Moved from the TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible topic.
Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 08, 2016, 05:13AMYou're missing something.
Ecclesiastes was written at the level of understanding of the times. In other words, quite possibly God's baby talk. You can't use it as evidence that new understanding isn't possible - if as John suggests baby talk exists, then we can't rule out that Ecclesiastes is of that nature.
It's not hard at all to argue that religion is inherently baby talk in a sense, and that on one end of the baby talk spectrum are those who indulge in the baby talk aspect just a little bit as kind of a tribute to tradition/heritage, to the other end on which we find those who are completely enthralled with the baby talk such that it's effectively the definitive sum total of their religious experience, and you can tell where they are on that spectrum by their love ... etc, to borrow from the Bible a bit there (ex. while those more on the latter end are liable to go absolutely ballistic over that comment, those who are on the other end likely won't find it offensive in the slightest).
Religion Matters: Take 3
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jan 08, 2016, 05:32AMMoved from the TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible topic.
It's not hard at all to argue that religion is inherently baby talk in a sense, and that on one end of the baby talk spectrum are those who indulge in the baby talk aspect just a little bit as kind of a tribute to tradition/heritage, to the other end on which we find those who are completely enthralled with the baby talk such that it's effectively the definitive sum total of their religious experience, and you can tell where they are on that spectrum by their love ... etc, to borrow from the Bible a bit there (ex. while those more on the latter end are liable to go absolutely ballistic over that comment, those who are on the other end likely won't find it offensive in the slightest).
It's not hard at all to argue that religion is inherently baby talk in a sense, and that on one end of the baby talk spectrum are those who indulge in the baby talk aspect just a little bit as kind of a tribute to tradition/heritage, to the other end on which we find those who are completely enthralled with the baby talk such that it's effectively the definitive sum total of their religious experience, and you can tell where they are on that spectrum by their love ... etc, to borrow from the Bible a bit there (ex. while those more on the latter end are liable to go absolutely ballistic over that comment, those who are on the other end likely won't find it offensive in the slightest).
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Reposting here what I also posted in Read Da Book thread
Much of the discussion about baby talk-- laymen's terms is a somewhat acceptable alternative to what the classical theologians meant, but they would probably not used that term.-- needs clarification
The key issue is that in addition to issues of revelation, inspiration, illumination, etc-- all of which the classical theologians had very finely tuned definitions and are not being defined very precisely in some of the discussion above-- there is the topic of progress in revelation that Martin has picked up on.
What this means is that there is clear progress in biblical eras-various theologians have not always agreed in how this is worked out-- but all have agreed that the progress is progress in REVELATION-- not in human insight.
In other words, when God speaks to us in simplified language so that we can understand it, it doesn't mean that his moral character changes with the times nor that he decides to adapt his own moral demands to our "new insights."
Some new human insights, in hindsight, have been downright nasty-- cf. the eugenics movement supported by a large number of the intellectual class here in the US 100 years ago, which advocated sterilization of handicapped people. lobotomies, and other cruel treatments all in the name of science and progress.
What God accommodating to us means is that He always has to speak in simplified terms for us to understand anything of what He reveals to us because He is an infinite God and we are finite creatures. He progressively reveals more of His truth. Some of what He has His people do is time limited, but He makes very clear about that. The book of Hebrews is a perfect example of a whole biblical book describing the time-bound nature of the animals sacrifices of the Old Testament law.
As Martin has pointed out, the moral issue of homosexuality is handled quite differently in the New Testament, both in explicit rejection by Paul and by implicit acceptance of OT norms on this subject by the silence of Jesus, who was quite willing to challenge the rabbis misreading and mishandling of the OT on occasion after occasion and does not make the slightest attempt to do so on that topic.
The appeal to God's accommodation to justify some things that the Scripture speaks against is not a valid use of the doctrine of accommodation.
If you want to attempt to justify some of the recent moral shifts of our society, then it is difficult to avoid an approach that honestly says that the biblical teaching should be set aside, rather than to attempt to use the doctrine of accommodation. This, of course, is difficult to square with any orthodox understanding of the nature of biblical revelation.
Much of the discussion about baby talk-- laymen's terms is a somewhat acceptable alternative to what the classical theologians meant, but they would probably not used that term.-- needs clarification
The key issue is that in addition to issues of revelation, inspiration, illumination, etc-- all of which the classical theologians had very finely tuned definitions and are not being defined very precisely in some of the discussion above-- there is the topic of progress in revelation that Martin has picked up on.
What this means is that there is clear progress in biblical eras-various theologians have not always agreed in how this is worked out-- but all have agreed that the progress is progress in REVELATION-- not in human insight.
In other words, when God speaks to us in simplified language so that we can understand it, it doesn't mean that his moral character changes with the times nor that he decides to adapt his own moral demands to our "new insights."
Some new human insights, in hindsight, have been downright nasty-- cf. the eugenics movement supported by a large number of the intellectual class here in the US 100 years ago, which advocated sterilization of handicapped people. lobotomies, and other cruel treatments all in the name of science and progress.
What God accommodating to us means is that He always has to speak in simplified terms for us to understand anything of what He reveals to us because He is an infinite God and we are finite creatures. He progressively reveals more of His truth. Some of what He has His people do is time limited, but He makes very clear about that. The book of Hebrews is a perfect example of a whole biblical book describing the time-bound nature of the animals sacrifices of the Old Testament law.
As Martin has pointed out, the moral issue of homosexuality is handled quite differently in the New Testament, both in explicit rejection by Paul and by implicit acceptance of OT norms on this subject by the silence of Jesus, who was quite willing to challenge the rabbis misreading and mishandling of the OT on occasion after occasion and does not make the slightest attempt to do so on that topic.
The appeal to God's accommodation to justify some things that the Scripture speaks against is not a valid use of the doctrine of accommodation.
If you want to attempt to justify some of the recent moral shifts of our society, then it is difficult to avoid an approach that honestly says that the biblical teaching should be set aside, rather than to attempt to use the doctrine of accommodation. This, of course, is difficult to square with any orthodox understanding of the nature of biblical revelation.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 08, 2016, 08:37AM
If you want to attempt to justify some of the recent moral shifts of our society, then it is difficult to avoid an approach that honestly says that the biblical teaching should be set aside, rather than to attempt to use the doctrine of accommodation. This, of course, is difficult to square with any orthodox understanding of the nature of biblical revelation.
I'm not sure orthodox is the right word, it implies a consensus that is overstated. Conservative might be a better choice.
If biblical teaching is a mix of revelation plus the extant set of societal norms, mingled and somewhat difficult to parse out, then that problem goes away and is replaced by a new one. In the long run it's probably the most viable option, and seems to be the standard for moderate and liberal denominations.
If you want to attempt to justify some of the recent moral shifts of our society, then it is difficult to avoid an approach that honestly says that the biblical teaching should be set aside, rather than to attempt to use the doctrine of accommodation. This, of course, is difficult to square with any orthodox understanding of the nature of biblical revelation.
I'm not sure orthodox is the right word, it implies a consensus that is overstated. Conservative might be a better choice.
If biblical teaching is a mix of revelation plus the extant set of societal norms, mingled and somewhat difficult to parse out, then that problem goes away and is replaced by a new one. In the long run it's probably the most viable option, and seems to be the standard for moderate and liberal denominations.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 08, 2016, 08:37AMMuch of the discussion about baby talk-- laymen's terms is a somewhat acceptable alternative to what the classical theologians meant, but they would probably not used that term.-- needs clarificationGodspeak or Godtalk work though--no? They may not as plainly communicate the idea, but a little clarification, as you point out, should take care of that for those who are open to it/who don't imbue it with unnecessary offensive meaning or presume that's there without anything to indicate it (or at least nothing that's not also presumed).
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 08, 2016, 08:37AMThe key issue is that in addition to issues of revelation, inspiration, illumination, etc-- all of which the classical theologians had very finely tuned definitions and are not being defined very precisely in some of the discussion above-- there is the topic of progress in revelation that Martin has picked up on.
What this means is that there is clear progress in biblical eras-various theologians have not always agreed in how this is worked out-- but all have agreed that the progress is progress in REVELATION-- not in human insight.I'd like to see how this is determined rather than presumed.
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 08, 2016, 08:37AMIn other words, when God speaks to us in simplified language so that we can understand it, it doesn't mean that his moral character changes with the times nor that he decides to adapt his own moral demands to our "new insights."
Some new human insights, in hindsight, have been downright nasty-- cf. the eugenics movement supported by a large number of the intellectual class here in the US 100 years ago, which advocated sterilization of handicapped people. lobotomies, and other cruel treatments all in the name of science and progress.
What God accommodating to us means is that He always has to speak in simplified terms for us to understand anything of what He reveals to us because He is an infinite God and we are finite creatures. He progressively reveals more of His truth. Some of what He has His people do is time limited, but He makes very clear about that. The book of Hebrews is a perfect example of a whole biblical book describing the time-bound nature of the animals sacrifices of the Old Testament law.
As Martin has pointed out, the moral issue of homosexuality is handled quite differently in the New Testament, both in explicit rejection by Paul and by implicit acceptance of OT norms on this subject by the silence of Jesus, who was quite willing to challenge the rabbis misreading and mishandling of the OT on occasion after occasion and does not make the slightest attempt to do so on that topic.
The appeal to God's accommodation to justify some things that the Scripture speaks against is not a valid use of the doctrine of accommodation.
If you want to attempt to justify some of the recent moral shifts of our society, then it is difficult to avoid an approach that honestly says that the biblical teaching should be set aside, rather than to attempt to use the doctrine of accommodation. This, of course, is difficult to square with any orthodox understanding of the nature of biblical revelation.This is more or less the way I reconciled a lot of the OT ugliness when I was a believer. Of course it didn't work to hold off my apostasy for all that long, but it works just fine for a lot of people.
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 08, 2016, 08:37AMThe key issue is that in addition to issues of revelation, inspiration, illumination, etc-- all of which the classical theologians had very finely tuned definitions and are not being defined very precisely in some of the discussion above-- there is the topic of progress in revelation that Martin has picked up on.
What this means is that there is clear progress in biblical eras-various theologians have not always agreed in how this is worked out-- but all have agreed that the progress is progress in REVELATION-- not in human insight.I'd like to see how this is determined rather than presumed.
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 08, 2016, 08:37AMIn other words, when God speaks to us in simplified language so that we can understand it, it doesn't mean that his moral character changes with the times nor that he decides to adapt his own moral demands to our "new insights."
Some new human insights, in hindsight, have been downright nasty-- cf. the eugenics movement supported by a large number of the intellectual class here in the US 100 years ago, which advocated sterilization of handicapped people. lobotomies, and other cruel treatments all in the name of science and progress.
What God accommodating to us means is that He always has to speak in simplified terms for us to understand anything of what He reveals to us because He is an infinite God and we are finite creatures. He progressively reveals more of His truth. Some of what He has His people do is time limited, but He makes very clear about that. The book of Hebrews is a perfect example of a whole biblical book describing the time-bound nature of the animals sacrifices of the Old Testament law.
As Martin has pointed out, the moral issue of homosexuality is handled quite differently in the New Testament, both in explicit rejection by Paul and by implicit acceptance of OT norms on this subject by the silence of Jesus, who was quite willing to challenge the rabbis misreading and mishandling of the OT on occasion after occasion and does not make the slightest attempt to do so on that topic.
The appeal to God's accommodation to justify some things that the Scripture speaks against is not a valid use of the doctrine of accommodation.
If you want to attempt to justify some of the recent moral shifts of our society, then it is difficult to avoid an approach that honestly says that the biblical teaching should be set aside, rather than to attempt to use the doctrine of accommodation. This, of course, is difficult to square with any orthodox understanding of the nature of biblical revelation.This is more or less the way I reconciled a lot of the OT ugliness when I was a believer. Of course it didn't work to hold off my apostasy for all that long, but it works just fine for a lot of people.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 08, 2016, 10:17AMI'm not sure orthodox is the right word, it implies a consensus that is overstated. Conservative might be a better choice.
If biblical teaching is a mix of revelation plus the extant set of societal norms, mingled and somewhat difficult to parse out, then that problem goes away and is replaced by a new one. In the long run it's probably the most viable option, and seems to be the standard for moderate and liberal denominations.
Orthodox regarding religion seems right on to me. I married into a Greek Orthodox family. Conservative would not be accurate. Neither would liberal. Or even moderate.
Liberal religions, to me, mean anything goes, just about, as long as no one is hurt or offended.
Orthodox, to me, means essentially unchanged. Like the Russian or Eastern Orthodox or the Greek Orthodox.
The Roman Catholic church used to be "orthodox" until the 2nd Vatican Council. Now it's quite liberal mixed with some orthodoxy.
If biblical teaching is a mix of revelation plus the extant set of societal norms, mingled and somewhat difficult to parse out, then that problem goes away and is replaced by a new one. In the long run it's probably the most viable option, and seems to be the standard for moderate and liberal denominations.
Orthodox regarding religion seems right on to me. I married into a Greek Orthodox family. Conservative would not be accurate. Neither would liberal. Or even moderate.
Liberal religions, to me, mean anything goes, just about, as long as no one is hurt or offended.
Orthodox, to me, means essentially unchanged. Like the Russian or Eastern Orthodox or the Greek Orthodox.
The Roman Catholic church used to be "orthodox" until the 2nd Vatican Council. Now it's quite liberal mixed with some orthodoxy.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 08, 2016, 10:17AMI'm not sure orthodox is the right word, it implies a consensus that is overstated. Conservative might be a better choice.
If biblical teaching is a mix of revelation plus the extant set of societal norms, mingled and somewhat difficult to parse out, then that problem goes away and is replaced by a new one. In the long run it's probably the most viable option, and seems to be the standard for moderate and liberal denominations.
I don't see any option through the medium of language and alleged revelation (which can't but be alleged because we know of phenomena that are very common and even basic human nature in many cases that explain the allegation, and there's no evidence to validate the conclusion that it's actual revelation, so at best we have to decide to go against Occam's Razor and form an unnecessary and specious conclusion in order to get there). Unless you somehow bypass the human mind, or pretend human minds can be fundamentally different than human minds actually are, there seems to be no valid way around this little issue.
