Mind if I Try to Start a Religious Debate?

[Chiki]

A dictionary.

Is there a dictionary that allows you to derive meaning from the Bible based on context?

[Esau of Isaac]

Yes. It's called centuries of biblical scholarship. Have you ever heard of the Deuteronymist stories? The Elohist stories? Yahwist? Priestly? Anyone with knowledge can derive where most stories of the Old Testament (and later, but that's not relevant from what I mentioned just now) originated from and thus the way the stories are meant to be interpreted. Most of the stories are metaphorical, but the meaning --the singular most important element of the story-- of each can be derived clear as day if you are educated on the characteristics of the writing style.

[Chiki]

each can be derived clear as day if you are educated on the characteristics of the writing style.

Nope, not true at all. It's a matter of controversy. It is arrogant to claim otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

On the other hand, a dictionary isn't a matter of controversy...

[Esau of Isaac]

Nope, not true at all. It's a matter of controversy.

It isn't. It's absolutely clear based on the writing style used in the story which school of thought it arises from and thus gleaning the meaning is simple.

It's a matter of controversy if you're uneducated. So I guess you'd be right when referring to a large number of Christians who are just plain ignorant and never taught anything about their religious texts. But it's not a guessing game if you know what you're talking about.

[Chiki]

It isn't. It's absolutely clear based on the writing style used in the story which school of thought it arises from and thus gleaning the meaning is simple.

It's a matter of controversy if you're uneducated. So I guess you'd be right when referring to a large number of Christians who are just plain ignorant and never taught anything about their religious texts. But it's not a guessing game if you know what you're talking about.

Why do I get accused of intellectual elitism when there are gems around like here?

I did some investigating on this subject, and it definitely isn't clear at all. I even read a book review about one academic's book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus,_Interrupted

But he repeatedly stresses that historical-critical study need not kill faith. And, honest scholar that he is, he admits that some of his contentions can be challenged.

And look at some other reviewers:

Michael J. Kruger, Associate Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary called it "a book full of ironies" and "intellectual schizophrenia," stating that "it purports to be about unbiased history but rarely presents an opposing viewpoint; ironic that it claims to follow the scholarly consensus but breaks from it so often; ironic that it insists on the historical-critical method but then reads the gospels with a modernist, overly-literal hermeneutic; ironic that it claims no one view of early Christianity could be "right" (Walter Bauer) but then proceeds to tell us which view of early Christianity is "right;"

See, academicians don't agree with each other either, and they're all equally educated!

It's pretty ignorant of the world of academia in general to think that everyone just agrees with each other.. that's just not how it works.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Olwen

[Esau of Isaac]

I like how you at no point approached the slightest rebuttal of anything I said and just posted a link to a book someone wrote on Wikipedia citing it as proof that I must be wrong. I like how I pointed out examples that act as clear indicators to any reader a given Old Testament story's origin and meaning and you just plain ignored it.

Man I guess since there are books that talk about the lack of validity in evolution no one's really on the same page when it comes to mutations and natural selection huh? Logic Master shows us the light once again.

[Chiki]

Here is your claim:

each can be derived clear as day if you are educated on the characteristics of the writing style.

You used the word "each," meaning that every single one of them can be derived "clear as day."

All I have to show is that there is disagreement between educated people on texts in order to disprove your arrogant, elitist claim.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Olwen

[Esau of Isaac]

So then yes, because there are people who claim that evolution has no scientific grounding within books they write, it's not possible to easily understand evolutionary biology.

Cool. Also really stupid, but cool.

[Steampunk]

it took us quite a long time to figure that out.

Nonsense. Not only can anyone living on the ocean clearly see the horizon is curved on the sea, but the ancient Greeks actual estimated the Earth's circumference with amazing accuracy.

What interests me is how people can be so deluded to accept both evolution and religion

It's called "cognitive dissonance." The brain invents a link between two opposing ideas so that peple can justify believing both.

