[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
zk: No. This has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible. You’re missing my point pretty completely, and my mention of the First Council was an attempt to explain how slavish adherence to scripture can be dangerous and self-defeating because it’s based on a flawed and contradictory manuscript. I was also trying to explain that my beliefs are not based on the Bible, but rather the teachings of the Church, and therefore the mention of centuries of internal consistency.
[/quote]
I understand that you don’t interpret the bible literally. My question is, if you’re following the teachings of the church and not the bible, where does the church get its divine authority from? How are the teachings of the church the word of god? Who decided what the word of god is and how did they decide that? Surely the teachings of the church are based, to some degree, on the bible. Not the literal text of the bible, but rather the interpreted text of the bible.
Either somebody is interpreting something, or somebody in the church has heard the word of god directly. Or do you have another explanation for how the teachings of the church are the word of god?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This would give lie to the idea that these teachings would fall out of favor at some point in the future. Is it possible? Absolutely. But these same teachings have also evolved over time as well. Now before you jump to that “A-ha!” moment and point out the discursive nature of that comment, I would point out that it illustrates the robust nature (empirically speaking) of the doctrine, not the weakness.
[/quote]
Well, now you’ve lost me completely. That makes so little sense that, given your reasonable and intelligent nature, I have to assume I’m not understanding what you’re saying. It sounds like you’re saying that, because the teachings of the church have changed over time, that is empirical evidence that the teachings of the church are “robust.” Whatever “robust” means, exactly. I’ll assume it means strong, vigorous, able to withstand attack or other outside forces. But I have to assume, correct me if I’m wrong, that the word of god would be unchanging. So, if you have to change your theology – even incrementally or over long periods of time – then it can’t really be the correct word of god. Somebody must have interpreted it incorrectly at some point. And if it’s possible for your leaders to interpret the word of god incorrectly, then how can you really trust anything they say?
Here is the crux of my point. If you interpret the bible literally, then you’re following a religion who’s god can’t go more than a page or two without contradicting himself or saying something brutal or disgusting. And if you don’t follow the bible literally, then you’re not really following the word of god, but rather the word of the men (the church) – who, as far as I can tell, have not been deemed directly in touch with god – whom you’ve charged with leading you. Men who are flawed, as all men are. Men who can’t possibly know the real word of god.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As to indulging in a “fantasy”, sure, why not? After all, you and I aren’t arguing the same thing at all. You can deny God’s existence in your soul to your heart’s content, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Just as I can argue the contrary and it doesn’t make it so, either. Again, this comes down to religion versus spirituality and you cannot deny the existence of spirituality, regardless of its type.
[/quote]
I don’t deny the existence of spirituality. Nor of religiosity. Nor of schizophrenia. I merely disagree with the conclusions drawn about reality by anyone possessing any of those things.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I have faith. And, if, say, my other choice would be to embrace the clinical nihilism of a “bio-ethicist” like Peter Singer or the racist eugenics of a Margaret Sanger, uh, no thanks.
[/quote]
As you know, that’s not your other choice. And, as you know, the above statement really is beneath you.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I’m not trying to put forth a strawman here, just so we’re clear, just proffering the thought that Science with a capital “S” hasn’t done such a great job, either, in explaining the how or why of things that seem just beyond our understanding.
[/quote]
That’s ridiculous. Science has explained almost everything about our world that we didn’t understand before we came up with science. Sure, there are things we still can’t explain with science. But there’s no reason to think that, at some point we will be able to explain all things that are understandable to the human brain through science. And if we can’t explain them, that doesn’t mean that there’s some divine explanation for them. Just that we haven’t figured it out yet. Just like we hadn’t figured out that the earth revolves around the sun, or that the earth is (more or less) spherical, or that infections come from bacteria.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Faith and Reason can co-exist quite effectively, and there are centuries upon centuries of great examples. Why would someone with free will and any sort of intellectual curiosity deny themselves any path, regardless of where it leads?
[/quote]
I don’t know why someone with free will and any sort of intellectual curiosity would deny themselves any path, either. I have explored and rejected quite a few explanations that go beyond the laws of physics (including many religions) due to lack of evidence. I believe that if either of us is denying themselves a path, Allan, it’s you. I seriously doubt that you (or 5 billion other people) are able to look at this question without your deeply –held beliefs getting in the way of your rationality.
