Endless Punishment, Fundie style

[CplFerro]

Just gonna skip the Dark Ages, Spanish Inquisition, Persecution of Copernicus, Crusades, American Slave Trade and Manifest Destiny, eh? And all those ones and zeroes, they're not Arabic ones and zeroes are they? Nah, probably Roman numerals.

Well done!

Dear Dr.,

It would be amazing if Christianity, classical Greece, and the Renaissance all burst forth into the full flower of human potential, wouldn't it? One of the premises of Christianity is that man is of two natures at war with each other. The victories of the dark nature are hardly reason to curse the light.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Resume]

One of the premises of Christianity is that man is of two natures at war with each other. Cpl Ferro

Hardly a unique concept. It's one of the oldest themes in humankind.

 

[abaddon]

Because globally-extended Christian European civilisation went to the Moon, abaddon. The personality, mission, and fate of Christ are indelibly stamped on the character of this civilisation, just as is classical Greece, and the Golden Renaissance. Take these three things together and we have the modernity that freed the slaves, that landed on Luna, and that devised these devices that allows you and I to intercourse so. Islam didn't do this, nor Hinduism, nor any other world religion, but Christianity had a hand in doing so. That's a big reason why I take the writings about Christ seriously.

Cpl Ferro

Science went to the Moon. Science performed by a nation which specifically forbids religion in state affairs.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Dear Dr.,

It would be amazing if Christianity, classical Greece, and the Renaissance all burst forth into the full flower of human potential, wouldn't it? One of the premises of Christianity is that man is of two natures at war with each other. The victories of the dark nature are hardly reason to curse the light.

Cpl Ferro

But, how can you say Christianity is to credit for the successes and man is to blame for the failures? You count the hits and ignore the misses and yet you expect your arguments to be taken seriously. It's like a bad cold reading, but over a thousand years.

People kidnapped slaves using the bible to guide their conduct. Later people worked to free those slaves using the bible to guide their conduct. Either the bible changes or it is just a very bad guide that can be used to justify any conduct.

Getting to the moon was clearly a scientific venture, using the sort of science that the church has often been against. Had the church been more successful we would never have left terra firma with the Wright brothers, much less the Right Stuff. You can't claim that as a church victory just because many participants went to church. If that were true we'd have to count it as a Scotch victory, because I think many of the participants drank Scotch. Or a Chevy victory since the astronauts all drove Corvettes. Absurd, no?

And wasn't the internet was created by Al Gore. I'll let you have that one, if you really want. Christ, I don't want him . . .

 

[Donn]

Yes. At least, that's the Catholic understanding. I think of it as being given a prompting by the Holy Spirit, like a small flame that can be used to create a large one. And, doing so involves further prayer.

Therefore, anyone who gets no prompt cannot pray and is damned. This is also why babies are damned.

Taps forehead rapidly, "You Catholics are crazy!"

I don't know if this is correct or not, but it gives you a sense of how one might conceptualise a being that precedes creation, so that there was/is/will be an eternal Something (Being) prior to the created Something (Becoming).

The only sense I got from that was non.

Granting the existence of a Creator, I realise such a being is alienating. God is an alien entity, even if I am made in His image. Jesus, as Logos-made-flesh, overcomes that alienation. That's a compelling concept. So, combine that with what I mention to abaddon, two posts up.

That didn't address what I said.

Your non existent god, that has being, is an alien who wore Jesus skin to look better and this compels you to believe it's all real?

Taps forehead again...

 

[turingtest]

But, how can you say Christianity is to credit for the successes and man is to blame for the failures? You count the hits and ignore the misses and yet you expect your arguments to be taken seriously. It's like a bad cold reading, but over a thousand years.
People kidnapped slaves using the bible to guide their conduct. Later people worked to free those slaves using the bible to guide their conduct. Either the bible changes or it is just a very bad guide that can be used to justify any conduct.

Getting to the moon was clearly a scientific venture, using the sort of science that the church has often been against. Had the church been more successful we would never have left terra firma with the Wright brothers, much less the Right Stuff. You can't claim that as a church victory just because many participants went to church. If that were true we'd have to count it as a Scotch victory, because I think many of the participants drank Scotch. Or a Chevy victory since the astronauts all drove Corvettes. Absurd, no?

And wasn't the internet was created by Al Gore. I'll let you have that one, if you really want. Christ, I don't want him . . .

I am so stealing that- it's the perfect description of religion throughout history.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

And, I believe that's true, Frozenwolf. God is not a vending machine into which we pop prayer tokens so that out pop blessings. Prayer is about deepening a relationship. It's my understanding of prayer that, since we can't change God, we can change ourselves, and in becoming different, God may respond to us differently. It's not inconceivable that prayers for intercession will be granted, just not the primary thing.

Well, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, faith is a gift. If you bother to pray for faith, sincerely, then you have in effect received some faith.

Right, blame the person praying for doing it wrong, for a lack of sincerity. It couldn't possibly be the fault of the flawed belief system on which prayer is based.

