User Controls
Any catholics?
-
2016-02-16 at 4:12 PM UTC
Oral tradition is a massive part of our historical knowledge. Even the books of lineage and histories from the Old Testament were not written at the time they happened but at a much later time. And let us not forget the emperorship jesus and his disciples endured.
To my point, if it's an oral tradition, it doesn't constitute "knowledge." You can't play whisper down the alley without the message changing. I have a very hard time believing that complicated theological doctrines and recollections of observations passed through generations without being altered. Granted, most of the Old Testament is poetry, but you've also got to factor in that eyewitness testimony is time and time again demonstrated as very fallible.
I'm not saying that you're doing this but, as someone who has studied science and the humanities, the main thing that pisses me off about humanities students is that they refuse to learn from the modern world. It's important to look to the past, but we have better methods of recording information now, and this should cast serious doubt onto the lore of time passed. A story that was widely believed by a bunch of goat herders that didn't even get written down until two lifetimes later is not what people today would recognize as a reliable source. I understand it's all they had back then, but that doesn't make it any more reliable. If anything, modern Western psychology has shown us how unreliable people are. When you add ostentatious claims of men walking on water and flying through the air into the mix, this should make alarm bells ring that the story probably isn't accurate.In terms of historical politics Tiberius and Caligula were two of the most chaotic and dangerous emperors of the age. Their vast control of judean lands is a direct cause for these things being so secretive until later times when it was safe to have a writing pertaining to Chrestus. I am not saying that we can absolutely hold the Gospels as valid in every which aspect but you cant refute that the political climate of the time made it very dangerous to be aligned with christianity.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, but it pretty much proves my point. It's not just that people couldn't write it down, it's that it would have been very dangerous to do so. So you have very firm evidence that there's very unlikely that anything beyond storytelling reinforces biblical claims.Now I know nothing of Hyam Maccoby (sounds like a jedi) so I will have to look into his work. And it is very easy to speculate an instance in which a follower would take events and distort or alter them to align with his own view of perfection, heaven, god, etc.
He is a jedi. While I can't speak to his scholarship, he crafts a series of logical arguments that in the very least are well grounded in the texts and demand an explanation from his opponents.
And while your point is true that this would be an easy argument to make, you say that as if it dismisses his work. Quite to the contrary, it's an easy argument to make because it's most likely what happened and there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary besides these texts. Secondly, St. Paul is a pretty unique case of this because, unlike these other (unknown) gospel authors, St. Paul spent most of his life trying to destroy Christianity. More importantly, he wrote most of the bible and it contradicts a lot of the gospels. So it's a very good argument.No[w] your contention with Matthew 16:18 is the same contenion the Orthodox have with the papacy. The Catholic view seems to be that Peter (lineage of the bishop of rome i.e. the pope) was the first church and in that respect the most powerful and in some senses superior to that of antioch for insance. The Orthodox hold the bishop of rome as the first among equals. This is actually an incredibly interesting element of the great schism between these two churches for the reason that it is ultimately reduced to a tautology of faith. It is reduced to interpretation of scripture and in that regard the split of catholic and orthodox is a prime example of two different evolutions of one core doctrine. It is in my opinion one of the more sociologically fascinating pieces of history because it demonstrates that an organization as large as the church, when spread across continents and divided by geography, will inveritably come to their own conclusions an when they come tell each other of their conclusions the belief systems developed by either party is so radically different from the original that neither can reach a concensus. Thus an orginization splits into two yet they hold the same fundamental beliefs. How they interpret these beliefs and how they view the mysteries of faith is really what separates them.
Well said. I would, however, introduce the element of power into the equation. Basically, it stands for one group to disagree with the other because then they don't have to concede political authority to the other. It's easy to get wrapped up in doctrine, but the church was running the show at the time, so these theological differences usually resulted in power imbalances benefiting those who rose contentions in the first place.I would even argue that this is not bad. Theology is the basis of philosophy. You can mentally masturbate to platos republic all you want or some stupid dialouges of endless questions until the subject has been quite literally guided to the "correct" answer but the works of people like Aquinas or Anthony or the heated exchanges that took place in coucils and tribunals of the church and you come across some of the most intellectually stimulated discussion in history.
