What regliion gets you

What regliion gets you

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
11 Jan 09

Joshua 7:15:

15 And it shall be, that he that is taken with the devoted thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath; because he hath transgressed the covenant of Jehovah, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.

Outkast

With White Women

Joined
31 Jul 01
Moves
91452
11 Jan 09

Why do all the heretics of the spiritual forum know the Bible so well?

C
Don't Fear Me

Reaping

Joined
28 Feb 07
Moves
655
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by kirksey957
Why do all the heretics of the spiritual forum know the Bible so well?
Should they get religion? In Russia, religion get you.

Pale Blue Dot

Joined
22 Jul 07
Moves
21637
11 Jan 09
1 edit

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b][b]If Gibbon's interpretation of history is so perverted by his bias against the Church as you say it's difficult to see how his work could be so celebrated by such "contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Lord Camden, and Horace Walpole." [/b]

Because his research mostly dealt with the Roman Empire, not the Roman were just freaks, not representatives of the psychology of organised religion.[/b]
Because his research mostly dealt with the Roman Empire, not the Roman Church.
Do you think it is possible to write a history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire without mentioning Christianity? The two stories are one and the same. This should be obvious.

His main success was actually in historiographical methodology, reading primary sources.
If this is true and his only legacy is his research methodology then why is he so widely read and respected to this day? History, like morality, and unlike science, is not progressive. A good historian will still be a good historian in a thousand years time. Gibbon was such a man and this is why he is still read today.

1. Gibbon wrote at the beginning of the Enlightenment period with the Revolution of France in the backdrop. Fabrications against the Church were actually not uncommon at that time (indeed, such fabrications were used as propoganda for persecutions against Catholics, dissolution of monasteries, nationalisation of church land, etc; at the same time Voltaire was calling for the Church to be crushed and Robespierre was baying for blood)
Please supply evidence of this 'fabrication.' All you've come up with so far is you're opinion which doesn't carry quite as much weight as the opinion of giants such as Hume, Smith, Walpole, Churchill etc.

2. Academic standards were very different 200 years ago. Before Gibbon, the English philosopher John Tolland had made the same claims.
As I've stated; a good historian will survive the passage of time and criticism well. You're maligning of Gibbon's work is absolute conjecture.

According to Socrates, they attacked her because of some rumour of political intrigue. No where is it suggested that they attacked her merely for religious reasons
Religion and politics are inextricably linked. If 90% of your constituency are Christian then representing yourself as a pagan or a Jew would be political suicide. Yes, it was a political killing but it was also a religious one. Metaphysical belief systems are not detachable but rather colour all your choices and interactions. Peter the Reader didn't decide on that fateful day to leave his Christian mindset at home. The idea that the world is a poor imitation of the real, perfect one is a Christian one that can be traced back to Platonic philosophy and even further to Orphism. It is this dualistic worldview that I believe is responsible for unspeakable horrors evidenced over the centuries by Hypatia's death, Daniel Pearl, the World Trade Centre attack, the Inquisition, and now, recently, in Papua New Guinea.

Well, seeing that Jewish people were massacring Christians, it seems more like self-defence than persecution. ... Oh, I get, it is only persecution when the Christians do it.
You should move to the West Bank.

1. Josephw is not a Catholic, nor a fifth century Alexandrian; he is an American Christian living 1600 years later. There is a huge difference in their religious belief, mentality and psychology.
That's what makes the fact that josephw can rationalise burning someone to death that much more frightening. History repeats itself. Can you imagine what a more hard-nosed Christian is capable of?

The fact is that Hypatia had Christian disciples, Synesius being one, and Christians, such as Socrates, condemned this attack.
So, because some Christians condemned the attack makes it ok? Are your criteria for Christian responsibility that every Christian should have rejoiced in the event? St Cyril was surprisingly quiet in his condemnation. Why did he lay low for over a decade after the incident?

So: there is no evidence that the Church sanctioned the attack; Hypatia was not a Jew; she had Christian disciples; Christians condemned the attack.
Christians also committed the act. Hypatia was a pagan who sided with the secular Orestes, this angered the Christian populace and they savagely murdered Hypatia believing the rumour that she was the cause of the political unrest. I wonder who started this rumour. Could it have been St Cyril, Orestes' political rival, the one who stood to gain by this murder?

How does that in any way cohere with your view that the mob's worldview is 'instantiated by organised religion'? They were just freaks, not representatives of the psychology of organised religion.
How do you explain this phenomenon cropping up throughout the course of history perpetuated by Christianity in the form of the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. Islam is also warming up nicely. It only takes a couple of thousand freaks slaughtering, persecuting and butchering before one starts to question the worldview that can rationalise such obscenities.

Owner

Scoffer Mocker

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
9958
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by kirksey957
Why do all the heretics of the spiritual forum know the Bible so well?
Googlers'

I don't know, but it sure makes my job harder. 😛

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by josephw
Googlers'

I don't know, but it sure makes my job harder. 😛
I think it's pretty obvious that most of the Fundies here rely a lot more on crib notes, pamphlets and propaganda from their "spiritual leaders" than on reading the Bible. It's laughable that someone who claims that they have read the Bible many times could make the easily refuted claim that "God didn't tell anyone to burn anyone to death" in the OT.

Owner

Scoffer Mocker

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
9958
11 Jan 09

Yes, it's true. The Bible says that God will cast into the lake of fire for all eternity all whose names are not found in the book of life.

I guess that justifies hatred of God.

To know God is to love Him. To deny God is death.

Sounds positively primitive doesn't it?

It's all quite simple and basic. There is no life except the life of God. Without God there is no life.

Owner

Scoffer Mocker

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
9958
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think it's pretty obvious that most of the Fundies here rely a lot more on crib notes, pamphlets and propaganda from their "spiritual leaders" than on reading the Bible. It's laughable that someone who claims that they have read the Bible many times could make the easily refuted claim that "God didn't tell anyone to burn anyone to death" in the OT.
I wasn't thinking when I said that. So I was wrong.

Do you presume to define God and what He is or isn't justified in doing?

Are you proud of your non-fundie status?

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by josephw
I wasn't thinking when I said that. So I was wrong.

Do you presume to define God and what He is or isn't justified in doing?

Are you proud of your non-fundie status?
“To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.”

Lao Tzu

Owner

Scoffer Mocker

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
9958
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by no1marauder
“To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.”

Lao Tzu
So, you're a universalist?

"To know God is to know truth. Not to know God is to know only the self."

josephw

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by josephw
So, you're a universalist?

"To know God is to know truth. Not to know God is to know only the self."

josephw
No, I'm a non-dualist.

He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.

Buddha


Of course that is an ideal that I haven't achieved (yet).

Outkast

With White Women

Joined
31 Jul 01
Moves
91452
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by josephw
So, you're a universalist?

"To know God is to know truth. Not to know God is to know only the self."

josephw
I thought God wanted us to know ourselves.

Owner

Scoffer Mocker

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
9958
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, I'm a non-dualist.

He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.

Buddha


Of course that is an ideal that I haven't achieved (yet).
You sound like a universalised.

Romans 11:36
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

There is only Christ. The self is a hindrance.

Outkast

With White Women

Joined
31 Jul 01
Moves
91452
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by josephw
You sound like a universalised.

Romans 11:36
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

There is only Christ. The self is a hindrance.
You sound like a Gnostic.

Owner

Scoffer Mocker

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
9958
11 Jan 09

Originally posted by kirksey957
I thought God wanted us to know ourselves.
Don't we already?

I think it's clear from scripture that what God wants is for us to know who we are "in Christ".