An Indulgent Mother
A few weeks ago, when visiting my parents, I was in their basement trying to find a book I used to have. As I was searching the bookshelves, I found something unexpected. In a simple, wooden frame was a plenary indulgence with my mother’s name on it. It took me a moment to process what I was looking at. It seemed like such an anachronism; it was as though I had discovered a ticket stub from a gladiatorial match. I’m sure that most of you have only heard the word indulgence (in this context) in reference to the Reformation, but here, in my hands, was an artifact of the 20th century, not the 16th.
In my high school European history class, we learned about indulgences in only the most general terms, in order to understand the outrage of Martin Luther over their sale. An indulgence was described as a “get out of hell free card,” which seemed absurd. As a result of my discovery, I’ve done a lot more reading about indulgences in the Catholic church, and I have found that description to be totally inaccurate. However, the truth about the accounting of sin in Catholicism is far stranger. I spent 10 years of my life in Catholic school, and nothing was ever mentioned about any of it.
Catholics have two main categories of sin: original and personal. Original sin is present at birth and forgiven at Baptism. Personal sin is everything following Baptism. It is broken into two subcategories: mortal and venial. These are analogous to felonies and misdemeanors. A mortal sin, if unforgiven, results in eternal damnation. A venial sin does not.
For either type of sin, there are two repercussions: guilt and punishment. Guilt is eliminated through the sacrament of Reconciliation (confession). Temporal punishment is exacted regardless of forgiveness. Some of it may occur while the sinner is alive, but the balance will become time in purgatory before entering heaven. An indulgence does not deal with guilt, only punishment.
There are (you guessed it) two kinds of indulgences: partial and plenary. A partial indulgence takes the place of a given number of days of penance. A plenary indulgence resets the sinner’s temporal punishment to zero, but does not affect punishment for future sins. Getting confused yet?
Now temporal punishment can also be cut down through the accrual of merit. The Catholic church teaches that each person has a merit “account,” as it were. When one does things that god really likes, one earns merit, which can then be spent like a spiritual currency to pay off some of the temporal punishment debt. In fact, one can even do the religious equivalent of an electronic funds transfer, providing excess merit to a loved one, living or dead. Is this religion or banking?
Since indulgences were no longer sold after1567, you now have to earn them. In the catechism, one can find a “price list” for indulgences. There are very specific acts that earn specific types of indulgences. If you’ve ever played Skee-Ball for tickets, it’s kind of like that, except that instead of winning a troll doll or plastic spider, you get into heaven faster. For example, saying a rosary in a church or with a group gets you a plenary indulgence, but saying it alone only gets a partial one. It amounts to a menu.
I’ve gone a long way to explain all of that, and I hope everyone’s stayed with me so far. I’ll try to make it pay off.
I’m left with a few questions:
How do they know this stuff? I’ve read the Bible, and Jesus doesn’t say any of that. It’s easy to check. Just look at the red words. There are some vague references in the epistles, but nothing nearly this explicit.
If it’s not from god, what gives the church the right to write the rulebook? Ah, that’s right. This is where an infallible Pope comes in very handy. It’s strange, though, that this system was devised by absolute monarchs. Normally, this kind of needless complexity requires the input of a committee. Just look at the U.S. tax code.
If most Catholics don’t even have a copy of the rulebook, why not simplify it? Perhaps a flat sin is in order. Maybe a consumption-based temporal punishment would be better. If they’re not going to simplify, they should at least modernize. I’m sure a lot of parishioners would love to have merit debit cards and online banking. Right now, I think you have to write to the Pope to check your balance. Ooh, maybe they could even introduce a Speed Pass type device. It could be shaped like a cross, and they could put readers in front of brothels, the Capitol building and priest’s bedrooms. Frankly, it’s all in god’s best interest. If they automate sufficiently, maybe he could start taking Saturdays off, too. Perhaps he wouldn’t be so cranky. Katrina and Rita are obvious signs that he’s overworked and acting out.
Well, that’s all I have. I hope you learned something that you couldn’t have picked up by asking most Catholics. I think that Catholicism has the widest disparity of any religion between how seriously the clergy take it and how seriously the majority of its adherents take it. The bottom line is that if you’re a Catholic, sin has more rules than baseball, and like the infield fly rule, none of the Catholics I know (including my mother) understand indulgences.
~I AM~
September 26th, 2005 at at 9:29 am
Bizarre isn’t it how religions based on a single book, such as the Abramic faiths, then develope this complex set of rules not mentioned in the books but still taken as seriously as the stuff in the book.
Like womens hiljab in Islam coming from a single passage advocating women to dress with modesty, yet that gets taken into “kill them if they show any of their face” under religious fundamentalists like the Taliban.
Same with indulgences, i bet there is an exceedingly brief passage in the bible where some bearded wise bloke says something vague about god weighing sins which then gets spindled, twisted and hanged into the idea of weighing sins against…….well, how about the opposite, good deeds. Suddenly the whole thing becomes a spiritual banking system. Ultimately being corrupted to the point where you can buy good deeds with money to pay off your sins.
I had no idea the Catholic church was still into indulgences, very interesting to know, thanks I AM.
September 26th, 2005 at at 10:47 am
“Perhaps a flat sin is in order.”
LOL, Very funny! Nice post ~I AM~.
September 26th, 2005 at at 11:12 am
Lol, I love the Speed Pass idea. Maybe some of us can pool our merit together, hire a manager, and have a type of merit mutual fund to help invest our merit. I don’t need to spend mine right now, and I’m afraid that inflation might hurt my nest egg.
