Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[RandFan]

1) It's simplicity. Christ wasn't viewed well by the Pharisees and Scribes, who over the centuries had built a huge legal situation from Mosaic Law. Christ simplified it into the above.

2) It's individuality. By simplifying it thus, it is clearly between you and God.

I'm afraid that as interesting as all that is it isn't compelling as argument. In fact, it isn't really argument. By argument I mean a series of statements in order to establish a definite proposition. What is your proposition and what are your premises?

Thanks I guess. I'll wait for someone else who understands argument.

You betcha.

Really? What does it mean? What would a person who loved his neighbor as himself do for his neighbor?

I try.

How?

They fit with "community" and "society."

So priority wise they are not equal to you?

 

[stillthinkin]

Thanks, fair point. I'm not certain to what extent, if any, logically valid arguments there are in the bible. At least not off hand. I think it would have been better of me to have asked for rationally defensible philosophies and/or propositions.

I think loving they neighbor as thy self would fall along the lines of the golden rule which is a very good philosophy for morality and I believe is rationally defensible.

I did not mean to imply that there arent lots of logically valid arguments in the bible. There are lots of positions and arguments which are logically valid, in the sense that they are correct conclusions if their premises are correct. What I meant was that in general, the arguments proceed from premises which the people of their faith would accept; premises which on the other hand a skeptic might question, challenge, or reject.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself" has certainly been rejected by some thoughtful people - Nietzsche comes to mind, if I have understood him correctly.

 

[RandFan]

I did not mean to imply that there arent lots of logically valid arguments in the bible. There are lots of positions and arguments which are logically valid, in the sense that they are correct conclusions if their premises are correct. What I meant was that in general, the arguments proceed from premises which the people of their faith would accept; premises which on the other hand a skeptic might question, challenge, or reject.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself" has certainly been rejected by some thoughtful people - Nietzsche comes to mind, if I have understood him correctly.

"The mirror is one, but the reflections are many. The verse is one, but the translations are many."
--Nietzsche

You've kinda beat me to the punch with Huntster. Shame on you. Oh, and it's considered bad form to quote someone who is the subject of another's sig.

I agree with you but we can still discuss and debate the validity of the argument. Nietzsche isn't the end all of the debate though I certainly would include his thoughts (as though they were my own) in any discussion. I certainly don't think Huntster would have ever known.

 

[stillthinkin]

You've kinda beat me to the punch with Huntster. Shame on you. Oh, and it's considered bad form to quote someone who is the subject of another's sig.

Sorry if i spoiled your fun! I think Hunster can handle himself pretty well. I was responding to your response to me, i think... did I do something in bad form? Have I commited yet another self-humiliation? Please clarify.

I agree with you but we can still discuss and debate the validity of the argument. Nietzsche isn't the end all of the debate though I certainly would include his thoughts (as though they were my own) in any discussion. I certainly don't think Huntster would have ever known.

I do not think Nietzsche was correct, he was just an example of someone who argued against the golden rule. It is hard to find people who do that. You say yourself that the golden rule is rationally defensible.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry if i spoiled your fun! I think Hunster can handle himself pretty well. I was responding to your response to me, i think... did I do something in bad form? Have I commited yet another self-humiliation? Please clarify.

No, not at all. You are doing great. Relax. I'm really glad you are here.

When you see the winking smilie, , it's a good indication not to take what ever is said too seriously.

I do not think Nietzsche was correct, he was just an example of someone who argued against the golden rule. It is hard to find people who do that. You say yourself that the golden rule is rationally defensible.

I don't agree with Nietzsche on this point either. Yes, I do believe that the golden rule is rationally defensible. Though very good arguments can be made against it.

 

[stillthinkin]

No, not at all. You are doing great. Relax. I'm really glad you are here.

Warm fuzzies! Appreciate your feedback.

When you see the winking smilie, , it's a good indication not to take what ever is said too seriously.

I thought it might mean that. Nevertheless I will plan to review the rules/etiquette.

I don't agree with Nietzsche on this point either. Yes, I do believe that the golden rule is rationally defensible. Though very good arguments can be made against it.

Well there's the rub. There does not seem to be any premise that a person cannot deny on at least rationalized grounds. Logic has no content. Therefore we are capable of rationalizing anything we want.

