Ask a Lutheran anything ...

[Resha Caner]

That's an interesting point. You do realize.there is a huge difference in trusting the claims of some scientist and the claims of the bible, don't you?

Yes, of course there are differences. The comparison can only be taken so far.

The obvious difference is the strings attached to the claims of the bible.

I understand your point, but I wonder what strings you think are attached to trusting the Bible?

 

[Davian]

...
Sometimes it's about trust rather than evidence ... even in science. On this forum I have asked: Have you actually been inside CERN and run the experiments yourself? If not, you're trusting those who have. The answer is: well, yeah, but theoretically I could run the experiments. OK.

Or my daughter might, if she continues to pursue a career in physics. It is a possibility.

Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday. Until that happens you'll have to trust the Bible. I don't see the difference.

"Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday"?

On what theory do you base that?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, of course there are differences. The comparison can only be taken so far.



I understand your point, but I wonder what strings you think are attached to trusting the Bible?

Ok, when you said that you didn't see any difference in trusting the two types of claims...I thought you meant you didn't see any difference. My mistake?

Well, just to throw out an example of a "string"....how about this one?

2 Corinthians 6:14
King James Version (KJV)
14[bless and do not curse]Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

So you see...it isn't just a claim of "this is the truth....". It's a claim of, "this is the truth....here's how you should live your life....". That's part of what I meant by "strings attached." IMO religion (especially christianity) would be a lot more appealing if god were more like a FWB that wasn't all up in everyone's business trying to tell them how to live, what to do, and asking for money. I mean really...why would god need your money? (That's a rhetorical question)

 

[FireDragon76]

So you see...it isn't just a claim of "this is the truth....". It's a claim of, "this is the truth....here's how you should live your life....". That's part of what I meant by "strings attached." IMO religion (especially christianity) would be a lot more appealing if god were more like a FWB that wasn't all up in everyone's business trying to tell them how to live, what to do, and asking for money. I mean really...why would god need your money? (That's a rhetorical question)

Of course, you like only the negative conceptualization of freedom, no matter how spiritually impoverishing and ultimately destructive that may be: a life without rules. Yet rules give rise to positive freedoms, the freedom to achieve mastery in ones life rather than simply flounder around through trial-and-error. Life is too short to reinvent the wheel, and it's not coincidence most of the worlds religions have very similar moral codes... because they might have some insights into how reality really works?

God doesn't need our money, but obviously its difficult to have religious institutions without some kind of money.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course, you like only the negative conceptualization of freedom, no matter how spiritually impoverishing and ultimately destructive that may be: a life without rules. Yet rules give rise to positive freedoms, the freedom to achieve mastery in ones life rather than simply flounder around through trial-and-error. Life is too short to reinvent the wheel, and it's not coincidence most of the worlds religions have very similar moral codes... because they might have some insights into how reality really works?

God doesn't need our money, but obviously its difficult to have religious institutions without some kind of money.

I'd like to hear what you mean by "negative conceptualization of freedom". It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where freedom becomes a "negative"...but if you're familiar with one please share.

I'm also very intrigued by the term "spiritually impoverished"...that almost sounds like a real thing. Please explain and don't skimp on the details. What's the difference between someone (like myself) who's spiritually impoverished and one who isn't? Is there some spiritual currency, maybe a spiritual stock exchange that I'm missing out on? Is spiritual currency needed to buy your way into heaven? I really am curious.

Let's not pretend that I said anything about a "life without rules" though. I most certainly have principles which I use from time to time. I simply don't need anyone to tell me what they should be or how to use them. Can you imagine how absurd that would be? Imagine for a moment, if I showed up on your doorstep one morning and proceeded to tell you what you should believe, how you should believe it, and how you should act in multiple different situations. Perhaps, since it's something you're used to...something you've accepted for most of your life...this is normal and not at all insulting. To me, I would think that person a fool. To me, it's extremely insulting to have anyone assume I'm either so dumb or so sheepish that I require being told what to do. The notion itself that I need told such things...it's almost beyond insulting. I'm a big boy now, I've been deciding what I should do all by myself for quite some time and as surprising as this may be to you...it's actually worked out quite well.

