Kevin's Watch

Auleliel wrote:

Dromond wrote:danlo's posts were easily understood as light hearted, with intended humor. To me at least.

Ditto.

Ditto ditto. (and not just because Danlo controls my existence [PS. just in case, that was a joke too - hope it was slightly humourous.... ])

This has been a most interesting thread, thanks Dromond for starting it. I, like others no doubt, have a few opinions - but nothing that can add to the discussion as yet....

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:If they don't know academic things like history and scholarship they have no tools to understand what they experienced.

Can you give any examples of the kinds of experiences you're talking about?

C'mon Fist, this is too easy.
A person is born in America, grows up there, never studies a thing, just sees people about him acting in certain ways, etc... He doesn't know the history, he doesn't understand government, why it was created, what those guys on C-Span are blabbing about for hours on end, doesn't understand why the justice system, the economy and every other system, is the way it is, and yet he has opinions about it.
...
Waitaminute... that sounds like a lot of people today!

Any serious or systematic understanding comes from learning. Experience, on its own, is too random and incidental. Why do you suppose parents feel that kids ought to go to school instead of just learn on the streets?

The same thing applies to understanding religion. The person who hasn't really studied is like the kid on the street who never went to school (modern public schools excluded) - not stupid - just ignorant. How on earth can you have an opinion on the teachings of, say, the Pope if you don't understand the context he is speaking in? As an example, witness the recent furor over his comments on condoms in Africa. Most media sources, being ignorant of his context, merely condemned him - because they are ignorant of his context. I understood right away, because, while not being Catholic and not accepting Papal authority, I understand his context. Most journalists made no effort to even ask why he should say such a thing. They launched into a chorus of condemnation without understanding - because they are ignorant (not necessarily stupid - although it is stupid to not attempt to understand the other side of a controversy and yet condemn).

A person who was truly enlightened, impartial, and had an open, honest, inquiring mind would have asked, "Hmm - that's interesting - I wonder why the Pope says such things? What do they believe? What do they teach and on what basis?" Etc... (Something not generally expressed in that "controversy" - because it would eliminate the controversy and 'newsworthiness", of course.

But the complaint, both here and elsewhere, is that people pride themselves on having open, honest, inquiring minds etc while actually engaging in condemnation, mostly without understanding. So I think Andy's post should get first prize for presenting the Christian side:

For the part about reading/studying Christianity, it seems fist that rus talks about this in order to debate Christianity. IOW, you say you have no desire for a deep study of Christianity, which is fine. I agree, w/o a compelling reason, why would you?

But to then debate what Christianity teaches, you can understand why someone would be frustrated b/c you haven't studied it. And what rus and I see alot in here, is that type of debate. I think that's rus's frustration, he says read some deep thinking about Christianity, and the response is, no, I just want to debate it. If the intent is to learn, that's different. However, the tone is never one for learning.

Cybrweez wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Cybrweez wrote: (I don't say true or not, but at least legitimate)

And even that's a problem. How many people strongly disagree on the interpretation and/or translation? What is Christ's message? Was he God in human form? No, I'm not debating one way or another, I'm just saying that even people who strongly believe in what the Bible says, and try to live by it, disagree a lot.

That's what I meant by my last point. Determining truth is up to someone. However, w/the Bible, you can determine whether any claim is legitimate. Same w/some other religions as well. It just has some thing to look to for legitimacy, unlike most other ideologies like Liberal, Conservative or what have you.

rus, the Nicene Creed is gotten from the Bible. If it affirmed something that disagreed w/the Bible, would it be true?

