http://news.yahoo.com/pope-says-wont-judge-gay-priests-111041448.html
QuotePope Francis reached out to gays on Monday, saying he wouldn't judge priests for their sexual orientation in a remarkably open and wide-ranging news conference as he returned from his first foreign trip.
"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" Francis asked.
His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, signed a document in 2005 that said men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests. Francis was much more conciliatory, saying gay clergymen should be forgiven and their sins forgotten.
Francis' remarks came Monday during a plane journey back to the Vatican from his first foreign trip in Brazil.
He was funny and candid during his first news conference that lasted almost an hour and a half. He didn't dodge a single question, even thanking the journalist who raised allegations reported by an Italian newsmagazine that one of his trusted monsignors was involved in a scandalous gay tryst.
Francis said he investigated and found nothing to back up the allegations.
Francis was asked about Italian media reports suggesting that a group within the church tried to blackmail fellow church officials with evidence of their homosexual activities. Italian media reported this year that the allegations contributed to Benedict's decision to resign.
Stressing that Catholic social teaching that calls for homosexuals to be treated with dignity and not marginalized, Francis said it was something else entirely to conspire to use private information for blackmail or to exert pressure.
Francis was responding to reports that a trusted aide was involved in an alleged gay tryst a decade ago. He said he investigated the allegations according to canon law and found nothing to back them up. But he took journalists to task for reporting on the matter, saying the allegations concerned matters of sin, not crimes like sexually abusing children.
And when someone sins and confesses, he said, God not only forgives but forgets.
"We don't have the right to not forget," he said.
The directness of his comments suggested that he wanted to put the matter of the monsignor behind him as he sets about overhauling the Vatican bank and reforming the Holy See bureaucracy.
...
So do we reckon that Marti has taken about going to mass again?
He's in the feet washing line.
Well, you must give up some ground if you want to keep protecting the pedophiles.
Damn hippie pope.
QuoteStressing that Catholic social teaching that calls for homosexuals to be treated with dignity and not marginalized, Francis said it was something else entirely to conspire to use private information for blackmail or to exert pressure.
This guy would never cut it as Director, FBI.
Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2013, 08:24:43 AM
Well, you must give up some ground if you want to keep protecting the pedophiles.
QuoteBut he took journalists to task for reporting on the matter, saying the allegations concerned matters of sin, not crimes like sexually abusing children.
Anyways, is this matter much? When it comes to debates like gay marriage, the anti-gay crowd always says shit like "I have no problem with them, just don't do it in public" etc.
So it's not like this will convince a single homophob to be accepting.
Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2013, 08:36:54 AM
Anyways, is this matter much? When it comes to debates like gay marriage, the anti-gay crowd always says shit like "I have no problem with them, just don't do it in public" etc.
So it's not like this will convince a single homophob to be accepting.
In itself, probably not. That said still not what I expected to hear out of the pope. I mean I've been wondering who he was to judge anything for a long time. :D
A powerful answer to "Who am I to judge?" is "Quite literally, the pope, the vicar of Christ, the figurehead of the most prominent Christian organization in the world", but I like this guy anyway.
When is his pronouncement on the Malvinas?
Quote from: Lettow77 on July 29, 2013, 09:32:17 AM
When is his pronouncement on the Malvinas?
Hopefully never.
Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2013, 08:36:54 AM
Anyways, is this matter much? When it comes to debates like gay marriage, the anti-gay crowd always says shit like "I have no problem with them, just don't do it in public" etc.
So it's not like this will convince a single homophob to be accepting.
You mean, like you with Muslims?
I wonder if the Church will ever revisit its whole stance on sexuality... Perhaps not with all the 3rd worlders who are now the majority of its adherents.... Still this new Pope is refreshing.
G.
I never understood the Benedict position. Priests are forbidden to engage in any kind of sex, so what difference could their orientation make?
Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2013, 08:36:54 AM
Anyways, is this matter much? When it comes to debates like gay marriage, the anti-gay crowd always says shit like "I have no problem with them, just don't do it in public" etc.
Dang you have really nice anti-gay types out there if that is the extent of the shit they say.
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7082630656/h13A38804/)
Who is he to judge? WTF? The Popes Instruction Manual is pretty clear on the issue.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/homosexuality.html
Nothing terribly new here, though the tone and style of the comments are very different than you'd get from Benedict or JP. It may have an impact on seminaries, which is good because had Benedict's policies applied retrospectively many parishes would lack priests and he'd have had to abdicate a few years early.
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:20:17 PM
Who is he to judge? WTF? The Popes Instruction Manual is pretty clear on the issue.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/homosexuality.html
I think the key documents you're looking for are the Catechism and the Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2013, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:20:17 PM
Who is he to judge? WTF? The Popes Instruction Manual is pretty clear on the issue.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/homosexuality.html
I think the key documents you're looking for are the Catechism and the Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons :P
meh, you don't get to both change the rules as you go along as well as claim that you have objective truth or objective morality.
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:34:03 PM
meh, you don't get to both change the rules as you go along as well as claim that you have objective truth or objective morality.
It's the sola scriptura lot that changed the rules. The magisterium has a couple of thousand years of revealed objective truth in doctrine - so, for the most part, do the Orthodox.
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:34:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2013, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:20:17 PM
Who is he to judge? WTF? The Popes Instruction Manual is pretty clear on the issue.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/homosexuality.html
I think the key documents you're looking for are the Catechism and the Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons :P
meh, you don't get to both change the rules as you go along as well as claim that you have objective truth or objective morality.
Yes you can. The history of the church is one of changing doctrines.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2013, 02:39:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:34:03 PM
meh, you don't get to both change the rules as you go along as well as claim that you have objective truth or objective morality.
It's the sola scriptura lot that changed the rules. The magisterium has a couple of thousand years of revealed objective truth in doctrine - so, for the most part, do the Orthodox.
Yet, this magisterium managed to be explicitely homophobic for nearly 2000 years and the "sola scriptura" lot managed to get over the homophobia decades earlier.
Edit: but then again, defending yourself against the claim of homophobia by pointing at somebody else saying "he is worse" isn't really a defense.
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2013, 02:55:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:34:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2013, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:20:17 PM
Who is he to judge? WTF? The Popes Instruction Manual is pretty clear on the issue.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/homosexuality.html
I think the key documents you're looking for are the Catechism and the Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons :P
meh, you don't get to both change the rules as you go along as well as claim that you have objective truth or objective morality.
Yes you can. The history of the church is one of changing doctrines.
and it follows from that that it is not objective. An organization that at times argues that burning heretics and waging war on infidels is moral and now claims that it is moral to be tolerant and peaceful can't claim objective moral truth.
Either it's truth is relative or objective moral truth changes over time. Neither position is actually held by any religion.
One of these days you'll change someone's mind Viking. You just have to keep going.
Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2013, 03:06:34 PM
One of these days you'll change someone's mind Viking. You just have to keep going.
Objective facts and/or logically consistent arguments based on true premises will change my mind.
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 03:07:43 PMObjective facts and/or logically consistent arguments based on true premises will change my mind.
Of course.
I'm not sure why you bring that up, however, as I didn't mention anyone changing your mind.
Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2013, 03:06:34 PM
One of these days you'll change someone's mind Viking. You just have to keep going.
:)
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:57:06 PM
Yet, this magisterium managed to be explicitely homophobic for nearly 2000 years and the "sola scriptura" lot managed to get over the homophobia decades earlier.
Doesn't that demonstrate my point? The Catholic church doesn't really change the rules, certainly not on doctrine, ever. That's part of the reason the Church claims it is teaching truth - that it's unchanging.
Also I don't think homophobia's an entirely useful word in this context.
QuoteYes you can. The history of the church is one of changing doctrines.
I can't think of a single doctrine changed in the entire history of the Church.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2013, 03:59:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:57:06 PM
Yet, this magisterium managed to be explicitely homophobic for nearly 2000 years and the "sola scriptura" lot managed to get over the homophobia decades earlier.
Doesn't that demonstrate my point? The Catholic church doesn't really change the rules, certainly not on doctrine, ever. That's part of the reason the Church claims it is teaching truth - that it's unchanging.
Also I don't think homophobia's an entirely useful word in this context.
QuoteYes you can. The history of the church is one of changing doctrines.
I can't think of a single doctrine changed in the entire history of the Church.
Just off the top of my head, clerical celibacy, purgatory, ecumenicism and vernacular liturgy.
Only doctrine there is purgatory and I can't think of any changes to that.
The rest are disciplines, they're parts of the Church's teaching which are acknowledged as man-made and could be changed. They're to do with the structures and shapes of practice of the Church, or to some extent to do with individual or communal devotions.
The issue of liturgy for example wasn't even a Catholic teaching it's a teaching of the Roman rite specifically and exceptions were made, for example for Jesuits in the Far East and for Cyril and Methodius. There's a few Roman Catholic dioceses in Croatia that still use, I think Old Slavonic, because they were granted special dispensation by Rome. Pre-Reformation there were a few other European rites that used the Vernacular. Trent generally regularised all of the Roman Catholic Church into Latin but they didn't give any dogmatic reasons for Latin or against the vernacular because it's not an issue of doctrine.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2013, 04:33:01 PM
Only doctrine there is purgatory and I can't think of any changes to that.
Sorry, Limbo for unbaptized infants.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=1886726&CFTOKEN=97239368
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2013, 04:33:01 PM
The rest are disciplines, they're parts of the Church's teaching which are acknowledged as man-made and could be changed. They're to do with the structures and shapes of practice of the Church, or to some extent to do with individual or communal devotions.
The issue of liturgy for example wasn't even a Catholic teaching it's a teaching of the Roman rite specifically and exceptions were made, for example for Jesuits in the Far East and for Cyril and Methodius. There's a few Roman Catholic dioceses in Croatia that still use, I think Old Slavonic, because they were granted special dispensation by Rome. Pre-Reformation there were a few other European rites that used the Vernacular. Trent generally regularised all of the Roman Catholic Church into Latin but they didn't give any dogmatic reasons for Latin or against the vernacular because it's not an issue of doctrine.
and yet people were excommunicated and "sentenced" to hell for refusing to comply with these "non-doctrines". This was one of the things Luther and some of the Catholic Humanists were condemned for. I note you didn't mention the ecumencism or the clerical celibacy issue.
Edit: basically, each time the church changes "doctrine" it argues that the new doctrine is what was meant all along and they didn't really change their minds they just found out that they had been doing it wrong all along. IMHO that is a pathetic cop-out and a vile abandonment of responsibility. For thousands of years the church has been saying that his was the absolute truth and if you don't believe it you will go to hell and all of a sudden, whoops, we were wrong before, now we are right, this is the real absolute truth and if you don't believe it you will go to hell.
You're not supposed to take religions seriously.
This is always amusing. It's like a creationist trying to debunk evolution by cherry picking the works of Charles Darwin.
One advantage of moving into the 21st century and accepting the gays would be the fact that an issue largely irrelevant to most people's every day religious faith would finally disappear from its place of tedious prominence.
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 05:00:59 PM
Sorry, Limbo for unbaptized infants.
From that referring to the post-Tridentine era:
QuotePapal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of limbo as a doctrine of faith.
[Limbo was seen as a 'common doctrine', but]
This common doctrine followed upon a certain way of reconciling the received principles of revelation, but it did not possess the certitude of a statement of faith or the same certitude as other affirmations whose rejection would entail the denial of a divinely revealed dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the magisterium.
...
The affirmation that infants who die without baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the church.
Even that document doesn't declare an explicit teaching, it's more optimistic but the conclusion isn't new teaching, but this:
QuoteOur conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).
...
Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church.
Prior to Trent there was significant argument among doctors of the Church and no agreed position. You'll note the point made that the Catholic schools were free to wrestle with this issue, that's because they did. The schoolmen disagreed over this. Vatican I considered whether to state doctrine on this and decided not to and again there were some who wanted to decide in Vatican II to close the topic. But it's still open, but the view now is that there should be hope.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2013, 04:33:01 PMI note you didn't mention the ecumencism or the clerical celibacy issue.
They're also disciplines. I took one example but it goes for them all. The attitude on ecumenism is a new shift, yes, but the teaching hasn't changed. The Church has no issue chatting with other clerics but their view is clear, salvation is through Rome.
QuoteIMHO that is a pathetic cop-out and a vile abandonment of responsibility. For thousands of years the church has been saying that his was the absolute truth and if you don't believe it you will go to hell and all of a sudden, whoops, we were wrong before, now we are right, this is the real absolute truth and if you don't believe it you will go to hell.
You miss the essential element of the state in this for at least 1500 odd years of Catholic history.
But also I don't think you don't understand your enemy. The Catholic Church has core doctrine that is revealed through tradition and scripture. It is unchangeable, even in the ancient world the Roman Church was known for being ultra-conservative and orthodox. That is Truth, but as Vatican II points out the Catholic Church has always recognised a hierarchy of truths.
Many of the other teachings of the Church are truths based on the best knowledge of the time and doctrine and, no doubt, the social attitudes of the time - I think Church's relations with democracy, freedom of religion and social justice are very good examples of this. Then there's practice, which again is a truth, but can be changed based on the knowledge of the time, if it becomes corrupting or whatever else - currently Francis is warning against trends in the Church including a 'Gnostic drift' and a 'Pelagian trend' which are roughly the ultra-liberals and the ultra-conservatives.
QuoteOne advantage of moving into the 21st century and accepting the gays would be the fact that an issue largely irrelevant to most people's every day religious faith would finally disappear from its place of tedious prominence.
I feel sorry for Francis. Conservatives have been moaning for ages because he hasn't mentioned gays or abortion or euthanasia for the first 3 months of his Papacy (among other reasons). The second he does, in a refreshing way, it's tediously prominent :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2013, 05:32:45 PM
But also I don't think you don't understand your enemy. The Catholic Church has core doctrine that is revealed through tradition and scripture. It is unchangeable, even in the ancient world the Roman Church was known for being ultra-conservative and orthodox. That is Truth, but as Vatican II points out the Catholic Church has always recognised a hierarchy of truths.
The thing is that I do understand my enemy. The problem here is that you are making the argument that no "dogma" has ever been changed, while I'm making the argument that "doctrine" has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma
I pointed to doctrines which had changed, you argued that they were not doctrines when what you should have argued was that they were not dogma. The catholic church has been good on not changing dogma, they have just been getting more and more energetic in the theological acrobatics that are required to keep them non-falsifiable.
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 05:54:10 PM
The thing is that I do understand my enemy. The problem here is that you are making the argument that no "dogma" has ever been changed, while I'm making the argument that "doctrine" has.
Dogma's a subset of doctrine, normally tied to a Church Council. As you say it is unchangeable and something all Catholics must believe - in your link is the equivalent of 'de fide'. It's very closely related to the religious aspect of Catholic teaching. So, for example, the nature of the trinity or the incarnation are dogma.
But doctrine just means the teaching of the Church, there are certain things the Church has taught on definitively. They're established parts of the magisterium and so are infallible and true. They're not normally immediately tied to the faith. But they are definitive and unchangeable, for example a male-only priesthood and teaching on homosexuality. In your link that's 'fides ecclesiastica'.
A rough distinction is that dogma is truth formally and explicitly revealed while doctrine is truth formally revealed (through the magisterium) but not explicitly revealed (scripture and, to a lesser extent, Church councils).
Both of those are doctrine and, as I say, I can't think of any example of them shifting.
Below them you have various things that I'd broadly call disciplines. Teachings of the Church at any time that aren't necessarily in the magisterium, so they're not infallible and necessary; areas of debate among theologians; popular 'common doctrine' beliefs among Catholics; aspects of practice and so on. All of that last category, which is vast, can be changed.
Edit: I suppose a way of putting it is in the name. Dogma is 'of the faith', it includes Catholics but also many high church Anglicans and some Orthodox - it's about the faith itself. Doctrine is 'fides ecclesiastica' which (I don't know Latin) looks like faith of the Church. Dogma makes you Christian, doctrine makes you Roman Catholic.
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 02:20:17 PM
Who is he to judge? WTF?
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Anyway, on the other side of the spectrum
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/28/zimbabwe_president_robert_mugabe_vows_to_behead_gays.html
Quote
Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe Vows to Behead Gays
By Daniel Politi
|
Posted Sunday, July 28, 2013, at 1:35 PM
Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe is once again speaking about his hatred of homosexuality as he campaigns ahead of the July 31 election. At a rally last week, Mugabe told thousands of supporters that Zimbabwe would never accept homosexuals, whom he descried as "worse than pigs, goats and birds," reports Zimbabwe's Newsday. "If you take men and lock them in a house for five years and tell them to come up with two children and they fail to do that, then we will chop off their heads."
Mugabe went on to say that some African countries had been pressured by Western nations to accept homosexuality in exchange for aid. Homosexuality "seeks to destroy our lineage by saying John and John should wed, Maria and Maria should wed," Mugabe said. "Imagine this son born out of an African father, [President Barack] Obama says if you want aid, you should accept the homosexuality practice. Aah, we will never do that."
This is hardly the first time Mugabe has attacked gays in political speeches. The Gays and Lesbians Association of Zimbabwe recently sent a letter to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission complaining of Mugabe's "continued use of hate speech," noting he had attacked gay people at seven political rallies in July, reports SW Radio Africa.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 29, 2013, 06:26:46 PM
Anyway, on the other side of the spectrum
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/28/zimbabwe_president_robert_mugabe_vows_to_behead_gays.html
Quote
Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe Vows to Behead Gays
...
Ahhh... 3rd World traditionalism is so... A Propos!
G.
Regarding whether changes to religious customs/dogma is kosher or not: the problem is that the church, at any given time, claims to be in knowledge on how to lead one's life to have God's seal of approval. And they claim a lot of other knowledge about God (eg. Stuff in the bible)
Now, if they change any of their rules, it should clearly imply to anyone that they may be similarly wrong about any other ruling they take for granted.
I understand such realisation must be avoided for a lot of people, since admitting to have put a great deal of personal trust into a bullshit fairy tale is not something adult people do, but still.
Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2013, 08:53:26 PM
the problem is that the church, at any given time, claims to be in knowledge on how to lead one's life to have God's seal of approval. And they claim a lot of other knowledge about God (eg. Stuff in the bible)
No, they don't. And no, they don't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2013, 09:00:09 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2013, 08:53:26 PM
the problem is that the church, at any given time, claims to be in knowledge on how to lead one's life to have God's seal of approval. And they claim a lot of other knowledge about God (eg. Stuff in the bible)
No, they don't. And no, they don't.
Yes they do.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2013, 09:00:09 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2013, 08:53:26 PM
the problem is that the church, at any given time, claims to be in knowledge on how to lead one's life to have God's seal of approval. And they claim a lot of other knowledge about God (eg. Stuff in the bible)
No, they don't. And no, they don't.
If so, what is the church for then?
Salvation. I mean not being daft but people believe in that first - an after-life and then whatever religious background to it. From there they'll look to whichever church they were born into, or that their friends go to, or that's in the school's catchment area, or that they're most attracted by.
I don't think many people set out to look for an instruction manual on life based on church's proclaiming their super-secret knowledge. They're looking for something to fulfil a spiritual need, but that need comes first. It's certainly a selling point for the Catholics that 'Rome was where she now is'. Same as the via media appeals for the Church of England.
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 05:54:10 PM
The thing is that I do understand my enemy. The problem here is that you are making the argument that no "dogma" has ever been changed, while I'm making the argument that "doctrine" has.
Your problem can be summed up in your first sentence very nicely. You view religion as an enemy, and all attempts to understand a religion are flawed due this extreme adversarial approach.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 29, 2013, 06:26:46 PM
Quote
Mugabe told thousands of supporters that Zimbabwe would never accept homosexuals, whom he descried as “worse than pigs, goats and birds
What the hell is wrong with goats, pigs, and birds?
Makes sense. Who care what sins people are tempted to perform, if they sign up for the church then the point is they don't actually perform them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2013, 09:45:25 PM
Salvation. I mean not being daft but people believe in that first - an after-life and then whatever religious background to it. From there they'll look to whichever church they were born into, or that their friends go to, or that's in the school's catchment area, or that they're most attracted by.
I don't think many people set out to look for an instruction manual on life based on church's proclaiming their super-secret knowledge. They're looking for something to fulfil a spiritual need, but that need comes first. It's certainly a selling point for the Catholics that 'Rome was where she now is'. Same as the via media appeals for the Church of England.
Have you answered Viking there? I am not sure. If what you describe is gained by people from the church, then they gain (what they believe to be) salvation based on what the church teaches. But what the church teaches changes over time (due to pressure of the secular part of society, mostly, but that is beside the point). So how can one be certain about their religious beliefs in any other way than willfull ignorance of common logic, when what they consider to be stories and rules of divine origin turn out to be tossed out and pulled out of a hat by the very people who claim them to be eternal and divinely true?
A common answer of course is cherry-picking of ideas and teachings, again destroying any kind of legitimacy the religious teachings and texts might have.
Eg. as much as I detest the anti-gay stance of a lot of Christians and Jews (not to mention Muslims), what is our moral high ground for denouncing them for their discriminative beliefs, when otherwise we tell them "you are free to believe in whatever religion"? Well that's hipocrisy right there. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only time the Bible mentions gays explicitly, is to condemn their "practice". Even if the book is not making a big deal out of it, how can we tell people to feel free and turn to the Bible for spiritual guidance, but then condemn them for utilizing the answer they find there?
Same goes for muslim laws like stoning adulterers (or lashing them if you go by the Quran). We do not approve that, but we do approve to have people following Islam. Well I am sorry but the lashing of adulterer parts is in the same book as the definition of their God and their most basic beliefs. Either all legit and worthy of existence in our world, or none of it.
It's a bit unfair against the catholics to bring up muslims here. Islam is a literalist religion. The basic dogma they have is that the koran is gods complete book of instructions. The christians do have the holy ghost as it's holy software updater. I'm not going to discard a christian argument which claims that dogma or doctrine changed or that they got it wrong the first time round. It's just that when the claim the former they need to show that their dogma or doctrine is still relevant and if they claim the latter the need to show how they know who got it right. In this way Islam is completely and totally beyond the pale because their basic dogma is that nothing ever changes and that this is the perfectly correct version.
But still, catholicism doesn't come close to meeting my objection here. It is merely flim flam and non-sequiter arguments which claim that whatever is the latest truth was always the truth and from now on the pope is infallible in doctrinal matters again.
Quote from: Tyr on July 30, 2013, 12:28:31 AM
Makes sense. Who care what sins people are tempted to perform, if they sign up for the church then the point is they don't actually perform them.
They can perform them so long as they feel guilty about it and confess :P
Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2013, 08:38:55 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 30, 2013, 12:28:31 AM
Makes sense. Who care what sins people are tempted to perform, if they sign up for the church then the point is they don't actually perform them.
They can perform them so long as they feel guilty about it and confess :P
while the calvinists would assert that god made you gay just so that you would know that he planned for you to go to hell all along and the lutherans would say that as long as you keep trying and believing then god can show mercy.
To be honest I'm surprised that there are any non-catholic ghey christians out there given that their contractual approach to forgiveness...
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2013, 09:02:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2013, 09:00:09 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2013, 08:53:26 PM
the problem is that the church, at any given time, claims to be in knowledge on how to lead one's life to have God's seal of approval. And they claim a lot of other knowledge about God (eg. Stuff in the bible)
No, they don't. And no, they don't.
If so, what is the church for then?
The church is the ecclesia. It is the institutional manifestation of the body of believers.
Quote from: Tamas on July 30, 2013, 07:16:43 AMSo how can one be certain about their religious beliefs in any other way than willfull ignorance of common logic, when what they consider to be stories and rules of divine origin turn out to be tossed out and pulled out of a hat by the very people who claim them to be eternal and divinely true?
But as I've said there's very little example of that in Catholic history. I cannot think of any doctrine, which is what makes up the core of the faith, that has changed. Yes the formal aspects of the religion do change, but the beliefs haven't.
QuoteA common answer of course is cherry-picking of ideas and teachings, again destroying any kind of legitimacy the religious teachings and texts might have.
Legitimacy comes from belief and the believers.
But this is a problem I always have with the stauncher atheists: the only sort of faith that's acceptable to them is fundamentalism. They agree with the most extreme perspectives rather than the actual practitioners of a given faith. You listen to Viking talk about Catholic theological acrobatics and citing the Bible and you may as well be in Geneva, it's the same principle.
It doesn't seem like a useful way of engaging or thinking about religion, as opposed to trying to understand the religious perspective.
But also perspectives differ, I think of Anglicanism which, unlike Catholicism, believes doctrine can change. Their entire view of doctrine is that it should be dynamic and pragmatic - the via media between chaos and control. Newman, before he crossed the Tiber, actually talked about the evolution of faith. And he basically said that doctrine is clear it's in the Church fathers and the Bible. But interpretation always takes place within a context. So for example translations of the original text differ and we also lose the poetry and things like metaphor or specific cultural references in translation. In addition human understanding has expanded through philosophy, science, exploration and so on. Those principles underpin Anglican theology which is basically that the doctrine may not be changing but we are and we're going to understand it in a different which isn't necessarily wrong.
Now that's a totally different approach to doctrine than the Catholics have. But the people who believe in it still believe salvation through their Church and through its teachings.
QuoteEven if the book is not making a big deal out of it, how can we tell people to feel free and turn to the Bible for spiritual guidance, but then condemn them for utilizing the answer they find there?
I've no interest in the lunatic wings of Protestantism. The Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Lutheran Churches most definitely don't say to people to feel free and look to the Bible for guidance. That's the entire point of a Church.
QuoteBut still, catholicism doesn't come close to meeting my objection here. It is merely flim flam and non-sequiter arguments which claim that whatever is the latest truth was always the truth and from now on the pope is infallible in doctrinal matters again.
You've still not given me a doctrine.
But think of it like common law, the forms change and in the issues that aren't settled by statute (the magisterium) though things are usually predictable there can be changes. When there's a change it's very rare the law was wrong, but the previous court's understanding of it may have been.
Also Pope's aren't infallible on doctrinal matters.
QuoteBut also perspectives differ, I think of Anglicanism which, unlike Catholicism, believes doctrine can change. Their entire view of doctrine is that it should be dynamic and pragmatic
Do they justify that by declaring that God keeps changing his mind?
I explained how they justify it :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2013, 03:52:39 PM
I explained how they justify it :)
Yes but surely you must see what I am trying to point out: how the clergy can act as the "managers" of eternal divine order, while constantly changing the eternal divine rules? We are not talking about a sport association, or a corporate administration, or a government agency. We are talking about people claiming divine guidance on one level or the other.
God moves in mysterious ways.
Quote from: The Brain on July 30, 2013, 04:08:11 PM
God moves in mysterious ways.
Ed, on the other hand, moves according to a chart numbered 1-7.
Quote from: Tamas on July 30, 2013, 04:05:45 PM
Yes but surely you must see what I am trying to point out: how the clergy can act as the "managers" of eternal divine order, while constantly changing the eternal divine rules? We are not talking about a sport association, or a corporate administration, or a government agency. We are talking about people claiming divine guidance on one level or the other.
This is the Church of England, we're very much talking a government agency. I don't think they claim much divine guidance, I mean their worship and doctrines were legally regulated by Parliament until the early 20th century :lol:
Basically though Anglicans are pretty diverse in their traditions - they proudly state they're reformed and Catholic after all :lol:
I think Richard Hooker's probably the key his view was that you need tradition and above all reason to work out the drift of most of scripture, or to work out what to do when there's silence in the Bible. The Church doesn't get its authority direct from God (who is pretty indifferent about Church governance) but from the piety of the people and the reason of the governors. Obviously our reason and our piety change in time which shift perspectives (in the way Newman described) on the word.
Basically there's lots that's unknowable, there's lots about the Bible we don't understand because we're not first century Jews, there's lots about human knowledge that's changed since then. So the Church should assess the evidence and use its reason to try and reach a compromise position that can be okay for both reformed and Catholic Anglicans. The people meanwhile should pray and remember to stick together because, quite frankly, God doesn't really care whether your priest offers confession and enjoys incense, or leads drum circles of praise.
Where are you getting your intel about god's nature? :p
Quote from: Tamas on July 30, 2013, 04:56:37 PM
Where are you getting your intel about god's nature? :p
Shelf is the enthusiastic intern whose holding the fort whilst the boss up there has gone on holiday.
Quote from: Tamas on July 30, 2013, 04:56:37 PM
Where are you getting your intel about god's nature? :p
Sorry that's the Anglican view. Hooker argued that God didn't really care about minor doctrinal issues or church governance, which is why each country should have their own church.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2013, 03:33:02 PM
QuoteEven if the book is not making a big deal out of it, how can we tell people to feel free and turn to the Bible for spiritual guidance, but then condemn them for utilizing the answer they find there?
I've no interest in the lunatic wings of Protestantism. The Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Lutheran Churches most definitely don't say to people to feel free and look to the Bible for guidance. That's the entire point of a Church.
I'm not a Lutheran, but when I was taught about the Reformation at University, they said that was one of the main changes. IIRC, anyways, it's been a long time.
Quote from: fhdz on July 30, 2013, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 30, 2013, 04:08:11 PM
God moves in mysterious ways.
Ed, on the other hand, moves according to a chart numbered 1-7.
Roll 1D7
+2 if Taco Bell was consumed
Lutherans still generally believed in the intertwining of church and state. People were free to look to their Bibles to support the positions of the Lutheran church. They also still believed in a 'visible church' that will 'rightly teach'.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2013, 05:10:34 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 30, 2013, 04:56:37 PM
Where are you getting your intel about god's nature? :p
Sorry that's the Anglican view. Hooker argued that God didn't really care about minor doctrinal issues or church governance, which is why each country should have their own church.
