Thomas Cassidy

Perhaps we have a different standard by which we gauge such things. To me, to make a dismissive comment such as "what a cop-out" fits the discription. Well, I have read most of the posts here and I find myself to be in the minority. I don't see all that many Christians posting. And those who do, I would sometimes agree with and sometimes disagree with, so, judging only from the posts here I fail to see how you come to such a conclusion, unless you are referencing data not in evidence on the II.And you, of course, do the same thing. Every time you listen to someone speak, or read the written word, you understand the figures of speech being used. It is a automatic process. Why can't I do the same? It is not all that uncommon for two people to examine the same evidence and come to diametrically opposite (I know, that is a redundancy) conclusions. Just read the scientific journals! Or the theological journals, for that matter.

pz

Then you do not understand the meaning of term. Like I said, look it up.Read carefully. Pay attention to what I'm writing.

That's what I said.

I have no quibble at all with you saying "X is a metaphor". My problem is with the bits where you suggest that "Y is the literal word of a supreme, supernatural being, and represents absolute truth", especially where it contradicts the evidence of the real world around me...with this silly flood story being a case in point.

scigirl

What ad hominem? I called it exactly like I see it. And I wasn't attacking you personally, I was attacking your statements. Please learn the latin words before using them.

Christians continually base their lives on what seems to me very faulty premises. When other people, such as those here at infidels, point out the faulty premises, the Bible believers make statements like "I believe Genesis, as well as the rest of the bible, is literal where applicable, and metaphorical where applicable."

Now, what would you say if scientists used some method to diagnose cancer that was very ambiguous and unclear. Sometimes they had to read the results upside down, sometimes they had to multiply the results by 20. Still other times they had to subtract the results from 58.

Furthermore, suppose it wasn't always clear which 'data analysis' method they had to choose to make the diagnosis. Some doctors prescribed to the "always multiply by 20," still others to the "subtract from 58."

Sure you could do a huge lengthy study to see what form of data analysis works the best. But it's clear to me that what needs to happen in the above scenario is to scrap the entire test and find a new method for diagnosing cancer.

This is how I see all the different Christian groups trying to interpret the Bible. Sure any intelligent person can find morals and meanings in a collection of stories written by primitive sheep herders thousands of years ago. But why?

If the Bible is supposed to be this amazing and wonderful guide to morality, than why is it so incredibly ambiguous, unclear, and void of direction? There's no "table of contents" that says "ok chapter 3 is just a story, but chapter 8 - now there's the one you should pay attention to."

Basically all that energy that you, and other Christians are putting in to reconciling an ancient text with your own sense of morality and intelligence seems to me an incredible waste of time. And not only that, but it leads intelligent and good people such as yourself to do silly things like deny tenets of science, or think that being gay is wrong.

This last summer I visited the United Nations building in New York City. On the wall is posted their Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I was struck with a sense of awe when reading these statements. A group of intelligent people from all over the world attempted, with their logic and reason and sense of humanity, to write out a code of ethics for humanity. No divine inspiration, no analogies to mustard seeds or doors, just straight plain talk on how we should just be good to and respect each other.

Every now and then a statement resembled something I might find in the Bible if I looked hard enough. More often though, this code of ethics was contradictory to what we read in the Bible - especially the Old Testament. I read the code on the wall and kept asking myself "Why, Why do we keep trying to use faulty systems for deriving our morality?"

You see, not only do I agree with the code of ethics, but I also agree with the methods used to write the code.

Where did you get that idea from my post? I am saying that the Bible is not a good source for morality. For anyone. What do you mean by this question - do you think I don't analyze my own life too?


Yes I do. But. . . if I were, say, the United Nations, and my sole goal in writing something was to give fellow humans a moral guide to live by, I hope I would leave confusing and ambiguous stories out of it. The Bible does no such thing.

