Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Let's start with a definition of dogma. The definition is mine, it's what I mean when I use the word. Having published the definition anyone of average intelligence should understand what I am saying when I use it. To paraphrase the mathematician Charles Dodgson "When I use a word it means what I want it to mean, neither more nor less. It's a question of who is the master: me or the word."

dogma - a set of beliefs held by members of a hierarchy, originating with those at the top of the hierarchy and passed down to those members of lesser rank who are expected to accept them without question on pain of expulsion from the hierarchy or other punishments, possibly even death.

There is no atheist hierarchy, ergo, there is no atheist dogma. Mr. Rosenberg certainly is not at the top of this non-existent hierarchy, ergo, I do not "need to begin" with Mr. Rosenberg or any other person, including Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett, Dillahunty, the late Mr. Hitchens, et al.

If you are the master, then a word can mean anything you want.

Main Entry:dog£ma
Pronunciation:*d*g-m*, *d*g-
Function:noun
Inflected Form: plural dogmas also dog£ma£ta \-m*-t*\
Etymology:Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem— more at DECENT
Date:1638

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets *pedagogical dogma* c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

So, for the record are you going to tell us that the Science community, generally is not dogmatic on such things as the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the age of man, evolution, AGW, etc.? Is this your personal position? If so, I have a newsflash for you: There are real scientists out there who take quite a dogmatic stance of these kinds of topics -- so dogmatic in fact, that they belittle and berate and insult and attack others who don't hold to their views.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And is Inanna still alive today or did the other gods do her in?

Is Jesus still alive today (assuming he ever existed in the first place) or did the Romans do him in?

Answer: He's dead.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Is Jesus still alive today (assuming he ever existed in the first place) or did the Romans do him in?

Answer: He's dead.

Wrong answer. He's alive and eyewitnesses saw him after he rose from his tomb. His murderers never produced the body, which is all they had to do to kill Christianity in the bud. Everyone knew where he was buried.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Wrong answer. He's alive and eyewitnesses saw him after he rose from his tomb. His murderers never produced the body, which is all they had to do to kill Christianity in the bud. Everyone knew where he was buried.

I've heard the fairy tale before. You don't have to summarize it here.

He's dead.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But the Christian faith is not irrational because God has restored the broken relationship with man ...

... we're all, as an integral part of the universe, a grand cosmic ACCIDENT!

Christianity teaches that for your relationship to be restored you have to ACCIDENTALLY be born into a Christian culture. But that's not enough. You also have to ACCIDENTALLY be born of (or adopted by) Christian parents who will indoctrinate you into the belief. But that's still not enough. You also have to ACCIDENTALLY be born into the right denomination which (according to you) is not Catholicism, Southern Baptist, Methodist, etc. It has to be Calvinism.

So we both believe we are "a grand cosmic ACCIDENT." We just believe in different sets of ACCIDENTS.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Christianity teaches that for your relationship to be restored you have to ACCIDENTALLY be born into a Christian culture. But that's not enough. You also have to ACCIDENTALLY be born of (or adopted by) Christian parents who will indoctrinate you into the belief. But that's still not enough. You also have to ACCIDENTALLY be born into the right denomination which (according to you) is not Catholicism, Southern Baptist, Methodist, etc. It has to be Calvinism.

So we both believe we are "a grand cosmic ACCIDENT." We just believe in different sets of ACCIDENTS.

Christianity doesn't teach any of the above. Those are all your God-hating presuppositions. Biblical Christianity teaches that there are no such things as luck, chance, coincidences or accidents, for God is the sovereign ruler of this world. Furthermore, I have stated in the past (often!) that God has his elect in all kinds of denominations -- even Catholics. However, I will not regularly attend or join a church that doesn't hold to the Reformed Traditions of the faith since these are very significant biblical doctrines.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I've heard the fairy tale before. You don't have to summarize it here.

He's dead.

Why didn't anyone produce the body and nip forever the Christ sect in the bud? the whole Christian movement would have very shotly died on the vine! Maybe you can find some first century writings that claims someone found Jesus' corpse?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Furthermore, I have stated in the past (often!) that God has his elect in all kinds of denominations -- even Catholics.

Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Jains? Buddhists?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why didn't anyone produce the body and nip forever the Christ sect in the bud?

What dates were the epistles published? What date were the gospels published? The answer is there.

[Actor]

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Let's start with a definition of dogma. The definition is mine, it's what I mean when I use the word. Having published the definition anyone of average intelligence should understand what I am saying when I use it. To paraphrase the mathematician Charles Dodgson "When I use a word it means what I want it to mean, neither more nor less. It's a question of who is the master: me or the word."

dogma - a set of beliefs held by members of a hierarchy, originating with those at the top of the hierarchy and passed down to those members of lesser rank who are expected to accept them without question on pain of expulsion from the hierarchy or other punishments, possibly even death.

There is no atheist hierarchy, ergo, there is no atheist dogma. Mr. Rosenberg certainly is not at the top of this non-existent hierarchy, ergo, I do not "need to begin" with Mr. Rosenberg or any other person, including Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett, Dillahunty, the late Mr. Hitchens, et al.

"The definition is mine...". Pure subjectivism, immediately followed by the objectivism of science in most of your posts, equals the incoherence that I have been citing when simply repeating the statements of your fellow atheists. Statements which you have dodged in order to cite the status of Boxcar vs. Dillahunty, or give us your definition of dogma, or some other irrelevance.

Scientism cannot be established by the scientific method itself...indeterminate physical systems somehow produce determinate thought (contrast "Roger"? with your personal responses)...the lead in a pencil, the ink in a pen or the pixels in a monitor, like the brain processes, do not inherently contain meaning but we derive meaning somehow...

I have complimented you in the past (last sentence)...

...http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...postcount=2559

but to prove my thesis in the post ("I believe the rejection of the metaphysical by the early moderns was with a philosophical hand wave motivated by self-autonomy, more than anything else "), I'll quote Descartes, that via only the quantifiable men may become “masters and possessors of nature”; giving rise to “human utility and power” through the “mechanical arts” (technology)--Francis Bacon; so that the "book of nature"--Galileo--might be written in quantitatively, despite our qualitative experience of the world.

The more you have shed light upon your "Lone Ranger" atheism, the less you have become "dangerous", except to perhaps a "Lone Ranger" Christian, the antithesis of the representative Christian of history.

Happy jousting.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Wrong answer. He's alive and eyewitnesses saw him after he rose from his tomb. His murderers never produced the body, which is all they had to do to kill Christianity in the bud. Everyone knew where he was buried.

Jesus's murderers DID produce the body...when they presented the dead body to Jesus's disciples for burial. It's JESUS who didn't present enough evidence that he was "resurrected". Had he taken a stroll to the public marketplace in front of the masses, then the resurrection argument would have been put to rest...and Christianity wouldn't have had to be spread throughout by force. But, by electing to reveal himself only to his closest followers...Jesus HIMSELF fueled the speculation that his dead body was stolen from the grave. When only a select few see the "risen" body...you can't convince the masses that a "resurrection" has taken place, just by showing them an empty grave.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"The definition is mine...".

Socrates said "the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms." When he said that he did not mean that the beginning of wisdom is to grab a dictionary, nor did he mean that you should limit yourself to defining words that you yourself have coined. Rather, Socrates realized that many words have multiple meanings, e.g., the word light can mean a source of illumination or it can mean something that does not weigh much. The function of language is communication. To that end Dodgson was right on the mark. Words are our tools, not our masters. To define a word precisely, to have it mean exactly what you wish it to mean, no more, no less, is to enhance communication. Of course one could choose some verbalization not in common usage and define it as having the meaning you need. For instance one could use the verbalization "tanj" instead of "dogma" but this is not common practice, and the reason it is not common practice is that the more common term has a usefulness derived from the fact that most people will have at least a hint of what the word means and will accept and understand an author's more precise definition. Thus, "dogma" gives the author and the reader a common ground whereas "tanj" means nothing (except to some readers of science fiction).

If both sides in a discourse are honest they will accept an author's definition of a term, and they will also accept a request to define a term. To do otherwise is a form of equivocation. An author is unlikely to define every word he uses, particularly in an informal discourse not intended for a wide audience. For a reader to demand a definition from a dictionary is a kind of Gish gallop. The exact definition an author has in mind is unlikely to be in a dictionary. Or the reader may choose a definition and impose it upon the author, metaphorically drawing a chalk outline of a dead body on the floor and demanding that the author lie down in it.

Speaking of equivocation, boxcar committed a blatant form of it early in the Religion I thread when he asked me whether pain was a good thing. I replied that the function of pain is to signal to the brain that the body is being damaged and in that sense it is good. boxcar then replied that inflicting pain upon a person must be a good thing. That is equivocation since boxcar equated (equivocated) signaling damage with inflicting damage. Anyone with an iota of intelligence knows the difference.

boxcar has accused me of being an equivocator. I have given an example of boxcar's equivocations. I challenge him to produce an example of mine. I don't think he can. If he cannot then he has committed the fallacy of tu quoque, i.e., you too. Having been caught in an offense his defense is to accuse his accuser of the same thing. Obviously, the burden of proof is his.

