BS: The flaw in Christian Theology

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Pogo
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 09:51 PM

{OD

I ain't even gonna put my two cents in ;O) I've thought so much about theology my head hurts.

Hope you guys figure it all out.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:12 PM

The article by Bill Moyers that Donuel posted is one of the most frightening reads I've had in months. Go read it if you passed it by.....then ask yourself what we have come to.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,Paranoid Android
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:28 PM

So this guy God creates the Heaven place and stocks it with angels who's apparant function is to pander to his vanity. Lucifer and his guys get fed up and are kicked out. Then the God guy (in order to replace the fallen angels) decides to create two "perfect" human beings with a built in flaw which which is guaranteed to cause them to commit sin. The "penalty" for their transgression is that every human being born thereafter will be "imperfect" and put up with life as we know. This God guy is a sicko, I'll stick with Lucifer.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 11:11 PM

Yes, well, that is clearly an infantile and totally ridiculous concept of God. I wouldn't worry further about it, if I were you. :-) It's not worth worrying about.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,Mark Clark
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 11:49 PM

One of the reasons there is so much confusion and disagreement on these issues is that people keep going back to The Bible as their source of truth or fallacy instead of going back to the Church. The Bible was assembled from traditional writings by the Church in the fourth century. Prior to that, there was no Christian Bible. The Church didn't come about because someone read The Bible and said "Holy shit, do you see what it says here? We'd better start us a church pretty damn fast!"

The Bible is part of the Tradition (capital T) of the Church. It was assembled in faith by Ecumenical Councils of the Church and has no meaning outside of the Church. Like Alice's caterpillar, it means exactly what it is intended to mean, no more and no less.

The New Testament books known as The Gosples were composed to become part of Christian Liturgical practice just as Old Testament books were part of Jewish Liturgical practice. The followers of Christ weren't trying to change Judaism or break away from it, they saw Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, not a condemnation of it.

Prior to Saul/Paul, it was necessary to be a Jew to become a follower of Jesus—the originally pejorative term Christian had not yet been coined. Followers of Jesus went to Temple on the Sabbath with everyone else but stayed after in order to offer additional prayers and services. The Orthodox and Roman Liturgies, at least, still follow that scheme—Old Testament readings and Psalms followed by the New Testament Liturgy of the Word followed by the Celebration of the Eucharist.

Christian theology does not hold that non-Christians are bound to suffer damnation. Christian theology holds that no one can merit Salvation but recieves it by the Grace of God. And since no one knows how God bestows His Grace, no one living can say that another is rejected by God.

Christians were all pacifists until the time of Constantine and regularly declined to serve as soldiers. Even after the founding of Byzantium and the Eastern Roman Empire, Christians who served as soldiers and killed enemies in battle were required to confess those sins and seek forgivness for the killing before once again recieving Sacraments of the Church.

In recent times many people using the term Christian have departed so completely from what Jesus taught and what the Church believes that the term is often nothing more than a claim of divine right to do whatever pleases them today. It's often just a rationale for rejecting unwelcome knowledge.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:04 AM

EXCELLENT summation, Mark! Bravo! I wish every "Christian" would read that and wake up to what they are actually basing their faith upon: a story that someone told them because that someone was told the same story by someone else that was told by someone else that was told by someone else that was told by someone else that was told by....

All the way back to the 4rth Century! The early followers of Jesus were not Christians, they were Jews. Reform Jews.

And the early Christians were radically different from most of today's Christians. Today's Christians, whether they like it or not, are unwitting cultural descendants of the Churches of Rome and Byzantium which were self-serving, enormous, militant and military political/religious power structures that did not exemplify the teachings of Jesus very much at all. They acted contrary to the Spirit of those teachings in most cases. They, the bishops of those churches, put together the Bible as we know it today, from writings both ancient and more recent, they edited and altered the writings in many cases, and they did it to control people's thinking so that they would serve the CHURCH, not God or humanity, and would do it without question. Amazingly enough, people are still doing so today, and taking that Bible as the ultimate authority.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:35 AM

Bill D is right. The Moyers article is very disturbing. This is not the first time I have read about the phenomenon in the press. There is something quite inhuman in the desire to help God destroy the world and the (presumably non-Christian)people in it. Can't He do it at his own pace? Their eagerness to see us all go up in smoke so that they can get to Heaven faster (and I suppose gain additional favor there for "helping God out") is psychopathic narcissism pure and simple.

Which brings me back to Noah and the core of belief. I think that the liberal theology so well expounded by Joe Offer and some others in this thread is hard to support from the Bible. While liberal theologians agree that certain stories in the Bible are best understood as myth or symbol because they are clearly impossible, other key elements seem to be equally unbelievable, but are accepted because without them the entire structure seems to collapse.

God showed Noah the rainbow to assure him and other believers for centuries to come that He would never again destroy the world by water. But then Revelation tells us that He will indeed destroy the world once and for all by fire. This is logically consistent, of course, but is God such an equivocator? Surely He did not expect the Jews to think that since He specified "not by water" what He really meant was "destruction will come anyway, obviously by fire"!

And finally, before I bid farewell, how is it that God presides over mass slaughters of Israel's enemies in the Old Testament, demanding on some occasions that his people kill and burn even more than they did, yet in the New Testament becomes a God of Peace urging us always to turn the other cheek? Neither strategy is entirely appealing, but if God is eternally perfect and unchanging, how could He possibly change from being "a Man of war," as he is described in the Old Testament, into being the "Prince of Peace" in the New? And even as Prince of Peace, He offers "a sword."

I do not ask these questions to challenge or subvert anyone's benign and generous faith. They are simply additional reasons why after years of trying to believe in a present and benevolent deity, it has become quite impossible for me. Even without two World Wars and the Holocaust, and earthquakes and tidal waves, ghastly diseases such as cancer, botulism, and Ebola, which have nothing whatever to do with human free will, should be enough to discredit the understandably wishful thinking of the major religions.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:56 AM

I dunno, Little Hawk and Mark. I agree with much of wwhat you say, but I think that's a pretty cynical view of the formation of the New Testament. From what I've read, it seems that the canon (contents) of the New Testament was fairly well set by 150 AD, with minor revisions here and there over the next two or three hundred years. I've taught scripture for many years, so I think I have a pretty good background.

I really don't think the Hebrew or Christian scriptures were written to "control people's thinking." In many ways, they seem to be a perfect example of the "folk process" - oral tradition handed down from one generation to the next, refined as it was passed along, and finally written down.

I'd agree that the churches have been far too political and materialistic in many periods through the years, and that a great deal of harm and injustice has been done in the name of religious faith. On the other hand, faith has been a foundation for many good and holy people through the ages, and I think they have been able to keep the faith intact - despite the political structures of the churches.

And yes, I think the Scriptures have great value. You need to read them within context and with a little guidance, but they certainly are not beyond understanding. The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7, is a literary masterpiece and an extraordinary example of solid moral thinking and social justice. Paul's poetic piece on love in I Corinthians 13 is something that can speak to everyone, even those who have no religious belief. The psalms and the writings of Isaiah are wonderful, inspiring poetry.

Observer, I don't think I'd say that God changed from age to age - I think people's understanding of God has changed from time to time. By the way, there are many passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) that speak of a God who loves and provides for his people. There's also talk of feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and loving one's neighbor. The God of the Hebrew Scriptures is not nearly so vengeful as people seem to think.

Now, if we look on the Scriptures as a statement of faith of believers, rather than a historical document, many of the inconsistencies become insignificant. The stories of Adam and Eve, of Noah, the Patriarchs, David, Jonah, and many more are legendary in their very tone - it's obvious that they must be allegorical. As I said before, they're not untrue - they are stories told to illustrate a profound truth. Throughout those stories, there's a thread that conveys the idea of a God who interacts in some way with humankind. I'd say the "liberal" interpretation of Scripture fits quite well with what we know in other fields of study. It's the "literal" interpretation that doesn't work. I think I can also say that there is little evidence to support the idea that the Bible is some sort of secret code, or that it was intentionally compiled as a tool for mind control. If you take the Scriptures and examine them with the tools of literary, linguistic, redaction, form, historical, and archaeological criticism, those other standpoints just don't hold up.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 01:12 AM

Donuel - Great link! Thanks. Its a must read if you want to know whats really happening in America.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:58 AM

I recently read an excellent book that explains a lot. It begins with the ancient Greeks and takes one through a well-researched and pretty detailed history of the evolution of the Christian church:   The Closing of the Western Mind;   The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, by Charles Freeman. Although I'm sure there are many who can find fault with it, it is highly informative and, far from dry, it reads almost like a novel. Reader reviews HERE, but scroll down to the "Spotlight Reviews" and read Freeman's response to some of the reader reviews. It gives a good idea of the approach he takes in the book. I highly recommend it.

I posted the following on another thread and on another subject some months back, but I would like to present it again here for your consideration:—

Regarding the concept of a "personal God" who interferes in human affairs, there is a passage from an extraordinary novel by Mary Doria Russell:   very literary, part science-fiction, and very much a novel of ideas.

After a long and harrowing inquest into the disaster that happened to an expedition, which included a number of Jesuit priests, to the newly discovered planet Rakhat orbiting Alpha Centauri, the Father General of the Society of Jesus and a couple of other priests are walking in a garden and trying to sort out what they have just learned.

          He sat back on the bench and stared at the ancient olive trees defining the edge of the garden.
          "There's an old Jewish story that says, in the beginning God was everything and everywhere, a totality. But to make creation, God had to remove Himself from some part of the universe, so something besides Himself could exist. So He breathed in, and in the places where God withdrew, creation exists."
          "So God just leaves?" John asked, angry. "Abandons creation? You're on your own, apes. Good luck!"
          "No. He watches. He rejoices. He weeps. He observes the moral drama of human life and gives meaning to it by caring passionately about us, and remembering."
          "Matthew ten, verse twenty-nine, " Vincenzo Giuliani said quietly. "'Not one sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it.'"
          "But the sparrow still falls," Filepe said.
         They sat for a while, wrapped in their private musings.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,jim tailor
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 06:05 AM

Moyer's article takes what is true in the extreme and extrapolates it out over the moderate holders of similar views to make his own apocolyptic scenario. Moyers is Rush Limbaugh in a cleric robe. Oh yeah, he gave up the God gig. Now he's a "journalist".

good morning!

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 08:11 AM

I disagree, Jim.

He cites specifics:James Watt, case in point; T. La Haye, case in point.

"Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total and more since the election - are backed by the religious right." Is th enumber wrong?

"Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt."

Some falsehood there?

"A 2002 Time-CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks."

You think Moyers invented this statistic?

"One of their texts is a high school history book, "America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people.""

He might have specified how widespread this text is.

Or perhaps you think he did not read in "the news" the statements he says he did?

This is all pretty far from the rantings of a Limbaugh, Jim; Moyers does go rhetorical, but he does it inside the lines.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,jim tailor
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 09:50 AM

Amos,

The difference between Moyers and Limbaugh is style -- not substance.

The notion that the statistics that you echo make Moyer's point doesn't have anything to do with the point I made -- that Moyers defines too broad a group with the narrow rhetoric of the few on one extreme end.

Nobody is arguing that some believe as Moyers claims. What is arguable is whether they are enough in number or infuence to paint the apocalyptic picture that Moyers so ironically paints of those whom he claims to be the "apocolyptic" ones (I can't wait to re-read that line! --it has to sound as convoluted as Moyer's logic! Ha ha!).

Mark Clark is as kind and good a gentleman as you'd ever want to meet. What he writes above is written as absolute dogma -- though, as illustrated by Joe Offer's mild disagreement, it is no more certain than any other inter-denominational disagreement. Just as those illustrate two views on the issue, I can assure you that, just because millions of "Bible thumpers" read the "Left Behind" series, FEW of them are in agreement on the series' veracity. IN fact MOST, even those who buy the notion of a returning Jesus, don't think of the series as anything but fiction/speculation. As a double "in fact" you ought to get to know a few of the really "deep-enders" (my brother is one of them) -- they cannot even agree with each other -- each playing their little games of interpretational one-upsmanship in very heated debate. The thought that they would agree enough to be united as a strong political force is laughable.

