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
1…5681011…16

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    PDN wrote: »
    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 behave ;)


  • Options
    #213
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    No - it's called exegesis and hermeneutics.
    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".

    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.


  • Options
    #214
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    / on cue

    Less handbags, more pointless debate please.


  • Options
    #215
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Húrin wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #216
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    PDN wrote: »
    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 doctrine
    PDN 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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    Húrin wrote: »
    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 ethics


  • Options
    #218
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    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.
    Not at all. Other academic disciplines, such as history, also produce different interpretations and methodology. Unless of course you're arguing that history is not a 'proper' academic discipline?
    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.
    That is just plain false. I'll charitably assume that was not intentional. Of course the Vatican is not well-known for producing Protestant-leaning exegesis - but Catholic scholars are (which is why some of their theologians keep getting disciplined). Indeed, almost every denomination (including my own) has at least some tension between the theologians in the movement and the foot-soldiers who accuse them of undermining the denomination's pet doctrines.

    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.
    No more than it would be fair to conclude that all history and all biology are fake academic disciplines.

    BTW, exegesis and hermeneutics are academic tools that can be applied to any text or oral communication - not just religious texts.


  • Options
    #219
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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).
    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.
    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
    I'm not using any 'defence'. I'm simply correcting some rather mixed up posters who don't seem to understand principles, not just of biblical interpretation, but of interpretation of literature and language in general.

    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?
    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #220
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Húrin wrote: »
    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.
    Húrin wrote: »
    The Bible must be interpreted holistically.
    I agree, and holistically the god described in the Bible is wicked and cruel.

    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.
    Húrin wrote: »
    There are numerous verses about the fate of people after their physical death, and most of them describe not everlasting punishment but irreversible destruction.
    That depends on particularly interpretation of particular Greek words in a way that to me makes little sense given the context that the words are written (you guys appear to love context until it does against you and then context goes out the window).

    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.
    Húrin wrote: »
    That is what I think Jesus means here.
    Jesus means what ever you want him to mean Hurin. That is the beauty of Christianity.
    Húrin wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #221
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    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.
    PDN wrote: »
    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.
    PDN wrote: »
    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:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Ruskie4Rent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭Ruskie4Rent


    PDN wrote: »
    The entire truth about God cannot, I believe, be summed up in human language.

    Can any truth about god be summed up in the human language?


  • Options
    #223
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    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.
    No, if that were so then people could only study things of which they had no prior knowledge. The fact is that, in any field of academic study, we all have preconceived ideas - but we do not allow those preconceptions to prevent us using correct methodology. Nor, if we are being academically honest, do we hold on to those preconceptions if correct methodology demonstrates that our preconceptions are wrong.

    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
    Not all Christians hold that view of the Bible, and it is not necessarily as a preconceived idea. For many their belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is a result of study, not a preconception before study.

    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.
    I think 'imagine' is the key word in that paragraph.

    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.
    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #224
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    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.
    That statement is, by and large, true. That would be silly, and quite unscientific.

    You really don't seem to get the difference between science and what you guys do, do you?
    PDN wrote: »
    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.
    PDN wrote: »
    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.
    PDN wrote: »
    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.
    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.


  • Options
    #225
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    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).
    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.

    .


  • Options
    #226
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    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.
    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?


  • Options
    #227
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You really don't seem to get the difference between science and what you guys do, do you?
    I do, but I also see the parallels when it comes to the issue of bias. Everyone has bias, but if you allow sound methodology to overrule your bias then you get a Galileo or an Einstein. If you allow your bias to overrule sound methodology then you get a Lysenko.
    Yes but Biblical hermeneutics appears to take no account of the inherent bias of Christians studying Christian text.
    Do you understand the difference between hermeneutics and exegesis? Exegesis is determining what the Bible meant to its original authors and hearers. Hermeneutics then asks, on the basis of exegesis, how do we apply this to our context and culture? Exegesis is about what the Bible meant 'there and then'. Hermeneutics is about what it means 'here and now'.