So that's sort of my point. At one hand, you are fine with them changing their doctrine to whatever seem to be working for them at any given time, ie. with them not having sure knowledge on how a proper Christian church should handle itself.
On the other hand, despite the above, you accept their opinion on god's nature as a given. Based on what?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 30, 2013, 05:22:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2013, 03:33:02 PM
QuoteEven if the book is not making a big deal out of it, how can we tell people to feel free and turn to the Bible for spiritual guidance, but then condemn them for utilizing the answer they find there?
I've no interest in the lunatic wings of Protestantism. The Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Lutheran Churches most definitely don't say to people to feel free and look to the Bible for guidance. That's the entire point of a Church.
I'm not a Lutheran, but when I was taught about the Reformation at University, they said that was one of the main changes. IIRC, anyways, it's been a long time.
Being the guy who was educated and confirmed in the lutheran church and still a member (grandma still lives) I can tell you most certainly that it does teach to look to the bible (and pray, you need to be praying as well). That was the entire point of making a book in a language which was "understanded of the people" and why clergy used very much of their time teaching people how to read (the bible). This is also why the lutheran (and anglican) churches are usually the most liberal ones out there, it is simply because they remain so free of dogma and doctrine and effectively leave it up to their parishioners to decide for themselves by reading the bible and praying over the issue.
The few dogma and doctrines the lutheran church has are either direct bible quotations or denials of Catholic doctrine or heresy.
Quote from: Tamas on July 30, 2013, 03:47:32 PM
QuoteBut also perspectives differ, I think of Anglicanism which, unlike Catholicism, believes doctrine can change. Their entire view of doctrine is that it should be dynamic and pragmatic
Do they justify that by declaring that God keeps changing his mind?
A non-Anglican, non-Catholic perspective on the matter would be that God's will doesn't change, but our understanding of His will can change. Doesn't seem like that should be so hard to grasp--no one seems to have a problem with the same principle when it comes to science--i.e., the laws of nature don't change, but our understanding of them certainly does.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 30, 2013, 05:22:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2013, 03:33:02 PM
QuoteEven if the book is not making a big deal out of it, how can we tell people to feel free and turn to the Bible for spiritual guidance, but then condemn them for utilizing the answer they find there?
I've no interest in the lunatic wings of Protestantism. The Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Lutheran Churches most definitely don't say to people to feel free and look to the Bible for guidance. That's the entire point of a Church.
I'm not a Lutheran, but when I was taught about the Reformation at University, they said that was one of the main changes. IIRC, anyways, it's been a long time.
Yeah Luther did say that. Then the Anabaptist movement sprung up, leading to a bit of backtracking.
Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2013, 08:36:54 AM
Anyways, is this matter much? When it comes to debates like gay marriage, the anti-gay crowd always says shit like "I have no problem with them, just don't do it in public" etc.
So it's not like this will convince a single homophob to be accepting.
It means that if everyone in his entourage listen to him, and the next pope keeps the same tone, eventually the attitude will change toward homosexual people.
It's not much of a problem being gay in America, Europe or Canada I guess, but in 3rd world places were Christianity is growing, it might help somewhere down the road. It means that eventually, local priests/bishops won't be able to hide their prejudice behind their religion.
Quote from: dps on July 31, 2013, 06:37:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 30, 2013, 03:47:32 PM
QuoteBut also perspectives differ, I think of Anglicanism which, unlike Catholicism, believes doctrine can change. Their entire view of doctrine is that it should be dynamic and pragmatic
Do they justify that by declaring that God keeps changing his mind?
A non-Anglican, non-Catholic perspective on the matter would be that God's will doesn't change, but our understanding of His will can change. Doesn't seem like that should be so hard to grasp--no one seems to have a problem with the same principle when it comes to science--i.e., the laws of nature don't change, but our understanding of them certainly does.
... and which church argues that their understanding is merely tentative and will in future be proven wrong one our understanding of the will of god improves? ... and which church argues that it's moral teaching is not right due to it being the will of god but merely a best guess of his will which will later be improved upon once our understanding of it improves? ... and which church argues that any and all of it's teachings are potentially falsifiable and thus potentially wrong and that despite this you as a believer should wager your immortal soul on those teachings non-the-less?
that is mere post-facto bs trying to cover up for the fact that an allegedly absolute and un-alterable truth was replaced with a new and inconsistent absolute and un-alterable truth for secular and material reasons.
edit: there is one church, that is the church of science and Dawkins is it's prophet.
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2013, 01:10:41 PM
Quote from: dps on July 31, 2013, 06:37:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 30, 2013, 03:47:32 PM
QuoteBut also perspectives differ, I think of Anglicanism which, unlike Catholicism, believes doctrine can change. Their entire view of doctrine is that it should be dynamic and pragmatic
Do they justify that by declaring that God keeps changing his mind?
A non-Anglican, non-Catholic perspective on the matter would be that God's will doesn't change, but our understanding of His will can change. Doesn't seem like that should be so hard to grasp--no one seems to have a problem with the same principle when it comes to science--i.e., the laws of nature don't change, but our understanding of them certainly does.
... and which church argues that their understanding is merely tentative and will in future be proven wrong one our understanding of the will of god improves? ... and which church argues that it's moral teaching is not right due to it being the will of god but merely a best guess of his will which will later be improved upon once our understanding of it improves? ... and which church argues that any and all of it's teachings are potentially falsifiable and thus potentially wrong and that despite this you as a believer should wager your immortal soul on those teachings non-the-less?
that is mere post-facto bs trying to cover up for the fact that an allegedly absolute and un-alterable truth was replaced with a new and inconsistent absolute and un-alterable truth for secular and material reasons.
edit: there is one church, that is the church of science and Dawkins is it's prophet.
OK, let me re-phrase: it doesn't seem like it would be so hard to understand for someone who doesn't have an axe to grind.
Quote from: Tamas on July 31, 2013, 01:59:51 AMSo that's sort of my point. At one hand, you are fine with them changing their doctrine to whatever seem to be working for them at any given time, ie. with them not having sure knowledge on how a proper Christian church should handle itself.
Look I've given two examples. On the one hand you've the Catholic Church which is absolute on doctrine, but extremely careful in what it declares is doctrine. In that case the only option is a change of emphasis and tone. For example the Pope's comments on whether there'd ever be women priests. Roughly he said 'no. That's settled.' But then went on to say 'But look at the wider picture. Remember that in the Church, the honor accorded to Jesus' mother is higher than that of any of the apostles, and that women, simply by virtue of being women, are above priests in importance to the Body of Christ.' That's an extraordinary shift in tone while hewing to orthodoxy.
The other example is the Anglican church which, roughly, agrees with dps. They make the point that actually the Church fathers and the Bible are very difficult to understand and they're always becoming more difficult because we're growing more distant from the cultural landscape from which they came. It's not changed, but we have and it is impossible and farcical to re-imagine ourselves into the mind of first century Jews or fourth century Romans. In addition the currents that have changed us must change the way we read any text even a divine one - we can't forget the discovery of the new world, the atom bomb or the billions that live outside of traditional Christendom. So whenever there's silence, or ambiguity, or tension within the Bible we have to use our reason to proceed in how it should be interpreted now. But that reason is human, it isn't eternal, it's entirely contingent on the situation we find ourselves in now.
Those are two approaches that seem reasonable to me. The Catholics claim hierarchies of truth and elevate to the absolute only very few articles of faith. Other, lower levels, that may be true at one time can be found untrue at another. The Anglican view is a bit more liberal, they don't presume to declare on the lower levels of 'truth' because to do so would be overly exclusive; the Anglican communion or the CofE are, by design, broad churches with little central teaching. They do however have a sort-of intellectual framework for Bishops, who represent authority, to exercise. But that authority comes not just from them being a Bishop but from the exercise of their reason and the piety of their people.
Edit: I just found a couple of lovely lines on Anglicanism, first from Robert Runcie when he was Archbishop of Canterbury which sums up the Anglican approach, 'Anglicanism has a radically provisional character which we must never allow to be obscured'. Or more religiously the 1930s Archbishop Ramsey: 'While the Anglican Church is vindicated by its place in history, with a strikingly balanced witness to Gospel and Church and sound learning, its greater vindication lies in its pointing through its own history to something of which it is a fragment. Its credentials are its incompleteness, with the tension and the travail in its soul. It is clumsy and untidy, it baffles neatness and logic. For it is sent not to commend itself as 'the best type of Christianity', but by its very brokenness to point to the universal Church wherein all have died.'
Needless to say neither a Pope nor a holy roller would talk in those terms.
QuoteOn the other hand, despite the above, you accept their opinion on god's nature as a given. Based on what?
As I said earlier belief comes first.
Quote
Pope Francis: Church can't 'interfere' with gays
By Eric Marrapodi and Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editors
(CNN) - Pope Francis said the church has the right to express its opinions but not to "interfere spiritually" in the lives of gays and lesbians, expanding on explosive comments he made in July about not judging homosexuals.
In a wide-ranging interview published Thursday, the pope also said that women must play a key role in church decisions and brushed off critics who say he should be more vocal about fighting abortion and gay marriage.
Moreover, if the church fails to find a "new balance" between its spiritual and political missions, the pope warned, its moral foundation will "fall like a house of cards."
The interview, released by Jesuit magazines in several different languages and 16 countries on Thursday, offers perhaps the most expansive and in-depth view of Francis' vision for the Roman Catholic Church.
The pope's comments don't break with Catholic doctrine or policy, but instead show a shift in approach, moving from censure to engagement.
Elected in March with the expectation that he would try to reform the Vatican, an institution that many observers say is riven by corruption and turf wars, Francis said his first mission is to change the church's "attitude."
"The church has sometimes locked itself up in small things," the pope said, "in small-minded rules."
"The people of God want pastors," Francis continued, "not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials."
The interview was conducted by the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, editor of La Civilta Cattolica, a Jesuit journal based in Rome, over three meetings this August at Francis' apartment in Rome.
The pope approved the transcript in Italian, according to America magazine, a Jesuit journal based in New York that initiated the interview and supervised its translation into English.
Advance copies of the interview were provided to several news organizations, including CNN.
Jesuits from around the world submitted questions to Spadaro. Francis answered them with the frankness that has become a hallmark of his young papacy.
To begin the interview, Spadoro bluntly asks, "Who is Jorge Mario Bergolio?" - Francis's name before he was elected pope.
"I am a sinner," the pope answers. "This is the most accurate definition. It is not a figure of speech, a literary genre. I am a sinner."
The pope didn't mention any particular sins, and Catholic theology holds that all humans are sinners, a consequence of Adam and Eve's original transgression. Still, a pope describing himself foremost as "sinner" is striking.
Offering new glimpses of his personal life, Francis said he prays at the dentist's office and that he felt trapped in the Vatican's traditional papal apartments. (He moved to a smaller one in a nearby building.) He has a taste for tragic artists and Italian films and keeps the will of his beloved grandmother in his prayerbook.
But it was the pope's vision for the church's future - painted in broad strokes - that's sure to rile or inspire Catholics, depending on which side of the church they sit.
Here are some highlights:
On Women
Francis said, emphatically, that the "door is closed," on women's ordination, a statement that disappointed many Catholic liberals.
But that doesn't mean the church should consider women secondary or inferior, Francis said. "The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions," he told Spadora.
Francis also called on Catholics to think hard about the function of women in the church.
"Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed," the pope said. "The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role."
On Homosexuality
When Francis was a bishop in Buenos Aires, Argentina, he received letters from gays and lesbians who said they were "socially wounded" by the church, he said.
"But the church does not want to do this," Francis said in the interview.
The pope then recalled his comments in July, when he told the media aboard a flight to Rome, "Who am I to judge" gay people?
"By saying this, I said what the catechism says," the pope told Spadaro. The catechism, the Catholic Church's book of official doctrine, condemns homosexual acts, but says gays and lesbians "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
"Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person."
Francis said that someone once asked him if he "approved" of homosexuality.
"I replied with another question," he said. "`Tell me, when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?' We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being."
Abortion, gay marriage and contraception
Some American Catholics grumble that Francis has been largely silent on signature Catholic political issues.
"I'm a little bit disappointed in Pope Francis that he hasn't, at least that I'm aware of, said much about unborn children, about abortion, and many people have noticed that," Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, said earlier this month.
Francis said that he's aware of the criticism, but he is not going to change.
"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods," he told his Jesuit interviewer. "I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that."
But the pope said the church's teachings on those issue are clear, and he clearly believes in those teachings, so what else is there to say?
"It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time," Francis said.
False prophets and quick decisions
Only false prophets claim to have all the answers, Francis said.
"The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt," he said. "You must leave room for the Lord."
But church leaders, including himself, haven't always practiced humility, the pope admitted.
Many of the bad decisions he made while leading Catholics in Argentina came about because of his "authoritarianism and quick manner of making decisions," the pope said.
That won't happen again, Francis said, as he begins to steer the church in a new direction.
He didn't offer an exact course, but he said change will come. Sooner or later.
"Many think that changes and reforms can take place in a short time," he said. "I believe that we always need time to lay the foundations for real, effective change. And this is the time of discernment."
I still can't get over the Pope doing an interview, far less the two hour press conference on the plane :blink:
Well I can only repeat the previous posts in this thread: if he is speaking otherwise than previous Popes, while Popes have like the hotline to God than either:
a) this Pope is false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
b) the anti-gay Popes were false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
c) they have no clue what God`s intentions are, so Catholicism is fake
so my point is that you cannot be preaching divine intentions than suddenly change your mind. You reveal that you and your ilk have been full of shit.
Catholicism is organized pedophilia. Hardly fake.
:hmm:
Tamas, he's still not saying being gay is a good thing and it's awesome to be gay as far as the Church is concerned.
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2013, 10:35:22 AM
Well I can only repeat the previous posts in this thread: if he is speaking otherwise than previous Popes, while Popes have like the hotline to God than either:
a) this Pope is false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
b) the anti-gay Popes were false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
c) they have no clue what God`s intentions are, so Catholicism is fake
The sky is blue and the grass is green, so Catholicism is fake.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 10:38:48 AM
:hmm:
Tamas, he's still not saying being gay is a good thing and it's awesome to be gay as far as the Church is concerned.
fair enough, but than any previous Catholic dignitary who wanted to condemn/prosecute them was in the wrong, or this mild Pope is. Either way, they can be wrong, and you cannot be wrong when teaching the moral guidance of divine supremacy, because to be not 100% correct means being full of shit.
What he has done in my view is considerably soften the Church's rhetoric on the topic, which is good but not really any sort of material change.
Still, I haven't yet decided if Pope Francis is an exceptionally good Pope or Pope Benedict was just an exceptionally bad Pope (who makes Francis look good in comparison).
Quote from: merithyn on September 19, 2013, 10:40:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2013, 10:35:22 AM
Well I can only repeat the previous posts in this thread: if he is speaking otherwise than previous Popes, while Popes have like the hotline to God than either:
a) this Pope is false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
b) the anti-gay Popes were false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
c) they have no clue what God`s intentions are, so Catholicism is fake
The sky is blue and the grass is green, so Catholicism is fake.
:rolleyes:
Well as Viking wrote earlier, I haven`t seen any "we might be wrong though, so take it with a pinch of salt" disclaimer on any Catholic teachings, so no, they have no room to change their mind or doctrine or stance on anything.
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 10:43:46 AM
Still, I haven't yet decided if Pope Francis is an exceptionally good Pope or Pope Benedict was just an exceptionally bad Pope (who makes Francis look good in comparison).
He deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 10:43:46 AM
What he has done in my view is considerably soften the Church's rhetoric on the topic, which is good but not really any sort of material change.
Still, I haven't yet decided if Pope Francis is an exceptionally good Pope or Pope Benedict was just an exceptionally bad Pope (who makes Francis look good in comparison).
He is changing the rhetoric to fit the times, which is what the Church has been doing since Day 1 I guess, and if that`s what keeps people going, then I am fine with it. I am just pointing out that if you adopt what you teach as divine truth to fit the contemporary marketing lines, then you are by definition full of shit.
Quote from: The Brain on September 19, 2013, 10:45:40 AM
He deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
No he doesn't. He's done a lot to promote world peace already. You only get the Nobel Peace Prize if you haven't actually done anything yet, but the Nobel dudes really really really want you to. :)
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2013, 10:42:20 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 10:38:48 AM
:hmm:
Tamas, he's still not saying being gay is a good thing and it's awesome to be gay as far as the Church is concerned.
fair enough, but than any previous Catholic dignitary who wanted to condemn/prosecute them was in the wrong, or this mild Pope is. Either way, they can be wrong, and you cannot be wrong when teaching the moral guidance of divine supremacy, because to be not 100% correct means being full of shit.
You know Sheilbh writes these beautiful posts explaining why and how Churches don't claim to be 100% correct about everything, and you just ignore it. :mellow:
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2013, 10:48:14 AM
He is changing the rhetoric to fit the times, which is what the Church has been doing since Day 1 I guess, and if that`s what keeps people going, then I am fine with it. I am just pointing out that if you adopt what you teach as divine truth to fit the contemporary marketing lines, then you are by definition full of shit.
You'll get no argument from me that the Church is full of shit. :sleep:
To be honest, I don't know what Benedict said about gays. The current Pope is being sold as more gay friendly but I don't know that Benedict said things like Fred Phelps or anything like that. I wonder if people just disliked Benedict because he looked creepy and evil. :)
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 10:50:30 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2013, 10:48:14 AM
He is changing the rhetoric to fit the times, which is what the Church has been doing since Day 1 I guess, and if that`s what keeps people going, then I am fine with it. I am just pointing out that if you adopt what you teach as divine truth to fit the contemporary marketing lines, then you are by definition full of shit.
You'll get no argument from me that the Church is full of shit. :sleep:
To be honest, I don't know what Benedict said about gays. The current Pope is being sold as more gay friendly but I don't know that Benedict said things like Fred Phelps or anything like that. I wonder if people just disliked Benedict because he looked creepy and evil. :)
Card-carrying Nazi may have had something to do with it.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2013, 10:49:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2013, 10:42:20 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 10:38:48 AM
:hmm:
Tamas, he's still not saying being gay is a good thing and it's awesome to be gay as far as the Church is concerned.
fair enough, but than any previous Catholic dignitary who wanted to condemn/prosecute them was in the wrong, or this mild Pope is. Either way, they can be wrong, and you cannot be wrong when teaching the moral guidance of divine supremacy, because to be not 100% correct means being full of shit.
You know Sheilbh writes these beautiful posts explaining why and how Churches don't claim to be 100% correct about everything, and you just ignore it. :mellow:
Because he excuses stuff that you cannot excuse with an organization that claims to be telling people how to live according to a supreme being`s rules.
Tamas is just angry because after Stephen the Catholic Church stopped canonizing Hungarian holy men. The best they could hope for was beetification.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2013, 11:58:59 AM
Tamas is just angry because after Stephen the Catholic Church stopped canonizing Hungarian holy men. The best they could hope for was beetification.
Joan has sunk to beet jokes. :weep:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2013, 11:58:59 AM
Tamas is just angry because after Stephen the Catholic Church stopped canonizing Hungarian holy men. The best they could hope for was beetification.
:rolleyes: IIRC his son also got saintified, probably for dying young or whatever. The Hungarian market had to be pushed hard during those times.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2013, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2013, 11:58:59 AM
Tamas is just angry because after Stephen the Catholic Church stopped canonizing Hungarian holy men. The best they could hope for was beetification.
Joan has sunk to beet jokes. :weep:
Please don't be sad.
I'm begging you. I'm pleating with you.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2013, 12:02:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2013, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2013, 11:58:59 AM
Tamas is just angry because after Stephen the Catholic Church stopped canonizing Hungarian holy men. The best they could hope for was beetification.
Joan has sunk to beet jokes. :weep:
Please don't be sad.
I'm begging you. I'm pleating with you.
:frusty:
Okay now he redeemed himself :lol:
I am not sure why Tamas feels that Marti's old role of the reflexive, intolerant, and willfully ignorant godbasher needs to be retained in light of Marti's retirement. I am not hugely interested in what the Pope has to say about gays, but that interest is as intense as the light of a thousand suns compared to my interest in listening to what bigots have to say about what the Pope has to say about gays.
Quote from: grumbler on September 19, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
I am not sure why Tamas feels that Marti's old role of the reflexive, intolerant, and willfully ignorant godbasher needs to be retained in light of Marti's retirement. I am not hugely interested in what the Pope has to say about gays, but that interest is as intense as the light of a thousand suns compared to my interest in listening to what bigots have to say about what the Pope has to say about gays.
:huh: I am expressing my personal opinion about the topic of a thread. I know you prefer picking what you mistakenly call arguments over random shit than doing what I did, but it is my suspicion that a forum is created for what I did, not what you normally do.
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2013, 01:07:59 PM
:huh: I am expressing my personal opinion about the topic of a thread. I know you prefer picking what you mistakenly call arguments over random shit than doing what I did, but it is my suspicion that a forum is created for what I did, not what you normally do.
:huh: After your whopping big strawman about " how the clergy can act as the "managers" of eternal divine order, while constantly changing the eternal divine rules?" I my eyes kinda glazed over reading your posts, so if you shifted to expressing personal opinions about the topic of the thread, I missed it.
Your arguments about religion sound pretty identical to me across all of the threads (like Marti's did) - except any arguments yu made late in this thread after I had lost interest in the same-old same-old.
Quote from: grumbler on September 19, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
I am not sure why Tamas feels that Marti's old role of the reflexive, intolerant, and willfully ignorant godbasher needs to be retained in light of Marti's retirement.
It's more the Viking critique than the Marti critique. I.e. that literalism or interpretative infallibism leads to logical contradition.
Which is true but smashed right into the Sheilbh critique.
In point of fact, although there are various strands of religious belief among posters here, I don't think we have any literalists here. So Viking and Tamas can keep making the point if they like but it is running the same battering ram through the same open gate over and over.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2013, 10:49:20 AM
You know Sheilbh writes these beautiful posts explaining why and how Churches don't claim to be 100% correct about everything, and you just ignore it. :mellow:
There's no need to write those posts anymore, I can just point to this interview:
QuoteThe dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent.
...
In this quest to seek and find God in all things there is still an area of uncertainty. There must be. If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Uncertainty is in every true discernment that is open to finding confirmation in spiritual consolation.
Our life is not given to us like an opera libretto, in which all is written down; but it means going, walking, doing, searching, seeing ... We must enter into the adventure of the quest for meeting God; we must let God search and encounter us.
...
The wisdom of discernment redeems the necessary ambiguity of life and helps us find the most appropriate means, which do not always coincide with what looks great and strong. The Society of Jesus can be described only in narrative form. Only in narrative form do you discern, not in a philosophical or theological explanation, which allows you rather to discuss .
...
This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians; if you want to know how to love her, you have to ask the people. In turn, Mary loved Jesus with the heart of the people, as we read in the Magnificat. We should not even think, therefore, that 'thinking with the church' means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.
The stuff on 'thinking with the Church' (a very Jesuit idea) is apparently entirely new and very capacious, but it echoes Vatican II.
But his restatement of the very old view that there's a hierarchy of truth will no doubt have traditionalists reaching for the salts because for them it reeks of relativism. And I think that'll be a particular problem for conservative Catholics in the very political world of the American church:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/conservative-catholics-and-the-new-pope/?_r=0
OK
1. On which issue was Moses open for doubt?
2. On which theological issue was the Church or any Pope open for doubt?
What does baffle me a bit is how monumentally free of content the ramblings of this pope are. If you can't go to the church for truth then, to paraphrase stephen fry, what are they for? When did the pope become a post modern lutheran? (well not quite a lutheran sine he doesn't harp on about the bible interminably)
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. Basically, they get pushed down as reality proves them wrong.
I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable :lol:
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:40:03 AM
Basically, they get pushed down as reality proves them wrong.
:yes: That is the key in the whole argument.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2013, 03:02:35 AM
I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable :lol:
That's because we treat the subject matter with respect and take it seriously. There are millions of people who have killed and died over the centuries for the truths of the catholic church. They have done this at it's command and as a consequence of its teaching. And now The Pope is acting like The Dude? If the church is going to pretend to be able to have anything to say about modern life they need to explain how and why the were wrong about witches, crusades and christ killers and explain why they are not wrong now. They still claim the same epistemology (how you know what you know) which justified their earlier crimes now justifies their present niceness. It's not their niceness (which is a big improvement) that is the issue, it is their epistemology.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:40:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2013, 10:35:22 AM
Well I can only repeat the previous posts in this thread: if he is speaking otherwise than previous Popes, while Popes have like the hotline to God than either:
a) this Pope is false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
b) the anti-gay Popes were false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
c) they have no clue what God`s intentions are, so Catholicism is fake
Are you some kind of fucking retard? Of course religion isn't really true. But that doesn't much matter, does it?
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 06:33:42 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:40:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2013, 07:58:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2013, 10:35:22 AM
Well I can only repeat the previous posts in this thread: if he is speaking otherwise than previous Popes, while Popes have like the hotline to God than either:
a) this Pope is false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
b) the anti-gay Popes were false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
c) they have no clue what God`s intentions are, so Catholicism is fake
Are you some kind of fucking retard? Of course religion isn't really true. But that doesn't much matter, does it?
Depends.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:40:03 AM
If you can't go to the church for truth then, to paraphrase stephen fry, what are they for?
:huh:
Guidance. That's all they've ever been for. No one has the absolute Truth(tm). But the church offers guidance on how to live in a way that's compatible with god's word.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 08:01:34 AM
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.
Are you talking about the pope's interview where he said that we need to focus more on charity and acceptance than on judgement?
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 08:20:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:40:03 AM
If you can't go to the church for truth then, to paraphrase stephen fry, what are they for?
:huh:
Guidance. That's all they've ever been for. No one has the absolute Truth(tm).
*paging 1500 years of history*
I'm not sure why Viking and Tamas are making such a fuss.
I mean seriously, Merri. I am (now) trying to avoid attacking individuals in their religion, because if somebody thinks he/she is a better person from believing in one of the deities, I am cool with that.
But how can you honestly say that the Church never claimed to be in possession of the absolute truth? I am not speaking about theories and books written about their philosophic monks, I am speaking about actual practical actions and rules taken and advocated by the Church throughout history.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 08:26:18 AM
I'm not sure why Viking and Tamas are making such a fuss.
religion is one if the few things its still ok to be bigoted about (on either side)
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 08:23:15 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 08:01:34 AM
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.
Are you talking about the pope's interview where he said that we need to focus more on charity and acceptance than on judgement?
No, I was talking about shelf's imagined new catholicism.
My issue with the popes interview is this..
QuoteSpadaro asks Francis what it means to "think with the church," in the words of St. Ignatius. At this, Francis launches into a discussion of infallibility. "All the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief," he argues. "When the dialogue among the people and the bishops and the pope goes down this road and is genuine, then it is assisted by the Holy Spirit. ... We should not even think, therefore, that 'thinking with the church' means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church."
thats not catholic, thats islamic kalaam. In effect changing the catholic church from being the worldly manefestation of the holy spirit to being the same as the islamic ummah. Thinking with the church mainly renders the church itself irrellevant and makes any Hutton Gibson wannabe as good as the pope. I'm sorry, but you don't get to change the central organizing principle of your church and still call yourself pope.
Quote from: HVC on September 20, 2013, 08:30:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 08:26:18 AM
I'm not sure why Viking and Tamas are making such a fuss.
religion is one if the few things its still ok to be bigoted about (on either side)
well, it's not really bigotry if it's true. But even if it was, "still" ?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jesusneverexisted.com%2FIMAGES%2Fburn-ind.gif&hash=ea03a9be2784a3064ee23f66e8665a769fbab037)
"STILL"?
Quote from: HVC on September 20, 2013, 08:30:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 08:26:18 AM
I'm not sure why Viking and Tamas are making such a fuss.
religion is one if the few things its still ok to be bigoted about (on either side)
Is it? I'm pretty sure we're all tired of it now.
People like to persecute other people. If its not religion it'd be something else.
BTW, I'm not actually attacking religion here, I don't need to. I'm pointing out the obvious self contradictions in the new pope's liberal attitude.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 08:37:05 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 20, 2013, 08:30:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 08:26:18 AM
I'm not sure why Viking and Tamas are making such a fuss.
religion is one if the few things its still ok to be bigoted about (on either side)
Is it? I'm pretty sure we're all tired of it now.
well on here mainly yes, but there's only so many topics we can have that everything gets kind of stale. But I meant in general life.
Quote from: HVC on September 20, 2013, 08:37:32 AM
People like to persecute other people. Of its. Not religion it'd be something else.
If religion actually was what it claimed to be then religion it would have been central in ending persecution rather than perpetrating it. To re-quote Stephen Weinberg, good people will do good things, evil people will do evil things but it take religion to make Thomas Moore burn people alive.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 08:39:47 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 20, 2013, 08:37:32 AM
People like to persecute other people. Of its. Not religion it'd be something else.
If religion actually was what it claimed to be then religion it would have been central in ending persecution rather than perpetrating it. To re-quote Stephen Weinberg, good people will do good things, evil people will do evil things but it take religion to make Thomas Moore burn people alive.
So true. Every time I go to church, I picture getting stoned.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 08:40:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 08:39:47 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 20, 2013, 08:37:32 AM
People like to persecute other people. Of its. Not religion it'd be something else.
If religion actually was what it claimed to be then religion it would have been central in ending persecution rather than perpetrating it. To re-quote Stephen Weinberg, good people will do good things, evil people will do evil things but it take religion to make Thomas Moore burn people alive.
So true. Every time I go to church, I picture getting stoned.
Bill Maher stoned or Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani stoned? 'cause I can see ether of those being appropriate in this case.
