The truth and nothing but the facts

[juantoo3]

Where did Young Earth Theory, Creationism, Intelligent Design or an infatuation with the Rapture come from? All these are relatively recent phenomena, and they're all American ...

D'you think Newton would have excised the account of creation from Genesis, or Galileo trimmed Joshua 10 because it says the sun stood still? Did either give up their faith in light of their scientific understanding?

I should know better by now, opening up cans of worms...

First, "the Rapture" is decidedly Catholic and English (including Colonial English America) in origin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture

Second, Sir Newton had rather unconventional views when it came to the Bible and Christianity, with some saying his views aligned more with Arianism and Deism. Considering his association with the rather secretive society that promoted the discipline of Science, I would not disagree, though I am not conversantly familiar with the details. I have heard in the past that though he was ordained to minister, he was not allowed to take to the pulpit by his superiors. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

I have long thought Thomas Jefferson and others in his circle (Benjamin Franklin?) looked up to and admired Newton, and were of a mind and sympathetic to and in a place in society to have access to explore Newton's more private views on the matter. That is not to say Newton and Jefferson agreed in totality (that the Jefferson Bible agrees in total), but I do think the two men shared a considerable amount of agreement.

 

[wil]

'the winnowed wisdom of the human race' (Huston Smith)?

win·now
ˈwinō/
verb

1. 1.
   blow a current of air through (grain) in order to remove the chaff.

Exactly what is needed... Thanks for the quote. The thinking that we have not advanced in understanding in 1700 years is ludicrous. Especially when the readers read the books as history, as science, as fact. Wanna hold the old texts there? Then instead of a redlettered book we need a rainbow book...with each color identifying allegory, metaphor, things that cannot be read literally... Religion has issues. But you are correct..I read poetry or the Tao, or the Art of War... and we are smart enough to take none of it litterally... use none of it to discriminate against others or verify that we should subjugate others based on these texts.

It is equivalent to me as the second amendment argument in the US trying and guns don't kill people...

 

[wil]

Want the truth and nothing but the facts? You'll not find it in a religious book... We need to relook at the way we express our beliefs or forget interfaith dialogue all together if we aren't willing to look at our own beliefs critically. I find it the same with science...yes...I find it the same with nationalism/patriotism...yes...we need to openly admit our errors in our 'founding documents' and current use of them, and how they have been misused and stand on the mountain and scream BS.

I wonder why nobody puts the Beatitudes on the walls of government and in our courthouses.... I wish to learn from Jesus, but Christians...are another story. (mass generalization)

 

[Thomas]

First, "the Rapture" is decidedly Catholic and English ...

Er ... please read your wiki link closer. It's neither.

"The rapture is an eschatological term used by certain Christians, particularly within branches of American evangelicalism... "
It is an American evangelical phenomenon.

 

[Thomas]

Exactly what is needed...

As ever, you choose to miss the point.

It's not what is needed, it's what it is.

The thinking that we have not advanced in understanding in 1700 years is ludicrous.

And your thinking the same of theology is similarly ludicrous.

... we need a rainbow book... with each color identifying allegory, metaphor, things that cannot be read literally...

Or, here's a crazy thought, why not read the informed commentaries on the matter, that do just that?

 

[Thomas]

We need to relook at the way we express our beliefs or forget interfaith dialogue all together if we aren't willing to look at our own beliefs critically.

Well please start with your own.

The stereotypical fundamentalist Christian of your baseline, the one on whom all your complaint is founded, the one because of whom you rail against everything, is a minority, and very much as poor-white American phenomena ... so please stop tarnishing us all with that brush.

Your demands for scriptural and theological revision are not based on sound reason, but your own ideology which sees pointing fingers at others a sufficient reason to validate your own viewpoint.

 

[Thomas]

Wil —

It's worth considering whether the problem is with the text, or with the teacher.

I'd say the evidence point at the teacher ... changing the texts won't solve that.

 

[juantoo3]

Er ... please read your wiki link closer. It's neither.

"The rapture is an eschatological term used by certain Christians, particularly within branches of American evangelicalism... "
It is an American evangelical phenomenon.

