Ed Babinsky wrote:
ED: Hello Wayne, I am merely concerned with leveling the playing field,
so that the Bible and Christianity and its supernatural claims are not
viewed as superior to all other systems. Once you see that, you can
understand where I'm coming from. It's sad that Christians continue
getting inflated heads concerning their own history and superiority, such
than anyone who merely wants them to think of themselves like other people
and other groups, is branded an "atheist" [Glenn] or "objector."
Glenn has a hot temper, but in all the years I've known him, I've never seen an
exchange like that. Perhaps you have some private matters the two of you
need to settle PRIVATELY.
What I find sad is when people from your perspective enter this list, they feel
that because we call ourselves Christians, we __must__ be unschooled or chose
to sleep through history, philosophy and literature courses as well as geology,
biology and other relevant sciences courses so we could entertain our views.
Can we at least recognize that some people here have cracked open and _studied_
at least a couple of history books on occasion, and some people here have also
taken the time to study some science seriously? We are not universal experts
on everything here (who is?) but a condescending tone does not help to engender
much useful discussion, I think.
I also find it inconsiderate when people are so eager to download their a verbose
collection of gratuitous quotes in the middle of my paragraph without reading it. Strunk and
White wrote a book on "Elements of Style". I wish there was a book like that for lists too.
A good rule of thumb is "consider the reader". Must we always dash to download 5Mbs
files of quotes at the first encounter of a word? I try to be brief and clear. May I have
at least the privilege of having my paragraphs treated as part of a unit of thought?
---------------------------
ED: Solomon and David were not the only polygamists in the Bible, and God
was only aggreived at David's adultery, not his polygamy.
WD: Nevertheless, the attitudes changed by the time the New Testament was
written. Polygamy was so imbued in within Middle Eastern culture, I do not expect
that God could change it overnight. At any rate, the first thing that a real historian
does is try to see the world through the eyes of the people who lived in a particular
period. Then might they assess how the actions of people of that time contributed or
impaired progress. They also consider what such people could have done within the
framework of that culture and time period to make progress. It is not that hard to see
that David's household administration was not up to snuff. Just because David did
this or that and God didn't scold him does not mean we are required to immitate it.
He was a big boy.
ED (paragraph continued): Your own voice
as a Christian is conciliatory and kind, civilized. But I doubt that you
obtained all of your values and worthwhile knowledge primarily from the
Bible. You are the product of late 20th century, midde-class, American
Evangelicalism, that's your culture, and helps explain your
education-enhanced knowledge of cultural relativity and moderation in
viewpoint.
WD: Are we are required to remain frozen with attitudes and understanding equivalent
to New Testament times? I mentioned in a different post that concepts like "freedom"
require considerable evolution of philosophical thought to understand. It is no less so
with many other concepts. Learning to appreciate other points of view is a life long
learning processes.
---------------------------
>all, "all men are created equal" bears some influence
>from Jesus' teaching and Peter's sudden realization in Acts
>10.34. Again the bible is not about people who have arrived,
>but people who are striving in the right direction.
ED: "Striving in the right direction" is rhetorical, I'd like to know
what it means in practical terms, in defined terms.
WD: If there was a trivial recipe for how to go in the right direction, do you not think
that everyone would follow it. Self reflection helps, trying to see the world though
another person's eyes helps. However, these can take a lot of work, including
relocating to places that you may be afraid or uncomfortable going to. Moreover,
even for the truly sincere person, factors like time, energy, inattention, lack of adequate
information, fear etc. can make one fall short. Even in the best light, we must learn as we
go. True progress, it seems, can only be finally measured after the last breath.
ED: Anti-slavery? Southern
theologians beleived that Northern theologians were striving in the wrong
direction by treating slavery as if it was a "sin." The Bible never said
slavery was a "sin," but the obedient slave brought honor to both God and
master. I think culture had a lot to do with abolishing slavery, a
culture involving newspapers that detailed in lurid terms how much slaves
suffered. Crucial Enlightenment-influenced politicians in Britain were
anti-slavery. The vote would never have gone toward abolishing it even in
Britain without support from non-religious and semi-religious political
leaders as well. The times were ripe as a whole for abolishing it.
Though amazingly the American South and it's three major Christian
denominations were extremely resistant to abolishing slavery. They
severed denominational ties with their northern brethren over the slavery
question (whether ministers ought to own slaves), right before the Civil
war, and even screamed the loudest for political secession when the time
came.
WD: Nevertheless, the influence of Christianity on Enlightenment thought cannot be
ignored. Enlightenment did not emerge from a vacuum. Perhaps you do not know Acts
10.34-35: Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not
show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."
It is a small step for us now, but I think that was a great leap for Peter. Now please
refrain from the button on the verbose download of fragmentary quotes such as Eph. 6:5-8
(typically ignoring verse 9) and all the stuff from Lev and Num (typically ignoring any
serious analysis of how the Jew's own view had been changed by their experience in
Egypt and how that shaped their attitudes compared to Sumarian views of the times),
and on and on and on.
