Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?

Conservative Underground ^ | 2 February 2010 | Linda Kimball

[AndyTheBear]

Oh, I guess I should address Matthew 7:16 since you mentioned it, here is Matthew 7:15-23 from the NIV translation (please excuse the lousy formatting):

"Beware of the (L)false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are (M)ravenous wolves. 16"You will (N)know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So (O)every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19"(P)Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20"So then, you will know them (Q)by their fruits. 21"(R)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22"(S)Many will say to Me on (T)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (U)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

The emphasis added at the end is not mine. I just copied from Biblegateway.com.

Seems he was talking about people who called him "Lord, Lord" and who performed miracles in his name. People pretending to be Christian who really were not.

He gave a way for us to recognize the phony Christians. And you have identified it in those you have been choosing to call "Church Fathers". Certainly anyone who persecutes Jews is not following the will of the Father as Jesus taught it.

[EnderWiggins]

"You are using the word "portrayal" to mean two distinct things. Do you not see this?"

No. I do not. Please elaborate.

[AndyTheBear]

I elaborated in post 60, guess you haven’t read it yet.

[AndyTheBear]

Make that both 50 and 60. Did you read either post?

[EnderWiggins]

"Doesn't pan out does it? It sounds like you are trying to blame information morally. Sounds pretty stupid really."

Of course it doesn't. That is probably why I did not use the word "information." I am not equivocating, and I am not blaming some morally neutral, rhetoric free "information." I am blaming the Gospels for their intentional portrayal of the Jews.

Now... a moral relativist here (which I know you believe you are not) would frame this as a discussion of "ought" vs. "is." They would try and wash any moral culpability off the hands of the authors of the Gospels by asserting, "Hey. They were just reporting the facts, ma'am. That's not how it ought to have been, but simply how it really was. The Jews really were responsible for the killing of Christ after all. It's not the New Testament's fault that later generations of Christians would see that as a good reason to murder Jews."

And you know what? Such an argument might hold up were it not for two problems:

The first of these is that it cannot be taken seriously as a true account of the events surrounding the execution of Jesus. Crucifixion was a Roman sentence, imposed by Romans for violations of Roman law. It was imposed exclusively in two instances: as the preferred method of execution for slaves, or as punishment for sedition against Rome. The entire account of multiple trials in front of Jewish authorities and Pontius Pilates eventually "washing his hands" is historically absurd. We could spend entire other threads dissecting the social and political reasons for the Evangelist's mischaracterization of the relative culpability of the Romans vs. the Jews in the execution of Jesus, but I will let it rest with my conclusion, and you can take it or leave it. The "information" of which you speak is not true. It is a deliberate reflection of the personal anti-Semitism of the authors of the Gospels, and it is designed for specific rhetorical purposes.

The second problem is that if you believe that the Gospels actually are Divine Revelation and not the ordinary product of human artifice, then you must conclude (based on what I believe is your conception of God, correct me if I am wrong) that the subsequent history of Christian anti-Semitism was an intended consequence of the revelation. Such a conclusion is, frankly, the one that was unashamedly reached by so many of the Church fathers. They were not as shy as we are in our own politically correct zeitgeist to connect the dots that you find so uncomfortable to acknowledge. They wore their prejudice on their sleeves as a badge of devotion to Christ.

But in that instance, anti-Semitism could not considered immoral at all. If moral rules are delivered by God, then they are ultimately arbitrary. What God says goes, and we cannot question His decisions. And (you know this to be true) notorious anti-Semites such as Justin Martyr, Origen of Alexandria, John Chrysostom and Martin Luther were absolutely convinced that their anti-semitism was not merely moral, but actually good.

You tried to blame the Holocaust on "naturalistic moral systems" in general, "Darwinism" in particular. But I think it's pretty clear that, whatever the ultimate origin, Hitler's anti-Semitism did not arise spontaneously as a personal innovation of Hitler himself. It was instead an extension of ordinary and pandemic European ant-Semitism that preexisted his birth by two millennia and had been conducted all that time explicitly in a Christian framework as an integral part of Christian belief.

You have repeatedly tried to denigrate "naturalism" by falsely insisting that we have no basis for determining right from wrong. And you were quick (far too quick as we have seen) to leap on Nazism as an example of that. Alas, I know how uncomfortable it must be to be hoist on your own petard. Perhaps if nothing else, you will be less facile with your examples in the future.

But ultimately what good is a divine source of morality if even the true believers can do to the Jews what Christians did for 80 generation? Anti-Semitism never even managed to get a bad name within Christianity until Hitler slaughtered six million Jews and Christian Europe finally was shocked into introspection.

No my friend. I am not equivocating over two different meanings of the word "portrayal." I am instead making a deliberate and hard reasoned moral judgment. Something you inexplicably deny that I am capable of doing, and yet I do it anyway. Go figure.

When somebody believes, as you appear to believe, that morality is "what God says it is," then you have eliminated your personal judgment, humanity and humility from the equation. You have reduced yourself from a complete and competent moral actor into a tenth grader taking a cosmic SAT test where all you need to do is get enough answers right and then you can matriculate into salvation.

We are a social species. We have a natural tendency to follow leaders like sheep. This is something that contributes equally to both our great accomplishments such as the symphony orchestra or landing a man on the moon, and to our most horrific atrocities such as 9/11 or the Albigensian Crusade.

And yet we have on the ends of our brain stems 3 1/2 pounds of the most complex matter in the universe, allowing us to question the received "wisdom" of ancient gods and goddesses, and reach conclusions of our own.

Sometimes, we even get it right.

[AndyTheBear]

The entire account of multiple trials in front of Jewish authorities and Pontius Pilates eventually "washing his hands" is historically absurd...The "information" of which you speak is not true. It is a deliberate reflection of the personal anti-Semitism of the authors of the Gospels, and it is designed for specific rhetorical purposes.

No this was not your previous position. You knew I believed the gospel account as true, and were basing your argument upon what I had accepted. This you stated clearly.

Now in order to rationalize your world view as infallible (at least compared to a contemptible superstitious world view like mine...or the Jewish world view for that matter) you now have asserted a premise that we clearly did not agree to. And now you are angry and frustrated that anyone would dare disagree with this conspiracy theory of yours.

[EnderWiggins]

"No this was not your previous position. You knew I believed the gospel account as true, and were basing your argument upon what I had accepted. This you stated clearly."

And nothing has changed. I always knew you believed that the gospel account was true. That is how I knew it was the source of your personal portrayal of the Jews as being responsible for the death of Christ. Something you still resist admitting.

But I certainly never said that I believed it, and now you know both that I do not and whyI do not. I am not certain why that upsets you.

"Now in order to rationalize your world view as infallible (at least compared to a contemptible superstitious world view like mine...or the Jewish world view for that matter) you now have asserted a premise that we clearly did not agree to. And now you are angry and frustrated that anyone would dare disagree with this conspiracy theory of yours."

What are you on about?

Need I point out that I am not the one of us claiming access to infallibility. That is entirely the your franchise. And the words "contemptible superstition" has never before been a product of my keyboard.

Who did you say you were arguing with? Exactly?

[AndyTheBear]

From your post 44:

Whether you embrace it as true or not, you are the one that offered the portrayal of the Jews as "Christ Killers."

So then, I was implying your conspiracy theory while so doing?

Perhaps in the sense that St Paul went on this anti-sementic rant that needed future correction by more enlightened introspection (1 Corinthians 13, sorry for poor formating).

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing. 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[AndyTheBear]

Correction, I was quoting your post 48. Sorry for any confusion.

[EnderWiggins]

"So then, I was implying your conspiracy theory while so doing?"

What conspiracy theory is that?

"Perhaps in the sense that St Paul went on this anti-sementic rant that needed future correction by more enlightened introspection"

Ignoring that Paul never even met Jesus... where in that passage does he even mention the Jews? That's like posting a passage on horticulture and claiming it's evidence that the author played poker.

[AndyTheBear]

Ignoring that Paul never even met Jesus... where in that passage does he even mention the Jews? That's like posting a passage on horticulture and claiming it's evidence that the author played poker.

So you don't see an inconsistency between the passage and wanting retribution against Jews?

Also, you would identify some medieval anti-semite as a "Church Father" but not St Paul?

[AndyTheBear]

What conspiracy theory is that?

From your post 65:

...The "information" of which you speak is not true. It is a deliberate reflection of the personal anti-Semitism of the authors of the Gospels, and it is designed for specific rhetorical purposes.

As I recall two of four of these anti-Jew conspirators were Jews. But perhaps this information is also untrue? Its hard to tell how far conspiracies go sometimes.

[EnderWiggins]

"As I recall two of four of these anti-Jew conspirators were Jews. But perhaps this information is also untrue? Its hard to tell how far conspiracies go sometimes."

How could they have conspired together? They almost certainly didn't even know each other.

[AndyTheBear]

How could they have conspired together? They almost certainly didn't even know each other.

Good point. But don't let that keep your conspiracy theory down. You can think of some way they all came up with the same lie.

[EnderWiggins]

"Good point. But don't let that keep your conspiracy theory down. You can think of some way they all came up with the same lie."

You should be more specific with your terminology. In religions, it's not called "lies." It's called "dogma."

[AndyTheBear]

And the words "contemptible superstition" has never before been a product of my keyboard.

...

In religions, it's not called "lies." It's called "dogma."

[Pelham]

"How could they have conspired together? They almost certainly didn't even know each other"

They didn't know each other? Now that's news. John and Matthew were two of the Apostles. Mark was Peter's amanuensis. Luke was an historian and companion of Paul. He set out to record an accurate history of the remarkable events that had just occurred. He would have interviewed the eleven and any other witnesses he could find. It would be hard to imagine a scenario in which they didn't know each other, and know each other extremely well.

[Pelham]

“Ignoring that Paul never even met Jesus.”

Well except for that Damascus Road event.

[AndyTheBear]

Well yes I figured they likely knew each other too. But then I was not sure if Ender would accept that, because he has doubts about the veracity of the gospels, and I don't know how far they go.

At issue is his contention that the accounts leading up to Christ's crucifixion had falsehoods intended to encourage readers to be anti-Jewish. The context was that he proposed the Christianity was "both the proximate and ultimate cause" of the Jewish persecution in Europe, including the Holocaust carried out by the Nazis.

[AndyTheBear]

Well except for that Damascus Road event.

I didn't mention it, because he's a naturalist.