Atheism is "cool"

Dades

pH wrote: »

Because as far as I can see he can continue to make snide childish comments about 'posters', yet as soon as I or anyone dare respond Dades will once again step in, but if that doesn't happen is PDN is free to insult all and sundry?

You appear to be under the impression that I have "stepped in" in some material way, and to protect one side only.

In fact all I have done is allow things to proceed, without specifically calling anyone up, in that hope that signs of my presence might stop people hurting themselves with handbags. I thought that was the way we liked it around here.

When I don't see any reported posts in my inbox I assume nobody's feeling are hurt.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

No, I'm not

It would perhaps be easier if you actually read the posts here, rather than concluding we are all anti-christian militant atheists all trying to get you and then assumed the posts reflected that.

The point has been made a few times by a number of posters that it is highly doubtful that Christians could approach the study of the Bible in a non-biased fashion and reach conclusions about it that are made irrespective of any negative effect they could have on their religion.

The point was also made that this isn't entirely surprising because Christians are humans

Most, if not all, humans take bias into the study of something, particularly when a particular position is vital to a certain outlook on life they have. The more vital something is the far more likely the person has a conscious or unconscious bias at assessment.

Humans are particularly bad a assessing things in a non-biased fashion, though often they ignore this problem (see Robin's very interesting list posted earlier).

It therefore is necessary for our methodologies of learning to not only expect this but to attempt to compensate for this problem in the very fundamentals of how it is structured. Science does this. Stuff like hermeneutics, doesn't.

You appear to wish to use this point (which I'm sure you would agree with if it was any other religion apart from your own) to make out that Robin, myself and others are making some vast unfair attack on the integrity of Christians (specifically), probably so you can dismiss this as anti-Christian bashing and ignore it whole heartily.

You have (poorly) attempted to convince the rest of us that while your Christian faith is clearly central to your entire existence and outlook towards life, love and the pursuit of happiness, this in no way has ever effected any part of the Bible you have ever read and in fact it is precisely because you value your Christian faith so much you would seek only the truth in the Bible because you wouldn't want to live a lie.

Needless to say that wasn't particularly convincing. I think it swayed anyone away from the original position that humans are particularly bad a assessing things in a non-biased fashion, though often they ignore this problem.

But more to the point you claiming you are in fact not biased is irrelevant because it comes down to the rest of us believing you, and what the heck does my opinion of whether you are genuinely non-biased have to do with anything. I could be just as wrong or biased about my opinion of you.

This is the fundamental point.

Actually that is not the fundamental point. If it were then you would admit that you, as a human, are unwilling to take the intellectual and emotional steps needed to make a genuine enquiry into atheism.

Now, if you wish to make that admission then I will, in turn, concede that you are making a fair point about the human condition.

You appear to wish to use this point (which I'm sure you would agree with if it was any other religion apart from your own)

And once again you choose to make a completely untrue statement about me.

I think Jews are perfectly competent to conduct exegesis on the Old Testament and to reach valid conclusions as to what the original authors intended to say. In fact some of the finest Old Testament scholars are Jewish.

I think Muslims are perfectly competent to conduct exegesis on the Koran and to to reach valid conclusions as to what the original authors intended to say.

I think Scientologists are perfectly competent to conduct exegesis on the works of Ron Hubbard and to to reach valid conclusions as to what he intended to say.

Of course none of this relates to whether the books they are discussing are actually true or a load of old cobblers - exegesis does not address those issues at all. But please do not assume that I share your closed-minded disdain of those who hold different beliefs.

You have (poorly) attempted to convince the rest of us that while your Christian faith is clearly central to your entire existence and outlook towards life, love and the pursuit of happiness, this in no way has ever effected any part of the Bible you have ever read and in fact it is precisely because you value your Christian faith so much you would seek only the truth in the Bible because you wouldn't want to live a lie.

Yet another untruth.

I have nowhere made such a claim. My approach to the Bible has often been affected and influenced by my beliefs. I often read the Bible for devotional reasons and as a form of prayer. But when I am engaging in exegesis, I believe I am just as capable as an atheist, a Catholic, or a Jew when it comes to objectively seeking to discern the authors intent. And, through peer review, atheists, Catholics and Jews have agreed with my self-assessment.

Wonderful, but you know perfectly well that isn't what we were saying.

