I am sorry for the Martinus-esque thread, I might be a bit drunk.
So.... It is fine to make fun of mormonism. I sure do. But it is even looks to be fine for people who think there is a God and they base that on the Bible. Where Virgin Mary's half-god walks on water then his father have him executed, so that he becomes able to forgive the rest of mankind for being born. Except those who doesn't do as he says because then they go to hell. Unless -if you insert the applying sub-religion- a priest tells God otherwise by forgiving the sins.
Judaism: 3,000+ years old
Christianity: 2,000+ years old
Islam, PBUH: 1,200+ years old
Mormonism: Invented a few weeks ago on the back of a cocktail napkin with the last two digits smeared by the condensation from a bottle of Rolling Rock nursed far too long while listening to Warrant's "Don't Know What You've Got" at 1:35am as you stare at yourself in the bar mirror wondering if the well-worn single mom barfly sitting next to you is really worth knowing where you live on a work night
Mormonism is more retarded than the bible. I hold this position simply because Mormonism says everything in the bible is true and then adds a whole load of claptrap about the planet Kolob, Eden being in Jackson, Missouri, Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the Book of Abraham and lots of other retarded BS. So mainstream Mormonism is more retarded than mainstream Christianities.
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2012, 03:46:26 PM
I am sorry for the Martinus-esque thread, I might be a bit drunk.
So.... It is fine to make fun of mormonism. I sure do. But it is even looks to be fine for people who think there is a God and they base that on the Bible. Where Virgin Mary's half-god walks on water then his father have him executed, so that he becomes able to forgive the rest of mankind for being born. Except those who doesn't do as he says because then they go to hell. Unless -if you insert the applying sub-religion- a priest tells God otherwise by forgiving the sins.
I don't know if Catholic Doctrine is necessarily so explicitly stated in the Bible :P
The Bible is vague and not explicit and when it is explicit it tends to contradict itself later on just to cover up for the mistake.
There's an aura of uncertainty and mystery around the founding of the older religions. How do we know that Jesus didn't walk on water or conjure bread and fish? Do we know for sure he even claimed to be the messiah? Joseph Smith(and L Ron Hubbard, Sun Yung Moon, et al) comes from a much better documented time. We know he didn't bring forth any miracles or accurate prophecies to back up his claims. He was just a charismatic fellow who saw a path to status, wealth and pussy. Or maybe he was a bit unhinged and really believed his bullshit. Either way, he's clearly full of shit, there's no doubt to give him the benefit of.
My only complaint against Mormonism is that they are such die-hard proselytizers. They, like many Christians, believe that it is their responsibility to make others like them.
But that's not really a complaint specific to Mormonism. That's a complaint against any religion who does that.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:35:37 PM
My only complaint against Mormonism is that they are such die-hard proselytizers. They, like many Christians, believe that it is their responsibility to make others like them.
But that's not really a complaint specific to Mormonism. That's a complaint against any religion who does that.
Actually I don't have an objection to that. If I knew that you were about to suffer eternal torture I would do what I could to help save you from that horrid fate. I can't fully respect somebody who thinks I'm going to hell and is willing to let it happen.
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:43:16 PM
Actually I don't have an objection to that. If I knew that you were about to suffer eternal torture I would do what I could to help save you from that horrid fate. I can't fully respect somebody who thinks I'm going to hell and is willing to let it happen.
I have no problem with them offering advice based on their beliefs when asked. I have a problem with them coming to my door and trying to change me from my own views because they think they're better at judging what's best for me than I am.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:43:16 PM
Actually I don't have an objection to that. If I knew that you were about to suffer eternal torture I would do what I could to help save you from that horrid fate. I can't fully respect somebody who thinks I'm going to hell and is willing to let it happen.
I have no problem with them offering advice based on their beliefs when asked. I have a problem with them coming to my door and trying to change me from my own views because they think they're better at judging what's best for me than I am.
The analogy would be that I know that there is an ax-murderer hiding in your bathroom ready to lop your head off when you go off to do whatever it you females call urinating and you do not know that. Not only do you not know that you are a sensible person and you have no good reason to believe that there is an ax murderer in the bathroom, things like that do not happen and to be honest I am being really really creepy by saying this. Now, in that situation, what is my moral obligation? Send the police to your house? Kidnap you before you need to wee? Watch you get kebabbed and sliced by Jason from Friday the 13th?
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:35:37 PM
My only complaint against Mormonism is that they are such die-hard proselytizers. They, like many Christians, believe that it is their responsibility to make others like them.
But that's not really a complaint specific to Mormonism. That's a complaint against any religion who does that.
Actually I don't have an objection to that. If I knew that you were about to suffer eternal torture I would do what I could to help save you from that horrid fate. I can't fully respect somebody who thinks I'm going to hell and is willing to let it happen.
I don't know I mean for one the former person wouldn't be much fun to hang around.
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:43:16 PM
Actually I don't have an objection to that. If I knew that you were about to suffer eternal torture I would do what I could to help save you from that horrid fate. I can't fully respect somebody who thinks I'm going to hell and is willing to let it happen.
I have no problem with them offering advice based on their beliefs when asked. I have a problem with them coming to my door and trying to change me from my own views because they think they're better at judging what's best for me than I am.
The analogy would be that I know that there is an ax-murderer hiding in your bathroom ready to lop your head off when you go off to do whatever it you females call urinating and you do not know that. Not only do you not know that you are a sensible person and you have no good reason to believe that there is an ax murderer in the bathroom, things like that do not happen and to be honest I am being really really creepy by saying this. Now, in that situation, what is my moral obligation? Send the police to your house? Kidnap you before you need to wee? Watch you get kebabbed and sliced by Jason from Friday the 13th?
You've been taking lessons from Marti, haven't you.
Meri and the Mormons are talking about religious beliefs*, whereas your 'scenario' describes extremely unlikely, but real happenings; thinks apples and claymore mines.
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:52:04 PM
The analogy would be that I know that there is an ax-murderer hiding in your bathroom ready to lop your head off when you go off to do whatever it you females call urinating and you do not know that. Not only do you not know that you are a sensible person and you have no good reason to believe that there is an ax murderer in the bathroom, things like that do not happen and to be honest I am being really really creepy by saying this. Now, in that situation, what is my moral obligation? Send the police to your house? Kidnap you before you need to wee? Watch you get kebabbed and sliced by Jason from Friday the 13th?
Warn me, then let me decide for myself how I respond to that warning. It's called free-will for a reason.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:43:16 PM
Actually I don't have an objection to that. If I knew that you were about to suffer eternal torture I would do what I could to help save you from that horrid fate. I can't fully respect somebody who thinks I'm going to hell and is willing to let it happen.
I have no problem with them offering advice based on their beliefs when asked. I have a problem with them coming to my door and trying to change me from my own views because they think they're better at judging what's best for me than I am.
My primary objection to them and Jehovah Witnesses is a practical one, I've not yet got one to give me their home address, so I can go and knock on their door at a random inconvenient time.
Quote from: mongers on October 24, 2012, 05:03:56 PM
You've been taking lessons from Marti, haven't you.
Meri and the Mormons are talking about religious beliefs*, whereas your 'scenario' describes extremely unlikely, but real happenings; thinks apples and claymore mines.
I think his point is that if believe someone to be in danger, you really have a moral obligation to warn them don't you? Do something to prevent them being harmed?
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:43:16 PM
Actually I don't have an objection to that. If I knew that you were about to suffer eternal torture I would do what I could to help save you from that horrid fate. I can't fully respect somebody who thinks I'm going to hell and is willing to let it happen.
I have no problem with them offering advice based on their beliefs when asked. I have a problem with them coming to my door and trying to change me from my own views because they think they're better at judging what's best for me than I am.
Why is you think you know what's best for you?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 06:00:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 24, 2012, 05:03:56 PM
You've been taking lessons from Marti, haven't you.
Meri and the Mormons are talking about religious beliefs*, whereas your 'scenario' describes extremely unlikely, but real happenings; thinks apples and claymore mines.
I think his point is that if believe someone to be in danger, you really have a moral obligation to warn them don't you? Do something to prevent them being harmed?
Hint it's not a real danger, up until now no religious belief has been 'proven' so it's a fantasy danger, until proven otherwise.
When someone can show me a soul, then I'll believe it can be imperilled.
Raz, you should go door to door and invite people to mass. :pope:
Quote from: mongers on October 24, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 06:00:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 24, 2012, 05:03:56 PM
You've been taking lessons from Marti, haven't you.
Meri and the Mormons are talking about religious beliefs*, whereas your 'scenario' describes extremely unlikely, but real happenings; thinks apples and claymore mines.
I think his point is that if believe someone to be in danger, you really have a moral obligation to warn them don't you? Do something to prevent them being harmed?
Hint it's not a real danger, up until now no religious belief has been 'proven' so it's a fantasy danger, until proven otherwise.
When someone can show me a soul, then I'll believe it can be imperilled.
Irrelvant. All that is relevant is that you
believe it's a danger. If you believe someone is danger, then don't you have a moral obligation to do something about it?
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 05:04:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:52:04 PM
The analogy would be that I know that there is an ax-murderer hiding in your bathroom ready to lop your head off when you go off to do whatever it you females call urinating and you do not know that. Not only do you not know that you are a sensible person and you have no good reason to believe that there is an ax murderer in the bathroom, things like that do not happen and to be honest I am being really really creepy by saying this. Now, in that situation, what is my moral obligation? Send the police to your house? Kidnap you before you need to wee? Watch you get kebabbed and sliced by Jason from Friday the 13th?
Warn me, then let me decide for myself how I respond to that warning. It's called free-will for a reason.
... and that is precisely what the annoying Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are doing when they knock on your door at an ungodly hour on saturday mornings.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 06:06:41 PM
Raz, you should go door to door and invite people to mass. :pope:
I don't really like my neighbors.
The reason why it's ok to mock Mormons around here is because we don't have any Mormon posters. :bowler:
If I may make a Martlike analogy: saying Mormonism is nuttier than Catholicism is like saying John Wayne Gacy is more evil than Charles Manson. Past a certain point of ridiculousness, it really doesn't matter, does it?
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
The reason why it's ok to mock Mormons around here is because we don't have any Mormon posters. :bowler:
Besides Psellus and Jaron, that is. ;)
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
If I may make a Martlike analogy: saying Mormonism is nuttier than Catholicism is like saying John Wayne Gacy is more evil than Charles Manson. Past a certain point of ridiculousness, it really doesn't matter, does it?
Wrong. It's more like saying some amateur retard with delusions of grandeur that can't cut straight with a box cutter to Charles Manson.
Really wish you people would appreciate the concept of historic institutions.
I hate history. :rolleyes:
Too much kneeling in a papist church. MY KNEES
THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU
It's also seriously tacky. Christianity and Judaism still inspires a great deal of Art-see Taverner, for instance-but Mormonism does nothing but inspire this-
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi138.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq258%2FParshallAE%2FFribergArnold-AbinadiDeliversHisMes.jpg&hash=7887375b9931ce8291910d87811df7e192b5445c)
The idea that LDS leaders still receive revelations makes it a bit unusual in comparison to most religions.
Christianity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yssF24v5iBs)
Mormonism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d_mt9F_Duc) :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
The reason why it's ok to mock Mormons around here is because we don't have any Mormon posters. :bowler:
Yeah like that has stopped us before.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 24, 2012, 07:24:18 PM
It's also seriously tacky. Christianity and Judaism still inspires a great deal of Art-see Taverner, for instance-but Mormonism does nothing but inspire this-
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi138.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq258%2FParshallAE%2FFribergArnold-AbinadiDeliversHisMes.jpg&hash=7887375b9931ce8291910d87811df7e192b5445c)
I rather like it. Then again, I liked Saddam's art.
While all religions are responses to specific historical, cultural or geographic forces, I don't think all religions are equal, in pretty much the same way that not all cultures are of equal value. So I "judge" a religion based on its antiquity, ethical and metaphysical teachings, its society and culture, and the behaviors of its mainstream followers.
For example, Modern Canadian Christianity does better than the Afghan Taliban.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:35:37 PM
My only complaint against Mormonism is that they are such die-hard proselytizers. They, like many Christians, believe that it is their responsibility to make others like them.
But that's not really a complaint specific to Mormonism. That's a complaint against any religion who does that.
Yeah, I hate that kind of thing, it is thoroughly immoral. Behave whatever bollocks you want but don't go infecting the minds of the vulnerable with it.
:rolleyes: @ this thread.
Quote from: Jaron on October 24, 2012, 08:55:30 PM
:rolleyes: @ this thread.
Save it for your new weirdo friends, cultist. Get your robe and slippers yet?
If it gets jdawg some tail, more power to him.
I don't think differently about the bible then I do about mormonism.
Retarded, all of it.
Save it for the cafe, Henri.
Seedy is full smash the heretic mode. :)
Quote from: Jaron on October 24, 2012, 08:55:30 PM
:rolleyes: @ this thread.
You used to be cool, man but now you found god & you aren't anymore
What happened man? WHAT HAPPENED?
:weep:
I'm still cool....Utah cool.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2012, 08:59:37 PM
If it gets jdawg some tail, more power to him.
Um he's doing it for business now, she dumped him :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 03:56:07 PM
Judaism: 3,000+ years old
Christianity: 2,000+ years old
Islam, PBUH: 1,200+ years old
Mormonism: Invented a few weeks ago on the back of a cocktail napkin with the last two digits smeared by the condensation from a bottle of Rolling Rock nursed far too long while listening to Warrant's "Don't Know What You've Got" at 1:35am as you stare at yourself in the bar mirror wondering if the well-worn single mom barfly sitting next to you is really worth knowing where you live on a work night
What's the connection between this and the OP?
Quote from: Maximus on October 24, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 03:56:07 PM
Judaism: 3,000+ years old
Christianity: 2,000+ years old
Islam, PBUH: 1,200+ years old
Mormonism: Invented a few weeks ago on the back of a cocktail napkin with the last two digits smeared by the condensation from a bottle of Rolling Rock nursed far too long while listening to Warrant's "Don't Know What You've Got" at 1:35am as you stare at yourself in the bar mirror wondering if the well-worn single mom barfly sitting next to you is really worth knowing where you live on a work night
What's the connection between this and the OP?
The idea that religions that have been around for millenia and have had millions of followers seem a little less crazy? :huh:
I don't.
Quote from: mongers on October 24, 2012, 05:03:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:43:16 PM
Actually I don't have an objection to that. If I knew that you were about to suffer eternal torture I would do what I could to help save you from that horrid fate. I can't fully respect somebody who thinks I'm going to hell and is willing to let it happen.
I have no problem with them offering advice based on their beliefs when asked. I have a problem with them coming to my door and trying to change me from my own views because they think they're better at judging what's best for me than I am.
The analogy would be that I know that there is an ax-murderer hiding in your bathroom ready to lop your head off when you go off to do whatever it you females call urinating and you do not know that. Not only do you not know that you are a sensible person and you have no good reason to believe that there is an ax murderer in the bathroom, things like that do not happen and to be honest I am being really really creepy by saying this. Now, in that situation, what is my moral obligation? Send the police to your house? Kidnap you before you need to wee? Watch you get kebabbed and sliced by Jason from Friday the 13th?
You've been taking lessons from Marti, haven't you.
Meri and the Mormons are talking about religious beliefs*, whereas your 'scenario' describes extremely unlikely, but real happenings; thinks apples and claymore mines.
You don't get it but Viking's analogy is perfectly crafted. The consequence in the believers' view, of someone not believing their religion, is that he or she will spend eternity in hell. Surely, that's a much worse fate than having your head chopped off by an axe murderer.
If you believe heaven, hell, damnation and salvation are real - as believers purport to do - then they are as real "happenings" as the axe murderer thing.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 06:06:41 PM
Raz, you should go door to door and invite people to mass. :pope:
Mass what? Mass murder? Mass shooting? Mass achusetts?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 07:07:15 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 24, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
If I may make a Martlike analogy: saying Mormonism is nuttier than Catholicism is like saying John Wayne Gacy is more evil than Charles Manson. Past a certain point of ridiculousness, it really doesn't matter, does it?
Wrong. It's more like saying some amateur retard with delusions of grandeur that can't cut straight with a box cutter to Charles Manson.
Really wish you people would appreciate the concept of historic institutions.
You are confusing things. Catholicism definitely has more panache and aplomb, but that doesn't make it less nutty.
Saying that you got the religion's tenets from some angel in the basement is not more nuttier than saying your god was born out of a gang-rape of a 13 y.o. girl by the father, the son (the same one who was born from the rape) and a bird who are all somehow the same person.
So looks like most here missed the point.
Your respect for what religions inspire and all that aside.
If you believe in God, how can you ignore shit like water-walking, water-to-wine trickery, God talking to peeps and such, and yet think that the Book of Mormon is lies?
If you think the tacky parts of the Bible are fake, then how can you claim that the rest is not? Cherrypicking from holy books might be convinient but then you are just creating your own religion and undermining the truth factor of the thing you want to believe in.
That's why I am kind of having problem pestering religious nutjobs for their homophobia and other medieval morals they have. I mean, we can attack them for that, but not for their religion? How come? Their religion specifically tells them to dislike gays, for example. We cannot say that it is okay to have your religion but it is not okay to think gays are inferior, because the two are mutually exclusive - he can either have his belief, or think that gays are perfectly healthy human beings. The two together are not possible.
Look at it this way: If God were real, what kind of results would he get?
p.s. Marty, immaculate conception, i.e. no rape
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2012, 02:00:06 AM
Look at it this way: If God were real, what kind of results would he get?
p.s. Marty, immaculate conception, i.e. no rape
immaculate statutory rape :contract:
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 09:58:36 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 24, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 03:56:07 PM
Judaism: 3,000+ years old
Christianity: 2,000+ years old
Islam, PBUH: 1,200+ years old
Mormonism: Invented a few weeks ago on the back of a cocktail napkin with the last two digits smeared by the condensation from a bottle of Rolling Rock nursed far too long while listening to Warrant's "Don't Know What You've Got" at 1:35am as you stare at yourself in the bar mirror wondering if the well-worn single mom barfly sitting next to you is really worth knowing where you live on a work night
What's the connection between this and the OP?
The idea that religions that have been around for millenia and have had millions of followers seem a little less crazy? :huh:
It was a stupid OP. It's like asking "If you are an atheist, how come you aren't a Marxist?"
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 04:13:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 09:58:36 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 24, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 03:56:07 PM
Judaism: 3,000+ years old
Christianity: 2,000+ years old
Islam, PBUH: 1,200+ years old
Mormonism: Invented a few weeks ago on the back of a cocktail napkin with the last two digits smeared by the condensation from a bottle of Rolling Rock nursed far too long while listening to Warrant's "Don't Know What You've Got" at 1:35am as you stare at yourself in the bar mirror wondering if the well-worn single mom barfly sitting next to you is really worth knowing where you live on a work night
What's the connection between this and the OP?
The idea that religions that have been around for millenia and have had millions of followers seem a little less crazy? :huh:
It was a stupid OP. It's like asking "If you are an atheist, how come you aren't a Marxist?"
Ok Martinus
Martinus would know the answer to that one; he likes money too much.
Don't blame me Tamas, blame the beet eating drunk who started this thread. If you believe in one religion, it doesn't necessarily follow you would accept another one.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2012, 04:40:35 AM
Martinus would know the answer to that one; he likes money too much.
I meant that such retarded comparisons are only made by Marty.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 04:41:56 AM
Don't blame me Tamas, blame the beet eating drunk who started this thread. If you believe in one religion, it doesn't necessarily follow you would accept another one.
Yeah except that the problem is that the reasoning leading to the discardment of Mormonism should also lead to the discard of Christianity in general.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 04:44:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 04:41:56 AM
Don't blame me Tamas, blame the beet eating drunk who started this thread. If you believe in one religion, it doesn't necessarily follow you would accept another one.
Yeah except that the problem is that the reasoning leading to the discardment of Mormonism should also lead to the discard of Christianity in general.
Why?
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 04:44:55 AM
Yeah except that the problem is that the reasoning leading to the discardment of Mormonism should also lead to the discard of Christianity in general.
What reasoning leads to the discardment of Mormonism? Isn't it more often positive belief in another faith that leads to the abandonment of Mormonism?
It is common to critisize/ridicule Mormonism for the outlandish claims it makes in its holy book.
But I fail to see how somebody can consider those claims impossible, while subscribing to the claims made in the Bible.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 04:44:55 AM
Yeah except that the problem is that the reasoning leading to the discardment of Mormonism should also lead to the discard of Christianity in general.
:blink:
Jesus warned against false prophets, pretty sure he wasn't including himself.
I actually thought you were asking the non-religious folks why we made more fun of Mormons than Christians, if you're asking the Christians why they aren't Mormon that is pretty silly.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 04:51:26 AM
It is common to critisize/ridicule Mormonism for the outlandish claims it makes in its holy book.
But I fail to see how somebody can consider those claims impossible, while subscribing to the claims made in the Bible.
Yeah. But they're laughing at the outlandishness (not the impossibility) of Jesus visiting America or everyone getting a planet - because they're outlandish and funny and 19th century. Noone's saying 'these things are ridiculous therefore I can not be Mormon'.
As I say more often than not the reason Christians believe in the Bible but don't believe in the Book of Mormon is because they're Christian, not because the Mormons are silly.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 04:51:26 AM
It is common to critisize/ridicule Mormonism for the outlandish claims it makes in its holy book.
But I fail to see how somebody can consider those claims impossible, while subscribing to the claims made in the Bible.
Then the failure lies with you. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you believe every street preacher you meet has a direct line to him.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2012, 04:53:55 AM
I actually thought you were asking the non-religious folks why we made more fun of Mormons than Christians, if you're asking the Christians why they aren't Mormon that is pretty silly.
Yeah, I thought it was the first question too.
On a more sensible level headed note, if you want to see proper takedowns of how stupid the magical claims of each religion is is to watch the religions take each other down. Billy Graham just took Mormonism (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/17/billy_graham_website_scrubbed_of_mormonism_cult_reference_after_endorsement.html) off his list of cults, presumably too keep the Evangelical Protestant out of the Oval Office.
Here is the Bananman's takedown of mormonism
Is the Book of Mormon also the Word of God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wQlHpxkZ_3k#t=700s)
Quote from: Maximus on October 24, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 03:56:07 PM
Judaism: 3,000+ years old
Christianity: 2,000+ years old
Islam, PBUH: 1,200+ years old
Mormonism: Invented a few weeks ago on the back of a cocktail napkin with the last two digits smeared by the condensation from a bottle of Rolling Rock nursed far too long while listening to Warrant's "Don't Know What You've Got" at 1:35am as you stare at yourself in the bar mirror wondering if the well-worn single mom barfly sitting next to you is really worth knowing where you live on a work night
What's the connection between this and the OP?
I enjoy bashing cults that were just invented. Mormons are easier to pick on, because they're a collection of puppies. Scientology, I'd have the IRS on my ass by now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 04:56:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 04:51:26 AM
It is common to critisize/ridicule Mormonism for the outlandish claims it makes in its holy book.
But I fail to see how somebody can consider those claims impossible, while subscribing to the claims made in the Bible.
Yeah. But they're laughing at the outlandishness (not the impossibility) of Jesus visiting America or everyone getting a planet - because they're outlandish and funny and 19th century. Noone's saying 'these things are ridiculous therefore I can not be Mormon'.
As I say more often than not the reason Christians believe in the Bible but don't believe in the Book of Mormon is because they're Christian, not because the Mormons are silly.
Right. Book of Genesis, horns crumbling walls, Moses separating the sea, Jesus walking on water etc. those are REAAAALY different than Jesus visiting America and people getting planets.
Srsly now.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 04:56:24 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 04:51:26 AM
It is common to critisize/ridicule Mormonism for the outlandish claims it makes in its holy book.
But I fail to see how somebody can consider those claims impossible, while subscribing to the claims made in the Bible.
Then the failure lies with you. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you believe every street preacher you meet has a direct line to him.
Sure. But what makes you differentiate?
The difference is, after 2000 years of scholarly doctrinal development, through the Christological and Trinitarian controversies, Augustine and Aquinas, and through the Reformation, nobody short of retardo snake handlers and tongue-speakers actually take that stuff literally. Mormons do.
Damn, you over-read, uber cynical Euro shrillbots go so overboard sometimes.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 06:23:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 04:56:24 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 04:51:26 AM
It is common to critisize/ridicule Mormonism for the outlandish claims it makes in its holy book.
But I fail to see how somebody can consider those claims impossible, while subscribing to the claims made in the Bible.
Then the failure lies with you. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you believe every street preacher you meet has a direct line to him.
Sure. But what makes you differentiate?
What makes you differentiate between one goof ball political philosophy and another? You are an atheist and a materialist. How come you aren't a Marxist? Or an Anarchist?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2012, 06:30:16 AM
The difference is, after 2000 years of scholarly doctrinal development, through the Christological and Trinitarian controversies, Augustine and Aquinas, and through the Reformation, nobody short of retardo snake handlers and tongue-speakers actually take that stuff literally. Mormons do.
Damn, you over-read, uber cynical Euro shrillbots go so overboard sometimes.
I am sorry, but who gave YOU or anyone else for that matter, the right to decide what is meant to be taken literally in the holy books and what is not?
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 06:45:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2012, 06:30:16 AM
The difference is, after 2000 years of scholarly doctrinal development, through the Christological and Trinitarian controversies, Augustine and Aquinas, and through the Reformation, nobody short of retardo snake handlers and tongue-speakers actually take that stuff literally. Mormons do.
Damn, you over-read, uber cynical Euro shrillbots go so overboard sometimes.
I am sorry, but who gave YOU or anyone else for that matter, the right to decide what is meant to be taken literally in the holy books and what is not?
Who cares who gave them the right if people feel that way? :huh:
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 06:21:43 AM
Right. Book of Genesis, horns crumbling walls, Moses separating the sea, Jesus walking on water etc. those are REAAAALY different than Jesus visiting America and people getting planets.
Srsly now.
They are really different. None of them are funny. Pictures of Jesus meeting native Americans are far funnier. That's just an objective fact.
But I think you're still moving around the topic a lot. I don't get whether you mean Christians or anyone else when you're talking about people ridiculing Mormons.
On a personal note I'd add they've no redeeming vices. No booze, no smoking, no drugs, no caffeine...
Tamas is saying that if you are so credulous and stupid to believe in God, why aren't you believing anything anyone tells you. Which is why I ask him the equally stupid question of why he isn't a Marxist. It's based on dumb assumptions.
I tell you, that how can you say that "world made in 6 days" is perfectly fine, but Jesus in America is impossible.
And CdM's "a lot of dudes said it shouldn't be taken literally" is the lamest excuse. How can you call BS on parts of the Bible, but not it's overall message, namely that there is a God, and there are a set of rules he wants you to follow?
Seriously Tamas, why do you believe the silly libertarian shit you believe? Why aren't you a communist?
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 01:39:01 AM
So looks like most here missed the point.
Your respect for what religions inspire and all that aside.
If you believe in God, how can you ignore shit like water-walking, water-to-wine trickery, God talking to peeps and such, and yet think that the Book of Mormon is lies?
If you think the tacky parts of the Bible are fake, then how can you claim that the rest is not? Cherrypicking from holy books might be convinient but then you are just creating your own religion and undermining the truth factor of the thing you want to believe in.
It is all symbolic and not one word of it is literally true, like a historical record. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. Well ok maybe not entirely coincidental but not really the point. I would think having the same story told four times with practically zero similarities shared by all four stories would be a clue.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 07:11:45 AM
I tell you, that how can you say that "world made in 6 days" is perfectly fine, but Jesus in America is impossible.
And CdM's "a lot of dudes said it shouldn't be taken literally" is the lamest excuse. How can you call BS on parts of the Bible, but not it's overall message, namely that there is a God, and there are a set of rules he wants you to follow?
You're missing his point entirely; deliberately, I'd guess. Seedy is saying that after two thousand years of scholarly and ethical interpretation, the Bible has more or less been shown to be a guide book as provided by God, not an absolute history meant to be taken literally. Your assertions that people believe it is meant to be taken literally doesn't change the fact that very few people believe that anymore.
And even if they did, as Garbon has said, that doesn't mean that a person has to take
all religious treatises as truth. It comes down to what you feel is most true for you, or what fits best with your beliefs, or even what religion does what you find to be most important (caring for the poor, doesn't drink alcohol, etc.). It's similar to one person finding a woman beautiful and another thinking she's hideous. Neither is right or wrong. It comes down to their personal view on her looks.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 07:11:45 AM
I tell you, that how can you say that "world made in 6 days" is perfectly fine, but Jesus in America is impossible.
And CdM's "a lot of dudes said it shouldn't be taken literally" is the lamest excuse. How can you call BS on parts of the Bible, but not it's overall message, namely that there is a God, and there are a set of rules he wants you to follow?
This is a very strange accusation. Considering the Bible symbolic and only looking at it as a metaphysical thing is sort of central to my entire spiritual philosophy. So that feels a little circular.
And I do not think that is the overall message. If that was the message the whole thing would be a pamphlet.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2012, 07:46:00 AM
I would think having the same story told four times with practically zero similarities shared by all four stories would be a clue.
heh.
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 07:46:21 AM
You're missing his point entirely; deliberately, I'd guess. Seedy is saying that after two thousand years of scholarly and ethical interpretation, the Bible has more or less been shown to be a guide book as provided by God, not an absolute history meant to be taken literally.
YOU are missing MY point. Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? Nowhere right? Sure, the smarter Christian folks realized that it must be a load of BS, but liked the general message and couldn't want to ruin their own livelihood anyways, so they come up with convinient explanations of why a bunch of backward tribals wrote backward tribal superstitions, and why the life of Jesus was "enchanced" by various stuff stolen from other religious myths in what probably was the biggest marketing battle of history.
The answer of course is that every generation twisted the meaning to it's own liking. Today we like to see the basic morals of Jesus' teachings as foundations for the liberal democracies we have, and I sure would love to subscribe to that, but then such an attempt must face the fact that these secular liberal societies fought their way into existence against the harsh and unyielding opposition of the previous eras' Christianity.
Which necessary leads us to the conclusion that the Bible is either totally inadequate for drawing conclusion on the nature and existence of God (since the actual interpretation changes according to who reads it, which means that it has no value on its own), or that it was indeed meant to be taken literally in which case the outlandish claims it make makes it no better literature than the Book of Mormon.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2012, 07:56:57 AM
Considering the Bible symbolic and only looking at it as a metaphysical thing is sort of central to my entire spiritual philosophy. So that feels a little circular.
I would indeed like to know which part of the religion's holy (ie. official) text told you to view the Bible as that.
I know that is the CONVINIENT way for you, since otherwise your religion is not compatible with the modern views on moral and individual rights and such, but conviniency (?) doesn't make something true.
Uhm, Tamas, are you feeling all right? You're becoming rather obsessed here.
Quote from: Syt on October 25, 2012, 08:06:53 AM
Uhm, Tamas, are you feeling all right? You're becoming rather obsessed here.
I can choose between working so I won't get buried under work next week, or try and convert people to atheism.
Not sure I made the right choice :P
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:03:10 AM
I would indeed like to know which part of the religion's holy (ie. official) text told you to view the Bible as that.
The fact that it is literally impossible to take it literally, without just ignoring huge chunks of it. And in any case the basic tenants of my religion hold this to be true. If I were to believe otherwise I would not be a member of Unity.
QuoteI know that is the CONVINIENT way for you, since otherwise your religion is not compatible with the modern views on moral and individual rights and such, but conviniency (?) doesn't make something true.
As I said it is literally impossible, the Bible does not give a crap about consistency at all because it was not written to care about literal truth. It has nothing to do with modern views on moral or individual rights and such. Even ancient people reading this text recognized this. So I am curious why you hold this to be a matter of convenience when it seems blatantly obvious.
I'm still noy getting your point and will come back later.
But I think you're wrong on the Bible. The Bible is the Torah, with all of that heritage plus certain canonical texts from the time of Christ. It was assembled by various Church councils. Which is why some books are in a Catholic Bible but not a Protestant one. Even literalists tend to be aware of and interested in that history of how 'the Bible' was constructed. It's closer to the Hindu holy texts or the hadiths than a text of revelation like, say, the Quran or, from my understanding, the Book of Mormon.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:09:06 AM
I can choose between working so I won't get buried under work next week, or try and convert people to atheism.
Not sure I made the right choice :P
Well I guess to answer your question about who do I think is nuttier Mormons or fundy Christians I would have to say...well I think they are all pretty ridiculous. The Mormons seem to take the crazy and intentionally turn it up to level 10 and then take great pride in that fact. But that seems to be what makes their religion popular...to the extent it is popular anyway.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 25, 2012, 08:06:53 AM
Uhm, Tamas, are you feeling all right? You're becoming rather obsessed here.
I can choose between working so I won't get buried under work next week, or try and convert people to atheism.
Not sure I made the right choice :P
No, probably not.
This thread has just the right level of european doucheness to make it enjoyable.
4/5.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 08:50:33 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 25, 2012, 08:06:53 AM
Uhm, Tamas, are you feeling all right? You're becoming rather obsessed here.
I can choose between working so I won't get buried under work next week, or try and convert people to atheism.
Not sure I made the right choice :P
No, probably not.
that's only because you folks are too self-delusioned in order to not confront the fragile nature of your beliefs and the scary conclusions which can be drawn from that.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 08:53:38 AM
This thread has just the right level of european doucheness to make it enjoyable.
4/5.
Sometimes I wonder if people like Tamas become atheists out of conviction or because that's what smart people do, and they want to feel smart.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:55:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 08:50:33 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 25, 2012, 08:06:53 AM
Uhm, Tamas, are you feeling all right? You're becoming rather obsessed here.
I can choose between working so I won't get buried under work next week, or try and convert people to atheism.
Not sure I made the right choice :P
No, probably not.
that's only because you folks are too self-delusioned in order to not confront the fragile nature of your beliefs and the scary conclusions which can be drawn from that.
You never answered my question. Why did you pick your stupid libertarian beliefs over the other stupid philosophical beliefs. I mean, they are all stupid, what's the difference?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 08:57:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:55:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 08:50:33 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 25, 2012, 08:06:53 AM
Uhm, Tamas, are you feeling all right? You're becoming rather obsessed here.
I can choose between working so I won't get buried under work next week, or try and convert people to atheism.
Not sure I made the right choice :P
No, probably not.
that's only because you folks are too self-delusioned in order to not confront the fragile nature of your beliefs and the scary conclusions which can be drawn from that.
You never answered my question. Why did you pick your stupid libertarian beliefs over the other stupid philosophical beliefs. I mean, they are all stupid, what's the difference?
If I bothered, I could write a post about explaining the differences. Can YOU do the same, analyzing the difference between "son of Good redeeming sins of mankind with his death" and "everyone gets a planet"?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 08:17:01 AM
I'm still noy getting your point and will come back later.
But I think you're wrong on the Bible. The Bible is the Torah, with all of that heritage plus certain canonical texts from the time of Christ. It was assembled by various Church councils. Which is why some books are in a Catholic Bible but not a Protestant one. Even literalists tend to be aware of and interested in that history of how 'the Bible' was constructed. It's closer to the Hindu holy texts or the hadiths than a text of revelation like, say, the Quran or, from my understanding, the Book of Mormon.
Yeah, I don't know why Tamas is throwing out centuries of bible scholarship and insisting that one must literally believe everything the bible says happened or not be a true Christian.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 08:58:58 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 08:17:01 AM
I'm still noy getting your point and will come back later.
But I think you're wrong on the Bible. The Bible is the Torah, with all of that heritage plus certain canonical texts from the time of Christ. It was assembled by various Church councils. Which is why some books are in a Catholic Bible but not a Protestant one. Even literalists tend to be aware of and interested in that history of how 'the Bible' was constructed. It's closer to the Hindu holy texts or the hadiths than a text of revelation like, say, the Quran or, from my understanding, the Book of Mormon.
Yeah, I don't know why Tamas is throwing out centuries of bible scholarship and insisting that one must literally believe everything the bible says happened or not be a true Christian.
there could be lots of reasons. For starters, why do a bookload of metaphors when you want to teach ancient people and following generations how to live. Then put in the ten commandments which are rather specific and to the point. But the problem is broader than that I guess.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:01:08 AM
YOU are missing MY point. Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? Nowhere right? Sure, the smarter Christian folks realized that it must be a load of BS, but liked the general message and couldn't want to ruin their own livelihood anyways, so they come up with convinient explanations of why a bunch of backward tribals wrote backward tribal superstitions, and why the life of Jesus was "enchanced" by various stuff stolen from other religious myths in what probably was the biggest marketing battle of history.
Where does it say in the Bible that it should be taken literally? And I didn't say it was BS. I said that it's a guide. It's primarily allegorical, imo. That's not BS anymore than fables or legends are. The stories are told to make a point, not to try to give a prime directive to life.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:58:55 AM
If I bothered, I could write a post about explaining the differences. Can YOU do the same, analyzing the difference between "son of Good redeeming sins of mankind with his death" and "everyone gets a planet"?
Sure. Now tell me why you believe in magic markets and not magic withering of the state or the countless other stupid beliefs out there. Why is your stupidity better then their stupidity? That's the question you are asking in the OP right?
Beets.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 08:58:58 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 08:17:01 AM
I'm still noy getting your point and will come back later.
But I think you're wrong on the Bible. The Bible is the Torah, with all of that heritage plus certain canonical texts from the time of Christ. It was assembled by various Church councils. Which is why some books are in a Catholic Bible but not a Protestant one. Even literalists tend to be aware of and interested in that history of how 'the Bible' was constructed. It's closer to the Hindu holy texts or the hadiths than a text of revelation like, say, the Quran or, from my understanding, the Book of Mormon.
Yeah, I don't know why Tamas is throwing out centuries of bible scholarship and insisting that one must literally believe everything the bible says happened or not be a true Christian.
there could be lots of reasons. For starters, why do a bookload of metaphors when you want to teach ancient people and following generations how to live. Then put in the ten commandments which are rather specific and to the point. But the problem is broader than that I guess.
Because lots of different people played roles in the texts that made it in? Even if we want to go with the idea that God played a hand in how the Bible was assembled - seems like it'd be easy enough to say that different types of approaches appeal to different types of people.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:00:51 AM
Then put in the ten commandments which are rather specific and to the point.
Not really. Sages have only been arguing for thousands of years about how exactly one follows the ten commandments.
How is 'honor your parents' a specific and to the point law? How does one honor your parents?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 09:03:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:58:55 AM
If I bothered, I could write a post about explaining the differences. Can YOU do the same, analyzing the difference between "son of Good redeeming sins of mankind with his death" and "everyone gets a planet"?
Sure. Now tell me why you believe in magic markets and not magic withering of the state or the countless other stupid beliefs out there. Why is your stupidity better then their stupidity? That's the question you are asking in the OP right?
Are you seriously making economic/political theories and religious fairytales equal? God damn, son.
I am willing to concede a bit on the literal interpretation thing, good points by Meri and garbon.
However, your comparison is totally retarded.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2012, 09:06:09 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:00:51 AM
Then put in the ten commandments which are rather specific and to the point.
Not really. Sages have only been arguing for thousands of years about how exactly one follows the ten commandments.
Not a very good job from God then.
:P
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:58:55 AM
If I bothered, I could write a post about explaining the differences. Can YOU do the same, analyzing the difference between "son of Good redeeming sins of mankind with his death" and "everyone gets a planet"?
Yes.
I've spent 25 years exploring my religious beliefs, learning about a variety of religions in order to make an informed decision, and then made a decision based on my personal moral and ethical codes. That includes having taken a couple of classes on religions of the world, which included Mormonism and Christianity. There are differences, but that doesn't mean that one is any less valid than the other.
I guess I'm still trying to figure out your point. Are you trying to say that Christians should not mock Mormonism? If so, I agree, but that's because I don't believe that any religion should be mocked if there are true believers and that religion doesn't harm anyone.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:07:52 AM
Not a very good job from God then.
:P
Au contraire. It is a great job. You get constant reinterpretation of the metaphor displayed in an increasing level of cultural interaction with the religion in a nice feedback that is adaptive.
Religion needs to be, above all else, evolutionary.
Tamas - how does one take the Song of Solomon, literally? That a man and woman fell in love and had sex? On a strictly literal basis doesn't seem like it'd have much point in a religious text.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:12:34 AM
Tamas - how does one take the Song of Solomon, literally? That a man and woman fell in love and had sex? On a strictly literal basis doesn't seem like it'd have much point in a religious text.
My education about the Old Testament was that it was a collection of literature, and probably one of the chief aims was to preserve valuable pieces, that is why softporn could also be included, later to be excused by complex theories, by the sex-averse Christians.
Quote from: PDH on October 25, 2012, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:07:52 AM
Not a very good job from God then.
:P
Au contraire. It is a great job. You get constant reinterpretation of the metaphor displayed in an increasing level of cultural interaction with the religion in a nice feedback that is adaptive.
Religion needs to be, above all else, evolutionary.
Well said. :)
Quote from: PDH on October 25, 2012, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:07:52 AM
Not a very good job from God then.
:P
Au contraire. It is a great job. You get constant reinterpretation of the metaphor displayed in an increasing level of cultural interaction with the religion in a nice feedback that is adaptive.
Religion needs to be, above all else, evolutionary.
So it is a tool by God to let reckless people abuse his name in their own self interest then?
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:18:07 AM
So it is a tool by God to let reckless people abuse his name in their own self interest then?
Sure seems that way. :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:07:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 09:03:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:58:55 AM
If I bothered, I could write a post about explaining the differences. Can YOU do the same, analyzing the difference between "son of Good redeeming sins of mankind with his death" and "everyone gets a planet"?
Sure. Now tell me why you believe in magic markets and not magic withering of the state or the countless other stupid beliefs out there. Why is your stupidity better then their stupidity? That's the question you are asking in the OP right?
Are you seriously making economic/political theories and religious fairytales equal? God damn, son.
I am willing to concede a bit on the literal interpretation thing, good points by Meri and garbon.
However, your comparison is totally retarded.
So stuff I think is stupid is not equal to what you think is stupid? Why? Why is one stupidity better then another? What I'm making equal is stupid things. Why should one stupid thing be better then another stupid thing? This was your original question wasn't it? What garbon and meri are talking about is irrelevant. That's not what you are really asking. You see two beliefs that you believe are wrong. Since they are both wrong you want to know why person would pick one over the other, right? I ask the same of you. Why do you adhere to one stupid philosophy over another?
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:18:07 AM
So it is a tool by God to let reckless people abuse his name in their own self interest then?
Depends on one's view. Religion is a universal cultural practice, one of the few humans have. It constantly is interpreted and changed as times change. The evolutionary nature of religion follows the same methods as social and culture change over time.
Now, if one is taking a strictly literal view of big God on his throne in the sky, then one might interpret it this way...or, one might not. You seem to be arguing an absurdist argument here, akin to "let's take the premises to their illogical extremes to show how dumb people are" when in reality you are simply missing the beet wagon.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:18:07 AM
So it is a tool by God to let reckless people abuse his name in their own self interest then?
And we're back to free-will....
It could be argued that it's that way to filter out the chaffe. Those who would use God's name to abuse others go straight to hell. :D
I was giving Tamas the benefit of the doubt and assuming he was drunk and not trolling. I may have been wrong on the second one. :(
My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".
But I must retreat from this now because you guys are trying to handle this on a theological level, and that is something I am not capable of, as I consider religion to be either a byproduct of human existential fears, vanity, and father complexes, or a necessary byproduct of our social constructs, depending on my mood.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:15:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:12:34 AM
Tamas - how does one take the Song of Solomon, literally? That a man and woman fell in love and had sex? On a strictly literal basis doesn't seem like it'd have much point in a religious text.
My education about the Old Testament was that it was a collection of literature, and probably one of the chief aims was to preserve valuable pieces, that is why softporn could also be included, later to be excused by complex theories, by the sex-averse Christians.
Which is odd considering that Judaism has reasoning on the metaphorical aspects of Song of Solomon. At any rate, why would anyone have that in a holy text if you had to take it literally?
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".
Wasn't that already answered? Many individuals don't feel that way. Some do because they feel that a conflicting religion doesn't mesh with their religion and they can't hold both to be true. And then there's also what was said about the fact that Joseph Smith supposedly did all these miraculous things in the 19th century, which is well within the time-frame of solidly recorded history and seems completely outlandish.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".
But I must retreat from this now because you guys are trying to handle this on a theological level, and that is something I am not capable of, as I consider religion to be either a byproduct of human existential fears, vanity, and father complexes, or a necessary byproduct of our social constructs, depending on my mood.
Ah, so it was a troll. Okay.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:30:54 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:15:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:12:34 AM
Tamas - how does one take the Song of Solomon, literally? That a man and woman fell in love and had sex? On a strictly literal basis doesn't seem like it'd have much point in a religious text.
My education about the Old Testament was that it was a collection of literature, and probably one of the chief aims was to preserve valuable pieces, that is why softporn could also be included, later to be excused by complex theories, by the sex-averse Christians.
Which is odd considering that Judaism has reasoning on the metaphorical aspects of Song of Solomon. At any rate, why would anyone have that in a holy text if you had to take it literally?
That last point is true. :P
HOWEVER, at one point in ancient history, somebody HAD to want listeners/readers to believe things like Genesis be actual truth. Maybe the first one to doubt that and start teaching it as allegory was born millenias ago, but then he was the first who realized he is believing in made-up stuff but kept from admitting it even to himself :P
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:33:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".
Wasn't that already answered? Many individuals don't feel that way. Some do because they feel that a conflicting religion doesn't mesh with their religion and they can't hold both to be true. And then there's also what was said about the fact that Joseph Smith supposedly did all these miraculous things in the 19th century, which is well within the time-frame of solidly recorded history and seems completely outlandish.
I don't want to re-start this, but I don't see how it was more feasible to walk on water around 30AD or whatever.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".
But I must retreat from this now because you guys are trying to handle this on a theological level, and that is something I am not capable of, as I consider religion to be either a byproduct of human existential fears, vanity, and father complexes, or a necessary byproduct of our social constructs, depending on my mood.
The thing is, no one says that they don't understand why atheists are atheists. Partly because atheists love to tell everyone why they're atheists, but also, partly, because when you do have faith in a philosophy, you understand others doing the same. It's just that with atheism, the philosophy is that there is no god. That's also why a lot of people define atheism as a religion.
Meri, he's just trolling.
Meri that puts an other twist on the thread :D
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Or not thinking that I am Napoleon is a form of insanity.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".
Well I think we relay the fairytales to discuss spiritual truths so I do not. I simply use Christianity because that is the common language of communicating that shit down here. But, even though like 85% of what we do comes from our own tradition, we use other religions stuff as well. Mostly I think we are talking about the same sort of stuff.
QuoteBut I must retreat from this now because you guys are trying to handle this on a theological level, and that is something I am not capable of, as I consider religion to be either a byproduct of human existential fears, vanity, and father complexes, or a necessary byproduct of our social constructs, depending on my mood.
That strikes me as a theological position. Your position is 'religion is a thing humans made for various human reasons' is hardly some sort of massive bombshell but thanks for the input.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:36:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:33:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".
Wasn't that already answered? Many individuals don't feel that way. Some do because they feel that a conflicting religion doesn't mesh with their religion and they can't hold both to be true. And then there's also what was said about the fact that Joseph Smith supposedly did all these miraculous things in the 19th century, which is well within the time-frame of solidly recorded history and seems completely outlandish.
I don't want to re-start this, but I don't see how it was more feasible to walk on water around 30AD or whatever.
Presumably because it is more in the realm of legend. But really you also struggle because you're talking with a group of people who don't necessarily believe Jesus did said thing.
Btw, as a comparison to Scientology, I could so much more easily believe that someone walked on water than than aliens that came to earth in prehistoric times in DC-8s. After all, one can literally walk on water when it is frozen. :P
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:35:10 AM
That last point is true. :P
HOWEVER, at one point in ancient history, somebody HAD to want listeners/readers to believe things like Genesis be actual truth. Maybe the first one to doubt that and start teaching it as allegory was born millenias ago, but then he was the first who realized he is believing in made-up stuff but kept from admitting it even to himself :P
I'm afraid that you're way off on this. You're assuming that people thousands of years ago saw the world the same way that you do - literal and absolute - but historical texts show us otherwise. The majority of people spoke in metaphor, history was told in stories that changed in the telling (and that was considered a good thing), and while the Romans may have been far stricter with the concept of "fact", they were an abberation.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Meri that puts an other twist on the thread :D
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Or not thinking that I am Napoleon is a form of insanity.
Since no one knows the "truth", Agnostics are the only non-religion. Others have made a decision and hold to it rather tightly.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:01:08 AM
YOU are missing MY point. Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? .
The Bible was not written to be taken literally, the people that wrote the texts did not understand it literally, and the people that read and used them contemporaneously and for very long thereafter did not understand them in a purely literal sense. The Bible does not "state" it is not to be taken literally because the modern concept of a timeless, "literal" reading of a text was completely foreign to the people who wrote it, and the people who read and interpreted it for many centuries.
The notion of a literal reading as adopted and promoted by so-called "fundamentalist" movements is in fact novel and highly radical. It is a product of the 19th century, conservative reaction against liberal theology and the "Higher Criticism" which applied literary critical methods of the Bible to reveal the contribution of multiple authors and editors across time. As a 19th century religious phenomena arising in an increasing skeptical and scientistic age, fundamentalist literalism and Mormonism are two sides of the same coin.
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:35:10 AM
That last point is true. :P
HOWEVER, at one point in ancient history, somebody HAD to want listeners/readers to believe things like Genesis be actual truth. Maybe the first one to doubt that and start teaching it as allegory was born millenias ago, but then he was the first who realized he is believing in made-up stuff but kept from admitting it even to himself :P
I'm afraid that you're way off on this. You're assuming that people thousands of years ago saw the world the same way that you do - literal and absolute - but historical texts show us otherwise. The majority of people spoke in metaphor, history was told in stories that changed in the telling (and that was considered a good thing), and while the Romans may have been far stricter with the concept of "fact", they were an abberation.
Maybe. Or back then masses were much, much more illiterate, and to gain and maintain control over them (and to TEACH them!) you could/had to feed them bullshit.
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 09:41:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Meri that puts an other twist on the thread :D
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Or not thinking that I am Napoleon is a form of insanity.
Since no one knows the "truth", Agnostics are the only non-religion. Others have made a decision and hold to it rather tightly.
I consider the lack of evidence to be more leaning toward the conclusion of something non-existing than the opposite, which makes it impossible to consider atheism and faith in a higher being impossible.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:39:55 AM
But really you also struggle because you're talking with a group of people who don't necessarily believe Jesus did said thing.
Yes. But do you believe in him being the son of God and the whole sin-redeeming stuff. If yes, why you do not believe in the water-walking part. It was written in the same book. If you do not, I am sorry, but you are not a real Christian!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:01:08 AM
YOU are missing MY point. Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? .
The Bible was not written to be taken literally, the people that wrote the texts did not understand it literally, and the people that read and used them contemporaneously and for very long thereafter did not understand them in a purely literal sense. The Bible does not "state" it is not to be taken literally because the modern concept of a timeless, "literal" reading of a text was completely foreign to the people who wrote it, and the people who read and interpreted it for many centuries.
The notion of a literal reading as adopted and promoted by so-called "fundamentalist" movements is in fact novel and highly radical. It is a product of the 19th century, conservative reaction against liberal theology and the "Higher Criticism" which applied literary critical methods of the Bible to reveal the contribution of multiple authors and editors across time. As a 19th century religious phenomena arising in an increasing skeptical and scientistic age, fundamentalist literalism and Mormonism are two sides of the same coin.
Ok, that is rather convincing, and a good summary of what the others tried to write when they were not engaged in the defense of their beliefs. :)
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:42:46 AM
Maybe. Or back then masses were much, much more illiterate, and to gain and maintain control over them (and to TEACH them!) you could/had to feed them bullshit.
This is completely ahistorical garbage. Please show me these ancient leaders who considered religion bullshit.
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 09:01:50 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:01:08 AM
YOU are missing MY point. Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? Nowhere right? Sure, the smarter Christian folks realized that it must be a load of BS, but liked the general message and couldn't want to ruin their own livelihood anyways, so they come up with convinient explanations of why a bunch of backward tribals wrote backward tribal superstitions, and why the life of Jesus was "enchanced" by various stuff stolen from other religious myths in what probably was the biggest marketing battle of history.
Where does it say in the Bible that it should be taken literally? And I didn't say it was BS. I said that it's a guide. It's primarily allegorical, imo. That's not BS anymore than fables or legends are. The stories are told to make a point, not to try to give a prime directive to life.
With that argument you have just dismantled christianity itself. That is what Tamas is getting at. He like me has found it hard to reconcile two contradictory facts
one - the claim that some of the bible is allegorical and thus not factual without giving us some means of figuring out which bits are fiction and which bits are fact
two - that the christian faith says something concrete about life, the universe and everything
Ultimately this means that the faith says nothing concrete, which means it says nothing, which means it has no content, which means it has no point. You yourself, meri, have amply demonstrated how without actual content religion becomes a hermaneutical game of three card monty playing hide the god of the gaps. All assertions have to be couched with caveats like "maybe" and "possibly" about undefined experiences like "understanding" and "experience" which are made significant with nebulous undefinable adjectives like "deep" and "profound".
In the end you end up sounding like Deepak Chopra (http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/).
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:42:46 AM
Maybe. Or back then masses were much, much more illiterate, and to gain and maintain control over them (and to TEACH them!) you could/had to feed them bullshit.
There's no maybe about it. Historians have said repeatedly that this is the case.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 09:42:20 AM
The Bible was not written to be taken literally, the people that wrote the texts did not understand it literally, and the people that read and used them contemporaneously and for very long thereafter did not understand them in a purely literal sense. The Bible does not "state" it is not to be taken literally because the modern concept of a timeless, "literal" reading of a text was completely foreign to the people who wrote it, and the people who read and interpreted it for many centuries.
The notion of a literal reading as adopted and promoted by so-called "fundamentalist" movements is in fact novel and highly radical. It is a product of the 19th century, conservative reaction against liberal theology and the "Higher Criticism" which applied literary critical methods of the Bible to reveal the contribution of multiple authors and editors across time. As a 19th century religious phenomena arising in an increasing skeptical and scientistic age, fundamentalist literalism and Mormonism are two sides of the same coin.
Yes, this is what I mean. The Age of Enlightenment in the 19th century altered the way that people think of the written word, as well as how they determine what to believe.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:45:37 AM
Yes. But do you believe in him being the son of God and the whole sin-redeeming stuff. If yes, why you do not believe in the water-walking part. It was written in the same book. If you do not, I am sorry, but you are not a real Christian!
Strange you consider yourself both an Atheist and yet strangely bound by the pronouncements of Church councils.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:45:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:39:55 AM
But really you also struggle because you're talking with a group of people who don't necessarily believe Jesus did said thing.
Yes. But do you believe in him being the son of God and the whole sin-redeeming stuff. If yes, why you do not believe in the water-walking part. It was written in the same book. If you do not, I am sorry, but you are not a real Christian!
I don't call myself a Christian though. :P
Anyway your bit doesn't make sense as you've identified some key essential items of Christianity and then lumped it with a non-essential item.
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 09:41:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Meri that puts an other twist on the thread :D
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Or not thinking that I am Napoleon is a form of insanity.
Since no one knows the "truth", Agnostics are the only non-religion. Others have made a decision and hold to it rather tightly.
Agnosticism is a statement about the state of one's knowledge. An agnostic does not know. A gnostic knows or has knowledge.
Atheism is a statement about the state of one's belief in a deity. An atheist does not have such a belief. A theist has such a belief.
An Agnostic Atheist does not know if a god exists and does not believe a god exists.
A Gnostic Atheist knows if a god exists and does not believe a god exists.
An Agnostic Theist does not know if a god exists and believes a god exists.
A Gnostic Theist knows if a god exists and believes a god exists.
some of the boxes here are pretty bizarre, but agnosticism is NOT the half-way point between theism and atheism.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 09:48:21 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 09:01:50 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:01:08 AM
YOU are missing MY point. Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? Nowhere right? Sure, the smarter Christian folks realized that it must be a load of BS, but liked the general message and couldn't want to ruin their own livelihood anyways, so they come up with convinient explanations of why a bunch of backward tribals wrote backward tribal superstitions, and why the life of Jesus was "enchanced" by various stuff stolen from other religious myths in what probably was the biggest marketing battle of history.
Where does it say in the Bible that it should be taken literally? And I didn't say it was BS. I said that it's a guide. It's primarily allegorical, imo. That's not BS anymore than fables or legends are. The stories are told to make a point, not to try to give a prime directive to life.
With that argument you have just dismantled christianity itself. That is what Tamas is getting at. He like me has found it hard to reconcile two contradictory facts
one - the claim that some of the bible is allegorical and thus not factual without giving us some means of figuring out which bits are fiction and which bits are fact
two - that the christian faith says something concrete about life, the universe and everything
Ultimately this means that the faith says nothing concrete, which means it says nothing, which means it has no content, which means it has no point. You yourself, meri, have amply demonstrated how without actual content religion becomes a hermaneutical game of three card monty playing hide the god of the gaps. All assertions have to be couched with caveats like "maybe" and "possibly" about undefined experiences like "understanding" and "experience" which are made significant with nebulous undefinable adjectives like "deep" and "profound".
In the end you end up sounding like Deepak Chopra (http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/).
Christianity is more than just the Bible. :huh:
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 09:48:21 AM
With that argument you have just dismantled christianity itself. That is what Tamas is getting at. He like me has found it hard to reconcile two contradictory facts
one - the claim that some of the bible is allegorical and thus not factual without giving us some means of figuring out which bits are fiction and which bits are fact
two - that the christian faith says something concrete about life, the universe and everything
Ultimately this means that the faith says nothing concrete, which means it says nothing, which means it has no content, which means it has no point. You yourself, meri, have amply demonstrated how without actual content religion becomes a hermaneutical game of three card monty playing hide the god of the gaps. All assertions have to be couched with caveats like "maybe" and "possibly" about undefined experiences like "understanding" and "experience" which are made significant with nebulous undefinable adjectives like "deep" and "profound".
In the end you end up sounding like Deepak Chopra (http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/).
:huh:
That's only true if you worry about "facts" to the exclusion of all else. You worry about that, but most people recognize that there is more to life than bare facts. Opinions matter, as do beauty, strengths, weaknesses, etc. And in that, I believe that religion does offer something toward life, the universe and everything. Is it concrete? I guess that depends on what you consider "concrete".
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 09:41:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Meri that puts an other twist on the thread :D
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Or not thinking that I am Napoleon is a form of insanity.
Since no one knows the "truth", Agnostics are the only non-religion. Others have made a decision and hold to it rather tightly.
Agnosticism is a statement about the state of one's knowledge. An agnostic does not know. A gnostic knows or has knowledge.
Atheism is a statement about the state of one's belief in a deity. An atheist does not have such a belief. A theist has such a belief.
An Agnostic Atheist does not know if a god exists and does not believe a god exists.
A Gnostic Atheist knows if a god exists and does not believe a god exists.
An Agnostic Theist does not know if a god exists and believes a god exists.
A Gnostic Theist knows if a god exists and believes a god exists.
some of the boxes here are pretty bizarre, but agnosticism is NOT the half-way point between theism and atheism.
And what happens if you are ambivalent on whether God exists?
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2012, 09:47:25 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:42:46 AM
Maybe. Or back then masses were much, much more illiterate, and to gain and maintain control over them (and to TEACH them!) you could/had to feed them bullshit.
This is completely ahistorical garbage. Please show me these ancient leaders who considered religion bullshit.
Not only that, but religions predate states. So if leaders created religions to control those stupid masses they had to go back in time to do it.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 09:48:21 AM
With that argument you have just dismantled christianity itself. That is what Tamas is getting at. He like me has found it hard to reconcile two contradictory facts
one - the claim that some of the bible is allegorical and thus not factual without giving us some means of figuring out which bits are fiction and which bits are fact
two - that the christian faith says something concrete about life, the universe and everything
This is a very confused post. Because you are confusing a particular text (the New Testament) with a particular manifestation of ordered belief (Christianity) and confusing both with relgious-based belief and faith.
Christian doctrine has lots of concrete things to say about life, the universe and everything, but while those things are influenced by the words in the Biblical text, there is not a direct one-to-one correspondence, not close. Modern fundamentalists aside, Christians don't read the Bible as a User's Manual to God, which is sensible thing, because it is incredibly obvious that the Bible is no such thing.
Also - the claim that the Bible needs to be understand allegorically is not a claim that the Bible consists partially of facts which are literally true and others which are false but must be understood allegorically. It is a claim that the entire Bible contains truths but to understand these truths fully and properly, the entire text must be read and understood in its allegorical as well as literal sense.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 09:48:21 AM
Ultimately this means that the faith says nothing concrete, which means it says nothing
Ah yes the tired old, unless you are a fundamentalist nutball you are worthless position by Viking :lol:
QuoteAll assertions have to be couched with caveats like "maybe" and "possibly" about undefined experiences like "understanding" and "experience" which are made significant with nebulous undefinable adjectives like "deep" and "profound".
In the end you end up sounding like Deepak Chopra.
Yeah well welcome to religion. Even the Fundies spend most of their time engaging in this sort of thing not figuring out how many donkies maybe have personally known Jesus according to the Gospel of John. But you seem to think the donkey numbering is what is valuable here...which puzzles me.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:36:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:33:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
My point was, a sort of honest question on how can you accept the lunatic "allegoric" fairytales of your religion, but rule out the possible truth of other religions' fairytales.
Like that quote about "I argue that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. If you can explain why you do not believe in the other religions, you will understand why I don't believe in yours".
Wasn't that already answered? Many individuals don't feel that way. Some do because they feel that a conflicting religion doesn't mesh with their religion and they can't hold both to be true. And then there's also what was said about the fact that Joseph Smith supposedly did all these miraculous things in the 19th century, which is well within the time-frame of solidly recorded history and seems completely outlandish.
I don't want to re-start this, but I don't see how it was more feasible to walk on water around 30AD or whatever.
Well people are much fatter now than in 30AD, so obviously it was easier to walk on water back then. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:55:12 AM
Christianity is more than just the Bible. :huh:
My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there... but yes, it is more than the bible. Without it, however, it reduces to pontification (see the clever pun?) on nothing and pure subjective opinion.
How do we know that Jesus died for our sins and for us to be granted eternal life we must believe in him if not getting it from the bible? If John 3:16
QuoteFor God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
is not a true fact then the religion has no purpose. How can you tell me that is not allegory and if it is allegory how is the bible any more a guide to good behavior than Huckleberry Finn?
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 09:55:55 AM
:huh:
That's only true if you worry about "facts" to the exclusion of all else. You worry about that, but most people recognize that there is more to life than bare facts. Opinions matter, as do beauty, strengths, weaknesses, etc. And in that, I believe that religion does offer something toward life, the universe and everything. Is it concrete? I guess that depends on what you consider "concrete".
As I said, Deepak Chopra.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2012, 10:00:48 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 09:48:21 AM
Ultimately this means that the faith says nothing concrete, which means it says nothing
Ah yes the tired old, unless you are a fundamentalist nutball you are worthless position by Viking :lol:
QuoteAll assertions have to be couched with caveats like "maybe" and "possibly" about undefined experiences like "understanding" and "experience" which are made significant with nebulous undefinable adjectives like "deep" and "profound".
In the end you end up sounding like Deepak Chopra.
Yeah well welcome to religion. Even the Fundies spend most of their time engaging in this sort of thing not figuring out how many donkies maybe have personally known Jesus according to the Gospel of John. But you seem to think the donkey numbering is what is valuable here...which puzzles me.
I take the list of genealogies in Genesis as the most important part of the Christian faith. All of those years are exact. :P
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 09:41:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Meri that puts an other twist on the thread :D
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Or not thinking that I am Napoleon is a form of insanity.
Since no one knows the "truth", Agnostics are the only non-religion. Others have made a decision and hold to it rather tightly.
Agnosticism is a statement about the state of one's knowledge. An agnostic does not know. A gnostic knows or has knowledge.
Atheism is a statement about the state of one's belief in a deity. An atheist does not have such a belief. A theist has such a belief.
An Agnostic Atheist does not know if a god exists and does not believe a god exists.
A Gnostic Atheist knows if a god exists and does not believe a god exists.
An Agnostic Theist does not know if a god exists and believes a god exists.
A Gnostic Theist knows if a god exists and believes a god exists.
some of the boxes here are pretty bizarre, but agnosticism is NOT the half-way point between theism and atheism.
And what happens if you are ambivalent on whether God exists?
The word usually used (jokingly) is Apatheist.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:55:12 AM
Christianity is more than just the Bible. :huh:
My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there... but yes, it is more than the bible. Without it, however, it reduces to pontification (see the clever pun?) on nothing and pure subjective opinion.
How do we know that Jesus died for our sins and for us to be granted eternal life we must believe in him if not getting it from the bible? If John 3:16
QuoteFor God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
is not a true fact then the religion has no purpose. How can you tell me that is not allegory and if it is allegory how is the bible any more a guide to good behavior than Huckleberry Finn?
I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:55:12 AM
Christianity is more than just the Bible. :huh:
My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there... but yes, it is more than the bible. Without it, however, it reduces to pontification (see the clever pun?) on nothing and pure subjective opinion.
How do we know that Jesus died for our sins and for us to be granted eternal life we must believe in him if not getting it from the bible? If John 3:16
QuoteFor God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
is not a true fact then the religion has no purpose. How can you tell me that is not allegory and if it is allegory how is the bible any more a guide to good behavior than Huckleberry Finn?
Because even John 3:16 isn't to be read literally. Nobody believes that if you believe in God you will be immortal and live forever on this earth.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2012, 10:00:48 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 09:48:21 AM
Ultimately this means that the faith says nothing concrete, which means it says nothing
Ah yes the tired old, unless you are a fundamentalist nutball you are worthless position by Viking :lol:
QuoteAll assertions have to be couched with caveats like "maybe" and "possibly" about undefined experiences like "understanding" and "experience" which are made significant with nebulous undefinable adjectives like "deep" and "profound".
In the end you end up sounding like Deepak Chopra.
Yeah well welcome to religion. Even the Fundies spend most of their time engaging in this sort of thing not figuring out how many donkies maybe have personally known Jesus according to the Gospel of John. But you seem to think the donkey numbering is what is valuable here...which puzzles me.
Well, yes, I agree with the Fundamentalist nutballs, as we have previously established. The religion itself (not just the bible) asserts that a god exists. This is a pretty profound assertion. The religion also makes quite specific claims about what the god likes and dislikes and how the god will reward you and for what the god will reward you and what the god demands that you do. These are all facts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 09:59:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 09:48:21 AM
With that argument you have just dismantled christianity itself. That is what Tamas is getting at. He like me has found it hard to reconcile two contradictory facts
one - the claim that some of the bible is allegorical and thus not factual without giving us some means of figuring out which bits are fiction and which bits are fact
two - that the christian faith says something concrete about life, the universe and everything
This is a very confused post. Because you are confusing a particular text (the New Testament) with a particular manifestation of ordered belief (Christianity) and confusing both with relgious-based belief and faith.
Christian doctrine has lots of concrete things to say about life, the universe and everything, but while those things are influenced by the words in the Biblical text, there is not a direct one-to-one correspondence, not close. Modern fundamentalists aside, Christians don't read the Bible as a User's Manual to God, which is sensible thing, because it is incredibly obvious that the Bible is no such thing.
Also - the claim that the Bible needs to be understand allegorically is not a claim that the Bible consists partially of facts which are literally true and others which are false but must be understood allegorically. It is a claim that the entire Bible contains truths but to understand these truths fully and properly, the entire text must be read and understood in its allegorical as well as literal sense.
Christian doctrine is discussion of and commentaries on the bible since the bible is the primary source for the minstry of jesus and the works of the apostles who were divinely inspired. If the foundation is lacking the doctrine falls not matter how internally consistent. If Jesus did not die for our sins the whole religion is pointless. How do we know that Jesus died for our sins? The Bible. Given that much of the bible is allegory I need to know how you can tell that the Golgotha narrative is not allegorical.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there...
Sola scriptura simply means that theology can be derived entirely from a reading of the text, and without recourse to conciliar pronouncements. It doesn't require or even suggest a literal reading, and indeed neither Luther, Zwingli, nor Calvin adopted such a reading. Moreover; sola scriptura was not strict, at least for the Luterans who accepted the Nicaea.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 10:13:34 AM
I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.
I put the same weight on millennia of scholarship on this issue as I put on any other issue from
astrology astronomy to
alchemy chemistry.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 09:58:36 PM
The idea that religions that have been around for millenia and have had millions of followers seem a little less crazy? :huh:
Why? Just because something is older doesn't mean it's better.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2012, 10:17:09 AM
Because even John 3:16 isn't to be read literally. Nobody believes that if you believe in God you will be immortal and live forever on this earth.
Damn, that must have come as a surprise to the first and second century Christians who believed precisely that. Bodily resurrection. It's only later that this came to mean eternal life in heaven.
Viking is going to be a religious fanatic at some point in his life. He has mindset for it, all it will take is the right push in that direction. He's going to see Jesus in his toast, or have a beatific vision after having the toaster electrocute him, and then we won't be able to get him to shut up about how Christ is going to save us. Toast may or may not be involved.
Quote from: Maximus on October 25, 2012, 10:22:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 09:58:36 PM
The idea that religions that have been around for millenia and have had millions of followers seem a little less crazy? :huh:
Why? Just because something is older doesn't mean it's better.
I'm older then my brother, that makes me better.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 09:55:12 AM
Christianity is more than just the Bible. :huh:
My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there... but yes, it is more than the bible. Without it, however, it reduces to pontification (see the clever pun?) on nothing and pure subjective opinion.
How do we know that Jesus died for our sins and for us to be granted eternal life we must believe in him if not getting it from the bible? If John 3:16
QuoteFor God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
is not a true fact then the religion has no purpose. How can you tell me that is not allegory and if it is allegory how is the bible any more a guide to good behavior than Huckleberry Finn?
I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.
Far be it for me to say anything that might give some strength to Viking's absurdist reasoning, but if you come at it from the Protestant tradition it is very much about downplaying a lot of the traditional understanding of Christianity, and to re-focus directly on the Bible.
I see however that Minsky does put the limits to that Protestant approach however.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:21:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 10:13:34 AM
I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.
I put the same weight on millennia of scholarship on this issue as I put on any other issue from astrology astronomy to alchemy chemistry.
And philosophy?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 10:21:18 AM
Sola scriptura simply means that theology can be derived entirely from a reading of the text, and without recourse to conciliar pronouncements. It doesn't require or even suggest a literal reading, and indeed neither Luther, Zwingli, nor Calvin adopted such a reading. Moreover; sola scriptura was not strict, at least for the Luterans who accepted the Nicaea.
I haven't been able to find primary sources on it, but I was taught that the medieval anabaptists believed in a literal interpretation of the bible.
Quote from: Maximus on October 25, 2012, 10:27:15 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 10:21:18 AM
Sola scriptura simply means that theology can be derived entirely from a reading of the text, and without recourse to conciliar pronouncements. It doesn't require or even suggest a literal reading, and indeed neither Luther, Zwingli, nor Calvin adopted such a reading. Moreover; sola scriptura was not strict, at least for the Luterans who accepted the Nicaea.
I haven't been able to find primary sources on it, but I was taught that the medieval anabaptists believed in a literal interpretation of the bible.
As anabaptists post date the middle ages, that would be tough.
Quote from: katmai on October 24, 2012, 09:17:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2012, 08:59:37 PM
If it gets jdawg some tail, more power to him.
Um he's doing it for business now, she dumped him :P
Really? Mormon girls have always been sorta clingy in my experience. Once you're dating them, it takes a lot to break up.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there...
Sola scriptura simply means that theology can be derived entirely from a reading of the text, and without recourse to conciliar pronouncements. It doesn't require or even suggest a literal reading, and indeed neither Luther, Zwingli, nor Calvin adopted such a reading. Moreover; sola scriptura was not strict, at least for the Luterans who accepted the Nicaea.
I've learned not to lecture you about Judaism, you shouldn't lecture me about Lutheranism.
It means that everything must be sourced in the bible and the holy spirit helps you realize what the bible means in each case. Which is the reason protestantism immediately fractured because Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Wesley etc.etc. all understood it differently and were equally well justified in the interpretations.
Any argument for a theological interpretation must start with you pointing to a verse in the bible.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:18:44 AM
How do we know that Jesus died for our sins? The Bible.
Christians know that Jesus died for their sins because the "good news" has been conveyed to them through a living chain back to the original witnesses to the fact (the apostles). That knowledge is independent of any textual formulation, it would exist and be true even if the New Testament had never been written down. There is a tendency to forget this 2000 years after the event, in a highly literate age where the written word is paramount.
QuoteChristian doctrine is discussion of and commentaries on the bible since the bible is the primary source for the minstry of jesus and the works of the apostles who were divinely inspired. If the foundation is lacking the doctrine falls not matter how internally consistent.
The text is the foundation but stating that only begs the question of how the text is be understood and what it means. Answering that question is the hard part and focus of Christian doctrinal and theological effort for 2000 years. The reality of doctrinal and sectional division within Christianity indicates that there have been multiple answers to that question, and the reason for that is that the text, like all texts, can be read in different ways.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 10:26:22 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:21:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 10:13:34 AM
I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.
I put the same weight on millennia of scholarship on this issue as I put on any other issue from astrology astronomy to alchemy chemistry.
And religion philosophy?
fyp
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:29:17 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there...
Sola scriptura simply means that theology can be derived entirely from a reading of the text, and without recourse to conciliar pronouncements. It doesn't require or even suggest a literal reading, and indeed neither Luther, Zwingli, nor Calvin adopted such a reading. Moreover; sola scriptura was not strict, at least for the Luterans who accepted the Nicaea.
I've learned not to lecture you about Judaism, you shouldn't lecture me about Lutheranism.
It means that everything must be sourced in the bible and the holy spirit helps you realize what the bible means in each case. Which is the reason protestantism immediately fractured because Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Wesley etc.etc. all understood it differently and were equally well justified in the interpretations.
Any argument for a theological interpretation must start with you pointing to a verse in the bible.
You aren't contradicting anything Minsky said though. :huh:
Quote from: Maximus on October 25, 2012, 10:22:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 09:58:36 PM
The idea that religions that have been around for millenia and have had millions of followers seem a little less crazy? :huh:
Why? Just because something is older doesn't mean it's better.
I think it does make it harder to just dismiss out of hand.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:29:17 AM
I've learned not to lecture you about Judaism, you shouldn't lecture me about Lutheranism.
It means that everything must be sourced in the bible and the holy spirit helps you realize what the bible means in each case. Which is the reason protestantism immediately fractured because Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Wesley etc.etc. all understood it differently and were equally well justified in the interpretations.
Any argument for a theological interpretation must start with you pointing to a verse in the bible.
It's not my intent to lecture, but I did notice you said nothing to contradict me here. The requirement for Biblical sourcing is not a requirement of literal reading and none of the figures you mentioned adopted fundamentalist readings in the sense we understand today. In some cases their readings were quite radical and far from obvious "plain meaning" interpretations.
EDIT: also can't help but point out that since Lutherism ultimately is just another Jewish heresy, my lecturing privileges ought to be reinstated. ;)
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:30:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 10:26:22 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:21:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 10:13:34 AM
I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.
I put the same weight on millennia of scholarship on this issue as I put on any other issue from astrology astronomy to alchemy chemistry.
And religion philosophy?
fyp
Try again.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 10:28:25 AM
As anabaptists post date the middle ages, that would be tough.
The usage of that term post-dates the middle ages. There is some indication their beliefs do not.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 10:33:00 AM
I think it does make it harder to just dismiss out of hand.
But that's not what I was doing. Rather I was objecting to dismissing something out of hand because it was newer.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 10:30:04 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:18:44 AM
How do we know that Jesus died for our sins? The Bible.
Christians know that Jesus died for their sins because the "good news" has been conveyed to them through a living chain back to the original witnesses to the fact (the apostles). That knowledge is independent of any textual formulation, it would exist and be true even if the New Testament had never been written down. There is a tendency to forget this 2000 years after the event, in a highly literate age where the written word is paramount.
I am not asserting that the bible is itself revealed. It is an inspired compilation and restatement of the experience of the witnesses of that revelation. Jesus' preaching is the revelation and the bible is the report of that good news. It is still the primary source. There is no other in orthodox (note, uncapitalized) Christianity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 10:30:04 AM
QuoteChristian doctrine is discussion of and commentaries on the bible since the bible is the primary source for the minstry of jesus and the works of the apostles who were divinely inspired. If the foundation is lacking the doctrine falls not matter how internally consistent.
The text is the foundation but stating that only begs the question of how the text is be understood and what it means. Answering that question is the hard part and focus of Christian doctrinal and theological effort for 2000 years. The reality of doctrinal and sectional division within Christianity indicates that there have been multiple answers to that question, and the reason for that is that the text, like all texts, can be read in different ways.
This just supports my problematization. We don't know how it is to be understood and what it means. The entire topic of theology exists to resolve this problem. I'm saying we've had 2000 years and the problem just keeps getting bigger. Theology is itself a failure and has produced no resolution to any issue since the council of Nicea. The lord is not the author of confusion, but alas he is.
I am saying that if it were true then it wouldn't need interpretation; I'm also saying that the fact that it needs interpretation means that it has no meaning other than what the reader brings to it. This means that it is just as useful as Huck Finn (actually much less so) as a source for inspiration, morality and spirituality.
Quote from: Maximus on October 25, 2012, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 10:28:25 AM
As anabaptists post date the middle ages, that would be tough.
The usage of that term post-dates the middle ages. There is some indication their beliefs do not.
True, Christianity does predate the middle ages altogether, and thus some beliefs of the Anabaptists predate the renaissance, but that's not really very relevant.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 10:33:52 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:29:17 AM
I've learned not to lecture you about Judaism, you shouldn't lecture me about Lutheranism.
It means that everything must be sourced in the bible and the holy spirit helps you realize what the bible means in each case. Which is the reason protestantism immediately fractured because Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Wesley etc.etc. all understood it differently and were equally well justified in the interpretations.
Any argument for a theological interpretation must start with you pointing to a verse in the bible.
It's not my intent to lecture, but I did notice you said nothing to contradict me here. The requirement for Biblical sourcing is not a requirement of literal reading and none of the figures you mentioned adopted fundamentalist readings in the sense we understand today. In some cases their readings were quite radical and far from obvious "plain meaning" interpretations.
EDIT: also can't help but point out that since Lutherism ultimately is just another Jewish heresy, my lecturing privileges ought to be reinstated. ;)
sigh, at times like this I can appreciate why Luther was a venomous anti-semite :hmm:
I shifted the emphasis from your suggestion that any sola scriptura protestants thought that there was a source of knowledge of god outside the bible to pointing out that they believe that it is still god helping the reader understand the bible through inspiration from the holy spirit. The main difference between catholics and protestants is that the catholics think that the holy spirit acts on the group at prayer while the protestants think the holy spirit acts on the individual reader at prayer.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:40:36 AM
I am saying that if it were true then it wouldn't need interpretation; I'm also saying that the fact that it needs interpretation means that it has no meaning other than what the reader brings to it.
The same could be said against the entire corpus of Western philosophy.
You know, I tried to point this out... :whistle:
Quote from: Maximus on October 25, 2012, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 10:33:00 AM
I think it does make it harder to just dismiss out of hand.
But that's not what I was doing. Rather I was objecting to dismissing something out of hand because it was newer.
But that's what always happens. Something new with few adherents lacks a sense of legitimacy that something older and established has. It doesn't ultimately mean that the older thing is right or better but that's what people do.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:40:36 AM
I am not asserting that the bible is itself revealed. It is an inspired compilation and restatement of the experience of the witnesses of that revelation. Jesus' preaching is the revelation and the bible is the report of that good news. It is still the primary source. There is no other in orthodox (note, uncapitalized) Christianity.
Missed this.
It is the primary
written source.
But the gospel at its base is an oral report, transmitted orally. Every Christian knows that the written gospels in the NT were written down decades after the fact. The written form is useful because it fixes the text and protects it against intentional or unintentional tampering. But the primary source is the spoken, not the written word of the good news.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:40:36 AM
I am not asserting that the bible is itself revealed. It is an inspired compilation and restatement of the experience of the witnesses of that revelation. Jesus' preaching is the revelation and the bible is the report of that good news. It is still the primary source. There is no other in orthodox (note, uncapitalized) Christianity.
Missed this.
It is the primary written source.
But the gospel at its base is an oral report, transmitted orally. Every Christian knows that the written gospels in the NT were written down decades after the fact. The written form is useful because it fixes the text and protects it against intentional or unintentional tampering. But the primary source is the spoken, not the written word of the good news.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 10:48:13 AM
You know, I tried to point this out... :whistle:
It's actually understated.
If Viking is right, we also can't have knowledge about any historical fact at all, since any such knowledge is derived from the reading and contested interpretation of texts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 10:45:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 10:40:36 AM
I am saying that if it were true then it wouldn't need interpretation; I'm also saying that the fact that it needs interpretation means that it has no meaning other than what the reader brings to it.
The same could be said against the entire corpus of Western philosophy.
No. If anything the constant primary theme of Western Philosophy is to find the pre-modern font of knowledge on which aristotles logic could be applied to. Until Bacon asserts that we don't need it and Descartes asserts that the only thing you can really be sure of is your own existence. At that point the enlightenment starts and the entire process goes into reverse with outcomes being analyzed to reverse engineer the causes.
Christianity asserts that it has the truth, if that were the case interpretation wouldn't be needed. Western Philosophy seeks the truth rather than asserting it. That is what makes Western Philosophy special.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 11:12:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 10:48:13 AM
You know, I tried to point this out... :whistle:
It's actually understated.
If Viking is right, we also can't have knowledge about any historical fact at all, since any such knowledge is derived from the reading and contested interpretation of texts.
No. Well, first of all, there is no capital "T" truth. But, before I decent into post-modern relativism... There are lower case "t" truths out there. These truths are testable and verified by other independent sources. Lower case "t" truths have consequences and can be tested for veracity.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 11:15:08 AM
No. If anything the constant primary theme of Western Philosophy is to find the pre-modern font of knowledge on which aristotles logic could be applied to. Until Bacon asserts that we don't need it and Descartes asserts that the only thing you can really be sure of is your own existence. At that point the enlightenment starts and the entire process goes into reverse with outcomes being analyzed to reverse engineer the causes.
Christianity asserts that it has the truth, if that were the case interpretation wouldn't be needed. Western Philosophy seeks the truth rather than asserting it. That is what makes Western Philosophy special.
That's a very narrow and Whiggish reading of history and breadth of Western thought. You're missing about 97%.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 11:26:32 AM
No. Well, first of all, there is no capital "T" truth. But, before I decent into post-modern relativism... There are lower case "t" truths out there. These truths are testable and verified by other independent sources. Lower case "t" truths have consequences and can be tested for veracity.
Historical facts are not testable - there is no way to go back in time to verify. We are stuck with texts - archaeology can help a little bit but only rarely can it be conclusive. Mostly historians are stuck reading and interepreting texts, and your criticism of that methodology applies with equal force.
Concretely, the task of understanding facts about the life and deeds of Jesus is no different than understanding the facts about the life and deeds of say, Clovis I. Pretty much everything we think we know about Clovis' life derives from a single narrative, written down decades after Clovis' death by a religious leader who is generally assumed to have written with a very particular agenda. Comparatively speaking, the sourcing for Jesus is far more robust because at least there we have multiple accounts from multiple authors to compare. So why should we treat statements about Jesus as mere superstitious mythology while statements about Clovis' life are considered legitimate historical inquiry?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 11:43:08 AM
So why should we treat statements about Jesus as mere superstitious mythology while statements about Clovis' life are considered legitimate historical inquiry?
One difference is nobody claimed Clovis is God.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 11:47:02 AM
One difference is nobody claimed Clovis is God.
Actually it is quite likely that somebody made such a claim or something like it since pre-Christian kings and warlords often made claims of divine powers or provenance. Indeed, one of the early chronicles claims that Clovis's great-grandfather was a sea divinity (or alteratively some kind of aquatic dragon).
Of course we have no way of knowing what others said about Clovis or what he said about himself unless Gregory of Tours chose to write it down.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 11:52:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 11:47:02 AM
One difference is nobody claimed Clovis is God.
Actually it is quite likely that somebody made such a claim or something like it since pre-Christian kings and warlords often made claims of divine powers or provenance. Indeed, one of the early chronicles claims that Clovis's great-grandfather was a sea divinity (or alteratively some kind of aquatic dragon).
Of course we have no way of knowing what others said about Clovis or what he said about himself unless Gregory of Tours chose to write it down.
Indeed, in a tourist shop at the Tower of London I saw a *modern* geneological chart of the English monarchy which straight-forwardly listed the ultimate ancestor of the Saxon kings as "Wotan" - who is thus the ultimate ancestor of the current monarchy (albeit somewhat tenuously). :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 11:47:02 AM
One difference is nobody claimed Clovis is God.
Aren't the original sources, i.e. the Bible, pretty ambiguous about it and the concept that Jesus is God only became the orthodox religious dogma about 300 years after his death? The Council of Nicaea is a well-established historical episode.
Quote from: merithyn on October 25, 2012, 09:50:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 09:42:46 AM
Maybe. Or back then masses were much, much more illiterate, and to gain and maintain control over them (and to TEACH them!) you could/had to feed them bullshit.
There's no maybe about it. Historians have said repeatedly that this is the case.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 09:42:20 AM
The Bible was not written to be taken literally, the people that wrote the texts did not understand it literally, and the people that read and used them contemporaneously and for very long thereafter did not understand them in a purely literal sense. The Bible does not "state" it is not to be taken literally because the modern concept of a timeless, "literal" reading of a text was completely foreign to the people who wrote it, and the people who read and interpreted it for many centuries.
The notion of a literal reading as adopted and promoted by so-called "fundamentalist" movements is in fact novel and highly radical. It is a product of the 19th century, conservative reaction against liberal theology and the "Higher Criticism" which applied literary critical methods of the Bible to reveal the contribution of multiple authors and editors across time. As a 19th century religious phenomena arising in an increasing skeptical and scientistic age, fundamentalist literalism and Mormonism are two sides of the same coin.
Yes, this is what I mean. The Age of Enlightenment in the 19th century altered the way that people think of the written word, as well as how they determine what to believe.
I don't think I buy any of that.
Sounds like very special pleading to me - there are plenty of examples of theological debate over how literlaly the bible should be taken. Just look at the Protestant reformation era - they were going hammer and tongs at biblical literalism.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2012, 08:01:08 AM
Where is it stated in the Bible that it is not to be taken literally? Nowhere right?
Well it I wanted to be nitpickish, I would point out that hardly any work of fiction expressly states somewhere in it that it is not to be taken literally. ;)
Anyway, I'm with people who thought the OP was addressed to atheists and agnostics. As one I do indeed consider the claims in the Bible to be equally ridiculous as the claims in the Book of Mormon. But for religious people, it's different, as they are insane, so hardly ever consistent in their lunacy.
