Jesus Christ: a great man utterly devalued by a human “institution”
November 5th, 2008 by benign0You know what, gentlemen? There is a simple question on the assertion that the Church provides credible moral leadership that we seem to sheepishly skirt:
Where is this “credibility” derived from?
The only coherent (albeit, pained) proposal seems to come from Jeg who suggests (and assumes everyone agrees) that moral/ethical ascendancy is not derived from a “creator” but proposes further that…
[...] The fittest and most powerful [are] the leaders of men. That usually means the State, that entity with the army who has power to force us to work for it, to send our children to their deaths to fight its enemies. The State says what’s moral and what’s ethical. [...]
… which to me seems to be a proposal that is the most consistent with the reality that surrounds our earthly lot.
Interestingly enough, I find in even the most religious of commentors here, a new-found reservation to play the “divinity” card in this whole debate, and — even more interesting, not one mention (as far as I am aware) of the name of the great man who is the centre of this “institution” we now put under scrutiny down to its component parts.
So let me take the proverbial plunge.
I believe that Jesus Christ had indeed provided the groundbreaking conceptual foundations for the unprecedented ethical soundness (relatively to others, that is) of Western civilisation today. And even to be fair to those who attribute the dubious property of “divinity” to this great man the advent of Christianity heralded in a replacement of the schitzophrenic God described in the Old Testament with the concept of a “loving” and “fatherly” God to worship in our time.
As to Christ’s claim of being the Son of God, well, we have to rely on Scripture, that true-by-edict body of “knowledge” which aggresively preserved its “moral ascendancy” and unquestioned beholdnness from its own scholars and believers over the centuries with hardly a whimper of scrutiny from any objective third party (under fear of genocidal attacks from the Church’s Forces of Righteousness). For all we know, the last 2000-odd years of the dominance of Scripture may have been nothing more than an exercise of systematically putting words in a great man’s mouth on a massive scale.
I therefore do agree that even removing the glue of “divinity” that for centuries has commanded fearful and in many cases insane obedience from most Christians; specifically the fear of…
[...] the resulting damage to conscience and/or death of the soul.
… which in essence are rather dubious threats against what you shall experience after death (remember: nothing in life everything in death…); Christianity remains as Habermas asserted (echoed by DJB, Jeg, and hey, maybe even cvj – but I could be mistaken on the latter), the foundation of the major civilising force of our time — European culture (let’s not forget whose invention “democracy” really is, folks).
The Man JC’s key contribution to our lot are his ideas and his example. The Church as an “institution” in all ironies has actually devalued him as a man (as one of us) by attributing to him a “divinity” that remains debatable to this day.
The value of Jesus Christ’s objective and tangible contributions to humanity was severely diluted by a humungous layer of convoluted dogma and mystic jibberish that is administered by that embodiment of conflicts-of-interest that is the Catholic Church.
Whereas men such as Albert Einstein and Plato stand timelessly on the robustness of their own personal achievement, Jesus Christ was deprived of his chance to stand among them upon the same sort of footing by a Church that presumed to enforce reverence for him through the sword and through the use of principles of clever marketing. Thus Christ will be known not as the man and not for his mind but as a mere iconic centre of an “institution” that today is rapidly making itself irrelevant and pulling down the great man with it.
============
Join us on Facebook!
November 5, 2008 at 7:56 am
benign0,
I’ve pretty much forwarded the same ideas in my heretic/agnostic post, How I choose to believe in Jesus, particularly:
November 5, 2008 at 8:12 am
Very uncannily timely Jon!
And this comment on your blog seems to epitomise the kind of mindset we are battling here:
Jeez! (Literally!)
Does Jesus need to be regarded as a god to be considered great?
That would put him a huge notch lower than the other great men you and I mention and just a notch above the Pharoahs in terms of tangible achievement.
Turning JC into the caricature that most “Christians” worship today, I believe, is the single biggest crime of the Catholic Church.
