Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

Even if someone did get a wildly incorrect date on the Mt St Helens ash, that doesn't really mean anything. It is an outlier, a statistical anomaly. And it can be very reasonably explained by either sample contamination or just plain testing error. This is why multiple tests are required anytime you need to make measurements on this scale.

 

http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/emails/JesusDavidSolomon.html

Found this during a search for

 

I've already discussed this in posts with Prenn. I really wish you would stop doing this. You can't substitute the sociological value of something for all its possible values. We have thousands of recorded contacts between modern and pre-modern societies. The trend is overwhelmingly clear. While we can appreciate the function that the religion of these societies had in terms of giving meaning to life, it is also true that, for the most part, these religions were, in practical terms, accepted as objectively true. The spirits of an animist religion absolutely provide meaning, but they aren't just abstract intellectual exercises. They are things that people think are really there. The Asmat of Papua New Guinea didn't just refer to the Land Beyond the Sea and the spirits attempts to interfere with the lives of the living. They literally attributed everyday occurrences to said spirits, and devoted a huge amount of time to otherwise pointless rituals whose only function was to drive these spirits away.

In other words, this was not and has never really been an either/or proposition. Pre-modern societies both derived meaning from their religious stories and thought them factual representations of objective reality. So do modern literalist Christians. So did basically all people of any religious faith, up until such time as science began producing results that flatly contradicted some religious assertions. You're narrative about "appropriate" usage isn't very well under-pinned from a factual standpoint.

What do you mean by "confront?" It has been confronted. The two sources say things that contradict each other. That makes it likely one of them is wrong. Literalists hold that it is the scientific argument that is wrong (on these specific points), because it contradicts a source they hold to be correct. Period. What further "confrontation" is needed? How isn't the issue dealt with, at this point? What more possibly needs to be said?

If it doesn't convince you, fine. I imagine they are alright with that. I certainly am. Why does it bother you that other people are persuaded by something you dislike? That Marvel Avengers TV show by Joss Whedon is offensively stupid, in my opinion. I've hardly seen anything so poorly plotted and unentertaining among the new shows for the fall. Turns out it has a fair number of fans, though. Occasionally if the subject comes up, I will try to talk to those fans about why I feel the way I do. But I'm not under any illusion that everyone has to agree with my opinion. I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that they think differently than me. Why is it so vital in this case that everyone adopt positions that are satisfying to you personally?

If your argument is political, I'm not sure why you are having it here. At least a sizable minority (if not a majority) of Biblical literalists are not really motivated to be politically active around religious questions at all. Besides which, it would have sufficed to say that laws should be argued about in secular terms because society and government is (in the West) secular. You needn't bring up this whole branch of discussion with me, as I certainly don't care about it.

You aren't reading carefully. This has nothing to do with the idea of the noble savage. Nor did I anywhere assert that pre-modern societies were better, let alone that they "invariably" create happiness. If I had meant to say that, I would have used "is" rather than "can be." You spent all your time rebutting a point I never made.

I am fully aware that pre-modern societies have unique pathologies, just as modern ones have problems that are unique to them. What I said is that one is not necessarily superior to the other. Research on happiness supports the view that once your basic subsistence needs are met, and our inborn predispositions about mood are taken into account, there's actually very little variability left. Improved wealth or other metrics don't actually tend to improve people's happiness much, if at all. People in pre-modern societies can live happy and fulfilled lives in the same way that people in modern societies can.

What I guess I don't understand is your repeated insistence on running from something just because it receives the label pre-modern. So what? What's so intrinsically wrong with that? Do you feel that people who live in such societies (either in the past or present) are somehow beneath you? Is it so awful that you can't bear any association with them? You've pointed out some problems that can arise with these lifestyles, but provided that none of them actually do in a particular case, why does the label distress you so deeply?

What does this even mean? Are you trying to dictate a rule to us here, or state some sort of axiom of existence? If the former, I don't at all see by what authority you presume to do so. If the latter, I don't see how it begins to be true. Why can't you? At worst, it's the same sort of syncreticism that you and Master Penn display. Both of you quite eagerly lay claim to the decidedly pre-modern idea of God when it gives you comfort or otherwise, makes you feel good about life, but heap scorn on most of the sources that actually discuss the God you purport to believe in. How exactly is that different than the literalist that enjoys the benefits of the modernist mindset in terms of healthcare or other domains, but rejects is strongly where they disagree? Both are grafting together ideas with quite separate origins. So long as they do so in a way that is internally coherent and is satisfying to them, who exactly are you to tell them that they "can't" do it? What consequence will they face? Your bad opinion of them? Somehow, I don't think that most people will care.

 

how have i heaped scorn on the bible dude? you mean when i said all that crap about how i liked it and how it was meaningful to me? yeah

do you even, like, read?

 

Do you even remember the things you do in a 24 hour period?

Also, while I will fully admit that it is not "scorn," your outright rejection of the Bible's multiple miraculous accounts, when put alongside your acceptance of its spiritual value, is an example of you accepting what works for you and rejecting what doesn't. That was my larger point in that passage. Literalists are doing the same thing with modern science that you are doing with religion.

Neither of them really deserves to be called stupid for doing so. Accordingly, I don't recall ever labeling you stupid in this thread. You, on the other hand, have definitely done that to literalists.

 

i guess i don't understand why we'd have the instances of the incident at antioch (galatians 2) or the council of jerusalem if peter, james, and paul agreed on stuff, right? if, as you say, they were unified about everything, why would they need a council to clarify their stance and have reconciliation? i'm not arguing that they didn't come to a consensus about some issues. that's clear. what i'm arguing is that the three have very different views about what it means to be a christian, and this can be evidenced by reading their writings, and also by the fact that they felt the need to have reconciliation between their beliefs. what would they need to reconcile if they agreed on everything? here's galatians 2:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

so, right there, written by paul, we have admission that there's a 'circumcision group', that this group is at odds with Paul's teachings, that this group has an effect on Peter, and that James the brother of Jesus is a part of this group. what more evidence do you need? later, paul goes on to talk about how, to his dismay, barnabas joins this group as well.

according to paul, this incident happened before the death of herod agrippa (44 c.e.). the council of jerusalem is dated at 50 c.e., so it stands to reason that for a least a while in the life of the early church, there were two distinct camps of christians, those who saw christianity as the fulfillment of Judaism (led by James, and peter), and those who saw christianity as something else entirely (led by paul). obviously, paul won (this is evidenced by the council of jerusalem and by the fact that paul has 14 books in the nt attributed to him while the judaizers have like three or something). but that doesn't mean there weren't differences.

concerning the last part of your post, i'm not sure what you want from me? i don't see a literal reading of the bible as coherent with itself (there are parts of the bible that, if taken literally, contradict themselves) or with a modern worldview (there are parts of the bible that, if taken literally, contradict with what we know about how the world works). i'm not saying that the people who hold to a literal interpretation of the bible are stupid, i'm saying that i don't understand how they can hold that view and also claim to be 'avid science fans' or whatever. and i'm saying that i'm curious to see how they decide which parts of the bible to take literally and which they don't, and why they draw the line there.

 

you said that i "scorn most of the sources that talk about the god i believe in". i'm assuming you meant the bible. calling paul names is not the same thing as calling the bible names. i 'scorn' paul, because he seems like a general ass. but i appreciate a lot of what he says about god.

and i've never once argued that i don't pick and choose what works and separate it from what doesn't work. that's what people with modern worldviews do. they experiment and figure out the answers to questions. that's what i do spiritually with the bible and other teachings.

my problem with literalists is that they claim not to do this, but they do it just like i do. just be honest about what you're doing.

again, what do you want from me? what's your problem with that? because it seems that what your asking me for (intellectual consistency) is the same thing i'm asking the people who take the bible literally for.

why are you mad at me for wanting the same thing you want? that doesn't seem very intellectually consistent.

 

But you've not really made a case that they do this in terms of their religion. There are plenty of literalists readings tha do hold fast to the principle of accepting what was presented in the way it was presented. That is, accounts that present themselves as factual are taken as factual. Where they try and "reconcile" things, they are still reconciling the two texts as if they were both presenting factual information, and then creating explanations that resolve the apparent conflicts. That's still a literalist approach. In short, where their reading of the Bible is concerned, they aren't being intellectually inconsistent.

You are getting mad at them for, at best, having a broader inconsistency between how they conduct the rest of their lives (accepting scientific evidence) versus how they interpret the Bible (not accepting scientific evidence). But they largely don't claim to do be doing that. They are already "being honest about what their doing." You have still attacked them. That's inappropriate.

This is specious. Paul is a source that talks about the God you believe in. Moreover, the primary (and majority) source of information we have about him is in his teachings about God. It is highly improbable that he earned the insult you gave for something other than something (or things) he said about God with which you disagree. That was my criticism, and it fits perfectly well.

Perhaps it's not what you meant. But it is in fact what you've said. Multiple times. You were otherwise very aggressive in implicitly suggesting that those who do not follow your particular, highly abstracted form of Christianity were in the wrong. You didn't just defend your own view, but actively attacked others, unprovoked. That was my problem with you. What I "want from you" is to stop it.

 

can you tell me where the inconsistency in my view is? i've repeatedly spelled out what i think about things, so it should be easy to find if there is one. you keep saying that what i think is inconsistent, but you haven't shown how it is. so can you do that?

and i'm not critiquing the literalist readings that takes literal what is meant to be taken literal and takes metaphorical what is meant to be taken metaphorically. i'm critiquing the specific view of specific posters in this thread who are arguing that every part of the bible should be taken literally, whether intended to be or not. that's where my issue is, and it's where my issue has been from the start.

and i'm not asking literalists to be honest about how they take the bible literally. i'm asking them to be honest about how it's intellectually inconsistent to take the bible literally, and also have a worldview that includes science. i don't understand how doing so is inappropriate. can you explain to me please?

also, can you show me where my view is inconsistent? i've clearly spelled out what i believe, and you keep saying that it's inconsistent, but you haven't shown me how. if you'd like for this conversation to continue, that'd be a good thing to do. we'd then have something to talk about.

this helps clarify things a bit about what you said -- thanks. i would argue, however, that you can appreciate the truth that somebody expresses or teaches, while not appreciating the teacher themselves. do you disagree with this? there are some things in the writings of Paul that lead me to believe he was a big turd. this does not mean that i believe his teachings are invalid, or that i scorn them. all it means is, there are some things in the writings of paul that lead me to believe he was a big turd. that's all it means.

though, if in your original statement about me scorning sources blah blah blah, you meant to include paul as a source and weren't explicitly referring to the Bible, that's where the miscommunication happened. i thought that you were suggesting that i scorned the bible, which i don't. if you were suggesting that i think paul's a big turd, you were, indeed, correct in that suggestion.

who have i personally called stupid? can you show me? i don't think i ever called somebody stupid. i probably suggested that their viewpoint was intellectually inconsistent, but i try hard to deal with people's ideas and not the people themselves. in my recollection, i actually apologized for the times i felt like i went overboard.

and again, i'm not sure where i've suggested that people who don't agree with what i believe specifically are wrong. actually, in a lot of this discussion, i've been agreeing with atheists, who explicitly do not follow my particular, highly abstracted form of christianity. where i've criticized other people's view points, i've asked for clarification (usually to no avail) and i've suggested that i don't see their view as intellectually consistent (usually with a good deal of humor and wit). if the people i've been talking to had an issue with my tone, they can say so. to this point, they haven't.

sorry if i hurt your feelings tho

 

J-w -- I will admit to being a little confused. I mean, I'm a self-admitted Reform (mostly non-practicing) Jew and I don't believe there's a G-d in the literal sense yet still follow a commandment enough to not spell out His name... yet I don't seem to be getting some of the same "scorn" for lack of a better term. Is it because I evince a belief in science? What is the difference?

 

Exactly who and what are you talking about? The only person I've seen you debate is myself and AnakinAnarchist. I don't see where he ever suggested anything on the order of David being transformed into a faun/minotaur because there is a psalm where God says his feet are made "like hinds feet." You guys were arguing about things like the global flood, and the origin of the human species. If you don't think the texts here are prose, then what you're actually disagreeing about is the specific genre of specific Bible passages. You aren't arguing over whether poetry should be read as poetry or not. I've seen no evidence of him doing what you charge here. Nor has anyone else, that I can tell. You seem to be arguing against something that doesn't actually exist, or at least really mischaracterizing the nature of the debates you were having.

