The old evolution debate

[Andara Bledin]

Frustrated? Try it from this side.

I have trouble believing a person's inability to reconcile their own preference/demand for what a religion they don't and wouldn't follow should be is on the same level as having people who don't and won't follow one's own religion telling them, repeatedly, that they're "doing it wrong." Why is it that one side telling another what to believe is ok as long as it's your side?

I can do good because it's the right thing to do, and I don't need the threat of unending punishment once I'm dead to motivate me, nor do I need the promise of major rewards for that matter.

This seems to imply that without a vengeful sky pixie hovering over those who follow the Judeo/Christian god, that they would not do good at all and we all know this is not the case.

While I would agree that there are some out there who aren't bastards only because they're afraid of the consequences, they come from all walks of life and follow all belief systems.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

I have trouble believing a person's inability to reconcile their own preference/demand for what a religion they don't and wouldn't follow should be is on the same level as having people who don't and won't follow one's own religion telling them, repeatedly, that they're "doing it wrong." Why is it that one side telling another what to believe is ok as long as it's your side?

It's not my own rules I bring to the table. It's theirs.

OK, according to christian rules homosexuality is bad. How about the whole eating pork thing? Wearing clothing of two types of cloth? Ah, conveniently ignored.

Should not kill? Fine - makes sense, apart from having a religious figure at all those executions reading a bible to make everyone else feel better.

It's effectively saying that the christian god is infallible and we should obey the ten commandments, but then still do whatever we want if the rules are inconvenient.

I don't have a problem with homosexuality or eating pork. Even if I thought that there was value to the concept of an overarching creator that matched the christian god, I couldn't join as I don't feel able to follow the rules.

Rapscallion

[Ipecac Drano]

I love the irony of a gaybashing that's given by a well-groomed guy.

[KabeRinnaul]

It would be much more impressive if the universe (or the Earth) didn't have the properties we would expect in order to be able to support life, and yet there was life anyway.

Replying to an older post with this, but this comment bothered me. Primarily because that wouldn't be much more impressive at all, would it? I mean, of course it would to an outside observer, one who already knows the rules our planet and/or universe work by, but if we were observing our own planet/universe?

Just from basic physical observations, we wouldn't find it any more impressive that what we already see in the real world. If we lived on a world where the atmosphere was composed entirely of chlorine gas, the temperature was constantly just below boiling, and we were saturated with enough radiation to kill a (real-world) human every second... Rather than marveling at the fact that we somehow lived in this inhospitable environment, we would conclude, from the observation that we, as living beings, lived and thrived in this environment, that this environment was suitable for life, and probably nothing special.

OK, according to christian rules homosexuality is bad. How about the whole eating pork thing? Wearing clothing of two types of cloth? Ah, conveniently ignored.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that all those things listed off as "abominations" in Leviticus would have been better translated as "ritually unclean". And so all those terrible punishments were not for committing whatever act in the first place, but instead for participating in the temple without being cleansed afterward. I don't remember where I saw it, and wonder how accurate it might be.

[Ipecac Drano]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that all those things listed off as "abominations" in Leviticus would have been better translated as "ritually unclean".

It wouldn't matter, as any eaten pork would still be a part of the Jews' being, and their payot (side curly locks of hair in front of the ears) would not grow back that long within a week's time. The payot were grown for the reason that they were believed to separate the front part of the brain, used for abstract thought, from the back part of the brain that governs the body; something that goes on outside of the temple and into day to day life.

And so all those terrible punishments were not for committing whatever act in the first place, but instead for participating in the temple without being cleansed afterward. I don't remember where I saw it, and wonder how accurate it might be.

Again, what happens outside of the temple greatly influences what goes on within. In a microcosmic sense, the body is the temple, and their dietary and grooming considerations affect their temple's interior (the soul).

[Gerrinson]

As I feared, the whole topic has devolved (see what I did there?) away from evolution vs. creationism.

Of course, evolution vs. creationism is either red herring or simply tilting at windmills by well meaning but misguided fools.

Evolution says exactly nothing about the source of life, it simply deals with what happens to life after it exists. The appearance of life from nothing is called autobiogenesis. It is not now, nor has it ever been, part of the theory of evolution.

So, creationists either have to argue with the scientific idea of autobiogenesis, which really doesn't have very much going on, so far as I know, in the way of current testing. The testing with which I'm familiar hasn't generated a whole lot of success, either.

Regardless of the source of life, evolution exists and there is a mountain of proof for it. So, creationists who are all about 'teach the other side' need to take a minute to 'learn' the other side first. At which point they can either shut up and get over themselves, or continue to be ignorant self-righteous attention whores.

Okay, back to your religious debate. I just wanted to point out that creationism and evolution talk about two very different things.

[Andara Bledin]

I just wanted to point out that creationism and evolution talk about two very different things.

