Originally posted by Conrau KThe biggest prime to the pump, so to speak, within the renaissance, was the reintroduction of the Greek New Testament. True, there was a large element of romanticism (for the classic days of yore) involved in the thinking of some, but it was the themes within the Gospels and the New Testament which sustained the immediacy of the movement... which, in turn, also led to the eventual resurrgence in the reformations.
No. My objection is to your comment that Christianity is responsible for all of man's seminal accomplishments.
And I hardly see the renaissance as a return to Christian thinking, rather than a return to classicism -- imitating classical artwork, architecture, and literature. While substantial theological innovation did occur, with the rise of Martin Luther and Protestantism, this can hardly be considered responsible for the renaissance.
Originally posted by Bad wolfSo he said it without saying how it worked. That "really" proves his theory correct. (NOT!).
I 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 complementa ...[text shortened]... very), and the other explaining why the situation is how it is. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExactly how did the Greek New Testament inspire the renaissance?
The biggest prime to the pump, so to speak, within the renaissance, was the reintroduction of the Greek New Testament. True, there was a large element of romanticism (for the classic days of yore) involved in the thinking of some, but it was the themes within the Gospels and the New Testament which sustained the immediacy of the movement... which, in turn, also led to the eventual resurrgence in the reformations.
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don’t think you’re using the term correctly if you consider the concept anything other than “an active process.” By it’s very nature, deliberation is action.
But, it's still the case that deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process.
I don’t think you’re using the term correctly if you consider the concept anything other than “an active process.” By it’s very nature, deliberation is action.
… I do not really have the direct ability to bring about that belief in me a id, as we move into a highly secularized world wherein Christianity becomes an after-thought
No, you're confused. People can and often do deliberate about what to do. That doesn't mean deliberation is by its very nature action; it just means that in at least some cases deliberation informs action. But people can also deliberate about what is or isn't the case, which is what I am talking about. This ties deliberation into belief-formation, not action. So, I'll just say it again: deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process. This means basically that when someone deliberates about what is or isn't the case and belief formation occurs, this is predominantly not an instance of choosing this or that belief; rather, it is an instance of being brought into belief by one's interpretation of the evidence.
You seem to be getting bogged down in non-issues. My point, in case you just failed to understand it or in case I just failed to make it clear, is that you can go ahead and rattle off all the reasons why you think Christianity has brought practical benefits to society; but none of that gives me any reason to believe Christianity because none of it bears on whether or not Christianity is true.
Your pragmatic argument for Christianity is laughable. Everyone here can see that your "historical perspective" is neither "honest" nor "accurate". You're being patently ridiculous with many of your claims about how Christianity is the fountainhead of all human achievements. I mean, sell crazy somewhere else. But beyond that, I'm saying that your argument (even if it were a pragmatic argument grounded in facts rather than some grotesquely distorted understanding of human history) would do next to nothing to perpetuate Christianity anyhow (supposing that perpetuating Christianity entails belief formation regarding core propositions of Christianity).
That being said, what Christianity is all about, worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, will never fade.
Oh dear. Haven't you ever read "Ozymandias"?
Belief certainly enhanced my enjoyment of life. However, an aspect of my life on this planet would never have been realized without that belief: spiritual life which was previously non-existent.
Like I said: great.
Can’t blame Christianity for that.
I see. So we can praise Christianity as the fountainhead of any and all good stuff, but we cannot blame it for any bad stuff. Yeah, your historical perspective sure is honest and accurate.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMany have noted the differences between Paul (Saul) (and early Christians) and the historical Jesus.
[b]Then Paul spoke in words suspiciously like the Old Scriptures, rather than in the gist of Jesus as described by His own disciples.
"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."
"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
Yep. Just like them Ol' Scriptures. As they say, tone is everything.[/b]
The gist of Paul's teachings on how a Christian should lead his life is more in accordance with doing
things out of fear for the wrath God, than out of love for God. Correct me if I need to read up on my
bible.
Originally posted by JigtieMany have noted the differences between Paul (Saul) (and early Christians) and the historical Jesus.
