Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[Viking]

I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable 

Not surprising, in both cases it stems either from ignorance or deliberative refusal to approach these texts in their proper context, and instead try to read them like they are divine instruction manuals.

Which is precisely how they were treated before the enlightenment and christian theologians started stealing ideas form philo and moses mendelsohn.

[Barrister]

I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable 

Not surprising, in both cases it stems either from ignorance or deliberative refusal to approach these texts in their proper context, and instead try to read them like they are divine instruction manuals.

Which is precisely how they were treated before the enlightenment and christian theologians started stealing ideas form philo and moses mendelsohn.

No.  I'm hardly an expert on the history of theological thought, but I know you can go as far back as St. Augustine in the 4th century for the view that the Bible had a more metaphorical interpretation.

[Viking]

I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable 

Not surprising, in both cases it stems either from ignorance or deliberative refusal to approach these texts in their proper context, and instead try to read them like they are divine instruction manuals.

Which is precisely how they were treated before the enlightenment and christian theologians started stealing ideas form philo and moses mendelsohn.

No.  I'm hardly an expert on the history of theological thought, but I know you can go as far back as St. Augustine in the 4th century for the view that the Bible had a more metaphorical interpretation.

so, thats like almost 700 years after Philo of Alexandria... That just adds a second gripe, the different ways the religion was discussed with laymen and scholars. The two are nothing like each other.

[merithyn]

so, thats like almost 700 years after Philo of Alexandria... That just adds a second gripe, the different ways the religion was discussed with laymen and scholars. The two are nothing like each other.

There's always another gripe for you. When someone is as closed-minded as you are, there's no point in discussing it. You're not actually interested in a discourse. You just want to refute anything and everything that comes your way.

[grumbler]

As for Sheilbh's Heirarchy of Truth. It is BS. It is BS for the simple reason that you can only discover after the fact where in this  Heirachy of Truth a dogma or a doctrine or a teaching resides.

The mis-spelling aside, could you link me to Sheilbh's "Hierarchy of Truth"?  I am not familiar with it, and if it is going to be a subject of debate here, I'd like to read up on it.

thats the one where gheys and atheists aren't evil anymore.. it's a new kind of teaching with a new hierachy of symbolic, anecdotal and literal truths. It's just a new kind of claim to truth and knowledge with the same old fucked up epistemology.

So this idea isn't Sheilbh's, but is yours?  It is confusing when you make shit up and then attribute it to others (even going so far as to improperly use capital letters to make it a bogus proper name).

How about you just argue your ideas and let Sheilbh argue his.

[Camerus]

I wonder how many people Viking has brought to the light of atheism over the years, and whether, in view of this figure, he views it as worth the colossal time and effort he invests in this enterprise.

[Barrister]

I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable 

Not surprising, in both cases it stems either from ignorance or deliberative refusal to approach these texts in their proper context, and instead try to read them like they are divine instruction manuals.

Which is precisely how they were treated before the enlightenment and christian theologians started stealing ideas form philo and moses mendelsohn.

No.  I'm hardly an expert on the history of theological thought, but I know you can go as far back as St. Augustine in the 4th century for the view that the Bible had a more metaphorical interpretation.

so, thats like almost 700 years after Philo of Alexandria... That just adds a second gripe, the different ways the religion was discussed with laymen and scholars. The two are nothing like each other.

Are you familiar with the term "moving the goalposts"?

You said that the bible was treated like a "divine instruction manual" until it christian theologians started "stealing ideas" during the enlightenment. 

I commented that you were wrong, citing St. Sugustine.

You then move on to an entirely different argument, that theology was discussed differently between scholars and laymen.  Which is interesting, but is an entirely separate point.

[Viking]

so, thats like almost 700 years after Philo of Alexandria... That just adds a second gripe, the different ways the religion was discussed with laymen and scholars. The two are nothing like each other.

There's always another gripe for you. When someone is as closed-minded as you are, there's no point in discussing it. You're not actually interested in a discourse. You just want to refute anything and everything that comes your way.

Not accepting BS explanations that only work for those who already believe does not make me closed-minded.

The reason Augistine and Philo and many many others concluded that much of the book wasn't literal was simply that they contradicted reality and then they made up a justification of how the book and reality could still be true. Being the "closed-minded bigot" that I am I don't accept silly post facto explanations like that, if somebody had come up with the idea that some of the bible wasn't literal before they had to deal with the fact that it obviously wasn't factual then I'd be willing to accept the idea. But so far each of the non-literal explanations is merely re-defining god and the bible after the previous definition was demonstrated to be false.

They claim that god is timeless and unchanging, but they say he changes when reality conflicts. They say he is a source of objective morality which of course changes over time. It's convenient that god agrees with everything you think and that he hates the same people you do.

If god were real then that would be the most significant and important fact in the history of the world - if only it were true; it just isn't. I'm very open to that possibility; I just need evidence and/or logic which actually proves what is being asserted. 

