Tireless worker who eases others' suffering, h...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I thought you were leaving this forum for a few days...

Hate to annoy you, but it seems I can't shake loose. 🙂

I really should though 'cause my work's been suffering. Ok. Here I go. See ya.

Originally posted by stocken
Is knowledge derived from old catechismic (is that the word?) documents the same as having an understanding of the same?

Wouldn't I gain a deeper understanding if I could come to the conclusions myself? (Just give me the questions. Chop them up in smaller tidbits and allow me to derive my own answers.)

Or do you just repeat the questions and answers un and if they do bad I wouldn't. Whether they believe in me or not is completely irrelevant.

Is knowledge derived from old catechismic (is that the word?) documents the same as having an understanding of the same?

The word you're looking for is 'catechetical'. 'Catechesis' refers to religious instruction or teaching (especially in the Catholic tradition).

What is the difference between "knowing" and "understanding" in your view? Do you 'know' that Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo in 1815? Do you 'understand' it?

Wouldn't I gain a deeper understanding if I could come to the conclusions myself?

That method is suitable for certain areas of learning (e.g. mathematics, philosophy), but not always. For instance, no amount of Q&A and reasoning will tell you that Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo in 1815. Your teacher may choose not to tell you - he/she may ask you to look it up in the Encyclopedia. But that just transfers the source of information - not the manner in which it is provided.

This is particularly true of religious instruction - because most religions will depend in some way on truths that are not accessible by natural reason but have to be revealed to us.

Or do you just repeat the questions and answers until you think you understand them? Like we learn the multiplication tables in elementary school?

Now there's a good example - why do you think we need to study multiplication tables by rote in elementary school? If we waited for students to "understand" multiplication and carry-overs before they learnt the tables, how old do you think they would need to be? Is it worth the wait? Or is it better to have them learn the basics and figure out why it must be so later, when they are more intellectually developed?

Perhaps, if people were allowed to think for themselves, they wouldn't come to the same conclusions as the people behind your old dogmatic scriptures. That would be a shame, though. Wouldn't it?

On the contrary, my experience tells me that the more people think and learn, the more they come to the same conclusions as the people behind my "old dogmatic scriptures" (interesting how you think something lacks value because it is "old" ). The problem isn't people thinking, or thinking insufficiently - the problem lies in people in reasoning on the basis of flawed assumptions (as your next paragraph demonstrates).

Anyway. I guess what really bothers me is that your good God is such a bonehead. If I were almighty, I wouldn't punish anyone for using their (apparently) god-given right (freedom of thought). If they do good I'd encourage them and if they do bad I wouldn't. Whether they believe in me or not is completely irrelevant.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread to Rob and darv, your notion of my "good God" is not what I (or the Church) think of Him. If you'd read my earlier posts in this thread, you would've seen that.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Is knowledge derived from old catechismic (is that the word?) documents the same as having an understanding of the same?

The word you're looking for is 'catechetical'. 'Catechesis' refers to religious instruction or teaching (especially in the Catholic tradition).

What is the difference between "knowing" and "understanding" in your view? ...[text shortened]... u'd read my earlier posts in this thread, you would've seen that.[/b]

I'm not as well versed as you, so I use this dictionary a lot to keep up with your posts. Here:

http://dict.die.net/catechesis/
http://dict.die.net/the%20shorter%20catechism/

I believe you used the latter in your first post about this matter. That one refers to a specific method of teaching where you read questions and answers to supposedly learn something. I just thought that the socratic method seemed a better approach.

Granted, it would seem difficult to learn about historic events using the socratic method. I give you that one. 🙂

"The Socratic method of reasoning and instruction was by a series of questions leading the one to whom they were addressed to perceive and admit what was true or false in doctrine, or right or wrong in conduct."

- from: http://dict.die.net/socratic/

Now, as for learning the multiplication table in school, I didn't. I repeated and repeated and still, if I didn't practice, I forgot them within months (well, the easier one's stuck but when I got to things like 9x6 I was lost). Until I sat down and figured out the why's (or rather how's) I just couldn't keep it in my head. That could be a limitation in me, that most people don't suffer from, but constantly repeating something because (supposedly) that would teach me something just didn't work. Think God will forgive me for that? (Just dripping with sarcasm.)

Same goes for history. To learn dates and facts is really, really difficult. Sure, I can read and memorize to pass a test, but it's completely useless in the long run. I have to constantly re-read the material to keep it in. However, when I put the historic events in context, it all gets a whole lot easier. Now, that's something you can do using the socratic method (or a version thereof). By asking related questions about the event, the pupil can slowly learn to associate this or that event with certain conditions. That would also lead to a better understanding of why and how certain things happened the way they did. The knowledge is in "this happened there" and the understanding is "why and how it could happen".

I think you're being a little unfair when you claim that I dismiss something because it's written a long time ago. I don't. I read a lot of old documents with interest and an open mind. It's the dogmatic part of your old dogmatic scriptures, that I have a problem with. They're the "do this, don't that" kind of writings that I just can't stand (unless they also present good reasons for it). I need to know why! If there's no good reason for a principle of living, other than that something terrible will happen to me after I die, then I automatically suspect an underlying motive. And usually, that doesn't benefit me, but somebody else.

I noticed a few posts back that you said: depending on the circumstances a person may go to Heaven even if (s)he's not christian. I was ignorant to not notice this, and I apologize for it. But is it really a flawed assumption, that if I heard the gospel (not spiritually, but, you know, the words?), were born a christian, purposely deny His existence but still do good, I will go to hell? If so, that's an arrogant and boneheaded God. One I really don't want to be associated with.

Stocken