 

[RandFan]

Well there's the rub. There does not seem to be any premise that a person cannot deny on at least rationalized grounds. Logic has no content. Therefore we are capable of rationalizing anything we want.

I don't know what you mean by logic has no content? Arguments can be made for many things that are not empirical. Some arguments are more persuasive than others. I don't personaly think we should ignore some issues or concepts simply because they are not empirical.

 

[stillthinkin]

I don't know what you mean by logic has no content? Arguments can be made for many things that are not empirical. Some arguments are more persuasive than others. I don't personaly think we should ignore some issues or concepts simply because they are not empirical.

By "logic has no content" I mean that it does not provide premises. Given the premises, a conclusion might logically follow or it might not. But the premises are always a "given". We get the premises from personal experience, including sense experience, interactions with others... etc.

This applies to empiricism as well. The data are "given" (that is actually what the word means). We argue from the data to conclusions about material reality. Ya ya, hypotheses and all that. Logic provides no content in any situation, including empiricism.

I did not mean to imply that we should ignore any issue!

 

[RandFan]

By "logic has no content" I mean that it does not provide premises. Given the premises, a conclusion might logically follow or it might not. But the premises are always a "given". We get the premises from personal experience, including sense experience, interactions with others... etc.

This applies to empiricism as well. The data are "given" (that is actually what the word means). We argue from the data to conclusions about material reality. Ya ya, hypotheses and all that. Logic provides no content in any situation, including empiricism.

I did not mean to imply that we should ignore any issue!

Ok, then I don't understand your point. And the premises are not "given". It is the responsibility of the person making the argument to make a persuasive argument. We can make all kinds of assumption of the many propositions in the bible and test them logically. I see nothing wrong with this. There is an underlying philosophy to Catholic and Protestant religions and we can explore that philosophy and the underlying propositions. Hell, this is what has been going on at least since Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door.

Are you saying that we cannot logically explore moral precepts that have been established in the bible or are you saying that it is a waste of time?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Why?

You agree that morals are arbitrary based in part on culture and custom. If you don't possess those cultures or customs then there is no reason for you to have those morals.

Yes, I do. But the morals that cause Asmats to kill and eat other humans isn't isolated to that community alone. I remind you of Mr. Dahmer.

Of course, Mr. Dahmer was unfortunate enough to behave like an Asmat in Milwaukee.

Quote:
If it does, does that mean that I should be required to adopt the morals, laws, customs, and behaviors of Alaska Natives?

Definitely the laws. Individuals often have morals that differ from the norm. Customs and behaviors are a personal choice.

Regardless of your address?

Quote:
Why would you find it difficult to understand what is or is not moral?

I don't know how to explain to you what you can't see. I can decide what is moral. If I already know what is moral then why do I need a guide?

In other words, you choose?

Quote:
Why would you find it difficult to understand the difference between a narrative of Jewish history and a collection of poems?

The bible is filled with acts ostensibly carried out by the direction of god. Are you saying we are not to infer anything about the morality of those acts?

Ostensibly carried out by the direction of God, as written/interpreted by men.

Quote:
Apparently, because you've admitted that cannibals can consider themselves moral, morals are arbitrary.

Yes, I'm not sure if you agree though. You seem to want it both ways. Could you come to a decision?

I have come to a decision. I say that the laws of good and evil are absolute.

Quote:
Because I recognize Deuteronomy is a narrative of Jewish history and that the book of Sirach is a moral guide, I'm "picking and choosing"?

Why would god give instructions to his people that are immoral?

Perhaps they were moral, but you don't see it that way today.

Quote:
I don't own slaves. That's illegal.

And immoral by today's standards but apparently god neglected to tell his chosen people that.

It's legal to own slaves in Israel?

Quote:
If I did, I'd like to believe I'd treat them appropriately. If you recall, in the pre-Civil War South, the treatment of slaves varied widely.

I can understand owning slaves if god is not involved. If god is involved I can't understand it. How could god not condemn something that is so pernicious?

Perhaps His understanding of slavery and your understanding of slavery are different.

Quote:
They can be condensed into two:

And the 10 commandments? It's ok to murder so long as you love god?

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

No.

Quote:
I did not say that "every culture on every continent had slaves." However, slavery is an old practice that was widespread.

Couldn't god explain to people that it was wrong?

Think they'd listen?

Quote:
Not as a practice.

Sounds morally ambiguous. Do you really not know?

If I was an Air Force pilot, and I was sent into combat, I might drop some ordnance that might kill children. That's not what I'd want, but it might happen.

Stuff happens.

Quote:
I wouldn't do so directly.

That sounds Christan, causing suffering is ok so long as it isn't directly caused.

It's not okay, but it might be reality.

Quote:
Islamic terrorists are justifying their acts with the Koran (whether or not that is their true motivation), and their goal is to kill those who are non-Islamic (whether or not that is their true motivation).

They say they are killing those who have caused them harm.

Do you believe them?

Assuming what you say is true, that is "if", it is a distinction without difference. "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It's easy to get around this if you are creative enough in your justification.

Perhaps. If one was disposed to do so. Especially in an age of lawyers.

That wouldn't be my goal.

Quote:
I don't want to kill anyone, but will do so within the law to protect my family, home, community, or to obey lawful orders issued by my society.

That's not what you said earlier.

And what did I say earlier?

Quote:
Huntster

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

"kill them all". After the fact.

That is not what I wrote. I did not write "after the fact."

Did you add those words to the "quote"?

Quote:
Because I have reasoned that religious leaders of my faith have reached reasonable conclusions regarding the taking of human life, and I adhere to it.

Sounds like the Muslim rationalization.

Yes, it does. Sounds like the rationalization of U.S. soldiers, too.

Are Catholics attacking public buildings in the United States?

They to reason that their religious leaders have reached reasonable conclusions regarding the taking of human life. Jim Jones' followers reasoned that the good Reverend had reached reasonable conclusions regarding suicide.

I prefer to think for myself.

Me, too. And I think I'll be selective where I get my guidance.

And I'm not enough of "a rock" to imagine I've got everything figured out and all is well. I like the fact that I'm a member of a peaceful religion, we're all over the place, I can go to Mass literally anywhere in the world and know precisely what's going on, even though I can't speak the language, and that some of the best scholars in history have considered and commented on doctrine.

Quote:
Depends. Who are their leaders? Hamas or Fatah?

Apparently, nobody seems to know............

What possible difference could that make? Your chosen leader is your chosen leader.

As an individual, yes.

As a nation/community, if you can't agree on whose leading, you're at war.

Like the Palestinians.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Actually, I doubt that.

Maybe you should just kill them then.

Isn't that the stupid scenario you're painting? I'm already killing them. You opined that they'd likely appreciate the fact that I've forgived them as I'm killing them, and I doubted they would.

Would you please keep track of the silliness.

Quote:
I hope so.

Jesus delights in the killing of people if they are forgiven?

No. Nor do I.

Or are you saying that he is just happy the folks are forgiven and he is not too keen on the whole slaughter thing?

He's likely concerned with both, but the whole slaughter thing is our deal. So's the forgiveness (He's already forgiven us).

Quote:
So, if you find that moral and wonderful, why don't you travel to Baghdad and offer yourself as a sacrifice to peace like Christ did?

I don't understand. I thought the message was to forgive not necassarily to offer ourselves as human sacrifice. Is that what you thought the message was?

With Christ, it was both.

Quote:
If you are not scared, how is it scary?

Because I fear that attitudes like yours are the ones that lead to atrocities.

Atrocities are caused by evil.

Such an atrocity, statistically, is unlikely to involve me. I fear for innocent people.

Me, too. Now. And I'm very thankful for that.

I'm concerned for innocent people.

Quote:
I obey the law. So how would an attitude of lawfulness lead to atrocities?

I'm really glad to hear that. In all honesty and sincerity I think that is important and I commend you and I am less worried that you will kill however your kind of attitude is shared by people who would put god before the law.

I think the law (at least around here) compliments God's laws quite well, including the law regarding lethal force.

Quote:
Id addition to being Catholic, I am American and Alaskan. I'm allowed under the law (Catholic, American, and Alaskan) to utilize self-defense against aggression, and required to obey military orders when under military orders.

Do you find that immoral?

Self defense has never been the subject of our discussion.

It most certainly has, at least from my perspective.

We have been talking about the order by Moses to kill all males of the little ones.

I've also written from the perspective of a warrior obeying the commands of his superiors.

I don't really think that is self defense and I doubt you do either.

No, I don't.

I think it's a matter of civil war.

Quote:
When have I justified offensive death and carnage with religion?