September 26th, 2005 at at 11:20 am
he he he, the system is similar to the Electoral College, long winded and unnecesary.
September 26th, 2005 at at 11:50 am
Maybe THIS explains why Christians say things that seem so hallucinatory all the time.
September 26th, 2005 at at 12:32 pm
Do you realize that you’ve had 608 comments in your last 16 posts? Averaging 38 comments a post.
This post shows us exactly why. This, sir, is an excellent piece of writing. The (highly) informative parts were to the point, well conveyed, and quite easily understood. The humorous parts where friggin’ hilarious. I’m just far too much up in your business and wanna know why your mother got her indulgence, and if she thinks she’s gonna need to invest in another. She even framed it. Wow, I’m going to look into how difficult the process is to get one.
This reminds me of a piece I read in the past, discussing the same matter, that gave some mathematical breakdowns to how many Hail Marys a group (of a predefined number) would have to say to get everybody out of Purgatory since the beginning of the Church.
I would love to find that again. If anyone knows its whereabouts, please share.
September 26th, 2005 at at 2:00 pm
Oh, and in recent news, I took a Quiz to see what level of hell I’m going to, and it turns out that, even though I’m atheist, I’m going to purgatory.
September 26th, 2005 at at 3:52 pm
See, this is why, despite all the horrible things it has been responsible for, Catholicism is superior to Protestantism — because it’s not boring.
September 26th, 2005 at at 6:40 pm
Where can I get a copy of the catechism? I asked a catholic co-worker and he didn’t know. Ofcourse, he wouldn’t even bring me any free catholic literature from his church. I told him maybe it would cause me to change my mind and see the error of my ways, but he didn’t buy it. He said I would use the information for evil purposes.
I think a VISA indulgence bonus points credit card would be popular. Buy shit you don’t need AND go to heaven! How can you lose?
September 26th, 2005 at at 6:52 pm
Could I get frequent flyer miles for this?
September 26th, 2005 at at 7:10 pm
Aeger:
I’m actually a fan of the electoral college. It’s misunderstood.
Also, purgatory isn’t a level of hell. It’s the atechamber of heaven, if you will. Everyone in purgatory will eventually go to heaven.
DUB:
Why is it that I’m now getting more useful information from you than from my stats software? Thank you for the compliment, also.
My mother doesn’t really remember getting it. I just explained all of this to her today, and she was really disappointed. She did think it was a free pass to heaven.
boywonder (a.k.a. The Atheist Messiah):
The first new edition in 400 years can be purchased here. I may pick up a copy for myself one of these days. It must make for interesting reading.
“To get some idea of the level of detail with which the Catechism engages Catholic doctrine, consider that 17 pages of explanation accompany the opening words of the Apostle’s Creed (”I Believe in God the Father”).”
September 26th, 2005 at at 7:42 pm
Gribble,
I have to agree with you on that one.
I AM,
Great post, I learn more from you each time I visit this site. Any tips on how to become a better writer by any chance??
September 26th, 2005 at at 10:50 pm
Amazing! This is great stuff, IAm. I’m so disappointed that your mother doesn’t remember how she got it, though. I was looking forward to hearing that part of the story. Haha!
September 26th, 2005 at at 11:30 pm
franky:
This is as good a start as any. Every writer should have a copy.
That’s two links to Amazon on this one post. I should get one of those affiliate accounts.
September 27th, 2005 at at 3:20 am
boywonder,
The catechism is online. Try http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm where there is a link to the contents and a search button.
I wonder what ‘evil purposes’ you will put it to.
September 27th, 2005 at at 3:18 pm
You have done an excellent job characterizing one of the many false teachings of the Roman Church/State.
No doubt you realize that the Protestant Reformation rejected this false teaching, and, in the culmination of that historical recovery, the Divines of Westminster formulated the soundest creed to date, the Westminster Confession of Faith.
In that creed, the Divines wrote, following Scripture (God’s revelation of his will):
“I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.”
Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXII, Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead.
Clearly, the law of (non) contradiction and the law of excluded middle leave no room for Purgatory, or Limbo (where babies reputedly go, having no personal sin).
I take the time to note this for the benefit of your readers.
No doubt, again, there is much confusion as to exactly how biblical Christianity (as opposed to those systems of reputedly Christian doctrine to which it might be compared) is both connotatively and denotatively defined.
A connotative definition would be:
Christianity: the propositions of the Bible and their logical implications.
Denotatively, the definition is:
Christianity: the summary of Christian doctrine found in the Bible as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).
Like yourself, as a student in a Catholic school, I was for years under the impression that Roman Catholicism was a Bible-based belief system.
Now, it is clear to me, and many others (I believe counting noses holds some weight with this audience), that the system of Rome is so degenerated from the Christian system as to be no more than a false religion devised by men, and without Divine authorship.
However, your philosophy and that of Rome has the same epistemological base: the Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy of Empiricism.
A post on that to follow.
September 27th, 2005 at at 3:35 pm
Nice blog. I guess your mother is indulgent in many ways, but your assessment of the Roman church-state was spot on. “How do they know this stuff? I’ve read the Bible, and Jesus doesn’t say any of that.” Could not agree more.
OTOH, I do have a few questions concerning your statement of disbeliefs. For example, and just to see where this leads, if anywhere, you write:
2. The concept of “supernatural” is absurd and meaningless. Anything that exists is completely and totally natural.
How are you defining natural here? Do you mean the physical or external world in its entirety or something else? And, if you mean the physical or external world then doesn’t that contradict #3 which affirms; “There is nothing that cannot be fully understood given enough study, sufficient brainpower and a firm grasp of logic”? Are the laws of logic physical or do you mean something different by your use of the word “natural”?