November 5, 2008 at 10:03 am
@benigno:
question 1:
i’m interested in your claim that JC never claimed he was the son of God. Do you have any links? studies? theologists or archeologists that have discovered some ancient written source about JC? something he himself penned?
this is actually a difficult question to answer, and very interesting (the historical jesus)! but certainly early christians considered him divine, that the apostles believed he rose from the dead.
apart from that (evidence that early xtians believed him divine), i don’t know what kind of evidence one can marshal to prove he was or was not divine. did he really do those miracles? did he really claim to have risen from the dead? did he infact rise from the dead? if not, are all the written accounts expost justifications? I think this is unprovable.
question2:
you mentioned that by calling him divine (regardless of whether he in fact divine), the Church (capital C, believers) devalued him. Intriguing. How does calling someone divine devalue that entity? I would posit that it would make his ideas/examples all the more important. Why? if u are not a believer, then the ideas/examples stand on their own. If you are, then the fact that he is god makes it more compelling. Can you spell out explicitly what the downside is?
anticipating ur reponse to question 2, u’d cite cases where JC was the rationale for doing bad things (war, killing, etc). I’d submit that when these happened, its not the divinity perse, but the abrogation of god to one’s end that is the problem. I can see that this is largely unsatisfactory resolution practically speaking(how do we know we are not abusing the concept of god to serve our own ends?), but conceptually, i think it makes clear that divinity isn’t the problem; we are.
to put the above paragraph another way: we should ask if god is on our side, we should ask if we are on god’s side.
question3:
you mention that the church (the instutution, not the believers) fundamentally face a conflict of interest problem. my guess (but please explain if i’m wrong!) is that you mean the church possess a spiritual monopoly — it is the final arbiter of what is correct. that it is, in matters of faith (the pope is) infallible. theoretically, whatever it says goes — if paying it money leads to salvation, then it is so!
if this is correct, then u also reject that this institutional arrangement was invented by christ himself (peter u r the rock… etc). yes? because the bible is self-serving, because it was designed as such. yes?
my only complaint is that if this interpretation is true, then we should see a more flexible church structure. Why insist on rules and ideas thousands of years old? whats the point if it is 100% free to determine revelation? i submit that commitment (to its past pronouncements and to a previously agreed upon interpretation of scripture) ’solves’ (imperfectly) the spiritual monopoly problem by binding the actions of the catholic church, and it stops being completely self-serving.
thanks! this is very interesting. and thanks for not calling people of faith dumb :). church officials are fair game!; my favorite satirist stephen colbert insults the pope often. he and i believe that you can criticize the catholic church, make fun of it, and yet be faithful at the same time.
November 5, 2008 at 10:47 am
For the record, I do believe our moral code comes from a Creator. Just dont ask me to prove it using physics, chemistry or biology, or some other. Our moral code comes from a Creator. It’s just that people suck. And I dont have to prove that. ;-)
November 5, 2008 at 11:03 am
It’s so hard to disabuse our minds to the idea of divinity after centuries of indoctrination.
The Greeks have their mythical gods. Some people just go a god further.
November 5, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hello, so you are not an atheist Jeg? Well since you are not, then you are obliged to prove the existence of that “Being” “we” call “Creator.”
I’ve read some part of the work of Christopher Hitchens “God is not Great: How religions poisons everything” he published last year in order to prove his point of the non-existence of a Supreme Being.
But, unfortunately, it has not appealed “scientifically” reasonable to me.
Religions and ethics have their own respective moral codes you are talking about here. The latter’s does not take on any religion as its foundational basis. (In some respect, it’s on popular will instead, says Benigno here)
Simply, atheists have their own moral code like any men of religions. The difference is that, said Will Durant, a philosopher-cum-historian, a morality which is not based or anchored upon religion is weak since it is just like no more than an advice from a friend that anybody has the freedom to accept of reject either.
November 5, 2008 at 11:21 am
I’m just intrigued by Jean-Paul Sartre who said: “I have no religion, but if I were to choose one, it would be that of Shariati’s.”
Oh, it’s out of topic!
November 5, 2008 at 11:22 am
Gabby,
Here are my responses (not to be necessarily confused with the term answers) to your questions:
Q1:
I don’t have any links because I am not a scholar of Jesus Crhist’s life. So I’d love to be challenged on what is a mere assertion on my part as far as this forum is concerned.
From what I gather, the history of Christianity between the time Christ died and the time the Catholic Church became the “institution” we know it to be today seems to be sketchy. If we are to believe all the conspiracy theories, it seems there was a wholesale purge of all documentation of early Christian history by the Church. I wouldn’t put it past them to destroy mere paperwork considering they had less qualms about exterminating people throughout history.
For things that are “unprovable” or not yet within the means to develop a proof, there is a principle that states that it is usually the simpler theory that is likely to be the valid one.
