alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>> It also takes care of using the Bible as a moral standard then. It
>> was written by fallen human beings, and it reports the morality of
>> fallen human beings. Paul and Peter and Timothy were fallen human
>> beings. They are no more to be believed than any other sinner.
>
>Sure it does, I've quoted from the Bible that it is God breathed.

And you *think* you know what that means. It is clearly a metaphor,
and is used to describe "scripture" which you presume includes
writings that did not yet exist when that text was written. The
definition of "scripture" is mutable and all you can argue is a
consensus of human beings who decided a couple hundred years after
Timothy to add a whole Testament to the "scriptures".

>The Bible is what it is, you can take it or leave it.

Yep. And whatever it is, it is not the reference of Timothy's
remarks, because it did not exist when Timothy remarked.

>Do you believe Socrates existed.

Probably. There is about as much evidence as for Jesus Christ; maybe
somewhat more because of the apparent independence of the writers.

>Yet he was written aabout by Plato, Xenophon and others both good
>and bad things.

And then evidence is that those writings were independent, in part
because they don't have "the harmony of the gospels" which is evidence
AGAINST independent corroboration, and not in favor of it.

A bunch of different and conflicting stories about Christ would
actually be stronger evidence that there actually was such a person,
than a whole bunch of writings that all say too close to the same
thing.

>Aristophanes wrote a play about him which slammed him. Yet
>he is considered one of the wisest men and a cornerstone of western
>philosophic thought.

But he is so considered because of the writings, not because he
necessarily existed. If he was a fictional creation of Plato, then it
means that Plato was the wise man and cornerstone of Western thought.
Makes little difference who it was. It's the thought that counts.

>We can accept what is written about Socrates but not Jesus.

Or we can be skeptical about both.

>> The Huns, Goth, Vandals, and Visigoth did.
>>>Forturately, they eventually converted to Christianity.
>>
>> Not really.
>
>Yes, really,

I know my history better than you do.

> But they were like the Moslems in
>> Europe that you are so afraid of.
>
>The Mulim jihadist who today believe in conversion by teh sword ... death to
>infidels.

Actually, "Death to infidels" is not the same thing as "conversion by
the sword" (which was actually the crusader's doctrine), as would be
clear if you thought about it.

But there is no particular evidence that many of the Moslems of Europe
are jihadists.

>> But you don't REALLY believe in the power of God, so you are afraid.
>
>Yeah, I'm like the people who believed that Hitler was evil and that all we
>had to do was sit around and wait.

One view of Christianity would have been to do precisely that.

>> Actually it did.
>
>I know like Christianity caused the fall of the Roman empire.

It was part of it. The Roman Empire would have fallen anyway, but
Christianity made it fall faster and harder, and led to the Dark Ages
afterwards.

>>>Christianity found a continent
>>>that had already been laid waste. The 'Dark Ages' were the consequence of
>>>Roman decadence and barbarian pillage.
>>
>> Nope. The pillage was a factor. The decadence rather less so. But
>> Christian eschatology played a factor as well. And Christianity
>> fought against the idea of progress and against most forms of
>> intellectualism for a thousand years, with altogether too much
>> success.
>
>Christianity generally wasn't against intellectualism.

Your ignorance about the early Christian era abounds.

>>>The monks copied and studied the manuscripts that preserved the learning
>>>of late antiquity.
>>
>> Actually, the Arabs did a better job of preserving them.
>
>I've read books that give Christianity credit.

Probably written by evangelists who give Christianity credit for
everything good, and Satan for everything bad, based on what you've
been writing.

>> ONE monastery, off the Irish coast, which had non-standard theology,
>> preserved certain *religious* knowledge that would otherwise have been
>> lost, as well as the knowledge of somewhat less bastardized Latin than
>> was spoken in the Romance lands by then.
>
>Oh "A" monastery, really. And you know that was the only one how?

History.

>>>serfs were human beings who had rights of maarriage, contract,
>>>and property ownership that were legally enforceable.
>>
>> In fact those were true of slaves in the Roman empire as well.
>>
>>>Moreover, Christian were the first group in history to start an
>>>anti-slavery movement.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Who was as a group?

I mentioned the followers of Spartacus, as one example. That was
several decades before Christ.

>> I attribute it to a lot of things, of which parents are important.
>> But they are not solely responsible, and they can't do it themselves.
>> Hillary is right - it takes a village.
>
>Hillary is wrong ... two parents are basic ...

Two parents were not the norm for most of history. Partly from very
high mortality, and partly from the existence of extended families and
tribes.

>> I have no more peace of mind from an injustice being on the other side
>> of the world, then I do from one occurring next door but outside of my
>> immediate personal control.
>
>You do, you have no problem with sharia law ... women are second class
>citizens.

Unless the ERA is passed, an people judge a candidate like Hillary by
exactly the same standards that they would judge a male candidate,
they are here too. We haven't quite beaten that issue yet.

>>>So you are saying if the Bible says something and an atheists 'agrees' its
>>>has nothing to do with religion ...
>>
>> Correct.
>
>Wrong ... an atheist/anyone can believe murder is wrong ... so does a
>Christian ... it has something to do ultimately with religion for the
>Christian.

Nope.


>> Proverbs 6 again
>> <[16] These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination
>> unto him:
>> <[17] A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
>
>Hate to keep repeating this but civil govt is supported by God. Romans 13,
>I think. Romans talks about civil govt using the sword.

Still an abomination and the LORD hates it. Unless a) you think
Proverbs is a lie or b) you think God changed His mind between
Proverbs and Romans.


>> Nothing in there about it being any less an abomination because
>> someone declared there to be "hostilities".
>
>Never said there was ... Read all of Romans.

I have.

>> Murder is murder. Even in war.
>
>Authorized by civil govt.

Doesn't matter. It is still a violation of the commandment.

Were Hitler's actions moral because they were authorized by civil
govt?

I don't think so.


"All Christian agrees that we are to live at
>peace with the state as long as the state allows us to live by our religious
>convictions.? There is a just war theory also.

People are good at concocting rationalizations that allow them to do
what they will do. Jesus did NOT approve. "Be thee perfect ...".

>>>No, I don't agree. Being a Jew was enough to get you a ticket to a death
>>>camp.
>>
>> Being an Iraqi seems good enough for you do excuse what we did to
>> them.
>
>You cannot quote me anywhere, where I said "being an Iraqi seems good enough
>for you to excuse what we did to them." ... its the jihadist Muslims.

Most of the Iraqis that we killed were not jihadist Muslims.

>When I use the term Muslims I am almost always referring to the jihadists.

Does that mean that it is fair that when they use the word "Christian"
they mean "bloodthirsty crusader"?

I await your evidence that "jihadists" are overrunning Europe and
having lots of kids.

>> Correct. Because I don't believe that there is any such thing as a
>> "just war".
>
>Well, you are fortunate that they are people who do.

Nope. I am NOT fortunate. And if I was on the receiving end of one,
I would be even less fortunate.

lojbab