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"