Will Obama say "So help me God" ?

[hotatlboi]

You didn't say it; you did it. And right here you do it again:

If you can't see it, then you have a problem -- exactly the one I've been pointing out, that you are so stuck in your own little worldview that you can't even see that there might be others.

No attempt to portray you as anything; I'm pointing out what it is you're actually doing.

Maybe we're getting somewhere.
Answer this, then: can you tell me what sort of literature is present for the different places you've claimed errors in the Bible?

So says the mind which refuses to acknowledge he might not even be on the right plane.

You're the one imposing absolutes! You keep demanding that the entire Bible conform to your perceptions of it, rather than bothering to investigate (you know, that 'scientific' passtime that yields knowledge?). You are quite good at tossing out cheap answers to questions not even being asked, answers that indicate you haven't really done any studying worth the name.

Just the way you pose the question shows your ignorance in the area -- that, and the way you keep dodging questions that seek to establish whether you know anything relevant.

We're not getting anywhere, your entire post is a hodgepodge of nonsense. I never claimed to have the best most reliable position. I never claimed to be correct in all things. Those are attitudes you are labeling me with.

I only said that given the state of knowledge today, it is readily apparent to me that some statements in the Bible are false. You obviously disagree with this, because you interpret the Bible to your needs to avoid any such problems. But it's my opinion that the simplest most likely correct reading of the Bible cannot escape certain problems which I have discussed at length. You're never going to agree with me, so I'll stop arguing.

 

[FirmaFan]

Nonsense.
Merely learning the languages, studying the original cultures, and finding out the types of literature involved removes a great deal of ignorance.
Of course, that requires stepping out of your own worldview, which many are loathe to do.

I believe that we can get very very close to what the bible actually says, but not exactly what was meant. You can't even do that with modern literature, which is why I was forced to sit through dozens of literature classes all throughout my education trying to determine what some piece of literature "actually means", finally realizing that many many interpretations of the same text can be all equally valid. My big question when in these classes: why not just ask the people who wrote it (mostly asked in my modern literature classes. I once got an answer to that question. It's way off topic, but highly amusing, let me know if you want to hear it).

All that points to ignorance, not irrationality. Bush speaks out of ignorance, so what he says really isn't useful for anything except to show that even people in high places can be ignorant.
He's following misconceptions as common as man, a pattern not confined to religion.

They rationalize and justify their actions by what they believe the bible to mean. From what you have said previously, it appears that those who have not translated it from it's original languages (as you have claimed to have done...a claim I view with some skepticism. And, if true, skepticism, about the accuracy of the translation) are all, on some level, wrong about it. It doesn't matter if they are wrong or right about what the bible says, what matters is that it allows a logical pathway to allow an otherwise rational person to commit horrible acts.

Here you're saying that you "only care what the evidence shows" but you're not willing to look at evidence. Interesting.
Lewis, as many, many others, came to Christianity because of the evidence.

I would absolutely love to see that evidence. Scientific evidence validating religious beliefs is my holy grail (pun intended).

 

[opinterph]

… just shut the fuck up.

Either participate in a productive capacity or remain silent. Telling other Jubbers to STFU is an infraction-worthy offense.

 

[hotatlboi]

If you don't like Sarah Palin, than stop sitting on your ass and get into politics.

One thing atheist aren't doing that their religous twins are doing, is getting deeply entrenched in politics. Sure they have lost footing thanks to Bush, but they fucking got to the congressmen who run this country.

Want that to end? Stop being whiny bitches and get into politics and become powerful. Sure it is a long process, but in the end, hey you win. Sure you sound exactly like the religious fundies, but you preach a different type of message.

I have no interest in getting into politics. You have to be an asshole to get anywhere in that profession lol.

That doesn't mean I can't value and strive for the kind of secular country unencumbered by religion that the founders sought.

The religious are very proactive in trying to convert everyone else (to save them from hell or whatever). Athiests/agnostics are generally far less vocal or caring about this, so I don't really see how you have grounds to bitch about hearing things from us.

 

[construct]

I would absolutely love to see that evidence. Scientific evidence validating religious beliefs is my holy grail (pun intended).

Don't hold your breath. Immanuel Kant taught us in The Critique of Pure Reason that there is an unbridgeable separation between the phenomenal and the noumenal. There is no basis for a natural theology no matter what he tried to smuggle into the other two critiques.

The Marquis de Sade taught us that a god derived from nature would be as cruel as nature. Whatever nature's god is, it is not the Christian god.

 

[bankside]

You're the one imposing absolutes! You keep demanding that the entire Bible conform to your perceptions of it, rather than bothering to investigate (you know, that 'scientific' passtime that yields knowledge?). You are quite good at tossing out cheap answers to questions not even being asked, answers that indicate you haven't really done any studying worth the name.

Just the way you pose the question shows your ignorance in the area -- that, and the way you keep dodging questions that seek to establish whether you know anything relevant.

Kulindahr, I'm quoting the kind of statement that brings me no closer to understanding or accepting your take on matters of faith. It contains no content to support your position, and it gives the impression you'd rather win the argument than change people's minds.

Of all your contributions to this forum, there is only one assertion you make which contains content, and is not merely an attempt to discredit someone else's contribution, and that is where you talk about a form of literature called a "royal chronicle" which I would infer from the context you would say is different from a work of fiction. That is worth discussing.

If all the atheists and fundamentalists "have it all wrong" then how are we to interpret it. As the proponent of the idea that there is a reasonable interpretation, I would add that I think the burden of proof falls to you. At the very least a decent respect for the curiosity of others who do not share your views should compel you to make a lucid case for your position.

 

[Kulindahr]

This discussion is going to go nowhere if you can't even read what I said. I'm not changing anything. This is what I said.

It is unsupported, i.e. I have no valid reason to believe it, which is how I described my position in my last post. I never claimed the absence of any evidence proved it to be false.

What you saide was that the story of the giants is "contradicted by modern evidence". You did it in a way that indicated you therefore considered it false.

Would you like me to read to you from the Bible? No it isn't. As you said before in a previous response to me, "I'm just reading what it says".

Reading the words doesn't tell what they say, unless they were written by and to someone in the immediate culture of the one reading them and of those who are listening.

So any statement God makes that happens to fall under a scientific category should be invalidated as it may be false? That does wonders to enhance the credibility of scripture.

That statement doesn't even make sense, given what it purports to be responding to, which was:

Originally Posted by Kulindahr:
By that approach, the Bible also says "There is no God", and a lot of other things.
You're starting with some assumptions:
1. That the Genesis account is meant to convey scientific information.
2. That the statements about days are meant scientifically.
3. That God has to live over to your standards.

Your assumptions are false, and... I can't figure out what the heck your "response" has to do with that.

Ok, but again you have the problem of people later in the Bible who very clearly didn't see it that way. Adam and Eve, the garden, etc was referenced as a real event (and the devil as the serpent) on more than one occasion.

Okay, that answers one of my questions; you don't have a clue as to what type of literature Genesis 1 is. See, one of the aspects of a royal chronicle is that although it isn't meant to be literal, for the purposes for which it was written, it can be treated that way.
It was not written for scientific purposes; royal chronicles aren't interested in that -- so it can't be cited for scientific purposes. And that's where both you and the Kansas museum are making the same error.

I know what I said, you seem to have trouble remembering, as indicated above. Which is why I definitely think this discussion is winding down.

Apparently you don't know what you said; you definitely haven't known what others have said, or are ignoring things deliberately.

LOL, the 21st century Western paradigm is not narrow or limited. It is the greatest expanse of knowledge mankind has even achieved. It's sad that the religious fail to realize this.

What arrogance!
And just how many other worldviews have you studied and grasped reasonably well, to make such a statement?

I'm quite educated thank you very much, and for the record I have always loved learning.

From the evidence here, you love learning things that fit into your preconceptions and support your beliefs.

Some things really don't have to be that complicated. "Context" is overemphasized by Christians because it's often only though contextual manipulation that they can try to explain away biblical errors.

