Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Welcome to A2K, Trying!

We need to clue you in that there have been many discussions here about the new tendency of believing Christians (particularly fundamentalist Christians) to "shout in public" about their faith and that it's very offensive to those who don't share their faith. Those of us who don't have a religious faith -- or are non-Christians -- are also committed Americans who know that under our law everyone has a right to their own religious beliefs and to express those beliefs in their place of worship, in their homes, and in other private venues. To do so insistently in a public place is to make it very awkward and unwelcoming to others. I'm sure you'll understand that and try not to assume that your god must be our god, or that we should share the same beliefs. Thank you.

0 Replies

Just had to share this article.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6466260.htm
"Gay Bishop Lives Up to Calm Reputation"

0 Replies

,
Now, don't let Tartarin put ya off much there, Trying. This can be a tough crowd, allright, but as you can see from the hundreds of replies in this month-old thread (heck, some threads here have well over ten thousand of replies) the discussion has some background ... and has taken, developed, and returned from a couple key digressions and a few lesser sidebars ... in fact, that's what's goin' on here. I must ademit. You're more than welcome to engage in the discussion, but I think what Tartarin was tryin' to say was along the lines of preaching, evangelism, proselytizing, and doctrinare parroting of official lines ain't gonna cut it here, Christian, Political, Philosophic, or as regard Science, the Arts, or the other Humanities. You've fallen into a bunch of folks quite fond of exchanging, discussing, disecting, critiqueing, and rebutting propositions, assertions, and positions (when they're being polite, anyway ... and mostly everybody is, most of the time). If you wanna toss something out on the table, go ahead ... but don't be dismayed should that something get picked up, checked over, even tested and tossed back to the pile already being shopped. If you want anyone to to even casually consider, let alone buy, your argument, you're gonna have to shine it up some and do something about loose threads and rough edges. This mob is fussy about that sort of thing. Welcome to A2k! If ya wanna, go ahead, roll up your sleeves, and dig into the Terms of Service, the Guidelines, and maybe even the FAQ (all clickable via the colored links at the bottom of my posts), and perhaps read a sampling of development of this thread (You might find some useful ammunition for yourself back there somewhere). Anyone can play, but be advised, this group plays REAL hard. Good luck.

Tartarin's observation that not everyone is a Christian, and implication some might even be emotional about it, is an apparent given. While hard data is hard to find and figures vary, by general consensus, this planet has a populatiob of some nearly six and a half billion people, having increased 50% in the past 30 years. I may be wrong, but to my observation, of this total, Christianity in all its guises tallies some 2 billion adherents, roughly 1 1/4 billion of whom are Catholic or Orthodox, with the remainder distributed among myriad Protestant denominations and sects. Islam is the next most subscribed faith, with perhaps as many as 1 1/4 billion adherents, followed by Hinduism at about an even billion, then Budhism, estimated to number around 1/2 to 3/4 billion followers, it should be born in mind also that the bulk of China's billion-plus is, at least officially, areligious (all estimates generous, see links below for some sources and further commentary). Of these, the only faith growing in membership at a pace greater than the rate of population growth is Islam, while Hinduism and Budhism essentially remain static in proportion and Christianity's growth lags behind the curve of population growth, near or below the mortality rate, with the steepest decline evidenced by Catholicism. 2/3 to perhaps 3/4 of the world's population is not Christian, with the proportion of Non-Christians growing at a steadily increasing rate vs Christians . Another way to look at that would be to conider Christianity faces statistical probability of extinction. barring a relatively near-term, unusually significant shift in prevailing global demographic trends. Some of this is due to the overall lower birthrate in the predominantly Christian "Developed", or "Western", World, of course, but regardless of cause, Christianity is a minority proposition with diminishing prospect.

(dialup warning: May include large PDF, other document file types, and/or spreadsheets)
http://www.prb.org/
http://www.pbs.org/sixbillion/index.html
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop
http://www.adherents.com/rel_by_adh_CSM.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Hey, CodeBorg ... I'm fascinated by that whole circus. The dust hasn't begun to settle! The implications for the entire Ecumenical Movement are mindboggling. Stay tuned t that; there are several acts to come ... and its probably gonna get louder Very Happy

0 Replies

You've got data. I like data. Thanks.

