Christians: can you talk about which one of you has the theology right?

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Caput Firmiter, produced at the Fourth Lateran council, is certainly a document of theology. I am not sure what dogma of the Council of Trent you would consider a theological statement. Wasn't soteriology the primary issue at discussion at that council?

One of the most interesting parts of Trent that interest me is the dogma that the teachings and traditions of the RCC are equal to the teachings of the Bible, divine revelation. Here in America, it has long been an issue with fervent anti-Catholics. Ir is, and has been for some time, that this doctrine means that Catholics are not really Christians. That the RCC is a heretical cult.

Another aspect of this I have encountered on some Catholic-Atheist blogs (Strange Notions) is that RCC doctrine forbids "private interpretation", that is we must strictly follow the RCC's magisterium in all things. That makes these official documents which Catholics tell me are the foundations of Catholicism take precedent on all questions of faith. There are others, but these Catholics don't like The Syllabus Of Errors, or Lamentabili Sane. Rancid little Papal bulls that are now embaressments for the RCC.

 

[steve_bank]

Theology is codifying all the accumulated legend and fantasy and moral coercions that a group clings to (sampling Obama there.) The tragedy is that it stultifies thought and, through the largest chunk of the Christian Era, led to murder as warring believers in the same nominal faith cheerfully reduced each other to ashes. The same can be found in Islam (and currently), and then there is the long, vigorous historical record of faith vs. faith (i.e., Crusades, Hindu vs. Muslim, et alia.) I realize fully that I'm playing Capt. Obvious here. Orthodoxy blows.

I keep belaboring this point in similar threads, but I'm skeptical of the claim that religion stultifies thought. People not being particularly intelligent is what stultifies thought. Religion is an effect, not a cause. It's only with an overwhelming amount of technical and scientific progress that we've been able to convince a small slice of people that a tiny amount of what they believe may not be true.

And even those who have moved past religion don't usually understand much else - things like evolution, society, history.. etc etc. Basic maxims about life as it actually exists pretty much blow by most of us.

To me this is important because the problem is actually that most people don't know how to think soundly, not that if we could just overcome the latest delusion everything would be great.

The RCC paradigm has always been humans need to be treated like sheep by an authority figure, the pope.

 

[remez]

Let me clarify further the purpose of this thread. A mod can edit this into the OP, if possible, so that new visitors to the thread can understand my hopes/intent.

It is VERY COMMON for christians to try to "teach us" about Christianity.
It is VERY COMMON for christians to claim we are "interpreting the bible wrong" or some version of, "I know the accurate meaning, you do not," despite both of us having a copy of the book and working brains.
It is VERY COMMON for Christians to tell us that what we heard from one christian is wrong, and we should listen to the current christian instead.

Here on this forum, a Christian said something like, "I am here to teach you how to be christian". And here on this forum another christian said, "You are interpreting that passage wrong," (this was the unequal yoke, lightness with dark passage) "and most Christians also interpret it wrong, this is what's right."


So my hope and intent in this thread is to LISTEN IN while you all try to convince each other about what's right and what's wrong, to see what arguments you use. It seems that STEP ONE in salvation would be the ability of the people who actually believe the god to be true should be able to convince each other! of what's the right interpretation with enough reason that it's irrefutable, before they have the chutzpah to tell me I'm doing it wrong. If your argument can't even be believable to another christian, why do you think you're qualified to refute my claim that the bible is full of really awful, mean, evil shit?

So I'm am seeking to put my ego on the shelf, take myself right out of it, and listen to you convince each other! and see what your thoughts look like.


It does not advance the discussion to point to writings that christians clearly disagree on and call that a successful discussion between christians. And it does not advance the discussion at all to say, "no one knows, but you atheists are definitely wrong."

Until I can see you all convince each other then all I can see is that my interpretation is perfectly correct - as much as yours is.

parsed..................

Your reasoning confuses me................

It is VERY COMMON for christians to try to "teach us" about Christianity.

What is wrong with that?

It is VERY COMMON for christians to claim we are "interpreting the bible wrong" or some version of, "I know the accurate meaning, you do not," despite both of us having a copy of the book and working brains.

So? Sounds something like a normal conversation involving differing viewpoints.

It is VERY COMMON for Christians to tell us that what we heard from one christian is wrong, and we should listen to the current christian instead

So Christians disagree and advocate for their position.

Here on this forum, a Christian said something like, "I am here to teach you how to be christian". And here on this forum another christian said, "You are interpreting that passage wrong," (this was the unequal yoke, lightness with dark passage) "and most Christians also interpret it wrong, this is what's right."

I'm interested in reading about that so could you please point me there.

So my hope and intent in this thread is to LISTEN IN while you all try to convince each other about what's right and what's wrong, to see what arguments you use. It seems that STEP ONE in salvation would be the ability of the people who actually believe the god to be true should be able to convince each other! of what's the right interpretation with enough reason that it's irrefutable, before they have the chutzpah to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Again your reasoning................

So if I disagree with another christian that reasons the earth is less than ten thousand years old......
and
If I'm unable to convince them it's about 13.8 billion......

then.........by your reasoning......

neither of us is qualified to address your view that..............

If your argument can't even be believable to another christian, why do you think you're qualified to refute my claim that the bible is full of really awful, mean, evil shit?

Really ???

 

[Rhea]

parsed..................

Your reasoning confuses me................

It is VERY COMMON for christians to try to "teach us" about Christianity.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing wrong, per se, but it’s a claim of HOW we know things. So once they’ve made a claim thaat a human can know a thing, then I think about why what one human says is more right than another. There are reasons, of course, and thiis opens the door to discussing them.

It is VERY COMMON for christians to claim we are "interpreting the bible wrong" or some version of, "I know the accurate meaning, you do not," despite both of us having a copy of the book and working brains.

So? Sounds something like a normal conversation involving differing viewpoints.

So again, it opens up the necessary conversation of how we decide one person is right and another wrong.
Typically, these conversations don’t include the christian being willing to talk about HOW they know they are right. But I’m game, lay it down if you’ve got it. That’s kinda what sparks this thread - to find out what are their criteriia for truthiness.

It is VERY COMMON for Christians to tell us that what we heard from one christian is wrong, and we should listen to the current christian instead

So Christians disagree and advocate for their position.

And simultaneously claim crdibility without a reason or criteria for the credibility? How does that work? I want to listen to them give the reasons for their credibility to each other. See if it makes more sense that way.

Here on this forum, a Christian said something like, "I am here to teach you how to be christian". And here on this forum another christian said, "You are interpreting that passage wrong," (this was the unequal yoke, lightness with dark passage) "and most Christians also interpret it wrong, this is what's right."

I'm interested in reading about that so could you please point me there.

One is in 1T’s thread, “*warning: May COntain”

So my hope and intent in this thread is to LISTEN IN while you all try to convince each other about what's right and what's wrong, to see what arguments you use. It seems that STEP ONE in salvation would be the ability of the people who actually believe the god to be true should be able to convince each other! of what's the right interpretation with enough reason that it's irrefutable, before they have the chutzpah to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Again your reasoning................

So if I disagree with another christian that reasons the earth is less than ten thousand years old......
and
If I'm unable to convince them it's about 13.8 billion......

then.........by your reasoning......

neither of us is qualified to address your view that..............

If your argument can't even be believable to another christian, why do you think you're qualified to refute my claim that the bible is full of really awful, mean, evil shit?

Really ???

Well on what basis would you refute it? The one by which you both refuted each other? “All I have to say is ‘I disagree’ and that’s not only valid refutation, it’s all that is required to refute any given claim of Chistianity”?

In other words, if you can refute their religious claim by just saying “I disagree” then why would you not accept the refutation of YOUR religious claim by encountering me, who disagrees?

That’s my logic. That if you don’y have an argument that is believable to christians, why would you think it was believable to me? And by extension, why would you not be forced to admit that I have a point in my interpretation if you have an expectation of others being forced to admit that you have a point in your interpretation.

So given that, I thought listening to some christians explain how they would hear various interpretations and what criteria they would use to decide who has the right of it, or, as Politesse proposes, decide that no interpretation can be supported and no shared meaning is possible.

 

[Rhea]

In the spirit of the OP I offer the following:
For purposes of this thread I will be the man who stepped down from that pulpit 18 years ago. Anyone, believer or skeptic alike, is welcome to challenge me. Let us begin:

Thanks. This is interesting.

It is important to understand that while God loves us he does require obedience to his commandments. God has given us in his word everything we need to know in order to be pleasing to him and to obtain salvation. II Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of god may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The idea that we cannot understand God is an unscriptural one. It smacks of giving up on this promise made by God's inspired writer.

This is very interesting. So how would you present argument to someone who argues that a passage means something different than you think it means? Say, praying in private versus praying publicly to invoke god’s protection on the USA?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am a Lutheran by upbringing, and well aware of the Council of Trent and its fallout. What I'm curious about is why you think it was a theological council. They weren't so much there to discuss the nature of God so much as the nature of salvation and what the church as an institution should consider its responsibilities.

What is the difference between god and the nature of god? What is the difference between salvation and the nature of salvation?

I have no idea what you're talking about?

Likewise.

You used nature of god and nature of salvation. What are those things?

You've heard the exchange:

Question: Why does the moon go through phases?
Answer: Because it is in the nature of the moon to go through phases.

Obviously the answer says nothing about the moon of any knowledge value. So what is in salvation's nature or god's nature that is different?

 

[Atheos]

In the spirit of the OP I offer the following:
For purposes of this thread I will be the man who stepped down from that pulpit 18 years ago. Anyone, believer or skeptic alike, is welcome to challenge me. Let us begin:

Thanks. This is interesting.

It is important to understand that while God loves us he does require obedience to his commandments. God has given us in his word everything we need to know in order to be pleasing to him and to obtain salvation. II Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of god may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The idea that we cannot understand God is an unscriptural one. It smacks of giving up on this promise made by God's inspired writer.

This is very interesting. So how would you present argument to someone who argues that a passage means something different than you think it means? Say, praying in private versus praying publicly to invoke god’s protection on the USA?

Rhea, I'm not sure I understand the question. Prayer is a very different subject from biblical interpretation, and I'm having a difficult time making the connection.

I'll take a stab at each of these and you can respond as you see fit.

As far as people getting different meanings from a passage I would argue that there are certainly some difficult passages in the bible but there are many clearly worded ones. The mistake many people make is interpreting difficult passages in a manner that clearly contradicts a clearly worded passage. Since the bible is the word of a loving God (I John 4:8 - "God is love") who wants all people to be saved (II Peter 3:9) one can infer that God would make plain the way to salvation. The more difficult passages in the scriptures let us know that we can continue to grow in knowledge of him throughout our lives (Hebrews 5:12-14 supports this).

It is also important to understand that while prayer is enjoined throughout the scriptures we cannot expect every prayer to be fulfilled in the way we might prefer. Jesus prayed, "If it be possible let this cup pass from me; nevertheless thy will, not mine be done." (Matthew 26:39). James also warns about the importance of faith when praying.

James 1

:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Many prayers, even though possibly consistent with God's plan, are asked by people who are not ready to accept the reality of what they are praying for. In this context we are being encouraged to pray for wisdom. Unfortunately wisdom often comes to us as the result of enduring hardships and challenges. Be sure that you are ready to accept God's gift even though it may come through tribulation!

 

[rousseau]

Theology is codifying all the accumulated legend and fantasy and moral coercions that a group clings to (sampling Obama there.) The tragedy is that it stultifies thought and, through the largest chunk of the Christian Era, led to murder as warring believers in the same nominal faith cheerfully reduced each other to ashes. The same can be found in Islam (and currently), and then there is the long, vigorous historical record of faith vs. faith (i.e., Crusades, Hindu vs. Muslim, et alia.) I realize fully that I'm playing Capt. Obvious here. Orthodoxy blows.

I keep belaboring this point in similar threads, but I'm skeptical of the claim that religion stultifies thought. People not being particularly intelligent is what stultifies thought. Religion is an effect, not a cause. It's only with an overwhelming amount of technical and scientific progress that we've been able to convince a small slice of people that a tiny amount of what they believe may not be true.

And even those who have moved past religion don't usually understand much else - things like evolution, society, history.. etc etc. Basic maxims about life as it actually exists pretty much blow by most of us.

To me this is important because the problem is actually that most people don't know how to think soundly, not that if we could just overcome the latest delusion everything would be great.

The RCC paradigm has always been humans need to be treated like sheep by an authority figure, the pope.

If followers of Christianity had an ability to think about their beliefs objectively, would this be a problem? How many religious leaders literally believe in their faith? I'd guess most of them. So there's something deeper and more imperative going on than just the propagation of ideas.

Even further than that, we're coming at this problem with the benefit of a scientific perspective, but for the majority of the life of these religions they were the de facto way to approach existence. Saying that they stultified thought misses the reality that these systems were all people knew. So it's only since the rise of Darwinian evolution that people could even begin to comprehend an alternative.

So to me a better way to look at theology of old is people doing extreme pseudoscience as best they could, given technical and epistemological limitations.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Stultifies thought...by positing easy to digest answers that cancel the need for all those pesky things like critical thinking and actually reading about religion, science, astronomy, etc. Why read & think about stuff that your pastor encapsulates for you?

 

[steve_bank]

Christians suddenly all thinking objectively would be chaos without something to replace it.

 

[remez]

Nothing wrong, per se, but it’s a claim of HOW we know things. So once they’ve made a claim thaat a human can know a thing, then I think about why what one human says is more right than another. There are reasons, of course, and thiis opens the door to discussing them.

Absolutely. Epistemology is crucial.

So again, it opens up the necessary conversation of how we decide one person is right and another wrong.
Typically, these conversations don’t include the christian being willing to talk about HOW they know they are right.

Wrong, typically these conversations do include reasoning you simply blind yourself to.
Typically, for me these conversations reveal the blindness of the atheists to observe theistic reasoning. You...yourself.... are inferring that we don't have reasons for what we believe. After all faith by your imagination is blind, therefore by default, theists don't have any reasons for what they believe. See.............watch how you ignore the reasoning....

So Christians disagree and advocate for their position.

And simultaneously claim crdibility without a reason or criteria for the credibility?

See...."without reason."
I always provide reasons (or supply when asked) for what I believe. You simply assume theists do not provide reasons for what the believe. Note I just reasoned you were blind to theistic reasoning......and watch here is the reasoning......

Here on this forum, a Christian said something like, "I am here to teach you how to be christian". And here on this forum another christian said, "You are interpreting that passage wrong," (this was the unequal yoke, lightness with dark passage) "and most Christians also interpret it wrong, this is what's right."

I'm interested in reading about that so could you please point me there.

One is in 1T’s thread, “*warning: May COntain”

First of all I commented on that. The reasoning (yes reasoning) was so bad that I thought it was an atheist posing as a theist. But regardless 1I did provide reasoning (bad as it was) for their position you simply seemed to ignore it. Read it again.

So my contention with you in this thread is that even if the theistic reasoning is provided, you will ignore it. Favoring instead, your blind assumption that all theists have no reasoning for what they believe. Your assumption is that all theistic belief is without reasoning. Remember I did provide (above) reasoning and evidence for this conclusion. Let's see if you simply ignore it again or begin to open your eyes and address the reasoning provided. Even if it was bad.

Again your reasoning................


So if I disagree with another christian that reasons the earth is less than ten thousand years old......
and
If I'm unable to convince them it's about 4.5 billion......


then.........by your reasoning......


neither of us is qualified to address your view that..............

If your argument can't even be believable to another christian, why do you think you're qualified to refute my claim that the bible is full of really awful, mean, evil shit?

Really ???

Well on what basis would you refute it? The one by which you both refuted each other?

Why would I refute your vague claim about the bible being mean with scientific evidence for an old earth?
See my point was.....
Your irrational reasoning that if 2 theists disagree about the age of the universe then neither are qualified to redress your UNRELATED belief that the bible is mean.
Further......The observation we (2 theists) disagree does not in any way infer that we are both wrong.

In other words, if you can refute their religious claim by just saying “I disagree” then why would you not accept the refutation of YOUR religious claim by encountering me, who disagrees?

What a silly belief you have there. I certainly cannot REFUTE a religious claim with "I disagree". That would be completely unreasonable.
But then again you simply BELIEVE that theists have no reasons. And from that false assumption you base the reasoning of your thread that........you all have to do to refute the theist is to simply disagree as well. WOW. If you can't reason where that is wrong then you're just too far gone to get it. Simply disagreeing does not REFUTE your opponents position.

That’s my logic. That if you don’y have an argument that is believable to christians, why would you think it was believable to me?

And why should I consider that logical?
examine.....Back to my example of a theistic disagreement.....do YOU believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old? No......then you agree with my argument that the earth is older.

And by extension, why would you not be forced to admit that I have a point in my interpretation if you have an expectation of others being forced to admit that you have a point in your interpretation.

I can't force someone to find my argument compelling. But if my argument is sound and the conclusion follows logically from the premises then their position is exposed as inferior.

Thus by extension I'm not forced to admit your reasoning is compelling...... You believe that simply disagreeing refutes an opposing position. Give me an argument as to why I'm forced to admit your point about your bad belief.

 

[Politesse]

I have no idea what you're talking about?

Likewise.

You used nature of god and nature of salvation. What are those things?

You've heard the exchange:

Question: Why does the moon go through phases?
Answer: Because it is in the nature of the moon to go through phases.

Obviously the answer says nothing about the moon of any knowledge value. So what is in salvation's nature or god's nature that is different?

Yes, that is how theology is defined, the study/contemplation of the nature of God. There are a great many ways to answer this question.

 

[Rhea]

Do remez and politesse agree on all points of theology?

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, I'm not sure I understand the question. Prayer is a very different subject from biblical interpretation, and I'm having a difficult time making the connection.

Thanks. You have again provided some interesting insight into how a christian of your former denomination would make their argument. That wasn’t what I meant by the prayer example, but it nevertheless adds to my understanding of how it would have been argued.

What I meant might be better approached by me asking, “did you ever encounter another christian or another church with whom you disagreed about religious interpretation or theological truth? How would that discussion go? What’s a good example of disagreement and resolution from your experience?”

 

[remez]

Do remez and politesse agree on all points of theology?

I doubt it.
But can Rhea address the reasoning why it makes a difference....post 31?

 

[Politesse]

Do remez and politesse agree on all points of theology?

I don't think so, no. Actually, very few people agree with me on all points of theology. 'tis a constant refrain in my life.

I'm starting to realize that by theology, you must mean something like "all religious ideas"?

 

[Rhea]

Do remez and politesse agree on all points of theology?

I don't think so, no. Actually, very few people agree with me on all points of theology. 'tis a constant refrain in my life.

So when you disagree with them, do you ever talk about it?
Does it matter to you that they might be misrepresenting your deity?

I'm starting to realize that by theology, you must mean something like "all religious ideas"?

I’m using theology to mean religious ideas that you think are right/true.

the·ol·o·gy
/THēˈäləjē/
noun
the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.
plural noun: theologies
"a willingness to tolerate new theologies

Definition of theology
1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience
especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2a : a theological theory or system
Thomist theology
a theology of atonement
b : a distinctive body of theological opinion
Catholic theology
3 : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

- - - Updated - - -

A question for theists if they want to answer:

How does a sacrifice atone for sin? Can you provide the reasoning of how it works?

A good question, but off-topic, if you don’t mind. Maybe a new thread for that.
I’m hoping the discussion can stick to how Christians talk to EACH OTHER about their religious truths.

 

[Politesse]

So when you disagree with them, do you ever talk about it?
Does it matter to you that they might be misrepresenting your deity?

Who am I to speak for God?

Now, on other issues - questions of fact, questions of ethics, I have never been known to hold my tongue. But what one essentially believes in, I don't reckon is anyone's business to work out but theirs.

 

[Rhea]

So when you disagree with them, do you ever talk about it?
Does it matter to you that they might be misrepresenting your deity?

Who am I to speak for God?

Now, on other issues - questions of fact, questions of ethics, I have never been known to hold my tongue. But what one essentially believes in, I don't reckon is anyone's business to work out but theirs.

So there is no damage done when christians disagree with each other on matters of theology/belief/practice? No reason to talk to each other about what things are claimed to be “true”?

I’m not asking you to “speak for god,” specifically, I am asking you to speak about your beliefs.

When an atheist says, “this Christian thing is not even consistent with it’s own book!” Christians are quick to say (as I outlined in my OP) that we are wrong about our interpretation. You post here a lot. Perhaps you have never once said, “well, actually...” to any post about christianity. In which case, you probably have nothing to say to any other christian with whom you disagree about christianity, and I therefore have nothing to learn from you about it. Because, indeed, who can argue about the nature of someone else’s thoughts that have no basis in fact or reality and are merely thoughts.

 

[remez]

In other words, if you can refute their religious claim by just saying “I disagree” then why would you not accept the refutation of YOUR religious claim by encountering me, who disagrees?

That’s my logic.

And by your challenge I addressed your logic back in post 31.
You have conveniently ignored it.
You presented a challenge and won't defend what you believe.
You are guilty of what you are complaining about.
So whats up?