|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3 |
I have the fallacy of being rather black and white. I am not blaming Luther, but rather
saying that is probably a point when they disappeared pretty much for good from the
Protestant Bible, Luther or no. They are called Deuteroncanonical, meaning "secondary"
canonical, never completely accepted, but secondary, hence the 'deutero'.
My comment is that Hannukah's source is in Macabbees.
That is the only point I was trying to make, and some people consider Macabbes as Scripture.
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
The point with Hanukkah is that, while being recorded in some versions of the Bible, it is not mandated as a holiday. Lots of things were recorded in the Bible that aren't holidays. For example, there's no holiday that I know of celebrating the Baptism of Jesus by John.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
some versions of the BibleI have always been fascinated by the issue of the canonicity of the books that make up the Tenakh/Old Testament and the New Testament. For example, one book, that was really quite popular and cited as scripture by Tertullian was the Shepherd of Hermas (in English and Greek). One book which nearly did not make it into the New Testament was the Book of Revelation (as well as some of the Epistles).
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3 |
The point with Hanukkah is that, while being recorded in some versions of the Bible, it is not mandated as a holiday. Lots of things were recorded in the Bible that aren't holidays. For example, there's no holiday that I know of celebrating the Baptism of Jesus by John. Unless I misunderstand you, there are some denominations that celebrate the Baptism of Jesus by John as a holy day, but not a holiday as you mention.
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Unless I misunderstand you, there are some denominations that celebrate the Baptism of
Jesus by John as a holy day, but not a holiday as you mention.
That may be. I just said that I didn't know of any. There's a lot of things I don't know, some of which I know I don't know and some of which I don't know I don't know. And a whole lot that I don't even know it's possible not to know. Do you know on what date the Baptism is celebrated?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3 |
Unless I misunderstand you, there are some denominations that celebrate the Baptism of
Jesus by John as a holy day, but not a holiday as you mention.
That may be. I just said that I didn't know of any. There's a lot of things I don't know, some of which I know I don't know and some of which I don't know I don't know. And a whole lot that I don't even know it's possible not to know. Do you know on what date the Baptism is celebrated? This really made me laugh. It fits me to a T. There is so much I don't know and want to know. Thanks for the laugh I have a friend who is a Roman priest, Catholic, I mean by Roman. I called him and he told me the feast of the Baptism of the Lord by John/Baptist is Today: 11 January. It occurs on the Sunday after the Epiphany which is celebrated by Roman Catholics on January 6. Yet in states west of central standard time it is on the following or previous Sunday. Go figure. I can't. This discussion sure makes me wonder why any religion knows what is going on. The basic Scripture is so "convoluted", to use a term. Some religions have some books in the Bible, other's don't - no wonder they cannot get together and just seem to keep splitting further. One wonders what Christ would say, to say nothing of Moses. Anyhow, thanks for the chuckle.
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295 |
Sorry to drop in on this serious conversation but the add under it caught my less serious eye:
Flawless Pearl Jewelry For Christmas
Make her remember this holiday with our pearls. Money back guarantee. ( pearls for free?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
Sorry to drop in on this serious conversation but the add under it caught my less serious eye:
Flawless Pearl Jewelry For Christmas
Make her remember this holiday with our pearls. Money back guarantee. ( pearls for free?) So...presumably if you gave them to someone with Alzheimer's you would get your money back.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
That may be. I just said that I didn't know of any. There's a lot of things I don't know, some of which I know I don't know and some of which I don't know I don't know. And a whole lot that I don't even know it's possible not to know. Do you know on what date the Baptism is celebrated? There has been an alarming increase of late in the number of things I know absolutely nothing about!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
Do we know who wrote Hebrews? Is that one that biblical scholars are pretty sure was written by Paul? No we don't know who wrote it since it has no ascribed author, unlike all the other letters of Paul, which all begin with his name in the first line. That's one of the arguments, albeit from silence, against Pauline authorship. Paul might have written it, or he might not. Most scholars would say not. There is no totally definitive evidence, from the letter's contents, either way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
There has been an alarming increase of late in the number of things I know absolutely nothing about!
No. There has been an alarming increase of late in the number of things that you know you know absolutely nothing about. This is a net increase of knowledge on your part, if that's any comfort.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876 |
No. There has been an alarming increase of late in the number of things that you know you know absolutely nothing about. This is a net increase of knowledge on your part, if that's any comfort. It's kinda scary that I actually understood that the first time through.... ;0)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 107
member
|
|
member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 107 |
And Hanukkah is found in the Bible, the Bible still used by Catholics and Orthodox,
before Luther threw out the Books of Macabbees. This is 2000 years vs. the 500 since
the Reformation.
