Guy, guys, guys…
Can we please stop bickering over inconsequential side issue and stick to the main topic? To wit, is Dewey hypocytical or insane for believing in God despite any physical evidence, while at the same time rejecting the claims of other people who say they believe in supernatural phenomena with no supporting evidence? Well, which is it – hypocritical or insane? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Just joshing with you, Dewey. But I really wish we could keep this thread on topic…
Barry
Who says they’re mutually exclusive? TVAA would probably say I’m hypocritical and insane… 
I guess I find the hijacks more interesting, given that discussion of the OP’s topic inevitably goes in more circles than those kids from The Blair Witch Project. This thread has been no exception – those particular horses have pretty much been reduced to a pasty white pulp.
And the early churches most certainly did have sacraments. They were also, quite literally, communes.
My point is merely that your emphasis on the personal relationship you have with God contradicts the earliest teachings and traditions of Christianity, which I suspect is where you’ve gotten most of your ideas about the nature of your deity.
I go to a thread with the title: “Randi tackles religion vs science.” and what do I find:
Galileo;
Orthodoxy;
Zoroastrianism
The Big Guy;
Moslem God;
Judaism;
Protestantism;
Martin Luther;
Catholicism;
But of Randi’s thesis, nary a word.
Was the original theme all played in the first 2 or 3 pages?
All of those points were, at least originally, brought up in discussion of Randi’s points.
And again, the only reply that can be made is: take it up with Martin Luther. You think Protestantism, with its emphasis on individualized relationships with the divine, has an incorrect view of early church history and teachings. While it can be argued that this is so – Catholics would certainly agree with that analysis – that statement is far from being conclusively proven.
You’ve got chutzpah, though – claiming that you have the definitive answer to one of the most heated theological issues of the past millenium is no small thing.
Pretty much. The rest of the on-topic discussion is basically the same song, different verse.
No. The theological debate centers around whether the Protestants are correct. They’re clearly not emphasizing community in the same way the early Christians did.
I don’t think you understand what I mean when I talk about “the importance of community” in the early Church, or in modern liturgical traditions. Let’s just add that to the list of things you don’t get, kay?
If you’d stop ignoring the arguments you can’t defend against, this thread would be a lot more on-topic.
Not really, no. The original theme, to wit, why should religious experiences not be subject to the same level of skepticism as any otehr so-called supernatural experience, has been restated time and time again in this thread. Unfortunately, nobody has actually answered the question yet. The terms have been redefined to the point where an answer is apparently impossible to produce, granted, but that’s not the same as answering the question. The discussion has also been hijacked repeatedly in an effort to avoid answering the question, but that also does not mean that an answer has been provided.
The issue is not whether Galileo was persecuted for proving the Catholic church’s view of the universe was incorrect.
The issue is not what early Christian theology had to say about whether religion was essentially a group activity or something that was individual.
The issue is, and always has been, why so-called skeptics, who demand empirical proof before accepting claims made by those who believe in psychics, ghosts, UFOs, etc., nevertheless are willing to believe in God. To say “because I have a deep feeling that God is real” is no answer, since those who believe in psychics, ghosts, etc., also have deep feelings on the subject – the skeptic just discounts those feelings as meaningless in the absence of any emprical proof.
Personally, I think the only valid answer to Randi’s question is that religious beliefs are so ingrained in our culture that most people are predisposed to act charitably toward them. Very few people actually believe in UFOs or psychics, so it’s easy to mock them for their beliefs. A very large pecentage of our population believes in God, on the other hand, and therefore it is much easier to accept religious beliefs without seeming like a nut job. In addition, religious beliefs, unlike beliefs in other supernatural events, are typically instilled in us at a very early age, and it’s very to break out of that sort of conditioning. In short, man has a near infinite capacity for self delusion, and a so-called “religious skeptic” is only willing to acknowledge the fact that other people are deluded but not himself.
Regards,
Barry
Make that “very hard to break out of that sort of conditioning.” The rest of the typos in that post will just have to fend for themselves I’m afraid…
Barry
Protestants would disagree, since the whole basis for Protestantism is the claim that Catholicism drifted from the teachings of the early church. You can’t say Protestants are acting ahistorically without entering the theological debate because that is the whole question at issue in the theological debate.
If Protestants are right about the beliefs and practices of the early church, then their theology is correct. If they are incorrect about those early beliefs and practices, then their theology is incorrect. This is a theological question that turns on historical interpretation. **
When this whole side issue was initially raised, you claimed that an emphasis on individualized relationships with God were “doctrinally incorrect.” Protestants hold as doctrine a belief in the primacy of individual relationships with God. Your statement necessarily means that Protestants are holding to incorrect doctrine.
