I thought I was browsing anonymously
You are. I can see you anyway.
Oh ok, so you were just abusing your administrator privileges.
There have been 20 items by Juliashmoolia (Search limited from 20-April 23)
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 09 September 2012 - 10:14 PM in Theology
I thought I was browsing anonymously
You are. I can see you anyway.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 09 September 2012 - 10:09 PM in Theology
PS. Hi Julia!
What the!!?? How do you know I'm reading this thread? I thought I was browsing anonymously
Well you're not now, are you?
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 09 September 2012 - 09:54 PM in Theology
PS. Hi Julia!
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 02 July 2012 - 05:26 PM in Archaeology, Biblical History & Textual Criticism
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 24 May 2012 - 11:25 PM in Apologetics
The trouble is that all children are "indoctrinated," whether the parents like it or not.
The single best predictor of a person's views, is their parents' views. And children are clever beggars: they aren't fooled by our pretenses of neutrality. They're very good at figuring out what we REALLY think, and then they go with that.
A believer raising their kids to "make up their own mind" will end up producing a believer; an atheist doing the same thing will end up producing an atheist. A hypocritical churchgoer will raise an unbeliever; and a superstitious person who attends no church will nevertheless raise a believer (in whatever). Perhaps not always, but usually.
And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence." (Arthur Schopenhauer, On Religion: A Dialogue)
The Bible says we are to indoctrinate our children - see Deuteronomy 6 and Proverbs 3 for instance. But far from producing psychological damage this is designed to help them! Nobody is forcing us to teach our kids nonsense; we can stick to sensible Bible principles.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 24 May 2012 - 11:05 PM in Apologetics
I want to know what 'indoctrination' is supposed to mean in this context.
As for 'forcing them to believe', that's an oxymoron. You can't force people to believe something.
In any case, the Christadelphian mantra has always been 'prove it for yourself, don't just take our word for it.'
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 24 May 2012 - 10:37 PM in Apologetics
I think it's wrong to label a child a 'christadelphian child',
How many times do people ever actually do this? Christadelphians are practically notorious for doing the opposite; you're typically not considered a Christadelphian until you're baptized, and we eschew infant baptism.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 24 May 2012 - 12:56 AM in Apologetics
I haven't looked deeply into his "outsider test," but it sounds like something Wittgenstein would have enjoyed: it presupposes some significant unknowns about how beliefs are formed--including atheistic beliefs. It's true that your parents believing something is the best predictor of your believing something, so if you equate "insider" with "raised in this belief," it clearly plays an important role.
... calling every Christian 'deluded' smacks of petulance and whining at the fact that his Outsider Test hasn't resulted in every Christian deconverting and thanking him for delivering them from obscurantist bondage.
But what exactly disposes a person to convert from anything to anything? Loftus is apparently presupposing that conversion to atheism always results from a coldly rational disposition to follow the evidence wherever it leads--but if that we the case, we wouldn't have phenomena like Bedson, who deconverts and then spends his life begging and pleading for his former associates to validate his deconversion by joining him. It wouldn't fully account for Dawkins, or Coyne, or their type, either: even if their atheism were purely rational, that wouldn't explain their evangelism. What prompts them (even assuming they're right) to take on the doomed cause of fighting ignorance and error? What makes them want to spread their views, instead of being content with their own rationality?
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 27 December 2011 - 03:22 AM in Apologetics
I don't want to assume or guess, which is why I'm asking. What makes you believe homosexual acts are morally wrong?
Because they're incompatible with the moral system I regard as valid.
Do you believe adultery is morally wrong, and if so on what basis?
In your opinion.I agree that such behaviour should have consequences.
But a punishment of death does not fit the crime.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 26 December 2011 - 07:38 PM in Apologetics
What is it that makes the stoning of an adulterer the morally right thing to do?
You mean 'stoning of adulterers.' Both parties were put to death, not just one.
What makes it the right thing to do?
Firstly the need for social cohesion, essential to the stability of ANE nomadic tribal communities (theft was outlawed for similar reasons, and still is today). Secondly the fact that marriage was intended to reflect the relationship between God and His people. Adultery (whether literal or figurative) violates this relationship and must therefore be punished.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 26 December 2011 - 07:34 PM in Apologetics
How do you guys feel about the fact that it was once just to stone [MEN AND WOMEN] to death for adultery?
How do you think we feel? I personally find the Law of Moses utterly abhorrent in many respects, including this one.
