I was at a college Bible Study tonight (about 8 people), and we were covering a section in 1 Corinthians, in which Paul may be saying that men should have short hair for prayer, and that women should have long hair or possibly wear a veil or head covering.
Thus, they debated about whether women should wear a veil in Church. I said that regardless, the matter was not very important, the section looked like a choppy edit, and Paul's arguments were weak. Everybody was shocked and started throwing passages at me that I should give equal weight to any part of the Bible, and that I was on a "slippery slope". :lol:
I said that surely it is more important for me to listen to the life and words of Christ such as the commandment to love one another than to worry about the headgear on women or the ban on tattoos in Leviticus for that matter. Nor can I give equal authority to a whole text that has been continually edited and translated by the hand of Man thousands of years after the fact. The study ended silently with red faces. Am I on a slippery slope? :huh:
On the slippery slope TO ETERNAL DAMNATION.
Well, if they give equal weight to all parts of the Bible they must be doing some quite unpleasant things in their backyards. 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' and all that. You already mentioned Leviticus, which in many fields makes Talibans look positively modern and tolerant in comparison.
At the very least a Christian should always give preference to the New Testament over the Old, which is not compatible with giving equal weight to all parts of the Bible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2009, 02:37:22 AM
On the slippery slope TO ETERNAL DAMNATION.
Indeed! I could see it in their eyes. :D
Well exactly who are you to be decided which parts are important and which parts are not? Are you a theologian?
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 03:05:14 AM
Well exactly who are you to be decided which parts are important and which parts are not? Are you a theologian?
A Christian endowed with logic [and spirit] aided by tradition and Scripture. The theologian and I both follow Christ, who is the ultimate judge.
I yield that the theologian is well-read and possesses the tools better for Biblical interpretation, but I would be even more wary of him considering my wariness of the Bible. From a Scriptural point of view, Jesus shat on such "educated" people in comparison to prostitutes.
As an agnostic and a European, I find you to be on the slippery slope of going to Bible Study and therefore being ridiculed by a lot of people.
Kevin
Those men you claim are shat on by Jesus, have dedicated thier lives to him, and as such know him more closely then you, and to cite logic, logic is a tool, never let it get in the way of Faith. When the work they have done, meeting together, discussing the correct interpretation amongst hundreds, over centuries, is so readily dismissed as "continually edited ... thousands of years after the fact", what does that say about you? Is your mind more intouch with God then those who have dedicated thier service to him. What arrogance, what hubris, would actually make you think that you have any right to question it?
Or follow the path that most logic based arguments about god lead to: "I don't know."
Sometimes followed with, "It doesn't matter, I'll live a good live regardless"
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 04:13:49 AM
Those men you claim are shat on by Jesus, have dedicated thier lives to him, and as such know him more closely then you, and to cite logic, logic is a tool, never let it get in the way of Faith. When the work they have done, meeting together, discussing the correct interpretation amongst hundreds, over centuries, is so readily dismissed as "continually edited ... thousands of years after the fact", what does that say about you? Is your mind more intouch with God then those who have dedicated thier service to him. What arrogance, what hubris, would actually make you think that you have any right to question it?
Why not? Scholasticism has been discredited as an intellectual process for centuries now.
Dediction of "one's life to [Jesus]" gives one no more insight than simply reading the Bible, it seems to me. One doesn't know the topic of a biography more by repreated readings of the biography, if one reads it carefully the first time. It isn't like there are more words in the book the second time.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 02, 2009, 01:38:13 AMThe study ended silently with red faces.
Did any of them take pics of themselves in a hotel bathroom?
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2009, 05:10:40 AM
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 04:13:49 AM
Those men you claim are shat on by Jesus, have dedicated thier lives to him, and as such know him more closely then you, and to cite logic, logic is a tool, never let it get in the way of Faith. When the work they have done, meeting together, discussing the correct interpretation amongst hundreds, over centuries, is so readily dismissed as "continually edited ... thousands of years after the fact", what does that say about you? Is your mind more intouch with God then those who have dedicated thier service to him. What arrogance, what hubris, would actually make you think that you have any right to question it?
Why not? Scholasticism has been discredited as an intellectual process for centuries now.
Dediction of "one's life to [Jesus]" gives one no more insight than simply reading the Bible, it seems to me. One doesn't know the topic of a biography more by repreated readings of the biography, if one reads it carefully the first time. It isn't like there are more words in the book the second time.
The argument of the theologian is not based solely on the text of the bible, nor on simply the surrounding text. As such your Scholasticism reference has little to do with God and his worship. It simply undermines any "critical" anaylisis, "logic" along with it. Leaving only pure faith in God. The reason any true theologian has more weight than you, is that he, to some degree, acts as an envoy of God. A true theologian is of course a man of the cloth, and as a man of the cloth. Be he a priest, bishop or the Pope, if you are so lucky as to hear his words, you can subscribe far more to him then to your own thoughts.
How come so many Asian-Americans are devout Christians? :huh:
Like 90% of the ones I've known have been hardcore Protestants of some flavor.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 02, 2009, 01:38:13 AM
I said that surely it is more important for me to listen to the life and words of Christ such as the commandment to love one another than to worry about the headgear on women or the ban on tattoos in Leviticus for that matter. Nor can I give equal authority to a whole text that has been continually edited and translated by the hand of Man thousands of years after the fact. The study ended silently with red faces. Am I on a slippery slope? :huh:
No you are absolutely right and on the path to enlightenment. How can you even give equal authority to each of the gospels when they tell dramatically different stories? It seems to me only people who have not actually read the bible could claim they give every word equal authority. Besides what about the tons of translations and versions throughout the centuries?
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 04:13:49 AM
Those men you claim are shat on by Jesus, have dedicated thier lives to him, and as such know him more closely then you, and to cite logic, logic is a tool, never let it get in the way of Faith. When the work they have done, meeting together, discussing the correct interpretation amongst hundreds, over centuries, is so readily dismissed as "continually edited ... thousands of years after the fact", what does that say about you? Is your mind more intouch with God then those who have dedicated thier service to him. What arrogance, what hubris, would actually make you think that you have any right to question it?
What nonsense. How dare Jesus or any of the prophets go against the correct interpretation amongst hundreds of Jewish scholars and priests over the centuries. How arrogant were they? Are you seriously implying that the way to be religious is to trust conventional beliefs entirely?
This study group must have been Protestant.
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 05:40:50 AM
Leaving only pure faith in God.
So why bother reading the Bible at all then? Just have faith in God. No reason to strain your pretty little head with any thoughts or reflections of your own. I mean how arrogant is it to be a human and think for yourself? Clearly God did not design humans to do so.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 02, 2009, 08:28:46 AM
This study group must have been Protestant.
Evangelical or very conservative protestant. A more mainstream group would have been more responsive to his views. Instead they just got all outraged.
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2009, 05:45:50 AM
How come so many Asian-Americans are devout Christians? :huh:
Like 90% of the ones I've known have been hardcore Protestants of some flavor.
I suspect because they want to fit into American society so they convert to Christianity. It is the most rabid fundamentalist groups that recruit the most aggressively and thus more likely to be the ones to grab them up. But that is just a guess.
Quote from: Alatriste on April 02, 2009, 02:46:34 AM
You already mentioned Leviticus, which in many fields makes Talibans look positively modern and tolerant in comparison.
Remember everytime a woman finishes her period for the month she needs to kill two birds.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 08:34:43 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 02, 2009, 08:28:46 AM
This study group must have been Protestant.
Evangelical or very conservative protestant. A more mainstream group would have been more responsive to his views. Instead they just got all outraged.
Yeah. Evangelicals are big on the outrage and groupthink.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 08:33:47 AM
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 05:40:50 AM
Leaving only pure faith in God.
So why bother reading the Bible at all then? Just have faith in God. No reason to strain your pretty little head with any thoughts or reflections of your own. I mean how arrogant is it to be a human and think for yourself? Clearly God did not design humans to do so.
What reason is there to read the bible unless you are going to become a priest. You need to learn from the priest, not learn to teach to a flock.
If you truely wish to learn of the full majesty of gods works, then your first step should be full dedication to him, the Jesuits and Franciscans are ofcourse always looking for new members. I'd recomend the Jesuits, well known for thier 'frontier' ministry, they focus on spreading the Word, social justice, and human rights, and even to some degree interfaith relations, so you can hear what others have to say, prehaps in part God may talk through them.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 08:37:24 AMI suspect because they want to fit into American society so they convert to Christianity. It is the most rabid fundamentalist groups that recruit the most aggressively and thus more likely to be the ones to grab them up. But that is just a guess.
So it's kind of like being a wigger? :cool:
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 03:05:14 AM
Well exactly who are you to be decided which parts are important and which parts are not? Are you a theologian?
Depends. If he's a protestant, chances are that he's just as competant as anybody. If he's a Catholic, then the Bible isn't the end-all be-all of his spiritual life. If he's Orthodox, then he's a freak who needs to be purged with fire.
When I faked my conversion to Southern Baptist Protestantism and got married, I got a great spiel about how I was the priest and theologian for my house. Of course, I immediately reinterpreted the first commandment to mean that I shall have no other god before Myself.
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 08:52:12 AM
Of course, I immediately reinterpreted the first commandment to mean that I shall have no other god before Myself.
Neil is truly a righteous man.
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 08:48:31 AM
What reason is there to read the bible unless you are going to become a priest. You need to learn from the priest, not learn to teach to a flock.
If you truely wish to learn of the full majesty of gods works, then your first step should be full dedication to him, the Jesuits and Franciscans are ofcourse always looking for new members. I'd recomend the Jesuits, well known for thier 'frontier' ministry, they focus on spreading the Word, social justice, and human rights, and even to some degree interfaith relations, so you can hear what others have to say, prehaps in part God may talk through them.
Ah ok I think we understand each other. But even with this interpretation, and presuming he is a Catholic, he should be allowed and encouraged to voice his thoughts to his priest and have his questions answered.
However his church does not sound like a Catholic church, more like a evangelical or fundy protestant congregation.
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 08:52:12 AMWhen I faked my conversion to Southern Baptist Protestantism
:bleeding:
Why the fuck did you do that? Princesca's family is Southern Baptist but at no time have I ever pretended to convert to their insane, hateful religion. :)
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 08:56:03 AM
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 08:48:31 AM
What reason is there to read the bible unless you are going to become a priest. You need to learn from the priest, not learn to teach to a flock.
If you truely wish to learn of the full majesty of gods works, then your first step should be full dedication to him, the Jesuits and Franciscans are ofcourse always looking for new members. I'd recomend the Jesuits, well known for thier 'frontier' ministry, they focus on spreading the Word, social justice, and human rights, and even to some degree interfaith relations, so you can hear what others have to say, prehaps in part God may talk through them.
Ah ok I think we understand each other. But even with this interpretation, and presuming he is a Catholic, he should be allowed and encouraged to voice his thoughts to his priest and have his questions answered.
However his church does not sound like a Catholic church, more like a evangelical or fundy protestant congregation.
He is in a bible study class, so of course it sounds proty. He is east asian though, so I'll assume he has been raised proper, and will go to church to have his questions answered correctly, I of course can't answer them.
Primarily I was arguing against the concept that a layman could answer the questions.
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2009, 08:59:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 08:52:12 AMWhen I faked my conversion to Southern Baptist Protestantism
:bleeding:
Why the fuck did you do that? Princesca's family is Southern Baptist but at no time have I ever pretended to convert to their insane, hateful religion. :)
Her grandfather was high priest of the entire universe. There was no choice.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2009, 05:10:40 AMWhy not? Scholasticism has been discredited as an intellectual process for centuries now.
This may be true in general terms but theologically I think it's still very much alive. The basis of all Catholic theology is either Thomism or Scotism.
QuoteHowever his church does not sound like a Catholic church, more like a evangelical or fundy protestant congregation.
Indeed.
Anyway the idea of a Catholic Bible Study group seems like a ridiculous attempt at conformity to a Protestant mindset. Though I imagine 'Church Fathers Study' would be less popular. This week: the monophysite heresy!
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2009, 10:14:52 AM
Though I imagine 'Church Fathers Study' would be less popular. This week: the monophysite heresy!
Actually I would find that pretty cool. :blush:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2009, 10:14:52 AM
Anyway the idea of a Catholic Bible Study group seems like a ridiculous attempt at conformity to a Protestant mindset. Though I imagine 'Church Fathers Study' would be less popular. This week: the monophysite heresy!
Heh, reminds me of the time I was forced to take "Catholic lessons' in order to get married.
The priest was a charming old dude who looked sort of like a dapper Satan. When we begain the "lesson", he discovered I was interested in history and his face fairly lit up. We spent two hours a week enjoyably discussing various Medieval heresies, with a range and freedom that was quite refereshing - he had a lot to say about the Cathars and Bogomils I remember, and about hatred of the flesh and its influence on medieval Catholicism (being Ukranian Rite he was scathing about Catholic priestly celebacy). Also there was some significant difference in the hand gestures used in the blessing which escapes me now.
What this all had to do with the ostensible purpose of the visits I'm not sure, but it was lots of fun. More fun than the dreary stuff I was no doubt supposed to be getting, I'm sure.
The moral: bible study bad.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 02, 2009, 03:21:34 AM
I yield that the theologian is well-read and possesses the tools better for Biblical interpretation, but I would be even more wary of him considering my wariness of the Bible. From a Scriptural point of view, Jesus shat on such "educated" people in comparison to prostitutes.
Can I ask why you were at a
bible study group then? I've never been part of one but I'd imagine that other than being a mixer for Christian kids, it is also a place where the group reads the bible and thinks about what the passages mean. It seems rather puerile (and counterpurpose) to go to such a group and say that something (e.g. an interpretation of a parts of 1 Corinthians) they are discussing is unimportant. Why exactly would one do that?
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 10:56:23 AM
[Can I ask why you were at a bible study group then? I've never been part of one but I'd imagine that other than being a mixer for Christian kids, it is also a place where the group reads the bible and thinks about what the passages mean. It seems rather puerile (and counterpurpose) to go to such a group and say that something (e.g. an interpretation of a parts of 1 Corinthians) they are discussing is unimportant. Why exactly would one do that?
How is it puerile to share your thoughts on a bible passage? That is precisely the purpose in my mind. If you feel this passage is unimportant you should be free to give your reflections on it in a bible study.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 10:59:51 AM
How is it puerile to share your thoughts on a bible passage? That is precisely the purpose in my mind. If you feel this passage is unimportant you should be free to give your reflections on it in a bible study.
I think it might make sense to share that you don't really think that is what it meant (with regards to the veils). Critiquing Paul doesn't really seem appropriate as the Bible isn't really like non-religious texts where you can feel totally free to critique its writers and style. Beyond that, even if you felt it necessary to express that the passage wasn't very important, I hardly see how that excuses the following:
QuoteI said that surely it is more important for me to listen to the life and words of Christ such as the commandment to love one another than to worry about the headgear on women or the ban on tattoos in Leviticus for that matter. Nor can I give equal authority to a whole text that has been continually edited and translated by the hand of Man thousands of years after the fact.
By the time that you've gotten to that point, you should have already realized that you shouldn't be at a bible study group.
And I do think that it is puerile when a group of people decide to talk about x (in this case the interpretation) and then someone comes in and says that's not important. Witness Jos in Siege's metal thread. :)
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:06:49 AM
gotten to that point, you should have already realized that you shouldn't be at a bible study group.
I could not disagree with you more. The Bible is a very important book and not simply because you blindly accept ridiculous and obviously false claims about it.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:06:49 AM
By the time that you've gotten to that point, you should have already realized that you shouldn't be at a bible study group.
Why, it is through Bible study that we now know about the various iterations and edits to the Bible over time.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:08:18 AM
And I do think that it is puerile when a group of people decide to talk about x (in this case the interpretation) and then someone comes in and says that's not important. Witness Jos in Siege's metal thread. :)
Please show me where he said Bible study is not important. He gave his opinion on one particular verse.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 11:11:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:06:49 AM
gotten to that point, you should have already realized that you shouldn't be at a bible study group.
I could not disagree with you more. The Bible is a very important book and not simply because you blindly accept ridiculous and obviously false claims about it.
Quite right.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2009, 11:13:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:06:49 AM
By the time that you've gotten to that point, you should have already realized that you shouldn't be at a bible study group.
Why, it is through Bible study that we now know about the various iterations and edits to the Bible over time.
Not by anybody though. That's how you end up with Anabaptists taking over Munster! :o
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2009, 11:14:23 AM
Not by anybody though. That's how you end up with Anabaptists taking over Munster! :o
More Bible study is needed. :D
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:08:18 AM
And I do think that it is puerile when a group of people decide to talk about x (in this case the interpretation) and then someone comes in and says that's not important. Witness Jos in Siege's metal thread. :)
That's a MArty-level analogy. :(
It's a Bible study class and he suggests a particular passage isn't as important - he's not saying the whole Bible is not important.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 11:13:12 AM
Please show me where he said Bible study is not important. He gave his opinion on one particular verse.
I'm glad that you completely avoided what I said in favor of a strawman. :)
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 11:11:48 AM
I could not disagree with you more. The Bible is a very important book and not simply because you blindly accept ridiculous and obviously false claims about it.
Is that what you think a college bible study group is? A place where college students uncover truth?
Quote from: Barrister on April 02, 2009, 11:16:48 AM
That's a MArty-level analogy. :(
It's a Bible study class and he suggests a particular passage isn't as important - he's not saying the whole Bible is not important.
I'm so glad then that I didn't say he said the Bible was unimportant. :)
Honestly, you people are making me feel like Berkut. L2Rthx.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:18:35 AM
Is that what you think a college bible study group is? A place where college students uncover truth?
It seems to me the whole point of the OP was that he thought it was and he was surprised when others viewed the group in the way you apparently do.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:19:34 AM
Honestly, you people are making me feel like Berkut. L2Rthx.
Learn to write.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:17:58 AM
I'm glad that you completely avoided what I said in favor of a strawman. :)
I didn't avoid anything I simply have no idea what your point is it seems.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:19:34 AM
Honestly, you people are making me feel like Berkut. L2Rthx.
Learn to communicate thanks.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2009, 11:20:54 AM
It seems to me the whole point of the OP was that he thought it was and he was surprised when others viewed the group in the way you apparently do.
Because he was being an asshole. People are discussing something (once again, that interpretation of that passage in 1 Corinthians) and then he comes and tells them that what they are talking about is unimportant and likely the result of poor editing. I don't really see why one would expect a positive reaction from a group of kids discussing the bible. Then to add insult to injury, he grandstands by saying that he feels that it is important to think about the life of Christ and his message then to worry about the detailed prohibitions throughout the text...ending with the often anti-Christian retort that the book was written by, and has been mangled by man.
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2009, 05:45:50 AM
How come so many Asian-Americans are devout Christians? :huh:
Like 90% of the ones I've known have been hardcore Protestants of some flavor.
Maybe they have more opportunities to move to the US.
Is this another Pdox double thread?
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 11:25:29 AM
Because he was being an asshole. People are discussing something (once again, that interpretation of that passage in 1 Corinthians) and then he comes and tells them that what they are talking about is unimportant and likely the result of poor editing. I don't really see why one would expect a positive reaction from a group of kids discussing the bible. Then to add insult to injury, he grandstands by saying that he feels that it is important to think about the life of Christ and his message then to worry about the detailed prohibitions throughout the text...ending with the often anti-Christian retort that the book was written by, and has been mangled by man.
He is being an asshole for offering an interpretive view? So you suggest that when going to a bible study group one should only adhere to a strictly literalist interpretation because that is the only way to interpret the Bible? You are several decades behind the theological work in this area.
There is no doubt in my mind that Pee-Vee knows better than God.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2009, 11:32:33 AMHe is being an asshole for offering an interpretive view? So you suggest that when going to a bible study group one should only adhere to a strictly literalist interpretation because that is the only way to interpret the Bible? You are several decades behind the theological work in this area.
Are you familiar with evangelical Christian Bible-study? Yes, that's exactly what you should do. My mother-in-law does Bible study with her Southern Baptist church and babbles on about it non-stop. The point is not to critically analyze the Bible but rather dissect some obscure passage and get to its "true" meaning and how that applies to everyone's life.
Everyone in the room is already a devout believer and the point of the class is neither to convince or cast doubt in anyone's mind about the validity of what's written in the Bible.
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2009, 11:42:13 AM
Everyone in the room is already a devout believer and the point of the class is neither to convince or cast doubt in anyone's mind about the validity of what's written in the Bible.
The purpose of interpreting the bible in the manner I have suggested is not to convince people the Bible is invalid. Indeed, it is more likely to convince people that it is more valid since it gives a more rational explanation for why things were written in the way they were.
Far from being an "asshole" for suggesting it, he was furthering the discussion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2009, 11:46:33 AMThe purpose of interpreting the bible in the manner I have suggested is not to convince people the Bible is invalid. Indeed, it is more likely to convince people that it is more valid since it gives a more rational explanation for why things were written in the way they were.
Far from being an "asshole" for suggesting it, he was furthering the discussion.
Yes, correct, that is in fact the point of these classes... but I don't think questions like he raised come up very often. Then again, based on who my mother-in-law mentions having attended these classes, most people there are unintelligent and uneducated. :(
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2009, 11:29:18 AM
Is this another Pdox double thread?
It's actually not a pdox double, since pdox banned religion, it though featured on the P-dox backup.
Anyway, bible studies. They shouldn't be done.
