(November 29, 2009 at 6:04 am)fr0d0 Wrote: ... you can never understand Christianity from the outside like that.

If so then it is fair to say the following too:

You can never understand Hindoeism, Taoism, Boeddhism, Islam, Janism, Zoroastranism, Satanism, Humanism, Totalitarianism, etc from the outside like that.

I think you could understand Humanism and Totalitarianism as they don't require possession of belief in them to understand them, as Christianity, in part, explicitly does. The rest I don't know.

(November 29, 2009 at 9:07 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I think you could understand Humanism and Totalitarianism as they don't require possession of belief in them to understand them, as Christianity, in part, explicitly does. The rest I don't know.

Fact is that you haven't experienced any of them from within, so according to your own standard you can't give any substantial judgement.

According to my standard anybody equipped with the faculty of reason is in principle able to give substantial judgements. For instance one can assess alleged world views if they allow critical thinking and independent truth finding or primarily are based on dogma. That should give you a first rough idea of what you're dealing with.

How do you know as a fact??

Then your standard doesn't apply to Christianity surely? Do you deny that Christianity in part explicitly requires belief to understand it?

(November 29, 2009 at 9:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote: How do you know as a fact??

Then your standard doesn't apply to Christianity surely? Do you deny that Christianity in part explicitly requires belief to understand it?

Oh, it applies to Christianity allright. Just ask the average christian believer how THEY know all these fantastic facts about a virtual being and all that jazz. Basically they have read it in a book allegedly written by a virtual being. I mean, use the faculty of reason, for god's sake.

As to theology, that perversion of high priest cyclic reasoning that tries to parasitize on scientific endeavour, it openly embraces dogmatic thinking.

(November 29, 2009 at 9:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Do you deny that Christianity in part explicitly requires belief to understand it?

There's understanding, and then there's understanding. I see what you mean and it must be true on one level. However on another level, the informed but detached observer must be better placed to see the wood for the trees.

(November 29, 2009 at 9:54 am)Pope Alfred Wrote:

(November 29, 2009 at 9:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Do you deny that Christianity in part explicitly requires belief to understand it?

There's understanding, and then there's understanding. I see what you mean and it must be true on one level. However on another level, the informed but detached observer must be better placed to see the wood for the trees.

Belief simply is the opposite of understanding. It is accepting the truth of something on basically hearsay. Belief does not entail understanding how biblical account can be that far at odds with scientific findings, it's pure acceptance of one account even in the face of overwhelming contradictory scientific evidence.

Sorry Rabbit you seem to have strayed off subject. You need to substantiate your reasoning that faith is unnecessary.

(November 29, 2009 at 10:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Sorry Rabbit you seem to have strayed off subject. You need to substantiate your reasoning that faith is unnecessary.

Well it seems you are not fully grasping my point. You said that christianity explicitly requires belief to understand it.

I am not saying that faith is unneccessary to belief, quite the contrary, imo there really is no other option then to shut down reason in the process of believing and contrary to ample evidence simply accept on faith. And you could have belief in Rabbitism by doing so. But I am saying that faith does not add up to understanding as in explaining facts of the world in terms of cause and effect since unconditional acceptance i.e. faith itself is needed to belief that the belief statements of christianity do indeed bare any meaning on the world in terms of cause and effect.

In other words, belief itself does not lead to understanding, it only leads to acceptance.

Also christianity as a cultural phenomenon can be studied with the faculty of reason in order to understand it and that does not require faith. So we should make a distinction between understanding christianity as a cultural phenomenon which requires no faith, and understanding the meaning of belief statements themself, which requires basic knowledge of language. Saying that you need faith to understand belief does not necessarily imply that you understand anything in terms of cause and effect just that you accept fairy tales as an accurate account of what happened and will happen.

(November 29, 2009 at 9:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Do you deny that Christianity in part explicitly requires belief to understand it?

Quite the contrary Mr. Frodo, delusion is best observed from the outside.