Religious Circularity

cpolk · 22nd February 2006, 09:50 AM

It seems to me, and I would like the views of both the religious and the religiously skeptic, that every modern-day religion is set up so that, regardless of how you feel about a situation, you are justified.

Some examples from the Bible (because, well, it's just sooooooo easy) that have shaped the course of history:

Slavery is both condemned and condoned.

Killing is both condemned and condoned.

Thievery (particularly of land) is both condemned and condoned.

Warfare is both condemned and condoned.

Money laundering and extortion is both condemned and condoned. (You cannot bribe God, but you must tithe.)

Tolerance for other religions is both condemned and condoned.

The reason I bring this up is because a few nights ago, on The O'Reilly Factor, there was a Muslim guest speaking about how "radical Muslims" are misinterpreting religious texts. I am wondering - how can you misinterperet texts that justify you, whatever your position is?

Freethinker · 22nd February 2006, 10:26 AM

The point is, it's always other people who misinterpret. That's a way of saying they don't agree with you.

Iacchus · 22nd February 2006, 10:34 AM

I believe what you are describing is called human nature.

pmckean · 22nd February 2006, 11:25 PM

Apologies for suggesting this, but could you please back up your assertions with biblical referencing and, perhaps, excerpted quotes?

It's no less than august members of this forum would ask of someone who came on here and claimed that the bible was an entirely *consistent* text.

Incidentally, considering the evolution (hee hee) of the bible in the last few millenia; multiple authors, translations and mistranslations, papal meddling etc - total consistency would almost be enough to force the JREF to finally pony up the green! I've anecdotally heard the consistent nature of the book argued as a case for its divine origin, which is rather amusing if you consider that it's likely to be liberally spliced with utterly divergent statements.

Still, we won't know until you show us the proof.

cpolk · 23rd February 2006, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by pmckean

Apologies for suggesting this, but could you please back up your assertions with biblical referencing and, perhaps, excerpted quotes?

It's no less than august members of this forum would ask of someone who came on here and claimed that the bible was an entirely *consistent* text.

Incidentally, considering the evolution (hee hee) of the bible in the last few millenia; multiple authors, translations and mistranslations, papal meddling etc - total consistency would almost be enough to force the JREF to finally pony up the green! I've anecdotally heard the consistent nature of the book argued as a case for its divine origin, which is rather amusing if you consider that it's likely to be liberally spliced with utterly divergent statements.

Still, we won't know until you show us the proof.

Well, I would think that the proof would be in the pudding, as the expression goes, since all of these things have been historically justified and condoned using the Bible. This is not only the Bible, however; I am not familiar with the Quran, but the Musilm speaker on the O'Reilly factor made a quote similar to, "The radical Muslims are focusing on the parts of the Quran that deal with violence, but ignoring the peaceful aspects." So, I started wondering, if the texts contain both, then the "Radical Musilims" have just as much of a claim that the guest was ignoring their part of the Quran.

When I get a chance, I will pour through the Bible and get specific verses to back up the claims I've made. Would it be verifiable if I find historical accounts of events, such as witch burnings, that source the Bible, or does it need to be direct Bible quotes?

Any assistance on quotes would be greatly appreciated!!!

cpolk · 23rd February 2006, 01:23 AM

(Edit: I cannot edit my original post, so I will write what I find in further posts. After references have been found for everything I've stated, I will post a new thread.)

GOD IN FAVOR OF SLAVERY

Slavery is mentioned several times in the Bible. At varying points, God makes people slaves; at other points, He removes them from slavehood. Mid-late Genesis involves many stories of both.

The most telling is in Exodus, where God gives specific instructions to His people, through Moses, on how slaves are to be handled.

