Rush Limbaugh

[pjohns]

Moved the goalposts? The Federal Government is the central authority in your country.

True enough.

But the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch serve as checks on each other. (For instance, a court--representing the judicial branch--may rule that a law is unconstitutional, as written. But the Congress--representing the legislative branch--may correct that by writing a new and improved law; and the president may sign that law. And if he declines, then a two-thirds supermajority of both chambers of Congress may override his veto.)

Highly centralized states are characteristic of the modern world your country included. I'm not sure why you're struggling with this.

See above.

You said you would prefer one situation (denominationalism, sectarianism with the rancor and hatreds they engender) over another (blind obedience and submission) that doesn't actually exist.

Actually, it is you who seems to be filled with "rancor and hatred."

And I am unsure just why you would assert that "blind obedience and submission" do not exist. (On exactly what doctrinal issues do you disagree with the Pope?)

Yes, Martin Luther...was actually far more hostile to rationalism and philosophy in general than the Catholic Church ever was.

Since I never claimed to march in lockstep with Martin Luther, I really do not know just what this is supposed to prove.

Again, I don't know what it means to view the Bible as "entirely rational". Do you?

Once again: I know of nothing irrational about it.

But if you can find something, then I will immediately disbelieve it.

But I do now that the philosophers of the Enlightenment were generally hostile to your faith and considered the Bible anything but rational yet you admire them hence my comment.

I think that we may define "faith" quite differently.

Some people--and one thinks, especially, of those who speak flippantly of "the faith community"--appear to see faith as a belief grounded in nothingness.

And that is precisely the sort of "faith" that I would wholly reject.

Let me put it this way:

There are two methods--and only two--of achieving knowledge: the rational and the empirical.

The rational is based upon reasoning.

The empirical is based upon experience or observation.

For instance, when I put the key in my car's ignition and turn it, I have faith that the engine to start.

If I knew a bit--even a little--about auto mechanics, I could explain rationally just why that is.

But I do not.

I do know, however, that whenever I do this, the car engine starts (unless, perhaps, the battery is low; or the alternator is bad).

This amounts to experience.

Well, the Bible--just like anything else--is not at all immune to this test.

The philosophical pretensions of the Enlightenment are a separate topic. I'd be happy to discuss them but suffice it to say for now that my objections are primarily cultural and political. The generally bigoted attitudes of Enlightenment thinkers toward religion is relevant for us now so, again, the admiration you have for them is very, very odd.

This is not the first time that you have spoken churlishly about "the philosophical pretensions" of the Enlightenment thinkers.

I agree with some more thoroughly than I agree with others.

Some believed in the perfectibility of humankind (these are generally known as the "Romantics"), whereas others did not.

I find myself firmly ensconced with the latter group.

But I applaud them all for, at least, seeking the truth.

And those who claim to already have all the "truth" we need are religious fundamentalists--whether they call themselves that or not--and I certainly do not wish to be a part of that crowd.

[carolina73]

I have no idea why people use Faith and religion together except that religions attempt to use your faith to control you.
Religions have nothing to do with their Gods. Religions are all about people that use the name of God to make you want to conform or fear you into conforming.
You can believe in God and have faith in God without having any desire to be part of a religion.
The most effective religions like Islam, Christianity, Hinduism all promise you a short life on earth but a eternal life. If you do what these leaders say then you will have booze, broads (even virgins) and Cheetos for eternity but if you don't then you will have your eyes plucked out by birds in a flaming hell or come back as a $#@!roach.

Religions use fear as their method to control you and eternity trumps all the current authorities that influence you.

So Faith and belief in God have nothing to do with these people that want to control you with fear.

[pjohns]

The differences you referred to are very minor. [T]he Nicene Creed is an ecumenical creed establishing the fundamentals off the Christian faith.

There is a very good article by Dr. Barrier in Crosswalk.com. (It is in response to a question posed by a person who identifies himself only as "E"):

"[N]o group ever officially voted on which [New Testament writings] should be considered as Holy Scripture. However, by the early fourth century the 27 books now included in the New Testament were first mentioned in a list by the Council of Nicaea as being God-breathed. Those 27 New Testament books along with the 39 books of the Old Testament make up the 66 books in the Holy Bible of today."

My only quibble--and it is really a minor one--is the author's (quite literal) translation of theopneustos in II Timothy 3:16. (It is ordinarily translated as "inspired." The literal translation--"God breathed"--may lend itself to "The Dictation Theory" of inspiration--a theory in which God dictates the words verbatim, and the New Testament writers simply act as good stenographers. But if that is the case, then it is difficult to explain just why God changes his style when He writes through John, versus when He writes through Mark; or when He writes through Peter, versus when He writes through Paul.)

[Mister D]

True enough.

But the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch serve as checks on each other. (For instance, a court--representing the judicial branch--may rule that a law is unconstitutional, as written. But the Congress--representing the legislative branch--may correct that by writing a new and improved law; and the president may sign that law. And if he declines, then a two-thirds supermajority of both chambers of Congress may override his veto.)


See above.


Actually, it is you who seems to be filled with "rancor and hatred."

And I am unsure just why you would assert that "blind obedience and submission" do not exist. (On exactly what doctrinal issues do you disagree with the Pope?)


Since I never claimed to march in lockstep with Martin Luther, I really do not know just what this is supposed to prove.



Once again: I know of nothing irrational about it.

But if you can find something, then I will immediately disbelieve it.



I think that we may define "faith" quite differently.

Some people--and one thinks, especially, of those who speak flippantly of "the faith community"--appear to see faith as a belief grounded in nothingness.

And that is precisely the sort of "faith" that I would wholly reject.

Let me put it this way:

There are two methods--and only two--of achieving knowledge: the rational and the empirical.

The rational is based upon reasoning.

The empirical is based upon experience or observation.

For instance, when I put the key in my car's ignition and turn it, I have faith that the engine to start.

If I knew a bit--even a little--about auto mechanics, I could explain rationally just why that is.

But I do not.

I do know, however, that whenever I do this, the car engine starts (unless, perhaps, the battery is low; or the alternator is bad).

This amounts to experience.

Well, the Bible--just like anything else--is not at all immune to this test.



This is not the first time that you have spoken churlishly about "the philosophical pretensions" of the Enlightenment thinkers.

I agree with some more thoroughly than I agree with others.

Some believed in the perfectibility of humankind (these are generally known as the "Romantics"), whereas others did not.

I find myself firmly ensconced with the latter group.

But I applaud them all for, at least, seeking the truth.

And those who claim to already have all the "truth" we need are religious fundamentalists--whether they call themselves that or not--and I certainly do not wish to be a part of that crowd.

The existence of checks and balances does not make the US any less of a centralized state. It's the modern norm borne largely by the rationalism of the Enlightenment.

I didn't accuse you of rancor and hatred. I said you were willing to tolerate them both in the name of your autonomy. I don't disagree with the Pope or the Catholic Church on any essential doctrine. Papal Infallibility is rather limited. The Pope is not a dictator and I disagree with Francis, for example, on all sorts of things. His urging regarding the migrant crisis comes immediately to mind.

So how exactly do you approach the Bible? Was Noah a real person? Was there a global flood? Was Job a real person? Adam and Eve? Did a snake trick them?

Romanticism was a reaction to the Enlightenment and the belief in the perfectibility of man and society was part and parcel of era. I speak "churlishly" because many of our members know little of the history they insist upon referencing. Not a shot at you specifically.

[Tahuyaman]

I have no idea why people use Faith and religion together except that religions attempt to use your faith to control you.
Religions have nothing to do with their Gods. Religions are all about people that use the name of God to make you want to conform or fear you into conforming.
You can believe in God and have faith in God without having any desire to be part of a religion.
The most effective religions like Islam, Christianity, Hinduism all promise you a short life on earth but a eternal life. If you do what these leaders say then you will have booze, broads (even virgins) and Cheetos for eternity but if you don't then you will have your eyes plucked out by birds in a flaming hell or come back as a $#@!roach.

Religions use fear as their method to control you and eternity trumps all the current authorities that influence you.

So Faith and belief in God have nothing to do with these people that want to control you with fear.

Nonsense.

[carolina73]

Nonsense.

The only writings that I know from God is the 10 commandments. All the rest was written by man. Men with the equivalent of 6th grade educations at best. Everything you study in a religion is written by man and written in a story line to dictate behavior.
I am not a agnostic nor a atheist, but I realized religions were men writing books to share stories that dictate behavior and to require unquestionable loyalty to the ones that control the stories.

[Tahuyaman]

The only writings that I know from God is the 10 commandments. All the rest was written by man. Men with the equivalent of 6th grade educations at best. Everything you study in a religion is written by man and written in a story line to dictate behavior.
I am not a agnostic nor a atheist, but I realized religions were men writing books to share stories that dictate behavior and to require unquestionable loyalty to the ones that control the stories.

Jesus is quoted in the New Testament. A Christian religion is not intended to control behavior. It's intent is to spread the word of grace and forgiveness.

[testsubjectalpha]

Mr D. First comes individual responsibility and freedom, and inalienable rights. Checks and balances in a Gov't structure is meant to ensure the power of the People is not usurped by the whims of the politicians who claim to represent them.

The existence of checks and balances does not make the US any less of a centralized state. It's the modern norm borne largely by the rationalism of the Enlightenment.

I didn't accuse you of rancor and hatred. I said you were willing to tolerate them both in the name of your autonomy. I don't disagree with the Pope or the Catholic Church on any essential doctrine. Papal Infallibility is rather limited. The Pope is not a dictator and I disagree with Francis, for example, on all sorts of things. His urging regarding the migrant crisis comes immediately to mind.

So how exactly do you approach the Bible? Was Noah a real person? Was there a global flood? Was Job a real person? Adam and Eve? Did a snake trick them?

Romanticism was a reaction to the Enlightenment and the belief in the perfectibility of man and society was part and parcel of era. I speak "churlishly" because many of our members know little of the history they insist upon referencing.

[testsubjectalpha]

God, New York has turned the notion of thou shalt not kill into an issue of cash bail.

The only writings that I know from God is the 10 commandments. All the rest was written by man. Men with the equivalent of 6th grade educations at best. Everything you study in a religion is written by man and written in a story line to dictate behavior.
I am not a agnostic nor a atheist, but I realized religions were men writing books to share stories that dictate behavior and to require unquestionable loyalty to the ones that control the stories.

[pjohns]

The existence of checks and balances does not make the US any less of a centralized state.

Certainly, the US has a "central" government (most often known as the federal government.)

But the individual states also wield a great deal of power.

I didn't accuse you of rancor and hatred. I said you were willing to tolerate them both in the name of your autonomy.

Exactly what "rancor and hatred" am I (supposedly) "tolerat[ing]"?

I don't disagree with the Pope or the Catholic Church on any essential doctrine.

You have given yourself a bit of wiggle room by inserting the adjective "essential."

Papal Infallibility is rather limited.

Why should such a doctrine be respected in any cases at all?

Just what is the basis for it, anyway? (And please do not cite Matthew 16:18.)

So how exactly do you approach the Bible?

From a rationalistic standpoint.

To do otherwise--to begin with the premise that it is infallible (or inerrant, as some prefer to say) is to commit a logical fallacy known as the a priori fallacy.

Was Noah a real person? Was there a global flood? Was Job a real person? Adam and Eve? Did a snake trick them?

I have often struggled with all of these.

I tend to believe--probably--that these were merely homilies. But I really cannot say with certainty.

(By the way, it is my understanding that many religions have a reference to a global flood.)

Romanticism was a reaction to the Enlightenment and the belief in the perfectibility of man and society was part and parcel of era.

Only some philosophers of the Enlightenment era were romantics. Possibly David Hume could be so characterized. And Rousseau surely could be.

But Hobbes certainly was not. (In fact, he was really rather cynical, I think.)