Thanks in advance
Sean
September 27th, 2005 at at 5:54 pm
Thanks Katherine. I find it difficult to pay money for anything like this, let alone knowing full well that the Catholic church will receive some of it. As far as evil purposes go, I can’t think of evil purposes worse than what the catholics have already used their doctrines for. Cannabalism, sacrifice, pursecution, execution, the list goes on… Maybe I could get some gay and lesbian scatologists to get their groove on with the catechism sandwiched in between the Kama Sutra and the Necronomicon or something.
Ron said:
“Now, it is clear to me, and many others (I believe counting noses holds some weight with this audience), that the system of Rome is so degenerated from the Christian system as to be no more than a false religion devised by men, and without Divine authorship.”
The Roman “system” was well on its way to establishing science and mathematics as their dominant belief systems. I don’t know where you came up with the idea that Rome was more corrupt than Christianity. If anything, Christianity pushed back the progress of Rome and mankind for 1500 years (known as The Dark Ages).
September 27th, 2005 at at 11:26 pm
Boywonder, I think he’s talking about Catholicism, not Rome.
September 27th, 2005 at at 11:43 pm
Thanks TJ. I wondered if I was reading Ron correctly. Sorry Ron, if I misinterpreted you.
September 28th, 2005 at at 12:34 am
I hear there are plenary indulgences to go around.
(Yes, I have a day job.)
September 28th, 2005 at at 12:48 am
Ron:
the soundest creed to date, the Westminster Confession of Faith.
*BUZZER* I’m sorry, the correct answer was atheism. Atheism. Thanks for playing our game. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Sean:
I guess your mother is indulgent in many ways
I’m not sure what you mean by that. I’ll assume it’s innocent.
Some of the definitions of “natural” from dictionary.com:
1. Present in or produced by nature
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
4.
1. Not acquired; inherent
2. Having a particular character by nature
doesn’t that contradict #3 which affirms; “There is nothing that cannot be fully understood given enough study, sufficient brainpower and a firm grasp of logic”?
No.
September 28th, 2005 at at 2:31 am
Ron sez:
“However, your philosophy and that of Rome has the same epistemological base: the Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy of Empiricism.”
Actually, I think we descend more from William of Ockham, as far as Medieval philosophers go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham
September 28th, 2005 at at 8:48 am
William of Occam, or Ockham, was a Franciscan monk. That would be Roman Catholic.
One would do well to understand that the Roman Empire mutated into the Holy Roman Empire of the Catholic Church.
A search on “The Donation of Constantine” (a forgery) would be helpful to those interested.
September 28th, 2005 at at 9:25 am
boywonder wrote: “If anything, Christianity pushed back the progress of Rome and mankind for 1500 years (known as The Dark Ages).”
If by Christianity you mean Roman Catholicism then I ‘agree.’
However, my definition of Christianity disqualifies the Roman Catholic system as Christian; in fact, the WCF explicitly referred to the Pope as Antichrist, a position I concur with based on passages from Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation.
[A connotative definition would be:
Christianity: the propositions of the Bible and their logical implications.
Denotatively, the definition is:
Christianity: the summary of Christian doctrine found in the Bible as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).]
I think I’ve made the point here before, but much of what I see being argued against is not Christianity, but aberrant forms (bastardizations) of Christianity.
I don’t let the world define truth for me: my axiom is, and always shall be,
The Bible alone is the Word of God. There is no other way of obtaining the truth than by a divine revelation of it from God to men in propositional form.
September 28th, 2005 at at 9:46 am
The promised post on empiricism:
In your “Statement of (dis) Beliefs,” you give the following axiomatic
statement:
“6. When there is sufficient evidence for something, I believe it.”
In a recent post, here and at A Rational Being, Joe Davis postulated
that “science is the gateway to knowledge…”
Assuming you adopt this axiom, I find it interesting that the theory of
the existence of the atom has progressed along the lines given here:
http://www.broadeducation.com/htmlDemos/AbsorbChem/HistoryAtom/page.htm
In this article, the following ‘historical facts’ are noted:
“J.J. Thomson
At the end of the nineteenth century, a scientist called J.J. Thomson
discovered the electron. This is a tiny negatively charged particle that
is much, much smaller than any atom. When he discovered the electron,
Thomson was experimenting by applying high voltages to gases at low
pressure. He noticed an interesting effect….Thomson did experiments on
the beams of particles in his tube. They were attracted to a positive
charge, so Thomson correctly concluded that they must be negatively
charged themselves. Other experiments showed that it would take about
2000 electrons to weigh the same as the lightest atom, hydrogen. He
called the tiny, negatively charged particles electrons.
But where had these tiny particles come from? Since they were so small,
Thomson suggested that they could only have come from inside atoms. So
Dalton’s idea of the indestructible atom had to be revised.
Thomson proposed a different model for the atom. He said that the tiny
negatively charged electrons must be embedded in a cloud of positive
charge (after all, atoms themselves carry no overall charge, so the
charges must balance out). Thomson imagined[emphasis mine–rrg]
the electrons as the bits of plum in a plum pudding (rather like
currants spread through a Christmas pudding - but with lots more space
in between).”
The article goes on to show that newer theories of the atom replaced the
old. Lesson: science does not give us unchanging truth.
The answer to this, once again, has implications upon the assertion that
it is ‘fanatical, absurd, etc.’ for Christians to believe in a God whom
they have never seen, while empiricists insist on believing in atoms,
which they have never seen.
