Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:27:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2006 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Dowd writes:
> > 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.
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 that the atheist therefore presumes to make himself a god.
Both are nonsense, of course, but they're trotted out over an over again in
debates of this sort. As such, my reversal of the claim (thereby turning it
into a question of the theist's arrogance) was intended as a direct response to
the common theist argument.
> > 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.
If that's how I came across, let me clarify. Something that is old is not
necessarily false, but it is often out of touch with more recent and thorough
understanding. Further, "old wisdom" is all-too-often asserted as 'true simply
because it's old,' and demands for further investigation are called dogmatic,
exclusionary, or closed-minded.
For the record, I don't think that Christianity is false due to its age, but
I reject outright any claim that it *must* be true by virtue of its longevity.
> > 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.
I'm afraid that explanation sounds a little too post hoc, to me.
Here's a minor digression that I don't have time to back up with lots of
documentation at the moment, but I think people will get my meaning. Far too
many explanations of so-called "apparent" contradictions require the reader to
accept a whole bunch of "yeah, but X" or "it could have been Y" explanations.
I can suspend disbelief to a point, but when you stack a zillion "yeah, but X"
explanations on top of one another, the whole structure becomes rather too
shaky for me to believe.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) <snip> (...) 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> (...) Just because something is old does not mean it is false (I (...) (22 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
