• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Circular Discussions in Religion

grip said:
I don't want to step on your faith but the bible as a whole to me, is possibly, not all completely true. Realistically, I doubt it's a bunch of fantasy either but which parts are factual and fudged are uncertain.
Click to expand...

I personally believe the New Testament is above board and reliable. And it's not just "one" book that testifies about Jesus; by the end of the first century there were 27 separate and individual New Testament books/manuscripts floating around in different places that either directly or indirectly referenced Jesus. That's compelling, IMO.

grip said:
Answer me this, in the Lord's Prayer why does it say "Father lead us not into temptation?" Was it not God who let satan test Job by torturing him? Can the devil do anything that God doesn't let him do?
Click to expand...

Perhaps this article can help answer that question:

Satan in the Garden of Eden « The Righter Report
 
Manny said:
Don't know. If his motives were to keep silent so to protect the weak, I sympathize. If though, as I implied, he only protected the rich and connected, and otherwise couldn't give a damn, then yeah, I would condemn the pope. As it stands, I don't have the time to find out. But wehn I see 477 were personally saved, that's a curious number. Why were the 1007Jews who were taken mostly women and children? Who was it that left them behind? I would like to know how that came about.
It is known that in most countries where Jews were rounded up (pretty much everywhere in Europe, and in most cases by willing cooperation from local peoples and governments!) , the wealthy and connected were given a pass. That sadly is the nature of the beast. But as it's been said, "whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me". That's generally my position.
Click to expand...

Many really terrible decisions have been made in the interest of self preservation throughout history, however. And certainly there have been corrupt monarchs and corrupt popes clearly documented, often working hand in hand to accomplish their own interests. But it is so easy to do armchair quarterbacking when it comes to judging those in the history books, even when the history is fully and honestly presented. (That fully and honestly part is getting harder to come by these days.) Who among us can know for sure how we would have responded to a Hitler or Mussolini if we were the one with the power to protect the Church? Would we go along to get along? Or would we put up resistance to what we knew was evil, even though we knew it meant that the cathedrals would burn and many of our flock would be punished or imprisoned or slaughtered and there would be no chance then to save any of the Jews or others who were being persecuted? Such choices are not easy for those in positions of leadership when they are also people of integrity.

I honestly don't know what was in Pope Pius XII heart or whether he was a good man or purely a self-serving one. But the history does suggest that he was putting up an appearance of non interference with the Third Reich while doing what he could quietly and silently behind the scenes to save who he could. Remember that Oscar Schindler kept up the pretense of being a good Nazi and supporter of the Third Reich even as he was doing what he could to sabotage the regime.

It is difficult to judge fairly from our armchairs now.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But it is so easy to do armchair quarterbacking when it comes to judging those in the history books, even when the history is fully and honestly presented.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. But we have to have something to talk about. And since the op was being non- judgmental in his dissertation, apparently, I figured somebody has to actually say something. Lest for the sake of political correctness we cannot say anything at all.
 
Manny said:
Yeah I know. But we have to have something to talk about. And since the op was being non- judgmental in his dissertation, apparently, I figured somebody has to actually say something. Lest for the sake of political correctness we cannot say anything at all.
Click to expand...

I think it is important to discuss these things. I'm just insistent that all the history and all the logical interpretations of it be included instead of just the politically correct versions. :)

(And that should not be interpreted that I think I'm the last word on it or that anybody has to agree with me in order to have a valid point.)
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think it is important to discuss these things. I'm just insistent that all the history and all the logical interpretations of it be included instead of just the politically correct versions. :)

(And that should not be interpreted that I think I'm the last word on it or that anybody has to agree with me in order to have a valid point.)
Click to expand...
It's ironic that in the "age of information" we have so much, that we cannot tell what's true anymore!
 
Manny said:
It's ironic that in the "age of information" we have so much, that we cannot tell what's true anymore!
Click to expand...

We can, but it requires more and more effort all the time. I speak from experience and others close to me that there is a tremendous amount of bogus research and scholarly studies going on out there. The pressure to come up with an 'unused' topic for doctoral dissertations, and the pressures on academia and the scientific community to 'publish or perish' results in a lot of questionable stuff being put into print. And all they have to do is be politically correct or scratch each other's backs to get it past the peer review process. At the same time, there are still many of honor and integrity out there who are doing honest studies, honest research, and are writing really good stuff. To separate the wheat from the chaff, though, does require attention to who is doing the peer review, what is left out to get it through the peer review, and of course we always have to follow the money too.

And nowhere is there more convoluted logic and really straining at gnats to come up with something that looks credible than in the world of climate science. In the world of public education. And in the world of religion.
 
And there have always been, of course, "fashions" in research. When I was in grad school, everything was seen through the prism of, hmmm, the "women's studies" perspective. :mrgreen:

I can't say I agree entirely about the extent of questionable stuff being put into print, but I can say that the peer-review process, even when "blind," sometimes isn't. I've never had a problem and think this varies among areas. I've a longtime friend who's a cognitive psychologist, and he has complained that his area is so small that he generally knows who the "blind" referees are.
 
nota bene said:
And there have always been, of course, "fashions" in research. When I was in grad school, everything was seen through the prism of, hmmm, the "women's studies" perspective. :mrgreen:

I can't say I agree entirely about the extent of questionable stuff being put into print, but I can say that the peer-review process, even when "blind," sometimes isn't. I've never had a problem and think this varies among areas. I've a longtime friend who's a cognitive psychologist, and he has complained that his area is so small that he generally knows who the "blind" referees are.
Click to expand...

While working my way through college and from time to time since, I have served as research assistant for somebody who was working on a dissertation or some similar project. And every once in awhile it is in an area that I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous and in which the alarm bells sometimes went off that what was being put down on paper, so to speak, was not entirely kosher. Well of course the research assistant can't intervene or say much--not if she wants references and a chance to work ever again--but one time I happened to be working for a person I knew very well on a social level. And finally I asked him if he had considered whether a particular set of statistics and data he was including might be flawed? He looked straight at me and said that if I ever repeated it, he would deny it, but of course they were flawed. But he had to include them to get to the conclusion he felt he had to defend. And sure enough, when that work was peer reviewed, he was careful to make sure it would be reviewed by 'peers' who would not question that material. And they didn't. And no doubt, over the years since, others have incorporated some or all of that 'rigged' study into their own research.

Fortunately such unethical methods are not common among honorable educators, theologians, and scientists, but it happens often enough, I think, that those of us who want the truth instead of just a scholarly looking argument will double check and cross check what we use for evidence before trusting it entirely.

But because so many don't care whether they link honest information or propaganda on these message boards and don't want to even think their point of view might be flawed, we invariably have those circular arguments of did too - did not - is too - is not. Many don't even bother to really read what they link because they don't care what it says. And to me those kinds of arguments--you can't really call them discussions or debate--become really boring really fast.

I blame modern education that is focused almost entirely on dogma, doctrine, propaganda, and that indoctrinates rather than teach and encourage critical thinking skills.
 
AlbqOwl said:
While working my way through college and from time to time since, I have served as research assistant for somebody who was working on a dissertation or some similar project. And every once in awhile it is in an area that I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous and in which the alarm bells sometimes went off that what was being put down on paper, so to speak, was not entirely kosher. Well of course the research assistant can't intervene or say much--not if she wants references and a chance to work ever again--but one time I happened to be working for a person I knew very well on a social level. And finally I asked him if he had considered whether a particular set of statistics and data he was including might be flawed? He looked straight at me and said that if I ever repeated it, he would deny it, but of course they were flawed. But he had to include them to get to the conclusion he felt he had to defend. And sure enough, when that work was peer reviewed, he was careful to make sure it would be reviewed by 'peers' who would not question that material. And they didn't. And no doubt, over the years since, others have incorporated some or all of that 'rigged' study into their own research.

Fortunately such unethical methods are not common among honorable educators, theologians, and scientists, but it happens often enough, I think, that those of us who want the truth instead of just a scholarly looking argument will double check and cross check what we use for evidence before trusting it entirely.

But because so many don't care whether they link honest information or propaganda on these message boards and don't want to even think their point of view might be flawed, we invariably have those circular arguments of did too - did not - is too - is not. Many don't even bother to really read what they link because they don't care what it says. And to me those kinds of arguments--you can't really call them discussions or debate--become really boring really fast.

I blame modern education that is focused almost entirely on dogma, doctrine, propaganda, and that indoctrinates rather than teach and encourage critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...

I sometimes cynically think one need look no further than "Publish or perish." That, and academia's dirty little secret--that good teaching is not rewarded. Not impressed with current lip service being paid--very trendy to have teaching excellence awards that come with cash bonuses. :3oops:

As you say, fortunately, it's not common. Most scholars do hold themselves to a rigorous intellectual standard and are not ethically bankrupt. But I do know someone who left the financial sector and returned for his doctorate in an unrelated field later in life. Because of his age, his tenure track was reduced by a year, and the pressure was on. He confessed to having finished his own first doctoral student's dissertation because she was so dumb she wasn't going to finish if he didn't. I just about plotzed right there at the restaurant table.

We had been friends since college, and I thought I knew him. I lost any respect for him and his (genuinely important) research that noon. He did win tenure, of course. I always thought this was in the bag anyway because he'd platformed a one-year post-doc at Harvard into over four years during which time his work enhanced the prestige of his department. There was no need to take this ethical shortcut. There never is. Sad when ambition causes you to confuse "need" with "want."

I don't know how he can live with himself. For me this invalidates every grade he ever assigns and taints any research findings and any career he ever assists. Pffft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom