Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
everything starts as a speculation...
then you start to fill in the details...
you do observations and experiments...
and you might eventually get to a full blown physical theory.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
I agree that meanings and understandings are paramount within their time and space. With that said, anything Jewish must always be resonated with the Law, and God's judgement through that Law. Until who they believe is the messiah comes, they must continue to live under that Law. If I said that correctly, is that how you understand it?
Well, maybe that was true for some Jews ( Pharisees, for instance) and still is, but both Judaism and Christianity run the whole gamut of ideas on law, predestination, and salvation through grace. Some puritans believed your path to grace is determined by God when he created the world, regardless of your views or acts.
John was a Jew and taught baptism in the living ( moving) water for repentance and remission of sins and was repeatable. The accounts in the Gospels say that is the purpose of baptism also. Nowhere is it part of a ritual of acceptance into a community of faith or how it is used in most Christian sects now.
Norton doesn't think the NT was written until 100 yrs after Jesus was murdered. But we know actually the books started showing up around 80ad. Reason being after Jesus was gone the priests ordered those associated with Him to be killed also. So most separated and went into hiding. It was then they individually wrote their testimonies. And it's an amazing fact that their so coherent.
I wonder what Norton would think about what we know of the life of Nero. Pretty famous guy.
There are really only two accounts. One was written by Suetonius and is here:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Nero*.html
It was written 50 years after Nero's death and is 57 paragraphs. That's it.
Tacitus has some in his "Annals", but since he and Suetonius were friends and contemporaries, they seem the same work.
The other was written by Claudius Deo and was written 100 years after that. It is only a little bigger.
Neither really qualifies as a first hand account. How much of it is true?
The account of the life of several emperors is poorer.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"Hi Norton, I have no idea how fructose came to the conclusion that I thought more people believed in the Bible literally in the 20th century than others?" -Jan
Jan!!!1
Either your memory is failing or your lying to cya, which is it?
Over the course of your history here you've made such claims two to three times regarding both (a) the rise of fundamentalism over time (to include centuries even) and (b) (the low) percentage of fundamentalists (in Christendom). But you've made thousands of posts now, I've got a busy day, so I won't be looking through them to prove the point. Lucky for you.
hey,
accuracy matters!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Another classic cowardly hypocritical rant by the insane HFSC.
Calls Jan out by name will never himself stand up for anything he says here by remaining an anonymous coward.
Accuracy matters only to everyone else but YOU.
For someone who invest so much into this subject matter calling people out all the time you can't put your own identity to your own self all while everyone else does.
The true sign of a coward and thus you have zero credibility and respect .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy. Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that all others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible?" -Sam Harris
"We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature."
.....
re: The God Delusion
So we can probably assume by their silence to the question that neither Paul R nor Jan has read The God Delusion. This IS relevant as Dawkins work - bristling with facts and details - addresses every one of the standard arguments and/or misconceptions (eg, re "fundamentalism"). A pity because a reading of The God Delusion by several here would give a substantive common denominator (common grounds) for discussion.
Maybe Cragman might read it?
"Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don't have to make the case for what you believe." -Dawkins, TGD
.....
"It’s true that the average SAT score of high school students who plan to become teachers is below the national average."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/opinion/teachers-arent-dumb.html?_r=0
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
So we can probably assume by their silence to the question
I see, is that a “Scientific” assumption or merely argumentative speculation.
"It’s true that the average SAT score of high school students who plan to become teachers is below the national average."
And this means teachers are not as smart or are stupid or at least less smart than scientists? So let me see if I get this obviously scientific analysis right. Teachers are stupid so their arguments are stupid/wrong… so you're right and anyone who’s a teacher is mistaken because of their low SAT score… so this is science doing the hard work of reasoned analysis. Brilliant.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Dawkins: You don't have to make the case for what you believe.
What is a case? An argument.
In the end, this is what everyone does, no matter what their persuasion, since nothing can really be proven objectively.
Look at beliefs closely. All of them.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
The problem fructose, is that you are conflating a literal interpretation of the Bible over the centuries with all its deep and variegated traditions, with the Christian fundamentalist movement of the 19th century which was a specific reaction to the new critical analysis interpretations of the Bible.
The article on Christian fundamentalism in Wikipedia begins thusly:
"Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th- and early 20th-century among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism."
"It became active in the 1910s after the release of the Fundamentals, a twelve-volume set of essays, apologetic and polemic, written by conservative Protestant theologians to defend what they saw as Protestant orthodoxy. The movement became more organized in the 1920s ......."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism
You are always attempting to portray this 19th century brand of Protestant fundamentalism as representing all of Christianity when in fact Catholics and Orthodox were the only Christian church in the West from Constantine in the fourth century until their split in 1054. Those two churches continued on until Martin Luther split with the Catholics in 1521 although Wycliffe and Hus brought forth many of his ideas a century or more earlier. The Protestant fundamentalists are but an eyeblink in the long history of Christianity.
One of the ironies of the Protestant reformation is that Luther thought when everyone could read the Bible for themselves, they would know what the truth was. In fact, Christianity has split into thousands of separate interpretations and denominations. Protestant fundamentalism is just one of those and while very vocal in America at this time, does not in any way represent the whole of Christianity. Numerically speaking, Catholics still predominate on a world wide basis, followed by Orthodox followed by Pentacostals. None of those three are literal interpreters of the Bible.
Both you and Dawkins select the most fundamentalist doctrines and the least educated Christians to represent all of Christianity and that is simply dishonest.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Ha! I just found it in 10 seconds!
Background: I went for a noon run. That's when I do some of my best alpha- and beta- type meditations (discursive thinking regarding problems or problem areas). So-called free association powers are let loose. And voila: I remembered a key word. And I get home to check into it, I do a site search: Double voila!!
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=972999&msg=1074934#msg1074934
Your posts (eg, the one above) suggest you ascribe "fundamentalist" and "fundamentalism" primarily to the Protestant branch? If true, what in the heck is that about? "Fundamentalist" thinking / believing applies to a great deal more than the protestant revival movements of the early 20th century.
I'm talking about standard "fundamentalist" thinking and believing across Christendom and across its history.
It's sordid (Isis-like) history included. Quite "fundamentalist." Pick your century. Every single one MORE fundamentalist the further back you count. That was the point. MY point. And the facts.
"Fundamentalist" at base means adhering to a system's fundamental principles. So in Christian dealings this means fundamental Christian principles from the source: The Holy Bible.
Later if I have more time, I will quote you from the above link just to be clear. If it's already not clear enough. If you'd like.
Also noteworthy: This again harkens back to a main characteristic of yours: imprecision if not invalidty or inaccuracy in your posts and interpretations.
Gotta go.
I'll be back.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"Hi Norton, I have no idea how fructose came to the conclusion that I thought more people believed in the Bible literally in the 20th century than others?" -Jan
Hilarious!!
Too good not to repost...
Jan wrote- Only at the beginning of the 20th century, when the term fundamentalist was coined, did a specific group of Protestants begin to maintain that every word was the inerrant word of God. This is a very modern and very American understanding. Something like 99% of the other Christians in the world regard it as a kind of heresy.
For you, Norton. :)
.....
REF: 31 Jan 2010 (hfcs jan exchange, re: "fundamentalism" disagreement, etc)
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=972999&msg=1074934#msg1074934
It really does seem nowadays sometimes half of the liberal arts people and half the "social sciences" people believe whatever you want to be true is true... or whatever you feel (like) is true. Or whatever you write is true... the more times you write it the more true it is. So it's not all FOX NEWS doing.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
First things first, Norton. What do you make of Jan's statement (from 2010, five friggin years ago) that (1) only at the start of the 2oth century did protestants really start taking the bible literally / as inerrant word?
and (2) that it is a "very modern and very American understanding".
That's the most absurd of all.
What about all the 16th century, 17th century, 18 and 19th century protestant beliefs?
Is this a minor point? Are we to just skip over this trifecta?
No, I don't think so.
.....
PS. I said half, not all. I don't think I have to break it to you - there are a lot of crazies on the left too.
No I don't think you're one of them, but insofar as you're science based you've met them - the crazy superstitious ones - I'm sure.
Bottom line: Does truth matter? Does accuracy matter? In this case, applied to history eg history of Abrahamic religion, Christianity?
In my world it does.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
fructose, you really should read some Christian history. I will say again that people believed from the beginning that the Bible was true, but there have always been disagreements over what that truth was. Read a discussion of the debates about the nature of the trinity that went on for centuries. Read about the history of Christian heresies and understand that from the point of view of Catholics and Orthodox (the majority of Christians in the world) all of Protestantism is a heresy. Then there are all the different Protestant sects arguing that the others are heretics. Ask some Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, or Quakers what they think of the modern Christian fundamentalist movement.
Historically, the church and its sacraments, the church authorities, and the interpretations of Christianity came before the New Testament was written down. The early Christians who marched singing into the Roman Coliseums to be torn apart by wild animals, did not get their inspiration from a written text. It came from the teachings of charismatic preachers and their own convictions that they had made a direct contact with God. Scriptures and their interpretations came later. Subsequently, it has always been the teaching of the Catholics and Orthodox that the example of the saints and martyrs, the church and its bishops, early church tradition, and sometimes personal revelation by saintly people were all as vital as the scriptures. In part this was the result of the majority of people being illiterate and unable to read the scriptures for themselves, and the cost of reproducing those scriptures before the invention of the printing press.
As for your definition of religious fundamentalism, it seems to apply to any religious teaching with which you disagree, sometimes extrapolated out to all religion.
And lastly, here's a quote from Ed, the last time this issue came up.
"I think Jan has it pretty much right...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christians"
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Jan, you're an obscurantist loose with the facts, etc. "Fundamentalist" in the latter half of the 20th and nowadays, by extended definition (almost all entries in dixs have these) means traditional, adhering to fundamental principles. That was the context then on the earlier thread and that's the very popular current context all over and across today's social media. If I or anyone else meant the Protestant mvt of the early 20th century that referred to itself as Fundamentalism then we would write it in upper case, capital F, we didn't and we don't.
At base, the discussion wasn't even about the definition of "fundamentalist" in the earlier thread. It was concerning YOUR misunderstandings (1) that literal interpretation started with the Protestant Fundamentalism movement in the early 20th and (2) this "inerrant word" take was a "very modern and very American understanding."
Explain these last two claims if you will, then we can move on. Or else it's just more Paul R / MikeL bouffant.
MORE:
a) Ed's a religious scholar on that date is he? On "Protestant Fundamentalism" and also current usages of the word "fundamentalist"?
b) As I also posted earlier, I wish there was some magical way to compare your study man-hours in comparative religions and their histories with mine. I'd bet you 2 to 1 I've invested more time and thoughtfulness in the subject in person-hours than you - so I'm done with the history of Christianity for the most part, thank you anyways.
Look at your quote. You don't see how sloppy it is? You should own up. That's what I think.
Jan wrote- (1) "Only at the beginning of the 20th century, when the term fundamentalist was coined, did a specific group of Protestants begin to maintain that every word was the inerrant word of God. (2) This is a very modern and very American understanding. (3) Something like 99% of the other Christians in the world regard it as a kind of heresy."
There's even a third one.
Point 3 points out a third way it is incorrect, in error, loose with the facts. 99% of other Christians?! It's so absurd it's a waste of my time to elaborate on it. (Like the claim: bad air causes malaria.) So I won't.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Bottom line: Does truth matter? Does accuracy matter? In this case, applied to history eg history of Abrahamic religion, Christianity?
In my world it does.
Reminds me of something Picasso said (paraphrasing), "Art is the lie that tells the truth." I suppose you could say the same about a variety of mythologies.
Dawkins is a solid writer and presents interesting ideas. I've read his work as well as Hitchens', who, as a writer of remarkable skill, was also always a superior debater. Hitchens was a gifted, skilled interlocatur who could quarter any opponent. Dawkins certainly recognized Hitchens' skills.
If you want to read a solid critique of Christianity that's more philosophically concrete than the works of Dawkins I would suggest Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian."
But the work that defies Christianity yet holds tightly to the wisdom of a variety of mythologies as the great wisdom filled metaphors they are, the work that reveals the truth of being in a way science simply can't is "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man." Read Joyce and you may find Dawkins fading into a tendentious mediocrity.
Perhaps it's time to put down the tape measure and pick up the Shakespeare.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
I've read his work...
What weasling is this? "Work." I asked you specifically about The God Delusion. Did you read The God Delusion? Damn, it is such an easy simple question.
I can see through your weaslecraft Paul R like I could see through Pat Robertson's - whether a clear night or not.
that's more philosophically concrete than the works of Dawkins
Ludicrous.
I've read both. Russell's WIANAC is a set of essays. Very good. But hardly "more philosophically concrete." That's phony pretentious or simply brainless uninformed. Whatever.
As far as I'm concerned you're all in the same camp now as MikeL and BluBlr - a bunch of pretenders if not naifs or worse.
The Climate thread wasn't the only thread, it seems, rife in "mountebanks" "purile rubes" and "silly rabbits."
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Mike, I don't want you to feel like I am picking on you, but you spell out your philosophy rather clearly. This is just the latest quote:
In the end, this is what everyone does, no matter what their persuasion, since nothing can really be proven objectively.
So you really are a solipsist. No use beating around the bush. You don't believe in anything at all other than what is in your own mind. That is all well and good. I mean, it doesn't hurt anyone else, but how do you teach? You are a teacher, correct?
How do you feel about Newton's laws of motion? Do you think a spacecraft was navigated to Pluto based on quiet meditation, or specific mathematics?
Perhaps a spacecraft didn't go to Pluto. Perhaps you are really alone in an insane asylum, and this place is an artifact of a hallucination? Ever considered that?
So why do you post here? I've never seen you say that you believe in anything, other than perhaps your meditation. Who is to say that meditation is not a self deluding activity? History is riddled with those. The believers were as certain as you seem to be about that one thing. As for the rest, you appear to accept nothing. All evidence is based on faulty theory, or incorrect interpretation, or whatever wha wha....
The number of belief systems that humans have invented is really staggering. Nigh every population group had their own spin on the supernatural.
That was one of the things that drove me away from religion. I realized that I was being fed Christianity based on nothing other than the womb I came out of, and the society I was raised in. If I had been born in India, I would have been raised a Hindu.
Atheists are actually pretty rare. It might not seem that way, but I looked at some recent polls, and a vast majority of Americans believe in God. It is hardly fair to a child.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
I can see through your weaslecraft Paul R like I could see through Pat Robertson's - whether a clear night or not.
Weaslecraft? Really? Ha! Who sounds like Pat Roberston.
I read the book already, good grief. Hitchens' was better and he was a better debater to be sure. Dawkins gets too bogged down in scientific specifics especially later.
Neither hold a candle to the "Portrait..." by Joyce who disavowed his faith by refusing to pray for/with his dying mother and in that moment of betrayal is the realization of the true pain and freedom of non belief.
You should put down the Dawkins and pick up the Joyce.
a bunch of pretenders if not naifs or worse.
Another brilliant argument, of a Scientific nature no doubt!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Ah, Base . . . you’ve cornered me! I am indeed an “X” (fill in the blanks)!!
(Er, wait a minute. How can I be cornered? There are no walls in my world.)
I find the curiosity that comes with “I don’t know” tends to be more informative than any belief system.
Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment. (Rumi)
I’m not here to sell anything, to include meditation. I feel I must accept no thing.
Any person would be wiser if they could examine their own assumptions and beliefs and see the partialities and (final) inaccuracies in them.
I returned to the Seattle Art Museum yesterday to re-review the exhibition on masks and disguise, and I ran across this model:
The description about this native-mask model:
A modern rendition of The Pot of Foolishness:
IT’S ME! (As you wrote, Base.)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
No doubt life is a weasel fest... time for vacation.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!