Very, very wrong. This demonstrates very poor exposure to philosophy and an even more poor understanding of the ancients. Granted, I'm not dismissing theology because all philosophy usually has element of wisdom in it, but theology is basically philosophy within very narrow parameters of unreasonable belief and arbitrary variables. I would argue that theology is some of the most narrow-minded philosophy because, while Plato was looking at the world around him and trying to draw conclusions about the nature of reality, most western theologians are operating on a series of many unexamined, culturally inherited assumptions and relying on variables of magical thinking to explain away problems. I mean, just look at theodicy or the trinity. These contradict the most basic tenants of reasoning, and any intelligent person wouldn't otherwise believe them if they didn't have emotional commitments to (as Aquinas put it) reason being subservient to faith. This "intellectually stimulated discussion" usually boils down to explanations like "well god is a magical variable that can do anything (because the bible says he can, and we believe the bible because it says it's true), so even if something is completely unreasonable it must make sense in some way for us to hold to our earlier commitments to the nature of god." To put things bluntly, these are people who already have their conclusion before they even analyze evidence, which is literally the highest form of ignorance. You get more genuine discourse in philosophy about law because, unlike theology, at least the law is somewhat consistent.On a last note I believe you are mistaken when you say "the Orthodox and Catholic churches mislead their followers into thinking "evidences" of their interpretations are the same as "proof" of their interpretations". Proof is what a scientist needs. Not a man of faith. And in their heart, near all decent men (any many indecent too) are men of faith, maybe not in god or the church, but they have great faith in something.
Very untrue and very ignorant. I know you claim that you aren't Catholic, but it's very apparent that you adopted a lot of their lessons from your early education. Namely, thinking that faith is a virtue just because you've heard people say it all your life. Any reasonable person will conclude that faith in and of itself is not a virtue. A person who lacks the evidence to support a conclusion but bridges gaps in reasoning with emotional commitments isn't a good thing that should be celebrated. A person who does this is, once again, engaging in the highest form of ignorance. Some of histories most devastating tragedies are a result of faith.Even a great scientist will benefit from great faith if not in a god in his work.
This is an equivocation which proves my original point, because the modern scientific methods absolutely reject any kind of faith. It is literally built on the premise that we should take nothing on faith. So the work of a scientist literally requires no faith.Faith is not to be proven and as such one cannot present proof. The churches make their cases and give evidence in support of their claims but this is the intellectual aspect of man doing what he must to reinforce his views and beliefs. The faith runs deeper and is hard to explain. Believeing that Jesus was crucified died and was burried and three days later was resurected gets at the core of faith. No one can prove that Jesus rose from the dead. No one living can know if jesus appeared to his disciples and spoke to them. The importance of faith in this story is not blinding thinking god has amazing powers to bring the dead back to life. If that were it jesus would have lived happily ever after. No, this story demonstrates faiths importance by how jesus followers reacted once they gained faith. It is a story of people facing the death of their leader, regaining faith in him even though he died and continuing his work. Because regardless of if it happened or not, after his "reappearence" to his followers, they began a movement based in faith. And it resulted in one of the largest and most systematically advanced organizations this world has ever seen.
Yeah, and also one of the most corrupt, disorganized, evil, warmongering, hypocritical, and exploitative organizations in the history of the human race. I'm not saying you can't have a religion, but there's no denying the crusades, 9/11, modern day fundamentalist religious terrorism, the Catholic church's suppression of truths about the natural world and contemporary miseducation for thousands of years, making the western world have totally backwards views about sex, the consistent persecution of people who think differently than they do, unprecedented psychological trauma from doctrines of hell alone, and totally ass-backwards laws we all have to respect or get thrown in prison. I know you want to try and see the good in these organizations (and I grant you there is some), but it's pretty obvious that you haven't had a lot of exposure to the ideas you're talking about. I know that makes me sound like kind of an asshole, but I say it as someone who used to believe the same things when I was younger and was in Seminary studying systematic theology. The thing is that, if you honestly take these ideas you claim to believe head on and have sincere engagement with them, there's no way you'll walk out of it believing it's virtuous for a man to believe garlic scares away vampires for the sake of believing it or that Aquinas arguing with some other priest about a thousand commitments they already assume without question because their culture told them to as a paramount intellectual pursuit.
-
2016-02-16 at 4:30 PM UTC
Not a catholic but i love catholicism, the churches, the music, the vatican, the art it inspired it's power and it's history.
Kill yourself you fucking faggot. I literally had to stop reading this thread. You have absolutely ZERO streets in you, bro. What the fuck.... You like the Vatican?! The art and music? Fuck you. This is too much, I have to stop posting here. -
2016-02-16 at 4:33 PM UTCI'm going to curse all of you fucks. Fuck your church. Your pope shall burn like my ancestors did. Fuck all of you.
-
2016-02-16 at 4:45 PM UTC
Kill yourself you fucking faggot. I literally had to stop reading this thread. You have absolutely ZERO streets in you, bro. What the fuck…. You like the Vatican?! The art and music? Fuck you. This is too much, I have to stop posting here.
I like their art, too. -
2016-02-16 at 4:53 PM UTCYea, well.. the painters they used were good but the motives are shit. Fuck the Vatican. Bunch of murders and thieves. Without their backward asses we could be so much better as a species. They have fucked up a lot of shit in their reign of terror.
There's still some kind of fucking war in Europe because of religious faggots like them. In 2016. In Europe. -
2016-02-16 at 5:43 PM UTC
Sophie come to TC.
You were in TC?
Also don't become a priest that's gay as fuck. -
2016-02-16 at 6:02 PM UTC
Yea, well.. the painters they used were good but the motives are shit. Fuck the Vatican. Bunch of murders and thieves. Without their backward asses we could be so much better as a species. They have fucked up a lot of shit in their reign of terror.
There's still some kind of fucking war in Europe because of religious faggots like them. In 2016. In Europe.
Basically.You were in TC?
Yeah I was. Occasionally I go in there. As of late I have been communicating to the group my desire to see you in there, but we never are logged in at the same time. -
2016-02-16 at 6:06 PM UTC
Basically.
Well, if the pm's worked I could PM you when I'm in there. I usually go in there when Panny is in there but since I don't have to work..... Actually, I have a break between classes today so I'll stop by after I see my computer science teacher to talk to him about some homework. Like, in two hours.
Yeah I was. Occasionally I go in there. As of late I have been communicating to the group my desire to see you in there, but we never are logged in at the same time. -
2016-02-16 at 6:19 PM UTChttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItL_Ui_iPAE
I'm objectively the best looking person I've ever seen in TC except soulbutter sometimes -
2016-02-16 at 6:29 PM UTCSoulbutter is very handsome. And he's a good guy. I like him.
-
2016-02-16 at 7:47 PM UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItL_Ui_iPAE
I'm objectively the best looking person I've ever seen in TC except soulbutter sometimes
Debatable. -
2016-02-16 at 8:08 PM UTCIn there rite meow
-
2016-02-16 at 10:55 PM UTC
He is a jedi. While I can't speak to his scholarship, he crafts a series of logical arguments that in the very least are well grounded in the texts and demand an explanation from his opponents.
And while your point is true that this would be an easy argument to make, you say that as if it dismisses his work. Quite to the contrary, it's an easy argument to make because it's most likely what happened and there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary besides these texts. Secondly, St. Paul is a pretty unique case of this because, unlike these other (unknown) gospel authors, St. Paul spent most of his life trying to destroy Christianity. More importantly, he wrote most of the bible and it contradicts a lot of the gospels. So it's a very good argument.
You are misinterpreting my statment. I was agreeing that it is very easy for a disciple to fuck shit up by putting his own views down as a "fact". I was not dismissing his work but actually agreed with the premise of your assertion.Well said. I would, however, introduce the element of power into the equation. Basically, it stands for one group to disagree with the other because then they don't have to concede political authority to the other. It's easy to get wrapped up in doctrine, but the church was running the show at the time, so these theological differences usually resulted in power imbalances benefiting those who rose contentions in the first place.
I didnt think it nessecary to introduce the element of power into the equation as it should be self evident. From my learnings the Roman Catholic Church had a very tight grip on the west and the Eastern Orthodoxy had a loose yet stable grip on the East. Byzantium is really the only extreme case of an Orthodox empire. Of course there is a power struggle between the two churches but in my humble opinion I do not find it as interesting as the things that separate these two churches theologically.Very, very wrong. This demonstrates very poor exposure to philosophy and an even more poor understanding of the ancients. Granted, I'm not dismissing theology because all philosophy usually has element of wisdom in it, but theology is basically philosophy within very narrow parameters of unreasonable belief and arbitrary variables. I would argue that theology is some of the most narrow-minded philosophy because, while Plato was looking at the world around him and trying to draw conclusions about the nature of reality, most western theologians are operating on a series of many unexamined, culturally inherited assumptions and relying on variables of magical thinking to explain away problems. I mean, just look at theodicy or the trinity. These contradict the most basic tenants of reasoning, and any intelligent person wouldn't otherwise believe them if they didn't have emotional commitments to (as Aquinas put it) reason being subservient to faith. This "intellectually stimulated discussion" usually boils down to explanations like "well god is a magical variable that can do anything (because the bible says he can, and we believe the bible because it says it's true), so even if something is completely unreasonable it must make sense in some way for us to hold to our earlier commitments to the nature of god." To put things bluntly, these are people who already have their conclusion before they even analyze evidence, which is literally the highest form of ignorance. You get more genuine discourse in philosophy about law because, unlike theology, at least the law is somewhat consistent.
I disagree. I think it demonstrates a different exposure to philosophy than your experience. Not a "poor" one. I am not saying that there is no merit in the works of Plato, for there is extreme merit. But when it comes to theology in the councils that took place between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches we see very feirce and real philosophical dispute that had a real impact on the way of life in those times. I am not meaning to say that this makes the philosophy and theology that comes out of these councils better but rather that it demonstrates instances in which debates on philosophy and theology have a direct impact on the lives of many individuals spanning multiple empires. The conclusions these councils came to had good and bad effects. I will concede that theology is a narrow paramater examination but I could not concede that those parameters are unreasonable belief or abritrary variables. I am a fan of pascals wager and to that effect I say that believing in the Chritsitan God in a time when the Church was on the level of government in the pecking order of society is absolutely reasonable. And the variables which were debated are not arbitrary since they are a product of hundreds of years of dogmatism and theology. I am not saying that these hundreds of years of dogmatism and theology were good, correct or right but I am saying that you must acknowledge that christian theology is an extremely complex and developed system that took an intelligence (even if misguided) to comprehend.
When you say that you get a more genuine discourse in philosophy about law it is highly dependent on the system of law. And we cannot forget that the Church, for a very long time, was a the justice system for many. How you say that theology is inconsistent seems to jut show your own ignorance on the matter of consistency in either church. Of course I will acknowledge that law is a prime example of philosophical discourse generated by any society. I just think it is a bit wanton to say that it is more genuine discourse than a theologians.
I also abhor and reject your attempt to assess my exposure to philosophy. I am arguing these points, not because they are my view but because they are the Christian view on the matter. I am in fact making arguments from a christian point of view when I myself do not hold that view. You see I am more a fan of actual debate rather than just espousing my own views and beliefs on those I converse with. I assure you that MY exposure to philosophy is not lacking and my understanding of the ancients is not exactly as I have described in this thread. I only say this because I feel with that stament you are are attacking the knowledge base you percieve me to have rather than the arguments I lay out. Granted the rest of your argument against it is solid and quite formidable. Though I still believe it to be flawed if I am speaking from a Christian view.Very untrue and very ignorant. I know you claim that you aren't Catholic, but it's very apparent that you adopted a lot of their lessons from your early education. Namely, thinking that faith is a virtue just because you've heard people say it all your life. Any reasonable person will conclude that faith in and of itself is not a virtue. A person who lacks the evidence to support a conclusion but bridges gaps in reasoning with emotional commitments isn't a good thing that should be celebrated. A person who does this is, once again, engaging in the highest form of ignorance. Some of histories most devastating tragedies are a result of faith.
This is an equivocation which proves my original point, because the modern scientific methods absolutely reject any kind of faith. It is literally built on the premise that we should take nothing on faith. So the work of a scientist literally requires no faith.
Again I am arguing from a Christian viewpoint so to call me ignorant is a projection of ignorance to christian beliefs. I believe your statment of the virtue of faith is a misleading one. I am not saying that in itself blind faith in anything is a virtue. What I am saying is that asking for proof of faith is to disregard what faith is. I agree that one who lacks evidence and bridges the gap with emotion is in many respects not well grounded but I stand by my point that men of faith are not men of God. Descartes was a man of both faith and god and his works are some of the most well grounded and evidentially consistent works of science and philosophy. I argue that it is the manner in which one utilizes their faith that turns it into either a virtue or a vice.
To say that the work of a scientist requires no faith is incorrect. They must have faith that all the science that came before them is sound. They must have faith in their instruments. They must have faith in the valid workings of their own mind and most importantly they must have faith in the scientific method even though the method itself requires that whatever is undertaken in that method not be taken in faith. Modern scientific methods are just that, methods of science. Faith is not a method of science for good reason but that is not to say that the scientist is still not surrounded by faith in one sense or another.Yeah, and also one of the most corrupt, disorganized, evil, warmongering, hypocritical, and exploitative organizations in the history of the human race. I'm not saying you can't have a religion, but there's no denying the crusades, 9/11, modern day fundamentalist religious terrorism, the Catholic church's suppression of truths about the natural world and contemporary miseducation for thousands of years, making the western world have totally backwards views about sex, the consistent persecution of people who think differently than they do, unprecedented psychological trauma from doctrines of hell alone, and totally ass-backwards laws we all have to respect or get thrown in prison. I know you want to try and see the good in these organizations (and I grant you there is some), but it's pretty obvious that you haven't had a lot of exposure to the ideas you're talking about. I know that makes me sound like kind of an asshole, but I say it as someone who used to believe the same things when I was younger and was in Seminary studying systematic theology. The thing is that, if you honestly take these ideas you claim to believe head on and have sincere engagement with them, there's no way you'll walk out of it believing it's virtuous for a man to believe garlic scares away vampires for the sake of believing it or that Aquinas arguing with some other priest about a thousand commitments they already assume without question because their culture told them to as a paramount intellectual pursuit.
Here I must also disagree. Your evidence is more or less unclear. In one view the crusades were a response to hundreds of years of muslim invasion and barbary. 9/11 was not a result of Christianity and had much more to do with American politics in the middle east. Modern day religious terrorism is largely unfound and admonished among Christians, at least compared to religious terrorism in the muslim world. Views on sex are a personal thing so to say that ones view is "backwards" means so only in relation to what you think is "forwards". Prosecution of belief is found in all societies from a political vantage point, a religious one and even philosophically. The most recent instances of persecution of belief is found to be against those of faith such as jedis in Germany or Christians in Russia. These things you are listing speak more to mans inclinations to violence, suppression, ignorance and fear than it does to any singular organization or institution. Again, I am speaking from a view of exposure to the Christian view rather than my own so to say that I havent had exposure to the ideas I am talking about is misguided as I am talking about these ideas in a fairly strict way that isnt nessecarily aligned with my exact belief structure. It seems to indicate that you believe yourself to be far more "exposed" to ideas, beliefs and what else and that your on a higher plane than those who think differently than yourself. In my opinion this is ignorance in its highest form. To say that your exposure is correct and my exposure is incorrect shows vast assumptions on your part about my exposure. What I am doing now is taking these ideas that are in my head (regardless of my belief in them or not) and having a sincere argument with them. I am not sheltering myself from the views of others but am challenging the views I have seen and through that I come to my own understanding.
-
2016-02-17 at 3:14 AM UTC
You are misinterpreting my statment. I was agreeing that it is very easy for a disciple to fuck shit up by putting his own views down as a "fact". I was not dismissing his work but actually agreed with the premise of your assertion.
I know you're going to think I'm a dick, but there's no nice way to say that your soft spot for the Catholic church very obviously compromises your reasoning and is leading you into positions that are demonstrably false.
For starters, the reason that I "misunderstood" was because, in spite of the fact that you're now agreeing with my initial point about how unreliable oral tradition or the lies that the Catholic church teaches are, you were initially referring to "historical record" as "historical knowledge." So if by "Historical Knowledge" you meant "pretty unreliable hearsay originating from literally some of the most uneducated populations in the history of the world that wasn't even written down until maybe two lifetimes after the fact but it's the best we have to work with" then I'll agree that I misunderstood your original point.
Until then, if I may be so bold, the only reason this got brought up in the first place was because you were using this "historical knowledge" (that I apparently misinterpreted) to present some pretty low-tier lies and reinvented historical propaganda created by the Catholic church. Namely, it was created to cover up the fact that they persecuted people who made discoveries about the natural world which contradicted their "infallible authority over the bible" by presenting basic observations about how the world works. Case in point, in the process of defending the Catholic church, your original statement was:..I mean look at how many view the churches "condemnation" of various scientist. The church did not bring about charges of heresy or whatever to Galilleo for presenting his theory of heliocentricity. Their dispute with him was largely academic and were actually based on the fact that his theory was not proven by the standards the courts held.
This is absolutely, 100%, Grade A Bullshit that you no doubt learned from a Catholic source and for whatever reason are presenting it as truth. Firstly, the "standards the courts held" were simply what the Catholic church interpreted as scripture because they were the authority. They had mathematicians and scholars justify it, but people who disagreed with them were silenced, persecuted, and put on house arrest. We have preserved letters to Galileo from Kepler (1597) telling him that, even though the math and heliocentric theory had already been in exposure in light of Copernicus, he would face "violent" persecution for it (as many others already had). He suggests he moves out of Italy to largely protestant Germany and then come out publicly with this theory, as quoted below:…If I judge correctly, there are only a few of the distinguished mathematicians of Europe who would part company with us, so great is the power of truth. If Italy seems a less favorable place for your publication, and if you look for difficulties there, perhaps Germany will allow us this freedom.
The standard of evidence for astronomy wasn't lower in Germany. It was just that they all knew the Catholic church would punish him if he came out and presented ideas that contradicted their power over people. And, of course, Pope Paul V ordered Galileo to abandon the heliocentric model because it "contradicted the authority of the Holy Scripture" and he was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture." If you don't believe me, it's written in "Inquisition's sentence of June 22, 1633" and accessible in books written by de Santillana and Finocchairo.
So to my original point, I know you're not going to like it, but I refuse to apologize for calling out misinformation and bad scholarship when I see it. Similarly, when you say things like.."Theology is the basis of philosophy"
"..the works of people like Aquinas or Anthony or the heated exchanges that took place in coucils and tribunals of the church and you come across some of the most intellectually stimulated discussion in history."
"Even a great scientist will benefit from great faith if not in a god in his work. "…It's not as easy as saying "Well hey, our exposure is different and that's just my opinion." The reality is that someone who would make those kinds of grandiose claims doesn't have adequate exposure to philosophy outside of theology. Again, there's no nice way to say this, but a bunch of people arguing about which fairy tales are they're going to punish the rest of the world for as an extension of some of the most corrupt organizations in the world isn't universally seen as "some of the most intellectually stimulated discussions in history." If you said that to a philosophy professor or serious student at a secular institution, they would probably laugh in your face. There's obviously a ton of merit to those discussions and Theology as a discipline and you're clearly entitled to your opinions about yourself but, when you start speaking for an entire discipline or making sweeping generalizations like this, it's really placing you as someone who has pretty poor exposure to philosophy overall. I would be as bold to say that the first chapter of The Critique of Pure Reason encapsulates way more stuff, even if not just by the fact that it came so much later and ergo is dealing with so many more ideas.
However, when you say…I am not saying that there is no merit in the works of Plato, for there is extreme merit. But when it comes to theology in the councils that took place between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches we see very feirce and real philosophical dispute that had a real impact on the way of life in those times. I am not meaning to say that this makes the philosophy and theology that comes out of these councils better but rather that it demonstrates instances in which debates on philosophy and theology have a direct impact on the lives of many individuals spanning multiple empires.
…you're absolutely right. I guess my point is that it's a trivially true statement in saying that they had a big impact. The fact that they had a big impact makes them worthy of scholarship but doesn't make them worthy of honoring, respecting, or esteeming. The same thing can be said about almost all of the laws that are written by every government in the history of the world. I don't know if you've ever watched American Congressmen debate bills, but even the wars waged on their votes by this country in the last fifty years have had more of an impact than anything Aquinas ever wrote or was concluded in the Council of Nicaea. Even the way that speed limits are created are typically a result of pretty sophisticated statistical analysis.
Like I said, you have a right to your opinion, but when you say things like that or say things like…"I will concede that theology is a narrow paramater examination but I could not concede that those parameters are unreasonable belief or abritrary variables."
"I am a fan of pascals wager"
"believing in the Chritsitan God in a time when the Church was on the level of government in the pecking order of society is absolutely reasonable."
"the variables which were debated are not arbitrary since they are a product of hundreds of years of dogmatism and theology."
"I am saying that you must acknowledge that christian theology is an extremely complex and developed system that took an intelligence (even if misguided) to comprehend."
How you say that theology is inconsistent seems to jut show your own ignorance on the matter of consistency in either church. Of course I will acknowledge that law is a prime example of philosophical discourse generated by any society. I just think it is a bit wanton to say that it is more genuine discourse than a theologians.
…it's again a sign that you have poor exposure to philosophy, which is why you can't tell the difference between the divisions of theology and philosophy of law. Firstly, the parameters are unreasonable in this case because they're assumed and accepted on authority, both of which are logical fallacies. Even if we want to argue that theologians in question came to these conclusions after very skeptical introspection and meditation (which I highly doubt after being exposed to many of them), they're still tautological and based on faith. Granted, most logical can ultimately be deconstructed to solipsism, but there reaches a point where you begin begging the question of reasonable standards of evidence. Namely, to use my words and your own admission, believing that "pretty unreliable hearsay originating from literally some of the most uneducated populations in the history of the world that wasn't even written down until maybe two lifetimes after the fact but it's the best we have to work with" is good enough to base your entire life on through the vessel of that which "is not to be proven and as such one cannot present proof" is pretty foolhardy by almost any measure. Appealing to Pascal's Wager (argumentum ad consequentiam ), arguing that believing the church is reasonable because they were in charge (argumentum ad verecundiam), or arguing the variables being debated were not arbitrary because they were commonly held for a long time (argumentum ad antiquitatem) are all demonstrably invalid deductions. If you're making inductions, which you can I guess, good for you but you have to admit you're using fallacious reasoning.
Similarly, I don't concede that what they were doing was a complicated practice or took a great deal of intelligence to comprehend. I will grant you that I'm sure a lot of these people were intelligent, but that can be said of almost any relevant trade. There are intelligent strippers. Your special pleading for these Christian theologians as being somehow special is again, just that. What I think you're mistaking is the notion that it takes intelligence to do theology with the reality that it takes a great deal of intelligence to do navigate any detailed system of logical parameters accurately and consistently. To my greater point, what separates this practice from philosophy of law is that (for the latter) the consequences are here on earth. For example, Calvin and his followers have spent generations developing and defending the idea of predestination. The issue is that, since nobody here actually knows what happens when you die, there's no actual consequences (as far as we can tell) to reasoning through these issues poorly. So I'm not impressed when people assume that theology inherently takes brains because, if you were to be doing it unintelligibly or inconsistently, there's almost no difference in doing so well. In the case of law, our consequences are dire and immediate, and poor reasoning is challenged with real-time evidences that magical thinking just cannot be. Assuming we're talking about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, it could also be said that the pool of knowledge you're drawing from is significantly smaller than in the case of law. I know you mentioned how impacting and enduring the consequences to the theologians conclusions were, but this was secondary to their enterprise of reasoning through what happens when you die, which is the initial point in question. In the case of law, there are appeals as diverse as calculus and propositional logic that were (to my knowledge) suspiciously absent in the Council of Trent.How you say that theology is inconsistent seems to jut show your own ignorance on the matter of consistency in either church.
Laughable. Both has a history of disunity, doctrinal dispute, reformation, schism, scandal, and authorship of confusion.I just think it is a bit wanton to say that it is more genuine discourse than a theologians.