But if they are done, no matter your sect, they should focus on what you can learn from a passage. Your role is not to teach others at this point, my prior comments about priests and flocks, but to help yourself. You can share your learnings with others, but do not tell others what they should do, you, the flawed being you are, are in no position.
I once more say, bible study, without a man of the cloth should not be done. It too often leads away from, instead of towards faith.
Letters should never have been made part of the New Testament. Reactionary crap.
Quote from: Syt on April 02, 2009, 12:44:39 PM
Letters should never have been made part of the New Testament. Reactionary crap.
Don't be a hater, just because Paul knows how to treat a woman
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 12:24:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2009, 11:29:18 AM
Is this another Pdox double thread?
It's actually not a pdox double, since pdox banned religion, it though featured on the P-dox backup.
Anyway, bible studies. They shouldn't be done.
But if they are done, no matter your sect, they should focus on what you can learn from a passage. Your role is not to teach others at this point, my prior comments about priests and flocks, but to help yourself. You can share your learnings with others, but do not tell others what they should do, you, the flawed being you are, are in no position.
I once more say, bible study, without a man of the cloth should not be done. It too often leads away from, instead of towards faith.
A Catholic, perhaps?
Quote from: neilA Catholic, perhaps?
Yes?
I thought that was already established back on page 2.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2009, 11:32:33 AM
He is being an asshole for offering an interpretive view? So you suggest that when going to a bible study group one should only adhere to a strictly literalist interpretation because that is the only way to interpret the Bible? You are several decades behind the theological work in this area.
Yes, I think it is generally impolite to tell people that something they are discussing is unimportant.
I don't disagree with his sentiments but that doesn't make it right to spew them at people. If you want to disrupt feel-good, group unity then be prepared to be ostracized.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 08:21:51 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 02, 2009, 01:38:13 AM
I said that surely it is more important for me to listen to the life and words of Christ such as the commandment to love one another than to worry about the headgear on women or the ban on tattoos in Leviticus for that matter. Nor can I give equal authority to a whole text that has been continually edited and translated by the hand of Man thousands of years after the fact. The study ended silently with red faces. Am I on a slippery slope? :huh:
No you are absolutely right and on the path to enlightenment. How can you even give equal authority to each of the gospels when they tell dramatically different stories? It seems to me only people who have not actually read the bible could claim they give every word equal authority. Besides what about the tons of translations and versions throughout the centuries?
I totally agree with Phillip and Valmy, Christ, his words, works and life is far more important than the bits Paul tacked on at the end.
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 12:24:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2009, 11:29:18 AM
Is this another Pdox double thread?
It's actually not a pdox double, since pdox banned religion, it though featured on the P-dox backup.
Anyway, bible studies. They shouldn't be done.
But if they are done, no matter your sect, they should focus on what you can learn from a passage. Your role is not to teach others at this point, my prior comments about priests and flocks, but to help yourself. You can share your learnings with others, but do not tell others what they should do, you, the flawed being you are, are in no position.
I once more say, bible study, without a man of the cloth should not be done. It too often leads away from, instead of towards faith.
You inspired me to look to see if Bart Ehrman has any new books out. Turns out he does "Jesus Interrupted". You shouldnt read it though. It might fill your head with questions that can't easily be answered. After all studying the Bible lead poor Bart astray.
For the rest of you here is the link.
http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061173936&wt.mc_id=pub_wm_av
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2009, 01:42:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 08:21:51 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 02, 2009, 01:38:13 AM
I said that surely it is more important for me to listen to the life and words of Christ such as the commandment to love one another than to worry about the headgear on women or the ban on tattoos in Leviticus for that matter. Nor can I give equal authority to a whole text that has been continually edited and translated by the hand of Man thousands of years after the fact. The study ended silently with red faces. Am I on a slippery slope? :huh:
No you are absolutely right and on the path to enlightenment. How can you even give equal authority to each of the gospels when they tell dramatically different stories? It seems to me only people who have not actually read the bible could claim they give every word equal authority. Besides what about the tons of translations and versions throughout the centuries?
I totally agree with Phillip and Valmy, Christ, his words, works and life is far more important than the bits Paul tacked on at the end.
Don't you think that if God agreed with you he would have miracled Paul's shit out of the fucking Bible?
no. God gave us free will so he's not responsible for anything.
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 01:00:28 PM
Quote from: neilA Catholic, perhaps?
Yes?
I thought that was already established back on page 2.
Well, to a protestant, I would be considered a man of the cloth every bit the equal of a Catholic priest. Thus, the distinction of a 'man of the cloth' is meaningless as an approach to who should be leading a Bible study.
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 12:24:59 PM
I once more say, bible study, without a man of the cloth should not be done. It too often leads away from, instead of towards faith.
So true....
Aren't you just cherrypicking if you don't demand that women veil themselves? I recognize that suddenly most Protestants become interpretationalists when some crazy shit like that comes up, but still.
I have always thought it's funny how much of the Bible is clearly the work of the Ancient Near East, and yet people try to apply it to the modern day.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 02, 2009, 03:10:28 PM
Aren't you just cherrypicking if you don't demand that women veil themselves? I recognize that suddenly most Protestants become interpretationalists when some crazy shit like that comes up, but still.
I have always thought it's funny how much of the Bible is clearly the work of the Ancient Near East, and yet people try to apply it to the modern day.
It is only cherrypicking if you take the Bible to be some sort of unerrant word of God. But any reasonable person with any familiarity with the Bible and its history knows that is false. You might believe that it was written under some sort of divine inspiration.
From a spiritual perspective and the experiences and thoughts are very relevent to today. I think the transformation of understanding the Jews had returning from the Babylonian exile and processing their experiences, and the sudden change of Jewish thought from a religion bound by a tribe and a specific location-very traditional-to a universal and unlimited idea of God and humanity is very powerful from both a spiritual point of view and a historical one. Some things about the human experience are pretty eternal...but yes I think it is silly to try to think and act as if we were a member of an ancient near eastern tribe. But that is scarcely the point, IMO.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2009, 02:17:44 PM
Snip
I'm sorry for being late to respond, I had to walk back from a store.
I must be missreading you, as I fail to see the relevence of your post. It has already been mentioned that the bible has been edited, by men, while knowledgable, clergy are still flawed. As such of course contradictions will occur, but they don't effect day to day lives on layman, they are not too uncommon, a few pop up ever century. I don't see why simply allowing the church the ability to discuss such matters in council is a bad thing.
Prehaps you can help me on that.
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 03:30:13 PM
I'm sorry for being late to respond, I had to walk back from a store.
I must be missreading you, as I fail to see the relevence of your post. It has already been mentioned that the bible has been edited, by men, while knowledgable, clergy are still flawed. As such of course contradictions will occur, but they don't effect day to day lives on layman, they are not too uncommon, a few pop up ever century. I don't see why simply allowing the church the ability to discuss such matters in council is a bad thing.
Prehaps you can help me on that.
I understood you to say that people ought not to study the Bible for themselves. Please direct yourself to my criticism of that view.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2009, 03:33:03 PM
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 03:30:13 PM
I'm sorry for being late to respond, I had to walk back from a store.
I must be missreading you, as I fail to see the relevence of your post. It has already been mentioned that the bible has been edited, by men, while knowledgable, clergy are still flawed. As such of course contradictions will occur, but they don't effect day to day lives on layman, they are not too uncommon, a few pop up ever century. I don't see why simply allowing the church the ability to discuss such matters in council is a bad thing.
Prehaps you can help me on that.
I understood you to say that people ought not to study the Bible for themselves. Please direct yourself to my criticism of that view.
You referenced contradictions that exist in the Bible, I'll assume all of Bart Ehrman's point are true, it doesn't actually matter.
You still have not offered any reason why theology should not be a particular thing to clergy.
Nor have you argued any counter point to Clergy being closer to god, than a layman.
So I still fail to see the relevence of your posts unless you are willing to argue atleast one of those points.
Do you have a reason for why people should not study the Bible other then they might be lead astray. Do you think that no one other then the Clergy should read it? Do you think the Clergy infallable?
In what respect are clergy closer to God? Is this true of all clergy of all the faiths in the world or only some?
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 05:40:50 AM
The argument of the theologian is not based solely on the text of the bible, nor on simply the surrounding text. As such your Scholasticism reference has little to do with God and his worship. It simply undermines any "critical" anaylisis, "logic" along with it. Leaving only pure faith in God. The reason any true theologian has more weight than you, is that he, to some degree, acts as an envoy of God. A true theologian is of course a man of the cloth, and as a man of the cloth. Be he a priest, bishop or the Pope, if you are so lucky as to hear his words, you can subscribe far more to him then to your own thoughts.
I actually have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Faith requires no learning at all. I would be a moron to place more value inthe words of a Pope than in the faith I feel myself, because no Pope knows me as well as I do.
All that the pope, priests, bishops, etc have is an artificial position created by other men, not by any gods. If gods exist, they do not need to filter their words through intermediaries. They can communicate directly with me at any time. Whatever truths religions contain, they are subjective truths, not objective ones. Which is to say that, if salvation occurs, it occurs to the individual.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2009, 04:23:01 PM
If gods exist, they do not need to filter their words through intermediaries. They can communicate directly with me at any time.
Of course, it is entirely possible that they do not want to.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 04:24:31 PM
Of course, it is entirely possible that they do not want to.
Of course, it is also entirely possible that they do not want any priests or popes to claim the right to interpret their words as well.
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 03:46:08 PM
You still have not offered any reason why theology should not be a particular thing to clergy.
He doesn't have to. The idea that theology is uniquely the property of the clergy is an ancient, outdated idea that isn't held to by any of the more modern Christian sects. The idea that only a particular group of persons has any ability to make a sole claim to an area of intellectual pursuit is extraordinary, and it is the person who is making extraordinary claims who must have an extraordinarily convincing argument for those claims.
QuoteNor have you argued any counter point to Clergy being closer to god, than a layman.
All humans have sinned, and all sins are equally detestable to god. God has elevated all believers to priesthood (1 Peter 2:9), and any attempt for one group to arrogate themselves a higher place is sinful pride.
Only I am perfect and without sin. Only I can judge who is evil and who is righteous.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2009, 04:34:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 04:24:31 PM
Of course, it is entirely possible that they do not want to.
Of course, it is also entirely possible that they do not want any priests or popes to claim the right to interpret their words as well.
Indeed. Who do you believe is greater: Yourself, or those ancient prophets who the god allegedly spoke to?
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2009, 11:42:13 AM
Everyone in the room is already a devout believer and the point of the class is neither to convince or cast doubt in anyone's mind about the validity of what's written in the Bible.
A surprising number of free-thinkers are born of intelligent, often innocent, questions raised in Bible study. At the end of the day the Bible doesn't make a lot of sense. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out, you just have to realize that you're not the only one in the room who doesn't understand how a given passage can possibly mesh with common sense morality and ask about it. Stumping Bible study teachers is like shooting fish in a barrel, most of them have never given these passages a moment's real thought.
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 04:43:20 PM
Indeed. Who do you believe is greater: Yourself, or those ancient prophets who the god allegedly spoke to?
The former seems like it would lead you quickly to heresy.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2009, 04:48:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 04:43:20 PM
Indeed. Who do you believe is greater: Yourself, or those ancient prophets who the god allegedly spoke to?
The former seems like it would lead you quickly to heresy.
Indeed. And that's the idea that Protestantism is based on.
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 04:43:20 PM
Indeed. Who do you believe is greater: Yourself, or those ancient prophets who the god allegedly spoke to?
Given that i don't believe in the latter, not a contest. If I was religious, though, I would have to say that charting my own course towards salvation was a better bet than following the course of people from a different time and culture, whose answers to "as you would wish others to do unto you" would be so very different. Especially since I wouldn't be all that sure that they had, indeed, obtained "salvation."
Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 04:44:32 PM
At the end of the day the Bible doesn't make a lot of sense.
It makes a great deal of sense. A bunch of people put their thoughts down on their religion through the centuries. What in there does not make sense? Naturally not all of them thought the same thing about every single issue. I mean the latter people were writing at the close of the Hellenistic age and the earlier ones were writing way back in the Iron Age. Naturally they are going to see things differently.
And if you are Jewish and have access to the Talmud, it just keeps going reinterpreting everything from the next generations perspectives and experiences.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 05:02:18 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 04:44:32 PM
At the end of the day the Bible doesn't make a lot of sense.
It makes a great deal of sense. A bunch of people put their thoughts down on their religion through the centuries. What in there does not make sense? Naturally not all of them thought the same thing about every single issue. I mean the latter people were writing at the close of the Hellenistic age and the earlier ones were writing way back in the Iron Age. Naturally they are going to see things differently.
And if you are Jewish and have access to the Talmud, it just keeps going reinterpreting everything from the next generations perspectives and experiences.
Yes, if you look at it in the context in which it is written it makes perfect sense (and is immensely valuable, both as a quasi-historical document and as a work of literature), but that's not what they're doing. If you take it as the literal dictation of God it's the ravings of a sociopathic madman (maddeity?).
This is like the Battlestar Galactica thread. :)
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 03:21:25 PM
From a spiritual perspective and the experiences and thoughts are very relevent to today. I think the transformation of understanding the Jews had returning from the Babylonian exile and processing their experiences, and the sudden change of Jewish thought from a religion bound by a tribe and a specific location-very traditional-to a universal and unlimited idea of God and humanity is very powerful from both a spiritual point of view and a historical one. Some things about the human experience are pretty eternal...but yes I think it is silly to try to think and act as if we were a member of an ancient near eastern tribe. But that is scarcely the point, IMO.
Heh. If you don't think the point is to act like a Near Eastern tribe, I can introduce you to a friend who doesn't think she can get divorce even if abused.
Quote from: Tamas on April 02, 2009, 05:15:48 PM
This is like the Battlestar Galactica thread. :)
Now that you mention it... :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2009, 04:59:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 04:43:20 PM
Indeed. Who do you believe is greater: Yourself, or those ancient prophets who the god allegedly spoke to?
Given that i don't believe in the latter, not a contest. If I was religious, though, I would have to say that charting my own course towards salvation was a better bet than following the course of people from a different time and culture, whose answers to "as you would wish others to do unto you" would be so very different. Especially since I wouldn't be all that sure that they had, indeed, obtained "salvation."
That's impossible to say. If you were religious, you'd be accepting that some larger, more powerful force (a god) has sovereignty over you. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that your willingness to submit to authority would extend to a priesthood or a particular doctrine? After all, virtually all religious people do so.
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 05:54:37 PM
[That's impossible to say. If you were religious, you'd be accepting that some larger, more powerful force (a god) has sovereignty over you. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that your willingness to submit to authority would extend to a priesthood or a particular doctrine? After all, virtually all religious people do so.
That is, as you note, impossible to say. It is like asking if I would submit to humans being ruled by aliens if they landed tomorrow and promised universal happiness if all humans just submitted to their superior wisdom.
In the end, it is just Neils all the way down, if you start down this path.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2009, 06:49:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 05:54:37 PM
[That's impossible to say. If you were religious, you'd be accepting that some larger, more powerful force (a god) has sovereignty over you. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that your willingness to submit to authority would extend to a priesthood or a particular doctrine? After all, virtually all religious people do so.
That is, as you note, impossible to say. It is like asking if I would submit to humans being ruled by aliens if they landed tomorrow and promised universal happiness if all humans just submitted to their superior wisdom.
In the end, it is just Neils all the way down, if you start down this path.
Not a perfect analogy. After all, you'd still be you if aliens landed tomorrow. Your thought processes would still work the same way. However, Religious grumbler would think a different way, to the point where it would be difficult for you to say what he would do, especially because of your extremely close relationship with the current you. You're very invested in your current thought processes since, after all, they're yours.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2009, 04:07:58 PM
Do you have a reason for why people should not study the Bible other then they might be lead astray. Do you think that no one other then the Clergy should read it? Do you think the Clergy infallable?
Honeslty by that point I was pretty much out of any arguments, I'm not really used to having to a give a "real" faith based argument, it's a little bit hard.
Anyway try going back to my comment on page one and read the part grumbler didn't quote, actually I'll qoute the relevent part to you.
"Or follow the path that most logic based arguments about god lead to: "I don't know."
Sometimes followed with, "It doesn't matter, I'll live a good live regardless""
Hopefully Things make a bit moresense now, if they don't I've stopped caring.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2009, 04:17:17 PM
In what respect are clergy closer to God? Is this true of all clergy of all the faiths in the world or only some?
I think only the Catholic ones - in some sense - given that that's part of Catholic doctrine.
Most others are more learned than most people, which is a good thing as you can emphasise what matters and what doesn't matter so much. Especially if you have a few centuries of tradition and thinking to back you up.
Some are just more charismatic than most people.
Doctrinally? I was always taught that full weight should only be given to quotes from the Godhead; also, Paul and John were apparently fond of addressing churches in code, so their words specifically needed to be dissected a little further.
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 06:57:50 PM
Not a perfect analogy. After all, you'd still be you if aliens landed tomorrow. Your thought processes would still work the same way. However, Religious grumbler would think a different way, to the point where it would be difficult for you to say what he would do, especially because of your extremely close relationship with the current you. You're very invested in your current thought processes since, after all, they're yours.
I guess my point is that I can imagine you as the Supreme Being a lot easier than I can imagine a non-responsive entity as such. You respond to posts. That is the minimum I would expect of a deity (and, thus, DGullible sacrifices godhood :P).
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 08:37:24 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2009, 05:45:50 AM
How come so many Asian-Americans are devout Christians? :huh:
Like 90% of the ones I've known have been hardcore Protestants of some flavor.
I suspect because they want to fit into American society so they convert to Christianity. It is the most rabid fundamentalist groups that recruit the most aggressively and thus more likely to be the ones to grab them up. But that is just a guess.
I don't think that's it. Many Asians immigrate to America because of their Christianity. There's large Christian communities all over Asia but I think they appreciate the freedom to worship that America affords.
Quote from: Eochaid on April 02, 2009, 04:13:09 AM
As an agnostic and a European, I find you to be on the slippery slope of going to Bible Study and therefore being ridiculed by a lot of people.
Kevin
He'll just have to refrain from debating religion with a Grande Ecole alum.
Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 04:44:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2009, 11:42:13 AM
Everyone in the room is already a devout believer and the point of the class is neither to convince or cast doubt in anyone's mind about the validity of what's written in the Bible.
A surprising number of free-thinkers are born of intelligent, often innocent, questions raised in Bible study.
And hence Magnus' admonition not to engage in such questions.
The argument that one should not be allowed or should be discouraged from engaging in thinking about God absent a "trained professional" there to make sure you don't think too much is one of my very favorite religious memes.
Fucking Luther - he messed the entire thing up, what with translating the bible and all that nonsense!
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2009, 05:45:50 AM
How come so many Asian-Americans are devout Christians? :huh:
Like 90% of the ones I've known have been hardcore Protestants of some flavor.
Cultural inferiority complex coupled with misunderstanding of our culture. Asians often take concepts originating from the Western civilization that we, by now, have grown to consider rather lame and embarrassing, and consider them uber cool. Just look at Japan.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 03:21:25 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 02, 2009, 03:10:28 PM
Aren't you just cherrypicking if you don't demand that women veil themselves? I recognize that suddenly most Protestants become interpretationalists when some crazy shit like that comes up, but still.
I have always thought it's funny how much of the Bible is clearly the work of the Ancient Near East, and yet people try to apply it to the modern day.
It is only cherrypicking if you take the Bible to be some sort of unerrant word of God. But any reasonable person with any familiarity with the Bible and its history knows that is false. You might believe that it was written under some sort of divine inspiration.
From a spiritual perspective and the experiences and thoughts are very relevent to today. I think the transformation of understanding the Jews had returning from the Babylonian exile and processing their experiences, and the sudden change of Jewish thought from a religion bound by a tribe and a specific location-very traditional-to a universal and unlimited idea of God and humanity is very powerful from both a spiritual point of view and a historical one. Some things about the human experience are pretty eternal...but yes I think it is silly to try to think and act as if we were a member of an ancient near eastern tribe. But that is scarcely the point, IMO.
The thing is, people like him are perfectly happy to rant about those prohibitions that do not concern them (e.g. saying that homosexuality is a sin) but those that could somehow affect their life are "interpreted out".
I agree with Faelin that it is cherry picking. If you think Bible is the word of God, then you are a hypocrite and a sinner if you are not more conservative than Fred Phelps. If not, then it is a collection of rather ludicrous (or, at best, anachronistic) prohibitions and tribal stories, written in a dreary and tedious language by half-literate shepherds, and should be treated as such (rather than considered "one of the most important books").
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2009, 04:07:58 PM
Do you have a reason for why people should not study the Bible other then they might be lead astray.
Because it is a contradictory, illogical piece of shit that anyone with two brains cells could easily figure out, thus being led astray?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2009, 04:17:17 PM
In what respect are clergy closer to God?
They have a vested interest in keeping their jobs, so they will come up with any type of ridiculous double think to justify the inconsistencies and contradictions, whereas laymen may simply not care enough to bother.
As a lawyer, you should know that. :p
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2009, 12:01:29 AM
Quote from: vinraith on April 02, 2009, 04:44:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2009, 11:42:13 AM
Everyone in the room is already a devout believer and the point of the class is neither to convince or cast doubt in anyone's mind about the validity of what's written in the Bible.
A surprising number of free-thinkers are born of intelligent, often innocent, questions raised in Bible study.
And hence Magnus' admonition not to engage in such questions.
The argument that one should not be allowed or should be discouraged from engaging in thinking about God absent a "trained professional" there to make sure you don't think too much is one of my very favorite religious memes.
