem inspection of that soul looking for defects in those beliefs to decide if its owner gets shipped off to hell.<br /><br />Joe, if the words you write could be the difference between heaven and hell for some of your readers, they deserve more respect, more care, more love from you. If you know you have a cognitive impairment, deal with it. Don't create strings of words like "you hate God because he let you screw period," or strings of letters like "abaotleyl" and "intelelectual."<br /><br />To gain respect as an "intelelectual" you must act like an "intelelectual," which in part means dealing with your cognitive defects so that the language constructs you employ can be understood. Religious language is obviously human created and plenty stupid on its own without you creating an even more impenetrable drivel by fabricating random lexical and grammatical constructions.<br /><br />Since you clearly don't know this, let me tell you, in Real-Honest-To-God Christianity, only one species of sinner goes to hell: he whose language constructs interferes with other's understanding. Beware!Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14994209253630554932010-02-25T04:29:42.807-05:002010-02-25T04:29:42.807-05:00Metacrock said... "Wouldn't someone out t...Metacrock said... "Wouldn't someone out there think "gee, are you a dentist?"<br /><br />Look out Metacrock you`ll go getting yourself so worked up, your dentures will fall out and then you`ll be left trying to gum all us nasty non believers into shape.<br /><br />Naturally someone might have good reason! to wonder if somebodys actually a dentist,dentists tend to mostly all follow some (common scientific teachings) with regards to research done into the practice of dentistry.They follow procedures that have been proved to work.<br /><br />It makes a very big difference if a dentist is actually qualified.<br /><br />This has not got much in common with matters of faith though.Faith is not scientific.Somebodies guess is about as good as anybody elses guess.A qualified theologian, is just somebody thats been taught to become skilled in reciting a certain type of dogma.<br /><br />There is no reason to have any trust of the faithful,their attempt at "faith science" shows its kinda useless.They all end up willy nilly with all manner of ideas,and yet nothing much that can ever be shown as being conclusive.<br /><br />Meaning there is far much more very valid reasons to double question and not trust the ideas of faithful folks,than one would ever likely have reason to question or not trust many qualified dentist.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31800722492529067112010-02-24T22:18:30.862-05:002010-02-24T22:18:30.862-05:00Metacrock, first, most of what you've written ...Metacrock, first, most of what you've written here is a "crock!" Secondly, the topic of the blog is natural theology, how has anything you have written related?<br /><br />Can we get back to the subject at hand?<br /><br />On a side note (but related) I just got a copy of Alister McGrath's book "A Fine-Turned Universe" and will be adding it to my collection of books on natural theology. I hope to get around to reading it sometime this year.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72751942311980205432010-02-24T21:46:42.714-05:002010-02-24T21:46:42.714-05:00Through Europe the role of religion in the rise of...Through Europe the role of religion in the rise of modern secular liberal states is coming to be re-evaluated. Many historians are finding now that religion always played a more vital role than previously thought. Here'sa quote from a new ground breaking book:<br /><br /><br /> Religion, Class Coalitions, and Welfare States<br /><br /><br /><br />Series: Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics<br />Edited by Kees van Kersbergen<br />Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam<br />Philip Manow<br />Universität Konstanz, Germany<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> This book radically revises established knowledge in comparative welfare state studies and introduces a new perspective on how religion shaped modern social protection systems. The interplay of societal cleavage structures and electoral rules produced the different political class coalitions sustaining the three welfare regimes of the Western world. In countries with proportional electoral systems the absence or presence of state–church conflicts decided whether class remained the dominant source of coalition building or whether a political logic not exclusively based on socio-economic interests (e.g. religion) was introduced into politics, particularly social policy. The political class-coalitions in countries with majoritarian systems, on the other hand, allowed only for the residual-liberal welfare state to emerge, as in the US or the UK. This book also reconsiders the role of Protestantism. Reformed Protestantism substantially delayed and restricted modern social policy. The Lutheran state churches positively contributed to the introduction of social protection programs.<br /><br /> • Radical revision of established knowledge in comparative welfare state studies based on a combination of country case studies and comparative accounts • Introduces a new perspective on why and how religion shaped modern social protection systems and gives a new comparative account of the formation of different welfare state regimes • Systematic inquiry into the role of the state–church conflict for social policy in advanced industrial societies<br /> Contents<br /><br /> 1. Religion and the Western welfare state: the theoretical context Philip Manow and Kees van Kersbergen; 2. Western European party systems and the religious cleavage Thomas Ertman; 3. The religious foundations of work-family policies in Western Europe Kimberly J. Morgan; 4. Italy: a Christian democratic or clientist welfare state? Julia Lynch; 5. Religion and the welfare state in the Netherlands Kees van Kersbergen; 6. A conservative welfare state regime without Christian Democracy? The French Etat-providence, 1880–1960 Philip Manow and Bruno Palier; 7. Religion and the consolidation of the Swiss welfare state, 1848–1945 Herbert Obinger; 8. The church as nation? The role of religion in the development of the Swedish welfare state Karen M. Anderson; 9. The religious factor in US welfare state politics Jill Quadagno and Deanna Rohlinger; 10. Religious social doctrines and poor relief: a different causal pathway Sigrun Kahl.<br /> Contributors<br /><br /><br /><br />(contributors include:Philip Manow, Kees van Kersbergen, Thomas Ertman, Kimberly J. Morgan, Julia Lynch, Bruno Palier, Herbert Obinger, Karen M. Anderson, Jill Quadagno, Deanna Rohlinger, Sigrun Kahl).Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19278223807915831902010-02-24T21:32:04.872-05:002010-02-24T21:32:04.872-05:00the propagandistic bs about Scandinavia and the li...the propagandistic bs about Scandinavia and the lies that Suckerman told about do not constitutre scial science. the research I've done proves the reason there is a social welfare state in Sweden is because in the ninteenth century those evil stupid Christian theologian who have not read and hate so much faought to make it hapen.<br /><br />it's not the result of atheist it's the result of Christians. most Scandinavians are not atheist. do some deeper research. learn to care about facts for a change. there are more important things than nookie.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31477394547599731332010-02-24T21:26:27.786-05:002010-02-24T21:26:27.786-05:00What if I started saying dentists are fools. I don...What if I started saying dentists are fools. I don't know anything about dentistry but they are fool sand their occupation is a joke. Wouldn't someone out there think "gee, are you a dentist? have you ever been to dental school?" Wouldn't that seem rather foolish of me? But hey these guys must all about beccuase they know one thing only: it's not atheist so it must be stupid!Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43367519922107798872010-02-24T21:15:33.601-05:002010-02-24T21:15:33.601-05:00Frankly, Al, I don't care what learned Christi...Frankly, Al, I don't care what learned Christian theologians have to say since empirical results demonstrate that the masses have no idea who those theologians are or what their ideas are. What's more, Christianity shows no signs that it differentially benefits its believers, devout, pious or indifferent.<br /><br /><b>I know you don't because athesim is total absolute intelelectual dishonesty. Atheists aer fools and idiots. I know faar more than you do and moer than you ever will I am much muc much more hintellectual than you ever thought of bieng.<br /><br />you don't even know the meaning of the word. Moreover, you have not concept of truth and you don't care. you just said you don't care. this is not about thinking for you its' about your will you want to sin that's all you care about.<br /><br />you hate God because he let you screw period. O terribly intellectual.<br /><br /><br />you are all cowards. I challenge and or all of you to debate. you wont accept because you know I'll beat the crap out of your arguments.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46289467484885377402010-02-24T21:11:59.378-05:002010-02-24T21:11:59.378-05:00I concur with Metacrock's statement,
Theology...I concur with Metacrock's statement,<br /><br />Theology as an intellectual endeavor is doomed from the beginning, because it is the only intellectual endeavor that requires you to begin inquiry with an immutable conclusion.<br /><br /><br />Theology fails as an intellectual endeavor precisely for what is observed here both within the Roman Catholic church and between it and other Christianities. Theology is completely arbitrary codswallop. As intellectual gamesmanship it can be a lot of fun. As far as importance to mankind is concerned theology is less important to us than bacteria. We need bacteria; we do not need theology.<br /><br /><b>so you don't know what concur means do you? I said the exact oppossite did you cath that?<br /><br />it really gets me how all you guys you have never been to semainry and probably never read a single page fo theology are so buy flapping your ignorant gums about how stupid somethihng is that you nkow abaotleyl nothing at all about! nothing nothing nothing. <br /><br />you know what? science is stupid. scientists are fools and suck sux. science is for idiots!</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com