And I can assure you that, having grown up around people who firmly believed in an "end times" scenario -- and many of them even thinking that those end times are now -- I do not hear them drawing the conclusions that Moyers assumes they must draw. For the majority of them, the notion that the "end times" might be around the corner was just a daily admonishment to always be living a life they would not be ashamed of were Jesus to return tomorrow.

Have a happy day!

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 10:55 AM

Jim:

Thanks for a clear exposition. A pleasure talking to you!

Have a fine day too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 02:10 PM

I have never taken anyone serious with a completely literal reading of the Bible, and yes, that includes Pied Piper (on this field).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,Mark Clark
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:09 PM

Yes, Joe, the writings that the Councils chose to form The Bible had been around, many since the first century. I didn't mean to imply that the Church created The Bible from whole cloth in the fourth century. But there were many writings of similar age that were rejected by the Councils even though they had enjoyed Liturgical use in some locales. Also things like the Apocalypse of John were highly controversial. The Apocalypse only made it in as a way of achieving final agreement. Seventeen hundred years later, in the Orthodox Church, it remains the only book in the New Testament that is never read in any public service. I've read that there were quite a few Apocalypses in circulation, many predating Jesus' birth. This was evidently a popular theme.

My point was merely to show that, historically, Christian theology comes to us through the Church, not from The Bible. And the writings of the New Testament were intended for liturgical use, not as history books or logic manuals.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 05:10 PM

Well, most of that I'd accept, Mark. Still, I think it's safe to say that the texts of the New Testament date from the first century, with almost certainly nothing written after 125 AD. The "canon" of the New Testament that we have today took shape beginning in about 150 AD, and was generally accepted by 200 AD. The Councils provided official recognition of the Canon as the Church took shape as an institution, but the Canon already had wide acceptance long before.

As for the writings that were not accepted - it seems to me that most just did not fit into the beliefs held by most of the Church. Some, like the Didache and the writings of the Fathers, are still in use but not considered to be Scripture. It does not appear to be a matter of bureaucratic or political suppression of unacceptable thinking - the canon of Scripture took shape before there was a bureaucratic and political structure within the Church.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 05:35 PM

".... historically, Christian theology comes to us through the Church, not from The Bible."

a pretty astute point, Mark. The very makeup of the Bible was done BY various church officials, based on what texts they had that were NOT hidden in caves, and what they approved of.. Scholars have other documents that 'perhaps' ought to be included, while others could be taken out without too many tears....but we know what debates ANY attempt at change would bring.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: gnu
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 05:36 PM

Heavy man. Heavy. Food for thought. I was just sitting here thinking, even though it's been as cold as a whore's heart (reference intended), in just a few months, there's gonna be enough black flies, skeeters, bite-em-no-seeums, deer flies, stouts, blue arses, Texas flies, well... you get the idea... to suck the life out of a bull moose on a dead run in the rain, for all the thought about "WHERE AM I AM FROM ?", I wonder, where is the FLY in Christian Theolgy ? If you've got the answer, please send it to : gnu, Black Spruce Bog, Three Miles in Back of Beyond, East Overshoe Parish, Kent County, New Brunswick, Canada, EIE IOA. A?

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 06:01 PM

funny zip code, gnu, but my 27 chapter thesis will be on it's way as soon as I get the footnotes collated...(you DO read Sanskrit, don't you?)

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 09:17 PM

Sorry, Jim, but I can't let that go by. To say that there is any comparison at all between Bill Moyers and Rush Limbaugh verges on the disingenuous. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I can only assume that you are unfamiliar with either one or the other, or have not really thought the matter through.

I have followed Bill Moyers for years, and although he is an unabashed liberal (and is the first to say so), I have never ever heard him distort the truth the way Limbaugh does. Limbaugh is an ignorant and angry blowhard who makes up his own "facts" (I can cite many instances if you wish), and a hypocrite on top of that. Bill Moyers, on the other hand, is knowledgeable and articulate, and respectful of the principle that, as Patrick Moynihan said, "You have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts." I have never known Moyers to make up facts out of whole clothe that way Limbaugh does. And Limbaugh does it on practically every show.

Furthermore, I have never heard a conservative accuse Moyers of lying or distortion. What those who don't like him accuse him of is being "too liberal." Which, incidentally, is not and never has been a moral flaw. Where Moyers arouses the ire of the Right is when he runs stories, as he has done many times on his PBS program NOW with Bill Moyers, reporting things that the Right would rather the American public not know.

