Scriptural Interpretation

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Prof,

As you are well aware BH those 'minor doctrinal differences' have lead to countless people being killed over the centuries.

Yes I am, and that's just the point: trivial differences in understanding or interpretation fester and once entrenched become excuses for slaughtering each other generations on. The Sunni and Shiite muslims have the same issue.

[ad_orientem]

Hi Prof,

Yes I am, and that's just the point: trivial differences in understanding or interpretation fester and become excuses for slaughtering each other generations on. The Sunni and Shiite muslims have the same issue.

They're not minor. The two sects of a paedo-prophet inspired by a demon is no comparison either.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi Prof,

Yes I am, and that's just the point: trivial differences in understanding or interpretation fester and once entrenched become excuses for slaughtering each other generations on. The Sunni and Shiite muslims have the same issue.

Indeed.

Now I actually need intentionally started this thread - it was split out from another thread.

But my initial point was that there are differing views on what constitutes Christianity, and that the notion that claiming others who have a different interpretation are somehow not really Christians is completely untenable and totally unprovable. And can there be a better set of posts to prove my point than those on this thread between different Christian posters.

[Stranger]

Yes, you must be dense.

Really? I guess you must have a hint of a scrap of evidence to suggest that bible isn't an old, inconsistent, self-contradictory book of obviously human made myths, then.

Do tell.

Or perhaps you should try actually reading the bible some time - I mean to see what it says, rather than to confirm what you 'know'.

[ProfessorDavey]

They're not minor.

In your opinion - and as with so many other issues other opinions are available - including those of outsiders, such as myself, for whom the 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin' type pointlessness seems deeply, well, pointless as well as ultimately completely trivial.

There are rather more important things to be exercising our time and passions than the differing interpretation of people dead for centuries about the opinions of others who have been dead for 2 millennia.

But if it rocks your boat then who am I to argue, unless it makes people hate other people even to the extent of doing them harm due to such differences of opinion. But of course that would never happen. Oh wait ... hmm ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

They're not minor. The two sects of a paedo-prophet inspired by a demon is no comparison either.

Wow - well that's a pretty forceful way to miss the point. "Inspired by a demon" eh? Good grief - what's it like living in the 1500s?

Anyways, they are precisely minor if you have no reason to think the whole enterprise on which they rest isn't a nonsense in the first place. Imagine if I told you that I know for certain that leprechauns won't tap dance on Tuesdays, whereas those idiots in the Liberal Reformed Faith of Leprechaunology says they won't tap dance on Wednesdays.

Heretics! Kill them! Kill them I say!

How does that sound to your ears? Precisely - now perhaps you'll have some understanding of the way it sounds to others when you make your bizarre and competing claims.

Christianity survived because Constantine happened to pick it and gave it the kick start it needed, not because there was a man/god at the centre of it. Thinking otherwise is just more survivor bias.

[ad_orientem]

Really? I guess you must have a hint of a scrap of evidence to suggest that bible isn't an old, inconsistent, self-contradictory book of obviously human made myths, then.

Do tell.

Or perhaps you should try actually reading the bible some time - I mean to see what it says, rather than to confirm what you 'know'.

Well, seeing as I've read the scriptures several times over and in the Byzantine and old Roman liturgies the scriptures are read considerably more extensively than in any Protestant service, then I'm quite confident I know the scriptures fairly well.

[Anchorman]

Anchs, Been a while since we had someone try the survivor bias fallacy. Congrats! "Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. The survivors may be actual people, as in a medical study, or could be companies or research subjects or applicants for a job, or anything that must make it past some selection process to be considered further. Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence (Correlation proves Causation). For example, if three of the five students with the best college grades went to the same high school, that can lead one to believe that the high school must offer an excellent education. This could be true, but the question cannot be answered without looking at the grades of all the other students from that high school, not just the ones who "survived" the top-five selection process." (Wiki - emphasis added)

- Not survival - expansion! And 'expansion' can mean simply that those who find the Gospel a way of life want to share their hope with those who need to know hope. And, as I pointed out, it seems to work.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Well, seeing as I've read the scriptures several times over and in the Byzantine and old Roman liturgies the scriptures are read considerably more extensively than in any Protestant service, then I'm quite confident I know the scriptures fairly well.

As perfect an example of P Z Myers' Courtier's reply as I've seen in a long time. Congrats!

"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity."

[ad_orientem]

Christianity survived because Constantine happened to pick it and gave it the kick start it needed, not because there was a man/god at the centre of it. Thinking otherwise is just more survivor bias.

Christianity has survived precisely because it is the work of the Holy Spirit. Constantine was merely a tool. Pray for us holy Constantine and his mother Helena.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

- Not survival - expansion! And 'expansion' can mean simply that those who find the Gospel a way of life want to share their hope with those who need to know hope. And, as I pointed out, it seems to work.

