#41
|
|||
|
|||
What's interesting here is that a lot of folks here are levying a criticism of "having an axe to grind," a bias or some other mental/emotional process that distorts information to come up with a predetermined outcome.
Here's the newsflash for you -- we all do. And nowhere is this more apparent than in discussions of faith. We all know Aslan is Muslim. Okay, so what? Does he have something useful to offer you as a scholar about your understanding of your own faith? I think so. But take it or leave it. Once again, irony rears its head. To think that you are somehow objective in your assessment of his information is naive at best and horribly vain at worst. We are all biased. We know Aslan's bias. But do you know your own? If you are a committed, lifelong follower of Jesus, come hell or high water, and committed to expanding his church, then you have a bias as well. You are going to have a very difficult time accepting information that challenges your point of view. You have an axe, too. Welcome to humanity. |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Maybe, since you acknowledge this person’s bias and agenda, you can simply share how it fueled your own bias and agenda, allow we your audience to appreciate that you were inspired by this person, without demanding we agree with it, and be satisfied? That sentence had a lot of commas. I can promise you that I listened to the video with an intellectually-honest open mind (I didn’t know anything of the man when I watched it) but certainly held the content up against what I already knew. Things that are factual are factual regardless of bias. Things that are slanted or misrepresented to further an opinion can be challenged without agenda. Whether that’s what’s happening here is up for debate. So, thanks for sharing and soliciting feedback. I am happy you did. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Mark 16:16 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Steeped in science? This is history, not physics. "Social sciences" as they are called, are not real sciences. Things aren't really proven or disproved so much as supported by evidence or not supported by evidence. The difference is huge. Only naive historians think of themselves as practicing a true science. Archaeology is closer to a real science but still mostly like history. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
My bias? I'm human, for one. I can go into some personal stories but its nothing traumatic or something that requires revenge of any kind. I have a good life and some spare time to argue on the internet. But my main bias is that I don't let my ideas or my beliefs get in the way of understanding history. And, as I read, I resolved to let the evidence speak for itself, rather than allow it to hold me captive to some sort of ideology. So I can be very wishy-washy at times and it's hard to know where I stand on matters of faith. I hardly take my own ideas and beliefs very seriously and that is partly intentional. I've been a fundamentalist in a former life and didn't like what that made me. So I keep an open mind with a keen understanding that my ignorance will always be greater than my knowledge. But I'll say that I've been at this a long time. Personal stories are better over beers, face to face with a real person, than internet forums. So I won't get into details. Suffice it to say that while most of you were goofing off as teens and young adults without much concern with the details of religion, I was teaching classes, filling in for pastors and leading groups of anywhere from 30-300+ people in studies of the Bible. I've probably forgotten much more than a lot of folks will ever know. Call it my own Solomonic journey, I've learned a ton over the years, earned degrees, traveled and even continued my readings informally for the last 20 years. It has all led me to a far more simple understanding of the world -- believe whatever helps get you through your day and never let your ideas take priority over relationships. Everything else is just vanity. That's my bias. |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
All said, you knew people would disagree, you wanted people to disagree, and no actual intellectual pursuit was planned. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Mark 16:16 |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
of course i have to point out that they, having the benefit of growing up in a judeo/christian society, they cannot possibly guess what they would be like without this religious moral foundation. it is inescapable, even if you never set foot in a church or synagogue. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Morality and religion are like the Cub Scout Law (A scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Courteous, Kind...) in that it is not really a set of values practiced by the members so much as an agreed-upon set of values that the members are striving toward. So with regard to kids in scouting, the law is something they're working on, not something they possess any better than other kids. Same with Judeo-Christian morals -- they're a set of values that adherents are working on, not something they actually do any better than average. In other words, we're all still human. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think a true intellectual pursuit can be accomplished by people with differing views without some sort of disagreement. If we all agreed, what would we have to talk about?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|