Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Iengal]

I am not getting into this argument again, I will give a brief summary.

Man withholds himself from doing evil, for the most part, in modern society because of the things which would prove detrimental to him: violence by the state, common culture morality, and hurting his economic opportunities. Weather indoctrinated by these institutions or actively aware of them, man with holds himself for the most part.

However, take away these coercive institutions, the indoctrination, the reason to restrain one's self, I believe that man would be more inclined to do evil then good.

Inclined yes, just like how we're still inclined to do those things now. Our inclination won't grow, it's still just there. Inclination =/= naturally evil.

Let me ask you a few things.

Do you have the instinctive urge to love those who hate you?
Do you have the instinctive urge to share with those whom you do not like?
Do you have the instinctive urge to not wanna have sex with people for reasons other than procreation?
Do you have the instinctive urge to not want more things?
Do you have the instinctive urge to subject yourself to immense pain, hardship, stress, and even death for complete strangers?

If you do not, then you are not naturally inclined to goodness.

[Pasong Tirad]

Inclined yes, just like how we're still inclined to do those things now. Our inclination won't grow, it's still just there. Inclination =/= naturally evil.

Let me ask you a few things.

Do you have the instinctive urge to love those who hate you?
Do you have the instinctive urge to share with those whom you do not like?
Do you have the instinctive urge to not wanna have sex with people for reasons other than procreation?
Do you have the instinctive urge to not want more things?
Do you have the instinctive urge to subject yourself to immense pain, hardship, stress, and even death for complete strangers?

If you do not, then you are not naturally inclined to goodness.

I don't even believe I'm inclined to goodness. Those questions have no point. I'm inclined to sin, but I'm not naturally sinful. That's what you seem to be unable to understand.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Inclined yes, just like how we're still inclined to do those things now. Our inclination won't grow, it's still just there. Inclination =/= naturally evil.

Let me ask you a few things.

Do you have the instinctive urge to love those who hate you?
Do you have the instinctive urge to share with those whom you do not like?
Do you have the instinctive urge to not wanna have sex with people for reasons other than procreation?
Do you have the instinctive urge to not want more things?
Do you have the instinctive urge to subject yourself to immense pain, hardship, stress, and even death for complete strangers?

If you do not, then you are not naturally inclined to goodness.

You're asking the wrong questions.

Noone here is arguing that man is naturally good, but that man is not naturally evil in the way you seem to be arguing because it implies man has no choice but to be evil. In other words, between choosing the grace of God, and not, men have no choice in this matter according to your argument and will, without a doubt, choose to live without God than with him even before the choice is given because we don't have a choice to begin with.

Now, there's a difference between that and the concept of the corrupted nature of man, which does state that because of the fall we're unable to achieve salvation by our own means but only through Christ. In other words, men cannot be righteous of their own volition because righteousness doesn't exist outside of God, or, in other words, man depends on God to be saved, and not on our own strength, because we're always going to be inclined to sin and we're going to sin because we're not perfect, thus relying on our own strength to be saved is completely wrong.

That, however, doesn't support the rest of your argument, though.

[Constantinopolis]

Are you honestly saying that you want to do bad things - and the only thing holding you back is fear of punishment?

You find this surprising?

Why else would we have punishments in place - i.e. laws and courts and legal systems and so on - if not because we believe that many people need to be threatened with punishment in order to keep them from doing bad things?

So of course there are many people out there who want to do bad things and the only thing holding them back is fear of punishment. Our entire legal system is built on the assumption that such people are, in fact, common.

[Constantinopolis]

In some cases, there is a single obvious thing that the text says. But in most cases, there are several different possible interpretations of what the text says.

Why are there such a vast number of different Protestant denominations? Precisely because the Bible ISN'T clear, by itself, without some sort of extra authority to decide which interpretations are correct and which are false.

What you can get by reading the words of Christ by themselves is a general idea of the central themes of Christianity. You'll have a general understanding of what Christianity is mostly about. But you will not get any precise set of beliefs.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

But Jesus clearly didn't preach a precise set of beliefs, except for the elements of Jewish belief that he didn't argue against.

