Root Of All Evil on Network 2 7pm 5/01/09

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Haggard was the president of the National Association of Evangelicals from 2003 up to the time when he had to resign. Whether or not they're right to do so, I think a lot of people find it difficult to disentangle Haggard's own personal dishonesty from the religion he believed guided his actions.

Haggard was a liar and a hyocrite, but it would be totally false to suggest that he, or anybody else, believed that God guided his actions when he was sinning.

philologos

robindch: Yes, but I ask you this. What evidence do you have that this is common Christian behaviour or that this is the behaviour encouraged by Christianity as in the source document the Biblical text? Otherwise, I can't possibly see it as an argument against Christianity. I don't follow Ted Haggard, I follow Jesus of Nazareth.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

robindch: Yes, but I ask you this. What evidence do you have that this is common Christian behaviour or that this is the behaviour encouraged by Christianity as in the source document the Biblical text? Otherwise, I can't possibly see it as an argument against Christianity. I don't follow Ted Haggard, I follow Jesus of Nazareth.

I've no doubt that if some leader of some organisation was an atheist, and he commited equivalent acts, a lot of religious people would be saying that's typical of atheists, typical of a life without God; that they wouldn't expect much better. I'm not saying you'd say this personally of course. So, atheists have the right to do likewise when a scandal emerges from a religious organisation.

Ruskie4Rent

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've no doubt that if some leader of some organisation was an atheist, and he commited equivalent acts, a lot of religious people would be saying that's typical of atheists, typical of a life without God; that they wouldn't expect much better. I'm not saying you'd say this personally of course. So, atheists have the right to do likewise when a scandal emerges from a religious organisation.

It doesn't make it right.

The only criticism you can lay at the feet of his followers is that they were fools for putting this moron on a pedestal.

Ruskie4Rent

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

It doesn't make it right.

The only criticism you can lay at the feet of his followers is that they were fools for putting this moron on a pedestal.

Yah, I know. Of course you're right. I don't personally criticise any Evangelical (Apart from the fact that I think the fundamentalists beliefs are completely and utterly arseways; which is true of most fundamentalists I suppose) over Ted Haggard; sure it had nothing to do with them. His actions were his, and his alone.

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've no doubt that if some leader of some organisation was an atheist, and he commited equivalent acts, a lot of religious people would be saying that's typical of atheists, typical of a life without God; that they wouldn't expect much better. I'm not saying you'd say this personally of course. So, atheists have the right to do likewise when a scandal emerges from a religious organisation.

We aren't discussing rights here. Yes, religious people may make reference to atheists in terms of taking a single person or a minority group and applying it to the majority. Likewise atheists may do the same, and they may have the "right" to do so.

However, does that make the point any more valid. Quite frankly, I'd say no, it doesn't.

UU

Oh haha RTÉ actually showed it I thought it would be too unorthodox for them but it figures.

I did like the programme but I find Dawkins to be a bit too scientific (and yes I know he's a biologist and all) but there's more to life than living by scientific principals. I'm all for thinking outside the box. I think he makes a much better scientist than an atheist to be frank. I really liked his programme on Charles Darwin that was very good!

stevejazzx

Jakkass wrote: »

robindch: Yes, but I ask you this. What evidence do you have that this is common Christian behaviour or that this is the behaviour encouraged by Christianity as in the source document the Biblical text? Otherwise, I can't possibly see it as an argument against Christianity. I don't follow Ted Haggard, I follow Jesus of Nazareth.

There are quite a lot of 'Haggards' though and not just regular Joes but, typically, heads of churches etc. It's as if the very institutionalistion of the whole thing creates this tendancy for self deception and corruption. After all, with common parishioners looking for a steady hand to explain the criticisms of their faith one might develop a willingness to overcompensate.
This is commonly the case with beliefs that have no scientific or testable basis; people will profess an utterly profound belief and knowledge of things unknown, indeed unknowable, as a measure of compensating for or overcoming the shortfall of proper evidence. Haggrad is just one of the many religous nut cases who found himself in such a position doing exactly that and every time I hear someone swearing that something was a miracle etc. I tihnk exactly the same thing.

The Mad Hatter

UU wrote: »

Oh haha RTÉ actually showed it I thought it would be too unorthodox for them but it figures.

Figures would be their motivation, I think.

Valmont

MatthewVII wrote: »

The argument isn't entirely that religiosity or atheism causes evil, it's that religiosity causes small-mindedness and a propensity to ignore common sense, a result of which is the evil that ensues from Muslim extremists, terrible domestic policy and suppression of basic human rights.

My thoughts exactly.

Rev. Kitchen

Jakkass wrote: »

And how is Ted Haggard's deception in any way representative of the Christian cause as a whole, or even Evangelical Christianity?

People are dishonest, and have been for millennia irrespective of their religious dispositions.

And how is what i said anything to do with your responce ???

I just find it amuzing when someone puts themselves up as a leader of people of certain values and then it turns out he doesnt practice what he preaches, i would find it just as amuzing if the grand dragon of the KKK was found to have a secret black girlfriend.

philologos

Rev. Kitchen wrote: »

And how is what i said anything to do with your responce ???

I just find it amuzing when someone puts themselves up as a leader of people of certain values and then it turns out he doesnt practice what he preaches, i would find it just as amuzing if the grand dragon of the KKK was found to have a secret black girlfriend.

People make mistakes irrespective of their religious disposition. However I would be interested to know whether this incident took place before or after he became a Christian? If it is the latter I can't see how it is relevant. Christians come to Christianity after having made mistakes previously.

robindch

Rev. Kitchen wrote: »

i would find it just as amuzing if the grand dragon of the KKK was found to have a secret black girlfriend.

Hope I'm not godwinning myself here, but Eva Braun wasn't the most Aryan chick around -- she was a brunette and had to bleach her hair, while both Göring(*) and Hitler had, well, non-blond hair also. Bit embarrassing that.

(*) Just found out that the mother of Göring's wife was a Beamish, of Beamish and Crawford fame. Gosh.

ChocolateSauce

I personally love Dawkins, and I find his arrogance one of his better qualities. He is sure he is right (and I'm sure he is right), so why not be arrogant? Although I admit even I sometimes don't like his tone, what he actually says is fool proof, and sometimes what you say is more important than how you say it.

Sometimes the best way to make your point is to make your opponent feel stupid. Everyone has at some point in their life been made to feel stupid over something they were wrong about, and while they of course felt bad about it, in the long run they are better for it.

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

Hope I'm not godwinning myself here, but Eva Braun wasn't the most Aryan chick around -- she was a brunette and had to bleach her hair, while both Göring(*) and Hitler had, well, non-blond hair also. Bit embarrassing that.

(*) Just found out that the mother of Göring's wife was a Beamish, of Beamish and Crawford fame. Gosh.

Yeah, I always wondered if Hitler's whole Aryan thing was born from self-hate.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

People make mistakes irrespective of their religious disposition. However I would be interested to know whether this incident took place before or after he became a Christian? If it is the latter

During his leadership and a campaign against gay marriage he was paying a male escort for sex, over a period of years. He used to 'reach out' to gay men in bars. However many were for a long period confused as to what kind of reaching Ted was doing......quite possibly Ted amongst them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

Rights of christians more important than the rights of a state? How incredibly self-centred of you. According to your beliefs, when you die you will go somewhere that man-made rules can have no hold on you. As long as you're here, a nation will last far longer than you will and it has to cater for everyone, not just what you think is right.

If god exists in the capacity that you says he does, he doesn't care whether a country is run by his rulings, just that people obey his laws in their own ways. A state has to have a much broader view of things and has to take into account the outlandish possibility that people are mortal and that it's a state's duty to improve life on earth for them.

Wow, you really have misunderstood me dreadfully.

I am talking about the developments of modern democratic ideology in 17th and 18th century Europe. Most of it took place in Protestant countries. Everyone was assumed to be Christian, so it was argued that they could not be legitimately subordinated to the state's purposes because their rights were eternal.

This was easily secularised, so now we are blessed with an ideology that states that we have rights that the state cannot overrule at its convenience. We owe that to our Christian heritage, whether we believe in its basis or not.

I don't see how it could be used to justify not improving life on earth, or standard of living. I would certainly not advocate that.

Dades wrote: »

Your take implies that Protestantism have a positive influence on the development of Human Rights (which I'm not going to argue with today), whereas the original quote suggests that Human Rights would not exist without it, which assumes far too much.

I concede that my claim that rights wouldn't be respected at all was indeed jumping the gun. What I really should have said was what PDN explained anyway. :pac:

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yah, I know. Of course you're right. I don't personally criticise any Evangelical (Apart from the fact that I think the fundamentalists beliefs are completely and utterly arseways; which is true of most fundamentalists I suppose) over Ted Haggard; sure it had nothing to do with them. His actions were his, and his alone.

Well, evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different movements within Christianity.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I personally love Dawkins, and I find his arrogance one of his better qualities. He is sure he is right (and I'm sure he is right), so why not be arrogant? Although I admit even I sometimes don't like his tone, what he actually says is fool proof, and sometimes what you say is more important than how you say it.

Fair enough, except that he isn't very convincing to people who don't agree with him already.

Rev. Kitchen

Húrin wrote: »

Fair enough, except that he isn't very convincing to people who don't agree with him already.

I guess he doesnt need to be, the people that dont agree with him will never agree with him no matter how convincing he is, If people are given all the facts and still choose not to believe it then no amount of documentaries will change there mind no matter how good or bad the presenter is.

When asked about this himself he quoted the editor of new scientist "Sciene is interesting if you dont agree you can **** off"

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

Wow, you really have misunderstood me dreadfully.

I am talking about the developments of modern democratic ideology in 17th and 18th century Europe. Most of it took place in Protestant countries. Everyone was assumed to be Christian, so it was argued that they could not be legitimately subordinated to the state's purposes because their rights were eternal.

Apologies for the misunderstanding. It sounded like you believe christians deserve special rights above others.

Tim Robbins

Húrin wrote: »

Wow, you really have misunderstood me dreadfully.

I am talking about the developments of modern democratic ideology in 17th and 18th century Europe. Most of it took place in Protestant countries. Everyone was assumed to be Christian, so it was argued that they could not be legitimately subordinated to the state's purposes because their rights were eternal.

Why not go back to the origin of democracy itself? Ancient Greece when no Christianity was even required.

As for the Protestant concept of democracy, you're forgetting your own History. Ever here of the Penal laws?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Why not go back to the origin of democracy itself? Ancient Greece when no Christianity was even required.

As for the Protestant concept of democracy, you're forgetting your own History. Ever here of the Penal laws?

I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it.

The Penal laws were due to the same flaws in 17th & 18th Protestant English democracy as existed in Ancient Greece's democracy. They failed to extend the concept of democracy to what were seen as subservient or lesser peoples. (Just google 'Aristotle' and 'slavery')

BTW, the Penal Laws were a manifestation of Anglicanism rather than Protestantism. The Protestants who were the closest to European Reformation theology (eg Presbyterians) were, like Catholics, subject to discrimination.

AtomicHorror

Húrin wrote: »

Fair enough, except that he isn't very convincing to people who don't agree with him already.

I don't know about that. I know a number of ambiguously religious people who find him both charismatic and quite convincing too. They find his at-times arrogant demeanour to be more amusing than offensive. They still hold to their vague beliefs but I think he has started the cogs turning there. Now, of course this is anecdotal evidence, but are you really sure that your statement is supported by the facts? I'd be very surprised to see evidence that Dawkins does not convince a good number of people of the validity of at least some of his points.

Húrin

Rev. Kitchen wrote: »

I guess he doesnt need to be, the people that dont agree with him will never agree with him no matter how convincing he is, If people are given all the facts and still choose not to believe it then no amount of documentaries will change there mind no matter how good or bad the presenter is.

That's depressingly fatalistic. If there's ever an attitude that is the cause of conflict it's this one. People's minds can be changed. Even at the least, we can keep a dialogue going by revealing why we think the way we think. He's not going to change everyone's mind, nor does any Christian evangelist expect such of people. But it is worth it for a few changed minds.

I should know - I used to be an atheist but my mind was changed.

Dawkins is just not that convincing. There are plenty of atheist writers who have used better arguments. I mean, if he is not using good arguments, what the hell is he doing?

Húrin

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't know about that. I know a number of ambiguously religious people who find him both charismatic and quite convincing too. They find his at-times arrogant demeanour to be more amusing than offensive. They still hold to their vague beliefs but I think he has started the cogs turning there.

Now, of course this is anecdotal evidence, but are you really sure that your statement is supported by the facts? I'd be very surprised to see evidence that Dawkins does not convince a good number of people of the validity of at least some of his points.

I suppose one might find Dawkins convincing if you did not think much about your faith, and had not read things like the Bible, or any apologetics of a similar or higher level of argument than Dawkins.

Hence, I think the bolded words above are key.

Dave!

Well guess what? Those are the people Dawkins is interested in "converting". You think it's a more realistic goal to convert the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church, or wishy washy Christians who don't give it much thought?

Seems to me that if you think that Dawkins is convincing to the latter, then you agree that he's doing a good job Great! Glad we could all come to that agreement

Húrin

Dave! wrote: »

Well guess what? Those are the people Dawkins is interested in "converting". You think it's a more realistic goal to convert the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church, or wishy washy Christians who don't give it much thought?

Are you implying that the Westboro church crowd have given it much thought? :pac:

If they still hold to their vague beliefs, then no he hasn't got them. Dawkins does put an imperative on believers to explain their beliefs better for the benefit of the "iwshy washy" group we're discussing. However there will always be false believers, and people who will not believe no matter what. So it is erroneous for either side to expect to convert everyone. People respond to the same information in different ways.

pH

Húrin wrote: »

I suppose one might find Dawkins convincing if you did not think much about your faith, and had not read things like the Bible, or any apologetics of a similar or higher level of argument than Dawkins.

That's because you haven't read and learned enough to be able to comprehend the grandeur of Dawkins' arguments. What do you know about Dooyeweerd's Theory of Aspects? Dawkin's arguments in "The God Delusion" use Analytic, Biotic and Spatial aspects, which you whose thinking is stuck mainly in the Pistic find hard to comprehend.

Húrin

pH wrote: »

That's because you haven't read and learned enough to be able to comprehend the grandeur of Dawkins' arguments. What do you know about Dooyeweerd's Theory of Aspects? Dawkin's arguments in "The God Delusion" use Analytic, Biotic and Spatial aspects, which you whose thinking is stuck mainly in the Pistic find hard to comprehend.

I'm not saying that Dawkins has no good arguments at all. His demeanor also ruins them as I was discussing. The arguments themselves are just not as amazing and flawless as some people perceive them to be.

I have not seen this Dooyeweerd stuff; I'll have a look.

I really wouldn't describe my temperament as pistic at all. How can you have any idea in fairness? I'm more dianoetic.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Hope I'm not godwinning myself here, but Eva Braun wasn't the most Aryan chick around -- she was a brunette and had to bleach her hair, while both Göring(*) and Hitler had, well, non-blond hair also. Bit embarrassing that.

(*) Just found out that the mother of Göring's wife was a Beamish, of Beamish and Crawford fame. Gosh.

A bit off topic, I know, but I understand that Nazi racial profiling was much more to do with bone structure than hair colour. They believed that plenty of Aryans had black hair.

In practice the proper Aryan male was as blond as Hitler, as tall as Goebbels, and as slim as Goering.