Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Indoctrination of Children
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 256 of 295 (526946)
09-29-2009 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Bailey
09-29-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Regarding the catholic indoctrination of evangelical protesters ...
quote:
It seems it was common enough to base all other authoritative renditions on.
There are four Bible canons remaining in official use today, only one of which is Roman; they are all different, and of independent provenance. The rest of your post contains much more that mainstream theologians will disagree with, but, like the above, is off topic, and I will not address it. But thank you for the exchange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Bailey, posted 09-29-2009 6:17 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Bailey, posted 09-30-2009 2:24 AM ochaye has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 257 of 295 (526949)
09-29-2009 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
09-29-2009 9:29 AM


Re: Summation and Topic Change
Thanks for the exchange percy.
Hope things are well with you ...
Percy writes:
This thread's premise is that fire and brimstone scare tactics cause children to grow into adults with an irrational antagonism toward any knowledge that threatens their beliefs. While this seems a realistic possibility, no real evidence supporting this premise was offered beyond anecdotal stories.
Upon further reflection I think the reasons for the peculiar creationist way of looking at the world must be as varied as the individuals themselves, plus my personal acquaintance with adult converts to evangelicalism testifies that there must be other causes beyond a fire and brimstone upbringing.
Nicely put Percy ...
It doesn't seem unfair to suggest that an apocalyptic upbringing is partially responsible for the irrational antagonism that one may display. Perhaps the best evidence is the irrational antagonism itself as it relates to defending the veiws one has accepted during their upbringing.
There is a sense that irrational antagonism is manifested when one is willing to fear and aggressively pursue that which they do not know. This type of antagonism and fear is often exposed by those with theological backgrounds, as well as, within the behaviors of those who do not ...
Which may go a long way towards displaying that exposure to fire and brimsrone preaching at a young age is not the sole motivating impulse.
If the other participants in this thread would like to continue discussing who gets to decide who's a true evangelical then I have no problem with it as long as the moderators don't mind. My only objection to it was that it is off-topic for this thread - it's still a very interesting topic.
Hopefully that's not how you received my rant in Message 251 relating to Evangelical Calvinism and how it may relate to the movement as a whole. That was meant, in part, to display how indoctrination in general - whether into politics, religion or a secular life, can often lead to irrational antagonism ...
And to show that one's preferred poltical, religious or secular label may have little bearing on that fact.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 09-29-2009 9:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 258 of 295 (526988)
09-29-2009 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by kbertsche
09-29-2009 11:54 AM