If biblical teaching is a mix of revelation plus the extant set of societal norms, mingled and somewhat difficult to parse out, then that problem goes away and is replaced by a new one. In the long run it's probably the most viable option, and seems to be the standard for moderate and liberal denominations.
I don't see any option through the medium of language and alleged revelation (which can't but be alleged because we know of phenomena that are very common and even basic human nature in many cases that explain the allegation, and there's no evidence to validate the conclusion that it's actual revelation, so at best we have to decide to go against Occam's Razor and form an unnecessary and specious conclusion in order to get there). Unless you somehow bypass the human mind, or pretend human minds can be fundamentally different than human minds actually are, there seems to be no valid way around this little issue.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jan 08, 2016, 10:36AM
I don't see any option through the medium of language and alleged revelation
One of the problems with revelation is the number of times the world has NOT ended.
I don't see any option through the medium of language and alleged revelation
One of the problems with revelation is the number of times the world has NOT ended.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 08, 2016, 10:58AMOne of the problems with revelation is the number of times the world has NOT ended.
Heh ... yeah.
I have a "Rapture Veteran" t-shirt that lists about a dozen dates that are crossed out, and the current upcoming rapture date at the bottom, not yet crossed out.
Heh ... yeah.
I have a "Rapture Veteran" t-shirt that lists about a dozen dates that are crossed out, and the current upcoming rapture date at the bottom, not yet crossed out.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Are you guys purposely confusing the doctrine of revelation with the biblical book of Revelation-- not Revelations, of course, as it so often is called.? 
I think you guys know better.
I think you guys know better.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 08, 2016, 11:28AMAre you guys purposely confusing the doctrine of revelation with the biblical book of Revelation-- not Revelations, of course, as it so often is called.?
I think you guys know better.
Yes they are. Makes for bigger headlines.
I think you guys know better.
Yes they are. Makes for bigger headlines.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 08, 2016, 11:28AMAre you guys purposely confusing the doctrine of revelation with the biblical book of Revelation-- not Revelations, of course, as it so often is called.?
I think you guys know better.
No, quite the opposite, we are using revelation exactly how you are. I do differentiate between that and inspiration.
However I am noting that historically we have numerous cases of humans being absolutely sure they received revelation, only to be proven mistaken by the world not ending or some such similar misfortune.
As to the book of Revelation, I side with Luther: remove it from the canon, it is not helpful.
I think you guys know better.
No, quite the opposite, we are using revelation exactly how you are. I do differentiate between that and inspiration.
However I am noting that historically we have numerous cases of humans being absolutely sure they received revelation, only to be proven mistaken by the world not ending or some such similar misfortune.
As to the book of Revelation, I side with Luther: remove it from the canon, it is not helpful.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 08, 2016, 11:28AMAre you guys purposely confusing the doctrine of revelation with the biblical book of Revelation-- not Revelations, of course, as it so often is called.?
I think you guys know better.
I'm not even sure where that idea would have come from ... ?
What made you think that might be happening?
I guess I can see it in the sense that scripture was allegedly created by revelation, but that wouldn't just be Revelation ... so ...
I think you guys know better.
I'm not even sure where that idea would have come from ... ?
What made you think that might be happening?
I guess I can see it in the sense that scripture was allegedly created by revelation, but that wouldn't just be Revelation ... so ...
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jan 08, 2016, 11:46AM
I'm not even sure where that idea would have come from ... ?
What made you think that might be happening?
I guess I can see it in the sense that scripture was allegedly created by revelation, but that wouldn't just be Revelation ... so ...
Post's 257 and 258.
I'm not even sure where that idea would have come from ... ?
What made you think that might be happening?
I guess I can see it in the sense that scripture was allegedly created by revelation, but that wouldn't just be Revelation ... so ...
Post's 257 and 258.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jan 08, 2016, 11:46AM
I guess I can see it in the sense that scripture was allegedly created by revelation, but that wouldn't just be Revelation ... so ...
The difference between end times revelations and all other revelations is that one is reliably disproven. The other normally has no criteria to distinguish real from imagined revelation.
With no way to tell, the JohnTheologian crowd has a simple test: in Bible, real; out of Bible, not.
I don't agree since even Paul makes it clear he considers the Bible a mix of both (okay, he was talking about his own writings, which were not in the Bible yet, but it's fair to extrapolate. After all, very few here really believe Balaam's donkey spoke.)
I guess I can see it in the sense that scripture was allegedly created by revelation, but that wouldn't just be Revelation ... so ...
The difference between end times revelations and all other revelations is that one is reliably disproven. The other normally has no criteria to distinguish real from imagined revelation.
With no way to tell, the JohnTheologian crowd has a simple test: in Bible, real; out of Bible, not.
I don't agree since even Paul makes it clear he considers the Bible a mix of both (okay, he was talking about his own writings, which were not in the Bible yet, but it's fair to extrapolate. After all, very few here really believe Balaam's donkey spoke.)
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 08, 2016, 11:37AMNo, quite the opposite, we are using revelation exactly how you are. I do differentiate between that and inspiration.
However I am noting that historically we have numerous cases of humans being absolutely sure they received revelation, only to be proven mistaken by the world not ending or some such similar misfortune.
As to the book of Revelation, I side with Luther: remove it from the canon, it is not helpful.
As far as I know, Luther never advocated removing Revelation from the canon, although he knew of some who made wild claims based on the book. Calvin admitted he did not understand it very well and never commented on it. Certainly many others have been far too overconfident in their attempts to interpret it, especially when they make claims about how the book is being fulfilled at this very moment. However, there is a long history of sane and sensible interpretation of the book.
I have taught it a couple of times and when it is not approached as a method to read the book in one hand and the newspaper in the other-- absolutely the wrong way to read it-- it is actually very useful and encouraging. The book is intended to give us various snapshots of the struggle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil throughout the period between the first and 2nd advents. The text was not intended to be specific predictions of most of the events that so many popular interpreters have claimed.
My favorite story-- almost certainly apocryphal-- was that of the uneducated janitor who was found reading the book of Revelation and asked if he understood it. He replied, "of course," and then said "Jesus Wins!!!"
I think that summarizes the book's main thrust very well and when read in that light, it can bring great comfort to those who hold to the historic versions of the Christian faith,
However I am noting that historically we have numerous cases of humans being absolutely sure they received revelation, only to be proven mistaken by the world not ending or some such similar misfortune.
As to the book of Revelation, I side with Luther: remove it from the canon, it is not helpful.
As far as I know, Luther never advocated removing Revelation from the canon, although he knew of some who made wild claims based on the book. Calvin admitted he did not understand it very well and never commented on it. Certainly many others have been far too overconfident in their attempts to interpret it, especially when they make claims about how the book is being fulfilled at this very moment. However, there is a long history of sane and sensible interpretation of the book.
I have taught it a couple of times and when it is not approached as a method to read the book in one hand and the newspaper in the other-- absolutely the wrong way to read it-- it is actually very useful and encouraging. The book is intended to give us various snapshots of the struggle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil throughout the period between the first and 2nd advents. The text was not intended to be specific predictions of most of the events that so many popular interpreters have claimed.