In fact, since those who witnessed God’s acts in history, and particularly witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ, have recorded their testimony in the Bible, why should Christians be faulted for making the Bible their axiomatic starting point when Atheists make Science theirs?
A question: As the evidence for atoms keeps changing, and, you have never seen an atom, do you believe in atoms?
If so, you rely on the testimony of others, and that testimony is changing data, not unchanging truth.
Whereas there is nothing certain in Science, Christianity offers unchanging truth revealed by a benevolent and just Creator and Sustainer, who sovereignly reveals Himself to all whom He wills, and leaves the rest in their willful rebellion and ignorance.
September 28th, 2005 at at 9:51 am
Hey Ron,
Which came first, the bible or the church?
Ans: the church
“The Bible alone is the Word of God”
Then how is it that the bible came after the church sprouted into existence? Then, couldn’t it be argued that most Protestant sects/denominations are ust “bastardizations” of the original church? So, now we have a situation where the “bastards” are calling the legitimates “bastards”
Plus, it should be expected that the Catholic church veered of course so to speak when Jebus died. Most cults often find themselves in similar crises when their early/founding charismatic leader dies.
September 28th, 2005 at at 10:36 am
If you are referring to the Canon of Scripture, the Bible being composed of a certain 66 books, then in that sense you are correct.
However, God’s Word, the Bible, is only a part of God’s mind, the contents of which are, true to His character, immutable, unchanging.
Nonetheless, the church doesn’t determine what is Scripture and what is not: the Scripture tells us what else to consider Scripture. This is the idea of self-attestation or self-authentication. The Word doesn’t need men to determine it is the Word; the Word authenticates itself.
On this basis the Apocrypha is rejected by sound Protestants.
Examples of authentication: Jesus quotes Moses as being an authority from God. Therefore, the five books of Moses, the Pentateuch, are Scripture (that which God-breathed through the minds of men, his prophets). Same thing in the case of the prophetical books.
Jesus’ authority was not derived, but rather he spoke authoritatively as God: no approval needed for his words to be Scripture. However, eyewitnesses wrote their own accounts, or others, like Luke, recorded as historians, as they were directed to by God’s Providential oversight. (God is intimately involved in history.)
Peter, an eyewitness and an apostle, and therefore an authority, commends the writings of Paul, and so Paul’s letters are authoritative.
All of these inscripturated revelations from God, to repeat, are known to God from eternity. In this ’sense’ the church ‘follows,’ in respect to ‘time.’
In another sense, there was no time when God did not purpose to have a people for Himself (the church, in this context, the invisible church, the elect). So, neither Scripture nor the church preceded one another in this context. Ah, keeping the sense is so critical! As the man said, A text with a context is a pretext.
I appreciate the remarks: I’ve learned alot about atheists and their positions this past week.
“couldn’t it be argued that most Protestant sects/denominations are ust “bastardizations” of the original church?”
Not too bad….I would say it is more accurate to say that visible churches are more or less pure, as the doctrines of the Word and the sacraments are administered in them. So, some churches are more true to the biblical model. But, we have to distinguish between visible and invisible to gain the proper sense and perspective.
A bastard is not a legitimate heir: “some (visible) churches have so degenerated so as to become synagogues of Satan.”
“So, now we have a situation where the “bastards” are calling the legitimates “bastards””
No, because the church may seem to disappear when it comes to the marks of the church (the pure preaching of God’s Word, the right administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and discipline), there will always be a true (invisible) Church because God is going about His ‘work’ of bringing to salvation those whom He intends to save from their sins, not leaving them in their fallen condition of nature, but bringing them into a state of grace.
“… the Catholic church veered of course so to speak when Jebus died.”
The Roman Catholic Church/State wasn’t founded, officially, until some 3 centuries after Christ’s death. Although her doctrine goes back to Babylon, and Cain, who attempted to please God by his own works, and not coming to God on God’s terms.
” Most cults often find themselves in similar crises when their early/founding charismatic leader dies.”
True. Hope the owner of this blog doesn’t croak. (Laugh with me, fellows!)
September 28th, 2005 at at 10:38 am
As the man said, A text with a context is a pretext.
should have been
As the man said, A text without a context is a pretext.
September 28th, 2005 at at 11:01 am
Ron,
Who determines what is scripture and what is not? The church or men? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I belive that it was men who determined what was and was not scripture.
September 28th, 2005 at at 11:23 am
The Scripture determines what is Scripture. You’re asking about the process of canonization.
According to Rome, the(ir) Church determines what is Scripture. This is the idea you seem to believe is accurate, although I am not sure what your position is, as you ask “the church or men.”
This is not the biblical teaching. Here is a brief snippet from a better point of view:
“IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” WCF, Chap. 1.
And, Scripture attesting to Scripture, taught by Scripture:
LUK 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. EPH 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. REV 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
LUK 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. ROM 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 2PE 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2PE 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 1JO 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
One other interesting thought: The Roman Church/State says it is the successor to the Apostles; whereas, the knowledgeable Christian says, The Scripture is the successor of the Apostles. Huh.
A note to blog-owner: I don’t want to ‘overpost,’ but, can you advise when I’m stretching a ‘limit.’ I also don’t want to offend by over-posting….Ron
September 28th, 2005 at at 11:31 am
“The Scripture determines what is Scripture”
You don’t see any kind of circular logic there at all? Let me help you
———————————
/ \
| |
“The Scripture determines what is Scripture”
| |
\ /
———————————
Such circular reasoning allows for subjectivity and aids in rationalization of what Scripture is Scripture…by men. Please tell me someone sees the circular reasoning.
