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"?
You're a master of distortion.
I never said any of the things that you are trying to attribute to me.
phyllo wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 5:03 pm
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"?
You're a master of distortion.
I never said any of the things that you are trying to attribute to me.
I'm just pointing out a very simple fact: whatever the circumstance, NOT reading for yourself is always way, way worse than reading for yourself. And I think you know that's right.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 3:49 am
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.
I think there must have been something very wrong in his life for him to plunge himself into all this Catholic nonsense. I can't imagine why anyone who wasn't going through some sort of crisis would even consider it.
I'm just pointing out a very simple fact: whatever the circumstance, NOT reading for yourself is always way, way worse than reading for yourself. And I think you know that's right.
What I know is that you and others who "have read the Bible", put yourselves forth as better, holier than thou Christians. Experts on Christianity. Certainly better than the Catholics.
phyllo wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 5:03 pm
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"?
You're a master of distortion.
I never said any of the things that you are trying to attribute to me.
Not quite a master, phyllo, or it wouldn't be quite so obvious.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 5:01 pm
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.
I think there must have been something very wrong in his life for him to plunge himself into all this Catholic nonsense. I can't imagine why anyone who wasn't going through some sort of crisis would even consider it.
Who knows? He and I seem to have different philosophical interests. I don't know why some turn to religion and others don't. It probably depends upon what sort of education a person is exposed to. I had a more skeptical education. Skepticism was also the direction the Academy in Athens took some time after Plato's departure from this world. I tend to think of Socrates more as a skeptic than a system builder as Plato was.
Who knows? He and I seem to have different philosophical interests. I don't know why some turn to religion and others don't. It probably depends upon what sort of education a person is exposed to. I had a more skeptical education. Skepticism was also the direction the Academy in Athens took some time after Plato's departure from this world. I tend to think of Socrates more as a skeptic than a system builder as Plato was.
So why are you constantly bringing up God and religion?
I'm just pointing out a very simple fact: whatever the circumstance, NOT reading for yourself is always way, way worse than reading for yourself. And I think you know that's right.
What I know is that you and others who "have read the Bible", put yourselves forth as better, holier than thou Christians. Experts on Christianity. Certainly better than the Catholics.
We don't, actually. Catholics could read their Bible and learn about it as much as anybody else. But why do so many (not all, it must be noted) of their clergy not want them to do that? And why did the Medieval Catholic hierarchy torture people to death for merely reproducing a page or two of a document that same clergy claimed gave them their own authority?
But I think we all know that somebody who has read a document knows more about it than somebody who does not. And a real teacher of that document WANTS it read, because they actually want their listeners to be able to learn about it, rather than only to take their word for it.
If they want anything less, you can take this to the bank: they're not a teacher. They have other goals.
Who knows? He and I seem to have different philosophical interests. I don't know why some turn to religion and others don't. It probably depends upon what sort of education a person is exposed to. I had a more skeptical education. Skepticism was also the direction the Academy in Athens took some time after Plato's departure from this world. I tend to think of Socrates more as a skeptic than a system builder as Plato was.
So why are you constantly bringing up God and religion?
Because it's a fascinating topic and I happen to be agnostic in regard to such things.
You'll have to quote where I said any such thing. But you won't find it.
However, watch your so-called "teachers": if they don't want you to read, they don't want you to get wise to them. You can count on it.
It's everywhere in your posts. Both in content and in tone.
But you can start with your post which got me involved :
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, 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. And I might add, I have met many lay preachers and scholars who vastly exceed the knowledge, humility and skill in communication, all those posers-in-frocks who style themselves "priests."
So it's not really a problem. The so-called "expertise" of the priests is mostly in extra-Biblical traditions, rote ritual and dogma, and other such nonsense. We could do very nicely with just ourselves and our Bibles. Many Christians do. And a living, developing faith depends on one being willing to read for oneself.
That says that reading for yourself gives you more "expertise" than what priest have.
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.
