[Pesqueeb]

Belief in imaginary beings isn't the same thing as non-belief. There are countless iterations of this type of delusion from many cultures throughout history - hundreds of gods and creation myths - all kinds of crazy if you think its true because you can't absolutely prove or disproved delusion from the individual or the masses religious or otherwise. Anyhow, the lack of a delusion is not a delusion.

MRI can show brain states which clearly show abnormal states of function in mediation/trances/religious experiences just like you can prove whether you have a fever with a thermometer. Ain't technology great.

I disagree. IMHO die hard atheists are just as bad as religious nut jobs. It’s still absolute certitude in something that is ultimately un-provable. The extremists or "believers" on either side are just different plays on the same kind of crazy for the sake of this argument. I would be curious if you plug Richard Dawkins into an MRI and talk to him about his beliefs if the same areas light up in his head.

 

[syadasti]

I disagree. IMHO die hard atheists are just as bad as religious nut jobs. It’s still absolute certitude in something that is ultimately un-provable. The extremists or "believers" on either side are just different plays on the same kind of crazy for the sake of this argument. I would be curious if you plug Richard Dawkins into an MRI and talk to him about his beliefs if the same areas light up in his head.

You disagree, but its not the case.

Out of politeness, perhaps, or a hope for future Templeton grants, neurotheologists tend to play down the most direct implication of their research—that religious ecstasy is an illusion. Harder to finesse are studies suggesting that the visions of mystics like St. Paul and Sister Teresa are a kind of brain damage—temporal lobe epilepsy, or TLE for short. The disorder found its way into literature as long ago as 1869 when Dostoevsky, in The Idiot, described epileptic feelings of "a wonderful inner light." In his novel Lying Awake, Mark Salzman tells of a cloistered Carmelite nun who must decide whether to let a neurosurgeon go after the cerebral misfirings that caused disabling headaches, while letting her talk with God.

For those not prone to seizures, Michael Persinger of Laurentian University promises to induce similar symptoms by scrambling the brain with magnetic fields. After donning a helmet wired with electromagnets, some subjects reported experiences they described as mystical, or at least misty. When Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, put on the hood, it only made him a little dizzy. Persinger was quick to note that Dawkins had scored way below average on a psychological questionnaire measuring temporal lobe sensitivity—hints of a neurobiological correlate for atheism. (Click here for a Slate writer's first-hand account of Persinger's "God machine" and other mystical neurotechnologies.)

Persinger hypothesizes that the electromagnetic disruption causes one hemisphere of the brain to cut loose from the other and sense it as a separate presence, your invisible friend. Those who remember Julian Jaynes' 1976 book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, may read this with a sense of déjà vu (possibly another temporal lobe disorder). Jaynes, who taught psychology at Princeton, proposed that as recently as 3,000 years ago, the left and right hemispheres were like two separate beings. Signals from the right brain were interpreted by the left as the voice of God. It was a merger between these cranial cohabitants that formed the self with its inner voice of reason. Maybe a spontaneous reversal of this great leap forward gives us holy men. Then again, maybe the gods created the right hemisphere for use as a spiritual transceiver.

So it goes, round and round. Either the brain naturally or through a malfunction manufactures religious delusions, or some otherworldly presence speaks to homo sapiens through the language of neurological pulses. Hot in pursuit of this undecidable proposition, neurotheology will keep on churning out data—but when it comes to the biggest questions, it will never have much to say.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Fair enough. To be clear, I'm not personally arguing either way. As a recovering religious person my own beliefs are.....ambiguous, at best.

This is really the point I was trying to make:

So it goes, round and round. Either the brain naturally or through a malfunction manufactures religious delusions, or some otherworldly presence speaks to homo sapiens through the language of neurological pulses. Hot in pursuit of this undecidable proposition, neurotheology will keep on churning out data—but when it comes to the biggest questions, it will never have much to say.

 

[syadasti]

A few other good articles:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/religionbrain/

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/03/13/the-neuroscience-of-devotion.aspx

 

[syadasti]

Fair enough. To be clear, I'm not personally arguing either way. As a recovering religious person my own beliefs are.....ambiguous, at best.