[Viking]

I wonder how many people Viking has brought to the light of atheism over the years, and whether, in view of this figure, he views it as worth the colossal time and effort he invests in this enterprise.

You have no idea how much time I do invest or not invest in this. If you want to pontificate (see, I made a pun) on some issue please base it on some actually fact or knowledge. Else, you are merely pissing me off.

[Viking]

Are you familiar with the term "moving the goalposts"?

You said that the bible was treated like a "divine instruction manual" until it christian theologians started "stealing ideas" during the enlightenment. 

I commented that you were wrong, citing St. Sugustine.

You then move on to an entirely different argument, that theology was discussed differently between scholars and laymen.  Which is interesting, but is an entirely separate point.

Yes, and theologians of the era did use augustine to deal with their own cognitive dissonance regarding jonah and the whale and noah's flood and actually the creation myth which late roman thinkers knew to be factually wrong. They did participate in an organization which went to the unlettered masses and told that it was a divine instruction manual that only the priest with his magical abilities could prevent your soul from being sent to hell. Its when people learn how to read and lutherans hand out bibles that they have to stop pretending that this isn't happening.

It's not surprising that Moses Mendelsohn revitalised these ideas in one of the first countries in europe which gained a substantial religious minority in war and didn't persecute it.

I sited Philo of Alexandria (jewish hellenic thinker) and Moses Mendelson (jewish enlightenment thinker) both concerned with conciliating the truth they assumed was in the text and reality which disconfirmed it.

[Barrister]

They claim that god is timeless and unchanging, but they say he changes when reality conflicts. They say he is a source of objective morality which of course changes over time. It's convenient that god agrees with everything you think and that he hates the same people you do.

It's not God who changes, but our understanding of God.

You're okay with science changing it's understanding of the world as more evidence becomes available.  Why can't theology be treated in the same fashion?

[Barrister]

Are you familiar with the term "moving the goalposts"?

You said that the bible was treated like a "divine instruction manual" until it christian theologians started "stealing ideas" during the enlightenment. 

I commented that you were wrong, citing St. Sugustine.

You then move on to an entirely different argument, that theology was discussed differently between scholars and laymen.  Which is interesting, but is an entirely separate point.

Yes, and theologians of the era did use augustine to deal with their own cognitive dissonance regarding jonah and the whale and noah's flood and actually the creation myth which late roman thinkers knew to be factually wrong. They did participate in an organization which went to the unlettered masses and told that it was a divine instruction manual that only the priest with his magical abilities could prevent your soul from being sent to hell. Its when people learn how to read and lutherans hand out bibles that they have to stop pretending that this isn't happening.

While doubtlessly what the priest said during mass was different from what St. Augustine was writing.  Different audiences, different mediums make that inevitable.

But since you were already proven wrong about the church treating the bible as a "divine instruction manual" until the enlightenment, I am going to have to ask you to provide some link or proof that states the church told laypeople it was a "divine instruction manual".  My understanding is that the medeival catholic church didn't spend much or any time talking about the bible period.

[Camerus]

I wonder how many people Viking has brought to the light of atheism over the years, and whether, in view of this figure, he views it as worth the colossal time and effort he invests in this enterprise.

You have no idea how much time I do invest or not invest in this. If you want to pontificate (see, I made a pun) on some issue please base it on some actually fact or knowledge. Else, you are merely pissing me off.

I wonder where any Languishite could've possibly gotten the baseless idea that atheism is a pet topic of yours...

[Viking]

They claim that god is timeless and unchanging, but they say he changes when reality conflicts. They say he is a source of objective morality which of course changes over time. It's convenient that god agrees with everything you think and that he hates the same people you do.

It's not God who changes, but our understanding of God.

You're okay with science changing it's understanding of the world as more evidence becomes available.  Why can't theology be treated in the same fashion?

Because god hasn't furnished us with any new data since 33 ad has he? Science changes it's understanding of the world as new data and knowledge emerges. Science also also manages to look back and say that X is not true, it was not true then and it is not true now.

If god is also supposed to be omni- etc. then he gave us bad information the first time round as you present it. Information that certainly got people sent to hell for their sins if our present understanding of gods nature is correct.

By this Pope reckoning torturing heretics to death would be sin right? (I don't know this for a fact, but I feel I am safe in making that assumption, given how much of a nice guy he seems to be). Previous Popes approved of the practice on sound theological grounds.

If God isn't changing then he certainly is a <insert profane insult of choice>. Call it the Viking Dilemma. If he knew that the torture would happen and permitted it anyway he is cruel and evil, if he didn't know the torture would happen he is not onmi-.  The various ideas of god do not stand up to reason and logic and reality.

Please do give me a comprehensible answer on why/how either torture was ok 1000 years ago and/or how/why god isn't being a dick for letting it happen.

[Eddie Teach]

I wonder how many people Viking has brought to the light of atheism over the years, and whether, in view of this figure, he views it as worth the colossal time and effort he invests in this enterprise.

There are plenty of people(especially on Languish) who enjoy arguing for its own sake and not as a means to convince other people of something.