Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[HoodedRat]

For reasons of upbringing and certain experiences, I find it very difficult to operate on anything but an objective basis (which makes chaos of my ability to relate to others or have a social life, except generally when wonderful people like Swerve drop into my life). Indeed I have spent many, many hours in therapy working to attempt to be able to respond in any way but objective analysis.

.....

 

[dpnice]

Only if you think learning three languages and taking a good fifty hours of college courses to investigate it qualifies as not "very far".

Yet it seems my Oxford degree in Applied Education, two languages and a career in teaching is not sufficient to participate at your level.

 

[Kulindahr]

--I drew a sharp line of division between Hinduism and the Abrahamics? What? I compared them.

--The Abrahamics singularly don't invent more data? What does that mean?

--The Abrahamics don't share a single body of beliefs. That's what I said, at least. Right? Or do you believe Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share a single body of beliefs?

By the way, I don't subscribe to the notions of 'divine communication', 'claimants', 'revelation,' 'disqualifications,' etc that you've appended to this conversation. If that's important to your understanding of "false" religions and irrationality, cool. But it has nothing to do with any of the posts that I've made.

Yes, you drew a sharp line of distinction when you pointed out that Hinduism has no set corpus of beliefs.

In none of the Abrahamic religions is it legitimate to invent more data, which is to add to the existing set -- the various canons are closed (though the Christian one is not as closed as is commonly assumed; the ancient councils and Fathers established not one homogeneous canon, but a series of levels of acceptance).

That the Abrahamics don't share a single set of beliefs is irrelevant; each has a closed corpus, so they are completely unlike Hinduism, where you say no one has a closed corpus.

The terms of mine you listed are relevant because they indicate why I am a Christian. It seems to be the common assumption that I am one because I "like" Christianity, but in fact I am one because I concluded from science that there must be a Creator, noted that there were many claims of communication from that Creator, and set out to decide which if any of those claims was sound. I came on the historical case for Christ and could not refute it -- and though I see challenges from time to time, an even want to walk away from time to time, that historical case still stands. Thus I am a Christian because of the evidence.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hey! This is a discussion thread! What are all these internet pictures doing here?

And Johan! You better get cracking. The discussion thread is starting to get more hits than the farip thread.

(I give it a week.)

I suspect the FARIP thread has slowed down because the Code of Conduct is being given attention.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yet it seems my Oxford degree in Applied Education, two languages and a career in teaching is not sufficient to participate at your level.

Do those pertain to the matter at hand? What I referenced does -- those three languages are good for nothing except studying the ancient texts and related ones, and the fifty hours of college courses pertained to the matter at hand (specifically history and culture of the ancient near east with emphasis on the ancient Hebrews, Old Testament history with reference to the former, etc.).

When I wrote that, I forgot to include eight hours of graduate-level studies on ancient manuscripts, dating, textual criticism, etc., so it's more like sixty hours than fifty.


And FWIW, I began all that because I got tired of listening to preachers claim "the Greek says this" and "the Hebrew says that" and from a dozen different preachers get a score of different 'meanings' for the same thing, which led me to suspect they were looking words up in a fancy concordance and making guesses without actually having learned the languages. So I took ancient Greek, whereupon it became obvious that just knowing the language isn't enough, something that was even more obvious when I went on to ancient Hebrew, so I dove into the history and culture.

Once I'd done that, the Bible never looked the same again -- and it looked totally different from what all the fundamentalists try to paint it as! It also looked totally different than anything I'd expected, and in many ways different than I wished (just as an example, the fact that the best Hebrew text we have for one of the minor prophets [I forget which just now] is pretty much utter gibberish is truly bothersome).

 

[Jacquemar]

I don't understand why people are arguing with Kulindahr?? You'd have more luck attempting to imbibe knowledge from a book under your pillow than you would of convincing him that he is anyway wrong or mistaken.

It's also incredible to me that a person with Kulindahr's erudition would be wasting his time arguing his points to us peons in an obscure forum on the internet where practically nobody but the unworthy will see them, rather than in a scholarly symposium.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't understand why people are arguing with Kulindahr?? You'd have more luck attempting to imbibe knowledge from a book under your pillow than you would of convincing him that he is anyway wrong or mistaken.

It's also incredible to me that a person with Kulindahr's erudition would be wasting his time arguing his points to us peons in an obscure forum on the internet where practically nobody but the unworthy will see them, rather than in a scholarly symposium.

I found your original version of this more interesting.

I acquired most of my expertise in the area before I encountered JUB, indeed back before I allowed myself to admit I was a sexual being (let alone look at where my attractions lay). Since then I read on average twenty books a year to continue that.

As for why here (though it's not the only place), my definition of "worthy" would be taken from the concepts of the Gospel: those who most need to hear. I got bored with most scholarly-type forums, where fanatics argue nitpicky and often obscure points, and I'm presently on a sort of vacation from more general Christian forums where fundamentalists especially need to hear what I've learned (I kind of burnt out fast when I accepted a position as a moderator on one, covering science and theism -- if you guys think I get lectury and pedantic about religious points, this is nothing to how I went after science idiocy and especially combined religious-scientific idiocy). At any rate, in my view those here are more worthy than the duds common in scholarly forums.


