Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catholics are making it up.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 507 (768216)
09-09-2015 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Omnivorous
09-09-2015 11:17 AM


All the OT laws are included with the prescribed punishments. It's a whole legal system, so although individuals are charged with keeping the laws they are subjected to the punishments of the whole community for not keeping them. So it is the entire community, not the parents, that punishes the unruly offspring. The parents are to report him to the elders and the community punishes him. And again we are not talking about a small child but about a young adult.
Eye for eye is eye for eye not killing people. It's a formula for making the punishment fit the crime. And how this makes anyone a lover of vengeance is beyond me. Good grief you guys work overtime trying to find fault where there is no fault. Christ's loving mercy doesn't save convicted criminals from punishment. The thief on the cross admitted his guilt and was saved because he recognized Christ as savior, but he still had to take the punishment for his crime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Omnivorous, posted 09-09-2015 11:17 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 09-09-2015 12:06 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 47 of 507 (768217)
09-09-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
09-09-2015 11:50 AM


Faith writes:
Eye for eye is eye for eye not killing people.
Yes it is:
quote:
Exodus 21:23-25 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
It's all one sentence, no distinction between one and the other.
Faith writes:
It's a formula for making the punishment fit the crime. And how this makes anyone a lover of vengeance is beyond me.
Punishment = vengeance.
But of course it ISN'T about punishment at all. What part of the word GIVE do you not understand? Nothing is accomplished by TAKING and eye or a life.
Faith writes:
Christ's loving mercy doesn't save convicted criminals from punishment.
So you forgive them and then execute them? What do you think forgiveness means?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 09-09-2015 11:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 09-09-2015 12:09 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 507 (768218)
09-09-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
09-09-2015 12:06 PM


That is such a confused morass of a post I'm too tired to even try to answer it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 09-09-2015 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 09-09-2015 12:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 49 of 507 (768219)
09-09-2015 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
09-09-2015 12:09 PM


Faith writes:
That is such a confused morass of a post I'm too tired to even try to answer it.
You're confused by direct Bible-quoted proof that you are wrong? No surprises there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 09-09-2015 12:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 507 (768221)
09-09-2015 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
09-09-2015 10:53 AM


Re: on making stuff up.
But what I actually do have Faith is what is really written in the Bible.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 09-09-2015 10:53 AM Faith has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 51 of 507 (768222)
09-09-2015 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tangle
09-09-2015 8:14 AM


Re: Blessed are the Magnanimous
Tangle writes:
By allowing changes in their core doctrines, the religions are accepting that they are purely parochial and terestrial.
I still don't see why this isn't a good thing. Believers are taking responsibility for their faith, not just toeing the party line. (I'm not really sure limbo qualifies as a core belief of a Catholic or Christian, but I'm neither.)
My problems with the religious world view are too many for this thread but, but you can include beliefs that allow people to victimise others - be it by terrorism or simple discrimination - to the detriment of society as a whole and human personal health and happiness generally.
Okay, but it seems like what you're objecting to is the efforts of faith communities to reexamine beliefs like these and evaluate whether they're relevant to contemporary believers. As I said, I find it more reprehensible when believers try to rationalize the Iron Age bigotry in the scripture of Abrahamic religions rather than to contextualize it as a by-product of the anachronistic attitudes of the people who initially formulated the religious ideas they otherwise find worthwhile.
It doesn't seem like religion is just going to go away, so why wouldn't we welcome efforts to make it more inclusive and humanistic? Do you really think it makes sense to tell Catholics they're not supposed to forgive women who've had abortions, because how else are we going to accuse them of being dogmatic, misogynistic and callous?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 09-09-2015 8:14 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 3:58 AM MrHambre has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(3)
Message 52 of 507 (768226)
09-09-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tangle
09-09-2015 9:53 AM


