18 Sep 03
Originally posted by belgianfreakI had hoped that both you and genius would see that my little ditty on Lot was nothing more than a joke. I appended my post with an emoticon in an effort to get that point across.
You seem to be suggesting that becoming a Christian makes your life worse in comparason to an athiest. You suggest that Christianity teaches you to be apathetic, not to try to better your human status and stay sprawled in the mud. This may have been true of the church in the past but not of Christianity, and not today I think.
Christians I kno ...[text shortened]... f view (I assume Genius & Ivan are Christian) and not from a position of defensiveness or anger.
18 Sep 03
Originally posted by belgianfreakWhat about all the people who commited suicide in Jonestown, Guyana at the behest of the reverand Jimmy Jones in 1979? Or the people (the name of the sect eludes me) who commited suicide to meet "god" in the mystical flying saucer not too long ago? What about elderly people who send their money to televangelist charlatans? Has their faith actually helped them, or would a healthy dose of critical thinking have suited them better?
You seem to be suggesting that becoming a Christian makes your life worse in comparason to an athiest. You suggest that Christianity teaches you to be apathetic, not to try to better your human status and stay sprawled in the mud. This may have been true of the church in the past but not of Christianity, and not today I think.
Christians I kno ...[text shortened]... f view (I assume Genius & Ivan are Christian) and not from a position of defensiveness or anger.
These are extreme examples I have presented, I admit, but all religions contain the same defect in that none of them emphasizes critical thinking skills, and instead put a heavy reliance in "faith". Of course, as we have seen, the typical Christian will claim that he has arrived at his faith through the use of reason, but I still maintain that faith and reason are incompatible.
18 Sep 03
Originally posted by rwingett
What about all the people who commited suicide in Jonestown, Guyana at the behest of the reverand Jimmy Jones in 1979? Or the people (the name of the sect eludes me) who commited suicide to meet "god" in the mystical flying saucer not too long ago? What about elderly people who send their money to televangelist charlatans? Has their faith actually helped ...[text shortened]... is faith through the use of reason, but I still maintain that faith and reason are incompatible.
Can I expect a reaction to my previous post, Rwingett ?
18 Sep 03
Originally posted by rwingett
You say "x", I say "y". What else is there to say?
That means that you don't agree with those simple historical facts that I mentioned and as a consequense of that agree with me that the political or clerical rapist is the one to blame for misusing the Teachings of Christ to secure his dominant political or economical position and not someone or something else and certainly not the Teachings itself ?
18 Sep 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe fact is that the Christian churches have had a checkered and bloody past. The rest is just interpretation of those facts. You claim past and present abuses are the work of misguided individuals which does not accurately reflect Christianity as a whole. I claim those abuses are the result of a deep rooted flaw within Christianity itself. The debate just goes around and around.
That means that you don't agree with those simple historical facts that I mentioned and as a consequense of that agree with me that the political or clerical rapist is the one to blame for misusing the Teachings of Christ to secure his dominant political or economical position and not someone or something else and certainly not the Teachings itself ?
The problem is that we have no common point of reference. The reason I responded to Belgianfreak's posts, and not yours, is that we had some common ground. We take my input and Belgianfreak's input and try to arrive at a synthesis. However, you and I are maintaining mutually exclusive positions where no synthesis is possible. It is sometimes entertaining to debate in this manner, but after a while it just becomes an exercise in futility.
18 Sep 03
Originally posted by rwingett
The fact is that the Christian churches have had a checkered and bloody past. The rest is just interpretation of those facts. You claim past and present abuses are the work of misguided individuals which does not accurately reflect Christianity as a whole. I claim those abuses are the result of a deep rooted flaw within Christianity itself. The debate just ...[text shortened]... tertaining to debate in this manner, but after a while it just becomes an exercise in futility.
I do not claim that the past and present abuses of governments and clergy are the work of misguided individuals. Absolutely not. Maybe Shakespeares Richard III can be a beautiful example of such an individual. In the beginning he holds a monologue, a speech directed at the audience(!), in which he explains exactly what his plans are. The theatrical trick here is that Shakespeare makes the audience an accomplice by chosing this theatrical form. Later we experience how he succeeds in making the clergy an accomplice (guilty!) in his coup d'état, this is his plan, and together they deceive the people. The people at that time and his later victims are the misguided individuals, not the Duke of Gloster himself who later becomes King Richard III through means of treachery and murdering a lot of people including a number of his relatives. At the beginning of the play he shares his secret plans with the audience, so he knows what he is going to do, he is responsible and at the end he is guilty and then he cries out those famous lines: "A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse ! ".
I may hope that we dó have a common ground or a point of reference: that complicated reality called truth !
So an agreement on some points must be possible without going round in circles. Now we need the will to do so.