Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Christian beats a man to death for not buying his CDs

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Christian beats a man to death for not buying his CDs
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 13, 14, 15 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat

Joined: 01 Apr 2007

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject:

Missile Command Kid wrote:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

How can you know the truth unless you know everything?

I'll do you one further: an imperfect mind cannot hold perfect knowledge, therefore humans cannot ever know that absolute truth exists. Again, a matter of faith, in my opinion.

So you can never know the truth, but have faith that it exists all the same? Why?

Quote:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

Okay, but it sounds to me like you're not sure, and are left to speculate. Maybe the rest of the details are wrong, maybe they're not. The point is that they're rather fuzzy and certainly incomplete. When Christ is only ever seen in second hand sources, you gotta be skeptical on what he was really like, even if you still have "faith" in him.

The point is that the Gospels disagree on tiny matters such as these, but they agree on the larger theological issues.

Okay, so just what are these larger theological issues they agree on? Can they help clarify your definition of "Christ-like"?

Quote:

It's a bit like debunking Dawkins book: I know for certain that he quotes John Adams out of context and incorrectly assigns the creation of Christianity as a state religion to Constantine. Just because these details are wrong, however, it doesn't necessarily that his greater points are wrong too.

Quote:

Okay. Here's one more, with glaring factual problems in bold face. It should be very, very easy to see the problems here. I've liked to the second page, which has some of the more serious problems, as far as I'm concerned. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion2.php

Sorry, but you really need lessons in citations... First, where is this "out of context" quote you're talking about? Do you just expect us to take your word for it? Also, where is the part where he talks about Constantine? (by the way, your Christian link has Constantine down as the founder of it as a state religion - just run a search on the page for "Constantine" and you'll see). You also need to explain - maybe you just misunderstood something about what he was saying or the point he was making? And just at the outset, your reference to "godandscience.org" isn't the most credible you could have chosen... I took a read about halfway down the page and didn't find it very convincing at all. Anyway, if you have some specific point in mind then post it, and offer your take. Don't expect us to read your mind.

Quote:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

According to any account of Jesus I've ever heard from the New Testament, his favorite book was the Old Testament. Even if he himself never killed anyone, he still believed, as far as I know, that the law from the OT was the word of god, did he not? Wouldn't it then be "Christ-like" to also follow the laws of the OT too, as he did? You might try and "interpret" Jesus as moving away from the OT laws, but there's no proof either way (or if there is, please enlighten me).

Okay, really. If you had read through the Bible, you would know this. The Old Testament is not a "book," but a collection of books. He himself broke several of the rules of the Torah, including working on the Sabbath. He claimed that he was God. Later adherents of Christ formed Christianity, which has obviously moved away from the OT laws.

(bold): okay, obviously I knew that... that's being awfully picky of you... Anyway, I would like you to expound on the view that Christians (or more specifically Christ, as far as this is determinable) have on the OT laws. Do they not consider it the word of god, as Jesus himself did? I'm genuinely interested in discussing this.

Quote:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

Please. I suspect what you mean is that I should approach the Bible as a Christian does (which I've been trying to do to an extent), and not just objectively...

No. What I specifically meant is this: if you're going to debunk the Bible, you need to know it better than Christians do. It's obvious that you haven't read it - and I don't mean this as an insult! - and if you're going to try to argue Christianity with a Christian, the absolute first thing you need to do is sit down and just read it as if it were a book. I'm not trying to convert you. Rather, I'm trying to challenge your false beliefs about Christianity and the Bible.

Believe it or not I have read it, the whole thing (the NT that is, the OT I've just read parts, though probably most of it in total). I'll admit it's been years, and mostly what I remember was that it was an incredibly dull read, with very little insight that I would personally consider useful, and often so vague as to be esoteric. Nevertheless, I won't pretend to be an expert on it at all, as I am most definitely not. But my own imperfect understanding of it aside, it's not up to me to revolutionise the field, I'll just bring up any relevant objections where I can. Your attacking my presumed ignorance really just amounts to an ad hominem fallacy. What you think I know is irrelevant, what counts is the points themselves. Most of the ideas are not original.