So I pose this question:
Which of the following two theories is simpler:
(a) Jesus Christ was born of a virgin through the intercession of the Holy Spirit, died on a cross and rose from the dead three days later;
– or –
(b) Jesus Christ was an ordinary man of exceptional charisma possessing of a brilliant mind which he used to develop groundbreaking ideas that inspired hundreds of thousands — and eventually — millions of people and which were to become the foundations of Western Civilisation.
Q2:
Jesus-as-divine is a “compelling” argument if the person you are arguing with cannot distinguish an assertion, theory, principle, or argument that “stands on its own”. No matter how you logically prove or evaluate something, a person who simply lacks the faculties to critically evaluate won’t get it. That’s where the divinity card becomes your powerful ace. A threat of damnation on a backward mind is quite compelling if you ask me.
There is no downside if we are leading a people who are not quite renowned for their thinking faculties. But if our aspiration is to be a truly modern “democracy” where it is presumed that wisdom is an emergent outcome of collective free inquiry and ulimtately of the majority view, then the continued use of “divinity” as an evaluation tool starts to become troublesome, as we are beginning to see today.
In the simpler context of what you say here…
… when anyone rather glibly proclaims “It is God’s will”, I’d respond by saying that it is quite arrogant to presume to speak for God much less be so certain of his “will”.
Q3:
I think you did a great summary of what I was trying to convey across several blog posts here:
To borrow your words, we could then say:
The Church is the final arbiter of its own edicts.
C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T—O-F—I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T
While the Church presumes to preach “humility” it does not seem to be humble enough itself to submit its dogma to inquiry.
Great questions, dude. And I’ll try my best not to use the word “dumb” as it tends to be an effective conversation-ender (the tool of choice of the generation that inherited our islands from America). ;)
November 5, 2008 at 11:51 am
benign0,
The principle of simplest-argument-would-be-most-likely-true you speak of is called Occam’s Razor.
November 5, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hello, so you are not an atheist Jeg? Well since you are not, then you are obliged to prove the existence of that “Being” “we” call “Creator.”
Funny, I dont feel ‘obliged’ at all. And I dont feel obliged to defend God. I believe God doesnt need me to defend him as he can very well defend himself.
November 5, 2008 at 12:19 pm
“I believe God doesnt need me to defend him as he can very well defend Himself.”
Yes.
November 5, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Jesus refers to the man, Christ refers to the God made Man.
Nonetheless, Jesus the Christ has been made into anyone’s image. There is a Christ for the Catholics, the Aglipayans, the Anglicans, Gays, Bis,Lesbians, Feminists, the PNP, the AFP, the Iglesia ni Cristo, JIL, Wilde Almeda, the Muslims, the Buddhists etc
The case for Jesus’ divinity came early in the group of heretical Jews. But nonetheless, I think it isn’t the church that has devalued Christ but that we fashioned Him into our own image.
We have made Christ far from whoever He really is.
November 5, 2008 at 12:22 pm
BTW I believe it is Shusaku Endo that has made the most convincing portrait of Christ for me.
November 5, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“For the record, I do believe our moral code comes from a Creator. Just dont ask me to prove it using physics, chemistry or biology, or some other. Our moral code comes from a Creator. It’s just that people suck. And I dont have to prove that….” Jeg
You don’t have to prove anything Jeg. One of the greatest scientists of our time, Dr. Francis Collins and author of the best seller “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press) said in an interview with Time Magazine and an interview with Darwinian-Atheist, Richard Dawkins, said:
“Yes. God’s existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God’s existence is outside of science’s ability to really weigh in”.
here is the link:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html
November 5, 2008 at 12:35 pm
jeg,
here is one of the reviews of Dr. Collins’ book:
This book is a very easy read for anyone. Science exalts God’s creation; it does not dimish His work.
This book is also, partly, a testimony of a man who found his personal relationship with God after being an atheist, later agnostic and, finally, accepting Jesus Christ.
November 5, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Thanks again Jon. :)
How different is that from saying “we shouldn’t discuss God because he is beyond our comprehension anyway”?
I think that notion was pretty much the basis by which the Church lorded over Christendom for the last 2000 years; i.e.,
Blot out any discussion about God’s nature amongst the laity and present itself as de facto authority and sole arbiter on the matter.
Same banana different packaging.
Brain, folks, brain.
Use it lest you lose it.
Then again take small steps to understand, because unpeeling a 2000-year-old onion is no small task.
It’s simple, really™
November 5, 2008 at 1:19 pm
How different is that from saying “we shouldn’t discuss God because he is beyond our comprehension anyway”?
Quite different, benny. The context Collins was writing from is science. Science is not the entirety of human comprehension. Discussing God doesnt have to invoke the scientific method. And has history shows, despite Catholic claims, discussing God hasnt stopped people from questioning the Catholic hierarchy. Im sure youve heard of this group of people called Protestants.
November 5, 2008 at 2:21 pm
thanks for ur clarifications!
on divinity:
its boils down to what you said: its a choice to believe. the choice u present are interesting — either way JC is a pretty impressive figure :)
on ‘devalue’
from ur original post, i thought u meant divinity devalued JC. It was this that i was responding to, and did not understand. I wanted to say that calling JC divine can’t hurt JC, it can only help. I pointed out that we devalue JC when we use his divinity to further our own ends. i had a major typo: i meant to say, we should NOT ask if God is on our side, but we should ask if we are on God’s side. i think here, we agree wholeheartedly: humility is key.
speaking of humility, i’m struck by the discordance of the philippine church. in school, i was impressed by the humility of the religious people i met; how they encouraged prudence, and critical thinking. But in public, they tend to speak as if we are idiots. My sorrow is deep, but i hope younger priests can/will be different.
on conflict of interest:
i’m glad to see i was able to get at ur argument. as JC instituted it, the pope is the rock on which JC built the Church, and the church can interpret revelation. JC himself instituted had this power built in. if we believe that the bible has some chance of reflecting JC’s true wishes, and since we agree that JC is such an impressive fellow (divinity notwithstanding), that might mean something.
But the church’s power is not as great as one might expect. i’ve always wondered why the pope is as constrained as he is. If the goal is to increase the influence of the church worldwide and increasing attendance, good arguments can be made for many reforms such as female priests, married priests, etc. from an institutional point of view, the right mix of conservatism and change is hard. A bias for conservatism is understandable. All large institutions have a bias for conservatism.
anyway, thanks. your position on the catholic church has been clarified!
November 5, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Hi Benign0,
I read your article with great interest, but what are the proofs and evidences that a Jesus Christ existed in this world in tha same manner as Einstein or Newton?
Are you aware of any contemporary historian who documented his life and works (if any)?
November 5, 2008 at 5:27 pm
everything we know about jesus christ comes from the “approved” gospels. All of christianity, catholics and protestants alike, are in agreement over which gospels are considered “legit”. “Newly” discovered or unearrthed gospels are, for lack of a better term, ignored by christians because they are off-message.
And so your conclusion that there is more to christ than what the “churches” have made him out to be seems rather odd. You don’t know anything about the man other than what the churches have told you. And what they’ve told you is something they picked out arbitrarily, maybe even capriciously, from a bunch of manuscripts they believed would be a solid foundation for their institution.
Having said that, I believe the Sermon on the Mount is all the religion anybody needs.
November 5, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Have read the threads and found one very interesting fact–Benigno and Jeg, err, Jen, have been having this back and forth, back and forth, as if there’s an intellectual-emotional quarrel (dubbed IEQ). For a while though, I thought this is just Guy and Pip. I think this is more of a Vilma-Edgar thing.
Now, going back to the discussion….
Jesus, or the man we know of as Christ, is an historical figure. He existed and still lives as a memory to those who considers him as Christ.
I agree with Benigno–the very same institution that keeps the flame of Jesus’ ideas–is the one that has corrupted those very same ideas that justify their existence in the first place. And why? Because they need to strengthen their social control. More social control means more tithes and more contributions. More money means more profits and more profits means more stability and longer staying power.
November 5, 2008 at 5:38 pm
By the way,
I remember what Marx said—irrationality breeds the belief in the existence of God. And I still believe that.
The more science discovers the very laws of the universe, the more we realize that “divinity” and “godliness” exists not so far away from us but from within us.
November 5, 2008 at 7:05 pm
No quarrel between benny and myself, Patricio. God forbid! ;-)
If I can put it rather more plainly: I do *not* care if other people do not believe in the Creator, and have feel no sense of obligation to prove his existence or to defend him.
I remember what Marx said—irrationality breeds the belief in the existence of God.
