Revelation, and religious indentity

[triumphguy]

Regardless of whether catholic authority claims that the major religions worship one god - doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the same god.

Claims such as this

Always boggle my mind. No wonder different religious people have been at odds or at war.

Indonesia is almost 90% muslim. Out of the remaining 10% catholicism makes up around 3%. Think about that. Everyone on this board claims that they arrived at their position through faith, reason, and revelation. So what you are arguing is that there is a country where 97% of the population either cannot think at the level you can, or that god hasn’t chosen to reveal itself to them. Really? Whatever the reason is - you’re stating that 97% of a population cannot achieve what you have supposedly achieved.

Now lets look at Ireland. As of the1991 census… 92% of the population was Roman Catholic.
Indonesia 90% Muslim
Ireland 90% RC

Are you really trying to argue that it was revelation, and reason? Seriously? It seems that the overwhelming amount of evidence would support that the only reason the majority of people believe in what they believe is based of geography, environment, and the cultural norms. So there seems to be some sort of false dichotomy when the religious speak of revelation and reason.

Catholics love to pop off about moral relativism - hmmm - lets talk about religious relativism.

And if you are born in England you are 99% likely to grow up speaking English.

Doesn’t make every Englishman love Shakespeare though,does it?

Some do: through study, etc., etc.

Being born and raised Catholic does make one lucky (blessed) though!

So: have you figured out whether your thoughts are your own, or just avatars of the dominant culture yet?

 

[ManRay]

And if you are born in England you are 99% likely to grow up speaking English.

Doesn’t make every Englishman love Shakespeare though,does it?

Some do: through study, etc., etc.

Being born and raised Catholic does make one lucky (blessed) though!

So: have you figured out whether your thoughts are your own, or just avatars of the dominant culture yet?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Grammar isn’t a claim of revelation, or special reasoning. Are you serious?? I’m not making the claim that English is the only, and truest form of language. I’m not claiming that by speaking English, I’m heading off to the pearly gates. You can’t be serious - horrible analogy you conjured up there.

Whether or not my thoughts are avatars of dominant culture - well absolutely they are influenced!! Of course - that’s my point. I like baseball - I grew up around baseball. Europeans grew up around cycling, and soccer. I’m not claiming that baseball is better than soccer. I’m not claiming that baseball will get me to some special place or that the reason I like baseball is because of some heightened reason or that it was revealed to me by some mystical force? …c’mon man - peel the onion. Step to the left, and shake it to the right. Put yo hands in the air…scream like ya just don’t care. Only the bad, the confused, or the insane would argue that they are a better person because they like baseball instead of soccer - or that they would achieve some special reality from it.

 

[triumphguy]

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Grammar isn’t a claim of revelation, or special reasoning. Are you serious?? I’m not making the claim that English is the only, and truest form of language. I’m not claiming that by speaking English, I’m heading off to the pearly gates. You can’t be serious - horrible analogy you conjured up there.

Whether or not my thoughts are avatars of dominant culture - well absolutely they are influenced!! Of course - that’s my point. I like baseball - I grew up around baseball. Europeans grew up around cycling, and soccer. I’m not claiming that baseball is better than soccer. I’m not claiming that baseball will get me to some special place or that the reason I like baseball is because of some heightened reason or that it was revealed to me by some mystical force? …c’mon man - peel the onion. Step to the left, and shake it to the right. Put yo hands in the air…scream like ya just don’t care. Only the bad, the confused, or the insane would argue that they are a better person because they like baseball instead of soccer - or that they would achieve some special reality from it.

But are there not some standards by which you could judge one sport against another.

There are cultural reasons why people would love a particular sport. But judging by objective standards I can say that baseball is a girly game (and a descendant of a girl’s game - rounders) and not a real sport at all. Sure it’s an excuse to drink and sit in the sun. But you can do that with cricket: where they catch a hard ball with no gloves, not a big fat soft ball with “mitts”.

So there are objective standards.

Objectively some things are just better than others. Rugby is better than NFL for instance. Triumphs are better than Harleys

And no it’s not just a cultural bias fro my English upbringing.

Objectively Christianity is better than all other religions.

So we are lucky to be born Catholic.

I would say YMMV and IMNSHO but it’s true.

BTW my ancestors were persecuted for being Catholic, yet they did not recant. What does that do for your theory?

 

[ManRay]

But are there not some standards by which you could judge one sport against another.

I guess my years studying logic and philosophy have led me to a different place.
Judging something isn’t in and of itself a proof of truth. No way - no how.

There are cultural reasons why people would love a particular sport. But judging by objective standards I can say that baseball is a girly game (and a descendant of a girl’s game - rounders) and not a real sport at all. Sure it’s an excuse to drink and sit in the sun. But you can do that with cricket: where they catch a hard ball with no gloves, not a big fat soft ball with “mitts”.

Brother - when is an opinion an objective fact?? What school did you go to? You absolutely cannot say that objectively baseball isn’t a real sport at all without even objectively defining what is a real sport and what isn’t. First off it doesn’t seem that you even know what the word sport means? I looked at wiki right quick to check my position and it starts off with
"Sport" comes from the Old French desport meaning “leisure”, with the oldest definition in English from around 1300 being "anything humans find amusing or entertaining"

So there are objective standards

Uhmmm yea- and you didn’t define them…at…all.

Objectively some things are just better than others. Rugby is better than NFL for instance. Triumphs are better than Harleys

That’s like objectively arguing that the color of red is better than the color of blue. It doesn’t seem that you know anything about objectivism, but instead are drowning in a sea of subjectivism.

And no it’s not just a cultural bias fro my English upbringing.

Objectively Christianity is better than all other religions.

No it isn’t.

So we are lucky to be born Catholic.

That’s one way to subjectively look at it - or you could say years of causality produced your birth as a catholic in effect.

I would say YMMV and IMNSHO but it’s true.

BTW my ancestors were persecuted for being Catholic, yet they did not recant. What does that do for your theory?

That’s a straw man and has nothing to do with any theory I was talking about.

 

[triumphguy]

I know your theory.

You want to prove to us that our Catholic beliefs are the mere consequences of fate, and therefore relative, and not the result of a logical and reasonable assent, and therefore illogical, and ill founded.

Blah blah blah.:yawn:

After all your “years of philosophy” that’s the best you can come up with.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You want to prove to us that our Catholic beliefs are the mere consequences of fate, and therefore relative, and not the result of a logical and reasonable assent, and therefore illogical, and ill founded.

If they are the consequence of your fate many of the other items don’t automatically follow. My understanding of physics could be said to be a consequence of being born in a place where such information and education was available. It doesn’t follow that my understanding is “illogical.”

 

[ManRay]

I know your theory.

You want to prove to us that our Catholic beliefs are the mere consequences of fate, and therefore relative, and not the result of a logical and reasonable assent, and therefore illogical, and ill founded.

Blah blah blah.:yawn:

After all your “years of philosophy” that’s the best you can come up with.

profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/geokongl/

You should read some of these in your spare time.

phg.sagepub.com/content/25/2/211.abstract

 

[R_C]

Claims such as this

Always boggle my mind. No wonder different religious people have been at odds or at war.

It’s not a matter of disliking one another. It’s a matter of being objective: do you know of any other religion that has commanded his disciples to

• “put the sword back”, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you “because if you love only those who love you, what merit is there in this?”
• "You have heard: “do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” but I tell you: “do to others what you want them to do to you” and “love your neighbor like yourself”
• “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder …] But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.”
• “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery’, But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery”
• “How many times do I have to forgive? Seven?” “Not seven, but seventy times seven, or as many times as you want God to forgive you.”

The objective truth is that every other religion still carries imperfections in their Scriptures that can lead to extremism and violence. But a Christian cannot possibly do anything like that and still claim to be doing God’s will, and he no longer can call himself Christian, if not abusively.

A Christian who follows the words of Christ can only fight to defend innocent lives from being taken. A Christian longs to give up his life so that others may be saved, and longs to suffer so that others may suffer less.

We find these elements in other religions, but with many imperfections. So it’s truly not that mind-boggling when you know what the Gospels and the Catechism teach.

 

[triumphguy]

profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/geokongl/

You should read some of these in your spare time.

phg.sagepub.com/content/25/2/211.abstract

So what is your agenda?

Wouldn’t it have been more honest to say “I am a geography professor, mapping the “new geographies of religion”, and I’d like to ask you some questions about x, y, z”?

We get lots of people on here asking the philosophical equivalent of, “When did you stop beating your wife?” It’s tiresome.

BTW I have a B.Ed., an LL.B (Hons) King’s College, London (I see you are Unversity College Grad so don’t expect any respect for that), and I’m completing a Masters in Theology right now, so I’m totally capable of a reasonable discussion if I feel I’m not being set up.

ManRay talking about baseball - I thought you were an American Man - probably called Ray,

 

[Luvtosew]

So what is your agenda?

Wouldn’t it have been more honest to say “I am a geography professor, mapping the “new geographies of religion”, and I’d like to ask you some questions about x, y, z”?

We get lots of people on here asking the philosophical equivalent of, “When did you stop beating your wife?” It’s tiresome.

BTW I have a B.Ed., an LL.B (Hons) King’s College, London (I see you are Unversity College Grad so don’t expect any respect for that), and I’m completing a Masters in Theology right now, so I’m totally capable of a reasonable discussion if I feel I’m not being set up.

ManRay talking about baseball - I thought you were an American Man - probably called Ray,

and here I thought you were a young boy riding a bike hauling his teddy bear along.

 

[triumphguy]

and here I thought you were a young boy riding a bike hauling his teddy bear along.

But I am - at heart!

And I am a Triumph guy!

 

[ManRay]

It’s not a matter of disliking one another. It’s a matter of being objective: do you know of any other religion that has commanded his disciples to

• “put the sword back”, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you “because if you love only those who love you, what merit is there in this?”
• "You have heard: “do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” but I tell you: “do to others what you want them to do to you” and “love your neighbor like yourself”
• “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder …] But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.”
• “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery’, But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery”

I don’t think it’s correct to cite biblical passages. It’s too easy to cherry pick. It runs the gamut. Jesus also said that he did not come to bring peace - but to bring the sword.