And we're still working on whether my views are "false". We haven't got there just yet.

luvnpeas

Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Location: somewhere i have never travelled

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject:

Missile Command Kid wrote:

Quote:

I could justify my faith by saying that I actually saw and spoke to God a few years ago, for instance, which would make it perfectly "justified."

Quote:

If it were observed (not a hallucination), it wouldn't be faith.

You're misquoting me. My criticism of your statement was that I was talking about faith, not justified or unjustified faith. You added "unjustifiable" to my statement and misquoted my original statement too.

I didn't add anything to your statement, nor did I alter your quote in any way.

If you really "saw and spoke" to something--God, unicorns, whatever--then belief in its existence is not a matter of faith.

Quote:

Fine. Give me a logical argument against the validity of belief. Not justified belief, not unjustified belief, just belief.

Again, your statements are incoherent. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

It is obvious that there is no god.

Obvious to who?

People with faith.

Funny guy. It is not obvious to me that there is no God, and I have faith in God, therefore you're wrong.

Or you are.

If it is obvious, why do you need faith?

Quote:

And what exactly did Plato say that proved that God didn't exist?

You need to be more specific about the properties of your god. Consider a god claimed have the following characteristics:

1) Omniscience
2) Believes that 2+2=5.

It is trivial to refute the existence of such a god. So, it is possible to prove a god doesn't exist. The Biblical god is commonly assigned these characteristics:

1) Omnipotent
2) Morally good

Briefly, if god is omnipotent then you can't judge god, and if you can't judge god then he can't be said to be good. So, there is no such thing as a god who is omnipotent and good. But, that means there is no such thing as the god of the Bible.

Leibnitz accepted this argument, but used it to conclude that the god of the Bible is not omnipotent. However, this contradicts orthodoxy and I think it contradicts the Bible.

But, as I've said repeatedly, proof is usually beside the point. You can't disprove the existence of invisible unicorns. That doesn't justify belief in invisible unicorns....

Quote:

And why is it unscientific to believe in invisible unicorns?

I quit.

tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The point is that the Gospels disagree on tiny matters such as these, but they agree on the larger theological issues. It's a bit like debunking Dawkins book: I know for certain that he quotes John Adams out of context and incorrectly assigns the creation of Christianity as a state religion to Constantine. Just because these details are wrong, however, it doesn't necessarily that his greater points are wrong too.

I don't know about Leopard Skin, but I don't say that the Bible is all wrong, I merely say that it is fallible.
Just as it takes only one crow to prove that all crows aren't black, it takes only one error to prove that the Bible is fallible.
If the two examples you give are valid, that proves that Dawkins is fallible too.
That doesn't bother me, because I never said Dawkins was infallible.

Anti-Mormons have gleefully discovered inconsistencies and other errors in the Book of Mormon.
Doesn't that prove the fallibility of the Book of Mormon?
What's the difference?

Quote:

Do you mean Gottfried Leibniz, the mathematician who gave several proofs for the existence of God?

That's a new one on me.
If anyone ever accomplished such a feat, I am genuinely interested in hearing about it.

Quote:

The meaning of faith is that you don't have to listen to reason. So, stop pretending to care about reason.

Does that mean that you can choose any belief at random?
Why did you choose this one?
Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Why don't you write to Rteacher and declare your belief in blue babies and flying yogis?

Quote:

No, no, no, back up: you said that Christians kill people to convert them. This is impossible. How do you know that this obviously fallacious statement is true? Can you back up your claim with a link or citation?

I guess you got me.
I don't know WHY people kill people out of religious motives.
Maybe it is to scare all the remaining unbelievers into converting.
Or maybe it is to exterminate all the unbelievers in the world, thereby establishing a Kingdom of God inhabited only by believers.

My guess is that religious warfare is an evolutionary hangover from perhistoric times.
In those times, we had to fight in order to defend ourselves from enemies and predators.
There was less--if any--concern with shades of religious or political belief because our concerns were more on mere survival.
Today, we foolishly apply the same instinct to solving policial and religious differences.

Quote:

How can you prove that faith caused these mass suicides? It's an unprovable claim, just like mine are.

We can't assume that the Jonestown followers and the Heaven's Gate followers committed suicide because their trusty cult leaders told them to?
I'm sorry, I thought that was a safe assumption.

Quote:

Missile Command Kid wrote:

Would it really be so horrible if everybody stopped for a moment and asked what Jesus would do shortly before an important decision was to be made?

Because that question is futile.
The person will go right on and do what he was going to do anyway.

Quote:

How do you know this?

You got me again.
Maybe Charlemagne and his soldiers really DID see a cross suspended in the middle of the air, with the message "Conquer for Christ" inscribed thereupon.
Maybe Joseph Smith really DID receive a command to ransack the newspaper office at West End, Missouri.
Maybe Hitler really DID receive a command to exterminate the Jews.
Maybe Pat Robertson really DOES receive commands to curse the president of Venezuela, the people of Dover, Pennsylvania, and everyone he disagrees with.
But in my finite wisdom, I see such notions as highly improbable.

Quote:

A person doesn't need to be a Christian in order to act morally or ethically right. The purpose of Christianity is salvation by God.

Mahatma Gandhi lived a wonderful life which affected millions of people.
Yes, he was familiar with Christianity, but he never answered the altar call.
Does that mean that God cast Gandhi into the Lake of Fire to burn for all eternity?
How can you worship such an unjust God?

Missile Command Kid

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

Missile Command Kid wrote:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

How can you know the truth unless you know everything?

I'll do you one further: an imperfect mind cannot hold perfect knowledge, therefore humans cannot ever know that absolute truth exists. Again, a matter of faith, in my opinion.

So you can never know the truth, but have faith that it exists all the same? Why?

Quote:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

The point is that the Gospels disagree on tiny matters such as these, but they agree on the larger theological issues.

Okay, so just what are these larger theological issues they agree on? Can they help clarify your definition of "Christ-like"?

I'm sorry, but I simply don't have time to do a point-by-point blow of Jesus' life. If you want to seriously talk about this, read through the Gospels and come back if you've got more questions.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

Quote:

Let me get this straight: Dawkins criticises Christianity. A Christian site debunks Dawkin's book, and you don't find it credible? Why not, because it's Christian? Why is Dawkin's book automatically credible for attacking Christianity, and the site I provided automatically not credible because it defends it?

Paul founded Christianity?

Quote:

Dawkins claims that "Christianity was founded by Paul of Tarsus," contrary to the writings of numerous New Testament authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter). Although Paul's Letter to the Romans is radically different from just about any other book of the Bible, the teachings found in the Book of Romans is also found in the Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus, and the teachings of the disciples. So, Paul didn't just make up doctrines to create a new religion. However, he did write the greatest theological treatise of all time in the Book of Romans. Not only are the core doctrines of Christianity found outside Paul's writings, but Paul himself taught many other theological issues that reflect the teachings of Jesus during His years of ministry. So, Paul of Tarsus is not the founder of Christianity (Jesus is), but merely clarified the teachings of the Bible as no other Bible author ever has.

Quote:

Dawkins quoting out-of-context

Dawkins goes on to quote several founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, who made statement against the religion of their time. John Adams is quoted as saying, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." However here is the complete quote in an April 19, 1817, letter to Thomas Jefferson:

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!' But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell."4

In quoting John Adams out-of-context, Dawkins has made it seem that Adams said exactly opposite of what he really intended. No wonder he left out the part where Adams said the world would be "hell" "without religion." Adams directly refuted Dawkins' major premise of the book - that religion is the great evil in the world - and affirmed the opposite - that religion keeps the world from becoming completely evil. In fact, John Adams said some things about Christianity that Dawkins probably won't be quoting any time soon such as, "The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and the heart."5

Quote:

Caught again quoting out-of-context

Dawkins also quotes James Madison out-of-context, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." The quote comes from his dissent of James Madison to a bill introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia, to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of religions. Madison's objection was not to Christianity, but to the establishment of state-sponsored "Christianity." This is evident from the first sentence of the quoted section, which Dawkins conveniently leaves out:

"Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity..."6 (entire paragraph in context)

It is clear from the context that Madison objected to the "legal establishment of Christianity" - not to Christianity itself, which he indicates has "efficacy." Dawkins fails to quote some of the other things Madison has to say about religion and Christianity in the same document:
"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him"
"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe"
"Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity"7

The really funny thing is that James Madison would have never accepted Richard Dawkins "as a member of Civil Society," since he has not subjected himself to the "Governour of the Universe."

There's two.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

Yes, the entire Bible is the Word of God. That doesn't mean that Christians blindly look at the laws in the first five books of the Bible and blindly follow them, either. In the Torah, there is a purity code that determines what a Jew can and cannot eat, wear, do, and say. Jews, for instance, are limited in what they can eat. This is overriden in the New Testament, where Jesus in Matthew 15 says that purity comes not from what goes in our mouths, but what comes out of our mouths.

Christians should look at the context of what is written, not just the words themselves, to see if they really apply in our lives today. The purity in the Old Testament is closely related to religion: people weren't supposed to get tattoos, for instance, because tattoos were related to religious practices of people in surrounding tribes. A person with a tattoo would be considered part of a particular religious group, for instance, which would be abhorrent for a Jew. But now, tattoos are not associated with religion, and a tattoo for a Christian is not seen as a sin. There are many other examples, of course.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

I would be careful if I were you about declaring an ad hominem attack to be a criticism on supposed ignorance: in this very post, you say that I need lessons in citations, which by your definition really just amounts to such an attack.

At any rate, you must have missed where I said "I don't mean this as an insult!" I'm truly not attacking you because you don't know enough about the Bible. What I've found is that people who criticise Christianity in particular or religion as a whole do so from a position of ignorance. Saying that the Old Testament is a "book," for instance, lead me to think that the most you knew about the Old Testament is the name itself. (And I'm not being picky: "a book" implies a single author written in a specific time for a specific group of people, rather than the truth: dozens of books written over a span of more than a thousand years for different circumstances and different cultures by authors that greatly varied in cultural and religious backgrounds.)

You say that you haven't read the New Testament in years. Please read it and come back with specific questions, or PM me if you'd like. The larger theological issues that the gospels all agree on, for instance become very apparent once you've read through them. They're only about a hundred pages together - it shouldn't take very long.

Missile Command Kid

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject:

tomato wrote:

Fallibility doesn't necessarily mean untrue. For instance, just because Dawkin's book contains errors, it doesn't mean that his overarching argument is wrong.

tomato wrote:

That's a new one on me.
If anyone ever accomplished such a feat, I am genuinely interested in hearing about it.

I'm very suspicious of proofs for or against the existence of God. There are some great men and women in the Christian faith who have been argued into believing that God exists (C.S. Lewis is one), but I've never been personally convinced that it's possible to logically convince somebody that a nonmaterial entity (like God) exists. Anselm's ontological argument, the Prime Mover theory, Teleological argument... none of them convince me that God exists, primarily because there are wonderful criticisms of these arguments. Likewise, any argument that God doesn't exist can be counter-argued as well.

tomato wrote:

Quote:

The meaning of faith is that you don't have to listen to reason. So, stop pretending to care about reason.

Again, I didn't say this - or are you talking to luvnpeas?

tomato wrote:

I guess you got me.
I don't know WHY people kill people out of religious motives.

(Quick aside: killing for religious motives is completely different than killing to convert. I agree that there are religious motives for murder.)

tomato wrote:

Quote:

How can you prove that faith caused these mass suicides? It's an unprovable claim, just like mine are.

We can't assume that the Jonestown followers and the Heaven's Gate followers committed suicide because their trusty cult leaders told them to?
I'm sorry, I thought that was a safe assumption.

I've listened to the final speech of Jim Jones as he exorts his followers to drink the kool-aid. It's absolutely horrific. He tells the parents to start with their children. Some have suggested that once the parents see their dead children, even if they have second thoughts about what Jim Jones is saying, the fact that they killed their children would still lead them to be suicidal. But back on topic: we can't ever be sure that these people listened to Jones and killed themselves because they had faith in them, or because there was a more complex group dynamic going on, or because all of the followers were mentally unstable. Yes, Jones told everybody to lay down their lives and follow him, but does that necessarily mean that faith caused every one of them to kill themselves?

We have no idea. Because they're dead, we can't prove or disprove that faith was the cause. This was my point.

tomato wrote:

I'll take improbable. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

tomato wrote:

Quote:

A person doesn't need to be a Christian in order to act morally or ethically right. The purpose of Christianity is salvation by God.

It's funny, because I had this exact same conversation with my wife a few months ago after watching the film version for the second time. I argued the exact same point you're making. But being "good" isn't the same thing as taking Jesus as your saviour, which the New Testament clearly states as the requirement for salvation. From my perspective, if God is perfect, then playing by his rules, he's perfectly just. From an earthly perspective it might not appear to be so, however.

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject:

Missile command Kid wrote

Quote:

Quote:
Dawkins quoting out-of-context

Dawkins goes on to quote several founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, who made statement against the religion of their time. John Adams is quoted as saying, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." However here is the complete quote in an April 19, 1817, letter to Thomas Jefferson:

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!' But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell."4

In quoting John Adams out-of-context, Dawkins has made it seem that Adams said exactly opposite of what he really intended. No wonder he left out the part where Adams said the world would be "hell" "without religion." Adams directly refuted Dawkins' major premise of the book - that religion is the great evil in the world - and affirmed the opposite - that religion keeps the world from becoming completely evil. In fact, John Adams said some things about Christianity that Dawkins probably won't be quoting any time soon such as, "The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and the heart."5

Quote:
Caught again quoting out-of-context

Dawkins also quotes James Madison out-of-context, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." The quote comes from his dissent of James Madison to a bill introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia, to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of religions. Madison's objection was not to Christianity, but to the establishment of state-sponsored "Christianity." This is evident from the first sentence of the quoted section, which Dawkins conveniently leaves out:

"Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity..."6 (entire paragraph in context)

It is clear from the context that Madison objected to the "legal establishment of Christianity" - not to Christianity itself, which he indicates has "efficacy." Dawkins fails to quote some of the other things Madison has to say about religion and Christianity in the same document:
"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him"
"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe"
"Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity"7

The really funny thing is that James Madison would have never accepted Richard Dawkins "as a member of Civil Society," since he has not subjected himself to the "Governour of the Universe."

Since they don't give the context in which he quoted these it's impossible to say whether he was quoting out of context or not!

Quote:

Dawkins doesn't understand the universe
Dawkins then defines the god against which he is arguing:

"He not only created the universe; he is a personal God dwelling within it, or perhaps outside it (whatever that might mean), possessing the unpleasantly human qualities to which I have alluded."

The disturbing thing about Dawkins' definition of God is that he doesn't seem to understand the nature of the universe. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that space-time is in a state of continual expansion, and that the universe is neither infinite nor eternal. The cause of this expansion, whether it be natural or supernatural, exists outside the bounds of detectable space-time. So, yes, there is an "outside" the universe. The God of Judaism and Christianity does not just "perhaps" exist outside the universe, but quite explicitly cannot be contained by even the outer reaches of the universe

WHAT!!!

Who does understand the universe? Nobody else knows what dwelling outside the universe might mean, nobody even knows if there is an 'outside the universe'.

And since the universe is in a state of continual expansion how can they claim it's not infinite?

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat

Joined: 01 Apr 2007

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject:

Missile Command Kid wrote:

I'm sorry, but I simply don't have time to do a point-by-point blow of Jesus' life.

Well if you don't have the time, what makes you think I do?... You're the one who brought up the whole "Christ-like" thing, the only reason I asked you to explain was to perhaps clarify that definition (against my skepticism that we know what Christ was 'really' like).

Quote:

Frankly no, I don't find most Christian sites credible (though the one you have seems more on the ball than most), because they so often rely on the Bible as an authority (not a credible source) to make their points. I realise academia has its limitations too, but we tend to give more credence to professional scholars who write in peer-reviewed journals/publications than we do to religious organisations (faith is not good enough in the world of academia, sorry). I don't at all mean to say that Dawkin's book is automatically credible, but he is well respected in the academic community, so we assume he's quite professional even if he does make mistakes. Anyway, I did re-check that Christian page, and found the alleged misquote, and am possibly willing to concede you were right about it, though I notice they quoted Dawkins out of context too.

Quote:

Paul founded Christianity?

Quote:

Yes, in a sense, according to some Christians. You have heard of Pauline Christianity, have you not? Whether you disagree with it or not, it is an internal debate in the church itself, so you can't exactly accuse Dawkins of being "wrong". Anyway, by "Christianity", he likely meant on an institutional level, which (as far as I know) Paul did more than any other apostle to establish politically as well as theologically.

Quote:

Okay, as I mentioned, I might be willing to concede this, though I'm still a tad suspicious that they give us Dawkin's own quote of John Adams out of context as well.

Quote:

There's two.

(See my reply to the first).

Quote:

If it's the "word of god", how can you not blindly follow it? How can god's original laws be "overridden", or changed to suit different cultures? The original laws don't seem to imply flexibility, I always thought the NT was just being inconsistent.

Quote:

No, because I do think you need to cite better, and it wasn't intended as an insult either. I never supposed or equated this to you being "ignorant" on the topic, or used it to refute your arguments. I just wanted you to cite your sources clearly to avoid confusion.

Quote:

At any rate, you must have missed where I said "I don't mean this as an insult!" I'm truly not attacking you because you don't know enough about the Bible. What I've found is that people who criticise Christianity in particular or religion as a whole do so from a position of ignorance.

Okay fair enough.

Quote:

Saying that the Old Testament is a "book," for instance, lead me to think that the most you knew about the Old Testament is the name itself. (And I'm not being picky: "a book" implies a single author written in a specific time for a specific group of people, rather than the truth: dozens of books written over a span of more than a thousand years for different circumstances and different cultures by authors that greatly varied in cultural and religious backgrounds.)

No it doesn't! A book is a book: "a set of printed pages that are fastened inside a cover so that you can turn them and read them" (OED). Smile

Quote:

You say that you haven't read the New Testament in years. Please read it and come back with specific questions, or PM me if you'd like. The larger theological issues that the gospels all agree on, for instance become very apparent once you've read through them. They're only about a hundred pages together - it shouldn't take very long.

Actually, to be honest, I really don't think there's enough substance therein to warrant my in depth study (I don't believe in god, and it's my opinion that the Bible is obsolete.

Last edited by Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat on Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:42 pm; edited 4 times in total

Missile Command Kid

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject:

Grimalkin wrote:

Since they don't give the context in which he quoted these it's impossible to say whether he was quoting out of context or not!

From the book, p. 43:

Quote:

43: Remarks of Jefferson's such as 'Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man' are compatible with deism but also with atheism. So is James Madison's robust anti-clericialism: 'During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and intolerance in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.' The same could be said of Benjamin Franklin's 'Lighthouses are more useful than churches' and of John Adams's 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.'

There you go. He took Adams's quote out of context at best and misquoted him at worst. Regardless, as I said earlier, whether or not there are factual problems with the book, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat

Joined: 01 Apr 2007

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject:

Missile Command Kid wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

Since they don't give the context in which he quoted these it's impossible to say whether he was quoting out of context or not!

From the book, p. 43:

Quote:

Okay, I'm willing to concede. However, in Dawkin's defense, those quotes were obviously just intended as anecdotal asides, and not as anything crucial to support his arguments (for which he makes his own convincing case).

Missile Command Kid

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

Missile Command Kid wrote:

I'm sorry, but I simply don't have time to do a point-by-point blow of Jesus' life.

I did clarify. More detail can be found in the Gospels.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

Quote:

As you say, this particular article on this particular site doesn't rely on the Bible, but instead looks at what Dawkins says and refutes his points on their own merit (i.e. the John Adams quote.)

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

I realise academia has its limitations too, but we tend to give more credence to professional scholars who write in peer-reviewed journals/publications than we do to religious organisations (faith is not good enough in the world of academia, sorry). I don't at all mean to say that Dawkin's book is automatically credible, but he is well respected in the academic community, so we assume he's quite professional even if he does make mistakes. Anyway, I did re-check that Christian page, and found the alleged misquote, and am possibly willing to concede you were right about it, though I notice they quoted Dawkins out of context too...

Yes, according to some Christians. You have heard of Pauline Christianity, have you not? Whether you disagree with it or not, it is an internal debate in the church itself, so you can't exactly accuse Dawkins of being "wrong". Also, by "Christianity", he likely meant the church itself, which (as far as I know) Paul did more than any other apostle to establish politically as well as theologically.

You're willing to lend Dawkins some slack here by liberally interpreting what he meant by Christianity. Others wouldn't be as lenient.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

Okay, as I mentioned, I might be willing to concede this, though I'm still a tad suspicious that they give us Dawkin's own quote of John Adams out of context as well.

Quote from Dawkins book is above.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

me wrote:

The original laws were written for a specific group in a specific time and place. The Pauline letters to various churches were just that: letters. They were written by a holy man and inspired by God, but ultimately they were written to address a specific context. How should I, as a Christian living in 21st century Korea, follow a letter that was written to a church in Ephesus in the firsrt century CE? Where do I start? When Paul greets the church at the beginning of an epistle, should I assume that he's talking directly to me? When Paul says in Ephesians 6.21 "Tychicus, my dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will make everything known to you, so that you too may know about my circumstances, how I am doing," should I assume that Tychicus will be arriving at my door shortly, and that Paul is still alive?

The original Torahic purity laws were inflexible, but as Christians, we no longer follow most of these laws. This is a huge, huge, HUGE discussion that requires discussing early church history, theology, original authorship of books in the Bible, history of the Ancient Near East (including various cultures around the Jewish tribe), and so on. If you like, I could find you a book on the subject, but honestly, the question you're asking requires *pages* to answer. I've given you a small snippet of the answer - either you take what I've said to represent the greater whole and assume that the current Christian practice of interpreting the Bible to our individual cultures and circumstances is permissable, or you'll need to do your own research.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

In the 9th post on the 8th page of this thread, you posted a great deal of material that was improperly cited and referenced. You put it in italics, sure, but you gave no indication that it was not yours, nor did you provide a link to your source. In short, you plagarised that original source. With all due respect, I don't think you have the credibility to tell me that I need to cite my sources better when you haven't cited your sources at all.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

Actually, to be honest, I really don't think there's enough substance therein to warrant my in depth study (I don't believe in god, and it's my opinion that the Bible is obsolete.

First of all, how in the world could you possibly know whether the Bible has any depth if you refuse to read it? Second, if you're not willing to put any work into this conversation (citing sources, reading material I've provided, etc.), then I'm going to step back and stop responding to your posts. I'm getting the impression that you're more interested in arguing than in finding out more about Christianity. Fair enough. If you really want to hold onto your opinions without looking at the facts, as I've tried to do, there's nothing I can do about it. Good luck with your search - I sincerely mean that.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat

Joined: 01 Apr 2007

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject:

Missile Command Kid wrote:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

Missile Command Kid wrote:

I'm sorry, but I simply don't have time to do a point-by-point blow of Jesus' life.

I did clarify. More detail can be found in the Gospels.

In other words, you didn't clarify. I contended that the Gospels don't lend enough weight, or give an accurate enough portrayal of Christ, from which you can determine matter-of-factly what it means to be "Christ-like".

Quote:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

You're willing to lend Dawkins some slack here by liberally interpreting what he meant by Christianity. Others wouldn't be as lenient.

Oh well. I made the point, and for all intents and purposes, you've accepted it.

Quote:

The original laws were written for a specific group in a specific time and place.

Yes, that is their limitation. Trying to apply them elsewhere seems as foolish to me as applying the Judaeo-Christian mythology outside of the culture it originated in. You can't do so without distorting it and bending the rules.

Quote:

The Pauline letters to various churches were just that: letters. They were written by a holy man and inspired by God, but ultimately they were written to address a specific context. How should I, as a Christian living in 21st century Korea, follow a letter that was written to a church in Ephesus in the firsrt century CE? Where do I start? When Paul greets the church at the beginning of an epistle, should I assume that he's talking directly to me? When Paul says in Ephesians 6.21 "Tychicus, my dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will make everything known to you, so that you too may know about my circumstances, how I am doing," should I assume that Tychicus will be arriving at my door shortly, and that Paul is still alive?

You might start by accepting, or at least considering, that those so-called "laws" don't apply to you afterall.

