News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

Started by garbon, September 13, 2013, 08:28:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 10:49:37 AM
I am sorry man, I just found it hilarious that when I declared the Bible`s general content as unproven, you tried to argue that by pointing out that it contains some proper historical stuff.

What do you mean by "general content"?
A significant portion of the content consists of poems, songs, sayings, proverbs, and so forth.  It's not the sort of thing that can be proven or unproven.
As for the historical narratives contained in Kings and Chronicles, the situation stands almost opposite to your proposition.  The specific content in these chapters - what individual monarchs and prophets supposedly did - is by and large unproven or even just wrong, but much of the key general content - the Assyrian conquest and the Babylonian siege, is accurate enough.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Tamas

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.
Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

crazy canuck

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.
Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

You deserve the full on Grumbler treatment.

garbon

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.
Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Barrister

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.
Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

And what's your point?

At the time of the, say, Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Church then, and continues to this day, to hold to a more allegorical understanding of the Bible.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Tamas

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 02:53:35 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.
Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

Well, yeah, that's my theme. :P

The Brain

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Bible: A-OK! :thumbsup:

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Law: To gaol with you! :mad:
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

garbon

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 03:03:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 02:53:35 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.
Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

Well, yeah, that's my theme. :P

Could you try to be a little more original then? :yawn:
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Eddie Teach

To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

crazy canuck

Quote from: The Brain on September 16, 2013, 03:07:03 PM
Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Bible: A-OK! :thumbsup:

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Law: To gaol with you! :mad:

:lol:

Barrister

Quote from: The Brain on September 16, 2013, 03:07:03 PM
Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Bible: A-OK! :thumbsup:

Someone has an allegorical understanding of the Law: To gaol with you! :mad:

Au contraire my animal-loving friend.  Some of the most creative legal thinkers wind up on the bench!
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Razgovory

Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 03:03:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2013, 02:53:35 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2013, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2013, 12:26:20 PM

As I understand it, the "we must accept the Bible as 100% literal truth" point of view really only started in the 19th century or so.
Yeah. I think in Christianity and Islam literalism's a very modern heresy.

:yeahright: I mean, it's not like people got killed for having different interpretation of the same text than the Church, or for having scientific breakthroughs. That's TOTALLY a 19th century thing.

Can you, in perhaps one post, state clearly what you are arguing? You seem to keep flitting about towards different points with the only theme being contempt for religion.

Well, yeah, that's my theme. :P

Bigotry and hatred of others is sort theme for the whole of Eastern Europe.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Razgovory

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism. 
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

crazy canuck

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 04:30:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism.

That is the main problem with Dawkins.  He starts from the premise that all religious people are idiots because the world is older than 6000 years.  While he would have a good argument that all literalists who believe the world is 6000 years old are idiots he ends up looking silly by assuming that all religious people have the same belief.   Tamas has essentially fallen into the same trap.

Berkut

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 04:38:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2013, 04:30:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Viking does it much better anyway.

Viking comes from a different direction then Tamas.  Tamas is an atheist for the same reason Marty was an Atheist.  It helps him feel smart.  There is a idea that smart people are atheists, and since Tamas wants to be smart he decides to gravitate toward atheism.

That is the main problem with Dawkins.  He starts from the premise that all religious people are idiots because the world is older than 6000 years. 


He does?

I assume that he states this somewhere, right, since you are stating definitively what he believes?
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned