You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #67: While we may honestly disagree [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
Thats my opinion Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-23-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. While we may honestly disagree
I respect the way you handle these disagreements. You have never really attacked my rationality while your critique has often been fierce. I can handle that. But there are a half dozen old hands here with a very different agenda. They do not want religion discussed at all, except to condemn it. Their vocation is to bash religion. When a poster reported that a religion man showed up to protest an execution, the response was that this sort of thing had no place on r/t and the poster should go elsewhere,.

This is why r/t is held in such low regard by most DUers who won't even bother to post or respond here. I decided to do what I could to alter that approach, and I have the scars to prove it.

To your answer. I listen to it realizing that it is a rational response. Of course I come at things very differently as my answers to your questions suggest.

The main critique is that I employ the NTS fallacy. The implication is that I speak for all religious thought and that those who do not agree with my thesis are therefor not real Christians--only those who believe as I do. Carried to this conclusion would mean that here can be no internal debate in anything where anybody held that their view was authentic, assuming others were not. Thus the end of any dialogic process of firmly held propositions. I am in no position to judge whether someone else is or is not not a Christian, or a historian, or a scientist or an politician. I hold what I do about the heart of Christianity as compassion for all. This is common proposition of liberal scholars and religious historians throughout the world. I am a member of the Jesus Seminar, and that is what Marcus Borg proposed in his book, "The Heart of Christianity." You NTS comment strikes me as a debater's rhetorical ploy that is intended to sidetrack what I really have to say.

I just flatly disagree that my 3 is epistemological mush. It is a deeply thought out perspective on Biblical literature that has been solid for a long long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC