Derbyshire reviews Spencer: The seeds of defeat in the war on terror are sown by Christianity
posted at 1:29 pm on August 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I haven’t read the book so I’ll reserve comment, but how often does Robert Spencer get attacked from the right? Mmm, that’s red:
[V]ery uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do—the current President of the United States, for example.
That leads more or less directly to this book’s most surprising omission: a failure to prescribe. If things are as Robert Spencer says they are, what is to be done? He offers nothing but a vague, half-hearted statement about the need for an “alliance” between “Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims [huh?—the previous 206 pages have left the rather strong impression that the only secular Muslim is a dead Muslim], and atheists.” (p. 207) What should we of the West do if such an alliance fails to appear?
Most of our Christian readers will take strong exception to the idea that Christianity is necessarily an enabler of globalization. Fair enough, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t note a striking example of Derb’s point on our own site within the past 24 hours.
I like this passage, too:
Perhaps the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction. Those seeds were slow to germinate in the long centuries when great mass migrations of people into well-settled lands could only be military affairs. However, the globalization movement of the past fifty years has allowed millions of souls to move and settle peaceably into the old Christian lands; and our old ideals, with whatever contribution—major and critical, according to Spencer—from their Christian component, have urged us to welcome the settlers, and have called fierce obloquy on anyone who complains.
Spencer can’t have it both ways. If “even the secularists” are “rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture,” then so are their impulses to hate that culture and yield to its enemies. So what does he expect? Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?
Spencer has promised PJM he’ll respond. In the meantime, anyone read the book yet and care to reply?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »
Congratulations to all. We broke 500!!!
The Free World is safe.
Allahpundit now has his iphone.
I am going to work now so that I can pay my taxes.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 11:42 AM
My collie sends regards and his congratulaions.
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 11:49 AM
My collie says:
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 11:49 AM
If you’re not going to debate over presuppositions, you’re just wasting your time. You can make all of these scientific arguments regarding the Bible, but they don’t get to the heart of the matter.
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Allah, Bryan,
Can’t we move this thread to “Top Picks”?
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Thank you!
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 12:10 PM
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Hmm, me thinks perhaps you should let your collie post for you… :P
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Christianity is inherently misanthropic. In terms of gaining adherents to a religion, misanthropy is good policy because it inspires guilt and thus a need in people to continually seek the “fix”. Hence, people whom you call “flawed” and “broken” come clamoring back into church wondering how they can “get right with god”.
I think it was Dan Barker who observed, “A Christian is a man who cuts you with a knife and offers to sell you a bandage.”
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 1:02 PM
By no stretch of the imagination do the teachings of Jesus or the Bible dictate that a sovereign nation ought to open its borders to anyone who wants to come in. Foreigners were allowed to become Jewish citizens—if they became Jewish…hmmm. Jesus commissioned his followers to go into all the world and preach the gospel—not invite everyone over.
Derb’s all wet on that point.
jdpaz on August 22, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Don’t encourage him. He already thinks that he is smarter than everybody else — all because he talks, smokes cigars, and plays cards. He’s not as smart as he thinks. On one hand last night, I beat his inside straight — and I was bluffing.
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 1:06 PM
The crucial killer component is almost always That Which Is More Greatly Feared.
Where religion sometimes fails, and where faith always triumphs, is when religious leaders construct fears that degenerate into godless actions of their membership. Fear repulses faith, but faith always replaces fear; it has been argued that fear and faith are mutually exclusive. I’ll bet every agregious action you or Hitchens can assign to religion occured when a religion abandoned its faith in dealing with fear, whether that fear was an enemy at the door, reprocussions of sin, loss of power and relevance, or perversion of the Word.
Where the secular world has failed is holding to its faith that knowledge is sweeping away all fears. Facts may work against superstitions (actions based on fear, not faith), but real world fears of death and loss, of destitution and depravity, are not readilly reasoned through. It’s good for society that those real fears are managed, if not cured, through faith; religion is essential to society for that reason alone.
So my advice to atheists: criticism is fine, even healthy to the faithful, but save your criticism for those instances of fearmongering in the name of religion, when you may justifiably ask, “what have you abandoned your faith for?”
shuzilla on August 22, 2007 at 1:07 PM
But what if we *want* you to abandon your faith? If anything, I’d like it if Christians took their faith a little less seriously. You know, hop in the lukewarm water.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Christianity merely explains man’s state as it is: fallen. Are you willing to say you never make mistakes and that you never wrong others? The Bible calls this “sin” and declares that it is an offense against God for which you will be judged. If you think you have a completely clean conscience, you will have no need for a savior. I doubt you’ll do that though. The real question is not, “Is Christianity misanthropic?” rather than, “How misanthropic are you?” If you’ve wronged your neighbor, you are the real misanthrope, aren’t you?
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 1:29 PM
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Hmmm, if your collie talks, smokes cigars, and plays cards he probably is smarter than all the rest of us, which probably means that he let you bluff him, kind of like the way the woman you are dating let’s you feel smarter and stronger than her right up until about 5 minutes after you say I do, then you find out…Or should I just ask, who paid for the steak last night? You, or your collie, somehow I doubt it was your collie… :P
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Question:
what if, in accurately identifying the problem of the human condition (what you have referred to as ‘cutting with a knife’) is actually part and parcel of a truly genuine solution?
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Well, er, actually, I DID pay for the beer — and I don’t drink alcohol.
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 1:37 PM
I meant to add, “what if being critical or suspicious of human nature is actually reflective of reality, and is truly humanist?”
What if “denying the sinfulness of the human heart” is actually anti-human nature because it is not reflective of ultimate reality (example: the need for checks and balances in government and business, the recurring need for accountability, etc), and therefore it is not truly a humanist perspective?
Just my two cents.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 1:39 PM
PRCalDude,
Yes, Christianity “merely” describe’s man’s state as “fallen”. I think you chose the tamest word to describe humanity of the ones available and frequently employed (such as “flawed”, “broken”, “imperfect”, and “sinful”) to lessen the blow of this indictment against your religion, but you are, in fact, agreeing with me that your religion treats all of humanity as if they’re born worthless garbage. You’re arguing my point.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 1:41 PM
You are being purposefully obtuse. I never said God was imaginary. You insist on lying about my position which shows you lack of skill in elementary debating and your total lack of imagination. I said God does not “exist” in the way you are using the term. God is not a concrete physical entity. You can’t provide physical or observation evidence of God’s existence. It’s silly to discuss God in such childish terms.
Your hostility to believer and even the idea of God is profound and telling. Your arrogance is palitable. Your self-regard is towering. Why bother familiarizing yourself with 2000 years of theology when you know, just plain know, that there is no God. How you can know this is beyond explanation. But don’t worry, you just know it.
I guess you’re right, everybody else is stupid except you. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Kant, Newton, Shakespeare, Dante - these are but morons crawling in their own ignorance compared to your overwhelming insights into the fundamental nature of reality. Good bye.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 1:43 PM
“Accurately identifying the problem of the human condition” assumes the point in dispute: that there is a problem with the human condition. I object to telling people that they are “born bad”, especially when it’s done to help win or keep converts by means of the guilt that such an attack is designed to create.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 1:45 PM
So is the Bible accurate about you or not?
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 1:45 PM
PRCalDude,
It depends on what you mean by “imperfect”. Do I make mistakes? Of course. Does that mean I’m just as immoral as John Wayne Gacy because I don’t have Jesus? Of course not. Hence, the “imperfect” part is correct, but the “sinful” part is wrong. In fact, I think it’s harmful.
I don’t think that scripture delineates imperfect/sinful the way I’ve done. The Bible (including Jesus) says all sorts of things that I think are weird and/or disgusting.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 1:52 PM
PRCalDude,
Don’t you think it’s presumptuous of you to call me to answer about the accuracy of scripture?
(Is the Bible accurate about rabbits chewing the cud?)
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 1:45 PM
I suppose then that you also object to informing people when they have fatal but treatable diseases because of the dependence on treatment that imparting such information on them would create?
Or will you simply continue to ignore PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 1:29 PM question.
I will rephrase it for you so perhaps you can understand it.
Have you ever knowingly and intentionally done anything that you knew was wrong.
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Referring to your comment, “assumes the point in dispute”, I may think prima facie that total depravity is a “first principle” or a basic presupposition.
One question is: does the evidence point in the direction of total depravity concerning human nature? I respectfully think there is evidence. I assume that you disagree.
I agree with you that “guilt manipulation” is generally a bad idea. That is why I think Christian Hedonist is very, very different from worldly, non-Christian guilt manipulation.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Have you ever lied, cheated, or stolen, looked at a woman lustlfully, or disobeyed your parents? That’s what I mean by “imperfect.”
No. You’ve already answered about the inaccuracy of Scripture as a whole. Now I’m just asking you about its accuracy in this narrow sense: Do you wrong your neighbor or not?
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 2:01 PM
What it means is that God is not a being among beings. God is not part of creation but outside or beyond it. God is not an old man in the sky throwing lightning down to earth. God created all that exists, including space, time and the fundmental laws of the physical universe. God himself is beyond these terms. Traditionally, theologians have talked about God via negativa, the negative way, describing what God is not since using positive attributes is inadequate.
Use your imagination here. Why is there something rather than nothing? Where does the universe come from and why should it be understandable by humans? What is morality and how do we know about it? Science cannot answer these questions. Rationality is just a tool and as such has its limits. But existence continues beyond our perceptions and our tools, including logic and math. Even the strictist empiricists (David Hume, etc) acknowledge that cause and effect cannot be proven but have to be accepted on intuition.
God by His very nature cannot be known in the same way other objects of our knowledge are known. Talking about God can be slippery which is why theologians have traditionally used very precise terms which are difficult to translate into other fields of study.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 2:07 PM
It is, in fact, accurate on this point. A study of the original language shows that it means something along the lines of “chews what they’ve brought up”—not strictly chewing the cud but chewing anything they’ve previously digested. Without going into disgusting detail, rabbits do do that (no pun intended).
jdpaz on August 22, 2007 at 2:13 PM
But what the Bible means by “imperfect” is in Romans 3:23. It doesn’t matter if you’ve done those things or not because you were born just as bad as John Wayne Gacy. I think that kind of guilt-theology sucks, and that’s what I object to.
