On the interpretation of religious texts by The Lords of Distortion

looksee

silverharp wrote: »

Sure Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” In other words, you break it, you buy it.

What happens if they are not discovered?

RikuoAmero

looksee wrote: »

What happens if they are not discovered?

They die. Apparently, blame the victim was one of God's favourite games back in the day, and if the woman screamed but no one came...then she must've done something wrong and needs to die.

Nodin

RikuoAmero wrote: »

They die. Apparently, blame the victim was one of God's favourite games back in the day, and if the woman screamed but no one came...then she must've done something wrong and needs to die.

Sounds like something only an infinitly wise and merciful mind could come up with.

silverharp

RikuoAmero wrote: »

They die. Apparently, blame the victim was one of God's favourite games back in the day, and if the woman screamed but no one came...then she must've done something wrong and needs to die.

it was ok apparently for daughters to rape their dads , apparently God then gives the sons of this unholy union land formally owned by the Giants



Genesis 19

19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

it was ok apparently for daughters to rape their dads , apparently God then gives the sons of this unholy union land formally owned by the Giants



Genesis 19

indeed. I look in vain in the text you quote for anything that suggests either that what the daughters did is regarded as OK, or that God gave anything at all to the offspring.

Not even the most fundamentalist biblical literalists reads scripture with a hermeneutic which assumes that the mere narration of an event implies its approval. It's hard to produce a reading that's even more simplistic than the readings of a Young Earth Creationist, but you have managed it. Congratulations!

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

indeed. I look in vain in the text you quote for anything that suggests either that what the daughters did is regarded as OK, or that God gave anything at all to the offspring.

Not even the most fundamentalist biblical literalists reads scripture with a hermeneutic which assumes that the mere narration of an event implies its approval. It's hard to produce a reading that's even more simplistic than the readings of a Young Earth Creationist, but you have managed it. Congratulations!

I look in vain for anything in the text that suggests it is not ok? And is hermeneutic meant to do anything other than make us think "oh my, he knows big complicated words?" Can you give an example of science believers in boards.ie who use big science words in an attempt to show off?

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

indeed. I look in vain in the text you quote for anything that suggests either that what the daughters did is regarded as OK, or that God gave anything at all to the offspring.

Not even the most fundamentalist biblical literalists reads scripture with a hermeneutic which assumes that the mere narration of an event implies its approval. It's hard to produce a reading that's even more simplistic than the readings of a Young Earth Creationist, but you have managed it. Congratulations!

And god apparently gave them the the gift of accepting what they had done was not too bad. Otherwise he would have zapped them.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

And god apparently gave them the the gift of accepting what they had done was not too bad. Otherwise he would have zapped them.

Are you trying to win the prize for taking an approach even more simplistic than silverharp's? If so, I commend your enthusiasm, but you're up against some pretty stiff competition!

pauldla

obplayer wrote: »

I look in vain for anything in the text that suggests it is not ok? And is hermeneutic meant to do anything other than make us think "oh my, he knows big complicated words?" Can you give an example of science believers in boards.ie who use big science words in an attempt to show off?

The palpable reluctance of our co-correspondent to acquiesce to your request would speak to me either of his antipathy to engagement in such verbiage or to his inefficaciousness in identifying a suitable candidate. :pac:

For what it’s worth, the word ‘hermeneutic’ is listed in the dictionary as ‘of or relating to the interpretation of Scripture’; and what IS a ‘science believer’?;)

Absolam

Is it possible to specify what what 'big science words' are, before someone has to go looking for them?
I would be surprised if there weren't a few eleven or more character words being used here and there on boards.ie.... obplayer has used the words complicated, investigation, fascinating, and scientifically (surely that's a big science word?) quite recently, so it can't be the big that's the problem.... must be something else!

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

Is it possible to specify what what 'big science words' are, before someone has to go looking for them?
I would be surprised if there weren't a few eleven or more character words being used here and there on boards.ie.... obplayer has used the words complicated, investigation, fascinating, and scientifically (surely that's a big science word?) quite recently, so it can't be the big that's the problem.... must be something else!

Titin is a big science word.

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

Titin is a big science word.

CERN is arguably even bigger....

Peregrinus

Oh, come now. Atheists, as a class, are supposed to be both better educated and more intelligent than the general run of the population. Or so Richard Dawkins keeps assuring me. They should hardly need to have English words explained to them. In the (wildly unlikely) event that they are both unfamiliar with a word and unable to deduce it's meaning from contextual and etymological clues, they should at least know how to google it.

"Hermeneutic" means "Of, relating to, or concerning interpretation or theories of interpretation; a method or theory of interpretation; a particular interpretation". It's from the Greek hermeneuein, to interpret. It's often used with reference to the interpretation of scripture but it's certainly not confined to that context. Post-modernist critical thinkers never shut up about hermenuetics, frankly - just google "Derrida hermeneutics" for more examples that you could possibly want. On a board populated by people who profess to be interested in critical thinking, I don't think it's an outlandish word to use. Still, there you go.

RikuoAmero

Peregrinus wrote: »

indeed. I look in vain in the text you quote for anything that suggests either that what the daughters did is regarded as OK, or that God gave anything at all to the offspring.

Not even the most fundamentalist biblical literalists reads scripture with a hermeneutic which assumes that the mere narration of an event implies its approval. It's hard to produce a reading that's even more simplistic than the readings of a Young Earth Creationist, but you have managed it. Congratulations!

Well, when read along with other OT stories, there is an implied God-approval for incest. What about Abram's marriage to his half-sister, Sarai? The resultant sons of the father/daughters union are listed as the ancestors of nations, the Moabites and another one I can't remember the name of.
Remember, what had happened just before Daddy Lot got it on with his daughters? That's right, God dropped meteors on the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah for perverse sexual practices. So after reading that story about how God likes to really show his displeasure, when he fails to act, then there's an implied approval for incest. What's stopping him?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

indeed. I look in vain in the text you quote for anything that suggests either that what the daughters did is regarded as OK, or that God gave anything at all to the offspring.

Not even the most fundamentalist biblical literalists reads scripture with a hermeneutic which assumes that the mere narration of an event implies its approval. It's hard to produce a reading that's even more simplistic than the readings of a Young Earth Creationist, but you have managed it. Congratulations!

well read on , from my oringal genesis quote

19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Deuteronomy 2

/

2:9 And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites , neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.
2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;
2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims.

God gave the Moabites and the Ammonites special protection since they were the descendents of Lot's drunken, incestuous affair with his daughters? how else do I read that?

Peregrinus

You don't have to read too much of the OT histories to realise that all kinds of things, good, bad or morally indifferent, are narrated there, and the purpose of the narration is frequently not to point to the goodness, badness or moral indifference of the event concerned, but simply to explain or contextualise some other event, or to present a complete narrative. Contrary to what silverharp and obplayer seem to assume, there is no hermeneutical tradition, either in Christianity or in Judaism, which treats the mere narration of an event, or the narration of that event without explicit moral condemnation, as signifying moral approbation.

As for Sarai being Abram's half-sister, yes, she was (according to Genesis). But far from treating the Genesis story as signifying approval of incestuous relationships, the Jewish interpretive tradition on this point is largely devoted to considering the implications of the relationship, given that incest is not morally permissible, and indeed later in the scriptures is explicitly forbidden. In other words, the only people I see invoking this story in support of an argument for the permissibility of incest are silverharp and obplayer and yourself.

In support of your interpretation, you assume that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a punishment for "perverse sexual practices", and argue that by recording the punishment for one sexual practice and the lack of punishment for another, the scripture must be taken to imply the approval of the latter. Again, though, you can't attribute your interpretation to others. The scriptures do not say anywhere that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual practices; in fact it is stated flatly in Ezekiel that they were destroyed for arrogance, greed, indifference to the needs of others and inhospitality. You are choosing to focus on a contrast between homosexual rape and incestuous rape, while the contrast that the scriptures explicitly point to is between the hospitality shown by Abraham versus the inhospitality shown by Sodom.

It's undeniable that Genesis does present an event of incest between Lot and his daughters - initiated, apparently, by the daughters. And of course it also presents, just before that, the event of Lot offering his daughters to the mob in Sodom , which equally goes unpunished by God. These are obviously morally problematic acts, to put it no higher. But there in no warrant at all for saying that believers treat this, or ought to treat this, as signifying approval of the acts concerned. All the people I see drawing that conclusion are unbelievers. So is a loss of the ability to engage in thoughtful critical reading one of the hazards of unbelief? ;-)

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

In support of your interpretation, you assume that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a punishment ....

One thing here, today this would be described as a war crime. God murdered newborns, infants and children. Why have respect for such a callous entity?

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

One thing here, today this would be described as a war crime. God murdered newborns, infants and children. Why have respect for such a callous entity?

It's a story, silverharp. When you read the story, it's your prerogative, and your responsibility, as reader to determine what the story signifies. If you think that the significance of the story is to communicate to the reader the personality or characteristics of god, you might then conclude that you shouldn't have respect for such a god, or such a conception of god. That's fine.

Its just that, for obplayer, the significance of the story is what it communicates to the reader about the morality of homosexuality. For the mainstream Jewish interpretive tradition, it's about the importance of hospitality. If either of those readings (or of many others) are valid, could the role god plays have been framed in order to make the primary point? Or could the point of the story be, not what god is like, but what Lot (and his culture) thought god was like?

This story is one of a number of "texts of terror" in which god is variously presented as genocidal, murderous, bigoted, hate-filled or generaly psychopathic in one way or another. Obviously, these texts are problematic for believers, and a variety of hermeneutic(!) approaches have been adopted to engage with them.

Undoubtedly one possible approach is a simplistic literalism which says that, yes, God really does things that seem monstrously immoral, but since "moral" = "what God wants", when God does them they can't be immoral, even though they would be immoral if we did them.

But, equally obviously, there are many other approaches, and this simplistic reductionism is not the dominant approach that finds favour in either the Jewish or the Christian traditions.

The point I have been trying to get across in this exchange, though, is that there is an approach among some atheist critics of belief - apparently including yourself - which treats this approach as normative, authentic, etc. You don't criticise biblical literalists for adopting the interpretation of scripture that they do; rather you criticise the scriptures as morally indefensible, operating on the assumption that the simplistic literalist interpretation of the scriptures is valid and correct. Intellectually, you're togging out for a team that you ought to despise; you're aligning yourself with some of the notoriously most obscurantist thinkers on the planet. You and, say, Fred Phelps actually take the same approach to reading and interpreting scripture, an approach which the bulk of believers (and, I like to think, the bulk of unbelievers) regard as batsh!t insane.

Still, necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows, or something like that.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point I have been trying to get across in this exchange, though, is that there is an approach among some atheist critics of belief - apparently including yourself - which treats this approach as normative, authentic, etc. You don't criticise biblical literalists for adopting the interpretation of scripture that they do; rather you criticise the scriptures as morally indefensible, operating on the assumption that the simplistic literalist interpretation of the scriptures is valid and correct. Intellectually, you're togging out for a team that you ought to despise; you're aligning yourself with some of the notoriously most obscurantist thinkers on the planet. You and, say, Fred Phelps actually take the same approach to reading and interpreting scripture, an approach which the bulk of believers (and, I like to think, the bulk of unbelievers) regard as batsh!t insane.

Still, necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows, or something like that.

My assumption is that the bible is man made by a primitive culture so I for don't believe it contains much in the way of history except including real places or made up interactions with real cultures like the Egyptians say.
So depending on the topic I can either argue that its all made up or try to see what a believer makes of it by questioning what episode x tell them about the character of God.
One thing Im attempting to understand for myself is what believers make of the ot. So if I take say a minor incident like god telling moses to kill a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. Do they believe this actually happened? Or its just a fable and the spiritual message is to obey god? Or the Jews didn't really understand god when this stuff was written? Or some other explanation

RikuoAmero

The point I have been trying to get across in this exchange, though, is that there is an approach among some atheist critics of belief - apparently including yourself - which treats this approach as normative, authentic, etc. You don't criticise biblical literalists for adopting the interpretation of scripture that they do; rather you criticise the scriptures as morally indefensible, operating on the assumption that the simplistic literalist interpretation of the scriptures is valid and correct.

I don't know about the others, but this literalistic approach I take is because with it, I give the theist side the best possible position and then proceed to dismantle it. I give them the position that the text they cite as evidence/justification for their beliefs is true as read. That way, you don't end up doing mental gymnastics. I show them how, even in the best possible case, their position still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Jesus died for our sins? Okay, let's run with that, I'll dismantle it by showing how it doesn't make sense to be grateful to an omnipotent, immortal god being for taking what is from his point of view, a very short nap that was completely unnecessary to accomplish the stated goals.
Oh wait, that was symbolic or non literal? Then there's nothing for me to believe. There wasn't a god man who died for me, thus the threat of hell (in whatever way hell is described) holds no weight at all.

As for not criticising them for adopting the interpretation that they do...I remember myself on numerous occassions on the existence of God thread pointing just that very thing out. I remember saying to the theists that whenever I talk to a Roman Catholic, I can very easily find a Methodist or a Baptist or a Calvinist and get their interpretation and examine both and critique both.

and this simplistic reductionism is not the dominant approach that finds favour in either the Jewish or the Christian traditions.

In my view, this is because this allows the believer to believe in the nice things and not have to deal with the baggage of the obviously not-nice things. I don't find it peculiar at all that in the modern era, even the most strict orthodox Jewish communities don't practice slavery as it is described in the Torah/OT. Christians have a theological reasoning to get around that - they say Jesus somehow did away/negated/fulfilled/<insert-favoured-term-here> with the OT laws, but the strictest most orthodox Jews don't. They don't go around to the foreign nations around them buying and selling slaves.
I think it's because they realise that the world wouldn't stand for that, even if they cried "God said so!" The civilized world is doing that with ISIS, who claim that Allah said so as justification for all their acts.

You and, say, Fred Phelps actually take the same approach to reading and interpreting scripture,

I of course take umbrage at this. Fred Phelps (he's dead now, in case you haven't heard, so there's no need for you to speak about him "taking the same approach" in the present tense, as if he's still alive) believed in his god, took this one book to be the infallible word of his god and concentrated pretty much on the one thing he didn't like.
Compare that with me, where I read the whole text, and am aware of the strengths and weaknesses of both symbolic and literal interpretations. The reason I don't spend much, if any time, on the symbolic is because at it's core, there's nothing there really to attack. Any time I look at a given passage or verse and criticise it, the theist always has the option of saying "That's not what I believe it says, I believe it means something else than what it says, there's a different meaning". In other words, constant goalpost shifting. I also have to remember that when Theist A says this, any number of other theists can say the exact same thing, but say every other theist is wrong (or imply it).

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

You don't have to read too much of the OT histories to realise that all kinds of things, good, bad or morally indifferent, are narrated there, and the purpose of the narration is frequently not to point to the goodness, badness or moral indifference of the event concerned, but simply to explain or contextualise some other event, or to present a complete narrative. Contrary to what silverharp and obplayer seem to assume, there is no hermeneutical tradition, either in Christianity or in Judaism, which treats the mere narration of an event, or the narration of that event without explicit moral condemnation, as signifying moral approbation.

As for Sarai being Abram's half-sister, yes, she was (according to Genesis). But far from treating the Genesis story as signifying approval of incestuous relationships, the Jewish interpretive tradition on this point is largely devoted to considering the implications of the relationship, given that incest is not morally permissible, and indeed later in the scriptures is explicitly forbidden. In other words, the only people I see invoking this story in support of an argument for the permissibility of incest are silverharp and obplayer and yourself.

In support of your interpretation, you assume that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a punishment for "perverse sexual practices", and argue that by recording the punishment for one sexual practice and the lack of punishment for another, the scripture must be taken to imply the approval of the latter. Again, though, you can't attribute your interpretation to others. The scriptures do not say anywhere that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual practices; in fact it is stated flatly in Ezekiel that they were destroyed for arrogance, greed, indifference to the needs of others and inhospitality. You are choosing to focus on a contrast between homosexual rape and incestuous rape, while the contrast that the scriptures explicitly point to is between the hospitality shown by Abraham versus the inhospitality shown by Sodom.

It's undeniable that Genesis does present an event of incest between Lot and his daughters - initiated, apparently, by the daughters. And of course it also presents, just before that, the event of Lot offering his daughters to the mob in Sodom , which equally goes unpunished by God. These are obviously morally problematic acts, to put it no higher. But there in no warrant at all for saying that believers treat this, or ought to treat this, as signifying approval of the acts concerned. All the people I see drawing that conclusion are unbelievers. So is a loss of the ability to engage in thoughtful critical reading one of the hazards of unbelief? ;-)

Ok, so we are not to take the OT literally but to learn from the stories it tells. Well what I have learned is that while sodomy is bad, incest, rape, slavery, mass murder and genocide are all fine and dandy. I think I prefer Little Red Riding Hood as a metaphorical story.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, so we are not to take the OT literally but to learn from the stories it tells. Well what I have learned is that while sodomy is bad, incest, rape, slavery, mass murder and genocide are all fine and dandy. I think I prefer Little Red Riding Hood as a metaphorical story.

I think you missed the initial point then; just because something isn't explicitly condemned doesn't necessarily mean it's condoned.
An absence of zapping doesn't have to convey approval, I think is what was being said?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I think you missed the initial point then; just because something isn't explicitly condemned doesn't necessarily mean it's condoned.
An absence of zapping doesn't have to convey approval, I think is what was being said?

In fairness pick a topic and you find rewarding and condemning or simple shrugging of shoulders. See below for an example of God going all ISIS on war captives. Its not really a moral God



It's OK to have sex with "women children" that are obtained in war.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, so we are not to take the OT literally but to learn from the stories it tells. Well what I have learned is that while sodomy is bad, incest, rape, slavery, mass murder and genocide are all fine and dandy. I think I prefer Little Red Riding Hood as a metaphorical story.

Well, interpretation is the reader's prerogative, ob. If that's how you read the Judeo-Christian scripture, that tells us more about you than it does about the scriptures, I'm afraid. But if you want to use the scriptures to criticise or attack beleivers, you have to do so on the basis of what they make of the scriptures, not on the basis of what you make of them.

All you have demonstrated so far is that biblical literalism, and the mindset which leads to it, is found among unbeleivers as well as among believers, which is probably not a point you want to make or, still worse, exemplify.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

In fairness pick a topic and you find rewarding and condemning or simple shrugging of shoulders. See below for an example of God going all ISIS on war captives. Its not really a moral God It's OK to have sex with "women children" that are obtained in war.

So... since we're aware that there are instances of behaviour being explicitly condoned in the bible, we can determine that failing to condemn isn't condoning, as finding instances of explicit condoning implies that where condoning occurs it is explicit rather than implied? Fair enough. Not that I'm attributing that logic to anyone who lives by the bible, but I'd agree that they're more likely to go with that perspective than the one offered by obplayer and yourself. Except for the more out of the box thinkers, as Peregrinus has pointed out. Which I guess just shows it takes all sorts, even amongst the religious

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, interpretation is the reader's prerogative, ob. If that's how you read the Judeo-Christian scripture, that tells us more about you than it does about the scriptures, I'm afraid. But if you want to use the scriptures to criticise or attack beleivers, you have to do so on the basis of what they make of the scriptures, not on the basis of what you make of them.

All you have demonstrated so far is that biblical literalism, and the mindset which leads to it, is found among unbeleivers as well as among believers, which is probably not a point you want to make or, still worse, exemplify.

but what you make of them now is not that important, its more important to understand what the people who wrote the OT were thinking.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

So... since we're aware that there are instances of behaviour being explicitly condoned in the bible, we can determine that failing to condemn isn't condoning, as finding instances of explicit condoning implies that where condoning occurs it is explicit rather than implied? Fair enough. Not that I'm attributing that logic to anyone who lives by the bible, but I'd agree that they're more likely to go with that perspective than the one offered by obplayer and yourself. Except for the more out of the box thinkers, as Peregrinus has pointed out. Which I guess just shows it takes all sorts, even amongst the religious

If the book is no more than a bunch of 3 little piggy stories with occassional nuggets of wisdom , thats fine I dont care. If the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind and by implication people will use to try to effect things in the real world, I care. As I see it the OT is a collection of musings and local lore from a backward civilisation and is no more useful then putting together a bunch of writings from religious people in Afghanastan today.

Brian Shanahan

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, so we are not to take the OT literally but to learn from the stories it tells. Well what I have learned is that while sodomy is bad, incest, rape, slavery, mass murder and genocide are all fine and dandy. I think I prefer Little Red Riding Hood as a metaphorical story.

It always amazes me the way christians have such facility for taking the bible literally when they want the literal meaning to be enforced, and taking it allegorically when the absurdity of the passage is pointed out to them. Quite often you see them take both approaches to the exact same passage! The cognitive dissonance must surely be giving them massive migraines.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, interpretation is the reader's prerogative, ob. If that's how you read the Judeo-Christian scripture, that tells us more about you than it does about the scriptures, I'm afraid. But if you want to use the scriptures to criticise or attack beleivers, you have to do so on the basis of what they make of the scriptures, not on the basis of what you make of them.

All you have demonstrated so far is that biblical literalism, and the mindset which leads to it, is found among unbeleivers as well as among believers, which is probably not a point you want to make or, still worse, exemplify.

Well what I stated is pretty well backed up by the OT. What does the OT teach you? Give us the verses and the moral learning's you have taken from them please and we can discuss.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

If the book is no more than a bunch of 3 little piggy stories with occassional nuggets of wisdom , thats fine I dont care. If the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind and by implication people will use to try to effect things in the real world, I care.

Why care? If you don't believe in God in the first place, you're hardly under an obligation to believe any part of the bible is somehow tapping into God's mind. Whether or not it's true won't change the fact that people will use it to justify their actions, and it seems unlikely an atheist telling them they must believe it says one thing, when they already know they believe it says another, is going to change their minds?

silverharp wrote: »

As I see it the OT is a collection of musings and local lore from a backward civilisation and is no more useful then putting together a bunch of writings from religious people in Afghanastan today.

Which is all very well and good, but doesn't really give you any particular credibility when you pontificate on the meaning of the contents?

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

but what you make of them now is not that important, its more important to understand what the people who wrote the OT were thinking.

Why would you think that was the important thing? Serious question. Judaism and Christianity as we encounter them today are clearly based much more on what contemporary believers take from the scriptures, not on what the original authors intended when they produced the text.

For example, it's entirely possible that the people who first wrote down the creation story in Genesis understood it to be a more-or-less historically accurate account of the origins of humanity, for example. But, then, they didn't have the insights we have based on the findings of geology, archaeology, etc, so we wouldn't pass the same judgment about their creationism as we would about modern creationism. \

The intentions and understandings of the original authors, editors, etc, in so far as we can divine them, may be interesting, but I don't see that they're all that important. Christianity and Judaism today have very little to do with that.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It always amazes me the way christians have such facility for taking the bible literally when they want the literal meaning to be enforced, and taking it allegorically when the absurdity of the passage is pointed out to them. Quite often you see them take both approaches to the exact same passage! The cognitive dissonance must surely be giving them massive migraines.

Which do you think is the more likely;
1) That none of the hundreds of thousands of scholars over the last couple of thousand years have managed to come up with a rationale for the inconsistencies in their faith which doesn't require adherants to engage in 'cognitive dissonance' sufficient to give the majority of the planet massive migraines, and all religious people are currently in extreme pain and have been for many centuries.
2) You haven't looked into the rationales sufficiently to understand them?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would you think that was the important thing? Serious question. Judaism and Christianity as we encounter them today are clearly based much more on what contemporary believers take from the scriptures, not on what the original authors intended when they produced the text.

For example, it's entirely possible that the people who first wrote down the creation story in Genesis understood it to be a more-or-less historically accurate account of the origins of humanity, for example. But, then, they didn't have the insights we have based on the findings of geology, archaeology, etc, so we wouldn't pass the same judgment about their creationism as we would about modern creationism. \

The intentions and understandings of the original authors, editors, etc, in so far as we can divine them, may be interesting, but I don't see that they're all that important. Christianity and Judaism today have very little to do with that.

But this isn't a philosophy book , if you believed that the people wrote the book were just of another man made religion similar to the Greeks or Egyptians you wouldn't be christian right?
So I want to put it to you that the ot should demonstrate the true revealed character of god. Now I can't tell how much of the ot you imagine to be true , Moses might never actually have existed for instance but that's a minor point but i would expect the ot to show the true nature of god in the same way as the nt does with Jesus.
The ot appears to show a primitive god as a primitive people might imagine such a god . it does not show a universal god who wanted contact with its creation. Hence no reason to give it any more respect that the musings of an amazonian people

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Why care? If you don't believe in God in the first place, you're hardly under an obligation to believe any part of the bible is somehow tapping into God's mind. Whether or not it's true won't change the fact that people will use it to justify their actions, and it seems unlikely an atheist telling them they must believe it says one thing, when they already know they believe it says another, is going to change their minds?
Which is all very well and good, but doesn't really give you any particular credibility when you pontificate on the meaning of the contents?

But society ought not base systems on things that arent real. Anymore then one should repair a car using a Lego manual.
I think the decline in the catholic church here and other churches around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would you think that was the important thing? Serious question. Judaism and Christianity as we encounter them today are clearly based much more on what contemporary believers take from the scriptures, not on what the original authors intended when they produced the text.

For example, it's entirely possible that the people who first wrote down the creation story in Genesis understood it to be a more-or-less historically accurate account of the origins of humanity, for example. But, then, they didn't have the insights we have based on the findings of geology, archaeology, etc, so we wouldn't pass the same judgment about their creationism as we would about modern creationism. \

The intentions and understandings of the original authors, editors, etc, in so far as we can divine them, may be interesting, but I don't see that they're all that important. Christianity and Judaism today have very little to do with that.

Then why bother with the Bible at all?

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

But this isn't a philosophy book , if you believed that the people wrote the book were just of another man made religion similar to the Greeks or Egyptians you wouldn't be christian right?

Actually I think it is a philosophy book, in large part, but let that pass. I want to pick up on a slightly different point. Your question here suggests that you think it’s taking the Bible as something more than just another philosophy book which makes someone Christian (or Jewish).

I suggest that it’s better to think of it as being the other way around. People don’t become Christian from regarding the bible as especially important or authoritative. Rather, they regard the Bible as important/authoritative because they are Christian.

silverharp wrote: »

So I want to put it to you that the ot should demonstrate the true revealed character of god. Now I can't tell how much of the ot you imagine to be true , Moses might never actually have existed for instance but that's a minor point but i would expect the ot to show the true nature of god in the same way as the nt does with Jesus.
The ot appears to show a primitive god as a primitive people might imagine such a god . it does not show a universal god who wanted contact with its creation. Hence no reason to give it any more respect that the musings of an amazonian people

I’m going to quarrel with both of your assertions here.

First, I don’t think the bible shows “a true picture of God” in the sense that you can take a particular bible verse, or bible story, or even bible book and say, right, that’s it, that’s an accurate presentation of what God is like. Remember the Bible contains about 70 distinct books, written by different people at different times. Probably about 3,000 years separates the oldest of the bible texts as we have them today from the youngest, but those texts are themselves the product of preceding texts which were edited, combined, redacted, etc, and they in turn are the outcome of still older oral traditions in which stories seen as important or foundational were preserved and handed down. So the material in the bible probably represents understandings, insights, etc arrived at and built up over a period of - what, five thousand years? Ten thousand years? A very long time, anyway.

Secondly, I wouldn’t agree that the OT shows us “a primitive god”, and not “a universal god who wanted contact with his creation”. It shows both, surely? There are some passages that make god look very primitive indeed, and very much a tribal god, while others make him look very universal, and very much engaged with his creation.

What Christians (and Jews, but I’m going to stop adding that in all the time) see in the Bible is not a series of neat stories about God which can be taken individually and simplistically, but a long series of texts which reflect a slowly growing relationship with, and understanding of, god.

So, for example at one time god is seen as a nature god who sends storms and lightning and floods (and, of course, The Flood). But at a later stage there’s a different understanding that, actually, this is not what God is like. So the flood story gets edited to include a final covenant in which god promises not to send floods, and the First Book of Kings has a passage recording the prophet Elijah looking for god in the storm, and in the flood, and in the fire and not finding him in any of those places before hearing god internally in “a still small voice”. What’s captured here is a transition from an understanding of god as a nature god to an immanent god, a god encountered through reflection and reason, an interior voice.

Similarly, in Genesis Abraham cheerfully heads off to sacrifice his son Isaac at the apparent command of God, but God intervenes to prevent the human sacrifice and substitute an animal sacrifice. And later passages in scripture make it clear that the Israelites developed an abhorrence for human sacrifice (as practiced by their neighours), and in a still later passage god is explicitly said to desire not sacrifice, but mercy. What’s captured here is the development over time of an understanding on the part of the Israelites that god does not want human sacrifice - an understanding which, perhaps, at one time they did not have.

Etc, etc. So, no, you can’t just take the story of Sodom, say, and say that the Bible teaches us that God is a genocidal psychopath. (Or, at any rate, that’s not the reading you have to take out of the bible, though obviously if you are motivated to take that reading out of it you can do so.) What you can say is that the bible presents that perspective on god, but also presents competing perspectives, in the way it captures the slowly developing understanding of God by the Jewish, and later the Christian, communities.

obplayer wrote: »

Then why bother with the Bible at all?

A very good question. And I go back to what I said to Silverharp above - there’s no reason why you would bother with the Bible, unless you are already a Christian, or feel drawn to Christianity, or are at least interested for some reason in exploring/understanding Christianity.

I seriously doubt that anybody who approaches the bible with a blank slate and an open mind, so to speak, reads the Bible and says “Gosh! Yes! That’s it!” and rushes off to seek baptism. Well, possibly a few people have done that over the years, but I suspect vanishingly few. Most people who read the Bible and treat is as normative or authoritative are Christian, and that’s usually because they were reared in that faith, or they adopted it for some reason other than feeling that they had to treat the Bible as authoritative.

We’re in the A&A forum where, obviously, most boardies are not Christian, no discussion proceeds on the assumption that Christian beliefs should be treated as valid or normative, and anybody making that assumption will attract only ridicule. All of which is fair enough. It’s never been my intention to suggest to anybody on this board that they should treat the Bible as authoritative/inspired/whatever; just that if they are going to criticise Christianity by reference to its reliance on the Bible, they have to take some account of exactly what reliance Christians place on the bible. If you - not you personally, ob, but the generic “you” - can only read the Sodom story as the story of a pyschopathic god, that doesn’t tell us that Christians must believe in a psychopathic god, or that they must engage in cognitive dissonance to avoid doing so. It only tells us that they may be capable of a more sophisticated and nuanced reading than you are bringing to bear.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, I don’t think the bible shows “a true picture of God” in the sense that you can take a particular bible verse, or bible story, or even bible book and say, right, that’s it, that’s an accurate presentation of what God is like. Remember the Bible contains about 70 distinct books, written by different people at different times. Probably about 3,000 years separates the oldest of the bible texts as we have them today from the youngest, but those texts are themselves the product of preceding texts which were edited, combined, redacted, etc, and they in turn are the outcome of still older oral traditions in which stories seen as important or foundational were preserved and handed down. So the material in the bible probably represents understandings, insights, etc arrived at and built up over a period of - what, five thousand years? Ten thousand years? A very long time, anyway.

Not that it matters much but I thought from references I read that the it was written from a period starting around 1000BCE and of course an oral tradition could go back before that. but so far we are still in the realm of Finn MacCool

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, I wouldn’t agree that the OT shows us “a primitive god”, and not “a universal god who wanted contact with his creation”. It shows both, surely? There are some passages that make god look very primitive indeed, and very much a tribal god, while others make him look very universal, and very much engaged with his creation.

What Christians (and Jews, but I’m going to stop adding that in all the time) see in the Bible is not a series of neat stories about God which can be taken individually and simplistically, but a long series of texts which reflect a slowly growing relationship with, and understanding of, god.

So, for example at one time god is seen as a nature god who sends storms and lightning and floods (and, of course, The Flood). But at a later stage there’s a different understanding that, actually, this is not what God is like. So the flood story gets edited to include a final covenant in which god promises not to send floods, and the First Book of Kings has a passage recording the prophet Elijah looking for god in the storm, and in the flood, and in the fire and not finding him in any of those places before hearing god internally in “a still small voice”. What’s captured here is a transition from an understanding of god as a nature god to an immanent god, a god encountered through reflection and reason, an interior voice.

Similarly, in Genesis Abraham cheerfully heads off to sacrifice his son Isaac at the apparent command of God, but God intervenes to prevent the human sacrifice and substitute an animal sacrifice. And later passages in scripture make it clear that the Israelites developed an abhorrence for human sacrifice (as practiced by their neighours), and in a still later passage god is explicitly said to desire not sacrifice, but mercy. What’s captured here is the development over time of an understanding on the part of the Israelites that god does not want human sacrifice - an understanding which, perhaps, at one time they did not have.

Etc, etc. So, no, you can’t just take the story of Sodom, say, and say that the Bible teaches us that God is a genocidal psychopath. (Or, at any rate, that’s not the reading you have to take out of the bible, though obviously if you are motivated to take that reading out of it you can do so.) What you can say is that the bible presents that perspective on god, but also presents competing perspectives, in the way it captures the slowly developing understanding of God by the Jewish, and later the Christian, communities.

The way to see it possibly if you want to see progression is that the culture became more sophisticated. But again if you were to send a camera back in time , do you believe you would see any of this stuff happening? Was there in your view actual 2 way conversations and "visable" intervententions between god and these people? Otherwise it is just a culture imagining its relationship with God which was par for the course back then and essentially was a one way conversation.

RikuoAmero

silverharp wrote: »

Not that it matters much but I thought from references I read that the it was written from a period starting around 1000BCE and of course an oral tradition could go back before that. but so far we are still in the realm of Finn MacCool






The way to see it possibly if you want to see progression is that the culture became more sophisticated. But again if you were to send a camera back in time , do you believe you would see any of this stuff happening? Was there in your view actual 2 way conversations and "visable" intervententions between god and these people? Otherwise it is just a culture imagining its relationship with God which was par for the course back then and essentially was a one way conversation.

This is how I think of it too. I of course fully understand the symbolic interpretation. Thing is, if we go down that route, then eventually more and more of the bible becomes not interpreted as "These things happened as they are written". It eventually becomes just a book/collection of books on philosophies and thinking that don't contain anything that can be described as having literally happened.
Think of it this way. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who read Frank Herbert's Dune series. It's an excellent story in my opinion. It contains Herbert's thoughts on economics and religion, which have shaped my own outlook on life. One thing I took from the story was to always be wary of religious prophets, especially those who are self-ordained and who claim to speak with/for a divine being, no matter how fantastical they may seem to be. Reliance on a prophet to do your thinking for you robs you of your own mental faculties, reduces you to a simpering sycophant.
Now, the lessons I learned from reading Dune are not reliant on the Dune story being true as it is written. The wariness of prophets doesn't rely on there being an actual Paul Muad'Dib, or an actual God Emperor Leto II.
Compare that with Christianity, and many, if not most of the teachings and philosophies, require that at least some of the Bible be true as it is written. How many times in the New Testament are we told to have a relationship with the living God, in the personage of Jesus Christ? I remember seeing on the bus a poster many times saying something along the lines of "If Christ be not Risen, then our faith is in vain". In other words, for the typical Christian, the philosophies and outlook they have on life depend on this one specific fellow, Jesus, being God incarnate, and having died on the cross and resurrected after three days. They cite Jesus apparently having resurrected as being the reason why we should pay attention to what he is attributed as having taught.
Whereas we skeptics (at least I hope it's not just me here) realise that well thought out teachings succeed on their own merits, and rely not at all on a specific person. We've heard from many Christians on the existence of God thread that apparently, there's more ancient documents talking about Jesus, than there are for Socrates, and yet we (the skeptics) don't believe Socrates never existed. The point they are blind to there is that Socrate's philosophies are still worth talking about even if it's proven tomorrow beyond a doubt that Socrates himself was made up.
Jesus's arn't. Too many of them rely on "You should do X, Y and Z, not because they make sense in and of themselves, but because I am the Son of God and I say so". In other words, pure argument from authority.

Brian Shanahan

silverharp wrote: »

Not that it matters much but I thought from references I read that the it was written from a period starting around 1000BCE and of course an oral tradition could go back before that. but so far we are still in the realm of Finn MacCool

Most of the old testament bible was written after the Babylonian Captivity, so between 500BCE and about 150BCE (there were holy books written after 150BCE but they were never accepted into Jewish canon). That is the reason why so much of Jewish mythology (especially genesis and exodus) is blatantly stolen from Babylonian mythology, and is also the point at which Judaism went from being a polytheistic/henotheistic (the latter is where you worship one god only but believe in others) religion to the monotheistic one we know today. This is clearly shown when you look at the older Semitic derived parts of the bible, the ones passed down as oral tradition, they describe yhwh as one god among many, quite often only equal to or lesser than the other gods (such as baal and molech).

The Jewish religious foundation, as we know it today, is actually not that much older (probably 300 years) than the christian religious foundation.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

But society ought not base systems on things that arent real.

Is that your justification for caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or for claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it, or both? In all three cases it seems pretty weak, don't you think?

silverharp wrote: »

Anymore then one should repair a car using a Lego manual.

But if I'm repairing my car using a Lego manual, and you haven't bothered to learn if my car is a Lego car or not, you can see how telling me that might be a bit annoying?

silverharp wrote: »

I think the decline in the catholic church here and other churches around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence

And yet there are more religious people than non religious people both here and around the world. Do you think the religious people have access to less evidence than non religious?

silverharp

@Rikuo ,i hadn't considered the particular angle of depending on prophets . I'd imagine they "make sense" in a religion where you have to tap into a "force" like impersonal entity so there are "reasons" why only certain individuals with the right stuff are able to make contact.

Flip to Christianity and we have a god that can count the heirs on your head yet was only interested in the inhabitants of one minor culture in the middle east and within that limited himself to conducting business through prophets.
One question comes to mind, was contact alleged to have been continuous from say 200, 000 years ago? And what is the back story for why didnt other cultures from around the world get their own prophets if this is the preferred model of contact? Humans have been in asia for 70,000 years which is before any complex language or any form of writing so to be universal the deity would need to have kept contact with them.
The western bias is to suggest that eastern religions have gods that were clearly made up. In reality the origins of Christianity are equally absurd.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Is that your justification for caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or for claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it, or both? In all three cases it seems pretty weak, don't you think?
But if I'm repairing my car using a Lego manual, and you haven't bothered to learn if my car is a Lego car or not, you can see how telling me that might be a bit annoying?
And yet there are more religious people than non religious people both here and around the world. Do you think the religious people have access to less evidence than non religious?

The ot is a very flawed moral document. One can justify slavery , homophobia from it for example .

Science is enough to go on that we are not "Lego" cars. Being homosexual for instance is not a moral failing yet the bible suggests that it is. Epilepsy is not demonic possession , do you worry about being given the evil eye?

I don't underestimate the power of indoctronation , especially in backward countries. A country like Ireland is in transition.

RikuoAmero

silverharp wrote: »

@Rikuo ,i hadn't considered the particular angle of depending on prophets . I'd imagine they "make sense" in a religion where you have to tap into a "force" like impersonal entity so there are "reasons" why only certain individuals with the right stuff are able to make contact.

Flip to Christianity and we have a god that can count the heirs on your head yet was only interested in the inhabitants of one minor culture in the middle east and within that limited himself to conducting business through prophets.
One question comes to mind, was contact alleged to have been continuous from say 200, 000 years ago? And what is the back story for why didnt other cultures from around the world get their own prophets if this is the preferred model of contact? Humans have been in asia for 70,000 years which is before any complex language or any form of writing so to be universal the deity would need to have kept contact with them.
The western bias is to suggest that eastern religions have gods that were clearly made up. In reality the origins of Christianity are equally absurd.

Have you read/watched Dune? If you have, take a watch of this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk2015w1atg
Pay particular attention to what he's saying at about 2:20 as he's handing over the ring.
Each major religion today (excluding Hinduism for which I am not aware espouses a particular individual) traces its origin to a specific individual who claimed to speak for a divine authority. Judaism had Abraham and Moses (the existence of whom are in doubt), Christianity has Jesus (ditto) and Islam, Muhammed.
Each one of them is attributed as claiming to be able to communicate with a divine authority (or in Jesus's case, to be that divine authority) and thus, all their teachings should be upheld. For lack of a better term, let's use the word prophet.
Throughout history, I am able to see the destruction caused when people believe in a particular prophet and invest in that person infallible authority. Instead of thinking for themselves, they hand it over to this person.

Within the context of the Dune story, Paul Muad'Dib and Leto II can be argued as being legitimate fulfilments of prophecy (they were called Kwisatz Haderach). However, in the books, both are shown thinking and talking about how terrible it is that they are imbued by the people with infallible power. I remember from Dune Messiah Paul, who is now the focus of a galaxy wide relgion, ridiculing one of his priests for being so focused on ritual and ceremony.
Later in the story, Leto II takes control of the galaxy wide empire and sets himself up as the *worst tyrant in history*, all to teach a lesson that humanity will remember in its bones. Unless I read it completely wrong, that lesson was that people should never follow a prophet, even if they demonstrate great powers like Leto did (super strength, super speed and control over the giant sand worms).
When I read that and applied this lesson to Christianity, I found that I simply could not justify following Jesus's teachings even if the stories and miracles were actually true. Just because he rose from the dead doesn't mean then that I should lobby against homosexual marriage for instance. Just because Leto had super strength doesn't mean that the empire should have tolerated his oppressive regime.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

The ot is a very flawed moral document. One can justify slavery , homophobia from it for example .

I don't think that justifies caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or for claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it, or both, either though, does it?

silverharp wrote: »

Science is enough to go on that we are not "Lego" cars.

So when I'm fixing my lego car, and you tell me not to use my lego manual, you're justified by saying 'it's science' rather than 'it's god's law'? That seems a little bit off to be honest....

silverharp wrote: »

Being homosexual for instance is not a moral failing yet the bible suggests that it is. Epilepsy is not demonic possession , do you worry about being given the evil eye?

Do either of those have anything to do with lego cars, or comdemnation fails, or tapping into god's mind? Or are we just listing things we think are wrong? Because I think most men can't carry off wearing pink, especially rugby players, but all these fashion people keep telling them they can. Do you think if I had the evil eye I could use it to fix this?

silverharp wrote: »

I don't underestimate the power of indoctronation , especially in backward countries. A country like Ireland is in transition.

Indeed! So... there are more religious people than non religious people both here and around the world (notwithstanding the fact that many parts of the world are, and probably often have been, in transition). Do you think the religious people have access to less evidence than non religious?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think that justifies caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or for claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it, or both, either though, does it?

So when I'm fixing my lego car, and you tell me not to use my lego manual, you're justified by saying 'it's science' rather than 'it's god's law'? That seems a little bit off to be honest....

Do either of those have anything to do with lego cars, or comdemnation fails, or tapping into god's mind? Or are we just listing things we think are wrong? Because I think most men can't carry off wearing pink, especially rugby players, but all these fashion people keep telling them they can. Do you think if I had the evil eye I could use it to fix this?
Indeed! So... there are more religious people than non religious people both here and around the world (notwithstanding the fact that many parts of the world are, and probably often have been, in transition). Do you think the religious people have access to less evidence than non religious?

I'll make the assertion that a deity in contact with its people ought to demonstrate an inspired presentation of moral ideals . or if the deity was in anyway compassionate some decent medical advice which would have saved millions of people, for instance basic hygiene rules where a primitive people could not know about bacteria or viruses.
Chtistisnty sells a personal and perfect deity yet no evidence is presented above and beyond what a civilisation of the time could have invented itself or borrowered from other cultures.
I might get a bit lost with my own lego manual anology but I am certainly right to get annoyed if my mechanic tries to use a munual on me or my kids.

People do have access to more information, do they choose to look st it is a question each individual needs to answer. I' imagine that by the time someone gets to their 40' s they ain't going to be questioning do much . this decade and the last is the first time questioning teens have the world at their finger tips.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I'll make the assertion that a deity in contact with its people ought to demonstrate an inspired presentation of moral ideals .

Surely that depends on the deity. Nor does it yet justify any of the statements you've put forward.

silverharp wrote: »

or if the deity was in anyway compassionate some decent medical advice which would have saved millions of people, for instance basic hygiene rules where a primitive people could not know about bacteria or viruses.

So the fact that the god doesn't give advice you think it should justifies what you've said? I really don't think so.

silverharp wrote: »

Chtistisnty sells a personal and perfect deity yet no evidence is presented above and beyond what a civilisation of the time could have invented itself or borrowered from other cultures.

And......?

silverharp wrote: »

I might get a bit lost with my own lego manual anology but I am certainly right to get annoyed if my mechanic tries to use a munual on me or my kids.

You might be more annoyed if your doctor didn't refer to medical texts when treating your or you kids though?

silverharp wrote: »

People do have access to more information, do they choose to look st it is a question each individual needs to answer. I' imagine that by the time someone gets to their 40' s they ain't going to be questioning do much . this decade and the last is the first time questioning teens have the world at their finger tips.

Ah, so only young people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence? But wait... there's no reason to believe there aren't more religious young people than non religious young people both here and around the world. Do you think the religious young people have access to less evidence than non religious? And, you do realise that people in their 40s were also young once. Why weren't they swayed by evidence or lack of evidence then?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Surely that depends on the deity. Nor does it yet justify any of the statements you've put forward.

indeed. I'd look at what believers have to say about the deity and test against reality from there. Christianity presents a god that gives moral codes, if I examine these moral codes they appear to be of the time, there is nothing in it that there was a god looking at them from the outside in giving them a superior and correct moral code that would help mankind.

Absolam wrote: »

So the fact that the god doesn't give advice you think it should justifies what you've said? I really don't think so..... And......?

not strictly , if the god shows a lack of interest in such things which is consistent with the rest of the theology then my expectation would be different. Christianity is marketed as presenting a god that can help people, believers get excited about healing miracles right? So I do think it is inconsistent that neither the OT or NT present a God that didnt have the slightest interest in revealing some facts that would have helped "his people"

Absolam wrote: »

Ah, so only young people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence? But wait... there's no reason to believe there aren't more religious young people than non religious young people both here and around the world. Do you think the religious young people have access to less evidence than non religious? And, you do realise that people in their 40s were also young once. Why weren't they swayed by evidence or lack of evidence then?

Early conditioning is powerful , why do you think that the catholic church fights tooth and nail to stay in Irish schools or why US evangelicals want to get in schools there? They know the gig would be up if they had to present their case to adults. So Im pretty sure there will still be christian churches in a thousand years time there will just be a lot less people believing in it.
I checked my local catholic church time table, when I was a kid there was an hourly mass from 8.30 to 12.30 , its now gone down from 5 to 3 masses on a sunday and i'm betting the age profile has increased as well and less people per service.
Its possible that people will hang on to some wishy washy version of god but Id wager that the desire to have these beliefs guiding politics or being the main distinction in how schools are run will drop.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

indeed. I'd look at what believers have to say about the deity and test against reality from there. Christianity presents a god that gives moral codes, if I examine these moral codes they appear to be of the time, there is nothing in it that there was a god looking at them from the outside in giving them a superior and correct moral code that would help mankind.

Sooo.... how does that justify caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it?

silverharp wrote: »

not strictly , if the god shows a lack of interest in such things which is consistent with the rest of the theology then my expectation would be different.

So why bring it up when answering the question?

silverharp wrote: »

Early conditioning is powerful , why do you think that the catholic church fights tooth and nail to stay in Irish schools or why US evangelicals want to get in schools there? They know the gig would be up if they had to present their case to adults. So Im pretty sure there will still be christian churches in a thousand years time there will just be a lot less people believing in it.

So, since you're asserting that only young people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence, do you think the religious young people have access to less evidence than non religious? And, why weren't older people swayed by evidence or lack of evidence when they were young people?

silverharp wrote: »

Its possible that people will hang on to some wishy washy version of god but Id wager that the desire to have these beliefs guiding politics or being the main distinction in how schools are run will drop.

Would you wager that has anything whatsoever to do with claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Sooo.... how does that justify caring that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (even though you don't believe in God), or claiming that failing to condemn something is the same as condoning it?

I m getting a bit bored of multi parced posts where you just keep repeating questions. feel free to say why my post in incorrect, offer your opinion and we can continue

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I m getting a bit bored of multi parced posts where you just keep repeating questions. feel free to say why my post in incorrect, offer your opinion and we can continue

Sure; I can see you're finding it difficult to actually justify what you post.

So. Claiming that something that is mentioned in the bible without condemnation means it is approved of (by god/the church/religious people) is a nonsense. You wouldn't apply that standard to any other text; applying it only to a religious text in order to provide yourself with something to disapprove of is simply dishonest.
Pretending that you care about the contents of the bible simply because you think it is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind, when you don't believe in God, is at best disingenuous; if you don't believe in God what possible relevance can tapping into his mind have for you.
Claiming that religious decline around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence shows a disregard for critical thought on a par with any religious fundamentalist.

Feel free to continue.

marienbad

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; I can see you're finding it difficult to actually justify what you post.

So. Claiming that something that is mentioned in the bible without condemnation means it is approved of (by god/the church/religious people) is a nonsense. You wouldn't apply that standard to any other text; applying it only to a religious text in order to provide yourself with something to disapprove of is simply dishonest.
Pretending that you care about the contents of the bible simply because you think it is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind, when you don't believe in God, is at best disingenuous; if you don't believe in God what possible relevance can tapping into his mind have for you.
Claiming that religious decline around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence shows a disregard for critical thought on a par with any religious fundamentalist.

Feel free to continue.

Completely invalid line of argument, religion has every relevance whether one believes it or not - that is the whole point.

A child must be baptised to get in to the nearest school, a woman loses her life because the doctors have to consult the lawyers , a gay teacher hides his/her sexuality because they can be fired from their job for just being gay.

Need I go on ? If religion was content to keep to its own followers non believers wouldn't give a toss , it would be just another curiosity like train spotting or opera or chess . But when religion demands that its tenets are incorporated into the laws of the land ,then we have a problem.