Church leaders do not believe in a literal understanding of the Bible

[Sigurd]

I read this in my local paper the other day and really wanted to reply to the discussion, but since you have to register with your RL details and security number to be allowed into the discussion under your national registered and confirmed name, I had to let it pass (grievously).

I especially wanted to reply to the second reader entry and I am perplexed that nobody did.

Article in Bergensavisen:

(http://www.ba.no/nyheter/article5968244.ece)
Three of four Norwegian Christian leaders believe that Genesis is only a pictorial narrative.
Only half believe the story of Noah's ark is historic.
This is the result of a small study ‘Vårt Land’ has carried out among 58 priests and pastors in Norway. 200 were asked, but only 58 answered the survey.
Half said they believed in evolution, while a third did not believe in evolution.
While more than half said that they thought that the story of Noah's ark and the flood is a historical event.


The Bishop in Bjørgvin (Bergen), Halvor Nordhaug, thinks a literal view of Genesis and the Flood is problematic at best.



- I think some people make it incredibly difficult for both themselves and others if they are to create a contradiction between the biblical creation story and what modern research reveals.
It is completely unnecessary, and it makes faith difficult, he said.



second reply:


What ignorant people think or believe, whether priest or bishop, lay, or scholar, it is written in the Bible, 2 Timothy 3, 16 -17 that: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, THAT GOD MAY BE PERFECT MAN, made ​​fit for every good work.
It says ALL scripture, not just some, or only partially, but ALL scripture.

It also says in John 7, 38: "Whoever believes in me (Jesus) as scripture says, from his heart will flow rivers of living water." (The living water = Spirit who gives life)

Had the priests and ordinary people had God-belief, so it would not be dry and little life, as in most churches around the country.
And this we can largely thank atheists from the left side, which has been seen to take away the foundation of a good, blessed, harmonious society, by removing Christian education from schools and to a large extent, also from our churches.
This by ordaining priests and priestesses, bishops and bishops inside, which is not grounded in the Word of God, and that replaces the word with humanism and human traditions, and activities that have nothing in common with God's Word.
May the Lord open their eyes so they can see what hope they have been called to.





I think he has a grievance towards the ungodly people of Norway not supporting the established institution of the church. But he is shouting in his introductory. And he is shouting that ALL scripture is God's word verbatim. You say straw man, because he is not saying this in the text. I have had enough discussions with Christians to know what lies behind the use of 2.Timothy. They are using it to prove an infallible Bible, to prove that all scripture has been given (KJ). In this case giving the nature of the article, a literal understanding of the Bible as it is written - hence Genisis creation story and the deluge should be understood as Gods own words and thereby historical fact.

I would have countered with a question of - what is ALL scripture? in particular - which books? Who decides what is scripture and what is not? Luther? Athanasius? Jerome?

But the survey does suggest a modernization of the church, something that Christian conservatives doesn't realize have already happened in the church several times over since the death of its figure head. Welcome to Christianity :sneaky:

[Idaho]

Christianity in "generally cobbled together nonsense" shock.

[InsaneApache]

Christianity in "generally cobbled together nonsense" shock.

:laugh4:

BTW nice to see you Idaho.

[rory_20_uk]

Christianity in "generally cobbled together nonsense" shock.

I find it harder to understand those who state they totally believe something that is mutually contradictory.

Welcome back Idaho

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

Vårt Land. That made me chuckle.

Is this something new? A lot of people believe in literal interpretations of the bible and don't like being told otherwise. Is this part of a political game or just a survey?

Anyway, until you people change your flag you'll still be advocating state sponsored Christianity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My response to the Bishop would be, "yes, and?".

I blame poor teaching, atheists claim that you have to choose between God and Science, then religious people claim Saint Paul demands adherence to litteral interpretation of the written word.

Both are fundamentally wrong.

[CountArach]

Both are fundamentally wrong.
I sincerely hope that was a pun.

When the contents of your holy book is decided by a council held well over a millenium ago you don't really ever have the right to claim that your book is the whole and literal truth.

Welcome back Idaho.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I sincerely hope that was a pun.

When the contents of your holy book is decided by a council held well over a millenium ago you don't really ever have the right to claim that your book is the whole and literal truth.

Welcome back Idaho.

Well, it was because both sides of the "Religion vs Science" debate are ignorant fundamentalists, but it is also true. Both contetions, that Saint Paul demanded litteral adherence to the Word, and that who cannot accapt both religious faith and scientific reason are incorrect on a basic, foundational, level.

Hence, "fundamentally wrong".

[gaelic cowboy]

I sincerely hope that was a pun.

When the contents of your holy book is decided by a council held well over a millenium ago you don't really ever have the right to claim that your book is the whole and literal truth.

Welcome back Idaho.

