ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th October 2020, 09:46 PM   #41
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,746
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Fundamentalism was a reaction to modern interpretations of the Bible, amongst other things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundam...m#Christianity
Christian fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines, in reaction against Modernist theology.[12] The term was originally coined by its supporters to describe what they claimed were five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, and that developed into a Christian fundamentalist movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century.[13] Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910 to 1920. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism.

The Inquisition was responsible for stopping witch hunting. They were skeptical about witchcraft, so tried to put an end to witch trials. According to the Wiki article on the Inquisition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition#Witch-trials
While belief in witchcraft, and persecutions directed at or excused by it, were widespread in pre-Christian Europe, and reflected in Germanic law, the influence of the Church in the early medieval era resulted in the revocation of these laws in many places, bringing an end to traditional pagan witch hunts.[25] Throughout the medieval era mainstream Christian teaching had denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it as pagan superstition.
I recommend Tim O'Neill's excellent blog "History for Atheists": https://historyforatheists.com/
It is just laughable that the Inquisition was responsible for stopping witch hunting when they were killing people who taught Deism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition#Witch-trials
Quote:
The last execution of the Inquisition was in Spain in 1826.[52] This was the execution by garroting of the school teacher Cayetano Ripoll for purportedly teaching Deism in his school.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:01 PM   #42
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,376
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post

So the question must be asked: "If you identify as a Christian and hold the scripture of that religion aloft as justification for belief, how much can you dispense with and still call yourself a Christian."
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
And how do you determine whether the answer is correct or not?
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I don't know if there is a "correct" answer to this question, but I think we have a reasonable expectation it we crave some consistency.
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Do you really really expect there to be consistency in religious belief??? Really?

How you can miss the point in such a spectacular way is beyond my comprehension.

I am making an argument about the authenticity of a belief label, when the description of that belief is changed so dramatically. Got it?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:07 PM   #43
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,376
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
It is just laughable that the Inquisition was responsible for stopping witch hunting when they were killing people who taught Deism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition#Witch-trials

Laughable indeed:

Exodus 22:18
King James Version
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.


A pagan thing? Yeh right.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:44 PM   #44
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,767
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Laughable indeed:

Exodus 22:18
King James Version
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.


A pagan thing? Yeh right.
To be fair I think the consensus of biblical scholars is that is a mistranslation influenced, caused or favoured by King James himself.

From (as an example): https://ladykira1.wordpress.com/2013...witch-to-live/
Quote:
In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m’khashepah to describe the person who should be killed.

The word means a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others – e.g. causing their death or loss of property.
Thus only the Wicked Which of the West gets offed. The ones from the other cardinal points get a pass.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:01 PM   #45
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
How you can miss the point in such a spectacular way is beyond my comprehension.

I am making an argument about the authenticity of a belief label, when the description of that belief is changed so dramatically. Got it?
It still runs into the problem I identified: how do you evaluate what is "authentic" or not? I mean, who evaluates that logic???

Here is an example. Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE and became a Christian based on the words of the Bible, wrote the following in his First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them
Based on that: since I know my atheist friend Thor 2 is a good man, he can legitimately identify as a "Christian", according to Christians like Justin Martyr.

So to answer your question: you can dispense with all the Bible and still call yourself a Christian, according to that logic.

What do you think? Does that logic fly?
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:17 PM   #46
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,746
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Laughable indeed:

Exodus 22:18
King James Version
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.


A pagan thing? Yeh right.
It is most disturbing that Christians were killing even those who also believed in God.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:21 AM   #47
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,767
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
It still runs into the problem I identified: how do you evaluate what is "authentic" or not? I mean, who evaluates that logic???

Here is an example. Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE and became a Christian based on the words of the Bible, wrote the following in his First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them
Based on that: since I know my atheist friend Thor 2 is a good man, he can legitimately identify as a "Christian", according to Christians like Justin Martyr.

So to answer your question: you can dispense with all the Bible and still call yourself a Christian, according to that logic.

What do you think? Does that logic fly?
Well, obviously, Justin Martyr was not a True Christian.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:13 AM   #48
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,746
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
It still runs into the problem I identified: how do you evaluate what is "authentic" or not? I mean, who evaluates that logic???

Here is an example. Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE and became a Christian based on the words of the Bible, wrote the following in his First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them
Based on that: since I know my atheist friend Thor 2 is a good man, he can legitimately identify as a "Christian", according to Christians like Justin Martyr.

So to answer your question: you can dispense with all the Bible and still call yourself a Christian, according to that logic.

What do you think? Does that logic fly?
It is not logical at all for those who do not believe in Christ to be called Christians.

After all, you yourself have admitted that you are not a Christian but a theist.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:02 AM   #49
Finster
Graduate Poster
 
Finster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,066
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
It still runs into the problem I identified: how do you evaluate what is "authentic" or not? I mean, who evaluates that logic???

Here is an example. Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE and became a Christian based on the words of the Bible, wrote the following in his First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them
Based on that: since I know my atheist friend Thor 2 is a good man, he can legitimately identify as a "Christian", according to Christians like Justin Martyr.

So to answer your question: you can dispense with all the Bible and still call yourself a Christian, according to that logic.

What do you think? Does that logic fly?

So what is the point of using the word Christian at all?

If Christian can mean anything you want it to mean, is doesn’t really mean anything and is not of any particular use as a description.
__________________
"You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count." - WtP
Finster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.