My Problem With Biblical Literalism

[Andara Bledin]

You'd be dealing with it until the ends of time. People will still be people and they will still fill the dark corners with boogiemen.

Everybody would be better off if those who were anti-theist would stop banging their heads against that wall and just get on with being decent people and proving that they aren't just another flavor of religious bigot.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

You'd be dealing with it until the ends of time. People will still be people and they will still fill the dark corners with boogiemen.

If I don't make the effort, I don't support independent thought and true free will.

Religion is not the cause, merely a method.

That interests me. I assume you're religious from your other posts, so shouldn't religion be viewed as the 'Truth' or the only way things should be, rather than a 'method'?

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

That interests me. I assume you're religious from your other posts, so shouldn't religion be viewed as the 'Truth' or the only way things should be, rather than a 'method'?

You assume wrong.

As I've stated repeatedly, my religion is the "Truth" for me. Sure, it may also work out great for thousands of other people, or it may work for nobody else. Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass what another person believes as long as they don't try to use it as an excuse to abuse or bully others.

Just as there are dozens of roads into Los Angeles, there are many paths a person may take to find what they need as regards religion. Some find that they don't want anything more than what they can hold in their hands, others feel more fulfilled with the belief in a deity or supreme being, some follow a belief in a pantheon of some sort, and there are those who believe in something beyond what we know, but not necessarily any single being.

I don't contend that any of those paths are wrong. Every individual is different and different people have different needs.

My boyfriend of the last 11 years is an athiest. I'm very deeply Christian. We get along great because we both respect that the other has made their own, personal choice, and we're both comfortable enough with our beliefs that we don't feel the need to force the other to believe the same.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Incorrect. I assumed correctly in that you were religious.

I was asking for some clarification in your approach.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

My mistake, then.

However, I don't know why you would have to assume anything since I've stated that I'm both religious and Christian in at least every other thread on the topic.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Couldn't be arsed reading that far away from the thread, actually. Had to rely on my aged and fuzzy memory

Rapscallion

[FArchivist]

It's not a subtle distinction. It's a word game. "This is what that word actually means in my world, and therefore I'm right." Seen it a few times.

Despite what people like to think, the study of semantics is never a 'word game'. Language is often imprecise and English is the most imprecise language of them all; the definitions of "truth" and "fact" that I am using are the ones used in discussion of philosophy and belief systems in academia. Whether you agree with those definitions is irrelevant; context is extremely important.

Capitalising the first letter of a standard word and using it as a proper noun shouldn't allow anyone to change the meaning of it. It's an attempt to try and justify an untenable position by linguistics, and it's been perpetrated for generations.

And it's successful. I point to legal terminology as a very long-standing example of this. What a word means in the law is not necessarily what it means in the vernacular.

As far as I'm concerned, it cannot be a truth unless it's verified by some means. There are mathmatical proofs that two plus two equals four - I saw one and didn't understand it, but I was fourteen at the time and conceptual maths isn't really my strong point.

Then your point would be that all belief systems are false, since no belief systems are able to be verified by some means. This doesn't just mean religion; it also includes all philosophical viewpoints and political ideologies. Thus, Existentialism and a belief in the natural rights of man are also false.

Your point would be...? I'm not a citizen of the US, so I don't have the same viewpoint as yourself. What I do have is a consideration that this is an attempt to cash in on the popularity of said document amongst your audience here.

The majority of this forum is American and thus I use an example that would be relevant to the majority. But my point is that if we're going to dismiss the product of a belief systems because of its origins with people whose morals we don't approve of, then we need to apply it equally to the products of ALL belief systems. The people who came up with "freedom of speech" or "one man, one vote" weren't moral saints either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

They don't need to be tested in a lab. They're tested in countries. On populations. By populations in democracies.

That's not verification of anything by ANY scientific methodology. Popularity by the mob does not a truth make. And it's also inconclusive; rights are not necessary for the operation of a successful country, as history has shown us.

Because he doesn't exist?

Are you asking from a universal POV or from my personal religious POV?

I fully understand that you believe in god. However, that doesn't mean that god exists.

That would essentially be correct. There is no disagreement with that statement. Catholic theologians have acknowledged that for years.

I'd be quite happy for religion in all forms just vanish painlessly. If something comes along to replace it, we can deal with that in due course.

If religion had never existed at all to begin with, then right now we'd be arguing about the role of the 2000-year-old Communist Party and how they'd done some good things and some bad things and the Trotskyist Heresy and so on.

I think that's the difference between you and I; you focus on religion specifically. I see ALL belief systems as equivalent. If religion is guilty, so is all of ideology. So is all of philosophy. Catholic, Stoic, or French Revolutionary; they're all belief systems.

[Kheldarson]

How much better would humanity have been if the efforts that had gone into such been put into genuine improvements? Sure, they're a unifying force for less-advanced times, but that just makes them a manner of controlling the masses. How far back did the catholic church push scientific advancement when it denied that the earth rotated around the sun? Galileo ended up under house arrest. I'm not certain where it says in the bible that the earth is the centre of the universe, but his views were considered heresy.

How much better could we be if we weren't held back by superstition?

Rapscallion

Actually, Galileo was more under house arrest for continuing to disseminate his information rather than the information itself. Same thing as what happened to Martin Luther actually. See, main issue with the Church as always been the fact she's a bureaucracy and bureaucracies are notorious for being hard to change. But in Galileo's case, the Church already knew a change had to happen. Why?

Because the calendar was all f'ed up. And Galileo's new information was going to force the change.

And the Church was still trying to process that at all levels.

The issue became the over-reaction of various members of the Church (banning his books) but Galileo kept publishing (after being told not to) and just like a parent would after being disobeyed, Galileo got punished. But the Church kept working with his information to eventually change the calendar to the now used Gregorian calendar.

As for where it says in the Bible, that's just from description. It was assumed because every writer said "As the sun rises over the earth" or "The sun travels across the sky" or what have you from our perspective...it was assumed that that must be how things work. You know. Human nature saying we're the center of things.

[AdminAssistant]

And how much other great work would Galileo have done had he not been under house arrest?

[Kheldarson]

Considering he was doing his work at home anyway? Why didn't he keep working as is? They just prevented him from publishing, really. He was allowed to come and go as he pleased really from what I've read from the time.

[HYHYBT]

Those who say religion is provably false: go ahead and prove it, then. Nobody ever has in the history of the world. I've read many claims to have done so, but the *best* of them only get so far as a lack of proof for the other side, which is not the same thing. Faith is NOT believing in what has been proven to be false, but it certainly can include believing what has not been proven to be true. Treating the two as the same is a very old and worn out slight-of-hand trick, nothing more, and people ought to be ashamed of themselves for still trying to use it.

[Gravekeeper]

Laboratory provability of rebirth is an extreme problem.

Yes, but its ironically one of the extremely few spiritual angles that *does* have research done into the matter and enough evidence in its favour to make even Carl Sagan pause. Its also one of the few spiritual angles that is researchable using existing methods.

Resurrection, water walking and instant wine on the other hand not so much.

No, there we are confusing Truth and Fact again, which are two different things.

What Raps said.

Then you have just agreed that the Constitution of the USA shouldn't be. It was written by misogynist, patriarchal, racist, rich land-holding slave owners 200+ years ago.

Again, not sure what your point is. I knew what you were talking about, but I'm Canadian. Thusly I do not actually agree with your Constitution and find parts of it suspect. Yet you adhere to it, well, religiously.

MY point is that anything that we hold as 'sacred', for lack of a better word at the moment, is in the same fix the Bible is. Keep in mind that ALL of the following are equivalent:

- political ideologies
- philosophy
- religion

But 2 of the 3 must rely on reason to explain themselves and are open to debate, the third does not.

1) God doesn't dick around with us on a daily basis. At least, the RCC doesn't say that. Now some Protestants, on the other hand...
2) That's why we're supposed to spread the "Good Word". Of course, it all differs on who and how we're supposed to spread it, depending on the denomination.

1) The RCC may be the only one who doesn't then.
2) That's stupid, frankly. As it means your God is still relying on "Eh, I'll tell this one bunch of goat farmers and just hope they get it right for a few thousand years and overcome all cultural and language barriers to tell the rest of the world. Fuck everyone else though, I can't be bothered to swing by and give them any hints."

Which would bring us back to the particular God you speak of being incompetant and honestly kind of a dick. >.>

I'm speaking purely from the perspective of the RCC, which is the only thing I can speak for. Note, each sect says the other sect has got it wrong. Sort of like the difference between Thereveda, Mahayana, and Vajrayana sects, with more argument.

The different sects of Buddhism do not disagree in that fashion. The three major schools don't disagree on what Buddha taught, they basically disagree on which method Buddha taught is the fastest one to achieve Enlightenment. They do not ignore or discredit the other methods, only focus more on the method they believe is the most effecient. Thereveda for instance is very much the "seclude yourself on a mountain top and focus purely on expanding your own wisdom". While Mahayana is more "Get out there and practice compassion and unconditional love for all beings".

My opinion is that there is a kind, loving God who's been trying to guide us on a path of goodness and morality. Yours is that there isn't one. In my opinion, there are some things that have been told to us by God so, by definition of God, are true. Since you don't believe in that same God, you, of course, don't believe it to be true. And that's okay.

The problem is Rap's "opinion" is supported by fact. Yours is not. You may view this as okay, but don't be surprised when it bugs people ;p heh.

So...I believe that caramel is kind of nasty. This is a true statement. But my mom enjoys caramel and thinks it's one of the best things in the world. This is also a true statement. Is one of us lying then? That's the same argument being given here. Only replace caramel with God.

