[Message Deleted]
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Clergy have traditionally been the moral authority. They are, as a group, educated in the details of biblical interpretation.
I'll bet if you randomly selected 100 clergy (from the same religion even) and polled them on various morality issues you'd get a fairly widespread set of interpretations. Issues such as pre-marital sex, homosexuality, assisted suicide, war, etc... Calling religion organized is disingenuous at best.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'll bet if you randomly selected 100 clergy (from same religion even) and polled them on various morality issues you'd get a fairly widespread set of interpretations. Issues such as pre-marital sex, homosexuality, war, assisted suicide, war, etc...
So your beliefs are based on a complete guess? Why don't you conduct that poll and see what happens?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Calling religion organized is disingenuous at best.
How so? Or is that just another guess?
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'll bet if you randomly selected 100 clergy (from same religion even) and polled them on various morality issues you'd get a fairly widespread set of interpretations. Issues such as pre-marital sex, homosexuality, war, assisted suicide, war, etc...
So your beliefs are based on a complete guess? Why don't you conduct that poll and see what happens?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Calling religion organized is disingenuous at best.
How so? Or is that just another guess?
Red Stateler wrote:
So your beliefs are based on a complete guess?
I didn't write "guess", I wrote "bet". The difference being that when it comes to gambling, I'm EXTREMELY conservative. I don't bet unless I'm sure of the outcome. I've lived enough and spoken with enough clergy and read enough to know as fact that the clergy (as fellow humans) do not always agree on which parts of their religious doctrine are the important ones and which can be bent or ignored.
Red Stateler wrote:
Why don't you conduct that poll and see what happens?
See above.
Red Stateler wrote:
How so? Or is that just another guess?
Ditto.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
So... it seems we can have our moral values determined either by (a) God, or (b) John and his friends.
Well, it can't be God since he has yet to say anything to me. He's rather silent when it comes to... well, everything. It's almost as if he doesn't exist... but a bunch of people say he does, so I believe them. Doesn't it feel good just believing? It's like eating a good cheesecake or snorting some good... never mind. It also can't be John and his friends because I don't have a relationship with any of them that would have influenced my moral values. So the answer is "none of the above". It's actually a combination of my family, my friends, and good old common sense.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
So the answer is "none of the above". It's actually a combination of my family, my friends, and good old common sense.
BURN IN HELL YOU HEATHEN!!!!! :rolleyes:
-- My disbelief is not a belief.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Despite what you might admit, EVERYONE is their own moral authority. Even the most religious among us evaluate each circumstance and apply "God's morality" as they see fit.
Not quite. Clergy have traditionally been the moral authority. They are, as a group, educated in the details of biblical interpretation. There tends to be widespread moral agreement amove the disparate Christian churches (they tend to disagree on methods of worship more than anything else). Therein lies the importance that religion be organized...So that relativistic interpretation, which can creep into biblical interpretation, be minimized.
Red Stateler wrote:
Therein lies the importance that religion be organized...So that relativistic interpretation, which can creep into biblical interpretation, be minimized.
Relativistic interpretation is the one and only thing that has allowed Jewish and Christian societies (among others, I'm sure - I've no real knowledge of the non-Western religions, but I suspect the Western ones were the most constrictive) to progress beyond the middle-ages. It wasn't "built-in" on purpose, but the holy texts had very little direct commandments from God, and a whole lot of otherwise normal people revealing His will through interpretation and revelation. There's lots of breathing room in revelation and interpretation that lets society continue to grow. Contrast this with typical Islamic doctrine. No revelation. No interpretation. No mixing with new knowledge. No room for experience and growth. It's 100% unaltered, untranslated Word of God Himself. It's exactly what it was 900 years ago. It'll continue to be exactly what it is now 900 years from now. It cannot be altered, updated, or reinterpreted - it must be accepted completely, or rejected completely. Attempting to keep "relativistic interpretation" out of a religion is a death-knell for the minds of those that follow that religion. It's an assertion that everything has been figured out. And nothing good ever comes from that.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
You've got it backward, John. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...", Genesis 1:26. The Maker made us makers like Him.
I'm aware of the Biblical version. The reversal is a commonplace among sceptics. I don't know who first said it, but I believe that it has been around for centuries. I am surprised that you haven't encountered it. Apparently, it dates back to Xenophanes, 6th century BC. -- modified at 11:56 Tuesday 17th April, 2007
John Carson
-
Red Stateler wrote:
So your beliefs are based on a complete guess?
I didn't write "guess", I wrote "bet". The difference being that when it comes to gambling, I'm EXTREMELY conservative. I don't bet unless I'm sure of the outcome. I've lived enough and spoken with enough clergy and read enough to know as fact that the clergy (as fellow humans) do not always agree on which parts of their religious doctrine are the important ones and which can be bent or ignored.