I’m surprised you caved so easily. Clearly you agree that Lev 11:6 and Deut 14:7 are false. Do you wonder which other verses in the Bible are false?
I’m impervious to that guilt-trip method of witnessing. (Your faith inspires you to try to make people feel bad about themselves, and I regard that as one of the harmful effects of Christian misanthropy.) Besides, Jesus himself said that salvation was based on five specific works (Mat 25:31-46), and “not wronging your neighbor” isn’t one of them, so whether or not I wrong my neighbor is inconsequential eternity-wise.
By the way, I’m an ex-Christian, so I know all about your witnessing techniques. I used to employ them on others and I used to feel the same guilt and concern for humanity that you feel. It has it’s good points, but, as a whole, I think it’s harmful.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Did you mean “DEcend”, or were you just being ironic? I know you scuba guys do both, but I really think it would take Jesus to guide us in the art of Acension. If anyone could tell them how to do that, it would be valuable advice!
taterblade on August 22, 2007 at 2:32 PM
If your going to dodge direct questions, why don’t we just end the conversation right now? I was trying to deal with your presuppositions, not guilt you. I can tell already this conversation is going nowhere. Have a great day.
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Your argument is not with me, but with the translators of the KJV, NIV, RSV, and many other translators who know much more about Hebrew and Aramaic than you do.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 2:27 PM
This is what comes of not really understanding what you believe. The concept of sin as in original sin, is to fall short of PERFECTION. Because God is perfect anything that falls short of perfection is unacceptable. One need not be as bad as John Wayne Gacy to fall short of perfection, one only needs to miss being perfect by .000000000000000000001 percent.
I think certain indisputable laws of physic’s suck, I think that death sucks, but the fact that I think they suck doesn’t mean I get to discount them as irrelevant.
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Maybe we could use a good understanding of what “sin” (Greek: hamartia) is. One way to look at it is “missing the mark”. Much like when you point an arrow at a target, aiming for the bullseye, but when you release, the aim is imperfect. Does this help?
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I was dodging the question because it assumes your Christian ideology behind it, and thus answering it would just make the conversation more annoying. I can easily say that I do not deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud except in the case of self-defense, and that is what I regard as moral treatment of other individuals. But you’d probably regard that as a “dodge” too, since it doesn’t dovetail into the point you’re trying to prove. And the point you’re trying to prove is that since I’m not perfect, then I need Jesus.
What I am trying to impress upon you is that the point you’re making is NOT what I object to in your religion. The part of your religion that I think is crappy is the part that says, “You are inherently as evil as John Wayne Gacy since the day you were born!” Is statement true in your faith? (Rom 3:23)
Do you think I’m guilty? Do you think I should feel guilty about my complicity in Christ’s death? I ask those questions because I simply do not believe you when you say, “I’m not trying to guilt you”, and I think your answers to those questions will be instructive to everyone.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 2:45 PM
I agree with that, but believe that once we realize that we’re slaves, we have the ability to become free just as all slaves do.
We need God’s help for this, but ultimately, it’s our choice to continue to be enslaved by sin or to choose God.
So basically God decides some people can become Christians and decides some cannot. That is not how I understand Grace.
Grace is still receiving something you didn’t earn, but, in my view, it’s not winning the lottery.
I agree that Christians are to do what God commands because He commands it, but I do not believe that He commands things of us that serve no purpose.
If we were preordained to fall in the garden and really had no choice in the matter, then why did God even make the garden? Why didn’t He just start out with life after the garden?
As an aside, I agree that this is a secondary issue, or at least I acknowledge that you see it as one, since it’s not really my issue.
I was trying to find this one verse that goes along with my point, but I’m at a loss to do so.
Esthier on August 22, 2007 at 2:47 PM
I am multi-tasking right now, but I saw the above. I will respond to it later. You have raised an interesting point, and I will respond time permitting.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Haven’t read the whole thread, but bottom line, those who are illegally crossing the border and not behaving as Jesus has said they should, therefore they are NOT following the Christian religion and are not “brothers” to other Christians, no matter how much AP wants to attempt to twist the meanings of Christ’s teaching. If they were truly following God’s will, they would be making the best of their present situtation, not breaking the laws of government (which Christians are NOT supposed to do).
Come on AP, its really not that hard.
Fatal on August 22, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Oh, and I forgot to mention, that whole “Christians are the worst at touting their own goodness” meme. Jesus taught a parable about that. The poor woman who gave 2 coppers in secret vs the rich man who gave a bunch of gold but made a spectacle of it. The poor woman was living in the Kingdom of God, not the rich man.
So those who do such a thing (congratulate themselves for doing good, are actually working against Christ’s teachings)
Fatal on August 22, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Feel free to check out these links. I have found them helpful in the past. :-)
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 2:53 PM
You are arguing my point. If you miss perfection by .000000000000000000001 percent, then you suffer eternal torture in hell. If you rape and kill a bunch of kids, then you suffer eternal torture in hell. They’re morally equivalent in Christian theology, and I think that is just plain horrible. It’s really where you end up if you take “Jesus is the only thing that matters!” to its logical extreme. Who cares how many babies you rape to death! Do you have Jesus or not? If you’re an atheist, then you might as well rape babies to death because Jesus is the only thing that matters!
But we’re not talking about indisputable laws. We’re disputing the validity of Christian theology. I claim that is misanthropic and thus harmful. It seems like the Christians here can’t help but agree with my criticism and the only way they can answer it is to blandly assert that it’s “true anyway” and then try to attack my character.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Then, of course, there’s the positive aspect of Christianity. Sometimes we get so caught up in the trappings and forget that the chief end of man is to love God and enjoy Him forever. When I ponder that, it kind of makes me forget about the “guilt trip” stuff. If He really wants me to be his son, and to enjoy all that he is and has, then isn’t it worth doing all that I can to be good and ethical because He is so much greater than I? Otherwise and I might just be unappreciative. Anyway…
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 2:53 PM
CyberCipher & Tennman, thank you.
INC on August 22, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Not this Christian. I have not engaged in ad hominem attacks.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Esthier, John 6 is very helpful.
INC on August 22, 2007 at 2:57 PM
He’s only interested in venting. Don’t die on that hill.
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 2:59 PM
BNCurtis,
Thanks, I appreciate your response. There is definitely a peace of mind aspect to your religion, and I can claim to know that that from personal experience. That said, you admit that it “kind of makes [you] forget about the ‘guilt trip’ stuff”, which is an admission that guilt is part and parcel of your religion. Quite frankly, scr*w guilt! I enjoy life much more now that I’ve learned to leave all of that useless, self-destructive guilt behind.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Everyone misses perfection, except Christ. EVERYONE. A sentence to an eternity in Hell is what everyone deserves. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 6:23, ESV) Christ paid the penalty, so you don’t have to, which is the crux of the matter. (Excuse the pun, please.)
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Nipple.
Hoodlumman on August 22, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Lundry, I have learned to leave it behind, too. But differently: by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Oh, I’m just as guilty, but my freedom is in Christ!
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 3:05 PM
*Loundry. Sorry for my bad keyboarding…
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I’m interested in leveling a much-deserved criticism against a really negative and harmful aspect of your religion. I don’t dispute that Christians do a lot of good in the world. They are often some of the kindest and most generous people one can find. Many of my friends and family are Christians. But the guilt part of Christianity sucks, and the “you’re born bad” theology is bankrupt to the point of being immoral. If you honestly believe that Christianity is the right way for everyone and that anyone who disagrees with you in this respect will fry in hell for eternity, then I don’t think it’s unfair of me to question you about these harmful aspects that you, so far, agree are part of your religion. It seems like you’re making excuses for pushing a harmful ideology on people. Hurt yourself all you want, it’s your life. But why do it to others?
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I don’t think Jesus was very righteous. He said some things that are downright crazy wrong! (And since Christians pretend like he didn’t say them, I can’t help but think they agree with me.) And I don’t buy into the whole “freedom in Christ” thing because you’re not free to sin. It’s “free, but not really” kind of freedom.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 3:09 PM
This illustrates one of the many problems I have with the doctrine of free will. (This isn’t directed at you, Loundry, and I’m very sorry to read you are one of the many people who feel alienated from Christianity.)
Part of gaining humilty and compassion is to recognize that we are as immoral as John Wayne Gacy. On one level, we don’t know how much damage each sin does. Each time we get angry at a child or another commenter, who knows how much damage that causes as that anger echoes from one person to another. At another level, if we feel smuggly superior to someone struggling with a sin, then we are less likely to help them. By accepting that we are equal before God, we are more likely to feel empathy and get down on our knees to help someone in need. By accepting that our life experience comes from God as a tool to improve us, we can more easily have sympathy for those who have been dealt a more difficult lot.
I wish I was better at doing what I talk about, but I’m working at it.
pedestrian on August 22, 2007 at 3:11 PM
So “love thy neighbor,” “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you,” etc., doesn’t mean letting people who are working for slave wages in their home countries come here to work?
Back in the day, even the liberation theologians would have said to attack the problem where it is - so if the problem is in Central America, going to the US isn’t going to fix it.
Today’s crop of liberal Xtians (and Derbyshire’s brand of it is the Church of England, which is about to break apart over liberal and conservative interpretations) are all about fixing the world by forcibly taking your money to fund their programs - Derbyshire’s American cousins, the Episcopal Church USA, are divided between funding the UN’s Millenium Development Goals (yeah, the UN, that honest, effective, efficient group of world-shakers) and suing parishes who have had enough of the heresy and are breaking away. Remember when the National Cathedral had the Muslim lecturer? That’s an Episcopal facility owned & run by some of the biggest clerical frauds in history. These people are no more concerned with the words and dictates of Christ than they are with supporting our military.
