If anything is permissible there's no such thing as justice — frank
Canonical texts: Homer, Dante. Shakespeare. Goethe, Walt Whitman, other religious texts, texts with a long historical tradition of interpretation. — Janus
Maybe it is better to learn from a book with some prickly parts and some rough edges.
— Srap Tasmaner
You might have to draw this out a bit for me. — Isaac
Who says I'm not? Again, the same special pleading. I'm not entitled to an opinion about what the meaning is to me, what it's value is to me. Only positive interpretations are welcome. What other text gets that treatment? — Isaac
the upshot is that religious belief is categorically distinct from factual belief. — Banno
This seems a difficult way to say that belief-in is categorically different from knowledge-of. — tim wood
No. See my post above or flick through the article. — Banno
Again, the same special pleading. — Isaac
I'm not entitled to an opinion about what the meaning is to me, what it's value is to me. — Isaac
I'm talking about the danger inherent in the ways in which it could be interpreted. — Isaac
Am I still not allowed an opinion on why people form their beliefs? — Isaac
I'm trying to see where there's a problem here — Hanover
Put simply. People select narratives to make sense of their lives, these narratives have a gravitational pull toward certain interpretations. some narratives are better than others. A narrative which has to be 'interpreted' carefully to avoid the impression that stoning girls to death is OK, is not one of the better ones. — Isaac
Why then and not then? It's like the 'interpretation' argument. — Isaac
I think we'd still need the meta construction in either case. — Isaac
Should I be saying "exactly!" — Agent Smith
There would be, if the notion of literalism could be made coherent. I don't see that you addressed my reply. There is no fixed, immutable thing that you might call "the meaning of the bible". If this applies to literalist interpretations, then more so for those who would interpret the text more freely. The notion of an "agreed interpretive method" doesn't help; this conversation is a recognition of the fact of disagreement....there's nothing special about literalism... — Hanover
His point is well taken, but obvious. — Hanover
There is no fixed, immutable thing that you might call "the meaning of the bible" — Banno
I take exception to your use of "attack". I suppose your excessive defensiveness is explained by your considering a critique of literalism as an attack on your own beliefs. But if you do not hold that god punishes sinners unjustly, then you are not the subject fo the critique. — Banno
Your repeated denial of the fact that there are folk who do hold that god is unjust is unfortunate for you, but good for the length of my thread. So thanks. — Banno
It's like you're running around telling me that George Washington really wasn't a perfectly honest person and that he did not really confess to chopping down the cherry tree. Yeah, I get none of it happened. I think the myth being advanced in that narrative is that America was founded by the most honest of men, explaining its higher sense of morality than all other nations. I'm not asking that you accept that narrative as factually correct or even as accurate myth, but the message I've noted is the point of that story. I don't find the criticism that the events didn't take place or that a tree chopper is an unredeemable character at all responsive to the narrative though. — Hanover
Has anyone disputed that or argued against that? The difficulty you have run into is both yours and Lewis's generalization to Christians and Christianity - too facile to be true or useful. And while Lewis is not here to reply, you as most recent endorser have been altogether dismissive or evasive of questions. One may as well conclude that Australia and all Australians are bad because some of it is and some are.It remains that the bible is understood by some to say very specific and morally repugnant things about the afterlife. This thread was proposed as an exploration of that view. — Banno
Laughed at this. Perhaps 'Merca was founded on a lie, and continues to believe its own myths in the face of its grossly immoral actions towards its own people and those around the world. A pertinent example of how myths hide reality, and why myths ought to be critiqued. — Banno
Some truth in this, always some truth. But your paintbrush too broad. Can you say Marshall Plan? Or modern Japan or Germany? Or the American Civil War? Or NATO? And so forth.'Merca was founded on a lie, and continues to believe its own myths in the face of its grossly immoral actions towards its own people and those around the world. — Banno
Agreed without argument. That leaves the hair-splitting; and life too short for too much of that.But not always. — Banno
Can you say Marshall Plan? — tim wood
Should I be saying "exactly!"
— Agent Smith
No. You should be taking a walk in the wind to blow the cobwebs out your butt. — frank
I think a book in which the main object of worship advocates stoning girls to death within the first 28% of the book (better Ennui Elucidator?), is laying the thorns on pretty thick, with the whole love and compassion redeeming theme makes a very late and understated entrance by comparison. — Isaac
You are welcome to provide me with quotes that you find troubling and I will address them. — Ennui Elucidator
The argument is not about what it says, but what it means; what the value is in including that story both on its own and within the greater context/s of the book. If you aren’t willing to engage with the material on that level... — Ennui Elucidator
I can't help that you confuse advice about how to speak to a particular language community as somehow depriving you of your entitlement to an opinion — Ennui Elucidator
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.