First: an old Italian proverb. "You cannot reason with a German, but you can give orders." Second: only argue with a liberal when they are in the right. The more they are in the wrong, the more they become obstinate and intractable.
I thought it was pointless to argue with anyone in the wrong regardless of political leanings: it's only going to knock your own braincells off. I dare you to try and argue why lipsynching is artistically bereft to an Ashlee Simpson fan to try and prove my point: no matter who wins, everyone comes out a loser.
I think the whole 'right and wrong' thing with regards to liberalism v. conservatism is also a dangerous area in that what might be scientifically correct to a liberal is morally and theologically incorrect to a conservative; i.e., evolution. I don't really think that one can argue about whether something is correct or right or not if you're coming from different platforms, both of which have their own set of merit and values.
On the plus side, it's a lot of fun to go 'IS NOT' in an evolution-backing internet forum, regardless of whether you support the notion or not. (I support the notion of evolution as being part of intelligent design: sweet baby Jesus on a rollercoaster, it makes my head spin.) Of course, you get the obvious retaliation of 'IS SO, DERR' in response to you, and that's where the real excitement kicks in.
I support the notion of evolution as being part of intelligent design I would say so, yes. It is a very fertile area for thought. But one must be careful to place limits of sense on the notion of intelligent design, or one falls into the Fundamentalist trap of having a nosey-parkering God intervening in every petty little thing. I accept evolution as a scientific theory on the interrelationship and mutation of species. So does the Vatican (http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/nc-true.html). I do not support the misconceived use of evolution as a metaphysical category, but that is another matter. As a research historian, I would deeply resent any attempt (by, say, Muslims) to interfere with my investigations for preconceived theological reasons. If theology is true, it cannot contradict other truths: so said the greatest of all theologians, Thomas Aquinas, seven hundred and fifty years ago - following on a strong hint from St.Augustine - and so have all the greatest Catholic minds since agreed. As a culture historian, I think I can say that science itself is a product of Catholic Christian civilization, and that the use of "science" as a category to oppose to "faith" is something that belongs in the study of psychological problems (revolt against the father, against authority, against reasons) but not in serious philosophy.
I probably should have clarified better by saying 'Evangelical Pentecostal' religion, where anything seemingly resembling science is vilified and mocked until it is a bloody heap on the floor, i.e. claims that abortions cause breast cancer. Abortion might have its suckiness, and by the plateful, but that's a pretty crap accusation to make.
And yes, historically, science and Catholicism have been so strongly intertwined, which is one of the reasons I can put up with Catholicism moreso than I can most other forms of organised Christian faith. I love God, and believe in him (and Jesus, in particular) deeply in terms of him creating the world and actually giving a damn about stuff, but I really think he'd be disappointed in most of the people who call themselves Christians these days.
And I don't take all parts of the Bible literally, aside from maybe the Gospels and the part where Jesus fought the zombies off with a shotgun and a chainsaw attached to his arm, thus my belief of intelligent designs is very much that God started off the 'Big Bang' five billion years ago or so; sure, a week is impressive, but most of us can't even keep goldfish for a week. As I said: I don't take the bible too literally. I'd like to see your take on whether one can be a true Christian without taking everything in the bible literally: not for rudeness or a challenge, but because I'd genuinely like to know what you think about it.
I'd like to see your take on whether one can be a true Christian without taking everything in the bible literally
One cannot be a good Christian and take "the Bible" literally, for that would involve them not only in gross contradictions, but also in questioning the Word of God Incarnate. Jesus was fond of asking us riddles, and the biggest riddle he asked is this: while He and His disciples were everlastingly breaking the Jewish Law, especially on the matter of the Sabbath, and indeed delivering teachings that directly contradicted "Moses" word for word (e.g. the prohibition of divorce, which "Moses" allowed - in fact, Christianity is to the best of my knowledge the only religion in the world to forbid divorce altogether), at the same time He insisted that "not a comma or an accent of the Law will be changed". Unless you deal with these issues, and with hundreds like those which the Scriptures ask us every day of the week, you are not a Christian, but an idiot who is trying to believe two contradictory things. When St.Paul said that "all Scripture is inspired by God," he immediately underlined the limits of this statement by saying "and is useful for refuting error, guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright." This does not suggest that "Scripture" is, as Muslims regard the Qur'an or Hindus the Vedas, the literal word of God existing in God's own form of existence, and revealed to men; indeed, in Christian thought, it cannot be, for we have another Word of God revealed to us - not a book, but a Person. The very word "inspired" should be translated, in my view, roughly like this: "All our sacred writings testify to the impact of the Divine Presence on living human minds". That is, they are not dictated by God, but the result of human reaction to the presence of God; as indeed is the whole New Testament. In our religion, the Word of God never wrote a line that is preserved as He would have written it; the only time we read of His writing anything, it is in the story of the woman caught in adultery, and there He was writing in the sand - nor does the text tell us what He wrote. And this too, if you will, is a paradox; another one of those riddles that Jesus asks of us, and that demand the use of our minds to answer.
