Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

[rjd970]

What? You're being obtuse.

Natural theology isn't new. Read Aristotle and Aquinas and get back to me.

OK, then what makes Aristotle and Aquinas philosophy anything more than relativistic opinion?

 

[Deputy Fife]

Natural theology isn't new. Read Aristotle and Aquinas and get back to me.

Yep, Aquinas really used his Christianity to improve upon Aristotle:

Saint Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225-1274.

He was a Dominican.

The Dominicans from their inception were dedicated to the extirpation of heresy, namely Albigensianism.

In his Summa theologiae II-II, q. 11. a. 3, he writes: “Therefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.”

Thomas, in accord with the Old Testament and the New Testament (Romans 13), that the death penalty is a present reality and a right of the secular prince.

Murderers kill the body and they get the death penalty.

Heretical teachers kill the soul.

Killing the souls is much worse for the Church and for secular culture.

Therefore, heresiarchs should receive the death penalty.

Thomas repeats his belief about six times. He’s very confident about it being the teaching of the Catholic Church.

There's nothing intellectual about your brand of theology, no meaningful difference between you and Billy Graham when you both believe that humans are immortal.

What a coincidence that the theologian, engaged in a purported honest effort to understand reality, concludes that he will never truly die. That just screams objectivity.

 

[Roustabout]

Give me a secular argument against homosexuality between consenting adults in private.

I'll work this into the response on down the line.

That source is human intelligence working on difficult questions, slowly breaking the chains of our primitive origins by using tools such as empathy, compromise, and discussion to bring about mutual understanding and peace. No god required.

Thanks for proving my point. you once again demonstrate that you don't understand the epistemological and ontological distinctions. You are talking (theorizing) how we might come to KNOW whether something is right or wrong, better or worse. Not whether it IS actually that way. After all, if we are STILL evolving then how can you make a claim that this is objectively BETTER? Perhaps you just haven't evolved enough to know that. You've imported all these terms such as empathy and compromise without grounding them in any way. Yet, you are implying that there is some measure of whether one moral system is better than another. Please account for this.

We evolved the intelligence to understand that the short-term benefits derived from consuming one's children are less than sufficient arguments for doing it considering the long-term cost. Your wish-world definition of "natural" means exactly nothing as both infanticide and homosexuality are naturally occurring behaviors. That of course doesn't mean we should treat them equally. Eating kids causes more harm than sex between consenting adults, and a gay man is no more likely to prey upon a young boy than a heterosexual man is to abuse a little girl.

Arbitrary and question begging. Who cares what benefits the human race? Humans? Well, that is question begging. Perhaps i could show you, scientifically, where humans are exacting more harm on the planet and other species. And, even if humans drastically curbed their current behavior, it would have little effect on future impact? Would you kill yourself out of a sense of altruism and the greater good? I seriously doubt it. You will presuppose that human value has some intrinsic value and worth, but you won't defend it. Instead, you'll have to quote mine Sam Harris.

This is exactly why I addressed whether those things happen in nature. This isn't a new argument. Something happening in nature is different than discussing the nature of a thing. Let's say you picked up a basketball and went to dribble it, and instead of bouncing it just went splat on the floor. The ball is defective in some way (it lacks something such as being filled with air, or it has a manufacturing defect, or is damaged). It isn't fulfilling it's nature, or what it is designed for. It's a bad ball. It's defective because it is not actualizing it's potential. Whether God or evolution designed man, there is NO argument that men and women are designed for compatibility in both physical and emotional ways. In this way, homosexuality deprives man (or woman) of actualizing the potential thy are designed for, which is pair bonding with the opposite sex. Whether that designer is nature or divine is irrelevant. It is by some defect (biological, emotional, psychological) that their attractions are confused.

Your arguments about the purpose of sex are hypocritical and inconsistent unless you also hold contempt for all forms of oral sex, masturbation, contraceptives, heterosexual anal sex, and geriatric sex.

Again, already had this same discussion in the past. You are trying to dilute and a distract a fundamental issue with other rabbit trails. It is similar to the divorce argument. The failure of a natural marriage isn't justification for same-sex marriage. Adding a broken thing to another broken thing doesn't fix anything. The fundamental discussion is whether there are ways we ought to and ought not to behave when it comes to sexual orientation and practice.

Fear of death/desire for immortality and a distaste for uncertainty are the ultimate causes of this "anti-intellectualism." Try to be honest with yourself in asking the degree to which those factors have influenced your beliefs.

This is just an emotional appeal. I can flip this and throw it right back on you. Maybe it is your fear or an objective moral law giver that causes you to lash out against Christianity.

Regarding Aquinas. Your attempting to poison the well. Example. Jimmy failed his math test. Why? He missed a question. If he missed one question that means his answers must be wrong on all other questions. You are attempting to dismiss the volumes of brilliant work on metaphysics (and that isn't simply my opinion) and natural theology with an unrelated subject. I don't think your reasoning skills have 'evolved' as you keep committing fallacies to make your point.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I'll work this into the response on down the line.


Thanks for proving my point. you once again demonstrate that you don't understand the epistemological and ontological distinctions. You are talking (theorizing) how we might come to KNOW whether something is right or wrong, better or worse. Not whether it IS actually that way. After all, if we are STILL evolving then how can you make a claim that this is objectively BETTER? Perhaps you just haven't evolved enough to know that. You've imported all these terms such as empathy and compromise without grounding them in any way. Yet, you are implying that there is some measure of whether one moral system is better than another. Please account for this.


Arbitrary and question begging. Who cares what benefits the human race? Humans? Well, that is question begging. Perhaps i could show you, scientifically, where humans are exacting more harm on the planet and other species. And, even if humans drastically curbed their current behavior, it would have little effect on future impact? Would you kill yourself out of a sense of altruism and the greater good? I seriously doubt it. You will presuppose that human value has some intrinsic value and worth, but you won't defend it. Instead, you'll have to quote mine Sam Harris.

This is exactly why I addressed whether those things happen in nature. This isn't a new argument. Something happening in nature is different than discussing the nature of a thing. Let's say you picked up a basketball and went to dribble it, and instead of bouncing it just went splat on the floor. The ball is defective in some way (it lacks something such as being filled with air, or it has a manufacturing defect, or is damaged). It isn't fulfilling it's nature, or what it is designed for. It's a bad ball. It's defective because it is not actualizing it's potential. Whether God or evolution designed man, there is NO argument that men and women are designed for compatibility in both physical and emotional ways. In this way, homosexuality deprives man (or woman) of actualizing the potential thy are designed for, which is pair bonding with the opposite sex. Whether that designer is nature or divine is irrelevant. It is by some defect (biological, emotional, psychological) that their attractions are confused.


Again, already had this same discussion in the past. You are trying to dilute and a distract a fundamental issue with other rabbit trails. It is similar to the divorce argument. The failure of a natural marriage isn't justification for same-sex marriage. Adding a broken thing to another broken thing doesn't fix anything. The fundamental discussion is whether there are ways we ought to and ought not to behave when it comes to sexual orientation and practice.


This is just an emotional appeal. I can flip this and throw it right back on you. Maybe it is your fear or an objective moral law giver that causes you to lash out against Christianity.

Regarding Aquinas. Your attempting to poison the well. Example. Jimmy failed his math test. Why? He missed a question. If he missed one question that means his answers must be wrong on all other questions. You are attempting to dismiss the volumes of brilliant work on metaphysics (and that isn't simply my opinion) and natural theology with an unrelated subject. I don't think your reasoning skills have 'evolved' as you keep committing fallacies to make your point.

I can tell you fancy yourself an intellectual, but your entire post is garbage. Your second to last point is a complete misfire. First, nobody is attacking christianity. Whenever, someone questions religion the insecure Christians start blathering on about some mythical attack on their faith. I've never met an aetheist who was scared of "objective" morals. On the other hand, I've met plenty of christians that were in fear for their immortal soul. Many christians feel the need to defend their faith, but fail to realize that it is not grounded in logic. It's FAITH. Realize that is the argument for which there is no response other than than they feel it's illogical.

Your arguments about homosexuality are grounded in unsupported assumptions. You state that a homosexual relationship fails to fulfill the primary purpose, which according to you is pair bonding. I assume the primary purpose of said pair bonding is reproduction. Now let's delve into your prior paragraph where you imply that the world would benefit from a population reduction. Could homosexuality be god's preferred method of birth control?

Why are homosexuals defective? Why not just different? For me, your presupposition that humans primary purpose is to procreate doesn't hold water. Was ben franklin's primary contribution to the world his children? What about Michelangelo? Jesus? To say homosexuals are defective is just a way in which you can candy coat your bigotry.

 

[Deputy Fife]

Regarding Aquinas. Your attempting to poison the well. Example. Jimmy failed his math test. Why? He missed a question. If he missed one question that means his answers must be wrong on all other questions. You are attempting to dismiss the volumes of brilliant work on metaphysics (and that isn't simply my opinion) and natural theology with an unrelated subject. I don't think your reasoning skills have 'evolved' as you keep committing fallacies to make your point.

Aquinas' logic vis-a-vis heretics is impeccable given the assumptions you both share about souls. You have no recourse in theology to rebut him on the subject. St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin had similar positions.

 

[Roustabout]

I can tell you fancy yourself an intellectual, but your entire post is garbage. Your second to last point is a complete misfire. First, nobody is attacking christianity. Whenever, someone questions religion the insecure Christians start blathering on about some mythical attack on their faith.

First, if you want to go through every post on religion in the history of this forum and then maintain your position, then have at it. You don't speak for everyone here, and to say nobody is attacking Christianity is hasty at best. FWIW, I have a consistent record on this forum of critiquing Christianity in a number of areas myself.

I've never met an aetheist who was scared of "objective" morals. On the other hand, I've met plenty of christians that were in fear for their immortal soul. Many christians feel the need to defend their faith, but fail to realize that it is not grounded in logic. It's FAITH. Realize that is the argument for which there is no response other than than they feel it's illogical.

OM has been a huge area of contention for secular humanists, atheists and materialists for quite some time. In fact i could likely provide a number of quotes about the subject.
Next, You are committing an error here in placing faith at odds with reason or logic. Classical Christian thinking does not promote blind faith and was the birth place of modern science and innovation. You are confusing hyper-fundamentalism with classical Christianity. If you want to attack hyper-fundamentalism, i'm with you.

Your arguments about homosexuality are grounded in unsupported assumptions. You state that a homosexual relationship fails to fulfill the primary purpose, which according to you is pair bonding. I assume the primary purpose of said pair bonding is reproduction. Now let's delve into your prior paragraph where you imply that the world would benefit from a population reduction. Could homosexuality be god's preferred method of birth control?

No, they are grounded in established biology, sociology psychology, as well as Aristotelian metaphysics. Assumptions? Hardly. Your post did nothing to address the actual points I presented.

I'm not calling for a population reduction. I'm providing an example (one i don't adhere to) to show why Fife's position is untenable and contradictory. It doesn't mean I'm advocating population reduction. So, now you are arguing with Red Herrings and Straw men.

Why are homosexuals defective? Why not just different? For me, your presupposition that humans primary purpose is to procreate doesn't hold water. Was ben franklin's primary contribution to the world his children? What about Michelangelo? Jesus? To say homosexuals are defective is just a way in which you can candy coat your bigotry.

Why are blind eyes defective and not just "different?" Why is mental illness defective and not just "different?"
Perhaps you should be more tolerant of people who hold such opinions. And, before you label somebody's entire opinion as garbage, you ought to more carefully examine what they are addressing and slow down on the ad-hominems.

 

[Roustabout]

Aquinas' logic vis-a-vis heretics is impeccable given the assumptions you both share about souls. You have no recourse in theology to rebut him on the subject. St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin had similar positions.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here.

 

[Gramps]

Not really sure what you are trying to say here.

Neither does Barney know.

 

[Deputy Fife]

Next, You are committing an error here in placing faith at odds with reason or logic. Classical Christian thinking does not promote blind faith and was the birth place of modern science and innovation. You are confusing hyper-fundamentalism with classical Christianity. If you want to attack hyper-fundamentalism, I'm with you.

You have no room to be so condescending toward honest people who aren't capable of medaling in mental gymnastics.

 

[Roustabout]

You have no room to be so condescending toward honest people who aren't capable of medaling in mental gymnastics.