You may wish to do the same, look under Doctrinal History:

" in 1590 Francisco Ribera, a Catholic Jesuit, taught "futurism"—the idea that most of Revelation is about the imminent future (rather than containing certain prophecies that were already fulfilled in the early years of the church). He also taught that a gathering-of-the-elect event (similar to what is now called the rapture) would happen 45 days before the end of a 3.5-year tribulation."
-and-
"The concept of the rapture, in connection with premillennialism, was expressed by the 17th-century American PuritansIncrease and Cotton Mather. They held to the idea that believers would be caught up in the air, followed by judgments on earth, and then the millennium.[24][25] Other 17th-century expressions of the rapture are found in the works of: Robert Maton, Nathaniel Homes, John Browne, Thomas Vincent, Henry Danvers, and William Sherwin.[26] The term rapture was used by Philip Doddridge[27] and John Gill[28] in their New Testament commentaries, with the idea that believers would be caught up prior to judgment on earth and Jesus' second coming."

Last I checked, "17th century" was prior to the birth of the United States...the area was still a British colony. Even the King James and Douay Bibles are from the 17th century...so just how far back is "recent?"

"John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern Dispensationalismand Futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren,[1] and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.[2]"
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby

Darby brought the rapture teaching to America from England and popularized it, after the American Civil War the teaching caught on like wildfire among grieving widows and spread throughout the country. It is not a teaching I endorse, but I do find myself in the minority. The Rapture teaching was part of a rise in Spiritism from that period ranging from Madam Blavatsky to seances and ouija boards.

 

[juantoo3]

As ever, for me, anything said anywhere is contextual, so in that sense it can have only one meaning (ie Logos, in this instance), but I can see those who don't believe would dispute that.

"Out of context" is a rather common occurrence, not limited to religious (or scientific!) teaching.

I'd say yes, therefore truth is a quality of the Real.

The only concession I can see to make centers here, with the caveat that we are still at menus and food. If truth is conceptual, a "quality" as you point to here, then it can *only* apply to Reality. There cannot be "a truth" that is not elsewhere and always Truth. I am back to my point that Truth is not contingent on belief. It is not a subjective or situational quality.

That's all real, therefore true.

And the flighty philosophers of profundity would say that is your truth, not truth for others. I don't buy into that mess. You are a part of Truth, but a fleeting moment, we are allowed a glimpse for a time. I don't know what comes after, if our minds expand to encompass more or perhaps all of the Eternal Truth, or if the light dims to nothingness, there is no way for me to know that answer until that time comes. Could as likely be we will know then no more than we do now.

Indeed, but each insignificant tiny little piece of an infinite whole is not 'less true' or 'less real' because of it.

Agreed, but that tiny little piece is hardly sufficient to level cocksure attitude of knowing everything and anyone who disagrees is stupid, infidel, heretic, or some other degree of idiot.

I rather think that's what 'truth' is — like 'real', 'beauty' and 'good', it's a value we predicate of things. You can't point to the true or the real in isolation, rather it's something that everything that possesses it has in common. (Beauty is a different case).

If "truth" is degraded or demoted to an arbitrary value judgment contingent on the individual, what purpose? First, I don't think this jibes with the original intent of the word. Second, that means there are what, something on the order of 6 billion truths out there right now...each different from the next. Not views of truth, truths. That is your position. 6 billion truths is a lot of truths to sort through. I see truth as one big tree, and we all stand around it. Our *view* of truth varies, we do not and cannot see the entire tree, but there is only one tree, one Truth, one Reality (that Truth points to *if* you insist on making Truth a concept).

In fact, are not realness and truthfulness qualities of existence? Are they not the first predicates of being, that if something is, it is real, and it is what it is?

It can't be both objective and subjective. That is where the conflation and confusion of the term comes from.

We can see existing things, but we cannot see reality or truth apart from existing things. Reality and truth do not exist apart from existence. Stars exist, moons exist, but truth and realness do not exist in the same way, they have no material existence or being in and of themselves.

We see glints and glimmers; Geiger counters, Atomic Colliders, LLV vision to name a few, but these are tools that must translate Reality into a form we can measure or examine. Otherwise, you are correct, we are limited by our senses.

So is not then the whole universe relatively true, and relatively real, in that its existence is situational and conditional?

Do you not see the oxymoron? It is, but it is not? Seriously, this doesn't make sense to me. Nothing about Reality is contingent on our beliefs or desires. Surely the steadfastness of the Pope that castigated Galileo should teach anyone that lesson.

