Originally posted by thormas
View Post
The religious man thinks there are good reasons (see above) to believe that there is 'more.' However, even these reasons are not 'evidence/proof.' Yours is a mixing of categories: the demand that belief must provide facts.
Actually, Christianity first stands on the fact that Jesus was a historical figure in history. Plus, as discussed, progressive Christians, myself included, don't have much or any of what you call the supernatural stuff - yet we still are Christians. Thus you are wrong :+{
Regarding love, including agape, since the discussion is with me and not a fundamentalist, you should be able to acknowledge that, as I have said, Christianity has not appropriated agape.
Actually the argument has two parts: there is nothing in the gospels stories of Jesus that shows his words, actions or any kind of support for slavery or discrimination of any kind. Second is the OT and the rest of the NT.......and my argument is that in the NT (and even the OT but I am less familiar), a careful exegesis is required before one spouts off too much that Christianity supports this or makes judgements about that. Again, Jesus, on these issues, is simply not open to 'interpretation.' Actually a similar situation is at play, as we speak, in the USA: how many are saying this or that is constitutional and, in fact, given that written document, it is not. So too the Bible: just because we can (sadly) give chapter and verse of Christians who have and who continue to base their wrong beliefs and action on that written document, doesn't make it so or them right.
Still it is the case, as you have now agreed, that many of these thought leaders were beyond their societies and ...........not merely products of those societies. They 'saw' something more and, as I have been saying, both the religious and the secular man can transcend what is and move to what can or ought to be. And, many have pointed to God in this effort. Many also saw 'fairness and equality' to be the Good that transcends and to which man aspires.
If the materialist position is simply that the universe is material, I agree. However I also recognize that there are different views of that universe: for example, there are those who allow that there is Mind and all that is matter (which indeed remains the purview of science) is the creation or embodiment of mind. However, it is also the case that materialism is more than this and have further views or explanations - which are rejected by materialist in other schools of thought. Again, as discussed, I don't accept or believe in 'supernatural' or non-natural forces or explanations :+}
Again, I am not at all familiar with the Institute but it is valid to point to the fact that scientists differ and interpret the same experiments in very different ways - thus there is not definitive 'agreement' in the community on this subject. It is apparent that the disagreements are not merely alleged and to refer to the disagreements is to argue the science, by referring to one or more scientists in opposition to other scientists.
Why.........because it answers the What and the Why and because I find it eminently reasonable and............believable.
Comment