Originally posted by HalitoseOf course you can't form theological conclusions from a perspective that specifically excludes them. I was unaware I'd formed any theological conclusions, what were they?
[b]…theology (etc) is bracketed out of this perspective as irrelevant.
Then you can't infer any theological conclusions from this "perspective" -- which is what you were doing.
I further suggest that it would be virtually impossible to have a socio-political perspective divorced from all theology from which to launch a critique of religion.[/b]
Please expand on your suggestion, it sounds promising.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI was unaware I'd formed any theological conclusions, what were they?
Of course you can't form theological conclusions from a perspective that specifically excludes them. I was unaware I'd formed any theological conclusions, what were they?
Please expand on your suggestion, it sounds promising.
The ones which sparked my original comments. If those were not intended as conclusions, then please ignore my comments for the last page.
Please expand on your suggestion, it sounds promising.
All socio-political systems make axiomatic theological claims (implicit or explicit), i.e. there is/is no God; God gives/gives no economic/political directives regarding aspects such as private property, individual rights; we don’t need/need to pay attention to these directives etc, etc, etc.
The pedestal from which you wish to critique religion divorced from theology must itself be divorced from theology -- a none-too-easy task.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour illustrations only prove that while there are common points, there are also fundamental points where no consensus can be reached. These are enough to assert my position. I don't say that anything can be interpreted from the texts, but that interpretations depend on the state of society at that moment. So what may be seen as Christianism today, may not be tomorrow. Take heliocentrism, which was once considered as heretic, for example. All this to say that what a religion is depends on the social, economical and political. Theology is not an accurate science as biology, and this is enough to prove my point.
[b]This is incorrect. What may be true for the RCC may not be true for the Orthodox Christians.
What is true will be true regardless of whether you're Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical or Buddhist.
Talking of RCC vs. Orthodox, vistesd and I had a rather long discussion some time back on the Catholic vs. Orthodox perspectives on infallibility. ...[text shortened]... have well-defined doctrines (all three mono-theistic religions, Buddhism etc.)[/b]
Your example of your discussions with vistesd just asserts my point. Is there a unique religious truth there?
Correcting me on a grammatical mistake and saying that I'm parroting someone I didn't even read are both cheap shots. Did I offend you? I certainly hope not.
I'm not saying that at all. Christianity has certain well-defined basic dogmas - all Christians officially believe in them.
So? If all Christians know and believe in them, I think everyone born in a Christians country also knows them and therefore are perfectly justified to have their say about them.
Palynka:I say that a religion is what their faithful believe.
LH:What the US Constitution actually says is not the same as what the majority of Americans thinks it says.
And so you admit that the majority of the faithful do not believe in the religion they practice, but a distorted vision of it. Quite an elitist view of religion, I would say. People should not be seen as sheep upon which to feed doctrine.
And while that force feeding may work, eventually the mass of followers will impose their views. It is a question of survival for the institutionalized church and mostly the realization that scholars are also part of society and therefore affected by it. In the long-run, your sheep will have their way, and rightly so. Religious truth, ultimately, bends to their will.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt is not a chimera, it is a social phenomenon. In what way is a religion without believers a religion? It becomes mere historical myth.
It is a chimera in Palynka's discourse, Hal. Try to see things from outside your perspective sometime. I don't have a "religion is a chimera" religion. And I have a But to Palynka's views, but it needs working on.
Originally posted by HalitoseI didn't said that religion should be criticized by a divorce with theology, I'm just saying that not only scholars are entitled to criticize religion.
All socio-political systems make axiomatic theological claims (implicit or explicit), i.e. there is/is no God; God gives/gives no economic/political directives regarding aspects such as private property, individual rights; we don’t need/need to pay attention to these directives etc, etc, etc.
The pedestal from which you wish to critique religion divorced from theology must itself be divorced from theology -- a none-too-easy task.
Exactly in the same way that you don't need to be a scholar to embrace it.
Originally posted by PalynkaYour illustrations only prove that while there are common points, there are also fundamental points where no consensus can be reached.
Your illustrations only prove that while there are common points, there are also fundamental points where no consensus can be reached. These are enough to assert my position. I don't say that anything can be interpreted from the texts, but that interpretations depend on the state of society at that moment. So what may be seen as Christianism today, may not b ...[text shortened]... sheep will have their way, and rightly so. Religious truth, ultimately, bends to their will.
Quite simply - I disagree. That a consensus is practically difficult (due to psychological, historical, linguistic reasons etc.) does not mean a consensus cannot (i.e. in theory) be reached.
I don't say that anything can be interpreted from the texts, but that interpretations depend on the state of society at that moment.
Not in Biblical hermeneutics. Whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or other, the primary meaning of Scripture is always the spiritual sense that the author wanted to convey to his audience (in the case of NT documents - the early Church).
Theology is not an accurate science as biology, and this is enough to prove my point.
It's a different kind of academic endeavour - just as the social sciences, psychology, history, literature etc. are. Applying scientific notions of "accuracy" is a category error. That it has a different process of judgment does not make it any less 'accurate'.
Your example of your discussions with vistesd just asserts my point. Is there a unique religious truth there?
Did you actually read the thread, or were you passing a priori judgment?
Correcting me on a grammatical mistake and saying that I'm parroting someone I didn't even read are both cheap shots.
It wasn't a grammatical error - it was just nearly incoherent (because a few connecting words went AWOL). In any case, I wasn't intending to take a cheap shot - clarifying what I'm responding to before I respond is just an old habit of mine (and it has its uses - if I get it wrong, I can always be corrected).
As to parroting twitehead, your arguments are, in essence, the same as those he presented in another thread. That's all I wanted to say - you're just closing your eyes to the substantive issues and saying "It's all a matter of opinion".
It's not.
And so you admit that the majority of the faithful do not believe in the religion they practice, but a distorted vision of it. Quite an elitist view of religion, I would say. People should not be seen as sheep upon which to feed doctrine.
I never said or meant anything about people being sheep, nor about whether (in reality) the majority of faithful do not believe in the religion they practise. You're reading into my example something that isn't there.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm not here to preach, but to discuss and I don't think you're addressing my points but going on tangents. That's usually the case when people cut and paste sentences throughout a post and analyse them one by one.
Quoting particular sentences should be a support, not the point of refutation. By removing context and purpose, you then proceed to go on tangents and extrapolate from there so you can contradict them. I don't see the point of losing my time in refuting them.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaFortunately, we are not in high-school anymore and we're not graded on our essay-style.
I'm not here to preach, but to discuss and I don't think you're addressing my points but going on tangents. That's usually the case when people cut and paste sentences throughout a post and analyse them one by one.
Quoting particular sentences should be a support, not the point of refutation. By removing context and purpose, you then proceed to go on tang ...[text shortened]... there so you can contradict them. I don't see the point of losing my time in refuting them.
If I feel that an argument makes distinct points that I can deal with as separate logical wholes, I do so. If it's easier to do that on a cut-paste basis, I do so. As long as my arguments are valid and I don't engage in personal attacks - I'm happy.
If you can't respond because of aesthetic concerns - that's your problem.
EDIT: You say you're not here to preach - but all I see is you saying "It's all a matter of opinion" a hundred different ways.
Originally posted by lucifershammerDon't confuse aestethics with strawmen.
Fortunately, we are not in high-school anymore and we're not graded on our essay-style.
If I feel that an argument makes distinct points that I can deal with as separate logical wholes, I do so. If it's easier to do that on a cut-paste basis, I do so. As long as my arguments are valid and I don't engage in personal attacks - I'm happy.
If you ca ...[text shortened]... - but all I see is you saying "It's all a matter of opinion" a hundred different ways.
Originally posted by whodeyMealy mouthed clap-trap if you don't mind me saying so.
Did I say that ALL Muslims are violent? No. That would be a stereotype. I said that the Islamic world appears to have a radical element that is prone to violence. I have listed examples to explain my position. I think this is due to the fact that Muhammad at times used violent tactics to achieve his goals which involved killing. Now his followers have t ...[text shortened]... ssion is worthy of Jihad and which is not? These are gray areas for many followers of Muhammad.
Originally posted by Big MacIndeed. We agree
but...
(sorry meant to include this earlier)
while one may judge a religion on whether or not they can follow it, one may not judge an entire people group on the actions of a few, or even many. to my knowledge people groups are still comprised of individuals who make decisions for themselves.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI have read some of the Koran and read commentaries on the Koran. Thank you. Islam is a pacifist religion, a feature it shares with Christianity. If you think otherwise I advise you to read the Koran. I found the Penguin edition very useful.
Using this logic would mean that demonising Nazi's as prone to violence would be equally troubling to you. When I make such judgements I look at the teachings of the leader from whom people follow. If any one had bothered reading his writings, it would not be hard to determain violence was on the horizen for his followers.
By the way, horizon is spelled with two o's and no e's
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyPerhaps you'd like to debate the Augustine tradition of 'a just war' in christian thinking.
Yes, and there are many mild mannered Muslims as I have stated. Don't get me wrong, I do not place Muhammad in the same category as Hitler, however, they both at times rationalize using violence as a means for acheiveing their goals. It would only stand to reason that his followers will do so as well.