Interesting Book Review on Dawkins - Religion as Proto-Science
Jeffrey Turner
Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
not believe in God, what should one believe in instead? Dawkins thinks
he has an answer--science--but his understanding of the term is
embarrassingly crude and empirical.
This comes through when he tries to figure out how "the God delusion"
arose in the first place. Why did people latch onto an idea that we now
know to be incorrect? Why didn't the ancient Israelites conduct their
own double-blind experiment to determine whether sacrificing all those
bulls, rams and occasionally children to Yahweh was really worth the
trouble? Dawkins gropes for an explanation at one point in his book. He
speculates that religious visions may be a form of temporal lobe
epilepsy (which implies that there must have been quite an epidemic in
Palestine when people like Elijah, Hosea and Jeremiah were raising a
ruckus) but then lets the idea drop. He suggests that religion caught on
because it confers certain evolutionary advantages but concedes that
this is exceedingly hard to prove. He speculates that faith may be the
result of a self-replicating "meme," the cultural equivalent of a gene.
But after a murky discussion of "memeplexes" and genetic cartels, the
reader is left with the uncomfortable feeling that Dawkins is lost in a
tautological fog in which religion is self-replicating because it
satisfies certain human needs and is therefore... self-replicating.
Finally, he suggests that religion survives because it is
comforting--this, some 200 pages after conceding that religion is as
likely to exacerbate stress as to alleviate it. (The last thing Old
Testament prophets wanted to do was soothe troubled souls.)
Dawkins's sense of history is so minimal that it approaches the
vanishing point. He is a classic example of the kind of shallow
rationalist who thinks that all you have to know about history is that
everything was cloudy and dark until the scientific revolution of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, at which point the sun began poking
through. To quote Alexander Pope: "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in
night:/God said, Let Newton be! and all was light." Religion took hold
at a certain point because people were stupid and benighted, but now
that this is no longer the case, it should not hang around a moment
longer. Yet it never occurs to Dawkins that monotheism is a theory like
any other and that certain Jewish scribes and priests adopted it in the
sixth century BC because it seemed to confer certain advantages. These
were not survival advantages, since the Jews went on to rack up an
unparalleled record of military defeats. Rather, they were intellectual
advantages in that the theory of a single all-powerful, all-knowing
deity seemed to explain the world better than what had come before.
Since Dawkins sees all religion as merely dumb, he can't imagine how
this might be. Hence he can't see how the idea of an all-powerful,
all-knowing creator might cause worshipers to see the world as a single
integrated whole and then launch them on a long intellectual journey to
figure out how the various parts fit together. Roughly 2,500 years
separate the Book of Isaiah, in which Yahweh first declares, "I am the
first and I am the last; apart from me there is no god [44:6]," and
Einstein's quest for a unified field theory explaining everything from
subatomic structure to the Big Bang. Everything else has changed, but
the universalism behind such an endeavor has remained remarkably
constant. Dawkins blames religion for stifling human curiosity. But were
he a bit more curious about the phenomenon he is supposedly
investigating, he would realize that it has done as much over the long
haul to stimulate it. For a world-famous intellectual, he is oddly
provincial.
--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt
Lee Oswald Ving
@corp.supernews.com:
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
> not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
How charmingly simplistic. Has it never occurred to this individual that
one not replace that belief with anything?
> Dawkins thinks
> he has an answer--science--but his understanding of the term is
> embarrassingly crude and empirical.
Hypocrisy, and he doesn't even realize it.
<snip>
eyelessgame
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
> not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
If one does not beat one's wife, whom does one beat instead?
If one does not support Giuliani, which Republican does one support
instead?
If one does not vomit after dinner, after which meal does one vomit
instead?
If one does not commit the fallacy of the unexcluded middle, which
logical fallacy does one commit instead?
eyelessgame
Clothaire
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
>Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
>not believe in God, what should one believe in instead? Dawkins thinks
>he has an answer--science--but his understanding of the term is
>embarrassingly crude and empirical.
>
>Snip remaining garbage.
Read the book, Man; don't try to rewrite it to fit your own personal
delusions.
Clothaire
Denis Loubet
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:134kqpa...@corp.supernews.com...
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
> not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
At first I thought the above was stupid on the face of it, for if we extend
the logic we get questions such as: What should one replace smallpox with?
But then I remembered reading about a reseacher that is exploring the
practicality of deliberately infecting patients with diseases that have
little or no symptoms, to displace diseases that have severe symptoms.
I think that's kind of cool.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
eerok
> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem.
> If one does not believe in God, what should one believe in
> instead?
This is an amazingly clueless set of statements.
All it takes for atheism is to disbelieve in gods. This is no
more negative than disbelieving that the moon's made of green
cheese ... nor is it any more ideological. Nor does it leave
any gap that needs to be filled by some arbitrary substitute.
You can't generalize much about atheists, since there's no
particular world view we share.
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
Bobby Bryant
Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> writes:
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one
> does not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
I wonder how many six-year-olds ask the same about Santa Claus when
confronted with the horrifying truth.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
tex...@gmail.com
Interesting article, but you snipped quite a bit before and
after it, without an indication that you did so. Also
interesting are the knee-jerk reactions by atheists. I admit
they have a point, but by attacking the weakest part of the
argument, in fact, only a rhetorical introduction, they leave
the main body standing; a stupid thing to do.
A lot of religious people just cannot understand why
Dawkins is "putting theological doctrines to the same
kind of scrutiny that any scientific theory must withstand".
(From the Scientific American review on Amazon.com.)
Theological doctrines are not and are (and were) never
meant to be scientific. At one time they might have
reflected the height of the then current scientific
endeavours, but that was not the point, and modern
theology will at least be careful not to contradict science.
Theology is and always was reflection on the religious
experiences of people, from an explicitly religious
standpoint. If that is science, then by all means scrutinize
it as science. If it isn't, and it sure looks as if the methods
of theology are closer to those of the humanities than
those of science, then all that your scrutiny will do for you
is to make you look like a fool. What is next, a
denunciation of literary criticism, because it is not based
on the methods of the natural sciences?
Regards,
Karel
Martin Kaletsch
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
> Yet it never occurs to Dawkins that monotheism is a theory like
> any other and that certain Jewish scribes and priests adopted it in the
> sixth century BC because it seemed to confer certain advantages. These
> were not survival advantages, since the Jews went on to rack up an
> unparalleled record of military defeats. Rather, they were intellectual
> advantages in that the theory of a single all-powerful, all-knowing
> deity seemed to explain the world better than what had come before.
Really? I was under the impression that monotheism was mainly an advantage
when you wanted to have a single despotic ruler, on earth as in heaven.
But that's just my opinion.
> Since Dawkins sees all religion as merely dumb, he can't imagine how
> this might be. Hence he can't see how the idea of an all-powerful,
> all-knowing creator might cause worshipers to see the world as a single
> integrated whole and then launch them on a long intellectual journey to
> figure out how the various parts fit together.
And interestingly enough it was in Greece where the polytheistic
philosophers laid the groundwork for modern science.
> Roughly 2,500 years
> separate the Book of Isaiah, in which Yahweh first declares, "I am the
> first and I am the last; apart from me there is no god [44:6]," and
> Einstein's quest for a unified field theory explaining everything from
> subatomic structure to the Big Bang.
According to Einsteins own words he was not motivated by a believe in JHWH.
> Everything else has changed, but
> the universalism behind such an endeavor has remained remarkably
> constant. Dawkins blames religion for stifling human curiosity. But were
> he a bit more curious about the phenomenon he is supposedly
> investigating, he would realize that it has done as much over the long
> haul to stimulate it. For a world-famous intellectual, he is oddly
> provincial.
Bruno, Galileo, etc.
--
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
richardal...@googlemail.com
> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:134kqpa...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> > Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
> > not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
>
> At first I thought the above was stupid on the face of it, for if we extend
> the logic we get questions such as: What should one replace smallpox with?
>
> But then I remembered reading about a reseacher that is exploring the
> practicality of deliberately infecting patients with diseases that have
> little or no symptoms, to displace diseases that have severe symptoms.
>
> I think that's kind of cool.
Surely that's the basic principle of vaccination?
RF
>
> --
> Denis Loubet
> dlou...@io.comhttp://www.io.com/~dloubethttp://www.ashenempires.com
Guido
I disagree on two counts. First, many religions deal with some of the
same topics science deals with, like the origin and evolution of the
universe, the earth and life. So, this part of religion at least should
be scrutinized in the same way that astronomy, physics, geology and
biology are scrutinized. Needless to say, religion has been found
wanting on these subjects.
Second, Dawkins does not want to deal with religion in the same way as
science, but in the same way as /every other subject/. "It is in the
light of the unparalleled presumption of respect for religion that I
make my own disclaimer for this book. I shall not go out of my way to
offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more
gently than I would handle anything else." [Dawkins, The God Delusion,
last sentence of ch. 1]
> (From the Scientific American review on Amazon.com.)
> Theological doctrines are not and are (and were) never
> meant to be scientific.
I agree, but that does not mean that details from theological doctrines
that can be tested scientifically shouldn't be tested in this manner.
> At one time they might have
> reflected the height of the then current scientific
> endeavours, but that was not the point, and modern
> theology will at least be careful not to contradict science.
>
> Theology is and always was reflection on the religious
> experiences of people, from an explicitly religious
> standpoint. If that is science, then by all means scrutinize
> it as science.
As a human behaviour, it can (and should, in my opinion) be tested by
behavioural scientists and psychologists.
> If it isn't, and it sure looks as if the methods
> of theology are closer to those of the humanities than
> those of science, then all that your scrutiny will do for you
> is to make you look like a fool. What is next, a
> denunciation of literary criticism, because it is not based
> on the methods of the natural sciences?
I would be happy to deal with theology in the same way as literary
criticism. But I think many religious people would not like this very much.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karel
>
hhya...@gmail.com
You are such a naive guy who seems not able to reason that ancient
Jews were blood-sucking people....
Their believe migrated into the west and the Whites cling on with the
same passion........killing all non-believers during Crusade.......
Yet a modern people like you still can't learn.......pity...
Yap
tex...@gmail.com
If people want to treat religion or theology as hard, objective
fact, that is their problem, or the problem their pastors saddled
them with. I am a modern theologian and I punctiliously avoid
conflicts with science, and welcome the criticisms of
behavioural scientists and psychologists. Religion is meant
for people after all, and not to tie them in knots.
I must confess to not having read Dawkins' book, that is
why I referred to an Amazon review, but if you can give
an example of something that is worth scientific
scrutiny in theology, just as an example, I am interested.
Regards,
Karel
Noelie S. Alito
> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:134kqpa...@corp.supernews.com...
>> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>>
>> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
>> not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
>
> At first I thought the above was stupid on the face of it, for if we extend
> the logic we get questions such as: What should one replace smallpox with?
>
> But then I remembered reading about a reseacher that is exploring the
> practicality of deliberately infecting patients with diseases that have
> little or no symptoms, to displace diseases that have severe symptoms.
>
> I think that's kind of cool.
>
>
Aye, satisfy your temporal lobe's need for religion/devotion
and embrace the least harmful "religion" you can find. Become
a fan of something relatively unimportant, like a sports team or
a celebrity or a hobby, which can absorb potential zealotry and
limit the damage you could do to society as a whole.
Noelie
--
<my_first_name>@<capital_of_Texas>.rr.com
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 47 years."
Walter Bushell
Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
> To quote Alexander Pope: "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in
> night:/God said, Let Newton be!
"It did not last; the Devil howling 'Ho!
Let Einstein Be!' restored the status quo." - John Collings Squire
Walter Bushell
> These
> were not survival advantages, since the Jews went on to rack up an
> unparalleled record of military defeats.
They were survival advantages for the Jews, not as individuals but as a
people. They were the reason the Jew managed to be defeated so many
times. A careful consideration of lines of descent would reveal that
most people's ancestors endured many defeats. The only reason they don't
count is that the people don't identify with the losers.
