The Theist Thread - Let's Share

Tanglebones wrote:

I'd go back and re-read Job, then, because it seems like the ha-Satan and God have a pretty cozy working relationship there. In any case, bowing back out of the theist thread again.

It certainly seems that a re-read, and indeed a re-think, is needed since there again seems to be an error of taking this at literal face value and not as a story revealing a truth of some kind. The passage is more likely to be a story created by the sacred author based upon the theological truth that God allows the devil to tempt human beings....not that they are "cozy".

The Bible is a collection of books that use a variety of literary forms to convey theological truth. The Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation:

"To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts that are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture (Dei Verbum 12)."

NSMike wrote:

The idea that it is not literal is clearly a Catholic perspective, though, and not a generally Christian one.

I hate to be the kind of internet-weiner who yells "source" but in this case, I have to. I'll look up some stuff myself, but that's not my impression.

Some of the *loudest* Christians are people who are Biblical literalists, but there's a difference between being loud and being generally representative.

edit: here's an interesting bit of info:

The Clergy Letter - from American Christian clergy – An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.

CheezePavilion wrote:
NSMike wrote:

The idea that it is not literal is clearly a Catholic perspective, though, and not a generally Christian one.

I hate to be the kind of internet-weiner who yells "source" but in this case, I have to. I'll look up some stuff myself, but that's not my impression.

Some of the *loudest* Christians are people who are Biblical literalists, but there's a difference between being loud and being generally representative.

Ok well, if we're going to require specific data about each sect of Christianity, you are more than welcome to research the position of each of the 30,000+ in existence. If we're going to talk about generally Christian and including Catholicism as Christian, being one of the largest religions in the world, yes, generally Christians are not biblical literalists. As it is, though, the loud ones are shaping the discourse, so the impression is that there are a lot of biblical literalists out there, and the moderate majority is letting them control that discourse because they just don't care. You want me to think otherwise? Start caring and don't jump on me when I remind you of how you're represented.

NSMike wrote:

The idea that it is not literal is clearly a Catholic perspective, though, and not a generally Christian one.

Yes...reading the bible in proper literary form is indeed a Catholic tradition. We don't go to the poetry section of the library to get our news

EDIT: and Cheese is correct. There are some damn good Protestant scholars/laymen out there that are not bible literalists. There are very few literalists out there...but some that I know include Southern Baptists...and ironically, Atheists. There are probably others that I'm not aware of.

NSMike wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
NSMike wrote:

The idea that it is not literal is clearly a Catholic perspective, though, and not a generally Christian one.

I hate to be the kind of internet-weiner who yells "source" but in this case, I have to. I'll look up some stuff myself, but that's not my impression.

Some of the *loudest* Christians are people who are Biblical literalists, but there's a difference between being loud and being generally representative.

Ok well, if we're going to require specific data about each sect of Christianity, you are more than welcome to research the position of each of the 30,000+ in existence. If we're going to talk about generally Christian and including Catholicism as Christian, being one of the largest religions in the world, yes, generally Christians are not biblical literalists. As it is, though, the loud ones are shaping the discourse, so the impression is that there are a lot of biblical literalists out there, and the moderate majority is letting them control that discourse because they just don't care. You want me to think otherwise? Start caring and don't jump on me when I remind you of how you're represented.

I hear ya Mike and you're 100% correct. This is part of the reason why I care to participate in these discussions at all.

NSMike wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
NSMike wrote:

The idea that it is not literal is clearly a Catholic perspective, though, and not a generally Christian one.

I hate to be the kind of internet-weiner who yells "source" but in this case, I have to. I'll look up some stuff myself, but that's not my impression.

Some of the *loudest* Christians are people who are Biblical literalists, but there's a difference between being loud and being generally representative.

Ok well, if we're going to require specific data about each sect of Christianity, you are more than welcome to research the position of each of the 30,000+ in existence. If we're going to talk about generally Christian and including Catholicism as Christian, being one of the largest religions in the world, yes, generally Christians are not biblical literalists. As it is, though, the loud ones are shaping the discourse, so the impression is that there are a lot of biblical literalists out there, and the moderate majority is letting them control that discourse because they just don't care. You want me to think otherwise? Start caring and don't jump on me when I remind you of how you're represented.

So you didn't actually want to make a point about Christianity being literalist in general, you wanted to come into the Theist thread to tell Christians they're not doing a good enough job for you to bother thinking otherwise.

edit: Also, you *do* realize you're subscribing to the same logic as those people who take the militant atheist types to be the poster boys for all atheists, right? And the same as the people who call all Islam a religion of fundamentalist terrorists?

CheezePavilion wrote:

edit: Also, you *do* realize you're subscribing to the same logic as those people who take the militant atheist types to be the poster boys for all atheists, right? And the same as the people who call all Islam a religion of fundamentalist terrorists?

That's a bit unfair...Mike is a good guy and means well here.

I do see your point though...Atheists do take the Bible literally in most arguments against Christianity, in particular. They'd be a bit more effective if they didn't. Bad literal interpretations are really low hanging fruit for debate and are easily refuted.

darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

edit: Also, you *do* realize you're subscribing to the same logic as those people who take the militant atheist types to be the poster boys for all atheists, right? And the same as the people who call all Islam a religion of fundamentalist terrorists?

That's a bit unfair...Mike is a good guy and means well here.

You're right, but it reminds me *exactly* of a conversation I had a long time ago with someone on these forums about Islam.

darrenl wrote:

I do see your point though...Atheists do take the Bible literally in most arguments against Christianity, in particular. They'd be a bit more effective if they didn't. Bad literal interpretations are really low hanging fruit for debate and are easily refuted.

Your Catholic roots show a bit too much, darrenl. Evangelicals outnumber Catholics in terms of numbers and they crush Catholics in terms of political and social influence. It's because 59% of Evangelicals believe the bible is the literal word of god that atheists have respond in kind.

OG_slinger wrote:
darrenl wrote:

I do see your point though...Atheists do take the Bible literally in most arguments against Christianity, in particular. They'd be a bit more effective if they didn't. Bad literal interpretations are really low hanging fruit for debate and are easily refuted.

Your Catholic roots show a bit too much, darrenl. Evangelicals outnumber Catholics in terms of numbers

But not Catholics+Mainline Protestants. It's a false dichotomy to say "Catholics vs. Evangelicals."

CheezePavilion wrote:

But not Catholics+Mainline Protestants. It's a false dichotomy to say "Catholics vs. Evangelicals."

Darrenl has pretty much turned this thread into Catholics 'R Us, which is why I made my statement. Atheists don't worry about what Catholics think because Catholics don't come close to matching the political and social power of the Evangelicals. Atheists respond as if the bible is literally true because the vast majority people we're debating think that way.

While you're right that Evangelicals don't outnumber Catholics and Protestants together those two groups haven't exactly seen eye to eye for five hundred years.

I don't really see theists talking amongst themselves and atheists barging in here to mess things up.

Really, I don't get this two camps business. I come here to have interesting conversations with people of all stripes. Believe or don't believe, but let's have some smart conversation.

SallyNasty wrote:

I don't really see theists talking amongst themselves and atheists barging in here to mess things up.

Really, I don't get this two camps business. I come here to have interesting conversations with people of all stripes. Believe or don't believe, but let's have some smart conversation.

Problem solved:
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

SallyNasty wrote:

I don't really see theists talking amongst themselves and atheists barging in here to mess things up.

Really, I don't get this two camps business. I come here to have interesting conversations with people of all stripes. Believe or don't believe, but let's have some smart conversation.

The two camps thing was a necessary evil forced by a thread asking atheists a question about atheism being turned sideways by a few individuals. As someone else already pointed out the solution is simply to start another thread. The atheism thread in question was meant to address a specific question and has probably run its course.

DSGamer wrote:

The atheism thread in question was meant to address a specific question and has probably run its course.

