Confused / Achilles12604 debate : "The End of Faith&quo

[achilles12604]

Confused and I have decided to debate Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith". I believe that we will be using a similar formate to the recent "The God Delusion" debate. As this is a one on one debate, no one else may post in this particular thread. However, I am creating a "comments" thread in general chat.

As I require some time to read this book, and I am going out of town for 5 days at the beginning of August, I would suggest that this particular debate begin on August 10th or later.

Is this acceptable Confused?

[achilles12604]

So what are todays moderates? Essentially, Harris has said they are a product of todays society. They loosely interpret some canon while simply ignoring others in an effort to live in todays world. We see this often. The Christians who adhere to seeing some things in scripture as literal and some as metaphorical. The Christians who decide that despite what scripture says, a God that is loving must have meant something else or have some other ways of judging because He couldn't possibly condemn a woman who divorced her husband after he nearly killed her beating her up and molesting their 2 year old daughter.

Harris makes the claim on pg 17 that the the moderates first retreat from literalism is because of cultural developments that make much scripture difficult to interpret. We know this to be true considering how many different interpretations currently do exist. The various denominations give at least a mild amount of credibility to this assessment. The more interpretive differences, the more denominations we find of each religion.

This is all addressed above. I look forward to your response.

Harris goes on on to quote an example using Deuteronomy 13:7-11 as one example of ignoring canon. If one was to follow this canonical law, we should be stoning people to death. However, being moderates, we can say this was meant to be "symbolic" not literal.

A symbolic stoning? No I'm afraid that Harris may have presented an argument which I have never personally seen put forth by ANY moderate I have encountered.

Unfortunately, Harris draws upon the OT to show the weakness of religion. This biggest weakness of religion is simply that like any belief, it can be used to control the masses by a small minority.

Now I know Harris is attacking all religions in this book. However, since I adhere to one religion, I only feel obliged to point out how attacks do not affect MY position. In this case, his attack upon deuteronomy, is a valid concern. However, read all of Deuteronomy 13. It reads like a sermon does it not?

Now who wrote this sermon? Moses. Was Moses a man or was he God? He was a man. Therefore, it is entirely possible, probable if you judge him by the same standards as todays evangelical TV preachers, that Moses took what was meant to be written, and interpolated how it should be applied. IE, if God made it clear no other God's should be worshiped, then Moses decides to write this, and then expand upon it with a punishment that would cause everyone to be very afraid of the repercussions of messing with his decree.

My point is this, by just reading the OT, as Harris and what seems like EVERY SINGLE other attacking non-theist does, he is shorting himself on material associated with God. After all, the OT was replaced. It was found lacking. God is repeatedly seen as saying, "My children have broken my covenant." even within the OT texts themselves. In other words, God is continually saying ," No people! You aren't getting it. You have my message all screwed up." And so, God brought forth the NT through his chosen one.

Harris continue on with arguing that moderates is a product of knowledge and evolution. He strongly states on pt 21 that "religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance".

I refer once again to St Augustine of Hippo and my above points.

While we may not wish to acknowledge some of this as true, the truth of many of his claims cannot be ignored. Moderates essentially pick and choose what they will follow and ignore or pretend to not think of the parts that todays society would consider barbaric, such as stoning a person to death.

As far as the Jews are concerned, yup. Now you tell me. . . When Jesus talked about cutting off appendages, did he mean do it literally, or was he more likely trying to make a strong point? If you use the same reasoning as Harris, then Jesus must have meant it literally.

Harris' demand for scriptural litteral reading, is a strawman. It is only valid if the book was MEANT to be read totally literally, and obviously it was not.

What Harris make a point of is that religious moderation is a myth. What he considers to be a religious moderate seems to be what many would consider a "hypocrite". One who says they are Christian and believe in the teachings of Christ as well as follow those teachings, yet divorces the man who beat them up every night, allows for other religious institutions to exist within their neighborhood despite the fact that they teach false doctrine (teach of a God not of Christianity), etc....

Would my assessment of the position Harris has taken here be incorrect?

Not at all. Your assessment of Harris position is right on the money . . . mores the pity.

[Confused]

The "myth" of moderation in religion. On page 16, Harris starts his opening with a blow to religion in regards to its validity. He states there is no more evidence to support Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus on his throne or Poseidon churning the seas. When push comes to shove, I think he may be correct here in that scriptural evidence is all we have to support either Yahweh or Zeus.

I would of course take the position that Harris claim that

there is no more evidence to support Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus on his throne or Poseidon churning the seas.

is given rather rashly and matter of fact-ly. I do not agree with this cornerstone of his argument at all.

Of course we could begin debating all the proofs, but this would take far to much time. Instead I will simply point back to another thread of mine, where several non-theists concurred that there WAS evidence, but that it was not enough to convince them. . .

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=5323

If there was NO evidence to debate, I don't think this site would have made it very long. Obviously there is SOME evidence. So Harris claim that there is no evidence is blantently wrong.

Now if he had said there is no concrete proof, I would have agreed. If he had said, The evidence presented doesn't convince myself and many other highly intelligent people, I would have agreed.

Just some quick notes here before bed. Harris asserts there is no more evidence to support them than there was for Zeus or Poseidon. He doesn't assert there is absolutely no evidence. Just no more significant evidence. So I don't feel he has misled or presented a false cornerstone to argue from. A cheap potshot, sure. One that need not been included, once again, sure.

However, let me throw this out to you. If there is in fact NO evidence at all to support any of the claims of the bible, then why are so many highly educated and respected scientists, philosophers, historians, etc. still Christians after seeking the evidence? Why would Sir William Ramsey, have changed his perspective concerning the validity and accuracy of Luke and become a Christian himself, if the bible had no backbone?

Opening this door, we must now address it. Neither I nor Harris make a claim that there is NO evidence. Just not any more reliable evidence than that for Zeus. Now, in regards to the bible, tell me, how much more backbone is there for supporting it as opposed to that of the Jewish faith. The Islamic? Just because highly respected scientists etc... are Christian doesn't make it real. A scientist is hardly an authority on religion. So it really isn't relevant.

Harris claim is not accurate. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from this claim, can not be accurate.


I also observe that on page 17, Harris does tend to focus on the extremists. He then proceeds down the page to compare them to moderates, and he writes

Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world.

The claim Harris makes isn't inaccurate either. It isn't complete. But it isn't inaccurate. Any conclusions may not be complete, but they cannot be considered inaccurate either. However, yes, Harris uses the description of extremists to explain moderates. Is there a better way to do so?

I find this sentence a little amusing because I'm fairly sure he is talking about me here. For example, my interpretation of Genesis, would probably fall into his category of "loose interpretation."

He would likely consider you a "moderate" yes. But I am trying to keep it out of the personal arena because you don't really fit his "moderate" description, nor his "extremist". You would almost be an "other" if one existed.

But I ask you, is my interpretation really that far fetched, or is Harris building a strawman? For Harris point to be correct, it must first be established that these so called "loose interpretations" are in fact incorrect and invalid, and used solely for the purpose of circumventing the obvious problems with a literal translation.

I don't believe Harris is able to make this point, nor does he try. He assumes this point in order to build upon his own preconceptions that moderates are simply trying to slide past both religion and reality. If my "loose interpretations" are in fact valid, then there is no problem with me believing in them at true. If there is no problem with my believing in them as true, then Harris point that I have been forced to this position because of the weakness of the position of religion in general, is incorrect because in actuality I would be standing on a solid base for my beliefs.

No, I think you are building them into a strawman. I don't think he is creating one. He is simply pointing to some major issues. I will have to get more into detail about this and the rest of this post and the next tonight. Need some sleep and pain meds finally kicking in so bone pain is subsiding some.

[achilles12604]

The "myth" of moderation in religion. On page 16, Harris starts his opening with a blow to religion in regards to its validity. He states there is no more evidence to support Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus on his throne or Poseidon churning the seas. When push comes to shove, I think he may be correct here in that scriptural evidence is all we have to support either Yahweh or Zeus.

