TRUMP AHEAD?

[Alexiev]

If you point to the law, the secular law, you'd find exactly the same: that there are charlatans who rise up and try to abuse the documents. What else is a court case, but a debate over how the law should apply to a particular case? What do the prosecutor and defense attorney do, but try to interpret the law so as to favour their desired outcome? And yet somebody's still guilty or innocent, and it's the job of the court to be smarter than all that, and figure out the truth. And that's with even a flawed, human law, and no divine revelation involved whatsoever.

That's nothing unusual at all, but it doesn't tell us the documents are unclear. All it tells us is that some people are dishonest, or try to twist things to their own advantage...which the Bible promises is exactly what men would try to do:

"...there are some things [in Paul's teaching] that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

Don't be surprised at the presence of some such "unstable" and "distorting" types. They were predicted.

Are you orthodox, IC? Wasn't Martin Luther a heretic? Same with all those Roman Catholics who split from the Orthodox church. The different Christian sects clearly demonstrate that the documents (and other teachings) aren't VERY clear.

Didn't Jesus command his followers to partake of communion, in memory of Him? Yet many Protestant churches refrain from practicing this ritual. I'm sure they (and you) have explanations, but so does the other side.

[Immanuel Can]

"Doubtless" most Muslims don't read the Koran in Arabic? Or "doubtless" nobody has to submit to Islam, unless they're Arabic scholars? I would say that both are true. It cannot be otherwise, if, as the imams insist, the credentials of Mohammed are hung on the Koran, and the Koran is unperceivable as an attesting miracle by everybody but educated Arabs.

Arabic has retreated to a corner of Asia. However, for 700 years it (not Latin) was the "lingua franca" of the Mediterranean region.

Yes, the Muslim Crusades, from Mohammed to the gates of Vienna, have receded. In many places where Arabic was once spoken, it no longer is, and probably never will be again. But it does not much matter, for purposes of this point. We're living today, not then. And for the vast majority of Muslims today, and practically everybody whom the Muslims hope to "submit," do not perceive the alleged "miracle" of the Koran, and thus have no access to the attestation on which his bona fides depend, by Islam's own account. So why should they believe Mohammed was ever a prophet?

That is, if what you say is correct, and only fluent Arabic speakers can really understand the Koran, supposedly his key miracle.

So is Arabic necessary for the reading of the Koran? Why then do the various imams quote in English so often, when speaking to outsiders? If the Koran cannot be understood, what are they doing: speaking to empty air?

However, I think that's highly, highly unlikely, because I know how translation works. It takes diligence, but translation from one tongue to another is actually far from impossible. It's true that it will likely end up being somewhat less melodious than the original might be; but it won't be much different in basic substance, especially where the work of multiple, diligent translators has been employed over the centuries.

So if you'll forgive me, I think the "Arabic only" rule is unlikely to be true. The Koran is at least reasonably understandable if you can employ a skilled translator or two. And I hestitate to think that there are actually no such among the Arabic-English communities. That, too, seems to me highly implausible.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'll leave the rest of the forum to judge which one of us is doing that.

The rest of the forum is hardly capable of making the needed assessment, with the exception of one or two but they will remain silent, unfortunately.

That leaves me, Harbal. I am entirely capable of just judgment.

I will pronounce my judgment tomorrow at 3:00 PM Central Standard Time.

Mark your calendars. You are not going to want to miss it.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you orthodox, IC?

Small "o", I hope. Not large "O." But I have friends who are Greek Orthodox. We don't agree on everything, but we do get along very well.

Wasn't Martin Luther a heretic?

In some things, like infant baptism and his antisemitism, I think he was. He held the Catholic line on those, essentially. At least, he certainly got those things wrong. In his major dispute about the gospel with the Catholics, not at all: he was bang on. So I'd say he was a guy with some good theology and some bad theology.

The different Christian sects clearly demonstrate that the documents (and other teachings) aren't VERY clear.

Well, that's not the case, actually. What the Scriptures say is very clear: the dispute between the Catholics and Protestants, say, is not over what the text says, but what we should do with what the text says. Catholicism holds that the authority of the Papacy and Bishops can actually override Scripture and make it void, so that it is no longer authoritative, and we don't have to follow it; the Protestants say, no, it cannot. We always have to follow the Word of God. That's the main difference.

The more a group or denomination takes the Scripture seriously, and as authoritative, the higher the degree of agreement among them. You'll find that's true.

But in the Muslim case, they have something similar to the Catholics. They call it "abrogation," and it means that the suras alleged to have been spoken by Mohammed later in his life take precedence over those spoken earlier. Unfortunately, what that means is that the passages that speak of peace between "the people of the book" tend to be abrogated and replaced with those that say, "kill the infidels."

And then there's the internal hatred between the Sunnis and the Shia, which I have personally witnessed on various occasions...so great that one group accused the other of drinking their own urine, and they often will not even confess the existence of each other's mosques as genuine mosques. If Islam were so unified, then what about that? And what about the Wahabi, the Salafi, the Sufis, the Zaydiyyah, the Ahmadiyya... You can see that attitudes to the question of the relative weight of tradition versus scripture is not at all unique. It's something every religious group, considered by the mere self-identification criterion, has to grapple with.

But shall we say there's no such thing as Islam? And shall we conclude that it's the Koran that's at fault for all that? Or shall we say that it's the attitude of the different sects to the relative authority of the Koran, the Haddiths, the traditions and the imams that might be the problem?

Didn't Jesus command his followers to partake of communion, in memory of Him?

Yes, he did. And personally, I do, as often as is possible, too.

Yet many Protestant churches refrain from practicing this ritual.

I have not found that to be true, and I've been in a lot of such churches. Which "Protestant" churches do you mean?

[seeds]

And what it further suggests is that if it is indeed plausible that the logos contains (or is the source of) universal principles of morality that God wants us to abide by because God knows what's best for us,...

...then isn't it reasonable to assume that loosely similar to how the universal laws of nature (gravity, thermodynamics, the speed of light, etc.) are baked into the fabric of reality,...

...likewise, God's own personal (subjective) principles of morality have also been baked into the fabric of our being?

Doesn't that seem to be a plausible answer to your question of how other beings in other galaxies would, in essence, "intuit" the same moral principles that we've come to hold?

However, where Christianity (the early Catholic church) took a wrong turn in its attempt to interpret the status of this universal logos (i.e., the ontological status of God), is when it fabricated the false concept of a "Trinity," and then (as noted in the Wiki blurb) associated the logos with the "second person" (Jesus) of this nonexistent Trinity.

I don’t see what the issue is with the Trinity concept.

Far more problematic is the idea of the Second Person as such.

I hesitate to question the reasoning of the creator of "Dr." Bonaparte's Ten Week Psychological Recovery Email Program,...

...but did you forget to wear your helmet on one of your bike rides, and bang your head?

I ask that because in the first sentence of the above quote, you indicate that you see no issue (no problem?) with the concept of the Trinity.

However, in the very next sentence, you point directly to the Trinity's problem (the "Second Person" of the Trinity) and declare it to be far more problematic than the issue of the Trinity.

In what way is the "Second Person" of the Trinity more problematic than the Trinity itself?

I found something interesting about traditional Catholicism: the notion of 3 possible baptisms.

One, obviously, by water. Administered by a priest. But in fact any person, in an emergency, can baptise any other.

Second, baptism by blood. Catechumens in the process of admission, when martyred, are baptized through that event.

Third is baptism by desire. So any person in the process of desiring baptism and its result (a clean soul delivered from original sin), should they die, receive baptism.

But here is the interesting part: in traditional Catholicism, even if that person is of another culture, and had never heard of Christianity say, by their uprightness, by some quality of sincerity and decency, will not be condemned.

A person’s religion cannot overpower Grace. And whatever is meant by the term “salvation” is, it seems, far more available than I’d previously thought. Even to the non-confessing (as for example in the instances I mentioned).

This would modify that (false?) picture of a terrifying, machine-like god that relegates souls into the shelves of a living hell with unreasoning decision.

Whew!

Do you want to know what would be even more effective in modifying that picture of a terrifying, machine-like god that relegates souls into the shelves of a living hell with unreasoning decision?