What I was presenting is called "knowledge".
See, context is very important. If I ask you what a word means that starts with an "s" and is completed with a long "e" sound, what does it mean?

I'm completely open to knowledge that I do not yet possess.

Well, you've proven that to be false, right here in this thread.

But what you fail to realize is that the worldview of the Bible is far more limited than that which we have today. And no, I'm not going to reject things I know to be true today to try and hang on to a bronze age understanding of the world as correct. If someone presents me with compelling knowledge that contradicts what I currently believe, I will surely listen. But I do not find that knowledge in the Bible, despite careful and thorough reading of it.

Evidently not a very "careful" reading, if you still think that the Creation account is making scientific claims, or agree with Rick Warren that the six days are literal.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ boy oh boy, way off topic here i go - i buy one super lotto ticket each saturday, same numbers every time for $1.00

Do you say "So help me God" when you pick the numbers?

 

[hotatlboi]

Okay, that answers one of my questions; you don't have a clue as to what type of literature Genesis 1 is.

This whole discussion has answered one my questions about you as well. You care more about having the last word and throwing something out there to oppose anything you disagree with, rather than presenting a coherent argument for your position. That kind of arguing leads to mindless repetition, and circular discussions, some of which we've witnessed here, so I'll decline to participate further. have a good night.

And like the poster said above me, if you are going to have a productive religious discussion you have to be somewhat openminded.

Well, you've proven that to be false, right here in this thread.

This is the most closed minded statement anyone has uttered in this thread. Basically you are saying "you don't agree with my interpretation of things, so you are closed minded." That's the very definition of what you are labeling me as. I'm not closed minded. I was raised in a very religious home and believed the Bible for most of my life, but it was eventually through reason and evidence that I realized how errant the Bible was. Like I said, present me with compelling evidence that my position is wrong and I will change it. I've thoroughly studied the Bible and it contains no such evidence imo.

 

[construct]

I have a mouse in my house. I went to the store tonight, and I bought some d-CON Mouse-Prufe II. I hear the mouse eating my poison now. What does this tell about the nature of god and man?

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, guys, let me throw a monkey-wrench into this discussion.

Both of you appear to agree that the Bible's construction of reality is radically different from modern constructs. I would suggest that the Bible's construction is not God's construction but the time-bound constructions of the writers. I would argue that no part of the Bible is directly applicable in modern times. It is nothing but an old document in the archive.

Likewise the modern constructs are not the end of knowledge. They are mere stopping-off points. These constructs will dissolve and their component parts will regroup into other constructs in the future.

(Yeah, I'm a Foucaultian among other things.)

Much of it is the "time-bound construction of the writers" because the only way God is going to succeed in communicating with humans is to do it within and in the terms of their culture -- something my interesting opponent here seems to not believe.

Yet a great deal of it, in fact the major message -- even apart from that of Jesus' mission of salvation -- is very directly applicable. We've hardly outgrown the need to be reminded that we ought to treat others with respect, deal honestly, honor our parents, spend time in rest, not steal, fight for justice, deal with others mercifully, face life with patience, and lots, lots more.

Worldviews come and go; they play Hegelian games; they measure reality in different ways... and they always blind folks to some of the truth.
The healthiest worldviews are those with the most ways of looking at reality -- and that's why the Old Testament worldview (okay, I'm generalizing by making that singular) is far richer than that of modern Western culture. One way of determining how many ways a culture/worldview has of looking at reality is to look at their types of literature; our world is sadly lacking in variety, but the ancient world was quite rich.
That's easily demonstrated by reference to the ignoramuses who treat the book called Genesis as though it were all one literary type, or at the most two -- they allow for poetry (wow). But they miss royal chronicle, pastoral legend, and more. In that, they deliberately limit their grasp of things, and in fact disobey God, who issues commands such as "think" and "study", here and there.

 

[Kulindahr]

(Yeah, I'm a Foucaultian among other things.)

Got a pendulum in your foyer?

 

[Kulindahr]

I still don't get why atheist fight religious people so much. I mean, your both the same people.

Or maybe I should say this, you both say the same shit, just different wording.

