Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catholics are making it up.
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 136 of 507 (768586)
09-12-2015 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
09-12-2015 2:08 AM


Re: TRVTH?
Faith writes:
I don't think any of those ideas can be convincingly defended from scripture but are imposed on it by one degree or another of self-deception due to worldly influences.
I agree. But we all live in the world and are subconsciously influenced by it in many ways.
In Galileo's day, the academic establishment held to geocentrism due to their reliance on Plato and Aristotle. Everyone "knew" that geocentrism was true. So the theologians saw geocentrism in Scripture as well. Galileo caused both the academy and the church to re-examine their views, and both decided that their previous interpretations were wrong.
The Reformation likewise caused a re-examination of previous biblical interpretations and a conclusion that some interpretations had been incorrect.
Isn't it possible that we still hold to some wrong interpretations through subconscious worldly influences, and that we will eventually decide these interpretations are incorrect? Haven't you seen this in your own life as you've grown in faith?

"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 126 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 2:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 10:23 PM kbertsche has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 507 (768676)
09-12-2015 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Tangle
09-12-2015 2:27 AM


NoNukes writes:
Except that beliefs are instead what we understand the word of God to be, and sometimes those beliefs are incorrect or only approximations based on our human limits.
In other words, people are simply making it up. Which is my thesis.
Yes, in exactly the way that people who read a scientific textbook and try to interpret its meaning are 'making it up'. Your use of the term 'making it up' is decidedly non-standard.

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 127 by Tangle, posted 09-12-2015 2:27 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Tangle, posted 09-13-2015 2:41 AM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 142 by MrHambre, posted 09-13-2015 9:39 AM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 138 of 507 (768679)
09-12-2015 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by kbertsche
09-12-2015 11:45 AM


Re: TRVTH?
I'm not getting you KB.
Faith writes:
I don't think any of those ideas can be convincingly defended from scripture but are imposed on it by one degree or another of self-deception due to worldly influences.
KB writes:
I agree. But we all live in the world and are subconsciously influenced by it in many ways.
How can you agree that self-deception is the explanation of liberal positions you yourself hold? For instance you certainly disagree with the 6000 year old earth, and I forget how you put it all together but you apparently accept some form of evolution, oh yes, I think I remember: the death of animals before Adam and Eve? But those would of course be the liberal deceptions I'm talking about. You also think Kim Davis should issue licenses for gay marriage as if there is no conflict with biblical revelation in your mind. That's a boggler to me of course and a clear case of being guided by worldly influences rather than scripture.
So, sure, I can agree in principle that any of us could be deceived by worldly influences but there isn't any problem judging which is biblical and which is worldly influence in the examples so far given and I can't even think of another that might be questionable.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by kbertsche, posted 09-12-2015 11:45 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2015 1:04 AM Faith has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 139 of 507 (768681)
09-13-2015 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
09-12-2015 10:23 PM


Re: TRVTH?
Faith writes:
I'm not getting you KB.
That's because you've got it in your mind that I'm "liberal". I'm not.
Faith writes:
How can you agree that self-deception is the explanation of liberal positions you yourself hold? For instance you certainly disagree with the 6000 year old earth, and I forget how you put it all together but you apparently accept some form of evolution, oh yes, I think I remember: the death of animals before Adam and Eve? But those would of course be the liberal deceptions I'm talking about.
If this is your measure of "liberal", then I am less "liberal" than B.B. Warield. And about as "liberal" as Charles Hodge and James Boice. I don't think one's view of the age of creation is a very good metric by which to gauge "liberal" or "conservative".
Faith writes:
You also think Kim Davis should issue licenses for gay marriage as if there is no conflict with biblical revelation in your mind. That's a boggler to me of course and a clear case of being guided by worldly influences rather than scripture.
If issuing licenses would truly violate her conscience, then she should resign rather than issuing the licenses. But if she can do it without violating her conscience, she should probably do so.
I view civil marriage as mainly a civil contract, with rules set by the state. Civil marriage is not necessarily biblical marriage. Most Christians view their public church wedding, not the signing of civil papers, as their "real" wedding. (I would strongly oppose any efforts to force churches to officiate gay weddings, of course.)
I think my position on this is a "boggler" to you because you have accepted Calvin's view of church and state, which would put the state under biblical law. My own view is more along the lines of Luther and Augustine; we are members of two separate "kingdoms".
Incidentally, the Puritans had seen the problems that Calvin's view caused in England and (fortunately) broke from their theological forebear when they set up the US as a secular state, specifically NOT under any church.
Faith writes:
So, sure, I can agree in principle that any of us could be deceived by worldly influences but there isn't any problem judging which is biblical and which is worldly influence in the examples so far given and I can't even think of another that might be questionable.
I'm not sure that Warfield, Hodge, or Boice would agree with you that their views were "worldly" rather than "biblical".

"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 138 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 10:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 09-13-2015 2:12 AM kbertsche has not replied

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


Message 140 of 507 (768684)
09-13-2015 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by kbertsche
09-13-2015 1:04 AM


Re: TRVTH?
How can you agree that self-deception is the explanation of liberal positions you yourself hold? For instance you certainly disagree with the 6000 year old earth, and I forget how you put it all together but you apparently accept some form of evolution, oh yes, I think I remember: the death of animals before Adam and Eve? But those would of course be the liberal deceptions I'm talking about.
If this is your measure of "liberal", then I am less "liberal" than B.B. Warield. And about as "liberal" as Charles Hodge and James Boice. I don't think one's view of the age of creation is a very good metric by which to gauge "liberal" or "conservative".
It's one of the criteria we were discussing, and one of the forms of the liberal mindset. As I said I believe even good theologians can make mistakes and I consider this to be a mistake in the liberal direction, since I don't think any of it can be convincingly shown to be biblical. Which I said and thought you were agreeing with. Perhaps you shouldn't be classed as a liberal in general, I don't know yet, but to hold this view is to hold a liberal view, whatever else you may believe.
If issuing licenses would truly violate her conscience, then she should resign rather than issuing the licenses. But if she can do it without violating her conscience, she should probably do so.
This is a boggler in itself because I think the Bible is very clear that God ordained marriage for a mam and a woman, it's not something open to interpretation or differences of conscience.
I view civil marriage as mainly a civil contract, with rules set by the state. Civil marriage is not necessarily biblical marriage. Most Christians view their public church wedding, not the signing of civil papers, as their "real" wedding. (I would strongly oppose any efforts to force churches to officiate gay weddings, of course.)
But marriage is a universal ordinance decreed by God in Eden, it's not a function of Christian belief or any cultural system or legal system or church, it's universal and all peoples inherit it, often distorting it through the fallen mind of course such as by polygamy for instance, but it belongs to the whole human race, not just Bible believers. All peoples have the Law of God written in their hearts, that's not just for Christians either.
I think my position on this is a "boggler" to you because you have accepted Calvin's view of church and state, which would put the state under biblical law. My own view is more along the lines of Luther and Augustine; we are members of two separate "kingdoms".
This is an unfortunate thing to say and you probably don't mean how it comes across. If a position derives from the bible I'm sure you wouldn't say we can disobey it in the secular world, would you? Since I regard Davis' position as Bible based your differing view is a boggler because as stated it seems to deny the Biblical authority, which can't be ignored in either kingdom.
I don't have a clue about what Calvin said about church and state by the way, so that's certainly not why your view is a boggler to me. I'm sure you don't mean we can sin with impunity in the secular world because our true home is the kingdom of God. I certainly hope that's the case anyway. In any case I think you are supporting an unbiblical position here.
Incidentally, the Puritans had seen the problems that Calvin's view caused in England and (fortunately) broke from their theological forebear when they set up the US as a secular state, specifically NOT under any church.
I don't consider myself a Calvinist in such a strict sense because I'm not up on everything Calvin taught. Again, I have no idea of his views on church and state or their effect on Americans.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2015 1:04 AM kbertsche has not replied

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


Message 141 of 507 (768685)
09-13-2015 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by NoNukes
09-12-2015 10:08 PM


NoNukes writes:
Yes, in exactly the way that people who read a scientific textbook and try to interpret its meaning are 'making it up'. Your use of the term 'making it up' is decidedly non-standard.
I'd expect that sort of nonsense from a deluded creationist, not someone who is normally rational.
The difference between a scientific theory dexcribed in a text book and a doctrine such as hell or a the abhorrence of gays in a religious credo is that anyone with a brain who is prepared to works hard enough will be able to confirm most of its 'truths' from first principles and physical evidence and then be able to repeat that proof so as to be independently confirmed by others.
In contrast anybody with sufficient power or charisma can unilaterally declare the existence of hell, or limbo or purgatory or angels and devils or virgin birth or transubstantiation and the thousands of other fantasies of religion without evidence, but no one can demonstrate their existence or even the likelyhood of their existence. Anyone in power can also declare the abandonment of these fictions when they become embarassing - equally without evidence.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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 137 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2015 10:08 PM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 142 of 507 (768706)
09-13-2015 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by NoNukes
09-12-2015 10:08 PM


The God Delusion Delusion
NoNukes writes:
Your use of the term 'making it up' is decidedly non-standard.
Well, that's what we get for expecting to see consistency, coherence, or fair-mindedness in what is nothing more than a hate-filled rant. When the message-board atheist allows himself to define what things like religion and faith are, the result is only going to represent his prejudices and not the vast historical construct of religion in all its complex, problematic reality.
If we're looking for something wholly "made up," the New Atheist version of religion sure qualifies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2015 10:08 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by AZPaul3, posted 09-13-2015 10:15 AM MrHambre has replied
 Message 146 by Tangle, posted 09-13-2015 12:45 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 143 of 507 (768707)
09-13-2015 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by MrHambre
09-13-2015 9:39 AM


Re: The God Delusion Delusion
If we're looking for something wholly "made up," the New Atheist version of religion sure qualifies.
And just what is that New Atheist version of religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by MrHambre, posted 09-13-2015 9:39 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-13-2015 10:24 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 145 by MrHambre, posted 09-13-2015 10:30 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 144 of 507 (768708)
09-13-2015 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by AZPaul3
09-13-2015 10:15 AM


Re: The God Delusion Delusion
And just what is that New Atheist version of religion?
Ooh, I know this. It's the one followed by zillions of actual churchgoers rather than by two theologians you've never heard of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by AZPaul3, posted 09-13-2015 10:15 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 145 of 507 (768709)
09-13-2015 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by AZPaul3
09-13-2015 10:15 AM


Re: The God Delusion Delusion
AZPaul3 writes:
And just what is that New Atheist version of religion?
From what I've heard, nothing more than a bunch of cheap rhetoric: it's a "fairy tale," it's "superstition," and per Sam Harris, just a set of false beliefs about reality. Dennett traces it back to a faulty agency-detection system. Dawkins, of course, calls it a delusion.
I'm not religious, but I happen to think religion is a much more complicated issue than that. There's a wide range of interpretations in any religion, but we give ourselves license to define it in the way that gives us a rhetorical advantage. Religion, for better or worse, has always been an important way that individuals and communities have defined themselves and their relationship to others. It's not just about scripture, and it's not just about literal beliefs. But the OP just handwaves all that away and defines it as made-up nonsense. Pardon me for thinking that that's a comically inadequate analysis of the phenomenon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by AZPaul3, posted 09-13-2015 10:15 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Tangle, posted 09-13-2015 12:57 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 148 by AZPaul3, posted 09-13-2015 7:27 PM MrHambre has replied

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


Message 146 of 507 (768716)
09-13-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by MrHambre
09-13-2015 9:39 AM


Re: The God Delusion Delusion
MrH writes:
If we're looking for something wholly "made up," the New Atheist version of religion sure qualifies.
Do tell us more. Do you have any actual examples of stuff made up by these atheists or are you simply having a 'hate filled rant'.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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 142 by MrHambre, posted 09-13-2015 9:39 AM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 147 of 507 (768717)
09-13-2015 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by MrHambre
09-13-2015 10:30 AM


Re: The God Delusion Delusion
MrH writes:
But the OP just handwaves all that away and defines it as made-up nonsense. Pardon me for thinking that that's a comically inadequate analysis of the phenomenon.
Ok then, please explain which of the following Catholic doctrines listed in the OP have not been made up:
1. Catholics may not divorce
2. Women who have had an abortion cannot be forgiven
3. Catholic priests must be celibate (always good for a laugh that one)
4. It's a sin to eat meat on a friday
5. Unbaptised babies can't get to heaven - they go to Limbo
6. The use of birth control is a mortal sin
This is not a definitive list, just a few dictrines that have been dumped recently.

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 145 by MrHambre, posted 09-13-2015 10:30 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 148 of 507 (768765)
09-13-2015 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by MrHambre
09-13-2015 10:30 AM


Re: The God Delusion Delusion
Pardon me for thinking that that's a comically inadequate analysis of the phenomenon.
Well, let’s see.
Six days of creation, two conflicting creation myths, both earth and plants created before the sun, Tree of Knowledge with a talking snake, Da FallSM, two versions of a world-wide flood, the exodus, angels singing to Sheppard’s, virgin birth, walking on water, loaves and fishes, resurrection and ascension, tribulation, seven seals, seven trumpets, second coming, Satan escapes. A lot in between each of these and it goes on.
Is any of this NOT made up?
This is just one religion (glommed on a prior one).
We could do the same for ANY religion.
Start at the beginning. Gods. Any one of them NOT made up?
Is there any objective evidence to any of the above?
Harris: fairy tale, superstition — What do you call incredible stories of fantasy?
Dennett: faulty agency-detection — Confounding events with unknown causes?
Dawkins: delusion — Belief contrary to evidence?
These three guys are factually correct. This is not some New Atheist version of a religion. This is the hard reality of religion.
What's inadequate in their analysis?
Religion, for better or worse, has always been an important way that individuals and communities have defined themselves and their relationship to others.
Correction, it is the priests dictating the relationships with no dissent allowed.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by MrHambre, posted 09-13-2015 10:30 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by MrHambre, posted 09-13-2015 8:10 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 150 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2015 10:32 PM AZPaul3 has replied

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


Message 149 of 507 (768768)
09-13-2015 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by AZPaul3
09-13-2015 7:27 PM


Re: The God Delusion Delusion
AZPaul3 writes:
Well, let’s see.
Six days of creation, two conflicting creation myths, both earth and plants created before the sun, Tree of Knowledge with a talking snake, Da FallSM, two versions of a world-wide flood, the exodus, angels singing to Sheppard’s, virgin birth, walking on water, loaves and fishes, resurrection and ascension, tribulation, seven seals, seven trumpets, second coming, Satan escapes. A lot in between each of these and it goes on.
Is any of this NOT made up?
Yeah, I pretty much said that this approach is futile. If your idea is that these things are either literally scientifically true or they're utterly useless, then congratulations, you think like a Christian fundamentalist. I tried to say that the literal truth of these myths is completely beside the point, but that seems to be the only basis that message-board atheists are willing to discuss them.
What these myths mean is more important, and that varies widely throughout faith communities. If we're satisfied with defining all believers as fundies and jihadists, maybe that's because it makes it easier for us to condemn them as barbaric rather than empathize with them.
Religion (like language and similar cultural constructs) is much more about tribal markers, and throughout history it has (unfortunately) made it easier to divide populations along political lines. Trying to reduce this complex set of social conditions to a set of false beliefs is what keeps the internet debate culture afloat, but it doesn't engage with how enmeshed religion is in the fabric of modern civilization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by AZPaul3, posted 09-13-2015 7:27 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by AZPaul3, posted 09-14-2015 12:56 AM MrHambre has replied
 Message 155 by Tangle, posted 09-14-2015 3:02 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 507 (768777)
09-13-2015 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by AZPaul3
09-13-2015 7:27 PM


Re: The God Delusion Delusion
Is any of this NOT made up?
Is any of it made up by the Catholic Church or by the current pope? If not then the example is not supportive of the OP.

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 148 by AZPaul3, posted 09-13-2015 7:27 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by AZPaul3, posted 09-14-2015 12:58 AM NoNukes 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