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2013, 08:28:18 AM
I mean seriously, Merri. I am (now) trying to avoid attacking individuals in their religion, because if somebody thinks he/she is a better person from believing in one of the deities, I am cool with that.
But how can you honestly say that the Church never claimed to be in possession of the absolute truth? I am not speaking about theories and books written about their philosophic monks, I am speaking about actual practical actions and rules taken and advocated by the Church throughout history.
I never said that. I said that that's all they were
supposed to be for. That men chose to take it upon themselves to go beyond that is on them, not the religion.
Religion is, to me, a way to guide the purpose of one's life. It's to offer solace and guidance when things aren't working well. It's to help people find a better way. That this pope is saying, "Look, our goal is to guide, not judge," says a lot about him, imo. He's bringing the Catholic Church back around to what it's supposed to have been doing all along.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 08:42:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 08:40:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 08:39:47 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 20, 2013, 08:37:32 AM
People like to persecute other people. Of its. Not religion it'd be something else.
If religion actually was what it claimed to be then religion it would have been central in ending persecution rather than perpetrating it. To re-quote Stephen Weinberg, good people will do good things, evil people will do evil things but it take religion to make Thomas Moore burn people alive.
So true. Every time I go to church, I picture getting stoned.
Bill Maher stoned or Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani stoned? 'cause I can see ether of those being appropriate in this case.
Neither. ;)
Religions not the cause, it's the tool. A hammer was created to build, but can be used to kill. Do you blame the hammer when it's misused? Even in a purely atheist utopia the CC's would group together and kill the Ide's because they weren't tall enough.
Quote from: HVC on September 20, 2013, 08:50:27 AM
Religions not the cause, it's the tool. A hammer was created to build, but can be used to kill. Do you blame the hammer when it's misused? Even in a purely atheist utopia the CC's would group together and kill the Ide's because they weren't tall enough.
So you argument here is that religion has nothing to do with morality then? 'cause I'm pretty sure there isn't a theologian out there that would agree with you. And yes, the atheist utopian demands that the CC understand right from wrong because it was told by god and to successfully fight against wrong because it's faith gave it the strength to do so. Why does the atheist utopian demand this? Truth in advertising, this is what the church has been claiming for itself for thousands of years now.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:40:03 AM
OK
1. On which issue was Moses open for doubt?
Have you ever even read the Old Testament?
Moses was like a model for Hamlet. Even after God talked to him personally, he kept having doubts.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2013, 03:02:35 AM
I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable :lol:
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 09:03:54 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:40:03 AM
OK
1. On which issue was Moses open for doubt?
Have you ever even read the Old Testament?
Moses was like a model for Hamlet. Even after God talked to him personally, he kept having doubts.
Moses had doubts about himself and his self worth. When god gave him tangible evidence (something he refuses to do for me), moses had none. What Moses did not do is elucidate on the nature of truth and knowledge, no matter how much Philo likes to pretend he was the first philosopher.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 09:06:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2013, 03:02:35 AM
I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable :lol:
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.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:20:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 09:06:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2013, 03:02:35 AM
I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable :lol:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 09:29:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:20:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 09:06:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2013, 03:02:35 AM
I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable :lol:
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.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:32:01 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 08:01:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 06:33:42 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:40:03 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:32:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 09:29:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:20:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 09:06:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2013, 03:02:35 AM
I'm on my phone, but again the anti-theist and hard-core fundy (in this case radical traditionalist) view is virtually indistinguishable :lol:
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.
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 09:36:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:32:01 AM
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.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 20, 2013, 09:46:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 09:50:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
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?
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 10:08:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 09:50:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:59:58 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 20, 2013, 09:46:51 AM
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...
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 10:09:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 20, 2013, 09:46:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 10:13:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2013, 10:26:06 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 20, 2013, 09:46:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 10:30:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 10:13:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 10:09:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:32:01 AM
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.
:huh:
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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2013, 10:49:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 10:09:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2013, 10:49:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 10:09:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2013, 11:09:26 AM
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...
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2013, 10:49:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 10:09:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 11:20:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 11:29:31 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 11:36:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 11:29:31 AM
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.
I don't know enough about the various Buddhist sects - though the establishment of several different sects would suggest that an iterative process of interpretation occurred at least during some length of time.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 11:41:29 AM
I don't know enough about the various Buddhist sects - though the establishment of several different sects would suggest that an iterative process of interpretation occurred at least during some length of time.
I don't think iteration means what you think it does.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:32:01 AM
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.
More like 350 . . .It isn't surprising that laymen and scholars see things differently. Your average illiterate late antique paganus convert is going to have pretty simplified ideas about religion that indeed are likely to be indistinguishable from magic.
Of course the same could be said for the hard sciences. The chairman of the physics department probably thinks about science differently from the way that your typical "jaywalker" would - the latter probably viewing the theoretical science as mumbo-jumbo and its applications as essentially magical in nature ("how does my cell phone work? it just does.")
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
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.
You would have to want to engage in a converstation without being an ass to come to that conclusion.
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 11:43:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 11:41:29 AM
I don't know enough about the various Buddhist sects - though the establishment of several different sects would suggest that an iterative process of interpretation occurred at least during some length of time.
I don't think iteration means what you think it does.
A process repeated? So in this case, within a religion, repeating over and over an attempt at refining understanding. Eventually though that can just lead to a split, as groups of people don't agree with/follow that "new" understanding.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 11:45:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
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.
You would have to want to engage in a converstation without being an ass to come to that conclusion.
Well yes, that's why I said something as his comment seemed...just spiteful.
:rolleyes: Berkut makes a well thought out, coherent post which approaches both sides of the argument with proper respect.
And it is ignored while everybody engages in grumblerism.
Languish at its best. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:17:59 AM
Moses had doubts about himself and his self worth. When god gave him tangible evidence (something he refuses to do for me), moses had none.
Not so - he kept disobeying, up until the very end. Recall why he was not permitted to enter the promised land.
Moses' resistance and disobedience is very significant; it is part of a core literary trope that runs throughout the entire OT.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 10:34:35 AM
My success has been in converting pro-palestinians to either neutrals or pro-israelis.
See now there is a productive use of your time.
:D
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2013, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2013, 11:58:59 AM
Tamas is just angry because after Stephen the Catholic Church stopped canonizing Hungarian holy men. The best they could hope for was beetification.
Joan has sunk to beet jokes. :weep:
And it was beetiful. :cry:
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 11:48:20 AM
A process repeated? So in this case, within a religion, repeating over and over an attempt at refining understanding. Eventually though that can just lead to a split, as groups of people don't agree with/follow that "new" understanding.
No, that's not what iterate means. To iterate is to repeat a process, taking the results of each iteration as the starting point for the next iteration, with an end in mind. By definition, later iterations are closer to the goal than earlier ones.
In religion, this isn't accepted by anyone that I know of; no one argues that their understanding is superseded by another religion because that other religion started later, but is based on the person's own religion (think Jews conceding that all Christians are more correct, and Christians that Muslims are more correct).
Interpretation surely do vary (of things as basic as the answer to "is there a god?"), but the answers are not iterative.
The branching into sects is the norm, I think, but I don't see how that can be viewed as "iterative" since it meets none of the basic elements of the word's definition.
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 11:57:03 AM
No, that's not what iterate means. To iterate is to repeat a process, taking the results of each iteration as the starting point for the next iteration, with an end in mind. By definition, later iterations are closer to the goal than earlier ones.
Except that is the same as my first two sentences combined. :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 11:57:03 AMIn religion, this isn't accepted by anyone that I know of; no one argues that their understanding is superseded by another religion because that other religion started later, but is based on the person's own religion (think Jews conceding that all Christians are more correct, and Christians that Muslims are more correct).
And good thing no one is saying that.
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2013, 11:32:33 AM
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?
Because for many people, religion is completely intertwined withe those social norms, views, and perceptions, so what you propose is not possible.
QuoteThe 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,
Why is that necessary?
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2013, 11:51:15 AM
:rolleyes: Berkut makes a well thought out, coherent post which approaches both sides of the argument with proper respect.
And it is ignored while everybody engages in grumblerism.
Languish at its best. :rolleyes:
Awww, you haz a sad because Berkut said you had a point and people didn't agree with him quickly enough? :console:
I have never disagreed that you have some good points - I have objected to the emotional way you approach what should be, if you are correct about your own beliefs, a purely intellectual exercise.
You are not alone in your emotionalism - I cannot even observe that religion doesn't appear to be iterative without being accused of being "spiteful."
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 11:58:59 AM
Except that is the same as my first two sentences combined. :huh:
No. Simply repeating a process over and over again is not iterating. You stated earlier that Buddhism's divisions into sects was, to you, a sign of iteration. It isn't, because iteration doesn't mean dividing.
QuoteAnd good thing no one is saying that.
Certainly better than saying that " the establishment of several different sects would suggest that an iterative process of interpretation occurred at least during some length of time."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 12:01:14 PM
Why is that necessary?
Indeed. Religion seems to me to be like other subjective concerns like "beauty." It isn't necessary to ban it from consideration as an important element of society, so long as its "believers" don't make the mistake of believing that their standards should be binding on me or anyone else.
I ahve to agree with grumbler, although I don't think what he is saying is really in contravention to what was said before, per se.
"Iteration" is a process that is understood to be ongoing - at some particular interation, it is understood that it is just a better point in the process, unless you've reached your pre-defined goal.
Religiion does not work that way. Rather, it is generally the case that the religion will claim that whatever the point it is at now in regards to some issue, is the goal. Homosexuality is a terrible sin. This was "true" for a long time, and when it was true, it was never conceded that in some future iteration it would not be true.
Unbelievers can and often should be burned at the stake. This was true, and it was never the case while it was true that those who said it was true knew that this was some transitional state to some greater truth, where burning people to death would be a bad idea.
Iteration implies intent to iterate, not just something that happens to occur. It is a defined process.
It is a grumblerism to point out this semantic difference, but in this case I think it is actually a very critical semantic difference that actually drives right to the heart of what is being discussed.
That's the definition of grumblerism, Berkut: cutting through the bullshit to focus on the heart of the issue.
Some people hate that, I know. You are a practitioner (though I think we call in Berkutism when you do it).
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2013, 11:32:33 AM
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?
The point of religion (well, at least any thinking man's religion) isn't that it's an instruction manual - do x, y and z and get into heaven. It's about the struggle to be closer to God. It's the journey, not the destination, that matters. From a more Christian perspective, we're all sinners. It's not that we follow religion and we will be perfect - we won't. It's that we try to be perfect.
And I don't think I agree with the notion that religion inherently, inevitably just follows secular society. Does it do that sometimes? Absolutely. But there are messages and lessons from religion that are still very much at odds with almost all of secular society. The ideas of anti-materialism, of submission to a higher power / greater good, the idea to turn the other cheek and love your neighbor as yourself... those messages you don't really get from secular society very much.
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 12:20:03 PM
That's the definition of grumblerism, Berkut: cutting through the bullshit to focus on the heart of the issue.
:lmfao:
From an adult perspective religion is silly.
Quote from: The Brain on September 20, 2013, 12:43:39 PM
From an adult perspective religion is silly.
So is wine tasting. But if someone wants to engage in religion or wine-tasting, who are we to say no?
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 12:47:47 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 20, 2013, 12:43:39 PM
From an adult perspective religion is silly.
So is wine tasting. But if someone wants to engage in religion or wine-tasting, who are we to say no?
What a retarded thing to say.
That shut him up.
Wine-tasting is silly. You need more than just a taste to get hammered.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 12:40:04 PM
The point of religion (well, at least any thinking man's religion) isn't that it's an instruction manual - do x, y and z and get into heaven. It's about the struggle to be closer to God. It's the journey, not the destination, that matters. From a more Christian perspective, we're all sinners. It's not that we follow religion and we will be perfect - we won't. It's that we try to be perfect.
I think that the issue of sin in the Christian faiths (such as I understand it) is probably a good illustration of your larger point; once, the emphasis seemed to be that everyone was a sinner because of "original sin." Nowadays, the emphasis seems to be that everyone is a sinner because that's just human nature. In other words, the issue of "God made us perfect, but one man blundered and so we are all being punished, and we have to hope God forgives us for Adam's mistake" has been replaced by "it is no one's fault, we are the way we are, and we try to rise above our natures."
I am not sure that anyone can argue with a straight face that the modern view is "better" in an objective sense (though you could argue that my characterization of it is wrong), but it certainly is more understandable to the modern audience. Nowadays, we don't tolerate the whole "corruption of the blood" idea that once informed not just religion, but secular punishment.
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 12:09:56 PM
No. Simply repeating a process over and over again is not iterating. You stated earlier that Buddhism's divisions into sects was, to you, a sign of iteration. It isn't, because iteration doesn't mean dividing.
You missed my second sentence then where I pointed out that it is to refine understanding. I think the division could show that (I don't know enough about the development of Buddhism to speak fully on that though) as in the process of refining, there are often groups that don't agree with the "new" understanding and splinter away.
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2013, 12:14:30 PM
I ahve to agree with grumbler, although I don't think what he is saying is really in contravention to what was said before, per se.
"Iteration" is a process that is understood to be ongoing - at some particular interation, it is understood that it is just a better point in the process, unless you've reached your pre-defined goal.
Religiion does not work that way. Rather, it is generally the case that the religion will claim that whatever the point it is at now in regards to some issue, is the goal. Homosexuality is a terrible sin. This was "true" for a long time, and when it was true, it was never conceded that in some future iteration it would not be true.
Unbelievers can and often should be burned at the stake. This was true, and it was never the case while it was true that those who said it was true knew that this was some transitional state to some greater truth, where burning people to death would be a bad idea.
Iteration implies intent to iterate, not just something that happens to occur. It is a defined process.
It is a grumblerism to point out this semantic difference, but in this case I think it is actually a very critical semantic difference that actually drives right to the heart of what is being discussed.
Maybe but I don't know that it needs to be undertaken consciously. Is there a word for iteration when it was not intended but simply progressed that way?
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2013, 11:32:33 AM
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?
To me, that's like saying, "Why bother asking why? You'll never get the right answer." That may be true, but in asking the question, I'm considering the possibilities. Religion may not give The Answer, but it does, when done well, offer people the opportunity to think about the question(s). That's an equally intrical part of religion, imo, as trying to find The Answer.
QuoteViking 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?
That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.
QuoteThe 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?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Given that our understanding shifts and changes based on the external compass shared by society, it makes sense that our religions will do the same. We're not locked into using religion alone as our moral compass, and in learning from many sources, we're better able to find better/different understanding of our religions.
I don't know if that really answers this, though, as I'm not 100% sure of your question.
QuoteThe 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.
Actually, what the pope said was that we shouldn't focus on whether gays are a-ok or not (as stated in the Bible). What we should be doing instead is focusing on love thy neighbor, care for one another, and live your life the best that you can (also in the Bible).
Basically, what he's doing is changing the focus of his religion, not the content of it. There has always been (and I predict always will be) discourse on where to focus one's energies in life as predicated by the Bible. For the last several hundred years, the popes have tended toward judgment and damning. Now there's a pope who's trying to shift things to the other side of the coin. That's always been there, it's just been a very long time since the Catholic church has had a leader who chose that focus.
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2013, 08:12:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2013, 07:58:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2013, 10:35:22 AM
Well I can only repeat the previous posts in this thread: if he is speaking otherwise than previous Popes, while Popes have like the hotline to God than either:
a) this Pope is false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
b) the anti-gay Popes were false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
c) they have no clue what God`s intentions are, so Catholicism is fake
Are you some kind of fucking retard? Of course religion isn't really true. But that doesn't much matter, does it?
Depends.
No, it really doesn't.
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2013, 01:00:26 PM
You jinxed it. :mad:
At least he silenced the wine heresy.
We already have enough trouble here with the false champagne idolators.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 01:23:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2013, 01:00:26 PM
You jinxed it. :mad:
At least he silenced the wine heresy.
We already have enough trouble here with the false champagne idolators.
Power to the people. :punk:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 01:23:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2013, 01:00:26 PM
You jinxed it. :mad:
At least he silenced the wine heresy.
We already have enough trouble here with the false champagne idolators.
IF IT BUBBLES IT'S CHAMPAGNE!
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 01:06:25 PM
That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.
I am saying that religion is right for everyone. In particular, Christianity is right for everyone. :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 01:40:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 01:23:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2013, 01:00:26 PM
You jinxed it. :mad:
At least he silenced the wine heresy.
We already have enough trouble here with the false champagne idolators.
IF IT BUBBLES IT'S CHAMPAGNE!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct_images_wc.s3.amazonaws.com%2F1015685%2Fproduct%2F1015685.jpg&hash=46a8df038aa1f65754b02f2d412fb026b91df489)
:unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 01:43:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 01:06:25 PM
That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.
I am saying that religion is right for everyone. In particular, Christianity is right for everyone. :contract:
Since when has what you said ever counted? :unsure:
:D :hug:
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 01:43:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 01:06:25 PM
That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.
I am saying that religion is right for everyone. In particular, Christianity is right for everyone. :contract:
Since when has what you said ever counted? :unsure:
:blurgh:
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 08:35:15 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 20, 2013, 08:30:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 08:26:18 AM
I'm not sure why Viking and Tamas are making such a fuss.
religion is one if the few things its still ok to be bigoted about (on either side)
well, it's not really bigotry if it's true. But even if it was, "still" ?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jesusneverexisted.com%2FIMAGES%2Fburn-ind.gif&hash=ea03a9be2784a3064ee23f66e8665a769fbab037)
"STILL"?
:lol: All Bigots think their hatreds are justified.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 10:43:15 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 10:30:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 10:13:08 AM
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.
Which, in this case, is a red herring. It is the sole source of revelation and as such is gods big book of instructions. Which is what you asked me to show. Yes, sole source of sacred scripture does mean it is the "divine instruction manual". The Bible, (the book = manual) is the sole source of gods (god = the divine) revelation (what is revealed? gods instructions). Dei Verbum says this in words you can understand and apparently repeat back to me. But as for reading comprehension I repeat "Gods Instruction Manual" = "Sole Source of Divine Revelation".
As for sacred tradition. Dei Verbum also goes Antoinin Scalia Style Originalist and insists that the intention of the divinely inspired authors is what interpretation is supposed to discover. There is no changing understanding of god, the Gospel writers GOT IT RIGHT, or so says the Catholic Church. God wasn't deceiving the Gospel writers or telling them stuff they didn't understand. The catholic church claims the gospel writers understood the truth and, with inspiration from the holy spirit, wrote down what they understood as best the could.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 01:40:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 01:23:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2013, 01:00:26 PM
You jinxed it. :mad:
At least he silenced the wine heresy.
We already have enough trouble here with the false champagne idolators.
IF IT BUBBLES IT'S CHAMPAGNE!
You are worse than Tamas, Viking and Dawkins combined
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 11:44:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:32:01 AM
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.
More like 350 . . .It isn't surprising that laymen and scholars see things differently. Your average illiterate late antique paganus convert is going to have pretty simplified ideas about religion that indeed are likely to be indistinguishable from magic.
Of course the same could be said for the hard sciences. The chairman of the physics department probably thinks about science differently from the way that your typical "jaywalker" would - the latter probably viewing the theoretical science as mumbo-jumbo and its applications as essentially magical in nature ("how does my cell phone work? it just does.")
Thats not an analogy that fits. Cell-phones are completely new and religion has nothing to say about them. However, the technical mumbo jumbo explanation is of course unintelligible for anybody without a good understanding of electronics and radio waves. Religion says "it just does", Science say "it is an electrical apparatus that uses radiowaves to communicate". One is a simplification and the other is just wrong. Just like saying that the noahs ark story is literally true is just wrong while "it is a story meant to elucidate on the nature and will of god" is simplification.
I kind of liked Ricky Gervais' story of Noah's Ark. :blush:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 11:51:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:17:59 AM
Moses had doubts about himself and his self worth. When god gave him tangible evidence (something he refuses to do for me), moses had none.
Not so - he kept disobeying, up until the very end. Recall why he was not permitted to enter the promised land.
Moses' resistance and disobedience is very significant; it is part of a core literary trope that runs throughout the entire OT.
Again, he had doubts about his self worth and his ability to carry out gods will. It was his lack of faith in himself that was punished. Moses was unsure when god didn't fill in the details or when god told him what to do at the last moment. It's a repeated case of God saying do X, moses repsonding I don't think X will workd, God saying, just do as I say, Moses obeying, doing X then God doing some sort of magic to succeed (except where god hardens faro's heart, just to make sure faro is enough of a dick to warrant god murdering the first born of egypt).
It is not disobedience I brought up, I brought up his doubt, he never doubts gods ability and he never disobeys.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 12:01:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2013, 11:32:33 AM
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?
Because for many people, religion is completely intertwined withe those social norms, views, and perceptions, so what you propose is not possible.
And if it isn't what is the point of religion? Seriously, you gonna argue religion is not about morality? At least in part?
If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 12:57:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 12:40:04 PM
The point of religion (well, at least any thinking man's religion) isn't that it's an instruction manual - do x, y and z and get into heaven. It's about the struggle to be closer to God. It's the journey, not the destination, that matters. From a more Christian perspective, we're all sinners. It's not that we follow religion and we will be perfect - we won't. It's that we try to be perfect.
I think that the issue of sin in the Christian faiths (such as I understand it) is probably a good illustration of your larger point; once, the emphasis seemed to be that everyone was a sinner because of "original sin." Nowadays, the emphasis seems to be that everyone is a sinner because that's just human nature. In other words, the issue of "God made us perfect, but one man blundered and so we are all being punished, and we have to hope God forgives us for Adam's mistake" has been replaced by "it is no one's fault, we are the way we are, and we try to rise above our natures."
I am not sure that anyone can argue with a straight face that the modern view is "better" in an objective sense (though you could argue that my characterization of it is wrong), but it certainly is more understandable to the modern audience. Nowadays, we don't tolerate the whole "corruption of the blood" idea that once informed not just religion, but secular punishment.
If that is the case you stop being catholic as well. If there is no original sin you can live a sinless life outside the catholic church and go to heaven. At which point jesus isn't strictly necessary. You can't really do away with original sin without doing away with, y'know, christianity.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 03:10:14 PM
If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.
Are they: athier than thou?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 03:10:14 PM
If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.
:huh:
These threads have been around since the forum began.
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 01:06:25 PM
QuoteViking 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?
That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.
At which point the argument ceases to be universal, or catholic. The entire point of christianity and catholicism is that it is for everybody. It is a one stop shop for the whole human race to find salvation from sin.
Secondly, Religion is not merely a way of life. It is a set of metaphysical facts about the nature of the universe and the history and the nature of the putative creator of the universe. If you want to have a lifestyle of being spiritual, do not pretend you have the answer to the question of life the universe and everything.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 01:43:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 01:06:25 PM
That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.
I am saying that religion is right for everyone. In particular, Christianity is right for everyone. :contract:
I'll agree that that is what the catholic church and virtually all christian denominations say too.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2013, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 03:10:14 PM
If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.
:huh:
These threads have been around since the forum began.
I think the strawmen being constucted by Viking and Tamas are new. I blame Dawkins.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 03:18:08 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2013, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 03:10:14 PM
If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.
:huh:
These threads have been around since the forum began.
I think the strawmen being constucted by Viking and Tamas are new. I blame Dawkins.
We are arguing the traditional catholic position in this thread. The apologists are arguing against dogma. The strawmen aren't new, they were constructed by the Church Fathers.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct_images_wc.s3.amazonaws.com%2F1015685%2Fproduct%2F1015685.jpg&hash=46a8df038aa1f65754b02f2d412fb026b91df489)
:unsure:
White Zinfandel. :bleeding:
That was my mother in law's favorite wine till she had to sign a contract to stop drinking so she could still teach Sunday school. :bleeding:
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:50:03 PM
Which, in this case, is a red herring. It is the sole source of revelation and as such is gods big book of instructions. Which is what you asked me to show. Yes, sole source of sacred scripture does mean it is the "divine instruction manual". The Bible, (the book = manual) is the sole source of gods (god = the divine) revelation (what is revealed? gods instructions). Dei Verbum says this in words you can understand and apparently repeat back to me. But as for reading comprehension I repeat "Gods Instruction Manual" = "Sole Source of Divine Revelation".
But that isn't what it says at all. The Bible is not, and never has been, the "sole source of divine develation". From Dei Verbum itself
QuoteHence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.
Quote from: Viking
As for sacred tradition. Dei Verbum also goes Antoinin Scalia Style Originalist and insists that the intention of the divinely inspired authors is what interpretation is supposed to discover. There is no changing understanding of god, the Gospel writers GOT IT RIGHT, or so says the Catholic Church. God wasn't deceiving the Gospel writers or telling them stuff they didn't understand. The catholic church claims the gospel writers understood the truth and, with inspiration from the holy spirit, wrote down what they understood as best the could.
Yes they gospel writers "got it right". But do we properly understand it? Again from Dei Verbum
Quote12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 03:21:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 03:18:08 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2013, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 03:10:14 PM
If these threads had been around about 5 years ago I probably would have ended up a Catholic based on the positions taken by the athiests here.
:huh:
These threads have been around since the forum began.
I think the strawmen being constucted by Viking and Tamas are new. I blame Dawkins.
We are arguing the traditional catholic position in this thread. The apologists are arguing against dogma. The strawmen aren't new, they were constructed by the Church Fathers.
Uh, I just quoted a whole bunch of dogma right at you.
You have a very curious debate style. You continue to make assertions, which I continue to show are incorrect. You never recognize this, and instead you either just make new assertions, or just repeat the same assertion you made previously.
The Catholic Church has never, ever been in the biblical literalism business. I don't know why you think it did or does. The entire point (well one of them anyways) of the entire Protestant Reformation was that the Catholic Church didn't pay enough respect to the Bible.
Plus, damn you to hell for making me defend the Roman Catholic Church. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:35:50 PM
Plus, damn you to hell for making me defend the Roman Catholic Church. :mad:
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:50:03 PM
Which, in this case, is a red herring. It is the sole source of revelation and as such is gods big book of instructions. Which is what you asked me to show. Yes, sole source of sacred scripture does mean it is the "divine instruction manual". The Bible, (the book = manual) is the sole source of gods (god = the divine) revelation (what is revealed? gods instructions). Dei Verbum says this in words you can understand and apparently repeat back to me. But as for reading comprehension I repeat "Gods Instruction Manual" = "Sole Source of Divine Revelation".
But that isn't what it says at all. The Bible is not, and never has been, the "sole source of divine develation". From Dei Verbum itself
QuoteHence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.
All true and all red herrings. Note my bolding. Sacred tradition which are the secret whispers of the holy ghost to the apostles which is why they require an apostolic succession. They are used to interpret the word, which is in the bible. The revelation is in the bible while the way of understanding it is in the tradition. Nothing I have said contradicts that. If you think it does then you have mis-understood me.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: Viking
As for sacred tradition. Dei Verbum also goes Antoinin Scalia Style Originalist and insists that the intention of the divinely inspired authors is what interpretation is supposed to discover. There is no changing understanding of god, the Gospel writers GOT IT RIGHT, or so says the Catholic Church. God wasn't deceiving the Gospel writers or telling them stuff they didn't understand. The catholic church claims the gospel writers understood the truth and, with inspiration from the holy spirit, wrote down what they understood as best the could.
Yes they gospel writers "got it right". But do we properly understand it? Again from Dei Verbum
Quote12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
The bit I bolded is what I referred to. The human error lies not in the intention of the authors but rather in their ability to convey the supposedly sublime intention of god and/or the holy spirit. Interpretation in this case is about wading through the tradition and human error and ancient conventions and down right copying errors to find the intention of the author.
The question about if we understand it propery is resolved by the FUCKING SACRED TRADITION which the catholic church is supposedly in posession of. The sacred tradition is a guarantee that you did understand it properly. This is what the catholic church has been saying for millennia. The bible has the truth, we have the secret decoder ring so what we say goes. It is not until the church itself changed this truth beyond all recognition that it was forced to pretend that they never claimed to have the truth for all these years.
This is what the reformation was all about, a revolt against the holders of the secret decoder ring by asserting that there was no secret decoder ring and/or that if it did exist god had given it to all of us.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 03:50:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:50:03 PM
Which, in this case, is a red herring. It is the sole source of revelation and as such is gods big book of instructions. Which is what you asked me to show. Yes, sole source of sacred scripture does mean it is the "divine instruction manual". The Bible, (the book = manual) is the sole source of gods (god = the divine) revelation (what is revealed? gods instructions). Dei Verbum says this in words you can understand and apparently repeat back to me. But as for reading comprehension I repeat "Gods Instruction Manual" = "Sole Source of Divine Revelation".
But that isn't what it says at all. The Bible is not, and never has been, the "sole source of divine develation". From Dei Verbum itself
QuoteHence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.
All true and all red herrings. Note my bolding. Sacred tradition which are the secret whispers of the holy ghost to the apostles which is why they require an apostolic succession. They are used to interpret the word, which is in the bible. The revelation is in the bible while the way of understanding it is in the tradition. Nothing I have said contradicts that. If you think it does then you have mis-understood me.
You're cherry picking. Read the whole thing. "Sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence".
Quote from: Viking
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: Viking
As for sacred tradition. Dei Verbum also goes Antoinin Scalia Style Originalist and insists that the intention of the divinely inspired authors is what interpretation is supposed to discover. There is no changing understanding of god, the Gospel writers GOT IT RIGHT, or so says the Catholic Church. God wasn't deceiving the Gospel writers or telling them stuff they didn't understand. The catholic church claims the gospel writers understood the truth and, with inspiration from the holy spirit, wrote down what they understood as best the could.
Yes they gospel writers "got it right". But do we properly understand it? Again from Dei Verbum
Quote12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
The bit I bolded is what I referred to. The human error lies not in the intention of the authors but rather in their ability to convey the supposedly sublime intention of god and/or the holy spirit. Interpretation in this case is about wading through the tradition and human error and ancient conventions and down right copying errors to find the intention of the author.
The question about if we understand it propery is resolved by the FUCKING SACRED TRADITION which the catholic church is supposedly in posession of. The sacred tradition is a guarantee that you did understand it properly. This is what the catholic church has been saying for millennia. The bible has the truth, we have the secret decoder ring so what we say goes. It is not until the church itself changed this truth beyond all recognition that it was forced to pretend that they never claimed to have the truth for all these years.
This is what the reformation was all about, a revolt against the holders of the secret decoder ring by asserting that there was no secret decoder ring and/or that if it did exist god had given it to all of us.
You've lost me. What exactly are you arguing here?
If you'll recall, the dispute was whether or not the Catholic Church believed that the Bible is the "sole source of divine revelation"? Because you seem to finally be acknowledging that the Catholic Church believes in more than just the Bible.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:35:50 PM
Uh, I just quoted a whole bunch of dogma right at you.
You have a very curious debate style. You continue to make assertions, which I continue to show are incorrect. You never recognize this, and instead you either just make new assertions, or just repeat the same assertion you made previously.
The Catholic Church has never, ever been in the biblical literalism business. I don't know why you think it did or does. The entire point (well one of them anyways) of the entire Protestant Reformation was that the Catholic Church didn't pay enough respect to the Bible.
Plus, damn you to hell for making me defend the Roman Catholic Church. :mad:
The catholic church has been in the "I decide which parts of the book we will use for this issue" business. The very definition of a-la-carte religion. The protestant reformation was not about respect for the bible is was about a monopoly on interpretation.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:56:37 PM
You're cherry picking. Read the whole thing. "Sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence".
No I'm not. I'm talking about the revelation of the word of god. Which is the bible. Which is what your text said.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:56:37 PM
You've lost me. What exactly are you arguing here?
If you'll recall, the dispute was whether or not the Catholic Church believed that the Bible is the "sole source of divine revelation"? Because you seem to finally be acknowledging that the Catholic Church believes in more than just the Bible.
No, seriously.
The Revealed Word of God = The Bible
The way of interpreting the Word of God = The Sacred Traditions of the Church
I've said this a few time already. The church teaches that the writers were inspired by the word of god but, since they were human, they didn't necessarily write it down in a manner that the divine inspiration would be understood correctly. To make sure you understand it correctly you need the church. You can't do it yourself, like Luther said.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 04:00:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:56:37 PM
You're cherry picking. Read the whole thing. "Sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence".
No I'm not. I'm talking about the revelation of the word of god. Which is the bible. Which is what your text said.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:56:37 PM
You've lost me. What exactly are you arguing here?
If you'll recall, the dispute was whether or not the Catholic Church believed that the Bible is the "sole source of divine revelation"? Because you seem to finally be acknowledging that the Catholic Church believes in more than just the Bible.
No, seriously.
The Revealed Word of God = The Bible
The way of interpreting the Word of God = The Sacred Traditions of the Church
I've said this a few time already. The church teaches that the writers were inspired by the word of god but, since they were human, they didn't necessarily write it down in a manner that the divine inspiration would be understood correctly. To make sure you understand it correctly you need the church. You can't do it yourself, like Luther said.
WHich is more than just the Bible itself.
We're going in circles here.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 04:11:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 04:00:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:56:37 PM
You're cherry picking. Read the whole thing. "Sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence".
No I'm not. I'm talking about the revelation of the word of god. Which is the bible. Which is what your text said.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:56:37 PM
You've lost me. What exactly are you arguing here?
If you'll recall, the dispute was whether or not the Catholic Church believed that the Bible is the "sole source of divine revelation"? Because you seem to finally be acknowledging that the Catholic Church believes in more than just the Bible.
No, seriously.
The Revealed Word of God = The Bible
The way of interpreting the Word of God = The Sacred Traditions of the Church
I've said this a few time already. The church teaches that the writers were inspired by the word of god but, since they were human, they didn't necessarily write it down in a manner that the divine inspiration would be understood correctly. To make sure you understand it correctly you need the church. You can't do it yourself, like Luther said.
WHich is more than just the Bible itself.
We're going in circles here.
I don't think we are going in circles. I think you are. It is more than just the bible. I said the bible was the sole source of divine revelation. It's nice to see you've come round. You really shouldn't just disagree with me just because you don't like my view on a different topic (viz the existence or not of a god). You need the church to get from revelation to dogma and teachings, that is what the church is for according to the catholics.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 10:19:35 AM
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.
Call it the "Viking Dilemma", like you're the first person to ever bring this up? Is your ego that big, or are you just that uninformed about the history of philosophy and theology?
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 04:19:45 PM
I said the bible was the sole source of divine revelation.
Yeah, and you are just dead wrong about that.
I swear that Viking delbrately misreads everything he is given.
Quote from: dps on September 20, 2013, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 10:19:35 AM
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.
Call it the "Viking Dilemma", like you're the first person to ever bring this up? Is your ego that big, or are you just that uninformed about the history of philosophy and theology?
It's actually based on Epicurus' Trilemma
QuoteIs God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
which I can never remember properly.... :blush:
so rather than getting it wrong I made up one fitting the situation and pegged my name on it. Critics of Calvin and predestination probably have traditional named criticisms but I don't know the names of those either.
Certainly Theists haven't come up with a decent argument for god since Epicurus and Lucretius destroyed all them all back in the ancient world. Then again, Atheists haven't needed to come up with any good arguments since then either. Very little here is new in this argument.
If you think I'm pretending I came up with most of this stuff you are mistaken.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 04:48:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 04:19:45 PM
I said the bible was the sole source of divine revelation.
Yeah, and you are just dead wrong about that.
It's about time you came around then. Now we need to get on with convincing you that none of the other self claimed sources of divine revelation are actually true.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 05:30:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 04:48:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 04:19:45 PM
I said the bible was the sole source of divine revelation.
Yeah, and you are just dead wrong about that.
It's about time you came around then. Now we need to get on with convincing you that none of the other self claimed sources of divine revelation are actually true.
It really is going in circles with you. You need not convince me of anything. I am an athiest myself. Its just that you are mischaracterizing the argument of those who are christians so terribly that it would lead an objective bystander to think the athiest argument had no merit.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2013, 03:35:50 PM
Plus, damn you to hell for making me defend the Roman Catholic Church. :mad:
I left, so there's a spot open for you :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2013, 05:38:54 PM
It really is going in circles with you. You need not convince me of anything. I am an athiest myself. Its just that you are mischaracterizing the argument of those who are christians so terribly that it would lead an objective bystander to think the athiest argument had no merit.
Unusual though this is, I find myself agreeing with CC (other than in his persistent mis-spelling of atheist) and would repeat what I said to Tamas (and earlier to Marti): why does it mean so much to you, Viking, that some people believe in things you don't believe in? It strikes me that you guys protesteth too much. I don't care, in general, whether the guy down the street believes in a god or thinks white wines are superior to reds. That doesn't shorten my lifespan or my gas mileage.
If you are debating this just for the fun of debating, I guess I can't object (given my own predilection for that hobby), but would note that you go pretty deep into the grass in pursuit of "fun."
I have no problem with most atheism. I find "internet atheism", which is essentially bullying, to be annoying and tiresome. It's sophomoric and childish and typically amounts to going on about Sky Fairies, and noodle monsters. To me it's the stuff of teenagers trying to show off how smart they are, and how stupid everyone else is. I used to be guilty of that myself (though before I was on the net), which may be why I hold it in such contempt.
Viking is different though, his is the Atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens. It is an Atheism that is at war with religion, it is elimination in nature. Religion stands in the way, and must be ruthlessly purged. If allowed to exist it threatens the existence of science and freedom. Ironically, it's an illiberal mindset and human rights can be trampled and ideas banned if necessary to preserve the true freedom of "Free Thought".
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2013, 07:09:02 PM
It is an Atheism that is at war with religion, it is elimination in nature. Religion stands in the way, and must be ruthlessly purged. If allowed to exist it threatens the existence of science and freedom.
:huh: Are you trying to make it sound like a bad thing? :unsure:
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:40:03 AM
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. Basically, they get pushed down as reality proves them wrong.
The hierarchy of truth isn't saying A is more true and more important than B. It says B proceeds from A. So the problem with the Church talking all the time about abortion and the gays is that it's not talking about the core of the faith. Here's the Pope on that:
QuoteThe Church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus.
We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.
I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing.
The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor's proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.
So he's not changed any teaching here. But it's a bit like how he more or less says 'you know my views on these topics, I'm a son of the Church'. But we need to get back to the core message from which all moral teaching flows. Given his name I always think of St. Francis being told to rebuild the Church and I think the message here is let's stop trying to buttress up the east wing and check that the foundations are solid. You see this approach in a concordance of Francis's public words so far - the most used word is 'joy' and the second is 'mercy'. These are to him what 'be not afraid' was to JPII and faith and reason were to Benedict. I think they're the touchstone of his approach.
And I wonder if this is something of the Jesuit in Francis. The Jesuits are commanded to 'find God in all things' and so he says 'Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanied persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy.' He also uses a very striking and very Jesuit analogy when discussing gays and abortion. He compares the Church to a field hospital and the people who enter into it to wounded soldiers. A priest should focus on the wounds of the soldier in front of them, not start asking them about their blood pressure and cholesterol :lol:
Quotethats not catholic, thats islamic kalaam.
A bit of context helps. 'Thinking with the Church' is a part of Jesuit spirituality. It's one of Ignatius's exercises to try and align an individual with the Church and its preachings. It's generally full of praise for the Church but the last line - which I think Francis is referring to - is if you perceive something to be white, 'believe it to be black' if the Church determines it so. I think Francis takes that Jesuit practice expands it.
As I say I think it's genuinely new, but it stems from Vatican II which emphasised that while the hierarchy has a huge and important role the Catholic Church isn't just the hierarchy it is the 'people of God'. But it's a very Jesuit idea and approach, I don't think any other Pope could've discussed it like that.
QuoteNot 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.
True. But it's even down to the dissing of Francis. The ultra-conservatives are always moaning about Francis's sermons and certainly interviews like this (Benedict never did an interview but loved ordered, philosophical question and answer sessions). They compare it negatively to Benedict's very intelligent and rigorous statements.
QuoteReligion is, to me, a way to guide the purpose of one's life. It's to offer solace and guidance when things aren't working well. It's to help people find a better way. That this pope is saying, "Look, our goal is to guide, not judge," says a lot about him, imo. He's bringing the Catholic Church back around to what it's supposed to have been doing all along.
From a Catholic view you're right. The purpose of the Catholic Church in someone's life is to more accurately model your own life after Christ. The goal is nothing less than to become a saint. The Church offers a way to do that and provides the specification for the model. But you will fail. So the Church also provides confession, which is an absolute obsession with Francis. I love the story of the single mother who got pregnant again and her lover, who she thought would propose then pushed her to get an abortion. She decided not to but wrote to Francis about this story. He phoned her up and talked to her and at the end of the conversation said 'and look if you can't find someone to perform the christening (many Italian priests are very conservative on this), then I'll do it'. That's what he means by what matters isn't the judging it's getting the message of the Church to the person and treating the person with love.
Interestingly Francis quotes St. Francis of Lerins's line that 'even the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws, consolidating over the years, developing over time, deepening with age'. And goes on to discuss how the Church needs to change and adapt its understandings of people now - never losing focus on human beings - so that they can encounter it.
Having read the whole things there's two really striking things for me. The first is that this is quite a mystical Pope. He mentions time and again the need to be open to God. You shouldn't obsess over the rules too much if that closes you off to God. You need to be open for discernment and it is striking that his favourite Jesuit was Ignatius' room-mate (with Francis Xavier) at university, Peter Faber. He's not well known and he's not even been canonised yet. But he's a great mystical writer of the Jesuits and a model of 'contemplative in action'. In addition Francis seems to link mysticism to the prophets and describes the role of the religious orders as to be prophets, which isn't necessarily in conflict with the hierarchy, but which is different. So we have a prophet in the Vatican, which is interesting.
The second thing is I think it really shows that he's the first Pope we've had since the Council whose career hasn't been defined by the Council. I mean this line for example 'yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualising its message for today – which was typical of Vatican II – is absolutely irreversible.' JPII and Benedict were entirely about emphasising the hermeneutic of continuity. Francis has more or less dismissed that whole argument in a throwaway line. That wasn't his council or his interest. So I think we're seeing the first Pope who isn't primarily interested with defining the meaning of the Council and settling internal arguments. He's post-conciliar. I think his approach, which a lot of Catholics will be happy with, is to say 'the Council happened, we've had our internal squabbles and focused on ourselves, now let's get back on the streets.'
The two tie together because he's always said that his fear was a Church that was internal rather than out on the street. In the World Youth Day in Rio he had that message, he told the young people to return to their parishes and 'make a mess'. In this interview, he had this to say, 'Being prophets may sometimes imply making waves. I do not know how to put it.... Prophecy makes noise, uproar, some say 'a mess.' But in reality, the charism of religious people is like yeast: prophecy announces the spirit of the Gospel.' He's a religious, so he's a prophet and, apparently, a Pope who wants to make a mess.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2013, 07:09:02 PM
. Ironically, it's an illiberal mindset and human rights can be trampled and ideas banned if necessary to preserve the true freedom of "Free Thought".
Viking said that?
I think you pushed the point one step too far.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2013, 09:09:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2013, 07:09:02 PM
. Ironically, it's an illiberal mindset and human rights can be trampled and ideas banned if necessary to preserve the true freedom of "Free Thought".
Viking said that?
I think you pushed the point one step too far.
No, I described a position that Viking holds that has been popularized by Dawkins and Hitchens the other "new athiests".
It is interesting to read the new second volume of Mark Twain's Autobiography, and his scathing-but-amusing send-ups of religion and magical thinking, and then come back here and read pretty much the exact opposite of his approach.
For Twain lovers who haven't gotten the second volume yet: get it. The idiot editor who pretty much ruined the first volume has been.... suppressed... for the second.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2013, 05:46:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2013, 09:09:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2013, 07:09:02 PM
. Ironically, it's an illiberal mindset and human rights can be trampled and ideas banned if necessary to preserve the true freedom of "Free Thought".
Viking said that?
I think you pushed the point one step too far.
No, I described a position that Viking holds that has been popularized by Dawkins and Hitchens the other "new athiests".
No, you are either wrong or lying.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2013, 03:06:07 AM
No, you are either wrong or lying.
How could you possibly know whether or not he is wrong about what positions you hold? :huh:
How could Grumbler possibly know what I wrote?
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2013, 03:06:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2013, 05:46:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2013, 09:09:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2013, 07:09:02 PM
. Ironically, it's an illiberal mindset and human rights can be trampled and ideas banned if necessary to preserve the true freedom of "Free Thought".
Viking said that?
I think you pushed the point one step too far.
No, I described a position that Viking holds that has been popularized by Dawkins and Hitchens the other "new athiests".
No, you are either wrong or lying.
You aren't of the new Athiest persuasion? I've seen you quote Dawkins and Dennot.
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2013, 06:09:17 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2013, 03:06:07 AM
No, you are either wrong or lying.
How could you possibly know whether or not he is wrong about what positions you hold? :huh:
Because he said what he thought my positions were. He is either wrong about that, or he is lying when he says that.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2013, 07:00:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2013, 06:09:17 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2013, 03:06:07 AM
No, you are either wrong or lying.
How could you possibly know whether or not he is wrong about what positions you hold? :huh:
Because he said what he thought my positions were. He is either wrong about that, or he is lying when he says that.
Fix your sarcasmometer.
Grumbler defending Raz? It's a miracle!
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 07:40:01 AM
Grumbler defending Raz? It's a miracle!
You too must fix your sarcasmometer
CLEAR TEH AIR!!!111
Go back to fucking beets. It's what you are good at.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 07:40:01 AM
Grumbler defending Raz? It's a miracle!
Hmmmm
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-hyutTEBydAg%2FUVN-pSmJ3aI%2FAAAAAAAAAE8%2FojRPQ0Npb7s%2Fs1600%2FNotSureIfSerious.jpg&hash=d361a6280b927bf859eaa2097f6c8c3bfb723227)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bolgernow.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2FSimpsons-Sarcasm-Detector.jpg&hash=2a24964fcc9f6f462b8243a6a51a292c77b0012c)
Where does this idea that atheists, new or otherwise, have some agenda to "ban" religious expression or activity?
I've heard that claim made many times, and yet I've never once heard any prominent atheist make any such suggestion. Am I missing something?
I've certainly heard many atheists state that religion overall is a great negative (I would be one of them), and we would be better off without it, but that is hardly the same thing as suggesting that it actually be restricted in some legal sense. I think even the most ardent atheist, "New" or otherwise would recognize that restricting anyone's freedom of religion would be vastly more damaging than the problem itself.
http://ffrf.org/
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 11:23:32 AM
Where does this idea that atheists, new or otherwise, have some agenda to "ban" religious expression or activity?
I've heard that claim made many times, and yet I've never once heard any prominent atheist make any such suggestion. Am I missing something?
I've certainly heard many atheists state that religion overall is a great negative (I would be one of them), and we would be better off without it, but that is hardly the same thing as suggesting that it actually be restricted in some legal sense. I think even the most ardent atheist, "New" or otherwise would recognize that restricting anyone's freedom of religion would be vastly more damaging than the problem itself.
As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief is a form of child abuse and that the practice should be banned or at least heavily regulated.
Quote from: derspiess on September 24, 2013, 11:25:01 AM
http://ffrf.org/
They clearly have an agenda to ban religious expression . . . by the state.
But not by individuals.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2013, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 24, 2013, 11:25:01 AM
http://ffrf.org/
They clearly have an agenda to ban religious expression . . . by the state.
But not by individuals.
That may have been their original intent, but you know-- mission creep & all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 11:28:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 11:23:32 AM
Where does this idea that atheists, new or otherwise, have some agenda to "ban" religious expression or activity?
I've heard that claim made many times, and yet I've never once heard any prominent atheist make any such suggestion. Am I missing something?
I've certainly heard many atheists state that religion overall is a great negative (I would be one of them), and we would be better off without it, but that is hardly the same thing as suggesting that it actually be restricted in some legal sense. I think even the most ardent atheist, "New" or otherwise would recognize that restricting anyone's freedom of religion would be vastly more damaging than the problem itself.
As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief is a form of child abuse and that the practice should be banned or at least heavily regulated.
I've heard the claim that teaching religions to children is bad/immoral (and again, I would even agree with the argument), but I don't recall any suggestions for banning or regulating it in any fashion. Can you provide a source?
Quote from: derspiess on September 24, 2013, 11:25:01 AM
http://ffrf.org/
Can you be more specific?
I don't think the people who represent Freedom from Religion would agree that they are trying to ban or outlaw religion.
Quote from: derspiess on September 24, 2013, 11:42:40 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2013, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 24, 2013, 11:25:01 AM
http://ffrf.org/
They clearly have an agenda to ban religious expression . . . by the state.
But not by individuals.
That may have been their original intent, but you know-- mission creep & all.
Was there something on that site that suggested the organization wanted to limited private speech?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 11:28:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 11:23:32 AM
Where does this idea that atheists, new or otherwise, have some agenda to "ban" religious expression or activity?
I've heard that claim made many times, and yet I've never once heard any prominent atheist make any such suggestion. Am I missing something?
I've certainly heard many atheists state that religion overall is a great negative (I would be one of them), and we would be better off without it, but that is hardly the same thing as suggesting that it actually be restricted in some legal sense. I think even the most ardent atheist, "New" or otherwise would recognize that restricting anyone's freedom of religion would be vastly more damaging than the problem itself.
As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief is a form of child abuse and that the practice should be banned or at least heavily regulated.
Just as another, so has Samuel Clemens.
Quote from: derspiess on September 24, 2013, 11:42:40 AM
That may have been their original intent, but you know-- mission creep & all.
Their mission is promote the constitutional principle of Church and State. Any attempt to promote legisliation that impinged upon private religious expression would not be mission creep, it would be directly antithetical to the mission.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 11:28:05 AM
As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief . . . should be banned or at least heavily regulated.
Where or when did he say that?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2013, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 11:28:05 AM
As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief . . . should be banned or at least heavily regulated.
Where or when did he say that?
QuoteProfessor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'. In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact. . . . Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims. 'What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that,' the Daily Telegraph reported he had said. 'What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse
So you can teach them about religions but you shouldn't teach them to hold any specific beliefs stemming from one?
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 11:42:58 AM
I've heard the claim that teaching religions to children is bad/immoral (and again, I would even agree with the argument), but I don't recall any suggestions for banning or regulating it in any fashion. Can you provide a source?
Quote
'What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312813/Richard-Dawkins-Forcing-religion-children-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professor.html
I also saw some links that in 2006 Dawkins had signed a Petition in the UK calling for making it illegal to teach children under the age of 16 about religion. I didnt link those stories because I saw other links which suggested that he removed his name from the petition at some point.
Another link I found that I think you will find very interesting is an article by another Atheist that addresses the views of what he calls the "new atheists" that has been largely taken up by Viking and Tamas in this thread. The author's refutation of their position largely mirrors what has been said in this thread.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8839081/call-off-the-faith-wars/
I can see how calling it "child abuse" could be seen as a effort to ban or regulate it, but you have to stretch to do so.
I think if you asked Dawkins straight out "Do you think laws should be passed banning the teaching of religiion to children", I rather doubt he would agree that it was a good idea in anything but a theoretical sense.
Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 12:17:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2013, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 11:28:05 AM
As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief . . . should be banned or at least heavily regulated.
Where or when did he say that?
QuoteProfessor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'. In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact. . . . Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims. 'What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that,' the Daily Telegraph reported he had said. 'What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse
So you can teach them about religions but you shouldn't teach them to hold any specific beliefs stemming from one?
What do you mean by "can"?
Obviously an atheist is not going to think it is a good idea to teach children to believe in something that doesn't exist in the fashion of religion.
But there is a huge gulf between that and arguing that people ought to be restricted from doing so as a matter of law. I think all atheists would agree that teaching children to believe in god on faith is a generally bad idea, I think very, very few of them would argue that throwing out freedom of religion is the way to go about stopping it.
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.
Who did that?
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 12:17:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2013, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 11:28:05 AM
As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief . . . should be banned or at least heavily regulated.
Where or when did he say that?
QuoteProfessor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'. In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact. . . . Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims. 'What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that,' the Daily Telegraph reported he had said. 'What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse
So you can teach them about religions but you shouldn't teach them to hold any specific beliefs stemming from one?
What do you mean by "can"?
Obviously an atheist is not going to think it is a good idea to teach children to believe in something that doesn't exist in the fashion of religion.
But there is a huge gulf between that and arguing that people ought to be restricted from doing so as a matter of law. I think all atheists would agree that teaching children to believe in god on faith is a generally bad idea, I think very, very few of them would argue that throwing out freedom of religion is the way to go about stopping it.
Can as in not criminal to teach about religions. Seems like he would be for criminalizing telling kids they are Christian or Muslim, unless he's equating it with child abuse to say that the latter shouldn't be criminalized. :P
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:41:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.
Who did that?
Funny you should respond to this. If the glove fits...
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 12:41:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 12:17:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2013, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 11:28:05 AM
As just one example Dawkins has taken the position that teaching children religious belief . . . should be banned or at least heavily regulated.
Where or when did he say that?
QuoteProfessor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'. In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact. . . . Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims. 'What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that,' the Daily Telegraph reported he had said. 'What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse
So you can teach them about religions but you shouldn't teach them to hold any specific beliefs stemming from one?
What do you mean by "can"?
Obviously an atheist is not going to think it is a good idea to teach children to believe in something that doesn't exist in the fashion of religion.
But there is a huge gulf between that and arguing that people ought to be restricted from doing so as a matter of law. I think all atheists would agree that teaching children to believe in god on faith is a generally bad idea, I think very, very few of them would argue that throwing out freedom of religion is the way to go about stopping it.
Can as in not criminal to teach about religions. Seems like he would be for criminalizing telling kids they are Christian or Muslim, unless he's equating it with child abuse to say that the latter shouldn't be criminalized. :P
I don't know what he means, but I am relatively certain that equating with child abuse is not an attempt to argue that the legal penalty for doing so ought to be the same, but rather that it should be seen by rational people as being equivalent, and something that should not be done.
It is easy to check - if he feels as you claim, then we should see him making the following up and obvious proposal that in fact we should pass laws making it illegal. Are there any such follow up proposals from him?
This is like someone saying that feeding your kid McDonalds every day is like child abuse. They are making a moral claim, not a legal one, and they are not claiming it should be illegal to feed you kid at McDonalds, even if they are saying doing so all the time is abusive.
I think he just did it for shock value to be honest.
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:41:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:41:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.
Who did that?
Funny you should respond to this. If the glove fits...
I have no idea what you mean, honestly. Are you saying that I said something along the lines of "no one has/ever will..."?
Because I am quite certain I have not.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:50:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:41:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:41:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.
Who did that?
Funny you should respond to this. If the glove fits...
I have no idea what you mean, honestly. Are you saying that I said something along the lines of "no one has/ever will..."?
Because I am quite certain I have not.
Whoa, dial back the rage.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 12:46:20 PM
I think he just did it for shock value to be honest.
Yeah, you are probably right - he went for something incendiary enough to get repeated.
Again, I agree with he basic sentiment, but there are of course all kinds of ways to state it with varying degrees of "shock value" associated with it.
And you can say that exact same thing in very mild terms as well.
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:51:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:50:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:41:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:41:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.
Who did that?
Funny you should respond to this. If the glove fits...
I have no idea what you mean, honestly. Are you saying that I said something along the lines of "no one has/ever will..."?
Because I am quite certain I have not.
Whoa, dial back the rage.
OK, dialed back. Rage set to -11.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:52:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:51:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:50:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:41:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:41:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 24, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
Or maybe making "no one has/will ever..." statements is ill-advised.
Who did that?
Funny you should respond to this. If the glove fits...
I have no idea what you mean, honestly. Are you saying that I said something along the lines of "no one has/ever will..."?
Because I am quite certain I have not.
Whoa, dial back the rage.
OK, dialed back. Rage set to -11.
You're a mellow man.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:37:06 PM
I can see how calling it "child abuse" could be seen as a effort to ban or regulate it, but you have to stretch to do so.
I think if you asked Dawkins straight out "Do you think laws should be passed banning the teaching of religiion to children", I rather doubt he would agree that it was a good idea in anything but a theoretical sense.
I think we know the answer to that question when he signed a Petition calling for such a thing but then thought better of it and asked for his name to be removed from the Petition. I had half remembered the act of signing the Petition but I did not know he had then asked for his name to be removed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 12:58:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 12:37:06 PM
I can see how calling it "child abuse" could be seen as a effort to ban or regulate it, but you have to stretch to do so.
I think if you asked Dawkins straight out "Do you think laws should be passed banning the teaching of religiion to children", I rather doubt he would agree that it was a good idea in anything but a theoretical sense.
I think we know the answer to that question when he signed a Petition calling for such a thing but then thought better of it and asked for his name to be removed from the Petition.
Indeed. I could easily see myself doing the same - it is the kind of idea that is sound in theory, but if you take it to the practical implementation, it is clearly impossible in any kind of liberal society.
I could see myself siging a petition that says "Nicotine kills! Ban smoking!" and then thinking "Hmmm, yeah, that doesn't really work..." and retracting the signature.
I think teaching your children to believe in god at a young age is a pretty terrible thing to do to them. But I think restricting people right to teach their children as they see fit is worse. I would bet that Dawkins position is much the same.
Quote
I had half remembered the act of signing the Petition but I did not know he had then asked for his name to be removed.
This is actually the first I've ever heard of anything remotely like this. I've certainly heard the basic argument that indoctrinating/brainwashing/teaching/whatever kids into faith prior to their ability to think through the reasoning on their own is a immoral thing to do, but the follow on "...and hence it should be against the law" I've only ever heard from people telling me what atheists think, rather than actual prominent atheists.
Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?
Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 01:15:33 PM
Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?
Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?
My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true". You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 01:15:33 PM
Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?
Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?
My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true". You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.
I have to run, but I did read the article, and it is interesting, but not really new.
I may have more time for a more thorough response later, but my two cent response to the basic idea is simply that I do not accept the premise that a philosophy based on something that is false can be held up as a desirable means to a reasonable end.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true". You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.
If you mean the "Atheists versus Dawkins" article, it unfortunately suffers from the same problem as most of what Dawkins himself writes: it sets up strawmen, and then demolishes them, without ever addressing the points that the other side have actually made.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 02:14:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 01:15:33 PM
Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?
Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?
My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true". You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.
I have to run, but I did read the article, and it is interesting, but not really new.
I may have more time for a more thorough response later, but my two cent response to the basic idea is simply that I do not accept the premise that a philosophy based on something that is false can be held up as a desirable means to a reasonable end.
The quesion I would have for you then is what philospophy is "true". A scientific theory can be "true" in the sense that it best conforms to observed data and testing but it can also become false when new data and testing disproves it. The same process cannot be applied to philosophy. I am unaware of any philosophic point of view which has been proven to be "true".
Sigh.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 02:51:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 02:14:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 01:15:33 PM
Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?
Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?
My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true". You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.
I have to run, but I did read the article, and it is interesting, but not really new.
I may have more time for a more thorough response later, but my two cent response to the basic idea is simply that I do not accept the premise that a philosophy based on something that is false can be held up as a desirable means to a reasonable end.