Ferrous Patella
>>> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one
>>> does not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
>>
>> At first I thought the above was stupid on the face of it, for if we
>> extend the logic we get questions such as: What should one replace
>> smallpox with?
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
Walter Bushell
Martin Kaletsch <man...@gmx.de> wrote:
> And interestingly enough it was in Greece where the polytheistic
> philosophers laid the groundwork for modern science.
And they were pederasts to boot, it was the secret of their military
success.
Walter Bushell
eerok <ee...@addr.invalid> wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> > Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem.
> > If one does not believe in God, what should one believe in
> > instead?
>
>
> This is an amazingly clueless set of statements.
>
> All it takes for atheism is to disbelieve in gods. This is no
> more negative than disbelieving that the moon's made of green
> cheese ... nor is it any more ideological. Nor does it leave
> any gap that needs to be filled by some arbitrary substitute.
>
> You can't generalize much about atheists, since there's no
> particular world view we share.
I think his point is that everyone need a world view.
Michael R. James
> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
> not believe in God, what should one believe in instead? Dawkins thinks
> he has an answer--science--but his understanding of the term is
> embarrassingly crude and empirical.
> This comes through when he tries to figure out how "the God delusion"
> arose in the first place. Why did people latch onto an idea that we now
> know to be incorrect? Why didn't the ancient Israelites conduct their
> own double-blind experiment to determine whether sacrificing all those
> bulls, rams and occasionally children to Yahweh was really worth the
> trouble? Dawkins gropes for an explanation at one point in his book. He
> speculates that religious visions may be a form of temporal lobe
> epilepsy (which implies that there must have been quite an epidemic in
> Palestine when people like Elijah, Hosea and Jeremiah were raising a
> ruckus) but then lets the idea drop. He suggests that religion caught on
> because it confers certain evolutionary advantages but concedes that
> this is exceedingly hard to prove. He speculates that faith may be the
> result of a self-replicating "meme," the cultural equivalent of a gene.
[snip]
I confess I have never read "The God Delusion" but does Dawkins really
struggle this much with the origins and persistance of religion? Perhaps
this paragraph is not a fair take on his views.
This does not seem like such a difficult problem. Human being are exquisitely
designed (well, you know what I mean) for social interactions. We devote
considerable gray matter to understanding the actions of our fellow humans
and how we fit in. We build and navigate heirarchies, construct shifting and
overlapping alliances. We can discern from minute changes in facial
expression and body language the mental states of other people around us.
It doesn't seem so difficult to think that some caveman somewhere saw Og
go cut down a tree and then get hit by lightning might begin by using
the same sort of mental machinery that he uses to figure out who's zoomin'
who to wonder why something bad happened to Og. And that said caveman might
try to frame this in terms of a human-like agent who didn't like his tree
getting cut down.
It's a pretty short step from this to the kinds of polytheistic nature gods
that has historically been a very popular religion. It's simply co-opting
certain mental abilities to solve a different problem.
The enduring popularity of religion, I think, simply takes advantage of this
same tendency. Monotheism isn't so different except there's one big alpha
god, but still lots lesser actors on the spiritual stage.
Personally, I also think this type of thinking comes into play
in some aspects of science. I suspect we might use similiar type of
mental abilities, even if we acknowledge that things we're studying
aren't really humann (or "intelligent").
When we employ teleological language to describe the world, using
terms like evolution "does" this, or electrons "like" to do that,
I think this is indicative of how we frame our thoughts about
natural process as if they were human actors.
And if humans have some variations in how well they "see" certain types
of social situations, you could imagine that studying science might
be easier for people whose mental abilities can easier grasp the
rules of conduct of electrons over the rules of conduct at a cotillion.
IOW, there might be a good reason why scientists/geeks have
the antisocial reputation that they do.
mike
--
mrj...@swcp.com http://www.swcp.com/~mrjames/
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it
in numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot express
it in numbers your knowledge is a meagre and unsatisfactory kind"
- Lord Kelvin
slothrop
>
> - Show quoted text -
just don't pick the Chicago Cubs, which would be ten thousand times
more damaging than any religion...
slothrop
rappoccio
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
> not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
Instead of believing in a deity that may or may not exist, why not
focus on the people around you and better the lives of those that will
come after you when you die? The betterment of humanity is an end unto
itself. If you love your children, then you'll want them to inherit a
world that is better than when you came into it. THAT should be your
goal.
> Dawkins thinks
> he has an answer--science--but his understanding of the term is
> embarrassingly crude and empirical.
What is embarrasingly crude is the fact that you don't understand
science is empirical.
>
> This comes through when he tries to figure out how "the God delusion"
> arose in the first place. Why did people latch onto an idea that we now
> know to be incorrect? Why didn't the ancient Israelites conduct their
> own double-blind experiment to determine whether sacrificing all those
> bulls, rams and occasionally children to Yahweh was really worth the
> trouble? Dawkins gropes for an explanation at one point in his book. He
> speculates that religious visions may be a form of temporal lobe
> epilepsy (which implies that there must have been quite an epidemic in
> Palestine when people like Elijah, Hosea and Jeremiah were raising a
> ruckus) but then lets the idea drop. He suggests that religion caught on
> because it confers certain evolutionary advantages but concedes that
> this is exceedingly hard to prove. He speculates that faith may be the
> result of a self-replicating "meme," the cultural equivalent of a gene.
> But after a murky discussion of "memeplexes" and genetic cartels, the
> reader is left with the uncomfortable feeling that Dawkins is lost in a
> tautological fog in which religion is self-replicating because it
> satisfies certain human needs and is therefore... self-replicating.
> Finally, he suggests that religion survives because it is
> comforting--this, some 200 pages after conceding that religion is as
> likely to exacerbate stress as to alleviate it. (The last thing Old
> Testament prophets wanted to do was soothe troubled souls.)
So, you're blind to the fact that the entire religious experience
could very well be caused by natural explanations?
I have come to a realization. There are really two types of people:
those that see miracles in things that are explanable by natural means
and chance, and those that don't. Those that do tend to associate
ordinary things (Look! This banana fits nicely in the palm of my
hand!) to untestable assertions about the nature of God (See? Since
the banana fits nicely in the palm of my hand, God exists!). They are
inherently utterly convinced of whatever predisposed religion they are
associated with because of ordinary things in our ordinary lives. If
they take so much "meaning" out of this, fine, I won't argue with what
you want to believe, so long as you concede three points:
1) That they actually have no idea one way or another (they admit
their inherent agnosticism).
2) They don't claim they have a necessary lock-on to morality and
don't punish thought-crimes (i.e. if you don't believe in My Deity
(tm) you're going to burn in a lake of fire).
3) They accept proof of physical concepts that contradict their
preconceived notions (i.e. accept that the universe is 14 billion
years old, that evolution occurred, that the universe underwent a
rapid inflationary phase, etc).
> Dawkins's sense of history is so minimal that it approaches the
> vanishing point. He is a classic example of the kind of shallow
> rationalist who thinks that all you have to know about history is that
> everything was cloudy and dark until the scientific revolution of the
> sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, at which point the sun began poking
> through. To quote Alexander Pope: "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in
> night:/God said, Let Newton be! and all was light." Religion took hold
> at a certain point because people were stupid and benighted, but now
> that this is no longer the case, it should not hang around a moment
> longer. Yet it never occurs to Dawkins that monotheism is a theory like
> any other and that certain Jewish scribes and priests adopted it in the
> sixth century BC because it seemed to confer certain advantages. These
> were not survival advantages, since the Jews went on to rack up an
> unparalleled record of military defeats.
It doesn't seem odd that they then chose to consider themselves
somehow "blessed by God" and that they were God's "Chosen People"?
> Rather, they were intellectual
> advantages in that the theory of a single all-powerful, all-knowing
> deity seemed to explain the world better than what had come before.
How does this explain the world any better than the Egypto-Greco-Roman
nature gods? Because all the nature gods were coalesced into one God?
Nonsense. It doesn't explain anything at all.
> Since Dawkins sees all religion as merely dumb, he can't imagine how
> this might be. Hence he can't see how the idea of an all-powerful,
> all-knowing creator might cause worshipers to see the world as a single
> integrated whole and then launch them on a long intellectual journey to
> figure out how the various parts fit together.
If you find some evidence that this is true, clue me in, I'd love to
hear it.
> Roughly 2,500 years
> separate the Book of Isaiah, in which Yahweh first declares, "I am the
> first and I am the last; apart from me there is no god [44:6]," and
> Einstein's quest for a unified field theory explaining everything from
> subatomic structure to the Big Bang.
So your argument is that because there *might* be a GUT, then because
the Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, they're right? What about
the other monotheistic traditions?
Was the cult of Aten the Sun God right because the sun exists?
Was the ancient Celtic moon-goddess cult right because the moon
exists?
Do I really need to point out to you that your argument is based on a
false association?
> Everything else has changed, but
> the universalism behind such an endeavor has remained remarkably
> constant. Dawkins blames religion for stifling human curiosity. But were
> he a bit more curious about the phenomenon he is supposedly
> investigating, he would realize that it has done as much over the long
> haul to stimulate it. For a world-famous intellectual, he is oddly
> provincial.
Give me a few examples of things that have been demonstrated to
humanity by religion WITHOUT the use of the scientific method.
rappoccio
<snip>
> I disagree on two counts. First, many religions deal with some of the
> same topics science deals with, like the origin and evolution of the
> universe, the earth and life. So, this part of religion at least should
> be scrutinized in the same way that astronomy, physics, geology and
> biology are scrutinized. Needless to say, religion has been found
> wanting on these subjects.
To say the least. Not a single prediction of any religion about our
origins is correct. This throws the whole creation myth and other
stories out the window, regardless of the theological gymnastics
people use to attempt to salvage them.
Kermit
I notice that you never seem to complete...
Thoughts should be whole... but racist idiot instead...
If you can read this... too close...
vortex of insanity...
Bark!
Curmutt
rappoccio
When literary works claim to be true, and make testable predictions,
then we can indeed prove them to be right or wrong. If a book claims
the universe was created in 6 days in such a way that the oceans were
created before the earth which was created before the stars, and
claims that man was made from dust and ate an apple (hence damning all
of humankind for all eternity), the "scientific" aspect and the
"theological" aspect become intermixed. Disprove the creation myth in
the Bible, and the "moral story" that follows necessarily falls to
pieces. There is no way to believe in cosmology, physics, evolution
AND Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, so there is no way to believe
simultaneously in Original Sin and evolution and modern cosmology and
physics. I don't have to tell you that this throws the whole impetus
behind the reason for Christ's existence into question, because it
does. The relieving of original sin was the entire reason given by the
Church for Christ's existence. If we can demonstrably show that
original sin is just a myth, then where does that leave you? You have
to change your theology because the place you derived it from is
proven to be false. So they're not seperated by some wall. When you
base your theology on testable assertions, then when those testable
assertions are shown to be false, your theology falls down as a
logical argument altogether.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> I must confess to not having read Dawkins' book, that is
> why I referred to an Amazon review, but if you can give
> an example of something that is worth scientific
> scrutiny in theology, just as an example, I am interested.
Hmmm... Before I provide you with an example of
something in theology worthy of scientific scrutiny,
you will need to provide me with an example of
something in theology that is worthy of any scrutiny
by anybody.
Socks
rappoccio
Then I'll ask you directly and personally: Do you believe in original
sin? Do you believe in the fall of man and the tree of knowledge? Do
you believe that Christ was sent here to relieve those problems for
humanity that were imposed upon them for a sin their ancestor
committed? Do you consider it moral to punish a child for the sins of
their parents? Furthermore, Do you believe in evolution? Do you
believe in the cosmic inflationary model? How do you reconcile all of
these issues together when they are intricately woven in a web of
assertions based on arguments with falsifiable consequences?
TCE
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
> not believe in God, what should one believe in instead? Dawkins thinks
> he has an answer--science--but his understanding of the term is
> embarrassingly crude and empirical.
>
Sorry, didn't read anymore as it's immaterial. No-one "HAS TO BELIEVE"
in anything at all; like all religious people you love telling
atheists how they must do this and that, but just because you "NEED TO
BELIEVE" in something don't assume that anyone else does.
---
Strange
John Wilkins
And then chaotic Tiamat said
Let Heisenberg be! and chaos reigned instead
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
tex...@gmail.com
I will not explain everything or reconcile everything with
everything. I have better things to do with my time. Please
pick one, or two closely connected ones, and, to speed
up the discussion, explain what scientific problems you see,
f.i. falsifiable consequences.
Regards,
Karel
tex...@gmail.com
Well, you may not have noticed, but this thread was
about (the review of) a book by someone who
apparently thought that something in theology was
worthy of any scrutiny. Several somethings too, it
appears. But someone already supplied several
"somethings", so don't bother.
Regards,
Karel
eerok
No, I think that was not the point. It's a common
misconception that atheists need to apotheosize something else
to replace god-belief. In fact, if you don't need to believe
in god(s), you don't need anything to replace it with, either.
That everyone needs a world view is a trivial point, since
everyone has one whether they work at forming it or not. This
is provided, if you'll excuse the quick simplism, by a
combination of enculturation with one's idiosyncracies of
personality and experience.
Note that I'm tolerant of theism because I observe that people
are different, and have different needs. It seems reasonable
to me to expect the same degree of empathy from theists, who
should realize that not everyone needs to believe in god(s).
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
Ash
> he has an answer--science--but his understanding of the term is
> embarrassingly crude and empirical.
>
One of these days, it would be nice to see a review from a believer who
had both read and understood the book
Ash
>
>> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>>
>> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one
>> does not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
>
> confronted with the horrifying truth.
>
Apparently, they go on to become psychopathic killers
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1033/1033_01.asp?wpc=1033_01.asp&wpp=b
Kleuskes & Moos
> Nominated:
Seconded. Words to live by...
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On May 16, 6:26 am, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jeffrey Turner" <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:134kqpa...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > >http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> > > not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
>
> > At first I thought the above was stupid on the face of it, for if we extend
> > the logic we get questions such as: What should one replace smallpox with?
>
> > practicality of deliberately infecting patients with diseases that have
> > little or no symptoms, to displace diseases that have severe symptoms.
>
> > I think that's kind of cool.
>
>
> RF
>
>
>
> > --
> > Denis Loubet
> > dlou...@io.comhttp://www.io.com/~dloubethttp://www.ashenempires.com
I don't think the two are exactly analogous. We have surely coevolved
with a suite of parasites, some more virulent than others. There's
some evidence that the total absence of parasites is connected with
higher rates of autoimmune afflictions like asthma, Crohn's Disease,
and the like. It's as though the immune system is going to react no
matter what, not remain quiescent until challenged. This is seen in
kids raised in households that are not "superclean"- places maintained
like surgical theatres. Those kids raised in the presence of furry
pets, with lots of outside soil under their nails and such (and
probably long-term infections of mild beasties like pinworm) tend to
have much lower rates of asthma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hookworm).
Caccination results in complete prevention of the disease in
question. Replacing Crohn's Disease with hookworm is more like
redirecting the power of the immune system. The hookworm remains but
is held in check, and the autoimmune disease fades.
Chris
stew dean
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
> he has an answer--science--but his understanding of the term is
> embarrassingly crude and empirical.
Dawkins doesn't often go far enough to cover the need to fill the
'gap' left by the lack of a religion. Athiesm is no a belief system or
a philosophy, it's simply the non belief in a supernatural entity.
So, the obvious and correct question is, what about morals - why is it
you feel you need to be nice and be alteristic?
Secular humanism is the default belief system of an atheist. Our
morals and guidance comes form our fellow humans. As we all live in
the same world, the same environment it's vital we know the result of
our actions. Through social interaction we get to know what makes
others happy and sad. I see secular humanists are far more moral than
religous people because our morals are real based upon real people and
real situations. Thiests also get their morals from exactly the same
world but then muddy it up by adding some kind of punishment system
related to a super natural being. This, for some, strengthens the less
than abvious but for others leads to very bad conclusions and immoral
acts (that is acts against others and socierty).
In secular humanism if what you are doing hurts other emotionally and
physicaly then it is immoral (not including situations where there are
dilemmas)
So what about Science? Science describes how the world works and
tells us about the environment we live in. It is a culturally
independent way of finding out what is real, and through science we
can become aware of the consequence of our actions, a very real world
example being global warming. No suprise most athiests accept global
warming and it is mostly the religious who have difficulty with it,
especially those who are anti-science. After all if you are anti-
science you oppose a lot of things that are 'real'. Science, in my
view, is about finding out what is real through objectivity.
So if you live in a world that is more realistic chances are your
actions are going to be better informed and, if you are moralistic,
lead to a better world.
That's my take on atheism, secular humanism and science.
Stew Dean
rappoccio
Gee, thanks for deigning to take the time to grace us with your
thoughts. How nice of you. I'm so glad modern theologians aren't
concerned with the more pedantic aspects of philosophy like explaining
themselves.
So let's see, where to begin?
How about:
Bible: Says universe was created in 6 days, 10,000 years ago. Water
was first, then the earth, then the stars and the moon, then animals,
etc, then people were made from dust and a ribcage, then they ate an
apple and were damned for eternity and death came into the world.
Reality: Universe was created 14 billion years ago (give or take).
Plasma was first, then hydrogen and helium, then stars, then the stars
died and made dust, the dust went to other stars and formed planets,
which outgassed atmospheres and water, which spontaneously created
life, which evolved into complex organisms, and recently people
evolved from ape-like ancestors. Death has always been in the world.
How exactly are these views not contradictory?
Falsified:
Young earth creation as described in Genesis.
The Garden of Eden (hence original sin).
The world flood.
The earth stopping on it's axis a few thousand years ago.
tex...@gmail.com
rappoccio schreef:
Well, I wanted to keep the discussion manageable. I hope
you think likewise. But what I do not understand is why you
ascribe creationist ideas to modern theology. According to
modern theologians, the creation story in Genesis is not to
be read as scientific or historic truth. This does away with
the contradiction.
BTW, if you don't know even this about modern theology,
how can you hope to criticize it?
Regards,
Karel
rappoccio
<snip for brevity>
> Well, I wanted to keep the discussion manageable. I hope
> you think likewise. But what I do not understand is why you
> ascribe creationist ideas to modern theology. According to
> modern theologians, the creation story in Genesis is not to
> be read as scientific or historic truth. This does away with
> the contradiction.
>
> BTW, if you don't know even this about modern theology,
> how can you hope to criticize it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Karel
Your words:
"but if you can give an example of something that is worth scientific
scrutiny in theology, just as an example, I am interested."
I gave you examples of things that were worth scientific scrutiny in
theology (several in fact). But let's just focus on one, if of course,
"you don't have better things to do with your time".
Why does the *modern* Catholic church and many other Christian
institutions believe in original sin? The original sin was perpetrated
by Adam and Eve and the rest of us are paying the price for it,
forever. It is *ENTIRELY* based on a literal interpretation of Genesis
and/or a viewpoint that all humans are inherently worthless and need
"redemption", even if we actually don't do anything. The theology is
based upon a verbatim historical reading of the Bible. The verbatim
historical reading is proven to be false, but yet the theology based
on it remains. Care to take a stab at that?
Ironically, even the current Pope is receding from these ideas. Now,
unbaptized babies don't go to limbo and can actually get to heaven.
This invalidates the entire point of original sin, and yet it is still
taught as truth and baptism is still required. Even more obfuscation.
Furthermore, how can one accept anything the Bible says as the
inerrant word of God when it is demonstrably false in many aspects?
How do you know that it was accurate when it said that homosexuals
should be stoned to death, but not accurate when it says the world was
covered in a flood? They're both in the same book, proclaimed to be
the inerrant word of God. How can churches proclaim that
homosexuality is a sin based on something they know for a fact is not
true at face value? Your colleagues go so far as to promote the
restriction the rights of people based on the reading of a book that
you now acknowledge isn't actually the verbatim word of God.
So what IS the verbatim word of God? How do we tell what God wants us
to do with:
1) Eating pork and shellfish.
2) Talking back to our parents.
3) Homosexual activity.
4) Lying.
5) Murder.
6) Rape.
7) Thought crimes like denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.
I know the answers to some of these that are in the Bible.
1)
2) Stone to death.
3) Stone to death.
4)
5)
6) Pay her father some cash, then force her to marry you.
7) Life in hell, this one can't be forgiven but the rest of them can
be. Somehow this thought crime is a worse offense than killing 6
million people. Hitler (a Christian) could be forgiven if he repented
an instant before his death, but Gandhi (not a Christian) would burn
in hell.
So how is it that a book that does not withstand falsification can be
used to justify all manner of moral actions that impact people? How do
you tell the difference?
macaddicted
<1179776350....@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
<rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 12:55 pm, text...@gmail.com wrote:
> <snip for brevity>
>
>> Well, I wanted to keep the discussion manageable. I hope
>> you think likewise. But what I do not understand is why you
>> ascribe creationist ideas to modern theology. According to
>> modern theologians, the creation story in Genesis is not to
>> be read as scientific or historic truth. This does away with
>> the contradiction.
>>
>> BTW, if you don't know even this about modern theology,
>> how can you hope to criticize it?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Karel
> Your words:
>
> "but if you can give an example of something that is worth
> scientificscrutiny in theology, just as an example, I am interested."
> I gave you examples of things that were worth scientific scrutiny in
> theology (several in fact). But let's just focus on one, if of
> course,"you don't have better things to do with your time".
>
> Why does the *modern* Catholic church and many other Christian
> institutions believe in original sin? The original sin was
> perpetrated by Adam and Eve and the rest of us are paying the price
> for it, forever. It is *ENTIRELY* based on a literal interpretation
> of Genesis
Well, no. Not really. The interpretation is based on the idea that
there was an original Adam & Eve, but the portrayal of the particular
event is not understood as being history in the modern sense, or even
the ancient Greek or Roman sense.
and/or a viewpoint that all humans are inherently
> worthless
Here's where you have a problem. If you are going to claim ideas for
the Catholic Church at least take the time to get them right. The very
concept of grace depends on the fact that though he is fallen he still
carries an inherent worth.
> and need "redemption", even if we actually don't do
> anything.
Which again is only a problem if you try to understand Genesis 1-11 as
history in a modern sense.
> The theology is based upon a verbatim historical reading of
> the Bible. The verbatim historical reading is proven to be false,
> but yet the theology basedon it remains. Care to take a stab at that?
Why sure. You're wrong, at least in terms of Catholic exegesis.
>
> Ironically, even the current Pope is receding from these ideas.
Hardly.
> Now,
> unbaptized babies don't go to limbo and can actually get to heaven.
This was always a scholastic doctrine, a theological construct. It was
never dogmatic.
> This invalidates the entire point of original sin,
Nope
> and yet it is
> still taught as truth and baptism is still required. Even more
> obfuscation.
>
> Furthermore, how can one accept anything the Bible says as the
> inerrant word of God when it is demonstrably false in many aspects?
Um, by not reading it perspicaciously, kind of like the Church?
> How do you know that it was accurate when it said that homosexuals
> should be stoned to death, but not accurate when it says the world
> was covered in a flood?
That's kind of like asking if it is equally true that someone should
receive a ticket for speeding and there once was a big lake here
before the Los Angeles DWP came and stole all the water.
> They're both in the same book, proclaimed to
> be the inerrant word of God. How can churches proclaim that
> homosexuality is a sin based on something they know for a fact is not
> true at face value? Your colleagues go so far as to promote the
> restriction the rights of people based on the reading of a book
> that you now acknowledge isn't actually the verbatim word of God.
I think that's the Koran you are referring to.
>
> So what IS the verbatim word of God? How do we tell what God wants
> usto do with:
>
> 1) Eating pork and shellfish.
> 2) Talking back to our parents.
> 3) Homosexual activity.
> 4) Lying.
> 5) Murder.
> 6) Rape.
> 7) Thought crimes like denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.
>
> I know the answers to some of these that are in the Bible.
>
> 1)
> 2) Stone to death.
> 3) Stone to death.
> 4)
> 5)
> 6) Pay her father some cash, then force her to marry you.
> 7) Life in hell, this one can't be forgiven but the rest of them can
> be. Somehow this thought crime is a worse offense than killing 6
> million people. Hitler (a Christian) could be forgiven if he repented
> an instant before his death,
Yeah, that's between Hitler and God.
but Gandhi (not a Christian) would
> burnin hell.
Hi there. The document you are looking for is called "Lumen Gentium."
It is part of Vatican II. Please read it carefully before you try to
speak on Catholic theology.
>
> So how is it that a book that does not withstand falsification can
> be used to justify all manner of moral actions that impact people?
> How doyou tell the difference?
>
Well I guess the best way is to admit that you're misrepresenting the
facts. And trying to mix revealed and scientific facts. But other than
that I can see how you would have a problem.
>
--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
rappoccio
wrote:
> In article
> <1179776350.279171.40...@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and
justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all
human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human
nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original
holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a
result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers,
subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and
inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418
"Human nature, without being entirely corrupted, has been harmed in
its natural powers, is subject to ignorance, suffering and the power
of death, and has a tendency to sin. This tendency is called
concupiscence" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
77)
[Original sin] is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"-a state and
not an act" (404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness
and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human
nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76)
involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part
(cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility
and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on
to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it
would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his
sin.
This ENTIRE theology is based on a fairy tale about Adam and Eve
disobeying God. The fact is, Adam and Eve never existed. The only
meaningful definition of "first man and woman" can be defined by the
first man and woman that were capable of sexual reproduction with
human beings. But this concept is a fluid one. As we evolve further
and further from our early hominid ancestors, the actual organisms
with whom we could have reproduced with changes, and becomes later and
later. So the human beings 100,000 years ago would have been able to
reproduce with hominids "earlier" than we would be able to. So which
point in time do we arbitrarily say "Aha! This point is human,
everything beforehand is not."? Furthermore, there was no single man
and woman who fit this bill if there was sexual reproduction among
them (i.e. there was no physical seperation of them from the rest of
their species, which can be demonstrated to not be the case via
examination of DNA variations). The genes of this "first man and
woman" would have propogated to the rest of the species if their
selection biases were positive (walking upright, larger brain
function, sexual selection, etc). Hence there is no concept of "first
man and woman" to begin with, hence no Adam and Eve, hence no original
sin.
>
> Here's where you have a problem. If you are going to claim ideas for
> the Catholic Church at least take the time to get them right.
> The very
> concept of grace depends on the fact that though he is fallen he still
> carries an inherent worth.
>
>
> > and need "redemption", even if we actually don't do
> > anything.
>
> Which again is only a problem if you try to understand Genesis 1-11 as
> history in a modern sense.
The catechism states we exist in a "state of deprivation of the
original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam
along with human nature". We are required to be baptized so that our
original sin can be erased.
>
> > The theology is based upon a verbatim historical reading of
> > the Bible. The verbatim historical reading is proven to be false,
> > but yet the theology basedon it remains. Care to take a stab at that?
>
> Why sure. You're wrong, at least in terms of Catholic exegesis.
And I guess you're not going to actually EXPLAIN anything, but rather
assert your veracity without an argument or evidence.
> > Ironically, even the current Pope is receding from these ideas.
>
> Hardly.
>From http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm
"Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman
Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday
that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die
without being baptized can go to heaven."... "If there's no limbo and
we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized
infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that
everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard
McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.
"Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but
to initiate one into the Church."
So now the church is advocating that there is no original sin. Good
for them, glad to hear that. Now just throw it in the catechism and
all will be dandy.
> > Now,
> > unbaptized babies don't go to limbo and can actually get to heaven.
>
> This was always a scholastic doctrine, a theological construct. It was
> never dogmatic.
So what? It didn't change the viewpoints of the people running the
church that every person on the planet had to be baptized.
>
> > This invalidates the entire point of original sin,
>
> Nope
Apparently Rev. McBrien disagrees with you completely.
>
> > and yet it is
> > still taught as truth and baptism is still required. Even more
> > obfuscation.
>
> > Furthermore, how can one accept anything the Bible says as the
> > inerrant word of God when it is demonstrably false in many aspects?
>
> Um, by not reading it perspicaciously, kind of like the Church?
So which parts are true and which parts are false? I guess this one
isn't getting answered either.
> > How do you know that it was accurate when it said that homosexuals
> > should be stoned to death, but not accurate when it says the world
> > was covered in a flood?
>
> That's kind of like asking if it is equally true that someone should
> receive a ticket for speeding and there once was a big lake here
> before the Los Angeles DWP came and stole all the water.
How does this even remotely make sense?
My point is that a book that claims to be the inspired word of God is
full of holes and inconsistencies, and yet those are glossed over, but
when something the Church decides is important is in there, then it's
the inerrant word of God again. So how about this: is it okay to eat
shellfish? Just as wrong as being a homosexual, according to the
Bible.
> > They're both in the same book, proclaimed to
> > be the inerrant word of God. How can churches proclaim that
> > homosexuality is a sin based on something they know for a fact is not
> > true at face value? Your colleagues go so far as to promote the
> > restriction the rights of people based on the reading of a book
> > that you now acknowledge isn't actually the verbatim word of God.
>
> I think that's the Koran you are referring to.
Oh, so the Church proclaims that homosexuals should have the right to
get married? News to me. And the Church. This is advocating
restriction of civil rights of people that are not Catholic, don't
want to be Catholic, have nothing to do with Catholicism, and will
never have anything to do with Catholicism. Care to explain why you
should have the right to deny how someone else lives their life when
they are not actually causing anyone any harm?
> > So what IS the verbatim word of God? How do we tell what God wants
> > usto do with:
>
> > 1) Eating pork and shellfish.
> > 2) Talking back to our parents.
> > 3) Homosexual activity.
> > 4) Lying.
> > 5) Murder.
> > 6) Rape.
> > 7) Thought crimes like denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.
>
> > I know the answers to some of these that are in the Bible.
>
> > 1)
> > 2) Stone to death.
> > 3) Stone to death.
> > 4)
> > 5)
> > 6) Pay her father some cash, then force her to marry you.
> > 7) Life in hell, this one can't be forgiven but the rest of them can
> > be. Somehow this thought crime is a worse offense than killing 6
> > million people. Hitler (a Christian) could be forgiven if he repented
> > an instant before his death,
>
> Yeah, that's between Hitler and God.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
>
> but Gandhi (not a Christian) would
>
> > burnin hell.
>
> Hi there. The document you are looking for is called "Lumen Gentium."
> It is part of Vatican II. Please read it carefully before you try to
> speak on Catholic theology.
I wasn't actually talking about the Catholic church here, I apologize
for switching gears without making it clear. There are numerous sects
of Christianity who believe this.
> > So how is it that a book that does not withstand falsification can
> > be used to justify all manner of moral actions that impact people?
> > How doyou tell the difference?
>
> Well I guess the best way is to admit that you're misrepresenting the
> facts.
I guess your "clarifications" are going to be withheld along with any
actual arguments.
> And trying to mix revealed and scientific facts.
What's a "revealed" fact? A fact can be proven. Anything "revealed"
means we have to take the word of the person or persons it's revealed
to.
> But other than
> that I can see how you would have a problem.
And I see you haven't answered any questions I've actually posed, but
merely scoff at my "misunderstanding" of the doctrine (which you
didn't actually illuminate). Any arguments actually forthcoming, or
just assertion of your own validity?
macaddicted
<1179843994.0...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
<rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> calledconcupiscence" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic
> Church,
> 77)
>
> [Original sin] is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"-a state and
> not an act" (404). This "state of deprivation of the original
> holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along
> with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic
> Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on
> their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal
> responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was
> unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness
> with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way
> implicating them in hissin.
It's good that you have access to a CCC, or have found a searchable
one online. Either way it gives us a common point of reference.
>
> This ENTIRE theology is based on a fairy tale about Adam and Eve
> disobeying God.
I've always preferred the word "myth" to "fairy tale"
The fact is, Adam and Eve never existed.
As historic beings as portrayed in Genesis 2? Probably not. As a
historical "first pair" there seems to be a diminishing chance that
monogenism is true.
The only
> meaningful definition of "first man and woman" can be defined by the
> first man and woman that were capable of sexual reproduction with
> human beings.
As human beings.
But this concept is a fluid one. As we evolve further
> and further from our early hominid ancestors, the actual organisms
> with whom we could have reproduced with changes, and becomes later
> and later. So the human beings 100,000 years ago would have been able
> to reproduce with hominids "earlier" than we would be able to. So
> which point in time do we arbitrarily say "Aha! This point is human,
> everything beforehand is not."? Furthermore, there was no single man
> and woman who fit this bill if there was sexual reproduction among
> them (i.e. there was no physical seperation of them from the rest of
> their species, which can be demonstrated to not be the case via
> examination of DNA variations). The genes of this "first man and
> woman" would have propogated to the rest of the species if their
> selection biases were positive (walking upright, larger brain
> function, sexual selection, etc). Hence there is no concept of "first
> man and woman" to begin with, hence no Adam and Eve, hence no
> originalsin.
Congratulations, you just hit topic #3 on the "Where does Catholicism
stand on evolution" problem list, the "pre-adamites."
>> Here's where you have a problem. If you are going to claim ideas
>> for the Catholic Church at least take the time to get them right.
>> The very
>> concept of grace depends on the fact that though he is fallen he
>> still carries an inherent worth.
>>
>>
>> > and need "redemption", even if we actually don't do
>> > anything.
>>
>> Which again is only a problem if you try to understand Genesis
>> 1-11 as history in a modern sense.
> The catechism states we exist in a "state of deprivation of the
> original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of
> Adam along with human nature". We are required to be baptized so that
> our original sin can be erased.
>
Yes, but it still means that the body is fallen not worthless. To say
otherwise is to fall into something akin to Manicheism.
>> > The theology is based upon a verbatim historical reading of
>> > the Bible. The verbatim historical reading is proven to be
>> false, > but yet the theology basedon it remains. Care to take a
>> stab at that?
>> Why sure. You're wrong, at least in terms of Catholic exegesis.
> And I guess you're not going to actually EXPLAIN anything, but
> ratherassert your veracity without an argument or evidence.
>
Well no, not here. I haven't found a brief explanation of Catholic
exegesis that I really like, and haven't been able to create one that
is anything close to brief. The biggest problem is that the basis of
Catholic exegesis went through such a fundamental change between the
late 19th to mid 20th centuries. It would be best to read at least the
first part of Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.
But to try briefly, especially in terms of Genesis 1-11:
The literal sense is the sense that the author tried to portray. In
terms of pre-history Genesis this not intended to be interpreted as a
history. Documents like the encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu" make
it clear that they should not be viewed as history even in the ancient
Roman or Greek style, and certainly not in the modern sense of history.
>> > Ironically, even the current Pope is receding from these ideas.
>>
>> Hardly.
>> From
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm
Again he is backing away from a DOCTRINAL construct, not a dogmatic
truth. Original Sin is a dogmatic truth, to say that there was no
original sin is to fundamentally change the foundation of Catholicism.
Unmarried priests is also, like limbo, a doctrinal idea. To allow
married priests would certainly change the Church but it would not
undermine any of its basic truths. The Church has been moving away
from the idea of limbo for some time, this is just the first time the
mainstream media has covered it. But it doesn't change the idea of
original sin in the Church by the least amount.
> "Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman
> Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released
> Friday that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children
> who die without being baptized can go to heaven."... "If there's no
> limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that
> unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option,
> namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev.
> Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre
> Dame. "Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original
> sin, butto initiate one into the Church."
>
> So now the church is advocating that there is no original sin. Good
> for them, glad to hear that. Now just throw it in the catechism
> andall will be dandy.
>
>> > Now,
>> > unbaptized babies don't go to limbo and can actually get to
>> heaven.
>> This was always a scholastic doctrine, a theological construct. It
>> was never dogmatic.
> So what? It didn't change the viewpoints of the people running
> thechurch that every person on the planet had to be baptized.
Yeah, you need to look at Lumen Gentium too. Dominus Iesus would be
good too. But suffice it to say that the Church doesn't teach that
anymore.
>
>> > This invalidates the entire point of original sin,
>>
>> Nope
> Apparently Rev. McBrien disagrees with you completely.
Um, that's not exactly something that is going to trouble most
conservative to middle-of-the-road Catholics. Suffice it to say that
McBrien has his own problems with the Curia.
>
>> > and yet it is
>> > still taught as truth and baptism is still required. Even more
>> > obfuscation.
>>
>> > Furthermore, how can one accept anything the Bible says as the
>> > inerrant word of God when it is demonstrably false in many
>> aspects?
>> Um, by not reading it perspicaciously, kind of like the Church?
> So which parts are true and which parts are false? I guess this
> oneisn't getting answered either.
I'm not trying to avoid answering it, it's just that you have the
Church's methodology of interpretation so wrong. The main problem is
that literal literally doesn't mean literal, at least not in the
common meaning of the word. The long version is that you cannot take
the immediate meaning of the words and go from there. The really long
version involved me taking three different semester courses on
exegesis. ;-)
I don't have my copy with me, but I think there is a pretty good
explanation of the senses of scripture in the CCC.
>
>> > How do you know that it was accurate when it said that
>> homosexuals > should be stoned to death, but not accurate when it
>> says the world > was covered in a flood?
>>
>> That's kind of like asking if it is equally true that someone
>> should receive a ticket for speeding and there once was a big lake
>> here before the Los Angeles DWP came and stole all the water.
> How does this even remotely make sense?
My point exactly. You are trying to interchange revealed and
scientific truths. Original sin is a revealed truth, the flood is a
scientific one.
>
> My point is that a book that claims to be the inspired word of God
> is full of holes and inconsistencies, and yet those are glossed over,
> but when something the Church decides is important is in there, then
> it's the inerrant word of God again. So how about this: is it okay to
> eatshellfish? Just as wrong as being a homosexual, according to the
> Bible.
>
>> > They're both in the same book, proclaimed to
>> > be the inerrant word of God. How can churches proclaim that
>> > homosexuality is a sin based on something they know for a fact
>> is not > true at face value? Your colleagues go so far as to promote
>> the > restriction the rights of people based on the reading of a
>> book
>> > that you now acknowledge isn't actually the verbatim word of
>> God. I think that's the Koran you are referring to.
> Oh, so the Church proclaims that homosexuals should have the right
> to get married? News to me. And the Church. This is advocating
> restriction of civil rights of people that are not Catholic, don't
> want to be Catholic, have nothing to do with Catholicism, and will
> never have anything to do with Catholicism. Care to explain why you
> should have the right to deny how someone else lives their life
> whenthey are not actually causing anyone any harm?
1. The Chruch is not a democracy.
2. Any person in a democracy can, and should, state their views. The
fact that my views are based in my faith do not invalidate them.
>
>> > So what IS the verbatim word of God? How do we tell what God
>> wants > usto do with:
1. Christians don't have it. That's more along the lines of the
Koran.2. Tradition.
>>
>> > 1) Eating pork and shellfish.
>> > 2) Talking back to our parents.
>> > 3) Homosexual activity.
>> > 4) Lying.
>> > 5) Murder.
>> > 6) Rape.
>> > 7) Thought crimes like denying the existence of the Holy
>> Spirit.
>> > I know the answers to some of these that are in the Bible.
>>
>> > 1)
>> > 2) Stone to death.
>> > 3) Stone to death.
>> > 4)
>> > 5)
>> > 6) Pay her father some cash, then force her to marry you.
>> > 7) Life in hell, this one can't be forgiven but the rest of
>> them can > be. Somehow this thought crime is a worse offense than
>> killing 6 > million people. Hitler (a Christian) could be forgiven
>> if he repented > an instant before his death,
>>
>> Yeah, that's between Hitler and God.
> I notice you didn't answer my question.
See above^
>
>> but Gandhi (not a Christian) would
>>
>> > burnin hell.
>>
>> Hi there. The document you are looking for is called "Lumen
>> Gentium." It is part of Vatican II. Please read it carefully before
>> you try to speak on Catholic theology.
> I wasn't actually talking about the Catholic church here, I
> apologize for switching gears without making it clear. There are
> numerous sectsof Christianity who believe this.
>
>> > So how is it that a book that does not withstand falsification
>> can > be used to justify all manner of moral actions that impact
>> people? > How doyou tell the difference?
>>
>> Well I guess the best way is to admit that you're misrepresenting
>> the facts.
> I guess your "clarifications" are going to be withheld along with
> anyactual arguments.
No, it's just that you are conflating fundamentalist Christian
modalities with Catholic ones. They don't work and play well with each
other.
>
>> And trying to mix revealed and scientific facts.
> What's a "revealed" fact? A fact can be proven. Anything
> "revealed"means we have to take the word of the person or persons
> it's revealed
> to.
Sorry, used the wrong word. Should have been revealed truths. As to
the latter, that's what we have scripture and tradition for.
>
>> But other than
>> that I can see how you would have a problem.
> And I see you haven't answered any questions I've actually posed,
> but merely scoff at my "misunderstanding" of the doctrine (which you
> didn't actually illuminate). Any arguments actually forthcoming,
> orjust assertion of your own validity?
>
>
Yeah, well it's a bit much to try to do a course on biblical
interpretation and ecclesiology all in one post.
rappoccio
wrote:
> In article
> <1179843994.068113.304...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
There is zero chance that they existed.
> The only
>
> > meaningful definition of "first man and woman" can be defined by the
> > first man and woman that were capable of sexual reproduction with
> > human beings.
>
> As human beings.
When was the first "human being"? And now this'll blow your mind: they
were also able to reproduce with other hominids that were not human
beings.
>
> But this concept is a fluid one. As we evolve further
>
> > and further from our early hominid ancestors, the actual organisms
> > with whom we could have reproduced with changes, and becomes later
> > and later. So the human beings 100,000 years ago would have been able
> > to reproduce with hominids "earlier" than we would be able to. So
> > which point in time do we arbitrarily say "Aha! This point is human,
> > everything beforehand is not."? Furthermore, there was no single man
> > and woman who fit this bill if there was sexual reproduction among
> > them (i.e. there was no physical seperation of them from the rest of
> > their species, which can be demonstrated to not be the case via
> > examination of DNA variations). The genes of this "first man and
> > woman" would have propogated to the rest of the species if their
> > selection biases were positive (walking upright, larger brain
> > function, sexual selection, etc). Hence there is no concept of "first
> > man and woman" to begin with, hence no Adam and Eve, hence no
> > originalsin.
>
> Congratulations, you just hit topic #3 on the "Where does Catholicism
> stand on evolution" problem list, the "pre-adamites."
You mean other hominids besides homo sapiens sapiens?
Something tells me you're not going to clue us in.
>
> >> Here's where you have a problem. If you are going to claim ideas
> >> for the Catholic Church at least take the time to get them right.
> >> The very
> >> concept of grace depends on the fact that though he is fallen he
> >> still carries an inherent worth.
>
> >> > and need "redemption", even if we actually don't do
> >> > anything.
>
> >> Which again is only a problem if you try to understand Genesis
> >> 1-11 as history in a modern sense.
> > The catechism states we exist in a "state of deprivation of the
> > original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of
> > Adam along with human nature". We are required to be baptized so that
> > our original sin can be erased.
>
> Yes, but it still means that the body is fallen not worthless. To say
> otherwise is to fall into something akin to Manicheism.
And the fifth time I have said this, it's based on a fairy tale.
>
> >> > The theology is based upon a verbatim historical reading of
> >> > the Bible. The verbatim historical reading is proven to be
> >> false, > but yet the theology basedon it remains. Care to take a
> >> stab at that?
> >> Why sure. You're wrong, at least in terms of Catholic exegesis.
> > And I guess you're not going to actually EXPLAIN anything, but
> > ratherassert your veracity without an argument or evidence.
>
> Well no, not here.
Why doesn't that surprise me.
> I haven't found a brief explanation of Catholic
> exegesis that I really like, and haven't been able to create one that
> is anything close to brief.
You don't find it weird that I can explain the big bang or evolution
to you within two paragraphs, but you can't do the same to a human
institutional doctrine?
> The biggest problem is that the basis of
> Catholic exegesis went through such a fundamental change between the
> late 19th to mid 20th centuries. It would be best to read at least the
> first part of Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.
> But to try briefly, especially in terms of Genesis 1-11:
> The literal sense is the sense that the author tried to portray. In
> terms of pre-history Genesis this not intended to be interpreted as a
> history. Documents like the encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu" make
> it clear that they should not be viewed as history even in the ancient
> Roman or Greek style, and certainly not in the modern sense of history.
I am saying that we know, for a fact, definitively, that Adam and Eve
did NOT exist. The Catholic Church, by recognizing evolution, ALSO
recognizes this fact (whether they actually admit it or not).
>
> >> > Ironically, even the current Pope is receding from these ideas.
>
> >> Hardly.
> >> From
> >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm
>
> Again he is backing away from a DOCTRINAL construct, not a dogmatic
> truth.
Are you actually going to tell me that the Church only acts on
dogmatic truths and not doctrinal truths?
> Original Sin is a dogmatic truth, to say that there was no
> original sin is to fundamentally change the foundation of Catholicism.
> Unmarried priests is also, like limbo, a doctrinal idea.
And we don't see that ending any time soon, do we?
> To allow
> married priests would certainly change the Church but it would not
> undermine any of its basic truths. The Church has been moving away
> from the idea of limbo for some time, this is just the first time the
> mainstream media has covered it. But it doesn't change the idea of
> original sin in the Church by the least amount.
Except that it didn't actually happen because the story they base it
on is a fairy tale.
> > "Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman
> > Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released
> > Friday that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children
> > who die without being baptized can go to heaven."... "If there's no
> > limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that
> > unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option,
> > namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev.
> > Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre
> > Dame. "Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original
> > sin, butto initiate one into the Church."
>
> > So now the church is advocating that there is no original sin. Good
> > for them, glad to hear that. Now just throw it in the catechism
> > andall will be dandy.
>
> >> > Now,
> >> > unbaptized babies don't go to limbo and can actually get to
> >> heaven.
> >> This was always a scholastic doctrine, a theological construct. It
> >> was never dogmatic.
> > So what? It didn't change the viewpoints of the people running
> > thechurch that every person on the planet had to be baptized.
>
> Yeah, you need to look at Lumen Gentium too. Dominus Iesus would be
> good too. But suffice it to say that the Church doesn't teach that
> anymore.
I've read the arguments. Everyone is catholic who is a good person,
baptism by faith, what have you. It's just theological gymnastics to
ease the message to other people who would otherwise consider it
illogical.
>
>
>
> >> > This invalidates the entire point of original sin,
>
> >> Nope
> > Apparently Rev. McBrien disagrees with you completely.
>
> Um, that's not exactly something that is going to trouble most
> conservative to middle-of-the-road Catholics. Suffice it to say that
> McBrien has his own problems with the Curia.
I think his arguments are the only logical conclusion. IF you think
otherwise, perhaps you'd care to actually explain yourself instead of
telling me to go do some homework. This isn't a class. You're not a
professor. You're in a debate. Put up your arguments.
>
>
>
> >> > and yet it is
> >> > still taught as truth and baptism is still required. Even more
> >> > obfuscation.
>
> >> > Furthermore, how can one accept anything the Bible says as the
> >> > inerrant word of God when it is demonstrably false in many
> >> aspects?
> >> Um, by not reading it perspicaciously, kind of like the Church?
> > So which parts are true and which parts are false? I guess this
> > oneisn't getting answered either.
>
> I'm not trying to avoid answering it,
Sure you are. You haven't actually answered any of my concerns at all,
just saying "well, it's not dogmatic, it's doctrinal" and "Adam and
Eve didn't exist but they did exist, even though we know they didn't".
