FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-16-2001, 10:02 PM   #61
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Papaver:
OK, this has gotten into the realm of ridiculous.

The author(s) of the Genesis story, were early Semetic people.
The people that wrote it in the Bible would have been Hebrew and they would have written it sometime in 1400-500 BC. But the story has all the trappings of a creation myth, so presumably it was an oral tradition among the people long before the story was written. I would suggest that the story originally involved Satan but Satan had later been replaced by a snake as the story reached people who had no understanding of Satan.

Quote:
They did NOT, I repeat did NOT believe in a Satan or any kind of evil diety. So how could they, figuratively or metaphorically be referring to Satan or some other icon of evil ?
Because the original source of the story is probably not the Bible-writing Hebrews. (There are other ancient cultures in the world with very similar stories) They don't need to have invented the story, or understood its full original meaning to include it.

Tercel
Tercel is offline  
Old 09-17-2001, 06:06 AM   #62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sarver, PA, USA
Posts: 920
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel:
<STRONG>I would suggest that the story originally involved Satan but Satan had later been replaced by a snake as the story reached people who had no understanding of Satan.</STRONG>
What is much more intuitive is that the creation myth was originally about a talking snake, and it was only much later that the concept of Satan as an evil deity made its way into Judeo-Christianity when it was borrowed from Zoroastrianism. The concept of Satan evolved and changed, just as with all dramatic characters who are used by successive authors.
Wyrdsmyth is offline  
Old 09-17-2001, 09:50 AM   #63
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 410
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto:

Nomad: I gave you a very long answer plus references from Augustine Toto. Perhaps you did not read them.

Toto: I read them and laughed. That’s the basis of my reference to “mental gymnastics” – God has made things deliberately obscure “for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty.” God is deliberately constructing a puzzle to keep us entertained.
You appear not to have understood what Augustine said. The pursuit of wisdom is not for our entertainment, but, rather, for our enlightenment. If the pursuit of wisdom were an easy thing, then we would have no reason to admire the wise, as everyone would be wise. Clearly true teachings are hard teachings, and one does not have to delve into this matter very long before learning this. Try any philosophy or theology, and you will discover that a great deal of it is very hard to understand, and is even counter intuitive. Such appears to be the nature of much that we call truth.

Quote:
Nomad: What century and country do you live in? The Christian church does not use force to keep people on the same page, so do not say such foolish things.

Toto: I am thinking of the way the Catholic Church has weeded out its liberation theologists, and is imposing a loyalty oath to the Vatican’s orthodoxy on college professors in Catholic universities. That is happening in this century.
This is a very far cry from what you said in your first statement. You claimed that the Church needs to use fear to keep the faithful in line. This is patently false. Requirement of a “loyalty oath” is not using fear, it is using common sense. If one claims to be a member of a group, yet denies all of the key things required to be a member of that group (and here I am not talking just about religions), then one is being hypocritical. If I were to say that I was a Muslim, but denied that Allah was God, then any right thinking person would think I was being disingenuous. If I said I was Buddhist, but believed that Jesus was my Lord and Saviour, you would wonder what planet I was from. So when a person says that they are Roman Catholic, it is right to expect them to admit to a core set of beliefs. The Church asking them to publicly admit to these beliefs is common sense, not coersion.

Quote:
Speaking of which, you claim to be an orthodox Christian. What does that mean? Given the diversity of Christian churches and their variation in doctrine, and how many of them assume the other denominations are going to Hell, how do you pick one and claim that it is orthodox?
Anyone that confesses the Creeds is basically orthodox. Within that group you will have an extremely wide divergence of beliefs on other matters. On the core beliefs of the Creeds, however, there is agreement.

Quote:
Toto: Just that the "death and Resurrection of our Lord is to be taken literally. It is the foundation of our hope and faith as Christians." Is this supposed to be an argument?

Nomad: It is a statement of fact. Statements of fact are not arguments, except to expose a lie.

Toto: Sorry, it is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of your faith, for which you have no evidence.
Of course I have evidence for my belief. What you are saying is that you do not find my evidence convincing. Here I will say that the truth is the truth, and what you or I believe is not relevant to that point.

Quote:
How can you call something a "lie" if it is said sincerely?
One can be a sincere bigot or racist, yet bigotry and racism is based on a lie. I am not saying that you personally are either, BTW, just that one can hold to a lie, even sincerely.

