tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post371402709553994006..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Do Moderate Christians Enable Fundamentalist Agendas?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33607828468755041022009-03-27T04:37:00.000-05:002009-03-27T04:37:00.000-05:00Excellent post, Tracie!This very issue was instrum...Excellent post, Tracie!<BR/><BR/>This very issue was instrumental in my becoming more outspoken in my atheism.<BR/><BR/>I began to see the harm religion was doing in education and politics as well as on the broader, international stage.<BR/><BR/>As you say, regular, everyday religious people can be part of the problem and not just "people who believe differently", which used to be my view of them.<BR/><BR/>The question I have is how do we express this to our "moderate" friends and family without being dismissed as a raving atheist, blaming religion for everything?Mayhemmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774307496954829877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61531931456962332082009-03-07T10:39:00.000-06:002009-03-07T10:39:00.000-06:00Dwight, I have no problem acknowledging that liber...Dwight, I have no problem acknowledging that liberal Protestantism is <I>older</I> than fundamentalism - as a movement. <BR/>As a set of beliefs, however, fundamentalism is the torch-bearer of Christian orthodoxy. As I said the other day, the beliefs of today's fundamentalists - original sin, salvific exclusivism, substitutionary atonement - have constituted the doctrinal basis of Christianity for 2,000 years. There's just no way around this.<BR/><BR/>Now, if you want to say that human beings have misunderstood God, that he isn't quite the rat-bastard we've made him out to be these past few millennia - well, you can say that. Despite eight years of Bush/Cheney, it's still (nominally) a free country.<BR/><BR/>("It ain't just a question of misunderstood;<BR/>Deep down inside him, he's no good!")<BR/><BR/>Or, if you want to assert that what we call "God" is not a person, but in actuality some sort of impersonal absolute, you're free to do that as well - but I'd argue that it isn't Christianity.<BR/><BR/>In either case, as we hell-bound atheists are fond of saying - the burden of proof is on you.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45477897964429691832009-03-06T18:15:00.000-06:002009-03-06T18:15:00.000-06:00>But some of us in the religion are concerned f...>But some of us in the religion are concerned for it not to be crazy. To the degree that share similar values, I'm not sure what this move to go after religious liberals is about.<<BR/><BR/>Well the main difficulty is that there's nothing internal to religions like Christianity, Islam and etc. that differentiates "crazy" - using only the tenants of the religion, you can make arguments in favor of clearly "crazy" brutality like slavery and genocide just as well clearly not "crazy" principles like Do Unto Others.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps ironically (tho not to atheists), one has to go outside the religions to find ways to distinguish good from bad, crazy from not crazy (this was my original point actually, that believers already tend to do this, _particularly_ moderates).<BR/><BR/>So we really can't leave them to their own devices if we want to live in a civilized world - history has shown us this. They can and should be free to believe what they want, but their behavior has to be watched and censured carefully via an external source of morality and ethics.<BR/><BR/>Hence the movement against moderate positions (so called liberal sects I suppose).<BR/><BR/>The argument Traci originally made about moderates aiding and abetting the fundies is, I think, a pretty clear statement of the problem. <BR/><BR/>I do disagree slightly, mainly about practical matters, such as how we should look at moderate attitudes and what should be done about them (I don't see them as all bad developments as I've stated earlier). But the critique of the moderate position seems to be right on to me in its essence.<BR/><BR/>LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72021752157157466402009-03-06T16:00:00.000-06:002009-03-06T16:00:00.000-06:00Liberal protestantism and fundamentalism are liter...Liberal protestantism and fundamentalism are literally about the same age...about 200 years or so, at most 300. About the only folks who could claim age is Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It may fit for some purposes that the crazy form of religion must be the one, since it was rejected. But some of us in the religion are concerned for it not to be crazy. To the degree that share similar values, I'm not sure what this move to go after religious liberals is about.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82242743326153282902009-03-06T15:56:00.000-06:002009-03-06T15:56:00.000-06:00'Cause, again - they have the credentials, the lin...'Cause, again - they have the credentials, the line of continuity. It's their franchise. What you're doing is better - but it was invented last week.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63003117538499474802009-03-06T15:48:00.000-06:002009-03-06T15:48:00.000-06:00There is a United Church in Canada, and they also ...There is a United Church in Canada, and they also have the same social stands, so there ya go. But I have to admit being puzzeled why so many atheists as well as fundamentalists seem invested in giving the religion over to the fundies.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80343020179174074032009-03-06T15:43:00.000-06:002009-03-06T15:43:00.000-06:00CipherGiven that the United Church of Christ has t...<I>Cipher<BR/>Given that the United Church of Christ has the same social stands as the Unitarians, maybe you could also over look that as well?</I><BR/><BR/>Change your name to just "United Church" and I'll think about it!Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90506139354674716332009-03-06T15:36:00.000-06:002009-03-06T15:36:00.000-06:00CipherGiven that the United Church of Christ has t...Cipher<BR/>Given that the United Church of Christ has the same social stands as the Unitarians, maybe you could also over look that as well?<BR/><BR/>LS<BR/>Two cites worth checking out:<BR/><BR/>http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm<BR/><BR/>http://www.ucc.org/not-mutually-exclusive/pdfs/pastoral-letter.pdfDwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70266160833757812152009-03-06T10:36:00.000-06:002009-03-06T10:36:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15276122203601939519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45986383721654939762009-03-06T10:15:00.000-06:002009-03-06T10:15:00.000-06:00Er, ok, whatever you say... Doesn't sound even rem...<I>Er, ok, whatever you say... Doesn't sound even remotely like Christian theology or politics to me, but ok....</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, that's about where I am in this now.<BR/><BR/>I really do wish liberal Christians would just cede the territory to the fundies already and start using another label - as the Unitarians did.<BR/><BR/>(Yes, I'm aware that some Unitarians consider themselves Christians - but they're on the correct side on most social issues, so I'm willing to overlook it.)Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-15093462549935608972009-03-06T10:11:00.000-06:002009-03-06T10:11:00.000-06:00>I think your history is off, science emerges i...>I think your history is off, science emerges in the Christian west. It becomes disconnected from it of course later on.<<BR/><BR/>It first emerged as a workable world view in the west, but as I think we all know by now, it developed independently and in spite of Christianity, not the other way around.<BR/><BR/>Christianity only accepted it later on mostly because of the mere weight of its efficacy at explaining the natural world around it. <BR/>Later, once the grip of religion on government and society finally began to loosen, political pressure reinforced the need for Christianity to accept it.<BR/><BR/>It's still mostly only tolerated by religion, tho, and not willfully accepted. In the US, Christianity's teeth are still firmly clenched in tolerance. It is still trying to displace science and restore the dark ages of theology and revelation in its place to this day.<BR/><BR/>>But there is still marks of its parentage. And yes now science has provided a basis for critique and revision of Christian faith. It should. And it has. And liberal Protestantism is a living example of that engagement with the sciences and other disciplines.<<BR/><BR/>Er, ok, whatever you say... Doesn't sound even remotely like Christian theology or politics to me, but ok....<BR/><BR/>LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7264472628102339902009-03-06T00:33:00.000-06:002009-03-06T00:33:00.000-06:00Off topic: Dawkins is speaking at the University o...Off topic: Dawkins is speaking at the University of Oklahoma, and PZ has a <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/richard_dawkins_banned_in_okla.php" REL="nofollow">post</A> about some fuckwit in the OK House of Representatives proposing a resolution to condemn him. Someone posted a link to an article in the University's newspaper, from a few months ago, announcing the event. Look at who left a comment:<BR/><BR/><I>Oh man, I'm looking forward to his coming. <BR/>I've got a couple of questions, if he makes himself available for public Q&A like Dembski did back in Sept 07. Fun stuff.<BR/><B>Posted by anonymous / Rhology on November 13, 2008 at 1:33 p.m.