> it's just that you have the
> Church's methodology of interpretation so wrong. The main problem is
> that literal literally doesn't mean literal, at least not in the
> common meaning of the word.
And in what world does that even begin to form a coherent thought?
> The long version is that you cannot take
> the immediate meaning of the words and go from there. The really long
> version involved me taking three different semester courses on
> exegesis. ;-)
> I don't have my copy with me, but I think there is a pretty good
> explanation of the senses of scripture in the CCC.
Why don't you paraphrase for us?
> >> > How do you know that it was accurate when it said that
> >> homosexuals > should be stoned to death, but not accurate when it
> >> says the world > was covered in a flood?
>
> >> That's kind of like asking if it is equally true that someone
> >> should receive a ticket for speeding and there once was a big lake
> >> here before the Los Angeles DWP came and stole all the water.
> > How does this even remotely make sense?
>
> My point exactly. You are trying to interchange revealed and
> scientific truths. Original sin is a revealed truth, the flood is a
> scientific one.
And they're both based on one book, which isn't supposed to make
mistakes (but yet it does).
Or if that bothers you, how about eating shellfish versus homosexual
activity? Both are sins in the Bible, and yet I'm going out on a limb
and saying you've eaten crabs before.
>
>
>
> > My point is that a book that claims to be the inspired word of God
> > is full of holes and inconsistencies, and yet those are glossed over,
> > but when something the Church decides is important is in there, then
> > it's the inerrant word of God again. So how about this: is it okay to
> > eatshellfish? Just as wrong as being a homosexual, according to the
> > Bible.
>
> >> > They're both in the same book, proclaimed to
> >> > be the inerrant word of God. How can churches proclaim that
> >> > homosexuality is a sin based on something they know for a fact
> >> is not > true at face value? Your colleagues go so far as to promote
> >> the > restriction the rights of people based on the reading of a
> >> book
> >> > that you now acknowledge isn't actually the verbatim word of
> >> God. I think that's the Koran you are referring to.
> > Oh, so the Church proclaims that homosexuals should have the right
> > to get married? News to me. And the Church. This is advocating
> > restriction of civil rights of people that are not Catholic, don't
> > want to be Catholic, have nothing to do with Catholicism, and will
> > never have anything to do with Catholicism. Care to explain why you
> > should have the right to deny how someone else lives their life
> > whenthey are not actually causing anyone any harm?
>
> 1. The Chruch is not a democracy.
The US is a democracy. If you live there, then you need to abide by
it's rules.
> 2. Any person in a democracy can, and should, state their views. The
> fact that my views are based in my faith do not invalidate them.
Except when they violate the laws of the country you're in. The fact
is, I'm glad people are finally realizing that making homosexual
marriage illegal simply violates their right to privacy. This isn't a
theocracy. There are people who don't care one way or another how you
think they should live their lives.
> >> > So what IS the verbatim word of God? How do we tell what God
> >> wants > usto do with:
>
> 1. Christians don't have it. That's more along the lines of the
> Koran.
Actually it's right there in the Bible.
> 2. Tradition.
Which is punishable by stoning to death.
And the rest?
So one is right and the other is wrong?
>
>
>
> >> And trying to mix revealed and scientific facts.
> > What's a "revealed" fact? A fact can be proven. Anything
> > "revealed"means we have to take the word of the person or persons
> > it's revealed
> > to.
>
> Sorry, used the wrong word. Should have been revealed truths. As to
> the latter, that's what we have scripture and tradition for.
What's a "revealed fact"?
>
>
>
> >> But other than
> >> that I can see how you would have a problem.
> > And I see you haven't answered any questions I've actually posed,
> > but merely scoff at my "misunderstanding" of the doctrine (which you
> > didn't actually illuminate). Any arguments actually forthcoming,
> > orjust assertion of your own validity?
>
> Yeah, well it's a bit much to try to do a course on biblical
> interpretation and ecclesiology all in one post.
Why don't you just summarize then? I can explain my theories to you
within one post.
macaddicted
<1179884117....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
<rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> theywere also able to reproduce with other hominids that were not
> human
> beings.
>
First, it wouldn't blow my mind at all, I've been around here a long
time. Second, there is currently a thread here in TO referring to a
paper that says maybe we didn't.
>> But this concept is a fluid one. As we evolve further
>>
>> > and further from our early hominid ancestors, the actual
>> organisms > with whom we could have reproduced with changes, and
>> becomes later > and later. So the human beings 100,000 years ago
>> would have been able > to reproduce with hominids "earlier" than we
>> would be able to. So > which point in time do we arbitrarily say
>> "Aha! This point is human, > everything beforehand is not."?
>> Furthermore, there was no single man > and woman who fit this bill
>> if there was sexual reproduction among > them (i.e. there was no
>> physical seperation of them from the rest of > their species, which
>> can be demonstrated to not be the case via
>> > examination of DNA variations). The genes of this "first man and
>> > woman" would have propogated to the rest of the species if their >
>> selection biases were positive (walking upright, larger brain
>> > function, sexual selection, etc). Hence there is no concept of
>> "first > man and woman" to begin with, hence no Adam and Eve, hence
>> no
>> > originalsin.
>>
>> Congratulations, you just hit topic #3 on the "Where does
>> Catholicism stand on evolution" problem list, the "pre-adamites."
> You mean other hominids besides homo sapiens sapiens?
>
> Something tells me you're not going to clue us in.
>
Yes, well I'm one of those Do Some Work Yourself rather than I'll Feed
it to You on a Spoon people. As amazing as it may seem I don't have
hours to do copy/paste for your reading pleasure.
>> >> Here's where you have a problem. If you are going to claim
>> ideas >> for the Catholic Church at least take the time to get them
>> right. >> The very
>> >> concept of grace depends on the fact that though he is fallen
>> he >> still carries an inherent worth.
>>
>> >> > and need "redemption", even if we actually don't do
>> >> > anything.
>>
>> >> Which again is only a problem if you try to understand
>> Genesis >> 1-11 as history in a modern sense.
>> > The catechism states we exist in a "state of deprivation of the
>> > original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants
>> of > Adam along with human nature". We are required to be baptized
>> so that > our original sin can be erased.
>>
>> Yes, but it still means that the body is fallen not worthless. To
>> say otherwise is to fall into something akin to Manicheism.
> And the fifth time I have said this, it's based on a fairy tale.
>
Hey, you can call it The Greatest Story Ever Told for all I care. It
still doesn't change the fact that you are wrong in how you are
presenting Catholic exegesis.
>> >> > The theology is based upon a verbatim historical reading
>> of >> > the Bible. The verbatim historical reading is proven to
>> be >> false, > but yet the theology basedon it remains. Care to take
>> a >> stab at that?
>> >> Why sure. You're wrong, at least in terms of Catholic
>> exegesis. > And I guess you're not going to actually EXPLAIN
>> anything, but
>> > ratherassert your veracity without an argument or evidence.
>>
>> Well no, not here.
> Why doesn't that surprise me.
Hi, my name is macaddicted and I'll be your flight attendant today.
As we depart the gate of Original Sin here at the Fourth Lateran
Council I would remind you that we will be making stops in the Council
of Cologne, Providentissimus Deus, the Pontifical Biblical Commissions
1909 statement, Divino Afflante Spiritu, the Letter by the PBC to
Cardinal Suhard, and Humani Generis before concluding our flight in
JPII's 1996 address. For those of you who wish to continue on with the
exegesis portion of our flight we will move on to the Interpretation
of the Bible in the Church, Dei Verbum, back to Divino Afflante
Spiritu, Providentissumus Deus, and Vatican I before returning to
another gate here at the Lateran Council. We hope you enjoy your
flight and thank you for flying Apostolic Airways.
>
>> I haven't found a brief explanation of Catholic
>> exegesis that I really like, and haven't been able to create one
>> that is anything close to brief.
> You don't find it weird that I can explain the big bang or evolution
> to you within two paragraphs, but you can't do the same to a
> humaninstitutional doctrine?
Well your all brilliant and that; able to do things that no author
before you has even attempted. Me, I'm merely a humble theology
student. It took a whole paragraph above just to list the basic
official documents you have to go through to answer any one of your
questions.
>
>> The biggest problem is that the basis of
>> Catholic exegesis went through such a fundamental change between
>> the late 19th to mid 20th centuries. It would be best to read at
>> least the first part of Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.
>> But to try briefly, especially in terms of Genesis 1-11:
>> The literal sense is the sense that the author tried to portray.
>> In terms of pre-history Genesis this not intended to be interpreted
>> as a history. Documents like the encyclical "Divino Afflante
>> Spiritu" make it clear that they should not be viewed as history
>> even in the ancient Roman or Greek style, and certainly not in the
>> modern sense of history.
> I am saying that we know, for a fact, definitively, that Adam and
> Eve did NOT exist.
Really, you can say unequivocally that there wasn't a first pair?
The Catholic Church, by recognizing evolution,
> ALSOrecognizes this fact (whether they actually admit it or not).
>
Yeah, well, not so much.
>> >> > Ironically, even the current Pope is receding from these
>> ideas.
>> >> Hardly.
>> >> From
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm
>>
>> Again he is backing away from a DOCTRINAL construct, not a
>> dogmatic truth.
> Are you actually going to tell me that the Church only acts
> ondogmatic truths and not doctrinal truths?
No, I'm saying that doctrinal truths don't carry the importance or
weight of dogmatic truths.
>
>> Original Sin is a dogmatic truth, to say that there was no
>> original sin is to fundamentally change the foundation of
>> Catholicism. Unmarried priests is also, like limbo, a doctrinal idea.
> And we don't see that ending any time soon, do we?
Well not being you, or an optometrist, I can speak to your visual
acuity. But like the Yankees buying themselves another World Series it
probably won't happen anytime soon.
>
>> To allow
>> married priests would certainly change the Church but it would not
>> undermine any of its basic truths. The Church has been moving away
>> from the idea of limbo for some time, this is just the first time
>> the mainstream media has covered it. But it doesn't change the idea
>> of original sin in the Church by the least amount.
> Except that it didn't actually happen because the story they base
> iton is a fairy tale.
> toease the message to other people who would otherwise consider it
> illogical.
Well yes, because Dominus was so warmly embraced.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > This invalidates the entire point of original sin,
>>
>> >> Nope
>> > Apparently Rev. McBrien disagrees with you completely.
>>
>> Um, that's not exactly something that is going to trouble most
>> conservative to middle-of-the-road Catholics. Suffice it to say that
>> McBrien has his own problems with the Curia.
> I think his arguments are the only logical conclusion. IF you think
> otherwise, perhaps you'd care to actually explain yourself instead of
> telling me to go do some homework. This isn't a class. You're not
> aprofessor. You're in a debate. Put up your arguments.
I've studied evolution so I can talk about it intelligently here. If
you are going to try to argue Catholic theology with an apologist than
you are simply going to have to do some work. When the loons come here
with their crazy theories they are often pointed at sites or told to
go read a book. Well if you are going to argue Catholic theology with
a Catholic theologian then I am afraid you are going to have to go and
read.
JPII's 1996 message is a good place to start for evolution,
Interpretation of the Bible in the Church is a kind of dense but in
depth overview of Catholic exegesis. You should read the first, and
can probably start with the sections on the Bible in the CCC.
But this is not a debate. It is a chance to really understand what
Catholic theology on this subject is. If in the end you reject it that
is up to you.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > and yet it is
>> >> > still taught as truth and baptism is still required. Even
>> more >> > obfuscation.
>>
>> >> > Furthermore, how can one accept anything the Bible says as
>> the >> > inerrant word of God when it is demonstrably false in
>> many >> aspects?
>> >> Um, by not reading it perspicaciously, kind of like the
>> Church? > So which parts are true and which parts are false? I
>> guess this > oneisn't getting answered either.
>>
>> I'm not trying to avoid answering it,
> Sure you are. You haven't actually answered any of my concerns at
> all, just saying "well, it's not dogmatic, it's doctrinal" and "Adam
> and Eve didn't exist but they did exist, even though we know they
> didn't".
