BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 02:30 PM

I taught my kids the bible stories - without trying to belabor what was myth and what was factual. I also taught them about evolution, and made sure their Catholic school science teacher (who lived across the street) did the same. The kids seemed to do just fine with this. My kids did not end up rigidly fundamentalist, and neither did their classmates. There were a few kids from staunchly conservative families that ended up staunchly conservative, but they were the minority. They didn't think I was a very good Catholic.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 02:15 PM

Er, what exactly are you telling me I believe, Kevin?   Whilst I'm not the sort of bull that reacts too strongly to that sort of red rag, I'd far sooner you picked apart my points one by one. And yes, telling children lies, not giving them the wherewithal to tell lies from mere storytelling, and discouraging them from shedding those lies (evidence? Look at all those millions of adults who still believe them) - that is child abuse by any measure. Just tell them the unvarnished truth. As yet, no-one has told me why this is worse than telling them lies.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 12:36 PM

DMcG....quite often I am pleasantly surprised by your stance on issues like religious belief. I find myself totally in agreement with your last post and it is couched in the most rational of terms.

If the haters of religion here would stop and read what you write they would be better and wiser people....Ake.......still an "unbeliever", but prepared to be convinced of my error. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 12:36 PM

religion during childhood as a form of child abuse

In some cases and in some sects it most certainly is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 12:07 PM

Right, that's what you believe Steve. Would it be right to take it that you don't believe it is a view which should be imposed on other people other than by persuasion? Or do you see involvement in religion during childhood as a form of child abuse which society should seek to eliminate?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 04:09 AM

I'm not ascribing malice to parents who tell them them that Baby Jesus is true. I said, if you look back, that they often don't realise that they are telling lies because of the way they themselves have been fed the myths as truth. The deliberate lying comes from your religious elders who tell the tale that way in spite of years studying theology. And I have never said that the theory of evolution is true. Evolution is true and the theory is a very good explanation for it (very good because there are masses of evidence). Yes we tell children stories, but we set them in the context in which they will know that they are just stories, very good ones at that. But you expose children to religion in a way that removes that context. In evidence, I present you with every prayer and hymn that you ever get them to say or sing. They are replete with assertions and certainty. And even if you yourself inculcate that open-minded approach, which I don't doubt, you may send them to schools at which those things are completely out of your control.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 03:15 AM

I'm struggling to see why it's supposedly better to make it hard for children to see the unadorned truth through all the mythology instead of just telling them the truth in the first place

There's so much in that sentence! But the biggest problem with it is that you set out with the view that Pete and co are deliberately lying to their children. They are not. They are telling what they believe to be the truth. Equally, they are convinced that if they taught evolution as 'the truth' that would be a lie. I fall into a different camp: I see evolution as true (to the extent any scientific theory is ever sensibly labelled as 'true') but there are other ways of looking at the world that do not invalidate that truth.

I can only refer to the anecdotal account of my own children, but they were a damn sight more sophisticated at five than you seem to give children credit for! They had (children's versions of)some of Shakespeare's history plays which they loved and were quite able to appreciate them as stories at one level, and historical true and historically false at parts at another. In a child's way, of course, but it is not to be trivialised.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 07:50 PM

I haven't got anything against telling people what has been written about Jesus. I just think that you should always be saying that someone wrote it and it may not be true and that you should do your own digging for evidence. I'm struggling to see why it's supposedly better to make it hard for children to see the unadorned truth through all the mythology instead of just telling them the truth in the first place. But then I'm a simple man who goes around the place in awe of the wonderful beauty and sheer non-miraculous ordinariness of the world. I don't want nature described as some kind of allegorical fairy tale that I can't easily pick the bones out of. I trust it to be every bit as marvellous, and a damn sight more comprehensible, without that. Even spiritual.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 07:34 PM

Pliny's letter to Trajan, 80 years or so after the alleged death of Jesus, mentions "Christ" several times but not in an historical context. Christianity was already in existence and Pliny was referring to their Christ, not to a figure whose historicity he was confirming in any way. The Mara Serapion letter is of uncertain date. It does not mention the name of the "wise king of the Jews", who he regards as having been unjustly executed, and the letter appears to contradict the resurrection. There really is very little in it to hang on to.   The Suetonius reference is very odd and is the subject of many an historian-style squabble. Suetonius knew about "Christians" and it is unlikely that he would have made the careless misspelling "Chrestus". Chrestus was a very common name in Rome and the passage could just be referring to an agitator called Chrestus in Rome.

