| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2007 02:13:44 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...are all words/phrases that are a direct attempt to induce your reader to reject theology and adopt the doctrine of science - in other words, it's proselytizing. |
I accept that it's difficult to promote an argument without stating beliefs. I accept that minimizing or trivializing those beliefs (ie, "bearded man in the sky") is the shortest route out of the discourse. I don't accept, as you seem to suggest, that science is the "belief" of anything in particular, but rather, as it has been so often pointed out to you, the expansion of knowledge over time when better facts have been discovered.
Promoting factual, critical analysis, regardless of the temperment of the messenger, can hardly be called "prosyletizing". Telling me that my choice is to accept Jesus Christ or not and thus including me in the narrowest of world views, and then suggesting that this is the arguer's "responsibility", crosses the line from arguing points of belief in a conversation resembling a debate, to trying to convince me that this individual's world view is the only one and should be adopted. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:23:35 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...it is being argued that because the Bible excludes some Gospels, then the entire work is questionable. If that is an acceptable method of questioning scripture, then it should be applicable to scientific concensus writings as well (like Global Warming). |
As pointed out before, the Bible is supposed to be complete and accurate, not subject to review or correction. Our knowledge of science is NOT complete, so a correction or new evidence to one part does not necessarily throw the rest into question. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:25:14 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
...are all words/phrases that are a direct attempt to induce your reader to reject theology and adopt the doctrine of science - in other words, it's proselytizing. |
I accept that it's difficult to promote an argument without stating beliefs. I accept that minimizing or trivializing those beliefs (ie, "bearded man in the sky") is the shortest route out of the discourse. I don't accept, as you seem to suggest, that science is the "belief" of anything in particular, but rather, as it has been so often pointed out to you, the expansion of knowledge over time when better facts have been discovered.
Promoting factual, critical analysis, regardless of the temperment of the messenger, can hardly be called "prosyletizing". Telling me that my choice is to accept Jesus Christ or not and thus including me in the narrowest of world views, and then suggesting that this is the arguer's "responsibility", crosses the line from arguing points of belief in a conversation resembling a debate, to trying to convince me that this individual's world view is the only one and should be adopted. |
And you are just as intently trying to convince me that his world view is wrong and that your world view should be adopted. I purposefully included the definitions of "proselytizing" and "doctrine" so that it would be abundantly clear that your post did, indeed, meet the qualifications of proselytizing. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:32:21 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Telling me that my choice is to accept Jesus Christ or not and thus including me in the narrowest of world views, and then suggesting that this is the arguer's "responsibility", crosses the line from arguing points of belief in a conversation resembling a debate, to trying to convince me that this individual's world view is the only one and should be adopted. |
Then you completely mis-read my post.
1. I am not trying to convince you of anything and stated so.
2. The reply was to Matthew.
3. My "christian" responsibility is to share the good news.
4. You can make any choice you want.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:37:11 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Telling me that my choice is to accept Jesus Christ or not and thus including me in the narrowest of world views, and then suggesting that this is the arguer's "responsibility", crosses the line from arguing points of belief .... |
That's pretty silly... To tell you that you have a choice whether to "believe" or not is unacceptable? To tell you that he feels a responsibility to inform you of the choice is unacceptable?
He did NOT attempt to "convert" you, he explicitly said he wasn't gonna do that. He just made a statement of belief.
We are seeing a LOT of statements of both belief and disbelief in here, in various flavors. Why does disbelief get a free pass and belief does not?
R.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:37:51 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
If God created the Universe, who created God? |
Humans. ;-) |
This about summarizes it. Couldn't be expressed more succinctly than this. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:38:15 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
...it is being argued that because the Bible excludes some Gospels, then the entire work is questionable. If that is an acceptable method of questioning scripture, then it should be applicable to scientific concensus writings as well (like Global Warming). |
As pointed out before, the Bible is supposed to be complete and accurate, not subject to review or correction. Our knowledge of science is NOT complete, so a correction or new evidence to one part does not necessarily throw the rest into question. |
The Bible is complete and accurate. The question is, is it literal? There are those that say it is. I find it difficult to believe it is 100% literal. Even Christ himself taught in parables, demonstrating the power of the figurative. I believe it is both literal and figurative. The problem is deciphering which is which.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:41:29 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Flash:
4. You can make any choice you want. |
But then you say, if they make the wrong choice (which you undoubtedly believe they are), they will suffer and you will not.
It kind of promotes a "mighter than thou" attitude, that while people on the science side are doing as well, comes with the added bonus of "you'll burn in hell for not thinking as I do."
