Unreasonable Faith Forum

A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

  • Home
  • About
  • Forum
  • Writings
  • A Reading List
  • Submissions
  • Contact

Register or Log In

Unreasonable Faith Forum » Introduction » Welcome / Introduce Yourself

I'll be your whipping boy

(248 posts) (21 voices)
  • Started 2 years ago by Nox
  • Latest reply from JonJon

Tags:

  • 2013 cocktail dresses
  • bridal dresses online
  • bridesmaid dresses toronto stores
  • celebrity dresses 100
  • celebrity wedding dresses
  • cheap bridesmaid dresses
  • designer mother of the bride dresses 2010
  • discount prom dress
  • discounted bridesmaid dresses
  • evening gowns party dresses
  • fake replica watches
  • fake watches
  • green spring dress
  • megathread
  • military ball dresses sale
  • Philosophy
  • plus size dresses for women
  • plus size wedding dresses
  • Replica A Lange Sohne watches
  • Science
  • short bridesmaid dresses under 100
  • short homecoming dresses
  • spring cocktail dresses for women
  • spring party dress
  • sweetheart cocktail dresses
  • The Bible
  • Theology
  • white formal dresses
  • wholesale jewelry
  • women s spring dresses
« Previous1…567…9Next »
  1. Kodie
    Member

    I'm going to go ahead and say me too. Although I'm not well educated in the sciences, I think the subjects are amazing. Even though I've always considered myself an atheist, I used to, as a late teen, dabble in "cool things" (I think much like some of you with your science fiction) within the realm of belief, such as paganism or pantheism, maybe a little common astrology, such things based on nature, an anthropomorphic version of it, without really considering it at odds with the lack of god. I think you could call it an interest in fantasy.

    I was not raised with the phrase "because I said so!"; my mother always gave a reason, at least it was her reason, if not universally applicable: because cars go too fast on that road, or because I don't want everyone to think we're too poor to buy you jeans with no holes in them, etc. I think what people object to with empiricism is this "hard truth" of life. My mother considers herself practical and realistic and I think this is her coping mechanism, to be extra cautious and keep this hard truth from pushing her down the stairs if she's looking the other way. She escapes in the tv a lot more than I remember her doing when I was a kid, and I feel my upbringing was pretty cold most of the time, and maybe this is what people think of when they say empiricism is too bare and empty. My mother never goes out on the porch and looks at the stars. She gardens to make her house appealing to neighbors rather than to feel the earth and enjoy plants and flowers that grow.

    Anyway, as far as "spirituality" or whatever, I do look at stars whenever I think of it. I pretty much dislike people, but I love very hard and sincerely the few people I let in. Life is but a dream sometimes. I am a drop of water in an ocean. I still sometimes look at an old tree and wish it had a voice and a way to tell me all the things it has seen. It doesn't get to walk around, it has had visitors for decades, endures the seasons changing, and doesn't care about this internet nonsense. When I think about where I want to live the rest of my life, I'm sure I need seasons. The revolution of the earth around the sun in observable parts with their own essence of life and death and cycles is a big part of my ... what you call, spirit, I don't know what you would call it. Marking time with new displays of nature every couple months feels like a vital part of my human experience. I'm not in control of everything. I suppose I could control the weather by moving. That doesn't really give me joy and life the way seasons do. My mother calls me a dreamer because I think about this stuff, but I don't know why she deprives herself.

    I think anyone who regards empiricism as boring or stark and without luster is probably accounting for the enjoyment of nature as god's wonderful creation, and that atheists are incapable of looking at it without trying to quantify it into numbers or write it in flat terms in a book with no pictures or stories with a plot, or look at clouds and think "ugh, rain!" and stick their nose back in their book. I don't know who thinks that or why.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  2. Ty
    Moderator

    My knowing that love is a combination of brain responses and chemicals reinforced by powerful hormones doesn't change the fact that I love my wife.

    Mystery is not better, or more fulfilling, or more exciting.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  3. Elemenope
    Moderator

    My knowing that love is a combination of brain responses and chemicals reinforced by powerful hormones doesn't change the fact that I love my wife.

    Mystery is not better, or more fulfilling, or more exciting.

    Knowing how love works by demystifying its mechanism doesn't make it any less cool, it's true. I think, though, that the demystification process does have a problematic side-effect; once everything like love can be mechanized and processed, there is little reason to believe that it can't or won't be reconstructed on demand. Since human beings create and maintain their identities (personal and social) by emotional responses, sentiment, and ethics, the ability to tweak these things on demand is a bit scary. How does society work if a person can hack your first impression of them by wearing a hormone cocktail that makes you automatically trust them?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  4. Ty
    Moderator

    This is not new. I once read a lengthy treatise by a nobleman on how the introduction of gunpowder to the battlefield would destroy society by removing the need for chivalry.

    The implications of new technologies are always something we argue over. They are not, however, a reason to keep things mysterious.

    And since people you meet every day are altering your perceptions through chemical signals, is the issue really just that someone might, you know, do it on purpose?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  5. Elemenope
    Moderator

    This is not new. I once read a lengthy treatise by a nobleman on how the introduction of gunpowder to the battlefield would destroy society by removing the need for chivalry.

    And he was right insofar as it destroyed utterly the society with which he was familiar. And for what it's worth, the fields of Antietam or the ruins of Stalingrad would have been utterly unimaginable and horrifying to anyone of his era.

    The implications of new technologies are always something we argue over. They are not, however, a reason to keep things mysterious.

    I agree. But going in with both eyes open doesn't mean we get a pass on unintended consequences.

    And since people you meet every day are altering your perceptions through chemical signals, is the issue really just that someone might, you know, do it on purpose?

    It's not just that it will be possible to do it intentionally, but that those types of human interaction are literally the glue on which society is based. A significant shift in military technology destroyed empires. A little silicon chip changed how we relate to information completely. What do you suppose would be the consequences of changing something far more fundamental to how humans relate to one another? Who can possibly know.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  6. Nox
    Member

    Ty, if you were what I meant by *overly* empirical you would probably write something besides science fiction. Sure all the best scifi is based off real science (and I'm sure yours will be), but it is by nature a flight of fancy.

    And I wasn't really trying to dis empiricism in general. I was actually advocating for it ("more dangerous than the boredom of an overly empirical world view" was meant to be a response to "I am not an empiricist because a) it sucks the fun out of everything for me"). But I do think there should be a balance. Without non-empirical emotional irrational thoughts we just might not have some of our best art today.

    I for one strive to find a perfect middle ground (with varying levels of success) between mysticism and empiricism. That is not to say that I believe every random piece of woo I hear without evidence. But what I do believe is that there are some very fundamental things about the Universe that we don't know yet. I'll generally give the deciding vote to empiricism as I also don't believe in living my life on flights of fancy, but flights of fancy have their place. When encountering a questionable proposition, I try to look at it both as if it were true and as if it were not true. My goal is to see the world as it could be without losing sight of how it is.

    Or to put that another way, if you claimed your cat could control the weather I would not just say "bullsh*t Ty, cat's cant control weather" (yes I know cats can't control weather just follow me here), I'd say "show me your magic cat and let's see it call forth a spontaneous tornado". It might sound silly but many things which have turned out to be true once suffered from a lack of evidence. The obvious downside is that there are a lot of ridiculous theories out there, and you'd never get anything productive done if you just spent all your time looking into whether UFO's were real. Fortunately some things are pretty obviously bullsh*t, this allows for a lot of time saving as several theories can be ditched at a cursory glance without needing to dig much further.

    As soon as I found out the concept of scientology I was pretty much instantly certain it was a scam, but I actually read the Qu'ran before I decided islam wasn't for me.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  7. UrsaMinor
    Member

    "What do you suppose would be the consequences of changing something far more fundamental to how humans relate to one another?"