This is really the point I was trying to make:

That's nonsense. These researchers and authors are presenting in that fashion because its such a revolutionary idea - this is the case throughout history/science. This is the reason people make such meek assertions in this field:

Out of politeness, perhaps, or a hope for future Templeton grants, neurotheologists tend to play down the most direct implication of their research—that religious ecstasy is an illusion.

There is book by Thomas Kuhn, entitled, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," and it deals with the fact that paradigms and belief in the norm that pervades scientific thinking rather than accepting new ways of thinking or new ideas. This results in stagnation and lack of progress. The status quo hold back mankind.

A good article on the subject posted earlier in the year - http://motherjones.com/print/106166

 

[Pesqueeb]

Well, you certainly have the conviction of the recently converted.

 

[syadasti]

Well, you certainly have the conviction of the recently converted.

This isn't a new idea and I read some of these resources years ago. I've never been a member of any organized religion, so how exactly would I convert from nothing to nothing?

Not specific to this comment, but its a fallacy to assume atheists are in cohesive society like other organized religions. They don't share anything - its an absence of such a social group. They are individuals other than a few random people who use it as an excuse for a social group like the majority of people in organized religions.

 

[BikeMike]

MRI can show brain states which clearly show abnormal states of function in mediation/trances/religious experiences just like you can prove whether you have a fever with a thermometer. Ain't technology great.

The older fMRI stuff was generally not that great. I'm not an expert in the field, but I would not compare the accuracy of a fMRI study from 2006 with the accuracy delivered by a typical home thermometer.

Also, that nun study seems to have a laundry list of brain regions, including a hit in the brain stem. Likely not representative of a specific pattern.

How do you draw the line for "abnormal states of function"? I spend roughly a third of my life unconscious, and the neurons in my brain do some pretty weird stuff during that time, despite the fact that I'm not aware of any of it. Basically everyone else experiences the same thing though. If I were to meditate, I could replicate, at least on a gross electrical level, some of that weird stuff.

When you get down to it, everyone believes in crap they can't prove.

 

[syadasti]

How do you draw the line for "abnormal states of function"? I spend roughly a third of my life unconscious, and the neurons in my brain do some pretty weird stuff during that time, despite the fact that I'm not aware of any of it. Basically everyone else experiences the same thing though. If I were to meditate, I could replicate, at least on a gross electrical level, some of that weird stuff.

When you get down to it, everyone believes in crap they can't prove.

Its abnormal because its not real, its a delusion.

It doesn't change the validity of the research either.

This type of secondary delusion is a beneficial adaptation, I didn't say it had no merit but it has huge drawbacks reflected throughout history.

 

[BikeMike]

I might be wrong here, but I thought you were arguing that there was a linkage between a generalized feeling of a religious experience and a specific pattern of brain region activation, and that that specific activation pattern was similar to specific activation patterns seen in meditative, trance, and/or drugged states.

I am arguing that this is a tenuous hypothesis with little evidential basis.

Also, just to be clear, everyone is delusional in all kinds of ways, big and small, conscious of it or not.

(If I had the patience, I would also argue that horrible things throughout history can most often be traced to the selfishness of individuals or groups. I eagerly await someone claiming to fix that with transcranial magnetic stimulation, and the subsequent slate article.)

 

[syadasti]

The thread is about "Explaining Religious Psychosis" a broad topic and I started off with a controversial video to get it going (as Stinkle said, "gotta know your audience"). RTFT

A delusion like religious experience is a secondary delusion - a type of psychosis. With a true believer it often involves hallucinations too. Just because a lot people have psychosis doesn't change the fact that its a mental defect. The brain (and other living systems evolved over time) has shortcuts and random adaptations, the frequency of occurrence doesn't make them a non-defect - nothing in nature could expected to be infallible from such a process.

 

[syadasti]

This guy seems somewhat sane for a religious leader...

'The Bible tells me so'
But interpretations differ widely, sometimes for self-serving reasons
7/3/2011

Michael Riley<mriley@njpressmedia.com> is an editorial writer and columnist for New Jersey Press Media and pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Atlantic Highlands.

History is riddled with people who have used and misused the Bible for their own selfish ends or to push an agenda.

The Good Book has been used to justify slavery, and is still being used to justify the oppression of women and the persecution of gays and lesbians.

It has been cited as a source in calling for the outlawing of dancing and for instituting Prohibition, and in declaring that God is on our side in the wars we fight.

The Bible has been brought in to &#8220;prove&#8221; that aliens from outer space visited Earth, and it has been interpreted, most recently by evangelist Harold Camping, to mean the end of the world is imminent.

The cruel believers at the Westboro Baptist Church say God commands them, through the Bible, to stand outside of soldiers&#8217; funerals with signs reading, &#8220;God Hates Fags.&#8221;

There is a technical name for the system or set of rules by which people interpret the Bible: &#8220;hermeneutics.&#8221;

&#8220;The Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it,&#8221; is a hermeneutic. So is &#8220;The Bible is all hogwash.&#8221; Neither of those gets us very far.

But if you have no idea what set of rules you&#8217;re operating under when you crack open this holy text, you&#8217;re going to run into problems when you bring your understanding of the book into the real world.

This is more of a problem for some Protestants than it is for Roman Catholics. In Catholicism, the church is the final authority for Scriptural interpretation. Early on, the Catholics realized that if you allow everyone to interpret what the Bible means in his or her own way, you&#8217;d wind up with Protestants, who go off willy-nilly in every direction.

My own hermeneutic was informed by my attendance at Central Baptist Church in Woodbury, followed by a few years at Eastern (Baptist) College and then another few years at Eastern Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. I didn&#8217;t learn what the Bible means at my parents&#8217; knee. Their view could be summed up in two simple sentences: &#8220;Stay off God&#8217;s radar&#8221; if you possibly can, and &#8220;Jesus was a bit of a wuss with all that turn-the-other-cheek&#8221; jive.

Maybe the best way to begin interpreting the Bible is seeing how not to look at it:

The Bible is not a good luck charm: There are those who believe that carrying the Good Book is a way to ward off evil and harm, in the same way that a cross and a clove of garlic will keep vampires away. In both cases, you&#8217;re talking about utter superstitious nonsense. The Bible is a book, made of ink and paper. It won&#8217;t stop a high-powered bullet.

The Bible is not a Ouija board: Some folks believe that by flipping open the Bible at random, closing one&#8217;s eyes and sticking a finger on the page, they will find God&#8217;s message for them for that day or that moment. This has long been referred to as the &#8220;Lucky Dip.&#8221;

But an old joke puts this practice into perspective: A man began each day by sticking his finger blind into a page of the Bible and following what it said. One morning, first try: Matthew 27:5 &#8220;...and (Judas) went and hanged himself.&#8221; He tried again: Luke 10:37 &#8220;...Go thou and do likewise.&#8221; That can&#8217;t be right, the man says to himself, and performs the Lucky Dip one more time: John 13:27 &#8220;...whatever thou doest, doest quickly.&#8217;&#8217;

The Bible is not a science textbook: Whenever you are reading a book and it just so happens that a snake talks, that should be a tip-off that you are not reading a scientific journal. Why assume otherwise just because it&#8217;s the Bible? You can maintain that the stories in Genesis 1-12 are true in some senses without nailing them to the cross of wooden literalism.

The Bible is not a timetable for the end of the world: In the first place, the world ends for some people every single day. In the second place, history is littered with failed predictions of Armageddon, and many of them make their calculations based on their belief that the inerrant Bible pegs the creation of the world at a mere 10,000 years ago. (See above: The Bible is not a science textbook.) If you&#8217;re going to start from a faulty premise, your conclusions are going to be out of whack.

Finally, there are wildly fantastic descriptions in a couple of places in the Bible of the world&#8217;s end, but those belong to a specific type of literature &#8212; apocalyptic literature &#8212; the chief aim of which is to assure persecuted believers that they should hang on to their hope and hold on to their faith because one day the God in charge of history will see them through.

These may be tough items to swallow, as tough as it would be for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (an exaggerated metaphor) or to believe that Jonah survived three days in the belly of &#8220;a big fish&#8221; &#8212; not a whale, look it up. Jonah happens to be a short story designed to teach a lesson about God&#8217;s power and mercy. It isn&#8217;t a documentary.

And, yes, there is a certain charm and beauty to approaching the Bible as if you were a child and taking every word literally. But, presumably, you grew up and would like to study the Bible as an adult. There is a more fruitful way of interpreting the Bible, in all its mystery and complexity, than to take each jot and tittle as literal fact.

Even many of those Christian folks who, say, use a quotation from Leviticus to condemn homosexuals have no problem cooking a Christmas ham when the same book makes that a culinary taboo.

There are tools I use when it comes to interpreting any biblical text. Among these tools, the context and the genre of the passage in question are primary.

When it comes to context, there are couple of things to remember:

The Bible did not drop from heaven in a hermetically sealed plastic bag: It is, rather, a loose collection of 66 different books, compiled, edited and composed over hundreds of years by different people for different reasons. And if God is said to have inspired those writers, he certainly did not dictate the Bible to them, nor did he override their individual personalities.

The Bible had to make sense to the people to whom or for whom it was originally written: This may come as a shock to those who long to believe that the Gideon Bible they picked up in the motel room drawer was written especially for 21st American Christians, but it is true.

You will find many commentaries that explain when God speaks of himself in the plural in Genesis &#8212; &#8220;Let us make man in our image&#8217;&#8217; &#8212; that it must be a reference to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

But that would have been meaningless to the Hebrew community that first heard or saw those words. Those people had no concept of the Trinity. A better interpretation, one that makes sense to both Christians and Jews, is that God was using what amounted to a royal &#8220;we.&#8221; As when the king says, &#8220;We are not amused.&#8221;

It helps to know that some of the rules in Scripture are time and culture bound: The Bible says that women shouldn&#8217;t go into church without a hat and that nobody should get a tattoo. Some people are content to let the matter rest there, without ever asking why. Finding out the why opens up the past in surprising ways and perhaps sheds light on the difference between tattoos in Moses&#8217; day and tattoos now.

Indeed, Leviticus 19:28 says, &#8220;You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.&#8221; But surely that instruction was a warning against idolatry, given the perceived magical power of images in those days. That&#8217;s a far cry from getting &#8220;MOM&#8221; inked on your arm. The whole &#8220;women and hats&#8221; thing has to do with societal standards of modesty in the first century. Not now.

It helps to know the difference between a poem and a parable, and a sermon and a short story: The Bible is not just one thing; it&#8217;s a bunch of stuff, and those things need to be interpreted in different ways. When Jesus told his parables, he wasn&#8217;t reciting the news. He was telling a story to make a point.

To ask, for instance, the name of the Good Samaritan is to be like the guy who hears a joke and after the punchline is delivered says, &#8220;Then what happens?&#8221; He misses the point. When two lines of a psalm say almost the same thing, it really is the same thing. Hebrew poetry often followed that rule. Jesus used hyperbole in his preaching to make his case. You&#8217;re not really supposed to pluck your eye out if you behold nakedness abroad in the land. The Book of Job is not a reality TV show, but a short story with a moral.

At one level, it is true that the Bible means what it says. It&#8217;s not open only to those who have some secret key or code. But it is strange and old and full of mystery. And until you are willing to interpret it on its own terms, rather than you imposing your standard on the text, you&#8217;re going to miss the good stuff.

 

[Andyman_1970]

This guy seems somewhat sane for a religious leader...

Fantastic stuff..........only after years of questioning and digging did I figure those things out.

In Catholicism, the church is the final authority for Scriptural interpretation. Early on, the Catholics realized that if you allow everyone to interpret what the Bible means in his or her own way, you’d wind up with Protestants, who go off willy-nilly in every direction.

Or, as the Catholic church you wind up with priests touching altar boys on their naughty bits...............

I never bought into the concept of "The Church" being the final authority.......

And until you are willing to interpret it on its own terms, rather than you imposing your standard on the text, you’re going to miss the good stuff.

A concept missed by ALOT of Baptist / Evangelicals I know..........

 

[Silver]

This guy seems somewhat sane for a religious leader...

Yeah, because he's not reading the bible like it's a book penned by Yahweh/God/Allah.

I'm sure Andy will concur with this, many Christians wouldn't consider that guy a Christian.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'm sure Andy will concur with this, many Christians wouldn't consider that guy a Christian.

Most conservative Evangelicals / Baptists / Pentacostals / etc. would not consider this dude (or even me) a Christian.

For most Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian types this is perfectly normal..........

 

[Silver]

Most conservative Evangelicals / Baptists / Pentacostals / etc. would not consider this dude (or even me) a Christian.

For most Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian types this is perfectly normal..........

The normal types are all hemorrhaging members though, aren't they? I'd imagine that when you want to be part of the "in" group attacking others, the viciousness of the evangelicals (cloaked in love, of course!) is probably much more appealing.

 

[stevew]

You can easily demonstrate that trances/mediation/religious experiences produce changes in how the brain functions just like drugs and other phenomenon do with MRI.

i wonder what your brain looks like thinking about apple?

 

[Silver]

i wonder what your brain looks like thinking about apple?

My brain on drugs looks like a fried egg.

The more you know...

 

[Andyman_1970]

The normal types are all hemorrhaging members though, aren't they? I'd imagine that when you want to be part of the "in" group attacking others, the viciousness of the evangelicals (cloaked in love, of course!) is probably much more appealing.

Yeah I think they are. Methodist are trying to "reinvent" themselves and are doing a pretty good job at finding ways to be relevant to a younger demographic.

It's crazy how quick evangelical types will "eat their own". Do a search on Rob Bell and his new book Love Wins.....he's written off by some pretty big names in the evangelical community and in a very hateful manner.

Edit: I think some of the trend towards attacking that evangelicals have (at least IMHO) stems from the typical "lazy American" mindset of a) being scared sh!tless of those different than you and b) it's too much work to think for yourself........

 

[syadasti]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm

Humans 'Predisposed' to Believe in Gods and the Afterlife

ScienceDaily (July 14, 2011) &#8212; A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.

The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.

The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.

'The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project' led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University, drew on research from a range of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. They directed an international body of researchers conducting studies in 20 different countries that represented both traditionally religious and atheist societies.

The findings are due to be published in two separate books by psychologist Dr Barrett in Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology and Born Believers: The Science of Childhood Religion.

Project Co-director Professor Roger Trigg, from the Ian Ramsey Centre in the Theology Faculty at Oxford University, has also written a forthcoming book, applying the wider implications of the research to issues about freedom of religion in Equality, Freedom and Religion (OUP).

Some findings of the Cognition, Religion and Theology Project:

Studies by Emily Reed Burdett and Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford, suggest that children below the age of five find it easier to believe in some superhuman properties than to understand similar human limitations. Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing. However, children may continue to believe in all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural agents, such as a god or gods.
Experiments involving adults, conducted by Jing Zhu from Tsinghua University (China), and Natalie Emmons and Jesse Bering from The Queen's University, Belfast, suggest that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.

Project Director Dr Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, said: 'This project does not set out to prove god or gods exist. Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.'

Project Co-Director Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford's Ian Ramsey Centre, said: 'This project suggests that religion is not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf. We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies. This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.'

 

[syadasti]

More evidence from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the god(s) delusion is based in the brain:

Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs

People often reason egocentrically about others&#8217; beliefs, using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent&#8217;s beliefs (e.g., God). In both nationally representative and more local samples, people&#8217;s own beliefs on important social and ethical issues were consistently correlated more strongly with estimates of God&#8217;s beliefs than with estimates of other people&#8217;s beliefs (Studies 1&#8211; 4). Manipulating people&#8217;s beliefs similarly influenced estimates of God&#8217;s beliefs but did not as consistently influence estimates of other people&#8217;s beliefs (Studies 5 and 6). A final neuroimaging study demonstrated a clear convergence in neural activity when reasoning about one&#8217;s own beliefs and God&#8217;s beliefs, but clear divergences when reasoning about another person&#8217;s beliefs (Study 7). In particular, reasoning about God&#8217;s beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person&#8217;s beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences about God&#8217;s beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears especially dependent on one&#8217;s own existing beliefs.

Plus a video series:

 

[stevew]

thanks for bumping!

 

[syadasti]

thanks for bumping!

Allahu Akbar!

 

[stevew]

Allahu Akbar!

 

[Andyman_1970]

It's a trap!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jimmydean]

Quote of the day.

"As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion and I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again. I'm Rick Perry and I approved this message."

 

[stevew]

has obama started bombing white people yet?

 

[syadasti]

More evidence of religious psychosis via Toshi:

Religious Factors and Hippocampal Atrophy in Late Life (hippocampal atrophy=brain damage):

"Significantly greater hippocampal atrophy was observed for participants reporting a life-changing religious experience. Significantly greater hippocampal atrophy was also observed from baseline to final assessment among born-again Protestants, Catholics, and those with no religious affiliation, compared with Protestants not identifying as born-again. These associations were not explained by psychosocial or demographic factors, or baseline cerebral volume. Hippocampal volume has been linked to clinical outcomes, such as depression, dementia, and Alzheimer's Disease.

 

[BikeMike]

So...we should all be non-born again Protestants...

FWIW there has long been evidence suggesting that having a midlife crisis is a risk factor for late onset Alzheimer's disease.

 

[syadasti]

History of the devil delusion, great documentary on a rather destructive part of religious psychosis:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/history-devil/

 

[syadasti]

More breakthroughs via brain scans:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/334808/title/The_minds_eye_revealed_

 

[MikeD]

Are conspiracy believers suffering from psychosis?

That's what "they" want you to think.

 

[MikeD]

Fantastic stuff..........only after years of questioning and digging did I figure those things out.


never bought into the concept of "The Church" being the final authority.......

A concept missed by ALOT of Baptist / Evangelicals I know..........

However, the virtue in the Catholic approach is that there's a tradition of academic analysis/commentary on religious texts as texts, rather than Jesus's Own English Which He Spake Unto The Divine Dictation Machine (In Several Varying Personalities And Narratives).

Of course, only the privileged get to participate, but hey, the Dark Ages were a bitch, and I'm pretty glad someone kept writing books that whole time. Not to say the approach remains relevant.

 

[$tinkle]

i'm confused: is syadasti evangelizing?

 

[MikeD]

i'm confused: is syadasti evangelizing?

I had a friend who founded a campus atheist society. I was confused as to how you formed a group around a negative concept (in the philosophical sense, not the normative sense) of non-belief.

Week 1 meeting: "Don't believe in God?" "Nope." "Me neither." "Hm. Cool!"

Week 2 meeting: "Still don't belive in God?" "Nope." "Oh."



I think the best part about atheism is not having to be in some stupid group to justify yourself. Why go complicate it??

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

 

[Andyman_1970]

However, the virtue in the Catholic approach is that there's a tradition of academic analysis/commentary on religious texts as texts, rather than Jesus's Own English Which He Spake Unto The Divine Dictation Machine (In Several Varying Personalities And Narratives).

But even with that analysis the Church is still the final authority, and if I'm not wrong they are also the authority on how one interprets the Text.

 

[$tinkle]

and if I'm not wrong they are also the authority on how one interprets the Text.

i did not realize a proper catholic was allowed the grace to interpret text, rather follow the holy see (lest their family be stricken w/ the burden for various indulgences to avoid being water boarded in the lake of fire for the barely forgivable sin of exercising free will)

 

[MikeD]

But even with that analysis the Church is still the final authority, and if I'm not wrong they are also the authority on how one interprets the Text.

Absolutely. (See what I did there?)

 

[Pesqueeb]

i'm confused: is syadasti evangelizing?

That would certainly be ironic.