tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13574471.post113470074078474201..comments2023-06-04T08:57:25.996-04:00Comments on Hawking Up Hairballs: Onward Christian SoldiersChuck Oliveroshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09195467154207850276noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13574471.post-1148365581119594412006-05-23T02:26:00.000-04:002006-05-23T02:26:00.000-04:00hope you really consider the "tolerance" comment s...hope you really consider the "tolerance" comment someone was kind enough to leave you. Do you plan on riding the mobius strip forever or did you just buy a seasons pass?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13574471.post-1139210215290030432006-02-06T02:16:00.000-05:002006-02-06T02:16:00.000-05:00have you considered this "tolerance" youre advocat...have you considered this "tolerance" youre advocating is what allowed a creep like hitler to come to power in the first placeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13574471.post-1136393578841719612006-01-04T11:52:00.000-05:002006-01-04T11:52:00.000-05:00Wow, where to start.You say Christianity is bankru...Wow, where to start.<BR/><BR/>You say Christianity is bankrupt for claiming that Jesus died for the sins of mankind on the cross. What about this claim makes Christianity bankrupt? Is it because it seems foolish to us that God would utilize this method for the salvation of man? Paul says as much in 1 Cor 1:18: "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." Why would God choose this biblically acknowledged foolishness? The text I just mentioned goes on to tell us. It is so we are reminded that it is not what we do that overcomes the obstacle of sin but God's grace. We have not overcome it through our own wisdom but through God's action. This is where "faith" comes in. The Christian idea of faith is that we entrust our redemption to God through the sacrifice of Christ. This is not to say that we should blindly put our trust in something with nothing to back it up - Christianity has never asked that of us. The apostolic church preached first-hand experience. They testified to what they saw and experienced. The New Testament and other early Christian writings record these experiences and pass them along to us. They are not one person's account but the testimony of many and are written to teach us the faith and help us believe.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the twisting of Scripture, I'm sure some is intentionally done to control the masses but I suspect most is fear and/or ignorance (sometimes deliberate and sometimes not) mixed in with honest disagreement on translation and interpretation. For example, I have friends who have to read each passage in the Bible as a literal statement or they think the whole thing falls apart. If God didn't make the world in 6 literal days, the rest of the book is bunk. And yes, they also subscribe to the 7000 year old earth point-of-view. Don't get me wrong, they are loving, committed Christians. They give generously and try to live what they preach. But to them, interpreting the Bible is a slippery slope. If you start reading certain passages as allegory and metaphor, they believe you get to a point where you can't say with any confidence that a particular passage is intended to be literal truth. As a result, they shy away from anything that might call into question their understanding of their faith and the mysteries of Creation.<BR/><BR/>As to the perpetual virginity of Mary, this is a good example of honest disagreement on translation and interpretation. Catholic scholars believe that the word used of Christ's brothers is also used to describe cousins, half-siblings, etc. Paul uses the same word to refer to brothers and sisters in the faith. They reconcile their understanding of the Scriptures with tradition, both of which carry significant weight in the Catholic faith. They also utilize apocryphal works which, while not considered Scripture, are still considered important documents of the faith. Regardless, the Catholic church is not trying to twist the Scripture to fit its doctrine. Rather, it is reconciling the Scriptural accounts to its tradition by giving examples from other documents of the period.<BR/><BR/>Regarding ritual cannibalism, another example of honest disagreement. I'm sure you are aware that you are not the first to identify the Eucharist with cannibalism. This charge was levied very early on against the Christians. In fact, some of Jesus's followers left him after hearing his discourse on how he is the "bread of life" (John 6:60). However, he is the sacrificial lamb for the sins of man. The sacrifices of the Jews were consumed after the sacrifice was offered. It is not surprising that the consumption of the sacrifice comes into the Christian belief structure as well. Protestants believe this consumption is symbolic and serves to remind us of Christ's sacrifice while Catholics believe it is a literal change that effects sanctification. Regardless, it is considered to be a mystery of God and not someone sitting down to a plate of Jesus for supper. The doctrine of transubstantiation in no way encourages literal cannibalism of other humans as a lifestyle or suggests that it is acceptable.<BR/><BR/>I won't address the slavery issue but here is an interesting perspective: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/m_yericho/ravkook/MISHPATM58.htm" REL="nofollow">Rav Kook</A>.<BR/><BR/>Regarding ID and whether or not it should be taught in school, I won't address this either. I found <A HREF="http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm2404.htm" REL="nofollow">this</A> to be an interesting perspective on science and the supernatural. It is clearly biased, but worth reading.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you address the behavior of some fundamentalist Christians and their reaction to Prof. Mirecki. First of all, there seems to be some speculation as to whether or not the event actually occurred. Assuming it did occur, leveling a charge of fascism at fundamentalist Christians because of the actions of 2 is a bit dramatic. Furthermore, allowing this act to fuel your hatred of Christianity is in itself intellectual dishonesty. These men are no different than the people who riot because cops get away with abusing a black man and no different from the punk who punched Bret (a mutual friend of Chuck and myself) in the eye at Music Midtown. They are no different from the people who broke in to the Bush campaign headquarters and vandalized it. This type of person is looking for an excuse to act a certain way and, when they find that excuse, they exploit it. This is not about Christianity and is not even about a subset of people who claim Christianity. It is about violent men, plain and simple.<BR/><BR/>You also mention tolerance and respect. Where was Mirecki's tolerance and respect for others? He wrote, "The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology," and signed his comments, "Doing my part (to upset) the religious right, Evil Dr. P." Mirecki is not only disparaging the views of people who believe in ID or Creationism, he is also instituting a course (at a tax-payer supported state college) with the intent to offend a group who believes something different than he does. He is taking it upon himself to define science and mythology and determine in what context a particular view about the origins of life should be taught. Is this not an example of Mirecki's unwillingness to accept that his position may be wrong and shoving his view down the throats of others?<BR/><BR/>The concept of democracy does indeed rest upon tolerance but it can only survive in an educated society. An educated society is one which can examine both sides of an issue and make an informed decision on which side it supports. It need not resort to antagonism and mockery to make its point and it need not resort to violence. It need not make ad-hominem attacks against its opponents. I'd say that few of the vocalists involved in the evolution/ID/creationism fit this bill.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13574471.post-1134708388485079172005-12-15T23:46:00.000-05:002005-12-15T23:46:00.000-05:00Good essay. I agree with you whole-heartedly.Good essay. I agree with you whole-heartedly.David Matthewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07612468957913655340noreply@blogger.com