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

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-13-2001, 04:21 PM   #41
Apikorus
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,396
Post

They are not always reporting their observations, beliefs, and deeds. Sometimes they are engaging in propaganda and storytelling. Application of critical methods can help us separate fact from fiction, but needless to say this is hardly an exact science.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]
Apikorus is offline  
Old 08-13-2001, 06:05 PM   #42
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Nomad:
<STRONG>To joe

When we are talking about the Bible, we are, by definition talking about the Bible as evidence. That means what the authors wrote is treated as evidence, and we examine it as such, trying to verify what we can when we can.

I do not know why this is so hard to understand. Paul (or any other Biblical author) tells us "X". We are now going to discuss "X". Just as we do not expect all witnesses in a court case to be experts, we would not expect them to be experts here. They are telling us what they saw, what they believe, and what they (and others did). Examining those stories and letters is what we are doing here.

So what is your problem exactly?

Nomad</STRONG>
My problem Nomad, is lack of proofs outside of the Bible, corroborating the extraordinary claims made in the Bible.
These extraordinary claims, therefore appear as far-fetched in human knowledge.
Ion is offline  
Old 08-13-2001, 06:28 PM   #43
rainbow walking
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 2,608
Cool

Quote:
Originally posted by Apikorus:
[QB]They are not always reporting their observations, beliefs, and deeds. Sometimes they are engaging in propaganda and storytelling. Application of critical methods can help us separate fact from fiction, but needless to say this is hardly an exact science.
Hi Apikoras,
That is a reasonable assessment. I would add that even the critical methods used are subject to examination and can lead to endless debate.
I also find Brian's replies to Bill's challenge to be quite reasonable. He has declared that almost anything is fair game as "evidence" but must then be scrutinized for authenticity, relevance, veracity and the like.
Regarding biblical text doesn't it always boils down to interpretation? If Paul has left us the interpretation and application of his religious experience and training in his letters then aren't our modern experts, some 2000 years removed, now rendering their expert interpretations of Paul's interpretations? Do those interpretations, whether theological or skeptical, really conclusively prove anything? Both sides will forever dispute the other's methods and motives.
What we need is a modern public supernatural phenomenon to break the dead lock, but, since none seems forthcoming, all we have are the myriad testimonies of private subjective "experiences" occurring and recurring continuously around the world which does seem to correspond to the NT claims made by Jesus regarding the born again experience involved in faith. This appears to be the most prolific prophetic claim that continues to manifest and fulfill itself and offers the best "evidence" thus far. Of course, having extended this as "evidence" will now lead to the question, "evidence for what?".
Again bringing us back to an interpretation. I'm quite certain one will be forthcoming.
rainbow walking is offline  
Old 08-13-2001, 06:59 PM   #44
James Still
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pacific Northwest (US)
Posts: 527
Post

Quote:
Regarding biblical text doesn't it always boils down to interpretation?
Yes, this is quite true. Paul's letters and the "good news" proclamation are interpretations of the meaning of Jesus' ministry. The written gospels go further to cast these post-Easter meanings into the larger context of Judaism. And Judaism itself is an interpretation of the "meaning of life" and how people ought to orient their lives in relation to God.

Quote:
What we need is a modern public supernatural phenomenon to break the dead lock...
Don't hold your breath; people have been looking for signs from above for millenia. Today we are radically removed from the mindset you advocate. The most liberating discovery of modernity, in my opinion, is that norms are not concrete things that have power over us but are instead fluid meanings that we either embrace, shape or discard. You hold out hope for a deus ex machina that might confirm faith but we're so far beyond that we no longer even seek to orient our lives in relation to God. We've gone too far down the secular path. Where our foundations used to be religious law and the prophets they are now constitutions and civil law. Liberal Christians are free to interpret the Scriptures allegorically and atheists are free to seek meaning elsewhere. The happy ending is that both are right and no one is wrong.
James Still is offline  
Old 08-13-2001, 09:50 PM   #45
Nomad
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 410
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Ion:

My problem Nomad, is lack of proofs outside of the Bible, corroborating the extraordinary claims made in the Bible.
These extraordinary claims, therefore appear as far-fetched in human knowledge.
Hello Ion

I understand what you are saying, and to be honest, I am not talking about the evidence for the extraordinary claims in the Bible either. That evidence or proof falls outside of the realm of historical critical or scientific methodology, and therefore should not be the means by which we explore them in any event. Such is the nature of the metaphysical and miraculous.

At the same time, we can explore the mundane and ordinary told to us in the Bible, and I do find those questions to be interesting, especially as I learn how others explore these same questions.

Peace,

Nomad
Nomad is offline  
Old 08-14-2001, 12:55 AM   #46
GregoryJ
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Post

undefined

How About Some Common Sense?

Our health, continuance, goodness, and love for others are intimately joined. Our being
in life derives from nature's/God's will/love
for us and we express love for our life by
acting for it's continuance, expressing most
love for our life when acting for it's
eternal continuance. We only express love for
ourself acting for our health and
continuance, and we express most love for
ourself only when acting for PERFECT HEALTH
and ETERNAL LIFE. When do not do so, we then
accept sickness and death and serve harm
against ourself. We must equally value and
protect others to protect our own life, and
we most love others when acting for their
perfect health and eternal life. When
we do not do so, we serve the desire they
know sickness and death. As all life occurs
only from the wilful and continued being of
opposites and the heterosexual male and
female express those cosmic opposites, the
male must equally value and protect the
female, and vice-versa, and this also then
expresses love for the being of all variety
and multitude of livingkind whom only exist
from that dualism/twoness.

However, material life forces the self to
defend it's life with harm against the lives
it depends upon, sothen not protecting it's
own life-continuance, but the self is also
suffered from it's own death. Material life
is an actual psychosis of self-destructive
contradiction and conflict, for we are
suffered/punished when our actions harm our
own life and harm derives from death, sothen
we MUST have the full ability/right to
perfectly protect our own life and have
eternal life. (this is a rationale absolute
and it has no mistake nor `loophole' ) From
this, how can life suffer us when we harm
our own life, that our own life depends upon
other's lives and so we MUST value and
protect their lives to protect our own
(or be suffered), yet then require us to
prey-upon and harm and suffer one another for
our daily living on earth! WE ARE BEING
SUFFERED BOTH IN ACTS THAT HARM OUR LIFE AND
HARM OTHERS AND WE ARE BEING FORCED TO HARM
OTHERS LIVES SOTHEN BEING FORCED TO HARM OUR
OWN LIFE!!! Like a `shock-maze' having no
safe, healthy corridor, we are being
simultaneously driven away from and into our
own suffering, and it's a wonder we don't all
turn into pillars of stone/fall into shock,
but lets not wonder anymore why there is so
much mental illness, phobia, compulsion,
addiction, and fantasy in this life. This is
absolutely the only rational conclusion when
wrong action is suffered and right-action
prevents ones suffering and sustains ones
life-continuance and our lives are made
dependent upon others. Right action=life
continuance; complete/perfect right
action=eternal life continuance?

My site offers an essay examining several of this life's ethical/moral issues, and looks
at the practical means for ones own
life-protection in a selfish and predatory
circumstance. This work intends to offer some
amount of knowledge and reasoning as a
foundation from which to pursue a
clear-sighted understanding of several of
this life's most important ethical/moral
issues. All issues presented are involved
within the context of the spiritualism of
christianity and with critical arguements
against the popular views of the christ's
message. Of special interest, I offer a
unique theory describing the original state
of cosmic infinity and it's cause and intent
for change from it's first state. The essay
is titled `Creation, Human Society, and
Suffering', 58 pages long, near 238KB,
and can be viewed and saved at http://www.mts.net/~gregoryj.
GregoryJ is offline  
Old 08-14-2001, 09:10 AM   #47
jess
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: rationalpagans.com
Posts: 7,400
Post

Hi Nomad.

I am afraid it may be you who is not reading my posts. I am asking you who an 'expert' is, not a 'biblical expert'. I am bringing up an example from over a year ago, our first conversation, which had nothing to do with the bible, but rather had something to do with religious wars.

You then, and agian now, laughed off the 'expert' I quoted, the top anthropoligist in the 'evolution' of war currently in the western world, as 'silly'.

Thus, I need to know what an 'expert' is--- not merely what a 'biblical expert' is, as that was not the quetsion I asked, but does seem to be the one you are answering.


Quote:
jess: Please be aware that I was not asking that an anthropologist et al be counted as a biblical expert (unless that is part of their particular field) but rather, a question as to why you had discounted a qualified anthropologist's conclusion that polytheistic peoples did not war over religion--- the particular arguement we were having.
Quote:
Nomad: but I must say, if an actual anthropologist DID say such a thing, then he is being daft... Well, if he (she?) said what you said above, then I hope you can understand my casual dismissal of the opinion given...

If it helps any, just because the opinion is from an expert, and provided that expert is speaking within the field of their expertise, then it can be called "evidence", but if that opinion is simply silly, then the evidence being offered will be fairly easily debunked...

Once again I will restate that expert opinion can be used as evidence, but if the quality of that evidence does not hold up very well, then I would hope that we could agree that the given opinion can and should be rejected.
Quote:
I have already said several times that an expert is one who is in a relevant field. Anthropologists are not expects in Biblical criticism, nor are psychologists. I am surprised that I should even have to make such an obvious point.
So why was my anthropologist discounted as an expert in his field of warfare? (No need to see the original post, you supported your statement above, and in the quotes I have just listed.)

Quote:
Now, if you do have someone in an actual field related to Biblical studies, then offer them as expert witness evidence.
But I am not talking about the bible. Why do I need to have a biblical expert to talk about a non biblical subject?

Quote:
Quite frankly, I still do not know what your problem is with the definition of "expert opinion".
You haven't given one that you have stuck to. That is my 'problem'.

Thanks for your response. I am looking forward to this being clarified.
jess is offline  
Old 08-14-2001, 01:03 PM   #48
Nomad
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 410
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by jess:

I am afraid it may be you who is not reading my posts. I am asking you who an 'expert' is, not a 'biblical expert'. I am bringing up an example from over a year ago, our first conversation, which had nothing to do with the bible, but rather had something to do with religious wars.

You then, and agian now, laughed off the 'expert' I quoted, the top anthropoligist in the 'evolution' of war currently in the western world, as 'silly'.
If you could provide a link to the conversation, that would be a big help jess. I still do not recall the specific conversation you are obviously still upset about, and would like a chance to read it again.

As to your expert being silly, this can obviously be the case, and the person can remain an expert. If he or she actually believes that polytheists do not go to war (is persecution a form of war in your view, because it is in mind), then he is definitely being naive at best. At the same time, is his opinion evidence? Yes it is. Just not very good evidence, and easily refuted by other evidence.

So, one last time:

An expert is someone with a degree in a relavent field of study, and who has published in critical and peer reviewed jouranals. Their opions count as evidence, and once it is given, then we can examine the quality and utility of that evidence.

Nomad
Nomad is offline  
Old 08-14-2001, 01:27 PM   #49
jess
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: rationalpagans.com
Posts: 7,400
Post

Quote:
If you could provide a link to the conversation, that would be a big help jess. I still do not recall the specific conversation you are obviously still upset about, and would like a chance to read it again.
I will not go searching through the archives, Nomad, for a post a year old. I have no need to, as you still hold to the same opinion about the validity of the anthropologist and his arguement. Although, you now are holding it without a reference to a journal number, the exact quote or even the man's name.

I am not 'still upset' about it, at all. I merely started to wonder when you said 'expert' and didn't define, since in my experience with you, I can not tell who is or is not an 'expert'.

Quote:
As to your expert being silly, this can obviously be the case, and the person can remain an expert.
I am sorry--- I guess I am being dense here. Silly is Von Dannikan, not a respected and honored anthropologist. Please explain what you mean here. VD was a respected expert until his more famous theories. No one would call him that now, so I do not understand your comment.

Quote:
If he or she actually believes that polytheists do not go to war ... then he is definitely being naive at best.
(I mentioned twice this thread it was a he.) He never said that polytheists don't go to war, he merely said they do not have religious wars.

Quote:
(aside cut from above quote)(is persecution a form of war in your view, because it is in mind),
persecution is most certainly not a form of war. Please, use standard definitions of words.
Quote:
At the same time, is his opinion evidence? Yes it is. Just not very good evidence, and easily refuted by other evidence.
On what basis is it 'not very good'? As mentioned above, he has spent decades researching the subject. He knows more than any other human on the face of the planet about the subject, at least according to those in his field. Yet, you still want me to dismiss him because you find him silly, without offering me a reason why--- other than persecution = war?

Quote:
So, one last time:

An expert is someone with a degree in a relavent field of study, and who has published in critical and peer reviewed jouranals. Their opions count as evidence, and once it is given, then we can examine the quality and utility of that evidence.
Please tell me then, what tools and standards we can adhere to so we can examine the quality and utility of that evidence. Otherwise, it is merely your assertation of what 'quality and utility' are.

Thanks,

jess
jess is offline  
Old 08-14-2001, 01:55 PM   #50
BobDobbs
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 26
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Nomad:
<STRONG>To joe

When we are talking about the Bible, we are, by definition talking about the Bible as evidence. That means what the authors wrote is treated as evidence, and we examine it as such, trying to verify what we can when we can.

I do not know why this is so hard to understand. Paul (or any other Biblical author) tells us "X". We are now going to discuss "X". Just as we do not expect all witnesses in a court case to be experts, we would not expect them to be experts here. They are telling us what they saw, what they believe, and what they (and others did). Examining those stories and letters is what we are doing here.

So what is your problem exactly?

Nomad</STRONG>

Hello Nomad! Hope you are having a good day!

What are Paul's writings evidence of, besides his own opinion? Did he meet, and was he instructed by Jesus? Literally? What makes his opinions worth basing one's life around? They are certainly not intuitive, as are many Taoist (for example) teachings.

Have a good one!

Bob
BobDobbs is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:31 PM.

Top

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