Again you accuse me of having two standards. I don't think I have two standards, I'm simplly trying to understand why people are trying to obtain morals from an old collection of stories. No I don't think you are stupid- on the contrary I think you, and many other theists, are vastly intelligent. I just think you are mis-applying it. Instead of recognizing that an old collection of stories is not the best place to find morality in our modern world, you continually try to fit these stories into your modern world view. How frustrating that must be.

scigirl

scigirl

I started a new thread at Biblical Criticsm if people wish to discuss this topic further, since it really isn't about E/C.

UN Code versus the Bible

Thanks, and now back to our regularly scheduled discussion!

scigirl

Thomas Cassidy

<sigh> Okay. Ad hominem: literally "to the man." Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.

My field of expertise is textual criticism and the ancient manuscripts. In order to study those ancient manuscripts I have to read Greek, and, uh, well, read Latin as an every day part of my work. I know what the words mean. As I have not made any statements concerning what I believe in reference to "this silly flood story" you must be, once again, refering to facts not in evidence.

pz

You may be able to read latin, but you are apparently not familiar with the use of the term in logic.In reference to the flood, you said,You apparently believe that the general story of the flood was not metaphorical, yet you are willing to jettison "flood gates" or "windows" in the sky as mere flights of rhetoric. The issue is how you know where to draw the line, and the answer so far seems to be what I expected: wherever you feel like it.

scigirl

Objection, your honor.

Objection sustained.

Sorry, Law and Order is my favorite show, I couldn't help myself.

During my time here at infidels, I have noticed a great many theists who think we are attacking them when we attack their beliefs. I think that kind of goes with the territory of religious beliefs doncha think? Because many people identify themselves as people based on their religious beliefs. Whereas atheists don't usually do that (although it isn't unheard of).

Thomas - since you have a lot of knowledge in the subject of biblical criticism, I would love to hear your views on my claim that the U.N. Code of Ethics is a better code than the Bible, both in content and in methodology. See the above link I provided if you want to continue this particular discussion.

Furthermore, if you have time, would you consider debating a topic in our Formal Debates section? I'm not offering to debate you (no time to do it really) but I'm sure you could find a taker. Dr Rick must be getting bored at FD&D by now...

scigirl

Jimmy Higgins

Well seeing you ignored my question regarding the issue of the "Great" flood being global through metaphor, you are the one that is withholding information on your opinion. In addition, you've seemed to take the e-creationist mode of attack, seeing that you knew that you couldn't possibly argue with someone that is as learned o Genesis such as myself, you have steered away into a method of rhetoric and latin.

Now, I've asked you a few very fair questions that I'd still liked answered.
1) You say the bible mentions heavens (which is fine), however, you've yet to state where in the bible it is read what each heaven does and its specific purpose as set by god. No scriptural references used by you yet there.

2) Is the "Great" flood being global methaphorical or is it literal?

3) To which end do you use to determine what is methaphorical and what is literal? I mean, we all know that Genesis is composed of stories. Yet, without really even diving into the true origins of these stories you claim to be able to know what is real and what isn't. You mention Jesus's statement, yet, Genesis is a rarer breed, being of multiple origins, rather than from the mouth of one peson.
As Gunkel has pointed out, many of the stories actually contains origins in other more ancient stories, which address far different issues, some of which can't even be discerned today. Now if you are aware of this, then perhaps you may be skilled at being able to tell what in Genesis is for knowledge, metaphor, humor, and suspense. So please tell me again, what do you use to determine what is literal in Genesis and what is metaphorical. And why should your answer have any more weight applied to it, than people who have devoted their life to the study of the Old Testament?

scigirl

Heh, check Thomas Cassidy's profile.

scigirl

Jimmy Higgins

Not too impressed. Being a graduate from a christian college, I know how impressively informed teachers of religion interact. How they taught is what got me into the rather in-depth study I do on the Tanakh now.

They are patient, informed, willing to help, and rarely ever try to throw down one's opinion without a thoughtful reply. Our guest here has shown none of these characteristics and am willing to question his true authority in Genesis scholarship. Even Dr. Dino has a PhD. We all know how much we respect that.