I don't even think that the observation in the OP is that interesting.
There are thousands of religious claims out there - obviously they all vary in their level of ridiculousness, from downright batty to just mildly odd.
Why is it that surprising that Mormonism happens to be a bit more nutty than mainstream Christianity, but slightly less nutty than some other versions?
I guess I don't see why the general observation is interesting one way or the other.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2012, 12:34:45 PM
I don't even think that the observation in the OP is that interesting.
There are thousands of religious claims out there - obviously they all vary in their level of ridiculousness, from downright batty to just mildly odd.
Why is it that surprising that Mormonism happens to be a bit more nutty than mainstream Christianity, but slightly less nutty than some other versions?
I guess I don't see why the general observation is interesting one way or the other.
Yeah I guess the idea is you must have extreme beliefs. Anything that is reflective or nuanced is a sign of...inconsistency or convenience or weakness of some sort.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2012, 12:26:20 PM
Sounds like very special pleading to me - there are plenty of examples of theological debate over how literlaly the bible should be taken. Just look at the Protestant reformation era - they were going hammer and tongs at biblical literalism.
No so. This has already been discussed back-and-forth with Viking, but the sola scriptura of the Reformation era is quite different from the fundamentalist literalism of today. The Reformers were claiming that every truth about Christ could be found in Scripture and that no extra-Sciptural source was required; but they did not claim that Scripture must or should be read using a word-for-word literalism devoid of any outside interpretive principles; indeed that kind of textual reading would have been incoherent to them.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 08:53:38 AM
This thread has just the right level of european doucheness to make it enjoyable.
4/5.
Most definitely. Chock full of heady European douchebaggy goodness.
I worship Odin.
For a understanding of at least one form of Protestant "literalism", here is a selection from Luther's preface to collected works in Latin:
QuoteI had conceived a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans, but thus far there had stood in my way . . . that one word which is in chapter one: "The justice of God is revealed in it." I hated that word, "justice of God," which, by the use and custom of all my teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically as referring to formal or active justice, as they call it, i.e., that justice by which God is just and by which he punishes sinners and the unjust.
But . . . I did not love, no, rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners . . . I grumbled vehemently and got angry at God. I said . . ."Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel and through the Gospel threaten us with his justice and his wrath?" . . . I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans 1 and anxiously wanted to know what he meant.
I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: "The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: 'The just person lives by faith.'" I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: "The just person lives by faith." All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise . . . Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light. I ran through the Scriptures from memory and found that other terms had analogous meanings . . ."
Luther is describing here his most basic and fudamental theological conviction and the key to his understanding of Scripture.
And what is interesting is he is describing a process by which when confronted with a literal meaning of a key passage, he struggles with and rejects that meaning because it is at odds with his own deeply felt conviction, and then adopts a radically different reading. Luther is talking about Romans 1:17, which speaks of God's "righteousness" or "justice" being revealed in the Gospel. The immediately preceding verse speaks of the power of God bringing salvation to all those who believe in. The next 15 verses - the rest of the chapter - consist of a long desciption of God's wrath against the sinfulness of men, and then cites again the term "God's righteous (or just) decree" that those who sin deserve death.
So the plain reading in context is that God's "righteousness" refers to God's character as a stern judge who punishes the wicked but brings salvation to those who believe in his power. But Luther not only rejects this reading, he uses that rejection as a kind of decoder ring to transform his understanding of the entire Biblical text. And the trigger for his rejection is not a philological breakthrough but the unbending resistance of his own moral and ethical intuition which is at odds with the text itself.
badger badger badger?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2012, 01:04:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2012, 08:53:38 AM
This thread has just the right level of european doucheness to make it enjoyable.
4/5.
Most definitely. Chock full of heady European douchebaggy goodness.
Even better, the douche comes from a guy that worships beets.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 11:52:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 11:47:02 AM
One difference is nobody claimed Clovis is God.
Actually it is quite likely that somebody made such a claim or something like it since pre-Christian kings and warlords often made claims of divine powers or provenance. Indeed, one of the early chronicles claims that Clovis's great-grandfather was a sea divinity (or alteratively some kind of aquatic dragon).
Of course we have no way of knowing what others said about Clovis or what he said about himself unless Gregory of Tours chose to write it down.
You cant really have it both ways JR. Your original point was that there was only one text regarding Clovis (which does not claim he is God) compared to the mutiple texts regarding Jesus (Some of which do claim Jesus is God).
Lets stick to that known source rather than what someone might have said about Clovis that we dont know about.
Also there is a fundamental difference between kings attempting to ground their geneology in some mystical past and making a claim that someone is God.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 11:43:08 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 11:26:32 AM
No. Well, first of all, there is no capital "T" truth. But, before I decent into post-modern relativism... There are lower case "t" truths out there. These truths are testable and verified by other independent sources. Lower case "t" truths have consequences and can be tested for veracity.
Historical facts are not testable - there is no way to go back in time to verify. We are stuck with texts - archaeology can help a little bit but only rarely can it be conclusive. Mostly historians are stuck reading and interepreting texts, and your criticism of that methodology applies with equal force.
Concretely, the task of understanding facts about the life and deeds of Jesus is no different than understanding the facts about the life and deeds of say, Clovis I. Pretty much everything we think we know about Clovis' life derives from a single narrative, written down decades after Clovis' death by a religious leader who is generally assumed to have written with a very particular agenda. Comparatively speaking, the sourcing for Jesus is far more robust because at least there we have multiple accounts from multiple authors to compare. So why should we treat statements about Jesus as mere superstitious mythology while statements about Clovis' life are considered legitimate historical inquiry?
First of all historical facts are testable. By that I don't just mean experimental archeology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology). We do find some of the pharos named in the bible in the egyptian kings lists, we also find information about the assyrian empire in the bible confirmed by archeolgy ect.ect. Schlieman tested his theory about the location of Troy and hit the jackpot. We know a large battle happened in germany at the time reported by the romans of the teutoberger wald battle in part by finding topical roman military artifacts spread over an area consistent with the description in the roman sources. We can check the fact in the anglo saxon chronicle by going to places and seeing the churches, cathedrals and monastaries the chronicle claimed had been built etc.
Both Clovis and Jesus are legitimate targets of historical inquiry. The primary difference, however, is the consequence of this knowledge. Whether Socrates existed or not changes my life not a bit, whether Jesus existed or not can have significant consequences because of the claims made about him. This is Dawkins central thesis: The existence of God is a scientific question. There are things we can say about the world and the religious doctrines of the world that have material consequences. e.g. The efficacy of Prayer, the presence of ape and pig DNA in Jews etc.etc.
However, with the epistimology bit, we can never really know anything since we get all knowledge vicariously either through potentially misleading senses or equally potentially misleading witnesses. We can, however, work to confirm and disconfirm presumed truths by studying them and testing them for veracity.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 01:30:04 PM
You cant really have it both ways JR. Your original point was that there was only one text regarding Clovis (which does not claim he is God) compared to the mutiple texts regarding Jesus (Some of which do claim Jesus is God).
Lets stick to that known source rather than what someone might have said about Clovis that we dont know about.
???
My original point is just that our understanding of the past is primarily through interpreting texts, and thus Viking's claims about the inherent flaws in interpreting texts sweeps far broader then his intended target. That's really it.
Minsky would've made a great Jesuit. Too bad his tribe had the Big Guy killed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 02:04:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 01:30:04 PM
You cant really have it both ways JR. Your original point was that there was only one text regarding Clovis (which does not claim he is God) compared to the mutiple texts regarding Jesus (Some of which do claim Jesus is God).
Lets stick to that known source rather than what someone might have said about Clovis that we dont know about.
???
My original point is just that our understanding of the past is primarily through interpreting texts, and thus Viking's claims about the inherent flaws in interpreting texts sweeps far broader then his intended target. That's really it.
This is your post I am referring to
QuoteConcretely, the task of understanding facts about the life and deeds of Jesus is no different than understanding the facts about the life and deeds of say, Clovis I. Pretty much everything we think we know about Clovis' life derives from a single narrative, written down decades after Clovis' death by a religious leader who is generally assumed to have written with a very particular agenda. Comparatively speaking, the sourcing for Jesus is far more robust because at least there we have multiple accounts from multiple authors to compare. So why should we treat statements about Jesus as mere superstitious mythology while statements about Clovis' life are considered legitimate historical inquiry?
I edited it down and responded to the last sentence. The statements about Jesus are in realm of mythology because some of those statements claim he is a God. Not such claim was made about Clovis in the single narrative you refer to.
That is the fundamental difference. No one really cares what was said about Clovis. What was said about Jesus has had a profound impact and continues to do so. For that reason alone it deserves a higher level of scrutiny.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 01:38:24 PM
First of all historical facts are testable. By that I don't just mean experimental archeology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology). We do find some of the pharos named in the bible in the egyptian kings lists, we also find information about the assyrian empire in the bible confirmed by archeolgy ect.ect. Schlieman tested his theory about the location of Troy and hit the jackpot. We know a large battle happened in germany at the time reported by the romans of the teutoberger wald battle in part by finding topical roman military artifacts spread over an area consistent with the description in the roman sources. We can check the fact in the anglo saxon chronicle by going to places and seeing the churches, cathedrals and monastaries the chronicle claimed had been built etc.
Let's go through those one by one:
1) Pharaohs - the king lists prove nothing because they predate the Bible. Some of the authors of the Bible may have been familiar with the King lists -- ancient Palestine was within the Egyptian sphere of influence at the time of Josiah - and then plugged the names in. Thus, the king lists don't confirm the truth of the kings mentioned in the Bible or vis-a-versa
2) I've had this argument before with Malthus, but all Schlieman's find proved is that there was a large settlement on the coast of Asia minor during the late Bronze Age (no surprise) and that historical memory of the existence of such a settlement and its location survived into the Homerica era. That is pretty convincing proof of some kind of meaningful interaction between the "Greeks" and that settlement but nothing more. It certainly doesn't prove the existence of any of the characters of the Iliad or of the narrative, which remains legendary.
3) Teutoberger Wald - I believe dozens of places have claimed to be the battle site. Kalkriese is the new favorite because Roman coins and artifacts (including military equipment) have been found there but that doesn't prove a battle took place on that site - much less THE battle.
4) Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - what structures are being referred to? The fact that a chronicle may correctly note the existence of a structure doesn't mean it has accurate information to convey about who built it, why, etc. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is full of material that appears to be legendary and unreliable.
Texts are slippery things and archaeology is ambiguous - so what we call historical "facts" are really vague estimates of possibilities and probabilities about the past.
QuoteBoth Clovis and Jesus are legitimate targets of historical inquiry. The primary difference, however, is the consequence of this knowledge. Whether Socrates existed or not changes my life not a bit, whether Jesus existed or not can have significant consequences because of the claims made about him.
Why would they have consequences for you, as a non-believer?
QuoteThis is Dawkins central thesis: The existence of God is a scientific question.
That's a foolish thesis for an athesit since no scientific experiement I am aware of has disproved the existence of God.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2012, 02:05:40 PM
Minsky would've made a great Jesuit. Too bad his tribe had the Big Guy killed.
I give the Jesuits props. Not to mention they take the heat off the Elders .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 01:38:24 PM
First of all historical facts are testable. By that I don't just mean experimental archeology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology). We do find some of the pharos named in the bible in the egyptian kings lists, we also find information about the assyrian empire in the bible confirmed by archeolgy ect.ect. Schlieman tested his theory about the location of Troy and hit the jackpot. We know a large battle happened in germany at the time reported by the romans of the teutoberger wald battle in part by finding topical roman military artifacts spread over an area consistent with the description in the roman sources. We can check the fact in the anglo saxon chronicle by going to places and seeing the churches, cathedrals and monastaries the chronicle claimed had been built etc.
Let's go through those one by one:
1) Pharaohs - the king lists prove nothing because they predate the Bible. Some of the authors of the Bible may have been familiar with the King lists -- ancient Palestine was within the Egyptian sphere of influence at the time of Josiah - and then plugged the names in. Thus, the king lists don't confirm the truth of the kings mentioned in the Bible or vis-a-versa
I was referring specifically to the Lybian Faroah who marched on Jerusalem and to Europeans was known by name long before Egyptology.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
2) I've had this argument before with Malthus, but all Schlieman's find proved is that there was a large settlement on the coast of Asia minor during the late Bronze Age (no surprise) and that historical memory of the existence of such a settlement and its location survived into the Homerica era. That is pretty convincing proof of some kind of meaningful interaction between the "Greeks" and that settlement but nothing more. It certainly doesn't prove the existence of any of the characters of the Iliad or of the narrative, which remains legendary.
Schlieman had a hypothesis, tested it and confirmed it (well, it was confirmed over time by generations of archeologists digging at the Schlieman site). This is specifically the kind of testable fact of history I was referring to.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
3) Teutoberger Wald - I believe dozens of places have claimed to be the battle site. Kalkriese is the new favorite because Roman coins and artifacts (including military equipment) have been found there but that doesn't prove a battle took place on that site - much less THE battle.
Which is why I don't say the site is Teutoberger Wald, I say the site is consistent with Teutoberger Wald. It is one of multiple confirming sources that at least one large battle including a large roman army happened in that general region. We have multiple roman sources discussing the battle and now we have potential archeological evidence for it. The same actually applies to Bosworth Field, nobody is sure where the battle happened, but there is a site in the general area where all the detrius one would expect from bosworth field is to be found.
These are the small "t" truths I was referring to. We can never be sure, but we can have tentative knowledge.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
4) Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - what structures are being referred to? The fact that a chronicle may correctly note the existence of a structure doesn't mean it has accurate information to convey about who built it, why, etc. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is full of material that appears to be legendary and unreliable.
Texts are slippery things and archaeology is ambiguous - so what we call historical "facts" are really vague estimates of possibilities and probabilities about the past.
Thats the point. We know that specific lines in the chronicle are correct when we see a reference to a building being built at a certain place and then at that place there is a building of the type described built in the manner to be expected at the time the chronicle states that it is built.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
QuoteBoth Clovis and Jesus are legitimate targets of historical inquiry. The primary difference, however, is the consequence of this knowledge. Whether Socrates existed or not changes my life not a bit, whether Jesus existed or not can have significant consequences because of the claims made about him.
Why would they have consequences for you, as a non-believer?
Why not? It certainly will effect the behavior of all the theists around me in society.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
QuoteThis is Dawkins central thesis: The existence of God is a scientific question.
That's a foolish thesis for an athesit since no scientific experiement I am aware of has disproved the existence of God.
Al Gazali's 4th point in the Incoherence of the Philosophers is
QuoteThe inability of philosophers to prove the existence of the Creator.
Just think how far we have come. We have been chasing god from all the gaps he has inhabited for millennia. This is why religion today has been made content free and just about feeling and inspiring. That is pretty much the only left that we can't test.
The reason no scientific experiment presently can test this is that every time a test becomes available the definition of the nature of god is changed. This is why the nebulous diffuse definitions of god are annoying because everything that has been said about god has been proven wrong or untrue, now virtually nothing concrete or specific is said about him. He used to throw thunderbolts, cause earthquakes, cause weather and floods and cause plagues in egypt and cause animals and relatives to die. He doesn't do that anymore since we now know why these things happen.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 02:57:18 PM
(1) I was referring specifically to the Lybian Faroah who marched on Jerusalem and to Europeans was known by name long before Egyptology.
(2) Schlieman had a hypothesis, tested it and confirmed it (well, it was confirmed over time by generations of archeologists digging at the Schlieman site). This is specifically the kind of testable fact of history I was referring to.
(3) Which is why I don't say the site is Teutoberger Wald, I say the site is consistent with Teutoberger Wald. It is one of multiple confirming sources that at least one large battle including a large roman army happened in that general region. We have multiple roman sources discussing the battle and now we have potential archeological evidence for it.
(1) If you mean Necho, the king list is likely far from the best source but the problem remains - are these sources really verifications of things in the Biblical text, or did the Bible just parrot one or more of these sources.
(2) Schliemann was wrong about lots of things. He picked a bunch of "wrong" sites before being steered to Hisarlik. He chose Hisarlik because someone else had already started some excavation there and had found some artifacts. He fit his hypothesis about the location to what he had been told about the site and its potential availability to dig. "Priam's Treasure" was found in the wrong layer; in fact Schliemann's entire stratification chronology was messed up because he was so intent on shoehorning the mythical account into his find. Schlieman's hypothesis was that the Iliad was an accurate account of a real war, and that hypothesis was not confirmed and still isn't.
All we really know is that there is an ancient city on that site and that one of the destruction layers roughly coincides with the Homeric timeline (although the cause of the destruction cannot be confirmed and the timing coincides with the destruction of many other settlements around the same time).
(3) The archaeology really just tells us that there was a likely Roman presence near the region since such a large conglomeration of artifacts probably wouldn't have been assembled through long-distance trade alone. How and why they got there cannot really be known. Our knowledge about the battle really relies on the textual sources.
QuoteJust think how far we have come. We have been chasing god from all the gaps he has inhabited for millennia. This is why religion today has been made content free and just about feeling and inspiring. That is pretty much the only left that we can't test.
The reason no scientific experiment presently can test this is that every time a test becomes available the definition of the nature of god is changed.
This is a strawman. There is no retreating god of gaps except in Dawkins' dogma. The problem as it exists now was presented full and foresquare from the very beginning because Aristotlean science (whatever its deficiencies) claimed to be a comprehensive explanation of nature that left very little space indeed for a deity. Dawkins' 21st century god of the gaps is no different or less ambitious in any material way than the God of Aquinas or Maimonides.
The shift to a Baconian paradigm only made the apologists task easier because science then modestly renounced all propositional ipse dixits and adopted the experimental method as its lodestar. One price of that paradigm is to have to acknowledge that claims about God cannot be adjudicated by that method, and thus science really has nothing to say about such claims.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 03:49:38 PM
QuoteJust think how far we have come. We have been chasing god from all the gaps he has inhabited for millennia. This is why religion today has been made content free and just about feeling and inspiring. That is pretty much the only left that we can't test.
The reason no scientific experiment presently can test this is that every time a test becomes available the definition of the nature of god is changed.
This is a strawman. There is no retreating god of gaps except in Dawkins' dogma. The problem as it exists now was presented full and foresquare from the very beginning because Aristotlean science (whatever its deficiencies) claimed to be a comprehensive explanation of nature that left very little space indeed for a deity. Dawkins' 21st century god of the gaps is no different or less ambitious in any material way than the God of Aquinas or Maimonides.
The shift to a Baconian paradigm only made the apologists task easier because science then modestly renounced all propositional ipse dixits and adopted the experimental method as its lodestar. One price of that paradigm is to have to acknowledge that claims about God cannot be adjudicated by that method, and thus science really has nothing to say about such claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
QuoteThe term goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."[2][3]
The existence of god can only not be a scientific proposition if god has no effect on the world. It is the only truly common claim for all religions that the spiritual world affects the material one. These claims can and are tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer) and found not to be significant.
If god is not a scientific proposition then god is without consequence in the world, this is a trivial statement, I know but true non the less.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2012, 12:26:20 PM
Sounds like very special pleading to me - there are plenty of examples of theological debate over how literlaly the bible should be taken. Just look at the Protestant reformation era - they were going hammer and tongs at biblical literalism.
No so. This has already been discussed back-and-forth with Viking, but the sola scriptura of the Reformation era is quite different from the fundamentalist literalism of today. The Reformers were claiming that every truth about Christ could be found in Scripture and that no extra-Sciptural source was required; but they did not claim that Scripture must or should be read using a word-for-word literalism devoid of any outside interpretive principles; indeed that kind of textual reading would have been incoherent to them.
Galileo was indicted on the basis that the bible states that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that it is the sun that rises and sets, not the Earth.
The idea that the bible is inerrant, and inerrant enough to justify setting legal standards on your ability to believe otherwise, is most certainly nothing "new". Whether it is "different' from today or not isn't the point - the point is that there have been people, many, many people, who believe that the bible is inerrant for as long as their has been a discernible bible, for the most part.
That kind of "textual reading" where they say things like "The bible says X, we think that it literally means X, therefore we are going to form a new splinter group that takes that as doctrine because you don't" has been going on for a very long time.
Hell, the entire Hesse scandal was based on the literal reading of the bible that never actually stated bigamy was wrong. And that was while Luther was still alive!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
Why would they have consequences for you, as a non-believer?
Are you seriously contending that people's belief in Jesus as God and what that means only impacts those who believe?
You do live in the Unities States of America dont you?
Jesus Christ. Has Malthus talked at length about his precious mysticism yet?
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 04:06:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
OK - that seems to demonstrate that no one actually advocates a God-of-the-Gaps construct, which strongly suggests it is in fact a strawman argument.
QuoteThe existence of god can only not be a scientific proposition if god has no effect on the world. It is the only truly common claim for all religions that the spiritual world affects the material one. These claims can and are tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer) and found not to be significant.
God has enormous effect on the world, but that is not really the inquiry because fiction and fictional characters have effects on the world.
I assume you intend by "effect" to mean some physical, natural effect in accordance with a law of nature. But by definition, God cannot be cabined by the laws of nature, unless God itself is co-terminus with nature. Either way, not a scientific proposition, but an axiomatic one.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2012, 04:09:58 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2012, 12:26:20 PM
Sounds like very special pleading to me - there are plenty of examples of theological debate over how literlaly the bible should be taken. Just look at the Protestant reformation era - they were going hammer and tongs at biblical literalism.
No so. This has already been discussed back-and-forth with Viking, but the sola scriptura of the Reformation era is quite different from the fundamentalist literalism of today. The Reformers were claiming that every truth about Christ could be found in Scripture and that no extra-Sciptural source was required; but they did not claim that Scripture must or should be read using a word-for-word literalism devoid of any outside interpretive principles; indeed that kind of textual reading would have been incoherent to them.
Galileo was indicted on the basis that the bible states that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that it is the sun that rises and sets, not the Earth.
The idea that the bible is inerrant, and inerrant enough to justify setting legal standards on your ability to believe otherwise, is most certainly nothing "new". Whether it is "different' from today or not isn't the point - the point is that there have been people, many, many people, who believe that the bible is inerrant for as long as their has been a discernible bible, for the most part.
No one is denying that people have taken some or all of the Bible very literally at points in history.
This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true. That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.
Galileo of course was prosecuted by the Pope, and Catholics certainly didn't then (and do not now) believe in a purely literal Bible.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2012, 04:09:58 PM
Galileo was indicted on the basis that the bible states that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that it is the sun that rises and sets, not the Earth.
Galileo ran afoul of Catholic doctrine of the time, and to a certain extent, his own lack of diplomacy. But plenty of cotemporary Christians (includign Catholics) had no problem with heliocentrism, an idea with a long history by Galileo's time, and did not see anything in the Bible as contradictory. Galileo himself was a believing and practicing Catholic.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2012, 04:26:55 PM
This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true. That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.
To be fair to Viking there are some christians who hold that view. The point he always misses is that not all (perhaps not even many) christians hold that view.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 04:28:04 PM
Galileo ran afoul of Catholic doctrine of the time, and to a certain extent, his own lack of diplomacy. But plenty of cotemporary Christians (includign Catholics) had no problem with heliocentrism, an idea with a long history by Galileo's time, and did not see anything in the Bible as contradictory. Galileo himself was a believing and practicing Catholic.
Can you give some examples of these rather forward thinkers?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2012, 04:26:55 PM
This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true. That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.
To be fair to Viking there are some christians who hold that view. The point he always misses is that not all (perhaps not even many) christians hold that view.
Tamas said one isn't Christian unless one holds that view.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 04:30:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2012, 04:26:55 PM
This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true. That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.
To be fair to Viking there are some christians who hold that view. The point he always misses is that not all (perhaps not even many) christians hold that view.
Tamas said one isn't Christian unless one holds that view.
I'm not a Christian and I don't hold that view. QED
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 04:30:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2012, 04:26:55 PM
This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true. That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.
To be fair to Viking there are some christians who hold that view. The point he always misses is that not all (perhaps not even many) christians hold that view.
Tamas said one isn't Christian unless one holds that view.
Not sure what you want me to do with that tidbit of information.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2012, 04:26:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2012, 04:09:58 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2012, 12:26:20 PM
Sounds like very special pleading to me - there are plenty of examples of theological debate over how literlaly the bible should be taken. Just look at the Protestant reformation era - they were going hammer and tongs at biblical literalism.
No so. This has already been discussed back-and-forth with Viking, but the sola scriptura of the Reformation era is quite different from the fundamentalist literalism of today. The Reformers were claiming that every truth about Christ could be found in Scripture and that no extra-Sciptural source was required; but they did not claim that Scripture must or should be read using a word-for-word literalism devoid of any outside interpretive principles; indeed that kind of textual reading would have been incoherent to them.
Galileo was indicted on the basis that the bible states that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that it is the sun that rises and sets, not the Earth.
The idea that the bible is inerrant, and inerrant enough to justify setting legal standards on your ability to believe otherwise, is most certainly nothing "new". Whether it is "different' from today or not isn't the point - the point is that there have been people, many, many people, who believe that the bible is inerrant for as long as their has been a discernible bible, for the most part.
No one is denying that people have taken some or all of the Bible very literally at points in history.
This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true. That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.
Galileo of course was prosecuted by the Pope, and Catholics certainly didn't then (and do not now) believe in a purely literal Bible.
Ahhh, so is this more about those who believe that EVERY part of the bible is literally true?
OK, carry on then.
Although I suspect Vikings point is more a matter of noting that the typical salad bar Christian doesn't really have any objective means by which understanding which parts of the bible one should believe literally (and hence throw poor Galieleo under arrest) and which parts one can simply assume are not to be taken literally, and so we can ignore them at our leisure ("That entire theme against amassing massive wealth? Clearly does not apply to me!"). From anyone not intimately involved in it, it all looks pretty much like most people just decide to believe whatever they like, and then figure out how to "interpret" the bible to suit those beliefs.
To the extent that most people even think about it - reality is that most "Christians" give a lot more thought to where they should have dinner than what their faith actually means beyond what their upbringing told them it means.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 04:31:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 04:30:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2012, 04:26:55 PM
This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true. That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.
To be fair to Viking there are some christians who hold that view. The point he always misses is that not all (perhaps not even many) christians hold that view.
Tamas said one isn't Christian unless one holds that view.
Not sure what you want me to do with that tidbit of information.
Just further context for what's been discussed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 04:18:51 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 04:06:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
OK - that seems to demonstrate that no one actually advocates a God-of-the-Gaps construct, which strongly suggests it is in fact a strawman argument.
QuoteThe existence of god can only not be a scientific proposition if god has no effect on the world. It is the only truly common claim for all religions that the spiritual world affects the material one. These claims can and are tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer) and found not to be significant.
God has enormous effect on the world, but that is not really the inquiry because fiction and fictional characters have effects on the world.
I assume you intend by "effect" to mean some physical, natural effect in accordance with a law of nature. But by definition, God cannot be cabined by the laws of nature, unless God itself is co-terminus with nature. Either way, not a scientific proposition, but an axiomatic one.
"natural effect in accordance with a law of nature"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 04:30:14 PM
Can you give some examples of these rather forward thinkers?
Descartes for one. I know Galileo had a number of supporters within the Church, which is why it took so long for him to be subject to sanction, but I can't enumerate by name.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 04:46:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 04:30:14 PM
Can you give some examples of these rather forward thinkers?
Descartes for one. I know Galileo had a number of supporters within the Church, which is why it took so long for him to be subject to sanction, but I can't enumerate by name.
Descartes is not a very good example given the fact he delayed publication because of his fear of the Church.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 05:37:33 PM
Descartes is not a very good example given the fact he delayed publication because of his fear of the Church.
He delayed publication b/c he found out about what happened to Galileo!
He is a very good example because he was (a) Catholic, (b) religious, (c) heliocentrist, and (d) well-known at that time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 05:47:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 05:37:33 PM
Descartes is not a very good example given the fact he delayed publication because of his fear of the Church.
He delayed publication b/c he found out about what happened to Galileo!
He is a very good example because he was (a) Catholic, (b) religious, (c) heliocentrist, and (d) well-known at that time.
that was one of the reasons he delayed he was also concerned how his views might be recieved before hand and the treatment of Galileo confirmed his fears.
Again, not a good example for an example for the argument you seemed to be making.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2012, 04:26:55 PM
This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true. That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.
Not least because the majority of Christians, historically and today, subscribe to Churches which believe that the Universal Church pre-dates the Bible. The Bible was composed and declared canonical by Church Councils. The Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox Churches would all claim that they are of the Universal Church that began with the immediate followers of Christ. It's the Church which decided what was in the Bible, the Church which decided the meaning to be extracted and the Church which shows correct interpretation. Scripture the root of Christian doctrine but, for Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox, there is an awareness that scripture came from the Church not vice versa and that you can't have sola scriptura away from that tradition.
The Puritans suggested there was a division between 'science' (by which they meant reason) and scripture was there alone, inerrant, unsullied by previous interpretations and open. This was something that Richard Hooker discussed 'when they and their Bibles were alone together, what strange fantastical opinion soever at any time entered into their heads, their use was to think the Spirit taught it them.' Hooker's point was that scripture is the basis of all theology but should be read with reason, tradition and the authority of the Church or it would lead to 'private frenzies'. (Admittedly the Anglicans may not be the best example, they started doubting the literal devil in the 18th century and currently have Bishops who aren't convinced by 'God' :lol:)
The traditional Christian approach to scripture is that it can simultaneously be literal, moral and allegorical. The classic example is Jerusalem which is interpreted to mean the city, the Church and Christians as an idealised group (good, pure Christians).
I'd also add that literalism would be odd for the Reformation period given the huge excitement and effort of many contemporary scholars 'correcting' the Bible. They had a large number of new sources and learning from Byzantium which led to things like the Hebrew, Latin and Greek Bible - trying to establish the most accurate text for translation. This was a period when there was significant doubt on the Bible as it was understood. It's like 19th century Biblical criticism. The Renaissance re-engagement with the Greek tradition, more scholars learning Hebrew and the debate of 'accurate' translations made it a period when they were engaging with scripture to correct it as much as to learn from it. It's one of the reasons I always find the fundamentalist fetishisation of the King James Bible a bit peculiar (from a literary perspective, they've superb taste).
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 07:51:12 PM
(from a literary perspective, they've superb taste).
:D
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2012, 04:43:16 PM
Actually I don't have an objection to that. If I knew that you were about to suffer eternal torture I would do what I could to help save you from that horrid fate. I can't fully respect somebody who thinks I'm going to hell and is willing to let it happen.
I have no problem with them offering advice based on their beliefs when asked. I have a problem with them coming to my door and trying to change me from my own views because they think they're better at judging what's best for me than I am.
when you go off to do whatever it you females call urinating and you do not know that.
I think it's just urinating. Maybe sometimes defecation, but that's cool. I'm not totally upfront when I have to release the Kraken myself.
Anyway, I agree with Tam, and it's something I've argued before, although I'll add the caveat that the requirements that Mormonism places upon its adherents and the religion's insularity do make it goofier than mainstream* Christianity. However, evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity is roughly equally as goofy.
*Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. Live with it.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 10:12:33 PM
*Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. Live with it.
Kinda like saying Christianity and Islam are branches of Judaism.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 10:12:33 PM
*Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. Live with it.
ya, no. No it really isn't.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 10:12:33 PM
Anyway, I agree with Tam, and it's something I've argued before, although I'll add the caveat that the requirements that Mormonism places upon its adherents and the religion's insularity do make it goofier than mainstream* Christianity. However, evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity is roughly equally as goofy.
*Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. Live with it.
So do you agree with Tam that if one doesn't think everything in the Bible should be taken literally that one isn't a Christian?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2012, 10:17:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 10:12:33 PM
*Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. Live with it.
Kinda like saying Christianity and Islam are branches of Judaism.
Indeed.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 10:30:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 10:12:33 PM
Anyway, I agree with Tam, and it's something I've argued before, although I'll add the caveat that the requirements that Mormonism places upon its adherents and the religion's insularity do make it goofier than mainstream* Christianity. However, evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity is roughly equally as goofy.
*Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. Live with it.
So do you agree with Tam that if one doesn't think everything in the Bible should be taken literally that one isn't a Christian?
I just meant the opening post. Did he say that there? I may've missed it. That's dumb.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 10:36:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2012, 10:30:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 10:12:33 PM
Anyway, I agree with Tam, and it's something I've argued before, although I'll add the caveat that the requirements that Mormonism places upon its adherents and the religion's insularity do make it goofier than mainstream* Christianity. However, evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity is roughly equally as goofy.
*Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. Live with it.
So do you agree with Tam that if one doesn't think everything in the Bible should be taken literally that one isn't a Christian?
I just meant the opening post. Did he say that there? I may've missed it. That's dumb.
Yeah he said it more than a few times after his initial post. Just wanted to check. :hug:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2012, 10:17:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 10:12:33 PM
*Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. Live with it.
Kinda like saying Christianity and Islam are branches of Judaism.
From an outsider's, or even a taxonomic, perspective, I think that's an arguable proposition. You could go as far as to say there are only three major religions on Earth--Abrahamism, Dharmism, and whatever Chinese people believe that says it's okay to force advanced nations into wage slavery and kill female newborns.
But that's another topic.
As for Mormonism being Christian, do they believe in the divinity of Christ? What else do you want? Or what additional element counterbalances that seemingly overriding fact?
Both Jews and Christians believe that Moses delivered the Israelites from Egypt, however we don't say that Jews and Christians are the same. Why are Christians not Jews? Cause Christians have their own holy book they added on. Why are Mormons not Christians? Cause Mormons have their own holy book they added on.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 10:58:04 PM
Both Jews and Christians believe that Moses delivered the Israelites from Egypt, however we don't say that Jews and Christians are the same. Why are Christians not Jews? Cause Christians have their own holy book they added on. Why are Mormons not Christians? Cause Mormons have their own holy book they added on.
Sectarian Bibles often do differ.
If it's the non-Nicene interpretation of the divinity of Jesus--i.e., Jesus was a created being--are Arians not Christians?
I'll bet a dollar you've used the phrase
Arian Christianity in your life. It is, at least, widely used in literature. It is also useful in conversations about the early Church so that anyone who might overhear you does not believe you're discussing Nazism. Do you think the usage of the term "Christian" in that context is alright but not in that of Mormonism? In both Arianism and Mormonism, Jesus was created and non-consubstantial with God the Father. Yes, Mormonism is a little bit more, er, detailed in how this worked, but it's still got a divine Jesus.
Did the Arians have whole new chapters to add to the bible?
I'm ignorant of the Arian canon and a quick search didn't generate much that was useful, but since it's the mid-4th century I'm gonna guess that their collection was, while still somewhat fluid, probably pretty similar to the Catholic canon as we know it. That said, I don't accept that "adding a book" is enough to take a sect out of a particular religious ambit.
With a "Christian" book that includes America in any way you are way out of the armpit IMHO.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 11:12:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2012, 10:58:04 PM
Both Jews and Christians believe that Moses delivered the Israelites from Egypt, however we don't say that Jews and Christians are the same. Why are Christians not Jews? Cause Christians have their own holy book they added on. Why are Mormons not Christians? Cause Mormons have their own holy book they added on.