Many have noted the differences between Paul (Saul) (and early Christians) and the historical Jesus.
The gist of Paul's teachings on how a Christian should lead his life is more in accordance with doing
things out of fear for the wrath God, than out of love for God. Correct me if I need to read up on my
bible.
And... ?
The gist of Paul's teachings on how a Christian should lead his life is more in accordance with doing things out of fear for the wrath God, than out of love for God. Correct me if I need to read up on my
bible.
You need to read up on your Bible. Paul's thrust was the freedom we have in Christ to the exclusion of any vestiges of religion or fear.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen I read Paul all I saw was an obsession with the issue of personal enlightenment. A twisted sexually perverted enlightenment but nevertheless an enlightenment. The accounts of Jesus seemed totally and appropriately Jewish within the contexts of their time and Essenic focus. Paul reads like any other perverted Roman follower of a mystery religion (of which there were many at the time.) It seems like he picked Jesus and his poor followers to advance his puritanical views rather than being picked. His texts are completely out of place and tho I can respect and understand his points they all seem pretty baroque and self-serving compared to mystery cult at the heart of the other writings. Unfortunately for the actual disciples he was ruthless enough to shove them all aside. Of course, he made it easier for the Romans to adopt the religion and use it to oppress the rest of Europe when military power was no longer available to do the same job.
[b]Many have noted the differences between Paul (Saul) (and early Christians) and the historical Jesus.
And... ?
The gist of Paul's teachings on how a Christian should lead his life is more in accordance with doing things out of fear for the wrath God, than out of love for God. Correct me if I need to read up on my
bible.
You need to read ...[text shortened]... thrust was the freedom we have in Christ to the exclusion of any vestiges of religion or fear.[/b]
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, you're confused. People can and often do deliberate about what to do. That doesn't mean deliberation is by its very nature action; it just means that in at least some cases deliberation informs action.
I don’t think you’re using the term correctly if you consider the concept anything other than “an active process.” By it’s very nature, deliberation is action.
No, you're confused. People can and often do deliberate about what to do. That doesn't mean deliberation is by its very nature action; it just means that in at least some cases del ...[text shortened]... any bad stuff. Yeah, your historical perspective sure is honest and accurate.[/b]
I’m confused? Do you even read back over the things you write? Do you have a dictionary in your house? Do you understand what a verb is--- and what it is not? “Deliberate” (in any normal sense of the word’s use) is action. A person’s deliberations may or may not lead to further action, but to deliberate in the first place is to act… in the form of thinking.
You seem to be getting bogged down in non-issues.
I believe it was you who opted to trek down a road completely irrelevant to the original point with your dissertation about belief formation and what-not.
My point, in case you just failed to understand it or in case I just failed to make it clear, is that you can go ahead and rattle off all the reasons why you think Christianity has brought practical benefits to society; but none of that gives me any reason to believe Christianity because none of it bears on whether or not Christianity is true.
Are you serious? I did not “rattle off” any such thing. My point was to challenge the inane assertion by some who make the sanctimonious charge that Christianity is intellectually impoverished… not, as you claim, to provide a laundry list of reasons for people to become Christian themselves.
Your pragmatic argument for Christianity is laughable.
I join your laughter, since I did not offer any argument for Christianity. That you would perceive my very clear intent as anything other than a challenge to charges of intellectual impoverishment, is itself the laughable event here.
Everyone here can see that your "historical perspective" is neither "honest" nor "accurate". You're being patently ridiculous with many of your claims about how Christianity is the fountainhead of all human achievements.
And you’re patently ridiculous for claiming to know what everyone here can see. More to the point, what I have asserted is borne out by a casual observation of history. It’s a fairly simple mental task: imagine the world since the time of Christ as if He hadn’t existed. That shouldn’t be too hard for you to do. What differences might we see? Now, take any other movement known to man and imagine the same scenario, i.e., as if it never occurred.
If you consider a view toward Christianity as its rightful place as the pivotal and influential movement in man’s history as “grotesquely distorted understanding of human history,” I honestly don’t know how to help you. I guess I could suggest a few basic history books, but something tells me you would simply eat the covers.