I'm certainly not saying that I would never ask someone for help if I required it...but one of the beautiful things about freedom is that I can seek that help from wherever I think it can best be found. Amazing right? Instead of turning to the same source, over and over, each time I need help with something...I have almost unlimited sources to choose from. Is this your idea of "negative freedom"? I hope not. I could cite example upon example just from this forum alone of people who turn to the bible every time, follow it's rules for behavior, and are utterly miserable for it. The bible is a finite book, with finite answers, and it's not going to be all that helpful in every situation. If you're bound by it's strings...well sir, that looks like "negative freedom" from where I'm standing

I really was only half joking about the "god needing your money" bit. It worked well with the FWB picture I was painting. It just seems amusing to me every time a christian tells another that "god will provide" or "ask and ye shall receive" or "it's all part of god's plan, put your faith and trust in him"....and yet the church still needs your hard earned cash. Why doesn't god just provide for them? Why ask people at all...why not pray for the money? If god doesn't provide for his church, maybe the church closing it's doors is all part of his plan? IMO if the church had faith that god will provide, that god answers prayers, or that he truly has a plan and everything happens according to his will....the church wouldn't need to ask for money at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

On what theory do you base that?

Jeremiah 33:3

 

[Resha Caner]

Ok, when you said that you didn't see any difference in trusting the two types of claims...I thought you meant you didn't see any difference. My mistake?

I was tempted to point out that your little jokes earlier in the thread were based on conflated meanings, but as I said, I was getting bored with the game. For example, the "talk to a horse" thing. You knew many would assume "talk" meant to engage in an interactive conversation. "Talk" has the literal meaning of employing speech (per definition 5 here): Talk | Define Talk at Dictionary.com

And you played off that. But the primary meaning (definition 1) is an exchange. Even more interesting is the preposition. I think "to" is a subtle implication of definition 5, so the twist in your game was justified. Had the preposition been "with", it would have implied definition 1.

Anyway, you're doing it again, but you know what I meant. I didn't see a difference per the comparison I was making. You expanded the comparison beyond what I used it for. There are a number of expanded versions of the comparison that might highlight a variety of differences.

I see you enjoy semantic games.

Well, just to throw out an example of a "string"....how about this one?

2 Corinthians 6:14

This thread is about Confessional Lutheranism. Shouldn't you be asking me about strings rather than claiming them?

The FWB comment is, IMO, ridiculous. It's a post-modern justification for using someone without caring about them. When you care about someone, you tell them when you think they are engaging in harmful behavior. That is not attaching strings to the relationship. It is fulfilling the nature of a caring relationship. It is not a requirement whereby someone will be sent to hell for marrying an unbeliever.

I'm sure there are cases where interfaith marriages work - though it depends on what one would consider a successful relationship. However, every case I'm familiar with has caused significant stress and strain. I've never seen an example of pluralism working over the long term. The tension eventually rips the relationship apart because people have to choose one path or another. So you have a problem with Christians being upfront about the significant challenges of an interfaith relationship?

 

[Davian]

Jeremiah 33:3

lol - "theory".

 

[Resha Caner]

lol - "theory".

I knew you would enjoy it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was tempted to point out that your little jokes earlier in the thread were based on conflated meanings, but as I said, I was getting bored with the game. For example, the "talk to a horse" thing. You knew many would assume "talk" meant to engage in an interactive conversation. "Talk" has the literal meaning of employing speech (per definition 5 here): Talk | Define Talk at Dictionary.com

And you played off that. But the primary meaning (definition 1) is an exchange. Even more interesting is the preposition. I think "to" is a subtle implication of definition 5, so the twist in your game was justified. Had the preposition been "with", it would have implied definition 1.

Anyway, you're doing it again, but you know what I meant. I didn't see a difference per the comparison I was making. You expanded the comparison beyond what I used it for. There are a number of expanded versions of the comparison that might highlight a variety of differences.

I see you enjoy semantic games.



This thread is about Confessional Lutheranism. Shouldn't you be asking me about strings rather than claiming them?

The FWB comment is, IMO, ridiculous. It's a post-modern justification for using someone without caring about them. When you care about someone, you tell them when you think they are engaging in harmful behavior. That is not attaching strings to the relationship. It is fulfilling the nature of a caring relationship. It is not a requirement whereby someone will be sent to hell for marrying an unbeliever.