A persons arguments and logic can say only so much, but what I enjoy
seeing is how people conduct themselves as they argue.
Their manner often says more than their reasoning itself,
and sets the example of what they teach.

What kinds of philosophies, spirituality or even religion produce a
person who is patient, inquiring, studious, considerate, well-reasoned,
capable, gentle and respectful of others?

I'm very curious to find something like that.

0 Replies

Re: Don't attack Christianity.

Tryingtohelp50 wrote:

God bought your salvation with his blood. Who knows the ways of God but God? Do you really think you know more than God? I know I don't. So don't question God, don't let sin swallow you. Let God save you. FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE(He gave not in obligation) HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON (one and only) SO THAT WHOSEVER SHALT BELIEVE ON THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED. Amen to God.

Trying

Welcome to A2K.

I think Tartarin and Timber pretty much said what had to be said about what you should expect here in A2K.

But since your post was not addressed to anyone (it should be) and since it sounded like it might have been intended for me, I though a comment or two is in order.

I consider the passage at John 3:16 to be one of the most absurd in the Bible -- and that is quite an accomplishment, because I think the Bible is chock full of incredibly absurd comments.

A "sin" apparently is something that offends your god.

Your god could easily "forgive" all sins by simply not being offended by so much that humans do (after all, you folks "believe" your god invented us) -- or your god could simply say, "Okay, you've offended me, but I am going to let it pass.":

Instead, you apparently "believe" that your god made a compact with the world wherein your god offers: "I will forgive all your sins, but if you want me to do that, you first have got to torture and kill my son."

And you consider that something to be grateful for???

If a human decided he would forgive something you owe him, but only under the condition that you first torture and kill his son, what would you think of that human?

If you read a story of a human doing that, what would you think?

Do you not see that the thrust of your argument is way off base?

Would you like to discuss it? We do allow lots of digressions in these threads.

0 Replies

Uh-oh.

0 Replies

Let us not forget....
Ok, let me go ahead and throw this out on the table. I happen to be a homo. I'm also a scientist. And as such, I tend to look at this whole relgion thing more objectively than most, I think. The way I see it, the Bible, as well as most other religious writings, is nothing more than a set of stories, much like Aesop's fables. They were meant to teach moral lessons. But we should take these Biblical sotries no more literally than we take the story of the Haire vs. the Turtle.
That being said, look at it like this: The Bible is a (several) book(s). It was written by man. I understand that it proclaims it was written by man as narrated by God, but nonetheless, the hand that inked its pages was mortal. This book is like any other book. The only difference being, this particular book claims to be the ultimate. It claims to be an instruction booklet for life. Now, in all objective reality, I could write a book and claim that IT is the "real truth." Of course, no one would believe that, simply because the Bible came frist. The Bible offers absolutely no proof that it is what it says. Yet people believe in it.
People NEED faith. Not all people, but most people. Faith is what gets people through the harder times in their life. I mean, people are unable to accept that bad things happen to good people, for no reason. They are unable to accept the though that after death, there is nothing. We want to believe that everything has a purpose, all bad happenings are part of a greater picture. We want to bleieve that we will, in some sense, be forever, beyond death.
In any case, the Bible is a book. The Bible is filled with stories and lessons with incredible ambiguity. The meaning of the Bible comes largely from interpretation. We can twist and contort the meanings of the stories to serve nearly any purpose we wish. This has been going on since the Bible's birth. This book is not something to be taken literally. This book should not be a tool to judge the lives of people - of any religion or even sexuality.
Not all gay men are evil, granted I know some... And not all straight men are good. It is silly to say that the gay man is, by default, a bad person. I know i have done things in my life I'm not terribly proud of, as we all have. Though, I know I have never intentionally done anyone wrong. I go out of my way to be polite and help complete strangers. But, because I am gay, I'm automatically labeled as the "bad one." Quite honestly, I refuse to accept a relgion so bigotted that it would condemn a man based on such superficial attributes as his sexuality, instead of commending him for his inner GREAT person.
And I have a historical beef with this religion as well... Let us not forget that the name of God, throughout thousands of years, has been used by many holy men to committ crimes of unimaginable disgust. Entire civilizations have been slaughtered in the name of that book, and that god... How's that for sin?

I saw this hilarious SouthPark episode where everyone died and went to hell. And the devil said "The Mormons were right." So many relgions... which one to choose....or not.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

We need to clue... new tendency of believing Christians...... to "shout in public" about their faith and that it's very offensive to those who don't share their faith.

