quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

For those people who have been put off the label "atheist" by the antics of Dawkins, Hitchens et al, here's an interesting piece proposing the label "heretic' instead:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/5941/coming_out_as_a_heretic/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

So, who'd like to be first to come out as a heretic (Our own CM's TheHeretic is automatically disqualified [:D]) ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

what would we suppose was being preached when the king was "presumed" to be or have the same eminence as God?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

what would we suppose was being preached when the king was "presumed" to be or have the same eminence as God?

Depends upon which kings you reference, I think. The Caesars were so "presumed," but the fuedal kings and popes derived their authority from God, as I understand it. Not sure I understand your point. Sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The problem with the OP is that Fightdirecto gives his own definition of "breath of life." He talks about it as the act of breathing air into the lungs. But many Christians apparently believe that the "breath of life" refers to the Soul. Their objection to abortion is that no one knows for certain when the Soul ~the essence of the person~ enters the body. A careful reading of the citation will show there is wide disagreement about the definition. The OP's cherry picked premises are just too simplistic for the question he raises. Just my [sm=2cents.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Re the OP
Thanks for bringing a fresh perspective to this discussion. It comes as no surprise that literal interpretations of the foundation text of any ideology either contradict themselves or they contradict the text. This outcome seems unavoidable to me, regardless of the particular text or ideology.

If this claim is valid, then it begs the question: Why do some people have such dogged faith in their belief systems they do when those belief systems are so obviously flawed (in a rational sense)?

It cannot be due to the internal coherence of the text/ideology can it? So why do they still believe? Increasingly, I find that the answers lie in the emotional needs of the believer. The text or ideology offers some emotional sustenance or fulfils a need not fulfilled elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The problem with the OP is that Fightdirecto gives his own definition of "breath of life." He talks about it as the act of breathing air into the lungs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneuma
Pneuma (πνεύμα) is an ancient Greek word for "breath," and in a religious context for "spirit" or "soul." It has various technical meanings for medical writers and philosophers of classical antiquity, particularly in regard to physiology, and is also used in Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible and in the Greek New Testament. In classical philosophy, it is distinguishable from psyche (ψυχή), which originally meant "breath of life", but is regularly translated as "spirit" or most often "soul".[1]
Classical antiquity

Presocratics

Pneuma, "air in motion, breath, wind," is equivalent in the material monism of Anaximenes to aer (ἀήρ, "air") as the element from which all else originated. This usage is the earliest extant occurrence of the term in philosophy.[2] A quotation from Anaximenes observes that "just as our soul (psyche), being air (aer), holds us together, so do breath (pneuma) and air (aer) encompass the whole world." In this early usage, aer and pneuma are synonymous.[3]

Ancient Greek medical theory
See also: Pneumatic school

In ancient Greek medicine, pneuma is the form of circulating air necessary for the systemic functioning of vital organs. It is the material that sustains consciousness in a body. According to Diocles and Praxagoras, the psychic pneuma mediates between the heart, regarded as the seat of Mind in some physiological theories of ancient medicine, and the brain.[4]

The disciples of Hippocrates explained the maintenance of vital heat to be the function of the breath within the organism. Around 300 BC, Praxagoras discovered the distinction between the arteries and the veins. In the corpse arteries are empty; hence, in the light of these preconceptions they were declared to be vessels for conveying pneuma to the different parts of the body. A generation afterwards, Erasistratus made this the basis of a new theory of diseases and their treatment. The pneuma, inhaled from the outside air, rushes through the arteries till it reaches the various centres, especially the brain and the heart, and there causes thought and organic movement.[5]

Aristotle
See also: Spontaneous generation#Aristotle and On Breath

The "connate pneuma" of Aristotle is the warm mobile "air" that in the sperm transmits the capacity for locomotion and certain sensations to the offspring. These movements derive from the soul of the parent and are embodied by the pneuma as a material substance in semen. Pneuma is necessary for life, and as in medical theory is involved with the "vital heat," but the Aristotelian pneuma is less precisely and thoroughly defined than that of the Stoics.[1]

Stoic pneuma
Main article: Pneuma (Stoic)

In Stoic philosophy, pneuma is the concept of the "breath of life," a mixture of the elements air (in motion) and fire (as warmth).[6] For the Stoics, pneuma is the active, generative principle that organizes both the individual and the cosmos.[7] In its highest form, pneuma constitutes the human soul (psychê), which is a fragment of the pneuma that is the soul of God (Zeus). As a force that structures matter, it exists even in inanimate objects.[8]

Judaism and Christianity
See also: Soul in the Bible
[icon] This section requires expansion.

In Judaic and Christian usage, pneuma is a common word for "spirit" in the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. At John 3:5, for example, pneuma is the Greek word translated into English as "spirit": "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit (pneuma), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

quote:

But not for the fundamentalists/literalists. They insist that the Bible is the "word of God" and only a literal reading of the Bible is valid. For them a "breath of life" can only mean exactly that - a breath of life. No other interpretations allowed. They don't get the luxury of a choice do they?

quote:

I would have to say my own personal feeling is that religious beliefs come out of a strong personal need. I think religion provides people with a way to make sense of the world, prevents them from having to deal with too much ambiguity, and placates fear about both existence and the after-life. From this one can draw one's own conclusions about what type of person would need religion vs. those who do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
I may be wrong but I suspect fightdirector did not go through a rigourous analysis of the ancient Greek terms to parse his reading of the Biblical passages he relied upon to make his case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle
I guess my serious point would be: Why is communication with god limited to the written word? Why is it not an interactive experience? In what other relationship do you do all the talking?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
I may be wrong but I suspect fightdirector did not go through a rigourous analysis of the ancient Greek terms to parse his reading of the Biblical passages he relied upon to make his case.

Actually he just quoted a website. The sum total of flightdirector's contributions to this thread which do not consist of him quoting someone else are as follows:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Of course you don't, as Libs are soulless -- but your projecting your empty selves on others doesn't make it so. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA
Pretty much sums up EVERY one of YOUR posts -- when "the facts" contradict the looney LibRat view, you simply ignore them. [sm=lalala.gif]

quote:

I can't beat them, but I can't join them either. I simply want to find a way to co-exist. The problem is the most dogmatic religions (Chrisitanity and Islam being two of them - because of their belief in the importance of saving souls, and in the latter case, destroying those who refuse to be saved) co-existence is simply not an option.

Where does this leave us as a society?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I may be wrong but I suspect fightdirector did not go through a rigourous analysis of the ancient Greek terms to parse his reading of the Biblical passages he relied upon to make his case. If it was not his "own" definition he clearly was pretty facile in selecting and applying the interpretation that suited him best. He can speak for himself if I am wrong. I am not a pro-lifer. But, his argument struck me as simplistic in structure is all.