Introducing the Hunter process.

JimHacker wrote:

DrakBibliophile wrote:You get upset when David Weber makes a mistake about "how atheists think" but have the gall to tell Religious People that they are wrong about "how they view their own Faith".

Sorry, we know what our beliefs are and you have shown that you don't but claim that you know better about those beliefs than we do.

While perhaps badly worded, Highjohn does have a point that technically from an athropological perspective, rather than examining one's own religion internally, monotheism vs polytheism can get rather complicated.

That's both true and inaccurate. Or, perhaps, beside the point. People can define things in absolute, excruciating detail and with the utmost precision. It's just that nobody else shares the same precision. You don't seriously expect us to let our understanding of that get in the way of a good, rip-roaring quarrel do you?

On a more serious note, the problem is that every single word in every single human language comes freighted and packed with all manner of background assumptions and shades of meaning. We can't help that because that level of semantics is inherent in the very act of communicating at all. What you believe and how you believe it colors the very act of describing and understanding, and an awful lot of them time, your underlying assumptions are so deeply buried in your word choices that you may not have a clue they're there or that other people might misconstrue them. Or be angered by them, in many cases. After all, they are self-evidently true and accurate, are they not? An honest person would not have used them in the first place if he didn't believe they were true and accurate.

runsforcelery wrote:
Wow! Did this topic ever swerve!

Yeah, and seeing Highjohn and Drak's replies - apparently straight into a minefield!

Hey!! I'm not that bad!!! (I hope )

MWadwell wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:
Wow! Did this topic ever swerve!

Yeah, and seeing Highjohn and Drak's replies - apparently straight into a minefield!

runsforcelery wrote:

JimHacker wrote:While perhaps badly worded, Highjohn does have a point that technically from an athropological perspective, rather than examining one's own religion internally, monotheism vs polytheism can get rather complicated.

That's both true and inaccurate. Or, perhaps, beside the point. People can define things in absolute, excruciating detail and with the utmost precision. It's just that nobody else shares the same precision. You don't seriously expect us to let our understanding of that get in the way of a good, rip-roaring quarrel do you?

On a more serious note, the problem is that every single word in every single human language comes freighted and packed with all manner of background assumptions and shades of meaning. We can't help that because that level of semantics is inherent in the very act of communicating at all. What you believe and how you believe it colors the very act of describing and understanding, and an awful lot of them time, your underlying assumptions are so deeply buried in your word choices that you may not have a clue they're there or that other people might misconstrue them. Or be angered by them, in many cases. After all, they are self-evidently true and accurate, are they not? An honest person would not have used them in the first place if he didn't believe they were true and accurate.

Why am i, all the sudden, getting flashbacks to reading about Papa O'Neal getting a lecture on the Theory of Communication in 'Honor of the Clan' by John Ringo

RFC

Thanks for the long post on Langhorne's motivation and what God's plan means to Safeholdians. While you have never covered the theology of the Plan in such detail, it has been fairly clear that people on Safehold see obedience to the will of God as taught by the Archangels as leading to the best kind of life here and God's reward after death. This isn't a surprise since Langhorne clearly used a basically Judeo Christian framework for religion on Safehold and the idea of great rewards for the faithful in the life to come is a fairly fundamental part of Christianity. Ordinary church members and clergy clearly believe the Writ's commands and proscriptions are for their good rather than being arbitrary. Which is why so many are so fierce in their loyalty to mother church. Heresy threatens their wellbeing and that of their children in this world and the next as well as the good of society because God really does know what is best for his children.

Hope your wife is continuing to recover well.

runsforcelery wrote:
Wow! Did this topic ever swerve!

I, however, can swerve with the best of them. So . . . .

snip

Now, I don’t want to go into this next point to deeply, because of . . . well, for reasons of my own. However, I will remind you that the entire Book of Schueler was added to the Writ after Shan-wei’s “Fall.” That is, it was not a part of the “operator’s manual” until after Langhorne himself was dead, courtesy of Pei Kau-yung’s vest pocket nuke. Now, one might — might, I say — conclude from this that the surviving members of the command crew decided to make Pei Shan-wei’s fate and the destruction of the Alexandria Enclave a “teachable moment” for Safehold. In other words, all of the bloody penalties for violating Jwo-jeng’s proscriptions on advanced technology were added after Shan-wei’s “horrible example” of the consequences of violating them — that is, the destruction she had wreaked on God's plan — and were used to underscore the fact that “even an archangel” could be corrupted into disobeying God’s will. Shan-wei didn’t represent merely Lucifer’s rebellion against God in the names of pride and personal ambition; she also represented Adam and Eve’s rebellion in reaching for the approved of the Tree of Knowledge. She became, in effect, an essential element of the Church of God Awaiting’s theology, but she was not originally a part of that theology as visualized by Langhorne. It is entirely possible that the absence of a personification of evil and the temptation to disobey God’s rules would have constituted a much more immediate fatal flaw in Langhorne’s original plan, although obviously no one will ever know whether or not that was the case.

So those are the main reasons why Langhorne felt it was necessary to incorporate a “God’s plan” element into his original theology and an explanation of at least some of the ways that the destruction of Alexandria and the War Against the Fallen reshaped and modified that theology. I hope this isn’t too rambling and that it may help a bit with understanding Langhorne’s original purpose and at least some of the ways that his original purpose and plan were rather brutally modified after his own death.

I extrapolated on this argument several books ago. The crux was that since Shanwei rebelled it proved Archangels were subject to error and corruption. It follows that the Writ in general but the Book of Sheuler in particular was also not perfect. If some intermediate Theological "fix" was needed to bide time, this argument might be used promote the importance of the individual's relationship with God over the authority of the CoGA.

The threads of the story don't appear to require this "fix". However, even should Merlin or Mikel find themselves arguing against and "archangel" in person. That argument has weight. God's plan is for each of the souls on Safehold to follow. Each individual is different and requires an individually tailored plan to shape him/her best. Even if the overall "plan" is the blueprint God presented mankind, each individual engineer must bring that blueprint to life in his/her own life.

RFC, First I asked you to consider more appropriate phrasing in the future and stated how I thought it implied things which were wrong which you might or might not believe. The way it was written it did imply a moral judgment. Which is what I asked you to consider changing in the future.

runsforcelery wrote:No, I'm not wrong about atheism in the anthropological sense. I will wager that from the very first moment the very first proto-human saw fire, he ascribed it to some mysterious power which he could not understand.

Yes, we'll I an make guesses about what the first sentient being thought when it saw fire too, and there just as valid as your speculations. However, as I stated until then he was 'believer' regardless of what he thought later. Also when he tried to convince another of this supernatural idea he had, you really think that some didn't say "No your wrong"? You really think every said "Yes, magic makes total sense"? Every time there has been some claim(any claim supernatural or natural) there have been people who don't believe it. I see no reason to make a special case for claims about god.


With regards to your and Drak's accusations of arrogance. Please state what you think I did incorrectly.

I gave the example of the trinity. Some people disagreed with that. Which is fine since it varies wildly between denominations.

I gave the example of angels. Being with godlike powers, but who aren't called gods. In Safehold angels are creating things, see the lists of what they are angles 'of'.

I did the same thing with saints in Catholicism and then later elaborated on the specific practices with regards to saints, which I believed to be evidence for my point.

Also Drak. Please reread carefully what I've said before making accusations of hypocrisy. I never claimed greater knowledge of what you or anyone else believed. I stated that you where using a word wrong and gave examples to back that. I did not say, you need to now call angels gods or that you need to call God(note the capital G) something else because god doesn't fit. I said The Church of God Awaiting is a polytheistic religion. It just calls its gods something else, like the Judaic religions do. Again not saying you need to call them gods, just that you where applying the word incorrectly.

Now for where I went wrong.

1. I allow myself to sidetrack into an argument about Christian(and other religions) theology. Not entirely my fault. But I made the initial post and should have locked down what I was discussing immediately as soon as the discussion went off track. Which is entirely my fault.

2. I brought real life examples to illustrate my point. Perfectly fine. But this is religion. Eggshells are easier to walk on. Again should have locked down what I was trying to reference and jumped ship the moment this got off course.

3. RFC's own experience with atheists contradict what I know of atheists. Therefore what he said about atheism was justified by the information he had. So he was as correct as he could be. I wasn't here, but RFC was entirely justified in what he posted.

Highjohn wrote:Now for where I went wrong.

1. I allow myself to sidetrack into an argument about Christian(and other religions) theology. Not entirely my fault. But I made the initial post and should have locked down what I was discussing immediately as soon as the discussion went off track. Which is entirely my fault.

2. I brought real life examples to illustrate my point. Perfectly fine. But this is religion. Eggshells are easier to walk on. Again should have locked down what I was trying to reference and jumped ship the moment this got off course.

3. RFC's own experience with atheists contradict what I know of atheists. Therefore what he said about atheism was justified by the information he had. So he was as correct as he could be. I wasn't here, but RFC was entirely justified in what he posted.

I would add only that I didn't accuse you of arrogance. I simply pointed out that when either side in a discussion like this uses some of those eggshell-crushing words, that side had better be prepared for the other side to reciprocate. I declined your, ah . . . invitation to alter what I had said; I never questioned your right to disagree with it, and I certainly didn't intend to take on a lecturing tone, far less a hectoring one.

Individuals' beliefs and the reasons we hold them are, by their very nature, deeply personal and deeply subjective things. Do I believe that my own belief structure is correct? Certainly I do, or I wouldn't hold it. Do I believe that my judgment is perfect and infallible in all ways? I wish! Would I be happier if you and everyone else in the entire world shared my religious beliefs? Well, if I think my beliefs are the correct ones and that by sharing them everyone in the world would be granted everlasting life in the presence of a loving God, I certainly ought to be happier if everyone shared them. Does that give me some sort of right to dictate that others share those beliefs? Frankly, the God in whom I believe would be really, really pissed off with me if I tried to compel others to at least give voice service to his existence and will. And ultimately (and this is not intended to be in any way condescending or dismissive of your beliefs), from where I sit, what matters to me isn't whether or not you believe in God but whether or not God believes in you. There's a reason Maikel Staynair says that God never walks away from anyone but that we are always free to walk away from him. And the fact that you may not believe in God doesn't change the fact that from where I sit, you are one of his children anyway and that I am just as deeply obligated to love you and wish for your happiness and wellbeing as I am to feel that way about any other Christian, or my wife, or my own children. Mind you, I've been known to be an ornery cuss who probably disappoints God upon occasion, but that doesn't change the rules, mate!

Highjohn, I used the term arrogance not hypocrite.

First, you called Christianity, Judaism, and Islam "pseudo monotheisms" because of the belief in angels. IE "fake monotheism".

You continued to hold that position even after you were informed that followers of those religions don't worship Angels.

The arrogance was that you continued to claim that we were wrong. IE that we didn't really know our own religions.

Now part of the problem may be the definition of a "god".

To Christians, Jews and IIRC Muslims, the definition of a god is a being worthy of worship, not just a very powerful being.

To polytheists, there are many beings worthy of worship even if an individual polytheist only worships one of the gods he believes exists. As I said before, a worshiper of Zeus would believe that Athena was a being worthy of worship.

Now, if you talked to a Catholic and told him that he worshiped the Virgin Mary, he would justly be insulted.

This definition of "what is a god" appears to be the problem.

Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that only God is worthy of worship. While they believe in Angels, they also don't believe Angels are worthy of worship.

I await your response.

Highjohn wrote:RFC, First I asked you to consider more appropriate phrasing in the future and stated how I thought it implied things which were wrong which you might or might not believe. The way it was written it did imply a moral judgment. Which is what I asked you to consider changing in the future.

runsforcelery wrote:No, I'm not wrong about atheism in the anthropological sense. I will wager that from the very first moment the very first proto-human saw fire, he ascribed it to some mysterious power which he could not understand.

Yes, we'll I an make guesses about what the first sentient being thought when it saw fire too, and there just as valid as your speculations. However, as I stated until then he was 'believer' regardless of what he thought later. Also when he tried to convince another of this supernatural idea he had, you really think that some didn't say "No your wrong"? You really think every said "Yes, magic makes total sense"? Every time there has been some claim(any claim supernatural or natural) there have been people who don't believe it. I see no reason to make a special case for claims about god.


With regards to your and Drak's accusations of arrogance. Please state what you think I did incorrectly.

I gave the example of the trinity. Some people disagreed with that. Which is fine since it varies wildly between denominations.

I gave the example of angels. Being with godlike powers, but who aren't called gods. In Safehold angels are creating things, see the lists of what they are angles 'of'.

I did the same thing with saints in Catholicism and then later elaborated on the specific practices with regards to saints, which I believed to be evidence for my point.

Also Drak. Please reread carefully what I've said before making accusations of hypocrisy. I never claimed greater knowledge of what you or anyone else believed. I stated that you where using a word wrong and gave examples to back that. I did not say, you need to now call angels gods or that you need to call God(note the capital G) something else because god doesn't fit. I said The Church of God Awaiting is a polytheistic religion. It just calls its gods something else, like the Judaic religions do. Again not saying you need to call them gods, just that you where applying the word incorrectly.