And in the existence of other things, such a communism for instance. The Rational Man is a myth. Irrationality breeds the belief that man is a rational animal.
The more science discovers the very laws of the universe, the more we realize that “divinity” and “godliness” exists not so far away from us but from within us.
Exactly what Jesus said. Well not quite. He didnt say anything about science doing that.
MB, they did pick out the manuscripts that eventually became the New Testament, but they did not do so arbitrarily. They picked out the ones that conformed to the prevailing orthodoxy handed down orally or through teachings. Everything else they considered heterodox and left out of the official set of documents. In other words, the orthodoxy was already accepted by the Church before they decide to compile documents into a new testament.
November 5, 2008 at 7:23 pm
joma, I think manuelbuencamino beat me to the punch. I personally have no other insight into Christ’s life beyond what I learned through “approved” scripture.
That said, my gut tells me that such a man actually existed, although I can’t prove it.
November 5, 2008 at 7:30 pm
hi benigno,
aysus! you just exposed your slip, my man.
” that said, my gut tells me that such a man actually existed, although I can’t prove it.”
What? So, my man listens to his “guts”? How about rationality? I thought you’re a rationalist? What happened? :-)
November 5, 2008 at 7:35 pm
hi jeg,
what marx said does’nt even apply to the concept of Communism. in fact, when he wrote that, he was’nt even talking about Communism but the problem of the Jews (he’s a jew, remember? He wrote that on the article entitled “On the Jewish Question”)
is rational man a myth? Is believing on the rational man, an irrationality?
so, you’re saying that there’s no rational being? or, you’re saying that there’s no purely rational man?
let me reiterate what Marx said–irrationality (meaning the lack or non-rational) breeds the existence of God just says that the reason why people believe in God is just their way of explaining things which they still can’t explain thru science. If we complete our study of the universe, then, we’ll arrive at a conclusion that a God probably, does not exist.
November 6, 2008 at 2:17 am
hi benign0,
Thanks for your sincere and straightforward reply.
joma
November 6, 2008 at 4:19 am
In the physical realm the guiding principle is, “to see is to believe”; while in the metaphysical realm, “to believe is to see.”
There are ideas of which the truth of them cannot easily be fully understood or satisfactorily be proven logically without the element of faith — existence of God is but one of them.
Consider the concept of the universe. With all of man’s sciences, can he fully fathom the vastness of the expanse of the universe and the ever growing number of cosmic bodies with the countless molecules of all the matters that comprise them, and explain completely how everything works in perfect order and harmony? No, of course. This fact just demonstrates the finiteness of the human understanding. If to completely comprehend the fullness of the physical realm (the entire universe) is beyond the capacity of mankind, how much more far beyond mankind’s capacity is it to completely comprehend the fullness of the metaphysical realm?
God, a metaphysical entity cannot be proven adequately using concrete physical methodologies of science. The acceptance of the truth of God is primarily a function of faith rather than of reason. To attempt to explain the fullness of God using the finite human understanding defies basic principles of logic. It would be comparable to an ant trying to fully understand a computer with all of its complexities.
As beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, faith is in the inner being of the believer. How else can beauty be perceived but by the “seeing” of the object of beauty. (“seeing” as used here does not refer only to the perception through the faculty of the eyes.)
Similarly, faith comes by “hearing” the proclamations of the truth of God. (“hearing” as used here is not limited only to the perception through the faculty of the ears.)
Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. Answered prayers of true believers are not just one manifestation of the existence of God but also one evidence of His being a living metaphysical entity.
Do you want to prove yourself that God really exists? Do you have any real problem that is beyond your immediate capacity to solve? Try asking God for help by praying a valid prayer. When your prayer is answered, you will believe.
November 6, 2008 at 9:13 am
Jeg,
Could not the turbulence in the early days of the Church serve as proof that there was no orthodoxy then and that the orthodoxy you speak of came after one faction attained dominance and imposed their orthodoxy?
November 6, 2008 at 9:20 am
But is this unfathomable universe still not a proof of the “probability” of “Existence” behind its existence? (note that there are still millions and millions of universe in million-folds vastness and greatness other than this universe we see where we belong)Can a building rise without, say, an architect and engineer behind its construction? Can a house stand without a carpenter and a supplier of materials? How can life exist when there is no great Life behind it? A lifeless matter can beget life? Gosh!
The “to-see-is-to-believe” principle is utterly inconsistent with man’s continuous existence. If so then why we believe that our “Nth grandparents” did exist before us when in fact we haven’t seen them for the entire life of us?
November 6, 2008 at 9:49 am
MB: Could not the turbulence in the early days of the Church serve as proof that there was no orthodoxy then and that the orthodoxy you speak of came after one faction attained dominance and imposed their orthodoxy?
Of course that’s possible, MB. Even likely, in fact. But the fact remains that the orthodoxy that, as you said attained dominance, compiled the books that became the new testament. In other words, the orthodoxy came first, then the new testament. The orthodoxy didnt come from an arbitrary choosing of documents.
And here’s another thing to consider: the turbulence of the early church you speak of was due to the fact that they were a persecuted lot. How could one faction have attained dominance over the others? Not because of force. Probably they attained it because the teachers most recognized as orthodox — that is, those teachers who were taught by Jesus or his apostles or their students — belonged to that faction. It was when the Roman Empire itself converted that things began to change. Now they had an army.
Patricio: what marx said does’nt even apply to the concept of Communism. in fact, when he wrote that, he was’nt even talking about Communism but the problem of the Jews (he’s a jew, remember? He wrote that on the article entitled “On the Jewish Question”)
Of course it applies to communism. Sure, as you say he wasnt writing about communism, but his statement that non-rationality begets belief in the non-rational certainly applies. Marx believed in communism even without empricial evidence of its merits. Having said that however, I’d like to say that a communist state can be achieved through pure reason alone. In fact that’s how Stalin chose to run the Soviet Union.
so, you’re saying that there’s no rational being? or, you’re saying that there’s no purely rational man?
Im saying that a purely rational man is possible, but anomalous. We’ll consider him neurotic or even psychotic. (Hello again, Stalin. To you too, Mao).
Have you ever been in love? QED. ;-)
November 6, 2008 at 10:34 am
“How different is that from saying “we shouldn’t discuss God because he is beyond our comprehension anyway”? — Benigno.
No one is trying to prevent you from weighing in on God’s existence or JC’s divinity within the tools available to you. In fact your views of the living God are no different than people who came ahead of you… As long as you do not sound condescending and consider those who believe otherwise as the “unwashed” and the “uneducated”, your atheist position would not bother us any least. It is only when you try to blog the position that the Church has devalued JC and that the scripture part of the a “clever marketing” or conditioning that your hubris assumes a different dimension.
The apostles and other scripture writers during their time have no concept whatsoever of the word “marketing”. These are simple people who worship and worship without conditions. Their writings are far grand and eloquent than your your blabber and they have far greater audience than yours.
November 6, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Hmmmm… You know what the interesting irony here that escapes you is, jcc? It is you who’s devaluing Scripture by citing its “far greater audience” as “proof” or at least an indicator of its validity.
Here’s what popularity-as-an-indicator tells me about a body of knowledge, dude:
:D The TV show Wowowee has a “far greater audience”, than the Discovery channel or the self-reliance documentaries shown on Channel 4. What does that tell you?
:D On the internet, porn gets far more eyeballs and clicks, than all educational sites combined.
When something no matter how irrational appeals to a fundamental human psychological or physical need, guess what: Dollars get raked in. In the case of organised religion, it has on top of that, the benefit of being tax-exempt as well.
November 6, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Two words: EL SHADDAI
Emen? Emen!
:)
November 7, 2008 at 4:55 am
if you ask me benigno, wowwowee can be seen only in the philippines and some US states with great concentration of Filipinos.
the scripture are read by billions of believers, and even non-believers who would find flaws in the bible and would passionately argue about its being written at all.
i am comparing your blog to the followers of Catholicism/Christianity and not wowwowe or porn sites of which you would have no data whatsoever if they surpass the readers of the scriptures.
and by the way, wowwowe and these various porn sites came only during this century while christianity dates back to some 2000 years and continue to count for followings. in another decade or two, our generations may not remember wowwowwe or your favorite ponrn sites anymore but christiany and its leading best seller, the bible would still be read by many people, and you can bet on that. :)
November 7, 2008 at 7:26 am
jcc, you don’t get it.
What I cite is your using popularity as a measure of validity.
The funny thing is on top of that you add the longevity of the belief system as well to your measures of validity.
Consider that some of the findings about the true nature of things (e.g. the roundness of the earth, our place in the universe, what matter is really made of, what causes disease, etc.) were discovered and worked out only in the last 200 years of human civilisation.