I'm afraid this is a place where I have to agree with Fist, Andy. I myself deny that a person can merely "use the Bible" because of the central problem of who interprets what they read. In Sola Scriptura (only the Bible) it is ultimately the individual (arguments that it is the Holy Spirit are immediately refuted by the divisions in Christianity - God is not the author of confusion - which is why in the final analysis I can only defend Orthodoxy - because unbelievers are right at one point or another about everything else - whether it be fundamentalist extremism, Catholic historical outrages and inconsistencies based on papal authority, teleevangelist corruption, or whatever). Individuals can, and very often do engage in "Scripture Wars", where they find Scripture that seems to support their position and disagree deeply. In a legal dispute one cannot turn to a legal document to make the decision about what this or that means - they need to turn to a Court with judges, who tell them - and tell them on the basis of all prior precedent (that analogy has its limits, so please don't take it further than intended). Thus, for me, the need for external authority is obvious - and the human part of the institution must be essentially powerless to act contrary to that authority (thus nullifying the constant suspicion of unbelievers that a bunch of guys in robes are working to control our minds...). But I don't think it wise to debate that further in this thread - it's confusing enough as it is!

You are right that the Nicene Creed must be in accordance with Scripture. However, (as put) it is not "gotten from the Bible" - there is no place where that creed is specifically written, and there are some points that are understood only from the overall context (such as the doctrine of the Trinity). The Biblical canon was not confirmed until 393 AD, the Creed was formalized, more or less as we know it, by 381. The difference is that the creed is a short and clear statement of what Christians believe that is unambiguous and simple - the Bible is an immensely complex work that contains a level of complexity that no one, I think, could ever truly claim to master and understand completely (I speak specifically to the use you propose - that of determining the legitimacy of claims, something very different from merely hearing the Gospel story). The Creed requires no special background knowledge - only that it be accepted. The Bible requires an enormous level of knowledge to understand properly. If I may again refer to one of my favorite examples - that of the understandings of the Bible translated into English of Matt. 1:24-25 and other references to "the brothers of Jesus" in the Gospels - things that to an English speaker, with no knowledge of the original languages - or even of modern Middle Eastern, Greek or Russian languages, which also reveal the English misunderstanding - would seem cut and dried. (the use of the word till (until) implying finishing at the time of, implying in English that Mary "knew" her husband Joseph after the birth of Jesus and that Mary had other children, thus denying the doctrine of the ever-Virgin Mary - but the understanding is based on an English understanding without reference to what the original writers meant! (I've said this before, but you should see the trouble I have in teaching Russian children, using only English, to stop counting their cousins when I ask them "How many brothers and sisters do you have?") The Russian words "brat" and "sestra" embrace cousins as well, and they use an adjective "dvoiurodny" /dvie-YOU-rud-nee/ when they want to make a distinction. The default includes all children of all parental siblings. You can't understand that just by reading the English Bible on your own. You have to either learn all of these complexities yourself (good luck!), which is essentially gnosticism - only the learned can be saved - or accept an Authority that tells you what the truth is.

rusmeister wrote:I'm afraid this is a place where I have to agree with Fist, Andy. I myself deny that a person can merely "use the Bible" because of the central problem of who interprets what they read. In Sola Scriptura (only the Bible) it is ultimately the individual (arguments that it is the Holy Spirit are immediately refuted by the divisions in Christianity - God is not the author of confusion - which is why in the final analysis I can only defend Orthodoxy

Even given the rest of your argument which followed, I can only see non sequitur where you assert that this leads you to defend orthodoxy, or to defend any other Christian variant for that matter. In other words, I cannot logically proceed from "God is not the author of confusion," or any of your other premises, to the necessity of defending orthodoxy.

See that? I asked because I wasn't sure I was understanding you. Now, although I'm still not entirely clear, I do know that you didn't mean the first thing that came to mind. Heh.

OK, I don't know what the Pope said about condoms in Africa, so I have no opinion about it.

My advice to you is to stop debating this subject with people who will not learn what you insist is the proper amount about it. People always form opinions about everything. It's what human beings do. In many instances, if the first thing we learn about a subject gives us a negative opinion, we won't learn more about it. In other cases, we just aren't motivated to learn more about it. That's the case with me regarding this topic. I've learned all I care to learn. Unless I find reason to reconsider the whole thing (if I found reason to believe the universe required a cause; if I thought Lewis' premise in MC was right; some personal experience that makes me think a higher power is at work; who knows what else), I may never look deeper into it.

But I'm not debating you on it, either, so no problem. There are others, though, who also won't learn your minimum required amount about it, but continue to debate you. You're aggravated that people who don't know enough about the topic continue to debate it. But you're continuing to debate it with them.

