Jump to content

secondeve

Nonbeliever
  • Posts

    1,276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2 Neutral

1 Follower

About secondeve

  • Birthday 02/21/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://wordwench dot org

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Writing, reading, politics, fantasy, poetry.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,927 profile views
  1. Hey guys, I'm doing a university subject called 'the New Testament and its Times' this semester, and thought I'd share a paper I wrote for it last night on the Gospel of Mark. There were two questions asking us to look at how Mark portrays Jesus' human side, and what details in the narrative were suggestive of eyewitness testimony. Anyway, here 'tis: In examining the narrative structure of the Gospel of Mark, it is interesting to consider those elements which contribute to our image of Jesus as a man (as opposed to a divinity), and, further, to try and determine which details of the account are suggestive of eye-witness testimony. In both cases, we are essentially seeking to identify information which, on balance, seems more likely to be true, not because the author has gone out of his way to emphasise it, but for precisely the opposite reason. This involves the combination of several criterion used in establishing the authenticity of the Gospels, namely: dissimilarity, lack of a higher theological imperative for a given anecdote or occurrence, embarrassment, relationship to an actual rural context, and multiple independent attestation. By these methods, a Biblical scholar may construct a plausible interpretation of the depiction of Jesus
  2. Which is one of many good reasons why you are not suited to the job of security guard. I would think that the essence of that job would be that somebody in control has the responsibility of deciding the rules of engagement and, if presented to an employee without room for negotiation, must be followed to the letter of the law. Any criticism in the situation you describe, however maddening it must have been, would surely be directed to whoever was in control behind the scenes and their inability to allow sufficient flexibility of choice to the security guard. If anything went wrong on campus, security guards would usually be judged on how well they followed their written instructions and not on how well they interpreted them. And having said that, I have never been a security guard, though having served in the army it often seemed very similar, and if I had been you and been treated in such a manner it would have been very irritating. But it made a good basis for a thread, and thank you. For my part, I understood the guy was looking to the rules, but what made me so mad was his flat-out acknowledgement that it was a glitch in his system: he knew we were allowed to be there, but because the computer didn't, we had to leave. If he hadn't known about the error, I would've acquiesced, but as things stood, I got ticked off.
  3. Personally, I tend to lean on the side of the spirit (when it comes to everyday law as well as moral). What sparked off this topic for me was a run-in with a security guard at university. My husband is enrolled as a PhD student, and subsequently has access to the philosophy study after hours and on weekends (he has a key to the door). However, a security guard showed up midday Saturday and tried to turf us out of the building, on the grounds that, due to an administrative error, my husband's enrolment wasn't confirmed, and therefore he had to treat us as tresspassers, even though he (a) was aware that the error was purely administrative because it had happened to several other postgrads (who he'd also kicked out) and (b) could plainly see my husband had both a valid student ID and a key to the building. Eventually, a lecturer came along and vouched for us, but the whole thing took about half an hour. Anyway, I got really riled up about the incident as a clear example of the spirit of law versus the letter. The whole point of the security guard (spirit) is to keep people who aren't allowed out of the building, and look after the people who are allowed in. The letter of the law is administrative - their system tells them who is allowed in, and who's not. In this case, the letter of the law was actually defeating the spirit of the law (I felt) because even though he knew we were people who had a right to the building, he persisted in trying to kick us out in accordance with the letter. What made me post the question here was the dichotomy I often perceive when two Christians differ in interpretation of Biblical verses (i.e. one takes it strictly literally, and the other interprets through a more general understanding of God). This, to me, has big ramifications on the integrity of the Bible as viewed by individual Christians, because it effectively creates a clause-of-faith. i.e. if a literal statement proves distressing, it can be overruled by the spirit of the law without being proven incorrect. This means that even where a given Biblical statement might be called untrue if literal, they still believe that the Bible is inerrant. And that, I think, puts a very interesting emphasis on whether the spirit or the letter of the law is more important, because while this principle works well for the majority of the text, there are still some issues which push at the edges. So which consideration is more important to interpreting the Bible?
  4. Right: apologies. Just realised I got confused initially: was thinking about the Earth not being the centre of the solar system, which the Church did advocate. Probably some Christians back in the day did think the Earth was flat, but you're correct - I have no information to say it was an official position.
  5. Are you making a distinction between the Catholic church and Christianity? I am making no such distinction. No Christian has taught that the earth was flat. The Catholic Church never declared this so, and neither have any of the other Christian faiths. Where do you get this information? Few of the early church folks found it hard to believe that there were folks on the other side of the round earth, and some thought that earth was floating on the water. Not a one of them worth mentioning ever thought it was flat. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Either no Christian ever taught the earth was flat, or no Christian worth mentioning ever thought it was flat. Your call.
  6. I never said there was anything wrong attempting to understand what someone is saying that is not how the term "openmindedness" is typically used. Usually being "openminded" where these types of discussions are concerned means being open to the possibility that there are more than one way to God. Usually it is not athesists that are so bent making the "opendminded" argument as it is those of other relgions who seek to have us believe that their religions are on par with Christianity. Typically, what I see coming here (and I am speaking in a general sense) are arrogant athesists coming here with false, preconceived notions about Christians and can't even quote the Bible properly when they are making their case. They come to boards like this one looking for Christians they view as easy prey, who are not scientists who are mostly just regular people, not scholars. They make unrealistic demands of us, and then pretend they have won some type of victory because we did not have an answer to a unreasonable question that no one would possibly have an answer to. Frankly from what I have seen on this board, atheists are lousy debators. They frame our faith incorrectly, assign motives and values to us that we do not hold to and then that as platform for criticism. I understand your frustration; and were I go back through your second paragraph and replace the word 'Christians' with 'atheists,' you'd have a pretty good idea of how we get pidgenholed in debates, too. Your last comment - the mention of being assigned motives and values that one does not actually hold, and then being criticised for them - is a very accurate description of the vast bulk of my conversations with Christians about atheism. All atheism is, at the end of the day, is a lack of belief in all and any gods. Beyond that lack, it implies no adherence to a set moral, political, social, scientific or ethical philosophy - and yet in discussions pertaining to such diverse points as these, atheists are continually lumped together as a single herd. Atheism is dubbed a 'religion' or 'faith' by some Christians when, contextually, the notion is absurd: a single commonality of thought with no supporting moral/social framework does not religion make. It is widely assumed that all atheists accord with the theory of evolution; that we are all in favour of pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion; that we are irrevocably politically left wing; that we live spiritually empty lives (due to our lack of a relationship with God); that we are ignorant; and that we are, at core, amoral (because we do not have the Bible to guide us).
  7. Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain. Humillity is important. But in the modern world, many have been forced to desperate ends just to try and get their story across. There is so much information out there, with so much skepticism, and everyone says there right; I fear that an agressive approach may be the only way to get anywhere these days. Perhaps, though, being different to the aggressive norm might be more effective? Otherwise, the cycle becomes self-perpetuating: people being aggressive spawn people who want to be heard being aggressive, which spawns other people who want to be heard being aggressive...
  8. Also, because I trust science when it comes to engineering, chemistry, medicine and biology. I further trust historians and archeologists. When the bunch of people who figured out about lead poisioning, cholera, gene therapy, dinosaurs, ancient Africa and radio-carbon dating get together and tell me they've figured out something new - well, they tend to get my trust. If they didn't, it'd be a bit odd for me to then trust them to perform X-rays, surgery or to tell me about genetic disorders or the breeding habits of whales.
  9. Because as an overall picture, it makes vastly more sense than the alternative. I'd be much more inclined to view the idea of divine creation favourably (as an idea, at least) if it came unattached to religion. I disbelieve the Christian version because I disbelieve Christianity; likewise with other faiths. Evolution is not burdened with the joint necessity of believing in unrelated mythological or moral arguments - by which I mean, I don't need to take a certain position on homosexuality in order to believe that humans and apes are related. (Note: I don't consider the ID movement as unattached from religion. At the very least, it is not, as it claims to be, science: viz, it does not meet the dictionary definition for a scientific theory.)