I've explained it as well as I can without delving into the Church
documents. They won't make sense unless you read them.
>> it's just that you have the
>> Church's methodology of interpretation so wrong. The main problem
>> is that literal literally doesn't mean literal, at least not in the
>> common meaning of the word.
> And in what world does that even begin to form a coherent thought?
Just that. Literal, or more properly the literal sense, doesn't mean
literal in terms of the normal use of the word literal. It refers to
the author's intent rather than the immediate sense of the words on
the page to a modern reader.
>
>> The long version is that you cannot take
>> the immediate meaning of the words and go from there. The really
>> long version involved me taking three different semester courses on
>> exegesis. ;-)
>> I don't have my copy with me, but I think there is a pretty good
>> explanation of the senses of scripture in the CCC.
> Why don't you paraphrase for us?
Nah. Now that I've gone into teacher mode it will only get worse from
here. ;-)
>
>> >> > How do you know that it was accurate when it said that
>> >> homosexuals > should be stoned to death, but not accurate when
>> it >> says the world > was covered in a flood?
>>
>> >> That's kind of like asking if it is equally true that someone
>> >> should receive a ticket for speeding and there once was a big
>> lake >> here before the Los Angeles DWP came and stole all the
>> water. > How does this even remotely make sense?
>>
>> My point exactly. You are trying to interchange revealed and
>> scientific truths. Original sin is a revealed truth, the flood is a
>> scientific one.
> And they're both based on one book, which isn't supposed to
> makemistakes (but yet it does).
(looks around) Hey, wasn't I here just a few posts ago? Yeah, I
remember you, you were the one I was trying to tell about proper
methods of exegesis.
>
> Or if that bothers you, how about eating shellfish versus homosexual
> activity? Both are sins in the Bible, and yet I'm going out on a
> limband saying you've eaten crabs before.
>
You know, honestly, I don't think I ever have, at least not that I can
remember. Doesn't change the basis of your point but it is curious.
Anyway, yes, in the OT both are sins. And you're really going to hate
this answer, but the reason one still is and one isn't is primarily
tradition. I think though we should hold off on that for now.
Really? That's a convenient fiction. I've been following politics
since I was 9 and I heard Reagan announce he was running for the '76
election. I've known for a long time that you don't follow the rules
because the rules are always changing
>
>> 2. Any person in a democracy can, and should, state their views.
>> The fact that my views are based in my faith do not invalidate them.
> Except when they violate the laws of the country you're in.
How am I doing that? I mean excluding that whole inconvenient 1st
amendment thing and all.
> The fact is, I'm glad people are finally realizing that making
> homosexual marriage illegal simply violates their right to privacy.
And while we speak of rules...
This isn't a
> theocracy.
Never said it was.
There are people who don't care one way or another how
> you think they should live their lives.
Ah, so in addition to losing my civil rights I also lose my voting
rights by remaining Catholic. Interesting position.
>
>> >> > So what IS the verbatim word of God? How do we tell what
>> God >> wants > usto do with:
>>
>> 1. Christians don't have it. That's more along the lines of the
>> Koran.
> Actually it's right there in the Bible.
Yes, that it's the word of God. You are saying it is the words of God
which is completely different.
>
>> 2. Tradition.
> Which is punishable by stoning to death.
>
> And the rest?
Well I'll admit that I feeling like stoning the person who breaks into
Fiddler on the Roof, but no, since it is a basic principle of theology
I would have to say that the Church disagrees with you.
>
I guess I'm more polite than you; I prefer misguided or imperfect, or
idiotic if I'm dealing with McCoy. Wrong is too black or white
>
>>
>>
>> >> And trying to mix revealed and scientific facts.
>> > What's a "revealed" fact? A fact can be proven. Anything
>> > "revealed"means we have to take the word of the person or
>> persons > it's revealed
>> > to.
>>
>> Sorry, used the wrong word. Should have been revealed truths. As
>> to the latter, that's what we have scripture and tradition for.
> What's a "revealed fact"?
Apparently that you have a problem with comprehension, as I said above
that I misspoke.
>
>>
>>
>> >> But other than
>> >> that I can see how you would have a problem.
>> > And I see you haven't answered any questions I've actually
>> posed, > but merely scoff at my "misunderstanding" of the doctrine
>> (which you > didn't actually illuminate). Any arguments actually
>> forthcoming, > orjust assertion of your own validity?
>>
>> Yeah, well it's a bit much to try to do a course on biblical
>> interpretation and ecclesiology all in one post.
> Why don't you just summarize then? I can explain my theories to
> youwithin one post.
>
>
Responded to that above. If you are going to play on my field with my
ball you are simply going to have to take the time to learn the rules
I play under.
rappoccio
wrote:
<snip>
> First, it wouldn't blow my mind at all, I've been around here a long
> time. Second, there is currently a thread here in TO referring to a
> paper that says maybe we didn't.
That we didn't evolve from other hominids? Where, exactly?
Let's not get sanctimonious, now. I'm looking for a brief description
of what you interpret as their intentions.
<snip>
> >> Yes, but it still means that the body is fallen not worthless. To
> >> say otherwise is to fall into something akin to Manicheism.
> > And the fifth time I have said this, it's based on a fairy tale.
>
> Hey, you can call it The Greatest Story Ever Told for all I care. It
> still doesn't change the fact that you are wrong in how you are
> presenting Catholic exegesis.
So what I've gotten from you is that Adam and Eve existed, but didn't
really do the things in Genesis, but only symbolically did them, and
that's what the theology is based on (even though we know they didn't
exist at all). You're going to have to work a LOT harder than "go do
some reading" to convince me that you're right. If you can't summarize
it in a few paragraphs, why do you think a book will convince me, or
at least entice me to continue reading?
<snip>
> Hi, my name is macaddicted and I'll be your flight attendant today.
> As we depart the gate of Original Sin here at the Fourth Lateran
> Council I would remind you that we will be making stops in the Council
> of Cologne, Providentissimus Deus, the Pontifical Biblical Commissions
> 1909 statement, Divino Afflante Spiritu, the Letter by the PBC to
> Cardinal Suhard, and Humani Generis before concluding our flight in
> JPII's 1996 address. For those of you who wish to continue on with the
> exegesis portion of our flight we will move on to the Interpretation
> of the Bible in the Church, Dei Verbum, back to Divino Afflante
> Spiritu, Providentissumus Deus, and Vatican I before returning to
> another gate here at the Lateran Council. We hope you enjoy your
> flight and thank you for flying Apostolic Airways.
Gee thanks. I'm so glad we straightened that out. It's all so clear
now.
> >> I haven't found a brief explanation of Catholic
> >> exegesis that I really like, and haven't been able to create one
> >> that is anything close to brief.
> > You don't find it weird that I can explain the big bang or evolution
> > to you within two paragraphs, but you can't do the same to a
> > humaninstitutional doctrine?
>
> Well your all brilliant and that; able to do things that no author
> before you has even attempted.
I would venture that any scientist here could do the same. That's why
science is useful... the concepts are very simple once you understand
them.
> Me, I'm merely a humble theology
> student. It took a whole paragraph above just to list the basic
> official documents you have to go through to answer any one of your
> questions.
Whatever. This is futile. I haven't the foggiest idea how you think
this is an effective debate strategy to get people to see your side of
the argument. But oh well.
>
>
> >> The biggest problem is that the basis of
> >> Catholic exegesis went through such a fundamental change between
> >> the late 19th to mid 20th centuries. It would be best to read at
> >> least the first part of Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.
> >> But to try briefly, especially in terms of Genesis 1-11:
> >> The literal sense is the sense that the author tried to portray.
> >> In terms of pre-history Genesis this not intended to be interpreted
> >> as a history. Documents like the encyclical "Divino Afflante
> >> Spiritu" make it clear that they should not be viewed as history
> >> even in the ancient Roman or Greek style, and certainly not in the
> >> modern sense of history.
> > I am saying that we know, for a fact, definitively, that Adam and
> > Eve did NOT exist.
>
> Really, you can say unequivocally that there wasn't a first pair?
Yes. Actually every single member of the group that evolved into
humans were our ancestors. In fact this is basically an irrelevant
idea, the idea of a "first pair". Better to think in terms of clades
(i.e. groups that evolve from a single common ancestor). In fact,
however, there are LOTS of common ancestors, and there can be multiple
ones in the same generation. One that is singled out is the most
recent one. However this changes as the population changes.
>
> The Catholic Church, by recognizing evolution,
>
> > ALSOrecognizes this fact (whether they actually admit it or not).
>
> Yeah, well, not so much.
Accepting evolution as the best possible theory for our natural
origins precludes Adam and Eve.
>
> >> >> > Ironically, even the current Pope is receding from these
> >> ideas.
> >> >> Hardly.
> >> >> From
> >> http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm
>
> >> Again he is backing away from a DOCTRINAL construct, not a
> >> dogmatic truth.
> > Are you actually going to tell me that the Church only acts
> > ondogmatic truths and not doctrinal truths?
>
> No, I'm saying that doctrinal truths don't carry the importance or
> weight of dogmatic truths.
And so priests could just get married if they wanted to? News to me.
> > I've read the arguments. Everyone is catholic who is a good person,
> > baptism by faith, what have you. It's just theological gymnastics
> > toease the message to other people who would otherwise consider it
> > illogical.
>
> Well yes, because Dominus was so warmly embraced.
I think it's because they didn't want to sound like rapture-ready
irrational lunatics (don't get me wrong, I'm very glad they did this).
Doesn't sound like God's message to me otherwise.
> >> >> > This invalidates the entire point of original sin,
>
> >> >> Nope
> >> > Apparently Rev. McBrien disagrees with you completely.
>
> >> Um, that's not exactly something that is going to trouble most
> >> conservative to middle-of-the-road Catholics. Suffice it to say that
> >> McBrien has his own problems with the Curia.
> > I think his arguments are the only logical conclusion. IF you think
> > otherwise, perhaps you'd care to actually explain yourself instead of
> > telling me to go do some homework. This isn't a class. You're not
> > aprofessor. You're in a debate. Put up your arguments.
>
> I've studied evolution so I can talk about it intelligently here. If
> you are going to try to argue Catholic theology with an apologist than
> you are simply going to have to do some work. When the loons come here
> with their crazy theories they are often pointed at sites or told to
> go read a book. Well if you are going to argue Catholic theology with
> a Catholic theologian then I am afraid you are going to have to go and
> read.
Let me know a single thread where people's direct questions were not
answered. If you ever read my posts, I have NEVER, EVER, EVER told
someone to "go read a book" when they ask me questions about my field.
I would consider it a weak argument (because it is). If I can't
understand it myself and explain it to a layperson, my job is not done
and I would consider myself a very poor scientist.
> JPII's 1996 message is a good place to start for evolution,
> Interpretation of the Bible in the Church is a kind of dense but in
> depth overview of Catholic exegesis. You should read the first, and
> can probably start with the sections on the Bible in the CCC.
> But this is not a debate. It is a chance to really understand what
> Catholic theology on this subject is. If in the end you reject it that
> is up to you.
Well, here's your chance to shine. As I've mentioned, I consider it a
weak argument and the sign of a poor grasp of the material if someone
can't explain the basics of their field to a layperson. Any scientist
would agree with me.
But I guess we're just not going to get the same courtesy from you.
> I've explained it as well as I can without delving into the Church
> documents. They won't make sense unless you read them.
I sincerely doubt that. You're not even trying.
> >> it's just that you have the
> >> Church's methodology of interpretation so wrong. The main problem
> >> is that literal literally doesn't mean literal, at least not in the
> >> common meaning of the word.
> > And in what world does that even begin to form a coherent thought?
>
> Just that. Literal, or more properly the literal sense, doesn't mean
> literal in terms of the normal use of the word literal. It refers to
> the author's intent rather than the immediate sense of the words on
> the page to a modern reader.
The definition of "literal" is
1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict
meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the
literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a
literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal
description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the
literal extermination of a city.
5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an
unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.
6. of or pertaining to the letters of the alphabet.
7. of the nature of letters.
8. expressed by letters.
9. affecting a letter or letters: a literal error.
-noun
10. a typographical error, esp. involving a single letter.
The word you're looking for is "literary".
1. pertaining to or of the nature of books and writings, esp. those
classed as literature: literary history.
2. pertaining to authorship: literary style.
3. versed in or acquainted with literature; well-read.
4. engaged in or having the profession of literature or writing: a
literary man.
5. characterized by an excessive or affected display of learning;
stilted; pedantic.
6. preferring books to actual experience; bookish.
<snip>
> > Or if that bothers you, how about eating shellfish versus homosexual
> > activity? Both are sins in the Bible, and yet I'm going out on a
> > limband saying you've eaten crabs before.
>
> You know, honestly, I don't think I ever have, at least not that I can
> remember. Doesn't change the basis of your point but it is curious.
> Anyway, yes, in the OT both are sins. And you're really going to hate
> this answer, but the reason one still is and one isn't is primarily
> tradition. I think though we should hold off on that for now.
Sure, I'll spot you that one. An overly complicated answer about how
morals are absolute from God, but they weren't REALLY absolute but
dependent on the timeframe involved is far beyond the scope of this.
Which ones, exactly? I'm pretty sure the right to privacy and the
civil rights laws have been in place for quite some time. They change
because we become more enlightened, not less. All the arguments
against gay marriage were used against interracial marriages during
the civil rights movement. Look at history. Eventually people will
come to their senses about their current bigoted views.
> >> 2. Any person in a democracy can, and should, state their views.
> >> The fact that my views are based in my faith do not invalidate them.
> > Except when they violate the laws of the country you're in.
>
> How am I doing that? I mean excluding that whole inconvenient 1st
> amendment thing and all.
By disallowing basic human rights to individuals that disagree with
you. They don't restrict your civil rights. Why should you restrict
theirs?
>
> > The fact is, I'm glad people are finally realizing that making
> > homosexual marriage illegal simply violates their right to privacy.
>
> And while we speak of rules...
>
> This isn't a
>
> > theocracy.
>
> Never said it was.
>
> There are people who don't care one way or another how
>
> > you think they should live their lives.
>
> Ah, so in addition to losing my civil rights I also lose my voting
> rights by remaining Catholic. Interesting position.
Did I say that? Not at all. You somehow think that someone else
gaining the ability to live life the way they want to is a personal
affront to your civil liberties. They're not. You will never even be
affected by it. In fact, you wouldn't even know a married gay person
if you met them on the street. I despise this argument. The fact that
civil marriages would be recognizes by insurance companies doesn't
mean they have to be recognized by any religious institution
whatsoever. You can live your life. They can live yours. The only
thing that keeps people from this is some fear that somehow their kids
will be "gay-doctrinated" and start listening to Liza Manelli CD's
while learning showtunes and shopping for shoes. It's preposterous. If
your child is heterosexual you have nothing to worry about. And if
they're not, there's nothing you can do about it anyway.
> >> >> > So what IS the verbatim word of God? How do we tell what
> >> God >> wants > usto do with:
>
> >> 1. Christians don't have it. That's more along the lines of the
> >> Koran.
> > Actually it's right there in the Bible.
>
> Yes, that it's the word of God. You are saying it is the words of God
> which is completely different.
Oh, clearly, I can see that. When I say a word it means different
things than if I say several.
> >> 2. Tradition.
> > Which is punishable by stoning to death.
>
> > And the rest?
>
> Well I'll admit that I feeling like stoning the person who breaks into
> Fiddler on the Roof, but no, since it is a basic principle of theology
> I would have to say that the Church disagrees with you.
Good, I'm glad to hear it. Then the Church disagrees with the
recommendations in the Bible. Also glad to hear it. Sincerely.
<snip>
> >> No, it's just that you are conflating fundamentalist Christian
> >> modalities with Catholic ones. They don't work and play well with
> >> each other.
> > So one is right and the other is wrong?
>
> I guess I'm more polite than you; I prefer misguided or imperfect, or
> idiotic if I'm dealing with McCoy. Wrong is too black or white
Call it what you will. You think they're wrong, then.
> >> >> And trying to mix revealed and scientific facts.
> >> > What's a "revealed" fact? A fact can be proven. Anything
> >> > "revealed"means we have to take the word of the person or
> >> persons > it's revealed
> >> > to.
>
> >> Sorry, used the wrong word. Should have been revealed truths. As
> >> to the latter, that's what we have scripture and tradition for.
> > What's a "revealed fact"?
>
> Apparently that you have a problem with comprehension, as I said above
> that I misspoke.
What's a revealed truth?
<snip>
> > Why don't you just summarize then? I can explain my theories to
> > youwithin one post.
>
> Responded to that above. If you are going to play on my field with my
> ball you are simply going to have to take the time to learn the rules
> I play under.
Nice try. So I'll just chalk this one up to "unwilling to engage in
debate and prove their points in a succinct manner".
Like I said, I would never resort to anything remotely close to this.
It is against the very core of scholarship that I admire. Questions
should be answered in a conversation, to the best of the ability of
the person explaining things.
So let's just start from scratch, shall we? A new post, perhaps? I'll
title it "So what do Catholics believe about Exogenesis?"
tex...@gmail.com
It is very difficult for you to focus on one
subject, without haring of to other ones.
Original sin is considered to be a spiritual
affair, and the language used uses Old testament
language, without implying historical truth.
Indeed, modern theology questions whether
original sin can be traced back to the Genesis
account, which seems more like an etiological
story to explain death. Original sin is a
much later development, from about the 4th
century or so, read back into the Genesis
account.
Your main point about falsifiability as you
have put it seems to rest on the fact that
the Genesis account is "falsified" as
unhistorical. I want to point out that it
is unrealistic to expect "history" from a
text dating from a period when the concept
of history as we know it today was largely
unknown. The falsification therefore is
as expected.
Why theology still rests on those texts?
It does and it doesn't. It doesn't for
their historical value, but it does for
their spiritual value. The texts were not
"history" when they were written, but
texts that were meant to convey spirtual
truths, so we can use them still in their
original meaning. As a matter of fact,
the Bible is much less interested in
knowledge than in but in wisdom, and so
were people in general, right through the
Middle Ages.
Regards,
Karel
rappoccio
Was that so hard? You spent more time arguing that you couldn't do
this than actually doing it.
> It is very difficult for you to focus on one
> subject, without haring of to other ones.
> Original sin is considered to be a spiritual
> affair, and the language used uses Old testament
> language, without implying historical truth.
> Indeed, modern theology questions whether
> original sin can be traced back to the Genesis
> account, which seems more like an etiological
> story to explain death. Original sin is a
> much later development, from about the 4th
> century or so, read back into the Genesis
> account.
Then why is baptism the sacrament to erase original sin? It's part of
the doctrine. If it's merely a theoretical construct, why is it
treated with such absolute authority?
> Your main point about falsifiability as you
> have put it seems to rest on the fact that
> the Genesis account is "falsified" as
> unhistorical. I want to point out that it
> is unrealistic to expect "history" from a
> text dating from a period when the concept
> of history as we know it today was largely
> unknown. The falsification therefore is
> as expected.
I don't expect anyone is going to base any worship on the story of
Romulus and Remus, or of Achilles and Hector. They were recognized as
what they are: epic poems that are based on historical facts (and
widely embellished). But no one thinks they're divinely inspired. This
is not the case with the Bible. If it were divinely inspired, you'd
think God would have been able to show people the right answer instead
of allowing lies to continue in the book.
Furthermore, if God allowed lies to continue in ONE part of the book,
how can you be sure that God didn't allow lies to continue in OTHER
parts of the books (this assumes for the moment God exists, of
course). How can you be sure that God wanted homosexuality to be a
sin, but that the earth didn't really stop on it's axis, and doesn't
really care if people eat pork or shellfish?
It's simply inconsistent. You can qualify all you want about what
"types" of truths are in the Bible (revealed, historical, whatever),
but the fact is, a book that is claimed to be infallible and the
inspired word of God and used to justify all manner of real-world
implications should stand a little more rigor than any other fable, if
it were true. However, by recognizing that it is not infallible,
you've opened the door to questioning about ALL other pieces of
theology that rest on that text (teaching against premarital sex,
homosexuality, the requirements of the sacraments, going to church on
Sunday, etc). Since Catholicism is a "revealed" religion, but doesn't
actually believe what is "revealed" in actuality, then how do you
decide what is "revealed" as fact and act upon it, and what is just
allegorically true, or only applicable at a given point in time?
For example, how do you know that eating shellfish and pork is okay
(in the OT, this is a sin), and that homosexuality is bad (same deal)?
What authority shows that you have to believe one part of the Bible,
but the other part you can just ignore?
>
> Why theology still rests on those texts?
> It does and it doesn't. It doesn't for
> their historical value, but it does for
> their spiritual value. The texts were not
> "history" when they were written, but
> texts that were meant to convey spirtual
> truths, so we can use them still in their
> original meaning. As a matter of fact,
> the Bible is much less interested in
> knowledge than in but in wisdom, and so
> were people in general, right through the
> Middle Ages.
How is the story of Adam a "spiritual" truth? If you make an argument
that Adam is allegorical (which I'm not convinced you're actually
doing, you're quite wishy-washy, he's real, but he isn't, but I'll
continue this line of reasoning), then what does this actually mean?
It means that before doing anything at all, a human being is in sin,
just by knowing the difference between right and wrong. Ostensibly,
this is because we have personally somehow fouled up all of creation
by our existence and the one choice we made (apparently, to know the
difference between right from wrong, but no one I know ever
consciously made that decision). Thus, we're in sin before we wake up.
Benedict recently claimed that he "hopes" people that infants before
they are baptized go to heaven (thanks from the department of the
obvious). This invalidates the whole point of "original sin" and the
need for baptism to erase it altogether.
rappoccio
Whoops. I just realized you're not macaddicted. Apologizes :)
Bobby Bryant
rappoccio <rapp...@gmail.com> writes:
> For example, how do you know that eating shellfish and pork is okay
> (in the OT, this is a sin), and that homosexuality is bad (same
> deal)? What authority shows that you have to believe one part of
> the Bible, but the other part you can just ignore?
The ultimate authority: Convenience.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
tex...@gmail.com
Ok, no problem, and he can shift for himself. I find myself generally
in agreement with his stuff however, so I'll tune down a bit and
follow your (and his) discussion. Unless you have something really
specifically for me, of course.
Regards,
Karel
tex...@gmail.com
Ok, no problem, and he can shift for himself. I find myself generally
tex...@gmail.com
Ok, no problem, and he can shift for himself. I find myself generally
hhya...@gmail.com
> In article <134kqpan8pfq...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> writes:
>
> >http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> > Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one
> > does not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?
>
> confronted with the horrifying truth.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Reno, Nevada
>
> Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Good point, Bob.......
The children will keep alive this dream until he die......and sorely
disappointed........what a nightmare
hhya...@gmail.com
> On May 16, 1:15 am, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 10:23 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazare
>
> > > Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem. If one does
> > Jews were blood-sucking people....
> > Their believe migrated into the west and the Whites cling on with the
> > same passion........killing all non-believers during Crusade.......
> > Yet a modern people like you still can't learn.......pity...
> > Yap
>
> I notice that you never seem to complete...
> Thoughts should be whole... but racist idiot instead...
> If you can read this... too close...
> vortex of insanity...
>
> Bark!
>
> Curmutt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, you know the points clearly......
I don't intend to offend the Western people, but they did cling on to
the Christianity with rigor and acted on blindly as instructed in the
bible.
If I mentioned Crusade as an event, you know very well what had
happened, the killing of non-believers by the Christians who were
Europeans. This is not racist at all, it was a fact......and probably
a fact you cannot handle.
I am just putting in points to reflect the reality as shown in some of
the threads that were nonsense, not barking....
I just felt that why should civilised people educated enough doing all
the bad things in this world under the pretext of religion..
Yap