Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[DavidW]

Denying the relationship between Christianity and the fruits of the Christian civilization guided by Christian beliefs and values is like denying the relationship between the English language and Shakespeare.

There's an expression about "biting the hand that feeds you."

Arguing with a Christian tends to be like watching a Star Trek episode.  They are both filled with analogies and metaphor with little meaning behind them.

Hey notice that, I made an assertion and by completing it as an analogy, I made it seem like I made an argument, when actually I failed to provide any supporting reasoning whatsoever.  Certainly I felt clever in saying it, but I accomplished nothing but wasting your time.

[Florestan]

The first article is a clearly just an opinion piece without references on a website against revolution.  Hardly credible or interesting.

Have you read it? If no, you don't have any clue what's in it and your assessment is pure prejudice. If yes, feel free to refute it by rational discourse.

I'm not in the habit of judging articles by websites or references, I take them on their own merits (or lack thereof).

BTW, "Against revolution [whatever that would mean] bad, for revolution good" is a very poor way to present your case. Do radical secularists have the monopoly of truth?

But I would prefer you to actually make your case instead of throwing out links from the 5 seconds you took to do a google search.

Why would I reformulate arguments that I find expressed clearly by others? I don't claim any originality in holding the views I hold. Besides, the works of Pierre Duhem, Stanley Jaki and Robert Merton are classics by now.

[DavidW]

Have you read it? If no, you don't have any clue what's in it and your assessment is pure prejudice. If yes, feel free to refute it by rational discourse.

Yes I did read it, and that's why I won't immediately read the other one.

Why would I reformulate arguments that I find expressed clearly by others? I don't claim any originality in holding the views I hold.

It's a clever trick saying that you owe no explanation and I should provide my own against whatever you post.  That way you could simply take a few seconds to google more articles and then wait for me to waste large amounts of time reading and then criticizing then.  That is exactly what our Unrepentant Debussy fan does, and you are no different from him.

You made an assertion, if you care to back it up, then by all means do so.  Don't expect the rest of us to take what you say on good faith.

Besides, the works of Pierre Duhem, Stanley Jaki and Robert Merton are classics by now.

Uh yeah sure they are.

I'm not in the habit of judging articles by websites or references, I take them on their own merits (or lack thereof).

Well you should.  It's not at all snobbery.  Actual carefully researched work that can survive a referee process belong in journals and not oddball websites.  Articles that appear in the latter are closer to blog entries, especially your links in particular.
 

BTW, "Against revolution [whatever that would mean] bad, for revolution good" is a very poor way to present your case. Do radical secularists have the monopoly of truth?

It's not my words-- rae.org by their own title is The Revolution Against Evolution, I knew that you had not even read your own links!

[Florestan]

wait for me to waste large amounts of time

For good or for bad, one can at least find some ideas in my posts or in those articles, while they are conspicuously absent from your interventions, which instead abound in cheap irony and holier-than-thou attitude.

Why not sparing me any future reply, thus regaining your precious time?

[karlhenning]

I suspect you haven't read the articles I provided. You can do it
here and here

Thanks for these links, Andrei;  I will be a while reading them, but I am finding them illuminative already.

[Herman]

Denying the relationship between Christianity and the fruits of the Christian civilization guided by Christian beliefs and values is like denying the relationship between the English language and Shakespeare.

No one would do a thing like that. The only problem is this is 100% circular reasoning. You're basically saying nothing.

There's an expression about "biting the hand that feeds you."

Most of us are aware of that. Glad you are too.

You know what's so funny this morning I looked at the exchange between Drogulus and BWV, and it was an interesting, enquiring, informed dialogue. Amazing that as DOA a topic is this could spark such an exchange. And now, six hours later it's back to circular reasoning, frontloading the argument, funny images instead of arguments and foreshortening history to make it appear that the church is father to science, rather than its enemy, as has been shown throughout history. Priest are still telling third world people you'll get aids from condoms, to name one thing.

[Daidalos]

Arguing with a Christian tends to be like watching a Star Trek episode.  They are both filled with analogies and metaphor with little meaning behind them.

As a fervent Star Trek fan, I'm offended by this statement.

[karlhenning]

Arguing with a Christian tends to be like watching a Star Trek episode.  They are both filled with analogies and metaphor with little meaning behind them.

An analogy!  On whose meaning we may possibly disagree.  Bjorn certainly has 

. . . Certainly I felt clever in saying it . . . .

You did? 

[karlhenning]

The question of a waste of time is also conditioned by what one expects of the time, and what use one makes of that time, apart from the matter of prior expectations.

[karlhenning]

The distinctions between the Christian West and Muslim East are largely superficial.

That seems not to be Eric Snow's view in the article Andrei points us to.

[DavidRoss]

The distinctions between the Christian West and Muslim East are largely superficial. 

Naw...Steve didn't really say that, did he?  One powerful example of a difference is shown in the photo below of a woman in Iran being buried to the waist in preparation for being stoned to death after being accused of adultery.  IIRC, Christians stopped doing that even back when they were still Jews as a consequence of an explicit teaching by their Rabbi Jeshua.

[bwv 1080]

Naw...Steve didn't really say that, did he?  One powerful example of a difference is shown in the photo below of a woman in Iran being buried to the waist in preparation for being stoned to death after being accused of adultery.  IIRC, Christians stopped doing that even back when they were still Jews as a consequence of an explicit teaching by their Rabbi Jeshua.

(We have no photos of this thanks to the enlightenment)

The context of that statement was prior to the enlightenment the differences were superficial.  The West and the Middle East basically share the same cultural heritage

[bwv 1080]

That seems not to be Eric Snow's view in the article Andrei points us to.

As I said earlier, I am skeptical of these ex post narratives.  Certainly there are aspects of Medieval theology condusive to science, but I think the author downplays the diversity of thought in the Middle East and India.  Another important factor I would mention is the domination of political Islam after the 13th century by Turko-Mongol groups - think about if Attilla the Hun had completely conquered the world of Augustine then converted and become the Christian Emperor.   The whole East / West division prior to the enlightenment is too murky and complex to make simple pronouncements of cultural superiority.

[Florestan]

(We have no photos of this thanks to the enlightenment)

The difference between "Christians" stake-burning the "heretics" and Muslims stoning the adulterers is striking: the former acted against,  and at complete variance with, Christ's teachings and the New Testament while the latter acted (and still act) in agreement and in complete compliance with, Muhammad's teachings and the Quran.

[karlhenning]

In calling that difference "superficial," Steve is violating the letter of the Topic, but not the intent of the OP.

Still feeling the love, all around!

[Bulldog]

The difference between "Christians" stake-burning the "heretics" and Muslims stoning the adulterers is striking: the former acted against,  and at complete variance with, Christ's teachings and the New Testament while the latter acted (and still act) in agreement and in complete compliance with, Muhammad's teachings and the Quran.

There's also a striking similarity - barbaric treatment of the human body.

[Florestan]

There's also a striking similarity - barbaric treatment of the human body.

Barbaric treatment of a fellow human being would be more appropriate.

[bwv 1080]

The difference between "Christians" stake-burning the "heretics" and Muslims stoning the adulterers is striking: the former acted against,  and at complete variance with, Christ's teachings and the New Testament while the latter acted (and still act) in agreement and in complete compliance with, Muhammad's teachings and the Quran.

Prior to the at least the anabaptists every Christian community persecuted heretics with deadly force - are Christ's teachings that clear or is it the Enlightenment-tinged glasses with which they are viewed?

[Bulldog]

Barbaric treatment of a fellow human being would be more appropriate.

I don't have any problem with your comment above.  Still, I find it odd that you would try to justify one barbaric act over the other on religious grounds.

[Florestan]

I don't have any problem with your comment above.  Still, I find it odd that you would try to justify one barbaric act over the other on religious grounds.

Just where did I try to justify it, pray tell?