That is exactly what we were saying. This whole discussion began because of an inane argument that tried to claim that any interpretation of the Bible is impossible because no-one can tell what is parable and what isn't.

You, and others, are the ones who are steering away from that by adding another inane argument that says, in effect, "Don't talk to us about exegesis because you're a Christian and Christians can't be trusted to do exegesis".

Well no offence PDN but I don't think anyone here believes that you are "ready to change your mind", given that changing your mind could have a seriously negative effect on your life and mental outlook.

But again that is ultimately irrelevant.

If it's irrelevant then I wonder why you just wrote it.

Also, I don't think a bunch of guys on an atheist discussion forum actually carry much weight when it comes to judging the ability of one of 'the opposition' to change their mind. But the fact you would make that argument while simultaneously attacking Christians as being hopelessly biased is certainly revealing.

You are again completely missing the point.

What they agree or don't agree with should be irrelevant.

It is extremely relevant given that you, and others, have attacked the integrity of Biblical Studies on the grounds that some of us who practice exegesis believe in inerrancy. Given that most of those who engage in exegesis in an academic setting don't believe in inerrancy, that exposes your argument as fundamentally flawed.

No, change would be change that requires you to abandon the beliefs that provide you comfort and support.

Flipping between details of Christian faith is largely irrelevant because you end up in the same position of religious support and outlook.

It is like changing your mind between whether your girlfriend like chocolates better than flowers, when you used to think she liked flowers. That is not the same as changing your mind to believe she is now shagging your boss.

Yeah, losing your job and your house is just like choosing between chocolates and flowers. Some Christians, as a result of studying the Bible with an open minded willingness to change actually ended up being burnt alive. But that isn't real change in your book, is it? It's only real change if we become atheists and agree with you!

I think if that was true you would have spent the last few pages explaining how the various fields of Bible study do not require those participating in the fields to come to the study with a non-bias position, rather than spending the last few pages trying to convince us that they come to the field with non-biased positions.

Unfortunately that would mean discussing issues in depth with you. Given that the very superficial level of debate so far has provoked you to make a number of false assumptions about me and to deliberately twist my words, I doubt if such a discussion would get very far.

You're happy thinking that an entire academic discipline has hoodwinked the finest educational minds for centuries into accepting its viability. You, however, have the remarkable ability, without knowing anything about the subject in question, to discern that it's really just a made-up subject. I hardly think anything I might have to say will dent such self-importance, particularly when I'm dealing with such an unbiased and rational individual as yourself.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Actually that is not the fundamental point. If it were then you would admit that you, as a human, are unwilling to take the intellectual and emotional steps needed to make a genuine enquiry into atheism.

Groan ... it is not a question of being willing or unwilling PDN

You consistently try to make this out as a test of integrity.

It isn't about that. It isn't that you are a weaker person that anyone else. It isn't that you are a stronger person than anyone else. It is that no one else can determine this to any meaningful degree either way.

I would certainly not expect anyone to trust my opinions about atheism or that I have very good (in my opinion) reasons for being an atheist, or that that some how should mean something to them.

I would certainly not expect anyone to trust my opinion is non-biased. Half the time I don't trust my opinions are non-biased.

PDN wrote: »

Of course none of this relates to whether the books they are discussing are actually true or a load of old cobblers - exegesis does not address those issues at all.

Nonsense.

Exegesis is the opinion and assessment of what the authors meant by their words and passages. If you have already made a theological determination about the authors themselves, for example that they are influenced by God, this will undoubtedly shape the framework of considered interpretations of what they meant to say.

PDN wrote: »

But when I am engaging in exegesis, I believe I am just as capable as an atheist, a Catholic, or a Jew when it comes to objectively seeking to discern the authors intent.

So do I. Which is not very capable.

PDN wrote: »

And, through peer review, atheists, Catholics and Jews have agreed with my self-assessment.

Do you understand what peer review is in the scientific sense. It is not people expressing the opinion that they agree with your opinion.

PDN wrote: »

You, and others, are the ones who are steering away from that by adding another inane argument that says, in effect, "Don't talk to us about exegesis because you're a Christian and Christians can't be trusted to do exegesis".

You say that as if the argument asserted that someone else can be trusted ....

Again you are missing the point. No one can be trusted to do exegesis in any meaningful way because exegesis is nonsense.

