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

[Viking]

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.

Not different mediums, different content.

As for the bible. It is the only source of revealed truth. It is in fact THE collection of revealed truth according to the Catholic Church. Dei Verbum asserts this (do your own fuckin' googling, as PP did point out, I'm not wasting my time on you) and that was from the 1960's. It is also intended to be understood as the writers understood it, your "changing understanding of god" is actually heretical to catholicism... though that seems to depend on the pope.

[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.

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.

Actually arguing on languish makes me more convincing in real life. Not only can I test out arguments and ways of arguing but it helps me form and structure arguments in ways which actually do work.

Living among atheists in scandianvia I meet few theists and the ones I do meet have already survived pretty much any reasonable argument. My success has been in converting pro-palestinians to either neutrals or pro-israelis.

[Barrister]

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.

Not different mediums, different content.

As for the bible. It is the only source of revealed truth. It is in fact THE collection of revealed truth according to the Catholic Church. Dei Verbum asserts this (do your own fuckin' googling, as PP did point out, I'm not wasting my time on you) and that was from the 1960's. It is also intended to be understood as the writers understood it, your "changing understanding of god" is actually heretical to catholicism... though that seems to depend on the pope.

But it seems you are wasting your time with me, as you continue to post and reply.

Given your no doubt honest mistake on the history of christian theology on the previous page I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't just accept what you assert about the history of christian theology.

Indeed even here Dei Verbum does not seem to say what you thinks it says.  On your invitation I did google Dei Verbum.  It states that while the bible is the sole source of "Sacred Scripture", it is not the only source of knowledge - that Sacred Tradition is also important.

And quite contrary to what you said, it says that although the Bible was inspired by God, it often uses "literary forms" that require the reader to carefully consider what the writer's intention was.

[Berkut]

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 theology doesn't change as more evidence comes available. There hasn't been any "more evidence", just a changing world which the religious must reconcile to the existing set of "evidence".

You cannot compare this to science - science is a process which is specifically designed to integrate new evidence into current models, or use new evidence to discard existing models in favor of new models entirely. There is no correlation in theology, since there is no means within religion to obtain new evidence, except via some form of new divine revelation. And organized religion is actively hostile to new claims of divine revelation.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Chrisitainity began with laymen (men and women) discussing the new religion amongst eachother.  Some of the most learned pillars of the Church began as either laymen (eg Ambrosius) or non-believers who became layment and then leaders of their regional churches (eg Augustine).  You have a fairly distorted view of the history of christianity which, I suppose, is necessary if you wish to hold to your view that all christians are fundy literalist nutbars.

[crazy canuck]

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 theology doesn't change as more evidence comes available. There hasn't been any "more evidence", just a changing world which the religious must reconcile to the existing set of "evidence".

You cannot compare this to science - science is a process which is specifically designed to integrate new evidence into current models, or use new evidence to discard existing models in favor of new models entirely. There is no correlation in theology, since there is no means within religion to obtain new evidence, except via some form of new divine revelation. And organized religion is actively hostile to new claims of divine revelation.

That reasoning only holds true if one assumes that all religion must be a literal understanding rather than a metaphorical understanding.  If you accept the latter then it is quite easy to understand how religion can be viewed as an iterative process of interpretation.

[Tamas]

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 theology doesn't change as more evidence comes available. There hasn't been any "more evidence", just a changing world which the religious must reconcile to the existing set of "evidence".

You cannot compare this to science - science is a process which is specifically designed to integrate new evidence into current models, or use new evidence to discard existing models in favor of new models entirely. There is no correlation in theology, since there is no means within religion to obtain new evidence, except via some form of new divine revelation. And organized religion is actively hostile to new claims of divine revelation.

That reasoning only holds true if one assumes that all religion must be a literal understanding rather than a metaphorical understanding.  If you accept the latter then it is quite easy to understand how religion can be viewed as an iterative process of interpretation.

Again, you and the others, speak as if Christianity started ten years ago. It did not. All the countless "you interpret a passage different than us, die you mofo!" episodes in history were part of Christianity as well.

[crazy canuck]

Again, you and the others, speak as if Christianity started ten years ago. It did not. All the countless "you interpret a passage different than us, die you mofo!" episodes in history were part of Christianity as well.

Certainly.  But all the die you mofo episodes took place because there were interpretive battles...

[merithyn]

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.

Actually, what's argued is that god is timeless and unchanging, but our understanding is forever changing.

[Berkut]

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 theology doesn't change as more evidence comes available. There hasn't been any "more evidence", just a changing world which the religious must reconcile to the existing set of "evidence".

You cannot compare this to science - science is a process which is specifically designed to integrate new evidence into current models, or use new evidence to discard existing models in favor of new models entirely. There is no correlation in theology, since there is no means within religion to obtain new evidence, except via some form of new divine revelation. And organized religion is actively hostile to new claims of divine revelation.

That reasoning only holds true if one assumes that all religion must be a literal understanding rather than a metaphorical understanding.  If you accept the latter then it is quite easy to understand how religion can be viewed as an iterative process of interpretation.

An iterative process of interpretation is NOT the same as gathering new evidence though. That is looking at existing evidence in a different way, or with additional understanding.

Or, in the case of religion, drawing "new" conclusions with the same information because the old conclusions are no longer culturally acceptable.

[grumbler]

That reasoning only holds true if one assumes that all religion must be a literal understanding rather than a metaphorical understanding.  If you accept the latter then it is quite easy to understand how religion can be viewed as an iterative process of interpretation. 

I am not sure that there is any evidence that religion is iterative at all, except on an individual basis, or in the case of a few religions seen in isolation.  Buddhism isn't an iteration of Judaism, nor is Wicca an iteration of Sikhism. 

[garbon]

That reasoning only holds true if one assumes that all religion must be a literal understanding rather than a metaphorical understanding.  If you accept the latter then it is quite easy to understand how religion can be viewed as an iterative process of interpretation. 

I am not sure that there is any evidence that religion is iterative at all, except on an individual basis, or in the case of a few religions seen in isolation.  Buddhism isn't an iteration of Judaism, nor is Wicca an iteration of Sikhism. 

I thought he meant within each religion rather than across religions.

[Berkut]

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.

Actually, what's argued is that god is timeless and unchanging, but our understanding is forever changing.

Indeed.

Which creates an entire host of problems in and of itself, of course.

And makes the rational ecessity of religion rather suspect.

After all, if our understanding has changed so much over time, then surely it is ridiciulous to assume that our *current* understanding is the "right" one, in which case...what is the point? We know that the current "understanding" filtered through religion is going to be wrong once society or science decides it is wrong, so why bother with the religious filter to begin with?

Viking and Tamas are fundamentally right - there is a very basic problem with the claims that religious beliefs ought to inform our actions, while at the same time accepting that those religious beliefs are not in fact the product of some form of external revelation in some fashion, but simply the consequences of societal norms. Why not just let the societal norms coupled with out personal views and perceptions inform our actions, and leave the religion out of it?

The only justification for letting religion into the mix is the claim, at some level, that there is some kind of external validity to religion outside of human experience, in which case, why is it changing almost exactly and predictably in lock step with a changing human society and scientific understanding of reality?

The Pope now says, to some degree or another, that gays are a-ok. At least compared to how they were seen in the past. This is entirely predictable as a obvious change in the Church in response to changing cultural norms. This is no more "interesting" from that perspective than the Mormons eventually deciding that black people are ok, or the Catholics deciding that the earth really does revolve around the Sun. The data the churches are operating from from a religious perspective has not changed one bit. Their "understanding" has changed, but that understanding on these kinds of issues *always* lags societal or scientific change, so the claim that the change is a function of something other than the overall society is pretty hard to buy into.

[Berkut]

That reasoning only holds true if one assumes that all religion must be a literal understanding rather than a metaphorical understanding.  If you accept the latter then it is quite easy to understand how religion can be viewed as an iterative process of interpretation. 

I am not sure that there is any evidence that religion is iterative at all, except on an individual basis, or in the case of a few religions seen in isolation.  Buddhism isn't an iteration of Judaism, nor is Wicca an iteration of Sikhism. 

I thought he meant within each religion rather than across religions.

Hence his comment about religions seen in isolation.

[grumbler]

I thought he meant within each religion rather than across religions.

I am not sure all religions even have much change within themselves.  I don't think the various Buddhist sects are iterative, for instance.