You're either preaching to the choir or to those who aren't interested in hearing it, and I think you're the fourth person to say pretty much this in the thread.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

I'll make my point clearer.

The christian holy text states that the world was brought into being by their divinity. The birds and beasts etc were all brought into being by said divinity. If you believe otherwise, you're not following christianity.

Not true. Standard Catholic doctrine at this time states that the story of Genesis may be taken allegorically and that evolution is one of the many tools that God uses to create things with.

But, yes, it is possible for Christians to accept evolution and still believe in the Christian God. I don't understand how they can reconcile the two, but I take them at their word that they do.

The answer is simple: Many parts of the Old Testament can be taken allegorically. Like the whole 'six days' part. It might have been six days for God, figuratively speaking. From our viewpoint, it would be billions and billions of years.

What use does an omnipotent God have for the tools of nature? It would be much more impressive if the universe (or the Earth) didn't have the properties we would expect in order to be able to support life, and yet there was life anyway.

Why does the GM in a D&D game roll dice and follow the rulebook when he can just make shit up as he goes? Or why play a computer game by the rules it sets out when you can hack and mod it all to hell and gone?

Same reason. Because God feels like following the rules. Or so we assume.

Then you must not believe in the Christian God, since (according to his biographers) he admits to making mistakes multiple times. There would have been no need for Jesus to be sacrificed if God had never made mistakes. Nor would he have need of evolution if his creations were mistake-free to begin with.

Free will and chance. Just like when you play with an artificial life game. You set the parameters, let things evolve, and then nudge things at times when you feel like it. But mostly hands-off.

And even the current stages of these "creations" show no sign of being "intelligently designed"; there are a lot of deficits if we were designed by a higher being.

Correct. The Catholic Church states that intelligent design is a false doctrine, denying free will and the evolutionary process.

So, no it's not like it went in one ear and out the other. The point is that the Bible was written about Yahweh and was intended by its authors to be the de facto source of what he is about and how to worship him.

But you refuse to accept that the Bible can be allegorical.

Science doesn't try to explain God (except when corrupted by religious zealots (which, in those cases, it ceases to be science)) and religion cannot explain the physical properties of the universe.

Which is the position of the Roman Catholic Church anyway. Which is why Catholicism is right and Protestantism, especially the Evangelical kind, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

What's the difference between "humanity's reality" and reality?

There is a large difference between objective/physical reality and socio-cultural/subjective reality. Very large. Socio-cultural phenomena is almost ALWAYS subjective.

No.

Wow. So you deny that subjective socio-cultural phenomena can have an effect on the real world? That's pretty radical. That means that sociology, historical philosophy, philosophy itself, theological studies, cultural studies, all art and art studies and political science are all NOT REAL. That's what you've just said, whether you realize it or not.

To be a Christian is not to follow the bible, but to follow the teaching of Christ, the old testament which "Christians" use to justify numerous things, are not the teaching of Christ and in many cases go against his teachings, but they still call themselves christians.

Short answer: Doctrinal differences between sects of the theological following. See various doctrines for details.

I do have one honest question here though: Why is Christianity not allowed to evolve with the times? There's this weird trend in these discussions where the people arguing against Christian bizzarrely insist that Christians adhere entirely to the Bible or they're not real Christians, while also arguing the Bible is a flawed product of man.

Mostly because atheists and so on do not truly understand Roman Catholic doctrine, having never read it or steeped themselves into its mysteries. Or even bothering to flip through the Catechism for the basics.

So, you're saying that it's okay to ignore some of your God's rules when they get to be too inconvenient for you?

Unfortunately, for me it's a reaction to the way that many christians will choose to follow one bit or another, yet still proclaim that the entirety of the text is the divinely inspired word of their deity, and therefore infallible, but this bit doesn't actually say what it apparently does, oh and that bit doesn't mean that and it means that I can eat shrimp and pork while denouncing homosexuality and...

Except that I don't see how you encounter that. You're in the UK; all you have over there are Anglicans, who are the easiest-going Christians in the world outside of Unitarian-Universalists. Heck, ya'll even slaughtered all the Catholics and claimed all the monasteries for the King.

And if you ask the Archbishop of Canterbury, he/she'll straight out tell you that the Bible is NOT infallible and never has been. Period. The Roman Catholics don't claim it either. The only people who DO adhere to that infallibility bullshit are the Fundamentalists - and they don't exist in the UK. I think. The Anglican Church sure aren't Fundamentalists.

as unreasonable to say that there should be defining standard for that faith. Stray from it, and you don't qualify.

And each separate division, schism, sect, and cult has stated that they have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and everyone else is wrong. So which one are you going to choose to define the "standard", a standard that's NEVER existed for Christianity in the entirety of its existence?

It's based on the word of the jewish and christian deit(y/ies), and until such a time as they come down to say things are now different, the laws and customs should really stay the same.

