TRUMP AHEAD?

[phyllo]

Well, the point of everybody being able to have a Bible (which the Catholic hierarchy opposed so strongly they strangled and burned people for doing it, because they didn't want their monopoly on access to it broken) is to read it for oneself, so as to be self-feeding, and able to engage fully and analytically with the teaching one receives, and arrive at one's own convictions based on that, and live by those convictions.

Nationwide, on average, 79% of U.S. adults are literate in 2022. 21% of adults in the US are illiterate in 2022.

54% of adults have a literacy below sixth-grade level.

21% of Americans 18 and older are illiterate in 2022.

https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/resea ... statistics

And the literacy rate in the 16th century? 1-19% in the major European countries in 1550
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy

[Immanuel Can]

...the literacy rate in the 16th century? 1-19% in the major European countries in 1550
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy

And you can thank the printing of Bibles for changing that situation. Before then, not only could people not afford books, but there was very little for them to read. Once the Bible was widely available, literacy rates skyrocketed. For example,

"...in a period of 100 years reading and writing English among males in England went from about 5 percent of the population to 25% eventually reaching 40% of the population. By 1770, shopkeepers were 95% literate. Literacy in England is directly attributable to the Bible." (Washington Times, Dec. 11, 2014)

The fact that you are literate enough today to read this message...for that, you can thank the Bible.

You're welcome.

[phyllo]

And you can thank the printing of Bibles for changing that situation. Before then, not only could people not afford books, but there was very little for them to read. Once the Bible was widely available, literacy rates skyrocketed. For example,

I can also thank the Catholic church for starting, organizing and running schools and universities.

And I can also thank atheists who promoted education in order to get out from under the control of the church.

And I can thank the industrialists who needed better educated workers to work in their factories.

There were lots of factors which increased literacy.

However, many of the people who are "reading" the Bible don't know or understand what they are reading. They are not engaging "fully and analytically". They are easy prey for Protestant preachers, even now. Even in the USA. They don't have priests, they have a different set of charlatans.

[Harbal]

The fact that you are literate enough today to read this message...for that, you can thank the Bible.

Thanks, Bible, but we won't be requiring your services any further.

[phyllo]

The fact that you are literate enough today to read this message...for that, you can thank the Bible.

Thanks, Bible, but we won't be requiring your services any further.

If somebody wants to read the Bible ... okay.

Just don't pretend that by reading the Bible you have a wonderful understanding of God, Jesus or Christianity, which others are lacking.

[Immanuel Can]

If somebody wants to read the Bible ... okay.

Just don't pretend that by reading the Bible you have a wonderful understanding of God, Jesus or Christianity, which others are lacking.

So...your theory is that one has an equally "wonderful understanding" by NOT reading?

Great thinking!

[phyllo]

If somebody wants to read the Bible ... okay.

Just don't pretend that by reading the Bible you have a wonderful understanding of God, Jesus or Christianity, which others are lacking.

So...your theory is that one has an equally "wonderful understanding" by NOT reading?

Great thinking!

My theory is that you can get an understanding of God, Jesus and Christianity from people and the world, without reading the Bible yourself.

And it can be a better understanding than that of someone who has read the Bible.

[Immanuel Can]

If somebody wants to read the Bible ... okay.

Just don't pretend that by reading the Bible you have a wonderful understanding of God, Jesus or Christianity, which others are lacking.

So...your theory is that one has an equally "wonderful understanding" by NOT reading?

Great thinking!

My theory is that you can get an understanding of God, Jesus and Christianity from people and the world, without reading the Bible yourself. And it can be a better understanding than that of someone who has read the Bible.

So now the theory is, if you just trust some other "authority," and don't read, then you're going to get a better understanding than if you read it yourself?

I'm going to go out on a wild limb here, and say that whether you listen to anybody else or not, your understanding of what they say, or of what you find yourself, whichever it is, is going to be massively better if you have actually read the thing yourself. There is no possible gain whatsoever from being too lazy or too naive about authorities to read the text.

And the same would be true of any kind of text, from a religious one to a scientific one to a literary one, and of any authority you might choose, from a religion expert to an academic one to an ordinary one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

OK. What are you rebelling against? Who are you rebelling on behalf of? By "human rebellion" do you mean you're rebelling against non-humans?