Way I heard it, and as I said in a later post I only have it by hearsay, that while the events around which Hanukkah is based might be found in the Bible, Hanukkah itself is not a holiday mandated by God as the other Jewish holidays are. Similarly, the events around which the major Christian holidays are based, to my knowledge, are not mandated by God as holidays. I can see, for example, the Eucharist as a ritual but not the celebration of Maundy Thursday as a holiday. While the date of the Resurrection can be calculated based on the dates of Passover I don't see anything that states it should be celebrated as a holiday. Perhaps, PastorVon, if he isn't ignoring me, could enlighten me. The dating of the Nativity is, of course, quite controversial. I've heard that the fact that the shepherds were tending there flocks means that it was in the spring and James Tabor, the author of The Jesus Dynasty, has said that he thinks it was in September, IIRC. Sorry, I don't monitor the AWAD blogs every day. IF I'm going to part of them, I guess that I may have to do that. But, as I said, on signing on, I've got too many irons in the fire right now. I wasn't even going to check you all out today. I'm scheduled for outpatient surgery in about three hours and there are a number of things I have to do here at home before I leave for the doctor's in about two and a half hours. I'm to have a phlebectomy -- a radio frequency ablation of the Saphenous Veins in my left leg (to be repeated in my right leg the next Monday.) The Tasmanian Pook has addressed the issues of your implied question already. There is no one view in common about the so-called holy days (or holidays) of Christianity. There is a sharp divide between Orthodox (eastern) and Catholic (western) churches. Then there is a sharp divide between Roman Catholics and Protestant Catholics. And there's a spectrum of practice or belief even within Protestant Catholicism. I, for one, a Calvinist or Reformed Presbyterian, believe that the Bible mandates the observation of Sunday alone as a Christian Sabbath. All the other so-called holy days (holidays) or the imaginations and inventions of men and are accretions not mandated in the Bible and are NOT to be observed. [Public peer pressure however is tremendous and many American churches and denominations gradually or incrementally add "customs." At another time, I could pick this up; but not today.] Yes, the approximate date of Jesus' crucifixion can be calculated; but since no one knows exactly for sure which year in the A.D. calendar it occurred it is impossible to come up with a set date, as had arbitrarily done for so-called Christmas. The Eastern (Orthodox) churches set a observation date based on the Jewish calendar (or the 14th of Nisan); the Western churches follow an old formula of convenience that the Resurrection of Christ should be observed each year on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring equinox. I think I stated that correctly. That means that Easter (so-called) can be observe early in March or late in April. As for the so-called Protestant feast days that are celebrated on Sundays and other special days of the year -- the so-called liturgical year -- {Please excuse my frequent use of so-called) -- the liturgical year is partially a matter of convenience. Today there are three cycles of the liturgical church year. It was an arbitrarily chosen artificial means to assure that churches that use or follow the liturgical year would cover the range of the teaching of the Bible thoroughly each year and comprehensively every three years. I'll send you all a URL where you can see the arrangement. I don't normally follow the liturgical year; but this year a group of fellow ministers agreed to assist one another in sermon preparation -- to meet together regularly to study the Scriptures in order to preach better sermons. We decided to use the revised liturgical year as a guide. That way we would all be on the same page Sunday after SUnday. This past Sunday, I preached on Matthew 2:1-12. The name for this Sunday was the first Sunday after Epiphany. This shows the arbitrary character of the liturgical year. When did the magi (or wise men) visit Jesus. Within two years or so after his birth. [An aside -- in Christmas pageants held round the world, the star also is included in the Shepherd scenes; but in the Bible it is only mentiuoned in reference to the magi. That's innocent and harmless accretion.] Well, according to this year's calendar, Ephipany fell in the middle of the week. We don't have "Sunday" worship in the middle of the week. Therefore, I preached on the Epiphany passage on the third Sunday after Advent or the first Sunday after Epiphany [It can be called both of those names.] Now, follow me. This next Sunday is both the fourth SUnday after Advent and the second Sunday after Epiphany. The Scripture texts of the gospel to be preached is on the Baptism of Jesus. Well, now, Jesus was only about two years old or so when the magi visited him and that is observed on January 11th. And, then, the baptism of Jesus, which took place when he was about 30 years old, is observed on January 18th. By the way: Advent means "coming." Advent is tied to Christmas but the content of the sermons around Advent refer not only to Christ's first coming, his birth, but also his second coming, in judgment at the end of the world age whenever that is to be. Epiphany means "manifestation." You see, except for the notices to Zacharias, Elizabeth, Mary, Joseph, the Shepherds, Simeon, and Anna, the world took little notice of Jesus at his birth. However, the visit of the magi to Jerusalem stirred things up. The politicos [Herod the Great, in particular -- see Matthew 2] of the world came to be aware of him, were troubled by his coming, and sought to eliminate him. Hence, His manifestation, i.e., the epiphany of Jesus. O.K. Still following. In less than three months the church year will mark the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And the liturgical year reminds us to do this every year and addresses the set days by using the various different Scripture passages that speak to these events in order that the full gospel story will be present to a congregation every year. The liturgical year is a tool that men have devised to be helpful. It is not mandated by the Bible. SOme of the denominational arguments about the church year have come about because some of the powers that be have tried to make the observation of the church year mandatory, including the clothing that a minister should wear or the color of the cloth on the pulpit desk. You all need to read Ian Murray's anthology on the Reformation of the Church. I've got to go, people. I've been too verbose as it is. But, hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
There is a sharp divide between Orthodox (eastern) and Catholic (western) churches.I've been reading a book The Councils of the Church: A Short History by Norman Tanner. It is interesting that each ecumenical council ( link) was convened to deal with an issue of orthodoxy, and that after the decision was made a schism occurred. For example, the Fourth Council of Constantinople which led to the Roman Catholic/Orthodox schism and the Council of Trent which led to the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3 |
[ quote=zmjezhd] There is a sharp divide between Orthodox (eastern) and Catholic (western) churches.I've been reading a book The Councils of the Church: A Short History by Norman Tanner. It is interesting that each ecumenical council ( link) was convened to deal with an issue of orthodoxy, and that after the decision was made a schism occurred. For example, the Fourth Council of Constantinople which led to the Roman Catholic/Orthodox schism and the Council of Trent which led to the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide. [/quote] And does that book mention what matter of Orthodoxy or Schism the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council was dealing with? I'd be interested.
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3 |
Actually, Pastor Von, I did understand what you wrote about
the Liturgical Year. To place the entire life of the Christ into
a one year celebration: makes perfect sense.
Death of Christ: 14 of Nisan. OK
Birth of Christ: I've read and understand that his birth was
in warmer weather, for the shepherds were in the fields.
I've also read much on the term
The Israelites "pitched their tents" or tabernacled themselves
in the desert for 40 years. The Ark of the Covenant
was in its own tent or TABERNACLE until the time of
Solomon.
So a conclusion - add warmer weather and the term
"tabernacle", and add as well from the opening phrases of the
Gospel of John: "The word was made Flesh", which could be
translated: "The word pitched His tent", or the Word tabernacled Himself among mankind.
And a conclusion could be drawn from these that the Christ
was born in autumn, near the Feast of the Tabernacles.
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
And does that book mention what matter of Orthodoxy or Schism the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council was dealing with? I'd be interested.Haven't reached that one yet. IIRC, VatCon 2 dealt with the liturgy in the local vernacular, which way the priest faced during mass, etc. It lead to some quasi-schisms, like Traditionalists ( link) and Sedevacantists ( link). Now VatCon 1 actually caused a schism: the Old Catholic Church ( link) most of whom live in the Netherlands and some in the Rhineland. (There was an old Jesuit church that was an Old Catholic Church in Bonn when I lived there.) I seemed to have been unclear in my post. The various ecumenical councils throughout history were usually convened to decide on issues of orthodoxy (in the small-o sense of the word). Maybe dogma would have been a better term. They also convened to repudiate some heresies du jour. The official decisions usually lead to consequences, like schisms or heresies. For example, the First Council of Nicea (the one that created the Nicene Creed) led to the suppressed and extinct Meletian Schism. (Melitius may have ordained Arius (of Arian infamy).) [For the record, I am a secular humanist and tend towards nontheism, I am just interested in the development of Christian dogma and questions of canonicity of books in the Bible.]
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
For example, the Fourth Council of Constantinople which led to the Roman Catholic/Orthodox schism and the Council of Trent which led to the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide. Well, almost. The Council of Trent didn't lead to the divide, but it set it in concrete. Or to change the metaphor, it was the capstone of the dispute, not the foundation stone. The council of Trent was in the 1560s. Martin Luther posted his theses to the door at Wittenburg in 1517. The term Protestants was first used Apr 19, 1529. But the Reformation had been brewing in one way or another since the Conciliar disputes of three or four centuries earlier.
Last edited by The Pook; 01/13/2009 7:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
Well, almost.
Yes, in many cases, the "problem" had been brewing or was in full boil before the council was convened, decision made, and concrete cures.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 107
member
|
|
member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 107 |
Actually, Pastor Von, I did understand what you wrote about
the Liturgical Year. To place the entire life of the Christ into
a one year celebration: makes perfect sense.
Here is the promised URL on the lectionary year. http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/lectionary/Go to the FAQ page and click on the first two selections for information on a lectionary and a church year. BTW, the Radio Frequency Ablation of the Saphenous Veins in my left leg went fairly well yesterday. There is some tendernous this morning and a couple of spots that are sore to the touch. I'm leaving the house in a few minutes to have a Doppler Ultrasound to ascertain that things are as they ought to be on the inside.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3 |
[ quote=zmjezhd]Well, almost.
Yes, in many cases, the "problem" had been brewing or was in full boil before the council was convened, decision made, and concrete cures. [/quote] Isn't interesting, and in a way, sad, how we can look back and see mistakes that had been brewing, and the end result from a few centuries later. What if the pope had made Luther a Cardinal? What if the pope had read the these posted on the doors? Did he? Did it matter? What was the threat? A lifestyle? Money? Why cannot people who disagree get together and work it out? Do we do so today? (Gaza?)
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 107
member
|
|
member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 107 |
[ quote=zmjezhd]Well, almost.
Yes, in many cases, the "problem" had been brewing or was in full boil before the council was convened, decision made, and concrete cures. Isn't interesting, and in a way, sad, how we can look back and see mistakes that had been brewing, and the end result from a few centuries later. What if the pope had made Luther a Cardinal? What if the pope had read the these posted on the doors? Did he? Did it matter? What was the threat? A lifestyle? Money? Why cannot people who disagree get together and work it out? Do we do so today? (Gaza?) [/quote] The Pope did read the 95 Theses. His first response to them is alleged to have been, "The German monk writes good Latin." In effect, the Pope was not sufficiently astute involving issues of theology to understand the implications of the theses. They did not have a negative impact on him until monies from the German States began drying up. Then Rome took notice. But, while the effect is what caused notice to be taken, the effect was not the crux. The crux was theological. Appointing Luther as a Cardinal would not have changed the impact of the theology of the theses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 107
member
|
|
member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 107 |
There is a sharp divide between Orthodox (eastern) and Catholic (western) churches.I've been reading a book The Councils of the Church: A Short History by Norman Tanner. It is interesting that each ecumenical council ( link) was convened to deal with an issue of orthodoxy, and that after the decision was made a schism occurred. For example, the Fourth Council of Constantinople which led to the Roman Catholic/Orthodox schism and the Council of Trent which led to the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide. The Council of Trent did not lead to the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide. The divide had already taken place. The Council of Trent really only set in stone the departuare of the Roman church from its prior biblical moorings and set it on its current course.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3 |
[ quote=zmjezhd]Well, almost.
Yes, in many cases, the "problem" had been brewing or was in full boil before the council was convened, decision made, and concrete cures. Isn't interesting, and in a way, sad, how we can look back and see mistakes that had been brewing, and the end result from a few centuries later. What if the pope had made Luther a Cardinal? What if the pope had read the these posted on the doors? Did he? Did it matter? What was the threat? A lifestyle? Money? Why cannot people who disagree get together and work it out? Do we do so today? (Gaza?) The Pope did read the 95 Theses. His first response to them is alleged to have been, "The German monk writes good Latin." In effect, the Pope was not sufficiently astute involving issues of theology to understand the implications of the theses. They did not have a negative impact on him until monies from the German States began drying up. Then Rome took notice. But, while the effect is what caused notice to be taken, the effect was not the crux. The crux was theological. Appointing Luther as a Cardinal would not have changed the impact of the theology of the theses. [/quote] Appointing Luther a Cardinal would have at least brought him to the place where dialog might have taken place. And the end cause ultimately was money? Yes? if the German princes stopped sending their purses.
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
BTW, the Radio Frequency Ablation of the Saphenous Veins in my left leg went fairly well yesterday. There is some tendernous this morning and a couple of spots that are sore to the touch. I'm leaving the house in a few minutes to have a Doppler Ultrasound to ascertain that things are as they ought to be on the inside. Glad to hear it. Sounds a lot more technical than my left leg, which has a broken 5th metatarsil. I got it out of plaster on Monday but have to wear an orthotic boot for a few weeks as the bone in the gap still isn't strong enough. I should have had a screw put in it, but an operation before Christmas (which is the subject of this thread so I'm still on topic!) just wasn't convenient so I opted for just the cast. Hopefully it will eventually heal okay.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
Appointing Luther as a Cardinal would not have changed the impact of the theology of the theses.
Who can know for sure. When Hendri de Navarre converted to Catholicism (he was a Huguenot) so he could be crowned King of France, he said: "Paris vaut bien une messe." (Paris is worth a mass.)
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
Isn't interesting, and in a way, sad, how we can look back and see mistakes that had
been brewing, and the end result from a few centuries later. The events leading up to, or paving the way for, the Reformation include: The Conciliar movement, which sought to limit the power of the Pope in favour of councils. The translation by Wyclif and others of the bible into English and other vulgar tongues. The rising and persecution of various 'heretical' proto-Protestant groups, partly because of the availability of bibles in the common language. These included the Lollards, Waldenses and Hussites for example. The rediscovery of better ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for translating the bible, which meant less reliance on the Latin Vulgate. Political moves against the Pope by various Electors, Princes, Monarchs, and Holy Roman Emperors, and the rise of havens of relative toleration of dissent in states like Holland. The invention of the printing press, which meant new ideas could escape and disseminate rapidly before being immediately quashed by the Church. The rise of Christian Humanism (which predated secular humanism by several centuries) and classical study. This produced scholars like Erasmus, who although he didn't become a Reformer himself, gave fuel to their scholarly success and produced new standard Greek texts for translation. ...and on the negative side, the increasing corruption and open immorality of the Church heirarchy, which produced increasing indignation, especially in places like Germany which were also heavily taxed by the Pope. What if the pope had made Luther a Cardinal? Luther would never have accepted a political/ecclesiastical bribe in return for recanting. He was not interested in power and advancement, only Truth. He was not a politician like Henri of Navarre, but the son of peasant, and was not in the least bit diplomatic or machiavellian. Compromise was not in his vocabulary. Why cannot people who disagree get together and work it out? Do we do so today? (Gaza?) Luther (and the bible) would have called it 'sin'. That's why. We are fundamentally self-centered. And when groups of self-centered people form into a society we get the ethno-centricity that leads to war. But there is a difference between tolerating people (which we ought to do whether or not they agree with us) and tolerating ideas by doing what our relativistic post modernism does by coming up with this ridiculous idea that everyone's ideas are equally valid and true. That's nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,971 Likes: 3 |
It is easy to judge from hindsight. But who is really to know
what might have happened? Nonsense? That could be just
your opinion. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295 |
But there is a difference between tolerating people (which we ought to do whether or not they agree with us) and tolerating ideas by doing what our relativistic post modernism does by coming up with this ridiculous idea that everyone's ideas are equally valid and true. That's nonsense. Isn't there an inconsistancy here between tolerating people who do not have the ideas one agrees with (which you say we ought to do), and not tolerating 'everyones' ideas because they are not equally valid or true to one's own? Ideas never stand on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
I'm not sure tolerating ideas is the same thing as agreeing that they are equally valid. If you say that snow is black and I say it is white then however much I love you I cannot think that your idea is equally true and valid. (I may also wonder if your eyesight is valid) I will however "tolerate" your idea in that I do agree with your right to have and defend your idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295 |
Thank you valid Zed, that's a very good and simple way to help me out of this confusion. You are right as most ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
It is easy to judge from hindsight. But who is really to know what might have happened? How else can you judge history? You can't judge it before it happens! Nonsense? That could be just your opinion. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Well yes, but it is based on logic. The idea that two or more contradictory views can all be right is not logical. It's just patronising nonsense IMO. Agreeing to disagree is fine - that's what I'm talking about - that's what toleration really means - tolerating the person, without having to say that their idea or belief is true. The latter is what Relativism insists on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
I'm not sure tolerating ideas is the same thing as agreeing that they are equally valid. If you say that snow is black and I say it is white then however much I love you I cannot think that your idea is equally true and valid. (I may also wonder if your eyesight is valid) I will however "tolerate" your idea in that I do agree with your right to have and defend your idea. Yes, that's what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
Isn't there an inconsistancy here between tolerating people who do not have the ideas one agrees with (which you say we ought to do), and not tolerating 'everyones' ideas because they are not equally valid or true to one's own? Ideas never stand on their own. Good point Bran. Of course ideas, religions, political ideologies, etc are part of a person and often people will take great offense when you criticise beliefs they cherish and see it as a personal attack on them. There is always a need for sensitivity in interpersonal relations of any kind. But that doesn't change whether or not beliefs are true or false. Unless you subscribe to relativism of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
On the other hand, there is the possibility that your ideas and the ideas of the perswon you tolerate are both wrong. Then they are equally right.
Or, another example might be this: Is it polite to look at people that you are talking to? In some cultures, if you don't look at a person you are talking to you will be judged as being unreliable. In other societies looking at the person you are talking to is considered rude, even insulting.
|
|
|
|
|