For some people, a public manifestation of Christian belief is "very offensive" by definition (for some strange reason, Judaism, Buddhism, and secular humanism are less offensive to many of them).

Others are offended by the public expression of homosexual tendencies, or of abortionists beliefs, or of anti-Christian views. But hey! Who cares about offending them!!! It is politically correct to be overtly anti-Christian and such... But heck, Christianity is at the very root of both Western and U.S. tradition, so you have no choice but to come across it.

Quote:

...committed Americans... under our law...

Ah, Patriotism...

Quote:

everyone has a right to their own religious beliefs and to express those beliefs in their place of worship, in their homes, and in other private venues.

Sorry, girl, but your law does not confine religious expression (or the expression of any other set of beliefs) to the private realm. That's what you'd like those oh so wonderful laws to do, but that's not what they actually do.

Quote:

To do so insistently in a public place is to make it very awkward and unwelcoming to others.

Some people are so very sensitive when it comes to what they don't want to listen, but so very blunt when it comes to having others listen to their own dear beliefs.

Quote:

I'm sure you'll understand that and try not to assume that your god must be our god, or that we should share the same beliefs.

C'mon, Tart!!! Get real!! You say all the time that Christians should abandon their God and buy into your set of beliefs!!!! Do you really care about being "offensive"? Why should others? Laughing

0 Replies

Rub-a-dub-dub, thanks for the grub USAF, and welcome! Laughing

Loved Satan and Saddam in South Park: The Movie...hilarious...

0 Replies

Hey, Timber!

I'm traveling and have little time to post comments...

I must say that I'm impressed with your guessing abilities. Seriusly. You got a few right! Now, my ranking goes as follows:

1. Craven, for some of his arguments...
2. Timber, for some of his intuitions...
3. [Still waiting for a candidate...]
4. I suppose I'd have to put Frank here...Well...

Here I go again:

timberlandko wrote:

Tartarin I would suspect maliagar has done quite a bit of homework in his time...

Yeah, tell her!

Quote:

he's obviously studied The Church...

Let's say, I'm studying it...

Quote:

and likely has graded a few engineering papers.

Not, engineering... nope.

Quote:

In all respect, he's a relatively prepared apologist for The Catholic Church...

I try, in my free time.

Quote:

...shows a bit of formal philosophic education...

Yeah, just a tiny little bit...

Quote:

...probably a minor degree thoroughly unrelated to his livelihood...

Right again, although I try to establish a connection between both...

Quote:

...likely not his only post-secondary academic achievement.

Right again! (although I had revealed many of these things before, right Frank?)

Quote:

There's a cockiness, an egoistic self-assuredness...

Most definitely...

Quote:

that suggests perhaps continuing post-graduate work...

If I were you, I'd emphasize the word "perhaps"...

Quote:

prolly in the sciences, with engineering a strong possibility.

Wrong here.

Quote:

He expresses himself well...

Thanks again...

Quote:

though idiomatic clues and certain phraseology lead me to suspect he is not a native speaker of American English...

Right...

Quote:

...all the more to his credit.

Tartarin? :wink:

Quote:

I would guess he grew up speaking a Romance language, Spanish or Portugese, most likely.

Very much true! Romance, Romantic, Romish, Latin...

Quote:

His energy and tenacity lead me to expect he's not yet middle aged...

Depends on your definition of middle aged. And I certainly hope not to loose my energy and tenacity (perhaps just direct them to the best of causes)...

Quote:

too young for a mid-life crisis, too old to go back and start over.

Well, life has plenty of crisis, and actually I'm considering starting all over... Smile

Quote:

He may even at one time have investigated taking the collar, and maybe has continuing conflict in that regard.

Still possible, considering that the Eastern Catholic churches ordain married men... :wink:

Quote:

Of course, this is the internet, and nobody can see anybody, so maliagar's web persona could be a front for a study group at a Catholic Girl's School, too, but I doubt it.

Good caveat. Perhaps my web persona is not the real me...

Quote:

One thing is for sure; he's convinced he's on the right path...

Yep! You're on the right path...

Quote:

whatever critical thinking he does is carefully compartmented away from his devotion to his faith...

