Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

He's got his definition wrong, too. When people put beliefs into action, that's called "acting." Whether or not it's moral is still totally a subject of debate.

No sirrah my definition was perfect.

Sorry, no...not close.

You're pretty horrible at defining, aren't you? You didn't have a definition for "Christian," and now you've got a completely wrong one for "morality." "Two strikes," as they say in baseball.

[Lacewing]

No, you really are a tiresome pompous ass.

I prefer to see what I do in a wondrous light.

That pretty much gives you free rein.

Yet even you will say “to each his own”!

Of course. And I'm observing.

I am trying to make high art Lacewing!

And that is my impression of it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Extremism indicates that there is more at work than something that can be understood and reasoned with.

I see your point. But the term ‘extremist’ is also a term expressly used to place certain ideas outside the pale. It is an ideological term and often highly rhetorical.

What ‘you’ cannot influence to see and believe as you do — is not necessarily extremism. Though you might use that term to describe your opponent.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sorry, no...not close.

Ok. But here’s your perfect chance: rewrite my paragraph and show me the correct formula.

People have *ideas* and they have *values* and, as a result of defining them, and believing in them, they are then compelled to put their beliefs into action.

Teach me, for thou knowest.

[phyllo]

Extremism indicates that there is more at work than something that can be understood and reasoned with.

So what are you going to do if you can't reason with them?

What would you do when facing extremism? Or do you imagine that you can reason with everyone?

Reasoning is the place to start and hopefully finish.

The next step after that is manipulation and intimidation ... marginalizing them, beating them up, throwing them in jail and lining them up against the wall.

PS And I realize that calling them extremist is already the first phase of marginalization.

[Lacewing]

Extremism indicates that there is more at work than something that can be understood and reasoned with.

I see your point. But the term ‘extremist’ is also a term expressly used to place certain ideas outside the pale. It is an ideological term and often highly rhetorical.

It is the term you used, and I think it fits when we're talking about the kind of rigid views that drive people who think they're representing a god.

[Lacewing]

So what are you going to do if you can't reason with them?

What would you do when facing extremism? Or do you imagine that you can reason with everyone?

Reasoning is the place to start and hopefully finish.

Ideally. But when people think they're representing a god, there is no acceptance for anything they think is contrary to that.

The next step after that is manipulation and intimidation ... marginalizing them, beating them up, throwing them in jail and lining them up against the wall.

This is why people are always at war: someone imposing something on someone else, with self-righteous indignation that they have the right to do so.

If I perceive that there is no path for reasoning, I use other paths to support the evolution and expansion of ideas.

PS And I realize that calling them extremist is already the first phase of marginalization.

Any position that cannot be reasoned with in a balanced way is extreme (from my perspective). It does not mean that people have to somehow share the same beliefs, just that their beliefs must not overly impose on others.

[phyllo]

his is why people are always at war: someone imposing something on someone else, with self-righteous indignation that they have the right to do so.

If I perceive that there is no path for reasoning, I use other paths to support the evolution and expansion of ideas.

I asked what you would do and you did not answer.

What other paths?

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:57 am
So what are you going to do if you can't reason with them?

[iambiguous]

Just as with race, what I would like is for you to discuss your thoughts and feelings about Jews theoretically, academically, analytically etc., and then take those conclusions out into the world that we live in today.

Imagining others who think like you do in a position of power in any particular community. What might Jews expect from them? How would you yourself interact with them? What would you approve of, what would you disapprove of...in terms of reproduction and education and employment and social interactions.

And, of course, hearing your own reaction to the polices of Hitler and the Nazis. Were there things they got right? Were there things they got wrong?

Then this part: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... ws-a-race/

Your views on that.

What I would like (I too have likes) would be for you, without searching on the topic, to write out what a Jew is. Again, no research, just your own ideas on what a Jew is. What makes a Jew a Jew?

Of course: wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Anything to keep the discussion either up in the clouds or all about me.

Well, okay, without Googling anything, to me a Jew is someone who subscribes to the religious faith -- the moral narrative -- that revolves around the God of Abraham and Moses. Historically. But it can then get murky because while some are born into Jewish families others convert to the Jewish faith. So just about anyone can call him or herself a Jew. Now, to the extent that there are Jewish genes and Arab genes and genes for all the other ethnic communities...damned if I know. What does science say about that?

Me, I react to others more or less ignoring all that "racial" and "gender" and "ethnic" stuff. I'm far more interested in how intelligent they are, how tolerant they are, their sense of humor, their emotional depth, their social skills, how far off the beaten path they are, how fascinating their life is and how just plain engrossing they are.

Instead, I go back to the assumptions I make about dasein. And that was explored in the 2012 film The Other Son: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... y#p2476698

Watch it yourself and get back to us.

[Harbal]

I posted a couple of articles about the C of E embracing evolution as truth, but you neglected to comment on them.

Did you? I didn't see.

Well, as it happens, I'm not C of E; and even if I were, I would not subordinate my intellect to them.

I don't subordinate my intellect to them, but I go even further than you; I don't subordinate it to God, either.

This is not intended to persuade you of anything other than its being the case that there are a significant number of people who regard themselves as Christians, but do not see evolution theory as a challenge to their beliefs. I do not suggest that it says anything one way or the other about the veracity of evolution theory, but it does undermine the veracity of your claims that evolution theory is on its death bed.



The Church of England, the Anglican denomination that dates to the 16th century, has issued an apology of sorts to Charles Darwin, the British naturalist famous for having advanced the theory of evolution.

In an essay published on the C of E’s Web site, “Good Religion Needs Good Science,” the Rev. Malcolm Brown, the church’s director of mission and public affairs, says that the church, in opposing Darwin’s ideas, has at times been guilty of distorting them and wrongly assuming that they contradict Christian beliefs. The idea that God created humans is consistent with evolution, Brown writes. Evolution simply provides a greater understanding of the exact processes through which humans came to be.

The church’s new point of view, which has been greeted with a mixture of curiosity and derision by the British press, was published with a series of documents about Darwin on the church’s Web site. The publications coincide with the approaching bicentenary of Charles Darwin’s birth in 1809 and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859.

---------------

The Church of England's governing body on Friday approved a motion that emphasizes the compatibility of belief in both God and science.
Dr. Peter Capon, a former computer science lecturer, introduced the motion arguing that "rejecting much mainstream science does nothing to support those Christians who are scientists ... or strengthen the Christian voice in the scientific area."

He urged Christians to take scientific evidence seriously and avoid prejudging science for theological reasons.

The vote comes as more than 850 congregations throughout the globe are celebrating Evolution Weekend with the aim of demonstrating that evolution poses no problems for their faith.

Religion and science are not adversaries, they say. Rather, the two fields should be seen as complementary, they maintain.

Evolution Weekend, which kicked off Friday, is supported by those of various faith traditions including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Unitarian Universalists.

"Religious leaders around the world are coming together to elevate the quality of the discussion about this important topic. They are demonstrating to their congregations that people can accept all that modern science has learned while retaining their faith," said Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Weekend and professor of Biology at Butler University in Indianapolis.

Since 2004 more than 12,400 Christian clergypersons from various denominations in the United States have signed "The Clergy Letter," expressing their belief "that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."

In the letter, Christian clergy contend, "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry, no...not close.

Ok. But here’s your perfect chance: rewrite my paragraph and show me the correct formula.

"The correct formula" for what? For what you mean when you write "Christian" or "moral"?

I can't tell you what you think those things mean...and the statements about each are yours, not mine.

I can tell, you though, that you can "act" on all kinds of things you "believe," and that's not sufficient to make them "moral." Anybody can see that.

It's surprising that you didn't.

[Immanuel Can]

I posted a couple of articles about the C of E embracing evolution as truth, but you neglected to comment on them.

Did you? I didn't see.

Well, as it happens, I'm not C of E; and even if I were, I would not subordinate my intellect to them.

I don't subordinate my intellect to them, but I go even further than you; I don't subordinate it to God, either.

Wow. Well, assuming God exists, that would mean you'd be really, really smart. And if he didn't, you couldn't "subordinate" it anyway.

...there are a significant number of people who regard themselves as Christians, but do not see evolution theory as a challenge to their beliefs.

But, of course, that doesn't tell us anything. As you have said, most people live with unexamined worldviews; that being so, that they don't notice how Evolutionism, particularly in anthropogeny, would undermine their beliefs doesn't tell us it doesn't. It just tells us that they don't happen to notice how it does.

The Church of England, the Anglican denomination that dates to the 16th century, has issued an apology of sorts to Charles Darwin, the British naturalist famous for having advanced the theory of evolution.

Shame on them for being so silly.

They've fallen into the old "NOMA" theory, which is the lame explanation that faith and science are to be proclaimed as "non-overlapping magisteria." It's clearly not true: faith has implications for science, and science has implications for faith. That the C of E doesn't know it, is just a stroke against the C of E.

People on both sides, acknowledge that that is so. Why does Dawkins spend all his time trying to make "religion" out to be all "delusion"? It's not because he thinks it doesn't matter, I assure you. And why do so many Theists object to their children being indoctinated into Evolutionism, when it comes to their own origins? It's not because faith is a matter segmented off from science.

Both sides care, because they both know it matters.

[Harbal]

...there are a significant number of people who regard themselves as Christians, but do not see evolution theory as a challenge to their beliefs.

But, of course, that doesn't tell us anything. As you have said, most people live with unexamined worldviews; that being so, that they don't notice how Evolutionism, particularly in anthropogeny, would undermine their beliefs doesn't tell us it doesn't. It just tells us that they don't happen to notice how it does.

I see it more as their bowing to the inevitable. Evidence for evolution is only going to get stronger as more research and study fills in the gaps -or supposed gaps- that you have drawn out attention to. I think you would be wise to do the same. There will inevitably come a time when even you will no longer be able to refute it.

The Church of England, the Anglican denomination that dates to the 16th century, has issued an apology of sorts to Charles Darwin, the British naturalist famous for having advanced the theory of evolution.

Shame on them for being so silly.

I agree about the silliness of apologising to the dead, but I wouldn't call it shameful.

They've fallen into the old "NOMA" theory, which is the lame explanation that faith and science are to be proclaimed as "non-overlapping magisteria." It's clearly not true: faith has implications for science, and science has implications for faith. That the C of E doesn't know it, is just a stroke against the C of E.

I don't understand that, so I must leave it to others to decide if it makes a point worth making.

People on both sides, acknowledge that that is so. Why does Dawkins spend all his time trying to make "religion" out to be all "delusion"? It's not because he thinks it doesn't matter, I assure you. And why do so many Theists object to their children being indoctinated into Evolutionism, when it comes to their own origins? It's not because faith is a matter segmented off from science.

Both sides care, because they both know it matters.

I can only tell you why I would have objected to my children being taught Creationism. It's because I know that truth matters.

[phyllo]

I can only tell you why I would have objected to my children being taught Creationism. It's because I know that truth matters.

No need to be upset.

There are many creation stories.

https://list25.com/25-creation-stories- ... the-world/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

[Belinda]

A Humanist friend came from an extended family of observant Jews. He himself was educated to post graduate level and was politically left wing.He was slightly amused as his Jewish relations and their quaint customs. It would be really misleading to have called him a Jew.

I assume you and your friends ate out from time to time? Did he tip as a humanist ... or?

A Humanist with a capital letter is a member of an organised group like Protestant or Jew. However I note you typed humanist, which is a different sort of category not an organised group.

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-hu ... capital-h/