In regards to cheese curd ...
Thanks for the exchange k-bert.
Glad things are well with you ...
kbertsche writes:
weary writes:
I mean, were any of the early christian denominations - if even Luthers (ie. On the Jews and Their Lies, On War against the Turk, etc.), established without the use of inquisitional methodologies, and then, subsidized by a lack of indoctrination of those occurences?
I would propose the anabaptists (Grebel, Hubmaier, Simons, etc.) as such a group, and the denominations that sprang from them. These "radical reformers" were pacifists who made a wider break from Catholicism than the other Reformation groups.
Thanks for that k-bert. Glad you didn't suggest them Mnsterites though - kinda lacking in the pacifist department.
Actually, I'd highly recommend Estep's 'The Anabaptist story: an introduction to sixteenth-century Anabaptism' to anyone with time on their hands ...
Them Frisian, South German and Swiss Brethren Anabaptists were surely a separate breed, considering their being chased all around by the Commanding Roman Levites and Protesters for denying paedobaptism or the silly right of ius gladdi, as well as refusing to swear to them extraneous credal oaths or to wear wedding jewelry and all. Btw, that spanish feller I mentioned in Message 251, that John Calvin murdered for the Pope, was one of them more radical pacifist reformers - albeit, considered a sort of rationalist by some. As one of them ol' Anabaptist converts and sympathizers, Pilgram Marpeck, wrote1 ...
quote:
Many of them have remained constant, enduring tortures inflicted by sword, rope, fire and water and suffering terrible, tyrannical, unheard-of deaths and martyrdoms, all of which they could easily have avoided by recantation.
... Which is certainly the case in Mr. Servetus' blazing and venemous murder. As the record shows2, Calvin's henchman No webpage found at provided URL: Gillaume Farel ...
quote:
... walked beside the condemned man, and kept up a constant barrage of words, in complete insensitivity to what Servetus might be feeling. All he had in mind was to extort from the prisoner an acknowledgement of his theological error - a shocking example of the soulless cure of souls. After some minutes of this, Servetus ceased making any reply and prayed quietly to himself. When they arrived at the place of execution, Farel announced to the watching crowd: 'Here you see what power Satan possesses when he has a man in his power. This man is a scholar of distinction, and he perhaps believed he was acting rightly. But now Satan possesses him completely, as he might possess you, should you fall into his traps.'
Yea - I'd say it becomes more than evident 'what power Satan possesses when he has a man in his power' at this point in the game. It continues ...
quote:
When the executioner began his work, Servetus whispered with trembling voice: 'Oh God, Oh God!' The thwarted Farel snapped at him: 'Have you nothing else to say?' This time Servetus replied to him: 'What else might I do, but speak of God!' Thereupon he was lifted onto the pyre and chained to the stake. A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. 'Mercy, mercy!' he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. 'Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,' the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames ...
From another source3, it is confirmed that Farel ...
quote:
... noted that Servetus might have been saved by shifting the position of the adjective and confessing Christ as the Eternal Son rather than as the Son of the Eternal God.
Now, I'm sure some scientists are devoted to their convictions in relation to their particular field of study, but how many would be as devoted as Mike?
Anyway, when the concept of a separation of church and state - and the ideologies associated with them, were introduced by the Anabaptists in the 15th and 16th centuries, religious freedom independent of the state was unthinkable to most all poli-religious fanatics alike. It may be the radical ideologies and pacificism displayed by the Anabaptists, as the pioneers of a free church and freedom of religion, that afforded the liberties towards religious pursuit; which were - and still are at times, often equated with anarchy by some. It's no wonder then, that their traditions, as well as those akin to Henry David Thoreau's, were admired and admonished by some of those closely associated to the ideals of Christian Anarchists such as the 'first hippie' - Dorothy Day, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy and Tripp York to name just a few - who most always believe{d} that freedom is justified spiritually through Joshua's teachings.
But that's neither here nor there I suppose, and the important thing to remember is - the Anabaptist communities make some of the best cheese curd.
Btw - I bought an Adirondack bed frame from them some time ago as well, and its held up very, very nicely ... crafty sons o' guns, I'll tell ya.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
1 Marbeck, P. (1978). The writings of Pilgram Marpeck , Scottdale, PA: Herald, pp.50.
2 Nigg, W. (1962). The heretics, University of Michigan: Knopf, pp.327.
2 Bainton, R.H. (1960) Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus, 1511-1553. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, pp.214.

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by kbertsche, posted 09-29-2009 11:54 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 259 of 295 (526993)
09-29-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
09-29-2009 9:29 AM


Re: Summation and Topic Change
quote:
This thread's premise is that fire and brimstone scare tactics cause children to grow into adults with an irrational antagonism toward any knowledge that threatens their beliefs. While this seems a realistic possibility, no real evidence supporting this premise was offered beyond anecdotal stories.
I think that there is a connection between "fire and brimstone scare tactics" and "adults with an irrational antagonism toward any knowledge that threatens their beliefs," but I'm not convinced that the former is the cause of the latter. Rather, I believe that the cause of both is an over-emphasis on emotion and an under-emphasis on the intellect. This unhealthy emphasis is characteristic of charismatic and Pentecostal groups (see Message 5 and Message 38). The OP describes such a group, as does the documentary Jesus Camp.
My reasons for saying this are partly theological and partly experiential. Theologically, Christian conversion and Christian living involves man's intellect, emotions and will. These three elements need to be balanced; over-emphasis on one and/or under-emphasis on another leads to an unbalanced perspective of Christianity and to theological error. This can be demonstrated in church history and in contemporary Christian groups. I have seen it confirmed many times among friends and acquaintances.
Here is my anecdotal story. I was raised in an Evangelical family and church. I attended Evangelical after-school clubs (led by my mother) throughout grade school, and attended Evangelical summer camps throughout Jr. High and High School.
I don't believe I was raised with an over-emphasis on emotion. I would occasionally hear preachers/teachers who used "fire and brimstone scare tactics," but this was not the norm. My parents were careful not to do this, because they realized how easy it is to emotionally manipulate children, and they realized that such an emotional over-emphasis would not produce true Christian conviction.
I was also not raised with an under-emphasis on the intellect. The church that we attended emphasized Bible teaching, so tried to engage the intellect. My parents were well-educated and certainly did not exhibit "irrational antagonism toward any knowledge that threatens their beliefs." They were always open to studying and learning.
quote:
Upon further reflection I think the reasons for the peculiar creationist way of looking at the world must be as varied as the individuals themselves, plus my personal acquaintance with adult converts to evangelicalism testifies that there must be other causes beyond a fire and brimstone upbringing.
Yes, I agree that there are other causes. I don't believe that "fire and brimstone upbringing" per se is a cause of "the peculiar creationist way of looking at the world." I believe "the peculiar creationist way of looking at the world" is a complex mixture of factors, some of which are common to all of Evangelicalism and some of which are peculiar to YECs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 09-29-2009 9:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 260 of 295 (527010)
09-30-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by ochaye
09-29-2009 7:00 PM