Quote:

The original Torahic purity laws were inflexible, but as Christians, we no longer follow most of these laws. This is a huge, huge, HUGE discussion that requires discussing early church history, theology, original authorship of books in the Bible, history of the Ancient Near East (including various cultures around the Jewish tribe), and so on. If you like, I could find you a book on the subject, but honestly, the question you're asking requires *pages* to answer. I've given you a small snippet of the answer - either you take what I've said to represent the greater whole and assume that the current Christian practice of interpreting the Bible to our individual cultures and circumstances is permissable, or you'll need to do your own research.

Sounds to me like you just don't know. It's okay, because I had a feeling you wouldn't in the end- and that's fine, we all reach a point where we just have to throw up our hands. In this case though, I think the best you'll be able to do is just try to make the circle fit the square, and then when that doesn't work, try to force it. But that's not how I do things.

Quote:

That was just something I googled haphazardly to use as examples. There are countless sites that provide Biblical inconsistencies, I was too lazy to spend the countless hours to find my own in the Gospels from scratch (sue me). I admit those particular sources weren't academic ones either, but they did the trick, no? (I checked the section/line numbers, and they did correspond to the Gospels). Anyway, it's my bad, if you want better sources, I can find some and cite them.

Quote:

With all due respect, I don't think you have the credibility to tell me that I need to cite my sources better

I think you misunderstood me. What I objected to was your making claims (namely about Dawkins) and not quoting the source (and by quoting I mean actually copying and pasting the lines of text into your post, so we could see what you were referring to instead of just taking your word for it). You provided several links, but page/paragraph numbers would have really helped, as it makes it much easier to locate it (you didn't provide any, so it was hard to find exactly what you were referring to). I never meant to suggest that your actual claims were unsubstantiated, I just wanted you to cite/quote it clearly, to avoid confusion. Get it?

Quote:

I have read it. I just found it pointless. I never said it was shallow (it's obviously got depth, like anything else you're willing to spend time interpreting), but it amounts to nothing for me because I don't believe in god, period (and I have my reasons). Reading the Bible didn't change that fact, but rather reinforced it. I'm fairly sure that going any further in depth (i.e. forcing it) will likely just increase my skepticism even further.

Quote:

I'm getting the impression that you're more interested in arguing than in finding out more about Christianity. Fair enough. If you really want to hold onto your opinions without looking at the facts, as I've tried to do, there's nothing I can do about it. Good luck with your search - I sincerely mean that.

This hasn't been a bad debate, and I think we've both made our points, but if you want to call it quits, you can. You may disagree, but you certainty haven't proved me "wrong" yet.

tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:46 am Post subject:

Missile Command Kid, does a person have to read every Awake and Watchtower magazine received at his doorstep before differing with the Jehovah's Witnesses? Or read Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures before differing with the Christian Scientists? Or read The Divine Principle before differing with the Moonies? I hope not. A complete set of Doctine and Covenants takes several volumes, and I beg to differ with the Mormons.

Demophobe

Joined: 17 May 2004

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:53 am Post subject:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

So you can never know the truth, but have faith that it exists all the same? Why?

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat

Joined: 01 Apr 2007

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:55 am Post subject:

Demophobe wrote:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

So you can never know the truth, but have faith that it exists all the same? Why?

Is there something you'd like to share? A lesson in irony perhaps?

Missile Command Kid

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:22 am Post subject:

tomato wrote:

Missile Command Kid, does a person have to read every Awake and Watchtower magazine received at his doorstep before differing with the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Or read Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures before differing with the Christian Scientists?

Or read The Divine Principle before differing with the Moonies?

I hope not.
A complete set of Doctine and Covenants takes several volumes, and I beg to differ with the Mormons.

No. A person could remember snippets of the Bible from their past and dismiss Christianity based on nothing but foggy memories and Ned Flanders from The Simpsons. Such a dismissal is rooted in profound ignorance, but certainly a thorough knowledge isn't a requirement for declining to follow a religion. Do I think that it's a good idea to dismiss a religion without really having any clue about said religion? Absolutely not. Does that answer your question?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 13, 14, 15 Next
Page 10 of 15

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe