Damir, Good post... it points out why I never seem to have any issues with Jews. They accept other view points. They are not "static" as you say and almost never seem to be evangelical. However, I have to ask. If scripture is not meant to tell you something, and just a tool to initiate a never ending process.... Could you specify: 1) What is the process you are refering to? 2) How do you measure the effectiveness of such a tool? peace axeman
yeah, well, there's the rub: without a universal definition of the meaning of life, we can't measure effectiveness because we don't what we're measuring against. when my grandfather died - and 2000 people came to his funeral - no invitations, they just came - it occured to me that one measuring stick is "am i doing enough to make sure peope miss me when i go?". very utilitarian - but no answer until you're dead.
Damir, I always enjoy your posts - especially since we occasionally agree - but I definitely have to disagree with some of the above. Of course, I don't for a minute want to speak for the Jewish community as I don't understand the nuances of reformed/orthodox/conservative/Hasidic, etc., but on the Christian front I think you are missing several key points. (Actually, you're probably not missing anything, but I feel that you're argument misses them.) 1. Evangelical Christianity is REMARKABLY consistent on core doctrines. 2. Evangelicals only disagree on peripheral issues such as what we've talked about on this thread such as "how hot is hell" and "how do you baptize somebody?" and "what kind of music do we want in church?", etc. 3. The explosive growth in Christianity is coming almost entirely from the evangelic (and of course charismatic) communities. So while I agree with your underlying philospophy, I can't agree with your conclusion. There 's a Proverb that I love: "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; it is the glory of kings to uncover it" I agree with you in the sense that there is much much analysis, debate, discovery and freedom to interpret that God has given us. But where I disagree is where you say that there was no intent by God for consensus on core doctrines by God. Again, I think you see remarkable consistency amound evangelicals, which represent 1000's and 1000's of different churches and denominations worldwide. Now all that said, I realize you're a Jew and have only an outside interest in Christian consensus, but my point is this: evangelicals universally interpret scripture similarly in core doctrines and I would argue that Scripture can be interpreted consistently on the stuff that really counts.
I hope it stunningly obvious that religion is not a requirement for something like this to happen. Any good person will have numerous friends who will show up. Hey.... utilitarian is fine with me peace axeman
While I'm not sure exactly how deciding what "really counts" is much different to deciding how to interpret something, it's true that "scripture bashers" often act as though Christians are coming away with wildly differing interpretations, but that's hardly the case.
Why doesnt it surprise me that Shoe supports something this obviously false? Well.... if you always give yourself an easy "out", by tagging on the phrase "on the stuff that really counts", with the freedom to define that any way you want....well.... what can I say? You just created a truism. A statement that carries no weight or information. But seriously...I really cant think of another book that has more heated DISAGREEMENTS surrounding it, even among theists, than the bible. Care to name a few others? Even claiming that there remotely is agreement, seems pretty far fetched SHOE. That is a HUGE assertion you have NO CHANCE supporting. peace axeman
JEM:axe you are a useless. Ad Hominem - fallacy #1 >May be name calling but it is true because you put up misrepresenations and distortions. JEM:You make a statement that we should have more corroboration of Jessus's life in the historical record for a second time and act like it is some great new point. I remind you that I alreadypointed out to you , that we have an exceptionally limited amount of any writings that are from the subject period. Excuse #1 that does not free you from the burden of proof. >Burden of Proof -- you made the argument that there is no record of Jesus. I point out that if you put together every record of anything 2000 years old it adds up to a small bookshelf, and you say the burden is on me. That is a great juvenile response. But, why not admit your argument was misleading and lacking in foundation. A proper argument would point out that we have x number of pages of records that are 2000 years old and that only Josepheus and a few others reference christ or christians. I have seen christians argue the other side of this point. The fact is your argument sucked. JEM:I also point out that we have one well regarded historian. False. He has been refuted numerous times. I guess you glossed over all the reasons I posted. >Some, not all of the passages are in question. Not the whole record All legitmate academics agree with this assesment. The only ones you point to were wackos with books written to sell to atheists. Wackos on the internet with wacko books are not worth consideration. JEM: I left out the other weaker examples. and you think you make a good argument by pointing the historian was born in 37 a.d. Obviously this is an important point. He is therefore NOT a contemporary historian and therefore his statements are merely cult hearsay. As an attorney, YOU SHOULD KNOW the value of hearsay. Zip. As you are undereducated in this matter I should inform you that hearsay is allowed in trials all the time. Leave the law to lawyers. Records being one of the frequent exceptions to the hearsay objection. JEM:... and then misrepresenting the academic respect people have for the historical record. Blatant lie #1. Ive posted plenty of scholars opinion that this Jospephus phrases were blatant forgeries. > See above about some but not all the phrases are questioned by real academics. How soon we forget. Even if they were not, they could only be hearsay, decades after the fact, so they are worthless. Again you are mixing your feelings with fact. You evaluation of worthless does not jibe with intelligent understanding. JEM:AXE make legit arguments and address the important ones. (The first point I made) Already addressed this. Your first point is nothing more than an EXCUSE which does not free you from the burden of proof. The fact is, there is no rational reason to believe in a historical Jesus. It doesnt even remotely add up. And your weak excuse is just that. Come back to the table when you have some MEAT to your argument. Try providing ONE CONTEMPORARY HISTORIAN who mentions jesus, the man god who was supposedly WIDELY known. Full of holes JEM. The weakest most unsupported argument ive ever heard you make. Very disappointing for an attorney. I hope your not a trail lawyer, would feel sorry for anyone you were defending peac >Agian you disregard the questions about Russell's statements? Is that because you feel they are wrong but can not come up with reasons? You pick, you choose, you distort. You value to legitimate debate is useless. You are probably a fine person just a useless person to engage in discussion with.
Exactly. I've been to hundreds of churches and with one exception (where the pastor yelled at his congregation at the top of his lungs) have felt comfortable in every one. I consider them all my brothers. "Kum ba yah..."
You're missing my point. I've had my "knock down, drag outs" with friends about whether "rock music is of the devil", what "sanctification" means, what the millenium means, etc. But I rarely argue with a Christian over the Trinity, prayer, being born again - all the core stuff. You're not a Christian and so I don't know how you can lecture me on this. Trust me when I tell you that I have had 100's of friends over the years who were Christians from a wide variety of churches and we all share a core of common beliefs. If you want to believe we're all at each other's throats doctrinally you can, but it's simply not the case. This can be your "myth" if you'd like...
Care to name one other book that is read widely and followed meticulously by one billion people in a non-authoritarian environment? You expect 1 billion people to agree? C'mon, axe. How many people agree on the Constitution? Of course, there are going to be differences as long as people are involved, Christian or not. The remarkable thing is that there is a core that is agreed upon by the vast majority of those who believe that the Bible literally from God.