Dan S de Merengue wrote: I agree with you (and everyone else in the world) that the Bible is not a science textbook. No one holds it to be. Science text books are in constant need of revision and update. The Bible has no such shortcoming.

Dear Dan,

Some people on this list do treat the Bible as a science textbook. Some on this list have maintained that ‘true science’ agrees with scripture.

It is not a shortcoming that science text books are in constant need of revision and update. It is part of the scientific process to recognize where statements made on the basis of the knowledge of the time are no longer correct as we learn more.

The Newtonian Laws of Motion were a great advance. However, they proved to be inadequate to explain phenomena one could not measure at the time Newton lived. Einstein’s physics replaced them.

The Bible accepts human slavery. That is a definite shortcoming. In some respects we are more aware of human evils than those who wrote the Bible. In that and in other respects the Bible is a book that in the case of slavery and many other instances is really not adequate.

In the Bible Jesus saved a person from demonic possession by casting out demons. With our greater knowledge we recognize demonic possession as mental illness. We do not need to update the Bible, but we do need to recognize that it was written by people in the past and in many respects is simply outdated and wrong

george, i take your posts seriously. but honestly, i don't know what you're on about.

we're here together on a sellick thread, one in a long, long series. Captain Preachy has posted about 327 of these articles, all of a similar form:

a) the world suffers some serious psychological or social or moral ill.

b) people's thinking on this is stuffed, and inherently stuffed.

c) in the last scene, christianity (and only christianity) rides in to save the day.

d) the connection of a) and b) to c) is a thin gruel of barely argued, self-indulgent nonsense that only a mother could love.

THEN comes the discussion:

1) posters such as pericles point out (d) in polite and careful detail, and posters such as me point out that Captain Preachy is a sanctimonious dick.

2) posters such as reida and you and crabsy give tepid defences of Captain Preachy (on occasion), but spend most of your time addressing CP's critics, or strawman proxies, and the form of their criticism. (p.s. unlike runner, when i say something is true, i can back it up).

3) Captain Preachy himself disappears, presumably to whine to his soulmates about "trolls", and to compose his next piece of sanctimonious dickery.

this is ridiculous. no one's being precious here, reida's absurd reference to 'sensitive souls' (why the quotes?) notwithstanding. and it's not general, it's specific. it's sellick's posts, sellick's pathetic reasoning, and sellick's broad and repeated and unsubstantiated insults.

the base fact is that sellick is a sanctimonious dick, repeatedly writing humorless, insulting crap. everything else is obfuscation.

i won't address every arrogantly atheistic comment, and i don't expect you to address every nuttily literalist christian comment (dan, this means you). but fractelle is right: on a thread such as this, the refusal to address head on sellick's relentless offensiveness is most reasonably interpreted as tacit approval of his offensiveness.

Pericles,
Despite my ‘clarifications’, causing you further confusion, I’m glad you appear rather more focused in your last post.

‘Atheism’ doesn’t necessarily imply hard rationalism, just as ‘Christianity’ doesn’t imply inherent ‘goodness’. I think it is quite obvious from Sell's article that “they” doesn’t refer to atheists – atheism covers far too a broad a concept and his ‘target’ is far more precise. I wouldn’t rate myself as Sell’s apologist or even his ‘cohort’ but I can see it as unnecessary for him to make continual reply where his articles aren’t properly read, and given their due context.

The categories of “psychology, anthropology, social science, and so on” describe many ‘cause and effect’ aspects of our social behaviors and cultural origins but they do not describe the paradox of a loving relationship, holding “both love and hatred, devotion and resentment.” "Moral complexity" and "relational fragmentation" simply do not give abode to simple ‘black and white’ answers. As I’ve indicated through some of Friedrich Nietzsche’s writing in other posts, Christianity, at its heart, appears an ugly and pathetic religion, but there is a beauty beneath.

Gus diZerega, a ‘Gardnerian Wiccan’, wrote “Self-centredness is a deep immersion within the mundane” and that “Ultimately our universe is, in Martin Buber’s sense, a Thou, not an It,” The book, ‘Beyond Burning Times: A Christian and Pagan dialogue’ by Philip Johnson gives valuable insight into two spiritual traditions. If you wish to go beyond Sell’s comment on paganism I suggest you read this: http://www.lionhudson.com/pdfs/9780745952727.pdf

George,

Thanks.

I did not regard Sells’ interpretation of history as insulting, just so very different to what I have read.

In the West, the shift from the Feudal System to Liberal Democracy is beyond dispute, as is the Great Divergence, guiding Science to apply Theory to Practice. Whilst, these events have acted to curtail Christianity in many instances, the events themselves could be observed by a disengaged creature with a telescope, on the Moon, who is neither Christian nor a non-Christian in the Earthly sense. Our creature I feel would agree with Earth’s written record. Further, as seen from the Moon, the interpretation of Earth’s events would tend to coalesce; wherein, I would suspect that many a Christian would support the emancipation of the individual from Church and State structures.

Christian or non-Christian de-institutionalism and government with the consent of the governed has been a positive force for good. I don’t see all Christians disagreeing with this posit. As I stated, Sells’ would ne neither a scientist nor a writer were it not for the Enlightenment. Without the Enlightenment, there would be no Internet Forums, Sells would have grown-up in a village and lived his life in sight of the village steeple, and had overcome no intellectual change beyond how to chop wood.

It might surprise you that not only do I have many Christian friends and have been to Church; in fact, I was invited to and attended a Beautification! I suspect I was in the minority in my non-belief, so far as religiosity would take us; yet, I suspect, that that Sells’ interpretation history would alien be most of the Christians present in the Cathedral.

Moreover, Sells in his Protestantism would not believe in transubstantiation, intercession, papal infallibility, the veneration of Mary and probably still thinks that Catholics believe in Limbo. For Sells, there are a lesser number of sacraments. Herein, Sells’ theology differs from yours’, as much as his histories differ from mine.

Regards,

O.

Sells,

Please let OLO readers know of I have misrepresented your Protestant views vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.

To Catholics "being human" in God requires the intercession of Church, whereas in Protestantism this requirement is not the case. Unlike, Catholicism, Protestantism allows "being human" to include greater scope for a one-on-one relationship with God, especially in areas of ceremony.

Where do you see Catholicism errant? After-all, it is claimed from Scripture that whatsoever is bound by Peter and his successors, so shall it have been bound in heaven. Theologically speaking, is being a Protestant truer, more human, in one's relationship to God, than being a Catholic

In my view it is the responsibility of the writer to express himself clearly, relda.

>>I wouldn’t rate myself as Sell’s apologist or even his ‘cohort’ but I can see it as unnecessary for him to make continual reply where his articles aren’t properly read, and given their due context.<<

Where there is room for a substantial difference in the interpretation of the idea being expressed, surely this should be recognized by the writer, and resolved within the piece in question?

It has been Sells' habit to write only for those who already share his aggressively theistic views, and highly idiosyncratic form of Christianity, which - it would appear - he believes absolves him from this politeness.

But he shouldn't. He must know by now that OLO readers are not all theology graduates.

>>I think it is quite obvious from Sell's article that “they” doesn’t refer to atheists – atheism covers far too a broad a concept and his ‘target’ is far more precise.<<

There is nothing "broad" about atheism. It is as simple as saying "there is no Santa Claus, only someone dressed-up"

Sure, atheists do not fit any particular mould. They don't gather in one place to profess their atheism to each other, and can be found in all strata of society. But that is irrelevant here.

You protest that atheists cannot be Sells' target (I'd still prefer to hear his own theory).

So what is it?

Who are the "they" to whom he ascribes this zombie-like existence?

"How can they understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family?"