To be fair I dont think PVC has ever said it's literal ever.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If anything I'm really suprised that 1/2 of Norways Christians believe that the Noah's ark story actually happened, and that a further 1/3 do not believe in evolution.

Funnily enough when you look at the British population as a whole (so not just Chrisitians as with the Norwegian survey), it turns out that 1/2 of them don't believe in evolution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism).

[Idaho]

Many priests don't believe the majority of Christian doctrine. How can you when you study it? The bible is a composite of various texts, tracts, myths, stories stitched together, edited, translated, edited, translated, appended, edited, translated, edited, appended, translated, edited, translated, appended....

Nothing wrong with the good book. It's a decent read, and a fascinating document. But let's not start thinking of it as anything other than a book of ancient wisdom and belief.



Edited to add a tip of the hat to all you old timers. I like to pop in every so often when I have forgotten that I've already argued about everything 20 times over without changing anyone's mind ;)

[gaelic cowboy]

If anything I'm really suprised that 1/2 of Norways Christians believe that the Noah's ark story actually happened, and that a further 1/3 do not believe in evolution.

Funnily enough when you look at the British population as a whole (so not just Chrisitians as with the Norwegian survey), it turns out that 1/2 of them don't believe in evolution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism).


Well it does say 1/2 were either opposed or confused about it but then gives no breakdown of the figure. It could mean 1% of that total 50% is opposed with 49% merely confused about it.

Surely thats not the same as opposition is it when your confused about evolution, it could mean they merely have questions they would like answered before they say yes.

People generally think anecdotally so any old clever arguement about how some animal article cannot evolve because of x is likely to sway people at least into the dont know camp.


Right on closer inspection of the article it says 10% are creationists and 12% prefer intelligent design while 23% are mixing elements from all three strands evolution, design and creation.

So that 23% would be easy back in either camp as they probably just dont blinking well understand what there being asked.

[Idaho]

If anything I'm really suprised that 1/2 of Norways Christians believe that the Noah's ark story actually happened, and that a further 1/3 do not believe in evolution.

Funnily enough when you look at the British population as a whole (so not just Chrisitians as with the Norwegian survey), it turns out that 1/2 of them don't believe in evolution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism).

It's like saying half of Britons don't believe that computers work using nanoscopic silicon switches which respond to electromagnetic signals.

[gaelic cowboy]

It's like saying half of Britons don't believe that computers work using nanoscopic silicon switches which respond to electromagnetic signals.

not really when you think about it sure it's easy prove how a computer works even to the ordinary 5/8 on the street.

it's far harder prove evolution thats why it will never be the Law of Evolution, it is however the best and most likely expanlation were ever going to get.

[Lemur]

I've always thought one of the great strengths of Christianity is that we do not, in the majority, regard the Bible as the literal word of God. As an earlier poster said, it's not a book; it's a library, cobbled together over millennia. It's full of poetry, wisdom, mutually contradictory instructions, stories, weirdness, sublime passages, the works.

A childhood friend of mine became a monk (http://www.newskete.com/). He had an interesting take on the ritual and mind-bending contradictions of the Bible: "All of that **** is poetry. God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives." Which coincides nicely with Rabbi Hillel's take on scripture: "That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

[a completely inoffensive name]

it's far harder prove evolution thats why it will never be the Law of Evolution, it is however the best and most likely expanlation were ever going to get.It's pretty easy actually. We see it happen in labs across the world every day and in our hospitals as well. Of course I am talking about bacteria who have undergone a fundamental change in order to become resistant to all of our overused antibiotics.

[Beskar]

I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.

[rory_20_uk]

I've always thought one of the great strengths of Christianity is that we do not, in the majority, regard the Bible as the literal word of God. As an earlier poster said, it's not a book; it's a library, cobbled together over millennia. It's full of poetry, wisdom, mutually contradictory instructions, stories, weirdness, sublime passages, the works.

A childhood friend of mine became a monk (http://www.newskete.com/). He had an interesting take on the ritual and mind-bending contradictions of the Bible: "All of that **** is poetry. God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives." Which coincides nicely with Rabbi Hillel's take on scripture: "That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

That is close to Quakerism. Most high churches aren't going to say all their heirachy, money and power is tacked on and not required. Women are still not ordained, priests don't marry due to dogma.

~:smoking:

[rvg]

Women are still not ordained, priests don't marry due to dogma.

Not ordaining women and maintaining celibacy have good reasons behind them. I see no problem with that.

[rory_20_uk]

Not ordaining women and maintaining celibacy have good reasons behind them. I see no problem with that.

Care to elaborate?

~:smoking:

[rvg]

Care to elaborate?

~:smoking:

Sure. Women do not get ordained for the simple reason that all of Apostles were men. Jesus deliberately only chose men for those roles.

As for maintaining celibacy, I'm a husband and a father, there's no way I can fully dedicate my life to God. 1st Book of the Corinthians puts it best:
"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, gnot to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."

[gaelic cowboy]

I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.

there is some stuff about the black sea being the candidate

[rory_20_uk]

Unmarried men have no knowledge of marriages, married life, families, women or children. They are fundamentally flawed from the outset in their pastoral care. It also selects against balanced individuals who want a marriage and a family. Quoting a book from the bible merely shows the lack of insight that is shown - someone out to say why their choices are right. Nothing shows this better than the rulings on celibacy - getting a task force of the celibate to say what to do. A group of married men and women with grown up children would have a far more realistic take on this.

Although no women were apostles, there were many women who had important roles within early Christianity, yet was increasingly sidelined - and this of course ignoring the selection of early texts that took place that indicates women had a far more substantial role.

~:smoking:

[rvg]

Unmarried men have no knowledge of marriages, married life, families, women or children. They are fundamentally flawed from the outset in their pastoral care.

Flawed how?


It also selects against balanced individuals who want a marriage and a family. Quoting a book from the bible merely shows the lack of insight that is shown - someone out to say why their choices are right. Nothing shows this better than the rulings on celibacy - getting a task force of the celibate to say what to do. A group of married men and women with grown up children would have a far more realistic take on this.

The conflict of interests is undeniable when it comes to married clergy.



Although no women were apostles, there were many women who had important roles within early Christianity, yet was increasingly sidelined - and this of course ignoring the selection of early texts that took place that indicates women had a far more substantial role.


The fact remains: Jesus deliberately chose only men. It does not imply that women are incapable of doing the priestly duties, but Jesus only chose men.

[Centurion1]

Every time I see articles like this where people believe these stories word for word I thank god for leading me to
Mother church where science and religion aren't always at odds

[Rhyfelwyr]

rvg surely 1 Timothy 3:2 is an example of the scripture approving of bishops having wives?

Also for what it's worth, Catholic Eastern Rite priests usually are married, and there are Latin Rite priests that are married having converted from Protestantism.

[rvg]

rvg surely 1 Timothy 3:2 is an example of the scripture approving of bishops having wives?

Also for what it's worth, Catholic Eastern Rite priests usually are married, and there are Latin Rite priests that are married having converted from Protestantism.

Orthodox priests get married, yes. They get married *before* they become priests though. There are Eastern Rite Catholic priests that are married, but most are celibate. And yes, married Anglican ministers are allowed to become full fledged Catholic priests. Nonetheless, the fact that married clergy exists does not subtract from the fact that a married man has to split his duties between God and family while an unmarried man can totally dedicate himself to God. Doesn't mean that married clergy is bad or anything like that, but a married man has to think about putting food on the table, providing for his wife and children.

[InsaneApache]

I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.

Although GC beat me to it, there are lots of examples of flood myths from the ancient world. Possibly due to warble gloaming in pre-historic days. No factories caused it though. :disguise:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Although GC beat me to it, there are lots of examples of flood myths from the ancient world. Possibly due to warble gloaming in pre-historic days. No factories caused it though. :disguise:

No, but there was this end of an Ice Age with attending melting of the poplar ice sheets and glaciers...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Possibly due to warble gloaming in pre-historic days. No factories caused it though. :disguise:Costanza.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.

Actually, I think the only knowledge I have of the possible historical orgiin of the flood is that same TV program! To be honest, it never bothered me a great deal.

Moses, on the other hand, I find quite interesting, but we digress.

rvg is correct that a truly celibate man can better dedicate his whole life to God, but it does not follow that all priests must be Great Divines who spend two hours on a Sunday preaching the rest working to develop arthritic knees. In Anglicanism the priest usually comes with a wife, and she is as much involved in pastoral care as her husband. They are a team.

Beyond that, most prists have histoircally either been married, kept concubines, or been homosexual. Not allowing priests to marry because "sex is bad" leads to the absurd situation where consensual sex with an adult becomes equated, in their minds, with child rape. This is far from a modern problem, though historical solution for the offending clerics were far more inventive than today.

[Idaho]

Sure. Women do not get ordained for the simple reason that all of Apostles were men. Jesus deliberately only chose men for those roles.

What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.

[rory_20_uk]

What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.

It becomes a self-fulfilling argument - they are all men because everything that we choose to view as "authentic" showed they were men. It is merely coincidence that any evidence that points to women having a broader role in the church isn't properly Christian.

~:smoking:

[rvg]

What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.

She was not an apostle.

[Idaho]

She was not an apostle.

She was. She isn't now.

[rvg]

She was. She isn't now.

If that is what you choose to believe, that's okay. I believe otherwise.

[Kralizec]

atheists claim that you have to choose between God and Science

:smug:


Actually, I think the only knowledge I have of the possible historical orgiin of the flood is that same TV program!

This is unacceptable. Choose between your TV and your religion. Now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.

Have you read said Gospel? All extant evidence point to Mary of Bethany a.k.a. Mary Magdelene as most likely Jesus "wife", not an Apostle, in the sense of one of his inner "managerial" circle of followers, that does not mean she is not an "Apostle" in the literal sense and indeed the Roman Church describes her as "Apostle to the Apostles" because she brought them the news of the resurrection.

[Idaho]

Have you read said Gospel? All extant evidence point to Mary of Bethany a.k.a. Mary Magdelene as most likely Jesus "wife", not an Apostle, in the sense of one of his inner "managerial" circle of followers, that does not mean she is not an "Apostle" in the literal sense and indeed the Roman Church describes her as "Apostle to the Apostles" because she brought them the news of the resurrection.


So does that mean that women can be popes but not priests?

Or is it just another story to pick and choose at like the rest of the Bible?

[rory_20_uk]

So does that mean that women can be popes but not priests?

Or is it just another story to pick and choose at like the rest of the Bible?

One might as well. The Bible itself is picking and choosing - viewed by many as a document whose content has withstood the test of time, remaining inviolate over the years... Even though there are so many different versions and translations. To try and get a logical approach to this would hardly fit with belief in any case.

~:smoking:

[CountArach]

To be fair I dont think PVC has ever said it's literal ever.
I never said he did, I was responding to the article.

God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives.
The problem with that point of view (and I don't doubt that it is relatively popular) is that then how do we know what constitutes a good life without interpreting the poetry? "Good" is such a relative term that in order to objectivise it, as religious groups seek to do, it must be based on something and that something is the interpretation of the bible. Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.

[Lemur]

Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.
Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.

Difficult moral decisions will always be difficult. (Exemplum gratum: You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.)

I believe we as a species tend to over-complicate our relationship with the Divine. "Do good works" can be fairly easily derived from the Golden Rule, as per Rabbi Hillel. Nothing is going to make moral quandaries any less quandaratic (yes, I know that word doesn't exist, but it should).

[CountArach]

Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.
Exactly, some people need clarity in their lives, whether it is based on sound reasoning or not.

You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.
Drop both babies. Repopulate the planet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So does that mean that women can be popes but not priests?

Or is it just another story to pick and choose at like the rest of the Bible?

If "the Bible" were any other document you would have no problem with the practice of sifting it and trying to place a value on it's constituant parts. Demanding an all-or-nothing approach from Christians when you're an atheist is asking them to build your strawman for you.


One might as well. The Bible itself is picking and choosing - viewed by many as a document whose content has withstood the test of time, remaining inviolate over the years... Even though there are so many different versions and translations. To try and get a logical approach to this would hardly fit with belief in any case.

~:smoking:

This is not a particularly accurate representation of the Biblical text. The Bible has been translated into most languages, but it has not been translated "through" them, all modern stranslation are based on Greek and Hebrew prototypes, it has got to the point that they are all based on the same protoypes. Further, as Greek and Hebrew are languages designed for accurate scribal reproduction erros are (relatively) easy to pick up. This is no way eliminates scribal error, but it goes a very long way to mitigating it.

As to a "logical" approach, philology and textual criticism were developed for the Bible.


I never said he did, I was responding to the article.

The problem with that point of view (and I don't doubt that it is relatively popular) is that then how do we know what constitutes a good life without interpreting the poetry? "Good" is such a relative term that in order to objectivise it, as religious groups seek to do, it must be based on something and that something is the interpretation of the bible. Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.

Moral "grey areas" are where you have a decision you don't want to make. You will never be in a situation where two decisions are actually morally equivilent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.

Difficult moral decisions will always be difficult. (Exemplum gratum: You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.)

Quite simply, I would roll onto my back and place the babes on my chest. In this way I would turn myself into a human raft, this is the only solution which offers a chance of us all surviving, and it has the added advantage that it conserves my evergy if I live, and I should remain bouyant if I die, therefore increasing the chances the babes will survive and be resuced.

The key thing here is that both from a traditional moral and utilitarian standpoint the priority should be to save the babies becauce A: they are helpless and B: they are the next generation.


I believe we as a species tend to over-complicate our relationship with the Divine. "Do good works" can be fairly easily derived from the Golden Rule, as per Rabbi Hillel. Nothing is going to make moral quandaries any less quandaratic (yes, I know that word doesn't exist, but it should).

I detest this concept of the "Golden Rule", repricocity is all well and good, but self sacrifice in the interests of other is far superior. If everybody does as he would be done to some will take with the justification that you should only have what you can take and hold - and they will take until taken from. On the other hand, if everyone seeks the best for others and not themselves everyone will be looked after.

[rory_20_uk]

This is not a particularly accurate representation of the Biblical text. The Bible has been translated into most languages, but it has not been translated "through" them, all modern stranslation are based on Greek and Hebrew prototypes, it has got to the point that they are all based on the same protoypes. Further, as Greek and Hebrew are languages designed for accurate scribal reproduction erros are (relatively) easy to pick up. This is no way eliminates scribal error, but it goes a very long way to mitigating it.

There's the Catholic Bible. And the Protestant Bible. And the Coptic Bible. And the Greek Orthodox bible. And several others that I've forgotten.

They're different, containing different books. And all are of course the right one.


Quite simply, I would roll onto my back and place the babes on my chest. In this way I would turn myself into a human raft, this is the only solution which offers a chance of us all surviving, and it has the added advantage that it conserves my evergy if I live, and I should remain bouyant if I die, therefore increasing the chances the babes will survive and be resuced.

So, given the outcomes you were initially advised about, all three would die - as soon as you go under, the babies roll off. Although typical of the answer to this type of theoretical question with defined boundaries.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

I detest this concept of the "Golden Rule", repricocity is all well and good, but self sacrifice in the interests of other is far superior.
I've got a Matthew 7:12 in my back pocket that would question this line of reasoning. Anyway, self-sacrifice is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. As you illustrate in your answer to my silly hypothetical, sacrificing yourself for a child is almost always the right thing. Immolating yourself in the service of, say, a cult leader? A politician? An abstract cause? Not so much.


So, given the outcomes you were initially advised about, all three would die - as soon as you go under, the babies roll off. Although typical of the answer to this type of theoretical question with defined boundaries.
My hypothetical was just that, and I see no problem with his answer. Might work, might not, but it's a valid choice. PVC would choose the riskiest move in hopes of saving both children. (I plucked that example, by the way, from a real-life case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4137053.stm) that shook me up pretty badly when I read about it a few years ago.)

[Idaho]

One might as well. The Bible itself is picking and choosing - viewed by many as a document whose content has withstood the test of time, remaining inviolate over the years... Even though there are so many different versions and translations. To try and get a logical approach to this would hardly fit with belief in any case.

~:smoking:

And now we get to the nub of it. Yes it's fine for belief to be belief if it's just someone's fancy or hobby. Challenging this would seem pointless and would interfering with someone's personal, spiritual domain. It's when these unsubstantiated beliefs are used to make decisions and judgements. When they are used to define a nation's moral imperative or justify political pressure on a raft of social policy, then we should certainly challenge them and demand a higher standard of rationale.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've got a Matthew 7:12 in my back pocket that would question this line of reasoning. Anyway, self-sacrifice is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. As you illustrate in your answer to my silly hypothetical, sacrificing yourself for a child is almost always the right thing. Immolating yourself in the service of, say, a cult leader? A politician? An abstract cause? Not so much.

Well, if you Matthew's whole Gospel in your back pocket you would know that it says, essentailly "Love God, Love oneanother, forgive your enemies, tollerate evil done against you, give to those who ask."

The fact is, everybody sane already lives by the Golden rule - those who kill to feed their drug habit doubtless believe that another would kill them to feed their own habit. Ask a man why he does a thing and his response is invariably "he would have done the same to me" and this holds no matter how grievous the offence. Certainly, there are those who wilfully cause suffering in the full knowledge that they are extraordinary, we call these people "evil".

If you don't believe me, look at what people post on the Org here.

Beyond that, it is a simple fact that if everybody who had food gave to everybody who was hungry we would have no starvation in the world and everyone would be fed. That is what I mean by "self sacrifice", giving for others at your own expense - not some sort of valorisation of suicide or deliberate flagelation.


And now we get to the nub of it. Yes it's fine for belief to be belief if it's just someone's fancy or hobby. Challenging this would seem pointless and would interfering with someone's personal, spiritual domain. It's when these unsubstantiated beliefs are used to make decisions and judgements. When they are used to define a nation's moral imperative or justify political pressure on a raft of social policy, then we should certainly challenge them and demand a higher standard of rationale.

I have beliefs, you have beliefs. I think mine are right, you think yours are right. We both use those beliefs to guide our actions, but only one of us thinks the other shouldn't act on his beliefs.

You should be more tollerant.

And don't give me any "you guys burned people at the stake" nonsense - because I never did that, or anything like it, and my hands are clean of those particular sins.

[Idaho]

No we differ. I don't think my beliefs are right. I know they are often seem right, but some are irrational and cause me to make mistakes, or to snap to incorrect judgements. I challenge my beliefs, I try to look at the assumptions behind them, of the ways I need to change.