    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.
    Nobody mentioned every single detail. I made reference to those who believe that the book of Genesis was formed by different contradictory strands of teaching. I disagree with that conclusion. However, I would not dream of saying that they are agenda-driven. They are following recognised methodology and their interpretation is a valid one.
    What you reject are conclusions people have arrived at which threaten the message you believe should be perfectly clear from the Bible.
    Now you're just being silly. Every human being, unless they are schizophrenic, rejects conclusions which contradict something that we believe to be clear.

    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.


  • Options
    #228
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    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:


  • Options
    #229
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    PDN wrote: »
    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?
    PDN wrote: »
    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?


  • Options
    #230
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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?
    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.

    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?


  • Options
    #231
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    Why do people use terms like "Judeo-Christian"? and never "Islamo-Christian"? Our God has as much in common with that of the Jews as with the Muslims.
    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 agree. And I honestly believe that a holistic reading of the Bible does not support the hypothesis that there is everlasting torture for unbelievers.

    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.
    pH wrote: »
    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.
    Explain. Where are you getting this from?
    Dades wrote: »
    Which god? Your God, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus - they have all changed the lives of people throughout history - because people believed in them.
    Those other Gods are ethnocentric.
    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.
    robindch wrote: »
    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.
    That's kind of the point of gravity!
    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.
    This is clearly not true. Martin Luther started out as a Catholic, but look where it led him. Bert Ehrman started out as a Biblical fundamentalist, but ended up agnostic.
    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Perhaps not, but the point remains valid.
    No, it doesn't.These characters have not caused spiritual rebirth because they have no ability to as they are fictional.
    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.
    If that was true, then no atheist would ever convert to a religion.
    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.
    Alright, your choice.
    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.
    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?


  • Options
    #233
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Húrin wrote: »
    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?
    You're not seriously going to use that as reason to believe in the Christian (or any god) ? Incalculable texts have been written by people on gods both past and present which their authors firmly believed in. Unless of course you're aiming to position it such that all gods worshipped are but aspects of the one 'true' god ?


  • Options
    #234
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    If I'm misunderstanding Ehrman then it is because I accepted your statement that he conducts atheist exegesis. [etc, etc]
    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.


  • Options
    #235
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    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. :confused:


  • Options
    #236
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    Húrin wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #237
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    PDN wrote: »
    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.
    PDN wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #238
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Steady on there, chaps. Posts - not the posters.


  • Options
    #239
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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."


  • Options
    #240
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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 not
    I'm not quite sure how that can be construed as snide. It's how things normally work on an internet forum. If I am engaging in a debate about exegesis and you then use the quote function to quote me, then ask me a question, that would normally imply that you are entering that debate. However, in the interests of peace and harmony I apologise that my mind-reading abilities are so defective that I failed to recognise that you were wanting to go off-topic. I will try harder next time and hopefully avoid upsetting you so much.
    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 a Christian, rather than an atheist, I'm better at assessing actual evidence rather than imaginary evidence - but I will do my best since I'm a guest here on the A&A board. :)

    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?
    Yes, I'm always prepared to change my mind when confronted with solid evidence. In fact, I have changed my opinion on a whole host of subjects as a result of my study of the Bible. As I've already stated in a previous post, I once gave up my job, home and salary because I found that an objective study of the biblical text contradicted my preconceived ideas making it impossible for me to subscribe to a denominational creed when such conformity was a compulsory requirement for me as a minister in that denomination.
    Being unbiased in my opinions, I'm willing to accept that there's a chance I am wrong.
    I certainly agree with the second half of that sentence. There is a chance that both of us are wrong - and I'm glad you accept that possibility - but nothing in your posting history on boards.ie leads me to agree with your self-assessment that you are unbiased. I'm assuming that you are being humorous.


Advertisement