The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Christian dogma changed by science? > Comments

Christian dogma changed by science? : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 8/9/2010

There is not one point of Christian dogma that is challenged by natural science. They are two different epistemologies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Sells -
You advise Severin to "drop his guard and think deeper about the tradition that has been central to making his lovely life possible."

I'm assuming you're referring to the Christian tradition, of course.

Sells, I would like to understand how you account for the "lovely lives" that were lived prior to Christianity appearing in the world. How do you explain the capacity for human happiness BC?

This is a very simple question, very simply posed. Perhaps it is too simple for you to bother with. I've noticed that when I've asked this question of other Christians, it has been ignored. I am still seeking an answer.

It's clear from your prose that your beliefs are deeply and ecstatically felt. I have no wish to ridicule your experience, which sounds quite mystical. However, there are many many ways to enter a mystical experience, and many are just as authentic as the Christian pathway.

It just isn't good enough anymore, Sells, for Christians to continue to claim exclusivity in these areas - it is arrogant, it is dismissive, it's divisive and it's just plain ignorant.

As you point out, you cannot enter into other belief systems because you are too powerfully committed to your own. You are therefore uninformed, your position is entirely personal, and whilst it is perfectly acceptable for you to honour what works for you, it is not acceptable for you to dishonour the experiences of others.

Severin - thank you for your compliment.
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 6:03:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles... I'm mildly warming to your tone this time....

You say:

//And as Sells points out, there is no need for us to imagine an intersection of scientific reality and biblical narrative, where none exists.//

and I concurr 100%! but your problem is you seem intent on throwing that poor defenseless intellectual baby *out* with the bathwater.. poor little blighter!

The corollary of your conclusion is that when there IS an intersection between the Bible and History.. for crying out loud.. "let" it speak...and don't condemn it for the sake of bias or argument.

One great example of the intersection, which I've explained to you many times is the Lukan account of the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry.

//1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.//

Which year? (15th)
Who's reign? (Tiberious Caesar)
When? (when Pilate was Governor of Judea)
and
Herod...
etc
etc
etc

There is so much history packed into that one paragraph it aint funny.
Now.. you could be a meany and just 'declare' it a 'lucky coincidence' or.. you can accept it as 'well founded history' in the most academic of senses.

If you want to take issue with "The Word of God came to John the Baptist".. that's your choice.. and your harvest.
You and all who read it..would do well to consider seriously the words of John and the 'Word' he preceded, who's way he prepared.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 6:19:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There is so much history packed into that one paragraph it aint funny.
Now.. you could be a meany and just 'declare' it a 'lucky coincidence' or.. you can accept it as 'well founded history' in the most academic of senses."

And what about Ivanhoe? It mentions Richard I, and Prince John, and Saladin, who were all REAL PEOPLE! And it's set in England and Palestine, which are REAL PLACES! And I'm pretty sure it has a date or two in there somewhere. So obviously Ivanhoe is a real guy and all his adventures actually happened, no?

If you want to make something sound authentic, you make sure the factual part can be checked. That doesn't mean the rest wasn't made up. Duh.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 8:33:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALGOREisRICH,

The only catch is any name can be substituted before the historical tome:

Fred Nile //1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.//

Actually, according to Brabara Theiring there is historical evidence of baptism. The baptised entered the group and a small fee went to pay for Herod's palaces.

The calandar, the birth of Jesus and the Herod the Great being alive are out of sych. Herod the Great was dead in the first year of the common era.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 8:34:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As well, Christianity only seems to "care" when the object of its care is already compliant with its doctrines.

False, Briar Rose, given that 'Christians' all believe differently, many are not 'religious', many are not indoctrinated.

Quite a few OLO contributors entirely mix up Christianity with Religion. Following Christ and/or God's ways are interpreted differently by people, whether people are Christians or Christians who are religious.

Therefore, one cannot generalise and state 'Christianity only seems to care, when the object of its care is already compliant with its doctrines.

Doctrines are followed by the religious.
Posted by we are unique, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 9:31:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
we are unique -
If only Christians who hold your point of view would write articles for OLO -
At present, we seem to hear only from the "indoctrinated."
I know there are many Christians with a variety of practices.
Unfortunately they are not very vocal about this, and I can only respond to the ones who claim their public voice.
These Christians don't acknowledge other Christians like you, who think and act differently from them.
I wish more of you would speak out, because unless you do, you'll continue to be lumped in with the religious and the indoctrinated.
I think the responsibility rests with you - I'm pretty sure most posters on OLO would welcome another Christian perspective.
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 9 September 2010 7:27:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy