h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<<'Campolo was the subject of an informal heresy hearing in 1985 brought about by several assertions in his 1983 book A Reasonable Faith, particularly his claim that, "Jesus is actually present in each other person." The book became a hot button and the swirling controversy caused Campus Crusade for Christ and Youth for Christ to block a planned speaking engagement by Campolo. The Christian Legal Society empowered a "reconciliation panel", led by noted theologian J. I. Packer, to examine the issue and resolve the controversy. The panel examined the book and questioned Campolo. The panel later issued a statement saying that although it found Campolo's statements "methodologically naïve and verbally incautious," it did not find them to be heretical.'
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Campolo>>

So, nothing against him, then? So why did you mention it, as if it discredited him?

<>

It's important to realise that Augustine never really got over being a Gnostic, with their hatred of the fleshly temptations of women, and a concomitant obsession with the same.

><>
>Who?

Theologian and TV presenter here in the UK. Former fundamentalist and current liberal Christian. You can find a lot of his stuff on YouTube if you ever get the chance. >>

Oh, yes, I will check him out.

As the man on the Apologetics site points out, is is also important to consider Tertullian's remarks in context, the context of what else he wrote about both women and men!

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/turcan_etre_femme_eng.htm

(I assume you didn't follow his links...)
Extract
<< If thus, from birth to resurrection, the woman is the equal of the man in the divine plan, she is obviously promised like him to holiness, and it is from this that we find the precepts of De cultu.

Holiness is what Tertullian wants for women: "You must be perfect as your Father who is in heaven" (Cult., II, 1, 4). Admittedly, he can have fun with caricatures, puns, and ridicule. But that must not make us forget that from the start Tertullian places the problem of feminine love of ornament in a very high perspective, that of the faith, of eschatological promises, of original sin and its consequences...

... It is necessary that everyone can see she is not of this world. She that is preferable lives in God, for God, indifferent to her beauty, night and day busy in prayer, like the "sisters" that he gives as example to his wife in Ux., I, 4, 3-4. The marriage of such a woman to a Christian man who resembles him reduces then to the agreement of two souls, completely disincarnate...

.... a pretty tableau of manners which enables us to imagine a little the life of the women of Carthage at the opening of the IIIrd century. >>

Vicky

Taliesin,
I've been following the 'Expelled' thing on Michael Shermers site. You should check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw There seems to be some question as to whether it's viral marketing by the expelled producers but, if so, it seems to be backfiring. Also, it's very funny.

<>

Yes, it's hysterical! But where do you get that it's backfiring? (I think you'd have to *want* to think that...)

I've even got that catchy little tune on my brain...

" he's smarter than you/ He's got a science degree"

Vicky

Most of the folks on scienceblogs, including PZ Meyers of Pharyngula fame seem to think the 'Beware the Believers' video is hilarious, no matter the intent of those responsible for it In any case, the animation if far more entertaining than listening to Ben Stein whine on and on and on btw, I posted the link two weeks ago --- http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=3875581&skip=512&show=1

'Myers', even

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Hey watch what you say Vicky, remember I've got a science degree.

Hey, yes of course! I wasn't criticising science degrees, I was just referring to the video Tumsup linked to... It's so funny!

(very American though..)

The lyrics of 'Beware the Believers' suggest it is not pro-ID. Example: " We might have lost at Scopes, beaten down by the dopes, and the stooges of popes, but in losin' we coped, becomin' more than we hoped, creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope. " Full lyrics available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=3875581&skip=514&show=1 Good satire! Word!

>>The verses you quote are about the carnal (non-regenerate) mind, and SCS as you call it, is all about the spiritual mind.

Well, that's certainly an interesting distinction. But how does one distinguish whether one is thinking with one's carnal or spiritual mind?

Using common sense

Hi Tal,

Yeah, that's been keeping me amused.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ is Myers' blog - he's posted a lot of stuff on it.

Gif

Hi Vicky,

>the carnal (non-regenerate) mind, and SCS as you call it, is all about the spiritual mind

I'm afraid that really hasn't made it any clearer to me. I don't follow the distinction between the 'carnal mind' and the 'spiritual mind'.

>Really, why make such heavy weather of it?

I can't speak for others, but I for one am just trying to understand what you mean by this. It seems to be central to your view of your faith, since it's tied in to how you tell what parts of scripture are literal and which are not. But it makes no sense to me at the moment.

>So, nothing against him, then? So why did you mention it, as if it discredited him?

If I remember rightly, you were presenting his book as representative of the 'standard Christian view'. It appears that in fact a sizeable number of Christians clearly think that he does not represent the standard Christian view - they said he was mistaken, though not wrong enough to be a full-blown heretic. As to 'discredited' - he has his opinion on theology, I don't know how you would judge whether it's credible or not.

>It's important to realise that Augustine never really got over being a Gnostic, with their hatred of the fleshly temptations of women, and a concomitant obsession with the same.

So then he *did* speak against women?

(NB: the Gnostics were far more inclusive of women than 'orthodox' Christians - Tertullian was shocked at their inclusion of women, not their exclusion. But there was a huge range of Gnostic religions, so it's dangerous to make sweeping statements. Augustine was a former Manichean - I'm not clear on their attitudes, though I don't think they were particularly anti-women.)

No, I didn't see that link to the article on Tertullian. I have to ask - did you read it? I mean, I can't help but notice that the 2nd paragraph begins: 'The woman is in his eyes a public menace. The man has everything to fear from her, and the first Adam would have done well to be wary about her. The eye with which he looks at her is singularly critical, and not only in De cultu. No occasion is lost to show her vain, conceited, sensual, frivolous, avid and at the same time stupid and cunning.' It continues in that vein for several more paragraphs.

It looks more like Tertullian struggled to square this with the line from Paul, but in De Cultu he quite clearly says that man is made in the image of God but woman is only in God's image if she is part of a married couple. ()

See http://rane.agog.net/writings/womenchristianity.html for both the best and the worst of early Christian attitudes to women. As with Gnostics, a sweeping statement that 'Christians were anti-women' is far too simple. There were definite exceptions - it's just that those were in the minority most of the time.

Gif

Can I try another tack...

Would the faithful amongst us agree that interpretations of Christianity have evolved over the years?

It's clear, surely, that within history there have been times when mainstream Christianity has been decidedly misogynistic. We observe, for example, that over a long period Augustine was lauded as a leading authority and his (implicit? wrongly assumed?) sexism carried over into the mainstream.

I'll accept Christians at their word if they say that such attitudes were based on misinterpretations of Christianity. And I guess some will argue that more modern, liberal, inclusive interpretations are in fact a return to early teachings. But what I'd like to know is...what caused the evolution? Why did Christianity drift away from what is now regarded as the true interpretation? Why has it drifted back?

I have my own theory, of course. I suggest that Christians' interpretations are led - sometimes kicking and screaming - by changes in secular thought. But I'd welcome a Christian opinion.

Post: 8712
>>Yes, it's *for* theology, which is why it's called "sanctified" common sense! <<

Post: 8738

>>I didn't say SCS depends on theology, I said it's *about* theology.<<



Unless SCS can exist independent of theology, I think it's correct to say it is both "*for* theology", and "*about* theology", and therefore unequivocally dependent upon it.

If not, can it be applied, or manifest, under other circumstances?

If so, what sanctifies it?

In other words: What, other than theological context, differentiates SCS, or distinguishes it, from 'carnal' common sense?


and


>>The verses you quote are about the carnal (non-regenerate) mind, and SCS as you call it, is all about the spiritual mind.<<

>>Why is it such an awfully big deal for you, anyway?<<


My philosophy is about one mind, and does not include more than one variety of common sense, so I'm simply trying to understand your perspective.

It's about communication and sharing ideas.


If that isn't important to you, then perhaps it isn't a 'big deal'



btw, I referred to 'sanctified common sense' as SCS, because I grew tired of typing out 'sanctified common sense'

<>
guess who?




You couldn't make it up..

>guess who?

Mikey, I believe.

Gif

No, slightly more predictable. Bottom post, last dot.

I've just seen a GoogleAd for 'The Atheist's Riddle - So simple, any child can understand, yet so complex, no atheist can solve.' Has anyone else come across it? (Googling gives lots of hits.)

It seems to go something like this (add your own interrogative rising inflections):

'DNA is, like, a language. There are no human languages that weren't, like, invented by human minds.

...therefore, God Exists!'

One hardly knows where to start, does one?

Meantime, I've finished Hitchens' book. I'm still of the overall opinion that it's more of a rant than a structured argument. In the later chapters, for instance, his attempt to show that Communism is a religion falls flat. In other parts he's much more successful, notably in his attempt to link fascism with religion. But I don't want a book that's a curate's egg - if he can't make a case, why make half a case and hope no-one will notice?

Overall, he comes across as one of Vicky's beloved 'angry atheists', basing his atheology more on politics and bloody-mindedness than evidence and rationality a la Dawkins.

Now I've started on Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'. Far better, and much more readable - I'm half-way through it already.

Gif