My studies of traditional Catholic Christianity has opened my eyes to a religio-metaphysical method of seeing this reality and living in it with a very dedicated and fine-tuned focus. To fulfill the requirements — ethically, morally, toward your family, your community, your nation, and toward the ineffable entity we refer to as “God” — seems to me an objective that few even conceive of as being relevant or necessary.

Frankly I am not really interested in making the case for this necessity to the denizens here. And what I most notice is people way way on the outside even of the minimum requirements. My only object (here) is to employ you the denizens to cement my own convictions. All you people have are your doubts, your opposition, your •certainties• that you know what’s what. But in general (intuitionally) I perceive people whose lives turn in ruts.

Rebellion — from supernatural demands, from obligations to that Ineffable — is the order of the day. Or more accurately put the disorder. You see, you need guidance. You cannot carry this out on your own. (Here I speak to a wide multitude of that Mass Man I refer to sometimes.)

You have to submit your rebellious will to something higher. But what that is you cannot even conceive.

You are an excruciatingly wondrous example of a man turning in ruts. I sympathize tremendously with your psycho-physical problems — real indeed — but in relation to even a concept of God or Higher Authority …

… you are a braying ass. Nothing you say on the topic has any relevancy, validity or makes any sense at all.

Why didn’t you take up my offer of discounted access to The 10-Week Email Course ?!?

I just don’t get it.

[phyllo]

So now the theory is, if you just trust some other "authority," and don't read, then you're going to get a better understanding than if you read it yourself?

I'm going to go out on a wild limb here, and say that whether you listen to anybody else or not, your understanding of what they say, or of what you find yourself, whichever it is, is going to be massively better if you have actually read the thing yourself. There is no possible gain whatsoever from being too lazy or too naive about authorities to read the text.

And the same would be true of any kind of text, from a religious one to a scientific one to a literary one, and of any authority you might choose, from a religion expert to an academic one to an ordinary one.

There's a reason that there are teachers in the world, lots of them, in every field.

But that's not popular these days, when people want to believe that they can learn anything on their own.

Read the Bible or any other text and you're an expert. Sure you are.

[Immanuel Can]

Rebellion — from supernatural demands...

What about the greedy demands of the illegitimately authoritarian? Are you prepared to resist those?

[Immanuel Can]

So now the theory is, if you just trust some other "authority," and don't read, then you're going to get a better understanding than if you read it yourself?

I'm going to go out on a wild limb here, and say that whether you listen to anybody else or not, your understanding of what they say, or of what you find yourself, whichever it is, is going to be massively better if you have actually read the thing yourself. There is no possible gain whatsoever from being too lazy or too naive about authorities to read the text.

And the same would be true of any kind of text, from a religious one to a scientific one to a literary one, and of any authority you might choose, from a religion expert to an academic one to an ordinary one.

There's a reason that there are teachers in the world, lots of them, in every field.

But that's not popular these days, when people want to believe that they can learn anything on their own.

Even if one chooses to learn from a "teacher," one will be an immeasurably better "student" if one reads the text for oneself. That's just obvious and universally the case. Good teachers not only allow their students to read, they implore and expect them to do it. Only charlatans hope their interpretations will never be checked.

What possible motive would somebody who's trying to teach have for saying, "Whatever you do, don't read any of this for yourself"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Or is there anything they did, or could have done, that would have justified Gary's rejection of them?

I have no interest nor the time to put energy into the Catholic-Protestant conflict with you. You know where you stand, right? It has all been concretized and formalized in your mind. And your arguments have been polished to a blinding shine.

I’ve worked through most of this, sufficiently to know where my alliances lie.

[Immanuel Can]

Or is there anything they did, or could have done, that would have justified Gary's rejection of them?

I have no interest nor the time to put energy into the Catholic-Protestant conflict with you.

Understandably. You'd lose. The historical facts are quite clear: the Catholic authorities were venial beyond belief, and actual reformation would have been the best thing that could have happened...if the arbitrary and exploitative tyrants in the hierarchy had allowed it. But they didn't.

[Gary Childress]

OK. What are you rebelling against? Who are you rebelling on behalf of? By "human rebellion" do you mean you're rebelling against non-humans?

My studies of traditional Catholic Christianity has opened my eyes to a religio-metaphysical method of seeing this reality and living in it with a very dedicated and fine-tuned focus. To fulfill the requirements — ethically, morally, toward your family, your community, your nation, and toward the ineffable entity we refer to as “God” — seems to me an objective that few even conceive of as being relevant or necessary.

Good for you. Enjoy.