unofan
Well-known member
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Fundamentalists don't like Academics? You don't say...
Fundamentalists don't like Academics? You don't say...
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
- Thread starter St. Clown
- Start date
- Status
No, I didn't.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
This is something that confuses me. Isn't the role of the Pope to guide the people and isn't he supposed to be the mouth of God? (this is a real question, I am not a Catholic). If this is true is he only infallible when he says what people like? Seems to me he is very much like the Prophets in the Bible who tell people they have lost their way and then the way to correct it. His Holiness seems to be able to read the Bible and follow the Word better than any Pope in my memory. He says a lot of uncomfortable things and calls people to task for trying to exclude people rather than reel them in.
If Doctrine is given by God and the Pope (who is infallible) sets Doctrine then what he says is right and a correction to previous Doctrine. Not all Doctrine has survived thru the centuries. Previous Popes have altered Doctrine and even apologized for it on occasion. From the outside it seems the people who have the most to lose, worked their way up to a position of power, and are the least Christ like, are the ones who are protesting the loudest.
[disclaimer] I admit that being Lutheran skews my views. Luther was the guy that said the Church lost its way because it was deviating from Scripture and the Doctrine was created for gain rather than to follow Christ. It is also possible that the only thing I see is connected to the leadership doing things that are unscrupulous. The quiet ones may be doing the right thing.
This is something that confuses me. Isn't the role of the Pope to guide the people and isn't he supposed to be the mouth of God? (this is a real question, I am not a Catholic). If this is true is he only infallible when he says what people like? Seems to me he is very much like the Prophets in the Bible who tell people they have lost their way and then the way to correct it. His Holiness seems to be able to read the Bible and follow the Word better than any Pope in my memory. He says a lot of uncomfortable things and calls people to task for trying to exclude people rather than reel them in.
If Doctrine is given by God and the Pope (who is infallible) sets Doctrine then what he says is right and a correction to previous Doctrine. Not all Doctrine has survived thru the centuries. Previous Popes have altered Doctrine and even apologized for it on occasion. From the outside it seems the people who have the most to lose, worked their way up to a position of power, and are the least Christ like, are the ones who are protesting the loudest.
[disclaimer] I admit that being Lutheran skews my views. Luther was the guy that said the Church lost its way because it was deviating from Scripture and the Doctrine was created for gain rather than to follow Christ. It is also possible that the only thing I see is connected to the leadership doing things that are unscrupulous. The quiet ones may be doing the right thing.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
A nice piece addressing Creationists' false arguments -- whether made intentionally or out of ignorance -- and correcting the myriad untrue assumptions underlying them.
I have had experiences similar to the author when talking to Creationists, several of who I work with. To be fair, these are not Young Earth Creationists, who other Creationists consider out on the lunatic fringe (!), but just people who have an incoherent or just plain incorrect idea of what evolution is because, as the author points out, their experience of it comes from pastors who set up a strawman to demolish.
It is very hard to argue with somebody whose difference of opinion keeps going back all the way to first principles and even beyond to what constitutes a theory of knowledge at all. It's like having a rap battle with somebody who speaks a different language: neither of you is really interacting with the other, so at best it is competing soliloquies that can't be measured against each other. I generally drop the conversation since there seems to be no way "in" to get the interlocutor to reconsider a premise -- that is after all what axioms are, and axioms tend to be autobiographical rather than rational (for both of us). Perhaps (most likely) they feel the same way about me.
It is still a VERY frustrating experience though, even when both people are sincere and honestly trying to make themselves understood and to grasp what the other is saying.
A nice piece addressing Creationists' false arguments -- whether made intentionally or out of ignorance -- and correcting the myriad untrue assumptions underlying them.
I have had experiences similar to the author when talking to Creationists, several of who I work with. To be fair, these are not Young Earth Creationists, who other Creationists consider out on the lunatic fringe (!), but just people who have an incoherent or just plain incorrect idea of what evolution is because, as the author points out, their experience of it comes from pastors who set up a strawman to demolish.
It is very hard to argue with somebody whose difference of opinion keeps going back all the way to first principles and even beyond to what constitutes a theory of knowledge at all. It's like having a rap battle with somebody who speaks a different language: neither of you is really interacting with the other, so at best it is competing soliloquies that can't be measured against each other. I generally drop the conversation since there seems to be no way "in" to get the interlocutor to reconsider a premise -- that is after all what axioms are, and axioms tend to be autobiographical rather than rational (for both of us). Perhaps (most likely) they feel the same way about me.
It is still a VERY frustrating experience though, even when both people are sincere and honestly trying to make themselves understood and to grasp what the other is saying.
Last edited:
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Like this whole transgender thing. People might as well be from different planets their understandings are so fundamentally different. I see no hope for the future of our nation as a cohesive people.
Face it. In this country when one can even get this far with another American with a very different understanding of something, we're doing much better than most of what goes on. So consider yourself lucky in these conversations.