Try "I believe caramel exists and is kind of nasty, but my mom has never seen caramel in her life because its not actually there for her to see when I point at it in the store". -.-

And we fully understand you don't believe he does. That does not mean he doesn't.

I'm beginning to understand why Ghel blows a gasket every time we have one of these dicussions. The burden of proof is not the same on both sides of this debate. Simple as that. You can't just hand way it like that. That's not how it works. ><

Which baffles me. Because if you don't believe in anything, why should anyone care that I believe in something?

I personally don't care what other people believe, its when their beliefs are causing suffering to others or to society as a whole that I get pissy. The problem, and fact of the matter, is that belief causing suffering is biggest amongst the Abrahamic religions. Hence this dicussions get, well, like this. >.>

Other than that, believe whatever you want. Just don't hurt anyone, don't try to cram it down anyone's throat and don't flagantly urinate in the face of science. That's really all I ask from people. -.-

I'd be quite happy for religion in all forms just vanish painlessly. If something comes along to replace it, we can deal with that in due course.

The ironic problem of course being that if the day came when science finally unlocked the mechanisms by which the universe operates in regards to the mind and "soul", it would immediately be dismissed by most major religions as heresy.

Those who say religion is provably false: go ahead and prove it, then. Nobody ever has in the history of the world.

I would surmise that is more because the devoutly religious would never, ever listen to such proof to begin with. But if you really want to delve into this, science has proven religion false countless times. Hence many religions and belief systems have fallen out of use over the course of history in part because they are, at this point, too absurd to be accepted by the average person with a modern education.

Its unfortunate that some aspects of Christianity ( and Islam ) are heading down this road nowadays. Mainly due to the insistence of imposing their beliefs on others.

I've read many claims to have done so, but the *best* of them only get so far as a lack of proof for the other side, which is not the same thing.

Welcome to the scientific method? When your proof amounts to "It's magic!" then damn straight it doesn't hold up.

Faith is NOT believing in what has been proven to be false, but it certainly can include believing what has not been proven to be true. Treating the two as the same is a very old and worn out slight-of-hand trick, nothing more, and people ought to be ashamed of themselves for still trying to use it.

That was bullshit, sorry. If faith stopped believing in that which has been proven false, we wouldn't have this mess to begin with. The biggest problem religion has in the modern world is the refusal of many of its members to adapt their religion to the modern world. It's this refusal to evolve that causes so many problems.

Again, the burden of proof is sitting squarely on the shoulders of only one side of the debate. Instead of rambling that its not false because it hasn't been proven true, try looking for ways it may be true using the knowledge we already have. Methods by which what you believe in might actually function in our universe.

[Kheldarson]

Why should the burden of proof be just on those of us who believe? We don't take issue with your non-belief. Personally I've stated on here, particularly in this thread, I view it as a personal opinion of mine and respect others decisions to have different opinions. The burden of proof should be on those who take issue.

But even then, we have a problem. See, you insist that the only things that should be allowed are those things that we have here on this world. I believe in there being something more than this world, something beyond this world. Since you'd only be arguing from this world's viewpoint and not the other, your argument would be incomplete for me. If I argue from my viewpoint, I'd be including things that you don't view as admissible. Hm...I think I'm also summarizing the arguments between Martin Luther and the Church.

When one group insists that things the other definitively believes in should be disallowed in an argument or debate, neither group will be well satisfied with the answers.

[Gravekeeper]

Why should the burden of proof be just on those of us who believe? We don't take issue with your non-belief. Personally I've stated on here, particularly in this thread, I view it as a personal opinion of mine and respect others decisions to have different opinions. The burden of proof should be on those who take issue.

Not sure if you're talking to me or not, but to answer your question: That's because thats how logic works. If you claim something that does not have any evidence, the burden of proof is on you. Not on the people going "Hey, you don't have any evidence". That's simple logic. Its perfectly fine to believe in what you want, but do not submit it to others as truth then complain when they call you on it.

But even then, we have a problem. See, you insist that the only things that should be allowed are those things that we have here on this world <snip>

I'm not sure who you're talking too, as you didn't quote anyone?

[Kheldarson]

I don't quote when I'm addressing the person directly above me. But as for the second part you quoted, Gravekeeper, that was continuing my own thought. We was a general usage.

And I've only claimed that I have a truth. And that you have a truth. And we'll discover THE TRUTH when we're dead. So who has the burden?

I don't force my opinion. I answer questions. You want an answer to something that is based in faith about a being that, by understanding, is difficult to define in human terms as He's larger than human definition. I already know by simply reading other threads in this forum that that's a pissing contest. There's no proof either side can issue to dissuade the other. So why continue to bring it up? It is possible to discuss religious topics without debating the existence of God.