I'm sure if I pottered through the world I could find a religion that reinforced my existing beliefs, and gave me the confidence never to question again. But I reject that course.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No we differ. I don't think my beliefs are right. I know they are often seem right, but some are irrational and cause me to make mistakes, or to snap to incorrect judgements. I challenge my beliefs, I try to look at the assumptions behind them, of the ways I need to change.

I'm sure if I pottered through the world I could find a religion that reinforced my existing beliefs, and gave me the confidence never to question again. But I reject that course.

No we don't differ

That, sir, is the entire By-Our-Lady point.

I said you think your beliefs are right, not that you are utterly wedded to them.

Of course because I'm a Christian you probably suppose I don't know what "thinking" means.

[Tuuvi]

No we differ. I don't think my beliefs are right. I know they are often seem right, but some are irrational and cause me to make mistakes, or to snap to incorrect judgements. I challenge my beliefs, I try to look at the assumptions behind them, of the ways I need to change.

I'm sure if I pottered through the world I could find a religion that reinforced my existing beliefs, and gave me the confidence never to question again. But I reject that course.

Belonging to a religion doesn't necessarily mean having the confidence never to question it again. Faith has to be maintained, and I think asking questions can make it stronger. People who won't question their beliefs are afraid of losing them, in my opinion.

[lars573]

I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.
The show I watched put for the thesis that the flood story came to the Israelites through Babylon. Who themselves heard it from the Sumerians. And that "Noah" was the King of Ur. Who washed out to sea on his trade barge with his family by a catastrophic flood of the Euphrates. And that he ended up somewhere in the Persian Gulf called Dilmum (they theorized that it might be Bahrain).

[Idaho]

No we don't differ

That, sir, is the entire By-Our-Lady point.

I said you think your beliefs are right, not that you are utterly wedded to them.

Of course because I'm a Christian you probably suppose I don't know what "thinking" means.
I thought the very essence of faith was not to doubt and question?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I thought the very essence of faith was not to doubt and question?

No, Faith is believing something despite a lack of definative proof - to doubt and question is human.

"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Rowan Williams said there was a "certain generation" that did not know what religion was actually about, funilly enough I immidiately thought of you.

[Strike For The South]

God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives

False, salvation only comes through the acceptance of Christ. Christians are called upon to do more but there is only one way to get the prize at the end.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

False, salvation only comes through the acceptance of Christ. Christians are called upon to do more but there is only one way to get the prize at the end.

But you don't believe in God any more, do you?

So you obviously didn't buy into that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But you don't believe in God any more, do you?

So you obviously didn't buy into that.

Once Saved Always Saved/Perseverance of the Saints?

PVC the Calvinist?

[Strike For The South]

But you don't believe in God any more, do you?

So you obviously didn't buy into that.


I think their is always a posibilty that people only believe due to fear.

The thought is that Jesus is who he says he is and his veiws should be heeded

But most people only beilive due to threat of punishment

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Once Saved Always Saved/Perseverance of the Saints?

PVC the Calvinist?

Any more of that and you'll meet PVC-in-Jerusalem-circa-1092 AD.


I think their is always a posibilty that people only believe due to fear.

The thought is that Jesus is who he says he is and his veiws should be heeded

But most people only beilive due to threat of punishment

No, I don't think so. People can be cowed into outward observance by fear - but that isn't the same as faith or even belief.

[Papewaio]

Moral "grey areas" are where you have a decision you don't want to make. You will never be in a situation where two decisions are actually morally equivilent.

Never is an infinitely large statement.

What about the lady who had to choose which of her twins would survive, the other to be gassed?

I'm sure there is some Boolean situations where it is one survivor or the other.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Never is an infinitely large statement.

What about the lady who had to choose which of her twins would survive, the other to be gassed?

I'm sure there is some Boolean situations where it is one survivor or the other.

I don't think so - and your example is fundamentally flawed, she isn't given a fictional "choice" she's presented with a choice as a means of tortur - if she chose neither the choice would be made for her.

[rory_20_uk]

If she chose neither, both would be killed. I recall that one sadist in Nazi Germany liked to play that "game" with mothers and children.

~:smoking:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Moral "grey areas" are where you have a decision you don't want to make. You will never be in a situation where two decisions are actually morally equivilent.

But don't you think there are often situations where the two decisions are close enough that we would have to have an arrogant idea of our own infallibility to judge them as distinct? They are practically equivalent in that case. And other times it's clear upon reflection, or from a distance, what the right thing is, but the person had to make the decision in a few seconds or was under pressure, etc...

[Lemur]

But don't you think there are often situations where the two decisions are close enough that we would have to have an arrogant idea of our own infallibility to judge them as distinct? They are practically equivalent in that case. And other times it's clear upon reflection, or from a distance, what the right thing is, but the person had to make the decision in a few seconds or was under pressure, etc...
Agree 100%. Even if a situation might be clear in hindsight, or with more information, or more reflection, we usually have to make a decision in the moment. Turn right or left? Blue pill or red pill? Ask Judy or Susan to the prom? Is this a dagger I see before me?

We are (by design) imperfect creatures who must function with imperfect knowledge. That's how we're made, and it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that. You can no more get angry at people for being imperfect than you can get mad at a donut for having a hole in the middle; it's meant to be that way.

As I said earlier, moral quandaries will always be tough, no matter your creed, philosophy or faith.

[Rhyfelwyr]

My take on that moral dilemna is that the mother should love her children so much that she is completely irrational and tries to save them both.

[Montmorency]

She should save the one she hates least.

[Papewaio]

I don't think so - and your example is fundamentally flawed, she isn't given a fictional "choice" she's presented with a choice as a means of tortur - if she chose neither the choice would be made for her.

Well it wasn't a fictional scenario as these happened.

Also you always have a choice. However hers were twin A, twin B, or both if she forfeit the saddists game. Fourth choice to fight back and herself, both the twins and anyone else the guards decided to group punish.

Her next choice was to approach the situation with terror, grace, vengeance, tooth and claw. Even in the death camps no one could strip you of that last choice of choosing your emotive zone.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But don't you think there are often situations where the two decisions are close enough that we would have to have an arrogant idea of our own infallibility to judge them as distinct? They are practically equivalent in that case. And other times it's clear upon reflection, or from a distance, what the right thing is, but the person had to make the decision in a few seconds or was under pressure, etc...

Surely, whether we make the right choice is distinct from whether there is a right choice? Saying, "oh, it's too hard, I can't choose" is abdicating responsibility, which I consider morally reprehensible.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Surely, whether we make the right choice is distinct from whether there is a right choice? Saying, "oh, it's too hard, I can't choose" is abdicating responsibility, which I consider morally reprehensible.

That's not true. If it's a legitimately hard choice then it probably doesn't matter which you choose. This happens all the time. The people at fault are the ones who are determined to pick out one option as moral and the other as immoral...they make incorrect judgments about people...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's not true. If it's a legitimately hard choice then it probably doesn't matter which you choose. This happens all the time. The people at fault are the ones who are determined to pick out one option as moral and the other as immoral...they make incorrect judgments about people...

Rubbish.

If one is to try to choose the less immoral choice (note, not the "moral" one) one must first decide that one choice is more less immoral.

A "legitimately hard" choice is the only kind that you'll ever need to make, easy choices aren't really choices at all.

Looking at it another way, anything you do is some kind of choice - including doing nothing.

Classic example of a "hard" choice: Your city is besieged, the besieging general asks you to sacrifice one specific baby and he will leave - or he will raise your city to the ground and kill everyone.

This looks like a "hard" choice but it isn't, you just have to decide whether to take the traditionally "moral" course or the "utilitarian" one. The former says that killing the baby is wrong, end of, so you stand, fight and probably die. The latter says that letting all those people die for the sake of one life is wrong, so you kill the baby and hopefully the general goes away.

Of course, the reality is that the choice you have isn't as simple as our titular despot would have you believe, resist and the city might not fall, capitulate and the city may be destroyed anyway.

Presented with Sophie's Choice I would say that the morally "superior" decision is to try to kill the guard. There are, after all, far fewer guards than prisoners by an order of matgnitude, if every prisoner fought to the death attrition would wear the guards down until eventually there were none left and no one would be presented with that "choice" again.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It seems like you are going off on multiple other tangents :shrug:

If you have made a promise to someone, but there is a strong reason to break it, and you can't quite figure out which is the moral course...it's often an illusion to think that there is a huge gap between the two options. In some cases you could literally flip a coin. I can't imagine why you think it is morally reprehensible to acknowledge that sometimes it's a tough break either way and you just have to pick.

Any system of morality that focuses on actions instead of people and uses bunches of strange theoretical situations is terrible.

edit: I think you will go nowhere with these generals nazi's babies examples. Simply enough, consider two values that can oppose each other. For example, family loyalty and legal justice. That kind of choice in many scenarios can easily make you throw your hands up in the air, you see that? In many cases like that I wouldn't even feel bad towards someone who made what I was pretty sure was the wrong choice, just because I can see what value they were going after and I don't think it's easy to do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seems like you are going off on multiple other tangents :shrug:

If you have made a promise to someone, but there is a strong reason to break it, and you can't quite figure out which is the moral course...it's often an illusion to think that there is a huge gap between the two options. In some cases you could literally flip a coin. I can't imagine why you think it is morally reprehensible to acknowledge that sometimes it's a tough break either way and you just have to pick.