Yes, being religious and praying to God daily does not guarantee you are always right.
It's a hard pill to swallow, but yes, we can blunder badly, get rock stuck in utterly asinine
positions, and even commit unconscionable attrocities; all rationalized away in that good
name of Jesus. That is why it is important to think about what kind of evidence you
have and what kind of people you are obeying before you fly planes into buildings. Tell
me something else that's new?
----------------------------
>Finally, on the genocide or ethinic cleansing issues (your point 2)
>these are most problematical. Why does God chose to wipe out whole
>nations in Old Testament times? Indeed, some passages read
>like the authors are happy about what they have done.
>Aside from accepting that God is right and the devil wrong,
>I struggle with these points too.
ED: Who says the "devil" was involved? Read the Evangelical Commentary,
THE NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on Genesis by Walton at Wheaton College to
understand why "Satan" is practically a non-player in the entire Old
Testament. The point is that God commanded the Israelites to kill every
man, woman, child and animal in the Canaanite cities. Archeologists today
debate that such carnage and literal conquests ever took place. So, if
the archeologists are right the stories are made up anyway. I'm concerned
of course about why religion would inspired people to make up such
stories.
WD: Please get off the "another-religious-ninny-who-never-cracked-open-the-Bible" script.
You downloaded an essay on a long list of things including comments
about how God was doing the kinds of things we would typically attribute to the
Devil. I would expect that very likely, the descriptions in Numbers, Judges and
Joshua are basically true. If it wasn't complete, it was certainly horrific enough.
At least consider that people who had to live in those times did not appear to know
all that much about mercy, and acts of mercy appear to have often been rewarded
with revenge. It's clear they did not know any better. Words like "loot" are some-
times used to decribe what they obtained. This is characteristic of tribal thinking.
They know full well what would happen if they lost. The inhumanity is shocking,
and rather revolting. I cannot understand myself. But you are also doing a grave
injustice to not consider what options were really available to them at that given time.
Consider, if you were Joshua, how would you have done things differently. Not with
your Enlightenment knowledge, but yourself in his shoes. Do you think you would
have done better? Maybe you would, but these are the kinds of things that are not
easy to answer in grey hue of life.
---------------------------------
> There is however, a clear
>evolution (perish the word!) of thought about what God is and
>what God requires that had evolved into a very different view
>by New Testament times. That view is still evolving (I hope),
>although some days I wonder. Again, what is important is not what
>people have done and rationalized away throughout history, but
>where we can go from here.
ED: I have hopes mankind does go somewhere from here, though Glenn Morton
seems concerned we may not, what with the oil shortage and world-wide
recession on the way.
WD: Yes, and I am quite conscious of what he is saying. But the rationalism of
the western though AND the Christianity that help bring it into being may give
us the strength to go on when it becomes tough. Alone, I don't think rationalism
could survive hard times.
----------------------
[large snip moving to a different topic on evolutionary psychology]
>
>Evolution simply moves from where we are. The likelihood that
>we share common decent with other animals on this planet is
>probably close to as certain as there is a moon in the sky.
>However, the fact that we have evolved says little about what
>is good or evil.
ED: Not according to evolutionary psychology, or even comparative
primatology. Man is a social speciers, like his primate relatives, and
they have reconciliation behaviors, practice forgiveness, as well as
murderous tribal rages.
WD: Perhaps I was too brief. You miss my point. You take it for granted
that there even should be "social animals". A rock doesn't care whether it
will erode away. Life on the other hand, is given a desire to continue.
Whereas the principles of evolution can be used to find some aspects of
social interaction that work, that doesn't say anything about what is right.
-----------------------
>And lets not forget that most of the people who protect
>Jews from the Nazis were Christians,
ED: How do you define "Christian?' I suppose most of Europe was
"Christian" as that time, though who knows how many were backslidden, or
nominal Christians? The Evangelical world of course promotes stores of
Evangelicals like Corrie Ten Boom or Bonhoeffer, while people like
Spielberg promotes stories of other less Evangelical, plainer people who
also worked to save Jews. The Lutheran and Catholic hierarchy seemed to
work well enough with both Hitler and Mussolini. And how many Christians
hated theJews for CENTURIES before Hitler rose to power? Luther sure did,
and Catholic radio DJs ranted against the Jews prior to the rise of the
Nazis. I don't suppose Hitler would have risen to power, nor focused on
the Jews as such, without literally centuries of Christian anti-Judaism
preceding his rise in Christian Europe.
WD: There is a Lutheran minister who often posts on this list. He would have to
address you comments on Luther. But please refrain from the tone I sometimes
read in your writing here. I don't know any details about Luther's life or writings.
You should read Bonhoeffer's writings before you flippantly write him off as if he is
just some promotional. Those people are heros whether they be plain folk or not,
and it is our job to learn from them and listen to them. If discipleship under Christ
is one way to remain firm, I sure wouldn't balk at it.
There was terrible antisemitism in Western Europe. I fear it is on the uprise again
due to a variety of policies in recent times.
-----------------------
> and people who protected
>slaves were mostly Christian as far as I know.