In regards to an - off topic, canonical clarity of sorts ...
Thank you for the exchange ochaye ...
Hope things are well with you & yours.
ochaye writes:
weary writes:
ochaye writes:
weary writes:
a common roman bible
I don't know what is meant by this term. The RC canon is not common, if that is what we are supposed to think.
It seems it was common enough to base all other authoritative renditions on.
There are four Bible canons remaining in official use today, only one of which is Roman; they are all different, and of independent provenance.
Quickly, if I may ... what is the difference, if not semantics?
An abundance of evidence is widely accepted indicating that the various booklets within the church testament were written between 50 CE and to 100 CE. However, there is no evidence that any gospel other than Matisyahu, Mark, Luke and John was received as valid scripture within the actual orthodox church.
Nevertheless, sufficient evidence is extant to paint a picture of the position at the close of 2nd century CE. By this time, the four synoptic gospels - and no others, were in official use. Irenaeus leaves us in no doubt about the 'fourfold' Gospels and Tertullian and other church fathers of the same era confirm this.
The booklet of The Unveiling was possibly in use by the 2nd century, but it's not until the 3nd century that any evidence for its use becomes widespread.
By the end of the 2nd century, the booklet entitled 'Acts of the Apostles' can be evidenced as being 'accepted'. There is also little to no doubt that, by this time, the thirteen epistles of uncle Paul were accepted on the same level as the the former five booklets mentioned. Apart from 1 Peter and 1 John, any evidence concerning the remaining booklets is quite scant. The assemblance of the 'new' canon was performed mainly at the council at Carthage in 397 CE.
During the time of the formation of the 'new' testament canon, there were indeed only twenty out of the twenty-seven booklets being readily and universally accepted as genuine - therefore called 'Homologoumena' (i.e. things conceded, agree to, acknowledged, etc.). These twenty booklets were the four synoptic Gospels, the Acts, the epistles of Paul (not including Hebrews), and the first epistles attributed to John and Peter.
The more 'general' epistles, those being the other seven booklets such as Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and The Unveiling all encountered some form of criticism and resistance in certain churches with only little reason given; however, it would seem to have been doubt about the suitability of their contents and/or authorship.
These extant manuscripts were disputed for a time by particular churches, and were therefore styled 'Antilegomena' (ie. against + to speak, not agreed to, disputed, etc.). Again, one of the main issues with regard to the booklets referred to as 'Antilegomena', was whether or not they were really written by those who were called their authors.
Hebrews, for instance, bore no name of its author and differed in style from accepted - or acknowledged Pauline epistles; 2 Peter differed in style from 1 Peter; James and Jude styled themselves 'servants' - as opposed to 'apostles'; again, instead of an 'apostle', the author of 2 and 3 John referred to themself as an 'elder' or 'presbyter' ; finally, Jude recorded apocryphal stories.
And so, for reasons such as these, the booklets were not at once allowed their place in the canon. At the beginning of the fourth century they were received by most of the churches, and at the end of that century they were received by all. The choice of 'approved' booklets was largely influenced by their suitability for public reading, and so, it may be easy to see why these short letters were not often used for this purpose.
The booklets listed by the council of Laodicea (363 CE) and the similar list agreed at the council at Carthage are identical with the church testament, with the exception that Laodicea's council omitted the booklet entitled The Unveiling.
Now, while it may be said that the church testament canon was not the result of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical pronouncements, it no doubt grew in accordance with the needs of the church as a whole. The major factor governing selection was 'apostolicity' which is, of course, the position - or rather 'conviction', that the booklets represented the persuasion of the apostolic age.
So then, number of canons aside, the lo down - in brief, is the selection of the church testament was made by the 'spiritual consciousness of godly people'. Who, it would seem, according to four different biblical canons of independent provenance, would rather not agree on exactly what the Father is saying.
At least they're working towards finding out though ...
The rest of your post contains much more that mainstream theologians will disagree with, but, like the above, is off topic, and I will not address it.
Then again, there is much that mainstream theologians will disagree with each other about, and so, I think you may have said it best in Message 252 ...
quote:
ochaye writes
Christians and mass membership never go together. Many are called, but few are chosen, and Christians never seek mass membership, but are, by contrast, very fussy indeed about who they allow into their fellowship, as apostolic warning requires them to be.

However, that's not to imply it matters to me - one way or another, if self-identified 'christians' reference me as one of the same, as I could care less.
After all, before I was formed, the Father already picked out a name for me.
But thank you for the exchange.
Oh no, no, no ... thank you (and I mean it!)
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

Dear friend,
    Accept confidence. Be an inspiration. Care about others. Dare 2 b different. Envision our dreams. Find out how to love. Grant wishes. Hope hard. Invite possibility. Judge little. Keep promises. Laugh a lot. Make friends. Never give up. Open your mind. Plant miracle seeds. Question everything. Run as fast as you can just to see what it feels like. Stay true. Try your best - especially when considering to take advice and speak your mind. Understand empathy. Volunteer. Win gracefully (when you win). X marks the spot. You'll get there - Zero in on what's important and keep those things close to your heart ...
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by ochaye, posted 09-29-2009 7:00 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by ochaye, posted 09-30-2009 5:39 AM Bailey has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 261 of 295 (527041)
09-30-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Bailey
09-30-2009 2:24 AM


Re: In regards to an - off topic, canonical clarity of sorts ...
Start a thread in an appropriate forum, and I'll gladly explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Bailey, posted 09-30-2009 2:24 AM Bailey has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 262 of 295 (528353)
10-05-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by kbertsche
09-28-2009 11:10 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
I was taking issue with the claim of cavediver (echoed by Coyote) that theology is "extremely subjective."
And it is. That's why I responded as I did.
quote:
The study of these works should not be called "extremely subjective" either
From a theological perspective? Of course they are. You're confusing literary and historical analysis for theological significance.
quote:
since it rests on an objective text and objective techniques of literary analysis.
So why do we get to say that Zeus and Poseidon are fictions why Jehovah, Christ, and Allah aren't? What is this "objective analysis" that you have that results in different outcomes?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by kbertsche, posted 09-28-2009 11:10 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by kbertsche, posted 10-07-2009 12:40 PM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 263 of 295 (528902)
10-07-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Rrhain
10-05-2009 9:56 PM


quote:
quote:
I was taking issue with the claim of cavediver (echoed by Coyote) that theology is "extremely subjective."
And it is. That's why I responded as I did.
Not by any normal definitions of "extremely" or "objective," for the reasons I have already presented.
Regarding the study of mythology, I stated that "The study of these works should not be called "extremely subjective" either since it rests on an objective text and objective techniques of literary analysis."
quote:
From a theological perspective? Of course they are. You're confusing literary and historical analysis for theological significance.
No, you are the one confusing things by introducing "theological significance." I am not discussing "theological significance" at all. I am only discussing the scholarly study of these works.
quote:
So why do we get to say that Zeus and Poseidon are fictions why Jehovah, Christ, and Allah aren't? What is this "objective analysis" that you have that results in different outcomes?
Irrelevant to my argument. This is unrelated to whether or not the scholarly study of these works is objective or subjective.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Rrhain, posted 10-05-2009 9:56 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Percy, posted 10-07-2009 2:24 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 264 of 295 (528925)
10-07-2009 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by kbertsche
10-07-2009 12:40 PM


Objective research methods give the same answers to anyone using them. Since theological answers are highly dependent upon who's giving them, since they vary from person to person (the definition of subjectivity), theology and its research methods are subjective.
When you have a method that gives the same answer to everyone everywhere, then you'll have an objective method.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by kbertsche, posted 10-07-2009 12:40 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by kbertsche, posted 10-07-2009 2:40 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 265 of 295 (528932)
10-07-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Percy
10-07-2009 2:24 PM


quote:
Objective research methods give the same answers to anyone using them. Since theological answers are highly dependent upon who's giving them, since they vary from person to person (the definition of subjectivity), theology and its research methods are subjective.
When you have a method that gives the same answer to everyone everywhere, then you'll have an objective method.
By this logic, scholarly disagreements in science constitute evidence that science and its research methods are also subjective?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Percy, posted 10-07-2009 2:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 10-07-2009 3:28 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 266 of 295 (528940)
10-07-2009 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by kbertsche
10-07-2009 2:40 PM


Science has an ever growing body of natural phenomena about which there is objective agreement because it has an established method for gathering evidence and objectively establishing the way nature behaves, the scientific method.
But even when you bring the strength of the scientific method to bear on evidence and phenomenon that are subjective (or don't exist), such as ESP or God, you never reach agreement. What you're lacking is objective evidence, not objective methods, and that's why theology is subjective. When you get the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Jews and the Moslems to agree with you about God and Jesus you let us know because then we'll know you're on to something.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by kbertsche, posted 10-07-2009 2:40 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by ochaye, posted 10-07-2009 4:22 PM Percy has replied
 Message 269 by kbertsche, posted 10-07-2009 5:45 PM Percy has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 267 of 295 (528950)
10-07-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Percy
10-07-2009 3:28 PM


quote:
But even when you bring the strength of the scientific method to bear on evidence and phenomenon that are subjective (or don't exist), such as ESP or God, you never reach agreement.
But you do reach agreement. The problem is not on agreeing, but on liking what is agreed. Everyone knows what the Bible says, but finding someone who agrees with it is like looking for hen's teeth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 10-07-2009 3:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 10-07-2009 5:00 PM ochaye has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 268 of 295 (528961)
10-07-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ochaye
10-07-2009 4:22 PM


ochaye writes:
But you do reach agreement. The problem is not on agreeing, but on liking what is agreed. Everyone knows what the Bible says, but finding someone who agrees with it is like looking for hen's teeth.
Let me make very certain I understand what you're saying.
When you say that "Everyone knows what the Bible says," you're saying that everyone understands and agrees about what it is the Bible says. Do I have that right?
If I have that right, then my only question is how you can say this with a straight face.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ochaye, posted 10-07-2009 4:22 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by ochaye, posted 10-07-2009 6:40 PM Percy 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 269 of 295 (528977)
10-07-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Percy
10-07-2009 3:28 PM


quote:
Science has an ever growing body of natural phenomena about which there is objective agreement because it has an established method for gathering evidence and objectively establishing the way nature behaves, the scientific method.
Science has many areas of disagreement, as you know. The areas of disagreement are where science is most interesting, because either the data or its analysis are in question. The disagreements don't mean that science is done in an "extremely subjective" fashion, but rather that there are some unsolved puzzles. Neither do disagreements in other scholarly pursuits (e.g. theology, humanities) mean that these fields are "extremely subjective."
quote:
But even when you bring the strength of the scientific method to bear on evidence and phenomenon that are subjective (or don't exist), such as ESP or God, you never reach agreement. What you're lacking is objective evidence, not objective methods, and that's why theology is subjective. When you get the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Jews and the Moslems to agree with you about God and Jesus you let us know because then we'll know you're on to something.
Perhaps there is a confusion between two different concepts, as Ochaye said:
1) the scholarly study of the documents to determine what they mean
2) the question of whether or not the message is actually true
I have only been referring to the first concept (theology) as non-subjective in this thread. I claim that theology is a relatively objective endeavor, and certainly not an "extremely subjective" one. I have been careful not to make such claims about personal faith (the second concept above).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 10-07-2009 3:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Percy, posted 10-07-2009 7:06 PM kbertsche has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 270 of 295 (528997)
10-07-2009 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Percy
10-07-2009 5:00 PM


quote:
my only question is how you can say this with a straight face.
The absence of a reason for that being difficult gives very good reason to suppose that it is perfectly true that everyone understands the Bible, and more than they want to in many cases. All we seem to have here is argumentum ad hominem, less ponderously known as the white flag.
Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 10-07-2009 5:00 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2009 7:37 PM ochaye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024