Red Stateler wrote:
Why don't you conduct that poll and see what happens?
See above.
Red Stateler wrote:
How so? Or is that just another guess?
Ditto.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I didn't write "guess", I wrote "bet". The difference being that when it comes to gambling, I'm EXTREMELY conservative. I don't bet unless I'm sure of the outcome. I've lived enough and spoken with enough clergy and read enough to know as fact that the clergy (as fellow humans) do not always agree on which parts of their religious doctrine are the important ones and which can be bent or ignored.
I didn't say they always completely agree. Organized religion, like government, forces agreement out of disparate interpretations. So the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, etc... will have official doctrine which are those positions determined, through theological discussion. That organization (and they are organized through frequent conferences and meetings) removes the relativistic interpretation inherent in atheism.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I didn't write "guess", I wrote "bet". The difference being that when it comes to gambling, I'm EXTREMELY conservative. I don't bet unless I'm sure of the outcome. I've lived enough and spoken with enough clergy and read enough to know as fact that the clergy (as fellow humans) do not always agree on which parts of their religious doctrine are the important ones and which can be bent or ignored.
I didn't say they always completely agree. Organized religion, like government, forces agreement out of disparate interpretations. So the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, etc... will have official doctrine which are those positions determined, through theological discussion. That organization (and they are organized through frequent conferences and meetings) removes the relativistic interpretation inherent in atheism.
Red Stateler wrote:
So the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, etc... will have official doctrine which are those positions determined, through theological discussion.
Maybe, but the clergy themselves (the folks behind the pulpit and the ones actually doing one on one counseling with their congregations) tend to apply their own spin on things so the doctrine is in fact interpreted. I know plenty of Catholics who accept abortion, pre-marital sex and homosexuality despite the doctrine pushed down from Rome or even their local diocese.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Therein lies the importance that religion be organized...So that relativistic interpretation, which can creep into biblical interpretation, be minimized.
Relativistic interpretation is the one and only thing that has allowed Jewish and Christian societies (among others, I'm sure - I've no real knowledge of the non-Western religions, but I suspect the Western ones were the most constrictive) to progress beyond the middle-ages. It wasn't "built-in" on purpose, but the holy texts had very little direct commandments from God, and a whole lot of otherwise normal people revealing His will through interpretation and revelation. There's lots of breathing room in revelation and interpretation that lets society continue to grow. Contrast this with typical Islamic doctrine. No revelation. No interpretation. No mixing with new knowledge. No room for experience and growth. It's 100% unaltered, untranslated Word of God Himself. It's exactly what it was 900 years ago. It'll continue to be exactly what it is now 900 years from now. It cannot be altered, updated, or reinterpreted - it must be accepted completely, or rejected completely. Attempting to keep "relativistic interpretation" out of a religion is a death-knell for the minds of those that follow that religion. It's an assertion that everything has been figured out. And nothing good ever comes from that.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
The difference isn't how relativistically they can be interpreted, but the message itself. Just contrast Christ's teachings with Mohammad's.
-
There is no (a)
-
Red Stateler wrote:
So the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, etc... will have official doctrine which are those positions determined, through theological discussion.
Maybe, but the clergy themselves (the folks behind the pulpit and the ones actually doing one on one counseling with their congregations) tend to apply their own spin on things so the doctrine is in fact interpreted. I know plenty of Catholics who accept abortion, pre-marital sex and homosexuality despite the doctrine pushed down from Rome or even their local diocese.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I know plenty of Catholics who accept abortion, pre-marital sex and homosexuality despite the doctrine pushed down from Rome or even their local diocese.
But how many priests push preach theological acceptance of those things? There are some, and they tend to lose their position if they continue preaching those things that counter the moral authority. Whether or not the individual recognizes the moral authority is irrelevant to your claim. Their rejection of it actually puts them into the same realm as atheistic morality (i.e. relativism).
-
John Carson wrote:
You just have a hard time comprehending it
Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Can I have a rabbit, George? Can I? Can I? Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I know plenty of Catholics who accept abortion, pre-marital sex and homosexuality despite the doctrine pushed down from Rome or even their local diocese.
But how many priests push preach theological acceptance of those things? There are some, and they tend to lose their position if they continue preaching those things that counter the moral authority. Whether or not the individual recognizes the moral authority is irrelevant to your claim. Their rejection of it actually puts them into the same realm as atheistic morality (i.e. relativism).
Red Stateler wrote:
There are some, and they tend to lose their position if they continue preaching those things that counter the moral authority.
You've led a sheltered life. :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
Whether or not the individual recognizes the moral authority is irrelevant to your claim.
But it is the most important aspect of religion... no?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
Red Stateler wrote:
There are some, and they tend to lose their position if they continue preaching those things that counter the moral authority.
You've led a sheltered life. :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
Whether or not the individual recognizes the moral authority is irrelevant to your claim.
But it is the most important aspect of religion... no?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You've led a sheltered life.
Have I? There are plenty of examples of priests who have preached things counter to the Catholic Church's position that have been defrocked. They're usually slow to do it and give many warnings, but it happens.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
But it is the most important aspect of religion... no?
Yes, and also freedom of religion. The central point is that, contrary to your initial claim and in contrast to irreligion, organized religion is both organized and non-relativistic.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You've led a sheltered life.
Have I? There are plenty of examples of priests who have preached things counter to the Catholic Church's position that have been defrocked. They're usually slow to do it and give many warnings, but it happens.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
But it is the most important aspect of religion... no?
Yes, and also freedom of religion. The central point is that, contrary to your initial claim and in contrast to irreligion, organized religion is both organized and non-relativistic.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
organized religion is both organized and non-relativistic.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
We're gonna have to agree to disagree.
I was going to say, "Let's armwrestle for it".
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Hmmmmm...I see you changed your views from agnostic back to atheist.
My position has never changed. You just have a hard time comprehending it. To paraphrase another person's quote: you and I are both atheists: I just am an atheist about one more god than you are.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
you and I are both atheists: I just am an atheist about one more god than you are.
You and him are the same. He claims that not believing in God is a belief. I disagree with both of you. :rolleyes:
"The trouble with the profit system has always been that it was highly unprofitable to most people." - E. B. White Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Consider this: (a) As per some Hindu beliefs eating Onions and Garlic is considered immoral. (b) In Some other Hindu beliefs eating Meat to be immoral. (c) In Still some other Hindu beliefs eating Cow's meat is the most immoral thing. Each of them cite God's words as their authority. The same is true with Christians. If you ask those Hindus in (a), (b) or (c) they will consider most Christians immoral because they eat meat. Now religions devoid of God such as Buddhism and Jainism just have the concept of morals they don't believe that morality gets defined by some God. Yet they believe in non-violence to any creature, no intoxication, no gambling etc. which are all moral principles. If there is one God from which Moral authority comes from it should be same for all the religions which believe in God. Failing that the concept of God itself is relativistic. Since we comprehend God using our senses and our senses are themselves are bound by relativity it is not possible to get an absolute interpretation of what is God.
-
Consider this: (a) As per some Hindu beliefs eating Onions and Garlic is considered immoral. (b) In Some other Hindu beliefs eating Meat to be immoral. (c) In Still some other Hindu beliefs eating Cow's meat is the most immoral thing. Each of them cite God's words as their authority. The same is true with Christians. If you ask those Hindus in (a), (b) or (c) they will consider most Christians immoral because they eat meat. Now religions devoid of God such as Buddhism and Jainism just have the concept of morals they don't believe that morality gets defined by some God. Yet they believe in non-violence to any creature, no intoxication, no gambling etc. which are all moral principles. If there is one God from which Moral authority comes from it should be same for all the religions which believe in God. Failing that the concept of God itself is relativistic. Since we comprehend God using our senses and our senses are themselves are bound by relativity it is not possible to get an absolute interpretation of what is God.
Somewhat unironically, Hinduism is probably the world's only relativistic religion.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus have been slaughtering each other
Uh, just to point out that the Jews (not sure about Hindus) have had WAY less cases than Christians and Muslims. As my grandmother used to say to the question about what any Jewish holiday was about... "They tried to kill us. We survived. Let's eat!"
Mike Mullikin wrote:
religious freaks
Some of us are religious...but we're not all freaks. Some, yes, most definately need medication.
__________________ Bob is my homeboy.
leckey wrote:
As my grandmother used to say to the question about what any Jewish holiday was about... "They tried to kill us. We survived. Let's eat!"
The Jews cut a swath of death and destruction out of Egypt and into Canaan, slaughtering men, women and children in their path. That is, if the bible is to be believed. For example: "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3) "And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem." (II Samuel 12:31) "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18) "And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves." (Deuteronomy 3:6-7) "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21) etc.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Despite what you might admit, EVERYONE is their own moral authority. Even the most religious among us evaluate each circumstance and apply "God's morality" as they see fit.
Not quite. Clergy have traditionally been the moral authority. They are, as a group, educated in the details of biblical interpretation. There tends to be widespread moral agreement amove the disparate Christian churches (they tend to disagree on methods of worship more than anything else). Therein lies the importance that religion be organized...So that relativistic interpretation, which can creep into biblical interpretation, be minimized.
Red Stateler wrote:
So that relativistic interpretation, which can creep into biblical interpretation, be minimized.
So it wasn't relativistic when the church hierarchy decided that just moving pedophile priests the moral thing to do rather than actually addressing the problem? Something like let he who hasn't lusted over the altar boy cast the first stone? :laugh: