Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism is "cool"
Options
Comments
-
No - it's called exegesis and hermeneutics. But thank you for providing such a good illustration of the kind of ignorant nonsense to which I was referring.
I can claim it because that is what the New Testament teaches. The sacrificial system, as is clearly explained in the Book of Hebrews, foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Now, however, such sacrifices are rather pointless.
And thank you for providing such a good illustration of the wearisome ignorance that I was referring to.
/me awaits Dades inevitable intervention telling us to behave0 -
No - it's called exegesis and hermeneutics.
If you sincerely believed that exegesis and hermeneutics were proper academic disciplines, then you would find the range of interpretive variation to be entirely puzzling -- it would be similar to, say, a physicist's surprise in learning that half the world's universities accepting gravity, with the other half claiming that the earth sucks. Your suspicion should be all the greater when you note that almost every exegete produces an exegesis which -- mirabile dictu! -- agrees with his pre-ordained religious beliefs. The Vatican is not all that well-known for producing Protestant-leaning exegeses.
So I think it's fair to conclude that your assertion that it's a proper academic discipline is false and that exegesis and hermeneutics are therefore fake academic disciplines wide-open to political and ideological influence, and consequently of little more worth than, say, the Soviet "study" of history, or the creationists' "study" of biology -- interesting as exercises in misdirection, but ultimately dishonest.0 -
/ on cue
Less handbags, more pointless debate please.0 -
I doubt many of them would claim to have undergone spiritual rebirth because of these characters.
Perhaps not, but the point remains valid.It isn't proof at all. There is no such thing as proof or disproof of God. However the way the idea of God has changed the lives of so many people and the history of humanity, makes it look rather silly to put him alongside characters from fiction. Your argument that God has credibility because he is old does not work either. There are plenty of fictional characters who were invented before the beginning of the Abrahamic religions, indeed even before transcendental Gods were at all conceived of.
It doesn't make a difference if there are older characters. The point I was making was that one of the reasons people believe in a God may be because it has become so incorporated into our society, as the idea has had so long to do so. Does that lend any credence to the idea? No.I suppose I must just like other people more than you do.
Yah, that's probably true. The thought of an eternity in Heaven actually seems like hell to me. I'm looking forward to some good old-fashioned death. No after life, no heaven, no eternity. Just death.0 -
No - it's called exegesis and hermeneutics.
You talk about exegesis and hermeneutics as though it were objective and precise, like a science, which comes up with predictable and repeatable conclusions no matter who the exegent is (it doesn't). It's strange that you would use this defence when most christians' argument against atheist application of logic to god's presence on earth is that god and his ways are not amenable to objective observation and analysis. The teachings of god are similarly subjective, unable to be objectively analysed and compiled into one unifying doctrinePDN wrote:My point is not that no Christian ever interprets the Bible to suit themselves. My point is that fact hardly justifies throwing up one's hands, giving up, and saying every interpretation is equally valid.
but if an agreement cannot be reached on the best way to please god, is not an extremely dangerous thing to throw yourself into blindly and just hope that your interpretation is correct?0 -
Advertisement
-
I doubt many of them would claim to have undergone spiritual rebirth because of these characters.
People undergo "spiritual rebirth" from religion not because jesus and god are any more real that Elrond or Captain Kirk, but because they believe they are more real.
It'd be great to somehow isolate young children from modern media for a while and show them a season of star trek and convince them it's fact, that captain kirk was a man who lived millenia ago and who was a mystical force for good in the world, and that only through him could we be saved and ascend to join him on the great spaceship bridge in the sky.
Damn ethics0 -
But these fine, fancy words do not hide the fairly basic fact that there is catholic exegesis, various classes of protestant and orthodox exegesis, and many more. Heavens, there's even agnostic/atheist exegesis from Bart Ehrman, the historian biblical historian and linguist whom you've rubbished previously. And many other people and interpretations. Then, there's the same again for the wonderfully-named "hermeneutics".
There are indeed those who are not willing to attempt objective exegesis of the text. I've already stated that there are those who just attempt to prove their point of view to be correct (and that is why I've previously rubbished Ehrman, and why I rubbish any exegesis that has to qualify itself in that way).
However, there are very many biblical scholars and exegetes who attempt to examine the text as objectively as possible and are not afraid to come to conclusions that contradict their denominational position. This is why I am always happy to learn from people like Raymond E Brown (an exegete who also happened to be a Catholic priest as opposed to someone who practiced 'Catholic exegesis'). My New Testament studies professor at University was an atheist who also happened to be a very fine biblical scholar. I would not dream of rubbishing him or implying that his work was somehow suspect because of his atheism. However, I have no respect for someone who tries to carry out 'atheist exegesis' and thereby reads their presuppositions into the text.
In other words, you will find Catholic biblical scholars, Orthodox biblical scholars, Protestant biblical scholars, Jewish biblical scholars and even atheist biblical scholars. However, I was always taught in both undergraduate and postgraduate studies that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as Catholic exegesis or any other kind of confessional exegesis. These are, in fact, eisegesis (reading one's own presuppositions into the text) rather than exegesis (determining the intentions of the authors and discerning what the text would have meant to its first intended audience).If you sincerely believed that exegesis and hermeneutics were proper academic disciplines, then you would find the range of interpretive variation to be entirely puzzling -- it would be similar to, say, a physicist's surprise in learning that half the world's universities accepting gravity, with the other half claiming that the earth sucks.Your suspicion should be all the greater when you note that almost every exegete produces an exegesis which -- mirabile dictu! -- agrees with his pre-ordained religious beliefs. The Vatican is not all that well-known for producing Protestant-leaning exegeses.
In fact, many of us have left one denomination and joined another precisely because our interpretation of Scripture, reached by following recognised exegetical practice, made it impossible to remain in our previous denomination in good faith. In my own case it involved giving up my church-owned house and salary and spending the next five years selling life insurance and driving taxis in order to feed my family. So you couldn't be more wrong on that score.So I think it's fair to conclude that your assertion that it's a proper academic discipline is false and that exegesis and hermeneutics are therefore fake academic disciplines wide-open to political and ideological influence, and consequently of little more worth than, say, the Soviet "study" of history, or the creationists' "study" of biology -- interesting as exercises in misdirection, but ultimately dishonest.
BTW, exegesis and hermeneutics are academic tools that can be applied to any text or oral communication - not just religious texts.0 -
MatthewVII wrote: »You talk about exegesis and hermeneutics as though it were objective and precise, like a science, which comes up with predictable and repeatable conclusions no matter who the exegent is (it doesn't).
In those disciplines the results are not always the same, but there are commonly agreed methodologies that practicioners should follow.It's strange that you would use this defence when most christians' argument against atheist application of logic to god's presence on earth is that god and his ways are not amenable to objective observation and analysis. The teachings of god are similarly subjective, unable to be objectively analysed and compiled into one unifying doctrine
The entire truth about God cannot, I believe, be summed up in human language. However, the words of the biblical text have specific meanings and are rooted in specific cultural and historic contexts. Therefore those words have objective meaning and it is proper to use every available academic tool to discover that meaning.but if an agreement cannot be reached on the best way to please god, is not an extremely dangerous thing to throw yourself into blindly and just hope that your interpretation is correct?
On the most important issues of the Christian faith (that relate to salvation) there is little or no genuine disagreement about what the Bible teaches. I have a friend who started reading the Bible for the first time at 20 years of age. He had no knowledge of any Christian doctrine and knew nothing of biblical interpretation (having grown up in China during the Cultural Revolution). The only reason he started to read the Bible was because he was studying English Literature and was puzzled by the many biblical allusions in Shakespeare. Yet, by applying sensible rules of interpretation of language just as he had been taught to in respect to Shakespeare, he came to the exact same conclusions as mine as to how to become a Christian and to have eternal life.
Of course there are minor issues where several possible interpretations of Scripture exist - but these do not affect or nullify the clear teaching on the important stuff.
Then again, you get people who try to read their own presuppositions and agendas into the Bible (eg medieval Catholicism, people like Fred Phelps, Conspiracy theorists, or those who want to insert lesbian or feminist interpretations where any jackass can see they were never originally intended. They are the Lysenkos of theology.0 -
This is exactly the kind of reductive silliness that leads to mad beliefs. It is ridiculous to take just one verse and say "there: that proves my point".