The quesion I would have for you then is what philospophy is "true". A scientific theory can be "true" in the sense that it best conforms to observed data and testing but it can also become false when new data and testing disproves it. The same process cannot be applied to philosophy. I am unaware of any philosophic point of view which has been proven to be "true".
I did not claim that a philosophic point of view was false, I said a philosophy based on something that was false, ie a philosophy based on a false premise, in this case, that there is a god.
I don't accept that a system of belief that informs actions based on something that is false at its foundation can or ought to be something we should accept. IMO, by definition anything that is good that comes from any such system must be based on those parts of that system that are not reliant on the falsity of the premise, in which case it is better to simply extract the portion that is not false, and incorporate it into your ssytem of belief without the portion that is false.
In more concrete terms, if you say (as a common example) that you accept that there is no god, but religion is still a positive because it includes the concept of the golden rule, then my response will be that it is not religion which is positive, but the golden rule, and we can have that without the need for the religious container, and would in fact be better off with a system of belief that informs our actions that includes the golden rule, but excludes god.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 12:17:33 PM
So you can teach them about religions but you shouldn't teach them to hold any specific beliefs stemming from one?
No, you teach them about religions, but you never teach them that X is what you (the kid) believes because you (the kid) is a catholic. Basically deciding the kids religion for them. He thinks that parents making the kid join their religion is child abuse.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 01:15:33 PM
Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?
Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?
We let parents teach truths like "playing in traffic is dangerous" and "eating dog poo is bad" and "don't get in cars with strangers". However much I dislike it "jesus christ died for your sins" can't be banned. We can't go around punishing people for being honestly wrong. So,
No, I do not believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach children their religious beliefs as truths.
As I have been trying (and failing, apparently this is hard to express) to say is that the issue at controversy for Dawkins is the one separated by the fine line being drawn between telling a kid under the age of reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_reason_(canon_law)#Age_of_Reason)
"Little Jimmy, me and your mother are Catholics and this is what we know to be true."
and
"Little Jimmy, you are a catholic and this is what you know to be true."
My dear, Viking I have far more evidence of you being illiberal then simply defending Dawkins.
For instance :http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8717.0.html
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 12:42:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 02:51:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 02:14:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 01:15:33 PM
Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?
Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?
My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true". You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.
I have to run, but I did read the article, and it is interesting, but not really new.
I may have more time for a more thorough response later, but my two cent response to the basic idea is simply that I do not accept the premise that a philosophy based on something that is false can be held up as a desirable means to a reasonable end.
The quesion I would have for you then is what philospophy is "true". A scientific theory can be "true" in the sense that it best conforms to observed data and testing but it can also become false when new data and testing disproves it. The same process cannot be applied to philosophy. I am unaware of any philosophic point of view which has been proven to be "true".
I did not claim that a philosophic point of view was false, I said a philosophy based on something that was false, ie a philosophy based on a false premise, in this case, that there is a god.
Yeah, I know that is what you were saying. But there is no way to either prove or disprove that there is a god.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 09:56:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 12:42:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 02:51:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 02:14:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 01:15:33 PM
Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?
Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?
My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true". You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.
I have to run, but I did read the article, and it is interesting, but not really new.
I may have more time for a more thorough response later, but my two cent response to the basic idea is simply that I do not accept the premise that a philosophy based on something that is false can be held up as a desirable means to a reasonable end.
The quesion I would have for you then is what philospophy is "true". A scientific theory can be "true" in the sense that it best conforms to observed data and testing but it can also become false when new data and testing disproves it. The same process cannot be applied to philosophy. I am unaware of any philosophic point of view which has been proven to be "true".
I did not claim that a philosophic point of view was false, I said a philosophy based on something that was false, ie a philosophy based on a false premise, in this case, that there is a god.
Yeah, I know that is what you were saying. But there is no way to either prove or disprove that there is a god.
That isn't relevant to the discussion though - the article in question is one written by atheists about the utility of religion from the perspective of atheists. The non-existence of god is assumed.
Their point seems to be that religion has net social utility even if god does not exist. I (and Dawkins) disagree.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 09:59:09 AM
That isn't relevant to the discussion though - the article in question is one written by atheists about the utility of religion from the perspective of atheists. The non-existence of god is assumed.
Their point seems to be that religion has net social utility even if god does not exist. I (and Dawkins) disagree.
Fine. But then your argument is no better than the fundamentalist christian argument you reject. You justify your stance on an unproveable assumption and then make judgments about others assuming your first premise is true.
This is exactly what I dislike about the movement that has been called the "new atheists" of which Dawkins (and apparenty you) are members.
Given that you are surrounded by fundies I suppose you can be excused for taking the mirror image opposite view of them. But your view also ignores the wider diversity of religious thought that has signficiant value whether or not a god exists.
Indeed, you are more radical than even Dawkins as even he concedes that everyone should learn about religions if for no other reason than to appreciate their rich literary contribution to society.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:03:55 AM
Fine. But then your argument is no better than the fundamentalist christian argument you reject. You justify your stance on an unproveable assumption and then make judgments about others assuming your first premise is true.
This is exactly what I dislike about the movement that has been called the "new atheists" of which Dawkins (and apparenty you) are members.
Given that you are surrounded by fundies I suppose you can be excused for taking the mirror image opposite view of them. But your view also ignores the wider diversity of religious thought that has signficiant value whether or not a god exists.
Indeed, you are more radical than even Dawkins as even he concedes that everyone should learn about religions if for no other reason than to appreciate their rich literary contribution to society.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of "assumption" if you think that "I will not assume the existence of beings for whose existence there is no evidence" and "I will assume the existence of beings for whose existence there is no evidence." Assumptions are only properly made when there is no other choice. I see no reason for Berkut to make any assumptions whatsoever about unevidenced beings, whereas the case is the opposite for the believers of any sort.
I don't understand your blind rush to try to make equivalent things that are not related. I rather suspect it is because you don't have an argument to make but want to argue anyway, but it really doesn't matter, since you aren't getting away with it anyway.
This is a problem I have with Dawkins and the like. I'm judging him only on the show he did over he, 'The Root of All Evil?' But he engaged with one relatively sophisticated Christian thinker - the Bishop of Oxford. As the Bishop pointed out, for example, what's really remarkable about evolution is how quickly most Christian Churches accepted it not the, frankly tiny, number of believers who still don't.
The rest of the time Dawkins was speaking to literalist fundies in Coloradan mega-churches (I can't comment on anything he did with other religions). Which is fine and certainly makes for better TV but is hugely misleading. There's a billion Catholics in the world, around 250 million Orthodox and 80 million or so Anglicans - not to mention the Lutherans and others. But Dawkins, certainly on that show, preferred testing himself against a groupuscule of a church.
It's easy, from any perspective, to make a strong critique of Ted Haggard (I think he was the guy in the show) but far tougher when you're dealing with the Orthodox, Anglican or Catholic perspective. If you're going to argue with someone you need to deal with their strongest points not the periphery of literalists.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 09:59:09 AM
Their point seems to be that religion has net social utility even if god does not exist. I (and Dawkins) disagree.
Exactly. It isn't a debate about theology, it is a debate about the social utility and social cost of having religion, no matter whether it is a religion with a god, and no matter whether any postulated god exists.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 09:59:09 AM
That isn't relevant to the discussion though - the article in question is one written by atheists about the utility of religion from the perspective of atheists. The non-existence of god is assumed.
Their point seems to be that religion has net social utility even if god does not exist. I (and Dawkins) disagree.
Fine. But then your argument is no better than the fundamentalist christian argument you reject. You justify your stance on an unproveable assumption and then make judgments about others assuming your first premise is true.
I do not assume my first premise is true at all, at least no more so than I assume all non-evidenced beings don't exist. But that isn't even the point here. I don't make any assumptions about the existence of god than you make (assuming you are in fact an atheist). My reasons for concluding that there are no beings generally described as deities is not an assumption at all. Just because one cannot prove something to be true does not mean that it is an assumption. I lack belief in gods for the same reason I lack belief in all kinds of things, and none of them are "assumptions".
And certainly one can think about the net social utility of religious belief, conclude that it is not positive, and do so without being a "fundamentalist". Indeed, the fundie viewpoint is much more the one that unless someone agrees with you, they must be crazy or wrong or, well, a fundy.
In contrast, I do not think that someone looking at the overall value of religious beliefs, and concluding that they are a net social positive is just like a fundamentalist. I think they are wrong, but I can understand how they reach that conclusion using perfectly reasonable assumptions and arguments.
Quote
This is exactly what I dislike about the movement that has been called the "new atheists" of which Dawkins (and apparenty you) are members.
Then your dislike is based on a rather remarkable lack of understanding about the issue. Or a rather odd strawman.
Quote
Given that you are surrounded by fundies I suppose you can be excused for taking the mirror image opposite view of them.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Quote
But your view also ignores the wider diversity of religious thought that has signficiant value whether or not a god exists.
Not at all, my view ignores nothing, it just concludes that the value of "religious thought" is not a net positive, and that the things that ARE valuable about religious thought" are not reliant on religion in any case.
Like I said, as an atheist, I do not have any belief that gods exist. As a humanist, I do not accept that basic idea that a complex system of belief and values based on a foundation that is false can be useful overall. We can go into much more detail about this, but that is hardly necessary to refute your strawman that this has something to do with assumptions and inability to prove whether or not god(s) exist.
Quote
Indeed, you are more radical than even Dawkins as even he concedes that everyone should learn about religions if for no other reason than to appreciate their rich literary contribution to society.
I don't even know what this means, since I am pretty sure I haven't said anything about anyone learning about religion. I suspect you are going into your raging personal attack mode though, so perhaps this discussion is about done.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2013, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2013, 01:15:33 PM
Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?
Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?
My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true". You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.
Oh, religion has its uses, it keeps a certain cohesion to primitive societies. Well, primitive is relative of course, but notice how nationalism has overtaken religion as the main cohesion force after a certain point in development.
So yeah, religion can be useful.
But that does not stop it from being morally wrong. A religion claims such huge things -an omnipotent deity deciding how shit should go down, for starters- that it not only loses all moral value if it is not true, but also it becomes a vile deception of the highest magnitude, if not true.
And to answer Berkut: there is no point in banning stuff like this, so I am against it. Bad example and I have no intention of drawing parallels between the topics at all, but look at anti-Semitism and general Nazism in Hungary. For 50 years it was heavily prosecuted by the communists and when freedom of speech returned we basically picked up almost where we left off in 1945.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2013, 11:22:26 AM
This is a problem I have with Dawkins and the like. I'm judging him only on the show he did over he, 'The Root of All Evil?' But he engaged with one relatively sophisticated Christian thinker - the Bishop of Oxford. As the Bishop pointed out, for example, what's really remarkable about evolution is how quickly most Christian Churches accepted it not the, frankly tiny, number of believers who still don't.
The rest of the time Dawkins was speaking to literalist fundies in Coloradan mega-churches (I can't comment on anything he did with other religions). Which is fine and certainly makes for better TV but is hugely misleading. There's a billion Catholics in the world, around 250 million Orthodox and 80 million or so Anglicans - not to mention the Lutherans and others. But Dawkins, certainly on that show, preferred testing himself against a groupuscule of a church.
It's easy, from any perspective, to make a strong critique of Ted Haggard (I think he was the guy in the show) but far tougher when you're dealing with the Orthodox, Anglican or Catholic perspective. If you're going to argue with someone you need to deal with their strongest points not the periphery of literalists.
I think you are missing his point - he isn't arguing with the Oxford bishop becuase by and large he has nothing to argue with the Oxford bishop about. The problems he has with religion are not with the large majority of perfectly reasonable and largely rational religious people. It isn't the Bishop of Oxford demanding that we teach Creationism in school, for example, so why should Dawkins spend time arguing with him?
Dawkins was on The Daily Show last night when he makes this exact point, in fact. He doesn't have much issue with religion as practiced by the Bishop of Oxford.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-24-2013/richard-dawkins (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-24-2013/richard-dawkins)
Got to about 1:20 or so.
But his comments go rather beyond saying religious extremism is bad - with which we could all agree. He also says to the Bishop that in a way isn't he just being less honest in his faith which jumps rather ahead of the question - the faith of the overwhelming majority of the Christian world is not and has never been based on a literalist reading.
So if he wants to criticise people who are religious extremists then that's fine and that should be clear. If the criticism is of Christianity then there's a different argument because he's dealing with a more sophisticated opponent.
For what it's worth I wouldn't mind that, I think it'd be an interesting argument.
Berkut it seems to me that you want your cake and it too. You claim that christianity has no value because it is based on a false premise but then you go on to say that you are not claiming that the premise is false.
It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god. But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god. But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.
What is the difference between the two?
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:42:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god. But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.
What is the difference between the two?
One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god. ie, there is no need to conclude it is "true" to come the the conclusion it has value.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:43:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:42:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god. But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.
What is the difference between the two?
One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god.
But it would require some serious amorality to do so.
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:43:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:42:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god. But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.
What is the difference between the two?
One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god.
But it would require some serious amorality to do so.
Yes it is going in circles with you. It is only amoral if one assumes that the only christian or religious belief you are considering are of the literalist fundy variety.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
Berkut it seems to me that you want your cake and it too. You claim that christianity has no value because it is based on a false premise but then you go on to say that you are not claiming that the premise is false.
THis is really starting to annoy me. I never said Christianity has no value. If you want to have a discussion, please respond to what I say, I am not going to waste time continually repeating the same thing again and again while you again and again keep saying I say something else.
I said the net social utility of religion is not positive.
Quote
It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god. But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.
I don't even think my position is about religion. I would argue that ANY system of thought based on a false premise will inevitably result in adverse outcomes overall, even if there is some short term or narrow utility in it.
I guess I just have "faith" that what is true is better than what is false. Shrug.
It seems a basic enough assumption that I am not even sure what the point of arguing with someone who does not share that viewpoint might be...
Incidentally on the correct interpretation of Verbum Dei argument, between CC and Viking, I really recommend the preface of Benedict's 'Jesus of Nazareth' which looks at different historical critical methods of Biblical interpretation their benefits and limitations from the ultra-orthodox perspective of a sitting Pope and former head of the CDF.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 11:47:28 AM
THis is really starting to annoy me. I never said Christianity has no value. If you want to have a discussion, please respond to what I say, I am not going to waste time continually repeating the same thing again and again while you again and again keep saying I say something else.
No, but you want to parse out any religious meaning from such things as the Golden Rule because you think the religious meaning is based on something which is false. Seems to me you are cutting it a bit thin there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:43:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:42:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god. But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.
What is the difference between the two?
One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god. ie, there is no need to conclude it is "true" to come the the conclusion it has value.
I think this illuminates a fundamental disagreement that we cannot resolve.
If I have any "fundamentalist" belief it is that the truth is better than deception, and that humans are better off in the long run with more information rather than less. I do not accept the claim that there is utility in being misled, no matter how good it might appear to some.
Since I am an atheist, and reject the claims that various religious groups make about their gods, I do not accept that idea that we can start with something untrue, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started with the truth.
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:30:15 AM
But that does not stop it from being morally wrong. A religion claims such huge things -an omnipotent deity deciding how shit should go down, for starters- that it not only loses all moral value if it is not true, but also it becomes a vile deception of the highest magnitude, if not true.
What about the vast majority of religions which lack such a deity? Are they okay?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:45:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:43:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:42:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god. But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.
What is the difference between the two?
One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god.
But it would require some serious amorality to do so.
Yes it is going in circles with you. It is only amoral if one assumes that the only christian or religious belief you are considering are of the literalist fundy variety.
Uhm no. Even if you have a non-literal approach you are still teaching (well, the ones who teach it do) that there is an omninopent God, his son and the whole guidance things about how to live, plus heaven and the angels and all assorted stuff that comes with the package regardless of how literally you are taking the scriptures.
It is amoral to teach all of that if they are not true. IMHO.
That is of course independent of the objective analysis of Christianity`s contributions, to a degree, but it is 100% related if you want to evaluate the moral contributions.
It's worth remembering that religious belief pre-supposes faith :mellow:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:51:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 11:47:28 AM
THis is really starting to annoy me. I never said Christianity has no value. If you want to have a discussion, please respond to what I say, I am not going to waste time continually repeating the same thing again and again while you again and again keep saying I say something else.
No, but you want to parse out any religious meaning from such things as the Golden Rule because you think the religious meaning is based on something which is false. Seems to me you are cutting it a bit thin there.
The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.
Therefore, you cannot claim that the utility of the GR is dependent on religion, nor can you claim that some particular religion that includes the GR is positive because of it, since one can have the GR without the religion.
I don't think I am cutting anything at all thinly, quite the opposite in fact. My point is that in my experience, the things about religion that are in fact very positive tend to be those things that actually do not require any belief in god. And there are a LOT of things that happen within the scope of religious activity that are in fact very positive.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 11:54:02 AM
Since I am an atheist, and reject the claims that various religious groups make about their gods, I do not accept that idea that we can start with something untrue, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started with the truth.
I'd say this last as "I do not accept that idea that we can start with a completely unnecessary assumption, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started without making unnecessary assumptions at all.
I don't believe, myself, that the debate is really about "truth" versus "untruth." It is just about whether we decide to start with unnecessary (but feel-good) assumptions.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 12:42:11 AM
I did not claim that a philosophic point of view was false, I said a philosophy based on something that was false, ie a philosophy based on a false premise, in this case, that there is a god.
I don't accept that a system of belief that informs actions based on something that is false at its foundation can or ought to be something we should accept. IMO, by definition anything that is good that comes from any such system must be based on those parts of that system that are not reliant on the falsity of the premise, in which case it is better to simply extract the portion that is not false, and incorporate it into your ssytem of belief without the portion that is false.
In more concrete terms, if you say (as a common example) that you accept that there is no god, but religion is still a positive because it includes the concept of the golden rule, then my response will be that it is not religion which is positive, but the golden rule, and we can have that without the need for the religious container, and would in fact be better off with a system of belief that informs our actions that includes the golden rule, but excludes god.
What's the enforcement mechanism, though? A lot of the good thing that religion advocates are of the "bad for individual, but much better for society" kinds of things, with the idea being that if everyone does it, the better society would more than offset the individual sacrifices. That kind of system can only be sustained if there is someone there to enforce every individual's compliance, otherwise why not just freeload? Since nothing that actually exists can perform that role, you have to have god, who sees what you do even when you're alone.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 12:03:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 11:54:02 AM
Since I am an atheist, and reject the claims that various religious groups make about their gods, I do not accept that idea that we can start with something untrue, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started with the truth.
I'd say this last as "I do not accept that idea that we can start with a completely unnecessary assumption, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started without making unnecessary assumptions at all.
That is a better statement of my view, thanks.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 12:02:41 PM
The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.
The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 09:59:09 AM
Their point seems to be that religion has net social utility even if god does not exist. I (and Dawkins) disagree.
My problem with this argument is it presents the idea that we can and should just do away with religion. I am skeptical that this is possible. Spirituality and mysticism, whatever exactly that may be, seems so imprinted and essential to the human experience that it is always going to be around. I am constantly amazed how this continues to be true even amongst groups that have rejected formal religion and most of its dogmas. So I just decided to try to find a religion without ridiculous dogmas and had values as positive as possible. Thus I hoped to satisfy any spiritual needs my family, or myself, happened to have with as little of the baggage as possible.
But maybe I am wrong and people will eagerly embrace an entirely materialistic rationalist view of the world. I just do not think it is likely based on human history and how things are going currently.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 12:05:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 12:02:41 PM
The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.
The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.
Indeed. It is, IMO, a completely secular idea that has been used by nearly every major moral and ethical system, whether it be religious or otherwise.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 12:05:25 PM
The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.
Somehow I bet it actually predates secular philosophy and was originally part of some sort of spiritual belief. But it hardly matters really.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 12:08:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 12:05:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 12:02:41 PM
The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.
The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.
Indeed. It is, IMO, a completely secular idea that has been used by nearly every major moral and ethical system, whether it be religious or otherwise.
Color me skeptical that there existed anything in ancient times that was 'purely secular'.
Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2013, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 12:08:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 12:05:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 12:02:41 PM
The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.
The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.
Indeed. It is, IMO, a completely secular idea that has been used by nearly every major moral and ethical system, whether it be religious or otherwise.
Color me skeptical that there existed anything in ancient times that was 'purely secular'.
My conclusion is actually based on the fact that it is such a ubiquitous idea that it's origin cannot be reasonably presumed to have originated from some singular religious system. I see what you mean by the impossibility of separating non-religious views from a historical perspective.
Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2013, 12:11:06 PM
Color me skeptical that there existed anything in ancient times that was 'purely secular'.
Confucianism is pretty secular; even when it talks about heaven and "the Mandate of Heaven" it doesn't really suppose that heaven exists except in an abstract sense.
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:58:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:45:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:43:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2013, 11:42:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god. But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.
What is the difference between the two?
One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god.
But it would require some serious amorality to do so.
Yes it is going in circles with you. It is only amoral if one assumes that the only christian or religious belief you are considering are of the literalist fundy variety.
Uhm no. Even if you have a non-literal approach you are still teaching (well, the ones who teach it do) that there is an omninopent God, his son and the whole guidance things about how to live, plus heaven and the angels and all assorted stuff that comes with the package regardless of how literally you are taking the scriptures.
It is amoral to teach all of that if they are not true. IMHO.
That is of course independent of the objective analysis of Christianity`s contributions, to a degree, but it is 100% related if you want to evaluate the moral contributions.
I dunno man. I'm teaching my kids that there is this mythical person named Santa Claus, who can see whether or not they have been bad or good, and will reward them accordingly, knowing full well that there is no such person. I do not think that it is amoral to do so.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 11:54:02 AM
I think this illuminates a fundamental disagreement that we cannot resolve.
If I have any "fundamentalist" belief it is that the truth is better than deception, and that humans are better off in the long run with more information rather than less. I do not accept the claim that there is utility in being misled, no matter how good it might appear to some.
Since I am an atheist, and reject the claims that various religious groups make about their gods, I do not accept that idea that we can start with something untrue, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started with the truth.
I think you are correct that there is a fundamental difference. You keep saying that something that cannot be proven or disproven (ie an article of faith) is false. I have already explained my diffiuclty with this particular argument and so I dont see a way to constructively move this discussion forward.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 12:05:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 12:02:41 PM
The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.
The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.
Well you were there, so tell me, what philosphy precisely was there that long predated religion?
You cannot prove or disprove lots of things that you accept are in fact not real.
You keep using a term "prove" that doesn't apply to the set of things that people believe are real. I (and you) think lots of things that we cannot prove are false are in fact false.
I cannot prove that there isn't a 800lb invisible gorilla living on my left testicle. That doesn't mean I cannot state with great certainty that there is not, and it certainly does not mean that I cannot say that people who demand that there is such a gorilla and I should formulate my ethical and moral viewpoints around such a claim are wrong, whether they make that claim as a "matter of faith" or not.
Chanting "faith" does not make any claim beyond investigation.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 01:22:25 PM
Chanting "faith" does not make any claim beyond investigation.
And chanting unfaith does not make the claim that there is a god amenable to being disproven. It would be easy to prove that you do not in fact have a gorilla on your testacles no matter what you might wish to call them.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 01:22:25 PM
I cannot prove that there isn't a 800lb invisible gorilla living on my left testicle.
Sure - you could just weigh your left testicle and establish it is less than 800lb.
What you couldn't prove is that there is a massless, invisible gorilla of indeterminate volume in your left testicle.
Gorillas aren't invisible. I think. I hope.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 01:15:11 PM
I think you are correct that there is a fundamental difference. You keep saying that something that cannot be proven or disproven (ie an article of faith) is false. I have already explained my diffiuclty with this particular argument and so I dont see a way to constructively move this discussion forward.
let me restate the berkut argument (or advance a different variant) by going at it backwards.
Would a socio-ethical system based on "noble lie" be acceptable? I.e. is it proper to promote deliberately false ideas or propositions in the belief that even though false, it would be beneficial if society believed in them.
Assume the answer to that question is no - the noble lie can not be justified. Then it follows that any proposed socio-ethical system should not be based on falsehoods. But it also follows that such systems should not be based on propositions which are (a) not subject to proof AND (b) that are based on unusual or outlandish assumptions that objectively have a poor case for truth unless simply assumed to be (faith), because such systems are very likely to be noble lies at best.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 01:22:25 PM
I cannot prove that there isn't a 800lb invisible gorilla living on my left testicle.
Sure - you could just weigh your left testicle and establish it is less than 800lb.
What you couldn't prove is that there is a massless, invisible gorilla of indeterminate volume in your left testicle.
It could be a 800lb gorilla with a magic weight belt.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 02:28:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 01:15:11 PM
I think you are correct that there is a fundamental difference. You keep saying that something that cannot be proven or disproven (ie an article of faith) is false. I have already explained my diffiuclty with this particular argument and so I dont see a way to constructively move this discussion forward.
let me restate the berkut argument (or advance a different variant) by going at it backwards.
Would a socio-ethical system based on "noble lie" be acceptable? I.e. is it proper to promote deliberately false ideas or propositions in the belief that even though false, it would be beneficial if society believed in them.
Assume the answer to that question is no - the noble lie can not be justified. Then it follows that any proposed socio-ethical system should not be based on falsehoods. But it also follows that such systems should not be based on propositions which are (a) not subject to proof AND (b) that are based on unusual or outlandish assumptions that objectively have a poor case for truth unless simply assumed to be (faith), because such systems are very likely to be noble lies at best.
I agree that the noble lie cannot be justified. But if you go as far to say that to be valid a system must be able to prove that it is based on truth or at least not based on a falsehood then you rule out any religious belief as it is necessarily based on faith. One can never prove that there is a god.
But, importantly, the lack of such prove does not make it a noble lie either. The noble lie is reprehensible because the proponents of the lie know it they are spreading a falsehood. That is not an accurate description of religious people who believe that their faith is based on truth just as much as Berkut believes it is based on an unprovable falsehood.
As far as outlandish claims go, I agree with Berkut that the claims of the literalist fundies are indeed outlandish and easily disproved. The earth was not, as it is claimed, created in thousands of years etc. But when one considered the metaphorical religious teachings it is impossible to disprove those. They are teachings in the realm of ethics and philosophy. And Berkut has already conceded there is no true or false in that realm.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 02:42:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 02:28:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 01:15:11 PM
I think you are correct that there is a fundamental difference. You keep saying that something that cannot be proven or disproven (ie an article of faith) is false. I have already explained my diffiuclty with this particular argument and so I dont see a way to constructively move this discussion forward.
let me restate the berkut argument (or advance a different variant) by going at it backwards.
Would a socio-ethical system based on "noble lie" be acceptable? I.e. is it proper to promote deliberately false ideas or propositions in the belief that even though false, it would be beneficial if society believed in them.
Assume the answer to that question is no - the noble lie can not be justified. Then it follows that any proposed socio-ethical system should not be based on falsehoods. But it also follows that such systems should not be based on propositions which are (a) not subject to proof AND (b) that are based on unusual or outlandish assumptions that objectively have a poor case for truth unless simply assumed to be (faith), because such systems are very likely to be noble lies at best.
I agree that the noble lie cannot be justified. But if you go as far to say that to be valid a system must be able to prove that it is based on truth or at least not based on a falsehood then you rule out any religious belief as it is necessarily based on faith. One can never prove that there is a god.
But, importantly, the lack of such prove does not make it a noble lie either. The noble lie is reprehensible because the proponents of the lie know it they are spreading a falsehood. That is not an accurate description of religious people who believe that their faith is based on truth just as much as Berkut believes it is based on an unprovable falsehood.
But are you objecting ot the noble lie becuase it is a lie, or because you believe that it will be, no matter how noble the intentions, a failure at providing whatever good those promoting it intend?
My point is that I don't care whether the proponents of the lie believe it or not - I think if the thing they are promoting is not true (or even simply unprovable and outside the scope of 'truth', which as far as I am concerned is the same as 'false' for all practical purposes) then the effect will be negative in the end.
My objection is not based on whether or not the proponents believe it or not, that is irrelevant to me. If someone truly, honestly, and completely believes that the earth is flat, it matter not one bit to me. They are wrong, and any system of belief they demand that others buy into based on that incorrect belief will be flawed, and in the end harmful, even if it is useful in the short term.
Your objection is based on whether or not the noble lie is moral, regardless of it's practical value. My objection is that the practical value itself will end up, in the long run, to be as much a lie as the lie it is based upon, no matter whether the motives or intentions of those who put it forth.
So when it comes to religion, the fact that the believers really do believe in their god is irrelevant to me from the standpoint of my rejection of their system that relies on said god actually existing. I think he does not exist (and I am very comfortable saying positively that specific gods do not exist, even if I am willing to concede that the generic term is not really provable), and therefore any system of morality or ethics that holds as its foundational truth that he does exist is going to be flawed in the end, and we would be (as humans) better off with a system that does not require acceptance of the foundation.
Quote
As far as outlandish claims go, I agree with Berkut that the claims of the literalist fundies are indeed outlandish and easily disproved. The earth was not, as it is claimed, created in thousands of years etc. But when one considered the metaphorical religious teachings it is impossible to disprove those. They are teachings in the realm of ethics and philosophy. And Berkut has already conceded there is no true or false in that realm.
No argument from me.
Except to note that the non-fundy views on religion tend to result in pretty much positions that then are not nearly as reliant on their god actually existing to be demonstrably useful. That is the basic problem that fundies have with non-fundies in fact - they object to the fact that god tends to become less and less obvious the more abstract your view of him becomes, to the point that you start seeing the jokes about atheist Anglicans and such.
So yes, you can look at Christian philosophy, and the less fundy it is, the more useful and reasonable it seems...but that is largely because in my opinion it does exactly what I am proposing - removing those parts that are most reliant on an existent god to justify the rest. IMO, the way to continue moving forward (and in fact I would contend that western human history since the enlightenment is precisely this happening) is to continue to remove the requirements for an active and existent god from our understanding of human morality and ethics.
There is no question that religion/spirituality has an incredibly entrenched position in human society, and hence the process is long and slow and sometimes even seems to reverse itself. But overall the trend, IMO, is pretty clear. We are in fact moving exactly in the direction I hope that we move in, and more and more of our core western values are founded on less and less a religious basis.
I do not support any real active attempt to push this further other than through continuing education and dialogue. There is no upside to pushing the process faster through overt legislation, and the fundamental principle of liberty trumps any concerns I have about how people ought to instruct their children in any case. Men like Dawkins and Hitchens are invaluable, IMO, in pushing this process forward in the only place that it really matters, the arena of public cultural ideas exchange and debate. I am very content to restricting any actual political position to simply resisting attempts to redress this process via overt legislation like school boards insisting that Creationism be included in educational texts, as an example.
I am, at core, an optimist, and the tide of human history is behind me. I don't think religion will ever go away, but I am confident that it's role in informing our actions, our laws, and our morality will continue to erode over time, and humans will be better for it.
<steps down off of soapbox>
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 01:02:08 PM
I dunno man. I'm teaching my kids that there is this mythical person named Santa Claus, who can see whether or not they have been bad or good, and will reward them accordingly, knowing full well that there is no such person. I do not think that it is amoral to do so.
Santa Claus is to God as Beorn is to Tom Bombadill.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 02:59:19 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 20, 2013, 11:44:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2013, 09:32:01 AM
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.
More like 350 . . .It isn't surprising that laymen and scholars see things differently. Your average illiterate late antique paganus convert is going to have pretty simplified ideas about religion that indeed are likely to be indistinguishable from magic.
Of course the same could be said for the hard sciences. The chairman of the physics department probably thinks about science differently from the way that your typical "jaywalker" would - the latter probably viewing the theoretical science as mumbo-jumbo and its applications as essentially magical in nature ("how does my cell phone work? it just does.")
Thats not an analogy that fits. Cell-phones are completely new and religion has nothing to say about them. However, the technical mumbo jumbo explanation is of course unintelligible for anybody without a good understanding of electronics and radio waves. Religion says "it just does", Science say "it is an electrical apparatus that uses radiowaves to communicate". One is a simplification and the other is just wrong. Just like saying that the noahs ark story is literally true is just wrong while "it is a story meant to elucidate on the nature and will of god" is simplification.
Fuck, you're bad at this. Focus on the testability of science, not the complexity.
Another factor to remember when discussing religion is that there are only two types of religions
(1) the millions of religions abandoned as false already, and
(2) the handful of religions that will be abandoned as false, but have't yet suffered that fate.
We know that the fate of a religion is to be abandoned, eventually. When we assess the social utility of any religion (or religion in general), we should keep that in mind.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 01:02:08 PM
I dunno man. I'm teaching my kids that there is this mythical person named Santa Claus, who can see whether or not they have been bad or good, and will reward them accordingly, knowing full well that there is no such person. I do not think that it is amoral to do so.
Santa Claus is to God as Beorn is to Tom Bombadill.
I know these words,, but their overall meaning escapes me. :unsure:
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 03:28:58 PM
Another factor to remember when discussing religion is that there are only two types of religions
(1) the millions of religions abandoned as false already, and
(2) the handful of religions that will be abandoned as false, but have't yet suffered that fate.
We know that the fate of a religion is to be abandoned, eventually. When we assess the social utility of any religion (or religion in general), we should keep that in mind.
Can we really say that though?
The earliest recorded history goes back about 6000 years.
Judaism is probably the oldest continually practiced religion, and it goes back almost 4000 years. Christianity of course goes back 2000 years, and Islam some 1400 years. They're really remarkably long-lived institutions in human society.
Hell, doing a quick bit of googling, some suggest that the Hindu faith goes right back the full 6000 years.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 01:02:08 PM
I dunno man. I'm teaching my kids that there is this mythical person named Santa Claus, who can see whether or not they have been bad or good, and will reward them accordingly, knowing full well that there is no such person. I do not think that it is amoral to do so.
Santa Claus is to God as Beorn is to Tom Bombadill.
What about Benny and Beorn?
I keep waiting to read more about people's opinions on the Pope and his actions/words, but all I get is "new" debate over religion. :XD:
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:36:18 PM
Can we really say that though?
Yes.
QuoteThe earliest recorded history goes back about 6000 years.
Judaism is probably the oldest continually practiced religion, and it goes back almost 4000 years. Christianity of course goes back 2000 years, and Islam some 1400 years. They're really remarkably long-lived institutions in human society.
Hell, doing a quick bit of googling, some suggest that the Hindu faith goes right back the full 6000 years.
Mankind has been around, and worshiping gods and stuff, for more than 6,000 years. All indications are that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism will, like all religions, be abandoned some time in the future. There is nothing exceptional about them that distinguished them from Mithraism or Baal worship.
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:30:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 01:02:08 PM
I dunno man. I'm teaching my kids that there is this mythical person named Santa Claus, who can see whether or not they have been bad or good, and will reward them accordingly, knowing full well that there is no such person. I do not think that it is amoral to do so.
Santa Claus is to God as Beorn is to Tom Bombadill.
I know these words,, but their overall meaning escapes me. :unsure:
It is an analogy, like those we once saw on SAT tests.
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 02:42:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 02:28:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 01:15:11 PM
I think you are correct that there is a fundamental difference. You keep saying that something that cannot be proven or disproven (ie an article of faith) is false. I have already explained my diffiuclty with this particular argument and so I dont see a way to constructively move this discussion forward.
let me restate the berkut argument (or advance a different variant) by going at it backwards.
Would a socio-ethical system based on "noble lie" be acceptable? I.e. is it proper to promote deliberately false ideas or propositions in the belief that even though false, it would be beneficial if society believed in them.
Assume the answer to that question is no - the noble lie can not be justified. Then it follows that any proposed socio-ethical system should not be based on falsehoods. But it also follows that such systems should not be based on propositions which are (a) not subject to proof AND (b) that are based on unusual or outlandish assumptions that objectively have a poor case for truth unless simply assumed to be (faith), because such systems are very likely to be noble lies at best.
I agree that the noble lie cannot be justified. But if you go as far to say that to be valid a system must be able to prove that it is based on truth or at least not based on a falsehood then you rule out any religious belief as it is necessarily based on faith. One can never prove that there is a god.
But, importantly, the lack of such prove does not make it a noble lie either. The noble lie is reprehensible because the proponents of the lie know it they are spreading a falsehood. That is not an accurate description of religious people who believe that their faith is based on truth just as much as Berkut believes it is based on an unprovable falsehood.
Your objection is based on whether or not the noble lie is moral
No, my objection is that it is not a noble lie as JR defined that term or at all.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:36:18 PM
Can we really say that though?
Yes.
QuoteThe earliest recorded history goes back about 6000 years.
Judaism is probably the oldest continually practiced religion, and it goes back almost 4000 years. Christianity of course goes back 2000 years, and Islam some 1400 years. They're really remarkably long-lived institutions in human society.
Hell, doing a quick bit of googling, some suggest that the Hindu faith goes right back the full 6000 years.
Mankind has been around, and worshiping gods and stuff, for more than 6,000 years. All indications are that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism will, like all religions, be abandoned some time in the future. There is nothing exceptional about them that distinguished them from Mithraism or Baal worship.
Mithraism lasted for a period of about 400 years and was confined to the Roman empire.
Ba'al was an alternate israelite god who has not been worshipped for over 2000 years.
There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:53:58 PM
There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.
Of course it seems that way to you. The priests of Baal probably felt the same way.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:53:58 PM
There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.
Of course it seems that way to you. The priests of Baal probably felt the same way.
The problem with that comparison is that I am neither a rabbi, an imam, or whatever the hell a hindu priest is.
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:53:58 PMThere seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.
Yeah - they were found useful by successful conquerors in motivating their followers, establishing group cohesion, and providing the framework for founding states.
The would be conquerors of Ba'alites and Mithraists did not ultimately succeed on the battlefield :(
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 04:03:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:53:58 PMThere seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.
Yeah - they were found useful by successful conquerors in motivating their followers, establishing group cohesion, and providing the framework for founding states.
The would be conquerors of Ba'alites and Mithraists did not ultimately succeed on the battlefield :(
Judaism was? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 03:28:58 PM
Another factor to remember when discussing religion is that there are only two types of religions
(1) the millions of religions abandoned as false already, and
(2) the handful of religions that will be abandoned as false, but have't yet suffered that fate.
We know that the fate of a religion is to be abandoned, eventually. When we assess the social utility of any religion (or religion in general), we should keep that in mind.
Can we really say that though?
The earliest recorded history goes back about 6000 years.
Judaism is probably the oldest continually practiced religion, and it goes back almost 4000 years. Christianity of course goes back 2000 years, and Islam some 1400 years. They're really remarkably long-lived institutions in human society.
Hell, doing a quick bit of googling, some suggest that the Hindu faith goes right back the full 6000 years.
You have to forgive Grumbler. He tried to start his own religion centred around his immortality. However it was a complete failure as his personal charms became apparent to his flock. It has been a couple millenia but he continues to feel the pain of that failure and so he desperately wishes to see the day all religion fails reasoning that if he couldnt succeed then nobody could or should.
The curse of immortality is that one must live with failure forever.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 04:08:11 PMJudaism was? :unsure:
The existence of the state of Israel points to "yes".
That said, point taken about the diaspora :)
More seriously, I'd say that the survival of a religion derives from a number of factors. Military and state building success were certainly key to the success of Christianity and Islam, but there are other factors beyond that, I'm sure.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 04:08:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 04:03:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:53:58 PMThere seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.
Yeah - they were found useful by successful conquerors in motivating their followers, establishing group cohesion, and providing the framework for founding states.
The would be conquerors of Ba'alites and Mithraists did not ultimately succeed on the battlefield :(
Judaism was? :unsure:
That was my first thought. :lol:
I should be clear that although I am arguing grumbler's point that all religions are doomed to failure (with, I guess, the unstated conclusion that this questions their 'truthfulness'), the opposite point is similarly invalid - you can't argue for the inherent 'truthfulness' of a religion merely because it is long-lived.
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 04:16:27 PM
you can't argue for the inherent 'truthfulness' of a religion merely because it is long-lived.
Using Grumber's logic you could - but that just underscores the problem with his logic on that point.
Observing that the same BS crops up when I'm not in the argument.
Berkut's Invisible 800lb Gorilla is a variant of the Russel's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) or The Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn) or Sagan's Dragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World)
The golden rule was used in it's superior masochim negating negative version "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." by Confucius during the Axial age and famously by Rabbi Hillel hopping on one leg during the Hellenistic Age
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 04:08:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 04:03:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:53:58 PMThere seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.
Yeah - they were found useful by successful conquerors in motivating their followers, establishing group cohesion, and providing the framework for founding states.
The would be conquerors of Ba'alites and Mithraists did not ultimately succeed on the battlefield :(
Judaism was? :unsure:
Jews invented self-loathing rather than join the winning side.
They joined the whining side.
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2013, 04:42:11 PM
The golden rule was used in it's superior masochim negating negative version "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." by Confucius during the Axial age and famously by Rabbi Hillel hopping on one leg during the Hellenistic Age
Yeah, so didnt predate religious ethical teachings. Thats what I thought.
Quote from: The Brain on September 25, 2013, 04:47:29 PM
They joined the whining side.
Losing leads to whining, whining leads to self hate, self hatred leads the zionist side.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2013, 04:42:11 PM
The golden rule was used in it's superior masochim negating negative version "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." by Confucius during the Axial age and famously by Rabbi Hillel hopping on one leg during the Hellenistic Age
Yeah, so didnt predate religious ethical teachings. Thats what I thought.
It seems to have existed in all forms of ethical teaching to some extent. Though, I must note, not in Judaism before the exile to Babylon.
On the Pope's interview there's a few lines that weren't translated into the English-language version for some reason. They echo something Benedict said a while ago about maybe creating space within 'ministerial service' for women. This would most likely be female deacons, plus there's historical evidence of female deacons in the early Church and there's nothing in doctrine against it. Deacons are ordained to ministry but not holy orders (priesthood) which is the only Church office barred to women.
But the Spanish press has gone further and suggested that Francis is considering naming some female cardinals. It's extremely unlikely but cardinals are independent of the priesthood - the Church's view is that Christ made priests, but he never made cardinals, they're a man-made institution. So there have been lay cardinals in the past and Paul VI reportedly considered naming some lay cardinals (who would become deacons, but not priests). Theoretically there's no reason a woman couldn't become a cardinal.
This isn't the first time this has come up. Cardinal Dolan tells a story he heard in Rome that someone suggested to JPII that he should make Mother Teresa a cardinal and he said 'I asked her. She doesn't want it.' But it is theoretically possible...... :mellow:
Interesting. When would this have the possibility of happening, Shelilbh? Is it a within a few weeks/months time frame or more likely to be a further down the road thing?
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2013, 04:53:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2013, 04:42:11 PM
The golden rule was used in it's superior masochim negating negative version "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." by Confucius during the Axial age and famously by Rabbi Hillel hopping on one leg during the Hellenistic Age
Yeah, so didnt predate religious ethical teachings. Thats what I thought.
It seems to have existed in all forms of ethical teaching to some extent. Though, I must note, not in Judaism before the exile to Babylon.
I can agree with that. Grumbler's claim was that it was somehow independant of religious ethical teaching.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2013, 04:55:33 PM
Christ made priests, but he never made cardinals, they were made by Branch Rickey
Fixed.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on September 25, 2013, 04:58:23 PM
Interesting. When would this have the possibility of happening, Shelilbh? Is it a within a few weeks/months time frame or more likely to be a further down the road thing?
With Francis, who knows?
It may not happen at all. But as I say none of these ideas are entirely new. The only door that's closed to women is priesthood. Cardinals are a bit of man-made bureaucracy. The Church could abolish the College of Cardinals tomorrow and it wouldn't be moving from sacred tradition, or doctrine. Similarly doctrinally there's no reason you couldn't have women deacons and there's some historical argument for them. I think they'd both require a bit of fiddling with Canon Law but as they're not doctrines, Francis is an absolute monarch - though obviously he'd consult.
I'd expect to see both within my lifetime - when you've got Benedict wondering aloud about creating space in 'ministerial service' then I think that's the direction things are moving.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2013, 03:53:58 PM
There seems to be something both qualitative and quantitatively different about the religions I listed from the millions of other religions one might name.
Of course it seems that way to you. The priests of Baal probably felt the same way.
The priests of Ba'al didn't have modern communications equipment to spread their ideas, nor modern storage media to preserve them. I think the ideas of those religions are going to be around for quite some time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 04:58:48 PM
I can agree with that. Grumbler's claim was that it was somehow independant of religious ethical teaching.
I said it appeared in secular writings before it appeared in religious ones, which is true. I don't even know what "somehow independant [sic] of religious ethical teaching" even means, but the so-called "Golden Rule" certainly isn't a religious teaching, except inasmuch as religions have co-opted it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 01:22:25 PM
I cannot prove that there isn't a 800lb invisible gorilla living on my left testicle.
Sure - you could just weigh your left testicle and establish it is less than 800lb.
Unless it's being held by an invisible platypus that weighs -800lbs.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 05:51:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 04:58:48 PM
I can agree with that. Grumbler's claim was that it was somehow independant of religious ethical teaching.
I said it appeared in secular writings before it appeared in religious ones, which is true.
Talk about basing a world view based on a false belief.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 03:28:58 PM
Another factor to remember when discussing religion is that there are only two types of religions
(1) the millions of religions abandoned as false already, and
(2) the handful of religions that will be abandoned as false, but have't yet suffered that fate.
We know that the fate of a religion is to be abandoned, eventually. When we assess the social utility of any religion (or religion in general), we should keep that in mind.
Indeed. The fate of humanity is ultimately extinction as well. I guess we should keep that in mind as well? I guess I fail to see the implications that require us to keep this in mind.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 06:28:04 PM
Talk about basing a world view based on a false belief.
That's what I've noted several times about the religious types, so, yeah, that is what we are talking about. Glad to see you are only a couple of pages behind; for you, that's excellent work.
Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2013, 08:05:19 PM
Indeed. The fate of humanity is ultimately extinction as well. I guess we should keep that in mind as well? I guess I fail to see the implications that require us to keep this in mind.
If you keep in mind that the "truths" on which you base your values are only temporary truths, then it helps keep you from the mistaken belief that you are being give "
the answers" by some religious conviction or other. I think that that is useful.
If you find the ultimate extinction of the race and/or the ultimate heat death of the universe useful to keep in mind, by all means do so. Neither of those have to do with a discussion about religions or gods, though.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 08:08:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 06:28:04 PM
Talk about basing a world view based on a false belief.
That's what I've noted several times about the religious, so, yeah, that is what we are talking about. Glad to see you are only a couple of pages behind; for you, that's excellent work.
I have asked you to name one non religious source for the concept which predated the religious concept. You have failed to do that. Not surprisingly given the antiquity of the religious sources in the Hindu and ancient Egyptian religions to name but two religious sources.
But as usual you slither in your grumblerisms.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 25, 2013, 06:16:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 25, 2013, 01:22:25 PM
I cannot prove that there isn't a 800lb invisible gorilla living on my left testicle.
Sure - you could just weigh your left testicle and establish it is less than 800lb.
Unless it's being held by an invisible platypus that weighs -800lbs.
Or the scales could simply be reading wrong. If miracles can occur, then surely an 800 pound ape inside a testicle can show a weight of zero pounds on a scale, without necessitating such silly concepts as -800-pound platypi.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 08:13:41 PM
I have asked you to name one non religious source for the concept which predated the religious concept. You have failed to do that. Not surprisingly given the antiquity of the religious sources in the Hindu and ancient Egyptian religions to name but two religious sources.
But as usual you slither in your grumblerisms.
I mentioned Confucius quite some time ago (who is generally considered to have first formulated the rule in its complete form). By tomorrow, you may start to get that. Also check out Laozi and others. None claim to have originated this concept; they simply repeat it as known wisdom. None of these were religious writers.
There is some older stuff that isn't articulated the same from Egypt and possibly some oral stuff in early Vedic India. But Confucius is considered the originator of the idea, and it certainly was a secular idea for a long time before it started to be incorporated into religious texts.
Why are you even arguing about this if you don't actually know anything?
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2013, 04:42:11 PM
Observing that the same BS crops up when I'm not in the argument.
Berkut's Invisible 800lb Gorilla is a variant of the Russel's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) or The Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn) or Sagan's Dragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World)
The golden rule was used in it's superior masochim negating negative version "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." by Confucius during the Axial age and famously by Rabbi Hillel hopping on one leg during the Hellenistic Age
Russel's teapot was absurd when he stated it, it's absurd when Berkut says it as well.
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 08:27:51 PM
There is some older stuff that isn't articulated the same from Egypt and possibly some oral stuff in early Vedic India. But Confucius is considered the originator of the idea, and it certainly was a secular idea for a long time before it started to be incorporated into religious texts.
the concept is well forumulated in the concept of Maat in ancient Egypt. And at the bolded part :lol:. You need to downplay that because it proves you are wrong in your assertion that a secular thinker was the first to forumulate the concept.
"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 " from oral traditions thought to be from the 9th or 8th centuries BCE.
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written. This of course is the most important reference because the thinking of the ancient Egyptians influenced those around them.
I am not sure why you think Confucious is "considered" the originator of the idea or more importantly why you think that might be so. Whatever you might think it is interesting that you completely discard the debate of whether his teachings are religious in nature given that you wish to make him a secular thinker for the purposes of winning the internet debate. Sad really.
As for your snarkiness, I am sure it will continue. But it is fun nonetheless to watch you wriggle around.
I don't 'get' this argument about whether or not the golden rule was at first a secular or religious idea. As far as I understand it there was no such distinction between religious and secular. Early societies infused what we now would call the supernatural into almost everything. Ghosts, spirits, and gods were just a part of how they understood daily life.
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 11:23:21 AM
I don't 'get' this argument about whether or not the golden rule was at first a secular or religious idea. As far as I understand it there was no such distinction between religious and secular. Early societies infused what we now would call the supernatural into almost everything. Ghosts, spirits, and gods were just a part of how they understood daily life.
That is why we are having the "discussion". It arose from Berkut's claim that the only good things about religion are the things that can somehow be separated from the religious aspects which are based on a false premise (as he sees it) - ie the existence of a god. He then used the golden rule as somethig which can be considered as something separate from religion and the taint (as he sees it) of the false premise of religion. I am still not sure how he can make the claim that one can dissect religious belief in that way but in any event that is when Grumbler jumped in with the false claim that the first formulation of the golden rule had a secular source.
Aside from his dating error it is indeed odd that Grumbler would try to strip early philosophical thought from its religious influences. But he is driven to that position given the conclusion he wishes to make.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 26, 2013, 11:14:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 08:27:51 PM
There is some older stuff that isn't articulated the same from Egypt and possibly some oral stuff in early Vedic India. But Confucius is considered the originator of the idea, and it certainly was a secular idea for a long time before it started to be incorporated into religious texts.
the concept is well forumulated in the concept of Maat in ancient Egypt. And at the bolded part :lol:. You need to downplay that because it proves you are wrong in your assertion that a secular thinker was the first to forumulate the concept.
"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 " from oral traditions thought to be from the 9th or 8th centuries BCE.
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written. This of course is the most important reference because the thinking of the ancient Egyptians influenced those around them.
I am not sure why you think Confucious is "considered" the originator of the idea or more importantly why you think that might be so. Whatever you might think it is interesting that you completely discard the debate of whether his teachings are religious in nature given that you wish to make him a secular thinker for the purposes of winning the internet debate. Sad really.
As for your snarkiness, I am sure it will continue. But it is fun nonetheless to watch you wriggle around.
The Mahabharata was written around 400BCE, and thus post-dates Confucius. The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a secular writing. Personally, I don't think its idea means the same as the Golden Rule, but if you want to argue that the GR was articulated in secular writings in 1800 BCE, you just reinforce my point.
I don't really care if you understand why Confucius is considered the first to articulate the GR in its modern form, nor why he is a secular writer. Your ignorance bothers me not at all.
And my snarkiness will last as long as yours does. I don't snark first, but I will snark last.
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 11:50:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 26, 2013, 11:14:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 08:27:51 PM
There is some older stuff that isn't articulated the same from Egypt and possibly some oral stuff in early Vedic India. But Confucius is considered the originator of the idea, and it certainly was a secular idea for a long time before it started to be incorporated into religious texts.
the concept is well forumulated in the concept of Maat in ancient Egypt. And at the bolded part :lol:. You need to downplay that because it proves you are wrong in your assertion that a secular thinker was the first to forumulate the concept.
"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 " from oral traditions thought to be from the 9th or 8th centuries BCE.
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written. This of course is the most important reference because the thinking of the ancient Egyptians influenced those around them.
I am not sure why you think Confucious is "considered" the originator of the idea or more importantly why you think that might be so. Whatever you might think it is interesting that you completely discard the debate of whether his teachings are religious in nature given that you wish to make him a secular thinker for the purposes of winning the internet debate. Sad really.
As for your snarkiness, I am sure it will continue. But it is fun nonetheless to watch you wriggle around.
The Mahabharata was written around 400BCE, and thus post-dates Confucius. The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a secular writing. Personally, I don't think its idea means the same as the Golden Rule, but if you want to argue that the GR was articulated in secular writings in 1800 BCE, you just reinforce my point.
I don't really care if you understand why Confucius is considered the first to articulate the GR in its modern form, nor why he is a secular writer. Your ignorance bothers me not at all.
And my snarkiness will last as long as yours does. I don't snark first, but I will snark last.
Isn't it a matter of some debate whether or not confucious was a religious leader or not? A quick google search of "is confuscianism a religion" gets over 2 million hits.
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 11:23:21 AM
I don't 'get' this argument about whether or not the golden rule was at first a secular or religious idea. As far as I understand it there was no such distinction between religious and secular. Early societies infused what we now would call the supernatural into almost everything. Ghosts, spirits, and gods were just a part of how they understood daily life.
I don't think that is universally true.
The concept that there could be no god, and no supernatural was not typical, but it was not universal either.
I agree, however, that whether or not the GR was first stated in a religious or secular context is irrelevant to my point though.
The point is that it can (and of course has) been expressed as a secular concept, and does not require any religious basis to derive it's value. You can (and I would argue ought to) consider the value of the GR on its merits absent any religious context.
CC, I don't understand this:
Quote from: CC
"He then used the golden rule as somethig which can be considered as something separate from religion and the taint (as he sees it) of the false premise of religion. I am still not sure how he can make the claim that one can dissect religious belief in that way"
How can you not understand how one could take a set of ideas, remove those ideas that are not dependent on the religious foundation of the set, and evaluate them on their own merits. How can this be anything that is remotely difficult to understand?
Take the Ten Commandments. Some of them are clearly religious in nature and have no real meaning absent the existence of the god (Thou shalt have no other god before me). Some of them are clearly secular, in that they are useful (or not) regardless of whether or not the god in question actually exists (Thou shalt not kill).
What is so difficult about the idea that one can extract singular ideas or concepts from the set?
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 11:23:21 AM
I don't 'get' this argument about whether or not the golden rule was at first a secular or religious idea. As far as I understand it there was no such distinction between religious and secular. Early societies infused what we now would call the supernatural into almost everything. Ghosts, spirits, and gods were just a part of how they understood daily life.
I don't believe that this is true. I think that it is pretty clear that ancient civilizations recognized that not everything was supernatural (though they certainly ascribed more to the supernatural than later civilizations did, because they understood less about the natural world than later societies did).
The GR is an example of what some people, like CC, cannot imagine as anything but a religious idea, but which, in fact, has been a secular idea from the start. It represents an idea that many religions have considered important enough to adopt, but it could be (and was) extant without religion.
I am not, BTW, arguing that religion's costs exceeded its benefits to society, nor the opposite. I have reached no conclusion on that issue. My point here was just about the GR as an example of secular thinking.
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 11:23:21 AM
I don't 'get' this argument
I don't get this thread. Seems we have CC vs. Grumblerkut vs. Tamas & Viking debating religion. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 11:57:16 AM
Isn't it a matter of some debate whether or not confucious was a religious leader or not? A quick google search of "is confuscianism a religion" gets over 2 million hits.
I don't think that there is any real debate among scholars. Certainly the Chinese (possibly bar some eccentric) do not (and have never) seen Confucius as a religious writer. Confucianism is about how to live a virtuous life, but not because of any supernatural rewards. He argued that the viruous life was worth living for its own sake, and the glory of the family.
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 12:10:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 11:57:16 AM
Isn't it a matter of some debate whether or not confucious was a religious leader or not? A quick google search of "is confuscianism a religion" gets over 2 million hits.
I don't think that there is any real debate among scholars. Certainly the Chinese (possibly bar some eccentric) do not (and have never) seen Confucius as a religious writer. Confucianism is about how to live a virtuous life, but not because of any supernatural rewards. He argued that the viruous life was worth living for its own sake, and the glory of the family.
Except there very clearly does seem to be a real debate:
https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=confucianism+is+it+a+religion#q=is+confucianism+a+religion
It comes down to how you define "religion" in the end. I can certainly see how you'd make the argument that it is not a religion, but I don't think you can wave your hands and make the entire debate go away.
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 12:18:13 PM
Except there very clearly does seem to be a real debate:
https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=confucianism+is+it+a+religion#q=is+confucianism+a+religion
It comes down to how you define "religion" in the end. I can certainly see how you'd make the argument that it is not a religion, but I don't think you can wave your hands and make the entire debate go away.
I don't think you can show that there are google results and conclude that there is a very real debate. I could as easily argue that there is a very real debate about whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real because https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=is+flying+spaghetti+monster+real
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 12:27:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 12:18:13 PM
Except there very clearly does seem to be a real debate:
https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=confucianism+is+it+a+religion#q=is+confucianism+a+religion
It comes down to how you define "religion" in the end. I can certainly see how you'd make the argument that it is not a religion, but I don't think you can wave your hands and make the entire debate go away.
I don't think you can show that there are google results and conclude that there is a very real debate. I could as easily argue that there is a very real debate about whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real because https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=is+flying+spaghetti+monster+real
You have to follow the links.
From link 1:
QuoteIs Confucianism a religion?
Main article: Chinese Rites controversy
Ever since Europeans first encountered Confucianism, the issue of how Confucianism should be classified has been subject to debate. In the 16th and the 17th centuries, the earliest European arrivals in China, the Christian Jesuits, considered Confucianism to be an ethical system, not a religion, and one that was compatible with Christianity.[46] The Jesuits, including Matteo Ricci, saw Chinese rituals as "civil rituals" that could co-exist alongside the spiritual rituals of Catholicism.[46] By the early 18th century, this initial portrayal was rejected by the Dominicans and Franciscans, creating a dispute among Catholics in East Asia that was known as the "Rites Controversy".[47] The Dominicans and Franciscans argued that ancestral worship was a form of pagan idolatry that was contradictory to the tenets of Christianity. This view was reinforced by Pope Benedict XIV, who ordered a ban on Chinese rituals.[47]
This debate continues into the modern era. There is consensus among scholars that, whether or not it is religious, Confucianism is definitively non-theistic. Confucianism is humanistic, and does not involve a belief in the supernatural or in a personal god.[48] On spirituality, Confucius said to Chi Lu, one of his students, that "You are not yet able to serve men, how can you serve spirits?"[49] Attributes that are seen as religious—such as ancestor worship, ritual, and sacrifice—were advocated by Confucius as necessary for social harmony; however, these attributes can be traced to the traditional non-Confucian Chinese beliefs of Chinese folk religion, and are also practiced by Daoists and Chinese Buddhists. Scholars recognize that classification ultimately depends on how one defines religion. Using stricter definitions of religion, Confucianism has been described as a moral science or philosophy.[50] But using a broader definition, such as Frederick Streng's characterization of religion as "a means of ultimate transformation",[51] Confucianism could be described as a "sociopolitical doctrine having religious qualities."[48] With the latter definition, Confucianism is religious, even if non-theistic, in the sense that it "performs some of the basic psycho-social functions of full-fledged religions", in the same way that non-theistic ideologies like Communism do.[48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Is_Confucianism_a_religion.3F
Link 2:
QuoteIs Confucianism a Religion?
There was not a term religion in ancient China but people worshipped Heaven as a God. Therefore, we can call Confucianism a Science of God.
Confucianism is not one of the so-called religions. Confucius himself deeply believed in Heaven (God) and preached Its Dao which is Way leading human beings to enlightenment, by this one can unite with Heaven, then without any display, one becomes manifested; without any movement, one produces changes, and without any effort, one accomplishes its ends. Confucius' teaching is the holiest teaching of holy teachings, and may be above all the religions and does not conflict with them. He believes that all the people of the world are brothers and sisters under the only one God. These days too many people abuse the term of religion, so it is better to use 'the science of God.' Then Confucianism is the science of God.
http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~tkang/welcome_files/religion.htm
Link 3
QuoteSome say Confucianism is not a religion, since there are no Confucian deities and no teachings about the afterlife. Confucius himself was a staunch supporter of ritual, however, and for many centuries there were state rituals associated with Confucianism. Most importantly, the Confucian tradition was instrumental in shaping Chinese social relationships and moral thought. Thus even without deities and a vision of salvation, Confucianism plays much the same role as religion does in other cultural contexts. The founder of Confucianism was Kong Qiu (K'ung Ch'iu), who was born around 552 B.C.E. in the small state of Lu and died in 479 B.C.E. The Latinized name Confucius, based on the honorific title Kong Fuzi (K'ung Fu-tzu), was created by 16th-century Jesuit missionaries in China. Confucius was a teacher to sons of the nobility at a time when formal education was just beginning in China. He traveled from region to region with a small group of disciples, a number of whom would become important government officials. Confucius was not particularly famous during his lifetime, and even considered himself to be a failure. He longed to be the advisor to a powerful ruler, and he believed that such a ruler, with the right advice, could bring about an ideal world. Confucius said heaven and the afterlife were beyond human capacity to understand, and one should therefore concentrate instead on doing the right thing in this life. The earliest records from his students indicate that he did not provide many moral precepts; rather he taught an attitude toward one's fellow humans of respect, particularly respect for one's parents, teachers, and elders. He also encouraged his students to learn from everyone they encountered and to honor others' cultural norms. Later, his teachings would be translated by authoritarian political philosophers into strict guidelines, and for much of Chinese history Confucianism would be associated with an immutable hierarchy of authority and unquestioning obedience.
http://www.patheos.com/Library/Confucianism.html
skipping to link 6, since it's 'scholarly'
QuoteIs Confucianism a religion? If so, why do most Chinese think it isn't? From ancient Confucian temples, to nineteenth-century archives, to the testimony of people interviewed by the author throughout China over a period of more than a decade, this book traces the birth and growth of the idea of Confucianism as a world religion.
The book begins at Oxford, in the late nineteenth century, when Friedrich Max Müller and James Legge classified Confucianism as a world religion in the new discourse of "world religions" and the emerging discipline of comparative religion. Anna Sun shows how that decisive moment continues to influence the understanding of Confucianism in the contemporary world, not only in the West but also in China, where the politics of Confucianism has become important to the present regime in a time of transition. Contested histories of Confucianism are vital signs of social and political change.
Sun also examines the revival of Confucianism in China today and the social significance of the ritual practice of Confucian temples. While the Chinese government turns to Confucianism to justify its political agenda, Confucian activists have started a movement to turn Confucianism into a religion. Confucianism as a world religion might have begun as a scholarly construction, but are we witnessing its transformation into a social and political reality?
With historical analysis, extensive research, and thoughtful reflection, Confucianism as a World Religion will engage all those interested in religion and global politics at the beginning of the Chinese century.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10017.html
Sure seems like a lot of debate going on here...
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 11:50:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 26, 2013, 11:14:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2013, 08:27:51 PM
There is some older stuff that isn't articulated the same from Egypt and possibly some oral stuff in early Vedic India. But Confucius is considered the originator of the idea, and it certainly was a secular idea for a long time before it started to be incorporated into religious texts.
the concept is well forumulated in the concept of Maat in ancient Egypt. And at the bolded part :lol:. You need to downplay that because it proves you are wrong in your assertion that a secular thinker was the first to forumulate the concept.
"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 " from oral traditions thought to be from the 9th or 8th centuries BCE.
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written. This of course is the most important reference because the thinking of the ancient Egyptians influenced those around them.
I am not sure why you think Confucious is "considered" the originator of the idea or more importantly why you think that might be so. Whatever you might think it is interesting that you completely discard the debate of whether his teachings are religious in nature given that you wish to make him a secular thinker for the purposes of winning the internet debate. Sad really.
As for your snarkiness, I am sure it will continue. But it is fun nonetheless to watch you wriggle around.
The Mahabharata was written around 400BCE, and thus post-dates Confucius.
you forgot to read the rest of the post. It is based on an oral tradition that predates Confucious by hundreds of years.
QuoteThe Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a secular writing.
The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a writing which is based on the religious beliefs of Maat which dominates the culture of ancient Egypt.
You are making distinctions between secular and religious which make no sense in the context of those socieities.
Quote from: Berkut on September 26, 2013, 11:58:57 AM
How can you not understand how one could take a set of ideas, remove those ideas that are not dependent on the religious foundation of the set, and evaluate them on their own merits. How can this be anything that is remotely difficult to understand?
Take the Ten Commandments. Some of them are clearly religious in nature and have no real meaning absent the existence of the god (Thou shalt have no other god before me). Some of them are clearly secular, in that they are useful (or not) regardless of whether or not the god in question actually exists (Thou shalt not kill).
What is so difficult about the idea that one can extract singular ideas or concepts from the set?
Because I dont understand how you make the determination as to what is dependant on a religious foundation and what is not when all the ideas were part of the religious belief. Thats why I say you want to have your cake and eat it too when it comes to analyzing whether reigion is a net benefit to society. You wish to strip out all that any objective observer would view as good to make the case that the rest is bad.
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 12:32:07 PM
You have to follow the links.
From link 1: (snip)
Link 1 is a wikipedia article. That something exists in wikipedia (given that anything can exist in wikipedia) doesn't make for a "real debate." And even your wiki article merely notes a debate over whether Confucianism was compatible with Catholicism.
Quote
Link 2:
I have no idea what this is supposed to say about a real debate. This is gibberish. In Chinese terms, "heaven" is not god at all (nor are the gods of heaven real). Heaven is a philosophical concept like Plato's Cave. Like Plato's cave, it doesn't have any actual existence.
QuoteLink 3
Link 3 doesn't argue that Confucianism is a religion, but merely that "Confucianism plays much the same role as religion does in other cultural contexts." I don't think that this is a very controversial idea.
Quoteskipping to link 6, since it's 'scholarly'
Link six deals with the implications of a blunder in some scholars' understanding of Confucianism and implicitly argues that Confucianism isn't a religion: " Confucianism as a world religion
might have begun as a scholarly construction..."
QuoteSure seems like a lot of debate going on here...
There is some writing, but there is no 'debate' here. It is possible that links 1 and 2 (both from anonymous and non-authoritative sources) are arguing that Confucianism is an actual religion; they are poorly-enough-written that it is hard to tell. Link 3 isn't debating anything, just noting that Confucianism plays a role similar to religion 9and thus, implicitly, isn't a religion itself), and link 6 states that Confucianism as religion is "a scholarly construction" (i.e. is not true).
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 12:54:54 PM
There is some writing, but there is no 'debate' here. It is possible that links 1 and 2 (both from anonymous and non-authoritative sources) are arguing that Confucianism is an actual religion; they are poorly-enough-written that it is hard to tell. Link 3 isn't debating anything, just noting that Confucianism plays a role similar to religion 9and thus, implicitly, isn't a religion itself), and link 6 states that Confucianism as religion is "a scholarly construction" (i.e. is not true).
Grumbler, you have failed to convince me that there is the absence of debate on whether or not confucianism is a religion. I suspect however that there is little I can say that will make you change your mind, so I will let these posts and links stand.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 26, 2013, 12:41:07 PM
you forgot to read the rest of the post. It is based on an oral tradition that predates Confucious by hundreds of years.
You have no idea what portions of the Mahabharata predate Confucius. Argument fails for lack of evidence and because of special pleading.
Quote
QuoteThe Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a secular writing.
The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a writing which is based on the religious beliefs of Maat which dominates the culture of ancient Egypt.
The Tale is a secular writing. There is nothing supernatural or religious about it at all. You can't say that, because a society has a religion, that everything in that society is religious. That's absurd.
QuoteYou are making distinctions between secular and religious which make no sense in the context of those socieities.
Your argument that there is no distinction between secular and religious in these societies is mere argument by assertion, and amounts to more special pleading, to boot.
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 01:00:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 26, 2013, 12:41:07 PM
you forgot to read the rest of the post. It is based on an oral tradition that predates Confucious by hundreds of years.
You have no idea what portions of the Mahabharata predate Confucius. Argument fails for lack of evidence and because of special pleading.
Stick to your day job because you would really suck as a lawyer.
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 12:58:10 PM
Grumbler, you have failed to convince me that there is the absence of debate on whether or not confucianism is a religion. I suspect however that there is little I can say that will make you change your mind, so I will let these posts and links stand.
It's a bit like the existence of gods, is it not? You say that serious debates exist, even in the absence of any evidence of serious debates. I say that, in the absence of evidence, we cannot assume that such debates exist. That's pretty much where we started in this thread on the issue of the existence of gods.
One slight difference here is that I teach Chinese history, and so have looked at the evidence concerning Confucius for years (including discussing him with many Chinese themselves). You have been looking at it for part of an afternoon.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 26, 2013, 01:01:04 PM
Stick to your day job because you would really suck as a lawyer.
Well, you really seem to suck as a lawyer as well, but that doesn't seem to have slowed you down! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 01:03:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 12:58:10 PM
Grumbler, you have failed to convince me that there is the absence of debate on whether or not confucianism is a religion. I suspect however that there is little I can say that will make you change your mind, so I will let these posts and links stand.
It's a bit like the existence of gods, is it not? You say that serious debates exist, even in the absence of any evidence of serious debates. I say that, in the absence of evidence, we cannot assume that such debates exist. That's pretty much where we started in this thread on the issue of the existence of gods.
One slight difference here is that I teach Chinese history, and so have looked at the evidence concerning Confucius for years (including discussing him with many Chinese themselves). You have been looking at it for part of an afternoon.
You just had to get in the last word, didn't you. :)
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 01:36:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 01:03:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 12:58:10 PM
Grumbler, you have failed to convince me that there is the absence of debate on whether or not confucianism is a religion. I suspect however that there is little I can say that will make you change your mind, so I will let these posts and links stand.
It's a bit like the existence of gods, is it not? You say that serious debates exist, even in the absence of any evidence of serious debates. I say that, in the absence of evidence, we cannot assume that such debates exist. That's pretty much where we started in this thread on the issue of the existence of gods.
One slight difference here is that I teach Chinese history, and so have looked at the evidence concerning Confucius for years (including discussing him with many Chinese themselves). You have been looking at it for part of an afternoon.
You just had to get in the last word, didn't you. :)
I appreciated the dig he threw in that he has studied it for years unlike you. Fun like Viking's comment about how everyone started acting like hooligans when he'd briefly stepped away from the conversation. :D
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 01:36:04 PM
You just had to get in the last word, didn't you. :)
I certainly hope you wrote this with deliberate irony. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 01:46:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 01:36:04 PM
You just had to get in the last word, didn't you. :)
I certainly hope you wrote this with deliberate irony. :lol:
Not really, no. :)
"Confucianism" isn't any one thing. Much like Buddhism and Taoism, what "Confucianism" means depends on who you ask.
Good arguments can be made for and against all of the great east Asian traditions being "religions". All of them are, for some, simply mixed with traditional Chinese folk religion and ancestor worship - so you get, for example, Temples of Confucius, in which people burn incense and offer prayers to Confucius. People performed "pilgrimages" to visit his tomb.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/704
These aspects - prayers, offerings, pilgrimages, worship - are arguably religious indicia.
Set against this is the fact that Confucius was never, until the late imperial period, actually considered a "god" (he was in fact eventually deified by the state); moreover, Confucian writings tend to focus on rituals as simply part of the requirements of politeness and social harmony, not as having any supernatural effect.
My own opinion is that the "Confucianism" of the literatti was an ethical philosophy, whereas "Confucianism" was also part and parcel of Chinese popular religion, together with much else.
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2013, 01:41:29 PM
I appreciated the dig he threw in that he has studied it for years unlike you.
Yes, the mention of expertise counts as a "dig" here at languish, especially when BB is apparently completely misreading every authoritative link he found, and insisting that a debate must exist because a google search returns results. I don't think that anyone who has seriously studied the issue believes that there is a serious debate.
So much negative energy in this thread. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 26, 2013, 12:45:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 26, 2013, 11:58:57 AM
How can you not understand how one could take a set of ideas, remove those ideas that are not dependent on the religious foundation of the set, and evaluate them on their own merits. How can this be anything that is remotely difficult to understand?
Take the Ten Commandments. Some of them are clearly religious in nature and have no real meaning absent the existence of the god (Thou shalt have no other god before me). Some of them are clearly secular, in that they are useful (or not) regardless of whether or not the god in question actually exists (Thou shalt not kill).
What is so difficult about the idea that one can extract singular ideas or concepts from the set?
Because I dont understand how you make the determination as to what is dependant on a religious foundation and what is not when all the ideas were part of the religious belief.
I just told you how to do that.
Quote
Thats why I say you want to have your cake and eat it too when it comes to analyzing whether reigion is a net benefit to society. You wish to strip out all that any objective observer would view as good to make the case that the rest is bad.
Well, yeah. That is exactly my point.
The parts that are seen as objectively positive, in my experience, also tend to be those parts that are necessarily religious in nature.
Again, lets look at the Ten Commandments as an example. I would argue that they are a overall poor set of moral or ethical guidelines, because they are based on a false premise, namely that god came down and SAID that these were moral and ethical guidelines that we should follow because he said so. This results in very adverse outcomes, because people do things like ignore some of them on the basis that god told them to (Those Hittites were not what he meant when he said we should not kill!) and such.
The response FROM OTHER ATHEISTS is that there is much good there along with the bad, and you cannot simply ignore the good when evaluating it. Fair enough.
But then I note that the parts that us non religious types recognize as "good" tend to be the exact same parts that are not actually dependent on religion at all. Thou shalt not kill is pretty good advice whether god says it or not. So in the case of the parts that ARE good, I do in fact claim that mostly they are good without any need for the religious trappings, so there is no need to claim that the religion itself is "good". It is not Judaism that says that not killing people is good, it is simply good on its own merits.
There are two separate evaluations of specific ideas within the set that makes up a religious ethose:
1. Is it a objectively "good" and valuable idea?
2. Is it a specifically religious idea?
My point is that when you run these evaluations, in my experience it is the case that nearly (if not all) the ideas that fall into category 1 do NOT fall into category 2.
Therefor, yes, I am in fact wanting my cake and eating it too - that is exactly the point. The parts of religious thought that everyone who is NOT religious claim are in fact good ideas are invariably those same parts that aren't all that religious!
So why would we conclude that it is religious thought that is valuable?
Again, though, how do you enforce the compliance with the good teachings that cannot really be policed by other humans?
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2013, 02:16:37 PM
Again, though, how do you enforce the compliance with the good teachings that cannot really be policed by other humans?
That is a good question, with a not simple answer. But I recognize that it is likely the best case for the utility of religion. I am not sure I have the stamina for the discussion though.
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2013, 02:00:50 PM
So much negative energy in this thread. :(
I blame the negative aspects of atheism which are easily identifiable as not being consistent with religious teaching.
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2013, 02:16:37 PM
Again, though, how do you enforce the compliance with the good teachings that cannot really be policed by other humans?
According to Confucius, you do it in self-interest; that you are better-served yourself by living a life of virtue than one of vice.
That might not convince everyone, but the argument has been made, and it is pretty widely honored in theory, at least. It probably has less power in a society that is not shame-based, though.
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 03:31:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2013, 02:16:37 PM
Again, though, how do you enforce the compliance with the good teachings that cannot really be policed by other humans?
According to Confucius, you do it in self-interest; that you are better-served yourself by living a life of virtue than one of vice.
That might not convince everyone, but the argument has been made, and it is pretty widely honored in theory, at least. It probably has less power in a society that is not shame-based, though.
Isn't shame still just a method of policing by humans? It has to be known by others that you've gone against the morals in order to be ashamed.
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2013, 03:42:24 PM
Isn't shame still just a method of policing by humans? It has to be known by others that you've gone against the morals in order to be ashamed.
I think it is actually the fear of discovery that deters in a shame-based society, rather than the post-discovery shaming itself.
I don't disagree with your basic issue, I just noted that there have been some nominally "successful" answers.
I guess my problem is that a moral system based on the fear of punishment by a highly improbable being isn't of much more value than the fear of discovery and shaming (and shaming the family, as well). I suppose that, if you can get to them when they are impressionable youths, you can make people believe enough in improbable entities to provide some deterrence even later in life, as in "this god's existence doesn't seem likely to me any more, but maybe I don't want to take the chance."
It's a conundrum.
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2013, 01:41:29 PM
I appreciated the dig he threw in that he has studied it for years unlike you. Fun like Viking's comment about how everyone started acting like hooligans when he'd briefly stepped away from the conversation. :D
I'm good with it. The Pope has taught Catholicism for decades, I think we should take his word for it we he says it's the true religion.
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2013, 01:47:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2013, 01:46:50 PM
I certainly hope you wrote this with deliberate irony. :lol:
Not really, no. :)
Actually, I think I prefer it this way. :cool:
Another straw in the wind by Vaticanologists are the new appointments. One with responsibility for the clergy wrote his doctoral thesis on clerical celibacy and a loathed liberal, rejected by Benedict XVI, is apparently on his way back.
Also apparently the Vatican's unblocked the cause for canonisation of Oscar Romero and it could proceed in a year or two :w00t:
Well, Romero has the necessary three miracles... even if two of them were just card tricks.
If he's considered a martyr he can go straight to beatification without any miracles :w00t:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2013, 04:58:35 PM
If he's considered a martyr he can go straight to beatification without any miracles :w00t:
:hmm: That's a pretty nice gig.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2013, 04:58:35 PM
If he's considered a martyr he can go straight to beatification without any miracles :w00t:
In practice, though, it would take a miracle to get beatified without any.
Pope's done another interview :blink:
http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/10/01/news/pope_s_conversation_with_scalfari_english-67643118/
From Rocco Palmo:
Quote(SVILUPPO: After this report was published, La Repubblica produced a full English translation of the interview, rendering its headline "How the church will change.")
Even as the first meeting of his new "Council of Cardinals" begins this morning – and this Tuesday likewise brings the report of an unprecedented external audit on the Vatican Bank – the pontiff's first focus lay distinctly elsewhere.
"The gravest of the evils that afflict the world in our time are the unemployment of the young and the loneliness in which the elderly are left," Francis said, reprising a theme he's frequently addressed in other contexts. "The old need care and company; the young need work and hope, but they don't have each other, and the problem is that they don't seek each other out anymore.
The young are "shackled in the present," the Pope said. "But tell me: can one live shackled in the present? Without a memory of the past and without the desire to throw oneself into the future: to build a project, an adventure, a family? Is it possible to continue like this? This, for me, is the most urgent problem that the church has in front of it.... It's not the only problem, but it is the most urgent and the most dramatic."
Asked about secular politics, the pontiff turned stronger still: "Why are you asking me about that? I have already said that the church will not occupy itself with politics."
Explaining that he was obliged to address himself "not just to Catholics, but all people of goodwill," Francis – who reportedly never voted in Argentinian elections as a bishop – explained thus: "I've said that politics is the first among civil activities and has its own arena of action which is not that of religion. Political institutions are secular [laiche – lay] by definition and work in an independent sphere. All of my predecessors have said this, at least for many years, albeit with different accents. I believe that Catholics tasked with political life must keep the values of their religion before them, but with a mature conscience and competence to realize them. The church will never go beyond its task of expressing and publicizing its values, at least for as long as I'm here."
Accordingly, it was on the internals of church life where the Jesuit Pope struck his most determined notes – or, as he described his governing style, his utmost "firmness and tenacity." Francis said that the formation of his unprecedented "Gang of Eight" – which he termed "my council" – marked "the beginning of a church with an organization that's not only vertical but also horizontal." While that's yet another indication of the concept of synodality as the core of the impending Curial reform, in this instance Francis conspicuously stretched its reach even further.
Saying that the "defect" of the Roman Curia is an excessive tendency to be "Vatican-centric" and "car[ing] for [its own] interests which are also, in large part, worldly interests," Francis declared that "I don't share this vision and will do everything to change it.
"The church is, or must return to being, a community of the People of God," the Pope said, "and the priests, pastors, bishops with the care of souls, are at the service of the People of God.
"This is the church, a word that's a different case from the Holy See, which has an important function but is at the service of the church."
Referring to his late confrere, the progressive Milanese Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the Pope said that when the prelate spoke of "the accent of Councils and Synods, he knew well that it'd be a long, difficult path to proceed in this direction." Stacking himself against the saint whose name he took – whose tomb he'll visit on Friday – Francis preceded the comment by saying that he "certainly [isn't] not Francis of Assisi and I don't have his strength or his holiness, but I am the Bishop of Rome and the Pope of Catholicism." Eight hundred years since the original Francis, however, Bergoglio returned to one of his pontificate's first expressed thread, noting that the Poverello's "ideal of a missionary and poor church remains more than valid.
"This is consistently the church that Jesus and his disciples preached," Francis said. And one thing that has no place in it for the Pope is clericalism – which, he said, "has nothing to do with Christianity." When Scalfari said that, despite being a nonbeliever, he only became anticlerical "when I meet a clericalist," Francis apparently "smiled" in response and said that he, too, "become[ s] an anticlericalist in a flash" when he's faced with an officious priest.
As for the church's role in the modern world, the pontiff – the first bishop of Rome to be ordained a priest after Vatican II – underscored his adherence to the path charted out by the Council, but only after "personally" embracing his predecessor's controversial thought that "to be a minority [church] could even be a strength."
"We must be a leaven of life and of love," Francis said, "and the leaven is infinitely smaller than the mass of fruit, of flowers and trees that grow thanks to it.... [ O]ur objective isn't proselytism but listening to [people's] needs, desires, disappointments, desperations and hopes. We must restore hope to the young, aid the old, open ourselves to the future, spread love. [We must be] the poor among the poor. We must include the excluded and preach peace. Vatican II, inspired by Pope John and Paul VI, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to open [the church] to modern culture. The Council fathers knew that opening to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non believers. After then very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do it."
While walking his visitor to the door of the Vatican guesthouse, in a sudden aside the Pope told Scalfari that his reforms "will also discuss the role of women in the church," reminding the interviewer that "the church is feminine."
The host didn't specify his intended result, but Scalfari closed his piece with a rather bold assessment: "This is Pope Francis. If the church becomes as he thinks and wants, it will be an epochal change."
I wonder if he did a Powerpoint presentation to the Conclave about the marketing strategy he would employ if elected.
Summary?
I doubt it. I imagine the Conclave are a bit worried right now. Everyone was saying the next Pope would reform the Curia and maybe institute some more horizontal governing structures, but because they'd all been appointed by Benedict or JP they'd all be of one mind on pretty much everything else.
I don't think they were expecting a chatterbox pope or someone who'd start praising Carlo Martini :o
My view is that he's not liberal or conservative he's just a Pope of the mainstream Catholic middle. The silent majority who fill the pews regardless of whether the priest's doing the Taize prayer or the Sarum rite. But it is funny to see liberals suddenly fall in love with ultramontanism and conservatives praising a synodal approach to the Church :lol:
Edit: A trend on conservative blogs has actually been to start comparing Francis to the Borgia pope who at least was orthodox and didn't touch the liturgy :lol:
Every time this pope seems to open his mouth on anything I hear Stephen Fry in my head asking "Then, what are you for? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIXB2KlRS_s).
As for this interview.. if you are the Pope and your answer to the question of "What is the gravest of all evils that afflict the world in our time?" and the answer isn't "Sin" then I have to ask if he takes his own religion seriously or not? If the answer isn't "Sin" then what is the point of Christianity? What is the Church for? Because it certainly isn't about getting an improved Gini coefficient.
Quote from: Viking on October 01, 2013, 08:12:13 AM
Every time this pope seems to open his mouth on anything I hear Stephen Fry in my head asking "Then, what are you for? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIXB2KlRS_s).
As for this interview.. if you are the Pope and your answer to the question of "What is the gravest of all evils that afflict the world in our time?" and the answer isn't "Sin" then I have to ask if he takes his own religion seriously or not? If the answer isn't "Sin" then what is the point of Christianity? What is the Church for? Because it certainly isn't about getting an improved Gini coefficient.
You should probably see a doctor about that. Hearing voices is not normal.
:D
Quote from: Viking on October 01, 2013, 08:12:13 AM
Every time this pope seems to open his mouth on anything I hear Stephen Fry in my head asking "Then, what are you for? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIXB2KlRS_s).
That's probably a good sign.
QuoteAs for this interview.. if you are the Pope and your answer to the question of "What is the gravest of all evils that afflict the world in our time?" and the answer isn't "Sin" then I have to ask if he takes his own religion seriously or not? If the answer isn't "Sin" then what is the point of Christianity? What is the Church for? Because it certainly isn't about getting an improved Gini coefficient.
He talks a lot about the devil actually.
But I think he's right. From a Catholic perspective there is a dignity in work so this mass unemployment, as he puts it, affects the soul as well as the body. There is more than a material element to it.
More widely the point he's making is the old Catholic critique of liberalism. That we have our autonomous, individual lives but this leaves the people on the periphery - the old, the poor, the unemployed with no hope who have even stopped looking for work. Because of that there's a hollowness to it. As he puts it, specifically talking about youth unemployment, but I think also Western society in general it's crushed by the present with not enough memory in the past or hope in the future. And that's where he sees the Church as needed:
QuoteWe always have been [a minority] but the issue today is not that. Personally I think that being a minority is actually a strength. We have to be a leavening of life and love and the leavening is infinitely smaller than the mass of fruits, flowers and trees that are born out of it. I believe I have already said that our goal is not to proselytize but to listen to needs, desires and disappointments, despair, hope. We must restore hope to young people, help the old, be open to the future, spread love. Be poor among the poor. We need to include the excluded and preach peace.
It reminds me of Rabbi Sacks's distinction between optimism and hope, and that hope is the core of faith, especially in his view the Jewish faith.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2013, 09:10:39 AM
More widely the point he's making is the old Catholic critique of liberalism. That we have our autonomous, individual lives but this leaves the people on the periphery - the old, the poor, the unemployed with no hope who have even stopped looking for work. Because of that there's a hollowness to it. As he puts it, specifically talking about youth unemployment, but I think also Western society in general it's crushed by the present with not enough memory in the past or hope in the future. And that's where he sees the Church as needed:
QuoteWe always have been [a minority] but the issue today is not that. Personally I think that being a minority is actually a strength. We have to be a leavening of life and love and the leavening is infinitely smaller than the mass of fruits, flowers and trees that are born out of it. I believe I have already said that our goal is not to proselytize but to listen to needs, desires and disappointments, despair, hope. We must restore hope to young people, help the old, be open to the future, spread love. Be poor among the poor. We need to include the excluded and preach peace.
It reminds me of Rabbi Sacks's distinction between optimism and hope, and that hope is the core of faith, especially in his view the Jewish faith.
It's always fun to hear leaders say things about their own organizations that they don't believe, that we know they don't believe, and that they know we know they don't believe. The Catholic Church has never been about being poor. It has never been about serving the interests of the failures. And it certainly hasn't been about spreading "love." it has been about paying lip service to values like that while pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church.
I'm not exactly pro-Catholic, but that's a bit harsh.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 09:54:04 AM
I'm not exactly pro-Catholic, but that's a bit harsh.
Yeah...
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 09:54:04 AM
I'm not exactly pro-Catholic, but that's a bit harsh.
Do you believe that the church tries to be 'the poor among the poor?" It is one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, and getting wealthier.
One could argue against my position, of course. That might even be fun. A dogpile of "that's harsh" and "yeah" isn't much fun, though.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 10:00:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 09:54:04 AM
I'm not exactly pro-Catholic, but that's a bit harsh.
Do you believe that the church tries to be 'the poor among the poor?" It is one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, and getting wealthier.
One could argue against my position, of course. That might even be fun. A dogpile of "that's harsh" and "yeah" isn't much fun, though.
No, arguing with you isn't fun. Tedious, perhaps.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 09:37:35 AM
It's always fun to hear leaders say things about their own organizations that they don't believe, that we know they don't believe, and that they know we know they don't believe. The Catholic Church has never been about being poor. It has never been about serving the interests of the failures. And it certainly hasn't been about spreading "love." it has been about paying lip service to values like that while pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church.
I don't know how you can possibly make definitive statements about what the beliefs and intents are of an enormous, multi-faceted organization like the Roman Catholic Church. The Church isn't an individual with a single operating mind - rather it is comprised of over one billion adherents, over 400,000 priests, 5,000 bishops and 100 cardinals.
The church has always been "about" many different things. Obviously in part it is "about" accumulating money. Hell to some it was "about" molesting little boys and girls. But it has also pretty clearly also been "about" spreading love and been "about" serving the poor.
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
I don't know how you can possibly make definitive statements about what the beliefs and intents are of an enormous, multi-faceted organization like the Roman Catholic Church. The Church isn't an individual with a single operating mind - rather it is comprised of over one billion adherents, over 400,000 priests, 5,000 bishops and 100 cardinals.
I can made statements about what I can see about the beliefs of the leaders, which is what i did. Re-read my statement. I don't know how you can possibly make my assertions about it being "fun to hear leaders say things" into a definitive statement about "one billion adherents."
QuoteThe church has always been "about" many different things. Obviously in part it is "about" accumulating money. Hell to some it was "about" molesting little boys and girls. But it has also pretty clearly also been "about" spreading love and been "about" serving the poor.
Argument by assertion. I'd dispute that the church as an institution has been about spreading "love" in any ordinary sense, let alone being poor ("serving the poor" is your statement, not mine - I never disputed that the church served some of the poor).
Quote from: garbon on October 01, 2013, 10:05:50 AM
No, arguing with you isn't fun. Tedious, perhaps.
Actually, I was specifically dismissing your style of argument from being fun. Beeb knows how to argue based on assertions and facts, rather than mere dogpiling. That's why I enjoy engaging with him, but not you.
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 09:37:35 AM
It's always fun to hear leaders say things about their own organizations that they don't believe, that we know they don't believe, and that they know we know they don't believe. The Catholic Church has never been about being poor. It has never been about serving the interests of the failures. And it certainly hasn't been about spreading "love." it has been about paying lip service to values like that while pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church.
I don't know how you can possibly make definitive statements about what the beliefs and intents are of an enormous, multi-faceted organization like the Roman Catholic Church. The Church isn't an individual with a single operating mind - rather it is comprised of over one billion adherents, over 400,000 priests, 5,000 bishops and 100 cardinals.
The church has always been "about" many different things. Obviously in part it is "about" accumulating money. Hell to some it was "about" molesting little boys and girls. But it has also pretty clearly also been "about" spreading love and been "about" serving the poor.
This isn't an organization that is about diversity. It is an organization that claims to have THE TRUTH (tm) in all caps, not just capital T truth. It is an organization with a revelation which claims to have a divinely granted magical superpower to explain that revelation to us. I'm sorry, but using the defense that it is a broad organization with diverse views is BS. FFS, WTF do you think the word "catholic" means?
Quote from: garbon on October 01, 2013, 10:05:50 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 10:00:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 09:54:04 AM
I'm not exactly pro-Catholic, but that's a bit harsh.
Do you believe that the church tries to be 'the poor among the poor?" It is one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, and getting wealthier.
One could argue against my position, of course. That might even be fun. A dogpile of "that's harsh" and "yeah" isn't much fun, though.
No, arguing with you isn't fun. Tedious, perhaps.
It's not even a good troll.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 10:32:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 01, 2013, 10:05:50 AM
No, arguing with you isn't fun. Tedious, perhaps.
Actually, I was specifically dismissing your style of argument from being fun. Beeb knows how to argue based on assertions and facts, rather than mere dogpiling. That's why I enjoy engaging with him, but not you.
Something you still struggle with as your argument is based on your ability to read the mind of man you never met.
Quote from: Viking on October 01, 2013, 10:32:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 09:37:35 AM
It's always fun to hear leaders say things about their own organizations that they don't believe, that we know they don't believe, and that they know we know they don't believe. The Catholic Church has never been about being poor. It has never been about serving the interests of the failures. And it certainly hasn't been about spreading "love." it has been about paying lip service to values like that while pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church.
I don't know how you can possibly make definitive statements about what the beliefs and intents are of an enormous, multi-faceted organization like the Roman Catholic Church. The Church isn't an individual with a single operating mind - rather it is comprised of over one billion adherents, over 400,000 priests, 5,000 bishops and 100 cardinals.
The church has always been "about" many different things. Obviously in part it is "about" accumulating money. Hell to some it was "about" molesting little boys and girls. But it has also pretty clearly also been "about" spreading love and been "about" serving the poor.
This isn't an organization that is about diversity. It is an organization that claims to have THE TRUTH (tm) in all caps, not just capital T truth. It is an organization with a revelation which claims to have a divinely granted magical superpower to explain that revelation to us. I'm sorry, but using the defense that it is a broad organization with diverse views is BS. FFS, WTF do you think the word "catholic" means?
Quotecath·o·lic (kth-lk, kthlk)
adj.
1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: "The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found" (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: "what was of catholic rather than national interest" (J.A. Froude).
3. Catholic
a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.
Catholic means universal, or comprehensive. It does not mean singular or identical. So in having a universal church, the Church attempts to encompass all of mankind. In doing so it allows for tremendous diversity! Just look at the wide variety of catholic orders, of differing rites and services, or differing national churches.
There are comparitively few areas where the Church proclaims to have THE TRUTH(tm) in all caps. For much of the human condition the Church does not proclaim to have a single, universal true answer.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 10:30:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
I don't know how you can possibly make definitive statements about what the beliefs and intents are of an enormous, multi-faceted organization like the Roman Catholic Church. The Church isn't an individual with a single operating mind - rather it is comprised of over one billion adherents, over 400,000 priests, 5,000 bishops and 100 cardinals.
I can made statements about what I can see about the beliefs of the leaders, which is what i did. Re-read my statement. I don't know how you can possibly make my assertions about it being "fun to hear leaders say things" into a definitive statement about "one billion adherents."
QuoteThe church has always been "about" many different things. Obviously in part it is "about" accumulating money. Hell to some it was "about" molesting little boys and girls. But it has also pretty clearly also been "about" spreading love and been "about" serving the poor.
Argument by assertion. I'd dispute that the church as an institution has been about spreading "love" in any ordinary sense, let alone being poor ("serving the poor" is your statement, not mine - I never disputed that the church served some of the poor).
Let's re-read your statement:
QuoteIt's always fun to hear leaders say things about their own organizations that they don't believe, that we know they don't believe, and that they know we know they don't believe. The Catholic Church has never been about being poor. It has never been about serving the interests of the failures. And it certainly hasn't been about spreading "love." it has been about paying lip service to values like that while pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church.
You make two arguments.
1. That the Pope is saying things that you know that he doesn't believe in. I just ignored this one the first time around to give you the benefit of the doubt. Because you appear to be claiming that you can read Pope Francis' mind. I certainly can't pretend to know whether he believes what he is saying is true or not. I assume he's speaking the truth because, unless someone gives me a reason to doubt them, I assume everyone is telling me the truth. But even then that's just an assumption. Unlike you, I can't read minds.
2. This is the part I addressed - you said the church was "about... pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church". If you want to go labelling things, that's just as much argument by assertion as anything I said.
I can only repeat myself - I don't see how you can categorize as large, as diverse, and as old an institution as the RCC as being only "about" one thing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_qsoMI6n9QJk%2FTOIMDNxuhyI%2FAAAAAAAAAbM%2FymVX5lPatR8%2Fs400%2FTarBaby.jpg&hash=ccb071fdbd4d41711b02970dec8de57bf4661a30)
:lol:
I had that book/record.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 03:06:13 PM
:lol:
I had that book/record.
Beeb can figure out which one he is.
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 02:10:54 PM
You make two arguments.
1. That the Pope is saying things that you know that he doesn't believe in. I just ignored this one the first time around to give you the benefit of the doubt. Because you appear to be claiming that you can read Pope Francis' mind. I certainly can't pretend to know whether he believes what he is saying is true or not. I assume he's speaking the truth because, unless someone gives me a reason to doubt them, I assume everyone is telling me the truth. But even then that's just an assumption. Unlike you, I can't read minds.
You don't have to read minds to know that a person doesn't believe what he is saying; all you have to do is look at their actions. If their actions belie their words, then they don't believe their words.
In this case, the Pope claims that the Church is about being "the poor among the poor?" Yet the church has fabulous wealth, and doesn't divest itself of luxuries like property (the Vatican art collection, anyone? the Pope's own garments when he officiates?) in order to be poor and serve the poor. Sure, there are member of the church and clergy that are poor and serve the poor, and if they talk about being the poor among the poo, I believe them. When the Pope says it, I don't believe him, and I don't think he really expects to be believed. Really... mind reading? Is that what you really think it takes to know when someone isn't telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? You, a prosecutor?
Quote2. This is the part I addressed - you said the church was "about... pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church". If you want to go labelling things, that's just as much argument by assertion as anything I said.
I can only repeat myself - I don't see how you can categorize as large, as diverse, and as old an institution as the RCC as being only "about" one thing.
As far as the Pope's sector of the church is concerned, I think I can make such statements. And I did. I was specifically referencing the Pope's comments, and the institution of the church itself, which he represents. I said nothing about people like Mother Teresa-like members of the church. There are members of the church who does what he claims "the Church" does, but they do that due to personal convictions, not because they are trying to emulate the Pope.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 03:41:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 02:10:54 PM
You make two arguments.
1. That the Pope is saying things that you know that he doesn't believe in. I just ignored this one the first time around to give you the benefit of the doubt. Because you appear to be claiming that you can read Pope Francis' mind. I certainly can't pretend to know whether he believes what he is saying is true or not. I assume he's speaking the truth because, unless someone gives me a reason to doubt them, I assume everyone is telling me the truth. But even then that's just an assumption. Unlike you, I can't read minds.
You don't have to read minds to know that a person doesn't believe what he is saying; all you have to do is look at their actions. If their actions belie their words, then they don't believe their words.
In this case, the Pope claims that the Church is about being "the poor among the poor?" Yet the church has fabulous wealth, and doesn't divest itself of luxuries like property (the Vatican art collection, anyone? the Pope's own garments when he officiates?) in order to be poor and serve the poor. Sure, there are member of the church and clergy that are poor and serve the poor, and if they talk about being the poor among the poo, I believe them. When the Pope says it, I don't believe him, and I don't think he really expects to be believed. Really... mind reading? Is that what you really think it takes to know when someone isn't telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? You, a prosecutor?
Yes. :mellow:
You reference someone lying while under oath. I can tell you from personal experience that prosecuting someone for perjury - of saying something while under oath which that person knows to be false - is one of the most difficult offences to prove. It is a specific intent offence. It's not enough for someone to say a false statement. We must show that that person
knew it was false.
That's what makes it almost impossible to prove. How do you know what's in someone's mind short of mind-reading? There's only one fact pattern that I've seen support a successful perjury charge, and that's where the person admits to it. If a person later says "yeah, I was lying while under oath" then, and pretty much only then, can you know what was in their mind.
So, as a lawyer, words matter. If someone's actions don't match their words, you say that. You can point to an inconsistency or discrepancy. But it's foolish to say that someone is saying things they know to be untrue. After all, humanity's abilities in self-deception are quite amazing.
Quote from: grumbler
Quote2. This is the part I addressed - you said the church was "about... pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church". If you want to go labelling things, that's just as much argument by assertion as anything I said.
I can only repeat myself - I don't see how you can categorize as large, as diverse, and as old an institution as the RCC as being only "about" one thing.
As far as the Pope's sector of the church is concerned, I think I can make such statements. And I did. I was specifically referencing the Pope's comments, and the institution of the church itself, which he represents. I said nothing about people like Mother Teresa-like members of the church. There are members of the church who does what he claims "the Church" does, but they do that due to personal convictions, not because they are trying to emulate the Pope.
Anecdote time:
Back in the 90s I was involved as a law student in sueing various churches as a result of indian residential schools. I did some grunt legal research in exactly whom to sue. The result of which is that, legally speaking,
there is no entity called the Roman Catholic Church. Instead what exists is a whole multitude of orders, diocese, monasteries and the like, all of which are under the guidance of the Pope.
So I don't think you can identify "the institution of the Church itself", which doesn't really exist, and then ignore all the component parts that actually make up the Church.
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
Yes. :mellow:
You reference someone lying while under oath. I can tell you from personal experience that prosecuting someone for perjury - of saying something while under oath which that person knows to be false - is one of the most difficult offences to prove. It is a specific intent offence. It's not enough for someone to say a false statement. We must show that that person knew it was false.
A classic red herring. No one is accusing the Pope of perjury.
QuoteThat's what makes it almost impossible to prove. How do you know what's in someone's mind short of mind-reading? There's only one fact pattern that I've seen support a successful perjury charge, and that's where the person admits to it. If a person later says "yeah, I was lying while under oath" then, and pretty much only then, can you know what was in their mind.
I don't "know what's on someone's mind." That's just moving the goal posts. I do know that, when a person's actions say one thing and his mouth another, his mouth is the one that's got it wrong.
QuoteSo, as a lawyer, words matter. If someone's actions don't match their words, you say that. You can point to an inconsistency or discrepancy. But it's foolish to say that someone is saying things they know to be untrue. After all, humanity's abilities in self-deception are quite amazing.
So it is foolishto say that X "is saying things they know to be untrue" but wise to say "X is saying this, but their actions prove their words false?" That's foolish garbon-level nitpicking. I'll stick to the clearer language, thanks.
Your anecdote is not relevant to the discussion.
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 02:02:29 PM
Catholic means universal, or comprehensive. It does not mean singular or identical. So in having a universal church, the Church attempts to encompass all of mankind. In doing so it allows for tremendous diversity! Just look at the wide variety of catholic orders, of differing rites and services, or differing national churches.
There are comparitively few areas where the Church proclaims to have THE TRUTH(tm) in all caps. For much of the human condition the Church does not proclaim to have a single, universal true answer.
And now you have turned the whole nature of the church on it's head. The doctines, dogma and teachings of the church are THE TRUTH (tm) and the church does have a single, universal "true" answer on all topics relating to the god, morals, the soul and the meaning of life. This encompasses virtually all parts of the human condition apart from technical details.
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 06:15:11 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
Yes. :mellow:
You reference someone lying while under oath. I can tell you from personal experience that prosecuting someone for perjury - of saying something while under oath which that person knows to be false - is one of the most difficult offences to prove. It is a specific intent offence. It's not enough for someone to say a false statement. We must show that that person knew it was false.
A classic red herring. No one is accusing the Pope of perjury.
You were very obviously referencing perjury, what with the reference to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", and then referencing my profession.
Quote from: grumbler
QuoteThat's what makes it almost impossible to prove. How do you know what's in someone's mind short of mind-reading? There's only one fact pattern that I've seen support a successful perjury charge, and that's where the person admits to it. If a person later says "yeah, I was lying while under oath" then, and pretty much only then, can you know what was in their mind.
I don't "know what's on someone's mind." That's just moving the goal posts. I do know that, when a person's actions say one thing and his mouth another, his mouth is the one that's got it wrong.
QuoteSo, as a lawyer, words matter. If someone's actions don't match their words, you say that. You can point to an inconsistency or discrepancy. But it's foolish to say that someone is saying things they know to be untrue. After all, humanity's abilities in self-deception are quite amazing.
So it is foolishto say that X "is saying things they know to be untrue" but wise to say "X is saying this, but their actions prove their words false?" That's foolish garbon-level nitpicking. I'll stick to the clearer language, thanks.
Your language is anything but clear. Even here at one point you talk about actions not meeting words, but then go back to 'saying things they know to be untrue'.
Yes - it is foolish to say that you know somebody is lying unless you can read their mind, or have other direct evidence about what they are thinking. That is far from nitpicking.
Quote from: grumbler
Your anecdote is not relevant to the discussion.
I'm sorry you couldn't see the relevance of my anecdote. :(
Quote from: Viking on October 02, 2013, 06:49:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 02:02:29 PM
Catholic means universal, or comprehensive. It does not mean singular or identical. So in having a universal church, the Church attempts to encompass all of mankind. In doing so it allows for tremendous diversity! Just look at the wide variety of catholic orders, of differing rites and services, or differing national churches.
There are comparitively few areas where the Church proclaims to have THE TRUTH(tm) in all caps. For much of the human condition the Church does not proclaim to have a single, universal true answer.
And now you have turned the whole nature of the church on it's head. The doctines, dogma and teachings of the church are THE TRUTH (tm) and the church does have a single, universal "true" answer on all topics relating to the god, morals, the soul and the meaning of life. This encompasses virtually all parts of the human condition apart from technical details.
Where exactly do you get your knowledge of catholicism from, anyways? Because it's just so flawed. You continue to treat the Catholic church like a bunch of fundy bible-thumpers, when that's pretty far from the truth.
I see you have skipped away from your attempted "gotcha" on what the word "catholic" means.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F3yu9l.jpg&hash=72302cce849920a02cd786c9674e3d516f724c0a) (http://imgflip.com/i/3yu9l)via Imgflip Meme Maker (http://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F3yubd.jpg&hash=010f7db319f6e755486dae6dfb6011c5af2f0d1f) (http://imgflip.com/i/3yubd)via Imgflip Meme Maker (http://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F3yucg.jpg&hash=09a4040e269f532b2e70126a34845cb73a8497f4) (http://imgflip.com/i/3yucg)via Imgflip Meme Maker (http://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
Tamas is a weirdo.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 11:57:21 AM
Tamas is a weirdo.
I just remembered this meme-generator site. :sleep:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F3yuhn.jpg&hash=8b1ab6c1f5c6a497bdd21e0743836804069dee02) (http://imgflip.com/i/3yuhn)via Imgflip Meme Maker (http://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F3yuk8.jpg&hash=d37fc86dc51f4b02d4e8042f2d6a8924ccd52019)
Quote from: Tamas on October 02, 2013, 12:00:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2013, 11:57:21 AM
Tamas is a weirdo.
I just remembered this meme-generator site. :sleep:
You should focus on telling us about the latest AGEOD games.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2013, 11:50:39 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 02, 2013, 06:49:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 02:02:29 PM
Catholic means universal, or comprehensive. It does not mean singular or identical. So in having a universal church, the Church attempts to encompass all of mankind. In doing so it allows for tremendous diversity! Just look at the wide variety of catholic orders, of differing rites and services, or differing national churches.
There are comparitively few areas where the Church proclaims to have THE TRUTH(tm) in all caps. For much of the human condition the Church does not proclaim to have a single, universal true answer.
And now you have turned the whole nature of the church on it's head. The doctines, dogma and teachings of the church are THE TRUTH (tm) and the church does have a single, universal "true" answer on all topics relating to the god, morals, the soul and the meaning of life. This encompasses virtually all parts of the human condition apart from technical details.
Where exactly do you get your knowledge of catholicism from, anyways? Because it's just so flawed. You continue to treat the Catholic church like a bunch of fundy bible-thumpers, when that's pretty far from the truth.
I see you have skipped away from your attempted "gotcha" on what the word "catholic" means.
sigh, history books. If you haven't managed to comprehend the central point we atheists here are trying to beat into your thick skull is that the catholic church is a organization peddling what it calls a universal, eternal and unchanging truth which changes with each advance in science and social mores. What you are apologizing is the latest god in a gap with acceptable social attitudes. Every pope has had a different one. The changing nature of this presentation of absolute truth is not consistent with any claim of special knowledge and the number of 180s the church has performed over time is not consistent with a better understanding of the nature of god. We know from science that 180s only happen when we know nothing about a field. In developed fields the evolving understandings about the nature of the universe usually do not change or alter previous knowledge but rather refine it.
Quote from: Viking on October 02, 2013, 12:21:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2013, 11:50:39 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 02, 2013, 06:49:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2013, 02:02:29 PM
Catholic means universal, or comprehensive. It does not mean singular or identical. So in having a universal church, the Church attempts to encompass all of mankind. In doing so it allows for tremendous diversity! Just look at the wide variety of catholic orders, of differing rites and services, or differing national churches.
There are comparitively few areas where the Church proclaims to have THE TRUTH(tm) in all caps. For much of the human condition the Church does not proclaim to have a single, universal true answer.
And now you have turned the whole nature of the church on it's head. The doctines, dogma and teachings of the church are THE TRUTH (tm) and the church does have a single, universal "true" answer on all topics relating to the god, morals, the soul and the meaning of life. This encompasses virtually all parts of the human condition apart from technical details.
Where exactly do you get your knowledge of catholicism from, anyways? Because it's just so flawed. You continue to treat the Catholic church like a bunch of fundy bible-thumpers, when that's pretty far from the truth.
I see you have skipped away from your attempted "gotcha" on what the word "catholic" means.
sigh, history books. If you haven't managed to comprehend the central point we atheists here are trying to beat into your thick skull is that the catholic church is a organization peddling what it calls a universal, eternal and unchanging truth which changes with each advance in science and social mores. What you are apologizing is the latest god in a gap with acceptable social attitudes. Every pope has had a different one. The changing nature of this presentation of absolute truth is not consistent with any claim of special knowledge and the number of 180s the church has performed over time is not consistent with a better understanding of the nature of god. We know from science that 180s only happen when we know nothing about a field. In developed fields the evolving understandings about the nature of the universe usually do not change or alter previous knowledge but rather refine it.
Perhaps you should give up. You are even getting people like myself to side with the Catholic Church.
You are a Republican garbon, that's basically the same thing.
Every time I see this thread I'm reminded of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEKyx_eTxBQ
Quote from: Tamas on October 02, 2013, 01:08:21 PM
You are a Republican garbon, that's basically the same thing.
:console:
Quote from: Viking on October 02, 2013, 12:21:08 PM
sigh, history books. If you haven't managed to comprehend the central point we atheists here are trying to beat into your thick skull is that the catholic church is a organization peddling what it calls a universal, eternal and unchanging truth which changes with each advance in science and social mores. What you are apologizing is the latest god in a gap with acceptable social attitudes. Every pope has had a different one. The changing nature of this presentation of absolute truth is not consistent with any claim of special knowledge and the number of 180s the church has performed over time is not consistent with a better understanding of the nature of god. We know from science that 180s only happen when we know nothing about a field. In developed fields the evolving understandings about the nature of the universe usually do not change or alter previous knowledge but rather refine it.
History books, while fascinating, are a really poor place to learn about the Catholic Church. Perhaps that is your problem. :hmm:
The Catholic Church has relatively few absolute truths. They certainly do say say certain things are absolute truths - like the trinity, the bible and the "sacred traditions", and the Assumption of Mary. But not everything the Church says or does is considered to be infallible or incapable of error. You are trying to hold the RCC to a standard of absolute perfection which the RCC does not claim for itself.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2013, 01:15:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 02, 2013, 12:21:08 PM
sigh, history books. If you haven't managed to comprehend the central point we atheists here are trying to beat into your thick skull is that the catholic church is a organization peddling what it calls a universal, eternal and unchanging truth which changes with each advance in science and social mores. What you are apologizing is the latest god in a gap with acceptable social attitudes. Every pope has had a different one. The changing nature of this presentation of absolute truth is not consistent with any claim of special knowledge and the number of 180s the church has performed over time is not consistent with a better understanding of the nature of god. We know from science that 180s only happen when we know nothing about a field. In developed fields the evolving understandings about the nature of the universe usually do not change or alter previous knowledge but rather refine it.
History books, while fascinating, are a really poor place to learn about the Catholic Church. Perhaps that is your problem. :hmm:
The Catholic Church has relatively few absolute truths. They certainly do say say certain things are absolute truths - like the trinity, the bible and the "sacred traditions", and the Assumption of Mary. But not everything the Church says or does is considered to be infallible or incapable of error. You are trying to hold the RCC to a standard of absolute perfection which the RCC does not claim for itself.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20080430054507%2Fwikiality%2Fimages%2Fc%2Fc8%2FBurningwitches.gif&hash=f902bd056001ee9cb86b1f7676eab071a1182d08)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.dipity.com%2Fuploads%2Fevents%2F8aacfe17290de208df061f42475f4638_1M.png&hash=e80b9167bba3e6a951915613ffcab61309258da1)
etc
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQIddDJJ.jpg&hash=455969f189b96460f1a23f75a1272b275ed2307e)
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2013, 11:48:02 AM
You were very obviously referencing perjury, what with the reference to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", and then referencing my profession.
No, I was not. I was referencing the truth, and the fact that you deal with liars all the time, know they are lying, and yet cannot read their minds. This applies more, i am sure, in investigations than in trials.
QuoteYour language is anything but clear. Even here at one point you talk about actions not meeting words, but then go back to 'saying things they know to be untrue'.
I have no idea what this is critiquing. yes, I use different words for different things, and sometimes alternate words for the same thing (see what I did there?)
QuoteYes - it is foolish to say that you know somebody is lying unless you can read their mind, or have other direct evidence about what they are thinking. That is far from nitpicking.
Lying isn't a matter of a state of mind. Lying is telling an untruth. You don't have to read minds to know when someone is lying. In this case, the Pope's statement that he is "the poor serving the poor" is obviously wrong. Look at where he lives, how he dresses, the transportation he has access to... none of those are attributes of the poor. That is far fro a foolish observation. What is foolish is thinking that it takes mind reading to see that the Pope is not poor.
I've danced long enough with this tar baby. I'm tapping out.
grumbler, because I know you want it, feel free to have the last word. :)
Wow, that was all so entertaining.
Throw him in the barrister patch, grumbler!
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 02, 2013, 03:09:11 PM
Throw him in the barrister patch, grumbler!
Okay. :lol:
Nice turn of phrase, btw.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2013, 11:50:39 AM
Where exactly do you get your knowledge of catholicism from, anyways? Because it's just so flawed. You continue to treat the Catholic church like a bunch of fundy bible-thumpers, when that's pretty far from the truth.
I see you have skipped away from your attempted "gotcha" on what the word "catholic" means.
It's like a 19th Century Protestant polemic :mellow:
And the key really is there's very little the Church has said is the Truth (capital T). The famous example is that there's over 800 pages of genuinely groundbreaking theology in the documents of Vatican II. Among them is not one change or abolition of doctrine - the Church can't do that - and the only addition is that Mary officially got the title 'Mother of the Church', though it's been in use since the third century.
On the 'poor church for the poor' stream I think there's a few key points.
The first is that the Church is a church. It shouldn't be judged for failing on material objects because that's not what it's trying to do. The Church's primary mission amongst the poor is evangelism and acting as a church - the sacraments and so on. In addition to that it provides an enormous amount of charitable services all over the world. But that is an addition. As Francis put it within the first week of his election, 'without Christ the Church is a compassionate NGO'. That's not the point.
Secondly I think the word 'poor' has a slightly different meaning for the Church, and especially for Francis. He told a congregation of young people at World Youth Day to 'read the beatitudes: that will do you good. If you want to know exactly what to do, read Matthew 25, which is the standard by which we will be judged. With these two things, you have the action plan: the beatitudes and Matthew 25. You do not need to read anything else. I ask you this with all my heart.' The first Beatitude is 'blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven'. I think given the importance Francis has attached to the Beatitudes it's not strained to say that he very much intends a double meaning - he's not just a Catholic after all, and that's what the Church does with the Bible, but he's a Jesuit.
Thirdly I think he understands 'Church' in a slightly different way than we're used to. Francis is the first Pope I can think of who has returned to the Vatican II emphasis that the Church is the 'People of God'. It's not necessarily just the institutional Church and shouldn't be understood as synonymous with the hierarchy. So I think Francis is meaning this for all Catholics - to be poor and for the poor.
Today he went to celebrate St. Francis's feast day in Assisi and was with a group of the poor who are served by local Catholic charities in the Room of Renunciation (where St. Francis stripped himself of his possessions). Again, here's Rocco Palmo:
QuoteAcknowledging that "this is a good moment to invite the church to strip itself," Francis clarified the thought by adding that – for the church to "strip itself" – "the church is all of us!"
"But what must the church strip itself of?" he asked. Replying with another of his frequently-cited concepts, "it must strip itself today of a gravest of dangers, which threatens every person in the church, all: the danger of worldliness. The Christian cannot live together with the spirit of the world. Worldliness that brings us to vanity, to bullying, to pride. And this is an idol, it is not God. It's an idol! And idolatry is the strongest of sins!"
"Many of you have been stripped by this wild world, which doesn't give work, which doesn't help; which doesn't care that there are babies dying of hunger in the world; doesn't care if many families don't have enough to eat, don't have the dignity of [being able to] bring bread home; doesn't care that many people still need to flee slavery, hunger and escape to seek their freedom."
Francis cited a consequence of said worldliness: yesterday's shipwreck off the coast of Lampedusa, where the death-toll of African migrants seeking to reach the Italian island – which the Pope visited in July – is believed to have exceeded 200.
"It is a day of tears!" the pontiff said.
"It's rightly ridiculous that a Christian – a true Christian – that a priest, a sister, a bishop, a cardinal, that a Pope would want to go on the road of this worldliness," Francis said, terming it "a homicidal attachment.... It kills souls! It kills people! It kills the church!"
"Today, here, let us ask this grace for all Christians – that the Lord gives to all of us the courage to renounce ourselves, but not of 20 lira, to strip ourselves of the spirit of the world, which is leprosy, is the cancer of society! It's the cancer of the revelation of God! The spirit of the world is the enemy of Jesus Christ!"
The line about 'leprosy' is interesting. In the second interview he referred to 'a "court" mentality in the church which Francis termed "the leprosy of the papacy," admitting that church leaders were "often... narcissistic, flattered and badly excited by their courtiers."'