And there you have it.
When Fife realizes his arguments are imploding he goes back to his old tricks.
Next, we'll hear his, "I'm not really interested, blah, blah..."

 

[SergeantVol]

I just stopped by to see if anyone needed ice....

 

[Deputy Fife]

And there you have it.
When Fife realizes his arguments are imploding he goes back to his old tricks.
Next, we'll hear his, "I'm not really interested, blah, blah..."

I can't take you and your desire to live as a slave under an arbitrary celestial dictatorship seriously. We have absolutely no evidence that our lives extend beyond the material world, yet religious people everywhere continue to insist on influencing everyone's precious time on the basis of completely unfounded concerns that the creator of the universe is a petty, ignorant, vindictive, narcissistic thug.

Formal rebuttals isn't my niche. In that regard you've been thoroughly destroyed at every turn by the few true intellectuals we have here (PKT, possibly a few others).

In the context of this discussion you've conveniently ignored the hardest questions posed to you:

OK, then what makes Aristotle and Aquinas philosophy anything more than relativistic opinion?

What is the relationship between natural law and divine/revealed law?

Instead you've tossed a few pedantic word salads, attempting a new world record for most words said without actually saying anything.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You have no room to be so condescending toward honest people who aren't capable of medaling in mental gymnastics.

As someone who cannot figure out if he is straight, gay or a monkey, you have no room to be condescending. Just admit it Barney, the only reason you post the crap you do is to get likes from other atheists on this board.

 

[FLVOL69]

As someone who cannot figure out if he is straight, gay or a monkey, you have no room to be condescending. Just admit it Barney, the only reason you post the crap you do is to get likes from other atheists on this board.

Lmao, he comes off as pretentious and whiny.

 

[Roustabout]

I can't take you and your desire to live as a slave under an arbitrary celestial dictatorship seriously. We have absolutely no evidence that our lives extend beyond the material world, yet religious people everywhere continue to insist on influencing everyone's precious time on the basis of completely unfounded concerns that the creator of the universe is a petty, ignorant, vindictive, narcissistic thug.

Formal rebuttals isn't my niche. In that regard you've been thoroughly destroyed at every turn by the few true intellectuals we have here (PKT, possibly a few others).

In the context of this discussion you've conveniently ignored the hardest questions posed to you:





Instead you've tossed a few pedantic word salads, attempting a new world record for most words said without actually saying anything.

Hah. The 'word salad' finger wag came out. You're out of tricks. Go away.

 

[Deputy Fife]

Hah. The 'word salad' finger wag came out. You're out of tricks. Go away.

I wouldn't have to keep posting if you'd just have an honest dialogue with the posters who asked you the difficult questions. Instead you've chosen to attack the low-hanging fruit in the person of me, a mere one-bullet deputy.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

First, if you want to go through every post on religion in the history of this forum and then maintain your position, then have at it. You don't speak for everyone here, and to say nobody is attacking Christianity is hasty at best. FWIW, I have a consistent record on this forum of critiquing Christianity in a number of areas myself.



OM has been a huge area of contention for secular humanists, atheists and materialists for quite some time. In fact i could likely provide a number of quotes about the subject.
Next, You are committing an error here in placing faith at odds with reason or logic. Classical Christian thinking does not promote blind faith and was the birth place of modern science and innovation. You are confusing hyper-fundamentalism with classical Christianity. If you want to attack hyper-fundamentalism, i'm with you.


No, they are grounded in established biology, sociology psychology, as well as Aristotelian metaphysics. Assumptions? Hardly. Your post did nothing to address the actual points I presented.

I'm not calling for a population reduction. I'm providing an example (one i don't adhere to) to show why Fife's position is untenable and contradictory. It doesn't mean I'm advocating population reduction. So, now you are arguing with Red Herrings and Straw men.


Why are blind eyes defective and not just "different?" Why is mental illness defective and not just "different?"
Perhaps you should be more tolerant of people who hold such opinions. And, before you label somebody's entire opinion as garbage, you ought to more carefully examine what they are addressing and slow down on the ad-hominems.

Religious faith is absolutely at odds with logic. I understand that theists will attempt to use logic to support faith, but the underpinnings of any such argument require a leap of faith. Virgin birth. Walking on water. The dead rising. Water into wine. Need i go on. Did i really read that you claimed religion was the birthplace of science? I'm sure galileo would agree.

As to your bigoted opinions of homosexuals... you are beginning with the assumption that they cannot fulfill a humans primary purpose. I have challenged your assumption and you have no answer.

I'm not tolerant of anyone who seeks to marginalize the rights of others based on religion. It's gone on too long. 50 years ago it was racism, now it's homosexuality. When will you realize that you are on the wrong side of the human rights arguments.

And yes, your post was garbage.

 

[Roustabout]

I wouldn't have to keep posting if you'd just have an honest dialogue with the posters who asked you the difficult questions. Instead you've chosen to attack the low-hanging fruit in the person of me, a mere one-bullet deputy.

Look in the mirror pal.
You asked to provide a secular argument. I did. I explained (not simply accused) the errors in your reasoning and provided examples to make it simple. And now you are running back to your old methods. You flood the board with cut and paste jobs. And then, when you are challenged to defend them, you play victim and start throwing out the word salad defense. K

 

[Roustabout]

Religious faith is absolutely at odds with logic. I understand that theists will attempt to use logic to support faith, but the underpinnings of any such argument require a leap of faith. Virgin birth. Walking on water. The dead rising. Water into wine. Need i go on. Did i really read that you claimed religion was the birthplace of science? I'm sure galileo would agree.

As to your bigoted opinions of homosexuals... you are beginning with the assumption that they cannot fulfill a humans primary purpose. I have challenged your assumption and you have no answer.

I'm not tolerant of anyone who seeks to marginalize the rights of others based on religion. It's gone on too long. 50 years ago it was racism, now it's homosexuality. When will you realize that you are on the wrong side of the human rights arguments.

And yes, your post was garbage.

Galileo was a person of faith.

Human rights? Provide an objective grounding for why humans should have rights.

Your "bigot" accusations are just fodder to poison the well.

Faith and logic arent add odds. You haven't demonstrated otherwisw. While your at it, provide a material explanation of logic.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Galileo was a person of faith.

Human rights? Provide an objective grounding for why humans should have rights.

Your "bigot" accusations are just fodder to poison the well.

Faith and logic arent add odds. You haven't demonstrated otherwisw. While your at it, provide a material explanation of logic.

Crickets. ..

 

[Roustabout]

Crickets. ..

Exactly, you can't provide a positive argument for your own worldview. So, you are left to ridicule others with platitudes and bald assertions. The sad thing, is you can't see the hilarity of 'crickets.'

 

[rjd970]

Galileo was a person of faith.

Human rights? Provide an objective grounding for why humans should have rights.

Your "bigot" accusations are just fodder to poison the well.

Faith and logic arent add odds. You haven't demonstrated otherwisw. While your at it, provide a material explanation of logic.

Galileo also wasn't vindicated, officially, by the church for 400 years. Mere speculation of the nature of the cosmos got him at the very least censored.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Exactly, you can't provide a positive argument for your own worldview. So, you are left to ridicule others with platitudes and bald assertions. The sad thing, is you can't see the hilarity of 'crickets.'

I've provided arguments against your views to which you've failed or refused to respond. You're not nearly as intelligent as you fancy yourself.

 

[Deputy Fife]

I must apologize to Rousty, for his recent contributions have not been word salads, "white noise" sure, but nothing surpassing the culinary significance of a Burger King side salad.

My general animosity, however, remains unassuaged seeing as I'd sooner kill myself than live in a universe where anything he says makes one bit of sense.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

I heard an interesting point from a mathematician. Of course we are told that smart folks don't believe in God, because they know God doesn't exist. But the mathematician said this: As a mathematician, you accept that the world is infinite. You have infinite numbers, Pi is infinite, the expanse of the universe is unknown but possibly infinite, there are countless things we do not know about our own planet let alone things outside our solar system, etc. So to say unequivocally that God doesn't exist is illogical. There is no way to know he does not exist, because it is impossible to fathom all of the infinite. So to take a negative position as a certainty is folly. To believe in God accepts that same principle, but the difference is the application of faith. Faith being the belief in the things we cannot see.