September 28th, 2005 at at 11:49 am
hmmm, let me try that again:
———————————
/ \
| |
“The Scripture determines what is Scripture”
| |
\ /
———————————
hopefully that works now
September 28th, 2005 at at 11:50 am
*sigh*
never mind, but it was suppose to be a circle
September 28th, 2005 at at 12:03 pm
There is a difference between a circle and an axiom.
What you might be looking for is petitio principii “Latin for ‘begging the question.’ It is actually a valid form of argument in which one of the premises from which the conclusion is deduced is the conclusion itself in disguised form. It is regarded as an informal fallacy because it is unconvincing to someone who does not accept the premise-conclusion.” (Logic, Gordon H. Clark).
However, my axiom “The Scripture is self-authenticating” is not a syllogism. It is not the premise of an argument, but an axiom, though (and I hadn’t thought of it this way) perhaps I necessarily derive it from “The Bible alone is the Word of God.” I’ll think this over, and take input.
Now, I am not committing the fallacy of asserting the consequent: If p, then q; q, then p.
This is rather the methodolgy of science. Bertrand Russell, an avowed atheist, conceded:
All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.
And this from W. Gary Crampton:
“In the laboratory scientists work with a hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me.” The scientist then attempts to deduce the predicted results that should occur if the hypothesis is true, such as “this bread nourishes me.” He then performs an experiment to test the hypothesis to see if the predicted results occur. So he sits down at the table and eats the bread, and wonder of wonders, the bread does nourish him. The hypothesis, he concludes, is confirmed: “This bread is a stone and stones are nourishing.” Silly you say? Yes! Yet, as Russell has asserted, it is not “fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” That is to say, all scientific laws are based on fallacious arguments.” (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=163)
So, again, it is important not to confuse a circle with an axiom, else one gets dizzy.
September 28th, 2005 at at 12:07 pm
franky: Science failed you in your efforts to subdue your keyboard and the world of cyberspace!
Maybe the html needed is one of those &nspb; type things…
However, the results won’t be the same in IE or Mozilla, more than likely, and Opera might even give you a third result.
Ah, science.
September 28th, 2005 at at 12:18 pm
Ron,
It was actually the pre html tag I was trying to use that didn’t work. Also, as I’m sure you’ve heard before, using Scripture to valid your argument isn’t going to work with atheists. However, it is a good point you’ve made on your argument, I will concede that much. See, we can be civil at times
September 28th, 2005 at at 12:32 pm
franky:
I don’t think the pre tag is supported by WordPress comments.
Ron:
Hope the owner of this blog doesn’t croak.
Thanks for the kind words.
September 28th, 2005 at at 12:33 pm
*BUZZER* I’m sorry, the correct answer was atheism. Atheism. Thanks for playing our game. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Like too many hosts, you’re too eager to end the game just when it starts getting fun. Must be all those commercials.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some of the definitions of “natural” from dictionary.com:
1. Present in or produced by nature
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
4.
1. Not acquired; inherent
2. Having a particular character by nature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK, if I understand you, you mean the laws of logic are not something acquired but rather they are inherent. So we agree. Good start. John begins his Gospel by stating that the Logos or Logic of God who” became flesh and dwelt among us” is also “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” That would include the atheist along with the Christian. Therefore, for the Christian, logic or reason is the image of God in man. Or, as arguably the greatest Christian philosopher and theologian of the last century, Gordon Clark, wrote: “God is a rational being, the architecture of whose mind is logic” (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16). Therefore, men created in God’s image would similarly exhibit the same mental “architecture.”
But, of course, you’re not Christian so Websters includes : the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function — used in phrases like the call of nature. Do you think logic is an excretory organ or function? If so, can you elaborate? Futher, how does the atheist account for logic? Or, to put it another way, per the atheist, how can logic be something not acquired and inherent since this would seem to preclude any evolutionary account at all? So there still seems to be some equivocation going on. Your confession still seems to make no sense.
Sean
September 28th, 2005 at at 12:35 pm
Ron, petitio principii is a fallacy because it proves nothing when the point is to do so. It is unconvincing because one would have to believe that what is being proven has already been proven, and this is not the case. The only way that petitio principii could be valid is if proofs were not required to validate beliefs, and the only way that would happen is if beliefs could be validated by faith. The problem, not to repeat myself, is that faith is always faith in something and that something must be proven logically possible. At the end of the day, faith is only as blind as the person ignoring the facts negating it.
September 28th, 2005 at at 12:42 pm
I AM,
Yea, I realized that once I posted it again, sorry about that.
Also, this is completely off topic, but I wanted to change the title of my blog on atheism online from :”Frank’s Atheisttic Ramblings” to “….Atheistic Ramblings”, How do I go about doing that so I don’t look like a retard. Thanks
September 28th, 2005 at at 12:51 pm
Ron and Sean,
I know as an atheist who had these chats many times before, that you cannot convince me of the logic or rightness of your position any more than I can convince you of mine. Its a waste of time but fun.
Let us try something that maybe is more neutral and also fun:
can you tell me what other religions you have studied in the same depth as you obviously have Christianity, and why you reject them in favor of Christianity?
September 28th, 2005 at at 2:17 pm
Strange position to say something is ‘fun’ but a waste of time. If all the atheist has is this life, no bit of fun can be a waste of time, eh?
I’ve studied no religions ‘in the same depth,’ just as, as an IT guy, I did not study botany (I can make a salad, however), or chemistry (I do know, however, that saline and chlorine cannot be mixed without hazard, but I put sodium chloride on my eggs…did I remember this correctly?).