Is that an attempt to tie in with the current smorgasbord of food puns going on in that thread? If so, A++, would chuckle again.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

But not Catholics+Mainline Protestants. It's a false dichotomy to say "Catholics vs. Evangelicals."

Darrenl has pretty much turned this thread into Catholics 'R Us,

Hey man, I'm trying my best! : D

which is why I made my statement. Atheists don't worry about what Catholics think because Catholics don't come close to matching the political and social power of the Evangelicals. Atheists respond as if the bible is literally true because the vast majority people we're debating think that way.

Great, but when did this become a thread about why atheists respond the way they do? No one said anything about atheism, just about what different Christians believe, and all of a sudden we're talking about atheism. Why?

I don't care if atheists show up here, I don't even care if they want to talk about atheism when a related topic comes up. At least, though, be honest: don't use a discussion about what denominations of Christianity believe as a proxy to have a different argument about why atheists are right.

edit:

SallyNasty wrote:

I don't really see theists talking amongst themselves and atheists barging in here to mess things up.

When we go from "that's not what Christians are like generally" to "don't blame me for pointing out you're not doing a good enough job because you don't care enough" in the space of one post, well, I have to disagree.

CheezePavilion wrote:
NSMike wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
NSMike wrote:

The idea that it is not literal is clearly a Catholic perspective, though, and not a generally Christian one.

I hate to be the kind of internet-weiner who yells "source" but in this case, I have to. I'll look up some stuff myself, but that's not my impression.

Some of the *loudest* Christians are people who are Biblical literalists, but there's a difference between being loud and being generally representative.

Ok well, if we're going to require specific data about each sect of Christianity, you are more than welcome to research the position of each of the 30,000+ in existence. If we're going to talk about generally Christian and including Catholicism as Christian, being one of the largest religions in the world, yes, generally Christians are not biblical literalists. As it is, though, the loud ones are shaping the discourse, so the impression is that there are a lot of biblical literalists out there, and the moderate majority is letting them control that discourse because they just don't care. You want me to think otherwise? Start caring and don't jump on me when I remind you of how you're represented.

So you didn't actually want to make a point about Christianity being literalist in general, you wanted to come into the Theist thread to tell Christians they're not doing a good enough job for you to bother thinking otherwise.

All I was doing was trying to guide the discussion about Calvinism, predestination, and whether or not god and Satan are on the same team.

edit: Also, you *do* realize you're subscribing to the same logic as those people who take the militant atheist types to be the poster boys for all atheists, right? And the same as the people who call all Islam a religion of fundamentalist terrorists?

I don't even know what this means.

CheezePavilion wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

But not Catholics+Mainline Protestants. It's a false dichotomy to say "Catholics vs. Evangelicals."

Darrenl has pretty much turned this thread into Catholics 'R Us,

Hey man, I'm trying my best! : D

which is why I made my statement. Atheists don't worry about what Catholics think because Catholics don't come close to matching the political and social power of the Evangelicals. Atheists respond as if the bible is literally true because the vast majority people we're debating think that way.

Great, but when did this become a thread about why atheists respond the way they do? No one said anything about atheism, just about what different Christians believe, and all of a sudden we're talking about atheism. Why?

I don't care if atheists show up here, I don't even care if they want to talk about atheism when a related topic comes up. At least, though, be honest: don't use a discussion about what denominations of Christianity believe as a proxy to have a different argument about why atheists are right.

edit:

SallyNasty wrote:

I don't really see theists talking amongst themselves and atheists barging in here to mess things up.

When we go from "that's not what Christians are like generally" to "don't blame me for pointing out you're not doing a good enough job because you don't care enough" in the space of one post, well, I have to disagree.

In all fairness, Cheeze, it doesn't take much to get you going on any topic.

Can, for instance, someone be a Christian and accept that the bible may be untrue and that the figure of Yeshuach bar Yusef was not accurately depicted in it? Can someone be a Jew and accept that something as pivotal as the Exodus may never have happened? Or are these dealbreakers that define faith?