Scientists and philosophers can consider all kinds of hypotheses without having to embrace (adopt, have faith in) any of them. It's most definitely a "careful compartmentalization" (neither confusion nor radical separation) of mental and life activities. We don't just throw ourselves into the arms of the first one who comes along... Smile

Quote:

...and its cultish reinforcement of prejudice and superstition.

Wrong here.

Quote:

What the heck, if it works for him, he's happy and that's fine ... for him.

Real happiness... only in the afterlife. We are here to sweat, for the sake of the Kingdom (Tart?). :wink:

Quote:

He's apparently bought the package.

Absolutely. To me Christianity is not a doctrine in the first place, but Wisdom personally communicated on a one-on-one basis (mentorship, discipleship) through the centuries. We all have our own questions, issues, and trouble spots. And the questions I asked when I was 15 are different from the questions I asked when I was 25 or 35. Growing in the faith means dealing with those issues in a spiritual way (not just doctrinal-theological), following the example of the best (the saints, canonized or not). I certainly have my own questionings, but they are very different from the ones the larger culture persistently hammers on the clueless. They are related to my own personal development, and not to secular propaganda.

Quote:

Personally, I've never been much for guesses and gambles.

That's an empirical question... We would have to see to what extent your certainties are really certainties, and not, deep down, just guesses, gambles, and conjectures.

[By the way, I certainly appreciate the value of Pascal's wager]

Now, regarding the argument of circularity in biblical interpretation, let's say just this (for the time being): It's very daring to claim that the issue hasn't been brought to the attention of Jewish and Christian thinkers over the centuries. I believe the issue is brought by those who believe that the Bible's role in Christianity is analogous as the Koran's role in Islam. And the roles are very different. One hint for dismissing this objection: Christianity is a HISTORICAL religion. As I've said tens of times already: Christianity started with Jesus sending people, and these people gathering more and more people. IT DID NOT START WITH A BOOK. IT DID NOT START WITH BIBLE VERSES THAT NEEDED TO BE INTERPRETED BY SOMEBODY... (Frank?) This is the Protestant persistent misunderstanding of Scripture, a misunderstanding that taints all discussions on these issues in countries with a Protestant background...

The Church had started to settle doctrinal issues well before the New Testament was written--i.e., well before the Bible was put together. Historically, the authority of the Church was active and operative before there were "verses to interpret", which is Frank's so very persistent misunderstanding.

More on this later (if time allows).

Take care.

0 Replies

Timber is kind -- and a Christian, Maliagar. But that doesn't make your homework relevant! (Nor did you answer my question; but PLEASE don't bother!)

Welcome, USAF! Nice to have you aboard. A voice of sanity. And anyone who quotes from South Park is a friend of mine!

0 Replies

Howdy, Hokie .. glad to see ya here. I imagine you're gonna find plenty of things to discuss around here. Hope you find it worthwhile. Yeah, I agree that "Not all men ...." is about the only absolute that can be applied. While I have personal preferences in the matters at discussion, I find it dismaying the issues are so polarizing. Whether or not I enjoy or endorse a particular, informed, consensual behavior is immaterial to the overall "rightness" or "wrongness" of the proposition. To my mind, some folks are gay, some are blond, some are conservative, and some have wierd taste in music; some are none of those, and some are some of those ... so what? I do have difficulty with the practice of defining one's life by one's sexuality ... I think that's limiting at best. If not more than the sum of our parts, we are less than human. I sense that of no benefit to the gay segment of society, indeed to no benefit to society at all, are the outrageous guerilla theater and diefiant confrontationalism evidenced by a few proponents of the homosexual orientation. Far from doing credit to their cause, I perceive such to be an impediment to accomodation and resolution, an embarrassment to their own and an irritant and object of ridicule to others. I feel those at the fringe are as ignorant, arrogant, prejudiced, and irrational as folks who blow up hospitals or hijack airliners, too. I figure one's right to privacy in purely private matters supercedes an awful lot, and includes the ethical obligation to be as tolerant of the views of others while respecting those other's own privacy ... I just don't see anything served by partisanship and proseltyizing either way. I don't much care what folks do provided it is done in mutual agreement, without intent of deception or other harm, and in respect of the rights of others to be disinclined to encounter the behavior. I sorta figure it oughta be up to me what I shove my face into, and what other folks should be able to shove into it in turn. I am an advocate of rights, period, and of the obligations those rights entail. One's ethinicity, complexion, gender or preference thereof, and philosophic persuasion are are simply not material to the root questions of morality, ethics, and legislation, insofar as one's proclivities in siuch regard do not conflict with the equally valid proclivities of others.

