Moderate Muslims and Catholics-Nice But Dumb?

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't preclude that there's divine truth in those writings, but that truth isn't there with no single missing dot to the "i". The bible is normative, for sure, but not in every single of its 613 comandments as they are written there, as those were written in a certain sociological-historical environment and relate to that environment. That doesn't make the bible arbitrary, but definitely open to debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds arbitrary. If there some definitive meaning surely the 500 -1800 years of debate would have found it. They solved Fermat.
If the debate is not resolvable ( which seems obvious), then any conclusions one comes to are arbitrary. You produce the salve that soothes your wounds.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want God to be the worlds biggest biggest policeman, then, I guess, you're right. In that case, the bible should be viewed as his divine code of law and indeed, a few years of study should let me know all I need to know.

Problem is, I don't view God as a policeman.

On the other hand, reading a biography of Ghandy probably teaches you something about the things he believed in and valued. While it is open to debate what finer points he believed in etc., general conclusions should be far from "arbitrary".

While I realize that every analogy has it's bondaries (and comparing the bible to a biography of Ghandy is stretching it pretty good), the general distinction is my point and the reason why I, respectfully, disagree.

*bows down and throws a smile in the general direction

[fretelöo]

Oh, one last point: Comparing Fermats theorems to something related to god is rather simplistic.

Sorry, as currently writing my PhD in the OT, I coulnd't let that sit. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]


Problem is, I don't view God as a policeman.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did this become about you ( it's like talking to my wife :-)?

You claimed that all the various interpretations of the bible/Koran weren't arbitrary. If there are endless sects with different spins on a written work and no definitive one, how does anyone basing their actions on their spin be doing anything but looking at it through their tinted glasses?

They could use 'Peter Pan' and come up with the same spin to justify their actions.

( try to leave your take on any particular book out, this question isn't a personal one).

thanks, luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, one last point: Comparing Fermats theorems to something related to god is rather simplistic.

Sorry, as currently writing my PhD in the OT, I coulnd't let that sit. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it simplistic, it was making a simple point -- to some things, tough as arriving at the answer may be, there is a definitive answer. To other things, like sacred book interpretation, there is no way of claiming 'the' one true meaning, so those claiming theirs is the right one are only fooling themselves ( it gives a false foundation to their innate viewpoints).

luckyme

[fretelöo]

Speaking of "me" in the first answer, was meant as a short rhetorical twitch. Substitute "Current Catholic Theology, in Spirit with the Vaticanum II and as Currently Lectured by any Non-Reactionist European Catholic and - for the Most Part - Protestant Theological Faculty".

This might be a slight overstatement, but if it is, it really is only a slight one. And, frankly, what some radical christian sect somewhere in Idaho preaches, is of relatively little concern to me and to my on belief (oops, did it again).

As to your general point: The thing is, that the simplistic part is precisely your notion of what a definitive answer is. A definitive answer is not necessarily something that can be proven ("proven" in any strong sense of the word). And that must be so, for if otherwise, either all believers or all non-believers were simply stupid, not up to the intellectual task of understanding the other side's arguments (skimming over this thread seems to yield a few supporters of this view). And I (and again, take that as "Current blabla") don't think it's that easy.
So, you have to think of a notion of "definitive answer" that doesn'T rely on a strong notion of "proof".

And there are such notions. They rely on conditions such as consistency, rationality, "translatability" (in the sense of being translatable to other cultures normative codes) etc.

That isn't arbitrary. Someone claiming that there's a loving God that just happens to hate all homosexuals and rather wants them dead then befouling his beautiful earth, might find a few citations in Leviticus, but his "theory", if you want it call it such, is by no means consistent with his suppositions about what God is/means/wants.

If you take some scripture citations about how all non-believers are not worthy of living, that collides very much with every notion of the "God of mercy and love" that those same people say the NT is all about, that might be rationalizable by some quirky way of thinking (say, something to the effect that death is better than a life in sin or so), but it's definitely close to inconsistent with a somewhat broader picture, incorporating Creation of Mankind with free will etc. etc.
(I just give those very crude examples, because if we go into detail, we'll, for one, leave the actual point of discussion (i.e. notions of definitive answer), and for two, get into really deep waters of philosophy, dogmatics and fundamental theology. And I'd rather avoid those for the time being)

The thing is, that anyone comming from a scientific background always feels "tricked" if you come him with the idea that something can be non-arbitrary, yet at the same time there's no hard proof. I'm having these discussions for years now with my father.
Either you come to terms with that way of thinking (and the whole of human sciences basically relies on this kind of arguing) and can grant it validity, or you can't. It's that simple, really.

[ufgator3355]

first time poster, long time lurker in the strategy section. not sure if this has been posted yet, but these questions are addressed in LUMEN GENTIUM.

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Atheism must be illogical because it fails to consider that God not existing hasn't been proven as fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you could prepare a list of everything whose non-existence hasn't been proven as fact. I'll start: unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

You = win.

Respek: If it were as simple as believing what would make us happy, I would sooner believe that I am immortal and that I will develop magical powers in the year 2040, than that I have to die and spend eternity praising a being for creating humanity and then punishing its members for not always acting exactly as it wants.

[Piemaster]

[ QUOTE ]

I figured out the problem with atheism. Atheists act as if they are 100 percent sure that something doesn't exist. People who believe in some higher power believe anywhere from 1-100 percent that it does exist. Neither side can prove their case as fact. So Atheism must be illogical because it fails to consider that God not existing hasn't been proven as fact. We can then conclude that there are some emotional reasons and not factual reasons behind the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting argument. I guess how you define an atheist is quite important. I suppose somebody who was 50/50 on whether God existed would be labelled an Agnostic. Buy what if they were 75% sure there was no God? 90%? 99%? 99.999%? At what point does an Agnostic become an Atheist?

Personally I would call myself an Atheist. However, I am only about 95% sure there is no God. Of the remaining 5%, I would say about half is saying that one of the major religions is right (or at least on the right lines) and the other half is saying that there is a divine being, but mortals have no understanding of them.

I am sure that you don't have to be 100% sure there is no God to be an atheist. As you say, being 100% sure of anything is not terribly smart, even something that appears to be provable.

[WelshMackem]

[ QUOTE ]
As you say, being 100% sure of anything is not terribly smart, even something that appears to be provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

[Piemaster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As you say, being 100% sure of anything is not terribly smart, even something that appears to be provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

[/ QUOTE ]

About 98% sure [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]