The Prefailure Of Apologetics

[Wololo]

"Even the Romans were rather skeptical. How on Earth could someone come back from the dead?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

--Just a list of some messiahs

 

http://listverse.com/2013/03/30/10-resurrected-religious-figures/

--People claim x, y, z, p, q were all resurrected, they were not -and are still not- uncommon

 

People would have thought that the followers of Jesus were madmen (and I'm sure that some did). So how were so many people convinced?

--Why is Hinduism so popular in India?

--Why is Islam so popular in the Mideast?

--Why is Christianity so popular in Europe and the US?

 

Religion is regional because it's what was used to help raise up society in that area.  Nothing more.  It is ingrained in culture, which is why secular Jews may still observe Jewish traditions for tradition's sake.

 

Why did Christianity explode into popularity like it did? Are we to assume that people of that era were ignorant or stupid? (Hint: don't.)"

--Yes, because all people are to an extent ignorant.  They were far more ignorant of how physics, medicine, engineering, mathematics, etc. than we are now.  In the 25th century, people will look back at our era with the exact same perspective.  You're displaying your ignorance by saying "don't" when it's a fact that they in fact knew less than we do today.

 

"People want ONLY empirical proof. I've already asked why we can ONLY have empirical proof,"

--Yes, because empirical proof is not subjective.  Your 'quest for truth' has led you down some beliefs that are completely at odds with what the majority of your same religion believes.  Why?  Because no one can prove the other wrong. 

 

It is your desire for 'truth' and your base assertion that 'I CAN find the Truth' (such narcissistic hubris) that drives you to conclusions that are solely yours.  

The resurrections you listed there were not witnessed by anyone. The resurrection of Jesus was witnessed firsthand by martyrs.

 

Yeah, I want to study those religions in the context of their culture and I want to see how the truth can be found there too. I'm very receptive to people over other faiths. Surely there is truth embedded in them to be discovered. Popularity is not why they would be true or false, but it means that surely there were intelligent or skeptical people that were convinced of something.

 

Prove to me that religion was about raising up societies. I would like to know how that works.

 

Yes, I used "and". Ignorant "and" stupid. They were ignorant about many things, but stupid? No. Not all of them were stupid, nor were all of them ignorant about events that happened when they were around. Do you want people to say the same thing about you?

 

No no no. Empiricism is objective, but that doesn't mean it's 'correct' and the only philosophy that's correct. You need to prove to me that being objective is more 'right' about everything. True objectivism doesn't exist because we are all observers and we cannot escape our human bias. We cannot escape our cultural bias. There are some biases that we cannot escape. Not only do need to prove to me that empiricism and objectivism are the only valid philosophies, but you also need to tell me how they are even achievable.

 

What? You don't think we can ever find the Truth?

 

 

So how were so many people convinced? Why did Christianity explode into popularity like it did? Are we to assume that people of that era were ignorant or stupid? (Hint: don't.) If the resurrection was so improbable, surely there were people that had the same view that many of you do. Why didn't this system of beliefs get snuffed out?

Certainly the triumph of Christianity shows how much the religion had going for it. Consider - if we assume that the gospels are accurate, then in some 300 years it had taken over Armenia, the Roman empire, Ethiopia, and other areas - at least in the more urban centers, maybe not completely in the countryside ("pagan" = literally, "person from the countryside").

 

Consider how much Mormonism has flourished. It began in the 1820s. It promulgates absurd doctrines. "Explode into popularity"? Kind of. And the explosion of Islam in just a century... Reasoning from Christianity's success to its truth is not sound.

 

You are right that my beliefs are traced back to Plato through people like Descartes and a lot of early Church fathers like Augustine. My philosophical framework is grounded in Neoplatonism (which a lot of people like to wave away). I'm still eagerly exploring philosophy because I desire the Truth. I believe we CAN find the truth.

Plato is the bomb. (except when he's not ... but never mind! lol) I'm working RIGHT NOW on ancient skeptics who claimed Plato as one of their own - as someone who thought the most we can be certain of is our ignorance. heh heh

 

You may get a kick out of Cicero's Academica, of which we have parts of Cicero's earlier and parts of his later editions. Gives a good run-down of the different ancient philosophical schools, prior to Neo-Platonism, of course, and contrasts dogmatists and skeptics and those in-between. Cicero, writing toward the end of his life, talks about how obscure are many problems, how short is human life, how limited our capacities - but how we push on after truth nevertheless.

 

 

Mormonism is based on a religion that already existed and was immensely popular. Most of the work was already done...and they're still not THAT popular. Mormonism is based on the work of Joseph Smith. One person, not a whole group! Islam and Christianity were starting from scratch. They had to grow from nothing. I'm not arguing from popularity here. The popularity itself has no bearing on whether or not it's true, but what I'm saying is that its sheer popularity must mean that it was not all that extraordinary to the people of that time if it became so popular. If it was so extraordinary and we require such great evidence, why did so many people (including a lot of very intelligent people) convert?

 

Yes! Cicero! Augustine had high praise for the man and there are some very interesting arguments about why we SHOULD pursue the Truth and consider it achievable rather than ascribing to Academic skepticism.

 

 

 

Sorry I don't see the irony when you don't actually make a point. It did nothing to demonstrate that empiricism is the only valid philosophy. 

 

 

Without empiricism you would be living in the dark ages.  All the technology we have developed since -all of it- is evidence that demonstrates what we learn from empiricism.

 

Meanwhile what do we learn from other systems?

 

Nothing verifiable of course.

 

 

 

I don't think the problem of evil exists at all.

 

Then you concede Christianity is proven false?

 

 

Evil is not its own concept, merely the absence of good. Dualisms are problematic a lot of the time so many of them should be done away with. Think of it like light vs. dark. Darkness is not its own thing, but merely the absence of light. Cold is just the absence of energy, not its own thing.

 

No, I'm talking about the classic Problem of Evil found in philosophy.  Surely you remember it from Phil 101.  If you don't have a solution then don't you agree that Christianity is false?

 

 

 

I would share the entirety of my beliefs but not only would it be long and complex, but very few of you even bother to be civil and logical with your discussions so I don't find it worth it.

 

We tend to be very logical around here.  Whether or not we are civil depends on the believer.  If you present your beliefs as unsupported faith and you don't try to preach we respect that.  If you make claims that you can prove your religion is true or you start preying upon individuals here then you are going to have a bad time.

 

Anyway if you want us to understand where you fall on the religion spectrum you can put something more specific in your "Still have any Gods" question of your profile.  If you leave it vague then give us some leeway when we guess.

 

 

What do we have from religion? We have many things, most of which you deny because you were born into a culture with Christian morality and you take it for granted. Compare your morality to that of an ancient Roman or an Viking pre-Christianity. The reason you think murder is wrong (well I would hope you do) is because your Christian moral and legal framework has made it that way. In fact, in many ways, even Islam was more progressive in its day than Christianity. Muslims were far more scientific and far more charitable than Christians back in the Dark Age. Christianity is merely a set group of beliefs based on a philosophical framework. Christianity has philosophy just like empiricism is a philosophy.

 

Nope. I approach Christianity differently than you're assuming. The problem of evil is irrelevant. I don't see the need for the dualism there. Everything by default is 'good', and to take away from that good is evil. God can't be evil because you can't take good away from something that embodies it. (Saying that in Christian terms.)

 

If you're logical, then refrain from ad hominem. If you go after my arguments and not me, I'm totally fine with that. Tell that to a large number of others here.

 

I believe I said in my Christian Framework thread that to get a good idea of my beliefs, you should read into Radical Orthodoxy. That meaning a complete and utter (radical) return to the original and fundamental Christian beliefs (those derived from the early Church fathers). It's spearheaded by a group of Anglicans, but I'm not Anglican.

 

I will not prove God exists because that is unprovable.

[Roz]

"The resurrections you listed there were not witnessed by anyone. The resurrection of Jesus was witnessed firsthand by martyrs."

--circular logic 101, the bible proves the bible...  Just like the egyptian book of the dead proves osiris really did rise from the dead.

 

"Yeah, I want to study those religions in the context of their culture and I want to see how the truth can be found there too."

--There are different truths to be found.  Just because x religion said something accurate does not mean everything in it is also accurate. 

--This is like End3 saying 'look, John 17 talks about communion, and humans are social creatures, therefore christianity must be true!' (palm meet face in both instances)

 

"Yes, I used "and". Ignorant "and" stupid. They were ignorant about many things, but stupid? No. Not all of them were stupid, nor were all of them ignorant about events that happened when they were around. Do you want people to say the same thing about you?"