I honestly don’t know, hence my question. I half expected you to say that you thought there was nothing wrong with it at all!
But I agree with you.
I can’t help but wonder why he even bothered with it, seeing as he did away with it in the end anyway.If it were your wife that had been found guilty of adultery, would you have had any objections to her being stoned? Would you have seen it as just punishment?
I honestly don't know. It's easy to say 'No' with several thousand years of socio-cultural development and cultural conditioning on my side, but if I was a Bronze Age nomad who'd known nothing better it's more likely I would have considered this entirely fair.
Anyone who claims unequivocally that even if they'd been born and raised in pre-modern times they would still have upheld postmodern values is fooling themselves.
Ultimately though, regardless of what anyone then (or now) thought about it, it would ultimately have to be just, because it was given by God, right?
Does it trouble you that God commanded such abhorrent laws and that they were once considered just and right?
Julia, does it trouble you that the Law of Moses called the action of adultery to account, yet the law of Christ is more stringent (prohibits the thought?)
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 26 December 2011 - 07:31 PM in Apologetics
So what is it that makes you believe they are morally wrong?
That's a stupid question. Given I'm a Christadelphian, what do you think?
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 23 December 2011 - 03:17 PM in Apologetics
What about homosexual acts? Are they morally right or wrong?
As far as I am concerned, they are morally wrong. However, I believe secular governments are morally obligated to provide homosexuals with the same rights and privileges as all other citizens, and treat them equally under the law. In my view, secular governments have no right to outlaw homosexual acts.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 22 December 2011 - 08:47 PM in Apologetics
What makes the stoning of an adulterer the morally right thing to do back in OT times?
Just the fact that people decided it was morally right. What makes actions morally right today? We decide they are morally right. Tomorrow we may decide they are morally wrong, an then they will be morally wrong.Why did God command it?
To preserve social relations within the community.In your view is homosexuality morally right or wrong?
It's neither morally right nor wrong, any more than being autistic is morally right or wrong.How do you arrive at your conclusion?
By definition, morality judges actions, not psychological states.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 22 December 2011 - 05:25 PM in Apologetics
What is it that makes the stoning of an adulterer the morally right thing to do?
Whatever we decide. Since morality is completely subjective, there's no baseline for objective comparison. Morals are what we say they are, actions are moral or immoral according to what we decide at any point in time.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 22 December 2011 - 12:08 AM in Apologetics
Does it trouble you that God commanded such abhorrent laws and that they were once considered just and right?
Not as much as if would if these laws prohibited actions which were necessary for the preservation of life, altruistic, virtually unavoidable, or accidental. In Western countries it is typical for people to be imprisoned for years (even decades), simply for moving items from one room to another, even if these actions are altruistic. This seems grossly unjust to me, but the vast majority of people have no problem with it at all.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 22 December 2011 - 12:00 AM in Apologetics
Ultimately though, regardless of what anyone then (or now) thought about it, it would ultimately have to be just, because it was given by God, right?
That's certainly one view. Speaking personally, I'm not satisfied by the 'if God commanded it, it's OK by definition' argument. I don't believe the moral value of a command is derived entirely from its source. It must have reference to other factors.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 21 December 2011 - 09:22 PM in Apologetics
Does it trouble you that God commanded such abhorrent laws and that they were once considered just and right?
Not as much as if would if these laws prohibited actions which were necessary for the preservation of life, altruistic, virtually unavoidable, or accidental. In Western countries it is typical for people to be imprisoned for years (even decades), simply for moving items from one room to another, even if these actions are altruistic. This seems grossly unjust to me, but the vast majority of people have no problem with it at all.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 21 December 2011 - 07:59 PM in Apologetics
How do you guys feel about the fact that it was once just to stone [MEN AND WOMEN] to death for adultery?
How do you think we feel? I personally find the Law of Moses utterly abhorrent in many respects, including this one.
If it were your wife that had been found guilty of adultery, would you have had any objections to her being stoned? Would you have seen it as just punishment?
I honestly don't know. It's easy to say 'No' with several thousand years of socio-cultural development and cultural conditioning on my side, but if I was a Bronze Age nomad who'd known nothing better it's more likely I would have considered this entirely fair.
Anyone who claims unequivocally that even if they'd been born and raised in pre-modern times they would still have upheld postmodern values is fooling themselves.
Posted by Juliashmoolia on 21 December 2011 - 05:14 PM in Apologetics