|
 OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
 
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,407
Loc: Under the C
|
 Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'?  [Re: johnm214]
#16192388 - 05/06/12 09:26 PM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
but all this straw man crap is getting really, really, old.
True, but it is a necessary tactic to hold on to make-believe stuff as close analysis reveals the absurdity. As you well know, the more tenuous the position, the more a debater relies on logical fallacy. This is a direct mathematical proportion.
--------------------
|
 Trypppy
Enthusiast
Registered: 07/19/11
Posts: 1,321
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: johnm214]
#16192406 - 05/06/12 09:29 PM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Trypppy said:
I think it i very possible to come up with a coherent interpretation of the Bible non-literally, but as soon as you open the door for a non-literal interpretation, you are inviting people to come up with their own. As such, you are never going to have a single interpretation of what people will come up with will be misguided and way off the mark.
I don't particularly care, the bible is misguided and off the mark anyways.
You do reveal the problem common to even the liberal theists who don't accept the bible as the word of god per se: they are still validating wishful beliefs and reinforcing illogical thinking. This prevents you from diagnosing and improving upon problems.
In any case, the requirement was not simply a coherent interpretation, but one that is not inconsistant with the common Christian view: that the bible is god's word in some sense or another and that god loves us and revealed himself through it. As discussed previously, you can interpret the bible to be bullshit and that's consistant, but it rejects the premise and thus fails to satisfy my query. If you believe you do have a satisfactory interpretation, then please be the first to identify it.
Ok, well I am not going to try and argue out each bible passage, but I could start with trying out some of the points you made earlier.
Quote:
johnm214 said:
To the unsophisticated reader, myself, I would think this would be a rather fatal admission- how could this person be a catholic at all? How could it be necessary to be baptized? Why would the default disposition of people be hell? Why would we need to meet in booths and tell old virgins that we're sorry for having masterbated? Does this single admission not demolish the whole reason for Christ in the first place- and hence the whole of Christianity?
That's just one example of problems that arise from trying to reconcile credulous belief in authority with reality, but is there any non-problematic one?
The bible includes multiple baptisms and emphasizes its importance, I am not sure how this could be viewed as inconsistent with the "common christian view.” The Catholic view is NOT that the default position of people be hell, that is a common protestant view though and I, being more familiar with catholic beliefs, cannot offer a proper response for their logic. Adam and Eve are believed by many (if not most) catholics to be symbolic, a metaphor for the human tendency to sin as I am sure you have already read if you have looked into this at all. Am I getting closer to the kind of response you are looking for here? 
--------------------
AFOAF once told me to do drugs, so then I did.
|
Freedom
Will swim for food
Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,366
Last seen: 58 minutes, 23 seconds
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: Trypppy]
#16192686 - 05/06/12 10:31 PM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
so why do you need to make the point that its not in the name of islam but a direct order of god? I'm having trouble understanding what your trying to say with that.
If god gives a practical reason than its not just god giving an order, he's also giving a practical reason for that order. So right at the begining you can see the justification for face covering having two reasons, one because god orders it and one because there is a practical reason.
Why do you feel the need to call a face covering or a veil or a burka a 'cloth bag'. Do you refer to your shirts and pants as cloth bags?
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,407
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: Freedom]
#16193666 - 05/07/12 06:37 AM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why do you feel the need to call a face covering or a veil or a burka a 'cloth bag'. Do you refer to your shirts and pants as cloth bags
More of a cloth sack...
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#16193766 - 05/07/12 07:33 AM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Do you think they have any underwear on? 
--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.
" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.
With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,407
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: Icelander]
#16193779 - 05/07/12 07:38 AM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Morning wood? Those supplements been helping?
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#16193784 - 05/07/12 07:41 AM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Long rests between sessions. 
--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.
" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.
With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,403
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: Icelander]
#16194070 - 05/07/12 09:53 AM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
IMO the state is always involved in religion because ultimately religion is a tool of the state and culture.
again, it's not that simple. the relationship between church and state has gone back and forth since the inception of the imperial church. augustine asserted that the church should only stick to matters of spiritual consequence but acknowledged the temporal authority of the state. in essence the church, according to augustine, should be an independent organization, separate from the state but existing in harmony with it. so in an augustinian society you have not one, but two governing organizations, with the church overseeing spiritual development and the state overseeing wordly matters. in the following centuries this doctrine was reversed by the papacy for political reasons; primarily in order to thwart the crown. additionally there were periods when the crown essentially controlled the papacy, such as the time in which the papacy was moved from rome and into southern france.
be that as it may, martin luther was an augustinian monk who argued back from augustine's view of total but harmonious separation of church and state and was one of the fathers of protestantism. this protestant value carried over in no small way when the america's were settled, with the exception of the catholic colonies; massachusetts was essentially a theocracy in the early colonial period. due to the existance of theocracies such as massachussetts, early evangelicals fought hard for religious freedom, and the framers of the united states certainly had such a value in mind when james madison was drafting the constitution. now, since about the 80's, contemporary evangelicals espouse the value of dominionism, which is antithetical to the augustinian view of separation of church and state. dominionism is basically a highly organized effort to usurp the state and establish a theocracy. as wretched and un-american as dominionism is, it's important to understand that that is a strictly contemporary evangelical value and cannot be generally applied to the rest of christianity.
Quote:
According to what I've been reading basically the same thing has been going on in islam. That is why there are varying rules as to what is acceptable behavior for women and what is the meaning of jihad etc. I really don't see your case on this at all. The only difference is Christianity has more names for their differing interpretations of scripture.
no. islam is fundamentalist by its very nature while only parts of christianity can be viewed as fundamentalist.
Quote:
Who decides when that control is being abused or what that abuse is?
the people who are under that control.
Quote:
Aren't teachings always open to interpretation.
it depends on which teaching and how it relates to the nicean creed, generally. some denominations aren't nicean at all though; see jehova's witnesses.
Quote:
How do you know which are being distorted?
i am unable to give an answer to that because it would be dependent on circumstance. there is no clear cut answer as to what constitutes distortion unless you just want to go back to my general assertion that scripture has been and continues to be distorted to serve the interests of a despot or elite minority.
Quote:
I can agree that all religions have some benign aspects to them but the very need for them leaves them open to such abuse due to the irrational nature of the beliefs themselves. If you believe in a god with no evidence and you believe in a priesthood ordained by that god with no evidence then you'll believe anything pretty much. What priesthood in what religion hasn't been political in some way? It's the irrational nature of religion that scares me. It reflects a dangerous irrationality in humanity. Just look a the crimes done in the name of religion. Yet they all profess to be based in love and good will.
all of this is arguing beside the point, so all i can say is that indeed, religion is powerful stuff and it must be used carefully.
Quote:
It's not so complicated when you look at it like this.
that doesn't mean your view is correct. unsophisticated views on any subject lead to unsophisticated opinions on that subject.
--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: millzy]
#16194095 - 05/07/12 10:00 AM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
IMO it's your views that are unsophisticated. You call minutia sophistication. But the use of religion is very simple imo.
And religion is a powerful shield due to the powerful nature of our fear. It really is that simple imo. No fear of the unknown or impermanence and no need for religion. Very simple once you grok it in fullness. Otherwise you fill it in with meaningless detail in an attempt to justify it's use other than as a shield.
We both believe our views are correct but might not be so it's pretty pointless to state that obvious detail.
--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.
" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.
With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,403
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: johnm214]
#16194112 - 05/07/12 10:04 AM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Everyone faces compelling influences. There is no bright line and to the extent your claim seems to rest on one, it seems it must fail. Many in theocracies don't believe, violate the law, and so forth, and i see no relevant distinction to the compulsion one faces in a society of religious people who will shun them for unbelief that has no criminal penalties and one that does.
Quote:
i see no relevant distinction to the compulsion one faces in a society of religious people who will shun them for unbelief that has no criminal penalties and one that does.
so a society that imprisons and/or executes people based on their devotion/denial to/of a religion is the same as a society that doesn't? i don't see any more relevant and clear distinction between these two types of society than this.
Quote:
So what? This is not done "in the name of" Islam or represent some meerly antecedant or coincidant cultural practice, it is ordered and compelled as a direct consequence of god's word in the Quran and Hadith. It is, moreover, expressly attributable to these divine instructions when the authorities issue their rulings.
again, when the people issuing religious commands are the government, it's a different scenario.
--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
millzy
Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,403
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: Icelander]
#16194119 - 05/07/12 10:07 AM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
IMO it's your views that are unsophisticated. You call minutia sophistication.
what i am talking about is hardly minutia. wars have been fought over this stuff. i back my claims with history and facts while you back yours with nothing but themselves.
i do agree that further arguing this is pointless. i will agree to disagree with you.
--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: millzy]
#16194943 - 05/07/12 01:44 PM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Just because wars were fought over this nonsense doesn't make it complicated. Well for you maybe.  Yeah we'll disagree. It's more fun that way.
--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.
" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.
With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: millzy]
#16198103 - 05/08/12 01:44 AM (11 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Trypppy said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
To the unsophisticated reader, myself, I would think this would be a rather fatal admission- how could this person be a catholic at all? How could it be necessary to be baptized? Why would the default disposition of people be hell? Why would we need to meet in booths and tell old virgins that we're sorry for having masterbated? Does this single admission not demolish the whole reason for Christ in the first place- and hence the whole of Christianity?
That's just one example of problems that arise from trying to reconcile credulous belief in authority with reality, but is there any non-problematic one?
The bible includes multiple baptisms and emphasizes its importance, I am not sure how this could be viewed as inconsistent with the "common christian view.”
Did I say it was? No, I didn't. I said that the view of Adam and Eve as mythical creatures undermines the position of the catholic church on the need for baptism and the doctrine of original sin, amongst others.
Catechism 1263:
By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
So, I ask my question again: how do you remove adam and eve from the picture, thereby removing the original sin, and yet require baptism and all the other tomfoolery?
Quote:
The Catholic view is NOT that the default position of people be hell, that is a common protestant view though and I, being more familiar with catholic beliefs, cannot offer a proper response for their logic.
This sacrament [baptism] is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."
Catechisms of the Catholic Church 1215
How do you reconcile your claim with this Catechism? It says plainly: "without which no one 'can enter the kingdom of God.' ".
As Humans are not born allready baptised, the default destination of a human is not "the kingdom of God"- heaven.
More:
"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation...."
CotCC 1257
Quote:
Adam and Eve are believed by many (if not most) catholics to be symbolic, a metaphor for the human tendency to sin as I am sure you have already read if you have looked into this at all. Am I getting closer to the kind of response you are looking for here?
With respect, no. Please read the post: I ask clearly what I want to know. How do you throw out Adam and Eve, and thereby their acts including their sins, and yet still maintain the neccesity of baptism and all the other nonsense tied into original sin?
Quote:
Freedom said:
so why do you need to make the point that its not in the name of islam but a direct order of god? I'm having trouble understanding what your trying to say with that.
I'm trying to show that the common appologist position that people have simply done evil "in the name of" religion is downplaying reality. The doctrine itself was instituted by god, recorded in the holy books, and directly commands such actions as were mentioned, including wearing a burqa.
Quote:
If god gives a practical reason than its not just god giving an order, he's also giving a practical reason for that order. So right at the begining you can see the justification for face covering having two reasons, one because god orders it and one because there is a practical reason.
So what? That God ordered it is sufficient. Nowhere is the order qualified or made contingenet on any fact. As such, women should be forced to wear bags and punished if they try to escape.
Quote:
Why do you feel the need to call a face covering or a veil or a burka a 'cloth bag'. Do you refer to your shirts and pants as cloth bags?
I don't call a face covering or veil a "cloth bag"- neither of those are bags and neither are clearly referred to in the verses I refrenced. The garment is indeed akin to a bag. It is a useful description as it describes the factual situation while more clearly communicating the garment to those not familiar with the terminology used in the hadith, quran. (indeed, its my understanding nobody is quite positive what the exact nature of the garment refrenced in these works was- it was a baggy covering of the body that may or may not well comport to any garment we have a name for now).
No, I don't refer to my shirt as a cloth bag. It is not a cloth bag. The burqa, on the other hand, is quite similar to a cloth bag, and it is essentially this which is referred to in the scripture.
Quote:
millzy said:
so a society that imprisons and/or executes people based on their devotion/denial to/of a religion is the same as a society that doesn't?
No, there are plenty of differences. This isn't what I said, however. What I said was that compulsion exists in both societies independantly of the state of criminal law.
Quote:
Quote:
So what? This is not done "in the name of" Islam or represent some meerly antecedant or coincidant cultural practice, it is ordered and compelled as a direct consequence of god's word in the Quran and Hadith. It is, moreover, expressly attributable to these divine instructions when the authorities issue their rulings.
again, when the people issuing religious commands are the government, it's a different scenario.
So what? When any variable changes it is a different scenario. That has no neeccesary cons3equence on any particular quality. In this case, compulsion may, and plainly does, exist independently of the law of the state.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'? [Re: johnm214]
#16206764 - 05/09/12 08:09 PM (11 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Trypppy said:
The bible includes multiple baptisms and emphasizes its importance, I am not sure how this could be viewed as inconsistent with the "common christian view.”
Well? Now that I've cited the catechisms which seem to contradict both your statements on the Catholic position and backed up my claims which you challenged, will a rebuttal or withdrawal be forthcoming?
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
Anonymous
World Spirit
silversoul7
Digs
SoopaX