EXODUS 21:20-21

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

-New International Bible

BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR SLAVERY IN COLONIAL AMERICA

In Genesis 9:25-27, Noah, through his dogmatic covenant with God, placed a curse on Canaan's descendants, that they would all be slaves to the descendants of Noah's other sons. Since humanity was wiped out by the flood and only Noah's family was left, this created two categories - Noah's non-slave descnedants, and Canaan's slave descendants. Traditionally, Canaan was thought to have ended up in modern-day Africa. This was the Biblical justification used in Colonial American slavery.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

David Swidler · 23rd February 2006, 02:10 AM

It's an interesting question, but I wonder whether the mere mention of X in the bible without banning it outright automatically means the author(s) viewed X as positive. It could also be that the biblical system accepts certain institutions neutrally but seeks to regulate those activities - this is especially evident in the area of sexuality. Something similar can be seen in our own love-hate relationship with the tobacco industry. As Iacchus noted, it says more about human nature than about biblical authorship. Any composition can be interpreted in contradictory ways, and the interpretation is guided by the interpreter's biases.

Regarding the bible specifically (well, the OT), it should be noted that actual practice of the laws stems as much - if not more - from Jewish oral tradition as from the written word, and that the latter only provides a partial picture of the religion's view of X.

cpolk · 23rd February 2006, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by David Swidler

Regarding the bible specifically (well, the OT), it should be noted that actual practice of the laws stems as much - if not more - from Jewish oral tradition as from the written word, and that the latter only provides a partial picture of the religion's view of X.

That's what I don't understand... "the religion's view on X." What does that mean? Who is in charge of dictating what the religion's views are, when speaking on the institutional level? Isn't that what the Bible is for? Isn't it an infallable work of divinity? Supposedly?

The Bible is infallable, yet I have just shown where God not only accpets slavery, but tells you that you can beat your slave as long as they regain mobility (or is it consciousness?) after 2 days, because they are your property.

If a religious text provides justification, regardless of your stance, then who is to decide what the religion's view is? The religious people who disagree with you are going to do so with quotes that support their claims, while ignoring your quotes out of the very same religious texts.

pmckean · 23rd February 2006, 04:22 AM

My friend is a full-on happy-clappy Christian.

None of my skeptical arguments wash with her. The Bible, she says, is infallible and written by God. It's also misinterpreted and badly translated by man, she says. Therefore she can observe those aspects that she likes, and discount those that she doesn't.

That's one of the reasons that biblical contradiction needs to be referenced. The apparent incongurity here is that she accepts the tenets of Christianity on Faith, but requires evidence for anything which will potentially subvert it.

"I can't understand", she says, "..why you don't believe in God". "Aah," I say, "why should I? It's you who asserts that all this stuff is true. It runs contrary to everything I know about the physical universe. The burden of proof, therefore, is on you!". "No", she continues. "Your suggestion that there is NO God runs completely contrary to my understanding of how the Universe was created and functions. The idea that there is no creator is, from my perspective, an extraordinary and unusual idea, accepted only by a minority of the world's population. If you assert this extraordinary idea, then you should be prepared to back it up with fact. The burden of proof is on YOU!".

Gah!

David Swidler · 23rd February 2006, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by cpolk

That's what I don't understand... "the religion's view on X." What does that mean?

For starters, it means taking into account sources other than the Bible, which is not the sole source of authoritative teaching - in Judaism there's the Talmud and related writings (redacted oral law), in Christianity there are the writings of the Church Fathers, etc. The bible text itself is not the only source.

Quote:

Who is in charge of dictating what the religion's views are, when speaking on the institutional level? Isn't that what the Bible is for?

The bible is a good starting point, certainly, as far as Western religion is concerned, but as with any text open to interpretation, each religion has (or had, or tries to have) a central authoritative body. In Judaism that was the Sanhedrin, for example, and Roman Catholicism has the Pope.

Quote:

Isn't it an infallable work of divinity? Supposedly?

That's kinda the basis for the belief system, yeah. But that doesn't mean it necessarily covers every possible nuance at a glance. That's where the authoritative body comes in.

Quote:

The Bible is infallable, yet I have just shown where God not only accpets slavery, but tells you that you can beat your slave as long as they regain mobility (or is it consciousness?) after 2 days, because they are your property.