Oh dear. The QWERTY keyboard "expanded" to become the global standard - thinking that's because it makes typing easier or something is still survivor bias though.

Oh, and liking what the Gospels say tells you nothing about the truth or otherwise of the claims of fact they make.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Christianity has survived precisely because it is the work of the Holy Spirit. Constantine was merely a tool. Pray for us holy Constantine and his mother Helena.

I don't doubt that you believe that quite sincerely, which is precisely why survivor bias can be so pernicious sometimes. All sorts of phenomena survive and thrive for reasons other than an inherent characteristic - you have to look through the wrong end of the telescope just to assume after the event that the one you happen to favour was special all along. Had Constantine chosen a different cult, no doubt you'd be telling us just as fervently now why that one was so special instead.

Ah well.

[ProfessorDavey]

ad,

I don't doubt that you believe that quite sincerely, which is precisely why survivor bias can be so pernicious sometimes. All sorts of phenomena survive and thrive for reasons other than an inherent characteristic - you have to look through the wrong end of the telescope just to assume after the event that the one you happen to favour was special all along. Had Constantine chosen a different cult, no doubt you'd be telling us just as fervently now why that one was so special instead.

Ah well.

And it is certainly a very poor argument that there is something special about Christianity (or even one denomination of Christianity as AO seems to think) on the basis of its longevity.

Why because although Christianity has survived for 2000 years, Judaism has survived for about 3500 years and the Hindu religion. So surely they must be even more compelling due to their greater longevity.

But longevity is no guarantee of veracity.

[ad_orientem]

The one true God has been known since our first parents Adam and Eve.

[Shaker]

The one true God* has been known since our first parents Adam and Eve**.

* Other one true gods available.

** Never existed.

Otherwise ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

The one true God has been known since our first parents Adam and Eve.

"Adan and Eve" eh? Okaaaaay - steps slowly back, checks for any sharp objects nearby and quietly closes the door behind him.

Seriously?

Seriously seriously?

Wow!

[Stranger]

Really? I guess you must have a hint of a scrap of evidence to suggest that bible isn't an old, inconsistent, self-contradictory book of obviously human made myths, then.

Do tell.

Or perhaps you should try actually reading the bible some time - I mean to see what it says, rather than to confirm what you 'know'.

Well, seeing as I've read the scriptures several times over and in the Byzantine and old Roman liturgies the scriptures are read considerably more extensively than in any Protestant service, then I'm quite confident I know the scriptures fairly well.

No evidence, then.

If you had read what I said, you would have realized that I wasn't suggesting that you hadn't read the bible or didn't 'know' it. I was suggesting trying to read it with an open mind, rather than reading at to confirm your pre-existing beliefs.

The one true God has been known since our first parents Adam and Eve.

But if you're that removed from the reality, you're probably a lost cause...

[Shaker]

[...] if you're that removed from the reality, you're probably a lost cause...

Quite.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just been musing about ad's reference to Adam & Eve. Here we have someone who if his written style is anything to go by is intelligent, living in the 21st century who apparently with a straight face genuinely thinks there to have been an Adam & Eve.

How is this possible, and how on earth does the cognitive dissonance that squares the crushing juggernaut of evidence for evolution with the primitive superstition for which there's neither logic nor evidence of any kind actually work?

Am I alone in finding this completely bewildering?

[Shaker]

No. Absolutely not alone. At all.

[SusanDoris]

No. Absolutely not alone. At all.

Ditto.

I was amazed some years ago when my oldest friend (from school) said, after we had seen or heard something on TV, and I made a brief sceptical comment, 'Yes, but what about Adam and Eve?' She had not long before that attended an Alpha course - 'nuf said!!

[Anchorman]

Ditto.

I was amazed some years ago when my oldest friend (from school) said, after we had seen or heard something on TV, and I made a brief sceptical comment, 'Yes, but what about Adam and Eve?' She had not long before that attended an Alpha course - 'nuf said!!

-
Alpha does not teach either a YEC or a literal interpretation of Genesis.
At least the ones I've run don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As a matter of mischievious interest.

How many human precursors would have to have simultaneously developed the mutation/s for humanity for nature to avoid the charge of being swiveleyed fundamental creationist?

Sorry in advance for any bonfires subject to micturations.

[Gordon]

As a matter of mischievious interest.

How many human precursors would have to have simultaneously developed the mutation/s for humanity for nature to avoid the charge of being swiveleyed fundamental creationist?

Sorry in advance for any bonfires subject to micturations.

42, perhaps.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

42, perhaps.

No....That's your IQ.