The sophistication of intellectualism and science which has led to the debunking of traditional, superstition-based religion and the discrediting of rationalist philosophy cause-equals-effect theory, without providing a common-man friendly substitute, has caused the integrated cultural functions based on those beliefs to collapse.

The ensuing ethical vacuum has prompted a ‘clutching at straws’ search for an ethical basis on which to re-integrate our lost cultural functions. In this confused and now also naïve climate (since education on these matters has lapsed as well) people have been adopting even more simplistic solutions than they did previously. And chief among the simplistic solutions are fundamentalist versions of established religions (this is because the social structures and the beliefs aare already there from previous systems and the fundamentalist versions of these belief systems are simple enough to adopt without much prior knowledge or effort).

The irony of it all is that the sophistication of intellect has been a key element in the rise of the adoption of fundamentalism.

Well done Rob for observing what to most Christians is about as obvious as the broad side of a technicolor painted barn.

It is especially obvious to the anthropologist Lauriston Sharp, who studied the Yor Yuront of cape york Peninsula, (which I've mentioned many times) and found that the simple substitution of a steel axe for a stone one, was the primary cause of complete social decay and the virtual extinction of that tribe.

HOW MUCH MORE are we at risk by abandoning the foundations of our society, and then as you so aptly put it, "grasping at straws".

Lets be abundantly clear about one thing though, to use a boxing analogy ...science and post modern thinking have not laid a glove on the Gospel of Christ.

Modern Liberal Biblical Criticism includes the scientific presupposition that 'people cannot rise from the dead'.. thus, it could not have occured with Jesus, therefore...the Scriptures are merely myths invented by naive and supersticious people to prop up their lives.

So, as for me, I proclaim Jesus, the Christ, Messiah and returning Lord. "As the scriptures" portray Him.

I categorically REJECT the lunacy and darkness of such so called evangelists/faith healers like Peter Popoff.

"Miracle Spring Water"?sheesh.

http://www.peterpopoff.org/ how could ANYone be so dumb as to believe this tripe?
See also a good expose'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff

But this kind of person is not the Christian of the New Testament.

Regarding lost foundations, Jesus said: (referring to the Sermon on the mount)

24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

If ever there was irony n the world, it must surely be that last posting.

Dear Bugsy, touche. Who was it who said, 'there are none so blind as those who will not see.'?

Let BD have his faith, I once hid from life in that corner too.
But what a great world it would be if we could understand man needs no warm corner to hide in.
That Jesus if he lived was a short brown Jewish man not the tall WASP we depict him.
That he may well have lived and died as we are told but if he alone is reborn we are but toys in some ones sand box.

Yes, well... the best I can say is that dear old Boazy totally misread yet another text. Duh.

As for this: "It is especially obvious to the anthropologist Lauriston Sharp, who studied the Yor Yuront of cape york Peninsula, (which I've mentioned many times) and found that the simple substitution of a steel axe for a stone one, was the primary cause of complete social decay and the virtual extinction of that tribe."

Boazy also loves to misquote this article (and misspell its subjects), in which Sharp neatly outlines a functionalist argument that explains how the removal of the male monopoly over the distribution of stone axes in a western Cape York clan (the 'Yir-Yoront') was implicated in the collapse of tribal authority structures.

He isn't usually so keen to emphasise that this was all done at the hands of boofheaded Christian missionaries, who distributed steel axes to men and women indiscriminately in return for cooperation and labour. And further, that the said missionaries were in explicit cahoots with the colonial project of the Queensland government of the day to subdue the 'natives'. Not to mention that the LMS' 'mission' was overtly one of the replacement of the Indigenous belief system with their own - like that of all missionaries.

Which is of course a good example of why missionaries are inherently objectionable, including our very own 'OLO-missionary' Boazy. If he misreads the Islamic texts that he deluges us with half as badly as he's misunderstood Lauriston Sharp, then we'd be pretty well advised not to attach too much credence to his rants.

As if we didn't know that already :)

Interesting posts

Some in the churches are taking up a similar theme of loss of tradition leaving little alternative to mindless fundamentalism in one corner or liberal-intellectual rationalism in the other. This group is trying to reassert the authority of tradition without, in my view, properly addressing the rational critique of religious supersition - a kind of counter-enlightenment which is more sophisticated than the fundamentalists but still anti-modern, anti-western, anti-rationalist and sometimes anti-democratic. Peter Sellick's OLO articles get close to this sometimes.

And in the secular world, pseudo-religions are filling the gap, notably ideologies such as deep ecology with its ascetic, apcalyptic, dogmatic, salvationist, moralising overtones closely resembling fundamentalist religion.

CJ. I've mentioned previously that missionaries were involved in the distribution of steel axes but they were not the only ones. Having worked among people who were dying out but who found Christ and a future, why should I focus on 'bad missionaries' when the article is about 'grasping at straws' ?

I didn't misunderstand the article, don't know why you said that, maybe ur misreading something ? :)

The relevant point was the impact of an outside implement to a traditional culture. Those who provided them did so generally with good will from what I can see, and not so much to gain 'labor' but to build bridges of friendship and good will. If you have evidence that they were specifically given to obtain 'labor' please back that up with something solid.

Bugsy, that thing about the blind... no, Jesus didn't say that exactly, but that you would simply see irony in my post, is evidence of a blindness in your own heart mate.

The point of my post was to highlight something (the impact of unthoughtout social change) which you are either oblivious to or simply in denial about or simply have no answers for.

Whether our cultural foundations were Judao/Christian or Buddhist or Hindu, the point remains valid that rapid change without sufficient attention to cultural substitutes and consideration of how some tool or practice can effect a culture is dangerous.

I illustrated this by referring to an actual tribe, but CJ, rather than taking this to heart simply resorts to ad homomins, picking on my spelling, shabby at best I'd say, irresponsible even. Certainly less than zero contribution to an important debate.

You also failed to offer any alternative. Rob makes the 'clutching at straws' point, and you neglect to show how this is either incorrect or misguided or valid.

I addressed his point, highlighted reasons for it, and suggested a new path. Disagree by all means, but do so with some suggestions or evidence, otherwise such contributions are rather shallow and empty don't u think ?

Oh sweet irony , thy name is BOAZ!

Mate, you had better get your attributions right, as well as your comprehension. The original post was actually about you, which you so fruitfully proved in the second. The "grasping at straws" was aimed at the fundamentalist understandings of religion, not the intellectual sophistication of modern society...

Another sweet irony is that "stone axe" reference you so love to bandy about. With it you are comparing Christianity and the status quo with a stone age culture, probably not your intent, thus sweetly ironic. One question that the reference in question does not answer though is: is it ethical to maintain a stone age culture in a modern world? The missionaries obviously thought not, but to upset the status quo is to essentially destroy such cultures, which is obviously thought "bad" by many, including yourself. Thus the question becomes, if it is found that the historical basis of Christianity is actually a myth, then is it ethical (or moral) to continue to promulgate that myth in perpetuity? To essentially lie to people who don't know better for the good of the status quo?

Rob is pointing out that it is becoming increasingly obvious that the basis of religion is a false premise, however lack of a "user-friendly" substitute means that a more simplistic (and more dangerous) version of religion is on the rise because of the inability of secularists to adequately express themselves to the layman. Intellectual bases for morality and ethics substituting for religion DO exist and are quite sound, however they aren't considered "user-friendly" or are able to be boiled down to a soundbite without losing meaning, unlike "God is watching" etc. A point which was so eloquently demonstrated by your noble self, Boazy (AKA Exhibit A).

And the ironies continue......

And the Oxymorons begin "noble self, Boazy" ;)

R0bert

Virgin birth, people walking on water and/or coming back from the dead and God stepping down to Mt Sinai for a while to do a little masonry. Superstition? What superstition?

This thread might actually be getting us somewhere.

Boaz is beginning to discover that there are a number of people here who have twigged to his continuing deceptions.

Being charitable, we might class them all as self-deceptions, which effectively absolves him from the charge of deliberately setting out to deceive others. But they are deceptions nonetheless.

When he is caught out in one of these... what shall we call them? Flights of fancy? Wishful thoughts? Doesn't matter, whenever he is exposed in a misconception (that will do) he never, ever admits an error.

He does one of two things. He ignores it totally, or attempts to smear the exposer.

On many occasions he has tried to defend against the charge of rabble-rousing hatred against Islam. One particularly egregious example, and one in particularly bad taste as well, was that classic piece of innuendo:

>>The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? "Ismail X"<<

When brought to his attention... nothing. No retraction. No apology. Ignored.

In this thread CJ caught him out on the Lauriston Sharp, and gets an earful:

>>I illustrated this by referring to an actual tribe, but CJ, rather than taking this to heart simply resorts to ad homomins, picking on my spelling, shabby at best I'd say, irresponsible even<<

I think it was the sheer chutzpah of using an ad hominem to accuse CJ of an ad hominem attack, that made me realize exactly how little Boaz thinks about what he writes, and how little personal reflection occurs in his zeal to i) convert everyone to his unique interpretation of Christianity and ii) stir up hatred against Islam.

Mind you, I have to also confess I nearly destroyed my keyboard with a mouthful of coffee when I misread his "ad homomins" as "ad homonims".

It would have been the most perfectly-formed malapropism ever:

"What's the difference? Ad hominem, ad homonym? They even sound the same"

Well Pericles, I also almost washed out my keyboard with tears of laughter when reading your 'coffee description'....

I have to confess, I am not a good speller at times.

C.J. got an earful because he failed to recognize the seriousness of the article itself, irrespective of the religious inclinations of those who offered Steel Axes. i.e. he missed the point.

You continue to neglect the question mark in my 'carried out by a Muslim'? The answer apparently is no, but does that make any difference to the general perception of Islamic cruelty and radicalism in the world today? If I'd done the same thing about the sniper who turned out to be Muslim, would you have criticized me?

Lets be under no illusions here, I don't need to find anecdotal instances of individual muslims doing 'bad things' to justify my argument against Islam the religion, -the Quran and Hadith are adequate.

Bugsy, you speak with such overflowing confidence about secularism and the erosion of foundations of Christianity/Religion. You even (brave man) speak about secularism being "sound". Well.. I've lectured Pericles (Hi P) about this ad nauseum and it appears I need to revisit the barren meaningless wasteland or secular paganism again for your sake. Keep bugging me enough and I will :)
The only 2 possible approaches to life are:

1/ Make_it_up_as_you_go. (Nihilism, NAMBLA and Neurosis)
2/ Life has meaning due to a Creator. (Love, Joy, Peace)

If '1' is your choice, then let me introduce you to your prophets Neitzche, Sartre, deSade and others.
If '2' then.. welcome to our Bible Study.

BD,

"If '1' is your choice, then let me introduce you to your prophets Neitzche, Sartre, deSade and others.
If '2' then.. welcome to our Bible Study. "

1/ Rather it's we don't need prophets handing down pronouncements from on high, instead we seek out what has been learned by fellow travellers who can tell us of their experience and learnings.

From them we can glean what is usefull and discard that which is not. The list of fellow travellers is much wider than you suggest and includes those who live by various faiths but who nevertheless have something worth saying. I've found the writings of Robert Fulghum and Adrian Plass worth keeping in mind regardless of their christain slants.

2/ If those attending your bible study are like you then I'd be checking with someone else about their loving creator as I'm fairly confident that I'd not be finding real answers at your bible study.

R0bert

Wow, BOAZ, I never had it explained to me like that before, you are so right. I need to join your bible class. Where is it?

The interpretation of ancient texts, no matter how they are twisted or distorted from their original context in order to support contemporary prejudices - offer no proof of ANYTHING - legally or morally.

Bugsy, its where you would like it.
I'll come to your place if ur in Melbourne :)
We could meet for coffee and a session with the Word if you wish.

If you haven't had 'it' (life) explained like that b4, then you have been living a sheltered life mate.

Why not have a look at some of the works of Francis Schaeffer ?

Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 11 May 2007 9:08:40 AM
"Lets be under no illusions here, I don't need to find anecdotal instances of individual muslims doing 'bad things' to justify my argument against Islam the religion, -the Quran and Hadith are adequate."

And so is the Book of Jacob.

I'm only responding because I get a mention in the offending post, Boaz.

Otherwise, it is the same old, same old problem. Your logic is appalling, your conclusions impossible, and your ability to ignore that which you cannot refute, unlimited.

>>The only 2 possible approaches to life are:

1/ Make_it_up_as_you_go. (Nihilism, NAMBLA and Neurosis)
2/ Life has meaning due to a Creator. (Love, Joy, Peace)<<

That is the most arrant nonsense, yet you continue to trot it out as if it is irrefutable.

First and foremost, very very few people actually make it up as they go. The vast majority of people have a sense of morality that is entirely independent of any religion. This applies equally to "religious" people too - think pederast priests.

It is also not surprising that many of their "good" values coincide with those of some of the world's major religions. We are, after all, human beings who have to find common ground, simply to coexist in the same world.

Further, a position of non-belief in a deity categorically does not mean that a person automatically believes in the activities of NAMBLA. This is probably the most ridiculous, most offensive, but most often repeated, libel against non-Christians.

And finally, it is the height of arrogance to claim that there are "only 2 possible approaches to life", with the non-Christian way being characterized as evil.