Your bristled when I suggested that you might dislike parts of the Bible because you disagreed or disbelieved them. You are bristling still. You feel very comfortable saying that you really like the Bible and find value in it, despite not thinking large portions of it are true, and in fact finding portions offensive. You criticize AnakinAnarchist for claiming to be a "fan" of science while disregarding large portions of it. What's the difference here? Why can't he feel free to think the scientific method is conceptually true but that many of its particular published results are inaccurate?

Once again, what are you talking about? When haven't they been honest that this is what they are doing? I've not seen a single one of them (or anyone ever) say they disagree with the entire discipline of biology and all its related studies (virology, medicine, etc) just because they don't accept evolution. Instead, they all specify the specific parts of science they disagree with. AnakinAnarchist has done this, explaining he thinks radiocarbon dating is wrong but apparently accepting some vague outline of the scientific theory for how fossils are formed. SkywalkerNumbers has done them. All of them have. They are, to a man and woman, incredibly forthright about the fact that they agree with some things in science, and that they disagree with other things. They can let you know about the parameters of this disagreement. Where or are how are they being dishonest? They've told you exactly what they're doing.

Is it your belief that people who think about things in a fashion that is "simplistic," "shallow," or "incompatible with thinking" nonetheless come to the right conclusion? Come on. I think you are quite aware of the highly negative valence of your consistent pattern of diction. Especially when your views are always, by contrast "complex" or represent a "real" effort at scholarship, or understanding, or whatever else is in question.

dp4m: See the paragraph above. It is that attitude, in combination with his claim that he is Christian. The cumulative suggestion is that others are less legitimate believers than he. That's very different than you, who simply describes what you believe. It is very different than Ender and timmo, who both tell us frankly that they think the religion is stupid, but never presume to tell us how it ought to be practiced.

 

Are those of faith required to present their bona fides before we believe them?

 

Apparently, considering the disputes that have come my way on here. Honestly, I feel like I'm locked into a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" mentality, because once I state a belief I espouse, I'm immediately demanded to provide evidence. Then I do, and they say, "That doesn't work, you're a fool."

 

For God so loved the world, he gave them pain, for whosever pisses Him off through natural curiosity shall not live, but burn for all eternity. Amen.

 

I doubt there's a person here who doesn't think you earnestly believe what you have professed to believe (The agreement of myself and others with said beliefs is another and independent matter). By contrast, that seems to be the accusation being leveled at Saint and Prenn.

 

This is what I'm getting at.

 

I think that Penn and Saintheart are earnest in their beliefs. I just think they are being tremendous jerks in this thread, in that their making pretty sustained and unprovoked attacks on other variations of Christian belief.

Consider, one of the reasons people resent the Tea Party is that they accuse anyone who doesn't agree with them of being a "RINO." They are the only ones that grasp the "real" truth. Others who consider themselves of the same persuasion don't take kindly to this. Likewise, when Penn talks about his favorite pastors as "really" living out the gospel as opposed to to those that disagree with him, and his understanding of various books as being based on "real" scholarship as opposed to everyone else that reads it differently, that leaves little room for the legitimacy of anyone else. I, who consider myself no less a Christian than he, do not take kindly to such a suggestion.

 

I.) that's exactly who i'm talking about. he said he's a 'fan of science' and then he also purported that he takes the bible literally. whenever i've offered an interpretation that's not literal, he's suggested that i don't believe the bible or whatever. my argument is that you can't take the bible literally, and also have a scientific worldview. one contradicts the other. you can't say that you believe that science gives us truth about the world, and also believe that the earth is literally 6000 years old. because science says that the earth is not 6000 years old. did you miss the part where we had these discussions, or are you purposefully ignoring them? i still don't understand what your issue with me is.

and we were arguing over whether poetry should be read as poetry or not! do you not remember that either? we had a whole discussion about why i don't read the creation poems or the psalms as history books. did you purposefully forget about that?

