1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettPaul was needed as the congregations grew, he essentially set the procedures for the administration of the congregations and the arrangements that were essential if they were to function smoothly and effectively. His contribution was immense.
The corruption started with Paul. I do not think Paul's theology is what Jesus had in mind.
Originally posted by Bad wolfAnything that is bigger, heavier, whatever you want to call it, has a greater gravitational.
[b]No, I don't think it was a discovery, but a mistake unto itself.
Can you please elaborate.
I don't think all churches are right but the Catholic Church is ALWAYS right on Faith and Morals, Dogmatic.
I take it the pope is infallible then?
I'll have to continue this discussion tomorrow I think, it's late here and I think I should get some sleep; goodnight to you for when you go to bed.[/b]
He calls a council and they agree on something, he has to write it a certain way.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe did a lot more than that. It can be claimed that Paul is the one who "invented" Christianity. I don't think Jesus was a Christian at all. He was a Jewish apocalypticist. Paul played a large part in inventing the whole Christian mythology that grew up around Jesus.
Paul was needed as the congregations grew, he essentially set the procedures for the administration of the congregations and the arrangements that were essential if they were to function smoothly and effectively. His contribution was immense.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
1 edit
Originally posted by daniel58I think the words you are looking for is that they have a larger mass, and due to mass a greater gravitational attraction. Why this means Galileo is wrong I have no idea; all Galileo showed was that the planets orbited the sun, he never said why, just that they did, which we later learned was due to gravitational attraction. The explanations are complementary, one showing the facts of the situation (i.e. the discovery), and the other explaining why the situation is how it is. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Anything that is bigger, heavier, whatever you want to call it, has a greater gravitational.
He calls a council and they agree on something, he has to write it a certain way.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWe can make a distinction between pragmatic justification and epistemic justification, just like we can distinguish the question of whether or not benefits may come from believing a proposition from the question of whether or not that proposition is, in fact, true (or if the evidence warrants belief). But, it's still the case that deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process. Even if I thought that believing in core Christian propositions would confer benefits (related to the securing and preservation of our interests and things that are of value), I do not really have the direct ability to bring about that belief in me apart from what I take as truth-indicating or plausibility-conferring evidence for it. Even so, in the lack of such evidence, if I thought the pragmatic benefits were substantial (and outweighing, for example, any epistemic duties I might take to be at play), the pragmatic considerations could still be important for at least two reasons: (1) they have the ability to affect my acceptances, or what I can actively at least provisionally accept to be the case and (2) they have the ability to influence actions regarding inculcation. This is why I have maintained, for quite a while on these threads, that the question of whether or not one ought to believe P is different from the question of whether or not she ought to take P on faith (or at least show some manner of allegiance to P that has a substantial volitional component).
[b]"Intellectually impoverished."
The phrase has been bandied about by both pseudo- and actual real-live intellectuals who consistently haunt these threads, as a supposed complaint against Christianity and/or the complete canon of Scripture.
In their view (although never with any type of substantiation), Christianity is inferior to their singular a teps possible. It makes one wonder exactly who the intellectually impoverished ones are.[/b]
As far as I am concerned, though, Christianity (taken, naively, as belief in some specific set of propositions) can just fade into extinction. It's not just that I find it epistemologically unjustified; it's also that I see no reason why it would be necessary for attending to our interests and values or for imbuing our lives with meaning and genuine content; and on the whole I see no sufficient reason to engage in its preservation. If it serves purpose on at least some level for you (for example, in helping to imbue your life with meaning), then great. But the extent to which it has contributed to (or hindered) our collective progress is highly debatable; it's certainly not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Your "historical perspective" seems neither all that "honest" nor all that "accurate". What about negative aspects of religiosity as it has regarded our progress? At any rate, even if you were successful in showing that Christianity has contributed in significant ways to our progress; that wouldn't show that it was necessary in that regard, and it wouldn't necessarily show that we have reasons on the whole to actively preserve or perpetuate such religiosity as we move forward. And, of course, it wouldn't show that it isn't evidentially challenged.
You should just instead present some evidential considerations that bear on the truth of your Christianity (assuming you have some).
Wasn't it Christianity as the fountainhead before every seminal accomplishment man has achieved?
No, of course not. Is that some sort of joke?
Originally posted by rwingettFunny, I don't recall any of his scientific teachings. đ
If Jesus were around today, and had access to all the scientific knowledge that we have, he would adjust this theology accordingly. But (many) contemporary Christians are determined to remain forever stuck in a first century mindset, forever fighting against the tide of progress.
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo in what way has mankind progressed?
We can make a distinction between pragmatic justification and epistemic justification, just like we can distinguish the question of whether or not benefits may come from believing a proposition from the question of whether or not that proposition is, in fact, true (or if the evidence warrants belief). But, it's still the case that deliberative belief for ...[text shortened]... plishment man has achieved?