Sectarian Bibles often do differ.
If it's the non-Nicene interpretation of the divinity of Jesus--i.e., Jesus was a created being--are Arians not Christians?
I'll bet a dollar you've used the phrase Arian Christianity in your life. It is, at least, widely used in literature. It is also useful in conversations about the early Church so that anyone who might overhear you does not believe you're discussing Nazism. Do you think the usage of the term "Christian" in that context is alright but not in that of Mormonism? In both Arianism and Mormonism, Jesus was created and non-consubstantial with God the Father. Yes, Mormonism is a little bit more, er, detailed in how this worked, but it's still got a divine Jesus.
Nobody will discus early christian heretics with me in real life. :( I don't think a divine Jesus is end all be all to being a Christian. The Baha guys have a divine Christ. Or a Christ as a "Manifestation of God", but nobody considers them Christians.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2012, 04:26:55 PM
This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true. That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.
That position seems to be more logical to me, than cherry-picking parts you like and thus take literally, and parts you don't, on which you apply a good dose of "allegoric meaning" so that it lets you keep thinking you are believing in this religion
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 04:18:51 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 04:06:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
OK - that seems to demonstrate that no one actually advocates a God-of-the-Gaps construct, which strongly suggests it is in fact a strawman argument.
You say strawman, I say logical fallacy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 04:18:51 PM
QuoteThe existence of god can only not be a scientific proposition if god has no effect on the world. It is the only truly common claim for all religions that the spiritual world affects the material one. These claims can and are tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer) and found not to be significant.
God has enormous effect on the world, but that is not really the inquiry because fiction and fictional characters have effects on the world.
I assume you intend by "effect" to mean some physical, natural effect in accordance with a law of nature. But by definition, God cannot be cabined by the laws of nature, unless God itself is co-terminus with nature. Either way, not a scientific proposition, but an axiomatic one.
Huck Finn's effect on the world is as a creation of Samuel Clemens. This is a silly argument.
By effect I mean a relevance to conscious creatures. We can study that effect by examining it's relevance to conscious creatures. The Deist or Panentheist God are not personal and do not act per se, they merely are. I'll grant that these two God ideas are virtually impossible to test (though the Deist god can be tested in examining the start of the universe), however, neither of these Gods are personal or relevant to believers. The god that gets you a mortgage, helps uncle danny quit drinking and helps Tebow throw that TD pass is testable precisely because he does these things. Your argument that we cannot understand God because he is not limited by the laws of nature if applied to lightning, the movement of the planets or biological diversity would have left us without an understanding of electricity, gravity and evolution.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2012, 04:26:55 PM
No one is denying that people have taken some or all of the Bible very literally at points in history.
This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true. That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.
Galileo of course was prosecuted by the Pope, and Catholics certainly didn't then (and do not now) believe in a purely literal Bible.
I don't say that. I say that you can't know what is true and what is allegory and from that it follows that you can have no knowledge of god from the bible. The bible is not revelation. It is a compilation of the knowledge of god by the christians of the first and second centuries compiled by the christians of the fourth.
My stance on literalism is as follows, given that you are a theist, you will take with utmost seriousness and reverence anything you actually do know about god prioritizing that over any other concerns. My scorn is reserved for the hypocrites.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 04:28:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2012, 04:09:58 PM
Galileo was indicted on the basis that the bible states that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that it is the sun that rises and sets, not the Earth.
Galileo ran afoul of Catholic doctrine of the time, and to a certain extent, his own lack of diplomacy. But plenty of cotemporary Christians (includign Catholics) had no problem with heliocentrism, an idea with a long history by Galileo's time, and did not see anything in the Bible as contradictory. Galileo himself was a believing and practicing Catholic.
I agree here. Galileo's crime was not heliocentrism, it was philosophical naturalism (as well as being a dick). Galileo's heresy was NOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria) observing (the italian equivalent of) that the Bible tells you how to get to heaven not how the heavens go. He claimed that the universe itself was a second book from god, the study of which would reveal more truth about the universe. Galileo said he could prove heliocentrism on his own based on facts, that was the heresy. The Pope was friendly to him and agreed with him on heliocentrism. The pope just wanted time since the ptolmaic system had become associated with dogma and the prestige of the church.
Galileo agreed to shut up under threat of torture and then promptly wrote a novel where two characters debate heliocentrism and one of them wins the argument conclusively.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 05:37:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2012, 04:46:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2012, 04:30:14 PM
Can you give some examples of these rather forward thinkers?
Descartes for one. I know Galileo had a number of supporters within the Church, which is why it took so long for him to be subject to sanction, but I can't enumerate by name.
Descartes is not a very good example given the fact he delayed publication because of his fear of the Church.
Copernicus, Spinoza, Descartes and Hobbes all had significant work published posthumously for fear of the church. For fear of the church free thinkers publish posthumously.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 04:46:07 AM
By effect I mean a relevance to conscious creatures. We can study that effect by examining it's relevance to conscious creatures. The Deist or Panentheist God are not personal and do not act per se, they merely are. I'll grant that these two God ideas are virtually impossible to test (though the Deist god can be tested in examining the start of the universe), however, neither of these Gods are personal or relevant to believers.
How can one determine personal relevance other than what particular people find to be relevant to them? God clearly was relevant to Aristotleans like Aquinas, to Maimonides, to ibn Rushd; God was also relevant to the American Deists (e.g.) of the Revolutionary era who invoked God's name in founding documents.
QuoteThe god that gets you a mortgage, helps uncle danny quit drinking and helps Tebow throw that TD pass is testable precisely because he does these things.
This god isn't testable either because its motivations are unknown.
QuoteYour argument that we cannot understand God because he is not limited by the laws of nature if applied to lightning, the movement of the planets or biological diversity would have left us without an understanding of electricity, gravity and evolution.
Clearly not so as the experiemental method is competent for achieving that understanding.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 05:02:11 AM
Copernicus, Spinoza, Descartes and Hobbes all had significant work published posthumously for fear of the church. For fear of the church free thinkers publish posthumously.
Certainly it was not my intent to defend the Church as a force for human progress throughout the ages. ;)
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 11:37:12 PM
I'm ignorant of the Arian canon and a quick search didn't generate much that was useful, but since it's the mid-4th century I'm gonna guess that their collection was, while still somewhat fluid, probably pretty similar to the Catholic canon as we know it. That said, I don't accept that "adding a book" is enough to take a sect out of a particular religious ambit.
Except that the Book of Mormon has completely new stories created several millenia after Christian texts whereas when we talk about different books added and removed different versions of the Christian bible aren't we looking at books that were written in the same 4-500 year period?
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2012, 02:57:18 PM
These are the small "t" truths I was referring to. We can never be sure, but we can have tentative knowledge.
Looking back, here is where I think you were on the right track.
The distinction between knowledge about God and knowledge about historical facts in the world is not that the consequences differ or in terms of personal relevance. The difference is that while we cannot have certain knowledge about either, we can have a more limited probabilistic knowledge about historical facts. We can't really know whether a Roman general Varus lost an entire legion in a German forest on date X but we can make judgments about whether the event was more likely or not based on the presence or absence of objective evidence. I.e. if several different writers discuss the battle at different times than we can be more confident than if it is only in (say) Tacitus. The archaeological finds that are suggestive of some kind of strong military Roman presence in the region at the time, while far from conclusive, also move the probabilistic needle.
But knowledge about God isn't like that. We can't even have the more limited kind of probabalistic knowledge because the nature of God is inherently inscrutable. Thus, there is no objective way to measure and evaluate competing claims about God (and no way to measure and evaluate the competing religions). There are no facts or observations, for example that would allow soemone to conclude that justification by faith is moreor less plausible than justification by works. One can only establish a priori axioms about what God should be like and reason from there, or simply accept one particular account "on faith" - that is effectively arbitrarily. In that limited sense, Tamas' rhetorical question has a point.
Viking - I think you have already said as much above but my criticism is that you have confused the argument with a Dawkins-influenced scientific argument. It's a fundamentally flawed approach. One cannot address theological questions scientifically without pulling science beyond its own inherent limitations - and it is those very limitations that give science its effectiveness and power.
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 09:15:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 25, 2012, 11:37:12 PM
I'm ignorant of the Arian canon and a quick search didn't generate much that was useful, but since it's the mid-4th century I'm gonna guess that their collection was, while still somewhat fluid, probably pretty similar to the Catholic canon as we know it. That said, I don't accept that "adding a book" is enough to take a sect out of a particular religious ambit.
Except that the Book of Mormon has completely new stories created several millenia after Christian texts whereas when we talk about different books added and removed different versions of the Christian bible aren't we looking at books that were written in the same 4-500 year period?
And reams and reams of paper written over the course of the last 2000 that, while not directly attached to the Bible or considered in themselves sacred as the Book of Mormon is, have been incorporated into the bodies of the various sects. For example, TULIP is not in the Bible, but it is as much a part of Calvinism as proto-space opera is to Mormonism.
Edit: that said, I can see how you could draw a distinction between the addition of theology by Calvinism and the addition of mythology by Mormonism. I don't think it's persuasive because I don't think that distinction really stands; while less detailed than the concept of Jesus being Satan's bro, the concept of an Elect that has been determined for all time is still a concrete idea, not found in the Bible, invented, if I am not mistaken, around AD 1500, but embraced by a mainstream Christian sect.
I was talking about the core text. After all, all religious collect commentary over the ages.
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:02:26 PM
I was talking about the core text. After all, all religious collect commentary over the ages.
The "core text" we know today as the NT was at the time one of many.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:02:26 PM
I was talking about the core text. After all, all religious collect commentary over the ages.
The "core text" we know today as the NT was at the time one of many.
Sure but I already spoke to that. The key books weren't written thousands of years apart.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 09:09:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 04:46:07 AM
By effect I mean a relevance to conscious creatures. We can study that effect by examining it's relevance to conscious creatures. The Deist or Panentheist God are not personal and do not act per se, they merely are. I'll grant that these two God ideas are virtually impossible to test (though the Deist god can be tested in examining the start of the universe), however, neither of these Gods are personal or relevant to believers.
How can one determine personal relevance other than what particular people find to be relevant to them? God clearly was relevant to Aristotleans like Aquinas, to Maimonides, to ibn Rushd; God was also relevant to the American Deists (e.g.) of the Revolutionary era who invoked God's name in founding documents.
Yahwe, Allah, Chronos, Odin and Quetzcoatle are distintcly lacking. They refer to a creator, it does not invoke the name of god. It does not ask gods permission, nor ask his blessing, it just observes that the rights are innate and not granted by nor revokable by men. Aristotle used logic and reason to determine that there are 48 (iirc) gods. Arstotles Metaphysics is precisely an attempt to study the nature and being of the prime mover. In aristotle's view the nature of the world tells you about the nature of the creator.
These men agree with me that the existence and nature and attributes of god (maybe not maimonedes, I haven't read him, so I don't know) is observable in the world around us. One of those attributes, as one gathers from Aquinas' moronic ontological argument, is existence.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 09:09:24 AM
QuoteThe god that gets you a mortgage, helps uncle danny quit drinking and helps Tebow throw that TD pass is testable precisely because he does these things.
This god isn't testable either because its motivations are unknown.
Al Gazali burned Ibn Rushd's books. Now you channel him. I'm merely going to assert that Occasionalism is wrong and it is the only case where, if true, false belief is better than true belief.
If this were the case then we would see miracles happening all the time rather than a world made of of understandable material causes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 09:09:24 AM
QuoteYour argument that we cannot understand God because he is not limited by the laws of nature if applied to lightning, the movement of the planets or biological diversity would have left us without an understanding of electricity, gravity and evolution.
Clearly not so as the experiemental method is competent for achieving that understanding.
Yet you would assert that study of issues that you assume are within the purview of god are not worth studying. Once lighting, planets and life were just that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 09:38:44 AM
Viking - I think you have already said as much above but my criticism is that you have confused the argument with a Dawkins-influenced scientific argument. It's a fundamentally flawed approach. One cannot address theological questions scientifically without pulling science beyond its own inherent limitations - and it is those very limitations that give science its effectiveness and power.
The existence of god isn't some kind of magical fact that we can not know or understand or comprehend (insert more gobbeltygook). It is a fact like any other. The god you propose is one without attributes or effect (or is hiding the answer to the great multiple choice test in the sky to see if you get into heaven). If god has an effect he can be tested and these effects can be observed. If god has no effect he is irrelevant or functionally equivalent with a non-god.
Hey, Viking. I have a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that there are concepts the human mind can't understand?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:38:09 PM
Hey, Viking. I have a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that there are concepts the human mind can't understand?
I'm a philosophical modernist and believe* that all that can be known and understood can only be so through examining the material universe. So I do not believe that there are concepts that a material mind** cannot understand.
* My other belief is materalism, which is the belief that all things that exist are material.
** I am open for a non-human material mind (alien or AI or something else material) having ideas which we simply do not have the brainpower to comprehend. The factor preventing us from any understanding is always a material one, never the nature of the concept.
now, hit me with your pre-packaged apologetics.
Pre-packaged. :lol: Your the one he trolls rational wiki for your arguments. Why do you believe the human mind can understand all phenomenon? Is there any evidence of this?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:56:01 PM
Pre-packaged. :lol: Your the one he trolls rational wiki for your arguments. Why do you believe the human mind can understand all phenomenon? Is there any evidence of this?
I'm pretty sure that I pointed out that this is a belief, which in my book is an assertion which is held as true despite a lack of evidence. Modernism and Materialism are my two beliefs, I wish I could prove them but I cannot.
Why do you hold them?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?
Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?
Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.
Why do you need them at all?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?
Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.
Why do you need them at all?
Because only knowing that I exist is not sufficient for living.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?
Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.
How does that make sense of anything? It sounds like a good philosophy for observing the world but it says little about the sense behind why things are the way they are it only says how they are. I mean I am not saying there even is a way to make sense of the world...but maybe you meant something different than that by 'make sense'.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:08:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?
Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.
Why do you need them at all?
Because only knowing that I exist is not sufficient for living.
:yeahright:
What a strange answer. At least for you. Man does not live on bread alone, I suppose. Even the clear eyed man of the future.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 12:49:20 PM
* My other belief is materalism, which is the belief that all things that exist are material.
Does materialism exist?
I am sure this is not a new question, but I have not studied this philosophy and I'm not sure how one reconciles it with abstract concepts.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?
Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.
Somehow I don't think Billy Ock would agree with your use of his principle.
Why wouldn't the world make sense without those beliefs?
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 12:32:48 PM
The existence of god isn't some kind of magical fact that we can not know or understand or comprehend (insert more gobbeltygook). It is a fact like any other. The god you propose is one without attributes or effect (or is hiding the answer to the great multiple choice test in the sky to see if you get into heaven). If god has an effect he can be tested and these effects can be observed. If god has no effect he is irrelevant or functionally equivalent with a non-god.
I'm not proposing anything.
I am merely pointing out that if you want to refute a claim, you have to acknlowlege what that claim is. If someone is making a claim in "X", you can't refute claim Y and then simply announce that you are going to ignore claim X because it is "Goobelygook" and all claims related to the subject matter must take form Y. Attaching a "goobelygook" label isn't an argument, it is an ipse dixit denial.
If you insist that any claim about God must be subject to empirical refuation upon pain of being deemed out of bounds, then you are simply defining away the problem, not solving it.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2012, 01:10:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?
Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.
How does that make sense of anything? It sounds like a good philosophy for observing the world but it says little about the sense behind why things are the way they are it only says how they are. I mean I am not saying there even is a way to make sense of the world...but maybe you meant something different than that by 'make sense'.
Belief does not make sense. I have looked at myself and what I hold to be true and found that these two ideas are beliefs I hold without any evidence to back them up. They are my Meta-Narratives the post-modernists rail against.
I hope you people are starting to understand that I do not live in a world of absolutes and certainties. Everything is tentative and uncertain. I object to certainty itself and those who claim to have it. With the exception of my meta-narratives the only ideas I accept are the ones that have consequences and can demonstrate their consistence with observed reality. Obviously the god hypothesis either has no consequences or cannot demonstrate consistency with observed reality, that is why I reject it.
I don't assert that I know that god doesn't exist. The only thing I assert is that you don't know either and you have no good reason to justify believing that he/she/it exists.
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:23:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:02:26 PM
I was talking about the core text. After all, all religious collect commentary over the ages.
The "core text" we know today as the NT was at the time one of many.
Sure but I already spoke to that. The key books weren't written thousands of years apart.
What's the cutoff number of years? Do the latter books of the Tanakh get in under the wire? :unsure:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 26, 2012, 06:21:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:23:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:02:26 PM
I was talking about the core text. After all, all religious collect commentary over the ages.
The "core text" we know today as the NT was at the time one of many.
Sure but I already spoke to that. The key books weren't written thousands of years apart.
What's the cutoff number of years? Do the latter books of the Tanakh get in under the wire? :unsure:
Actually that's kind of my point. You have one set of older books and when a new set of books was added much later - a new religion was declared. ;)
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 06:42:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 26, 2012, 06:21:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:23:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:02:26 PM
I was talking about the core text. After all, all religious collect commentary over the ages.
The "core text" we know today as the NT was at the time one of many.
Sure but I already spoke to that. The key books weren't written thousands of years apart.
What's the cutoff number of years? Do the latter books of the Tanakh get in under the wire? :unsure:
Actually that's kind of my point. You have one set of older books and when a new set of books was added much later - a new religion was declared. ;)
They added the Ketuvim and declared a new Judaism? :hmm: