Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:15:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5315 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > Well, it would seem to me that a professed Xtian would have to believe, >>>at
> > > least nominally, in the divinity of Christ as the Son o' God. Lots of
> > > people accept that Jesus the man existed. I do--I mean, why not? Muslims
> > > generally accept it, and so do Jews, if I recall correctly. But was he
> > > divine? That's another matter. Belief in the divinity of Jesus would
> > > appear central, but if I'm wrong, please correct me.
> >
> > You are wrong. Maybe more on that later.
>
> Please do clarify.
The nature of Jesus: God or man? Man or God? The early church struggled with
this question and came up with a seemingly impossible conclusion: fully man AND
fully God. The meaning or understanding of this is impossible and has led to
many different ideas on the perception of Jesus' nature. And then throw the
Holy Spirit into the fray, and you get a triune God, a concept for some to be
heresy as polytheistic. Theology, for the most part, bores me and I don't
dwell on it too much. I try not to get too bogged down in belief systems-- too
often they cause more harm than good.
To me, a Christian is one who acknowledges that Jesus is the Messiah of the
Jews from the God of the Jews and is Lord of their life. This means that that
person dedicates their life to living in accordance with Jesus' teachings, and
proclaims the Good News which Jesus taught.
The nature of the Messiah is at least in part divine by the fact of His
intimate knowledge of the divine (of which we can know nothing-- must be
revealed). Other than that, who knows?
> > > Parenthetically, I seem to remember someone fairly highly placed in the
> > > history of the faith (Paul, perhaps?) acknowledging that if the >>>Resurrection
> > > were false, then Xtianity on the whole would collapse. Ring a bell for
> > > anyone?
> >
> > At this point it wouldn't matter. The resurrection is a faith-based event.
>
> I think it should matter! You're saying that if the Resurrection were
> somehow proven false, you'd still believe it based on faith.
Isn't that the very definition of faith? Besides, it is a moot argument; there
is no way to either prove or disprove the resurrection. I suspect you'd
respond the same way WRT the existence of God.
> Even if you
> don't care to articulate it that way, it would be entirely consistent with
> your belief in Creationism, which likewise sticks to its dogmatic guns
> despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
Come on, Dave. The evidence *for* evolution is so circumspect yet you believe
it because it is the *only* explanation you can scientifically come up with!
And since the existence of a God is *by definition* unacceptable because of its
inability to pass the scientic method, you cling to that theory like stink on
poop.
For instance, which is more plausible logically-- honey bees learning somehow
to build a hive through natural selection, or that that innate ability was
somehow given to them? You may find a belief in God unscientific, but you
sacrifice logic in the process (I am not arguing that belief in God is logical,
but that believing in evolution is illogical). A disbelief in God forces one
to make faith leaps WRT to science that are as least as big as a believer in
God.
> > *I* am the one who ironically brought the atheists into the fray. *He* is a
> > hypocritical troll.
>
> Actually, "they" were brought into the fray in
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=16684.
> Anyway, your use certainly didn't appear ironic,
I said it was "interesting" that he omitted that group. Substitute the word
"ironic" and you have my same meaning.
> and it was directly in
> step with your previously-established habit of referring to any group you
> dislike as explicitly and completely represented by any member of that
> group. Witness your generically disparaging references to "lefties"
>
> "I thought lefties were supposed to be the tolerant ones..."
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=16897
There is nothing inherently disparaging in that quotation. There *is*
something inherently disparaging in the sentence to which I was addressing!
You have exemplified the double standard to which I refer.
>
> to "athiests"
> "Interesting that you would omit the biggest butchers of all-time..."
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=16942
Ah, okay, I see now where all of the hostility regarding atheists is coming.
It was never my intention to characterize *all* atheists as such-- when I wrote
that I had very specific individuals in mind (Stalin, Hilter[1], Pot at the
top). This was an error on my part to which I apologize. Again, I never
really wanted to even talk about atheists as a group in that way or any other
way. What I should have written was:
"Interesting that you omitted a group from which some of the biggest butchers
of all-time came-- atheists."
>
> to "liberals"
> "Typical Liberal-- hypocrisy and double standards"
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=16158
Your letting RM slide on his inflammatory comments shows me that you apply a
double standard to my positions.
>
> Not to mention a tendency to dismiss as inherently perverted or wrong
> anything you happen to find personally distasteful:
> "That person is by definition a pervert; they have perverted the act of sex.
> Plain and simple. In the same way, some people are bad people; some people are
> evil, and that is regardless of what you or I think of them."
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=15293
Are you kidding me? I stated that sex with a chicken is perverted-- are you
calling me on that? Dave, the very definition of perverted is to deviate from
what is considered normal or correct. Are you somehow implying that sex with
chickens is normal or correct? I must be missing something here.
>
> It is repeatedly clear that you have appointed yourself as some sort of
> moral guardian entitled and able to pass judgment on all you survey, and
> what is ultimately comical (and tragic) about it is that you fail to see it,
> and you fail to realize that your proud and wanton bigotry (religious and
> otherwise) is exactly the issue in this entire debate.
Well, if this debate is going to turn to Morality vs moral relativism, then
bring it on, although I think it raged elsewhere in my absence once upon a time.
>
> > > Of course it's objectionable to homogenize a body of different
> > > people; that's the whole point! Richard's post also pointed out the >>>problem
> > > of praying in glass churches: if one sees no problem in castingating a
> > > group on the basis of a tiny minority of its members, then one must be
> > > willing to condemn one's own group on the basis of a few of it's own >>>members.
Thank you for that commentary (and bailout) of RM's post. That wasn't what
*he* said. But anyway, I think I put my position to rest above.
> >
> > There is some serious disconnect here. I have been condemning a part of a
> > group, not the whole of a group (Islam).
>
> I haven't mentioned much of the terrorist:Islam issue; my discussion has
> primarily been about your unavoidable tendency to segregate those groups you
> do not like. I suppose in your world, "atheists(1)" would have to ride in
> the back of the bus and drink from separate fountains.
They also test the food for poison, but what's your point? :-)
But, frankly, that is what I have been *trying* to talk about (extremist Muslim
terror).
>
> > But in return I am getting my *whole*
> > group (Christianity) condemned for the actions of a few.
> >
> > Everything regarding atheists is superfluous-- it is not even a part of the
> > discussion. I don't know why it's even a focus.
>
> The discussion, if you'll remember, began about the State establishment of
> religion by the canonization of "under God" in The Pledge of Allegiance.
> *THAT* is why atheists are part of the discussion. Further, since this has
> also become a discussion of your religious bigotry, I think its appropriate
> that Muslims, athiests, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, et al continue to be
> represented here.
Fine, Dave. If you want to go back to the pledge, I left questions on the
table to which you never responded to my satisfaction. Namely, how envoking
the generic term "God" *establishes* religion. At best, your twisted
explanation is not the intent the FFs had in mind. But if the mere mention of
God *does* establish religion, why refer to God 4 times in the DoI if you were
one who believed in the separation of church and state as we all agree
Jefferson did? Or maybe we just agreed to disagree?
>
> > > The point, simply put, is to demonstrate that it's shockingly bigoted to
> > > accuse athiests in general of greater violence or bloodshed than their
> > > spiritually enlightened peers.
I agree and it wasn't my intention.
> >
> > This was never my intention. I'm not talking about atheists. I only
> > tossed them into the fray because of RM's blanket group characterizations.
>
> They were in the fray from the first post in this thread and have been
> here throughout it. I have no doubt whatsoever that you'd prefer atheists to
> go away, but tough.
>
> > > Even if we lump Pol Pot and Hitler(1) and
> > > Stalin among "athiests," the number of dead at athiests' hands is still tiny
> > > compared to those killed by "theists(2)," since I flatly don't believe that
> > > every murder commited at those dictators' commands were carried out by
> > > athiests, even if they were carried out in the name of The State. The
> > > theists who committed those murders may have done so under duress, but they
> > > are then hardly innocent of the killings.
> >
> > Even if it were possible to show ballpark body counts (which is impossible,
> > and therefore moot), and besides the fact that the number of deists through
> > history far outnumbered the atheists which skews statistics horribly, and
> > besides the fact that I couldn't care less about the issue, I'm not really
> > sure what point it would make.
>
> You mean like the deists who founded this country?
Sorry, meant "theists".
The point it would
> make is that, for all your condemnation of atheists as amoral monsters
> guilty of unparalleled bloodshed, the simple truth is that you're wrong.
> *THAT'S" the point.
> Anyway, it's not quite moot. Even if we can't get an expressly detailed
> list of who killed whom, we can, based on a simple examination of who's been
> in charge throughout history (and it generally hasn't been atheists), we get
> a sense of who've been the most accomplished killers.
Great. So what conclusion would you make of it?
>
> > > But I think that you are wrong WRT your facetious religion statement. Many
> > > of mankind's greatest literary (or whichever category you choose)
> > > achievements were done in the name of religion.
> > >
> > > Speaking as a liberal arts major with a vested interest in this particular
> > > topic, I say "so what?"
> >
> > Merely to point out that some of man's noblest endeavors *were* based on
> > religion. What was the point of your statement (which I've noticed you've
> > snipped)?
>
> Well, no reason to quote myself. My point was that, regardless of the
> number of lovely paintings or sculptures or buildings, religion (ie, theism)
> can't make any real claim of moral superiority over atheism. If you hadn't
> carefully snipped my post, you'd have to articulate the moral calculus by
> which you excuse bloodshed if it's committed by the same group that makes
> nifty art.
Because I have no intention of excusing bloodshed from any source.
>
> Dave!
>
> (1) How many times were you people going to let me misspell "atheist" before
> you called me on it?!?
hehe I thought you thought that *I* was misspelling it:-)
[1] the acceptable dodge for references to he-who-must-not-be-named;-)
-John
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
