Davis,

"As you may be aware, the original draft of the Declaration condemned the slavery system but it was removed for the final document. It has been postulated that if it were not removed and acted upon, it may have averted the American Civil War. (Or it may have created an earlier one) It at least would have altered history as we understand it." -D

-- Maintaining the Union was more important to the North than abolishing slavery. Lincoln would contenance slavery before having the States break into industrial vs. agriculture economies. The French intelectuals of the eighteen century would have approved of succession a freedom to be excerised by the Southerners, I think.

"My point on relying on history is that it is not necessarily reliable. The Declaration came into existence in 1776, only a few hundred years ago – the events depicted in the NT, around year dot. (A vastly longer period)"

-- Agree history is not necessarily reliable, especially taught biased histories: e.g., the date above, 1776. One could argue that the USA was not recognised as an independent country until 1783.

On the NT, I agree. The life of a posited Jesus has been through oral ore, localised re-interpretations, Hellenision, melding with Roman cults, the development of godheads, factions [e.g. The Great Schism)
a zillion councils from Nicaea to Vatican II and beyond.

The US as the democratic centre state The West is work in progress. I guess England held that position from around to the beginning Elizabeth I's reign to the end of Victoria's. [Albeit, it could have been lost to the Spanish in 1588. In which case, David_BOAZ, might now be a devoted RC! Moreover, the US might only be a pretender. It has only been power since the late nineteen century, a super-power since WWI/WWII. The small period involved is too slight for the US Interregnum to consolidate power like the Eyptians, Greeks, Romans, Han, Britain across centuries and millenia. The US might/might not be a pretender - we don't know yet. Christianity is not a pretender: It is deep rooted.

Space!

Cont…

David,

To threaten people, especially children, with eternal damnation for not believing in ambiguous and unreliable history, is unreasonable and unacceptable to a rational mind-set. -D

Absolutely agree. But, one needs to realise the history of the Churches is not Sermon the Mount stuff: Different constructions. The Christian Churches are too often unlike the more humanist aspects of the alleged Jesus. History requires testing.

David, Philo and Cori,

SITTTING ON A POSITION

Karl Popper warns about the approach of confirmation of preconceived conditions in his, Conjectures and Refutations. Jung was seen by Popper, as someone whom took a position, then sought confirmations of the same and easily found –to him- these edifying examples. Likewise, if one is anti-religious, one needs to be careful not to fall into the trap of finding good examples of errors-in-religion, everywhere. Confirmation [Popper] is not the same as testing/falsifying.

Popper’s propositions on confirmation of preconceptions also apply to astrology and religion.

Moreover, we see that astrology did become astronomy and alchemy morphed into chemistry: Based on the separation of Theory [Episte] and Practice [Techne} from the Greeks?

In a similar context, one thing valuable in religion –not the gods—is the notion of the transcendental, wherein, for example, we move beyond classic mechanics to quantum physics.

Appreciating a 4-D hypercube requires the understanding of something that might not be real. Likewise, no one has every seen even a 3-D cube – think about it. Had we sat on Euclidean geometry, higher dimensionality in hyper-cubes and manifolds and religion, could not be envisaged. Being anti-religious runs the risk of throwing the transcendental out –like the baby- with the bath water.

A world-view, without the transcendental, I suspect, would limit the extent of Bertrand Russell’s [and Whitehead’s?] molecular structures. Newton is said have been religious: It is interesting he also developed transcendental calculi.

Being non-religious, permits one to test one’s non-beliefs: One’s tentative hypotheses might be confirmed – no god, for the present, or it “might” lead to a valid transcendental insight: e.g., pantheism bridging to design to a mathematical model of the Creation.

- Space again!

I note atheist David believes he has a mission to young unwriten minds to indoctrinate them in atheism. His mission is equally obsessive about beliefs as any responsibile Christian parent has to give foundations values and meaning to a child's life. He intends to change the World by indoctrinating the young in his negative theories ie. "there is no God", "humans have no ultimate purpose", "man is not morally acountable to a higher power".

This way he can give them preconceived mindset theories on how we got here without the mind of an independent designer who has power to create purposefull change. That the universe is purely an accident not a designed creation.

He wants minds as clean sheets to indoctrinate the unsuspecting and critical thinker. Funny that?

Oliver,

The comparison of times of ancient cultures ruling as world powers, is now tempered with the knowledge of the changes brought about by the huge advancements of the industrial/technological revolution. Things happen a lot faster nowadays with the stagnation of modern cultures not so assured. Rapid demise is more of a possibility, but an unchanging ethos between generations as in the past, is no longer an available option. A return to the dark ages would facilitate an unchanging world of absolute oppression again, but let’s hope that scenario never eventuates.

The old cry that this or that religion has been around for yonks and will be forevermore, is no more valid than stating that the USA will be a world power forever. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see that China will replace it in the near future with the other contender being India. (But further down the track)

Superpowers need super economies to remain and expand. There are already signs of an economically/ethically teetering USA.

If the planet can keep increasing education levels, social support systems, have healthy economies and can refrain from blowing itself up or wrecking the environment in a devastating irreparable way, religion will most definitely become a minority affair.

People promoting that religion (And they mean, their religion) is eternal, are living in the past, exactly where religion should reside. Conversely, those who do remain religious should not be hassled by governments or society in general if they keep it to themselves. The sticking point with this is, religion finds it impossible to not proselytise. Their own mental integrity depends on convincing everyone they are right. The cost of this is seen nightly on the news.

Just to clear something up. I am anti – the bad parts of religion. i.e. Indoctrination, political interference etc. I thought I made that clear. Oliver, your words suggest you agree with me on this.

David

Philo,

“Thou shalt not bear false witness”, is the 9th commandment, not a suggestion. I do not wish to indoctrinate anyone. Please reread my posts to prevent further misrepresenting me.

David

David,

"Conversely, those who do remain religious should not be hassled by governments or society in general if they keep it to themselves."

The power of the Church in the US in 2020 will probably greater than it was in 1820, despite the immense growth in knowledge generally. Disproving respective null hypotheses Theist or Antheist resists this course of action.

I find Philo willing to admit some the accretions of the early Thesist spin doctors and mistakes in translations to his credit. Regarding th latter, look at Michaelango's Moses... In the Middle Ages, linguists translated rays as horns. Gone look at a photograph of the sculpture.

Oliver,

"The power of the Church in the US in 2020 will probably greater than it was in 1820, despite the immense growth in knowledge generally."

There is no way of knowing that. My guess is that the church will take a dive with the upcoming generation entering the political sphere. Now we have both had a guess.

And no one should deny that the USA is out of step with other Western countries when it comes to religiosity.

Unlike Philo, I have nothing to concede as I am promoting nothing, just commenting on the many faults of religion.

Do you think you have altered Philo's stance any more than have I?

David