II.) if your argument is that i'm not actually arguing against anybody specifically, why are you so upset and defensive about the tone i have? why do you even care?

once again, i'm talking about intellectual consistency. can you give me an example of modern biological understanding that isn't influenced by evolution?

my argument is that you can't agree with some parts of science. you either have a scientific worldview, or you don't. if you don't, that's fine. just say that you don't. don't try and be all 'i believe in science, but only the parts that agree with the magic i believe in', because that is intellectually inconsistent. do you not see that?

on the flip side, spirituality is different than science -- it is entirely anecdotal and experiential. there's no logic behind it. it's emotions and feelings. thus, it is possible to have a scientific worldview that includes spiritual truth (which does not contradict science) while remaining intellectually consistent.

so what i'm gathering, since you won't give me examples about how my worldview is inconsistent or how you believe i'm wrong, is that your main problem is with my tone. i'm glad we've finally figured this out.

here's why my tone has been negative. hopefully this will help you understand, and we can put this issue behind us:

i have found great meaning and spiritual truth in the bible, and in the practices of the christian tradition. i am a christian. for most of my christian life, i have been told by other christians (most of whom have the same viewpoints as those i've been debating in this thread) that my view points are either wrong, inconsistent with the bible, or not valid as expressions of the christian faith. (both you and anakinwhoever have suggested in this thread that 'i don't believe in the word of god' or something close to that). and i'm tired of it.

additionally, i've seen many friends, mostly critical or deep thinkers, pushed out of the faith by these same dynamics. there seems to be less and less room within the american church for theological creativity, critical thinking, reasoning, or doubt. which causes those who experience god through those means to feel like they aren't a part of the christian tradition any more. i have felt this frequently. and i'm tired of it.

additionally, people who think the earth is 6000 years old and who think that poems are supposed to be read literally instead of allegorically or emotionally and people who think that gay people are morally inferior and people who think that we should believe what some collection of ancient writings tell us about the world before we believe what science tells us about the world are increasingly becoming the voice of a tradition that i am a part of and a tradition that i find meaningful and a tradition that i care very deeply about. they are becoming the voice of christianity and they are using their voice to turn christianity into something that i don't want to be a part of. and i'm tired of it.

so I'm bristly about this stuff. I've acknowledged it in previous posts, and i've apologized for it. but i'm not going to stop talking about it, and i'm not going to stop arguing about it. obviously, this is an emotional issue for me. but i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

i understand your issue here. but i don't think i've ever told the people i've been talking with how they should practice their faith. i've done the same thing you've done, i've told them why i think they are wrong and why i think they are being intellectually inconsistent. maybe i've done it with a tone you don't like, but i've explained why i have that tone and hopefully you understand where i'm coming from a little better. i don't think that skywalker and anakin are less legitimate believers than i am -- indeed, they are stronger believers than i am. i am skeptical and cynical, and they don't seem to be. i've told them the issues i have with their opinions, and i've also had affirming conversations with ophelia and others about what i believe.

does this help?

 

let's look at the post you're talking about. maybe i can explain what happened so you'll see things from my point of view:

to which i responded:

k seriously, @TheBBP. that's bull****.

the biggest churches and the wealthiest pastors right now are Acts 29 Churches and pastors like Mark Driscoll and Steven Furtick. And all.they.do is sell that hellfire and damnation calvanist crap.

you wanna talk about some low-income, not popular, suffering for the lord mother****ers, look no further than the guys selling the real ****, look towards the fringes. Guys like Peter Rollins, Rob Bell, John Caputo, Marcus Borg, and even NT ****ing Wright (the ****ing Godfather of NT Language) are the ones getting pissed on by the church At Large, and they're the ones talking radical theology.

i don't buy that 'the truth is getting watered down by our society and the world and the massess' crap. maybe it'll fly with people outside of the church who don't care about actual theology (and why should they?), but come on. far and away, the most popular, pervasive, and, frankly, peculiar theology in America is the kind you're talking about.

so. BPP suggested that some of the biggest churches in america are 'taking out sin, damnation, and even the gospel', and not only that, but that this is 'false doctrine' and 'leading a lot of people down the wrong path', and not only that, but that this is the kind of theology that I agree with.

that made me mad (and i was a little drunk). so i responded in a tone that wasn't very nice (because i was mad about being told that i am 'leading people down the wrong path'), and i responded with evidence.

i wasn't trying to imply that my beliefs are the only valid ones. i was trying to show bpp that the most popular theology in the evangelical church right now is Calvinist theology, and that this is disconcerting to me. and maybe i did so a little bristled, but i think i had reason to be. (and i'm not talking about the booze).

does that help clarify things?

 

This isn't true. This statement of yours is wrong. It is false. It is incorrect. People who hold minority views in science are not considered "non-scientists." They are considered people who hold a minority view. Period. Consider climate science. I'm you've seen the chart that notes only 24 of almost 14,000 peer reviewed publications reject man-made global warming. But the salient point here is that those papers were peer-reviewed. People think those papers are stupid or erroneous or shills for Big Oil or whatever else. But they don't say that these authors "don't believe science gives us truth about the world." The rule you are making up isn't an actual rule. It is just you making up something that shoves people out of science that you disagree with, in much the same way people's pretty arbitrary rules about what can and cannot be considered Christianity has at times made you feel alienated.

That's not really what happened. You kept referencing poetic things, so I kept trying to ask you what relevance it had to the veracity (or lack thereof) of various accounts. You mostly didn't answer. I never once said poetry shouldn't be read as poetry, and nor to my knowledge has anyone else. Can you show me where it was, if so? You did seem to have a disagreement with AnakinAnarchist about whether the creation accounts in Genesis are poetry or not, though. But again, that's a totally different debate. "What is poetry" is wholly distinct from "How should we read poetry?"

Because you are accusing groups of holding positions they don't and then attacking them on that basis. For instance, you seem to conflate the question of "is this part of the Bible poetry" with "should we take poetry literally."

The question is not whether it is "influenced" by evolution. The question is whether it is severable from it. So long as it is, there's nothing wrong with severing it. For instance, we have a fair amount of information about altruism in the animal world. It is certainly true that people have identified evolutionary reasons for how it came about. But it's very easy to simply ignore that, and simply say "Here's this phenomenon that I don't know how it developed but this is what it is." There's nothing "intellectually inconsistent" about doing that. It's just something you disagree with doing.

In the first place, no one ever claimed to have a scientific worldview. He said he was a "fan" of science. That means he likes it. That's all it means. But more broadly, as I touched on earlier, your argument is wrong. It's simply not true. You can believe in the validity of the scientific method while holding extremely heterodox beliefs on scientific issues. All it requires is thinking that the specific evidence in favor of whatever claim you disagree with is wrong. There's nothing intellectually consistent about this.

Your position is not about logic.

See above.

 

Wocky.

is your point that i am wrong by arguing that a belief in a 6000 year old earth is a non-scientific belief? because if so, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. you're not going to convince me that i'm wrong, until you find some legitimate scientists who also believe in a 6000 year old earth. so i guess we can just stop arguing about that point.

you are saying that poetry shouldn't be read as poetry when you're saying that it's consistent with a scientific worldview to read a poem and take from that poem scientific fact. that's what you're saying. that's also what anakinanarchist is saying. When you read a poem as a history book, you are saying that you should read a poem as a history book. again, it feels like we're talking over each other unnecessarily. i'm not sure what you have an issue with. do you think that the creation account is not a poem? what leads you to think that? do you think it should be read literally (i.e., not like a poem is usually intended to be read)? what leads you to think that? can you answer my questions for once?

who have i accused falsely? give me an example please. does anakinanarchist not believe that the creation account is literal truth? Because that is what i've accused him of.

 

I do want to slow down a second here. If that's what you say your intentions were, I'll accept that. But I would encourage you to be more attentive to the way you describe both your position and that of others. If it had been confined to a single post, I probably would have overlooked it. But it was really the multiple occurrences that lead me to believe it was intentional and take issue with it. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify it, though. This was indeed probably the most significant part of my issue with you. To be clear, I still disagree with you about a number of things you've said in this thread, and I've continued to outline those things above. Simple disagreements, though, wouldn't have earned the tone I took over several of these posts.

 

HE DOES NOT THINK IT IS A POEM. HE NEVER DID.

 

you're a gentleman and a scholar, dear wack.