I realise you find comfort in a church that claims it's agency from Jesus - but I think my approach is demonstrably far closer to what he preached.

According to Matthew, Jesus preached against churches (don't get me wrong, I love churches - I'm a huge fan of architecture and history) as places of worship, and in favour of gatherings of fellowship. He argued against the robes and the rituals, he argued against the priestly caste with their appointed seats in places of worship, he argued against the religious titles (especially and specifically 'father'), he preached against the public prayers, Jesus preached in favour of teaching, but against appointed teachers and interpreters - he preached that understanding was a gift of the Spirit... at least, if John is to be believed.

The irony is that I, the atheist, live the life that Jesus preached... and that you say it's a bad thing.

No, the irony is that you don't see the fact that it's historically impossible for you to be right.

You say that, according to [your interpretation of] the Gospels of Matthew and John, the teachings of Jesus were against churches, robes, rituals, priests and so on.

But... who decided that the Gospels of Matthew and John were scripture? Who decided, in other words, that they correctly reflect the teachings of Jesus? Well, ummm, the Church did. The Gospels were canonized and promoted by the institutional Church. Without the institutional Church we probably wouldn't even have the texts of the Gospels today - they would have been lost to obscurity like so many ancient writings.

So, how can this historical fact be reconciled with your interpretation of the Gospels? How can it be that the texts which were selected and promoted by the Church, contain an anti-Church message? I see only two basic possibilities:

1. All people who lived in ancient and medieval times were idiots. The Fathers of the Church were fools who did not understand the simple teachings of the texts that they themselves promoted. They were so foolish that they did not even attempt to edit those texts, or replace them with different texts, or do anything about this contradiction. They continued to produce copies of texts that contradicted their core religious practices for over a thousand years before anyone noticed anything (since the Protestant Reformation was the first time in history that some Christians began to agree with some elements of your "correct" interpretation). Before the 1500s, apparently the entire world was inhabited by idiots. From Spain to India and from Scandinavia to Ethiopia, the Gospels were read, and no one noticed this supposedly obvious meaning that you believe in.

OR

2. The Gospels don't actually say what you believe they say. Your approach is not "demonstrably far closer to what [Jesus] preached". It is, at best, one possible interpretation among many. And it's certainly not obvious from the text itself. In fact, it's pretty difficult to reach the conclusions you have reached; most people who read the text do not reach these conclusions.

Wrong. My interpretation absolutely IS superior to yours, because that's what the text actually says.

See above. Your interpretation is radically opposed to the conclusions drawn by the vast majority of people who have read those texts, over a period of 2000 years across the entire world.

Now, this isn't enough evidence to prove that your interpretation is wrong - because the truth can't be decided by vote - but it IS enough evidence to prove that your interpretation is not obvious and not self-evident from the text.

You can oppose majority opinion, of course, but you cannot do that based on the argument that your point of view is self-evidently correct. If it was so self-evident, more people would have seen it. But since they didn't, that means it's not self-evident.

[Grave_n_idle]

Are you honestly saying that you want to do bad things - and the only thing holding you back is fear of punishment?

You find this surprising?

Why else would we have punishments in place - i.e. laws and courts and legal systems and so on - if not because we believe that many people need to be threatened with punishment in order to keep them from doing bad things?

So of course there are many people out there who want to do bad things and the only thing holding them back is fear of punishment. Our entire legal system is built on the assumption that such people are, in fact, common.

No, our entire legal system is built on the assumption that SOME people are going to try to do bad things, and that mechanisms are needed to either try to prevent them, or to punish their wrongdoing.

Our entire legal system is NOT predicated on the idea that ALL people will ALWAYS try to do bad things.

And, yes - I do find it surprising. I find it surprising when someone says that they want to do bad things and are only NOT doing bad things because of fear of retribution. Because that's not why I don't do bad things... so I can't conceive of what kind of person they have to be.

[Constantinopolis]

You find this surprising?

Why else would we have punishments in place - i.e. laws and courts and legal systems and so on - if not because we believe that many people need to be threatened with punishment in order to keep them from doing bad things?

So of course there are many people out there who want to do bad things and the only thing holding them back is fear of punishment. Our entire legal system is built on the assumption that such people are, in fact, common.

No, our entire legal system is built on the assumption that SOME people are going to try to do bad things, and that mechanisms are needed to either try to prevent them, or to punish their wrongdoing.

Our entire legal system is NOT predicated on the idea that ALL people will ALWAYS try to do bad things.

Point of order: I never said "all". I said "many".

And, yes - I do find it surprising. I find it surprising when someone says that they want to do bad things and are only NOT doing bad things because of fear of retribution. Because that's not why I don't do bad things... so I can't conceive of what kind of person they have to be.

*shrug* That's not the reason why I don't do bad things either, but I'm quite cynical about the world, so I don't find it surprising in the slightest.

[Grave_n_idle]

But... who decided that the Gospels of Matthew and John were scripture? Who decided, in other words, that they correctly reflect the teachings of Jesus? Well, ummm, the Church did.

Irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how the scripture got to us. Or who decided it correctly reflected the teachings of Jesus.

Unless you're now arguing that the Bible is false, it makes no difference whether the church canonised those documents nearly two millennia ago, or if they were just part of a trove of papyrus we found in a jug last week.

1. All people who lived in ancient and medieval times were idiots. The Fathers of the Church were fools who did not understand the simple teachings of the texts that they themselves promoted. They were so foolish that they did not even attempt to edit those texts, or replace them with different texts, or do anything about this contradiction. They continued to produce copies of texts that contradicted their core religious practices for over a thousand years before anyone noticed anything (since the Protestant Reformation was the first time in history that some Christians began to agree with some elements of your "correct" interpretation). Before the 1500s, apparently the entire world was inhabited by idiots. From Spain to India and from Scandinavia to Ethiopia, the Gospels were read, and no one noticed this supposedly obvious meaning that you believe in.

False assumption - you've pulled C.S. Lewis' 'liar, lord or lunatic' trick, here.

The common people didn't have to be idiots. They were uneducated, and kept in the dark. It took more than a thousand years for 'popular sermons' to become a thing, another couple of centuries for the first actual English translations from the original tongues to be 'mass produced' - and Tyndale had to flee the country because of such 'heresy'.

It's easy to avoid alternate views if you don't allow them.

2. The Gospels don't actually say what you believe they say. Your approach is not "demonstrably far closer to what [Jesus] preached". It is, at best, one possible interpretation among many. And it's certainly not obvious from the text itself.

The gospels don't say what the gospels say?

When your tradition contradicts scripture - the argument that scripture is being interpreted wrong is self-serving, and false.

Now, this isn't enough evidence to prove that your interpretation is wrong - because the truth can't be decided by vote - but it IS enough evidence to prove that your interpretation is not obvious and not self-evident from the text.

And I say it IS self-evident in the text, and you can't see it because you are looking at it through scales on your eyes, formed from millennia of tradition.

Abandon all your preconceptions, and read the Bible from start to finish. It's a different book to the one you read.

[Grave_n_idle]

Point of order: I never said "all". I said "many".

You're joining a discussion where the argument is 'all'.

*shrug* That's not the reason why I don't do bad things either, but I'm quite cynical about the world, so I don't find it surprising in the slightest.

I'm not surprised there are people like that - I'm surprised they admit it.

Those people... are the reason I'm a pro-religion atheist.

[Constantinopolis]

But... who decided that the Gospels of Matthew and John were scripture? Who decided, in other words, that they correctly reflect the teachings of Jesus? Well, ummm, the Church did.

Irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how the scripture got to us. Or who decided it correctly reflected the teachings of Jesus.

Unless you're now arguing that the Bible is false, it makes no difference whether the church canonised those documents nearly two millennia ago, or if they were just part of a trove of papyrus we found in a jug last week.

What...? What do you mean it doesn't matter? The things we know about the author of a book don't matter in deciding how to interpret the message of the book?

This is insane. You are literally arguing that the Gospels should be read out of context, ignoring our knowledge of history, and that this is the proper way to read them.