Back to my definitions, the definition of "dogma" (not "dogmatic") in M-W is very close to mine. Since the two are not exactly the same I think it imperative that I state that the definition is mine.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Scientism ...

Labels, labels, labels. Scientism is nothing more than a pejorative invented by science deniers. There is no such thing as scientism.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Jesus's murderers DID produce the body...when they presented the dead body to Jesus's disciples for burial. It's JESUS who didn't present enough evidence that he was "resurrected". Had he taken a stroll to the public marketplace in front of the masses, then the resurrection argument would have been put to rest...and Christianity wouldn't have had to be spread throughout by force. But, by electing to reveal himself only to his closest followers...Jesus HIMSELF fueled the speculation that his dead body was stolen from the grave. When only a select few see the "risen" body...you can't convince the masses that a "resurrection" has taken place, just by showing them an empty grave.

In Jesus time humans had already been on the planet for 100,000 years, give or take. Since God had already waited that long why not wait another 2,000 years (2%). Then the resurrection could have been on CNN. (Fox News would probably say it was faked.)

Then there's the ascension. The moon landing would be nothing next to live TV of Jesus floating off into space. To wherever...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Jesus's murderers DID produce the body...when they presented the dead body to Jesus's disciples for burial. It's JESUS who didn't present enough evidence that he was "resurrected". Had he taken a stroll to the public marketplace in front of the masses, then the resurrection argument would have been put to rest...and Christianity wouldn't have had to be spread throughout by force. But, by electing to reveal himself only to his closest followers...Jesus HIMSELF fueled the speculation that his dead body was stolen from the grave. When only a select few see the "risen" body...you can't convince the masses that a "resurrection" has taken place, just by showing them an empty grave.

But who produced the body AFTER 3 days Jesus was in the tomb? And where Jesus was buried was no secret! Virtually anyone in the Palestine area knew or could have easily found out because he was buried very close to the site where he was crucified.

Jesus presented an abundance of evidence to his disciples. And first century Christianity was not spread by force. Quite the contrary. It was unbelievers (primarily Jews in the first century) who tried to force Christians from spreading the gospel.

And Jesus didn't fuel the speculation about his body being stolen. It was the Jewish religious establishment who did that -- the very same messiah-rejecting, God-hating establishment that clearly understood what Jesus predicted about his resurrection, which is why they went to Pilate to seek a Roman guard to station at the tomb for three days. These Jews clearly understood that if they produced the body on the 3rd day, they would have proved that Jesus Christ was nothing but a religious fraud -- a fake, a delusional charlatan. In Matthew, we read where the Jews requested this Roman guard. And not only did they get this guard, but they numbered at least 3 Romans -- if you carefully read the chapter because it says after the resurrection that "some of the guard" came into the city to report to the chief priests what had happened, which means at least two reported while at least one other did not accompany them. (Quite possibly a contubernium consisting of 8 men and being the smallest Roman military unit was sent to guard the tomb.) So why didn't the Jews produce the body? And it's highly unlikely that his disciples stole the body since they were fearful and cowardly; for every one of them abandoned Jesus during his trial and crucifixion, save for John. None of Jesus' fishermen disciples had the courage or backbone to stand up to the Sanhedrin, let alone to Roman military might -- to professional men of war whose job it was to guard the entrance to the tomb. The only time Christ's disciples became courageous, fearless and bold was after the resurrection! Christ's resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost transformed them completely, according to the early chapters of Acts. They became totally different men!

So...the 2,000-year old question remains: Why didn't the Jewish religious establishment, who knew exactly where Christ was buried, produce his body on the 3rd day? The entire Christ movement -- the Christ sect -- would have withered and died on the vine at the time they presented the body because they would have thrown up into all the peoples' faces Jesus' failed promise and unfulfilled prediction that he would rise from the tomb on the 3rd day. The religious establishment would have held a Tomb Fest on that Sunday, inviting all Israel to come see the body in the tomb and get a good whiff of the stench of his rotting corpse! The religious establishment most certainly would not have passed up this golden opportunity to vindicate to the people and justify the hostile actions they had taken toward Jesus. The establishment would have presented themselves to the people as the Saviors and Guardians of all that was sacred to Judaism! They would have most certainly seized the moment to prove to all Jews that Jesus was nothing less than a false prophet, and no doubt would have reminded the people what their own Law taught about testing prophets (cf. Deut 18:20-22).