He often arouses angry responses from the Right, but I have never heard a member of the Right cast aspersions on his integrity as a journalist or accuse him of distorting the truth or making up facts.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:09 AM

He deals in the "lie of ommission" in his "stories". As you agree with him, you are not aware of "the rest of the story".

And no, he's not "respectful of the principle that, as Patrick Moynihan said, "You have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.""...

...he demonstrates time and again that if another's "facts" don't agree with his set of "facts", the other's are automatically wrong -- and man of low character that he is, he doesn't address the difference -- he either ignores the other's "facts" (in his stories", or he charaterizes their beliefs for them (as in the story linked to above), thereby distorting their beliefs. That is the moral equivalent of a lie.

And his "facts" arrive to him pre-filtered. He hears what he wishes to hear -- "facts" that will reinforce what he already believes. That is why his self-appelation "journalist" is as laughable as calling Limbaugh a "journalist".

The difference (besides ideology) between Limbaugh and Moyers is style.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:23 AM

Clanging of loudly colliding opinions.

I am inclined to Firth's view, on a very small sample; Moyers espouses intelligent exposition, and Limbaugh espouses virulent arm-waving.

But I don't know enough case history on either of them to offer facts.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:45 AM

"Moyers espouses intelligent exposition, and Limbaugh espouses virulent arm-waving."

Again, style.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: M.Ted
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 10:47 AM

Not that it matters, in a world where every pig is equal, but Moyers used to be a White House press secretary, and Limbaugh used to be a DJ named Jeff Christy--as to character, Bill Moyers used to be a Sunday school teacher, Limbaugh used to be a drug addict--

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,Soma
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 11:30 AM

"Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani"

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM

One quick, point... nothing much really.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution, well erm.. while taken as green now has *still* yet to be proven. As such while people widely accept this believe to what has happened, it is still only something on a piece of paper and any scientist who believes enough in pure science to try and disprove something in such a way. Well right there would be the biggest flaw in your argument, using something unproven as the basis for your logic.

If you want to actually try to disprove the basis philosophy behind Christianity, then what you'll first have to do is actually backtrack what is the 'real' Christian religion.

Remember what we follow now in general (Catholism / Protestant) are both off-shoots of the original version of the regilion. Both of these new versions have changed when the Bible has been translated or in order to scare people senseless into joining the Church and casting about their penence.
A good example being how Catholism created 'Hell' as an extension to Purgatory, which was originally a case of where you would go for a number of years to make up for your Sins before being 'reborn' to the world, rather than going to heaven. Alot of things have been lost or altered over the years, to make the Church of your favoured Edition of Christianity seem like salvation.

So really your question should start with your research into the matter rather than some base knowlage probably learnt in Sunday School.

I'd be happy to have a well constructed argument about what is wrong with the Origin Theory, provided you actually take the time to construct one. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 12:56 PM

M.Ted,

That sure explains a lot. I had no idea.




...the man who shot Liberty's valence
(he shot Liberty's valence)
He replaced them with full-length curtains.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: gnu
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:00 PM

That there is a Canadian postal code. Letter - number - letter. Space. Number - letter - number. In this here case, it's meant to be read as all letters and sung to the tune of "The Farmer In the Dell" : E I E I O A. The A = "eh", eh. That's what makes it Canadian, eh.

Sandskrit ? You mean like on them Writch-o-skritches ? That's a lot of work, idnit ? Anyhow, I just don't see the need for all them nasty bitin bastards in any Garden, especially with what they only had fig leaves 'n all. Heck, if that's all they could come up with, it's a good thing they didn't land up in the Bog Country, with nothin but spruce needles and bog ferns. They'd a got their uglies bit so bad none of us would be here today.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:28 PM

Guest:

You are mistaken about the nature of Darwinian evolution. It has indeed been as proven as most well-established scientific structures.

The fact that it is called a theory does not mean that it is an unfounded opinion; it means it is an overarching data structure which aligns observed facts. This use of the word, a scientific theory, is different from the street-version meaning a half-baked idea.

Anyway there is an ever-growing body of evidence in widely various fields -- biochemistry, botany, biology, linguistics, and anthropology come to mind -- which support the theory.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:38 PM

Joe - You wrote "I really don't think the Hebrew or Christian scriptures were written to "control people's thinking." In many ways, they seem to be a perfect example of the "folk process"

Agreed. What I meant was that the powerful Church of Rome and the powerful Byzantine Church used them later to control people's thinking...for the benefit of the Church as a power structure.

Despite that, I'm sure there were some genuinely spiritual people in the main church structure at the time. But they may have been much in the minority.

Other than that...what Mark said. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 05:55 PM

The spherical earth is a scientific theory.
Gravity is a scientific theory.
Mendelian genetics is a scientific theory.
DNA is a scientific theory.
And Evolution is a scientific theory.

Here's the thing about scientific theories:

They all work. They can be proven.

Creationism, Intelligent Design, Adam and Eve and every other Biblical metaphor can't be tested or proven by scientific means.
They remain articles of "faith" or belief.

More to the point: The Bible is a metaphor and can't be taken literally. It was never meant to do that until it was used by political clegy to control the laity.

Remember that whenever you scratch a fundamentalist, or an evangelical, you find a politician.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 05:56 PM

PS: This is precisely why we need in this country:

Separation of Church and State.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 06:18 PM

wow.

Don't hold back now, Frank.

Did you consult your "WWJD" magic eightball before posting that?

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 06:20 PM

I should probably just let this lay, because I don't think I'm going to change anybody's opinions here. Nevertheless, there a few matters of fact that need to be straightened out:—

Yes, Jim, journalist. And if you'll take the time to read this link, you note that, not only his he an author of several fairly scholarly books and the producer and moderator of some of the best television programming to have ever been aired (HERE), he is highly respected by most members of his profession—which, I reiterate, is journalism.

Moyers states that one of the purposes of his most recent program, NOW with Bill Moyers is to present stories that are neglected or avoided by the main-stream media—stories he feels that the American public needs to know. This, of course, arouses the animosity of those who would rather not have these things pointed out.

Moyers reports a lot of positive stuff, too. Off the top of my head, I recall one story on NOW about a company (in one of the southern states, I believe) that was highly profitable and turned out top-quality products—and paid the best wages in the area, while giving its employees an exemplary benefit package, excellent medical coverage, a secure retirement program, a limitation on how much overtime they can be required to work, and a free on-site day care center. The negative aspect of this story was that it shows that it can be done! Not something that Wal-Mart and a lot of other companies want people to know.

Moyers is not just an attack dog like Rush Limbaugh.

Moyers retired a few weeks ago, leaving an extremely large pair of shoes to fill, but in turning NOW over to David Brancaccio, it would appear he has left it in capable hands. Brancaccio is young, but he his journalism credentials are excellent.

As far as "the rest of the story" is concerned, Moyers points it out, and I check it further. I don't just accept his say-so. But I've found that he's generally right on the money.

I have a great deal of respect for Bill Moyers. American journalism needs more like him.

Obviously you don't like Moyers. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But any comparison between Moyers and Limbaugh is ludicrous.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 06:36 PM

It's nice to have someone to believe in, eh?

Good evening!

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 06:48 PM

In other words, you're saying that I believe what Moyers says uncritically?

You don't know me at all, Jim. But no matter. This conversation is over.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: number 6
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:08 PM

Below is a quote from Mohandas Gandhi. I find it very intriguing, if not true.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:15 PM

Don...you note you are not getting an argument for, or defense of, the Rush Limbaughs of the world......you are getting mere sidestepping and shrugging claims that 'it's just a matter of style or opinion'.....
   Supporters OF Rush can never offer any more than the loud mouthed mud slinger himself....and usually a lot less, as Rush can at least glibly spout that stuff in clever patterns.

You can't win an argument when the opponent has made all his conclusions in advance, but it IS nice to see some rational points in print.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:47 PM

naw, you miss my point. I was merely deciding, as were you, that (and I quote), "We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. You like Moyers, I don't like either. As I said, it must be nice to....well.....

I'm really not a belligerant cuss. You stated your position well. I just think that sometimes repetition ought to go the way of the dodo. <<<<----ironic humor intended.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:59 PM

and Bill D,

I do find Limbaugh a fascinating subject to discuss -- though those discussions are usually fruitless in an open forum -- he gets what he gives. There's just so much hatred for the guy that it's hard to look past that and see the fascinating cultural change that "created" him.

If you're interested in my take, feel free to PM me.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 12:10 AM

so much of what he is, is the 'entertainment' he provides....if he were a dry college professor who droned on with conservative theories, he'd get no air time...I'd love to know whether he believed all that BEFORE he got on the air, or whether needing to be noticed made him increase the volume and tone.

So very much of what he does consists of throwing out accusations and making others waste their time disproving it....like the Swift Boat ads against Kerry, onlt even more vague. It's a losing battle, and on the WWW, what Limbaugh does is called "trolling".

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: PoppaGator
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 01:50 AM

At this advanced stage of the current discussions, does anyone agree with me that it was a mistake to use the word "flaw" (singular) rather than the plural "flaws" in the original subject line?

It's all been interesting, but I feel that it would be pointless for me to try to add anything more substantive than the foregoing quip. Nobody is changing anyone else's mind, which is too bad; we humans desperately need to arrive at some consensus that bears a closer relationship to reality than the truly insane paradigm behind the forces that currently control historical events.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 06:32 AM

As when watching a magician (which Limbaugh is not -- this is an analogy -- follow me on this. ha ha), if you want to know how he's doing something, you need to avoid being drawn into watching what seems to be happening, and focus on what's really happening.

It's easy to let your outrage and sense of justice cloud an objective sense of observation at why Limbaugh rose to popularity in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Pied Piper
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 08:31 AM

Good point PoppaGator, maybe I should have said "one of the flaws" or "a".
Getting back to the original point, what then was the purpose of the death of Jesus?

Something seems wrong here, but I'm going to have to agree with Amos. A very succinct explanation of the nature of a scientific theory.

Remember Newton's "Theory of Gravity", jump of the top of a tall building and tell me if it hearts when you hit the deck.

This is not an attempt at trolling, but an attempt to get at the truth.

This whole planet is at a point where all these disparate and mutually exclusive religious beliefs and the worldviews they engender threaten our survival as a species.

I don't go round bombing churches or disrupting religious services, and what people believe happens to them when they die doesn't matter to me as long as there decent people while there here.
Having said that I'm not going to sit around and do nothing if religious views threaten the human rights of my family and friends.

The point is that most of the world's big religions evolved in agricultural economic systems that have a basically controlling attitude to the natural world and an unavoidable tendency to intensify production to the point of ecological collapse if they cannot expand.
Agriculture can no longer expand significantly and if the intensification necessary to feed an increasing population is not reversed ecological collapse is inevitable.
The fact that some religious people near to positions of power see this as a good thing is very very dangerous for the religious and the sceptic alike.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 12:17 PM

The point of the death of Jesus? Well, I think there are very few Christians who believe Jesus died to appease the wrath of an angry God. "Jesus died for your sins" is a verbal shortcut that does the matter more harm than good - it's too simplistic.

The theology of the death of Jesus is not something that can be explained in an Internet forum. For his death to have the significance Christians give to it, one must be able to believe in the divinity of Jesus - or at least accept it for the sake of the discussion. If God became man and then was killed because of his stance against injustice, that has meaning. Many people have died opposing injustice, opposing what's wrong with this world; but if God did it, too, that has special significance and gives meaning to the deaths of all those others.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 09:13 PM

Oh dear, Joe, I am afraid your explanation justifies almost all acts of martyrdom (including Islamic terrorism) and may not sit well with most Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 10:11 PM

Without meaning to offend, Dianavan, I think that that your idea is one of the one of the loopiest things I have ever heard and one say about the death of Christ--don't be so quick to find fault with Brother Joe, he is the only one here who is certified to propound in the matter at hand--

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 10:36 PM

No, actually he's not the only one certified. There are a number of ordained people around here. They just don't find the simplistic level of these discussions worth the time and effort, not to mention the closed minds.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: The flaw in Christian Theology
From: M.Ted
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 12:33 AM

"Here" meaning in this thread--