• 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!

The crap selective Biblical literalism has fostered

Xelor said:
??? WTH? Spot on about what? The post you're calling "spot on" is a single sentence one in which I posited that another member, OlNate, may -- based on his having written, "religion persists through our entire tenure on this planet as a species" -- find interesting the document to which I linked. How the hell can you know whether be "spot on" my supposition about what OlNate may find interesting?
Click to expand...

I spelled all that out already. Don't quite understand what you're going on about now. If you just want to contend, then I'll gracefully bow out.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
I spelled all that out already. Don't quite understand what you're going on about now. If you just want to contend, then I'll gracefully bow out.


OM
Click to expand...

What you "spelled out" has nothing to do with my post to which you initially replied. I've been trying to get you to explain what the correlation is. I don't think I'm alone in expecting that if I say "X," and someone says "Y" in reply to "X," there should be some sort of correlation between "X" and "Y."

I responded to a single passages from OlNate's post with a reading suggestion. You replied to my post thus, and we've now established that what you said had nothing to do with the theme or supplemental content in my post to which you replied. I'm trying to figure out WTF for you did so. Perhaps, however, that non-sequitur thought popped into your mind and you arbitrarily chose my post to reply to and share that thought?

Do you truly not understand how your comments are non-sequitur to what was being discussed when you inserted them into the line of discussion?

  • OlNate's very narrowly-topicked comment I replied to is about the temporal persistence of religion for as long as modern humans have existed. That's it. Not more; not less.
  • The document I suggested details the temporal progression of religion's evolution from animism to gods, and, with specific regard to OlNate's referenced comment, it shows religion did not exist, even vestigially, as animism, the form which then expressed wasn't religion as we use that term, for about the first 35K years of modern humanity's (homo sapiens sapiens) existence as a species.
  • Your remark is about how religion came to be.
So, here I sit trying to reconcile your "theory" of how religion evolved with the line of discussion about when it first appeared. Trying to reconcile that is why I asked the very straightforward questions I earlier asked you and that your initial reply didn't answer.


Xelor said:
??? WTH? Spot on about what? The post you're calling "spot on" is a single sentence one in which I posited that another member, OlNate, may -- based on his having written, "religion persists through our entire tenure on this planet as a species" -- find interesting the document to which I linked. How the hell can you know whether be "spot on" my supposition about what OlNate may find interesting?

Omega Man said:
I spelled all that out already. Don't quite understand what you're going on about now. If you just want to contend, then I'll gracefully bow out.


OM
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your "spot on" comment is yet another non-sequitur remark that doesn't make sense given the nature/context of the discursive line into which you joined.
 
OlNate said:
Being real for a sec, though...what about your approach to this "conversation" make "conversation" possible? You know out of the gates that it is all a lie, and that we are dumbasses for believing it. I assume that you've asked these questions any number of times, have received the answer, and continue to disbelieve. Ok, that's cool, man, no worries...where do you see the conversation going from here? How do we do it without it turning into a "you're an idiot", "no YOU'RE an idiot" exchange? What do you not yet understand that you'd like to?

To me that's far more interesting than the little snipe shots you take - we get it, you think the whole thing is made up. Now what? :)
Click to expand...

You are putting words in my mouth and assuming I am incapable of seeing believers as intelligent people. Questioning beliefs is not the same as denigrating the believer. You still haven' t addressed my question about doctrinal differences. If your view is that they do not matter, do you also view all religions as equal paths to some positive goal?
 
devildavid said:
You are putting words in my mouth and assuming I am incapable of seeing believers as intelligent people. Questioning beliefs is not the same as denigrating the believer. You still haven' t addressed my question about doctrinal differences. If your view is that they do not matter, do you also view all religions as equal paths to some positive goal?
Click to expand...

The positive goal is to be a good person and one can be a good person without religion.
 
Xelor said:
What you "spelled out" has nothing to do with my post to which you initially replied. I've been trying to get you to explain what the correlation is. I don't think I'm alone in expecting that if I say "X," and someone says "Y" in reply to "X," there should be some sort of correlation between "X" and "Y."

I responded to a single passages from OlNate's post with a reading suggestion. You replied to my post thus, and we've now established that what you said had nothing to do with the theme or supplemental content in my post to which you replied. I'm trying to figure out WTF for you did so. Perhaps, however, that non-sequitur thought popped into your mind and you arbitrarily chose my post to reply to and share that thought?

Do you truly not understand how your comments are non-sequitur to what was being discussed when you inserted them into the line of discussion?

  • OlNate's very narrowly-topicked comment I replied to is about the temporal persistence of religion for as long as modern humans have existed. That's it. Not more; not less.
  • The document I suggested details the temporal progression of religion's evolution from animism to gods, and, with specific regard to OlNate's referenced comment, it shows religion did not exist, even vestigially, as animism, the form which then expressed wasn't religion as we use that term, for about the first 35K years of modern humanity's (homo sapiens sapiens) existence as a species.
  • Your remark is about how religion came to be.
So, here I sit trying to reconcile your "theory" of how religion evolved with the line of discussion about when it first appeared. Trying to reconcile that is why I asked the very straightforward questions I earlier asked you and that your initial reply didn't answer.




Your "spot on" comment is yet another non-sequitur remark that doesn't make sense given the nature/context of the discursive line into which you joined.
Click to expand...

Taking contrarianism to a whole new level, are we? ;)


OM
 
zyzygy said:
The positive goal is to be a good person and one can be a good person without religion.
Click to expand...

Which goes directly to the point of the thread: selective Biblical literalism, as well as Biblicality, is unnecessary to the secularly applicable (in the US, anyway) behaviors and tenets of the Bible, yet people exhibit selective Biblical literalism, thus impugning their own, and by inference their faith-based belief system's, credibility.

Moreover, the US isn't structured as or meant to be a theocracy (indeed the establishment clause proscribes exactly that); thus applications of any dogmatically driven themes, justifications, approbations, or execrations, Christian or otherwise, in evaluating secular law's legitimacy or fitness is inapt.
 
devildavid said:
You are putting words in my mouth and assuming I am incapable of seeing believers as intelligent people. Questioning beliefs is not the same as denigrating the believer. You still haven' t addressed my question about doctrinal differences. If your view is that they do not matter, do you also view all religions as equal paths to some positive goal?
Click to expand...

Post 185, bud.
 
zyzygy said:
The positive goal is to be a good person and one can be a good person without religion.
Click to expand...

But there are those who honestly believe that this is impossible for mankind without god and belief systems. And I think some of them are either incapable or unwilling to entertain the thought that mankind is capable of goodness without the existence of a god.
 
devildavid said:
That does't answer the question. Why have any doctrines at all?
Click to expand...

For the same reason we have laws...man was not created to direct his own steps...Jeremiah 10:23...
 
Elvira said:
For the same reason we have laws...man was not created to direct his own steps...Jeremiah 10:23...
Click to expand...

A good argument against free will.
 
RAMOSS said:
Not all of those are about free will , or the lack there of. (Most in fact aren't)
Click to expand...

Although I've read the whole Bible, I'm not about to attest to having reviewed every one of those passages to confirm whether they expressly or tacitly pertain to free will. The several, 20 or so, I looked at do.
 
OlNate said:
It was the best stab I could take at it. :shrug: I don't really know how else to explain it...
Click to expand...

You didn't take a stab at all. You dismiss the differences in doctrines between different religions when you personally consider them trivial. So why do any specific doctrines matter at all?
 
Elvira said:
For the same reason we have laws...man was not created to direct his own steps...Jeremiah 10:23...
Click to expand...

But laws change when we change our views. In fact, so do religious doctrines. Both are actually man made. They are simply the currently agreed upon laws and doctrines designed to fit the general agreed upon views of the time and place. And most people pick and choose which of them matter or don't. So why get hung up on very specific religious doctrines? What is really the bottom line of both laws and religious doctrines?
 
OlNate said:
It was the best stab I could take at it. :shrug: I don't really know how else to explain it...

devildavid said:
You didn't take a stab at all. You dismiss the differences in doctrines between different religions when you personally consider them trivial. So why do any specific doctrines matter at all?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Red:
The doctrine's significance quite likely is, for the purpose of discourse here, more than adequately explained here: Doctrine and Dogma.

Upon reading that document, one will observe that vis-a-vis this thread's topic, selective literalism, a given faith-based belief system's doctrine's significance is that defines the foundation against which observers and analysts may identify the express and implicit notions and behaviors a given belief system and its adherents propone. Having identified those ideas/acts, observers may thereby evaluate qualitatively the nature and extent of mental machinations the belief system and its adherents undertake (or don't) to legitimate the belief system's and their contentment with its contrivances and conceits.

Put another way, in the arena of dispassionate analysis, doctrine is the analytical "sword" by which a given belief system and its adherents "live and die." Therein lies its significance.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
The doctrine's significance quite likely is, for the purpose of discourse here, more than adequately explained here: Doctrine and Dogma.

Upon reading that document, one will observe that vis-a-vis this thread's topic, selective literalism, a given faith-based belief system's doctrine's significance is that defines the foundation against which observers and analysts may identify the express and implicit notions and behaviors a given belief system and its adherents propone. Having identified those ideas/acts, observers may thereby evaluate qualitatively the nature and extent of mental machinations the belief system and its adherents undertake (or don't) to legitimate the belief system's and their contentment with its contrivances and conceits.

Put another way, in the arena of dispassionate analysis, doctrine is the analytical "sword" by which a given belief system and its adherents "live and die." Therein lies its significance.
Click to expand...

But my question was put to someone who selectively dismisses certain doctrines as trivial and not because they should not be taken literally. That is a different approach. That approach is considering the deeper substance of the doctrine to evaluate it, not whether or not it should be taken literally.

So let's say a doctrine restricts your diet. You examine that doctrine and conclude it has nothing to do with being a good, moral person. So you dismiss that doctrine as trivial. That is not the same as taking doctrines literally. That is making a personal judgement about the deeper moral importance of the doctrine. If a believer can do that, it goes a bit deeper than selective literalism. And it seems that is what many believers do, they fit the doctrines to themselves, not themselves to the doctrines. It's the classic cafeteria approach to religious belief.
 
devildavid said:
But laws change when we change our views. In fact, so do religious doctrines. Both are actually man made. They are simply the currently agreed upon laws and doctrines designed to fit the general agreed upon views of the time and place. And most people pick and choose which of them matter or don't. So why get hung up on very specific religious doctrines? What is really the bottom line of both laws and religious doctrines?
Click to expand...

Biblical doctrines do not change...
 
Elvira said:
Biblical doctrines do not change...
Click to expand...

How they are intepreted is. For example. there is a doctrine of Jesus being God made flesh... that was changed in the JW's practice.
 
RAMOSS said:
How they are intepreted is. For example. there is a doctrine of Jesus being God made flesh... that was changed in the JW's practice.
Click to expand...

The Bible does not teach that and it never did...others may have changed it to mean that but we did not...we follow what the Bible teaches and always have...
 
Elvira said:
The Bible does not teach that and it never did...others may have changed it to mean that but we did not...we follow what the Bible teaches and always have...
Click to expand...

Yet, they say they did, and many have arguments that are reasonable, although I disagree.
 
Elvira said:
Biblical doctrines do not change...
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. It all depends on interpretation of meanings of the various writings. They are not clear cut and straightforward. The contents of the Bible were decided on by men as to what to include or not include. It is a compendium of writings that was put together by men. No one discovered a fully written perfect bible somewhere that was dropped onto earth by a god. It is a man made document subject to decisions made by men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom