Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Prevalence of moon landing conspiracy theories

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Charles View Post
    Well the most brilliant scientist today knows a lot more than Luther did.
    And yet they still speak of "sunrise" and "sunset". THAT is the point you chose to deride.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      way to completely NOT address anything I said Jim and just repeat yourself. Did I mention fetal pain or rights? No. and you didn't address any of my other points.

      1) My reply was ONLY to the first topic mentioned in your post:

      Originally posted by Sparko
      Jim to claim a fetus is not a human being but part of the mother so it can be destroyed is antiscience. Biology says that a new human being is created at conception.
      2) Your sentence is an inaccurate rendition of the actual claims made by the Pro-Abortion side as to what the fetus is:

      Source: wikipedia

      Although the two main sides of the abortion debate tend to agree that a human fetus is biologically and genetically human (that is, of the human species), they often differ in their view on whether or not a human fetus is, in any of various ways, a person.

      © Copyright Original Source



      And 3) an inaccurate rendition of why the pro-abortion side believes the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy:

      Source: wikipedia

      An argument first presented by Judith Jarvis Thomson states that even if the fetus is a person and has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body and its life-support functions.

      © Copyright Original Source



      So you aren't even building a claim on the actual difference(s) between the pro and anti abortion argument. Rather you are presenting a cynical version of it.

      Finally, (on the point of abortion) the whole of the argument does not relate to science, it is the moral issue of when human person hood begins and what the rights of the mother are vs the developing baby. As I said in my original reply, once one makes the moral judgements of what constitutes human person hood and when the developing baby has rights that are equal to or supersede those of the mother, one can then perhaps use science to help how to determine when the criteria of those definitions are met.

      So I stand by the content of all my replies on the relationship between abortion and pseudo-science/anti-science: that the abortion issue is not an arena where pseudo-science/anti-science is involved to any significant degree. It is an issue of morality and law.


      Now, to the rest of your post. My original reply to this post of yours was in the context of the claim abortion is somehow a venue where the liberal/Democratic side engages in anti-science/pseudo-science rhetoric.

      But I had also stated in another post that I didn't know of any venues that had the scope of anti-AGW/YEC creationism and I did not address the elements in your post that apparently are also attempts to address that post as well (You do note that you did not provide a reference to any post in your response to me (was it intended to be me?)). So here is a response to the rest of your post:

      Originally posted by Sparko
      Most health nut anti-GMO guys are liberal. People who try to claim you can change genders by just deciding you want to be one of 57 different genders are anti-science and exclusively liberal as far as I can tell. Most people who are against Nuclear power are liberals. I think there are a lot of liberal spiritualists that believe in astrology and wicca and other new age nonsense.
      Each of these can potentially be basing their position on anti-science/pseudo science arguments - through I'm not really sure what they are. I don't think they hold a candle to the scope of the anti-AGW campaigns or the YEC books and organizations - which was my point was it not? Did I not say:

      Originally posted by oxmixmudd
      The two largest anti science groups i know of are yec, which is almost exclusively evangelical republican and the anti AGW crowd which is also almost exclusively republican. What anti science groups are there that are of similar scope on the liberal side?
      So feel free to make your case that these somehow are both truly anti-science and of similar scope to anti-AGW, YEC(anti-evolution). But I'm not really aware of any of these you mention trying to change how science is taught in the public schools, nor do I know of the sort of nationwide public disinformation campaigns like we see with anti-AGW. Nor do I see any of these garnering almost universally an opinion one way or the other from the common man on the street. Maybe anti-GMO might be a very distant contender for them?

      Jim
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-16-2018, 01:20 PM.
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        And yet they still speak of "sunrise" and "sunset". THAT is the point you chose to deride.
        That is a very trivial point which really makes no difference. Today they do so knowing what science has taught us and thus would not hold it as an absolute. Luther held it as an absolute because he trusted scripture over science. Wouldn't it have been great if scripture had been more clear on this issue?
        "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
          Dodge noted.
          Cynacism noted. My reply wasn't a dodge. I simply chose only to respond to one element of sparko's post. I have provided a more detailed response to the entire post above.

          Jim
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            Cynacism noted. My reply wasn't a dodge. I simply chose only to respond to one element of sparko's post. I have provided a more detailed response to the entire post above.

            Jim
            I say you’re trying to split hairs because the reality is most people are ideologically driven and have no issue ignoring things ,even when they should know better, to support their ideological views. I know numberous college educated women that should know better, but have fallen for the anti vaccine arguments and views and will ignore sound science to hold onto those views. Of course, the main reason they have is few of us were around in a pre vaccine world and don’t have reminders of why skipping out on vaccines is a bad idea. Ideology controls most people, rather you want to admit it or not.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              It wasn't until Galileo's time that even the scientific community, such as it was, started to seriously question whether or not that sun orbited the earth. So while today, considering what we know now, it is easy to sneer disdainfully at Luther for what he said, we should keep in mind that he was hardly outside the mainstream of the "scientific consensus" of his time. But there is still an important lesson to be learned, which is that the Bible was never meant to be read as a scientific textbook -- something that many people even today can't quite grasp. It was and still is concerned with what can be called larger truths.
              For the history of it it is interesting to note that Aristarchus of Samos c. 310 – c. 230 BC presented the first know heliocentric model way before Galileo. But that is just a minor and funny detail.

              The funny thing about the Luther quote is that he is sneering so much at another person while being completely wrong himself. And the interesting lesson to be learned is that what you say about the Bible today, namely that it was never meant to be read as a scientific textbook seemingly was not very obvious to those who read it before science made us wiser. And you mention that many people even today can't quite grasp that. All of this is interesting to note since it shows that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways and science and history has gone quite a long way to form and shape the interpretation to fit with a modern world view.

              I find the story funny because it says so much more about the history of interpretation of scripture than it does about Luther. Luther said many terrible things and was wrong to an extreme extent in all kinds of areas though.
              Last edited by Charles; 12-16-2018, 01:43 PM.
              "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                I say you’re trying to split hairs because the reality is most people are ideologically driven and have no issue ignoring things ,even when they should know better, to support their ideological views. I know numberous college educated women that should know better, but have fallen for the anti vaccine arguments and views and will ignore sound science to hold onto those views. Of course, the main reason they have is few of us were around in a pre vaccine world and don’t have reminders of why skipping out on vaccines is a bad idea. Ideology controls most people, rather you want to admit it or not.
                sorry pix - you are way off in another direction from the issues I'm trying to discuss. If you can find a way to connect your post here to some post I've made and show how it derives from it, I'll revisit your comment.

                Jim
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Charles View Post
                  For the history of it it is interesting to note that Aristarchus of Samos c. 310 – c. 230 BC presented the first know heliocentric model way before Galileo. But that is just a minor and funny detail.

                  The funny thing about the Luther quote is that he is sneering so much at another person while being completely wrong himself. And the interesting lesson to be learned is that what you say about the Bible today, namely that it was never meant to be read as a scientific textbook seemingly was not very obvious to those who read it before science made us wiser. And you mention that many people even today can't quite grasp that. All of this is interesting to note since it shows that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways and science and history has gone quite a long way to form and shape the interpretation to fit with a modern world view.

                  I find the story funny because it says so much more about the history of interpretation of scripture than it does about Luther. Luther said many terrible things and was wrong to an extreme extent in all kinds of areas though.
                  You are right in that it wasn't obvious in the day that the Bible could not be taken literally as regards the time frame or structure of the cosmos. And it has taken a while to reconcile that with reality theologically. For the non-christian that often is seen as an indicator the Bible is not truly an inspired book. To the Christian it gets complicated. Some accept that was God's intent as Rogue, I and others do. Others really can't quite reconcile the conception of an inspired book and a non-literal story of creation any more efficiently than the unbeliever, and so for them it becomes a quest to show how it can be taken more literally after all. Hence YEC etc.


                  Jim
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    You are right in that it wasn't obvious in the day that the Bible could not be taken literally as regards the time frame or structure of the cosmos. And it has taken a while to reconcile that with reality theologically. For the non-christian that often is seen as an indicator the Bible is not truly an inspired book. To the Christian it gets complicated. Some accept that was God's intent as Rogue, I and others do. Others really can't quite reconcile the conception of an inspired book and a non-literal story of creation any more efficiently than the unbeliever, and so for them it becomes a quest to show how it can be taken more literally after all. Hence YEC etc.


                    Jim
                    I agree with most of that. I will ad that my perspective is perhaps a bit different. Even if it is a truly inspired book I am still not that much closer to the truth since it is a book that has not got an obvious interpretation in many areas but rather a book that is interpreted in different ways throughout history. Those who took it by the word often got it wrong. Those who go for non-literal interpretations provide thoughts and ideas that I often find inspiring and interesting. However I also often find that their ideas about "what it is all about" is determined by history and does not give an insight to etarnal truths. I find neither of those satisfying, but you may have another perspective on it which I would take interest in.
                    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Charles View Post
                      For the history of it it is interesting to note that Aristarchus of Samos c. 310 – c. 230 BC presented the first know heliocentric model way before Galileo. But that is just a minor and funny detail.
                      IIRC Pythagoras of Samos (c. 570 – c. 495 B.C.) was the first. Critics of Copernicus and Galileo sometimes referred to heliocentrism as the Pythagorean model. But like Aristarchus, neither proposal offered any solid evidence to back them up and seemingly went against "common sense" and observation.
                      Originally posted by Charles View Post
                      The funny thing about the Luther quote is that he is sneering so much at another person while being completely wrong himself. And the interesting lesson to be learned is that what you say about the Bible today, namely that it was never meant to be read as a scientific textbook seemingly was not very obvious to those who read it before science made us wiser.
                      History is replete with learned men, including notable scientists, making definitive proclamations that would turn out to be egregiously wrong. William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), who's list of accomplishments could fill a book, is a great source for such statements.
                      Originally posted by Charles View Post
                      All of this is interesting to note since it shows that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways and science and history has gone quite a long way to form and shape the interpretation to fit with a modern world view.
                      I've always been a supporter of the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

                      While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine held[1] it seems to actually originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis in 1617. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.

                      Too often we get all hung up over the unessentials -- the things on which our salvation doesn't rest upon.
                      Originally posted by Charles View Post
                      I find the story funny because it says so much more about the history of interpretation of scripture than it does about Luther. Luther said many terrible things and was wrong to an extreme extent in all kinds of areas though.
                      I strongly suspect that the real reason that you find it so funny is that you think it provides you an opportunity to ridicule Christianity, but of course I could be wrong. I just don't think that I am.








                      1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

                      "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
                      Last edited by rogue06; 12-16-2018, 02:33 PM.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Charles View Post
                        That is a very trivial point which really makes no difference.
                        Exactly! That's what you do. You nitpick the stupidest things just to be a Nanny.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          IIRC Pythagoras of Samos (c. 570 – c. 495 B.C.) was the first. Critics of Copernicus and Galileo sometimes referred to heliocentrism as the Pythagorean model. But like Aristarchus, neither proposal offered any solid evidence to back them up and seemingly went against "common sense" and observation.

                          I think you are a little of track there. According to Britannica:

                          Late in the 5th century, or possibly in the 4th century, a Pythagorean boldly abandoned the geocentric view and posited a cosmological model in which the Earth, Sun, and stars circle about an (unseen) central fire—a view traditionally attributed to the 5th-century Pythagorean Philolaus of Croton. https://www.britannica.com/science/Pythagoreanism
                          That is not heliocentrism in a strict sense. Anyway, those are minor details in this discussion. [/QUOTE]

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          History is replete with learned men, including notable scientists, making definitive proclamations that would turn out to be egregiously wrong. William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), who's list of accomplishments could fill a book, is a great source for such statements.
                          As an agnostic I am not of the type who cling to many things in life as being the ultimate truth and I am certainly aware of what you mention here. The fact that this is so does not change my interpretation of theological history. It rather assures me that they and you as well as myself have a hard time finding etarnal truth.

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          I've always been a supporter of the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

                          While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine held[1] it seems to actually originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis in 1617. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.

                          Too often we get all hung up over the unessentials -- the things on which our salvation doesn't rest upon.
                          The things on which our salvation does not rest according to your interpretation. Perhaps that is a broad brush statement but what is essential and what is not is dependent on interpretation in and of itself. I have talked to many Christians who would say that you cannot claim to believe the Bible if you believe in evolution.

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          I strongly suspect that the real reason that you find it so funny is that you think it provides you an opportunity to ridicule Christianity, but of course I could be wrong. I just don't think that I am.
                          If that was my aim I wouldn't be writing this post or the one i just wrote to Ox. I wouldn't find myself reading Christian philosophers with great interest...

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

                          "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
                          It sounds quite reasonable. However i note his expression that "Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses". You can put different meanings to the word "explain" in this context. I know that what some would call an "explanation" proved with certainty to be true (could be evolution as an example) would be called a contradiction of scripture by others. So while I like the idea he expresses there is still a long way to go.
                          "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Exactly! That's what you do. You nitpick the stupidest things just to be a Nanny.
                            You forgot this part: "Today they do so knowing what science has taught us and thus would not hold it as an absolute. Luther held it as an absolute because he trusted scripture over science. Wouldn't it have been great if scripture had been more clear on this issue?"

                            Btw I am having an interesting discussion with Rogue and Ox on it, feel free to join in.
                            "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                              I've always been a supporter of the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

                              While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine held[1] it seems to actually originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis in 1617. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.

                              Too often we get all hung up over the unessentials -- the things on which our salvation doesn't rest upon.





                              1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

                              "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

                              Originally posted by Charles View Post



                              It sounds quite reasonable. However i note his expression that "Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses". You can put different meanings to the word "explain" in this context. I know that what some would call an "explanation" proved with certainty to be true (could be evolution as an example) would be called a contradiction of scripture by others. So while I like the idea he expresses there is still a long way to go.
                              Since this discussion continues to get increasingly far afield and deeper into the weeds, I'll concentrate on what St. Augustine was saying

                              He actually brought up the issue on more than one occasion with probably the most notable one in his aptly titled De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis"):

                              Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

                              Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

                              The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

                              If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

                              Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."


                              But there is another mention in De doctrina christiana ("On Christian Doctrine") worthy of pointing out:

                              At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: "for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth." That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram]

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Since this discussion continues to get increasingly far afield and deeper into the weeds, I'll concentrate on what St. Augustine was saying

                                He actually brought up the issue on more than one occasion with probably the most notable one in his aptly titled De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis"):

                                Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

                                Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

                                The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

                                If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

                                Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."


                                But there is another mention in De doctrina christiana ("On Christian Doctrine") worthy of pointing out:

                                At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: "for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth." That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram]
                                Thanks. Though it is so old it sounds rather modern, or perhaps rather it sounds like something that needed to be repeated to certain people living in mordern times.

                                Anyway as much as I would prefer this kind of interpretation to that of many other Christians I still cannot see how it transcends the level of interpretation. What you provide is guidance on how to read the Bible written by a certain man at a certain point in time. What you provide is not in the Bible. What we are reading here is not the inspired text giving us guidance on how to read it. I feel quite sure (correct me if I am wrong) Luther had read the quote you provided but had another interpretation or somehow said things about heliocentrism that turned out to be completely wrong (not that it proves Augustine wrong in any way).

                                And just for the fun of it (with no intent at all to undermine your good points) I can't help to find this particular sentence a bit biased: "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world[...].
                                "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                284 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X