</B></I>Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81650998295467817342009-03-05T21:03:00.000-06:002009-03-05T21:03:00.000-06:00LsChristianity was born in dissent (leader killed ...Ls<BR/>Christianity was born in dissent (leader killed for it), Protestantism was born in dissent, this isn't new. That doesn't mean the church has worked well with it, most often like most humans, it hasn't. But it does mean there are resources to be had to challenge orthodoxies. <BR/><BR/>My own denomination is non creedal, allows for a wide range of beliefs, there are a number of liberal protestant bodies. Now they are smaller than fundamentalists but they are there. As someone who has worked in seminary and with my regional denominational entity, my beliefs are known and accepted as well within the range of that church.<BR/><BR/>I have a fundamentalist sister who is certain I'm headed straight for hell. But in my own church going experience, I've always found congregations, pastors who are sympathetic, open to my concerns, view points and the like. Outside of a few places in the south, it's not hard to find (especially in urban areas)<BR/><BR/>"A belief that you already have the answer to a question and that that answer is immutable stalls any further inquiry right there."<BR/><BR/>I agree. That shouldn't be the case. Christianity presents us with problems, not ready made solutions. Or should if it's true to life. Remembering the words of Paul again, we see in part, through a mirror dimly. That's our lot as humans. Fallibleness is an expression of humility, a religious calling found in the NT.<BR/><BR/>I don't think any religion hinges on a propositional belief. So yes I feel equally free to critique my faith, more so because I have a certain responsibility for it. Which is one point made in this post. Religious liberals have to stand up, take some ownership when the religion goes awry. I don't critique other religions so much because I'm not in them. In that sense I feel freer then I think some atheists may be.<BR/><BR/>I think your history is off, science emerges in the Christian west. It becomes disconnected from it of course later on. But there is still marks of its parentage. And yes now science has provided a basis for critique and revision of Christian faith. It should. And it has. And liberal Protestantism is a living example of that engagement with the sciences and other disciplines.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45855307166478786092009-03-05T19:48:00.000-06:002009-03-05T19:48:00.000-06:00>I don't think atheism gives you objectivit...>I don't think atheism gives you objectivity. It's still a standing point, just like where I'm at as a Christian. There isn't a neutral place to be, to survey everything in "objectivity". There's just us, our histories, our context. We're in the same boat in that regard.<<BR/><BR/>Actually, no, that's a bit of propaganda - we're actually not in the same boat. You, as a Christian, have a vested interest in Christianity and everything it involves - the beliefs and doctrines bind you to accept them whether they turn out to be true or not, no matter how ridiculous.<BR/>Used to be you were under penalty of death if you didn't do so, and even today there are definite penalties if you reject Christian teachings.<BR/><BR/>You're also obligated to reject the beliefs and doctrines of other religions, particularly when they conflict with your own. And you have to justify those conflicts and why you reject them.<BR/><BR/>The atheist position has no vested interest in the success or failure of any system of theology. We're free to doubt the entire thing and continue to do so until supporting evidence is provided by a plaintiff.<BR/>Until then, we're under no obligation to the religion, its god or its followers.<BR/><BR/>That's a big difference.<BR/><BR/>>And yes theologians argue about. So do philosophers, so did E.O Wilson versus Stephen Jay Gould, I can't imagine a field where there isn't that vigorous debate. I don't think much could be gotten out of it, if it wasn't.<<BR/><BR/>Again, this is a VERY non-Christian viewpoint - an attitude of debate, consideration of alternate viewpoints (particularly any that may be in evidence) and etc. is as close to heresy as you can get in every version of Christianity I've ever come into contact with.<BR/><BR/>No such thing as any Christian sect that just loves to embrace anything contradictory - such things are virtually always only tolerated with much restraint either because of changes in the prevailing Zeitgeist or the simple use of force (i.e. the Bill of Rights in the US).<BR/><BR/>Again, I don't doubt that your personal allegiance to alternate considerations, but I most definitely do think they go against the religion you've also aligned yourself with.<BR/><BR/>>If as the scriptures say, the truth will make you free, then it does no good for Christians or anyone else to block inquiry, to block the sources we rely on, to say no to critical reflection of any kind. That's an insight to be had which ought to be common to all of us.