maliagar ... hi there! I've missed ya. Hope you're enjoying your travels, or at least finding them profitable. I look forward to your being able to devote more attention to this discussion as soon as meets your convenience. Thanks for the compliments, and be assured of my regard and respect for you, if not for your position in this particular matter. I'll probably address (or revisit Rolling Eyes

) a few related concerns raised by your reply to my conjectures in a following digression.

At the moment, however, I'd like to call attention of such as may be interested to a discussion of the Great Episcopal Bishop Brouhaha:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=308131#308131

Oh, maliagar ... if not The Sciences, Civil Studies?

0 Replies

deleted

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

[By the way, I certainly appreciate the value of Pascal's wager]

Pascal's Wager should be considered an insult to any God who might exist.

Quote:

IT DID NOT START WITH A BOOK. IT DID NOT START WITH BIBLE VERSES THAT NEEDED TO BE INTERPRETED BY SOMEBODY...

You are wrong there, Maliagar, at least for Christianity. For Christianity, it did start with a book.

That is what you are unwilling to face, Maliagar.

That is why you talk about a "god of Leviticus."

Quote:

(Frank?) This is the Protestant persistent misunderstanding of Scripture, a misunderstanding that taints all discussions on these issues in countries with a Protestant background...

The Church had started to settle doctrinal issues well before the New Testament was written--i.e., well before the Bible was put together. Historically, the authority of the Church was active and operative before there were "verses to interpret", which is Frank's so very persistent misunderstanding. More on this later (if time allows)

Take as long as you want. We are all here for the duration.

As for me -- or the Protestants, for that matter -- misunderstanding -- well, all I can say, in your present state of denial, I guess that is what it seems to be.

It isn't.

We are looking at things with an open mind -- you are looking at things the way the Church has instructed you to look at them.

In any case, I still challenge you to show me where the Catholic Church does all this resolving and explaining you claim it does.

The slavery issue is still out there waiting for us to discuss..

Let's do it!

You claim the church does all sorts of things with problem scripture -- and ultimately resolves it in a holistic approach.

I claim they simply ignore problem scripture -- pretend it doesn't exist. And, by insisting that the people depend upon them for interpretation -- and the luck of having people willing to do that to the exclusion, subversion, and sublimation of their own intellect -- they get the people to think it doesn't exist -- or that it has been resolved EVEN THOUGH IT HASN'T.

Let's discuss the slavery issue -- and we'll see who is correct.

When you have time, of course.

I do hope you are able to get to it soon, though. Don't want this thing to get stale.

0 Replies

This thread intrigued me so much that I asked my priest these questions and asked if he could write something down for all of you. The following is his response not mine. Enjoy. Let me know what you think.

First, let us understand that during the old testament time that all judgement and punishment was to be carried out in a specific order. The priest and scribes from the tribe of Levi were the only ones who were given the authority to judge and declare sentence on anyone. This was appointed by God Himself so therefore, not just any jew could kill another jew if he - she was caught breaking a commandment of Gods. Notice that I didn't say christian but jew. The termanology of "christian" was not used until after Jesus the Christ started His ministry. The orginal laws were written to the jewish nation (Gods chosen people) so that they would know exactly how God wanted them to conduct their daily affairs. This is in relation as to how we now have laws voted on and passed by our governing body to rule and control the nation. It is designed to prevent chaos and to maintain order in a civilized manner. The main difference is that in the beginning the laws of order were given by God and now we recieve them from men just as we are. His are devine and perfect and ours are flawed and limited in nature. My best suggestion for anyone seeking an understanding on this matter or how to live their daily life is to look in the book of Romans chapter 2. It explains God's righteous judgement and also how the law pertains to the jews.

0 Replies

One last time, Frank:

Frank Apisa wrote:

maliagar wrote:

[By the way, I certainly appreciate the value of Pascal's wager]

Pascal's Wager should be considered an insult to any God who might exist.

Just another dogmatic ex cathedra declaration by Pope Frank I. Leave the explanations/argumentation/evidence to his staff theologians ... (Cicerone? Go for it!).