Oh, Paleo, I wish you hadn't stepped out. I wish I'd been here in time to talk about this -- I think it's a really appropriate question to be asking, especially as a person who considers herself Christian, but actually puts no stock in the miracles listed in the bible, who isn't a Trinitarian, and certainly accepts that the bible can be/is frequently untrue -- or at least metaphorical/mythological.

Drat, I snoozed and 'loooozed'! ^_^;

Dragonfly wrote:
Can, for instance, someone be a Christian and accept that the bible may be untrue and that the figure of Yeshuach bar Yusef was not accurately depicted in it? Can someone be a Jew and accept that something as pivotal as the Exodus may never have happened? Or are these dealbreakers that define faith?

Oh, Paleo, I wish you hadn't stepped out. I wish I'd been here in time to talk about this -- I think it's a really appropriate question to be asking, especially as a person who considers herself Christian, but actually puts no stock in the miracles listed in the bible, who isn't a Trinitarian, and certainly accepts that the bible can be/is frequently untrue -- or at least metaphorical/mythological.

Drat, I snoozed and 'loooozed'! ^_^;

Go back a couple pages..I think some of us addressed this, if not, we can take a second attempt at it.

Go back a couple pages..I think some of us addressed this, if not, we can take a second attempt at it.

Ah, yes, my filthy skimmer-ness missed some of the discussion back around page 5. Please ignore me.

Dragonfly wrote:
Go back a couple pages..I think some of us addressed this, if not, we can take a second attempt at it.

Ah, yes, my filthy skimmer-ness missed some of the discussion back around page 5. Please ignore me.

No worries DragonFly...

The offer to followup is still on the table.

Dragonfly wrote:
Can, for instance, someone be a Christian and accept that the bible may be untrue and that the figure of Yeshuach bar Yusef was not accurately depicted in it? Can someone be a Jew and accept that something as pivotal as the Exodus may never have happened? Or are these dealbreakers that define faith?

Oh, Paleo, I wish you hadn't stepped out. I wish I'd been here in time to talk about this -- I think it's a really appropriate question to be asking, especially as a person who considers herself Christian, but actually puts no stock in the miracles listed in the bible, who isn't a Trinitarian, and certainly accepts that the bible can be/is frequently untrue -- or at least metaphorical/mythological.

Drat, I snoozed and 'loooozed'! ^_^;

Can't speak to the Christian part of this, but it's completely possible to be a Jew and not believe in a literal Exodus. But then, Judaism is more about deeds than about faith. That's why we're always getting hollered at about "being saved by FAITH, not works" from evangelicals.

I disbelieve in literal interpretations to the point of not really qualifying as a theist, really. But I still find religious ritual meaningful... I think philosophically I'm out of place in both threads.

Come to think of it, LarryC seemed to be coming from the same corner, but maybe neither of us can articulate it well.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Great, but when did this become a thread about why atheists respond the way they do? No one said anything about atheism, just about what different Christians believe, and all of a sudden we're talking about atheism. Why?

darrenl wrote:

Atheists do take the Bible literally in most arguments against Christianity, in particular. They'd be a bit more effective if they didn't. Bad literal interpretations are really low hanging fruit for debate and are easily refuted.

OG_Slinger:

There's a similar dynamic from the other thread, though. There's a hefty amount of content there that talks broadly about theists, and Christians generally in a negative fashion, and we're... ...discouraged from talking about theism positively, and theists at all. Don't want to drag this out. Just pointing it out.

LarryC wrote:

OG_Slinger:

There's a similar dynamic from the other thread, though. There's a hefty amount of content there that talks broadly about theists, and Christians generally in a negative fashion, and we're... ...discouraged from talking about theism positively, and theists at all. Don't want to drag this out. Just pointing it out.

That was your take-away?
Sheesh.
It's a bit strained but a valid comparison would be a liquor salesman invading an AA meeting. Sure, a slug of whiskey can do wonders for your nerves and settle your stomach... but it isn't for everyone and your dogged insistence that maybe if we added some soda or ice, or just pretended to like it while around others that things would go easier on us was ironically one of the reasons the original thread needed to exist. You then expanded into explorations of cough syrup and mouthwash despite several attempts to make it clear that your pitch was inappropriate in that thread. Since your points were well received (even though inappropriate for that topic) a new thread was started where you could test the limits of what it means to be (auf Deutsch) Antialkoholiker.
No one is discouraging you from talking about theism or theists, in the appropriate places. The community discourages threads going off topic in general. You'll see some leniency when threads are losing steam. You stepped into an active, supportive discussion, grabbed the steering wheel, and made it about your idea of what was wrong with everyone else. And you're surprised that it didn't result in mass gratitude for your insight into our faults?
And now apparently that exchange has been stored in your memory as an assault on faith in general. You were... ...discouraged. From taking a thread so far off topic that it was diametrically opposed to its original intent. Don't want to drag this out. Just pointing it out.

Edit: Missed a sentence from an earlier draft at the bottom. Sadly I have to do a lot of revising and still end up sounding like an asshole most of the time. It comes out pretty antagonistic, which is really not my intent. I am trying to present the perspective that fostered the impression of antagonism to the 'theist intrusion' in the thread in question.

CheezePavilion wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Great, but when did this become a thread about why atheists respond the way they do? No one said anything about atheism, just about what different Christians believe, and all of a sudden we're talking about atheism. Why?

darrenl wrote:

Atheists do take the Bible literally in most arguments against Christianity, in particular. They'd be a bit more effective if they didn't. Bad literal interpretations are really low hanging fruit for debate and are easily refuted.

NSMike has a half an hour's worth of precognition?

What am I being blamed for now, Cheeze? Or not? Because I have no idea what you're getting at?

NSMike/SallyNasty, I'll just say that I disagree, and you can PM me if you want to discuss your concerns further.

edit:

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Great, but when did this become a thread about why atheists respond the way they do? No one said anything about atheism, just about what different Christians believe, and all of a sudden we're talking about atheism. Why?

darrenl wrote:

Atheists do take the Bible literally in most arguments against Christianity, in particular. They'd be a bit more effective if they didn't. Bad literal interpretations are really low hanging fruit for debate and are easily refuted.

Think about what you're saying and check the timestamps: that would involve someone having a half an hour's worth of precognition.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

And to be a little more on-topic for this thread: I'd be curious to see an 'insider' discussion about the part of Theist belief that seems to be side-lined most of the time: Satan, fallen angels, Demons, and their role in your faith. There's a trend I've noticed in those of faith around me to attribute ALL things to a divine plan. Every hurdle is just an opportunity in disguise. Does this mean that Satan has no power in this world anymore? Or was Satan just a device contrived by God during the early years to scapegoat the nastier parts of his plan for us?

I love that part: "hey guys--is your god a big fat liar? Please discuss for me!"

The be fair, there's little to no mention of Satan outside Job, which I believe most agree in an allegory rather than a recording of actual events. Does Satan even exist, or is he merely a metaphor? Though I know this is an issue that isn't universally agreed upon.

darrenl wrote:

Is Satan just a parable for 'the evil in men?' No. Jesus talked about him quite a bit and the way in which he did talk about him was not in parable format.

Ah right, he talks about "the adversary" a lot, doesn't he? It always struck me as strange that Satan was absent from the Old Testament though. I still wonder if he's a metaphor here. Not for "the evil men" but more generally as temptation.

complexmath wrote:

Ah right, he talks about "the adversary" a lot, doesn't he? It always struck me as strange that Satan was absent from the Old Testament though. I still wonder if he's a metaphor here. Not for "the evil men" but more generally as temptation.

It depends on how you read it. The word Satan appears many times in the Tanakh (OT). Jews read it as a title that has been applied to multiple entities. I did some reading recently, prompted by this discussion. From what I understand, Christians read it, and several other terms (e.g. Beelzebub, Morning Star, or "Lucifer" in Latin) as referring to the same entity.