tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post2314696433901743582..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: John, "You Need to Deal With the Heavy Weights"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54335005079903812212010-07-05T16:54:46.809-04:002010-07-05T16:54:46.809-04:00Eric,
In Roman Catholic theology the god referred...Eric, <br />In Roman Catholic theology the god referred to is claimed to hate abortion. So? Roman Catholics have the highest abortion rate among Christian sects. The numbers don't lie, Eric.<br /><br />Theology is a waste of time for those who study it, since no one can be said to "understand" it, including theologians. Theology is a waste of time since no one gives a shit about it, even those stuck in social clubs called churches where they are forced to pretend it's important while they ignore it.<br /><br />Looking at your Hart quote there is too much stupid to comment on adequately. <br /><br />Hart:<b>theology is actually a pitilessly demanding discipline</b>.<br /><br />When there exists no way to tell if you are correct, and when there are so many others having very different opinions about the same material, and when the semantics are so loose that you can't tell if you're actually discussing the same concept, it should be expected that it would demanding. While theo-logy is the study of theo -- again most theologists stick to studying only their favorite god, not gods in general -- theologists cannot make even one statement about any god which can be said to be true in any useful sense of the word true. It is in fact the case that theologists do not study gods in any real sense. All theologists study is, in Hart's hyperbolic words, "immense, profoundly sophisticated legacy of hermeneutics, dialectics, and logic." No one studies gods. They study legacies of purported scholarship. No one has ever demonstrated that any god has existed, so no one knows anything about a god, Christian or other.<br /><br />Eric, if you beat your head against the wall of theology for your entire life, you will have no better understanding of it or some imagined god than you do right now. What's more, you will have no better understanding of theology or of gods than I do. You might wind up having a better understanding of some sect-specific legacy, but that is not an understanding of a god. Who wrote what when and how they reasoned about things best described as imaginary is not an understanding of a god.<br /><br />Hart says of theology, "it deals in minute detail with a vast variety of concrete historical data." Historical data tells us irrefutably that the claims made by the church have never measured up to the standard of reality. There exists no reason to think that any of the thousand or so gods actively worshiped today is real, so there exists no reason to accept that theology has any merit whatsoever.<br /><br />If your god was real, Eric, we'd see it. Theology is bullshit for bullshit's sake.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46952633899397903422010-07-05T16:16:31.148-04:002010-07-05T16:16:31.148-04:00Eric,
Forgive me if I give too little respect and...Eric,<br /><br />Forgive me if I give too little respect and offer too little deference to David Bentley Hart's characterization and justification for theology. Wouldn't most people like to pen our own reviews and draw up job descriptions that make what we do seem of the utmost importance? And wouldn't most people like to find work in an area where content accountability is null. I'm sure Hart is held to the same body of bureaucratic expectations that any university professor might incur, but he has maximum latitude when it comes to apologizing for Christianity. He is free to concoct any scheme at all in the defense of Christianity since there exists no metric for discerning correctness in the Christianities.<br /><br />You hold up Hart's opinion about theology, but any casual eye should be able to see that his words are in fact not a defense of theology, since he is an atheist regarding all but one god, his own personal mental image of what a Christian god is supposed to be. Indeed, Eric, if we could somehow tease out the semantics of what you and Hart call your versions of Christian gods, we would find that your gods are the same in name only.<br /><br />This work has been done in individual Roman Catholic congregations and among a few hundred worshippers, there are skant few commonalities in their characterizations of their gods. All the dutiful parishioners can eruct up catechism versions of Roman Catholic Christian gods, but when they are pressed on the semantics the theologically significant differences incarnate dozens of Christian gods among a few hundreds people.<br /><br />Laugh it off as the "personal nature" of Christian gods or some such falderal, but it's clear that theology is so unclear, so ill-defined that persons with decades of exposure to the same teaching and mindless regurgitation of liturgy, have no understanding of what their own theology is supposed to be, and the understanding they do have makes them theologically distinct from their fellow parishioners. Theology counts for nothing.<br /><br />That theology counts for nothing and is mostly ignored is born out by empirical results. In Roman Catholic theology the god referred to is claimed to hate contraception. So? Roman Catholics use contraception as much as anyone else. Yes, Roman Catholics can sustain the AIDS pandemic in Africa due to the enforced destruction of donated condoms, but those same aid workers will use contraception when they go back home.<br /><br />Look at birth rates, family sizes and majority Roman Catholic countries like Italy where population is declining. Believers don't believe what church leaders or theologians say, and theology is as much bullshit to them as it is to me.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33295835745878401122010-07-05T16:11:48.761-04:002010-07-05T16:11:48.761-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23434743366732327362010-07-05T16:11:48.186-04:002010-07-05T16:11:48.186-04:00Russ,
I sent you the script. It is not "Tri...Russ,<br /><br />I sent you the script. It is not "Trivia" but a play that won selection in a recent new plays festival entitled "Date of Admission".<br /><br />Good to have your email. I could use your intellect on future endeavors.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91558304392887664532010-07-05T15:51:16.095-04:002010-07-05T15:51:16.095-04:00Eric,
I've also been given William Alston'...Eric,<br /><br />I've also been given William Alston's "Perceiving God" which I will start after I'm done with the novel I'm reading and I want to check out J.J. Altzizer's Chrsitian Atheism theology.<br /><br />Do you want to recommend a theologian you are convinced that will make me believe in the reality of your preposterous god?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16555203021252776482010-07-05T13:01:05.531-04:002010-07-05T13:01:05.531-04:00Eric,
Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Thomas...Eric,<br /><br />Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Thomas Aquinas, Rheinhold Niehbuhr (although I like and appreciate Moral Man, Immoral Society), Frances Shaeffer, Rob Bell, Greg Boyd, Bart Ehrman, Stephen Maitzen, Thomas Merton, Chuck Swindoll, NT Wright, CS Lewis and the greatest theologian of all time, Bob Dylan. I know that some of these are strict "theologians" some are philosophers and some apologists but all communicate theology and all invent it from their unique imagined longings of the ineffable. Try playing Hamlet sometime and see if you can do whatever you want to the text based on undergoing emotion. You can't. If Gibson's Hamlet became a musical comedy then you would have the same variability each of these learned men would have about God.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91932131634683446472010-07-05T08:13:30.795-04:002010-07-05T08:13:30.795-04:00Chuck,
e-mail Trivia to me at completematerialist@...Chuck,<br />e-mail Trivia to me at completematerialist@yahoo.comRusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14379503948675439052010-07-05T07:57:34.197-04:002010-07-05T07:57:34.197-04:00Chuck,
You've already written Trivia? What an...Chuck,<br />You've already written <i>Trivia</i>? What an interesting coincidence! Should we take it as a sign from Thor or Vishnu or the name preferred by Christians? Should we sacrifice a goat?<br /><br />I would love the opportunity to read it and give you my gut feeling. I'll hit your blog profile and get you my e-mail address. Thank you.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18789843466602194002010-07-05T02:37:28.523-04:002010-07-05T02:37:28.523-04:00@Lvka:
So can I perch on top of the altar and wat...@Lvka:<br /><br />So can I perch on top of the altar and watch through the broken dome?<br /><br />Do you intend to submit a challenge to the Randi Foundation I linked to above?jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42429155920641184722010-07-04T23:48:54.202-04:002010-07-04T23:48:54.202-04:00-- matchsticks and lighters are fairly recent mode...-- matchsticks and lighters are fairly recent modern inventions, and the miracle of the Holy Light has been documented for the first time in the fourth century. It has been continuously attested for about the last one thousand years. <br /><br />-- you can't enter the Altar. <br /><br />-- the dome covering the Altar has been destroyed in one of the two world wars, and has never been re-build since.<br /><br />-- by all means, come with your own candles.<br /><br />-- many pious pilgrims baptize themselves in the Jordan during the ceremony, so you'll have no problem there either.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53507184151422189752010-07-04T17:51:36.287-04:002010-07-04T17:51:36.287-04:00"Have you ever read Hamlet or seen a producti..."Have you ever read Hamlet or seen a production?"<br /><br />I've read Hamlet well over a dozen times, I've seen it performed, and I've watched a number of movie versions. I'm very familiar with the play. And I'm also familiar with some of the scholarship on the play. In addition, I know that each actor's 'Hamlet' is quite different: to stick to movie versions we're all familiar with, compare Branagh's Hamlet with Gibson's: they say (essentially) the same words in (essentially) the same contexts, but they're so different they could almost be described as two distinct Hamlets, not one and the same Hamlet.<br /><br />I'm studying philosophy, but I love Shakespeare, and I try to devote some time to reading him each day. I've memorized a number of his sonnets, and I intend to commit all 154 to memory. I'm no expert here, though: just an amateur in the true sense of the term ("lover of"). <br /><br />Now answer my question: What theologians have you read, and what works? After all, you've now made a second claim about theology:<br /><br />"...theology builds on special pleading after special pleading with no corresponding fixed strictures like dramatic action or metrical prosody." (Your first claim was, "theologians invent imagined meanings built upon succeeding magical premises.")<br /><br />So what theologians, and what works, have informed your firm conclusions about theology?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86628259990189953672010-07-04T17:26:05.920-04:002010-07-04T17:26:05.920-04:00Oh and if you want a defense of theology that is c...Oh and if you want a defense of theology that is convincing to a skeptic don't pick a philosopher whose basis of scholarship is rooted in 2nd Century theology. As I said, your defense of theology amounts to a spiritualist defending Tarot.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12730529789053483842010-07-04T17:23:27.233-04:002010-07-04T17:23:27.233-04:00Hamlet does exist Eric.
That is my point.
He is ...Hamlet does exist Eric.<br /><br />That is my point.<br /><br />He is a fixed character that can be independently observed and known.<br /><br />Again what independent fixed character can be equally approximated in theology?<br /><br />Hamlet is real embodied by dramaturgical consistencies but theology builds on special pleading after special pleading with no corresponding fixed strictures like dramatic action or metrical prosody.<br /><br />Have you ever read Hamlet or seen a production?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84716863382895766102010-07-04T17:23:22.219-04:002010-07-04T17:23:22.219-04:00Hamlet does exist Eric.
That is my point.
He is ...Hamlet does exist Eric.<br /><br />That is my point.<br /><br />He is a fixed character that can be independently observed and known.<br /><br />Again what independent fixed character can be equally approximated in theology?<br /><br />Hamlet is real embodied by dramaturgical consistencies but theology builds on special pleading after special pleading with no corresponding fixed strictures like dramatic action or metrical prosody.<br /><br />Have you ever read Hamlet or seen a production?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58673449864895774312010-07-04T16:56:54.699-04:002010-07-04T16:56:54.699-04:00"You still don't get it Eric.
Any interpr..."You still don't get it Eric.<br />Any interpretation of Hamlet starts with the fixed dramaturgy of the a five act Elizabethan tragedy and does not allow literary critics to write the play they desire."<br /><br />No, as usual, YOU don't get it.<br /><br />What was my point? I was responding to those who say *because* God doesn't exist, any reasoning about him is "make up city." The form of this implication would be, "If S doesn't exist, then nothing limits our reasoning about S." I showed that this implication is *false*, and provided a counterexample: *Shakespeare's* Hamlet is a fictional character, yet our reasoning about him is not reduced to "make up city." You see, Chuck, *my point **is** that we can't make anything up as we reason bout Hamlet, even though he never existed*.<br /><br />Do you get it now? <br /><br />"Where is the evidential touchstone all might examine in theology equivalent to Shakespeare's folio of Hamlet?"<br /><br />See my David Bentley Hart quote: the "touchstone" is composed of multifarious elements: history, linguistics, logic, philosophy, ancient languages, etc.<br /><br />"Hamlet is Hamlet is Hamlet because any critic must respect "the play's the thing" if they wish to comment but theologians invent imagined meanings built upon succeeding magical premises."<br /><br />You claim to know what theologians do. What theologians have you read, and what works?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52000037299910979212010-07-04T16:38:31.591-04:002010-07-04T16:38:31.591-04:00You still don't get it Eric.