As was written yesterday (in the sanctuary comments), there are some Xtians and churches that need their tax-exempt status revoked because they’re all about political moves, not Xtian ones.
Shay on August 22, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I am not getting any work done here…. :-)
Loundry,
hey buddy, the question I was trying to raise is,
What if what Loundry is calling ‘guilt manipulation’ are actually tools to keep us humans away from useless, self-destructive idols that PROMISE THE ENTIRE WORLD and YET FAIL TO DELIVER anything of lasting value or enduring happiness?
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 3:13 PM
What the heck kind of theology did you study? I have never heard of such a thing, except by people out to destroy Christianity. Unbelievable, unbelievable, how (I don’t want you to feel attacked) naive or unlearned you are about Christianity.
I can see why you feel attacked, I am not sure how to respond to such, um, um, um,
lack of knowledgemisinformation.I shake my head in bewilderment.
right2bright on August 22, 2007 at 3:13 PM
A mistake, of course, but still not as ignorant as claiming man once lived to be more than 900 years old or life started in the Garden of Eden. Names are easily mistaken when you’re tired, facts like those are purposefully ignored.
Scientists know how the Earth was formed. Look up accretion. And even ask other Christians. Catholics will tell you Presbyterians aren’t true Christians and Presbyterians will tell you Catholics aren’t true Christians. If that doesn’t lend to the futility of argument then nothing does. Just look at the discussion going on in the last 20 comments about the Song of Solomon. If someone wanted to argue that the Song of Solomon wasn’t literally true you’d have some people who call themselves Christians agreeing with you and some disagreeing.
You’re just getting lost in semantic games here where you don’t want to say the word “imaginary,” but when something doesn’t exist and when you can’t prove a certain thing, but you still believe it to be there it is, in fact, imaginary.
You can’t deal with it and then result to using about 10 logical fallacies in your next 3 sentences. But I guess I’d be angry too if I just realized my basis for morality is akin to an imaginary friend.
It’s so easy to say stuff like that when you don’t have to prove it or when all you have to do is revert back to a book you deem holy for all your answers. It’s pathetic.
See, you aren’t really afraid of using the word imaginary.
When Christians start throwing out “God of the gaps” you know they’re down to their last string.
I’ve noticed this happen about 3 or 4 times in the last 20 replies. When Christians are faced with tough questions about their faith they simply quit and leave as if to protect their fragile, and it is extremely fragile, world view.
And to top off this pathetic cake of Christian commenter’s we have doriangrey. Unwilling to confront one of the points in Genesis that completely contradicts science opting instead for a diatribe to essentially say “I don’t wanna answer,” obviously oblivious to the fact that I predicted the same exact thing in the very post he quoted. More evidence suggesting what I already knew about you.
But don’t worry, dorian, you can continue to believe in your fairy tale where human civilization started from a man’s rib, the Garden of Eden was real, and humans lived to be more than 900 years old. Because God forbid somebody call it what it is–a lie.
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 3:15 PM
That doesn’t stop them from staying in the clergy, though, does it? I mean, they’ll keep earning a paycheck from Christianity even though they don’t believe a word of it.
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 3:15 PM
I am NOT a rapist, a murderer, or a kidnapper, and neither are you. I’m very sorry that you are in the thralls of an ideology that teaches you to think so lowly of yourself. Destroying your self-regard in that way is not a way to gain humility or compassion. It’s a way to make you feel the need to find the “fix” in church. I think all of that is precisely by design — human design. I don’t have to believe any lies that I’m a rapist and a murderer in order to feel compassion or humility!
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 3:16 PM
But, being as you are being transformed by the renewing of your mind, you don’t WANT to sin… As you are growing in grace and being sanctified, set apart… Christians are looking to a different kind of freedom, an unworldly kind. I don’t think it’s the same kind you mentioned.
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Sorry, re-read Romans 3:23. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It doesn’t say, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God except those who haven’t killed enough babies.” In any case, it’s good to see that there are some liberal Christians on here who don’t take “Jesus is the only thing that matters” to its destructive extreme.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Loundry, if you go back and look at Matthew 5, Jesus says, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine. Your works demonstrate your attitude towards believers and thus to Christ.
As for the Leviticus and Deuteronomy passages, I do not know Hebrew, but from the references I do have it looks as if jdpaz has a point. The one word he referenced comes from a root meaning to ascend, and it is used in Leviticus and Deuteronomy about hares, and in Leviticus when the passage goes on to describe pigs not chewing the cud, a different Hebrew word is used that is the word for chewing the cud.
INC on August 22, 2007 at 3:21 PM
I have yet to see any “transformed” Christians who don’t want to sin. All of them sin, and they admit this, too. (They plea “We’re still human” as their get-out-of-hypocrisy-free card, as Allahpundit noted.) I think that’s why you wrote “as you are being transformed” instead of “when you are transformed” because you know as well as I that Christians aren’t any better at not sinning than non-Christians are.
Did you catch that I’m an ex-Christian? You don’t have to witness to me. I’ve heard it all before. I used to say the same things you used to and feel the same compassion that you feel.