Oh dear. Haven't you ever read "Ozymandias"?
Oh, dear. Which one do you think has anything to do with the subject at hand, and why?
So we can praise Christianity as the fountainhead of any and all good stuff, but we cannot blame it for any bad stuff. Yeah, your historical perspective sure is honest and accurate.
When we came up with a vaccine for polio, was that science?
When Hitler’s horde “experimented” on human subjects, was that science?
‘You sure you want to go down this road?
Originally posted by TerrierJackA twisted sexually perverted enlightenment...
When I read Paul all I saw was an obsession with the issue of personal enlightenment. A twisted sexually perverted enlightenment but nevertheless an enlightenment. The accounts of Jesus seemed totally and appropriately Jewish within the contexts of their time and Essenic focus. Paul reads like any other perverted Roman follower of a mystery religion (of ...[text shortened]... it to oppress the rest of Europe when military power was no longer available to do the same job.
I'm guessing we must have different Bibles.
The accounts of Jesus seemed totally and appropriately Jewish within the contexts of their time and Essenic focus.
Apparently not appropriate in the eyes of the Jewish leaders of His time. Or now, even.
Paul reads like any other perverted Roman follower of a mystery religion (of which there were many at the time.)
A Jew among Jews somehow gets turned around as a perverted Roman follower? Are you serious?
It seems like he picked Jesus and his poor followers to advance his puritanical views rather than being picked.
And white can seem like black if you squint your eyes tight. You've quite obviously not read anything Paul wrote if your view is that he was "puritanical." His underlying message--- since you clearly missed it--- was freedom.
... and tho I can respect and understand his points...
You cannot respect what you emphatically do not understand.
... they all seem pretty baroque...
I'm with you on this one: everytime I read, say, Paul's second letter to Timothy, I can't help but conjure up visions of the bold ornamentation of 17th century royal palaces of France. They just kinda go hand-in-hand, really.
Unfortunately for the actual disciples he was ruthless enough to shove them all aside.
That explains why the other disciples commended Paul's teachings to the believers of the first century.
Of course, he made it easier for the Romans to adopt the religion and use it to oppress the rest of Europe when military power was no longer available to do the same job.
That sure seemed to be the goal: make a textbook ready-made for the power brokers of the day to subjugate the masses. Paul was freaking genius, huh. Makes one wonder why Rome saw the whole Jesus is Lord movement as a threat to be expunged. Or why all but one of the disciples were killed for their beliefs in the same. After all, they all had the same goal: domination of the general populace.
Sheesh.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHbut to deliberate in the first place is to act…
[b] No, you're confused. People can and often do deliberate about what to do. That doesn't mean deliberation is by its very nature action; it just means that in at least some cases deliberation informs action.
I’m confused? Do you even read back over the things you write? Do you have a dictionary in your house? Do you understand what a ver nted” on human subjects, was that science?
‘You sure you want to go down this road?[/b]
If we take an 'act' to be something that the agent intentionally does, then you're telling me that whenever you deliberate, you intended it to be as such? So you're telling me that you never just sort of find yourself in a state of deliberation (about what to do or about what is the case)? I find that hard to believe. I don't deny that people can intend to deliberate, but I still think you're confused if you think deliberation is inherently an act. What exactly would inform your intention to deliberate (each and every time you do deliberate)? More deliberation? Sounds like you have a major problem ad infinitum. At any rate, my initial point was about deliberative belief formation, not about deliberation simpliciter. Even if deliberation (about, say, what is the case) were intentional, that wouldn't show that subsequent belief formation is an active process (one could intend to form a belief or at least to engage the belief forming process through deliberation, but that doesn't mean he has active control over the content of belief that forms, or even any active control over whether or not any belief forms at all).
If on the other hand, you are treating the notion of 'act' such that whenever the agent is doing anything (whether intentionally or unintentionally), the agent is thereby acting...well, then, duh, of course to deliberate is also to act in that sense. That's hardly interesting and it hardly has anything to do with my claim about deliberative belief formation.
You seem wilfully intent on not getting the point here. I am just going to repeat myself again: "deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process. This means basically that when someone deliberates about what is or isn't the case and belief formation occurs, this is predominantly not an instance of choosing this or that belief; rather, it is an instance of being brought into belief by one's interpretation of the evidence." Now, seriously, if you still have some issue with what I am claiming there, then tell me exactly what you disagree with and why.
My point was to challenge the inane assertion by some who make the sanctimonious charge that Christianity is intellectually impoverished…
Okay, your argument as I understand it is the following.
(1) Christianity "unfettered" began all of western civilization; inspired science; and was the fountainhead for every seminal human accomplishment.
(2) Indeed if not for Christianity, nothing near the freedom, intellectuality and regard for human merit that now exists, would exist.
(3) Therefore, it is not the case that Christianity is "intellectually impoverished".
As far as I can tell, that's a terrible, terrible argument.
First of all, what exactly is 'Christianity' -- how are you construing it here? Is it some set of beliefs; some set of practices; some combination of both? Does it include complexes of dispositions that are motivational/evaulative/etc? Second, how exactly are we to connect Christianity, so construed, with the things that you claim it is responsible for? I asked you flat out before what about the negative aspects of religiosity as it has regarded our achievement-making progress (by which you were supposed to apply the same construal of 'Christianity' in an impartial manner). And you responded with the incredibly insightful "Man will always have power plays. Can't blame Christianity for that." Well, until you give a better account of Christianity and how we can impartially tie it into the motivations and execution of human achievement-making, I see no reason why someone should not just respond back to you as "Man will always thirst for knowledge and be motivated to achieve and gain knowledge and better himself and society. Can't praise Christianity for that." That is, you want to claim that any motivations that have hindered our collective progress were there despite "Christianity unfettered"; well, I don't yet see why we cannot claim that same about motivations that supported our collective progress. You'll need to explain it a bit better and develop it more fully (supposing you can). Even if you could give some more fully developed case, you have zero chance of supporting premise 1. It's just outrageously and spectacularly false. One could only put forth such a premise as that if he had a severely distorted and selective understanding of human history.
Premise 2 is highly debatable. For now, since you saw fit to so easily dismiss my inquiry on the negative aspects of Christianity with "Can't blame Christianity for that", I'll just respond to your claims on the positive aspects as "Can't praise Christianity for that." That is, just like you want to claim blanketly that any progress-hindering motivations were there despite Christianity, I see no reason that progress-supporting motivations were also not there despite Christianity (in other words, two can play that game). You've done absolutely nothing to support Premise 2 except to tell me that it is a "fairly simple mental task" to imagine a world in which Christianity never was. So, basically, all you have told me is that you cannot be bothered to support the premise yourself; rather you just want to tell me that it's a fairly simple mental task to do your work for you. I think it's a fairly simple task to see particular ways in which Christianity, contrary to your selective understanding, has hindered our progress and is to that extent not well-suited to human achievement-making. I think it's also a fairly simple task to postulate ways in which humans could, without Christianity, have achieved to the same degree that we have or a greater degree. But whether or not any of those ways would have played out in reality is a source for much debate. You have done absolutely nothing to give this debate its fair due.
Lastly, as far as I can see, your conclusion wouldn't follow from the premises anyway (or at least it is not clear to me how they are connected). I'm kind of confused on what exactly constitutes "intellectual impoverishment" in this context, but the fact that Christianity secured on the whole many exclusive benefits for our ancestors which we have also inherited (supposing, for our purpose here, that this is the case), wouldn't as far as I can tell mean that persisting in Christianity is not an intellectually impoverished project. Training wheels provide some exclusive bike riding benefits, but there comes a time in my development when that no longer gives me any good reason to persist in them. It might be that as we continue to progress in collective knowledge, theistic beliefs that have no evidential backing and yet make significant claims about how we are to understand the world just get in the way of subsequent progress. The idea that Christianity has no evidential backing, or flies in the face of what evidence we do have, is certainly not precluded by anything you have argued since, again, you've provided no evidential considerations in favor of the truth of Christianity. You've argued for intellectual enrichment solely on the basis of pragmatic justification; but where exactly do evidential considerations come in?
Which one do you think has anything to do with the subject at hand, and why?
The sonnet by Shelley. I'm imagining some shattered pedestal buried in the vast sands of time: "Look on the amazing achievements of Christianity, and despair!"
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, I guess that's that.
[b]but to deliberate in the first place is to act…
If we take an 'act' to be something that the agent intentionally does, then you're telling me that whenever you deliberate, you intended it to be as such? So you're telling me that you never just sort of find yourself in a state of deliberation (about what to do or about what is the case)? I find ...[text shortened]... vements of Christianity, and despair!"[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf we take an 'act' to be something that the agent intentionally does, then you're telling me that whenever you deliberate, you intended it to be as such?
[bbut to deliberate in the first place is to act…[/b]
If we take an 'act' to be something that the agent intentionally does, then you're telling me that whenever you deliberate, you intended it to be as such? So you're telling me that you never just sort of find yourself in a state of deliberation (about what to do or about what is the case)? I find tha vements of Christianity, and despair!"[/b]
Perhaps I live in a land of Bizarro in comparison to you, but, yes, whenever I deliberate (i.e., think about an issue) it is a result of my intention. Were I incapable of making a decision about what I think about, my life would be out of control. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it is one of the signature proofs of an adult mind to be able to exercise control over one thoughts and focuses. But, again, that might just be me.
So you're telling me that you never just sort of find yourself in a state of deliberation (about what to do or about what is the case)? I find that hard to believe.
Of course you do.
What exactly would inform your intention to deliberate (each and every time you do deliberate)? More deliberation? Sounds like you have a major problem ad infinitum.
I’m not the one with the problem, you are. You cannot on one hand argue that deliberation is not an active process and then attempt to support that absurdity by switching to the information aspect of the act: those are two distinct issues. No one has argued anything about the information aspect until now with you. Had you been more precise in your initial statement by separating the two, we wouldn’t be arguing anything.
Even if deliberation (about, say, what is the case) were intentional, that wouldn't show that subsequent belief formation is an active process (one could intend to form a belief or at least to engage the belief forming process through deliberation, but that doesn't mean he has active control over the content of belief that forms, or even any active control over whether or not any belief forms at all).
Correct me if I’m off-base here, but it sounds as though you are saying that the decision an individual comes to is based entirely on something other than an individual’s will, e.g., the information, genetic make-up, environmentally-derived value systems and etc.
If on the other hand, you are treating the notion of 'act' such that whenever the agent is doing anything (whether intentionally or unintentionally), the agent is thereby acting...well, then, duh, of course to deliberate is also to act in that sense. That's hardly interesting and it hardly has anything to do with my claim about deliberative belief formation.
God forbid that I fail to keep you interested.
You seem wilfully intent on not getting the point here.
Perhaps, but apparently not deliberately willful.
I am just going to repeat myself again: "deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process. This means basically that when someone deliberates about what is or isn't the case and belief formation occurs, this is predominantly not an instance of choosing this or that belief; rather, it is an instance of being brought into belief by one's interpretation of the evidence." Now, seriously, if you still have some issue with what I am claiming there, then tell me exactly what you disagree with and why.
I think you’ll need to be a hell of a lot more clear on that “being brought into belief by one’s interpretation of the evidence” part.
Okay, your argument as I understand it is the following.
(1) Christianity "unfettered" began all of western civilization; inspired science; and was the fountainhead for every seminal human accomplishment.
(2) Indeed if not for Christianity, nothing near the freedom, intellectuality and regard for human merit that now exists, would exist.
(3) Therefore, it is not the case that Christianity is "intellectually impoverished".
Mostly. However, I don’t recall making point number three. My challenge to the insult is that the insult could not have even formed, were it not for the existence of the object in the first place. By that, I don’t mean you cannot insult what doesn’t exist. Instead, I mean you wouldn’t have the level of mental sophistication to even inform the insult, were it not for the ammunition provided by the intended object.
First of all, what exactly is 'Christianity' -- how are you construing it here? Is it some set of beliefs; some set of practices; some combination of both? Does it include complexes of dispositions that are motivational/evaulative/etc?