I'm not saying that these are not interesting sources. They are. But not a single one fits the bill as an undisputed, or even mildly disputed, non-Christian reference to Jesus. Read all about 'em - they're all over google, as you'd expect. They might not exactly be clutching at straws but they're not far off, and good evidence of the certainty of Jesus's existence is still eluding you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 07:32 PM

"Will someone please tell me why anyone can think that this is worse then telling lies?"

- Because God, who probably doesn't exist, will not be happy?

-Because God, who probably doesn't exist, wants you to tell lies in these particular circumstances?

-Because God, who probably doesn't exist, wants you to turn off the brain, that He may well not have given you, and just get on with telling those lies?

-Just emulate His servant Pete, and stop thinking so much, Shaw!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 05:49 PM

Worse than. Obvious I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 05:48 PM

I did not "contest" any quotes. My remarks reflected the majority opinion of commentators. If Jesus really is an historical figure it matters not a jot to me. It won't change a thing. What I would like YOU to accept is, as I keep saying, that there is a good chance that he never existed. It's the only honest path for both you and me ,and I'm taking that path. Tell the children that a lot of people believe that there was a holy man called Jesus, that there are lots of stories about the wonderful, even miraculous, things he's said to have done, but, though they are good stories that can teach us certain things, they are not true stories. You should always ask anyone who tells you new things that you want evidence, especially if those things are surprising, such as stories about someone who can work miracles or come back from the dead.

Will someone please tell me why anyone can think that this is worse then telling lies?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 04:22 PM

The Pentateuch poetry !!?   Surprised at you joe. Beside the narrative, there is civil and religious law, prophecy and yes poetry. But even where poetry is used, say perhaps the parallelism of gen 1v 27, it relates to the historical narrative which runs from creation through to the lives of the patriarchs. One clue of the continuity is the expression.....these are the generations of.....used a number of times.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 02:17 PM

References please.

There is myth. Great when it's recognised as such. There is fiction. Great when it's recognised as such. Then there are downright lies. Peddling myth as truth is lying. Religion lies wholesale to children all the time. It is disingenuous and thoroughly dishonest to pretend that little children have the skill and the experience to discriminate. Religion wants children to believe those lies. Jesus came back from the dead. Jesus turned water into wine and brought people back to life and cured diseases with one touch. Mary was a virgin. Lies, lies, lies, and plenty more where they came from. The evidence for that is the billions of people who grow into adulthood still believing them. And they believe them so completely that they don't even realise that they are lying to their own children when they pass them on. This is the modus operandi of religion. It can't survive any other way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 12:39 PM

If the scriptures are just myth and storytelling, joe, on what basis do they tell the truth....or what is this truth if it is not founded on what is held to be facts.                            Steve alleges that only Josephus and Tacitus attest to Jesus , however there are others also who mention him ,....Pliny the younger in a letter to emperor   Trajan, a Syrian,mara serapion in a letter held at the British museum, and Suetonius in the life of Claudius.. In addition there are hostile witness text to Christ. That is considerably more than the couple of contested quotes Steve admits.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 12:21 PM

Pete says: If you accept the nicene creed I should have thought you were accepting historical biblical data as fact.

Pete, the Bible is a document of faith, not history - although it is written in a historical context. It follows the style of presenting history that was used at the time the Bible was written, and much of it (including the creation and flood stories) is not intended to be historic at all. It does not follow modern practices, so it is important to understand the Bible within its own context, including the time when it was written. The Nicene Creed was written much later (325 AD is the usual date given, but the document evolved over a couple or three centuries). It was written in theological language, while the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) was written in the language of epic poetry - akin to Homer, but not as deliberately poetic.

Myth and fiction are terms that are often misunderstood. They are not false, and they would not be accepted if there were false. They use the methods of storytelling to tell the truth. Shakespeare wrote within a historical context. His work did not stray far from history, but he altered history here and there to make his point more effectively. The point of the Bible is not history or science - it's faith. It's meant to help people come to know got, not to know the science of the beginnings of earth and the beginnings of history.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 12:05 PM

Joe, I,m not so sure that we don't understand what you are saying.....or just don't see the logic of it, and maybe you say that is the same thing. If you accept the nicene creed I should have thought you were accepting historical biblical data as fact. Any mysticism , to have any basis in reality, must have some kind of historical data and/or teaching, otherwise it would seem to just be meaningless subjective experience. It seems that you are advocating an unstructured, indefinite, faith without firmly held beliefs . As you will know, much nt teaching on how we ought to live , proceeds from the doctrinal.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 11:56 AM

...And the point is not to discount science in any way. It is simply to state that there are other means of exploration that are worthy of pursuit. Shimrod asid it all: My experience strongly suggests that the rational and the subjective can easily co-exist.

Steve Shaw, on the other hand, says: And Joe Offer, stop making scientists who dare to stick their noses into the realms of religion into Mr Spocks. Once you put things "beyond scientific understanding" you make a fool of yourself. You make the application of "the scientific process" into such a sinister-sounding thing instead of what it really is, the way that rational humans think about and interpret what they perceive with their senses. The only bit of the scientific process I wish to apply to religion is to ask you for evidence for what you tell your children. So far, none has been forthcoming, though there's been plenty of evasiveness. I don't want to hear about how myths that children can't unentangle (like most of the contents of the Bible which, in turn, informs all your doctrine) can instil deeper truth than actually telling them the truth, that there might not be a Father in heaven, there might not even be a heaven, and there's a very good chance that there was no Jesus, and even if there was, he almost certainly didn't swan around working miracles and coming back from the dead. My challenge to you is to tell children the unvarnished truth about the stuff you are hoping will shape their lives. It's just as intriguing as the pack of lies that they currently have to endure.

I had a friend who was a silviculturalist. He taught me a lot about forestry, and we always had a great time in the woods together. Once I told him, "Ken, the difference between you and me is that when I go into the forest I see Beauty, and you can't help seeing board feet."
He laughed. I knew he could also see the beauty, but he couldn't help seeing how this timber could be marketed.

Sometimes, it's valuable to drop everything else and just see the Beauty...and then go back to figuring how to put food on the table.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 08:39 AM

Oh mention it Dave cos Yorkshire cum second !!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 07:03 AM

One guy feels a pink flower is the most beautiful, his mate feels the same about a yellow one.

What has science got to offer to this dilemma? Or, does some things actually reside outside science, for one reason or another?

Science can actually offer a lot here. Why does one like pink and one yellow? Why is one colour more pleasing to some than the others? How does the brain decide in these cases? Is the fact that some colours are preferred anything to do with anything significant? Can this help in treatment of diseases? Could understanding peoples likes and dislikes prevent violence? And so on. But it is besides the point anyway. As far as I know, no one has ever killed someone else over the colour of flowers. Unless you want to stretch a point and mention the war of the roses?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 09:24 PM


My experience strongly suggests that the rational and the subjective can easily co-exist

I can't imagine disagreeing with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 01:28 PM

These endless debates about science vs religion, objective vs subjective etc. always remind me of my working life. I was a measurement specialist, working within the consumer products industry. Early in my career I was sent on a course about experimental design and statistics. This course was a complete revelation to me and I understood the significance (geddit?) of the course material immediately and began to apply it as soon as I got back to the lab.

A couple of years later, I lost my job to redundancy and began to look around for another. I was offered the first job that I applied for because that company's Technical Director was looking for someone who understood experimental design and statistics. This director always expressed satisfaction with my work but I was not so lucky with my immediate management and many of my colleagues. I soon realised that they felt threatened by my knowledge and expertise. Many of them seemed to think that writing test methods and analysing test results was a matter of individual 'creativity'. As a result they usually produced over-complicated methods which generated meaningless random numbers. They resented the fact that I usually proved them wrong. What they refused to acknowledge was that working within a rational framework can be just as creative and usually generates meaningful results - complete with probability estimates!

I also realised that it was not all down to individual 'creativity'. In fact I was, as the saying goes, 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. The techniques and concepts that I was using in my day-to-day job had been developed by some of the greatest minds of the last 200 years or so. And these techniques were not just 'technical' and intellectually demanding they were also, at the same time, beautiful and pleasing.

My experience strongly suggests that the rational and the subjective can easily co-exist. This debate is usually framed in terms of rational = narrow and constricting; subjective = FREE (wheee!!!) and broad-minded. It ain't necessarily so!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:56 PM

Of course science won't tell you everything. Once everything is explained, science is redundant. That will never happen. That is not the intention of science.

And Joe Offer, stop making scientists who dare to stick their noses into the realms of religion into Mr Spocks. Once you put things "beyond scientific understanding" you make a fool of yourself. You make the application of "the scientific process" into such a sinister-sounding thing instead of what it really is, the way that rational humans think about and interpret what they perceive with their senses. The only bit of the scientific process I wish to apply to religion is to ask you for evidence for what you tell your children. So far, none has been forthcoming, though there's been plenty of evasiveness. I don't want to hear about how myths that children can't unentangle (like most of the contents of the Bible which, in turn, informs all your doctrine) can instil deeper truth than actually telling them the truth, that there might not be a Father in heaven, there might not even be a heaven, and there's a very good chance that there was no Jesus, and even if there was, he almost certainly didn't swan around working miracles and coming back from the dead. My challenge to you is to tell children the unvarnished truth about the stuff you are hoping will shape their lives. It's just as intriguing as the pack of lies that they currently have to endure.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:46 PM

I am a bit lost, shimrod. I was commenting on a quotation from Menckin that Greg posted. No-one, as far as I can tell, said you had said anything about compulsion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:27 PM

" ... does not do to say how People 'must' see things and then attack that without actually checking whether they do see it like that in the first place."

Where did I say anything about compulsion?

"Clearly just about anything, including human love and the appreciarion of art and music can be measured. But the measurements don't bear much relationship to the experience."

I totally agree! Where did I say that I didn't agree?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:05 PM

Nice open minded posts from Joe, guest and Mr McGrath.

How refreshing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:00 PM

Exactly....and both the pink flower and the yellow flower are expressions of Beauty. Some see Beauty as an aspect of The Divine. Some see Beauty as a separate god/goddess. Whatever the case, Beauty defies scientific explanation while not conflicting with science in any way.

In general, people of European ancestry don't/won't understand. Perhaps that's why European conquest so often worked to destroy the myths and beliefs and wisdom of the aboriginal cultures they conquered. If they couldn't make a profit from it, the Europeans couldn't understand it - so they destroyed it, as they politicized and codified and rationalized and destroyed their own faith and myth.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 11:47 AM

One guy feels a pink flower is the most beautiful, his mate feels the same about a yellow one.

What has science got to offer to this dilemma? Or, does some things actually reside outside science, for one reason or another?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 11:41 AM

...as for explaining the myth to children so they'll know it's false, that's not the point, As I said above, children have an innate ability to understand fiction and to see the truth in it - and to know that it is NOT false.

It always amazes me that people who call themselves folksingers and folklorists, have such a hard time understanding religious faith and seeing the wisdom in it. In this day and age, many Europeans have a drive to reject their own ancient Judaeo-Christian myth, while embracing the ancient myths of other cultures. They apply the "scientific method" to refute and reject the Judaeo-Christian, but somehow they're smart enough not to do the same thing to the myths of other cultures. For those open to understanding, there is unity in all the ancient myths.

There is ancient wisdom in the myths of all cultures, if we understand it as it's meant to be understood. Myth is not "only a myth," and myth is not false. Myth is a means of expressing profound wisdom and mystical experience of Truth that is beyond scientific understanding - but not in conflict with Science in any way. It is an exploration of that which cannot be understood.

Myth guides the believer to something that cannot be codified into simplistic rules and doctrines.

And no, I don't think that Steve and Pete will be able to understand this.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in Americ
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 11:25 AM

Clearly just about anything, including human love and the appreciarion of art and music can be measured. But the measurements don't bear much relationship to the experience.

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
I love thee to the level of every day's
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for right.
I love thee purely, as they turn from praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints. I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.

The counting there isn't really much to do with science.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 10:39 AM

I didn't intend to suggest imy examples were beyond science, shimrod. I was trying to explain why Mencken's question was a bit of a straw man, since it was trying to challenge a way of looking at things that is not really 'how it is'. I don't object to any idea being challenged, but it does not do to say how People 'must' see things and then attack that without actually checking whether they do see it like that in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 10:31 AM

"Science is not an immovable body of human knowledge. It is a human process and you don't get to put anything outside it, not even God."

I agree. It is highly likely that everything is measurable - even human love and and the appreciation of art and music. Nevertheless, one can have a debate around whether or not one SHOULD attempt to measure such things (except, perhaps, within the realms of a justifiable research project).

" ... but it is more like a sound engineer appreciating the music and the underlying sonics at the same time; or a paint manufacturer in the National Gallery aware of the technology behind the oil paints as well as the painting."

There's nothing in those two examples that is beyond the reach of science or outside of nature.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 10:23 AM

Sorry for the errors in the quotations in my last two posts, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 10:23 AM

We are bound to have different perspectives, not to speak of different encounters along the way. I know why I left, but you haven't left, so either you believe me or you don't!

More a case of come back than stayed, Steve. But in no way am I saying that I don't believe what you say, just that I don't agree with it. There's a difference.

There's also a difference between "getting it" and going along with it.

As for Science and you can't put anything outside it, how I'd put it is that science is a method, and a method you can apply to anything, and an extraordinarily powerful and often beautiful method, but it won't tell you everything about the things you apply it to, and often not the most important things.

You can apply scientific methods to a musical performance - the way the sound travels, the relationships between the sound waves and the sound heard, the musical conventions applied, even the chemical and electrical processes in the brain as we listen, and so forth. But those things aren't the music.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 10:14 AM

How is it possible for a human brain to be divided into two human halves?

There is lots of evidence and situations where people do that all the time, including the relatively trivial occasions where we buy something "that we know we shouldn't". But the problem with that question is that it is not really how it is. I know it is difficult for many to people to get this, but it is not some schitzoid existence, the two approaches are integrated. It is really hard to get across, I am afraid, except by analogies that only touch on it, but it is more like a sound engineer appreciating the music and the underlying sonics at the same time; or a paint manufacturer in the National Gallery aware of the technology behind the oil paints as well as the painting. True, both approaches are rarely in perfect balance so that at any instant one or other is to the fore but both are there all the time.

For me, anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 09:40 AM

H.L. Mencken:

By what route do otherwise sane men come to believe such palpable nonsense? How is it possible for a human brain to be divided into two insulated halves, one functioning normally, naturally and even brilliantly, and the other capable only of such ghastly balderdash which issues from the minds of Baptist evangelists? Such balderdash takes various forms, but it is at its worst when it is religious. Why should this be so? What is there in religion that completely flabbergasts the wits of those who believe in it? I see no logical necessity for that flabbergasting. Religion, after all, is nothing but an hypothesis framed to account for what is evidentially unaccounted for. In other fields such hypotheses are common, and yet they do no apparent damage to those who incline to them. But in the religious field they quickly rush the believer to the intellectual Bad Lands. He not only becomes anaesthetic to objective fact; he becomes a violent enemy of objective fact. It annoys and irritates him. He sweeps it away as something somehow evil. . .
-       The American Mercury, February 1926


It is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false. To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it—to admit this, as the more fatuous of the reconcilers of science and religion inevitably do, is to abandon a just cause to its enemies, cravenly and without excuse. It is, of course, quite true that there is a region in which science and religion do not conflict. That is the region of the unknowable.   
-   "The American Mercury " May 1926

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 08:55 AM

"Churches present the myth in doctrinal form. For the Catholic Church and most Christian churches, the basic doctrine is the Nicene Creed, and I accept that creed without question. The doctrine cannot contradict science or history, because it is not in the realm of science or history - so Pete's attempts to present doctrine as science and history and Steve's attempts to refute doctrine in terms of science and history, are both futile. But doctrine is not the myth itself, and it is not the Truth. The Judaeo-Christian myth is best presented in the Scriptures and rituals and traditions, as the myths of other denominations are best presented in their own sacred writings and rituals and traditions. But the myth is only a gateway to the object of faith, which is beyond all and is essentially unexplainable (inexplicable)."

Hmm. Unfortunately, this is precisely one of those hazy circumlocutions I was talking about, and you're not getting away with that "Steve wouldn't understand it" line. I "understood it" well enough for the first half of my longish life, you seem to forget. You appear to be saying that doctrine can't be within the realms of science or history. Oh yes it can. Science is not an immovable body of human knowledge. It is a human process and you don't get to put anything outside it, not even God. If you want that kind of immunity from enquiry, your solution is very simple. Predicate your doctrine on truth, the real truth, and stop telling the flock that biblical improbabilities are certainties and stop telling children lies dressed up as fairy stories that they can ditch. They can't. The real, historical, scientific truth is much more wonderful, and much more honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 08:12 AM


Self-examination is indeed valuable, but it doesn't take Christianity to achieve it.
No, indeed. Of course anyone can undertake regular self examination, it doesn't need them to be a Christian. But there is one difference, I'd say. Nothing in the non-religious world encourages it as a matter of course. It is more a reaction to an event, say after an argument. When non-religious people do so as a regular matter of habit, it tends to be linked with something with lower-case-religious-overtones, like meditation.

Only my view, of course.

A brontosaurus? I thought you would have gone for an Apatosaurus (especially as it translates to 'deceitful lizard', I believe *smile*)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 07:35 AM

Steve Shaw says: After centuries of authoritarianism, Catholics expect simple rules, not shading. That's an issue the Church has created for itself. Expecting people to interpret softening-ups of doctrine from vague circumlocutions is expecting too much. You can't turn every Catholic into a theologian.

Thank you, Steve. That's exactly my point...more or less.

It's not about rules. It's not about doctrine. It's not about theology. All those things are ancillary. And my attempts to teach abstractions and nuances were bound for failure because they weren't the point, either.

And Pete's attempts to prove the historicity and scientific factuality of the myth miss the point, too.

There are people of faith in all religions who get the point, but the focus of faith isn't in any of the things I've listed above. Faith involves "ancient mysteries" that defy explanation or definition. Faith is an exploration of the meaning and depth and infinite expanse of what is beyond science. It's not a matter of intellectual study. It's something that is more suited for simplicity and silence, not intellectuality and wordiness. It is best explored and experienced through myth, and ritual, and tradition, and community gathering to share this experience.

Churches present the myth in doctrinal form. For the Catholic Church and most Christian churches, the basic doctrine is the Nicene Creed, and I accept that creed without question. The doctrine cannot contradict science or history, because it is not in the realm of science or history - so Pete's attempts to present doctrine as science and history and Steve's attempts to refute doctrine in terms of science and history, are both futile. But doctrine is not the myth itself, and it is not the Truth. The Judaeo-Christian myth is best presented in the Scriptures and rituals and traditions, as the myths of other denominations are best presented in their own sacred writings and rituals and traditions. But the myth is only a gateway to the object of faith, which is beyond all and is essentially unexplainable (inexplicable).

Most people, even most religious people, never quite "get" what faith is all about. They get bogged down in all that other stuff, the explaining and defending and arguing. And then they fail to see what it is that they're seeking. But a few people in every generation of every faith tradition get glimpses or visions of what it is they're seeking, and those few people set the mark for the rest of us. For those few people, all the denominational squabbling and pettiness is left behind.

Now, Pete and Steve will probably have no idea what I'm talking about, but I hope some of you will see some of it. It's best understood in simplicity and silence, not in rules and doctrines and proofs and arguments.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 05:45 AM

Self-examination is indeed valuable, but it doesn't take Christianity to achieve it. Better without, I'd say, as Christianity has a habit of setting the criteria for you according to its own tenets. Whilst I agree that critical thinking should be encouraged (in which I would always include asking for evidence for things you're told), I don't think that it's exactly the Catholic Church's strong point. The apparent limited loosening of doctrine is hardly a shaft of theological enlightenment, more a grudging response to the information and social media age and the freer and more open atmosphere of criticism. You can put lipstick on a brontosaurus but it's still a brontosaurus.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 04:37 AM

"You can't expect every Catholic to be a theologian"

No, but you can try to encourage everyone at all times to think more critically. And to appreciate that 'critical thinking' is not about crossing out everything people say that you disagree about with red pen and writing 'See me' at the end. It is much more about criticising your own perspective And while it has certainly got horribly confused with searching your actions for "sins", at the heart of it the self examination Christainity encourages is valuable. A lot of people, Christian or not, get it out of proportion and develop a sense of inferiority, of course, and that needs to be avoided. But it's no bad thing for a person to be critical of their own sense of superiority.

And I am not aiming that at anyone: we all are like that at times.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 04:20 AM

After centuries of authoritarianism, Catholics expect simple rules, not shading. That's an issue the Church has created for itself. Expecting people to interpret softening-ups of doctrine from vague circumlocutions is expecting too much. You can't turn every Catholic into a theologian.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 01:16 AM

Give it a rest, Pete! No-one's listening to your obsessive, ignorant, bat-shit crazy nonsense!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 01:01 AM

Joe says there are nuances and abstractions in Catholic teaching.

Steve says the Catholic Church refuses to discuss nuances and abstractions - in classrooms and from the pulpit.

I suppose there's some truth to that. When I've tried to teach nuances and abstractions in a classroom or a lecture or reflection, I've failed. People just don't "get it" in that sort of situation. It has to be presented individually or in small group discussions, or in a book. Nuances and abstractions cannot be understood in one-sentence sound bytes, and that's all the farther many people can listen nowadays.

-Joe-

Subject: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 10:15 PM

RC Bushops suggest a few small RC changes to Pope Francis.
Recommendations to Pope

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 08:49 PM

Well, Kevin, your experience is that you stayed in the club. Mine is that I extricated myself. We are bound to have different perspectives, not to speak of different encounters along the way. I know why I left, but you haven't left, so either you believe me or you don't!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 08:42 PM

"Validity comes from corroberation" Which is what I meant by the way anecdotal evidence can be reinforced by subsequent anecdotes. A single observation is an anecdote.

A thousand religious people reporting that they saw a statue move at Knock may well add up to a thousand anecdotes, but that does not add up to the phenomenon they claim to have seen having been a thousand times more likely. Corroboration requires a little more than anecdote piled upon anecdote. True corroboration leads to the increasing likelihood of verification, not the creation of a bandwagon.

It's just not the case that the Romans kept detailed records about trials and executions, at least none that have survived. After all, this wasn't even about a Roman citizen.

If we are to believe that Jesus was an important political figure in an area under Roman jurisdiction, we would expect him to crop up frequently in contemporary Roman writings, which are abundant. But he doesn't. There are two mentions by the Jewish historian Josephus, writing at least sixty years after Jesus's alleged death. One of these references is regarded as so unreliable as to be worthy of dismissal and the other is, at best, controversial. Look them up. There is one brief mention by Tacitus, writing 80 years after Jesus's alleged death, in a passage about the burning of Rome, in which he mentions the "extreme penalty" suffered by "Christus" at the hands of Pontius Pilatus. That's yer lot. That passage may well be authentic though it is disputed by a number of historians. I've tried to be as honest as possible about that. There is nothing else in all the masses of Roman literature, yet there are hundreds of references in contemporary writings by his alleged followers. In effect, there is an argument for claiming that Jesus was a myth in the minds of his followers. I'm not hanging on to that personally. But please admit that an awful lot points to the possibility that Jesus never existed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 08:22 PM

That just doesn't reflect my experience, Steve. It's a construction made up of fragments which are authentic enough, but put together in a way that does not match my experience. Which is not in a world of ecclesiastical ivory towers surrounded by theology tomes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 07:56 PM

"And many who are prone to absolutist, literalist thinking left the Catholic Church because they could not understand the nuances and abstractions."

This is arse about face. The Church encourages literalism by refusing to discuss nuances and abstractions. When I say refuses to discuss, I mean in classrooms and from the pulpit, where the teaching is of certainty, not in your ecclesiastical ivory towers surrounded by theology tomes. Giving people too many nuances leads, in the Church's opinion, to a potential loss of discipline by the flock. Too much room for interpretation. The reasons people leave the Church are because they become totally pissed off with immovable and illiberal doctrine, or a loss of belief in God, or, preferably, both. They rarely delve into the convoluted and ringfenced world of theology, nor should they.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,apostated
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 06:23 PM

Apologies for the blunt posting. No excuse.