But aren't you discounting the possibility of any number of things that could be occurring? Perhaps there is some otherworldly entity that is exhibiting control over man's senses and steering him wrongly.

Provide evidence that this is the case and I will reconsider my position. Until then, yes I am.

so it is important to distinguish between, say, the well-educated views of the Pope and the superstitions of an old lady from the countryside who will pray to/invoke the Christian god,

And I'm assuming your one of the "real" Christians? It's amazing how many Christians I know always talk about these posers, yet no matter what lifestyle they live or what they believe, they are always the real thing. I have long since given up in trying to understand how one determines the legitimacy of another's faith. First of all, only God and that superstitious lady know what kind of relationship they have with each other. How arrogant to assume you (not you personally, the proverbial you) know for a fact you are more of a real Christian than they are. That is my biggest problem with Christianity: there are dozens of denominations, all of which are the "true" Christianity and all the others are mere perversions of Christ's teachings.

The Gospel texts make it clear enough what should be taken metaphorically, what literally, and what you can't quite extract the idea from using logic so that it requires experience of living out your life in the church.

Would you mind posting a list of which are allegory and which are genuine historic fact? I'm afraid, after spending 18 years attending church, I still do not know how one determines which is fact and which is metaphorical.

We have a thing known as 'common sense', and 2 uninterrupted millenia of studies and disputes.

Atenism and Zoroastrianism predates Christianity, as do the polytheistic traditions of the Greeks and Norse. Just because something has been around a long time does not make it any more real. After 2,000 years, the Christians have not come an inch closer to proving God exists than when Christ lived.

religious people shouldn't be expected to examine every problem of religion and/or science.

If people are going to argue that religion is truth, they need to be prepared to answer questions the opposition asks. If someone knows for certain that God exists and religion is fact, answering any questions skeptics have shouldn't be difficult.

Similarly, it is possible to discover the meanings conveyed in the scripture by studying all the relevant materials that help shed light unto the historical context, linguistic issues of translation and so forth.

Does this include the Gnostic Gospels or the Gospel of Thomas? It's fine if we only study texts that support what we want to believe. To get a complete picture, we have to also study scriptures that may not agree with the rest of the Canon.

Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority.

I suppose Mathematics, computers, and language do the same, as it is the same thought process in each. Like Math and computing, Logic doesn't care if we like the answer it provides.

It's absolutely clear based on the writing style used in the story which school of thought it arises from and thus gleaning the meaning is simple.

Would you mind posting a list of which are fact and which are metaphorical? After spending 18 years as a follower of Christianity, I still do not know how church officials determine which are factual and which are allegory. If it's that clear to you, perhaps you could share with me which storys fall in each category, and how you determined that.

Man I guess since there are books that talk about the lack of validity in evolution no one's really on the same page when it comes to mutations and natural selection huh?

Can you link to some that provide tangible, peer-reviewed studies with evidence that proves evolution is false? Evolution has been very well established, and any arguing it is false will need some very compelling evidence. To find proof that Evolution is valid, one only needs to look at a man-made breed of dog like a Corgi, Pug, etc. I also recall an experiment done with fruit flies (cannot recall which institute conducted it offhand, though) that showed trends in characteristics passed on from generation to generation that verified the theory of evolution.

One cannot simply say "I think Evolution is nonsense." You need evidence that stands up to scientific investigation that supports your claim that evolution is false. If you can provide that, we can talk about Evolution having questionable legitimacy. Otherwise, a person is either playing devil's advocate or disagreeing with no real reason to do so.

[Chiki]

So then yes, because there are people who claim that evolution has no scientific grounding within books they write, it's not possible to easily understand evolutionary biology.

Cool. Also really stupid, but cool.

You're already giving up. You are claiming that "each" meaning for any given sentence can be derived "clear as day."

Evolution is an established scientific theory. A sentence can have multiple ways of understanding it and it is controversial. The meaning of a sentence can change based on context. Evolution is nothing like that.

I wish you would have something smart to say for once.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Olwen

[Constable Reggie]

I wish you would have something smart to say for once.

Yeah, Esau. Why don't you come back with a bachelors degree in logic before you try to debate with the big boys?

It's called "cognitive dissonance." The brain invents a link between two opposing ideas so that peple can justify believing both.

I don't see how use of religion and the theory of evolution can only be mutually exclusive. Are people not allowed to be spiritual if they agree with evolution?

[Chiki]

Yeah, Esau. Why don't you come back with a bachelors degree in logic before you try to debate with the big boys?

I don't see how use of religion and the theory of evolution can only be mutually exclusive. Are people not allowed to be spiritual if they agree with evolution?

Someone told me I wasn't certified in logic, I told him I was formally certified. What's wrong with that? At least I have better things to do than to waste away days trying to mock someone over a video game view.

[Constable Reggie]

Mock? Dude, anyone can clearly see I'm backing you up 100% in getting rid of these losers who don't praise galeforce.

And I agree with you, that's why I told Esau to go get a masters degree in logic, because he's speaking baby-level logic right now. Hell, he speaks baby level logic all the time since he doesn't have that degree like you and I do.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Constable Galeforce

[Espinosa]

And I'm assuming your one of the "real" Christians? It's amazing how many Christians I know always talk about these posers, yet no matter what lifestyle they live or what they believe, they are always the real thing. I have long since given up in trying to understand how one determines the legitimacy of another's faith. First of all, only God and that superstitious lady know what kind of relationship they have with each other. How arrogant to assume you (not you personally, the proverbial you) know for a fact you are more of a real Christian than they are. That is my biggest problem with Christianity: there are dozens of denominations, all of which are the "true" Christianity and all the others are mere perversions of Christ's teachings.

Wasn't including myself into the equation at all. I don't necessarily associate myself with the Pope and the views of the Catholic church, for instance. You make good points about the nature of one's faith not being fully observable to the public, but idolatry is in very strict contradiction with Christianity no matter how you look at it.

Also, wrt Christian ethics concerning faith and pride based on faith, you are basically saying "thank God I'm not like that Pharisee" as reaction to "thank God I'm not like that sinner", though associating me with the Pharisee would give me more justice than I deserve. I hope you catch my drift.

Would you mind posting a list of which are allegory and which are genuine historic fact? I'm afraid, after spending 18 years attending church, I still do not know how one determines which is fact and which is metaphorical.

A list you say? How about a table or a graph instead? Don't think you can dissect it with such simplicity and graphic order, as the only resources of this kind seem to be the atheist pages internet tough guys love citing, like 'top 50 evil Bible quotes'. Possibly their opposites amongst the protestant sects as well; I wouldn't know as I'm not very much into fast food be it kebabs or mcnuggets.

Atenism and Zoroastrianism predates Christianity, as do the polytheistic traditions of the Greeks and Norse. Just because something has been around a long time does not make it any more real. After 2,000 years, the Christians have not come an inch closer to proving God exists than when Christ lived.

I don't think this has been the aim of Christianity though, so that would explain it. You have difficulty believing in God? Well, that's a problem (or a non-problem; up to you) you'll have to deal with on your own.

I do like that you say that there should be no link between the age of a tradition (though it's no coincidence that many of the old beliefs perished while the Western culture has been rotating in the Christian paradigm for a sufficiently long time now) and how credible it is, though. Christianity was initially seen as a radical Judaic cult at its conception for example, and the ancient pagan traditions that the Jews were instructed to stay away from were deprived of any positive connotation.

I was simply pointing to the existence of an unterrupted tradition of interpretation in traditional Christianity, which for simplicity's sake I'l limit to Catholicism and Orthodoxy. More available books produced on the subject than you can possibly read in your entire life even if you do nothing else with your time (unlikely).