Fucking Luther - he messed the entire thing up, what with translating the bible and all that nonsense!
Yeah, Magnus' position is a great example of the kind of Catholic thinking that the Protestantism rejected. But while I don't know enough about Catholicism to say for sure, it seems to me that his attitude would be considered very reactionary even in today's Catholic Church. "What reason is there to read the Bible unless you are going to become a priest." Wow.
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2009, 03:58:41 AM
Yeah, Magnus' position is a great example of the kind of Catholic thinking that the Protestantism rejected. But while I don't know enough about Catholicism to say for sure, it seems to me that his attitude would be considered very reactionary even in today's Catholic Church. "What reason is there to read the Bible unless you are going to become a priest." Wow.
It should be noted that it was a fake position, though I was putting it on a bit too think. You probably shouldn't deal with it as a real position, more as a caricature of the position.
I'd imagine most clergy would most likely say something along the lines of reading and asking clergy questions is all well and good, infact it should be somewhat encouraged. People showing an interest in religion is considered a good thing by most clergy.
To argue over the correct interpretation of a bible passage during a bible study, not so good. Though issues that come up should be brought to your priest, not to a bunch of college kids.
Many catholics I know, much of my family for instance, have read the Bible, well parts of it, not so much the whole thing.
When I was Catholic I did actually read it, though I don't read it anymore, not much of a use for it.
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2009, 03:58:41 AM
Yeah, Magnus' position is a great example of the kind of Catholic thinking that the Protestantism rejected. But while I don't know enough about Catholicism to say for sure, it seems to me that his attitude would be considered very reactionary even in today's Catholic Church. "What reason is there to read the Bible unless you are going to become a priest." Wow.
I don't know if it's that weird. I don't know anyone, Catholic or Protestant, who's read the Bible.
It does seem a bit useless for Catholics and rather too close to religion for Anglicans.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2009, 09:30:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2009, 06:57:50 PM
Not a perfect analogy. After all, you'd still be you if aliens landed tomorrow. Your thought processes would still work the same way. However, Religious grumbler would think a different way, to the point where it would be difficult for you to say what he would do, especially because of your extremely close relationship with the current you. You're very invested in your current thought processes since, after all, they're yours.
I guess my point is that I can imagine you as the Supreme Being a lot easier than I can imagine a non-responsive entity as such. You respond to posts. That is the minimum I would expect of a deity (and, thus, DGullible sacrifices godhood :P).
:lol:
It's a shame we won't get an outraged reply from that post.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:39:54 AM
The thing is, people like him are perfectly happy to rant about those prohibitions that do not concern them (e.g. saying that homosexuality is a sin) but those that could somehow affect their life are "interpreted out".
I agree with Faelin that it is cherry picking. If you think Bible is the word of God, then you are a hypocrite and a sinner if you are not more conservative than Fred Phelps. If not, then it is a collection of rather ludicrous (or, at best, anachronistic) prohibitions and tribal stories, written in a dreary and tedious language by half-literate shepherds, and should be treated as such (rather than considered "one of the most important books").
Um...it was not then shepherd class who wrote the fucking thing idiot. It was the priestly intelligentsia. They were the most brilliant people of their time and they have alot of interesting things to say.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:41:44 AM
Because it is a contradictory, illogical piece of shit that anyone with two brains cells could easily figure out, thus being led astray?
I don't find anything illogical about an ancient people thinking their God chose them. The Athenians thought Athena was the protector of their city to. Do you also hammer Greek philosophy as being 'contradictory, illogical pieces of shit'? I mean not all the philosophers agree and their ways of thinking changed over the centuries. OMG! We need to destroy everything ever written by any culture ever! They might not think the same way consistently for thousands of years!
Seriously issues much?
Quote from: citizen k on April 02, 2009, 11:28:07 PM
He'll just have to refrain from debating religion with a Grande Ecole alum.
I know. What a snob.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 07:56:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2009, 02:41:44 AM
Because it is a contradictory, illogical piece of shit that anyone with two brains cells could easily figure out, thus being led astray?
I don't find anything illogical about an ancient people thinking their God chose them. The Athenians thought Athena was the protector of their city to. Do you also hammer Greek philosophy as being 'contradictory, illogical pieces of shit'? I mean not all the philosophers agree and their ways of thinking changed over the centuries. OMG! We need to destroy everything ever written by any culture ever! They might not think the same way consistently for thousands of years!
Seriously issues much?
Greeks were more accepting of homos, and thus Martinus has no problem with them.
Quote from: Magnus on April 02, 2009, 07:35:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2009, 04:07:58 PM
Do you have a reason for why people should not study the Bible other then they might be lead astray. Do you think that no one other then the Clergy should read it? Do you think the Clergy infallable?
Honeslty by that point I was pretty much out of any arguments, I'm not really used to having to a give a "real" faith based argument, it's a little bit hard.
Anyway try going back to my comment on page one and read the part grumbler didn't quote, actually I'll qoute the relevent part to you.
"Or follow the path that most logic based arguments about god lead to: "I don't know."
Sometimes followed with, "It doesn't matter, I'll live a good live regardless""
Hopefully Things make a bit moresense now, if they don't I've stopped caring.
You disappoint me Magnus. I thought you were going to give the traditional Catholic argument that the Bible can only be fully understood through the interpretations and teaching of the Church and it is the Churches teachings that must be studied.
Your position that study is pointless and people can never understand (only priests) is not one currently held by the Caltholic Church - although it certainly once was. Are you sure you are Catholic?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 10:07:30 AM
You disappoint me Magnus. I thought you were going to give the traditional Catholic argument that the Bible can only be fully understood through the interpretations and teaching of the Church and it is the Churches teachings that must be studied.
I'd agree with that :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 03, 2009, 10:11:05 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 10:07:30 AM
You disappoint me Magnus. I thought you were going to give the traditional Catholic argument that the Bible can only be fully understood through the interpretations and teaching of the Church and it is the Churches teachings that must be studied.
I'd agree with that :mellow:
It would have given a much better departure for discussion then the line he used, hence why I said I was disappointed.
The Bible is best understood when drunk. Or stoned.
Quote from: PDH on April 03, 2009, 10:40:29 AM
The Bible is best understood when drunk. Or stoned.
LSD. The Bible is best understood under the influence of mind expanding drugs.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2009, 09:30:24 PM
I guess my point is that I can imagine you as the Supreme Being a lot easier than I can imagine a non-responsive entity as such. You respond to posts. That is the minimum I would expect of a deity (and, thus, DGullible sacrifices godhood :P).
Of course the religious veiwpoint is that God is very responsive to you - and that you just aren't listening.
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 10:45:54 AM
Of course the religious veiwpoint is that God is very responsive to you - and that you just aren't listening.
More to the point, if this is God's way of being responsive, I dont like what he is or what he has to say. ie there is no good explanation of why, if there is a God, terrible things happen to good/innocent/(whatever similar adjective you want to use) people.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 10:45:54 AM
Of course the religious veiwpoint is that God is very responsive to you - and that you just aren't listening.
More to the point, if this is God's way of being responsive, I dont like what he is or what he has to say. ie there is no good explanation of why, if there is a God, terrible things happen to good/innocent/(whatever similar adjective you want to use) people.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=why+does+god+let+good+people+suffer&meta=&aq=1&oq=why+does+God+let+go
QuoteResults 1 - 10 of about 303,000 for why does god let good people suffer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 10:49:31 AM
More to the point, if this is God's way of being responsive, I dont like what he is or what he has to say. ie there is no good explanation of why, if there is a God, terrible things happen to good/innocent/(whatever similar adjective you want to use) people.
God loves you anyway :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 11:13:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 10:45:54 AM
Of course the religious veiwpoint is that God is very responsive to you - and that you just aren't listening.
More to the point, if this is God's way of being responsive, I dont like what he is or what he has to say. ie there is no good explanation of why, if there is a God, terrible things happen to good/innocent/(whatever similar adjective you want to use) people.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=why+does+god+let+good+people+suffer&meta=&aq=1&oq=why+does+God+let+go
QuoteResults 1 - 10 of about 303,000 for why does god let good people suffer.
Yeah, the fact that there are so many bullshit excuses for this is great evidence that the question has no satisfying answer.
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2009, 11:24:36 AM
Yeah, the fact that there are so many bullshit excuses for this is great evidence that the question has no satisfying answer.
Nope it does not. That is why the old school tribal way of thinking about religion eventually falls apart. If your God promised you eternal victory then how come you just got your ass kicked? If your God always favors the righteous then why is your King a total psychopath?
The cool thing about the Bible is they left in the parts where God promised things like the House of David ruling forever even after said dynasty was overthrown and destroyed just a few centuries later.
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 11:13:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 10:45:54 AM
Of course the religious veiwpoint is that God is very responsive to you - and that you just aren't listening.
More to the point, if this is God's way of being responsive, I dont like what he is or what he has to say. ie there is no good explanation of why, if there is a God, terrible things happen to good/innocent/(whatever similar adjective you want to use) people.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=why+does+god+let+good+people+suffer&meta=&aq=1&oq=why+does+God+let+go
QuoteResults 1 - 10 of about 303,000 for why does god let good people suffer.
Drop me a line when you find one that makes any sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 11:27:09 AM
Drop me a line when you find one that makes any sense.
Geez, he found you 303,000 that do not make any sense - isn't that good enough?
It makes sense to me that God's will could be beyond human understanding.
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 11:34:57 AM
It makes sense to me that God's will could be beyond human understanding.
Yes that is one of the frequent answers that makes no sense. A God, which if the NT is to be believed is all loving, creates a world in which evil exists with no apparent explanation. Sorry not buying.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 11:43:00 AM
Yes that is one of the frequent answers that makes no sense. A God, which if the NT is to be believed is all loving, creates a world in which evil exists with no apparent explanation. Sorry not buying.
Yeah I only really understand religion as something about the human experience. It never really works for me to see it about the rain and snow and planets and so forth which sort of do their own thing.
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 10:45:54 AM
Of course the religious veiwpoint is that God is very responsive to you - and that you just aren't listening.
Which goes back to my earlier point about knowing myself better than anyone else. If I say i am listening, and someone says that I am not, it is obvious to me who the liar is. The religious viewpoint frequently uses dishonest arguments like that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 11:43:00 AM
Yes that is one of the frequent answers that makes no sense. A God, which if the NT is to be believed is all loving, creates a world in which evil exists with no apparent explanation. Sorry not buying.
Perhaps "suffering" and "evil" are part of "love."
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 11:34:57 AM
It makes sense to me that God's will could be beyond human understanding.
What is funny is that people will hold this (perfectly viable) belief, and yet also think that the Bible is relevant. Since God's will cannot be understood, a book that "explains" his will is clearly fraudulent.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2009, 11:55:25 AM
What is funny is that people will hold this (perfectly viable) belief, and yet also think that the Bible is relevant. Since God's will cannot be understood, a book that "explains" his will is clearly fraudulent.