>>You continue to neglect the question mark in my 'carried out by a Muslim'?<<

My intention is to remind you that the line between "I report, you decide" and straightforward propaganda designed to rabble-rouse, is one that you frequently cross.

Usually you have the grace to admit your fault when you have overstepped the mark, but on this occasion you have consistently avoided making any comment, let alone made an apology.

Now you are depending on the question mark to justify your bad behaviour.

"Boaz_David... evil missionary pederast?"

That question mark. Doesn't really excuse, does it?

Pericles... I consider such a suggestion "evil pedarist" simply collateral damage to my own sense of mission. I don't really mind it.

My reluctance to 'apologise' is based on the feeding frenzy it later creates with certain posters who take relish and delight in making a list of apologies simply to destroy my credibility, not to contribute to the debate.

You 'trot out' your 'we all have moral values' claims (Note, I avoid the use of the word 'rubbish') as regularly as I do my own claims.

That claim alone is so easily subjected to some basic reasoning and analysis that it falls apart at the first glance.

We have..what we inherit, and we inherit from our cultural forebears, who in turn were influenced by various forces, such as faith, fear of spirits, education, philosophy whatever.. so, clearly, on the grounds of the simplest of reasoning and logic, those values could turn out to be 'any' thing.

Take for example the shift in public opinion over homosexual behavior.

1/ The homosexual lobby became politicized.
2/ They chose a word which signified 'badness' in those who opposed them. "Homophobia"
3/ They then promoted and marketed this word, and 'outed' various people and sought to shame others, so that the community now speaks of 'homophobia' as though it is a disease which has been around since adam was a pup.

That is a classic example of 'makeitupasugo'.

So, it is easily demonstrable that MIUAUG is a reality for those outside of a faith community.
That 'faithless' life leads to nihilism is also a fundamental step of common logic.
1/ If there are no enduring, absolute truths/values then....
2/ Everything in life gains the meaning we decide to attribute to it.
Conclusion, there is nothing true other than the truth we give it, hence there is nothing to 'believe in' as unchanging truth.

Practically speaking, we don't find Nihilistoids rampaging through our streets, (Unless_the_G8_is_in town) because most people would rather be a part of a community where they have a sense of something to believe in and get on with life.

How about "BOAZ_David... no sense of irony?"

Such a lulzcow.

Bugsy, I totally see the irony you are speaking of, of all my weaknesses, one of them is not blindness :) (more irony?)

You are seeing me as some kind of whacko fundy dill who is desperately clutching at the religious straws Rob mentioned in his opening post.
Then, I foam at the mouth about the reality of faith, and this simply confirms to you that Rob was correct.. yes, I do see the apparent irony.

But the reality of faith in Christ, of Christ Himself, and my own experience of Him, of speaking about Him, in your, and others eternal interests causes me to ignore that obvious potential pitfall.

I know the difference between 'clutching' at straws and dwelling in a well constructed mansion from heaven.

When I see happy clappers jumping around the place, praising, raising hands and waving them around... I always have mixed feelings. I've come in contact with a lot of people from that mould and I don't often detect a great deal of depth.
On the other hand, the dry formalism and liturgical deadness of some more traditional church's and the lack of obvious personal experience of Christ in the 3 members remaining.. also leaves me rather sad.

But then, there is the true Biblical New Testament experience. Aaah...thats different. Paul puts it this way:

IICor4:5
For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

CONCLUSION
Christ Jesus.. as Lord. That is our message. You may consider this 'clutching' at straws, but I prefer to think of it as pointing to a large beam of "Belian" ( a Malaysian hardwood so tough they reckon it will last a billion years)

There are quite a few Scientific professionals- and over a period of time that would refute the assertion that science has replaced religion, quite the contrary- we now have elements of quasi – pseudo science to perpetuate myths – that in turn generate wealth in the material metaphysic of those who would be less accepted as professional but consigned to witchdocktorats- academic fakers and total frauds – who now days are being worshiped as the New Messiahs.

That says more about the psychotropic levels of comprehension of realism and it is self perpetuated to pathological proportions, and also that it is on par with drug induces psychosis of a similar prognosis ; (simply put; Not Good)

Why anyone would see it acceptable to launch into B_D should equally launch their venom at Irfan or some more notable Islamic identities; or would that be really testing the intestinal fortitude and just maybe it will exacerbate the hypocrisy being put on display.
Because they Bite?

To ALL

Not everybody is trying to launch into David per se – it is his arguments that are so galling.

