The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Dysole

I was unaware of any particular historical breakdown all in one place so I had to go look myself and this seems to cover the highlights. It's certainly an interesting read and I'll admit I'm not certain of the author's religious, theological, or political bent.

Thanks.

The author (possibly with good reason) seems to think that Godly inspiration implies inerrancy more than I'd've thought the case. When a movie comes with an "inspired by the book" billing, I don't expect it to be too faithful to the source (and am generally happier when it's not, but that's a separate issue).

I was surprised to see Luther and Calvin so explicit (at least in the brief snippets given) about it, thinking it was a much later development. I knew that Luther went back to the bible as the only source of God's wisdom, but not that he took it to be inerrant.

(apparently the British are wrong)

That's a whole other discussion.

[ollie]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Philosophy and Christian Theology doesn't seem to even deign to mention biblical literalism, even among the related links. This seems to back-up my hunch that it is not a serious topic of conversation within [what I consider to be] mainstream academic thought.

[Dysole]

Originally Posted by ollie

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Philosophy and Christian Theology doesn't seem to even deign to mention biblical literalism, even among the related links. This seems to back-up my hunch that it is not a serious topic of conversation within [what I consider to be] mainstream academic thought.

Might that be because

a.) it mentions that it chose the ones unique to Christianity and I believe the inerrancy of Scripture is also an Islamic tenet

b.) there really isn't much to discuss on the matter. Once you've established the basic guidelines (figurative is figurative, read the context), you're basically either not a Biblical literatist or you're arguing specific interpretations. I can't see much reason for academic discourse on the topic of Biblical literacy except on maybe its specifics (although admittedly math is more my forte and philosophy/theology is more of a hobby so I could be out of my league here).

c.) There is no c.

d.) Riffing off of b, I almost feel like inerrancy/literalism is a theological issue and not a philosophical one. It makes a priori assumptions and then can't really waver on them. Regardless of truth value, that doesn't really make it something that can be looked at philosophically for very long.

~Dysole, who could just be rambling

[ollie]

Yep, it looks like it's a purely theological issue. Which confirms my disdain: there are plenty of religious folk that have contributed to the history of thought generally---Augustine, for an example relevant here---while not being confined to only being interesting if you take a superhero god as the starting point.

Being inside that sphere is a long way from a guarantee that you have something valuable to say (hello, @Lacan ; possibly the most optimistic @-tag in the brief history of heroscapers @-tagging) but if you're outside it then that's a bad sign.

So, to sociology. How does this movement have such a grip on contemporary US public discourse? When did it start? Is anyone else terrified by it?

[Dysole]

Originally Posted by ollie

So, to sociology. How does this movement have such a grip on contemporary US public discourse? When did it start? Is anyone else terrified by it?

I don't know if a precise date is possible or even what factors would lead up to it, but I believe Christians became much more involved in politics starting in about the late 1970s when several Christian leaders suggested it. The 1980s is when it started getting popular.

I think the fact that our age allows transmission of ideas faster than any other generation coupled with the media loving to sensationalize the crap out of everything, couple with the fact that just in general people tend to associate with like minded people which makes it harder for actual discourse to happen and simply just repetition of the same ideas have led to a very us vs. them mentality in just about all sides of the spectrum. Furthermore, religion tends to be one of those things that people can feel very passionately and an attack on it can feel like an attack on them. These are all musings and I don't actually have data to back them up but I wouldn't be surprised if such data exists.

Am I scared because of it? I'm more sad. A good deal of Christianity has become too political and nationalistic for what I'm comfortable with (more obviously on the right end of the spectrum but it's there on the left too). I'm sad for anyone affected by the fallout from that. I think the church could accomplish more by shutting up and doing things than trying to change or create laws to meet Christian morals. I don't think it's wrong to do so, just not what our focus should be and something I think we should do very carefully. But scared? I'm not sure on a scale outside of myself what I should be afraid of.

~Dysole, admitting that my own personal situation has me a bit scared

[Hahma]

I think neighbors blowing off a boatload of fireworks and scaring the crap out of my dogs should be a sin, there's gotta be a special kind of hell waiting for them.

[Joseph Sweeney]

I noticed (while only skanning the thread) that someone suggested moving the discussion from this thread if I wanted it. Just wanna say you all have my leave to continue here, as I'm totally cool with everyone having a nice chat.

Just don't expect me to read everything.

~JS, who still intends to continue his conversation with Dysole when he gets the chance

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by ollie

So, to sociology. How does this movement have such a grip on contemporary US public discourse? When did it start? Is anyone else terrified by it?

So long as we remain a secular society, I'm not too worried. Science is the study and understanding of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Creationism begins with the truth as delivered by God, so all explanations must support the bible. When we have scientific observations that conflict with the bible (for example, is the life of the universe limited to 10,000 years?), I believe that we begin to enter pseudoscience. In a secular society, the propogation of these beliefs will be limited to the believers.

In a society under religious rule, things could go differently. After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, scientific papers in Iran had to include references to the Koran. As a result, they ended up with scientific papers that would cover things such as the relationship between earthquakes and the sins of the people in the earthquake region.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Dysole

But scared? I'm not sure on a scale outside of myself what I should be afraid of.

Originally Posted by Rich10

I believe that we begin to enter pseudoscience. In a secular society, the propogation of these beliefs will be limited to the believers.

I think global warming is the perfect example here.

We have a well-documented threat to our way of life. Yet many/most biblical literalists do not accept it, mostly due, I believe, to their ingrained distrust of science. And they have the clout to stop, or at least slow, effective action to mitigate it, even in our "secular" society.

Another reason it's a good example is that it contrasts with the Catholic approach. That branch of Christianity has a very good record of aligning with, and furthering, science (there are a few well-known exceptions that always seem to get cited and plenty of room for disagreement about the ethical choices regarding science they agree with). As already brought up in the thread, the pope has come out with a call to take action against the causes of climate change.

[Retlaw]

Really, people are terrified because some are standing up for their faith. I'm not referring to extreme groups (e.g., westboro baptist church), but every day people who are just getting tired of what they see as a decline and speak out.

Earlier in this topic some one brought up the pizza shop in Indiana that said it wouldn't cater same sex weddings (note they would still serve them in the restaurant, just not do a special funtion that promoted something aggainst their faith). I was more scared of the responses they got (death threats, etc.) and the lack of outrage by society as a whole over those responses.

Also, i think a lot of the Christian concern is that up to now the court rulings on issues related to Christian values and beliefs have been preventing the state from imposing the values on others (e.g., striking down sodomy laws). But now the court has said that the government (which represents the people) has to specificaly issue permits/ licences for activity that is contrary to their faith. You may not see this as big issue, but some do and they speak up.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

Also, i think a lot of the Christian concern is that up to now the court rulings on issues related to Christian values and beliefs have been preventing the state from imposing the values on others (e.g., striking down sodomy laws). But now the court has said that the government (which represents the people) has to specificaly issue permits/ licences for activity that is contrary to their faith. You may not see this as big issue, but some do and they speak up.

I understand this to a degree, but at the same time it can seem like cherry-picking what's being spoken up for and/or acted on. It seems like gay marriage is an easy one to speak up for and act on, but the same people don't seem to care about giving drivers licenses to pedifiles, adulterers or killers. Nor do they care about serving or giving out licenses to hate group members. They're fine with being cops and soldiers killing people because that's the "exception" to thou shall not kill I suppose.

I guess to me, I see it that if people are going to be upset about gay marriage as being contrary to their faith, but are not equally vocal or acting on all other contrary things to their faith, then it seems like cherry-picking the easier issues.

While I'm sure there are some people that do in fact stand up against all things contrary to their faith, I would say it's a very small percentage.

I've seen all too many times over the years, a lot of people of various faiths claim to be whatever faith because they go to church or speak all religious-like to others, but then will be racists, steal, be gluttonous, lazy workers etc. So I know that we as humans aren't perfect and will be forgiven for our sins or for not always being righteous, so then why that apply to people that would give a marriage license to a gay couple?

Perhaps I've just become too cynical as I've gotten older, as I continue to witness contrary behavior, or at least what I perceive as contrary behavior.

[Retlaw]

Really, giving a drivers license to a pedofile doesn't make it legal for the pedofile to molest children, so comparing that to a marriage lisence that does make a same sex marriage legal is a meanless comparison.

Also, the people I know who have spoken out against same sex marriage have also spoken out against other isues that are contrary to their faith (e.g., legalizing abortion). They aren't cherry picking issues- maybe the news an social media make it seem that they are cherry picking , but my personal experience says they aren't.

And one more item, the correct translation is thou shall not commit murder, not kill. For example, the Bible does not prohibit killing in a matter of self defense.