It's been said to be different thousands of times throughout history. The Council of Trent? The Constantine Revisions? The Reformation? The Counter-Reformation? I'm kind of astounded that you don't know this; one of your own Kings, Henry VIII, declared to be different. And James I! I mean, good Heavens, don't you know why your Queen is the head of the Anglican Church? Or do they just not teach standard European history in the UK anymore?

The concept of the christian faith is that god is perfect and man isn't, from what I can tell. That deity is infallible, from what I remember, so there shouldn't be an issue with what was originally decided. That's the whole deal about infallible. Doesn't get it wrong and all that good stuff.

*sigh* No. It's nowhere near that simple. In fact, a Catholic would call your viewpoint heretical.

OK, according to christian rules homosexuality is bad. How about the whole eating pork thing? Wearing clothing of two types of cloth? Ah, conveniently ignored.

Actually, depending on the sect and its doctrine, not so:

1) According to the RCC, homosexuality itself is not bad. It is perfectly fine to be homosexual. What you're not supposed to practice is sodomy. Or to act on homosexual urges. And really, that's due to the interpretations by Paul and Paulician interpretation is currently on top. If Augustinian interpretation becomes the accepted viewpoint again, you will see the RCC reversing its position on homosexuality.

2) Eating pork is no longer a requirement; that was from the Old Testament and it was invalidated by Jesus.

3) Same with the cloth; invalidated by Jesus.

Should not kill? Fine - makes sense, apart from having a religious figure at all those executions reading a bible to make everyone else feel better.

See Thomas Aquinas and his seminal work, the Summa Theologica. Start with the concept of "just war" and move on from there.

It's effectively saying that the christian god is infallible and we should obey the ten commandments, but then still do whatever we want if the rules are inconvenient.

All of the 10 Commandments may not necessarily apply under the New Testament. See the various doctrines on the subject for detail.

...you really don't understand how all this differing doctrine stuff works, do you? Have you ever taken a course in Philosophy while you were at University?

Question: Which of God's rules do you think are being ignored?

[Ipecac Drano]

Not true. Standard Catholic doctrine at this time states that the story of Genesis may be taken allegorically and that evolution is one of the many tools that God uses to create things with.

But the Roman Catholics were not the authors of the creation story, nor do they have excusive authority over it.

The answer is simple: Many parts of the Old Testament can be taken allegorically. Like the whole 'six days' part. It might have been six days for God, figuratively speaking. From our viewpoint, it would be billions and billions of years.

So, we can pick and choose as to what was meant to be taken as literal?

Why does the GM in a D&D game roll dice and follow the rulebook when he can just make shit up as he goes? Or why play a computer game by the rules it sets out when you can hack and mod it all to hell and gone?

Same reason. Because God feels like following the rules. Or so we assume.

Some assume that, and some don't. But, there is a difference between the creators of those games and the participants.

Free will and chance. Just like when you play with an artificial life game. You set the parameters, let things evolve, and then nudge things at times when you feel like it. But mostly hands-off.

If we're not certain what God does and doesn't do, how can we even be certain he exists, much less puts his hands in the works?

But you refuse to accept that the Bible can be allegorical.

"Can be" allegorical, just like it "can be" literal. I've found that in the hands of any human, the Bible can be anything; even a cookbook. What's important is what the Bible actually is, not what it can be.

Which is the position of the Roman Catholic Church anyway. Which is why Catholicism is right and Protestantism, especially the Evangelical kind, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

As far as getting in step with what is known about the world. But, if the Bible is supposed to reflect what God has in mind for us, and that by saying what's in the Bible is wrong, one is saying that God is wrong?

There is a large difference between objective/physical reality and socio-cultural/subjective reality. Very large. Socio-cultural phenomena is almost ALWAYS subjective.

I asked him a rhetorical question. I disregard the socio-cultural variety as it is impractical. I'm more interested in knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 rather than thinking that blue is a pretty color and that it is "good".

Wow. So you deny that subjective socio-cultural phenomena can have an effect on the real world? That's pretty radical. That means that sociology, historical philosophy, philosophy itself, theological studies, cultural studies, all art and art studies and political science are all NOT REAL. That's what you've just said, whether you realize it or not.

Whether or not you realize it, I was commenting on empiricism as being more practical than something mystical when it comes to scientific matters.

Short answer: Doctrinal differences between sects of the theological following. See various doctrines for details.

Even the ones that don't resemble Christ's teachings? Now who's radical?

Mostly because atheists and so on do not truly understand Roman Catholic doctrine, having never read it or steeped themselves into its mysteries. Or even bothering to flip through the Catechism for the basics.

