Who’s church is closer to following “true” Christianity: BRTD’s, or ER’s?

[John Dule]

Say what you will about ER, but his brand of scripture is more theologically sound than the adult D&D club that BRTD attends every Sunday.

[John Dule]

Say what you will about ER, but his brand of scripture is more theologically sound than the adult D&D club that BRTD attends every Sunday.

It’s incoherent to be atheist and claim one or the other sect of Christianity is more or less theologically sound.

Why?

[John Dule]

Yeah, pretty much what Nathan said. I would have compared it to interpreting the law-- whether or not you agree with a particular statute, you can still objectively assess whether certain actions or procedures conform to that statute.

[John Dule]

Yeah, pretty much what Nathan said. I would have compared it to interpreting the law-- whether or not you agree with a particular statute, you can still objectively assess whether certain actions or procedures conform to that statute.

I mean again the law is a social convention. Whether same-sex sexual relations are a sin or not is to Christians a truth claim about material reality.

I could easily say that I think ER's Christianity is on that score more faithful than BRTD's to my 'literary' interpretation of Christianity. This is what Paul said, what most churches said until the 20th century etc.. But I don't see how I could make that a theological claim, because I don't know how I would falsify BRTD's theological justification on the plane of theology, something I don't believe is a valid path to knowledge.

Studying "theology" doesn't necessitate any religious belief. If one studies a religious text or tradition, one is engaging in a form of "theology." An atheist is just as capable of reading a religious text and applying it to a given situation as a believer is.

I agree that theology can't provide any important or interesting answers (or indeed, questions) about the fundamental nature of reality, but studying religion can still be useful from an anthropological/cultural perspective.

[John Dule]

An atheist is just as capable of reading a religious text and applying it to a given situation as a believer is.

No, he isn't - as, for example, the history of nonChristian BibleCritics has proven very well with its endless series of as arrogant as ignorant hypoTheses, most of them having already been refuted.
Generally a historian must - like any novelist, with whom he is not unrelated - first of all love (at least a little bit), what he describes then critically.
"Whatever is, is right." is finally certainly insufficient from a logical point of view, but nonetheless necessary to understand anything empirical.

So in order to be a decent historian of the Khmer Rouge, one must "love" Pol Pot?

[John Dule]

Studying "theology" doesn't necessitate any religious belief.

No, but making positive doctrinal statements does.

If one studies a religious text or tradition, one is engaging in a form of "theology."

Or history, or philosophy, or literary study. The point is it's difficult to see how those can adjudicate competing theological claims.

Whether or not one agrees with a religious text, one can still assess whether a person's actions comply with the prescriptions and proscriptions of that text. Even as an atheist, I think I pretty much understand that murder is an unChristian act. I'm not sure why you're pressing this point. It seems apparent to me.