That was as far as I took it, considering how much of the Old Testament I saw to be contradictory and plain incorrect when put up against the NT. (C'mon, you ever tried to remove mildew with prayer? I did it one time to be lazy and avoid cleaning the bathroom. It didn't work.) It doesn't explain to me why people take some parts of one chapter seriously but completely ignore the rest: forgive me for bringing up a cliche, but the whole 'gay' thing being a sin while people wear mixed cloth and gold jewellery; it might've been Saint Paul, or it might've been Karl Lagerfield. The nine years of catholic schooling I attended have since been wiped out with copious alcohol abuse.
I suppose I am going to have to speak out about homosexuality. I really did not want to, because there is no topic, in my experience - not excluding abortion - on which people more quickly become hysterical, persecution-minded and obsessional. Nothing is less gay, in the sense of joyful, happy, luminous, than the average liberal when faced with the issue of homosexuality and its moral status; just the other day, Icarusancalion, who claims to be a Buddhist, just shrieked and howled me right out of her LJ page for no other reason than I had objected to being called a "nutjob" just because I oppose homosexual separatism. The position of the average liberal on this matter is profoundly illiberal: you are not allowed to say anything about homosexuality that is not wholly positive, and if you do, woe betide you. If you take that position, I strongly suggest you defriend me right now, because I am not going to compromise or flatter.
Tough luck on that one, alas. I think it's just as bad to force someone against their religious convictions to accept homosexuality as it is to force someone against their non-religious convictions to not accept it, thus I can see where you're coming from. I think tolerating and accepting are different things, and though I actively support it and promote tolerance within my own community through participation in many gay-themed events here, it's not particularly my place to force my own stance upon someone with such devout beliefs. On the line of tolerating, however, is a different matter: people should tolerate, if only because people don't have to be Christian or religious, thus shouldn't have to be ruled by a moral guideline that doesn't apply to their own faith or belief system.
Please feel free to disagree on this point.
(By separatism, I suppose you're speaking of the Gay Games incident and your opposition on the grounds that if they're that good at athletics they should just perform in the major Olympics. I don't know precisely where you're coming from on this one.)
I do know a whole lot on the matter and I am perfectly prepared to argue it. I am preparing a post about the origin of the concept of liberty, and now that you have challenged me, I will follow up with one on the concept and origin of science.
It sounds to me as though you have been subjected to the typical anti-Christian form of pseudo-historical education at school. I am a semi-professional, published research historian, and it took me a good twenty years to rid myself of what I had been taught, at a time when anti-Christianity was not as widespread, shameless and aggressive as it is now.
no...actually. What I learned wasn't anti-christian at all. And I know you think I was implying that early christians were all evil bigots who tried to force their belief on others. I don't even come close to thinking that.
But what we were taught was that it was really the muslims who were the first to really delve into the scientific world.
Which is even worse bullshit. The Muslims brutally conquered a number of advanced civilizations - the Roman Empire, heir to Greek and Egyptian civilization; Buddhist Central Asia, now uniformly Muslim and backward; India - and, for a while, had a spurt of cultural growth as they synthetized the learning of these various areas. Most of the people involved in this period of cultural splendour were not Muslim, but members of the conquered nations - Christians from Syria and Egypt, Indians, Persians - and as the Muslim hold on the various territories consolidated, the effect of the original cultural synthesis (which, I insist, had been brought about by one of the most brutal episodes of military conquest in history) faded away. A typical example of what happened is the work of the great doctor and philosopher Avicenna or Ibn Sina. Ibn Sina came from Central Asia and was a child prodigy who mastered the whole medical literature not only in Arabic but in Greek before he was 18. Later in his life he synthetized his learning and his own discoveries in a five-book manual called Al Qanun or The Canon. Alas, the Muslim world became convinced that this was the last word in medical knowledge and that no further effort in research and systematization was needed; so that, far from generating a great Muslim school of medicine, the genius of Ibn Sina actually had a paralyzing effect on the Muslim mind. And why is this? Because there is a presumption in Muslim culture that Muslim culture is either perfect or able to achieve perfection, and that the only duty of the Muslim is not to perfect it but to spread it - occasionally through missionary work, more often through violent conquest. Incidentally, another "Muslim golden age" took place in India between about 1490 and 1690, in similar conditions - a Muslim minority (the Mughals) conquering a non-Muslim majority by force of arms and forcing a briefly very fertile synthesis of cultures. This was what produced such things as the Taj Mahal; and it was destroyed by another bout of Muslim intransigence - under the wretched Emperor Aurangzeb - which led to a catastrophic 25-year cycle of wars that exhausted the Mughal Empire and left India at the mercy of French and English outsiders.
Galileo was and remained a devoted Catholic all his life. His only daughter became a nun. I will have more to say about it when I write the promised post, but please, don't talk of things you know nothing about; and if you want to do so, don't do it under the cowardly shelter of anonymity.
Here (http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html) is an orthodox Catholic discussion of the Galileo issue, which I think is extremely interesting for what it says even without their interpretation. That naughty Galileo, presuming to do theology--what an astounding idea, to use reason and science to challenge the dominant Aristotelian paradigm. It's a little like the historical version of Ebert's Law.
-an anonymous reader, who considers this appellation as good as any other
The site you want me to consult (as if I did not know how to research history) is not a Catholic site. It is either schismatic, or next best thing to it. Go read their poisonous attacks on the current Pope if you want to get the real sense of who these people are. I do not take any responsibility for what they say, indeed, if I had the time, I would take pleasure in teaching them some sound theology. If you want to know what the Catholic Church - you know, the real thing, the one with its headquarters on that hill in Italy - thinks of Galileo, visit their website, instead of trawling the dregs of right-wing heresy.
Fabio P.Barbieri, who is not ashamed of his name or his opinions.
It's always refreshing to know that there is both left and right wing heresy, even for the relatively indifferent (such as myself). It certainly took the Catholic Church long enough to get around to declaring Galileo okay, though. How do you reconcile your opinions about the ordination of women with what the headquarters on the hill official promulgates--is it then okay because you are right and they are mistaken and will hopefully realize their errors?
It certainly took the Catholic Church long enough to get around to declaring Galileo OK.
They did not think about making declarations all that much; they were too busy making use of his discoveries. Or did you not know that, until about 1750, the Church employed more astronomers than any other public or private body in the world?
As for reconciling my view about the ordination of women, why don't you go to the place where I stated my view, to which I posted a link several times? It is at the end of this chapter: http://www.geocities.com/vortigernstudies/fabio/book7.5.htm. The issue is roughly the same as Galileo's: church teaching is infallible in matters of faith and morals - not in matters of history.
Galileo's Catholicism does not enter into it. Do you state the Church was right to force him to recant his theories, to prohibit his books and to put him under house arrest for the rest of his life?
Galileo's Catholicism does enter into it. If nothing else, because if he had been born in Scotland, they would probably have burned him alive rather than do nothing worse than stop him publishing. Incidentally, the answer to your question is: "yes, of course the Church was wrong in allowing itself to be stampeded into taking sides in a contention between scientists; and God punished her by letting her take the wrong side."
That's OK. By the time I have finished and published the posts I am now working on, to do with history and Christianity, you will probably have plenty of extra reasons to be furious.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-16 10:22 am (UTC)I think the whole 'right and wrong' thing with regards to liberalism v. conservatism is also a dangerous area in that what might be scientifically correct to a liberal is morally and theologically incorrect to a conservative; i.e., evolution. I don't really think that one can argue about whether something is correct or right or not if you're coming from different platforms, both of which have their own set of merit and values.
On the plus side, it's a lot of fun to go 'IS NOT' in an evolution-backing internet forum, regardless of whether you support the notion or not. (I support the notion of evolution as being part of intelligent design: sweet baby Jesus on a rollercoaster, it makes my head spin.) Of course, you get the obvious retaliation of 'IS SO, DERR' in response to you, and that's where the real excitement kicks in.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-16 03:46 pm (UTC)I would say so, yes. It is a very fertile area for thought. But one must be careful to place limits of sense on the notion of intelligent design, or one falls into the Fundamentalist trap of having a nosey-parkering God intervening in every petty little thing. I accept evolution as a scientific theory on the interrelationship and mutation of species. So does the Vatican (http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/nc-true.html). I do not support the misconceived use of evolution as a metaphysical category, but that is another matter. As a research historian, I would deeply resent any attempt (by, say, Muslims) to interfere with my investigations for preconceived theological reasons. If theology is true, it cannot contradict other truths: so said the greatest of all theologians, Thomas Aquinas, seven hundred and fifty years ago - following on a strong hint from St.Augustine - and so have all the greatest Catholic minds since agreed. As a culture historian, I think I can say that science itself is a product of Catholic Christian civilization, and that the use of "science" as a category to oppose to "faith" is something that belongs in the study of psychological problems (revolt against the father, against authority, against reasons) but not in serious philosophy.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 07:50 am (UTC)And yes, historically, science and Catholicism have been so strongly intertwined, which is one of the reasons I can put up with Catholicism moreso than I can most other forms of organised Christian faith. I love God, and believe in him (and Jesus, in particular) deeply in terms of him creating the world and actually giving a damn about stuff, but I really think he'd be disappointed in most of the people who call themselves Christians these days.
And I don't take all parts of the Bible literally, aside from maybe the Gospels and the part where Jesus fought the zombies off with a shotgun and a chainsaw attached to his arm, thus my belief of intelligent designs is very much that God started off the 'Big Bang' five billion years ago or so; sure, a week is impressive, but most of us can't even keep goldfish for a week. As I said: I don't take the bible too literally. I'd like to see your take on whether one can be a true Christian without taking everything in the bible literally: not for rudeness or a challenge, but because I'd genuinely like to know what you think about it.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 09:00 am (UTC)One cannot be a good Christian and take "the Bible" literally, for that would involve them not only in gross contradictions, but also in questioning the Word of God Incarnate. Jesus was fond of asking us riddles, and the biggest riddle he asked is this: while He and His disciples were everlastingly breaking the Jewish Law, especially on the matter of the Sabbath, and indeed delivering teachings that directly contradicted "Moses" word for word (e.g. the prohibition of divorce, which "Moses" allowed - in fact, Christianity is to the best of my knowledge the only religion in the world to forbid divorce altogether), at the same time He insisted that "not a comma or an accent of the Law will be changed". Unless you deal with these issues, and with hundreds like those which the Scriptures ask us every day of the week, you are not a Christian, but an idiot who is trying to believe two contradictory things. When St.Paul said that "all Scripture is inspired by God," he immediately underlined the limits of this statement by saying "and is useful for refuting error, guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright." This does not suggest that "Scripture" is, as Muslims regard the Qur'an or Hindus the Vedas, the literal word of God existing in God's own form of existence, and revealed to men; indeed, in Christian thought, it cannot be, for we have another Word of God revealed to us - not a book, but a Person. The very word "inspired" should be translated, in my view, roughly like this: "All our sacred writings testify to the impact of the Divine Presence on living human minds". That is, they are not dictated by God, but the result of human reaction to the presence of God; as indeed is the whole New Testament. In our religion, the Word of God never wrote a line that is preserved as He would have written it; the only time we read of His writing anything, it is in the story of the woman caught in adultery, and there He was writing in the sand - nor does the text tell us what He wrote. And this too, if you will, is a paradox; another one of those riddles that Jesus asks of us, and that demand the use of our minds to answer.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 10:20 am (UTC)That was as far as I took it, considering how much of the Old Testament I saw to be contradictory and plain incorrect when put up against the NT. (C'mon, you ever tried to remove mildew with prayer? I did it one time to be lazy and avoid cleaning the bathroom. It didn't work.) It doesn't explain to me why people take some parts of one chapter seriously but completely ignore the rest: forgive me for bringing up a cliche, but the whole 'gay' thing being a sin while people wear mixed cloth and gold jewellery; it might've been Saint Paul, or it might've been Karl Lagerfield. The nine years of catholic schooling I attended have since been wiped out with copious alcohol abuse.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 12:30 am (UTC)Please feel free to disagree on this point.
(By separatism, I suppose you're speaking of the Gay Games incident and your opposition on the grounds that if they're that good at athletics they should just perform in the major Olympics. I don't know precisely where you're coming from on this one.)
no subject
Date: 2005-05-16 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-16 11:13 pm (UTC)I think I can say that science itself is a product of Catholic Christian civilization.
I don't know a whole lot on the subject but I think that may be arguable...
no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 08:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 09:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 11:49 pm (UTC)But what we were taught was that it was really the muslims who were the first to really delve into the scientific world.
><But I really don't want to start anything.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-19 08:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 08:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 04:07 pm (UTC)-an anonymous reader, who considers this appellation as good as any other
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 07:28 pm (UTC)Fabio P.Barbieri, who is not ashamed of his name or his opinions.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 08:03 pm (UTC)-much the same anonymous reader
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 08:46 pm (UTC)They did not think about making declarations all that much; they were too busy making use of his discoveries. Or did you not know that, until about 1750, the Church employed more astronomers than any other public or private body in the world?
As for reconciling my view about the ordination of women, why don't you go to the place where I stated my view, to which I posted a link several times? It is at the end of this chapter: http://www.geocities.com/vortigernstudies/fabio/book7.5.htm. The issue is roughly the same as Galileo's: church teaching is infallible in matters of faith and morals - not in matters of history.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 08:20 pm (UTC)A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 05:13 pm (UTC)I wish you wouldn't make me smile when I'm trying very hard to be furious at you :).
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 09:13 am (UTC)