I have come to realise the best teachers teach by invitation and inspiration... A sense of humour helps ... And the ability to communicate ...

Probably the reason I am not a teacher.

I once thought the sign of wisdom s/he who never gave the same answer twice to the same question ...

I am of two minds on this. First, ask 5 Rabbis and get 6 answers (thank you Bananabrain!)

The other being, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results (thank you Albert Einstein!)

 

[Thomas]

You may wish to do the same, look under Doctrinal History:

These are mere mentions, really. As the wiki entry says.

I mentioned the rapture along with creationism and intelligent design, all three of which, in their current manifestation, arose in and are particular to America, the rapture especially to certain evangelical denominations. In publishing, The Left Behind series is big business, with sales numbering the tens of millions. The link shows that none of the mainstream denominations support neither the idea nor the theology behind it.

One could argue Intelligent Design from Aquinas' Five Ways but it's agreed the contemporary expression is not what he, nor Aristotle, on which the argument depends, had its current expression in mind.

 

[Thomas]

The only concession I can see to make centers here, with the caveat that we are still at menus and food. If truth is conceptual, a "quality" as you point to here, then it can *only* apply to Reality.

So far I am standing on, if something exists, it is real, and if it is real, it is true, inasmuch as it exists. Thus, to me, 'real' and 'true' are qualities predicated of existing things.

It seems to me you're saying 'The Truth' and 'The Real' exist in and of themselves, apart from existing things, I can only agree to that on the understanding that they are categories predicated of existence, they do not exist apart in and of themselves.

There cannot be "a truth" that is not elsewhere and always Truth.

But it is conditional, because we live in a finite and conditional cosmos. That I exist is true. But in a hundred years time, that will be conditional: I did exist, I don't now.

I am back to my point that Truth is not contingent on belief.

Never said it was.

It is not a subjective or situational quality.

Well it is situational. 'Thomas exists' is true now, etc. In a hundred years ...

You are a part of Truth, but a fleeting moment ...

Is that not then conditional?

but that tiny little piece is hardly sufficient to level cocksure attitude of knowing everything and anyone who disagrees is stupid, infidel, heretic, or some other degree of idiot.

Never said that.

If "truth" is degraded or demoted to an arbitrary value judgment contingent on the individual, what purpose?

Never said that.

Second, that means there are what, something on the order of 6 billion truths out there right now...each different from the next.

Different in themselves, but not different in that they are all true.

Like humanity. I am an instance of humanity, I am not 'The Humanity', but I am wholly and unconditionally 100% human, as is every other human.

I see truth as one big tree, and we all stand around it. Our *view* of truth varies, we do not and cannot see the entire tree, but there is only one tree, one Truth, one Reality (that Truth points to *if* you insist on making Truth a concept).

Well the tree is a concept. This is the bit I can't understand. What is the 'one truth' other than the collective term applied to everything that shares that quality of actually existing?

It can't be both objective and subjective. That is where the conflation and confusion of the term comes from.

That's where I think you're confounding the two.

This truth, this mountain, say; that truth, that ocean; that is objectively true. And from that we derive the idea that things are either true or they are not, they exist or they do not, but The One Truth has no existence of itself, it's a quality of existing things, and a philosophical category, albeit an objective philosophical category, we apply to everything that shares existence in common.

 

[wil]

Or, here's a crazy thought, why not read the informed commentaries on the matter, that do just that?

been there, done that...and there in lies the issue.

It says nothing here in this latest medical textbook we use from the year 400 anything about CPR....silly you need to read this other book, it has the commentary. Yes we know that is the book we use to teach with, the book we reference all the time, but instead of updating it, we want you to read one of 300 various commentaries written by different authors.

Seem the Muslims are having the same issues with the holy Quran vs the hadiths...

Why doesn't my history book say anything about the English Empire? Oh, because you need to read the English Commentary on that...no need to update your history book with the last 1500 years of information....it is still the best book just the way it is, if you want anything more...look for the commentary.

As you know you are speaking to someone with two parallel bibles so I can look at 8 versions at one time, plus a few commentaries to attempt to figure out what others think the authors were thinking at the time. And yes my reference is often what is going on in American literalist readings of the bible, which does not just include the evangelistic community but also many lay Catholics....Because many folks don't get beyond the catechism and what is preached on Sundays...but they go on Sundays...because if they don't they know they are going to hell. I know you have a hard time believing this... these parents and their kids I worked with in boy scouts were from half a dozen different Catholic churches and listened to them beat this drum before every month before every camp out for 6 years.

 

[juantoo3]

One could argue Intelligent Design from Aquinas' Five Ways

I wasn't aware Aquinas was a fan of Left Behind...

That is where your link leads to.

 

[juantoo3]

But it is conditional, because we live in a finite and conditional cosmos. That I exist is true. But in a hundred years time, that will be conditional: I did exist, I don't now.

Limited again for time.

First, I posit the conservation of Mass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

"The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system's mass cannot change, so quantity cannot be added nor removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is conserved over time." Bear in mind the Universe is one big closed system.

With conservation of mass as a starting point, it can be postulated that the soul has mass. Apparently there was already an attempt to measure this with less than convincing results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment

However, the experiment was a limited sample, and there was question of the accuracy of the equipment, and a laundry list of ad hominem...interesting no "atheist" has stepped up to demonstrate conclusively one way or the other.

Point being to our conversation, that existing for a time is still existing, still Reality, still Truth. A star exists until it explodes, but its essence goes on to be other things.

Stated another way:
We are stardust, we are golden
We are billion year old carbon
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden

 

[juantoo3]

These are mere mentions, really. As the wiki entry says.

I mentioned the rapture along with creationism and intelligent design, all three of which, in their current manifestation, arose in and are particular to America, the rapture especially to certain evangelical denominations. In publishing, The Left Behind series is big business, with sales numbering the tens of millions. The link shows that none of the mainstream denominations support neither the idea nor the theology behind it.

Mere mentions? Significant enough in other contexts when it suits I've noticed on more than one occasion. The first noted pulpit teaching came from a Jesuit Priest in 1590. Later expansion on the subject in colonial America, English rule, is significant as well. The popularization came from Darby (English/Scottish) and the promotion of the Scofield Bible, which took off in America in the post-Civil War period. You are insinuating it is totally and only an American invention when it clearly is not. The only I will grant is that in typical American fashion we picked up the ball and ran with it and turned it into a money maker.

I have no dog in the hunt regarding Creationism or Intelligent Design...I don't know, and frankly don't care.

 

[juantoo3]

So far I am standing on, if something exists, it is real, and if it is real, it is true, inasmuch as it exists. Thus, to me, 'real' and 'true' are qualities predicated of existing things.

It seems to me you're saying 'The Truth' and 'The Real' exist in and of themselves, apart from existing things, I can only agree to that on the understanding that they are categories predicated of existence, they do not exist apart in and of themselves.

if it exists, it is real...if it is real, it is true. OK, that reasonably well sums up, to a point. I think there is a hitch in the git-a-long though, as mentioned earlier.

Because you no longer exist doesn't mean you did not exist, and presuming you did in fact exist, then the reality is you existed, therefore you are part and parcel of reality.

Let me ask this way...did Adam in fact exist, is he real and therefore True? Did Abraham in fact exist, is he real and therefore True? Did Moses in fact exist, is he real and therefore True? Did Jesus in fact exist, is he real and therefore True?

But it is conditional, because we live in a finite and conditional cosmos. That I exist is true. But in a hundred years time, that will be conditional: I did exist, I don't now.

Presuming on my part that by Cosmos you mean the same as Universe, then whether the Universe is infinite or a really, really huge finite, is irrelevant. That you exist we here today that experience you understand - you exist. Those before your time would not know to ask, those that come after may or may not know you ever existed. Doesn't matter, the infinitesimal components that make you, you, will go on to be something else in due time. Even a fossil is not the creature, generally speaking the bones absorb minerals that take over in that form. What you will become can only be guessed. To me this only adds to the mystery demonstrating how limited our little pea brained selves are in thinking we actually know anything, when we really don't have a clue.

Well it is situational. 'Thomas exists' is true now, etc. In a hundred years ...


Is that not then conditional?

No, and no.

I am back to my point that Truth is not contingent on belief.

Never said it was

Situational? Conditional?

Eternal doesn't *necessarily* mean in the same condition or situation. Conservation of Mass.

but that tiny little piece is hardly sufficient to level cocksure attitude of knowing everything and anyone who disagrees is stupid, infidel, heretic, or some other degree of idiot.

Never said that.

No, you didn't. But far too many over the course of human history have, and still do.

Like humanity. I am an instance of humanity, I am not 'The Humanity', but I am wholly and unconditionally 100% human, as is every other human.

I'm not sure of your point here. Not all little truths are always True, and here I am stepping outside of my preferred understanding and usage. Surely you can recount numerous times in history when cocksure, unassailable truths ruled the day and the minds and hearts of humanity, only to be shown 50, 100, 200 years later to be so far off base as to be laughable? If not, I'll happily provide a list. Wars have been fought over these petty differences of opinion! As if might makes right! So yes, this is conditional, this is situational, this is belief...and none of it is Truth!...apart from the fact that good men died for what amounted to nothing.

Well the tree is a concept. This is the bit I can't understand. What is the 'one truth' other than the collective term applied to everything that shares that quality of actually existing?

You wish for Truth to be a concept, to that I have acquiesced. In Truth, all such things, all rational thinking whatsoever, is conceptual. Do away with concepts and you *only* have experience, concepts are how we parse experience and learn from it. So yes, the tree is a concept for illustration, Truth is a concept to grasp Reality. Otherwise, what do you propose???

In fact, are not realness and truthfulness qualities of existence? Are they not the first predicates of being, that if something is, it is real, and it is what it is?

It can't be both objective and subjective. That is where the conflation and confusion of the term comes from.

That's where I think you're confounding the two.

Qualities of existence? OK, I think we are getting unnecessarily wordy, we've been here before, obfuscating with language. I am trying hard to stay with particular verbiage so as to minimize cognitive dissonance. As noted many times in the past, you like to play with words. I'm wordy too, I get it, but I would like to think this is the first sincere, neutral ground discussion you and I have had in quite awhile, and I'd like to stay on track if at all possible. So I am going to ask, pointedly, by "qualities of existence" are you meaning "concepts," or are we back at value judgments? Mind, whatever you choose here is going to be the "set in stone" definition between us going forward, and any deviation from that decided definition will be called to task. Agreed?

Now, I have already acceded "concepts," but to "value judgments" I will continue to say "no." Any way you slice this...concept or value judgment, is still dwelling on the menu instead of savoring the Real meal.

This truth, this mountain, say; that truth, that ocean; that is objectively true. And from that we derive the idea that things are either true or they are not, they exist or they do not, but The One Truth has no existence of itself, it's a quality of existing things, and a philosophical category, albeit an objective philosophical category, we apply to everything that shares existence in common.

As a concept, as a menu...yes. As a value judgment...no. As Reality in substance...no.

 

[wil]

Wil —

It's worth considering whether the problem is with the text, or with the teacher.

I'd say the evidence point at the teacher ... changing the texts won't solve that.

You are recommending 1000 year old medical books? You and I both know if the authors of the bible had all the knowledge and inspiration they had then... with all the experience of growing up in this lifetime... the books would be utterly different. Crippling every teacher with 1000 year old medical books would be similarly catastrophic.

 

[Thomas]

Mere mentions?

It's a matter of discernment – is the current situation a continuation of the past?

Only in that millenniallists left Europe to pursue their own heterodox beliefs in the New World. Once here, the theoogical dimension took off very much in its own dimension and under its own steam, and has become the soapbox of the religious right. The rapture has captivated minds, 'The Left Behind' series has sold over ten millions copies. US 'rapture theology', along with creationism and ID, has been promoted by the US religious right with a strong sociopolitical agenda.

Rest assured, in Europe, we think it's all nonsense.

I have no dog in the hunt regarding Creationism or Intelligent Design...I don't know, and frankly don't care.

Ah. It's all part of the same phenomena.

 

[wil]

US 'rapture theology', along with creationism and ID, has been promoted by the US religious right with a strong sociopolitical agenda.

Rest assured, in Europe, we think it's all nonsense.

Wait till we impeach the nonsense... that silent majority over here will be heard around the world...

 

[Thomas]

You are recommending 1000 year old medical books?

That's a 'science v religion' thing again...