    Sounds like a good springboard for an SF novel.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  8. Ty
    Moderator

    "What do you suppose would be the consequences of changing something far more fundamental to how humans relate to one another? Who can possibly know. "

    I'd guess that pheromone blocking cologne quickly follows.

    "And he was right insofar as it destroyed utterly the society with which he was familiar."

    And rather directly led to the final nail in the coffin of the concept of the elite soldier nobility. Which was a nice platform for the end of most monarchies. Society is being destroyed and rebuilt so quickly that it's impossible to create lines of demarcation between one and the next.

    "And for what it's worth, the fields of Antietam or the ruins of Stalingrad would have been utterly unimaginable and horrifying to anyone of his era."

    I doubt this very much. Genghis Kahn killed up to one quarter of the humans alive on earth at the time of his empire. And he did it with mounted archers. Hundreds of thousands dead on a single battlefield happened many times prior to the invention of gunpowder. Do you really think gunshot wounds are more horrific than spear wounds?

    Edit to add:

    The issue for this noble was not that gunpowder would make nastier wounds. It was that it would allow untrained commoners to be a legitimate threat to mounted nobles.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  9. Elemenope
    Moderator

    I found this to be very educational. The Battle of Salsu in the Sino-Korean wars seems to be a way outlier; the second largest was during the Franco-Prussian War (which was modern), and everything lower on the list was significantly smaller. The sieges are where it gets truly scary; four million dead in Leningrad, well really all the WWII sieges. Nothing comes close in the ancient-to-medieval world (except if you believe some of the less reliable scholars on the Roman Siege of Jerusalem). IIRC, most battles of the medieval period were between armies numbering in the low tens of thousands (such as Agincourt), and rarely was one side utterly annihilated.

    The issue for this noble was not that gunpowder would make nastier wounds. It was that it would allow untrained commoners to be a legitimate threat to mounted nobles.

    He was right about that.

    And rather directly led to the final nail in the coffin of the concept of the elite soldier nobility. Which was a nice platform for the end of most monarchies. Society is being destroyed and rebuilt so quickly that it's impossible to create lines of demarcation between one and the next.

    I rather think it's a difference in kind, rather than degree. The invention of a chemical that can cause a person to love you against their will would be somewhat on par with the invention of writing changing the way humans learn and store knowledge, except perhaps even more basic; the difference (metaphorically) between hacking the human brain at the assembly code level rather than the high-level program code level. Sure, societies react dynamically with new technologies, but every once in a while, one inadvertently knocks over all the anthills. What I'm vaguely concerned about is that we will eventually happen upon a technology that manipulates something necessary to the stability of human interaction overall. After that all bets are off.

    I'd guess that pheromone blocking cologne quickly follows.

    We can only hope that such a technology proceeds in such a conveniently symmetrical way.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  10. Ty
    Moderator

    "Nothing comes close in the ancient-to-medieval world"

    We seem to no longer be talking about changes wrought by gunpowder, but rather changes brought on by population density.

    When the Mongols killed every single person in a city they were conquering, the limit there was not the technology used, but how many people lived there.

    And in recent memory, we've seen African genocides of a million or more people committed largely with machetes.

    My point is still that the appearance of gunpowder on the field would not have led to carnage more shocking than what an ancient warrior culture was already accustomed to. It's major impact on the field was not the damage it does, but rather its ease of use. A Mongol archer could kill far faster and more efficiently than a civil war era infantryman. The difference was that the Mongol required a lifetime of training with the mounted bow, and significant investment in horse training as well. A civil war era rifleman just needed a gun and some powder and shot.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  11. Elemenope
    Moderator

    Good points. Either way, the advent of gunpowder wrought huge political and social changes out-of-proportion to its mundane technical capacities as a weapon of war. I may have overstepped on the claim that the carnage was different enough in scope or speed; for that, one would have to move forward to technologies like high explosives, flight, and nuclear weapons to see a clean break. Wiping out an entire city instantly with a device the size of a horse carriage would certainly have shocked and horrified the medieval man.

