Dealing with Fundamentalism: Secular alternative, or take back the church?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, faith is not required in scientific questions, for example, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun does not require faith, nor does evolution. There is empirical evidence for that, as there is for history, since a good historian or critical theorist will take a largely scientific approach.

I agree with you. A scientific approach to history cannot reject the Gospels prima facie, because science is always open to evidence which contradicts established knowledge.

That cannot be applied to faith now can it? Then I default back to my position that they are inversely proportional, albeit not dualistic.

It can to the falsifiable claims that Christianity makes, such as the death and resurrection of Christ.

[Whaleboy]

True, which is why it is significant to read the account as to the measures taken.

Even the Jews admit an empty tomb, in accusing the disciples of stealing the body.

And how can you go from that to claim that Christ "miraculously" rose from the dead? After a life of turning water into wine and banging chicks.

[Ben Kenobi]

Even the Catholic church accepts evolution with a caveat of uncertainty as to what caused it.

Interesting. So you do not regard Catholics who believe God is responsible for directing evolution to be creationists?

It's far from an uncertainty, they actively reject the agency of chance in these matters.

[Whaleboy]

I agree with you. A scientific approach to history cannot reject the Gospels prima facie, because science is always open to evidence which contradicts established knowledge.

Yes, in the same sense that the model of the Earth orbitting the Sun is, being good science, open to better theories. Yours is an empty statement.

It can to the falsifiable claims that Christianity makes, such as the death and resurrection of Christ.

Do you honestly think them falsifiable or provable? That's rather like saying that somewhere out there, in the deepest oceans, there may be found a goldfish called Nemo . Individual and abstract interpretation of the bible has literalism by the balls here, since it can sidestep the pressure placed on literalists to critically assert their claims.

[:) Smiley]

Why are such matters such as the details of the Creation or the Resurrection so crucial to the operation of the religion?

[Ben Kenobi]

And how can you go from that to claim that Christ "miraculously" rose from the dead? After a life of turning water into wine and banging chicks.

Bodies don't vanish into thin air. If the disciples did not steal the body, and still, there is no body in the tomb, then what happened?

[Whaleboy]

Interesting. So you do not regard Catholics who believe God is responsible for directing evolution to be creationists?

Don't be so simplistic . The question of abiogenesis, micro and macro evolution is important here too, which affects the question. One could believe that God or the giant pixie created all life, whereupon it evolved.

It's far from an uncertainty, they actively reject the agency of chance in these matters.

Indeed they hold determinism and some twisted teleological theory that I disagree with.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why are such matters such as the details of the Creation or the Resurrection so crucial to the operation of the religion?

The Resurrection is central, because unlike many parts of faith, it is falsifiable.

Creation is not so central.

[Whaleboy]

Why are such matters such as the details of the Creation or the Resurrection so crucial to the operation of the religion?

I would say that creation is important because it is very closely related to the argument for and against God's existence. As for creation, that's just Christian self-indulgence.

[Whaleboy]

Yep! We're going to agree here!

[MrFun]

Fudamentalists, extreme evangelicals, and religious-right organizations are not doing moderate Christians any favor.

Ignorant people are going to lump moderate Christians with these idiots now more so than ever.


thanks ***holes

[Whaleboy]

Bodies don't vanish into thin air. If the disciples did not steal the body, and still, there is no body in the tomb, then what happened?

What happened is that the particulars of an interesting Jonathan Creek mystery got lost in the depths of two millenia of BS and history.

I can't answer your question, I wasn't there and I'm not intimately familiar with the fairytale in question, but you cannot go from the historical account to then infer ressurection can you? And you cannot use deductive reasoning (Sherlock Holmes manner) because there is no plausible or logical limit to determine a set number of possible causes. We could speculate until the cows come home.

[Whaleboy]

Ignorant people are going to lump moderate Christians with these idiots now more so than ever.

Indeed there are reasonable people who take the bible abstractly with a pinch of salt

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, in the same sense that the model of the Earth orbitting the Sun is, being good science, open to better theories. Yours is an empty statement.

In the same sense, one does not reject the evidence of the precession of Mercury for not fitting into Newtonian mechanics.

Just because you have evidence of something that does not fit with the established theories, is not enough to reject the Gospel accounts.

You may find that an empty statement, but it was a very important point for me.

Do you honestly think them falsifiable or provable?

Indeed I do.

That's rather like saying that somewhere out there, in the deepest oceans, there may be found a goldfish called Nemo . Individual and abstract interpretation of the bible has literalism by the balls here, since it can sidestep the pressure placed on literalists to critically assert their claims.

Now you prefer a faith that is not falsifiable to a faith that is?



Considering that I am the one who trusts in the accounts, and you do not, I think my interpretation to be more reliable.

[:) Smiley]

But why does Jesus being resurrected or not have anything to do with the validity of his teachings? Shouldn't we love thy neighbor regardless?