There are several approaches to the slavery issue that I've encountered. The first, most obvious one - typically associated with the fundie mindset - is the "How Dare You Be So Arrogant As To Assume Your Morality Is Better Than God's" approach. It has the "advantage" of not being refutable by logic, at least not to the True Believer.

A more nuanced approach views the slavery issue in its chronological context, i.e. as an improvement over a slave's position in other legal systems of the time. (There's also some confusion to the casual reader, in that there are two types of slaves: Hebrew and "Canaanite," i.e. not Hebrew, with different laws governing each type, but that's probably not for this thread). I can't really address that aspect, not being familiar with other systems.

Add to that the general trend of the oral law to moderate the seemingly strict statements of the written law, and to steward the system's evolution toward a "progressive" model. The evolution - as opposed to revolution - of the legal system is important in establishing a viable long-term approach. Change too much too quickly and everything falls apart. That's one possible explanation for the seeming harshness of the biblical commandments to modern sensibilities - although progressive for its time, it wasn't the end of the story, and the oral law kept the system developing (and in fact that's still the case).

With that in mind, the idea of capital punishment also takes on a new light. Although the bible prescribes four different court-administered death penalties, in practice the oral law interpreted biblical jurisprudence so strictly that the requirements for a capital conviction were rarely met; a court that executed anyone more than once every seven years was considered "bloody" (with another opinion in the Talmud citing a figure of seventy years). What appears in the text to be a harsh penal system took on a different character entirely through the oral law - one in which the biblically prescribed executions served more to illustrate the seriousness of the violations to which they were attached than to actually demand the death penalty right and left.

Quote:

If a religious text provides justification, regardless of your stance, then who is to decide what the religion's view is? The religious people who disagree with you are going to do so with quotes that support their claims, while ignoring your quotes out of the very same religious texts.

Which is why (most?) religions authorize only qualified, recognized individuals to exercise authority. There are certain absolutes on which everyone is supposed to agree. There are (or should be by now) established rules by which interpretation takes place.

farmermike · 23rd February 2006, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by pmckean

"I can't understand", she says, "..why you don't believe in God". "Aah," I say, "why should I? It's you who asserts that all this stuff is true. It runs contrary to everything I know about the physical universe. The burden of proof, therefore, is on you!". "No", she continues. "Your suggestion that there is NO God runs completely contrary to my understanding of how the Universe was created and functions. The idea that there is no creator is, from my perspective, an extraordinary and unusual idea, accepted only by a minority of the world's population. If you assert this extraordinary idea, then you should be prepared to back it up with fact. The burden of proof is on YOU!".

Gah!

You basically have to get right with god and stop running away from him,once you do that,things will clear right up..yaddayaddayadda.
That can be very frustrating to have observations or questions met with answers that are not of this world.My advice is if she's a true friend ,avoid the subject.

cpolk · 23rd February 2006, 01:08 PM

Hi, David! Thanks for replying. If you sensed any aggression in my last post (and there was a some), it was not aimed at you or your post.

Originally Posted by David Swidler

For starters, it means taking into account sources other than the Bible, which is not the sole source of authoritative teaching - in Judaism there's the Talmud and related writings (redacted oral law), in Christianity there are the writings of the Church Fathers, etc. The bible text itself is not the only source.

I know many Christian, including church officials, who would disagree - they will make the claim that the Bible is both the start and finish. It is a complete source, and answers all of your questions when it's time for you to know the answers.

Originally Posted by David Swidler

There are several approaches to the slavery issue that I've encountered.

The most common argument I've encountered was that it was the precursor to a democratic society's "employment". This makes no sense to me. If it was referenced as work in exchange for room and board, they would have a case under indentured servantry or perhaps some sort of barter; forcing someone to work by fear of bodily injury and considering them property cannot be interpreted as anything other than slavery.

