The Pagan Christ (page 4)

PSacramento

Where did I say I accepted the existance of Socrates, the example you gave? But let's assume Jesus did exist. Since at best the only things we know about him are internally inconsistent documents of unconfirmed authorship (and we know quite a bit about the authors of the info we have Socrates, so he actually has more credible writings) based on hearsay from no earlier than 30 years after the fact, it seems like telling others how to live, taking lives and forming governments based on that is, to say the least, suspect.

I assumed we were speaking on general terms, my bad.

Whiel I see your point, and it is a valid one, I am not sure what you mean by unconfirmed authorship? Paul was a historical figure and So was Luke, the Apostolic Fathers that came after were also confirmed figures.

Socrates teachings about morals and ethics are with us to this very day and do indeed infulence us and governments - morals and ethics.

Facts are one sided?

Let me rephrase that, to mention where the CHurch opressed science and to NOT mention where the church supported it, is one sided.

Better?

notverylikely

Paul was a historical figure and So was Luke, the Apostolic Fathers that came after were also confirmed figures.

Totally agreed, but there are zero contemporary eyewitness accounts. The author of Luke (no one is sure if it even was Luke) freely admits the entire gospel is hearsay.

Socrates teachings about morals and ethics are with us to this very day and do indeed infulence us and governments - morals and ethics.

Who goes to war in the name of Socrates? I only ask because Hammurabi's, Zoroaster's and Muslim ideas influence our lives every day. Yet we don't dictate how others live their lives and what they can think based on that.

Let me rephrase that, to mention where the CHurch opressed science and to NOT mention where the church supported it, is one sided.

Can you cite some examples? I can't think of any, so if you know of some and they check out, I will FREELY accept them.

People sometimes say I am contrary, when the reality is, I am fact driven. When my ideas don't match with the facts, my ideas change. That's not to say I fall prey to scientism, I love debate about idea and how to do things, but when I assert something as true or as close to true as we can know, I generally try to back it up with facts and challenge others to do the same.

Little story about change my ideas....a few years ago I was researching a subject about which I had long ago written some published papers and articles on. I had worked on that subject in years and had to re-visit it for some reason and was doing some research to refresh my familiarity with the subject. I came across one paper and as I was reading it, I kept wondering what lackwit moron wrote that childish, simplistic crap. When I got to the end and looked the author....it was me that wrote it. It was an early paper I had written and it was very simplistic. My later papers were much more correct because I had learned more. Hopefully one day I will come across something I forgot I wrote and wonder what genius wrote that and then discover it was me.

PSacramento

Can you cite some examples? I can't think of any, so if you know of some and they check out, I will FREELY accept them.\

A place to start:

http://www.faith.org.uk/Publications/Magazines/Jul08/Jul08TheChurchsSupportOfScience.html

And as one example:

Pope Pius XII supported Darwin and Evolution,

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.

PSacramento

The church has done soem serious crap it needs to answer for, not much gray area there, but in our zeal to prosecute it for what it deserves to be prosecuted for, lets us not forget ALL the good it has done too.

PSacramento

Oh, here too by the way:

http://www.defendingthebride.com/pp/sc3/

notverylikely

Dude...really? The page you linked....the very first part says "Thus modern science is built on Christian foundations, and this explains why there was no science as we know it in any of the ancient civilisations of antiquity."

That right there completely taints any "facts" the author might wish to convey.

This line..."Although he could not prove it, he became convinced that the earth moves around the sun, and that consequently the general belief, following Aristotle, in a central earth is wrong." Utter BS, he did prove it.

Although the example you cited are accurate. Good catch.

PSacramento

Notverylikely,

Those were the two fist sites that came up and whiel I don't agree with the premise behend what they said, the facts are that the church DID support and was in favour of religion.

Which should make us ask WTF happened ??

Of course pope JP 2 was also a supporter of evolution.

There were and still are many "priest-scientists".

poopsiecakes

I hope neither of you are getting upset, because I'm enjoying this debate immensely!!

Meeting Junkie No More

Poopsiecakes - love that emoticon!! LOL!

Um...about the book....it was a good read and a quick one too, as I recall. Pretty simple. I read that book a long time ago and a ton of stuff since so as far back as that one was, I don't seem to have too much recollection of my reaction to it. I think you will enjoy it - I seem to remember Harpur's style of writing is pretty likable.

I'm not at home right now to leaf through it to refresh my memory and I must have about 2000 religious books of every description in my home library some of which I would definitely recommend - I should put together a list of the ones I think are REALLY REALLY GOOD - maybe I'll get to that this weekend and post next week... none of all that is particulary helpful, I guess...!

notverylikely

Which should make us ask WTF happened ??

People.

The Pagan Christ

Share this