I dunno. Most of the atheists I know that are ex-Xtian are ex-Catholics. A couple were priests. I've had a seminary's resources available to me for more than two years. Could it be that maybe the atheists can see things that the "enlightened" couldn't or that the believers disregard? Everytime I get apologetics from someone in a religious discussion, they're nothing more than logical fallacies in disguise.

And each separate division, schism, sect, and cult has stated that they have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and everyone else is wrong. So which one are you going to choose to define the "standard", a standard that's NEVER existed for Christianity in the entirety of its existence?

I choose none of them, as that is one of the reasons.

It's been said to be different thousands of times throughout history. The Council of Trent? The Constantine Revisions? The Reformation? The Counter-Reformation? I'm kind of astounded that you don't know this; one of your own Kings, Henry VIII, declared to be different. And James I! I mean, good Heavens, don't you know why your Queen is the head of the Anglican Church? Or do they just not teach standard European history in the UK anymore?

I won't speak for Rapscallion, here, but that is a contributing factor for my atheism. If they can't take the original Word of God seriously and feel that they have to fool around with it, their congregations are not fulfilling the Will of God, but whims of the those kings and bishops.

[about the infallibilty of God]No. It's nowhere near that simple. In fact, a Catholic would call your viewpoint heretical.

As soon as I had read your response, I picked up the phone and called my still-practicing Catholic sister who had taught CCD classes, is active in her church, and who considers herself to be very liberal in her beliefs, and she told me that she was taught and believes that God is infallible.

If you feel that he is not, I would be interested in reading a list of his faults and flaws as viewed by you.

Actually, depending on the sect and its doctrine, not so:

So, instead of just picking and choosing out of the Good Book, why not write another Holy Book, jettisoning the Bible altogether and come up with another religion that doesn't rely on the OT and NT at all? I mean, some Canaanites decided they didn't like they way things were, put Yahweh over the other gods in the Canaanite pantheon, and became Jews. Later, the Jews had incorporated attributes from various gods and goddesses, killed off the other gods, and became monotheistic. Then, in the true spirit of Git 'er Done, some Jews decided to worship Yahweh their way, giving him a son (without his late wife, Asherah), and starting a new religion.

If people want to believe in God and worship him but without some of the unsavory things that go along with him, it's easy for them to pitch the Book and just write a new one that would encapsulate their worldview.

[FArchivist]

But the Roman Catholics were not the authors of the creation story, nor do they have excusive authority over it.

I would venture that they have the best claim. After all, they are the Mother Church, from which all others sprang.

So, we can pick and choose as to what was meant to be taken as literal?

No, not quite. It all depends on which allegorical and typological interpretations you use. See the subject of Biblical Hermeneutics for details. If you require, I can provide 8-10 books to read on the subject that cover the basics.

Some assume that, and some don't. But, there is a difference between the creators of those games and the participants.

In modern P&P RPG gaming, the GM is the creator. So I'm not understanding your intention here. Yes, there is a difference between the GM and the players. The GM creates and manages the world. The players obey his decisions.

If we're not certain what God does and doesn't do, how can we even be certain he exists, much less puts his hands in the works?

That is purely a question of faith. If you're looking for a scientific answer, one does not exist to that question.

"Can be" allegorical, just like it "can be" literal. I've found that in the hands of any human, the Bible can be anything; even a cookbook. What's important is what the Bible actually is, not what it can be.

*laughs* Before you can discuss what the Bible is, you have to discuss WHICH Bible you're going by. You're trying to take a subjective text and make it completely, totally objective, which you cannot do with ANY work of religion, philosophy, or ideology. The Bible is not VCR instructions and never can be.

As far as getting in step with what is known about the world. But, if the Bible is supposed to reflect what God has in mind for us, and that by saying what's in the Bible is wrong, one is saying that God is wrong?

No. Again, you're trying to apply objective right/wrong to a subjective text. Interpretation of ANY literature does not work that way, be it religious or a fantasy novel series. Have you ever done a course in literature analysis? If not, I recommend some basic texts for you.

I asked him a rhetorical question. I disregard the socio-cultural variety as it is impractical. I'm more interested in knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 rather than thinking that blue is a pretty color and that it is "good".

*sigh* Than you're not going to understand interpretation of literature anyway. *shrugs* If you're going to assume an engineering literal mindset, the Bible and religion in general will never make sense to you. 2+2=4 is important, but the "good" of blue is just as important. Socio-cultural items are just as important as physical objective items.

Whether or not you realize it, I was commenting on empiricism as being more practical than something mystical when it comes to scientific matters.

Which is why the majority of Christianity DOESN'T use religion to answer questions of science. Only the Evangelists do and they're widely regarded as being wrong by the rest of Christianity because they are using an exceedingly narrow interpretation of the Bible. And there happen to be a lot of Evangelists in the USA; they all fled here. If you ask a priest of the RCC, he will tell you straight out that religion does not answer questions of science and that empiricism is a better choice. the purpose of religion is not to answer science.

Even the ones that don't resemble Christ's teachings? Now who's radical?

Again, before you say that this or that don't resemble Christ's teachings, you have to decide what Christ's teachings ARE. And every sect has its own answer to that.

I dunno. Most of the atheists I know that are ex-Xtian are ex-Catholics. A couple were priests. I've had a seminary's resources available to me for more than two years. Could it be that maybe the atheists can see things that the "enlightened" couldn't or that the believers disregard? Everytime I get apologetics from someone in a religious discussion, they're nothing more than logical fallacies in disguise.

Considering that the approach you're using would be inappropriate for literature analysis, hermeneutics, and philosophical analysis of The Lord of the Rings, no, I do not think that atheists have some special enhanced viewing of the world. In fact, I've known more atheists who would love to burn works of art and works of literature because, you know, all that fiction is totally useless and they shouldn't even be teaching it in school, people should just learn programming or something anyway.

It's rather like looking at the Mona Lisa and saying "Let's do an objective analysis of what makes it a good painting." Objectively, the Mona Lisa ISN'T a good painting.

I choose none of them, as that is one of the reasons.

*shrugs* If that works for you. Frankly, asking what standard all Christianity should go by is like asking which programming language should be used as the standard by which all others are judged.

I won't speak for Rapscallion, here, but that is a contributing factor for my atheism. If they can't take the original Word of God seriously and feel that they have to fool around with it, their congregations are not fulfilling the Will of God, but whims of the those kings and bishops.

Problem: Define "original Word of God". Also, see the entire discipline of the study of allegorical literature.

As soon as I had read your response, I picked up the phone and called my still-practicing Catholic sister who had taught CCD classes, is active in her church, and who considers herself to be very liberal in her beliefs, and she told me that she was taught and believes that God is infallible.

If you feel that he is not, I would be interested in reading a list of his faults and flaws as viewed by you.

And she would be wrong because she has an imperfect understanding. She needs to speak with a theologian. In the RCC, God is usually held to have the properties of holiness (separate from sin and incorruptible), justice (fair, right, and true in all his judgments), omnipotence (all powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), omnibenevolence (all-loving), omnipresence (everywhere present) and immortality (eternal and everlasting).

Infallibility is defined by Christianity as 'Inability to err in teaching revealed truth'. Many Christians maintain that the Church is infallible, but disagree as to where infallibility exists, whether in doctrines, scripture, or church authorities. In Roman Catholic theology, only the actual 'act of teaching' is properly called "infallible". For example, according to Roman Catholic dogma, Pope Pius IX's teaching regarding the Immaculate Conception was infallible; it is grammatically incorrect to say or to write "the Immaculate Conception is infallible". According to the First Vatican Council and as reaffirmed at Vatican II the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Infallibility does obviously not refer to the inability to sin (impeccability), or to the personal holiness of a person, though Protestants may sometimes accuse the popes of sins in combatting the doctrine of their (occasional) infallibility.

If people want to believe in God and worship him but without some of the unsavory things that go along with him, it's easy for them to pitch the Book and just write a new one that would encapsulate their worldview.

And as usual, I say "It's not quite that simple."
So I will ask in all seriousness: Have you ever taken a course on the history of religion in the world?

[KabeRinnaul]

I would venture that they have the best claim. After all, they are the Mother Church, from which all others sprang.

Wouldn't it be the Jews? I mean, it was their book first.

Or how about the ancient Sumerians, since good portions of it were their stories first?

[Ipecac Drano]

I would venture that they have the best claim. After all, they are the Mother Church, from which all others sprang.

The Catholics were not the first organized Christians. Plus, the Jews had the Creation story before the Xtians; not to mention that the Jews had borrowed it from other cultures.

No, not quite. It all depends on which allegorical and typological interpretations you use. See the subject of Biblical Hermeneutics for details. If you require, I can provide 8-10 books to read on the subject that cover the basics.

So it depends on which interpretation we choose to use? So, it's still like a cafeteria, but with packages and a little less à la carte.

In modern P&P RPG gaming, the GM is the creator. So I'm not understanding your intention here. Yes, there is a difference between the GM and the players. The GM creates and manages the world. The players obey his decisions.

I'm aware of the role of the GM. I was likening his role to say, the Pope's or Oral Roberts's, the players' to the congregations, and Gary Gygax's and Dave Arneson's roles as God's.

That is purely a question of faith.

Not good. That leads to everyone having a different answer to something that should have one answer.

If you're looking for a scientific answer, one does not exist to that question.

I know. As I had mentioned before, that is why God needs to stay out of the lab.

[QUOTE=FArchivist;88586]

Before you can discuss what the Bible is, you have to discuss WHICH Bible you're going by. You're trying to take a subjective text and make it completely, totally objective, which you cannot do with ANY work of religion, philosophy, or ideology. The Bible is not VCR instructions and never can be.