On evidence for God, my primary evidence is that there is something rather than nothing. I'm presuming you're a materialist, and you believe in astrophysics, and that will tell you that the universe is not eternal but came into existence at some point. What would bring it into existence was not nothing, since nothing comes from nothing, but Something, a primary Fact from which all other facts derive, and this Something is necessary, rather than as the Universe is, which is contingent.

The Big Bang theory does not say the universe came from nothing. Neither does the Hebrew Bible. You're wrong on both counts.

But, that's an originating way of looking at it. I also look at it as a master Order behind the mutable chaos of the Universe. The Symphony requires a Composer (creator) and Conductor (sustainer) because it remains contingent, lacking its own reason to exist, existing in the realm of Becoming rather than Being. God is Being.

This contains the same logical flaws as the Kalam cosmological argument. You're assuming your conclusion by labeling the universe as a "creation" that therefore requires a "creator."

 

[CplFerro]

Sorry, all; an exigency has taxed my attention. I should be able to reply tomorrow.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Hardly a unique concept. It's one of the oldest themes in humankind.

Dear Resume,

Yes.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Resume]

Dear Resume,

Yes.

Cpl Ferro

Yes, the Apollonian versus the Dionysian.

 

[CplFerro]

Science went to the Moon. Science performed by a nation which specifically forbids religion in state affairs.

It helped out, yes, abaddon, but, science operates on the presumption that the universe obeys laws, and that concept, whether you like it or not, came from the concept of a Lawgiver.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

But, how can you say Christianity is to credit for the successes and man is to blame for the failures? You count the hits and ignore the misses and yet you expect your arguments to be taken seriously. It's like a bad cold reading, but over a thousand years.

People kidnapped slaves using the bible to guide their conduct. Later people worked to free those slaves using the bible to guide their conduct. Either the bible changes or it is just a very bad guide that can be used to justify any conduct.

Getting to the moon was clearly a scientific venture, using the sort of science that the church has often been against. Had the church been more successful we would never have left terra firma with the Wright brothers, much less the Right Stuff. You can't claim that as a church victory just because many participants went to church. If that were true we'd have to count it as a Scotch victory, because I think many of the participants drank Scotch. Or a Chevy victory since the astronauts all drove Corvettes. Absurd, no?

And wasn't the internet was created by Al Gore. I'll let you have that one, if you really want. Christ, I don't want him . . .

Dear Dr,

The essence of Christianity is that man is made in the image of God, Who is a rational god*, and that in participation with the Risen Lord we save our souls. The Church may have obscured this basic idea with its legalism, the Bible may be unclear and overlong, but there you have the basis for the Renaissance, when combined with the Greek classical heritage: Man is divine, contains a divine spark, and this divinity revolves around the primacy of Reason, as man's potential for development. Situate my comments therein.

Without Christianity and classical Greece, there would have been no Renaissance, without the Renaissance, no benefits aforementioned, just unending pagan darkness.

Cpl Ferro

* God Himself is unknowable in full to man, and, so, beyond logic, but He acts rationally.

 

[Resume]

It helped out, yes, abaddon, but, science operates on the presumption that the universe obeys laws, and that concept, whether you like it or not, came from the concept of a Lawgiver.
Cpl Ferro

And whether you like it or not, the burden of proof for the highlighted rests entirely upon the claimant. Which would be you.

 

[CplFerro]

Therefore, anyone who gets no prompt cannot pray and is damned. This is also why babies are damned.

I've never heard that someone cannot seek faith, Donn. "Seek and ye shall find," no? Faith is a gift; ask for the gift.

Your non existent god, that has being, is an alien who wore Jesus skin to look better and this compels you to believe it's all real?

Or, an eternal, aspatial, atemporal Creator or Logos became a created being for the sake of saving man from his alientation from said Creator. In other words, the Logos is not a remote "It" but a concerned "Who".

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

And whether you like it or not, the burden of proof for the highlighted rests entirely upon the claimant. Which would be you.

Dear Resume,

Is there a culture where science arose outside of religion? Science didn't originate with the Enlightenment, after all, which started to popularise metaphysical naturalism. Did metaphysical naturalism ever arise prior to the Enlightenment?

Modern science is the heir at least to the Renaissance, which was heavily religious and the scientists of which were religious. Johannes Kepler talking of "thinking God's thoughts after him" comes to mind. Before that, Greece...was classical Greece an example where scientific investigation arose on the presumption that there were laws governing the Universe, but, no Lawgiver?

It seems a little dicey to presume that a society that believes in a Lawgiver would not end up translating that into physical science. What is the history of Taoist science?

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Yes, the Apollonian versus the Dionysian.

That might be dyeing Dionysus a touch too dark, Resume, but it's not far from the truth.

I might suggest the Christian versus the Molochian.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

And, I believe that's true, Frozenwolf. God is not a vending machine into which we pop prayer tokens so that out pop blessings. Prayer is about deepening a relationship. It's my understanding of prayer that, since we can't change God, we can change ourselves, and in becoming different, God may respond to us differently. It's not inconceivable that prayers for intercession will be granted, just not the primary thing.

Well, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, faith is a gift. If you bother to pray for faith, sincerely, then you have in effect received some faith.

Right, blame the person praying for doing it wrong, for a lack of sincerity. It couldn't possibly be the fault of the flawed belief system on which prayer is based.

That raises the question of whether faith is irresistible or not, Frozenwolf, of whether faith is given to you whether you want it or not. In my case, that appears to be so, but that doesn't mean it must be so for all. If you genuinely seek faith, I don't know of any reason in principle why you couldn't find it.

On evidence for God, my primary evidence is that there is something rather than nothing. I'm presuming you're a materialist, and you believe in astrophysics, and that will tell you that the universe is not eternal but came into existence at some point. What would bring it into existence was not nothing, since nothing comes from nothing, but Something, a primary Fact from which all other facts derive, and this Something is necessary, rather than as the Universe is, which is contingent.

The Big Bang theory does not say the universe came from nothing. Neither does the Hebrew Bible. You're wrong on both counts.

The Big Bang theory as far as I've heard, has been reduced to "quantum foam," without explaining where the quantum foam came from. Is quantum foam now said to be eternal?

But, that's an originating way of looking at it. I also look at it as a master Order behind the mutable chaos of the Universe. The Symphony requires a Composer (creator) and Conductor (sustainer) because it remains contingent, lacking its own reason to exist, existing in the realm of Becoming rather than Being. God is Being.

This contains the same logical flaws as the Kalam cosmological argument. You're assuming your conclusion by labeling the universe as a "creation" that therefore requires a "creator."

If that hinders your understanding then consider the Order versus chaos statement preceding it. The Universe that we see is Becoming, after the old Greek philosophical terms. Unless it has changed recently, scepticism/scientism/atheism views the Becoming as all there is: endless flux. Yet, this begs the question of what stays the same? Do the laws of nature themselves change, and, if so, according to what law do they change? The only escape from an infinite regress of laws is the idea of unchanging Being.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It helped out, yes, abaddon, but, science operates on the presumption that the universe obeys laws, and that concept, whether you like it or not, came from the concept of a Lawgiver.

This is so wrong. Scientific laws are human constructs to help us better understand the universe. It does not mean the universe always conforms to these laws. In fact, some of these laws have been shown to have exceptions as new discoveries are made; for example, the constants of the universe have been found to vary depending on time and place. Science is actually not in the business of making "laws" anymore, however the usage of the term is based on the fact that the universe consistently behaves in such a manner that one might as well call it a law.

You are playing a very disingenuous game with semantics in order to assume the existence of God.

The essence of Christianity is that man is made in the image of God, Who is a rational god*, and that in participation with the Risen Lord we save our souls. The Church may have obscured this basic idea with its legalism, the Bible may be unclear and overlong, but there you have the basis for the Renaissance, when combined with the Greek classical heritage: Man is divine, contains a divine spark, and this divinity revolves around the primacy of Reason, as man's potential for development. Situate my comments therein.

Religion has a monopoly on reason? Since when? All you're doing is making a lot of unsupported assertions here.

Without Christianity and classical Greece, there would have been no Renaissance, without the Renaissance, no benefits aforementioned, just unending pagan darkness.

You contradict yourself here. Classical Greece was a pagan society.

You also repeat a common myth about the Dark Ages. They were not an "unending darkness."
http://www.cracked.com/article_20615_5-ridiculous-myths-you-probably-believe-about-dark-ages_p2.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ter-than-we-give-them-credit-for-8215395.html

* God Himself is unknowable in full to man, and, so, beyond logic, but He acts rationally.

I already debunked your ridiculous claim that God is beyond logic. You just keep bringing it up because you don't want skeptics using logic to kick holes in your beliefs.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Modern science is the heir at least to the Renaissance, which was heavily religious and the scientists of which were religious. Johannes Kepler talking of "thinking God's thoughts after him" comes to mind. Before that, Greece...was classical Greece an example where scientific investigation arose on the presumption that there were laws governing the Universe, but, no Lawgiver?

So these scientists believed in God at a time when most people believed in God. That's not a particularly mind-blowing observation. Most people at the time were also unaware of the germ theory of disease, the existence of DNA, and the outlying planets of the solar system.

It seems a little dicey to presume that a society that believes in a Lawgiver would not end up translating that into physical science. What is the history of Taoist science?

Are you being racist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

This still does not mean that correlation equals causation, of course. You seem to keep making that mistake.

 

[Resume]

Dear Resume,

Is there a culture where science arose outside of religion? Science didn't originate with the Enlightenment, after all, which started to popularise metaphysical naturalism. Did metaphysical naturalism ever arise prior to the Enlightenment?

Modern science is the heir at least to the Renaissance, which was heavily religious and the scientists of which were religious. Johannes Kepler talking of "thinking God's thoughts after him" comes to mind. Before that, Greece...was classical Greece an example where scientific investigation arose on the presumption that there were laws governing the Universe, but, no Lawgiver?

It seems a little dicey to presume that a society that believes in a Lawgiver would not end up translating that into physical science. What is the history of Taoist science?

Cpl Ferro

None of this relieves your burden.