We would just like him to explain the apparent inconsistencies in his assertions – before he changes the subject. For example, he says he is not ‘clutching at straws’ but does his Belief not include the beliefs in many impossible events [miracles]? How does: a belief in something in one part of your paradigm [religious part] which you admit cannot exist in another part of your paradigm [rational-scientific part] amount to anything less than behaviour verging on the psychotic. At least straws can actually exist. David’s writings are peppered with such inconsistencies.

All we want are some consistent explanations for these apparent inconsistencies. It could be quite consistent if, for example, the miracles were taken poetically rather than literally, as one lover of superstition I know does. However since David does seem to believe in the actual existence of such things and has supplied no other explanation which provides a reconciliation of the apparent inconsistencies, despite numerous requests, many of us feel entitled to pursue him until he does us the basic courtesy of answering the questions we have actually asked.

Instead he just ducks and weaves and changes subject. If he gave us some consistent, straight answers, ie consistent with the questions that were put, not consistent with his own teaching, we would all go away but we persist because we know there is a fundamental lack of consistency between his claims and his beliefs and some of us feel that some of the time he should be called to account for those inconsistencies.

Me I’ve just about given up – I’ve realized that it is like trying to argue with Ned Flanders

Dear Boazy, swear on your bible now? Do you believe in the Rapture? ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ Boazy ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ ?

Once again, Boaz, you miss the point.

>>I consider such a suggestion "evil pedarist" simply collateral damage to my own sense of mission<<

This is not about your personal sense of martyrdom, Boaz, it is about the way in which you misuse this forum for your own personal anti-Islam campaign.

You characterize "evil missionary pederast?" as a personal attack, when it was clearly pointing out your sneaky, underhand use of the question mark when making an allegation, then pretending that it was the most important part of the quote.

>>My reluctance to 'apologise' is based on the feeding frenzy it later creates with certain posters who take relish and delight in making a list of apologies simply to destroy my credibility<<

Sorry, Boaz, but it is far too late to be concerned about your credibility.

>>You 'trot out' your 'we all have moral values' claims... That claim alone is so easily subjected to some basic reasoning and analysis that it falls apart at the first glance<<

Boaz, we all have moral values.

Even pederast priests have them, which is what stops them from murdering their victims. Adolf Hitler had them, which was why he was a vegetarian - one of his moral values was that he did not believe in killing animals for food. The vast majority of the human race have values that prevent them from robbing little old ladies.

>>so, clearly, on the grounds of the simplest of reasoning and logic, those values could turn out to be 'any' thing<<

Not so. For exactly the same reasons you give - that we "inherit from our cultural forebears, who in turn were influenced by various forces, such as faith, fear of spirits, education, philosophy", we adopt the cultural and moral norms that allow us to live peaceably and harmlessly with our fellow man.

That isn't "'any' thing".

It is a way of life, one that people live by, and be as blameless as you believe yourself to be. Only without a single God in sight.

The most insulting part of the accusation that non-Christians "make it up as they go" is that it automatically leads to evil.

Boaz makes the case as follows

>>So, it is easily demonstrable that... 'faithless' life leads to nihilism is also a fundamental step of common logic.
1/ If there are no enduring, absolute truths/values then....
2/ Everything in life gains the meaning we decide to attribute to it.
Conclusion, there is nothing true other than the truth we give it, hence there is nothing to 'believe in' as unchanging truth<<

There is nothing logical about this at all, Boaz, however many times you claim it.

For a start, it is possible to accept the statement "Everything in life gains the meaning we decide to attribute to it", without accepting that the only way to reach this is via "no enduring, absolute truths/values".

For example, you have "decided to attribute" meaning in life to the presence of an almighty power. But you would hardly accept that the only way to reach this conclusion is via "no enduring, absolute truths/values"

Would you?

It is the same with most of humanity. We all have "enduring, absolute truths/values." The fact that they are not religiously inspired does not mean they do not exist.

You mentioned earlier

>>The only 2 possible approaches to life are:

1/ Make_it_up_as_you_go. (Nihilism, NAMBLA and Neurosis)
2/ Life has meaning due to a Creator. (Love, Joy, Peace)<<

This is the bit that is insulting.

Not only isn't there the faintest relationship between these two "possibilities", they are also internally inconsistent.

"Make it up as you go" might result in a moral position that not only accepts as blameless an approach to life as you appear to represent, Boaz, but might also incorporate tolerance to Islam. Now wouldn't that be something worth "making up as you go".

And finally, life has meaning with or without belief in a Creator.

Trust me on this.