I agree, it’s not the same thing. That’s why your thing, whatever it is, isn’t freedom. It’s something else. I can’t help but notice the elitism in your description of being “sanctified” and “set apart”. Does it feel good to be better off than other people?
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Can you or AP tell me the difference between the Greek words for Father and Creator? Do you know in the context of ancient Greek language how these are different? Can they be interchangeable? Do you or AP know the comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in translation from Greek to English? Is it important? What is the difference when using “a” and “the”. Would you believe that one simple article, defined as definite or indefinite can change the whole meaning of the Christian faith? Now apply that to words like Father and Creator, and you get posts from atheists and agnostics defining what they mean.
That is why so much of what AP has posted has been in error, as pointed out by me, with a limited knowledge of Greek. Yet he keeps posting about these things as a theologian. It would be like me giving you dissertation on nuclear fusion. Uh, two atom things collide and makes a large explosion. It helps to do a little study before making comments that end up embarrassing yourself.
right2bright on August 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM
The difference between Christianity and all other religions without exception is that the other faiths teach that man is basically good and can work his way into a right standing with God. Christianity teaches the truth that we are all fallen, sinful creatures in need of a saviour provided for us by Jesus Christ. The political stuff is nonsense.
sabbott on August 22, 2007 at 3:31 PM
I’m very grateful to Christianity as it freed me from a prison of pride, but I wouldn’t say I sought it out for that because I felt pretty happy while being an aetheist. I just recognized it as a system that would lead me to be a better person.
You’re clearly a bright person, but must not be a good reader if you think I called you a rapist or some such. Being equally immoral as something does not mean you are that thing. It just means you have no grounds to feel superior, because we don’t know what would happen if we lived someone else’s life. I don’t know you, so I can’t say how successful you are at being compassionate, but the anger that comes through your in your posts is very troubling. I pray that whatever leads you to think that people have said lies about you would stop troubling you.
pedestrian on August 22, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Ouch. That stung. Is that what you think? You think I’m an elitist? Hardly. Yes. I caught that you are an ex-Christian. I’m not trying to witness… I’m not that good at it anyway. I’m trying to explain things the way I understand them. And we OBVIOUSLY do not understand things in the same way. That is why we are here, though, writing back and forth, is it not?
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 3:34 PM
If you choose to see me as an enemy, then be my guest, but I’m not accepting your religion or your Jesus. In fact, I think they’re harmful. Weirdly enough, Jesus said you have to love and forgive your enemy. Personally, I think that’s crazy.
And yet, the translators of the KJV, NIV, and RSV, all of whom know much more ancient Hebrew than you do, all agreed that “cud” was the right word to use. Why should I take your word over theirs? You are calling them incompetent. Who knows? Maybe they are!
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 3:34 PM
My job isn’t to convince you of God, I could care less. What I want you to realize is that people who do believe in God have given you a better life. And you cannot accept that fact or admit, that you are better off…not because of atheists, but because of Christians. And that when faced with a disaster, rather personal or something larger, the faithful are the ones people, and you , will depend on.
The point being, what you consider foolish, you depend and your family, and the nation depend on.
Now where is that atheist hospital that will care for you and your family? Get it? You need something you abhor or you claim does not exist, the irony.
right2bright on August 22, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Loundry… that “cud” thing really is a sticking-point for you, isn’t it? Why? I only ask because I am interested, not because I am attacking you. I hardly have the intellect for that, or the will. Nevertheless… to me it seems pedantic (is that the right word?)… an argument over either semantics or word choice. Again, I’m no scholar.
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Maybe they chose ‘cud’ as a translation because they didn’t have an axe to grind and knew perfectly well what rabbits do.
pedestrian on August 22, 2007 at 3:41 PM
or maybe it’s just splitting hares.
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 3:42 PM
*Sorry, folks. I just had to throw that one in there…
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Well… I guess that one killed the thread. The pun is mightier than the sword.
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I never asked for anyone to “convince” me. I asked if anyone could prove that what they believed in was true. I asked why the idea of God is more logical than the idea of Russell’s teapot or the Matrix. Still no solid answer, and I’m perfectly okay with that, so long as you guys don’t try and lecture me on logic and reason and evidence in threads on foreign policy, economics, and war.
You want me to realize this why? And who are you to say that not only believing in something but worshiping it and changing your life to fit the interpreted words of a book would give me a “better life”? I don’t question the fact that believing in something imaginary actually makes you feel better, but the problem I have with the religious is that they question me based on their own biases. You say you’re happy, I believe you; I expect you to believe me when I say I’m happy, and if you don’t it speaks more about you and your religion than it does me.
It’s sayings like this that make atheists really dislike Christians like you. You pretend to know exactly how we are, how we think, and what we do, when all you’re basing this on is your own biased experiences. A statement like yours might work in your Bible study to make all the Christians feel good about themselves, but when you say it in the real world it just doesn’t work, not just because it’s the epitome of “holier than thou,” but because it’s wrong.
This is something Christians repeat over and over and over again for only a few purposes. 1) To feel better (holier than thou) than atheists, 2) to try and laugh off the questions they get about their faith instead of answering them, 3) to divert the topic. Simply because Christians have built hospitals does not make them logical or factually honest or even morally superior, all it makes them is hospital builders.
Just look back at your post and everywhere you say the word “you,” realize that your assumptions about me are wrong and your predictions are flawed.
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Yo, Derb! Your review would have a teensy bit of credibility if you knew how to spell the last name of the archbishop of Los Angeles.
My cardinal has a last name .
It’s M-A-H-O-N-Y.
corona on August 22, 2007 at 4:00 PM
I feel violated. You rapist!
pedestrian on August 22, 2007 at 4:01 PM
BNCurtis :-)
Loundry, I’m just saying there are two different Hebrew words used. The translators obviously decided it was unnecessary or too cumbersome to differentiate. Translators have to make a judgment call when they go from one language to another.
I was not calling you my enemy at all. I was only pointing out those who are the objects of the activities of the Matthew passage.
INC on August 22, 2007 at 4:01 PM
The passage meaning that men are not perfect? They fall short of perfection. I don’t think you have a disagreement with that statement. Where does it state that we treat the different offenses as the same? God is the ultimate arbitrator, we are the arbitrators on earth. We decide which offenses qualify for what punishment, and we give the state that responsiblity to take that action. That is very biblical. In your zeal to cast the blame net, you seem to have mixed up some of the doctrine you maybe were taught.
If you need the passages to confimr I can, but I think you know what I stated is true…both logically and biblically.
right2bright on August 22, 2007 at 4:03 PM
To be perfectly clear, I should have used the phrase “one’s works” rather than “your works”, but I really wasn’t using “your” with the intention of aiming at you.
INC on August 22, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Because several people tried to play the “That’s what it says, but that’s not what it means” game in regards to two verses in the Bible that are patently false. Rabbits do not chew the cud, contrary to the falsehoods contained in scripture. But it’s really not a sticking point in the sense that the “rabbits chew the cud” verses are the thing that makes me not want to be a Christian. It’s a sticking point in that I’m not going to accept invalid arguments. There are dozens upon dozens of verses that I could call into question, and not all of them are about “trivial” things like cud-chewing or some insects having four legs. Really, how “trivial” is it when we’re talking about a book that is alleged to be the perfect word of a divine being? No wonder the apologists are trying hard to come up with an answer!
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Ding Ding Ding
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 4:10 PM
This debate, if it can be called that, between Spenser and Derb, comes close to touching what is a serious Achilles heel of the Right: the inability to completely devastate - intellectually - irrational totalitarian ideologies, whether Islam or communism, because of its own compromising acceptance of religious irrationalism (choose your denomination).
Spenser and Derb both make valid points, and I hope both continue digging deep.
Halley on August 22, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Loundry… Now I think I understand where you’re coming from, and that’s a tough spot to be in, I would think. If I’m not mistaken, you’re questioning the inspiration and authority of Scripture, along with its sufficiency. And you don’t want to be toyed with. You want real answers, and you’re digging really deep. Hey, I can appreciate that. There might be a better forum for that than HotAir, and one that can be entered seriously, without recrimination. (Not that one would get that here.) But I’m enjoying the thread…
Anybody have any good ideas? A good place for give and take, and real learning? Maybe a good book on the subject? I’d like it, too.
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 4:18 PM
I can understand that atheists don’t believe Christianity but to deny God in any form, to claim that there is nothing more than what we puny humans at the edge of one galaxy can perceive or experience, is, well, quite an astounding claim. Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Einstein, Gandhi - these were pretty smart guys who thought deeply about the nature of reality and about the human condition. All believed in God. They defined God differently but none were atheists (or Christians).
But I guess a bunch of guys banging on keyboards all day probably know a bit more about life than those clowns. Silly me.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 4:18 PM
How do you know what the motivations of the translators were in choosing “cud” over a different word? You weren’t there, and you haven’t interviewed them, so it is anything but “obvious”. And of course translators have to make a judgment call in translation. Their skill in judgment is what makes them good translators or not, and they judged that “rabbits chew the cud” was the most accurate way to translate the ancient Hebrew. If you think that “rabbits chew the cud” is NOT a good translation, then you are calling them bad translators. Forgive me for not taking your word over theirs.
I’m glad. We need to be allies, not enemies. And you will have to find a way to accept me as an ally even though I reject your religion completely. Are you up to the challenge?
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 4:19 PM
2 much fun!
Where did the idea of universal education originate?
corona on August 22, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Maybe the translators just didn’t know anything about rabbits?
Maybe I shouldn’t get into that one again.
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 4:21 PM
That was kind of a Christian-y way to put it, but yes. I do not think that the Bible has the answer, and I do not think that being a Christian is a good way to live. I think there are worse ways to live, for sure. It’s not black and white.
I know it’s hard to break out of that mind-set where you think that every non-Christian has, deep down inside, a deep yearning for the truth (which is Jesus). Yes, I want to be taken seriously, but the serious point I’m expressing is this: I have legitimate criticisms of Christianity especially pertaining to its negative and harmful aspects, and that’s why I don’t want to be part of it. Now, can we team up and beat Islamic supremacists together with mutual respect, given that neither of us (Christians v. atheists) accepts the other’s way of living?