    The difference was that the Mongol required a lifetime of training with the mounted bow, and significant investment in horse training as well. A civil war era rifleman just needed a gun and some powder and shot.

    These make more impactful changes in the cost and consequence of war, both from the perspective of the powerful and from the peons. These days, predator drones driven from across the world can strike with deadly accuracy, straining even further the notion of what the medieval man would have even considered to be "battle". I think one of the changes between gunpowder and those technologies of war that had come before is that it helped to disconnect the warriors from one another in battle, with death more often coming from a person (with a cannon or rifle) one possibly never even had a chance to see and engage.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  12. Ty
    Moderator

    And on that I absolutely agree.

    I think even Genghis Khan would have been horrified by mustard gas.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  13. Jabster
    Member

    Gunpowder did allow relatively untrained soldiers to fight but the reality is that even without gunpowder untrained soldiers could be a threat to the warrior elite just by using a weapon as simple as a crossbow. One of the changes introduced by gun powder was that demise of armour as it didn't matter how much armour you wore it wasn't going to protect you from a metal ball, although technology has now advanced to the point where body armour has been reintroduced. Another change is that it allowed relatively untrained infantry men to become an effective fighting force on there own and eventually the dominate fighting force. Cavalry became increasing less important right up until the new cavalry was invented - the tank.

    So yes I agree that gunpowder changed the landscape of warfare but not as much as changes such as industrialisation or the invention of the machine gun. Industrialisation lead not only to the ability to increase the scale of wars but also the duration of them and scope of them. For long periods it just wasn't possible to have large amounts of your male population working without the country starving to death. The machine gun gave the "humble" infantryman unrivalled power (this only increased when they became personal weapons) and changed the way in which battles were fought i.e. the masses of tightly packed infantryman were no longer viable. These are the points at which ancient warrior culture would find warfare unrecognisable IMHO of course!

    Posted 2 years ago #
  14. Custador
    Moderator

    Strange gun related fact: During the Napoleonic Wars, the Duke of Wellington always claimed he would rather have had skilled longbow archers like those who fought at Agincourt (where, incidentally, the first ever use of gunpowder in a battle took place with a single cannon shot) then the musket-carrying infantry he did have - because the long-bow was faster, more accurate in skilled hands, had a greater range and was more lethal. It outperformed the musket in every way.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  15. Jabster
    Member

    "where, incidentally, the first ever use of gunpowder in a battle took place with a single cannon shot"

    I think it was used in China (at least) before that.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  16. Custador
    Moderator

    Should have specified Western battles :-)

    Posted 2 years ago #
  17. JonJon
    Member

    Ok, point 7 and 9! (And thanks for patience!)

    7) "why does Matthew misquote the old testament so many times?"

    Well, I have a couple answers for this. The first is pure conjecture on my part, but I happen to know that when Augustine quotes scripture he does it exclusively in paraphrases, exclusively from memory. This is a human limitation: we don't have perfect recall. Now, that is an incomplete answer, because of course we're talking about this sort of writing being inspired, which might presumably mean the author is doing something otherwise impossible, etc. But the second answer kind of requires the answer to 9), so we'll go there first.

    It is generally agreed that the gospels have different goals. Mark appears to be aimed at converting Romans, Matthew at converting Jews, Luke at one kind of Greek, John a different kind of Greek (the wackier kind). In order for this to be the case at the same time that we take divine inspiration to be true, we will have to arrive at certain logical positions. It is not as though these two points are incommensurable, but many a fundie will agree to both of these points without blinking, but they don't often consider what exactly that means for their concept of divine inspiration or Biblical inerrancy.

    So, (and I probably don't need to emphasize this) the gospels all say different things. OMGWTFBBQ! Yes, that's right. All of them are either telling the same story but with marked differences, or are (arguably) telling different stories with marked similarities. I think we can absolutely take that as a given. No argument. Does that mean that the gospels contain error? Potentially; let's look slightly closer. Do differences in the gospels mean that they are not divinely inspired? I don't think they do. For example, some information is left out of all of the gospels. All of 'em. For example, we know about the last supper, but no one mentions the last breakfast. For that matter, how about the penultimate lunch? So, inspiration (and potential inerrancy) would have to be able to coexist with some information being left out of the text. This seems only fair to grant.

