Religion vs. Religion

[Buffy]

...much like an innocent passion for science would be more commendable than an arrogant proficiency of.

Amen! ;)

 

Gettin' off topic tho....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

They aren't. My God is the true God. You are a blasphemer.

Have you ever heard of a "strawman" argument, geokker?

I have a couple scriptures as to why Christians should not make statements like the one above, even though "gecko" was just being sarcastic....

No. Goekker wasn't being sarcastic. Since his God is the only and true, then you have to be a blasphemer.

It has been this way since the dawn of Christianity (at least). The "church fathers" of the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries, such as Origen, Celsus, Irenaeus, Marcion, Tertullian, Clement, Martyr, Eusebius, and others -- and St. Paul, of course -- spoke exactly the same way. If you don't believe what I believe then you are a blasphemer and a heretic. They dealt with theological differences by calling each other names.

 

Many of the "church fathers" eventually were branded as heretics.

 

Theological differences between the Catholics and newly formed Protestants of the 16th century settled their differences with massive bloody warfare lasting for 80 years, and the Inquisition.

 

Given this nobel tradition, I feel it is our spiritual duty to carry it on. So, carry on, Goekker!! I believe another broadside to his midships is in order!! :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[Pyrotex]

Gettin' off topic tho....

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Buffy,

I hate it when I'm the last poster in a thread and then [poof] POOF! [/poof] all the participants evaporate. Tends to make me think I "ruined" the argument.

Pyro

[Buffy]

I hate it when I'm the last poster in a thread and then [poof] POOF! [/poof] all the participants evaporate. Tends to make me think I "ruined" the argument.

Could be. Could also be that everyone just finally figured out that you're right!

 

The Last Word: Mayonnaise, :phones:

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

...The Last Word: Mayonnaise...

Mayonnaise a lotta posts in this thread! :(

[Southtown]

In this case Pyro, the thread is over a year old. =P

 

Buffy, damnit. Where have you been young lady? And why aren't your posts inc'ing?

[Southtown]

No. Goekker wasn't being sarcastic. Since his God is the only and true, then you have to be a blasphemer.

It has been this way since the dawn of Christianity (at least). The "church fathers" of the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries, such as Origen, Celsus, Irenaeus, Marcion, Tertullian, Clement, Martyr, Eusebius, and others -- and St. Paul, of course -- spoke exactly the same way. If you don't believe what I believe then you are a blasphemer and a heretic. They dealt with theological differences by calling each other names.

 

Many of the "church fathers" eventually were branded as heretics.

 

Theological differences between the Catholics and newly formed Protestants of the 16th century settled their differences with massive bloody warfare lasting for 80 years, and the Inquisition.

 

Given this nobel tradition, I feel it is our spiritual duty to carry it on. So, carry on, Goekker!! I believe another broadside to his midships is in order!! :) :) :) :)

But I owe you a response, of course. This is called a strawman argument: constructing your own ideal opposition and then tearing it down. I don't have to defend your interpretation of religion.

[catholiboy]

To Buffy's original question:

 

The varying beliefs generally have to reconcile their existence by themselves, not with eachother but with the natural world and if they are unable to do so, they probably have something wrong.

This, of course, being the problem with strict doctrine: an inability to shift beliefs without some Crusade or vast revolution.

 

Of course, it is only if their own religion provides unsatisfactory answers to everything that they begin to see other religions in an open-minded fashion.

This does not, however, necessarilt

[Pyrotex]

In this case Pyro, the thread is over a year old. =P...

Great wisdom -- and great stupidity -- is timeless. :P

[Pyrotex]

But I owe you a response, of course. This is called a strawman argument: constructing your own ideal opposition and then tearing it down. I don't have to defend your interpretation of religion.

Ahhh. But *I* didn't construct it. It's "history", Southtown. You don't have to defend history, but you should deal with it.

[Buffy]

The varying beliefs generally have to reconcile their existence by themselves, not with eachother but with the natural world and if they are unable to do so, they probably have something wrong.

Well they try to do it by themselves, but as religions have become less geographically driven (that is, the western concept of "freedom of religion" has spread) they have to compete in the marketplace of beliefs. As a hold over from the us-versus-them attacks of heresy that mainly were a *political* tool of statecraft, this mechanism has been pulled into duty to threaten the faithful (and the potentially faithful, cf. the "Left Behind" series) if they stray from the faith.

 

The interesting thing about "blasphemy" is that in America at least, it has been used to create a common front of the Religious-Versus-The-Irreligious, thus going back to its original role. Oddly of course, those who lean on this technique to create "big tents" that are tolerant of multiple faiths seem to be those with the strongest desire to "put faith back in government" and when picking that "faith" its usually a very particular brand of Christianity (note this is *not* the fault of Christians, but rather the fault of those who would cynically manipulate them for political power).

 

This is of course a very interesting issue, one where faiths are trying to find a common ground in order to gain power in religiously heterogeneous societies, but can run into severe problems with the details of policy development due to differing priorities. Many of these priorities are not "core" beliefs, but modern additions to doctrine (e.g. its pretty hard to find references to abortion or Satan being a Democrat in the Bible), but they still create great friction.

 

Obviously of course if the latter part of what you say here is the case (that they are not able to reconcile their faith with the natural world), it becomes problematic, as we have seen with faiths who have strong dependence on prophecy, and what happens to them if their leaders predict specific dates that come and go ("Whoops! Forget all that stuff I said about the Second Coming being next week!"). But this does get to the core of the role of religious belief as a sociological phenomenon, which is as a source of understanding of the unexplainable occurences in the world. But we're getting off topic here.

 

Side note: Be careful about trying to pigeonhole South: he doesn't believe in "traditional" religious organizations and I give him kudos for thinking critically about them and his own faith.

 

Nice to see that people do want to talk about this topic though! It was dormant for 14 months before Pyro picked it up! I think its a really important issue....

 

Not yet time for Mayonaisse then,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Side note: Be careful about trying to pigeonhole South: he doesn't believe in "traditional" religious organizations and I give him kudos for thinking critically about them and his own faith.

That means a lot Buffy thanks.

 

Ahhh. But *I* didn't construct it. It's "history", Southtown. You don't have to defend history, but you should deal with it.

I still owe Buffy a break down of my beliefs for scrutiny in this thread. It's not enough to simply disown the more well-known beliefs and escape their scrutiny.

 

I have actually come very far in this last year, though. And a treatise is in sight. I just gotta dig up some historical references.

[Pyrotex]

...I have actually come very far in this last year, though. And a treatise is in sight. I just gotta dig up some historical references.

I look forward to reading it.

[catholiboy]

Well they try to do it by themselves, but as religions have become less geographically driven (that is, the western concept of "freedom of religion" has spread) they have to compete in the marketplace of beliefs. As a hold over from the us-versus-them attacks of heresy that mainly were a *political* tool of statecraft, this mechanism has been pulled into duty to threaten the faithful (and the potentially faithful, cf. the "Left Behind" series) if they stray from the faith.

But what I'm trying to say here is that they should do this, and if they don't, they don't even get into the "marketplace of beliefs". So basically, beneath all the competition there is a basic need to reconcile their existence. either that, or they are so fanatical that it doesn't really matter.

[Buffy]

...either that, or they are so fanatical that it doesn't really matter.

And there you have it. Who's to say what is "so fanatical?" Who judges? If its before it gets to the marketplace of ideas, then its only the individual, and the individual's circumstances drive them to decide whether a belief is reconciled with their view of the natural world. There need be little logic involved any many "objective aspects" of the natural world can easily be ignored based on those circumstances.

 

The beliefs of the *majority* influence the judgement of this consistency once in the marketplace of beliefs, which causes some to be seen as "fanatical" or "cults" but its rarely widely agreed upon.

 

I know it when I see it,

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

If I asked you what a trabilidon is, and you answered I'll know it when I see it (thus, I have the right to interpret it any way I please) I'd call you a liar. You have no idea what a trabilidon is because you have never seen one and you don't have any reference for what it is.

 

Now you might go to a couple of people and ask them what a trabilidon is. Some might honestly answer that they don't know. Others might tell you they do know and describe it for you. If, however, more than one person gives a different description of a trabilidon, then what are you to do? Do you accept both descriptions and believe them both to be right? If you do, you'd be a fool. Instead you'd keep on checking. If however someone were to show you a book with a picture of a trabilidon, and this book contained reams of other verifiable data to support it's accuracy on the subject of many things, then you'd be prone to believing that that person not only knows what a trabilidon is but is a true authority on the subject.

 

If, however, you did choose to know what a trabilidon is based on the first (false and unsubstantiated) description you received, and went to your grave believing you knew what a trabilidon was and teaching others (falsely) what you thought a trabilidon to be, you would be liable for spreading false information and be partially liable for the stupidity on the subject of trabilidons.

 

If however, you first believed (falsely) that you knew what a trabilidon was, and later accidentally met someone who could truely teach you what a trabilidon was but chose to ignore this person for your own beliefs, then you would be completely liable for all the stupidity that you spread afterward on the subject of trabilidons.

 

Edit: Now there is of course one additional part to this, which I just realized I haven't touched on.

 

If you find someone, who shows you what a trabilidon is from that book, and that person goes on to describe a trabilidon in a way that is inconsistent with the book, as well as many other things in the book, which would you believe, the person or the book? Until you could verify the book you would have to disbelieve both. However, as I already stated the book is full of factual things that you know are 100% accurate. It would however be dependent upon you to verify all things in the book, and search out the authority on the book (it's writer).

 

Most people (scientists) have a problem with this last step. I can see how they would have a problem, but I believe they can actually look into the book and find the answer and truly search out that authority.

[Pyrotex]

If I asked you what a trabilidon is, and you answered I'll know it when I see it...If you find someone, who shows you what a trabilidon is from that book...It would however be dependent upon you to verify all things in the book, and search out the authority on the book (it's writer).

 

Most people (scientists) have a problem with this last step. I can see how they would have a problem, but I believe they can actually look into the book and find the answer and truly search out that authority.

Hmmm... :hihi:

I am tempted to ask, "what is your point, here?".

 

Speaking as a scientist of sorts, I disagree with your last statement. Verifying things in books and validating authorities is called "library research" and it is the bedrock of scholarship. Can't write a paper without giving your references, and heaven help you if you do and other scientists discover you haven't interpreted those references in a supportable manner.

 

Did you have any specific "book" in mind in your last post?

 

If you did, and it was the Bible, may I point you to a number of marvelous books on the origin, authors, sources and verifiability of the Bible:

 

"Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D. Ehrman

"The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" (4th Edition) by Bruce M. Metzger

"Who Wrote the Gospels?" by Randel McCraw Helms

and nearly anything by Elaine Pagels.

 

These books are the findings of "scientists" who have carefully researched the origins of the New Testament. I can vouch that they are enjoyable and enlightening.

 

You see? We DO research books! :)