Thus proselytizing. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:43:27 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My "christian" responsibility is to share the good news. |
It's been, what... 2,000 years? News travels slowly in these parts. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:59:19 PM · #135 |
| I didn't think it would be particularly popular to point out the subtleties of Christian indoctrination, but I am surprised at the hypocrisy of it all. Someone seems to have pointedly lifted and reversed a quote of mine from another thread, but the original idea bears repeating here. It's sad that foul is cried when one stands up to subtle conversion tactics masquerading as points in a debate, but all manner of fire and brimstone-ing goes unchecked elsewhere. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 03:06:58 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He did NOT attempt to "convert" you, he explicitly said he wasn't gonna do that. He just made a statement of belief. |
To be fair, the only possible conversion with anything written here is from someone who reads DPC rant threads to someone who doesn't.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 04:44:31 PM · #137 |
Man,
Its a God eat God world! |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 05:14:32 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by JBHale:
Originally posted by Flash:
4. You can make any choice you want. |
But then you say, if they make the wrong choice (which you undoubtedly believe they are), they will suffer and you will not.
It kind of promotes a "mighter than thou" attitude, that while people on the science side are doing as well, comes with the added bonus of "you'll burn in hell for not thinking as I do."
Thus proselytizing. |
You read too much into my posts. There is no judgement on anothers choice. I readily concede that only time will reveal the truth. The mightier than thou attitude does not eminate from me. I don't claim to even know what hell is, yet alone anyone burning there.
I also don't claim to know the extent and consequence of Global Warming, unlike some alarmists. What I do know is that the earth has been scientifically proven to have passed through many warming and cooling periods. Without the assistance of my vehicles emission.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 06:26:55 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Man,
Its a God eat God world! |
Its a jungle temple out here. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 07:12:23 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I also don't claim to know the extent and consequence of Global Warming, unlike some alarmists. What I do know is that the earth has been scientifically proven to have passed through many warming and cooling periods. Without the assistance of my vehicles emission. |
May I now accuse you of being off topic? |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 09:32:02 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The gospel is the "good news" message of Christ's death and resurection...It is not my charge to change your mind...If Christ himself could not convince all, then what power does a lowly servant like I have. My responsibility is to share the good news. Yours is to choose a path. |
Originally posted by Louis:
I believe this is prosyletizing, and I think it is off topic and doesn't belong here. |
Actually, though it is, it's nice to see a true believer not ranting, but offering intelligent reasoned discussion as well as making a statement of his status.
Sure sounds an awful lot to me like he just chalked up a point for the coexistence of science and theology.
He *said* he wasn't going to even try to change *your* mind, he merely states where *his* is.
Welcome, Flash!
Where's that Bart/snarky icon??????
BTW, don't even get me started on that whole damn GW thing again!
It's *FULL* of holes IMNSHO!!!!
Message edited by author 2007-11-12 21:36:13.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 10:13:25 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The Bible is complete and accurate. The question is, is it literal? There are those that say it is. I find it difficult to believe it is 100% literal. Even Christ himself taught in parables, demonstrating the power of the figurative. I believe it is both literal and figurative. The problem is deciphering which is which. |
Could this be where faith and belief come in???????
I am glad to see a man of admitted faith and belief have such reasonable views.
I'm saying that partly because this fits my impression of how the two don't have to be mutually exclusive, and yet, it seems that most of the scientific minded people here are bound and determined to lessen the credibility of faith due to a lack of proof, yet faith is belief in the face of a lack of proof in its very nature.
I believ in science as proof is shown me, yet I have faith because in my mind, I have proof of that, too.
I have proof in my mind every day when I look into my daughter's face, and at the sunset, and in the exceptional beauty of a flower, yadda, yadda, and just don't accept that it's random stuff that makes good things happen for me for doing my best to live right.
But it's proof based on my own perception, and experience as to how my life works versus how it worked five years ago when I lived a completely different life.
No, I'm not born again, or saved, but I did pull my head out of my @$$ and realize that what I was doing certainly wasn't what anyone, or God would have had me do. I had help, and I looked around at the grace that's been here all along.
That didn't change my opinion of the theory of internal combustion, or change the way that I arrive at everyday conclusions, yet I see signs of things that make sense to believe that things happen for a reason.
Things that science can't explain any better than religion.
I went to see a friend of mine that I haven't seen for about nine months
and though I didn't run into her, I did run into a guy who was down on his luck and had all his clothes stolen. I had a bunch of stuff in my garage that is too small for me, and a little long in the tooth, but still very serviceable and I haven't gotten around to getting rid of it for about two years. This place that I ran into this guy is 30 miles from my home, but I thought, what the heck, I'll get him this stuff, and finally get it out of my house. I asked him where he was going to be that evening, and he told me he was meeting some friends.....at a place that is five miles from my house. So I git it to him.
Now......you can say that is just one incredible, weird set of circumstantial coincidences, or, like I did, you could believe that this man and I were put into this encounter in each other's lives for some reason that cannot be fathomed other than I was supposed to help this guy who's down on his luck in a similar manner as I was about four years ago....in that, I see grace, not chaos, or freak circumstance.