    Then, how about portraying events in a drastically different order, as John does? Well, John is a pretty stylized book, and it is in part organized around different people who specifically testify that Jesus was God, rather than historically or chronologically. One clue that John isn't organized very well chronologically is the fact that it begins "In the beginning..." By which he, presumably, means the beginning of time. That isn't a good way to begin your story if you intend a chronological organization. In any case, an inaccurate timeline seems to weigh pretty heavily on some conceptions of biblical inerrancy. But, again, I don't think it rules out the idea of a divinely inspired text. Is it inconsistent with inspiration to rearrange parts of a story in order to emphasize one aspect over another? Almost certainly not. Just because human intention clearly does lie behind the construction of the gospels does not mean that that human intention wasn't used, manipulated, or even originated divinely.

    And so here is my second answer to 7): even if Matthew deliberately misquotes the old testament, which is totally possible, this does not rule out activity on the part of a God who "uses evil for good," who quite often makes accommodation for human frailty, and who is no doubt familiar with the nature of human storytelling (which for all its color usually doesn't represent things in a way that we would call naturalistically accurate.)

    Posted 2 years ago #
  18. JonJon
    Member

    8)

    My guess is the q document, which is speculated to have contained the bulk of what the synoptic gospels share, and therefore the sermon on the mount. It is possible that writers used *gasp* other sources in order to figure out what happened when they weren't there. We expect this of writers today. Why not expect it of writers long ago? It's not like they couldn't tell a compelling story in the olden days.

    10)

    I thought Paul meant that a whole bunch of people witnessed Jesus when he ascended. I could be wrong on that. It's possible he means the time when Jesus appears to people and has dinner. I don't think this is particularly damning: Paul is almost certainly working off of best guesses as this point, which one could argue is reasonably inferrable. (I won't argue that, 'cause I don't want to argue for Biblical inerrancy. It certainly isn't inconsistent with divine inspiration.)

    11)

    I think this is actually one of the easiest to answer. If there were a divine law, a kind of morality that existed before humans, and there were a divine being that wanted people to conform to that law, which would be better: to put the entirety of a law down in a book somewhere, or to ensure that everyone had some kind of access to that law whether or not they were literate, in the correct region, in the correct time period, etc.? How can people be responsible for their actions according to this code unless they are aware of it? I think whatever the divine law is, it would have to be present in every human being. Heck, if there are aliens, it would have to be present there too, or they wouldn't be responsible for their morality. If morality is dependent ultimately upon a divine lawgiver, then everyone has to have access to the law.

    So my argument (and I think this is fairly well backed up in scripture, although I've been wrong before) is that people (free, responsible moral agents) have a moral compass inside of them that is just there, underlying whatever they consciously think about morality. Some people follow this underlying compass, some people don't. I think people who don't follow this compass, who reject it or overwrite it with their own self-serving or short-sighted morality, pop up in both religious and non-religious contexts. This is why Annas and Saphira, why Judas Iscariot, why Adam and Eve, why Saul of Tarsus. And, vice versa, I think that there are people who follow this internal compass in both religious and non-religious contexts. This is why Abram could be "righteous" without even knowing God, or why Philip's chariot-riding eunuch friend is struck by scripture.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  19. JonJon
    Member

    Now, I can already hear Ty's objections: none of this requires divine intervention, and what I am actually doing is merely asserting that divine intervention isn't "disproven."