Originally Posted by David Swidler

Add to that the general trend of the oral law to moderate the seemingly strict statements of the written law, and to steward the system's evolution toward a "progressive" model. The evolution - as opposed to revolution - of the legal system is important in establishing a viable long-term approach. Change too much too quickly and everything falls apart. That's one possible explanation for the seeming harshness of the biblical commandments to modern sensibilities - although progressive for its time, it wasn't the end of the story, and the oral law kept the system developing (and in fact that's still the case).

The thing is, I'm not looking so much for a logical, historical explanation, because I can find that on my own. But in doing so, we're showing that the religious texts were written as a form of religious/political control (i.e., don't do this merely because it's the law of the land, but because it's God's word).

Originally Posted by David Swidler

Which is why (most?) religions authorize only qualified, recognized individuals to exercise authority. There are certain absolutes on which everyone is supposed to agree. There are (or should be by now) established rules by which interpretation takes place.

And yet, there are countless denominations... which is why I ask: if everyone is opposing each other to some degree, but all can back up their position using quotes from the same text, how can it be determined who is right and who is wrong?

It gives me a headache. I will continue to search for examples of the other claims.

SuperCoolGuy · 23rd February 2006, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by cpolk

I am not familiar with the Quran, but the Musilm speaker on the O'Reilly factor made a quote similar to, "The radical Muslims are focusing on the parts of the Quran that deal with violence, but ignoring the peaceful aspects." So, I started wondering, if the texts contain both, then the "Radical Musilims" have just as much of a claim that the guest was ignoring their part of the Quran.

This is the dilemma of moderate muslims in a nut shell.

22nd February 2006, 09:50 AM	#1
cpolk Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 314	Religious Circularity It seems to me, and I would like the views of both the religious and the religiously skeptic, that every modern-day religion is set up so that, regardless of how you feel about a situation, you are justified. Some examples from the Bible (because, well, it's just sooooooo easy) that have shaped the course of history: Slavery is both condemned and condoned. Killing is both condemned and condoned. Thievery (particularly of land) is both condemned and condoned. Warfare is both condemned and condoned. Money laundering and extortion is both condemned and condoned. (You cannot bribe God, but you must tithe.) Tolerance for other religions is both condemned and condoned. The reason I bring this up is because a few nights ago, on The O'Reilly Factor, there was a Muslim guest speaking about how "radical Muslims" are misinterpreting religious texts. I am wondering - how can you misinterperet texts that justify you, whatever your position is?
cpolk Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 314

22nd February 2006, 10:26 AM	#2
Freethinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 1,358	The point is, it's always other people who misinterpret. That's a way of saying they don't agree with you.
	__________________ "Did it indeed seem probable, as he had once overheard Dunbar ask, that the answers to the riddles of creation would be supplied by people too ignorant to understand the mechanics of rainfall? Had Almighty God, in all His infinite wisdom, really been afraid that men six thousand years ago would succeed in building a tower to heaven?" Thoughts of the Chaplain in Heller's Catch-22

22nd February 2006, 11:25 PM	#4
pmckean Thinker Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 232	Apologies for suggesting this, but could you please back up your assertions with biblical referencing and, perhaps, excerpted quotes? It's no less than august members of this forum would ask of someone who came on here and claimed that the bible was an entirely consistent text. Incidentally, considering the evolution (hee hee) of the bible in the last few millenia; multiple authors, translations and mistranslations, papal meddling etc - total consistency would almost be enough to force the JREF to finally pony up the green! I've anecdotally heard the consistent nature of the book argued as a case for its divine origin, which is rather amusing if you consider that it's likely to be liberally spliced with utterly divergent statements. Still, we won't know until you show us the proof.
pmckean Thinker Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 232

23rd February 2006, 12:26 AM	#5
cpolk Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 314	Originally Posted by pmckean Apologies for suggesting this, but could you please back up your assertions with biblical referencing and, perhaps, excerpted quotes? It's no less than august members of this forum would ask of someone who came on here and claimed that the bible was an entirely consistent text. Incidentally, considering the evolution (hee hee) of the bible in the last few millenia; multiple authors, translations and mistranslations, papal meddling etc - total consistency would almost be enough to force the JREF to finally pony up the green! I've anecdotally heard the consistent nature of the book argued as a case for its divine origin, which is rather amusing if you consider that it's likely to be liberally spliced with utterly divergent statements. Still, we won't know until you show us the proof. Well, I would think that the proof would be in the pudding, as the expression goes, since all of these things have been historically justified and condoned using the Bible. This is not only the Bible, however; I am not familiar with the Quran, but the Musilm speaker on the O'Reilly factor made a quote similar to, "The radical Muslims are focusing on the parts of the Quran that deal with violence, but ignoring the peaceful aspects." So, I started wondering, if the texts contain both, then the "Radical Musilims" have just as much of a claim that the guest was ignoring their part of the Quran. When I get a chance, I will pour through the Bible and get specific verses to back up the claims I've made. Would it be verifiable if I find historical accounts of events, such as witch burnings, that source the Bible, or does it need to be direct Bible quotes? Any assistance on quotes would be greatly appreciated!!!
cpolk Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 314	Last edited by cpolk; 23rd February 2006 at 12:28 AM.

23rd February 2006, 01:23 AM	#6
cpolk Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 314	(Edit: I cannot edit my original post, so I will write what I find in further posts. After references have been found for everything I've stated, I will post a new thread.) GOD IN FAVOR OF SLAVERY Slavery is mentioned several times in the Bible. At varying points, God makes people slaves; at other points, He removes them from slavehood. Mid-late Genesis involves many stories of both. The most telling is in Exodus, where God gives specific instructions to His people, through Moses, on how slaves are to be handled. EXODUS 21:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." -New International Bible BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR SLAVERY IN COLONIAL AMERICA In Genesis 9:25-27, Noah, through his dogmatic covenant with God, placed a curse on Canaan's descendants, that they would all be slaves to the descendants of Noah's other sons. Since humanity was wiped out by the flood and only Noah's family was left, this created two categories - Noah's non-slave descnedants, and Canaan's slave descendants. Traditionally, Canaan was thought to have ended up in modern-day Africa. This was the Biblical justification used in Colonial American slavery. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm
cpolk Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 314	Last edited by cpolk; 23rd February 2006 at 01:47 AM.

22nd February 2006, 10:34 AM	#3
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	I believe what you are describing is called human nature.

23rd February 2006, 02:10 AM	#7
David Swidler Carrot Mohel Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Right here, obviously. Posts: 8,302	It's an interesting question, but I wonder whether the mere mention of X in the bible without banning it outright automatically means the author(s) viewed X as positive. It could also be that the biblical system accepts certain institutions neutrally but seeks to regulate those activities - this is especially evident in the area of sexuality. Something similar can be seen in our own love-hate relationship with the tobacco industry. As Iacchus noted, it says more about human nature than about biblical authorship. Any composition can be interpreted in contradictory ways, and the interpretation is guided by the interpreter's biases. Regarding the bible specifically (well, the OT), it should be noted that actual practice of the laws stems as much - if not more - from Jewish oral tradition as from the written word, and that the latter only provides a partial picture of the religion's view of X.

23rd February 2006, 02:43 AM	#8
cpolk Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 314	Originally Posted by David Swidler Regarding the bible specifically (well, the OT), it should be noted that actual practice of the laws stems as much - if not more - from Jewish oral tradition as from the written word, and that the latter only provides a partial picture of the religion's view of X. That's what I don't understand... "the religion's view on X." What does that mean? Who is in charge of dictating what the religion's views are, when speaking on the institutional level? Isn't that what the Bible is for? Isn't it an infallable work of divinity? Supposedly? The Bible is infallable, yet I have just shown where God not only accpets slavery, but tells you that you can beat your slave as long as they regain mobility (or is it consciousness?) after 2 days, because they are your property. If a religious text provides justification, regardless of your stance, then who is to decide what the religion's view is? The religious people who disagree with you are going to do so with quotes that support their claims, while ignoring your quotes out of the very same religious texts.
cpolk Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 314

23rd February 2006, 04:22 AM	#9
pmckean Thinker Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 232	My friend is a full-on happy-clappy Christian. None of my skeptical arguments wash with her. The Bible, she says, is infallible and written by God. It's also misinterpreted and badly translated by man, she says. Therefore she can observe those aspects that she likes, and discount those that she doesn't. That's one of the reasons that biblical contradiction needs to be referenced. The apparent incongurity here is that she accepts the tenets of Christianity on Faith, but requires evidence for anything which will potentially subvert it. "I can't understand", she says, "..why you don't believe in God". "Aah," I say, "why should I? It's you who asserts that all this stuff is true. It runs contrary to everything I know about the physical universe. The burden of proof, therefore, is on you!". "No", she continues. "Your suggestion that there is NO God runs completely contrary to my understanding of how the Universe was created and functions. The idea that there is no creator is, from my perspective, an extraordinary and unusual idea, accepted only by a minority of the world's population. If you assert this extraordinary idea, then you should be prepared to back it up with fact. The burden of proof is on YOU!". Gah!
pmckean Thinker Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 232

23rd February 2006, 06:22 AM	#10
David Swidler Carrot Mohel Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Right here, obviously. Posts: 8,302	Originally Posted by cpolk That's what I don't understand... "the religion's view on X." What does that mean? For starters, it means taking into account sources other than the Bible, which is not the sole source of authoritative teaching - in Judaism there's the Talmud and related writings (redacted oral law), in Christianity there are the writings of the Church Fathers, etc. The bible text itself is not the only source. Quote: Who is in charge of dictating what the religion's views are, when speaking on the institutional level? Isn't that what the Bible is for? The bible is a good starting point, certainly, as far as Western religion is concerned, but as with any text open to interpretation, each religion has (or had, or tries to have) a central authoritative body. In Judaism that was the Sanhedrin, for example, and Roman Catholicism has the Pope. Quote: Isn't it an infallable work of divinity? Supposedly? That's kinda the basis for the belief system, yeah. But that doesn't mean it necessarily covers every possible nuance at a glance. That's where the authoritative body comes in. Quote: The Bible is infallable, yet I have just shown where God not only accpets slavery, but tells you that you can beat your slave as long as they regain mobility (or is it consciousness?) after 2 days, because they are your property. There are several approaches to the slavery issue that I've encountered. The first, most obvious one - typically associated with the fundie mindset - is the "How Dare You Be So Arrogant As To Assume Your Morality Is Better Than God's" approach. It has the "advantage" of not being refutable by logic, at least not to the True Believer. A more nuanced approach views the slavery issue in its chronological context, i.e. as an improvement over a slave's position in other legal systems of the time. (There's also some confusion to the casual reader, in that there are two types of slaves: Hebrew and "Canaanite," i.e. not Hebrew, with different laws governing each type, but that's probably not for this thread). I can't really address that aspect, not being familiar with other systems. Add to that the general trend of the oral law to moderate the seemingly strict statements of the written law, and to steward the system's evolution toward a "progressive" model. The evolution - as opposed to revolution - of the legal system is important in establishing a viable long-term approach. Change too much too quickly and everything falls apart. That's one possible explanation for the seeming harshness of the biblical commandments to modern sensibilities - although progressive for its time, it wasn't the end of the story, and the oral law kept the system developing (and in fact that's still the case). With that in mind, the idea of capital punishment also takes on a new light. Although the bible prescribes four different court-administered death penalties, in practice the oral law interpreted biblical jurisprudence so strictly that the requirements for a capital conviction were rarely met; a court that executed anyone more than once every seven years was considered "bloody" (with another opinion in the Talmud citing a figure of seventy years). What appears in the text to be a harsh penal system took on a different character entirely through the oral law - one in which the biblically prescribed executions served more to illustrate the seriousness of the violations to which they were attached than to actually demand the death penalty right and left. Quote: If a religious text provides justification, regardless of your stance, then who is to decide what the religion's view is? The religious people who disagree with you are going to do so with quotes that support their claims, while ignoring your quotes out of the very same religious texts. Which is why (most?) religions authorize only qualified, recognized individuals to exercise authority. There are certain absolutes on which everyone is supposed to agree. There are (or should be by now) established rules by which interpretation takes place.

23rd February 2006, 06:29 AM	#11
farmermike Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: in the rolling hills of the eastern townships of Quebec Posts: 269	Originally Posted by pmckean "I can't understand", she says, "..why you don't believe in God". "Aah," I say, "why should I? It's you who asserts that all this stuff is true. It runs contrary to everything I know about the physical universe. The burden of proof, therefore, is on you!". "No", she continues. "Your suggestion that there is NO God runs completely contrary to my understanding of how the Universe was created and functions. The idea that there is no creator is, from my perspective, an extraordinary and unusual idea, accepted only by a minority of the world's population. If you assert this extraordinary idea, then you should be prepared to back it up with fact. The burden of proof is on YOU!". Gah! You basically have to get right with god and stop running away from him,once you do that,things will clear right up..yaddayaddayadda. That can be very frustrating to have observations or questions met with answers that are not of this world.My advice is if she's a true friend ,avoid the subject.

23rd February 2006, 01:08 PM	#12
cpolk Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 314	Hi, David! Thanks for replying. If you sensed any aggression in my last post (and there was a some), it was not aimed at you or your post. Originally Posted by David Swidler For starters, it means taking into account sources other than the Bible, which is not the sole source of authoritative teaching - in Judaism there's the Talmud and related writings (redacted oral law), in Christianity there are the writings of the Church Fathers, etc. The bible text itself is not the only source. I know many Christian, including church officials, who would disagree - they will make the claim that the Bible is both the start and finish. It is a complete source, and answers all of your questions when it's time for you to know the answers. Originally Posted by David Swidler There are several approaches to the slavery issue that I've encountered. The most common argument I've encountered was that it was the precursor to a democratic society's "employment". This makes no sense to me. If it was referenced as work in exchange for room and board, they would have a case under indentured servantry or perhaps some sort of barter; forcing someone to work by fear of bodily injury and considering them property cannot be interpreted as anything other than slavery. Originally Posted by David Swidler Add to that the general trend of the oral law to moderate the seemingly strict statements of the written law, and to steward the system's evolution toward a "progressive" model. The evolution - as opposed to revolution - of the legal system is important in establishing a viable long-term approach. Change too much too quickly and everything falls apart. That's one possible explanation for the seeming harshness of the biblical commandments to modern sensibilities - although progressive for its time, it wasn't the end of the story, and the oral law kept the system developing (and in fact that's still the case). The thing is, I'm not looking so much for a logical, historical explanation, because I can find that on my own. But in doing so, we're showing that the religious texts were written as a form of religious/political control (i.e., don't do this merely because it's the law of the land, but because it's God's word). Originally Posted by David Swidler Which is why (most?) religions authorize only qualified, recognized individuals to exercise authority. There are certain absolutes on which everyone is supposed to agree. There are (or should be by now) established rules by which interpretation takes place. And yet, there are countless denominations... which is why I ask: if everyone is opposing each other to some degree, but all can back up their position using quotes from the same text, how can it be determined who is right and who is wrong? It gives me a headache. I will continue to search for examples of the other claims.
cpolk Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 314

23rd February 2006, 01:27 PM	#13
SuperCoolGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Near the sun Posts: 480	Originally Posted by cpolk I am not familiar with the Quran, but the Musilm speaker on the O'Reilly factor made a quote similar to, "The radical Muslims are focusing on the parts of the Quran that deal with violence, but ignoring the peaceful aspects." So, I started wondering, if the texts contain both, then the "Radical Musilims" have just as much of a claim that the guest was ignoring their part of the Quran. This is the dilemma of moderate muslims in a nut shell.