Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince an agenda requires some actual thought and reasoning on the part of the person with the agenda and since Freaky's belief system merely requires unthinking obedience to what someone else has told him, I would agree that he doesn't have an "agenda". Neither does any parrot.
Let's put this to bed here, shall we? This began with my claim of Paine's agenda, so start there.
[i/]FreakyKBH: Agendas have a way of doing funny things to our thinking, so it's to be expected.[/i]
Now, does the context surrounding the word agenda seem to infer 'plan,' or does it seem to infer the following:
[b]2 : an underlying often your secret decoder ring and wiggle your way out of this corner.
[i/]David C:[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom the sound of it--- you'll be a dear and correct me if I am wrong, won't you?--- it kinda sounds like you're saying that being a Christian disqualifies anyone from being considered a thinking and/or rational person (with said consideration ostensibly based on values determined by non-Christians). Is my generalization accurate enough to pass muster?
Since an agenda requires some actual thought and reasoning on the part of the person with the agenda and since Freaky's belief system merely requires unthinking obedience to what someone else has told him, I would agree that he doesn't have an "agenda". Neither does any parrot.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat about me, no1? Do I think?
Since an agenda requires some actual thought and reasoning on the part of the person with the agenda and since Freaky's belief system merely requires unthinking obedience to what someone else has told him, I would agree that he doesn't have an "agenda". Neither does any parrot.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWant a cracker?
From the sound of it--- you'll be a dear and correct me if I am wrong, won't you?--- it kinda sounds like you're saying that being a Christian disqualifies anyone from being considered a thinking and/or rational person (with said consideration ostensibly based on values determined by non-Christians). Is my generalization accurate enough to pass muster?
Originally posted by no1marauderDamn, No1! It took you three edits, and you still managed to screw up the proper placement of the quotation marks. I bet you just overthought it, right?
Since an agenda requires some actual thought and reasoning on the part of the person with the agenda and since Freaky's belief system merely requires unthinking obedience to what someone else has told him, I would agree that he doesn't have an "agenda". Neither does any parrot.
Mo Tzu said: The purpose of the humanist is to be found in procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities.
But what are the benefits of the world and what its calamities?
Mo Tzu said: Mutual attacks among states, mutual usurpation among houses, mutual injuries among individuals; the lack of grace and loyalty between ruler and ruled, the lack of affection and filial piety between father and son, the lack of harmony between elder and younger brothers—these are the major calamities in the world.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, it is not. The "Christianity" you believe in is a small, extremist sect which believes in "Secret Decoder Rings" and all sorts of nonsense.
From the sound of it--- you'll be a dear and correct me if I am wrong, won't you?--- it kinda sounds like you're saying that being a Christian disqualifies anyone from being considered a thinking and/or rational person (with said consideration ostensibly based on values determined by non-Christians). Is my generalization accurate enough to pass muster?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNitpicking is LH's job on this Forum. In any event, he placement of the quotation marks is correct, though I also considered putting "belief system" in quotes as well (I'm not sure your theology rates as a "system"😉.
Damn, No1! It took you three edits, and you still managed to screw up the proper placement of the quotation marks. I bet you just overthought it, right?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Only until you are able to get yourself into the first category can you truly call yourself an open-minded person. Going into the situation with your mind made up by the supposed "mountain of evidence" (which is more readily described as 'our most current scientific position'😉 does [b]not bequeath any form of scholarship upon you.[/b]
To begin at the end, this is where you are mistaken. When I read
any text, I start with no presumptions whatsoever -- is it
true, false, literal, allegorical, or whatever. After reading it and
digesting it, I compare it with the day-to-day experience that I have --
Do its characters act totally unlike me and the people I know? Does
its story resemble something I can relate with? Is its conclusions
supported by its testimony? and so forth.
When I find something difficult to believe, I ask 'why?' If it is
because it is poorly written, lacks internal coherency, indulges in
intercontradictory material, or demands a suspension of rationale, I
dismiss it immediately (by and large, the Bible does not fall into any
of these categories). If my difficulty is because of a lack of comprehension --
either because a lack of familiarity with the culture whence it came,
the language, or the history concerning its evolution, then I ply myself
to the task of understanding those things, so that I might have a
more accurate lens by which to see the text in question.
These are the tools of the open-minded individual, and I apply
them to my reading of Scripture (Judeo-Christian and otherwise) as
well as any text, fiction or not.
That sounds like you've narrowed your thinking down to a definte decision. Namely, you have determined (based upon a supposed "mountain of evidence" ) that the Genesis account can be nothing but allegorical.
I am sure that you don't think it a product of the narrow mind to
conclude that the moon is not made of cheese or that the sun goes
around the earth, right? And, you wouldn't call a person narrow
minded who would adamantly refuse to acknowledge the validity of
someone who asserted that the moon was made of cheese, right?
Or, I doubt you would consider either of two people narrow minded for
having opposite but informed stances on a complicated scientific
issue, such the debate over whether black holes can/do exist; that is
people with informed theories on issues with evidence to back up their
claims, even while other evidence might suggest otherwise.
A person isn't narrow minded because s/he thinks that a^2+b^2=c^2,
while not understanding the proof, and one isn't stubborn for refusing
to believe it until being shown its proof. One IS narrow minded
for denying its validity after seeing and understanding the proof, or,
equally bad, willfully refusing to explore the proof when being given the
opportunity.
And, here is the difference between you and me: There is no dogma
or scientific datum of which I am unwilling to let go. I am always
opened to the possibility that something surely learned or apparently understood
is actually erroneous. And, if I am unknowingly in error, I am always
hopeful that someone will correct me and, more importantly, show me
why my thinking was incorrect.
It is because I am in the 'first category' that you mention that I have
come to the conclusions about Scripture that I currently hold; not only
am I familiar with some Hebrew, Jewish culture before the common era,
non-Scriptural Jewish writing, and mythological archetypes and evolution,
but I also have a fair understanding of various sciences, especially
biology and astronomy, but also physics and (least) chemistry. These
things inform my reading of Scripture, or any text.
Moreover, that narrowed thinking--- more than likely--- has been informed from a very restrictive reading of the account, without regard to the original language.
And, with your suggestion that I am unfamiliar with the 'original
language,' you only betray your own ignorance of the culture from
which that language derives: Jewish culture. Scripture interpretation
in the form of allegorical understanding is inextricably linked to the
texts which comprise Hewbrew Scripture; that there is one literal
and correct reading of any Jewish text is an absurd conjecture, given
the bounty of readings, glosses, interpretations, sermons, expansions,
and other creative media which clearly indicates that no static
understanding of Hebrew Scripture exists. Truly, it wasn't until Jewish
literature was hijacked by the formerly pagan Gentiles that the notion
of 'one reading' was something that was argued (and fought) over.
That being said, who is more likely to be in possession of a narrow mind: the person who allows the text to say what it actually says and subsequently makes a determination; or, the person who makes their determination based upon an inadequate translation?
The person who takes a single text and asserts something in
spite of tremendous evidence to the contrary. That is, can you, Freaky,
fathom a scientific advance that would allow you to revisit the possibility
that Genesis is not a literal account -- an contravertable mathematical
formula, an indisputable quantum physics proof which shows validity
of the radioactive-isotope decay, a demonstrable creation of life from
isolated, non-living proteins in a lab? Or, do you take the Bible and
say 'This must be true, irrespective of what anyone or anything else
turns up?'
Which is it for you?
If it is the latter, you belie any claim to open-mindedness. If it is the
former, then I suggest you review chemistry, biology, physics, geology,
and astronomy, for, despite your claim, there is a mountain of
evidence to suggest the earth is, indeed, older than a few thousand
or even a few hundred thousand years, evidence which derives from a
variety of unrelated collection methods which independently support
each other. And, following logically from those conclusions from those
disciplines, if the earth is indeed older than a few thousand years, then
a literal reading of Genesis must be erroneous.
If you are not opened to the possibility that the Bible is NOT the
literal Word of God, then you are narrow minded. I, for my part, am
opened to the possibility that macro-evolution (e.g.,) does not exist,
although, amongst the evidence currently available, I conclude that it
very likely did occur. However, I can fathom evidence -- fantastic
(mystical visions) or scientific (DNA advances, perhaps) -- that
would allow me to change my position.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI'll cut to the chase and answer but one of your charges. Your characterization of the earth's age is wrong. A straight-forward reading of the text in the original language says nothing whatsoever regarding a date for the earth's age. As such, given supporting Scripture in other passages, it is more likely that the earth is millions of years old.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Only until you are able to get yourself into the first category can you truly call yourself an open-minded person. Going into the situation with your mind made up by the supposed "mountain of evidence" (which is more readily described as 'our most current scientific position'😉 does [b]not bequeath any form of schol vances, perhaps) -- that
would allow me to change my position.
Nemesio[/b]
Now, you were saying about narrow-mindedness?