Ok, this is right. Genuine is definitely the wrong word to use here. I guess what I would say is that it takes way more brains to do properly because there are actual consequences to being "wrong" (due to lack of a better term).I also abhor and reject your attempt to assess my exposure to philosophy. I am arguing these points, not because they are my view but because they are the Christian view on the matter. I am in fact making arguments from a christian point of view when I myself do not hold that view. You see I am more a fan of actual debate rather than just espousing my own views and beliefs on those I converse with. I assure you that MY exposure to philosophy is not lacking and my understanding of the ancients is not exactly as I have described in this thread. I only say this because I feel with that stament you are are attacking the knowledge base you percieve me to have rather than the arguments I lay out. Granted the rest of your argument against it is solid and quite formidable. Though I still believe it to be flawed if I am speaking from a Christian view.
If that's the case, then take everything I said in this post and direct it towards the "Christian view" as opposed to you personally. If you want to be angel's advocate, I'll play along and have the conversation because it was a big part of my life. However, what I will say is that anybody who would make many those claims and actually believe them probably (definitely) has very little exposure to philosophy. Spending your first few posts presenting these ideas as your own and then showcasing these theatrics of shock at my ignorance because I call stupid is as stupid does is profoundly asinine since this is the first (to my recollection) that you were candid about it.Again I am arguing from a Christian viewpoint so to call me ignorant is a projection of ignorance to christian beliefs.
This doesn't even really make sense. I can be very familiar with christian beliefs and still find them pretty ignorant. That doesn't require any ignorance on my part.I believe your statment of the virtue of faith is a misleading one. I am not saying that in itself blind faith in anything is a virtue. What I am saying is that asking for proof of faith is to disregard what faith is. I agree that one who lacks evidence and bridges the gap with emotion is in many respects not well grounded but I stand by my point that men of faith are not men of God. Descartes was a man of both faith and god and his works are some of the most well grounded and evidentially consistent works of science and philosophy. I argue that it is the manner in which one utilizes their faith that turns it into either a virtue or a vice.
As far as your point about Descartes is concerned, his works of science and philosophy were outstanding for the time, but we've since moved on. Cogito Ergo Sum is something that I still hold on to and I think the meditations are awesome, but Descartes also made up this hokey bullshit that the Pineal Gland possessed magical powers along with other dubious claims. These people are clearly great thinkers, but there's no need to obsess over tools that have guided us to better things.
As far as faith is concerned, considering it a virtue in my opinion is still silly. You can equivocate it however you want, but investing a degree of belief in something (regardless of what it is) isn't inherently virtuous.To say that the work of a scientist requires no faith is incorrect. They must have faith that all the science that came before them is sound. They must have faith in their instruments. They must have faith in the valid workings of their own mind and most importantly they must have faith in the scientific method even though the method itself requires that whatever is undertaken in that method not be taken in faith.
These sentences are wrong and not logically consistent. They don't have to have faith that the science before them is sound because the process of becoming a scientist is testing all of these premises out for yourself in a university before they let you anywhere near equipment. Similarly, you learn how even a basic microscope works before you get to use one, so there's no "faith" in your equipment needed.
Also, the scientific method requires no faith at all because it's a self-correcting method that establishes every claim to be set up in order to be disproven. A scientist goes to work everyday trying to methodologically disprove their own claims. When they cannot do so, they submit it to other scientists who scrutinize the finding for the same purpose.Modern scientific methods are just that, methods of science. Faith is not a method of science for good reason but that is not to say that the scientist is still not surrounded by faith in one sense or another.
Again, this is a poor understanding of the scientific method.In one view the crusades were a response to hundreds of years of muslim invasion and barbary.
This is asinine. Invading a region and telling everyone there that they had to convert to Catholicism or die in an attempt to refute "barbary" is probably the most stupid thing in your entire post.9/11 was not a result of Christianity and had much more to do with American politics in the middle east.
It mainly had to do with religious extremism, which is pretty much the only way you can get two dudes to fly airplanes into buildings. Granted they were muslim, but it's not like there haven't been Christian extremists (again, look at the Crusades).Modern day religious terrorism is largely unfound and admonished among Christians, at least compared to religious terrorism in the muslim world.
This is irrelevant to my point, which is that you cannot have religious terrorism without religion. You can special plead all you want about how (nowadays) we have a lot more Muslim terrorists than Christian ones, but it doesn't mean we haven't ever had any or that they we know we never will again. Remember, the Pope literally rounded up hundreds of thousands of Catholics to infiltrate another country and kill everybody who didn't convert to Catholicism. He told them that, if they died, they would have their sins absolved and they'd go to heaven. Sounds like the definition of terrorism to me.Views on sex are a personal thing so to say that ones view is "backwards" means so only in relation to what you think is "forwards".
Unless you think that human beings are supposed to only be having sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation within the confines of marriage (as ordained by the Catholic church) and everything outside of that is punishable by law, then I think we can agree the shit has been backwards for a long time. You couldn't even buy contraceptives in Spain until fairly recently because of Catholic influence and gay marriage is still debated here in the US.The most recent instances of persecution of belief is found to be against those of faith such as jedis in Germany or Christians in Russia.
Uh, bullshit. How about the United States infiltrating mosques and arresting Muslims en masse for speaking out against US protection of Isreal? That shit happened at my university fucking three weeks ago.Again, I am speaking from a view of exposure to the Christian view rather than my own so to say that I havent had exposure to the ideas I am talking about is misguided as I am talking about these ideas in a fairly strict way that isnt nessecarily aligned with my exact belief structure. It seems to indicate that you believe yourself to be far more "exposed" to ideas, beliefs and what else and that your on a higher plane than those who think differently than yourself. In my opinion this is ignorance in its highest form. To say that your exposure is correct and my exposure is incorrect shows vast assumptions on your part about my exposure. What I am doing now is taking these ideas that are in my head (regardless of my belief in them or not) and having a sincere argument with them. I am not sheltering myself from the views of others but am challenging the views I have seen and through that I come to my own understanding.
TL;DR
Most of what you said is either demonstrably wrong, inconsistent with your earlier posts, is special pleading to the Catholic / Orthodox Church, contradicts fact, is clearly poor reasoning, or demonstrates an ignorance of philosophy. There's no nice way of saying that one person's ignorance isn't equal to the knowledge of someone else, but I also don't have to be polite about the fact that most of what you're writing amounts to you compulsively spreading misinformation and poor reasoning. Saying things that demonstrate a lack of exposure to philosophy and chalking it up to "well we just have different opinions" assumes an equality among our exposure that doesn't exist, as evidenced by the multitude of claims you've made misrepresenting different ideas, not understanding divisions in the subject, refusing to be generous to your opponent's argument, and downright misrepresenting fact in an attempt to defend ideas.
Also, when you come out and defend these ideas, present them as fact, and basically claim to believe them I took you at your word. The fact that I called out all this bullshit with solid reasoning and demonstrable proof for what it is and now you suddenly "don't actually believe any of it but am just representing the Christian view" is dubious - but you're welcome to make that claim. For all I care you don't really believe it and you were just defending a faith for the sake of argument. That's fine, but you don't get the luxury of failing to mention that and at the end of the conversation trying to high horse me by basically saying "I said a bunch stupid shit but YOU ARE IN FACT THE ONE WHO IS STUPID FOR ASSUMING I ACTUALLY BELIEVED IT INSTEAD OF DEFENDING A POSITION I DON'T REALLY BELIEVE."
These monks and many of these early religious figures are often really smart dudes. I taught propositional logic for years to college kids and many of the authors of these texts are religious. I myself am a seminary drop out and have firsthand met some top shelf critical thinkers who happen to be sincere, brilliant, and religious There are good arguments for the existence of god and the Catholic/Orthodox Church (none of which you've presented), and few things make me more upset than Dawkins fanboys who try and present everyone who believes in god or is spiritual to be stupid. For all we know there is a god, and for all you know I seek it everyday. However, there's a big difference between dismissing all religious as stupid and esteeming theology as one of the principle achievements in philosophy, much less the human race. I like you as a poster and appreciate you here so I hope you don't think I'm acting like a gigantic prick, but I refuse to stand by when people defend organizations like the Catholic Church with dishonest rhetoric, whether they actually believe it or not. -
2016-02-17 at 7:01 AM UTCYou are right. I am going to think you are a dick.
-
2016-02-17 at 1:47 PM UTCThe Catholic church needs a pope space station
-
2016-02-18 at 10:16 AM UTC
I'm paranoid to go on chatrooms because I'm a pedophile and I'll probably get v&.
Fixed
The creepy crawly government will infest your lovin' holes before you know it
better fist the soap while you're at it -
2016-02-18 at 10:18 AM UTC
Not a catholic but i love catholicism, the churches, the music, the vatican, the art it inspired it's power and it's history.
..
Why would you make it a point to not be catholic.. if you love everything about catholicism but the religion
edgy
-
2016-02-18 at 10:57 AM UTCWhat are your thoughts on Catholicism roshamploo? This is your thread after all, why don't you enlighten us as to your views and opinions as it relates to Catholicism? Please, spare us no details. Feel free to type out many pages worth of your analysis.
-
2016-02-18 at 12:46 PM UTC
Soulbutter is very handsome. And he's a good guy. I like him.
Yes soulbuter is a very solid dude, very smexy =)
But anyways, yeah I'm catholic, and I've actually been practicing my religion much more the last year. I even bought my daughter a childrens bible that I'm going to give her on easter sunday.
I actually wear my rosery to bed and say a prayer in spanish that my grandmother taught me.
I dated a girl temporarily that was a hardcore catholic, she told me she would blow me and let me fuck her ass, but I couldn't get anyone of that pussssaaaaay unless we got married.
