Will Obama say "So help me God" ?

[FirmaFan]

I'd love to hear the answer to your question!

Okay, way off topic, but here it goes. For those of you who don't know, the question I asked was, in modern literature classes, when learning about what books "actually" mean, why don't we just ask the author who wrote it? Well, one of the authors of the book we were studying got wind of our class and what was being taught about it. Turns out it was nothing like what she had meant when she wrote it and, understandably furious, wrote a letter to the dean of the college protesting the class. To appease the very angry author, the dean responded by saying that it was simply a small, general ed class required by all students, but was actually a meaningless course and should not be considered a threat to her work. What a thing for the dean of a college to say. It was admitted that the course that I was being FORCED to take (it was a requirement for all students if you wanted to attend the school), a class I also PAYED for in college tuition, was meaningless. I already had a fundamental hatred of general ed courses (why am I taking US history when I am a biology major, I would always ask), but in that instant, my hatred was entirely justified.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not the pendulum guy. The other Foucault.

Hey, it's not my f[STRIKE]ouc[/STRIKE]ault they had the same name!









Was that a good setup for a bad joke?

 

[Kulindahr]

If I may, I just read through this thread, and I'd like to commend Kulindahr for his erudite and spirited defense of religious belief. You have the patience of Job, a quality I lack which makes it almost impossible for me to participate in these kinds of online debates.

Uh...

I just try to teach simple things.

Kul burns straw dummies well

Well, if they'd stop posting here, I wouldn't burn them!

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, you know, Kuli, the Bible itself points out errors in its own text. Jeremiah (or was it Ezekiel? I forget so badly) said, "You have heard it said of old, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge'; but I say that every man will suffer for his own sin" (or something to that effect). Who was it that talked about the sour grapes? Wasn't it the writer of Deuteronomy? Now who was right, the lawgiver or the prophet? Clearly the latter meant to contradict the former and to deny the truth of what had previously been taught.

Any theology that asserts the inerrancy of the Bible is an unbiblical theology.

Two points:

There's a pattern there, and a lesson in it: what God allowed in one time, He corrects later (as jesus said, in his comment that "Moses allowed divorce"). Though in the case you cite, I believe (IIRC) that the prophet is correcting a misuse of a statement.
A more substantive one is to cite a prophet where it says God hates all the sacrifices and burnt offerings.....

BTW, on "inerrancy":
You'll occasionally hear educationally challenged 'evangelicals' tell you that the Church Fathers taught inerrancy, in support of their position that the Bible has no errors. They're full of wind, there, because the Biblical term that the Fathers used is an archery term, meaning that the arrow goes right where it's aimed -- it has nothing to do with errors, only with arriving on target.

 

[Kulindahr]

So, what are the principles of Objectivism? That there is a reality external to perception which is knowable and communicable in language which is translatable without slippage. (I think I've given a pretty good summary of Objectivist ontology, epistemology, and philosophy of language in a single sentence.) The Objectivist, like the Common-Sense Realist, would say things like, "Who's interpreting? I'm just reading."

Ayn Rand would have made a good Southern Baptist (apart from the god-thing).

Quite.

Now, as a Southern Baptist, would she have added "So help me God" to the inauguration oath?

 

[construct]

I'm not the one who's limited in my interpretation. Your entire post contains the assumption that an infinitely powerful being would have to use language to communicate with humans. Such a limitation would not exist. If an infinitely powerful being existed and wanted all people alive to know of his existence, such a disclosure would be effortless. The Bible even says this. So the book you've been defending just proved you wrong lol. The Bible says that the unbelievers will be humbled before God's majesty when he returns. No words would be necessary.

I (along with traditional Christianity) would go further. When truth is purported to be captured in language, it has already lost its status as absolute. Language is by its very nature relative, historically and temporally determined. The statements which are purported to be true are operative only within the discursive field on which they are deployed. Thus no linguistic structure is capable of containing absolute truth. (Ayn Rand and Thomas Reid were wrong.)