"Relevant" in what sense? As a catalog of God's will? Yeah I would have to agree with you there. The Bible really is not about God so much as it is about what people's interpretations of God are.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 11:57:59 AM
"Relevant" in what sense? As a catalog of God's will? Yeah I would have to agree with you there. The Bible really is not about God so much as it is about what people's interpretations of God are.
"Relevant" in that it supposedly tells you what God wants done or not done in certain circumstances. No one can know if "god hates fags" unless his will is knowable - but it then is monstrous, since it includes allowing the innocent to suffer when he could prevent that. If his will is unknowable, all of those who claim in the bible to know his will are frauds.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2009, 11:55:25 AM
What is funny is that people will hold this (perfectly viable) belief, and yet also think that the Bible is relevant. Since God's will cannot be understood, a book that "explains" his will is clearly fraudulent.
That is a good way to put it.
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2009, 11:24:36 AM
Yeah, the fact that there are so many bullshit excuses for this is great evidence that the question has no satisfying answer.
You don't find the insignificance of human life, and especially individual human life, on a cosmic scale to be satisfying?
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2009, 12:06:36 PM
"Relevant" in that it supposedly tells you what God wants done or not done in certain circumstances. No one can know if "god hates fags" unless his will is knowable - but it then is monstrous, since it includes allowing the innocent to suffer when he could prevent that. If his will is unknowable, all of those who claim in the bible to know his will are frauds.
Yep I agree with you on that. All it means is that people at one point in history interpreted God's will to mean that he hates fags.
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 11:54:54 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 11:43:00 AM
Yes that is one of the frequent answers that makes no sense. A God, which if the NT is to be believed is all loving, creates a world in which evil exists with no apparent explanation. Sorry not buying.
Perhaps "suffering" and "evil" are part of "love."
Then you are torturing the word into meaninglessness.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:07:50 PM
Then you are torturing the word into meaninglessness.
Tough love!
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2009, 11:24:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 11:13:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 10:45:54 AM
Of course the religious veiwpoint is that God is very responsive to you - and that you just aren't listening.
More to the point, if this is God's way of being responsive, I dont like what he is or what he has to say. ie there is no good explanation of why, if there is a God, terrible things happen to good/innocent/(whatever similar adjective you want to use) people.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=why+does+god+let+good+people+suffer&meta=&aq=1&oq=why+does+God+let+go
QuoteResults 1 - 10 of about 303,000 for why does god let good people suffer.
Yeah, the fact that there are so many bullshit excuses for this is great evidence that the question has no satisfying answer.
Christianity isn't strictly Utilitarian, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Suffering can be (and often is) sacred. The religion's most important moment was the Crucifixion, which even from a secular perspective was probably among the most painful experiences ever. That's why Judaism doesn't have traditional martyrs (at least as a religion; there have been millions of Martyrs who have been Jews), Christian martyrs tend to be meek, humble and kind and face death and suffering with the bravest possible faith, while Muslim martyrs die in battle with a lance sticking out of their chest screaming ALLAHU AKBAR.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 12:08:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:07:50 PM
Then you are torturing the word into meaninglessness.
Tough love!
I love you therefore I will allow you and your whole family to die of desease, famine, flood etc etc etc.
Tough love indeed.
Honestly, none of you seem to get that suffering is an integral part of Christianity. Were all the depictions of Christ on the Cross too subtle for you guy or what?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:09:27 PM
I love you therefore I will allow you and your whole family to die of desease, famine, flood etc etc etc.
Tough love indeed.
Indeed. We sure learned our lesson about not relying on invisible Gods to protect us from disease, famine, and floods!
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:10:26 PM
Honestly, none of you seem to get that suffering is an integral part of Christianity. Were all the depictions of Christ on the Cross too subtle for you guy or what?
Not everyone comes from weird, backwards Christian rites. Besides, most people think of religions that encourage suffering as evil.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:10:26 PM
Honestly, none of you seem to get that suffering is an integral part of Christianity. Were all the depictions of Christ on the Cross too subtle for you guy or what?
He is only suffering because we all suck and therefore he is sacrificing himself so that we might be forgiven. If we were just better than he wouldn't have to suffer.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:10:26 PM
Honestly, none of you seem to get that suffering is an integral part of Christianity. Were all the depictions of Christ on the Cross too subtle for you guy or what?
If you read your NT you will see Christ suffered and died for us so we didnt have to. You see the story goes that God so loved the world that he gave his only son. God loves us so much in fact that he created this world for us. But he did a really shitty job and then cheaped out on the maintenance contract.
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2009, 12:11:50 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:10:26 PM
Honestly, none of you seem to get that suffering is an integral part of Christianity. Were all the depictions of Christ on the Cross too subtle for you guy or what?
Not everyone comes from weird, backwards Christian rites. Besides, most people think of religions that encourage suffering as evil.
Encourage and hold sacred are not the same thing. I don't think anyone here would encourage everyone in the world to die fighting injustice, but even the secular world holds such people in esteem (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Sophie Scholl, etc..)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:14:42 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:10:26 PM
Honestly, none of you seem to get that suffering is an integral part of Christianity. Were all the depictions of Christ on the Cross too subtle for you guy or what?
If you read your NT you will see Christ suffered and died for us so we didnt have to. You see the story goes that God so loved the world that he gave his only son. God loves us so much in fact that he created this world for us. But he did a really shitty job and then cheaped out on the maintenance contract.
Made redemption in the next life possible, you are forgetting that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:14:42 PM
If you read your NT you will see Christ suffered and died for us so we didnt have to. You see the story goes that God so loved the world that he gave his only son. God loves us so much in fact that he created this world for us. But he did a really shitty job and then cheaped out on the maintenance contract.
It only makes sense at all if you realize that after Jesus died his followers had to grapple with why it was he died. They interpreted it this way and the funny part is that their interpretation grew to to be much more important to his religion than anything he actually did or said in life. Then they even went back and made his birth miraculous as well.
History has a sense of humor that way. I sometimes feel sorry for Jesus, he had a message but nobody listens that closely because all they care about is his postmortem interpretation.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:17:24 PM
Made redemption in the next life possible, you are forgetting that.
Right, God loves us so much that death in this world is the only good thing. How very Cathar of you.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:16:21 PM
Encourage and hold sacred are not the same thing. I don't think anyone here would encourage everyone in the world to die fighting injustice, but even the secular world holds such people in esteem (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Sophie Scholl, etc..)
But we are talking about seemingly meaningless suffering. How does starving to death in a famine advance justice?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:10:26 PM
Honestly, none of you seem to get that suffering is an integral part of Christianity. Were all the depictions of Christ on the Cross too subtle for you guy or what?
How could an immortal omnipotent god suffer? The whole crucifixion thing seems to me to be the most emo display of passive-aggressive attention-getting I can think of in literature. I suppose it impressed the suckers, though, so that god dude probably thinks it was worth the humiliation.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:17:24 PM
Made redemption in the next life possible, you are forgetting that.
So why send us down here? Just to be evil so that we might be miraculously forgiven? In that context aborting fetus' should be considered an ultimate act of mercy and sacrifice. They will never be born so they cannot sin while you are cosigning yourself to eternal damnation.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 12:18:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:14:42 PM
If you read your NT you will see Christ suffered and died for us so we didnt have to. You see the story goes that God so loved the world that he gave his only son. God loves us so much in fact that he created this world for us. But he did a really shitty job and then cheaped out on the maintenance contract.
It only makes sense at all if you realize that after Jesus died his followers had to grapple with why it was he died. They interpreted it this way and the funny part is that their interpretation grew to to be much more important to his religion than anything he actually did or said in life. Then they even went back and made his birth miraculous as well.
History has a sense of humor that way.
It makes even more sense if you assume that Jesus never actually lived and that the Gospel writers were part of the larger mystery religion movements in the area at the time that were all calling for the world to end soon.
Dying of hunger does not make one a martyr but I don't see how it would matter from a Christian perspective, as if the farmer lived a good life (and presumably his poverty would be a plus in the long run) he'd be set for eternity.
You guys might be uncomfortable with this way of thinking, but its perfectly coherent if one starts off believing in the basics of Christianity (afterlife, Jesus, God, etc...). Just because you might find it repellent doesn't make it incoherent.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:17:24 PM
Made redemption in the next life possible, you are forgetting that.
So why send us down here? Just to be evil so that we might be miraculously forgiven?
A very good concise critique of why the Christian notion of God makes little sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:22:40 PM
It makes even more sense if you assume that Jesus never actually lived and that the Gospel writers were part of the larger mystery religion movements in the area at the time that were all calling for the world to end soon.
Either he lived or he didn't. It really makes no difference to me. The important thing is what it has to say about spirituality and the human experience.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2009, 12:21:22 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:10:26 PM
Honestly, none of you seem to get that suffering is an integral part of Christianity. Were all the depictions of Christ on the Cross too subtle for you guy or what?
How could an immortal omnipotent god suffer? The whole crucifixion thing seems to me to be the most emo display of passive-aggressive attention-getting I can think of in literature. I suppose it impressed the suckers, though, so that god dude probably thinks it was worth the humiliation.
Never understood attacks on the trinity, as anyone with any knowledge of anatomy would recognize that it is possible for three things to compose one organism. Is Grumbler 1 Grumbler or is he billions of different, unrelated cells who just happen to be working together?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:23:27 PM
You guys might be uncomfortable with this way of thinking, but its perfectly coherent if one starts off believing in the basics of Christianity (afterlife, Jesus, God, etc...). Just because you might find it repellent doesn't make it incoherent.
I understand it and it obviously was a great comfort to people for centuries. But it just does not work today, it just does not resonate with modern western people. Religion will move on as it always has and always will.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:23:27 PM
Dying of hunger does not make one a martyr but I don't see how it would matter from a Christian perspective, as if the farmer lived a good life (and presumably his poverty would be a plus in the long run) he'd be set for eternity.
You guys might be uncomfortable with this way of thinking, but its perfectly coherent if one starts off believing in the basics of Christianity (afterlife, Jesus, God, etc...). Just because you might find it repellent doesn't make it incoherent.
The thing that makes it incoherent is that the Gospels claim God is all loving and all powerful. It makes no sense to have an all powerful all loving God which allows evil to occur in the world. How does one explain away all the senseless death and suffering in the world if a all powerful all loving God exists.
Again, if anyone can give me a good answer to that I would be happy to hear it.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 12:27:51 PM
I understand it and it obviously was a great comfort to people for centuries. But it just does not work today, it just does not resonate with modern western people. Religion will move on as it always has and always will.
Just because the religion has been around for centuries doesnt mean it gave great comfort. It just that you could be burned at the stake for saying stuff like this back then.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:27:26 PM
Never understood attacks on the trinity, as anyone with any knowledge of anatomy would recognize that it is possible for three things to compose one organism. Is Grumbler 1 Grumbler or is he billions of different, unrelated cells who just happen to be working together?