  10. Shiloh, the point is that while you believe yourself to be 100% correct, I also believe the same about my position. And as neither of us is a likely convert, this leaves no room for debate of any kind - nor even discussion - unless one or both of us is willing to be open-minded about the other person's beliefs. I think it was Aristotle who praised the ability to understand someone's point of view without accepting it yourself: this is what I am advocating, and what I ultimately mean by open-mindedness. When you boil the beef right down to the bones, I think you're wrong. I do not believe in Christianity, and if you put a gun to my head and told me to pick a theory for the universe, I'd say there are no gods, and never have been. But the reason I'm on Worthy is because I don't live day to day with that gun at my head: I have the intellectual freedom to try and understand other people, even where I fundamentally disagree with them. Because, ultimately, it's the only way humanity has ever learned anything.
  11. I believe the word you're looking for, secondeve, is 'polemicist' rather than 'debator'. ? Not sure how your comment relates to mine. Are you making a distinction between the Catholic church and Christianity?
  12. This is false logic. I might as well argue that because Dan Brown features prominently at the top of the best-seller lists and is widely read, his actual writing is superb. In fact, his writing is absolute trash. Hype isn't everything; and even where a wide readership is known, that doesn't vouch for the quality or judgement of said readership. Gossip magazines have massive readerships and are exceedingly well publicised, but that doesn't mean they accurately represent the majority of the female populace. Journalists don't pull names from a hat when writing articles about prominent figures. They choose. I don't see how you can run this line. The writer set out to make a point that atheists are poor debaters, and chose examples which, in his estimation, fit that description. If there's a different definition of bias, I'd like to hear it. Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain. Closemindedness can be quite justified. There are still those who believe the earth is flat and as result reject any notion that man has been to outerspace. Why would I need to be openminded toward them about their assertion that the earth is flat? There are lots of other issues about which closemindedness toward any other position is quite justified. I can afford to be closeminded where God is concerned, because I know Him, and He knows me. If you tried to convince me God does not exist, it would be analagous to me trying to convice your friends that you are just a figment of their overactive imagination. As I recall (to take your example) it was the Church who persisted in believing the Earth was flat, and they were, at the time, of the distinct opinion that God's infallability made them right. And the reason they proved so difficult to argue with is precisely because they were closeminded. In essence, you're advocating a double-standard. You want everyone else to be open-minded towards your beliefs, but reject such open-mindedness for yourself. Which, I would say, is a fairly textbook example of hypocricy. I wasn't aware Christianity boasted a 'do as I say, not as I do' policy among its many offerings; rather, I thought that Christians were meant to lead by example. Consider that illusion suitably undone.
  13. Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain.
  14. Which is more important: the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law?
  15. By whose definition are Dawkins et al the "top three" atheists? Yes, they are well known and well publicised; they have written books and participated in public debates. But the fact of this prominence does not automatically mean they are the most representative of atheists as a whole, nor that all atheists - or even a majority - view them as such. To take Dawkins, while I naturally agree with some of what he says, I intensely dislike his arrogance and manner of delivery. I am also skeptical of the idea that a sampling, while certainly representative of the whole, is always an accurate such representation. Besides which, the key element of such a study - that it is, as you say, random - is absent here; the writer has chosen his sample. One might therefore be reasonable in saying that they have set out to stack the statistics somewhat in their favour. Gee...I guess just like the "broad generalizations" that atheists afford Christians. This is, perhaps, the worst justification in the known universe for taking a certain tone with one's opponents. If you really take issue with said tactics and dislike their use against you, stooping to them yourself not only makes you childish, but a hypocrit. I find myself agreeing with Jesus on this one: act like an adult, and turn the other cheek. Your argument will be all the sounder for it.
×
×
  • Create New...