As for convincing me I'm wrong or mistaken, that has happened on JUB a number of times. Mostly it's taught me to not speak up unless I know I'm on solid ground.


BTW, I don't see a great deal of arguing here, except from people whining about feeling insulted -- I'm seeing useful discussion mostly. Though one post slipped out of me that I could wish I hadn't posted, and I almost asked a mod to remove it, I'm leaving it because I think it does help in communication.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Yes, you drew a sharp line of distinction when you pointed out that Hinduism has no set corpus of beliefs.

In none of the Abrahamic religions is it legitimate to invent more data, which is to add to the existing set -- the various canons are closed (though the Christian one is not as closed as is commonly assumed; the ancient councils and Fathers established not one homogeneous canon, but a series of levels of acceptance).

That the Abrahamics don't share a single set of beliefs is irrelevant; each has a closed corpus, so they are completely unlike Hinduism, where you say no one has a closed corpus.

...

What I pointed out was that Hinduism has no single corpus of beliefs. Do please stop substituting the word "set." That's your fallible language.

Also, please establish what you mean by "closed corpus" before you attribute such language to me. I don't know what that's supposed to mean, and haven't used the phrase.

Lastly, can you please try to understand the comparison I made, by your own language, that recognizes that both Abrahamic religions and Hindu religions DO NOT share a single body of beliefs?

 

[johaninsc]

I suspect the FARIP thread has slowed down because the Code of Conduct is being given attention.

Allow me to put your suspicions to rest.

I've been spending the better part of my 'net time keeping up with events in Washington while hunting for pics and memes for the Trump this thread in CE&P and trolling Trumptards and Russian trolls on other sites.

Johan's been a busy boy.

...and as far as the CoC is concerned, I've never been called down by the Jub Mods for anything I've ever posted in the anti-religipic thread.

Their interpretation of the CoC matters to me.

Yours does not.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

I suspect the FARIP thread has slowed down because the Code of Conduct is being given attention.

No, FARIP is back to its old standards: quality over quantity.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, FARIP is back to its old standards: quality over quantity.

I'm glad to know that to you lies, fallacies, and slurs count as "quality".

But the quality is up since the split. If it goes back to being a gutter, I fully intend to start a "Funny Anti-Racial Internet Pic" thread and a "Funny Anti-Liberal Internet Pic" thread just to demonstrate what you guys have been up to. And if those don't fly, then FARIP should vanish as well.

 

[Kulindahr]

What I pointed out was that Hinduism has no single corpus of beliefs. Do please stop substituting the word "set." That's your fallible language.

Also, please establish what you mean by "closed corpus" before you attribute such language to me. I don't know what that's supposed to mean, and haven't used the phrase.

Lastly, can you please try to understand the comparison I made, by your own language, that recognizes that both Abrahamic religions and Hindu religions DO NOT share a single body of beliefs?

"Set" is just a different formal way of saying the same thing as "corpus". So a "closed corpus" is a closed set. You said "single corpus" which would have to be closed to be single; if there is no single corpus there is no closed corpus. Since "religions of the book" have a closed corpus which serves as data, the use of the word "set" is entirely appropriate -- indeed more clear than "corpus", as it indicates something strictly delineated... so it's less "fallible" than "corpus", if anything.

 

[zoltanspawn]

"Set" is just a different formal way of saying the same thing as "corpus". So a "closed corpus" is a closed set. You said "single corpus" which would have to be closed to be single; if there is no single corpus there is no closed corpus. Since "religions of the book" have a closed corpus which serves as data, the use of the word "set" is entirely appropriate -- indeed more clear than "corpus", as it indicates something strictly delineated... so it's less "fallible" than "corpus", if anything.

The Abrahamic Religions don't share a single body of beliefs.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Johan's been a busy boy.

And we appreciate you.

 

[Kulindahr]

I had a friend who was in seminary (Lutheran) a few years back tell me they held a debate over whether or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons; citations from scripture and any church Fathers were allowed. In the end it came down to whether one thinks that the two would have exhibited everything in their DNA, and then whether human DNA results necessarily in a belly button.

Could have been fun.

 

[Kulindahr]

When you consider that if He had, the people would have stared, laughed, and gone looking for some sensible gods.

Even the Creator is limited by what people are willing to put up with. The history of ancient Israel is a testimony to how poorly they followed even the limited strictures actually handed down -- so while yes, history would have been different, it would have been different in that things would have been worse, not better.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hmm.

Except the former of those was founded by a man who fought in battles and consummated a marriage with a girl when she was 9 or 10, while the other was begun by one who said to turn the other cheek and do good to your enemies, it's evident that one can not unreasonably be called "fucked up" while the other is something society is still struggling to live up to.

 

[Kulindahr]

Someone needs to study some history. Science is just as filled with arrogance, rejection of new ideas, professional jealousy and sabotage, and the like as any other human endeavor. The fallacy here is comparing the ideal in one area with the worst failings in the other. That could be applied backwards to show just the opposite of what this purports -- and it would be just as wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a fallacy in this one, too: it restricts the definition of "proof" to one favorable to the one making the challenge, thus enabling the ignoring of any evidence that may be presented.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Abrahamic Religions don't share a single body of beliefs.

And they're not the same religion. Each has a closed set of "data".

Hinduism is supposedly one religion, and it has no defined set of "data".