Traditional Christianity finds its final revelation not in a book but in an event--the Christ-event. I, however, have relativized even that. My rejection of Christianity goes deeper than a rejection of a book. It is instead a rejection of a person and his teachings as well as the teachings of others about him. It is all merely a series of time-bound statements--each attempting to capture and preserve an absolute truth about an objective reality that does not exist.

Should Obama say "So help me God"? Why not? Does this signifier have a referent? (I don't think so.) Does it even have a signified? (Maybe, but it's slippery at best.) As it stands, it is mere ceremonial language with no specifically religious content whatsoever.

 

[Kulindahr]

You need to stop your personal war of words with me and you need to stop it now. I've said I'm not arguing anymore because it's not going anywhere, yet you continue your pathetic attempts to paint me as the antagonist in this discussion.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible, deal with it. It's not because I'm arrogant, stupid, closed-minded, self-righteous, or any of the other bullshit attitudes you are attempting to label me with.

If I was, I would still be a religious fundamentalist like my parents.

You are the one who is closed minded in refusing to accept different interpretations of the Bible. You've studied the Bible for yourself. Fine, I can respect that. My main beef is people who just believe whatever their parents/church tell them too and don't think for themselves.

Now you need to respect the fact that I've studied the Bible for myself and come to some different conclusions than you have. Let's leave it at that since we stopped getting anywhere with this pages ago.

"Paint"?
I'm not trying to paint you as anything -- I'm trying to show you your errors. You came in and announced that the Bible was full of errors, and I responded. You ignored what anyone said, and merely, stubbornly, stuck to your misconceptions and the erroneous conclusions they led you to.

Through it all, you refuse to acknowledge new information given to you, refuse to answer questions that might show you have some knowledge, refuse to admit that you're trying to impose an alien viewpoint on something in order to generate "errors" you can then attack.

If you haven't examined the literary genre enough to realize that your accusations of scientific error in the Creation account have no basis at all, then you have not in fact "studied the Bible" at all, any more than the Phelps clan has -- well, actually less, because one of them does muck along in Greek a bit.

 

[construct]

Quite.

Now, as a Southern Baptist, would she have added "So help me God" to the inauguration oath?

No. The Southern Baptist Convention traditionally held a belief in a complete and utterly unbreachable wall of separation between church and state. Ayn Rand would have been a traditional Baptist like that--not one of these modern Baptists who have abrogated every single Baptist distinctive. If these modern Baptists ever get saved, they'll have to be baptized all over again.

 

[construct]

Hey, it's not my f[strike]ouc[/strike]ault they had the same name!









Was that a good setup for a bad joke?

How Derridean to write sous rature!

 

[Kulindahr]

Suffice it to say, no you didn't prove anything I said was wrong. You threw out accusations that I was wrong, arrogant and closed-minded for disagreeing with your conclusions. Anyway most of what has been said in this thread is opinion about different biblical interpretations, and therefore has no truth value.

I should have known that when you dissed Lex, you weren't going to listen to anything.
I showed that you were wrong about the statement to Peter, and from there about the time Christ said He would return. I showed that you were wrong about the usage of 'genea'. I showed that you were wrong about Genesis being about science.
That Genesis is written in a variety of literary genres that are essential to understanding it is not an "opinion", it's fact. That you can dismiss it so easily once again shows you lie when you say you're interested in learning.

I've chosen to take a simple reading of the Bible as the most likely scenario for how it should be interpreted. You've brought in all these literary genres and devices to explain away the parts that are false and keep the parts you like as more literal. I don't find that interpretation to be very compelling or accurate. Sure not every part of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, only an idiot would claim that, but there are parts that talk in very basic terms which I see as incorrect, and therefore errant and not of a divine source.

Again, I showed that what you call a "simple reading of the Bible" is in reality a forcing of your views on it -- because you haven't studied the history, culture, or languages, let alone the literary types. I gave you solid illustrations of why all that is necessary.
And you try to toss off you refusal to entertain any new thought with the personal attack based on

or its equivalent.

See, I didn't "bring in" any literary genres or such, I brought in facts. I didn't manufacture them, I didn't go out hunting for something to fortify "my view" -- a statement that's utterly laughable, because when I discovered that Genesis 1 was in a literary type called "royal chronicle", it didn't match "my view" at all, which was that it was meant literally... which is what you're reading it as, in order to "find" scientific errors.