If you think of God that way then why does it matter if there is three or four or 1 billion?
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 12:27:51 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:23:27 PM
You guys might be uncomfortable with this way of thinking, but its perfectly coherent if one starts off believing in the basics of Christianity (afterlife, Jesus, God, etc...). Just because you might find it repellent doesn't make it incoherent.
I understand it and it obviously was a great comfort to people for centuries. But it just does not work today, it just does not resonate with modern western people. Religion will move on as it always has and always will.
I'd agree with you that religion evolves, but I fail to see why Christianity is all of a sudden vestigial. How many Christians blow themselves up in Churches or behead women for adultery? We are reasonably well integrated, and once this retarded Evangelical reaction burns itself our most of us will still be here. I'd argue that Christianity's greatest strength is its ability to evolve; unlike Islam, Christianity is a belief system rather than a way of life.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:29:26 PM
Just because the religion has been around for centuries doesnt mean it gave great comfort. It just that you could be burned at the stake for saying stuff like this back then.
Yeah well people found the ideas so comforting and any threat to them so threatening that they defended them rather violently :P
Unfortunately I should not put that sentence in the past tense just yet.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:31:23 PM
I'd argue that Christianity's greatest strength is its ability to evolve; unlike Islam, Christianity is a belief system rather than a way of life.
I agree with this. I always thought the contradictory nature of the Bible and the fact it came from so many sources prevents it from ever being the enormous burden that the Quran is to Islam.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 12:29:48 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:27:26 PM
Never understood attacks on the trinity, as anyone with any knowledge of anatomy would recognize that it is possible for three things to compose one organism. Is Grumbler 1 Grumbler or is he billions of different, unrelated cells who just happen to be working together?
If you think of God that way then why does it matter if there is three or four or 1 billion?
Well, on a personal level I don't; I think God can be as much Ahura Mazda, Vishnu, Allah and Jehova. But that said, again, we are using different ways of thinking here; I assume a belief in Christianity, in the Nicean Creed, that God can be Three-as-One, and you have just admitted that such a relationship is possible in nature, therefore there is no further argument.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 12:31:33 PM
Yeah well people found the ideas so comforting and any threat to them so threatening that they defended them rather violently :P
Unfortunately I should not put that sentence in the past tense just yet.
The religious wars the world has endured has very little to do with any comfort that religion might have given people.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:27:26 PM
Never understood attacks on the trinity, as anyone with any knowledge of anatomy would recognize that it is possible for three things to compose one organism. Is Grumbler 1 Grumbler or is he billions of different, unrelated cells who just happen to be working together?
Never understood the concept of the trinity in the context of supposedly monotheistic religions. How many gods are there? if just one, did that god come to earth? if so, how could said god "suffer" in any but the most trivial ways?
You analogy of me as jesus doesn't work. There is only one me, and I am not part of a trinity.
Now, you may know as a Christian that suffering is a big part of your religion, but it isn't obvious from the stories of a god pretending to suffer that this is so.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:07:50 PM
Then you are torturing the word into meaninglessness.
Isn't that the whole point of us not really being able to comprehend God? Our feeble attempts to describe his ways are doomed to failure.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2009, 12:38:44 PM
Now, you may know as a Christian that suffering is a big part of your religion, but it isn't obvious from the stories of a god pretending to suffer that this is so.
Another great thing about the Bible is how the book of Job explores the whole suffering angle in a very sophisticated hellenistic sort of way (a reflection on when the middle part of the book was written) and never really manages to answer the question. It is amazing a book like that would be included in a holy scripture.
Obviously that was not about Jesus suffering but rather why good people suffer for no clear reason.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:36:23 PM
The religious wars the world has endured has very little to do with any comfort that religion might have given people.
How do you figure?
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 12:40:10 PM
Isn't that the whole point of us not really being able to comprehend God? Our feeble attempts to describe his ways are doomed to failure.
That gets back to my qualifier of asking for a good explanation. Saying that we can never understand why an all loving all powerful God allows suffering in the world is no answer. It is just a dodge.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 01:09:27 PM
That gets back to my qualifier of asking for a good explanation. Saying that we can never understand why an all loving all powerful God allows suffering in the world is no answer. It is just a dodge.
So then the point is the a good explanation is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Also, I don't see it as a dodge at all.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 12:47:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:36:23 PM
The religious wars the world has endured has very little to do with any comfort that religion might have given people.
How do you figure?
Name me one religious war, or any war, that was fought because the comfort religion gave people was threatened. Religion has been a great device for getting the populace behind a war but it isnt the reason for the war.
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 01:11:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 01:09:27 PM
That gets back to my qualifier of asking for a good explanation. Saying that we can never understand why an all loving all powerful God allows suffering in the world is no answer. It is just a dodge.
So then the point is the a good explanation is unnecessary and counterproductive.
No, the point is a good explanation is not possible and there being no good explanation how such a thing can exist I choose not to delude myself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 01:11:21 PM
Name me one religious war, or any war, that was fought because the comfort religion gave people was threatened. Religion has been a great device for getting the populace behind a war but it isnt the reason for the war.
All you had to do was convince people that either their religion itself was threatened or something important to their religion was threatened and they would fight. In that sense all of them were supposedly fought for this reason.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 01:12:15 PM
No, the point is a good explanation is not possible and there being no good explanation how such a thing can exist I choose not to delude myself.
Except that not everything is down to logic.
Is there a particular pleasure in revisiting the same topics, using the same arguments, over & over ?
CC is right btw. There's nothing beyond, or below, or before, or after.
The only thing I can see is time dilation effect when the brain dies... Perhaps whatever conceit we have about the afterlife at the moment of death streches into infinity during that moment ?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on April 03, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Is there a particular pleasure in revisiting the same topics, using the same arguments, over & over ?
CC is right btw. There's nothing beyond, or below, or before, or after.
The only thing I can see is time dilation effect when the brain dies... Perhaps whatever conceit we have about the afterlife at the moment of death streches into infinity during that moment ?
Whether there is or is not is not what I am discussing with CC. The very fact religious and spiritual ideas get bogged down in what I consider ridiculous ideas like that is regretable. The religious experience is a very key part of human existance and is worth discussing. In my mind the experience itself is significant and not all the stories we make up about it.
All I can say about my time after death is that I was born in 1977 and I do not remember my existance in 1976 being particularly horrible. I presume being dead will be just like the billions of years before I was born. It will be somewhat disappointing if I find out that is not the case :P.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2009, 12:38:44 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 03, 2009, 12:27:26 PM
Never understood attacks on the trinity, as anyone with any knowledge of anatomy would recognize that it is possible for three things to compose one organism. Is Grumbler 1 Grumbler or is he billions of different, unrelated cells who just happen to be working together?
Never understood the concept of the trinity in the context of supposedly monotheistic religions. How many gods are there? if just one, did that god come to earth? if so, how could said god "suffer" in any but the most trivial ways?
You analogy of me as jesus doesn't work. There is only one me, and I am not part of a trinity.
Try this one. When Van Halen canned David Lee Roth and replaced him with Sammy Hagar, they explained that there were 3 David Lee Roths--their old buddy Dave who they were in a band with; David Lee Roth, the singer/songwriter; and Diamond Dave, the flashy, entertaining, but hard to get along with frontman. Over time, Diamond Dave was around more and more, the other 2 less and less, and they finally got tired of dealing with him.
If David Lee Roth can be 3 persons in one, don't you think an almighty God can be 3 persons in one also?
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 01:22:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 01:12:15 PM
No, the point is a good explanation is not possible and there being no good explanation how such a thing can exist I choose not to delude myself.
Except that not everything is down to logic.
The whole point of my inquiry in this thread is to find a rationale explanation for the identified problem. Saying there is none simply confirms my view.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 01:18:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 01:11:21 PM
Name me one religious war, or any war, that was fought because the comfort religion gave people was threatened. Religion has been a great device for getting the populace behind a war but it isnt the reason for the war.
All you had to do was convince people that either their religion itself was threatened or something important to their religion was threatened and they would fight. In that sense all of them were supposedly fought for this reason.
I see where we are getting crossed up. You are talking about getting the population in support of a war once the leaders decide it is needed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 01:43:52 PM
I see where we are getting crossed up. You are talking about getting the population in support of a war once the leaders decide it is needed.
The leaders may not be totally immune to having purely religious reasons for doing certain policies either because they honestly regard a certain group or country as a threat to their faith. However, just because of the way human politics work, eventually (if not instantaneously or simultaneously) this will become just another tool of statecraft.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2009, 01:46:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 01:43:52 PM
I see where we are getting crossed up. You are talking about getting the population in support of a war once the leaders decide it is needed.
The leaders may not be totally immune to having purely religious reasons for doing certain policies either because they honestly regard a certain group or country as a threat to their faith. However, just because of the way human politics work, eventually (if not instantaneously or simultaneously) this will become just another tool of statecraft.
Agreed
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 01:40:26 PM
The whole point of my inquiry in this thread is to find a rationale explanation for the identified problem. Saying there is none simply confirms my view.
What's next, the rational basis for love?
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 03:12:10 PM
What's next, the rational basis for love?
You think there is not a rationale explanation for that?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 11:43:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 11:34:57 AM
It makes sense to me that God's will could be beyond human understanding.
Yes that is one of the frequent answers that makes no sense. A God, which if the NT is to be believed is all loving, creates a world in which evil exists with no apparent explanation. Sorry not buying.
The "answer" that always makes sense to me is that God created humans in His own image, which included free will. God could create a world where all is goodness and light, but it would not be a world with free will. Free will inevitably means the ability to choose evil, and thus lead to suffering.
This doesn't work as well for natural disasters of course.
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 03:22:21 PM
This doesn't work as well for natural disasters of course.
You have already identified one of the obvious problems with that theory. It also doesnt explain why a loving all powerful God does not intervene to save innocents from those who excercise free will. Your best argument is that God wont save you from yourself but why wont he save others from you? Oh sorry I didnt stop x from killing x million people. I thought I would let free will play itself out.
It also does not explain why a loving all powerful God does not intevene in other disasters that are not natural and do not involve free will. Oh, sorry I didnt save that little girl from the store roof falling on her. I thought I would teach the architect a lesson in better building materials.
I also does not explain why there is desease and sickness. Whats God's view and that "not my department." How does a loving all powerful God let all this happen. Seems to me the best answer is he doesnt because he doesnt exist.
Put anyother way if God exists he is either not all loving or he is not all powerful because he/she/it cant be both all allow such suffering in the world
Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?
Quote from: vinraith on April 03, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?
Because Epicurus was defeated by a whole bunch of religious loons. His insights have been overridden by more recent thinkers, like Falwell, Baker and Coulter.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 12:07:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 11:54:54 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2009, 11:43:00 AM
Yes that is one of the frequent answers that makes no sense. A God, which if the NT is to be believed is all loving, creates a world in which evil exists with no apparent explanation. Sorry not buying.