<<BR/><BR/>Much has already been said in response to variants of statements like these. The one thing I'd pick out is that belief - the acceptance as true of something merely held in the mind and not in evidence - by definition certainly _does_ block inquiry into the unknown. Specifically because it asserts that there _is_ no unknown under consideration. It's all explained in the Bible or other revelations to the believer or (insert doctrine here). Full stop. <BR/><BR/>A belief that you already have the answer to a question and that that answer is immutable stalls any further inquiry right there.<BR/><BR/>OTOH, The situation of _not_ knowing is the best (and probably only) prerequisite to successful inquiry into the unknown. This alternative to blind belief is anathema to religion; it was fought against tooth and nail throughout the centuries and is still being fought against today.<BR/><BR/>So, no, the insight you're talking about really _isn't_ freely available to all of us. The religions already assume the answers have been found and that no further inquiry is needed or wanted. In fact, they'll always resist further inquiry for those exact reasons.<BR/> <BR/>The ideas of freedom of mind and thought, embrace of the unknown and the development of the scientific method of its investigation came from outside religion and belief. The religions adopt it because either the prevailing Zeitgeist shifts so heavily away from the doctrinaire ways of belief that they're politically forced to do so, or the rule of law simply forces them to do so. <BR/><BR/>Everything religion has ever let go of in favor of scientific replacements has huge claw marks all over it. This is attested all throughout the history of religion and it continues on to this day.<BR/><BR/>LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71434094245474455922009-03-05T19:13:00.000-06:002009-03-05T19:13:00.000-06:00I think we're all trying to cobble together someth...I think we're all trying to cobble together something.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61479015390671894462009-03-05T18:46:00.000-06:002009-03-05T18:46:00.000-06:00I don't recall Anselm saying that God is impersona...I don't recall Anselm saying that God is impersonal - and I'm skeptical of that - but I'm not all that familiar with his thought (other than that he was a mean-spirited bastard who consolidated the concept of substitutionary atonement and made it part and parcel of Christian orthodoxy).<BR/><BR/>In any case, what I perceive you as doing is cobbling together your own belief system, based loosely on Pauline Christology - and calling it Christianity. Which is, as some of the others here keep saying, what liberal "Christians" do.<BR/><BR/>That's it for me; I'm out. I'm not interested in arguing about this any longer. Call it whatever you like.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57860076499990910352009-03-05T18:38:00.000-06:002009-03-05T18:38:00.000-06:00LSI don't think atheism gives you objectivity. It'...LS<BR/>I don't think atheism gives you objectivity. It's still a standing point, just like where I'm at as a Christian. There isn't a neutral place to be, to survey everything in "objectivity". There's just us, our histories, our context. We're in the same boat in that regard. <BR/><BR/>And yes theologians argue about. So do philosophers, so did E.O Wilson versus Stephen Jay Gould, I can't imagine a field where there isn't that vigorous debate. I don't think much could be gotten out of it, if it wasn't. <BR/><BR/>If as the scriptures say, the truth will make you free, then it does no good for Christians or anyone else to block inquiry, to block the sources we rely on, to say no to critical reflection of any kind. That's an insight to be had which ought to be common to all of us.<BR/><BR/>Cipher<BR/>I was quoting Paul actually. There are theologians from Anselm to Tillich who say God is not personal. Obviously God is quite a personal in the Bible. For myself, I think the term is an odd thing when trying to apply it to God. I do think we meet God in other persons (thus the incarnation?) but I wouldn't want to say much beyond that.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78987608565459927742009-03-05T18:33:00.000-06:002009-03-05T18:33:00.000-06:00>As for belief in God. I think the way the term...>As for belief in God. I think the way the term God has been used and described became unintelligible with the advances in the sciences, when the all too human sources of scriptures became clear, etc. I don't take that to mean that God does not relate to all of us (in him we move and have our being) but it does mean that our language to describe such a saving reality has been inadequate. And maybe too sullied to be recovered. I'm hoping not, but everyone's estimating of that question will be different.<<BR/><BR/>My take is, a more humble approach is to consider the possibility that we (rhetorical "we" here, meaning believers) simply got it wrong - we believe in something that simply doesn't exist and the belief arose for reasons _other_ than that god exists.<BR/><BR/>The circumstantial evidence for this possibility far outweighs the support for any of the other positions that try to explain the profoundness, hiddeness and utterly recalcitrant inaccessibility of the god, its heaven, hell, devils and angels and on and on.<BR/><BR/>That explanation seems to be the best fit with the data (which is none). The rest that exclude this possibility devolve into Rube Goldbergian explanations even in their simplest forms. <BR/><BR/>But skepticism that it exists at all seems to work the best and suffers the least.<BR/><BR/>LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90348589540200057012009-03-05T18:24:00.000-06:002009-03-05T18:24:00.000-06:00Dwight, are you trying to say you don't believe th...Dwight, are you trying to say you don't believe that God is of a personal nature - that he is an impersonal, or transpersonal, absolute?<BR/><BR/>Because I will deny vigorously that that is what was meant by the authors of the Bible, in every generation. In other words - it ain't Christianity.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43486531747340562802009-03-05T18:21:00.000-06:002009-03-05T18:21:00.000-06:00>I think maybe a wider sense of Christianity is...>I think maybe a wider sense of Christianity is needed. Everything I've said could have and have been said by any number of theologians, assumed by any number of denominations over the centuries.<<BR/><BR/>Well... there already is a wider viewpoint available of Christianity - atheism ;)<BR/><BR/>In fact, I'd assert that it's the best POV obtainable for critical analysis of Christian doctrine and beliefs. It is so precisely because it maintains full skepticism of Christianity's core claims and is therefore under no obligation to obey or accept any of it.<BR/><BR/>We don't have to battle the endless conundra of this theologian disagreeing with that theologian or all the churches fighting each other and trying to decide which one really has the correct scoop on whether we fry in hell or not, etc.<BR/><BR/>We're skeptical of them all, so we have an objectivity that's simply not available from within them. We're completely free to look for the truth behind it all and only the truth ;).<BR/> <BR/>>I won't say it's a dominant trend, but it's a live one that has shaped and contributed to the religion in some small measure. A life of "reason" and "heaven" need not be juxtaposed.<<BR/><BR/>They _can't_ be juxtaposed - their missions are entirely at odds with each other. Reason is the business of investigation, but heaven is only concerned with, and available through, revelation.<BR/><BR/>This is the central point of the entire history of the struggle between science and religion. They involve mutually completely incompatible and irreconcilable goals.<BR/><BR/>The difference is, one side can back up its position on the Truth with evidence and the other cannot. Religion may have a lock on revelation, but that's about all it's got.<BR/><BR/>PS I do have to grant the Catholics the best music of the bunch....<BR/><BR/>LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52610715879504694802009-03-05T18:14:00.000-06:002009-03-05T18:14:00.000-06:00CipherI think Catholics and the Orthodox might hav...Cipher<BR/><BR/>I think Catholics and the Orthodox might have some point along the lines you suggest, but I don't think any Protestants including fundamentalists could claim ownership of the franchise. The moment you become a protestant, it's kind of hard to do that (being a protest against the church and all). <BR/><BR/>As for belief in God. I think the way the term God has been used and described became unintelligible with the advances in the sciences, when the all too human sources of scriptures became clear, etc. I don't take that to mean that God does not relate to all of us (in him we move and have our being) but it does mean that our language to describe such a saving reality has been inadequate. And maybe too sullied to be recovered. I'm hoping not, but everyone's estimating of that question will be different.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69973377381510106072009-03-05T18:02:00.000-06:002009-03-05T18:02:00.000-06:00Dwight, let me try a different tack. If God exists...Dwight, let me try a different tack. If God exists, is of a personal nature and wants desperately to have a relationship with each of us (I'll leave out salvific considerations, as that doesn't appear to be what motivates you - to your credit) - why don't we believe? Why doesn't God introduce himself to each of us in a way in which he or she can understand?<BR/><BR/>I myself spent decades exploring the world's faith traditions. Every one of the theistic traditions has some way of saying, "For every small step you take toward God, he'll take a giant step toward you." That wasn't my experience. Frankly, I think it's one of the greatest lies in history. It's a greater lie than "the check is in the mail".<BR/><BR/>We aren't all closed to the possibility of God's existence, and those of us who are weren't always that way. I wasn't even always the vindictive asshole I am now! I was actually a very sweet child; the fundies made me evil!<BR/><BR/>(And, for the record, I would like to reiterate: Biblical interpretation aside, what today's fundamentalists believe is what most Christians have believed for most of the past two millennia - so, yes, I do still feel they have the right to claim the franchise. Liberal Protestantism came along a scant century and a half ago and tried to change the rules in mid-game. I happen to <I>prefer</I> your rules - but that doesn't mean your predecessors had the right to change them and still call it "Christianity".)Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90349551922383647092009-03-05T17:50:00.000-06:002009-03-05T17:50:00.000-06:00I think maybe a wider sense of Christianity is nee...I think maybe a wider sense of Christianity is needed. Everything I've said could have and have been said by any number of theologians, assumed by any number of denominations over the centuries. I won't say it's a dominant trend, but it's a live one that has shaped and contributed to the religion in some small measure. A life of "reason" and "heaven" need not be juxtaposed.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31902077072215296392009-03-05T17:41:00.000-06:002009-03-05T17:41:00.000-06:00>I'd take original sin as developed in Augu...>I'd take original sin as developed in Augustine with seeds in Paul to be unique and something I'd hold to (not the mythic language but the idea of what's wrong with us as constitutive of our world and being human). That's different then other systems of thought.<<BR/><BR/>I'd be willing to bet that, if pressed, you'd ultimately buck the idea of original sin as well. I havn't met a Christian yet that really believes it strongly enough to truly act upon it against themselves or others (most still have sex with one another for example and enjoy it too). Your qualifier above already betrays some doubt about it in you too. <BR/><BR/>>But yes I hope that some ideas come from a range of sources (that's how the Bible came to be). To understand Paul's moral sensibility I think means knowing something about Stoicism, for instance. So creating clear lines of the Bible against it's wider context is not easily done.<<BR/><BR/>Spoken like a true moderate. A widening of one's reliance on investigation (with a concomitant contraction in reliance on revelation) as a means of discovering the world around us is definitely NOT doctrinal Christianity. I believe that can even be amply confirmed in the Bible. <BR/><BR/>Instead, it's a step off the road to heaven and onto the path of reason.<BR/><BR/>Again, as I've stated before, this is a good thing. In fact, some of us abandon heaven altogether and become completely free of it. It's the logical last step to freedom ;)<BR/><BR/>LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56076860700323201822009-03-05T17:27:00.000-06:002009-03-05T17:27:00.000-06:00BrainI don't take it as a boast or a condemnation,...Brain<BR/>I don't take it as a boast or a condemnation, only that the strict division between Christianity and the enlightenment and modernity that someone the right and left hold isn't tenable. And as a protestant I claim that heritage as much as someone like yourself does. And that heritage is not unambiguous but it's brought forth something worth chershing. <BR/><BR/>As for the humanism of the 16th and 17h century, again Luther might not have much to relate to such a movement but John Calvin was in the thick of it, gave us some of the earlier translations of Seneca (and his study of the classics are apparent in his Institutes). Zwingli and Melcathon studied Plato and took some significant ideas from him.<BR/><BR/>But more often then not it was Christians getting killed by other Christians that echoed the need for toleration, such as the Mennonites, Quakers, and the like. In the end given this heritage isn't the point to work together to defend those values worth cherishing from that experience? Instead, I'm being told that I'm the enemy because I still consider myself a Christian. I don't have an interest in moving you from your atheism but some atheists are rather evangelical in regards to my position.<BR/><BR/>LS<BR/>I'd take original sin as developed in Augustine with seeds in Paul to be unique and something I'd hold to (not the mythic language but the idea of what's wrong with us as constitutive of our world and being human). That's different then other systems of thought. But yes I hope that some ideas come from a range of sources (that's how the Bible came to be). To understand Paul's moral sensibility I think means knowing something about Stoicism, for instance. So creating clear lines of the Bible against it's wider context is not easily done.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.com