Quote:
It is demonizing your debate opponent to call their beliefs “lies”. It sounds like you are just preaching to yourself, not interested in discussing ideas with people that you have some respect for.
Just a caution Toto, but you clearly have no respect for Christianity or Christians, and have said as much. On this basis, do not presume to know what I am doing here. I have said many times, I am not here to convince people (although that would be nice), so much as I am here to answer questions and to learn. I respect many beliefs, but I do not respect that some choose to ignore the truth, and to believe things that are not true about Christianity.

Quote:
Nomad: Actually, I have no desire to be a fundamentalist, and do not find their theology at all convincing. Why do you think that I would like to be one?
I am an orthodox Christian, and am always willing to defend that theology.

Toto: What is a small-o "orthodox Christian"? Have you invented yet another Christian sect?
No, I have not invented anything. There is a core set of beliefs outlined in the Ecumenical Creeds. Those who accept these core beliefs are “orthodox” Christians. I use this label in the strictest sense of the word, in that they believe what has traditionally always been believed by Christians. I have found the terms “conservative” and “liberal” to be unhelpful in this matter, as people have associated a great many things to these particular labels that just do not fit the understanding of orthodoxy. For example, it is not “liberal” to deny that the Flood was not world wide, nor that Creation happened in six 24 hour periods approximately 10,000 years ago. Within the broad framework of orthodoxy, one can accept or reject this belief as one wishes. The Church itself does not have any official doctrinal position on the question.

Quote:
I thought you were a Lutheran, although you don’t hold to "sola scriptura".
Martin Luther used the phrase “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) in the sense that Scripture is to be interpreted within the framework and understanding of past Church teachings, meaning the Creeds and statements of the Ecumenical Councils.

Nomad
Nomad is offline  
Old 09-17-2001, 10:01 AM   #64
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 410
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth:

What you consider to be "revealed by god" I consider, at best, controversial and open to question. After all, has he revealed anything to you, personally?
Yes He has, but that is a separate question from this thread.

Quote:
Have you had direct, experiencial contact with this god you claim to believe in, or to "know" the existence of?
Yes again. In fact, this is the only way I know of by which anyone can come to believe in God. Until He reveals Himself to an individual, they will not be able to see Him, or know Him.

Quote:
Or, are you taking it on faith from others who claim such?
The fact that many have had similar experiences to my own helps me to accept that I am not delusional. At the same time, I do not base my faith upon the fact that others share it. I will believe the truth regardless of how many share my beliefs.

Quote:
I find it horribly suspect that all supernatural claims always come from somebody else, usually people that wrote scriptures thousands of years ago...
Actually, this is simply not true. Many people throughout the ages have claimed experiences of God and the supernatural. Some reject even their own experiences, based on the belief that such things are simply impossible, and therefore that they were hallucinating or delusional, or had an experience that was purely natural, but inexplicable. Personally, I find such reasoning to be quite circular.

Quote:
And that is what is trucked around as the "hard evidence" for this or that god's existence.
Wrong discussion board, but I think what you would call "hard evidence" for God's existence I would call trying to put God in a test tube. Obviously, any kind of Creator God is not going to submit to scientific experiments. I think it is more probable that He would take the initiative and reveal Himself as He saw fit.

Quote:
Contemporary miracles and sightings to me all have this veneer of being hoaxes, flim-flam, or conveniently ambiguous and untestable.
Actually, the Catholic Church has a number of extremely vigourous tests for miraculous claims. If you would like more information on this, then I would be happy to dig it up for you.

Quote:
...I believe what I do, and face it with honest appraisal. I don't "reject" your god, any more than I reject Santa Claus or ghosts or Zeus or Allah. I don't think there is enough evidence to warrant belief in any of them.
Fair enough WS. I believe you, and accept your reasoning. So long as you remain open to the possibility that you are currently mistaken, and would accept God's self revelation if and when you receive it, then that is all that can be asked.

Peace, and be well.

Nomad
Nomad is offline  
Old 09-17-2001, 10:25 AM   #65
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,140
Post

The talking snake story is especially ironic in light of the fact that many Christians claim to believe the Bible is literally true (I usually encounter these claims in creationism discussions, where I usually post). I've tried asking these Christians whether or not they believe this story to be literally true, and I get the most fascinating and convoluted answers.

Christians generally reply either that the snake and Satan are one and the same, or that it was Satan in the form of a snake, or that it was a snake possessed by Satan. But the story never refers to the snake by name and never raises any of these possibilities. In fact, except for talking the context supports the identity of the creature as a snake, a "crafty" or "subtle" beast. If it was actually Satan, one wonders why the writer of the story didn't say what he meant, or mean what he said.

This interpretation of the story seriously undermines the credibility of creationists and other Christians who claim to believe the Bible is literally true in all its parts. Of course, when I point this out I'm told one needs to view the Bible as a whole. But oddly enough, no other book of the Bible identifies the snake of Genesis as Satan.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]
MrDarwin is offline  
Old 09-17-2001, 10:36 AM   #66
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Nomad - I think we have reached the point where this is unproductive. Let me make only a few points:

Requirement of a "loyalty oath" is not using fear, it is using common sense.

A "loyalty oath" is an instrument of economic coercion. I am old enough to remember such things.

One can be a sincere bigot or racist, yet bigotry and racism is based on a lie.

Racism is based on demonstrable scientific untruth. When you elevate your unprovable religious beliefs to the status of "truth" so that everything in opposition is a lie, you are starting down the road to dangerous religious intolerance.

Of course I have evidence for my belief. What you are saying is that you do not find my evidence convincing.

I do not find that your evidence stands up to scientific scrutiny. I think that most Christians who are honest admit that they cannot prove their beliefs in a laboratory.

Religious experiences, however, can be produced in a laboratory, using brain stimulation, drugs, meditation, or severe dietary restrictions. This leads me to believe that these experiences cannot be used as evidence of the existence of a god, or of any god in particular.

Just a caution Toto, but you clearly have no respect for Christianity or Christians, and have said as much.

I have no great respect for Christian dogma, but I am a humanist and respect many Christians. You are continuing to demonize me, or confusing me with another poster here.

I was, incidentally, at a Greek Orthodox Church related event this weekend. The capital-O Orthodox say that they believe that some parts of scripture are figurative and some are literal, and that their Church tradition tells them which is which. But unlike the western church and its many schisms, they have an unbroken tradition going back to the early church, and read the New Testament in its original language. I wish I knew more about the doctrine; perhaps at some later point I will delve into it more, just for comparative purposes.
Toto is offline  
Old 09-17-2001, 01:46 PM   #67
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 410
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto:

A "loyalty oath" is an instrument of economic coercion. I am old enough to remember such things.
Since anyone who wishes to leave the Church can and has, I do not know what your problem is here Toto. You have not addressed a single one of my points, and since it is axiomatic that one should believe the core tenants of the organizations to which they belong, I do not even see why you object to this.

Bottom line for me is, if I claim to be a Muslim, I confess that Allah is God, and Mohammed is His prophet. If I am a Buddhist, I do not call Jesus my personal Lord and Saviour. And if I am a Christian, I confess the Creeds. This is pretty basic, and hardly a harsh demand.

Quote:
Nomad: One can be a sincere bigot or racist, yet bigotry and racism is based on a lie.

Toto: Racism is based on demonstrable scientific untruth.
Actually, when racism was state policy in Nazi Germany, it was justified on the basis of a science known as eugenics. I assume that you believe the faith some once had in this science is unjustified, but at the time it did seem to have a rational foundation.

Racism is evil not because science says so, but because our moral conscience tells us so. In my view, science cannot be used to say that anything is particularily good or evil, since science does not even address this question.

Quote:
When you elevate your unprovable religious beliefs to the status of "truth" so that everything in opposition is a lie, you are starting down the road to dangerous religious intolerance.
If one married one's beliefs to an official policy of discrimination, then your statement here would be correct. But Jesus told us to love our enemies, and to turn the other cheek when we were assaulted. It is His teaching that we not fight back against those that would mock us, or persecute us, and I will not break His commandment here.

I am free to speak the truth, but I am not free to force that truth on anyone.

Quote:
Nomad: Of course I have evidence for my belief. What you are saying is that you do not find my evidence convincing.

Toto: I do not find that your evidence stands up to scientific scrutiny.
Science does not examine metaphysical or moral questions. It cannot prove or disprove a personal experience. And God does not confine Himself to a laboratory or test tube. Any God that did would be a pretty puny and pathetic thing.

Quote:
I think that most Christians who are honest admit that they cannot prove their beliefs in a laboratory.
Of course He cannot be proven in a laboratory. I do not know of a single person that claims otherwise.

Quote:
Religious experiences, however, can be produced in a laboratory, using brain stimulation, drugs, meditation, or severe dietary restrictions.
Since audio, visual and sensory delusions and halucinations can be produced in a laboritory using brain stimulation, drugs, meditation or severe dietary restrictions, I do not see your point here. Do you doubt your senses because they can be fooled?

Quote:
This leads me to believe that these experiences cannot be used as evidence of the existence of a god, or of any god in particular.
On this basis, sight, taste, smell hearing and sensation cannot be used to prove anything in partcular either.

Quote:
Nomad: Just a caution Toto, but you clearly have no respect for Christianity or Christians, and have said as much.

Toto: I have no great respect for Christian dogma, but I am a humanist and respect many Christians. You are continuing to demonize me, or confusing me with another poster here.
I have read your posts Toto. From A pragmatic approach to christianity you said:

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto
August 27, 2001 02:52 PM:

IMHO if Buddhist missionaries had gotten further west and Buddhism became the dominant relgion, and/or if Greek philosophy had remained the primary philosophy of the upper classes, the world would have been better off. Whatever good there might have been in Christianity was lost when it became the official religion of the Roman empire, where its doctrines were corrupted with state power. However, the Protestant Reformation seems to have made things even worse by trying to take the scriptures seriously.

No, I can't think of any major event in world history where the presence of Christianity improved things. Can you?
Your close mindedness against Christianity is plain as day. Your willingness to maintain that Christianity has not done a single good thing since it was adopted as the state religion in Rome (c. 4th Century) betrays your bias.

I, for one, would be mightily impressed if an organization could actually exist for over 1600 years and never achieve a single good thing in all that time.

Quote:
I was, incidentally, at a Greek Orthodox Church related event this weekend. The capital-O Orthodox say that they believe that some parts of scripture are figurative and some are literal, and that their Church tradition tells them which is which. But unlike the western church and its many schisms, they have an unbroken tradition going back to the early church, and read the New Testament in its original language.
Yes, this is the position of the Roman Catholic Church as well, and the orthodox Churches maintain that those things that have been taught by the Church back to its foundation in the 1st Century are certainly true. This was the source for the Creeds.

Quote:
I wish I knew more about the doctrine; perhaps at some later point I will delve into it more, just for comparative purposes.
I think that would be an excellent idea, as it would expand your knowledge of what Christians believe. You can find their web site at http://www.oca.org/ and it is well worth pursuing.

Best of luck in your journey Toto.

Nomad
Nomad is offline  
Old 09-17-2001, 08:06 PM   #68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lusitania Colony
Posts: 658
Talking

Originally posted by Amos: In the end, the entire bible is allegory or it would not be timeless.Amos

So, in your estimation, Nietzsche's pseudo-biblical allegory, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is also timeless?

~WiGGiN~

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ender ]
Ender is offline  
Old 09-19-2001, 03:19 PM   #69
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Ender:
<STRONG>Originally posted by Amos: In the end, the entire bible is allegory or it would not be timeless.Amos

So, in your estimation, Nietzsche's pseudo-biblical allegory, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is also timeless?

~WiGGiN~

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ender ]</STRONG>
Nietzsche was torn between heaven and earth. Yes it was timeless but can be shot down because he is not illusive enough. I read it in a mad rush when I had 7 courses in front of me. So really, I should not comment other than that I could tolerate Nietzsche.

His best and my all time favorite is his camel allegory where we load up like a camel and proceed towards the oasis. Before we get there we must become like a lion and for most of us our bagage will be to great to act like a lion and hence few of us will ever reach the oasis.

I have no objection to his "God is dead" and can justify his position here.

Amos

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Old 09-19-2001, 03:31 PM   #70
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by JohnClay:
<STRONG>Amos:
"John, I should add here that while you might not believe me you should be informed that I do not write what I believe but that I write that which I know to make sense."

At the moment what you're saying doesn't really make sense. And are you saying that you don't believe what you wrote?

"Our soul is incarnate upon us, and yes, re-incarnate upon us for up to 1000 years. To live in the full knowledge of our own soul is to live in the 1000 year reign."
Why 1000 though? This is a base 10 number - we use base 10 because we have 10 fingers. Does the thing that is in control of reincarnation also have 10 fingers? And what is in control of reincarnation? A huge eternal conscious entity? Did it also create the universe?</STRONG>

To believe something is to accept it as data and what I write is my own.

Only because the bible calls it the 1000 year reign.

Nothing is in control of reincarnation because there is no essense of reincarnation but only of incarnation.

The universe does not exist because it does not have an essence and can therefore not have an existence. It exists only as an illusion in our mind and until we become the centre of it we do not exist and when we come into existence the universe becomes real. Just opposite to cogito ergo sum (I am when I am not thinking).

Amos

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:11 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.