As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

A very, very liberal one, from the sound of it!

Me, I often have random drinks at parties.
Does that make me a liberalcoholic?

No comment.

Atheist? And you believe in......hell?!?!

You didn't love me in the afternoon when you wanted to fight over Bregt though

Eh?

Or you could explain it, there's an idea!

Well, from what I can tell, and this is merely an assumption so please correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying that I joke about such things because in the back of my mind I secretly believe them? Trust me, if I believed in hell, I wouldn't joke about it.

If truth be told, I maintain this "towards-the-back aptitude from time to time" (or as I like to name it, irony-in-the-face-of-absurdity) because humour and irony is one thing a non-believer tends to have in his or her favour. A light-hearted way to ridicule the ridiculous. And there are some ridiculous ideas out there, religious and non-religious alike! (And certainly not meant to be taken as a personal dig at anyone, just a dig at stupid ideas. Aw, see, now I'm back in debating mode... it's tiring you know! )

Again, if I am mistaken in my interpretation of your comment, please correct me.

But there are things you believe in. Maybe even put above yourself (see as transcendent), don't you? It may be even reason. mind, nature.

I walked on water today!

You filled it with custard didn't you? Didn't you?

Aw, I was totally gonna go for the custard theory. I was wrong!

Ooh ooh, check your PMs for a good laugh. Well, made me laugh at least!

Have done!

For my next miracle I'm going to turn wine into water. Takes a few hours but it always works, just hope it doesn't wake me in the middle of the night?

No, I understand you very well. I don't feel offended. What I mean is that people believing in God see Him "work" as much as you see reason work, which proves my theory that it all depends on an assumption. I'm not saying that believing Stephen Hawking is the same to believing Moses (the ancient tradition, still believed until 19th Century or later, stated he is the author of the Pentateuch, which constitutes of e.g. Genesis) regarding the creation of the world.

The author I recommended, Kierkegaard, states that faith is so hard, because it's so much AGAINST reason. But then again...

If you take the sole ASSUMPTION that God exists, then you can very logically explain Creationism. The question is if you take an assumption. Don't question the logic of a theory though.

I don't agree with Creationism, though I seem to see where does William come from with his firm believe in it. Some Protestant churches (including his, I know it from PM, so I abstain from telling which one it is) have chosen the rule called "by Scripture alone" or in its Latin original "Sola Scriptura". This principle was created by Martin Luther along with 4 other "solas" (alone) , like "by faith alone" (sola fide).

The sola scripture principle goes against Scholastical tradition, which made Biblical interpretation go completely overboard and led to its Renaissance critique and demise until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) reassured Tradition as the basis of understanding of the Bible. Its basic rule says that the Scripture is simple as is and it *explains* itself, thus a religious person shall read the Bible by oneself, rather than only during official service (in fact, reading Bible at home was forbidden for a long time by Catholic church).

Catholic Tradition on the other hand goes as far as the Church Fathers do. St. Augustine is the basis by his book of De doctrina Christiana, which kinda regulated the question of traditional four senses of Bible. The literal sense explains the history presented in the interpreted excerpt. Then comes the moral sense, which is obvious, the "anagogical" sense, which is, if I remember well, to explain the future. And there goes the allegorical sense, which, in one of the meanings of it, refers to the New Testament. Allegory WAS one of the ways of connecting both Testaments. Case in point is one of the Psalms, which was literally quoted by Christ on the cross (Eli, Eli lama sabachthani - God, my God why have You forsaken me), or the book of Job, where the main character is seen as a figure of Christ (through unwarranted suffering).

Now the question is whether we see the Bible as a series of metaphors or literally. Some readings may be very literal, which is the reason behind Creationism. Seeing the 6 Days (hence the Greek term of Hexameron) of creation as a metaphor allows us to accept Evolutionism as plausible.

Biblical literalism can't be seen as a logical mistake, especially if we choose to ABSTAIN from the tradition, like Protestants do, often being right about the mistakes behind theology, especially Medieval theology.

Steven,

Just playing Devil's advocate here mate but what would you say to anyone suggesting perhaps you're not any better than those you so heartily oppose to? End of day, you both passionately defend your beliefs which are highly subjective since - knock on wood - nobody has gone up there (or down below, anyway) to check and come back to tell us the truth and we are all basically choosing what we want to believe and follow as real. How are you any different than any passionate Christian defending his beliefs?