SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: 2MAR$ who wrote (16452)2/29/2004 9:03:35 PM
From: briskit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 28931
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Solon's point is exactly that the gospels are myths and only (by way of interpretation) idiots are Christians for believing them. We may wish to follow the ideas of love, that God is love, etc., and call ourselves Christians. We can and should hold to what is evidently caring and nurturing of the planet. That's fine. The earliest Christians, however, said other stuff as well. Paul, a late convert to Christianity, says that if the resurrection did not in fact happen, then Christians are the greatest of fools and are wasting their time. I agree, in fact. (It would be better to hold to the latest or oldest philosophies, be cool, tolerant, and get along.) I believe that point is what has been asserted here. Solon's point is that the resurrection cannot be proven historically, therefore did not, in fact, cannot possibly, happen. It cannot have happened even if it did, because we know that kind of thing does not happen. To believe in it on the basis of the materials attesting to it is foolishness, because those stories are all pure myth and have no basis in reality. (We'll get to the credibility of UFOs later.) But that is part of the claim of Judeo-Christianity which distinguishes it from other religions and philosophies: God participates in history, and not mythologically. This historical connection to our experience of reality is a valuable piece of information about God. This is the very point that is being rejected. So in light of that we need to know something about literary criticism, mythology, and historical affirmations of millenia past. For the most part I am arguing against the dismantling of Christianity on the basis of the "mythological dismantling" of its viability. It sounds like you are saying that that argument should not dismantle faith or beliefs, but that is the attempt. We'll see where it goes. Right now we are working on UFOs and the lessons they imparted to the Galileans. Go figure.