You've yet to condemn the slaughter of the little ones by Moses. You said you would do the same, right?

Nor will I condemn it. I have no authority to do so.

Nor would I do such a thing.

Quote:
And the reasonable conclusion to draw from that fact is?

We are better off as a human race if we leave god out of the equation.

At all times?

Quote:
I am not of their religion, not impressed with their justifications and goals, and consider them enemies not because they are of a different religion (or that they are religious at all), but because they are evil, and they want to kill me.

Likewise, I'm sure, VERY SURE!

Likewise what?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
1) It's simplicity. Christ wasn't viewed well by the Pharisees and Scribes, who over the centuries had built a huge legal situation from Mosaic Law. Christ simplified it into the above.

2) It's individuality. By simplifying it thus, it is clearly between you and God.

I'm afraid that as interesting as all that is it isn't compelling as argument. In fact, it isn't really argument. By argument I mean a series of statements in order to establish a definite proposition. What is your proposition and what are your premises?

That Christ condensed the ten Mosaic Commandments into two simple premises.

Quote:
You betcha.

Really? What does it mean? What would a person who loved his neighbor as himself do for his neighbor?

Treat him with respect. Help when help was needed. Check on his welfare. Etc.

Quote:
I try.

How?

By treating him with respect, helping when help is needed, checking on his welfare, voting consciously, etc.

Quote:
They fit with "community" and "society."

So priority wise they are not equal to you?

Why wouldn't they be?

 

[stillthinkin]

Ok, then I don't understand your point. And the premises are not "given".

By "given" I merely mean that they have to be accepted by the party or parties attempting a logical argument. If a premise is not accepted by both sides, then it becomes the (hopeful) conclusion of a prior argument with new premises. If we have nothing in common agreement then logic cannot help us. Logic applies to premises, it does not provide premises.

It is the responsibility of the person making the argument to make a persuasive argument.

It is the responsibility of a person attempting to make an argument, to be logical. Persuasion is something else.

We can make all kinds of assumption of the many propositions in the bible and test them logically. I see nothing wrong with this. There is an underlying philosophy to Catholic and Protestant religions and we can explore that philosophy and the underlying propositions.

Yes, in any argument you can always grant a premise you dont necessarily believe yourself. We do this all the time, even as individuals while we think. As we are making decisions, we can go back and forth over things, and eventually accept a premise because we just like the darn conclusions so much! (This would not be a logical conclusion from the premises of course on that basis.)

Hell, this is what has been going on at least since Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door.

Actually, Luther represents a radical rejection of reason, in favour of faith. Some people at the time thought the Catholic church had become too rational, and they wanted a return to "the pure clarity of faith". The position is called "fideism". This is why many Christians today favour bible over science. Historically, the roots of strict logic go back at least to Plato.

Are you saying that we cannot logically explore moral precepts that have been established in the bible or are you saying that it is a waste of time?

We can logically explore any idea we like, including the moral ideas in the bible. Logic will not provide the premises, any more than it provided the bible. Premises do not come from logic. Conclusions do. So a person who does not believe the bible is the word of God might say, "suppose human beings were created in the image and likeness of God... what would follow?" The implications regarding human dignity, for example, could be enormous. We can "suspend disbelief" for the sake of entertainment, inter-cultural dialog, or even argument.

 

[RandFan]

By "given" I merely mean that they have to be accepted by the party or parties attempting a logical argument. If a premise is not accepted by both sides, then it becomes the (hopeful) conclusion of a prior argument with new premises. If we have nothing in common agreement then logic cannot help us. Logic applies to premises, it does not provide premises.

I'm not certain why you suppose that no premises could be agreed on. Every premise is a proposition. Let's start by establishing our premises. Certainly there are points of agreement even if we don't believe the bible to be the word of god. I think you throw your arms up to quickly.

It is the responsibility of a person attempting to make an argument, to be logical. Persuasion is something else.

I wholeheartedly disagree. If the argument is sound it should be persuasive. This is the basis of the scientific method. A logical argument is meant to appeal to the intellect. 1+1=2 is persuasive because it is logical.

Yes, in any argument you can always grant a premise you don't necessarily believe yourself. We do this all the time, even as individuals while we think. As we are making decisions, we can go back and forth over things, and eventually accept a premise because we just like the darn conclusions so much! (This would not be a logical conclusion from the premises of course on that basis.)

We can use hypothetical to test premises as Einstein did in his famous "if I could ride a beam of light". We can grant the premise to test the hypothetical and then determine if the premise is valid. In this case it wasn't. You can't travel the speed of light.

Actually, Luther represents a radical rejection of reason, in favor of faith.

Are you Catholic? This is not meant as an ad hominem argument but only to understand such a statement. Have you read the 95 Theses? I don't think one can read them honestly and only come away with this view. It simply isn't true. Read the theses and ask yourself what is Luther's complaint? Why does Luther reference indulgences and purgatory? What tradition was common at the time that Luther objected to? Why does Luther talk about purchase? Why does Luther talk about coin? Why does Luther talk about pardons?

I have read the 95 Theses and have studied them in Seminary. I don't know of any that argue against reason. Perhaps an argument could be made for one or two but I don't see how. Assuming this is true it would hardly render all of the Theses' a rejection of reason.

Some people at the time thought the Catholic church had become too rational, and they wanted a return to "the pure clarity of faith". The position is called "fideism".

While I have a protestant background I am an atheist. As to Protestant and Catholic I honestly don't see one or the other superior. However, I find the notion that Protestants abandoned reason to be offensive to many of the great Christian logicians who were not Catholic. The Catholic church cannot prove God, the Virgin Birth, Immaculate Conception, etc. These things must be accepted on faith.

In any event, what exactly this has to do with Luther protesting the selling of salvation is beyond me.

Historically, the roots of strict logic go back at least to Plato.

I'm very familiar with the history of the early Greek philosophers. This has absolutely nothing to do with my point. My point was about the many schisms caused by logical inquiry into doctrine and the logical arguments made by Christians.

We can logically explore any idea we like, including the moral ideas in the bible. Logic will not provide the premises, any more than it provided the bible. Premises do not come from logic. Conclusions do. So a person who does not believe the bible is the word of God might say, "suppose human beings were created in the image and likeness of God... what would follow?" The implications regarding human dignity, for example, could be enormous. We can "suspend disbelief" for the sake of entertainment, inter-cultural dialog, or even argument.

You are going far afield. We don't need to do any of that. We can potentially agree on any number of propositions. We could discuss the merits of forgiveness or self sacrifice. We could argue, for instance, that a society that values forgiveness is superior to a society that doesn't. If we should agree on this proposition then we could use that as a premise to build other arguments.

There are all kinds of propositions in the bible that we can find agreement on, construct arguments from and then logically test the argument. We don't have to accept the bible as the word of god to test those propositions. I really don't have a clue where you are getting these ideas.

Do you subscribe to "fideism"? This isn't meant as an insult, I'm just really confused.

My theology professors (all protestant) would be amazed to know that logical arguments can't be constructed to establish propositions in the bible. I have a feeling Catholic theologians would agree.

 

[stillthinkin]

RandFan, I believe the last few postings between us here were the result of my statement "Logic has no content". Can we agree on that statement, or no?

Sorry, I am despairing right now of being a real good Forum participant. With three small children, and a spouse who claims not to be interested in life as an "internet widow", I cant post responses that take me more than a few minutes.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, I believe the last few postings between us here were the result of my statement "Logic has no content". Can we agree on that statement, or no?

Sorry, I am despairing right now of being a real good Forum participant. With three small children, and a spouse who claims not to be interested in life as an "internet widow", I cant post responses that take me more than a few minutes.

I understand the constraints of time. I have to leave the forum for months at a time when I get behind in my work (I'm self employed).

I don't have a problem with the statement "logic has no content" however I'm not certain how important this point is to main point of the discussion.

That being said, please, don't despair as to our conversation. It's not that big of a deal. Family is far more important. I appreciate your input thus far. if you can respond to any part of the post that will be fine and if you can't that will be fine also. If you want to respond to something else or start a thread please do so. Please feel free to interact here as you can and respond when and where you feel your time is best served. My ego isn't that big that I need a response. I promise.

I look forward to any of your input in the future.

Thanks again,

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

That Christ condensed the ten Mosaic Commandments into two simple premises.

No. One can love one's neighbor and still trespass against his neighbor.

Treat him with respect. Help when help was needed. Check on his welfare. Etc.

How is this loving your neighbor AS MUCH as yourself? Shouldn't your neighbor get everything that you get? If your neighbor is eating hamburger and you are eating steak shouldn't you share your steak?

By treating him with respect, helping when help is needed, checking on his welfare, voting consciously, etc.

That's the golden rule. Because I love myself I do things for myself that I don't do for my neighbor. Do you?

Why wouldn't they be?

Which needs come first, your's your neighbor's? I'm guessing your's, right?

You do things for yourself every single day because you care about yourself. Do you do the same types or number of things for your neighbor?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That Christ condensed the ten Mosaic Commandments into two simple premises.

No. One can love one's neighbor and still trespass against his neighbor.

Correct. One can.

And that is a sin.

Quote:
Treat him with respect. Help when help was needed. Check on his welfare. Etc.

How is this loving your neighbor AS MUCH as yourself? Shouldn't your neighbor get everything that you get? If your neighbor is eating hamburger and you are eating steak shouldn't you share your steak?

Matthew 19:17-21

He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." He asked him, "Which ones?" And Jesus replied, " 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother'; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" The young man said to him, "All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Quote:
By treating him with respect, helping when help is needed, checking on his welfare, voting consciously, etc.

That's the golden rule. Because I love myself I do things for myself that I don't do for my neighbor. Do you?

Yup. And vice versa, too.

Quote:
Why wouldn't they be?

Which needs come first, your's your neighbor's? I'm guessing your's, right?

Close. The needs of my wife and children come first. That's part of God's will being up front. I believe that's why he put me and keeps me here.

You do things for yourself every single day because you care about yourself. Do you do the same types or number of things for your neighbor?

I don't do for strangers as much as myself. Few do. Even someone like Mother Teresa can "earn" your distain.

But I can be considered a downright "neighborly" kind of guy, and my community obviously feels that way.

 

[stillthinkin]

I understand the constraints of time. I have to leave the forum for months at a time when I get behind in my work (I'm self employed).

I don't have a problem with the statement "logic has no content" however I'm not certain how important this point is to main point of the discussion.

That being said, please, don't despair as to our conversation. It's not that big of a deal. Family is far more important. I appreciate your input thus far. if you can respond to any part of the post that will be fine and if you can't that will be fine also. If you want to respond to something else or start a thread please do so. Please feel free to interact here as you can and respond when and where you feel your time is best served. My ego isn't that big that I need a response. I promise.

I look forward to any of your input in the future.

Thanks again,

RandFan

Thank you for your encouragement. As you know already, I am continuing to post. I would be glad to answer all your earlier questions. I am experimenting with different ways of actually getting online occasionally... briefly... the problem I am having is that I get started on a long post, and then get called away, then come back, etc. etc. and never get anything posted! I like to be thorough, but I have to be quick...

Yes I am Catholic. I am also skeptical, and I appreciate James Randi's work exposing frauds like Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. As you already know, I found nothing wrong with Michael Shermer's statements in the Penn video. Catholics take a "faith and reason" approach, excluding neither, which incidentally was the very subject of Benedict's speech to university faculty in Germany recently that brought him so much criticism. The speech is worth reading. If you do read it, you will find that the fact that I am a Catholic does not conflict with my claim also to be skeptical: "even in the face of... radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason". The speech is easy to find on Google.

Time to submit, I can say more about logic and Luther and reason in the next burst!

 

[RandFan]

Correct. One can.

And that is a sin.

Yes, but telling us to love our neighbor doesn't tell us that. In otherwords two propositions are not enough.

Matthew 19:17-21

I don't understand your point?

Yup. And vice versa, too.

Cool, so let's not pretend we love our neighbors as ourselves.

Close. The needs of my wife and children come first. That's part of God's will being up front. I believe that's why he put me and keeps me here.

Again, cool. I have no argument with your priorities at all. I think that's wonderful. I just think we shouldn't pretend to love someone as much as ourselves when we don't.

I don't do for strangers as much as myself. Few do. Even someone like Mother Teresa can "earn" your distain.

I'm not sure she did much but proselytize. Since I'm an atheist I don't see the value in that.

Matthew 25

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

I don't see MT in these (the above) scriptures

Matthew 7

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

This is where I see MT.

But I can be considered a downright "neighborly" kind of guy, and my community obviously feels that way.

Good, my hats off to you. But being "neighborly" isn't loving someone else as yourself.