Perhaps "suffering" and "evil" are part of "love."
Then you are torturing the word into meaninglessness.
He is clearly abusing the meaning.
I recommend http://www.thebricktestament.com/ (http://www.thebricktestament.com/) to anyone interested in the Bible. It has plenty of downright bizarre stories, not just form the OT but from the NT as well, narrated in a quite funny way. In Lego.
For instance, here's a zany Jesus story:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/jesus_curses_a_tree/mk11_12-13.html (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/jesus_curses_a_tree/mk11_12-13.html)
Quote from: PDH on April 03, 2009, 10:40:29 AM
The Bible is best understood when drunk. Or stoned.
He said Jehova!
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2009, 04:15:48 PM
He is clearly abusing the meaning.
:lol:
I actually had you in mind as I wrote those words.
Quote from: vinraith on April 03, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?
Or perhaps since we are still arguing about it it is safe to say that Epicurus did not in fact "pretty much resolve" the debate. :)
Quote from: vinraith on April 03, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?
The Catholic Church argues that the existence of evil is a mystery. One of many mysteries of the faith.
Quote from: The Larch on April 03, 2009, 04:17:06 PM
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/jesus_curses_a_tree/mk11_12-13.html (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/jesus_curses_a_tree/mk11_12-13.html)
That one is supposed to be an allegory for the destruction of the Temple. Out of context it is indeed bizarre.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 03, 2009, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 03, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?
The Catholic Church argues that the existence of evil is a mystery. One of many mysteries of the faith.
It's hardly a mystery. I blame video games.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 03, 2009, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 03, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?
The Catholic Church argues that the existence of evil is a mystery. One of many mysteries of the faith.
The more mysteries, the less worthy a faith is of following.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 03, 2009, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 03, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?
The Catholic Church argues that the existence of evil is a mystery. One of many mysteries of the faith.
And that's what the ancient Greeks referred to as a "cop out."
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 04:37:26 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 03, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?
Or perhaps since we are still arguing about it it is safe to say that Epicurus did not in fact "pretty much resolve" the debate. :)
Mostly it just demonstrates mankind's remarkable ability to hold tenaciously to several mutually incompatible ideas simultaneously. This isn't news, of course, but it's certainly a perpetual source of frustration.
I don't think it should be a source of frustration. Sometimes it makes "sense" to hold two or more mutally incompatible ideas.
Quote from: vinraith on April 03, 2009, 05:38:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 04:37:26 PM
Quote from: vinraith on April 03, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?
Or perhaps since we are still arguing about it it is safe to say that Epicurus did not in fact "pretty much resolve" the debate. :)
Mostly it just demonstrates mankind's remarkable ability to hold tenaciously to several mutually incompatible ideas simultaneously. This isn't news, of course, but it's certainly a perpetual source of frustration.
It can be a source of great strength to us. It allows us to challenge the impossible, and sometimes even win.
Quote from: vinraith on April 03, 2009, 05:36:01 PM
And that's what the ancient Greeks referred to as a "cop out."
There are two ancient Greek traditions in terms of the effect they've had on religion.
The Roman Catholic Church generally inherited aspects of the rational, but theoretical rather than later empirical tradition. While the Eastern churches generally took I think the Pythagorean route of there just being unknowables.
That poses a difficulty. Because the Catholic Church is dealing with belief rather than anything else things don't have to be explicable. But it is doctrinally very heavy on logic and building a system. When it confronts something that cannot be rationally and logically explained but is a core element of belief then it has to just say it's a mystery. Now that is, to a degree, a cop out. But I think it's also a more profound aspect of any religious belief. If there weren't the mysteries of faith then it wouldn't really be faith (which is trust in something fundamentally unknowable). So yeah the trinity and the existence of evil and so on are mysteries (though the Catechism tries its best) but I don't think you can attack a religion for being ultimately rooted in beliefs in things that can't be rationally explained away.
The Eastern Churches have, I think, a slightly better tradition on this which the Catholic Church is actually incorporating. Their basic point is how, precisely, does anyone however rational understand an omniscient, omnipresent God. So instead of emphasising the human contact with God they emphasise the otherness of God. Much of Greek theology deliberately distances God by pointing out the inadequacy of our thought and language to describe Him/It. So instead of saying 'an omnipresent, omniscient, benevolent God' they would argue that God is 'not not omnipresent', 'not not omniscient' and 'not not benevolent'. It's also visible inn the art.
The Catholic tradition develops art that paints God (Christ) like he's one of us - this is especially the case after the Council of Trent, though naturalism in religious art predates it. The Greek tradition is far more stylised, the figures are not necessarily human and they're certainly not naturalistically painted. The Catholic Church's fundamental, core images represent Christ at his most human (and close to us, and almost attainable): the crucifixion and the nativity. Christ enduring pain and agony and Christ as a defenceless babe. By contrast the Churches that inherit the Byzantine tradition take as key images Christ at his least human, Christ very much as God. The Byzantine world abounds in images of Christ ascending to heaven, sitting in Last Judgement and the transfiguration.
Protestantism of course chose as its central image the bare cross, that is an instrument of torture and execution. Instead of admitting anything the two older Churches had realised seemed to think that deep theological meaning was like scum on a pond that anyone could skim.
So, to contrast. The Catholic tradition:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F7%2F72%2FCaravaggioColumn.jpg&hash=90b2547d877b98e9f1ded0cf7c1250d185886c97)
And the Greek:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe2%2FPreobrazhenie.jpeg&hash=7a7258240eccc5b2413e9b5d855eaa40acdfcc15)
Very neutral summary of Protestantism there sheilbh. <_<
Why does the Catholic tradition look so much better than the Greek?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 03, 2009, 06:05:26 PM
Instead of admitting anything the two older Churches had realised
Well, it's hard to blame them, since Eastern Christianity had proven itself to be false by being almost wiped out, and Roman Catholicism had largely degenerated into a pyramid scheme by the Reformation.
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 06:09:09 PM
Very neutral summary of Protestantism there sheilbh. <_<
:blush: I try.
To be fair I actually think the Anglicans, the Lutherans and Calvin's theological writings have good points. But they're points that have been made throughout the entire history of the Church, most of them are cribbed off of Augustine. But I think that Augustine's other point about the unity and authority of the Church and of Bishops was ignored at their peril. The Catholic Church stands where it stood against Monophysitism, it stands where it stood against Arianism, it stands where it stood against Monothelitism; it can, to borrow another phrase, do no other.
By contrast without central authority and Bishops, which even the CofE, say, had to attack to succeed, there can be no theological position because if people disagree they can found their own church, or it doesn't matter because of the individual nature of grace and so on. Any via media between Catholicism and a million babbling voices and interpretations of Christianity cannot hold. Newman was right.
QuoteWell, it's hard to blame them, since Eastern Christianity had proven itself to be false by being almost wiped out, and Roman Catholicism had largely degenerated into a pyramid scheme by the Reformation.
Actually by the Reformation the Catholic Church was changing pretty rapidly. Those changes, and reforms, gained impetus and strength because of the Reformation but what ultimately came out of Trent started a long time before any theses were nailed to any doors.
There were still lingering issues though, it's true.
Augustine. :x
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 03, 2009, 06:19:10 PM
Actually by the Reformation the Catholic Church was changing pretty rapidly. Those changes, and reforms, gained impetus and strength because of the Reformation but what ultimately came out of Trent started a long time before any theses were nailed to any doors.
There were still lingering issues though, it's true.
I would argue that the Church had already damaged itself long before 1517, as Wycliffe or Hus would tell you, and that there was little that they could have done. The Church had built a reputation (with some justification) as the most corrupt and evil body on earth, and it would take a lot of time and effort to shake it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 03, 2009, 06:19:10 PM
By contrast without central authority and Bishops, which even the CofE, say, had to attack to succeed, there can be no theological position because if people disagree they can found their own church, or it doesn't matter because of the individual nature of grace and so on. Any via media between Catholicism and a million babbling voices and interpretations of Christianity cannot hold. Newman was right.
You still have to demonstrate why the lack of a central authority and the lack of a single theological position is a bad thing however.
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2009, 05:45:50 AM
How come so many Asian-Americans are devout Christians? :huh:
Like 90% of the ones I've known have been hardcore Protestants of some flavor.
Targeted recruitment.
Hard core Christians realize that new immigrants are vulnerable to social pressure techniques and shams. They invite them to learn English at their church groups, peddle their theology calibrated to emphasize values in common with traditional Asian values and self-improvement (usually attractive to immigrants). This, combined with a ready and welcoming community means that many of the people who go there end up sticking around.
My wife was invited to some Evangelical church under false pretenses and evangelized at. She thought it was entirely too much like some of the sillier antics of Communist China and never went back.
Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2009, 06:38:14 PM
You still have to demonstrate why the lack of a central authority and the lack of a single theological position is a bad thing however.
Because Christianity is a faith to do with beliefs. Judaism is largely about following certain laws, Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity in that sense. In Christianity it is belief that allows for redemption, so if you believe wrong you're damned (and that includes a faith of works as much as one of exuberant emotional outbursts). That's why you need guidance. That's why you need theology of what to believe rather than an explication of law.
And, as Augustine argues, Apostolic Succession matters for the Church. The Anglicans still believe in it, rather preposterously. All Protestants, except some 20th century varieties, accept the importance of the Church Fathers. Those Fathers ordained the future Bishops of the Church right down to the current day. The Church hasn't moved significantly. How can something be right then but not now?
QuoteI would argue that the Church had already damaged itself long before 1517, as Wycliffe or Hus would tell you, and that there was little that they could have done. The Church had built a reputation (with some justification) as the most corrupt and evil body on earth, and it would take a lot of time and effort to shake it.
I think that's rather over the top. Actually it indicates the multiplicity of Churches that existed before the Catholic Reformation that led up and then proceeded from Trent. The oppression in England after Wycliffe was a local decision made by Arundel under pressure from the secular authorities - an intertwining of religious and secular authority was, of course, far worse in Protestant societies for quite some time.
So, for example, the much cited repression of anything but Latin just isn't true. The Catholic Church had authorised translations of the Bible in, off the top of my head Czech, Catalan, High and Low German well before Luther was around or even born. The Church was very weirdly mixed between the very local communitarian expressions of religion that were encouraged and venality at some of the top level.
However the reform movement in the Catholic Church was alive and gathering strength for some time. I think some rupture was inevitable but I want to argue against the idea of Reformation - Counter Reformation. I think there were two reformations, one Catholic and one Protestant that stemmed from a common list of complaints and a common reform movement within the Catholic church.
Too bad I missed this thread.
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2009, 06:35:36 PM
Augustine. :x
I can almost forgive some of his other... eccentricities in light of this:
QuoteUsually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." [1 Timothy 1.7]
St. Augustine [De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) translated by J. H. Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41; Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39]