Stahrwe wrote:What errors?

Check out the section of this thread where we were discussing GKC. Scroll up to the top, and there might be more in the previous page.

http://www.booktalk.org/post138458.html ... KC#p138458

Interbane wrote:The same GKC that had several errors in as many paragraphs is known as the apostle of common sense? Somehow, this isn't surprising to me.

Interbane wrote:

GKC, Introduction wrote:As for the general view that the Church was
discredited by the War--they might as well say that the Ark was
discredited by the Flood. When the world goes wrong, it proves rather
that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her
children do not sin, but because they do.

I enjoy the metaphorical language GKC uses, but it lends itself more to fiction than nonfiction. The above quote has a flaw as well. Is the Church truly "proven" right when the world goes wrong? Does it prove that sin is real? No, it doesn't. There are alternative explanations to a metaphysical force of evil-making that are far more practical and fit much better with surrounding knowledge. Even if you disagree with these alternative explanations, they exist. The world going wrong does not select between the explanations at all, let alone enough to prove Christianity is correct. This is a critical flaw as well.

I wouldn't mind examining GKC's book in detail, though I might get bored with it partway through. This perhaps isn't the thread for it. Yet maybe it is, since the topic deals with Gnostic Christianity.

Interbane,

What do you suppose the reason for your boredom would be?
The Everlasting Man was written in response to A Short History of the World by H. G. Wells. Do you suppose the Wells book would bore you too?

Your claim that statements were errors, or even flaws in incorrect.
Within the context of Christianity, Chesterton is correct.
Furthermore, you cite material from the INTRODUCTION. Normally material in the introduction is introduced there then supporting material is presented in the main text. To be fair you should read the entire book.

Oh, and it might surprise you to be told that Chesterton and Wells were friends dispite their diametrically opposed views on religion and marriage, among other things.

Stahrwe wrote:Your claim that statements were errors, or even flaws in incorrect.
Within the context of Christianity, Chesterton is correct.

The flaws I found were flaws of reasoning. How could they be correct within Christianity, yet nowhere else, unless Christianity abandons logic? Respond within that thread to GKC's errors so we don't derail this one.

Stahrwe wrote:What do you suppose the reason for your boredom would be?

I would get quickly bored with fiction posing as nonfiction. Not to say that the majority wouldn't be factually correct and true, but it's the peppering of errors that misdirects the entire thrust that would get under my skin.

Stahrwe,

Your entire defense of Christianity appears to be finding out what kinds of things its critics bring up--mythology, biblical errors, astrotheology, etc.--and pronounce them all bunk. It takes a bit more work than that. I commend you for even bothering to find out what Christianity's critics advance for their arguments but you demonstrate not the tiniest inclination to actually evaluate them. You learn what they are so as not to appear ignorant of them so your wholesale denial of anything critical of Christianity doesn't look quite so half-assed. But you are ignorant of them because you have a built-in filter that automatically denies them regardless of what they have to say.

Most of the Christianity's detractors are not members of other religions. The vast majority of us were people raised in the Christian milieu, many of us went to church and read the bible and believed it because we were taught to. But somewhere along the line, we had questions and nothing but "Virginia, your little friends are wrong..." type answers and that is NOT enough. Eventually, it becomes clear, the Christian religion is a house of cards and those who understand the religion least of all are those who proclaim themselves its most ardent followers.

As for my getting the Christian scheme of salvation wrong, I would like to think we could at least agree that Christians themselves do not agree on this scheme of salvation. I've run into dozens who believe in the Rapture and say it is foretold in Revelation. When I tell them that the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians, I get, "Well, it's there AND in Revelation!" No, it isn't. This is nothing more than "cut-and-paste" Christianity--make up your own. So, really, how can I get the Christian scheme of salvation wrong when no two Christians truly agree on what it is?

Compare the gospels. What are Jesus's final words? Who carried his cross to Golgotha? Was the Last Supper the Passover meal or the meal before the Passover? If the gospel-writers can't agree, how are Christians born centuries later to resolve the contradictions but only gloss over them into perpetuity?

Astro-theology offers the Christian the only true salvation as it is offered to all of us. I think the worst thing about Christianity is its exclusivity--"We're going to heaven, but you're not!" Not that I believe in heaven but that doesn't excuse the holier-than-thou attitude. If there is a salvation, there MUST necessarily be more than one path to it and it must be accessible to ALL. And there must by necessity be more than one false path. And I would guess that the path that has the sign hanging over it that reads: THE ONE TRUE AND ONLY PATH TO SALVATION is very unlikely to be telling the truth.

Interbane, you might consider taking a course in logic or argument, or at least read a book on the subject.

My point was that within the assumptions of Christianity, Chesterton is correct.
Your response fails on two points.
1) millions of people for thousands of years have accepted what Chesterton wrote.
2) Your comment is wrong and flawed from the Christian perspective. The reverse of your statement shows the issue, "How can Interbane's statement be true for atheists but false for [Christians]?"


I respond where the question is posed. If you, as a moderator, wish to move it feel free to do so but I suggest you move your post as well.

DB Roy,

I have investigated many challenges to Christianity including Astrotheology. I was a participant briefly on the forum set up by D.M. Murdock (the self anointed Acharya S.) until I was banned for challenging their material. My criticisms were not directed to their doctrine but showing that their posts were factually wrong.

I bought some of Murdock's books including Christ in Egypt. I intended to go through her material and point out its errors but I found the task overwhelming. I would have had to reproduce the book with comments on nearly every paragraph. But the discovery which finally persuaded me to abandon the project was the discovery that it is understood that a MAJOR impediment to scientific progress had been the ancient doctrine of THE GREAT YEAR. When that cyclical philosophy was abandoned science took off.

Stahrwe wrote:I bought some of Murdock's books including Christ in Egypt.

i have that one, it's excellent!

Kenneth Feder wrote:"Read her book. Criticize it if you believe it deserves criticism. But to dismiss it or get apoplectic about her thesis simply because it shocks you is plainly foolish."

Kenneth Feder, PhD
Professor of Archaeology, Central Connecticut State University
Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience In Archaeology

On the other thread on this topic, more precisely in the linked article there, the author even resorts to Occam's razor.
A slight problem for cold reason is that Occam's razor is again used in a classically erroneous way... what most of the time is missed in such uses of it is that the choices have to be equal in many respects.
Slightly on the side, one marvels how consistently an apparent "rational" process makes either fundamental reasoning mistakes in the same way, or at best leaves out essential parts of a principle depending on what suits the agenda best...