EPTanyone got a solution?
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 606
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Emnjay808
United States10666 Posts
anyone got a solution? | ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10666 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12058 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/tech-support/233916-simple-questions-simple-answers?page=609#12163 | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On May 18 2017 00:08 xM(Z wrote: semantics dude, semantics. no baptism and you're done. You've migrated far from the point, which was about children being liable for the sins of their parents. "Original sin" is the only version of this that I'm aware of in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and it's not believed by many sects/denominations, or understood very differently (you'll notice I used the Eastern Orthodox phrasing when describing it above). Nothing above is relevant to the point. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 18 2017 14:14 xM(Z wrote: what do you mean?, Adam was your father ... You don't actually know that. In some versions people were already out there when Adam and Eve left Eden. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On May 18 2017 14:14 xM(Z wrote: what do you mean?, Adam was your father ... I mean, personally I go with the theory of "we are all complicit." I think the point of the Eden story is that both man and woman are complicit in the First Sin, just as part of the point of the crucifixion is that both Jew and Gentile are complicit in the death of Christ. (At the time of writing, the point was that you can't simply blame women--as the Greeks did--or pagans--as many monotheists still do--for the state of the world.) It's quite centrally important to Christianity that we are all party to these sins in some way or another, and that we are forgiven by God's grace despite our complicity. + Show Spoiler + Though the language of this doctrine differs from denomination to denomination, and obviously there are variations on the questions of how "literal" the story is. Anyway my primary point I regard as proven: neither Judaism nor Christianity consider the sins of parents to be imputed on to their children, except perhaps in some theological/metaphysical sense with regards to the First Sin. Certainly not in any way with political or social ramifications. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
now that we're working of a live an let live scenario, i'd cherry pick on this ...but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. as a disclaimer, i never cut off the line mid sentence to omit whatever came next; it's just how i found the quote on The Internet. on that part thou, i can pull at least three interpretations from the top of my head: - haters get punished to the fourth generation and lovers(of him) get love in return; forever, no repents, no crossovers. - haters get punished to the fourth generation but if they convert, they get love in return; - one lover gets to save his to the thousandth generation even when someone along from lineage switches/turns into a hater; basically that quote can not be used as a prof for neither/nor(as with most/all things in the bible). that covers Thieving Magpie too; it's about what you read, how you read it(punctuation), how you interpret what you read and i think, maybe a few more semantically prone inclinations. oh yea ... translation ... At the time of writing, the point was that you can't simply blame women--as the Greeks did--or pagans--as many monotheists still do--for the state of the world. that though, could be argued at length and in some cases, even proven that early(proto)eastern latin-romance people, come from a matriarchal lineage. for a religious association, Mary, the mother of Jesus is more important than Jesus itself for latin people. Edit: well maybe not matriarchal as the word is currently understood, but more like a split man - woman society where women ruled their side so to speak(transgressions happened obviously but as to their extent, things are muddy). | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18476 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 18 2017 20:50 xM(Z wrote: "proven" is a loaded word here. you took the latest(official) interpretation on the issue that was based on an interpretation of cherry picked words but sure, proven. i called it ideological, you call it theological/metaphysical; it's fine. now that we're working of a live an let live scenario, i'd cherry pick on this as a disclaimer, i never cut off the line mid sentence to omit whatever came next; it's just how i found the quote on The Internet. on that part thou, i can pull at least three interpretations from the top of my head: - haters get punished to the fourth generation and lovers(of him) get love in return; forever, no repents, no crossovers. - haters get punished to the fourth generation but if they convert, they get love in return; - one lover gets to save his to the thousandth generation even when someone along from lineage switches/turns into a hater; basically that quote can not be used as a prof for neither/nor(as with most/all things in the bible). that covers Thieving Magpie too; it's about what you read, how you read it(punctuation), how you interpret what you read and i think, maybe a few more semantically prone inclinations. oh yea ... translation ... that though, could be argued at length and in some cases, even proven that early(proto)eastern latin-romance people, come from a matriarchal lineage. for a religious association, Mary, the mother of Jesus is more important than Jesus itself for latin people. Edit: well maybe not matriarchal as the word is currently understood, but more like a split man - woman society where women ruled their side so to speak(transgressions happened obviously but as to their extent, things are muddy). It doesn't actually cover me since interpretation is not what I am discussing, dogma is what I'm talking about. Some christian groups believes baptism is important and to actually forgive people, even babies, even the dead, because no matter how good a person is, original sin (or proxies of it) is still there. Some christian groups believes that everything we do and believe in the here and now is what determines our goodness. Baptism is merely ritual because there is nothing to forgive, everything is a clean slate. Some don't even believe in either--Calvanists believe that the heavenly hierarchy is deterministic. Time is eternal and thus has already happened, thus everyone who deserves to be with God is already with God and those who aren't are already damned. And there is nothing we can do to change that. You having your own specific reading of a specific text does not dictate what the dogmas of societies and cultures outside of you have. For the same reason that racists don't get to define a race as lazy/violent just because they're reading and their research of that race suggests so. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 18 2017 21:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How is it insulting? Religious people argue with religious people on the correct interpretation of their religion all the time. Preseumably because they wish to do so. Would you too would feel it insulting? I'd like to translate what you just said: "People of the same social groups discuss things about their social groups to each other, doesn't that mean someone outside their social group gets to dictate to them how their social group works" | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5232 Posts
This is an exclusion on the merit of someone not belonging to a circle's main unifier. Discussing interpretations of the Bible is not the same as saying how someone should live their life. You made a bad "translation". | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 18 2017 23:15 Uldridge wrote: Because people outside of said social circle can't know what they're talking about? This is an exclusion on the merit of someone not belonging to a circle's main unifier. Discussing interpretations of the Bible is not the same as saying how someone should live their life. You made a bad "translation". If black people were discussing with each other what it's like to be black, a white person jumping in (no matter how educated in the subject) to tell them what it's like to be black would be insulting. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18476 Posts
On May 18 2017 21:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How is it insulting? Religious people argue with religious people on the correct interpretation of their religion all the time. Preseumably because they wish to do so. Would you too would feel it insulting? That's not what I'm saying at all. I debate the meaning of religious passages with my girlfriend all the time (she's Muslim), but at no point is there anywhere where we reach the "no you're wrong. The right interpretation is ... " kind of reasoning that I just read here. And I will illustrate it. The whole conversation started with: On May 16 2017 18:56 Yoav wrote: Pretty sure that's not from "religion." You have to go pretty old to find that kind of thinking, and it's certainly as secular as religious. In any event, the Judeo-Christian tradition rejects the idea thoroughly, particularly in the polemic of Ezekiel 18, but also Jeremiah 31:30 and Deut 24:16. A flippant statement from xM(Z about "religion" stating that children carry the sins of their fathers, and Yoav interdicting that that at least is not true in contemporary thought in Judeo-Christian society. Queue 2 pages of back and forth between them, in which one side tries to make it clear what current interpretation of scripture is, and the other party is saying "passage X of book Y" says otherwise. Can one (choose to) interpret the bible or torah the way xm(Z is doing? Yes. Absolutely. It is written in a way that what xM(Z is saying is a valid interpretation. You could probably find religious scholars that say exactly that. But Yoav wasn't arguing whether or not you can interpret scripture that way. He was arguing that contemporary mainstream (religious) society doesn't interpret it that way, and while original sin is a concept in Catholicism, even that is not in any way equivalent to xM(Z's claim. At least not in mainstream religious thought. My interpretation of xM(Z's last post was that he was telling Yoav that he didn't care, because the bible can be interpreted the way he was claiming and he had therefore "won the argument" that religion said so, rather than the far far narrower (so narrow in fact, as to be essentially meaningless) statement that "a possible interpretation of the bible said so". And I have had enough discussions with my girlfriend about Dawkins, Harris and other "radical atheists" to know how insulting it is to take a single possible interpretation of scripture and declare that because *some people* interpret scripture in the worst possible manner, you can generalize that view to "all of religion". | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On May 18 2017 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: Replace the one instances of "dictate" with "discuss" or vice versa to harmonise the words, but I don't disagree with the basic premise of what you just said. I don't see a problem with that translation. The question would be, from your tone as transmitted through the written word, why you see it as problematic?I'd like to translate what you just said: "People of the same social groups discuss things about their social groups to each other, doesn't that mean someone outside their social group gets to dictate to them how their social group works" In any case the discussion came about due to yoav deliberately equating the Christian various doctrines of original sin to liability for the sins of their parents generally. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
 The conversations will essentially go 1) extremist christian posts something about how violent muslims are because of their religion. 2) My friend replies and says that a lot of muslims, including him, don't want to kill people. 3) Some christian extremist pulls out a violent part of the khoran and says that he is muslim, therefore he lives by this and is violent. 4) My friends says that a lot of muslims don't live by the exact letter of the khoran, and pulls out equally violent passages from the bible. 5) christian extremists says that christians don't live by the exact letter of the bible. 6) Endless insults are flinged back and forth. I think the above anecdote fits into the discussion, but I'm not entirely sure what the moral of the story is. I guess that you should be very careful with assuming exactly what implications religion has on other peoples actual behaviour? Or something like that? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
That said, I don't find the debate "insulting" exactly... the issue I have with a non-religious person saying what the Bible says is mostly that a non-religious person will generally not have a "theory of Bible." The Bible isn't obviously any one thing: some treat it as a rulebook, some as history, others as a story proper, others as prophecy, others as theology, and so on. There are bits that lend credence to each theory: there are laws (rulebook), history, stories + Show Spoiler + (it takes a pretty determined literalist to argue that Jonah is meant to be understood as a literal account of events) (in general, the Bible's pretty resistant to systematic theology or philosophy) A religious person will generally have a theory of Bible through which they interpret it. (And you can argue theories of Bible with someone who shares some of your beliefs in a way you can't with someone who doesn't take these texts seriously in the end of the day.) + Show Spoiler + A scholar, too, will generally have some kind of theory... usually not an expansive "theory of Bible" since the scholar usually doesn't care about "the Bible" but rather about some particular bit of it, which they will argue for some interpretation in its original context, or in some later context. And importantly, original meaning isn't always the later meaning that matters. Even the most die-hard literalist doesn't think Abraham knew the Isaac thing had to do with Jesus... that's something that becomes clear centuries later. It's impossible for a modern reader to miss; but it's alien to the original context. So is that a "true" reading? If you think the Bible is inspired by the mind of a God who sees beyond the ages, then yeah, the writers may well have had no idea what the significance of their writings were. And as you develop a theory of why, you get a theory of Bible. But atheists usually don't do the intellectual effort to develop one (no disrepect... heck, why would they?) and so often lazily fall into the trap of assuming a fundamentalist lens without even bothering to properly understand that. | ||
| ||