The handful of examples I cited debunked an immense body of what was considered to be “true” or considered to be unknown for the better part of the previous 10,000 years.
So I’d be cautious about taking the position akin to what you say here:
And, yes, porn sites as you said “came only during this century”. But the concept of porn itself is probably older than Chrstianity.
It’s simple, really™
(Specially when one goes for the simpler principle) :D
November 7, 2008 at 8:39 am
you were right, the concept of pornography itself is older than Christianity, but Christianity has not been overtaken by pornography in terms of popularity. you cannot see porn celebration in the magnitude of the Vatican Christmas and New Year’s celebration.
Or there is no Porn Celebration in RP that approximates the jubilee of Christmas Celebration.
To some extent the validity of traditionally held views or ethos lend validity to their uprightness/correctness because they have been purged of their unacceptable and erroneous dogma by sheer passage of time.
The Pope’s apology for the Church stand on Galileo “heliocentric” theory is one example that as time goes by, the Church purges itself of belief that do not support reason and morality. Galileo’s work was passed upon by the Church at a time that the Church has no scientific tools to prove Galileo’s contention was correct and neither the later has the tools to prove his study beyond doubt.
If Galileo could have proven without question his theory of “heliocentricity” during that period, the Church could have adopted its position even if its contrary to the scriptural teachings of the Church. As you can clearly see, the Church is not closed minded.
My point in this thread is that the non-believers look at people whose faith are intact as the “unwashed and the “uneducated” that they can be brainwashed and “conditioned” by christian thinking through systematic marketing by the church.
i simply say that wisdom and erudition is not the monopoly of the anti-church or anti-CBCP.
November 7, 2008 at 10:38 am
Sure, wisdom and erudition is not the monopoly of anyone; It is a part of human experience.
The fact that the works by the apostles is read by majority does not imply that it is far more eloquent and grander that some of the small voices such as benign0’s.
In the same manner, Galileo’s Helio Theory will seen as a blabber if we are living at that time.
In short, argument by popularity is not very conclusive.
November 7, 2008 at 11:05 am
joma,
if you read benign0’s anti-church, anti-cbcp tirade, its full of singular claim to wisdom and erudition and those that are pro-church and pro-cbcp are “ignramuses” that had been brainwashed by the church….
benign0’s anti-church and anti-cbcp blabber is incomprable with the scientific works of Galileo and Galileo’s works cannot be considered a blabber, in fact, he was asked by Fr. Belarmine to prove his theory and if he cannot prove it to keep quite about it. To say that “heliocentric” theory is comparable to benign0’s tirade against CBCP and the faithful is to demean Galileo.
in the same way that the ateneo’s professors disagreemnt with CBCP’s position on reproductive health bill does not merit their assignation as “Galileo’s 14/69. The professors’ disagreement is centered on the morality of abortion or contraception as a measure to address overpopulation and poverty. galileo’s work is far more intense and involved than the debates on the reproductive health bill.
anyway if you consider the treatment of Galileo by the church during his time similar to the treatment of benign0 in this blog, all i can say, is ride on baby. :)
November 7, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Whether benignO has got (or not) antis in his body is not what i wish to point.
Your claim that the work of the apostles is far grander and eloquent because it is read by millions of believer and non-believer alike stand on a shaky ground.
Argument by popularity (majority) is not always valid argument. There was a time when it was thought that the earth is flat and was the center of the universe. That belief is now a bs.
Popular belief is not necessarily true. Things stand on their own merit and not as decreed.
November 7, 2008 at 9:30 pm
joma,
you have missed this: “To some extent the validity of traditionally held views or ethos lend validity to their uprightness/correctness because they have been purged of their unacceptable and erroneous dogma by sheer passage of time”.
logenvity and popularity of one’s belief has something to do with its correctness because by sheer passage of time, that belief is purged from its untruths. i think the scripture is still popular today than benign0’s blog because it has more truth in it.
November 7, 2008 at 10:20 pm
jcc,
I saw that, honest.
You think? Sure, for now the scripture is popular – and that is the whole point.
Popularity does not necessarily equate to “it has more truth in it”.
If tomorrow and God forbids, Islam is the most dominant and popular religion, you would clearly see what I am saying.
November 8, 2008 at 11:24 am
peace! why God forbids bro. joma? hehe