I just see too much of this stuff in my life to not reap the benefits of belief and faith in a benevolent God at work around me. And yes, it's *my* choice to believe that.
If that doesn't work for you, that's fine, look at it this way......was there any downside at all to this scenario? I surely don't think so, and if it makes you feel good at all, why is that?
Feeling good about a nice happenstance serves no earthly purpose, so why?
Maybe because we're supposed to be that way......and not know why!......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 10:18:52 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Flash:
4. You can make any choice you want. |
Originally posted by JBHale:
But then you say, if they make the wrong choice (which you undoubtedly believe they are), they will suffer and you will not.
It kind of promotes a "mighter than thou" attitude, that while people on the science side are doing as well, comes with the added bonus of "you'll burn in hell for not thinking as I do."
Thus proselytizing. |
Originally posted by Flash:
You read too much into my posts. There is no judgement on anothers choice. I readily concede that only time will reveal the truth. The mightier than thou attitude does not eminate from me. I don't claim to even know what hell is, yet alone anyone burning there. |
Not all of us that believe in God, believe in Hell.
I don't, and I've seen plenty of that here on earth.
Originally posted by Flash:
I also don't claim to know the extent and consequence of Global Warming, unlike some alarmists. What I do know is that the earth has been scientifically proven to have passed through many warming and cooling periods. Without the assistance of my vehicles emission. |
Yeah, that!.....8>)
I'm really not a big fan of the Al Gore Chicken Little Sky is Falling Club meself.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 11:39:14 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm really not a big fan of the Al Gore Chicken Little Sky is Falling Club meself. |
I'm not too concerned, 12/21/2012 is only 5 years away anyway!
|
|
|
|
11/13/2007 07:29:24 AM · #145 |
| I'd be really interested to hear what people think of the Cargo Cult phenomena, I find it fascinating particularly as a case study for memetics. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 08:35:52 AM · #146 |
| I think a lot of groups are unfairly labeled as cults... In fact, Ima make a new thread about now! |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 10:49:21 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by JBHale:
I think a lot of groups are unfairly labeled as cults... In fact, Ima make a new thread about now! |
From the OED, Cult:
1) Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings
2) A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies.
3) Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers.
Only recently (2004) have they added this:
4) A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
I dont think 'cult' here implied the negative connotations that we think of today. The cargo cults example is interesting because different tribes in different places developed the same beliefs - just to make sense of the situation. Examples such as this lead some to believe 'religion' (in every sense) is something that has evolved in humans, we had a 'need' for it, to try and understand the world around us. Could we apply the same logic to more well established religions today? |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 12:20:46 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I'd be really interested to hear what people think of the Cargo Cult phenomena, I find it fascinating particularly as a case study for memetics. |
It's a perfect example of the use of mysticism as a replacement for knowledge. In this respect, it is no different in my opinion from any of the myths contained in the bible and elsewhere: the creation by god(s), the ark story, the returning hero who has conquered death. The only difference, it would seem, is that many people are not able to apply critical analysis to the mythology of the bible, whereas they are quite happy to see the fundamental mistakes of perception the cargo cultists are making. |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 12:28:56 PM · #149 |
I think the cargo cult phenomenon is so important in understanding the nature of belief that I'm going to paste a description of the John Frum cargo cult of the Vanuatu islands here:
"Cargo Cults basically evolved from Christianity and the have/have not relationship between the colonial visitors and the natives. Naively, the native people believed that by following religion they would one day receive cargo - the material goods owned by the white visitors. When the goods weren't forthcoming on Tanna, salvation took the form of a mythical being, John Frum, who replaced Jesus Christ. Visions of John Frum occurred (and still apparently happen today, in the light of a fire, appearing to people under the influence of kava) and he spoke words of wisdom to the people. He promised that one day, the whites would leave, the people would regain their youth and, in an era of peace and joy, custom would return. The cult followers believe Frum lives in the volcano and they have erected scarlet crosses, wooden gates and bamboo chapels to Frum. The scarlet crosses came from the Red Cross symbol during the war that symbolized free access to western medicine. In one chapel was a life-sized effigy depicting Frum with a white painted face and one leg raised as if he was running and, in front of him, was a wooden model of a plane with four propellers (the carrier of the cargo). As for the name, John Frum, it could have originated in John the Baptist (as in Bislama - Jon from Jesus Krist) or John 'From' America, or even a variation on John Broom (to sweep clean). If you think it's a little illogical and question a follower, you may well receive the answer, 'You've waited over 2000 years for Jesus to return. We've only been waiting 60.' You try arguing from there!" |
|
|
|
11/13/2007 12:32:51 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I think the cargo cult phenomenon is so important in understanding the nature of belief... |
Same here dood! Interesting isn't it!
ETA: A similar example, HERE, is truely amazing!
Message edited by author 2007-11-13 12:35:31. |
|