Eternal punishment/fire is mentioned throughout the New Testament as the fate of sinners.
I appreciate that in these modern enlighten times Christians who strongly want to believe in the Christian God must try and figure out some way to get around the strong suggestion through out the Bible that God is a bit of a bastard, an idea that wouldn't have particularly troubled Hebrew farmers 2000 years ago when all rulers where a bit bastard like and notions of ethics were relatively primitive.
But don't expect the rest of us to come along with you just because you need to find some way to reconcile all this. To me it is just nonsense, as are attempts by modern Christians to try and fit it all into modern ideas of morality and ethics.The Bible must be interpreted holistically.
The fact that Jesus said some nice things here and there doesn't change the over arching picture of God that emerges from the Bible.There are numerous verses about the fate of people after their physical death, and most of them describe not everlasting punishment but irreversible destruction.
The common interpretation (one you find in all modern translations of the Bible) is that punishment is referred to as eternal.
This only become a big deal when modern ethics developed and Christians started wondering why their "loving" God would send people to face eternal punishment. To me the answer is clear. He doesn't exist.That is what I think Jesus means here.I know you do because otherwise you would have killed yourself at the first sign of pain and trouble.
Not really.
If, as is the case, I don't believe your God exists I would see no reason to kill myself because I don't think I live as his slave. Life is to be enjoyed, it probably is the only one I will have.
On the other hand if I did believe your God exists that would be a very depressing situation, but I certainly wouldn't wish to speed up my eventual eternity of suffering and torment. What I wouldn't do is bow down to your god and worship him.0 -
No I don't. I am quite clear that exegesis and hermeneutics belong to the arts rather than to the sciences. They should more properly be compared with philosophy,history, economics, or social sciences such as sociology or anthropology.
In those disciplines the results are not always the same, but there are commonly agreed methodologies that practicioners should follow.
Normally though in philosophy, history, economics and the social sciences it is considered bad form to have a preconceived idea of the text you are studying.
Christians, in general (certainly around these parts), who study the Bible appear to come to it with the preconceived notion that it is a) true b) entirely consistent and non-contradictory c) reflecting the views of a loving God
This already rules out a huge vast array of possible interpretations of the texts.
It is rather silly then to hold up interpretations of the Bible reached through hermeneutics that appear to support the idea that the Bible is true, non-contradictory and the views of a loving God, since one imagines you guys came to the study of it with that already decided upon.However, the words of the biblical text have specific meanings and are rooted in specific cultural and historic contexts. Therefore those words have objective meaning and it is proper to use every available academic tool to discover that meaning.
Yes but you bias that study with your Christianity.You might as well argue that it is a dangerous thing to trust Richard Dawkins' interpretation of biology when JC's 'creation scientists' can't reach agreement with them.
It is a dangerous thing to trust Richard Dawkins' interpretation of biology. That is the whole point!
Personal interpretation is flawed and error prone. This applies to biology as much as the study of the Bible.
You may say that you interpret passages and words in the Bible a particular way, and so do a whole lot of other Christians, but ultimately that doesn't mean much because you have little objective standard to compare with and you are also loaded down with your own personal faith in a particular interpretation of the Bible.
You reject as agenda based anyone who reads the Bible and doesn't reach the same conclusion as you, and someone who does is "correctly" interpreting the message.
Nonsense :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Normally though in philosophy, history, economics and the social sciences it is considered bad form to have a preconceived idea of the text you are studying.
For example, I entered the study of theology with the preconceived idea that the King James Version of the Bible was the only accurate and trustworthy translation. That had been taught to me as an article of faith in the church to which I then belonged. In fact we doubted if those who read modern translations were even Christians at all! Within a month I had jettisoned that belief. Why? Certainly not because my study was dictated by my preconceptions, but because rather my preconception had become unsustainable when subjected to standard academic procedures.Christians, in general (certainly around these parts), who study the Bible appear to come to it with the preconceived notion that it is a) true b) entirely consistent and non-contradictory c) reflecting the views of a loving God
Another important thing is that the methodology of exegesis and hermeneutics were not determined by those who hold such views of the Scripture. Therefore, even if people do come to the text with such presuppositions, they are still bound by standard methodology and would, quite rightly, be laughed out of the classroom if they abandoned it in favour of preconceived doctrines.
One point you seem to be missing is that exegesis simply examines what the text actually meant to its authors and original readers. Hermeneutics simply means how the text can then legitimately be applied in various cultural contexts. So, you can be an atheist (like my Professor) and still be a skilful exegete. All you are saying is, "the Bible (or this bit of it) teaches X rather than Y". Whether you actually believe X to be true is irrelevant to exegesis. It's like lawyers arguing over the precise meaning of the Constitution - you don't need to think that the Constitution actually makes any sense, you simply have to determine the intent of the authors and the meanings of the text.It is rather silly then to hold up interpretations of the Bible reached through hermeneutics that appear to support the idea that the Bible is true, non-contradictory and the views of a loving God, since one imagines you guys came to the study of it with that already decided upon.
However, let's rephrase your words slightly.
Scientists, in general (certainly around these parts), who study evolutionary biology appear to come to it with the preconceived notion that it is a) true b) entirely consistent and non-contradictory c) the best explanation for the development of human life. ......
It is rather silly then to hold up interpretations of the scientific data reached through the scientific method that appear to support the idea that evolutionary theory is the best explanation since one imagines you guys came to the study of it with that already decided upon.
Now that statement makes no sense to me because I would expect those who study a scientific subject, even if they have presuppositions, to still adhere to recognised methodology.Yes but you bias that study with your Christianity.
Everyone is biased in some way in our study of anything. That's why every discipline has methodology, peer review etc.You reject as agenda based anyone who reads the Bible and doesn't reach the same conclusion as you, and someone who does is "correctly" interpreting the message.
Nonsense :rolleyes:
Your assessment of your praragraph as nonsense is indeed accurate. You even deserve the rolling eyes that you awarded yourself.
You are just flat out lying about me. There are plenty of conclusions that others reach about the Bible where I disagree with them, but I recognise that they have reached that conclusion by honest study.
For example, I disagree with those who still hold to the old theory of the Pentateuch being a composite of J, E, D & P strands. For me the evidence points in a different direction, but I would not dream of accusing them of being agenda-driven. I disagree with those who see a consistent teaching of Calvinist-style predestination in the NT, but I don't think they are being agenda-driven.0 -
However, let's rephrase your words slightly.
Scientists, in general (certainly around these parts), who study evolutionary biology appear to come to it with the preconceived notion that it is a) true b) entirely consistent and non-contradictory c) the best explanation for the development of human life. ......
It is rather silly then to hold up interpretations of the scientific data reached through the scientific method that appear to support the idea that evolutionary theory is the best explanation since one imagines you guys came to the study of it with that already decided upon.
You really don't seem to get the difference between science and what you guys do, do you?And if I studied history I would bias it with my white skin and Western European mindset.
Well yes, and this would be expected to be recognised, by you and others.Everyone is biased in some way in our study of anything. That's why every discipline has methodology, peer review etc.
Yes but Biblical hermeneutics appears to take no account of the inherent bias of Christians studying Christian text.
If you can explain how it does I'm all ears.There are plenty of conclusions that others reach about the Bible where I disagree with them, but I recognise that they have reached that conclusion by honest study.
What you reject are conclusions people have arrived at which threaten the message you believe should be perfectly clear from the Bible.0 -
I've already stated that there are those who just attempt to prove their point of view to be correct (and that is why I've previously rubbished Ehrman, and why I rubbish any exegesis that has to qualify itself in that way).
He started off as a bible-believing fundamentalist and on foot of this, devoted his life to studying the languages needed to understand the bible properly. Having done that, he then concluded that the notion of biblical infallibility could not be supported by anything in the text itself. He describes the way in which this happened at some length in the introduction to one of his books, but you are completely wrong in saying that he's only there to "prove his point of view to be correct".
He disproved hid old point of view, and developed his new one, because he learned through hard work that his old pov was wrong.
.0 -
And if I studied history I would bias it with my white skin and Western European mindset. But my tutors would expect me to be as objective as possible and would encourage me not to let my bias get in the way.0
-
You really don't seem to get the difference between science and what you guys do, do you?Yes but Biblical hermeneutics appears to take no account of the inherent bias of Christians studying Christian text.