If people are going to argue that religion is truth, they need to be prepared to answer questions the opposition asks. If someone knows for certain that God exists and religion is fact, answering any questions skeptics have shouldn't be difficult.

Nobody should expect believers to be fantastic thinkers and rhetoricians. Based on your other remarks, I can tell the said questions of the opposition you might be speaking of go along the lines of "so where's this God you speak of that I cannot see", and the proof of God's existence is really not among the most important questions of Christianity.

Does this include the Gnostic Gospels or the Gospel of Thomas? It's fine if we only study texts that support what we want to believe. To get a complete picture, we have to also study scriptures that may not agree with the rest of the Canon.

Feel free to read and study whatever you like, sure; I won't try to break into your house and stop you even if you find yourself reading Da Vinci Code with excitement either. Gnostic scriptures found in Coptic shed light unto the views of gnostics (another tradition that precedes Christianity), who were very different from orthodox Christians in spirit at least. But overall it should be easy to see why the rejected texts were rejected. A Christ who uses magical powers to punish a schoolyard bully is not the same Christ the church believes in.

[Esau of Isaac]

Can you link to some that provide tangible, peer-reviewed studies with evidence that proves evolution is false? Evolution has been very well established, and any arguing it is false will need some very compelling evidence. To find proof that Evolution is valid, one only needs to look at a man-made breed of dog like a Corgi, Pug, etc. I also recall an experiment done with fruit flies (cannot recall which institute conducted it offhand, though) that showed trends in characteristics passed on from generation to generation that verified the theory of evolution.

One cannot simply say "I think Evolution is nonsense." You need evidence that stands up to scientific investigation that supports your claim that evolution is false. If you can provide that, we can talk about Evolution having questionable legitimacy. Otherwise, a person is either playing devil's advocate or disagreeing with no real reason to do so.

That's exactly my point. I think you may have misinterpreted the meaning of what I said. I had noted factors that point readers of the Bible to understand stories and their meaning. Olwen, instead of debating my point because he is completely ignorant of the subject, posted a random link to some guy's book about argument over meaning, thinking it gave his position validity. I replied by stating that if it is so simple to argue someone else's point by simply showing that someone disagrees, believing it creates a valid debate in educated circles, then the validity of evolution can be similarly called into doubt because of creationist "scientists".

That there is debate in the world over which parts of the Bible are metaphorical and which are literal is not in doubt. That it is not possible or even incredibly difficult to understand which are which if you are properly educated, however, is simply false.

You're already giving up. You are claiming that "each" meaning for any given sentence can be derived "clear as day."

If you are educated in looking for specific factors that point to who wrote the story. Similarly to how you can understand why humans and monkeys coexist if you understand basic evolutionary biology.

Evolution is an established scientific theory. A sentence can have multiple ways of understanding it and it is controversial. The meaning of a sentence can change based on context. Evolution is nothing like that.

When I say "Olwen has no idea what he is talking about," how many meanings are there that can be interpreted by anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the English language?

I wish you would have something smart to say for once.

I wish you would have nothing to say forever

Edited May 23, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Steampunk]

First, I want to apologise to Espinosa. I wrote that post in a rush and didn't proofread it. Upon looking at it, I came across as abrasive and aggressive, neither of which were intended. Still, that's no excuse for rudeness, so sorry for jumping on you like I did.

With that out of the way...

I don't see how use of religion and the theory of evolution can only be mutually exclusive. Are people not allowed to be spiritual if they agree with evolution?

I believe we both know better than that. They asked how people can be deluded enough to believe both, and I simply offered a psychological explanation of how the brain harmonizes conflicting information/ideas. Whether religion and science are truly conflicting is debate all its own, though many Christians would argue they aren't compatible.

You make good points about the nature of one's faith not being fully observable to the public, but idolatry is in very strict contradiction with Christianity no matter how you look at it.

The type of Christianity I grew up with emphazised the need to idolize God. Of course, this opens the door to all manner of fanaticism, but such was very much endorsed in my experience with the religion. Still, that is one thing I've never understood about Christianity: how does one define a "true believer?"

Wasn't including myself into the equation at all

Of course. That was an inappropriate jab.

A list you say? How about a table or a graph instead? Don't think you can dissect it with such simplicity and graphic order, as the only resources of this kind seem to be the atheist pages internet tough guys love citing

The essence of my question is how this is determined. I don't know of any criteria beyond "because someone said so." This is a rather arbitrary process, which could certainly be described as "cherry-picking" by those who do not understand how such a determination is made. If it isn't arbitrary, then there must be set rules as to how a person might destinguish metaphor from fact without spending years in training to do so. You and Esau (assuming I understood you correctly) made it sound rather simple to do, and I'm only asking for an extrapolation or some guide that explains it.

though it's no coincidence that many of the old beliefs perished while the Western culture has been rotating in the Christian paradigm for a sufficiently long time now

There are a few reasons for that (conversion by the sword being one). Christianity entrenching itself in Western socio-political culture is probably another factor.

Nobody should expect believers to be fantastic thinkers and rhetoricians.

I believe a person should be ready to defend anything they choose to debate. If a Christian chooses to argue that they are right, they should be prepared to defend that. Learning the arguments against religion and finding counterpoints to those arguments can only benefit a Christian I would think.

Feel free to read and study whatever you like, sure; I won't try to break into your house and stop you even if you find yourself reading Da Vinci Code with excitement either.

My point is, why doesn't the church include historic accounts that offer an opposing perspective to the other books of the Bible? Science does not actively prevent people from releasing studies that refute scientific theories. That is part of what makes science such an effective investigation technique: it allows contradicting evidence its proverbial day in court rather than dismissing these things in the name of continuity and convenience. The latter is, in my experience with Christianity, the approach religion takes.

[Constable Reggie]

I believe we both know better than that. They asked how people can be deluded enough to believe both, and I simply offered a psychological explanation of how the brain harmonizes conflicting information/ideas. Whether religion and science are truly conflicting is debate all its own, though many Christians would argue they aren't compatible.

Shoving all of religion into one category isn't exactly fair. There are aspects of religion that do conflict with evolution (most notably creationism), but other than the minorities that adamantly defend these alternatives, people don't argue religion as a basis for historical development, because that's not what religion is for. Hence, religion and evolution comfortably coinciding. I doubt there's many people who agonize over whether to believe creationism (or other) or evolution.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Constable Galeforce

[eclipse]

HEY. Keep it civil. I have enough RL problems. I do not want this thread to be another one of them.

[Phoenix Wright]

You're already giving up. You are claiming that "each" meaning for any given sentence can be derived "clear as day."

Evolution is an established scientific theory. A sentence can have multiple ways of understanding it and it is controversial. The meaning of a sentence can change based on context. Evolution is nothing like that.

You used the word "each," meaning that every single one of them can be derived "clear as day."

All I have to show is that there is disagreement between educated people on texts in order to disprove your arrogant, elitist claim.

Yowza, mate, I don't think you're really catching Esau's drift at all, man.

So, the argument here, on your end, is that the interpretation of the Bible is completely subjective, and therefore no interpretation is of any help to discovering the meaning of the specific texts.

Let's just have any ol' example to help illustrate Esau's point:

From Twain's 1601:

"Shaxpur.—In the great hand of God I stand and so proclaim mine innocence. Though ye sinless hosts of heaven had foretold ye coming of this most desolating breath, proclaiming it a work of uninspired man, its quaking thunders, its firmament-clogging rottenness his own achievement in due course of nature, yet had not I believed it; but had said the pit itself hath furnished forth the stink, and heaven's artillery hath shook the globe in admiration of it."

So, let's say scholars are interpreting this particular text.

One of the scholars explains that Shakespeare is talking about a fart.

Another says that Shakespeare is talking about his revelation about Jesus.

Now to me, the first scholar is correct--sure, we can't be one-hundred percent certain, but should we really take that silly second scholar's argument into consideration? I don't think we should.

It's the same with the Bible. Those who are educated with the history, the writing styles, the historical contexts, and things of that nature are fairly qualified authority figures in giving us correct interpretations of the Bible. Or at least reliable interpretations.

The fact that opposition exists doesn't make the established meanings less trustworthy.

[Vorena]

So, I see Olwen and Esau have a nice little derogatory comment chain going on the other page into this one. I don't really understand why it has to come to that... I'd think either one of you would be above holding a conversation with such... vigor? But, oh, well. Have fun with it or whatever floats your boat.

I don't know a lot of specifics on the anti-Christianity argument, so could we start from square zero? ^-^; What science is there to "disprove" Christianity? If there isn't any, why can't we just call it what it is: a religion based on faith? Then we can get on with our lives :V

The only "science" I can think of off the top of my head is that based upon verifying or trying to disprove claims made within the major religious texts. However, I think its a rather futile effort. I am of the opinion that the years have not been nice to translations of these religious texts. The bible first written in Hebrew, translated into latin, then finally into english. With each translation, certain phrases and meanings have to be translated. I am of the opinion that something is always lost (or worse false things are added) with the new translation. Therefore, I think its rather pointless to try to proving or disproving any of these texts.

I am more apt to accept the idea that the world works in rather repeatable ways. The reason is that our little man made theories of the day help to explain the stuff we observe rather well. If there is something more such as the creator, but we cannot really understand it why bother. Religion has taught me some nice morals that I hold dear, but lets move and accept in moderation.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Vorena

[Steampunk]

Shoving all of religion into one category isn't exactly fair.

You are absolutely correct. Still, that is exactly what both sides of this debate are doing, most likely for the sake of convenience. I would only say to this that I speak from my experiences with Christianity. The Christian faith I was raised with challenged evolution quite fervently. There are places in the United States where Christians want to stop teaching Evolution in high schools and teach only the Creation as the true story of man's origin. One might say these are not "real" Christians, mere fanatics; but this brings us right back to my earlier question. How does one determine who is and isn't a true Christian?

So, we can either agree to discuss Christianity from a relative point of view where we may debate completely different Christian traditions (Baptists vs. Jehovah's Witnesses vs. Catholicism vs. "Charismatic" non-denominational churches), or agree on what particular denomination we want to discuss and completely ignore the others despite no evidence to show which of them is more "real" than the others. I chose to discuss my own experiences as that is what I know. Among those experiences is adamant opposition to Evolution. Your milage may vary, of course.

Those who are educated with the history, the writing styles, the historical contexts, and things of that nature are fairly qualified authority figures in giving us correct interpretations of the Bible. Or at least reliable interpretations.

This assumes that history is objective, which it is not. Historic accounts were written by people, just like us. People with their own bias (be it intentional or unintentional), their own reasons for writing those accounts, and found and interpreted by people who also have their own bias and motivations. Interpretation cannot be correct or incorrect like an objective fact because they are derived by people essentially guessing what something means. It may be an educated guess, but it is a guess nonetheless. Anyone who's studied U.S. political science understands this problem.

There are many parts of the U.S. Constitution that simply don't make sense centuries after the fact. People have to guess what the founders of the country meant by certain phrases and sentences. That document isn't a fraction of the Bible's age, and there are still heated debates as to what the founders intended by writing it. Am I to assume that a compilation of documents writted much longer ago in several different dead languages that have been translated, retranslated, and modernized are crystal clear in their meaning? The Contitution is a Dr. Suess book in comparison, and we can't agree on what it says either.

So, we can either think of Christianity as one united faith (even though it clearly isn't) and shove them all in to one group, or we can have shades of grey and have people debate from their own experiences and knowledge of the faith. I'm fine with either one, though I think the former is rather presumptuous and ignores a lot of internal differences in perspective.

[Constable Reggie]

You are absolutely correct. Still, that is exactly what both sides of this debate are doing, most likely for the sake of convenience. I would only say to this that I speak from my experiences with Christianity. The Christian faith I was raised with challenged evolution quite fervently. There are places in the United States where Christians want to stop teaching Evolution in high schools and teach only the Creation as the true story of man's origin. One might say these are not "real" Christians, mere fanatics; but this brings us right back to my earlier question. How does one determine who is and isn't a true Christian?

So, we can either agree to discuss Christianity from a relative point of view where we may debate completely different Christian traditions (Baptists vs. Jehovah's Witnesses vs. Catholicism vs. "Charismatic" non-denominational churches), or agree on what particular denomination we want to discuss and completely ignore the others despite no evidence to show which of them is more "real" than the others. I chose to discuss my own experiences as that is what I know. Among those experiences is adamant opposition to Evolution. Your milage may vary, of course.

My personal experience with religion (Lutheranism) emphasized that religion was meant to be used to bolster one's life, with historical religious truth being a mere afterthought, so I'm probably being a bit biased here. To be honest, I can't see most protestants (the majority christian branch in the us) fervently deny, or even talk about, evolution. I don't have any idea about the other major branches.

As for the the standards of a "true" Christian, I'd say it's pretty much if you just accept the life and teachings of Jesus. Some branches of Christianity may disagree and say you need to do more, but this is pretty much the main similarity between all the branches.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Constable Galeforce

[Esau of Isaac]

You are absolutely correct. Still, that is exactly what both sides of this debate are doing, most likely for the sake of convenience. I would only say to this that I speak from my experiences with Christianity. The Christian faith I was raised with challenged evolution quite fervently. There are places in the United States where Christians want to stop teaching Evolution in high schools and teach only the Creation as the true story of man's origin. One might say these are not "real" Christians, mere fanatics; but this brings us right back to my earlier question. How does one determine who is and isn't a true Christian?

So, we can either agree to discuss Christianity from a relative point of view where we may debate completely different Christian traditions (Baptists vs. Jehovah's Witnesses vs. Catholicism vs. "Charismatic" non-denominational churches), or agree on what particular denomination we want to discuss and completely ignore the others despite no evidence to show which of them is more "real" than the others. I chose to discuss my own experiences as that is what I know. Among those experiences is adamant opposition to Evolution. Your milage may vary, of course.

This assumes that history is objective, which it is not. Historic accounts were written by people, just like us. People with their own bias (be it intentional or unintentional), their own reasons for writing those accounts, and found and interpreted by people who also have their own bias and motivations. Interpretation cannot be correct or incorrect like an objective fact because they are derived by people essentially guessing what something means. It may be an educated guess, but it is a guess nonetheless. Anyone who's studied U.S. political science understands this problem.

There are many parts of the U.S. Constitution that simply don't make sense centuries after the fact. People have to guess what the founders of the country meant by certain phrases and sentences. That document isn't a fraction of the Bible's age, and there are still heated debates as to what the founders intended by writing it. Am I to assume that a compilation of documents writted much longer ago in several different dead languages that have been translated, retranslated, and modernized are crystal clear in their meaning? The Contitution is a Dr. Suess book in comparison, and we can't agree on what it says either.

Which parts of the Constitution aren't understood? We today have trouble modifying it because of advancements in society and overall technological progress, but there's no area where we look at a sentence and say "Jee I wonder what they were talking about here." We just debate over the extent to its application today.

[Steampunk]

Which parts of the Constitution aren't understood? We today have trouble modifying it because of advancements in society and overall technological progress, but there's no area where we look at a sentence and say "Jee I wonder what they were talking about here." We just debate over the extent to its application today.

I put it in spoiler tags, as this is off topic. If you can tell me what the founders of the United States meant by these laws

First, the Constitution of the United States: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

In the Preamble, what do the founders of the United States mean by "promote the general welfare?" If we got one Liberal attorney, one Conservative, and one Moderate, would all three agree on what it meant? Does it mean we create a welfare/social security system? If so, why was it only implemented during FDR's presidency? What does "secure the blessings of liberty" mean?

Jump down to the end of Section 8: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the forgoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

What did the founders of the United States consider "necessary and proper?" Were the Sedition Acts necessary and proper? Or perhaps the Japanese internment camps? Was the Patriot Act "necessary and proper?" Would John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson consider them such?

Look at Article I, Section 9: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

What did the Founders consider a rebellion? Would the Civil Rights movement be a rebellion? What circumstances did they feel suspending Habeas Corpus would be necessary? What type of rebellion or invasion did the Founders think would justify detention of US citizens with no evidence?

The Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment II: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did the Founders mean that each person can own a gun, or did the mean each state could keep it's own militia that was separate from the US military? Or did they mean both? In government class, I was taught it meant the latter and not the former. I've found that's not necessarily true however.

Amendment IV: "The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

Did the Founders intend for this to apply to airport security screenings? Did they consider it reasonable to search someone simply because they are using a particular mode of travel?

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

What rights did the Founders have in mind? Did this include the ownership of slaves (which would later be prohibited)? Did they mean state laws, or were they talking about US Citizens?

If we were to take a group of lawyers from different socio-economic backgrounds, different schools of law, different fields of law, and different years of experience at interpreting law, do you believe they would all have the same interpretation of what these laws mean, and they would all agree with each other's opinion of how they apply? I personally do not believe so. That's just talking about people trained to read and interpret laws. Do you believe the average person agrees with everyone else as to what all this means? I wouldn't say so. It's not a minority that wants to make life difficult for everyone either: the right to bear arms is incredibly controversial. Many people want to do away with Welfare/SSI/Unemployment checks, and many people argue to keep them because that is part of the government's responsibility. The "Necessary and Proper Clause" is a bit tricky as well: does that give the government free reign to do whatever it wants so long as it's justified as "necessary and proper?"

I'm not sure what part of the country you live in where everyone (Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, etc) all agree and have the same understanding of what the Constitution promises, but I wouldn't mind seeing this place.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Sheik

[Chiki]

If you are educated in looking for specific factors that point to who wrote the story. Similarly to how you can understand why humans and monkeys coexist if you understand basic evolutionary biology.

They are historical figures whose minds we cannot go into. How can we know with certainty what they wanted to say?

When I say "Olwen has no idea what he is talking about," how many meanings are there that can be interpreted by anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the English language?

Infinitely many readings. It depends on what you mean by "about." Do you mean that I am not educated enough on the Bible? Or do you mean that I am not educated enough in philosophy of language? Do you mean that I am not educated enough in arguing? Or logic?

This is exactly what I mean. There can be various potential readings that we cannot prove without looking into your head. Sadly, we cannot look into the heads of historical figures.

That there is debate in the world over which parts of the Bible are metaphorical and which are literal is not in doubt. That it is not possible or even incredibly difficult to understand which are which if you are properly educated, however, is simply false.

You claim that with "proper" education (proper itself is an elitist word) one knows which texts are literal and which are metaphorical. What is proper education? Is there no debate between people of proper education?

Anyway, the Constitution is a good example to bring up, the same as the Bible. All properly educated people can have varying philosophies. On the Supreme Court, for example, there are conservatives and liberals. Why would you think that people can't have different opinions with a proper education? That's a really strange claim to make. Education opens your minds to alternate opinions; it doesn't shut them down.

So, the argument here, on your end, is that the interpretation of the Bible is completely subjective, and therefore no interpretation is of any help to discovering the meaning of the specific texts.

No, I am saying that it is uncertain.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Olwen