Obama..... not religious?

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Just to clarify, that wasn't my point. In fact, I think that is stronger evidence against a god, and toward the tendency of man to construct anthropomorphic gods.

I know, and that's more in line with my personal view as well. My statement above could be a combination of misconstruing Frank's premise on the question of "Is there a God" and my attempt to keep my own views out of the discussion beyond the level of mutual respect and acceptance. I am finding the study of panentheism (not pantheism) interesting but I can't say that it currently influences my beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

An impressionistic painting of a tree is beautiful; it may tell us a lot about the impressionistic painter. But no, it does not tell us anything valuable about the tree.

Are you serious? You dont think a work of art, such as an impressionistic painting, is able to capture something about the tree - its marvel or wonder, its vibrancy, its strength - that a photograph might not be able to convey?

I know the tree only came up as an example, of course, but yeah - it does seem like it's one that exposes a .. urr .. hmm. A disconnect in perspective or understanding of things, which probably explains the lack of mutual understanding on the subject of religion as well.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Quote:

Are you serious? You dont think a work of art, such as an impressionistic painting, is able to capture something about the tree - its marvel or wonder, its vibrancy, its strength - that a photograph might not be able to convey?

Sure, an impressionistic painting can capture the marvel, the wonder, and the vibrancy of the tree. But marvel, wonder, and vibrancy aren't features of the tree. They are features of how we feel about the tree, which is something else.

Likewise, a liberal interpretation of the Bible tells us how theologically liberal Christians feel about the Bible. But it doesn't tell us much about the Bible.

2 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Then we're stuck. The analogy of Bill as God, Melinda as Jesus, and life 5000 years from now would make an interesting South Park episode, but it still wouldn't represent Truth.

"Oh my god -- You killed Jesus!"

"You bastids!"

You didn't say that without god, Jesus, etc we would lose half the music. You said we would lose it without religion. That's different.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Likewise, a liberal interpretation of the Bible tells us how theologically liberal Christians feel about the Bible. But it doesn't tell us much about the Bible.

That fact that the concept of interpretation is used when discussing this document is a result of the ambiguous nature of the document. In a case where a document is sufficiently ambiguous that dozens, or hundreds or even thousands of interpretations are offered points up sharply the extent to which all but the looniest interpretations (those which claim a passage means what it patently does not say, or that it means what is patently the opposite of what it says)--the extent to which any one interpretation has as much validity as any one other interpretation. To that extent, and this is significant with so ambiguous a document, there isn't much that we can be told about this document. When internal contradictions and historical and geographic absurdities are thrown into the mix, the end product of any "pan-biblical" interpretation ranges from the hilariously ludicrous to the merely dubious.

That ambiguity is responsible to a great extent for the significant fragmentation of Protestant sects, a process which began immediately after that crazy ol' Luther, and which continues to this day. Given sufficient credulity on the part of the audience, and enough intellectual gymnastics, and almost any absurdity or enormity can be authorized.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I don't see why that's so unreasonable. You've done it yourself, when you said that Moslems and Bahais are not Christians, so it's a little late to be saying that no one is qualified to set himself up as an arbiter of who is Christian and who isn't.

But Muslims and Bahais aren't claiming to be Christian.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Sure, an impressionistic painting can capture the marvel, the wonder, and the vibrancy of the tree. But marvel, wonder, and vibrancy aren't features of the tree. They are features of how we feel about the tree, which is something else.

Likewise, a liberal interpretation of the Bible tells us how theologically liberal Christians feel about the Bible. But it doesn't tell us much about the Bible.

That's fine as far as it goes, but once you move from discussing what the characters in the Bible do, and move it into the realm of how can the Bible inform faith, or how can one follow such a hypocritical book, then you're straying into how people feel about the Bible.

If you look at the Bible and see just a book, that doesn't mean that everyone else's perspective has to be so limited.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Here's your logical failing here, Joe. It is your definition which i am disputing.

No kidding.

Setanta wrote:

In a debate about whether or not your definition is valid, to use that definition to attempt to demonstrate that examples i offer in contradiction are incorrect most certainly is an example of begging the question.

I am weary of trying to teach you what "begging the question" means. If you haven't gotten it by now, you never will.

Setanta wrote:

My position is not that Christian is a meaningless category. I have provided the definitions of Christian that i consider reasonable. That they are not your definition is not evidence that they are meaningless.

I agree. I think your definition of "Christian" is meaningless because, in the end, anyone can be a "Christian," including people who don't even know that they're "Christians." That, to me, means that the category is meaningless.

Setanta wrote:

My grasp of logic is certainly sufficient to see that you are attempting to establish the validity of your definition by using it as a premise to deny examples which i provide in contradiction of your definition. My grasp of logic is certainly sufficient to note that you have offered no other basis for your definition than bald assertion.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

But Muslims and Bahais aren't claiming to be Christian.

Is everyone who claims to be a "Christian" a Christian?

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Is everyone who claims to be a "Christian" a Christian?

On what authority would you deny the claim?

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Perhaps that question can be rephrased in a way that easily shows why no authority other than common sense is needed to deny that kind of claim.

So...

...Is everyone who claims to be Napoleon...Napoleon?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Get as weary as you like; you have nothing to teach. I am disputing your definition of Christian, and yet you attempt to use it to reject parts of my argument. Holy circularity, Batman, that begs the question of the validity of your definition.

It is bullshit that someone can be Christian if they don't know it based on the definitions i used--because those definitions entail following the teachings of the putative Christ, something which someone could not do if they didn't know who the putative Christ is said to be. You only claim the definitions i have employed are meaningless because they are not consonant with your definition, upon which you insist.

You can roll your eyes to your heart's content. You have attempted to use your definition of Christian to sustain an argument about the validity of the defintion, and that is begging the question. You have offered no basis for your definition other than ipse dixit.

0 Replies

That's a false analogy (the two cases are not analogous), and it's pretty damned feeble-minded. Only one person can be Napoleon, but many people may be Christian. Only someone born on the island of Corsica in 1769 can be Napoleon, which makes it easy to dispose of such a claim. Disposing of the claim of someone who says that he or she is Christian is not so easy, even if one disagrees with why he or she says so.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

...no authority other than common sense is needed to deny that kind of claim.

...Is everyone who claims to be Napoleon...Napoleon?

I would call that uncommon nonsense.

You are appear confused about the difference between an individual person and a class of person.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Okay...take 'em one at a time...if you think that helps you!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

That's a false analogy (the two cases are not analogous),

Well, it probably was not the best analogy...but it was cute.

Quote:

...and it's pretty damned feeble-minded.

Nah...nothing I say is feeble-minded...although you do seem to be an expert on feeble-mindedness...and you did get me thinking, Set.

Quote:

Only one person can be Napoleon, but many people may be Christian. Only someone born on the island of Corsica in 1769 can be Napoleon, which makes it easy to dispose of such a claim.

Really...so Napoleon Solo would not qualify as a Napoleon.

For all you know Set...many of the people claiming to be Napoleon...are Napoleon....and they were not born in Corsica.

Quote:

Disposing of the claim of someone who says that he or she is Christian is not so easy, even if one disagrees with why he or she says so.

Not according to your reasoning...but so far as I know, no laws have been passed making your reasoning the gold standard.

1 Reply

How about: Is everybody who claims to be an American citizen...an American citizen.

"Maria...don't forget to polish the silver!"

1 Reply

Is every person who claims to be not-guilty...not guilty?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

It's no analogy at all, and there is nothing "cute" about it.

A great deal of what you offer as argument is feeble-minded.

"Napoleon Solo" is a fictional character, but i'm not surprised that the distinction escapes you. Referring to Napoleon, with no further qualifier, can reasonably be considered a reference to Napoleon Bonaparte. If someone refers to Jesus, without further qualifier, there is no reason to assume that that someone is referring to Jesus Mendez, the guy who manages his investments for him.

Just where do you allege that "Napoleon Solo" was born, Frankie?

I'm not insisting upon my reasoning. And it's not a choice between my definition of Christian and yours, with no other claims involved. You'll have to deal with JPB and DD on the merits of their own claims--you can't dismiss them by dismissing my definition.

1 Reply

Was every person who claims to have been at Woodstock...at Woodstock?

1 Reply

Obama..... not religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know