Tangle writes:
Nothing can be learned about God - no-one has exceptional knowledge or even *any* knowledge of god.
Says you.
Tangle writes:
Revealed religion is not knowledge, it's subjective opinion. The point this thread is making is that religions make stuff up to suit them - as is demonstrated when they change their minds about it. Scripture is not immune to this process, it too is manmade, made up and changed and interpreted to suit.
Says you.
But you have not addressed my point, which was a tag-on to NoNukes. You have no problem with science changing, and probably even consider this to be a good thing (as do I). So why do you object to change in theology?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 09-09-2015 9:53 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 09-09-2015 3:45 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 4:08 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 53 of 507 (768229)
09-09-2015 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by kbertsche
09-09-2015 12:50 PM


But you have not addressed my point, which was a tag-on to NoNukes. You have no problem with science changing, and probably even consider this to be a good thing (as do I). So why do you object to change in theology?
I find it strange that the words of an omnipotent and omniscient deity would turn out to be wrong. At least with science we admit that we are not all knowing nor all powerful, and build skepticism right into the process. However, religion claims absolute morality based on absolutely being right, and in the most dogmatic sense.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by kbertsche, posted 09-09-2015 12:50 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by kbertsche, posted 09-09-2015 7:11 PM Taq has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 54 of 507 (768230)
09-09-2015 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tangle
09-09-2015 4:59 AM


FaithNO writes:
Perhaps the humor in repeatedly mucking around with my handle will wear out in time. I had assumed the first time was a mere error, but evidently I was mistaken.
If the pope can change his mind on doctrine just because times have changed and people don't believe him anymore, the core of that relationship is broken.
Changing because people don't believe him anymore or even at a whim is your characterization; a characterization for which you offer no evidence and scant argument. According to you there is no legitimate way for theological doctrine to change or be reinterpreted by others. You state that as fact when instead it is simply your unsupported position.
The pope did not change his mind. A new person became pope.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tangle, posted 09-09-2015 4:59 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 4:19 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(4)
Message 55 of 507 (768231)
09-09-2015 4:53 PM


Clarion call
I also think that if it is your lot in life to forgo religion and you are of the opinion that it is all bunch of made up bullshit, this opinion should not become a clarion call to defecate on everyone else 's beliefs.
Atheist have no dog in this fight, or I miss my guess.
Edited by 1.61803, : spelling
Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 4:26 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 56 of 507 (768233)
09-09-2015 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
09-09-2015 3:45 PM


Taq writes:
kbertsche writes:
But you have not addressed my point, which was a tag-on to NoNukes. You have no problem with science changing, and probably even consider this to be a good thing (as do I). So why do you object to change in theology?
I find it strange that the words of an omnipotent and omniscient deity would turn out to be wrong.
I agree with you. This would not only be strange, it would be self-contradictory.
Taq writes:
At least with science we admit that we are not all knowing nor all powerful, and build skepticism right into the process.
Agreed, at least in principle. (In practice, scientists like Richard Dawkins are often overly dogmatic and do not convey a sense of skepticism or tentativeness.)
Taq writes:
However, religion claims absolute morality based on absolutely being right, and in the most dogmatic sense.
Perhaps, to varying degrees in various religions.
But I don't see how your comments have any bearing on my point. To oversimplify a bit, theology is our human interpretation of divine revelation. If we decide that a previous interpretation was wrong, and we change our interpretation, why do you find this objectionable? Especially if you praise the same process in science?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 09-09-2015 3:45 PM Taq has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 57 of 507 (768242)
09-10-2015 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by MrHambre
09-09-2015 12:28 PM


Re: Blessed are the Magnanimous
MrH writes:
I still don't see why this isn't a good thing.
It is obviously a good thing. Religions are being tamed by secular society - they no longer stone people for blasphemy etc - or at least in those countries lucky enough to have developed advanced democracies.
Believers are taking responsibility for their faith, not just toeing the party line.
Yes, they do it by saying bugger off to those that make the rules - like married people can't use condoms without risking everlasting damnation. (True)
(I'm not really sure limbo qualifies as a core belief of a Catholic or Christian, but I'm neither.)
Well it was but is no longer. As were all the others listed by me and then Faith. The church is quietly dropping dozens of beliefs and doctrines.
Okay, but it seems like what you're objecting to is the efforts of faith communities to reexamine beliefs like these and evaluate whether they're relevant to contemporary believers.
I'm not objecting to it, I'm pointing out that the process of jetisoning beliefs exposes them to the criticism that they have made ALL of it up.
As I said, I find it more reprehensible when believers try to rationalize the Iron Age bigotry in the scripture of Abrahamic religions rather than to contextualize it as a by-product of the anachronistic attitudes of the people who initially formulated the religious ideas they otherwise find worthwhile.
Agreed.
It doesn't seem like religion is just going to go away,
But it is going away - it's in decline across the developed world.
so why wouldn't we welcome efforts to make it more inclusive and humanistic?
I do welcome it. I welcome all moves to muzzle religions from their worst excesses.
Do you really think it makes sense to tell Catholics they're not supposed to forgive women who've had abortions, because how else are we going to accuse them of being dogmatic, misogynistic and callous?
Um, no. This is not my point. My point is - I repeat - that in the process of abandoning inconvenient ideologies and 2000 year old dogma, they are actually saying that they were wrong about core truths. If they were wrong about, say the existence of purgatory, then why should they be right about any other aspects of their belief system? It's my position that the entirety of their - and, as it happens, all - belief systems is a total fabrication. These changes simply provide more evidence that this is the case.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by MrHambre, posted 09-09-2015 12:28 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by MrHambre, posted 09-10-2015 6:00 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 58 of 507 (768243)
09-10-2015 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by kbertsche
09-09-2015 12:50 PM


kbertsche writes:
Says you.
Yes, says me. It's an open challenge, I'm happy to examine any evidence you can provide that you or anyone has special knowledge of god.
You have no problem with science changing, and probably even consider this to be a good thing (as do I). So why do you object to change in theology?
Who says I object to religions changing?
The point I'm making is that when religions drop long held doctrines, they expose themselves to the obvious criticism that they were wrong about what they previously described as a truth. The comparison with science is not valid - science is a search for knowledge from evidence and its finding are admitted to be tentative and subject to change. Religions are dogmatic - believe this or go to hell.
Read my reply to Mr H above.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by kbertsche, posted 09-09-2015 12:50 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by kbertsche, posted 09-10-2015 3:09 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 59 of 507 (768244)
09-10-2015 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
09-09-2015 4:16 PM


NukeFaith writes:
Perhaps the humor in repeatedly mucking around with my handle will wear out in time.
It has; but only because I've run out of combinations.
I had assumed the first time was a mere error
It was, but I'm fond of a running joke.
According to you there is no legitimate way for theological doctrine to change or be reinterpreted by others.
I'm saying that if core beliefs are abandoned, the church leaves itself open to the question of what else is no longer true? Perhaps they made it ALL up? (They did. Now THAT is an assertion.)
The pope did not change his mind. A new person became pope.
How does this help you? What is says to me is that a single man can change the dogma of a world religion. Where is god in this process? Perhaps god doesn't agree, how would we know?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2015 4:16 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 60 of 507 (768245)
09-10-2015 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by 1.61803
09-09-2015 4:53 PM


Re: Clarion call
1.6etc writes:
I also think that if it is your lot in life to forgo religion and you are of the opinion that it is all bunch of made up bullshit, this opinion should not become a clarion call to defecate on everyone else 's beliefs.
Why not? Isn't that why we're here?
Atheist have no dog in this fight, or I miss my guess.
Of course you missed your guess. Atheists have a large angry dog in this fight.
Religions like to think that they are the arbiters of morality and try to plant their daft and dangerous ideas everywhere in society from schools to parliamentary lawmaking. It's good news that they're dumping some of their dogma and becoming more civilised but they need a boot along the way from people who have no fear of them.
Perhaps the Catholic church will also eventually abandon child abuse and cover-ups, accept their failings and properly change - we can only hope.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by 1.61803, posted 09-09-2015 4:53 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 09-10-2015 12:06 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 379 by Phat, posted 01-20-2020 1:18 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024