|
Post by stutefish on Feb 17, 2007 5:40:11 GMT -4
It's been my experience that "faith" and belief" are synonyms, and that what actually happens is that reason leads to a reasonable conclusion that a particular leap of faith is justified, and then that reason either validates or invalidates that justification after the leap is attempted and the results observed.
Of course, different people have different capacities for reason, such that rational justifications for faith may not be forthcoming from many believers. There are, however, in the case of Christianity at least, a great number of believers who are willing and able to discuss the rational basis for their faith at great length. Just as it is best to discuss the reasons for believing Apollo with someone who is quite rational in their belief, so too in the case of religion, I should think.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 14, 2007 18:38:02 GMT -4
I don't have much more than a layman's understanding of textual criticism (though my degree is in English). The main problem I have with biblical criticism is that it implicitely denies the possibility of prophecy or miracles. If a text lists a prophecy that is known to have been fulfilled, biblical critics automatically date the text to after the event. Jason, when you say "biblical critics" in this context, are you referring to people who are in some sense "antagonistic" towards the bible, or are you using "critic" as a term of art in Textual Criticism?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 13, 2007 23:25:10 GMT -4
Interesting note from the Wikipedia entry on Textual Criticism:
I hope soon--time permitting--to reach a point where I can discuss textual criticism and the evaluation of biblical texts in my own words.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 13, 2007 21:41:30 GMT -4
Well, the comittee that undertakes the New International Version does so parse texts, though not easily at all, I would imagine. I keep meaning to learn more about the science and art of textual criticism. Anybody here familiar with it? Edited to add something of substance, rather than empty speculation: The wikipedia entry for Textual Criticism seems to be a good place for a layman to start, if he's interested in learning about the scholarship that goes into validating ancient texts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 3, 2007 17:27:43 GMT -4
On the other hand, this theory makes some parts of the New Testament narrative seem much less likely and much more bizarre.
For example, in the last supper scene, we are told in concrete, factual language that Jesus is speaking figuratively. That he literally holds up a glass of wine and makes a figurative, symbolic speech about it.
This is much more consistent with someone using a metaphor or an analogy to communicate a concept, than with someone instructing his disciples to literally eat him.
The resurrection and post-resurrection narratives also use concrete language to describe a literal, physical man doing literal physical human things.
Not only that, but the subsequent writings of the disciples are all remarkably lucid, coherent, internally consistent, consistent with each other, and generally reflective of the mainstream of human moral philosophy. This is not really typical of brainwashed fanatical outcasts who have been dominated into consuming the body of their guru--in utter opposition to every moral law of their culture.
The kind of Jesus who would command his disciples to commit cannibalism, and the kind of disciples who would do it, are simply not in evidence in the narrative as it exists today.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 17, 2007 12:40:45 GMT -4
My birthday is one of the three dates in February given in Rusty's prophecy!
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Apr 10, 2008 12:44:16 GMT -4
From TIME: ....................... Asked at a news conference whether the "Mission Accomplished" banner had been prematurely boastful, the president backed away from it, saying it had been put up by the sailors and airmen of the Lincoln to celebrate their homecoming after toppling Saddam's regime. Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech. ........................ www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html Evidence like this? Thanks, I stand corrected.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Apr 10, 2008 12:43:39 GMT -4
Of course, if you did that, you'd probably have to come up with evidence to support your claim... I may have conceded too soon. I can't find a definitive article, but it appears from what I have read that the turkey was a real turkey that was oven roasted -- but was meant to be a decoration only, not a meal. So, while technically it was real, it appears that it was not to be served. Same thing. ...the Washington Post paper says the bird had been roasted by a contractor to use as a table decoration.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3294501.stmFair enough. On the other hand, Bush did, in fact, serve food at that event.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Apr 9, 2008 20:12:44 GMT -4
I stand corrected. But then I'd just say it is a picture of the President pretending to serve turkey to the troops. (Jason, please note time and date.) Of course, if you did that, you'd probably have to come up with evidence to support your claim...
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Apr 9, 2008 20:05:29 GMT -4
And I didn't go anywhere near "Mission Accomplished." You mean the banner that was put up by the crew, for the crew, to celebrate the fact that their assigned mission had been accomplished, and that they were returning home after the successful completion of the mission they'd been assigned? The banner in the background when Bush came aboard to thank them for completing their mission, congratulation them on their success, and use the occasion to deliver a speech on the larger question of the war in Iraq and the need for additional missions to continue and complete the work? That "mission accomplished" banner?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Apr 9, 2008 18:48:15 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Apr 3, 2007 14:27:46 GMT -4
LunarOrbit, what we should do depends on how much of the blame we bear, what the actual climate processes are, and how well we understand those processes.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 25, 2007 12:32:05 GMT -4
For the sake of future argument or discussion I'll let it be known that I believe there is only one imperial power on this planet at the moment, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This can be determined by which nation has a military presence on every continent of Earth with over 700 military bases worldwide. Don't worry about the Romans. An interesting opinion, and probably true, for some definition of "empire". But it does not follow from this opinion, or even from the facts that inform this opinion, that: a) such an empire has done all the things it is alleged to have done. b) such an empire is even capable of doing all the things it is alleged to have done. The sun never set on the British Empire, but that doesn't mean that its soldiers practiced cannibalism, or that its monarchs could control their their viceroys and governors via intercontinental mind-beams. Even in the case where a thing can be done, you have to show that a thing was actually done, before you can accuse anyone--even an empire, of doing that thing. Or do we now cry over spilt milk, even when the glass is still on the table, still full of milk, and there is a remarkable absence of milk on the kitchen floor?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 25, 2007 12:23:19 GMT -4
I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Of what did you think these recent events would make the regulars wary? Wary of answering your poll? Wary of the BBC? Wary of governments?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 22, 2007 19:32:38 GMT -4
Wary of what?
|
|