Thomas: Did the sun stop moving?

[I, Brian]

Let's not try and be personal, please - both the question and answer in this thread do appear somewhat aimed at purposes other than discussion.

Considering that belief in the Divine, in whatever form, requires a belief in what most people without faith would consider supranatural at best, I think the suggestion that any individual belief or consideration of the existence of the supranatural as flawed or otherwise misdirected, is less than ingenious.

We're not here to place any individual member's faith under the spotlight and be critical their personal position faith, unless invited.

Now, this thread can continue as a discussion of Joshua 10:13 by all means - but let me know if this can continue as a civil discussion, or whether I need to close the thread.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

We're not here to place any individual member's faith under the spotlight and be critical their personal position faith, unless invited.

Could you please remind me, Brian, just for the RECORD ... WHEN, WHERE, on WHAT POST, THREAD and DISCUSSION ... either Nick, Bruce Michael or myself - asked Thomas (or Francis, for that matter, and a coupla other folks who love to chime in - I think we can see a perfect example of that here, in response to this) to TRASH our spiritual and philosophical beliefs (?).

Perhaps they think, as some do, that because they are more numerous than ourselves (those who pursue a more eclectic spiritual path, whether `esoteric' or otherwise) ... it is okay to BASH away, and pretend that Theosophists don't have feelings, and that we don't take our beliefs seriously.

I mean, I can argue - and have done so - that a Theosophical line of belief fulfils every bit the role of `a religion,' or set of Spiritual beliefs in one's life ... certainly the latter, yet YOU HAVE SEEN the position which Thomas loves to shove down people's throat, EVERY opportunity he gets!!!

I KNOW you have seen this, because I have even PM'd you about it.

Now, it's YOUR forum, and I KNOW that you changed the `Garden' approach some time ago, and sure, the Christian forums are more lively for that. Yet I think you've found, have you not, that folks both familiar with C-R and new to the board are pretty much fine with having a lot of discussions on Comparative, and others on a different section than `Christian,' thus cutting down on the excess traffic, Jesus-bashing, and general frivolous discussion which seems to so often end up over on Christianity, for some reason.

Tell me it's `payback time,' for those of us who have dared to question status quo Christian interpretation (and just what is `consensus,' anyway?) ... and that'll be enough. If it is acceptable to stand by and observe those with less popular beliefs and spiritual paths get BASHED daily for it here at C-R, while those in the MAINSTREAM are not only allowed to LORD IT OVER other folks - but also get a prompt defense from the Board Admin simply because they are being taken to task for being dodgy about a straight answer to a simple question ...

... then I begin to wonder, how did our friend Blue Jay manage to HOLD OUT so long as she did!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Why not just open a new sub-forum called THEOSOPHY BASHING?

At least then there will be no lie.

AND BY THE WAY, BRIAN, ASK MEfor a LIST, a compilation of NUMEROUS POSTS, from the past - say, 5 or 6 months, hell, even 2 or 3, in which Thomas (and occasionally another) has simply said, STRAIGHTFORWARD and DIRECTLY, YOUR SPIRITUAL PATH/PHILOSOPHY IS INVALID, ILLEGITIMATE, ILL-FOUNDED (etc), for the following reasons ... and then gone on to enumerate these, sometime with repetition, but always with a slightly different angle of attack.

Now, find me ONE SINGLE POST where I SINGLE-HANDEDLY indict THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN FAITH, or even Roman Catholicism as a whole ... rather than, AT MOST, point out that I have disagreements, or different interpretations, etc.

SHOW ME where I say the same thing that Thomas says ...

... and WHO is being told to chill out here, exactly?

Yeah, uh-huh. Wanna explain to me again how that goes?

Ready for the LIST yet?

I figured as much ...

Or, for the hell of it, show me ONE `Francis post,' where I've said, point blank, "Your philosophy and beliefs are a rip-off, a sham, totally ridiculous and utter NONSENSE ... they are BULLSHIT, you'd have to be STUPID and totally misguided to believe in such hogwash, etc."

SHOW ME JUST ONE

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas, you said,

"...you have made a wrong assumption."

--> Ah, you think the sun did not stop moving. Got it. I find that fascinating, as the Bible says it stopped moving.

As I suspected, you have immediately jumped from one wrong conclusion to the other.

Thomas

[Thomas]

OK. Let me bring this to a close.

First, for accuracy's sake, let's quote the actual text in question, the one Nick had a vague recollection of, but could not remember where in the Bible it was, or bother to find it, but the answer to which seems all important:

"Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon,
nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.

And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the Book of the Just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day. There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel."
Josue 10:12-14

According to scholars, the first part of the text is a poetic couplet, the second its interpretation.

The association of heavenly bodies with the deity who fights for Israel is a commonplace in Biblical poetry. And as I have intimated, a belief that God is on one's side in a conflict is not uncommon in the traditions of the world. Indeed there are images of Adolf Hitler under the title of "Gott mit uns" (the motto of the Royal House of Prussia).

The text "Is not this written in the Book of the Just?" does not appear in the Septuagint, although it is an ancient gloss, a footnote indicating the source from which the poetic unit was taken, I believe no longer extant. The same type of internal referencing can be found elsewhere, eg 2 Sam 1:18.

+++

Where does this leave the Catholic in regard to the interpretation of Scripture?

The answer to that question, as was originally framed by Nick, who believes a Bishop would be in 'deep trouble' for not 'toeing the line' if he chose to regard the astronomical phenomena, is that there is no requirement upon the Catholic to treat the text as literally true.

The next roll-on question then: Is nothing in the Bible literally true?
To which the answer is, of course, there are literal truths, there are poetic truths, there are mythic truths, there are all manner of truths ... which is why it is entirely reasonable and logical to say that the Bible, in its totality, cannot be understood in depth without the accompanying traditional commentaries — as is the case with any sacra doctrina.

Allow me to quote from Dei Verbum, a document comprising part of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
(my emhasis)

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
My emphasis again.

The game of tit-for-tat that Nick and I have been engaged in has for me a precise purpose pointing not only towards "refuting error," but also towards the "reformation of manners and discipline in right living" — in this instance, of course, I mean the correct philosophical method of inquiry, in the Greek tradition, nothing more.

Again, "The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture." — As Nick sought only a yes/no answer to his question, I drew the obvious conclusion that he has no interest in investigating the meaning the sacred writer intended to express.

OK ... so ask me again. Do I believe the sun stood still?
The poet in me says yes ... the philosopher in me says no ...

Thomas

[Thomas]

Actually, I think a 'Theosophy Society' board would be a good idea, under 'Modern Religions' or 'Alternative'?

Thomas

[Tao_Equus]

But did the sun stop?!!

[Nick the Pilot]

Brian,

We need to have critical-thinking skills. We need to teach critical-thinking skills to others. The example that is often given is, what about a Buddhist who is married to a Christian, and they have children. Should the Buddhist parent teach their child to read the Bible with a critical mind, even though it offends the other parent? Yes!

(Have you heard of the cases of Christian spouses who forbid their Buddhist spouses to even teach Buddhism to their children?)

Many non-Christians in this world are attacked because they refuse to accept the Bible. We need to teach them coping skills to survive the onslaught Christians put upon them. Your Forum provides us with that service, and I hope you will allow us non-Christians to continue to learn how to defend ourselves against Christians.

[Thomas]

Hi all —

Whilst I endorse Nick's high-minded sentiment, once again I do wish that he could express such without undermmining his own argument with the need to injure the reputation of those he chooses to oppose. Surely among the principles of critical thinking is balance and objectivity?

Let me address the issues implicit in his post:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

We need to have critical-thinking skills.

Yes we do.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

We need to teach critical-thinking skills to others.

Yes we do.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

The example that is often given is, what about a Buddhist who is married to a Christian, and they have children. Should the Buddhist parent teach their child to read the Bible with a critical mind, even though it offends the other parent? Yes!

But if the example was offered in a critical-thinking forum it would be tossed out as a classic straw man argument:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
definition from wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

(Have you heard of the cases of Christian spouses who forbid their Buddhist spouses to even teach Buddhism to their children?)

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Many non-Christians in this world are attacked because they refuse to accept the Bible.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

We need to teach them coping skills to survive the onslaught Christians put upon them.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Your Forum provides us with that service, and I hope you will allow us non-Christians to continue to learn how to defend ourselves against Christians.

Ditto.

If we are serious about 'critical thinking', might I suggest a discussion of critical thinking as exemplified by philosophers from our respective camps, utilising the standards of academia as our median?

I would cite Aquinas, for example, or if someone more current, Bernard Lonergan (Catholic) or Paul Ricoeur (Protestant).

Who would a Theosopher cite?

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, we discussed,

"We need to teach critical-thinking skills to others. --> Yes we do."

--> The Bible says the sun stopped, yet you think it did not stop. A use of critical-thinking skills would lead us to ask why.

Why?

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

I am sorry I took so long to get back to you, but I got distracted writing a long post in another thread.

I am baffled by Brian's contention that it is OK to discuss Johua 10:13, yet it is not OK to ask, "Did the sun stop moving?" I think a critically-thinking person would naturally end up asking such a question.

It is a basic Theosophical contention that goofy ideas creep into all religions as the centuries pass by. It is our job to look for these goofy ideas, point them out, and point out how each religion has deviated from its original teachings.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Neemai

Is it just me, or is this way off the plot somewhere? Surely this thread isn't what this forum should be about?

If someone started telling a faithful Muslim how they should interpret the Koran would we not expect some strong defence to the contrary? What's the difference in this case?

Is there a way in which we can give each other enough space to share and discuss matters without it getting like this?

Hahaha!! That's a good one.

Welcome to CR, kiddo. The C stands for contentious.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

The Bible says the sun stopped, yet you think it did not stop. A use of critical-thinking skills would lead us to ask why.

And the use of same skills would have elucidated an answer, from my response a few posts above. So, if indeed we need to exercise our critical thinking skills, I shall allow you the chance to look again, and work it out for yourself.

I shall indicate accuracy accordingly.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

It is a basic Theosophical contention that goofy ideas creep into all religions as the centuries pass by.

And if you wish that contention to stand in the public arena, as here — that the world's sacra doctrina contains 'goofy ideas' — then you must be able to justify it.

And in so doing, necessarily demonstrate why your own doctrine is not similarly subject to 'goofy ideas'.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

It is our job to look for these goofy ideas, point them out, and point out how each religion has deviated from its original teachings.

And of course, you will need to demonstrate that you have the necessary tools and acumen with which to carry out this self-appointed task.

Otherwise we can rightly thing your very supposition is itself a 'goofy idea'. Not to mention elitist and condescending in the extreme.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Well since you asked.... The Bible says humanity was created, uncreated, and recreated. This idea (not an original teaching, according to Theosophy) was added later. I would label this Double-Creation Story as goofy.

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Might I also add, for someone whose sensibilities with regard to his own beliefs are so finely attuned — to the degree that a perceived offence cannot be forgiven — you seem remarkably insensitive to the offense you offer others in such a glib fashion as when declaring that their sacred texts contain 'goofy ideas'.

Has not this thought ever occured to you?

For the sake of fairness, I would commend Bruce as a fine example to follow — we have clashed, but in all our dealings he is always precise and to the point, with no hint of acrimony or animosity.

Thomas