1. All people who lived in ancient and medieval times were idiots. The Fathers of the Church were fools who did not understand the simple teachings of the texts that they themselves promoted. They were so foolish that they did not even attempt to edit those texts, or replace them with different texts, or do anything about this contradiction. They continued to produce copies of texts that contradicted their core religious practices for over a thousand years before anyone noticed anything (since the Protestant Reformation was the first time in history that some Christians began to agree with some elements of your "correct" interpretation). Before the 1500s, apparently the entire world was inhabited by idiots. From Spain to India and from Scandinavia to Ethiopia, the Gospels were read, and no one noticed this supposedly obvious meaning that you believe in.

False assumption - you've pulled C.S. Lewis' 'liar, lord or lunatic' trick, here.

The common people didn't have to be idiots. They were uneducated, and kept in the dark. It took more than a thousand years for 'popular sermons' to become a thing, another couple of centuries for the first actual English translations from the original tongues to be 'mass produced' - and Tyndale had to flee the country because of such 'heresy'.

It's easy to avoid alternate views if you don't allow them.

If the common people were uneducated and easily fooled, and the Church was engaged in some kind of conspiracy to deceive them, then why didn't the Church simply edit the Gospels or even replace them with brand new texts altogether? Why carefully preserve and copy, over many hundreds of years, holy texts that contradict your teachings? It's not like the Gospels just copied and preserved themselves. Century after century, in a time before printing, whole armies of monks were engaged in the time-consuming and expensive work of making copies of the Bible. Why? Why did they do this? Why would a large organization devote extensive time, labour, and resources to preserving and copying information that [according to you] goes contrary to the goals and practices of this organization?

Your beliefs are utterly incoherent when exposed to the smallest historical questions, and your only answer is that you don't think history matters.

Now, this isn't enough evidence to prove that your interpretation is wrong - because the truth can't be decided by vote - but it IS enough evidence to prove that your interpretation is not obvious and not self-evident from the text.

And I say it IS self-evident in the text, and you can't see it because you are looking at it through scales on your eyes, formed from millennia of tradition.

Abandon all your preconceptions, and read the Bible from start to finish. It's a different book to the one you read.

In other words, read the Bible out of context, ignoring its history, ignoring what we know from other historical sources about who compiled the Bible and what those people believed and what kind of world they lived in. Read the Bible as if it was written yesterday.

No thanks.

2. The Gospels don't actually say what you believe they say. Your approach is not "demonstrably far closer to what [Jesus] preached". It is, at best, one possible interpretation among many. And it's certainly not obvious from the text itself.

The gospels don't say what the gospels say?

When your tradition contradicts scripture - the argument that scripture is being interpreted wrong is self-serving, and false.

You really can't even entertain the possibility that there may be a difference between your personal interpretation of a text and the Objectively True Meaning™ of that text, can you?

[Constantinopolis]

But I really should have known better than to return to this debate with you, Grave_n_idle. I apologize. Interacting with you is like interacting with an alien mind. I say this neutrally, it is not meant as an insult. I honestly cannot comprehend your way of thinking. You affirm without flinching that your opinions are facts, and not only that, but self-evident facts. You refuse to even acknowledge them as opinions that reasonable people may disagree with. They are simply The Truth. And there is every indication that you honestly believe this.

That's what makes it fascinating to attempt to understand you. But I have never succeeded, and after a few posts fascination turns to frustration, and then I remember why I was cautioning others against debating you.

So I'm going to retire from this little chat. I need to sleep anyway. And if you wish to respond to my post above, I will leave it be, and not reply in return. I wish you all the best, I really do. But none of these discussions of ours ever really get anywhere.

[Grave_n_idle]

What...? What do you mean it doesn't matter? The things we know about the author of a book don't matter in deciding how to interpret the message of the book?

Surely, the book in THIS particular case, is the ONLY thing we can know about the author.

Wait... or are you suggesting that 'the church' is the author?

This is insane. You are literally arguing that the Gospels should be read out of context, ignoring our knowledge of history, and that this is the proper way to read them.

If the book is supposed to be timeless word of god - yes, it is only proper to read the text out of context.

If, on the other hand, you're arguing that Jesus' ministry was only supposed to be relevant to the time and place he preached... Okay.

If the common people were uneducated and easily fooled, and the Church was engaged in some kind of conspiracy to deceive them,

There's no 'if'. The people definitely WERE uneducated. The scripture definitely WAS concealed from the common folk. Alternate views really WERE attacked.

That's not speculation. That's history.

...then why didn't the Church simply edit the Gospels or even replace them with brand new texts altogether?

Why would they?

If you've got a companion text that carefully explains why what the text says should be interpreted as something else, why would you NOT preserve the text?

Why carefully preserve and copy, over many hundreds of years, holy texts that contradict your teachings? It's not like the Gospels just copied and preserved themselves. Century after century, in a time before printing, whole armies of monks were engaged in the time-consuming and expensive work of making copies of the Bible. Why? Why did they do this? Why would a large organization devote extensive time, labour, and resources to preserving and copying information that [according to you] goes contrary to the goals and practices of this organization?

What else were the monks going to do?

I'm sure they really loved the text, and it was that, pray, or make beer.

Your beliefs are utterly incoherent when exposed to the smallest historical questions, and your only answer is that you don't think history matters.

Not even vaguely. Literally, both those statements are false.

In other words, read the Bible out of context, ignoring its history, ignoring what we know from other historical sources about who compiled the Bible and what those people believed and what kind of world they lived in. Read the Bible as if it was written yesterday.

Sure.

If it's timeless, and has a message that matters beyond early Judea, that meaning will be preserved.

No thanks.

You're choice.

That's why you can't read the scripture objectively.

You really can't even entertain the possibility that there may be a difference between your personal interpretation of a text and the Objectively True Meaning™ of that text, can you?

You're lecturing me, but you require a framework to tell you how to read the text, and literally just refused to look at it objectively.

Physician, heal thyself.

[Coulee Croche]

Has anyone made the connection between the feeding of four thousand with the one Sacrifice of Christ yet multiple receptions of communion?

[Grave_n_idle]

I honestly cannot comprehend your way of thinking.

I think that's a choice.

"You have eyes, and see not. Ears, and hear not."

You affirm without flinching that your opinions are facts,

No. My opinions I state as opinions.

What is present in the text, I state as being present in the text.

Look back over the thread. You'll see this to be true, if you actually look.

For example, when I say that Jesus preached not to call men by religious titles, when I say he said to call no man father, when I say he said that we should be brethren - that's not my opinion, nor my interpretation - I can point you to the verses in Matthew where that is literally recorded as the words he said.

I've explained it to you before - it's not me you're arguing with.

...and not only that, but self-evident facts. You refuse to even acknowledge them as opinions that reasonable people may disagree with. They are simply The Truth. And there is every indication that you honestly believe this.

If you mean that there's every indication I'm not lying, you're absolutely right.

Why would I? What would that profit me?

When I say that the scripture literally says a thing, it's because it literally says it - it does nothing for me personally for it to say, or not say, that thing.

That's what makes it fascinating to attempt to understand you. But I have never succeeded, and after a few posts fascination turns to frustration,

I don't think you've ever really tried.

And I'm not saying that as an attack - in your previous post you, yourself, said that you will not do what it requires to see the scripture objectively, as I do.

...and then I remember why I was cautioning others against debating you.

How dare you?

I mean, really, how dare you?

Not just because you're reinforcing exactly what I have said in these last few posts about 'the church' suppressing dissent... but... how dare you tell OTHER people not to talk to me just because YOU don't agree with me?

And I've been called proud?

I wish you all the best, I really do. But none of these discussions of ours ever really get anywhere.

For you, maybe.

I learn something new every time I debate in these threads.

"You have eyes, but see not."

[Grave_n_idle]

Has anyone made the connection between the feeding of four thousand with the one Sacrifice of Christ yet multiple receptions of communion?

It's a miracle, but it's a different miracle.

The feeding of the masses was akin to the Hebrew scripture miracle of the oil - the same resource stretched miraculously far.

The multiple receptions of communion is the miracle of transubstantiation - the one resource converted into a different resource through intervention.

[Coulee Croche]

Has anyone made the connection between the feeding of four thousand with the one Sacrifice of Christ yet multiple receptions of communion?

It's a miracle, but it's a different miracle.

The feeding of the masses was akin to the Hebrew scripture miracle of the oil - the same resource stretched miraculously far.

The multiple receptions of communion is the miracle of transubstantiation - the one resource converted into a different resource through intervention.

From one substance to another is transsubstantiation, yes, but i was hinting more at the sacrifice of the Mass with the totale of consecrated hosts being under one sacrifice.
A mystery, that I would imperfectly describe, multiplying from a source without dividing its substance.
(As opposed to resacrificing Christ every Mass, as some would like to so eloquently state)

Edit: though as far as transubstantiation goes, despite the multiplication of bread and fish under the gaze of 4,000, did they actually see it happening before their eyes? Or only took notice as it went along... hmm

Edit 3: All are within the capabilities of God surely, but just to ponder.

[Lost Memories]

Has anyone heard about the latest attack in Egypt on a Coptic churches?
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent ... -expl.aspx

Do you think there is any social acceptance (or indifference) of those terroristic attacks in Egypt? Or are they equally looked down from anyone, regardless of religious affiliation?
From where, or from which background, could the persons making these attacks come from?

(Probably this isn't the best place to ask this, but was not sure if or how to make a new thread for this news)

[Lady Scylla]

Has anyone heard about the latest attack in Egypt on a Coptic churches?
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent ... -expl.aspx

Do you think there is any social acceptance (or indifference) of those terroristic attacks in Egypt? Or are they equally looked down from anyone, regardless of religious affiliation?
From where, or from which background, could the persons making these attacks come from?

(Probably this isn't the best place to ask this, but was not sure if or how to make a new thread for this news)

Terrorists are terrorists. It matters little what their background or their goals are. They deserve no recognition.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

Has anyone heard about the latest attack in Egypt on a Coptic churches?
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent ... -expl.aspx

Do you think there is any social acceptance (or indifference) of those terroristic attacks in Egypt? Or are they equally looked down from anyone, regardless of religious affiliation?
From where, or from which background, could the persons making these attacks come from?

(Probably this isn't the best place to ask this, but was not sure if or how to make a new thread for this news)

As a Muslim I see a worrying trend of Salafism and affiliation to the Muslim Brotherhood that greatly disturbs the peace in Egypt and, generally, the middle east.

From Egyptians whom I know, terrorism is not seen as something good there generally. But then again, I do not know Muslims who are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Salus Maior]

If the book is supposed to be timeless word of god - yes, it is only proper to read the text out of context.

If, on the other hand, you're arguing that Jesus' ministry was only supposed to be relevant to the time and place he preached... Okay.

That's incredibly stupid.

It is divinely inspired but it was written by men of that time, making references to things happening in their time. So to have full understanding of what they're writing about then yeah, some extra-Biblical study is in order.

Hell, even the Bible says that it's not the whole story.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Wait... or are you suggesting that 'the church' is the author?

It did. The Apostles founded the Church, so yes, the Church wrote the New Testament.

[Sanctissima]

Wait... or are you suggesting that 'the church' is the author?

It did. The Apostles founded the Church, so yes, the Church wrote the New Testament.

That's... a rather nebulous assertion.

Early Christianity was never all that organized, and the term 'Church' was applied so loosely, that I don't think one could really consider it as having authored the New Testament.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

It did. The Apostles founded the Church, so yes, the Church wrote the New Testament.

But the Apostles did not always write the Bible, correct?

[Sanctissima]

It did. The Apostles founded the Church, so yes, the Church wrote the New Testament.

But the Apostles did not always write the Bible, correct?

Not as a whole, but the majority of the New Testament is written by them.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

But the Apostles did not always write the Bible, correct?

Not as a whole, but the majority of the New Testament is written by them.

Chapters such as?

[Salus Maior]

Not as a whole, but the majority of the New Testament is written by them.

Chapters such as?

Matthew, John, and a number of the Epistles.

Most of the books are named after them.