    This is all very true. None of this is good evidence that the Bible *was* divinely inspired. To be fair, I haven't been asked to provide that; I've merely been engaged in showing how some of Nox's attempts to point out inconsistencies fall flat. (And bear in mind that some of them don't fall flat. In fact, I think the idea of Biblical inerrancy to be largely untenable.) I don't think divine inspiration to be untenable, but this is an almost fanciful idea of mine that I hold for largely aesthetic reasons. I think the idea of a cosmic storyteller is beautiful, and I am correspondingly interested in what that might look like, and whether it is inconsistent with reality as I experience it.

    I'm not presenting a complete case for inerrancy, or even for divine inspiration. I'm only saying that it is possible to interpret what we read in a way that makes those ideas work. I think in order to have a responsible belief, this is one of the things that has to be present. Anyway, I suppose that's all for today.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  20. swmr1
    Member

    "I'm not presenting a complete case for inerrancy, or even for divine inspiration. I'm only saying that it is possible to interpret what we read in a way that makes those ideas work. I think in order to have a responsible belief, this is one of the things that has to be present."

    Isn't this just saying we can twist things to make them support our already established beliefs? Whether or not it makes any rational sense to do so?

    The bible is a fallible collection of ancient writings that condones slavery, misogyny, violence, incest and groveling at the foot of a worship-starved, needy and jealous god who demands blood atonement for his own mis-creation. What loving (but stupid) being chooses this mess of writings to communicate with the people it supposedly loves and wants so badly to know?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  21. JonJon
    Member

    "The bible is a fallible collection of ancient writings that condones slavery, misogyny, violence, incest and groveling at the foot of a worship-starved, needy and jealous god who demands blood atonement for his own mis-creation. What loving (but stupid) being chooses this mess of writings to communicate with the people it supposedly loves and wants so badly to know?"

    You're allowed not to like it. :P

    Posted 2 years ago #
  22. Elemenope
    Moderator

    JonJon,

    I don't think I've ever asked you this, but does your understanding of Christianity include a hell, and if so, what is its nature and what are the criteria for ending up there?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  23. swmr1
    Member

    "You're allowed not to like it. :P"

    I get that. :) What I don't get is anyone thinking it is some kind of divine truth.

    I appreciate your candor but are you really saying what it sounds like you're saying? You want to believe it so you'll twist any argument to fit your desired conclusion? You don't mind having no intellectual integrity? If that floats your boat, great, I guess. I just couldn't do it!

    Posted 2 years ago #
  24. JonJon
    Member

    What I mean, swmr, is that I think the way I've laid stuff out fits better with reality than blindly holding Biblical inerrancy to be true. I think this because I've considered what would *have* to be true given what I know about reality.

    I won't pretend that all this is proof, or even that it is not "twisting" an argument to a desired conclusion. I'm *not* arguing that this is true. If I were, it would be out of bounds, as you noted. I'm arguing against some of Nox's points, because while he thinks they provide fairly damning evidence against biblical inerrancy, they in fact don't necessarily "seal the deal." Certainly not for a hard-core fundamentalist.

    At any rate, this was all an exercise in pointing out some ways that Nox's arguments can be subverted.

    @ LMNOP

    I'm not sure about Hell, really. Like I said, I'm partial to the argument that hell doesn't exist, based entirely on the fact that God only destroys, never tortures, his enemies. I'm not strongly opinionated on it either way, though. I am pretty firm in my belief that people can end up in heaven no matter which religion they follow, or maybe even if they don't particularly have a religion at all. Not that I think everyone will end up in heaven, but since I'm fairly committed to the idea of perfect divine justice, I'm willing to accommodate versions of justice that are different than my own. In other words, I don't worry about it too much because hell isn't the point. :P

    Posted 2 years ago #
  25. Elemenope
    Moderator

    In other words, I don't worry about it too much because hell isn't the point.

    I appreciate the viewpoint, but in a metaphysical sense even if Hell isn't the point, if there is some truth to it as a permanent state it very much matters how a person, y'know, avoids being/going there. This is one of the ethical problems I have with Christianity even I were able to surmount my metaphysical and epistemological objections. If there is a hell, or some divine justice (even if, as you elude, it is eliminationist instead of everlasting), it sort of looms in the background of all the fine words about divine and brotherly love in the foreground. "God loves you all but some of you will burn in a lake of fire" is a problematic statement on many, many levels, but it seems integral to a great deal of the message; a metaphysical carrot/stick.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  26. Kodie
    Member

    I get what JonJon is saying actually. I think, is this sort of it? -- god could exist and god could have inspired people to write the bible, only it came out in their own words, or at one time the stories were divine but over retelling were transcribed a bit wrong, embellished, etc. Then that makes it ok to come away from it with whatever you wish to get out of it, and that's what god was trying to say, no matter who you are.

    You could really apply that to all art or life experiences. It's a matter of attitude and what you want to get and what you perceive as a sum of your life in your brain puts it together to mean. What is a tree? For climbing, for shade, a habitat, a part of the landscape, an elm, a nuisance of pollen, on your neighbor's property but aimed at your garage should it topple in the next big storm? That sort of thing only with the bible.

    I don't believe in god and never believed in god... could say I've given the matter some thought from time to time, like similarly -- all these religions of the world should stop fighting one another because my theory was that if there was a god, he would talk to people in the voice they could hear. Of course, I think that's not really true, because if not meant to fight, he would have offered more specific instructions. Love thy neighbor is an apt instruction for my little exercise, but But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven contradicts that. If you love god and your neighbor, you should, in my interpretation, extend that to people of other faiths. The world is your neighbor, not just the people in the next hut over. They are not to pray on false idols, but the same god, ultimately, defined in their terms.

    That's one reason I say there is no god, because the setup is unclear, and obviously everyone has it right for themselves, but not their neighbor, so there is no heaven, because nobody's getting in. Well, very few actually relate without trying to convince someone on the other side of the world or, in fact, the people who live next-door, that there's only one right path to salvation, and this is how they practice. They are interpreting the bible what feels right to them, and yet seem so obviously wrong. If the bible was right, people wouldn't get it wrong and say that to each, you are the one who has it wrong.

    You can believe that the bible says otherwise, implies in many places otherwise, but the people have it so messed up that it generally implies not that they are stupid humans and god is great and all-knowing, but that a god would not have it be so. You can even say we're only this way because of Eve and the talking snake, which shakes out to be a fairy tale excuse. People aren't loving god and loving their neighbor, but as long as they don't deny Jesus Christ, he won't recommend them to hell. That sounds like one confused prophet, and yet, god divinely inspired several people to jot these things down. Really?

    On the topic of "divine inspiration," I can imagine the primitive man who fell under the spells of oral tradition of this myth might have had a spark of thought, "Hey, I better write this down!" and it felt kind of special when he did that, almost like he didn't even have the idea himself. I could think of a lot of probable causes for the legend of "divine inspiration" that made the bible into The Bible that are pretty common feelings that people to this day attribute to god.

    Earlier, I mention some songwriters have felt like their hand was moving the pen but the words and notes came from somewhere else. So, either god helps Billy Joel write songs because he's got a lot more to say than just the bible, or the bible is just another book that didn't come from space. I can infer that Billy Joel is a prophet and if I don't like the bible, there are other sources for religious beliefs that are equally valid.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  27. Ty
    Moderator

    Forget minor differences and omissions for a moment, Jonjon. What about flat out falsehoods? The flood, the Roman census, the Hebrew enslavement in Egypt, etc etc etc.

    These are not matters of interpretation. They are claims of fact made by the bible that are simply not true. And in most cases, claims that are inextricably linked to other claims that are central to the faith.

    Jesus speaks of the flood as though it were fact. The Roman census is used to show why Jesus fulfills two prophecies that say different things regarding his birthplace. The enslavement of Israel in Egypt is used as the story behind many of the Hebrew festivals, and is considered prophecy regarding the restoration through Christ.

    It seems that these are far bigger problems for the divine inspiration crowd that what Jesus had for breakfast, and whether John was writing to the Greeks and used a little creative license.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  28. JonJon
    Member

    I could be wrong on this one, but hasn't the Bible's track record on this been fairly interesting? Like, for example, it was long believed that the Hittites did not exist; there was no archaeological evidence for their existence, and they were often used to point out Biblical error. Many years later, evidence was discovered of the Hittites. (This is just the story I've heard, but we should ask VorJack to be sure...)

    There are several other cases like this that I've heard of, including a rank of Roman bureaucrat mentioned in Luke which was thought not to have existed and later found to have indeed existed etc.

    I'm not saying that the complete lack of mention of the Hebrew exodus isn't weird, or even that it is totally explicable or apparently accurate given what we currently know about the ancient world. I'm only suggesting that these kinds of inconsistencies have worked themselves out in the past.

    Now, even if I'm right about these specific instances (and I expect to be rebutted pretty damn quick if I'm not) that doesn't mean that Biblical error isn't a problem for fans of Biblical inerrancy. Obviously it still is. I don't think disparities like this are as big a problem if all one advocates is Biblical inspiration, though. Biblical inspiration leaves room for human error simply by virtue of its breadth. If perfect craftsmanship were necessary to contain an inspired message, then no human-produced medium could ever convey such a message. It makes some sense then, to assume that even human craftsmen, even those who flat *lie* could convey such a message. I mean, otherwise your pool of writers becomes drastically small.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  29. Ty
    Moderator

    The exodus is the only one you can pull that trick with. Yes, pre-classical tribes like the Hittites didn't leave a lot of records to track back to. But the flood is a matter of geological record. The Romans kept meticulous records regarding empire policy.

    The flood is not a minor issue. It is pre-Hebrew mythology that they co-opted, and that Jesus, who is supposed to be God/The Son of God speaks of as a real event.

    The Roman census is not a minor thing. It is used to explain a glaring inconsistency in the prophetic record, and it was created whole cloth by the writer.

    This is not, "there is a tribe mentioned in the bible we haven't found yet." This is, "The supposed man/god Jesus didn't know the flood was pre-Babylonian mythology." It's, "the early Christian writers just made things up to try and shoehorn Jesus life into the existing Hebrew messiah myths."

    Those are larger concerns to me as a former Christian and bible reader than minor discrepancies between various accounts are. If we know that the gospel writers were making things up on these details, what information do we get from them regarding Jesus that we can trust? How do you determine that?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  30. vorjack
    Moderator

    Like, for example, it was long believed that the Hittites did not exist; there was no archaeological evidence for their existence, and they were often used to point out Biblical error. Many years later, evidence was discovered of the Hittites.

    I've heard the story, but I've never seen any historian suggesting that Hittites didn't exist.

    There was a line of thought back about a century ago that said that the Hittites were not very large or important, but now they're considered one of the great ancient empires alongside Babylon, Egypt and the Assyrians. My best guess is that this fact grew into the current urban legend that historians once thought the Hittites didn't exist.

    The thing to remember is that the Hittites was the overlords of Troy before the fall of the bronze age. That ties them in to every ancient historians favorite story, the Iliad. Many historians seem to want the Iliad to be true, and that focuses a lot of attention on the Hittites.

    I'm not saying that the complete lack of mention of the Hebrew exodus isn't weird, or even that it is totally explicable or apparently accurate given what we currently know about the ancient world. I'm only suggesting that these kinds of inconsistencies have worked themselves out in the past.

    I basically agree that the Bible is true in its broad strokes of history. Honestly, for being an epic myth rather than an archives or a series of court records, it's pretty good. But Exodus gives people fits, just because it seems impossible to pin down when it happened.

    It would be absolutely perfect if it happened during the fall of the bronze age. Everything was in place: the Egyptian empire was losing control of Canaan, the Philistines were settling down on the southern coast, and a nice tumultuous period during which to slip away from Pharoh.

    But there's an Egyptian stele that speaks about Israel before that. People have made all sorts of contortions to make it go away, but there it is.

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous1…567…9Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.