Re: Mocking religion
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:28 am
Angola (nom GDP per capita $2000) and Namibia (nom GDP per cap $9500) are precisely the the kind of SSA countries that can be very unequal because they have average incomes per capita substantially above survival level, but nevertheless have lots of people living close to survival level. Economically, Namibia is a bit like an extension of South Africa. Angola is precisely a notorious case of high oil revenues concentrated on a wealthy sub-economy, standing alongside widespread poverty. Luanda is one of the world's most expensive cities to live in. Equatorial Guinea and Gabon are similar egregious cases.bob sterman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:10 pmErrr..not that difficult, some GINI values...
From the dozen most unequal countries in the world...
Namibia 59.1
Central African Republic 56.2
Angola 51.3
From the dozen most equal countries...
Iceland 26.1
Belgium 27.2
United Arab Emirates 26.0
It’s the Catholic theologian response to attacks on the plausibility or accuracy of the bible though, and ties in with how the Vatican astronomers view Genesis.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:52 amThat is... not true. Very many levels and strengths of not true.
Catholic doctrine is that there's no contradiction between faith and science, as science reveals the nature of a universe that was created by god. As such Catholic doctrine has, for a long time, accepted evolution, that the universe is billions of years old etc.Grumble wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:00 amIt’s the Catholic theologian response to attacks on the plausibility or accuracy of the bible though, and ties in with how the Vatican astronomers view Genesis.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:52 amThat is... not true. Very many levels and strengths of not true.
When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything. However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time that He assured them of his continual presence, giving being to every reality. And thus creation went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today, in fact because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities. The beginning of the world was not the work of chaos, which owes its origin to another, but it derives directly from a Supreme Principle who creates out of love. The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it. The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.
Probably better to say that some Protestant churches take it literally.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:20 amMmm, but C of E certainly doesn't take the Bible literally, for instance. I don't think I've met a single person who does, and I was around Protestant church folks for about 20 years.
C of E is in a funny muddle ground between Catholic and Protestant though. I don’t think any sensible Christians have taken the bible literally since evolution became well accepted, but the holdouts are Protestants not Catholics. I was going to say fundie Protestants, but I know there are Baptists who wouldn’t necessarily qualify as fundies who question evolution (in the U.K.).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:20 amMmm, but C of E certainly doesn't take the Bible literally, for instance. I don't think I've met a single person who does, and I was around Protestant church folks for about 20 years.
My mum and my sister are in some sort of evangelical church which is young earth creationist, has its sabbath on Saturday, and takes leviticus more seriously (e.g. not eating pork).Grumble wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:06 pmC of E is in a funny muddle ground between Catholic and Protestant though. I don’t think any sensible Christians have taken the bible literally since evolution became well accepted, but the holdouts are Protestants not Catholics. I was going to say fundie Protestants, but I know there are Baptists who wouldn’t necessarily qualify as fundies who question evolution (in the U.K.).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:20 amMmm, but C of E certainly doesn't take the Bible literally, for instance. I don't think I've met a single person who does, and I was around Protestant church folks for about 20 years.
Probably more accurate to say "people who take the Bible literally are protestants" rather than "protestants take the Bible literally", in that case.Grumble wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:06 pmC of E is in a funny muddle ground between Catholic and Protestant though. I don’t think any sensible Christians have taken the bible literally since evolution became well accepted, but the holdouts are Protestants not Catholics. I was going to say fundie Protestants, but I know there are Baptists who wouldn’t necessarily qualify as fundies who question evolution (in the U.K.).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:20 amMmm, but C of E certainly doesn't take the Bible literally, for instance. I don't think I've met a single person who does, and I was around Protestant church folks for about 20 years.
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:25 pmProbably more accurate to say "people who take the Bible literally are protestants" rather than "protestants take the Bible literally", in that case.Grumble wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:06 pmC of E is in a funny muddle ground between Catholic and Protestant though. I don’t think any sensible Christians have taken the bible literally since evolution became well accepted, but the holdouts are Protestants not Catholics. I was going to say fundie Protestants, but I know there are Baptists who wouldn’t necessarily qualify as fundies who question evolution (in the U.K.).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:20 amMmm, but C of E certainly doesn't take the Bible literally, for instance. I don't think I've met a single person who does, and I was around Protestant church folks for about 20 years.
Not sure about the Orthodox churches.
The stories of Genesis cannot be read apart from their original cultural context, and when we read them as they were meant to be read, we see that the creation story was a gauntlet thrown down before the prevailing culture of its time. The creation stories affirmed that the Jewish God, the tribal deity of a small and internationally unimportant people, alone made the whole cosmos. That meant that He was able to protect His People. It meant that, properly speaking, all the pagan nations should abandon their old gods and worship Him. These stories affirm that the Jewish God is powerful enough to have created everything by a few simple orders. They affirm that Man is not the mere tool and slave of the gods, whose job it is to feed the deities and care for their temples. Rather, Man is a co-ruler with God, His own image and viceroy on earth. And Woman is not a thing to be sold, inferior to Man. Rather, she shares Man’s calling and dignity.
These are the real lessons of Genesis. It has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution. Its true lessons are located elsewhere.
So what about dinosaurs? I happily leave them in the museums, to the makers of movies (I love “Jurassic Park”), and the writers of National Geographic. The creation stories of Genesis give me lots to ponder and to live up to without multiplying mysteries. As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.”
That is a better way to express it, thanks.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:25 pmProbably more accurate to say "people who take the Bible literally are protestants" rather than "protestants take the Bible literally", in that case.Grumble wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:06 pmC of E is in a funny muddle ground between Catholic and Protestant though. I don’t think any sensible Christians have taken the bible literally since evolution became well accepted, but the holdouts are Protestants not Catholics. I was going to say fundie Protestants, but I know there are Baptists who wouldn’t necessarily qualify as fundies who question evolution (in the U.K.).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:20 amMmm, but C of E certainly doesn't take the Bible literally, for instance. I don't think I've met a single person who does, and I was around Protestant church folks for about 20 years.
Not sure about the Orthodox churches.
The way some Catholic members of my family are devoted to Mary and view her as an intercessor to the Big Man makes me view her as some kind of administrative assistant. One probably trained in the same place as medical receptionists given the difficulty in getting an appointment with the fella.shpalman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:06 pmThe catholic church is fairly obsessed with Mary and her virginity based on literally believing what's at the beginning of two of the gospels (despite them being otherwise totally contradictory regarding Jesus's retconned origin story). Not saying that the protestants or anglicans don't believe in the virgin birth in general, but there's far less veneration of Mary going on.
My favourite Dave Allen joke:El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:52 amThat is... not true. Very many levels and strengths of not true.
I did do a chuckle, but it seems a bit unfair to single out Catholics. Many protestant churches would think that they'd be the only ones there too. For example, iIt is typical of evangelical types to tell you that the only way to get into The Kingdom of The Lord is to repent and accept Jesus into your life, otherwise it's to Hell you go. But I suppose it wouldn't be funny if you made it too complicated.Trinucleus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 3:59 pmMy favourite Dave Allen joke:El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:52 amThat is... not true. Very many levels and strengths of not true.
St Peter is showing a new resident round heaven
"Over there are the Jews, in the distance are the Muslims, and just to the right are the Hindus."
"What's behind that high wall?"
"Shhhh, it's the Catholics. They think they're the only ones here"
Orthodox theology is quite similar to Roman Catholic, much more so than the differences between the multifarious Protestant churches and Rome. The Great Schism between Orthodoxy and Rome was not actually over any deep theological differences, as with Protestants. Nor has there been a proliferation of Orthodox sects arguing for different theologies, as with the protestants. There are two Ukrainian Orthodox churches, but that is because one is is subservient to Moscow and the other isn't. Then there are "Greek catholics" and others of that ilk, who use an orthodox liturgy but acknowledge, and are accepted by, the Pope. This can only happen because the theological differences are small.
Even then, nope, sorry. People who take the creation stories in Genesis literally are more likely to be protestants. There are plenty of other areas of the Bible where (some/many/most) catholics or the Roman Catholic Church adhere more strictly to what is written there than (some/many/most) protestants (why does the catholic church not have women priests, for instance, but the C of E does?).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:25 pmProbably more accurate to say "people who take the Bible literally are protestants" rather than "protestants take the Bible literally", in that case.Grumble wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:06 pmC of E is in a funny muddle ground between Catholic and Protestant though. I don’t think any sensible Christians have taken the bible literally since evolution became well accepted, but the holdouts are Protestants not Catholics. I was going to say fundie Protestants, but I know there are Baptists who wouldn’t necessarily qualify as fundies who question evolution (in the U.K.).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:20 amMmm, but C of E certainly doesn't take the Bible literally, for instance. I don't think I've met a single person who does, and I was around Protestant church folks for about 20 years.
Not sure about the Orthodox churches.
Fair point. We can whittle it down to "creationists are more likely to be protestant".El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 10:47 amEven then, nope, sorry. People who take the creation stories in Genesis literally are more likely to be protestants. There are plenty of other areas of the Bible where (some/many/most) catholics or the Roman Catholic Church adhere more strictly to what is written there than (some/many/most) protestants (why does the catholic church not have women priests, for instance, but the C of E does?).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:25 pmProbably more accurate to say "people who take the Bible literally are protestants" rather than "protestants take the Bible literally", in that case.Grumble wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:06 pm
C of E is in a funny muddle ground between Catholic and Protestant though. I don’t think any sensible Christians have taken the bible literally since evolution became well accepted, but the holdouts are Protestants not Catholics. I was going to say fundie Protestants, but I know there are Baptists who wouldn’t necessarily qualify as fundies who question evolution (in the U.K.).
Not sure about the Orthodox churches.
The simple fact is there's so much variation, both denominationally and personally, in what different parts of Christianity believe, that it's rather pointless trying to draw lines around who is more or less biblical.
One example in chopper's post. Here's a link to save you scrolling viewtopic.php?p=108892#p108892
I'm really not sure where anyone would get "Woman is not a thing to be sold, inferior to Man. Rather, she shares Man’s calling and dignity." from Genesis. Or why in the modern age you'd need to get that from there as if we haven't made progress since then. Maybe, in "the prevailing culture of its time" it was progressive, but that was a long time ago.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:23 amOne example in chopper's post. Here's a link to save you scrolling viewtopic.php?p=108892#p108892
* - having been written by those very people! what are the chancesThe creation stories affirmed said that the Jewish God, the tribal deity of a small and internationally unimportant people*, alone made the whole cosmos.
But that would be the second, post-Noah, version, because the first version went wrong and he had to kill them all.They affirm say that Man is not the mere tool and slave of the gods, whose job it is to feed the deities and care for their temples. Rather, Man is a co-ruler with God, His own image and viceroy on earth
The CofE is so wide that there are Evangelical wings (often they don't like women priests either) and they are gaining in influence as a lot of the other churchgoers have stopped.Grumble wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:06 pmC of E is in a funny muddle ground between Catholic and Protestant though. I don’t think any sensible Christians have taken the bible literally since evolution became well accepted, but the holdouts are Protestants not Catholics. I was going to say fundie Protestants, but I know there are Baptists who wouldn’t necessarily qualify as fundies who question evolution (in the U.K.).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:20 amMmm, but C of E certainly doesn't take the Bible literally, for instance. I don't think I've met a single person who does, and I was around Protestant church folks for about 20 years.