Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:55:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2001 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
<snip>
>
> > I make a distinction between knowledge and wisdom. There are many people out
> > there who have a lot of knowledge about "things". It's been my experience that
> > the more knowledge one accumulates, the more one tends to think of one's self.
> > Knowledge so often leads one down the path of pride and arrogance.
>
> Perhaps, but so does the self-perceived path of righteousness lead to
> sanctimoniousness, and I'd rather be knowledgeable, arrogant, and correct
> than wise, humble, and incorrect. [I just re-read that part and noticed that
> it sounds like a direct affront to you, but it's not meant that way--it's
> just a comment in general.] For that matter, there's a distinction between
> knowledge and wisdom, but they're interconnected and certainly not mutually
> exclusive!
> It's also worth pointing out that atheism tends to be more fundamentally
> humble in its recognition that humanity is indeed an infinitessimal speck in
> a super-duper big universe. Atheism, in fact, assigns no special "chosen
> people" status to any group of humanity, nor do atheists think that The
> Infinite God of All Creation and Eternity sent his only begotten Son to our
> insignificant pebble of a planet to redeem us in accordance with His will.
> On the contrary, any atheist worth calling an atheist will proclaim that
> humanity is in no way worthy of such a unique and ultimate distinction!
> So, in mundane facts-of-the-world matters it's possible that more
> knowledge can lead to the impression of more "worldly arrogance," but IMO
> that type of arrogance (if such it may be called) pales before the arrogance
> of declaring oneself to have identified the one and only path to Heaven.
Unless God really has revealed the one and only path to Heaven to an
individual/s. Then declaring it is not arrogance at all - its simply
declaring the truth.
<snip>
>
> > Instead of a rather uncritical and literal interpretation, try evaluating God
> > through a critical eye, based on what ancients *supposed* about Him.
>
> But the Rev is most assuredly evaluating God through a critical eye! Many
> atheists (myself included) do that all that time, and that's why they're
> atheists. I don't summarily rely on the wisdom of the ancients when
> evaluating current-day decisions about medical care, or economic policy, or
> international politics because their views are ancient and very often
> superstitious, dogmatic, and obsolete. Why, then, should I trust their
> judgment on matters of ultimate existence?
> You've actually invoked a standard propaganda technique used in the
> selling of pseudoscientific new-age medicinal products: "This herbal secret
> was discovered by Chinese apothecaries 2,500 years ago" as if the age of the
> claim confirms some inherent, transcendent wisdom in it.
Just because something is old does not mean it is false (I don't think you
believe that, but it did come across to me like that). And I don't know of
any religion that bases it's claims of truth on the fact that its ancient.
>
> > > Any *one* of the above examples is enough to convict God in my book, and
> > > there are plenty more examples I could give. There is nothing in the New
> > > Testament that denies the accuracy of these stories or the Old Testament as
> > > a whole, and in fact, it is appealed to by Jesus and the apostles as
> > > authoritative.
> >
> > Hmmm, all from the early OT. I'm sure it would make a lot of sense to a 3,000
> > year old Bedouin, but not me. Perhaps it would be analogous to extremist
> > Muslims justifying "Jihad" (Holy War-- a better oxymoron than military
> > intelligence;-) today. Jesus refers to the OT to correctly interpret it for
> > the Pharisees et al. He was constantly convicting *their* interpretations.
>
> Then how about Jesus withering a fig tree just because it wasn't bearing
> fruit? That's pretty petulant, especially considering that the tree--which
> has no free will of its own--could only bear fruit or not bear fruit in
> accordance with God's will. So Jesus was, in effect, smiting the tree for
> obeying God's will.
> For that matter, why did the omniscient Jesus have to walk all the way
> over to the tree to find out that it was empty of fruit?
On the surface it does seem that Jesus is being petulant here. But I
think Jesus was doing something deeper than working out his frustrations on
the fig tree. He was basically giving his disciples an object lesson.
Throughout his ministry, Jesus used parables to convey his message. One
of these was the Parable of the Fig Tree. It was a warning that those who
appeared religious, but were empty of fruit (good works) would be rejected
(as the gardener would cut down the barren tree).
The cursing of the fig tree was a visual demonstration to the disciples
of the Parable of the Fig Tree.
Ken
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Sure, but that's circular reasoning at its finest. I've read numerous works of modern Christian apologetics in which atheists are ridiculed for their so-called arrogant refusal to believe in a god, coupled with the further straw-man argument (...) (22 years ago, 14-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) That assertion hits upon a real dilemma for me. I should come clean and admit that I don't accept the argument that proof of God's existence would eliminate our free will to obey/disobey him; Adam and Eve certainly knew (in the context of the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 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
|
|
|
|