What people object to is posters such as your self implying that your interpretation is some how more valid because you have "exegesis methodology" behind you.

The point is that such a claim is largely meaningless. You could still be as completely wrong as some 15 year old atheist angry with his mum and dad for making him go to church.

PDN wrote: »

Also, I don't think a bunch of guys on an atheist discussion forum actually carry much weight when it comes to judging the ability of one of 'the opposition' to change their mind.

Well personally I think it makes us perfect to judge this. But again that ultimately is irrelevant. We can't determine if you will or will not change your mind and we can't determine if you are being truthful when you say you will or won't.

whoops, I did it again.

PDN wrote: »

But the fact you would make that argument while simultaneously attacking Christians as being hopelessly biased is certainly revealing.

The fact that you think all this is an "attack" on Christians is also revealing.

PDN wrote: »

It is extremely relevant given that you, and others, have attacked the integrity of Biblical Studies on the grounds that some of us who practice exegesis believe in inerrancy.

No. We "attacked" (with pitch forks no doubt) the integrity of Biblical studies on the grounds that some of you who practice exegesis are human, and the field takes no account of that.

The inerrancy some believe was simply used as an example where personal religious belief cannot help but effect interpretation of what the authors meant with their words and passages.

If someone approaches the Bible with the theological position that the words cannot be wrong or contradictory this cannot but shape the set of interpretations the person will consider valid interpretations of the authors meanings.

Inerrancy is simply one example, could pick plenty more.

PDN wrote: »

Yeah, losing your job and your house is just like choosing between chocolates and flowers.

Well yes. You have never struck me as a person who valued material things that highly.

PDN wrote: »

Some Christians, as a result of studying the Bible with an open minded willingness to change actually ended up being burnt alive.

Doesn't that tell you something?

You think someone can believe something so passionately that they are prepared to be burnt alive for that faith, but they can then approach the Bible with an open mind an be prepared to go "oh, wait, look here, it was all a mistake. how silly of me" and drop their faith like that?

You seriously look at these people and go "well they certainly aren't fundamentally devoted with every fibre of their being to this religion being true"

Seriously?

PDN wrote: »

But that isn't real change in your book, is it?

How is being burnt alive "change"?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan ... it is not a question of being willing or unwilling PDN

You consistently try to make this out as a test of integrity.

Originally Posted by Robin
In that, your pov is no different to that of most religious people -- by and large, you seek confirmation of your views, not disproof and consequently, seem unwilling to take the intellectual and emotional steps needed to make a genuine inquiry into your chosen ideology.

OK, whatever you say.

How is being burnt alive "change"?

Nobody said it was. I was pointing out that a willingness to die is evidence of the depth of change experienced.

A guy in the Middle Ages who is a devout Catholic starts to study the Bible. All his presuppositions are in line with the Catholic doctrine with which he has been indoctrinated - including the fact that he is not allowed to interpret Scripture privately. To come to any conclusion that contradicts Catholic teaching will mean an appointment with the Inquisition and a one way ticket to the stake. But he comes to the honest conclusion that the Bible teaches something different. Therefore he changes his mind and gets burnt alive.

But it isn't really change, according to you, because he hasn't become an atheist.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

1. I don't think I did say that my interpretation of the Bible gives me a reason to stay alive. Robin didn't provide any link, but I would think that I said my Christian faith had kept me alive. Two separate issues, conveniently conflated into one for the purposes of rhetoric.

"For the purposes of rhetoric?" I don't usually do rhetoric, PDN. And when I do, I hope that it's fairly obvious.

In this post, you said that relationship which you believe is offered by your interpretation of your chosen holy book is something without which, you "really don't see much point to life at all", and which is the thing which you from wanting to die "sooner rather than later". I think my point stands quite adequately, and adequately unconflated.

PDN wrote: »

2. 99.9% of biblical exegesis has nothing to do with the issues of biblical inerrancy or of anything that is essential to salvation. Most of it is much more mundane than that.

Perhaps it is. But my point, made several times now, is not about where the exegetes of this world spend their time exegising, but that almost none of it is carried out with what I regard as a proper regard for truth, or even generally, with a proper regard for any serious degree of intellectual honesty.

The divinity departments of the world's universities or the media departments of the major religious service providers do not, on the whole, publish anything suggesting that their own chosen interpretation is wrong -- in fact, many of them rule that their interpretation is perfect, thereby ruling themselves out of any serious epistemological debate.

PDN wrote: »

3. I have already changed my beliefs considerably due to objective exegesis of Scripture, including giving up my job, house and income. Therefore Robin's claim about my unwillingness to change due to investing my professional life in something is untruthful and contrary to the evidence.

Check what I wrote to see that I made no such claim.

PDN wrote: »

4. If I became convinced that biblical inerrancy was false then I could continue to live as millions of Christians already do, choosing to accept some of the Bible while ignoring the bits I didn't like.

I think most posters on this thread would contend that you do cherry-pick what you like and ignore the bits that you don't. The mere fact that you are just one of millions of believers, each with similar but subtly different, interpretations indicates that you are either the one and only true believer in this world, or else, that you are believing things that are false (for the sake of completeness, in this context, I think it's fair to assume that you don't ignore the things that you believe are true).

PDN wrote: »

Robin is simply adopting an age-old tactic of implying that those on the opposing side in a discussion are closed-minded and therefore there is no need to listen to them.

On the contrary, I don't believe that you are closed-minded in the traditional sense, but rather excessively open-minded in that you believe far more than the uncontested facts of the matter should permit you to believe.

Neither do I believe that there's no need to listen to religious followers, or religious leaders. Again, on the contrary, quite apart from my native interest in people and how well people think, or how badly, religion itself influences our world massively. It behooves any responsible and informed citizen to understand how and why it works, so that its largely (but not exclusively) baleful influence upon our world can be minimized and people can live lives which are free of one religion or another's ideological guilt, ignorance, misdirection, dishonesty or just simple time-wasting.

BTW, I don't know whether or not you looked at that list of cognitive biases, but I'd certainly be interested if you could take a few minutes to do so and to report back on how many of them you honestly felt could be applied to how you think and choose what to believe.

PDN

Well, it seems like there's going to be no meeting of minds on this subject. Both Robin and Wicknight have clearly expressed their absolute conviction that exegesis is nonsense and that it is impossible to tell what any passage in the Bible actually means. I, on the other hand, am absolutely convinced that we can use objective methodology to discern the meaning of Scripture. I doubt if any of us are going to change each other's minds.

Still, one positive outcome of this discussion is that never again do we need to put up with the same guys coming onto the Christianity forum and trying to tell us that we've understood a particular Scripture wrongly and lecturing us as to the correct interpretation. Since they believe the Bible has no objective meaning then such arguments are automatically invalid. So let's be grateful for small mercies.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Well, it seems like there's going to be no meeting of minds on this subject.

Lads! I think you're all cool.

Húrin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You're not seriously going to use that as reason to believe in the Christian (or any god)?

There is a multitude of reasons for believing in the Christian God, but this is not really one of them.

Incalculable texts have been written by people on gods both past and present which their authors firmly believed in. Unless of course you're aiming to position it such that all gods worshipped are but aspects of the one 'true' god?

The point is that nobody considers Elrond to be a God. You cannot put gods and fictional characters in the same category. The nature of Gods and characters is totally different. A character created by an author cannot to be said to be the creator of the universe, which is a basic item on the CV of any respectable God.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I've read all of it, don't worry.

If that was the case, you would not make the embarrassing mistakes about Christian theology that arvisible in many of your posts.

the bible can never be considered to really be a reference manual to the masses

What does this even mean? Of course the Bible is to be interpreted individually.

Wicknight wrote: »

Imagine a bunch of Scientologists sitting around assessing "Dianetics" .. you think that would produce a critical and even handed assessment that L Ron Hubbard was making this stuff up for money?

No, but they could produce some interpretations of what Hubbard meant. That's exegesis. Your idea of exegesis seems to be that it's a method of disproving religious texts.

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Interesting. I don't see how anything could predispose you towards atheism, we all begin atheistic by default, then culture kicks in.

There's a huge difference between the atheism of those who do not know about the concept of God, and those who do. Culture can create both Christians and atheists of the latter kind from those of the former.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But you can't give the Christians any ammunition to use against us!

It's just a bloody internet forum. You're not trying to win World War 2 here.

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

If some christians are able to agree to disagree about moral issues raised in the bible, why aren't christians able to agree to disagree with non-chistians about moral issues affecting our society?

If policy decisions must be made, then you can't defer endlessly.

