The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Cats, Dogs and Whores

October 19, 2005 | 10 Comments

Pointy-headed academics scoffed when George W. Bush identified Jesus as his favorite

Comments

10 Responses to “Cats, Dogs and Whores”

  1. Zed
    October 19th, 2005 @ 8:44 pm

    Well, all religions are philosophies. They just aren’t good philosophies, because their levels of skepticism are nill to none, especially when made against the same religious philosophy. Sure, religion will be skeptical of other religions/philosophies, but not itself.

  2. probligo
    October 19th, 2005 @ 9:11 pm

    I am sure that this person must have confused “philosopher” and “sophist” when they were reading their thesaurus…

  3. Zed
    October 19th, 2005 @ 9:18 pm

    “I am sure that this person must have confused “philosopher” and “sophist” when they were reading their thesaurus…”

    You ask me? Here’s the definition of philosopher:

    1. a. A lover of wisdom; one who devotes himself to the search of fundamental truth

    In the religionist’s mind, he/she’s already found the fundamental truth, and considers search into this, wisdom. Of course, I disagree, and certainly label such a person a sophist, or just the same, not a good philosopher.

  4. Mark Plus
    October 20th, 2005 @ 1:54 am

    Christians would have a better case if they could show that people with a history of making good decisions before their conversion found their religious story persuasive. Instead they tend to drag converts onto the stage with track records of poor judgment, like prostitutes, alcoholics, the sexually undisciplined and other suboptimals. This reminds me of Abraham Maslow’s reference to a scientific experiment in the 1930’s where a group of chickens could eat anything they wanted. One subgroup of chickens consistently chose a healthy diet and thrived, while another subgroup of chickens ate the poultry equivalent of junk food and remained sickly and underdeveloped. The experimenter then forced the diet chosen by the smart chickens on the stupid chickens, and the stupid chickens’ health improved as well, though they didn’t develop up to the level of the smart chickens. Maslow speculated that a similar mechanism might operate in humans, not necessarily regarding diet, where the an empirical study of the kinds of choices made by people who tend to succeed in life could provide a naturalistic basis of morality for everyone. (Aristotle said something similar in his Nichomachean Ethics, where he wrote that to understand goodness, we have to see what good people do. This sounds circular, but I think Aristotle proposed an empirical standard without developing it adequately.) Getting back to christianity, by its own admission it began by recruiting damaged goods into its ranks, so it wants in effect to take the equivalent of the bad chicken diet and force it on everyone.

  5. borgia
    October 20th, 2005 @ 5:08 am

    throughout the centuries, philosophers have had a reputation for being rigorous thinkers and contradiction hangmen. Ofcourse there are exceptions to the rule and Leftow and his ilk of christian philosophers are these exceptions.

    Philosophy is a word that combines the greek words for love and knowledge, hence to be a philosopher is to be a lover of knowledge AND its three (or for you modern epistemologists, 4) pre-requisites. To believe in the truth of the existence of God, the historical life of Jesus and his resurrection is to have only one pre-requisite; namely, that to know something one must believe it to be true.

    The other two: 1) that the belief is in fact true and 2) that the believer can give a justification or rationale for his believing it to be true (based on empirical observation) Christianity cannot fulfill.

    How do you spend 5+ years in grad school studying philosophy and not realize that the beliefs upon which your entire ethical system and worldview are based do not meet the three criteria for knowledge?

  6. Zed
    October 20th, 2005 @ 5:14 am

    “How do you spend 5+ years in grad school studying philosophy and not realize that the beliefs upon which your entire ethical system and worldview are based do not meet the three criteria for knowledge?”

    You mean the three pseudo-philosophical criteria you bring up to justify a religion? It’s not difficult, unless it was a Christian university. Then I’m sure that’d be the school’s mission statement.

  7. Zed
    October 20th, 2005 @ 5:17 am

    Though I do agree with the following part of the statement:

    “Christianity cannot fulfill”

  8. Borgia
    October 20th, 2005 @ 6:25 am

    My point was that all religions can only fulfill one of the three commonly agreed upon pre-requisites for knowledge, i.e., the pre-req that the person actually think that his belief is true. These three criteria are anything but pseudo-philosophy, on the contrary they constitute the heart and soul of epistemology.

  9. AK
    October 20th, 2005 @ 12:02 pm

    “it

  10. BigBuddhaPuppy
    October 21st, 2005 @ 12:24 pm

    She wasn’t a whore until she had a following in the early church, but the church took care of her. Mary Magdalene had too much power, Paul & James didn’t dig it, so she became a whore pretty quickly. Mary Mags, too bad darlin, you help out, give money, time and they attribute a whore washing JC’s feet to you.

    I bet she was hot, I mean Jesus could have had anyone being messiah and all. He choose her…maybe he had a foot fetish and liked MILF’s…

    In Dog we Trust…

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links