I reject Hebraistic Judaism because it is obsolete (due to a familiarity with the Old Testament, I may have an area of ‘expertise’ here that is hitherforeto unrecognized–thanks!); I reject Islam because it is a hybrid of Romanism and Arianism; I reject Buddhism and other Eastern Religions because “that which cannot be thought” offers no comfort (Why is it that in former lives movie stars were always someone famous?); I reject Animism because I’ve owned dogs, and anything that behaves as dogs do should not be worshipped. I reject Scientism because it is fallacious in its approach, and truth is changing (an atheist boss, who was also an empiricist and a lesbian, told me that “Truth changes.” When I asked her if that would be true tomorrow, she said, “Yes.” I replied, “Then, the truth that truth changes does not change, and you are left holding the contradiction.” She gave my promotion to another. I hope she comes to a knowledge of the truth before it is too late. All I can offer anyone of such opinions is my heart-felt compassion).
False religions are inconsistent and contradictory: I refuse to embrace contradictions, on a consistent basis.
Christianity, again, as defined in my previous posts (which identifies it significantly different than the ‘Christianity’ described by atheists–which I define as all the godless), gives rational and reasonable solutions to the problems of pain, evil, and suffering.
It provides a solution to broken hearts and relationships.
It does not countenance wicked, immoral behavior from State or persons; it provides a common ground for justice by an impartial Judge; it rewards good, and punishes evil.
Other religions might attempt such solutions, but in the end, in toto they fail to provide a consistent worldview.
But, truly, I reject them because God has condescended not to leave me in my lost estate, but restored His image in me in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.
This cannot be understood by the atheist, only attacked and denigrated as the feverish, fanatical delusions of a distorted mind. Which behavior and attitude is in itself enough for me to reject the Religion of Atheists.
Sean?
September 28th, 2005 at at 2:59 pm
Sean:
First of all, I would apply definition 1 (not 4) to logic.
Do you think logic is an excretory organ or function? If so, can you elaborate?
I could, but I’ll be polite.
how does the atheist account for logic?
Logic is a set of rules we use to learn new things from known things. I’m sure this definition can be easily attacked, but I think it works for what I’m saying here. Logic exists in its current form because it satisfactorily explains the world as we experience it. If we can demonstrate that some observable truth of the universe is “illogical” based on other known facts, then the rules of logic would have to change to accommodate the new information. I don’t think logic exists in a vacuum. I think it’s a construct of human intelligence.
how can logic be something not acquired and inherent since this would seem to preclude any evolutionary account at all?
Huh?
Your confession still seems to make no sense.
What confession? I don’t do that. I think you’re looking for the Catholics.
This was fun, but it’s SO far removed from the topic of the post that I will not continue this discussion here.
Franky:
I don’t understand the problem. Why can’t you make that the title?
As this is also totally unrelated to the post, email me about it if you want help.
Now, everyone read the post again if you’ve forgotten what we’re talking about here.
September 28th, 2005 at at 3:01 pm
I know as an atheist who had these chats many times before, that you cannot convince me of the logic or rightness of your position any more than I can convince you of mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, that is not what I was intent on pursuing at all. I realize that I cannot change a person’s mind. Only God can do that. That was Paul’s position after all, yet he still discussed and debated the truths of Scripture with the pagans of his day (see Acts 17). IMO the problem and failure of all philosophy (Christian philosophy excepted of course), is its inability to adequately account for logic. Now, seeing this topic has evidently been covered “many times before,”something I was unaware of, can you please provide me a link or some means by which I can take a look on how this question has been covered by other atheists like yourself? I don’t usually spend time looking over what atheists have to say on blogs and such, so I really don’t know where to look?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Its a waste of time but fun.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t want to waste your time and, more importantly, mine either. However, I don’t think this is a waste of time at all. If one cannot account for the laws of logic per whatever system he or she ascribes to, then I’m at a loss to see how they can account for anything at all? In my very short stay on this and another atheist blog site, there tends to be an assumed superiority by atheists that they are seeing things as they really are, but my question is; how do they know? Actually, since most atheists appear to be empiricists and materialists of one sort or another, IMO they cannot account for any knowledge at all. If the emperor is not wearing any clothes, I don’t think it completely pointless to point that out even if everyone else says he is. How do I know God might not be calling someone to Himself from even a website such as this? Well, I don’t. Also, what if an atheist hands me my proverbial head by answering my small challenge and sends me packing? Well, I see a benefit in that as well and next time perhaps I’ll be better prepared. I don’t do this kind of thing often, so maybe I can learn something as well. Hardly a waste of time either way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let us try something that maybe is more neutral and also fun:
can you tell me what other religions you have studied in the same depth as you obviously have Christianity, and why you reject them in favor of Christianity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I touched on this question above and I agree with Ron (as for the questions of movie stars and past lives I would recommend the Albert Brookes’ film, Defending Your Life ;). I don’t think a comparative study of world religions or even a study of the failures of the history of philosophy will suffice to cause anyone to choose in favor of Christianity. Frankly, the Bible says that even if you were to see a person rise from the dead it is not enough to cause belief (see Luke 16:30). Similarly, per the reference to the first chapter of John I posted earlier concerning the question and account of logic, John says; “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” A man comes to believe the truth of Scripture at God’s own choosing. Completely the reverse as what you might have been told. Certainly if someone went to Catholic school he never heard of such a thing. Actually, Romanists would call Ron and I rank heretics. Yet, Paul says in Ephesians 2; “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.” Works here would be anything a man can ever do. Belief is a gift of God. Does God desire the salvation of all men universally distributed? I’d say, of course He doesn’t and the Scriptures teach the exact opposite of even what many professing Christians seem to think. There is plenty of confusion to go around.