Fist and Faith wrote:See that? I asked because I wasn't sure I was understanding you. Now, although I'm still not entirely clear, I do know that you didn't mean the first thing that came to mind. Heh.

OK, I don't know what the Pope said about condoms in Africa, so I have no opinion about it.

My advice to you is to stop debating this subject with people who will not learn what you insist is the proper amount about it. People always form opinions about everything. It's what human beings do. In many instances, if the first thing we learn about a subject gives us a negative opinion, we won't learn more about it. In other cases, we just aren't motivated to learn more about it. That's the case with me regarding this topic. I've learned all I care to learn. Unless I find reason to reconsider the whole thing (if I found reason to believe the universe required a cause; if I thought Lewis' premise in MC was right; some personal experience that makes me think a higher power is at work; who knows what else), I may never look deeper into it.

But I'm not debating you on it, either, so no problem. There are others, though, who also won't learn your minimum required amount about it, but continue to debate you. You're aggravated that people who don't know enough about the topic continue to debate it. But you're continuing to debate it with them.

Here is some perhaps unwanted advice that I've learned over time. The first step when tackling someone's argument is to employ some pure logic. If the argument for some reason lacks the support of simple logic, then you don't even need to have minimal knowledge of whatever the topic is, you simply tell the person to clean up his or her argument and come back later. This method saves a lot of work and hard study. But if the logic comes out clean, at that point you will need to appeal to facts. However, perhaps 90% of the time on the internet the logic in any given argument is simply not there.

lucimay wrote: i frequently don't understand you in the least. thats not to say that you're not making a good post or a good point, i just don't get you most of the time.

GK Chesterton said:

MOST people either say that they agree with Bernard Shaw or that they
do not understand him. I am the only person who understands him,
and I do not agree with him.

It is probably one of the greatest compliments you can pay to someone that you do not understand their argument - it leaves open the possibility that their argument may be correct.
Disagree? Fine. But first, it is necessary to understand.

lucimay wrote:as i said, if you find my comments or posts to be caustic or inflammatory in any way, i'm happy to butt out.

It's not that they're caustic - it's just the complaint of commenting without understanding the other side's arguments. I guess what would make me happy would be if you would just honestly and amiably ask about what you don't understand (in what I say, for example).

What I would wish, for both Christians and atheists most of all is the kind of friendship shared by Shaw, Wells and Chesterton - where they disagreed violently philosophically, but remained warmest lifelong friends and had the greatest respect for each other. (And they really did try to understand each other.) I really encourage you to learn about their friendship (Chesterton's biography by Maisie Ward has great stuff).

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I'm afraid this is a place where I have to agree with Fist, Andy. I myself deny that a person can merely "use the Bible" because of the central problem of who interprets what they read. In Sola Scriptura (only the Bible) it is ultimately the individual (arguments that it is the Holy Spirit are immediately refuted by the divisions in Christianity - God is not the author of confusion - which is why in the final analysis I can only defend Orthodoxy

Even given the rest of your argument which followed, I can only see non sequitur where you assert that this leads you to defend orthodoxy, or to defend any other Christian variant for that matter. In other words, I cannot logically proceed from "God is not the author of confusion," or any of your other premises, to the necessity of defending orthodoxy.

This is only because I did not describe here the chain.
Another way of putting it would be "why I can not defend all versions of Christianity." (Nor do I propose to elaborate on that chain here - only to establish the point on which Fist is right - that Christians cannot agree on the Bible alone.)
In attempting to jump to Orthodoxy without examining "why Christianity", in a sense you would be trying to get to third base without passing first (or seventh grade without having finished second, or whatever). I was really speaking to Andy, who I really do see as having passed first base. I don't need to debate the Nicene creed with him. We likely agree on its points, and that they are true. I don't think I can say the same about you.

Fist and Faith wrote:See that? I asked because I wasn't sure I was understanding you. Now, although I'm still not entirely clear, I do know that you didn't mean the first thing that came to mind. Heh.

OK, I don't know what the Pope said about condoms in Africa, so I have no opinion about it.

My advice to you is to stop debating this subject with people who will not learn what you insist is the proper amount about it. People always form opinions about everything. It's what human beings do. In many instances, if the first thing we learn about a subject gives us a negative opinion, we won't learn more about it. In other cases, we just aren't motivated to learn more about it. That's the case with me regarding this topic. I've learned all I care to learn. Unless I find reason to reconsider the whole thing (if I found reason to believe the universe required a cause; if I thought Lewis' premise in MC was right; some personal experience that makes me think a higher power is at work; who knows what else), I may never look deeper into it.

But I'm not debating you on it, either, so no problem. There are others, though, who also won't learn your minimum required amount about it, but continue to debate you. You're aggravated that people who don't know enough about the topic continue to debate it. But you're continuing to debate it with them.

I think you're mostly right. This brings me back to thinking about what the point is of discussing anything in the Close, or even me being at KW period. I'm attracted by what, on the whole, is the higher than average IQ of most Donaldson readers,and then yes, frustrated by the intellectual failing of being prejudiced - of really not understanding what it is that is being judged - the special prejudice against Christianity that simply is not held against other major world religions (like GKC said in the intro to TEM).

In general, I'll try to take your advice. Thanks!

rusmeister wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I'm afraid this is a place where I have to agree with Fist, Andy. I myself deny that a person can merely "use the Bible" because of the central problem of who interprets what they read. In Sola Scriptura (only the Bible) it is ultimately the individual (arguments that it is the Holy Spirit are immediately refuted by the divisions in Christianity - God is not the author of confusion - which is why in the final analysis I can only defend Orthodoxy

Even given the rest of your argument which followed, I can only see non sequitur where you assert that this leads you to defend orthodoxy, or to defend any other Christian variant for that matter. In other words, I cannot logically proceed from "God is not the author of confusion," or any of your other premises, to the necessity of defending orthodoxy.

This is only because I did not describe here the chain.
Another way of putting it would be "why I can not defend all versions of Christianity." (Nor do I propose to elaborate on that chain here - only to establish the point on which Fist is right - that Christians cannot agree on the Bible alone.)
In attempting to jump to Orthodoxy without examining "why Christianity", in a sense you would be trying to get to third base without passing first (or seventh grade without having finished second, or whatever). I was really speaking to Andy, who I really do see as having passed first base. I don't need to debate the Nicene creed with him. We likely agree on its points, and that they are true. I don't think I can say the same about you.

The premise "God is not the author of confusion" is merely assumed anyway. So I won't bother to pile on complexity where simple logic, even if it is truly not lacking, is based on uncritical assumptions.

Come to think of it, the "Author" of the destruction of the Tower of Babel is not the Author of confusion?

rusmeister wrote:

lucimay wrote: i frequently don't understand you in the least. thats not to say that you're not making a good post or a good point, i just don't get you most of the time.

GK Chesterton said:
MOST people either say that they agree with Bernard Shaw or that they do not understand him. I am the only person who understands him,
and I do not agree with him.

It is probably one of the greatest compliments you can pay to someone that you do not understand their argument - it leaves open the possibility that their argument may be correct.
Disagree? Fine. But first, it is necessary to understand.

absolutely.

What I would wish, for both Christians and atheists most of all is the kind of friendship shared by Shaw, Wells and Chesterton - where they disagreed violently philosophically, but remained warmest lifelong friends and had the greatest respect for each other. (And they really did try to understand each other.)

i wish that for all the people in the world. everywhere, of every stripe.
thats why i ever now and then attempt (not always successfully) to inject some levity into my comments.

Totally off-topic, sorry.

rusmeister wrote:[I've said this before, but you should see the trouble I have in teaching Russian children, using only English, to stop counting their cousins when I ask them "How many brothers and sisters do you have?") The Russian words "brat" and "sestra" embrace cousins as well, and they use an adjective "dvoiurodny" /dvie-YOU-rud-nee/ when they want to make a distinction. The default includes all children of all parental siblings.

So "cousin" would be "second brother/sister", when translated literally into English? That's interesting. The Czechs don't typically do it that way. Brother/sister is bratr/sestre; cousin (male/female) is bratranec/sestr^enice (with the carrot turned upside-down and placed over the r -- it's that weird "rzh" letter that only the Czechs have ). Altho slovnik.cz lists "bratr" as an alternative translation for "cousin", so maybe they do it in some circumstances.

aliantha wrote:Totally off-topic, sorry.

rusmeister wrote:[I've said this before, but you should see the trouble I have in teaching Russian children, using only English, to stop counting their cousins when I ask them "How many brothers and sisters do you have?") The Russian words "brat" and "sestra" embrace cousins as well, and they use an adjective "dvoiurodny" /dvie-YOU-rud-nee/ when they want to make a distinction. The default includes all children of all parental siblings.

So "cousin" would be "second brother/sister", when translated literally into English? That's interesting. The Czechs don't typically do it that way. Brother/sister is bratr/sestre; cousin (male/female) is bratranec/sestr^enice (with the carrot turned upside-down and placed over the r -- it's that weird "rzh" letter that only the Czechs have ).

Do you mean like this? ř

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

aliantha wrote:Totally off-topic, sorry.

rusmeister wrote:[I've said this before, but you should see the trouble I have in teaching Russian children, using only English, to stop counting their cousins when I ask them "How many brothers and sisters do you have?") The Russian words "brat" and "sestra" embrace cousins as well, and they use an adjective "dvoiurodny" /dvie-YOU-rud-nee/ when they want to make a distinction. The default includes all children of all parental siblings.

So "cousin" would be "second brother/sister", when translated literally into English? That's interesting. The Czechs don't typically do it that way. Brother/sister is bratr/sestre; cousin (male/female) is bratranec/sestr^enice (with the carrot turned upside-down and placed over the r -- it's that weird "rzh" letter that only the Czechs have ).

Do you mean like this? ř

That's it!

(Coulda done it myself -- just too lazy to switch to the Czech keyboard layout. Thanks, Worm. )

aliantha wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

aliantha wrote:Totally off-topic, sorry.
So "cousin" would be "second brother/sister", when translated literally into English? That's interesting. The Czechs don't typically do it that way. Brother/sister is bratr/sestre; cousin (male/female) is bratranec/sestr^enice (with the carrot turned upside-down and placed over the r -- it's that weird "rzh" letter that only the Czechs have ).

Do you mean like this? ř

That's it!

(Coulda done it myself -- just too lazy to switch to the Czech keyboard layout. Thanks, Worm. )

Opening Windows character map in Start>Programs>Accessories>systemtools helps. Or go to Start>Run and enter Charmap to open the same program.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

aliantha wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: Do you mean like this? ř

That's it!

(Coulda done it myself -- just too lazy to switch to the Czech keyboard layout. Thanks, Worm. )

Opening Windows character map in Start>Programs>Accessories>systemtools helps. Or go to Start>Run and enter Charmap to open the same program.

Or just load the Czech keyboard layout from Windows, which is what I've done so I can type up my Czech homework on my laptop.

aliantha wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

aliantha wrote: That's it!

(Coulda done it myself -- just too lazy to switch to the Czech keyboard layout. Thanks, Worm. )

Opening Windows character map in Start>Programs>Accessories>systemtools helps. Or go to Start>Run and enter Charmap to open the same program.

Or just load the Czech keyboard layout from Windows, which is what I've done so I can type up my Czech homework on my laptop.

Yes, I'm diggin' the quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes...

Fist and Faith wrote:

aliantha wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: Opening Windows character map in Start>Programs>Accessories>systemtools helps. Or go to Start>Run and enter Charmap to open the same program.

Or just load the Czech keyboard layout from Windows, which is what I've done so I can type up my Czech homework on my laptop.

Yes, I'm diggin' the quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes...

Yes, this is so much nicer than usenet's requoting format.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

aliantha wrote: Or just load the Czech keyboard layout from Windows, which is what I've done so I can type up my Czech homework on my laptop.

Yes, I'm diggin' the quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes...

Yes, this is so much nicer than usenet's requoting format.

This reminds me of a thread a year or so ago where we did this for a few pages. It was fun.