I'm sure there are cases where interfaith marriages work - though it depends on what one would consider a successful relationship. However, every case I'm familiar with has caused significant stress and strain. I've never seen an example of pluralism working over the long term. The tension eventually rips the relationship apart because people have to choose one path or another. So you have a problem with Christians being upfront about the significant challenges of an interfaith relationship?

Wow. You missed both points I made entirely. Let me try this again...

For the first one, you made a comparison between trusting the claims of a CERN scientist and trusting the claims of the bible. I'll admit you made it quickly, so maybe I missed the point, but I'll try and reiterate it here. One is unlikely to ever be able to perform the experiment a CERN scientist performs. One is also unable to, say, travel back in time and meet Jesus, watch him get crucified, and watch him rise from the dead. Therefore trusting the claims of the scientist and the bible are the same. We cannot necessarily just go and check the truth of the claims...we simply have to trust them. That was the point you were making was it not? You then said that you didn't see any difference between the two....

The point I was making wasn't some game of semantics. I was just pointing out that you're wrong. Just because you failed to consider the implications of those claims (which seems like an odd thing to gloss over as a believer) doesn't make trusting them the same thing. As I pointed out, the CERN scientist's claims have literally no bearing on the way someone lives their life. None. Zero. Zilch. For an overwhelming number of people the claim the scientist makes changes nothing in their lives. If they believe it, they go on living just as they did before. If they don't believe it, they go on living exactly as they did before. It affects the average person in no way at all.

Can we say the same about the claims in the bible? Certainly if you don't believe them they affect your life only as much as those who do affect your life. However, if you do believe them...there are many many ways in which they affect your life. You don't deny this do you?

So, your original statement that I responded to is a bit like saying..."Hawks fly, bees fly. I see no difference between the two." Do they both fly? Of course they do...but there is a massive difference between the two.

If you trust the claims of a CERN scientist or trust the claims of the bible, are you doing so without being able to examine the evidence for either? Yea...kinda. Is there a difference between the two? Yes...and it's gigantic.

 

[Resha Caner]

Wow. You missed both points I made entirely. Let me try this again...

I know. My silly little brain does struggle doesn't it?

We cannot necessarily just go and check the truth of the claims...we simply have to trust them. That was the point you were making was it not?

Yes, and you seem to agree with it. Do the implications of those claims change that we have to trust them? No. That was the only point I was trying to make.

If they don't believe it, they go on living exactly as they did before. It affects the average person in no way at all.

Don't overstate your case. CERN was funded somehow, and that funding employed more than just scientists. Then, there were the people who didn't get funding because CERN was funded. CERN occupies real estate, so I imagine that had an impact. CERN creates waste. That has an impact. And, if an experiment went really really bad, I bet the gaping, buring hole in the ground would make the news.

You agreed with me and I agreed with you, and now it seems like you're trying to find reason to disagree with me. I can imagine how agreeing with me might have toxic results at the next atheist club meeting, but please. It sure seemed like you were making a semantic play off my statement - I mentioned "no difference" in one post and that there is a "difference" in another post. I was clarifying that those statements referred to two different things:

1. The first point (my narrower one), that both situations involve trust.
2. The second point (your broader one), that the consequences of that trust are different.

I still see those as consistent ... silly me.

Can we say the same about the claims in the bible? Certainly if you don't believe them they affect your life only as much as those who do affect your life. However, if you do believe them...there are many many ways in which they affect your life. You don't deny this do you?

Yes, the Bible affects my life. It affects your life as well ... after all you're here at CF talking to me. That's different than saying there are strings attached. It was that phrase I objected to.

CERN affects my life as well, but in a different way ... silly me, I seem to keep using that word "different" all the time when I'm talking about different things ... oh my, I just can't stop. Please help.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was tempted to point out that your little jokes earlier in the thread were based on conflated meanings, but as I said, I was getting bored with the game. For example, the "talk to a horse" thing. You knew many would assume "talk" meant to engage in an interactive conversation. "Talk" has the literal meaning of employing speech (per definition 5 here): Talk | Define Talk at Dictionary.com

And you played off that. But the primary meaning (definition 1) is an exchange. Even more interesting is the preposition. I think "to" is a subtle implication of definition 5, so the twist in your game was justified. Had the preposition been "with", it would have implied definition 1.

Anyway, you're doing it again, but you know what I meant. I didn't see a difference per the comparison I was making. You expanded the comparison beyond what I used it for. There are a number of expanded versions of the comparison that might highlight a variety of differences.

I see you enjoy semantic games.



This thread is about Confessional Lutheranism. Shouldn't you be asking me about strings rather than claiming them?

The FWB comment is, IMO, ridiculous. It's a post-modern justification for using someone without caring about them. When you care about someone, you tell them when you think they are engaging in harmful behavior. That is not attaching strings to the relationship. It is fulfilling the nature of a caring relationship. It is not a requirement whereby someone will be sent to hell for marrying an unbeliever.

I'm sure there are cases where interfaith marriages work - though it depends on what one would consider a successful relationship. However, every case I'm familiar with has caused significant stress and strain. I've never seen an example of pluralism working over the long term. The tension eventually rips the relationship apart because people have to choose one path or another. So you have a problem with Christians being upfront about the significant challenges of an interfaith relationship?

The friendly advice analogy is, IMO, ridiculous. Friendly advice on the topic of interfaith marriage would be something like, "Yes...marrying someone with different religious beliefs can be a problem, if you make it one. If you love and respect one another though, there's no reason it cannot be successful." That would be friendly advice. "Don't build a relationship with an unbeliever."...really sounds more like a command, or at the very least rather bad advice.

The point was though, that it's a string. If you believe all the claims of the bible...well that includes this claim of who you should and shouldn't build relationships with. Even if you only believe that the bible is "the inerrant word of god" or "god's inspired word"...you pretty much have to go about accepting that it's a bad choice to marry/build a relationship with a non-believer. So, before we go into any examination of whether or not it actually is a bad thing to have an interfaith marriage (to use your words) we can both agree that it is indeed a string attached to the claims of the bible, right? Unlike the CERN scientist's claims which have no bearing on the way one lives their life (no strings attached) the claims of the bible, if you believe them, come with a multitude of strings attached. You at least see that now, don't you?

 

[Resha Caner]

The friendly advice analogy is, IMO, ridiculous.

I didn't use the phrase "friendly advice". My phrase was "caring relationship". When my wife expresses her view to me, it's more than friendly advice. It's something I take very seriously.

If someone is drunk and all their "friend" does is give some advice on the hazards of drunk driving, they aren't much of a friend. A good friend would take action.

So, before we go into any examination of whether or not it actually is a bad thing to have an interfaith marriage (to use your words) we can both agree that it is indeed a string attached to the claims of the bible, right?

Not quite yet. I guess you'll have to explain to me what you mean by the term. And, FYI:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/opinion/interfaith-marriages-a-mixed-blessing.html

But I'm only offering that as friendly advice.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know. My silly little brain does struggle doesn't it?



Yes, and you seem to agree with it. Do the implications of those claims change that we have to trust them? No. That was the only point I was trying to make.



Don't overstate your case. CERN was funded somehow, and that funding employed more than just scientists. Then, there were the people who didn't get funding because CERN was funded. CERN occupies real estate, so I imagine that had an impact. CERN creates waste. That has an impact. And, if an experiment went really really bad, I bet the gaping, buring hole in the ground would make the news.

You agreed with me and I agreed with you, and now it seems like you're trying to find reason to disagree with me. I can imagine how agreeing with me might have toxic results at the next atheist club meeting, but please. It sure seemed like you were making a semantic play off my statement - I mentioned "no difference" in one post and that there is a "difference" in another post. I was clarifying that those statements referred to two different things:

1. The first point (my narrower one), that both situations involve trust.
2. The second point (your broader one), that the consequences of that trust are different.

I still see those as consistent ... silly me.



Yes, the Bible affects my life. It affects your life as well ... after all you're here at CF talking to me. That's different than saying there are strings attached. It was that phrase I objected to.

CERN affects my life as well, but in a different way ... silly me, I seem to keep using that word "different" all the time when I'm talking about different things ... oh my, I just can't stop. Please help.

Your statement wasn't about if CERN itself has an affect on your life. Your statement was about trusting the results of an experiment they do/did. Your statement was about comparing one truth claim (CERN experiment) to another truth claim (everything in the bible). You said you see no difference.

Now I'm a nice guy, so I'm not going to sit here and accuse you of purposely committing a logical fallacy. I'm not even sure which one you just committed (moving the goalposts or perhaps a red herring) though I'm sure if I asked everyone here from "the atheist club" they could tell you rather quickly. No, since I'm a nice guy, I'm just going to show you what your comment was since you seemed to have forgotten already.

"Have you actually been inside CERN and run the experiments yourself? If not, you're trusting those who have. The answer is: well, yeah, but theoretically I could run the experiments. OK. Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday. Until that happens you'll have to trust the Bible. I don't see the difference."

So this nonsense about CERN affecting your life by burning a hole in the ground doesn't have even a tiny thing to do with what we're discussing. If you're trying to make the point that the results of a CERN experiment, if you believe those results to be true, will affect your daily life...well I'd honestly love to hear that. Go on, I'll wait.

 

[Resha Caner]

Your statement wasn't about if CERN itself has an affect on your life. Your statement was about trusting the results of an experiment they do/did. Your statement was about comparing one truth claim (CERN experiment) to another truth claim (everything in the bible). You said you see no difference.

Now I'm a nice guy, so I'm not going to sit here and accuse you of purposely committing a logical fallacy. I'm not even sure which one you just committed (moving the goalposts or perhaps a red herring) though I'm sure if I asked everyone here from "the atheist club" they could tell you rather quickly. No, since I'm a nice guy, I'm just going to show you what your comment was since you seemed to have forgotten already.

"Have you actually been inside CERN and run the experiments yourself? If not, you're trusting those who have. The answer is: well, yeah, but theoretically I could run the experiments. OK. Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday. Until that happens you'll have to trust the Bible. I don't see the difference."

So this nonsense about CERN affecting your life by burning a hole in the ground doesn't have even a tiny thing to do with what we're discussing. If you're trying to make the point that the results of a CERN experiment, if you believe those results to be true, will affect your daily life...well I'd honestly love to hear that. Go on, I'll wait.

You're right. It wasn't what I was talking about. It was something you introduced. If that was moving the goal posts, then it seems you were the one who moved them. If it was a question, I tried to answer it. [edit] But I do understand (I think) the distinction you're making between your statement about CERN not impacting daily life and my examples. If you're of the opinion that CERN has no potential to ever impact people's daily lives, I'll not argue that with you. Especially since I wasn't disagreeing with you that the impact of CERN and the Bible is diff... nuts, there's that word again.

Wow. You make it hard to agree with you.

I'll be more blunt this time. If you noticed, the style of my reply changed. That was the first sign that IMO this conversation is becoming absurd. I think we should be done with this particular discussion point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're right. It wasn't what I was talking about. It was something you introduced. If that was moving the goal posts, then it seems you were the one who moved them. If it was a question, I tried to answer it. [edit] But I do understand (I think) the distinction you're making between your statement about CERN not impacting daily life and my examples. If you're of the opinion that CERN has no potential to ever impact people's daily lives, I'll not argue that with you. Especially since I wasn't disagreeing with you that the impact of CERN and the Bible is diff... nuts, there's that word again.

Wow. You make it hard to agree with you.

I'll be more blunt this time. If you noticed, the style of my reply changed. That was the first sign that IMO this conversation is becoming absurd. I think we should be done with this particular discussion point.

When exactly did I introduce the impact of CERN itself? Can you back that statement up? After a quick double-check, I've only been talking about truth claims and their impact.

If you now agree that there is indeed a difference between trusting the claims made by a CERN experiment and trusting the claims made by the bible, does that mean you no longer stand by this statement?

"Have you actually been inside CERN and run the experiments yourself? If not, you're trusting those who have. The answer is: well, yeah, but theoretically I could run the experiments. OK. Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday. Until that happens you'll have to trust the Bible. I don't see the difference."

 

[Resha Caner]

When exactly did I introduce the impact of CERN itself? Can you back that statement up? After a quick double-check, I've only been talking about truth claims and their impact.

If you now agree that there is indeed a difference between trusting the claims made by a CERN experiment and trusting the claims made by the bible, does that mean you no longer stand by this statement?

"Have you actually been inside CERN and run the experiments yourself? If not, you're trusting those who have. The answer is: well, yeah, but theoretically I could run the experiments. OK. Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday. Until that happens you'll have to trust the Bible. I don't see the difference."

To repeat what I put in post #51:
1. The 2 cases both involve trust (me)
2. The consequences of trusting the truth claims for those 2 cases is different (you)

The two points are independent. The quoted statement only refers to #1. So, yes, I still stand by it. And I still agree with #2. That's the last I'll say on it, as I don't know what else to say.

 

[Ana the Ist]

To repeat what I put in post #51:
1. The 2 cases both involve trust (me)
2. The consequences of trusting the truth claims for those 2 cases is different (you)

The two points are independent. The quoted statement only refers to #1. So, yes, I still stand by it. And I still agree with #2. That's the last I'll say on it, as I don't know what else to say.

Just trying to help you see the difference.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'd like to hear what you mean by "negative conceptualization of freedom". It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where freedom becomes a "negative"...but if you're familiar with one please share.

It's a philosophical term. Negative freedom is "freedom from...". Positive freedom is "freedom to..". Negative freedom alone doesn't provide us with much direction in life, or clues to how we should live to best make use of our limited time on this earth. It gives rise to anomie, alienation, depression, and all sorts of issues common in modernity.

Positive freedom, on the other hand, gives rise to competency and mastery, the sense that we can self-actualize. It requires self-knowledge, including respect for our inherent limitations.

I'm also very intrigued by the term "spiritually impoverished"...that almost sounds like a real thing. Please explain and don't skimp on the details. What's the difference between someone (like myself) who's spiritually impoverished and one who isn't? Is there some spiritual currency, maybe a spiritual stock exchange that I'm missing out on? Is spiritual currency needed to buy your way into heaven? I really am curious.

Spiritually rich people find happiness no matter their material circumstances, they can face adversity in life and gain wisdom. They achieve self-mastery and live for something beyond their mundane desires.

Why doesn't god just provide for them? Why ask people at all...why not pray for the money?

God works through human hands.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I didn't use the phrase "friendly advice". My phrase was "caring relationship". When my wife expresses her view to me, it's more than friendly advice. It's something I take very seriously.

If someone is drunk and all their "friend" does is give some advice on the hazards of drunk driving, they aren't much of a friend. A good friend would take action.



Not quite yet. I guess you'll have to explain to me what you mean by the term. And, FYI:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/opinion/interfaith-marriages-a-mixed-blessing.html

But I'm only offering that as friendly advice.

I suppose, in this case, I'm using the term strings to refer to a belief that one accepts based upon the truth claims of the bible that has a practical effect on their life and choices they make. This could include...

Abortion is wrong.
You should honor your mother and father.
Turn the other cheek.
Give generously to the poor.

And so on. Again, the point that all truth claims don't come with such strings attached seems apparent to you now since we've reached an understanding. I'm not trying to debate whether or not each of these "strings" is necessarily good or bad for the person who believes in them. Frankly, I think they can be both.

As to the opinion-editorial piece that you referenced...it's a bunch of garbage and I honestly think even the writer knows it. Her choices of which statistics to use and which to avoid is more telling than anything else she wrote. If she wanted to examine the "negative" effects of interfaith marriage using divorce as an indication for failure...she really only needed to look at a couple figures.
1. The divorce rate among same-faith marriages.
2. The percentage of divorced among interfaith marriages who would cite "religious differences" as the cause of their divorce.

My guess is that she didn't include the first because it would indicate that being of the same faith doesn't increase the chances a marriage will stay together.
Likewise, I don't think she included the second because it's going to be such a statistically insignificant number that you wouldn't be able to draw the conclusion that interfaith marriages are less likely to be successful.

Here's a little tip, from me to you, on when to cite a statistical study. If that study is only appearing in an op-ed piece...chances are the information therein isn't exactly valuable.