Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Love]

A question for you. What is a scientific theory?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

Yeah, I know, you weren't directing the question at me but it was a stupid question anyone with an internet connection can answer, so...

So, you've plagiarised the entire passage from Wikipedia (HERE). Proves exactly the kind of person you are; zero intellectual integrity (or aptitude). Another inept, aggressive narcissist/sociopath on the "ignore" list.

To all of the intelligent and courteous people on the thread, I will endeavour to address your points / questions soon.

---

---

I'm re-posting the questions I had for you (Love) from your intro thread so you don't have to go root around looking for them. No big hurry in getting to them, I understand that you're heavily outnumbered, and fielding questions and comments from everyone else.

1) What is the foundation or basis for progressive Christianity? The sacerdotal churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian) appeal to Church tradition and apostolic succession. Fundies claim to base their beliefs on an infallible Bible (while ignoring pretty much everything Jesus is portrayed saying about money). Progressive Christians seem to be...kinda free-floating. Spong is (as far as I can tell from his writings) an atheist-of-the-cloth. He does not believe in any theistic deity, a resurrection of Jesus (except in the most metaphorical of terms), or any of the doctrines that have defined Christianity for most of its history (e.g. the Creeds, etc.). It just seems like there's no "there" there, in the sense of a "Christianity" that differs from "atheist humanism, using cultural Christian language."

2) Why continue to cart the Bible around and be weighted down with all of its baggage (genocides, barbaric patriarchal "morality," teachings of exclusivity, Hell, etc., claims of miracles and "history" that never happened, and so forth) in order to salvage a relative handful of moral teachings you agree with, when you could find much richer bodies of moral teaching in, for example, the writings of Marcus Aurelius or the Buddha?

3) On what basis can you pick out those "nice" parts and treat them as (at least somewhat) "divinely inspired" or otherwise valid and applicable, while tossing the rest overboard?

4) Are there any truth-claims that actually differentiate your kind of Christianity from atheism? E.g., "God exists and does/says [insert deeds/words here], so that his/her/its existence is not indistinguishable from a godless Universe."

Hello Lord Privy Seal,

Indeed, I am certainly struggling to keep up with these interesting and penetrating questions.

From my understanding on the subject, Progressive Christianity is a non-specific denomination in which adherants are, in essence, heretics and deny many of the concepts involved in mainstream Christianity. I consider myself to be a Progressive Christian and a heretic because: (1) The Bible is not important to me, (2) I do not believe in the concept of redemptive sacrifice, (3) The life and the person of Jesus is much more important to me than his death. I am also a believer in religious pluralism and have a great deal of respect for others' views concerning religious belief.

I feel that John Spong and I share a lot in common in terms of how we perceive God. I think he, like myself, subscribes to the idea that God is a mystical, panentheistic entity that trandscends the material universe; like a universal consciousness.

Having researched Christian theology and history, it became very clear to me that there are no absolutes concerning the life and death of Jesus. All of the core ideas (such as original sin and resurrection) are simply theological conceptual interpretations of the significance of Jesus' life and death. Also, The Bible is simply a book that has been ultimately used and abused to control the minds of the masses since the Roman Empire converted to Christianity in the fourth century. Personally, I am much more concerned with the historical Jesus; I enjoy reading PhD scholars' work on the history of Jesus.

Please could you clarify what you mean in question four?

Cheers.