You dare say that to an atheist???

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, let's see. Where to begin. William of Occam was a Nominalist. Nominalism asserted among other things that philosophy and theology were separate fields and that propositions could be at the same time philosophically true and theologically false (or vice versa). Nominalists presented their views as a response to the Realists who held that truth was coherent and unified.

Occam's razor is a logical proposition that the explanation with the least parts is most likely the best explanation. Is Occam's razor applicable in the field of theology? Remember that one of the purposes of Nominalism was to liberate philosophy from the clutches of theology so that it could be established as a separate discipline.

Occam himself applied it to religion, so I would guess it is applicable. I believe he even utilized it in ways that helped pull philosophy away from theology.

 

[hotatlboi]

Much of it is the "time-bound construction of the writers" because the only way God is going to succeed in communicating with humans is to do it within and in the terms of their culture -- something my interesting opponent here seems to not believe.

ok I know i said that was my last post, but I've got to respond to this because we may have something concrete here.

I absolutely most assuredly DO NOT believe that, you are 100% correct.

If the God of the Bible exists, and he chose to overtly display his majesty in any way that infinite power and knowledge would clearly enable him to, I think he would be FAR more effective in communicating with humanity than "doing it within the terms of their culture" lol.

I think that may be one of the fundamental disagreements between us that causes us to see the Bible differently.

cheers

 

[construct]

And now it's time for a musical interlude. Since I have already invoked the names of Kant and Sade, here's a little ditty set during the Reign of Terror comparing Rousseau to Marat.



Yes, all of these bits and pieces are relevant to the question of the status of religious knowledge and its place in modern society.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't "need" the Bible to satisfy any of my itches. My position is that if a book was written by a perfect all knowing all powerful being, it should read as such. It should stand the test of time and contain very compelling words that no one would have to question. Can you even imagine how much more infinity is than what we currently know? No, you can't. If God was infinite in all the ways the Bible claimed and he had spoken to man in such a profound way as the Bible would represent if it is that, I just think it would read more like that. We wouldn't see errors or things become outdated. We would see the foremost knowledge man has ever laid his eyes on.

But that's not what we see at all. What we see as construct excellently put it is "a time bound construction" of the writers of the period. We see this both in facts, and in other things such as morals and societal things (no perfect philosophy would tolerate slavery, misogyny, rape, genocide, etc). Regardless of whatever we might make of the scientific statements of the Bible I'm comfortable rejecting it for those reasons as well.

This once again proves that you're stuck on your own views -- you practically say it right out!

Your effort to show "errors" has failed; everything you've pointed out depends on forcing your standards on the Bible instead of asking what its standards are.

Your blindness here is astounding:
If God had sat down to teach the ancients physics and chemistry so He could communicate to them, the book would never have been preserved. If He'd immediately demanded the moral perfection you imply imposing, He'd have been ignored. He dealt with people as they were, and the lesson there is that He doesn't demand instant perfection, or even New Year's Resolution type perfection -- He just asks improvement.
What you're doing here is the opposite of what William of Occam (thank you, construct) did: you're trying to make theology not just a branch of philosophy, but of your own personal philosophy.

 

[construct]

Occam himself applied it to religion, so I would guess it is applicable. I believe he even utilized it in ways that helped pull philosophy away from theology.

Yes, and this separation became one of the foundations of the Prostestant Reformation and of continental Neo-Orthodoxy by way of Kant and Kierkegaard. It is also the reason that Karl Barth had to say "No" to Emil Brunner. There is no natural theology.

 

[Kulindahr]

How about this, I'll shut the fuck up when I stop seeing people like Sarah Palin trying to dictate how my country should be run through religion.

Heh -- you should check out some of the things I've said about Palin on here...
and those were the ones I felt were fit to put in print.

She does have a talent for making long, complex, convoluted statements, one she shares with the apostle Paul (the first chapter of Romans is almost all one sentence, in the Greek -- funner than heck trying to find the subject, main verb, and all that, for a modern English-speaking person).

 

[construct]

Got a pendulum in your foyer?

Not the pendulum guy. The other Foucault.