Allan C Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:3F232BEE.1E2E9E75@sympatico.ca:
Kenneth Doyle wrote:
Allan C Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@sympatico.ca> wrote
in news:3F195385.13048587@sympatico.ca:
For the things that are the province of science, it
makes sense to look to science for it. For the things
that are the province of theology, it makes sense to
look to theology for it.
OK, no problem with that. Now, if God created the
universe, then everything is in th province of theology.
Your own explanations imply a basic unbelief in your own
mythology.
Why? This assumes that it is easier to find out the goals,
aims and thoughts of God to derive the rules that the
universe is run by from that instead of using science to
find out what the rules are.
Please demonstrate how that follows.
Once we accept that God has
made the universe with rules -- and science has shown that
there are rules -- then it makes more sense to go looking
for the rules directly instead of trying to get there by
figuring out God.
Yeah, sure, somebody should have said that to Galileo. Were not
talking about what makes sense, but what theists pretend to
believe.
Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit will show you the truth
about all these matters? Jesus promised that that would be the
case. Perhaps he was just speaking metaphorically. It's a
symbolic truth, right?
We can't even figure out humans; figuring
out God is likely to be much more difficult.
Really?! Why then do so many theists presume to tell others
what God does and does not like about their behaviour?
I believe that, deep down inside, most theists don't
really believe their own mythology. The evidence for
that is to look at how the truely deluded, who really
do believe it, are treated. Anyone who really believes
and acts as their religion prescribes is likely to be
labled a fanatic; or worse.
These are the people who take it LITERALLY, not just
those who live by it.
OK, so it's symbolic. Now, believers are supposed to receive
the Holy Spirit, which it turn will show them the truth. The
fact that so many christians disagree with each other is
evidence that they don't really believe. If they believed,
wouldn't the Holy Spirit have shown them the truth and
therefore, wouldn't they all agree with each other?
Right, every theist has their own different way to cop out
when confronted with the real implications of their
theology.
It's not a cop-out; it's the truth. The people we label as
fanatics are the people who take every single word as
literal truth -- but more on that later.
Yeah,
sure, it's all symbolic. It has to be, doesn't it?
False dichotomy. Just because you don't have to take every
word literally (and considering that it's been translated
by humans that's a pretty stupid idea anyway) does not mean
that it's all symbolic either.
No
sensible theist would ever take the bible's advice on
issues that matter. The Pope, for example, rides in a
bullet-proof car. He thereby ignores his own
mythology, which says that "whoever tries to save his
life will loose it, but whoever dies for my sake will
have eternal life..."
This is a misinterpretation of the quote, because you
took it out of context.
A standard cop out.
In this case, it's the truth. Or, if you prefer, you can
show me how the context really does support the argument
you made.
The correct interpretation is that one
should not be afraid to do good deeds or spread or
express one's faith just because they're afraid that
someone might kill them because of it.
Right, and since the Pope is afraid that someone might
kill him for expressing his faith, he fits that
description.
Um, and how is he letting this STOP him from doing good
deeds to spread or express his faith? Or did you miss that
part of the description?
Since the Pope has not allowed
such fears to stop him from doing what he thinks is
right, I think he fits the meaning of the quote.
Your right, he has not allowed his fears to stop him. His
fears are held in check by bullet-proof glass and the
Swiss Guard.
So you DO seem to be claiming that he can make no attempts
to preserve his life -- even if not having to elect a Pope
every year or so is BETTER for the Church -- or he's being
a hypocrite, despite your comments against that idea below.
I'd like to see how you make that argument work -- or any
one, for that matter, since you have yet to do anything
more than throw out a Bible quote out of context and make
some sort of unexplained connection to the actions of the
Pope.
The quote is
not, as you assert it is, an encouragement or demand
towards martyrdom.
I asserted no such thing.
Then what DID you assert? What is your argument? Right
now, from what you've said, that's all I can draw from your
link between your out-of-context quote and your example.
Forgive me if I assume that that IS what you meant until
you explain what you actually DID mean.
My argument is that the majority of theists, including the Pope,
don't seem to exhibit any confidence in their professed beliefs.
When it comes to the really important descisions in life, they
rely on science and technology. I conclude that the majority of
theists don't really believe their own mythology.
How many christians refuse to work on the sabbath?
Most do what is necessary. Only someone taking it
stupidly literally would do no work on the sabbath.
Yeah right, it's all symbolic.
Again, false dichotomy. In this case, it's more of a
"follow the spirit, not the letter", which seems to be
perfectly allowed for things like laws ...
False dichotomy? Do you mean "double standard"? Laws are made
by humans. We have a process whereby we change them when enough
people feel that the spirit has moved to far away from the
letter.
For example, if
you were driving somewhere on the sabbath, and you had a
flat tire, would you refuse to change it? No, that
would be stupid, and it doesn't demand that we do,
either.
Yes, of course it would be stupid. That's why you have to
find some way of ignoring that part of your theology with
the standard cop out; it's symbolic.
Hmmm. My reply is that the spirit of the rule is to keep
the sabbath as a holy day -- and there's nothing in doing
things that have to be done that stops or inhibits you from
so doing.
Tell that to a rabbi who proposes that you be stoned to death
for dragging a chair across a dirt floor on the Sabbath. You
see, the leg of the chair makes a furrow in the dirt. This
being symbolic of working in the field, was enough to bring
retribution. What's changed since then? Has God changed (how
would you know)? Has his "eternal" law changed? Not according
to theology. Have people just decided to reinvent the law of
God? I think so.
Besides, you forgot to define "holy". With all that argument
earlier, about how it's easier to figure out the laws of the
universe that it is to figure out the mind of God, your on rough
terrain here (and your little joke about how it's hard enough to
know humans, let alone God, was made with such confidence,
wasn't it?).
How many christians forsake all their possesions?
We are human, and sometimes weak. If we had enough
faith, maybe we would -- but our faith isn't that
strong. We are supposed to -- and many do -- try to
give to help others.
Bingo! Like I said, no theist really believes their own
mythology.
So, if someone claims to have faith in the democratic
institution of laws, and yet breaks one -- like jaywalking
-- that means that they don't really believe in the
institutions of laws?
Why would you compare those domains? The democratic institution
of laws is a know fact; people go to gaol and are fined every
day. Therefore, it requires no faith to believe in the
democratic instution of law. It is made by humans, and is
enforced (in some cases and to a certain degree) at the
discretion of humans.
Besides, the REAL issue here is not
that we don't believe in our religion enough, but that we
believe in the secular beliefs TOO MUCH.
What seculare beliefs are you referring to?
.
