Languish's church attendence

[Viking]

Sheilbh's transformation into a proper adult central-right middle classer is fun to watch

I've always been a Blairite ultra and I still am.  The only change is that I don't believe in Europe any more and I've moved from a cultural Catholicism to an actual Anglicanism.

Just a quick check, you belive in the god described in the bible and you believe jesus' death on the cross atones for our sins if we only belive in him?

[derspiess]

Is it the indoctrination itself that bothers you, or are you just concerned over the values with which they happen to be indoctrinating their kids?

Instilling morals at an early age is a natural mechanism. We all need to learn to live in society and the basic rules are pretty much the same all over the globe. Don't steal, don't murder and so on.

But it has always intrigued me how religious people won't give their own children the benefit of the doubt. If your religion is so great, the message so clear, why not let them choose freely when they are ready? Why the need to drive it in before their brain develops critical thinking capabilites?

I think I benefited from being brought up "in the church", and I want to give my kids that opportunity.  I won't force them to become members.  If they shrug their shoulders when they become adults & say it's all BS, so be it.  But I think I owe it to them to give them the same opportunity I had. 

FWIW, quite a few of the "in your face" religious types actually followed the model you suggest and gravitated toward religion in their adult lives, having had little or no exposure to religion as a child.  Zeal of a convert, and all that.

[Sheilbh]

Just a quick check, you belive in the god described in the bible and you believe jesus' death on the cross atones for our sins if we only belive in him?

I don't know much of the Bible.  I've only ever really read it from a literary perspective.  When I was studying English I did a unit on the Bible and literature, so I know my Milton and Renaissance interpretations of the Book of Judith far more.

Though I got an edition of the King James which I'm reading through.  I'll let you know properly when I'm finished.

I believe in God - I think Biblical understanding of God shifts from a Jewish war and rain God, to the God of the Jewish people, to a universal God worshipped by Jews, to a God for gentile and Jew, slave and free.

I believe in Christ's physical death and resurrection, the forgiveness of sins and, because of Christ, the resurrection of man after death.

[Barrister]

Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Sticking your head up your own ass is difficult. I suggest you attempt it.

This is a non-argument. I want to hear a reason why it should be done rather than a non argument.

It was a refutation of your point.  You said it was pretty hard to figure out what parts of the Bible are allegorical, and which are not.

I agreed with you.  It is hard.  But just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth attempting.

[Viking]

Just a quick check, you belive in the god described in the bible and you believe jesus' death on the cross atones for our sins if we only belive in him?

I don't know much of the Bible.  I've only ever really read it from a literary perspective.  When I was studying English I did a unit on the Bible and literature, so I know my Milton and Renaissance interpretations of the Book of Judith far more.

Though I got an edition of the King James which I'm reading through.  I'll let you know properly when I'm finished.

I believe in God - I think Biblical understanding of God shifts from a Jewish war and rain God, to the God of the Jewish people, to a universal God worshipped by Jews, to a God for gentile and Jew, slave and free.

I believe in Christ's physical death and resurrection, the forgiveness of sins and, because of Christ, the resurrection of man after death.

I used the phrase "as described in the bible" to segregate god from all the other gods, but srsly, how can you be a christian if you haven't read the bible as revalation?

Do you mind sharing with us your conversion story?

[Razgovory]

Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Sticking your head up your own ass is difficult. I suggest you attempt it.

Why?  You seem to be doing such a good job of it.

[Barrister]

Just a quick check, you belive in the god described in the bible and you believe jesus' death on the cross atones for our sins if we only belive in him?

I don't know much of the Bible.  I've only ever really read it from a literary perspective.  When I was studying English I did a unit on the Bible and literature, so I know my Milton and Renaissance interpretations of the Book of Judith far more.

Though I got an edition of the King James which I'm reading through.  I'll let you know properly when I'm finished.

I believe in God - I think Biblical understanding of God shifts from a Jewish war and rain God, to the God of the Jewish people, to a universal God worshipped by Jews, to a God for gentile and Jew, slave and free.

I believe in Christ's physical death and resurrection, the forgiveness of sins and, because of Christ, the resurrection of man after death.

I used the phrase "as described in the bible" to segregate god from all the other gods, but srsly, how can you be a christian if you haven't read the bible as revalation?

Do you mind sharing with us your conversion story?

Sheilbh is coming from the catholic heritage, which doesn't put nearly as much weight on reading the bible as us Protestants do.   Instead it's all about the accumulated wisdom of the Church and its teachings.

[Viking]

Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Sticking your head up your own ass is difficult. I suggest you attempt it.

This is a non-argument. I want to hear a reason why it should be done rather than a non argument.

It was a refutation of your point.  You said it was pretty hard to figure out what parts of the Bible are allegorical, and which are not.

I agreed with you.  It is hard.  But just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth attempting.

I didn't say it was hard, I said that there was no criterion for deciding what is allegorical and what isn't.

[Iormlund]

FWIW, quite a few of the "in your face" religious types actually followed the model you suggest and gravitated toward religion in their adult lives, having had little or no exposure to religion as a child.  Zeal of a convert, and all that.

Yeah I know. The process goes the other way, too. Especially in a society like modern Spain. Most of us 30-somethings were baptised and took communion. Many went to Catholic schools or took the semi-mandatory religion classes in public ones.

And yet, my generation is largely irreligious. You can know someone for years and religion will never come up in a conversation, except for invariable displays of anti-clericalism. If you do ask, he or she will perhaps describe him or herself as Catholic, despite being a Deist at most.

[Barrister]

Just because something is difficult to do or to know doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Sticking your head up your own ass is difficult. I suggest you attempt it.

This is a non-argument. I want to hear a reason why it should be done rather than a non argument.

It was a refutation of your point.  You said it was pretty hard to figure out what parts of the Bible are allegorical, and which are not.

I agreed with you.  It is hard.  But just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth attempting.

I didn't say it was hard, I said that there was no criterion for deciding what is allegorical and what isn't.

Of course their are all kinds of criteria.  Entire movements of theologians have attempted to figure it out based on a variety of criteria.  There is no agreement of course, and nothing can be categorically proven, but that doesn't mean they're just throwing darts at a board.

[Razgovory]

FWIW, quite a few of the "in your face" religious types actually followed the model you suggest and gravitated toward religion in their adult lives, having had little or no exposure to religion as a child.  Zeal of a convert, and all that.

Yeah I know. The process goes the other way, too. Especially in a society like modern Spain. Most of us 30-somethings were baptised and took communion. Many went to Catholic schools or took the semi-mandatory religion classes in public ones.

And yet, my generation is largely irreligious. You can know someone for years and religion will never come up in a conversation, except for invariable displays of anti-clericalism. If you do ask, he or she will perhaps describe him or herself as Catholic, despite being a Deist at most.

And in our country there is no state church and religion thrives.

[Martinus]

My favorite book when I was little was my Children's Illustrated Bible.

Really? Mine was the Greek mythology. My grandma started to read it to me when I was like 6. I could name the Muses before I could name the Apostles.

I read the Iliad and the Kalevala before I read the Bible. Jewish myths are even less interesting than the Finnish ones. Go figure.

[Viking]

I didn't say it was hard, I said that there was no criterion for deciding what is allegorical and what isn't.

Of course their are all kinds of criteria.  Entire movements of theologians have attempted to figure it out based on a variety of criteria.  There is no agreement of course, and nothing can be categorically proven, but that doesn't mean they're just throwing darts at a board.

I should have used "objective criteria" rather than just criteria. There is no test of falsifiability that can be applied to any attempt to systematize the identification of allegorical passages in the bible. That doesn't mean any attempts are completely random but rather that they are mere opinions. There is no prospect of resolution of which opinion is true.

My point is that there is no way of knowing which passages are meant to be allegorical and which are meant to be factual. Ultimately this means that the distinction no longer matters. Ultimately what happens is that the stories that are proven wrong are declared to be allegorical and the as yet not disproven stores are maintained as fact. This is in fact a case of moving the goalposts; which is what I accused liberal theology of doing earlier in this thread.

[Martinus]

The problem with the "Bible offers many useful lessons" argument is really that it does not even attempt to show how that compares to tons of other books and stories that offer more useful lessons without the side dish of genocide and rape (or, conversely, a lot of available stories of genocide and rape are much cooler and more entertaining too).

Between the likes of Euripides, Homer, Shakespeare or Voltaire (or HBO, for that matter), why would anyone want to read the Bible instead?

[Barrister]

I didn't say it was hard, I said that there was no criterion for deciding what is allegorical and what isn't.

Of course their are all kinds of criteria.  Entire movements of theologians have attempted to figure it out based on a variety of criteria.  There is no agreement of course, and nothing can be categorically proven, but that doesn't mean they're just throwing darts at a board.

I should have used "objective criteria" rather than just criteria. There is no test of falsifiability that can be applied to any attempt to systematize the identification of allegorical passages in the bible. That doesn't mean any attempts are completely random but rather that they are mere opinions. There is no prospect of resolution of which opinion is true.

My point is that there is no way of knowing which passages are meant to be allegorical and which are meant to be factual. Ultimately this means that the distinction no longer matters. Ultimately what happens is that the stories that are proven wrong are declared to be allegorical and the as yet not disproven stores are maintained as fact. This is in fact a case of moving the goalposts; which is what I accused liberal theology of doing earlier in this thread.

There are very few "objective criteria" in attempting to analyze any ancient text, be it the Bible, the Illiad or Mayan stelae.  That certainly does not mean that attempts to analyze such works is futile.