7 of 8
7
Sad commentary on the commitment to Freedom among the American people.
Posted: 19 August 2013 08:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14

Studying the history of the early church would cause many questions to arise. It’s faith shaking to say the least but it could lead to, dare I say it, the abandonment of their faith.

Yup.

But some evangelicals have tried to respond to this.  Whether one finds it convincing or not is a seperate issue.
Personally, I just prefer watching this video between Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel Wallace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA
Both sides of the debate have good experienced scholars who both give good arguements for there views.
A great way to have a respectful discussion of ideas.

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2013 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3262
Joined  2011-08-15

I.J. Video debates are very informative but due to time constraints they just touch on the high points. If you haven’t read Erhman’s books, or Price and Carrier, or Crossan or Aslan’s latest one you’ll, get a more complete picture,  that is if you have the time and inclination. BTW, I have Aslan’s book on Islam, “No God But God” and will read it after the Plait book. Have you read this one yet? he took a lot of flack for “Zealot” because he is a Muslim.

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2013 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14

Debates do have their contsraints, but its a good way of knowing how opposite of the spectrum react to each other’s view. 
It would be extremely difficult and time consuming to do that with books and articles. 

My first exposure to New Testament criticism was by Dr. Jerald Dirks.

I have read a few Dr. Ehrman’s books, as well as some pages and articles from a number of authors including Prof. Crosson.
Haven’t read much about Dr. Carrier, but I did see this ‘‘interesting’’ discussion of his studies by Ehrman.
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/  (I in no way endorse any mockery done to either scholar)
I’ve also seen at least one of Carrier’s debates (with the scholar Mike Licona)

To a much lesser degree, I’ve also taken from here.
http://www.ntgateway.com/


Because of my exposure to this kind of variety of scholars, I am not too interested in reading “Zealot”.
I haven’t read other books by Reza Aslan either.

[ Edited: 20 August 2013 05:23 PM by I.J. Abdul Hakeem ]
 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 August 2013 05:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3262
Joined  2011-08-15

Debates do have their contsraints, but its a good way of knowing how opposite of the spectrum react to each other’s view. 
It would be extremely difficult and time consuming to do that with books and articles. 

I agree and my response to your posts was based on your almost exclusive use of videos to bolster your arguments. Once again, nothing wrong with that, especially the Muslim comic guy, funny and informative, but sketchy. Now as to time constraints and bloviated posting, a carefully constructed synopses of the info would lend more credence to your argument IMO. Also, don’t count Aslan out without reading the books, especially the one on Islam. It’s very informative and, like your posts myth dispelling.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 August 2013 08:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
Thevillageatheist - 21 August 2013 05:40 AM

I agree and my response to your posts was based on your almost exclusive use of videos to bolster your arguments. Once again, nothing wrong with that, especially the Muslim comic guy, funny and informative, but sketchy.

I only use videos for other people’s conviences.
From personal experience, most people do not like reading ar6ticles and prefer videos.
Thus video usage is just to help present ideas.  I do not prefer using them as sources.

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 August 2013 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3262
Joined  2011-08-15

I only use videos for other people’s conviences.
From personal experience, most people do not like reading ar6ticles and prefer videos.
Thus video usage is just to help present ideas.  I do not prefer using them as sources.

Personally I.J. I’d rather read your take on the subject, how you synthesize the material is of more interest to me as, with few exceptions we’ve read the same books. I know Ehrman’s, Crossan’s and Carrier’s contentions and those who don’t can run to Wiki or YouTube for a quick reference. I’m more interested in a muslim’s take on the subject. That’s why I read your posts. For instance, are Djinns and angels important to you as a believer? how do you reconcile religion with faith?


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 02:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
Thevillageatheist - 21 August 2013 11:32 AM

I only use videos for other people’s conviences.
From personal experience, most people do not like reading ar6ticles and prefer videos.
Thus video usage is just to help present ideas.  I do not prefer using them as sources.

Personally I.J. I’d rather read your take on the subject, how you synthesize the material is of more interest to me as, with few exceptions we’ve read the same books. I know Ehrman’s, Crossan’s and Carrier’s contentions and those who don’t can run to Wiki or YouTube for a quick reference. I’m more interested in a muslim’s take on the subject. That’s why I read your posts. For instance, are Djinns and angels important to you as a believer? how do you reconcile religion with faith?


Cap’t Jack

Before I get to that I should emphasize that I am only telling my personal views backed with the evidence I have seen. I am not a theologican or philosopher (in fact I am still working to get my first degree!).  My opinion should be paid attention to only when I give evidence.

Also it would probably take a dozen posts to properly explain the views i have formed over the years. This is ony to give people a general idea.


My general take on religion is that it one should be neutral (agnostic maybe) while studying different faiths.

A religion to follow must

1.  at the minimum should not have any empirical mistakes. (historical, scientific, etc)


2.    One thing that should be kept in mind is that something cannot be proven or disproven.
Things which are not testable CANNOT be used to disprove or prove a point. They are just untestable.

There are many other things which cannot be proven (such as angels).

        For that reason, I would never base my faith on anyone soley on someone who claims to have seen an angel.
        At the same time, I do not reject other religions (Christianity for example) for believing in this claim because I can’t disprove it.
       
                 

 

3. Religions should alsohave something “special” which show that it is divine. However, many people mistakenly attribute supernatural things where they do not belong.
In this regards, one of my favorite books is by the Joe Nickell Looking for a miracle.  He has shown that many of the miraculous events do indeed have
natural explanations

http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Miracle-Weeping-Stigmata-Visions/dp/1573926809
A sample article of his works may be seen here
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/real_secrets_of_fatima/

This does not disprove miracles, it just means that unless there is “living miracle” we can’t be fully certain they happen.

An example of living miracle could be like a normal person having his head chopped off on Mars (away from civilization) yet still living.

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14

This was a general way of approaching religion.  There may be other points which are important, but these are the most
top ones I can think from the top of my head.  I have my own way of reconciling each criteria with Islam if anyone wants to know.

Wish I could go into more details now, but I gotta rush to my Univ Library for a HW assignment before it closes.

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2013 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3347
Joined  2011-11-04

I would add another criteria to a religion (worthy of being followed).

It must be more beneficial than harmful to humankind.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2013 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
TimB - 13 September 2013 07:32 PM

I would add another criteria to a religion (worthy of being followed).

It must be more beneficial than harmful to humankind.

Are humans more beneficial or more harmful to humankind?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2013 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3347
Joined  2011-11-04
VYAZMA - 14 September 2013 11:39 AM
TimB - 13 September 2013 07:32 PM

I would add another criteria to a religion (worthy of being followed).

It must be more beneficial than harmful to humankind.

Are humans more beneficial or more harmful to humankind?

That remains to be seen.  Though we may not be around for the ultimate verdict.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2013 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2239
Joined  2007-04-26

I suppose its reassuring that Europeans still have some respect for freedom and privacy even if many Americans have rolled over and sold their freedoms for a false sense of security.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/24/world/europe/europe-us-surveillance/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Odd isn’t it that after all these years its Europe that is standing against the tyranny of the surveillance state and the U.S. which had always held itself up as the land of the free has possibly become the greatest threat to freedom.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2013 06:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

As I see it, the problem is with our rapidly growing technology.  Just about all governments tried to spy on other governments, and people got mildly annoyed when a Mata Hari (sp?) would show up, or when it was found that someone had planted bugs in another country’s embassy, but these were just single examples so not as upsetting.  Now, we have the ability to do wholesale, high speed spying, as do most of the other advanced countries.  One example is how angry many U.S. companies were when it was found that China had hacked into their research and stolen many product secret ideas. 

It happens that Snowden reported on U.S. behavior.  I wonder what each of the other countries is doing.

Yes, the government had extreme powers to break through our privacy, but with the rapid advances of technology, I wouldn’t be surprised that in ten or fifteen years, everyone will have that capability, which, of course, will drive government officials crazy for them all to lose all their privacysmile

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2013 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2239
Joined  2007-04-26

Occam. Read “The Circle” by Dave Eggers if you want to see a little thought experiment on the very idea you propose.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2013 03:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2717
Joined  2011-04-24
macgyver - 24 October 2013 03:23 PM

I suppose its reassuring that Europeans still have some respect for freedom and privacy even if many Americans have rolled over and sold their freedoms for a false sense of security.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/24/world/europe/europe-us-surveillance/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Odd isn’t it that after all these years its Europe that is standing against the tyranny of the surveillance state and the U.S. which had always held itself up as the land of the free has possibly become the greatest threat to freedom.

Maybe.

IMO, the Europeans are mainly pissed because we spied on them, not necessarily because of some principle of democracy. It’s totally understandable for them to be pissed about us spying, of course. Statecraft in action.


http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/day-to-day/detail/article/double-standards-on-tolerance-promoted-in-european-parliament.html
Not all Europeans are above spying, it seems.

[ Edited: 25 October 2013 05:54 AM by mid atlantic ]
 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 8
7