No, of course not. Is that some sort of joke?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo it wasn't. It was the arabic culture, the islamic world, at the dark middle age, who was the scientific leaders of the world. The christianity had their inspiration from Allah, so to speak.
... Wasn't it awe and adoration for God and His creation which inspired science? ...
Originally posted by whodeyWell, feel free to construe my use of 'progress' in a common sense way within context. I don't really know why you are asking me this sort of question within the context of this discussion: you may as well just ask Freaky in what way mankind has "achieved" or "accomplished". In the opening post, Freaky mentions science, freedom, intellectual planes, regard for human merit, achievements and accomplishments of man, etc. I took that to mean we are talking about the accumulation and successive implementation of collective knowledge (theoretical and practical) in a number of broad areas. For instance, in the areas of scientific and medical advancement and understanding; the development of useful inventions and methods; in prevailing social climate, how we socially interact and govern ourselves; etc; etc. Under such a common sense notion of 'progress' I'm sure there are a number of ways in which mankind has progressed.
So in what way has mankind progressed?
This really has nothing to do with my post: whatever you thought Freaky meant with all his talk of the achievement and accomplishment of man (which you didn't bother to question when you responded to him), just conflate that with my use of 'progress'. It won't affect the points I was trying to make.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe driving force behind scientific research is mere curiosity. The driving force behind
Assuming their position is true (again, without requiring any proof for the same), how would one square this charge against an honest and accurate historical perspective? Wasn't it Christianity unfettered which began all of Western civilization? Wasn't it awe and adoration for God and His creation which inspired science? Wasn't it Christianity as the fountainhead before every seminal accomplishment man has achieved?
technological progress is need and demand. Both in direct conflict with the teachings of just about
any status quo kind of religion.
The scientific method in its objective analysis of the physical world is a direct threat to any control
apparatus (religious or otherwise), which is why early scientists were persecuted by the church.
When the control were diminished, science flourished (for good and bad). Today, religion is in the
periphery, and instead it's economy holding science back. Can we really afford to send this group
of scientists deep into the wild to study fungus for three years with the likely outcome that nothing
useful for society whatsoever will be discovered? Those who ask that question still fail to grasp the
driving force behind science.
But I'm digressing.
Is it pure coincidence that during the last two or three hundred years of relatively extraordinary
technological, societal and scientific progress, religion has gone from a political powertool to a
mostly spiritual comfort for the vulnerable masses?
I think not. Religion is not impossible with science, but scientists can in no way draw on religion for
their conclusions (never have, never will). Hence, it wasn't the awe and adoration for God that
inspired early science. It was curiosity about the physical world that inspired and continue to
inspire scientists. It's the problem solving that continues to inspire engineers and inventors.
Though a belief in the supernatural is still possible (and can be a personal source of inspiration),
it's got absolutely nothing to do with science.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is plainly absurd. And to top it off it smacks of common everyday, chest-beating, ego-aggrandizing bluster. This is the kernel of the problem. It is not what you believe - it is that you believe it to the exclusion of the possibility of anyone else possessing a better idea. I would ask, if deep down inside you had that little spark of self-doubt that really is the reason for reason in this world. But, I know you don't. And sadly, that is why science and philosophy seems foreign to you. If anyone around you asserts anything that does not square with your views (and let's face it, despite the protestations I hear all the time (you know, you're just faithfully doing what a book tells you) you ARE RESPONSIBLE for what you think) you take it as an attack on your ego, your sense of self, your place as the real center of the universe. I can understand and appreciate that. We are all subject to that (Galileo, Einstein, William Shakespeare, Michael Jackson - all subject to getting carried away with ego when they were alive, as you and I are right now.) But, if you have that spark then usually when you are about hit that spot where you feel qualified to speak for, of, or to the entire universe, you pause and watch the red lights of your diminishing certainties fade into the unfathomable night of this moment. For those lucky enough to reach their fingers out in one of those moments, they might think they can touch God (or the fire burning in the engines of the universe.) (I suspect Einstein did.)
[b]"Intellectually impoverished."
The phrase has been bandied about by both pseudo- and actual real-live intellectuals who consistently haunt these threads, as a supposed complaint against Christianity and/or the complete canon of Scripture.
In their view (although never with any type of substantiation), Christianity is inferior to their singular a ...[text shortened]... teps possible. It makes one wonder exactly who the intellectually impoverished ones are.[/b]
So, believe what you want. Just take this knowledge with you. Some of us know better. Not that you are wrong but that you could be wrong (and so could we) and maybe that is all the intellectual enrichment we require to live in peace and prosperity on this planet and treat each other with the respect that every child is due from the moment of their first breath.