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Way to evade, since what you're mostly doing is posting lots of patronising willywaving bluster and sly slurs then I'll have to agree with Ph. I've seen plenty of your type on other forums so quite frankly I can't be bothered wasting my time with you anymore. And unless I'm very mistaken I can also guess what your response will be so just talk to the hand or whatever.

RAGE!!!

Seriously, you are just as bad. You ignored PDN's post where he explained why it is important for him to establish that his faith is true. Not agreeing with him doesn't mean that his study is dishonest.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

could approach their chosen ideology with any sincere intent to disprove it.

If you are trying to either confirm it or disprove it then the outcome of your study is already predetermined.

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue I have with the field of theology and Biblical study is not necessarily that everyone brings their own opinions and biases to the table, but that the methodologies around these areas take little or no steps to address this, and in fact often embrace it as some how a good thing.

Yes. Why does everything need to be a certainty? Variety of well-thought out opinion is a good thing.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Well, it seems like there's going to be no meeting of minds on this subject. Both Robin and Wicknight have clearly expressed their absolute conviction that exegesis is nonsense

Yes, how unreasonable of us :rolleyes:

I'm also convinced of the position that public prosecutors shouldn't be assigned cases that involve the prosecution of family members, that politician shouldn't sit on comities about industries they have personally invested in, and that CEO's should provide privileged stock information to friends.

Why you ask?

Conflicts of interests.

The idea that personal investment in something or someone can effect the rational formation of opinion about that something or someone. Consciously or sub-consciously.

It doesn't really matter if the prosecutor manages to be completely honest and objective in how he deals with the prosecution of his brother for murder charges, because we can never determine he was completely honest and objective. Heck he probably can't determine this himself (never underestimate the minds ability to lie to itself).

That is of course me just being cynical. Perhaps if everyone had the trust in the objectivity of people as you do PDN the world would be a much better place ... :pac:

I can't help shake the feeling though that if these fields had gone to the trouble of recognising this problem with human judgement and had taken methods to deal with it, as something like science has, you would have spent the last few pages explaining this to us.

Instead you have spent the last few pages trying to demonstrate that we can trust Christians to objectively assess the Bible. Which is a bit like the prosector trying to convince us that we can trust him prosecuting his brother for murder by explaining he doesn't mind if his brother gets executed. Even if it is true how would we possibly determine that? Do we just trust him, and if we could trust him he wouldn't need to be convincing us in the first place. And how do we trust our own trust of him? Perhaps we are being personally motivated and not even knowing this.

The very fact that this was necessary demonstrates the point Robin and myself have been making from the start.

QED as someone far more pompous and arrogant than me might say :cool:

PDN wrote: »

that we've understood a particular Scripture wrongly and lecturing us as to the correct interpretation.

I imagine you guys will still continue this fine tradition though :P

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Yes. Why does everything need to be a certainty?

It doesn't have to be a certainty. But there must be a confidence in the process

As I mentioned in my post above, a good example is a prosecutor tasked with prosecuting his brother for murder.

Most legal systems would remove him from the case before it even starts. Why? Because there is an inherent conflict of interest there and therefore the opinions and behaviour of the prosecutor cannot be trusted to carry out the objective he is tasked with.

Now you could ask why does this matter. Why do we have to be certain that the prosecutor isn't going to be effected by personal opinion. Because it is important that the justice system works fairly.

As for why it is important that this also applies to something like the study of the Bible, it is as important as the Bible is important. To me that isn't that important, but I do see that an awful lot of people put an awful lot of weight into what is written in the Bible.

To not recognise, or to ignore as PDN is doing, the inherent flaws of these types of studies is to operate under a false pretext

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Both Robin and Wicknight have clearly expressed their absolute conviction that exegesis is nonsense and that it is impossible to tell what any passage in the Bible actually means. I, on the other hand, am absolutely convinced that we can use objective methodology to discern the meaning of Scripture.

Except, of course, that what we actually said is that exegesis, carried out as it normally is, is useless. The condition is rather important, not to say the whole point we're making. But at this stage of the conversation, I'm not all that surprised that it's been missed yet again.

However, this discussion has been useful to illustrate two points:

• Religious posters here seem unaware of the existence of general cognitive bias, and are certainly unwilling to confront it, if they are aware of it.
• Religious posters here have great difficulty in gaining a clear understanding of straightforward prose, written by people from their own culture and time, in their own language, which states simple ideas clearly.

Bearing the latter in mind, one can only wonder at the self-confidence, if not chutzpah, of people who sincerely believe themselves capable of error-free understanding of lengthy tracts of metaphorical, frequently impenetrable, prose written, edited and possibly changed by people who are long dead, about whom we know little or nothing, who lived in a thoroughly alien time, place and society, in a language they do not speak.

Gosh.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

If you are trying to either confirm it or disprove it then the outcome of your study is already predetermined.

Check out the notion of falsifiability. Outside of the private world of maths, you cannot confirm that something is true, the best you can do logically is to prove it false.

Hence any genuine inquiry -- especially an inquiry into something which declares itself to be Truth with a capital 'T' -- should submit itself in all humility to being falsified. Hence also, the regular appearance of falsifiability as a notion here.

I think it's fair to say that few, if any, exegetes spend any time at all on any genuine attempt to disprove their pov. By which lack of interest they disbar themselves as serious interpreters, and lapse instead into a position not all that different from a cheerleader.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

I doubt if any of us are going to change each other's minds.

quite

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

It's just a bloody internet forum. You're not trying to win World War 2 here.

Well, if you didn't pick up on the sarcasm that was embedded in that comment, then, I'm afraid there is nothing I, nor anybody else, can do for you.

For future reference, whenever I use an exclamation mark, it generally indicates sarcasm - as I use them rarely otherwise. So, keep that in mind.

CerebralCortex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

quite

Whoa aggressive! :eek:

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

If that was the case, you would not make the embarrassing mistakes about Christian theology that arvisible in many of your posts.

Happily for me, you invalidate this point with your next quote:

Húrin wrote: »

Of course the Bible is to be interpreted individually.

Therefore, I can never be wrong about how I interpret the bible, since the whole thing is open to individual interpretation.

Húrin wrote: »

What does this even mean?

What I meant was it's hard to justify using a book as a basis for a system of religion to dictate their lives when each person finds their own meaning in it, ie it cannot be applied to large populations successfully and consistently

As an aside, I would like to know what my "embarrassing mistakes" were

pH

MatthewVII wrote: »

Therefore, I can never be wrong about how I interpret the bible, since the whole thing is open to individual interpretation.

A point I tried to make earlier by interpreting the whole bible metaphorically, unfortunately some interpretations are more correct than others (mainly Christian ones). My current interpretation is that it is a metaphysical reflection on the gullibility of humans.

Oh and if you can get Hurin to type "Ethnocentric" once more in this thread you get a Euro.

Goduznt Xzst

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Whoa aggressive! :eek:

Really? I meant it more tongue-in-cheek

CerebralCortex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Really? I meant it more tongue-in-cheek

I just find that I have to be very careful with what I say in these parts. I agree with the quote though.

MackDeToaster

PDN wrote: »

How strange. I deal with your points one by one and you get so offended by a bit of gentle sarcasm that you refuse to answer me and then accuse me of evasion?

Come on now, I'm one lone Christian debating with, and outnumbered by, a bunch of atheists, some of whom wish to engage in robust debate and one or two who prefer mudslinging abuse. There's plenty of patronising comments and sly slurs about theists in this forum every day - yet some posters act like an offended maiden aunt if I enter into debate with you and give as good as I get?

To explain, I'm unfamiliar with Boards, made no such personal insinuations upon you, and as I was assuming I shouldn't have to qualify my academic achievements, especially on a non-academic forum such as Boards, your education gibes, clearly intended as ridicule, served only to apparently demonstrate that you had to resort to personal attacks in an effort to intimidate and help with your winning an argument.
In reply to those insinuations, I requested that you leave off the educational slurs, to which you replied with more of the same. Hence my statement that I'm familiar with your type. If there has been mudslinging by others, of which I'm unaware, I would be unhappy with presumptiously being tarred and labeled with the same brush.

Also, I've been a mod myself on many forums and newsgroups stretching back to pre-internet days, so I was surprised at this, especially thinking that as a moderator yourself you should have been be aware of, and above, such conduct. This only tended to exacerbate my view. Obviously I've yet to settle in here so I'll chill out a bit more in future :cool:

As for the rest, I still believe it was you who was reading that I was conflating issues, whereas I was contending that you were missing the point. My anology may have been weak, as all anologies ultimately are, and in hindsight I should have expanded upon it, but how many caveats should you have to add (rhetorical question). There were no slurs intended so apologies if it appeared as such. Eitherways Robin and Wicknight have since moved my contention along.

As for biblical exegesis, here's an example of what I would think it to be so correct me if I'm on the wrong lines.

Jesus heals a paralysed man, or it might have been a child - I'm not sure without looking it up, but it went something like this...

A few days later, when Jesus entered the town, the people heard that he had come home. A large crowd gathered and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralysed man. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof and lowered down the mat upon which the paralyzed man was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some teachers of the law were sitting there thinking to themselves "Who is this fellow to talk like that? He is blaspheming! For who can forgive sins but god alone?"

Immediately Jesus knew that this was what they were thinking and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, gather your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the son of man has authority on Earth to forgive sins . . . ." He then said to the paralysed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up, took his mat and walked out. This amazed everyone and they praised god.

I'm leaving out requirements for corrorobating evidence, numerous primary sources, the whole is Jesus is real thing and all that. So we can tackle this in several ways and on different levels such as follow (not in any particular order). The tricky thing is that these ways and levels are all interconnected.

Firstly, the details of the story itself. It would be ridiculous to say that this is a blatently made-up miracle, an invention, and immediately discard the entire story. It might not actually be a miracle, let alone proof of god, but who is to say that the entire story or elements of it are untrue ? For example, you could ask questions such as ..
Was it a setup as unscrupulous modern evangelists, faith healers and the like have been known to do ? Perhaps the man was genuinely paralysed? If this was the case what was the extent of his paralyis ? This is two millennia ago, can we trust the medical knowledge of these people to properly and accurately diagnose him ? How accurate was it likely to have been? How long had he been paralysed, was it something that comes and goes? Was it psychological, or physical ? We don't and possibly can't know these things. Perhaps the man was so wracked with guilt and depressed about something that he just refused to help himself and lay down in a stupor. An authority figure coming along and saying you're forgiven might have pulled him out of it. Or maybe he was just faking it in order to meet a celebrity ? Maybe the storyteller picked up some details wrongly, he's only relating something that happened elsewhere or a few years ago, maybe he embellished it to suit his purpose. Etc etc.

Secondly, moving onto a different level, is it intended to be read literally as a real story ? Or as a parable of how Jesus caused the elders to reconsider their position, how things can change, that god can intervene and does actually care about us, and so on. If god can change his methods and can intervene, then this brings us on to questions of god's nature (perhaps this should be a third point and yet another different level).

lostexpectation

when is the op going to tell us why he think his classmates actually believe in god?

PDN

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Firstly, the details of the story itself. It would be ridiculous to say that this is a blatently made-up miracle, an invention, and immediately discard the entire story. It might not actually be a miracle, let alone proof of god, but who is to say that the entire story or elements of it are untrue ? For example, you could ask questions such as ..
Was it a setup as unscrupulous modern evangelists, faith healers and the like have been known to do ? Perhaps the man was genuinely paralysed? If this was the case what was the extent of his paralyis ? This is two millennia ago, can we trust the medical knowledge of these people to properly and accurately diagnose him ? How accurate was it likely to have been? How long had he been paralysed, was it something that comes and goes? Was it psychological, or physical ? We don't and possibly can't know these things. Perhaps the man was so wracked with guilt and depressed about something that he just refused to help himself and lay down in a stupor. An authority figure coming along and saying you're forgiven might have pulled him out of it. Or maybe he was just faking it in order to meet a celebrity ? Maybe the storyteller picked up some details wrongly, he's only relating something that happened elsewhere or a few years ago, maybe he embellished it to suit his purpose. Etc etc.

You're sort of missing the whole point. The questions you're asking have nothing to do with exegesis. While you might wonder if those various scenarios provide some historical basis for the event, that is not what exegesis is about. Exegesis is asking what the author intended to convey to his readers.

Secondly, moving onto a different level, is it intended to be read literally as a real story ? Or as a parable of how Jesus caused the elders to reconsider their position, how things can change, that god can intervene and does actually care about us, and so on. If god can change his methods and can intervene, then this brings us on to questions of god's nature (perhaps this should be a third point and yet another different level).

Ah, now we're starting to do some exegesis. Did the author intend his hearers to think that this incident actually happened, or was it a parable where the author uses a fictional story to convey a spiritual truth?

Now, we both need to lay aside our presuppositions about whether we think such miracles are possible, and instead we concentrate as much as possible on objective criteria.

Are there any common features that mark out something as being a parable?
a) In the New testament most parables seem to advertise themselves as such:
"Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed." (Matthew 13:1).
"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard." (Matthew 21:33)
"What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it?" (Mark 4:30)
"He told them this parable: No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. " (Luke 5:36)
"When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable" (Luke 14:7)
b) Many parables use a formulaic introduction, "The kingdom of heaven is like ...."
c) Parables do not typically use the names of real people. They refer to "a sower", "a farmer", "a certain king" etc.
d) Parables are never given a specific chronological context. In this sense they are like fairy tales which are always "Once upon a time" (or Shrek's "In a land far far away") rather than "In December of 1575".

Now, does the passage you mention show any of these characteristics?
It does not advertise itself as a parable. It does not use the formulaic introduction. It uses the name of Jesus as a real person. Finally, it is set in a specific chronological setting, just after Jesus arrived in Capernaum on a boat and just before he called Matthew to be His disciple.

In fact, it is safe to say that the passage you cited shows none of the characteristics we might expect to see in a parable. As far as I know there are no literary parallels in non-biblical sources that would support the interpretation of this as a parable. You might like to think that is a parable, but you would be on a road to an F if you submitted a paper in a biblical studies course that made such an assertion without offering some sensible reasons. Your F would not be the ostracisation of a dissident, but simply the inevitable penalty of making a subjective assertion without presenting any objective support. In short, it would be bad exegesis.

Now, you are of course perfectly free to think that the author was lying, or that Jesus was pulling a fast one, or that the man only appeared to be paralysed. But none of that has anything to do with exegesis. Exegesis simply indicates that the author told a story about a miracle happening and that he intended his readers to understand it as a literal event.

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

when is the op going to tell us why he think his classmates actually believe in god?

What do you mean?

Dades

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What do you mean?

Indeed. I'm not sure why lostexpectation thinks your original post suggested you should be doing this.

Dades

Dades wrote: »

Indeed. I'm not sure why lostexpectation thinks your original post suggested you should be doing this.

Maybe he made a mistake, it probably should read "When will the OP tell us why his classmates didn't believe in a god?".

lostexpectation

you suggested they were only saying it because its cool, that they had no other reason. perhaps suggesting that they hadn't thought it through and were only pretending thus still believed in god.

you said they said believeingin god was stupid. well isn't it, sounds like pretty good answer to me.

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

you suggested they were only saying it because its cool, that they had no other reason. perhaps suggesting that they hadn't thought it through and were only pretending thus still believed in god.

you said they said believeingin god was stupid. well isn't it, sounds like pretty good answer to me.

But in your previous post you said: "when is the op going to tell us why he think his classmates actually believe in god?". You asked when am I going to tell you why I think they actually believe in God. I think that's where the confusion lies! As I didn't say anything about them believing in God. Perhaps you just made a mistake in the post? Or do you want to know why they believe in God?

lostexpectation

well why are you questioning the coolness of atheism?

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

well why are you questioning the coolness of atheism?

Ok, I don't know what you're on about.

I stated an observation - that many people in my school were becoming atheists. When I questioned them about their reasons for becoming an atheist (being the curious atheist that I am), their responses were along the lines of "because God is stupid", "religion is stupid" et cetera. Not very convincing reasons, I think you'll agree. Now, since they had no reasons as to why they considered god "to be stupid", I concluded that they must have became atheists, or at least say that they are, for some other reason.

Now, as you may very well know, atheism is certainly a prominent issue in the news, films, documentaries etc. Many of the people who are atheists in the media are intellectuals (Dawkins, the Hitch etc.). This led me to conclude that perhaps they "became" atheists to portray this image. I then considered the idea that perhaps atheism is considered cool, as, generally, religion is considered uncool - thus, anything opposite to this uncool idea, must be considered cool. This thought led me to post this thread, asking other people if they had observed such happenings; to see did they see any trends, etc. etc.

Does that clear up the intent, and indeed my motivation for posting, this very thread? If not, please specify where the confusion lies, and I'll try to clarify more.