Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[Kulindahr]

You're confusing two different issues. Even though one may have doubts about it, one doesn't have to challenge your notions of standard scholarship as to the historical chain of title that you assert. All one needs to do is to point to the fact that you have no way of knowing whether what was reported initially actually happened or not. The integrity of the transmission process you seem to put so much faith into is worthless if elements like the resurrection were made up by wishful thinking believers. Maybe all those elements did happen to source their historical transmission. But maybe they didn't. That you can't accept any doubt or uncertainty on that issue tells one that your considerations are faith orientated. Nothing wrong with that and good luck to you if you have the strength of faith that you appear to. But don't expect to convince others, who may be a tad more skeptical and questioning.

The "made it up" hypothesis fails: why would people die for something they made up? And of all the peoples in the Roman Empire at the time, the Jews would be the last people to come up with such a thing! If it had been made up, Paul would never have gotten away with his claim that hundreds had seen the Resurrected Christ; it would have been too easy to call him on it.

Every avenue of analysis indicates that all the conjectures about the thing being invented are just that -- conjecture, with no substantive basis.

The only way you can conclude that my "considerations are faith-oriented" is to start with that assumption. I argue no differently on this topic than on geology, astronomy, economics, or anything else: I go with the evidence.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is no requirement that funny pictures or cartoons withstand "actual scrutiny". They are attempts, not always successful, at humor. They can be glib, based on false premises, etc., all the things you seem to take exception to. They don't need to fit into anyone's preconceptions. As soon as you understand that, you'll feel a lot better. Teehee.

Then the FARIP thread should be opened to comments again, as it should anyway because the forum says it's for "discussion". So the decision to keep out any disagreement or enlightenment is based on prejudice against religion. If you're not interested in discussion,, you shouldn't start a thread in Hot Topics -- it belongs in Fun and Games if it's purely for entertainment. In Hot Topics, keeping it closed to comment is sheer hypocrisy.

And given the vociferous response to accurate information being supplied, the obvious conclusion is that people don't want to know the truth behind any of the cartoons -- they want to hold onto preconceptions and avoid any critical thinking.

 

[Kulindahr]

Surely, you jest.

Do you ever bother to check on information? Just between Roman Catholics and Lutherans there's a majority of Christians, and both affirm the separation of church and state. Add to them all the liberal Protestant denominations and it's overwhelming. Then there's the Southern Baptists and other heirs of the Radical Reformation who affirm it.

Granted, a lot of Christians fail in the lurch -- but when they do, they're going against their own churches' teaching.

 

[Kulindahr]

A purely subjective temporal observation. Objectively, the reverse is just as irrational. The truth is that ultimately one simply cannot know either way with any absolute certainty. One can have faith and encompass that unknowable.

A Creator who created then wandered off and ignored its creation? Not rational at all -- indeed not even reasonable.

Faith can't "encompass that unknowable" because faith relies on knowing -- if there's nothing to know there's nothing to have faith in. I know the term is thrown around as a nebulous term these days, but if there's no object of faith, the word is meaningless.

 

[Spensed]

No, it isn't "common sense", or if it is, it's just another example of where common sense fails: it's known that certain oral-tradition cultures have passed on accounts word-for-word for generations.

And stop changing the subject: your claim was that such transmission is not accurate, which is a false based on your cultural experience, so don't switch to a different claim.

My "claim" has consistently been that the transmission cannot be shown as accurate either because the original source cannot be verified as to its truth or because the transmission itself is unreliable or both. To try to make things simpler for you, I'm not pursuing the second point about the reliability of the transmission. I don't need to do that because you never face up to the first point, that one doesn't know whether the source material is truthful or not. If the news is fake, how it's transmitted is irrelevant.

 

[Spensed]

It's not "buffet scholarship" -- it's standard scholarship.

And yes, you're lying, because you keep falsely stating something you've been told otherwise. Your second sentence just does it again -- it's contrary to the evidence and thus just your personal prejudice.

"Buffet scholarship" because you never question the veracity of the source from which your oral and written reportage springs. Contradicting your faith-based notions isn't lying and labeling it as such is yet more overly defensive deflection on your part.

 

[Spensed]

The "made it up" hypothesis fails: why would people die for something they made up? And of all the peoples in the Roman Empire at the time, the Jews would be the last people to come up with such a thing! If it had been made up, Paul would never have gotten away with his claim that hundreds had seen the Resurrected Christ; it would have been too easy to call him on it.

Every avenue of analysis indicates that all the conjectures about the thing being invented are just that -- conjecture, with no substantive basis.

The only way you can conclude that my "considerations are faith-oriented" is to start with that assumption. I argue no differently on this topic than on geology, astronomy, economics, or anything else: I go with the evidence.

Historically, many people have died for things they made up. Mayan human sacrifice and so on. If I remember correctly, the risen Christ only appeared to select folk. If they were mistaken or lied, later followers, applying your faith-seeking disposition, would accept what they were told. Ditto with other events. You see it in Scientologists accepting the "wisdom" and white washed biography of Hubbard's life. The point is not that the original reports are false. It's that one doesn't know for certain that they aren't.

 

[Spensed]

Do you ever bother to check on information? Just between Roman Catholics and Lutherans there's a majority of Christians, and both affirm the separation of church and state. Add to them all the liberal Protestant denominations and it's overwhelming. Then there's the Southern Baptists and other heirs of the Radical Reformation who affirm it.

Granted, a lot of Christians fail in the lurch -- but when they do, they're going against their own churches' teaching.

The Evangelical role in American politics speaks for itself. Catholic organizations in the States repeatedly organize against gay marriage, abortion, contraception and other political issues they object to. In many countries in the world, religion is intricately mixed in with the political structure, e.g. the Church of England is the politically established church in the UK. In Italy, the Church repeatedly intervenes on political issues. Ditto in many African states. The religious establishment in India and Pakistan define those states. Ever heard of Israel? Or the Sunni-Shia schism and its political manifestations? Worldwide religion and politics are inextricably mixed. So back at you. Do you ever bother to check any of your own "information"?

 

[Spensed]

A Creator who created then wandered off and ignored its creation? Not rational at all -- indeed not even reasonable.

Once again, that's a completely subjective and human-centered. Objectively, even relying on your texts, you don't know one way or the other with any degree of certainty. Much in nature and existence defies human knowledge and reason. Science accepts that many aspects of the universe are, as yet, unknown and maybe unknowable.

Faith can't "encompass that unknowable" because faith relies on knowing -- if there's nothing to know there's nothing to have faith in. I know the term is thrown around as a nebulous term these days, but if there's no object of faith, the word is meaningless.

Many Christians and non-Christians have faith that in a God, who, in certain aspects at least, is ultimately unknowable or concealed. The various mystical traditions are a testimony to that.

You appear wedded only to your own conceptions and, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, in your case the marriage is not a success.

 

[Alistair]

This thread should be moved to the religion forum, since very little of the original intent is taking place. It just shows how the thread wasn't needed in the first place. It's obvious one poster was just looking for a place to argue with, and bait other members.

 

[HoodedRat]

^

Agreed.

This thread has nothing to do with the real-life stuff of Hot Topics. It should be sent to the believer's-only, no-flame-zone, sandbox, of the Religious forum where it belongs.

 

[zoltanspawn]

...It's obvious one poster was just looking for a place to argue with, and bait other members.

Yet people are arguing with him...

Also disagree this should move to the doomed religion forum. The farip thread was spared a move to fun and games. This should remain here likewise.

 

[Kahaih]

Yet people are arguing with him...

. . . .

Yeah, a quick look at the 'who posted' list [at the time of this post 627] shows our Kulindahr at 310 posts with all other posts made by . . . others.

50/50

 

[Alistair]

Yeah, a quick look at the 'who posted' list [at the time of this post 627] shows our Kulindahr at 310 posts with all other posts made by . . . others.

50/50

1 poster and 26 others doesn't equal 50/50

 

[Alistair]

Yet people are arguing with him...

Also disagree this should move to the doomed religion forum. The farip thread was spared a move to fun and games. This should remain here likewise.

But should be limited to farip post discussions. The rest should be in the religion forum

 

[Kahaih]

1 poster and 26 others doesn't equal 50/50

310 + 317 = 627 = about half or about 50/50

posts

not posters

go back to school and try to pay attention this time

 

[Alistair]

310 + 317 = 627 = about half or about 50/50

posts

not posters

go back to school and try to pay attention this time

That would be 50/30/20/12/10/8. Etc. You need to go back to school.

 

[Kahaih]

That would be 50/30/20/12/10/8. Etc. You need to go back to school.

I suppose I should apologise.

It was a bad suggestion. School probably wouldn't want you back.

Sorry, school.

 

[Alistair]

I suppose I should apologise.

It was a bad suggestion. School probably wouldn't want you back.

Sorry, school.

I know it doesn't add up to 100 I'm just trying to show how stupid your 50/50 is. I'm just saying you can't say this thread is 50/50 when 1 poster posts 50% and 26 different posters with 26 different opinions represent the other 50%

 

[zoltanspawn]

But should be limited to farip post discussions. The rest should be in the religion forum

Is there discussion here, um, which didn't begin with a farip?