I would of course take the position that Harris claim that

there is no more evidence to support Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus on his throne or Poseidon churning the seas.

is given rather rashly and matter of fact-ly. I do not agree with this cornerstone of his argument at all.

Of course we could begin debating all the proofs, but this would take far to much time. Instead I will simply point back to another thread of mine, where several non-theists concurred that there WAS evidence, but that it was not enough to convince them. . .

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=5323

If there was NO evidence to debate, I don't think this site would have made it very long. Obviously there is SOME evidence. So Harris claim that there is no evidence is blantently wrong.

Now if he had said there is no concrete proof, I would have agreed. If he had said, The evidence presented doesn't convince myself and many other highly intelligent people, I would have agreed.

Just some quick notes here before bed. Harris asserts there is no more evidence to support them than there was for Zeus or Poseidon. He doesn't assert there is absolutely no evidence. Just no more significant evidence. So I don't feel he has misled or presented a false cornerstone to argue from. A cheap potshot, sure. One that need not been included, once again, sure.

Ok then. I'll address this below.

However, let me throw this out to you. If there is in fact NO evidence at all to support any of the claims of the bible, then why are so many highly educated and respected scientists, philosophers, historians, etc. still Christians after seeking the evidence? Why would Sir William Ramsey, have changed his perspective concerning the validity and accuracy of Luke and become a Christian himself, if the bible had no backbone?

Opening this door, we must now address it. Neither I nor Harris make a claim that there is NO evidence. Just not any more reliable evidence than that for Zeus. Now, in regards to the bible, tell me, how much more backbone is there for supporting it as opposed to that of the Jewish faith. The Islamic? Just because highly respected scientists etc... are Christian doesn't make it real. A scientist is hardly an authority on religion. So it really isn't relevant.

What makes Christianity more valid than other religions? I have discussed this before. But perhaps we should hold off on this topic until we clear the air concerning strawmen first.

Harris claim is not accurate. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from this claim, can not be accurate.


I also observe that on page 17, Harris does tend to focus on the extremists. He then proceeds down the page to compare them to moderates, and he writes

Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world.

The claim Harris makes isn't inaccurate either. It isn't complete. But it isn't inaccurate. Any conclusions may not be complete, but they cannot be considered inaccurate either. However, yes, Harris uses the description of extremists to explain moderates. Is there a better way to do so?

I'm not sure what you mean by it is incomplete. Could you explain this and how it solves the problem that Harris makes a claim about moderates which is simply unfounded?

I went into great detail with my example of Genesis.

There are two possibilities that I can think of.

1) Genesis is meant to be read literally in which case, Harris has a point.

2) Genesis is not meant to be read literally in which case, Harris' point falls flat because if it not SUPPOSED to be read literally, then he can not complain that moderates do not do this.


I explained this in great detail on my prior post and look forward to a through examination by yourself.

I find this sentence a little amusing because I'm fairly sure he is talking about me here. For example, my interpretation of Genesis, would probably fall into his category of "loose interpretation."

He would likely consider you a "moderate" yes. But I am trying to keep it out of the personal arena because you don't really fit his "moderate" description, nor his "extremist". You would almost be an "other" if one existed.

Other eh? I haven't been called an "other" very much before.

But I ask you, is my interpretation really that far fetched, or is Harris building a strawman? For Harris point to be correct, it must first be established that these so called "loose interpretations" are in fact incorrect and invalid, and used solely for the purpose of circumventing the obvious problems with a literal translation.

I don't believe Harris is able to make this point, nor does he try. He assumes this point in order to build upon his own preconceptions that moderates are simply trying to slide past both religion and reality. If my "loose interpretations" are in fact valid, then there is no problem with me believing in them at true. If there is no problem with my believing in them as true, then Harris point that I have been forced to this position because of the weakness of the position of religion in general, is incorrect because in actuality I would be standing on a solid base for my beliefs.

No, I think you are building them into a strawman. I don't think he is creating one. He is simply pointing to some major issues. I will have to get more into detail about this and the rest of this post and the next tonight. Need some sleep and pain meds finally kicking in so bone pain is subsiding some.

I look forward to your greater detail. Perhaps you can explain the conundrum which is before us.


Just to be clear this is how I see it.

1) Harris position rests on a couple things.
a) That the bible is supposed to be taken literally
b) that a non-literal translation is necessary for a "moderate" to exist
c) That the "moderate" opinion would be the direct result of society gaining knowledge in science and that our culture was advancing.


2) Harris' position can not be valid because:
a) The bible is not supposed to be taken literally, therefore claiming that those who read it non-literally are "The product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance." (page 21)
b) He claims "The only reason anyone is "moderate" in matters of faith these days is that he has assimilated some of the fruits of the last two thousand years of human thought . . . " (Page 18). This is clearly untrue as we see in person's like Justin Martyr and St. Augustine and who knows how many others.


In general, Harris' strawman is the argument that he builds, that the bible should be read a certain way and those who do not must have assimilated knowledge over 2000 years. This argument is simply invalid.

If it is in fact OK to take a "loose interpretation" of the bible, does Harris still have a valid point?

When answering this question, remember what he has written on the subject.

"Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world." (page 17)

"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance - and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on par with fundamentalism." (page 21)

[Confused]

Using Genesis as our example, I do not agree with Harris here. My basis for interpreting Genesis as poetic, is based on the facts:

1) that much of the bible is in poetic form
2) that there are two different accounts right next to each other
3) that the bible was never meant to be a science book ****


This last point is one that I think Harris uses for his strawman construction. His attack upon moderates as written above, is based on the idea that they should have started as extremists and been toned down by society and knowledge. But this is a load of huey. He is taking the position that the bible is read as a science book as the standard.

I disagree, He is stating that there is noting in the bible that allows for moderates. He never implies it is to be a "science book" rather, states that moderation is in no way given credence in scripture. He brings forth the notion that moderates have no ground to stand on to pick and choose what crede they follow and what they don't. See, in this case, scripture doesn't give man a clear cut "out" clause. The laws are the laws and to make exceptions without clear scripture to validate the laws negates scripture and in its own sense, makes moderation impossible.
However, simply because you don't see it thus was, in no way allows for you to claim a strawman is being constructed. But this is addressed more in your next posts, so I wil focus more on it.

This is just not so, and it was seen as such over a thousand years ago with St. Augustine of Hippo. Harris is using a position debunked by church father millennia ago as his standard, and then saying that people who don't take this default position must have had their minds changed because of society and cultural changes.

I am unsure who made this last reference. It does follow my line of posting. Perhaps I saved it wrong:

Can this position of Harris be correct if a person alive well before ANY cultural or technological or social changes ever took place, falls into his "moderates" category?

[Confused]

Harris goes on on to quote an example using Deuteronomy 13:7-11 as one example of ignoring canon. If one was to follow this canonical law, we should be stoning people to death. However, being moderates, we can say this was meant to be "symbolic" not literal.

A symbolic stoning? No I'm afraid that Harris may have presented an argument which I have never personally seen put forth by ANY moderate I have encountered.

I think the point he was trying to make was that moderates basically take the socially accepted view. The metaphorical meaning behind stoning one allows for the believer to ignore the inhumane law being forced.

Unfortunately, Harris draws upon the OT to show the weakness of religion. This biggest weakness of religion is simply that like any belief, it can be used to control the masses by a small minority.

Now I know Harris is attacking all religions in this book. However, since I adhere to one religion, I only feel obliged to point out how attacks do not affect MY position. In this case, his attack upon deuteronomy, is a valid concern. However, read all of Deuteronomy 13. It reads like a sermon does it not?

Now who wrote this sermon? Moses. Was Moses a man or was he God? He was a man. Therefore, it is entirely possible, probable if you judge him by the same standards as todays evangelical TV preachers, that Moses took what was meant to be written, and interpolated how it should be applied. IE, if God made it clear no other God's should be worshiped, then Moses decides to write this, and then expand upon it with a punishment that would cause everyone to be very afraid of the repercussions of messing with his decree.