Sean
September 28th, 2005 at at 3:40 pm
“Strange position to say something is ‘fun’ but a waste of time. If all the atheist has is this life, no bit of fun can be a waste of time, eh?”
Based on the old illogic that my life has no value because only serving god (insert your we need god rationalization here) can give it value so I must be a hedonist yadda yadda boring and going nowhere.
I give my life the value I want it to have, you obviously need something external to do that for you ( I believe that is one big reason man invented god ). That may be the single biggest difference between us right there, I can see evidence of man inventing god you see it the other way round.
I leave it at that as that is going nowhere.
Let me try the ‘meat’ as it were: You rejected a bunch of religions because of the their ancestry and at least one because you have no idea true what it is, Animism:
An animist is someone who believes they are motivated to do things by virtue of being possessed/motivated/animated by the spirits of the departed/gods. Very little to do with dogs at all, so your having kept them as a reason for rejecting it is well lets just say its weird. That interpretation of a personal experience as being ‘animated’ by an ancestor/god etc is so close to devine revelation ‘God has condescended not to leave me in my lost estate, but restored His image in me in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness” that I would have thought you could at least see the similarities. I see them as the same process just your interpretation varies from say a bushman’s. I was hoping that you had studied these things and you could then tell me from personal experience why the one is known to you to be wrong and the other not. Better luck next time, that would be a fun chat. Instead it is a post hoc rationalisation of you beliefs rather than you having arrived at your beliefs and now being willing to share what brought you to this point. I suspect you did not start out with a ‘problem’ and then say wow god has to be the solution now lets find which god and then came to Christianity and said whoa this is IT guys this is the truth and this is why it is true. Better luck next time, that too would be an interesting experience to share with somebody.
‘This cannot be understood by the atheist, only attacked and denigrated as the feverish, fanatical delusions of a distorted mind. Which behavior and attitude is in itself enough for me to reject the Religion of Atheists.”
Nonsense,I can understand my later childhood and also how I thought and felt when I was religious. It can be understood ,just not accepted as a universally valid interpretation of the experience you had that made you believe a god had revealed something to you. That does not make you less or more, just who you are, same for me. And atheism is not a religion, a religion presupposes something divine or supernatural as being the cause of things and then worshipping them, an atheist rejects such motivators.
Thanks for your time.
September 28th, 2005 at at 3:44 pm
# I Am Says:
First of all, I would apply definition 1 (not 4) to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
Fair enough, so why didn’t you say that in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
how does the atheist account for logic?
Logic is a set of rules we use to learn new things from known things. I’m sure this definition can be easily attacked, but I think it works for what I’m saying here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are these rules arbitrary? Are the fixed or are they fluid? Can the law of contradiction (LC) be applicable today but freely rejected tomorrow depending on how one defines what “works” from one day to the next?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Logic exists in its current form because it satisfactorily explains the world as we experience it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So LC can and may be supplanted and rendered irrelevant like so many earlier atomic and sub-atomic models Ron referenced earlier, along with the law of the excluded middle and, your name sake, the law of identity? But it seems to me if LC is correct, then if it is wrong, it is also right. Kind of a Catch 22.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If we can demonstrate that some observable truth of the universe is “illogical” based on other known facts, then the rules of logic would have to change to accommodate the new information. I don’t think logic exists in a vacuum. I think it’s a construct of human intelligence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Observation trumps logic. I thought it was the other way around? I thought atheists claimed to understand observation through the use of logic, even if the methods employed by how they’re supposed to do this are demonstrably fallacious? See, I am learning something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
how can logic be something not acquired and inherent since this would seem to preclude any evolutionary account at all?
Huh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You had provided a number of definitions for nature and my question was related to one of your chosen definitions. Since now I see you choose #1 to the exclusion of the rest (I assume), I don’t think your two doctrines contradict one another as they seemed. Now I can see your problems go much deeper than that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your confession still seems to make no sense.
What confession? I don’t do that. I think you’re looking for the Catholics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your statement of disbelief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This was fun, but it’s SO
far removed from the topic of the post that I will not continue this discussion here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good enough. Thanks for your time.
Sean
September 28th, 2005 at at 4:03 pm
Ron sez:
William of Occam, or Ockham, was a Franciscan monk. That would be Roman Catholic.”
Occam and his his teachings were condemned by the Church, and Occam came to the conclusion that the Pope was the servant of Satan. That might indicate a slight change of opinion. Most of the original Protestants started out as Catholics as well, ya know.
September 28th, 2005 at at 4:07 pm
LJ,
The dog comment was a joke. Like your epistemology.
But thanks for the rambling explanation.
As the owner of this very blog admitted, in order for anyone to know there isn’t a god, of any type, one must be both omniscient and omnipresent, at least.
Therefore, atheists claim more than they can prove.
This is in answer to the blog owner, but, perhaps, LJ, you’ll benefit from it:
“Logic exists in its current form because it satisfactorily explains the world as we experience it.”
What empirical experiment can we perform to test this? And, why should we be satisfied? What bit of Logic explains the existence of evil?
How do you explain the non-physical motivation we term Hatred?
Where does Hatred originate? It cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method, can it?
“If we can demonstrate that some observable truth of the universe is “illogical” based on other known facts, then the rules of logic would have to change to accommodate the new information.”
How would you ‘demonstrate’ that ’some observable truth’ is illogical? By, say, the use of Logic?
“I don’t think logic exists in a vacuum. I think it’s a construct of human intelligence.”
Again, what empirical methodology proves this?
The Atheist Axiom for everything, Science, which appears to be a god which to be blindly accepted, proves nothing.
One day I’ll come back and let you know that I’ve posted to my own blog what I’ve learned here, which in part was preached at a Baptist church this Sunday last (I’m not Baptist, but I take all invitations to speak: if your Atheist group is looking for somebody to address them who can actually be consistent, email me).
September 28th, 2005 at at 4:09 pm
Sean,
perhaps we can continue tomorrow, in this or another thread: abends on a mainframe call as does the rent that repairing said abends will pay!
September 28th, 2005 at at 4:37 pm
AtheismOnline.com is the perfect venue for these side discussions. If someone creates a thread in the forum there, I will likely rejoin the debate.
September 28th, 2005 at at 8:09 pm
I AM: thanks for the great site and stimulating topics and sorry for sidetracking this discussion.
I was looking for somebody to discuss their reasoning process with who had gone from zero or atheism to a deep christian(or anything else too) perspective. A kind of opposite to your experiences. Neither Ron nor Sean qualifies in that regard;their reasoning is all post hoc and self justification for prior assumptions therefore of no use to me, so I will not be persuing this thread elsewhere.
Thanks again.
September 28th, 2005 at at 9:00 pm
Neither Ron nor Sean qualifies in that regard;their reasoning is all post hoc and self justification for prior assumptions therefore of no use to me, so I will not be persuing this thread elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess it just wasn’t work that was calling. Of course, asking you to demonstrate where either Ron or I were arguing post hoc would probably be too much. That’s too bad, it might have been genuinely helpful. OTOH accusing someone of fallacious reasoning is a lot easier than taking the time to demonstrate it. I wouldn’t want to upset the self-refutation of atheism with any self-justification 8-P
To our host, thank you for the link and for your patience while the conversation got a little diverted. Again, it was a good blog. Maybe I’ll check in again some day.
Sean
October 3rd, 2005 at at 4:12 am
GOD or NOT #1
First God or Not Carnival
October 3rd, 2005 at at 10:40 am
I’m a little late here, but maybe someone will read this:
Ron, I have two questions for you.
1) Define “Bible” does that include excluded books? Which interpretation do you use, and why?
2) When you listed the religions you reject, they were all patriarchal. Have you ever looked at the Goddess traditions? In fact, have you ever really looked at any other religion critically, without an assumption that Christianity is the superior one?
And one comment for I AM - did you know that Jesus did not approve of rosaries, and that they are Pagan in origin? They represent the labia of the Goddess. Jesus said that the Pagans thought they would gain favor in heaven for their much speaking. The Catholic use of them is actually one of the Pagan traditions they incorporated to make Christianity more palatable to potential converts.
October 4th, 2005 at at 9:09 am
MS,
Sorry the wait…I got an email telling me questions had been posed, as I thought the thread was killed by LJ’s last comment, and so hadn’t returned.
The following is a clear statement of my views on the Bible. A consideration of these propositions answers both your questions.
The Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter I
Of the Holy Scripture
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.
II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
Of the Old Testament:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
I Samuel
II Samuel
I Kings
II Kings
I Chronicles
II Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
The Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi;
Of the New Testament:
The Gospels according to
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
The Acts of the Apostles
Paul’s Epistles to the
Romans
Corinthians I
Corinthians II
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
Thessalonians I
Thessalonians II
To Timothy I
To Timothy II
To Titus
To Philemon
The Epistle to the Hebrews
The Epistle of James
The first and second Epistles of Peter
The first, second, and third Epistles of John
The Epistle of Jude
The Revelation of John
All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.
III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
****
To explicitly answer your questions:
1) Define “Bible” does that include excluded books? Which interpretation do you use, and why?
Bible=Section 2
“include excluded” is an unintelligible statement (its contradictory, please don’t take offence, maybe you could reword it).
I think what you are getting at is answered by section 3.
I use many interpretations (RSV, AV, NKJV, ASV, ESV, etc.), but I read the Greek New Testament (to the best of my ability) and try to cipher the Hebrew as much as possible: see Section 8.
2) When you listed the religions you reject, they were all patriarchal. Have you ever looked at the Goddess traditions? In fact, have you ever really looked at any other religion critically, without an assumption that Christianity is the superior one?
The assumption that Christianity is superior is based on the axiom of revelation: God is able, and has in fact, revealed his will to men, and this is found ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY in the 66 books listed.
None of us looks at anything without prior assumptions. We all have our ‘perspective.’ The question then is, what makes one assumption/axiom superior to others?
The fact that Christianity is patriarchal stems from the revelation of God as being a Father, not a mother. To reject this distinction is to reject God’s revelation: the Goddess religions stem from Babylon and Nimrod’s mother, Tammuz.
This is very well documented, unfortunately in older and what the less scholarly consider “archaic” sources.
October 4th, 2005 at at 5:15 pm
The Bible is a book written and edited by people. People make mistakes all the time, even in the most serious circumstances. Knowing this, it is reasonable to assume that, even if the Bible is inspired by God, at least a handful of mistakes were made, and this makes the Bible a far cry from infallible.
Christianity is patriarchal because the cultures in which it developed were patriarchal. All throughout the Bible, woman are treated like shit.
Christianity was influenced by older mythology. This is also very well documented.
Speaking of documentation, the Bible is very poorly documented and should never be considered an accurate historical record. It is mostly myth with a dash of history thrown in (and I do mean thrown in) for enhanced believability. Yum.
Or, in my case, yuk.
October 4th, 2005 at at 5:17 pm
Oh, and if think you might try to argue in circles by saying that the Bible is infallible because it says so, then you might think again, and harder. Knock, knock!