Denying science in the classroom

[knapplc]

It's not, as Landlord claims, that I "refuse to provide it." It's that I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

 

If only people thought so critically about "god" as they apparently do about my posts and positions on religion. We can take god on faith but knapp has to parse the hell out of everything. Oi.

[Landlord]

Following the line of thinking that makes the Bible invalid, wherein it's invalid as soon as certain parts of it aren't supposed to be taken as 'true', does that same rationale apply to other things?

 

 

For example, if I find out that you've told lies before, should I no longer think that anything you have to say is trustworthy? Of course, I'm not basing my religious beliefs off of you, but what if I was your 5 year old child who thought you were all-knowing and perfectly good or something?

 

 

In other words, does the same argument that's being used to dismiss Scripture make us all sh**ty ass parents for using a 'lie' to teach our kids about things like generosity in a way that they can understand - you know, like Santa Claus?

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm no longer responding to this personal tangent. If you want to discuss me, take it to the Woodshed.

I'm not discussing you. LOMs and I merely wanted clarification on a statement you made as often happens in discussions. I don't understand where any of your replies on it are coming from.

 

And why in the hell would I want to discuss it in the Woodshed? I would PM you. I'm not talking about you I'm talking directly to you.

Help me understand why you're focused on this tangent.

 

What conclusions could we draw based on a positive or negative answer to the question?

Originally I wanted to know if you were implying LOMs or I were saying god isn't god so that I could figure out how you came to that conclusion and express my thoughts so they made more sense.

 

Now I'm actually pretty distraught that you've come to the conclusion you're being attacked. It's like we've never talked before.

Start at post #264 where Landlord talks about concepts of god. Read that conversation. I was trying to clarify what he was saying by my post #275. I'm guessing you felt my post (#275) was a stand-alone statement.

I read the whole thing (a few times now) since I was replying to some of it. God is God but we're choosing to interpret what God is and what God's words are by reading the Bible and everyone is different therefore we all perceive God differently.

 

The official stance of one religion or another is going to be what it is, but as an example I'm a non-denominational Christian and we don't revere pastors the way some do (e.g. Catholics). Therefore I can consider the pastor's expertise but I can interpret the Bible using my best judgement.

 

If I was Catholic I'm assuming I'd ask a priest or listen to the Pope or read what previous priests have written about what everything in the Bible means.

 

What my mom does is goes to Bible study which is sometimes led by other church members and sometimes led by a book on tape created by a famous Christian human that Christians happen to respect. That human has probably spent a lot of time reading the Bible and is good at public speaking. They could also be a sham.

[knapplc]

Following the line of thinking that makes the Bible invalid, wherein it's invalid as soon as certain parts of it aren't supposed to be taken as 'true', does that same rationale apply to other things?

 

Don't misrepresent my argument so you can make a straw man.

[knapplc]

I read the whole thing (a few times now) since I was replying to some of it. God is God but we're choosing to interpret what God is and what God's words are by reading the Bible and everyone is different therefore we all perceive God differently.

 

The official stance of one religion or another is going to be what it is, but as an example I'm a non-denominational Christian and we don't revere pastors the way some do (e.g. Catholics). Therefore I can consider the pastor's expertise but I can interpret the Bible using my best judgement.

 

If I was Catholic I'm assuming I'd ask a priest or listen to the Pope or read what previous priests have written about what everything in the Bible means.

 

What my mom does is goes to Bible study which is sometimes led by other church members and sometimes led by a book on tape created by a famous Christian human that Christians happen to respect.

I used to lead Bible studies like the ones your mom goes to.

[Landlord]

If you can pick and choose which parts are real, none of it has validity.

 

 

OK. Which of these stories is true:

 

Creation in six days

Noah's Ark (Also, unrelated, an excellent song by Marit Peters)

Job

Ruth/Esther

Elijah and the prophets of Baal

Balaam's Ass

Jesus' virgin birth

The tongues of fire at pentecost

Peter & the sheet of food

Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus

 

For every story that isn't true, please explain, using the Bible's own words, how we are to know they are not "true" stories, but parables or lessons.

 

 

For the Bible to be a real source of information it has to be real, all of it. Because if any of it is not true, you're saying all of it, potentially, is not true.

 

I get that people don't like to think about this, but this is the reality of the Bible. It has to be all true, or none of it is worth spending your time on.

 

 

 

I even went back to check what language you used, because i was originally going to say 'literal', and I wasn't sure if that was what you had claimed or not. How did I misrepresent your point?

[Moiraine]

 

I read the whole thing (a few times now) since I was replying to some of it. God is God but we're choosing to interpret what God is and what God's words are by reading the Bible and everyone is different therefore we all perceive God differently.

 

The official stance of one religion or another is going to be what it is, but as an example I'm a non-denominational Christian and we don't revere pastors the way some do (e.g. Catholics). Therefore I can consider the pastor's expertise but I can interpret the Bible using my best judgement.

 

If I was Catholic I'm assuming I'd ask a priest or listen to the Pope or read what previous priests have written about what everything in the Bible means.

 

What my mom does is goes to Bible study which is sometimes led by other church members and sometimes led by a book on tape created by a famous Christian human that Christians happen to respect.

I used to lead Bible studies like the ones your mom goes to.

My mom has led them too. I'm guessing you led them because you had read the Bible a lot. But if you'd read it the same amount as my mom and intepreted the same passage a different way, which of you should people agree with? Same goes with pastors of the same denomination.

 

That's why I think this literal or not thing isn't that important (except when it causes people harm - like kids in science class). There are some parts of the Bible that I consider vital. Like how to not be a jerk and WWJD. There are other parts that, if misinterpreted, I don't think people are gonna go to hell for it.

 

 

Anyhow, my mom thinks God's word is perfect but she's open to the idea that God used evolution to populate the earth.

[Landlord]

Let's move on, shall we?

 

 

This discussion of 'is this part true', 'which parts are real', 'is this literal or not' is boring. I'd love to move past it What's interesting about this is that while we want to approach these texts of Christianity with a post-Reformation, post-Enlightenment informed view of there being one proper and true way to interpret, Jesus himself didn't really view the Old Testament that way. Judaism has this thing called midrash, which is a canonized commentary, debate, questioning and offering up of many possible interpretations of how God was trying to communicate through the Torah and the prophets and the psalms, etc.

 

Jesus himself took liberties with quoting scripture, and approached it from the idea of a loving God having an ongoing, developing, messy dialogue with mankind throughout history. The first millenium-plus of Christianity approached the gospels and Paul's letters the same way, much more concerned with the point of it all than the factual historicity or accurate documentation of events.

 

From Richard Rohr:

 

 

 

Pope Francis is returning us to the much older and more mature Tradition in his notion of a "hierarchy of truths" (Joy of the Gospel). Not all truths are created equal, or of equal importance. Something might be true merely on a psychological level or a historical level or a mythological level. For some sad and illogical reason, fundamentalists think the historical level is the "truest" one. "Did it really happen just that way?" That is actually one of the least fruitful levels of meaning. Even if it did happen just that way, our capacity to understand even that truth is still filtered through our own cultural and personal biases, which are largely unconscious. There is no such thing as a value-free interpretation of anything. It does not exist on this earth, but only in the perfect mind of God.

[knapplc]

 

If you can pick and choose which parts are real, none of it has validity.

 

 

OK. Which of these stories is true:

 

Creation in six days

Noah's Ark (Also, unrelated,

)

Job

Ruth/Esther

Elijah and the prophets of Baal

Balaam's Ass

Jesus' virgin birth

The tongues of fire at pentecost

Peter & the sheet of food

Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus

 

For every story that isn't true, please explain, using the Bible's own words, how we are to know they are not "true" stories, but parables or lessons.

 

For the Bible to be a real source of information it has to be real, all of it. Because if any of it is not true, you're saying all of it, potentially, is not true.

 

I get that people don't like to think about this, but this is the reality of the Bible. It has to be all true, or none of it is worth spending your time on.

 

 

 

I even went back to check what language you used, because i was originally going to say 'literal', and I wasn't sure if that was what you had claimed or not. How did I misrepresent your point?

Perhaps you didn't. It seemed to say something else when I first read it.

[knapplc]

Tell me at least one person listened to Marit Peters' song from that link. If you take nothing from my contributions to this thread other than a love for that song, it'll all be worth it.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

Religion isn't a thing that can be blamed for human actions. Religion is a human construct. It is no more to blame for bad actions than sport, nationalism, politics, love, money, or anything else humans create to explain their existence.

 

Religion is not inherently bad. Like a spoon or a pillow, it can be misused for bad things. But by its nature it is not bad.

 

Blaming religion for anything is a copout. It's humans who are to blame. Every time.

I disagree. Blaming religion, and the people who commit violent acts in their religion's name, is warranted.

 

For example, Let's say I am not religious at all but I am searching for meaning. I pick up a New King James Bible, the Quran, or some other similar holy book. Further, had never really thought of, or considered, that being gay was "wrong." I always thought, meh, it's not for me but if someone is, that's their orientation. In addition, I've never thought that anyone who believes differently than I do is necessarily wrong. Then religion gets ahold of me. Suddenly, anyone who doesn't believe what I do, is "going to hell" or they are a sinner and need to repent to "their god." (Because everyone else's god is the wrong one.)

 

Religion, just took someone who was formerly not a bigot and twisted them into one. So yes, you can absolutely blame religion.

 

You're just blaming humans. Take religion out of the equation and humans still do this stuff.

 

 

That is true. However, it is also true that if we take religion out of the equation, the amount violence, bloodshed, atrocities, and murder people commit would be cut drastically. Not to mention we wouldn't have to deal with all these ridiculous religious freedom laws.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion isn't a thing that can be blamed for human actions. Religion is a human construct. It is no more to blame for bad actions than sport, nationalism, politics, love, money, or anything else humans create to explain their existence.

 

Religion is not inherently bad. Like a spoon or a pillow, it can be misused for bad things. But by its nature it is not bad.

 

Blaming religion for anything is a copout. It's humans who are to blame. Every time.

I disagree. Blaming religion, and the people who commit violent acts in their religion's name, is warranted.

 

For example, Let's say I am not religious at all but I am searching for meaning. I pick up a New King James Bible, the Quran, or some other similar holy book. Further, had never really thought of, or considered, that being gay was "wrong." I always thought, meh, it's not for me but if someone is, that's their orientation. In addition, I've never thought that anyone who believes differently than I do is necessarily wrong. Then religion gets ahold of me. Suddenly, anyone who doesn't believe what I do, is "going to hell" or they are a sinner and need to repent to "their god." (Because everyone else's god is the wrong one.)

 

Religion, just took someone who was formerly not a bigot and twisted them into one. So yes, you can absolutely blame religion.

You're just blaming humans. Take religion out of the equation and humans still do this stuff.

That is true. However, it is also true that if we take religion out of the equation, the amount violence, bloodshed, atrocities, and murder people commit would be cut drastically. Not to mention we wouldn't have to deal with all these ridiculous religious freedom laws.

 

That's where we agree to disagree. Humans are... human. We would find something else to fight over, and in equal amounts. Religion is an excuse to fight but it's not the cause.

[Landlord]

That is true. However, it is also true that if we take religion out of the equation, the amount violence, bloodshed, atrocities, and murder people commit would be cut drastically. Not to mention we wouldn't have to deal with all these ridiculous religious freedom laws.

 

 

No, it wouldn't. Because people would fill that void. Humanity has a propensity to assign something to a higher purpose. If it wasn't religion, it would be government. If it wasn't government, it would be social justice. If it wasn't social justice, it would be philosophy. If it wasn't philosophy, it would be sports teams. We are biologically hardwired to be tribal, social creatures with an "us" vs "them" mentality, and not only are primates six times more violent than any other mammals, but human beings are much more recklessly violent compared to our genetic ancestors.

 

 

But let's say you're right. Remove religion from the equation, and everything else stays the same except for the things directly affected by it. You'd have less violence and deaths, and you'd also lose things like the United States of America, the YMCA, the Salvation Army, pretty much every hospital ever, the Red Cross, most of the original colleges, most orphanages, etc. It's disheartening that you seem to have such a chronically pessimistic view of humanity outside of your own wheelhouse.

[Redux]

This is some wacky stuff in here you guys, I'm actually laughing out loud at half of it.

[RedDenver]

Once the Bible becomes invalid, the discussion ends, for all intents and purposes.

 

 

Following the line of thinking that makes the Bible invalid, wherein it's invalid as soon as certain parts of it aren't supposed to be taken as 'true', does that same rationale apply to other things?

Don't misrepresent my argument so you can make a straw man.