My point is this, by just reading the OT, as Harris and what seems like EVERY SINGLE other attacking non-theist does, he is shorting himself on material associated with God. After all, the OT was replaced. It was found lacking. God is repeatedly seen as saying, "My children have broken my covenant." even within the OT texts themselves. In other words, God is continually saying ," No people! You aren't getting it. You have my message all screwed up." And so, God brought forth the NT through his chosen one.

You are not incorrect here. But the point stil remains, what gets credit as literal and what gets credit as metaphorical. Harris would seem to argue that anything that is faced with cultural changes or scientific inquiry is all of the sudden, seen as metaphorical. Moderates no longer accept the earth is only 6,000 years old. Because science proves this wrong. Moderates no longer require an abused woman to stay with her husband because culture now views this as wrong. This is the bulk of the argument here. It is why there is a "myth of moderation". Because scripture dosn't allow you to be a moderate. No where in scripture does it say X can be taken as metaphorical while Z must be seen as literal. Under this case, why could we not take the crucifixion as metaphorical rather than literal? Harris claims that moderates choose what is metaphorical based on the evolution of society and humanity. He states rather good reasons as I have listed in other posts.

Harris continue on with arguing that moderates is a product of knowledge and evolution. He strongly states on pt 21 that "religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance".

I refer once again to St Augustine of Hippo and my above points.

The you agree that there is no "antichrist" or second coming of Christ. Because St Augustine dictated that one shouldn't waste their time trying to discern when the end of times would occur. Rather, one should seek the antichrist within himself and see that the 2nd coming has already occurred.

While we may not wish to acknowledge some of this as true, the truth of many of his claims cannot be ignored. Moderates essentially pick and choose what they will follow and ignore or pretend to not think of the parts that todays society would consider barbaric, such as stoning a person to death.

As far as the Jews are concerned, yup. Now you tell me. . . When Jesus talked about cutting off appendages, did he mean do it literally, or was he more likely trying to make a strong point? If you use the same reasoning as Harris, then Jesus must have meant it literally.

And what gives you the authority to take it out of the literal context?

Harris' demand for scriptural litteral reading, is a strawman. It is only valid if the book was MEANT to be read totally literally, and obviously it was not.

Many literalists would vehemently disagree with you here. It is only a strawman because you deem it one since you don't agree with the literal interpretation. However, your singular opinion doesn't count. He presents no strawman, you interpretation does.

What Harris make a point of is that religious moderation is a myth. What he considers to be a religious moderate seems to be what many would consider a "hypocrite". One who says they are Christian and believe in the teachings of Christ as well as follow those teachings, yet divorces the man who beat them up every night, allows for other religious institutions to exist within their neighborhood despite the fact that they teach false doctrine (teach of a God not of Christianity), etc....

Would my assessment of the position Harris has taken here be incorrect?

Not at all. Your assessment of Harris position is right on the money . . . mores the pity.

Thus far we seem to bat heads in some areas and agree in other. Off to a good start if you ask me.

[Confused]

The "myth" of moderation in religion. On page 16, Harris starts his opening with a blow to religion in regards to its validity. He states there is no more evidence to support Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus on his throne or Poseidon churning the seas. When push comes to shove, I think he may be correct here in that scriptural evidence is all we have to support either Yahweh or Zeus.

I would of course take the position that Harris claim that

there is no more evidence to support Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus on his throne or Poseidon churning the seas.
is given rather rashly and matter of fact-ly. I do not agree with this cornerstone of his argument at all.

Of course we could begin debating all the proofs, but this would take far to much time. Instead I will simply point back to another thread of mine, where several non-theists concurred that there WAS evidence, but that it was not enough to convince them. . .

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=5323

If there was NO evidence to debate, I don't think this site would have made it very long. Obviously there is SOME evidence. So Harris claim that there is no evidence is blantently wrong.

Now if he had said there is no concrete proof, I would have agreed. If he had said, The evidence presented doesn't convince myself and many other highly intelligent people, I would have agreed.

Just some quick notes here before bed. Harris asserts there is no more evidence to support them than there was for Zeus or Poseidon. He doesn't assert there is absolutely no evidence. Just no more significant evidence. So I don't feel he has misled or presented a false cornerstone to argue from. A cheap potshot, sure. One that need not been included, once again, sure.

However, let me throw this out to you. If there is in fact NO evidence at all to support any of the claims of the bible, then why are so many highly educated and respected scientists, philosophers, historians, etc. still Christians after seeking the evidence? Why would Sir William Ramsey, have changed his perspective concerning the validity and accuracy of Luke and become a Christian himself, if the bible had no backbone?

Opening this door, we must now address it. Neither I nor Harris make a claim that there is NO evidence. Just not any more reliable evidence than that for Zeus. Now, in regards to the bible, tell me, how much more backbone is there for supporting it as opposed to that of the Jewish faith. The Islamic? Just because highly respected scientists etc... are Christian doesn't make it real. A scientist is hardly an authority on religion. So it really isn't relevant.


What makes Christianity more valid than other religions? I have discussed this before. But perhaps we should hold off on this topic until we clear the air concerning strawmen first.

Harris claim is not accurate. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from this claim, can not be accurate.


I also observe that on page 17, Harris does tend to focus on the extremists. He then proceeds down the page to compare them to moderates, and he writes

Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world.

The claim Harris makes isn't inaccurate either. It isn't complete. But it isn't inaccurate. Any conclusions may not be complete, but they cannot be considered inaccurate either. However, yes, Harris uses the description of extremists to explain moderates. Is there a better way to do so?

I'm not sure what you mean by it is incomplete. Could you explain this and how it solves the problem that Harris makes a claim about moderates which is simply unfounded?
I went into great detail with my example of Genesis.

There are two possibilities that I can think of.

1) Genesis is meant to be read literally in which case, Harris has a point.

2) Genesis is not meant to be read literally in which case, Harris' point falls flat because if it not SUPPOSED to be read literally, then he can not complain that moderates do not do this.


I explained this in great detail on my prior post and look forward to a through examination by yourself.


I find this sentence a little amusing because I'm fairly sure he is talking about me here. For example, my interpretation of Genesis, would probably fall into his category of "loose interpretation."

He would likely consider you a "moderate" yes. But I am trying to keep it out of the personal arena because you don't really fit his "moderate" description, nor his "extremist". You would almost be an "other" if one existed.

Other eh? I haven't been called an "other" very much before.

But I ask you, is my interpretation really that far fetched, or is Harris building a strawman? For Harris point to be correct, it must first be established that these so called "loose interpretations" are in fact incorrect and invalid, and used solely for the purpose of circumventing the obvious problems with a literal translation.

I don't believe Harris is able to make this point, nor does he try. He assumes this point in order to build upon his own preconceptions that moderates are simply trying to slide past both religion and reality. If my "loose interpretations" are in fact valid, then there is no problem with me believing in them at true. If there is no problem with my believing in them as true, then Harris point that I have been forced to this position because of the weakness of the position of religion in general, is incorrect because in actuality I would be standing on a solid base for my beliefs.

No, I think you are building them into a strawman. I don't think he is creating one. He is simply pointing to some major issues. I will have to get more into detail about this and the rest of this post and the next tonight. Need some sleep and pain meds finally kicking in so bone pain is subsiding some.

I look forward to your greater detail. Perhaps you can explain the conundrum which is before us.


Just to be clear this is how I see it.

1) Harris position rests on a couple things.
a) That the bible is supposed to be taken literally
b) that a non-literal translation is necessary for a "moderate" to exist
c) That the "moderate" opinion would be the direct result of society gaining knowledge in science and that our culture was advancing.


2) Harris' position can not be valid because:
a) The bible is not supposed to be taken literally, therefore claiming that those who read it non-literally are "The product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance." (page 21)
b) He claims "The only reason anyone is "moderate" in matters of faith these days is that he has assimilated some of the fruits of the last two thousand years of human thought . . . " (Page 18). This is clearly untrue as we see in person's like Justin Martyr and St. Augustine and who knows how many others.


In general, Harris' strawman is the argument that he builds, that the bible should be read a certain way and those who do not must have assimilated knowledge over 2000 years. This argument is simply invalid.

If it is in fact OK to take a "loose interpretation" of the bible, does Harris still have a valid point?

When answering this question, remember what he has written on the subject.

"Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world."

(page 17)

"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance - and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on par with fundamentalism." (page 21)

Give me a bit to answer this one. You put much into it.

[achilles12604]

From what I can tell, in general, the place where we are getting hung up is once again on our assumptions and preconceptions.

I am coming from the position that the bible is not meant to be read 100% literally. You and Harris are coming from the position that it was intended to be read literally and any deviation from this pre-set view is invalid and simply an excuse to make things fit in today's society.


This about right?


I will not comment on my final page and you said you would think it over a bit.

[Confused]

From what I can tell, in general, the place where we are getting hung up is once again on our assumptions and preconceptions.

I am coming from the position that the bible is not meant to be read 100% literally. You and Harris are coming from the position that it was intended to be read literally and any deviation from this pre-set view is invalid and simply an excuse to make things fit in today's society.


This about right?


I will not comment on my final page and you said you would think it over a bit.

I do need some time to review your last page, so while I am researching it, perhaps you can tell me where scripture gives you the right to interpret it as anything but literal. Doesn\'t it say one should take nothing away, nor add anything to it? And who gets to decide what is literal and what isn\'t? What interpretation is correct and what isn\'t. Yes, we are getting stuck on this because Harris is clear that scripture allows no moderations. I curious if there is such a place that would allow for it.

[achilles12604]

From what I can tell, in general, the place where we are getting hung up is once again on our assumptions and preconceptions.

I am coming from the position that the bible is not meant to be read 100% literally. You and Harris are coming from the position that it was intended to be read literally and any deviation from this pre-set view is invalid and simply an excuse to make things fit in today's society.


This about right?


I will not comment on my final page and you said you would think it over a bit.

I do need some time to review your last page, so while I am researching it, perhaps you can tell me where scripture gives you the right to interpret it as anything but literal. Doesn't it say one should take nothing away, nor add anything to it? And who gets to decide what is literal and what isn't? What interpretation is correct and what isn't. Yes, we are getting stuck on this because Harris is clear that scripture allows no moderations. I curious if there is such a place that would allow for it.

1 Cor 14 26-27
Orderly Worship
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.

1 Corinthians 12:9-11


9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

Prophecy of Scripture
12So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Cool?

[Confused]

From what I can tell, in general, the place where we are getting hung up is once again on our assumptions and preconceptions.

I am coming from the position that the bible is not meant to be read 100% literally. You and Harris are coming from the position that it was intended to be read literally and any deviation from this pre-set view is invalid and simply an excuse to make things fit in today's society.


This about right?


I will not comment on my final page and you said you would think it over a bit.

I do need some time to review your last page, so while I am researching it, perhaps you can tell me where scripture gives you the right to interpret it as anything but literal. Doesn't it say one should take nothing away, nor add anything to it? And who gets to decide what is literal and what isn't? What interpretation is correct and what isn't. Yes, we are getting stuck on this because Harris is clear that scripture allows no moderations. I curious if there is such a place that would allow for it.

1 Cor 14 26-27
Orderly Worship
26What then shall we say, brothers? [u:b520689426]When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an [b:b520689426]interpretation.[/b:b520689426][/u:b520689426] All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.

1 Corinthians 12:9-11


9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the [i:b520689426]interpretation of tongues.[/i:b520689426] 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

Prophecy of Scripture
12So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20[i:b520689426]Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.[/i:b520689426]

Cool?

I will address this in the same thread as the previous one I needed time to review.