Frank Apisa wrote:

maliagar wrote:
IT DID NOT START WITH A BOOK. IT DID NOT START WITH BIBLE VERSES THAT NEEDED TO BE INTERPRETED BY SOMEBODY...
You are wrong there, Maliagar, at least for Christianity. For Christianity, it did start with a book.

And we all should take your word for it, right? Nevermind that Abraham left Ur and Moses freed the Israelites before the stories were actually put in writting. Nevermind that Jesus Christ did not write anything at all. Nevermind that he didn't command his apostles to write, but to preach the Gospel. Nevermind that Paul was travelling the world, establishing churches, and writing letters before the New Testament was put together. Nevermind that there were growing numbers of Christian communities and of martyrs of persecutions that had never read the New Testament. Nevermind that the other apostles were doing the same. Nevermind that the Council of Jerusalem took place before the book of Acts (that tells us about it) was written (could it be the other way around? Perhaps, but it would be a mystery designed to uphold Frank's "theology".)

Quote:

That is what you are unwilling to face, Maliagar.

No, Frank. I've been facing your "arguments" for a long time already. And, unfortunately, you're unwilling to provide evidence in support of all the daring words you utter. "There is no need to", you said several times. "Everybody knows that the Church is an obstacle to science". (Exactly the same argument used by the Holy Office's theologians against Galileo: "Everybody knows that the Sun goes around the Earth...".) So what? Are we to say that "everybody knows that Christianity started with a book"? Is that your "argument" now?

NOT ACCEPTABLE.

For this (or any) discussion to have some purpose, I DO NEED YOUR EVIDENCE. Not just your speculations, however assertively they are uttered.

I provided evidence, and you dismissed it with a wave of the hand. I quoted prestigious authors from reputable publishing houses, and you did not mentione ONE. I explained what your view of Biblical interpretation lacks, and you responded by insisting on the slavery issue (which was just an example of the central topic: exegesis).

You're so "open-minded" that you don't see the double standard here. Religious types are required to bring evidence for their claims while the rest sit and judge if they like it or not. Agnostics like you are not required to (or don't feel the need to) back up the things they say. This reflects the spirit, biases and rudeness of the times: the crowd here seems willing to buy into your speculations but rejects my claims, however supported by evidence they are. You can always blame it on me... :wink: That would work with neophytes, not with me.

Some may think that you're a "shark" when it comes to "unmasking" the evils of the Church (you're the first among those believers). However, I've concluded, based on the careful observation of your responses, that you're good for providing speculative dissolvents that impress first-timers. But when pressed, you're unable to provide external evidence to support your "views". Then, your only way out is speculation, word interpretation, ad hominem arguments, and an assertiveness that hides the weakness of your overall position. You've wasted enough of my time. Maybe Cicerone will appreciate your endless lines. I don't.

Frank Apisa wrote:

maliagar wrote:
The Church had started to settle doctrinal issues well before the New Testament was written--i.e., well before the Bible was put together. Historically, the authority of the Church was active and operative before there were "verses to interpret", which is Frank's so very persistent misunderstanding...

Take as long as you want. We are all here for the duration.

Is this supposed to be your "rebuttal" of what I just said?

Quote:

...misunderstanding -- well, all I can say, in your present state of denial, I guess that is what it seems to be.

Another powerful rebuttal?

Quote:

you are looking at things the way the Church has instructed you to look at them.

Pathetic. I am where I am because of my own search, effort, interest. But you cannot conceive of it. Open minded? Give me a break. That's called "prejudice", expressed as an ad hominem way out.

Quote:

I still challenge you to show me where the Catholic Church does all this resolving and explaining you claim it does.

By now everything is clear, and your challenges don't mean much anymore. Perhaps I expected too much from a street-level secularist. At any rate, I've given you enough clues for you to search on your own (of course, if you're really interested in doing the effort). That's what I do, you see. I do my own research.

Quote:

The slavery issue is still out there waiting for us to discuss..

Don't get confused--or try to confuse the discussion. The issue was biblical interpretation.I've shown how two apparently contradictory passages can be understood once we see that one is the key to understanding the other (Christian approach). The same applies to the other passages you're so fond of. But you said nothing. Probably you didn't even get it. But now you insist on talking about slavery.... Rolling Eyes

Quote:

You claim... I claim...

I've provided evidence for my claims, you haven't. You just think they are self-evident... Rolling Eyes

Quote:

...exclusion, subversion, and sublimation of their own intellect -- they get the people to think it doesn't exist -- or that it has been resolved EVEN THOUGH IT HASN'T.

You didn't explain why it hasn't.

So unless you're really willing to do your homework and provide fresh evidence, I'll leave it there. I've put forward my contribution to this discussion, and you've put what you have. Now, everybody is free to make up their own minds.

Take care.

0 Replies

Frank -- you keep cooking and serving beautiful, substantial, meaningful buffets. Your opponent slides by, makes picky negative comments about the table cloth and silverware (while making a lot of self-congratulatory noises about doing his "homework"). If I may put it this way, I think you're spilling your seed on the ground.

0 Replies

Well, it sounds as though Maliagar is conceding defeat.

Hey, no dishonor in that -- and I will fight anyone who gives him any static on that account.

I do hope someone will come along, however, who will have the guts to actually debate the assertion that the Catholic Church does deal with troublesome passages by reconciling them with other passages in a holistic approach -- and does not simply ignore them as I charge they do.

I acknowledge, however, that it would be a thankless task -- an impossible one -- which is probably why Maliagar is afraid to do it.

Maliagar

Re: Pascal's Wager

Essentially, Pascal's Wager reduces to:

There is no way we can KNOW if God exists -- or, if a god exists, what that god is like. In a sense, one is required to guess (or wager) that there is a god -- or that there are no gods.

He asserts that it is not an option -- that we are forced to wager.

He then suggests that each individual weigh the potential gain or loss in wagering that a god exists. He estimates that if you wager a god exists -- and a god does exist -- you gain everything -- and if there are no gods -- you lose nothing. He estimates that if you wager there are no gods -- and a god does exist -- you lose everything.

I acknowledge that at first glance, it seems to be an open and shut case for wagering that a god exists.

But look at the argument closer.

First of all -- we are not forced to wager as Pascal suggests.

If a god exists -- and if that god is the just, reasonable, fair god Pascal, and his fellow Catholics suppose exists -- then the god values the truth. And even Pascal acknowledges that the truth is "We do not know if God exists or not."

Sowhy is an acknowledgement that we do not know - not an option?

Why not simply stick with that - WE DO NOT KNOW?

Why must the only alternative to guessing (or wagering) that a god exists - be that no gods exist?

Why is the truth - that we do not know -- not enough?

But suppose you are someone who realizes -- as does Pascal -- that we do not KNOW if god exists, but you just want to cover your ass. (Actually, Pascal says that we CANNOT know, which I consider ill advised and illogical.)

Does it really make sense to suppose that the god, described the way Pascal and his fellow Catholics describe the god, would value a guess about its existence -- especially such a cynical guess -- over the truth?

Does it make sense to suppose one can fool such a god - pull the wool over its eyes?

I think not!

In any case, the thing Maliagar took exception to was my comment that "Pascal's Wager should be considered an insult to any God who might exist."

I stand by that contention.

To suppose a GOD would value the craven cowardliness that would occasion such a guess over truthfulness -- is an insult to that GOD.

To suppose a GOD would not see through the essentials of a wager made pursuant to Pascal's arguments -- is an insult to that GOD.

And last, but by no means least -- to suppose a GOD would cause someone to "lose everything" because he or she guessed wrong or wagered incorrectly or simply acknowledged a lack of knowledge -- is an insult to that GOD.

Pascal's Wager is a joke.

I am astonished that Maliagar, with his vast learning and knowledge - couldn't see that.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Frank -- you keep cooking and serving beautiful, substantial, meaningful buffets. Your opponent slides by, makes picky negative comments about the table cloth and silverware (while making a lot of self-congratulatory noises about doing his "homework"). If I may put it this way, I think you're spilling your seed on the ground.

Yeah, I think you are right, Tartarin.

But you know me by now -- never give up on that horse until you are positive it is dead.

As I mentioned in my response post -- it seems as though he is admitting defeat. If he sticks around, though, I'll be delighted. He's fun to debate -- even though he does tend to be rather petty when his doors are being blown off.

We'll see.

I know you will stay tuned.

0 Replies

Beautiful metaphor, Tart. You've got to be a writer.

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know