But I don't care too much about that. It's your inflexibility and disrespect for any interpretation that is not your own that hinders your argument. I'm willing to respect your interpretation even though I disagree with it. Are you willing to extend me the same courtesy?

The inflexibility here is yours; you won't back down on a thing when information is given to you, or your fallacies are pointed out.
Why should I extend respect to an "interpretation" that is based on misconceptions, ignorance, and refusal to learn? Isn't that what Sarah Palin, whom you despise, demands?

 

[Kulindahr]

Coincidence IS too convenient an explanation. It allows one to accept something as fact without actual evidence Coincidence is circumstantial, as in: yeah, it kind of fits, but is not actual physical evidence. If this is the level of "evidence" you claim I have not looked at, then you and I have a very different idea about what "evidence" is. If your claim is true about the measurements of the ark, and it is true that those are the measurements actually originally written, and not some translators interpretation of something different based on new found 19th century nautical knowledge, all that really says is that the knowledge of such engineering was available at the time the bible was written - would fit, as of all the facts of the world people of the bronze era had dead wrong simply because of their physical limitation to explore such areas of science, the ocean was readily available to them, as was wood - how coincidentally convenient.

True -- except for the fact that we know that no one built boats like that back then. Nothing in the historical or archaeological record shows even a hint of the sort of knowledge of engineering required (yes, I looked into that, too).

And I'm not depending on translators here; when I studied things, I studied them in the original.

 

[hotatlboi]

I should have known that when you dissed Lex, you weren't going to listen to anything.

I didn't dis anyone, you are the one getting personal here, not me.

I showed that you were wrong about the statement to Peter, and from there about the time Christ said He would return.

Nope, I showed you that you were wrong about it. Obviously we disagreed.

I showed that you were wrong about the usage of 'genea'.

You showed me examples that were consistent with your interpretation. I showed you examples that were consistent with mine. stalemate on that point.

I showed that you were wrong about Genesis being about science.
That Genesis is written in a variety of literary genres that are essential to understanding it is not an "opinion", it's fact. That you can dismiss it so easily once again shows you lie when you say you're interested in learning.

LOL, again with the "if you don't agree with my opinion you are not learning".

Again, I showed that what you call a "simple reading of the Bible" is in reality a forcing of your views on it

I'm not forcing my views on anything LOL. Again, I actually believed the Bible, until I carefully read what it said.

The inflexibility here is yours; you won't back down on a thing when information is given to you, or your fallacies are pointed out.

Again, basically you are saying "If you don't believe what I tell you you are being inflexible". Bullshit. I've heard most of your arguments before in different forms. I didn't just now decide to reject them because I don't like you or something. My interpretation is different. Again, deal with it. This seems impossible for you.

Why should I extend respect to an "interpretation" that is based on misconceptions, ignorance, and refusal to learn?

Because that's exactly how I view YOUR interpretation but I'm still willing to extend you the respect to hold it.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not the one who's limited in my interpretation. Your entire post contains the assumption that an infinitely powerful being would have to use language to communicate with humans. Such a limitation would not exist. If an infinitely powerful being existed and wanted all people alive to know of his existence, such a disclosure would be effortless. The Bible even says this. So the book you've been defending just proved you wrong lol. The Bible says that the unbelievers will be humbled before God's majesty when he returns. No words would be necessary.

Again, your argument fails and all you have to say is that I am ignorant or don't understand your interpretation so that makes me wrong. oh well, im done here

Well, you failed to understand once again. I might as well be typing in Chinese, for all that you're understanding.

I'll try this again: the limitation is not on God's part, but on that of humanity. I'll assume that you concede that me talking to you in Chinese would be pointless, and that's sufficient to establish the point.

And again you show your lack of study of the Bible: when it says that all unbelievers will be humbled at His return, it also says that then it will be too late. So what you're arguing is that God could have ended the game early, without making an attempt to redeem the human race or fix things, just send everyone straight to hell and be done with it.