For example, I submitted a paper to my atheist Professor on the New Testament teaching concerning inerrancy and inspiration. He made clear that he himself thought the whole idea of inerrancy was junk. However, this bias did not affect his marking of my paper. Why? Because my paper was not about my Professor's opinion of inerrancy, nor was it about my opinion of inerrancy - it was about what the New Testament authors thought and taught about inerrancy.
Similarly, the same Professor taught that the New Testament interprets the Jewish sacrifices as no longer being required because they were fufilled in the sacrifice of death on the Cross. His own opinion was that the OT sacrifices were a waste of time and that the death of Jesus on the cross was just an unfortunate judicial execution. But that bias did not prevent him from agreeing with me on what the New Testament authors were actually saying.
The bias of Christians studying a Christian text is similar to that of Greeks studying a Greek text, an Irish historian studying the Famine, a Jew studying the reports of Holocaust survivors, or a black person studying a speech by Malcolm X. In each case the student's cultural context will give them an added insight into their subject matter, and they (or their tutors) will be aware of the need to ensure that their bias must not get in the way of their objectivity.
You appear to making the quite spectacular assertion that we can conduct academic study of Shakespeare, Homer or Karl Marx, but not of the Bible. Are you, as an atheist, claiming that the Bible is so special that it cannot be subjected to the same study as other books? Or are you claiming that Christians are so unbalanced and dishonest that they are incapable of studying the Bible and that all biblical study should be conducted by atheists who, apparently, have no bias or axe to grind? :rolleyes:You know perfectly well i didn't mean to imply that you agree with every single detail. So long as they agree with the message you assert the Bible makes.What you reject are conclusions people have arrived at which threaten the message you believe should be perfectly clear from the Bible.
For example, I believe that it is perfectly clear that Hitler killed millions of people. So long as I think that to be clear then I will, naturally, reject the conclusions of those who say Hitler never killed anyone. If the evidence of Hitler's innocence became convincing then, by definition, it would no longer be clear that he killed millions.
Now, we should all be prepared to reject or reassess things that we previously thought to be perfectly clear on the basis of new evidence. And, in the area of biblical studies, I have done that many times. For example, before I started studying theology I thought it was perfectly clear that God had created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago. I was very quick to dismiss theistic evolutionists as denying the Bible. However, once I learned more about Hebraic thought and literature I began to accept the possible validity of the conclusions of those with whom I previously disagreed - and I revised what I thought to be perfectly clear.
To be honest, Wicknight, this discussion is demonstrating that you know very little about me or about the subject we are discussing. If anything it is your bias that is clouding your objectivity. Your dislike of Christians and Christianity is causing you to diss an entire academic field, and while that might be convincing to those who share your biases, I think most neutral observers would be appalled at how closed-minded you are.0 -
You don't seem to understand Ehrman.
He started off as a bible-believing fundamentalist and on foot of this, devoted his life to studying the languages needed to understand the bible properly. Having done that, he then concluded that the notion of biblical infallibility could not be supported by anything in the text itself. He describes the way in which this happened at some length in the introduction to one of his books, but you are completely wrong in saying that he's only there to "prove his point of view to be correct".
He disproved hid old point of view, and developed his new one, because he learned through hard work that his old pov was wrong.
.
If I'm misunderstanding Ehrman then it is because I accepted your statement that he conducts atheist exegesis.
Now you appear to be claiming that rather than doing atheist exegesis he is an atheist conducting normal exegesis - which is an entirely different thing.
So, let me get this straight, you are now saying that Ehrman became an atheist by engaging in "fake academic disciplines" that are ultimately dishonest and no different from Creationism. Furthermore, his present activities are similarly dishonest, fake, and worthless.
Or are you trying to have your cake and eat it by arguing that exegesis is worthless when conducted by theists but academically respectable when conducted by an atheist? :rolleyes:0 -
The bias of Christians studying a Christian text is similar to that of Greeks studying a Greek text, an Irish historian studying the Famine, a Jew studying the reports of Holocaust survivors, or a black person studying a speech by Malcolm X. In each case the student's cultural context will give them an added insight into their subject matter, and they (or their tutors) will be aware of the need to ensure that their bias must not get in the way of their objectivity.