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Loundry, I’ll take out the word obviously–those reasons seemed the best to me as I am not impugning the translators’ motives or skills. I’m not saying they were bad translators, they decided not to differentiate the terms.
Since you come to Hot Air to comment, I assume there are various political ideas/theories/goals/activities with which we agree. If that assumption is wrong, I’m sure we’ll find out. I’m not out looking for enemies.
INC on August 22, 2007 at 4:26 PM
I was already there to begin with!
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 4:26 PM
It is false to say that I claim that there is nothing more than what humans can perceive or experience. Instead, I claim that it is wrong to believe in something in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for you to appreciate, but, to me, the difference is absolutely crucial.
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 4:29 PM
It is kinda hard to involve myself in this debate right now. But here are some helpful ideas. Gleason Archer is a fantastic scholar. This book is good. Finally, this book is cool.
Folks, I gotta run…
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Then we meet in the middle as friends and allies. My goals materialize!
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM
But evidence is something that you perceive and experience. To say that there is evidence that cannot be perceived or experienced is absurd. Besides, it is the nature of belief (as opposed t knowledge) that it does not demand evidence.
It’s one thing to be merely agnostic, saying that there is no way for us to know about what is outside the realm of our knowledge. But it is quite another to assert that nothing exists outside our knowledge.
But again I’m sure that modern atheists are far ahead of Socrates and Spinoza and Wittgenstein on this issue. What idiots they were to believe in God.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 4:42 PM
This is why, when you get to minutiae of the bible, it takes a little more than…that’s what I read. When in doubt you go to the original text. As I have pointed out with artifacts of “a” and “the”, and the “turn the other cheek” comments you must go to the original source (Hebrew) and to the time and place where the event took place (historical perspective) and accuratly depict what you are trying to define. Ancient Hebrew is a difficult language, and even more difficult to make sense 2,000 years later. Chewing the cud was accurate then, and now with this knowledge it is accuarate now.
That makes three corrections to posting by atheists, each one being dead wrong, and no ackowledgement that they (the atheists) were in error.
If you want I could pull the original Hebrew, and show you (although it would mean nothing to you). What it means, is that you will search for any thing, latch onto it to try to show that you are correct.
BTW, this verse is brought up in almost every Hebrew class.
gerah (or gehrah) and ‘alah are the two key words. ‘alah is used in almost every page of the NT, it can mean ascend, bring up, restore, cast up, fetch up, get up, etc. You can see the problem with interpretation, however with gerah (chewed) and used in just a few places in the OT (which makes it difficult to decipher). But it means, the verse, the chewing than the movement (from the catch-all verb ‘alah) ‘alah being used as a participle. Whew, even I have a hard time understanding that.
It means, he chewed than there is a movement of food, a restoration, a general movement after chewing. Hey, these guys used the words they could, “cud” did not exist.
Thank you, class dismissed, my third class of the day. I should charge you for this information. It will keep you from being further embarrassed by your lack of knowledge.
Ding, Ding, Ding
right2bright on August 22, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Wouldn’t that pretty much leave you without anything to believe in? Unless of course the determination of what is “sufficient” evidence is one you reserve to yourself, then you can just pick and choose what you want to beleive.
If it was entirely objective, that would leave you in a position to believe nothing as there are arguments that nearly everything understood by man has either contradictory evidence or is insufficient.
Those who demand a world devoid of all faith are doomed to live in a world of unfulfilled expectations.
Fatal on August 22, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 3:15 PM
That wasn’t a mistake, it was ignorance.
Are you capable of anything other than an argument from ignorance? Opinionated arrogant ignorant diatribe is your stock and trade isn’t it. Scientist’s have idea’s how the earth was formed, they don’t actually know, they just have a pretty damn good idea. I pretty damn good idea which does not conflict with what is in the book of Genesis. But you wouldn’t know that since neither reading nor comprehension of what little you are capable of reading is one of your strong suits.
Furthermore I seriously and profoundly doubt that you have the background in genetics or microbiology to give anything remotely resembling a reasonable dissertation on the potential life span of humans at any time in our history. In other words once again your ignorance renders your personal opinion on the subject completely and totally irrelevant.
Wrong, I am unwilling to engage in dialog the intentionally dishonest disingenuous and self-inflicted ignorant.
Yea, it’s kind of exactly like the fairy tale where you know for a fact that god doesn’t exist.
God forbid indeed that anyone claim to know for a fact anything that they cannot prove. More importantly you have already excluded yourself from this discussion by proving your complete ignorance of the subject.
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 4:53 PM
doriangrey - Yes. Exactly. I think there is great confusion on this thread about the nature of knowledge. Much scientific “knowledge” that people toss around are really just scientific theories. The Big Bang Theory. The Germ Theory of Disease. The Theory of Plate Tectonics. The Theory of Evolution. All of these are excellent theories but even the scientists working on them would not say these are known.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8