ED: Again the nations of Briitain and America were mostly Christian.
But the only type of Christian that was most consistently anti-slavery
were the Quakers, which were not a group that the other Christians loved.
In fact Quakers used to be hung by other Christians in colonial North
America, just for being Quakers. Even when the southern U.S. and norther
U.S. denominations split rigtht before the Civil War, the northern
denominations did not say slavery was wrong, only that a minister ought to
be above reproach and not own slaves. Some quotations below to
substantiate what I have said:
[snipped]
You greatly misrepresented me here. You were in such a hurry to download
your collection of "major-screw-ups-by-Christians" and "let's-blame-the-South"
(while we speed past the slums on the freeway in our cars), that you didn't even
bother to read the very next sentence. Give me a break.
--------------------------
>There were
>Christians on both sides of the fence, but there is a great
>difference between doers and hearers. Such strength takes
>a kind of inner enduring courage I cannot begin to imagine.
ED: Courage is a relative term in all wars. There was a pro-slavery
clergyman who had a bounty on his head, and courageously continued
preaching against the north and against abolitionism. There were those
Muslim fundamentalists who showed their fearlessness in plowing into the
twin towers, though such actions are no considered courageous, but
terroristic, nihilistic, foolhardy and fanatical. Still, their fellow
Muslims consider them courageous. Hammas calls its suicide bombers
"martyrs," and the "Muslim martyrs" who have died fighting the U.S.
occuptation in Iraq are having stories spread about them, about their
corpses, smelling like perfume and glowing.
WD: This is why we must be careful about listening to people who order us
to fly planes into buildings. Science had an interesting article not so long after
the 9/11 incident. There are scientists who are also ideologues for some
nonsense. A lot of foolish things happen, and blaming it on religion is
pointless.
--------------------------------
>
>Yes, we have emotions. Yes we all feel the same pain. Yes
>all societies probably have a "do onto others" clause somewhere
>in their sayings. I think what is interesting is that we have
>a manifest feeling for what is right and wrong. If these are
>simply evolved things, then there really is no such thing as
>right and wrong: "only thinking makes it so".
ED: It doesn't matter whether they are "evolved" or not, the feelings we
have are based on our existence as a social species. Without being
socialized we'd be grunting apes, unable to even speak. We need each other
like all social species need other members of their species around them.
Our feelings are based on shared needs, physical needs, psychological
needs. We have a need to be acknowledged, to be touched, spoken to, to
hear nice things about ourselves. We all shy away from physical and
psychological attackes. Those were the points I was making, we all feel
similar psychological and physical pains. We all hate having pain imposed
on us by others, and enjoy sharing joys with others. These things are so
basic to each of us (aside from psychopaths) that we all DO think in terms
of "right and wrong," probably because our brains naturally prioritize how
we live and feel toward others and can't help thinking about how we
"ought" to be treated.
WD: Your original point seemed to imply that you think evolution decides these things,
and you questioned our theology. To at least this Christian's point of view,
God, as we gradually come to understand what
God is, is at least the author of those objective rules that apply not only at our
convenience but also when whole societies have gone astray and chosing to obey
them these God given rules is not at all rational anymore.
--------------------------------
> Theology starts
>from the point of view that there is an objective truth. Our
>observations of belief in it neither affirm or deny that God
>has made these rules. I think God sets the rules,
ED: Did God "set" every "rule" in his most holy "ruie book" the Old
Testament? Let's discuss some of those "rules," also in light of similar
ancient "rules" like in the Code of Hammurabi that preceded the laws of
Moses. You do know that a stele exists that shows Hammurabi receiving his
sacred laws directly from the God "Shamash."
WD: Here we go again, we are back to finding an excuse to rag on the Old Testament,
hack up my sentence, and take my statements out of context.
>not molecules
>or evolution, but that is in the last analysis, just my statement
>of faith.
ED: I think explaining law as coming "from God" adds nothing to them.
It's merely explaining one mystery with another.
WD: Well, fine. What do you want, some sort revelation with the thunderous echo
saying "Ed, this is the Lord...."? I'm sorry, the best we can do here is pray for you.
ED: And during the time when
Europe was filled with Catholic and Protestant faith of a most heightened
sort, the nations fought what some call Europe's most bloody war, the
Thirty Years War. I have some quotes on it, but have already burdened
you with my quotes on the Civil War and slavery. Unfortunately, I learned
very little about the Thirty Years War in my history classes being raised
in America. Sheesh, what I've learned since then!
WD: Thank you for not burdening me with them. I've read enough before
to be sick for a week. You evidently have a large collection of dirt you're dying
to share. I just wonder why. Your post is about this "level playing field". This post
has been most certainly one sided and judged with 2-3 thousand years worth of 20-20
hindsight, cultural development, and philosophical thought. Gee, I just wonder how
anybody would fair up to this sort of scrutiny. It's like wondering the streets with
a lantern looking for an honest man.
I've understood one small thing in my life...
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Mon Oct 11 14:47:22 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 11 2004 - 14:47:23 EDT