The objective truth is that every other religion still carries imperfections in their Scriptures that can lead to extremism and violence. But a Christian cannot possibly do anything like that and still claim to be doing God’s will, and he no longer can call himself Christian, if not abusively.
A Christian who follows the words of Christ can only fight to defend innocent lives from being taken. A Christian longs to give up his life so that others may be saved, and longs to suffer so that others may suffer less.

Well then there are very, very, few Christians in the world. The American nation was founded by people who were supposedly Christian. They also owned slaves, and destroyed a people. Indians are pretty much extinct.

We find these elements in other religions, but with many imperfections. So it’s truly not that mind-boggling when you know what the Gospels and the Catechism teach.

I’m not sure there has been a statistical analysis of every word of every scripture and contrasted with other scriptures of different religions to ascertain which is the most perfect. That seems to be dishonest and not objective at all. Almost every war since the beginning of time contains elements of religion (among other things) Even politically and geographically speaking.

 

[Luvtosew]

But I am - at heart!

And I am a Triumph guy!

Oh so you a bigger boy with a bigger bike.

 

[triumphguy]

Oh so you a bigger boy with a bigger bike.

That’s right!

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think it’s correct to cite biblical passages. It’s too easy to cherry pick. It runs the gamut. Jesus also said that he did not come to bring peace - but to bring the sword.

Out of its context any statement may well be worthless!

Well then there are very, very, few Christians in the world. The American nation was founded by people who were supposedly Christian. They also owned slaves, and destroyed a people. Indians are pretty much extinct.

Corruptio optima pessima…

I’m not sure there has been a statistical analysis of every word of every scripture and contrasted with other scriptures of different religions to ascertain which is the most perfect. That seems to be dishonest and not objective at all. Almost every war since the beginning of time contains elements of religion (among other things) Even politically and geographically speaking.

Genetic fallacy!

 

[The_Bell]

These Stone gods that we all choose
make the wars that make the news

hypergallery.com/Content/Products/27/images/j5mdeztr.t0t.jpg

 

[R_C]

I don’t think it’s correct to cite biblical passages. It’s too easy to cherry pick. It runs the gamut. Jesus also said that he did not come to bring peace - but to bring the sword.

**You said you read the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church. But did you understand anything about the relationship Old-New Testament, and about the layers of meaning that the statements of Jesus carry? Do you think that when Simeon told Mary that “a sword would pierce her soul” he meant that she would be killed with a sword? Do you think that St. Paul is represented holding a sword because he was a swordsman?

Christ said that he would bring a sword, but not a physical sword, not the sword of violence. He referred, instead, to what Simeon mentioned when he was still a baby:

this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Why do you say that Jesus was either a madan or God?

He claimed to be God, and many people martyred themselves because they believed Him. If he lied, He is not a good man, but no one would agree with this. People want to claim that He was a great spiritual teacher, but if He was not what He claimed to be, the ONLY way to the Father, He is the Devil. Or maybe He was just insane. But if He is not these, then He is what He claimed to be: God. He certainly was no Hindu Guru, teaching that we are all gods.

Logic tells us that truth is one, so I find the Hindu way of dealing with contradictions illogical. Truth is just as important as goodness, and I cannot accept excusing a lie because it makes people behave good. If Jesus IS God, every other religion is false. Everyone else who claimed to be God cannot be traced in human history (Where the heck is Krishna in history?) and those who form religions call themselves prophets or teachers. Only Jesus is arrogant enough to claim to be the Most High.

 

[InJesusItrust]

If they are the consequence of your fate many of the other items don’t automatically follow. My understanding of physics could be said to be a consequence of being born in a place where such information and education was available. It doesn’t follow that my understanding is “illogical.”

Jesus told his apostles to preach in all nations. Why would He command a thing like that?

There is vincible and invincible ignorance. Those who know the gospel and reject it are most likely culpable. It is very possible to overcome circumstances of birth is one seeks the truth. Responding to truth matters regardless of birth circumstances.

 

[ManRay]

You said you read the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church. But did you understand anything about the relationship Old-New Testament, and about the layers of meaning that the statements of Jesus carry? Do you think that when Simeon told Mary that “a sword would pierce her soul” he meant that she would be killed with a sword? Do you think that St. Paul is represented holding a sword because he was a swordsman?

There are multiple layers of meaning I agree. I’m implying through evidence that every statement you cite from the bible as a source of ‘whatever’ - I can find another statement that casts doubt on it. You really want to talk about the old testament? If you don’t agree with the statement I used - believe - I’ll find a better one.

Supposedly is the keyword. A Christian is not someone who calls himself Christian, a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. To own slaves and destroy a people is condemned by Christianity. Besides, blaming all the founders or all Americans for the crimes of a few does not seem to be the best way to go - as you’d say, it’s sort of a weak argument.

Like I said - read the bible. There is nothing in the bible that condemns slavery in the whole. As a matter of fact it seemed quite ok. Destroying a people may be condemned by christianity - but god killed thousands upon thousands of people - even babies.