Nor do the translations vary as much as you assert.

No. Again, you're trying to apply objective right/wrong to a subjective text. Interpretation of ANY literature does not work that way, be it religious or a fantasy novel series. Have you ever done a course in literature analysis? If not, I recommend some basic texts for you.

No, you're just muddying the waters so you can try to have things your way.

Than you're not going to understand interpretation of literature anyway. *shrugs* If you're going to assume an engineering literal mindset, the Bible and religion in general will never make sense to you. 2+2=4 is important, but the "good" of blue is just as important. Socio-cultural items are just as important as physical objective items.

But the "blue", Bible, socio-cultural items, et al., are not important in understanding the "how".

Which is why the majority of Christianity DOESN'T use religion to answer questions of science. Only the Evangelists do and they're widely regarded as being wrong by the rest of Christianity because they are using an exceedingly narrow interpretation of the Bible. And there happen to be a lot of Evangelists in the USA; they all fled here. If you ask a priest of the RCC, he will tell you straight out that religion does not answer questions of science and that empiricism is a better choice. the purpose of religion is not to answer science.

You're preaching to the choir.

Again, before you say that this or that don't resemble Christ's teachings, you have to decide what Christ's teachings ARE. And every sect has its own answer to that.

So, the easiest thing to do is read the Bible and see which sect doesn't ignore any of what Jesus says.

Considering that the approach you're using would be inappropriate for literature analysis, hermeneutics, and philosophical analysis of The Lord of the Rings, no, I do not think that atheists have some special enhanced viewing of the world. In fact, I've known more atheists who would love to burn works of art and works of literature because, you know, all that fiction is totally useless and they shouldn't even be teaching it in school, people should just learn programming or something anyway.

I would like to meet these atheists, not to party with them but just to know that they even exist. The ones I know of encourage studying culture and literature.

It's rather like looking at the Mona Lisa and saying "Let's do an objective analysis of what makes it a good painting." Objectively, the Mona Lisa ISN'T a good painting.

Not a good analogy.

If that works for you. Frankly, asking what standard all Christianity should go by is like asking which programming language should be used as the standard by which all others are judged.

How is it the same?

Problem: Define "original Word of God".

Bible.

Also, see the entire discipline of the study of allegorical literature.

See cafeteria mentality.

And she would be wrong because she has an imperfect understanding. She needs to speak with a theologian. In the RCC, God is usually held to have the properties of holiness (separate from sin and incorruptible), justice (fair, right, and true in all his judgments), omnipotence (all powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), omnibenevolence (all-loving), omnipresence (everywhere present) and immortality (eternal and everlasting).

Infallibility is defined by Christianity as 'Inability to err in teaching revealed truth'. Many Christians maintain that the Church is infallible, but disagree as to where infallibility exists, whether in doctrines, scripture, or church authorities. In Roman Catholic theology, only the actual 'act of teaching' is properly called "infallible". For example, according to Roman Catholic dogma, Pope Pius IX's teaching regarding the Immaculate Conception was infallible; it is grammatically incorrect to say or to write "the Immaculate Conception is infallible". According to the First Vatican Council and as reaffirmed at Vatican II the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Infallibility does obviously not refer to the inability to sin (impeccability), or to the personal holiness of a person, though Protestants may sometimes accuse the popes of sins in combatting the doctrine of their (occasional) infallibility.

I see. If it can't be explained, change the vocabulary.

And as usual, I say "It's not quite that simple."
So I will ask in all seriousness: Have you ever taken a course on the history of religion in the world?

Several before entering the seminary, quite a few during, and some more after.

[Nyoibo]

Nor do the translations vary as much as you assert.

They vary enough, serious altercations have come about from simple mistranslations or understanding of words and messages.

Originally Posted by FArchivist
Problem: Define "original Word of God".

Bible.

Incorrect, the bible is the word of god filtered though the fallibility and bias of man and observation.

[FArchivist]

The Catholics were not the first organized Christians. Plus, the Jews had the Creation story before the Xtians; not to mention that the Jews had borrowed it from other cultures.

The Christians came from the Jews. Christians in general are Jews who believe the Jesus was the promised Messiah. Current Jews believe Jesus was not. Although that's a very simplistic explanation. So yes, it would make sense that the Jews had the Creation story first; the Old Testament is a version of the Torah.

As for Catholics not being the first organized Christians, that's not true at all. Catholics, period, were the first organized church, arising in the 2nd Century AD. Of course, then it was simply called "Christian". But in the beginning, when the disparate churches were organized, all swore allegiance to the Vicar of Rome based on the Primacy of Peter. That was in the 200s CE.

So it depends on which interpretation we choose to use? So, it's still like a cafeteria, but with packages and a little less à la carte.

*sigh* No, not at all. There's no picking and choosing. Here read this article on Biblical hermeneutics at Wikipedia. Depending on which sect you belong to, the hermenutical method will be different. That's because each sect believes that their own interpretation is the Truth and everyone else is getting it wrong.

If you need an analogy, it's the same type of thing as having various interpretations of a Constitutional Amendment. Depending on the decision of the Supreme Court, various things are Constitutional or not. Now remove the Supreme Court from the equation and just try to have all the lawyers, with their different legal arguments, come to an agreement.

Remember, the legal arguments are not wrong - for instance, Jim Crow has been Constitutional before and isn't now, and both times the Supreme Court was right, because they decide what is right. Jim Crow could be argued again to be Constitutional. But take away the Supreme Court and just try to have the lawyers all come to a unanimous decision...I'm sure you can imagine how well that works.

I'm aware of the role of the GM. I was likening his role to say, the Pope's or Oral Roberts's, the players' to the congregations, and Gary Gygax's and Dave Arneson's roles as God's.

I'll quote an old gaming saying: "At the game, the GM is God." A better analogy would be that the GM is God, the players are humanity, and the RPG rulebook is the Bible - but only the GM's interpretation counts. The players can argue about the interpretation all they like, but the GM's decision is final.

In this analogy, the Pope would be the player that all the other players elect as team leader and spokesman.

Not good. That leads to everyone having a different answer to something that should have one answer.

That's like saying that art should only have one answer. Or literature in general. Or movies. Subjective things like faith don't work like that.

Nor do the translations vary as much as you assert.

You really want to bet on that? It can't even be agreed between Christian denominations as to which translation is correct or even what's canon or not. Or what parts are allegorical or not. There are over 50 different Modern English translations alone - and that only covers the past 2 centuries. This is why you get people arguing that only the King James version translation published between the years 1611-1759 CE is the only correct Bible and all others are false.

No, you're just muddying the waters so you can try to have things your way.

No, I'm not. Literary criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature and is absolutely essential to critically understand any work of literature, be it religious or not. You may not agree with the academic discipline, but don't dismiss it out of hand if you don't know what you're talking about. I become remarkably cranky when people do that. It's anti-intellectualism at its worst.

But the "blue", Bible, socio-cultural items, et al., are not important in understanding the "how".

Subjective items are not about "how". "How" is usually irrelevant in subjective disciplines, replaced by "Why". See sociology.

So, the easiest thing to do is read the Bible and see which sect doesn't ignore any of what Jesus says.

Nope. For instance, what is the meaning of parable of the Prodigal Son? You'll find at least 10 different interpretations of that parable and what Jesus was trying to tell us.

I would like to meet these atheists, not to party with them but just to know that they even exist. The ones I know of encourage studying culture and literature.

I will be happy to introduce you to them.

Not a good analogy.

So you say. But why? I consider it a good analogy. Tell me why you think it is not a good analogy.

How is it the same?

If I stood up and said that COBOL is the best programming language and that all other programming languages need to be judged by the standard of COBOL, what would you say to that? (Or Java. Or Perl. Or anything.)

Bible.

Some think so. The official Roman Catholic Position is "The Bible is the Word of God as written and interpreted by Man.", implying that in the writing and interpreting, Man has possibly gotten things wrong.

See cafeteria mentality.

Complexity & M

I see. If it can't be explained, change the vocabulary.

Oh come on now. You know that specialized and complex disciplines of any type often use specialized terminology. Look at law as a perfect example. The definitions of 'victim', 'theft', and 'tort' are incredibly detailed and complex and differ greatly from the vernacular usage of those words. Or computerese. Or any other jargon.

Several before entering the seminary, quite a few during, and some more after.

Then you should know everything I'm saying and then some. I should not have to explain either Biblical hermeneutics or literary criticism to you at all. ESPECIALLY if you went through seminary.

In fact, that rather pisses me off. Here I've been explaining things that, by your own admission, you should already know. So exactly what is the purpose of this meaningless exercise, since it is not honest discussion?

Yes, I'm rather familiar with Ted Rall, also known as the Ann Coulter of the Left. I have the same amount of respect for him as I do for Ann Coulter too.

[Ipecac Drano]

The Christians came from the Jews. Christians in general are Jews who believe the Jesus was the promised Messiah. Current Jews believe Jesus was not. Although that's a very simplistic explanation. So yes, it would make sense that the Jews had the Creation story first; the Old Testament is a version of the Torah.

Even though the Creation story had belonged to at least two religions before the Jews.

As for Catholics not being the first organized Christians, that's not true at all. Catholics, period, were the first organized church, arising in the 2nd Century AD. Of course, then it was simply called "Christian". But in the beginning, when the disparate churches were organized, all swore allegiance to the Vicar of Rome based on the Primacy of Peter. That was in the 200s CE.

There was an organized Church before the Catholics and Greek Orthodox had split apart from each other.

No, not at all. There's no picking and choosing. Here read this article on Biblical hermeneutics at Wikipedia. Depending on which sect you belong to, the hermenutical method will be different. That's because each sect believes that their own interpretation is the Truth and everyone else is getting it wrong.

So, all one has to do is go with the sect that picks and chooses for them the parts of the Bible that appeals to them.

If you need an analogy, it's the same type of thing as having various interpretations of a Constitutional Amendment. Depending on the decision of the Supreme Court, various things are Constitutional or not. Now remove the Supreme Court from the equation and just try to have all the lawyers, with their different legal arguments, come to an agreement.

So you pick and choose the parts of the Constitution that appeal to you.

Remember, the legal arguments are not wrong - for instance, Jim Crow has been Constitutional before and isn't now, and both times the Supreme Court was right, because they decide what is right. Jim Crow could be argued again to be Constitutional. But take away the Supreme Court and just try to have the lawyers all come to a unanimous decision...I'm sure you can imagine how well that works.

Unlike in religion, where there is a Supreme Being around with fellings to hurt because his followers feel it's okay to change his rules (or ignore them).

I'll quote an old gaming saying: "At the game, the GM is God." A better analogy would be that the GM is God, the players are humanity, and the RPG rulebook is the Bible - but only the GM's interpretation counts. The players can argue about the interpretation all they like, but the GM's decision is final.

So, the GM is more like the demiurge that proclaims it is God. Sounds pretty Gnostic!

That's like saying that art should only have one answer. Or literature in general. Or movies. Subjective things like faith don't work like that.

But I wasn't talking about art, literature and cinema, so it's not like that. Now, when you get people who talk about God and religion as if were something as tangible as hands I am typing with, then it's okay to talk about them in such a manner.

You really want to bet on that? It can't even be agreed between Christian denominations as to which translation is correct or even what's canon or not. Or what parts are allegorical or not. There are over 50 different Modern English translations alone - and that only covers the past 2 centuries. This is why you get people arguing that only the King James version translation published between the years 1611-1759 CE is the only correct Bible and all others are false.

I'm talking about underlying meaning, not just substituting words like "smite" and "kill".

No, I'm not. Literary criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature and is absolutely essential to critically understand any work of literature, be it religious or not. You may not agree with the academic discipline, but don't dismiss it out of hand if you don't know what you're talking about. I become remarkably cranky when people do that. It's anti-intellectualism at its worst.

Of course, you're not. Someone else did it for you.

Subjective items are not about "how". "How" is usually irrelevant in subjective disciplines, replaced by "Why". See sociology.

Seen.

Nope. For instance, what is the meaning of parable of the Prodigal Son? You'll find at least 10 different interpretations of that parable and what Jesus was trying to tell us.

Even though they sound the same.

I will be happy to introduce you to them.

Cool!

So you say. But why? I consider it a good analogy. Tell me why you think it is not a good analogy.

Tell me how it applies.

If I stood up and said that COBOL is the best programming language and that all other programming languages need to be judged by the standard of COBOL, what would you say to that? (Or Java. Or Perl. Or anything.)

I would ask you your reasoning behind the statement.

Some think so. The official Roman Catholic Position is "The Bible is the Word of God as written and interpreted by Man.", implying that in the writing and interpreting, Man has possibly gotten things wrong.

All the more reason to dump it and what it teaches and start over.

Oh come on now. You know that specialized and complex disciplines of any type often use specialized terminology. Look at law as a perfect example. The definitions of 'victim', 'theft', and 'tort' are incredibly detailed and complex and differ greatly from the vernacular usage of those words. Or computerese. Or any other jargon.

Anything to make God and Jesus seem like real entities.

Then you should know everything I'm saying and then some. I should not have to explain either Biblical hermeneutics or literary criticism to you at all. ESPECIALLY if you went through seminary.

So you wasted both of our time. Shame on you.

In fact, that rather pisses me off. Here I've been explaining things that, by your own admission, you should already know. So exactly what is the purpose of this meaningless exercise, since it is not honest discussion?

I don't know. I was pretty much satisfied with what I had posted a few days ago.

Yes, I'm rather familiar with Ted Rall, also known as the Ann Coulter of the Left. I have the same amount of respect for him as I do for Ann Coulter too.

"The Ann Coulter of the Left"... I never heard that before. Interesting, as he tends to bash on both sides of the political fence.

What you fail to admit is that there is no point in believing in something that's based on flawed literature. Said "God" and "Jesus" come from a book that--whether or not you agree--contradicts itself and has errors and just plain unsavory parts that it's followers either ignore or are not aware of to begin with. I understand the concept of apologetics and feel that if one has to lie and pretend to support their beliefs, it's bullshit.