Riiighhht. Whatever. I thought you actually knew what I believed. EDIT: Or I suppose that "right-wing nutter type" is just some broad characterization of someone that believes the Bible, believes what it teaches and speaks, and believes in Jesus Christ (as a savior...not just a man).
P.S. I see the big grin...but still not sure you are not serious. Message boards are such a low-bandwidth communication medium.
You're all losing track of the point here. I wasn't intending for you to debate whether Jesus existed or whether Bush is a good president.
The question is: Do you believe there is a difference between fact and truth? If so, what are they?
Game on.
Like many words, the words "truth" and "fact" aren't strictly defined. If you're looking for any single, clear-cut answer I don't think you'll find one.
I think it's fair to say that the word "fact" generally applies to narrower, more concrete, more easily objectifiable assertions, while "truth" is broader, dealing more with conclusions or syntheses drawn from a broader context, perhaps from a collection of supposed "facts".
We toss these words around very casually and interchangeably, however: "Were you, as you claimed, at home all evening on the night of the 15th?"
"Yes, that's the truth."
There's nothing wrong with that last sentence. Yet, in the context of a court trial, establishing the truth regarding someone's whereabouts at an important time would merely be a matter of establishing one of the facts which help lead, hopefully, to a broader truth of innocence or guilt.
The words "innocence" and "guilt" are also, of course, slippery words. We might clearly and undeniably establish with a mountain of evidence that Alice pointed a gun a Bob, pulled the trigger, and ultimately fired a bullet which was the cause of Bob's death. That said, is Alice guilty of killing Bob? Well, was it dark and Alice thought Bob was a burglar? Was Bob threatening Alice with a weapon at the time? Did Alice think the gun she held wasn't loaded? Was Alice, while not in immediate physical danger, so traumatized and threatened by Bob, and so afraid that the police and legal system wouldn't protect her or her children from Bob, that in a moment of great stress and fear she felt she had no other escape?
Different people are going to accept different types and degrees of justification for such a killing, which will lead to different views on the "truth" of whether or not Alice is guilty, innocent, or in some gray area in between.
I don't take such fuzziness, however, as many seem to do, to mean that the truth itself is a matter of personal perspective. I don't think we should confuse the difficulty of defining what we mean by "guilty" with whether or not it's true that someone is guilty of a particular act. It can be simultaneously true that Alice is guilty of killing Bob by Carol's definition of "guilt", and not guilty by Don's definition.
After all, most of us wouldn't insist that varying acceptance of the statement "chocolate is delicious" poses any baffling epistemological or ontological challenges. The enjoyment of chocolate, or lack thereof, is merely a matter of perspective. To insist that there is some ultimate Yes/No truth to the question, "Is chocolate delicious?", as if there's some Platonically ideal answer to that question, seems pretty silly. Rather than say that truth about the tastiness of chocolate is personal, I'd say it's not at all personal, but merely that the real, objective truth is very complicated and detailed, as complicated and detailed as the sum total of all reactions anyone ever has or will have to chocolate. There isn't a different "truth" for each person, each person simply possesses one facet of a larger true picture.
Of course, when it comes to something more important than confectionary predilections, like innocence or guilt in a case of murder, I think a lot of people long for the simplicity and comfort that there's a single, ultimately authoritative right answer "out there", and that a search for that truth is a matter of discovery -- and not, as I see it, a matter which also includes the very subjective element of deciding what we mean by saying that a person is "guilty".
Riiighhht. Whatever. I thought you actually knew what I believed. EDIT: Or I suppose that "right-wing nutter type" is just some broad characterization of someone that believes the Bible, believes what it teaches and speaks, and believes in Jesus Christ (as a savior...not just a man).
P.S. I see the big grin...but still not sure you are not serious. Message boards are such a low-bandwidth communication medium.
Woah there pardner. I was joking in my "nutter" comment, hence the smiley. My first comment about versions of Christianity was not meant to be pejorative either. I'm just assuming that we don't agree on "the truth" about Christianity (or is it the facts?), though to be honest I don't really know that for sure.
I think it's fair to say that the word "fact" generally applies to narrower, more concrete, more easily objectifiable assertions, while "truth" is broader, dealing more with conclusions or syntheses drawn from a broader context, perhaps from a collection of supposed "facts".
This goes back to my earlier point, even scientific observations are. most of the time, not exhaustively defined. Most "scientific observations" are placeholders for something that is in process.
We don't exhaustivley define or observe much of anything. In fact, the mantra of science is to always be becoming, or always seeking to exceed the bounds of what has been previously observed -- which is science's track record. There are some constants, some equations that are printed on laminated cards, but they are only working titles of what we don't exhaustivley know.
This is essentially dealing not with 'truth' or 'fact', just with 'what works'.
Woah there pardner. I was joking in my "nutter" comment, hence the smiley.
Fair enough. I apologize. So many folks here jump to conclusions about what so and so believes/thinks. I guess I did the same thing in this case. Sorry.
Or I suppose that "right-wing nutter type" is just some broad characterization of someone that believes the Bible, believes what it teaches and speaks, and believes in Jesus Christ (as a savior...not just a man).
If "believes the Bible" means takes the Bible, or any other so-called "Holy Book" as literally true, then I think the word "nutter" applies quite well. Barking at the moon mad.
The fact that this form of insanity is all too common in our world merely makes it more tragic. I don't view it as any less severe a break from reality simply because so many suffer from this particuler sort of malady, and because they some how, while making things miserable for the rest of us, manage to lead what might be called almost normal lives.
If "believes the Bible" means takes the Bible, or any other so-called "Holy Book" as literally true, then I think the word "nutter" applies quite well. Barking at the moon mad.
See my post here on the subject of biblical literalism. You seem to be falling into the same simplistic trap on this matter as so many do.
I understood from this that you did not personally take the whole Bible literally as you specified 'parts'
This is exactly right...because I believe that there are parts that are not intended to be read in that way. For the most part these parts are obvious. Sometimes there are parts that are more gray.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
maybe you meant by 'parts' all the parts in toto but if so then I think you were being disingenuous and more than a little evasive.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
The question really is whether one adheres to the spirit of a religion or the actual letter. Unfortunately the two are in conflict.
Not sure what you mean here?
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Christians seem to pick and choose which bits of their book to focus on and resort to tortuous explanations, pseudo-theology and special-pleading in their literalism.
Really? "Christians"? All Christians? Every single one? Most?
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
but then they would still be left with the issue of the contradictions inherent in the text
We can discuss these if you'd like.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
This tradition arose from a religious attribute: humility - ie the belief that one knows very little about the world and God and an acceptance of one's small place in the scheme of things.
I would say that correct Christian belief has this view too.
Personally, the more I go on in life, the more mysterious God becomes. God (if He is who Jews/Muslims/Christians basically think He is) cannot be "figured out" (completely). Certainly there would be aspects we could begin to see and understand and comprehend. But I wouldn't think His totality...no. I am equally suspicious of folks that appear to have the Bible and/or God "figured out"...this includes those that criticize it with such certainty and "authority" (not).
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
For quite some time now humility has gone out of the window and theologians of all faiths think they know it all - that's why they feel they have a license to kill, to convert, to argue, to not listen - to preach even.
While I agree that there is lack of humility in many ways today...you are mixing up a lot in this statement. Just because all is not known...doesn't mean that all teaching is invalid or wrong. Killing wrong. Argue (debate) still seems fair. Listening always important.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
These are the guys who will be arguing with JC when he shows back up. They'll even argue with God about who's right if they get the chance.
In fact there were examples in the N.T. of exactly this.
Back on topic: Most people know the model of Schroedinger's Cat in quantum physics - a cat is in a sealed box with a glass of poisonous gas.
Oh, do I hate it when quantum mechanics is used as an excuse for mysticism.
Quote:
According to a conventional outside observer asked to comment without opening the box the cat is in one of two states - alive (if it the poison vial is intact) or dead if it has broken the container.
It would therefore be true to say that the statement 'the cat is either alive or dead' is true. Only it isn't - it is false. Quantum physics teaches that the cat is in neither state and that is the act of an observer actively observing the cat that determines its state.
It's very important to realize that Schroedinger's Cat is a thought experiment, meant to be illustrative of a concept, and this illustration doesn't say anything that would ever be true of a real cat in a real box.
The thought experiment's "box" is not a physically possible box. It is a purely theoretical box which isolates the entire universe outside of the box from any effect caused by events within the box. Human eyes and human thoughts are not the issue, but the relationship between waveforms inside and outside of the box.
When and if a cat dies in any sort of real-world box, the outside world is most definitely affected by the cat's death -- not necessarily in a way that would make it easy to determine the state of the cat's health, but affected nonetheless. The amount of heat and pattern of heat radiation emitted from the box changes with the cat's health and vitality. The center of gravity of the box changes with every movement or lack thereof of the cat, as well as the exact pattern of the gravitational field of the box/cat combination. Vibrations within the box, however much dampened, from things like the cat's beating heart, breathing, and other movements, leak out into the world at large through the box, and the outside world is changed when those vibrations change or stop.
So, whether or not you "see" the state of the cat with your eyes, in a quantum mechanical sense you can't in reality prevent the state of the cat from being "observed", because the wave functions of the cat's constituent particles are hopelessly intertwined with wave functions outside of the box, wave functions which you will be observing. You don't need to be able to extract meaningful information from your observations in order to be tied the set of wave functions which ends in a definitive one-way-or-the-other collapse of the wave function which specifies the emission of the radiation which either kills or doesn't kill the cat.
Quote:
Therefore truth is variable.
Therefore I call bullshit.
QM brings up some very interesting philosophical questions, especially regarding the role of observation in measurement, but it certainly doesn't provide any justification for the vague, New-Agey "create your own reality" crap that some claim to find there.
While the waveforms of the set of particles which comprise a human brain may indeed interact in some complex way with what that human brain observes, there is nothing but wishful thinking and fanciful speculation behind the notion that human beliefs, desires, fears, wishes, etc. would in any systematic way interact with that which is observed to produce outcomes which would be related in any humanly meaningful sense. There is nothing in QM at all (should you consider the multiverse interpretation of QM) to lead one to give any credence to the idea that a mind which wishes to believe in a particular thing is going to be so lucky (or unlucky if the belief is unpleasant) to inhabit a branch of the multiverse where that belief corresponds to factual conditions along the chain of outcomes which specify that multiverse.
See my post here on the subject of biblical literalism. You seem to be falling into the same simplistic trap on this matter as so many do.
And you wrote in said thread...
Quote:
The Bible has parts that (I believe) are intended to be read and understood literally. Typically that begins with the historical narrative parts. Parts that are describing (allegedly) some historical person and/or events...
The bottom line of all this is that the "literal interpretation of the Bible" is a more complex topic than our simplistic, sound-bite culture today seems willing to acknowledge and accept.
For many, many people (regardless of whether you are one of them or not) the "historical" parts of the Bible include nonsense like the story of Noah's Ark. Believing that kind of story is literally true, and in other such "history", qualifies in my book as "barking at the moon mad".
No "simplistic trap" is needed for me to reach my opinion. I've heard loud and clear strident pronouncements of literal belief in many particular absurdities from the Bible, without having to personally take any psalms or parables out of context to reach my conclusions.
Quote:
This is almost laughable. Poor you...your life is made miserable because of the beliefs of others.
Ah, the beauty of Christian charity and compassion for others.
My own personal life isn't too bad, but what of the people living in repressive Islamic theocracies who yearn for greater freedom? You find their misery "laughable", do you?
And even if my own personal condition doesn't not reach the level of "misery", have I no right to complain on my own behalf, and on behalf of others, when our freedoms great and small are limited by the political power of those who are driven by beliefs I find supremely irrational?
For many, many people (regardless of whether you are one of them or not) the "historical" parts of the Bible include nonsense like the story of Noah's Ark. Believing that kind of story is literally true, and in other such "history", qualifies in my book as "barking at the moon mad".
And you are entitled to your belief.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Ah, the beauty of Christian charity and compassion for others.
I don't think compassion is the correct response for ludicrous statements. Unless it is compassion for the sadly delusional nature that has produced them.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
My own personal life isn't too bad, but what of the people living in repressive Islamic theocracies who yearn for greater freedom? You find their misery "laughable", do you?
Not at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
And even if my own personal condition doesn't not reach the level of "misery", have I no right to complain on my own behalf, and on behalf of others, when our freedoms great and small are limited by the political power of those who are driven by beliefs I find supremely irrational?
You have the right to complain...and to be wrong. How are your "freedoms great and small are limited by the political power of those who are driven by beliefs I find supremely irrational"?
Comments
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Just out of curiosity...what is "Cuilla's version of Christianity"?
You know, the right-wing nutter type.
Originally posted by BRussell
You know, the right-wing nutter type.
Riiighhht. Whatever. I thought you actually knew what I believed. EDIT: Or I suppose that "right-wing nutter type" is just some broad characterization of someone that believes the Bible, believes what it teaches and speaks, and believes in Jesus Christ (as a savior...not just a man).
P.S. I see the big grin...but still not sure you are not serious. Message boards are such a low-bandwidth communication medium.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
OKAY, TIME OUT.
You're all losing track of the point here. I wasn't intending for you to debate whether Jesus existed or whether Bush is a good president.
The question is: Do you believe there is a difference between fact and truth? If so, what are they?
Game on.
Like many words, the words "truth" and "fact" aren't strictly defined. If you're looking for any single, clear-cut answer I don't think you'll find one.
I think it's fair to say that the word "fact" generally applies to narrower, more concrete, more easily objectifiable assertions, while "truth" is broader, dealing more with conclusions or syntheses drawn from a broader context, perhaps from a collection of supposed "facts".
We toss these words around very casually and interchangeably, however: "Were you, as you claimed, at home all evening on the night of the 15th?"
"Yes, that's the truth."
There's nothing wrong with that last sentence. Yet, in the context of a court trial, establishing the truth regarding someone's whereabouts at an important time would merely be a matter of establishing one of the facts which help lead, hopefully, to a broader truth of innocence or guilt.
The words "innocence" and "guilt" are also, of course, slippery words. We might clearly and undeniably establish with a mountain of evidence that Alice pointed a gun a Bob, pulled the trigger, and ultimately fired a bullet which was the cause of Bob's death. That said, is Alice guilty of killing Bob? Well, was it dark and Alice thought Bob was a burglar? Was Bob threatening Alice with a weapon at the time? Did Alice think the gun she held wasn't loaded? Was Alice, while not in immediate physical danger, so traumatized and threatened by Bob, and so afraid that the police and legal system wouldn't protect her or her children from Bob, that in a moment of great stress and fear she felt she had no other escape?
Different people are going to accept different types and degrees of justification for such a killing, which will lead to different views on the "truth" of whether or not Alice is guilty, innocent, or in some gray area in between.
I don't take such fuzziness, however, as many seem to do, to mean that the truth itself is a matter of personal perspective. I don't think we should confuse the difficulty of defining what we mean by "guilty" with whether or not it's true that someone is guilty of a particular act. It can be simultaneously true that Alice is guilty of killing Bob by Carol's definition of "guilt", and not guilty by Don's definition.
After all, most of us wouldn't insist that varying acceptance of the statement "chocolate is delicious" poses any baffling epistemological or ontological challenges. The enjoyment of chocolate, or lack thereof, is merely a matter of perspective. To insist that there is some ultimate Yes/No truth to the question, "Is chocolate delicious?", as if there's some Platonically ideal answer to that question, seems pretty silly. Rather than say that truth about the tastiness of chocolate is personal, I'd say it's not at all personal, but merely that the real, objective truth is very complicated and detailed, as complicated and detailed as the sum total of all reactions anyone ever has or will have to chocolate. There isn't a different "truth" for each person, each person simply possesses one facet of a larger true picture.
Of course, when it comes to something more important than confectionary predilections, like innocence or guilt in a case of murder, I think a lot of people long for the simplicity and comfort that there's a single, ultimately authoritative right answer "out there", and that a search for that truth is a matter of discovery -- and not, as I see it, a matter which also includes the very subjective element of deciding what we mean by saying that a person is "guilty".
As does Wikipedia if you don't get too circular
Or you could just cite selected gems from Carl Sagan
The Truth is also apparently a guy named Carl
Then there's the whole question of who you prefer... Fox Mulder or Joe Friday... hmmm
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Riiighhht. Whatever. I thought you actually knew what I believed. EDIT: Or I suppose that "right-wing nutter type" is just some broad characterization of someone that believes the Bible, believes what it teaches and speaks, and believes in Jesus Christ (as a savior...not just a man).
P.S. I see the big grin...but still not sure you are not serious. Message boards are such a low-bandwidth communication medium.
Woah there pardner. I was joking in my "nutter" comment, hence the smiley. My first comment about versions of Christianity was not meant to be pejorative either. I'm just assuming that we don't agree on "the truth" about Christianity (or is it the facts?), though to be honest I don't really know that for sure.
Originally posted by shetline
I think it's fair to say that the word "fact" generally applies to narrower, more concrete, more easily objectifiable assertions, while "truth" is broader, dealing more with conclusions or syntheses drawn from a broader context, perhaps from a collection of supposed "facts".
This goes back to my earlier point, even scientific observations are. most of the time, not exhaustively defined. Most "scientific observations" are placeholders for something that is in process.
We don't exhaustivley define or observe much of anything. In fact, the mantra of science is to always be becoming, or always seeking to exceed the bounds of what has been previously observed -- which is science's track record. There are some constants, some equations that are printed on laminated cards, but they are only working titles of what we don't exhaustivley know.
This is essentially dealing not with 'truth' or 'fact', just with 'what works'.
A fact is a unit of truth.
Originally posted by BRussell
Woah there pardner. I was joking in my "nutter" comment, hence the smiley.
Fair enough. I apologize. So many folks here jump to conclusions about what so and so believes/thinks. I guess I did the same thing in this case. Sorry.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
"truth" is the relationship between belief and reality.
A fact is a unit of truth.
Bingo. Give the man a free taco.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
"truth" is the relationship between belief and reality.
Considering the very dysfunctional relationship a lot of people have there, I'm not sure if that's what I'd want to call "truth".
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Or I suppose that "right-wing nutter type" is just some broad characterization of someone that believes the Bible, believes what it teaches and speaks, and believes in Jesus Christ (as a savior...not just a man).
If "believes the Bible" means takes the Bible, or any other so-called "Holy Book" as literally true, then I think the word "nutter" applies quite well. Barking at the moon mad.
The fact that this form of insanity is all too common in our world merely makes it more tragic. I don't view it as any less severe a break from reality simply because so many suffer from this particuler sort of malady, and because they some how, while making things miserable for the rest of us, manage to lead what might be called almost normal lives.
Originally posted by shetline
If "believes the Bible" means takes the Bible, or any other so-called "Holy Book" as literally true, then I think the word "nutter" applies quite well. Barking at the moon mad.
See my post here on the subject of biblical literalism. You seem to be falling into the same simplistic trap on this matter as so many do.
Originally posted by shetline
while making things miserable for the rest of us, manage to lead what might be called almost normal lives.
This is almost laughable. Poor you...your life is made miserable because of the beliefs of others.
Originally posted by segovius
Chris, in your opinion, do there exist any Christians who are literalist in their interpretation of the Bible?
Yes (including me)...actually not just opinion but experience too...but...have you read my post on this matter?
Originally posted by segovius
I understood from this that you did not personally take the whole Bible literally as you specified 'parts'
This is exactly right...because I believe that there are parts that are not intended to be read in that way. For the most part these parts are obvious. Sometimes there are parts that are more gray.
Originally posted by segovius
maybe you meant by 'parts' all the parts in toto but if so then I think you were being disingenuous and more than a little evasive.
Originally posted by segovius
The question really is whether one adheres to the spirit of a religion or the actual letter. Unfortunately the two are in conflict.
Not sure what you mean here?
Originally posted by segovius
Christians seem to pick and choose which bits of their book to focus on and resort to tortuous explanations, pseudo-theology and special-pleading in their literalism.
Really? "Christians"? All Christians? Every single one? Most?
Originally posted by segovius
but then they would still be left with the issue of the contradictions inherent in the text
We can discuss these if you'd like.
Originally posted by segovius
This tradition arose from a religious attribute: humility - ie the belief that one knows very little about the world and God and an acceptance of one's small place in the scheme of things.
I would say that correct Christian belief has this view too.
Personally, the more I go on in life, the more mysterious God becomes. God (if He is who Jews/Muslims/Christians basically think He is) cannot be "figured out" (completely). Certainly there would be aspects we could begin to see and understand and comprehend. But I wouldn't think His totality...no. I am equally suspicious of folks that appear to have the Bible and/or God "figured out"...this includes those that criticize it with such certainty and "authority" (not).
Originally posted by segovius
For quite some time now humility has gone out of the window and theologians of all faiths think they know it all - that's why they feel they have a license to kill, to convert, to argue, to not listen - to preach even.
While I agree that there is lack of humility in many ways today...you are mixing up a lot in this statement. Just because all is not known...doesn't mean that all teaching is invalid or wrong. Killing wrong. Argue (debate) still seems fair. Listening always important.
Originally posted by segovius
These are the guys who will be arguing with JC when he shows back up. They'll even argue with God about who's right if they get the chance.
In fact there were examples in the N.T. of exactly this.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
How is it that we here are all so good at derailing threads? Very rarely do these threads ever stay on topic.
It just happens. Sorry. Something comes up and just needs to get addressed (rather than just being allowed to "hang out there" without challenge).
I'll try to behave myself.
Originally posted by segovius
Back on topic: Most people know the model of Schroedinger's Cat in quantum physics - a cat is in a sealed box with a glass of poisonous gas.
Oh, do I hate it when quantum mechanics is used as an excuse for mysticism.
According to a conventional outside observer asked to comment without opening the box the cat is in one of two states - alive (if it the poison vial is intact) or dead if it has broken the container.
It would therefore be true to say that the statement 'the cat is either alive or dead' is true. Only it isn't - it is false. Quantum physics teaches that the cat is in neither state and that is the act of an observer actively observing the cat that determines its state.
It's very important to realize that Schroedinger's Cat is a thought experiment, meant to be illustrative of a concept, and this illustration doesn't say anything that would ever be true of a real cat in a real box.
The thought experiment's "box" is not a physically possible box. It is a purely theoretical box which isolates the entire universe outside of the box from any effect caused by events within the box. Human eyes and human thoughts are not the issue, but the relationship between waveforms inside and outside of the box.
When and if a cat dies in any sort of real-world box, the outside world is most definitely affected by the cat's death -- not necessarily in a way that would make it easy to determine the state of the cat's health, but affected nonetheless. The amount of heat and pattern of heat radiation emitted from the box changes with the cat's health and vitality. The center of gravity of the box changes with every movement or lack thereof of the cat, as well as the exact pattern of the gravitational field of the box/cat combination. Vibrations within the box, however much dampened, from things like the cat's beating heart, breathing, and other movements, leak out into the world at large through the box, and the outside world is changed when those vibrations change or stop.
So, whether or not you "see" the state of the cat with your eyes, in a quantum mechanical sense you can't in reality prevent the state of the cat from being "observed", because the wave functions of the cat's constituent particles are hopelessly intertwined with wave functions outside of the box, wave functions which you will be observing. You don't need to be able to extract meaningful information from your observations in order to be tied the set of wave functions which ends in a definitive one-way-or-the-other collapse of the wave function which specifies the emission of the radiation which either kills or doesn't kill the cat.
Therefore truth is variable.
Therefore I call bullshit.
QM brings up some very interesting philosophical questions, especially regarding the role of observation in measurement, but it certainly doesn't provide any justification for the vague, New-Agey "create your own reality" crap that some claim to find there.
While the waveforms of the set of particles which comprise a human brain may indeed interact in some complex way with what that human brain observes, there is nothing but wishful thinking and fanciful speculation behind the notion that human beliefs, desires, fears, wishes, etc. would in any systematic way interact with that which is observed to produce outcomes which would be related in any humanly meaningful sense. There is nothing in QM at all (should you consider the multiverse interpretation of QM) to lead one to give any credence to the idea that a mind which wishes to believe in a particular thing is going to be so lucky (or unlucky if the belief is unpleasant) to inhabit a branch of the multiverse where that belief corresponds to factual conditions along the chain of outcomes which specify that multiverse.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
See my post here on the subject of biblical literalism. You seem to be falling into the same simplistic trap on this matter as so many do.
And you wrote in said thread...
The Bible has parts that (I believe) are intended to be read and understood literally. Typically that begins with the historical narrative parts. Parts that are describing (allegedly) some historical person and/or events...
The bottom line of all this is that the "literal interpretation of the Bible" is a more complex topic than our simplistic, sound-bite culture today seems willing to acknowledge and accept.
For many, many people (regardless of whether you are one of them or not) the "historical" parts of the Bible include nonsense like the story of Noah's Ark. Believing that kind of story is literally true, and in other such "history", qualifies in my book as "barking at the moon mad".
No "simplistic trap" is needed for me to reach my opinion. I've heard loud and clear strident pronouncements of literal belief in many particular absurdities from the Bible, without having to personally take any psalms or parables out of context to reach my conclusions.
This is almost laughable. Poor you...your life is made miserable because of the beliefs of others.
Ah, the beauty of Christian charity and compassion for others.
My own personal life isn't too bad, but what of the people living in repressive Islamic theocracies who yearn for greater freedom? You find their misery "laughable", do you?
And even if my own personal condition doesn't not reach the level of "misery", have I no right to complain on my own behalf, and on behalf of others, when our freedoms great and small are limited by the political power of those who are driven by beliefs I find supremely irrational?
Originally posted by shetline
For many, many people (regardless of whether you are one of them or not) the "historical" parts of the Bible include nonsense like the story of Noah's Ark. Believing that kind of story is literally true, and in other such "history", qualifies in my book as "barking at the moon mad".
And you are entitled to your belief.
Originally posted by shetline
Ah, the beauty of Christian charity and compassion for others.
I don't think compassion is the correct response for ludicrous statements. Unless it is compassion for the sadly delusional nature that has produced them.
Originally posted by shetline
My own personal life isn't too bad, but what of the people living in repressive Islamic theocracies who yearn for greater freedom? You find their misery "laughable", do you?
Not at all.
Originally posted by shetline
And even if my own personal condition doesn't not reach the level of "misery", have I no right to complain on my own behalf, and on behalf of others, when our freedoms great and small are limited by the political power of those who are driven by beliefs I find supremely irrational?
You have the right to complain...and to be wrong. How are your "freedoms great and small are limited by the political power of those who are driven by beliefs I find supremely irrational"?