OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[MaxBuck]

The term "Biblical literalist" seems to be applicable without being pejorative in any way (at least, yet!).

 

[CookyPuss]

The term "Biblical literalist" seems to be applicable without being pejorative in any way (at least, yet!).

I thought about that too, but it only covers one of the tenants of that group's beliefs. Christian Fundamentalism stands for more than the literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't have a problem with people interpreting the Bible literally. I have a problem with a group saying theirs is the only proper view of Christianity (which Fundamentalist Christianity does).

 

[Jagdaddy]

I agree that "biblical literalist", which I've sometimes used, while not perjorative, is too narrow. When I want to be perjorative I use "nonblinker", which is a broader term I've coined for anyone who's so convinced they're right about something (and something can be environmentalism, campaign finance law, women's rights, or atheism . . .) that they literally seem like they physically don't blink. Mel Gibson is a great example of a nonblinker. I coined the term after having to deal in my professional capacity with an extremely annoying biblical literalist/private school champion over an extended period of time.

 

[Brewtus]

I coined the term after having to deal in my professional capacity with an extremely annoying biblical literalist/private school champion over an extended period of time.

I'll bet the non-blinking issue was probably a result of his indoctrination:

 

[Mike80]

I agree that "biblical literalist", which I've sometimes used, while not perjorative, is too narrow. When I want to be perjorative I use "nonblinker", which is a broader term I've coined for anyone who's so convinced they're right about something (and something can be environmentalism, campaign finance law, women's rights, or atheism . . .) that they literally seem like they physically don't blink. Mel Gibson is a great example of a nonblinker. I coined the term after having to deal in my professional capacity with an extremely annoying biblical literalist/private school champion over an extended period of time.

I think I've met people like that on both sides of any issue.....

 

[CookyPuss]

I think I've met people like that on both sides of any issue.....

I think we all have.

 

[Jagdaddy]

Yes, but I've copyrighted "nonblinker", kind of like Pat Riley with "threepeat."

 

[stxbuck]

Well, some fundementalists bomb buildings with airplanes.. others just try to make us stupid.

You know, you never hear about a Hindu fundementalist.
.

There are plenty of Hindu fundamentalists in India, we just ignore that 20% of the world's population except when they become doctorb's or Sunny Leone pops up in the RR.

 

[JoJaBuckeye]

Since Muck took on two, I'll take on one. (Hats off to Muck for avoidence. Me? I'm weak and have to do what I do) This says more to me about your relationship with your mother or some other woman in your life than it says about anything else. As I said above, I won't address your question because it's blatently loaded to produce no result and even to the extent that we can agree, isn't a proposition which would help answer any question regarding the validity of the Bible as the Word of God.

The phrase "All Men are Pigs" is not supposed to be read as a statement that All men, are in fact pigs. When I say "Michigan sucks" I do not mean Michigan literally sucks. I mean the place fucking sucks.

Ah. So what the bible might say about human nature...well...we can't really pin that down, can we?

But not one negative word about what feminist academics and ideologues have taught at the university level.

Gotcha.

 

[JoJaBuckeye]

I thought about that too, but it only covers one of the tenants of that group's beliefs. Christian Fundamentalism stands for more than the literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't have a problem with people interpreting the Bible literally. I have a problem with a group saying theirs is the only proper view of Christianity (which Fundamentalist Christianity does).

Come now. Are we expected to embrace belief systems we inwardly reject? It is axiomatic that a person will be dogmatic about their...well...dogma. Some are cut a little bit rougher than others, some are more polished or diplomatic. But in the end, they all believe they are right. The view I embrace is the view I embrace precisely because I hold it to be the proper view.

I think the key here is: would I alter my beliefs if confronted with information, knowledge, or experience that justified a change in position.

Speaking for myself, yes.

 

[JoJaBuckeye]

Leucippus theorized about atoms in the 5th century BCE.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leucippus/

Per your link (for which, thank you):

One direct quotation preserved from Leucippus says that nothing happens in vain (maten) but everything from logos and by necessity.​

Per John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God.​

One must always know one's audience.



I should clarify what the NT teaches in the form of a declarative:

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)​

That which is visible has changed since the NT. We can now see atoms. But we also know that atoms consist of sub-atomic particles. Sub-atomic particles were being defined when we were born, and they will continue being found further and further into micro universe when we die. That is to day, the utlimate end of matter will always remain invisible to man. We may push the envelope, but we'll never "envelope" the envelope.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Ah. So what the bible might say about human nature...well...we can't really pin that down, can we?

Um... I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. What I said was I refused to fall for your clearly loaded question and I gave you a quick rationale for my decision to not so engage.

But not one negative word about what feminist academics and ideologues have taught at the university level.

Gotcha.

I don't give a shit about feminist academics and ideologues at any level. Certainly not enough to go off on some Freudian rant about em, that's for sure.

I do find it curious that Female fundamentalism appears to be an issue for you, but you appear comfortable with Christian fundamentalism (or literalism, or whatever the hell term we're supposed to use in this thread)

In any case, I addressed several of your other questions, which you now appear to be ignoring in favor of worrying about "bitches" who piss you off for some reason.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Per your link (for which, thank you):

One direct quotation preserved from Leucippus says that nothing happens in vain (maten) but everything from logos and by necessity.​

Per John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God.​

One must always know one's audience.



I should clarify what the NT teaches in the form of a declarative:

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)​

That which is visible has changed since the NT. We can now see atoms. But we also know that atoms consist of sub-atomic particles. Sub-atomic particles were being defined when we were born, and they will continue being found further and further into micro universe when we die. That is to day, the utlimate end of matter will always remain invisible to man. We may push the envelope, but we'll never "envelope" the envelope.

I should say, on your final remark here, I'd agree to some extent. That is, I believe Man must necessarily not ever learn precisely EVERYTHING that God knows, lest we'd become God ourselves. On the other hand, perhaps thats our final destination altogether... becoming assimilated in to whatever God is and losing our own identity entirely.

 

[CookyPuss]

Per your link (for which, thank you):

One direct quotation preserved from Leucippus says that nothing happens in vain (maten) but everything from logos and by necessity.​

Per John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God.​

One must always know one's audience.






I should clarify what the NT teaches in the form of a declarative:

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)​

That which is visible has changed since the NT. We can now see atoms. But we also know that atoms consist of sub-atomic particles. Sub-atomic particles were being defined when we were born, and they will continue being found further and further into micro universe when we die. That is to day, the utlimate end of matter will always remain invisible to man. We may push the envelope, but we'll never "envelope" the envelope.

Just to be clear, it was Leucippus's associate Democritus who expanded his theories. Leucippus's was writing 500 years before the NT. His application of the word logos seems to be more or less that every effect has a reason (cause). He was writing about motion and how it occurs and was postulating that tiny invisible things fill the voids and bounce off each other to cause motion.

The term logos has multiple applications in the Greek language including reason, proportion, logic, meaning, standard, thought, speech. In the Gospel of John logos which is literaly translated as "The Word" but could also be translated "The Reason." I capitalize "The" because John is referring to logos the overriding principle of the universe. It is also a play on words as in Genesis God "speaks" creation into being and logos literally means speech.

Anyways, your quote from Hebrews hardly demonstrates anything different. The Genesis account and many other creation stories from around the world postulate that the world came into being from nothingness (the unseen).

I'm not sure what your point is. If you are trying to demonstrate that the Bible is the single source of all necessary knowledge, than I must concede to you. It is a large enough collection of writings that if you want to take individual verses out of context, you can twist them into about anything you want. I could probably do the same thing with the works of Shakespeare if I wanted to.

I don't know if that is your position, because you have not made your postition clear. However, I do know that many people hold that position. I think it is interesting to look at where that idea came from. Martin Luther put forth the concept of Sola Scriptura which is that the idea that scripture does not need to be interpreted by tradition and is sufficient for determining Christian doctorine. Remember that the printing press had been recently invented and now the Bible was much more accessible to the masses. Luther was basically saying that we no longer need the church (meaning the Roman Catholic Church) to tell us what the Bible means, we can read it for ourselves.

I'm not sure how Luther's assertation that scripture is the soul authority for Christian doctorine became that the idea that the Bible should be the soul authority for everything. I think John Wesley had a better formulatioin. He taught that must know scripture, be familiar with tradition, apply reason, and be informed by experience . Four sources of authority which inform one another. He did place primary authority in scripture but not to the exclusion of the others.

 

[Thump]

Did God invent man or did Man invent God?