Any interpretati...You still don't get it Eric.<br /><br />Any interpretation of Hamlet starts with the fixed dramaturgy of the a five act Elizabethan tragedy and does not allow literary critics to write the play they desire.<br /><br />What dramaturgical constraints correspond to theology?<br /><br />Hamlet is Hamlet is Hamlet because any critic must respect "the play's the thing" if they wish to comment but theologians invent imagined meanings built upon succeeding magical premises.<br /><br />Where is the evidential touchstone all might examine in theology equivalent to Shakespeare's folio of Hamlet?<br /><br />Your analogy is weak if you wish to prove theology is more than imaginarium because literary criticism can assess the observe and fixed character known as Hamlet.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4381708512627060832010-07-04T11:19:11.435-04:002010-07-04T11:19:11.435-04:00"I am not ignorant of literary criticism nor ..."I am not ignorant of literary criticism nor of the tortured attempts of multiple ideologues to imprint their narcissistic ideas on the good Bard's text but I said "played" not "interpreted"."<br /><br />Chuck, this is really, really, *really* simple: I referred *explicitly* to the *scholarship* that has been written about the fictional character Hamlet ("Shakespeare's Hamlet is a fictional character, yet a ton of very serious scholarship has been written about him in which it's patently not the case that anything goes, since literary, historical, anthropological, philosophical, psychological and linguistic norms constrain our "imaginations") while *you* responded by referring, irrelevantly, to the staging of the play in five acts. When I came back and stuck to the topic I initially raised -- interpretations of the fictional character Hamlet -- *you* accused *me* of changing the subject from the staging of the play to interpretations of the play! Come on, man, pay attention; can't I at least expect that much from you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81959311996707067812010-07-04T10:31:07.086-04:002010-07-04T10:31:07.086-04:00Russ
I was poring through some old writing the ot...Russ<br /><br />I was poring through some old writing the other day and came across a one act play entitled "Trivia". It is a good device to demonstrate human arrogance.<br /><br />How can I get your email? I will send you the full-length that received official selection in the Performance Network's New Plays festival. It deals with the pretension of religion and failed theodicy.<br /><br />Let me know how I might get it to you. Your intelligence would make it better.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47567987693707097752010-07-04T10:27:01.686-04:002010-07-04T10:27:01.686-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60408515850656272212010-07-04T10:26:24.385-04:002010-07-04T10:26:24.385-04:00Now an answer to you Eric without profanity but ho...Now an answer to you Eric without profanity but hopefully it will help you step outside of your pretension and admit your ignorance on at least one subject.<br /><br />You said while quoting me, "Then how could you have written something as demonstrably ignorant of literary criticism as the following: "Hamlet can be played bound by Shakespeare's Five acts. It is not detrmined by culture or politics. It is what it is."<br /><br />I am not ignorant of literary criticism nor of the tortured attempts of multiple ideologues to imprint their narcissistic ideas on the good Bard's text but I said "played" not "interpreted". <br /><br />Show my how any of those literary criticisms impact the playing of Hamlet. If a theatre artist where to follow your lead Eric they would deny Hamlet's advice to the players.<br /><br />Hamlet is a FIve Act Tragedy written in Elizabethan Blank Verse using various metrical prosody where the hero dies because of his hubris. <br /><br />A marxist or a feminist or any other ideologue must start with that brute and observable fact.<br /><br />Hamlet is the same past, present, and future. There is no "open-Hamletism" nor evolving philosophical defenses that change the wrought nature of the text. <br /><br />Is their a Roman Catholic folio somewhere that offers a more insightful presentation?<br /><br />Your analogy stinks again. Theology may be analogous to literary criticism - especially post-modern criticism where an author's intent is subsumed to the critics (or theologian's) ego but the pondering of god in theology as real because the pondering of Hamlet in literary criticism makes the latter real is an ignorant argument.<br /><br />We can observe Hamlet in a fixed and objective form as his author intended. God is made up by those pondering his ineffability and is never objectively observed.<br /><br />My point stands Hamlet is Hamlet is Hamlet with one caveat, regardless of literary criticism the story stays the same.<br /><br />Not so with theology.<br /><br />It is institutionalized ad hoc fallacy acting as if it pursues honest scholarship, never acknowledging its conclusion is resolved before its scholarship is practiced.<br /><br />Go see a play Eric. I doubt any of the craftspeople involved will insist you say it is the greatest play you have ever seen and points to the ultimate truth of the universe. Your theology demands we surrender to both assertions.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20752176588059260332010-07-04T10:01:28.052-04:002010-07-04T10:01:28.052-04:00Eric my use of the language I chose exactly confor...Eric my use of the language I chose exactly conforms to the character you present.<br /><br />But as a blog administrator I will delete the posts where I drop the F bomb.<br /><br />Not only do you proof-text your way into seeming smart but when faced with an argument that renders your pretensions inert you cry mommy.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91802225324378394942010-07-04T09:25:21.032-04:002010-07-04T09:25:21.032-04:00Ryan I really like your parallelling of theology h...Ryan I really like your parallelling of theology heavyweights with Star Trek Trivia heavyweights. Albeit no metaphor should be overextended, what you said deserves a bit more explicit extrapolation. Your simple statement<br /><b><br />Same as being an heavyweight in Star Trek Trivia<br /></b><br />distills the pure concentrate of their common character: they are both trivia. Trivia in the exact sense of the merriam-webster definition -- unimportant matters: trivial facts or details; a quizzing game involving obscure facts[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trivia].<br /><br />The facts of one Christianity or any other religion are mere trivia to those outside it. This warrants some fleshing out, but I'm on the run right now.<br /><br />Chuck,<br /><i>Trivia</i> would be a great medium to underscore how every religion laughs at the meaningless jabbering on of others. <i>Trivia</i> could be your <i>Pygmalion</i> or <i>Death of a Salesman</i> or <i>The Crucible</i>.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84236449847881597462010-07-04T09:11:53.531-04:002010-07-04T09:11:53.531-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64190803245439220252010-07-04T09:10:33.685-04:002010-07-04T09:10:33.685-04:00Hi Eric
Imaginarium? I invoke it as pure persifla...Hi Eric<br />Imaginarium? I invoke it as pure persiflage, Eric, and of the light-hearted variety. In respect of the contemporary study of theology as a discipline it is presently racked with internal inconsistency and confusion within academia. Much of the current debate in universities and institutes of higher learning is whether theology requires a pre-commitment of faith by its practitioners, and whether such a commitment conflicts with academic freedom.<br /><br />So the question must be whether such an area of study can stand on its own robust foundation of veridical knowledge and as a discipline, be able to meet head-on, genuine and challenging critique, or whether the mythical, supernatural nature of theology precludes it as a veritable discipline. Perhaps it ought to be subsumed within the general ambit of history, as an historical overview of the range of human expression promulgating varying perspectives of worldviews matching contemporaneous society and their changes over time. <br /> You say, ...”[f]or example, does it mean that anything goes when reasoning about God because God doesn't exist? This clearly doesn't follow: Shakespeare's Hamlet is a fictional character, yet a ton of very serious scholarship has been written about him in which it's patently not the case that anything goes, since literary, historical, anthropological, philosophical, psychological and linguistic norms constrain our "imaginations." I say: Perhaps theology ought be a category of literature within which the bible, as a great and inspiring work of our forebears on the travails and wonderment of the human condition, would be properly suited. Under scrutiny of biblical scholars in recent times and of those not of the faith, the bible stories have shown to be a litany of errors, mistakes, misinterpretations, pseudepigrapha, and interpolations; and as such reflects the changing nature of the social, political and personal demands of the writers during their time.<br /><br />Some of the extensive and more insightful exposés, particularly of the new testament, have been the works of Dr Bart Erhman over the past twenty years. And as I understand it, he is an agnostic. Indeed, there are many non-believing biblical scholars, Dr Bob Price, Dr Hector Avalos, to name a very few, who would be precluded from the discipline of theology, should a pre-commintment of faith become an exclusionary criterion [that is, for none other than a ‘belief in a belief’ reason] for the study and/or practice of theology. <br />This would be an unwelcome and retrograde step, unbecoming of a genuine field of study.<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82894837168193769922010-07-04T06:51:29.150-04:002010-07-04T06:51:29.150-04:00Chuck, I don't think I need to say anything fu...Chuck, I don't think I need to say anything further on this subject; your comments speak for themselves. I am surprised they made it through comment moderation, though, given the generally high standards of this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com