seebs

Well, it does sort of hurt the distinction I draw between impossible and improbable. I haven't found a good resolution; in practice, I can assert certain things to be impossible, but I am required to grant that, strictly speaking, they are possible.

Apart from that... All it does is leave the entire question of what "chance" is open for debate and consideration. I tend to be fairly unconcerned with attempts to show something to be "miraculous", because I think it's sort of a dead end. I am content to observe that life is interesting, and sometimes pleasant, and I'm content with it.

JPD

How do you view the concepts of heaven and hell, earth creation in Genesis, and the virgin birth?

seebs

Yeep! Starting with the easy questions, I see. I tend to view heaven and hell as states of existance, not physical locations. I think the Genesis story is a myth. This is not the same thing as saying it's untrue; it just means that, whatever it says, it doesn't say it literally. I have no idea about the virgin birth, but I am inclined by default to accept the claim because the people who made it were pretty accurate about a lot of other things that I have been able to test tolerably well.

JPD

How can you establish which bits are literal and which are myth? How can you place any reliance on myths, in particular when something as central to your existence (and/or how you perceive your existence) is considered?

seebs

I can't necessarily, but if something is written in poetic language, and everything I can find suggests that even very early readers considered it mythical, without the benefit of technological confirmation that it wasn't historically literal... Well, that one's easy.

Myths have the interesting quality that the actual point of a myth, as opposed to what you would get if you interpreted it as factual claims, is generally pretty well-considered. Anyway, I don't necessarily place much reliance on it... I really don't care that much about the Genesis stuff. I am not in need of a creation story as an explanation, so I'm mostly interested in the claims about the relationship between Man and God.

There's no obvious reason to reject something just because it's a myth. Myths aren't history, but they're not supposed to be, so the "inaccuracies" of the Genesis creation account are a total non-issue to me; the question becomes one of how much credibility I think the writers had, not as writers of literal history (which I don't think they thought they were), but as students of theology.

JPD

I am not convinced that "pretty well-considered" is sufficient. You are indicating that the bible is a collection of stories and nothing more. Some will have elements of truth and some will be pure fantasy. As a foundation for morality and as the means to establish the authority of your God over all existence, it would appear to be something of a joke.

seebs

I don't think I'd agree with "a collection of stories and nothing more". Go read 1 Corinthians 13. I don't think that's just a story; honestly, you could find that scrawled in crayon on a napkin, and I'd still think it was true.

JPD

Hence my stating that some will have elements of truth. A story is defined as 'the telling of an event or series of events, whether true or fictitious' (Collins Concise English Dictionary). I note that you haven't reacted to my suggestion that it is a joke, when considered as a moral guidebook and as an attempt to establish the power of your God.

seebs

But large chunks of it aren't stories at all, but, say, preaching.

Well, obviously I disagree. You could call the events "a book of stories", and the preaching "a book of essays", sure. But "just" a book of stories implies that the stories have no particular or special value, which I would disagree with.

JPD

In other words, to give moral or religious advice in a tedious manner. But this is based on those stories.

No it doesn't - elements can be truthful without the whole text being truthful.
I look at the bible as being a a collection of accounts of society and civilisation and nothing more. There is value in that of course but many Christians are more than a little lame when it comes to looking at it objectively. It seems that many approach it before having educated themselves in other disciplines (or at least doing so at the same time), and argue for arguments sake without being able to back it up.