It would be in the realization that the phantasmagorical events that allegedly transpired in a place called the "Garden of Eden," are nothing more than mythological nonsense!

In which case, if absolutely no one actually committed an "Original Sin" that came to represent the so-called "Fall of Man,"...

...it therefore means that there was never any actual need for a "savior" to rescue (redeem) humanity from the consequences of events that never took place.

Now, with the preceding in mind, other than perhaps the positive psychological effects one might derive from being baptized, do you actually believe that the Christian ritual of baptism has any bearing on the outcome of one's soul post-death?
_______

[accelafine]

[attofishpi]

Didn't Jesus command his followers to partake of communion, in memory of Him?

Yes, he did. And personally, I do, as often as is possible, too.

I rarely do. Christ didn't say do it every week - and my memory is not that bad that I'd forget what He did just because I am not partaking in the ritual.

What really put me off was when once a priest insisted that it be the ACTUAL body flesh of Christ. Let's face it, if it was the literal body of Christ he would be fully consumed by now. Some\many priests are idiots.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In some things, like infant baptism and his antisemitism, I think he was. He held the Catholic line on those, essentially. At least, he certainly got those things wrong. In his major dispute about the gospel with the Catholics, not at all: he was bang on. So I'd say he was a guy with some good theology and some bad theology.

The grounding of IC’s severe •errors• are discovered in his rabid Protestantism.

Infant baptism, antisemitism = bad theology

All the rest = good theology

Oy veh ist mir

[Alexis Jacobi]

In what way is the "Second Person" of the Trinity more problematic than the Trinity itself?

The notion of the Second Person (the incarnation of God into a human body) is problematic in and of itself.

I can only tell you — maybe it is a defect in my nature? — that I see things as •pictures• and I take them as real for the value of the content that they contain.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, with the preceding in mind, other than perhaps the positive psychological effects one might derive from being baptized, do you actually believe that the Christian ritual of baptism has any bearing on the outcome of one's soul post-death?

Nothing I’d say would have any effect on your concretized views — so why ask me such questions?

[Immanuel Can]

Didn't Jesus command his followers to partake of communion, in memory of Him?

Yes, he did. And personally, I do, as often as is possible, too.

I rarely do. Christ didn't say do it every week - and my memory is not that bad that I'd forget what He did just because I am not partaking in the ritual.

Well, Paul did say, "...as often as you do this..." (1 Cor. 11:25), not "as rarely." So while there's no specific time given, I do try to err on the side of "often," rather than "rarely." But that's a personal conviction, not one I insist on for anybody else.

What really put me off was when once a priest insisted that it be the ACTUAL body flesh of Christ. Let's face it, if it was the literal body of Christ he would be fully consumed by now. Some\many priests are idiots.

That is called "transsubstantiation." It's primarily the Catholics who believe in it. This is also why they refer to the Mass as "the unbloody sacrifice." They do believe that they are, in substance, re-enacting the crucifixion every week. It's not something that Scripture approves. It's part of the Catholic tradition, though, introduced in the 4th Lateran Council of 1215. That's 12 centuries after the establishment of the ceremony. That's an example of how the Catholics have added/modified the words of Scripture, historically, to fit the preferences of their ecclesiastical authorities. And it's one of the reasons for the Protestant Reformation, which was a protest against such changes to the Biblical text being made.

[Immanuel Can]

Infant baptism, antisemitism = bad theology

What makes them bad is their blatant contradiction of Scripture, not my feelings.

[Atla]

Rationalism, and reason, are linguistic projects primarily, aren’t they?

I genuinely don't know what this is supposed to mean.

I’d just drop it were I you.

Good point, back to reality.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I genuinely don't know what this is supposed to mean.

I’d just drop it were I you.

Good point, back to reality.

Righto — which one?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Infant baptism, antisemitism = bad theology

What makes them bad is their blatant contradiction of Scripture, not my feelings.

Those many hardened positions that comprise the Protestant view and inform the heretical, schismatic movement, are certainly consequential in their nature, and they are present strongly at your own core, and all of them I am familiar with and understand.