|
Author
|
Topic: Why are literalists literalists?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 112 of 167 (349203)
09-15-2006 1:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
09-15-2006 12:37 AM
|
|
Faith writes: Many Biblical passages are clearly presented as straightforward accounting of actual events in space and time. So is Peter Rabbit. Things that are "presented" as fact are not always actual fact. There is much more to literature than stale news.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 111 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 12:37 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 113 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:10 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 114 of 167 (349209)
09-15-2006 1:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
09-15-2006 1:10 AM
|
|
Faith writes: The Bible is presented as history and taken as history. Not at all. The Bible is presented as poetry, allegory, etc. and possibly even a little history. Anybody who takes all of the historical dramas as literal history has no respect for the Bible at all.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:10 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:20 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 116 of 167 (349212)
09-15-2006 1:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
09-15-2006 1:20 AM
|
|
Faith writes: ... the parts that are presented as history are history. Then you run afoul of "the canon" again. A lot of the books that are not in your canon are presented as history too. By your own logic, some of the history is missing from your canon.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:20 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 117 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:31 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 118 of 167 (349215)
09-15-2006 1:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by Faith
09-15-2006 1:31 AM
|
|
Faith writes: ... none reads like history. You're relying on an entirely subjective impression of what "reads like history". The flood myth, for example, doesn't "read like history" at all. It reads like science fiction. Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:31 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 2:02 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 125 of 167 (349239)
09-15-2006 3:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
09-15-2006 2:02 AM
|
|
Faith writes: Your way of reading it happens to conflict with some 3500 hundred years of majority opinion. I'll say it again, since you always ignore it: Your precious "majority opinion" also gave us the wonders of geocentrism and slavery. The "majority opinion" is conspicuously and consistently fallible. And any "majority opinion" that takes the flood myth as literal history is also notoriously wrong.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 2:02 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
robinrohan writes: Are you hinting that geocentrism and slavery are morally wrong? Isn't all morality subjective? My point is that the "majority opinion" has changed. Most of the "majority" that Faith cites would disagree with her on a large number of issues. She can't claim "majority opinion" where it agrees with her and ignore it where it disagrees. There's no need to bring morality and/or subjectivity into every thread. Try to focus. 
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
robinrohan writes: I thought the point you were making was that majority opinion cannot be trusted: Yes - cannot be trusted because it keeps changing.
Case in point: geocentrism and slavery--which are morally wrong. That was your point If you're going to teach English, you really should learn to read it.  I never said anything about "morally wrong".
You used the word "fallible" not "changeable." The word "fallible" doesn't necessarily imply morality. Would "fickle" be less confusing to you?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 136 of 167 (349290)
09-15-2006 11:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
09-15-2006 11:21 AM
|
|
Faith writes: And Galileo had to contend with Aristotle not the Bible. False. It wasn't Aristotle who imprisoned Galileo. It was the "majority opinion" theologians whom you cite when it suits you and repudiate otherwise. Their "majority opinion" was based on outside sources, not on the Bible - just as yours is.
My point was that you are outnumbered. Your opinion is outnumbered. Counting noses is meaningless. Edited by Ringo, : Shpelling.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 11:21 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Majority Opinion
You're nit-picking about one word. So what if "fallible" wasn't the best choice of words? The point - if you choose to ever discuss the point - is that the "majority opinion" that Faith is married to is of little value. It doesn't matter if it's "morally" right or wrong - that's not the issue here. Fallible or fickle or green or fat, the "majority opinion" is just another opinion.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Majority Opinion
robinrohan writes: Oh, he meant "geocentrism" in the astronomical sense? I was thinking of the other sense of the word.  It never occured to me that there was another sense.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2006 2:41 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 153 of 167 (349588)
09-16-2006 12:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 152 by Phat
09-16-2006 11:06 AM
|
|
Re: Majority Opinion
Phat writes: Thats your opinion! Exactly my point. My opinion is worth just as much as the "majority opinion" that Faith worships. (Everybody's got one.)
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 152 by Phat, posted 09-16-2006 11:06 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 156 by Phat, posted 09-16-2006 12:30 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 159 of 167 (349601)
09-16-2006 1:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 156 by Phat
09-16-2006 12:30 PM
|
|
Re: Majority Opinion
Phat writes: If I didnt see the ghost, should I hold to my individual opinion or should I give in and say that I saw the ghost as well? Well, I would hold to my individual opinion even if the other 6 billion people on earth all shared the other opinion. (I bet you're not surprized.  ) And some people would "pretend" to see what they really didn't see, so they could ride the bandwagon without being conspicuously out of tune. But it's funny that you left out a third option: Everybody else saw it, so maybe there's something to it. Maybe. I think that's the position that Faith takes: "Majority opinion" says X, so X is probably true, even if Faith can't make much of a case for it here at EvC. The weakness of Faith's presentation doesn't necessarily reflect a weakness in X. That's why I pointed out a couple of examples of weaknesses in X - slavery and geocentrism - to show that it is X that is weak, not just Faith's presentation of X.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 156 by Phat, posted 09-16-2006 12:30 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: What majority?
ReverendDG writes: the idea of a unified church on major issues much less minor ones never happened When there was only one Christian, there was unanimity. When there were two, there were two opinions. When there were dozens, there were different camps. When there were hundreds, there were different sects. When there were thousands, there was a schism. When there are millions, there is fragmentation.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by ReverendDG, posted 09-16-2006 5:04 PM | | ReverendDG has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2