Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[carpedm9587]

It is always strange how some historians have no trouble accepting as accurate accounts written a few decades after an event except when it comes to the Bible. Only then are the accounts met with extreme skepticism.

Some historians approach issues from a biased place. That is true of the bible. Some approach it from a "it can't be true and I'm going to prove it" approach, and some from an "it has to be true and I'm going to prove it" approach. Good historians approach it from a "what does the evidence tell us and how certain can we be about it" approach. That approach takes into account the source of the documents, the amount of lateral and independent substantiation, the nature of the claims being made, and the fit into the existing arch of history as understood.

Based on what I have read/studied, there is little doubt in my mind that the claims to "absolute truth" many Christians make simply cannot be substantiated by the nature of the historical records
available to us.

In a culture that heavily relies on transmitting information through oral accounts and highly motivated to memorize what someone had said such jaundiced skepticism is largely unwarranted -- especially when dealing with accounts that are only a few decades old. That is because there are still a large number of eyewitnesses around and if the person transmitting the words and accounts were getting it wrong they would quickly be denounced as inaccurate and would not have been widely accepted as genuine so quickly.

Yeah, I've heard this meme multiple times. Tektonics is big on it. There is so much assumption being made here, I don't even know where to start. Is it possible for a verbal speech to be heard in one place and then accurately written down three+ decades later? Only a fool would say "no." Is it likely? Only a fool would say "yes." Do we know it happened? That is one of a sea of assumptions one is required to make to adopt your position.

[Cow Poke]

No, this is where YOU again demonstrate your profound denial and your determination to show your hostility towards non-theists.

Thanks, Tass, I really need a laugh this morning. And I'm actually pretty nice to most non-theists. It's just you and your smarter brother, JimL, for whom I feel no love.

By you are presumably (given the context of the discussion) referring to the entire Southern Baptist Convention.

The Southern Baptist Convention as a body had no policy or teaching or doctrine that justified slavery. If it did, you should produce it.

That's called an opinion, Tass - try producing some facts. Like an actual statement or doctrine or teaching of the SBC. Remember, your original claim was that the SBC excused slavery with their interpretation of scripture. You have yet to demonstrate that.

But my overall argument, of which the SBC attitude towards slavery is a case in point, is that Christians have a long history of interpreting scripture to accommodate the social values of the day. This has included the role of women in the past and currently LGBT rights.

So, do you wish to issue an apology now for falsely accusing the Southern Baptist Convention, and adjust your argument?

Once again --- try to focus, Tassy --- your claim was that this was the position of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Waiting.

[JimL]

Just a side note, it seems that blood sacrifice, even human sacrifice, to a god or gods was fairly universal even with cultures that had no known connection. One wonders why these ancient cultures came to a similar belief: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

Pobably because they were an uneducated superstitious people.

[Cow Poke]

Pobably because they were an uneducated superstitious people.

Oh, the Iron E.

[seer]

Pobably because they were an uneducated superstitious people.

That does not explain why the idea of sacrifice was so prevalent in cultures that, as far as we know, had no common history. Perhaps it is an intuitive sense hard wired in the species. It certainly points to something more meaningful than mere superstition.

[JimL]

That does not explain why the idea of sacrifice was so prevalent in cultures that, as far as we know, had no common history. Perhaps it is an intuitive sense hard wired in the species. It certainly points to something more meaningful than mere superstition.

Really, and you think that that something more is that a God required it of them?

[rogue06]

Oh, the Iron E.

Iron E.jpg


You really need to save this for your own use.

[Cow Poke]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36588[/ATTACH]


You really need to save this for your own use.

But it's so much bettererer when YOU do it. It's like... like... we're CONSPIRING together, once again.

[Cow Poke]

So, aside from being a really nice, young, articulate white gay man, what does Mayor Pete have to offer the country?
What are his policy positions?

In some interviews over the weekend, he was pressed on policy (the claim was that there's not even a hint of policy on his website), and he shrugged it off as "not wanting to drown the electorate in minutia.

[seer]

Really, and you think that that something more is that a God required it of them?

I think the idea of Sacrifice to atone for our wrong doing, is an innate belief, probably God induced, though it presents in different ways. I'm not sure how one connects these differing unconnected cultures, with the same general belief otherwise. It is merely biological? A very strange meme to be selected for.

[seer]

So, aside from being a really nice, young, articulate white gay man, what does Mayor Pete have to offer the country?
What are his policy positions?

It doesn't matter, he is married to a man, which makes him ethically superior....

[Cow Poke]

It doesn't matter, he is married to a man, which makes him ethically superior....

That seems like pretty much it, because nobody can really explain why he's such a big deal, otherwise. It will be interesting to see how (if) they deal with the racist issue.

[carpedm9587]

Pobably because they were an uneducated superstitious people.

I think that statement is far too broad or sweeping. As with people today, people of that day had education levels across the board - and superstition was also widely varied. Yes, there were things we discovered through science and scientific approaches that those people did not have access to, but then that is also true about us in relation to future generations. The assumption that the people of that age were uneducated and superstitious to any degree higher or lower than people today does not seem to me to be warranted.

[carpedm9587]

So, aside from being a really nice, young, articulate white gay man, what does Mayor Pete have to offer the country?
What are his policy positions?

In some interviews over the weekend, he was pressed on policy (the claim was that there's not even a hint of policy on his website), and he shrugged it off as "not wanting to drown the electorate in minutia.

I have to admit that I have been wondering pretty much the same thing. If he does climb to the top of the pack without addressing this, I think Trump is going to bury him.

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't matter, he is married to a man, which makes him ethically superior....