If, by practices, you mean rituals, no. Otherwise, Christianity spoken of here is to mean specifically the thinking that results from faith based upon the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Second, how exactly are we to connect Christianity, so construed, with the things that you claim it is responsible for?
What ideas do we find as original to Christianity? That which emanates from these ideas are reasonably connected to Christianity.
… I see no reason why someone should not just respond back to you as "Man will always thirst for knowledge and be motivated to achieve and gain knowledge and better himself and society. Can't praise Christianity for that."
The only problem with such a response is its disagreement with history. Man, if anything, has shown that he is a despot.
Even if you could give some more fully developed case, you have zero chance of supporting premise 1. It's just outrageously and spectacularly false. One could only put forth such a premise as that if he had a severely distorted and selective understanding of human history.
I suppose an argument could be made from sheer coincidence, but I’m fairly confident that most serious students of history have dismissed happenstance as the cause in the major movements within our past. For instance, it wasn’t a coincidence that the Greek New Testament was re-introduced into European society co-terminus with the start of its renaissance. It wasn’t a coincidence that Luther (and others) sought to reconnect with the Bible’s intended message just as reformations were beginning throughout the civilized world. It wasn’t a coincidence that a handful of believers landed in North America just as the New World was being founded. In each of these events, the latter was a result of the former.
Premise 2 is highly debatable.
Of course it is. That’s why we’re having the discussion, I guess.
That is, just like you want to claim blanketly that any progress-hindering motivations were there despite Christianity, I see no reason that progress-supporting motivations were also not there despite Christianity (in other words, two can play that game).
I can agree with that (except for the already-noted despotism problem).
You've done absolutely nothing to support Premise 2 except to tell me that it is a "fairly simple mental task" to imagine a world in which Christianity never was. So, basically, all you have told me is that you cannot be bothered to support the premise yourself; rather you just want to tell me that it's a fairly simple mental task to do your work for you.
True, it was assumed that the reader would know at least a little something about basic history. I did not think it necessary to cover the whole range of particulars in light of already-established and accepted facts.
I think it's a fairly simple task to see particular ways in which Christianity, contrary to your selective understanding, has hindered our progress and is to that extent not well-suited to human achievement-making.
You’ll need to define your use of the term Christianity, of course, just as you insisted of me. Limiting your use of the term to my definition, I think your task will prove to be impossible.
I think it's also a fairly simple task to postulate ways in which humans could, without Christianity, have achieved to the same degree that we have or a greater degree. But whether or not any of those ways would have played out in reality is a source for much debate. You have done absolutely nothing to give this debate its fair due.
I don’t recall restricting your comments on this issue. By all means, flail away.
Lastly, as far as I can see, your conclusion wouldn't follow from the premises anyway (or at least it is not clear to me how they are connected).
As already pointed out, the conclusion you conferred upon me was not the one I made.
I'm kind of confused on what exactly constitutes "intellectual impoverishment" in this context, but the fact that Christianity secured on the whole many exclusive benefits for our ancestors which we have also inherited (supposing, for our purpose here, that this is the case), wouldn't as far as I can tell mean that persisting in Christianity is not an intellectually impoverished project. Training wheels provide some exclusive bike riding benefits, but there comes a time in my development when that no longer gives me any good reason to persist in them.
Interesting analogy. So what was once true and necessary is now no longer either?
It might be that as we continue to progress in collective knowledge, theistic beliefs that have no evidential backing and yet make significant claims about how we are to understand the world just get in the way of subsequent progress. The idea that Christianity has no evidential backing, or flies in the face of what evidence we do have, is certainly not precluded by anything you have argued since, again, you've provided no evidential considerations in favor of the truth of Christianity.
That’s a hell of a claim: no evidential backing. Sounds to me like you have a long road to hoe with that one. Let me know when you start.
You've argued for intellectual enrichment solely on the basis of pragmatic justification; but where exactly do evidential considerations come in?
Again, this is not my argument.
[b]The sonnet by Shelley. I'm imagining some shattered pedestal buried in the vast sands of time: "Look on the amazing achievements of Christi...