Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

    Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
    Can't resist asking where you head C.S. Lewis yesterday? I was sure he wasn't amongst us anymore! He wrote a lot of good, thoughtful stuff.
    He said
    Originally posted by 5mn_Major
    Heard a position advanced by C.S. Lewis
    not that he heard C.S. Lewis. Reading comprehension there Bob.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

      Originally posted by goldy_331 View Post
      He said not that he heard C.S. Lewis. Reading comprehension there Bob.
      Somebody's a little too serious today.
      Originally posted by Priceless
      Good to see you're so reasonable.
      Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
      Very well, said.
      Originally posted by Rover
      A fair assessment Bob.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

        Mmmmmm......CSLewis....

        Best steak & ale pie in a pub in Oxford (I went to all 110 that I could find when I lived there). Best pie overall is at The Pieminister, though.
        If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

          Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
          I've read that (Mere Christianity, right?), and it's a bunch of bunk. It's only effective if you already believe. He's basically asking you to believe that people are pure black or pure white - that EVERYTHING they do is bad or EVERYTHING they do is good. Life is a whole lot more complicated than that.

          I could call myself the Son of God, and I assure you that I am none of those 3 options. If there's a 4th option for me, why isn't there for Jesus?
          Lewis' apologetics are among the most ridiculous things ever written by a smart person. They are right up there with Anselm's Ontological Argument. I'm sure if Aquinas had read Mere Christianity he'd have eviscerated it. I had a priest in CCD (basically Sunday School for Catholics) tell me once that he detested Lewis' aggressive attacks on atheism because anybody with half a brain reading them would choose atheism.

          But I take the main point of his selective blindness to be a great moral lesson in humility. Nobody reading (and certainly not writing) this post will ever produce anything remotely as interesting or wonderful as Lewis' historical analysis of art and literature. If somebody that smart and deep in some ways can be that dumb and superficial in other ways, it's a lesson to all of us to tread lightly.
          Last edited by Kepler; 04-10-2012, 02:53 PM.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
            Lewis' apologetics are among the most ridiculous things ever written by a smart person. They are right up there with Anselm's Ontological Argument. I'm sure if Aquinas had read Mere Christianity he'd have eviscerated it.

            But I take the main point of his selective blindness to be a great moral lesson in humility. Nobody reading (and certainly not writing) this post will ever produce anything remotely as interesting or wonderful as Lewis' historical analysis. If somebody that smart and deep in some ways can be that dumb and superficial in other ways, it's a lesson to all of us to tread lightly.
            ...and an ironic example of exactly what Lewis was trying to argue against: that Jesus could't be so "smart and deep" as a moral teacher and yet so "dumb" as to believe he was the Son of God.
            If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

              Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
              ...and an ironic example of exactly what Lewis was trying to argue against: that Jesus could't be so "smart and deep" as a moral teacher and yet so "dumb" as to believe he was the Son of God.
              Which Jesus may never have believed, anyway.

              It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a guy who taught in parables might have been being figurative when he said he was "the son of God."

              (And yes, I realize that Christianity has much less to do with ticky tacky trivia like what Jesus actually said or meant than it does with how the ensuing 2000 years have interpreted it to meet its own needs in each age. Which is no knock on Jesus or Christians at all. It is as it should be.)
              Last edited by Kepler; 04-10-2012, 03:02 PM.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                Which Jesus may never have believed, anyway.

                It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a guy who taught in parables might have been being figurative when he said he was "the son of God."

                (And yes, I realize that Christianity has much less to do with ticky tacky trivia like what Jesus actually said or meant than it does with how the ensuing 2000 years have interpreted it to meet its own needs in each age. Which is no knock on Jesus or Christians at all. It is as it should be.)
                That's why it's helpful to go back to what the Greek manuscripts of the early centuries (of which there are huge numbers) say. No one should take what others tell them blindly as the truth, whether in the realm of Christianity, or elsewhere.
                Originally posted by Priceless
                Good to see you're so reasonable.
                Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                Very well, said.
                Originally posted by Rover
                A fair assessment Bob.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

                  Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                  Yes, that sounds fine....I don't think Jesus himself ever used the word "only" when he described himself as "a" Son of God. It's that word "only" that leads to so much warfare in the name of God, with said warfare being totally antithetical to Jesus' actual teachings.
                  Based on this passage, it appears you don't believe in Jesus' true exceptionalism. Afterall if we're all son's of God, he's really just one of us. Honest question, do you consider yourself more Jewish?

                  Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                  I've read that (Mere Christianity, right?), and it's a bunch of bunk. It's only effective if you already believe. He's basically asking you to believe that people are pure black or pure white - that EVERYTHING they do is bad or EVERYTHING they do is good. Life is a whole lot more complicated than that.

                  Of course life's more complicated. I said I just heard the concept yesterday...and based on his general concept, it was advanced very effectively. If folks want to harrass CS Lewis, its usually good to do so by directly digging up and addressing his logic.

                  Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                  I could call myself the Son of God, and I assure you that I am none of those 3 options. If there's a 4th option for me, why isn't there for Jesus?
                  I could jump out a plane without a parachutte too. The point of all this is that you don't and neither has anyone else. You don't regularly speak in front of large crowds espousing revolutionary ideas on human compassion and do great works bordering on miracles...and you don't tell everyone you know that you're essentially God.

                  When you do...then we'll decide what you are.
                  Last edited by 5mn_Major; 04-10-2012, 10:52 PM.
                  Go Gophers!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

                    I have to say, I agree with what seems to be Foxton's general notion that religion is the source of most of the world's ills, and that it, collectively, is slowly destroying humanity. That's not to say that it has never done anything good, because as pointed out earlier, there was a time in human history when some really good stuff was done in the name of gods. And mind you, I'm not talking about organized religion, no, I'm talking any religious beliefs. I think they are misguided and harmful at best, and full-on destructive at worst. But I also recognize that I'm pretty much the fringe on this one, and that there is no need for me to antagonize people about it. So when I see a thread titled something along the lines of "Christ is Risen," even though I believe that that thread is propagating a false and destructive worldview, I leave it the hell alone, because, well, what good could possibly come of my trolling it? I actually am annoyed that this thread intrigued me enough to cause me to go back through that one to find out if it was, in fact, the impetus for this one.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

                      *****http://i.imgur.com/DBfZS.jpg******
                      Old Monster Records

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

                        Originally posted by duper View Post
                        I have to say, I agree with what seems to be Foxton's general notion that religion is the source of most of the world's ills, and that it, collectively, is slowly destroying humanity. That's not to say that it has never done anything good, because as pointed out earlier, there was a time in human history when some really good stuff was done in the name of gods. And mind you, I'm not talking about organized religion, no, I'm talking any religious beliefs. I think they are misguided and harmful at best, and full-on destructive at worst.
                        This post is not trolling but a valid and even somewhat common point of view. To summarize your pov is that religious beliefs has been/can be beneficial to society and organized religions have been/can be a negative to society. What is important to acknowlege what the drivers are...as that's how you start to find solutions.

                        What's driving all this is not faith itself being a bad influence but rather extremists who are attracted to religion and often pervert it to their own uses. If you think about it the key actors where destructive behavior is coming from individuals on the fringe of society: Falwell types, Islam extremists, Hitler, etc. And they focus on small components of the overall doctrine. These folks are attracted to religion as it gives them legitimacy to influence others. So blame and address extremism and not the general concept of faith as if religion was gone they'd find another area...nationalism, etc....to attempt to influence the populous.
                        Go Gophers!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

                          Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                          Based on this passage, it appears you don't believe in Jesus' true exceptionalism. Afterall if we're all son's of God, he's really just one of us. Honest question, do you consider yourself more Jewish?
                          Your question is a bit of a non-sequiter, isn't it?

                          I consider myself "all of the above" in a sense, as every major faith and spiritual tradition conveys basically the same message.

                          If you are walking in a beautiful garden full of many delightful paths, isn't your time better spent enjoying and admiring the riches, instead of arguing with people about which path is "the best"? Does the act of disputation help anyone lead a better life? Isn't "very very good" okay too? How many people truly believe that there is only one exclusive path to salvation? doesn't that belief imply that God is mean, jealous, and petty? (sorry, pal, even though you lived an exemplary life and all your actions are fully consistent with my teachings, you can't have salvation because the way you were brought up, you never even heard of Jesus to begin with)

                          I believe that Jesus was exceptional, yes. I also believe the Buddha was exceptional. I merely said they were both sons of God. and also, according to Christian doctrine, isn't the reason Jesus was god may flesh precisely because that made him "one of us"?

                          I'd like to cue the Joan Osborne song here, the theme music from Joan of Arcadia.
                          "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                          "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                          "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                          "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

                            Originally posted by duper View Post
                            I have to say, I agree with what seems to be Foxton's general notion that religion is the source of most of the world's ills, and that it, collectively, is slowly destroying humanity. That's not to say that it has never done anything good, because as pointed out earlier, there was a time in human history when some really good stuff was done in the name of gods. And mind you, I'm not talking about organized religion, no, I'm talking any religious beliefs. I think they are misguided and harmful at best, and full-on destructive at worst. But I also recognize that I'm pretty much the fringe on this one, and that there is no need for me to antagonize people about it. So when I see a thread titled something along the lines of "Christ is Risen," even though I believe that that thread is propagating a false and destructive worldview, I leave it the hell alone, because, well, what good could possibly come of my trolling it? I actually am annoyed that this thread intrigued me enough to cause me to go back through that one to find out if it was, in fact, the impetus for this one.
                            Eh, religion still has a large use in the world today. You can make an argument that everything you write about here is true on a macro level, and that it slows the advance of science, helps in poisoning our politics, and acts a crutch for our advancement as a society. It's basically why most communist nations dismissed and attempted to repress religion as a whole.

                            However, on an individual level, people don't care about the nebulous "improvement of mankind" "or the promise of the future" as a reason for hope, especially if you don't think there's anything beyond death. I view it as Kepler's comments earlier about CS Lewis writ large. I think having faith and the belief and hope that things will be better in this world or the next is huge on an individual level, and all those macro things when broken down are nothing more than massive groups of individuals.
                            "I went over the facts in my head, and admired how much uglier the situation had just become. Over the years I've learned that ignorance is more than just bliss. It's freaking orgasmic ecstasy".- Harry Dresden, Blood Rites


                            Western Michigan Bronco Hockey- 2012 Mason Cup Champions

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

                              Originally posted by bronconick View Post
                              Eh, religion still has a large use in the world today. You can make an argument that everything you write about here is true on a macro level, and that it slows the advance of science, helps in poisoning our politics, and acts a crutch for our advancement as a society. It's basically why most communist nations dismissed and attempted to repress religion as a whole.

                              However, on an individual level, people don't care about the nebulous "improvement of mankind" "or the promise of the future" as a reason for hope, especially if you don't think there's anything beyond death. I view it as Kepler's comments earlier about CS Lewis writ large. I think having faith and the belief and hope that things will be better in this world or the next is huge on an individual level, and all those macro things when broken down are nothing more than massive groups of individuals.
                              That didn't work out so well for Communist countries. A lot of good and bad has been done in the name of various religions, but history does not show that eliminating religious freedom/beliefs from a country is somehow helpful or positive.


                              As for Jesus just being another son of God, if one takes the Bible as meaning what it says, the New Testament quotes Jesus as saying "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through me." (John 14:6) Or Acts 4:12 that says "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Those are clear claims to exclusivity that you either have to dismiss, in which case you would logically dismiss Jesus for making a false claim of eclusivity, or you have to accept what he said and reject claims that Jesus is just one of many paths. I'm not telling anyone which way to go, just that if you take Jesus' teachings at face value, he can't be just one of many paths.
                              Originally posted by Priceless
                              Good to see you're so reasonable.
                              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                              Very well, said.
                              Originally posted by Rover
                              A fair assessment Bob.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The Offcial Thread to Debate Various Aspects of Various Religious Doctrine, Like.

                                There's a difference between installing a totalitarian regime that undermines religion, and religion simply fading away as an integral part of everyday life. I'm going to guess that most of the atheists here are in the latter camp.

                                As to bronconick's other point -- it seems kind of like "A Few Good Men." People *need* religion on that wall.

                                I'm guessing that wasn't the intent, though.
                                Last edited by amherstblackbear; 04-11-2012, 11:54 AM.
                                1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2012(!)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X