Any system of morality that focuses on actions instead of people and uses bunches of strange theoretical situations is terrible.

edit: I think you will go nowhere with these generals nazi's babies examples. Simply enough, consider two values that can oppose each other. For example, family loyalty and legal justice. That kind of choice in many scenarios can easily make you throw your hands up in the air, you see that? In many cases like that I wouldn't even feel bad towards someone who made what I was pretty sure was the wrong choice, just because I can see what value they were going after and I don't think it's easy to do.


There was one conherent point there, enforced choices are immoral and you should fight them. I'm sorry if the examples were poorly framed.

As to your examples, those are easy.

Never break your word and uphold the law over any familial loyalty, unless the law is unjust in which case oppose it over any loyalty.

Loyalty implies oathtaking, lawbreakers are oathbreakers - outlaws and felons - you don't owe them anything because they cannot be trusted.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As to your examples, those are easy.

Never break your word and uphold the law over any familial loyalty, unless the law is unjust in which case oppose it over any loyalty.

Loyalty implies oathtaking, lawbreakers are oathbreakers - outlaws and felons - you don't owe them anything because they cannot be trusted.

Very interesting. I don't agree in the slightest :D

Is it really easy to never ever break a promise and send your loved ones off to jail for their mistakes? Somehow I doubt it...

[Sigurd]

I tend to agree with Philipvs. I don't know why... Maybe we all adhere to different moral codes based on life situation/ upbringing etc.
I could never choose between my daughters. I would have attempted to save both or died trying. No philosopher juggle could change this.

[rory_20_uk]

Never break your word and uphold the law over any familial loyalty, unless the law is unjust in which case oppose it over any loyalty.

Loyalty implies oathtaking, lawbreakers are oathbreakers - outlaws and felons - you don't owe them anything because they cannot be trusted.

Sorry. Family first, second and third. Doing what's right is the same as doing what is right for one's family.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Very interesting. I don't agree in the slightest :D

Is it really easy to never ever break a promise and send your loved ones off to jail for their mistakes? Somehow I doubt it...

I didn't say it was easy to do, just easy to decide.

Surely you can appreciate the difference?


Sorry. Family first, second and third. Doing what's right is the same as doing what is right for one's family.

~:smoking:

I see no reason why this should be so. If my son were a rapist I would shop him to the police myself so I didn't have to beat him to death. Family loyalty is a fine thing, but it has to be reciprocated.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I didn't say it was easy to do, just easy to decide.

Surely you can appreciate the difference?


I don't think the difference is important in this case...isn't the point exactly that someone working on strictly theoretical grounds can work out a whole system, but that those things have little application in real life? Also I agree with rory. Certainly the image of a husband being like "Yes officer, she WAS speeding" when they get pulled over is pretty silly don't you think? Is it telling that you picked one of the worst crimes for your example?

[rory_20_uk]

I see no reason why this should be so. If my son were a rapist I would shop him to the police myself so I didn't have to beat him to death. Family loyalty is a fine thing, but it has to be reciprocated.

There is no reason. It is simply my belief.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is no reason. It is simply my belief.

~:smoking:

Fair enough, but it isn't mine.

[Kadagar_AV]

Church leaders do not believe in a literal understanding of the Bible

Title kind of makes sense. To be a leader you need some sort of brain, also in a church. So how could it possibly come as a surprise that church leaders in fact question the literal understanding of a book several hundred years old?

[Papewaio]

There is no reason. It is simply my belief.

~:smoking:

I take it you rank primitive genes above civilized memes?

Surely then you can't be against honour killings as it is about family first.

And how about if you found out a favourite uncle was molesting an unrelated child?

I'm sure there is a few areas where you still rank memes above genes...

[rory_20_uk]

I take it you rank primitive genes above civilized memes?

Surely then you can't be against honour killings as it is about family first.

And how about if you found out a favourite uncle was molesting an unrelated child?

I'm sure there is a few areas where you still rank memes above genes...

Honour killings are about killing one's family. That's hardly putting them first. And I am pretty confident that my family would not do such a thing. I am not concerned with what other families get up to, if it doesn't break the law. Honour killings does break UK law and hence should be stopped.

Uncle kiddie fiddler? Yes, that is a toughie. First off, I take it I'm certain my children are unaffected? Else his castrated body is going under a pile of lime in woodland. Past that point I would imagine it would be a case of getting support whilst trying to ensure the welfare of children.

In the general society I rank memes above genes as I have no particular interest in the genetic make up of general society. They are not mine so I have far less loyalty to them. Blood is thicker than water etc.

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

Church leaders do not believe in a literal understanding of the Bible

Title kind of makes sense. To be a leader you need some sort of brain, also in a church. So how could it possibly come as a surprise that church leaders in fact question the literal understanding of a book several hundred years old?

And out of nowhere Kad comes streaking in from the far post

I guess now that springtime is almost here there are no more housewives on the slope

What a tragedy