By your definition, Kohlberg and Piaget are similarly authors of self-help books. They’re academicians, whose research happens to focus on moral development.
Not that I don’t think people can’t learn from their research. But to call it self-help research is a little narrow. The research is descriptive as much as it is prescriptive.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< And, someone proposes an equivalent of the First Amendment to be added to a Bill of Rights (reads and means roughly the same thing). Do you vote for it? Or against it?[/quote]Another fabulous question. I think you know I didn’t forget about you, but jist in case.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not a self-help book. It’s a longitudinal scientific study of thousands of people.[/quote]
From you:
Let’s see - a theory that “faith” tracks on a line of “progress” through numerical “stages”, the last one being “enlightenment”.
“Some day I’ll make it to the final stage!”
It’s a self-help book.[/quote]
It’s not a self help book any more than Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is intended for self help or the 6 stages of grieving. Unless you consider all informational learning as self-help then most books on psychology are self-help books.
If the purpose of the book is to help you navigate the 6 stages of faith, then it is a self help book.
What I don’t understand though is that even if it were a self-help book, what’s wrong with that?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb, of course you’re going to see it that way. Fundamentalism is a literalist, rigid, black and white view of the world and people at that stage tend to think they have THE TRUTH, hence anyone disagreeing with their world view must be wrong.
Those who disagree are dismissed as moral relativists, when in fact they focus on underlying principles rather than strict behavioral mandates. After all, if their holy book says something is so, it MUST be true, no matter the weight of objective evidence to the contrary.
If they saw it differently, they would be at a different stage. I understand your mentality perfectly because I was there myself for many years. I don’t judge you for it, but of course you judge me because I take a less literalist view of your holy book than you do.[/quote]
Nobody is a biblical literalist. Some folks think they are, but it’s flat impossible to be.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< The United States Constitution expressly enables the very evil you believe is the most important evil of all to quash - how do you square your fidelity to it? How is the Constitution not your enemy in your fight?[/quote]The gospel of Jesus Christ is a supernatural act upon the human spirit whereby it is brought from fully dead to fully alive by God Himself. That is neither enforcible nor preventable by any civil government. There is no example anywhere in the New Testament of either Christ Himself or any of the other writers of scripture mandating that the saints seek to defeat any of the abominable paganism they were surrounded with through the power of anybody’s government, including Rome’s. On the contrary, we are commanded to submit peacefully to all civil powers save when such obedience would constitute disobedience to God.
Paul told Titus in chapter 3 of his epistle to him: [quote]1-Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, 2-to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 3-For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 4-But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5-He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6-whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7-so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. [/quote] He wrote this to a man who was ministering on the island of Crete. A place where at that time government was corrupt and changed with every new little city state you happened to be in at the moment.
We are also told everywhere to faithfully preach the Gospel and be used of God to convert and transform society on the individual level. Nobody can be forced into saving faith because it is the gift of God and He himself is the author and finisher of it. Of the statements and forms of government to date, ours is the best. It relies on the private convictions of the citizenry for the preponderance of it’s power. Anybody who conducts themselves in accordance with the spirit of the civil law reflected in our founding documents is welcome here as far as I’m concerned and on many issues true conservative catholics are my political allies. The weightiest issues of the things of God are simply not any of the states business. It’s my business as a believer who has been, like all believers, commanded to proclaim and defend the gospel of grace.
[/quote]
Titus was a bishop as was Timothy. Those books in particular are more instructions for clergy than for lay folk.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Another fabulous question. I think you know I didn’t forget about you, but jist in case.
[/quote]
I didn’t, take your time. Interesting discussion, but I know the real world calls.
[quote]pat wrote:
Nobody is a biblical literalist. Some folks think they are, but it’s flat impossible to be.
[/quote]
You’d be surprised how literalist some religions can be. The more fundamentalist and black/white their thinking is, the more literalist they tend to be. As a fundamentalist, I literally believed Moses parted the Red Sea, the earth was covered in a flood, and Jesus walked on the water.
At least hard core fundamentalists are consistent. What drives me bananas are the smorgasbord Christians who choose to believe some parts of their holy book, while turning a blind eye to others. Especially when they judge others by the parts they choose to believe, but conveniently ignore those parts that would reflect negatively on themselves. Those types are the classic modern day Pharisees that Jesus condemned as hypocrites.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Nobody is a biblical literalist. Some folks think they are, but it’s flat impossible to be.
[/quote]
You’d be surprised how literalist some religions can be. The more fundamentalist and black/white their thinking is, the more literalist they tend to be. As a fundamentalist, I literally believed Moses parted the Red Sea, the earth was covered in a flood, and Jesus walked on the water.
At least hard core fundamentalists are consistent. What drives me bananas are the smorgasbord Christians who choose to believe some parts of their holy book, while turning a blind eye to others. Especially when they judge others by the parts they choose to believe, but conveniently ignore those parts that would reflect negatively on themselves. Those types are the classic modern day Pharisees that Jesus condemned as hypocrites.[/quote]
They try but as you stated the literal parts they follow are cherry picked. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the context of certain books and their purpose for the original audience. That doesn’t invalidate the books at all, their messages are still valid, but I don’t build a boat by cubits, Alters vary in size, I trim the corners of my beard, I am uncircumstanced and I eat un-kosher shit. So do those who proclaim literalness to the bible.
Anybody who claims to take the entire Bible literally is full of it. It’s impossible.
What"s an example of something in the bible people couldn’t possibly take literally?
litteralism is a lie, plain and simple.
an absurd pretention
polysemy is intrinsic to language. meaning is structural and contextual. and always will be.
there is no such thing than “the pure letter of the text”.
and without the spirit, without interpretation, you can’t read. at all.
literalists just deny that they are indeed building a (finite, biased and human) interpretation of their sacred text.
like everyone else.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Nobody is a biblical literalist. Some folks think they are, but it’s flat impossible to be.
[/quote]
You’d be surprised how literalist some religions can be. The more fundamentalist and black/white their thinking is, the more literalist they tend to be. As a fundamentalist, I literally believed Moses parted the Red Sea, the earth was covered in a flood, and Jesus walked on the water.
[/quote]
Lulz - God parted the Red Sea through Moses and Jesus did walk on teh waterz. What if the Bible was written in lolcatz! Be awesome stuff.
[quote]
At least hard core fundamentalists are consistent. What drives me bananas are the smorgasbord Christians who choose to believe some parts of their holy book, while turning a blind eye to others. Especially when they judge others by the parts they choose to believe, but conveniently ignore those parts that would reflect negatively on themselves. Those types are the classic modern day Pharisees that Jesus condemned as hypocrites.[/quote]
The organization that is closest to being literal on the Bible is the Catholic Church. Fundamentalist are usually farthest from understanding the literal meaning of the word. When I mean literal, I mean the literal intention of what the books are supposed to teach. See Fundi’s have decided they are going to hijack the world literal reading of the Bible. And, I’ll hold on to it like a three year old holding on to his favorite toy that someone is trying to take away.
The Catholic Church understands and teaches the literal word of God. They teach is in context, that some of the parts are poetry and some of it is History, and some of it is proverbs, &c.
Literalists believe that every event described in the bible actually happened, and that every commandment* should be followed today since god’s word is eternal.
*Some use the “old law/new law” excuse as an escape clause from the more savage commandments of the old testament.
[quote]forlife wrote:
*Some use the “old law/new law” excuse as an escape clause from the more savage commandments of the old testament.[/quote]
It’s not an excuse. It’s an actual theological understanding pulled directly from the new testament. From the observance (or non-observance) of the sabbath, to the carrying out of punishments, to questions about what converting gentiles must or mustn’t do in regards to the “old law.” It really is a New Testament, a New Covenant. It’s cool, not mad at you. Alot of people outside of the faith would never have read the New Testament.
I understand all that, and used to believe it myself.
Now though, I see it as a convenient way to get out from under the harsh commandments of the old testament. I think the gods people create reflect the people themselves. The god of the old testament reflects the more savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelites relative to the Jews many centuries later.
No biggie, if people would even live consistently with the new testament, or preferably would admit that all of it is potentially influenced by cultural and political norms and may not strictly apply to us today, I would find it more palatable. Instead, you typically find cherry picking Christians, or hard core fundamentalists that think the needs of people today are identical to the needs of Jews that lived 2,000 years ago.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I understand all that, and used to believe it myself.
Now though, I see it as a convenient way to get out from under the harsh commandments of the old testament. [/quote]
Wasn’t very convenient for the christian martyrs. I mean, if harsh sentencing was the impetus for fabricating Christianity…Well, they went from the pot and into the frying pan.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I understand all that, and used to believe it myself.
Now though, I see it as a convenient way to get out from under the harsh commandments of the old testament. I think the gods people create reflect the people themselves. The god of the old testament reflects the more savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelites relative to the Jews many centuries later.
No biggie, if people would even live consistently with the new testament, or preferably would admit that all of it is potentially influenced by cultural and political norms and may not strictly apply to us today, I would find it more palatable. Instead, you typically find cherry picking Christians, or hard core fundamentalists that think the needs of people today are identical to the needs of Jews that lived 2,000 years ago.[/quote]
What is God supposed to be now? Because I’m pretty sure he’s still a big meanie. He’s still got his wrathfulness, and his jealousy, and all that savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelite people.
Sloth, I don’t think their motivation was to avoid persecution. I was just saying that their god evolved along with their society as they became less barbaric and more civilized.
Chris, you don’t see many examples in the new testament of their god commanding them to kill infants, adulterers, witches, etc. The old testament god was far, far more harsh.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I understand all that, and used to believe it myself.
Now though, I see it as a convenient way to get out from under the harsh commandments of the old testament. I think the gods people create reflect the people themselves. The god of the old testament reflects the more savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelites relative to the Jews many centuries later.
No biggie, if people would even live consistently with the new testament, or preferably would admit that all of it is potentially influenced by cultural and political norms and may not strictly apply to us today, I would find it more palatable. Instead, you typically find cherry picking Christians, or hard core fundamentalists that think the needs of people today are identical to the needs of Jews that lived 2,000 years ago.[/quote]
What is God supposed to be now? Because I’m pretty sure he’s still a big meanie. He’s still got his wrathfulness, and his jealousy, and all that savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelite people. [/quote]
BC I don’t understand this and its completely contrary to my beliefs/upbringing/learning. I’m no Bible expert, but generally speaking, the New Covenant described in the New Testament replaces the Old Testament wrathful jeolous God. In what ways do you believe in the wrathfulness?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, I don’t think their motivation was to avoid persecution. I was just saying that their god evolved along with their society as they became less barbaric and more civilized.
Chris, you don’t see many examples in the new testament of their god commanding them to kill infants, adulterers, witches, etc. The old testament god was far, far more harsh.[/quote]
Okay, so you’re saying that God’s nature changed because someone wrote the New Testament?
If God just changes his nature, basically Christ dying was useless. A reason for Jesus dying was because of God’s wrath. Which the prophets described as something terrible. Even Jesus wasn’t this nice man that bounced kiddies on his knee all day. The man turned over a Synagogue because of people disrespecting his Father’s house. He killed demons, he rebuked and was sarcastic with those that were hypocrites.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I understand all that, and used to believe it myself.
Now though, I see it as a convenient way to get out from under the harsh commandments of the old testament. I think the gods people create reflect the people themselves. The god of the old testament reflects the more savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelites relative to the Jews many centuries later.
No biggie, if people would even live consistently with the new testament, or preferably would admit that all of it is potentially influenced by cultural and political norms and may not strictly apply to us today, I would find it more palatable. Instead, you typically find cherry picking Christians, or hard core fundamentalists that think the needs of people today are identical to the needs of Jews that lived 2,000 years ago.[/quote]
What is God supposed to be now? Because I’m pretty sure he’s still a big meanie. He’s still got his wrathfulness, and his jealousy, and all that savage, primitive perspectives of the Israelite people. [/quote]
BC I don’t understand this and its completely contrary to my beliefs/upbringing/learning. I’m no Bible expert, but generally speaking, the New Covenant described in the New Testament replaces the Old Testament wrathful jeolous God. In what ways do you believe in the wrathfulness?[/quote]
It does not replace, it complements and fulfills. Even if the New Law “replaced” the Old Law, the laws themselves do not change the Judge, the Judge creates the Law.
We have a new person to judge us. Jews had the Father, now we have the Son.