My favorite story-- almost certainly apocryphal-- was that of the uneducated janitor who was found reading the book of Revelation and asked if he understood it. He replied, "of course," and then said "Jesus Wins!!!"
I think that summarizes the book's main thrust very well and when read in that light, it can bring great comfort to those who hold to the historic versions of the Christian faith,
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ronkny on Jan 08, 2016, 11:57AMPost's 257 and 258.
Ah ... I can see where that might be mistaken from the context of Tim's post (curious when context is maintained and when it's not, there), so I grant you (and John) that, but there's nothing to indicate any such confusion in the recent posts that aren't kind of side comments like that one (and my response to it).
We both make comments that are pretty clearly about revelation (small R) in the posts leading up to 257, and Revelation is presumably, according to believers, the product of revelation, as is the apocalypse and the rapture. So I can see where there could be some confusion due to 257, but it doesn't seem warranted given a little checking.
Ah ... I can see where that might be mistaken from the context of Tim's post (curious when context is maintained and when it's not, there), so I grant you (and John) that, but there's nothing to indicate any such confusion in the recent posts that aren't kind of side comments like that one (and my response to it).
We both make comments that are pretty clearly about revelation (small R) in the posts leading up to 257, and Revelation is presumably, according to believers, the product of revelation, as is the apocalypse and the rapture. So I can see where there could be some confusion due to 257, but it doesn't seem warranted given a little checking.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jan 08, 2016, 12:05PM
Ah ... I can see where that might be mistaken from the context of Tim's post (curious when context is maintained and when it's not, there), so I grant you (and John) that, but there's nothing to indicate any such confusion in the recent posts that aren't kind of side comments like that one (and my response to it).
I agree now, in hindsight. I never considered I might cause that confusion, because nowhere in my brain does the Book of Revelation predict the end of the world. I was using the term revelation in the generic sense of information passing from God to man in some manner, and trying to comment on the extreme difficulty of verify the accuracy, or indeed the very existence, of said transmission.
Ah ... I can see where that might be mistaken from the context of Tim's post (curious when context is maintained and when it's not, there), so I grant you (and John) that, but there's nothing to indicate any such confusion in the recent posts that aren't kind of side comments like that one (and my response to it).
I agree now, in hindsight. I never considered I might cause that confusion, because nowhere in my brain does the Book of Revelation predict the end of the world. I was using the term revelation in the generic sense of information passing from God to man in some manner, and trying to comment on the extreme difficulty of verify the accuracy, or indeed the very existence, of said transmission.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 08, 2016, 12:14PMI never considered I might cause that confusion, because nowhere in my brain does the Book of Revelation predict the end of the world.
Yeah, but that is the popular understanding (which I gather is what you're partially alluding to), and it's also common to mistake cataclysm with the end of the world for some reason.
Yeah, but that is the popular understanding (which I gather is what you're partially alluding to), and it's also common to mistake cataclysm with the end of the world for some reason.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 08, 2016, 12:02PMAs far as I know, Luther never advocated removing Revelation from the canon,
No, he just said it wasn't reliable.
Here:
QuoteLutheran theologians like to make a distinction between the books of the New Testament which were unanimously received as canonical in the early church (the so-called Homologoumena or undisputed books) and the books which were disputed by some (the Antilegomena). In this class of 'disputed books' are the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John. These books are considered to be canonical in modern Lutheran churches, with the caveat that they are not quite on the same level as the other books as complete expressions of evangelical truth, and should be used with care.
Luther himself took the liberty of criticizing some of these books in a polemical manner which few Lutherans today would find completely acceptable. He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."
Luther's criticism of these books will perhaps be found disgraceful and even shocking to modern Christians, but it should be pointed out that his attitude was not so shocking in the context of the late Middle Ages. Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament, and their canonicity was doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther's opponent at Augsburg. See Reu, Luther's German Bible, pp. 175-176). The sad fact is, the Roman Catholic Church had never precisely drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. It was not necessary to do so under the Roman system, in which the authority of the Scriptures was not much higher than that of tradition, popes, and councils. It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone that a decision on the 'disputed books' became necessary.
If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, we would have expected him to include 2 Peter among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times. But it is evident from the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books that his low view of them had more to do with his theological reservations against them than with any historical investigation of the canon.
We give below Luther's prefaces to James, Jude and the Revelation, from the first edition of his New Testament. The English translation and notes are derived from the American edition of Luther's Works, vol 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 395-399.
And in Luther's own words (I bolded one clause):
QuotePreface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
No, he just said it wasn't reliable.
Here:
QuoteLutheran theologians like to make a distinction between the books of the New Testament which were unanimously received as canonical in the early church (the so-called Homologoumena or undisputed books) and the books which were disputed by some (the Antilegomena). In this class of 'disputed books' are the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John. These books are considered to be canonical in modern Lutheran churches, with the caveat that they are not quite on the same level as the other books as complete expressions of evangelical truth, and should be used with care.
Luther himself took the liberty of criticizing some of these books in a polemical manner which few Lutherans today would find completely acceptable. He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."
Luther's criticism of these books will perhaps be found disgraceful and even shocking to modern Christians, but it should be pointed out that his attitude was not so shocking in the context of the late Middle Ages. Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament, and their canonicity was doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther's opponent at Augsburg. See Reu, Luther's German Bible, pp. 175-176). The sad fact is, the Roman Catholic Church had never precisely drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. It was not necessary to do so under the Roman system, in which the authority of the Scriptures was not much higher than that of tradition, popes, and councils. It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone that a decision on the 'disputed books' became necessary.
If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, we would have expected him to include 2 Peter among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times. But it is evident from the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books that his low view of them had more to do with his theological reservations against them than with any historical investigation of the canon.
We give below Luther's prefaces to James, Jude and the Revelation, from the first edition of his New Testament. The English translation and notes are derived from the American edition of Luther's Works, vol 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 395-399.
And in Luther's own words (I bolded one clause):
QuotePreface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
For completeness I should probably note that Luther included the 12 books of the Apocrypha in that same 1522 Bible. But he put them at the end of the OT in a separate section, just as he put the 4 books of the NT at the end in a separate section.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Boooo!
http://www.christianpost.com/news/air-force-academy-investigates-student-led-prayers-football-team-152222/
"After several Air Force Academy football players voluntarily knelt in prayer before the start of the teams Dec. 5, 2015, game against San Diego State, atheist Mikey Weinstein and his Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) threatened the institution with a lawsuit if the school didn't ban the practice, and actually referred to the act of Christian prayer by the players as "putrid.""
Yeah!!!
http://www.christianpost.com/news/air-force-football-players-pray-game-day-academy-defends-religious-freedom-154059/
""The United States Air Force Academy will continue to reaffirm to cadets that all Airmen are free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all," the statement continued. "The players may confidently practice their own beliefs without pressure to participate in the practices of others.""
Boooo!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/14/lawsuit-demands-us-remove-in-god-trust-from-money.html?intcmp=hpbt4
http://www.christianpost.com/news/air-force-academy-investigates-student-led-prayers-football-team-152222/
"After several Air Force Academy football players voluntarily knelt in prayer before the start of the teams Dec. 5, 2015, game against San Diego State, atheist Mikey Weinstein and his Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) threatened the institution with a lawsuit if the school didn't ban the practice, and actually referred to the act of Christian prayer by the players as "putrid.""
Yeah!!!
http://www.christianpost.com/news/air-force-football-players-pray-game-day-academy-defends-religious-freedom-154059/
""The United States Air Force Academy will continue to reaffirm to cadets that all Airmen are free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all," the statement continued. "The players may confidently practice their own beliefs without pressure to participate in the practices of others.""
Boooo!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/14/lawsuit-demands-us-remove-in-god-trust-from-money.html?intcmp=hpbt4
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
Religion Matters: Take 3
I've just read a proof that atheism (ie disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) is wrong, so I thought I should share it with all you good people (and the bad ones too )
- Cats exist
- Ancient Egyptians (as well as some current cat owners) worship cats as gods
- Therefore, gods exist
- Therefore, atheism is false
Shalom
)- Cats exist
- Ancient Egyptians (as well as some current cat owners) worship cats as gods
- Therefore, gods exist
- Therefore, atheism is false
Shalom
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 26, 2016, 01:09PMI've just read a proof that atheism (ie disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) is wrong, so I thought I should share it with all you good people (and the bad ones too )
- Cats exist
- Ancient Egyptians (as well as some current cat owners) worship cats as gods
- Therefore, gods exist
- Therefore, atheism is false
Shalom
Heh ...
Careful though man!
Someone may actually take that seriously.
In fact an apologetic I've heard actually used, more than just a time or two, is essentially the same argument only slightly less obvious--basically; If we're talking about God he must exist, otherwise how could we be talking about him?
) - Cats exist
- Ancient Egyptians (as well as some current cat owners) worship cats as gods
- Therefore, gods exist
- Therefore, atheism is false
Shalom
Heh ...
Careful though man!
Someone may actually take that seriously.
In fact an apologetic I've heard actually used, more than just a time or two, is essentially the same argument only slightly less obvious--basically; If we're talking about God he must exist, otherwise how could we be talking about him?
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Meet our household gods...
Willow:
Bianca: 
Phoebe: 
Willow:
Bianca: Phoebe: -
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 26, 2016, 01:53PMMeet our household gods...
Ah, the Holy Trinity.
And they're invisible, like my God
Ah, the Holy Trinity.
And they're invisible, like my God
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jan 26, 2016, 01:49PM
Heh ...
Careful though man!
Someone may actually take that seriously.
In fact an apologetic I've heard actually used, more than just a time or two, is essentially the same argument only slightly less obvious--basically; If we're talking about God he must exist, otherwise how could we be talking about him?
I think you've tried to give a simplistic summary of the Ontological Argument. Whether you like it or not-- the jury is still out for me-- it's a bit more sophisticated and nuanced than what you've posted. Here's a basic summary of Anselm's version-- the most widely known one, other than that of Descartes. The fact that these 2 giants of western thought advocated it, should give us pause and not just dismiss it as sleight of hand.
"Anselm's argument in Chapter 2 can be summarized as follows:[20]
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God exists.
In Chapter 3, Anselm presented a further argument in the same vein:
By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.[20]"
The whole Wikipedia summary is found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm
Heh ...
Careful though man!
Someone may actually take that seriously.
In fact an apologetic I've heard actually used, more than just a time or two, is essentially the same argument only slightly less obvious--basically; If we're talking about God he must exist, otherwise how could we be talking about him?
I think you've tried to give a simplistic summary of the Ontological Argument. Whether you like it or not-- the jury is still out for me-- it's a bit more sophisticated and nuanced than what you've posted. Here's a basic summary of Anselm's version-- the most widely known one, other than that of Descartes. The fact that these 2 giants of western thought advocated it, should give us pause and not just dismiss it as sleight of hand.
"Anselm's argument in Chapter 2 can be summarized as follows:[20]
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God exists.
In Chapter 3, Anselm presented a further argument in the same vein:
By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.[20]"
The whole Wikipedia summary is found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
That doesn't really work though, does it?
It requires us to be able to imagine an infinitely greater God.
Humans being human cannot do that.
Therefore, God does not exist. (okay, that doesn't really follow, I threw that in for humor. But neither does it follow that God must exist.)
In fact, despite lip service given to an infinitely unlimited vision of God, all current descriptions contain significant limitations. It is obvious that humans cannot imagine an unlimited version of God.
It requires us to be able to imagine an infinitely greater God.
Humans being human cannot do that.
Therefore, God does not exist. (okay, that doesn't really follow, I threw that in for humor. But neither does it follow that God must exist.)
In fact, despite lip service given to an infinitely unlimited vision of God, all current descriptions contain significant limitations. It is obvious that humans cannot imagine an unlimited version of God.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 27, 2016, 06:21AMI think you've tried to give a simplistic summary of the Ontological Argument. Whether you like it or not-- the jury is still out for me-- it's a bit more sophisticated and nuanced than what you've posted.
I don't think it is, actually. The window dressing apologists have decorated it with are very elaborate and complex, but the actual argument, when you distill away all the extraneous obfuscatory gilding, is a very simple categorical error--mistaking the stuff of the mind for the stuff which exists in the external world, outside of the mind. That's by no means saying you have to be simple-minded or stupid to make the error. Brilliant people often make very simple errors due to largely earned overconfidence in their own perceptions and intellectual capacities.
I don't think it is, actually. The window dressing apologists have decorated it with are very elaborate and complex, but the actual argument, when you distill away all the extraneous obfuscatory gilding, is a very simple categorical error--mistaking the stuff of the mind for the stuff which exists in the external world, outside of the mind. That's by no means saying you have to be simple-minded or stupid to make the error. Brilliant people often make very simple errors due to largely earned overconfidence in their own perceptions and intellectual capacities.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 27, 2016, 06:42AM
In fact, despite lip service given to an infinitely unlimited vision of God, all current descriptions contain significant limitations. It is obvious that humans cannot imagine an unlimited version of God.
Le me expand on that, especially in light of:
QuoteBy definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
Why do you get to make the definitions, and why is reality held to them? And why would a God be held to a purely human definition, particularly one that is not agreed by all humans?
No human description of God exists that does not have limitations. Most descriptions are all too human, though significantly more powerful.
And many believers, though not all, think there are a constellation of lesser supernatural creatures like angels and demons, more powerful than humans but less than God.
In fact, despite lip service given to an infinitely unlimited vision of God, all current descriptions contain significant limitations. It is obvious that humans cannot imagine an unlimited version of God.
Le me expand on that, especially in light of:
QuoteBy definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
Why do you get to make the definitions, and why is reality held to them? And why would a God be held to a purely human definition, particularly one that is not agreed by all humans?
No human description of God exists that does not have limitations. Most descriptions are all too human, though significantly more powerful.
And many believers, though not all, think there are a constellation of lesser supernatural creatures like angels and demons, more powerful than humans but less than God.
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
The basic problem with the argument that jumps straight out at me is that "greater" is assumed to have a simple and obvious meaning, when in fact the meaning is poorly understood, allowing it to be used as a weasel word throughout. You can't deploy logic when one of the terms that you're chopping about logically with is not clearly defined.
Another basic problem with it is that one can use identical forms to argue for the existence of "greatest" types of any category that you care to name. For example, to mangle John's quoted words:
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that the Ultimate Cabbage is a cabbage than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible cabbage that can be imagined).
The Ultimate Cabbage exists as an idea in the mind.
A cabbage that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a cabbage that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if the Ultimate Cabbage exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than the Ultimate Cabbage (that is, a greatest possible cabbage that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than the Ultimate Cabbage (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a cabbage greater than the greatest possible cabbage that can be imagined.)
Therefore, the Ultimate Cabbage exists.
A simple textual replacement exercise that does not alter the motions of the argument, which can be repeated for any category of object of concept that one cares to bring to mind. As there are so many possible concepts, clearly the universe must be stuffed to the brim and beyond with 'greatest possible' objects. In fact, it occurs to me that one can make a further argument here from observed properties to point up the absurdity of Anselm's line of thought:
Idea of 'perfected' idea A -> Existence of 'perfected' idea A
Idea of 'perfected' idea B -> Existence of 'perfected' idea B
Idea of 'perfected' idea (A & B together) -> Existence of 'perfected' idea (A & B together)
'Perfect' vanilla ice cream must exist, so must 'perfect' strawberry ice cream. And also 'perfect' vanilla-and-strawberry ice cream.
Further flavours can be introduced, and the number of possible combinations multiplies out of sight, each of which must also exist in 'perfected' form. By the time you've considered 60 flavours and all the combinations thereof, you require 'perfected' versions of flavours totalling more than the estimated number of atoms in the universe, an obvious physical contradiction.
So just by considering ice cream flavours, let alone any more items from the set of all ideas, which is of immensely greater size, we've busted the Ontological Argument into tiddly tiny pieces.
Another basic problem with it is that one can use identical forms to argue for the existence of "greatest" types of any category that you care to name. For example, to mangle John's quoted words:
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that the Ultimate Cabbage is a cabbage than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible cabbage that can be imagined).
The Ultimate Cabbage exists as an idea in the mind.
A cabbage that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a cabbage that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if the Ultimate Cabbage exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than the Ultimate Cabbage (that is, a greatest possible cabbage that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than the Ultimate Cabbage (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a cabbage greater than the greatest possible cabbage that can be imagined.)
Therefore, the Ultimate Cabbage exists.
A simple textual replacement exercise that does not alter the motions of the argument, which can be repeated for any category of object of concept that one cares to bring to mind. As there are so many possible concepts, clearly the universe must be stuffed to the brim and beyond with 'greatest possible' objects. In fact, it occurs to me that one can make a further argument here from observed properties to point up the absurdity of Anselm's line of thought:
Idea of 'perfected' idea A -> Existence of 'perfected' idea A
Idea of 'perfected' idea B -> Existence of 'perfected' idea B
Idea of 'perfected' idea (A & B together) -> Existence of 'perfected' idea (A & B together)
'Perfect' vanilla ice cream must exist, so must 'perfect' strawberry ice cream. And also 'perfect' vanilla-and-strawberry ice cream.
Further flavours can be introduced, and the number of possible combinations multiplies out of sight, each of which must also exist in 'perfected' form. By the time you've considered 60 flavours and all the combinations thereof, you require 'perfected' versions of flavours totalling more than the estimated number of atoms in the universe, an obvious physical contradiction.
So just by considering ice cream flavours, let alone any more items from the set of all ideas, which is of immensely greater size, we've busted the Ontological Argument into tiddly tiny pieces.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Most of the serious philosophical discussions about the ontological argument surpass my limits in philosophy, but let me add that it is taken seriously by many highly regarded philosophers.
The most recent philosopher to advocate it is Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga-- one of the most highly regarded contemporary philosophers of religion. He argues a version of it in several places, but the link below summarizes his unique approach to the argument fairly well. Some food for thought before quickly dismissing it. As I said, the jury is still out for me, but I continue to mull it over.
http://crossexamined.org/the-ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/
The most recent philosopher to advocate it is Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga-- one of the most highly regarded contemporary philosophers of religion. He argues a version of it in several places, but the link below summarizes his unique approach to the argument fairly well. Some food for thought before quickly dismissing it. As I said, the jury is still out for me, but I continue to mull it over.
http://crossexamined.org/the-ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
I've read Platinga's theories on materialism (basically that science is materialistic, that materialism couldn't work unless a God existed to make it work, therefore science is wrong to be materialistic) but didn't remember that he delved into the ontological thing.
QuoteThe logic of the ontological argument is formally summarised by philosopher Alvin Plantinga as follows:
1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
There seem many obvious problems with 1.
Why does God need to be Good? (because and only because we've defined him that way) Surely it would be possible to have an evil God. Yes, yes, you can take the position that by definition anything God does is good, but then it's a meaningless term. So you're left with omnipotent and omniscient. And for the same reasons there's no real requirement for those either.
2. Sorry, 2 adds no information, it's just thrown in to seem intelligent.
The Biblical version of God clearly has significant limitations in both, but could still exist and have sufficient power to create and work miracles.
3. If 3 were true, would there be evidence?
4. Handwaving. There is no way to get from 3 to 4, he just asserts it. Therefore, 1 - 3 are meaningless, he can just as well start from 4. And in fact, that's what he did.
If on a scale of greatness man is a 10, then a being of 100 or 1000 would be near incomprehensible, but far short of infinitely great. In fact, I propose it is impossible for anybody to conceive of infinitely great, therefore all logi relying on our ability to imagine it fails.
QuoteThe logic of the ontological argument is formally summarised by philosopher Alvin Plantinga as follows:
1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
There seem many obvious problems with 1.
Why does God need to be Good? (because and only because we've defined him that way) Surely it would be possible to have an evil God. Yes, yes, you can take the position that by definition anything God does is good, but then it's a meaningless term. So you're left with omnipotent and omniscient. And for the same reasons there's no real requirement for those either.
2. Sorry, 2 adds no information, it's just thrown in to seem intelligent.
The Biblical version of God clearly has significant limitations in both, but could still exist and have sufficient power to create and work miracles.
3. If 3 were true, would there be evidence?
4. Handwaving. There is no way to get from 3 to 4, he just asserts it. Therefore, 1 - 3 are meaningless, he can just as well start from 4. And in fact, that's what he did.
If on a scale of greatness man is a 10, then a being of 100 or 1000 would be near incomprehensible, but far short of infinitely great. In fact, I propose it is impossible for anybody to conceive of infinitely great, therefore all logi relying on our ability to imagine it fails.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Okay, I found a clearer explanation of Platinga's argument here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/01/on-plantingas-ontological-argument.html
Even though it disagrees, it does a better job of stating it.
Platinga asserts the existence of possible worlds. That doesn't prove possible worlds exist, only that we can imagine they do. This may not be obvious to him.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/01/on-plantingas-ontological-argument.html
Even though it disagrees, it does a better job of stating it.
Platinga asserts the existence of possible worlds. That doesn't prove possible worlds exist, only that we can imagine they do. This may not be obvious to him.
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
I forgot to point out in my previous post another fatal flaw in the argument, the point that one rolls back to when trying to work out why Gaunilo's 'greatest island' adaptation of it (identical to my 'Ultimate Cabbage' objection above) is an unappealing argument for the existence of islandly perfection - another basic problem with it (perhaps the most basic problem) is that in moving from the idea of God-the-ultimate-goodness-as-just-an-idea to the idea of God-the-ultimate-goodness-as-both-an-idea-and-a-reality, one is only moving from one idea to another, not from an idea to a physical reality. The fact that one is talking about ideas of ideas lets Anselm slip carelessly and self-interestedly from the level of ideas-about-(ideas-and-reality) to the level of (ideas-and-reality). Byron said this in fewer words above.
At the end of the argument, one has deduced that one can conceive of a 'greater' God than one that one conceives of as not actually existing. No more. And that depends on the slippery definition of that weasel word "greater" also. It is a fun little game of word trickery to toss around, but prodding it makes the house of cards collapse in short order.
That done, let's see what Mr Plantinga makes of it. There are various pages around the net taking his idea apart, but after a little peering and reading up on modal logic terms, a fatal problem with his apparent demonstration becomes clear: he assumes that God can exist midway through his logic (step 3 at your link - or for example step 7 here, or step 1 at Tim's link). There's no need to delve further into the details stacked on top of that that are couched in the obfuscatory jargon of the field; even if we willingly cede to him all the rest of it (and I don't - for starters, the two objections that I've already raised to Anselm's argument also apply to Plantinga's), his demonstration is no more than "If God can exist, then he must exist". In taking that conclusion for a proof of real world existence, the circularity is immediately evident.
At the end of the argument, one has deduced that one can conceive of a 'greater' God than one that one conceives of as not actually existing. No more. And that depends on the slippery definition of that weasel word "greater" also. It is a fun little game of word trickery to toss around, but prodding it makes the house of cards collapse in short order.
That done, let's see what Mr Plantinga makes of it. There are various pages around the net taking his idea apart, but after a little peering and reading up on modal logic terms, a fatal problem with his apparent demonstration becomes clear: he assumes that God can exist midway through his logic (step 3 at your link - or for example step 7 here, or step 1 at Tim's link). There's no need to delve further into the details stacked on top of that that are couched in the obfuscatory jargon of the field; even if we willingly cede to him all the rest of it (and I don't - for starters, the two objections that I've already raised to Anselm's argument also apply to Plantinga's), his demonstration is no more than "If God can exist, then he must exist". In taking that conclusion for a proof of real world existence, the circularity is immediately evident.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Another serious problem is I suppose a proprietary one--applies specifically to alleged gods believers define as/presume to be the perfect creator or the greatest creator god possible. Michael Martin makes the point (most accessibly in The Big Domino in the Sky) that pretty much anyone can in fact imagine a better/greater god. Any improvement we can make to the way things work does it, and all arguments about how we need these flaws for our character development and that sort of thing themselves limit God in such as way as to make another kind of better god obvious--i.e. if God didn't just want it to work this way then why does it? Or if God had to work within any parameters other than what he wanted, then he lacks that power, so we can imagine a better god which has it.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Such problems are so obvious ... when they're found in other peoples' religions.
Granted these kinds of problems are uniquely blatant and numerous and problematic with Islam as compared to other major religions ...
Here's the associated article:
Islamicide: How the Mullah Mafia Is Destroying Pakistan
Granted these kinds of problems are uniquely blatant and numerous and problematic with Islam as compared to other major religions ...
Here's the associated article:
Islamicide: How the Mullah Mafia Is Destroying Pakistan
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Romans 6:17 though 6:19:
17 - But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18 - and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
19 - I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
So my humble question is:
If I have to change the way I am to be sin free, why do gays not have to change the way they are to be sin free?
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
They're not under any obligation to work to the same definition of "sin" as you are doing, I would submit...
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 09, 2016, 08:16AMThey're not under any obligation to work to the same definition of "sin" as you are doing, I would submit...
Yes, if the gays don't claim to be Christian.
Yes, if the gays don't claim to be Christian.
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
There are franchises of Christianity that take the line that the biblical stuff that is down on homosexuality is one of those parts of the religion that they think need updating. There are franchises of Christianity that take the opposite line - yours being one of the latter, I presume?
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 09, 2016, 08:32AMThere are franchises of Christianity that take the line that the biblical stuff that is down on homosexuality is one of those parts of the religion that they think need updating. There are franchises of Christianity that take the opposite line - yours being one of the latter, I presume?
Yes I realize that there are Christians that believe contrary to what the Bible states. But that puts them in a weird position.
How would you like it if you were the coach of a football team that it's QB believed that the other team should always win? What would you do as the coach? Replace him or keep him?
Yes I realize that there are Christians that believe contrary to what the Bible states. But that puts them in a weird position.
How would you like it if you were the coach of a football team that it's QB believed that the other team should always win? What would you do as the coach? Replace him or keep him?
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ddickerson on Feb 09, 2016, 09:47AMYes I realize that there are Christians that believe contrary to what the Bible states. But that puts them in a weird position.The reasonable way to look at it with a little intellectual humility is to accept that other Christians believe contrary to you rather than the Bible, and have reasons to also believe their take is in accord with the Bible and yours may not be. To put yourself in the place of judgment over reasonable or even honest interpretations that don't match your own is quite arrogant, and I'd think a believer would be a bit less hasty to speak for God, assuming that believer really does believe in that god--a god he respects--in practice rather than just in form/in an internalized and personal sense rather than just in accord with the home team's doctrines. We're not hasty to speak for those we respect. In fact speaking for someone is often a pretty patronizing thing to do. Why do so many believers so casually patronize the god they claim to revere? Oddly it seems to be a pattern among those who also like to impose the words they put into God's mouth upon others. Weird, eh?
Quote from: ddickerson on Feb 09, 2016, 09:47AMHow would you like it if you were the coach of a football team that it's QB believed that the other team should always win? What would you do as the coach? Replace him or keep him?How rational would if be for the QB to presume that he and his made all the official calls on the rules (i.e. acting as the referees)? Because that's a good analogy for your thinking here.
Quote from: ddickerson on Feb 09, 2016, 09:47AMHow would you like it if you were the coach of a football team that it's QB believed that the other team should always win? What would you do as the coach? Replace him or keep him?How rational would if be for the QB to presume that he and his made all the official calls on the rules (i.e. acting as the referees)? Because that's a good analogy for your thinking here.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Feb 09, 2016, 10:39AM
How rational would if be for the QB to presume that he and his made all the official calls on the rules (i.e. acting as the referees)? Because that's a good analogy for your thinking here.
I didn't say anything about the rules, or referees. You have a QB that wants to lose the game. He claims to be a member or your team, but is he? His goals don't match the team's goals. Not so much.
How rational would if be for the QB to presume that he and his made all the official calls on the rules (i.e. acting as the referees)? Because that's a good analogy for your thinking here.
I didn't say anything about the rules, or referees. You have a QB that wants to lose the game. He claims to be a member or your team, but is he? His goals don't match the team's goals. Not so much.
-
ttf_OldsAmbassador
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
I'm a Christian and studying the Bible is one of the great joys in my life.
When I read the prohibitions on homosexuality I sometimes wonder if they are based on a first century (and earlier) world view that doesn't apply to the knowledge that we have. There are many things that are prohibited in the Bible that we violate today. From clothing made from multiple fabrics to women being allowed to speak in church. Could it be that bans on homosexuality are just one more thing that a modern worldview wouldn't accept?
Having said all that, I am convinced that this issue has taken up far too much of modern Christian discussion. I wonder what the world would be like if Christians of all stripes learned to work together despite our differences.
One last thought. If homosexuality was such a big deal how come Jesus never said a word on the subject?
Just some thoughts.
When I read the prohibitions on homosexuality I sometimes wonder if they are based on a first century (and earlier) world view that doesn't apply to the knowledge that we have. There are many things that are prohibited in the Bible that we violate today. From clothing made from multiple fabrics to women being allowed to speak in church. Could it be that bans on homosexuality are just one more thing that a modern worldview wouldn't accept?
Having said all that, I am convinced that this issue has taken up far too much of modern Christian discussion. I wonder what the world would be like if Christians of all stripes learned to work together despite our differences.
One last thought. If homosexuality was such a big deal how come Jesus never said a word on the subject?
Just some thoughts.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ddickerson on Feb 09, 2016, 11:37AMI didn't say anything about the rules, or referees. You have a QB that wants to lose the game. He claims to be a member or your team, but is he? His goals don't match the team's goals. Not so much.
So you don't understand my simile because it's not your simile in detail.
Not a surprise, oddly enough ... pretty ironic though.
Don't worry about trying to figure out my point. It's not your point so you won't very likely be able to manage it.
So you don't understand my simile because it's not your simile in detail.
Not a surprise, oddly enough ... pretty ironic though.
Don't worry about trying to figure out my point. It's not your point so you won't very likely be able to manage it.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: OldsAmbassador on Feb 09, 2016, 01:32PMI'm a Christian and studying the Bible is one of the great joys in my life.
When I read the prohibitions on homosexuality I sometimes wonder if they are based on a first century (and earlier) world view that doesn't apply to the knowledge that we have. There are many things that are prohibited in the Bible that we violate today. From clothing made from multiple fabrics to women being allowed to speak in church. Could it be that bans on homosexuality are just one more thing that a modern worldview wouldn't accept?
Having said all that, I am convinced that this issue has taken up far too much of modern Christian discussion. I wonder what the world would be like if Christians of all stripes learned to work together despite our differences.
One last thought. If homosexuality was such a big deal how come Jesus never said a word on the subject?
Just some thoughts.
Wasted in this case.
Well, not really--it's an open forum so it's not just about the post you're responding to.
In any case I'm glad your view is far more representative of Christianity, though not so much here in the Deep Red.
When I read the prohibitions on homosexuality I sometimes wonder if they are based on a first century (and earlier) world view that doesn't apply to the knowledge that we have. There are many things that are prohibited in the Bible that we violate today. From clothing made from multiple fabrics to women being allowed to speak in church. Could it be that bans on homosexuality are just one more thing that a modern worldview wouldn't accept?
Having said all that, I am convinced that this issue has taken up far too much of modern Christian discussion. I wonder what the world would be like if Christians of all stripes learned to work together despite our differences.
One last thought. If homosexuality was such a big deal how come Jesus never said a word on the subject?
Just some thoughts.
Wasted in this case.
Well, not really--it's an open forum so it's not just about the post you're responding to.
In any case I'm glad your view is far more representative of Christianity, though not so much here in the Deep Red.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: OldsAmbassador on Feb 09, 2016, 01:32PMI'm a Christian and studying the Bible is one of the great joys in my life.
When I read the prohibitions on homosexuality I sometimes wonder if they are based on a first century (and earlier) world view that doesn't apply to the knowledge that we have. There are many things that are prohibited in the Bible that we violate today. From clothing made from multiple fabrics to women being allowed to speak in church. Could it be that bans on homosexuality are just one more thing that a modern worldview wouldn't accept?
Having said all that, I am convinced that this issue has taken up far too much of modern Christian discussion. I wonder what the world would be like if Christians of all stripes learned to work together despite our differences.
One last thought. If homosexuality was such a big deal how come Jesus never said a word on the subject?
Just some thoughts.
I actually discussed your last question in fuller detail in a post a few months ago in an earlier discussion chain that has been closed.
The bottom line summary is that it was not necessary for Jesus to discuss the topic since he regularly said that he did not come to break the law, but to fulfill it. He was very vocal when he was convinced that the Jewish rabbis of the day were in error, but Jesus never even hints at any error on this topic by his contemporaries.
In other words, the silence of Jesus speaks volumes in favor of the traditional perspective, especially in light of the rest of the biblical witness-- cf the discussion in the Pauline books. If Jesus intended to be revisionist, he certainly had opportunities, but there is not a hint of any revisionism on this topic by Jesus. 1st century Jewish culture was very much against homosexual activity and Jesus never challenges that.
When I read the prohibitions on homosexuality I sometimes wonder if they are based on a first century (and earlier) world view that doesn't apply to the knowledge that we have. There are many things that are prohibited in the Bible that we violate today. From clothing made from multiple fabrics to women being allowed to speak in church. Could it be that bans on homosexuality are just one more thing that a modern worldview wouldn't accept?
Having said all that, I am convinced that this issue has taken up far too much of modern Christian discussion. I wonder what the world would be like if Christians of all stripes learned to work together despite our differences.
One last thought. If homosexuality was such a big deal how come Jesus never said a word on the subject?
Just some thoughts.
I actually discussed your last question in fuller detail in a post a few months ago in an earlier discussion chain that has been closed.
The bottom line summary is that it was not necessary for Jesus to discuss the topic since he regularly said that he did not come to break the law, but to fulfill it. He was very vocal when he was convinced that the Jewish rabbis of the day were in error, but Jesus never even hints at any error on this topic by his contemporaries.
In other words, the silence of Jesus speaks volumes in favor of the traditional perspective, especially in light of the rest of the biblical witness-- cf the discussion in the Pauline books. If Jesus intended to be revisionist, he certainly had opportunities, but there is not a hint of any revisionism on this topic by Jesus. 1st century Jewish culture was very much against homosexual activity and Jesus never challenges that.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
If the TX Supreme Court Justices were to write what they're really thinking ...
We the majority find, awkward and embarrassing as it is to believers who have developed past adolescence regarding their beliefs aside, that high school cheerleaders in TX ...
I wouldn't be surprised to see them win in TX, but if so it'll be reversed eventually.
We the majority find, awkward and embarrassing as it is to believers who have developed past adolescence regarding their beliefs aside, that high school cheerleaders in TX ...
I wouldn't be surprised to see them win in TX, but if so it'll be reversed eventually.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am