Like this whole transgender thing. People might as well be from different planets their understandings are so fundamentally different. I see no hope for the future of our nation as a cohesive people.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Me too. I pine for the good old days of solving political disputes with dueling pistols, the civil war, sufferage battles, violent labor disputes, child labor disputes, race riots, hangings, and cross-burnings, draft-card- burnings, math building bombings, and political assassinations. Especially tranquil was the time before we would be caught dead electing a catholic president.
Sigh: The good ol' days.
Me too. I pine for the good old days of solving political disputes with dueling pistols, the civil war, sufferage battles, violent labor disputes, child labor disputes, race riots, hangings, and cross-burnings, draft-card- burnings, math building bombings, and political assassinations. Especially tranquil was the time before we would be caught dead electing a catholic president.
Sigh: The good ol' days.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
I often wonder what Jesus would think of this especially since some are using him as an excuse. He spent a good amount of time chastising people for this type of behavior.After reading certain portions of the Bible how do some of these people justify to them self the amount of intolerance encouraged. Jesus may not have condoned certain things but he communed with the sinners while roundly criticizing the heirarchy of the Jews for not practicing the way they should.
Similarly cynical. It used to be a mark of civility that one could discuss and compromise (or at least fake respect) the other views. Now it is not only discouraged but people practice character assassination if someone simply listens to the other side. The difference between now and when people dueled is social media can be used to blanket a market with things. Such saturation people don't stop and think how ludicrous somt of what is being said is.
I often wonder what Jesus would think of this especially since some are using him as an excuse. He spent a good amount of time chastising people for this type of behavior.After reading certain portions of the Bible how do some of these people justify to them self the amount of intolerance encouraged. Jesus may not have condoned certain things but he communed with the sinners while roundly criticizing the heirarchy of the Jews for not practicing the way they should.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
I think we can be (and are) cohesive without having to agree on individual issues, as long as we can agree what the broad standards are. You know that I think our root values are actually very similar if not identical. We broadly agree that an individual should have personal freedom and privacy. We broadly agree that people should be treated equally under the law and should have equal right to self-determination. We broadly agree that government legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed, measured accurately and impartially. We broadly agree that certain fundamental rights exist which a majority cannot legitimately withhold from a minority.
The devil is in the details, of course. But we start out united in many important ways. Most importantly, I think most of us will side with an ideological enemy who is being done a procedural wrong by an ideological friend, and that is the key to the rule of law.
I think we can be (and are) cohesive without having to agree on individual issues, as long as we can agree what the broad standards are. You know that I think our root values are actually very similar if not identical. We broadly agree that an individual should have personal freedom and privacy. We broadly agree that people should be treated equally under the law and should have equal right to self-determination. We broadly agree that government legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed, measured accurately and impartially. We broadly agree that certain fundamental rights exist which a majority cannot legitimately withhold from a minority.
The devil is in the details, of course. But we start out united in many important ways. Most importantly, I think most of us will side with an ideological enemy who is being done a procedural wrong by an ideological friend, and that is the key to the rule of law.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
You are much more optimistic than I am. I think a ton of people are so focused on winning on issues that they aren't that worried how they get there anymore. Not everyone, but a whole lot of folks. The old ends justifying the means thing.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Not a claim in His words that He is the "only" Son of God. And when Pilate asks Him outright, "Are you the Son of God?", His reply is, "it is you that say I am." I'm sure true believers could rationalize that non-acceptance of the role because of the setting, but it doesn't add up.
Beyond that, we have a moral philosopher who primarily uses poetry, imagery, metaphor, parables to instruct; yet only one sentence is supposed to be taken literally, while it's just fine and dandy for all the rest to be metaphorical? again, it doesn't add up. otherwise, if I'm a rich man, I can just build a giant needle with an eye big enough for a camel to walk through, and I'm going to Heaven.
Mahatma Gandhi said that Jesus was the greatest moral philosopher the world has ever known. Yet Mahatma Gandhi cannot achieve salvation because, even though he is aware of Jesus' teachings, and follows all of them except for one sentence, because he does not acknowledge Jesus as the "only" Way?
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Even as Catholics, and thus utterly ignorant of scripture () we got the message that either you get right with Christ or you take the train.
Not a claim in His words that He is the "only" Son of God. And when Pilate asks Him outright, "Are you the Son of God?", His reply is, "it is you that say I am." I'm sure true believers could rationalize that non-acceptance of the role because of the setting, but it doesn't add up.
Beyond that, we have a moral philosopher who primarily uses poetry, imagery, metaphor, parables to instruct; yet only one sentence is supposed to be taken literally, while it's just fine and dandy for all the rest to be metaphorical? again, it doesn't add up. otherwise, if I'm a rich man, I can just build a giant needle with an eye big enough for a camel to walk through, and I'm going to Heaven.
Mahatma Gandhi said that Jesus was the greatest moral philosopher the world has ever known. Yet Mahatma Gandhi cannot achieve salvation because, even though he is aware of Jesus' teachings, and follows all of them except for one sentence, because he does not acknowledge Jesus as the "only" Way?
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Less literal and the way I interpret it- Jesus died to cleanse us of our sins. All of us. Not just those who believed. He didn't say I am only dying for the people who believe in me.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
If that was true, I might think any messiah would have 3 traits 1) Some uncontroversial life 2) One that aligns with the message of Jesus (I am a Christian afterall) 3) A really impactful life or major reason for existing.
Any thoughts as to who you think might qualify?
If that was true, I might think any messiah would have 3 traits 1) Some uncontroversial life 2) One that aligns with the message of Jesus (I am a Christian afterall) 3) A really impactful life or major reason for existing.
Any thoughts as to who you think might qualify?
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
This would disqualify Jesus. He was controversial. His messagedid not align with what the OT/His faith leaders said.
This would disqualify Jesus. He was controversial. His messagedid not align with what the OT/His faith leaders said.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
May not have been clear...but I'm referring to a second messiah (i.e., not Jesus) per FF's post and one for the Christian religion.
If another messiah came along and offered a strictly different platform than that offered by Jesus (i.e., personal greed is good)...I don't think one could really label it Christianity anymore. Before Jesus came along, the general faith was not called and had different tenants than Christianity. Jesus changed things to the point where technically a religion was born.
Uncontroversial was probably not the best word. By definition, another messiah would be 'controversial'. By that I meant a 'Christian' messiah wouldn't be a jerk, perverse or had major skeletons in his/her closet.
Again...my thinking is if a second messiah came along and offered differing opinions, ethics, approaches that drastically changed the Christian approach...I would expect it to be considered as a new religion (i.e., like Judaism is thought of).
May not have been clear...but I'm referring to a second messiah (i.e., not Jesus) per FF's post and one for the Christian religion.
If another messiah came along and offered a strictly different platform than that offered by Jesus (i.e., personal greed is good)...I don't think one could really label it Christianity anymore. Before Jesus came along, the general faith was not called and had different tenants than Christianity. Jesus changed things to the point where technically a religion was born.
Uncontroversial was probably not the best word. By definition, another messiah would be 'controversial'. By that I meant a 'Christian' messiah wouldn't be a jerk, perverse or had major skeletons in his/her closet.
Again...my thinking is if a second messiah came along and offered differing opinions, ethics, approaches that drastically changed the Christian approach...I would expect it to be considered as a new religion (i.e., like Judaism is thought of).
You're looking at the wrong place. Go back a few hours to the trial before the High Sanhedrin. That's where the death sentence was pronounced.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
I completely understand how one might embrace a faith based upon fundamental concepts and gut-level belief. But it baffles me how people can wager their salvation upon specific acts or statements alleged to have occurred two thousand years ago in a different culture halfway around the globe, conveyed by multiple levels of hearsay through texts that were translated several times before it was comprehensible to them and, for westerners at least, at the direction of a ruler who had a political stake in the content.
Things come back to me I told my neighbor or friend three weeks ago that are inaccurate, sometimes to the essence.
I completely understand how one might embrace a faith based upon fundamental concepts and gut-level belief. But it baffles me how people can wager their salvation upon specific acts or statements alleged to have occurred two thousand years ago in a different culture halfway around the globe, conveyed by multiple levels of hearsay through texts that were translated several times before it was comprehensible to them and, for westerners at least, at the direction of a ruler who had a political stake in the content.
Things come back to me I told my neighbor or friend three weeks ago that are inaccurate, sometimes to the essence.
Last edited:
Because He is the Son of God and rose from the dead. It's Faith. Either you have it, or you don't.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
It helps to have come to God via the Word rather than vice versa.
The guy says he talked with God. And the doctors doubt him because 'they believe the man suffered the visions as a result of a psychotic episode following a seizure.'
Not sure if I find this article more ironic due to...the doctors' confidence in their conclusion being based on 'belief'...or the fact that these practitioners of science are winging it on their conclusions without really knowing what the drivers are behind his readings.
It helps to have come to God via the Word rather than vice versa.
The guy says he talked with God. And the doctors doubt him because 'they believe the man suffered the visions as a result of a psychotic episode following a seizure.'
Not sure if I find this article more ironic due to...the doctors' confidence in their conclusion being based on 'belief'...or the fact that these practitioners of science are winging it on their conclusions without really knowing what the drivers are behind his readings.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Are you kidding? This is one of those instances in which I simply don't understand how someone comes to that conclusion. Doctors know what seizures are, they know what psychotic episodes are. He had one. He interpreted it as seeing God.
Are you saying "well, maybe that's what seeing God reads as"? Because I suppose that is an interpretation, but surely not with Occam's Razor.
Are you kidding? This is one of those instances in which I simply don't understand how someone comes to that conclusion. Doctors know what seizures are, they know what psychotic episodes are. He had one. He interpreted it as seeing God.
Are you saying "well, maybe that's what seeing God reads as"? Because I suppose that is an interpretation, but surely not with Occam's Razor.
- Status