Ok so you accept that Christians are biased in their reading of the Bible then. I think this was the point and you've confirmed it by likening a christians biblical understanding to many other groups who have emotively formed their opinions.
Tell me, how do you imagine Christian scripture could be understood correctly without bias?For example, I believe that it is perfectly clear that Hitler killed millions of people. So long as I think that to be clear then I will, naturally, reject the conclusions of those who say Hitler never killed anyone. If the evidence of Hitler's innocence became convincing then, by definition, it would no longer be clear that he killed millions.
Curious. So if evidence was put forward to prove Hitlers innocence you'd entertain it. Logically this ideal is sound. What evidence would need to be put forward for you to be convinced that Jesus isn't God?0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »Ok so you accept that Christians are biased in their reading of the Bible then. I think this was the point and you've confirmed it by likening a christians biblical understanding to many other groups who have emotively formed their opinions.
Tell me, how do you imagine Christian scripture could be understood correctly without bias?
I think that everyone is biased in some way on most subjects. Nobody has suggested that Christians are in some way exempt from this normal human trait. So, if that was indeed the point, it was a stunningly banal point.
Again, when you refer to how Scripture can be understood, I want to stress the difference between exegesis and hermeneutics. Exegesis should be conducted in a way that eliminates as much bias as possible. If I, as a committed Christian, can recognise my bias, then I can consciously take steps to ensure my exegesis remains balanced.
If bias was seen to disqualify anyone from studying a subject then we would insist that only Gentiles could study the Holocaust, or only Japanese historians could study the Famine.Curious. So if evidence was put forward to prove Hitlers innocence you'd entertain it. Logically this ideal is sound. What evidence would need to be put forward for you to be convinced that Jesus isn't God?
The whole point of this discussion on exegesis is not to do with whether I believe Jesus to be God. It is about whether I believe that the biblical authors thought and taught that He was God.
If there was sufficient evidence (linguistic, cultural, literary styles etc.) to make a strong case that the New Testament writers didn't actually believe in the deity of Christ then I would certainly agree that his deity was not 'perfectly clear' in the Bible.
Whether I personally believe in the deity of Christ or not is a separate issue. My awareness of my biases enables me to distinguish clearly between the two issues. Maybe your own anti-Christian bias causes you to try to conflate them?0 -
And you sincerely believe that you wouldn't bias your understanding or your critical faculties because the belief that you have developed for yourself is what gives you your reason to stay alive?
I sincerely believe that gives me a motivation to ensure that I am understanding the Bible correctly.
Look at it this way. You, Robin, are happy to treat a detail in a parable as if it were prescriptive teaching in order to score points in a debate on an internet discussion forum. Your (mis)interpretation is motivated by your anti-christian bias, but it's not actually that important to you. If you are indeed practising bad exegesis then you don't think it's going to make any difference to your life as a whole, indeed the only possible danger from your perspective is that someone who has some knowledge of the subject (like me) might pull you up on it. So your bias not only leads to bad exegesis, but lacks any motivation to conduct good exegesis.
However, I am basing the way I live my life on the Bible. My sincere desire is to live my life in way that is pleasing to God. The consequences of bad exegesis on my part could well be that I end up displeasing God. Therefore my bias gives me a powerful motivation to do everything in my power to ensure that I am conducting good exegesis.
It's like two students doing a maths problem to work out how much fuel is necessary to drive from Dublin to Cork. The one who is actually planning to make the journey has a greater bias than the one who is just doing the problem as an intellectual exercise. However, the bias should not hinder his calculations, but should rather be an incentive for him to carefully doublecheck his figures to make sure he's not made a mistake.0 -
Advertisement
-
Just a hunch Dades, but considering the words Bible, and some of the attributes concerning who God is, and the concept of eternal damnation, I think we can safely say the Abrahamic God, or in more precise terms the Judeo-Christian God.John 5:23 wrote:Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.MatthewVII wrote: »The point of the matter is that the bible is either the word of god or it isn't. If you believe it to be the word of god, then you have to accept ALL of it, down to the detestable homosexuals, the adam and eve stories etc. If you don't, that means you are picking and choosing what part of god's message you want to believe, and reading your own meaning into it. This is no different from just making up your own rules as the end result is pretty much the same.
I hope however that you don't think that arguments that certain parts of the Bible (like Creation mythology) are not to be taken literally, is some sort of emotional escape mechanism?
I'm going to guess that you haven't read much of the Bible.I agree with you Jakkas! When reading the bible you're not meant to take this idea of God literally, it's a metaphor surely for the universe. Only an idiot would take the bible to be saying that Jesus was literally the son of God (that would be nonsense), you're meant to understand that the writers mean that we're all God's children, Jesus is a literary device to teach us things.Which god? Your God, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus - they have all changed the lives of people throughout history - because people believed in them.Ruskie4Rent wrote: »It may be wearisome and ignorant, but coming from a completely ignorant standpoint I think it is a valid charge that some christians.
Coming from a completely ignorant standpoint there are no valid charges.it would be similar to, say, a physicist's surprise in learning that half the world's universities accepting gravity, with the other half claiming that the earth sucks.Your suspicion should be all the greater when you note that almost every exegete produces an exegesis which -- mirabile dictu! -- agrees with his pre-ordained religious beliefs.-JammyDodger- wrote: »Perhaps not, but the point remains valid.It doesn't make a difference if there are older characters. The point I was making was that one of the reasons people believe in a God may be because it has become so incorporated into our society, as the idea has had so long to do so. Does that lend any credence to the idea? No.Yah, that's probably true. The thought of an eternity in Heaven actually seems like hell to me. I'm looking forward to some good old-fashioned death. No after life, no heaven, no eternity. Just death.MatthewVII wrote: »People undergo "spiritual rebirth" from religion not because jesus and god are any more real that Elrond or Captain Kirk, but because they believe they are more real.0 -
There is a good reason they believe them to be real. Tolkien and Roddenberry were the inventors of these characters. They were open about this and ascribed nothing divine or real to them. Which author invented God? Why have there been thousands of writers since treating God as not a character but the basis of reality?0
-
If I'm misunderstanding Ehrman then it is because I accepted your statement that he conducts atheist exegesis. [etc, etc]
Which is the point I was trying to make -- glad we agree.0 -
A rebuttal which is self-contradictory unless you do indeed accept that atheists and anybody else can make valid, but differing, exegeses.
Which is the point I was trying to make -- glad we agree.
What on earth are talking about?
Of course I accept that atheists, Catholics, evangelicals and anybody else can make differing and valid exegeses. However, if an exegesis is predetermined by their atheism, Catholicism or evangelicalism then it is not valid. Biblical scholars, whatever their beliefs, can reach valid but varying interpretations of Scripture by following standard practices and methodology. They can also reach invalid interpretations by ignoring standard practices and methodology. Which is what I've been saying all along.0 -
I hope however that you don't think that arguments that certain parts of the Bible (like Creation mythology) are not to be taken literally, is some sort of emotional escape mechanism?
I'm going to guess that you haven't read much of the Bible.
I've read all of it, don't worry.
The point I was making is that some parts of the bible are definitely parable and some are definitely not. The way we interpret the bits in between is why the bible can never be considered to really be a reference manual to the masses, only being suitable for individual interpretation.0 -
I think that everyone is biased in some way on most subjects. Nobody has suggested that Christians are in some way exempt from this normal human trait. So, if that was indeed the point, it was a stunningly banal point.
How arrogant! You have now moved away from likening a Christians bias to that of distinct groups that would have large degrees of bias to making the conjectural statement that "everyone is biased in some way". That's some nice backtracking over your previous statement PDN. There is normal bias, and then there is strong, emotively driven bias. You likened Christians to the latter. I'm agreeing with you PDN.
If you want to get into another one of your linguistic arguments over degrees of bias and what you actually meant by your previous statement then by all means. I will not entertain it as I find it a course of argument that is rather pathetic imo. Deal with the point, and not the language of the point for once.You're changing the subject, possibly because you never understood it in the first place.
The whole point of this discussion on exegesis is not to do with whether I believe Jesus to be God. It is about whether I believe that the biblical authors thought and taught that He was God.
How obnoxiously snide! You assume I am entering your discourse on exegesis of the bible, when I am not and instead I'm asking you to validate your point that you accept that, where evidence to come forth to prove Hitlers innocence that you'd entertain it. I'm asking then, that, as you are extolling your full control of your bias towards your Christian beliefs and exegesis, what evidence would you entertain to prove Jesus was not God or that he was not spreading the message of the true religion.
As you are open to accept new evidence on Hitlers innocence, are you also open to accept that the possibility that the exegesis of the bible you have learned and in fact the beliefs you hold and the God you accept could be wrong? Can you accept that there is a chance you are wrong in your beliefs?
Being unbiased in my opinions, I'm willing to accept that there's a chance I am wrong.0 -
Steady on there, chaps. Posts - not the posters.0
-
MatthewVII wrote: »I've read all of it, don't worry.
The point I was making is that some parts of the bible are definitely parable and some are definitely not. The way we interpret the bits in between is why the bible can never be considered to really be a reference manual to the masses, only being suitable for individual interpretation.
To be honest, the bits inbetween (where there is any doubt as to whether they are parable or not) are a tiny fraction of the whole and certainly affect anything that is necessary to our salvation or essential for Christian living.
For example, I may be unsure as to whether Genesis Chapter One should be understood as literal history or not, but that does not affect what the Bible teaches about the death and resurrection of Christ, about the need for repentance, about faith, about how to behave in my marriage etc. It makes for an interesting discussion in a classroom, or even on an internet forum, but no major issue of faith or practice is involved.
A good rule of thumb is that Christians should never build any major doctrine or practice on any Scripture that is ambiguous or allows for differing valid interpretations.
There is a popular saying (by Rupertus Meldenius, but often wrongly attributed to Augustine of Hippo) "In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity."0 -
I sincerely believe that gives me a motivation to ensure that I am understanding the Bible correctly.
Yes but "correctly" is within the framework that it still provides you with the trappings of religious faith. You have no motivation to reach a conclusion that calls into question the fundamentals of your faith (the Bible is self-contradictory for example, or Jesus didn't exist, or the prophecies in OT have nothing to do with the claimed fulfilled ones in the NT etc etc) and a huge motivation not to.
That was my point, and I'm thankful to Robin for highlighting it.
The idea that your, or Christians in general, religious faith is just the same type of bias that everyone takes into a study of a text or document is, frankly, ridiculous.
Imagine a bunch of Scientologists sitting around assessing "Dianetics" .. you think that would produce a critical and even handed assessment that L Ron Hubbard was making this stuff up for money?0 -
Advertisement
-
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »How arrogant! You have now moved away from likening a Christians bias to that of distinct groups that would have large degrees of bias to making the conjectural statement that "everyone is biased in some way". That's some nice backtracking over your previous statement PDN. There is normal bias, and then there is strong, emotively driven bias. You likened Christians to the latter. I'm agreeing with you PDN.
If you want to get into another one of your linguistic arguments over degrees of bias and what you actually meant by your previous statement then by all means. I will not entertain it as I find it a course of argument that is rather pathetic imo. Deal with the point, and not the language of the point for once.
I was dealing with the point by observing that everyone is influenced by bias to a greater or lesser degree. The same applies to Christians. We are all different, some are biased in a strongly emotional way and some are not. In the same way some Irish scholars can discuss the Famine in an objective way while others get all hot and bothered about it. I thought it was a fair point and I'm sorry it seems to have caused you such emotional angst.How obnoxiously snide! You assume I am entering your discourse on exegesis of the bible, when I am notI'm asking you to validate your point that you accept that, where evidence to come forth to prove Hitlers innocence that you'd entertain it. I'm asking then, that, as you are extolling your full control of your bias towards your Christian beliefs and exegesis, what evidence would you entertain to prove Jesus was not God or that he was not spreading the message of the true religion.
I would reassess my views on the Holocaust if documents were discovered and verified where most or all of the witnesses admitted that they were committing a hoax. So, in our little imaginary exercise, if signed confessions were discovered by all of the Gospel writers and Paul admitting they made the whole thing up, and if these signed confessions were verified, then I find it difficult to see how I could remain a Christian.As you are open to accept new evidence on Hitlers innocence, are you also open to accept that the possibility that the exegesis of the bible you have learned and in fact the beliefs you hold and the God you accept could be wrong? Can you accept that there is a chance you are wrong in your beliefs?Being unbiased in my opinions, I'm willing to accept that there's a chance I am wrong.0
Advertisement