Luther

[JonNC]

=raumzeitmc2;5674862]

And may God bless (and one day bring home) our Lutheran brethren!

And may God bless you, as well, and I pray for the day our communions are reconciled, but I will tell you this, were I to individually move into communion with the Bishop of Rome, it will be the result of guidance from the Holy Spirit, and in part the many informative, charitable Catholic posters I have found here. It will also be despite the harsh polemics on posts I have seen from a very few number of posters who practice a posting style I consider overtly divisive. There are probably many, however, who cannot look past it.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

And may God bless you, as well, and I pray for the day our communions are reconciled, but I will tell you this, were I to individually move into communion with the Bishop of Rome, it will be the result of guidance from the Holy Spirit, and in part the many informative, charitable Catholic posters I have found here. It will also be despite the harsh polemics on posts I have seen from a very few number of posters who practice a posting style I consider overtly divisive. There are probably many, however, who cannot look past it.

Jon

And you Jon are a wonderful example of how we should dialog!!
Keep up the good and charitable work.

When I see people dredging up the horrors of the past it reminds me of the “Middle East” quagmire of millenia old grudges that seemingly cannot be overcome.
Let all of us commit to letting such things lie in the past and begin anew, dialoging on the theological issues and not the “political” ones. This is the road to reconcilliation.

Peace
James

 

[yankee_doodle]

I would be fearful of being unjust were I to use that standard against you.

Jon

fair enough Jon & I appreciate your sincerity and charitable attitude. However, at the end of the day I’m debating the merits of theism (and I’m unwavering in my belief that religion is myth, a position that I doubt will win many fans on a religious web forum). In that I do try to remain on point; and avoid personalizing the discussion, but with many posters (though not all) the discussion usually deteriorates into a tit for tat. For example, some theist will say atheism leads to communism and tyranny (like we saw with the likes of Stalin); and sometimes I allow myself to foolishly get baited into a tit for tat (and bring up stuff like the inquisition).

Of course what I should say is atheism didn’t lead to communism, but rather communism imposed atheism (so there’s no logical nexus between the two). Indeed Adam Smith was a deist who rejected Christianity, some say agnostic even atheist given his close friendship with David Hume (but he was most likely a deist).

Some like like to toss Hitler in our face (as if there’s any solid indication what religion Hitler ascribed to). They forget that we know what religion his nemesis, Winston Churchill, was … agnostic.

Dealing with this sort of silly stuff, sometimes I make reactionary remarks; but as far as the substantive debate goes … I like how I’ve been doing.

 

[JonNC]

And you Jon are a wonderful example of how we should dialog!!
Keep up the good and charitable work.

When I see people dredging up the horrors of the past it reminds me of the “Middle East” quagmire of millenia old grudges that seemingly cannot be overcome.
**Let all of us commit to letting such things lie in the past and begin anew, dialoging on the theological issues and not the “political” ones. This is the road to reconcilliation. **

Peace
James

And peace also with you, James.
Without it appearing as a mutual admiration society, you are precisely one of those I had in mind when I wrote, *“and in part the many informative, charitable Catholic posters I have found here.” * You defend your faith with firmness and vigor, yet find a way to do so without being offensive or condescending. And I completely agree with what I bolded in your post. Well said.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=yankee_doodle;5679444]However, at the end of the day I’m debating the merits of theism (and I’m unwavering in my belief that religion is myth, a position that I doubt will win many fans on a religious web forum).

You certainly will not waver were I to compare you to all manner of villainous individuals, will you?
One may not always win fans, but one can win respect by offering a POV in a positive and respectful light. That doesn’t mean pulling punches, it means providing honest debate without polemics and condescension.

Dealing with this sort of silly stuff, sometimes I make reactionary remarks; but as far as the substantive debate goes … I like how I’ve been doing.

I only ask that you not presume that all theists debate in that manner.
Best wishes,
Jon

 

[yankee_doodle]

You certainly will not waver were I to compare you to all manner of villainous individuals, will you?

please elaborate?

One may not always win fans, but one can win respect by offering a POV in a positive and respectful light. That doesn’t mean pulling punches, it means providing honest debate without polemics and condescension.

I believe quite firmly, in most instances, I do exactly that. However, it is theists, IMO, who generally have an unreasonable demeanor.

A theist can only debate using logic to a certain point (because a well informed atheist who frames his or her arguments well should never have a problem winning a logical debate against a theist). Inevitably (and unfortunately) the theist will become cornered and nasty.

The atheist who understands Christianity, whose largely been there done that, but who formed an intellectual objection to its veracity … will rarely become Christian again. The Christian, who is deeply indoctrinated (and has shaped his or her life around their religion) will also not likely budge. They’ll never bother contemplating what the logical implications are of facts like the Egyptian mythological virgin birth story of Horus, which pre-dated Christianity, or the pre-Judaic Sumerian flood account that is virtually identical to its old testament offspring.

They will use rationalizations that under any other circumstances, to borrow a legal phrase, would be laughed out of court.

I don’t like making generalizations; but I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen these tactics used (to the point where I think this generalization is fair).

I only ask that you not presume that all theists debate in that manner.
Best wishes,
Jon

universal statements about classes of people are rarely logical, therefore I know not “all” theists debate in the same manner. However, most seem to (at least in my experience).

 

[JonNC]

please elaborate?

Were I to compare you to Stalin and Hitler, et al, because you are agnostic.
As I said, I would be fearful of being unjust if I did something like that.
Ex. George Tiller was a Lutheran, and while I don’t approve of the way he died, I also would not wish to be compared to him simply because we both share the label “Lutheran”.

Jon

 

[yankee_doodle]

Were I to compare you to Stalin and Hitler, et al, because you are agnostic.
As I said, I would be fearful of being unjust if I did something like that.
Ex. George Tiller was a Lutheran, and while I don’t approve of the way he died, I also would not wish to be compared to him simply because we both share the label “Lutheran”.

Jon

well yes of course, but I haven’t had anyone (that I can think of anyway) say something as patently illogical as Stalin was a non-theist, Stalin was a tyrant, therefore all non-theists are tyrants (logical fallacy at its best and easiest to identify). The implication usually is that godlessness leads to communism (or similarly tyrannical forms of government); or more subtle jabs like implying a nexus between atheism (or agnosticism) and socialism.

However, a proper reflection on history fleshes out this fallacy. Most of the enlightenment thinkers tended to lie somewhere in the obscure gray area between deism and agnosticism. This includes virtually every prominent founding father of this country, and the men whose theories lie behind modern market capitalism (like Adam Smith). Yes there have been some atheist, agnostic, and religion undermined tyrants in history; but many hero’s of western history were equally irreligious (like Winston Churchill).

The point is this nexus is fallacious (it’s both a red herring and ad hominem, not to mention false).