Cyclical authority of holy books

Schuhart · 09-12-2007 04:35PM

PDN wrote: »

At no point in this process did I ever receive a letter, phone call, or indeed any other communication from the producers of the book that led me to view the book as authoritative.

An excellent post and honest post, which I think reflects the clear thinking you’ve brought to these discussions.

The thought that occurs to me, again, is the way that believers and unbelievers can be talking about two different things. Many atheists (I’m thinking in particular of the line of argument represented by Dawkins) concentrate on the credibility of the God concept, as if this is the bedrock of religion. However, as I think is reflected in your post, belief in God is a consequence of some other process.

I think where the divergence of opinion should come is in the perception of this process. I know you’ve put forward a sort of developmental approach – the fact of religion doing good and true things in some circumstances leading to a trust that it does good and true things in places that you are not certain.

From the atheist perspective, I think the fear is that religion is a bit like a hire-purchase agreement. The initial costs per week seem utterly reasonable for the unmistakable good of a fine car under your butt, but it’s only a sweetener that ties us in to the crippling balloon payment later in the process.

Plus (for me) it involves the saddening thought that humans function best when believing something which, at the end of the day, is most likely not true.

pH · 09-12-2007 05:01PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Not that I believe in this but the angel told Joseph Smith where the golden plates were, he didn't give Joseph the plates.

Typical of what we see here on these forums - the the theist's ability/desire to dig into the irrelevant minutiae while leaving the bigger issue untouched.

Because of the lost 116 pages, Smith said that between July and September 1828, the angel Moroni took back possession of the plates and the Urim and Thummim as a penalty for "delivering the manuscript into the hands of a wicked man".[89] The angel is said to have returned them to Smith in Harmony again on September 22, 1828, the autumn equinox and the anniversary of the day he first received the plates.[90]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates

Now let us have a pointless detailed debate on what constitutes an 'angel', and maybe the definitions of the words 'leading' and 'give' while leaving aside the broader question - how can you accept the bible as the word of God and yet reject the Book of Mormon?

SubjectSean · 09-12-2007 05:42PM

Talon1977 wrote: »

His statement of one of my lines of reasoning with regard to the Bible's inerrant nature is accurate enough, but it's only one point in a long list of reasons I believe it is what it says it is - the true and infallible Word of God.

Presumably then if you are shown that the text of the NT has been added to, or subtracted from, by the hands of men you will then abandon this position?

Here is one such redaction for you to be going on with that was discovered by Issac Newton. In the King James Version of the NT John 1 5:7 reads

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This support for the doctrine of the trinity is entirely missing from the earliest Greek manuscripts and appears in later latin versions firstly as an inclusion in the margin and then later incorporated into the text.

Here we can clearly see that the unavoidable truth that the Bible has been altered by the hands of men, something that you say cannot happen.

philologos · 09-12-2007 05:46PM

pH wrote: »

how can you accept the bible as the word of God and yet reject the Book of Mormon?

Let me tackle it then.

1) I'm not acquainted with the Book of Mormon
2) The Book of Mormon is only an addition to the Bible so therefore I would either have to accept both, or reject the Book of Mormon.
3) There are notable theological differences between the Church of the LDS and my own church the Church of Ireland.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 09-12-2007 06:03PM

so the reason you're sure your version of christianity is the right one for you is that it's the one you're most familiar with?

philologos · 09-12-2007 06:15PM

Mordeth wrote: »

so the reason you're sure your version of christianity is the right one for you is that it's the one you're most familiar with?

No. It suits my interpretatation. The COI has 39 Articles of Faith on their website: http://ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=14

pH · 09-12-2007 06:36PM

Jakkass wrote: »

No. It suits my interpretatation. The COI has 39 Articles of Faith on their website: http://ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=14

So you're familiar with it and it suits you - therefore it must be right - yes that makes perfect sense all right.

philologos · 09-12-2007 07:07PM

pH wrote: »

So you're familiar with it and it suits you - therefore it must be right - yes that makes perfect sense all right.

Did I say that?

If I did fair dues to you, but if I didn't I would advise you not to be so smart. I was answering Mordeth not your original question.

There are numerous other reasons why I believe in the Bible. The figures are actually historically correct, Xerxes, Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great (Maccabees), among others such as Herod Antipas. The events are probable in my opinion anyway, that is always subject to debate. In addition to this there is a lot of historical basis for Jesus Christ as a figure, it's probably futile in terms of an argument to deny that Jesus Christ did exist given the writings of Tactius, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus. I've also consulted other writings of church historians that happen to give solid answers to questions that normally people would have difficulty answering. (Fair due to you Eusebius the father of Church History), such as the genealogies of Christ given in Luke and Matthew. The sheer amount of material and historical sources alongside the Bible is truly encouraging. This asides from the validation of the Holy Spirit (I don't care if you think I need help by the by) also fulfills whatever reasoning I need to justify my faith, and I will continue to do so godwilling.

I can't say that for the Book of Mormon or many other faiths asides from Judaism, which is the solid foundation of the Christian faith.

SubjectSean · 09-12-2007 09:15PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair due to you Eusebius the father of Church History.

Eusubius was Constantines poodle. Quite the scribe to beware of AFAIK

Scofflaw · 09-12-2007 09:37PM

SubjectSean wrote: »

Eusubius was Constantines poodle. Quite the scribe to beware of AFAIK

Wrote and rewrote his 'histories' according to the swings of political fortune - was Constantine's poodle in the end because Constantine won.

I can recommend "The Conversion of Europe: from pagansim to Christianity 371-1386AD" by R. Fletcher.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos · 09-12-2007 09:52PM

SubjectSean wrote: »

Eusubius was Constantines poodle. Quite the scribe to beware of AFAIK

I've heard of this. However according to the introduction of the Penguin publication of it was written before he had become that poodle who you describe.

Although there are sections which I don't agree with, such as the Siege of Jerusalem was a direct punishment for the death of Christ. I don't think that was the intention of the passion at all. Over 1mn died according to Josephus' figures and it did seem a bit out of place. He also has a slightly fanciful interpretation of much of the Old Testament if you read his first section. Yes I have my own criticisms of him, reading many of these is a good practice in relation to textual criticism.

Scofflaw wrote:

I can recommend "The Conversion of Europe: from pagansim to Christianity 371-1386AD" by R. Fletcher.

Noted, thank you Scofflaw I'll look towards getting it.

Scofflaw · 09-12-2007 09:58PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I've heard of this. However according to the introduction of the Penguin publication of it was written before he had become that poodle who you describe.

Although there are sections which I don't agree with, such as the Siege of Jerusalem was a direct punishment for the death of Christ. I don't think that was the intention of the passion at all. Over 1mn died according to Josephus' figures and it did seem a bit out of place. He also has a slightly fanciful interpretation of much of the Old Testament if you read his first section. Yes I have my own criticisms of him, reading many of these is a good practice in relation to textual criticism.

There's a sense in which Eusebius is the intellectual author of what is often called the Constantinian compromise between Christianity and the Empire.

Jakkass wrote: »

Noted, thank you Scofflaw I'll look towards getting it.

My pleasure!

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos · 09-12-2007 10:12PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a sense in which Eusebius is the intellectual author of what is often called the Constantinian compromise between Christianity and the Empire.

Indeed I heard something about him giving Constantine almost divine status in his reconciliation between the two, but is it in the Church History? If it is could you provide a page reference, that'd be interesting to look at.

Scofflaw · 09-12-2007 10:45PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed I heard something about him giving Constantine almost divine status in his reconciliation between the two, but is it in the Church History? If it is could you provide a page reference, that'd be interesting to look at.

I think it's rather more in his Oration in Praise of Constantine, in which he describes Constantine as "our divinely favoured emperor, receiving as it were a transcript of the divine sovereignty, directs, in imitation of God himself, the administration of this world's affairs".

The work is described by Fletcher as "an oily panegyric", which is pretty accurate.

To be fair, Eusebius is not the first Christian writing nice things about Roman Emperors. Melito (he's in Eusebius) wrote a very nice Apology to Marcus Aurelius in about 170AD. In the century from the Gospels, Christianity had already come a long way from Rome as the "harlot, drunk on the blood of innocents".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Splendour · 10-12-2007 02:07PM

Schuhart wrote: »

Well, as I understand it, yes. With apologies to each source, I'll try to set out my understanding of how each answers your questions:

Sam Harris
Why is the world in the mess it's in today?
Because people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought. Things are likely to get worse, because there's no reason to think that someone with the technical ability to build a nuclear bomb won't think that God wants him to detonate it in the middle of a city.

Why do 'good things happen to bad people'?
Because bad people can successfully interact with society to get what they want. It would be nice if it were otherwise.

Bhagavad Gita
Why is the world in the mess it's in today?
Is the world in a mess, or are you just too attached to it? Nothing lasts forever but, ironically, at the same time nothing dies. Just try to do the best you can at whatever it is you are meant to be doing - however humble or great. Dedicate yourself to that, and you really don't need to worry about whether the world is a mess or not.

Why do 'good things happen to bad people'?
They don't - they only seem to be good things, but they are actually distractions from things that are truly good. Anyway, you shouldn't be so worried about what the other guy is doing and spending more time doing whatever it is you are meant to be doing.

Quran
Why is the world in the mess it's in today?
Nothing happens except what Allah wills, so clearly the world is in a mess because we have displeased him by not being good Muslims. So if you want to improve matters, the best thing is to drop your Bible and pick up the true holy book. You see, your book got all messed up which is why Allah had to send us the Quran with the real message.

Why do 'good things happen to bad people'?
Easy. Allah is just raising them up to make their fall all the more painful.

None of the above is an explanation as to why the world is falling apart.

I want to take your Sam Harris statement a step further and ask why people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought.

I'm quite surprised to find you an athiest, using the Q'uaran and the Bhagavad Gita as a theory for this.

Zombrex · 10-12-2007 02:32PM

Splendour wrote: »

None of the above is an explanation as to why the world is falling apart.

I want to take your Sam Harris statement a step further and ask why people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought.

I'm quite surprised to find you an athiest, using the Q'uaran and the Bhagavad Gita as a theory for this.

Nearly all religions and religious holy books put forward explanations as to why wickedness and evil exists in the world. If you think the Bible is unique in this regard you simply have not been exposed to other religions.

For example, Hesoid described the Ancient Greek belief that evil exists in the world because of the curiosity of Pandora, the first woman.

Prometheus, a Titan, stole fire (commonly understood to mean knowledge or technology) from the gods and gave it to the race of men (humans).

In a rage, Zeus decided to give men another "gift", the gift of woman. Pandora was created and bless by the gods with beauty and music. In an act of curiosity Pandora opened a jar of the gods (a common interpretation of the jar is the female womb) that she was told not to open. Out of the jar came all evil, and it rushed over the land. Pandora closed the jar just in time to trap hope (Elpis). The meaning of translation of elpis is still debated today, whether that is a good or bad thing that it is in the jar.

That to me makes as much sense as a woman eating a fruit because a talking snake in a garden told her to.

Scofflaw · 10-12-2007 02:40PM

Splendour wrote: »

None of the above is an explanation as to why the world is falling apart.

I want to take your Sam Harris statement a step further and ask why people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought.

I'm quite surprised to find you an athiest, using the Q'uaran and the Bhagavad Gita as a theory for this.

I'm not sure why you are, though - it's in answer to what you asked Schuhart, surely?

Splendour wrote:

So Sam Harris, the Bhagavad Gita and the Quran can shed light onto why the world is in the mess it's in today? Can they explain why 'good things happen to bad people?!'

Schuhart is presumably giving his interpretation of how each of them would answer your question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch · 10-12-2007 02:47PM

Scofflaw wrote:

The work is described by Fletcher as "an oily panegyric", which is pretty accurate.

Oily indeed in his treatment of Constantine -- see this unctuous signoff to his Life of the man:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.vi.iv.lxxv.html

Scofflaw wrote:

To be fair, Eusebius is not the first Christian writing nice things about Roman Emperors.

And neither was he the first nor the last christian to confine his view of events to whatever was needed to support his religion. See these quotes from Eusebius himself which formed the basis of Gibbon's disposal:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xiv.xiii.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xiii.iii.html

.

Schuhart · 10-12-2007 09:18PM

Splendour wrote:

None of the above is an explanation as to why the world is falling apart.

I think they are (although admittedly one of the views amounts to ‘So what if looks like it's falling apart? It probably isn't, but just do what you do do well.’). Maybe you need to expand on what, for you, constitutes an explanation.

Splendour wrote:

I want to take your Sam Harris statement a step further and ask why people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought.

I recall seeing a youtube video of Sam Harris when he explained it simply in terms that there’s no reason for people to stop (he said something like “there’s no part of the science curriculum that says to stop believing that stuff”).

For my own part, I suspect religion persists for practical social reasons. (I should explain that the question of religion’s persistence is of great interest to me, but it’s a question I have not reached a final position on).

My feeling (as distinct from Sam Harris’) is people are attracted to religion as it fulfils needs such as a sense of identity and validation of what is a good life. For example, I read a book a while back on the psychology of religion which (inter alia) quoted research that suggested American women converts to Islam were at least partly attracted by an ideology that values the homemaker role. I think that’s how religion works in general – people accept the unlikely stuff as a consequence of the good stuff that attracts them in.

I’ve said this a few times on posts, and even recently on another thread here, that I think discussion of religion between believers and unbelievers can be skewed as we talk about different things. Atheists can tend to concentrate on the credibility of the God concept, where believers probably see belief in God as a consequence of deciding to pursue a faith, rather than as a cause of faith. Put another way, I expect people like yourself don’t pursue religion because you think God is a compellingly believable concept.

Scofflaw wrote:

Schuhart is presumably giving his interpretation of how each of them would answer your question.

I thought this would be clear to Splendour so I’m relieved my intention seems to be clear to others.

I’d also confirm, to remove any possible misunderstanding, I’m just presenting my understanding of those three views, which is clearly open to error.

Talon1977 · 12-12-2007 01:39AM

SubjectSean wrote: »

Presumably then if you are shown that the text of the NT has been added to, or subtracted from, by the hands of men you will then abandon this position?

Here is one such redaction for you to be going on with that was discovered by Issac Newton. In the King James Version of the NT John 1 5:7 reads

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This support for the doctrine of the trinity is entirely missing from the earliest Greek manuscripts and appears in later latin versions firstly as an inclusion in the margin and then later incorporated into the text.

Here we can clearly see that the unavoidable truth that the Bible has been altered by the hands of men, something that you say cannot happen.

As Obo rightly noted from the start, my assertion is that the books of the bible in their ORIGINAL TEXTS were inerrant. Any later translations/copies of course are the work of man. Many of these copies and translations are very accurate, some are not so well done, and yes some have deliberate changes and additions. The King James Version, unfortunately, is not a very reliable translation comparatively, due to its being a rushed translation of a very early compilation of manuscripts that had already been translated to Latin from the limited greek texts that were then available. The New American Standard and the English Standard Version are the two most accurate in the English language at the current time, IMHO.

SubjectSean · 12-12-2007 03:02AM

Talon1977 wrote: »

As Obo rightly noted from the start, my assertion is that the books of the bible in their ORIGINAL TEXTS were inerrant.

Where are the original texts? I thought they were misplaced long ago. How can you determine that something is true to the original text if you do not have that text?

Talon1977 · 12-12-2007 05:56AM

SubjectSean wrote: »

Where are the original texts? I thought they were misplaced long ago. How can you determine that something is true to the original text if you do not have that text?

Good question. What we have, as I'm sure you know, are a large quantity of various-sized chunks of text from several different regions of the world, in what we call textual 'families.' By studying the texts from each family, and how the differ, and how they are the same, we can decipher with reasonable accuracy what the original texts said. That's not to say that I'm 100% convinced that we've got it all perfect, but what we DO have is useful enough to make a judgment about the original writings, in my opinion.

SubjectSean · 12-12-2007 07:35AM

Talon1977 wrote: »

Good question. What we have, as I'm sure you know, are a large quantity of various-sized chunks of text from several different regions of the world, in what we call textual 'families.' By studying the texts from each family, and how the differ, and how they are the same, we can decipher with reasonable accuracy what the original texts said. That's not to say that I'm 100% convinced that we've got it all perfect, but what we DO have is useful enough to make a judgment about the original writings, in my opinion.

Surely the differences and similarities being measured are just between copies and only the source could possibly be deduced in the manner you describe. If however the source was itself a copy then there is no way of knowing the original. I see no reason to believe that the bible is the Word of God, it is clearly the words of men.

Talon1977 · 12-12-2007 05:15PM

You are, of course, entitled to your own conclusions. But for me, an honest examination of the texts and the facts surrounding them, leads me to the opinion that they cannot be simply "the words of men." That being the case I am left with the question, "What then, is it?" Then we are confronted with the answer it provides for itself - that it is the Word of God. If it is not the Word of God, and I have ruled out the possibility (for myself at least) that it is simply the words of men, due to a great number of reasons, what then is it?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 12-12-2007 05:17PM

they cannot be simply "the words of men.

why not? have you ever looked at the fantasy section of a large bookshop? People are very imaginative writers and can come up with a story about anything.

Talon1977 · 12-12-2007 05:42PM

Were I to go into all the reasons, and explanations of those reasons, it would be a very lengthy book. But there have already been several books written on the subject that I can refer you to, if you're truly interested in an answer to that question. Josh McDowell's book Evidence that Demands a Verdict is a fairly good one. Lee Strobel has also written several books that speak to the subject.

One major point that comes up is how incredibly unique the Bible is, in many different ways, such as:
its impact on history,
its popularity since its assembly,
its consistency despite being penned by so many different authors over such a large period of time,
the amount of persecution it has faced and withstood,
and so on and so forth.

I could keep listing ways in which the Bible is unique among books, but as I said, they've already written books on the subject. I'd suggest reading them if you really want an answer to your question.

Apart from its uniqueness, historically speaking, the Bible is incredibly accurate. Kings and kingdoms that for a long time, mankind had no record of except for the Bible's record of them, have since then been confirmed by archeology to have existed exactly where and when the Bible says they did. The Hittites are but one example of this.

Its uniqueness and accuracy are only 2 reasons I could give for my statement. But as I said, it's best if you'd read the books I suggested. That's just my opinion.

robindch · 12-12-2007 06:14PM

Talon1977 wrote:

its impact on history,

Mao's little red book had a huge impact on history. Didn't mean that a word of it was true.

Talon1977 wrote:

its popularity since its assembly,

Popular = true? That's the third time that a religious person has said that on boards since last week!

Talon1977 wrote:

its consistency despite being penned by so many different authors over such a large period of time,

Consistency? Good heavens, have you ever read it?

Talon1977 wrote:

historically speaking, the Bible is incredibly accurate

A few old texts might have listed kings and kingdoms accurately, but that doesn't mean that anything else is true. Look at the hopelessly fabricated creation myth in Genesis, for example.

Talon1977 wrote:

the amount of persecution it has faced and withstood,

Christians have persecuted and burned non-christians and their literature far more often than the other way around. Ask any Aztec...

Your reasons so far are startlingly unconvincing.

Talon1977 · 12-12-2007 08:37PM

Mao's little red book had a huge impact on history. Didn't mean that a word of it was true.

Popular = true? That's the third time that a religious person has said that on boards since last week!

I never said anything of the sort. You're putting words in my mouth chap.

I said it was unique in the above ways, not true because of them. And I said because of it's uniqueness, combined with several other characteristics, it makes it impossible for me in my own mind to accept it to be "just a book" like any other book.

Consistency? Good heavens, have you ever read it?

Have you? Perhaps you'd like to discuss particular instances where you think it isn't.

A few old texts might have listed kings and kingdoms accurately, but that doesn't mean that anything else is true. Look at the hopelessly fabricated creation myth in Genesis, for example.

You say that with such certainty. It's almost as if you believe you were there.

Christians have persecuted and burned non-christians and their literature far more often than the other way around. Ask any Aztec...

I'm not disputing the less than admirable history of the church and how they've confronted things they fear. But my point was that no other book in history has faced AND SURVIVED so many attempts at stamping it out and for such a prolonged period of time, making it unique. The main emphasis of the point was that despite this, it has flourished. Why is that, when so many other writings under much less persecution, were wiped out completely or at least mostly?

Your reasons so far are startlingly unconvincing.

I'm sure it would seem so to someone who is more interested in turning what I said into something it wasn't.

I was simply giving a few examples out of a possible hundreds that I personally have found to be reasons to at least take the Bible into consideration, rather than dismiss it entirely.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 12-12-2007 08:39PM

because the bible and christians didn't face nearly as much persecution and censorship as christians dealt to their 'inferiors'

Schuhart · 13-12-2007 08:07PM

Talon1977 wrote: »

One major point that comes up is how incredibly unique the Bible is, in many different ways, such as:
its impact on history,
its popularity since its assembly,
its consistency despite being penned by so many different authors over such a large period of time,
the amount of persecution it has faced and withstood,
and so on and so forth.

Surely all of that, except for the penned by many authors bit, goes for the Quran too. And instead of the penned by many authors bit, Im sure some similarly circumstantial point could be made for it. For example, many Muslims claim the Quran anticipates scientific knowledge that could not have been known to Mohammed.

So what makes your holy book more "unique" than theirs.

Cyclical authority of holy books

Comments