Despite your snark, this is actually an accurate statement. Latin was the lingua franca of Western Europe for fifteen hundred years and was much more accessible than Hebrew or Koine Greek and was, itself, an effort to place the bible in the vernacular. Anyone who could read up until the nineteenth century was probably going to be able to read Latin, anyway.
The only evidence of the church suppressing vernacular translations were in specific cases of movements condemned as heretical. There are a number of vernacular translations throughout Europe that were never censored or censured.
This makes no sense. If no one looked at any historical, biographical, or religious text seeking post-Enlightenment factual accuracy, then no one was “discouraged” from doing what no one was actually doing. The post-Enlightenment model simply did not occur to anyone, because the entire tradition of reading followed the older model.
Well, you have that. What you don’t have are answers. Yes, you should put more thought into your posts, but that doesn’t help you any if you want to claim that the bible is infallible and free from contradictions. What you’re trying to defend is the literary equivalent of P=NP. It’s like thinking more cleverly about finding a calculable solution to the general halting problem. Be as smart as you want; it’s not going to happen.
You can believe something for many different reasons - the only one of those that equates to faith/religous aspects is a belief without (or despite) evidence to back it up.
I can believe that the sun will rise tomorrow - that is a type of faith (I have no evidence for what will actually happen tomorrow) - but it is based on tons of historical data to suggest a good reason for that belief.
Similarly - if I believe in an afterlife - that is an entirely irrational belief as there is zero evidence to support it, despite all the anecdotal claims to the contrary.
and of course, I can believe that i am sitting in a chair right now typing on a computer and posting to the SDMB - I have plenty of evidence to back up that belief.
Finally - faith can also == trust - see the first example - but at that point, we are also talking about faith in, potentially, another humans’ word - it can be just as evidence based as anything else, but its still largely a guess since you cannot fully predict “tomorrow”.
So - you should allow that not all “belief” is bad or is not also based on ‘facts’.
Faith (biblical) is a type of belief - its simply not based on evidence. It is not the only kind of belief.
It is a subset. Your argument seems to be the equivalent of “All cats are animals, so when it doesn’t matter which word I use-they mean the same thing”. Wrong.
That’s * your * impression. I never saw or read any book published by * Esquire * before 1988. And I pick up “witty rejoinders” from all kinds of sources–things I read as well as hear. I’ve done that all my life. Do you have a problem with that?
I’m sure there are alot of songs out there about ‘faith’, whats that got todo with this discussion? are you agreeing or disagreeing? how about posting a snippet of the lyrics? how about opening a thread in Cafe Society to discuss songs about faith?
This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I implied that you weren’t including any substantive answers to questions in your posts. If you’ll look closely at your post, you’ll see that it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion and totally free of informational content.
You is old as your doubts, but, brother,
You is young as your Faith.
Folks who lend cash all have it,
Folks who save trash all have it!
It’s undeniable that folks who order hash all have it!
(Second verse: …that gamblers on their knees all have it!)
…We can hope for some charity as long as we’ve got some Faith!
True Faith can give you wings to fly,
True Faith can make you fly so high!
Yes, Faith can touch the sky…
You can solve the riddle of it
If you got a little of it! *
Now I’d say that’s plenty descriptive–wouldn’t you?
At best - it describes exactly how poor faith is as a belief system.
“true faith” can give you wings to fly - that means that no one - ever - has had “tru faith” - unless its talking about aircraft, and I don’t believe thats the intent.
now, for true faith making a person fly high - is that a drug reference (as implied by verse 1 and hash) or a reference to using airplanes? because while I have faith in the pilots and the equipment (again, based on relevant observable data) - that has absolutely nothing to do with faith in a religious sense*
and I am pretty sure that no one - ever - has touched the ‘sky’ - inasmuch since the “sky” isn’t an object that can actually be physically touched.
so - this set of lyrics is basically just another example of “faith as small as a mustard seed can move a mountain or command trees to walk” as an empty promise and a useless form of belief.
A
Was that what you were going for ? methinks not.
*not that people can’t have a religious experience while flying or due to it - but it is two wholly different things.