--I don't give a damn what people call me, frankly.  It is my arguments that stand or fall by their own merit.  Go ahead, cry and whine like you did the last time.  I remember you engaging in verbal boxing matches and then running claiming the moral high ground, when you were one of the people who threw the most insults. 

 

"No no no. Empiricism is objective, but that doesn't mean it's 'correct' and the only philosophy that's correct."

--Natural phenomena and empirical evidence != philosophy.  They are simply things that have occurred.  What you are desperately trying to do both then and now is attempt to argue for your religion simply with word-play.  That's not going to cut it for us. 

 

"What? You don't think we can ever find the Truth?"

--Now we get to preaching.  What is 'Truth' with a capital T?  There are many facts we've yet to unravel, but this 'T' is a bit like 'G' in god...

 

"Mormonism is based on a religion that already existed and was immensely popular."

--There were many many versions of 'christianity' that stemmed from Judaism, another religion altogether.  Much of the groundwork of christianity (and incidentally Islam) is rooted in it.  And look how fast Islam spread in the middle ages...  Popularity != truth or "Truth".

 

"Mormonism is based on the work of Joseph Smith. One person, not a whole group!"

--Another numbers game.  Many people's work also culimated into the Vedas, a religious tome much older than your christian book.

--This is not evidence...

 

"Islam and Christianity were starting from scratch. They had to grow from nothing."

--So the entire old testament which the gospel authors used to crib jewish prophecies were nothing... Christian Hamster Logic at work?

 

"What do we have from religion? We have many things, most of which you deny because you were born into a culture with Christian morality and you take it for granted. Compare your morality to that of an ancient Roman or an Viking pre-Christianity."

--John 10:30 King James Version (KJV)

³⁰ I and my Father are one.

--1Sam 15 And Samuel said to Saul, c“The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel din opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and edevote to destruction1 all that they have. Do not spare them, fbut kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

--We're more moral than the god you worship.

 

"I will not prove God exists because that is unprovable."

--I find it amusing that he says this is one 'Truth' that we can't know... but yet claims we CAN know... something else?

 

Ah Ex-C apologists.  They provide amusement.

 

[mymistake]

The resurrections you listed there were not witnessed by anyone. The resurrection of Jesus was witnessed firsthand by martyrs.

 

 

 

So was the resurrection of Gandalf.  It is easy to create fictional witnesses to testify about fictional events.

 

 

 

 We have many things, most of which you deny because you were born into a culture with Christian morality and you take it for granted. 

 

Wrong.  That is not the reason.  If I were to deny any of them it would be due to a lack of objective evidence.  The advantages humanity got from religion happened tens of thousands of years before Christianity developed.  During the Stone Age we needed religion.  But that time is now past and we have something much better: science.

 

 

The reason you think murder is wrong (well I would hope you do) is because your Christian moral and legal framework has made it that way

 

Wrong.  Your Christianity (or whatever it is) has blinded you.

 

 

 I approach Christianity differently than you're assuming.

 

We have been over this.  You won't elaborate about your religion.  We have asked.  You won't do it.  So you have left us guessing.  Don't get mad at us if we can't figure out what you won't tell us.  I'm not trying to prejudge you.  You won't let me know so I'm doing the best I can under the circumstances.

 

 

The problem of evil is irrelevant.

 

Wrong.  The PoE disproves Christianity.  That you refuse to deal with it does not help your case.

 

 

If you're logical, then refrain from ad hominem. 

 

I always refrain from ad hominem and to the best of my ability from all other fallacies.  Have you not noticed?

 

 

I believe I said in my Christian Framework thread that to get a good idea of my beliefs, you should read into Radical Orthodoxy.

 

Radical Orthodox Christian?  Very well if that is what you choose to identify as I will respect your wish.

[mymistake]

About morality:

 

Christians stole their morality from Judaism.  In turn Judaism stole their morality from ancient Egyptian paganism.  That is right.  The "thou shalt not steal" morality was stolen from an older culture.  In fact the Egyptians had a list of commandments that were much longer and much more fair to a wide range of society but only a few of the Egyptian commandments were taken for the Bible's version.  So thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal does not come from the Bible.

 

Human morality comes from our social nature.  In order to survive we must depend on other humans.  We never would take our first breath if it had not been for the work and sacrifice of other humans.  This along with our empathy is what drives our morality.  Religions may emulate it but they are not the source.

[Wololo]

 

"The resurrections you listed there were not witnessed by anyone. The resurrection of Jesus was witnessed firsthand by martyrs."

--circular logic 101, the bible proves the bible...  Just like the egyptian book of the dead proves osiris really did rise from the dead.

 

"Yeah, I want to study those religions in the context of their culture and I want to see how the truth can be found there too."

--There are different truths to be found.  Just because x religion said something accurate does not mean everything in it is also accurate. 

--This is like End3 saying 'look, John 17 talks about communion, and humans are social creatures, therefore christianity must be true!' (palm meet face in both instances)

 

"Yes, I used "and". Ignorant "and" stupid. They were ignorant about many things, but stupid? No. Not all of them were stupid, nor were all of them ignorant about events that happened when they were around. Do you want people to say the same thing about you?"

--I don't give a damn what people call me, frankly.  It is my arguments that stand or fall by their own merit.  Go ahead, cry and whine like you did the last time.  I remember you engaging in verbal boxing matches and then running claiming the moral high ground, when you were one of the people who threw the most insults.

 

"No no no. Empiricism is objective, but that doesn't mean it's 'correct' and the only philosophy that's correct."

--Natural phenomena and empirical evidence != philosophy.  They are simply things that have occurred.  What you are desperately trying to do both then and now is attempt to argue for your religion simply with word-play.  That's not going to cut it for us. 

 

"What? You don't think we can ever find the Truth?"

--Now we get to preaching.  What is 'Truth' with a capital T?  There are many facts we've yet to unravel, but this 'T' is a bit like 'G' in god...

 

"Mormonism is based on a religion that already existed and was immensely popular."

--There were many many versions of 'christianity' that stemmed from Judaism, another religion altogether.  Much of the groundwork of christianity (and incidentally Islam) is rooted in it.  And look how fast Islam spread in the middle ages...  Popularity != truth or "Truth".

 

"Mormonism is based on the work of Joseph Smith. One person, not a whole group!"

--Another numbers game.  Many people's work also culimated into the Vedas, a religious tome much older than your christian book.

--This is not evidence...

 

"Islam and Christianity were starting from scratch. They had to grow from nothing."

--So the entire old testament which the gospel authors used to crib jewish prophecies were nothing... Christian Hamster Logic at work?

 

"What do we have from religion? We have many things, most of which you deny because you were born into a culture with Christian morality and you take it for granted. Compare your morality to that of an ancient Roman or an Viking pre-Christianity."

--John 10:30 King James Version (KJV)

³⁰ I and my Father are one.

--1Sam 15 And Samuel said to Saul, c“The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel din opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and edevote to destruction1 all that they have. Do not spare them, fbut kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

--We're more moral than the god you worship.

 

"I will not prove God exists because that is unprovable."

--I find it amusing that he says this is one 'Truth' that we can't know... but yet claims we CAN know... something else?

 

Ah Ex-C apologists.  They provide amusement.

 

 

 

The Bible is a collection of testimonies. Treat them like it. People are attesting to what they saw. Egyptian religion was not based on what people saw firsthand.

 

I'm not going to prove the existence of God, nor the divinity or resurrection of Jesus. There is no longer enough evidence in existence to do so. Don't act like I'm trying to.

 

I don't resort to character assassination, merely point out when people are not making logical arguments (such as attacking me personally). I will stop responding to people that use obscenities.

 

"Natural phenomena and empirical evidence != philosophy.  They are simply things that have occurred." That statement is false. A does not equal B. Oxford dictionary defines philosophy as: "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." You are wrong. Empiricism is a philosophy.

Truth with a capital T refers to universal truth as opposed to truth in a given situation. Think of it like every single true thing in one. Nothing preachy there. It's a philosophical term.

 

Yes, you can't divorce Christianity from Judaism. This is why culture is so important because it's all so interconnected. I should have been clearer. When I said start from nothing, it referred to the fact that the religions were not offshoots of anything else. Christianity is not an offshoot, it's a fulfillment of Judaism.

 

Thank you for not only cherry picking, but taking that verse out of its historical and cultural context, like you've done with everything else in the Old Testament thus far.

 

 

 

The resurrections you listed there were not witnessed by anyone. The resurrection of Jesus was witnessed firsthand by martyrs.

 

 

So was the resurrection of Gandalf.  It is easy to create fictional witnesses to testify about fictional events.

 

 

 

 We have many things, most of which you deny because you were born into a culture with Christian morality and you take it for granted. 

 

Wrong.  That is not the reason.  If I were to deny any of them it would be due to a lack of objective evidence.  The advantages humanity got from religion happened tens of thousands of years before Christianity developed.  During the Stone Age we needed religion.  But that time is now past and we have something much better: science.

 

 

The reason you think murder is wrong (well I would hope you do) is because your Christian moral and legal framework has made it that way

 

Wrong.  Your Christianity (or whatever it is) has blinded you.

 

 

 I approach Christianity differently than you're assuming.

 

We have been over this.  You won't elaborate about your religion.  We have asked.  You won't do it.  So you have left us guessing.  Don't get mad at us if we can't figure out what you won't tell us.  I'm not trying to prejudge you.  You won't let me know so I'm doing the best I can under the circumstances.

 

 

The problem of evil is irrelevant.

 

Wrong.  The PoE disproves Christianity.  That you refuse to deal with it does not help your case.

 

 

If you're logical, then refrain from ad hominem. 

 

I always refrain from ad hominem and to the best of my ability from all other fallacies.  Have you not noticed?

 

 

I believe I said in my Christian Framework thread that to get a good idea of my beliefs, you should read into Radical Orthodoxy.

 

Radical Orthodox Christian?  Very well if that is what you choose to identify as I will respect your wish.

 

 

Except I don't think Tolkien would have died saying that Gandalf was a real person.

 

Okay, explain to me how you escape your human bias and your western culture in order to be objective. I'm curious. All you've done is replaced 'religion' with 'science'. One philosophy for another.

The PoE is not relevant and I explained why. Stop hiding behind your straw man.

 

If you can continue to refrain, I will continue to discuss.

 

No, it's not quite like that but for now it will do. There are proponents of Radical Orthodoxy from many denominations and some that have none, but if it helps you to better categorize me, then so be it for now.

[Wololo]

About morality:

 

Christians stole their morality from Judaism.  In turn Judaism stole their morality from ancient Egyptian paganism.  That is right.  The "thou shalt not steal" morality was stolen from an older culture.  In fact the Egyptians had a list of commandments that were much longer and much more fair to a wide range of society but only a few of the Egyptian commandments were taken for the Bible's version.  So thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal does not come from the Bible.

 

Human morality comes from our social nature.  In order to survive we must depend on other humans.  We never would take our first breath if it had not been for the work and sacrifice of other humans.  This along with our empathy is what drives our morality.  Religions may emulate it but they are not the source.

 

Actually, the Jewish Law was fulfilled and done away with. Christian morality is not based on good works. Then again, Christian morality is focused on attitude and the state of your heart not on actions.

 

Oh please. If you were a Roman you'd be fine with bloody murder in an arena. You're trying to divorce your morality from your culture and I'm not buying it.

[Roz]

""Natural phenomena and empirical evidence != philosophy.  They are simply things that have occurred." That statement is false. A does not equal B."

 

Do you even understand what != is?  Google it.

[Roz]

And to MM:  Read it if you dare.  It really does help to have a beer handy:  http://www.firstthings.com/article/2000/02/the-radical-orthodoxy-project

[Roz]

And this is the real kicker:  "The Bible is a collection of testimonies. Treat them like it. People are attesting to what they saw. Egyptian religion was not based on what people saw firsthand."

 

The bible is true because the bible says it's true. 

 

 

EDIT:  And I have to add this is a close second...

"All you've done is replaced 'religion' with 'science'. One philosophy for another."

--Science is philosophy...?  I need more popcorn for this one.

[mymistake]

And to MM:  Read it if you dare.  It really does help to have a beer handy:  http://www.firstthings.com/article/2000/02/the-radical-orthodoxy-project

 

 

That is a very long read but just skimming it I would say that is very close to my religious views in the early 1990's.

[mymistake]

 

The Bible is a collection of testimonies. Treat them like it. People are attesting to what they saw. Egyptian religion was not based on what people saw firsthand.

 

Hypocrisy, wishful thinking, special pleading - you are not going to impress anybody this way.  Nobody witnessed Jesus return from the grave.  The Bible is a collection of claims; unsupported and unfounded claims.

 

 

 

Except I don't think Tolkien would have died saying that Gandalf was a real person.

 

Not an exception.  I don't think any Bible writer would have died for testifying the Bible was authentic.  Those stories about martyrs they tell in Church are myths.

 

 

 

Okay, explain to me how you escape your human bias and your western culture in order to be objective.

 

Nobody can completely escape their bias.  But we can learn to identify our bias and compensate for it.

 

 

 

All you've done is replaced 'religion' with 'science'. One philosophy for another.

 

Uh no.  I wouldn't die for science.  It's completely different that how I viewed my Christianity back when I was a Christian.  I don't imagine that I have a relationship with science.  I don't feel obligated to impress science.  The way I feel about science is based only on what science has earned.

 

Science is a discipline, not a religion.

 

 

The PoE is not relevant and I explained why. Stop hiding behind your straw man.

 

It is not a straw man.  In post 12 you wrote "Proven to be wrong? That's a pretty strong claim to make about any system of beliefs, not just Christianity." and I am responding directly to your words.  The PoE covers this because the PoE is what proves Christianity wrong.  The strength of the PoE is what backs up the claim.

 

 

.

[mymistake]

 

About morality:

 

Christians stole their morality from Judaism.  In turn Judaism stole their morality from ancient Egyptian paganism.  That is right.  The "thou shalt not steal" morality was stolen from an older culture.  In fact the Egyptians had a list of commandments that were much longer and much more fair to a wide range of society but only a few of the Egyptian commandments were taken for the Bible's version.  So thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal does not come from the Bible.

 

Human morality comes from our social nature.  In order to survive we must depend on other humans.  We never would take our first breath if it had not been for the work and sacrifice of other humans.  This along with our empathy is what drives our morality.  Religions may emulate it but they are not the source.

 

Actually, the Jewish Law was fulfilled and done away with. Christian morality is not based on good works. Then again, Christian morality is focused on attitude and the state of your heart not on actions.

 

Oh please. If you were a Roman you'd be fine with bloody murder in an arena. You're trying to divorce your morality from your culture and I'm not buying it.

 

 

 

The difference is that I am looking at our last 100,000 years of culture while you are only looking at the last 2,000 years of culture.  I do not consider it denying culture to count what happened in the other 98,000 years.  Christianity is only a recent development.  It had it's influence like so many other things but it is a mistake to misidentify it as the source of our morality.

[Roz]

I'm beginning to see where Wololo's coming from, from him claiming that he's a radical orthodox.  I'd like to highlight the 8 minute mark, where the speaker says that our modern secular public sphere is not really neutral or secular, but instead idolatrous pseudo-theology (which I can only assume is some form of theology that's non-christian).

• god (which god?  christian god of course) exists
• christian faith is true
• modern secular world is really the idolatrous worship of some other religion than christianity
• everything has some religious bent, theology (christian or not) is everywhere and encompasses everything
• (It sounds like christianity that wants to encompass and influence everything:  doctrine of christian yaweh/yeshitwa must be in everything)

--How is this different from "god is real, christianity is the true religion, everything else is of the devil?"

 

[mymistake]

I'm beginning to see where Wololo's coming from, from him claiming that he's a radical orthodox.  I'd like to highlight the 8 minute mark, where the speaker says that our modern secular public sphere is not really neutral or secular, but instead idolatrous pseudo-theology (which I can only assume is some form of theology that's non-christian).

• god (which god?  christian god of course) exists
• christian faith is true
• modern secular world is really the idolatrous worship of some other religion than christianity
• everything has some religious bent, theology (christian or not) is everywhere and encompasses everything
• (It sounds like christianity that wants to encompass and influence everything:  doctrine of christian yaweh/yeshitwa must be in everything)

 

 

I don't know if that accurately describes RO but it describes me perfectly back in the early 1990's.  However a big part of my religion at the time was obsession with End Times teaching and the end of the world.

[Roz]

Then how is this any different from fundamentalist born-again christianity?  I'm trying to understand where the RO apologists are coming from but it's beginning to sound the same as every hardcore fundie out there (and yes, traditional adventists are a different flavor but definitely as intense as what's describe in the video).

[Wololo]

I think the most productive discussion would be around what Radical Orthodoxy is trying to accomplish because I think we're putting things in the wrong order. If we continue to discuss on the other lines a we were before, we're going to go in circles. I've been to this kind of juncture before and we're not going to accomplish anything by talking in circles.

 

What RO is trying to do is overcome the fact that we have relegated religion to a corner and saying that it is only relevant in said corner and nowhere else. By returning to times long before modernity we can see the role that religion used to play (perhaps understanding why it did in the process). Before the rise of modern thinking, religion was all-encompassing. There was not a sphere that it didn't influence. It was relevant to absolutely everything. Logically, this would make sense. If there is a creator, then everything that exists inside the universe would be relevant to it, as it is derived from that creator.

 

If we were to discuss things on that front we would have a long way to go from there being a creator to the creator being a Christian God, but that's not the point at the moment. Essentially though, RO proposes that there is no such thing as secular at all (that being a lack of religion) and instead that everything is related to religion.

 

RO is very diverse, which is why it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly what proponents believe. This is because it's not really a religion so much as it's a 'theological sensibility' (as those who have come up with RO describe it). It's a way of thinking that is shared among people who hold a variety of different beliefs. In fact, there are numerous dialogues going on between Christians who use RO as their philosophical framework, and people from other cultures and religions. Just as an example of dialogue between systems of belief distinctly recall seeing a book about dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Christians and RO Anglicans and I know that there are conversations with Buddhists going on, I just have to find the books. RO is multidisciplinary. If you want to figure out why or how they accomplish such a wide reach, you may want to look into systems theory, which really focuses on multidisciplinary studies and interactions.

 

Neoplatonism is the core of the philosophy that makes up RO. A lot of the time in discussions I find that my references to Plato are met with arguments from Aristotle, especially in relation to empiricism/naturalism. I believe that all concepts that are grounded in the universe exist as ideas in a nonphysical form. I see the world as a tapestry of ideas...cultures...people all interacting with each other. Rather than based on a fundamental violence, it's about a semiosis of peace.

[mymistake]

 Logically, this would make sense. If there is a creator, then everything that exists inside the universe would be relevant to it, as it is derived from that creator.

 

If there isn't a creator then this is insane.  Having the Pope rule the world has it's advantages for the guy who gets to be Pope.  It would suck for everybody else.

 

 

 

Essentially though, RO proposes that there is no such thing as secular at all (that being a lack of religion) and instead that everything is related to religion.

 

Which does not match what we observe.

[Wololo]

 

 Logically, this would make sense. If there is a creator, then everything that exists inside the universe would be relevant to it, as it is derived from that creator.

 

If there isn't a creator then this is insane.  Having the Pope rule the world has it's advantages for the guy who gets to be Pope.  It would suck for everybody else.

 

 

 

Essentially though, RO proposes that there is no such thing as secular at all (that being a lack of religion) and instead that everything is related to religion.

 

Which does not match what we observe.

 

 

Yes, and that's why there are a lot of people that want to get rid of the Big Bang theory. A beginning makes it plausible for there to be a creator. Nobody can know whether there is one or not for sure.

 

The only reason you think it doesn't match what we observe is because you're looking at the drop of water in the ocean rather than the big picture. The article linked to that gave an overview of RO explained how that works in the context of postmodernism. It replaces nihilism with a teleological purpose.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

If you want to discuss the reliability of the gospels, this isn't the place, but my stance is based on them being like any other piece of historical literature.

 

 

What other piece of historical literature with the same problems as the Bible is taken as a reliable source of information?

 

 

 

I don't think Muslims are liars about their beliefs.

 

 

Nobody said they were.

[bornagainathiest]

MyMistake has the essence of the truth here, Wololo.

 

"If there isn't a creator then this is insane."

.

.

.

I drew your attention to this issue in the, "How God Does His Taxes" thread, in post # 3.  "Please clean the lens, Wololo. It's been fogged by the Book of Genesis."  There's something you have to do BEFORE you can say anything meaningful about the gospels.  That's because they don't sit in isolation from Genesis - they rely on it to give them meaning. 

.

.

.

If there was no historical Fall from Grace, then there was no historical need for god to incarnate himself as Jesus and sacrifice himself to himself to put right what went wrong in Eden.  So, this 'something' you have to do Wololo, is to establish the historicity of the Genesis narrative.  Once you've established that there was a historical event that required god to later incarnate himself as the sin sacrifice of Jesus, then (and only then) can you talk about the historicity of the gospels.

.

.

.

If you can't do this, then MyMistake is on the right track. 

What you're doing may not be insane - but it is wrong and mistaken and false.  Without a historical creator and without a historical Eden, the gospels are meaningless and can be summarily dismissed as mythology, not history.  It IS wrong and mistaken and false to treat mythology as established historical fact.  But if you want to do that, then why not start here...?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

 

"Alexander advanced on Egypt in later 332 BC, where he was regarded as a liberator.  He was pronounced the new "master of the Universe" and the son of the deity Amun at the oracle of the Siwa Oasis in the Libyan desert.  Henceforth, Alexander referred to Zeus-Ammon as his true father, and subsequent currency depicted him adorned with rams horns as a symbol of his divinity."

 

Since we have excellent historical evidence for the historicity of Alexander, should we then treat his claim to divinity on a par with Jesus's claim to be the Son of God?

.

.

.

Wololo, can you produce a similar standard of historical evidence for Genesis and for Eden?

 

If not, then the Gospels (which require a historical Genesis to be relevant) cannot be treated as history, but must be treated as myth.

 

To do otherwise is insane wrong.

.

.

.

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

One way to look at RO is as capitalist religion. The same stuff needs to be rebranded or repackaged so it can be sold as though new. Same goes on in scholarship - similar or almost identical interpretations get renamed and resold.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Once you've established that there was a historical event that required god to later incarnate himself as the sin sacrifice of Jesus, then (and only then) can you talk about the historicity of the gospels.

 

Of course, even that would have its inherent problems. If an event "required" god to do anything, then that god is not omnipotent.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

You, like the fundies, have decided that the Bible needs to always be taken literally instead of with a historical and cultural context taken into account. There are a lot of things that people here assume and it informs their responses. We take so many other historical texts seriously and have no problem with a proper analysis, but with religious ones we have a double standard and feel the need to throw everything out the window.

 

 

A lot of us here do consider historical context, and not all of us consider the Gospels to be intended to be literal history. However, in my sphere of experience, the vast majority of Christians do take it as literal history, so it makes perfect sense to point out the serious problems that arise from that. It is more often the Christian who is avoiding a "proper analysis," because the Christian has the agenda of defending his preconceived belief.

[bornagainathiest]

Agree with your comments, Citsonga.

.

.

.

Perhaps a simpler way of putting my earlier post to Wololo is this.

 

The Bible represents a case of historical CAUSE and EFFECT.

 

Wololo hasn't addressed the historicity of the Cause (the Fall) at all. 

Instead he's been largely talking about the validity and historicity of the Effect (the Crucifixion).   But because there was a historical Effect, there MUST have been a historical Cause.  The latter demands the former.  He can't have one without the other.  They're joined at the hip and can't be treated separately or in isolation. He can't work backwards from the Gospels and claim that because they are historical, therefore Genesis is historical. 

 

He HAS to establish the historicity of BOTH the cause and the effect.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

What RO is trying to do is overcome the fact that we have relegated religion to a corner and saying that it is only relevant in said corner and nowhere else. By returning to times long before modernity we can see the role that religion used to play (perhaps understanding why it did in the process). Before the rise of modern thinking, religion was all-encompassing. There was not a sphere that it didn't influence. It was relevant to absolutely everything. Logically, this would make sense. If there is a creator, then everything that exists inside the universe would be relevant to it, as it is derived from that creator.

 

If we were to discuss things on that front we would have a long way to go from there being a creator to the creator being a Christian God, but that's not the point at the moment. Essentially though, RO proposes that there is no such thing as secular at all (that being a lack of religion) and instead that everything is related to religion.

 

RO is very diverse, which is why it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly what proponents believe. This is because it's not really a religion so much as it's a 'theological sensibility' (as those who have come up with RO describe it). It's a way of thinking that is shared among people who hold a variety of different beliefs. In fact, there are numerous dialogues going on between Christians who use RO as their philosophical framework, and people from other cultures and religions. Just as an example of dialogue between systems of belief distinctly recall seeing a book about dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Christians and RO Anglicans and I know that there are conversations with Buddhists going on, I just have to find the books. RO is multidisciplinary. If you want to figure out why or how they accomplish such a wide reach, you may want to look into systems theory, which really focuses on multidisciplinary studies and interactions.

Why the fuck would I want EVERYTHING to fall under the purview of religion? That will translate to falling under the control of religious leaders and their allies, who will profit from a new system. I would be put to death under such a system. There are places in the world now where religion dominates everything and people like me are in fact put to death.

 

The best places to live in the world are those where religion plays the smallest role. The worst are where it dominates. That's true even between states in the US.

 

I will need to start assembling an arsenal if RO takes over. I am not joking. I'm not going down with a whimper.