Again, this has nothing to do with "my interpretation", and the fact that you resort to that defense is evidence that you aren't interested in understanding. But for this post I don't need to; your own words defeat you, again, because you once more introduced only what evidence would help your case, instead of looking at the whole thing.

BTW, "ignorant" has nothing to do with your attitude, nor is it a personal attack; it's an objective statement of your demonstrated lack of knowledge.

 

[hotatlboi]

So what you're arguing is that God could have ended the game early, without making an attempt to redeem the human race or fix things, just send everyone straight to hell and be done with it.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if an infinite being (not necessarily the God of the Bible) did communicate with humanity I think the result would have been far more believable than the Bible is today.

I'll try this again: the limitation is not on God's part, but on that of humanity.

Again, bullshit. Man's power of perception is sufficient that God would not have to use language to reveal his existence, that was the entire premise of your post.

See, I didn't "bring in" any literary genres or such, I brought in facts.

You didn't bring in facts, you brought in interpretations. There are thousands of biblical interpretations and no one of them has been proven as fact. This is a mistake you've continually made, labeling your opinions facts.

BTW, "ignorant" has nothing to do with your attitude, nor is it a personal attack; it's an objective statement of your demonstrated lack of knowledge.

I guess this is why you can't cope with people not agreeing with your logic. You pass off even your intolerance and bullshit stubbornness as objective fact.

Now I tried to extend respect to you and take this discussion in a more positive direction, but you rejected my offer so I don't much care now.

 

[Kulindahr]

No. The Southern Baptist Convention traditionally held a belief in a complete and utterly unbreachable wall of separation between church and state. Ayn Rand would have been a traditional Baptist like that--not one of these modern Baptists who have abrogated every single Baptist distinctive. If these modern Baptists ever get saved, they'll have to be baptized all over again.

You can't "get baptized... again". It was either real, or not.
Though they might find out theirs weren't, and have to do it right....

 

[Kulindahr]

How Derridean to write sous rature!

Okay, now you're stretching my knowledge....
time for some research.



No, wait -- not; it's darned well time to be in bed!

 

[FirmaFan]

True -- except for the fact that we know that no one built boats like that back then. Nothing in the historical or archaeological record shows even a hint of the sort of knowledge of engineering required (yes, I looked into that, too).

And I'm not depending on translators here; when I studied things, I studied them in the original.

You don't find any historical or archaeological evidence of any boats like that back then, including the ark, which, itself, appears in only one text.

I am actually rather interested to see a copy of the original, unabridged bible written in the original language (with proof that it is, in fact the original bible in the original language, and not just the earliest known translation, or something, you get the idea). Even just a picture of a couple lines of text, just to see what the language and writing looked like would be very interesting to me.

 

[construct]

Kuli, you asserted all those things you said you showed, but asserting is not the same as excluding the alternative. I certainly consider the interpretation of "generation" that hotatlboi proposed as a plausible interpretation. In fact, I think it is the most plausible interpretation. So I disagree with your understanding of these passages. I may also disagree with his interpretation of some of those passages, but I don't say that they are impossible readings.

Although I disagree with some of his arguments, I certainly agree with his underlying thesis, that the Bible does not capture absolute truth about objective reality.

 

[Kulindahr]

How Derridean to write sous rature!

For a moment my tired eyes saw that as "soul rapture", which happens to be a doctrine taught in some--


Oh, never mind.

 

[hotatlboi]

I (along with traditional Christianity) would go further. When truth is purported to be captured in language, it has already lost its status as absolute. Language is by its very nature relative, historically and temporally determined. The statements which are purported to be true are operative only within the discursive field on which they are deployed. Thus no linguistic structure is capable of containing absolute truth. (Ayn Rand and Thomas Reid were wrong.)

Traditional Christianity finds its final revelation not in a book but in an event--the Christ-event. I, however, have relativized even that. My rejection of Christianity goes deeper than a rejection of a book. It is instead a rejection of a person and his teachings as well as the teachings of others about him. It is all merely a series of time-bound statements--each attempting to capture and preserve an absolute truth about an objective reality that does not exist.

Very interesting yes I would agree with that. You seem to be well versed in philosophy, I've enjoyed your posts in this thread.