|
Miltank posted:I don't deny that the scientific process could have developed elsewhere, but where it did develop it was influenced by religion and culture in tangible ways. I am speaking historically- not as an apologist, when I say that Christianity had an effect on the development of the scientific method. Fair enough.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:That is some Dan Brown level silly conspiracy level bullshit right there. I expected better. What was Constantine doing there, sweeping the floor?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What was Constantine doing there, sweeping the floor? Participating in /moderating the arguments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah all the things, except things like Didache and the secret sayings and all the stuff that actually gives you a clear, unflinching portrait of a hard-rear end desert mystic who taught that everything other than kindness is poo poo. Who was left behind? Idiots who missed the point, and psycho hucksters like Paul. Well there is Trinitarianism in the Didache descriptions of baptism, which puts it (the idea of Trinity) really drat early, between 40-60 early. Look, I think the question is " "Are we justified in using such a symbol for the event Jesus as the Christ?" such a symbol meaning concepts like: Son of God, Logos Incarnation, ,etc In other words, Do we, Christians, have valid reasons to uses those constructed theological concepts to talk about this hard-assed jew, "who taught that everything other than kindness is poo poo" and who was probably executed for it? Well when I look at the origins of those words, what the people saying them were trying to communicate. I still answer that question yes. When I look at something like Nicaea, I ask are we justified in saying these things about Jesus, I still answer that question yes. SedanChair posted:The Nicene creed is not in the Bible. It was a conspiracy by the Roman government to obscure the practical nature of Jesus' message. It's also the communal consensus. It's what the communities could get together about and all agree on. It's what most Christians believed, and importunately it addressed and responded to what most Christians rejected. But it's also what you say it is too. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's also the communal consensus. It's what the communities could get together about and all agree on. For certain definitions of "get together and agree", such as "use the power of the Imperial state to send out the military and murder communities of believers who thought something different", of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Participating in /moderating the arguments. Nothing to see here, I'm just 4th century Michael Kinsey up in the cut. I'm just making sure everyone gets along and expresses their views.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Participating in /moderating the arguments. Get that loving cited evidence outa this room!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well I'm not an expert on hume either, but I cannot accept this framing it as something simply about conversations or debate, as you steadfastly do. The little syllogism wasn't meant to patronize, as to analogize. The point was the it wasn't 'just' a statement about debating or 'reasonable conversation', but about truth or knowledge: if this is true, then this also must be true. The inability to create an objective morality is similar. All we have let are subjects. Right, and there's a difference between a statement where the truth is determined by the meaning of the terms alone and one that depends on experience. That was what got me confused earlier, when you talked about profound truth about the outside world. But since that seems to have been a misunderstanding, maybe we can leave that aside. If I understand you correctly, you think that morality as god's law (or anything like that) violates the definition of morality (because of the is-ought gap) in the same way that 2+2=5 violates our understanding of the terms used and mathematical identity. I don't think this is the case, simply because that isn't what the is-ought gap does. The idea of morality as god's law (or an aspect of his will or anything like that) does not by itself create any contradiction or impossibility. The problem only arises once you push god out of the picture and focus instead on the individuals and groups who put forward moral codes in god's name. This idea is of course ridiculous from the atheistic perspective. To them there is no god and any notion we have of such an entity consists entirely of the claims made in its name by men. This leads to the contradiction you mentioned. You assume that god exists but, perhaps without even noticing it yourself, seem to revert to the atheistic position (and replace god with men) when you flatly deny that morality could possibly be identified with the will of god. This conclusion doesn't follow from the is-ought problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Most of the German and French ones were Latin for centuries before translations were allowed SHORTLY before the KJV. It wasn't a coincidence that the translations coincided with the invention of the printing press. Right. They were translated into Latin. The common language of most of the people at the time and for centuries hence. You keep doing this thing where you pretend like Latin was never spoken by the common people. It's childish. VitalSigns posted:Pretty sure believing the God parts, especially the resurrection parts, is essential to Christianity You cited something that had to be made up after a few centuries of bickering and a massive meeting of church leaders, precisely since the Bible was so unclear or out right didn't cover a lot of things, as proof that it's all from the Bible. That's hillarious. The various Creeds are direct contradiction of Christian practice originating from the bible, even though everyone would swear up and down they totally were getting it from the Bible (and only their way was the correct way).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Nothing to see here, I'm just 4th century Michael Kinsey up in the cut. I'm just making sure everyone gets along and expresses their views. From what we know that is literally what he did, and then took credit for a bunch of it while keeping the Christians happy that the state would not persecute them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:
Which Christian communities were left out of the Niceaen meeting?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Right. They were translated into Latin. The common language of most of the people at the time and for centuries hence. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/structure/latin.html Hmmmmmmm.... Methinks it wasn't a 'Common' Language, more a language of the middle upper class in Medieval Society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You cited something that had to be made up after a few centuries of bickering and a massive meeting of church leaders, precisely since the Bible was so unclear or out right didn't cover a lot of things, as proof that it's all from the Bible. That's hillarious. The various Creeds are direct contradiction of Christian practice originating from the bible, even though everyone would swear up and down they totally were getting it from the Bible (and only their way was the correct way). I know that refusing to take a definite stance and pedantically shifting is your thing, so let's cut to the chase. Do the majority of Christians today believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus on the third day literally happened, like the Gospels say, or not? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/structure/latin.html Medieval Society came hundreds of years after the Church was established in Europe. What aren't you comprehending here besides literally everything to do with religion? VitalSigns posted:I know that refusing to take a definite stance and pedantically shifting is your thing, so let's cut to the chase. Do the majority of Christians today believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus on the third day literally happened, like the Gospels say, or not? Like which of the Gospels say? Most of them describe it differently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Like which of the Gospels say? Most of them describe it differently. Answer the loving question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Like which of the Gospels say? Most of them describe it differently. quote:By combining the various gospels' accounts Jesus' death and resurrection, one can develop a common story that is consistent with most of the Biblical texts: Simon from Cyrene was pressed into service to carry the cross from Jerusalem to Golgatha, the place of crucifixion. There, Jesus was offered a drink of wine mixed with a bitter substance. He refused. He was nailed to the cross through his palms and feet. Two robbers were crucified with him; one on either side. People passing by hurled insults. From the 6th to the 9th hour, it became dark. Jesus cried out. He was offered vinegar to drink. He cried out again and died. The gospels record different final messages. The veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom by an unknown force. Joseph of Arimathea obtained permission to take Jesus' body to his private tomb. He wrapped the body in a clean linen cloth, placed it in the tomb and sealed the entrance. On Sunday morning, an unknown number of women came to the tomb. The stone had been rolled away. They found that Jesus' body was missing. http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec2.htm
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Caros posted:Answer the loving question. He needs to actually clarify which account he's talking about, given that they are different stories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He needs to actually clarify which account he's talking about, given that they are different stories. Any of them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, I don't know, Origins of Species, Theory of Relativity, books actually founded in reality and impact my life directly... It is estimated to have been written between 80-90, and as we all know, it's impossible someone could live to be that old! (Assuming, of course, that Matthew was the same age as Christ; he could have been younger). Miltank posted:His point is that even Mardi Gras isn't sex positive, only sex permissive. Catholic doctrine holds sex as a vice which can be justified only if done for utilitarian purposes. I wouldn't say it's purely "utilitarian". Sex is held to be a great gift from God, but it is only acceptable in the divinely intended circumstances -- specifically, in a marital union, in which the lovers do not intentionally prevent the possibility of conception. A celibate gives up sex for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, see the Lord's quote on it in Matthew 19:12.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Like which of the Gospels say? Most of them describe it differently. That he was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day. The details don't matter for the same reason that different sources on the precise number of Persians at Platea matter when it comes to whether we accept that a battle happened and the Greeks won, or not. Do most Christians believe this literally happened, or don't they? Caros posted:Any of them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Caros posted:Any of them? None of them have a majority. VitalSigns posted:That he was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day. The details don't matter for the same reason that different sources on the precise number of Persians at Platea matter when it comes to whether we accept that a battle happened and the Greeks won, or not. The details matter pretty significantly if we're going to claim people are literalists about their belief. Believing a general gist of multiple opposing stories is true is decidedly un-literalist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The details matter pretty significantly if we're going to claim people are literalists about their belief. Believing a general gist of multiple opposing stories is true is decidedly un-literalist. I'm not claiming that people are textual literalists. I am disputing this claim that you made: Nintendo Kid posted:And most people who read the Bible in this planet don't believe the God parts just like they don't believe the Greek god parts of the Trojan War. That most Christians don't believe any of the supernatural "God parts" in the Bible. Unless, once again, you are being maximally pendatic by including "everyone who is not a Christian and thinks the Bible is bullshit but has read part of it" here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Also you all know you are arguing with fishmech and this is their MO right? Its Victor with less crazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not claiming that people are textual literalists. I am disputing this claim that you made: Oh I see, you think "most people who read the Bible" somehow means "most Christians". Most people who read the Bible are non-christians, because there's 5 billion non Christians out there and many Christians don't actually read it. This isn't being pedantic, I was making a specific point about how the Bible isn't a thing only Christians read and know of, and tons of the people who have read it do not believe the religious parts at all, just like most people who've read various things like Greek accounts of the Trojan Wars don't believe the greek pantheon poo poo that was woven in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Oh I see, you think "most people who read the Bible" somehow means "most Christians". Most people who read the Bible are non-christians, because there's 5 billion non Christians out there and many Christians don't actually read it. VitalSigns posted:Pretty sure believing the God parts, especially the resurrection parts, is essential to Christianity
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
I never said "Christians don't believe anything about Christianity", nice attempt at a strawman though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Also you all know you are arguing with fishmech and this is their MO right? Its Victor with less crazy.  Yes, but this thread is filled with depraved circular logic, so might as well go with the flow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So unless by "most people who read the bible", you mean "people who have read it and don't believe it" then okay that's obvious. But if you're saying Christians don't believe any of the magic God stuff in the Bible, that's obviously wrong. Nintendo Kid posted:Oh I see, you think "most people who read the Bible" somehow means "most Christians". Most people who read the Bible are non-christians, because there's 5 billion non Christians out there and many Christians don't actually read it. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Yeah I get it, you were too moronic to read what I wrote before you wrote anything. Not my problem. You people chose to run a game with literalism, then get all mad when literalism is used as a basis. It's classic!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Sancho posted:Which Christian communities were left out of the Niceaen meeting? They tried to get everybody. I think the question of which heretical groups and which beliefs were rejected is more important. No to Arianism, homoousios instead of heirachry, monarchianism instead of emanation. The Nicean creed is not a positive affirmation even though it seems to be one superficially. It's a rejection of alternatives. The alternatives have repercussions and generally speaking they aren't good repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah I get it, you were too moronic to read what I wrote before you wrote anything. Not my problem. Something's classic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah I get it, you were too moronic to read what I wrote before you wrote anything. Not my problem. Yeah it's your problem that you were too busy being a dipshit to notice I asked in my first post if you meant what you only finally came out and said you meant two pages later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:They tried to get everybody. I think the question of which heretical groups and which beliefs were rejected is more important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
The non-Nicean interpretations were all wrong because they did not view the Bible holistically (which is to say, they preferred certain passages over others, instead of viewing the totality as true and coming up with explanations for all of it, and accepting paradox in the presence of apparently contradictory teachings). Non-Niceans also accepted Gnostic writings which were clearly highly warped parodies that were totally inconsistent in spirit with the primary writings. Arianism is nonsensical if you read Scripture, where Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." The only way you can get around statements like this is to say "Well, that part of the Bible is wrong." Only orthodox teaching is correct and the rest is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
I am not a good enough poster to restore irony to this thread but I really enjoyed it while it lasted. God bless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Only orthodox teaching is correct and the rest is wrong. Submit! Submit to the will of the Catholic Church! 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The non-Nicean interpretations were all wrong because they did not view the Bible holistically (which is to say, they preferred certain passages over others, instead of viewing the totality as true and coming up with explanations for all of it, and accepting paradox in the presence of apparently contradictory teachings). Paragraph 2: You should reject these writings which were totally inconsistent with these other writings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Paragraph 1: You have to accept all the writings, and accept that there is paradox in the face of apparently contradictory teaching. You can't prefer any passage over any other. Paragraph 37: Oh that other part of the Bible that says I'm wrong? Well you can't take it literally. Perhaps it means the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Paragraph 37: Oh that other part of the Bible that says I'm wrong? Well you can't take it literally. Perhaps it means the opposite. Luckily these difficult questions of scriptural interpretation have been worked out for us, and the results are handily available in the Catechism. I agree, it would be terrible to have to try to work all this out on your own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Luckily these difficult questions of scriptural interpretation have been worked out for us, and the results are handily available in the Catechism. Much like we have lawyers to help us understand things like the CFR, there are cannon lawyers to help us understand the things in the Catechism. If you're interested enough, it's even a career path you can follow! But the layman has, in fact, probably not spent enough time studying things to understand them very well. Which is how you end up with people (some in this very thread!) who insist on a literal reading of the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 22:13
|
|