I understand the importance of community in the Catholic tradition, and understand its importance (albeit only secondary importance) in the Protestant tradition. What you don’t seem to understand is that you can’t say a focus on individual spiritual relationships is “doctrinally incorrect” without also saying that Protestant theology is incorrect. So let’s just add that to the list of things you don’t get, kay? **
I see no need for us to continue repeating the same things to each other over and over again. At some point, it makes sense to say “we’re going in circles, so there’s no point in continuing.”
** There are plenty of other ways in which the Catholic Church did and has drifted away from the earliest Christian tradition. So?
Depending on the branch of Protestantism, they are.
And who says that isn’t what I’m saying?
[sigh]
But we’re not repeating the same things over and over again. You made points – people brought up objections to those points – you restated your earlier points, essentially ignoring the objections.
Not only can you not admit that you’ve lost this debate (and big time), but you can’t admit you’re wrong, which is much more important.
So, this particular area is one of the main beefs Protestantism has with Catholicism. Protestantism holds that the original message taught by both Christ and the early church was a message giving primacy to God’s relationship to the individual believer, and that the Catholic church had departed from this over time. **
The concepts of the priesthood of the believer and justification by faith are two of the three basic tenets of Protestantism, and they both form the foundation for the decidedly individual-centric theology of Protestant churches. Protestant churches by definition are churches preaching the primacy of individual relationships with God. **
Then I wish you’d just come out and say that, so we can mock you for having the arrogance to presuppose you have a lock on a historical truth that has been hotly contested for the past five hundred years, give or take. Apparently all those scholars and theologians arguing the Protestant view of things have just been wasting their time – they should have just asked you to set them straight, eh? :rolleyes:
And Orthodoxy finds both of these stances incomprehensible: as it doesn’t even separate religion into two methodologies, claiming that one is more primary than the other is nonsensical.
Oh, please. All of the branches of the Church have ridiculous doctrines – do we need to begin discussing the Papacy next?
And when are you going to respond to the on-topic questions people have been asking you?
Maybe you should refer him to this thread and ask him nicely not to wander off topic?
Barry
Good idea – I’ve become thoroughly tired of this thread.
Look, you made a specific claim about historical Christian doctrine. In making that claim, you necessarily said by implication that every scholar or theologian who has studied the issue and come down on the side of the Protestant view is wrong. It is perfectly legitimate to ask: why are you so goddamned qualified to definitively answer the question of the historicity of that doctrine? Why is your view necessarily superior to all those who have studied and argued the same point in the past?
You have a decidedly black-and-white view of history. You proved that in the Galileo discussion and you are proving it again now. You should really learn that history is rarely that clear cut, and is frequently painted in shades of gray.
That’s a good answer. We avoid questioning what is so solidly instilled by our upbringing and culture.
(I think there are fewer people who believe in a god and more who believe in UFOs and ghosts that you might expect.)
But there’s more to it than that. Questioning a belief in UFOs does not involve a religious concept like a belief in gods. If you attack UFOs, you are not attacking a moral code; questioning religion threatens a moral code. Almost by definition, a religious concept is based on non-provable faith. And here we come full circle with the argument.
Religion is one of the foundations of society. Most people don’t actually believe in their religions; as far as I can determine, they’re more about demonstrating allegiance to the society and culture than genuine models of the world.
Therefore, when people don’t “believe” in the religion, they’re putting themselves outside the web of obligation and expected behavior that is society, and the faithful don’t react well to that.
Well, if so, then this is a very modern and extremely self-serving definition.
God used to prove his existence all the time. He parted the waters of the Red Sea. He rewarded the faithful with earthly riches and smote those who opposed the righteous. He raised the dead and healed the sick. He caused statues to cry blood and sent his mother to appear to poor villagers across the globe.
God has always been a god of miracles, willing to show himself to the faithful. Until, that is, science progressed to the point where we could explain the natural world without needing to point to a supernatural being. At that point, God conveniently became a wholly intangible force who never interacts on the material plane and whose sole existence can only be inferred by the feelings he instills in the hearts and minds of a select few.
Similarly, God used to require much of those who believed in him in order to attain eternal life. You had to sacrifice animals, be willing to kill unbelievers, abstain from certain unlean activities, go to church on a regular basis, partake of wafer and wine to commemorate the death of his Son, etc. Now, however, it’s apparently enough to simply “believe” in him. Again, very convenient.
Regards,
Barry
Very acute godzilla.
There was a time, not so long ago, that the religious claimed it to be all true. It said so in the bible. With the bible under close scrutiny they retreated into BELIEF. ‘I believe it, you can’t disprove it. So you have to respect my belief.’
Now even belief without proof is under attack as is the final bastion, the claim to personally have expierenced God.
Soon they will have no place to retreat to, brethren.
MWUHAHAHA…